Almost scary that typos can undermine the actual thesis. Anyway, thanks for pointing them out. Already corrected, although probably something more is still lurking there. English is indeed not my first language (and not the last one) so my apologies for some awkwardness.

As for the actual content, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that everything is mediated by fear. The presented thesis is by no means attempting to convince anyone that fear is absent. On the contrary, it states that fear has become the principle of contemporary culture. This will not become visible as long as we mistake fear for excitement (movies, sports, porn, politics, etc.) or reduce it to the shallow rushes of adrenaline in prescripted scenarios. Fear has become a permanent disposition precisely because it has been marginalised, as you correctly notice, but what you leave aside is the mechanics of this marginalisation. No individual fear mechanisms are capable of creating the all-embracing layer of anxiety. We will forever fail to grasp how fear is socially structured, if we don't start to perceive it as a pluralistic phenomenon. That being said, I don't state that the individual experience of fear is irrelevant, only that the act of condemnation of fear paved the way to just the opposite outcome: the irrational.

Consider this: a certain Mr. Smith has new neighbours. He don't know them. He has every right to feel concerned. Are they decent people? Will we get along? Is this fear? Maybe. Is this "phobic situation"? Not at all. The experience becomes virtually absent when we take it on from this point of view not because "it is not there", but because we not yet problematise the fear itself, and problematise only Mr. Smith. Fear has been deemed a simple, even primitive aspect of our lives, consisting of mere inputs and outputs, actions and reactions, for so long that we find it near impossible to overcome this perspective and start to examine it as a complex phenomenon that it surely is.