I am going to do a longer more in depth entry on this topic, but this is to respectfully explain things to people who may or may not be fascists, but who think fascism is a right wing ideology.
First off, anyone can be a political philosopher. There is no objective reason why the opinions of Spengler are more or less valid, by default, than those of Stephen Molyneux, Rocking MrE, or Radamanthes Octavian.
Putting socialist command economies on both ends of the political spectrum (communism and fascism), means that you don’t have a political spectrum which represents all the options. This is a leftist weasel tactic to prevent non-socialist options from being considered.
The only model which represents all values in a coherent fashion is the full gradient which runs from absolute statism/collectivism to absolute individualism and the absence of the state. Ancap, or just anarchy, would be on the far right. Nationalism can occur at any place along the political spectrum.
I used to be ancap, but after a visit to India (which has a largely do-nothing government and police force), I realized that anarchy isn’t going to work with everyone. So I decided that the next best thing is to have as little government as possible, and to have countries with no government ONLY when it comes to groups who can handle living in a thoroughly voluntary society, which is not most people(s).
I was never an advocate of Democracy, as Democracy is mob rule (at best), and it attempts to legitimize one group of people violently forcing their will on others. The initiation of force is always a disparity, and voluntary interactions are infinitely preferable. Furthermore, all the most successful institutions are meritocratic. There is no democracy in business, education, or religion. Bill Gates doesn’t make his decision based on what all the factor workers and office clerks vote on, he makes them based on what he thinks is best, and all the people beneath him benefit from his superior intellect. People are not equal, so it is foolish to believe that everyone’s ideas are equally valid and equally wise, and numbers should not be the deciding factor in how a system is run.
The only true fairness is letting everyone be free to rise of fall to the level of their natural abilities. There is no natural equality of outcomes, and when people are free to rise and fall, and immediately benefit from their work then society is the most free and the environment is conducive to progress. Democracy, and demotic politics in general, are not conducive to this.
What I want is to have the smallest government possible, which would be kings. I support a return to monarchy because kings are easier to remove, have more of a natural vested interest in the country they rule, and in general I support the privatization of everything, including government. Privatization and personal investment means better quality. I am the next door neighbor of the ancap, but I recognize that ancap won’t work for everyone because of HBD.
I recognize and agree with human biodiversity (HBD), which is really not a theory but just an obvious fact. Part of intelligence is due to upbringing, but the rest is due to genetics. Two siblings can be brought up in the same way by the same parents and still have unequal intelligence, this is because the DNA is sorted independently during meiosis and conception, so not everyone gets the “lions share.” Not all people are equal, but as much as I may dislike multiculturalism, I still have no reason to like socialism even if I’m living in a racially and ethnically homogenous country. I don’t see why my money should be taken forcefully and given to the least productive members of society. Just because they’re “mah people” doesn’t mean I want to subsidize the breeding of the lowest end of the bell curve. That’s called dysgenics, and it’s a good way to become 3rd world without bringing in any actual 3rd world immigrants (see the USSR and Khmer Rouge). However, I don’t have any default reason to care about anyone I don’t personally know, except in terms of how their existence positively effects mine. Group affinity is only productive and viable when it stems from enlightened self interest. Meaning, I want to be as free as possible, and have my way of life and quality of life continue. So I have an interest in my group surviving (so that my standard of living can continue), but not in propagating the low end of the bell curve at my personal expense. However, if everyone around me decides to become Marxists, then I’m going to get out and find a different group, just like how people always tried to leave East Germany and the USSR. Loyalty is not unconditional.
Any government that attempts to clamp down on me in any way, take my resources unnecessarily, or crawl up my bum is most certainly and 100% unwelcome. When we remove all the unnatural restraints the stifle growth then mah people will be free to grow and multiply competitively, and we need not worry about being outbred by Guatemalans or whatever.