PDA

View Full Version : Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt By Umberto Eco


Longinus
08-26-2013, 12:45 AM
Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt
By Umberto Eco

In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between various historical forms of fascism, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

* * *

1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.

Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counterrevolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but is was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of the faiths indulgently accepted by the Roman pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages -- in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little-known religions of Asia.

This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, "the combination of different forms of belief or practice;" such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and although they seem to say different or incompatible things, they all are nevertheless alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.

As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.

If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine, who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.

Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.

Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.

In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.

Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old "proletarians" are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.

7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the United States, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson's The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.

Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such "final solutions" implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.

10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.

Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people in the world, the members or the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler.

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.

In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Spanish Falangists was Viva la Muerte ("Long Live Death!"). In nonfascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.

This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons -- doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.

In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view -- one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.

Because of its qualitative populism, Ur-Fascism must be against "rotten" parliamentary governments. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, as the official language of what he called Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.

* * *

Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier for us if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, "I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares." Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances — every day, in every part of the world. Franklin Roosevelt's words of November 4, 1938, are worth recalling: "If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." Freedom and liberation are an unending task.

Umberto Eco (c) 1995

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

Alien Settler
08-26-2013, 03:59 AM
Great thread.

TheScram
08-26-2013, 04:23 AM
Retarded thread.

Alien Settler
08-26-2013, 04:50 AM
Scram is incorrect.

Longinus
08-26-2013, 04:56 AM
Alien Settler has won this debate.

Occident
08-26-2013, 05:31 AM
In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.

Yeah, look at how they welcomed The Bell Curve just to give an example which came out the same year as that article.

All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.

Racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, just to name a few. These terms serve no purpose but to condemn ideas as heretical without actually refuting them. Even the word "fascist" only serves this purpose unless it specifically refers to the political party that governed Italy from 1922 to 1943.

Longinus
08-26-2013, 07:11 AM
Yeah, look at how they welcomed The Bell Curve just to give an example which came out the same year as that article.
It is more accurate to say that using such research for racist stereotyping is regarded undesirable (i.e. applying generalizations based on statistics all across the board). As for the research itself, just because your ideological inclinations tempt you not to question the results and draw simpleminded conclusions it doesn't prevent the other side of political spectrum to question it's validity or draw different conclusions. Unlike "primeval truth" of fascism the scientific truth is not above rational questioning. Charles Murray was not murdered like Matteotti and Rosselli brothers under Mussolini, or held to death in prison like Gramsci, or expelled from Fascist Italy like Crowley.

Racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, just to name a few. These terms serve no purpose but to condemn ideas as heretical without actually refuting them.
Without these terms we wouldn't be able to refer the actual social phenomena and pronounce our moral judgement. In the society dominated by racists, sexists, anti-semites and homophobes these terms would have been prohibited because, as Voltaire puts it, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." In such society the mentioned ur-fascists would be placed above any criticism since nobody would be even allowed to name them.

Even the word "fascist" only serves this purpose unless it specifically refers to the political party that governed Italy from 1922 to 1943.
Not as a socio-political phenomenon. If you remove from or add some features to fascism you will still have essentially the same order widely recognized as fascism. For example, remove imperialism and you'll get Franco and Salazar. Add radical anti-capitalism and you'll get Ezra Pound. Add mysticism and you'll get Evola.

Sёva Hossenfelder
08-27-2013, 04:21 AM
The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity.

Mentality of the doomed.

Frozen in time rats, only capable of feeding on their never ending fear of the defining property of this species - the expansion of human mind.

Opus131
08-27-2013, 08:24 AM
More like the Renaissance ushered the closing of the human mind.

JJ Cale
08-27-2013, 01:34 PM
More like the Renaissance ushered the closing of the human mind. Very true. Eco is promoting a very extremist political view, yet presenting it as moderate.

Occident
08-28-2013, 05:40 AM
It is more accurate to say that using such research for racist stereotyping is regarded undesirable (i.e. applying generalizations based on statistics all across the board). As for the research itself, just because your ideological inclinations tempt you not to question the results and draw simpleminded conclusions it doesn't prevent the other side of political spectrum to question it's validity or draw different conclusions. Unlike "primeval truth" of fascism the scientific truth is not above rational questioning. Charles Murray was not murdered like Matteotti and Rosselli brothers under Mussolini, or held to death in prison like Gramsci, or expelled from Fascist Italy like Crowley.

Charles Murray's disagreement was hardly praised by modern society, so my point still stands, and while scientific truth may not be above questioning, liberal dogma is not, which was my point in the first place. On the other side of the Atlantic, and even above the 49th Parallel, people do get prosecuted for it. Some have died for it as well. George Wallace might well have, but for the grace of God.

Without these terms we wouldn't be able to refer the actual social phenomena and pronounce our moral judgement. In the society dominated by racists, sexists, anti-semites and homophobes these terms would have been prohibited because, as Voltaire puts it, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." In such society the mentioned ur-fascists would be placed above any criticism since nobody would be even allowed to name them.

Those words don't describe social phenomenon of any kind. They are simply buzzwords to describe any thought, word or action pertaining to those subjects that the prevailing political culture doesn't like. Anything that comes between you and what you want is "racism" if you're a race hustler, "sexism" if you're a feminist, "anti-Semitism" if your working for the Jewish lobby and "homophobia" if you're a sodomite. They are epithets designed to draw attention away from a complete absence of any rational argument. Orwellian Newspeak is exactly what they are. It a more sane period of history, there would have been no need to prohibit them because they would have been clearly seen as such.

Not as a socio-political phenomenon. If you remove from or add some features to fascism you will still have essentially the same order widely recognized as fascism. For example, remove imperialism and you'll get Franco and Salazar. Add radical anti-capitalism and you'll get Ezra Pound. Add mysticism and you'll get Evola.

Fascism has two definitions. 1. The the theory and practice of the Fascisti, who ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943. 2. Leftist buzzword originating in Moscow used broadly to describe any form of nationalism that would not tolerate international Communism. The regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, Horthy, Antonescu, etc. were all viewed as bad in the same way because they were all anti-Communist. If you look closely at the article, Eco's definition of "Ur-Fascism", where it is historically accurate at all (you would never have known from reading the article that Germany was as much on the cutting egde of technological advancement during the National Socialist period as any other time in its history) is not a thing in itself; it is essentially a rejection of modernist notions of progress and equality.

Longinus
08-28-2013, 09:55 AM
Charles Murray's disagreement was hardly praised by modern society, so my point still stands

Murray was awarded by Irving Kristol Award for "notable intellectual or practical contributions to improved public policy and social welfare" and Kistler Prize for "understanding of the connection between human heredity and human society". What would have been the sufficient praise to his statistics in your opinion? Implementation of racial laws perhaps? That would have been unconstitutional.

, and while scientific truth may not be above questioning, liberal dogma is not, which was my point in the first place.

This is preposterous since identiterians and totalitarians don't do anything else but question it with all their might. The entire multitudes are free to do so since it is the most undogmatic dogma ever.

On the other side of the Atlantic, and even above the 49th Parallel, people do get prosecuted for it. Some have died for it as well. George Wallace might well have, but for the grace of God.

"While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger." (John Rawls)

Those words don't describe social phenomenon of any kind.

This is a very elaborate description of a social phenomenon depicted by the word "racist":

"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage -- the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors." (Ayn Rand) (http://youtu.be/MdeI9NfbfT8)

They are simply buzzwords to describe any thought, word or action pertaining to those subjects that the prevailing political culture doesn't like. Anything that comes between you and what you want is "racism" if you're a race hustler, "sexism" if you're a feminist, "anti-Semitism" if your working for the Jewish lobby and "homophobia" if you're a sodomite. They are epithets designed to draw attention away from a complete absence of any rational argument. Orwellian Newspeak is exactly what they are.

Misuse of these words does does not make them meaningless.

It a more sane period of history, there would have been no need to prohibit them because they would have been clearly seen as such.

There never was such a period. Liberal American and some West European models are as close as you can get to the perfect freedom of speech and (non-harmful) action.

Fascism has two definitions. 1. The the theory and practice of the Fascisti, who ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943. 2. Leftist buzzword originating in Moscow used broadly to describe any form of nationalism that would not tolerate international Communism. The regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, Horthy, Antonescu, etc. were all viewed as bad in the same way because they were all anti-Communist.

I can tell this is a conspiracy theory since American pre-war propaganda movies that praised non-Communist liberal constitutional values classified Hitler's regime as "fascist". For example, "Confessions of a nazi spy":http://viooz.co/movies/20899-confessions-of-a-nazi-spy-1939.html

(you would never have known from reading the article that Germany was as much on the cutting egde of technological advancement during the National Socialist period as any other time in its history)

You have probably missed this part "Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism."

it is essentially a rejection of modernist notions of progress and equality.

It is the unjust and abominable rejection of equality before the law and equal of opportunities as an ideally desirable state.

Occident
08-29-2013, 06:01 PM
Murray was awarded by Irving Kristol Award for "notable intellectual or practical contributions to improved public policy and social welfare" and Kistler Prize for "understanding of the connection between human heredity and human society". What would have been the sufficient praise to his statistics in your opinion? Implementation of racial laws perhaps? That would have been unconstitutional.

A more balanced review of his book from the press? The Bell Curve was admittedly a mild example that I used because it was better known. Perhaps Phillip Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior would have been better.

This is preposterous since identiterians and totalitarians don't do anything else but question it with all their might. The entire multitudes are free to do so since it is the most undogmatic dogma ever.

They aren't always free to do so though.

"While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger." (John Rawls)


That presumes the existence of "institutions of liberty" in the first place, though. Institutions of liberty would not be threatened by people disagreeing with their dogmas.

"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage -- the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors." (Ayn Rand)

Lol, Ayn Rand going on a diatribe against the very science that she claims to extol. Lysenkoism isn't just a Soviet phenomenon. Also, racism in our day, is usually used to mean far more than that. That's usually not what the NAACP means by "racism".

Misuse of these words does does not make them meaningless.

Oh, they may lack a concise definition, but their meaning is quite clear.

There never was such a period. Liberal American and some West European models are as close as you can get to the perfect freedom of speech and (non-harmful) action.

Return To The Dark Ages (http://www.amren.com/ar/2001/03/index.html)

I can tell this is a conspiracy theory since American pre-war propaganda movies that praised non-Communist liberal constitutional values classified Hitler's regime as "fascist". For example, "Confessions of a nazi spy"

During the Popular Front, the Communist parties allied themselves with non-Communist liberals, who eventually started to use some of their terminology.

You have probably missed this part "Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism."

I wasn't talking about industrial achievements. I was referring to the quote "As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning." There was, in fact, much advancement of learning.

Longinus
08-30-2013, 02:35 AM
That presumes the existence of "institutions of liberty" in the first place, though.

It is a cliché that libertarianism is just about sugar and cream.

"Of course, the devil is in the details of what constitutes "infringement," but there are at least a dozen essentials to protecting from infringements our basic freedoms:

1. The rule of law.
2. Property rights.
3. Economic stability through a secure and trustworthy banking and monetary system.
4. A reliable infrastructure and the freedom to move about the country.
5. Freedom of speech and the press.
6. Freedom of association.
7. Mass education.
8. Protection of civil liberties.
9. A robust military for protection of our liberties from attacks by other states.
10. A potent police force for protection of our freedoms from attacks by other people within the state.
11. A viable legislative system for establishing fair and just laws.
12. An effective judicial system for the equitable enforcement of those fair and just laws. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/the-case-for-libertariani_b_258500.html)

Lol, Ayn Rand going on a diatribe against the very science that she claims to extol.

"As Hayek pointed out in The Constitution of Liberty, “those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often become the enemies of freedom.”

In truth, the would-be molders-of-the-future have it exactly backward. The expansion of science means that every individual is increasingly ignorant relative to the amount of information now known. Free markets, democratic political institutions, and liberal science enable people to discover, marshal, and benefit from new, widely dispersed information. As Hayek explained, “It is because freedom means the renunciation of direct control of individual efforts that a free society can make use of so much more knowledge than the mind of the wisest ruler could comprehend.”

….the ultimate aim of freedom is the enlargement of those capacities in which man surpasses his ancestors and to which each generation must endeavor to add its share—its share in the growth of knowledge and the gradual advance of moral and aesthetic beliefs, where no superior must be allowed to enforce one set of views of what is right or good and where only further experience can decide what should prevail". (http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/13/the-evolution-of-liberty)

During the Popular Front, the Communist parties allied themselves with non-Communist liberals, who eventually started to use some of their terminology.

The only terms liberals should disregard are those that imply marxist or some other illiberal ideological baggage. Generic "fascism" is not one of these terms.

JJ Cale
08-30-2013, 04:32 AM
5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.
Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.
Is the intruder ever to be safe guarded against? Ever?
And that word diversity, what does it mean? When one owns the bully pulpit one does not need to explain? You’re a fascist if you even ask. Consider Black Rap music. Chauvinistic . . .yes, racist . . . yes, sexist, . . .yes . . . diverse . . . yes . . .yes, yes, yes!
It’s all good.

Longbard
08-30-2013, 09:24 AM
These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other,

Here we go, since the incipit you know he is allowed to "newspeaking".
What follow is a pile of lies, as usual from Eco, the more you cheat the more you're rewarded.

Longbard
08-30-2013, 10:58 AM
1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.
...
In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of the faiths indulgently accepted by the Roman pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history.
Pardon? What is he talking about?
But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism
The one makin' a mess of mysticism and religion trying to combine them in his own ball-and-chained mind is only Eco here...

2 Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
So you are a fascist if you are a traditionalist, and you are a fascist if you are a modernist, noone can be more superficial as this.

Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life.

Both fascists and nazis recognized a lack of spirituality in european society those days, among their efforts they intended to have a more spiritualized people, but here Eco with "traditional spiritual values" is only meaning Christianism, he's just ignoring the real meaning of the word "spirit".
And Fascists and Nazis were not mere tech-worshippers and didn't realize only industrial achievements. No, they realized social achievements above all.
Then.. fascists disguised rebuttal of modernity with capitalism? Why doesn't he mention communism here? Isn't communism a product of modernity?
Capitalism instead has roots in ancient societies, since the first trades of capita -head of cattle. So it is not a rebuttal of modernity!
It was a rebuttal of a bad behaviour -when totally uncontrolled by the community- that persisted since millenia, and in what jews were very able since antiquity. Rebuttal of private banking dispotism, this is modernity rebuttal, but as you set up a new state-bank, and a new bank system that former modernity becomes the past.

The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
It is not "irrationalism", it is a corpus rationis, the reason of the body, of the blood, of the Earth. Irrationalism is madness and sickness, and Eco is trying to pass the idea that there is no reason of the body and that we are all possibly compared to mentally sick persons.
Actually communists are the the first promoters of sanatoriums.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.

Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.
Eco is saying that anything you do without thinking is automatically sick.
This attempt is in order to eradicate the animal-man, leaving him wothout a soul, only with a mind to be manipulated.
Plus Fascists were not attacking all intellectuals so generally, with no sense, "irrationally", quite the opposite, they knew what they were doing, there was a think.

Longbard
08-30-2013, 11:50 AM
7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the United States, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson's The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

No, idiot cheater, Fascism is not pro jus solis. You must at least know the language as your mother-tongue.
And Fascists accept foreigners, if they heartly accept and love this nation they moved in.
And Eco is speaking about obsession? Don't tell me.. all his article is a product of a well known obsession.

Longbard
08-30-2013, 11:53 AM
4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.

In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

Quite the opposite again, it's today's science that doesn't admit anything disagreeing.
Besides those days they were exploring any new technology, ww2 was faught also for this reason, to not let the developing of an advanced society that would have used technology for the people sake, not only to have corporations profits from it.

5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.

Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

Here we have the one that is saying that intruders are good by definition, because they are deverse.
But it's the opposite again, it's in the Eco's think that we all must be one people, one world, one heart, one soul, and anyone saying differently must be emarginated or eliminated. While with nationalisms we have differencies in our world.

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old "proletarians" are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.

No, again is the opposite, Fascism was the harmonic coexistance of different classes, and the working class was pretty close to the leadership like the bourgeoises. But in Eco's jew-communist mind isn't possible that classy-war may not exist.
See that Eco is saying that ex-proletarians (in his mind necessarly communists) once become "bourgoises" [term so obsolete and meaningless today..] they turn to fascists! Hilarious.
Thus he like the incoming of any sort of "beloved intruders", as long as they are poor and ignorant people -but dont let 'em become healthy if not they turn to fascism. Hilarious, but unfortunately for him is partially true, 'cause he can see that in Italy many southerns emigrated in Padania are voting LegaNord, and this party has also some black african elected saying that Italy must not adopt jus soli and stop undiscriminated immigration.

So, as you see the world better and deeper, growing healthy and aknowledged, you likely become a fascist? Is this what this communist is saying?

Sёva Hossenfelder
08-30-2013, 01:55 PM
To any honest reader, Eco’s composite of 14 parameters stands solidly. These features of fascism have been demonstrated historically; they can be easily observed in modernity as well.

The more interesting question is how fascism will adapt to in the near future.

We can easily see that new fascist recruits of the Internet generation are progressively losing their ability to fill the shoes of “traditionalism”. Fascism will probably have to tailor itself and become more inclusive and less racist; the emphasis ma y permanently shift to attacks on “degeneracy” of liberal democracies. But there is a new phenomenon – which certainly looks as a sign of desperation to me – some fascists are endorsing Islamic terrorism on and cheer on attempts to destroy institutions of liberal democracies.

For example, here is how Nidal Hasan, the jihadist killer of American soldiers at Fort Hood, is endorsed by poster commonly known as “Niccolo and Donkey”:

This man killed American soldiers and is therefore an honorary… LINK (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1228987#post1228987)

[…]

The man should be commended.

Killing American soldiers is an act of self-defense in light of Iraq, Libya, drone strikes, etc. LINK (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1229001#post1229001)

To that particular fascist Niccolo and Donkey, who repeatedly posts “Sometimes Fascism is the answer” on various forums, killing of American soldiers on American soil seems to be among “the answers”.

Endorsement of terrorism, a relatively new phenomenon of fascism that Umberto Eco could not foresee, will probably become more pronounced. While asymmetrical tools of terrorism cannot stop the evolution of humanity, they grab the headlines. Therefore, in efforts to feel historically relevant, some fascists will be appropriating chances to ride on the coattail of Islamic extremism for as long as they can. Which is hopefully not too long.

Longinus
08-30-2013, 01:59 PM
Pardon? What is he talking about?

This is probably reference to the replacement of Classical Greek-Roman paganism by various oriental, moral-dualistic Aryan cults that favored spiritual despotism over politheistic tolerance and plurality and philosophy. Ur-fascist modus operandi is to pick some detail from a distant culture and pervert it into the instrument of subjugation in order to trump the critical thinking of the subjects. They can call it 'spirituality' but it's a religion/irrationalism. Some German 19th century philosophers were especially good at this scam.

The one makin' a mess of mysticism and religion trying to combine them in his own ball-and-chained mind is only Eco here...

Actually it makes a lot of sense. If you combine dogmatic theology with some local tribal tradition you get fascism.

So you are a fascist if you are a traditionalist, and you are a fascist if you are a modernist, noone can be more superficial as this.

All fascists are anti-modernists and traditionalists. They just use advantages of modern technology to destroy civilization, return into volkish barns and paleolithic caves and 'keeping it in the family'.

Both fascists and nazis recognized a lack of spirituality in european society those days, among their efforts they intended to have a more spiritualized people...

Fortunately in this age the stronger economy, mass production and WMD can martyrize the most spiritual maniacs ur-fascism can produce.

but here Eco with "traditional spiritual values" is only meaning Christianism, he's just ignoring the real meaning of the word "spirit".

Whoever defines that word for other people is a leader of an organized religion, even if he tends to call his religion "spirituality".

And Fascists and Nazis were not mere tech-worshippers and didn't realize only industrial achievements. No, [B]they realized social achievements above all.

Their greatest social "achievement" was ruthlessly weeding out any dissent.

Why doesn't he mention communism here? Isn't communism a product of modernity?

He mentioned there are overlaps and that many fascist patterns are present in other totalitarian ideologies as well. The most fundamental Communist idea was not so modern as leftists think. Like nazism it was based on primitive collectivism of the noble savage.

Capitalism instead has roots in ancient societies, since the first trades of capita -head of cattle. So it is not a rebuttal of modernity!

The society of "original tradition" or "original purity" any fundamentalist aspires to is not the tradition of civilized life - trade (voluntary exchange), crossroads (peaceful interaction), urban life but tribal blood and savagery.

It was a rebuttal of a bad behaviour -when totally uncontrolled by the community- that persisted since millenia, and in what jews were very able since antiquity.

Yet the fascist communities behaved badly as a whole. Not only against individuals, dissidents and minorities within fascist countries but across Europe and Russia.

It is not "irrationalism", it is a corpus rationis, the reason of the body, of the blood, of the Earth.

Only in your opinion that was the reason of body, blood and earth. These entities cannot speak for them selves so ur-fascists (typically clever peasants, artists and poets assume the right to interpret their "reason", like cavemen shamans. That is not rational but barking mad.

Eco is saying that anything you do without thinking is automatically sick.

In public life anything you do without thinking is sick. And if you disguise it into spirituality it becomes evil.

This attempt is in order to eradicate the animal-man, leaving him wothout a soul, only with a mind to be manipulated.

It is much harder to manipulate critical mind than a spiritual one. This is why Hitler has persecuted freethinkers.

Plus Fascists were not attacking all intellectuals so generally, with no sense, "irrationally", quite the opposite, they knew what they were doing, there was a think.

Nazis, Marxists and even the medieval church had their "intellectuals", but these were not proper philosophers but scholars of doctrine who never questioned the basic tenets of ur-fascism.

Ahknaton
08-30-2013, 02:16 PM
Fascism (especially Italian Fascism) is in many ways a modernist political movement, it's silly to identify it with traditionalism. Nationalism is also a modern idea.

Sёva Hossenfelder
08-30-2013, 03:33 PM
There are now (Italian) personalities who target the post-modern development, with Overhumans emerging as a possible fascist vector for Transhumanity.

But Umberto’s Eco’s point about the genesis of fascism stands. The overall landscape of fascism is syncretic, as he points out; the so-called traditionalism with its resistance to expansion of mind and emphasis on “old values” was and still is a reaction to the post-Enlightenment liberal values.

Sёva Hossenfelder
08-30-2013, 04:03 PM
So, as you see the world better and deeper, growing healthy and aknowledged, you likely become a fascist? Is this what this communist [Eco] is saying?

No, he is saying that as the world moves on, fascism will still have the capacity to recruit - from the periphery of middle classes, not the old lumpen.

Political humiliation and, to a lesser degree, spikes of economic misery will still be fueling the machinery of that mill.

Longinus
08-30-2013, 04:41 PM
To any honest reader, Eco’s composite of 14 parameters stands solidly. These features of fascism have been demonstrated historically; they can be easily observed in modernity as well.

The first thing that poped up in my mind were the 'movement' onliners and their usual positions. They make me even more convinced it is a timeless phenomenon derived from more latent dispositions and atavistic traits within mind. They'd liked us to believe that historic nazism and fascism were unique and unrepeatable moments in history, like biblical miracles - as if predispositions and undercurrents which caused it existed only in that time, that places, that peoples and than totally disappeared.

The more interesting question is how fascism will adapt to in the near future. We can easily see that new fascist recruits of the Internet generation are progressively losing their ability to fill the shoes of “traditionalism”. Fascism will probably have to tailor itself and become more inclusive and less racist; the emphasis ma y permanently shift to attacks on “degeneracy” of liberal democracies. But there is a new phenomenon – which certainly looks as a sign of desperation to me – some fascists are endorsing Islamic terrorism on and cheer on attempts to destroy institutions of liberal democracies.

Oh yes, this inter-nazi shift toward "tradition" and "spirituality" would have been hardly imaginable without 9/11 attacks and subsequent developments.

Monty
08-30-2013, 05:28 PM
Fascism (especially Italian Fascism) is in many ways a modernist political movement, it's silly to identify it with traditionalism. Nationalism is also a modern idea.

Leftist political theory sees fascism the same way that WNs see ZOG. It's a combination of everything they dislike. So laissez faire capitalism, religious fundamentalism, and other things are called "fascist." Never mind that Mussolini never endorsed any of these ideas.

JJ Cale
08-31-2013, 04:33 AM
Leftist political theory sees fascism the same way that WNs see ZOG. It's a combination of everything they dislike.
. . . eh?
So laissez faire capitalism, religious fundamentalism, and other things are called "fascist." Never mind that Mussolini never endorsed any of these ideas.This is true. In fact Fascism wasn't ethnic, or tribal, because obviously Italy is made up of many different ethnics group.

Longbard
08-31-2013, 04:23 PM
7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the United States, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson's The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

There was no obsession with a plot, it was the opposite: the once so called "free world" propaganda generated antifascism. While Italy and Germany had the right to have the politics they wanted, and the people understood the urgency of sticking toghether against pluto-judaic power.
Eco is cheating again, they didn't feel besieged. Forgot Versailles? They were really besieged even if many might not feel it. People had to wake up and unite, thus fascism and nazism were the natural products of Italy and Germany, not simply pruducts of an eternal fascist obsession.
We could say Eco is deeply affected by fascistphobia.
Uh, the jews were guilty only for being in and out, Eco is saying that there can't be other reason, that there were not facts and proofs to sentence them, and weren't a threat, it's impossible, they are unquestionable and untouchable and if you have something against them you are a sickminded xenophobe and racist.
But, obviously, Eco is anti-israelian, but you can't call him a xenophobe or a fascist or a racist...

Longbard
09-01-2013, 03:05 AM
9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.

Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such "final solutions" implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.

Fascism and Nazism were a response to the particular situation of the times.
Once defeated the enemy, or without enemies, people would simply relieve the military strain, focusing on social goals.
There are examples of fascist regimes not at war with neighbour nations, as the Pinochet and Franco ones. On the other hand Italy didn't build a strong army during fascism, while on the contrary the focus was in developing civilian structures, in Germany the first goal was to restore the economy.

The "eternal fascism" idea actually seems a complex, its purpose being the eternal identification of an enemy: fascism always and everywhere, making a whole thing by very different situations.

Sёva Hossenfelder
09-01-2013, 03:07 AM
The first thing that poped up in my mind were the 'movement' onliners

Yes, I appreciate the way you shaped the OP and kind of guessed that play with fonts was driven by online observations. :-) Thanks again; I didn't know about this piece - great find.

Fear of (social) progress could be an evocative expression of the collective with archetypal roots. In a landmark film “Andrei Rublev”, that depicts medieval Russia, there is an episode with a man trying to fly in a primitive balloon. As the man makes a daring jump off a church, you see a quickly approaching gang of peasants in the background. A very brief episode, yet you immediately recognize a metaphor in the matter-of fact attitude of locals; these people coalesce to preserve the “old values”.

