When you talk about fascism, and who was the “first” to argue for it was, Benito Mussolini is often described as the “first fascist.” This book makes the argument that this is wrong, or that it should, more accurately, be “first elected fascist leader of a country”, because the French Marquis de Mores should be more accurately described as the “first fascist”.
This book traces de Mores’ life, from his mildly debauched upbringing (he grew up in a monied home, and knew how to spend it), to his training as a cavalry officer, marriage to a rich American, work in America as a rancher, train advocate in Vietnam, and antisemitism in France.
In many ways I’m reminded out a lot of things. He struck me as a mixture of Mussolini, Hitler, Oswald Mosley, and Joe McCarthy. He had someone to hate, his equivalent of the “brown/black shirts”, marched through the streets (a-la Mosley), while being brought low in the same way as McCarthy. Much of what he did could be viewed as a proto-dry-run for Mussolini.
I’m also reminded of Churchill’s description of a fanatic being someone who “who can’t change his mind, and won’t change the question” (in this case who’s to blame). This is coupled with Churchill’s description of success being “moving from idea to idea with no loss of enthusiasm.” de Mores was a mixture of both.
The biggest issue with the book (beyond the fact that it’s about an antisemitic fascist) is that de Mores never kept a diary, and never spoke about his inner thoughts, so the author can point at a turning point that demonstrates the moment he became a full blown antisemite. His first proper girlfriend was Jewish, but she broke up with him, but going from love to violent hate (because she broke up with you) isn’t something I can wrap my head around.