The pond has had a hard time getting its head into gear, what with
the chance to roam the full to overflowing intertubes hunting snarks, or
occasional loons ... free of the reptiles and able to go where the snark takes it ...
The pond usually starts off with the Daily Beast's cheat sheet, which yesterday led with this ...
That story started at the BBC here ... all that reptile anguish over a bullshit artist.
The pond realises that its Sunday meditations are supposed to be solemn, but dammit, there's so much fun out there, as per this yarn at the Graudian ...
And then there came news in the Huff Post of Conway's new tome ... and a predictable response ...
And then over at Crooks and Liars, via CNN, the pond noted that the Gretchen had tried to embark on a rehabilitation campaign ...
..."Now House Republicans are parodying Tucker Carlson's pro-Russian stance. Why do you think Tucker does this? And why do the Murdochs allow it? Do they not even care, or is it just about money and ratings, do you think?" Acosta asked Carlson.
"Ratings, I think first and foremost. But this is the result of fake news," Carlson said.
"We're seeing not only the fallout from fake news during the Trump era but what happened with the insurrection on Hanuary 6th. Now it's moving into other areas, not just news. Now it's hitting science with vaccines. and now it's into cold war politics. I mean, the idea that we would be talking about whether or not we should support Ukraine or Russia, there wouldn't be a Republican on the planet that five years ago would have said they would have supported Russia over Ukraine. But this is where we are now. Conservative television news is certainly not the conservative news that was out there even just five years ago."
"Yeah. It's stunning. and since the insurrection, you mentioned that we've learned some big names over at Fox were acting almost as advisers to Trump, like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. And then their texts came out where, you know, it sort of suggests they knew there was a problem inside the Trump White House and that problem being the president at the time. You worked at Fox. Does this surprise you that Fox anchors would be advising a president, advising a White House?"
"Not necessarily. I'm not sure that it doesn't happen on the other side as well, depending on who happens to be in the office," she said.
"But I think the bigger story coming out of that is how disingenuous it was to be sending those texts of warning while then going on the air to the American people and doing a complete injustice and disservice by saying something completely opposite and ginning up this whole reaction that it was just fine and patriotic for people to be there on January 6th.
"You know, slowly but surely this has morphed into eradicating any other point of view since the Trump era that is not just opinion. It's gone from an opinion, which was fine, to completely devolving into non-fact-based conspiracy theories and outright dangerous rhetoric, in my mind. And I think it's a complete disservice to our country."
Well, d'oh, but the pond has a memory and can remember when Gretchen was enraged by Festivus as part of that war on Xmas ... as per CBC ...
Gretchen ... Megyn ... waiter, pass the bucket.
But now for the serious side.
The pond would like to explain why it dips into The Bulwark now and then, on a pretty regular basis ...
It's written by reformed Republicans or conservative conservatives, not Trumpians, and it offers many delights. Having helped bury the bodies, they know where the bodies are, and they love to dig out the corpses for the pleasure of smelling rotten GOP flesh ...
Tim Miller,, for example, might think he has a god-given right to control women's bodies - the pond never said they were completely reformed - but he can deliver an epic smackdown, as in What happens when a globalist cuck tries to go full maga ...
Spoiler alert, it's about an aspiring MAGA cuck by the name of Dave McCormick, and this is how it ended ...
But there was an even better read, exploring why Cucker Tarlson, the far right, and other odd bods were infatuated with authoritarian figures ...
The piece goes on far too long for the pond to attempt a summary here ... which is why you're better off heading
here ...
So far as Franco goes, one snippet will give the flavour ...
And so to the local flavour ...
This weekend Polonius, an alleged republican, is destructively tearing down republicanism, because of his deep love of the royals and their inability to sweat ...
But back in the day, whenever Franco was mentioned Polonius would develop a case of the screaming heebie jeebies ..
You see, all the fundamentalist tykes had a soft spot for Franco, and for Mussolini too ...
Jessica Bell explored the fixation in The Kingdom of God versus the Kingdom of Man: BA Santamaria and the origins of the movement.
Now you'll have to head off to the original for the footnotes, but this gives a flavour ...
Italy and Mussolini
“Mussolini has declared that the salvation of the world lies in the totalitarian state… He was wrong. It lies in totalitarian Catholicism. That means integral Catholicism. It means that your whole life and personality must be developed in a Catholic way.”