JJ Cale
09-01-2013, 04:04 AM
Fear of (social) progress could be an evocative expression of the collective with archetypal roots. In a landmark film “Andrei Rublev”, that depicts medieval Russia, there is an episode with a man trying to fly in a primitive balloon. As the man makes a daring jump off a church, you see a quickly approaching gang of peasants in the background. A very brief episode, yet you immediately recognize a metaphor in the matter-of fact attitude of locals; these people coalesce to preserve the “old values”.But should values be defined as "old" and "new"? Shouldn't values have, well, value?

Longinus
09-01-2013, 07:48 AM
Shouldn't values have, well, value?

That is a circular definition (http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/circle.htm) of value. Are consensus, clichés and opinions of authorities necessarily a value? Critical mind will discard some of these as useless appeals to fears and anxieties. Yet for the polluted minds of traditionalists/fascists these are the only true values, above and beyond reasoning.

Eco has a strong point, fascism/traditionalism is without any doubt irrational, it cannot be criticized or even constructively influenced. Since fascist/traditionalist way of thinking is binary it cannot cope well with contradictory data. Any new input fascists/traditionalists either try to fit into their model, completely ignore it (typically brand it as Jewish, Communist or Liberal) or kill you.

JJ Cale
09-01-2013, 01:28 PM
That is a circular definition (http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/circle.htm) of value. Are consensus, clichés and opinions of authorities necessarily a value?

A definition is what I'm looking for. I think you are saying that if values are old they're bad. If they are new they are good.

Longinus
09-01-2013, 03:28 PM
A definition is what I'm looking for.
Values are contemporary consensual/social or personal/subjective opinions.

I think you are saying that if values are old they're bad. If they are new they are good.

I didn't said that. Old values are just harder to change, even when they are useless or oppressive. That's what makes them worse in respect to modern ones. The oldest values are most petrified and fetishized because they are established by religious opinion. Values established by secular political consensus can also be rigid but not as impossible to change.

JJ Cale
09-01-2013, 04:20 PM
Values are contemporary consensual/social or personal/subjective opinions.

Help me out. Give me an example of a value that you endorse and why you believe it to be a value.

Longinus
09-01-2013, 05:27 PM
Help me out. Give me an example of a value that you endorse and why you believe it to be a value.

One man's meat is another man's poison. My example would have been just as subjective, objectionable and lacking from another standpoint as your or anyone's example. And if it is THE value you are looking for, there isn't any.

Lud
09-01-2013, 07:06 PM
As a reader of several of Eco's works, I find this piece extremely disappointing. It is polemical, if not propagandistic, and lacks any objectivity, specificity or evidentiary suPort for its claims- most of which are pure psycho-babble.

1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.

This portion is filled with gobbledegook. Although 'Ur-Fascim' is the seminal term Eco refers to throughout the piece, he does not provide a clear definition. How does Italy's government differ from 'Ur-Facism?' Falangist Spain? NS Germany? No answer is given. Apparently they all derive from this form yet this form or term is never cited or used as a model by any of them.

Eco proceeds to make the ostentatious claim that in 'Ur-Fascism,' "...there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message."

How bizarre. Was NS Germany outside the scope of Ur-Fascism? If not, is his claim truly that there was no advancement or learning in Germany from 1933-45? Rocketry, Aeronautics, Refridgeration, Physics, Chemistry, Industry und so weiter? This is laughable on its face. Eco even contradicts himself in his next para., claiming that "Nazis worshipped technology... (Germany) was proud of its industrial acheivments (and Nazis) praise(d) modernism..." Eco shows in his first foray into the subject that again, this is a polemical piece in tone and spirit crafted to score points and declare his political bona fides and not a methodical and objective study based on reason or fact.

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.

...rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

Again sloppy allusions to the "modern" world devoid of definition or explication. Here, however, Eco reveals the source of his hostility. He claims seeing the Enlightenment as the beginning of modern degeneration "can be defined as irrationality." Eco sees himself as a champion of undefined Enlightenment values standing against his opponents. Hence the hostility against the Enlightenment's real and perceived enemies. Of course, to call those critical of the aspects of the Enlightenment as proponents of 'irrationalism' is conclusory and prejudicial. No explanation is provided. His enemies thus necessarily include the members of every faith on the planet, including the cast majority of Deists.

Given Eco's position, all governments and individuals prior to the Enlightenment as well as the vast majority afterwards are enemies are 'Ur-Fascists." Nonsensical.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.

Again Eco presents a contradictory and self-defeating argument and one unrelated to the paragrapgh's title. On the one hand Fascists loathe and mistrust intellectuals and on the other hand, Fascist intellectuals attack leftist intellectuals. So then, fascists in Eco's own terms loathe and distrust not intellectuals, but leftist intellectuals. This is Jr. High level argumentation.

4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.

In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

Again, sloppy and imprecise reasoning. To make a distinction or to distinguish is in no was synonomous with a 'disagreement.' Ironic, since modern leftists see NS Germany's ability to make distinctions, to distinguish and to forumulate policy based on those realizations as one of Nazism's great sins. We are constantly reminded the evil of distinguishing in the modern age. Multiculturalism is in fact a policy demanding that distinctions not be made. Everything is 'equal' in birth, ability, aptitude, and with the government's help, outcome.

5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.

Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

Again Eco sloppily conflates the terms disagreement, diversity and difference to add weight to a poorly constructed argument. Moreover the argument is supremely ironic. A survey of modern Western governments reveals how little value these entities place on disagreement and difference. going so far as to imprison individuals based on expressed political and historical views.

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old "proletarians" are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.

Meaningless psycho-babble. The same argument could be made for or against any form of government. Feudalism, Democracy, Communism, Republicanism, etc. Moreover Fascism is seldom overly concerned with individuals or their frustrations. This is the demesne of democracies.

7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the United States, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson's The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

Disappointing. Eco here reveals his politics as no more than that of a baby-boomer shit-lib. "Privilege," conspiracy, "xenophobia," poor "Jews," he even manages to include a fearful reference to Pat Robertson of all people. Every box is checked, like a Margaret Atwood novel. Attempting to address this list of horribles would be fruitless as none of the arguments are grounded in any facts or evidence.

Eco's litany of fear is useful in the sense that he again identifies his perceived enemies: people with roots in their culture and/or nation as well as the religious. Who, whom?

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

...the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

Comical. Eco is more aptly describing fear and the human condition, not something peculiar to 'Ur-Fascism.' One need look no further than the current US govt. and several bloodthirsty poasters here to demonstrate that. Muslims are both schtupid goat-f**kers who can't run their own governments yet are also a threat of armageddon who are constantly seeking ways to destroy 'us.' The people/govt. of Israel must be 'Ur-Fascist' based on this definition, and in fairness to Eco, he would probably agree.

Anyway, the rest of the arguments are no more convincing than those previously addressed. I find it exceedingly difficult to believe Eco penned this. It is abominably poor argumentation.

Petr
09-01-2013, 07:38 PM
Ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq uses Eco's list to prove the existence of Islamo-Fascism:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3766&sec_id=3766

In a speech that he gave at Columbia University, Umberto Eco spelled out fourteen features that he considered were typical of Eternal Fascism (which he also calls Ur-Fascism ); adding however this explanatory detail: " These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it."

Umberto Eco: [1] The Cult of Tradition. "Truth has already been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message."

Islam is the quintessentially tradition-bound religion. First, the Koran is the eternal and infallible Word of God, and contains the whole of God’s final revelation to man, and must be obeyed in all its details. "This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed My favour to you. I have chosen Islam to be your faith." The Koran is immutable, "Say: ‘It is not for me to change [the Koran]. I only follow what is revealed to me. I cannot disobey my Lord, for I fear the punishment of a fateful day." "Proclaim what is revealed to you in the Book of your Lord. None can change His Words. You shall find no refuge besides Him." The Koran is a faithful and unalterable reproduction of the original scriptures which are preserved in heaven.

A Muslim’s wish is to establish a new life in accordance with a religious law willed by God and consonant with the Prophet Muhammad’s intentions. Clearly the Koran by itself (i.e. uninterpreted) did not furnish enough guiding principles to meet the changing requirements of the early Muslims. Thus, in all matters whether civil or religious, the will of the prophet had first to be ascertained and followed as a true guide to practical conduct. The Prophet’s Companions were considered the best source for learning the Prophet’s will ; that is, from people who lived their lives in his company, witnessed his actions, and heard his very words and pronouncements on every single aspect of daily life. After the passing of this first generation, pious Muslims had to rely on the members of the next generation who passed on what they had learnt from the first. Thus, transmission from generation to generation continued down to contemporary periods. Finally, conduct and judgment were accepted as correct and their legitimacy was established if a chain of reliable transmission ( isnad, in Arabic )ultimately traced them back to a Companion who could testify that they were in harmony with the Prophet’s intentions. On the strength of such traditions, certain customs in ritual and law were established as the usage of the authoritative first believers of Islam, and as having been practised under the Prophet’s own eyes. As such, they acquired a sacred character. They are called sunna, sacred custom. The form in which such a usage is stated is hadith, tradition. Sunna and hadith are not synonymous ; hadith being the documentation of sunna.

Sunna intimately reflects the views and practices of the oldest Islamic community, and thus functions as the most authoritative interpretation of the Koran. The Koran cannot answer every single problem that any morally sensitive Muslim is likely to encounter ; and it only comes alive and effective through the sunna. Furthermore the Koran, contrary to what many Muslims realize, is an extremely obscure text ; even Muslims exegetes acknowledge that they do not know the meaning of many words and whole passages. For instance, the exegetes have classified obscure or opaque sentences of the Koran into Zahir ( obvious ) or hidden ( Khafi ). The Khafi sentences are further subdivided into Khaji, Mushkil, Mujmal, and Mutashabih. In Khaji sentences the other persons or things are hidden beneath the plain meaning of a word or expression ; Mushkil sentences are ambiguous; Mujmal sentences have a variety of interpretations , while Mutashabih ones are intricate sentences or expressions, the exact meaning of which it is impossible for a man to ascertain until the day of resurrection. The Koran itself tells us that it contains ambiguous verses, and verses whose interpretation is only known to God ( sura iii.5 p .214 vol.1).

The Sharia or Islamic Law is based on four principles: The Koran; the sunna of the Prophet, which is incorporated in the recognized traditions ( hadith ); the consensus (ijma) of the scholars of the orthodox community ; and the method of reasoning by analogy (qiyas)

Many liberal Muslims ( if that is not a contradiction in terms) get excited by ijma, sensing that somehow therein lies their only hope of modernising Islam. However, historically, the notion of consensus (ijma) has nothing democratic about it ; the masses are expressly excluded. It is the consensus of suitably qualified and learned authorities. The doctrine of the infallibility of the consensus, far from allowing some liberty of reasoning as one might have expected, worked in favour of a progressive narrowing and hardening of doctrine. By the beginning of 900 C.E., Islamic Law became rigidly fixed because Muslim scholars felt that all essential questions had been thoroughly discussed and finally settled, and a consensus gradually established itself to the effect that henceforth no one might be deemed to have the necessary qualifications for independent reasoning in law, and that all future activity would have to be confined to the explanation, application, and, at most, interpretation of the doctrine as it had been laid down once and for all. This closing of the gate of independent reasoning, in effect, meant the unquestioning acceptance of the doctrines of established schools and authorities. Islamic Law became increasingly rigid and set in its final mould.

Liberal Muslims think they are more liberated than their "fundamentalist" cousins because they (the Liberal Muslims) believe that by some creative re-interpretation of the Koran they will thereby bring the Koran, albeit screaming and kicking, into the 21st Century. First, it does not seem to strike these misguided liberal Muslims that they are still prisoners to an obscure, incoherent, bizarre mediaeval text, a curious amalgam of Talmudic Judaism, apocryphal Christianity and pagan superstitions (especially in the rites and rituals of the Hajj), full of barbarisms. They have not cut their umbilical cords, and are still trying to make sense of an often senseless text, more than a thousand years old. Second this desire to re-interpret has led to some willful and intellectually dishonest "re-reading" of the Koran. Feminists pretend that the "real Koran" is progressive towards women, human rights activists pretend, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that the « real Koran » is totally compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The reality is that the Koran, and the Sharia derived from the Koran, are totalitarian constructs that try to control every single aspect of an individual’s life from the way he or she urinates and defecates, the way he/she eats, dresses, works, marries, makes love, prays, to the way he or she thinks on every conceivable subject. Finally, while the Koran is open to some re-interpretation, it is not infinitely flexible.

[B][I]Umberto Eco: [2] "Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism …The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense [Eternal fascism] can be defined as irrationalism."

Umberto Eco: [3] "Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake …. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been symptom of Ur- [or Eternal Fascism ]."

Umberto Eco: [4] " No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism (or Eternal Fascism), disagreement is is treason."

Umberto Eco: [5] "Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-fascism (or Eternal Fascism) grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist movement is an appeal against intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism (or Eternal Fascism) is racist by definition."[/I][/B]

I shall show that, mutatis mutandis, Islam also rejects modernism, is hostile to reason, critical thought, fears disagreement, and is terrified of ‘intruders,’ though Islam’s form of exclusion is based on religion and not race.

The revival of modern Muslim thought owes a great deal to the writings of the Indian (later Pakistani) al-Maududi. In works such as Jihad in Islam, Islam and Jahiliyya, The Principles of Islamic Government, al-Maududi was the first modern Muslim thinker to "arrive at a sweeping condemnation of modernity and its incompatibility with Islam, and to formulate a definition of the danger it constituted." Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian thinker, was in part influenced by al-Maududi, and felt that "Domination should be reverted to Allah alone, namely to Islam, that holistic system He conferred upon men. An all-out offensive, a jihad, should be waged against modernity so that this moral rearmament could take place The ultimate objective is to reestablish the Kingdom of God upon earth …"

Second, let us not forget that all three of the major Abrahamic religions are irrational, that is, they are based on irrational dogma that do not stand up to critical scrutiny. The whole framework of the three religions is historical, in that all three depend on the historical veracity of putative events described in their respective scriptures. But increasing critical inquiry and scientific thought( historical, philological , archaeological ) has revealed the improbability of the historical events described in their scriptures, and traditions. While Higher Biblical Criticism, developed by great thinkers such Spinoza, and further elaborated in Germany in the 19th Century, is well-known to, at least, educated Westerners and intellectuals in general , astonishingly few people even among the Western Islamologists seem to be aware of the shaky historical foundations of the beliefs of Muslims.

Muslims seem to be unaware that the research of the German Higher Critics apply directly to their belief system, which seems impervious to rational thought. For instance, there is absolutely no evidence, archaeological, epigraphic, documentary, that Abraham ever set foot in Arabia, let alone build the Kaaba. Many scholars such T. L. Thompson have even put forward the idea that not only Abraham but Isaac and Jacob never existed. Muslims are also committed to the dogma that Moses wrote the Pentateuch despite research since the 17 the Century of thinkers such as La Preyre, Spinoza, and Hobbes, and in the 19th Century by historians such as Julius Wellhausen who have all argued that Moses could not possibly have written the First Five Books of the Old Testament. No Western scholar believes the apocryphal Christian story of Jesus that is to be found in the Koran. Further it is surely totally irrational to continue to believe that the Koran is the word of God when the slightest amount of rational thought will reveal that the Koran contains words and passages addressed to God ( e.g. the Fatihah; sura vi.104; vi..114 ; xvii.1; xxvii.91; lxxxi.15-29; lxxxiv.16-19; etc.) ; that it is full of historical errors: at sura xl.38, the Koran mistakenly identifies Haman, who in reality was the minister of the Persian King Ahasuerus ( mentioned in the book of Esther ), as the minister of the Pharaoh at the time of Moses ; there is a confusion of Mary, the mother of Jesus, with the Mary who was sister of Moses and Aaron ; at sura ii.249/250, there is obviously a confusion between the story of Saul as told therein, and the account of Gideon in Judges, 7.5; the account of Alexander the Great is hopelessly garbled historically (sura xviii.82).

Finally, Goldziher, Lammens and Schacht, have shown that a vast number of traditions (hadith) accepted even in the most rigorously critical Muslim collections were outright forgeries from the late 8th and 9th centuries. It is simply irrational to go on accepting the "truth" of these traditions.

The history of the Islamic theology can be seen as a struggle between reason and revelation, with the eventual triumph of the dictates of revelation, with a victory for irrationalism and blind obedience to tradition.

It is undoubtedly true that there was at the dawn of Islam, a rationalising tendency as, for example, in the theology of the Mu‘tazilites. But the Mu‘tazilites were nonetheless Muslims, which in itself, as I have tried to argue above, is an indication of irrational beliefs. Second, they were ready to assassinate those who rejected their doctrines and advocated the jihad in all regions in which their dogma did not have the ascendancy. They were responsible for the Mihna or the Muslim Inquisition.

Finally, the rationalism of the Mu ‘tazilites was defeated by the philosophy of al-Ashari (died 935 C.E.) who, while not totally abandoning reason, did essentially subordinate reason to revelation. And the final death blow was given to rationalism by the real traditionists whose views eventually prevailed in Islam. The traditionists had no time for scholastic theology, which, for them was no different from Aristotelian philosophy –both led to unbelief. The traditionists refused to bend to aql, or reason, for them, reason was not required for religious understanding. Religious truth lay in in the Koran and the sunna, both of which had to be accepted without question and doubts. For example, al Shafi ‘i is made to say in true traditionist fashion that people who advocate scholastic theology with its modest amount of rationalism, "should be beaten with whips and the soles of sandals, and then paraded through all tribes and encampments while it is proclaimed of them, ‘Such is the reward of those who forsake the Koran and sunna and give themselves up to scholastic theology ( kalam ). ’" Al-Ghazali was similarly dismissive of reason; he constantly criticizes the Greeks and the Muslim philosophers influenced by them. Al Ghazali finds Greeks the source of all kinds infidelity ; he was totally opposed to spirit of free inquiry; for example in section 7, chapter 2 of his Ihay ulum al-adin, al Gahazali tells us that certain of the natural sciences are contrary to the law and religion, and in chapter 3 he tells us to abstain from free thought and accept the conclusions of the prophets. The great Ibn Khaldun is also suspicious of unbridled reason, which he also finds the source of unbelief. "No," wrote Ibn Khaldun, "one must be on guard by completely abandoning any speculation about (causes)...We have been commanded completely to abandon and suppress any speculation about [causes] and to direct ourselves to the Causer of all causes, so that the soul will be firmly coloured with the oneness of God. A man who stops at the causes is frustrated. He is rightly (said to be) unbeliever ….Therefore we are forbidden by Muhammad to study causes."

The ultimate sign within Islam of the fear of disagreement is surely the law of apostasy, (in Arabic, irtidad, or ridda ; while an apostate is called a murtadd). In the Koran (xvi.106 ff ) the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only, but under Islamic law the penalty is death. In the Traditions, Ibn Abbas transmits the following saying of the Prophet : . "Kill him, who changes his religion" or "behead him" ( Ibn Maja, Hudud, bab 2 ;Nasai, Tahrim al-dam, bab 14; Bukhari, Murtaddin, bab 2; Tirmidhi, Hudud, bab 25, Abu Dawud, Hudud, bab. 1; Ibn Hanbal, i.217, 282, 322.)

Finally, we come to Islam’s fear of ‘outsiders.’ Islam undoubtedly preached, to its credit, the equality of all free-born, Male Muslims. However Muslim women, and Muslim slaves are of course not considered equal. Thus Islam is not, in theory, racist .However Islam excludes people on the basis of belief. Salvation outside the Islamic faith is impossible. The world is divided between Muslims and Non-Muslims. There are very many sayings in the Koran which preach hatred and ill-will towards non-Muslims , and show a pathological fear of the "other:"

iv.101: The unbelievers are your sworn enemies.

lx.4: We renounce you (i.e. the idolaters): enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah only…

lviii.23: You will not find believers in Allah and the Last day on friendly terms with those who oppose Allah and His apostle, even though they be their fathers, their sons, their brothers, or their nearest kindred …

ix.7: Allah and His apostle repose no trust in idolaters …

viii.13-14: Thus We punished them because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and His apostle shall be sternly punished. We said to them, "Feel our scourge. Hell-fire awaits the unbelievers."

viii.55: The basest creatures in the sight of Allah are the faithless who will not believe …

xxv.55: Yet the unbelievers worship idols which can neither help nor harm. Surely the unbeliever is his Lord’s enemy.

v.72: … He that worships other Gods besides Allah shall be forbidden Paradise and shall be cast into Hell-fire. None shall help the evil-doers.

ix.23: Believers! do not befriend your fathers or your brothers if they choose unbelief in preference to faith. Wrong-doers are those that befriend them.

ix. 28: Believers ! know that the idolaters are unclean.

xi. 28: Let believers not make friends with the infidels in preference to the faithful ; he that does this has nothing to hope for from Allah – except in self-defence.

iii.118: Believers ! do not make friends with any men other than your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is clear from what they say, but more violent is the hatred which their breasts conceal …

v. 14: Therefore, We stirred among them (the Christians) enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done.

v.64 … That which Allah has revealed to you will surely increase the wickedness and unbelief of many of them (the Jews). We have stirred among them (the Jews) enmity and hatred which will endure till the Day of Resurrection.

v.51: Believers! take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers.

Christians are marginally better regarded than the Jews, but the Koran still accuses them of falsifying the scriptures.v.75: "They surely are infidels who say, "God is the third of three"; for there is but one God; and if they do not refrain from what they say, a severe punishment shall light on those who are unbelievers."

They are also accused of worshipping Jesus as the son of God, and like the Jews, they have been led astray and must be brought back to the true religion, that is, Islam.

According to the Koran, Jews have intense hatred of all true Muslims, and as a punishments for their sins, some of them had, in the past, been changed into apes and swine (surah v.63), and others will have their hands tied to their necks and be cast into the Fire on Judgment day. The attitude enjoined upon the Muslims towards the Jews can only be described as anti-Semitic, and certainly was not conducive to a better understanding, tolerance or co- existence.

v.51: Believers, do not take Jews or Christians as friends They are but one anothers friends. If anyone of you takes them for his friends,, then he is surely one of them. God will not guide evil-doers."

v.56-64: O Believers, do not take as your friends the infidels or those who received the Scriptures before you [Jews and Christians] and who scoff and jest at your religion , but fear God if you are believers. Nor those who when you call them to prayer, make it an object of mirth and derision This is only because they are a people who do not understand.

Petr
09-01-2013, 07:38 PM
..........

Say: "People of the Book: isn't it true that you hate us simply because we believe in God, and in what He has sent down to us, and in what He has revealed to others before; and because most of you are evil doers?"

"Why don't their rabbis and doctors of lax forbid them from uttering sinful words and eating unlawful food ? Evil indeed are their works.

"The hand of God is chained up ", claim the Jews .Their own hands shall be chained up __ and they shall be cursed for saying such a thing ".

Jews are often accused, in the Koran, of perverting the scriptures, and holding doctrines they never held:

ix.29,30: "Declare war upon those to whom the Scriptures were revealed but believe neither in God nor the Last Day ,and who do not forbid that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who refuse to acknowledge the true religion [Islam] until they pay the poll-tax without reservation and are totally subjugated.

"The Jews claim that Ezra is a son of God, and the Christians say, " the Messiah is a son of God ".Those are their claims which do indeed resemble the sayings of the Infidels of Old. May God do battle with them! How they are deluded!"

And they deserve fully any punishment they get:

ii.61: "Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon them [That is the Jews] and they drew on themselves the wrath of God. This was because they [the Jews] disbelieved the signs of God and slew the Prophets unjustly, and because they rebelled and transgressed ."

iv.160,161: Because of the wickedness of certain Jews, and because they turn many from the way of God, We have forbidden them good and wholesome foods which were formerly allowed them; and because they have taken to usury, though they were forbidden it; and have cheated others of their possessions, We have prepared a grievous punishment for the Infidels amongst them ".

Such are some of the sentiments expressed in the Koran, which remains for all Muslims, and not just "fundamentalists", the uncreated word of God Himself. It is valid for all times and places, its ideas are, according to all Muslims, absolutely true and beyond any criticism.

The treatment of the Jews by Muhammad is certainly not above reproach. The cold-blooded extermination of the Banu Qurayza ( between 600 and 900 men ), the expulsion of the Nadir and their later massacre (something often overlooked in the history books) are not signs of magnanimity or compassion. His treatment of the Jews of the oasis of Khaybar served "as a model for the treaties granted by the Arab conquerors to the conquered peoples in territories beyond Arabia." Muhammad attacked the oasis in 628, had one of the leaders tortured to find the hidden treasures of the tribe, and then when the Jews surrendered, agreed to let them continue cultivating their oasis only if they gave him half their produce. Muhammad also reserved the right to cancel the treaty and expel the Jews whenever he liked. This treaty or agreement was called a DHIMMA, and those who accepted it were known as DHIMMIS. All non-Muslims who accepted Muslim supremacy and agreed to pay a tribute, in return for " Muslim protection," are referred to as dhimmis.

The second caliph Umar later expelled the Jews and the Christians from the Hijaz (containing the holy cities of Mecca and Medina) in 640, referring to the dhimma of Khaybar. He is said to have quoted the Prophet on the right to cancel any pact he wished, and the Prophet's famous saying: " Two religions shall not remain together in the peninsula of the Arabs." To this day, the establishment of any other religion in Saudi Arabia is forbidden, many Christians have been executed for simply practising their religion. Here is how Amnesty International describes the situation in Saudi Arabia :

"Hundreds of Christians, including women and children have been arrested and detained over the past three years, most without charge or trial, solely for the peaceful expression of their religious beliefs. Scores have been tortured, some by flogging, while in detention….The possession of non-Islamic religious objects – including Bibles, rosary beads, crosses and pictures of Jesus Christ – is prohibited and such items may be confiscated" (AINO 62 ; July /August 1993).

