Thursday, October 2, 2025
Against 200 Evangelical Leaders
200 Evangelical Leaders Sign Letter to President Trump on Israel’s Sovereignty Over Judea, Samaria
CBN News | 1 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GB5pkxzQSc
[My answer to them]
If Judea and Samaria are Biblical Israel, I suppose Palestinians are Biblical Israelites.
The problem with the two state solution is that Muslim Israelites and Talmudic Israelites divide sovereignty over Christian Israelites.
I've proposed a three state solution, internal sovereignty for each major religion of Israelites.
No, Meira K, Israel Doesn't Have the Green Light!
Israel Has The Green Light, Greta Thunberg Will Learn A Lesson She Won’t Forget!
Meira K | 2 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9gqWDpGX_Q
If a blockade is 3:48 declared and recognized as legal under 3:50 international law, meaning it is 3:51 publicly declared effective and 3:52 non-discriminatory, then vessels can 3:54 attempt that attempt to breach it can 3:55 legally be intercepted.
Did you note "declared and recognised" ... doesn't mean unilaterally by Israel.
Where are states saying it is legal (apart from Israel)? Where is UNO doing so?
4:10 Not just "a government" declaring the blockade, you also need other governments recognising it as legal.
I scrolled the transscript.
2011 Palmer report. Well, that was a report, not a UNO decision, right?
It was in 2011, since then it seems that evidence has come out that in fact the blockade is starving Gazawis.
And you forget that even legal blockades have no right to intercept humanitarian aid.
Here is some news on the 2011 Palmer report:
15.09.2011 UN independent panel rejects Palmer report (iHH)
https://ihh.org.tr/en/news/un-independent-panel-rejects-palmer-report-1118
Prepared by former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer and former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and presented to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Sept. 2, the UN panel's report on the 2010 Israeli attack on Mavi Marmara labeled the Israeli raid as “excessive and unreasonable,” but also claimed that due to Israel's security concerns, its blockade of Gaza is legal. The UN panel also blamed Turkey and flotilla organizers for contributing to the deaths.
So, this is the background, now, there is another independent UN panel:
The human rights experts said the blockade had subjected Gazans to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."
The four-year blockade deprived 1.6 million Palestinians living in the enclave of fundamental rights, they said.
"In pronouncing itself on the legality of the naval blockade, the Palmer Report does not recognize the naval blockade as an integral part of Israel's closure policy towards Gaza which has a disproportionate impact on the human rights of civilians," they said in a joint statement.
[back to citing video]
Okay. [in?] 2011 the 5:27 UN say [said?] this blockade is totally 5:28 legitimate.
No, the Palmer report is NOT the UN. It was handed in to Ban Ki Moon. I have no news Ban Ki Moon or the then security council voted to actually state the blockade was legitimate.
7:36 It's discriminating against the rights of Gazans or Gazawis to get food.
8:11 Gaza Humanitarian Foundation?
Right .... where Gazawis trying to collect the aid actually get shot.
In other words, a humanitarian corridor, like what the flotilla is trying to get gone, would be a highly welcome and necessary supplement to what Israel is letting in.
In other words, the only way in which the blockade is not trying to starve Gazawis and by and large succeeding is, to deny facts.
because we've 8:34 decided that they're discriminating 8:36 against the Palestinians even though 8:38 international law has not recognized 8:40 that
Well, the recognition could be upcoming.
The definition of a legal blockade is not that it is declared and not recognised illegal, but that it's declared and recognised legal. The Palmer report contradicted by the Falk report is not a formal recognition of the legality of the blockade.
9:17 Robbing a store is not just illegal, but immoral.
However, breaking a blockade that's not defined as legal and has many reasons to be regarded as illegal, that's not illegal, and not immoral, if the things brought are humanitarian aid.
9:28 The reason they are afraid of their lives is MV Mavi Marmara, 2010.
Passengers on the ship actively attempted to thwart a landing on the ship by Israeli commandos. In the violent clash that followed, nine activists were killed, according to the U.N. Report,[22] and a tenth died four years later of his wounds.[23] Several dozen activists were claimed to be injured, some seriously. Israel claimed 10 of its soldiers were injured, one seriously.[24]
The U.N. report stated that knives from the ship's kitchens (plus one traditional, ceremonial knife), some catapults (slingshots) and metal pipes the passengers cut from the ship's railings were found.
