The kind of “fascism” Goldberg seems hung up is, indeed, the feminine type, as present in FDR’s New Deal, and progressive political movements throughout Europe that have created elaborate safety nets and used government as an agency of protection and guidance – sometimes to an extreme that bothers many people, especially conservatives.

I sympathize with that. It’s certainly possible to achieve a feminine form of authoritarianism that snuffs out individuality and growth. Jung certainly warned about that aspect of overt identification with the Mother archetype. But the term “fascism” is so identified with masculine nationalistic and militaristic forms of authoritarianism I think it’s pointless to try to change the definition now. The other posters are right that a different term needs to be created to define the feminine forms of authoritarianism that can stiffle the growth of the individual.

One other thing is that I can see where Goldberg is coming from. His primary concern seems to be to preserve the autonomy of the individual in the face of the power of the State. He is perhaps more sympathetic to the masculine forms of authoritarianism than to the feminine forms, but in general he’s simply trying to express the needs of the individual to preserve autonomy in the face of both tendencies towards totalitarian dominance.

Perhaps “Fascism” is the wrong word. Maybe “Monarchy” would be better. What about “Despotism”? What about “Tyrrany”, what about “Kingship”?

I guess it all depends on whether we like the guy or not.

You know, the Law (ANY law) is not going to get up and judge itself, people! You still need somebody to call the shots when it`s hard.

So stop whining about it, and just accept the fact that Wilbur is the Integral William Wallace, the King of Consciousness Studies, the Non-dual Caesar, and render unto him that which is his.

Namely, that he is 1000% smarter than all of us put together.

No matter how many beer cans you throw at your flatscreen, you still are not the frakking quarterback.

You just have to know when to defer to someone who is clearly better than you at something.

I`m guessing that`s what Wilbur really meant by his invitation to suck his cock, although I have gay friends who remain unconvinced, and are still planning their respective pilgrimmages to Denver.

Well, we`ll see if that famous fly will drop, or not, won`t we?

I`m predicting widespread disappointment.

exactly! and yep, it seems silly to call the feminine principle, fascism. to be more blunt with my comparison: it’s like redefining the *N* word to include all Non-caucasian people (i.e. to seek unity of all non-white people).

labels are not by themselves bad or evil. what makes them bad or evil is the meaning of labels as accepted by the collective consciousness/unconsciousness of culture. and due to its historical context, fascism is like the *N* word. nowadays, even fascist states refuse to be labeled as fascist.

thanks for your comment.

~C

This is fine as far as it goes, and Goldberg is correct that what motivates fascism exists in the New (post-modern) Left as well as the Old (Christian, aristocratic, traditional, US-Southern) Right, i.e. the feminine principle, though it seems silly to call it fascism. If Goldberg’s point is that the Goldwater Republicans, i.e. US-Western, libertarian conservatives don’t have much love for the feminine principle that undergirds fascism, then that is a point worth taking. Libertarians, and libertarian-leaning conservatives and liberals are the opposite of fascists, because they exclusively emphasize the masculine principle.

So to Matthew’s question, does Wilber’s philosophy entail some elements of fascism, assuming the understanding of fascism given above? Yes. And any truly integral theory that includes the feminine principle along with the masculine will be seen as fascistic from the perspective of (non-integral) libertarianism — it will be insufficiently dogmatic in its rejection and marginalization of the feminine principle in politics.