The Vindication of Ayn Rand

The Autonomist ^ | 03/11/05 | Cass Hewitt

[Hank Kerchief]

The Vindication of Ayn Rand

A review of James S. Valliant’s The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics: The Case Against the Brandens

by Cass Hewitt

Who would have thought that within the seemingly sedate and cerebral world of philosophy would be found a history to rival any Hollywood drama for intrigue, passion, seduction, lies, betrayal, black evil, and the ultimate triumph of the good—and which is also a fascinating detective story.

Among those who rose to heights of fame in the last half of the twentieth century none was as charismatic as the author-philosopher Ayn Rand. Her electrifying, radical novels depicting her fully integrated philosophy, which she named Objectivism, broke on popular consciousness like a storm and caught the enthusiasm of a generation seeking truth and values in the aridity of postmodernism. She was a sought after speaker, her public lectures filled to standing room only. She was interviewed on Prime Time television and for high circulation magazines.

She taught a philosophy of individualism in the face of rising collectivism; an ethic of adherence to reality and honesty; of objective truth against the subjectivist antirealism of the Counter Enlightenment philosophies and presented the world with a blue-print for day to day living.

On the coat tails of her fame were two young students who sought her out, convinced her their passion for her ideas was genuine and became associated with her professionally, intellectually, and ultimately personally. They were Nathaniel Branden, now a noted “self-esteem” psychology guru, and his then wife, Barbara Branden.

Not only did Branden, 25 years Rand’s junior, become her favored student, he was so professionally close to her that he gave Objectivist lectures with her, edited and wrote for the “Objectivist Newsletter”, and formed a teaching venue, the Nathaniel Branden Institute, to teach details of her philosophy to the army of readers of her novels hungry for more. Rand dedicated her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged to him (along with her husband), and named Branden her intellectual heir.

Then suddenly, in 1968, Rand issued a statement which repudiated both the Brandens, totally divorcing them from herself and her philosophy. In “To whom it may Concern,” [The Objectivist, May 1968] Rand gave her explanation for the break detailing Brandens departure from practice of the philosophy.

However, in 1989, 7 years after Rand’s death, Nathaniel Branden published his book Judgment Day, a supposedly detailed biography of his famous philosopher-mentor. In it he painted a picture of a woman very different from that recognized by her army of admirers —a dark, “repressed“, angry woman who tortured and pilloried anyone who remotely disagreed with her, with no patience for any views not exactly her own, with an almost pathological arrogance and dictatorial tyranny.

Barbara Branden published her own “warts and all” version of her reminiscences earlier, in 1986. The Passion of Ayn Rand (later made into a movie) presented a similar picture of Rand. Both categorically stated that the reason for the break between Rand and the Brandens was because Nathaniel and Rand had been involved in an extra-marital sexual relationship while still married for a period of 14 years and that Nathaniel’s refusal to continue the affair had reduced a tyrannical Rand to hysterics.

Rand is presented as a seriously psychologically disturbed individual whose very philosophy was not only flawed but dangerous. Both books and their authors have become accepted as the last and most reliable “word” on Ayn Rand, and most works describing Rand today mainly trace back to these two as sources.

However, in 2002 a prosecuting lawyer, James Valliant, published on the Internet the results of his examination of these two books. Studied with the critical eye of a dispassionate investigative mind he saw serious errors: major contradictions both within each book and between both. Apparent to him was that a major act of deliberate deception had been perpetrated by these two well known, highly respected adherents of Rand’s philosophy.

For a considerable time before the final split the Brandens had drifted away from Rand’s philosophy but it was much worse. They lied to her about themselves, the state of their marriage, their multiple sexual affairs, and Nathaniel Branden’s secret four year love affair with another woman while he was supposedly carrying on a sexual liaison with Rand herself . Worst of all, was the reason for the deception. The lies enabled them to use her name to promote their own early publications and the considerable income they were deriving from the “spin-offs“. Nathaniel Branden admits that he frequently “paced the floor” trying to work out how not to wreck the “life he had built up for himself” as Objectivism’s authorized representative. At his wife’s urging that he admit his secret affair to Rand he responded “not until after she writes the forward for my book."

