Valentinian's Imperial Threesome

Valentinian is the Christian Roman Emperor said to have engaged in Polygamy, below is Copy/Pasted from his Wikipedia Page.

Socrates Scholasticus gives an interesting account in his Historia Ecclesiastica of Valentinian's marriages, that has inspired some to call this emperor polygamous. According to the text: the empress Justina^[53]

became known to Marina Severa, wife of the emperor Valentinian, and had frequent dialogue with the empress, until their intimacy at length grew to such an extent that they were accustomed to bathe together. When Severa saw Justina in the bath she was greatly struck with the beauty of the virgin, and spoke of her to the emperor; saying that the daughter of Justus was so lovely a creature, and possessed of such symmetry of form, that she herself, though a woman, was altogether charmed with her. The emperor, treasuring this description by his wife in his own mind, considered with himself how he could espouse Justina, without repudiating Severa, as she had borne him Gratian, whom he had created Augustus a little while before. He accordingly framed a law, and caused it to be published throughout all the cities, by which any man was permitted to have two lawful wives. The law was promulgated and he married Justina, by whom he had Valentinian the younger.

— Socrates Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica, IV.31

Now Wikipedia goes on about how scholars doubt the veracity of this claim, citing sources from a Century later who instead say Severa was exiled before he married Justina, and referring to the lack of evidence of this Law legalizing Polygamy.

Independent verification of this Law probably vanished because later Emperors expunged it.  What we now know of Roman Law largely comes through the compilations and reforms of Theodosius and Justinian.  

It's also theorized that this comes from someone wanting to smear Justina for her perceived later support of Arianism.  But this is an odd way to go about calling her a Slut.  Also Socrates Scholasticus is known for his lack of interest in demonizing Heretics, he is so kind to the Novatians that many have assumes he was one, but then others point out that he showed the same fairness to the Arians.

What fascinated me here is that this really isn't just an example of standard Patriarchal Polygyny.  It starts with Severa seeing Justina naked and getting turned on in-spite of being a Woman.  This wasn't a strictly Het plural marriage, this was a True Threesome.

Valentinian is also an interesting Emperor for his Domestic Economic Policies as well.  A lot of the negative things said about him are from Senatorial Class historians, who indeed still dominated the writing of Roman Imperial history even during Christianization.  Valentinian made reforms to help the Poor including providing them with Healthcare.  Even though during this era The Church was already starting to lose it's Anarcho-Communist roots, Valentinian was still, if we tried to force modern political terms on the era, at least a Social Democrat.

Scholars also like to doubt the alleged Arianism of Valens because of Valens' closeness to Valentinian who was his brother.  But Valens definitely had a different economic philosophy then his brother being much more fiscally Conservative.  Brothers can disagree on Religion just as easily if not more so then they do Economics.  That forcing an Arian Bishop on the Arabs was the reason for Mavia's revolt is pretty hard to deny.

This also kind of repeats the situation of the children of Constantine.   Now the fact that in both cases the Nicene got the West while the Arian got the East might make one suspect all Four Emperors were just pandering to the popular winds of their populations.  But often popular opinion is influenced by the rulers.   And to me the evidence shows that Arianism wasn't popular with the common people in most of the East, just among elites in Bithynia.

The Glorious Revolution was neither Glorious or a Revolution

[Update July 2026: I've become aware of some nuances that complicated my once simplistic view of this topic. Principally the fact that the one exception to Religious Toleration James made happened to be the by far more violent and deafly persecution actively going on and it did end with the Glorious Revolution due to resolving the core issue. That being the Killing Time directed at the Scottish Covenanters. Meanwhile the action of Edmund Andros in New England was all about centralizing Church organization, so the New England Puritans were right to be skeptical]

The Sin of Sodom was Capitalism actually

In the past I've put all my eggs in the Hospitality/Immigration argument, and that is still an important symptom of their disease.  But it's verse 49 of Ezekiel's 16th Chapter that gives us the full diagnosis.

"Moreover this was the sin of thy sister Sodom, pride: she and her daughters lived in pleasure, in fullness of bread in abundance: this belonged to her and her daughters, and they helped not the hand of the poor and needy."

There is no getting around that this is a condemnation of Wealth Hording, that the kind of people who talk this way today are Communists and Socialists.

And it's not addressing individual Rich People who don't voluntarily give to the Poor.  It's about Sodom as a society.

References to Sodom in Isaiah and Jeremiah also stress it being tied to their greed and wealth.  I argued on my Prophecy Blog that the Whoredom of Babylon is Capitalism, and Eschatological prophecies of Babylon do evoke Sodom.  

Jude 7 when talking about Sodom uses the word "Pornea" which the KJV translates "Fornication", it's actually a word for Prostitution but that unlike some other Greek words for Prostitution is stressing specifically the economic aspect of it, coming from a root which means "to sell".  Likewise in Ezekiel 16 the three times the KJV refers to "Fornication" it's the exact same words the KJV in this same chapter elsewhere translates whoredom, whore and harlot.  I believe some Biblical references to "whoredom" aren't about sex at all.

