[This blog suggests all freedom movements and freedom lovers adopt variants of the color 'blue' as the world-wide symbol for the universal moral philosophy of freedom. For example, 'Persian Blue' flags, pins, headscarves, ribbons draped down both sides of the proud Iranian flag or the revered green flag of Islam, shirts or blouses--anything 'Persian Blue'--would give silent but visible support for Iran's freedom. Our blue sky is universal.]

March 10, 2010

Let's talk: Another reply to a 'Compass' blogpost, asking "Will Israel Attack Iran?"

"The form of governance in Iran today is virulently anti-Israeli, absolutist, millennialist, idealistic, confrontational and expansionist, puritanical and moralistic, with a hard determinist's world-view operating in a honor-shame sociology.

That exactly describes the form of governance in Hitler's Nazi Germany, often described by scholars of Fascism as being a "war ideology."

The question of 'will' is moot. It's more a question of 'when?'

'Be free'

Archive: 'Theofascism'

* * *

March 10, 2010

Let's talk: A comment to the 'Compass' blog, which suggested Iran, like Russia, will not use neergy as a weapon because the leadership has no desire to starve.

"To an ascetic, starvation is not only a test of will, it is a cleansing measure of morality. To think that Iranians will not shut down oil trade through the Straights of Hormuz because they do not want to starve is to ignore the very nature of the form of governance in Iran.

Theofascism in Iran will welcome any test of its moral superiority, including starving if necessary. As puritans, the theofascists in Iran could easily make the argument that 'sacrifice' is required in order to 'cleanse' the Iranian people of the 'corruption' posed by the 'danger' from outside forces.

Hitler, too, was a puritanical, moralizing ascetic. The entire history of totalitarianism, both on the Socialist Left and Socialist Right, is full of 'sacrifice' for the higher moral goal.

Please do not ever make the blind mistake of the realist school in International Relations, believing that nation-states always act in their own rational self-interest. Even with the most superficial knowledge of human nature, it should be clear that there is no such thing as "rational self-interest" in humanity, and likewise, there is none in their International Relations among humans. War comes from sloppy thinking, and 'realism' and 'idealism' in International Relations is sloppy thinking at its worst."

'Be free'

Archive: 'On the Nation-State'

* * *

February 28, 2010

Let's talk: Jose Pinera from Chile is in the United States, making his case for self-sustaining social security pension plans. He labels the modern welfare state, "the Entitlement State," and lays blame for its creation on Bismarck.

Maybe so, but there has never been a proletarian revolution in any modern, post-industrial welfare state, a major benefit of capitalism financing a safety net for the poor. Senor Pinera's ideas are pragmatic and visionary at the same time, which means they will never see the light of day in the halls of the U.S. Congress, where every attempt to reform Social Security has exploded in ideological reactionism.

'Be free'

Archive: On Economics

* * *

February 16, 2010

Let's talk: Another comment to the 'Compass' blog:

"Two points: 1. Doing nothing; 2. Unprecedented suicidal behavior.

1. Doing nothing about Iran's pursuit of dual-purpose nuclear technology has always been an option, and is often the preferred strategy of many millions of sincere, peace-loving people. But Mr. Baer concluding that doing nothing will have the happy result of the Iranian regime "falling under its own weight" is Polly Annish in the extreme. A much more reasonable argument--such as Churchill forlornly made in 1936-39--could be made that doing nothing actually guarantees that Iran will acquire and ultimately use nuclear weapons.

2. Unprecedented suicidal behavior by the Iranian regime is not unprecedented. Obviously, Mr. Pillar is not familiar with the distinction between an honor/shame sociology (Iran's) and a guilt/rights sociology (the West's), nor is he familiar with the reeling shock felt by the American soldiers, Marines, and Navy as they came ever closer to the Japanese homeland during World War Two. In a society with an honor/shame sociology--they are always warrior societies--suicide IS a form of honor, especially to avoid the crippling personal shame attached to surrender. Think of the Prussians, the Roman centurions, the bushido code of the samurai, the ancient Greek pirates--all were honor/shame societies which considered suicide as the ultimate expression of moral value. If ignorance of sociology is to guide American policy toward Iran, then we assure blinking incomprehensibility on our part as Iran's government deliberately pursues policies which we find to be "suicidal."

Erich Fromm long ago developed a study in socio-political psychology, noting the link between sadism and masochism with homicidal and suicidal behaviors, especially in Ortega y Gasset's mass man. The link exists, and the phenomenon of suicidal and homicidal mass behavior is so well documented in the 20C one has to wonder just how well read is Mr. Pillar.