The UN report by Palmer (the one presumably meant) certainly stated that while the blockade was legal, the action by IDF was excessive. Meanwhile, there is no resolution stating the blockade is legal.
A report and a resolution are two different things.
A resolution means UN recognises or condemns a thing. A report means an expert employed or accepted by the UN suggests a recognition or condemnation of sth.
I cannot find any resolution to recognise the report of Palmer as founded. More like, there was simply no resolution to condemn the blockade as unfounded, and that could change.
[Apparently, it did change, in 2023, the legality of the blockade is specifically NOT recognised as to Freedom Flotilla]
https://youtu.be/dc3mQMlCECA?si=gdtJ1lYEMW8kQMlu&t=259
Sungenis is a Great Apologist ... Except He Relies Too Much on Physics
I added two sections before the one I made the title from, after I already published.
Councils, Virgin Birth, Yahweh, and Geocentrism | Robert Sungenis Live
Robert Sungenis | 1.X.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnMiahMbNWs
57:05 I would say, it's sufficient if the Church Father is prior to an obvious and still relevant split in the Church.
Why? In Matthew 28:20 we know the true Church is not defectible. So whatever was before a major split has to be the real Church, and therefore a consensus within that has to reflect the real teaching of Christ.
When it comes to how distant we are from the Apostles, we are far less than an order of magnitude further away than St. John of Damascus was. But we are more than an order of magnitude further away than St. Ignatius of Antioch was. Now, not only the Apostolic fathers (including Ignatius but not Irenaeus), but also Church Fathers (up to St. John of Damascus) are taken into account.
While recent Apologetics has taken advantage from Apostolic Fathers knowing people who had known Jesus, the rule of faith as per Trent, Leo XIII and Vatican I make the consensus of Church Fathers operative. In a sense, a consensus of CCFF automatically includes a consensus of Apostolic Fathers, but AAFF may not have mentioned the subject, since we have far less text by them than by CCFF in general.
59:35 No, they do not have to be in consensus to be authoritative. They have to be in consensus to be collectively infallible. Authoritative is less than infallible.
I disagree with Michael Lofton that Consensus of CCFF doesn't equal magisterium, unless it simply means "strict limitation of what is obligatory and what isn't" because they will express the same thing differently, and it may be hard to from CCFF alone see where the agreement is strictly obliging and where it is only recommended.
But I agree with him, even when they disagree, even when they cannot be all of them infallible, each is an authority (only applies to canonised CCFF, Tertullian is not one of them).
59:57 "for us to consider, that what they taught was taught by the Apostles"
OK, that's where we are no longer speaking of just authoritative, but infallible.
Each CF makes it to some degree probable that what he taught was taught by the Apostles, but only all CCFF together (if they spoke on a certain point) makes it certain.
1:00:39 If I check the martyrology:
2 May Alexandriae natalis sancti Athanasii, ejusdem urbis Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, sanctitate et doctrina clarissimi; in cujus persecutionem universus fere Orbis conjuraverat. Ipse tamen catholicam fidem, a tempore Constantini usque ad Valentem, adversus Imperatores ac Praesides et innumeros Episcopos Arianos strenue propugnavit; a quibus plurimas perpessus insidias, profugus toto Orbe actus est, nec ullus ei tutus ad latendum supererat locus. Tandem, ad suam Ecclesiam reversus, illic, post multos agones multasque patientiae coronas, quadragesimo sexto sui sacerdotii anno migravit ad Dominum, tempore Valentiniani et Valentis Imperatorum.
28 Aug. Hippone Regio, in Africa, natalis sancti Augustini Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris eximii, qui, beati Ambrosii Episcopi opera ad catholicam fidem conversus et baptizatus, eam adversus Manichaeos aliosque haereticos acerrimus propugnator defendit, multisque aliis pro Ecclesia Dei perfunctus laboribus, ad praemia migravit in caelum. Ejus reliquiae, primo de sua civitate propter barbaros in Sardiniam advectae, et postea a Rege Longobardorum Luitprando Papiam translatae, ibi honorifice conditae sunt.
27 March Sancti Joannis Damasceni, Presbyteri, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, cujus dies natalis agitur pridie Nonas Maji.
7 Dec (after Vigil of Immaculate Conception) Sancti Ambrosii Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, qui pridie Nonas Aprilis obdormivit in Domino, sed hac die potissimum colitur, qua Mediolanensem Ecclesiam gubernandam suscepit.
