|Essay series:||Carlos Hugo, not without remarks abt Tito, Nestor Makhnov, Mussolini|
Lyndon and Benito
Tarama or Caviare, Righteous Pricing Comment on Thomas Storck
[January 24, 2010 at 2:36pm]
The group recognizes Carlos Hugo as legitimate king of Spain
I can tell you whom I recognize as the legitimate king of England. A S.M. Francis II. I think the dynastic legitimacy should form a loyalist royalist international
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Quién es reconocido como legitimo después del deceso de Carlos Ugo?
[February 29 at 12:09pm (2012) - continues to 10 March]
James Bogle: Don Carlos Ugo was a divorced Communist who treacherously abandoned the principles of Carlism and, indeed, of Catholicism. By the very house rules of Carlism and the Kingdom of Spain he had abdicated his rights by his apostasy. The true claimant is Don Sixto-Enrique who is still alive, I'm happy to say. Your judgment regarding Duke Francis is also awry, Snr Fernandez, for the reasons I have already rehearsed which you perhaps missed. If you consider primogeniture the sole basis of legitimism then you are forced to abandon the Stuarts, who derive from the usurping Tudors, and look to the Houses of Plantagenet, Cerdic, Arthur or the Roman Caesars.
Luis Infante: To answer Mr Lundahl's question: Carlos Hugo's death has not affected Spanish succession in the least. No one (with the exception of less than a handful of eccentrics who only seem to exist on the Internet) reconized him as anything after he himself deserted his followers in 1978 and proceeded on to recognize the Usurper Juan Carlos. As a matter of fact, Carlos Hugo had ceased to be Prince of the Asturias around 1975. May God have had mercy on his soul.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: R I P. But Carlos Hugo recognising Juan Carlos is about as good or bad as Francis II recognising Elisabeth II. Either one has to uphold one's claim to own it, or one has not. If Francis II can state he has no claims as to Elisabeth's throne, either he is not de jure king of Scotland, England and Ireland - or Carlos Hugo remained as legitimate as that line had ever been. A Communist is of course bad - if that can be proven to be the case (checking up on his political doctrine with say Papal condemnations or Thomasic pre-condemnations of Communism). A Constitutionalist may be as bad. As for divorced, I just had a glimpse of something also very ill as to the person honoured in this group.
Luis Infante: No, Mr Lundahl. Primogeniture is checked by the laws of each realm, in addition to the principles (from natural law on) so well explained by Thomistic doctors. In the case of the Spains, according to our traditional laws recognition of a usurper implies the loss of rights for he who commits that act of treason (for treason it is, and again our laws lay that out nicely). Loss of rights also happens by not conforming to the traditional constitution of the Spains in its entirety, and this has doctrinal implications. Thus a non-Catholic, or a Liberal, a Socialist, anyone in favour of the party system, etc. cannot be King of the Spains or keep any rights of succession.
Carlos Hugo was a frivolous opportunist - Francoist, Christian-Democrat, Socialist, NWO Liberal, all in succession, and all in writing and in public. He could have been king. He messed it up, and messed up Carlism in the process. A sad story.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "Thus a non-Catholic," - if he divorced and remarried, that is indeed a sad story ... " or a Liberal," ... what precisely were his errors of Liberal doctrine? "... a Socialist," - speaking of which - did Franco reman legitimate while empowering the psychiatry and child welfare of Valleja Najera or was that a Socialist error? "... anyone in favour of the party system, etc. cannot be King of the Spains or keep any rights of succession." - Exactly how was he in favour of the party system? Pragmatically or absolutely? As having raised my arm with an "Eviva Cristo Rey" in front of Montejurra, I feel I ought to know a thing or two more about this story.
Luis Infante: Mr Lundahl, I was about to reply to Mr James Bogle when your comment came up. I will tackle yours first, as it is easier.
