Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,497
Reply with quote  #31 
John’s Specimen #2 contra MM:

Quote:
Originally Posted by John
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-fascist-debate-and-christianity.html
>> "I can only believe that if anyone understood Fascism, I do not see how actual Christians could consider that the worst thing in the world to be, certainly worse than our own regime. [...] Consider it, particularly, from a traditional Christian perspective. In Fascist Italy, divorce was illegal. Abortion was illegal, gay “marriage” was certainly illegal and homosexuals or trans-genders and everything of that sort was nowhere to be seen. Men were encouraged to be masculine, women were encouraged to be feminine and the tax code encouraged people to get married and have large families, to, ‘replenish the earth’ if you like."



Full Article “The Fascist Debate and Christianity ”  August 27, 2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by MM
It has become painfully obvious to all by now that our political discourse in the United States has degenerated into an argument over who the “fascist” is. The Nazis have also recently replaced Russia as the looming bogey man of American political discourse with accusations and counter-accusations of the left and right being the “real” Nazis. The term “Nazi” is used by both sides interchangeably with the term “Fascist” as if these two things were one and the same. Rather than debate ideas or principles, we seem to spend our time arguing over who is or is not a “fascist”. The Democrats say that the Republicans are “fascists”, that President Trump is a “fascist” and the more extreme members of the progressive left have even formed a group called “Antifa”, which is short for “Anti-Fascist”, to combat any Republican, conservative, or whomever they consider at all ‘right-wing’ who are all, to their mind, “fascists”. Prior to World War II, there were many such groups, usually organized by the local Communists of a given country and the members of “Antifa” today are modeling themselves after those people.

At the same time, the Republicans have responded to this by arguing that they are not “fascists” but that, rather, it is the Democrats who are the “fascists”. They point to the behavior of “Antifa” and say that the “Anti-Fascists” are the *real* “fascists”, that they are the ones behaving like “fascists” and so on. There is a similar back and forth over who is most similar to the Nazis. Trump is called a Nazi or a Neo-Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer by the Democrats while the Republicans continue to argue that the Nazis were leftists and that no one on the right could possibly be a Nazi because of that. Rather, they implicitly argue, it is the left in this country which is most like the Nazis with each side refusing to even consider the possibility that the Nazis were a different sort of thing, taking ideas from both sides and thus neither entirely on the right or the left. It can, and has, become extremely tiresome as both sides accuse the other of being Fascists and both sides accuse the other of being most like the Nazis, the Nazis being the secular replacement for the Devil, who no one believes in anymore, as the representation of pure evil in the world.

Thus, our political debate has been reduced to shouting at each other, “you’re a fascist!” and, “no, you’re a fascist!” ad nauseam. The left will have an easier time of this since the right, by responding the way that they do, implicitly accept the leftist standard of judgment. They have, effectively, decided to play the left’s game according to the left’s own rules and it is hard to imagine how that could ever work out well for them. They could, and with more justification, accuse the left of being Communists and/or Stalinists but they do not because, again, they have accepted that the Nazis and/or Fascists were the worst people in the history of the world, the representation of absolute evil and thus calling them Communists would not pack the same punch. The difference is that the right recoils from the accusation of being Nazis or Fascists while the left does not recoil at being called Communists or Socialists. The Republicans spent eight years calling Obama a socialist and when his term ended the Democrats very nearly nominated an open and avowed socialist to replace him. The term obviously does not repel them in the least.

No, the mainstream right, and not just in America, has a problem because, according to their own ideals of classical liberalism, what the left wants does not seem that out of order. They have already conceded the ground on too many key points. If, after all, we are all “created equal”, then it does not make sense that some do better than others and seems perfectly reasonable for a powerful state to intervene in order to restore that mythical inherent equality. If America, or any other western state, is a “nation of immigrants” then it does seem rather arbitrary and capricious to say you are only arguing over matters of procedure and paperwork. If you concede complete freedom of religion, and equality and the “brotherhood of man”, anyone can become a citizen of any country so long as their paperwork is in order, it does seem like only blind bigotry which would motivate you to say the Muslims should be given a bit more scrutiny. No, do that, and you just might be called a Fascist and, apparently, the worst possible thing to be in our current liberal, democratic, republic is a “fascist” and we are locked in a cycle of accusing the other side of being that most terrible of things.

