Eco on Ur-Fascism

 

Ur-Fascism

Umberto Eco’s Framework of Ur-Fascism: An Analytical Application to Distinguishing Far-Right from Center-Right Politics

Abstract

Umberto Eco’s 1995 essay “Ur-Fascism” (also known as “Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt”) provides a seminal, non-systematic checklist of 14 typical features that characterize fascist or proto-fascist ideologies. Eco, drawing from his experiences under Mussolini’s regime, emphasized that fascism is a “fuzzy” phenomenon: not all traits need be present simultaneously, and even one can allow fascist tendencies to “coagulate.” This paper explicates Eco’s 14 points in detail and applies them to contemporary political spectra. It argues that high alignment with multiple traits—particularly irrationalism, anti-modernism, fear of difference, selective populism, and contempt for the weak—correctly identifies actors or movements as far-right in the fascist-adjacent sense. Lower or partial alignment may characterize center-right conservatism (e.g., traditionalism without rejection of rational discourse or parliamentary legitimacy), while minimal alignment aligns with centrist or mainstream positions. The spectrum exhibits overlaps: center-right shares some conservative appeals with far-right (e.g., national pride), just as center-right overlaps with centrism (e.g., market liberalism). Distinguishing these requires assessing the intensity, combination, and behavioural implications of Eco’s traits.

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction to Eco’s Ur-Fascism

2.  The 14 Typical Features of Ur-Fascism

3.  Application to Political Spectra: Far-Right, Center-Right, and Centrist Distinctions

4.  Overlaps and Thresholds for Classification

5.  Conclusion

Index of Key Sources (by Title and Author)

1. Introduction to Eco’s Ur-Fascism

In his influential essay, Umberto Eco warned that fascism rarely reappears in pure historical form but manifests through “innocent disguises.” He rejected rigid definitions, noting fascism’s contradictory nature, yet identified recurring patterns from historical examples (Italian Fascism, Nazism) and potential revivals. The 14 features serve as diagnostic tools: presence of several indicates Ur-Fascist tendencies. This framework remains widely applied in political analysis to identify authoritarian nationalist movements on the right.

2. The 14 Typical Features of Ur-Fascism

Eco’s list, as detailed in his essay, includes:

1.  The cult of tradition — Syncretism of disparate traditional elements (e.g., combining occultism, ancient myths, and selective religious texts), risking contradiction, as truth is seen as already revealed.

2.  The rejection of modernism — Irrationalism viewing Enlightenment rationalism and modernity as depravity, while sometimes embracing technology for power.

3.  The cult of action for action’s sake — Irrationalism prizing action over reflection; intellectualism is suspect.

4.  Disagreement is treason — Critical discourse is devalued; dissent betrays the group.

5.  Fear of difference — Racism by definition; appeal against “intruders” or outsiders.

6.  Appeal to a frustrated middle class — Mobilization of those facing economic crisis, humiliation, or status anxiety.

7.  Obsession with a plot — Conspiracy theories, often international, as root of psychology.

8.  The enemy is at the same time too strong and too weak — Paradoxical portrayal of foes as omnipotent yet defeatable.

9.  Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy — Life as permanent struggle; heroism tied to combat.

10.  Contempt for the weak — Elitism married to chauvinism; in-group superiority over outsiders and underlings.

11.  Everybody is educated to become a hero — Cult of death and machismo; impatience with ordinary life.

12.  Machismo and weaponry — Transfer of will to power to sexual matters; disdain for women and non-conformity.

13.  Selective populism — Qualitative (not quantitative) populism; the “People” as monolithic entity against rotten parliamentarism.

14.  Newspeak — Impoverished vocabulary and syntax to limit critical reasoning.

These are not exhaustive or contradictory-free but diagnostic when clustered.

3. Application to Political Spectra: Far-Right, Center-Right, and Centrist Distinctions

Eco’s traits align strongly with far-right ideologies when present in high intensity and combination. Far-right movements (e.g., certain populist-nationalist parties or extremist groups) often exhibit multiple traits: rejection of modernism, fear of difference (anti-immigrant rhetoric), selective populism (doubting parliamentary legitimacy), obsession with plots, and appeal to frustrated classes.

In contrast, center-right politics (e.g., mainstream conservative parties emphasizing tradition, free markets, and national identity without extremism) may show partial overlap—such as cult of tradition (valuing cultural heritage) or appeal to middle-class stability—but typically rejects irrationalism, disagreement-as-treason, contempt for the weak, and Newspeak. Center-right accepts rational debate, parliamentary processes, and pluralism.