On a final note, about being "well read." In the past thirty years of debate on Iran, I have never come across any opinion of what to do about Iran that reflected an informed view after a complete reading of the written works of Ruhollah Khomeini. Some have read Hitler's or Qutb's works, almost none have read Mussolini's, ala Mawdudi's, or Ibn Wahhab's, and definitely none have ever read Mary Douglas' work on the anthropology of 'purity.' Since 'purity' is the moral glue which binds Iranian governance and motivates Khomeini's philosophy--as it did for Hitler and Mussolini--the cost of being poorly read is going to be prohibitively expensive if we credit such uninformed opinions with legitimacy.

Read Khomeini, in uncensored detail. Read Hitler. Read Mussolini, particularly after he was expelled by the Socialists. Read Mary Douglas. Read up on warrior codes (Islam is the religion of a very successful military commander). Read up on honor/shame versus guilt rights sociologies. Once an observer of Iran's form of governance is well read, they will never be offering suggestions of "doing nothing" or find suicidal behavior by a government to be incredulous.

Only the uninformed non-reader gets us into unwanted wars."

'Be free'

Archive: 'Theofascism'

* * *

February 14, 2010

Let's talk: Another comment to still another 'Compass' blog post:

"Indeed, the Iranian regime's appeal to national pride in becoming a nuclear power may well serve to supplant widespread public dissatisfaction with the loss of liberties under the Islamic Revolution's Constitution. But how long does the straw-man (nuclear power) endure as a trumping tactic for the theofascist government; about as long as the little boy falsely cried "wolf"?

There is another response besides appealing to nationalism the regime can take to further dampen future challenges by the Greens: repression. Especially if the nuclear program actually is technically stalled in Iran, repression becomes an obvious mechanism to use when further nationalistic boasts about their nuclear power prove to be mere propaganda. If Ruhollah Khomeini's writings on propaganda can provide some insight, the regime in Iran will devise a two-fork approach; propaganda to satisfy the faithful, firing squads, hangings, and "disappearances" to eliminate the opposition.

The Greens of 2009-2010 are done, because they never understood the nature of their governance, and that opposing in any manner such a form of governance required a willingness to match the regime's willingness to fight to the death. They will join the growing litany of historical 'reforms' mounted against the theofascist governance in Iran, including the failed "reforms" of 1997 and the failed student uprisings of 2000 and 2006. What is not yet done is the consolidation of power in a theofascist elite, and that consolidation began yesterday and will continue unabated until the next Iranian national elections in June, 2013.

There will be no Greens on the ballot in 2013. There will be no student demonstrations in 2013. There will be no general strike in 2013. The color blue will replace the color green as a national symbol of Persian nationalism ('Persian Blue' is thousands of years old), and nuclear theofascism, beginning in 2014-15, will assert itself upon the world stage secure that 'unity' and 'purity' have been achieved at home.

The key point: Anyone who wishes to take on an evolved form of Fascism must understand, in advance, that unlike any other ideo/theology, when confronting Fascism they are embarked upon a fight to the death. In Hegelian terms, "deep" freedom requires a willingness to die, and especially the morally superior fascist has only complete contempt for a morally inferior unwillingness to die.

Against such an ideo/theology, Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin are going to do...what?"

'Be free.'

Archive: 'Theofascism'

* * *

February 13, 2010

Let's talk: After watching the delightful rap video on Hayek versus Keynse economics again, let's see if we can explain, as simply as possible, the contentious debate over the two competing theories of economics.

Key to both opposing theories is the equation: Y=C+I+G, where 'Y' is a national economy, and the parts that make up the economy are 'C' Consumption, 'I' Investment, and 'G' Government spending. Add up all the three parts and you have the entire economy, 'Y,' and the total of three parts is known collectively as "aggregate demand."

Uh-oh.

Look at 'G.' Now take a look at your paycheck. You'll note that the government taxes you pay from your income is a "minus" to your total income. But the formula treats taxes (also known as 'G' Government spending) as a "plus" to an economy's income. Government spending is thus typically considered a 'plus' in the world-view of Keynesian, moderate-Left economics.

Certainly, we need police and schoolteachers and university professors, but note that such government employment generates no new productive wealth. Hiring a fire fighter or the captain of an aircraft carrier is a COST to the economy, not a plus, at least from the view of the Hayekians, those on the moderate-Right.

