3 Pre-Cum Baby of Nationalism And Socialism
There is more to Fascism than Gentile. That would be kind of a reddit understanding of things. If you really look at it liberalism did not just pop up with Hobbes, Locke, Smith and Ricardo. German sociologist Werner Sombart finds a proto-Liberalism existing long ago in Italy saying things like “The idea of the modern state, I imagine, was born in the Italian tyrannies of the 13th and 14th centuries” and “Florentine cloth-making, perhaps the first capitalistically organized industry in the world”. Sombart even points to the position of natural law as a similarity with Liberalism. Now, what Sombart is pointing to is incredibly different from Liberalism he is not saying it’s the same, and we can also find proto-Liberal economics in Islamic medieval economic thought. Didn’t Machiavelli want like the goal of the Risorgimento: the creation of the Italian nation? With this proto-Liberalism and proto-Nationalism the “proto” part must be made clear. There is still very good reason we call Nationalism and Liberalism children of the enlightenment. We can’t say Machiavelli’s proto-Nationalism is the same as what would follow after the French revolution and Werner Sombart makes this clear in his book on German Socialism. So, when you speak of Mazzini, D’Annunzio, Sorel and Hegel you may say in some way proto-Fascist but not Fascist. Because of how Fascism was birthed you can call the father of Anarchism a proto-Fascist so proto-Fascist doesn’t mean much. And many of these proto-Fascists like D’Annunzio are much more respectable than the Fascism that would come after them. I will mostly talk about the birth out of syndicalism and we see that both Nazism and Fascism were born out of trad-unions. I quote a man who has been called the Marx of National Socialism Rudolf Jung;
“The unedifying conditions in the Pan-German movement, which was originally conceived of as a grass-roots movement, inevitably led to the evolution of a unique political and trade-unionist tendency. This tendency reached its consummation in 1904 with the founding of the ‘German Workers’ Party.’ In its principles, the thus-named Trautenau Programme, the party demanded – as the National Socialists do today – a partial socialization in the form of economic nationalization and provincialization.”
One would therefore be perfectly correct in regarding this program as a socialist one.
This birth in trad-unions and both have roots in France are but some of the similarities with Fascism and Nazism. They are kindred movements. The retarded Oswald Mosley went as far as to say that they are the same. However, speaking of Fascism and the more radical Syndicalism one may first point to Sorel and people like one of his most loyal followers Édouard Berth who moved to Nationalism and Royalism. What must be noted as Rocco put it “Fascism has created its own syndicalism.” he adds;
“The time has now come when class self-defense also must be replaced by state justice. To facilitate this change, Fascism has created its own syndicalism. The suppression of class self-defense does not mean the suppression of class defense which is an inalienable necessity of modern economic life. Class organization is a fact which cannot be ignored but it must be controlled, disciplined, and subordinated by the state. The syndicate, instead of being, as formerly, an organ of extra-legal defense, must be turned into an organ of legal defense which will become judicial defense as soon as labor conflicts become a matter of judicial settlement. Fascism therefore has transformed the syndicate, that old revolutionary instrument of syndicalistic socialists, into an instrument of legal defense of the classes both within and without the law courts. This solution may encounter obstacles in its development; the obstacles of malevolence, of suspicion of the untried, of erroneous calculation, etc., but it is destined to triumph even though it must advance through progressive stages.”
But how did we go from this radical Syndicalism to Fascist Corporatism? First, I said that Fascism is a form of Leftism, and that is made more clear if we look at its origins and its roots. This is were I disagree with my fellow leftist critics of Fascism. Fascism, and many of the other kindred Nationalist movements are forms of Leftism, but poor molested forms of Leftism. Fascists themselves will not like me saying this. You can see how Gentile describes the right and left in The Philosophic Basis of Fascism. Edmondo Rossoni before rightfully turning on Mussolini said in The Significance of Fascist Syndicalism “Fascism was right to remove all meaning from the old political jargon of ‘right’ and ‘left.'” Mussolini said speaking on Senator Albertini “In my eyes the whole political and journalistic terminology – Right Wing, Left wing, Conservatism, Aristocracy, Democracy – is so much useless verbiage.” Fascism wanted to take from the left and the right but I hold that it best fits in the camp of the left. And many Fascists of the time would agree with me that it came from the left. This leftist leniency can be seen more clearly in its first steps. To show that it was not a movement of the right I quote historian Eugen Weber;
“The first Fascio di combattimmento was set up in Milan on march 23, 1919. The ideas which it claimed to stand for were far from reactionary. […] The Fascios wanted to dissociate themselves from the classical ‘red’ revolution, but their own program was almost as radical: they would put an end to the monarchy; abolish the Senate, the aristocracy, compulsory military service, banks and stock exchanges; confiscate unproductive revenues; attack the money power; decentralize the government; protect and educate the poor. although Mussolini’s Popolo d’Italia changed its subtitle from ‘Socialist Daily’ to ‘Producers Daily’ it continued to support the workers revolutionary agitation, and Mussolini himself claimed he had remained a Socialist.”
