Fascism (Why Nordic Social Democracy is Worse)

Kenneth Johansson

4.X.2025

A brilliant essay about Fascism, by Wayne Allensworth:

What is “Fascism”? (Fascism, Real and Imagined)
By Wayne Allensworth | October 1, 2025
https://www.american-remnant.com/what-is-fascism-fascism-real-and-imagined/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not brilliant:

"Fascism, especially its Nazi form, rejected Christian morality as weakening the folk, preventing the fascists from purifying the nation."

Change this to "Nazism rejected ..." and put it out of an essay on Fascism and into an essay on Nazism, where it belongs.

Not accurate:

"Fascism is not a reactionary, much less a conservative, ideology. The fascists of the 1920s and 30s saw themselves as revolutionaries displacing a stagnant bourgeois order."

No Fascism saw itself as simply Conservative (neither did Chesterton, and I mean the Catholic, not the Mosleyist), but some (and so did Chesterton) saw themselves as Reactionary. Bourgeoisie is a product of English Reformation over Whig Revolters to Glorious Revolution, and in France of the French Revolution as much as of the Bourbons.

José Antonio Primo de Rivera polemised against Rousseau, and against the Revolutions. René de La Tour du Pin and Charles Maurras, granddad and dad of French Fascism, were Monarchists and against the French Revolution.

Kenneth Johansson

Hans-Georg Lundahl; I agree that the first quotation should be about Nazism, as Mussolini was skeptical of Hitler's ideas about race. (But I still think that, on the whole, the essay is brilliant.)

When it comes to Fascism being reactionary or conservative, I agree with Allensworth.

Fascism wasn't a significant movement outside of Italy (counting Nazism as a separate entity here). It was almost all about Italy and Mussolini, and he wasn't much of a reactionary. You could probably find many followers who were; but Mussolini ruled, and Fascism basically began and ended with him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Fascism wasn't a significant movement outside of Italy"

Spain, like Falange and first years after 1939?

Brazil, like Integralismo (the youth affiliation of Dom Helder)

Portugal is a bit more complicated, since Estado Novo by Salazar was modelled on Estado Novo by a Brazilian guy who wasn't best friends with Integralists.

France, like Action Française and Pétain (obviously, my support for him wavers with 1942 and the Laval government).

Kenneth Johansson

Hans-Georg Lundahl; the Falange had very limited support, and Franco was very much in charge after the Spanish Civil War.

Was Salazar a Fascist? I see him more as a traditional authoritarian leader, like Franco.

What made Mussolini unusual was his enthusiasm for war. He attacked Ethiopia in 1935, Albania in 1939, declared war on France and the United Kingdom -- and invaded Greece -- in 1940, and joined Germany in invading the Soviet Union in 1941. Most right-wing leaders were more careful.

There were large movements in Brazil and France, which were somewhat significant in those countries, but they didn't matter much on the global stage. France was broken after the defeat, and Pétain didn't have much to say. Hitler rarely respected his allies, and kept them in a short leash. I suspect that he had respect for Mannerheim, but he had real power, and was never a puppet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Was Salazar a Fascist? I see him more as a traditional authoritarian leader, like Franco."

Insofar as they had some degree of Corporativism, they have been counted as Fascists.

1939 to 1975 Franco was in charge, but the first years were more Fascist, the time from 1960 is called "tecncracía" ... more focussed on getting riches for Spain than on equal distribution. That said, Franco's Spain was a wellfare state, he did invest in making cheap flats available.

"What made Mussolini unusual was his enthusiasm for war."

Thanks for unusual. Dollfuss and Schuschnigg didn't share it (also Schuschnigg commented later that "Austro-Fascist" was more of a nickname than a good description, but it did involve a Unitary Worker's Syndicate, so Corporatism).

Mannerheim was unfortunately into Eugenics, like Wendell Holmes, like Lenin, like Hitler, like the Social Democrats of Sweden, Norway and Denmark.

Pétain had more to say 1940 to 42 than afterwards, like Mussolini between 1922 and 1943 (42?). I'm not judging them on Laval II or Salò Republic.

