Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Favorite essays

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 10:30 PM
Original message
Favorite essays
The Case Against Babies by Joy Williams. Granta September 1996

Babies, babies, babies. There's a plague of babies. Too many rabbits or elephants or mustangs or swans brings out the myxomatosis, the culling guns, the sterility drugs, the scientific brigade of egg smashers. Other species can 'strain their environments' or 'overrun their range' or clash with their human 'neighbours', but human babies are always welcome at life's banquet. Welcome, Welcome, Welcome—Live Long and Consume! You can't draw the line when it comes to babies because . . . where are you going to draw the line? Consider having none or one and be sure to stop after two the organization Zero Population Growth suggests politely. Can barely hear them what with all the babies squalling. Hundreds of them popping out every minute. Ninety-seven million of them each year. While legions of other biological life forms go extinct (or, in the creepy phrase of ecologists, 'wink out'), human life bustles self- importantly on. Those babies just keep coming! They've gone way beyond being 'God's gift'; they've become entitlements. Everyone's having babies, even women who can't have babies, particularly women who can't have babies- they're the ones who sweep fashionably along the corridors of consumerism with their double-wide strollers, stuffed with twins and triplets. (Women push those things with the effrontery of someone piloting a bulldozer, which strollers uncannily bring to mind.) When you see twins or triplets do you think awahhh or owhoo or that's sort of cool, that's unusual, or do you think that woman dropped a wad on in vitro fertilization, twenty- five, thirty thousand dollars at least . . . ?

The human race hardly needs to be more fertile, but fertility clinics are booming. The new millionaires are the hot-shot fertility doctors who serve anxious gottahavababy women, techno-shamans who hav become the most important aspect of the baby process, giving women what they want: BABIES. (It used to be a mystery what women wanted, but no more . . . Nietzsche was right . . . ) Ironically-though it is far from being the only irony in this baby craze-women think of themselves as being successful, personally fulfilled when they have a baby, even if it takes a battery of men in white smocks and lots of hormones and drugs and needles and dishes and mixing and inserting and implanting to make it so. Having a baby means individual completion for a woman. What do boys have to do to be men? Sleep with a woman. Kill something. Yes, killing something, some luckless deer, duck, bear, pretty much anything large-ish in the animal kingdom, or even another man, appropriate in times of war, has ushered many a lad into manhood. But what's a woman to do? She gets to want to have a baby.

While much effort has been expended in Third World countries educating women into a range of options which does not limit their role merely to bearing children, well-off, educated and indulged American women are clamouring for babies, babies, BABIES to complete their status. They've had it all and now they want a baby. And women over thirty-five want them NOW. They're the ones who opt for the aggressive fertility route, they're impatient, they're sick of being laissez-faire about this. Sex seems such a laborious way to go about it. At this point they don't want to endure all that intercourse over and over and maybe get no baby. What a waste of time! And time's awasting. A life with no child would be a life perfecting hedonism a forty- something infertile woman said, now the proud owner of pricey twins. Even women who have the grace to submit to fate can sound wistful. It's not so much that I wish that I had children now, a travel writer said, but that I wish I had had them. I hate to fail at anything. Women are supposed to wish and want and not fail. (Lesbians want to have babies too and when lesbians have babies watch out! They lay names on them like Wolf.)

. . .

Yet we burble along, procreating, and in the process suffocating thousands of other species with our selfishness. We're in a baby glut, yet it's as if we've just discovered babies, or invented them. Reproduction is sexy. Assisted reproduction is cool. The announcement that a movie star is going to have a baby is met with breathless wonder. A BABY! Old men on their third marriage regard their new babies with 'awe' and crow about the 'ultimate experience' of parenting. Bruce Springsteen found 'salvation' with the birth of his son. When in doubt, have a baby. When you've tried it all, champagne, cocaine, try a baby. Pop icons who trudged through a decade of adulation and high living confess upon motherhood, This Baby Saved My Life. Bill Gates, zillionaire founder of Microsoft, is going to have (this is so wonderful) a BABY. News commentators are already speculating: will fatherhood take away his edge, his drive; will it diminish his will to succeed, to succeed, to succeed? National Public Radio recently interviewed other high-powered CEO dads as to that ghastly possibility.

