What Made You A Conservative?

[Deleted member 88]

Only God knows the state of anybody's soul. There is nothing especially esoteric about Christianity. There are mystical heights few people ever glimpse, but they aren't hidden any more than the peak of Everest. They are just hard to reach, requiring an emptying of self, a deep love for others, and a closeness with God through prayer few ever achieve. But even these aren't hidden, and those who reach them share what they can of their experiences.

Newton and Descartes seem like a really weird pick for fathers of modernity. They were influential on the eventual development of mechanism, but neither one is really a modernist. Newton was an alchemist and mystic who spent his time trying to calculate the date of the apocalypse. (So did an ancestor of mine. He went mad.) Descartes abandoned the material in a strategic (but premature) retreat to preserve the mental. I think that was a mistake, there is no need to cast the spiritual out of the physical world, but I don't think it was done from some malice towards spiritual matters.

Now if you'd said Hume and Spinoza I might agree with you. But neither was a Christian.

Tyanna isn’t arguing from a Christian standpoint but a radical traditionalist standpoint. That is Christianity had a connection with the Divine or the Truth, but as the decline of the Kali Yuga continued this connection was more or less lost. (The religion she follows has a lot of Dharmic elements).

 

[mesonoxian]

I hate termites! I live in a log cabin and we had to exterminate them and then repair the damage they caused. Carpenter bees too! We wage war against wood eating bugs.

We had a log pile that had sat too long near a house up here. I was going to move it and the logs fell apart and were full of tunnels and bugs. And then they started biting me and realized they were fire ants. I was so glad they weren't termites. I got bit a few hundred times, but that house didn't have its frame eaten up so that is more than worth it.

Tyanna isn’t arguing from a Christian standpoint but a radical traditionalist standpoint. That is Christianity had a connection with the Divine or the Truth, but as the decline of the Kali Yuga continued this connection was more or less lost. (The religion she follows has a lot of Dharmic elements).

Ah. I can't say I agree at all. I don't think the inner core of Christianity has budged one inch from where it has always been. It can't because the Center doesn't move.

But then my primary exposure to the Kali Yuga and associated ideas is Phantom Stranger comics from the 1980s, so I can't claim a deep understanding of the concept.

I admire you for jumping into the shark tank, @mesonoxian. You're also a lot more composed than I usually am when I'm arguing with all of you on SV.

Anyway, getting into pretty abstract discussions here. I believe there are people in here who are Traditionalists or probably more Evola-ists because the actual founder of Traditionalism converted to Islam and it's yucky now. I don't understand why follow a fascist crank. Nor can I understand how Christians can pal around with this kind of individual. I'm all for interfaith dialogeu but Evola rejected everything about being a Christian and he wanted to replace it all with awful bullshit totally antithetical to Christian morality and metaphysics.




I think we've been over this - it's all William of Ockham's fault!

William of Ockham: The Man Who Started the Decline of the West

In modern accounts of the decline of the West, it’s become common to blame one man in particular for starting that decline

www.intellectualtakeout.org

Like come on. I love history, there is a lot about the modern world to criticize and even a modern mindset that is also worth criticism. But I detest these simplistic narratives blaming Descartes or whoever for all that.

Even if you say "The Enlightenment is responsible for all modern ills" as some conservative types do, at least they recognize the Enlightenment was a huge movement across many countries and involving many people. They don't say "it's all Kant's fault!"

Notably, blaming Descartes was something popular among German Right Wingers in the Weimar and Nazi period. Hm. Just saying. I actually like reading said right wingers but just gonna guess this is where the idea is coming from in this thread.

I feel for Kant. The man feared an apocalyptic loss of meaning and he fought it in the most principled way he knew how. The results were not great, but bless him for trying. And Kantians seem to mean really well, even if I can't buy what they're selling.

 

[Nikkolas]

Also I've always been taken by the first book of Plato's Republic because of how..."modern" it is. I implore anybody to read at least that part and tell me the discussion of what is justice isn't something people online right now might be having.

Justice is doing good to my friends and harm to my enemies.
Justice is giving everyone what they deserve.
And then an edgelord comes in and says ACTUALLY justice is just what the strong decide is just.

2500 years and things haven't changed that much.