Now, for the left, the revolutionary, republican, secularist types, this makes sense. They have also long embraced “identity politics” and are very definite about whose side they are on. If your identity is that of a non-Caucasian race, a non-Christian religion or a non-traditional sexual orientation, they are for you but if you are any of those things, not so much. The right, on the other hand, tries to argue against all identity politics while at the same time inherently running into the problem of what it “means” to be an American. From what I have seen, the fall-back position seems to be Christianity or, as they often prefer, “Judeo-Christian values”. While still trying to argue that you can be any religion or of no religion at all, they say that these Christian values are the core of who we are and we must get back to them as the basis for the only proper sort of identity. Frankly, that sounds rather impossible to me and rather at odds with their agreement with the left that the manifestation of absolute evil in political terms can be lumped together under the label of “fascist”.

Remember, after all, that National Socialism and Fascism are actually not the same thing nor did they behave in exactly the same way nor were either of those identical to any of the other regimes currently given the blanket classification of “fascist”. They certainly did not have the same sort of attitude when it came to religion, the dominant religion in all such countries being Christianity. In “fascist” Spain, General Franco was the savior of Christianity, delivering it from the atrocities of the Second Republic which killed more people in a matter of months than the supposedly notorious Spanish Inquisition killed in as many centuries. The “fascist” Legion of the Archangel Michael in Romania had Orthodox Christianity as one of its foundations and required all members to be willing to die for Christ. The leaders of both of those movements were also monarchists. The very pro-Christian “Austrofascist” leader Kurt von Schuschnigg had agreed to a restoration of the monarchy, which we have discussed before, and the “fascist” regime of Salazar in Portugal was very pro-Christian and at least friendlier to the idea of monarchy than any government in the Republic of Portugal has been before or since. Given all of that, I can only believe that if anyone understood Fascism, I do not see how actual Christians could consider that the worst thing in the world to be, certainly worse than our own regime.

From a Christian point of view, one could go back to the Roman Empire which the faith was born in and converted for the image of an ideal state or the medieval specifically Christian monarchies which rose up after it but neither of those are on offer today and, indeed, are intentionally ignored. They are certainly not attacked the way that the Nazis or the Fascists are, though they have and would be, but more than that the ruling elite seems to not want them to even be considered. So, for a sincere Christian living in the modern, liberal, democratic west, it seems hard to understand how the term “Fascist” could be regarded as the ultimate evil. I say this because, in any way in which I would measure a society by the standards of traditional Christianity, the one actual, honest to goodness state which was truly Fascist, the state in which the dictator of the country was the man who actually invented Fascism, Benito Mussolini, seems inarguably more Christian than our own celebrated and beloved liberal, democratic, union of republican states. Fascist Italy was, of course, none of those things. It was certainly not liberal, Mussolini emphatically despised liberalism, nor was it democratic as several years into his tenure Mussolini banned all parties but the National Fascist Party and it was not a republic as Mussolini, though dictator, was only the head of government and not the head of state, which was the King of Italy.

That must sound shocking but, I can only ask you to consider a few facts about this terrible, nightmarish dictatorship known as Fascist Italy which was so bad that it has become our primary political epithet. Consider it, particularly, from a traditional Christian perspective. In Fascist Italy, divorce was illegal. Abortion was illegal, gay “marriage” was certainly illegal and homosexuals or trans-genders and everything of that sort was nowhere to be seen. Men were encouraged to be masculine, women were encouraged to be feminine and the tax code encouraged people to get married and have large families, to, ‘replenish the earth’ if you like. Christianity (specifically of the Roman Catholic variety) was the official and sole religion of the state, Christian religious classes were mandatory in all Italian schools, the local form of Christian worship (the mass) was even declared, “central” to national life in Fascist Italy. There were also, by the way, no mosques in Rome (though there were Christian churches going up in Libya, Eritrea and Somalia) just as there were no gay bars or trans-gender bathrooms. Oh, and there were no Satanists giving the opening prayer at city council meetings either.

All of that was in Fascist Italy under the dictator Mussolini and in every one of the examples cited above, the modern United States of America is exactly the opposite. We do have democracy and we also have “no fault” divorce, we have abortion and call it a fundamental right known as “women’s reproductive health”. We have gay “marriage”, homosexuals parading through the streets, in every walk of life and on practically every television show. We have trans-gendered people, gender-fluid people, men who want to be women and women who want to be men. We have a welfare system that discourages marriage and in which only the relatively wealthy can afford large families and these people are told not to bother anyway because large families are bad for the environment. We have a “wall of separation” between church and state, we have banned religion from the schools to an extent that the Bolsheviks would find quite familiar. Whereas in Fascist Italy a crucifix had to be displayed in every classroom, in modern America even a silent prayer is strictly forbidden. Far from being central to national life, Christian worship is discouraged and, indeed, fewer and fewer people bother doing it. Yes, there was also recently a city council meeting in Grand Junction, Colorado at which the opening prayer was given by a Satanist, praising reason and light and ending with a heartfelt, “Hail Satan!”

