MUSSOLINI THE “FASCISTA MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT”
FASCISMO AND THE NEW PROVINCES
Speech delivered in the Chamber, 21st June 1921.
_Hon. Mussolini._ I am not displeased, gentlemen, to make my speech from
the benches of the Extreme Right, where formerly no one dared to sit.
I may say at once, with the supreme contempt I have for all nominalism,
that I shall adopt a reactionary line throughout my speech, which will
be, I do not know how Parliamentary in form, but anti-Socialist and
anti-Democratic in substance. (Approval.) In spite of this I am
audacious enough to affirm that I shall be listened to with advantage by
all sections of the Chamber. In the first place by the Government, which
will notice our position with regard to it. In the second place by the
Socialists, who, after seven years of changing fortunes, see before
them, in the proud attitude of a heretic, the man they excommunicated
from their orthodox church. They will listen to me, too, because, having
held their fortunes in the palm of my hand for two years, there may
still be some secret longings for me in the depths of their hearts!
I may also be listened to with interest by the Popular Party and the
other groups and sections. In fact, since I hope to define some
political aspects, and I may add some historical ones, of this extremely
powerful and complicated movement Fascismo, perhaps what I have to say
may have political consequences worthy of note.
I beg you not to interrupt me, because I shall never interrupt anybody,
and I add that from this moment I shall make sparing use of my freedom
of speech in this Assembly.
And now to the argument.
_Italophobia on the Upper Adige._ In the speech from the throne, the
Hon. Giolitti made the Sovereign say that the barrier of the Alps was
entirely in our hands. I dispute the geographical and political
exactness of this statement. We have not yet, at a few kilometres from
Milan, the barrier of the Alps as the defence of Lombardy and the valley
of the Po.
I am touching on a delicate subject, but it is well known, both in this
Chamber and elsewhere, that in the Canton Ticino, which is being
Germanised and bastardised, there is springing up a nationalist vanguard
whom the Fascisti look on with favour.
What is the present Government doing to defend the Alpine barrier of the
Brenner and the Nevoso? Its policy, as regards the Upper Adige, is
simply lamentable and, though its representatives would doubtless be
extremely capable of running a kindergarten, I absolutely deny that they
have the necessary qualifications for governing a region where several
languages are spoken and the rivalry between the races is very bitter.
The Governor of Venezia Tridentina, for instance, has made a present of
the constituency of Gorizia to the Slovaks and of four German deputies
to the Italian Chamber; while the other belongs to that category of more
or less respectable people who are slaves to one so-called immortal
principle, which consists in maintaining that there is only one form of
good government in the world, and that it is applicable to all peoples,
at all times, and in all quarters of the globe.
Allow me to put before the Chamber the results of a few personal
enquiries I have made into the situation on the Upper Adige.
The political anti-Italian movement on the Upper Adige is monopolised by
the Deutscher Verband, an offspring of the Andreas Hoferbund, which has
its centre at Munich, and claims that the German frontier is not at the
Pass of Salorno but at the Bern Clause or Chiusa di Verona.
Now the representative of whom I have just spoken is responsible for
this German propaganda, because he has written the preface to a book
which states that the natural boundaries of Germany are at the foot of
the Alps towards the valley of the Po. In the first days of the military
occupation, immediately after the Armistice, this Italophobia was not
possible; but when, by a great misfortune, this governor was appointed,
the attitude of the people changed immediately and the submission
previously shown was succeeded by an insolent arrogance, which denied
the Austrian reverses and kept alive the desire for the return of the
Hapsburgs.
At the sample fair organised by the Chamber of Commerce of Bolzano, a
nest of Pangermanism, all Italian firms were excluded, so much so that
the invitations were issued in German, and a Bavarian band played for
the whole duration of the fair!
I come now to the events of 24th April, when a Fascista bomb, justly
administered by way of reprisal, and for which I take upon myself the
moral responsibility—(Loud applause and comments.)—marked the limit to
which Fascismo intended that the German movement should go.
The demonstration of 24th April in the Tyrol was only a simultaneous
manifestation to the plebiscite which had been summoned that day beyond
the Brenner, because the Germans in the Upper Adige resort to these
subtle tricks of making the same manifestations under different guises.
In this way, when they publicly mourned the loss of the Upper Adige on
this side of the Brenner, on the other they did the same for the fallen
Austrian soldiers. When the Fascisti presented themselves at Bolzano,
they found the police helmeted and tasselled, and when they were
arrested, the enquiry was entrusted to Count Breitemburg, a notorious
member of the Deutscher Verband.