And I recommend these books
Strange Rites: New Religions for a Godless World
The Enchantments of Mammon: How Capitalism Became the Religion of Modernity

Religion and spirituality will never die. If there is any claim I am confident in when it comes to human nature (that is, something intrinsic to all people across all time and space) it is that we need to believe in something. Capitalism is the god of the moment but there are many others. When Capitalism falls, we'll find new idols and deities. It will continue for as long as the human race does.

Also Francis Bacon is another "modernizer" who had some pretty out there views and beliefs not reduceable to "hard science" or "empiricism." Because they didn't have some fundamental "break" with the past. That's an outdated notion and buys too heavily into the hype Dascartes, Hobbes, etc. built around themselves. They were just as influenced by the Medieval Scholastics or the Schoolmen of their own time as any other philosopher would have been.

It's like how fascism was a modern ideology even as it attacked modernity. We are shaped by the forces around us, no matter what we try to do. We can only react to them but we can never fully overcome them.

 

[Deleted member]

@Tyanna of Pentos is arguing from the standpoint that modern Christians live a much more atheistic life, and that modern Christianity has been emptied out of any real spiritual vitality or essence. IIRC Guenon said Protestantism amounted to atheism lite.

Whether or not you concur with the more esoteric aspects of this, I do agree that modern Christianity is a mile wide and inch deep for the most part.

And that most people who claim to be Christian, have no saving faith, and no deep relationship with Jesus whatsoever. Protestantism did make Christianity more and more academic, and less and less focused on communion with God and more studying a book which led eventually to the book itself being rejected and the emergence of atheism.


Thanks in large part to Isaac Newton and Rene Descartes. The fathers of modernity.

You nailed it very nicely from a Christian perspective. I will provide the more esoteric point of view hopefully later.

 

[Nikkolas]

How can somebody have true faith when they can't even read their Holy Scriptures and their local holy representatives speak in a language they don't understand? All those illiterate peasants and serfs had a real profound grasp of their theology?

Seems more likely a lot of ignorant people were bullied by convention or outright force into being Christians for hundreds of years without having the faintest clue what their faith truly meant. Christianity did not only spread through peaceful missionary work. It became the state religion of a corrupt empire and much of its spreading was by the sword. It wiped out the native religions of many peoples. That would seem antithetical to nationalists and whatnot here, no? It denied the intrinsic worth of native cultures and histories and insisted its universal truth superseded all of them. There's a reason some consider Liberalism just a ( very superficially) secularized Christianity.

It's funny, "it's too academic" was precisely one of the criticisms of Protestants towards Catholics. Catholics built this giant metaphysical and state superstructure that was more about Greek Philosophy and venerating the Pope than about faith in Jesus. Or so the Protestants said.

Now, it's true it was a simpler time back then. Maybe it was better back when everybody couldn't think too much for themselves. We have all the answers before us now but has it made us any happier? That's a question I ponder a lot. But it's wholly different from an unfounded insistence on "Christianity was more pure back then." Maybe Christianity was at its most pure in its early radical communist forms.

 

[Zachowon]

We have a whole thread to talk religion if needed

 

[Navarro]

Lee Atwater was a Republican strategist.

Yes, and he had just graduated from college when Nixon was Prez. Meanwhile, black community leaders begged for the War on Drugs at the time, because they could see first-hand how this poison was destroying their communities. And still is, because it's a culture issue that the legal solutions to it can only suppress.

It's a fact that just about all cities with a black majority population vote Democrat because they know what the Republicans are.

Because they've been trapped in a cycle of crime and welfare-dependency since Johnson's "Great Society" program, and are under a constant barrage of propaganda telling them that:

A. The opposition party want to genocide or enslave them.
B. The corrupt politicos that have trapped them in the situation they're in are their only saviours and protectors.
C. They're race-traitors if they abandon the criminal-glorifying culture that's taken root in the inner cities, or vote for anyone other than a Democrat.

But let's suppose you're true and the Dems are these saints of purity who only want the best for the charges they hold under their benevolent rule. If so, why are the cities they control still so terrible after they've had the run of the place for decades, with wanton corruption and violent crime?