As the author states, “the persistent dishonesty of the Brandens about their own part in Rand’s life makes it impossible to rely on them as historians of events for which they are the only witnesses.” He amply demonstrates, taking their own words from their critiques of Rand, to substantiate his conclusion that “they will recollect, suppress, revise, exaggerate and omit whenever convenient… [where] necessary they will pull out of their magical hats a very “private” conversation that one of them “once” had with Rand to prove what all the rest of the evidence denies.”

Their criticisms of Rand are personal and “psychological,” perfect examples of the psychologizing Rand denounced, attempting to demonstrate that Rand did not live up to her own philosophy. Barbara Branden makes total about face contradictions within a few pages; draws conclusions from nearly non-existent evidence such as a single old family photo and uses such alien to Objectivism concepts as “feminine instincts” and “subjective preferences” without the bother of defining these terms.

In her The Passion of Ayn Rand, Ms. Branden draws personal psychological conclusions without any evidence. Examples such as “Her Fathers’ seeming indifference ..{had} ..to be a source of anguish.. as an adult, she always spoke as if [they] were simple facts of reality, of no emotional significance.. one can only conclude that a process of self-protective emotional repression [was deep rooted]…” and further “In all my conversations with Ayn Rand about her years in Russia she never once mentioned to me [any] encounter ..with anti-Semitism. It is all but impossible that there were not such encounters.. One can only assume that ... the pain was blocked from her memory … perhaps because the memory would have carried with it an unacceptable feeling of humiliation” Assumptions, which Valliant says, prove nothing.

It is interesting to note that Ms. Branden was an ardent supporter of Rand until immediately after the break, when such wild accusations and psychologizing rationalizations cut from whole cloth began. Indeed, Ms. Branden can be read at public Internet forums doing the very same thing to this day.

Nathaniel Branden is even more revealing. His own words not only carry the same blatant unreal contradictions as Ms. Brandens’ but he also reveals a twisted mentality capable of totally unethical acts which he then tries to portray as his victim’s faults. For example, he accuses Rand of being authoritarian and “causing us to repress our true selves” and offers as evidence his own lying sycophancy, agreeing with Rand on issues he was later to claim he had always disagreed; praising Rand's insight in topics such as psychology in which field, he says, she had little experience. Considering that it was Rand's endorsement of him he was seeking, his behavior constitutes, as Valliant says, “spiritual embezzlement.”

The complete lack of value in anything either of the Branden’s have to say about Ayn Rand is summed up with pithy succinctness by the author: “We have seen [they] will distort and exaggerate the evidence, and that they have repeatedly suppressed vital evidence and [employ] creativity in recollecting it. Both exhibit internal confusions and numerous self contradictions. The only consistencies are the passionate biases that emanate from their personal experiences. These factors all combine to render their biographical efforts useless to the serious historian.”

James Valliant has done more than demonstrate the complete invalidity—including a viscous character assassination—of both the Brandens books. Using the clear logic and language of an experienced prosecuting lawyer, with only essential editing, he has presented and interpreted Rand’s own private notes, made while she was acting as psychological counselor for Nathaniel Branden. These show her mind in action as she analyses the language of, and finally understands the bitter truth about, the man she had once loved.

Mr. Valliant not only demonstrates this is a tragic story of assault on innocence by a viciously duplicitous person, it is also an amazing detective story, and the detective is none other than Ayn Rand herself.

Over the four years of emotionally painful psychological counseling Rand gave Branden for his supposed sexual dysfunction, we see a brilliant mind carefully dissecting the truths she unearthed. By applying her own philosophy to Branden’s methods of thinking although still unaware of the worst of his deceptions, we see Rand slowly reaching her horrifying conclusion.

The picture of Rand which shines out through her notes is of a woman of amazing depths of compassion; who would not judge or condemn if she could not understand why a person thought and felt as they did; who would give all her time and energy to try to understand and help someone she believed was suffering and in need of guidance.

