2023-08-29

TO ELIMINATE THE OPIATE vol. II by Rabbi Marvin S. Antelman

THE DEFINITIVE HISTORY

of the
SHABBATEAN-FRANKIST CULT

THRONE & CROWN by Yosef Dayan Ha Nasi 2004

2023-08-27

DEVARIM 17:14-20 The Mitzvah to Appoint a King

Deuteronomy Chapter 17:14-20 דְּבָרִים

יד כִּי-תָבֹא אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ, וִירִשְׁתָּהּ, וְיָשַׁבְתָּה בָּהּ; וְאָמַרְתָּ, אָשִׂימָה עָלַי מֶלֶךְ, כְּכָל-הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתָי. 14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein; and shalt say: 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me';

טו שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ: מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ, תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ--לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אָחִיךָ הוּא. 15 thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother.

טז רַק, לֹא-יַרְבֶּה-לּוֹ סוּסִים, וְלֹא-יָשִׁיב אֶת-הָעָם מִצְרַיְמָה, לְמַעַן הַרְבּוֹת סוּס; וַיהוָה, אָמַר לָכֶם, לֹא תֹסִפוּן לָשׁוּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה, עוֹד. 16 Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses; forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you: 'Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.'

יז וְלֹא יַרְבֶּה-לּוֹ נָשִׁים, וְלֹא יָסוּר לְבָבוֹ; וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב, לֹא יַרְבֶּה-לּוֹ מְאֹד. 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

יח וְהָיָה כְשִׁבְתּוֹ, עַל כִּסֵּא מַמְלַכְתּוֹ--וְכָתַב לוֹ אֶת-מִשְׁנֵה הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת, עַל-סֵפֶר, מִלִּפְנֵי, הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם. 18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests the Levites.

יט וְהָיְתָה עִמּוֹ, וְקָרָא בוֹ כָּל-יְמֵי חַיָּיו--לְמַעַן יִלְמַד, לְיִרְאָה אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו, לִשְׁמֹר אֶת-כָּל-דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת וְאֶת-הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה, לַעֲשֹׂתָם. 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them;

כ לְבִלְתִּי רוּם-לְבָבוֹ מֵאֶחָיו, וּלְבִלְתִּי סוּר מִן-הַמִּצְוָה יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאול--לְמַעַן יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים עַל-מַמְלַכְתּוֹ הוּא וּבָנָיו, בְּקֶרֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל. {ס} 20 that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left; to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel. {S}

https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0517.htm

2023-08-26

OPPOSERS OF THE KING by Yosef Dayan Ha Nasi

#497 Devarim 17

Six sects will severely oppose the idea of reinstating the kingship, each for its own reasons:

1. the Arabs,
2. the media,
3. the judicial system,
4. the politicians,
5. the "members of the intellectual and spiritual elite", and
6. the skeptics - the small-of-faith.

The Arabs.

There is no need to elaborate on the reasons that they would not be happy with the idea of the Kingdom of Israel.

In the monarchic era they will not be counted within the voting public – and needless to say – they will not be elected.

But they are not the only ones who will not be voters. There will be no voters!

Obviously, the election game will be called off upon the reinstatement of the Kingdom of Israel.

There will no longer be a need for misleading party platforms, image-building consultants or PR campaigns.

Funding for political parties and associations promoting various political platforms will be curtailed, there will be no more Popolitika 2 and we will be rid of Chanan Chrystal 3.

Everything will be different, and for the better!

The status of the Arabs – those who remain – will be the status of "sojourners" 4, they will have no political rights.

Their opposition to the Kingdom will be intense and maybe even violent. But already today their opposition to the democratic State is

2 A popular Israeli TV talk show??. – PT

3 A popular political commentator?? - PT.

4 Leviticus 25, 35 – PT

intense and definitely violent.

I do not consider the Arabs as my reference group. I have no sense of respect for them, their opinion doesn't interest me and I don't believe them. Therefore their opposition is irrelevant to me.