12 March Romae sancti Gregorii Primi, Papae, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris eximii; qui, ob res praeclare gestas atque Anglos ad Christi fidem conversos, Magnus est dictus et Anglorum Apostolus appellatus.
In other words, the CCFF do not end in pre-Constantinian times.
1:02:18 While St. Justin was a premillennialist, he mentioned the position of St. Augustine as held by some, which he didn't condemn.
1:04:20 St. Augustine, however didn't believe that. [angelic theory on Genesis 6]
1:05:27 We can kind of test the probability of St. Paul (and St. Jude) holding to the Angelic theory about Genesis 6.
The test may not be conclusive to all, but has some probability. What did Jews at the time believe?
Now, Josephus didn't accept Christ (except some say he did just before he died), but he was close enough to people before the rejection of Christ to have some view on the uncorrupted Hebrew tradition, and here is what he says in book 1:
Chapter 3. 1. Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations: but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their fore-fathers; and did neither pay those honours to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shewn for virtue, they now shewed by their actions a double degree of wickedness. Whereby they made God to be their enemy. For many Angels of God (14) accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good; on account of the confidence they had in their own strength. For the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call Giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did: and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions, and their actions for the better. But seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married. So he departed out of that land.
1:11:46 Lots of the errors of Russia are also errors of the US or UK.
Holodomor wasn't spread around the world, but has its parallel in the manmade and strictly Capitalist Potato Famine (a Capitalistic behaviour condemned in Rerum Novarum). The Irish wouldn't have died if their landlords had allowed them to eat the wheat they had themselves with own hands grown, but no, wheat was outside contractual obligation, and the landlord wanted business as usual selling wheat in Belfast or Glasgow or London.
Lots of psychiatry and power to it, common theme between US (up to Cuckoo's Nest, and beyond) and USSR. Banning marriage of girls who are minors, even if they are past puberty ... happened in 1917 or the ensuing years in Russia, happened in many, not all, states of US around the same time.
To answer the question why such things are called "errors of Russia" and not "errors of Russia and United States" ... in the United States, there has been resistance to them. I mentioned the film with Jack Nicholson, and young marriages still happen in the US, even if Puritans frown on them.
1:13:28 What has Rasputin to do with Communism?
Probably the guys who opposed Rasputin* have more to do with Communism. Rasputin may have discredited the Czar to the Bourgeoisie and the more Masonic of the Boyars, but not to the people. However, when the people actually did support Communism, it was partly because of the War (which Germany had won on the East Front), partly under people agreeing with the guys who thought Rasputin was a shame. And not for the reason mentioned by some Beta Israel band, from Germany who should have stuck to Brown Girl in a Ring or Psalm 137.
[Tried to add:]
In fact, as WW I was Caesar opposing Caesar, katekhon opposing katekhon and indirectly taking each other out of the way, Rasputin by trying to get a peace could have saved Russia from the Revolution:
He might (might!) have been trying to convince the government via the Tsarina a few months before his death to negotiate an armistice with the Central Powers, but as long as Nikki was the Tsar, there was no chance for Rasputin -or anybody else- to make him seek terms with his cousin Willy.
* I was right.
Historian Oleg Platonov was intrigued by the fact of a well thought-out slander campaign against Rasputin. It was launched in 1910, as if at the wave of a wand by some unseen manipulator - simultaneously and in most of the press. ...
"…I came across the book by Nina Berberova People and Lodges (Russian masons of the 20th century), based on archive materials and written testimonies of members of the Masonic organization. From the materials presented in the book, it follows that all people down on my list were masons."
The Byzantine Forum: Who was Rasputin?
answer by Mike L. from 3/11/10 07:06 PM (#3450680)
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/345054/who-was-rasputin
1:29:30 "so they have the background they need to figure out these things"
As a non-physicist, I would say most people who presume only physical factors (masses, vectors, inertia, graviation ... possibly gyroscope effects) are relevant for movements on the scale of celestial bodies conclude from that in favour of Heliocentrism.
If we assume God or angels or both are also involved, we don't need to get deep into physics to see how Geocentrism is perfectly possible. Epistemically, it's preferrable.
I know what it's like to sit in front of a library, and watch cars go by. I did it while writing a letter on the topic. I see the cars as if they are moving, and also conclude it's the cars, not I, which are moving.