The facts indicate the sexual affair was apparently over 4 years before the final public split, though Mr. Valiant is careful to say he is only certain it had ended by the start of 1968 and that it was Rand, not Branden, who ended the relationship because she had finally understood his subjectivism, deceits (including financial misappropriation) and mental distortions.

From the flaws in their own works and from Rand's concurrent notes of the time it is clearly apparent that in her 1968 statement of repudiation, Rand told the truth about events and the Brandens lied. Throughout all of her years with them, Rand behaved with the integrity followers of her work would have expected. And, to quote Mr. Valliant, “The Brandens were dishonest with Rand about nearly everything a person can be … largely to maintain the good thing they had going at NBI. This dishonesty lasted for years. ..[They] not only lied to Rand, they lied to their readers .. [and] then they lied about their lies. Ever since they have continued to lie in memoirs and biographies about their lies, calling Rand's 1968 statement ‘libelous’. This remarkable all-encompassing dishonesty is manifest from these biographies and all the more apparent now we have Rand's journal entries from the same period.”

Her generous nature was unable to conceive the full truth about Nathaniel Branden. It is left to Valliant to finish the story, taking it to its full and final dreadful conclusion, showing exactly what it was Nathaniel Branden had deliberately done to this innocent, brilliant, compassionate woman, and what both the Brandens, whom Rand rejected as having any association at all with her philosophy, are still doing to this day—and why.

In the end, those who have used the Branden’s lies to claim the philosophy of Objectivism “doesn’t work, because it’s author couldn’t follow the precepts,” are shown to be completely wrong. Rand used her philosophy and psycho-epistemology to discover the truth; her philosophy to guide her actions in dealing with it and finally to lift her above the heartbreak and pain it caused her.

There is something almost operatic in the telling: A great woman, a great mind, who conceived of a philosophy of love for and exalted worship of the best in the human mind, who defended with searing anger the right of all people to be free to discover happiness, being deceived by the one person she believed to be her equal, her lover and heir, who had lied to and manipulated her for his own gains while she was alive and vilified her name and distorted with calumny the image of her personality after her death.

Perhaps in nothing else is her greatness better shown, than that she was able to rise above the cataclysm and live and laugh again. She always said, “Evil is a negative.. It can do nothing unless we let it.” In her life she lived that and proved it true.

[jackbob]

Vassal-suzerein relationship is fundamental to feudalism. Consult any book.

Feudalism can be simply defined as: 1. fragmentation of political power; 2. public power in private hands; and 3. armed forces secured through private contract.

I find the dictionary much more accurate for defining the word:

The feudal system; a system by which the holding of estates in land is made dependent upon an obligation to render military service to the king or feudal superior; feudal principles and usages.

Or

The social system that developed in Europe in the 8th C; vassals were protected by lords who they had to serve in war.

On the otherhand, none of these are quite adequate when speaking of feudalism as an era in history. This is because feudalism was in a constant state of evolution and existed in several different forms, varying from time to time and place to place in Europe. These were part of a gradual development over a good many centuries. The results at any given time showed various forms feudalism growing side by side, most often developed without any form of or relation to chronological sequence, and thereby can be best described as a partially organized chaos.

While the word "feudal" clearly came from the German, its initial development occurred under the Franks in Gaul. But the institution of royal benefices did not exist under the Merovingian Franks. Such developments did not occur until the Carolingian era with its wide spread confiscations of church lands. Argument as to who was initially responsible for Europe's advancement or decline into feudalism, be it Charles Martel or his sons Pippin and Karlmann, makes interesting history, but I would concede that it has little to with our discussion. As is the case of your reference to Gregory VII.

As far as my statement that the church was a superstate goes, I qualified the statement. I might further add that it was you that first brought up the church's authority over matters of morals and religion. That alone qualifies it as a superstate, without mention of the lands and people it directly governed from time to time.