The Media.

When our king reigns over us, the hostile media will incur a fatal injury.

It will no longer malign the actions of representatives of the public with its shameful allegations, it will no longer embarrass the opponents of its anti-Jewish stance.

In the reign of the Kingdom of Israel, the media will not give our enemies opportunities to express their views and will not justify all the actions of those who oppose Israel.

It will not flood our homes with descriptions of debauchery and crime, and will not arouse man's basest instincts.

Obviously, the media will not set the national agenda.

The media is not my reference group. I have no sense of respect for its protagonists, their opinions don't interest me and I don't believe them. Therefore their opposition is irrelevant to me.

The Judicial System.

It will certainly oppose the kingship, and its opposition will be most severe.

Therefore it will mobilize all the other opposition sects and will actually be the flagship in the battle to frustrate the idea of establishing the Kingdom of Israel.

This institution, headed by the Supreme Court, which has set itself the goal of eradicating every Jewish feature that still prevails in the State of Israel, will lose not only its dominant influence, but also its superior status.

It will lose the power bestowed upon it by the judicial tyranny of Aharon Barak.

Actually, it will no longer be the ultimate sovereign.

The judicial system will cease to exist, de facto as well as de jure.

In its place will come the Sanhedrin, which will base its adjudications on the Hebrew code of law.

No more precedents from the American, German or British judicial systems.

We shall have Hebrew justice!

The Supreme Court judges know this, and therefore we can expect uncompromising opposition from them.

The judicial system, which has had no restraints in wielding its tyranny, is not my reference group, I have no sense of respect for its members, their opinion doesn't interest me, and I don't believe them. Therefore its opposition is irrelevant to me.

The Politicians.

Because everything that has been written in their condemnation is true, and if only for this reason alone, they will wage vicious battles against the idea of the monarchy.

Though they are blind to the needs of the people, they are remarkably alert regarding their own needs.

They would never be willing to forfeit their role as the decision makers regarding the wishes of the "common people" of Israel, lest the people again desire the majesty of kings such as David.

The politicians are not my reference group, I have no sense of respect for them, their opinion doesn't interest me and I don't believe them. Therefore their opposition is irrelevant to me.

The "Intellectual and Spiritual Elite"

We have already said all we have to say about them, but in summarizing, we shall not remove the quotation marks from the appellation they have applied to themselves.

Their works will become a thing of the past and without the mobilized, one-sided media that cultivates and blows them out of all proportion, nobody will know they ever existed.

All the shallow and hollow creations currently produced by the "intellectual & spiritual elite" will simply disappear from the scene, and not as a result of any royal decree.

It will be unnecessary to address the matter.

"Queen of the Bath" (Malkat Ha-ambatya), "Days of Tziklag" (Yemey Tziklag) and "My Michael" (Michael Sheli) will remain only as living testimonials of a dead past, evidence of the depravity to which a nation can sink in its self-hatred.

The "intellectual and spiritual elite" are not my reference group, I have no sense of respect for them, their opinion doesn't interest me and I don't believe them. Therefore their opposition is irrelevant to me.

All these are Sanballatim (following the coinage of Uri Zvi Greenberg) no more a marginal minority; so-called "elites" that aren't capable of any positive sentiments for Israel.

Sanballatim – the likes of the Horonite mentioned in chapter 2 of the Book of Nehemiah:

"When Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard this, it displeased them greatly that someone had come to seek the welfare of the people of Israel."

The skeptics - The small-of-faith.

This sect is different from the others. It IS my reference group, it definitely is! I feel no sense of respect for its members, but

neither do I feel contempt for them. Their opinion interests me, because even if it seems strange to me – they can be believed.

They are not evil. Therefore I cannot say that their opposition is of no consequence to me or that I consider it irrelevant.

On the contrary, I consider it very relevant.

Regrettably, I do not know how it might be possible to strengthen their will, or to imbue them with an urge toward faith.

Many, more qualified than I, have attempted and failed.

