About Strange Beds, Strange Fellows and Weird Politics

In the West and in the USA, the “Antifa” movement is flexing its muscle. Therefore, the record of leftist anti-Nazism –and the anti-Communism of Nazis – should be put into perspective. By recalling the past, the present’s reanimated fairy-tales can be treated by bringing the needle to the balloon of pretentions.

It is poured-into-concrete that the radical Left (Stalinists/Bolsheviks) and the radical Right (Nazis, Fascists) are opposites. That illusion has benefited both murderous collectivist blots on mankind’s record. Except when allied, the RadRight and the RadLeft profited from the pretense that the alternative to their tyranny is a take-over by the other monster.

Accordingly, Nazis pledged to save Germany, then Europe, from a Communist conquest. When Moscow Sovietized occupied Eastern and Central Europe, it claimed to free it from the “Fascist Beast”. Both systems of mass murder liquidated “inconvenient” persons, pretending that they were enemy agents.

Let us take the plot that the Soviets wrote. Scores of millions were killed as “Fascist class aliens”. The label served to legitimize those atrocities whose news seeped out to a world that wished to pursue wealth creation undisturbed.

In fact, the victims hardly fit into the “Fascist” category. Those unenthusiastic, not to say critical, were by definition “Fascists”. Expressly, the persecuted included democrats and leftists of the wrong orientation. Being a “democratic socialist” meant that, as an agent of “American Imperialism”, he undermined the class-consciousness of the proletariat. The dictatorial Left, “dictatorship of the proletariat” reveals, fought a war against those socialists that advocated economic equality and political freedom. That clarifies why, in the Crimson Empire, socialist democrats were a high priority enemy. This also explains the fate of those that have fought Franco in the Spanish Civil War in Communist “International Brigades”. Most of those that managed to flee to the USSR were liquidated. When your correspondent grew up in “socialism”, being a “Spaniard” equaled “big trouble”.

The Soviets did not wish to border on democratic and neutral countries, lands governed by “democratic Leftists”, or even independent “Stalinist” states. Desired were satellites ruled by lackeys. Indeed, this made sense. Tito’s Yugoslavia –largely self-liberated- became a “problem” in 1948. So did Mao’s China, a disobedient competitor after Stalin’s death.

The big point is illustrated by the small case of a family member. He had participated in the armed resistance against the Nazis. After the war, he wished to fly once an airline was organized. He was turned down. Anyone who fought the Nazis was politically unreliable. A Habsburg Emperor made that point. Someone praising a candidate, added “and he is also a patriot”. – Could be, but “is he a patriot for me”?

It has been pleaded here that the secular left- and right totalitarians –as well as their religion-governed ilk- impose comparable systems governed by similar methods. That implies that their enmity does not involve a principle, such as the clash of liberty and slavery. Much rather, the conflict expresses a rivalry to achieve hegemony.

It is not illogical to assume that systems that have fought each other must be opposites. What is “logical” is not always true. That the earth is flat is logical as long as one is unaware of gravity. Even so, according to recent findings, it is not entirely true. While rivals for global domination, Communists and Nazis clashed because their goals collided and not because of the incompatibility of their ways. Both totalitarianisms wanted the same thing. That made them enemies; it had nothing to do with a clash between liberty and serfdom.

With that said a development on the front of the struggle for power comes, even to your correspondent, as a startling surprise.

Involved is the attempted beginning of a new phase in the relationship of ideologies that, to justify themselves, claim to express fundamental contradictions. The Left –with its enthrallment by Bolshevik violence represented by Che T-shirts-, and the “wrong right” -with its ignorant fascination by the theatrical violence of Nazis and Fascists, – share a common point of agreement. Both had justified themselves by claiming to be the only effective enemy of the other’s –even more reprehensible- system of dictatorial rule.

Being able to mobilize masses as the most committed and consistent foe of the “bandits” of the other camp has made a renewed 1939 style cooperation – as in the Stalin–Hitler Pact- appear remote. Well, never say never!

Although it seems far-fetched, nevertheless, left-right totalitarian cooperation is emerging. In the light of it, moderating the surprise, one discovers antecedents. If the Nazis were “National” Socialists, then the Soviets and Moscow-inspired regimes –Cuba and Ceausescu’s Romania are examples- can be called “National” Communist. “Internationalism” is fodder applied abroad, and, wisely, the global Left uses that term. Nevertheless, in the experience of those that lived within the Soviet sphere, the system thrived on a combination of Marx and the themes of Great Russian chauvinism.

