The term “fascist” has been so-overused in modern political discourse that it has become something of a joke, an epithet that is hurled at an enemy rather than a serious accusation. Everyone has probably heard the quip that the modern definition of “fascist” is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal. Few really know what it means, it is simply another way of calling someone evil. The political left is mostly responsible for this, calling anyone who is not a communist a “fascist” but right-of-center liberals have also taken to it, conceding to the left that “fascism” is simply another word for absolute evil and instead arguing that the leftists are the “real” fascists. Referring to radical, Islamic terrorists as “Islamo-fascists” or Jonah Goldberg’s book, “Liberal Fascism” being but two examples of this. Add to this the fact that a standard fascist economic model, corporatism, has been appropriated and re-defined as synonymous with plutocracy and it is no wonder that there is a huge amount of ignorance and confusion on the subject of fascism. So, what is actual fascism and what sort of record does it have regarding traditional authority? First, we must define our terms.
A distinction, first of all, must be made between “Fascism” and “fascism”. There has only ever been one Fascist regime in history and that was the regime of Benito Mussolini, the inventor of Fascism, in Italy; first the National Fascist Party in the Kingdom of Italy and briefly the Republican Fascist Party in the Italian Social Republic in that part of northern Italy Mussolini was allowed to control. Defining Fascism has never been very easy. One can, as I did back in my university days, buy copies of ‘The Communist Manifesto’ by Karl Marx and ‘The Doctrine of Fascism’ by Benito Mussolini and read both (they are very small books). You will likely come away with a very firm understanding of what communism is all about, where they want to go and how they want to get there, how they see the world. On the other hand, you will likely come away with a sort of understanding or sense of what Fascism is about, the spirit that drives it but nothing very concrete. That is because, as Mussolini himself often said, Fascism was more style than substance. It was about “unity” and “action” rather than any specific set of bullet points or a party program. Mussolini famously said once that the Fascists only program was, “to smash the heads of the socialists”.
Critics have long said this was because Mussolini was simply inconsistent, shallow and needed an excuse. Mussolini himself, however, called it being flexible and pragmatic. He often said that action was more important than political dogma, that what works today may fail tomorrow and what failed today may work tomorrow. Fascism rejected the notion that there was some specific political formula that would solve all problems but insisted rather that circumstances change and the State must be able to adapt. In other words, do not make specific promises but lay out a broad vision and do what it takes to get there. Try something and, if it doesn’t work, discard it and try something else until you find what works best and then do more of that. Strength in unity, symbolized by the fasces, was the most important principle but other than that, the most important thing was action, to do rather than to talk, to act rather than to argue, forget the legalism and do what must be done and be limited only in the regard of doing what is proven to work. “The machine, first of all, must run!” as Mussolini once said.
Beyond pragmatism, Mussolini tended to refer to Fascism in almost religious terms, as a spiritual movement as well as a political one, it was about regaining a sense of national pride, cultural preservation and glorification as well as bringing about a unity that included Church and State as well. This came into being with the signing of the Lateran Treaty which resulted in the Holy See, finally, recognizing and endorsing the Kingdom of Italy and Italy becoming an officially Catholic country (in law as well as in practice). This was huge news at the time, a true historical event and Mussolini was hailed as “the man who gave God back to Italy and Italy back to God”. As for the monarchy, Mussolini himself, in socialist days, was adamantly against it, was initially against it after inventing Fascism but later backed the monarchy and urged his supporters to do the same. The “diarchy” of King and Duce prevailed during most of the Fascist Era with Mussolini being supportive of the monarchy in public but often derisive in private. Of course, when the King dismissed him from office in 1943, he reverted back to zealous opposition to the monarchy, which is not surprising.
Looking, more broadly, beyond “Fascism” which is, strictly speaking, limited to Italy, to “fascism” as in those regimes most often identified as fascist, we can see some common themes and some of these explain why Mussolini the Fascist had very different views on church and crown than Mussolini the socialist. Regimes labeled as fascist tend to be very nationalist and that by itself means that they are not all going to be the same but will draw on the unique histories and cultures of the peoples involved. They tend to emphasize ‘fraternity’ but not ‘equality’ and tend to favor traditional values. Unity is almost always paramount and fascists reject democracy, liberalism and any form of civil rights that could be damaging to national cohesion. Religion tends to be respected, though of course, that is usually contingent on it not being a source of division (or, in other words, dissent).
