|Back to Index|
JOSE ANTONIO: "the parrots of the progresive barn"
Christopher Jones, who attended the Madrid meeting this weekend honoring Jose Atonio Primo de Rivera, has sent a long article in Spanish titled " Why is such an effort made to silence Jos Antonio Primo de Rivera?"
Two TV programs were devoted to him; "causing a riot among the parrots of the progressive farm". The "pseudohistorian" Javier Tusell joined in with an article in El Pas.
The angry article bewilders anyone who does not follow with care the arguments among Spanish historians and journalists.
Christopher Jones himself is angry. He writes: "It looks like some powers in the media do not want an objective examination of the life and works of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. Why? Are they afraid of a cadaver? Or are they afraid of his ideas that could upset our current "democratic" order? That means the elaborate system of kickbacks that inflates the budget of a documentary 4 times the normal amount.
Coming after the Hohmann (plus) affair in Germany, the declarations of Tariq Ramadan in France, the EU poll that named Israel the gravest danger to world peace, now Spain's RadioTelevisin Espaola (better known as telebasura) has got into the act along with the pseudo-historian Javier Tusell. They consider themselves the inheritors of the Spanish second republic and consider anybody who admires Jose Antonio an enemy of the constitution. Russians can examine Stalin, Gemrans Hitler or the last Kaiser, but in Latin countries, it is more difficult. As Lorca said, "in Spain, the dead are more alive than in any other country in the world."
Christopher was so angry he made an unusual number of typos which I had to correct. Calm down, Christopher! Please send us a report on the meeting of Platform 1003.
Christopher Jones was angry because there seems to be a conspiracy of silence about Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. Adriana de Pena comments: "Well, I suspect that silencing Jose Antonio means that they do not have to examine their most cherished myths, not only about the II Republic, but as to democracy in general.
The fact is that democracy can fall on evil days, and in certain cases can be described as "bankrupt". I am now reading Lincoln, Authoritarian Savior by Professor Alexander J. Groth, who describes democracy as "broken and bankrupt" on the eve of Lincoln's election. He acknowledges that Lincoln behaved more like a dictator than a democrat, but, were it not for that, democracy would not have survived ("the paradox of democracy" as John O'Carroll puts it).
By all accounts, the II Republic could be said to be, as a political system "broken and bankrupt", and, here I respectfully disagree wth Professor Payne. The question was not how to fix it, but how to replace it quickly before it dragged everything down with it".
Ronald Hilton - 12.01.03