[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 Blairs 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'