So, as "stimulus" adds more and more government jobs, the COST of government rises and rises. While the Keynesians cheer the immediate results for the economy (more well-paying government jobs), the Hayekians fear for the economy's future (looming government bankruptcies).

Who is going to pay for all those increased costs? Not the legions of government employees, because they contribute nothing to the productive wealth of the economy. Instead, the entire increasing costs of stimulated growth in government have to be paid by the private sector workers and their employers.

In a nutshell, that's it: One theory has a world-view that government spending is a boon to an economy (Keynesian), while the other world-view holds that government spending, even if desirable, is actually a cost to an economy, not a stimulant (Hayekian).

You choose who is most correct.

'Be free'

Archive: 'On Economics'

* * *

February 12, 2010

Let's talk: Videos and commentary from Iran make clear that the Green movement turned out far fewer people to protest against the government yesterday than during Ashura, one month ago. The theofascist government's crackdown on dissent was more effective yesterday than during Ashura, with electronic media mostly contained. Government media showed huge demonstrations on behalf of the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution; opposition media was miniscule, disorganized, and simply anecdotal.

The regime is clearly in control. The president made an open-air speech in front of many tens of thousands of supporters; the opposition leaders were invisible, reportedly beaten back from meeting with their supporters.

The Green Movement has peaked, if not ended. Their honest conservative support for their Islamic Revolution made it impossible for them to replace the theofascist leadership entrenched by the Revolution. Like every Marxist revolution for freedom and democracy, Iran's religious revolution for freedom and democracy has been betrayed by the very people who successfully revolted and subsequently acquired power.

As a measure of its confidence that it has the Greens under control, the Iranian government took the time during celebrations yesterday to announce it would now begin to purify uranium internally to 20%; the president declared Iran to be a "nuclear nation."

Theofascism is now nuclear; Churchill's nightmare begins.

'Be free.'

Archive: 'Theofascism'

* * *

February 10, 2010

Let's talk: Tomorrow is a big day in Iran, the 31st anniversary of their Islamic Revolution. The theofascist government are busing in supporters from rural areas for massive pro-government rallies, while the leaders of the Green movement are calling upon their millions of supporters to fill the streets in opposition to the government. Sounds like a recipe for bloody arrests, beatings, killings and chaos.

On February 12, who will have won?

I believe the theofascists will have won. They are firmly in control of the police, judiciary, and legislative functions of government. They directly control the nuclear program, the fiscal budget, and central bank. They will be able to demonstrate that they are just as popular with large segments of the Iranian people as the Greens are with other segments of the country. And since the Greens have already conferred legitimacy to the theofascist government since last June's purloined elections, their movement defaults into little more than a whine against loss of the freedoms they believed they had won with their Islamic Revolution.

In two massive antagonistic demonstrations in the name of the same revolution, the well-entrenched theofascist government will win. Because they do not ever want their Green movement to be anti-revolution, the pro-revolutionaries in the Green movement are too easily pre-empted by the theofascists in charge. Even more secure because the Greens are still pro-revolution, the theofascists will begin purging the Greens on February 12.

February 11, 2010 will be the high-water mark for the Greens. By elections in June, 2013, the Greens will largely be gone, because they never understood one fundamental fact: Fascism is a fight to the death. Whether for or against Fascism, regardless of whether one supports or opposes Fascism, to engage with Fascism is to engage in a fight to the death.

'Be free.'

Archive: 'Theofascism'

* * *

February 6, 2010

Let's talk: Two comments, to two blogs, both about Iran. The first is on the 'Compass' blog; the second is a reply to Dr. Ledeen's 'Faster, Please' blog:

"Agreed. The theofascist regime in Iran is no longer in a popularity contest. It won that contest in purloined elections last June. It is important to understand, here, that Fascism's definition includes a failure by the original democracy to protect itself against the democratic rise of the fascists. The sham elections of last June now make Iran a sham democracy, the precursor to Fascism; consolidation of power in theofascist Iran will now accelerate, just as soon as next week's demonstrations are over.

As for the ineffectiveness of economic or financial sanctions against Iran, of course they will not work, if by 'work' we mean alter the regime's behavior. Sanctions still must be used, but only after negotiations and diplomacy have been decided as failures, as a means of escalating disapproval but well short of starting a war. Sanctions are a means of trying to avoid war, not a means of tougher negotiations.

Once the sanctions are themselves decided as failures--which, in time, they will be-- 'containment' will be attempted as the last desperate yet sincere effort to avoid war.
Containment will be tried as an honest last attempt to avoid war, but no form of Fascism has ever been contained.

