Nazi photos Hitlers support for the Church

[kılıç_mehmet]

Friend, fascism is nothing more than an expression of nationalistic tendencies, represented in an anti-communist manner. In Italy, it surfaced with an Italian image, and since it surfaced there with that name, it was commonplace to call all similar nationalistic ideologies with that name. They were all founded on European soil, and had perhaps common interests, but that's all about it man.
The fact that those countries were catholic is due to history, nothing more. For example, Japan, a major axis power was Shinto, not catholic, where the Emperor was the head of the church. Yet similar things were not seen in neither Germany, nor in Italy, again major axis powers, they didn't even have monarchies, while Britain, whose ruler is also the head of the Church lacked such things due to its ethnic heterogeneity. Similarly for France and Spain, while Spain did resist communism in their own lands, it took them a bit more effort to rid this vile abomination out of the minds of their people.
Well, I don't think that anti-communism(also called fascism by communists, regardless of it's proper name, whether Phalangist, Gardist or etc.) is a "catholic-thing".

I would doubt that Japan was a fascist regime during that time. I would considere it to be a extremly nationalist military hunta. And I do not think that the resistance against communism is the only thing which defines fascism as different from nationalism. Racism is not required in nationalism while it pops up in every fascist movement and a nationalist can still be a democrat, constitutional monarchist or republican whilest fascism requires totalitarianism and insists on it`s right to rule authoritarian.

Of course they weren't "fascist". Fascist is simply a name that is applied to every non-communist ideology by the leftists. The fact is that fascism only came to power in Italy. In Japan, there simply was Japanese nationalism, nothing more. I don't know the japanese name for the ideology though.
Fascism is in itself, nothing more than Italian nationalism, that was, in it's time, opposed to the largest internationalist movement of the time, being communism. Similarly, the other nationalist movements of the time had the same goal, opposing communism, but the actual ideology changed, whereas Fascism was built on the Italian identity, National socialism was built on another identity. In itself, as I said, they differed, but the main idea behind them was simply being a national ideology, as opposed to an imported, internationalist agenda like communism.

And you're right on one thing, and that not every nationalist agenda puts an emphasis on "race" or ethnicity for that matter, as with the nations in Europe which are not descendants of a single ethnicity or race, such as the French and Spanish, though for Germans, who have a history that goes beyond the dark ages in Europe, the national identity was inseperable from the racial identity. Same for my ideology, we Turks are an old people, we have a history that goes a while back, and we do not call ourselves with the name of another people, and speak the language of another like the French(named after the Germanic Franks, speaking the language of the Latins, and living on Celtic soil). For us, being a Turk is a matter of blood, as much as a matter of culture and self-identification. Cultural nationalism can apply for certain nations, while it certainly does not apply to nations like Germans, Greeks, all manner of Slavs, Turks, Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Iranians, and etc.

Democracy for nationalists...Is somewhat like a double-edged sword, you see. I speak for my own group, that we do abide by the laws regarding elections, similarly, abiding by all laws that come with it, but we are strongly opposed to the multi-party system. One particular slogan of ours is "Turkish nationalism will bring about the end of democracy". Although it is true that in Turkey, the first nationalist government built the country as a democratic country, our founding fathers had not yet realized that democracy could be used to cover all manners of harmful ideologies and enemies of the state.

So now, we're debating on what kind of a system would be more beneficial, to replace democracy with. For us, democracy is a tool, rather than a goal, you see, it's the same for all nationalists.
I mean, what purpose would a nationalistic government serve, if an economic/social liberal goverment could overtake it with an election?