I will not linger over the cases of Malmeter, because they are more like
the chapters of a novel. But I cannot help mentioning one most curious
episode.
The Commissioner of Merano went to the commune of Maja Alta and was
received, not in the town hall, but in an old mansion house, where were
gathered the mayor and the councillors. The commissioner read the form
of the oath, and the mayor and the councillors, sitting down
immediately, put on their hats and burst out laughing. The commissioner
had hardly recovered from his surprise when the mayor rose to his feet
and began a storm of abuse against the King, Italy and the commissioner,
who, returning to Merano, requested the dismissal of this council. But
the Deutscher Verband interceded with the governor, who returned the
commissioner’s report, writing at the same time that it was not a good
thing to practise irredentism. And the representatives of the commune
remained as they were!
Since the period of mismanagement the Upper Adige is no longer
bi-lingual. The mayor himself refused to accept the evidence he had
asked for concerning the events of 24th April, because they were written
in Italian. These are small individual cases, but they serve to give an
idea of the whole situation.
At Megré the Italophobe president of the Young Catholics’ Club turned
out two young men because they presented their demands in Italian,
saying that that language would not do for his office and telling them
to keep it for themselves. And among all those competing for the office
of President of the Court of Appeal of redeemed Italian Trento, the one
selected was a man who in 1915 had resigned his magistracy in order to
serve as a “Kaiser-Jäger” volunteer under the Austrian flag. To-day this
man administers justice in the name of Italy! (Comments.)
If you imagine that the postal and telegraphic services in the Upper
Adige are in Italian hands, you are much mistaken. The Deutscher Verband
has control of all the communications and disposes of them at its
pleasure. Although 24th April was a holiday, the Pangermans and the
heads of the movement at Innsbruck were kept informed all along of the
development of events at Bolzano, while all communications with the
civil and military authorities were cut and the town completely isolated
from Trento and the rest of Italy for twenty-four hours. This is the
situation.
_What the Fascisti ask as regards the Upper Adige._ Gentlemen of the
Government, as regards the Upper Adige, we ask you for these immediate
measures:
1. The abolition of everything which reminds us of the Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy, even in outward form. Because I wish to say to the House that
it is useless to make compacts to prevent the return of the Hapsburgs
with the Austrian heirs, who are more Austrian than Austria, when we
leave a great part of Austria intact within our own boundaries.
2. The dissolution of the Deutscher Verband.
3. The immediate dismissal of the two Italian governors.
4. The formation of a united province of Trento with the administration
at Trento, and the strictest observance of the use of the two languages
in every act of public administration.
I do not know what measures will be adopted by the Government in these
cases, but I hereby declare, and I do so before the four German deputies
that they may repeat it and make it known beyond the Brenner, that there
we are and there we mean to stay at all costs. (Applause.)
_Giolitti_ (Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior). Upon this we
are all agreed. (Applause.)
_Mussolini._ I note with pleasure the explicit declaration the Prime
Minister has just made.
THE QUESTION OF MONTENEGRO’S INDEPENDENCE
Same speech delivered in the Chamber, 21st June 1921.
_Hon. Mussolini._ What is going to be our line of policy in view of the
vast field for disagreement which has been left by the peace treaty, or
rather peace treaties, all over the world?
I shall not touch upon the quarrel between Greece and Turkey, although
inconceivable complications may result if it is true, as is said, that
Lenin is an ally of Kemal Pasha and has already despatched the advance
guard of the Red army to Asia Minor. Neither shall I speak of Upper
Silesia, as I have not yet succeeded in defining the attitude of the
Government on this question. Egypt, again, I shall leave untouched. But
I cannot hold my peace about the fate prepared for Montenegro.
How is it that Montenegro has lost her independence? In theory she has
not lost it, but actually she lost it in October 1918. And yet Count
Sforza said that the independence of Montenegro was completely
guaranteed, first by the Treaty of London of 1915, which presupposed her
aggrandisement at the expense of Austria and the restitution of Scutari;
secondly, by the conditions laid down by Wilson for the Allies, which
safeguarded her existence with that of Belgium and Serbia; and thirdly,
by the decision of the Supreme Council of the Conference of January
1919, in which the right of Montenegro to be represented by a Delegate
at the Paris Peace Conference was recognised. Not only this, but when
Franchet d’Esperey entered Montenegro with Serb and French elements, he
gave out that he was governing in the name of King Nicholas.