Kenneth Johansson

Hans-Georg Lundahl; yes, it's always difficult to draw the lines regarding Fascism, as it has become a slur for the Left. The Communists used to call Social Democrats "social fascists"! 🙂

I like to treat Nazism and Fascism as two different movements -- even if the connections can't be ignored. Furthermore, I see a clear difference between Mussolini and the other leaders you mentioned. So I prefer to keep "Fascism" as a designation for the Italian movement. I see on Wikipedia that the Catholic Church favored bottom-up corporatism, while Mussolini preferred a top-down model; do you agree with this?

Eugenics was, unfortunately, popular all over Northern Europe and the United States. Protestant churches were, usually, much weaker than the Catholics regarding this, and didn't offer much resistance. But I don't know anything about Mannerheim's views -- your information is new to me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The Communists used to call Social Democrats "social fascists"!"

In Sweden, not totally untrue. "Saltsjöbadsandan" was introduced by one member of both Social Democrats and Nysvenskarne, as Per Engdahl, the founder of Nysvenskarne, i e Swedish Fascism, says in Fribytare i Folkhemmet.

His models were Carta del Lavoro and Perón's politics.

"I see on Wikipedia that the Catholic Church favored bottom-up corporatism, while Mussolini preferred a top-down model; do you agree with this?"

The real difference is, while Catholicism favours both bottom-up and top-down corporativism, Catholicism doesn't think membership in a Corporation should be mandatary as prerequisite of doing your work (either as employee or employer). Mussolini made it mandatory, Pius XI didn't totally condemn him, but remarked "there are more than one way to Corporatism" (meaning Mussolini's wasn't totally to his taste).

"Eugenics was, unfortunately, popular all over Northern Europe and the United States."

Not all the states, but too many. UK was also exempt from actually practising it, probably due to a bigger minority of Catholics at the time.

When Albanus Schachleiter OSB, who was a personal friend of Hitler and got in trouble with the bishop of Munich for it, remarked that National Socialism risked getting too Protestant, I think this (as well as compulsory camps for loafers) was what he was talking about.

I'm not sure how much it has to do with Mannerheim's personal views, it so happens it started in Finland while he was President. He didn't stop it. However, I think the victims were fewer in Finland.

Kenneth Johansson

Hans-Georg Lundahl; I think the idea about Social Democracy being a variant of fascism came from Moscow in the 1920s. Stalin said this, in 1924: "Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism."*

On the other hand, I believe that the Social Democratic Party of Germany viewed Stalinists as fascists! 🙂

* Source: J. V. Stalin
Concerning the International Situation
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/09/20.htm

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, in 1924, SD and Fascists were both pretty pro-property and pro-syndicates.

Mussolini and (while he lived) Matteotti clashed over electoral technicalities, not over economics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Eugenics was, unfortunately, popular all over Northern Europe and the United States."

I forgot to mention, Catholic Fascisms (except possibly Pétain) were an honourable exception.

Even Mussolini wasn't for Eugenics back when Chesterton asked!

_________________

In the following, I have shortened the name of HGr, since I don't know him or how willing he is to appear in person on my blog, and in the interest of symmetry, Kenneth Johansson to KJ, myself to HGL.

HGr

I think this was a rather lazy take on the subject, blaming "ungodliness" as the main issue.

KJ

HGr; I agree that the loss of religion was a complicated matter, leading to all sorts of knock-on effects -- and I would also argue that culture is strongly connected to biology.

Nordic history is another complicated issue. Absence of war was important, IMO, but also absence of colonies (with a few exceptions). France and the United Kingdom struggled to cope with losing their empires, while we focused on improving our economies without such baggage.

Japan became peaceful after WWII, but they didn't have much choice after getting thoroughly destroyed. It was the same thing in Germany. People didn't have much faith in the old religions, but were sick of the new ones as well, so they put their energy into producing cars, et cetera.

Regarding Hitler: I don't see how things could have ended much differently. His ambitions were so extreme, and he was so delusional, that I think America and the Russians would have defeated him sooner or later. Had he been more successful with Operation Barbarossa, the Russians could have retreated further east, behind the Ural Mountains.

