Hitler’s concept of the collective was that of the German Volk, or people, taken together with their culture and history. The state was envisioned as a organizing tool around which this organic concept of the Volk could be developed, not as the vehicle for the redistribution of wealth along class lines, the sole exception being the way in which it operated in the dispossession and redistribution of Jewish wealth and property after the enactment of the Nurenberg Laws in 1935. Hitler looked to the elimination of class perspectives in service of the common purpose. I can recall years ago seeing filmed speeches that Hitler gave prior to his ascendance to power in which he pointed to the confusion of national purpose attending the existence at the time of thirty-four political parties and for the need for national “unity” organized around one concept. None of this had a Marxian feel. To the contrary, the uprooting of the Marxian mindset was necessary to achieve it. Such is not socialism in any classical sense, it is fascism, purely and simply.

You say:

“Especially bearing in mind that fascism grew out of the Leftist socialist camp…It was basically the gentile socialist reaction to Judeo-Bolshevism in Europe”

I believe this statement to be a bit facile, actually. Certainly, Mussolini had a socialist identity during the early years of WWI but had concluded by its end that socialism was an utter failure. Early fascism was nationalistic, and egalitarian, opposing the notion of class war. Hitler was always a product of the forces of German nationalism. The choice of the name, National Socialist German Workers Party, was made to give his movement mass appeal, and even though there were those in his entourage that took the “socialist” claim seriously, Strasser notably, its expression always identified the common national reality, not narrow class interests. In any case, Stasser was suppressed as was Roehm and the SA where certain, more purely class related sentiments were more likely to be harbored.

You also make an unfortunate and highly dubious identification of Judaism and Bolshevism here as though the two were linked as a kind of unit. And later you speak of an “anti-Christian talmudic Zionism” as though such a phemomemon, if ever it existed, were a foredrawn conclusion. Again, a bit facile, I’m afraid. While I understand that this blog is hardly the place for scholarly writing, I don’t think it benefits from loose, undisciplined observations either.

But what’s wrong with the area just below Raimondo’s left eye? Almost looks as though a bee stung him.