These are the facts of the matter and so, I would say again, to consider who had the more Christian society; Fascist Italy or the modern United States? Then, ask yourself, if you are a Christian certainly; why is it that we consider the Fascists to be the epitome of evil and ourselves as the “shining city on the hill”? It may not be pleasant to think about but I think it would be worth it. After all, notice that the Satanist in Colorado was able to say “Hail Satan” and not a single finger was laid on him by any Christian. Try addressing any city council in the western world and ending your remarks with “Hail Hitler” and see how far you get. To me, this reaffirms my theory that no one really believes in Satan anymore, even the so-called “Christians” of the Republican Party. Everyone, however, believes in Adolf Hitler, we take that guy very seriously indeed. Obviously, Christianity can be a powerful basis for a country, because it has been for centuries of western history. However, what these milquetoast conservatives are peddling is not Christianity. We know that because, if we judge our republic as we judge a tree by its fruits, we can see that it could not have been founded on Christianity in the first place. If it had been, well, it would not have been founded at all as the New England rabble rousers would simply have, ‘rendered unto King George the things that are King George’s and to God the things that are God’s’.


So I've read this.  It seems well-argued and reasonable.   People may react emotionally to it (which he anticipated) because he challenges the taboo that Mussolini should not be seen favorably in any respect, especially compared to the people who won the war.   "The victors write the.... etc."   Let's put the value judgment aside for a moment.   Did he lie anywhere in this post?   Did he misrepresent anything?   Was he untruthful?  The truth of course often isn't wise or prudent.   In fact, it can destroy you.  If he is lying anywhere here, please enlighten me.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,914
Reply with quote  #32 
Notice how you ignored the evidence I presented about MM's blatant revision of history. You can also find some of that on his blog. Notice also that he has whitewashed some of the atrocities committed by Mussolini's forces. What you are doing, Ponocrates, is digging an even bigger hole for yourself.

If you are a sincere monarchist, you would seriously question such shoddy "history" which dishonours the memories of actual royalty who paid a price in some way or another as a result. Are you going to honour royalty, or are you going to retreat into your fantasies?
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,906
Reply with quote  #33 

The first three paragraphs make a reasonable point and are unexceptionable. The fourth is more questionable and decidedly tendentious, there are other ways of looking at these questions, but not entirely out of order. The third sentence of the fifth makes no sense at all and its final sentence is struggling to, which two things make it rather hard to follow the argument.

Paragraph 6 fails to mention the mass killings under Franco, or the systematic murders of opponents carried out by the Legion of the Archangel Michael, led by the obsessively anti-Semitic psychopath Codreanu. Schuschnigg was an Austrofascist, no quotes required, though I would agree that he was not the worst of men. Salazar similarly was a fascist by any reasonable definition, by which I mean not the embodiment of absolute evil but a pursuer of a particular model of the state.

Franco, Codreanu, Schuschnigg and Salazar are also given big passes because they were all apparently monarchists. I must have missed the bit where any of them did anything whatsoever about restoring their country's monarchy, Codreanu aside who lived in one anyway, and Franco who did but not in his own lifetime.

Distinctly tendentious, that paragraph, but that is not its only problem. It introduces the idea, to be dwelt on further, that any crime and any cruelty is justifiable if the regime committing said crimes and cruelties enforces Christian worship and belief on a nation and erects Christianity's moral power structures into law. This is not, to put it mildly, a viewpoint I can accept as valid and defensible by argument.

The seventh paragraph is mainly a lead-in to the offensive and ridiculous eighth, though I will note that its second sentence is again struggling to make sense. Now, the eighth. How anyone could read it without sniggering 'Yeah, right' is beyond me. It does leave a few things out though, such as the remarkable fact that in Fascist Italy no teenage boy ever masturbated. Not one. And how there being no divorce meant that all married couples were happy together and faithful to each other, and extramarital sex never occurred.

Well, Il Duce had a string of mistresses besides two wives (simultaneously, but hey, bigamy's got to be better than divorce) and numerous one-night stands for added variety, but you can be sure no one else in this land of moral purity behaved like that. And obviously God was more than happy to allow these simple pleasures to a man who had served Him so well in other regards. A bit like David and Bathsheba, really. Moving on, the vile spew of the ninth paragraph derives from the absurdities of the eighth, and the same could be said of the tenth and thank goodness final paragraph.

You will gather that I didn't greatly care for the piece, though it did have a reasonable beginning and worthwhile points could have been made following on from that. But weren't, of course. Best I can say is that it wasn't quite as repellently offensive as the disgraceful King Harald piece. I do hope you're not going to keep your promise to post daily samples. After all, if people want this stuff there's a place where they can get it. Why drag it here as well?

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,914
Reply with quote  #34 
The Norway issue is separate to all this (because my concerns about European royalty, including our own, are legitimate), and Franco and Salazar are certainly less objectionable than other authoritarian rulers mentioned here.

But if you want to see what fascism of some sort is like, look at Iran or perhaps even increasingly Turkey. But I doubt our "reactionary" friends would endorse those would they? And I doubt anyone wants to be in the same league of dishonour as Turkey and Russia in terms of denialist historiography.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 852
Reply with quote  #35 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
You will gather that I didn't greatly care for the piece, though it did have a reasonable beginning and worthwhile points could have been made following on from that. But weren't, of course. Best I can say is that it wasn't quite as repellently offensive as the disgraceful King Harald piece. I do hope you're not going to keep your promise to post daily samples. After all, if people want this stuff there's a place where they can get it. Why drag it here as well?


I think Ponocrates had a good reason to 'drag it here' (as you call it), since others and myself were attacking the MadMonarchist's positions about this particular topic. The issues are also directly related to monarchy, so I would say it's relevant for what this forum is about. I'm also not unhappy to have a little discussion here, since things have been rather quiet here lately.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 852
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates
So I've read this.  It seems well-argued and reasonable.   People may react emotionally to it (which he anticipated) because he challenges the taboo that Mussolini should not be seen favorably in any respect, especially compared to the people who won the war.   "The victors write the.... etc."   Let's put the value judgment aside for a moment.   Did he lie anywhere in this post?   Did he misrepresent anything?   Was he untruthful?  The truth of course often isn't wise or prudent.   In fact, it can destroy you.  If he is lying anywhere here, please enlighten me.


I agree with Peter that parts of this post from the MadMonarchist were reasonable while others were blatantly unfair, although for other reasons.

The post from the MadMonarchst suggests that Mussolini's fascist Italy was more Christian than modern America in part because it was a monarchy. What I found so unfair about this is that fascism was clearly a revolutionary movement by origins (it was called the 'revolutionary fascist party'). Mussolini and his fascists only changed their movement to the national fascist party and accepted the existence of the monarchy when they realized there was absolutely no way in which they could take power if the king and the Royalist top of the Italian army would have opposed it. They only stayed loyal to the monarchy for as long as it allowed them to hold all effective power. The second Victor Emanuel III sacked Mussolini he declared his movement the 'Republican fascist party', declared his country to be a social republic, collaborated with the national socialists who invaded his country and called his King the greatest traitor in history, clearly implying he would have loved to commit regicide on him. The fascists also showed their true feelings towards Christianity in these final by trying to rid the church (which had supported the king) of its property and power.

So if fascist Italy remained a monarchy and Christian it was not because of fascism, but despite it. Other elements from fascist Italy that the MadMonarchist views as positive (like abortion being banned) were also characteristics of the country long before fascism even took power and were not due to the fascists. To be fair I think the MadMonarchist discussed some of these issues in one other post of his, but more often than not he just ignored the fact that fascism by its nature was revolutionary and republican (in the sense of no monarchy, not in the sense of being democratic).
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,497
Reply with quote  #37 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Notice how you ignored the evidence I presented about MM's blatant revision of history. You can also find some of that on his blog. Notice also that he has whitewashed some of the atrocities committed by Mussolini's forces. What you are doing, Ponocrates, is digging an even bigger hole for yourself.

If you are a sincere monarchist, you would seriously question such shoddy "history" which dishonours the memories of actual royalty who paid a price in some way or another as a result. Are you going to honour royalty, or are you going to retreat into your fantasies?