Centrism (e.g., moderate liberal or social-democratic positions) shows minimal alignment, perhaps only mild traditionalism in cultural matters, but embraces modernism, disagreement as healthy, and inclusive populism.

High scoring (e.g., 8+ traits prominently) → correctly identified as far-right (fascist-adjacent or Ur-Fascist).

Low-to-moderate scoring (e.g., 2-4 traits mildly) → not far-right; likely center-right or centrist.

4. Overlaps and Thresholds for Classification

Political spectra are continuous, not discrete:

•  Far-right ↔ Center-right overlap — Both may appeal to national tradition or middle-class frustrations, but far-right escalates to irrationalism, conspiracy obsession, and anti-pluralism.

•  Center-right ↔ Centrist overlap — Both support liberal institutions and rational discourse; center-right adds conservative cultural emphases without authoritarian drift.

Thresholds are qualitative: Does the ideology glorify perpetual struggle and contempt for weakness? Does it portray enemies paradoxically and limit critical language? High-intensity combinations cross into far-right territory. Eco’s framework aids nuance, avoiding overuse of “fascist” while highlighting risks.

5. Conclusion

Eco’s 14 features offer a practical, flexible tool for identifying Ur-Fascist tendencies without essentializing fascism. Individuals or movements scoring highly across the traits—especially in irrationalism, anti-difference, selective populism, and anti-weakness—are appropriately labeled far-right in the authoritarian nationalist sense. Lower scores distinguish center-right conservatism (sharing some values but committed to democratic norms) from centrism. This graduated approach promotes precise analysis in polarized times, urging vigilance against disguised authoritarianism while respecting ideological diversity.

Index of Key Sources (by Title and Author)

•  Ur-Fascism (or Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt) by Umberto Eco

•  Definitions of Fascism (Wikipedia entry summarizing scholarly views, including Eco)

•  The 14 Characteristics of Fascism: Umberto Eco on Ur-Fascism by Joshua P. Steele

•  Umberto Eco Lists The 14 Common Features of The Eternal Fascist (Flashbak compilation)

•  Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco (The Anarchist Library edition)

•  Umberto Eco’s List of the 14 Common Features of Fascism (Open Culture)

Islamofascism

 

Islamo-Fascism

The concept of ‘Islamo-fascism’ (also rendered as Islamofascism or Islamic fascism) has been a highly contentious term in political, historical, and social scientific discourse. It emerged primarily in the late 20th and early 21st centuries to describe certain forms of radical Islamist movements that exhibit authoritarian, totalitarian, ultra-violent, and supremacist traits akin to 20th-century European fascism. This thesis examines the term through interdisciplinary lenses of sociology, psychology, history, and politics. It draws on scholarly debates to assess whether the analogy holds analytical value or functions primarily as a polemical label.

The analysis reveals a polarized field: some view radical Islamism as sharing “family resemblances” with fascism (e.g., anti-liberalism, cult of violence, mythic revivalism), while others criticize the term as reductive, Islamophobic, or historically inaccurate. Psychologically and sociologically, both phenomena often arise from reactions to modernity, identity crises, humiliation narratives, and authoritarian personality structures, yet they differ in foundational drivers (secular nationalism vs. theocratic revivalism).

Abstract

‘Islamo-fascism’ refers to the alleged fusion of Islamist ideology with fascist characteristics such as totalitarianism, expansionism, anti-Enlightenment irrationalism, and genocidal tendencies toward perceived enemies (e.g., Jews, secularists). Coined in the 1990s and popularized post-9/11, the term peaked in usage during the 2000s–2010s but declined among academics and policymakers by the late 2010s due to criticisms of oversimplification. This thesis evaluates its validity by comparing structural, ideological, and psychosocial features of historical fascism (Italian Fascism, Nazism) with radical Islamist groups (e.g., Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, ISIS). It concludes that while parallels exist in authoritarian mobilization and rejection of liberalism, the term risks conflating distinct phenomena and should be used cautiously in scholarly contexts.