When, however, King Nicholas, the Court and the Government wished to
return to Cettinge, France, in whose interest it was to create a
powerful Yugoslavia to counterbalance Italy in the Adriatic, informed
the Montenegrin Government that she would have broken off all diplomatic
relations had they done so.
What attitude did Italy adopt in this difficult situation? The Hon.
Federzoni spoke yesterday of a Convention that became a scrap of paper;
and it was this Convention of 30th April 1919. In it the relations
between Italy and Montenegro are clearly established. And this is what
it says: “Following upon the agreement made between the Italian Minister
for Foreign Affairs and the Government of Montenegro” (so there _was_ a
Government still in 1919), “represented by their Consul General at Rome,
Commander Ramanadovich, the Montenegrin Government will form a nucleus
of officers and troops, drawn from the Montenegrin refugees, and will
receive from the Italian Government the necessary funds in money for the
payment of the allowances of the officers and men.” Other conditions
follow, the last being: “The present Convention cannot be altered
without the common consent of both the Italian and Montenegrin
Governments.”
Now this Convention was destroyed after the death of King Nicholas.
Signs of disaffection were noticed among the Montenegrin troops, and the
commander asked for military aid from our Government, in order to
proceed to the work of elimination. A Commission was appointed, presided
over by Colonel Vigevano. This commission, which was to save the
Montenegrin army, was the chief cause of its disbandment. And not only
this—on 27th May the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs told the
Montenegrin Government that the troops must be disbanded or no more
funds would be forthcoming from Italy. And in this way the Convention of
30th April 1919 was violated, because in it it had been said that no
alteration was to be made without the common consent of the two
Governments, and this decision had never been accepted by the consul
general at Rome, who represented the Montenegrin Government. The fact is
that the Italian Minister had made use of the presence of the
Montenegrin army in Italy for political purposes, thinking thereby to
obtain better terms with Yugoslavia. This expectation not being
realised, the Montenegrin army, at a given moment, was cast aside like a
worn-out coat. The fact of the election of the Constituent does not
justify the tragic state of abandonment in which Italy left Montenegro,
because only twenty per cent. of the electors voted, and of those only
nine per cent. in favour of annexation by Serbia. The Serbian
authorities have introduced a real reign of terror in Montenegro and
have prevented the presentation of lists which might contain the names
of candidates favourable to the independence of the country.
But I hope Count Sforza will not think that the question of Montenegro
is a thing of the past. First, as he knows, the Montenegrin people are
still in arms against the Serbs, and secondly, the Italian people are
unanimous as regards this question. Even the Socialists, and I say it to
their honour, have several times declared in their papers that the
independence of Montenegro is sacred. The Universities of Padua and
Bologna have pronounced in favour of her independence, while the
Fascisti have presented a motion to this effect.
The shameful page which signs the death warrant of the Montenegrin
people must be redeemed by the adoption of our motion, because if you
bring the question once more before the Great Powers, so that another
plebiscite be summoned, I am certain that, under conditions of liberty,
anti-Serbian results will be returned.
D’ANNUNZIO AND FIUME
Same speech delivered in the Chamber, 21st June 1921.
_Hon. Mussolini._ In the speech from the throne, the Alps which go
down to the Brenner were spoken of. Now we wish to know if these
Alps include Fiume or not. I deplore the fact that in this speech no
notice was given to the action of Gabriele d’Annunzio and his
legionaries—(Applause.)—without whom our boundaries to-day would be
at Monte Maggiore instead of at the Nevoso. Such a reference would
have been generous, as well as politically opportune.
I do not intend to enlarge upon the sacrifice of Dalmatia. My honourable
friend Federzoni spoke very eloquently on the subject yesterday. But I
was surprised when in that same speech from the throne it was affirmed
that Zara must be the advance guard of Italy on the opposite shores,
because Zara is crushed between the Slav sea and the Slav hinterland.
While upon the subject of the Adriatic, gentlemen, we Fascisti cannot
forget, we who speak for the first time in this hall, the attitude that
you adopted in the affair of Fiume. We cannot forget that you attacked
Fiume; and that when on 28th December General Ferrario said that he
could not suspend the order for the bombardment that would have levelled
that town to the ground, that general and the Government that gave him
the order compromised our national dignity more than a little. (Approval
on the Right.)
