Slop.

I included "ethnic supremacist" because, before he imported Nazi ideology, he talked about the supposed interests of the supposed dominant race, but he defined it in a more cultural and "spiritual" manner than the blood quanta, race science, phrenology of the Nazi approach, so the Italian approach more resembled what we today would call ethnicity. While still a chauvinist supremacist and, you know, a fascist, he repeatedly argued against the promotion of "The Jewish Question" early on, though even in those statements there was still a tone of clear antisemitism sometimes, but nonetheless he was not designating Jews as "the enemy" at the time. Then after that he was happy to embrace it because this was one of his many opportunistic stances whether for or against.

My point in saying this is that Noah here is deflecting from the fundamental characteristics of fascism, which are nationalism and anticommunism, though it readily embraces racism when it finds such a thing useful.

Aryan-Italians.

Angly Anglo noises

There's a huge difference between being a communist and simply being a populist. Populism is a rhetorical style, it's the act of saying "There's many of us and few of them" usually with "them" being some sort of elite or powerful group, or a group that you pretend is powerful (like Jews, who broadly had very little power in Weimar Germany). You can say that communists and Nazis are both "populists" because they both say "There's many of us and few of them," but there is no comparison to be made in their actual policies. The Nazis wanted to protect the capitalist class and keep it around forever, and they had no interest in helping the workers except in the most superficial or convenient ways (giving people free radios so they could hear Hitler's speeches and other Nazi propaganda, for instance).

the Populists were proto-socialist farmers