A few years ago, I read
Umberto Eco's "Ur Fascism"
essay and recently I saw that the internet radio program "Plus on est de fous, plus on lit!" did a show on that text, from the
problematic point of view of Pierre-Luc Brisson and Marie-Louise Arsenault.
Goes without saying that I had to offer my two cents!
Eco’s essay takes a
reactionary position based primarily on emotion. It has the appearance of logic
and coherence, but only broad and empty idea categories are used such as
freedom, democracy, human rights, equality, and so forth. Brisson gives a
five-minute "analysis" of the text. Do not expect any familiarity with
mathematical theory, continental philosophy or meta-logic. Here, Brisson offers
pop philosophy and pop psychology. Academics like the late Umberto Eco (and, by
extension, Brisson) just love to assert universal codes of moral and ethical
standards, while simultaneously promoting total relativism. They are both
representative of the modern left at universities (as seen in Eco's arguments).
Eco speaks of having loved
fascist Italy as a child. Then he heard the "Voice of London"
(anglophone of course) on the radio and began to change his mind. He finally
gave up "fascism" thanks to chewing gum (yes, he says that), which
provided the possibilities of freedom. There was also a black American (one of
the Allied soldiers) whose comic books impressed him so much that, golly lolly,
America is so where it’s at! (note: ultra-liberal European intellectuals like
Eco normally hate America)
Eco speaks of Evola, Ezra
Pound and the Grail mysticism, calling all this idiotic (even though he made a
lot of money writing about such topics, as in Foucault’s Pendulum). He thinks
that the idea of "corrupt art" is ridiculous. I'm sorry, but there is
corrupt art. The things he mentions, such as Cubism, are degenerate (even the
Frankfurt School brought this up). But for Eco, toxic culture does not exist.
He criticizes "eternal
fascism" (Ur Fascism) as an "eternal war" that the left must
fight. So, according to Eco’s incarnation of the progressive liberal socialist
European intellectual, what should I take away from this? Quite simply, I must
be against any form of tradition, because tradition rejects modernity. Eco says
that the "fascists" reject the modern liberalism of the Enlightenment
in favor of irrationalism, though it has never been shown that the
Enlightenment was rational.
Eco says that fascists
encourage the idea of heroism and that soldiers are just hero idolaters who
like to play with their guns. According to Eco, this shows that they have a
phallic problem. He thinks he looks smart in criticizing heroism, but I would
bet Eco sees himself as a liberal hero. With all the praise heaped on him,
academic awards, his books and the films based on them, I can only guess that
he thought he was an exceptional being (even heroic), making his so-called
dismantling of the idea of the hero seem less than credible. Earlier in the
essay he described the Allies as heroes, so are the Allies also subject to the
phallic obsession of their guns? Besides, are we supposed to believe that there
is a sexual problem among right-wing people? Bestiality, pedophilia, BDSM whips
and handcuffs are not promoted by right-wing people. Rather, it’s the folks on
Eco’s side who encourage such things. People like Michel Foucault who went to
the bath houses at night and then wrote books on "punishment" by day.
Eco thinks that the right is
Orwellian, but nothing is more Orwellian than lefty British liberalism. Did he
really think Orwell was talking about Mussolini? Orwell was actually talking
about Fabian socialism, which is the version of liberalism preferred by Eco
(and Brisson, I imagine). Newspeak and liberal-language are both from Eco ‘s
precious liberal tradition. But whoever disagrees with them is labeled a
fascist.
Eco believes that the
democratic majority is sacred, but he has desacralized the entire universe with
his liberal world view. Regardless, he professes that there is an inherent
holiness among the democratic masses (whom he elsewhere despises). Brisson repeated
the old "populism" line (another meaningless word, like fascism)
about how "populism" has taken root in the American Midwest after job
relocation. Well, if Brisson suddenly had no job and no income, would he not be
upset too? Not everyone can be pseudo-intellectual, living on scholarships to
do useless research (useless in the sense of his liberal weltanschauung).
Liberalism does not respect individual rights, as the Antifas and SJWs beat up
anyone they do not like. Why? Because they are possessed by their ideology (as
Dostoevsky said in "Demons"). If you are a heterosexual white man,
you are a fascist.
Eco says that "Ur
Fascism" could come back at any time and that it is our duty to recognize
it and point it out. Well, I would point my finger at Eco (and those who follow
him) as his position is true fascism. His liberal fascism is the worst because
he preaches tolerance, while at the same time destroying true tolerance.
