I did not even understand that Chapter One was the thesis until I read Chapter Two.
dude you can literally skip arendt. go read Losurdo's Liberalism, Stalin, & Western Marxism, read Samir Amin's Eurocentrism, Georg Lukacs' The Destruction of Reason, Zhang Yibing's Back to Marx & A Deep Plough, Gabriel Rockhill's most recent 2 books on western marxism. you don't have to sit there leafing through Arendt and Adorno! none of their writings will reveal they sat next to LITERAL NAZIS as they penned them!
That seems fine on its own. The problems arise when Arendt lays out her horseshoe theory[1][2].
Ecco’s explanation also falls short, as virtually all liberal explanations do, because they don’t explain the actual origin of fascism, which is the capitalist class[1][2][3]. Liberalism is much closer to fascism than most liberals realize, and much further away from socialism.
Further, this writing is not very good. It hardly carries any sense of meaning. It's terrible writing, and not deserving of any contemplation. Unless someone deluded by its obscurity tries to celebrate it as rational.
Gay Decay is the ideology that supports the American Fascism Movement
Terror, in our contemporary fashion, is merely, or simply, meme-ified. Either you are or are not in conformance with this statement (supported by an image).
The up-votes indicate conformance. A meme becomes objectified reality because it is a popular sentiment. You must accept it because it is a popular notion.
The ideological notion of Zizek is that truth is a relative concept—merely popular. Popular means, people accept this confusion, not because it is correct, but because it is engaging. It 'hits home'. It is identifiable.
If truthful statements actually carried value, there would be no need to amplify them through popular sentiment. People would simply know what they were. Like, don't punch someone for no reason. Imagine a meme which said, don't punch someone for no reason, and had an image of someone punching someone with a circle over it and a backlash over it. No one would up-vote it.
What is required is an ideology. The meme is always a fallacious notion. It must carry someone from commonly accepted values to an ideological conclusion quickly.
This is the contemporary mode of totalitarian execution. You no longer have to murder someone through the flesh, you simply marginalize them through non-compliance.
And those up-votes can be simply amplified through bots. You aren't even able to know if they're actually popular. You just assume they are. And so you conform.
All about Philosophy.