I suppose Dennis hasn't read Eve Sedgwick (or much of queer theory, for that matter). Hence his inability to distinguish homosexuality analytically from the (often violent) repression/sublimation of homoerotic possibilities in homosociality (and such repression/sublimation of same-sex eroticism in homosociality is dependent upon the exclusion/repression of homosexuals). Adorno's homophobia lies in his conflation of the two (homosexuality and homosociality), which results in his inability to see the fundamentally anti-homosexual ideology and practice of National Socialism and also in his blaming 'the violent, patriarchal militarization of sexual identity' not on homophobic heterosexuals but on homosexuals. (It has been also a common tactic to blame homophobia on homosexuals, arguing that it is not healthy heterosexuals but 'latent homosexuals' who are homophobic; Adorno didn't do this only because in his mind homophobia was not wrong to begin with.)
In any case, even in 1932, it was obvious to some German leftists (but not to Adorno) that, for instance, insinuating that Röhm was a Nazi because of his homosexuality was against the interest of sexual liberation. See Kurt Tucholsky's article "Röhm" in _The Weimar Republic Sourcebook_ (p. 714): "We oppose the disgraceful paragraph 175 wherever we can; therefore, we may not join voices with the chorus that would condemn a man because he is a homosexual."
Moreover, to quote Theweleit again: "For him [Adorno] the 'tough guys,' despite their alleged hatred of effeminacy, are 'in the end...the true effeminates.'" Here one cannot but see a plain old sexism coupled with homophobia.
>Finally, why is Adorno's insistence that we shouldn't fetishize the
>capacity of non-Western peoples and cultures to resist capitalism racist?
An opposition to romantic primitivism does not at all require statements such as this: "There is some reason to fear that the involvement of non-Western peoples in the conflicts of industrial society, long overdue in itself, will be less to the benefit of the liberated peoples than to that of rationally improved production and communications, and a modestly raised standard of living. Instead of expecting miracles of the pre-capitalist peoples, older nations [sic] should be on their guard against *their unimaginative, indolent taste* for everything proven, and for the successes of the West" (emphasis mine). But I suppose you are standing on guard against our 'unimaginative, indolent taste for everything proven, and for the successes of the West,' as instructed by Adorno.
Adorno's 'psychological' aphorisms, however, are also empirically proven wrong by Ken & Dennis; it is not in 'non-Western' peoples but in 'Western' intellectuals that Adorno should have anticipated 'an inordinate respect for all that is established, accepted, acknowledged' and 'a possessive, intolerant kind of love.'
Yoshie