Having described precedents, it is time now to open up the new chapter that is being written on the old printer.

As a prologue: global designs are often tested incrementally in hidden locales. Big things have small beginnings. The venue of the unfolding “reversal of alliances” is likely to be beyond the reader’s horizon. That makes the case that takes one to Hungary subjectively “unusual” –but not insignificant.

As in 1956 and then in 1989, Hungary is again commanding attention. The story begins in 2015. That year, the country reacted to the invasion of assertive migrants by shutting its borders, which, by the Shengen Treaty, was a right and a duty. Blame from the Left-Liberals followed. To that Orbán, the Prime Minister, responded that a country that will not control its borders is no country, and that migration on demand is not a fundamental human right.

Stopping the influx of hundreds of thousands saved Germany which condemned the policy that benefited it as “Fascist” and “racist”. However, the PM also gets support. Openly or not, emerging parties in the West use his arguments and acknowledge his policies. The new members of the European Union (EU), especially the “Visegrád 4” (V4), have overcome historical quarrels to oppose the EU’s policy. Their motivation is that, having only recently regained their sovereignty, independence is valued; it will not be given up to please remote ideologues. Face it: those that have once lost their country and then could take it back, will be reluctant to give it away. Exposed but “Western” Austria’s new government openly supports the V4. Within Western Europe, the camp of resistance is widening.

The trend makes the hither control of Left-Liberal elites wane. To counter that, the “special operation” forces of the EU are mobilized. One response is to threaten the recalcitrant Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and the Slovaks with economic ruin. That should also scare the Bulgarians, the Romanians, the Slovenes and Croatia. At the same time, expunging the source of the infection receives attention. If Orbán can be taken off the chessboard, then the uppity, without their leader, will limp back to their assigned place in the doghouse.

An opportunity nears to “get” Orbán. Hungary has elections in April. Order will return if the PM is voted out of office. The difficulty is to convert the theoretical possibility into a reality.

In the real world, what the PM’s Fidesz must worry about is improving its 2/3 majority. The Left, the Liberals, Greens, diverse Socialists, have good ties to their comrades and MSM abroad, but hardly any local voters. No wonder; the economy, run against international recommendations, is doing fine. (Unemployment went from 12 to 3.8 %, – “everybody willing and able to work can have a job”- the national debt is being paid back, growth improves.)  The only effective opposition party is Jobbik; place it far to the right of Fidesz. That classifies it –with about 15%- as a movement of the “wrong right”. At first glance, this political scenery makes the removal of Orbán illusionary.

Well, not quite. The fractured Left and the post-Nazi right are mixing a potion. To become “insiders”, the “outsiders” are reviving the past by overcoming their differences. While they criticize each other tactically, there is talk of a Left-Right strategic alliance.

Initially, that news seemed so weird that a clumsy smear had to be suspected. Then came confirmation. More than that, Ágnes Heller came out to opine that, to remove Orbán, joining forces is not against the scriptures. Now then, Professor Heller is a prominent member of the George Lukács circle. Lukács, a leading intellectual, is rated as a major interpreter of Marxist scriptures. Therefore, if Heller, who detects a Fascist under every bed, and who invokes the Holocaust and her “opposition” during “Gulyás Communism”, says it is OK to ally with neo-Nazis, then it is so. The “fatwa” will hold, even if Heller has been a bit “incorrect” in the past. The opening of secret archives has brought to light some embarrassing letters to her “Party” written in the good old bad days.

It is improbable that the unity trick will work against the “common enemy”; nevertheless, one remains stunned. The dread of losing their influence and might really haunts elites that have played their hand and lost. The enemies of an order in which power flows from below and not from the top down contemplate alliances to hang on –even if these negate solemnly trumpeted articles of faith. Call it “principles for power”.

The “spearhead”, manned by the “scribes”, distrusts the ability of the average person to determine his own fate. The louder the critique provoked by damaging policies, the stronger this conviction becomes. At the same time, the mistrusted “common man” sees his doubts regarding his “leaders” competence confirmed. Even in the unlikely case that the proposed odd relationship materializes, the case to be given power must be pleaded before a court where the “deplorable” and distrusted “common man” is the judge. His verdict promises to be devastating and deserved.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner