By Benito 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 nominalism, that I shall adopt a reactionary line throughout my speech, which will be, I do not know how Parliamentary in form, but definitely anti-Democratic and anti-Socialist in substance (Approval from the far right)—and when I say anti-Socialist, I also mean anti-Giolittian (laughter), for never before has there been such a touching interchange of loving correspondence as there is now between Giolitti and the Socialist Parliamentary group. I dare say that between them there is a grudge of ephemeral lovers, not the irreconcilability of irreparably damaged enemies.
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! (Comments).
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 called Fascism, perhaps what I have to say may have political consequences worthy of note.
I beg you not to interrupt me, because I have not interrupted anybody, and I add that from this moment onwards I shall make sparing use of my freedom of speech in this Assembly.
And now to the argument.
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 defense 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 Germanized and bastardized, there is springing up a nationalist vanguard whom the Fascisti look on with much sympathy.
What is the present Government doing to defend the Alpine barrier of the Brenner and the Nevoso? Its policy, as regards the Alto Adige, is simply lamentable.
Though the Hon. Luigi Credaro would doubtless be extremely capable of running a kindergarten (laughter), I absolutely deny that he has the necessary qualifications for governing a region where several languages are spoken and where the rivalry between the races is ancient and bitter.
Another who is responsible for the difficult situation of the Italians in the Alto Adige is signor Salata. He has presented the college of Gorizia to the Slovenes and has given four German deputies to the Italian Chamber.
Moreover, the Hon. Credaro belongs to that category of more or less respectable people who are slaves of so-called immortal principles, 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 of Alto Adige.
The anti-Italian political movement on the Alto 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 signor Credaro is responsible for this Pan-Germanist propaganda, because he has endorsed and 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 Hon. Credaro was appointed governor, 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 organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Bolzano, a nest of Pan-Germanism, 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 Fascist bomb, justly administered for the purpose of reprisal, and for which I take upon myself my share of moral responsibility—(Loud applause and comments.)—marked the limit to which Fascism intended that the German element should go.
The demonstration of 24th April in the Tyrol was not simply a simultaneous manifestation to the plebiscite which had been summoned that day beyond the Brenner. Because, in the Alto Adige, the Pan-Germanists resort to these subtle tricks of making the same manifestations under different guises. In this way, when they publicly mourned the loss of the Alto Adige on the other side of the Brenner, on this side of the Brenner they did the same for the fallen soldiers of Austria-Hungary!
Furthermore, when the Fascists presented themselves at Bolzano, they found the police helmeted and tasselled, and when they were arrested, the inquiry 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 Maia Alta and was received, not in the town hall, but in an old hovel 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, the monarchy, 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 practice irredentism. And the representatives of the commune remained as they were!
Since Credaro became governor bilingualism in Alto Adige has completely disappeared. Perathoner, which is nothing more than the germanized form of the Italian name Pierantoni, is an Italian renegade who became German, and he 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 Megre, the Italophobe Don Angelo, president of the Young Catholics' Club of San Stefano, turned down ten young men because they presented their inquiries in Italian. He asserted that the Italian language would not do for his office, telling the Italians to keep it to themselves! Obviously this is done for the purpose of altering the documents and to delay pension payments to those entitled to it. 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-Jager" volunteer under the Austrian flag! Today this man administers justice in the name of Italy! (Comments).
If you imagine that the postal and telegraphic services in the Alto 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 Pan-Germanists 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.
But at this point I must call into question the Hon. Luigi Luzzatti. I have already called him into question in my newspaper; but seeing as this man belongs to that species of eternal fathers more or less venerable and venerated, he still has deigned not to respond. I hope that at this time, by calling him into question in the parliamentary tribuine, he will now decide to answer one question, which I stated in a most clear and categorical manner.