At least since the Renaissance, one of the characteristics of Western civilisation has been its interest in other lands and societies. "This universal curiosity is still a distinguishing, almost an exclusive, characteristic of Europe and her daughters." Muslims are by contrast profoundly convinced of the finality, completeness, and essential self-sufficiency of their civilisation. For the Muslim, Islam is the one true faith, beyond which there are only unbelievers. "You [ Muslims ] are the best of peoples" the Koran tells Muslims (sura iii.110) It is a remarkable fact that until at least the late 16 th century, when Turkish historians began to show a vague and still faint interest in European history, Muslim historians, with three noble exceptions, and Muslims in general, showed little desire to step outside their civilisation intellectually. The exceptions are just that, exceptions : the geographer Masudi, cultural historian and observer al-Biruni, and historian Rashid al-Din. Until the end of the 18th century, very few European books were translated into Muslim languages, and most of these dealt with useful topics such as medical science. This attitude has continued to this day. No Islamic country has university faculties that study non-Islamic civilisations, with the exception, significantly of Turkey, where, in Ankara, one can study Sanskrit. Even to listen to Western classical music is considered undesirable, and a danger to Islamic civilisation; "the treason of an Arab begins when he enjoys listening to Mozart or Beethoven;" wrote the Tunisian al-Wasiti ( quoted by Norman Daniel, Euro-Arab dialogue, p.88 ) Here is how one political analyst sums up the situation in the 1990s :

"Arabs may be well informed on currency movements and the latest chat on the prospects of the Western economies but know surprisingly little about how Western societies and governments operate. Even those who live in the West or visit it frequently on holiday do not have much understanding of it because, in most cases, when they are there they mix with other Arabs,, principally their own relations, and take no interest in the culture, history or institutions of the countries they are in." Dr.Muhamed Talbi also makes a similar point by quoting Ibn Khaldun and Maryam Jameelah :

"Au VIIIe / XIVe siècle, Ibn Khaldun, dont le génie est pourtant incontestable,écrivait: "Il faut donc se tenir à l'écart des sciences relatives aux religions antérieures à l'Islam et il est interdit d'en discuter". Ibn Khaldun, en cela seulement, fut écouté, ou plutôt il était l'interprète d'une mentalité qui avait preevalu jusqu'à nos jours. "Peu de musulmans, écrit Maryam Jameelah, ont réellement une connaissance profonde de l'Occident. Combien de musulmans, par exemple, maîtrisent - ils le grec ou le latin, et combien sont - ils intellectuellement équipés pour étudier le Judaïsme et le Christianisme aussi bien que les idéologies laïques à partir d'un point de vue musulman? Alors que des générations d'orientalistes occidentaux avaient étudié l'Islam conformément à leurs besoins et à leurs buts, n'est - il pas essentiel que quelques ulémas deviennent des occidentalistes?"

Muslims are certain that Islam is not only the whole of God’s truth, but it is its final expression. Hence Muslims fear and persecute such post-Islamic religious movements as the Baha’is and the Ahmadis. Here is Amnesty International on the plight of the Ahmadis [ ASA :33/15.91]: "Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims but they are regarded by orthodox Muslims as heretical because they call the founder of their movement al-Masih [ the Messiah ]: this is taken to imply that Muhammad is not the final seal of the prophets as orthodox Islam holds, i.e., the Prophet who carried the final message from God to humanity …. As a result of these divergences, Ahmadis have been subjected to discrimination and persecution in some Islamic countries. In the mid-1970s, the Saudi Arabia based World Muslim League called on Muslim governments worldwide to take action against Ahmadis. Ahmadis are since then banned in Saudi Arabia."

[B][I]Umberto Eco: [6] "Ur-Fascism (or Eternal Fascism) derives from individual or social frustration."[/I][/B]

There has been a demographic explosion in the Islamic world, and the leaders have simply not coped, unable to provide jobs, housing, health facilities, transport, inflation running high, all compounded by human rights abuses (torture, summary justice, executions, and so on ) This failure has been very ably exploited by the Islamists to increase their prestige, to increase their power, which has led, in turn, to mounting demands for increasing Islamization of society. Another essential factor in the current Islamic revival has to do with Islam’s crisis of identity, especially in face of the West’s overwhelming economic and cultural success in contrast to the relative economic, cultural, human rights failures of the post-independence regimes in the Islamic world. These failures have led to an increase of frustration, envy and hatred of the West, and an exaggerated emphasis on their Islamic identity. And "since for Muslims Islam is, by definition, superior to all other faiths, the failures and defeats of Muslims in this world can only mean that they are not practicing authentic Islam and that their states are not true Islamic states. The remedy, therefore, is return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet and his Companions, a rejection and elimination of the accretions and innovations that had debased and corrupted the faith and enfeebled the Islamic society … "

[B][I]Umberto Eco: [7] " …Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside."[/I][/B]

A belief in international plots, or, in other words, conspiracy theories are the key to understanding the politics of the Middle East. As Daniel Pipes in his acclaimed study, "The Hidden Hand, The Middle East Fears of Conspiracy" put it : "…Whoever hopes to understand the Middle East must recognize the distorting lens of conspiracy theories, understand them, make allowance for them, and perhaps even plan around them. Conspiracism [the belief in international plots or conspiracies] provides a key to understanding the political culture of the Middle East." Amazingly enough, most of the leading Muslim thinkers and actors of the twentieth century have put forward conspiracy theories to excuse the continuing cultural and economic backwardness of Islamic countries; the prevalence of such theories indicate a refusal on the part of Muslims to take responsibility for their own failures. As Pipes in his brilliant work says, "although grand conspiracy theories surfaced in the Middle East only in the late nineteenth century, their subject matter ranges much farther ; indeed it often extends right back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad. More broadly, conspiracy theorists reinterpret the whole sweep of Islamic history, plundering medieval texts to locate instances of conspiracy, especially on the part of Christians and Jews."

The Iranian scholar Ervand Abrahamian has shown how prevalent the conspiracies are in Iran,, leading often to tragic consequences , as in the mass executions of 1981-82:

"When in June 1981 the [People’s] Mojahedin tried to overthrow the Islamic Republic, Khomeini proclaimed that the CIA was planning a repeat performance of 1953 and that the whole opposition, not just the Mojahedin, was implicated in this grand international plot. In six short weeks, the Islamic Republic shot over one thousand prisoners. The victims included not only members of the Mojahedin but also royalists, Bahais, Jews.

"Kurds, Baluchis, Arabs, Qashqayis, Tukomans, National Frontists, Maoists, anti-Stalinist Marxists, and even apolitical teenage girls who happened to be in the wrong street at the wrong time. Never before in Iran had firing squads executed so many in so short a time over so flimsy an accusation."

Muslim thinkers premise their understanding of modern history on Western plots against Islam. For example, Muhammad al-Ghazali, a leading contemporary Muslim thinker from Egypt, wrote, "there is a conspiracy against Islam …by Western secularism because it claims that Islam is a dangerous religion.". Khomeini goes further by explaining, "In the interests of the Jews, America, and Israel, we [Muslims] must be jailed and killed, we must be sacrificed to the evil intentions of foreigners." According to such Muslim thinking, Islam made the Muslims great, culturally, militarily, economically , but because of external influence and plotting of the Jews and the imperialists, Muslims have been lured away from the Koran, the Sharia, the Muslim way of life, and hence have lost their moorings. Khomeini saw the Shah of Persia ‘s granting women the right to vote as an "attempt to corrupt our chaste women" and a plot against Islam "perhaps drawn up by the spies of the Jews and the Zionists" intending to destroy "the independence of the state and the economy." Rushdie’s novel, Satanic Verses he saw as a mortal threat to Islam.

As Pipes concludes, nearly all the most influential Muslim thinkers, such as Hasan al Banna, Sayyid Qutb, Abu’l A’la al-Maududi, accept the premise of anti-Islamic conspiration by Jews and Europeans, as do most of the preachers, scholars , journalists, and politicians. The very constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran refers to plotting, when it describes the White Revolution (the Shah’s land-reform program) as an "American plot … a ploy to stabilize the foundation of the colonialist government [of the Shah] and strengthen Iran’s …ties with world imperialism." This constitution also promises that non-Muslims will be well-treated if they refrain from getting "in conspiracies hatched against the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Muslims of the Middle East fear two main conspirators, Jews and Imperialists. Jews are seen as a threat to the whole of humanity, and are considered responsible for every evil in the world, from assassinations of Lincoln, McKinley, and Kennedy, to the French and Russian Revolution, and so on. As Robert Wistrich put it, for the Muslim Brethren of Egypt, "Of all the myriad enemies of Islam …Jewry represents the ultimate abomination, evil in its purest ontological form." and as Daniel Pipes adds, and the same applies for many other Muslims, for example, Sayyid Qutb, the very influential Egyptian thinker, wrote, "Through the lengthy centuries – regretfully – [the Jews] poisoned the Islamic heritage in a way that may itself be revealed only with the effort of centuries."

While Mustafa Mashur, another Egyptian thinker sees Jews behind "every weird, deviant principle" in history.

Muslims considered the U.N. International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo in 1994 as an international plot to undermine Islam, and to annihilate Muslims. Adil Husayn, a leading Muslim Egyptian thinker argued that the West’s promotion of birth control "is not aimed at developing the poor world. It is a racist plan to designed to continue looting and weakening us in favour of the dominating white race ….The conference is the culmination of a scheme aimed at annihilating mankind and Muslims."

What precisely is the reason for the prevalence of conspiracy theories in the Muslim Middle East. Many analysts are convinced of the role and nature of Islam in the incubation and perpetuation of conspiracy theories. The saying "better a 100 years of repression than a day of anarchy" sums up the fear of anarchy (fitna) that lies deep in Islamic culture, and may be responsible for encouraging the paranoid style of thinking. More commonly, Middle Eastern analysts point to the fatalism inculcated by Islam . Though there, as usual contradictory statements in the Koran on this subject, in the end it was the predestination doctrine that prevailed in Islam .Here are some quotes from the Koran that have led to a kind of fatalism within Islam :

liv. 49 All things have been created after fixed decree.

iii.139 No one can die except by God’s permission according to the book that fixes the term of life.

lxxxvii.2 The Lord has created and balanced all things and has fixed their destinies and guided them..

viii.17 God killed them, and those shafts were God’s, not yours.

ix.51 By no means can anything befall us but what God has destined for us.

( See also, xiii.30 ; xiv.4 ; xviii.101 ; xxxii.32 xlv.26 ; lvii.22 )

Kanan Makiya, the Iraqi political thinker, sees, "extreme fatalism …that may be a characteristic of Islamic culture generally « as a key explanation for conspiracy theories. In his view, this world view undermines the notion of man as responsible to himself. Similarly, Homa Katouzian traces conspiracy theories to an « unimaginable fatalism;" and Jahangir Amuzegar ascribes them to a "fatalistic streak." Others point to the Shi’a tradition of taqiya ( dissimulation – for self-protection and the safeguarding of faith ; and finally some single out the Shia tradition of martyrdom (shihada) that causes Iranians to externalize evil, to seek to put the responsibility for their failures, misdeeds, blunders onto others plotting against them.

[B][I]Umberto Eco: [8] "The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies ….However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."[/I][/B]

The Muslims in the Middle East have been constantly humiliated for centuries, but perhaps at no time more so than since the late 18th century when Napoleon first burst upon the scene with the conquest of Egypt. Ever since then, Muslims have continued to be at once both attracted, and repelled by Western civilisation, and all its material and spiritual wares, which they cannot afford to buy, or emulate for fear of being accused of treason towards Islam. The Six –Day War with Israel totally humiliated not just Arabs, but all Muslims around the world. And as Umberto Eco says, they are condemned to lose wars as they seem incapable of rationally and objectively assessing the strength and weaknesses of the enemy. The enemy is seen as both too strong and too weak . As Field puts it, the paranoid style in the Middle East "is obviously linked to the theorists’ general ignorance of the outside world and this is clearly a disadvantage for any society. The belief in plots, combined with ignorance, leads the Arabs to exaggerate the power of the West and misjudge its motives, making them believe that it is hostile and manipulative when it is more likely to be morally censorious, occasionally concerned with upholding states’ sovereignty and /or protecting its oil interests, generally interested in promoting its exports, and often indifferent to Arab issues – or concerned but unable to see how it can influence events."

For the Middle Easterner, the Jewish or Imperialist conspirator is at once too powerful and too weak. Thus "the conspirator never rests, never falters, never makes mistakes, and never shows fear; word to the contrary is disinformation. He is tireless." "Every day the [enemies of Islam] plot new conspiracies and schemes." The Zionist conspiracy "has enormous resources at its disposal: money, media, industry, technology, oil, military hardware, and the intelligence agencies, led by Mossad and CIA." Gamal Abdel Nasser also believed in the omnipotence of the West, "The Americans know perfectly well what we will say, where we will proceed, and what we will do." While Sattareh Farman Farmaian tells of the servants in her family’s Iranian home that they "believed that the English were so diabolical that they could even cause floods, droughts, and earthquakes. And it was true that to Iranians, the British seemed almost supernaturally clever."

And yet, the enemies of Islam never wins . "The Jews may try, but they will never destroy the [Muslims]." Or as The Baghdad Observer put it, "A savage campaign has been conducted by the U.S. inside the Security Council to hurt Iraq, choke its economy and starve its people. Yet, as the first chapters of the conspiracy have failed to weaken Iraq, the final phase of the enemies’ schemes is definitely going to meet the same fate. The whole conspiracy is doomed to failure."

[B][I]Umberto Eco: [9] "For Ur-Fascism, (Eternal Fascism) there is no struggle for life, but rather life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare."

Umberto Eco: [11] "…Everybody is educated to become a hero …This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity ; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By, contrast, the Ur-Fascist craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death." [/I][/B]

Petr
09-01-2013, 07:41 PM
............

Umberto Eco’s feature [9] goes naturally well with feature [11], so I shall discuss them here, and leave feature [10] for later.

The totalitarian nature of Islam is no where more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the law of Allah. To Islam alone has been granted the truth - there is no possibility of salvation outside it. It is the sacred duty - an incumbent religious duty established in the Koran and the Traditions - of all Muslims to bring it to all humanity. Jihad is a divine institution, enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam. Muslims must strive, fight and kill in the name of God:

ix.5-6: "Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them."

iv.76: "Those who believe fight in the cause of God..."

viii.12: "I will instill terror into the hearts of the Infidels, strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every fingertip."

viii.39-42: "Say to the Infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven them; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's."

ii.256: "But they who believe, and who fly their country, and fight in the cause of God may hope for God's mercy: and God is Gracious, Merciful."

It is a grave sin for a Muslim to shirk the battle against the unbelievers, those who do will roast in hell:

viii. 15, 16: "Believers, when you meet the unbelievers preparing for battle do not turn your backs to them. [ Anyone who does ] shall incur the wrath of God and hell shall be his home: an evil dwelling indeed ".

ix.39: "If you do not fight, He will punish you severely, and put others in your place."

Those who die fighting for the only true religion, Islam, will be amply rewarded in the life to come:

iv.74: "Let those fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God's path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward."

It is abundantly clear from many of the above verses that the Koran is not talking of metaphorical battles or of moral crusades; it is talking of the battle field. To read such blood thirsty injunctions in a Holy Book is shocking.

Mankind is divided into two groups - Muslims and non-Muslims. The Muslims are members of the Islamic community, the umma, who possess territories in the Dar ul Islam, the Land of Islam, where the edicts of Islam are fully promulgated. The non-Muslims are the Harbi, people of the Dar ul Harb, the Land of Warfare, any country belonging to the infidels which has not been subdued by Islam but which, nonetheless, is destined to pass into Islamic jurisdiction either by conversion or by war (Harb). All acts of war are permitted in the Dar ul Harb. Once the Dar ul Harb has been subjugated, the Harbi become prisoners of war. The imam can do what he likes to them according to the circumstances. Woe betide the city that resists and is then taken by the Islamic army by storm.. In this case, the inhabitants have no rights whatsoever, and as Sir Steven Runciman says in his "The Fall of Constantinople, 1453":

"The conquering army is allowed three days of unrestricted pillage; and the former places of worship, with every other building, become the property of the conquering leader; he may dispose of them as he pleases. Sultan Mehmet [after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 allowed] his soldiers the three days of pillage to which they were entitled. They poured into the city...They slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women and children without discrimination.. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets...But soon the lust for slaughter was assuaged. The soldiers realized that captives and precious objects would bring them greater profits."

In other cases, they are sold into slavery, exiled or treated as dhimmis, who are tolerated as second class subjects, as long as they pay a regular tribute.

It is common nowadays for the apologists of Islam, whether Muslims or their Western admirers, to interpret "Jihad" in the non-military sense of "moral struggle," "moral striving." But it is quite illegitimate to pretend that the Koran and the books on Islamic Law were talking about "moral crusades." Rather as Rudolf Peters says in his definitive study of Jihad says, "In the books on Islamic Law, the word means armed struggle against the unbelievers, which is also a common meaning in the Koran." Apologists of Islam, even when they do admit that real battles are being referred to, still pretend that the doctrine of Jihad only talks of "defensive measures," that is, the apologists pretend that fighting is only allowed to defend Muslims, and that offensive wars are illegitimate. But again, this is not the classical doctrine in Islam; as Peters makes clear, the Sword Verses in the Koran were interpreted as unconditional commands to fight the unbelievers, and furthermore these Sword Verses abrogated all previous verses concerning intercourse with non-Muslims. Peters sums up the classical doctrine as:

"The doctrine of Jihad as laid down in the works on Islamic Law, developed out of the Koranic prescriptions and the example of the Prophet and the first caliphs, which is recorded in the hadith; The crux of the doctrine is the existence of one single Islamic state, ruling the entire umma [Muslim community]. It is the duty of the umma to expand the territory of this state in order to bring as many people under its rule as possible. The ultimate aim is to bring the whole earth under the sway of Islam and to extirpate unbelief : "Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely." (sura ii.193 ; viii.39). Expansionist jihad is a collective duty (fard ala al-kifaya), which is fulfilled if a sufficient number of people take part in it. If this is not the case, the whole umma [Muslim community] is sinning."

Here are more bellicose verses from the Koran, the words of Allah telling Muslims to kill, murder on his behalf :

ii.193: Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.

ii. 216: Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. Allah knows, but you do not.

ix.41: Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. This is best for you, if you but knew it.

ix. 123: Believers! make war on the infidels who dwell around you let them find harshness in you.

lxvi.9: O Prophet! make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them hell shall be their home, evil their fate.

ix.73: O Prophet Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end.

viii.65: O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding.

xlvii.4-15: When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly ….

xxv.52: Do not yield to the unbelievers, but fight them strenuously with this Koran.

viii.67: It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land …

What Umberto Eco calls the cult of heroism and the cult of death is beautifully exemplified in the Muslim cult of martyrdom. The Koran promises Paradise with its seductive houris to all those who die in the cause of Islam :

x. 4-15 "...As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish. He will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble their state; He will admit them to Paradise He has made known to them."

ix.111: "Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed."

iii.169-171: "You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord…. "

iii.157-158 "If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all the riches that amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered."

Bukhari gives the following hadith : "Narrated Anas bin Malik : ‘The prophet said, 'Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world …except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah's cause.)'"

Finally, on the obligation of Jihad, I shall quote from two Muslim thinkers greatly admired in the West. First Ibn Khaldun in his Muqaddimah writes: "In the Muslim community, the holy war is religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) covert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force."

And now Averroes, a much romanticized figure in the West : "According to the majority of scholars, the compulsory nature of the jihad is founded on sura ii.216: ‘Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.’ The obligation to participate in the jihad applies to adult free men who have the means at their disposal to go to war and who are healthy, … Scholars agree that all polytheists should be fought; This founded on sura viii.39: Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely"… Most scholars are agreed that, in his dealing with captives, various policies are open to the Imam. He may pardon them, enslave them, kill them, or release them either on ransom or as dhimmi [non-Muslim, second class subject of the Islamic state], in which latter case the released captive is obliged to pay poll-tax (jizya) ….Sura viii.67 "It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter in the land." as well as the occasion when this verse was revealed [viz.the captives of Badr] would prove that it is better to kill captives than to enslave them. The Prophet himself would in some cases kill captives outside the field of battle, while he would pardon them in others. Women he used to enslave …. The Muslims are agreed that the aim of warfare against the People of the Book …is two-fold :either conversion to Islam or payment of poll-tax –jizya)."

[B][I]Umberto Eco: [10] "Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party … [/I][/B]"

Here, it takes very little substitution to see how Umberto Eco's tenth feature applies to Muslims as well. "Every [Muslim] belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the [Umma] are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a [Muslim] member of the [Umma]."

Islam is the most perfect of religion, and Muslims are the chosen people, as sura v.3 tells us: " This day I have prefected for you your religion and completed My favour to you and chosen for you Islam as a religion." Islam is destined to triumph ultimately, sura ix.33 "He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists are averse" (see also xlviii.28; lxi.9).

The arrogance of Muslims is captured very precisely by Frithjof Schuon, a Western convert to a mystical variety of Islam:

"The intellectual – and thereby the rational – foundation of Islam results in the average Muslim having a curious tendency to believe that non-Muslims either know that Islam is the Truth and reject it out of pure obstinacy, or else are simply ignorant of it and can be converted by elementary explanations; that anyone should be able to oppose Islam with a good conscience quite exceeds the Muslims’ imagination, precisely because Islam coincides in his mind with the irresistible logic of things."

[B][I]Umberto Eco: [12] "Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of non-standard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality)."[/I][/B]

Here are some machismo sayings from the Koran :

iv..34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, & because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them & banish them to beds apart; and beat them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.

v.6... And if ye are sick on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have contact with women & ye find not water, then go to clean high ground & rub your faces & your hands with some of it...

xxxiii. 32-33 O ye wives of the Prophet! Ye are not like any other women. If ye keep your duty (to Allah), then be not soft of speech lest he in whose heart is a disease aspire to you, but utter customary speech And stay in your houses. Bedizen not yourselves with the bedizenment of the time of ignorance. Be regular in prayer, & pay the poor due, & obey Allah & His Messenger...

Equally, in numerous Hadiths on which are based the Islamic laws we learn of the woman' s role - to stay at home, to be at the beck & call of man, to obey him (which is a religious duty,) to assure man a tranquil existence. Here are some examples:

_____ If it had been given me to order someone to prostrate themselves in front of someone other than God, I would surely have ordered women to prostrate themselves in front of their husbands... A woman cannot fulfill her duties towards God without first having accomplished those that she owes her husband.

_____ The woman who dies & with whom the husband is satisfied will go to paradise.

_____ A wife should never refuse herself to her husband even if it is on the saddle of a camel.

_____ Hellfire appeared to me in a dream & I noticed that it was above all peopled with women who had been ungrateful. "Was it towards God that they were ungrateful?" They had not shown any gratitude towards their husbands for all they had received from them... Even when all your life you have showered a woman with your largesse she will still find something petty to reproach you with one day, saying, "You have never done anything for me."

_____ If anything presages a bad omen it is: a house, a woman, a horse.

_____ Never will a people know success if they confide their affairs to a woman.

Al -Ghazali (1058 - 1111), whom Professor Montgomery Watt describes as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad, in his " The Revival Of The Religious Sciences," defines the woman' s role:

"She should stay at home & get on with her spinning, she should not go out often, she must not be well-informed, nor must she be communicative with her neighbours & only visit them when absolutely necessary; she should take care of her husband & respect him in his presence & his absence & seek to satisfy him in everything; she must not cheat on him nor extort money from him; she must not leave her house without his permission & if gives his permission she must leave surreptitiously. She should put old on clothes & take deserted streets & alleys, avoid markets, & make sure that a stranger does not hear her voice or recognise her; she must not speak to a friend of her husband even in need... Her sole worry should be her virtue, her home as well as her prayers & her fast. If a friend of her husband calls when the latter is absent she must not open the door nor reply to him in order to safeguard her & her husband's honour. She should accept what her husband gives her as sufficient sexual needs at any moment "...She should be clean and ready to satisfy her husband's sexual needs at any moment." The great theologian then warns all men to be careful of women for their, "guile is immense & their mischief is noxious; they are immoral & mean spirited." "It is a fact that all the trials, misfortunes & woes which befall men come from women," moaned Al Ghazali.

In his Book of Counsel for Kings, Ghazali sums up all that a woman has to suffer & endure because of Eve's misbehaviour in the Garden of Eden:

"As for the distinctive characteristics with which God on high has punished women, (the matter is as follows): "When Eve ate fruit which He had forbidden to her from the tree in Paradise, the Lord, be He praised, punished women with eighteen things: (1) menstruation; (2) childbirth; (3) separation from mother & father & marriage to a stranger; (4) pregnancy; (5) not having control over her own person; (6) a lesser share in inheritance; (7) her liability to be divorced & inability to divorce; (8) its being lawful for men to have four wives, but for a woman to have only one husband; (9) the fact that she must stay secluded in the house; (10) the fact that she must keep her head covered inside the house; (11) the fact that two women's testimony has to be set against the testimony of one man; (12) the fact that she must not go out of the house unless accompanied by a near relative; (13) the fact that men take part in Friday & feast day prayers & funerals while women do not; (14) disqualification for rulership & judgeship; (15) the fact that merit has one thousand components, only one of which is attributable to women, while 999 are attributable to men; (16)... (17) the fact that if their husbands die they must observe a waiting period of four months & ten days before remarrying. (18) The fact that if their husbands divorce them they must observe a waiting period of three months or three menstrual periods before remarrying... "

Petr
09-01-2013, 07:42 PM
............

The Koran, of course, permits men an unlimited number of women: IV.3 And if ye are apprehensive that ye shall not deal fairly with orphans, then, of other women who seem good in your eyes marry but two, or three or four; & if ye still fear that ye shall not act equitably, then one only; or the slaves whom ye have acquired XXIII.1,5,6. Happy now the believers, humble in their prayers, shunning vain conversation, paying the poor-due,& who restrain their appetites except with their wives or the slaves whom their right hands possess: for in that case they shall be free from blame.

XXXIII.49-51 O Prophet! We allow thee thy wives whom thou hast dowered, & the slaves whom thy right hand possesseth out of the booty which God hath granted thee, & the daughters of thy uncle, thy paternal & maternal aunts who fled with thee to Medina, & any believing woman who hath given herself up to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to wed her - a Privilege for thee above the rest of the Faithful We well know what we have settled for them, in regard to their wives & to the slaves...; that there may be no fault on thy part... Thou mayst decline for the present whom thou wilt of them, & thou mayest take to thy bed her whom thou wilt, & whomsoever thou shalt long for of those thou shalt have before neglected, & this shall not be a crime in thee."

The inequality between men & women in matters of giving testimony or evidence; or being a witness is enshrined in the Koran: II.282 "Call in two male witnesses from among you but if two men cannot be found, then one man & two women whom you judge fit to act as witnesses; so that if either of them commit an error the other will remember."

On adultery the Koran says: XXIV.4 Those that defame honourable women & cannot produce four witnesses shall be given eighty lashes. "Of course, Muslim jurists will only accept four male witnesses. These witnesses must declare that they have "seen the parties in the very act of carnal conjunction".

In questions of heritage, the Quran tells us that male children should inherit twice the portion of female children IV.11-12 A male shall inherit twice as much as a female. If there be more than two girls, they shall have two- thirds of the inheritance, but if there be one only, she shall inherit the half. Parents shall inherit a sixth each, if the deceased have a child; but if he leave no child & his parents be his heirs, his mother shall have a third. If he have brothers, his mother shall have a sixth after payment of any legacy he may have bequeathed or any debt he may have owed.

The birth of a girl is still seen as a catastrophe in Islamic societies.. The system of inheritance just adds to her misery & her dependence on the man.... If she is an only child she receives only half the legacy of her father, the other half going to the male members of the father's family. If there are two or more daughters, they inherit 2/3rds. This pushes fathers & mothers to prefer male children to female so that they can leave the entirety of their effects or possessions to their own descendants. "Yet when a new-born girl is announced to one of them his countenance darkens & heis filled with gloom"; Koran XLIII. 15. The situation is even worse when a woman loses her husband - she only receives a quarter of the legacy & one eighth if there are. If the deceased leaves more than one wife, all the wives are still obliged to share among themselves a quarter or one eighth of the legacy.

