Two tangos

A classic one: when we were whole:

Astor Piazzolla’s Vuelvo al Sur:


A tango for our time:

Alfred Schnittke’s Tango in a Madhouse:





Oh, we’re sunk enough here, God knows!

In 1995 Umberto Eco published in The New York Reivew of Books a piece (later that year reprinted in Utne Reader) entitled “Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt.” The purpose was to list warning signs of the emergence of anti-democratic, authoritarian reactionaries.

Looking back over two decades, 1995 may seem like a relatively benign epoch, hardly worth raising alarms about democracy. But in fact the tributaries that would form the great flood we find ourselves in  could already be spotted by the observant: The “Christian” right had solidified , submerging the doctrinal disputes of numerous sectarians under the umbrella of a right-wing political ideology, perfecting fund raising operations, operating media companies and “universities.” The Christian right increased its cultural dominance, not by preaching the saving grace of Jesus, but by leading a war on life-styles, sexual orientations, “liberals” and lately Islam. The Republican Party, long proud of its “good governance” tradition (in opposition to boss-headed Democratic machines in urban centers) under the patrician George H.W. Bush, decided to take off its white gloves (without abandoning its plutocratic sponsors) and take up the tactics of scorched-earth sliming of opponents innovated Lee Atwater.  And by 1995 the “Gingrich Revolution” was in full swing. Newt himself broke numerous conventions  in Congress and led the party to the impeachment articles. While the right was perfecting its subversion of parliamentary process, it ignored good governance and allowed the likes of  Jack Abramoff to turn the Republican congress into a vast corrupt payola game for lobbyists. And then, of course, Roger Ailes converted a network into a right-wing propaganda-entertainment.

Because one way to verify a theory in any of the historical sciences (paleontology, history, political science, etc.) is to make a prediction of what later evidence will show and wait to see if it is verified or falsified. (This is exactly what Darwin did.) So it is instructive to revisit Eco’s signs to see how two decades have treated them. Below I reprint the article with my own annotations after each sign. (My readers who follow the news obsessively will, I hope, forgive me for stating the obvious. I have put my comments to the right, so you can ignore them if you think them too obvious.)

Eternal Fascism:
Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt
By Umberto Eco

In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between various historical forms of fascism, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

*   *   *

1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counterrevolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but is was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of the faiths indulgently accepted by the Roman pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages — in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little-known religions of Asia.

This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice;” such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and although they seem to say different or incompatible things, they all are nevertheless alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.

As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.

If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine, who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge — that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.

[Make America Great Again
America First
Session’s recent invocation of the Immigration Act of 1924]

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernismBoth Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

[Trump’s insincere bashing of Goldman Sachs and
hedge funds during the campaign.
Republican voters’ distrust of universities.
Trump’s loathing of “globalism.”]

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sakeAction being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering’s fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play (“When I hear the word ‘culture’ I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” and “universities are nests of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

[Trump’s entire life has been a series of impulsive actions.
Trump decides without consultation now:

E.g., Paris accords, DACA, tariffs, talking with North Korea.
“Fake news” and all the other ad hominems in his repertory.]

4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

[Personal loyalty is the only value Trump cherishes.
The examples are legion from James Comey to Steve Bannon.]

5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

[The first acton by the administration was the Moslem ban,
the organizing principle of his campaign—the Great Other.]

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.

[Even mainstream Democrats now recognize
the discontent of the white working class as the 
core of Trumpism.]

7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the United States, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson’s The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

[America First.]

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemiesWhen I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

[The fury directed at  “Liberal Elites” can be
traced back 
to Lee Atwater.]

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such “final solutions” implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.

[Mexican rapists and killers, subversive refugees, “China,”
“terrorists” all must be fought agazinst.]

10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weakUr-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people in the world, the members or the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler.

[This is why, after campaigning against them, Trump’s administration
is filled with Goldman Sachs affliates.]

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a heroIn every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Spanish Falangists was Viva la Muerte (“Long Live Death!”). In nonfascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.

[Trump’s unabashed fawning over military parades.
His own self-portrait as a hero: I would have run in without a weapon!]

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons — doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

[Trump’s sexual behavior needs not comment.]

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view — one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.

Because of its qualitative populism, Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

14. Ur-Fascism speaks NewspeakNewspeak was invented by Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, as the official language of what he called Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.

[There has been no president in modern times with as
impoverished a vocabulary—and verbal ability in
general— as Trump. But he also invents phrases
that short-circuit thought: “Crooked Hillary,” “Lyin’ Ted,”
“Little Marco,” “Fake News,” etc.]

*   *   *

Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier for us if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, “I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares.” Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances — every day, in every part of the world. Franklin Roosevelt’s words of November 4, 1938, are worth recalling: “If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land.” Freedom and liberation are an unending task.