For a legitimist, Franco was never legitimate, except perhaps (stress on perhaps) during the war. With or without Vallejo-Nájera. Carlists do not raise their arms in salute - that is a silly Fascist thing imitated by the Falangists. Who, in turn, never used the "¡Viva Cristo Rey!".
Carlos Hugo never "remarried", pray do not overdo it - he was bad enough without that. If you are interested in Carlos Hugo's aberrations, most of them are in print, and Google will give you access to them. And now I must again leave for real life - lunchtime.
James Bogle: I agree with Luis Infante save to note that the salute was originally ancient Roman. The Fascists took it over and spoiled it forever. To be fair to Franco, I think it was his intention always to restore the monarchy but that was not easy in the period after the war. In the end he settled for Juan Carlos who has been unimpressive and of doubtful legtimacy.
As for Don Carlos Hugo, he was a Titoist Communist by his own admission.
Does anyone need reminding how many millions of innocents the Communists have mass-murdered, raped and tortured, not least taking a particular delight in doing so to Christian believers and monarchists?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Enjoy your lunch, glad he did not remarry.
Above for Luis Infante, this here for James Bogle: Titoism is economically not Communist. Murdering played a very minor role in establishing it. OK, some cooperatives in Croatia or Slovenia are such because previous owners, as in German heritage aristocrats, were murdered during partisan warfare. But the system as such is neither Communist nor murderous. So, however much I destest Tito's take on Cardinal Stepinac, which is also an issue with Serbian Orthodox non-Communists to this day, I cannot take a confession of sympathy with Tito's system as an admission of Communism in the condemned sense. Comparing Tito to Mao is like comparing Dollfuss to Hitler. Obviously, there were bad things going on under Tito as elsewhere under Communists, Social Democrats, Labour Party, and Democrats not sufficiently repudiated by Republicans, like abortion. If Carlos Hugo specifically mentioned abortion "liberties" as one good point in Tito's program, that would very obviously qualify him as bad, but a general sympathy for the system, as opposed both to Sovietic, Chinese Communism and Western Capitalism and Scandinavian Capitalism with Fiscal Socialism is not enough to stamp him as bad. The Serbian farmers enjoyed the same kind of individual ownership within communal limitations under Tito as they had done under the Kraljevina, under the Turks, and even before Kosovo Polje.
James Bogle: Baloney. Tell that to the Cetniks and Royal Yugoslav Army soldiers who were murdered in cold blood by Tito and his partisans. Have you never read Count Nikolai Tolstoy's books on the victims of Yalta? Tito was an undoubted and self-confessed Communist whose partisans committed some of teh worst murders of WWII including the infamous "Pit of Kocevje". Dollfuss was never a Nazi but was an anti-Nazi who was murdered by Nazis. Wake up, man!
As Luis Infante told you, go on-line and look up Don Carlos Hugo for yourself. He was a self-confessed Communist and social libertarian who wholly repudiated his Catholic upbringing. Stop kidding yourself.
I really cannot carry on this discussion if you are going to continue to make such ill-founded and ridiculous assertions. Really. It is descending into fatuity.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Tito was a Communist under his partisan days. Which I was not defending. Just as I am not defending Mussolini in politics after 1938, when he got too close to Hitler. But there was a day when Mussolini still preferred Dollfuss to Hitler and there came a day when Tito took his distance from East block Communism - obviously before Carlos Hugo decalred himself a Titoist Communist. Since, before that day, the distinction woould have had no point. So, whether you think the discussion fatuitous or not, did Carlos Hugo or did he not defend Tito's crimes in the partisan days? Speaking of Cetniks, some Croats remember these as quite as bad if not worse than Tito's partisans. Oh, b t w Tito was a Croat.
Looking up, will do. Whether that changes my opinion or not is another matter. It would not be the first time looking up a thing my opponents in discussion wanted me to look up confirmed my position.
James Bogle: Try looking it up before you respond with arrogance. If the truth confirms you in your falsity that is your problem. Moreover, you have heard from Luis Infante on the subject so the likelihood of you being wrong is further increased.