When theofascist Iran strikes is problematical: before it is nuclear, or only after? But strike it will, so every effort and strategy has to be employed, first by negotiations and diplomacy, then by sanctions and finally by containment, to have the hit come pre-nuclear rather than nuclear.

Three million people are forecasted to be in the streets in Iran one week from today, the anniversary of their Revolution. Democrats the world over will rejoice at seeing such a spirited call for democracy in Iran, not realizing it is the denouement act of the Greens; after next week, the collapse and purges of the Greens begins. Why? Because no amount of internal public demonstrations has ever changed the course or philosophy of a Fascist form of governance, once it acquired power."

- - -

"No one should resign for offering an opinion, especially if that opinion contradicts established authority. If anyone is to resign, let it be the authority who failed to seek out contrary and possibly unpopular opinions before they made their decisions, and then events caught them completely by surprise.

If a world-wide consensus against theofascism in Iran is to be successfully mounted, it will need to hear the opinions of intelligent and patriotic men like Admiral Blair. If our arguments are not strong enough to overcome his informed opinion, then why call for his resignation for simply doing his job?

We should be concentrating on making our case air-tight and irrefutable, and Admiral Blair’s opinion obviously reflects that we still are unable to make our best case. There is a much better case to be made for regime change in Iran than those proposed so far, but so long as we refuse to make it, why complain when others offer an honest, counter opinion?"

'Be free'

Archive: 'Theofascism'

* * *

January 28, 2010

Let's talk: Another comment to a 'Compass' blog post:

"Mr. Duss at the Center for American Progress can cheerlead for the Obama administration all he wants, but it a fallacy of logic to argue that accomplishing a non-goal means that the goal-setter has been successful in accomplishing some other well-known goal. If Mr. Duss understands logic, he understands the fallacy means that his praise actually weakens his argument; in fact, negates it.

Others late in logic, prominent American realists have recently changed their minds and joined several prominent American neo-conservatives--who also have changed their opinions--in calling for 'regime change' in Iran. On this, Mr. Duss is silent; so is Mr. Obama, and is likely to studiously stay so.

The form of governance in Iran is theofascism. There is no 'regime change' for any form of Fascism, if such an argument for regime change believes that the change will be bloodless. If one somehow has formed the opinion that a genuine Fascism will not fight to the very death to survive or prevail, they do not understand why Fascism has never been defeated, anywhere, without a fight to the death.

The three leaders of the Green Movement in Iran understand this, and caved this week. Whether they are even alive for the next elections in June, 2013, is now problematical. Rafsanjani understands this, and is likely moving funds out of Iran before he flees. By taking on theofascism personally, he has moved to the top of any 'enemies list' being assembled by the government seeking a purge. The IRGC coup became successful this week when the Greens caved, and now a long, two-year period of consolidation of power will ensue; purges, "disappearances," and show trials will be the least of it.

As terrible as it is for Mr. Duss to give a fawning false praise to Mr. Obama's Iran policies, it is also terrible to see the late calls for 'regime change' when the theofascism in Iran this week has just asserted greater control over the politics in Iran than ever. Perhaps the growing calls for regime change are better late than never, but I doubt their fidelity to their new-found conversions. Besides, only one conversion counts, and he is 'studiously silent.'"

'Be free.'

Archive: 'Theofascism'

* * *

January 26, 2010

Let's talk: My comment to the 'Compass' blog, about the capitualtion by the leadrs of the Green Movement to the results of the Iarnian June elections:

"By crediting Khamenei's imprimatur of Ahmadinejad for their recognition of the election's results in Iran, the leaders of the Green Movement have legitimized both a stolen election and a much less than 'learned' cleric as Supreme Guide. The IRGC's June coup is now complete.

The theofascist regime in Iran is as firmly in control as ever, since the major three leaders of the Green Movement, all of whom were loyal conservatives to their Islamic Revolution, never sought regime change anyway. The street demonstrations have peaked; expect them to still occur, but at dramatically lower numbers. The wind is gone, the sails lay slack.

With the recent death of Ayatollah Montazeri due to old age, Khamenei's health now becomes the pivot point. Look for the IRGC to be the key player in determining who succeeds Khamenei, which means the Praetorians now control Caesar. The next elections are in June, 2013, exactly the middle of the time frame between 2012 to 2014 when Iran is expected to go nuclear. The IRGC will never again permit counter-demonstrations to any future Iranian elections.

