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
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Peter Enger,
Your actions with Melissa Callahan's AUPD showed me that you want to unfairly manipulate any group you are part of.
The "UTCC" has never made a request for me to "stop attacking people on this site". There is therefore no "we" as you suggest. There is simply "you" and your personal problems with me.
"Defied you"? Who are you to "defy"??? This reveals a lot about your FASCISM, Peter Enger. I know you probably don't consider yourself a fascist, Peter Enger, but that's how you appear to me and others.
That has nothing to do with "Nazis" or "anti-Semitism", by the way. Look up "fascism" in Wikipedia and ask yourself how it applies to your political activities.
I have never entered into any "agreement" with you. Why do you suggest that I have and then suggest that I have broken any such non-existent "agreements"?
Oh yeah, that's right, to defame me to justify your reluctance to respect or meet with me.
You don't want to work with me, Peter Enger? Just say so...don't tell lies or half-truths to rally some invisible support for your "position".
I am in the "good graces" of all the cabdrivers I wish to be, Peter Enger.
How have I not "taken responsibility" for any of my words? I don't post under aliases like some of your comrades.
You don't take me seriously, Peter Enger? Then how can you comparative ask ANYONE to take YOU seriously?
What have YOU PERSONALLY really done, other than post a lot of pretentious flyers (and rip down some that I posted)???
Peter Enger, you "interviewed" me on the day of the CCO election about my "plans" or "platform", remember?
When I answered that I believe the City should be sued on the issue of the credit card mandate to settle the question of whether they could do so or not, or to at least get better credit-card rules and regulations to protect Chicago cabdrivers' interests...
...you stopped writing and asking questions. Nice "reporting" work, Peter Enger. Real "in-depth "investigating"".
You then threatened to "expose me" as you have again done here.
The only "exposure" necessary is the fact that you are some kind of delusional alcoholic, aren't you, Peter Enger?
"My ideas vs. "your" ideas"??? You can't tolerate any criticism of your "ideas" publicly, Peter Enger. That's why you don't discuss them here.
Who are YOU to decide whether or not I attend a UTCC meeting of any kind?
I thought that Fayez Khozinder was your "Chairman"?
What are the written rules and regulations of the UTCC? Where can cabdrivers get a copy?
Or are they just made up as you go along?
Keep threatening to or defaming me, Peter Enger, and you'll quite possibly end up as a client of Mr. Nathan's (God help you) or in the hospital next to Mr. Duako...oh, I'm sorry...he's not in Stroger Hospital...how can that be?
What's the point of having a "question and answer session" if you are obviously so reluctant to answer simple questions here?
Should I expect an answer? I mean, "we"?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
mr. foulks,
unfortunately, every request that we have made of you to stop attacking people on this site has been ignored or defied by you. you have shown yourself to be without ethics or morals when it comes to any personal statements or possible agreements we have attempted to make with you.
besides that, the caliber of the language you use against other human beings on this site and the kinds of insults you make take you out of the running for the possibilities of working with you. the only way you would have to get back into the good graces of the cabdrivers who know of such language you use would be for you to publicly acknowledge your errors, take responsibility for them and promise not to stoop to such behavior anymore. i doubt you have the integrity to do that, but here is a public challenge to do so.
believe me, mike this is not something personal, no matter how much you might like to imagine it it. you have cast many many aspersions on myself and the organization i belong to, and other persons who belong to it. i myself do not take it so seriously, because i dont' take you seriously.
you have not proferred any plans, strategies, campaigns, organized activities, or statements of purpose or beliefs in the six months since you formed CCO.
there is really no reason to have any public debate about our ideas vs. yours, because you have none. you would not be invited to our subcommittee meetings unless you make a principled declaration of responsibility for your actions and a promise to behave yourself in the future with integrity.
if you wish, i'll help you with the definition of 'integrity' and what it means if you have a problem conceiving it, or don't recognize how you have not exhibited it. i prefer not to make personal observations in public, but if you challenge me to divulge your behavior any further, i will. please don't. it's unseemly.
we in the UTCC prefer to keep any public dialogue on the ideas and priciples we espouse. we will not discuss internal strategies with ANYone in public. you all have our number. call us, we'll meet with you and invite you to our subcommittee meetings. we also have monthly general meetings where you all can come and hear about our principles, our structure, and reports about our subcommittee work. there are also question and answer periods at the end.