If I were an advocate for feudalism or monarchism (which I am not), I would be an extreme advocate of mix Ayn Rand's ethics and philosophy with anarcho capitalism as most often defined these days with in the libertarian movement. That is, I would reaffirm Frederick Bastiat's arguments on a never ending availability of cheap land as a counter to John Locke's proviso that so long as "at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others." If you take the Randian and current anarcho capitalist positions and apply them to the real world, after a generation of Randianism, you would have a mixed monarcho governmental system. After that government would be pretty much not relevant. A quick almost unnoticed switch over to anarcho capitalism would be easy and a feudal monarchist system is what you would actually have.

The best stage to begin bringing this about (at this time), is the Libertarian Party stage. Almost all of the conservative natural rightests, be they minarchist or anarchist, are already on board (they just don't know it). Even the hard core radical left wing anarchists (to include the voluntarists operating outside the party) are already advocating positions consistent with such ideals and need only be brought back into the Party with a program of mutual education. The only real significant opposition will come from utilitarians and Democratic Party leaning Libertarians. But their numbers are currently down, but rising.

As I see it, the Libertarian Party is the future battle ground. So long as no one side wins control, all sides will keep growing. When ever one side wins significant control, Party growth slows down. Should one side take total control, the Party will then die a quiet death. But I do not believe that is going to happen. Thus I see the libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party bringing major changes to the country in a few decades. And then will start the real fight between you anarcho monarchists and us minarcho lefties.:=)

[annalex]

Both the dictionary definition and the one I like define feudalism through the vassal-suzerain relationship.

I don't think we need to go into every detail of how this relationship was implemented at different points in history and in different places. Such adaptivity, even if it looks like chaos, it in itself a virtue.

I brought up the Invenstiture Controversy to underline the contentious relationship between the church and the secular world. The Pope could not order the emperor around, and vice versa. At all times the church had authority over the faith and morals, and life/property torts were handled by the state.

If you take the Randian and current anarcho capitalist positions and apply them to the real world, after a generation of Randianism, you would have a mixed monarcho governmental system. After that government would be pretty much not relevant. A quick almost unnoticed switch over to anarcho capitalism would be easy and a feudal monarchist system is what you would actually have.

With Hoppe, I think that we are heading toward anarchy and natural order. Feudalism is a model to keep in mind, because feudalism was the natural order in 5-15 centuries. In a technological society the vassal-suzerain relationship will take a different shape, of course, than in an agrarian society. Most likely we will recognize them as agent-client or employer-employee relationships. But unlike most anarcho-capitalists I believe that monarchies will emerge from anarcho-capitalism, and I believe that the Christian faith will be the central organizing factor of this social evolution.

I don't think any political parties, or even any conscious political effort today will have any bearing whatsoever on the social dynamics in the 21 century.

[jackbob]

I don't think we need to go into every detail of how this relationship was implemented at different points in history and in different places. Such adaptivity, even if it looks like chaos, it in itself a virtue.

The occasional implementation of a few feudal like customs that were almost always temporary prior to the 10th century, is not "adaptivity," and is anything but "virtue." It looks chaotic because it was chaotic. Only in certain areas of what is today known as France did it take any on appearance of permanence, starting with the 877 recognition of hereditary benefices and the very gradual unplanned accidental development of various forms feudalism downward to the most common of people over the next two centuries. As for the rest of Europe, feudalism very rarely appeared until well into the 12th century and showed no sign of permanence until the13th. In some countries like Portugal, Castile, Sweden, Hungary, etc. feudalism did not appear at all. Benifices for life were sometimes implemented in Bohemia and Denmark, which I guess can be remotely called feudal. At any rate, up until the 11th century, only the Kingdom of Aragon was based upon feudalism to an consistent degree.

I brought up the Invenstiture Controversy to underline the contentious relationship between the church and the secular world. The Pope could not order the emperor around, and vice versa. At all times the church had authority over the faith and morals, and life/property torts were handled by the state.