It's as though, all together, in the waning years of this dying century, we collectively opened the Door of our Home and instead of seeing a friend standing there in some sweet spring twilight, someone we had invited over for drinks and dinner and a lovely civilized chat, there was Death, with those creepy little black seeds of his for planting in the garden. And along with Death we got a glimpse of ecological collapse and the coming anarchy of an over-peopled planet. And we all, in denial of this unwelcome vision, decided to slam the door and retreat to our toys and make babies—those heirs, those hopes, those products of our species' selfishness, sentimentality and global death wish.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. Great thread. I'll go next. "Monotheism and its Discontents," Gore Vidal
http://www.isebrand.com/Gore_Vidal_Monotheism_1992.htm

. . .

The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved --Judaism, Christianity, Islam. These are sky-god religions. They are, literally, patriarchal --God is the omnipotent father-- hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on earth, as he is in place not for just one tribe but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good. Ultimately, totalitarianism is the only sort of politics that can truly serve the sky-god's purpose. Any movement of a liberal nature endangers his authority and that of his delegates on earth. One God, one King, one Pope, one master in the factory, one father-leader in the family home.

The founders of the United States were not enthusiasts of the sky-god. Many, like Jefferson, rejected him altogether and placed man at the center of the world. The young Lincoln wrote a pamphlet against Christianity, which friends persuaded him to burn. Needless to say, word got around about both Jefferson and Lincoln and each had to cover his tracks. Jefferson said he was a deist, which could mean anything or nothing, while Lincoln, hand on heart and tongue in cheek, said he could not support for office anyone who "scoffed" at religion.

From the beginning, sky-godders have always exerted great pressure in our secular republic. Also, evangelical Christian groups have traditionally drawn strength from the suppressed. African slaves were allowed to organise heavenly sky-god churches, as a surrogate for earthly freedom. White churches were organised in order to make certain that the rights of property were respected and that the numerous religious taboos in the New and Old Testaments would be enforced, if necessary, by civil law. The ideal to which John Adams subscribed --that we should be a nation of laws, not of men-- was quickly subverted when the churches forced upon everyone, through supposedly neutral and just laws, their innumerable taboos on sex, alcohol, gambling. We are now indeed a nation of laws, mostly bad and certainly anti-human.

Roman Catholic migrations in the last century further re-enforced the Puritan sky-god. The Church has also put itself on a collision course with the Bill of Rights when it asserts as it always has, that "error has no rights." The last correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson expressed their alarm that the Jesuits were to be allowed into the United States. Although the Jews were sky-god folk, they followed Book One, not Book Two, so they have no mission to convert others; rather the reverse. Also, as they have been systematically demonized by the Christian sky-godders, they tended to be liberal and so turned not to their temple but to the A.C.L.U. Unfortunately, the recent discovery that the sky-god, in his capacity as realtor, had given them, in perpetuity, some parcels of unattractive land called Judea and Samaria has, in my mind, unhinged many of them. I hope this is temporary.

In the First Amendment to the Constitution the Founders made it clear that this was not to be a sky-god nation with a national religion like that of England, from whom we had just separated. It is curious how little understood this amendment is --yes, everyone has a right to worship any god he chooses but he does not have the right to impose his beliefs on others who do not happen to share in his superstitions and taboos. This separation was absolute in our original Republic. But the sky-godders do not give up easily. In the 1950's they actually got the phrase "In God We Trust" onto the currency, in direct violation of the First Amendment.

. . . more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. Gimmie a min
Edited on Mon Aug-07-06 10:39 PM by GirlinContempt
I have to actually type it out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. Keeping in the same theme..."A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift.
"It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great town or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors, crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms. These mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants: who as they grow up either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes.
I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these children sound, useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the children of professed beggars; it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of infants at a certain age who are born of parents in effect as little able to support them as those who demand our charity in the streets.

As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for many years upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of other projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in the computation. It is true, a child just dropped from its dam may be supported by her milk for a solar year, with little other nourishment; at most not above the value of 2s., which the mother may certainly get, or the value in scraps, by her lawful occupation of begging; and it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for them in such a manner as instead of being a charge upon their parents or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands.

There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us! sacrificing the poor innocent babes I doubt more to avoid the expense than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Eat up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. Utopia by Antonio Gramsci
No link, because I couldn't find it online. It is, however, public domain as far as I am aware.
----------------------------

Political constitutions are necessarily dependent on economic structure, on forms of production and exchange. By simply enunciating this formula, many people believe they resolve every economic and political problem, believe they are in a position to impart lessons to right and to left and to judge events with certainty - coming to the conclusion, for example, that Lenin is a utopian, and the unfortunate Russian proletarians are prey to an utterly utopian illusion, so that a terrible awakening implacably awaits them.

