Oh yeah, Mussolini totally wanted Jews and gypsies to be a part of the state.

He totally wanted a broad and inclusive

state where everyone had a place. Hitler wanted Jews to be part of the state too, right?
Mussolini's fascism was not that focused on race, not until Hitler rose and Mussolini became the little brother doing what big brother
ordered him to do. Until then, Mussolini had a significant amount of support among Italian Jews.
That being said, you seem to misunderstand greatly what I meant. All-encompassing isn't the same thing as "all-inclusive". You forgot
the last part of the Mussolini quote "nothing against the State". People who are perceived as being against the State were subject to
repression, exile or extermination.
This is why American fascists like Elizabeth Dilling and Roger Pearson
I checked both and neither claimed to be fascist nor are widely understood to be fascists, though the accusation was thrown at them
from some quarters. I get what you're trying to do, to prove a definition wrong by counterexample, "these people are fascist, they
don't fit your definition of fascism, therefore your definition is wrong". But for such a counterexample to function, your
counterexamples would have to be almost universally recognized as actual examples of fascism, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Fascists promised right wingers that they would keep them free from Marxists who would take away their guns and
free speech. This is the Fascist Creep. Hitler promised to protect free speech.
Extremists lie about the radicality of their actual positions to get power all the time. That being said, I can't read German, but the
Hitler poster seems more like to complain of censorship, NOT to promise free speech.
This quote may have been made up, but it's still a correct description of extremists: "When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom
because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my
principles." Differentiating libertarians from authoritarians when they are in a position of weakness can be difficult, because both will
claim to espouse individual freedoms, one out of principle, the other out of convenience. That obviously doesn't mean that everyone
who pleads for freedom of speech is a fascist that would like to take it away.
The "fascist creep" I googled and found only one hit, a book by Alexander Reid Ross published by an anarchist book editor and who is
pretty far on the left and associated with "antifa" movements. It also contradicts historical fascist regimes. They didn't get to power by
"creep", as soon as they had a foot in the door of power, they barged in and made rapid changes to transform societies into fascist
regimes.
There is a reason that Umberto Eco called fascism a "fuzzy totalitarianism". The person who wrote this ignorant
comment should read the essay Ur-Fascism.
Umberto Eco is not the-end-all-be-all authority of fascism. His essay isn't to be taken as absolutely true. For example, his first
characteristic of "ur-fascism" was "cult of tradition", but that flies in the face of the conservative opposition to fascism that was
notably eloquently expressed by former Kaiser Wilhelm:
There is a man alone, without family, without children, without God....He builds legions but he doesn’t build a nation. A nation is created by
families, a religion, tradition: it is made up out of the hearts of mothers, the wisdom of fathers, the joy and the exuberance of children. [Of
Germany under Hitler he says]....an all-swallowing State, disdainful of human dignities and the ancient structure of our race, sets itself up in
place of everything else. And the man who, alone, incorporates in himself this whole State, has neither a God to honour nor a dynasty to
conserve, nor a past to consult....
The refusal of Nazis to respect tradition was a major attack by conservative critiques on them. To say that fascists are defined by a
"cult of tradition" seems on its face incorrect, but may be politically convenient for some who want to paint all conservatives as
fascistic or even fascists.

level 4
mrxulski

1 point·5 days ago·edited 5 days ago

Elizabeth Dilling was charged with sedition for attending Nazi meetings in Nazi Germany. She almost went to jail for supported the
Nazis.
As for Roger Pearson, his ideology is actually more extreme than the fascism of William Dudley Pelley. Pearson is more racist than
Pelley was.
As for your claim that fascism doesn't include the Cult of Tradition, well that is absurd. What you fail to realise is that Hitler and the
fascist manipulated traditional values. Nazism was a complete worldview that had interpretations of the past, present, and future.
This is why Italian Fascists like futurist art so much. They liked the action embodied in the art.
This Umberto Eco quote is appropriate-
Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement
(“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate
intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly
engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values
Sorry, but one quote by a politician doesn't change how fascism works. Free speech is one of the traditional values.
Palingenetic Nationalism relies on traditions. Palingenetic Nationalism relies on traditional values.
Elizabeth Dilling was part of the anti interventionist movement just as much as Sir Oswald Mosley was. Hitler's friends in the West
wanted the usa to stay out of the war.
You know Trump's "American First" campaign slogan?