Антифашизм

[tijd]

Is there a shorter term for anti-anti-fascism? https://t.co/FcdQVGWKnz
- Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) June 6, 2020

Today’s the 76th anniversary of the last large-scale Antifa invasion! A D-Day reminder that there was a time when being anti-fascist was the easy, popular, and All-American position. pic.twitter.com/7lad9jTqdY
- Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) June 6, 2020

На выходных было много шуток про то, чтобы объявить 6 июня "Днем Антифы".

6 июня 1944 Франклин Рузвельт, сообщая по радио об операции вторжения в Нормандию, вместо обычного обращения предлагал согражданам присоединиться к нему в молитве:

"And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:
Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. <...>
With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil."
https://www.historyplace.com/speeches/fdr-prayer.htm



Через две недели Рузвельт подпишет один из самых судьбоносных законов в истории США, "G.I. Bill". Не дожидаясь конца война или успеха американского вторжения в Европу, этот закон предоставлял ветеранам войны бесплатное высшее образование и другие льготы. После войны он даст толчок росту среднего класса и экономического процветания. Образование перестанет быть привилегией высшего класса: сыновья фермеров из глубинки и портных из Бруклина смогут благодаря своей службе на фронте совершить скачок из бедности в обеспеченность.

In the fall of 1947, colleges and universities around the country were poised to encounter the “greatest enrollment in the history of higher education,” or so reported the Times, noting an “unprecedented rush to campus.” Holding its breath, the nation was keen to learn how the presence of more than a million veterans might affect the nature of the American collegiate experience. Would G.I. Joe get along with Joe College?
Some contemporary observers focused on the dilution of the “rah-rah stuff” and its corresponding hijinks, noting how “it’s books, books all the time.” Others paid attention to something much more serious: the changing composition of the nation’s collegiate population. Before the war, the college-bound were drawn almost entirely from white, elite circles; what’s more, cleverly designed quota systems made sure to keep the Jews at bay. After the war, the potential pool of applicants was now more diverse-racially, ethnically, and religiously-than ever before. The number of Jewish undergraduates, especially at prestigious colleges such as Harvard and Yale, inched steadily upward. While long-entrenched selective admissions policies did not disappear overnight, the G.I. Bill “struck a blow at exclusion,” write historians Glenn C. Altschuler and Stuart M. Blumin in their richly textured study, The G.I. Bill: A New Deal for Veterans.
Not everyone thought that a good thing. One Harvard economist wondered if perhaps the G.I. Bill carried the “principle of democratization too far.” His colleague at Lehigh took things a step further, pointing out that many of the recent applicants to his institution would be better off as hod carriers rather than undergrads. Meanwhile, at Cornell, its president, Edmund Ezra Day, reassured an anxious alumnus that the presence of Jews on campus would not be so large as to “make it unpleasant for first-class gentile students.”
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/gi-bill-social-revolution



Событие, которое вдохновило принятие "G.I. Bill" - массовые протесты в 1932 ветеранов Первой мировой (так называемой "Bonus Army"), которые во время Великой депрессии требовали выплат от правительства. Президент Гувер разогнал протест, призвав на улицу Вашингтона армейские части, что подстегнуло падение популярности Гувера и победу Рузвельта на выборах. Не хотелось повторения подобных сцен после Второй мировой.

