Political Orientation

[Ederico]

Originally Posted by Ederico

...Mussolini sought to give that spirit which he considered Roman to his people who were united under a single republic (with other territories and ethnic Italians subject to foreign rule) since only the latter half of the 19th. century.

I meant "state", not "republic".

[Theobald]

Originally Posted by Ederico

I meant "state", not "republic".

Mussolini started as a Republican and ended up Republican, so you were quite right.

About his will to conquer and create a new Roman Empire, what I meant is "I don't think that anyone ever took seriously his pretentions to a new Roman Empire, not even himself."

Even in his most deluded dreams he knew very well that his Italy, 20th century Italy, was not able to do such a thing. It was a way, as you said, to try to give Italian people this Roman conquering spirit, and also to remind them their great History and, further, their right to "a place in the sun".

His foreign policy and territorial demands were quite inspired by the Roman era though : his will to dominate the Mediterranean sea (la nostra mare), and to annex all French and British colonies in this area (Egypt, Palestina and Malta; Syria, Tunisia, Eastern Algeria, Corsica and Provence), as well as the Adriatic coastline and Greece. I have even read somewhere that during the Spanish civil war he wanted to set up an Italian protectorate in the Balear islands (and in the Basque country ?). Well, that was probably a bit too ambitious.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Theobald

Mussolini started as a Republican and ended up Republican, so you were quite right.

About his will to conquer and create a new Roman Empire, what I meant is "I don't think that anyone ever took seriously his pretentions to a new Roman Empire, not even himself."

Roman Empire probably meant for him a vision of an enlarged and strengthened Italy, not the old-time Roman Empire. It was, as you already pointed out, more of a slogan than an actual political plan.

[Ederico]

Originally Posted by Theobald

His foreign policy and territorial demands were quite inspired by the Roman era though : his will to dominate the Mediterranean sea (la nostra mare),

In Italian it would be il nostro mare, or as it was often called in the era mare nostrum in Latin.

and to annex all French and British colonies in this area (Egypt, Palestina and Malta; Syria, Tunisia, Eastern Algeria, Corsica and Provence),

The case for Malta and Corsica was not imperialistic bur irredentist. Their populations were both considered Italian. I cannot speak for the Corsicans obviously.

I've talked to old Maltese people who were in Italy during Fascist rule and during the war (one even joined the Italian war effort and was subsequently charged with high treason in Malta because he was a subject of the British monarch, his life was saved because the trial was by popular jury) and I was told that Italians back then viewed the Maltese with sympathy, and the authorities actually subsidised heavily Maltese University students in Italy (Italy historically being, the place were further University and artististic studies after their studies in Malta).

I don't know about Corsica, but as far as Malta is concerned in the late 19th century a law was passed in Italy stating the Maltese were italiani non regnicoli (Italians not belonging to the Kingdom), during fascist rule the King of Italy promulgated a decree specifying that the Maltese were not to be considered as foreigners in relationship to the racial laws forbidding Italians to marry non-Italians. Actually, the law I mentioned before is still in force in Italy (I checked with reputable sources) although the test has been changed to italiani non appartenenti alla repubblica (Italians not belonging to the republic). The law in question was popularly called Legge Crispi, after the Italian prime minister that enacted it.

Taking Malta over from the British was also an act of reaffirming the legitimate Italian legal right over Malta, as the British took Malta over by usurpation for the legitimate sovereign was the King of the Two Sicilies betraying their word to return Malta to mentioned kingdom, their supposed allies.

[Theobald]

Originally Posted by Ederico

In Italian it would be il nostro mare, or as it was often called in the era mare nostrum in Latin.

Sorry, my mistake (in French it is "la mer", feminine). I have to reactivate my Italian skills.

Originally Posted by Ederico

The case for Malta and Corsica was not imperialistic bur irredentist. Their populations were both considered Italian. I cannot speak for the Corsicans obviously.

I have never said that his pretentions were all imperialistic, and obviously his claim to Malta was not an imperialistic one. As for Corsica, to my knowledge Corsican people are as anti-Italian as anti-French; they really are a Nation of their own.

[Ederico]

Originally Posted by Theobald

As for Corsica, to my knowledge Corsican people are as anti-Italian as anti-French; they really are a Nation of their own.

Many Maltese are stupidly anti-Italian even though they carry Italian/Sicilian surnames or surnames derived from there. Merely being anti-Italian wouldn't create a nation per se, as such sentiments could be created by other forces. No Maltese would nowadays be anti-Italian if it were not for the British and ignorance, if not utter servility, for example. Given the researches I'm undertaking, I'm always drawing nearer to the conclusion that the notion of a Maltese nation is artificial and only one result of British imperialism itself, at least in the field of ethnicity and culture. Obviously, if I had to state this in Malta the close mindedness and bias prevailing on such question would be impressive. Although, the Maltese independently always sought greater political autonomy but maintained their cultural natural ties with Italy/Sicily.