I

t's a fact that unemployment went up in 2008 because the economy cratered under GW Bush

Due to policies put in place long before him by Dem presidents.

racial tensions increased because Republicans freaked out about having a black president.

Because the academia and media more generally started to be more openly sympathetic to an ideology which promotes racial division and tension, known as 'Critical Race Theory'. This drove radicalisation both on the far-left and the far-right.

It's a fact school vouchers serve as a way to channel public funds to charter school scam artists and right wing private schools while killing public schools.

So your problem is private education being prioritised over corrupt and Marxist-infested teachers' unions?

It's a fact the Democrats kicked David Duke out, while Trump accepted his endorsement.

Trump didn't "accept Duke's endorsement", insofar as that means anything. In fact, he had already left the Reform Party in 2000 after Duke associated himself with it.

And it is apparently a fact that you don't know what Antifa is.

A loosely-affiliated gang of far-left anarcho-communists who seek to destroy all opposition to their planned communist revolution under the guise of "fighting fascism". Much like the anarchist terrorists of the mid-late 19th and early 20th centuries, and taking their name from the paramilitary wing of the Stalinist KDP.

 

[Navarro]

It's like how fascism was a modern ideology even as it attacked modernity. We are shaped by the forces around us, no matter what we try to do. We can only react to them but we can never fully overcome them.

Fascism did not "attack modernity" in any real sense. In all respects it can be seen as a form of socialism that either:

A. Rather than dividing the world into oppressed and oppressor classes, divided it into oppressed and oppressor nations.
B. Rather than dividing the world into oppressed and oppressor classes, divided it into oppressed and oppressor races.

Based on the experience of WW1, wherein rather than the "workers" rising up against the European powers at war as a transnational collective, they dutifully supported the warring powers' respective war efforts, thus creating a real crisis in the Marxist worldview. It was violent and irrationalistic - but such strands of thought already existed on the left. In fact, fascism specifically derived its economic and political theories not from any Conservative strand of thought, but from syndicalism (so that meme ideology from KR actually was historicallly relevant all along).

This can be seen in how fascist leaders, from Mussolini to Mosley to even Hitler, tended to overwhelmingly start out as members of socialist parties (Hitler even participated in the attempted communist revolution in Bavaria).

Both strands of fascism eventually were reincorporated into the Left, under the names of either "postocolonialism" or "critical race theory" after the failure of the Soviet experiment to get anywhere near Communist Utopia caused the Left to sour on rationality and science (this was called the Postmodernist movement) and the fall of the USSR radically damaged the prestige of the traditional Marxist mytho-history. China's path to fascism, meanwhile, occurred as the regime needed to economically liberalise after the failure of Maoism.

This wasn't too hard of a gap to bridge, as while they're internationalist in theory socialist regimes are always radically nationalist in practice.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Fascism is intuitively aware of the logic of modernity, and seeks to use the tools of modernity to counteract it.

That said, it could not have emerged in an earlier age. That is unless you believe the essence of fascism is something innate and primal.

And it is apparently a fact that you don't know what Antifa is.

Strange according to Mark Bray Antifa is a form of revolutionary leftist politics with a specific emphasis on street action and counter rightist violence. A tradition which emerged in Germany amongst the communist parties, and continued in the post war era, and really started in the eighties/nineties in the US.

 

[Navarro]

Fascism is intuitively aware of the logic of modernity, and seeks to use the tools of modernity to counteract it.

That said, it could not have emerged in an earlier age. That is unless you believe the essence of fascism is something innate and primal.

Fascism is a modernist ideology, an off-shoot of socialism as I explained (and not that far an off-shoot, as among other things Marx literally called for a great race war against the Slavs and other "reactionary peoples"). It has very little to do with "Tradition", reactionary-ism or aristocratic values, and indeed the Nazis greatly reduced the power of the old German nobility.

 

[Zachowon]

I thought Facism was right wong?/s somewhat

 

[Deleted member 88]

Fascism rejects the Materialist dialectic of modernity, the Capitalist-Communist clash. In favor of something more spiritual.