What are you saying here? It reads like you are contradicting yourself. At any rate the Investiture Controversy is only one of many continual failings of the separation of the church and secular authority. Popes ordered secular authorities on secular matters throughout the feudal era, as also secular authorities ordered popes and other church officials about quite regularly. Life/properly torts were regularly handled by the church authorities through out the 5th through the 15 century. At any rate Gregory VII was a complete failure in the entire matter. It seems that the only permentent success of his reign was the forcing of priests and bishops to "put away their wives" (divorce them).

Of course I do not agree with you that feudalism or Christianity are going to have any positive or even significant impact on politics in the 21century. As I see it non-electoral political parties will become the key to political changes in the future.

[annalex]

The Middle Ages were chaotic, yes. It also is true that feudalism developed gradually and unevenly. I don't see how this disqualifies in any way the feudalist ideal.

Popes ordered secular authorities on secular matters throughout the feudal era, as also secular authorities ordered popes and other church officials about quite regularly

Right. This is why I brought up the Investiture Controversy, which outlined the tension between ecclesia and mundus. It proves that there was a duality of power throughout the Middle Ages. Also, Gregory VII was not a failure in historical terms, because the Pope installs the bishops even today, and has been since his times. But the point is not even if he won or lost, but that the bi-polarity of power is highlighted by his struggles.

non-electoral political parties will become the key to political changes

Why? The political power is concentrated in the GOP/Democrat cartel. It will end when the economic system of state capitalism comes to a halt. Then we'll have capitalist anarchy, and the dawn of the new feudalism. Rand cannot stop the collapse and has nothing to offer following the collapse.

[jackbob]

Any challenge I have made to you as to the history of feudalism was not intended to be viewed as a challenge to the ideal of feudalism beyond challenging a historical claim supporting it. My position that feudalism historically did not work, is not evidence that feudalism won't work.

Gregory VII was not a failure in historical terms, because the Pope installs the bishops even today, and has been since his times.

This is also not quite accurate. One only need look at the bishops accompanying the anti-popes in Gregory VII's time and immediately there after. And of course we have the second period of anti-popes with all their Bishops during the French captivity of the Popes and their entire colleges of Roman Cardinals during most of the 1300s. But as for the majority who were properly appointed bishops, such appointments were for the most part corrupted by either favoring secular authorities wishes or compromised so as not to anger secular authorities that were not being engaged. Most Popes were quite careful to take on only one kingdom or secular authority at a time. That said, it might also be worth noting that the church was more often engaged in a war with some secular authority over half the time throughout the feudal era (9th through the 15th century).

The political power is concentrated in the GOP/Democrat cartel.

This is not true. In short, there is no such cartel. Both Parties are very week and maintain little control over candidates or elected government officials. The real power in America is in the pressure groups that force or manipulate news media attention at will. Thanks to the internet, such pressure groups no longer can maintain absolute top down control over their interests and memberships as they use to in the past. Break away factions will become much more common in the near future than ever before. This will result in an increased membership control, which in turn will increasingly sever reliable political ties of the past. I contend that the result of all this will be designer political parties made to order, whose power and influence will be enhanced by their threat to run candidates or enter coalition of parties to do such. But their real power will exist in their ability to involve more and more people in the simple act of defining the issues. The sooner the Libertarian Party returns to its original primary purpose of education, the sooner it will be able to be come a significant contender in the coming revolution.

[annalex]

For a 1000 years, feudalism evolved and adapted. Then it transformed into nation-states. What necessitated the formation of nation-states and the end of feudalism is a separate topic. I think, one reason is the natural growth of monarchies from the feudal patchwork of warlords. The other that with the new offensive capability of firearms the medieval military tactics of independent horsemen in body armor had to give way to soldier armies under central command.

The Avignon captivity is another illustration that the papacy was in competition with lay authority, -- a competition it sometimes lost.

Regarding the politics of the future. The cartel is the political class; the parties are weak because the primary allegiance of a politician is to the political class as a whole, and not to the party. As one anarchist slogan puts it, no matter what you vote for, a government gets elected. In this system, a political interest that can be fulfilled by growing the government in its direction, has a shot at political participation. For example, environmentalists can get the government to regulate more businesses, educators to socialize more education, manufacturers can get the government to set up tariffs and facilitate export of the industrial base, etc. Some of these interests are traditionally aligned with the Republicans, some with the Democrats.

