Friday, February 12, 2016

Making a Prophet of Mussolini

In 1945, in the last days of the war, when his “Italian Social Republic” was in its death throes, Benito Mussolini made the following prediction about the future:
“The present war will produce an alteration in order of rank. Great Britain, for instance, is destined to become a second-class power, in view of disclosure of Russian and American strength…In a short time, Fascism will once more shine on the horizon. First of all, because of the persecution to which the Liberals will subject it, showing that liberty is something to reserve to oneself and refuse to others.”
And, the fact is, the liberals of today are working very hard to prove the Duce’s words to have been prophetic. In Germany, the Vice Chancellor recently said that the anti-immigration party “Alternative for Germany” should be placed under government monitoring as they do to neo-Nazis. In Sweden there has been widespread suppression of crime statistics that cast “multiculturalism” in a bad light. In the Netherlands, the police recently came to a man’s home to warn him against saying anything against immigrants on social media. In Britain, The Guardian recently announced they will not be allowing comments on any articles dealing with race, immigration or Islam. Seems they didn’t like what the public had to say on these subjects.

So, we can see very clearly that freedom of the press applies only to those who support the leftist position. Freedom of speech, likewise, applies only to those who support the leftist agenda and not those who oppose it. Witness, in the UK, how critics of Islam are banned from entering the country while Islamic fundamentalists can march down the streets of London bearing signs calling for Westminster Abbey to become a mosque or for the flag of Islam to fly over Buckingham Palace. We can also see very clearly that democracy only applies when the people agree with the left-wing power bloc. France, The Netherlands and Ireland vote against the EU and it doesn’t count. On an issue where the leftist agenda is widely opposed, people are not allowed to vote at all. No one in Europe voted to allow hordes of refugees into their countries, it just sort of happened and the rules allowing the “free movement of peoples” were all made by the EU whose decision-making body is not elected at all and never has been. So much for democracy.

Mussolini is being proven prophetic and, take notice, it is the left that is doing so and not the right. The left has continuously silenced any reasonable discussion about things like race, immigration, national sovereignty, military action and so on by accusing anyone who touches such subjects of “racism” and labeled them “Nazis”. This tactic has worked quite well. The only problem which they seemed to have overlooked is that there is one group of people who do not mind being called Nazis and that is the modern-day Nazis themselves. So, the liberal/leftist smear campaign has been making good progress at ensuring that everyone but the actual Nazis are cowed into submission. There are also, again, helping to make the case for those who have said that totalitarianism is the only way. They have done so by being so totalitarian themselves so that, as a result, people are going to feel as though they have only two options before them: a totalitarian state whose values I oppose or a totalitarian state whose values I support. The modern Fascists or National Socialists could never have done this on their own. The public was too comfortable to ever go for that kind of extremism and no one wants to think of themselves as being the “bad guys”. However, the leftists have labeled ANY opposition to their worldview as “extremist”, any national pride as “nationalism” and any effort to protect the future of your own people and culture as “racism” so that ordinary people are increasingly finding themselves in the “extremist” camp without having moved a muscle on their own.

They have also, by their heavy-handed efforts to suppress any and all dissent, helped to cast current political divisions in the same way that Mussolini did, again, making a prophet of the late Duce of Fascism. The bombastic black shirt also said, much earlier in his career:
“The struggle between the two worlds can permit no compromises. The new cycle which begins with the ninth year of the Fascist regime places the alternative in even greater relief -- either we or they, either their ideas or ours, either our State or theirs!”
The liberals are backing him up with their suppression efforts, essentially making the same case. They are making the case to reasonable people, supporters of constitutional government, that they will stop at nothing to achieve their goals and you are simply weak and foolish to carry on playing by the rules. There is no, ‘give and take’ and no point in making concessions, they are doing their best to make this a contest of “you suppress us or we will suppress you” with nothing in between as much as some might like to pretend that there is.