The one wild card is still al-Sistani. However, he is ever the quietist, in a long, long Shi'a tradition. He, more than anyone, knows that the Islamic Revolution is a complete repudiation of Shi'a quietism, so his intervention is more a wild hope than a wild possibility.

Which means, theofascism successfully goes nuclear by mid-decade. Negotiations and diplomacy will not be able to stop it (although we should engage completely), economic and financial sanctions will only encourage it (even so, we should sanction), containment will prove to be impossible because the ideal of 'purity' fuels their absolutism (yes, but attempts at containment should be made as an alternative to open war), and a carefully selected pre-emptive military strike at Iran's nuclear facilities will never change the governing ideo/theology which owns the nuclear power (true, but it buys time for the Iranian people to change their governing philosophy, for maybe another decade).

With the fawning collapse of the Greens into legitimizing the illegitimate, a new, world-wide 'Age of Anxiety' begins after Iran's 2013 elections. Churchill's worst nightmare is close upon us."

'Be free.'

Archive: 'Theofascism'

* * *

January 26, 2010

Let's talk: The economists at the Mercator Center at George Mason University have cranked up economic literacy to new levels by producing a fun rap video entited, "Hayek versus Keynes."

Austrians rule!

'Be free.'

Archive: 'On Economics'

* * *

January 24, 2010

Let's talk: I've not printed here all of the several personal comments made to posts on the 'Compass' blog. However, here is the most recent, in response to the blog's comment that North Korea's nuclear program got a pass by the West that might presage a similar success by Iran's nuclear ambitions:

"The Iranian government's response to a "vibrant opposition" has been a twenty-year steady consolidation of power. New institutions such as the IRGC have been created and self-funded, ostensibly to protect the Revolution but actually to protect existing power elites, and foreign affairs are always cast domestically as the us-versus-them justification to keep power in existing hands. The consolidation concentrates power instead of diffusing power, and so attracts the 'True Believer' to its absolutist/idealist cause.

Think of absolutist politics as a sphere, the most common shape in the universe. It is gravity that forms a sphere, the natural force which pulls everything into the center, into the 'One.' Even without nuclear capability, Iran's theofascism, because it is absolutist, will consolidate toward the total One. With nuclear capability, it will still consolidate into the center, into the One.

No absolutist form of governance, whether Fascism, Nazism, Leninism, Maoism or Stalinism immediately became totalitarian. The totalitarianism came only after a period of consolidation of power toward the Center, and then a purge of the "vibrant opposition." With or without nuclear arms, as the past summer's Iranian elections clearly demonstrate, Iranian theofascism is inexorably heading toward totalitarianism, with one glaring caution:

Theofascism in Iran, unlike Marxism in North Korea, Russia, or China, has 'purity' as the moral glue which binds its society. A true-believing puritanical absolutist/idealist is the very last person on earth who should ever have access to the 'cleansing' power of nuclear incineration."

'Be free.'

Archive: 'Theofascism'

* * *

January 23, 2010

Let's talk: Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, in the upcoming issue of Newsweek is calling for 'regime change' in Iran. He is a prominent member of the 'realist' school in International Relations, so his call for regime change is itself a major change in realist thinking.

All to the good, but it is still Mr. Obama's views that count most, and he shows no sign of making any change.

'Be free.'

* * *

January 18, 2010

Let's talk: An eminent libertarian philosopher recently suggested that all children at the age of fourteen be emancipated from their parents, that is, 'free.' I disagreed, even while understanding the libertarianism that calls for curtailing the dominance of one human being over another.

The first objection has to do with responsibility. Every freedom we have comes attached with a comcomitant personal responsibility. Famously from a court decision, freedom of speech means we have a personal responsibility not to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Does anyone seriously propose that fourteen is an age of adult responsibility?

The second objection has to do with judgment. The only thing that separates the adolescent from the adult is judgment. Both are physically strong and both can produce offspring. But the fourteen year old is still years away from developing sound judgment. Some adolescents are better than some adults at exhibiting good judgment, but as a group the adolescent has less judgment than the adult.

