I am not sure I understand your use of the word "symptom". Being syncretistic, by itself, is clearly not indicative of fascism (as you point out all religion is syncretistic to some extent, so is art, etc.), but if you see many of the symptoms that Eco describes - not just syncretism, but also traditionalism, irrationalism, uniformity of thought, fear of difference, populism, nationalism, etc. - then syncretism becomes part of your "fascism" diagnosis. By themselves these things can be part of various strands of political thought, only together are they Ur-Fascism.
Just like a headache, by itself is not indicative of a disease, but can be a clue in combination with other symptoms.
I was just replying to the last line of the comment:
But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge—that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.
That, to me, is just an unacceptable statement that is clearly wrong. Plenty of modern pagans, for example, draw some ideas from Christian writers like Augustine and combine them with symbols like Stonehenge. That certainly doesn’t make them fascists.
The medical analogy is useful. Tons of disease cause headache, or joint pain, or fever, or rashes, or stomach pain, or runny nose, or cough.
Some combinations of symptoms help diagnosing a specific disease. It's not the parts taken in isolation, it's the sum of it, and how it evolves over time. Some symptoms that worsen suddenly should be taken seriously.
> And again, I have a deep problem with the idea that only “pure” religious beliefs are somehow less likely to lead to fascism.
And you should be deeply suspicious of anything linking religious purity with anything. But he does not say that it leads to fascism, just that fascism feeds on it. Also, I think in this specific instance he lets his own religion cloud his argument, and that he should have said "ideologies" instead of religious beliefs. People do not need religion to be terrible to other people.
No it doesn't make them fascist, and that's not what Eco is saying. Combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge is syncretism, which is a symptom of Ur Fascism (as discussed) above. Symptom does not equal implication.
There is a trend, where persons religion is treated as evidence of stupidity and root of evil. If it would have a name it would be called ultra-atheist.
I humbly disagree! Although most folks on HN seem to swing atheistic, I have found them to be comparably respectful, considerate, and open-minded.
Just because someone disagrees doesn't make them close minded. Perhaps your experience has been different than mine. But whenever I've brought up my (ever evolving) beliefs, I've found people to more respectful here than in the world at large, and certainly more respectful than the web at large.
The fascist bit (in Ur-Fascism) is the resistance to reconciliation. Bits are taken on piecemeal due to historical accident or on a whim. There is no notion of consistency or inconsistency - no notion of tolerating inconsistency for a reason, even. There's just "our way" with no room for reason.
(The essay is taking the concept of syncresis to an extreme to make a polemical point)
Syncretism is part of what makes these movements appealing, though. Same as for conspiracy theories: it gives a broad appeal because everyone can come with their pet theory which will find a neat niche within the arch-conspiracy framework. There needs to be some flexibility otherwise everything crumbles under the weight of the contradictions and cognitive dissonance.
Just like a headache, by itself is not indicative of a disease, but can be a clue in combination with other symptoms.