Marko Attila Hoare gives Tomb bloody nose on 'fascist' hypocrisy

Orgasmatron here. Marko Attila Hoare on the Democratiya site reviewing a book by Ivo Zanic on the Balkan wars, makes a stinging attack on the Tomb and the moonbat left in general for their grotesque hypocrisy on the issue of fascism. This is so true. If you call Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and general nut cases who blow up Mosques and cut people's heads off, "fascist", then the likes of the Tomb calls you a racist and starts quibbling over precise technical historical reasons why only an Italian political party from 60 years ago can truly be called fascist. But all this cautiousness is suddenly thrown out of the window when dealing with the less immediate threat of the BNP, who whilst undoubtedly are neo-fascist underneath, fall way short of meeting the precise historical definition of fascism if compared to the likes of Milosevic, Saddam, etc, or the terrorists in Iraq. Why the hypocrisy?

Read the whole thing here, but here is the deadly section on the Tomb:-

"Or consider the case of Britain's Socialist Workers Party (SWP), whose best-known blogger Richard Seymour, self-named – in apparent unawareness of the concept of irony – 'Lenin', recently took issue with those of us who characterised the regime of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia as 'fascist'. To do so, Seymour told us, 'degrades the very concept of fascism'. Meanwhile, the SWP runs a front organisation called the 'Anti-Nazi League' (ANL), which regularly portrays the British National Party (BNP), not merely as 'fascist', but as 'Nazi'. In every possible respect – authoritarianism, rejection of democratic practice, territorial expansionism, incitement of populist chauvinism, continuity with actual pro-Nazi groups from World War II and actual employment of mass violence against ethnic minorities – the Milosevic regime scored higher on the 'fascist' scale than does the BNP. Yet it is the 'Nazi' BNP which provokes SWP supporters to organise rallies, at which 'Nazi scum – off our streets!' is screamed at tiny or non-existent BNP gatherings, while the same SWP supporters will favourably compare the 'not-even-fascist' Milosevic regime with the supposedly 'real' fascists who are, apparently, to be found nowhere outside the white populations of the liberal-capitalist West.

Seymour writes of Milosevic's Serbia that 'a state with an elected government, legal opposition parties, independent trade unions, and opposition demonstrations permitted could not be characterised as fascist, for all its brutality'. This glowing portrayal of democracy under Milosevic can be compared with the description in Robert Thomas's Serbia under Milosevic: Politics in the 1990s: 'More importantly the new 'pluralist' system had not effected a separation between the state and the party… The SPS [Socialist Party of Serbia] remained interconnected with all the main institutions of the state. The state media in particular remained faithful to the party line, and was a key element in the Socialist election victories from 1990 onward… The formal structures of parliament were effectively a hollow shell. Real power was located with the Serbian President [Milosevic] and in the political-economic bureaucracy.' (Thomas 1999, pp. 422-423). Lenard J. Cohen, in Serpent in the Bosom: The Rise and Fall of Slobodan Milosevic has described Milosevic's system of rule as a 'soft dictatorship' (Cohen 2002, pp. xiv-xv). Robert J. Paxton in The Anatomy of Fascism has described Milosevic's regime as the 'functional equivalent' of a fascist regime (Paxton 2004, p. 190). Seymour's portrayal of the Milosevic regime as democratic, therefore, is at variance with the interpretation of serious scholars. Yet it may be a necessary misrepresentation for the activist of an SWP that allied with the supporters of Milosevic over Kosovo in 1999, as more recently with the supporters of Saddam and Zarqawi over Iraq."