What an interesting reply! I was always led to believe that the puritanism sometimes exhibited by Fascists (German, Italian or Spanish) was humbug and that the regimes lived off sexual degradation.
Hence I did not expect to find a major antagonistic association as Joe uncovered!
Well, we were all lied to as to the real nature of the troika of 20th Century Fascism, i.e. its real relationship to Western religion. As I have discussed
about Nazi eschatology, it is messianicly apocalyptic, Millennial and cribbed directly from the JudaeoChristian playbooks. As such, Hitler was painted as the next Christ, the literal Savior for the new millennial Reich (an imperial empire for the ever shallow 'nationalists'). Thus, in their own myopic minds, just as with the apocalyptic Evangelicals of today, they're not Evil - as we were all otherwise correctly taught. The apocalyptic Jewish Zealots were not Evil in their own minds, but they certainly were to those with a Roman (proto-Christian) POV. "The more things change the more they stay the same".
This is not to say that one can find plenty of examples of debauched Fascist individuals (especially as leaders), but this comes with the territory, no less than the typical debauchery of the Euro-nobility and ecclesia of the Church, the rule that proves the exceptions [sic]. This is also theologically consistent with Christianity, where Jesus let Satan rule the Earth. Why, because he and his Daddy were/are lazy murderous pieces of shit, or is there a dialectical method to the madness, albeit metaphorical, even gnosticly dual?
Very true, and it was exacerbated by the incompetence and arrogance of Quintilius Varus who lost three legions ambushed in Kallkriese in newly conquered Germany.
Even if this was the case, it had already been made moot by such as Julius Caesar, a Fascist Populist of yore, and of much repute amongst neoRomans even today. This, because JC's legions were only 'Roman' at the officer level, the troops being Gauls (like that later JC having Gaul-ileans).
Though I now have to ask what "non po" means - ?Non post-modern???? People of mixed ancestry?????
Sorry about that. 'Po' is an American colloquialism, a shortening of 'poor'. So "non po" means elites or wannbe elites.
The first point is that Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse have both a Marxist background and a Western liberal democratic one.
Correlation is not Causation. The American founding fathers were, by definition, Liberal. Even if judged along a spectrum, they were anti-monarchists, at least 'on paper'. By my book, their various Freemasonry practices accord these as being crypto-monarchists.
What you really need to do is convince us that these had motivations that are contrary to the process dynamics of the Western roll-out, writ large. So far, Joe and you, and the likes of Miss Kitty are failing miserably.
The second point, rather obvious, is that they hated Fascism, especially with Hitler and the systematic extermination of Jews.
This means nothing to me, in terms of your argumentation.
The third point is that they also keenly felt the failure of Marxist-Leninism to thrive and win over Europeans through some magic 'domino effect.' They could not explain Leninism's failure according to their democratic-cum-Marxist teaching but nor could they explain Fascism's obvious success in winning over a crucially significant portion of the workers of these countries.
Wow, so little patience, for Jews no less. Must not have been real Jews then.
But, in any case, I suspect that you, like Miss Kitty and the neo and cryptoCatholics, are again baldly projecting your traditionalist dialect interpretations into their motivations, unless you can demonstrate proof otherwise.
More importantly, in the quote at the very end of the Authoritarian Personality they frankly admit that they could NOT, repeat NOT, challenge Fascism successfully via "reason and restraint". Their reason and rationality, Western or Marxist, failed them in the face of Fascist development so they decide to cheat - to seduce the masses into distraction and dissipation via SnDnR&R, brandishing it as a porno-fuelled weapon, rendering them helpless, confused and stupid - all to ensure that they could never ever turn to Fascism again!
You are, so far, pre-supposing that Fascism is a good thing, except for those who 'Craft it', as you have yet provided any evidence, other than it is a historical LOSER, according to the standard terms of the Fascist/Populist Donald Trump and yourself. In typological process terms, Fascism is a necessary transitional state to an (now global) Imperium, as a process Synthesis arising from a contrived, manufactured Dialectic.
”The Authoritarian Personality” said:
Techniques for overcoming resistance, developed mainly in the field of individual psychotherapy, can be improved and adapted for use on a mass scale. … Thus, we need not suppose that appeal to emotion belongs to those who strive in the direction of fascism, while democratic propaganda must limit itself to reason and restraint. If fear and destructiveness are the major emotional sources of fascism, eros belongs mainly to democracy.
Thus, blah, blah, blah. Now, if you want to go beyond this quote I might listen to you. But, on its own, the above is rather dry, at least, as to describing malign motivations ... in a psychological war against totalitarian Fascism that is.
If you were to argue that one must first Craft an Antithesis to a prior order (of supposed Christian wonderfulness - as the Thesis), then one can indeed see Fascism as a Reactionary reaction. And, what we have been witnessing, is rather several 'rockings of the boat' so to speak, in order to achieve the Final Synthesis. These 'rockings' beginning with the American and French Revolutions.
Rock Music, 'rocking of the boat'? Hmmm
In the early days of the American Rock scene, one of the famous venues was The Troubadour in Los Angeles. Remember that quip? And the so-called noise in the Michelson-Morley Interferometer?
But, let's presume that the intended
eros does indeed have malign purpose, process or otherwise. You, again, make a
non sequitur from concluding that Fascism, from its oppositional state is a binary morality or whatever. It almost seems as blatant casuistry.
Clearly, in order to stoop to such a sleazy strategy, devastating families and individuals for generations now, there must be something very rational and Reason-able in Fascism that they were utterly unable to combat, something that they would not dare admit to the public - and, I suspect, not even to themselves since it would mean admitting that in crucial respects Fascists are MORE RATIONAL and REASONABLE than either Western liberal democracy or Marxist teachings or both in alliance, notwithstanding the comprehensive Fascist defeat in WW2!
Your task is to work out and understand what this is - and bring the smelling salts to Jerry!
Beyond my agreeing that historical Fascism (and its inherent Nationalist association) is a more rational construct of controlled oppositional support in furthering emerging and expanded imperial Western needs, I think you need the smelling salts.
Children succeed or fail for all types of reasons, whether they be in tradition Christian cultural norms or not. If you want to argue that their success is more likely in the traditional setting, you might want to ask how much of the obverse is merely from expected Christian konformity becoming a roadblock to others.
You seem to be on a driven neoPauline mission to advance your
thesis.