Angry, brooding over his dimming chances in the forthcoming election, Hoover persuaded himself, with the aid of Douglas MacArthur, his Caesar-like Army chief of staff that the BEF had been infiltrated by Communists and was planning to stage a revolt. This was balderdash. In fact, Waters had made a point of ferreting out any Reds or would be Reds from his “troops.” No matter. As far as Hoover and MacArthur were concerned, the Marchers were a horde of criminals and Communist subversives.
Finally, on the afternoon of Thursday, July 28, 1932, under prodding from the White House, the commissioners of the District of Columbia ordered the D.C. police to clear the smaller, disheveled site near the White House, where several hundred of the Marchers were squatting. The police moved in. The veterans, who were armed with nothing more than bricks, resisted. The squatters were joined by several hundred of their comrades from Bonus City. Bricks were thrown. Shots rangs out. When the brick dust and gun smoke cleared one veteran was dead, another was mortally wounded and a D.C. policeman also lay near death.
That is when the D.C. commissioners asked the White House for federal troops.
Unlike his jingoist successor, Hoover was hardly a militarist; if anything, he was the opposite. Just a month before, Hoover had startled delegates to the World Disarmament Conference in Geneva when he introduced a proposal which, if enacted, would have further reduced America’s already modest peacetime military forces by discarding submarines, tanks and military aviation.
That was then. Now, pacifist no longer, Hoover, fed up with the rabble outside his house, was happy to oblige the District commissioners’ request for reinforcements. The president passed the request to his Secretary of War, Patrick Hurley, who passed the request to strutting four-star General Douglas MacArthur, who also was happy to oblige.
In Hoover’s statement justifying sending in federal troops, which was carried on the front page of the New York Times and other major American newspapers, he asserted: “An examination of a large number of names discloses the fact that a considerable part of those remaining are not veterans; many are Communists and persons with criminal records.”
“Damned lie,” Waters raged. “Every man is a veteran. We examined the papers of everyone.” No matter: The then largely conservative American press trumpeted Hoover’s hollow, martial words. Waters’ protest was ignored.
To say that MacArthur was eager to do battle with the Bonus Army is to understate the case. For weeks his men at nearby Fort Myers had undergone anti-riot training for just such a confrontation.
Still, there was neither need nor call for MacArthur himself to actually be on the scene that afternoon, as his aide, Major Dwight Eisenhower, reportedly told him. “I told that son of a bitch that he shouldn’t go there,” Eisenhower later recounted. MacArthur’s subordinate, General Perry Miles, was technically in charge.
But there MacArthur was, in his shiny jodhpurs, as the bayonet-wielding men of the 12th Infantry Regiment, and the mounted troops of the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six M197 light tanks, marched up Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch.
The New York Times reported what happened next: “Amidst scenes reminiscent of the mopping up of a town in the World War, Federal troops drove the army of bonus marchers from the shanty town near Pennsylvania Avenue in which the veterans had been entrenched for months. Ordered to the scene by President Hoover detachments of infantry, cavalry, machine gun and tank crews laid down an effective tear-gas barrage which disorganized the bonus-seekers, and then set fire to the shacks and tents left behind.”
After that, Hoover, whose aides were keeping him updated on the fracas, ordered MacArthur to stop.
But MacArthur had a fuzzy appreciation of the principle of civilian control of the military. Excited by the whiff of battle (even though it hadn’t been much of a battle) and convinced that the shoddy Bonus Marchers constituted a real and present threat to the government, the general disobeyed Hoover’s direct order and instead ordered his troops to cross the Anacostia River to Bonus City. There, as newsreel cameras rolled, his men proceeded to forcibly evict the remaining veterans and their families and torch their tents. Fifty-five veterans were injured and 135 arrested in the confrontation that day.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/07/us-army-demonstrations-washington-305913



До войны случались и другие протесты. В 1927 в Нью-Йорке (Бронксе) два итальянских фашиста (сторонника Муссолини) были убиты в столкновении с антифашистами. В знак солидарности около тысячи человек из местного Куклуксклана устроили марш протеста в белых колпаках, который перешел в столкновение с полицией.

On Memorial Day 1927, brawls erupted in New York led by sympathizers of the Italian fascist movement and the Ku Klux Klan. In the fascist brawl, which took place in the Bronx, two Italian men were killed by anti-fascists.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/28/in-1927-donald-trumps-father-was-arrested-after-a-klan-riot-in-queens/

Среди арестованных участников марша был отец будущего президента.

Versions of this story emerged last September when Boing Boing dug up an old New York Times article from May of 1927 that listed a Fred Trump among those arrested at a Klan rally in Jamaica, Queens, when "1,000 Klansmen and 100 policemen staged a free-for-all," in the streets. Donald Trump's father would have been 21 in 1927 and had spent most of his life in Queens.
As Boing Boing pointed out, the Times account simply names Fred Trump as one of the seven individuals arrested at the rally, and it states that he was released without charges, leaving room for the possibility that he "may have been an innocent bystander, falsely named, or otherwise the victim of mistaken identity during or following a chaotic event."
A few weeks after Boing Boing unearthed that 88-year-old scoop, the New York Times asked Donald Trump about the possibility that his father had been arrested at a Klan event. The younger Trump denied it all, telling interviewer Jason Horowitz that "it never happened" four times. When Horowitz asked if his father had lived at 175-24 Devonshire Road-the address listed for the Fred Trump arrested at the 1927 Klan rally-Donald dismissed the claim as "totally false."
"We lived on Wareham," he told Horowitz. "The Devonshire-I know there is a road 'Devonshire,' but I don't think my father ever lived on Devonshire." Trump went on to deny everything else in the Times' account of the 1927 rally: "It shouldn't be written because it never happened, number one. And number two, there was nobody charged."
Biographical records confirm that the Trump family did live on Wareham Place in Queens in the 1940s, when Donald was a kid. But according to at least one archived newspaper clip, Fred Trump also lived at 175-24 Devonshire Road: A wedding announcement in the January 22, 1936 issue of the Long Island Daily Press,places Fred Trump at that address, and refers to his wife as "Mary MacLeod," which is Donald Trump's mother's maiden name.
Moreover, three additional newspaper clips unearthed by VICE contain separate accounts of Fred Trump's arrest at the May 1927 KKK rally in Queens, each of which seems to confirm the Times account of the events that day. While the clips don't confirm whether Fred Trump was actually a member of the Klan, they do suggest that the rally-and the subsequent arrests-did happen, and did involve Donald Trump's father, contrary to the candidate's denials. A fifth article mentions the seven arrestees without giving names, and claims that all of the individuals arrested-presumably including Trump-were wearing Klan attire.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvke38/all-the-evidence-we-could-find-about-fred-trumps-alleged-involvement-with-the-kkk