I'd look for it, but actual fascists had some sort of online text describing their beliefs, I'll have to go find it again.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Sure they do - they eat dead vegetation and return the nutrients to be used again. But when the dead plant matter in question happens to be the structural timbers of your house, that's a problem.
Termites are actually a hobby of mine. But I like them to be out in the wild, not eating my furniture.
It's pretty obvious to normal people that when someone refers to Jews (or any other people) as "termites" he's not praising them for their ability to build big impressive structures and recycle cellulose.
Now let's move on.

Are we still talking about termites? There is no way any reasonable person could interpret comparing an ethnic group to termites as anything but a dire insult.

Here in the south, that’s what we call “fightin’ words.”

I’m not sure if it’s productive to argue about who is a “real Christian” and who isn’t. I’m an atheist and solidly on the right side of the spectrum in most regards and there certainly seem to be leftists who are also devout Christians. I would agree that many people who espouse a religion often don’t act as though they believe it, I don’t think that is the primary factor in left vs right (professed) believers.

I don’t see why someone would pretend to be an atheist if they’re not though. Unless we lived in a society where believers are persecuted, like a communist regime, why would a theist pretend, or convince themselves, that they don’t believe in God? I hear Christians say that all the time but I still don’t understand the thinking

Because a rascist did it. If I had to compare people or a nation with comparisons I would pick and choose multiple animals or insects to describe them for the aspects that history has allowed them to show great feats for. Still can't imagine using termites.

But for really defining moments like people being great at conquests I'd say being like a horde of locusts is apt when they have a difficult time being stopped.

I hate termites! I live in a log cabin and we had to exterminate them and then repair the damage they caused. Carpenter bees too! We wage war against wood eating bugs.

You have to. It's how we interact with nature's ecosystem.

 

[Navarro]

Fascism rejects the Materialist dialectic of modernity, the Capitalist-Communist clash. In favor of something more spiritual.

I'd look for it, but actual fascists had some sort of online text describing their beliefs, I'll have to go find it again.

Gentile? He was a neo-Hegelian and a radical subjectivist.

 

[mesonoxian]

Because the academia and media more generally started to be more openly sympathetic to an ideology which promotes racial division and tension, known as 'Critical Race Theory'. This drove radicalisation both on the far-left and the far-right.

A loosely-affiliated gang of far-left anarcho-communists who seek to destroy all opposition to their planned communist revolution under the guise of "fighting fascism". Much like the anarchist terrorists of the mid-late 19th and early 20th centuries, and taking their name from the paramilitary wing of the Stalinist KDP.

Yep, you're entirely wrong about Antifa. Just for for fun, what do you think "Critical Race theory" means?

Strange according to Mark Bray Antifa is a form of revolutionary leftist politics with a specific emphasis on street action and counter rightist violence. A tradition which emerged in Germany amongst the communist parties, and continued in the post war era, and really started in the eighties/nineties in the US.

That's a respectable take on it. you could quibble but it isn't obviously wrong.

Fascism is a modernist ideology, an off-shoot of socialism as I explained (and not that far an off-shoot, as among other things Marx literally called for a great race war against the Slavs and other "reactionary peoples"). It has very little to do with "Tradition", reactionary-ism or aristocratic values, and indeed the Nazis greatly reduced the power of the old German nobility.

I disagree. They don't share remotely similar ideologies. They grew up in roughly the same milieu, 19th and early 20th century Europe, but within that context they are about as dissimilar as possible. and not even in a "socialism good/fascism bad" way (though in fact socialism good and fascism bad). Like Fascism is based in Romantic notions like national identity (where "nation" means something like a very specific race, not a state), reverence for aesthetics over function, and rejection of rationality or objectivity as goals for thought. It doesn't care about actual tradition, just whatever feels good. That is why fascist shit always looks so metal. They want it to look cool and don't care if it is dumb.

Socialism takes the opposite tact that what actually matters are facts. All the purity of purpose and will in the world won't change material reality. You need to change the actual organization of things if you want different results. It is anti-Romantic in its rejection of aesthetics and ideology as meaningful bases for understanding history or politics.

That does not mean (contra the fascists) that socialists don't believe in or value emotions, family, or sentiment. They just think it is dumb to base your economic and political policy on them. Most socialists love art and culture and music, but it isn't key to their identity or praxis the way it is for the fash. (Which is good, because I can't stand folk music or punk.)

