Posted on 11/20/2013 6:41:01 PM PST by annalex
Testament of Francisco Franco , Head of State, read by the Head of Government D. Carlos Arias Navarro on November 20, 1975 on television.
Spaniards:
The hour has reached when my life is to be held before the Almighty and to receive His final judgment, and I ask God to welcome me into His benign presence, because I wanted to live and die as a Catholic. In the name of Christ it has been my honor and my constant desire to be faithful son of the Church, within which I will die. I apologize to all, as with all my heart I forgive those who are known as my enemies even though I never had them as such. I believe and have had no other desire than the future of Spain, which I love until the last moment and I promised to serve until the last breath of my life, which I know is near. I want to thank all who have worked with enthusiasm, dedication and selflessness in the great enterprise of making a united Spain, great and free.
For the love I feel for our country, I ask you to persevere in unity and peace and render to the future King of Spain, Don Juan Carlos de Bourbon, the same affection and loyalty that I have provided and lend it, at all times, the same support for collaboration that you've had.
Do not forget that the enemies of Spain and of Christian civilization are alert. Watch yourselves, and for that submit all your personal interest to the supreme interests of the country and the Spanish people.
Do not slacken in achieving social justice and culture for all men of Spain and make it your primary goal.
Keep the unity of the lands of Spain, highlighting the rich diversity of its regions as a source of the strength of the unity of the country.
I would, in my last moment, join the names of God and of Spain in my embrace and cry out for the last time, at the dawn of my death:
Spain! Long live Spain!
Francisco Franco. Madrid, November 20, 1975
He probably did "something unpleasant", but I don't know the particulars. One thing is that he practically banned all languages other than Spanish, -- and Spain is not at all naturally homogeneous, so that left a mark. He considered his duty to re-unify Spain not only ideologically but ethnically.
Yes, as well as a number of right wing dictators in Latin America. Collectively, these men saved the world from succumbing to the Soviet cancer.
That’s good to hear. It seems he was a FINO.
At least he didn't change it to Swedish.
The Italian fascists had concentration camps and registration of Jews, too, but did not go so far as to transport the inmates to death camps. It is the hallmark of National Socialism, i.e., instead of redistributing the wealth of capitalists, redistributing the wealth of undesirable ethnic groups. It would as much apply to affirmative action as to gassing people, removing their gold teeth and rendering their fats into soap. They differ in how far they would go to eliminate the undesirables, sometimes only economically, academically, culturally or linguistically, other times committing mass murder. But that remains my definition of fascism.
You’ve just stated that Franco wanted to ban all languages except Spanish, presumably only high Castillo Spanish at that, no dialects. That would be fascist-lite elimination, and would depend how far he went with that. Was he rounding up Basques just for speaking their native tongue in the market place, shop owners on the borders for having signs in French or Portuguese? Most likely broadcasting and publishing in other language was banned, but I’m just guessing.
But you are maintaining that there is a qualitative difference between fascism and Nazism, other than a quantitative matter of degree. Please elaborate on your definitions.
As part of the nationalistic efforts:In the first decade of Franco's rule, languages other than Castilian were "confined to private spaces". [1]
- Spanish films were produced only in Spanish. Foreign films were required to be dubbed.
- Spanish names and Spanish versions of Catholic and classical names were the only ones allowed. Leftist names like Lenín and regional names like even the Catalan Jordi (after Catalonia's patron saint, Saint George) were forbidden and even forcibly replaced in official records. Only Christian names in Spanish were allowed in official documents.
In the regime's most radical discourse, languages other than Spanish were often considered "dialects" in the sense of speeches that were not developed enough to be "real languages". Basque was different enough that it could not be taken as a debased form of Spanish but was despised as a rural language of limited currency, unfit for modern discourse. [3] This never happened at the academic level, though.
All these policies became less strict and more permissive as time passed.
Fascism is a broad nationalist movement that was present in most countries of Europe prior to 1945. It combined nationalism, a desire for a single party government dedicated to national goals and it was opposed to both socialism and international capitalism.
National Socialism in Germany was a particular brand of fascism, and it was characterized by overt racism and militarism; The mix proved deadly to millions of innocent people, as you know.
The unfortunate situation today is that we have no national governments anywhere, except maybe in Israel. It is my believe that every well-formed nation deserves a national government that pursues a well-defined nationalistic agenda in culture, immigration policy and economics. Obviously we in the USA do not have such a government. However, public discourse about nationalism is immediately sidetracked into name-calling. The use of "fascist" as an insult prevents us from having a rational discussion about public policy, and prevents us from discussing recent history objectively. Hysteria over my positive and even admiring assessment of General Franco is an example of such cognitive dysfunction.