You think you have free speech? Depends on your politics or your skin color or your religion. A French magazine can publish numerous cartoons mocking Christians, a few mocking Jews but one mocking Islam gets them all shot and western governments give cover to the murderers by self-censoring. One set of rules for them, another for us. If you are President Obama, or the mayor of any of the numerous “sanctuary cities” in these United States, you can refuse to enforce immigration laws and that’s perfectly fine but if you are a county clerk named Kim Davis in Kentucky who refuses to enforce a court ruling on granting gay “marriage” licenses, you go straight to jail, do not pass go and do not collect $200. They can do it, but you can’t. You have to follow the rules but they don’t. If you’re a socialist mp from Scotland you can be on a first-name basis with the most murderous dictators in the world, spout treason constantly while taking a paycheck from the Queen and be a national celebrity, a left-wing icon but if you’re name is Tommy Robinson and you say you are against the Islamization of Britain, even while French-kissing a Black, Jewish, homosexual you are going to be called a “Nazi” and have the police set on you until they find some reason to put you behind bars.

All over the western world there are examples and ordinary people are asking themselves, “If they can do these things, why can’t we?” The ruling, liberal elites are making Mussolini’s case for him; either they win or we do, there can be no compromises because while you play by the rules, they do not and they can get away with it and you cannot. Think you have democracy? In Great Britain, polls have shown a vast majority of the public wants no more immigration, which includes a huge number of immigrants themselves and yet neither the Labour Party nor the Tory Party or the Liberal Democrats would ever think of actually halting immigration. Vote for more benefits and fewer military forces, that’s great but vote for no immigration or even slightly less immigration and you are out of bounds. You are only allowed to have democracy when the majority is in line with what their liberal rulers want. Again, people are going to be or are being faced with the question of why they should bother carrying on this charade of liberal democracy with the rule of law, civil rights, checks and balances and all the rest when only one side adheres to it? After being told that it’s wrong to think your people are better than other peoples to being told that it’s wrong to prefer your own people to other peoples to being told that it’s wrong to even want your own people to *survive* as a people because your “representative democracy” has given you rulers that feel as though they represent foreign peoples as much as if not more than you, after a certain point you are going to stop and wonder if there is anyone on your side or if there ever has been.

No one should be surprised if people come to that and see only the likes of Hitler looking smugly back at them. After all, these people have had it pounded into there heads that they are “Nazis” even without such seemingly minor details as a world war or genocide. You don’t hate anyone, you don’t wish harm on anyone and you would certainly never harm anyone yourself but if you would prefer that France be populated by French people rather than Arabs or Africans you are called a Nazi. You don’t want to see anyone bullied, harassed, tortured or killed but you think homosexuality shouldn’t be celebrated so you are called a Nazi. You believe in free speech, free elections, limited government but that the rules should apply to everyone no matter their race or religion, once again, you are called a Nazi. If you agree that your people have made mistakes in the past, done some pretty terrible things to others over the centuries but that you and your ancestors are not the worst human beings in the history of the world, you are still called a Nazi. If they keep this up, not only is the slur going to lose its sting but our suffering, guilt-ridden masses are going to start to believe it is true.

After all, many are only one step away as it is. When you look at the totality of National Socialist Germany, you will find that most of it has been embraced by almost the whole of Europe. You have your environmentalism, your bans on smoking, the state guaranteeing you a job, the equality of all citizens, socialism (because even the people who thoughts Germans were a superior race didn’t think they were capable of succeeding in a competitive free market), old age pensions, the power of the state to seize land for the collective good, state controlled education and guaranteed higher education for all, centralized power and ultimately a pan-European super-state and so on. In other words, take out the racist stuff and the death penalty and there is near nothing in the platform of the National Socialist party that would be objectionable in Europe today. Hitler could have been just as dictatorial, just as aggressive, just as murderous as he was and if he had just not been a racist, he would have admirers all over the halls of power today. Obama might even have his face on a Christmas tree ornament instead of Chairman Mao. So, what modern German people are basically being told by their current masters is that the only thing really fundamentally wrong with Hitler was that he thought the German people were the best in the world when he should have thought, as they do, that Germans are the worst ever.

My new personal favorite in regards to this sort of thing came from an article by Andrew Roberts in “The Telegraph” which called Donald Trump “the Mussolini of America”. Upon reading his long and unimaginative article, the basis for this assertion by Mr. Roberts boiled down to nothing more than Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again”. Now, stop for a moment and think about what that means, about what message Mr. Roberts is (presumably) unintentionally sending. He’s basically saying that Mussolini wanted to make Italy great again, and we know Mussolini was a Fascist (he invented it) and so, therefore, anyone who wants to make their country “great” must be a Fascist too! Mussolini also predicted that nostalgia for Fascism would grow in Italy as people remembered ‘the good old days’. This too, the left is working hard to make prophetic in as much as they have seemingly declared national greatness, any sort of national pride and any desire for a people or their country to aspire to something better to be the sole domain of Fascism. If their aim is to prevent countries and peoples from being “great”, any time before they held power will easily become a focus of nostalgia. They are handing a victory to the enemies they claim to despise the most which they could not have won on their own.