Hi,

I am contacting you today because i have Jackpotbetonline.com site for advertising.

Please check the website where you place link or article post.

Jackpotbetonline.com are evryday updated & have good Domain Autority (DA=62) & Good Domain Rating (DR=72).

The Following advertising Options are available:

Text Link Space
Article post (Max of 3 links per article)
Advertising Banner Space (460x60 or 250x250)
Best " Online casino Slots " Review

Regards,

Ah, the ancaps have decided to state their case.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Gentile? He was a neo-Hegelian and a radical subjectivist.

Yes, Gentile was involved in formulating the idea of being opposed to the Capitalist/communist dialectic.

He was from what I have read, an idealist in that he believed everything was spirit or animated by spirit.

If fascism is anything it is modernist anti materialism.

 

[Zachowon]

Yep, you're entirely wrong about Antifa. Just for for fun, what do you think "Critical Race theory" means?

That's a respectable take on it. you could quibble but it isn't obviously wrong.

I disagree. They don't share remotely similar ideologies. They grew up in roughly the same milieu, 19th and early 20th century Europe, but within that context they are about as dissimilar as possible. and not even in a "socialism good/fascism bad" way (though in fact socialism good and fascism bad). Like Fascism is based in Romantic notions like national identity (where "nation" means something like a very specific race, not a state), reverence for aesthetics over function, and rejection of rationality or objectivity as goals for thought. It doesn't care about actual tradition, just whatever feels good. That is why fascist shit always looks so metal. They want it to look cool and don't care if it is dumb.

Socialism takes the opposite tact that what actually matters are facts. All the purity of purpose and will in the world won't change material reality. You need to change the actual organization of things if you want different results. It is anti-Romantic in its rejection of aesthetics and ideology as meaningful bases for understanding history or politics.

That does not mean (contra the fascists) that socialists don't believe in or value emotions, family, or sentiment. They just think it is dumb to base your economic and political policy on them. Most socialists love art and culture and music, but it isn't key to their identity or praxis the way it is for the fash. (Which is good, because I can't stand folk music or punk.)

Ah, the ancaps have decided to state their case.

Hold up, how is he wrong about ANTIFA? We have discussed them A LOT on this site so please explain

 

[Nikkolas]

So you all are being rather incoherent.

Is the Left trying to destroy pride in culture and nation even though Fascists are Leftists and Fascists were the most masturbatory MUH RACE MU HNATION ideology in history?

Come now. The Left has always, always championed internationalism. They got a fuckin' song about it! During WW1 Marxists hoped that the proletariat of the world would resist their imperial overlords and unite across race, ethnic and national boundaries. That didn't happen because of course it didn't. But the point is, The Left is wedded to this globalized worldview which every Right Winger from Mussolini to Le Pen adamantly rejects.

There is no trying to deny Fascists were of the Right. Mussolini and Hitler both had some Left Wing and Radical followers but those people either left or were murdered by Mussolini and Hitler because they both moderated their platform later on in an effort to compromise with the elites. If you look at the original NSDAP Program, they changed a lot in subsequent years, alienating many Nazis who then joined other Right Wing groups an, yes, sometimes the Communists.

Here is a scholarly definition of Fascism

The broad area of scholarly consensus9 which now exists, admittedly one with highly fuzzy boundaries, is that: fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anticonservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led ‘armed party’ which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome the threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics, and actions is the vision of the nation’s imminent rebirth from decadence.

And that's not even getting into the spiritual and religious stuff. Leftism has a horrid history with religion dating from Marx and going to State Atheism under Marxist regimes. I hope nobody here is going try and seriously claim fascists were opposed to religion given the diverse religious beliefs of leading Nazis and their supporters. Not to mention other fascist movements like the Romanian Iron Guard which was conceived of as just a militant form of Orthodoxy. Contrast with the Bolsheviks murdering many Russian Orthodox clergy and followers and seizing church property.

You don't wanna be a fascist? Good! But don't deny they are on the Right. Libertarians are on the Right, too. It's a broad spectrum.

 

[Navarro]

Yep, you're entirely wrong about Antifa.

I described it as literally what Invictus did, but you argue I'm wrong and he's right. Lord.