Eugen Weber argues the same is true for other kindred movements. Speaking on Hungarism he says “In many respects these nationalists of Szege could be described as leftist, and they might so have described themselves if the term had not been smeared for them by its associations with Socialism, internationalism, and Jews.” Marcel Bucard viewed that Fascism’s spirit grew from the Left because “being the opposite of marxism, it is much nearer socialism — understood in the sense of social justice — than it is to bourgeois conservatism which it holds in horror.” I hold that many of these movements were leftist, but not good examples of leftism. Nationalism itself you can say came from the French revolution, and the truth is never so simple but this is true. Eugen Weber pins Nationalism to the Jacobins. It was this kind of nationalism that Fascism was a continuation of, and French Fascists like Valois viewed Fascism as a continuation of the Jacobins. If there is anything good to be said about Fascism and its kindred movements like Nazism it is that it was the logical conclusion of Nationalism (which is actually a weakness).
Thus we reach a point my fellow leftist critics of Fascism have trouble with. They do not get how complex history can be, or even to do history. We can look at their view of something like The Night of the Long Knives. They look to the fact people like Ernst Röhm and Gregor Strasser were killed then ignore that people like Robert Ley were not. Hitler as Rosenberg speaks of in his Memoirs did not want Strasser to be killed. Then also conservatives and reactionaries like Edgar Julius Jung and others who where loyal to Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen were also killed in The Night of the Long Knives. The online right is just as bad at history however. When they create a formula like “high-low vs middle” and try to universalize that, or in many of the statements from Mike from Imperium Press in an interview from pretentious Irish twink Keith Woods (you can see here). Keith Woods has his own incoherent video on nationalism and closeted femboy Giuli 333 did a video on nationalism where he doesn’t even defend nationalism. And their definitions of nationalism do not work at all. Nationalism itself having many Leftist implications. I would like to quote Eugen Weber;
“Men like Maurice Barrès in France described themselves as National Socialist. They realized that national unity implied social justice, that national power implied the planned use of national resources, that national harmony might mean the equalization or the redistribution of wealth and opportunity and economic power. Being doctrinaire, they did not feel the need to maintain the established order at all costs. Putting the nation first and property second, they found their theories were leading them toward Jacobinism — even while the official left-wing heirs of Jacobins were moving in the opposite direction.”
Race-mixing Danish neo-nazi Povl Riis-Knudsen wrote National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement. A few points may be weak however his definition of right and left, and his main argument is strong. I take this a step further and say that nationalism in it conclusions is leftist. However, this being true it is still understandable why nationalism would be attractive to right-wingers and conservatives like Maurras, Bismarck and Burke. Something that should be noted speaking of that is that for example Bismark flouted the dreams of many German Nationalist for the sake of the Hohenzollern family. If one looks at Nationalism and especially Fascism and National Socialism one sees that is was the right-wing from outside and from within that as stunted Nationalism. This can be shown in the last chapter of Hitler’s Revolution by Richard Tedor, and this also shows one of weaknesses of National Socialism;
“Unlike the Bolsheviks, Hitler did not oppress the aristocracy to promote labor. He personally considered the role of the nobility ‘played out’. It would have to prove itself to regain its former prestige, but only by competing against other classes within the parameters of the Reich’s social programs. A tract published for officers declared, ‘The new nobility of the German nation, which is open to every German, is nobility based on accomplishment.’ Many from the country’s titled families accepted the challenge. They enrolled in the NSDAP or the SS or served with valor in the armed forces during the war. A small percentage, concentrated in the army general staff and in the diplomatic corps, resented the social devaluation of their high-born status. Rather than contribute to the new Germany, they conspired against her. Together with a self-absorbed minority of misguided intellectuals, clerics, financiers and Marxists, they intrigued to bring down both the National Socialist government and their country as well.”