The Maltese, and I mean those that haven't given a thought to research questions of history and identity, often delve into all sorts of theories on Maltese origins which none touch on Malta's Italian heritage. Italian heritage is considered foreign. That was a British cultural policy in Malta, apparently among the ignorant in the field it was a success, many others just keep quiet to avoid controversy. The man in my avatar was the last prominent figure to assert all this in public, he was prime minister in 1950 after all, no unpopular person.

A common phenomenon would be the notion that the Maltese are so bastardised that they have no proper origin. Another would be the notion that we are Arabic, and even more laughable one that we are Punic. Incidentelly (not), all such notions were held or promoted by the British one way or another. The British in the 19th. century, as soon as most of Italy became a unitary state, sought in the ethnical and cultural context to detach any notion of Maltese communion with Italy from the minds of the populace to better control their Maltese "island fortress". The educated Maltese viewed with favour the Italian unification, although many resented its anti-Catholic nature. The British rightly feared potential irredentist aspirations arising amongst the Maltese. I don't blame them as practically all of the Maltese-run newspapers proclaimed that Malta was ethnically, racially and culturally Italian. Maltese nationalists held that Italian was the national language and that Maltese was a dialect. All this was practically unanimous throughout the 19th. century. Therefore the Maltese sought greater political autonomy but never denied their ethnical and cultural Italianità. This effectively, provides problems of logical coherency. Quite interesting to analyse.

We're even told by our official history books, imparted to young Maltese pupils, of our rich and diverse histories. We had Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Romans, Saracens, Normans, Anjouvines (this might not be correct), Aragonese, The Knights, the French and the British et cetera. Surprisingly, little to no mention is made of the fact that apart from the last two all the rest had Sicily in their control and Malta was a province of Sicily itself. Obviously, the Knights were here as the controlling force, but their sovereignty was delegated from the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

The French came in as an invading force and the Maltese revolted and many died (especially though disease and hunger after two years of protracted fighting and meagre supplies). The British came in to "help" the Maltese on leave from their allies of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies but they then deemed it fit to retain Malta. Official history even says that the Maltese offered Malta up as a colony (and we have "educated" anglophile dullards writing this to our local papers every now and again this question arises). Surprisingly we had the greatest of all the "Maltese" anglophiles counter this claim in Court up to the 1930s so one can imagine what the Maltese nationalists thought of that. No wonder I can't stand British Imperialism the most out of all imperialisms.

Our history has been perverted, and our education in the field is as perverted. The shame is that now we are independent so it should all be rectified were it not for nincompoops in charge of our education system or even worse politicians with no guts to order what is only just.

I can only be drawn to one conclusion, that the Maltese always sought greater autonomy to manage their internal affairs, however ethnically and culturally speaking our culture was Italian or Italic. What we have now is not our integral culture, but some pasta with fish and chips and McDonalds.

Unfortunately, the British Imperialist black-on-white policy of deitalianisation and concomittant anclisation (with parallel arabisation, as the most important aspect was deitalianising and not anglicising) succeeded. We now have a populace with an identity crisis, an inferiority complex and a distorted social mentality. Just yesterday I heard it from a secondary school teacher that he thought the Maltese language was of Punic derivation, at least he listened to me with interest! Yes, Rule Brittania!

As I said, I cannot speak for the Corsicans, but knowing Maltese history I wouldn't base the notion of nation on sentiment and resentiment alone.

[NatVox]

I hear that the Corsicans and the Sardinians can't stand each other, either. Probably a part of the very isolated island character.

What most Italians seem to agree with is that, before taking into considerations the differences between North, Central and Southern Italy, the most different people are the Sardinians.

[GrafWilhelm]

National Socialist

[NatVox]

This poll is obsolete and it does not represent the average Stirpes membership. Many by-passers have voted in polls like this one, and since they were done non-publicly viewable we can never know who voted what.

[Ederico]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I hear that the Corsicans and the Sardinians can't stand each other, either. Probably a part of the very isolated island character.

What most Italians seem to agree with is that, before taking into considerations the differences between North, Central and Southern Italy, the most different people are the Sardinians.

Indeed, if you're talking about phenotype alone, I can certainly say that the Maltese are more akin phenotypically to (southern) Italians than the Sardinians in general. Although, I do hope that we do not take all Sardinians to be the stereotype Sardinian as far as looks go, I don't think the difference is so clear cut. However, I do admit my scant knowledge on the question.

[NatVox]

Actually, I was speaking about character.

One thing that I've found interesting about many island peoples is that they are not as fond of the sea as you would expect.

You would think that they look at the sea like a resource for them. Instead, the sea has always been a source of problems to them, be it because invaders came through it or because it took the lifes of their fishermen.

[United Faith]

As long as it's Nationalist I'm happy; however, different manifestations of it I prefer. For example, I'd much prefer Nationalist Fascism over Liberal Nationalism (if such thing can exist).

[Elysium.]

It is hard for me to decide. I believe Nationalism or Unity of the People is what I value most. Some would say I believe in National Socialism because I have seen it been interpreted in the sense that it's a socialist nation, in that everyone works together for the nation and no one (but a small few) are more important than the rest and every aspect of the nation is interdependant and can't function without the other.

I voted Fascism simply because I see it as the most practical of orientations in establishing, and less so maintaining, a desirable state.