The Irish Woman Who Shot Mussolini
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
I’m very lost.
Listen to it.
Where you'll read comments like "Not the least curious thing about her is that she was an ardent admirer of Mussolini. The idea of a dictator appealed to her. She had regarded Napoleon as one of the world's greatest men"
She was found wandering with a knife.
And even the podcast mentions she wasn't even expecting Mussolini to be there, but she had a gun....
https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/category/newspapers?keyword=...
I'm also reminded of the term "premature anti-fascist", used against people who were against Fascism too early before WW2.
These are all political institutions, and they are all violent; it’s just that the target of the violence is maybe easier for some to ignore (poor black and brown people)
Thomas Mair didn’t like the Jo Coxs politics so he took a shot too.
I guess you’ll be setting up a kickstarter for a plaque for him too?
Cool
Do you reject all violence? Under all circumstances? Some think that to be admirable. I think it's nonsense.
If my "politics" disagrees with those of the state, in that I don't believe people have a right to personal property, and that the police have no right to arrest me, then ultimately what will happen is violence against me by the state.
Of course if you voiced unpopular opinions publicly you might get shot by someone who cites Violet Gibson or Thomas Mair as an inspiration.
Or you know - we could not put up plaques to attempted murderers.
Because as I pointed out - you only cited examples whose politics you agree with.
Take the mental leap.
Congratulations.
Maybe an analogy would clarify. Let's suppose you didn't think speech was justified in politics. I would argue that political progress has very often come about because of speech. You cannot then infer that I support the content of every speech made by Tony Blair.
Everyone believes they are the hero of their own story - including people who hold different political beliefs to our own. They are surely only following the moral code you outline when they stand up for their convictions and reach for the revolver or knife or suicide bomb vest?
The irony here is that acceptable political violence is a facist belief. Perhaps you should investigate facism further: you might find it agreeable. I hear they have the best T-shirts.
There is potentially an argument to be had about what authority you have to decide that your act of violence is justified. I agree, that is difficult. But this again detracts from the core point which is that politics is consistently violent, right or wrong. It doesn't take a fascist state to commit violence for political purposes, it's happening all the time even in civilised countries.
And that really is the problem - in the one hand we have laws (set by governments) in a civil society that says violence is wrong, political violence doubly so, but at the same time they are putting up a plaque celebrating political violence.
It’s like “violence is bad... (wink)”
So if you were going to put up a plaque to Tony Blair celebrating his involvement in the Good Friday Agreement, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. I loathe the man personally and dislike much of his politics- but you are highlighting a positive thing he did.
Celebrating someone who is literally only thought of today because they failed to murder someone on the street sends a crazy message: “Murder is wrong... (wink)”
We don't, though. Violence is legal if it's being carried out by state-sanctioned actors such as the police or army in the course of their duties.
At the end of the day - Violet Gibson wasn’t an employee or representative of any government. She was just someone with mental health issues and a revolver.
Again we come back to Thomas Mair, if your principle is that political violence is fine (again - that’s facism), then the only thing you should find objectionable about him is his politics. He was, after all, following your rules.
Personally I try to follow the “do unto others...” golden rule.
“Kill all others” seems to be the guiding principle of too many people.
No, that's not my principle and I've corrected you multiple times.
The state has a monopoly on violence, as famously stated, but is not necessarily made of violence, nor should its governance and policy-creation mechanisms necessarily include violence. In fact, the main characteristic of modern democratic institutions is that they removed violence from most of the process.
I've had clients get incarcerated, and I've had clients facing potential capital sentences, and there is a world of difference.
Nevertheless, when we are talking about Mussolini or 1926, violence and politics were mixed. There was no such thing as politics without mix of violence, because the question of "who should we be violent against" was the major political question of the time.
Moreover at that time, Mussoliny himself was source of a lot of that violence.
Without an Eastern Front, more troops may have been available to defend against a naval invasion. But eventually, Stalin would have likely opened the front himself. Even if not, a lot of troops would have been necessary to guard against a possible Soviet invasion anyway.
Is it a good policy for a nation to glorify and honor an attempt at assassinating the leader of a nation? Compare to John Brown the abolitionist, who raided a federal armory in an attempt to start a slave revolt (and was executed for treason). Might it be better to say "don't do these things no matter how important you think your cause is"?
I don't see either why one should oppose a plaque for John Brown.
At least North Korea hasn't invaded anyone for the last 60 years. As they said in the Nuremberg trials, aggression is the ultimate war crimes, a capital one.
What is the point of including the USA and Israel if you are going to append the West?
Or was it too hard to list the individual perpetrators and just went for what felt good?