Their opposition to the idea of a monarchy will be the most difficult, and I tremble as I prepare to face it.

I shall be able, with G-d's help, to cope with any attack aimed at me and at the idea that I am obliged to fulfill, but the trauma inflicted by the skeptics will be severe.

I do not fear the Pharisees, nor the non-Pharisees, nor the hypocrites who pretend to be Pharisees and commit the acts of Zimri while they demand the reward of Pinchas.

I fear only the deriders! Because that which has happened – is liable to recur in an even more intense form:

"But when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian, heard [it], they laughed us to scorn, and despised us, and said, What [is] this thing that ye do?"

In the poetry of Uri Zvi Greenberg there is a passage that is more painful than anything he ever wrote, a passage that is actually horrifying.

When he speaks about the Messiah that CAME – and was chased away in disgrace, the poet says:

Had they come upon him with a knife, and wedged it in his heart

/ He would have leapt with the knife in his heart over their bodies.

But because they pierced him with mockery – they triumphed over him then, The peddlars.

Contempt and derision! This will probably be my share, to be meted out by the small-of-faith, the sceptics. How fearful!

Yes, I am afraid of mockery – but I fear my Creator even more.

Therefore, I shall pray to him with all the power of my heart, that He may give me courage to withstand the laughers who lack vision.

Each and every sect – has its own brand of venom.

All the more so all of them together.

This, in itself, is a good reason to establish the kingdom immediately.

Because none of the sects regards the people of Israel and their future as something that should be cared for, cultivated and promoted.

Matters that are of interest to us – do not interest them.

There is no doubt that the great power that is concentrated in their hands will heap up difficulties on the way to the establishment of the kingdom.

May it only please the Lord that the verse which contains the response to Sanballat's words of derision may apply to me:

"Then answered I them, and said unto them, The God of heaven, he will prosper us; therefore we his servants will arise and build: but ye have no portion, nor right, nor memorial, in Jerusalem."

The greater the strength of the opposition powers – so shall their demise be more terrible.

Establishment of the kingdom is a mighty idea. Despite all the obstacles it will triumph and defeat its opponents – sooner (I hope) or later.

There is no power in the world that can overcome it.

The Kingdom of the House of David shall be reinstated!

2023-08-15

Either Judaism or Democracy by Yosef Dayan Ha Nasi 2004

Either Judaism or Democracy

from Throne and Crown by Yossi Dayan, (c) 2004

The historical record shows that it is not Zionism that has failed, but rather democracy.

But we will devote a few lines to clarify the issue.

The aim of Zionism was to establish a Jewish state in the Land of Israel.

Although there was a period when certain Zionists toyed with the idea of establishing the state in some unpopulated area, and they chose Uganda.

The end of this preposterous idea is widely known, and we won't waste words on it.

Another trend in Zionism wanted, for pragmatic reasons, to conceal the fact that the aim of Zionism was ultimately to establish a sovereign state.

Among themselves, they certainly knew what they were working for.

Upon its establishment, the essence of the young country was defined in a document that came to be known as "The Proclamation of Independence", and thus it was defined:

"Accordingly we, members of the people's council, representatives of the Jewish community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the British mandate over Eretz-Israel and, by virtue of our natural and historic right … hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the state of Israel."

Together with this formulation, Ben Gurion determined that the State of Israel shall "ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex".

And perhaps he did not exactly "determine", but rather declared it.

We may suspect that he did this for the sake of protocol. One can base such a suspicion on the clause that precedes the one which deals with equality:

"It will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel."

After a while, Ben Gurion realized that he would be able to consolidate his rule if he gave the Arabs the right to vote, even though they had fought with all their strength against the establishment of the Jewish State.

Therefore, he did not hesitate to cancel the status of military rule that had been proclaimed in the areas in which the Arabs lived and enabled them to vote.

This is how a general statement became an existing fact.