The Nuovo Trentino, a very serious newspaper which comes out in Trento, on 27th May writes:
"The Honourable Luigi Luzzatti, knight of the SS. Annunziata, rapporteur of the parliamentary commission which examined and approved the Treaty of San Germano, said in the presence of Salata, the Toggenburg baron, former Austrian Minister of Franz Joseph, and the Austrian lieutenant Reuth Nicolussi: "Having written, in a report to Parliament, the passage concerning the autonomy of the Alto Adige, he added that it was his personal opinion that the German region of Alto Adige would do well not to send any deputy to the Parliament of Rome, but should maintain their own institutions and political representation distinct from Italy, thus remaining at ease united with Italy until it can rejoin its rightful nation.""Now we object to Luigi Luzzatti, who appears wiser and grander than he really is, taking upon himself the right to dispose of Italian territory. (Approvals, comments).
Gentlemen of the Government, as regards the Alto 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, Hon. Sforza, 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.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 intend to remain at all costs. (Applause. Giolitti, Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior, says: "Upon this we are all agreed." Loud applause.)
2. The dissolution of the Deutscher Verband.
3. The immediate dismissal of Credaro and Salata. (Approval from the far right).
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 note with pleasure the explicit declaration the Prime Minister has just made.
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 from the far right.)—without whom our boundaries today 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 honorable 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 of the Government, we 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 on Christmas Eve, also utilizing a two-day suspension of all newspapers; we can not forget that you have imposed the acceptance of the Treaty of Rapallo with an act of violence and refined cruelty. When on 28th December General Ferrario said that "he could not suspend the order for the bombardment that would have leveled Fiume to the ground", that general and the Government that gave him the order compromised our national dignity more than a little. And we can not forget that confidential sheet number 22 of General Ferrario, wherein extra money, more or less lucrative, was promised for Christmas Day to Italian soldiers who went to fight against other Italians. (Approvals from the right).
You put a knife to the throat of Fiume, but you did not solve the problem. You sent commander Foschini there with a diabolical 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.
Finally, 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 dispatched 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 aggrandizement 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 recognized. 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 His Majesty King Nikola.
When, however, King Nikola, the Court and the Government wished to return to Cetinje, France, who had an interest in creating a powerful Yugoslavia to counter-balance Italy in the Adriatic, informed the Montenegrin Government that she would have broken off all diplomatic relations had they returned to Cetinje.
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 precisely 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 on 30th April 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 Government and Government of Montenegro."
Now this Convention was torn up after the death of King Nikola. 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 Count Sforza against put the knife to the throat of the Government of Montenegro, saying: "the troops must be disbanded or no more funds will be forthcoming from Italy."
And in this way the Convention of 30th April 1919 was violated by Count Sforza, because in it it had been said: "The present Convention cannot be altered without the common consent of both the Italian Government and Government of Montenegro."
And this decision had never been accepted by the consul general at Rome, who represented the Montenegrin Government.
The fact is that Count Sforza 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 realized, the Montenegrin army, at a given moment, was cast aside like a worn-out coat.
The fact of the new election of the Constituent does not justify the tragic state of abandonment in which Italy left Montenegro, because only twenty percent of the electors voted, and of those only nine percent 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 Montenegro.
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.
We Fascists 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 freedom, anti-Serbian results will be returned.
I come now to another very delicate question.
It is a question that must be faced, because it is historically necessary and because, in view of the recent Papal Allocution before the Secret Consistory, it can no longer be ignored that there exists a question regarding Palestine.
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 Zionists, or that of Pope 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 of a national home in Palestine for the Jewish people, 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 civilized nations of the West have not altered the common regime of liberty for the various religious confessions, 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 organization of the Zionists.
But there are 600,000 Arabs in Palestine, who have been living there for ten centuries, and there are 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, dislike those immigrant elements which come from Poland, Ukraine and Russia, on account of their extremely emancipated ideas. These immigrants have already been divided into three fractions, one of which, commonly known by its abbreviated name "Mopsy," being already inscribed in the Third International at Moscow as a Communist fraction.
I wish to say, however, that no one should read my words and accuse me of anti-Semitism, which would be new in this Chamber. I recognize the fact that the sacrifices made by the Italian Jews during the war were considerable and generous, but, that being said, 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 civil war and boycotts 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 some repute. Now, according to the Bulletin du Comite des Diligations 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 expressed by the Vatican.
This is also in the interest of the Jews themselves, who, having fled from the pogroms of Ukraine and Poland, have no desire to 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 tomorrow those same Jews, becoming citizen-subjects of those States, might immediately begin form foreign colonies within other States.
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 Count Sforza what Italy's position exactly is in the face of the formidable conflicts which loom upon the horizon of international politics.
So long as 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 Fascism with regard to the various parties. (Signs of attention).
I shall begin with the Communist Party.
Communism, the Hon. Graziadei teaches me, springs up in times of misery and despair. (Comments).
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 the formidable artist (not the legislator) who answers to the name of Vladimir Ulianoff Lenin, when he had to shape human material, became aware that it was a good deal harder than bronze or marble. (Approvals, comments).
I know the Communists. I know them, because a great many of them are my children—I mean, of course, spiritually—(Laughter, comments)—and I recognize 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 (Benedetto Croce) 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.)
These, my friends—or enemies... (Voices from the Extreme Left: "Enemies, enemies!")
Very well, then—enemies! They swallowed Bergson when they were twenty-five and have not yet 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 ferociously reformist (laughter) and had thrown aside Marx and his doctrines. So long as the Communists speak of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of a federation 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 far left, comments, noises).
Our position is different as regards the Socialist Party. In the first place we are careful to make a distinction between the labour movement and the Socialist political party. (Comments from the far 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 organizations 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 realize at once that we are right when we do not overrate the historical importance of this labour movement.
But we recognize 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 recognize, also, that through the General Federation of Workers technical forces have come to the front which, due to the fact that the organizers are in direct and daily contact with the complex economic reality, they are quite reasonable. (Interruptions from the far left, 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. (Voices and accusations from the far left, comments).
I add also that our attitude might be altered later if the Confederation—and its leaders have for some time been considering this—detached itself from the political Socialist Party, which is only a fraction of political Socialism, and is formed of those people who, in order to act, have need of the large forces represented by the working-class organizations.
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. (Comments from the far left, interruptions).
We shall not oppose this, and in fact we will vote in favour of this measure and any other measures destined to perfect our social legislation. We shall not even oppose experiments of co-operation. But I tell you now that we shall resist with all our strength attempts at socialization, collectivization, State Socialism, and the like. We have had enough of State Socialism! (Applause from the far right, comments from the far left, interruptions). 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 exists many more (comments); we deny the possibility of explaining all of human history with economic determinism. (Applause from the far right, approvals).
We deny your internationalism, because it is a luxury which only the upper classes can afford, while the working people are hopelessly bound to their native land. (Comments from the far left, applause from the far right).
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 also a selection of values, a coordination of hierarchies, a more fully developed sense of individual responsibility. (Approvals). So true is this that Lenin, after having instituted the factory councils, abolished them and put in dictators; so true is it that, after having nationalized commerce, he reintroduced the regime of liberty; and, as you who have been in Russia well know, after having suppressed—even physically—the bourgeoisie, today he summons it back, because without capitalism and its technical system of production Russia could never rise again. (Applause from the far 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. (Approvals). 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 discredited yourselves worse than ever by libelling the war and victory. (Lively approvals from the far right). You wildly propagated the Russian myth, eliciting a massive messianic expectation. (Approvals from the far right). And only afterwards, when you realized 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, rights which you, who consider yourselves the heralds of a new humanity, ought to be the first to inscribe upon your banners! (Loud applause from the far right).
I come now to the Popular Party. (Comments).
I wish to remind it first that in the history of Fascism there are no invasions of churches, and we were not responsible even for the assassination of the monk Angelico Galassi, who was killed [by Socialists] by revolver shots at the foot of the altar. I confess to you that there have been some beatings and the sacred burning of a newspaper office which defamed Fascism as an association of conspiracy. (Comments; interruptions from the Centre).
Fascism neither practices nor preaches anti-Clericalism. It can also be said that Fascism 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 formulae; 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 freedom 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 co-operation more or less collectivist. We agree about administrative decentralization, provided, necessarily, that autonomy and federalism are not spoken of, because regional federalism would lead to provincial federalism and so forth, in an unending chain, until 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 ages fifteen to twenty-five drank deep at the fountain of Carduccian literature, learned to hate the "old bloody Vatican wolf" of which Carducci speaks, I think, in the ode To Ferrara; we all heard of "a pontificate dark with mystery", as opposed to the "priest of the true august, a prophet of the future"; and we heard of a "black-haired virgin of the Tiber" who would point out "the ruin of unspeakable shame" to the pilgrims of St. Peter.
Now all this, confined to literature, may be most brilliant, but to us Fascists, who are eminently practical in spirit, it seems rather out of date.
I maintain that the Imperial and Latin tradition of Rome is represented today by Catholicism. (Approvals).
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 today is that which radiates from the Vatican. (Approvals).
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 Popular Party will do likewise.
As for Social Democracy, it seems very dubious. (Laughter). First of all one wonders why it is called social. 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. (Comments).
This is the last part of my speech, and I want to touch upon a very difficult subject, and if provided the time, is intended to draw the attention of the Chamber. I speak of the struggle, of the civil war in Italy.
First of all we must not exaggerate, even in front of foreigners, the sheer size and scale of this struggle. The Socialists have published a volume of three hundred pages; one comes out tomorrow morning. On the other hand all the nations of Europe have has a bit of a civil war. There was one in Hungary, there was one in Germany, there is one today in England, in the form of a colossal social conflict. There was also one in France, when Jouhaux launched his famous "waves", which were crushed by a government which had more courage than the men who are there now.
It is useless to say that Giolitti wants to restore the authority of the state. The task is enormously difficult, because there are already three or four States in Italy, which are contending for the probable, possible exercise of power.
On the other hand, to save the State, you must perform a surgical operation. Yesterday the Hon. Orano said that the State is similar to the giant Briareus, which has a hundred arms. I think you should amputate ninety-five of them. I think that it is necessary to reduce the State to its purely juridical and political expression.
The State will give us a police, save the gentleman from the villains, a well-organized justice, an army ready for all eventualities, a foreign policy subjected to national needs. For the rest, and I do not exclude even secondary schools, it should be left to the private individual. If you want to save the State, you have to abolish the collectivist State, as this is a necessity forwarded by the war, and return to the manchesterian State.
The civil war is even worse for this reason: that all parties tend to form into armies... if it was not dangerous enough when parties came to the state of nebula, it is much more dangerous today when men are clearly classified, commanded and controlled. On the other hand, it is established by now that violence in this land on the part of the working masses must be sold to them. This has been acknowledged by Baldesi, but he does not state the real reason, and this is it: the working masses are, naturally, dare I say piously, pacifistic, because they increasingly represent the static reserves of human societies, while the risk, the danger, the taste for adventure has always been the task and the privilege of the small aristocracy. (Approvals from the far right). So then, O Socialists, if you agree and admit and confess that we will fight in this land, then you must conclude that you miss a turn. (Interruptions from the far left).
Violence is not for us a system, and is not an aesthetic, much less a sport: it is a dire necessity which we are forced to take. (Comments). And I would add that we are willing to disarm, if you in turn disarm, especially your spirits.
In the Avanti! 18th June, Milan edition, it is said:
"We do not preach vengeance, as do our opponents. We believe in the peaceful and fruitful majestic rise of peoples and classes, despite the inevitable, indeed necessary, civil strife. If this is your point of view, gentlemen, it is time for you to enlighten the uneducated and disarm the criminals. We have already spoken our word, we have already done our deed."Now I counter that you ought to enlighten the uneducated, who assert that we are the minions of capitalism, of the landowners and the Government; you need to disarm the criminals, because we have in our martyrology 176 deaths. If you do this, then it will be possible to "finish" the sad chapter of the civil war in Italy.
Do not think that we do not cherish feelings of profound humanity. We can say as Terence: we are human and none of what is human is alien to us.
But disarmament must be reciprocal. if it is mutual, then that state of things which we ardently desire will be fulfilled, because, continuing at this rate, the nation runs a serious disaster of falling into the abyss. (Comments).
We are at a decisive period; loyalty for loyalty, before we lay down our arms, disarm your spirits.
I have spoken clearly: I wait your answer, which I hope will be just as loud and clear.
I am finished. (Vivid and repeated applause from the far right, prolonged comments, many congratulations).