So, what then, is the alternative? What is the cure for this illness, the answer to this dilemma? There is no easy solution. It rests on all of us. It rests on us to not be cowed by threats and insults. It rests on us to stand up for our people and our country and not allow ourselves to be so soured by current imperfections that we join the ranks of those who wish to destroy us. It rests on us to return to the values, the ethics and the faith that made us great and prosperous. Nothing can replace vigilance and the constant need to defend what we have. In the United States, the written Constitution was supposed to protect us from much of what afflicts us today but we have allowed it to be violated and ignored. In countries like Britain, Denmark or Norway, the Crown was supposed to protect the people from their government (as the Austrian Emperor once famously told President Teddy Roosevelt) but they have been allowed to be shackled and silenced with the support of the populace. We must also stand for something higher, something nobler and we must also resist the urge, encouraged by our leftist enemies, to turn on our own kind, in our own countries and those that are and have long been our closest allies. We have a unique ability none others can match to point back to a greater example, untainted by an political demagogue, that western civilization can take a just and righteous pride in. We can give people examples of heroic leadership that was as benevolent as it was glorious which none of our enemies from any corner of the political field can ever hope to compete with. We have the truth on our side and facts no one can change; it was our side that gave every people their own ‘Golden Age’.


  1. There is much to admire about Mussolini.

    I'm not sure that if he was around today he would be supporting any of the kneejerk anti-immigration parties of Europe today. The issues of the 1930s were very different from the issues of today.

    I suspect his socialist instincts would make him feel that hostility to immigrants was a bit too bourgeois. He would have certainly wanted immigrants too assimilate and to identify as Italian.

    1. Maybe with European immigrants, but I find it hard to believe that any intewar nationalist would support non European immigration.

  2. MM,

    I know your sentiments, I know them well. It seems left from right has a stretch, a strong polarization, that they inevitably pull to the far sides until they just split apart. I know that you don't consider fascism/national socialism as the "far right", but people see socialism more viable these days. Especially with the "refugee" crisis, I feel that extremes are only justified. The internationalists do not stop, not at all, in approaching their goals. Nationalism, at core, seems much more as an answer. I don't see nationalism as a bad thing either, and I'm very sympathetic to nationalism in general. That's just how vilified it's become.

    You have been hinting at this, and I noticed a lot of buildup and concern for the future. I know what you mean, when addressing fascists/nationalsocialists, how conservatives/reactionaries can be pushed aside or repressed. Monarchists, somehow, seem to be involved with these groups.

    How about monarchies? I know they're on a sharp decline (hm?), but if the monarchy lasts what might happen? It's hopeful, but I like to imagine a new generation of royals that change with society. Education and tradition, if all possible, a guideline for them to value their roles as sovereigns.

    I have a feeling you're taking a dark turn for the future, though. Can't say I blame you.

    Another thing: Dislike constantly hearing jibber-jabber about modern royals and monarchies of today declining. Aren't there instances where today's monarchs are being influential or maintaining the tradition?

  3. Ideology is bad. Keep posting. Thank you.

  4. I'm certainly seeing this and have been for a while. As a wise Austrian once said, the truly educated man sees the problems of today as a result of the French Revolution, not the Great Wars.

    We need to resist the temptation to allow hate to consume us and strengthen our own base.

  5. @Kaiser Louis-Philip V: I would go back further still, to the Protestant Reformation. I see little difference between desiring a "balance of power" between sovereign nations instead of an ultimate monarchy (like the Holy Roman Emperor), on the one hand, and desiring no monarch at the sovereign level but instead a "balance of power" in a republican sense within a nation.

    Frankly I suspect that desire for a "balance of power" is what prompted something like Napoleon in the first place. No one legitimately occupied the top position so he tried to seize it for himself. I mean, what's uniting Europe when there is no one faith uniting them, and when there is no universal monarchy but a "balance of power" which cannot be enforced from below--and therefore what's stopping wars like the War of the Spanish Succession, and other such wars that happened before the French Revolution?