At any rate, if we take this mixed-up document seriously, then the Declaration of Israel's Independence has more references to kingship ("as envisaged by the prophets of Israel") than "democracy", which was not mentioned in it even once.

The contradiction between "the Jewish State" and "complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants" – which came to be termed, after a while, "the democratic State" – This contradiction has begun to bother more than a few people, whose eyes are still capable of seeing.

The country's institutions, and especially the courts, have made every effort to avoid a discussion of this issue, so they would not be obliged to take a stance.

The judges, all the judges, knew very well that these two definitions could not coexist. By ignoring the issue they strove to let sleeping dogs lie.

But this will not go on forever.

Rabbi Meir Kahane was the first to call attention to this blatant contradiction and described the Proclamation of Independence as "schizophrenic".

His argument was amazingly logical: the definition "Jewish", which had been granted to the State, does not refer only to its character, but also to its regime.

If power is not in the hands of Jews – then the State is not Jewish. Period.

The required minimum in order to ensure Jewish rule according to the democratic system by which every citizen has one vote, is a Jewish majority.

How can one ensure by law that the majority will ALWAYS be Jewish?

And at the same time this law needs to be democratic!

It is impossible!

Kahane was committed that the State of Israel should always remain Jewish, and therefore, he was willing to waive democracy.

When he realized that no amount of immigration could ensure that the Arabs will always remain a minority – especially after the Six Day War, in which approximately one million Arabs were added to the area controlled by the State of Israel – he began to support the transfer of the Arabs to the Arab countries.

At first he called this an exchange of populations, but in the end he did not hesitate to term it deportation.

In fact, all the Zionist parties at the time and today as well support the ensuring of a Jewish majority.

But Kahane's terminology and his methods of operation caused the political system to designate him and his movement "racist".

He was prohibited from running to the Knesset on the basis of a law that was legislated specifically to disqualify him.

THE "KAHANE LAW"

The "Kahane Law" states that a list of candidates will not participate in the elections to the Knesset if its purposes or its actions, whether explicitly or implicitly include one of the following:

1) Negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the State of the Jewish people;

2) Negation of the democratic nature of the State;

3) Incitement to racism.

The law itself, as it is formulated, is the most obvious proof that Rabbi Kahane'a analysis was correct.

This law simultaneously determines two things that essentially contradict each other: that the State will be the State of the Jewish people and that it will have a democratic character.

How can two opposites coexist side by side?

They can't, but the Supreme Court, in its session as High Court of Justice, is capable of whitewashing the contradiction by making a hundred and fifty excuses.

One need only read the High Court Decision on

Kahane's petition against his party's disqualification in order to understand the utter absurdity of it.

Later, in 1992, this contradictory formulation was incorporated into two laws, that are considered the most important laws, and which were designated Basic Laws: "Human Dignity and Liberty" and "Freedom of Occupation".

The preamble to these two laws states that they are intended to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

The truth is that the rights these laws have come to anchor in legislation – are all laws that refer to defending universal values such as freedom of speech and personal liberty.

A careful reading of the laws reveals immediately what they lack: the right, or even the obligation of the State of Israel to anchor in legislation values that are not universal, but are essentially Jewish.

Because these laws speak explicitly and in great detail only of universal rights, the work of the judges of the Supreme Court has become even more difficult when they come to balance between these rights and specifically Jewish rights.

This new constitutional basis has made it impossible for the State of Israel to prohibit the sale of leavened bread during Passover, for instance, as was done in the past, because this action is in opposition to the freedom of occupation of those who sell the leavened bread, or pork – for present purposes.

But the real problem with these laws is – as Mr. Yoram Hazony notes correctly in his book "The Struggle Over Israel's Soul" – that it has been determined that the State of Israel can no longer be considered Jewish from the constitutional aspect.

This dramatic change stems from he fact that the State has been designated in these laws we are discussing as a "Jewish and democratic" State.

So far, everyone knew

that Israel is a Jewish State, and that the expression "democratic" is a sort of lip service, which shouldn't be taken literally.