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction

2.  Historical Origins and Evolution of the Term

3.  Defining Fascism: Core Features from Political Theory

4.  Islamist Extremism: Ideological Foundations and Variants

5.  Comparative Analysis: Parallels and Divergences

6.  Sociological Perspectives: Social Conditions and Group Dynamics

7.  Psychological Perspectives: Authoritarian Personality and Radicalization

8.  Criticisms and Alternative Frameworks

9.  Conclusion

Index of Key Sources (by Title and Author)

1. Introduction

The term ‘Islamo-fascism’ gained traction after the September 11, 2001 attacks, framing violent jihadist movements as a new totalitarian threat analogous to 20th-century fascism. Proponents argue it highlights shared traits like anti-democratic authoritarianism, glorification of violence, and supremacist myths. Critics contend it essentializes Islam, ignores historical contexts of Western intervention, and serves propagandistic ends. This thesis adopts an interdisciplinary approach, integrating fascist studies, Islamist ideology analysis, sociology of extremism, and psychology of radicalization.

2. Historical Origins and Evolution of the Term

The portmanteau ‘Islamo-fascism’ appeared sporadically in the 1990s (e.g., in discussions of authoritarian regimes in Muslim-majority countries) but surged post-9/11. Early uses linked it to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood or Iranian regime. It reached prominence in U.S. political rhetoric (e.g., brief mentions by President George W. Bush) and neoconservative commentary. By the mid-2010s, amid ISIS’s rise, some revived it, but usage waned among experts due to fears of alienating Muslim populations and conceptual imprecision.

3. Defining Fascism: Core Features from Political Theory

Fascism, as per scholars like Robert Paxton, involves ultranationalist revivalism, dictatorial leadership, suppression of dissent, mythic palingenesis (national rebirth), militarism, and rejection of Enlightenment rationalism. Umberto Eco’s “Ur-Fascism” lists 14 traits, including cult of tradition, rejection of modernism, action for action’s sake, disagreement as treason, fear of difference, appeal to frustrated middle classes, obsession with plots, and selective populism.

4. Islamist Extremism: Ideological Foundations and Variants

Radical Islamism (e.g., Qutbism, Salafism-jihadism) seeks to impose sharia via jihad, viewing modernity/Western influence as corrupting. Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and ISIS emphasize caliphate restoration, anti-Western resentment, and violent purification. Historical influences include interwar fascist admiration by some Arab nationalists (e.g., Amin al-Husseini).

5. Comparative Analysis: Parallels and Divergences

Parallels include totalitarianism, anti-liberalism, violence as redemptive, anti-Semitism/conspiracism, and mythic revival (ummah vs. nation). Divergences: fascism is secular/nationalist; Islamism is theocratic/transnational. Eco’s framework applies to ISIS (e.g., cult of tradition, machismo, rejection of weakness), but adapts via religious rather than racial parameters. Some scholars see “clerical fascism” as a bridge.

6. Sociological Perspectives: Social Conditions and Group Dynamics

Sociologically, both fascism and Islamist extremism thrive in contexts of humiliation, economic dislocation, and identity crisis. Fascism arose from post-WWI trauma; radical Islamism from colonial legacies, failed states, and globalization’s dislocations. Both exploit group polarization, in-group supremacy, and out-group demonization, fostering cumulative extremism in conflicts.

7. Psychological Perspectives: Authoritarian Personality and Radicalization

Psychologically, Theodor Adorno’s authoritarian personality (rigidity, submission to authority, aggression toward out-groups) applies to both. Radicalization involves identity fusion, quest for significance, and narrative framing of victimhood/heroism. Islamist extremists often exhibit traits like need for order/hierarchy, mirroring right-wing authoritarianism. Shared mechanisms include online echo chambers amplifying resentment.

8. Criticisms and Alternative Frameworks

Critics label the term an epithet that confuses analysis, promotes Islamophobia, and ignores fascism’s European roots. Alternatives include “Islamist totalitarianism” or “jihadist extremism.” Four discourses emerge: prohibition of comparison, endorsement as accurate, dismissal as propaganda, and cautious comparison acknowledging distinctions.

9. Conclusion

‘Islamo-fascism’ captures real overlaps in authoritarianism and anti-modernism but risks analytical dilution and political misuse. A nuanced approach—comparing without equating—better serves understanding. Radical Islamism remains a distinct totalitarian ideology, warranting focused counter-strategies beyond historical analogies.

