I think that it is important to mention national syndicalism at the beginning, as that eliminates a good amount of the problems with temporality associated with some of the more generalizing and overarching terms that have been suggested.
As for the left-right thing, it should be apparent that national syndicalism itself was a nationalistic movement, but the economics they embraced were not generally what would be considered "right wing". I agree that it is problematic to harmonize all of the elements, but the next paragraph focuses on the right wing stuff (i.e., totalitariansm, etc.), and the third paragraph delves into the economics ideology. Neither of those is contradictory to the lead. Fascism arose during a fragmentary, transitional period, and it ideology embraced what today may seem to be contradictory elements. It's probably better to try and get that across earlywhich the reference to "national syndicalism" should facilitate, than oversimplify.
Regarding the deleted material, I think there are some claims made there that would have to be sourced and attributed or based on a substantial body of text in the main article that provided context (and sourcing). It should be borne in mind that the WWII-era fascist states of Italy and Germany along with the then quasi-fascist Japan formed the "axis", for example, so the claim of xenophobia seems somewhat specious to me, though ethnocentrism sounds plausible. Just because it sounds plausible, however, does not mean that there are RS describing it as such. Militarism is a common thread, but how does monumental architecture relate to that? The sentence seems somewhat forced, so there has to be a concrete source connecting those in an intelligible manner. 連絡 見学/迷惑