Talk:Neo-fascism/Archive 2

Celtic cross should be removed
It's confusing, misleading and useless in this context. If a specific organization uses it, then illustrate an article on such an organization with it, but just arbitrarily presenting it as a global symbol of neo-fascism in general is grotesque. 72.229.58.135 (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Problem is, neo-fascist movements don't have a common symbolistic base. The Celtic cross is used by some white supremacist groups and religious extremists. Apart from the generic fasces symbol, I don't think there's any other symbol that can be generally applied to most neo-fascists. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ba'athist heads of state
Just throwing this idea out there since they are mentioned in the page on fascism. Yes? No? Why or why not? Pmcginty (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Juan Peron wasn't fascist
With regard to Juan Peron of Argentina, if he is going to be classified in any context with fascism, it should be in the article fascist (insult), because it was only Juan Peron's opposition who called him "fascist." Juan Peron never called himself or his movement that. Juan Peron expressed admiration for Mussolini (as did many others), but Juan Peron's movement was called "Peronism," not "fascism." There are already sections on the respective pages on Juan Peron and Eva Peron about this topic, both refuting the claim that they were fascist:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per%C3%B3n#Per.C3.B3n_and_Fascism


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Per%C3%B3n#Allegations_of_fascism

And this page, the Jewish Virtual Library website, says that Juan Peron established formal relations with Isreal: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Argentina.html#WW2

On the fascist (insult) page, there is a quote from George Orwell where he lists many unrelated groups who have been called "fascist," everything ranging from Communists to homosexuals to women and dogs. You can throw Juan Peron in there; he was indeed called "fascist" -- by his opposition. But he himself never embraced that title. 140.211.67.204 (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism
This is mentioned in the American section and I fail to see how it is relevant. Hendrixwinter (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Israel - NO
Seems odd that there is no mention of Israel as a fascist nation.

Israel is a country that has evolved into neo-fascist apartheid state. Some examples: 1. the Lehava group, 2. the current minister of injustice, 3. Maj.-Gen. Yair Golan during the 2016 Holocaust remembrance day drew a parallel between present-day Israel and 1930s Germany, so there are even high-profile Israelis who see fascism, 4. maintaining ethnic Lehava, though not a political party, basically is the morphed Kach political party. The group rejects miscegenation, ethically cleanses Jerusalem of Palestinians, incites hatred against Palestinians. Miscegenation for Lehava = contamination the ethnic purity of the Jewish State = Nazi doctrine. The current minister of justice, Ayelet Shaked, justifies the destruction of the Palestinians, “including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.” It is a call for genocide because it calls for the slaughter of Palestinian mothers who give birth to “little snakes.” ISRAEL NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF COUNTRIES WITH NEO-FASCISM.

This seems to imply that some politics in Israel have been fascist.

Plenty of information out there, i hope a more passionate wikian takes up this cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.8.1 (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There is never a moment when one lives as a Jew where anti-semetic bastards like you want to kill me and attack me. Wikipedia has such an antisemetic slant as it is, that I fully expect you to add Israel to the list.  We are Jews.  We want to live without you trying to kill us in our homeland.  We must be facists.


 * BTW - Greece should not be on this list either, at least not as it is presented.


 * I agreed that, regarding the political situation in Israel and how the country has a big political right-wing spectrum which also contain extremist parties, I thought that it would be appropriate to add Israel. I have based the text on this article and I tried to summarize it in order to make it appropriate for being part of another article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kach_and_Kahane_Chai


 * Agreed, typical Zionist view is strictly ethnic Judaism, with ephasis on Jews as "master race".


 * Have you lost your fucking marbles? In your mind, the belief that Jews have a right to live in peace in their homeland, which they were violently removed from, and defending themselves again CERTAIN extermination, goes in hand to claiming to be a master "race" trying to take over the world.  You are fucking nuts and should be banned from wikipedia.

