As I said it's been a long time, so let's see what we find for analysis on Naphta:
Naphta is termed a "revolutionary" and "socialist", but Settembrini sees Naphta's fantasies as emanating from an anti-humanitarian reactionary revolution [...]
The association here between Naphta's advocacy of terrorism and two extremely conservative movements – Prussian militarism and Jesuitism – is a huge political shift for the novel.
Yes, revolution and militarism, well known concepts at the time, unlike fascism.
Almost like references to the forces that embattled the Weimar Republic at the time, the socialists who wanted to join the world revolution and the military who wanted to re-start the war they claimed to have lost only because of the cowardly politicians.
Funny how that fits together when you consider the actual time it was written instead of the 30s or the cold war.
Ah, and here is a review that explicitly covers authoritarian nationalism:
he wrote and delivered his speech, On the German Republic.
In it, he publicly embraced the postwar Weimar Republic and the principles of its democracy, distancing himself from the types of authoritarian nationalism [...]
By the time he finished writing, the work had been transformed from a satirical novella into a sweeping Bildungsroman, focused on moral education and psychological development. It was now also an allegory of European civilisation teetering on the abyss – a “world festival of death”, as Mann puts it in the novel’s final sentence. [...]
Specifically, the phrase is a reference to World War I. More broadly – and just as powerfully – it reflects the sense of postwar disillusionment and social malaise that shaped the novel.
Authoritarian nationalism is certainly also an element of fascism but not exclusive to it.
It has been prominent in the German Empire before WWI and indeed this review draws the direct link to the war, which is something that Mann knows about and can react to unlike the rise of fascism which happens later.
Your desire to bifurcate periods of time and development of ideologies into artificial divisions is childish.
Sorry, I live in a world of linear time where later events and ideas cannot influence the past.
What i find more childish is your stubborn insistence on a point that you simultaneously refuse to prove.
It's funny how you claim to be handing me things when all you've done is quote unrelated third hand accounts of Mann's life and nothing from the book. Not even a literary analysis that supports your claim.
All while completely ignoring that I've repeatedly shown you ways how you could make your case.
I agree that this was big waste of time, lets agree to not do it again.