Your Mussolini rant is irrelevant and I don't need to be reminded, least of all by you, that Tito was a Croat. Everyone knows that. Tito lived and died a Communist. That he never apologised for his war crimes is a fair indication of his views. Why you want to defend Don Carlos Hugo who opposed your most cherished views is a perversity which you might be able to explain to yourself but you will have considerable difficulty in explaining to any rational audience. Fatuity is always hard to justify.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Well, because Carlos Hugo did not condone Tito's war crimes - only his economic model, for which the war crimes are not relevant. So, I did look up, using Spanish Wiki. My article does end with a challenge back to you. Might Luis Infante be working in a bank or two? I mean bankers are a bit prone to exaggerate the virtues of Capitalism or the vices of ANY kind of socialism.
Just as primogeniture is not the last word in legitimism, juridic ownership does not settle _all_ the disputes there are between rich and poor. And that really is one of my most cherished views, a bit unlike what you presume them to be. Perhaps.
Oh, if you wanted to be somewhat polite, you might apologise for your cavalier take on Mussolini and Tito. My mother's civil husband, the father of my sister is a Croat, who does not execrate the memory of Tito. His father, who grew up in the Italian part of now Yugoslavia, cherishes Mussolini. Who in turn defended Dollfuss and part of the time Schuschnigg too against Hitler. My maternal grandfather was a syndicalist and a royalist. Now, will you please stop offending them with mere lack of politesse against your political pet peeves? Not to mention, unless you take up the challenge at the end of my essay, slander of one of them.
James Bogle: Mussolini was an unbeliever and his mates were those who had, in the previous century, imprisoned the Pope and worked to overthrow Catholic monarchy and Tito was a Communist as brutal and hypocritical as any. I have no time for either of them.
And if you agree that primogeniture is not the last word in legitimism then I cannot see why you want to defend a turncoat like Don Carlos Hugo who abandoned the principles of Carlism and of his religion in exchange for a mess of Communist pottage. If you think bankers are against Socialism then you need to come back to earth. Where do you think they got the hundreds of billions to bail them out of the present crisis? Yes. That's right. The government.
"Mussolini was an unbeliever?" - Benito was an unbeliever, Alessandro was a Catholic. HItler whom he initially despised was an unbeliever, Dollfuss, who was his friend till he died, a saintly believer.
"his mates were those who had, in the previous century, imprisoned the Pope" - He was the guy who in his century signed Lateran treaty of 1929 with Pope Pius XI. Actually the Dimond brothers argue that the Seven Kings of the apocalypse are connected both to EU and to "Kings of the Vatican". Right.
"his mates were those who had, in the previous century, ... worked to overthrow Catholic monarchy " - but he in his century worked to defend us from Communism.
"Tito was a Communist as brutal and hypocritical as any." - But that has nothing to do with Titoism as an economic system of Yugoslavia - except as it involved expropriation. Now, did Carlos Hugo speak up in favour of expropriations?
Oh, I do think bankers are very much in favour of very statecontrolled socialism, whether Social Democratic or Bolshevik - what Carlos Hugo spoke up against.
"cannot see why you want to defend a turncoat like Don Carlos Hugo who abandoned the principles of Carlism and of his religion" - That is very much your version of what he did and so far not mine.
James Bogle: Hans Georg Lundahl likes to re-write history in his own image. Mussolini was a Socialist atheist who founded the Fascist Party from the Fasci di Combattimento, the same people whose predecessors ahd imprisoned Bl Pope Pius IX. They were neither Catholics nor Monarchists. Mussolini only signed the Lateran Treaty as a cynical political ploy. Only an historical ignoramus could think it meant he had become a Catholic. "He worked to defend us from Communism" - what, by delviering us over to Nazism? Pah. And he did not do much to fight Communism, being himself a Socialist. So fatheaded is Hans Georg that he buys the ridiculous myth that the EU is some kind of Vatican plot. Right. So that's why Catholics like Rocco Buttiglione were excluded for their Catholic views from holding a Commissioner post, I suppose! As for Don Carlos Hugo, he was the original champagne Socialist and was entirely at home with Socialist and Social Democrat bankers as he was with Bolsheviks. A real turncoat.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: James Bogle likes strawmen. I did not say that Benito Mussolini became a Catholic. I say that his brother Alessandro never ceased to be one. That is one Catholic vouching for him during his fascist period (in some senses, he deteriorated 38), and Dollfuss is another.