And the issue of Sodom being in-hospitable to immigrants is not unrelated, travelers and refuges are also needy and poor.  And Capitalists love to use nativist sentiments to get the poor citizens to blame the immigrants for the problems that are actually Capitalism's fault.

Ironically some Marxists might say I'm being Anachronistic here since we all know Capitalism didn't exist till after the Reformation, at the very soonest.  But the thing is part of why I'm not a Marxist is that I disagree with the Marxist view of history.  I know some Breadtubers love to stress how young Capitalism is in response to Conservatives arguing that it's "Natural", but we can't deny Patriarchy has been a thing for all of Human history.  How about when addressing Conservative Christians we remind them that The Church is supposed to be "contrary to nature" (Para Phusis) according to Romans 11.

Even if I were to concede that Feudalism is distinct from Capitalism, when I look at Ancient Rome ("Republican" Rome at least) it's hard for me not to see it as Capitalist with it's wealthy land owners and the way it's "Democracy" was so thoroughly jerrymandered against the urban poor.  And I see similar Capitalism in Carthage and at least some of the City-States of Greece.

Capitalism has different forms, from Mercantilism to industrial Capitalism, from Classical Liberalism to Neo-Liberalism, from Jeffersonianism to Hamiltonianism.  Some reactionaries claim to hate Capitalism as much as they do Communism while still being called Capitalists by Communists.  

During the Middle Ages I believe Capitalism was continued by Venice and perhaps some other Italian coastal City-States.  Then after the Reformation opened the door for upheavals in some parts of Europe the city of Amsterdam and other northern ports started being influenced by the Venetians they traded with.  And then England started borrowing from both Amsterdam and Venice as it started striving to be a Sea Power under Henry VIII, Elizabeth and the Stuarts.

Some writers have argued Protastantism helped cause Capitalism.  But it's really one major school of Protestantism, the "Reformed Tradition" of Zwingly that later split into Calvinist and Arminian camps.  Luther actually loved Feudalism and wanted to make it stronger rather then weaker.  And the Anabaptists like the Taborite and John Ball before the Reformation were Communists.  But to the point I'm making here, it can be argued that Venetian theologians had an overlooked influence on the early Reformation even though they nominally stayed Catholic through men like Gasparo Continari.

Roman Capitalism came from the Greeks and also Carthage who's Trade networks Rome absorbed as they conquered it.  Carthage and Greece were both influenced by the Phoenicians, a people The Bible refers to as Sidonians who's major cities were first Sidon and later Tyre.  Ezekiel 27 is perhaps just as much a description of Capitalism as Ezekiel 16 is.  The Sidonians were the Canaanites of Lebanon and Sodom is also mentioned when talking about the Canaanites in Genesis 10.  In Ezekiel 16 God's criticism of Jerusalem (which is Sodom's Sin but now worse) also involved Him spiritually calling them Jebusites and Amorites.

Capitalism is the Socio-Economic Vice of the Canaanites, while Feudalism came from Egypt.

I'm not a Libertarian anymore but I'm still willing to vote for one.

I would prefer not to settle for that, I'd rather a Socialist run in the Republican Primary and somehow win.  I made a blog post on how that is plausible then you might assume.

I mean the American definition of libertarianism here, I am a Libertarian-Communist.  I also a wrote a Blog post about why I call myself a Libertarian.

But here is my controversial statement.  If a Libertarian can win the next Republican Primary and thus the two viable options in 2024 are Biden/Harris agaisnt a Libertarian, I'll vote for the Libertarian.

So many Breadtubers when they acknowledge Libertarians only want to focus on the ways they are Economically even worse then the Republicans, which they are, they are arguably the only true pure Economic Liberals.

The thing is Economic Issues aren't the only thing I vote for.  I agree they should be ideally the top priory, but if the furthest left either option is willing go economically is still refusing even Universal Healthcare or a Basic Income, then no one is gonna get my vote for Economic Reasons.

But I do also care about ending our Interventionist foreign policy, and the War on Drugs, and also decriminalizing Sex Work and Gambling.  And guess what Libertarians even have some redeeming qualities Economically, many want to end Copyright/Intellectual Property laws, and they tend to oppose corporate bail outs.

And the thing is the bad things they want to do Economically are things a President would need congressional support for.  While what I like about them are largely things the Executive Branch can act on unilaterally.

I will however only ever again vote for an American Libertarian if they get one of the Major party nominations.  I'm only gonna vote 3rd Party for Socialists ideally, and maybe be willing to settle for Social Democrats or the Green Party.

If the Republican Nominee in 2024 is an Establishment Republican or Trump again or someone like Ted Cruz, I'll maybe go for a 3rd Party Candidate but probably not vote at all.  But a Libertarian I will vote for without hesitation.

Muhammad was not Iyas ibn Qabisah al-Ta'i

This particular theory on Islamic origins started popping up in 2020.  I watched the video where Jay Smith and someone called Mel first lay it out and I was disappointed.