You put a knife to the throat of Fiume, but you did not solve the
problem. You sent a commander there with an amazing scheme for the
formation of a Government, which was to accept the conditions agreed
upon at Belgrade—accept, that is to say, the Consortium, which means the
near, if not immediate, destruction of the port of Fiume. Because you
are well aware that after the lapse of twelve years Porto Barro and the
Delta ought to go to Yugoslavia, and you have already handed them over,
because, if you had not done so, you would have been obliged to make
statements which have not been made.
ITALY, SIONISM, AND THE ENGLISH MANDATE IN PALESTINE
Same speech delivered in the Chamber, 21st June 1921.
_Hon. Mussolini._ I come now to another very delicate question that must
be faced, because it is historically necessary and because, in view of
the recent Pontifical Allocution before the Secret Consistory, it can no
longer be put off.
We must choose: the Government must decide what line it is going to take
up. Either it must adopt the English attitude in favour of the Sionists,
or that of Benedict XV. I do not think that I shall be boring the
Chamber if I run over the antecedents of this question.
On 2nd November 1917, the English Government declared itself in favour
of the creation in Palestine of a national centre for the Jewish race,
it being clearly understood that nothing would be done to offend the
rights, civil or religious, of the non-Jewish communities already
existing in Palestine or of the Jews in the rest of the world. Later the
Allied Powers agreed to this, and finally, in Article No. 222 of the
Peace Treaty, confirmed on 20th August at Sèvres, Turkey renounced all
her rights in Palestine, and the Allied Powers chose England as
mandatory.
Now it has come about, that while the civilised nations of the West have
not altered the common régime of liberty for the different religions, in
Palestine just the reverse has happened, and this in particular because
the administration of the State in embryo has been entrusted to the
political organisation of the Sionists.
But there have been Arabs in Palestine for ten centuries. There are
600,000 now, and 70,000 Christians, while the Jews only number 50,000.
In this way an extraordinarily interesting situation has been created.
The native Jews, who have lived for years under the shadow of the mosque
of Jerusalem, cordially dislike those immigrant elements which come from
Poland, Ukraine and Russia, on account of their extremely emancipated
ideas. They have already divided into three sections, one of which,
commonly known by its abbreviated name “Mopsy,” being already inscribed
in the Third International at Moscow as Communist Section.
I wish to say, however, that no anti-Semitism, which would be new in
this hall, must be read into my words.
I recognise the fact that the sacrifices made by the Italian Jews during
the war were considerable and generous, but now it is a question of
examining certain political positions and of indicating what line the
Government might eventually adopt.
An alliance between the Arabs and the Christians has now been
established in Palestine, and a party formed at the Conference of Jaffa,
which opposes by civil war all Jewish immigration. On the 1st and 14th
of May, serious disturbances occurred which resulted in some hundreds of
wounded and several deaths, including a writer of note.
Now, according to the _Bulletin du Comité des Délégations Juives_, page
19, it appears that the text of the English Mandate for Palestine must
be submitted to the Council of the Society of the League of Nations in
the next meeting at Geneva. I should wish the Government, in this
delicate situation, to accept the point of view of the Vatican.
This is in the interest of the Jews, who, having fled from the pogroms
of Ukraine and Poland, must not meet Arab pogroms in Palestine;
moreover, it is advisable that the Western nations should refrain from
creating a painful legal position for the Jews, since to-morrow those
same Jews, becoming citizen-subjects of those States, might immediately
form foreign colonies within them.
THE ATTITUDE OF FASCISMO TOWARDS COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM
Same speech delivered in the Chamber, 21st June 1921.
_Hon. Mussolini._ I do not wish to enlarge upon the question of foreign
policy, as I should then find myself out in the open, and I might ask
the Minister for Foreign Affairs what Italy’s position exactly is in the
face of the formidable conflicts which loom upon the horizon of
international politics. While Count Sforza is at the head of Foreign
Affairs in Giolitti’s Cabinet, we Fascisti cannot but find ourselves
among the opposition. (Comments.)
I shall pass now to an examination of the position of Fascismo with
regard to the various parties—(Signs of attention.)—and I shall begin
with the Communists.
Communism, the Hon. Graziadei teaches me, springs up in times of misery
and despair. When the total sum of the wealth of the world is much
reduced, the first idea that enters men’s minds is to put it all
together so that everyone may have a little. But this is only the first
phase of Communism, the phase of consumption. Afterwards comes the phase
of production, which is very much more difficult; so difficult, indeed,
that that great and formidable man (not yet legislator) who answers to
the name of Wladimiro Ulianoff Lenin, when he came to shaping human
material, became aware that it was a good deal harder than bronze or
marble. (Approval and comments.)