This however is another strawman: "So fatheaded is Hans Georg that he buys the ridiculous myth that the EU is some kind of Vatican plot." - Did I say so? No. Did I claim Dimond brothers said so? No. Did they say so? Do not know, but not the article I read. They did say that Vatican is the religious head of Novus Ordo Catholics who are a majority of EU population - and that the Vatican State begins with Mussolini/Pius XI treaty 1929.
As for Carlos Hugo, instead of telling me whom he drank champagne with, you might, if there is a real case against him, link to where he defends indefensible things, like abortion, contraception, expropriation from owners not obviously overexploiting and undernourishing to killing their dependents. But saying he drank champagne with a bad guy means little to me. Do you know whom I have been drinking morning coffee with? I am not sure I would want to know all the details.
One may of course, if one likes, despise Mussolini for being a turncoat. In the end, he was into the Salò Republic, which was evil. But fascists who had admired him in his better days were against it, among them the Mayor of Assisi.
This is a work of
Other notable differences between Mussolini (pre-Salò, ideally pre-1938) and Hitler include: Hitler imitated Jules Ferry about school compulsion (1938!), Mussolini did not (at least before 1938) in the sense that Italian immigrants to S. Sweden after the war include housewives who had had - under Mussolini - 2-5 school grades only. And Mussolini, to the best of my knowledge, never imitated Margaret Sanger, as did Swedish Social Democrats and, one year later and for a shorter duration, Hitler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufino_Niccacci had help from both a Fascist (mayor of Assisi) and a Nazi (German commander of Assisi) in rescuing Jews.
He was born same year as my grandmother and died same year as my grandfather - not a man I am likely to forget, Padre Ruffino. Nor the men who helped him.
As for racial biology: Gregor, A. James; The Search for Neofascism, New York, Cambridge University Press (2006), p. 56, according to Wikipedia states that Mussolini was originally antiracialist. Not one jota in the wiki article states that Manifesto della Razza, bad as it was (it came after Chesterton's chapter on Mussolini in his book on Rome), ever tried to foist abortion or birth control on non-Aryan races. Unlike Sweden 1935-1970's and unlike some US States starting even earlier (and unlike ACORN right recently).
And as for Mussolini being a successor or prime ministers such as the infamous Cavour, it reminds me a bit of Gorbachev being a a successor to Lenin and Stalin. There are successors that Church men are glad for.
Conclusion: So far the debate went on on FB, there are things I could have added if James Bogle had raised the points, and will add if he does or someone else does. Mussolini was not perfect, but he was not the summum malum either. First of all that is not anything per se which is that, onlike summum bonum which per se is God. Second, the worst evil there actually and incidentally is is down in Hell, and even on earth the worst man ever to live will yet rule in the future and has so far not ruled in the past, unless he be a kind of comeback. But foremost, Mussolini was, if not the best at least one of the better of his time. At least as good as Roosevelt with New Deal, Fair Deal, Square Deal, Fordism, anti-Trust-laws. And a bit better insofar as he allowed no racialist eugenics in any part of his stretch of legitimate and effective power. Unlike Mola with Goering, unlike Churchill, and unlike Roosevelt (or was it already Truman?), he has no Guernica, Dresden or Hiroshima and Nagasaki against his soul.
BpI, Georges Pompidou
11-III-2012, Dimanche et Sainte Rosine