"4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. 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."
### Commentary
I think Eco makes too much of fascists being motivated to defend their ostensible ideology. As an intellectual and a modernist, he thinks ideas matter and is not best prepared to understand those for whom ideas *don't*.
This reminds me of one of my pet peeves: people who catch reactionaries/revanchists/fascists contradicting themselves, accuse them of hypocrisy, then sit back smugly as if what they just did *matters*.
It doesn't. Remember: action for action's sake. What matters is whether ideas support moving fast and breaking things, not their relationship to truth or consistency or any of that effete crap. (cf *On Bullshit 
*)
If moving fast is Job 1, motivating ideas must be simple (so that you can get on with it), and distinctions and subtleties must be ignored and ignorable, as their only effect can be negative (to slow you down).
The easiest idea to ignore is the one you don't have. Hence Musk's eagerness to staff DOGE with inexperienced youths. It's not just that they're more aggressive and aggression is seen as a virtue in itself (independent of where it's directed). It's that they won't be slowed down by knowing how to think of downsides.
This also, perhaps, explains why Musk is sending in programmers to "root out inefficiencies" instead of, say, forensic accountants. Y'all programmers are my people and I'm fond of you, but you certainly earn your reputation for thinking everyone else's job is easy. (Shared with physicists: obligatory XKCD . See also Your Friends Are...)
The vibe that disagreement is treason seems related to the way tech executives responded to uppity "woke" employees. The attitude (viewing from afar) seemed to be "how *dare* you disagree."
The idea of natural hierarchy – that the rulers have an innate virtue that demands deference – is common in the right, all the way from plain old Burkean conservatism to hardcore fascists. Not sure how it manifests differently in fascism. Maybe an increasing unwilling to admit that the sovereign could ever err? Perhaps in the assumption of omnicompetence – certainly a characteristic of the tech oligarchs.
Note that disagreement directed *downward* is not treason but rather natural. Fascists perhaps consider spittle-flecked ranting to be the most authentic expression of disagreement.
### Related