I first stumbled upon this watching some other videos where they alluded to this, and in those they say "Iyas ibn Qabisah's nickname was Muhammad" as if that is an indisputably independently verified fact.  But it's actually not, it's based on their very bad use of Thomas the Presbyter.

Thomas the Presbyter in 640 AD talking about the battle of Dathin in 634 refers to "Tayy of Muhammad", Mel concludes the person being called Muhammad here must be the leader of the Tayy tribe and then talks about Iyas who was a leader connected to that tribe a generation earlier.

A lot of modern translations of Thomas translate this reference as "Arabs of Muhammad" because there is a lot of evidence that non Arabs of that region and time period often used Tayy as a synecdoche for the Arabs.  But even if we interpret Thomas as intending to mean the Tayy tribe specifically, he says "Tayy of Muhammad", as in he's referring to Tayy who were followers of Muhammad.  Nothing in this quote makes the Muhammad in mind a specifically Tayy tribal leader or even Tayy himself at all.  It also does not imply this Muhammad was himself present at the battle or still alive.

In the official traditional Islamic view of this history the Tayy had all become followers of Islam by a few years ago at this point and are even referred to as specifically important fighters in the conquests of this time period.  So nothing in Thomas contradicts the mainstream view.

Meanwhile Iyas ibn Qabisah even while he was governor of Al-Hira from 602-617 was not the sole leader of the Tayy, the Tayy generally never had one single leader, they were split up into many clans with their own chiefs.

I listened to this thesis with an open mind because I already since way back in 2019 and 2018 had my own reasons for thinking the Lakhmid kingdom and Al-Hira have an overlooked importance to understanding the historical context of Islam's origins.  When you consider how Kufa was basically a re-founding or expansion of Al-Hira and Ali's tomb being in a city that used to be a Christian burial ground in the same general area.  And also my thesis that Nestorianism was an influence on how Islamic Theology and Christology developed.  I've also long been into the story of Al-Numan III and his Lesbian daughter.  But I'm also interested in Arabic history that goes back even further like the Christian Queen Mavia in the fourth century.  And some Tayy clans were had specifically been allies of the Lakhmids.

Iyas plays a role in all that history and so does now interest me, but saying he is who the mythology of Muhammad was originally based on simply doesn't work.

In the video they quote some 7th and early 8th Century Christian sources that call Muhammad a King.  I understand that might seem a little weird at first, but remember the Priests saying 'We have no King but Caesar" probably annoyed Pilate because the Romans were in deep denial that they were no longer a Republic.  Muhammad had absolute power in Medina in the traditional history, calling him a King then is officially wrong only in the same way calling Hitler a king would be officially wrong.

All three of these references they quote said Muhammad's reign as King began in 622, same year Muhammad became a political leader in the traditional Islamic narrative.  Meanwhile Iyas was not ever formally a King either, in fact he was less of a King then Muhammad in Medina since he was a governor subordinate to the Sassanids.

They want to claim after Iyas lost governorship of Hira in 617 he became a King of the Arab rebels in 622.  But they can't cite any primary source saying that not dependent on their flawed conjectures.  Yet they keep stating it as if they've proven it.

The early Christian sources on the Arab conquest they quote also refer to the Arabs having two leaders for a time and then being united under Muawiyah, and they seem to view that as some enigma in conflict with the Muslim history.  Well let me mention something about the Rashidun Caliphate most people don't know, Ali never actually ruled the entire Kingdom that Umar and Uthman had just conquered, he was based in the East while the West including Israel was ruled by Muawiyah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muawiyah_I#/media/File:First_Fitna_Map,_Ali-Muawiya_Phase.png

They even took an early Christian source saying Muhammad was born of Noble ancestry and said that contradicted the Islamic narrative.  And at that point they are either misunderstanding or intentionally misrepresenting what the official traditional history is.  Muhammad ibn Abdullah is a direct patrilineal descendent of Qusai ibn Kilab who was a King of Mecca and the Quraysh tribe in the 5th Century.  And between them in that genealogy is mostly people who were entrusted with the custodianship of the Kaaba. Muhammad is not claimed to have been a commoner by any of the 9th and 10th century sources Smith wants to discredit.

Maybe they're confused because some American Muslims have sought to pretend Muhammad was a nobody, that his rise to power was a rags to riches story, a 7th century Arabian version of the American Dream.  Not unlike the way some Americans like to talk about Jesus, "He was born in a stable and became the most famous person in history" no Bing Crosby that's not what makes Jesus so important.

Now I agree with Jay Smith that the "Mecca" King Qusai actually ruled was Petra.  But unlike Smith I don't think the Petra theory itself really discredits Islam at all, in fact I once watched a video on YouTube by Shia Muslims supporting it, tying it into their hatred of the Saudis and prophecies that the Twelfth Imam/Mahdi will destroy Mecca.  And in Jordan I imagine even Sunni Muslims could be fine with it, it would help their tourism industry.  We Christians also have disagreements on where certain Biblical locations actually are.  And no the Qibla does not exist because Muslims literally think Allah won't hear them if they Pray facing the wrong direction, it's a just a purely ceremonial custom.