HGL

HGr "Ungodly western societies like here in the Nordics remained civilized on pretty much all points long after God left the picture."

Eugenics?

HGr

HGL Are you inferring that we in the Nordics practiced eugenics? We didn't. For a few decades in the mid 20th century Sweden had a set of very basic laws on parents that had kids and were deemed anti-social, meaning they were not capable of caring for their kids and they were sterilized after the second child. Doesn't strike me as a crime against humanity or even any kind of Nazism. Minorites and Swedes faced the same consideration.

HGL

"and they were sterilized"

Exactly. Eugenics.

And that is exactly what Nazis did from basically "day one" or more precisely February 1934.

It's also what Pope Pius XI condemned in Casti Connubii, in 1931. As this was before 1933, he wasn't looking primarily at Nazis, but at for instance Nordics or some US and Canadian states.

As to "deemed anti-social" the definitions weren't directly race based (neither was the one used in 1934 by NS Germany), but criteria for anti-social targetted Gipsies, Tatters and Lapps disproportionately often (or Greenlanders in Denmark).

"Doesn't strike me as a crime against humanity"

It certainly doesn't strike me as civilised to give doctors or social workers arbitrary and very oppressive powers over citizens. With abortion, Nordics have at least by now passed the line to crime against humanity. But already back then, when aborting trisomic babies was recommended.

Jael and Mary

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9.X.2025

Totus Catholica doesn't go far enough:

Mary in Judges? This Verse Makes Protestant Scholars SWEAT
Totus Catholica | 9 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coSHNPkUwWg

---

[My original comments under the video are also copied to under above FB status, and when a debate or start of it says "youtube" it means the debate took place on youtube, under the video. If comments turn up under mine, I'll mark that "FB"]

---

2:19 The angel had already called Mary Blessed among women before She was pregnant.

The parallel between Mary and Jael is even closer. We must ask, "who is Mary's Sisera" and if we also see a parallel in Judith to this wording "who is Mary's Holophernes" ... this must be exactly what She wondered "what kind of greeting this might be" ...

Given Luke 1:42 adding "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" we have another echo clearing it up. Genesis 3:15. It wasn't a human person, but a serpent ... or fallen angel ... that She had "killed with a tent peg" ...

There is only one way for a human being to have basically killed Satan. Reversing the way in which Satan killed Adam and Eve. And that means, being without sin.

Youtube

arcadio jr. navarro

@arcadiojr.navarro8303

@hglundahl

In Genesis 3 God metes out various judgments against those who brought sin into His perfect world. Adam, Eve, and the serpent all hear of the consequences of their rebellion. To the serpent God says, in part, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15, KJV).

@hglundahl

Even in this judgment, there is mercy. God’s curse on the serpent, in particular, was laced with words of hope. The woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15 is Eve. The serpent, addressed directly, is the animal that Satan used to deceive the woman. Some of the curse was directed at the animal (verse 14); at the same time, the curse of God falls upon Satan, who had taken the serpent’s form or body in Eden (cf. the dragon in Revelation 12:9).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 "The woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15 is Eve."

No.

First, since all of the OT is about Christ, but not all of the OT has its Christological meaning stated in NT writings, we need the tradition of the Church to access what Jesus told the disciples of Emmaus in Luke 24. And the Church says Mary.

Second, "blessed among women" is in all of the Jewish-Protestant OT only said about Jael, and in the Catholic-Orthodox OT also about Judith. So, since the angel greeted Mary with these words, she wondered who Her Sisera and Holophernes was supposed to be. But when Elisabeth repeated and added "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" She saw the parallel to Genesis 3:15 and knew Her "Sisera and Holophernes" was Satan and She therefore had to be without sin, since that was the only move by which a man could defeat the fallen angel.

arcadio jr. navarro

@hglundahl

In Genesis 3 God metes out various judgments against those who brought sin into His perfect world. Adam, Eve, and the serpent all hear of the consequences of their rebellion. To the serpent God says, in part, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15, KJV).