Но неверно было бы считать фашизм чисто европейским изобретением. Первой страной, основанной на принципах расового превосходства, были КША (Конфедеративные Штаты Америки). Вице-президент КША Александр Стивенс внятно объяснял расхождение с принципами Декларации независимости:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

Из послания Линкольна Конгрессу 4 июля 1861:

Our adversaries have adopted some declarations of independence in which, unlike the good old one penned by Jefferson, they omit the words "all men are created equal." Why? They have adopted a temporary national constitution, in the preamble of which, unlike our good old one, signed by Washington, they omit "We, the People," and substitute "We, the deputies of the sovereign and independent States." Why? Why this deliberate pressing out of view, the rights of men, and the authority of the people?
This is essentially a people's contest. On the side of the Union it is a struggle for maintaining in the world that form and substance of government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life. Yielding to partial and temporary departures from necessity, this is the leading object of the government for whose existence we contend.
Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it, our people have already settled,--the successful establishing and the successful administering of it. One still remains,--its successful maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. It is now for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carry an election can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots themselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can they take it by a war; teaching all the folly of being the beginners of a war.
http://historytools.davidjvoelker.com/sources/lincoln-messages.html



Вопрос о фундаментальных принципах вновь стал актуальным через 100 лет после гражданской войны. В 1959 Гарри Яффа публикует книгу "Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates" с интерпретацией дебатов между Линкольном и Дагласом, кандидатами на выборах в Сенат в 1858. Яффа станет одним из самых влиятельных мыслителей еврейского происхождения в политической истории США. Он - ученик Лео Страусса, другого большого мыслителя, который вырос в Германии и переехал в США в числе других беженцев от Гитлера, чтобы в итоге основать философскую школу в Университете Чикаго.

В 1964 бывший демократ Яффа, голосовавший в 1960 за Кеннеди, становится одним из ключевых советников Барри Голдуотера и по просьбе Голдуотера пишет для него речь для выступления на республиканском съезде. Речь запомнилась защитой политического экстремизма ("I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.") Но в ней затрагивались и другие темы.

Две главные идеи, которые Яффа подарил консерваторам:

1. Политика должна быть не просто выражением интересов большинства, а защитой фундаментальных принципов морали. Моральные основы равенства людей в Декларации независимости ("all men are created equal") Яффа выводит из монотеистической религии: если все люди - рабы божьи, то никто из них не может быть рабом другого человека.

2. Интерпретируя борьбу Линкольна против рабства как утверждение морального принципа в политике, и выстраивая прямую линию от Джефферсона к Линкольну, Яффа указывает консерваторам на республиканскую партию, как их естественный дом. После недовольства, которое в консервативном движении вызывал Эйзенхауэр, изначально это было неочевидно, и делались попытки найти третью партию. Идеи Яффы вдохновили Голдуотера на то, чтобы перехватить контроль в республиканской партии и сдвинуть руководтсво от традиционных либералов с восточного берега к югозападным консерваторам-антикоммунистам вроде него и Рейгана.

Отсылка к Линкольну в речи Голдуотера, написанной Яффой:

This is a party, this Republican Party, a Party for free men, not for blind followers, and not for conformists.
Back in 1858 Abraham Lincoln said this of the Republican party - and I quote him, because he probably could have said it during the last week or so: "It was composed of strained, discordant, and even hostile elements" in 1858. Yet all of these elements agreed on one paramount objective: To arrest the progress of slavery, and place it in the course of ultimate extinction.
Today, as then, but more urgently and more broadly than then, the task of preserving and enlarging freedom at home and safeguarding it from the forces of tyranny abroad is great enough to challenge all our resources and to require all our strength.