Everyone understood that its democratic nature would NEVER cast a shadow over the Jewishness of the State.

This is how, one may surmise, the formulators of the laws regarded the preamble that included this schizophrenic sentence.

But when this was established in a Basic Law and no longer in the Kahane Law, which had no relation to the general public and therefore remained obscure – at that moment the law brought explosive issues to the fore in the courts and in academic spheres.

It was no longer possible to ignore the contradiction.

But the professors, the legislators and the judges – they could not be swayed!

Currently, it is difficult to speak of a "Jewish State" without arousing the impression that democracy has somehow been omitted from the reference, possibly because of some subversive intention, as democracy has been raised in Israel to the status of an all-inclusive holy ritual.

Thus, new definitions of the essence of a Jewish State have begun to be heard.

Assa Kasher, from the Department of Philosophy at Tel Aviv University, the composer of the I.D.F.'s Code of Ethics, which could be appropriate for the Army of Fiji without making any changes, writes:

"'A Jewish State' in the full sense of the term, is the social tapestry in which the Jewish identities of its citizens are found".

Obviously, he doesn't refer to the question: What would be the essence of the Jewish State if and when its demographic structure changes and the Arabs become the majority?

If he had responded to this question he would have come up with an equally brilliant formulation:

"'A Jewish State' in the full sense of the term, is the social tapestry in which the Jewish identities of its Arab citizens are to be found."

Now there's a splendid philosophical thought for you!

Haim Cohen, former judge in the Israel Supreme Court, has composed a document comprising 26 pages of nonsense, entitled "The Jewishness of the State of Israel".

In this document he argues that the Jewish character of the State of Israel is to

be found mainly in these Basic Laws, enacted since 1992, because the "real values of Judaism are the universal values anchored in these Basic Laws".

Zvi Bernson, Israel Supreme Court judge, thinks that the term "Jewish State" is in itself no more than a historical accident, as it comes to differentiate between Israel and its Arab neighbors, but was not intended to actually confer a real Jewish character upon the State.

Another Supreme Court judge, Michael Heshin, has admitted that the terms "Jewish State" and "Jewish and democratic State" are becoming more and more vague, and that it is difficult to attribute a clear significance to them.

What is a Jewish State?

A close scrutiny, says Heshin, teaches us that this combination of terms has generated a plethora of interpretations, exegeses, and schools of thought, "and this will only become worse with the passage of time."

Although Heshin avoids revealing the sense he attributes to the term "Jewish" in the context of the character of the State, he certainly does provide his opinion on the sense of the term democracy.

He relates this to the destructive phrase that has currently become fashionable: Israel as a State for all its citizens. "And is there anyone who negates this definition?" asks the learned judge.

But obviously, the most important outlook is that of the President of Israel's Supreme Court, Aharon Barak: In his opinion, the sense of the term "Jewish" in the phrase "Jewish State" should be based on a very large measure of abstraction which we should apply to it, until it becomes totally identical with the term "democratic".

And Barak is consistent. He progresses step by step – in accordance with his method: He subjects Judaism to a recurrent process of abstraction and we can trust him to go on and on like this until Judaism loses any inherent sense and remains devoid of any meaning. Then Judaism will truly be identical with democracy.

"The values of the State of Israel as a Jewish State are these universal values that are held in common by the elements that compose the democratic society", says Barak.

Amazing! Shabbat and Kashrut, ritual purification and the love of Zion, faith in the Creator of the World and the aspiration to Kingship – all these will be considered "Jewish values" only when they are accepted by Canada and Costa Rica, not to mention India and Pakistan, which are also democratic States.

But Barak's test of abstraction has shattered on the rocks of reality.

The President of the Supreme Court cannot make head or tails of the situation when Jewish aspirations and interests clash with "democratic" or "universal" values.

In order to extract himself from his dilemma Barak has invented a special criterion, which is capable of leaping over any obstacle. Barak's criterion has been termed "the outlook of an enlightened person".