The truth is that no two political constitutions are the same, just as no two economic structures are the same. The truth is that the formula is anything but the arid expression of a glaringly obvious natural law. Between the premises (economic structure) and the consequence (political constitution) the relations are anything but simple and direct; and the history of a people is not documented by economic facts alone. The unraveling of the causations is a complex and involved process. To disentangle it requires nothing short of a profound and wide-ranging study of every intellectual and practical activity. This sort of study is possible only after the events have settled into a definite continuity, i.e. long, long after the facts have occurred. The academic may be able to state with certainty that a particular political constitution will not emerge victorious (will not exist on a permanent basis) unless it is attached indissolubly and intrinsically to a particular economic structure - but his statement will have no value other than as a general indication. And while the facts are actually unfolding how could he possibly know what pattern of dependency would be established? The unknowns are more numerous than the facts which can be ascertained and verified, and every single one of these unknowns could upset the eventual conclusion. History is not a mathematical calculation it does not possess a decimal system, a progressive enumeration of quantities amenable to the four basic operations, the solution of questions and the extraction of roots. Quantity (economic structure) turns into quality because it becomes an instrument for action in men's hands - men whose worth is to be seen not only in terms of their weight, their size and mechanical energy they derive from their muscles and nerves, but in the fact that they have a mind, that they suffer, understand, rejoice, desire, and reject.
<snip>
Despotic discipline was liquidated; a period of chaos ensued. Individuals sought to organize themselves, but how? And how were they to preserve this human unity that had grown out of suffering?
Here the philistine comes forward and replies: the bourgeoisie had to restore order, because it has always happened in that way - a patriarchal and feudal economy has always been followed by a bourgeois economy and a bourgeois political constitution. The philistine sees no salvation outside the pre-established schemas; he conceives of history as simply a natural organism passing through fixed and predictable stages of growth. If you plant an acorn, you can be sure of getting an oak shoot, and of having to wait a certain number of years for the tree to grow and give fruit. but history is not an oak tree, and men are not acorns.
<snip>
Utopianism consists, in fact, in not being able to conceive of history as a free development, in seeing the future as a pre-fashioned commodity, in believing in pre-established plans. Utopianism is philistinism, of the kind Heinrich Heine mocked. The reformists are the philistines and utopians of socialism, just as the protectionists and nationalists are the philistines and utopians of the capitalist bourgeois. Heinrich von Treitschke is the foremost exponent of German philistinism (the German state-worshipers are his spiritual heirs), just as Auguste Comte and Hippolute Taine represent French philistinism and Vincenzo Gioberti the Italian variety. These are the people who preach national historic missions, or believe in individual vocations; all of them are people who mortgage the future and see to imprison it within their pre-established schema's, people who do not conceive of Divine freedom, and are for ever groaning about the past because things have turned out so badly.
They do not conceive of history as free development - the birth and free integration of free energies - which is quite different from natural evolution, just as man and human associations are different from molecules and molecular aggregates. They have not learnt that freedom is the inner force in history, exploding every pre-established schema. The philistines of socialism have degraded and soiled the socialist doctrine, and they become ridiculously angry with anyone who in their eyes does not respect it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
6. Not a favorite, but one I read recently
Edited on Mon Aug-07-06 11:32 PM by jpgray
Nevermind. DU no likey the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. You're a killer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-08-06 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. A Usenet classic
Date: 29 OCT 1995 23:18:33 GMT
From: Jones town <>
Newgroups: alt.skinheads, alt.punk
Subject: Re: kkk get out of the montreal crust punk way

We are the Montreal crust punk and I drink my fucking beer and spit it in the face of you nazi dogs. Squat in the anarchy of montreal crust punk and you will learn how to be real hard.Come see how the real punks live and shut your fashist dog mouth or I cut your tongue out with broken beer bottle.Piss in your direction for fun when I have drunk a bottle of punk piss.Come put my cigaretts out in the nose of fashism for the crust punk pipe bomb Quebec separation revolution.Separate, separate Vive Lucian Bushard. Punks in the anarchy wish you go to a small country and we drop H-Bomb on it.I see you cut you hair off now you never gonna get a Mohawk,so the put you in the army to defend Capitalism and trhe corporation! Drink a bucket of squat piss in your direction on a monday night after the punk street hockey.Vive Jean Cladue Van DAM cos his mongrel ass would beat the punk piss out of your fashist behind.I tell you the street word is we are drunking beer for the revolution of the Quebec and th separation with pipe bombs of the canaduh.