Index of Key Sources (by Title and Author)

•  Islamic Fascism by Hamed Abdel-Samad

•  ‘Islamofascism’: Four Competing Discourses on the Islamism-Fascism Comparison by Tamir Bar-On

•  The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton

•  Qutbism: An Ideology of Islamic-Fascism by Dale C. Eikmeier

•  The Shadow of Ur-Fascism in Contemporary Terrorism: The Islamic State through Eco’s Typology (author not specified in sources, but references Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism)

•  Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 by Matthias Küntzel

•  The Black Book of the American Left Volume 4: Islamo-Fascism and the War Against the Jews by David Horowitz

The Lying Game

 

The piece is a sharply written, dialogue-driven script depicting a high-stakes interview or interrogation scenario involving false allegations. It unfolds almost entirely through spoken exchanges, building tension through layered argumentation, deflection, and meta-analysis of truth-seeking itself.

Synopsis

An unnamed individual (the accused, who speaks first and at length) is questioned about serious allegations made against them by a third party. Rather than issuing a simple denial or direct refutation, the accused launches into a detailed, philosophical, and strategic explanation of why engaging with the allegations on the accusers’ terms is unwise. They frame the situation as a manipulative “game” designed to force defensiveness, characterize the accusers’ claims as baseless lies (without evidence either way), and invoke concepts like weaponized vulnerability, subjective manipulation, and the absence of scientific proof.

The interviewer (or questioner) repeatedly tries to pin the accused down to a binary “yes/no” response, but the accused maintains precision, likening their mindset to that of a computer programmer who avoids faulty assumptions. The accused eventually ends the conversation, asserting they’ve over-delivered helpful clarity.

The piece then shifts to a separate conversation among observers (likely investigators, colleagues, or a panel reviewing the exchange). They debate the accused’s authenticity: some see clever manipulation and oversharing as suspicious, others view the precision and logic as signs of genuine honesty and victimhood. The observers end up divided, paranoid, and questioning whether the entire dialogue feels scripted or programmed—mirroring the accused’s own warnings about manipulation and prejudice clouding judgment.

Overall, it’s a compact psychological drama exploring how truth, perception, and power operate in contested narratives, especially when evidence is absent and motives are opaque.

Identified Themes and Topics

•  Deflection and strategic non-engagement — Refusing to play defense by directly addressing allegations, instead meta-commenting on the tactic itself (a common real-world strategy in responding to unproven claims to avoid legitimizing them).

•  Manipulation and “games” in discourse — Accusations as power grabs, weaponized vulnerability (claiming victimhood to gain leverage or sympathy while attacking others), and third-party manipulation.

•  Truth vs. perception/subjectivity — Absence of objective evidence turns everything into opinion; black-and-white frameworks are traps; critical thinking vs. emotional/prejudiced reactions.

•  Precision in language and logic — Programmer/analytical mindset as both strength (clarity) and potential red flag (overly calculated or robotic).

•  DARVO-like reversal (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) — Accused flips the script by accusing the accusers of lying and being manipulative/aggressors.

•  Oversharing and authenticity — Excessive explanation can signal honesty (transparency) or suspicion (trying too hard to convince).

•  Paranoia and division — How one person’s rhetoric can split observers into opposing camps, sowing doubt and self-questioning.

•  Power dynamics in interrogation/interview — Time as currency, value added through explanation, refusal to be cornered into binary positions.

•  Epistemology of belief — How people decide whom to believe when facts are gray; role of prejudice, logic, and gut feeling.

The writing is dense, introspective, and somewhat Socratic in the accused’s long monologues, while the observers’ section provides contrast through fragmented, human reactions.

THE LYING GAME :  THE SCRIPT 

(first draft, written by a human without using ai)

One

“So you’re not denying their allegation?”

“They have made a statement. It has nothing to do with me. I will defend their right to express themselves anyway they want.”

“But that is detrimental to you. They’re making allegations about you.”