Hitler kept this reactionary class alive and so many and some even under the false view of being better nationalists stabbed him in the back (the fact of their class makes them worse nationalists). However, it was not just the right-wing from the outside but also inside. Otto Wagener in his Memoirs shows things like how it was Göring who convinced Hitler to put in the Liberal Schacht. Otto Wagener doesn’t blame Hitler for a lot of the things that went wrong in Nazi Germany but subverts like Himmler and Göring. The blame on Hitler, and I would go as far as to say that the mass genocide that happened under Nazi Germany as evil and inhumane as they were, can’t be put be put fully at Hitler’s door. We have quotes from Himmler himself saying he is acting on his own and not on the word of Hitler. We will see subsequently that, aside from several Gauleiter and other insignificant personalities, such as Ribbentrop, Funk, Frank, Bormann, and so on — in the main three men, acting according to their own diabolical characters, assumed the terrible guilt of taking Adolf Hitler’s thoughts and conversations as well as his actions and distorting or interpreting them quite unnaturally and covertly exploiting them for immoral and illegal, even criminal, actions, at times even for their personal advantage. These three men are Göring, Himmler, and Goebbels. Göring’s pathological delusions of grandeur grew into megalomania, accompanied by a persecution complex, which allowed him to turn to fraud and the killing of hundreds. Himmler’s mongrel mentality and purely mechanical intelligence interpreted his task — which was to safeguard the regime and the person of the Führer — as carte blanche for orders and actions that ran counter to every legal concept and bordered on the barbarous — yes, in the end even culminated in inconceivable mass murders. And Goebbels covertly worked as an agitator, whose scheming mind knew how to influence the Führer falsely. He turned the deliberate lie and defamation into legal methods of propaganda and national delusion, thus making sure that the incompetence and errors of the regime and of his men were veiled from the public by a mist of verbiage and statistics. Even if Goebbels was far from the right-wing of the Nazis I think this shows a right-wing corruption from within.
I think all Neo-Fascists can agree that Mussolini made far too many compromises. However, the point I am making is that the right-wing was just as much an enemy if not more so than the reds. These were leftist movements, but for forms of leftism. It may also be said that German Nazism was less dynamic and less progressive than Italian Fascism from its start. However, both were modernist, progressive and revolutionary. It may still be said that the birth of French Proto-Fascism as this meeting of Nationalism and Socialism reads like and was a meeting of left and right, and less so when you reach Italy. From Eugen Weber’s article Nationalism, Socialism and National-Socialism in France;
“The first meeting of socialist and nationalist seems to have occurred in the pages of a short-lived periodical, La Cocarde, which Barrès published from September 1894 to March 1895. It grouped such unlikely companions as Rene Boylesve and Charles Maurras (both later of the Academie Francaise), Frederic Amouretti, Camille Mauclair (contributor, during the last war, to l’Appel of Pierre Costantini’s Ligue francaise), and extreme syndicalists like Augustin Hamon and Fernand Pelloutier. As resolutely social as they were national, we find the editorial committee (Cocarde, Jan. 17, 1895) greeting President Casimir-Perier’s resignation as ‘one of the moments of the Social Revolution that is slowly taking place. […] and whose accomplishment no power can henceforth prevent.'”
This already starts to read like a meeting of left and right. At times as I will show the birth of French Proto-Fascism reads like a movement from left to right. I would first like to take more from Eugen Weber to show more of this meeting of left and right along with the birth of Fascist Corporatism;The appreciation of the young admirer, then an active follower of Charles Maurras, reveals one characteristic of these nationalists’ social concern; interested above all in national unity, they reject class war in favor of class integration, without, however, approving a capitalist and bourgeois order they despise. It was this rejection of bourgeois order and bourgeois democracy-that provided the basis of the next significant rapprochement which took place at first in the ranks and the tendencies of the royalist Action francaise, then between the monarchists and the followers of Georges Sorel
This rejection of class war for nationalism may be said to be the birth of Fascist Corporatism. Many of the old views of this anarchistic socialism can be seen in Édouard Berth’s attack on a straw-man of Anarchism that opens with “the first thing that must disappear is the State” he then will go on to say;Today it is notorious that revolutionary patriotism is dead; something else has arisen to take its place, a new feeling: the class idea which has replaced the idea of the fatherland, defining the split between the people on the one side and the State and democracy on the other. For with the appearance of revolutionary syndicalism a strange opposition has arisen between democracy and socialism, between the citizen and the producer, an opposition that has assumed its crudest as well as its most abstract form in the resolute rejection of the idea of the fatherland, which is identified with the idea of the State.