I sent the post before going to bed and have now have awoken to work for the day.  I said previously that I am working through John's specimens.    However, I consider your comments unhelpful and inquisitorial – vaguely threatening.  At least for me, you add very little to the discussion.   You're goal usually is to shut down any discussion except with your neoconservative news postings.  Not interested in your opinions.   You can have Royalcello convey the message to me since I respect his opinion.  

However, I will look more closely at what Peter and DM wrote and respond to them when I can get to it tonight.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,906
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates
I said previously that I am working through John's specimens.

Apologies, you did say that, and I hadn't taken it on board. So far though I can't say that presenting the quotes in context is helping them. If anything, it makes them seem even worse.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,914
Reply with quote  #39 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates


I sent the post before going to bed and have now have awoken to work for the day.  I said previously that I am working through John's specimens.    However, I consider your comments unhelpful and inquisitorial – vaguely threatening.  At least for me, you add very little to the discussion.   You're goal usually is to shut down any discussion except with your neoconservative news postings.  Not interested in your opinions.   You can have Royalcello convey the message to me since I respect his opinion.  

However, I will look more closely at what Peter and DM wrote and respond to them when I can get to it tonight.


How am I trying to shut anyone down? Calling me a "neoconservative" is not going to cut it. I wasn't even threatening you - I was just saying that if you sound like an apologist for MM's positions, you are doing yourself no favour. I've never tried to "shut down" discussions here, but if anything it's your arrogance which is unhelpful.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,198
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
So I've read this.  It seems well-argued and reasonable.   People may react emotionally to it (which he anticipated) because he challenges the taboo that Mussolini should not be seen favorably in any respect, especially compared to the people who won the war.   "The victors write the.... etc."   Let's put the value judgment aside for a moment.


With all due respect to our friend Ponocrates, the above quote is what you said in response to MM's description of Mussolini as a good Christian, and Fascism as somewhat respectable and Christian.  Really???  Mussolini's fascists massacred thousands of Ethiopian Christians (and Christians, particularly Amhara Christians were targated) in the Yekatit 12 Massacres.  Mussolini's fascists also authorized the massacre of all 800 Orthodox monks of the Debre Libanos Monastery in Ethiopia along with the thousands of pilgrims who had gathered there to celebrate the founding saint on his feast day.  This is not a Christian man at all, let alone a "better Christian" than some modern examples he cites.  He was a vile evil tyrant and the maker of martyrs.  It is obscene that MM would try to give Christian respectability to a man who ordered the use of mustard gas on rural populations in order to win his war of conquest over an ancient Christian monarchy which was already ancient when a united Italy emerged.  The Cathedral of Saint George in Addis Ababa was torched and left a burned out shell by this man and his fascist co-horts.  Dejazmatch Hailu Kebede, the heir to the old Zagwe dynasty was beheaded and his head displayed in public by this "civilized, Christian" ideology.  Fascist blackshirts and their co-horts went house to house in Addis Ababa during the Yekatit 12 Massacres and spared no one, men, women, children, elderly, dragging them out and killing them.  As to not waste bullets they used knives, clubs, hoes, axes, whatever was available.  They burned families in their homes.  This is the civilizing mission?  This is Christian?  I'm sorry but I can't get on board with that.  MM is an apologist for a savage, evil, blood soaked, barbarian tyrant.  Mussolini and his ideology are purely satanic, and not even remotely Christian.   There is no justifying him or MM either in my eyes.

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 852
Reply with quote  #41 
These evil deeds are indeed repulsive and good to point out in this discussion. Aside from not being a monarchist or a christian, Mussolini also held no regard for human life.

Your previous post about slaverny I found interesting, as I did indeed believe that the fascists had abolished that in Ethiopia (I thought that some previous emperors had tried it, but had never gone all the way with it in practice). I did not think that because the MadMonarchist pointed it out repeatedly, but because I read about it before that in various sources. To give just one example, the English wikipedia page about slaverny in Ethiopia states it outright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Ethiopia

I'm sure you know much more about Ethopia than I do, obviously, so I suppose I may be misinformed there? Also, regardless of if it was the case or not it was obviously an excuse for the fascists to start their conquest.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,497
Reply with quote  #42 
I cannot say that I know the history of Mussolini's Italy well enough to comment with any authority, like some of you.   If we leave it at the values, I agree with Ethio, that I can't relish or justify the invasion and conquest of Ethiopia.   I concede that.   While I also see that the imperial conquests by France, Britain, the Netherlands, the US (in its 20th century method of soft power and coercion) are guilty of being awful pieces of _____.   There is a lot of badness to go around.   In fact, it seems we're are about to do some awful stuff in the ME... again, based as usual on a pack of lies.   Assad is incredibly bad, but I feel like we're being duped that he committed a chemical attack when there was no good reason for him, on the cusp of victory, to do that at this point.   (that's a whole other issue that we should discuss on another thread).  

