In 1995 Umberto Eco, the world's foremost semiotician and a renowned liberal intellectual, wrote Ur-Fascism (eternal fascism). The essay itself is about what fascism is fundamentally. In it, he defines fascism as truth. He also claims liberalism is in a war with fascism. So liberalism is actually a war against truth itself.
"the combination of different forms of belief or practice"; such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a silver of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth. As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.
The idea of truth he's pointing to is not different from the one belonging to the worldview of Christianity. In other words, he's talking about absolute truth as opposed to relative "truth".
From the liberal POV, essentially, absolute truth means no liberalism because liberalism is relativism. Think about it: if absolute truth exists and it is true that homosexuality is bad for society and that favouring ones own race is better than not favouring it, you can't have liberalism. Thus, liberalism is a war against truth and especially Christianity (by Eco's admission). And if liberalism is a war against "fascism", then liberalism's grand goal is the complete destruction of the West because the west is Christian.
Ever wondered why liberals are so allergic to truth? There's your answer. It's too fashy.
surrounding Captain Muddy, talked in tentative French. Captain Muddy knew some French, too. My first image of American liberators was thus – after so many palefaces in black shirts – that of a cultivated black man in a yellow-green uniform saying: " Oui, merci beaucoup, Madame, moi aussi j'aime le champagne . . ." Unfortunately there was no champagne, but Captain Muddy gave me my first piece of Wrigley's Spearmint and I started chewing all day long. At night I put my wad in a water glass, so it would be fresh for the next day.
Nigger Love ———————- I did like this though:
Josiah Fisher
Yeah, a dyed-in-the-wool-liberal.
Jose Ortiz
Hold that thought.
>pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf Page 3 Page 5 Are you linking the right essay? The only mentions of christianity, christian, christ, are when specifying that NSDAP is anti-christian. It sounds like you're injecting your viewpoint to try and attach christianity to fascism.
Furthermore the only mentions of truth are in page 6:
Michael Wood
He doesn't mention Christianity but Christianity has a primeval truth (God) and God's laws for man are absolute. In Christianity, truth has been spelled out once and for all.
I know but he put that feature first because it's the most important. Why? Truth:
Without truth, there is no Fascism.
You have to pierce his veiled language here. As a liberal, he doesn't word it in clear language and that's intentional. Read it a bit more and think about it. The only logical conclusion is that he's saying that liberalism is in an eternal struggle against truth (fascism).
Brayden Scott
If it makes it any easier, forget Christianity and replace it with Islam or Judaism. Doesn't matter. Hell, replace it with NatSoc.
Ethan Jones
Who cares?
Charles Nguyen
I only used Christianity because the West is more or less Christian (at least our culture still is) and liberalism is a largely Western phenomenon. That's the dialectic. If the West was NatSoc you could replace it with Natsoc.
Nathan Cook
You think he gets turned on by the negroes? It sounds like he worships them in that story tbh.