– BA Santamaria[24]
In the 1920s and early ‘30s, support for the Mussolini regime was commonplace and widespread among the Italian community in Australia – not out of any direct commitment to fascism as a regime and policyper se, but as an expression of general patriotism and of wanting to maintain interest and links with the goings-on of the old country. Wearing a black shirt at family and social events, for example, was an act of unspecific, ambiguous national pride (of “Italianita”), of being culturally Italian, not of holding a political ideology.[25]
Looking from the other side of the world, relying on only newspaper reports and family letters, it appeared that Mussolini had heroically brought stable, strong and reliable government back to a country that had so desperately needed it. Following the Great War, which had brought to Italy such death and devastation and plenty of poverty and chaos, “suddenly, after eleven governments that couldn’t succeed, a government came to power that … nevertheless did restore a … high degree of … political and social order for a number of years.”[26] Mussolini had seemingly saved Italy from anarchic self-destruction, and for doing this Italians across the world were profoundly grateful. At long last, being of Italian heritage could be considered a source of pride, joy and honour, rather than the hitherto object of embarrassment and ridicule.
Young Santamaria, understandably heavily influenced by his family and the wider Italian diaspora, eager to obtain some kind of Italian national identity and cultural perspective, joined in on this symphony of Mussolini adoration masked as impartial patriotism. As he later recalled, “I tended to share my father’s views since I was proud to be of Italian background and deeply resented the constant attacks on Italy and things Italian.”[27] He claimed that he grew up in an environment where “to be Italian was to be fascist.”[28]
From his teenage years onto early adulthood, Santamaria came to admire Mussolini personally (he was a remarkable “financier, statesman and idealist”[29]). He was also heartily intrigued, stirred and stimulated by many of the policies and much of the worldview of fascism. He proclaimed that parliamentary liberal democracy, which had caused both the Great War and the Great Depression, was undeniably a failure as a political system. The genius of fascism, he argued, was that it sought to heavily regulate and moderate – and thereby avoid the extreme excesses of – both free economic competition and restrictive state power. Mussolini had brought “under his control the industrial and scientific forces” of Italy and constrained “business magnates and financial mountebanks.”[30] “Thus the fascist way out of the present economic crisis was a combination of private enterprise and state control.”[31]
The problem with universal suffrage, as he saw it, was that it “does not result in the election of either the best or the wisest.”[32] By Santamaria’s judgement, “[T]here is no intrinsic virtue in political democracy which places it on a plane above more authoritarian forms of government.”[33] Conversely, “There was something holy in the idea of authority.”[34] He held up as an ideal paragon for society a kind of benevolent authoritarianism that is similar to how a family household is run: “the husband is head of the household in fact as well as in word”; the children are provided for and protected so long as they follow their father’s orders; ergo, strict obedience and good, stable governance go hand in glove; “this authoritarianism” would create “a healthy phenomenon.”[35] Seeing as how “Art, science and learning…had always flourished most under royal, imperial or dictatorial rules”, Santamaria theorised that authoritarianism was perhaps “the best form of government”, “the most viable…to which modern man could aspire.”[36]
Santamaria’s affections for Mussolini were to rapidly diminish just a short time later, in 1936. This change was not due to any of the domestic policies of fascism in Italy or of Santamaria outgrowing its ideas and values and worldview – but rather because of the brutal Italian invasion and occupation of Abyssinia. This was a step beyond where Santamaria was willing to go, and from that moment his worship for Mussolini devolved into a child-like warm but unspecific nostalgia.