Organization, regimentation and discipline are greatly emphasized by fascist regimes and often an emphasis on the “greater good” of the nationality. The fascist goal of unity also carried over into the economic sphere where the means of production remains largely in private hands but with restrictions in place with the aim of ensuring unity between ownership and labor and the good of the nation. Regimes of this sort tend to organize their economies around industries, forcing workers and owners to unite behind industrial codes, in ways which vary slightly and have different names depending on the country in question, from corporations, national syndicates, vertical trade unions and do on. The broad idea was ending the owner/worker divide, keeping the economy largely private but subject to state regulation in the name of the national interest as well as economic independency and, initially at least, a total rejection of international finance and general dislike of borrowing and lending.
Usually, any description of fascist regimes will include a general tendency to launch wars of aggression and trying to take over the world. It sounds exciting, but it is not true as the number of fascist regimes that ever actually launched a major invasion of another country is actually quite small. Regimes considered fascist in countries such as Austria, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Latvia, Argentina, Brazil and so on never attacked anyone beyond their borders. In this case, as with many, Germany tends to taint the pool as it does with the issue of racism. For most fascist countries, race was not a primary concern, with many not considering it terribly important in their case or only to the extent that they put their own people first and did not make it a matter of policy to scapegoat some other race or nationality.
The NSB in the Netherlands, for example, never made much of an issue of race as they worked hard to enlist support for the Dutch empire which primarily meant the Dutch East Indies where a considerable number of mixed race people lived who supported the empire. Most fascist regimes in Europe had little to no racial minorities other than the Jews and, again, in some instances opposition to the Jews was a central issue of these regimes but in other instances it was not. Even where it was, outside of Germany, this practically never rose to the level of involving claims of racial superiority or inferiority but was, rather, based on the issue of nationalism and national unity. The Jews were considered suspect because they were, for so long and so adamantly, set apart, a “nation within a nation”. This fostered anti-Semitic feelings even while it is no doubt the primary reason why the Jews were able to survive as a distinct people for so long without a homeland of their own.
Additionally, there was also the political aspect. For nationalist regimes, there was no greater ideological enemy than the internationalists of the communist countries. It is an unfortunate fact of history that many people associated Jews with communism for the simple reason that Jews were disproportionately represented in the communist takeover of Russia and in many other countries Jews stood out in the leadership of communist movements such as Bela Kun in Hungary, Rosa Luxembourg and the Frankfurt School in Germany, Ludovic-Oscar Frossard in France, Jacques de Kadt in the Netherlands, Ruth Fischer in Austria or were involved in high-profile acts of communist subversion such as Max Goldstein in Romania, and so on and so forth. Of course, none of this means that all Jews are communists but the fact that many communists were Jews can certainly help explain the rise of anti-Semitism in the wake of the spread of communism after the First World War. Given how small a percentage of the population they represented, it would simply not be reasonable to expect the level of Jewish involvement in the post-war communist movement to go unnoticed or to fail to produce some level of backlash.
Taking action against Jews as part of some wider political movement, is, of course, far different from outright persecution of all Jews simply for being Jews. In Italy, the Fascist Party included quite a few Jewish members before the alliance with Germany and the discovery of Jewish involvement in an anti-Fascist dissident group changed Mussolini’s policy in their regard. In Spain, Generalissimo Franco often denounced the “Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy” but, during World War II, allowed Jews to flee to safety through Spain provided they “left no trace” and it was his regime which repealed the Alhambra Decree which had originally expelled the Jews from Spanish soil back in the days of the Catholic Monarchs. The fascist regime of Salazar in Portugal went so far as to denounce the Nuremberg Laws in Germany and allowed no such discrimination or repression in his own country, provided of course the Jews in question were not involved in some criminal activity or dissident organization. Today, antagonism between Jews and neo-Nazi types in particular remains strong, mostly due to, frankly, the rank hypocrisy of many in both camps that want a nation-state for their own people but oppose the same for the other.
The specifically racial animus against the Jews was almost entirely confined to the National Socialist regime in Germany, which stands apart from most other fascist regimes in that regard, as well as in their incoherent attitude toward Christianity, at times accepting it and at other times denouncing it (the denunciations more often being done away from public view). Their subtle and not-so-subtle at times pushing of pre-Christian paganism was fairly unique from other fascist regimes which, seeking to restore some past period of national greatness, could not fail to notice that their height of power invariably coincided with the triumph of Christianity. This was not the case in Italy, yet even someone from so anti-clerical a background as Mussolini was forced to admit that Italy and Catholicism were inseparable and national unity required an accord with the Church of Rome. Romania’s fascist Iron Guard or Legion of the Archangel Michael was zealously Christian, requiring members to be willing to die for Christ and the German attitude seems rather odd when one considers that the height of German power came in the Christian era, whereas the pagan Germans had been primitive, disunited and frequently beaten. The Germanic barbarians that did ultimately overrun much of the Roman Empire, it is worth pointing out, had previously become Christian. I confess, I’ve often smirked at the thought of some strutting SS officer in the latest Hugo Boss fashion standing before a grizzled Teutonic Knight, explaining to him how Christianity is a source of weakness and how his pagan, cave-dwelling enemies are the real example to follow.
National Socialist Germany also stands apart in its consistently anti-monarchy attitude, though, again, for the sake of national unity this was mostly kept quiet until after they had achieved power. For Hitler, the multicultural, multinational Hapsburg realm was always anathema and he could never forgive the German Kaiser for having lost the war. For most other fascist regimes, this was not the case, though the events of the war and earlier the eclipse of the original Fascist regime in Italy by the Nazis in Germany sometimes caused a change in attitude. In Austria, the “Austrofascists” of Engelbert Dollfuss repealed the anti-Hapsburg laws and restored their property to them but went no farther. After his assassination by the Nazis, Dollfuss’ successor Kurt von Schuschnigg agreed to restore the Hapsburgs to the throne and had the support of Mussolini in Italy. However, that plan was thwarted due to world outrage at the Italian invasion of Ethiopia after which Mussolini allied with Hitler and dropped his support for the independent Austria. Across the Adriatic in Greece, the “August Fourth Regime” is often labeled as fascist and it was led by General Ioannis Metaxas who was a staunch royalist (his support for King Constantine I in staying out of World War I and his refusal to support the Allies brought down the Greek government of Venizelos).
In Romania, there were effectively two fascist movements, one led by King Carol II and the other, more well known, Iron Guard led by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu. Despite being at odds with the king, it is noteworthy that Codreanu was nevertheless unstinting in his praise of the principle of monarchy and his support for the institution. In Yugoslavia the most ambitious fascist movement was the Ustase which certainly opposed the Serbian monarchy but for which monarchy was never much of an issue, even when they briefly became a nominal one during the war years. Ethnic nationalism and Catholicism were always their top priorities. In Bulgaria, after a coup by a military faction that wanted to unite with Yugoslavia, King Boris III retook power for himself for most of the remaining years leading up to World War II, a period where royals dominating government seemed to be on the rise in the Balkans alongside such examples as King Carol II in Romania and King Alexander I of Yugoslavia (prior to his murder in 1934, leader of the “January Sixth Dictatorship”).
Belgium had both pro- and anti-monarchy fascist type movements, neither of which ever gained power on their own. The Walloon dominated Rexist movement pushed for a Catholic renewal, a corporatist society and Belgian nationalism whereas the Flemish National Union pushed for the abolition of Belgium (doing away with the monarchy in the process of course) in order to join Flanders with the Netherlands. The Rexists also had the benefit of being most influenced by other fascist movements favorable or at least not hostile to monarchy from Italy, France and Spain. This changed during the war when the Rexist leader Leon Degrelle joined with the Germans and adopted a new pan-European worldview in which the continent would basically be a German-dominated mega-state. The NSB in the Netherlands, originally did not make an issue of the monarchy, was originally open to Jewish members and was not racist. Priorities for the NSB were corporatism, ending democracy and enlarging the country and the colonial empire. However, as Nazi Germany rose in power, becoming more fashionable than Fascist Italy, the NSB became more anti-Semitic and, during the war, became very anti-monarchy as they openly collaborated with the Germans in opposition to the royal government-in-exile led by Queen Wilhelmina. They were ultimately undercut by their own patron as the Germans never handed over Flanders to them and were allied with the Japanese who conquered the Dutch East Indies (which they fully intended to keep).
A similar shift was seen in Great Britain where the original fascist movement, led by a woman and including many former suffragettes, was very conservative and very monarchist. “For King and Country” was their motto but they were later superseded by the British Union of Fascists, led by Sir Oswald Mosley who came from a very leftist political background. The BUF was originally most influenced by Fascist Italy but later became more influenced by Nazi Germany, which coincided with a more anti-Semitic attitude (something Mosley later said was a mistake). The BUF wanted to curtail democracy, enact protectionism for the empire, and have a corporatist system, replacing the House of Lords with a Chamber of Corporations. However, they were never anti-monarchy, while certainly never advocating for the restoration of royal powers (which the original British fascists had) but which regarded the monarchy, in its current form, as useful, speaking of it as having its rough edges rounded out by time and the course of history. Other, more minor, more extreme and more explicitly pro-Nazi groups were more radical but never gained anything like the even modest following of the BUF.
Across the Channel in France, a rather unique situation existed in which the most prominent fascist-type organization was overtly royalist, in a country where that would seem least likely and of a type that really went contrary to what one would expect. The group in question was Action Francaise (French Action) and, although less so today, was once regarded as the first proto-fascist party. In any event, it certainly had a great deal of influence on other fascist movements and so is well worth considering. It came to particular prominence in association with Charles Maurras, who was neither the founder nor the leader of the movement but its most adept intellectual spokesman. French Action favored nationalism, Catholicism, monarchy and integralism (a wider view of society of which corporatism was a part) and regarded as suspect such elements as Masons, Jews, Protestants and of course Marxists and radical leftists. It favored restoring the French monarchy though not restoring the King to actual power and favored the Orleanist claim to the French throne, not surprising given that it was the more ‘French’ of the competing factions.
What is odd about French Action is that it favored social and economic positions that were most in line with the legitimist royalists who despised everything in France that was post-Revolution. However the legitimists wished to see the King restored to absolute power whereas French Action did not, yet the Orleanist branch of the Royal Family had traditionally favored liberal economics (capitalism, free markets, etc) which French Action opposed. They were also adamantly opposed to Freemasonry which was, again, more in line with the legitimist than the Orleanist faction and yet they also took a more utilitarian view of religion which was more Orleanist than legitimist. One would think that these many contradictions would be a recipe for disaster or, for that matter, that no nationalist movement in France would wish to go near the issue of the monarchy since, sadly, in France and Spain alike the monarchy had become more a source of division and disunity with factions so adamantly opposed to each other, they would rather the monarchy die than see it live with a monarch from the other camp. Yet, in spite of all this, French Action became increasingly popular, though it must be said that as it did so the emphasis on restoring the monarchy became noticeably weaker.
It seemed that French Action stood a good chance of being politically successful until they were cut down in 1927 by Pope Pius XI in a move that is still seen today as rather inexplicable. The magazine of the movement was the first ever to be placed on the “Index of Forbidden Works” by the Catholic Church and later that year members were forbidden from receiving the sacraments, something which largely gutted the movement as the vast majority of members were practicing Catholics. Why would the Church do this to a movement which called for restoring the monarchy and restoring Catholicism as the official state religion, which condemned freemasonry and Protestantism? All possible explanations seem unsatisfactory.
Some have attributed it to Catholic opposition to nationalism in principle, mostly due to the papal opposition to Italian nationalism, yet, Pope Pius XI himself would, only a few years later, sign the Lateran pacts with Mussolini, belatedly giving its blessing to Italian nationalism that made Catholicism the state religion in Italy. Others have said it was because French Action was Orleanist and the Church would not undercut the legitimists, yet, as has been shown, French Action stood for many of the things that the legitimists, and not the Orleanists, had stood for and the Church had never seemed to be that partisan in the dynastic disputes of France. Today, particularly liberal Catholics have explained it as righteous papal opposition to a movement that spurned democracy and yet, again, the Church and Pope Pius XI himself supported other movements in places such as Italy and Austria that were less than committed to democracy.
The most likely explanation is that the Church simply wished to squash the figure of Charles Maurras, an agnostic who viewed Catholicism as a useful tool of social order and a part of French culture rather than a divinely empowered instrument of salvation, and the loss of French Action was simply collateral damage. If so, this would seem something of an overreaction and still does not quite satisfy as a way of explaining such a strong reaction on the part of the papacy. Maurras was, again, not the founder or the leader of the party, simply the most prominent member and the membership of French Action included a considerable number of priests and religious. Later, after the horrific events in Spain, the next pontiff, Pope Pius XII, repealed the ban on French Action but, by that time, the political current had largely left the movement behind. Other, smaller and less effective but more specifically fascist type movements had left French Action as one, now softer, voice among many. Its fortunes were not helped by the attitude of France after World War II which condemned Maurras and French Action for going along with the Vichy regime, Maurras regarding it as less than ideal but an improvement over the liberal republic.
Across the border in Spain, the situation was also very interesting and, again, not what one would probably expect. The preeminent fascist type party there was the Spanish Falange, founded in 1933 by Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. It promoted nationalism, national syndicalism (in the same vein as integralism or corporatism) and was initially republican and revolutionary. However, after the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, with General Francisco Franco leading the nationalist faction, the Falange effectively came under his control and was merged with the Carlists as part of Franco’s effort to unite all Spanish factions opposed to the leftist republic. Once the nationalists were victorious, Franco became dictator of Spain and the Falange was the only legal political party under his rule (and renamed the “National Movement”). Franco, however, had never been a Falangist ideologue and was more of a traditional conservative. He wanted national unity, opposition to masons and communists, a revival of Spanish heritage and a return to traditional Spanish institutions such as the Catholic Church and the monarchy.
The problem in Spain was that, as in France, the monarchy had become a source of division rather than unity. Franco got around this problem by restoring the monarchy in name fairly early on (1947) but not restoring it in fact until his death. He held off for a number of years (until 1969) in naming who his royal successor would be as a way to keep all royalist factions on side, each hoping ‘their man’ would be the one chosen. It also helped that the royals were firmly on the side of Franco from the start. King Alfonso XIII had backed the nationalists and sent his son, the Count of Barcelona, to join their ranks. The count, however, never got along with Franco, called him a usurper and so it is no surprise he was passed over in favor of his son, Don Juan Carlos, who was very friendly and supportive of Franco and his regime and so it was he who was chosen to take power when Franco died, restoring the monarchy in fact. Franco proved his monarchist bona fides by actually restoring the monarchy.
Since that time, it must be said, things have changed as the Falangists today blame King Juan Carlos for Spain becoming a democracy and increasingly leftist. That is certainly not what Franco intended but in the rush to heap all blame (as fascist types certainly see it) on King Juan Carlos for the shift to democracy, the Falangists conveniently forget their own history. The party had originally been republican and only Franco had made it otherwise and so there was no reason for the King to assume that without Franco they would stick with him through thick and thin. It is also true that the transition to democracy was led by Adolfo, Duke of Suarez, former General-Secretary of the Falangist National Movement, a longtime official under Franco and that the Falangists did themselves no favors by splitting into a number of factions after the death of Franco that diluted their political influence and public support.
Neighboring Portugal had a very different story, with a royal heir who was more openly opposed to the fascist type regime prevailing in his country. That was the corporatist state of Antonio de Oliveira Salazar which stressed, of course, corporatism, nationalism, Catholicism, pride in Portuguese history and the defense of every inch of the Portuguese empire. Salazar originally seemed favorable to the restoration of the monarchy and for the first time since the establishment of the republic, praise for the historic Kingdom of Portugal became commonplace. However, Salazar, while effectively the dictator, was legally only the head of government and not the head of state. President Oscar Carmona had been very powerful in the past, changed positions from time to time and was not someone Salazar probably wished to have an open clash with, nor could he have been expected to go along with a restoration of the monarchy. That changed when the President died in 1951 and Salazar did, at that point, consider doing away with the presidency and restoring the monarchy.
In 1950 the National Assembly had repealed the laws banning the Portuguese Royal Family from the country, the royals returned and the heir to the throne, Royal Prince Duarte Pio, went to school in Portugal and joined the Portuguese military where he fought in the colonial war in Portuguese West Africa (Angola). However, he was not an enthusiastic supporter of the corporatist “New State” and was finally expelled from Angola by the government for organizing a multi-ethnic group of political candidates for office who were not members of the National Union (Salazar’s political party). If this attitude seems contrary to Salazar’s denunciation of German racial policy, there is a difference. In Portugal, to scapegoat or persecute a race simply for being of another race was considered barbaric but the regime still wished to preserve the Portuguese people and organizations such the Portuguese Legion and government positions were open only to whites.
In the end, when the military coup ousted the corporatist regime, Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, celebrated the event and publicly endorsed the junta, perhaps hoping that he might be put on the throne by the new democratic regime. If so, that hope was obviously unfulfilled and one can only speculate if embracing the Salazar regime would have been to his benefit since, had he done so and had he been named successor in the fashion of Franco and Juan Carlos, he might have been quickly ousted as well by the military in the “Carnation Revolution”. Who can say? He has also caused some controversy by other actions such as saying nice things about President Assad in Syria and supposedly reconciling with the freemasons (which I have heard but am a bit skeptical about as it is hard to imagine what possible reason he would have for doing such a thing). In any event, for monarchists, the failure to restore the House of Braganza to the throne leaves most with little nostalgia for the “New State” though Portugal, in that era, will always have my support at least for fighting harder than any other European country, post-World War II, against the forces of international communism in Africa. Portugal was essentially fighting three wars at once with rebel forces backed by the entire communist global community and I don’t think Portugal receives nearly enough credit for that.
In other countries, such as in Latin America, monarchy was never a serious issue for fascist type regimes, for largely historical reasons. As we have seen, there was no uniform position on the subject among the fascists though even that leaves them in better standing with monarchists than their arch-enemies the communists who certainly did have a uniform position of absolute hostility to traditional authority of any kind. Some fascist type parties or movements were pro-monarchy, some were, at best, open to the idea or not stridently opposed but always on the condition that the monarchy did not oppose their own political efforts. In Asia, of course, things were very different as most countries were under colonial rule. The Empire of Japan was the primary exception to this and many have considered the Japanese empire either fascist outright or fascist by association. There, of course, the monarchy was central but, again, that was in a situation wherein the monarch did not actively oppose the government. We can see in the attempted coup when the Showa Emperor decided to surrender that this loyalty was not absolute, though the idea that the militarists would have actually abolished the monarchy is so absurd as to be unthinkable.
As we have mentioned here before (quite some time ago at this point), just looking at the World War II period, 18 of the 25 Axis powers or affiliated states were monarchies (though some only nominally so) and you had fascist type regimes in Spain that did bring back the monarchy, Austria that was in the process of doing so but was stopped and Portugal which came close but ultimately did not. Overall, one does get the impression that these fascist type movements were more favorable toward the idea of monarchy than with monarchy itself. Actual royals tended to cause jealousy and fears of rivalry in public esteem on the part of fascist leaders and having someone, no matter how seemingly ceremonial, ‘above’ the person holding power tends to make them very uncomfortable. Yet, the emphasis on nationalism, a grander form of tribalism, cannot but call to mind the traditional tribal chieftain, the hereditary leader of a people, someone for whom the story of their bloodline is the story of their people, their nation and that is a special bond which cannot be replicated by the mechanics of political machinery.
Finally, taken altogether, despite what the leftists think, who see fascism around every corner, the fact is that there have been relatively few fascist regimes around the world and fewer still that had the chance to live out a normal life as it were, which can make it hard to pass judgment on them in a rational, dispassionate way. From the point of view of one who supports traditional authority, there was nothing in the most basic fascist platform that would preclude one from supporting them. Some fascist types were pro-monarchy and others were not but their basic common themes; a focus on national unity, aversion to multi-party democracy, corporatism, support for traditional values, putting your own nation first, a self-interested foreign policy and a goal of as much economic self-sufficiency as possible, contain nothing inherently opposed to traditional authority.
Personally, the only acceptable form of classical liberalism was that embodied by such conservative thinkers as Edmund Burke. The problem is in maintaining that style as liberalism carries within it the seeds of its own destruction as should be all too clear now. As someone known for having more positive things to say about Mussolini than is considered acceptable in polite society, I will not hesitate to point out again that the liberals today seem intent with their overreaching to prove him right more every day in his assertion that, “The liberal state is a mask behind which there is no face, it is a scaffolding behind which there is no building” or that, essentially, the whole system is a fraud with freedoms for the favored but not for all. The basic liberal system, based to a large extent on idealism, works only in so far as the ground rules are evenly applied and universally adhered to. Such is no longer the case today so that the point of view of the fascists, that every state is essentially totalitarian and the only options are whether it is a totalitarianism that favors your worldview or suppresses it, supports your people or endeavors to destroy them, becomes, I would think, nearly impossible to refute.
For this adherent of traditional authority, one of the biggest roots of our current evils is the existence of political parties. The basic corporatist model has long been one that I think has the potential to rid countries of that pestilence. In that way, to jump to the opposite end of the political spectrum, it is also why I have time for libertarian type ideas about the ‘privatized society’ in that regard. I would not quickly dismiss anything that would offer hope for rendering mass political parties irrelevant and ultimately extinct. If anything, regardless of any one group's view of monarchy (and this could be dangerous) the current trends of society, particularly in the western countries which have the very existence of their people at stake, the public is being forced in a nationalist direction simply as a survival mechanism.