All Muslim males can at any moment separate themselves from their wives, can repudiate their wives without formality, without explanations, without compensation. It is enough for the husband to pronounce the phrase "You are divorced" & it is done. Up to a period of three months the divorce is revocable. If the husband pronounces "You are divorced" three times, then the divorce is definitive. In the latter case the divorced wife cannot return to her husband until she has been married, "enjoyed", & divorced by another husband. Divorce depends entirely on the will & caprice of the husband - he may divorce his wife without any misbehaviour on her part, or without assigning any cause. As far as the custody of children goes, it is the mother who has the right to keep them. But as soon as she decides to remarry, she automatically loses her right to her children from the previous marriage.... In the case where the husband has the custody of children, if he remarries he does not lose this right to keep his children. Thus the woman is faced with the choice of remarrying & losing custody of her children or keeping her children & not marrying. This of course leads to a total insecurity for the women. Divorce is very frequent in Arab countries; instead of keeping four wives at the same time, which is rather expensive, a man simply changes his wife several times as recommended by the great Al Ghazali.

If a woman asks a man for a divorce, he may agree if he is paid or compensated in some way...In such a case she is not entitled to the repayment of her dower. The Koran sanctions such a dissolution II.229 "If ye fear that they cannot observe the ordinances of God, then no blame shall attach to either of you for what the wife shall herself give for her redemption."

An annulment of a marriage means a woman loses the right to the dowry & must give back what she has already received. Divorced women do have the right to re-marry but " must wait keeping themselves from men, three menstrual courses." ( II. 228 )

Umberto Eco: [13] "Ur-Fascism (Eternal Fascism) is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view – one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism (Eternal Fascism), however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter..."

Liberal democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom and attaches all possible value to each man or woman. Individualism is not a recognizable feature of Islam ; instead the collective will of the Muslim people is constantly emphasized. There is certainly no notion of individual rights, which developed in the West, especially during the eighteenth century. The constant injunction to obey the Caliph, who is God’s Shadow on Earth, is hardly inducive to creating a rights –based individualist philosophy. The hostility to individual rights is manifest in these two excerpts, one from the great Ibn Khaldun, and one from a recent Muslim thinker A.K. Brohi, a former Minister of Law and Religious Affairs in Pakistan who has often written on human rights from an Islamic perspective.

First, Ibn Khaldun: "All religious laws and practices and everything that the masses are expected to do requires group feeling. Only with the help of group feeling can a claim be successfully pressed,….Group feeling is necessary to the Muslim community. Its existence enables (the community) to fulfill what God expects of it."

Now A.K.Brohi : "Human duties and rights have been vigorously defined and their orderly enforcement is the duty of the whole of organized communities and the task is specifically entrusted to the law enforcement organs of the state. The individual if necessary has to be sacrificed in order that that the life of the organism be saved. Collectivity has a special sanctity attached to it in Islam."

" there are no "human rights" or "freedoms" admissible to man …in essence the believer owes obligation or duties to God if only because he is called upon to obey the Divine Law and such human rights as he is made to acknowledge seem to stem from his primary duty to obey God ." (Note the chillingly frightening, fascist and totalitarian phrase, "the individual if necessary has to be sacrificed.")"

[I]Umberto Eco [14] "Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, …But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical thinking."

A.K.Brohi already quoted above, goes on to write, "By accepting to live in bondage to this Divine Law, man learns to be free," which again frighteningly reminds one of Orwell’s Newspeak...

"Freedom is Slavery."

As for Arabic, one Muslim philosopher, Shabbir Akhtar who taught at the International Islamic University in Malaysia has written of the limitations of Arabic, "In modern analytical philosophy, there is hardly anything in Arabic or any other Islamic tongue. Philosophical discussion is best conducted in English. Owing to the grammatical limitations of of Arabic, it is impossible to express most philosophical claims with an acceptable degree of rigour and clarity. Moreover Arabic is a devotional language lacking the vocabulary requisite for detached discussion of controversial matters.

Petr
09-01-2013, 07:56 PM
Given Eco's position, all governments and individuals prior to the Enlightenment as well as the vast majority afterwards are enemies are 'Ur-Fascists." Nonsensical.
But that is how doctrinaire, elitist liberals really think, Lud. Charles Kingsley described what their attitude was already back in the Victorian times:

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3144/pg3144.html

There appeared a few years since a 'Comic History of England,' duly caricaturing and falsifying all our great national events, and representing the English people, for many centuries back, as a mob of fools and knaves, led by the nose in each generation by a few arch- fools and arch-knaves. Some thoughtful persons regarded the book with utter contempt and indignation; it seemed to them a crime to have written it; a proof of 'banausia,' as Aristotle would have called it, only to be outdone by the writing a 'Comic Bible.'

After a while, however, their indignation began to subside; their second thoughts, as usual, were more charitable than their first; they were not surprised to hear that the author was an honest, just, and able magistrate; they saw that the publication of such a book involved no moral turpitude; that it was merely meant as a jest on a subject on which jesting was permissible, and as a money speculation in a field of which men had a right to make money; while all which seemed offensive in it was merely the outcome, and as it were apotheosis, of that method of writing English history which has been popular for nearly a hundred years.

'Which of our modern historians,' they asked themselves, 'has had any real feeling of the importance, the sacredness, of his subject?—any real trust in, or respect for, the characters with whom he dealt? Has not the belief of each and all of them been the same—that on the whole, the many always have been fools and knaves; foolish and knavish enough, at least, to become the puppets of a few fools and knaves who held the reins of power? Have they not held that, on the whole, the problems of human nature and human history have been sufficiently solved by Gibbon and Voltaire, Gil Blas and Figaro; that our forefathers were silly barbarians; that this glorious nineteenth century is the one region of light, and that all before was outer darkness, peopled by 'foreign devils,' Englishmen, no doubt, according to the flesh, but in spirit, in knowledge, in creed, in customs, so utterly different from ourselves that we shall merely show our sentimentalism by doing aught but laughing at them?

JJ Cale
09-02-2013, 03:26 AM
One man's meat is another man's poison. My example would have been just as subjective, objectionable and lacking from another standpoint as your or anyone's example. And if it is THE value you are looking for, there isn't any.
So, is it your opinion that Eco doesn't believe in any values except the value in combating those whom hold shared values?

Is that what he is saying?

Longinus
09-02-2013, 07:15 AM
So, is it your opinion that Eco doesn't believe in any values except the value in combating those whom hold shared values?

Is that what he is saying?

There is nothing there to suggest that Eco believed fascists are the only group with shared values.

JJ Cale
09-04-2013, 02:43 AM
............Liberal democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom and attaches all possible value to each man or woman. Individualism is not a recognizable feature of Islam ; instead the collective will of the Muslim people is constantly emphasized.
And that brings up a very interesting quagmire for liberals. Liberalism is a white thing, a European thing.

Liberals are the ultimate racial supremacist.

Longinus
09-04-2013, 12:34 PM
And that brings up a very interesting quagmire for liberals. Liberalism is a white thing, a European thing.

Liberals are the ultimate racial supremacist.

How can the opposition to any kind of collectivism/groupism (including race and ethnicity) in favor of individual's liberty be considered racial? Usually it's the countries with strong socialist or traditional/medieval Christian background that end up with strong nationalism/fascism as in the case of white or significantly white Russia, Balkans and Southern Europe. You should search for the intellectual roots and justifications for racist/fascist (and totalitarian socialist) state in Platonic communitarianism not the West European post-Enlightenment development.

Liberalism is not a racially exclusive position. Some of the leading modern liberal (libertarian) minds were Jewish and even African American like Thomas Sowell. The fact that liberally inclined people are mostly White is due to the better economic and educational status of some Whites. The lower income groups like Mexicans, Blacks and poor Whites don't care so much about their liberties as much as they care for social welfare (socialism) and group interests (racism).

Ahknaton
09-04-2013, 02:30 PM
Comical. Eco is more aptly describing fear and the human condition, not something peculiar to 'Ur-Fascism.' One need look no further than the current US govt. and several bloodthirsty poasters here to demonstrate that. Muslims are both schtupid goat-f**kers who can't run their own governments yet are also a threat of armageddon who are constantly seeking ways to destroy 'us.' The people/govt. of Israel must be 'Ur-Fascist' based on this definition, and in fairness to Eco, he would probably agree.
Another example is atheists such as Longinus here himself. In one thread, atheists are a persecuted and powerless minority, then in the next thread they are going from strength to strength, with final victory only a few decades away when religion supposedly goes extinct around 2040.

Longinus
09-04-2013, 03:21 PM
Another example is atheists such as Longinus here himself. In one thread, atheists are a persecuted minority, then in the next thread they are going from strength to strength, with final victory only a few decades away when religion supposedly goes extinct around 2040.

There are no contradictions in this attitude. Atheists are a persecuted minority so if religion's days are numbered it wont be due to atheist efforts to enlighten but largely due to changing lifestyle of religious population (wealth, living standards, education, entertainment and sports, narcissism, woman's emancipation and population control)

Since the majority is irrational enough not to question tenets of religion the education efforts alone are not enough to combat religion. But every idiot can be made dependent upon comforts and entertainment and consequently disinterested in religion and populism.

Lud
09-04-2013, 04:26 PM
Another example is atheists such as Longinus here himself. In one thread, atheists are a persecuted minority, then in the next thread they are going from strength to strength, with final victory only a few decades away when religion supposedly goes extinct around 2040.

Yes, it is these types of vague, ambiguous and overbroad arguments that are the hallmark of the immature and congenitally, if not intentionally, disingenuous. They do not have ordered objective minds and therefore cannot formulate ordered and objective arguments. They can't manage to cobble together three or four poasts without contradicting themselves.

On a side note, this is why I personally view proponents of the modern popular (in the classic low-brow sense) brand of atheism to be feminine in argumentation. They are no better than chattering women who argue emotively, are immune to grounded argument and are governed by their fears. There is a whole sub-specie of fear-pron for these people here in N. America based on Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson seizing control of the government and sending atheists, feminists and fags to labor camps. New Dawner has a firmer grip on reality than these people (no offense ND).

Occident
09-05-2013, 12:42 AM
On a side note, this is why I personally view proponents of the modern popular (in the classic low-brow sense) brand of atheism to be feminine in argumentation. They are no better than chattering women who argue emotively, are immune to grounded argument and are governed by their fears.

Well yes, but that's really an attribute of modern culture in general, not really unique to atheists.

JJ Cale
09-05-2013, 02:44 AM
How can the opposition to any kind of collectivism/groupism (including race and ethnicity) in favor of individual's liberty be considered racial?

Although individualism seems explicitly anti-collectivist it is implicitly European. Libertarianism has its roots in European thought and literature. If we look at the other major racial groups, Asian, African, Arab and other Indigenous peoples, there just isn't anything in their culture that expresses this individualism. I always think of the book written in 1548, by a Frenchman, Discourse in Voluntary Servitude for an example of naked individualism . . .ah, one is a slave because one has chosen to be a slave. Yes, yes, Etiene.
Usually it's the countries with strong socialist or traditional/medieval Christian background that end up with strong nationalism/fascism as in the case of white or significantly white Russia, Balkans and Southern Europe. Buzz words like Nationalism and Fascism are enjoyed by the Left, but if we look at collectivism or tribalism, we see it everywhere, but Western Europe and the former British colonies. It's a white thing! You should search for the intellectual roots and justifications for racist/fascist (and totalitarian socialist) state in Platonic communitarianism not the West European post-Enlightenment development.
Right, the enlightenment happened in Western Europe, not in China for instance. And now that China has modernized, are we seeing individualism spring up everywhere? No! It’s European and therefore implicitly racist.
Liberalism is not a racially exclusive position. In its rhetoric Liberalism is not racially exclusive. However it is only Europeans who place Liberalism as dominant philosophical postulate. It is Liberal Europeans who believe that the whole world needs to accept these Liberal positions, therefore it is racial supremacy. This is the quagmire for Liberals. On the one hand they want to be inclusive and diverse, but then how to deal with the idea that many cultures are just the opposite. Here Liberalism turns schizophrenic. I heard one Liberal refer to Rap music as Western. But Rap music is anything but liberal; it’s highly ethnic, violent, and chauvinistic.
So we have a very bizarre sort of thing happening. Great Britain follows the US into the Middle Eastern wars and then at the same time allows for Sharia Law in the UK.
Some of the leading modern liberal (libertarian) minds were Jewish and even African American like Thomas Sowell.
They are just operating under the big tent white liberalism. You don't hear Jewish, or Blacks attacking their own kind as bigots for showing the slightest ethnic solidarity.
The fact that liberally inclined people are mostly White is due to the better economic and educational status of some Whites.
Jews are very tribal and much more affluent than Europeans, so it's not education and money. The lower income groups like Mexicans, Blacks and poor Whites don't care so much about their liberties as much as they care for social welfare (socialism) and group interests (racism).
That's not really true of whites. West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the Union. It is 90% white and it is highly individualistic.

Petr
09-05-2013, 04:16 PM
I always think of the book written in 1548, by a Frenchman, Discourse in Voluntary Servitude for an example of naked individualism . . .ah, one is a slave because one has chosen to be a slave. Yes, yes, Etiene.
de la Boetie's booklet is available online:

http://mises.org/rothbard/boetie.pdf

Monty
09-05-2013, 05:08 PM
de la Boetie's booklet is available online

There are people who defend human trafficking on the same grounds: poor, uneducated girls are rational actors capable of making free market actions. Therefore they are justified in selling themselves into servitude.

According to classical liberal philosophy, any action, no matter how stupid, idiotic or dangerous, is justified if the actor consents. Want to sell yourself into slavery? Make chemical weapons at home? Chop off an arm with a chainsaw? No problem!

I do not fully understand why this stuff is taken seriously and why Murray Rothbard was so successful in marketing it as "right wing."

Longinus
09-06-2013, 05:34 PM
Although individualism seems explicitly anti-collectivist it is implicitly European. Libertarianism has its roots in European thought and literature. If we look at the other major racial groups, Asian, African, Arab and other Indigenous peoples, there just isn't anything in their culture that expresses this individualism. I always think of the book written in 1548, by a Frenchman, Discourse in Voluntary Servitude for an example of naked individualism . . .ah, one is a slave because one has chosen to be a slave. Yes, yes, Etiene.

One of the reasons for the un-rebellious nature of the masses in China is the basic struggle for existence. The prolonged state of poverty is a static rather than revolutionary factor. Where people consume their time and energy for a bare survival they nurse no grievances or visions because their goals are concrete and immediate and all the other choices in life reduced to zero. But this is not a uniquely Chinese racial feature. In fact the similar lifestyle of traditional European serfs constitutes the very core of fascist/traditionalist ideal glorified by the nazi art.

Buzz words like Nationalism and Fascism are enjoyed by the Left but if we look at collectivism or tribalism, we see it everywhere, but Western Europe and the former British colonies. It's a white thing!

The failure of nationalist-totalitarian movements in Western countries is not because the Western locals are innately immune to the appeals of nationalist collectivism but because of the more successful tactics of stopping the mass movement employed by the western elites. In pre-war Italy and Germany the liberal elites encouraged a fascist and a nazi movement in order to stop the communist movement. Doing so they promoted the liquidation of their own political system. So, instead of substituting one illiberal movement for another the western elites turn to different means.

Right, the enlightenment happened in Western Europe, not in China for instance. And now that China has modernized, are we seeing individualism spring up everywhere? No!

It will happen sooner or later because even the Chinese man is likely to become a liberal when minding his own business is worth minding. Otherwise he takes his mind off his own misfortunes by meddling into other people's business. This is the major cause of all feverish interests in ethnic and religious collectivism.

In its rhetoric Liberalism is not racially exclusive. However it is only Europeans who place Liberalism as dominant philosophical postulate. It is Liberal Europeans who believe that the whole world needs to accept these Liberal positions, therefore it is racial supremacy.

But it works both ways. Communists of Eastern Europe believed the entire world including the liberal West should become Communist. Nazis believed that Germany has a historic mission to change the racial and ideological structure of the world. The old Russian Orthodox nationalists believe in Russia's special Christian mission. Muslims have their own global religious mission...

Longbard
09-06-2013, 05:52 PM
The topic is not philosophical, it's cheap propaganda, thus to be discussed in psychological or political sections.

Longinus
09-06-2013, 06:14 PM
The topic is not philosophical, it's cheap propaganda, thus to be discussed in psychological or political sections.

It's a political philosophy essay.

Cheap propaganda wouldn't be able to arouse so many neo-fascist apologists and hardly any with a good counter-argument.

Longbard
09-06-2013, 07:01 PM
It's a political philosophy essay.

Cheap propaganda wouldn't be able to arouse so many neo-fascist apologists and hardly any with a good counter-argument.

You can call it philosophy, offending Philosophy, but still remains cheap propaganda.

I debated here because I don't like to let pass such lies undisputed.
I won't go ahead debating with people who live in his fantastic world:
liars just have to be doomed, debating them is a waste.

Longbard
09-06-2013, 10:48 PM
All fascists are anti-modernists and traditionalists. They just use advantages of modern technology to destroy civilization, return into volkish barns and paleolithic caves and 'keeping it in the family'.

Germany and Italy experienced civil improvements in many branches.
Like social insurance (INPS), social services, basic security, better than today. Drained swamp areas, founded new cities, built railroads, bridges, tunnels, airports, roads and autobahn, industrialized agriculture, and more..
With economic growth and people happy and not ensalved unlike USSR.
So where is the use of technology to destroy civilization that you are saying? Volkish barns and paleo-caves?
You really don't know what you're talking about. Or maybe you know it and you're just a liar.


Fortunately in this age the stronger economy, mass production and WMD can martyrize the most spiritual maniacs ur-fascism can produce.
And this should not be a totalitarian thing? This is Big-Brother type, tyrant obsessed warmonger speaking.


Their greatest social "achievement" was ruthlessly weeding out any dissent.

What you're talking about is communism. But Eco never mentions this word, you neither.
In Italy under fascism there was a dissent suppression not so different from today's democracies.
When the leadership is true and heroism is a value of society you won't see that dissent, who dissent then is just an enemy. Italy and Germany never harmed their own people, Soviets and communism in general did.

In public life anything you do without thinking is sick. And if you disguise it into spirituality it becomes evil.

Everyone has a brain, so acting without thinking is impossible. You stick to the obsolete idea of the mind separated from the body, BTW you're also ignoring philosophies like buddhism and tantrism.

And I guess that after some joint of weed your thinking is so weak that you become sick? evil? you become a murderer?
Why are you telling that the body is evil? You seem to say the opposite in other threads.


It is much harder to manipulate critical mind than a spiritual one. This is why Hitler has persecuted freethinkers.


Quite the opposite. Your inner self is something unchangable, meanwhile the mind is something very controllable.
Freethinkers persecution is not a fascist exclusive: today's propaganda is much more harmful to freethinkers, have you ever heard of political correctness?
Anyone knows what mass-media can do. Any word spoken can change one's mind.

I bet you know it, I see that you are here just to spread memes that will harm the spirit of the brave people.

JJ Cale
09-07-2013, 03:56 AM
It's a political philosophy essay.

Cheap propaganda wouldn't be able to arouse so many neo-fascist apologists and hardly any with a good counter-argument.
Not being able to change your mind, does not mean I haven’t made a good counter argument. To look at the current state of world and surmise that it is heading down the happy road to Liberalism (I susupect you mean the status quo of present day America, UK,etc.) is a rather fantastic view for anyone who’s more than a TV viewer.
One of the reasons for the un-rebellious nature of the masses in China is the basic struggle for existence. The prolonged state of poverty is a static rather than revolutionary factor. Where people consume their time and energy for a bare survival they nurse no grievances or visions because their goals are concrete and immediate and all the other choices in life reduced to zero.The Chinese businessman is fine with the Chinese state. The Chinese state is Han Chinese. They are very ethnocentric and they won’t be giving up power, to some other ethnic Asian, much less long nose apes (Europeans), or for gad’s sake, Africans.

But this is not a uniquely Chinese racial feature. No! Ethnocentrism is everywhere. Now, you’re arguing my case. But again, if your arguing the leftist “education” view, you must explain to me when will the Jews give up their hyper racism, and their collective "struggle" for power . . . more and more power!

Longinus
09-07-2013, 07:35 AM
...you must explain to me when will the Jews give up their hyper racism, and their collective "struggle" for power . . . more and more power!

"We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, "to be free from freedom." It was not sheer hypocrisy when the rank-and-file Nazis declared themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves cheated and maligned when made to shoulder responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not joined the Nazi movement in order to be free from responsibility? ...

Where the corporate pattern is strong, it is difficult for a mass movement to find a footing. The communal compactness of the Jews, both in Palestine and the Diaspora, was probably one of the reasons that Christianity made so little headway among them. The destruction of the temple caused, if anything, a tightening of the communal bonds. The synagogue and the congregation received now much of the devotion which formerly flowed toward the temple and Jerusalem. Later, when the Christian church had the power to segregate the Jews in ghettos, it gave their communal compactness an additional reinforcement, and thus, unintentionally, ensured the survival of Judaism intact through the ages. The coming of "enlightenment" undermined both orthodoxy and ghetto walls. Suddenly, and perhaps for the first time since the days of Job and Ecclesiastes, the Jew found himself an individual, terribly alone in a hostile world. There was no collective body he could blend with and lose himself in. The synagogue and the congregation had become shriveled lifeless things, while the traditions and prejudices of two thousand years prevented his complete integration with the Gentile corporate bodies. Thus the modern Jew became the most autonomous of individuals, and inevitably, too, the most frustrated. ... The capacity to resist coercion stems partly from the individual's identification with a group. The people who stood up best in the Nazi concentration camps were those who felt themselves members of a compact party (the Communists), of a church (priests and ministers), or of a close-knit national group. The individualists, whatever their nationality, caved in. The Western European Jew proved to be the most defenseless. Spurned by the Gentiles (even those within the concentration camps), and without vital ties with a Jewish community, he faced his tormentors alone-forsaken by the whole humanity. One realizes now that the ghetto of the Middle Ages was for the Jews more a fortress than a prison. Without the sense of utmost unity and distinctness which the ghetto imposed upon them, they could not have endured with unbroken spirit the violence and abuse of those dark centuries. When the Middle Ages returned for a brief decade in our day, they caught the Jew without his ancient defenses and crushed him. ...

The Jew in Europe faced his enemies alone, an isolated individual, a speck of life floating in an eternity of nothingness. In Palestine he felt himself not a human atom, but a member of an eternal race, with an imemorable past behind it and a breath-taking future ahead. ...

Hitler's totalitarian regime, once established, was never endanger of mass revolt. So long as the ruling Nazi hierarchy was willing to shoulder all responsibilities and make all decisions, there was not the least chance for any popular antagonism to arise. A danger point could have been reached had Nazi discipline and its totalitarian control been relaxed. What de Tocqueville says of a tyrannical government is true of all totalitarian orders their moment of greatest danger is when they begin to reform, that is to say, when they begin to show liberal tendencies."
(Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements)

Longinus
09-07-2013, 09:10 AM
Everyone has a brain, so acting without thinking is impossible.

Not everyone's brain is capable of critical reasoning. Brain is not an exclusive a tool for logical thinking but also irrational, emotional and automatic thinking.

You stick to the obsolete idea of the mind separated from the body

I do not. That's what the German idealists and the nazis believed. They have attributed mental properties to entities without a brain: like land, or Herder's "Volksgeist" ("spirit of the people"), or Hitler's credo in Aryan afterlife religion - as if a dead nazi brain crawling with maggots can still have a life. What other purpose could such absurdities serve if not appeasing the fear of death?

BTW you're also ignoring philosophies like buddhism and tantrism.

Mass movements are interchangeable. What attracts the zombie material to fascist and mass religious movements is not the philosophy or the content but the urge to become one with the group.

Why are you telling that the body is evil?


I've never said that.

today's propaganda is much more harmful to freethinkers, have you ever heard of political correctness?

PC hurts the enemies of the free thought more than it hurts the freethinkers. The ONLY reason nazis complain about freedom of speech is to attack the free speech. Freedom to discard freedom is the only freedom nazis need.

Anyone knows what mass-media can do. Any word spoken can change one's mind.

Isn't that what Hitler's speeches and nazi ceremonies can do?

I bet you know it, I see that you are here just to spread memes that will harm the spirit of the brave people.

They are not brave but buthurt and indoctrinated into violence. Would you also call aggressive drunks and lunatic brave?

Columnist
09-07-2013, 11:43 AM
(Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements)
And therefore Antifa.

Columnist
09-07-2013, 11:44 AM
PC hurts the enemies of the free thought more than it hurts the freethinkers. The ONLY reason nazis complain about freedom of speech is to attack the free speech. Freedom to discard freedom is the only freedom nazis need.

Yes, if you want to get rid of PC, you have to attack the nazis yourself root causes and such. Of course, I have a different idea of what constitutes nazis than the PC crowd.

Longinus
09-07-2013, 01:40 PM
DEPRECATION OF THE PRESENT

In the practice of mass movements, make-believe plays perhaps a more enduring role than any other factor. When faith and the power to persuade or coerce are gone, make-believe lingers on. There is no doubt that in staging its processions, parades, rituals and ceremonials, a mass movement touches a responsive chord in every heart. Even the most sober-minded are carried away by the sight of an impressive mass spectacle. There is an exhilaration and getting out of one's skin in both participants and spectators. It is possible that the frustrated are more responsive to the might and splendor of the mass than people who are self-sufficient.

At its inception a mass movement seems to champion the present against the past. It sees in the established institutions and privileges an encroachment of a senile, vile past on a virginal present. But, to pry loose the stranglehold of the past, there is need for utmost unity and unlimited self-sacrifice. This means that the people called upon to attack the past in order to liberate the present must be willing to give up enthusiastically any chance of ever tasting or inheriting the present. The absurdity of the proposition is obvious. Hence the inevitable shift in emphasis once the movement starts rolling. The present the original objective is shoved off the stage and its place taken by posterity the future. More still: the present is driven back as if it were an unclean thing and lumped with the detested past. The battle line is now drawn between things that are and have been, and the things that are not yet. To lose one's life is but to lose the present; and, clearly,to lose a defiled, worthless present is not to lose much.

Not only does a mass movement depict the present as mean and miserable it deliberately makes it so. It fashions a pattern of individual existence that is dour, hard,repressive and dull. It decries pleasures and comforts and extols the rigorous life. It views ordinary enjoyment as trivial or even discreditable, and represents the pursuit of personal happiness as immoral. To enjoy oneself is to have truck with the enemy the present. The prime objective of the ascetic ideal preached by most movements is to breed contempt for the present. The campaign against the appetites is an effort to pry loose tenacious tentacles holding on to the present. That this cheerless individual life runs its course against a colorful and dramatic back-ground of collective pageantry serves to accentuate its worthlessness.