The Spanish Civil War
Following the outbreak of the civil war in Spain in mid-1936, Catholic community and episcopal leaders sought to employ it for their own political purposes. Ignoring the major bulk of available information coming from international news reports, which depicted the civil war as being more complicated and nuanced and difficult to understand, they instead narrowed their attention almost exclusively on reports of anti-Catholic terrorism occurring in Republican-controlled areas: far left mobs allegedly prowling the streets, murdering Catholics (both laymen and clergymen), and razing churches and other holy buildings. The Catholic leaders concentrated on the select details that described Catholic suffering so transparently; demarcating Spanish Catholics as a uniquely oppressed, terrorised people, and the far left as murderous, depraved ruffians:
Images of death and destruction committed by ‘savages and Communists’ were contrasted with Franco’s crusade to restore the position of the Church and protect the interests of Spanish workers. A vast propaganda effort was unleashed by the Catholic press to galvanise working-class Catholic opinion firmly against the Republican struggle…
The Australian Catholic community was fed a diet that depicted the conflict in terms of a battle between good and evil. Franco was God’s warrior sent to defend Catholic Spain. All who opposed this view were enemies, Communists, Freemasons, Liberals, Protestants.[48]
The Campion Society, by now led by Santamaria, joined in on this shrill sensationalistic panic campaign. It proclaimed that a crusade was being waged by the Spanish far left to eradicate Catholicism from Spain: driven by a vindictive and depraved atheism, the Republican movement had declared war on God and was seeking to drown it in blood. The Campions took the position that protecting the Catholic Church held foremost priority above all other factors. While they did not idolise or identify with Franco personally (they were certainly not unaware that he was a vicious despot), they were however broadly sympathetic with the Nationalist rebels and their mission to overthrow the Republic. In this perilous life-or-death struggle for the future of Spain, they asserted that a victory for the Republicans would entail the creation not of a liberal democracy but a Soviet colony with Stalinist policies and impulses: this regime would immediately carry forth the complete extermination of Catholicism in practice and thought across Spain. A catastrophic tragedy like that was something, however, that wouldn’t and couldn’t possibly happen if Franco won the civil war – because the Spanish Catholic Church was actively aiding and supporting him. From that perspective, Australian Catholic commentators and newspapers advocated for a “lesser evil” policy of qualified support for Franco. According to Santamaria’s judgement,
a Nationalist victory over the Republicans was…the least disagreeable outcome of the available options… [I]t mattered little that General Franco was a destroyer of elected governments and a despot, or that he had sought, and received, support from Hitler and Mussolini. During the Spanish Civil War, the Catholic Church was under attack, and Santamaria was going to defend Christ the King.[49]
However, whenever the Campions tried to publicly advocate for this perspective, they were confronted with “an almost unbroken wall of hostile opinion” from the Australian thinking and activist milieus. Santamaria put this down to the “deep cultural roots in the English Reformation, the Spanish Armada, the Whig interpretation of history, and the left-liberal ethos dominant in Anglo-Saxon communities from the early years of the twentieth century.”[50] The Australian pro-Republican left embodied, he continues,
the confused complex of liberal-Marxist ideas which have been dominant in the West since the days of the French Enlightenment, with their implicit belief in the perfectability of man and society on this earth, if only the Left were given a free hand with the social and political engineering. What we [pro-Nationalists] represented was a less Utopian view of man, with a profound belief in the Fall and in Original Sin; imposing the necessity of the search for justice, but knowing that the quest for human perfectability on earth was ultimately unrealizable and would be used to justify the most appalling tyrannies. The perfection of man, if it could be achieved, was not for this life, and, as far as concerned the next, it depended on the maintenance of the intimate link with God, which was what the religious freedom denied in Republican Spain was about.[51]
The Spanish Civil War was the watershed moment for Santamaria’s political development and identity. Events in Spain had forecast that “in the years immediately ahead all established beliefs would be called into question and that in many countries Christianity would be destroyed by Communist persecution.”[52] This necessitated Santamaria becoming an anti-Communist activist: “concentrat[ing] all [his] physical and intellectual energies on the Communist problem.”[53] He writes,
After the Spanish debate…everything was changed. Beforehand, the Campion experience was predominantly an adventure of the mind. It was Spain which imported passion into the enterprise. From it originated the belief that so long as the Soviet Union existed, not only religion, but the liberal culture of the West, reflected in its free political institutions, was in daily jeopardy; and that if the battle was not won within the institutions of individual nations, the world would one day face a major conflagration.[54]
But how does Polonius get into this story, apart from footnotes in Bell's piece?
Well the lad has been eternally vigilant, and that infatuation with Franco has been disputed by him at every turn, which is to say when you keep seeing smoke, be assured somewhere there's a Polonial fire.
The harmless Paul Collins wrote a piece for Eureka Street...
Integralism defines Catholicism in a particularly narrow, aggressive, 'boots and all' way, and argues that Catholic action involves influencing and if possible controlling state policy. Thus Catholics are obliged to do all in their power to ensure that all legislation is in keeping with church doctrine.
As Santamaria said in 1948: 'the most important objective of Christians ... [is that they] should be capable of formulating or willing to follow a distinctively Christian policy on every social and public issue.'