@hglundahl

The woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15 is Eve. The serpent, addressed directly, is the animal that Satan used to deceive the woman. Some of the curse was directed at the animal (verse 14); at the same time, the curse of God falls upon Satan, who had taken the serpent’s form or body in Eden (cf. the dragon in Revelation 12:9).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 It seems the Hebrew has "complete enmity" which is more appropriate about a sinless person against Satan than about Eve and her far of children against snakes.

Also, the Blessed Virgin Mary recognised the allusion, once St. Elizabeth greeted Her.

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 Btw, KJV is not a Bible.

Use Douay Rheims instead. Just a tip.

arcadio jr. navarro

@hglundahl

The gifts of the apostles and prophets were foundational and necessary in the early days of the church, but their purpose has been completed. There are no apostles or prophets today. Once the Holy Spirit had fulfilled His ministry of guiding the disciples into all the truth (John 16:13) and inspiring prophecy (2 Peter 1:20–21), He began using evangelists and pastors and teachers to accomplish the next stage of the building.

@hglundahl

Douay-Rheims Version - Translation method

The Douay-Rheims Bible is a translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Vulgate quickly became the Bible universally used in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. In their preface, the translators of the 1582 DRV New Testament gave 10 reasons for using the Vulgate as their primary text, rather than the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, stating that the Latin Vulgate "is not only better than all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree."

@hglundahl

King James Version - Translation method

The King James translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. In 1769, the Oxford edition, which excluded the Apocrypha, became the standard text and is the text which is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 I'm sorry, but that's not how the NT portrays things.

Apostles insofar as having seen Jesus, and Prophets insofar as adding prophecy to Acts or Revelation (St. Paul being both), adding to the Deposit of faith, that no longer exists.

But they were also bishops, as you can see from Peter being able to lay hands on Simon Magus (and refusing) and Paul having been consecrated in this manner (Acts 13), consecrating St. Tim in this manner and telling him whom not to ordain priests and whom to ordain priests ... possibly even whom to consecrate bishop or not consecrate bishop (depending on whether 1st C terminology covers our own or not), shows there was a foreseen mechanism or strategy or plan to give successors to the Apostles in their capacity of bishops.

Matthew 28:16 to 20 shows the Eleven were meant to have successors to the end of time. You totally misrepresent the ecclesiology of the NT, you fail to account for typological questions existing as per Luke 24 and you pretend those following immediately after the Apostles for some reason got it wrong, but you or whoever more than a millennium and a half afterwards got it right. This is not even remotely credible.

The Holy Spirit certainly led the Apostles into all truth, meaning perhaps even things they had never understood while disciples, and this has ended, but they also got Him to remind them of all He had said, which the Holy Ghost is doing to this day and will continue doing to Doomsday.

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 As to Vulgate vs Manuscripts, unfortunately, KJV betrayed even manuscripts in Matthew 6:7 to fit Calvin's Geneva Bible and the Protestant disgust for Rosaries. Which is a very evil thing.

---

2:22 Not just the Church teaches that, but St. Luke in chapter 24.

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him
[Luke 24:27]

Did you note "all the prophets" and again "all the scriptures" ... exactly. Precisely all of the OT. Excellent proof text for tradition, since it's the Church that has the recollection of this typological teaching, only small bits of it are mentioned in the NT actual texts.

Youtube

arcadio jr. navarro

@hglundahl

Jesus shows up often in the Old Testament—not by that name, and not in the same form as we see Him in the New Testament, but He is there nonetheless. The theme of the entire Bible is Christ.

@hglundahl

Jesus Himself confirmed the fact that He is in the Old Testament. In John 5:46 He explained to some religious leaders who had challenged Him that the Old Testament was talking about Him: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.” According to Jesus, God’s work with man since time began all pointed to Him. Another time when Jesus showed that He is in the Old Testament was on the day of His resurrection. Jesus was walking with two of His disciples, and “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Earlier, before His crucifixion, Jesus had pointed to Isaiah 53:12 and said, “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 Indeed.

I had missed John 5:46 and Luke 22:37, but it's Luke 24:27 where it clearly says all the scriptures and prophets as well as Moses, i e all of the OT.

---

3:49 She had crushed the serpent even before the fiat mihi.