Édouard Berth however would not always hold this view and we may look to his article Satellites de la Ploutocratie to see how many of these change. Before I bring up the things I want to talk about in Berth’s article I should move back to Eugen Weber to show bits that read like a movement from left to right. Weber writes “This was followed on September 29, 1910, by an interview with Sorel, in which the latter declared his turn towards ‘reaction.'” Here we see just how much nationalism especially the Reactionary and Royalist nationalism of Maurras molested syndicalism. We can see this even more when Eugen Weber speaks of Édouard Berth; “Édouard Berth publishes Les Mefaits des Intellectuels, which reveals nationalists and syndicalists at one upon the necessity of destroying the capitalist regime, of restoring monarchy, and (on the way) of reconciling Sorel and and Maurras in ‘a new and fertile synthesis.'”
Édouard Berth’s Satellites de la Ploutocratie is not translated. The only “translation” that has been done is by H. R. Morgan (or as I call him HRT Morgan). A look to HRT Morgan’s twitter will truly show you what the Fascist new man looks like. HRT Morgan left little of the original article is left and anti-semitism and all that is left is a few random uninteresting quotes. He was done this with everything he has translated. However, you can find the original French online. Édouard Berth in Anarchism And Syndicalism may have said “revolutionary patriotism is dead”, but now he has changed his tune to “revolutionary patriotism is not so completely dead as our masters imagine;” He would now argue that those who ignore the national question must also ignore the class question;Moreover, if anti-patriotism wants to reason and remain consistent with itself, it leads straight to the negation of the class struggle, while wanting to affirm it more energetically . The need for class independence is itself based on a sentimental fact. Whoever finds the sentiment of national independence illogical must find the sentiment of class independence just as illogical.
Berth is right to go against class reductionism. There is more than class and intersectionality was right to point out that things like race, class, nationality and gender do not exist isolated. However, what Berth says here is nothing but mere rhetoric. And I do not think Berth would like it if I said that those who ignore the battle of trans people must also ignore the national question. These words may be said about a number of things, and is nothing more than mere rhetoric. More interestingly he shows this article, that is mostly about anti-pacifism, that shows the problem with the class collaborationism and nationalism (Mussolini would also say stuff like what Berth said here). However, Fascism moved to class collaborationism thanks to nationalism. With Fascism we see Nationalism with all of its strengths and weaknesses.“on the contrary, I would say, the workers have a fatherland even more than the bourgeois, whom one could consider as being the true ‘without a fatherland’; for the rich are the truly ‘uprooted’ who, everywhere in the world, wherever they find themselves, find themselves well, precisely thanks to their wealth; while the man of the people, the poor, out of place, uprooted, transplanted, given over to the double domination of capitalists and foreigners, is doubly enslaved and unhappy. In fact, in history, it is the rich classes who, most often, for an ignoble class interest, have sold the fatherland for gold, semper auro vendiderunt patriam, while the popular classes defended it with the most magnificent relentlessness.”
Berth does have a point. Fascist class collaborationism and thus Fascist Corporatism was in itself a paradox. It keeps an enemy which it hates, and that hates it. It wants to give more power to the proletariat, and hates the bourgeoisie. Yet, it wants to give both equal representation in production. Fascist Corporatism was the result of the radical anarchistic Socialism called Syndicalism being molested and demasculinized by Nationalism. Yet, the bourgeoisie which must be worked with is anti-national, and will work against the nation if it means larger capital. This was a fact which the fascist knew yet the principal was collaboration and compromise. And compromise is one way of saying you let the devil get his foot in the door.
I will now show this same meeting of Nationalism and Syndicalism in Italy. This is described well by William Welk professor of economics in the College of St. Thomas in 1938 in his book Fascist Economic Policy, and in The Italian Corporative State by Fausto Pitigliani in 1933. Both looking into Fascism and living during the time of Fascism, and Pitigliani himself an Italian Fascist.
We start before the first world war and the rivalry of the more radical Syndicalism and the weaker Christian Trade Unionist. These Catholic Trade Unionists took up a kind of Corporatism. Pitigliani points this out speaking on them saying that they “derived their sanctions from the well-known Encyclical Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII issued in 1891.” Pitigliani would then go on to say in the same paragraph; “The Encyclical Rerum Novarum maintains the right of property and consequently rejects Socialism, but prescribes for the various social classes reciprocal duties with the object of effectively and permanently harmonizing their relations.” There is one more thing to be noted when Pitigliani speaks of these Catholic Trade Union;
“Catholic syndicalism further aimed at attaining internationalism which from the field of labour should extend to the political field through disarmament, international arbitration, etc.”