But what is a 'distinctively Christian' (for 'Christian' read 'Catholic') policy? For Santamaria this was not a problem. He identified Catholicism with his own vision of faith. He refused to recognise that there were other equally sincere Catholics who had other theological ideas about the relationship of the church to the world and the state, people like Archbishop Justin Simonds, Dr Max Charlesworth, the YCW and the Catholic Worker group, who were influenced by the French philosopher Jacques Maritain and the Belgian Cardinal Joseph Cardijn.
Integralism has much in common with Italian Fascism, Franco's Spain or Salazar's Portugal. It is also at odds with the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Freedom: 'Freedom means that all are to be immune from coercion ... in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs.'
It is a real threat to democracy and to the freedom that Catholics have to make their own decisions on a whole range of issues, particularly political.
Nowadays Santamaria is praised for being an agrarian socialist and anti-capitalist. While this has made him popular with some aging secular leftists, they forget that these movements are romantic, backward-looking, authoritarian and linked with high immigration rates and the mantra 'populate or perish' with its racist overtones.
So what does this have to do with Abbott? I think it would be worrying if this kind of integralist Catholicism infected contemporary public life. It has no place in a pluralist, democratic state. It is also the manifestation of the kind of Catholicism that was abandoned by serious, mainstream Catholics five decades ago.
Immediately Polonius was on the case ... with a reply to Eureka Street, inter alia ... (look, it goes on at great length as Polonius valiantly defends Santa and the onion muncher, this will do for flavouring ...)
Collins' claim that 'integralism has much in common with Italian Fascism, Franco's Spain or Salazar's Portugal' is a cheap shot. First, Collins identifies Santamaria with integralism. Then he links integralism with Italian Fascism. Quite a debating trick, when you think about it.
Santamaria, like the rest of us, had many faults. But support for Italian Fascism was not one of them — and Collins has not supplied any evidence to the contrary.
Collins links Santamaria's support for immigration to 'the mantra "populate or perish" with its racist overtones'.
Another cheap shot. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the view that Santamaria was in any sense racist. Indeed Santamaria and his colleagues were ahead of both the Labor and Liberal parties in advocating the abolition of the White Australia Policy.
Collins opines that 'Abbott is wrong to suggest that [integralism] has made Australian Catholicism "more intellectual"'. I am not aware that Abbott has ever commented on integralism — and Collins does not quote any sources in support of his implied assertion. This is mere verballing.
Nonsense of course, but Santamaria's affection for fascists of the home town Italian kind and Franco has been well-established, because a fascist authoritarian figure who got on with the pope of the day was way better than filthy commie swine ... you could do a deal with them ... and maybe regret it later when things went pear-shaped ...
Polonius's paranoia turned up again in the lizard Oz, outside the paywall because it was so long ago. The pond can't believe it's quoting Adams (no link, the pond never links to the reptiles, but it's easily googled) ...
We’ve been a mutual admonishment society for almost 30 years — yet there he is. Sitting in my studio. Small as life. Gerard Henderson! About to discuss his bio of the wondrously enchristianed RC warrior Bob Santamaria. The atmosphere’s tense — both of us supping with long spoons. And even before he begins talking about Santa (or was Gerard channelling him?) we’d disagreed about what had brought us together. Gerard insisted we’d invited him and that he’d accepted “out of politeness” whereas my understanding was that he’d made the overtures. Both versions are equally improbable.
Santamaria’s back in the news. As well as being hero and mentor to a younger Gerard he remains an inspiration to Tony Abbott, while journalist Greg Sheridan is also sharing memories. I have my own. Apart from my friendship with his brilliant daughter Cathy, I had a rapprochement with her dad in 1996. After a lifetime of detesting the anti-communist zealot who’d denied Labor government for decades, we talked at length about life, death and politics on my little wireless program.
Confessing a pubescent infatuation with the Soviets — ended by Khrushchev’s denunciations of Stalin — I’d asked Santa to justify his support for Mussolini in the 1930s. Now echoing Santa’s excuses, Gerard also defends his more tenacious regard for General Franco. Santamaria, friend of fascism? Gerard will have none of it. “In any case, Franco was not a fascist.” When I raise an audible eyebrow — a reference to Guernica — Gerard insists that the consensus of historians is that Franco and fascism were barely on speaking terms.