Mussolini, Codreanu, Salazar, Franco, etc. are problematic figures in the 20th century.   What I took away from MM's post, was that he wasn't unconditionally praising them.   He just wasn't willing to unconditionally revile them, which is the way we're supposed to react.  He found an area that these right-wing authoritarians at least paid lip-service to Christian morality and institutions.   In contrast, Bolshevik Marxism and liberal democracy have worked to undermine those things.  

It is unfortunate that we're living in a time where these are our options.   It would have been easier in 1600 in some ways.  

I'll take a look at John's third specimen after I finish doing my taxes (I tend to be a procrastinator).   Grateful to you all for your responses.


__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,906
Reply with quote  #43 
Procrastination isn't my middle name, but it ought to be, so I have a fellow feeling there. 1600? Outside the Balkans, still under the Ottoman heel as were Hungary and other regions, Christian morality and institutions were certainly prevalent in Europe. And the Thirty Years War was looming, a strictly religion-fuelled conflict that left an estimated eight million dead. Colonialism in the 19th and earlier centuries was certainly wrong by our ideas but, though there were aspects of it that cannot be praised by any standard, it was not wrong by the ideas of the day. By the 20th century the times had moved on, for the better, and Italy's adventures were seen as profoundly wrong at the time, as well as in retrospect and by applying anachronistic standards.

Where MM had a sound point was that the hurling of the fascist slur cheapens and devalues political discourse. And it irks me, like it does many here, that communist doesn't have the same opprobrium attached, which it ought to. In fact, it should be seen as a worse insult. Doesn't make fascism good, and my response to attempts to find the good in it is 'Why bother?' Finally, it does seem to me that you are treating liberal democracy as being as axiomatically bad as fascism is considered to be. There is good in it, quite a lot in fact, and rather easier to find than the good in fascism. No it is not flawless, but what is?

And it is actually based to a large extent on Judeo-Christian and Greek thought. It doesn't exist in a historical vacuum, it has roots and a history of its own, and I believe has brought great benefits to the mass of the people living under it, more by far than those living under systems of the past ever enjoyed. I am unashamedly in favour.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,914
Reply with quote  #44 
It's the point I make that words like "racist" and "fascist" are so overused that it has lost any effective meaning for many people. Many of us are also sick of our histories being treated as an Original Sin by Left elites. In part, MM's sentiments seem more like an overreaction to those trends, rather than a measured and considered reaction. I hold no ill will and wish him no harm, in fact I wish him well.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,198
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Your previous post about slavery I found interesting, as I did indeed believe that the fascists had abolished that in Ethiopia (I thought that some previous emperors had tried it, but had never gone all the way with it in practice). I did not think that because the Mad Monarchist pointed it out repeatedly, but because I read about it before that in various sources. To give just one example, the English wikipedia page about slaverny in Ethiopia states it outright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Ethiopia


Emperor Tewodros II back in 1855 tried to abolish slavery by decree and failed.  Each of his successors tried to do the same, but their declarations were regarded as moral recommendations rather than decrees to be obeyed.  The Imperial households continued to possess slaves.  However, when Ethiopia applied to join the League of Nations, it was made clear that it could not join without abolishing the institution.  The then Prince Regent and Heir to the Throne, Ras Taffari Makonnen, issued an edict abolishing slavery and compelling all slave owners to begin paying the slaves and send the children of slaves to school in 1923.  The powerful Minister of War, Fitawrari Hapte Giorgis bitterly complained asking if his wife was now expected to go fetch water herself.  Slavery became illegal and continuing to possess slaves was now punishable by law.  Empress Zewditu led by example by beginning to pay the people in the Imperial Palace who had previously served for free.  Some of the  elderly palace slaves were given feudal land grants to live off the income of the land and joined the landlord class.  

Italy in it's quest to legitimize its conquest of Ethiopia tried to justify its invasion by saying that slavery continued in Ethiopia and that the institution was being abetted by Emperor Haile Selassie and his government.  This was patently untrue.  Certainly there were remote areas of the country where the practice continued but violators of the law were being severely punished when discovered.  Mussolini's claim that he was coming to free the Ethiopian people was quite disingenuous. 

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.