The very impracticability of many of the goals which amass movement sets itself is part of the campaign against the present. All that is practicable, feasible and possible is part of the present. To offer something practicable would be to increase the promise of the present and reconcile us with it. Faith in miracles, too, implies a rejection and a defiance of the present. When Tertullian proclaimed, "And He was buried and rose again; it is certain because it is impossible," he was snapping his fingers at the present. Finally, the mysticism of a movement is also a means of deprecating the present. It sees the present as the faded and distorted reflection of a vast unknown throbbing underneath and beyond us. The present is a shadow and an illusion. ...

All mass movements deprecate the present by depicting it as a mean preliminary to a glorious future; a mere door-mat on the threshold of the millennium. To a religious movement the present is a place of exile, a vale of tears leading to the heavenly kingdom; to a social revolution it is a mean way station on the road to Utopia; to a nationalist movement it is an ignoble episode preceding the final triumph...

A glorification of the past can serve as a means to belittle the present. But unless joined with sanguine expectations of the future, an exaggerated view of the past results in an attitude of caution and not in the reckless strivings of amass movement. On the other hand, there is no more potent dwarfing of the present than by viewing it as a mere link between a glorious past and a glorious future. Thus,though a mass movement at first turns its back on the past,it eventually develops a vivid awareness, often specious,of a distant glorious past. Religious movements go back to the day of creation; social revolutions tell of a golden age when men were free, equal and independent; nationalist movements revive or invent memories of past greatness.This preoccupation with the past stems not only from a desire to demonstrate the legitimacy of the movement and the illegitimacy of the old order, but also to show up the present as a mere interlude between past and future.

An historical awareness also imparts a sense of continuity. Possessed of a vivid vision of past and future, the true believer sees himself part of something that stretches endlessly backward and forward something eternal. He can let go of the present (and of his own life) not only because it is a poor thing, hardly worth hanging on to, but also because it is not the beginning and the end of all things. Furthermore, a vivid awareness of past and future robs the present of its reality. It makes the present seem as a section in a procession or a parade. The followers of a mass movement see themselves on the march with drums beating and colors flying. They are participators in a soul stirring drama played to a vast audience generations gone and generations yet to come. They are made to feel that they are not their real selves but actors playing a role, and their doings a "performance," rather than as the real thing. Dying, too, they see as a gesture, an act of make-believe.

A deprecating attitude toward the present fosters a capacity for prognostication. The well-adjusted make poor prophets. On the other hand, those who are at war with the present have an eye for the seeds of change and the potentialities of small beginnings.

It is of interest to compare here the attitudes toward present, future and past shown by the conservative, the liberal, the skeptic, the radical and the reactionary.The conservative doubts that the present can be bettered, and he tries to shape the future in the image of the present. He goes to the past for reassurance about the present: "I wanted the sense of continuity, the assurance that our contemporary blunders were endemic in human nature, that our new fads were very ancient heresies, that beloved things which were threatened had rocked not less heavily in the past."5 How, indeed, like the skeptic is the conservative! "Is there any thing whereof it may be said,See this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us." To the skeptic the present is the sum of all that has been and shall be. "The thing that hath been,it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." The liberal sees the present as the legitimate off-spring of the past and as constantly growing and developing toward an improved future: to damage the present is to maim the future. All three then cherish the present, and,as one would expect, they do not take willingly to the idea of self-sacrifice. Their attitude toward self-sacrifice is best expressed by the skeptic: "for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing . . . neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun." The radical and the reactionary loathe the present. They see it as an aberration and a deformity. Both are ready to proceed ruthlessly and recklessly with the present, and both are hospitable to the idea of self-sacrifice.

Wherein do they differ? Primarily in their view of the malleability of man's nature. The radical has a passionate faith in the infinite perfectibility of human nature. He believes that by changing man's environment and by perfecting a technique of soul forming, a society can be wrought that is wholly new and unprecedented. The reactionary does not believe that man has unfathomed potentialities for good in him. If a stable and healthy society is to be established, it must be patterned after the proven models of the past. He sees the future as a glorious restoration rather than an unprecedented innovation.

In reality the boundary line between radical and reactionary is not always distinct. The reactionary manifests radicalism when he comes to recreate his ideal past. His image of the past is based less on what it actually was than on what he wants the future to be. He innovates more than he reconstructs. A somewhat similar shift occurs in the case of the radical when he goes about building his new world. He feels the need for practical guidance, and since he has rejected and destroyed the present he is compelled to link the new world with some point in the past. If he has to employ violence in shaping the new, his view of man's nature darkens and approaches closer to that of the reactionary.

(Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements)

JJ Cale
09-07-2013, 01:42 PM
(Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements)
This diatribe is not arguing your case, even if one were to take it as an accurate narrative.

At the same time, I would just like to point out another aspect of the current status quo, defining itself as liberal. You, Eco, all of ya’s, direct all your attention only at white ethnocentrism, none other. In that, you are breaking your own rule about racism i.e treating all people the same. For Jews in the establishment, it’s an obvious means to express their eternal hatred. But for milquetoast European believer, he is just ushering in the death of his people and his cherished liberal philosophy.
Liberalism is a dead letter, because it destroys the nations of those who adopt it.

Longbard
09-07-2013, 02:25 PM
This diatribe is not arguing your case, even if one were to take it as an accurate narrative.

At the same time, I would just like to point out another aspect of the current status quo, defining itself as liberal. You, Eco, all of ya’s, direct all your attention only at white ethnocentrism, none other. In that, you are breaking your own rule about racism i.e treating all people the same. For Jews in the establishment, it’s an obvious means to express their eternal hatred. But for milquetoast European believer, he is just ushering in the death of his people and his cherished liberal philosophy.
Liberalism is a dead letter, because it destroys the nations of those who adopt it.

Liberals are just cheaters, on one hand they pretend we are not allowed to say anything about the internal affairs of foreign countries (Sharia law is granted by UN to safeguard human rights among muslim nations) and we must accept any invaders and their culture,
on the other hand they speak about a world without nations, with common culture and common laws worldwide.

Longinus
09-07-2013, 02:53 PM
You, Eco, all of ya’s, direct all your attention only at white ethnocentrism, none other. In that, you are breaking your own rule about racism i.e treating all people the same. For Jews in the establishment, it’s an obvious means to express their eternal hatred.But for milquetoast European believer, he is just ushering in the death of his people and his cherished liberal philosophy.
Liberalism is a dead letter, because it destroys the nations of those who adopt it.

When we see a tribal dictator on some other continent some of us abhor his atrocities, the majority ignores it (with the exception of most radical nazis who glorify the tyrant per default and glee upon his victims), but largely it is something distant, something that happens to others and never to our selves. This is understandable since each of us is the center of his own universe and the world is to large to preoccupy our selves with all the problems.

Ethnocentrism becomes dangerous only when it attains the state power. Now, what are the prospects of Black, Mexicans, Arabs or even Jewish ethnocentrists (who are not without influence) to re-shape the US and Western Europe into the fascist dictatorship according to their militant ideals? None.

Longbard
09-07-2013, 02:58 PM
I've never said that.

You wrote this:
In public life anything you do without thinking is sick. And if you disguise it into spirituality it becomes evil.

And in private life I'm not sick? If I feel to hug my wife in public I'm sick? Have I to think about it?
As I like a girl in public and try to approach her I am sick. If i smell a good flavour and I follow it, I'm sick. If a negro presence disgusts me I'm sick. If I vomit seeing two men kissing each other it's because I'm sick.
If I listen to my sacre-inner-self I am evil.
If I follow what I'm told to do from Tv and follow the law I'm sane and fine.

Longinus
09-07-2013, 03:26 PM
And in private life I'm not sick? If I feel to hug my wife in public I'm sick? Have I to think about it? As I like a girl in public and try to approach her I am sick. If i smell a good flavour and I follow it, I'm sick. If a negro presence disgusts me I'm sick. If I vomit seeing two men kissing each other it's because I'm sick.
If I listen to my sacre-inner-self I am evil.
If I follow what I'm told to do from Tv and follow the law I'm sane and fine.

I can already tell your "inner-self" is profane and worthless - since it doesn't fill your life with joy but leaves you bitter and anxious to transgress into other people's sacred intimacy. When you do that from the position of political office or religious authority it becomes evil.

JJ Cale
09-07-2013, 04:04 PM
Ethnocentrism becomes dangerous only when it attains the state power. Now, what are the prospects of Black, Mexicans, Arabs or even Jewish ethnocentrists who are not without influence to re-shape the US and Western Europe into the fascist dictatorship according to their militant ideals? None.Your language is so coded I have no way of communicating with you.
Ethnocentrism is not necessarily chauvinistic. The US is multi-ethnic and is quite militant and quite chauvinistic.
As far as maintaining personal freedoms, the more you mix different people into the same political system, the greater the internal conflict and the more forceful the state will become.
If your whole argument is I hate white ethnocentrism so much, I would prefer to live in Soviet Russia, or on the flip side, an increasingly ugly and violent society, there's just nothing left for us to talk about.
Then again, if you’re not European, there never was anything for us to talk about because we have different political interest.

Longbard
09-07-2013, 04:09 PM
I can already tell your "inner-self" is profane and worthless - since it doesn't fill your life with joy but leaves you bitter and anxious to transgress into other people's sacred intimacy. When you do that from the position of political office or religious authority it becomes evil.

Yes, that's why you and Eco and libtards and commies are evil.
Keep out of my inner-self, don't tell me I'm sick for what I feel.

You are the tyrants psychopaths who want to destroy human spirit, who want to control human thoughts.

Besides fascism appealed to the common inner-self of its people: one people, one nation.
It's the natural ensemble of one gens, with a leadership fully trusted with free-thinking and free-instinct due to change the leadership in the case it is not trustable anymore.
If the leader becomes a tyrant we don't have fascism anymore by definition:
Fascism is NOT a tyranny. Although the dictionary tells a different definition. But you know, newspeak.

Longinus
09-07-2013, 04:53 PM
Ethnocentrism is not necessarily chauvinistic.

Once Ethnocentrism becomes a mass movement aiming to become the state law and the official ideology it becomes dangerous.

As far as maintaining personal freedoms, the more you mix different people into the same political system, the greater the internal conflict and the more forceful the state will become.

Don't you think your own society can be just as oppressive? Nations ruled by Sharia law don't have a large bureaucracy or impressive army yet their citizen have less rights than those of western polyarchies.

If your whole argument is I hate white ethnocentrism so much, I would prefer to live in Soviet Russia, or on the flip side, an increasingly ugly and violent society, there's just nothing left for us to talk about.

I was raised in a communist country and would be more inclined to open my veins before returning to that (or a similar, fascist) society. I am not interested in subjecting my self to collectivism, or raise my kids to such a regime and pretend that I support collectivist authorities. Anyone who is trying to persuade me otherwise is wasting his breath.

Then again, if you’re not European, there never was anything for us to talk about because we have different political interest.

I am a 100% White of cosmopolitan but fully European descent. That is still not a good qualification for becoming a 'good' ethnocentric nationalist since European nationalisms are about belonging to a local tribe. If you don't have the right surname and right accent the local hicks regard you as a foreigner.

Longinus
09-07-2013, 05:25 PM
Factors Promoting Self-sacrifice


The effectiveness of a doctrine does not come from its meaning but from its certitude. No doctrine however profound and sublime will be effective unless it is presented as the embodiment of the one and only truth. It must be the one word from which all things are and all things speak.

Crude absurdities, trivial nonsense and sublime truths are equally potent in readying people for self-sacrifice if they are accepted as the sole, eternal truth. It is obvious, therefore, that in order to be effective a doctrine must not be understood, but has rather to be believed in. We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand. A doctrine that is understood is short of its strength. Once we understand a thing, it is as if it had originated in us. And, clearly, those who are asked to renounce the self and sacrifice it cannot see eternal certitude in anything which originates in that self. The fact that they understand a thing fully impairs its validity and certitude in their eyes.

The devout are always urged to seek the absolute truth with their hearts and not their minds. "It is the heart which is conscious of God, not the reason."

Rudolph Hess, when swearing in the entire Nazi party in 1934, exhorted his hearers: "Do not seek Adolph Hitler with your brains; all of you will find him with the strength of your hearts."

When a movement begins to rationalize its doctrine and make it intelligible, it is a sign that its dynamic span is over; that it is primarily interested in stability. For, as will be shown later , the stability of a regime requires the allegiance of the intellectuals, and it is to win them rather than to foster self-sacrifice in the masses that a doctrine is made intelligible.

Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

JJ Cale
09-07-2013, 07:07 PM
Once Ethnocentrism becomes a mass movement aiming to become the state law and the official ideology it becomes dangerous. You're too abstract; mass movement, state law, official ideology.
People who share an identity (in large measure biological) whishing to have a territory and a political system of their own is historically common, if not the rule. Eco's liberal stand places himself against nearly all people everywhere, at all times.

Don't you think your own society can be just as oppressive? Nations ruled by Sharia law don't have a large bureaucracy or impressive army yet their citizen have less rights than those of western polyarchies.They have sharia law in the UK. The muslims want it and now the english must live with the muslims and maybe one day the muslims will have the numbers to impose sharia law on the english in their own lands. According to Eco, for the english to fight this would make them "eternal fascist". Liberalism is a death cult.

I was raised in a communist country and would be more inclined to open my veins before returning to that (or a similar, fascist) society. I am not interested in subjecting my self to collectivism, or raise my kids to such a regime and pretend that I support collectivist authorities. Anyone who is trying to persuade me otherwise is wasting his breath. All societies are collectivist. Laws are made by which everyone must live under, taxes collected, and so on . . .
Western woman like to show off their bods, muslim woman are covered head to foot, who's right? Whoever has the power. Swedish woman are learning this lesson, be careful or you might have a dozen Paki's going at you in the park. Is that freedom? Wouldn't it have been better if the Paki's wern't allowed in Sweden?
No, no , because Eco says, that's fascism.

I am a 100% White of cosmopolitan but fully European descent. That is still not a good qualification for becoming a 'good' ethnocentric nationalist since European nationalisms are about belonging to a local tribe.But they are not saying to you, you should not exist. However, that is what you are saying to them.

If you don't have the right surname and right accent the local hicks regard you as a foreigner.Move to the land of your local hicks.

Longinus
09-08-2013, 06:57 AM
People who share an identity (in large measure biological) whishing to have a territory and a political system of their own is historically common, if not the rule. Eco's liberal stand places himself against nearly all people everywhere, at all times.

Nationalism is just one form of a mass movement. Mass movements are a force to be reckoned with. It wont be easy for the liberal system but not impossible. There are ways.

They have sharia law in the UK. The muslims want it and now the english must live with the muslims and maybe one day the muslims will have the numbers to impose sharia law on the english in their own lands. According to Eco, for the english to fight this would make them "eternal fascist". Liberalism is a death cult.

There is nothing there to suggest that Eco believed ur-fascists can only be Whites. Actually the expression "Islamic fascist" is getting more and more popular these days. You will find the most ardent supporters of Muslims among the enemies of liberalism like the socialist Galloway, international anti-semites, German nazi leftovers and various anti-western movements of communist, nationalist or religious conviction across eurasia.

All societies are collectivist. Laws are made by which everyone must live under, taxes collected, and so on . . .
Western woman like to show off their bods, muslim woman are covered head to foot, who's right? Whoever has the power. Swedish woman are learning this lesson, be careful or you might have a dozen Paki's going at you in the park. Is that freedom? Wouldn't it have been better if the Paki's wern't allowed in Sweden?
No, no , because Eco says, that's fascism.

I've never said I support the mass immigration nor did Eco. That's your 'white mantra' speaking out of you. It has some good points but advocating fascism is not one of them.

But they are not saying to you, you should not exist. However, that is what you are saying to them.

How so? There is no room for atomized individuals in collectivist society. Individual is far more fragile entity than any group.

Move to the land of your local hicks.

I don't even speak their language.

Hermetic
09-08-2013, 09:33 PM
The point of Tradition, it was a superior culture based on a super conscious or transcendental understanding of universal order and laws of manifestation, substation and transmutation of the properties of creation. Given by likewise beings.


If this order had not broken down this thread would not exist. Its really up to the individual now to climb this rope back upwards.

Longinus
09-08-2013, 10:43 PM
The point of Tradition, it was a superior culture based on a super conscious or transcendental understanding of universal order and laws of manifestation, substation and transmutation of the properties of creation. Given by likewise beings.


If this order had not broken down this thread would not exist. Its really up to the individual now to climb this rope back upwards.

Hermetic, your post is the schoolbook example of ur-fascism as described by Ecco and it also fits into Hoffer's mass movement's 'true believer' description.

Thanks for proving the OP's points. http://thephora.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

Ahknaton
09-09-2013, 03:11 AM
There are no contradictions in this attitude. Atheists are a persecuted minority so if religion's days are numbered it wont be due to atheist efforts to enlighten but largely due to changing lifestyle of religious population (wealth, living standards, education, entertainment and sports, narcissism, woman's emancipation and population control)
Once a contradiction has been pointed out, of course you can spin together some half-convincing rationalization for how these two seemingly incompatible ideas can be reconciled. Fascists can do the same. For example, is it really a contradiction to believe that Jews dominate the world but are doomed in the long run? Also notice how you are backpedaling a bit here: what do you mean "if" religion's days are numbered? I thought you were confident that it was on the way out? Of course, to better fit your story of mass atheist persecution, certain and total triumph can't be just around the corner.
Since the majority is irrational enough not to question tenets of religion the education efforts alone are not enough to combat religion. But every idiot can be made dependent upon comforts and entertainment and consequently disinterested in religion and populism.
If keeping the masses dumb through bread and circuses represents the only hope of your worldview catching on that doesn't speak very highly of it.

JJ Cale
09-09-2013, 05:04 AM
Nationalism is just one form of a mass movement. Mass movements are a force to be reckoned with. It wont be easy for the liberal system but not impossible. There are ways.Bullets, bombs, and tear gas. We are talking about liberalism as it exists, not theory.

Columnist
09-09-2013, 10:21 AM
Bullets, bombs, and tear gas. We are talking about liberalism as it exists, not theory.
Subvert liberalism. Ask them whether the Jews killed by Hitler had "white privilege".

Longinus
09-09-2013, 11:47 AM
Once a contradiction has been pointed out, of course you can spin together some half-convincing rationalization for how these two seemingly incompatible ideas can both be true.

The mistake you make in pointing my "contradiction" is your mechanistic assumption that more Atheists = less religious and vice versa.

Fascists can do the same. For example, is it really a contradiction to believe that Jews dominate the world but are doomed in the long run?

That is absurdity because if Jews dominate the world there is no way to tell if they are doomed or not in the long run. Isn't this fascist prediction a plagiarized biblical prophecy about the temporary rule of Antichrist over the Earth? You might also argue that everyone's reign come to an end sooner or later but if our world is really dominated by Jews wouldn't it be more realistic to speculate that fascists are more likely to end up doomed sooner than the Jews?

Also notice how you are backpedaling a bit here: what do you mean "if" religion's days are numbered? I thought you were confident that it was on the way out?

I say "If" despite my confidence because I'm not like nazi or christian soothsayers who can tell these things with absolute certainty. It means that I even allow the possibility of the new dark ages - the total triumph of fascism and religion over human minds.

If keeping the masses dumb through bread and circuses represents the only hope of your worldview catching on that doesn't speak very highly of it.

You should also acknowledge that Keiser's Germany was unprepared to endure the prolonged war efforts due to limited food supplies. Or that Third Reich propaganda has turned to escapist movies after Germans were being pushed back on all fronts. Why don't you also assume that nazis have dumbed down their disenchanted subjects with entertainment movies because race-superiority worldview was not enough? Even today the typical nazi youth are Tolkien fans - escapists overwhelmed by the power of this world.

Longinus
09-09-2013, 12:54 PM
Subvert liberalism. Ask them whether the Jews killed by Hitler had "white privilege".

That inadequate comparison would have been more appropriate to subvert various Marxist/socialist theories about class conflict since Weimar Jews never owned German slaves (like the Southern slave-owners) but were merely wealthier and more educated on average than the average Germans. Nazis scapegoating the successful Jews resembles Bolshevik scapegoating of successful people in generally. Jews were still not as wealthy and influential enough like German industrial elites and Swiss bankers who aided the nazis and profited from the work of (mostly) Slavic, Jewish, homosexual, dissident and other slave laborers in nazi concentration camps.

Ahknaton
09-09-2013, 12:58 PM
The mistake you make in pointing my "contradiction" is your mechanistic assumption that more Atheists = less religious and vice versa.
If you think that Christian "fascists" are a threat to your freedom then the difference isn't important. If someone is not religious then they don't pose that kind of threat, regardless of whether they are atheist/agnostic/secular/"spiritual but not religious" or whatever.

That is absurdity because if Jews dominate the world there is no way to tell are they doomed or not in the long run. Isn't this fascist prediction a plagiarized biblical prophecy about the temporary rule of Antichrist over the Earth? You might also argue that everyone's reign come to an end sooner or later but if our world is really dominated by Jews wouldn't it be more realistic to speculate that fascists are more likely to end up doomed sooner than the Jews?
Do you think I believe that Jews control the world and are destined to be destroyed according to some prophecy? Is that what you got out of my post? :rofl:

The point is that anyone can reconcile contradictions in their ideologies through rationalization and what-ifs if they try hard enough. We're talking about politics and human history, not mathematics, so we aren't dealing with logical absolutes that can strictly contradict each other, but general tendencies, trends and uncertain predictions about the future. This gives apologists the wiggle room they need to paper over the contradictions in their ideologies. A neutral party will recognize it for the special pleading that it is.

I say "If" despite my confidence because I'm not like a nazi/christian soothsayers who can tell these things with absolute certainty. It means that I even allow the possibility of the new dark ages - the total triumph of fascism and religion over human minds.
Yes - you are more humble in your predictions, after being challenged on them.

You should also acknowledge that Keiser's Germany was unprepared to endure the prolonged war efforts due to limited food supplies. Or that Third Reich propaganda has turned to escapist movies after Germans were being pushed back on all fronts. Why don't you also assume that nazis have dumbed down their disenchanted subjects with entertainment movies because race-superiority worldview was not enough? Even today the typical nazi youth are Tolkien fans - escapists overwhelmed by the power of this world.
Who cares? Are we being asked to choose between Nazism and some kind of atheist nerdcon-attending fantasy society?

Hermetic
09-09-2013, 01:17 PM
Hermetic, your post is the schoolbook example of ur-fascism as described by Ecco and it also fits into Hoffer's mass movement's 'true believer' description.

Thanks for proving the OP's points. http://thephora.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif



The Aryan's understood the Satya, the divine order of life is present in the eternal laws of nature. And how this relates to the macrocosm and microcosm.

One can see in the Founding Fathers of America the same understanding. As they where all Mason's [uncorrupted originals]. The Founders chose the scales of MAAT which are the Egyptian symbol of the above reality, to symbolize this.

They also called themselves the Perfectible Ones and left numerous symbols of what they meant by Liberty to the future. From the Capitol building being an open [Masonic] Temple of Liberty with the open tomb of Washington which symbolizes the apotheosis of Washington of Man into Godman. Washington is painted on the celling of the dome sitting on the rainbow bridge holding the book of life in a mural based off early Masonic images made after his death. The mural is called: "the apotheosis of George Washington."

The painting of Washington made during his life that sat over the mantel in the White House. Shows him standing with the rainbow and serpent in the background. That is what they meant by Liberty. Liberation from the human condition or Samsara state [Moksha]. This was the knowledge the Aryan's also had in the East. The serpent is the symbol of eternal life along with the rainbow. The God of the seven rays.

This is the point of the Hermetic knowledge, the Magnum Opus of which all authentic Tradition is based on. The entire point of the Enlightenment was to get us out from under the Hebrew spell of the Judaic, mind control, cult of Rome. And its fake religion. Which is nothing but a form of black magic upon the masses. Which is obvious in the text of their Bible, even from its numerology.

So the Founders created a Traditional system a Republic of Philosophers. Based on true religion which as the Hermetic texts state is the science of light [Satya].


The Jews got into there with the Illuminati of Rothschild and started to subvert the French Masonic Lodges replacing the Masonic doctrine of Liberty and the eternal religion of nature [science of light]. Which bluntly put, Communism as has been commented on by other scholars. This is why the Communist League trace their origins to the Jacobin's. As well as then corrupted the scientific revolution and steered into a materialistic void of going nowhere soon. To keep us from advancing in true knowledge which all goes back into the science of light and the soul as light. As well as corrupting everything as mentioned into pure materialistic ideologies. Which is their Judaic cult of Rome is as well. A Materialistic control cult with a window of fake metaphysic's over it. Where the masses are left on the level of the gross materialistic octave an animal deprived of all spiritual advancement, enlightenment and the supernormal powers that come with this. Light is power.


I guess by this Ecco. Washington, Franklin, Voltaire, Paine and Jefferson and on. Where: "Ur Fascists."

They might all be since they used the Roman Fascia as their symbol as well. Which is an ancient spiritual symbol. Its no mistake the current Left consider the Founders to be ultra right-wing by today standards.

Longinus
09-09-2013, 03:40 PM
The Aryan's understood the Satya, the divine order of life is present in the eternal laws of nature. And how this relates to the macrocosm and microcosm. One can see in the Founding Fathers of America the same understanding. As they where all Mason's [uncorrupted originals]. The Founders chose the scales of MAAT which are the Egyptian symbol of the above reality, to symbolize this.

This Aryan system is a closed system of beliefs, just like Judaism or any other system claiming the knowledge of the eternal truth. Nature is an open system, an expanding universe, as revealed by the modern scientific observations and mathematical calculations. Such is the human knowledge ("microcosm") - an open system. Our knowledge thrives on the never-ending "corruption" of the "original laws" by the new knowledge. We gather our knowledge from different flowers, more like Merovingian honeybees than the "omniscient" German-Imperial eagle.

The painting of Washington made during his life that sat over the mantel in the White House. Shows him standing with the rainbow and serpent in the background. That is what they meant by Liberty. Liberation from the human condition or Samsara state [Moksha]. This was the knowledge the Aryan's also had in the East.

To understand ur-fascist you first have to realize that he is a control freak. Like Eco noticed, ur-fascists plagiate details of the oppressive and closed-idea systems (religions) practiced by the closed-societies (theocracies) of the past and shun all the tendencies toward personal liberty that even these ancient societies had. In evaluating societies of the past ur-fascist rule of the thumb is to favor the more oppressive one i.e. Sparta over Athens, Roman Empire over Roman Republic, Persia over Greece, Hindu castes society over Classical Civil society...

The serpent is the symbol of eternal life along with the rainbow.

The serpent, being one of the most wide-spread symbols can represent many different things to many different people. Ur-fascist (anti-life, anti-earth, anti-materialistic) interpretations seem least credible, least appealing and most abominable. The eyes of an impotent, ascetic ur-fascist zombie are always gazing into distance, into heavens, into eternity and other intangible things. There is nothing for him here and now, in this world, in this life - no knowledge to hunger for, no good to enjoy. The serpent is an animal that is closest to the Earth - earthly life, earthly knowledge, not the eternal wisdom or the eternal life. A dark and chthonic deity, feared and hated by the ur-fascist, mind-controlling white light clergy and their flock (or shall we say Volk).