  6. Brilliant commentary and we are so fortunate to have your return. We don't need to be consumed by hate, but affirm the love our own – our traditions, our people. The modern ideology of liberalism (especially embodied in Merkel) has duped us long enough.

  7. "The only problem which they seemed to have overlooked is that there is one group of people who do not mind being called Nazis and that is the modern-day Nazis themselves."

    Guess why they think I might be less frustrated as a Nazi than as the Austro-Fascist I am ...

  8. "one mocking Islam gets them all shot"

    I do not share this analysis of Charlie Hebdo massacre.

    One caricature contest mocking Mohammed got their redaction burnt and therefore moved another year.

    But Charlie Hebdo massacre was 7.I.2015, the day after Novus Ordo Christmas season was officially over. Still no Christian had protested publically against the very vile caricature of Christ and Our Lady in Nativity moment (obstreticist view!) which was Charlie Hebdo's Christmas issue or Christmas extra issue (perhaps it was an hors série).

    A moment before the shooting it was known (per internet I think) they had published or were going to publish or republish what they had already published on internet as a cartoon featuring Ahmedinajad with a pipe giving new years wishes "et surtout la santé". But the shooters did not say they were revenging the Ummah (supposing they considered Ahmedinajad as part of it) or of the Sharia (supposing they considered pipe smoking as haram and Western New Years wishes as haram). They said they were revenging "our prophet". And they count "Isa Ben Miriam" as their prophet too, though as subsidiary to Mohammed in some ways.

    So, if we Christians had taken our turn in sabotaging the rooms where Charlie Hebdo were doing their vile work, we might have saved the lives of men like Cabu and company.

    They might have said "oh, the Christians did avange the honour of their prophet" instead of "we have revenged the honour of our prophet". The killers, not Cabu and company, of course, would have been saying that instead of being killers.

  9. "socialism (because even the people who thoughts Germans were a superior race didn’t think they were capable of succeeding in a competitive free market)"

    Both Jacobins and king Oscar II (the one Bernadotte I respect most, more than usurping predecessors - but I do respect two Catholic wivers of them - and more than voluntarily powerless and near socialist successors) would have agreed with not being free traders.

    "Not free trade, but fair trade" said Oscar II in his mémoires adressed to successors.

    Cheap merchandise is attractive with poor people, even when they do understand why it might make them poorer. If we compete with Chinamen, we might be obliged to do so by accepting Chinese competitive wages. And working hours. Not quite recommended by Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno, no.

    That side of Nazism was shared by Austrofascism. I have not read father Ignaz Seipel's (SJ) Wirtschaftsethische Lehre der Kirchenväter yet, but I'd like to. And I presume it says things like "you may have border customs against countries who produce under slave wages". Just as much as Chesterton did.

  10. Are you voting for Trump, Mad Monarchist? You would certainly be an interesting endorsement for our God Emperor.

  11. In a democratic system millions of people are urged coopted or otherwise shamed in to voting for the lesser of two evils, in a monarchy one man is urged to do good. You tell me which one is more likely to do good.

    I have looked in to the dark hole of nationalism and have found no light at the end of that tunnel like all other systems it places man on top of all things and therefore it can not be a lasting system. I will say however that nationalism and communism are the different sides of the same coin forever divided one way or the other but perpetually united as symptoms of the same illness loss of the true Faith.

    In the end however nationalism may be the road back to Monarchy as it was with Francisco Franco also nationalism was the first fever of Christendom which was exasperated by the protestant revolt. So if we must go back may be it is through the way we have already traveled.

  12. There is nothing new in these identity politics machinations. Again and again, the people are corralled into opposing camps of statist ideologies. Socialism vs. Fascism, again. The elites split the difference. Hegel takes his free kick, and we have a synthesis of statist solutions. As you've noted elsewhere, reasonable voices are drowned out in the ensuing fray. In the end government continues the trend towards authoritarianism.

    I appreciate Monarchy when in the context of strong private property rights. Where migrants are being invited in or are otherwise engaging in voluntary associations with individuals, there is no issue. The problem begins when the republican governments choose to subsidize them.

    Contrast this to a Monarch taking personal responsibility for refugees. It all comes back to private property rights.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...