"
Thank you for that answer, but that's not what I asked. Have you or have you not read Mussolini's autobiography and speeches? That wasn't my question either; that's a new one. If you have, then you would know that claims of Fascism being anti-clerical is absurd (the position of individual anti-clerical self-professed Fascists is irrelevant to the ideology of Fascism itself). You would have to resort to conspiracy, as the would-be scholars have, and claim that Mussolini's ideology of Fascism was all a huge front and that he secretly was anti-Clerical and secretly considered anti-Clericalism intrinsic to Fascism. How convenient. And as for Darwinism, which was my other point, you won't find anything on that either. Mussolini never even stated anything about evolution (nor did Hitler, for that matter). Did he believe in evolution? Considering the times he lived in, probably. But he never mentioned it, let alone social Darwinism. Yet this article presents social Darwinism as if it were intrinsic to Fascism! 
To answer your question again, liberal definitions include obsession with race as ""racism"". And you certainly are obsessed with it. It took you two minutes before you ridiculously threw out the 'anti-Semite' and 'Nazi' cards, which told me that you embrace liberal definitions of 'racism'.   "