I'm currently taking a senior seminar course on European Fascism, which is fascinating, but i have stumbled upon, much to my chagrin, one of the most inane, pointless displays of verbose gibberish imaginable. Allow me to demonstrate:
According to our ‘reflective metanarritive’ of modernism’s dialectical relationship with modernity, the ardent craving for a new spirituality and new temporality that drives what Emilio Gentile calls Italianism expresses primordial longings for a new nomos, a new canopy of temporalized sacrality generated by a contemporary reality experiences as anomic, as decadent.
Has the author just lost it? Is there a point there at all, or just rhetorical meanderings? I believe I understand that what he intended to say: "That the fascist conception of modernism, as technologically, industrially advanced, or totalitarian, stood in conflict with the modern thought of French-revolution humanist types. "But the expression "modernism's dialectical relationship with modernity" is borderline meaningless in itself. Simply put, the author's language is pompous, self-satisfied and stupid.
I dont understand the point of writing so much and saying so little. I suppose the so called post-modern distrust of the"metanarritives" that can pop up in history might motivate them to create nebulous clouds of lingo, with vague, confused meanings. Yet the author can't sustain it for that long, eventually he has to make a fucking point:
Now, wait, so I just read a massive run-on for no fucking reason? hm. Guess so. And it left me so much the wiser. I now understand that there are some in academia who write down to the reader so as to stroke their own egos. I have little patience with this bullshit, especially when i have other, much clearer, and more thoughtful, well-written texts that I can choose from.
....[ the perception of fascism as] political modernism bent on overthrowing a liberal system identified with the 'Old Italy', whose utter inadequacy to address the forces of modernization irrevocably sealed its fate.