This outlook overpowers any other value, whether national, Jewish or traditional.

In view of the enormous power he has amassed (due, in large part to the insignificant stature of all the other institutions of the Israeli establishment) it would be ridiculous to ask him who defines the "enlightened person"?

Who knows what his outlook is?

Barak himself, is the essential enlightened person.

And it is he who will define his outlook.

Such a tyrannical frame of mind is very dangerous, especially when it goes hand in hand with extraordinary political power.

We shall define this blatant absurdity again, but this time in the words of Barak himself:

The metaphor of "the enlightened society" focuses attention on a part of the public.

Attention is directed… to the educated and advanced part (of society).

And what differentiates the enlightened society from the rest of the

public? … The enlightened society represents that community whose values are universal, and it belongs to the family of "enlightened nations".

The reader may consider whether he himself belongs to that part of the public, that community whose values… etc.

Not one devout Jew will give a positive answer to Barak's criterion of the enlightened person.

But not only the arrogant judges are bereft of any vestiges of Judaism.

The writers also, those "members of the intellectual and spiritual elite" we have already mentioned, suffer from the same lack, but being free of any responsibility that should supposedly guide the judges, the writers have gone a long way towards severing the State of Israel from its Jewishness.

Thus writes Amos Oz:

"A State cannot be Jewish, just like a chair and a bus cannot be Jewish… the State is no more than an instrument. Instruments are sometimes beneficial and sometimes they are faulty. An instrument may be appropriate or unnecessary. And this instrument should belong to all the citizens: Jews, Muslims and Christians… The concept of a Jewish State could be a TRAP".

One must only know that the preference of democracy over Judaism WAS NOT, from their point of view, a preference of values.

It could not have been!

And why?

Because it is impossible to compare preferences between two elements each of which belongs to a different sphere.

It is illogical to do so.

Positing democracy (which is a system) opposite Judaism (which is an essence) is completely opposed to all the rules of science and rational thought.

So why do the judges, who pride themselves on being "enlightened", cast such a sharp sword into the heart of common sense?

And more so, why do they speak to us, to the "unenlightened part" of the public with such a conceited air of patronage? Why do

they do all they can to impose their crooked "supremacy of the law" and expect us to approve?

Conceptual folly has never sunk to such profound depths before!

How, then, can we explain their behavior?

The truth is that they DID NOT PREFER democracy over Judaism, and therefore they have not had a conceptual lapse.

All they wanted – initially – was to liberate themselves from the burden represented by Judaism.

They did not regard democracy as a serious contender against Judaism.

They regarded it as an excuse!

They found a method of government taken from the gentiles and embraced it.

But if it had not been democracy, they would have found something else to frustrate their Jewishness.

Even banana seeds would have fulfilled the functions they designated to democracy in their war against Judaism.

They would have extolled the virtues of banana seeds with the same diligence in which they explained the virtues of democracy.

Let them enjoy it!

Nevertheless, I humbly submit, I have news for them:

Even after they throw their Jewishness out the window, they will not be accepted into the club of "enlightened nations".

Not they as individuals, and not us as a State. That much is certain!

2023-08-12

White Rabbit

What is Fascism? George Orwell 1944

What is Fascism? George Orwell

TRIBUNE 1944

Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: ‘What is Fascism?’

One of the social survey organizations in America recently asked this question of a hundred different people, and got answers ranging from ‘pure democracy’ to ‘pure diabolism’.

In this country if you ask the average thinking person to define Fascism, he usually answers by pointing to the German and Italian régimes.

But this is very unsatisfactory, because even the major Fascist states differ from one another a good deal in structure and ideology.

It is not easy, for instance, to fit Germany and Japan into the same framework, and it is even harder with some of the small states which are describable as Fascist.

It is usually assumed, for instance, that Fascism is inherently warlike, that it thrives in an atmosphere of war hysteria and can only solve its economic problems by means of war preparation or foreign conquests.

But clearly this is not true of, say, Portugal or the various South American dictatorships.