If Jay Smith is going to decide for the sake of intellectual consistency that every mainstream official Biblical site must be true and if not Christianity is utterly discredited, then he and I will have a problem.  Because the Crucifixion of Jesus is pretty unambiguously placed East of The Temple, that's what "Nigh to the City" and "Without the Camp" meant in Hebrew idiom.

I do not believe the Black Stone was ever in Petra however, it's not mentioned in the Quran and some Quran only Muslims reject it as inherently Pagan.  The Black Stone is similar to things done south in Yemen not by any of the Nabatean Arabs.  There was a similar "Red Stone" in Ghaiman and a "White Stone" at al-Abalat/Tabala.  So I think this was added to the Kaaba traditions when the current Meccan Kaaba was founded.

I first heard about this new theory when I watched the recent debate between Jay Smith and David Wood about the historicity of Muhammad.  My position on that issue is kind of between theirs.  I believe in the basic outline of Muhammad's biography more then Smith does, but I do think there has been some corruption and distortion and I do find Wood's obsession with the "criterium of embarrassment" rather annoying, as an aspiring writer of fiction myself, I would never invent a fictional Prophetess without giving her embarrassing flaws.

I think both are wrong actually when they attribute the Infancy Gospel of Thomas to the Gnostics, what we Nicene Evangelicals object to in that Gospel the Gnostics would probably hate even more.  I don't think any of it was "less embarrassing" to it's author then it is to us, they simply disagree with the view that Jesus needs to be flawless, it's basically a 2nd Century version of Last Temptation or Jesus Christ Superstar.  And the thing is Muslim doctrine doesn't even claim Muhammad to be without Sin the way Jesus is claimed to be by both Christians and the Quran.

However I do think Wood is on the right track with his "Faith of the Fatherless" thesis.  Which is ironically specifically why I don't think the Satanic Verses story happened.  Even if Muhammad had at some point temporarily wanted to compromise with the Pagans allowing them to keep this trio of Goddesses, Wood's own psychological profile for Muhammad utterly contradicts that he would ever call them Daughters of Allah.  He could have just made them three important Angels or Jinn, the kind of thing Christians and Jews compromising with Paganism had already been doing (and still do like Tolkien and Lewis).  My own theory on the Satanic Verses is that the Sura in question was a plagiarism of an older Nabatean hymn that predated Muhammad, the verses in question were never in the Quran's version, but at some point the existence of the older version became known and Muslims who didn't want to admit Muhammad didn't invent it had to explain the existence of these verses which seemed to be in it's oldest version.

However to Smith I'd argue the entire Petra thesis helps the historicity of Muhammad.  If the Kaaba was moved during the time of Abd All ibn al-Zubayr and the stories about the Prophet didn't begin to be fabricated till after that, then how come those stories are still so clearly and accurately describing Petra?

Petra also helps the traditional claim of Muhammad's Ishmaelite ancestry, modern Jordan and very North Western Saudi Arabia is basically where The Bible places the Ishmaelite tribes, around Biblically Paran and Kadesh (I believe Kadesh Meirbah is Petra, a city that went back and forth between being Edomite and Nabatean).  These Tribes intermarried with each other a lot so it isn't surprising that Muhammad has claimed descent from both Nabojath and Kedar, meanwhile Dumah and Tema were also in this area.

I want to talk briefly about the Doctirna Jacobi and the issue that it implies Muhammad is still alive in 634 IF it's talking about the same Arab Prophet.  This source is a second hand account of a second hand account, and while it reflects the time period it's main narrative is probably fictional since it's a Christian account of a Jew saying Jesus was probably the Messiah and all this is their punishment for rejecting Him.  But the main point is this Prophet doesn't even appear in the narrative directly.  News didn't travel as fast back then as it does now, it's entirely possible Christians in Carthage didn't know the Prophet who started this Arab movement was already dead by the time they entered The Hold Land.  It also might be they were confusing Umar with the original Prophet.  And the people who met the Prophet could have done so traveling several years earlier.

I think it's entirely possible that the teachings of the Prophet in question are not being accurately represented by the document, or at least not quoted directly. Things like "keys of paradise" may not be based on any exact expression he said, but the fact remains Paradise and how to get there was part of Muhammad's message so it fits just fine.  

Muhammad was prophesying the second coming of Jesus which people hearing about his message second or third hand could have thought was about a new Messiah when that wasn't the original intent, he did pronounce the name differently then these Greeks were used to.

The most important fact to me is this document's main criticism of this Prophet is exactly what most American Evangelical Christians' main criticism of Muhammad is, that he and his message are too violent, so to see them turn around and go "this can't possibly be criticizing that same blood thirsty Prophet I'm criticizing" is just funny to me.