I know what it's like to sit in a train and watch landscape go by. I had done so while getting to that library. I see a train platform as if moving, and I conclude the train I'm in is moving.
These two phenomena are not equal in frequency. If I feel myself moving as in walking or biking, that automatically corrects the impression, I don't even register the possibility of a house being what moves, that feeling automatically corrects the visual impression. So, it's on this earth only when I sit still in a moving vehicle that I see things move and conclude I'm the one that's moving. Even apart from frequency, the inversion of movement in analysis compared to impression, that's an extra assumption. Occam says not to multiply assumptions beyond the necessary.
In other words, when I see the train platform move, I conclude I'm the one moving because I know train platforms are grounded in earth and trains have wheels, because I know the same train but two different platforms means different streets outside the train station and quite a few more things that are ultra obvious, but which nevertheless are true and could need mentioning in a context like this one.
If I take your approach, God set up a system where the universe by rotating makes the place of the Earth the centre and keeps Earth non-rotating by a gyroscope effect, I am accepting a watchmaker analogy, and am basically going for the God of Voltaire.
If on the other hand I take the approach of St. Thomas, God set up a system which He rotates around Earth each day, where individual celestial bodies are moved by angels, where "parallax" isn't an actual parallax, but a flourish by an angelic mover, just as St. Thomas thought about retrogrades, I am more like accepting Geocentrism as a proof of God having inexhaustible power and showing it off visibly since creation. The Horsehead nebula hasn't been visible to human observers since Creation. Betelgeuse being as star only bigger than the Solar system (still not visible, but concluded, usually by Heliocentrics) hasn't been visible to human observers since Creation. The flagellum of the bacterium hasn't been visible to human observers since Creation. None of these three things were visible or concluded by the time St. Paul wrote Romans 1. And St. Paul didn't consider one needed Newton's or Einstein's physics to understand the visible proofs of God either.
"Creation is beautiful, so it takes a Creator with a sense of beauty"
"Man has a mind, but is non-eternal, so needs to be based on eternal mind"
"The Universe turns around Earth each day, and stars and planets don't collide and put everything in disorder, so enormous and inexhaustible power is linked to wisdom"
When I go with St. Thomas and Aristotle, I go with St. Paul. I think the last of these is, as argument equally strong, but as observation more obvious, than the second. As to the first, by itself, it would be compatible with Polytheism "the gods who run this earth have a sense of beauty" ... and it's perhaps even compatible with Cthulhu "the gods in outer space have no sense of beauty" ...
So, St. Paul is the ultimate endorsement of Aristotle (with many reservations) and of St. Thomas (with quite a lot fewer ones). As far as we mean endorsements from authority. He has however been pretended to have been anti-Aristotelian. Here:
Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ
[Colossians 2:8]
No, "elements" doesn't refer to the "four elements" of Aristotle. It refers to a concept in Democritus and Epicure, to us better known as "atoms" ... and Epicure was a Geocentric, but considered the causes of the Geocentrism we observe were in the present and the ongoing purely mechanistic. Tradition says Colossians 2:8 attacks Epicure. Karl Marx (before he apostasised) came up with "no, it's Aristotle" ... I obviously prefer tradition over Karl Marx.
Heschmeyer is a Great Apologist. Horn too. Me Three. (As Long As I Do It Writing, Not Speaking)
I Was Wrong (Worse: Trent Horn was Right ...)
Shameless Popery | 2 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI3Mt6UPRok
6:37 All that this argument requires is:
- Mary was not in a state of sin (like original or mortal), so, covenantally, God would not have been free to damn Her (irrespectively of whether the state of grace or only legal justification was available back in the OT);
- God wasn't threatening to damn Her if She refused (which obviously He wasn't).
Alternatively, people in the OT weren't acutely aware of a risk of damnation (while obviously no one was puzzled when Jesus spoke out on people getting damned, so the concept was around, they were puzzled about the things He applied this to, like inner lust, like stinginess to the needing, like being angry or hateful enough to someone to go from "good for nothing" — the probable meaning of racah — to "fool" in the personal assessment of the other person). They were basically in favour of a Hillel like laxism, and He was on some essentials presenting a Shammai + like severity. I don't think even the school of Shammai was all that much into the risk of getting damned. OT Jews, including just before Jesus, would have thought of hell as a place where people go if they were Hitler and didn't remain a painter or ate pork knowingly under no duress from Antiochus IV.