I know the Communists. I know them, because a great many of them are my
sons—I mean, of course, spiritually—(Laughter.)—and I recognise with a
sincerity that might appear cynical, that it was I who first inoculated
these people, when I put into circulation among the Italian Socialists a
little Bergson mingled with much Blanqui.
There is a philosopher[10] sitting among the Ministers who certainly
teaches me that the neo-spiritualistic philosophies continually
oscillating between the metaphysical and the lyrical are very dangerous
for small minds. (Laughter.) The neo-spiritualistic philosophies are
like oysters—they are palatable, but they have to be digested.
(Laughter.)
Footnote 10:
Benedetto Croce, Minister of Public Instruction.
These, my friends or enemies....
(Voices from the Extreme Left: “Enemies, enemies!”)
_Mussolini._ Very well, then—enemies, swallowed Bergson when they were
twenty-five and have not digested him at thirty. I am very surprised to
see among the Communists an economist of the standing of Antonio
Graziadei, with whom I had great battles when he was a reformer and had
thrown aside Marx and his doctrines. While the Communists speak of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, of republics more or less united with
the Soviet, and other far-fetched absurdities of that kind, between them
and us there cannot be other than war. (Interruptions from the Extreme
Left. Comments.)
Our position is different as regards the Socialist Party. In the first
place we are careful to make a distinction between party Socialism and
the Socialism of Labour. (Comments on the Extreme Left.)
I am not here to overrate the importance of the syndicalist movement.
When you think that there are sixteen millions of working men in Italy
and of these hardly three millions belong to the syndicates, whether the
General Conference of Workmen, the National Italian Syndicate, the
Italian Workmen’s Union, the Confederation of Italian Economic
Syndicates, the White Federation or other organisations which do not
concern us, and that their membership increases and diminishes according
to the times; when you think that the really advanced and scrupulous
thinkers are a scanty minority, you will realise at once that we are
right when we do not overrate the historical importance of this movement
of the working classes.
But we recognise the fact that the General Federation of Workers did not
manifest the attitude of hostility at the time of the war which was
shown by a great part of the Official Socialist Party. We recognise,
also, that through the General Federation of Workers technical forces
have come to the front which, in view of the fact that the organisers
are in direct and daily contact with the complex economic reality, are
reasonable enough. (Interruptions from the Extreme Left and comments.)
We—and there are witnesses here who can prove the truth of my words—have
never taken up _a priori_ an attitude of opposition to the General
Federation of Workers. I add also that our attitude might be altered
later if the Confederation detached itself—and the political directors
have for some time considered the possibility of this being done—from
the political Socialist Party—(Comments.)—which is only a fraction of
political Socialism, and is formed of those people who, in order to act,
have need of the big forces represented by the working-class
organisations.
Listen to what I am going to say. When you present the Bill for the
Eight Hours Day, we will vote in favour of it. We shall not oppose this
or any other measures destined to perfect our special legislation. We
shall not even oppose experiments of co-operation; but I tell you at
once that we shall resist with all our strength attempts at State
Socialism, Collectivism and the like. We have had enough of State
Socialism, and we shall never cease to fight your doctrines as a whole,
for we deny their truth and oppose their fatalism.
We deny the existence of only two classes, because there are many more.
(Comments.) We deny the possibility of explaining the story of humanity
in terms of economics. We deny your internationalism, because it is a
luxury which only the upper classes can afford; the working people are
hopelessly bound to their native shores.
Not only this, but we affirm, and on the strength of recent Socialist
literature which you ought not to repudiate, that the real history of
capitalism is beginning now, because capitalism is not only a system of
oppression, but a selection of that which is of most worth, a
co-ordination of hierarchies, a more strongly developed sense of
individual responsibility. (Applause.) So true is this that Lenin, after
having instituted the building councils, abolished them and put in
dictators; so true is it that, after having nationalised commerce, he
reintroduced the régime of liberty; and, as you who have been in Russia
well know, after having suppressed—even physically—the bourgeoisie,
to-day he summons it back, because without capitalism and its technical
system of production Russia could never rise again. (Applause from the
Right. Comments.)
Let me speak to you frankly and tell you the mistakes you made after the
Armistice, fundamental mistakes which are destined to influence the
history of your politics.