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women
[Luke 1:28]

That's verse 28. In verse 31, Mary's pregnancy is said to be a future event. In verse 38, only, Mary answers:

And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her
[Luke 1:38]

So, while she arguably RE-crushed the serpent by that yes, or rather that yes resumed every crushing of the serpent she had ever done, she had been crushing the serpent for a long time. And that means sinlessness.

Youtube

arcadio jr. navarro

[4 comments which I'm not sharing.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 Thank you, I think I'll leave it here.

You are just trying to promote the standard Protestant arguments against Catholic Mariology, without lifting one finger to deal with my arguments for Catholic Mariology.

I'm blocking you after this.

Shared: Against Abortion

Live Action News

Instead of the dead baby she expected to remove from the woman’s bed, she found a living 1 ½ pound child.

The story:

Nurse horrified as doctor orders abortion survivor to be taken to lab: ‘It won’t be breathing long’ | Live Action
https://www.liveaction.org/news/nurse-horrified-doctor-abortion-survivor-breathing

Attempts on my FB access

This is the third time I get this kind of extra verification:

The first two times I filled in, I got returned to a normal FB login, and each time, as after the first login, I was thrust onto an extra verification.

It may be mentioned that FB France is managed by moderators who are Qataris, and that I've lately showed myself critical against Islam.*

The government continued to censor or ban print and social media religious material it considered objectionable. In June the government deported an Arabic-speaking evangelical Christian pastor after interrogating him for three days on charges of leading a place of worship without authorization and inviting non-Christians to his church. Conversion to another religion from Islam is defined by the law as apostasy and illegal, although there have been no recorded punishments for apostasy since the country’s independence in 1971

Source:

2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Qatar
US Department of State
https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-report-on-international-religious-freedom/qatar

It may also be mentioned, I contacted the son of Katarina Taikon, whose mother's autobiography i enjoyed, explaining why I, while supporting Gypsy Rights, am a Fascist and why that doesn't equal Nazi. It's possible that a certain campaign to stamp me as a Nazi or my Fascist alignment as a racist (including anti-gypsy) one is not very amused by this initiative on my part./HGL

PS, Fixed, but the guy didn't answer. I'm still a fan of his mother, though./HGL

PPS, if you didn't get it, it's the access that's fixed./HGL

* A certain Muslim attitude about polemics from non-Muslims, specifically against Islam is calling it "maligning" ... now the true religion is certainly in one sense maligned by any polemics against it, but this is not always due to an intent of misrepresenting. I think some Protestants have also pretended I maligned the Deformation, on their view "Reformation" ... by showing it is opposed to an implication of Matthew 28:20. Oh, I misrepresent the intention of the Reformers, Luther never intended to create a new church ... the problem is, they agree that the Church that eventually came out of Luther, namely Lutherans, and a few more, that came out of him indirectly, are new. And Matthew 28:20 requires for there to be a true Church that's from "AD 33" (exact year somewhat disputed), that's not a pure abstraction and that's still there. A Conclavist doesn't agree that the papacy of Vatican in Exile is a new papacy, we say it's the old papacy that got a fresh start after a 32 year long pause (a record long sedevacancy). We say that it's the popes currently in the Vatican who are very recent transformers comparable to the Deformers (one proposed year of limit being 1958). Again, a Vatican-II-ist may tactically pretend I'm "maligning" the Vatican because of my convictions about it ... but would be less eager to openly consider my intent as that of maligning./HGL

Distant Starlight Problem, Hugh Ross and Me

Hugh Ross

July 31 (2025) at 6:47 PM

Question of the Week: What do you say to people who assert only God was there to observe the past state of the universe and, therefore, we can only trust what God says about the past and not astronomers?

My Answer: God has not granted us access to the future. He is our only source of information about what will happen in the future. He has, however, granted us access to the past thanks to the finite and constant velocity of light. While astronomers have no access to the present when they observe stars and galaxies, they have direct access to the past. For example, when they observe the Sun, they do not see the Sun as it is now but as it was about 8 minutes ago when light departed from the Sun on its way to Earth. Likewise, when astronomers observed the Andromeda Galaxy, they do not see it as it is now, but as it was 2.5 million years ago.