Religious conservatives can play the game too. They can, for example, push for decency laws, protection of the unborn laws, or compete with secular charities for tax money.

There is no room for an interest that wants less government in this system. This is why freedom of religion, gun rights, and the entire libertarian agenda are completely disenfranchized, and will remain so. But freedom of religion interest is a part of the larger cultural conservative movement and can profit indirectly from redirecting, rather than reducing the government; the gun rights are an obverse of gun manufacturer interest. Libertarianism is not only disenfranchized, it has no partner that is in the game. Unless you count the Wall Street pro-business demagogues with the libertarians. This is why I don't think there exists a check on the future government growth, other than the growth itself. It cannot grow back, it can only collapse under its own weight.

[jackbob]

In this system, a political interest that can be fulfilled by growing the government in its direction, has a shot at political participation.

I agree if by "system," you mean the current body of laws that set out our quite "limited" human rights. But I say the long term direction in human affairs has been generally toward greater rights as well as increased participation and representation. The culture, in this regard, is way ahead of the establishment which controls government and law. Revolution will come when the many different disenfranchised economic ideologs, left and right, fully come to recognize their common ground, and join forces for change. Only Christian fascists and progressive libertarians, as I see it, are capable of building bridges between left and right, faster than the common ground becomes realized. And thereby are the only two potential players capable of taking control of the coming revolution and keeping it civilized. The former will bring a return to the dark ages, the latter will bring a new leap into enlightenment.

Libertarianism is not only disenfranchised, it has no partner that is in the game. Unless you count the Wall Street pro-business demagogues with the libertarians. This is why I don't think there exists a check on the future government growth, other than the growth itself. It cannot grow back, it can only collapse under its own weight.

On this we almost agree. I say it is delusional however for libertarians to dream of pro-business support for their cause. Business is always reactionary and only joins a side after the winner has been unquestionably predicted. The far more likely ally of libertarians are the economic poor, the socially disenfranchised, and young liberals, all of whom view societal controls as oppressive, corrupt and not fair.

There is of course a potential likelyhood that the establishment will stay ahead in the game, bring necessary changes faster than demands can materialize, and thereby prevent a revolution. In that case, the libertarian movement has the potential, through its party, to help better define the fullness of freedom, prosperity and human rights, while carrying that understanding back and forth across the left-right divide. Its educational potential for directing gradual progressive change is almost unlimited, even where its direct political potential fails entirely. The sooner Libertarians realize this and stop concerning themselves about the number of votes, the better.

[annalex]

Count me with the "dark ages".

I wonder if your reference to "Christian fascists" is a meaningless swear or it reflects a lack of familiarity with fascist ideology.

[jackbob]

I very rarely ever use the word "fascist" as most libertarians here at FR do (as a swear word implying a false leftwing meaning to it). I usually challenge those notions here at FR. I am quite familiar with its meaning, history, as well as its various use and misuse, both right and wrong.

[annalex]

Fascism is a form of state-worship, and consequently Christianity is its awowed enemy.

[jackbob]

"State-worship" is an extreme exaggeration. You might consider asking your self if your reference to "state-worship" nothing more than "a meaningless swear or it reflects a lack of familiarity with fascist ideology."

With regard to the Catholic church, its pope was set free by the fascists, who also returned its confiscated church lands on taking power in Italy. Fascism has never been enemy of Christianity.

[annalex]

The Pope hid Jews in Vatican basements while the Catholic Priests were carted off to Auschwitz.

During the Second World War, the Vatican State officially remained neutral. However, as Cardinal Pacelli, [the Pope] was against the Nazi's increasing political power in Germany and in August 1933 wrote to the British representative to the Holy See his disgust with the Nazis and "their persecution of the Jews, their proceedings against political opponents, the reign of terror to which the whole nation was subjected."

