As we enter the Post-Peak COVID-19 period and legal restrictions are eased there are going to be folks that make different decisions about what to do. Ask Amyhad two budding fascists today. We are sure that the budding fascists are not just limited to the folks that want to continue to lock themselves down. We suggest Troy Deeney as a role model. Troy is the captain of Watford in the English Premier League. He is not coming back to training with his teammates. He didn’t rail against anyone he just explained why:
“We’re due back in this week. I’ve said I’m not going in. It’s nothing to do with financial gain,” Deeney said. “When I go into full detail about my personal situation, everyone here will go ‘no problem.’ My son is five months and he’s had breathing difficulties. I don’t want to come home and put him in more danger. You’ve got to drive in in your own kit, you can’t have showers, then drive back in the same dirty kit you’ve got. If I’m putting my clothing in with my son’s or my missus’ it’s more likely to be in the house.”
We expect everyone agrees with Troy and says “No problem!” We hope that folks who choose to engage in more activities get the same respect. As often happens, Kevin D. Williamson at NRO explains the problem. He starts out theLies We Live Bywith:
“As I said from day one, I’m not going to choose between public health and economic activity.” So insists Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York.
That is a lie, of course.
In the Post-Peak Covid-19 period there will be trade offs. It will be best that individuals make most of those decisions. Some will want to wipe doorknobs in the apartment building while others will have a party. Staying in lockdown might be to protect a family member like Troy or they might just be risk adverse. A faculty member we knew use to spray the student seat in his office with Lysol after each student left. Don’t let you inner fascist flag fly whether you are staying in lockdown or embracing your freedom. Be like Troy.
Robert Tombs at Unherd has a nice piece celebrating the Tommies and their contribution to the allied victory on D-Day and in WWII. We agree when Robert says:
What is the reality? Britain, and of course the Empire, continued to make immense economic and military efforts throughout the war: an unparalleled level of civilian mobilization, as well as more than five million in the armed forces by 1945 serving from Denmark to China.
Recent historical analysis asserts that the Second World War was fundamentally won in the air and at sea, where Britain played a leading, and perhaps predominant, role from 1939 to 1945.
What we don’t agree is what was the likely alternative if D-Day failed. Robert says that if D-Day had failed then:
The Wehrmacht would have been able to reinforce the Eastern Front, and perhaps made Stalin contemplate (not for the first time) a separate peace, leaving the Nazis dominant in Europe. The Holocaust was still extending its merciless grip to the surviving Jewish populations of Hungary, France, Holland, and Italy. The world would have faced an indefinite prolongation of a global war in which thousands were dying daily. To end the agony, the first atom bombs would probably have been dropped on Germany.
We agree on the Holocaust as the Soviets were no help in stopping that. But the rest seems highly unlikely. In June 1944 the Soviets were advancing on Germany like Germany did in the other direction in 1941 [from Laurence Rees, War Of The Century: When Hitler Fought Stalin]. The Stalin and the Soviets had every reason to continue their advance and no reason to stop. And, as Robert describes, British [and American] bombing was having an enormous impact on Germany’s ability to fight the Soviets. Nazi domination of Europe was no longer possible. The issue was Soviet domination or a balance between the Soviets and other allies. There are lots of possibilities but the real nightmare scenario of a failed D-Day 75 years ago is that the Iron Curtain would reach to the British Channel.
Conor Boyle’s discussion of fascism at The Conversation Room got us thinking that it might be worthwhile to discuss what is fascism. Do read all of Conor and the comments. First, Conor is right that:
Today calling someone a “fascist” is more an insulting slur than a description of one’s political ideology.
Conor’s discussion emphasizes the nationalist part of fascism. We like his insight that there can be different degrees of nationalism and that extreme forms cause problems. We are 100% on his side in the John Lennon discussion. We like his discussion and reference on modern China.
Wikipedia references the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary so it would be redundant to use both. Here is what they said for fascism:
Fascism () is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,
That sounds right to us. We think Conor would agree that they picked an excellent word in ultranationalism. We believe that Conor misses the authoritarian part and particularly the strong regimentation of the economy. We might be guilty of not emphasizing the ultranationalist part of it. Yes, the Antifa are ironically named since they work for forcible suppression of the opposition but we have a hard time categorizing them as ultra-nationalists. Capitalism might not be the opposite of fascism but it is close. As fascism has become an epithet it is a good word to avoid.