The third and fourth objections are related to the adolescent's inferior judgment. At fourteen, biology is flooding the human body with chemicals to prepare it for procreation. The sudden presence of these chemicals greatly distorts the personalities and emotional equilibrium of adolescents, as any adult can verify by the memory of their personal adolescence. The well-known angst, rebelliousness, and loneliness of the adolescent is not conducive to life-nourishing, especially if that adolescent is now to be deliberately made to be lonely. If anything, the depressing loneliness of adolescence is the gravest time to avoid making the child to feel that it is alone. Emancipation at fourteen would feed such anxieties, not still them. Additionally, human judgment is regulated in the brain by our pre-frontal cortex. All of our 'executive functions' are located in the pre-frontal cortex, including especially judgment and decision-making, and yet the pre-frontal cortex is the only part of the human body which is not fully formed until our early twenties. Physically as an adolescent we are ready to become an adult; emotionally and rationally, we are not.

There are still life-skills to teach the adolescent as it enters adulthood. If over-bearing dominance of adolescents is a problem--and I entirely agree, it is--then the solution lies in educating the adult parents, not in 'freeing' the adolescent.

'Be free'

Archive: 'Freedom'

 

* * *

January 12, 2010

Let's talk: The Compass blog notes the wishful thinking given to the unrest in Iran, as if the public opposition to the theofascist government is some kind of precursor to a revolution against the Islamic Revolution. My comment:

"All of the three major political leaders of the Iranian Greens are conservative loyalists to the Islamic Revolution they fought to make a reality. The perception that their movement now somehow represents a potential anti-revolution alternative is astoundingly inane.

The Greens are a conservative movment, wanting to restore freedoms now lost that they thought they had acquired with their revolution. The government is theofascist, that is, it is just as radically opposed to conservatives as it is opposed to liberals. Everyone who disagrees with the theofascism is an enemy to the theofascist, so every opponent to the government polishes its credentials and loyalty to the revolution they all revere.

There is no room here, whatsoever, for an anti-revolution against their Islamic Revolution. The Islamic Revolution is still widely popular in the two major segments of political power in Iranian society, the bazaar and the mosques. It is the loss of hard-won freedoms that fills the streets with protestors, not calls for another revolution or some kind of regime change. Essentially, the protests try to de-legitimize titular power, but actual power--the bazaar and the mosques--are very loyal to their revolution.

It is possible to break governance by terror, but not when the original revolution is still so popular. The government in Iran is still firmly in control of security, judiciary, and police functions. Short of a revolt by the Army against the IRGC--a virtual impossibility--or an Iranian Gorbachov succeeding Khamenei, the theofascism in Iran will ride out its public critics and maintain its popularity with the bazaar and the mosques for years to come.

The Greens are never to be considered to be a potential anti-revolutionary movement, because they are not. They are a conservative movement, wanting back the promises made to them by their revolution. No form of Fascism, anywhere, has ever been defeated by internal political pressures, and the Greens are no exception."

* * *

January, 8, 2010

Let's talk: Emilio Gentile is one of the world's foremost experts on Fascism. He argues that Fascism is a secular religion, more accurately known as a 'political' religion (totalitarian) than a 'civil' religion (democratic). Fair enough. But he also argues, in the course of two entire books, that the sacrilization of politics occurs only in secular states. If political power is in the hands of priests, that state is simply a theocracy, not a sacrilized political entity.

As I understand his argument, one can have a political religion, but one cannot have a religious politics unless one is observing a theocracy. The first phenomenon applies by definition to secular governments; the second applies by definition to theocracies.

Gentile is a brilliant scholar with a world-wide reputation. But let's parse his argument a bit:

Doesn't his argument evoke the age-old conundrum of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Who cares which came first if they are both deadly?

And doesn't his argument appear to have the bias of a monist; one solution, one truth, only one size to fit? Don't all ideologies and theologies evolve? Why limit one's thinking or analysis to the either/or, or to some frozen moment in time? Accuracy is all-important, but definitions are problematical if they act to shut off alternative thinking.

Finally, if the sacrilization of politics is so widespread--Fascism, Communism, Marxism, Nationalism, Socialism, Environmentalism, etc--then isn't the phenomenon better described as 'ideo/theological'? Whether politics are practiced as religion or religion is practiced as politics doesn't really matter if the result of radical ideo/theologies is mass death. Gentile is very careful to keep the normative out of his inquiry, but the ghosts of millions of innocents linger nonetheless.

I believe "ideo/theologies" better describes the two-way phenomenon of politics as religion and religion as politics. "Sacrilization" only describes one way; politics as religion. What is actually occurring, however, is the two-way, looping back and around, either substituting one for the other or both adopting features of the other. They are 'ideo/theologies,' not "sacrilized" politics.

'Be free.'

Archive: 'Theofascism & Duocide'