So I'll let you discuss that with the people who spat on Mussolinis corpse when they hung up for public display after his death. I'd suggest telling everyone blackshirts murdered to stop telling lies, but since they're dead, you can't. I suppose the term "sicario del Duce" was just a figurative nickname for Amerigo Dumini, notwithstanding him ACTUALLY assassinating one of Mussolinis political enemies (for which he received an amnesty from il Duce himself). Facts, it is said, are stubborn things, and that Mussolinis fascists routinely committed violence against their fellow Italians (precisely the kind of violence you've repeatedly condemned from Breivik) is well established well documented fact. Of course, the standard rationalization was and remains that the victims deservered no better because they weren't "real Italians", either by reason of birth or because their "traitorous" (i.e. non-fascist) believes made them enemies of the state. That kind of thinking, well represented in your apparent view that Breiviks crime was not WHAT he did but to WHOM he did it, is one of several dangerous problems modern fascism creates. The moment you adopt that view anyone and everyone is just one rationalization away from the most heinous violence condoned or even committed by their own government and fellow citizens.

Provided they didn't want to vote for anyone exiled as an enemy of the state, in which case they were likely to join their candidate.

Is that how they "broke" the mafia? Just sent members out of the country until they were willing to comply with and parrot state propaganda? When you say, "comfortable" exile in another country, do you mean the government paid for their relocation and supported them in exile, or did they just leave one step ahead of the black shirts (if they were lucky) and fend for themselves in a foreign land however they could, hoping they didn't meet the same fate Trotsky did in Mexico? Regardless, any state that denies its citizens free expression under penalty of exile (if we accept your version of events that no one was subjected to state sanctioned, let alone initiated, violence) has ceased to serve the interests and welfare of those citizens, and abrogated the legitimacy of its own government. That's the traditional problem with fascism in Italy and everywhere else: Government ceases to be public service, because the public becomes the states servant rather than the reverse.

Fascisms chief defense in the '30s was that it led a number of countries out of the Depression; those defences usually glossed over or ignored the fact fascism economic achievements came largely through imperialist military expansion, subjugation of conquered populations and ruthless suppression of dissenting groups (most notably labor, as in the case of the labor politician Italian fascists murdered in the early '20s). America had 25% unemployment in 1932, which would've been eliminated if 5% of the population were also eliminated and another 20% imprisoned; that would not, however, represent any economic improvement except on paper. Likewise, reconquering the ancient Roman empire and handing vast amounts of resources to Italian businesses for free would be great for those businesses, but whether the cost of the war machine represents a true benefit to the economy or just thousands of man hours wasted every time a tank explodes in an Ethiopian desert remains to be seen. Bottom line is that industry cranked up markedly to build the war machine, and was invigorated by both seized foreign resources and ruthless suppression of labor discontent, but any economy that sends people to prison or murders them outright for questioning its strength can't be very strong.

The conceit that fascisms problems were unique to Germany or foreign to Italy is just that: A conceit belied by copiously documented historical facts. Because fascism does not hold sway you have the liberty to ignore those facts if you like, but no amount of civil liberty will alter them or make fascism desirable or even viable.

There will always be a natural international give and take, a pecking order dictated by geography and demographics. It's laudable and wise to want ones own nation to benefit from that as much as possible. However, when one nation seeks to prosper, not by improving itself, but by degrading its neighbors, honorable patriotism crosses the line to become disgusting nationalism. Perhaps the greatest core problem of fascism, in Italy, Germany, Spain and Japan, was and is that fascist nations seek to alter a natural balance of power less generous to them than they would like, by seizing what they do not possess from those who do possess it. Even if that were legitimate, it can't work because the greater power other nations already possess ensures their victory in the inevitable armed conflict. War may be diplomacy continued by other means, but in most cases a nation that can't achieve its goals diplomatically will have no better fortune martially, but suffer far more for the attempt. Their very motive makes victory impossible, and their aggressive acts make it inevitable that the stronger nations from which they seek to seize power will ultimately and successfully resist just as violently. Bank robbers don't win shootouts with the police because the police have more guns.