There are plenty of contemporary references to the Arab Conquest being prompted by a Schismatic Arab Prophet named Muhammad.  It doesn't matter how many details at first glance seem odd, the basic picture fits just fine.  There is even a Seventh Century use of the word Moslem by John of Niku.  Sebeos also mentions Umar by name, there is also a Hejaz Arabic inscription for Umar.  We also have Ad Annum a 705 document that lists all the Caliphs but Ali (who might be left out since he never had the west) but says Muhammad only reigned 7 years starting in 621 or 622, and gives Umar 12 years, 2 years more then usual.  Earlier then that we have Jacob of Edessa, and then there is another Chronicle in 724.  

http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html [Update: https://web.archive.org/web/20210211093519/http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html]

But these revisionists want to misuse parts of these same sources to say the opposite, that the "real Muhammad' was still alive at a later point not that he died even sooner.  I think the extra two years being added to Umar's reign here are probably at the start, I think his invading the Eastern Roman Empire immediately is unlikely, even Alexander The Great had to deal with domestic stuff first.

Muhammad really dying in 628 or 629 but the traditional narrative saying he lived longer actually makes perfect since with the traditional narrative's desire to deny that Zaynad bin Al-Harith's attempt to kill Muhammad was the cause of his death even though Muhammad's own quotes imply that's the cause.

However a better Lakhimid based identification for Muhammad would be Al-Mundhir VI ibn al-Nu'man who became the rightful heir to the displaced throne of Al-Hira in 609 and then reclaimed it in 633 only to died after 8 months.  If the historical Ali was a Nephew and/or Son in Law of his then that would make perfect of Ali's capital being basically a rebuilt Al-Hira.

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth-2 Timothy 2:15

This is an often overlooked verse of Scripture, which is interesting given how it's about Scripture.

There is a common attitude among Evangelical Christians that goes "how dare you suggest some parts of Scripture are more important then others", they feel the integrity of Scripture considers it important they label all Scripture equally as authoritative for every purpose.

In the same Epistle chapter 3 verse 16 Paul says all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.  But maybe those should be "or" rather then "and", the KJV uses neither.

As charming an Ideal as it is to try and treat every single obscure statement of Scripture as being equally as important as what Jesus said on The Cross or Moses on Mt Sinai, that's incredibly unhelpful.  The Bible is a big book, you can in theory read all of it in a few days if you really pushed yourself, or played an audio book version at double speed.  But you are not going to properly consume it or understand it that way.  So at the very least we should maybe give new Christians some guidelines to what they need to read first.

To a certain extent I think Christians should consider even the least of the New Testament higher priority then even the most vital parts of the Hebrew Bible (commonly called the "Old Testament").  That stuff is all important but Christians should always be reading it through a New Testament filter.  But that is in tension with another part of me that dislikes when Christians are in denial of how often the Christological significance of some passages were not always their original main point.

Top priority should be the life story, teachings and example of Jesus.  We get that in the 4 Gospels and very beginning of Acts (where many Bibles have the words of Jesus in Red) and then the entire Book of Revelation.  

Then next under Jesus in Authority would be the 12 Disciples, and almost about equal with them the Beloved Disciple/Bethany Siblings and maybe also the Maternal half siblings of Jesus.  We get their teachings in the first 15 Chapters of Acts and the General Epistles, and also arguably the narrative voices of Matthew, Mark (who wrote what Peter preached) and the Fourth Gospel.

The rest of the New Testament is basically Paul.  It might concern you that I'm aiding and abetting the Anti-Paul cultists by categorizing him as the least authoritative New Testament voice, but it's consistent with Paul's own claims, he defined himself as the least of the Apostles in 1 Corinthians 15:9.

Judaism traditionally divides the Hebrew Bible into three categories, The Law or Torah which is the Pentateuch the Five Books of Moses.  And then The Prophets and The Writings.  New Testament references commonly taken as referring to the "Old Testament" as a whole are actually just saying The Law and The Prophets.

Now The New Testament is arguably including in the Prophets some material the traditional Jewish reckoning does not, Jesus calls both Daniel and Jonah Prophets, and Peter calls David a Prophet in Acts 2, Davidic Psalms are the most commonly quoted Psalms in the New Testament, but not the only ones, for example Asaph's are quoted and there is justification for labeling him a Prophet as well based on comparing 1 Samuel 1:9 to 2 Chronicles 29:30.

But the New Testament never actually unambiguously quotes the post Torah historical books.  It alludes to history from them, and quotes Psalms they also quote, and Elijah once, but that's it, their overall narrative voice isn't endorsed at all.  They are important for providing context, but perhaps they shouldn't be viewed uncritically as history books.  I have a prior post on comparing Chronicles to Samuel-Kings.

And I have also discussed how the New Testament speaks rather dismissively of Solomon, so perhaps the writings attributed to Solomon should be ranked at the very bottom?

This post isn't me arguing anything should be thrown out.  But when dealing with things like apparent contradictions we should consider who said the verse in question and for what purpose.

Your definition of Fascism is probably wrong, including Umberto Eco.

Including myself in some of my past attempts to talk about Fascism.

Being a Leftist who doesn't like how loosely my fellow Leftists use the word Fascism is an awkward situation to be in.  The problem is we've gotten so used to Fascism as a Synonym for evil that people assume the only reason to argue someone or some ideology isn't Fascist is to defend them as not evil.

What I'm going to argue Fascism means is something I do not like, but the various things most people seem to mean when they say Fascism are things I dislike even more, Authoritarianism, Militarism, Imperialism, Totalitarianism, Nationalism, Xenophobia, Racism, Antisemitism, Bigoty, Eugenics ect, and so I kind of wish they would just use those words which already have negative connotations, saying "Fascism" when you mean one of those just muddies the waters.  The most well known Fascist regimes tend to also involve some or all of those, but what those words mean are still different.

If something I like is being called Fascist by a Leftist then the accuser probably isn't even applying their own definition properly, but if you're accusing someone associated with the American Republican Party or any form of Conservatism then rest assured they're not someone I have any desire to defend as the right path.  If I'm disagreeing with you about how "Fascist" a certain Movie or Anime or Comic Book is, I probably also disagree about how "Conservative" it is.

But it's not just people using it as a derogatory, even some of the people who've called themselves Fascists have in my view not actually understood what the term meant.  Of the three nominally Fascist parties that existed in 1920s-30s Brittan I'd argue only Mosley actually had any idea what he was talking about.  All three were jerks who I'm glad never actually took power, but only one was using the word properly.  Douglas Francis Jerrold was another example of someone Pro-Mussolini but Anti-Hitler, as was Sir Charles Petrie.

Umberto Eco is who I singled out in the title because a lot of Breadtubers treat his Ur Fascism as the Infallible Word of God for how to define Fascism.  The problem is he is one of many who's goal in defining Fascism was not intellectual honestly but a desire to define both Mussolini's Fascism and German Nazism based on what they appeared to have in common rather then how either of those parties defined themselves so that he could back up the mainstream liberal narrative of WW2 as a war against an evil ideology rather then a War fought for the same reasons the first one was.

Yes you got that right, I'm questioning the term's applicability even to the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler, the elaboration on that will come later, my point right now is that's the ideology where the "Palingenetic Ultra Nationalism" was the core of what they were about, for Mussolini the appeals to nationalism were merely a means to an end.

Mussolini invented Fascism as an ideology, he made it clear what he meant Fascism to be was simply his form of the Socio-Economic system called Corporatism which in turn he defined as a "third way" between Capitalism and Socialism.

I say "his form" because I would not even call all forms of Corporatism inherently Fascist, in fact at it's broadest definition Corporatism can be compatible with Leftism.  An American in 2020 may look at that term and think it refers to "corporations" as in big business, however the Cooperatives in mind here are actually more like Unions or medieval Trade Guilds, or collectively owned Co-Ops.  The Corporatism traditionally advocated by the Catholic Church and Syndicalism is a bottom up Corporatism while Mussolini's was a top down Corporatism.  But more importantly then that it was a State run Corporatism.

The chief motto of Mussolini's Fascist party was "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" ("everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state").  Of all the traits we commonly associate with Fascism, Statism is actually the most important.  And that's why it annoys me when certain American political movements get called (or even call themselves) Fascist that are actually strongly anti-State ideologies, from Anarcho-Capitalism to Posse Comitatus who's ideology is literally Mob Rule.  Again both are ideologies I consider wrong, one is more evil then the other with it's blatant white supremacy but both are bad ideas.

Mussolini and Hitler actually hated each other, they almost went to war over Austria in 1934.  Mussolini did not believe in Biological Racism (he was Nationalist but anyone in Italy was Italian even if you moved there just before WW1 broke out) or Antisemitism.  In 1938 racial laws were passed in Italy because at the time they had become dependent on Nazi Germany, but they were never fully enforced.  I'm not pointing this out to paint Mussolini as some Saint unfairly demonized by his forced association with Hitler, he was a Statist and Imperialist.

I'm simply pointing out that Nazism was not simply Mussolini's ideology applied to Germany.  None of the Far Right Parties of Weimar Germany called themselves Fascist (it seems only former Roman provinces actually used the term which makes sense) but there were a couple of Hitler's rivals on the German Far-Right I would say were much closer to being what German Mussolini might've looked like.  Ernst Niekisch actually had a relationship with Mussolini along with whom we could add the other National Bolsheviks (Heinrich Laufenberg, Karl Otto Paetel) or figures like Waldemar Pabst, Friedrich Minoux, Walter Caspari, Ernst Junger and Herman Ehrhardt.  I'm hesitant to mention Alfred Hugenberg or Oswald Spengler, they were influenced by Mussolini's Corporatism but still more Capitalist then he was.  Otto Schmidt-Hannover and Anton Hilkman are also notable. 

Then there was Der Stahlhelm, Bund der Frontsoldaten the Paramilitary Veterans organization of the DVNP that received political backing from Mussolini during the 20s and called themselves "German Fascists" in the 1932 Election specifically to distinguish themselves from the Nazis.

Meanwhile if you want to know what Italian Nazism would look like I'd say look no further then Julius Evola.

The fact is Nazism (and what gets called French Fascism) was much more homegrown then this lazy "Hitler copied Mussolini" narrative implies.  The philosophical core of Nazism was laid out by Houston Stewart Chamberlain in his Foundations of the Nineteenth Century in 1899 and there were Antisemitic German Nationalist movements even before then, Hitler's style was very influenced by Gerog Ritter von Schonerer, there were groups like the Pan German League and the Fatherland Party, but even before them the Berlin Movement of the 1870s-80s.  Meanwhile Ernst Haeckel and Alfred Ploetz laid the groundwork for Nazi Eugenics.

Sometimes people seek to define Fascism based on it's methods of obtaining power rather then actual ideology.  In this case however Hitler actually failed when he tried to copy the March on Rome, meanwhile the Kapp Putsch and various Freikorps came before the March on Rome.  Mussolini's Black Shirts were also predated by the Camelots du Roi founded in France in 1908 and the Red Shirts of the American south in the late nineteenth century who's height of political influence were the elections of 1900 (they actually did much of what Birth of A Nation and the books it's based on attributes to the KKK).

What's interesting about the French far right people we call Fascists of the 20s and 30s is that many became Collaborators with the Nazis and the Vichy Regime during the War like Charles Maurras, Marcel Bucard, Marcel Deat, Jacques Doriot, Eugene Deloncle, Joseph Darnand, Pierre Sidos, Robert Brasillach, Louis-Ferdinand Celine, Peirre Plantard and if you count Belgium Henri de Man. But some became part of The Resistance like Georges Valois, Georges Loustaunau-Lacau, Marie-Madeleine Fourcade, Jacques Arthuys, Henri Giraud, Colonel Passy, and some would argue Charles de Gaulle himself had Fascist leanings.  Others played both sides like Perrie Taittinger, Francois de le Rocque and Jean-Louis Tixier-Vignancour.  Those who were unambiguous collaborators certainly can't be said to have actually cared about Nationalism, they were clearly more about opposing Democracy, though Maurras probably cared about Antisemitism more then anything else.

While Mussolini's Corporatism defined itself as neither Capitalist or Socialist, it's not the only way to be neither of those things.  The Nazi Party was originally partly founded on that too, particularly co-founders Drexler and Feder were explicitly opposed to both Capitalism and Bolshevism and that legacy was carried on by the Strasser brothers.  However under Hitler's Leadership the Nazi Party betrayed it's anti-Capitalist roots in 1932 when while in debt they made a deal with IG Farben and Krupp, Hitler's alliance with Emil Kirdorf in 1927 also helped lay the ground work for this change.  Friedrich Flick was another key business partner of the Nazis, along with the Thyssen corporation, and François Genoud was their Banker.

A fact that people today forget is that in the early modern era Capitalism was still new and was itself still seen aa Progressive in that context, even Marx viewed it as an improvement over Feudalism.  Throughout the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries you were only socio-economically conservative if you wanted to maintain or return to Feudalism.  

Reactionary anti-Capitalists included the Confederate States of America with the whole "Southern Gentlemen" stereotype being based on their Neo-Feudalism, the Royalists of Nineteenth and early 20th Century France, Houston Stewart Chamberlain mentioned above along with Theodor Fritsch and Guido von List in Germany and the British Empire Union founded in 1916.  All Reactionary Anticapitalists also opposed Socialism, Communism, Anarchism and Marxism, which is what's left out when Procapitalists talk about the anitcapiitalism of the Fascists, Nazis and Confederates.

Today I feel like Reactionary objections to Capitalism still exist on the American Right, especially among Evangelical Christians, they just don't want to admit they're being anti-Capitalist.  When you're complaining that "degenerate" Art is popular because it sells, when you want Drugs, Gambling, Prostitution and Pornography to be illegal, you are not taking the "Free Market" position.  Also the general attitude that Rural Life is morally better then Urban life is founded upon objections to the influence of industrial capitalism.  Also the Protectionism favored by Trump and Paleo-Conservatives is not a Free Market position, literally the only actual policy position Adam Smith was arguing for was Free Trade in opposition to Protectionism.

And because the Left has forgotten that you can be to the Right of Capitalism, on the modern internet a lot of reactionary objections to Capitalism get mingled in with the progressive ones and unwittingly supported by Leftists.  Cyber Punk is a popular genre of fiction among Communists who feel technological innovation is inherently bad, this also gets tied in with supposedly Leftist objections to the Basic Income, instead of preparing for the inevitability of workers being replaced by machines they would rather stubbornly fight it.  I also feel like anytime you just generically say Consumerism is bad you are being unwittingly Conservative.

I've kind of gone a bit off topic.  The gist of what separates Fascist Corporatism from other "Third Positions" is that it's specifically Top-Down and run by the State.  Putin's Russia actually defines itself as Corporatist, so see I'm still allowing you to call one of the modern Left's contemporary boogeymen a Fascist.

In The Doctrine of Fascism written by Mussolini and Giovani Gentile there are sections about opposition to Marxim and Individualism but also a section called "evolution from Socialism".  In the section "the Totalitarian Fascist vision of The Future" Mussolini defines Fascism as being from his own POV at least Progressive not Reactionary, stating it's not about returning to before 1789 and saying that he's drawing on Marx the same way Marx drew on the "Utopian Socialists" who came before him.  In this Manifesto the word "Capitalism" isn't used instead it's referred to as "Economic Liberalism" which is what Capitalists called themselves back then.  Mussolini did use the word Capitalism elsewhere like when he coined the terms Heroic Capitalism and Supercapitalism where it's clear he views Capitalism as inherently bad.  