Or again, antisemitism is supposed to be one of the distinguishing marks of Fascism; but some Fascist movements are not antisemitic.

Learned controversies, reverberating for years on end in American magazines, have not even been able to determine whether or not Fascism is a form of capitalism.

But still, when we apply the term ‘Fascism’ to Germany or Japan or Mussolini's Italy, we know broadly what we mean.

It is in internal politics that this word has lost the last vestige of meaning.

For if you examine the press you will find that there is almost no set of people — certainly no political party or organized body of any kind — which has not been denounced as Fascist during the past ten years.

Here I am not speaking of the verbal use of the term ‘Fascist’.

I am speaking of what I have seen in print.

I have seen the words ‘Fascist in sympathy’, or ‘of Fascist tendency’, or just plain ‘Fascist’, applied in all seriousness to the following bodies of people:

Conservatives: All Conservatives, appeasers or anti-appeasers, are held to be subjectively pro-Fascist. British rule in India and the Colonies is held to be indistinguishable from Nazism. Organizations of what one might call a patriotic and traditional type are labelled crypto-Fascist or ‘Fascist-minded’. Examples are the Boy Scouts, the Metropolitan Police, M.I.5, the British Legion. Key phrase: ‘The public schools are breeding-grounds of Fascism’.
Socialists: Defenders of old-style capitalism (example, Sir Ernest Benn) maintain that Socialism and Fascism are the same thing. Some Catholic journalists maintain that Socialists have been the principal collaborators in the Nazi-occupied countries. The same accusation is made from a different angle by the Communist party during its ultra-Left phases. In the period 1930-35 the Daily Worker habitually referred to the Labour Party as the Labour Fascists. This is echoed by other Left extremists such as Anarchists. Some Indian Nationalists consider the British trade unions to be Fascist organizations.

Communists: A considerable school of thought (examples, Rauschning, Peter Drucker, James Burnham, F. A. Voigt) refuses to recognize a difference between the Nazi and Soviet régimes, and holds that all Fascists and Communists are aiming at approximately the same thing and are even to some extent the same people. Leaders in The Times (pre-war) have referred to the U.S.S.R. as a ‘Fascist country’. Again from a different angle this is echoed by Anarchists and Trotskyists.

Trotskyists: Communists charge the Trotskyists proper, i.e. Trotsky's own organization, with being a crypto-Fascist organization in Nazi pay. This was widely believed on the Left during the Popular Front period. In their ultra-Right phases the Communists tend to apply the same accusation to all factions to the Left of themselves, e.g. Common Wealth or the I.L.P.

Catholics: Outside its own ranks, the Catholic Church is almost universally regarded as pro-Fascist, both objectively and subjectively;

War resisters: Pacifists and others who are anti-war are frequently accused not only of making things easier for the Axis, but of becoming tinged with pro-Fascist feeling.

Supporters of the war: War resisters usually base their case on the claim that British imperialism is worse than Nazism, and tend to apply the term ‘Fascist’ to anyone who wishes for a military victory. The supporters of the People's Convention came near to claiming that willingness to resist a Nazi invasion was a sign of Fascist sympathies. The Home Guard was denounced as a Fascist organization as soon as it appeared. In addition, the whole of the Left tends to equate militarism with Fascism. Politically conscious private soldiers nearly always refer to their officers as ‘Fascist-minded’ or ‘natural Fascists’. Battle-schools, spit and polish, saluting of officers are all considered conducive to Fascism. Before the war, joining the Territorials was regarded as a sign of Fascist tendencies. Conscription and a professional army are both denounced as Fascist phenomena.

Nationalists: Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all described as Fascist but not by the same people.

* * *

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print.

I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning.

To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic.

Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others.

Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it.

By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class.

Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

But Fascism is also a political and economic system.

Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

1944

THE END

____BD____

George Orwell: ‘What is Fascism?’

First published: Tribune. — GB, London. — 1944.

Reprinted:

— ‘The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell’. — 1968.

https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc