Moreover, ethno-nationalism is by its very nature conservative because it makes the claim that the culture and customs are a nation are often inseparable from the people who originated them.
It is not a coincidence that so many fascist leaders have been open deviants.
The only prominent Nazi who was more or less openly homosexual (or rather, more like an open secret) was Ernst Roehm, who was eliminated in 1934. Under Hitler, male homosexuality was illegal (i.e. he reversed Weimar Republic decriminalization of homosexual acts). I'm not sure whether the same was true in Mussolini's Italy, though one thing Mussolini did do (as part of his agreement with an independent Vatican) was to reverse the secularization of Italy's schools and to allow religious instruction back into curricula (contra the mandatory secularization that took place under his liberal-democratic predecessors). Again, the fact that Mussolini was himself not religious is irrelevant, what matters for the purpose of this discussion is what policies he enacted.
Ek_hornbeck--I would remind you that as nationalistic as Fascism may be, it is nevertheless a modern and revolutionary nationalism that did not exist in the past. It was also a "mass movement" creating a one-party state and calling for the creation of "the new man." Even some traditionalist European right wingers objected to Fascism's revolutionary and "mass" tendencies. As far apart as Fascism and Communism are in ideology, these are things that are indeed held in common by the two (as is militarism, as "socialist states" have all been highly militarized and not the least bit pacifist).
Finally, ek, it cannot be denied that modern leftism, however much it continues to invoke the name of Marx, is no longer Marxist in any classical sense of the word. As the author has pointed out, it has dropped universalism, economism, and industrialism, is mystically nationalist (on behalf of the "oppressed"), celebrates "the earth" and nature, and even at times attacks science as an artificial concept used by white people to exploit the natural world and destroy the mystical cultures of "indigenous pipples" (but never of rednecks). Leftism and Fascism are still separate ideologies, but the Left is indeed coming to resemble fascism more than it did in the past. Perhaps one could say that for groups like "Blacks and Hispanics" the left is their "rightism."
Wideawake--I agree completely that nations that began as colonies (the USA, Australia, Brazil) simply cannot have the mystical "integral" ethno-nationalism of more traditonal nations as (for example) Japan, nevertheless there is a temptation even in American conservatism in this direction. Note how over the years American conservatism has ceased to invoke chrstianity as true, but rather as "the American religion." Why do so so many conservative American chrstians invoke George Washington and the Founding Fathers to defend and excuse public observance of chrstianity? Shouldn't the justification for chrstianity be that it is the true religion? Yet American conservative chrstianity is becoming more and more a national and tribal religion of white northwest Europeans (Pat Buchanan is the ultimate example of this, even going so far as to favor northwestern European Protestants to Catholics from elsewhere). And we have all noted the banning over recent years of various FReepers (most of whom I disagreed with most profoundly) whose chrstianity was a little too objective and universal, and not "American" enough.
Also note that attacks on "chrstianity" are never contested or protested by Blacks and Hispanics who are also "chrstian." There seems to be a universal understanding that the chrstianity opposed by the Left is the northwest European variety and that even public chrstianity by Blacks and Hispanics is revolutionary and to be celebrated. I am quite serious about this question. Why do militant Black and Hispanic nationalists and clergymen never say a word about Sarah Silverman's attacks on chrstianity, for example? Why did Blacks and Hispanics not protest "The Last Temptation?" Why do Blacks and Hispanics never object to the "separation of church and state?" And if Black and Hispanic communities were to merge their religions with their local governments, would any liberal object?
To both of you--With regard to morality and sexuality, I must simply point out that the only source of true morality is the True G-d. When the True G-d defines something as wrong, it is wrong. The fact that any monster of the left or right might share this position means absolutely nothing. Hence my impatience with people who argue against a position because "that's what the Nazis believed."
Again, thank you both.