April 26, 1937. As memorialised by Picasso in the most famous painting of the 20th century, the Basque town of Guernica was demolished — the first time in history a defenceless civilian population was bombed by a modern air force. The planes were sent by Hitler and Mussolini — at the request of Franco. For the Luftwaffe, a chance to test bombing techniques. For Franco, part of his “civil” war, backed by local fascists, that would end in 500,000 deaths.
From then until 1975, Franco would run what he proudly described as a totalitarian state, with the help of Opus Dei. (I was in Madrid at the time of his death — November 20, days after Kerr’s coup). As many as 400,000 of his political enemies died in that period as a result of forced labour and executions, including many in 190 concentration camps. Franco had declared himself Caudillo de España, a title equivalent to the Führer or Il Duce.
Gerard made much of Franco declaring Spain “neutral” during World War II. (What kind of Fascist would do that?) The truth is that, after a meeting in France, Hitler refused to accept Franco’s terms for full membership of the Axis — which included Spanish control of French North Africa. Another problem was a profoundly different view of Catholicism. Nonetheless Spain’s “Blue Division” would help Hitler in his war on the Soviets while Franco offered Hitler naval facilities for warships and U-boats. Franco also supplied Himmler with a list of 6000 Jews for the Final Solution, though he did not hand them over. (It should be acknowledged that some Spanish embassies in Europe provided some Jews with diplomatic protection.) And he considered blocking Allied access to the Mediterranean by seizing Gibraltar. What kind of neutral would to that?
Franco’s influence lived on in other totalitarian thugs — one who attended his funeral was his biggest fan, General Pinochet.
I’ll concede that Santa wasn’t alone in his support for Franco. So for a while was Churchill. And the western democracies kissed and made up during the Cold War, with Eisenhower visiting the Caudillo de España in 1953.
Franco a fascist? Never.
Now all this has been building to a point, where those who miss prattling Polonius can get a whiff of him at his finest ...
These have been culled from his media rants, and again no hot links, because ... though the pond does provide a clue for those in search of anally retentive treats ...
Polonius made the mistake of sniffing about Franco's grave on The Insiders, back when he was allowed on the show, and it perhaps added to the perpetual air of sacred grievance he has about the ABC ...
https://thesydneyinstitute.com.au/blog/issue-444/
J.M. AND GERARD HENDERSON re THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR (1936-1939) AND ALL THAT
During his occasional appearances on ABC TV’s Insiders (in 2018 they amounted to six in total), at the end of the program Gerard Henderson usually makes a comment or observation about an international matter – not a national issue. Last Sunday, he commented on the continuing prevalence in contemporary Spain of the Spanish Civil War of eight decades ago. This upset a certain J.M. Now read on – the deletion relates to another topic unrelated to Spain.
JM to Gerard Henderson – 17 March 2019
Today you mentioned on the Insiders some drivel about Franco. What you did not mention is that this murdering criminal asked Hitler and Mussolini to bomb the defenceless town of Guernica. Nor that this beast gave Himmler a list of around 6000 Jews, the fact they were never handed to the Nazis thugs is irrelevant, the intent was clear.
Santamaria supported Franco, Santamaria himself managed to avoid military service. Who attends Francos funeral? The butcher Pinochet….
JM
Gerard Henderson to JM – 18 March 2019
Mr M
I refer to your email concerning my brief concluding comments on Insiders last Sunday – which you describe as “drivel”. For the record, this is all I had to say – it took a mere 16 seconds:
Gerard Henderson: In Spain, the Socialist government has decided to dig up the body of General Franco and reinter it somewhere else or somewhere in Madrid. As you know, he was the man who initiated the Spanish Civil War of the early 1930s. And I noted that today the supporters of independence for Catalonia are marching in the streets of Madrid. It just demonstrates that, 80 years after these events, these issues [relating to the Spanish Civil War] are still rife in Spain.
My responses to your (abusive and emotive) email are as follows:
As you know, at the end of Insiders all panellists are asked by the presenter to make a brief comment or observation. I always try and say something of international – not national – significance.
On Sunday, I made the observation about events on contemporary Spain concerning the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939. Namely, that Spain’s Socialist government has decided to move General Franco’s grave from what’s called the Valley of the Fallen to Madrid. And that supporters of independence for Catalonia were marching in the streets of Madrid on the weekend. The point was that the Spanish Civil War of eight decades ago still has relevance in Spain today.
I said nothing positive or negative about Franco – and I did state that he was the person who initiated the Spanish Civil War. In other words, your objection is to my statement of undisputed fact. I can only assume that you want comment on the Spanish Civil War censored on the taxpayer funded public broadcaster. Somewhat intolerant, don’t you think?