Vive Quebec and lucian burshard
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-08-06 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Crust is lame
If I were Jewish I would form an ironic Oi! band called Oy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-08-06 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Drink a pint of squat piss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-08-06 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. If I were into the crust scene I'd have some ready at hand
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-08-06 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. My dog just shit all over your shoe.
Can you spare any change?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-08-06 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. No, but as a freegan I would feel obligated to make use of your offering
Edited on Tue Aug-08-06 04:21 PM by jpgray
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-08-06 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. And Oi! isn't lame?
as I once heard someone put it: 'Oi! Because stupid people need music, too.' :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-08-06 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Oi! is lame as well
Edited on Tue Aug-08-06 04:26 PM by jpgray
There's a level of lame wherein degrees of separation within said level have less and less meaning. Oi! resides therein. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
taterguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-08-06 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. Lester Bangs: James Taylor Marked for Death
No time to find a link but it's in his book Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung. In fact most of the pieces in that book qualify
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-08-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I found a site with a ton of his writings not long ago. Gimme a minute.
Oh, can't find it. But I read the Bangs collection many years ago. And of course I used to subscribe to Creem.

Anyway, here's a quote from your favorite essay, courtesty Wikipedia:

By the end of the decade it had become obvious that perhaps the one constant of our variegated and strung-out peer groups was a pervasive sense of self-consciousness that sent us in grouchy packs to ugly festivals just to be together and dig ourselves and each other, as if all of this meant something greater than that we were kids who liked rock 'n' roll and came out to have a good time, as if our very styles and trappings and drugs and jargon could be in themselves political statements for any longer than about fifteen stoned seconds, even a threat to the Mother Country! So we loved and loved and doted on ourselves and our reflections in each other even as the whole thing got out of hand and turned into mud and disaster areas and downs and death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-08-06 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. Umberto Eco: 'Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt'
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-08-06 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
16. "Differences Between Groups Are Cultural, Not Innate" by Ibn Khaldun
...In the East, however, learning did not cease, but is still flourishing and overflowing owing to the continued and unbroken prosperity of society. For although the great cities in which learning developed, such as Baghdad, Basra, and Kufa, have been ruined, God Almighty has compensated this loss with other mightier cities. Thus learning shifted eastward to Kohrasan, in Persia, and Transoxania, then westward to Cairo and the adjoining regions, which are still flourishing, and actively pursue learning.

The Easterners, then, are generally speaking, deeply rooted in learning and teaching, as in all the other crafts. This is so true that many travelers who go from Maghrib to the East in search of learning believe that the minds of the Easterners are more developed than those of the Westerners (that they are innately quicker and more thoughtful), and that their reason is, by its very nature, more perfect. They even believe that there is a difference between us and them in the very essence of humanity, and get heated up over this theory owing to what they see of the superiority of the Easterners in the sciences and crafts. This is not so; there is no essential difference between Easterners and Westerners, except perhaps that the inhabitants of the extreme climates, such as the First and Seventh zones, whose temperaments, and hence their minds, are far removed from moderation, as we mentioned earlier. The differences between Easterners and Westerners are cultural, deriving from the intellectual capacities acquired by those who practice the crafts.

We mentioned this point earlier and will now develop it further. Civilized townsmen follow certain codes in matters of living, dwelling, and building, in religious and worldly affairs, and, in general, in all their customs and transactions. These codes, which regulate all their behavior and their actions, seem to constitute impassable limits. yet, in fact, they are conventional things, made by man and learned by each generation from the preceding one. For there is no doubt that every organized craft affects the soul in such a way as to give it a new mind which will dispose it to acquire another craft and makes the mind readier and more capable of acquiring new knowledge...

The skills acquired in learning, in the crafts and in daily life sharpen men's intelligence and clear their vision by the imprints they leave on the mind. For, as we said before, the mind develops only through experience and the resulting skills which it acquires. Hence those who live in a civilized environment acquire a power of judgment derived from the effects of learning and this makes the common people think, wrongly, that they are different in their very nature.

The same holds true of the relation between townsmen and nomads. Townsmen are so much brighter and more intelligent that nomads sometimes think that they (townsmen) belong to a superior humanity. The truth is that the townsman has perfected certain skills, observed certain codes, and followed certain civilized customs which are unknown to the nomad. The townsman, having practiced the crafts and acquired certain skills, thinks that any one who is deficient in those skills has not as good an intellect as he has and that the nomad is by birth intellectually deficient and inferior to himself. This is not so, for among nomads we find persons endowed with the very highest form of intellect and understanding. The difference between the two groups arises from the veneer left on the townsman by the crafts and sciences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-08-06 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. No wonder I have to fuck up so many city slickers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC