Wtf? I am NOT defending fascism at all. I am objecting some of Umberto Eco's lisg items. That's it.

I lean to classic liberalism. Totally contrary to fascism. Fascism raised against what I support and against socialism/communism/marxism but not because it was totally anti-modern.

Of the three main political ideas of modernity, liberalism("liberté), socialism("égalité) and nationalism("fraternité), fascism just hiper dialed-up the last one while borrowing pragmatically elements from other ideologies/system of political thought

Modernism you are talking about if the art movement.

I am talking about sociological and political definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity?wprov=sfla1

Actually Mussolini was a pioneer in using the new media(Radio) for conquering support from the masses.

This is it. Well explained. I second it.

Mussolini did not create the monarcy and actually worked to weaken it. He controlled the king and used as tool. He was not a monarchist at all.

Capitalism is a modern system. If you really reject modernism you have to reject capitalism. "Going back" to capitalism specially in Itally which was a late industrialising country was not a return to "old tradition" not "a conservative path". It was different modern path.

Also, you are trying to project the era of fascism as woke vs anti-woke. It's anachronistic.

Just read the "modern" communism in action against male homesexuality:

"In 1933, the Soviet government under Stalin recriminalised sex between men. On 7 March 1934, Article 121 was added to the criminal code for the entire Soviet Union that expressly prohibited only male homosexuality, with up to five years of hard labour in prison. There were no criminal statutes regarding sex between women. During the Soviet era, Western observers believed that between 800 and 1,000 men were imprisoned each year under Article 121." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DOn_7_March_1934%2C_Article%2Cof_hard_labour_in_prison.?wprov=sfla1)

Before the sixties, there still was heavy conservatism regarding gender roles everywhere in the west. When was homesexuality decriminalised in the UK? Surely not before the fiftied.

Fascist was ANTI-LIBERAL but not really anti-modern. By principle, nationalism, one of the key defining ideas of fascism, is a modern idea coming from the french revolution.

I mentioned that I was not referring to "hardware" but ideas.

Both Mussolini and Hitler used bureaucracies and modern states. They did not try to dismantle or diminish modern state capabilities. Quite the contrary, they pushed for "efficiency" which is modern idea!

What is one of the most famous quotes about Mussolini? The onr about "making italian trains be on time". Punctuality and obsession with accuracy, time, is another modern thing!

Did they try to really focus on religion, for instance? Not at all. They were actually indifferent or atheistic.

No, fascism was and is another form of modern statism using the modern state not relying in the duality of "throne and altar", not really emphasizing customs, but legal positivism.

Did they refer to some old tradition, to history? Well, duh, all political leaders use them in any way or the other. No one has a 100% break with the past.

And actually many real conservatives and traditionalist fought or were against fascists. It is a fact.

Matthew 1: There are, I think, 3 key things to highlight or discuss here. The first is that clearly the author seeks with genealogy (which almost all Bible scholars and even many fathers and doctors of the church and theologians consider to be not historically true*) seeks to validate Jesus as a descendant of Abraham and of David to whom Yawhew had made promises. The second is that the descent from David is mentioned through Joseph, but Jesus is not the biological son of the previous one but rather an adoptive one. Although on the other hand, Mary was from the same tribe as Joseph so she was also from "the house of David." And thirdly we have the so-called "mystery of the incarnation."

• Books of the bible are neither historical nor scientific.They were not created with that intention. Biblical literalism is a recent phenomena, starting in the 19th century. Until then, they were interpreted using other "senses" besided the literal one. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_senses_of_Scripture?wprov=sfla1

I am not sure the most famous fascist regimes (Mussolini, who created the idea and actually wrote about it, and Hitler) fulfilled all of this.

None of them really rejected Modernism in the sense that they embraced modern technologies and I am not talking about the hardware but also the software, the organizational models(bureaucracy), rational procedures etc.

I see a deeper rejection of Modernism some movements of the current woke/post-modern left.

Actually post-modernism is in great part a project for rejecting Modernism and enlightenment.

I also don't a total cult of tradition in italian fascim and german Nazism. Sure, they used the distant past or Roman Empire and German Mythology, but did they try to re-establish monarchical system or even feudal? Not at all.

Fascism is hyper-nationalism which inevitably produce a totalitarian state, militarism, etc.

And the other problem with Umbero Eco's list is that it is too many criteria.

I seriously doubt corporations would exist witihout state laws that favor them violating rights.

Sure, there exist economies of scale but there are also diseconomies of scale. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale?wprov=sfla1

Anecdotally, I have worked to big companies or as a provider to them for several years and I see everyday the absurdity of bureaucracy, waste, inefficiency,etc

When diseconomies of scale kick in, what allows a big company to compete? In many cases it is government goodies: intellectual property rights, tariff, subsidies(either hidden or explicit), barriers to entry for the industry sector, etc.

There is a long history of MANY private organizations and individuals using violence(aggression, not self-defense), yes. And happens everyday.

But based on the definition of "the state" as that entity having the monopoly of the use of violence in a territory, those uses of violence by private entites were either allowed by negligence/incapacity or with complicity by the state.

I was going to say basically the same.

Between which two?

Implied in the post. "5+"

5, so far.

Assists in Copa America

1. Catholic church clerics and some popes did promote science(or proto-science or the use of reason and even empiricism(observation and/or experiments) and humanism

2. Notion of "natural rights" came from 12th century development of theologians and catholic church. Enlightment thinkers took it from them

3. Capitalism was born in northern italy in the high middle ages. Not in low-countries or britain in the 17th or 18th century.

4. "Arab golden age" was actually more of a Persian thing.

5. There is a lot of invention related to facts about the "the middle age" by enlightenment writers. See "the invention of the middle-ages" by Jacques Heers.

6. There is a lot of inventef facts about the Spanish Empire. This is called "Spanish Black Legend". And this included also anti-catholic propaganda

7. So-called "Wars of religion" in the 16th and 17th century were mostly about political power and arguably about emerging nationalism. Little was really about theological differences between christians.

It might be. Probably the way you write it is clearer the sense.

Most territorial conquests use "divide et impera". It is like "in the manual"

I think the first phrase until the comma is fairly understandable, even for english-only speakers, isn't it?

Gallia=Gaul Est=is Omnia=all (we use "omni" in englishnand other romance langugages as a prefix to mean all elements of a set) Divisa= divided In= in Partes= parts Tres= three (this one is germanic origin but shares indo-european root with latin)

If I remember correcly he didn't fight against all the tribes. Some submitted to Rome. And maybe(correct me if I'm wrong) some tribes after submission started to fight FOR Rome against other tribes.

I haven't read Julius Caesar's book yet so maybe I am totally wrong. But what I said goes with the usual pattern of conquest. It was rarely all fight, there were some game of alliances with some native tribes.

See also this post in the sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/greatbooksclub/s/h1Splppzs5

Join the sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/greatbooksclub/s/eKoPQVJI4f

I posted in Christianity sub.

By the way, I think the proper name is "The Gospel by (Saint) Matthew"