9:04 Ah, Mary's consciousness parallelling Isaias seems to be a better argument.
Without sinlessness, Mary wouldn't have dared.
Now, I actually hold, She wasn't aware of Her sinlessness before She got from the words of Elisabeth Cohen that Her own Sisera was the old serpent. Nevertheless, awareness of sinlessness would not have been needed, only not having a fault to be keenly aware of, as Isaias had.
10:53 definitely not AI
I feel like double-checking that with Trent Horn. The sentiment in general, abstracting from the application to two persons, however is a reminder, I do best to argue and debate over the internet, in a room my presence is grossly inadequate, even for just a school teacher on a not controversial subject like German grammar. (OK, it became controversial because of me).
Wednesday, October 1, 2025
My Eclectic Favourite Moments in (Italian) Fascism Defended
Giovanni Gentile Articulates Fascism
Lotuseaters Dot Com | 3 Oct. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpimaIjoBo
2:35 It can be mentioned that José Antonio Primo de Rivera polemised against Rousseau.
3:46 Here you would find a very heavy opposition of Charles Maurras to Gentile.
Some would obviously count Maurras and Franco as both being outside Fascism proper, but common usage in Spain considers Franco and José Antonio as Fascists, common usage in France does it for Maurras and Pétain (both of whom lose points in my reckoning for collaboration with Hitler -- pretty much from 1942, not all of their activity).
To Maurras, France was eminently the work of Merovingians, Carolingians and above all of Robertides (because they only ruled West Francia, which is basically France, and not Mid-Francia which includes Switzerland, BeNeLux and N. Italy, and not East Francia which is essentially Germany and Austria). Robertides, a k a Capet, Valois, Bourbon, Bourbon-Orléans (Maurras being an Orléaniste).
Does that bely that Maurras was Corporatist? No. Or that José Antonio, also Corporatist, was a bit more Syndicalist? No.
4:21 Pétain and José Antonio as well as Franco obviously disagreed with him. They thought Catholic Christianity is above the state.
So did very obviously Pius XI ... who on other accounts (like corporatism) was not an outspoken enemy of Mussolini.
7:18 What you just said about syndicates and corporations has basically been copied in seminal principles by Swedish Social Democrats.
Via the Swedish Fascists known as Nysvenskar, who also admired Perón.
As Nysvenskar weren't getting into power on their own, they kind of "infiltrated" Social Democracy and brought it, economically closer to Fascism.
When it comes to things Sweden would have done like Norway against the Bodnarius, that's Marxism with a Woke strain, and was basically alien to Franco, José Antonio, even Mussolini.
8:20 Translation of what you just said.
If you like making gelato, you are one of a certain type of small businesses. If you like making cars, you are probably in the bigger business of Fiat. Either way you are in a Syndicate at least theoretically meant to make sure you have a voice, and the syndicate is there for anyone in the same line of business, either mom and pop shop or factory owner or factory employee or salesman ... and because both Fiat and the gelato stand, both the owner and the last employee of Fiat are in Italy, these Syndicates are regulated by the Italian state and also help to elect the Italian government. Chamber of Corporations complementing the Chamber of the Regions.
The Medieval system was not all that different, except Belloc voted not simply as part of Brewer's Guild, but more specifically of Brewer's Guild of London. Before some election reforms, obviously.
8:22 No, the Fascists clearly refuse to view you as part of a class, like distinction of the Fiat factory owner and the Fiat employee, and instead views you as part of a certain type of producer, like in both these cases car producers.
Similarily, if you have a gelato stand in a village 20 km outside Naples or if you make gelato you sell to fancy restaurants, you are different classes, since one is poor, one is rich, but same type of producers, namely Gelato makers.
Class is a horizontal division, those above and those below certain divides of income and good things of life and of society, type of producers is a vertical division, and different socio-economic outcomes inside it are partially equalised, because they are the same class of producers. The Fiat factory should not just examplify good cars, it should also examplify a solidarity between the Fiat factory worker and the Fiat factory owner.
Some corporations do in fact exist in modern liberal democracies as well, like for Medical personnel and for Lawyers. Whether you are an overworked provincial doctor or chief doctor of a prestigious hospital, you are "in the same boat" as Medical Association of your country. This guild socialism is found very compatible with human dignity and with freedoms if the ones enjoying or enduring it are doctors of medicine, but for some reason an effacement of individual personality if the ones enjoying or enduring it are at different ends of the Fiat hierarchy for car producers, or at different scales of economic prosperity for Gelato stands.