Astronomers can prove that the velocity of light has not changed, The degree of splitting in hyperfine spectral lines of stars and galaxies reveals the velocity of light when that light left the star and galaxy. The velocity measures the same for all stars and galaxies astronomers observe.

Astronomers can also prove that the light came from the stars and galaxies they observe and not from a location near to Earth. As light travels through interstellalr space, the gas in insterstellar space broadens the spectral lines in proportion to the light travel distance. The dust in interstellar space reddens the continuum radiation between spectral lines in proportion to the light travel distance.

Thus, astronomers do possess direct, trustworthy access to the past state of the universe. Astronomers can confirm that what the Bible says about the past state of the universe is true. It is no accident that the most powerful, unambiguous scientific evidence for the God of the Bible is observational astrophysics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Likewise, when astronomers observed the Andromeda Galaxy, they do not see it as it is now, but as it was 2.5 million years ago.

Supposing there is a verification of the 2.5 million lightyears.

New blog on the kid: Have you heard the expression "von Neumann chain"?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/08/have-you-heard-expression-von-neumann.html

Hugh Ross

Hans-Georg Lundahl Astronomers have achieved an assumption-free verification. They have made trigonometric distance measurements to galaxies as far away as 470 million light years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The trigonometry depends on the assumption earth is moving two astronomic units per year, right?

How's that "assumption free"?

Next Day

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hugh Ross With Earth moving two astronomic units between January and July, there is trigonometry by 1 known distance and 3 known angles (with a very narrow angle, we assume the other two angles are very close to 90°, obviously).

With the Earth staying still and the star moving between January and July, as we cannot know it moves 2 astronomic units, we only have three angles (pointing the other way). 3 known angles and 0 known distance = no calculated distance either.

Prove alpha Centauri and Andromeda are not both in a shell of fix stars 1 light day up, please!

14.VIII.2025, on the Vigil of Our Lady's Assumption, this was pubished and I notified him./HGL

It Seems I Lost a Friend on FB

New blog on the kid: Did I Mention Trump Had Commie Tendencies? · HGL's F.B. writings: It Seems I Lost a Friend on FB

I'm not revealing Return to Tradition is called Anthony Stine, he says so on the patreon. I do however take care not to reveal his middle name initial and his face, which are not revealed on the youtube. Well, the face is revealed on some youtubes, but he may remove them or reboot them, so, I prefer discretion.

There the face of Belloc takes the place, and this I inserted instead of his photo on FB, so here is a photoshopped version of the dialogue, not changing the words, only the profile info of Anthony Stine:

Indeed, he removed me from his friends. He can however not remove Chesterton from my friends:

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WORLD
by G.K. Chesterton
https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=/Contemporary-EN/XCT.152.html

I'll cite the first paragraph of the first chapter:

A book of modern social inquiry has a shape that is somewhat sharply defined. It begins as a rule with an analysis, with statistics, tables of population, decrease of crime among Congregationalists, growth of hysteria among policemen, and similar ascertained facts; it ends with a chapter that is generally called "The Remedy." It is almost wholly due to this careful, solid, and scientific method that "The Remedy" is never found. For this scheme of medical question and answer is a blunder; the first great blunder of sociology. It is always called stating the disease before we find the cure. But it is the whole definition and dignity of man that in social matters we must actually find the cure before we find the disease .

I think you can see how the bill of Trump truly fits this description. So do actual Marxist policies in the countries where Marxism had a monopoly. Or a predominant place, like the French President Vincent Auriol, in whose time homeless were made as invisible, because as unfree, and therefore as "sheltered" from the public, as Trump is initiating.

To some, Marxism simply means solidarity with the poor. In that case, Franco was Marxist. He subsidised living accomodations with tax money and made it pretty hard for a landlord to get rid of a poor tenant. Now, another kind of solidarity with the poor, preached by Chesterton, is not to persecute a poor who no longer is a tenant and also does not own his home, but instead lives without one. The exact fault Mr. Trump is committing. There, as well as with taking interest, Marxism is one with Capitalistic bourgeoisie. Note the tone where Chesterton says "growth of hysteria among policemen" ... the kind of hysteria in which every quarrel between a homeless man and someone passing him by becomes a proof the homeless man is a menace, not that some of those passing him are a nuisance to him. Which even in France they are, as said some of them, and the United States, in many states, is much more Puritan./HGL

PS, the screenshot doesn't show (on your computer or some time in the future)? I'll copy the dialogue, here:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Marxist is about Trump's new Soviet policy about the homeless, right?