Typical Fascism, Jew brand. Never suprised by amount of dirt this planet can withstand.... 77.11.69.205 (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're going to add Zionism you might as well add Baathism as well, though some how I get the impression that you would object to that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.117.203 (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Most other parts of this article deal with neo-nazism, but the article is about neo-fascism and the beginning of the article says that the definition of fascism is among some others: ultranationalism, populism, anti-immigration policies

This all applies to Kach and Kahane Chai so I decided to add it to the article. Bokareis (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't apply to the Kach party, which you obviously don't understand. Furthermore, by that standard every populist movement can be so defined.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The New Fascism
The Oxford English Dictionary defines Fascism as “an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization” and provides the details of its origin: “The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43)…. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.” http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1246344#m_en_us1246344, 20101230

Although these characteristics may have been part of previous governments, it was Mussolini who chose the axe enclosed in a bundle of stick, all bound together as the symbol of Fascism. It represents the idea that government and business bound together would yield a strong economy and government. In the U.S.A. in the first decade og the 21st century, all three branches of government have been captured by corporations, most if which are not listed as U.S. Corporations. This is a new form of Fascism.

Mussolini believed that government should be run in support of and for the benefit of business. This was a reaction to the Communist movement which could be described as the government owning and operating business. The New Fascism is where Business have captured and control government. This is government of, for and by the corporations. --JJ Hayden (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.19.82 (talk)

You are completely wrong. Mussolini didn't believe that "the government should be run in support of and for the benefit of business". Mussolini believed in a national unity led by the fascist party, where all classes would cooperate, instead of fight against each other. Mussolini was not a liberal in an economic sense, he didn't believe in the free market uotpia, which leads the chicago/austrian school thoughts and which is the best possible way to benefit business.

Today's fascists tends to be against big corporations, defending the prevalence of the nation and its people, not of the corporations. This is just ridiculous. Nickgaz (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Neo-fascism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080530170201/http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_gladio/Terrorism_Western_Europe.pdf to http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_gladio/Terrorism_Western_Europe.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080615032701/http://www.isn.ethz.ch:80/php/news/media_desk.htm to http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/news/media_desk.htm#Gladio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This Article should be removed
This definition is TOO BROAD to stain political movements at random with it.

10:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)10:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Neo-fascism is a post–World War II ideology that includes significant elements of fascism. Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism, populism, anti-immigration policies or, where relevant, nativism, anti-communism, anti-marxism, anti-anarchism and opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal democracy. Allegations that a group is neo-fascist may be hotly contested, especially if the term is used as a political epithet. Some post–World War II regimes have been described as neo-fascist due to their authoritarian nature, and sometimes due to their fascination and sympathy towards fascist ideology and rituals. 10:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)10:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)~

If this is a definition of a political movement with a black eye like fascism then it paints half the political spectrum as fascist, which is not acceptable for either politic discourse or an encyclopedia entry which is supposed to be clear of politics and a dispassionate expression of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. "neo-fascist" is a term used by left wing and liberal economic right wing to define everything they don't agree with. Nickgaz (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This article does seem redundant and arbitrary as opposed to neoreactionary and actual fascists. I agree that it's mostly a buzzword thrown by the left wing media, and doesn't qualify as legitimate. Right-wing populist/any political ideology or group that has nationalistic tendencies can easily be thrown under here. Even Donald Trump is listed here with sources linking to places like Salon, this isn't RW. 99.121.249.163 (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump
Is it fair to espouse moderate conservatism with nationalism as "neo-fascist"? Here's an article from Vox http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/10/9886152/donald-trump-fascism. Also I stated earlier in the talk page that this page should honestly be removed.
 * I've removed the Trump material a couple of times now and don't intend to revert again, but have concerns about the presence of the Trump debate in this particular article. The paragraph leans on a conflation of fascism with neo-fascism. None of the sources explicitly mention neo-fascism, and to me it represents a synthesis to have it here. It's also an example of WP:RECENTISM in an election year. I recommend its removal until and unless there is an explicit discussion of neo-fascism in this context, rather than a tenuous connection based one word.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Neo-fascism → Neofascism – Standard and common style is "neofascism" rather "neo-fascism". Laval (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I'm seeing appreciably more hits for the hyphenated than the non-hyphenated form both on Google (123k vs. 40k) and Google Books (16k vs 10k). Both of them are standard forms anyway, at least in my experience, so I would incline toward the status quo. Off the top of my head I think "neo-fascism" is preferred in British English so it may be an WP:ENGVAR thing but don't know if I can find sources for that. — Nizolan  (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Confirm that this (and other prefixed terms) are more likely to retain hyphens in UK. (I still find myself wondering what a female bovine 'orker' is, and why people refer to colleagues thus!) . Pincrete (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Turkey
The subsection Turkey only includes the 'Grey Wolves' and links to its main article, however there are arguably other varieties of neo-fascism in Turkey (e.g. according to sociologist Cihan Tuğal the current Islamist regime of Turkey exemplifies a different brand of neo-fascism, or at least sliding towards it: http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2531-cihan-tugal-on-turkey-s-slide-towards-neo-fascism) so what format should we use to add these views? Opening two subsections (Grey Wolves and the AKP) within the subsection? --Spas (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