This also kinda brings me back to the interview from pretentious Irish twink Keith Woods, and I am not really attacking Keith Woods here. This is a comment Keith Woods made in a now privated video. I only bring it up because other people think the same. He says that it is important to understand the economics of Corporatism and how it came out of things like distributism. Keith Woods is also wrong to say that the end result is an organic traditional society. Fascist Corporatism grew in a bit of a rivalry of things akin to distributism. Moreover, there is nothing traditional about Fascism. It is better to speak of D’Annunzio and Syndicalism if we are going to speak of the birth of Fascist Corporatism.
On the other side you have the more radical and revolutionary Socialism. It was not until the leadership of Aruro Labriola and Augusto Turati that that socialist party started to progress having only six elected members in the Italian chamber in 1892, then to 32 in 1900 and soon after Labriola left 40 members in 1910. Labriola it may be said would never unlike Augusto Turati’s turn to Fascism, but he left in 1906 to form his own independent labor movement. William Welk would note;Although this early socialist syndicalist movement never reached sizable proportions, its mention is important, for out of it evolved the Fascist syndicalism of a decade or so later.On the eve of the World War, in fact, the syndicalist movement founded by Labriola had attracted the attention of Italian nationalists. Inflamed with patriotism and with a desire for social regeneration, nationalist writers began to demand that Italian syndicalism ‘be freed from its Marxian leanings and be made to serve the national cause.’ When the world conflict broke out, a small company of patriotic syndicalists openly joined the nationalists in their pleas for Italy’s entry into the war. In this group were Filippo Corridoni, a young syndicalist of intensely nationalistic sentiments, Edmondo Rossoni, the future head of Fascist syndicalism, and the present leader of Italian Fascism, Benito Mussolini.
This movement was the same as Sergio Panunzio had called for. To quote Panunzio;“Italy needs not only a new economic but also a new political organization. The old syndicalism of the workers must leave its false proletarian exclusivism and join the national cause.”
Thus Panunzio would speak positively of Fascism;“The social originality of Fascism, rests in the fusion of proletarian syndicalism and nationalism. Mussolini, the born statesman, has succeeded in obtaining the fusion of these two ideological forces and in turning them to the use of the new Italian state.”
What made Syndicalism so weak to this movement, to nationalism, can be shown in a quote from Hubert Lagardelle “all the noble feelings which patriotism calls forth, heroism and self-sacrifice and unflinching obedience – the qualities which form the eternal foundation of life – will not cease to exist, but on the contrary, will continue to grow in the soul of the workers who are filled with the revolutionary spirit.” Syndicalism even when Anarchist or at the very least Anarchistic, cites itself as having similar drives to patriotism, and this can also be seen in Édouard Berth. Thus it was not hard to take up patriotism then Nationalism when you see that Nationalism has in it an Anti-Capitalism. So then Hubert Lagardelle like Berth found himself moving in a direction akin to Fascism. In taking Nationalism to its conclusion Fascism made radical syndicalism barely any more radical than the Christian Trade Unions it started in opposition with.
From this Nationalism came the doctrine of compromise, and compromise is one word for saying you let the devil get his foot in the door. Fascism turned compromise into what was mere necessary into a principal. It is not hard to see why Antonio Gramsci would say that the Fascist will soon compromise with the freemasons. The whole history of Italian Fascism is one of compromise ending with Mussolini in control of a mere German puppet state. Mussolini himself would note that this was his biggest mistake. That Fascists would turn on Nationalism itself was a dumb and almost satanic standpoint. First as I said before it is the Individualism of the peoples. Nationalism like Individualism looks too far into the particular. Nationalism can go two ways: one of brotherhood of independent nation states, which isn’t going to happen, or what history has shown it to do, the way of war and genocide. This is why I say Hegel gives a poor Nationalist reply to Kant in §333-334 of the Philosophy of Right. Kant wants to prevent war, and so, he wants a League of Nations to adjust and solve every dispute. Hegel holds that when the wills of nations can not be harmonized the only way now is war.
Thus the Nationalist Hegel proves right one of the attacks held by anti-nationalists like myself. Fascism and its kindred movements prove this also to be right. The genocide that took place under the Nazis is known to all. We can also speak of the genocide of Serbs carried out by the Ustaše. Fascism was born out of war, and Fascists speak romantically of war. And we can go on and on with more and more examples. The point is nationalism creates an other and an enemy, and the only way to respond to such an enemy soon becomes war and genocide. I don’t think I need to get into why they are both evil. Nationalism is also narcissistic and egoistic thus satanic. It puts itself first over all else.
Hegel was however right in saying that by “elevating above the universal the self-will of private particularity” one becomes evil. Nationalism is the individualism of the peoples and puts the particularity that is the nation first. Hegel himself on war shows he is somewhat hesitant to truly actualize the universal natural will on the geopolitical level, but if we actualize the universal natural will on the geopolitical level we move away from nationalism. Hegel keeps geopolitics as the game, where the strong do as they please and the weak suffer what they must. Thus nations will elevate their own self-will of private particularity above the universal natural will, and Kant wanted to prevent this.
The ideals of a universal moral law, of universal freedom, of universal truth and of the one true human race starts to spit at nationalism. Moral law to be moral law must be international, freedom must also be international and truth is international. Politics should have the international universal moral law as its goal not any particular nation state. Eugen Weber points out that nationalists have a tendency to move to relativism, but when they do that they also lose all moral ground to justify acting for the nation state.
And last we speak of D’Annunzio. D’Annunzio was a nationalist, but also one who formed the League of Fiume. This was a project for the creation of a League of Oppressed and had deep roots in D’Annunzio’s thought. This was a reply to the Wilsonian League of Nations which like the modern UN aims to perpetuate a corrupt and imperialist status quo. This could never play on the same level as the Wilsonian League of Nations but it does start to show how D’Annunzio was a more respectful figure than any Fascist, along with showing a slow movement away from D’Annunzio’s nationalism.
D’Annunzio was not a Fascist but in fact an Anti-Fascist. D’Annunzio had his impact on Fascism but an even greater impact on Anti-Fascism. It is known that D’Annunzio and Mussolini were not really buddies, but it goes deeper. Although throughout 1920 in Il Popolo d’Italia and after he had taken power, Mussolini had spoken out in favor of the occupation of Fiume, this does not mean that D’Annunzio was a Fascist. From the conflict of Fascists and Arditi, what is cited as first anti-fascist organization Arditi del Popolo emerged, born in June 1921 as a radical split from the Roman section of the nationalists Arditi d’Italia. But the break between D’Annunzio and the fascists was long before that. This break officially formalized by the legionary newspaper La Vigilia (now Fascists being called “slavers”) in the 1921 article To the legionaries. I would also like to qoute Argo Secondari;“As long as the fascists continue to burn the houses of the people, houses sacred to the workers, as long as the fascist murders the workers brother’s, as long as the fratricidal war continues. The arditi of Italy will have nothing in common with them. A deep furrow of blood in smoking rubble divides fascist and Arditi.”
I would like before my last words to speak of one little known Fascist text What is Fascism by Georges Valois. Valois here creates a vague and not too clear definition of Fascism, but also seems to hints that it is more of a movement that will be proved by what it does. It is for Valois a movement and idea coming out of historical necessity, and given time will prove itself. Fascism is dead now so it clearly was not the next step in human history, plus we have for some time been moving away from the time of Nationalism. And as far as what it did, a lot of compromise ending with Mussolini in control of a mere German puppet state. History has shown Valois was wrong to be so optimistic.
If there is one word that could be said of Fascism that word would be degenerate. Ignore for a second how this word has been misused, and you will see it is a great word for Fascism. It took Hegelianism and degenerated it into a vulgar one-sided idealism. It took Syndicalism and watered it down. It took Fiumeians and stripped away its character. Fascism was also wrong to be Nationalist, and so many related to Fascism started to move away from Nationalism.
Fascism is not hard to take down, and could be done in less words than are here. Before I was done writing this, I was accused of looking too much at the online movement, and I think anyone looking at this will see that is false. The online so called “movement” was my motivation but it was not my goal. I normally don’t care too much to preach about my own personal views as I am little more than a retard on the internet who has read a few books. However, I wanted it to be clear and be known that I am not a Nationalist, and I am not a Fascist.
I am not a Nationalist or a Fascist as is seen from above. I view Fascism as degenerate looking to other doctrines and corrupting what they were. And that is all for now.