 |
| Children of the knout, whip, and kow-tow? |
"Fascist" is a much abused term, so before using it at any length, one is required to define it. In this essay I am using it in the more general sense of authoritarian and repressive systems that exist in contradistinction to Anglo classical liberalism. Nazi Germany was "fascist," as was the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain, and, indeed, present-day China. A case could be made that Putin's Russia is also fascist in this loose sense. And America? Well, let's come back to that...
The essence of the small-F fascism I am referring to is the need for a strong centralised state that can fight wars and prevent its control over its population being subverted. The economic model it uses, its methods of cultural control, and the value systems it invokes are secondary, and will tend to reflect local conditions at the time and other expediencies.
In the 1930s, much of Europe swung towards this kind of fascism. In fact, the zone of liberal, democratic values in Europe shrank to Britain, France, and a few small countries in the North of Europe. Meanwhile Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Germany, Romania, Austria, and most of the rest all found fascism in their own ways. The Soviet Union, ostensibly a centre of global proletarian revolution, was actually just a fascist system with "leftist" or Eurasian characteristics and an imperialist/ power-projection tool in the Comintern.
This swing towards fascism was also the natural and organic result of conditions on the continent -- i.e. several national states brushing up against each other in a system of alliances and counter-alliances, fueled by constant, mutual suspicion. The system had its roots in expansionary states like the France of the "Sun King" Louis XIV, defensive militaristic states like Prussia, with its ill-defined and indefensible borders, or Russia which had both sets of characteristics.
What prevented Europe becoming totally fascist in the 20th century was quite simply the intervention of the Anglo powers. Without British and US intervention, it is clear and obvious that Europe would have gone fascist in one form or other, either as part of an authoritarian German empire, a Soviet Empire, or as a collection of fascist states on guard against each other.
In fact, the pattern of Anglo intervention in the increasingly fascistic tendencies of Europe can be traced all the way back to the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, but was especially noticeable in the WWI and WWII period, where liberal democracy -- or "Angloism" to coin a term that separates this ideology from the implication that it can be effortlessly transmitted -- was bolstered in countries like France, where it would probably have died out, and imposed on countries like Italy, Germany, and Japan after their defeat.
Angloism, to various degrees, was also successfully pushed on other fascist or semi-fascist states like Spain, Portugal, Greece, South Africa, and various South American countries, especially following the collapse of the Red fascism of the Soviet bloc.
The so-called "End of History" theory was all about this apparent triumph of Global Angloism and the myth that it could be anybody's.
But the flaw in the system is that Angloism is Anglo, i.e. it is rooted in the British people and the historical experience of the British Isles.
When Angloism successfully transplanted to the New World with the founding of America, many came to the conclusion that it was an ideology with an essence distinct from its origins, something that could then be rolled out and used by any group of willing people. This was the foundation of the myth of the "propositional nation" beloved by constitutionalist fetishists.
But this was a false conclusion because America, especially in its earlier days, was deeply Anglo in race, or peopled with kindred races who were receptive to the dominant Anglo ethos. Also, in geopolitical terms America was an even more intense version of England's invulnerable island status. In fact all the centres of Angloism around the world were essentially "geopolitical islands" in that they did not, like Russia, Prussia, or France, "rub up" against potent rival states, pushing them towards greater authoritarianism, militarism, and centralisation. All this was backed-up by Britain itself and its dominant navy, and later by the USA fulfilling the same role.
But, starting in the late 19th century, and becoming noticeable with the administration of President Wilson, a new trend started to emerge, with America being increasingly subjected to "fascistifying" pressures.
Firstly there was a racial shift, as America boomed, with the Anglo portion of the population markedly declining as a percentage and also in terms of influence. Americans with a racial background in the more inherently fascistic parts of Europe rose, i.e. German-Americans, Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans, Jewish Americans, etc.
Secondly, as the British Empire, declined, America was forced to engage with the World more, first in two World Wars and then in the Cold War. Despite its "giant island" status, the USA was forced into a virtual form of "Prussification," building up its state and military, so as to match the fascist power of the Communist giants, the USSR and China.
Initially reactive to Red fascism, this "fascistification" of America did not dissipate even when the Soviet Union collapsed. At that exact Faustian moment, when America could choose to revert back to its foundational small-government Angloism, it instead chose to continue to be Big State and Big Military, testifying to the fact that it had swallowed the "fash pill."
Thirdly, we have seen another fascistifying factor at play, one that tends to characterise dysfunctional empires, in which disparate ethnic, racial, and cultural groups can only be held together by increasing authoritarianism and tyranny at the centre.
In recent years, and especially in recent days, we have seen how multicultural America has created increasingly toxic conditions for free expression. Other once freedom-loving parts of the Anglo-sphere have trodden the same path. The astroturf Black Lives Matter movement, essentially funded by "corporate fascist" billionaires, has been the spearhead of this trend.
As for actual democracy, it has become increasingly a racial head count (except for White people, of course), while the two-party system that characterises most Anglo countries, and once expressed voter concerns with a reasonable degree of accuracy, is increasingly being used to stifle any populist stirrings by presenting them with a fake non-choice.
The Trump presidency is becoming a classic study in how populist urgings are deflected, contained, derailed, and dissipated; and there is no way that the globalist shilling of the UK Tory party is a true representation of desires and concerns of the average Brexit voter.
