Since the horrifying inceptions of both Nazism and Fascism, they, as modern ideologies, have been confused and conflated as if one were simply interchangeable with the other; moreover, Nazism has been called a form or type of Fascism or, at times, vice versa. Amazingly, most intellectuals and academicians have been among the worst culprits of such incorrect thinking.  

While it is completely true, of course, that Communism, Fascism, and Nazism are all totalitarian ideologies that have, in fact, unfortunately caused the terrible deaths of millions of people, each still represents distinct modes of thought that do not share exactly all of the same origins in most respects; and, there are certainly important implications regarding permanent differences. 

All of those modernist ideologies are, it can be interestingly added, on the political Left since they glorify Man and deny all classical Natural Law rights or, usually, even very existence of God Himself; the centralization of political power, the destruction of individual liberty, is meant to become permanently absolute in practice, if not in (utopian/dystopian) thinking. 

Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihin’s Leftism Revisited: From De Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot clearly explains the essential Leftist origins of these three very evil modes of thought of triumphant modernity in terms of their gross and vicious dehumanization of humanity itself in service to the whore god of secularist, materialist, nihilist utopianism.  The main point of this article, however, will be to show that Nazism is not to be wrongly interpreted as a type or kind of Fascism.  Now, some requisite definitions are in order so that no confusion should result.

The critical key to all of Nazism was the systematic embodiment of the supreme “cult of personality” almost deified into the personage of the absolute leader, the Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, who was meant to eventually replace the “temporary” Nazi State; the resulting ideological reality was to be the racialist utopia of a pure breed of Nietzschean, Aryan supermen existing through military and cognate supremacy.  As with Communism, the State was meant to just melt away into total insignificance in the lives of the people and even the entire Nazi Party was always to be inferior to the Fuhrer.   

Illustrative easily of the profound truth, of the known proof, discussed, Hitler had forced the German Army to take the Fuhrer Oath, meaning that they had to swear, significantly, an absolute oath of loyalty and fealty even unto death not to any Nazi Party, Nazi creed, or Nazi State; but, rather, only to their Supreme Leader; this is a significant distinction concerning such a peculiar polity, which is really anti-political in nature because it was meant to fully eradicate all politics.

Insightfully, the great philosopher Leo Strauss had recognized Nazism as being a true product of Enlightenment-generated Liberalism, though often dismissed or hated as an illegitimate child.

Fascism, an ad hoc collection of often conflicting thoughts, was the promotion of the existence of an absolutely militarized State where the leader, Il Duce, Benito Mussolini, was the head of the country; this was in specific terms of dictating all policy to the government that was, in turn, composed of social and economic corporatist units subordinated forever to the State. 

Unlike Nazism and Communism, therefore, the Fascist State was meant to be an absolutely permanent totalitarian reality, the predominant institution, that would, moreover, attract all else into its ever widening grasp, since no other loyalty whatsoever was permitted above or beyond it.  But, it has been well said that Fascism was originally born in the trenches of World War I with its warm feelings of comradeship, order, discipline, honor, courage, and fidelity.

The above definitions and involved explanations do and ought to manifestly indicate why one ought never to confuse or confound Nazism with Fascism or vice versa.  In confirmation, one can read the writings of Hitler or Mussolini and those among their followers who had bothered to leave related writings behind as to such vile ideological legacies. 

Thus, one perceives readily why it is forever definitionally and descriptively wrong to ever call Nazism a form of Fascism in any way whatsoever, this is, surely, because these different ideologies, while possessing certain admitted similarities, were yet substantively different kinds of systems of thought, which, moreover, were not necessarily even compatible as such.

This forever critical cognitive issue of properly identifying and understanding such ideologies is epistemologically important for achieving the correct comprehension needed when claiming to be able to write intelligently and accurately about such things.  Far too many supposed experts, however, meaning the vast majority of scholars composing historical works, in the past as well as today, do not accurately discuss either or both of these ideologies correctly. 

Such a major failure of requisite cognition creates the improper misinterpretation of the thinking involved in such systems of thought that, in turn, necessarily reflects poorly upon estimates, conclusions, analyses, and other efforts toward related discussions of Nazism and Fascism as past historical realities needing correct elucidation and discussion.

Consequently, as an example for aiding knowledge, there are, in fact, no actual Fascist or Nazi regimes existing in the world today nor, moreover, since the final or official ending of World War II.   Of course, for just purely polemical purposes, many regimes since that war have been variously described as or denounced as being Fascist ones, with a relative few being designated as possibly Nazi-like in orientation such as, e.g., the Republic of South Africa was during its apartheid era. 

The effort of this article, therefore, has been to offer a solution by seeking to correct a problem created in the realm of political epistemology; this has been due, as noted in the aforementioned discussion, to significant errors in thought caused by incorrect designations pertaining to both the definitions of such ideologies and consequent rhetorical applications thereof.  At least, readers of this article will be now intelligently informed as to what is true or not pertaining to these two ideologies of an aggressive modernity.

	Web useless-knowledge.com