>>7957394There is a lot of alignment there but I can't agree with the Marxist teleology or the posited nature of races and peoples.
The former is an article of faith for communists but we just don't see it play out in reality, and the place of fascism in the teleology is always shaky because fascism has to be fit into it on an ad-hoc basis. So we get fascism as historical aberration, fascism as final stage of capitalism (and differing explanations of what that means), fascism as developmental dictatorship, etc. In contrast the idealist perspective that I'm putting forward makes more sense-- it explains why Marxist states tend toward "red fascism" and gives fascism a place in the dialectic that's consistent with its actual intellectual development.
As for the national question-- I agree race is not completely contiguous with scientific understanding of human genetics and that the nation is all the things you said and not just blood. But blood is a component of a nation and we can recognize race intuitively and objectively. A German and a Celt are more similar than a German and a Chinaman and to recognize this difference is not to denigrate the Chinese civilization's accomplishments. If you find chauvinism distasteful, I understand, but the nation is a feeling and people instinctively feel that people like them are brothers.
I do also worry about the last thing you said, even if I conceptualize it differently. How many people will accept Thiel/Hazony right wing populism-- I absolutely do not consider them fascists-- in favor of a real national revolution? It can't be accepted.
>>7957407>The word you're looking for is authoritarianismI'm not. I meant what I said. The rhetoric and, to an extent, the thought-world of interwar fascism were destroyed, but the spirit is repeatedly realized in purportedly communist movements. The Falange greeted Che with Roman salutes, and you can't understand why if you just cast Che as a "leftist" and the Falange as "rightists".