There is still a bedrock or residue of Anglo liberal culture in Britain and other parts of the Anglo-world, but the dominant tendency is all the other way. When Europe or Eurasia goes fully fascist next time, there will be no Anglo-democratic giant to storm in and impose it values. The Anglo world will instead be fighting its own battle with its own fascistifying tendencies, and, if it loses that, the only difference in the world will be between those fascist systems that serve the interests of their people and those that don't.
The essence of the small-F fascism I am referring to is the need for a strong centralised state that can fight wars and prevent its control over its population being subverted. The economic model it uses, its methods of cultural control, and the value systems it invokes are secondary, and will tend to reflect local conditions at the time and other expediencies.
In the 1930s, much of Europe swung towards this kind of fascism. In fact, the zone of liberal, democratic values in Europe shrank to Britain, France, and a few small countries in the North of Europe. Meanwhile Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Germany, Romania, Austria, and most of the rest all found fascism in their own ways. The Soviet Union, ostensibly a centre of global proletarian revolution, was actually just a fascist system with "leftist" or Eurasian characteristics and an imperialist/ power-projection tool in the Comintern.
This swing towards fascism was also the natural and organic result of conditions on the continent -- i.e. several national states brushing up against each other in a system of alliances and counter-alliances, fueled by constant, mutual suspicion. The system had its roots in expansionary states like the France of the "Sun King" Louis XIV, defensive militaristic states like Prussia, with its ill-defined and indefensible borders, or Russia which had both sets of characteristics.
What prevented Europe becoming totally fascist in the 20th century was quite simply the intervention of the Anglo powers. Without British and US intervention, it is clear and obvious that Europe would have gone fascist in one form or other, either as part of an authoritarian German empire, a Soviet Empire, or as a collection of fascist states on guard against each other.
In fact, the pattern of Anglo intervention in the increasingly fascistic tendencies of Europe can be traced all the way back to the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, but was especially noticeable in the WWI and WWII period, where liberal democracy -- or "Angloism" to coin a term that separates this ideology from the implication that it can be effortlessly transmitted -- was bolstered in countries like France, where it would probably have died out, and imposed on countries like Italy, Germany, and Japan after their defeat.
Angloism, to various degrees, was also successfully pushed on other fascist or semi-fascist states like Spain, Portugal, Greece, South Africa, and various South American countries, especially following the collapse of the Red fascism of the Soviet bloc.
The so-called "End of History" theory was all about this apparent triumph of Global Angloism and the myth that it could be anybody's.
 |
| Radical Angloism. |
When Angloism successfully transplanted to the New World with the founding of America, many came to the conclusion that it was an ideology with an essence distinct from its origins, something that could then be rolled out and used by any group of willing people. This was the foundation of the myth of the "propositional nation" beloved by constitutionalist fetishists.
But this was a false conclusion because America, especially in its earlier days, was deeply Anglo in race, or peopled with kindred races who were receptive to the dominant Anglo ethos. Also, in geopolitical terms America was an even more intense version of England's invulnerable island status. In fact all the centres of Angloism around the world were essentially "geopolitical islands" in that they did not, like Russia, Prussia, or France, "rub up" against potent rival states, pushing them towards greater authoritarianism, militarism, and centralisation. All this was backed-up by Britain itself and its dominant navy, and later by the USA fulfilling the same role.
But, starting in the late 19th century, and becoming noticeable with the administration of President Wilson, a new trend started to emerge, with America being increasingly subjected to "fascistifying" pressures.
Firstly there was a racial shift, as America boomed, with the Anglo portion of the population markedly declining as a percentage and also in terms of influence. Americans with a racial background in the more inherently fascistic parts of Europe rose, i.e. German-Americans, Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans, Jewish Americans, etc.
Secondly, as the British Empire, declined, America was forced to engage with the World more, first in two World Wars and then in the Cold War. Despite its "giant island" status, the USA was forced into a virtual form of "Prussification," building up its state and military, so as to match the fascist power of the Communist giants, the USSR and China.
Initially reactive to Red fascism, this "fascistification" of America did not dissipate even when the Soviet Union collapsed. At that exact Faustian moment, when America could choose to revert back to its foundational small-government Angloism, it instead chose to continue to be Big State and Big Military, testifying to the fact that it had swallowed the "fash pill."
Thirdly, we have seen another fascistifying factor at play, one that tends to characterise dysfunctional empires, in which disparate ethnic, racial, and cultural groups can only be held together by increasing authoritarianism and tyranny at the centre.
In recent years, and especially in recent days, we have seen how multicultural America has created increasingly toxic conditions for free expression. Other once freedom-loving parts of the Anglo-sphere have trodden the same path. The astroturf Black Lives Matter movement, essentially funded by "corporate fascist" billionaires, has been the spearhead of this trend.
 |
| The Western iteration of fascism? |
The Trump presidency is becoming a classic study in how populist urgings are deflected, contained, derailed, and dissipated; and there is no way that the globalist shilling of the UK Tory party is a true representation of desires and concerns of the average Brexit voter.
There is still a bedrock or residue of Anglo liberal culture in Britain and other parts of the Anglo-world, but the dominant tendency is all the other way. When Europe or Eurasia goes fully fascist next time, there will be no Anglo-democratic giant to storm in and impose it values. The Anglo world will instead be fighting its own battle with its own fascistifying tendencies, and, if it loses that, the only difference in the world will be between those fascist systems that serve the interests of their people and those that don't.
 |
| We could all have remained Liberals if they had only made it worth our while. |