I note that rational discourse with the left is impossible, and that they will use the term “fascist” like salt on fries. I try to give it back to them, since they are not interested in rational discourse, and don’t see why we should have to observe Marquis de Queensbury rules in a street brawl with the other side using knives, guns and garbage cans.
You may be right about Franco. He certainly did something right, having stayed in power for decades, kept his country at peace, and died a natural death. But as right as you may or may not be, leftists do lurk here, and I can see them using this bit on Franco to level the usual accusations, so I am compelled to contest your praise, albeit using rational civil discourse instead of hysteria, since we are among friends and not street brawlers here.
I would have to disagree with you, though, about fascism being opposed to socialism. It is a form of socialism, and stands for, among other things, nationalizing banks, massive social-welfare programs similar to the new deal, and huge public works. It differs from socialism in that it is socialism is directed against those they deem as non-nationals, such as Gypsies and Jews, and wants to redistribute their wealth, take away their place in society, restrict their cultural expressions, or seize their property. Socialism goes after capitalists, instead. In theory against their property only, but they get violent in the process of confiscation. Nazism was the most extreme form of fascism, redistributing even skin, hair, gold teeth, and fat of its victims, who were stripped of all rights. Franco’s Spain is on the other side of the spectrum, but not quite at the end. Liberals’ pet ethnic projects, such as affirmative action and set-asides are in there with the rest of the fascist-style programs.
So basically when it comes to language, Franco was no worse than the French in Quebec.
I think that historically, anti-Semitism was evident, to various degrees, because of the association between Jews and things international, be it international banking or international marxism.
I am, by the way, monarchist. I do not think that fascism gives an adequate expression to a national idea, and the democratic element in fascism has a potential of gross errors of justice. But I generally prefer any nationalist movement to any attempt of erasing national distinctions and interests, such as Obama's project or the old USSR.
Except Spain is a nation naturally united around the Spanish language, whereas Quebec has, perhaps a natural objective to form its own nation but it is not quite a nation yet.
Observe: the Catalans and the Galicians participated in the conquest of the New World, but only Castilian Spanish got exported.
Well said.
I’d disagree with one thing, though. The anti-Semitism was associated with both things international and industrial. One of Hitler’s speeches was decrying the union organizer Kahn and his cousin Cohn the industrialist, how they pretend to be at loggerheads with each other, but the fact that they’re both Jewish proves that they’re really conspiring together. National socialism takes elements of collectivism and elements of capitalism and makes a cocktail out of them. Jews come to mean the elements of both movements that don’t make it into the cocktail, the internationalism that destroys nationalism, and the exploitation of Germans to enrich private individuals (instead of enslaved untermenschen being used in evil experiments to help develop aspirin for Bayer, as G-d meant them to be).
Right, but Cohn would presumably have access to credits on the international banking scene which were denied to Germany.
Of course the Nazis were socialist — that’s in the name — and so like any socialist would also use class hatred to attain their ends.
But in their case, class hatred was transformed to race hatred. In my book, it’s all collectivist hatred, and of a piece. Franco had a better brand of fascism, because there weren’t as many diverse people to hate. Communists and homosexuals, sure. Gypsies and Basques, ok. Maybe Catalans, too. But the only Jews left in Spain were likely not even aware that they were Jewish, after 500 years of hiding it. (I am living in the basement of one such descendant of the ‘secret Jews’. He had to convert to be accepted as Jewish.) In a target poor environment like Spain, the National part of National Socialism didn’t become as toxic as it would otherwise have been, but instead tempered the Socialist part by eschewing internationalism, and thereby made it palatable. It was an ok cocktail, even though made from a bad recipe. I salute your monarchism. It’s a much preferable form of nationalism, though it hasn’t prevented the UK from destroying itself with socialism, unfortunately.
communist rapist and baby butcher shouting death to the fascists
Pretty rich
The irony being that now Arlo is born again
And right leaning
Yes, I agree.
UK is not really a monarchy; we might call it dormant monarchy at best. A possibility exists that if Britain finds itself on the brink of national collapse, the House of Windsor wakes up, dissolves the Parliament and starts ruling in the name of the British people, — the young princes look like good material, — but it is still reading tea leaves.
It is on the brink of national collapse, but hasn’t found itself yet.
LOL. True.
There were many die-hard socialists in the Nazi party, Hitler was more of a pragmatist, in that he wasn’t driven by ideology, he used Capitalism when it was to his benefit, and socialism when it was to his benefit. And anti-semitism was the glue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.