So the Founders created a Traditional system a Republic of Philosophers. Based on true religion which as the Hermetic texts state is the science of light [Satya].

You are mistaking the rationalist Founders for German Orientalist mystics.

I guess by this Ecco. Washington, Franklin, Voltaire, Paine and Jefferson and on. Where: "Ur Fascists."

More likely Ur Anti-Fascists or Ur-Rebels since the rebellion has a tradition as well.

They might all be since they used the Roman Fascia as their symbol as well.

Just as in the case of Serpent, the meaning of a symbol changes with perspective, or with the observer. It was a symbol of Roman REPUBLIC (not an Empire) and French Revolution before it became the symbol of the Italian fascists (who were btw. also royalists) and other ur-fascist subverters.

Columnist
09-09-2013, 03:53 PM
To understand ur-fascist you first have to realize he is a control freak. Like Eco noticed, ur-fascists plagiate details of the oppressive and closed-idea systems (religions) practiced by the closed-societies (theocracies) of the past and shun all the tendencies toward personal liberty that even these ancient societies had. In evaluating societies of the past ur-fascist rule of the thumb is to favor the more oppressive one i.e. Sparta over Athens, Roman Empire over Roman Republic, Persia over Greece, Hindu castes society over Classical Civil society...
Acute observation of double standards.

Alien Settler
09-09-2013, 05:09 PM
For Aryans see this:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=76099

Columnist
09-09-2013, 06:33 PM
That inadequate comparison would have been more appropriate to subvert various Marxist/socialist theories about class conflict since Weimar Jews never owned German slaves (like the Southern slave-owners) but were merely wealthier and more educated on average than the average Germans. Nazis scapegoating the successful Jews resembles Bolshevik scapegoating of successful people in generally. Jews were still not as wealthy and influential enough like German industrial elites and Swiss bankers who aided the nazis and profited from the work of (mostly) Slavic, Jewish, homosexual, dissident and other slave laborers in nazi concentration camps.
Cultural "Marxism" doesn't distinguish firmly between colorblind wage-slavery(disparate impact) and open, race-based slavery and the like (apartheid e.a.).

Longinus
09-09-2013, 07:23 PM
Cultural "Marxism" doesn't distinguish firmly between colorblind wage-slavery(disparate impact) and open, race-based slavery and the like (apartheid e.a.).

And we as true Liberals don't distinguish between Cultural and other types of Marxists. Cultural Marxism is a synthesis of Marxism and Freudianism, neither of which can be described as liberal thinking. If we'd accepted Freud's view of the man as a being driven only by passions and tribal taboos than the entire Liberal concept of self ownership and human rights would have become pointless.

Ayn Rand on Freud

According to [Freud’s] theory, the prime mover in human nature is an unperceivable entity with a will and purpose of its own, the unconscious—which is basically an “id,” i.e., a contradictory, amoral “it” seething with innate, bestial, primevally inherited, imperiously insistent cravings or “instincts.” In deadly combat with this element is man’s conscience or “superego,” which consists essentially, not of reasoned moral convictions, but of primitive, illogical, largely unconscious taboos or categorical imperatives, representing the mores of the child’s parents (and ultimately of society), whose random injunctions every individual unquestioningly “introjects” and cowers before. Caught in the middle between these forces—between a psychopathic hippie screaming: satisfaction now! and a jungle chieftain intoning: tribal obedience!—sentenced by nature to ineradicable conflict, guilt, anxiety, and neurosis is man, i.e., man’s mind, his reason or “ego,” the faculty which is able to grasp reality, and which exists primarily to mediate between the clashing demands of the psyche’s two irrational masters.

As this theory makes eloquently clear, Freud’s view of reason is fundamentally Kantian. Both men hold that human thought is ultimately governed, not by a man’s awareness of external fact, but by inner mental elements independent of such fact. Both see the basic task of the mind not as perception, but as creation, the creation of a subjective world in compliance with the requirements of innate (or “introjected”) mental structures . . . .

The real root of the outrage his own doctrines provoked, Freud says with a certain pride, is their assault on “the self-love of humanity.” Whatever the “wounds” that men have suffered from earlier scientific theories, he explains, the “blow” of psychoanalysis “is probably the most wounding.” The blow, he states, is the idea that man is not “supreme in his own soul,” “that the ego is not master in its own house.” . . . .

Freud offers to the world not man the dutiful, decorous nonperceiver (as in Kant); not man the defeated plaything of grand-scale forces, such as a malevolent reality or God or society or a “tragic flaw” (as in the works of countless traditional cynics and pessimists); but man the defeated plaything of the gutter; man the smutty pawn shaped by sexual aberrations and toilet training, itching to rape his mother, castrate his father, hoard his excrement; man the sordid cheat who pursues science because he is a frustrated voyeur, practices surgery because he is a sublimating sadist, and creates the David because he craves, secretly, to mold his own feces.

Man as a loathsomely small, ordure-strewn pervert: such is the sort of “wound” that Freud inflicted on the being who had once been defined, in a radiantly different age, as the “rational animal.”

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/freud.html

GregHill
09-09-2013, 07:55 PM
Points #1 and #2 about Umberto Eco would be:

1. He is lost in the cosmos.
2. He is evolved from monkeys and garbage.

This is not to insult but only for the sake of clarity. In other words, the germ in the dish that is Umberto Eco is the same difference as the one in my TV. Like my TV, he goes back to the Bank of England 1694 and the Federal Reserve 1913.

Longinus
09-09-2013, 09:11 PM
Points #1 and #2 about Umberto Eco would be:

1. He is lost in the cosmos.

As lost as a blind idiot who thinks his position in the cosmos is fixed?

2. He is evolved from monkeys and garbage.

And for that reason more than a God...or monkeys stupid enough to think they are 'sons of god' or 'in God's image'. No wonder some people use their static heads as a dartboard for all sorts of minorities.

Ecco's humanist punchline, immortalized by Sean Connery:
jUUB96c6EpY

Hermetic
09-10-2013, 08:25 AM
Actually the Aryan system, was not a system of beliefs it was a science of achievement that placed merit on understanding truth. With its own methods of testing for it. What is left today is mere residue. We have science [knowledge]. Which only exists because this order exists. Its the discipline of understanding it. They also understood its an internal function dealing with the consciousness and its power to pull back the veil of illusion and ignorance. And see reality for what is there. Much of our science is the opposite direction externalized attempts to understand and piece together.

The ancient Priest Kings of the Aryan's where elected by council's and served terms of office. And would be removed if they failed in office. The Aryan's law's where based on personal and social freedoms with duties.



The original Enlightenment movements came out of the Masonic movement as stated.


The Aryan's came out of the East as their ancient records state along with the fact they where speaking Sanskrit the mother of most Indo-Aryan languages. From looking at the original Masonic texts and rites they held the exact system even Sanskrit formula's and symbols. Because the Mason's went back to the Pagan houses who stated they came out of the East.


I don't care about this Ecco complaints as he does not understand what a Traditional society looked like nor why. In fact it has more of an axe to grind then anything. The American Founders left one such society sitting in the faces of everyone. Washington was the Priest King of the New Atlantis of the original Mason's. They even left images of him as such. Along with the Masonic Washington monument.

As for the serpent the only culture that hated it was the Judaic one. Which came much later on. And within the Bible is a bizarre love hate relationship with the symbol. Because much of the Bible is created out taking and rewriting Pagan texts into Judaic ones. Some of the former remained.





This Aryan system is a closed system of beliefs, just like Judaism or any other system claiming the knowledge of the eternal truth. Nature is an open system, an expanding universe, as revealed by the modern scientific observations and mathematical calculations. Such is the human knowledge ("microcosm") - an open system. Our knowledge thrives on the never-ending "corruption" of the "original laws" by the new knowledge. We gather our knowledge from different flowers, more like Merovingian honeybees than the "omniscient" German-Imperial eagle.



To understand ur-fascist you first have to realize that he is a control freak. Like Eco noticed, ur-fascists plagiate details of the oppressive and closed-idea systems (religions) practiced by the closed-societies (theocracies) of the past and shun all the tendencies toward personal liberty that even these ancient societies had. In evaluating societies of the past ur-fascist rule of the thumb is to favor the more oppressive one i.e. Sparta over Athens, Roman Empire over Roman Republic, Persia over Greece, Hindu castes society over Classical Civil society...



The serpent, being one of the most wide-spread symbols can represent many different things to many different people. Ur-fascist (anti-life, anti-earth, anti-materialistic) interpretations seem least credible, least appealing and most abominable. The eyes of an impotent, ascetic ur-fascist zombie are always gazing into distance, into heavens, into eternity and other intangible things. There is nothing for him here and now, in this world, in this life - no knowledge to hunger for, no good to enjoy. The serpent is an animal that is closest to the Earth - earthly life, earthly knowledge, not the eternal wisdom or the eternal life. A dark and chthonic deity, feared and hated by the ur-fascist, mind-controlling white light clergy and their flock (or shall we say Volk).



You are mistaking the rationalist Founders for German Orientalist mystics.



More likely Ur Anti-Fascists or Ur-Rebels since the rebellion has a tradition as well.



Just as in the case of Serpent, the meaning of a symbol changes with perspective, or with the observer. It was a symbol of Roman REPUBLIC (not an Empire) and French Revolution before it became the symbol of the Italian fascists (who were btw. also royalists) and other ur-fascist subverters.

Ahknaton
09-13-2013, 01:51 AM
But Umberto’s Eco’s point about the genesis of fascism stands. The overall landscape of fascism is syncretic, as he points out; the so-called traditionalism with its resistance to expansion of mind and emphasis on “old values” was and still is a reaction to the post-Enlightenment liberal values.
What does this really mean though? "Fascism is syncretic" - in other words it draws its influences from several sources. Well, you can say that about almost any ideology. Secondly, it is a "reaction to post-Enlightenment liberal values". Well, again, couldn't this be said of almost any modern ideology? There's a very fine line between being a "reaction" to a belief system and being influenced by it. For example, Marxism is in part a reaction to the Enlightenment insofar as it is a rejection of capitalism, which emerged from Enlightenment liberalism. However, despite Marxists being clearly "anti-capitalist", Marx saw capitalism as just one intermediate step along a progression towards communism. So it is both a reaction to and a development and progression of Enlightenment ideas. Fascism is the same, some Enlightenment values are embraced, others are rejected. All ideologies are going to take what came before them, accept what is judged to be good and reject (through criticism) what is judged to be harmful. Fascism is hardly unique in this respect.

Eco's statement can be boiled to "Fascism is an ideology that was influenced by several of its predecessors, including the values of the Enlightenment, accepting some parts and rejecting others". Completely unremarkable and true of all 20th century ideologies.

As for whether Fascism is traditionalist, my favourite Nazi controversy is the Fraktur-Antiqua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiqua%E2%80%93Fraktur_dispute) typeface dispute over which font to use in the Reich. Fraktur is that Gothic style of German text like you see on the Stormfront banner, Antiqua is a less decorative and more "international" looking font. Despite the fact that Fraktur was more distinctly "German", the Nazis (and in particular Hitler) chose Antiqua. Hitler said this in a speech about it (Fraktur):

Your alleged gothic internalisation does not fit well in this age of steel and iron, glass and concrete, of womanly beauty and manly strength, of head raised high and intention defiant... In a hundred years, our language will be the European language. The nations of the east, the north and the west will, to communicate with us, learn our language. The prerequisite for this: The script called Gothic is replaced by the script we have called Latin so far...

What kind of traditionalist waxes poetic about "glass and concrete"? This might seem like a silly and minor thing to fixate on, but this is just the kind of thing that traditionalists get a bee in their bonnet about - a modern example would be resistance to the metric system (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1351441/Shylock-didnt-ask-454g-flesh--wants-drink-litre-wine-says-PETER-HITCHENS.html). Traditionalists instinctively oppose reforms in the name of efficiency and progress that erase regional cultural particularities and impose uniformity in its place. Choosing Fraktur over Antiqua should have been a no-brainer.

The Nazi eugenics program is also blatantly at odds with traditionalist values. There is no way a traditionalist would oppose abortion yet support the murder of Down's Syndrome children as in the T4 program for example.

Sёva Hossenfelder
09-13-2013, 06:09 AM
What does this really mean though? "… it is a "reaction to post-Enlightenment liberal values"… couldn't this be said of almost any modern ideology?... Fascism is hardly unique in this respect.

Essence is that one attribute making a phenomenon what it is. As fear of the Enlightenment vector was at the genesis of fascist/traditionalist mindset, it is an existential property, a defining essence of this phenomenon. Obviously, there have been historical idiosyncrasies in implementations of fascist regimes; they present us with a number of peripheral, non-essential marks left by various historical players. Your Fraktur-Antiqua typeface dilemma seems to be in that category.

Marxist implementations too had their own peripheral idiosyncrasies. Take Stalinism, for example. While Marxism, an extension of early Utopian ideas, in its essential mass, was foundationally reliant on the Enlightenment, leaders of the Soviet Union didn’t hesitate to promote appallingly backward xenophobia.

To me, burning of books by the Nazis is a good manifestation of that essential and particular to fascism fear.
The era of extreme Jewish intellectualism is now at an end. The breakthrough of the German revolution has again cleared the way on the German path.
Among the authors: James Joyce, Einstein, Dostoyevsky, Kafka, Freud, Herbert Wells, Aldous Huxley, Tolstoy, …. In il nome della rosa, Eco seemed to be making a direct reference to this episode – Jorge, in fear of dangerous books, burns the greatest library in Christendom.

Longbard
09-14-2013, 05:12 PM
Must be fascist also the Liberal Conservatism then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism

Longinus
09-14-2013, 05:47 PM
Must be fascist also the Liberal Conservatism then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism

It lacks radical-reactionary components necessary to constitute fascism.

However such society could not be described as liberal but conservative.

"History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition."
(Milton Friedman)

JJ Cale
09-16-2013, 12:25 PM
It lacks radical-reactionary components necessary to constitute fascism.

However such society could not be described as liberal but conservative.
"History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition."
(Milton Friedman)
Give us an example of a liberal society, so we know what we are arguing about.

Longinus
09-16-2013, 01:12 PM
Give us an example of a liberal society, so we know what we are arguing about.

Can you provide an example of a "liberal conservative" society? Or a Platonic society? No, because it's a model.

JJ Cale
09-16-2013, 01:40 PM
Can you provide an example of a "liberal conservative" society? Or a Platonic society? No, because it's a model.Ahh . . . but we do have a fascist society and monarchical societies. So the intellectual can argue a model against a reality.
Liberals are the ultimate reactionaries, because they don’t stand for anything concrete; in fact they argue against reality, all realities.

Longinus
09-16-2013, 01:51 PM
Ahh . . . but we do have a fascist society and monarchical societies. So the intellectual can argue a model against a reality.
Liberals are the ultimate reactionaries, because they don’t stand for anything concrete; in fact they argue against reality, all realities.

Where in the world can you still find an absolute monarchy? Or a fascist society?

The historic examples of fascist/racist societies had to be mercilessly crushed, while existing marxist and theocratic societies like Saudi Arabia, Iran and North Korea stick out like sore thumbs.

The western polyarchies are still the closest approximation of liberalism. Everything the enemies of liberalism propose is either inefficient and pathetic or brutal and tyrannical.

GregHill
09-16-2013, 02:55 PM
As lost as a blind idiot who thinks his position in the cosmos is fixed?



And for that reason more than a God...or monkeys stupid enough to think they are 'sons of god' or 'in God's image'. No wonder some people use their static heads as a dartboard for all sorts of minorities.

Ecco's humanist punchline, immortalized by Sean Connery:
jUUB96c6EpY

Aristotle and Hipparchos, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, Eratosthenes, Ptolemy, Giovanni Riccioli, Francis Bacon and Tycho Brahe, Jean Buridan (communist Jew editors at wikipedia completely misrepresent Buridan), Jean Bodin, the Kings of Castile, Leon, Navarra, Portugal and many others have not been idiots for figuring out astronomy much better than Copernicus and Einstein.

Being lost in the cosmos does involve bad and wrong cosmology, but it's about more than Judeo-Masonic liberalism's broken astronomy, stupidity, and faked moon landings and fake trips to Mars, per Time Magazine and NASA --- at the cost of billions and billions and billions of dollars. Eco does not really know who or what he is. He writes like he knows so much, but it's puff and fluff. He's posing and other than the act he is unknown to himself. He's just a liberal and his purpose is usually absurd. He's infected by chaos.

As Nietzsche said for the doubting and cynical liberal monkey-man, "We are unknown, we knowers to ourselves .... As far as ourselves are concerned, we know nothing."

If Galileo's "law of falling bodies" were true --- and it is not --- drop an anvil on Eco's head from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. For the sake of "universal gravity", it should be like anything else that would be much lighter and less painful. It's all the same between acceleration and gravity and the "anti-fascist" liberal goop inside Eco's head.

Longbard
09-16-2013, 03:00 PM
Where in the world can you still find an absolute monarchy? Or a fascist society?

The historic examples of fascist/racist societies had to be mercilessly crushed, while existing marxist and theocratic societies like Saudi Arabia, Iran and North Korea stick out like sore thumbs.

The western polyarchies are still the closest approximation of liberalism. Everything the enemies of liberalism propose is either inefficient and pathetic or brutal and tyrannical.

Didn't you say that theocracy is fascist? And marxism-leninism (communism) isn't fascist?

Longinus
09-16-2013, 05:07 PM
Nothing personal intended but why are you anti-liberals so thick?

Didn't you say that theocracy is fascist? And marxism-leninism (communism) isn't fascist?

"Saint Augustine, who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism." (Eco)

There is a pejorative expression "red fascism" for some applications and oppressive aspects of Communism but that system (especially in early, revolutionary stages) had too many distinctive ideological traits (internationalism, atheism, anti-reaction, egalitarianism) which are irreconcilable with fascist nationalism, cult of the tradition, populist-elitism and feverish invocations of god.

Monty
09-16-2013, 05:14 PM
"Saint Augustine, who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism."[/I] (Eco)

OK, Western Civ courses may discuss both "Saint Augustine and Stonehenge" as part of an ongoing continuum that led to the development of Europe as we know it. Is that fascist?

Monty
09-16-2013, 05:18 PM
Didn't you say that theocracy is fascist?

The problem is that no one can tell me what is or is not theocracy or fascism other than "whatever the Left despises."

Here's examples:
England under George III.
England under Cromwell
Mexico before the PRI.
Modern Dubai.

Fascist? Theocrat? Both? Neither? Discuss.

Longbard
09-16-2013, 05:24 PM
Nothing personal intended but why are you anti-liberals so thick?



"Saint Augustine, who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism." (Eco)

So we must assume that Olism is fascist, Plotinus was a fascist. Deism is fascist, Voltaire was a fascist.


There is a pejorative expression "red fascism" for some applications of Communism but that system (especially in early, revolutionary stages) had too many distinctive ideological traits (internationalism, atheism, anti-reaction, egalitarianism) which are irreconcilable with fascist nationalism, cult of the tradition, populist-elitism and feverish invocations of god.

- Fascist nationalism:
Communism is nationalist too, although as theory is universal. But Nationalism is also universal as a theory, and also fascism. You're misleading universalism, confusing it with world totalitarism.

- Cult of tradition:
Communism has its own cult of the tradition. And it is also reactionary to any critic. Free speech isn't allowed, that's its main tradition.

- Populist-elitism:
The elites never experienced a so great power but in communism.
And communism is the most populist movement and philosophy ever.

- Fevery invocation of God:
How can you say Saudi Arabia isn't it? Besides no fascist nation was founded under religious fundamentalism.

Longinus
09-16-2013, 06:15 PM
OK, Western Civ courses may discuss both "Saint Augustine and Stonehenge" as part of an ongoing continuum that led to the development of Europe as we know it. Is that fascist?

Augistine's metaphysics and manichean dogmatism concocted with tribal (race suggestive) mystique of the past is a good formula for fascism.


"The notion of fascism is not unlike Wittgenstein’s notion of a game. A game can be either competitive or not, it can require some special skill or none, it can or cannot involve money. Games are different activities that display only some “family resemblance,” as Wittgenstein put it. Consider the following sequence:

1 2 3 4

abc bcd cde def

Suppose there is a series of political groups in which group one is characterized by the features abc, group two by the features bcd, and so on. Group two is similar to group one since they have two features in common; for the same reasons three is similar to two and four is similar to three. Notice that three is also similar to one (they have in common the feature c). The most curious case is presented by four, obviously similar to three and two, but with no feature in common with one. However, owing to the uninterrupted series of decreasing similarities between one and four, there remains, by a sort of illusory transitivity, a family resemblance between four and one.

Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism (which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola." (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/jun/22/ur-fascism/?pagination=false)

Longbard
09-16-2013, 08:29 PM
And why in this childish abacus game you cannot play communism?
Add some egalitarian universalism and you get communism.




Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist.


Once accepted this game as correct. Tell me what is its purpose.

Longinus
09-16-2013, 09:28 PM
And why in this childish abacus game you cannot play communism?

Only provided that you take into consideration distinctive features of communist ideology such as class consciousness and class conflict.

Add some egalitarian universalism and you get communism.

Why not Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism) for example? Or Classical Liberal notion of the Rights of Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Man)? Or Christian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism)? Many different ideologies believe in some equality and universal moral validity of their basic principles.

Naturally, if you're a fascist propagandist you'll want to clump all your opponents into the same conspiratorial, International Commie-Jew category. Ideologies go across borders, just like Jews. As Eco noticed "at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged...Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside."

Once accepted this game as correct. Tell me what is its purpose.

To understand the underlying impulses and emotions behind fascism and to identify crypto-fascist propaganda in various, seemingly innocent or unexpected forms.

Longbard
09-16-2013, 10:43 PM
Only provided that you take into consideration distinctive features of communist ideology such as class consciousness and class conflict.

No, I consider class consciousness and class conflict a mere fraud, fraud is the characteristic of communism.

Why not Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism) for example? Or Classical Liberal notion of the Rights of Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Man)? Or Christian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism)?

Many different ideologies believe in some equality and universal moral validity of their basic principles.

Naturally, if you're a fascist propagandist you'll want to clump all your opponents into the same conspiratorial, International Commie-Jew category. Ideologies go across borders, just like Jews. As Eco noticed "at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged...Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside."

No, I don't clump that toghether, I try to locate and make distinctions. In fact you cannot say anarchism is communist nor fascist.

To understand the underlying impulses and emotions behind fascism and to identify crypto-fascist propaganda in various, seemingly innocent or unexpected forms.

You want mind control in the end, that's you liberal...
But again, why? Why this vain effort. Why this rape of philosophy. Why insulting history. Why this fanatic focus on fascism that prevent you in having both a global view and a view of any particular reality?

Longinus
09-17-2013, 01:29 AM
You want mind control in the end, that's you liberal...But again, why? But again, why? Why this vain effort.

Trying to influence others to think independently, use common sense and observation and freely exchange ideas is like mind control?

Why this rape of philosophy.

The rape of philosophy? What is the meaning of this metaphor and how can it be applied to liberal political reasoning which is friendly to rational inquiry and free exchange of ideas? Was medieval scholasticism for example "the rape of philosophy"? No... the "castration" and "selective conservation" would be more apt metaphors. How about Marxism? As much as I disagree with Marx I have to admit Marxism is an original and systematic direction of thinking based on rational arguments. Fascism and nazism on the other hand lack this systematic method of reasoning and originality in thinking.

Why insulting history.

Why the romanticist glorification of certain periods? Why such disrespect for the present moment? Do you really think fascist countries were just about the neat uniforms and healthy youth? Or that living in the Middle Ages, deprived of reason, personal freedom and wealth would be like living in a fairy-tale place where all the horrific shit happens only to others but never to you?

Why this fanatic focus on fascism...

Why not? Neo-fascists constantly constantly attack all competing alternatives as "degeneracy" and jewish conspiracy. Eco's article just exposes and dissects fascist's insanity.

JJ Cale
09-17-2013, 12:16 PM
Where in the world can you still find an absolute monarchy? Or a fascist society?
Ask Eco, he seems to think they're everywhere.


The western polyarchies are still the closest approximation of liberalism. Everything the enemies of liberalism propose is either inefficient and pathetic or brutal and tyrannical.
And stupid is as stupid does. Whatever happenes in Western Europe, England and her former colonies is what liberalism is. What liberalism becomes is what liberalism is.

Longinus
09-17-2013, 01:36 PM
Ask Eco, he seems to think they're everywhere.

Not the regimes but the proponents.

And stupid is as stupid does. Whatever happenes in Western Europe, England and her former colonies is what liberalism is. What liberalism becomes is what liberalism is.

You are a doomsday prophet. We don't know how liberalism ends! 20 or so years from now we might live like during the golden age of western economic growth (1950-1971). - or at least half as good. The gloomy ur-fascists will continue to suffer from their usual conspiracy psychosis and moral panic attacks but the rest of us are going to have one hell of a time! (rp) :sunny:

Hermetic
09-17-2013, 04:31 PM
Sitting here in 2013 one can see enough of decades of Liberalism to draw the appropriate conclusions as to how it ends. It will destroy itself by the growing reaction its creating. Which has happened in smaller waves in the past. I hope when that happens the pendulum does not get swung out too far in the opposite direction. The middle path will prevail hopefully. Or nothing will be learned from the decades of mistakes on both sides.

I believe most people will agree with policies that are intelligent, sane and have grounding in reality. And in time prove themselves by their own merits. Current Ideologies tend to get in the way of this and bring too much psychological baggage into the picture. Instead of building something important and lasting they get caught up in having something to prove.

Longinus
09-18-2013, 12:15 AM
Sitting here in 2013 one can see enough of decades of Liberalism to draw the appropriate conclusions as to how it ends. It will destroy itself by the growing reaction its creating. Which has happened in smaller waves in the past.

I wouldn't call the opponents like Central Powers, Axis and especially not Soviet Russia "smaller waves". There is nothing that big emerging in foreseeable future.

Longbard
09-18-2013, 12:42 AM
Trying to influence others to think independently, use common sense and observation and freely exchange ideas is like mind control?

Communism doesn't allow to think independently. And see how current liberals are enslaved to political correctness.
Common sense is mainly irrational, so you cannot bring it to your side, and actually the common sense of Germans and Italians under nazism and fascism approved their governments.
Observation of reality is undermined by ideology.
Free exchange of ideas is deleted by censorship and police-state.
These means are all serving mind control


The rape of philosophy? What is the meaning of this metaphor and how can it be applied to liberal political reasoning which is friendly to rational inquiry and free exchange of ideas? Was medieval scholasticism for example "the rape of philosophy"? No... the "castration" and "selective conservation" would be more apt metaphors. How about Marxism? As much as I disagree with Marx I have to admit Marxism is an original and systematic direction of thinking based on rational arguments. Fascism and nazism on the other hand lack this systematic method of reasoning and originality in thinking.

This point is a matter for another discussion, about philosophy methods and philosophy value. Many here already pointed that this essay of Eco is faulty if not laughable.