“They are lying. But why should I play into their game? If I provide a response, it puts me on the defensive position which is what they want to do, from the outset. It’s a game strategy. It’s an often overlooked one. Everybody jumps on to step two without recognising what step one is. Do you want me to make a black-and-white response so that you have a framework you can manipulate? I refuse to do that. Although I know they’re lying, I can’t prove it. They can’t prove their allegation. It’s a grey area. Therefore, anything going forward from that point is a game, is not scientific and backed by evidence. It’s entirely subjective. I can choose if I decide to play into their game and which side I’m on. I do not want to play their game. So I will not choose a side. I will not give them any credibility that their game is one worth playing. As I said, my opinion is that they are lying. Their opinion might differ although, they must surely know they are lying, even when they present a pretence that they’re telling the truth. They are manipulating third parties who believe the lies, to target me. Which is a hostile action on their part. It’s weaponised vulnerability, they claim that they are the aggrieved party. They want more power and they want to take it from me. To achieve that, they are lying. So, there you have my response; an explanation that my opinion is recognising the futility of entering their game. It is all supposition with no scientifically backed evidence, Which is not itself any manipulation on my part for revealing that. You also have my bullet-point statement which is; they are lying. While you may interpret that it is my opinion that they are lying, which it is, it goes deeper than that. Whatever my opinion of the matter is, does not change that they are lying. I might choose to play their game by pretending they’re telling the truth even though I know they’re lying. The consequences are what this game is all about. Consequences which can be manipulated at every step of the way. That’s how game strategies work. Now for this lesson in how to think clearly, I have added value to your life and if you are to benefit from thinking clearly by following my advice, the value I’ve added to your life has come from me and from the time I’ve put in to explaining this. I’m not directly asking you for repayment for putting me out and making me serve you this way, but I would like you to think that I could do and I’d be within my right to. You’re asking me to work for you for free because you’re working for liars. I won’t ask how much you’re being paid for that.”

“So that is your rather long-winded way of denying their allegation.”

“No. I’m accusing them of lying. I have not directly addressed their allegation in terms of saying yes or no, agreeing to it or not. I have deflected it by explaining to you that they are lying. That’s a different item. It might seem confusing to you to think in that way because you want to put those two items as the same thing. I’m a computer coder, I write programs. I am this precise in my thinking because if I assume one thing means another thing, the code is broken and it will not work. This is how my mind processes data. I know that you want it in black-and-white. They’ve made their allegation and I’ve made mine. They are liars. Do with that what you will. It could be that I am lying. This is also possible in theory, although I know for absolute certain I am not. That’s what you’re trying to determine.”

“Yes, it is.”

“Well I have nothing more to say about this and it would be stupid for me to repeat myself. I’m busy and my time is worth money so please excuse me. I have to go now. For the record, I have answered your question well, even over-sharing by providing more information around the topic than you requested. I want to make sure that you fully understand where it is I’m coming from. I have helped you to the full extent of my capabilities. I do not believe it is wisdom to lie to incriminate myself. I request you contemplate that understanding and apply it to them also. Why would they lie to incriminate other people when the fact they have lied actually incriminates themselves as being antisocial? They lie hoping to stand to gain if people believe their lies. It’s a form of targeted abuse towards myself in this case or toward anyone else who they attempt to degrade with their lies, should anyone be so foolish to believe them. Sadly, they know that people will be foolish enough to believe them. What fools do with their own beliefs is nothing to do with me and nor should it, in my opinion. They have a right to be fools. Good day.”

Two

“Well that was interesting.”

“He said a lot.”

“We have nothing to go on.”

“He could be lying.”

“He’s a cunt.”

“Wait. If he is telling the truth then he’s not the cunt, he’s the victim of a manipulation.”

“His counter-allegation. Throwing it back at them to make us question their authenticity and the authenticity of their claim.”

“He’s clever.”

“No. If he’s telling the truth, that’s not cleverness, that’s honesty. Don’t mistake the two. We would identify he is being clever if it’s a case that he is manipulating us by lying. We do not know it for sure. He is correct in that he has worked with us to the full extent of his ability.”

“He went overboard. He overshared. That makes me suspicious.”

“Whereas if he had done less than sufficient, you would also be suspicious.”

“It’s my job to be suspicious.”

“It’s my job to ascertain truth.”

“He feels like he is lying.”

“I disagree. He feels like he is authentic. He’s a calculator. Precise and analytical of fault.”

“One of us has been duped by him.”

“He has split us up into two opposed camps, because of our own prejudices and perceptions. Perhaps you are correct and he is clever.”

“You are beginning to sound like him.”

“He reminded me to rely on logic to do calculus.”

“You admire him.”

“He has critical thinking skills. It does not mean he is innocent.”

“No and I suppose it is my place to agree that does not make him guilty either.”

“Do you feel like our conversation, the dialogue, is … I don’t know how to say this ... coded?” 

“Rigged. Scripted. Predictable.”

“Programmed.”

“We’re getting paranoid.”

“Are we, though?”