По отношению к Линкольну и принципу равенства прав произошел предсказуемый раскол между неоконами и палеоконами. В 1975 Яффа публикует развернутую статью "Equality as a Conservative Principle".

The idea of Equality, as expressed in the Declaration, is the key to the morality of "the laws of nature and of nature's God." It is this natural law which the Constitution-and the regime of which the Constitution is a feature-is designed to implement. The abandonment of the idea of Equality is perforce an abandonment of that morality and that constitutionalism. It is perforce an abandonment of the "ought" for the "is." It would be an abandonment of that higher law tradition which is the heart of that civility-and that Conservatism which judges men and nations by permanent standards. As we propose to demonstrate, the commitment to Equality in the American political tradition is synonymous with the commitment to those permanent standards. Whoever rejects the one, of necessity rejects the other, and in that rejection opens the way to the relativism and historicism that is the theoretical ground of modem totalitarian regimes.
https://contemporarythinkers.org/harry-jaffa/essay/equality-as-a-conservative-principle/

С этой статьей напрямую спорит Мелвин Брэдфорд, профессор из Далласа, в статье "The Heresy of Equality: Bradford Replies to Jaffa". Брэдфорд придерживается традиции южных расистов - защитников Конфедерации и активно недолюбливает Линкольна. Он изобличает Яффу в попытках протащить либерализм. В представлении Брэдфорда отцы-основатели США были не революционерами, а консервативными английскими джентльменами из родственного ему генофонда.

Equality, with the capital “E”-is the antonym of every legitimate conservative principle. Contrary to most Liberals, new and old, it is nothing less than sophistry to distinguish between equality of opportunity (equal starts in the “race of life”) and equality of condition (equal results). For only those who are equal can take equal advantage of a given circumstance. And there is no man equal to any other, except perhaps in the special, and politically untranslatable, understanding of the Deity. Not intellectually or physically or economically or even morally. Not equal! Such is, of course, the genuinely self-evident proposition. Its truth finds a verification in our bones and is demonstrated in the unselfconscious acts of our everyday lives: vital proof, regardless of our private political persuasion. <...>
Concerning equality Professor Jaffa and I disagree profoundly; disagree even though we both denominate ourselves conservative. Yet this distinction does not finally exhaust or explain our differences. For Jaffa’s opening remarks indicate that his conservatism is of a relatively recent variety and is, in substance, the Old Liberalism hidden under a Union battle flag. To the contrary I maintain that if conservatism has any identity whatsoever beyond mere recalcitrance and rationalized self-interest, that identity must incorporate the “funded wisdom of the ages” as that deposition comes down through a particular national experience. Despite modifications within the prescription of a continuum of political life, only a relativist or historicist could argue that American conservatism should be an utterly unique phenomenon, without antecedents which predate 1776 and unconnected with the mainstream of English and European thought and practice known to our forefathers in colonial times.
https://www.unz.com/print/ModernAge-1976q1-00062



После победы в 1980 Рейган назначает Брэдфорда, который поддерживал его на выборах, главой NEH (National Endowment for the Humanities), но вынужден отозвать номинацию под давлением неоконов. В защиту Брэдфорда вступается все расистско-антисемитское крыло партии, происходит раскол.

Sixteen Republican senators sent a letter to President Reagan yesterday supporting Melvin E. Bradford, a longtime Reagan supporter and strongly conservative Republican, for the chairmanship of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
"Dr. Bradford's credentials as a scholar are impeccable," the letter states. "He is the author of over 130 essays as well as three books." The senators also note, "Dr. Bradford worked long and hard for your election in both 1976 and 1980. As a former conservative Democrat, he was a key figure in the Texas Republican effort to bring conservative Democrats into the Republican column."
The letter, which bears the heading of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, was characterized by one White House staffer familiar with the campaign for the NEH chairmanship as "a last-ditch effort on the part of Bradford supporters."
"Maybe it is," said Jerry Woodruff, an aide to Sen. John East (R-N.C.), one of Bradford's staunchest supporters and a signer of the letter. "The members who signed the letter definitely want the president to know how they feel." The Senate must confirm the NEH appointment.
William Bennett, director of the National Humanities Center in Durham, N.C., is thought to be the other finalist for the NEH post. However, the two North Carolina senators are supporting Bradford, a Texan and an English professor at the University of Dallas.
Other signatories of the letter of support include Jesse Helms (N.C.), John Tower(Texas), Strom Thurmond (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Jeremiah Denton (Ala.), Dan Quayle (Ind.) and James McClure (Idaho).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1981/10/20/bradfords-boosters/2c631a1b-96f2-4e9b-aa84-1ebdf0fc62bd/

Яффа продолжал спорить с Брэдфордом, но не возражал против его назначения. Свои расхождения он объяснял просто.