Since I did not say anything about what Franco and his Nationalists did – there was no reason to talk about Franco’s reliance on Nazi Germany and fascist Italy during the Spanish Civil war. I also did not talk about the atrocities committed on the Republican side by, among others, communists or mention the fact that the Republican government was supported by the Soviet Union. You are probably aware that the communists even attacked the anarchists (as George Orwell documented in his book Homage to Catalonia) in addition to the Nationalists.
For all Franco’s many faults – and for whatever reason – Spain remained neutral during the Second World War of 1939-1945. Also, as you acknowledge reluctantly, Franco’s Nationalist dictatorship did not move against the Spanish Jews. European Jews circa 1940 were much safer in Franco’s Spain than in Petain’s France (which collaborated with the Nazis in sending French Jews to the death camps in Eastern Europe).
In August 1939, the Nazi-Soviet (or Hitler-Stalin) Pact was signed. Between August 1939 and June 1941 (when Germany declared war on the Soviet Union), members of the Communist Party worldwide – including in Australia – opposed the Allied war effort and supported Nazi Germany.
If Franco had committed Spain in support of Germany in 1939, then Germany would have conquered Gibraltar and the British naval base there would have been used to devastating effect against Britain. The same would have occurred if the Republican government had prevailed in the Spanish Civil War – since it would have followed the directions of Josef Stalin in Moscow and supported the Nazi-Soviet Pact. This would have led to a situation whereby Nazi Germany could have conquered Gibraltar by attacking the British colony through Spain.
It is true that the late B.A. Santamaria supported the Franco-led Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War – which commenced when Santamaria was 21 years of age. However, Santamaria never said or wrote anything positive about Franco after the Spanish Civil War. Moreover, Santamaria never visited Spain and never showed any interest in Franco’s Nationalist government up until the dictator’s death in November 1975.
Sure, Santamaria was exempted from conscription during the Second World War. So were many thousands of Australians at the time – including some men who became prominent on the left side of politics after the end of hostilities. Also, unlike the communists during the period 1939-1941, Santamaria neither opposed nor sought to sabotage the Allied war effort.
By the way, Santamaria did not attend Franco’s funeral – so your point about General Pinochet is meaningless in this regard.
https://thesydneyinstitute.com.au/blog/issue-445/
INSIDE INSIDERS: GERARD HENDERSON & BARRIE CASSIDY, DENNIS ATKINS, DAVID (“THE VERBALLER”) MARR, MURPH AND MORE BESIDES re HENDO AND THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR
As viewers of the ABC TV Insiders program well know, in the final segment the presenter invites panellists to make a final quick comment or observation. When Gerard Henderson makes an occasional appearance “on the couch”, he invariably proffers a comment/observation about an international (rather than a national) issue.
During his first appearance on Insiders for 2019 (on 17 March), Gerard Henderson made an observation about Spain eight decades after its Civil War of 1936-1939. The following week (24 March), David Marr made his inaugural appearance on Insiders for 2019 – and took the unusual step of criticising what a fellow panellist had said the previous week. Gerard Henderson took up the issue with acting executive producer Robyn Powell and, then, presenter Barrie Cassidy. And then Dennis Atkins, David Marr and Katharine Murphy joined in. What fun. Now read on:
Gerard Henderson to Robyn Powell – 24 March 2019
Robyn
David Marr verballed me this morning. I did not oppose the digging up of Franco’s body. I merely commented on the Catalan protest in Madrid. The Catalonians were anti Franco. Marr should know this. Check the transcript. This should be corrected next week.
Gerard
Robyn Powell to Gerard Henderson – 24 March 2019
Thanks Gerard, I’ll get back to you.
Gerard Henderson to Barrie Cassidy – 25 March 2019
Barrie
David Marr’s comment about me in the final segment on Insiders yesterday was profoundly dishonest. Moreover, it was professionally damaging – in view of the fact that I have no right of reply.
This is what David Marr said:
David Marr: Sad news from Spain, Barrie. Despite protests on this show from Gerard Henderson last week, the government is still intending to dig up the remains of General Franco. It’s yet fresh proof, if fresh proof was required, that left-wing governments do not know how to honour the memory of fascist dictators.
Barrie Cassidy: Thank you for that. Dennis.
