A Catholic vision for society

A Catholic vision for society · On End Times

Can 'Responsible Citizenship' turn its back on God? We discuss ARC 2025
Catholic Unscripted | 18 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpKgZ0hXK9c

10:11 "without being Fascist"

Depends on how you define that. Without believing in Giovanni Gentile? For sure. Without seeing Il Duce (or Hercules) as the nec plus ultra of the Christian preux? For sure.

But:
a) it was Monarchist rather than Parlamentarian or Senatorial
b) it was Corporativist rather than Capitalist
c) it believed unconstitutional violence was sometimes what the common good needed (Julius Caesar, Constantine, Franco, to some degree Theodosius I).

I think Anti-Oligarchism to sometimes Anti-Parlamentarianism, Corporativism in opposition to both Capitalism and Communism, and a non-horror in principle of legitimate defense breaking the boundaries of constitution are the three hallmarks of quite a lot of movements in the 1920's and 30's. To some degree of Polish and Irish nationalism, both of which were strongly Catholic.

In one German case it was unfortunately allied to Medical dictatorship and to Bourgeois responsibility for the awkward ... I'm just trying to find out whether Pétain's régime was dishonoured in 1942 by the government Laval or already in 1941 with Alexis Carrell, I've heard him describe as eugenicist, but I recall that that word is sometimes abused about pro-natalists. Including by Academicians who would usually be thought of as welcoming distinct and precise terms.

Philea Smog

@PhileaSmog

@hglundahl. Do you mind if I quote an 1-month old commentar (oddly similar to yours) It was not unusual for good Christians to bet upon a strong man (or possibly the other way) (Emperor Constantin, King Clovis, Oliver Cromwell, Francisco Franco, Benito Mussolini, (?) Philippe Pétain ).The appeal, in the modern times, by good christians and alike, to the strong man has never, on the long run, ended very well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@PhileaSmog It so happens, what I am sympathising with is not "the strong man" ... even if some of those mentioned could so qualify.

I would most definitely not bet on Oliver Cromwell.

As to Dollfuss, I don't think you would accuse him of being a strong man. He happened to be the leader of a party that happened not to mind the dictatorial constitution (and neither had the original constitution minded it). He had no motive to get out of the constitution just to show he was a "strong man" ... but he had a motive to use its exception clause when lots of Social Democrats did an actually armed version of "January 6" and he only quelled their insurrection after shooting 300 to 400 of them.

His killer was a National Socialist.

His successor, Schuschnigg, was also not directing his country in a parliamentary democracy, and he was also not a strong man. He was part time supervised by orders of some doctor who pretended he was suicidal, just so Hitler's men could humiliate him 24/24.

It is assumed, time after time, if you are a Fascist, it means you admire the strong man. I quite often admire the weak man. But one of the weaknesses I can admire is not being able to manipulate a parliamentary democracy.

Lots of Fascisms "didn't end well" because they were conquered by enemies, and in Austria's and Poland's case, that enemy (or one of them) was Hitler.

I do not count Franco as a strong man. He was somewhat too hysteric about a still ongoing Spanish War after the Spanish War had already ended, and some of the things he did were a blight to his régime. But when his troops under his own direct command were cruel, that was under Alfons XIII in Morocco, and under Gil Robles in the Asturias. In the Spanish War, his own troops were among the gentler victors, while the brutalities against civilians were committed under other commands.

Are you a Swede? Or an Englishman?

Those are two nationalities where the Caesarian constitution is supposed to have as principal appeal the "admiration for the strong man" ... a thing that was Mussolini's weakness, he admired Hitler too much, but he has already paid for it. As far as I know, in Purgatory, and it's already over. No, I'm not the Mystic who said so ... but I was happy to hear about it.

One thing I do admire both Duce and Caudillo for is, the life of the unborn was holy.

@PhileaSmog To be fair, Franco actually was fairly strong as a soldier.

He was not too weak as a ruler.

20:05 "the King took responsibility of everybody"

No, but he did take responsibility for the COMMON good. And was, sometimes to an unhealthy degree, obeyed therein. Fortunately, Christianity then by and large took away this unhealthiness, but obedience was still a very strong value.

21:31 "the Nazis were just as much of the Left as of the Right"

Like that time when Adolf himself was a Leninist in Munich, in 1919. There are photos of him at the funeral of Kurt Eisner. Or footage.

A few months before he joined NSDAP ...

22:25 Catacombs. Well, back then, not everyone.

Popes were often seen outside catacombs, like Peter listening to Paul's words 2 Timothy 4:2. Hence Popes were usually shortlived. Only Peter was actually Pope longer than Michael I (who bear Pius IX by a few months). And Justin Martyr ...

23:13 Would you wildly disagree with the idea that both immigrants and homeless in big cities of other stripes could profit from an opening of ghost towns to agriculture?