“A lot of what Bradford says about Lincoln is simply sour grapes from a disappointed Confederate,” says Harry Jaffa, a professor emeritus of political philosophy at Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate School in California. “Bradford would never come right out and defend slavery. You can’t do that these days. Instead of defending slavery, he attacks Lincoln.” The author of Crisis of a House Divided and other books, Jaffa has debated and written numerous responses to Bradford’s attacks on Lincoln. Though Jaffa is Bradford’s longtime nemesis, there is a grudging friendship in their relations. Jaffa supported Bradford in the NEH fight.
I asked Jaffa why he thought Bradford was so vehement about Lincoln. He laughed and said, “Lincoln stole Mel Bradford’s great-grandfather’s slaves.”
https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/mr-right/

Но дело было, естественно, не только в рабах прапрадедушки Брэдфорда, но и в коренной идеологии. Яффу критиковали и другие консервативные идеологи - к примеру, Фрэнк Мейер, один из основателей журнала National Review из числа бывших коммунистов и евреев.

Frank Meyer's objection to an an article from Harry Jaffa in 1966 -- that slavery was regrettable, but that "freedom and equality are opposites" -- goes a long way to explaining why the modern right really, REALLY hates the 1619 Project. pic.twitter.com/jXlyNR6Sq8
- David Walsh (@DavidAstinWalsh) August 19, 2019

Яффа прожил до 96 лет, сохраняя ясность рассудка, и умер в 2015. Одна из его последних статей, "The Central Idea", была написана в 2006 по поводу попыток построения демократии в Ираке, и в очередной раз вкратце объясняла его политическую философию.

The central idea of the American Founding-and indeed of constitutional government and the rule of law-was the equality of mankind. This thought is central to all of Lincoln’s speeches and writings, from 1854 until his election as president in 1860. It is immortalized in the Gettysburg Address.
The equality of mankind is best understood in light of a two-fold inequality. The first is the inequality of mankind and of the subhuman classes of living beings that comprise the order of nature. Dogs and horses, for example, are naturally subservient to human beings. But no human being is natural subservient to another human being. No human being has a right to rule another without the other’s consent. The second is the inequality of man and God. As God’s creatures, we owe unconditional obedience to His will. By that very fact however we do not owe such obedience to anyone else. Legitimate political authority-the right of one human being to require obedience of another human being-arises only from consent. <...>
According to many of our political and intellectual elites, both liberal and conservative, the minority in a democracy enjoys only such rights as the majority chooses to bestow upon them. The Bill of Rights in the American Constitution-and similar bills in state Constitutions-are regarded as gifts from the majority to the minority. But the American Constitution, and the state constitutions subordinate to it have, at one time or another, sanctioned both slavery and Jim Crow, by which the bills of rights applied to white Americans were denied to black Americans. But according to the elites, it is not undemocratic for the minority to lose. From this perspective, both slavery and Jim Crow were exercises of democratic majority rule. This is precisely the view of democracy by the Sunnis in Iraq, and is the reason they are fighting the United States.
Unless we as a political community can by reasoned discourse re-establish in our own minds the authority of the constitutionalism of the Founding Fathers and of Lincoln, of government devoted to securing the God-given equal rights of every individual human being, we will remain ill equipped to bring the fruits of freedom to others.
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/the-central-idea/

Провал иракского проекта сигнализировал закат неоконов и победу противоположного крыла, перехватившего инициативу в республиканской партии, а затем и пост президента.



Стив Бэннон, представитель победившего крыла, верит в исторические циклы, которые приносят американцам катастрофу каждые 80 лет: 1780, 1860, 1940, 2020... Как и три предыдущих, нынешняя катастрофа выносит на поверхность принцип равенстве прав, как фундамент американского демократического эксперимента, и борьбу с отрицанием этого принципа. Другими словами, фашизмом.

The United States is a nation founded on both an ideal and a lie. Our Declaration of Independence, approved on July 4, 1776, proclaims that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” did not apply to fully one-fifth of the country. Yet despite being violently denied the freedom and justice promised to all, black Americans believed fervently in the American creed. Through centuries of black resistance and protest, we have helped the country live up to its founding ideals. And not only for ourselves - black rights struggles paved the way for every other rights struggle, including women’s and gay rights, immigrant and disability rights.
Without the idealistic, strenuous and patriotic efforts of black Americans, our democracy today would most likely look very different - it might not be a democracy at all.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/black-history-american-democracy.html

Click to view