—Umberto Eco

Analogies are just that—analogies, not proof. And history is not driven by simple rules. Trump, some might say, is too buffoonish to wreck American democracy. But all fascists started out as buffoons; the ideology can only be promoted by buffoons.

I believe we are in worse danger than we were a year ago. A year’s experience has shown us that the Republican Party is no bulwark against authoritarianism. In many ways Trump is the logical outcome of their political strategies. And even the temperance that mainstream Republicans might give the administration is becoming almost impossible, as Trump has shed the White House of nearly all “sane” Republicans. The rumors that he is considering replacing H.R. McMaster with John R. Bolton is entirely consistent with the picture of a president gripped by a dangerous, reactionary ideology.  And those who claimed that John Kelly would “tame” Trump now see him as he is: a right wing ideologue who, if anything, is a cheerleader for the slash-and-burn president.

We cling to a faint hope: that Democrats regain at least one house in November. Regaining the Senate would be especially important, because otherwise the Supreme Court will be lost (and probably will render opinions like Citizens United, which will entrench reactionaries in office) for a generation or more. But the prospects for that house are bleak: the vulnerable Democrats (which outnumber the Republicans) seem to believe that by acting “Republican-lite” will save their seats. They should consider Mary Landrieu’s fate. Even if, however, there is a Democratic sweep in November, the fecklessness of the party is no guaranty that they will act as a barrier. But we must try; writing off the Democratic candidate (flawed and compromised as she was) led the the current predicament. When we are hanging by the skin of our teeth, every piece of floating driftwood can be a life raft.

Oh, we’re sunk enough here, God knows!
But not quite so sunk that moments,
Sure though seldom, are denied us,
When the spirit’s true endowments
Stand out plainly from its false ones,
And apprise it if pursuing
Or the way way or the wrong way,
To its triumph or undoing.
Robert Browning
from “Cristina”

I’ll wait for you

Where human eyes have never seen …





Vivaldi is 340 years old today

Long live the Red Priest.

Vivaldi’s importance is not simply (?) because he wrote music which ranks among the most sublime ever composed. But also because he ignited Bach (who learned of him through scores from Italy) into creating one of the greatest achievements of our species. Bach had already mastered German counterpoint (an art form that probably surpasses the iambic pentameter for its intellectual possibilities). With Vivaldi’s rhythmic propulsion and harmonic simplification, Bach was able to forge the basis for German art music, a form that lasted for more than a quarter of a millennium and remains one of the summits of human achievements. Here is what Bach first did with his encounter with Vivaldi:

But Bach over the years could marinate Vivaldi, and it would the influences would turn into something as unbelievable as this:


Three hyperlinked, annotated and translated Medieval English lyrics

(ca. 1300)

Whan I thenke thynges three
Ne may I nevere blithe be:
That oon is that I shall awey;
That other is I ne wot which day;
The thriddle is my moste care
I ne wot whider I shal fare.

Ne = no, not, neither or acts as general negative of verb it precedes.
Wot = I know. This is the irregular first person present of witen = to be certain, to know..
Thriddle is found in no Middle or Early English dictionary I can find, but its meaning is obvious from the context.
Evidently popular in its time, this poem is attested in at least five manuscripts, including the collection of New College Oxford and the Arundel collection at the British Library.
Text Notes:

The orthography of the three poems in this post was regularized by Robert D. Stevick in One Hundred Middle English Lyrics (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing, 1964). The three poems here are numbered there, respectively, 21, 64 and 36.
Hyperlinks are to the University of Michigan’s very valuable (albeit unfinished) online Middle English Dictionary.

Translation [by DK Fennell]

Three things so disturb my thoughts
and prevent my happiness.
One is that I’ll cease to be,
Another: I know not when,
The third gives me greatest fear
I don’t know where I’ll go.


Go, litel ryng  to that ilke swete
That hath myn herte in hir demeyne,
And loke thou knele doun at hir feet
Bisechyng hire she wolde not desdeyne
On hir smale fyngers thee to streyne,
Than I wyl thee seye boldely:
“My maister wolde that he were I.”

Ilke = aforementioned, or, when used with definite article or demonstrative adjective (as here) the same. Here, however, it functions as an intensifier. The modern English anagram like, which means similar rather than the very one, evidently has a different Middle English origin.
Swete = sweet, as in contemporary English. And likewise it can act as a nominalized adjective: “Sweet one.” It was often associated with associated with the most precious of religious symbols: the Virgin, the blood of Christ, etc. Oddly, the homophone swete is a noun meaning perspiration and symbolically used to describe man’s punishment from the Fall.  Man’s mortification is complete in this noun, for it also means “life blood.”
Myn my. There are twop forms for most personal adjectives: my  myn, thy / thynhir / hires, etc. When it immediately precedes the noun it modifies my is generally used, except occasionally when the noun begins with a vowel, as here. In other cases myn is commonly used.

Loke – lookLoken means to use one’s eyes. Here it is used in the sense of “see to it.”
Hir – her. Part of the pronomial pair hirhires.
Demeyne – exclusive possession; private land. Demesne is one of the key property concepts that entrenced the overclass in the feudal system. It meant that part of one’s real property that those lower were excluded from. Peasants who workedlands enfeeoffed to them by their lord were not entitled to the the use of any of the lord’s demesne. Lords themselves obtained their fee from the king. Lands retained for the king’s sole benefit were known as royal demesne.
Desdeyne – disdain; hold in ctempt. Imported with the Normans from Old French desdeignier (modern French dédaigner.
Streyne – to encircle. The word is very similar to other roots often confused in Middle English. Here it likely is a variant of streinen, meaning to fasten, tie, bind up and more figuratively to enclose (i.e., fence in) and bind (as if by an oath).
Wyl – desire; want

From manuscript in Royal collection, published in Rossell Hope Robbins, Secular Lyrics of the Xivth and XVth Centuries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962)..

Note the clever A-B-A-B-B-C-C rhyme scheme. 

Translation [by DK Fennell]
(“To the Ring”)

Go, little ring, to that dearest sweet,
Who has my heart in her domain,.
And see to it you bow at her feet,
While begging her not to disdain,
That you on her fingers remain,
Then I would have you say boldly,
“My master would rather be me.”

(post 1300)

Al nyght by the rose, rose
Al nyght by the rose I lay;
Durste I noght the rose stele,
And yet I bar the flour awey.

Rose (n.) – rose. (plant of the genus Rosa, and especially its flower). As a symbol of great beauty it became a heraldic emblem of great families (cf. War of the Roses). In the Middle Ages “rose” could refer to a person of great beauty, of great valor, or of great goodness (especially the Virgin)
Rose (v.) -past tense of risen –  to rise and also to awake, to become alive. It carries the sense of excitement and readiness.
Durste – from durren – Io be courageous, to dare,  but also to be able to.
Lay – past tense of lien – to be recumbent, to lie down.
Noght – variant of  nought – not (adv.) nothing. (n.).

Bar – past tense of baren – to carry. With awei / awey (as here), imeans to carry away in the sense of  to steal.
Flourflower, both in the literal sense, and, in the figurative sense of maidenhead (the source of flowering).
From manuscript in the Rawlinson Collection of the Bodleian Library of Oxford University. It was published in Robbins, Secular Lyrics, cited above.

Translation [by DK Fennell]

All night by the rose, awake,
All night by the rose I lay:
I dared not steal the rose,
Yet I take the “flower” away.

Three by Yeats


He Wishes his Beloved were Dead
from The Wind Among the Reeds
(London: E. Mathews, 1899)
by William Butler Yeats

Were you but lying cold and dead,
And lights were paling out of the West,
You would come hither, and bend your head,
And I would lay my head on your breast;
And you would murmur tender words,
Forgiving me, because you were dead:
Nor would you rise and hasten away,
Though you have the will of wild birds,
But know your hair was bound and wound
About the stars and moon and sun:
O would, beloved, that you lay
Under the dock-leaves in the ground,
While lights were paling one by one.


The Old Men Admiring Themselves in the Water
from In the Seven Woods: Being Poems Chiefly of the Irish Heroic Age
(Dundrum, Ireland: The Dun Emer Press, 1903)
by William Butler Yeats

I heard the old, old men say,
‘Everything alters,
And one by one we drop away.’
They had hands like claws, and their knees
Were twisted like the old thorn-trees
By the waters.
I heard the old, old men say,
‘All that’s beautiful drifts away
Like the waters.’


from The Green Helmet and Other Poems
(Churchtown, Dundrum: Cuala Press, 1910.)
by William Butler Yeats

I had this thought a while ago,
‘My darling cannot understand
What I have done, or what would do
In this blind bitter land.’
And I grew weary of the sun
Until my thoughts cleared up again,
Remembering that the best I have done
Was done to make it plain;
That every year I have cried, ‘At length
My darling understands it all,
Because I have come into my strength,
And words obey my call’;
That had she done so who can say
What would have shaken from the sieve?
I might have thrown poor words away
And been content to live.

No, We Can’t

“We can’t stop the wars, make the old younger again, or lower the price of bread!”

Mahler, Berio, Boulez, Beckett.

“Keep going!”

Sinfonia by Luciano Berio: