Replies

As part of the nationalistic efforts:

Spanish films were produced only in Spanish. Foreign films were required to be dubbed.
Spanish names and Spanish versions of Catholic and classical names were the only ones allowed. Leftist names like Lenín and regional names like even the Catalan Jordi (after Catalonia's patron saint, Saint George) were forbidden and even forcibly replaced in official records. Only Christian names in Spanish were allowed in official documents.
In the first decade of Franco's rule, languages other than Castilian were "confined to private spaces". [1]
In the regime's most radical discourse, languages other than Spanish were often considered "dialects" in the sense of speeches that were not developed enough to be "real languages". Basque was different enough that it could not be taken as a debased form of Spanish but was despised as a rural language of limited currency, unfit for modern discourse. [3] This never happened at the academic level, though.
All these policies became less strict and more permissive as time passed.
Wikipedia

Fascism is a broad nationalist movement that was present in most countries of Europe prior to 1945. It combined nationalism, a desire for a single party government dedicated to national goals and it was opposed to both socialism and international capitalism.

National Socialism in Germany was a particular brand of fascism, and it was characterized by overt racism and militarism; The mix proved deadly to millions of innocent people, as you know.

The unfortunate situation today is that we have no national governments anywhere, except maybe in Israel. It is my believe that every well-formed nation deserves a national government that pursues a well-defined nationalistic agenda in culture, immigration policy and economics. Obviously we in the USA do not have such a government. However, public discourse about nationalism is immediately sidetracked into name-calling. The use of "fascist" as an insult prevents us from having a rational discussion about public policy, and prevents us from discussing recent history objectively. Hysteria over my positive and even admiring assessment of General Franco is an example of such cognitive dysfunction.

I note that rational discourse with the left is impossible, and that they will use the term “fascist” like salt on fries. I try to give it back to them, since they are not interested in rational discourse, and don’t see why we should have to observe Marquis de Queensbury rules in a street brawl with the other side using knives, guns and garbage cans.

You may be right about Franco. He certainly did something right, having stayed in power for decades, kept his country at peace, and died a natural death. But as right as you may or may not be, leftists do lurk here, and I can see them using this bit on Franco to level the usual accusations, so I am compelled to contest your praise, albeit using rational civil discourse instead of hysteria, since we are among friends and not street brawlers here.

I would have to disagree with you, though, about fascism being opposed to socialism. It is a form of socialism, and stands for, among other things, nationalizing banks, massive social-welfare programs similar to the new deal, and huge public works. It differs from socialism in that it is socialism is directed against those they deem as non-nationals, such as Gypsies and Jews, and wants to redistribute their wealth, take away their place in society, restrict their cultural expressions, or seize their property. Socialism goes after capitalists, instead. In theory against their property only, but they get violent in the process of confiscation. Nazism was the most extreme form of fascism, redistributing even skin, hair, gold teeth, and fat of its victims, who were stripped of all rights. Franco’s Spain is on the other side of the spectrum, but not quite at the end. Liberals’ pet ethnic projects, such as affirmative action and set-asides are in there with the rest of the fascist-style programs.