Why the romanticist glorification of certain periods? Why such disrespect for the present moment? Do you really think fascist countries were just about the neat uniforms and healthy youth? Or that living in the Middle Ages, deprived of reason, personal freedom and wealth would be like living in a fairy-tale place where all the horrific shit happens only to others but never to you?

I was not generalizing, instead you are doing it again. I already ponted how society did modernize under fascism, yet I'm not saying that any fascist government in history had the same modernity thrust.
I wrote that this essay of Eco seems an insult to history, because it is very superficial, an easy game in finding some similarities along history, ignoring any context.


Why not? Neo-fascists constantly constantly attack all competing alternatives as "degeneracy" and jewish conspiracy. Eco's article just exposes and dissects fascist's insanity.

Why this focus on fascism I asked, and you answer saying that Whites must settle down, you are saying -along with Eco- that there is no logical reason in reality to make the people think that jews can be guilty of anything.
Eco's article isn't proving anything, it is only clearly showing his insane view on history and reality.

Longbard
09-18-2013, 12:51 AM
I wouldn't call the opponents like Central Powers, Axis and especially not Soviet Russia "smaller waves". There is nothing that big emerging in foreseeable future.

Lib-commie-social sheeple simply don't undestand to be a tool. That are serving an agenda that they ignore. They dream of freedom and a world in peace while approving current warmonger and liberticidal governments.
You Longinus, approving Eco, are singing in this choir.

samiam
09-18-2013, 01:10 AM
And we as true Liberals don't distinguish between {reality and rationalizations thus,} the entire Liberal concept of self ownership and human rights
Fixed that for you. If you are an owner of an self then you can sell that self and still have an owner. Do this and then your theory is sound until that time: You are NOT a dual entity so you are NOT a self AND an owner as persons are NOT property, and ONLY property can be OWNED. Thanks. Game over.

Hermetic
09-18-2013, 02:20 AM
I wouldn't call the opponents like Central Powers, Axis and especially not Soviet Russia "smaller waves". There is nothing that big emerging in foreseeable future.

I have to disagree looking at current Russia they are slowly and I believe purposely at the top being marched back into another USSR style system. And the same general factors that gave rise to the Axis systems of government are increasing into a neo Weimar situation in essence in the rest of the West. This time as well the reaction could fully extend to America. It seems we are in the Twilight of the Liberal God.

Longinus
09-18-2013, 03:30 PM
I have to disagree looking at current Russia they are slowly and I believe purposely at the top being marched back into another USSR style system.

There are many significant obstacles to the recent Kremlin-promoted Eurasian union. Not even the pro-Russian, newly independent post-Soviet republics wish to become a subject again to Kremlin and avoid a binding subordination to Russia. Many Russians themselves think they deserve better than the imperial and potentially totalitarian course in which Putin seeks to embark Russia. Russian society is changing in a way which will make imperial nostalgia obsolete because a new and more western-minded middle class is emerging which is increasingly European in outlook and identity. The population is no longer governed by fear, which is a new reality with far-reaching consequences for political culture in Russia.

And the same general factors that gave rise to the Axis systems of government are increasing into a neo Weimar situation in essence in the rest of the West.

What you had in Germany took place in a homogeneous society and the culture of Germany which is based on the long anti-liberal tradition of unity and submission to authority. Because of this Hitler could recruit converts for his "important" and "lasting" cause even among German Communists. I guess today you could try something like that only in small and relatively homogeneous (but globally insignificant) countries like Greece.

This time as well the reaction could fully extend to America.

The remnants of the German-American Bund cannot even fully persuade all dissatisfied White American groups into nazi ideology and America is not even a fully White country.

It seems we are in the Twilight of the Liberal God.

Your premonitions are extremely far-fetched.

samiam
09-18-2013, 03:44 PM
Augistine's metaphysics and manichean dogmatism {inanne babble deleted...} What you mean genius is DUALISM as the Manichean were NOT dogmatic in their religious thinking since they had NO central hierarchy to enforce any such dogma. In fact there are about 40 systems of thought called Manichean so that precludes Dogma by definition. Try again half wit.

Longbard
09-18-2013, 03:49 PM
Longinus and Hermetic, can You remain in topic, please?

Longinus
09-18-2013, 05:14 PM
What you mean genius is DUALISM as the Manichean were NOT dogmatic in their religious thinking

No, I meant just what I said - Manichean (dualist) dogmatism.

since they had NO central hierarchy to enforce any such dogma.

That's where Catholic Church walked in (and Hebrew clergy on the local/tribal scale, prior to the Catholic church). Augistine himself was an ex-Manichean and influenced by that proto-nazi worldview.

Longinus
09-18-2013, 10:47 PM
Longinus and Hermetic, can You remain in topic, please?

You could also try that to by stopping your off-topic rants about Communism. Yes, we all know Communism caused a lot of evil and it is still around, but fascism is not an adequate answer. I am more inclined to think that it is otherwise, or that various extreme leftists are there only to keep the radical right in check.

Communism doesn't allow to think independently.

Is that an excuse to surrender our countries to fascists so that they can exercise total censorship? What difference does it makes if our rights are violated by commies or nazis?

And see how current liberals are enslaved to political correctness.

Political correctness is a child of Marxism but it became prominent in the US as a blowback to McCarthyist witch-hunts. A lot of leftist strength resides solely on the rigidness and stupidity of the authoritarian right.

samiam
09-19-2013, 12:16 AM
No, I meant just what I said - Manichean (dualist) dogmatism.



That's where Catholic Church walked in (and Hebrew clergy on the local/tribal scale, prior to the Catholic church). Augistine himself was an ex-Manichean and influenced by that proto-nazi worldview. Actually since Mani was a synthetic that claimed to be the continuation of Christ among others: Christianity influenced Manicheanism but the reverse was not there, except as heresies there were extripated.
But your gibberish proves ONE thing for certain:
You know about ZERO about Mani or his influence upon Dualism. Thanks for yet again demonstrating why you live in the in laws basement like a parasite.

Longinus
09-19-2013, 01:45 AM
Actually since Mani was a synthetic that claimed to be the continuation of Christ among others: Christianity influenced Manicheanism but the reverse was not there, except as heresies there were extripated.

Moral dualism goes back to the Zoroaster and it influenced Hebrew religion, Jesus, Christianity and not just Mani. The fact that Christians have branded all their rivals as heretics only proves they were the most diligent students of this tyrannical, Aryan (un-European) worldview.

JJ Cale
09-19-2013, 02:58 AM
Not the regimes but the proponents. : Like where?
I'm not really a proponent of Italian fascism or German NS, or a heavy handed state. However, I believe the greatest liberty will only be found in homogeneous countries.
20 or so years from now we might live like during the golden age of western economic growth (1950-1971). -
That era is marked by a Europe made up of the most homogeneous countries in their perspective histories.

And, no, we are not heading for a new golden age. Then again, there really isn’t a “we”, so I guess it doesn’t matter where it’s headed.

samiam
09-19-2013, 03:13 AM
Moral dualism goes back to the Zoroaster and did influenced Hebrew religion, Jesus, Christianity and not just Mani. The fact that Christians have branded all their rivals as heretics only proves they were the most diligent students of this tyrannical, Aryan (un-European) worldview.:o :cuss: :google: :google: :rofl: :rofl: :hump: :hump:

Alien Settler
09-19-2013, 04:08 AM
What was the European view before the aryans came along, Longinus?

Longinus
09-19-2013, 05:37 AM
What was the European view before the aryans came along, Longinus?

The whole point is that there was not one but many (if you were lucky enough not to be born like a savage or suffered under a tyrant). We are not the simpleminded, one-note, barbaric culture like the Aryans of Persia or like the ancient Hebrews. The Atheist-Agnostic and materialist philosopher Democritus for example was neither a Persian tyrant (Aryan) nor a barbarian simpleton like most of our less fortunate ancestors. The variety and the freedom of choice is a good thing.

Longbard
09-19-2013, 02:35 PM
You could also try that to by stopping your off-topic rants about Communism. Yes, we all know Communism caused a lot of evil and it is still around, but fascism is not an adequate answer. I am more inclined to think that it is otherwise, or that various extreme leftists are there only to keep the radical right in check.

Not an off-topic rant, you're showing you don't know this subject so well: Eco is philo-communist, and was philo-sovietic.
Eco was in Prague in 1968 when wrote ""People speak russian with the soldiers, asking them why are they there. The soldiers answers that in Prague there's a fascist coup d'etat, and people loughs..."
He stood with the Russians, hoping that Prague will surrender for Soviet sake, and we can bet that he agreed with the fascist coup d'etat idea, there must be some ur-fascist character in it, and I lough with the Prague people.

Is that an excuse to surrender our countries to fascists so that they can exercise total censorship? What difference does it makes if our rights are violated by commies or nazis?

You have to question that difference to Eco. I understand that individualism can't collide with fascism. Yet I recognize that fascism safeguards me and my people and my country in front of a universal flattering totalitarism. In fascism you are free to stand and fight for your Family, for your People and for your Fatherland, in current democracy you are not allowed to do it, while in communism you just have to fight against your family, against your people, against your fatherland.


And read how is he typically decieving reality: "The United States needed a Civil War to truly unite. I hope that culture and an open market will do the trick for us [Europeans]." Actually Europe is anything but an open market. He just stands for great corporations and banksters, indeed the UE founding fathers were communists.
http://www.lastampa.it/2012/01/31/esteri/lastampa-in-english/umberto-eco-s-shallow-europe-and-dreams-of-a-different-sexual-revolution-l28F4GP6xA38aKkSzcYsYJ/pagina.html

Longinus
09-19-2013, 05:15 PM
Not an off-topic rant, you're showing you don't know this subject so well: Eco is philo-communist, and was philo-sovietic.

Why do you fascists persists attacking the messenger instead the message you disagree with? Isn't that ad hominem tactics considered unbecoming even by some pro-fascist intellectuals:

"An Aryan mind has too much respect for other people, and its sense of its own dignity is too pronounced to allow it to impose its own ideas upon others, even when it knows that its ideas are correct." -Julius Evola

The answer to that question lies in Eco's qualification of fascism as anti-intellectual;

"Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds."

If Eco's support for the East-Europeans organized by the Soviet state against the genocidal nazi invader counts as philo-communism than I proudly insist to be counted into the same category. Where do I sign up to get my Papasha!

I understand that individualism can't collide with fascism. Yet I recognize that fascism safeguards me and my people and my country in front of a universal flattering totalitarism. In fascism you are free to stand and fight for your Family, for your People and for your Fatherland, in current democracy you are not allowed to do it, while in communism you just have to fight against your family, against your people, against your fatherland.

Notice the incredible shift you've made in this short passage; You've started with individualism and ended up with a battlecry for Family [capitalized], People [capitalized] and Fatherland [a poetic and emotionally blackmailing term for the state - capitalized].

"The United States needed a Civil War to truly unite. I hope that culture and an open market will do the trick for us [Europeans]." Actually Europe is anything but an open market.

I couldn't agree more with that statement. Why wouldn't you want to live in peace, prosperity and voluntary exchange with other Europeans?

"If goods don't cross borders, armies will" - Claude Frédéric Bastiat

He just stands for great corporations and banksters, indeed the UE founding fathers were communists.

Now you're getting into your morbid fascist conspiracy theories again. If Adenauer, de Gaulle and Churchill were all Communists than the Iron Curtain would have been set somewhere in Northern Ireland and not in East Germany.

samiam
09-19-2013, 05:30 PM
The whole point is that there was not one but many (if you were lucky enough not to be born like a savage or suffered under a tyrant). Proof, of plurality would be nice here, rather than assuming it and then using this assumption in the absence of evidence as evidence itself. As a side note: It has been shown that Longinus knows NOTHING about the Old European Races or their social organization else he would know that they had a surprising wide spread CULTURE and Religion which was remarkable uniform, from what camp sites, graves and other artifacts can tell, given the early date ca 12000 years ago.


We are not the simpleminded, one-note, barbaric culture like the Aryans of Persia or like the ancient Hebrews. Actually ALL Indo-Eurpeans -- the jews obviously are wrongly categorized here -- have had mostly 5, 6 and 7 note scales over time -- Pentonic, Church and Ionian Scale anyone? Music theory is not your strong suit either I take it?

The Atheist-Agnostic and materialist philosopher Democritus for example was neither a Persian tyrant (Aryan) nor a barbarian simpleton like most of our less fortunate ancestors. And he was ALSO not influential in his own time, and largely FORGOTTEN for centuries.

Longinus
09-19-2013, 06:13 PM
And he was ALSO not influential in his own time,

A smarter man would have already noticed that I don't attribute much value to the consensual thinking.

...and largely FORGOTTEN for centuries.

A black bird told me that some remarkably uniform patterns might end up forgotten sooner than we think.

samiam
09-19-2013, 09:53 PM
{dumb as brick tries to act smart} So then you acknowledge that your little nobody is exactly that historically speaking: He was resurrected to fight Aristotle and Plato by modernists, that is it.



A black bird told me that some remarkably uniform patterns might end up forgotten sooner than we think.It is rather comical how you fixate upon the utterly trivual as if you are more or less free because you ate an egg by choice rather than ate an egg as the only choice.

Longbard
09-19-2013, 10:23 PM
The answer to that question lies in Eco's qualification of fascism as anti-intellectual;

"Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds."

If Eco's support to the East-Europeans organized by the Soviet state against the genocidal nazi invader counts as philo-communism than I proudly insist to be counted into the same category. Where do I sign up to get my Papasha!


Goering is saying he reach his gun, not that is going to fire anyway, but is "sticking on his guns" and he is very correct in doing it: you know the word is mightier than the sword.

But you didn't read my post, I wrote "Prague 1968", so what are you talking about nazi invasion?

Notice the incredible shift you've made in this short passage; You've started with individualism and ended up with a battlecry for Family [capitalized], People [capitalized] and Fatherland [a poetic and emotionally blackmailing term for the state - capitalized].


To you it seems incredible. Actually is perfect natural for an individual to have a family, to work in concert with his own people for his fatherland.
(Besides, fatherland is not necessarly the state, they are two different words with different meanings.)


I couldn't agree more with that statement. Why wouldn't you like to live in peace, prosperity and voluntary exchange with other Europeans?

"If goods don't cross borders, armies will" - Claude Frédéric Bastiat


Eco: "I hope that culture and an open market will do the trick for us [Europeans]." Actually Europe is anything but an open market. In what should I agree? EU is not an open market, Eco is cheating.
Indeed across the borders there are still the douane.

And quoting Bestiat, you cannot preach a free market meanwhile saying that one cannot refute to buy your goods. And you may open a market but not a free one. Nevertheless, Germany and Italy were not closed, foreign trades were open, it was the UN that did the embargo to Italy, and therefore Italy shifted to autarky.

Now you're getting into your morbid fascist conspiracy theories again. If Adenauer, de Gaulle and Churchill were all Communists than the Iron Curtain would have been set somewhere in Northern Ireland and not in East Germany.

EU was and written by communists, and now is ruled by an unelected technocracy. They change words and the name of the parties, they need to be dressed in a new fashion time after time.


http://s8.postimg.org/3ry49a7mp/euro4all.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/3ry49a7mp/)

Longbard
09-24-2013, 02:55 PM
Isn't A.Merkel a fascist?

As depicted by Greek communists:
http://s8.postimg.org/s8f6f8u29/merkfa.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/s8f6f8u29/)

Longinus
09-24-2013, 05:57 PM
Isn't A.Merkel a fascist?

As depicted by Greek communists:
http://s8.postimg.org/s8f6f8u29/merkfa.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/s8f6f8u29/)

According to Communist theories fascism is an expression of the capitalist/liberal imperialism and often used as an attack-word against all non-Marxist political figures in developed countries and even against other Communist fractions and defectors like "Trotskyite fascists" or "Titoistst fascists" etc.

Was Eco's aim was to depict his typical fascist as a member of the elite class? There is nothing in the text to suggest so.

samiam
09-24-2013, 07:12 PM
To you it seems incredible. Actually is perfect natural for an individual to have a family, to work in concert with his own people for his fatherland.
(Besides, fatherland is not necessarly the state, they are two different words with different meanings.)[/COLOR] And that is a take: Longbard has won the debate.

Gregz
09-24-2013, 10:37 PM
Moral dualism goes back to the Zoroaster and it influenced Hebrew religion, Jesus, Christianity and not just Mani. The fact that Christians have branded all their rivals as heretics only proves they were the most diligent students of this tyrannical, Aryan (un-European) worldview.

Judaism is a lot like Zoroastrianism and some infer they have common origins. The Jews try hard to make Judaism look far older and important that it actually is.

It is difficult to account for these analogies. It is known, of course, as a historic fact that the Jews and the Persians came in contact with each other at an early period in antiquity and remained in more or less close relation throughout their history (see Avesta; Media; Persia). Most scholars, Jewish as well as non-Jewish, are of the opinion that Judaism was strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism in views relating to angelology and demonology, and probably also in the doctrine of the resurrection, as well as in eschatological ideas in general, and also that the monotheistic conception of Yhwh may have been quickened and strengthened by being opposed to the dualism or quasi-monotheism of the Persians. But, on the other hand, the late James Darmesteter advocated exactly the opposite view, maintaining that early Persian thought was strongly influenced by Jewish ideas. He insisted that the Avesta, as we have it, is of late origin and is much tinctured by foreign elements, especially those derived from Judaism, and also those taken from Neoplatonism through the writings of Philo Judæus. These views, put forward shortly before the French scholar's death in 1894, have been violently combated by specialists since that time, and can not be said to have met with decided favor on any side. At the present time it is impossible to settle the question; the truth lies probably somewhere between the radical extremes, and it is possible that when knowledge of the Assyrian and Babylonian religion is more precise in certain details, additional light may be thrown on the problem of the source of these analogies, and may show the likelihood of a common influence at work upon both the Persian and Jewish cults.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15283-zoroastrianism

Longinus
09-24-2013, 11:17 PM
[QUOTE=Longbard]

To you it seems incredible. Actually is perfect natural for an individual to have a family, to work in concert with his own people for his fatherland.
(Besides, fatherland is not necessarly the state, they are two different words with different meanings.)[/COLOR] And that is a take: Longbard has won the debate.

Longbard has "won" by naturalistic fallacy and sweeping generalization fallacy. It is only natural for individuals of weak ego to sacrifice their individuality for group values and this (despite being "perfect natural" for them) is not necessarily ethical or desirable.

He also has a problem differentiating statements from arguments. "Fatherland" not being necessarily the state is just a statement.

samiam
09-25-2013, 12:51 AM
Longbard has "won" by naturalistic fallacy and sweeping generalization fallacy. It is only natural for individuals of weak ego to sacrifice their individuality for group values and this (despite being "perfect natural" for them) is not necessarily ethical or desirable.

He also has a problem differentiating statements from argument. "Fatherland" not being necessarily the state is just a statement.
Quite sweetheart the adults are conversing.

Longinus
09-25-2013, 01:47 AM
Quite sweetheart the adults are conversing.

You're too fucking stupid even for a lowbrow discussion.

samiam
09-25-2013, 02:00 AM
You're too fucking stupid even for a lowbrow discussion.
You are the one that cannot format the quote function correctly. Now go and play little one, dinner will be ready soon.

Hermetic
09-25-2013, 03:01 AM
How could and does Liberalism protect and advance the White Race in our Nations? This is an honest question on my part.

At this point the only doctrines with the political and ideology will and vitality to accomplish the above and which have proven themselves by experience to be effective in this task to an excellent degree. Are in general called Fascist.

Since the only people telling me Fascism is horrid themselves are adherents to horrid modalities that have brought our civilization and race to a near extinction event.....

Maybe their just wrong in their opinion.

Longbard
09-26-2013, 12:37 AM
Longbard has "won" by naturalistic fallacy and sweeping generalization fallacy. It is only natural for individuals of weak ego to sacrifice their individuality for group values and this (despite being "perfect natural" for them) is not necessarily ethical or desirable.

He also has a problem differentiating statements from arguments. "Fatherland" not being necessarily the state is just a statement.

I was not speaking of general group values wich you may supposed to follow acritically, but the most important values, which every normal person himself understands, and then these people constitute the principles of society.
So it's both ethical and desirable for the community to not have persons undermining its principles.
But it's not a sacrifice, it's rather a devotion. You may not agree to these values, but then it's you the one who is sacrificing something important, resigning your family and your people.

About fatherland and state, obviously sometimes they can coincide;
but just think about zionism, or the american natives, or Italy before independency wars: the fatherland can be somewhere else, conquered and pillaged, or ruled by an enemy, the state can be an enemy institution.

JJ Cale
09-26-2013, 04:12 AM
[QUOTE=Longinus]

I was not speaking of general group values wich you may supposed to follow acritically, but the most important values, which every normal person himself understands, and then these people constitute the principles of society.
So it's both ethical and desirable for the community to not have persons undermining its principles.
But it's not a sacrifice, it's rather a devotion. You may not agree to these values, but then it's you the one who is sacrificing something important, resigning your family and your people.

About fatherland and state, obviously sometimes they can coincide;
but just think about zionism, or the american natives, or Italy before independency wars: the fatherland can be somewhere else, conquered and pillaged, or ruled by an enemy, the state can be an enemy institution.
I think you are heading in the right direction, here. If we take an honest look at Italy and Germany we see many similarities with all the post WWII liberal states. I have begun to suspect that perhaps establishment liberals are merely trying to distance themselves from, well, themselves. After all, there is a case that liberal societies are just as guilty or guiltier of which Eco presents as fascism.
Ideology is what connects all the modern European states and ideology is the culprit, not racism.

Longinus
09-26-2013, 01:22 PM
I was not speaking of general group values wich you may supposed to follow acritically, but the most important values, which every normal person himself understands, and then these people constitute the principles of society.

If you were speaking about libertarian values (the non-aggression principle) than you are absolutely correct. We were all taught these values in kindergarten..."don't hit others", "don't steal", don't torture helpless animals etc. Every normal person understands and abides these rules unless he's an abnormal nazi with god's phone number.

So it's both ethical and desirable for the community to not have persons undermining its principles.

Why do you think I have Ike's avatar if not for the iron conviction that violence works in constructing the Anti-National-Socialist World Order based on the non-aggression principle between individuals and states?

But it's not a sacrifice, it's rather a devotion.

The problem arises when the devoted seek to universalise their principles - like nazis and Muslim terrorists and harm the non-devoted. It is nice to be devoted. I'm a devoted family man myself but even more devoted as a soldier of liberty - which includes the liberty of bachelors and all other non-family men and women.

You may not agree to these values, but then it's you the one who is sacrificing something important, resigning your family and your people.

Freedom is the highest value of all because all other values that you may or (more importantly) may not affirm flow from this most basic human right to choose.

About fatherland and state, obviously sometimes they can coincide;
but just think about zionism, or the american natives, or Italy before independency wars: the fatherland can be somewhere else, conquered and pillaged, or ruled by an enemy, the state can be an enemy institution.

It's an emotional fetish, a worthless demagoguery without any intrinsic moral value. For example, the Italian nationalists liked to compare them selves with Biblical Jewish slaves from Verdi's 'Aide' not because they were opposed to enslaving other peoples (Ethiopians, Slavs) but merely because they suffered under a foreign yoke themselves.

Longbard
09-26-2013, 03:26 PM
I think you are heading in the right direction, here. If we take an honest look at Italy and Germany we see many similarities with all the post WWII liberal states. I have begun to suspect that perhaps establishment liberals are merely trying to distance themselves from, well, themselves. After all, there is a case that liberal societies are just as guilty or guiltier of which Eco presents as fascism.
Ideology is what connects all the modern European states and ideology is the culprit, not racism.

So you may agree with Goldberg
http://www.selfed.org.uk/review-liberal-fascism-the-secret-history-of-the-left-from-mussolini-to-the-politics-of-meaning-by-j
thus making Eco a fascist.

But we in this thread -and Goldberg also- are misleading using the word "liberal", as long as we're relating this word to the American Liberals.
In Europe left parties indeed are not liberal, they are social-christian when not ex-marxist.
Liberal is today an empty word, consider that in Australia the LPA is center-right, as like as Italian PLI was. So liberal is not necessary lefty. And paradoxally fascism can be considered leftist. Although we may argue also that left and right are empty words.

Columnist
09-26-2013, 04:10 PM
Why do you think I have Ike's avatar if not for the iron conviction that violence works in constructing the Anti-National-Socialist World Order based on the non-aggression principle between individuals and states?

Anti-German?

Longbard
09-26-2013, 05:13 PM
Freedom is the highest value of all because all other values that you may or (more importantly) may not affirm flow from this most basic human right to choose.

Eco affirms (not in this essay) that Europeans are not free to stop immigration, and that immigrants are free to go in Europe. And that Europeans are obliged to give them food and houses for free, while poor Europeans are starving in the streets or suicide. And that gay-marriage must have the same rights of the normal family.
And when someone speakes against him about that is immediately labeled as fascist, and ignored or censored, if not jailed.
What freedom are you talking about?


It's an emotional fetish, a worthless demagoguery without any intrinsic moral value. For example, the Italian nationalists liked to compare them selves with Biblical Jewish slaves from Verdi's 'Aide' not because they were opposed to enslaving other peoples (Ethiopians, Slavs) but merely because they suffered under a foreign yoke themselves.

Here the common people don't even know the Aida, that is useless intellectuals' masturbation.

JJ Cale
09-27-2013, 03:46 AM
So you may agree with Goldberg
http://www.selfed.org.uk/review-liberal-fascism-the-secret-history-of-the-left-from-mussolini-to-the-politics-of-meaning-by-j
thus making Eco a fascist.

But we in this thread -and Goldberg also- are misleading using the word "liberal", as long as we're relating this word to the American Liberals.
In Europe left parties indeed are not liberal, they are social-christian when not ex-marxist.
Liberal is today an empty word, consider that in Australia the LPA is center-right, as like as Italian PLI was. So liberal is not necessary lefty. And paradoxally fascism can be considered leftist. Although we may argue also that left and right are empty words.


Fascism is
…a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good.
GoldbergYeah, that’s about it. Nearly every political argument in the modern states is based on the concept of the common good. And the Obama presidency fits the bill of a (desire for a)“charismatic” leader, even if the varnish has worn off. Surely Lincoln enjoys a sort of godly figure among the left. And what could more prove democracy is now the state religion as America has been crusading in its name for over a century.

Longinus
09-27-2013, 05:18 AM
People who insist on classical left-right dichotomy are either political abecedarians unaware of the Nolan chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart) or they choose to ignore it because it conflicts with their simplistic black&white Weltanschauung.