[...]

Pius XII's role during World War II has been a source of controversy. Pope Pius XII followed a policy of public neutrality during the Second World War mirroring that of Pope Benedict XV during the First World War. Pius's main argument for that policy was twofold. That public condemnation of Hitler and Nazism would have achieved little of practical benefit, given that his condemnation could effectively be censored and so unknown to German Catholics (who in any case had been told as early as the early 1930s by the German Roman Catholic hierarchy that Nazism and Catholicism were incompatible). Secondly, Pius argued that had he condemned Nazism more aggressively, the result would have been repression of Roman Catholicism within Nazi Germany, making the Church's efforts against Nazi policies at the parish level difficult. An "underground railroad" of secret escape routes had been set up by prominent Catholics such as Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty who operated under the tacit, if not implicit, approval of Pope Pius XII (as portrayed in the 1983 TV-movie "The Scarlet And The Black").

Although Pius XII is fiercely condemned by the press today for not explicitly condemning Nazism (see Hitler's Pope), it is estimated that about 300,000 Jews were saved through the Vatican during WWII. After the war had ended, Pius XII was praised by numerous Jewish organizations. The head rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism, citing as his reason Pius XII's witness to religious fraternity.

According to the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, "Preserving Vatican neutrality, and the capability of the Church to continue to function where possible in occupied Europe and Nazi-allied states, was a far better strategy to save lives than Church sanctions on a regime that would have merely laughed at them."

[...]

Joseph Goebbels was clear about the Reich's attitudes toward the Roman Catholic Church. His 26 March 1942 entry into his diary reads, "It's a dirty, low thing to do for the Catholic Church to continue its subversive activity in every way possible and now even to extend its propaganda to Protestant children evacuated from the regions threatened by air raids. Next to the Jews these politico-divines are about the most loathsome riffraff that we are still sheltering in the Reich. The time will come after the war for an over-all solution of this problem." (Lochner, The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, p. 146)

(Source: Wikipedia)

The relations between the Vatican and Mussolini could have been a bit warmer, but not for ideological reasons.

Regarding fascism as state-worship, it is not even remotely a controversial proposition:

Mussolini, in a speech delivered on October 28, 1925, stated the following maxim that encapsulates the fascist philosophy: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato." ("Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State".) Therefore, he reasoned, all individuals' business is the state's business, and the state's existence is the sole duty of the individual.

(Source: Wikipedia)

[annalex]

Regarding Mussolini and the Vatican, Mussolini did agree to the Lateran Treaty establishing modern Vatican state. That was early in the history of Italian Fascism. Things went downhill from there. Here are some quotes from Pius XI's encyclical Non Abbiamo Bisogno (1931), which was spurred by the fascist state's repression of Catholic Youth:

44. And here We find Ourselves confronted by a mass of authentic affirmations and no less authentic facts which reveal beyond the slightest possibility of doubt the resolve (already in great measure actually put into effect) to monopolize completely the young, from their tenderest years up to manhood and womanhood, for the exclusive advantage of a [Fascist] party and of a regime based on an ideology which clearly resolves itself into a true, a real pagan worship of the State - the "Statolatry" which is no less in contrast with the natural rights of the family than it is in contradiction with the supernatural rights of the Church. To propose and to promote such a monopoly to persecute for this reason Catholic Action, as has been done for some time more or less openly or under cover to reach this end by striking at the Catholic Association of Youth as has lately been done; all this is truly and literally to "forbid the little children to go to Jesus Christ," since it impedes their access to His Church and where His Church is, there is Jesus Christ. This usurpation goes so far as to snatch the young from Christ and His Church even with violence.

[...]

52. A conception of the State which makes the rising generations belong to it entirely, without any exception, from the tenderest years up to adult life, cannot be reconciled by a Catholic either with Catholic doctrine or with the natural rights of the family. It is not possible for a Catholic to accept the claim that the Church and the Pope must limit themselves to the external practices of religion (such as Mass and the Sacraments), and that all the rest of education belongs to the State.

