One of the major gripes this site has with liberals at the moment is the "Putin is a crazy man" mindset in which they give themselves to all sorts of "does Putin have autism?? Photographic caliper evidence says yes" and similarly inane takes. In the site's view this sort of conception of individuals as acting on history/anthropomorphizing a state is unhelpful and equivalent to Great Man Theory, which is an antiquated concept.
My question here is to what degree is this the case with the man to whom Putin is so commonly compared, Adolf Hitler? The Western liberal understanding seems to be at odds with itself, both accepting the "banality of evil" (through Arendt's analysis of Eichmann) and branding the Nazi regime as "crazy." To what degree did the Reich's actions flow from banal measured-and-genocidal political calculus, retroactively Putinified, and to what degree was the state and its actions (not asking about its propagandized citizens) actually given to wild irrational paranoia?
Parenti talks extensively about the very interesting "assymetry" in western media and literature on fascism; namely they almost exclusively ask "Who is serving fascism" ("Who is a fascist") almost as if the phenomena is somehow ahistorical and/or can be attributed to personal characteristics.
The reversed question they never ask - and the one Parenti insists on - is "Whom is fascism serving?". The reason for this media "blindness" is banal - even just basic reading on the topic is enough to see the inevitable and consistent links of fascism with capital and it's interests - including, in the case of Germany and WW2 - lots of ties to USA industry and millionaires.
based parenti