24:24 What if certain Muslims were told to make their monocultural society in ghost towns, but met more pushback, including from joining police or doctors, in mixed areas?

(In Sweden and Norway, some abandoned farmland would be above the Polar Circle. This year that would mean keeping Ramadan is fairly easy ....)

26:08 You mean until the Parousia, or possibly already when Sts Henoch and Elias come back to force things a bit?

I think either of these is likely to give some resolve, and the Parousia a complete one.

Hitler was a Commie under Kurt Eisner and Once More

So, Hitler was a Communist in early 1919
TIKhistory | 28 March 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpuGRO72GbA

Two remarks of mine, and the second sparked contradiction.

23:15 Insane?

Between the Paris Commune and the moment we are talking about, it wasn't.

A Franciscan Catechism (of an Apologetic and anti-Socialist type, not a full Catholic doctrinal one) from the Third Reich put this couple of Q and A into it:

Frage
Warum hat die Paris-Commune [so viel geplündert und zerstört] aber die Villas der Rothschild geschont?
Q
Why did the Paris Commune [pillage and destroy so much] but spare the Villas of the Rothschilds?

Antwort
Weil der Sozialismus eine Judenschutztruppe ist.
A
Because Socialism is a Jew Protection Corps.

It turns out, the Rothschilds were in fact treating sick people from the Commune for free in their hospitals, so it was a question of gratitude. Meanwhile, their anticlericalism was inspired by an English international workers' association, Association internationale des travailleurs, which had Karl Marx among its inspirers.

Some Jews might have an international will to at least eliminate Christianity.

Unfortunately, the closing of Catholic institutions and the hostage taking and killing of Archbishop Darboy gave the impression that the Communards were involved in such an anticlerical project.

Which would tend to foster the misunderstanding, if such. So, back then, the idea was not insane.

27:24 I would define Fascism as less Socialist than moderate Syndicalist.

Not totally unlike the Social Democrats of Sweden in the Palme era.

Except, Mussolini had abortion punished as a crime. Sweden allowed abortion since 1974, on demand, up to week 18 according to wikipedia. What I recall hearing is somewhat different, like up to week 12, and then special reasons from weeks 12 to 18. I obviously prefer Codice Rocco. 1 to 4 years for unassisted abortion. 2 to 5 years (aborting mother and med personnel) for medically assisted abortion. 6 to 12 years for forcing someone else to abort, and girls under 14 as well as mentally handicapped legally assumed as non-consenting. No exceptions (at least prior to 1938) for eugenic reasons.

Meanwhile, Corporatismo and Saltsjöbadsandan never ruined either merchants or workers.

Vesta _The_Lesser

@Vesta_the_Lesser

"I would define Fascism as less Socialist than moderate Syndicalist."
PLEASE tell me you're joking or trolling.

"Corporatismo and Saltsjöbadsandan never ruined either merchants or workers."

What does that mean??? Are you going by the wikipedia definition of corporatism??? Because in the US, "corporatism" generally means the government is controlled by the largest/wealthiest private businesses (which is true).

You give so much detail about abortion rights...yet your concern for the details goes out the window so you can pretend nazism is socialism and also communism...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Vesta_the_Lesser US and Italy are not using the word the same way.

First of all, the word "corporations" and "corporazioni" are two different things.

Second, "big business controlling government" is not what Italy was trying to do or Sweden was trying to do.

In Italy, there was a chamber of corporations that was a bit like a senate. The vote to that chamber at least ideally should come in most lines of business from small business. It is possible that the car business representative was indeed controlled by Fiat, but the farm business representative was or representatives were not controlled by Monsanto.

Third, Corporatismo and Saltsjöbadsandan share one moral requisite: employers and employees are not supposed to be at each other's throat. In Italy, a chamber serving as a Senate helped continuous negotiations, in Sweden, whenever "collective contracts" needed readjustment, the Government would invite the major parties, the LO (Landsorganisationen, employees in blue collar works) and SAF (Svenska Arbetsgivare-Förening) to talks in a very beautiful and rich suburb of Stockholm, Saltsjöbaden. For PTK and TCO and SR, functionaries, and I was SR, when working at the police archive, negotiations tend to function differently, they are white collar workers.

Anyway, Mussolini and Olof Palme had in common:

• owners should continue to own
• their employees should be decently paid, and the security at work should not be too low, nor the working hours too high.

The first point distinguish them from Communism, the second from Laissez-Faire Capitalism, neither was like 19th C. Manchester any more than the Soviet Union.

"You give so much detail about abortion rights"

Well, the thing is, Mussolini had one big moral advantage over Palme. He punished abortion as the crime it is, rather than refunding it over social security.

What exact detail am I supposed to have actually missed?