Dennis Atkins: Well, I can’t top that….
[Note. Due to a typographical in the transcript which was prepared for MWD, Dennis Atkins was referred to incorrectly as “Dennis Atkinson”. This has been corrected. Dennis Atkins’ correct name was in the header in Gerard Henderson’s email forwarded at the time. – MWD Editor.]
David Marr’s statement is wilfully false. I did not protest on Insiders (17 March 2019) about the fact that the Spanish government has decided to exhume Franco’s body and re-inter it in Madrid. I merely commented on the fact that the exhumation was under way – along with the fact that Catalan independence movement was demonstrating in the streets of Madrid last weekend. This is what I had to say:
Gerard Henderson: In Spain, the Socialist government has decided to dig up the body of General Franco and reinter it somewhere else or somewhere in Madrid. As you know, he was the man who initiated the Spanish Civil War of the early 1930s. And I noted that today the supporters of independence for Catalonia are marching in the streets of Madrid. It just demonstrates that, 80 years after these events, these issues [relating to the Spanish Civil War] are still rife in Spain.
My comment was unexceptionable. I acknowledged that Franco commenced the Spanish Civil War. I merely drew attention to the fact that, eight decades later, the issues re Franco and Catalonia are still part of the political debate in Spain. David Marr should know that the Catalan region was hostile to Franco before and after the Spanish Civil War – I assume that he has read George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia.
David Marr’s assertion that I protested at the Spanish government’s decision with respect to Franco’s remains is simply untrue. It should be corrected this week. Moreover, his implication that I support fascist dictators is contemptible.
I raised this matter with Robyn Powell immediately after the program on Sunday. Robyn said that she would get back to me – but I have not heard from her so far.
Needless to say, David Marr did not check with me about what I said on 17 March. Had he done so – I would have forwarded a transcript.
Gerard Henderson
Frankly, if Polonius didn't exist, like Rees-Mogg you'd have to invent him... or is it a kind of self-invention anyway?
Conclusion? Mention Franco to fundamentalist tykes of a certain age, and there's a lot of ghosts in the closet ...
Hark unto the onion muncher ..
In the famous Melbourne University debate about the Spanish Civil War, he (Santamaria) declared: "When the bullets of the atheists struck the statue of Christ outside the cathedral in Madrid, for some that was just steel striking brass. But for me, those bullets were piecing the heart of Christ the King." He could engender a thrill in the heart that was part patriotism, part Christian idealism and part "fighting the good fight". (here)
In March 1937 Russel Ward joined colleagues at Melbourne University and witnessed a heated debate on the Spanish ‘civil war’. Putting the case that ‘The Spanish Government is the ruin of Spain’ were three students, amongst whom was Santamaria. “Santa [as he was familiarly known] and [another] both studied law but were clearly more interested in politics and history: Santa struck me then, and still does, as the cleverest and most fanatical person I ever knew. … He preached eloquently and incessantly the virtues of Franco’s falange, of the Spanish rebels and of Franco himself, but he was very far from being obsessed with Spanish affairs. To back up these views he passionately expounded a whole theory of authoritarianism. Fascism in Germany, Italy and everywhere else was the best form of government, because it was the most viable and in the modern world, to which modern man could aspire, and all human history went to prove it. Art, science and learning – he argued – had always flourished most under royal, imperial or dictatorial rule; the more authoritarian the better.” (R. Ward, A radical life – The autobiography of Russel Ward (Melbourne 1988) 88. (here)
And speaking of the need for ghostbusters, here's a Rowson ...
Finally, a return to memory lane and the pond's memories of the golden years of Tamworth when it still had a chance to become the centre of the known universe.
The town was big on pubs and floods ...
The pond lived in the main street, which copped a regular flooding by the Peel before Chaffey dam was built ...
These days the pond's home is a car wash ... and the pubs are no more, though their presence and grand style might help explain the alcoholics in the pond's house ... (though the whole town was awash with grog) ...
The Royal was king of them all ... now long gone, and before the pond's time ...
But there were other pubs, less grand perhaps, but still able to dole out drinks to ladies in the ladies bar, or send a fizzy drink to the kids left out in the car in the noon day sun ...
Oh Tamworth, Tamworth, what a heartbreak town you are, but some traditions never die ...
Yes, even the poncy city slickers rock in for a grog or two ... though the locals know they're wankers and full of bullshit, almost as much bullshit as their local rep ...
