Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Both Fascists and Nazis worshiped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

Guess who said this:

“Works of art which cannot be understood in themselves but need some pretentious instruction book to justify their existence will never again find their way to the German people.”

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

21st century fascism (ok, I'll call it neofascism to distinguish it from historical fascism) incorporates postmodern elements to distract and divide, it adjusted to new media, internet and social media. TV and radio was one-to-many, so fascists just needed one narrative. Now they want you to get lost in the pretentious instruction book and bickering whether elon's nazi salute was a nazi salute or not...

Anyway, what I'm saying is I think Habermas' approach to communication is very useful and Rorty's pretty useless to making sense of the world. But you can probably combine them both by using different methodologies to try to come to a conclusion about the truth, instead of just saying "the truth does not exist" and agree to disagree.

[–] Genius@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Can you explain how Fox News is postmodern using sources?

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Which sources do you want, like examples? You know the examples. Something happens that goes against their schizo editorial line: either they find another scandal to distract from it, or they find the one expert that can twist the story to make it look good (e.g. climate deniers, antivaxxers)? They may produce an artificial controversy to pretend that there is disagreement among them. Multiple contradictory narratives aimed at different subaudiences that disagree with each other and plain manufactured stories...but I don't watch it that much.

And since I don't know who I'm talking to, there is no point in investing too much time into this. But if you read Habermas and Rorty, you could try to see what I mean...or not... :)

[–] Genius@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago

Okay, now provide a source that, say, twisting news stories to look good is a part of postmodernist philosophy.