To be absolutely clear, I am not endorsing far right thought or fascism. I simply want to investigate what makes the far right appeal to people in common terms despite obviously existing hypocrisies within the ideology. I’m pretty sure that most students in this class will discuss the articles. In the class discussion, ill be discussing that very thing too, so, I’ll keep my commentary short on that matter. Most of the articles deal with the seeming hypocrisy that, in order to maintain and propagate an ideology that involves reconfirming traditional roles in society these same ideologies need to be willing to compromise on these dynamics. Lopez and Sanchez’s article, as well as Kunhe’s article both point to examples of this idea, where traditional gender roles are both the ideal for these regimes meanwhile they are overlooked when confronted with evidence otherwise, like Hauke and the stroller, or how some women fervently supported the Francoist Regime and participated in it despite it going against the traditional views in the “Francoist ideal.”
This leads me to what I think will be an overriding point of my blog posts. People were attracted to these ideals. There has to be certain factors that make people inherently vulnerable to this far right thought. Several articles reported on how there is a central thinking in fascism about wanting to return to an old ideal. How homophobia seems to be a central part of their idealism. I want to know why people turn to fascism. There has to be certain key factors that make certain people vulnerable to the idea that fascism is selling. I think understanding this will help me understand the sources of the far right movement in Europe Pre WW2 and Post WW2.
As a I read more articles, and more posts, I think I’m getting a greater idea of the direction that this class is heading into as well as the trajectory I want to take this blog.