Just for for fun, what do you think "Critical Race theory" means?

An ideology derived from Marxism which divides society into "Oppressed Races" and "Oppressor Races", with the former being Good and the latter being Evil?

I disagree. They don't share remotely similar ideologies.

Which is why the major fascist leaders and thinkers were all former socialists? Which is why fascism literally grew out of syndicalism, a branch of socialism?

They grew up in roughly the same milieu, 19th and early 20th century Europe, but within that context they are about as dissimilar as possible.

The only difference between fascism and socialism in practice is one makes loud noises about undesirables having to be murdered for the good of the Workers' Revolution and the other makes loud noises about undesirables having to be murdered for the good of the Nation.

and not even in a "socialism good/fascism bad" way (though in fact socialism good and fascism bad).

100 million would disagree with you. If socialists hadn't murdered them in the name of implementing socialism. I mean, socialist thinkers like Marx and H. G. Wells even advocated the genocide of "reactionary peoples", so even that razor-thin pretense that socialism just mass-murders "class enemies" instead of "race enemies" disappears. Socialism is evil and fascism is simply a part of that evil, whose internecine conflict with other branches of the same poison tree has confused the mental picture of it.

Like Fascism is based in Romantic notions like national identity (where "nation" means something like a very specific race, not a state),

Actually, fascism as initially promulgated literally called for total reverence for the State, not the race.

reverence for aesthetics over function, and rejection of rationality or objectivity as goals for thought. It doesn't care about actual tradition, just whatever feels good. That is why fascist shit always looks so metal. They want it to look cool and don't care if it is dumb.

Which is why socialist regimes heavily pushed a state-mandated aesthetic, which was little different from the fascist one?

Socialism takes the opposite tact that what actually matters are facts.

Yes, which is why it hasn't always crashed and burned because it refused to take facts into account. Like say, that food plants don't have "proletarian solidarity" and so you won't get bumper harvests by digging a pit and piling seeds into it.

Most socialists love art and culture and music, but it isn't key to their identity or praxis the way it is for the fash. (Which is good, because I can't stand folk music or punk.)

Well, all the ones I've seen love "art and culture and music" which promotes socialism. All the rest - well, they think it ought to be destroyed. And that includes Christianity.

 

[Navarro]

Come now. The Left has always, always championed internationalism. They got a fuckin' song about it!

I know. When I was a socialist I once listened to it so many times I can still recite the lyrics, though it was almost a decade ago.

"So come brothers and sisters for the struggle carries on!
The Internationale unites the world in song!"

But in practice those sentiments were more honoured in the breach than otherwise once socialists actually got into full power.

During WW1 Marxists hoped that the proletariat of the world would resist their imperial overlords and unite across race, ethnic and national boundaries. That didn't happen because of course it didn't. But the point is, The Left is wedded to this globalized worldview which every Right Winger from Mussolini to Le Pen adamantly rejects.

Yes, they used internationalistic rhetoric, but that was when they thought there was going to be a World Revolution. When it turned out there wasn't, the socialist regimes that managed to take power in certain countries became radically nationalist and purged the "international socialists".

Mussolini and Hitler both had some Left Wing and Radical followers but those people either left or were murdered by Mussolini and Hitler because they both moderated their platform later on in an effort to compromise with the elites. If you look at the original NSDAP Program, they changed a lot in subsequent years, alienating many Nazis who then joined other Right Wing groups an, yes, sometimes the Communists.

Mussolini and Hitler came from the Left, along with other fascist leaders like Mosley and Doriot.

And that's not even getting into the spiritual and religious stuff. Leftism has a horrid history with religion dating from Marx and going to State Atheism under Marxist regimes. I hope nobody here is going try and seriously claim fascists were opposed to religion given the diverse religious beliefs of leading Nazis and their supporters.

The Nazi opinion as regards Christianity was "we wanna get rid of it, but we can't do that right now so we'll hollow out the Church to turn it into a propagandist for our ideology".

You don't wanna be a fascist? Good! But don't deny they are on the Right. Libertarians are on the Right, too. It's a broad spectrum.

I think what makes the most sense when regarding fascism is to view it as a variant of socialism that shifted rightwards to become essentially an ideology of pure authoritarianism.