UKIP
While the Guardian is a reliable analysis, the description of policies of the UKIP is basiclly sourced to UKIP propoganda. That's... bad. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously complaining that the policies attributed to UKIP are those that they state themselves? I think, like any other political party, they should be allowed the final say over that, rather than having to have attributed to them whatever policies you feel they should hold. Also, citing the Guardian as a reliable authority on UKIP is a bit like citing the Telegraph on the views of Jeremy Corbyn or the separation of Church and State; when you do that, you're right, slap-bang in the midst of those papers' own biases and unlikely to be getting a balanced perspective on the matter. --Ajhoughton (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The article seems to only claim that UKIP denies the allegations brought by The Guardian, in this case this seems like a fair source. Also of course UKIP's site would seem like propaganda to any other line of politics, because it's literally their layout of their beliefs and guarantees. This is a bit ridiculous.99.121.249.163 (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Finland - "The Finns"
Timo Soini's "The Finns" (aka True Finns) is a ultra nationalistic, racist and xenophobic populist party supporting very right wing economic policies now that they sit in the government. They do not accept being called fascist yet their actions are almost text book fascism. They should be included in the list of neo-fascist parties of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.74.152 (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not without a reliable source, and I doubt any reliable source will make the assessment. I follow Finnish media and academia, and no one, except for a tiny number of political opponents, calls The Finns party neo-fascist. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Citing Emerging Debate about Classification of Trump Positions and Policies
My pending edit was blocked 1/31/2017 with the following note: "Reverted 1 pending edit by U.S. Patriot.1 to revision 762879011 by Grayfell: please discuss addition on Talk page first due to previously expressed concerns about WP:UNDUE"

Thank you for taking the time to review my pending edit and encouraging me to start discussion on Talk page. I am a new user and attempted to craft this entry in accordance with the WP guidance on Neutral Point of View. My proposed entry read: "Starting in 2016, reputable scholars and political journalists began debating whether to classify the presidential policy positions and actions of Donald Trump as fascist, neo-fascist or reflecting fascist tendencies"

My intent was to report the fact that there is an emerging debate about the classification of Trump's policy positions and actions, and to present WP readers with a variety of citations representing different viewpoints on the topic. Consistent with NPOV guidance, I took care to A) not assert a particular viewpoint, B) not state opinions as facts, C) avoid stating the assertions of others as facts, D) use nonjudgmental language, and E) avoid undue weight to a particular view.

I added 5 references to news articles after searching widely for reputable sources. One of those sources, in turn, reported on interviews with over a dozen historians: "We asked 16 historians if Donald Trump is a fascist — this is what they said" http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/we-asked-16-historians-if-donald-trump-is-a-fascist-this-is-what-they-said/

Other cited articles spelled out contrasting viewpoints, for instance: "Is Donald Trump a Fascist? Yes and no" http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/02/is_donald_trump_a_fascist_an_expert_on_fascism_weighs_in.html

If page admin believe the entry would be improved with respect to NPOV then I would gladly modify this proposed entry by adding one more citation that very clearly asserts in the headline that "Trump Is No Fascist" http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/donald-trump-fascist/424449/

Please suggest ways my proposed entry could be improved with respect to NPOV principles so as to pass muster and be added to this WP entry. Thank you for your time and effort moderating this page. U.S. Patriot.1 (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC) U.S. Patriot.1
 * As the editor who "blocked" your pending edit, a few points of clarification to your note:
 * As per Acroterion's previous comment about a similar Vox article, the Slate article is not about neo-fascism, it's about fascism and is, ergo, off-topic for the article neo-fascism.
 * Raw Story has been discussed at the RS noticeboard without a clear consensus as to its status, however, generally, it doesn't seem to meet the criteria of a RS in that no physical contact information is published on the site, there is no clear description by the site of editorial controls or gatekeeping, a large percentage of stories appear to be curated republication of stories published elsewhere, etc.
 * That leaves The Atlantic - this is an editorial which claims Trump is not a neo-fascist. Given that the term "neo-fascism" carries with it inherently negative implications, I'm not sure we can support the addition of this material based on this editorial alone. If an article were published in a RS saying "John Smith is not a pedophile" and we then added to the article pedophilia a line that said "people have discussed whether John Smith is a pedophile" I'm pretty sure that would be a BLP violation, even though technically correct. Further, this source doesn't support your edit "Starting in 2016, reputable scholars and political journalists began debating whether to classify the presidential policy positions and actions of Donald Trump as fascist, neo-fascist or reflecting fascist tendencies." which suggests these are the only three classifications being discussed, and that no "none of the above" option has been proffered, even though this is exactly what your source is arguing ("none of the above").
 * I'm not saying it's not fair-game to add this content, in reviewing a pending edit it's not my job to make that determination, but given the potentially marginal nature of the sources - weighted against the deprecatory nature of the claim - it should be supported by wide consensus prior to insertion, rather than WP:BOLD. Particularly with regard to your misuse of the source in point #3, it appears your desire is to use this article for a polemic, which is why I didn't accept it in the pending edit queue. If that was not your intent, I apologize.
 * TL;DR - if we green-lit every time an American editor wanted to add "Obama is a communist" or "Trump is a fascist", things are going to spiral out of control really fast.DarjeelingTea (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * DarjeelingTea, Thank you for this very helpful feedback. And apologies if I used the incorrect term when I said "blocked." You have given me much to think about and I will work hard to improve my proposed edit to this entry. I do not desire to use this article for a polemic. My desire is to summarize and report accurate accounts on this topic from reputable sources and in full compliance with NPOV and other relevant guidelines and norms. It was a beginner's mistake to insert as WP:BOLD and I will endeavor to build wide consensus here in Talk before attempting another insertion.
 * U.S. Patriot.1 (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Kotleba – People's Party Our Slovakia
I am suggesting moving this subarticle to other article Neo-Nazism. Main reason of this is one of the main definition of Fascism, which doesn't apply anti-semtic opression of Jews. This party endorses WW2 clerical fascism, but also anti-semitism, which belongs maintly to Nazism, today used terminology of the media for this is most cases neo-nazism.--Mujdeda (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Far Right in the United States
I want to create a stand alone article for Far Right in the United States. On the Oath Keepers page we have a problem with an organization that is described as "Far right" by an abundance of WP:RS but our main article on far right is about fascism, and "Far right in the United States" inexplicably redirects to Neo-fascism. The far right in the United States is more varied then this, and I expect this issue will be reoccurring in the coming years, so I think that for NPOV reasons there needs to be an article on "Far right in the United States" which discusses the different far right ideologies and movements in the United States more broadly then our current articles. Seraphim System ( talk ) 02:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found the article here Radical right (United States) - I think Far right in the United States should redirect to that article, and not neo-fascism, so I am going to be bold and change it. If there are objections we can discuss it. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neo-fascism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930081524/http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html to http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Obraz and Serbian Action
User:SacredDragonX Can you explain why did you revert my edits that remove neo-nazi organisations from this article and are without sources? They obviously belong in neo-nazi article and your edit summary does not give any reason. Polyison (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article go more into neo-fascism in general?
The article only really defines the term in to the lead; then it immediately plunges into a massive nation-by-nation breakdown that sort of assumes the reader already knows what neo-fascism is. It seems as though we need a general article on neo-Fascism; neo-Fascist movements or regimes by country would be better off split into its own article given its massive size (and given that it's not really a useful way to answer a reader's initial question of "what is neo-fascism?") --Aquillion (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of those ideas: expansion of the general discdussion, and the spin-off of the list. I may be able to do some work on the first of those in the upcoming week, but don't wait for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to improve the history part; but there's so much work to do on the various articles related to the far-right here or elsewhere. As I often see the same contributors on those pages, maybe we should organize a study group on the far-right within a common project.  Azerty82 (talk)
 * Neo-fascism isn't a term of art in academic usage and I don't think your average political scientist would have heard the term "neo-fascist" before. I also note further that sampling a few of the actual English academic citations in the references, the term "neo-fascist" hasn't appeared once. Some of the groups mentioned in this article can be (and are) called explicitly "fascist", no need for the prefix. Others are characterized as far-right hate groups in other manners but explicitly not as fascist, which is a worthwhile distinction.