My pointing out that Mussolini saw himself as Progressive doesn't mean I'm agreeing, one only has to look at Plato's Laws and Sparta to see how the core of Fascism is really quite Ancient.  I also think Mussolini has more in common with Robespierre then he was willing to admit in this text.

The same points about Corporatist AntiCapitalism apply to the French Fascism of Georges Valois however he combined it with the Orelanist Royalist French Nationalism of Mauraas.  And again the same is true of Oswald Mosley.

My most important point in bringing up TDoF however is that there isn't a hint of Palingenetic Ultranationalism in it, in fact because of points I just made it's outright incompatible with the Palingenetic part.  There is a section on "tradition" but it's the shortest section and really vague in what it's saying.  But he outright rejects the idea of a PreLabsarian Utopia.  "But what about his obsession with Rome? The word Fascism itself comes from a Roman symbol!" you may object. Borrowing terminology and symbols from Ancient Greco-Romans politics was also done by Liberals and Socialists throughout the post 1789 period, that was simply the norm across the Political Spectrum, and it's hard to avoid in a nation that's speaking a descendent of Rome's language.  In fact that same Roman Symbol was already associated with Unions and Syndicalism in Italy by 1889.  That symbol is a Collectivist symbol meaning "stronger together" which does show the absurdity of when people try to paint Fascism as Individualist.

TDoF also says "It is not the nation which generates the State; that is an antiquated naturalistic concept which afforded a basis for XIXth century publicity in favor of national governments. Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity."  That is absolutely the opposite of what a Nazi or "Palingenetic Ultra Nationalist" would say.  It also later say "Race: it is a feeling and not a reality", meaning no room for Race realism.

The reason that Fascissm, Strasserism and National Bolshevism aren't Marxist theories in-spite of how much they borrow from Marx is that they reject the Class Struggle narrative in-favor of Class Collaboration.  This aspect of Fascism is one of the traits it inherited from Giuseppe Mazzini.

Peter Coffin said in one video, I don't recall which one, that "Communism that's only for White People isn't Communism", I'm sure people defining Communism from the outside won't always agree with that, but my point here is that Communism for Whites Only is exactly what Strasserite Nazism is.

The difference between Fascism and Nazism is that in Fascism the State is more important then the Nation however much it may appeal to Patriotism, in Nazism the State is powerful only to serve the Nation and Citizenship in said nations is usually limited to specific ingroups, often biological "race".  Eco came up with a good thesis for identifying the underlying soul of Nazism ("Nazi" was originally just a derogatory diminutive form of the German word for Nationalist), but it isn't universally applicable to Fascism.  In Brittan Arnold Leese was really a Nazi in-spite of what he called his Party.

Of all the fictional Empires that have been called "Space Nazis", the only one that really fits the proper philosophy of Fascism is maybe the Cardassians of Star Trek Deep Space Nine.  And I'm yet to see one I'm willing to properly call Nazism.  The Empire in Star Wars is more inspired by Bonepartism. [Update: now that I think about it maybe Britannia in Code Geass is sufficiently Nazi.]

American "small government" Conservatives are wrong when they try to define Fascism and Socialism as being the same thing.  But the problem with how Liberals try to prove them wrong is that it is Socialism these Conservatives are defining incorrectly, their definition of Fascism is mostly correct, or at least more correct then how most people define it.  Socialism is not Statism but Fascism is.  And unfortunately too many modern YouTube and Twitter Socialists are still dealing with that problem the same way Liberals do.

Calling Nazism a form of Fascism isn't that far off all things considered, "Reich" by that time basically meant "State".  The real problem with trying to paint the entire Axis with the Fascist brush is Japan, but that's mostly off topic.  

And at the same time there were Fascists and Nazis who fought on the Allies side, the French ones I already alluded to, but also Wilhelm Canaris, Otto Strasser's Black Front and the NazBols in Germany as well as some remnants of the Austrofascists and the Metaxas regime in Greece.  Meanwhile in The U.S. MacArthur, Patton and George Lincoln Rockwell.

Update 2022: Peter Coffin recently told me on Facebook that "defining things based on ideology is an expression of Liberalism" which is typical Marxist "we need to make our own definitions for everything" nonsense.  Like it or not Fascism was a word coined to define an ideology.  If you want to create a theory on what the Fascists, Nazis and other similar reactionary movements of the 1920s and 30s have in common that's fine but Fascism isn't the word to use for that.  

However defining what these groups had in common isn't that complicated, they were Anti-Communists, they were reactions to the Bolshevik Revolution, it really is that simple.  Now you may respond "not all Anti-Communists joined these kinds of groups" and in this context I will distinguish between being a non Communist from being a militant Anti-Communist.  Robert Taft had less ideologically in common with Communism then the Fascists, but he also believed in the right of people who disagreed with him to exist.