Bret Devereaux

Machismo, for Eco, is the consequence of the need to have an external enemy (7&8), to live in permanent warfare (9) and thus to have contempt for weakness (10) and so cultivate the cult of the 'hero' (11). And here I think Eco has it exactly backwards. 6/23

Machismo, the bloated over-extension of supposedly masculine strength in the absence of the restraints of honor, discipline or virtue (in the modern sense), is not the product of the ideology, it is the root. It is the core emotional pull - the rest is just to justify it. 7/23

I think you made a mistake here. "Machismo" of your description, "fearless"/"contemptuous of death" dominance displays (bullying) make sense when the person feels secure about their survival. People who feel insecure about survival seek a champion or group they can be loyal to.

Also, "fascist-leaning" or "democratic fascist" ideology does exist. A core claim is that social roles and their obligations are not chosen piecemeal but in large bundles, or outright inherited/born into. 2/?

Contempt is directed not at all who are weak, but those who brought the ruin on their own heads. Those who are weak through no fault of their own deserve sympathy. (The need to sharply differentiate these two classes is why they suggest tying poverty relief to e.g. drug tests.)

After all, under conditions of scarcity it is not merely unaffordable to help the reckless and the antisocial, but by actively encouraging their destructive habits, doing so would pose a risk even to those who behave conscientiously. 4/?

Rather than possess merit "individually", which would be subject to questioning, assume there is some essence—which cannot be taken away—which elevates the person (and everyone else in the defined group) over some other such group(s). 6/?