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/NolanChart.gif

http://lcmgroupe.home.comcast.net/~lcmgroupe/item/PoliticalSpace.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-naO1cxFsnFU/TvycApJdNuI/AAAAAAAAAHU/YwK25LXHnOE/s1600/nolan_chart.JPG

Columnist
09-27-2013, 12:01 PM
Eco affirms (not in this essay) that Europeans are not free to stop immigration, and that immigrants are free to go in Europe. And that Europeans are obliged to give them food and houses for free, while poor Europeans are starving in the streets or suicide. Settler privilege.

clefty
09-27-2013, 12:21 PM
Why do you think I have Ike's avatar if not for the iron conviction that violence works in constructing the Anti-National-Socialist World Order based on the non-aggression principle between individuals and states?





http://opdahls.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/eisenhower_bow.jpg

JJ Cale
09-27-2013, 12:27 PM
People who insist on classical left-right dichotomy are either political abecedarians unaware of the Nolan chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart) or they choose to ignore it because it conflicts with their simplistic black&white Weltanschauung.
Or possibly they believe the Nolan chart to be too simplistic and too US centric.

der Hund
10-20-2013, 09:07 PM
I've never read any of Umberto Eco's fiction. I'm only barely aware of his reputation as an artist / intellectual, and besides knowing that he is Italian, I really don't know any details of his biography. So, even though I'm tempted to label him a complete and utter moron, I will refrain from doing so because I'm generally unfamiliar with his work; however, he is certainly displaying massive ignorance and a general lack of capability in this accounting of fascist 'philosophy'. This thread is full of off-topic and barely relevant posts, and considering that it is 14 pages long, I lack the time or will to address all of them. Perhaps the silliest idea bounced around was that this is a 'philosophical' essay at all. Yes, Eco is attempting to isolate characteristics that he believes universal to what he has imagined is a 'fascist philosophy', but arriving at a general definition of fascism is, and always has been, a problem of historical inquiry.

Anyone who has done any decent reading in the field will know that there are as many as 9 historical interpretations of fascism. These range from the Marxist assertion that equates fascism as the last defense of capital, to the nominalist argument which denies the existence of fascism itself. I don't have the time to review all of them, but almost every honest academic in the field acknowledges the existence of an extremely ambiguous concept of a 'general definition'. In fact, it is generally assumed by historians that interested readers, familiar with history as well as the paradigm in which the historian is working within, will basically just understand what the historian means when he uses the term 'fascism'. I do not think this kind of fluidity of definition exists in any other concentrations of political history. Arriving at a general definition is further complicated by the modern tradition of using fascism as epithet. Outside of academia, and even there the term is employed without much discipline, the word fascism is used as a catch-all phrase to indicate someone possessing political views different from your own.

Because of the fluid nature of the term (which actually, at least in my opinion, is a consequence of early Marxist attempts to qualify almost any competing political form in inter-war European countries as 'fascist'), and the fact that most people are using it as an epithet, whenever someone uses the term, or attempts to define it in relation to their own assumptions, the end result is that they reveal much more about their own ideology and bias than they contribute to actual defining anything about fascism. Such is the case with Eco.

Eco draws from several of these paradigms, which are in and of themselves usually mutually exclusive, in an attempt to arrive at a general definition that at least pretends at being satisfactory. It is ironic because his definition itself is extremely syncretic. In an effort to cover the holes in his definition Eco entertains fascism as totalitarianism (Hannah Arendt), as a negation - anti-modern (several historians subscribe to this view - Nolte, Sauer, Tuner Jr, Cassells), and finally as the product of psychological phenomenon (Fromm and a more Freudian argument made by Willhelm Reich). He also touches upon fascism being a consequence of economic / national development and as a radicalism of the middle classes; however, the fact that Eco draws from such diverse interpretations (which are as I said earlier generally mutually exclusive of one another) actually does his definition more harm than good, It appears by this logic that fascism is either so many things that is rather amorphous and meaningless, or that it is an illusion, nothing at all.

Personally, I am tempted to subscribe to the nominalist view which denies the existence of any overarching political from called fascism, but a few things prevent me from doing so. The idea that some new forms of politics, neither capitalist or marxist in orientation, emerged and sometimes came to power during the inter-way years is something that I can agree with; however, most of them possessed such unique individual characteristics as demanded by the situations in each nations, as well as the political and cultural contexts they existed within, it is folly to apply any kind of umbrella term in an effort to describe them.

For interested parties I would recommend Stanley G. Payne's article "The Concept of Fascism" as a great entry point to studying fascist history/historiography. If you have access to a decent University library you can find it in a collection of scholarly works titled "Who Were the Fascists - Social Roots of European Fascism" (ed. Larsen, Hagtvet, Myklebust), along with representative articles from many of the paradigms. Here it is on amazon, but it is pricey: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Were-Fascists-European-Fascism/dp/8200053318

von Sternberg
10-20-2013, 10:51 PM
"Who Were the Fascists - Social Roots of European Fascism" (ed. Larsen, Hagtvet, Myklebust)
There is a review of this here: http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/3/184.full.pdf+html

Longinus
10-21-2013, 12:16 AM
Eco draws from several of these paradigms, which are in and of themselves usually mutually exclusive, in an attempt to arrive at a general definition that at least pretends at being satisfactory. It is ironic because his definition itself is extremely syncretic. In an effort to cover the holes in his definition Eco entertains fascism as totalitarianism (Hannah Arendt), as a negation - anti-modern (several historians subscribe to this view - Nolte, Sauer, Tuner Jr, Cassells), and finally as the product of psychological phenomenon (Fromm and a more Freudian argument made by Willhelm Reich). He also touches upon fascism being a consequence of economic / national development and as a radicalism of the middle classes; however, the fact that Eco draws from such diverse interpretations (which are as I said earlier generally mutually exclusive of one another) actually does his definition more harm than good, It appears by this logic that fascism is either so many things that is rather amorphous and meaningless, or that it is an illusion, nothing at all.

I'm in favor of this interdisciplinary approach. One phenomenon can be observed from various different angles like psychological and sociological. This method does not leads into contradiction. After all, fascism is eclectic per se so the attempts to define it must also be eclectic. Purely historical approach is sterile and cannot lead to understanding. Firstly because every moment in history is unique and unrepeatable. Such deterministic approach depends on contradicting historiographies and authors who often use history as a vehicle in interpreting modern political problems or to pronounce predictions for the future.

Fascists devalue psychology, sociology and other modern social sciences so Eco's attempt to place fascism into psycho-sociological contours results with predictable fascist resentment.

der Hund
10-21-2013, 03:02 AM
I'm in favor of interdisciplinary approach independent of political paradigms. One phenomenon can be observed from various different angles like psychological and sociological This method does not leads into contradiction. Fascism is eclectic per se so the attempts to define it must also be eclectic. Purely historical approach is sterile and cannot lead to the deeper understanding, firstly because every moment in history is unique and unrepeatable. Such deterministic approach depends on contradicting historiographies and authors which use history as a vehicle in interpreting modern political problems or to pronounce predictions for the future.

Fascists devalue psychology, sociology and other modern social sciences so Eco's attempt to place fascism into psycho-sociological contours naturally invoke fascist resentment.

Sure, one can view the problem of defining fascism from whatever discipline, or multiple disciplines, one wants. But in attempting to solve what Eco deems to be a philosophical problem, relying so heavily on historical method and scholarship in an effort to solve it, suggests that is primarily a historical problem. I will compromise: it is both a historical and philosophical problem, along with a handful of other disciplines.

When I was writing my last post I was aware that I was sounding a bit deterministic and should have clarified. Of course fascism is eclectic. What political ideology is formed and shaped in utter isolation? What bodies of knowledge do not borrow from others? Of course multiple disciplines and interpretations can enrich an attempt to define a thing such as 'fascism'.
When I said that these paradigms are mutually exclusive I wasn't suggesting that if one embraces a Marxist interpretation of fascism that all other interpretations were off limits. Sociology and psychology can produce meaningful insights. The thing is, how useful are they in regards to arriving at a general definition?

The other reasons it is primarily a historical problem is that whatever explanation, cause, definition one produces, in whatever discipline, the thesis will have to be evaluated against the historical record. All of this happened in what is really the not so distant past. There is a wealth of data and primary sources in which we can refer to decide if a definition is adequate. For example, it is known that both Italian and German industrial interests offered the Fascisti in Italy and the National Socialists in Germany only limited economic support. This really complicates the Marxist approach, which begins with Gramsci, that defines fascism as the subordinate agent of capital. Certain aspects of both sociology and psychology are infamous for their inability to quantify things. How can one go about even testing your argument that fascists devalue modern social science? I guess we could look at the history of NS Germany, consider what most people claim to be incredibly successful efforts at propaganda, and come to the conclusion that they valued psychology enough to learn something from it and apply it effectively.

If we are going to attempt to find a general definition of fascism, if we are going to force disparate elements into a typology, then there has to be some kind of deterministic constant among all the apparently 'fascist' regimes and movements (I will note that this constant does not have to be present among everything labeled fascist since the 30's, obviously I'm of the opinion that we should narrow the category). This is an overly simple example, and I do not know all that much about economics so I run the risk of sounding like an idiot, but we can look at three nations: the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Korea, and quite easily identify several common features that they all share that qualify them to be considered capitalist, or since we're talking about political ideologies, democracy/republicanism. How about a belief in private property, or at least a nominal embrace of free-speech? Each nation is going to possess its own diversity, they will not be exactly the same, but the dominant ideology in each nation clearly resemble each other enough for us to use either terms without degenerating into silliness. Since we were talking about sociology - these labels and definitions can be considered ideal types. All of the characteristics attributed to an ideal type will probably never be perfectly embodied in reality, and they don't have to be, but to use definitions with some certainty than the objects we apply them to must share some common deterministic quality.

To reiterate, to apply a general definition to something as complex and often contradictory as a political ideology, said definition must allow enough wiggle room to allow for variation. As you stated in your post, this proposed definition will have to be eclectic; however, eclecticism has its limits. All of the approaches to fascism that I introduced to the discussion earlier are not attempts to reduce fascism to a single determinant, they are attempts to find a common element that can tie together widely disparate political expressions in a manner that is rational and allows for considerable variation. Because there is so much obvious variation in what people typically consider to be fascist regimes or movements, whatever common element that links the movements will have to be granted primacy over other similarities and differences. By incorporating so many 'primary' characteristics in a single definition or 'philosophy' Eco ceases to link these movements/regimes in any meaningful way. At this point, one is just throwing whatever characteristics have previously been decided to be fascist into an endlessly expanding definition that pays no attention to the significant differences among movements/regimes.

Eco's proposed 'philosophy' of fascism is actually just an attempt at intellectual coercion. It is so fluid that one could find examples from almost any ideological camp that could, in one way or another, be considered to be fascist. The effects of this are palpable in contemporary discourse, but they do mimic the attitudes of certain Marxist thinkers and the COMINTERN in the 20's and 30's. The diversity of interpretations among Marxist writers, coupled with the emerging orthodoxy ushered in by Stalin, resulted in several instances of of non-fascist politics being labeled as such. The German communists deemed the Social-Democrats to be fascists, and factions among Spanish communists who disagreed with the COMINTERN orthodoxy in anyway found themselves magically transformed into the worst kind of enemy. In essence, the definition embraced by the Marxists started to include anyone who disagreed with them.

People like Eco, with their silly antics, disrupt serious discourse on the issue. It has produced an environment in which the parameters for thought have been so narrowed that any attempted political expression that exists outside the dominant paradigms of Marxism and Capitalism can be forever tarnished with the simple uttering of some stupid Italian word. Now a days everyone is a fascist! Jonah Goldberg suggests that every American 'progressive' ever was a fascist. The Israelis say that every Muslim is an Islamo-Fascist. The Palestinians argue that the Israel's are a fascist. I guess everyone is right.

Columnist
10-21-2013, 07:22 AM
If the Left can invert nice, fancy words like "Fascism", so can we. Again, break the spell by asking: "Was Stalin a fascist?"

Longinus
10-21-2013, 12:31 PM
The other reasons it is primarily a historical problem is that whatever explanation, cause, definition one produces, in whatever discipline, the thesis will have to be evaluated against the historical record. All of this happened in what is really the not so distant past. There is a wealth of data and primary sources in which we can refer to decide if a definition is adequate. For example, it is known that both Italian and German industrial interests offered the Fascisti in Italy and the National Socialists in Germany only limited economic support. This really complicates the Marxist approach, which begins with Gramsci, that defines fascism as the subordinate agent of capital.

It certainly complicates marxist definition of fascism as the mere underpin of capitalism, especially keeping in mind Goebbels' rants about "Western European plutocracy" and the nazi portrayal of Jewish arch-enemy not only as a communist agitator but as a typical representative of the money elite. But was Eco's intention to define fascism in Marxist class terms or primarily as the cult of tradition and race?

Certain aspects of both sociology and psychology are infamous for their inability to quantify things. How can one go about even testing your argument that fascists devalue modern social science? I guess we could look at the history of NS Germany, consider what most people claim to be incredibly successful efforts at propaganda, and come to the conclusion that they valued psychology enough to learn something from it and apply it effectively.

Some perfect outsider who never analyzed Islamist worldview and Khomeini's motives and tactics (of using western science and technology against western society and values) might get to the superficial conclusion that Iranian society under ex-Ahmadinejad is the one of faith in science and material progress. Iran really is a developing country with solid urbane centers and we can quantify that country's progress in various fields. But we cannot express the motives of the Iranian elites in the terms of quantity.

If we are going to attempt to find a general definition of fascism, if we are going to force disparate elements into a typology, then there has to be some kind of deterministic constant among all the apparently 'fascist' regimes and movements (I will note that this constant does not have to be present among everything labeled fascist since the 30's, obviously I'm of the opinion that we should narrow the category).

If some regime is driven by the cult of tradition, racism/ardent nationalism and unquestioned loyalty ot the leader you can be pretty certain you're dealing with the fascist fiend. And yes, fascism can be superficially red/socialist/Marxist/leftist as in the cases of Saddam and Milosevic. I suspect it can even be democratic. Brzezinski for example has qualified Putin as "Russian Mussolini".

People like Eco, with their silly antics, disrupt serious discourse on the issue. It has produced an environment in which the parameters for thought have been so narrowed that any attempted political expression that exists outside the dominant paradigms of Marxism and Capitalism can be forever tarnished with the simple uttering of some stupid Italian word.

Italian example was the first so it is logical that this term applies to other examples despite deviations.

Longinus
10-21-2013, 01:23 PM
If the Left can invert nice, fancy words like "Fascism", so can we. Again, break the spell by asking: "Was Stalin a fascist?"

I believe he approximated the role of a fascist leader as much as a marxist-leninist and an ethnic minority member possibly could.

Longinus
10-21-2013, 01:27 PM
Or possibly they believe the Nolan chart to be too simplistic and too US centric.

As if parameters such as personal and economic liberty and economic and personal/group security are purely American and cannot be applied to any other society.

Columnist
10-21-2013, 01:52 PM
I believe he approximated the role of a fascist leader as much as a marxist-leninist and an ethnic minority member possibly could.
That is a very good and a very honest answer.

der Hund
10-21-2013, 07:23 PM
It certainly complicates marxist definition of fascism as the mere underpin of capitalism, especially keeping in mind Goebbels' rants about "Western European plutocracy" and the nazi portrayal of Jewish arch-enemy not only as a communist agitator but as a typical representative of the money elite. But was Eco's intention to define fascism in Marxist class terms or primarily as the cult of tradition and race?

If some regime is driven by the cult of tradition, racism/ardent nationalism and unquestioned loyalty ot the leader you can be pretty certain you're dealing with the fascist fiend. And yes, fascism can be superficially red/socialist/Marxist/leftist as in the cases of Saddam and Milosevic. I suspect it can even be democratic. Brzezinski for example has qualified Putin as "Russian Mussolini".


I was vague when I said that interpreting Fascism through a Marxist lens did not automatically divorce this view from other disciplines/approaches. I wasn't suggesting Eco was operating in the Marxist paradigm, and I wasn't attempting to discredit the Marxist approach. It was meant to be an example that could be applied to every interpretation of fascism, including Eco's emphasis on tradition, racism and submission to leadership; basically, that these elements need to jive with the historical record and also be present in the majority of movements traditionally considered to be fascist.

Rest assured, Eco's interpretation is as problematic as Gramsci's. I'm not denying that many fascist movements possessed the qualities you're talking about, but some did not, and some of these movements are much more strongly characterized by other factors. Also, many political regimes typically considered to be 'non-fascist' or even 'anti-fascist' also possess these features. How is this to be accounted for?

I'm really not trying to come off as hostile, but tbh you are sort of proving my point that using the term fascist often reveals more about your own ideology and bias than it does about the thing described. I'm not exactly sure of your political views, but referring to a complex, undefined and generally poorly understood form of politics as the 'fascist beast' suggests that you may not actually be interested in arriving at a general definition or learning about fascism, but rather just want to demonize what you perceive to be your political antithesis. Also, I wasn't sure if you were accusing me of being fascist myself when you were talking about Eco inspiring 'fascist resentment' by placing fascism in the midst of psychological / sociological disciplines. If that is the case, all I can say is that my posts make it obvious I do not subscribe to typical definitions of fascism and I would consider it foolish and anachronistic to share 'fascist beliefs' - particularly the ones you think qualify individuals/movements/regimes as fascist.

I won't lie, I am particularly hostile to the interpretation you are advocating because one of the things that bothers me about lay-descriptions of fascism is the constant harping about racism and nationalism. Almost every political regime known to man, at one time or another, has displayed racist and nationalist tendencies. If I'm wrong about you wanting to demonize disparate ideas that are opposite your own, and you do actually want to learn something about fascism, I think we could find a middle ground in Sternhell's arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeev_Sternhell

In Neither Right nor Left Sternhell places the historical roots of fascism in interwar France among the revolutionary far-left. From the limited pages that I have read from this work (I enjoy history and am a decent reader, but I'm American and know next to nothing about the long and complicated political history of France, and Sternhell is exhaustive in his inclusion of minutia. It was a pretty dry read) In a nutshell, Sternhell believes that the elements all fascist movements/regimes share is a non-Marxist socialist economics (i.e. syndicalism, corporatism, 'third way economics', but drawing the line at private property) and a general embrace of antisemitism and racism. Personally, I view the racist/antisemetic component as a much larger phenomenon shared by almost all Western nations of the time (obviously not taken to the same extent) and not essential to a definition of fascism. Sternhell is an Isaraeli and a Jew, so obviously the legacy of the Holocaust and history of the Jews under 'fascism' is going to be a point of bias for him.

The point is this is a decent attempt at defining fascism because both of these qualities can be viewed in the historical record of many of the 'major' fascist regimes/movements, and can serve as a basis for revision of what historians consider to be fascist regimes/movements (a good example of a nation often deemed fascist that would not fit this description would be axis Japan). This kind of effort at interpretation and definition is preferable to amateur musings like Eco's.

der Hund
10-21-2013, 07:47 PM
If the Left can invert nice, fancy words like "Fascism", so can we. Again, break the spell by asking: "Was Stalin a fascist?"

I don't know who the 'we' you're referring to is. Are you suggesting we (you and I or the general type of poster on the Phora) are fascists, or that we are 'rightists' who should engage in what I previously called intellectual coercion?
I'm not interested in that sort of thing. I like to study fascist history/historiography because upon becoming interest in it I realized that either

A.) Someone/something was attempting to obscure the true nature of fascism for unknown purposes

or

B.) The History Channel, every average person who likes to pretend they know something about history/politics, and a whole host of historians and other politically biased individuals were way off the mark / completely full of shit.

Also, I think there are many interesting and novel ideas to be found in movements that have historically been defined as 'fascist', that both the right and the left in the West have eliminated from discourse by utilizing this ambiguous / meaningless definition (often by attributing ideas / policies with the redundantly meaningless label 'neo-fascist', see Longinus' posts). The kind of thing you're talking about has been done already anyways. Equating fascism/nazism with totalitarianism/dictatorship puts Stalin/Hitler or NS Germany/USSR in the same camp. When Hannah Arendt did this she caught a lot of flack from fellow leftists.

Columnist
10-22-2013, 06:08 PM
When Hannah Arendt did this she caught a lot of flack from fellow leftists.
Predictably.

Longinus
12-06-2013, 08:04 AM
Fascism vs. Capitalism: The Central Ideological Conflict of Our Times

https://mises.org/store/Assets/ProductImages/EBOKB1002.jpg

“Fascism” has become a term of general derision and rebuke. It is tossed casually in the direction of anything a critic happens to dislike.

But fascism is a real political and economic concept, not a stick with which to beat opponents arbitrarily. The abuse of this important word undermines its true value as a term referring to a very real phenomenon, and one whose spirit lives on even now.

Fascism is a specific ideology based on the idea that the state is the ideal organization for realizing a society’s and an individual’s potential economically, socially, and even spiritually.

The state, for the fascist, is the instrument by which the people’s common destiny is realized, and in which the potential for greatness is to be found. Individual rights, and the individual himself, are strictly subordinate to the state’s great and glorious goals for the nation. In foreign affairs, the fascist attitude is reflected in a belligerent chauvinism, a contempt for other peoples, and a society-wide reverence for soldiers and the martial virtues.

Lew Rockwell, in this new volume, examines the starkly contrasting systems of capitalism and fascism, noting pro-fascist trends in recent decades as well as the larger historical trends in the United States and internationally.

In Section One, Rockwell focuses on the nature of fascism and its influence in Western society, with a focus on American political and economic institutions.

In Section Two, Rockwell examines capitalism as the enemy of, and antidote to fascism.

Combining economics, history, and political philosophy, this book doesn’t just provide a diagnosis of what ails American and Western society, but also sheds light on how we might repair the damage that has been done, and with the help of the intellectual work of great minds like Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul, we might as a society shed the fascism of our times and look to freedom instead.

https://mises.org/store/Fascism-versus-Capitalism-Digital-Book-P10936.aspx

JJ Cale
12-06-2013, 12:58 PM
https://mises.org/store/Fascism-versus-Capitalism-Digital-Book-P10936.aspx
Ah ha! Caught ya . . .
Rockwell and Eco standing together . . .
I don't think so.

Longinus
12-06-2013, 02:12 PM
Who was it that said: "Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people."?

Longinus
12-15-2013, 03:23 AM
Paxton's definition:

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism, Knopf, 2004, p. 218. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Paxton#cite_note-Paxton-2)

"Fascism was the major political invention of the twentieth century and the source of much of its pain. How can we try to comprehend its allure and its horror? Is it a philosophy, a movement, an aesthetic experience? What makes states and nations become fascist? Acclaimed historian Robert O. Paxton shows that in order to understand fascism we must look at it in action - at what it did, as much as what it said it was about. He explores its falsehoods and common threads; the social and political base that allowed it to prosper; its leaders and internal struggles; how it manifested itself differently in each country - France, Britain, the low countries, Eastern Europe, even Latin America as well as Italy and Germany; how fascists viewed the Holocaust; and, finally, whether fascism is still possible in today's world. Offering a bold new interpretation of the fascist phenomenon, this groundbreaking book will overturn our understanding of twentieth-century history."

http://books.google.hr/books/about/The_Anatomy_of_Fascism.html?id=ZmV1moZB6EAC&redir_esc=y

JJ Cale
12-16-2013, 03:41 AM
Fourteen Ways Umberto Eco is a RETARD!

Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt
By Umberto Eco

1.)Eco begins his the discussion with a stereotype, Blackshirts. Yep, we’re in for a real high brow discussion . . .

These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.


2.)Facts, not important, we liberals gots us adjectives.

In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between various historical forms of fascism, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism.


3.)No term for what I’m talking about exist in the English language. No problem, I’ll invent them.

The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.

3.) See they’re members of a cult, those Ur Fascist, not like us, .
. . . just more name calling oh hum. It’s what liberals do.

Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology.


*Umberto’s first sentence contradicts the heading of his paragraph.

4.)They worshipped technology? See, us liberal embrace technology, but we don’t worship it like those fascist. . . . ?


The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

5.) If you dare to question the Age of Reason or the modern academy, you just might be a Ur Fascist. And by the way, we will call you blackshirts but don’t you dare call us a bunch or reds.

The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.
In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.


6.) The left locks people up for what they write in a book. What a hypocrite.

Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.

7) Adversity, not diversity, you moron. The left is one step away from a pop soda commercial, half the calories, twice the diversity.

Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.


8) Ah, when European’s begin to suffer the negative effects of immigration, a left-wing creation due to policies the majorities were against, the people are not allowed to react, because that would be un-democratic.
But were not the policies undemocratic? Never mind.

To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

9) This is why I call them Charlie’s children, as in Charles Manson.
Let’s talk about cults and what a cult is. The first thing cults do with new members is to destroy that person’s identity through psychological manipulation. If we wish to define the liberal elite in a general framework, we would say they are against ethnicity, religion, tradition, and now even gender. These are all the things that make up a person’s identity. Charles Manson would often berate a member, “I still see your protestant suburban mother in you.” The suburban housewife was very much a pet peeve of the media elite, as well.

Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons -- doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

10.) . . . ersatz phallic symbols? What’s next, ESP, Extraterrestrials . . . suppressed memory?

Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.


11.) The majority was against immigration in percentages that dwarf a mere majority.

Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes.


12.) I was right, extraterrestrials.

Franklin Roosevelt's words of November 4, 1938, are worth recalling: "If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land."

13) Frank Roosevelt is a man of peace? The architect of the most destructive bombing campaign in the History of the world was a man of peace.
14) Umberto Eco, el nutjobo.

Petr
12-16-2013, 03:50 AM
Umberto Eco is simply a Red Italian scribbler, or at least a typical post-Christian Liberal type. Does anyone expect a fair assessment of Hard Right from him?

(In his novel The Name of the Rose, he dishes out many unoriginal anti-clerical stereotypes about oppressive inquisitors, book-burning monks etc.)

samiam
12-16-2013, 04:42 AM
As if parameters such as personal and economic liberty and economic and personal/group security are purely American and cannot be applied to any other society.
Measure them in a meaningful way -- or even better bring me one unit of 'liberty' and then I will be convinced said idea exists.

Longinus
12-16-2013, 05:43 AM
Measure them in a meaningful way -- or even better bring me one unit of 'liberty' and then I will be convinced said idea exists.

If liberty itself cannot be subjected to exact measuring the practice of liberty can be compared from one case to another. That's how we know liberty is real unlike "god" or "eternal life". You know which country's population is more free by comparing one state's penal code to another, one legal practice to another.

For example:2013 Index of Economic Freedom (http://www.heritage.org/index/)

Such comparisons can be made in respect to availability of recreational drugs, government transparency, fair elections etc. It doesn't take a genius to conclude that a country where a person gets death penalty for marijuana is not as free as a country which violates human rights with fines, probation sentences or short term prison sentences.

samiam
12-16-2013, 06:44 AM
If liberty itself cannot be subjected to exact measuring Then it does not exist and is merely a mental hanging hook not a real world item to be talked about as existing. Thanks.

Sёva Hossenfelder
01-15-2014, 03:49 PM
You know which country's population is more free by comparing one state's penal code to another, one legal practice to another.

Various measurements of Corruption (including public perception of corruption by Transparency International) provide a good view at Liberty in terms of expectation of due process free of bribery, extortion, back room dealings, cronyism.

Russia is on par with the worst of Africa’s totalitarian regimes. China is getting better but still deep in the red territory. Not surprisingly, most Liberal Democracies score well.