[PS. Not a westerner]
Homegrown assasinations of fascist leaders whose basis for power is a projection of strength and a cult of personality, with strong existing domestic oppositions?
That's very different in outcome.
By that measure 9-11 was home grown!
[0] https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/features/profile-viole...
Says 1924, and that she was already toying with the idea of martyrdom.
> In her room at the convent Gibson had amassed a collection of newspaper cuttings critical of Mussolini, and others outlining his movements. She also had a box of bullets. The origin of the revolver, her second, was never determined. The lead detective investigating the case believed Gibson was feigning madness and had not acted alone but possibly in collaboration with catholic modernist dissidents from the poor Trastevere neighbourhood. [...]
> In June 1926, succumbing to immense pressure, Gibson made a confession. Her story was that she had committed the crime to impress an Italian duke named Giovanni Colonna, who she had fallen in love with years before in Switzerland. Vehemently opposed to fascism, she claimed Colonna had communicated his desire for Mussolini's death through a series of clues before gifting her with gun and bullets, that led her to the assassination site that fateful day. The duke was under surveillance for anti-fascist activities, and his movements at the time of the shooting could not be accounted for, lending plausibility to Gibson's account.
Clearly this was not the work of a foreign faction, there was a clear element of Italian involvement.
Not home grown.
Anyway, there is no point arguing about this.
Will you at least concede the point that she’d been in Italy for less than 2 years?
One might also observe that the violent attack in a foreign country might almost be ‘Imperialist’.
And if the attack was politically motivated (I personally think she was a few sandwiches short of a picnic), then she’s down for some political violence.
In that case she’s a bit more facist than anti-facist.
Perhaps violence is the right way to address all people who have politics we don’t agree with?
Thomas Mair agrees with you.
Historians typically mark the official beginning of Mussolini’s dictatorship in 1924, when, following the assassination of socialist MP Giacomo Matteotti by fascists and the subsequent clamour, he went to Parliament and basically told MPs to “shut up or else”. And let’s not forget that he had been appointed Prime Minister with a de-facto coup in 1922.
As for “genocidal”, I’m not sure what parameters could be used. The infamous invasion of Ethiopia with chemical weapons had not happened yet, and obviously the Racial Laws were a long way away, but he had already begun the “pacification” of Libya (war started in 1923). Also, political violence against the opposition was already large-scale, as shown with Matteotti.
By 1926 it was pretty clear he wasn’t a simple political leader for sure, and he had already spoken at length against representative democracy. Whether that deserved an assassination attempt, is debatable; but there is little question that by 1926 he could be defined as a violent dictator.
Then, one must consider efficacy - if it's going to be useless then why bother?
Finally, one must consider the presence of altermatives. If you can at all avoid it, then political violence is not really justifiable.
In this case, the three elements converged, and it's in those cases that political violence can be warranted if done for good. This isn't even controversial, people defend the violence of the US Founding Fathers which engaged in much more violence for much, much, much less.
Presumably on that basis you see the killing of Jo Cox as justified?
Fascism was heralded by some as “the next step” in political evolution, which rightly horrified a significant number of people who could see the inevitable results. It was not judged by the same parameters of an expansionist foreign power, but by the potential for “evil” in one’s own country.
Brown claimed that slavery is war (and violence) against own people and therefore it is ok to use violence to fight it. Does the expectation of non-violent opposition holds for anti nazi partisans too? What would be difference? What about other war heroes?
And what about the billions of people that sees the US as a fascistic imperialistic hydra? Would it be cool to pick of Obama as well?
What if these guys are falsely accused for being fascists by teenagers who never read a history book in their life.
That being said posts like this doesn't belong on HN and cries for murder most definitely don't. A real shame might as well head over to reddit or 4chan for this parroting of slogans.
It's often useful to problematise simple statements, to draw out different implications and to shed light on what might be un or under considered aspects.
I don't think your comment does this though. Mussolini was a fascist. Not someone with some fascist sympathies, or someone who someone else accused of being fascistic.
Maybe my response was a bit glib. Violence is certainly not something to be undertaken lightly but I think political violence against fascists is justified, and can be considered self-defence.
Back to the editors with this article!
So, interestingly this specific attempt might have pushed things in 2 directions: faster and harsher repression, or the rise of a less fundamentalist leader.
There's plenty of material for ucronic writing :)
The three key elements are : perception of strength being central to ideology, aestheticized politics, and cult of personality.
> This is part of Ireland's attempt to cobble together some sort of anti fascist history as nationalism rises due to the displacement levels of immigration seeing numbers greater than the historical plantations of her kind ...
Who is creating this narrative? And what do you mean by "Ireland's attempt"?