Bret Devereaux

...well, yes, at long last, that is my point. Because this form of fascism isn't dangerous because of the laughable machismo, but because of the inevitable logic that machismo entails. Remember where I said that Eco had it backwards? 19/24

See, the cult of the 'hero' (who seeks violent death with enthusiasm, shows his contempt of it), the contempt for the weak and the vision of life as a state of permanent warfare - these are the inevitable rationalization which must arise to sustain machismo's foolishness. 20/24

Not the cause, but the unavoidable result. Machismo of this sort of narrow-fascism, which begins as an emotional impulse, not a rational ideology, cannot help but march down Eco's path of cruelty. Or as Adam Serwer put it, the cruelty is the point: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/ … 21/24

Not for its own sake, but because wanton cruelty, absent reason or purpose, is the ultimate display of power over others which is in turn the ultimate super-normal signal of the kind of cancerous 'masculinity' of machismo. 21/24

If you think "he's not that smart" he doesn't need to be - he just needs to read a crowd and then make mistakes. As Eco says, "Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy." 22/24

Of course the fascist strong-man can do a lot of damage starting fights and violence he cannot win in an effort to display his (illusory) machismo strength. Alas in this world, a leader's recklessness usually brings sorrow to everyone else and only the leader last. 23/24

So do not laugh at the absurd farce of 'big man' trying to appear macho and strong (Mussolini was short, balding and weak, you may remember). Instead, think to how he might try to display that 'macho strength' next - with what violent, catastrophic end? (Then vote.) end/24