 * The closest thing I can affiliate with neo-fascism is "ur-fascism", as coined by the late Professor Eco. Mind it's not widely entered political science discourse since it's pretty esoteric and Eco falls under a fairly unpopular branch of political thinking characterized by grand theories, but more researchers are talking about ur-fascism today than before and I'd say it has some lexical merit. Also another close concept is neo-Nazism, which is an actual term of art though so should be used precisely.


 * "Far-right ethnonationalism" would almost immediately improve the title since (1) it sufficiently (but not necessarily) categorizes the organizations mentioned in the article, at least the few I'm familiar with, and (2) political scientists would know exactly what is meant, which is a good sign since it means you're doing words better.


 * Then there's also the question of what to do with the actual fascist organizations in the article. The answer to this is going to be tough since even in academia there's a split. Some academics don't agree with describing any non-esoteric (in the sense of esotericism/mysticism) movement as fascist. Others think it's only limited in historical scope. I think more reasonably there's quite a few political theorists in philosophy and polisci departments who're open to using "fascist" to describe a broader class of movements, e.g. the academics who're cited in the references. It could be reasonable just to shunt them under the fascism article under some "post-WWII fascism" subsection, which should satisfy most academics (who probably aren't coming to Wiki anyways though but it's good for Wiki's look as an encyclopedia).


 * tl;dr I'm not suggesting a specific action since I don't want to do any organizing of concepts. I'm just throwing these issues out there for you all to munch on. 2601:14D:4002:6D00:F557:B35D:C52A:CAD4 (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Racial supremacy?
Fascism advocates for separatism not supremacy, and there's a big difference between the two terms. If someone identifies as a supremacist, it usually means that he wants his group to rule over other groups. On the other hand, separatism refers to the want to separate his group from other groups. I am a Fascist myself, and have read Gentile, Evola, Hitler, Mosley and Feder. Everyone of them proposes separatism. The word Herrenvolk (gentlemen people) was often, sometimes mistranslated into English as "master race", after which it was falsely assumed (without looking at the original text) that the original word must have been "Herrenrasse".

People are by no means the same as race, and the right translation of "Volk" into English would be people, folk or nation. The English word "master" is not the right translation of the German word "Herr" in the context of the word "Herrenvolk", because the word "master" is connotated with the slave-master contrast. But the Germans were never involved in slavery, so a more appropriate translation of "Herr" would be gentleman. Certainly, "master" is an inappropriate translation in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherlock Holmes1902 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. -- Hazhk (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are the founders of the ideologies not considered reliable sources? -- Sherlock Holmes1902 (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, they had their own objectives and did not feel bound to their own policies or statements. Wikipedia relies on secondary sourcing by mainstream academic authorities.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, Sherlock Holmes1902, but you're fighting against a strong current here. Trying to translate "Volk" merely as "people" is like trying to translate the Russian "Родина" into merely "Motherland".  People will feel free to translate words as is ideologically convenient.  I also agree on your view that Fascist movements are insular and self-preservationist in nature, rather than imperialistic and expansionist.  Also, no two Fascist movements are the same as they are based upon different ethnicities with different religions, cultures, geographic locations, natural resources, and histories.  There is no built in belief in Fascism that everyone who's different needs to be destroyed.  At any rate, Fascism at its core is about the management and maintenance of the Corporate entity within the state as a whole where companies can prosper rather than collectivization and nationalization of the means of production.  BTW, I believe in Jeffersonian Democracy and free market enterprise. RRskaReb  talk 01:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not white supremacy remove it. That is an insult to proud boys. Meteorologist200 (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)