One thing you notice, looking into the harder right and left, both present and past, is that the right is a lot friendlier to flirtations or contact with the left than vice versa.

From at least “social fascism” on, leftists definitely tend to have a sort of one-drop rule going, where anything that reeks of synthesis is dismissed as ideological scavenging OF the left, BY the right.

The right does seem to like a conversion narrative, but also I think a big part is that with an idealist rather than materialist worldview, the rightists can embrace the concept of a sense of honor.

But more than that, the right seems to accept itself a lot more than the left. I mean, I’m familiar with the Judean People’s Front groupuscule jokes, but seeing it play out in realtime over and over for years just makes it pretty striking how well the rightists get along by contrast. On rightist internet, literal Nazi revivalists coexist pretty well with the Jewish expat-anticommunist types, for example.

There is the precedent of National Review trying to run its purges, but they were always pretty electoralist and so there’s a coalition-forming element to that. Also, I’ve heard the Stormfront joke about witch-hunting (which is to say Jew-hunting) as praxis, but they never seemed like the future of anything so I never got to know that milieu well.

Anyway, the distinction in broad-fronting does maybe form an argument against the Corey Robin idea that reactionaries aren’t organized around negation but rather an affirmative project in their own right.

(Another argument would be that this is a confusion of dependent and independent variables - if you take the “left” to mean those who dismiss synthesis as rightist, of course the left looks narrow and the right looks broad, and this is maybe an artifact of the 20th century organization of “left” around organs that were in the end Russian particularist; if on the other hand you seriously assigned fascism to the left or center, things look different.)