First of all you ignored or underrated the survival of those forces
which had been the cause of intervention in the war. Your paper went to
ridiculous lengths, never mentioning my name for months, as if by that
you could eliminate a man from life and history. You showed yourselves
worse knaves than ever by libelling the war and victory. (Loud approval
on the Right.) You wildly propagated the Russian myth, awakening almost
messianic expectation; and only afterwards, when you realised the truth,
did you change your position by executing a more or less prudent
strategic retreat. (Laughter.) Only after two years did you remember,
beside the sickle—a noble tool—and the hammer—no less noble—to place the
book—(Bravo!)—which represents the rights of the spirit over matter,
rights which cannot be suppressed or denied—(Bravo!)—rights which you,
who consider yourselves the heralds of a new humanity, ought to be the
first to inscribe upon your banners. (Great applause from the Extreme
Right.)
THE ATTITUDE OF FASCISMO TOWARDS THE POPULAR PARTY. THE VATICAN AND
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
Same speech delivered in the Chamber, 21st June 1921.
_Hon. Mussolini._ I come now to the Popular Party; and I wish to remind
it first that in the history of Fascismo there are no invasions of
churches, and not even the assassination of the monk Angelico Galassi,
who was killed by revolver shots at the foot of the altar. I confess to
you that there have been some chastisements and the sacred burning of
the offices of a newspaper which called the Fascisti a band of
criminals. (Comments; interruptions from the Centre.)
Fascismo neither practises nor preaches anti-Clericalism. It can also be
said that it is not in any way tied to Freemasonry; this, however,
should not be the cause of alarm which it is to some members of the
Popular Party, as to my mind Freemasonry is an enormous screen behind
which there are generally small things and small men. (Comments and
laughter.) But let us come to concrete problems.
The question of divorce has been touched on here. I am not, at bottom,
in favour of divorce, because I do not believe that questions of the
sentimental order can be settled by juridical formulæ; but I ask the
Popular Party to consider if it is just that the rich can obtain divorce
by going into Hungary, while the poor are sometimes obliged to be tied
all their lives.
We are one with the Popular Party as regards the liberty of schools. We
are very near them as regards the agrarian problem, for we think that
where small properties exist it is useless to destroy them; that where
it is possible to create them, they ought to be created; that where they
cannot be created, because they would be unproductive, other methods
must be adopted, not excluding more or less collective co-operation. We
agree about administrative decentralisation, provided, necessarily, that
autonomy and federation are not spoken of, because regional federation
would lead to provincial federation, and so on till Italy returned to
what she was a century ago.
But there is another problem more important than these incidental
questions to which I wish to draw the attention of the Popular Party,
and that is the historical problem of the relations between Italy and
the Vatican. (Signs of attention.)
All of us, who from fifteen to twenty-five drank deep at the fountain of
Carduccian literature, learned to hate “una vecchia vaticana lupa
cruenta” of which Carducci speaks, I think, in the ode _To Ferrara_; we
heard talk of “a pontificate dark with mystery” on the one hand, and on
the other of the sublime truth and the future in the words of the
poet-prophet. Now all this, confined to literature, may be most
brilliant, but to us Fascisti, who are eminently practical, it seems
to-day more than a little out of date.
I maintain that the Imperial and Latin tradition of Rome is represented
to-day by Catholicism. If, as Mommsen said thirty years ago, one could
not stay in Rome without being impressed by the idea of universality, I
both think and maintain that the only universal idea at Rome to-day is
that which radiates from the Vatican. I am very disturbed when I see
national churches being formed, because I think of the millions and
millions of men who will no longer look towards Italy and Rome. For this
reason I advance this hypothesis, that if the Vatican should definitely
renounce its temporal ambitions—and I think it is already on that
road—Italy ought to furnish it with the necessary material help for the
schools, churches, hospitals, etc., that a temporal power has at its
disposal. Because the increase of Catholicism in the world, the addition
of four hundred millions of men who from all quarters of the globe look
towards Rome, is a source of pride and of special interest to us
Italians.
The Popular Party must choose; either it is going to be our friend, our
enemy or neutral. Now that I have spoken clearly, I hope that some
member of the party will do likewise.
Social Democracy seems to have a very ambiguous position. First of all
one wonders why it is called Social Democracy. A democracy is already
necessarily social; we think, however, that this Social Democracy is a
kind of Trojan horse which holds within it an army against whom we shall
always be at war.