(Source: www.vatican.va)

[jackbob]

I thought our discussion had risen above boogeyman rhetoric. I guess not. At any rate, the Roman Catholic Church never got along with any government for any length of time. As it smuggled people to safety from the Nazis, it would smuggle SS men to safety from the allies after the war. The whole history of the church has been wrapped up in activities that stood in opposition to unacceptable conduct by secular powers.

While National Socialism and Fascism are quite similar in many ways, they are not the same. They both worked, independently of each other, with the church as allies on some fronts and opponents on other fronts. In both existed Catholics like Hitler Youth Leader Balder von Schirach, who successfully challenged Nazi euthanasia policies in the 1930s, and both had fanatical atheists like one time communist J. P. Goebbles. But all this says nothing about Fascism, which National Socialism was not.

Fascism as fascism on a large scale occurred only in two conntries Italy and Spain. In both it had conflicts with the Church. It also had good relations with the Church running simultaneously, depending on what aspect of church-state relations are being looked at (as has been pretty much the history of the church with all most all governments through out history). Fascist in general view themselves as a type of progressive conservative in alliance with the Church in a protracted struggle against atheistic communism and its allies the atheistic liberal democrats (no political party implied here). The church likewise, treated fascists as allies in that struggle, giving both moral and enthusiastic endorsements to their efforts.

Just as National Socialism is not the same as Fascism, so also Christian Fascism is not the same as Fascism. But the philosophies are quite similar. Of course Christian Fascists would never call themselves fascists, but by definition, that is pretty much what they are.

[annalex]

the Roman Catholic Church never got along with any government for any length of time

Very true. Unlike your earlier assertions that the Church ran the state.

The stuff I posted is sufficent to show that fascism, even when distinct from National Socialism, is a form of state worship and as such is antithetical to Catholic Christianity.

It is of course true that the Catholics will offer support to any government that opposes atheist socialism, and rightly so. This is what happened in Spain and in Italy in 1920s-30s.

[jackbob]

Very true. Unlike your earlier assertions that the Church ran the state.

Now you misrepresent what I had said in "earlier assertions."

[annalex]

Feel free to correct the misrepresentation, if it occurred.

I am, by the way, a great admirer of Generalissimo Franco. I think, Spain owes him a debt it does not recognize. This does not make me a Fascist Catholic, merely a Catholic.

[jackbob]

I would say that I did correct the misrepresentation by stating it as such. But if that is not enough, I'll further elaborate.

You quite correctly quoted me as saying:

the Roman Catholic Church never got along with any government for any length of time

Then you reply to that by saying:

Very true. Unlike your earlier assertions that the Church ran the state.

First off, I never said the Church ran the state, at least not in the light that you present here. I did say that the Church was the state, as you had made it such when stating that it had authority over morals and law. I clarified all this in my reply #301, where I said:

As far as my statement that the church was a superstate goes, I qualified the statement. I might further add that it was you that first brought up the church's authority over matters of morals and religion. That alone qualifies it as a superstate, without mention of the lands and people it directly governed from time to time.

Of course you could use a spurious argument that if it "never got along with any government for any length of time," then it never got along with itself, which is not what I was saying. At any rate, nothing I said contradicted any earlier assertions I made.

This does not make me a Fascist Catholic, merely a Catholic.

I never implied that you were a Fascist Catholic. My impression of you is that you are a Catholic Feudalist or Catholic Monarchist, which I see as much different than a Catholic Fascist. While it is quite possible to be both (or all three) at the same time, nothing you have said or indicated to me suggests any fascist inclinations in the slightest.

I also am admirer of Franco. And like you, I presume, I have many disagreements with much of what he did. Fascism for me is not a boogeyman term. It represents a set of ideas that I do not agree with, and under certain circumstances I would call for violence in bringing about its total destruction. Franco in my opinion was not actually a fascist, but was forced by circumstance to ally himself with them and ultimately lead them. And in the end he did so ultimately to their political demise.

[annalex]

OK. That's cool.

I very much enjoyed the exchange.