Obviously, Fascism does think of man as a producer, but does not deny he is also a consumer and for instance pretty often a family man. A gelato maker in Milan and one 20 km outside Naples would vote for the same set of people in the Chamber of Corporations, since they are the same kind of producers. But as a family man, a gelato maker in Milan and a Fiat worker in Milan would vote for the same set of representatives in the Regional Chamber as voting in the voting district(s?) of Milan.
8:57 no "the same category" in Gentile means type of producer.
Class means type of income and power in society.
Maurras and before him de La Tour du Pin criticised the concept of class warfare and substituted solidarity within he category of producers.
In the Three Estates, nobility with Feudal duties and rights were a same category of defenders (not exactly producers) whether they were relatively poor people like Henri de La Rochejaquelein or Lafayette or relatively rich people like Louis-Antoine de Bourbon-Condé, Duc d'Enghien, and similarily Catholic clergy were the same category of priests, whether they were relatively poor people like the Curate of Ars or relatively rich ones like Bossuet.
Very different from English House of Lords where lords secular and lords clerical are mingled, but all have to be above a certain level. A simple priest or a simple Esquire won't do.
9:13 That's a bogus analysis.
You can imagine a National Socialism where promotion of the proletariate class ends with the nation's frontiers. Both Beneš and Rudolf Jung were into such movements, the latter one in a party that over namechanges incorporated a man who should have remained a painter but it's still a horizontal division, proletarians are exalted because of a certain class that's seen as exploited, and needs "affirmative action" against employers and other people who could have exposed them to unfair deals.
However, the Corporazioni are vertical divisions, a Fiat worker and a Fiat boss are in the same corporazione, because both produce cars. The proletarian is also exalted, but it's because those who are more favoured than he are reminded (gently or sometimes not so gently) what they have in common as car producers. The corporation of car producers, typically stratified by (to Fascism largely irrelevant) classes of income is perfectly equal to the corporation of Gelato makers, who typically owning small shops or even stands are less stratified between them.
This is very different from Socialism. (Swedish Social Democracy only partially adopted the idea, LO is still a distinct umbrella organisation from SAF, blue collar workers from employers, rather than people from each sharing umbrella organisations from type of production).
9:22 Fascism doesn't divide Bourgeoisie from Proletariat. It divides Militaries from Priests and Educators, and both from Producers, and divides Car Producers from Ice Cream producers (who obviously produce gelato and not British ice cream).
9:28 No, Fascism is not against all of the other nations, in principle.
Italian Fascism (the namegiver) could in principle be against another nation that had territory that Italian Nationalists thought should belong to Italy. And in the outcome, they came to be against lots of other nations by allying with a man who should have remained a painter.
But the enemy is more basically class warfare as a species of incivility and of chaos, harming both production and peaceful enjoyment of life and ideally, Fascism is against class warfare from either side.
Chesterton did an interview with Mussolini, and got the impression that yes, Black Shirts did help employers to end attempts of expropriation and to end strikes, but only if said employers agreed to decent minimum wages and maximum hours.
9:43 Italian Fascism may at times have bought into the Darwinian struggle of primacy between nations, but when Mussolini was on a state visit to a man who should have remained a painter they spoke about an equitable order of harmony between nations.
For José Antonio and even Franco with his former dreams of becoming a Spanish Navy officer dashed by Spain losing Cuba, Guam and Philippines, this idea is absent.
And the same observation can be made for Juan Perón whom the Swedish Fascists basically made a honorary Fascist.
10:32 Mussolini in a famous speech conceived he could himself be a traitor.
"If I lead you, follow me, if I command you, obey me, if I betray you ... kill me."
Some would take the Salò Republic as a treason on his part and consider the partisans who hung him were taking him at his word.
10:53 While we are at reeducation, there is a huge difference between Nazi camps like Oranienburg taking care of someone until he has become a productive man, or died in their attempts to make him such, and Italian castor oil cures, until someone threw down the red flag and shouted Viva Italia.
I hope the latter didn't continue all that long past 1924. Oranienburg manners unfortunately did in the German example. Didn't come too close to Italy as long as Mussolini was the PM of an actual monarch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)