This is not what i took from her. Yes, the erasure of private life (i don't see how this is relevant in this case, but OK, i'll give you this point), but the re

This is not what i took from her. Yes, the erasure of private life (i don't see how this is relevant in this case, but OK, i'll give you this point), but the rest isn't a primary factor. Also, like Popper, Arendt do not have the historical research we now have access to, which makes her theories incomplete at best (and they both are part of the reason historical research made leaps and bonds in the last 40 years, as they were non-marxists philosophers giving credit to critical work) The myth of Fascism (that she called totalitarism, but in this case it's the same, the roots are bonapartism) is "Our group is the best, and everybody should aim to be like us (Poles, French, Dalmatians, but also anarchists if we're talking about USSR... Depends on the flavor). But we aren't at the place we deserve because those other groups infiltrated us and we have traitors working agaisnt us (historically Jews, but also anybody "weakening" your group, like trans and handicaped people in Nazi germany, or pacifists in 1914). We need to get rid of the traitors and we will be as strong as we deserve." Yes, the society is becoming more fascist (or totalitarist if you want to use Arendt terms), but there is one reason to not be down: they are stupider than they were in 1920s. "Neofascists" are basic protofascists at best, with no real ideals, barely adopted the "great replacement" theory which is at best a rehashing of a 1900 theory. They did not read Nietszche but the Bible, and now seems to base their ideals in religion, which in my opinion, made them weaker.