Anthony P Stine

Hans-Georg Lundahl no, I'm not retarded enough to believe something like that

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I thought you were a fan of Belloc and Chesterton.

Trump's policy remind me of 1910's England, what Chesterton fought against, Prussia, and their fulfilment, the Soviet Union.

His tax policy also mirrors Marxist Sweden.

Anthony P Stine

-Georg Lundahl I am. I'm also not gay enough to call his policies Marxist. I'm not politically or economically illiterate

I'm sorry, his studies in political science may have made him precisely that. And if he just called me gay, he's either voicing a very heavy prejudice against all and any Trump critics ... or relying on calumny.

If he has from priests in Paris that I'm gay, they are committing calumny (and that calumny could be a reason why they avoid me). If they pretend I cross dress, they rely on the poorer judgement of Muslims or Jews less familiar with European historic and geographic variation of the male costume./HGL

---

I tried to notify Anthony Stine via FB mail, on one of my accounts (they are two). About a month ago, I was obliged to change the password on the account, I did so quickly, and then forgot the exact password. As you know computers depend on exact passwords. This means, I was not able to reuse it. I tried to change it again, then I got in a loop about what computer I'm habitually using. For those who speak French, the post LH110 shows screenshots. I'm right now again in a loop of screenshot 5 and 6. Meaning, if he answered, I cannot access his answer./HGL

Let's Recall Our Own Girls, Oppressed by Delayed Marriage If in Certain Situations (Pregnant, In Love, or Otherwise 1 Cor. 7:9)

International Christian Concern

Read more: https://www.persecution.org/2025/06/13/underage-marriage-outlawed-in-islamabad/

[Pray with us. Praise God that underage marriage has been outlawed in Islamabad.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The bill addresses the growing concern of female children getting pregnant in their early teens before they can mature or pursue education. It also highlights the widespread issues many girls face, of being kidnapped, forced into marriage, and forced by their captors to convert to Islam. At least 1,000 girls are subject to this annually.

There are two sides to it.

On the one hand, some Christians are better protected, at least if they are in Islamabad.

Also some young teen Muslimas who were not wanting the marriage.

On the other hand the law as such is at least if it were generalised unjust.

In France, every year (my stats are from before the Covid) 1000 girls under 15 get pregnant and 772 of the pregnancies end in abortion. I think that was lower back before 2006, meaning abortion and than 772, when the marital age of girls was raised from 15 to 18.

Traditionally among Christians, 18 has not been the limit.

From Agnes of Sagan*, who married Ludwik I of Brieg to 6 generations later, for instance two daughters of James II of Scotland (not to be confused with James II of England who was James VII of Scotland), there were 32 married women with known ages, or tolerably known, and depending on whether you go with the higher or lower age of a person, the median was either 17 (both n. 16 and 17 were married at 17) or between 17 and 18 (n. 16 was married at 17, n. 17 at 18). The lower quartile similarily varied as either 14 (both 8 and 19 were married at 14), or between 14 and 15 (8 was married at 14, 9 at 15).**

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Seven Generations Women, Age at First Marriage
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2023/09/seven-generations-women-age-at-first.html

I am happy the law as such is not applicable outside Islamabad. I'd be even happier if they all converted from Islam, stopped forced marriages and the limit could be lowered to 16 for girls all over the country. Or even lower than 16.

The canonic minimum age for ladies was 12 and the youngest in the sample was 11 or 12 when married. In the Christian Middle Ages.

Notes:

* Henryk IV of Poland is also known as Henryk II of Żagań. Agnes or Agnieszka was his daughter.
** The oldest lady at her marriage was married at 33. 32 and 33 are two outliers, the oldest younger than that were married at 25. And it's questionable if they were two or just one, over 30.