>Which is ultimately up to wide interpretation.
How is that open to interpretation?
Even Fascist states have governmental judiciaries, dissension wouldn't mean persecution necessarily.
>Whereas, fascists have ... attacked even moderates that aren't openly preaching aggression of some sort.
Since when?
>Can you see how this negates your ends justifies the means belief?
Considering the current times no. We're at a time when action is more necessary than ever, but apathy is at an all time high.
>It is ironic because that individualism is hollow. They're actually promoting collectivism, or rather "different just like everyone else."
Exactly, anyone who preaches individualism usually is selling something and is a subversive collectivist themselves.
>Collectivism is in reality conformity for the sake of nihilism, a denial of self via a form of argumentum ad populum.
And if it is voluntary? Even on a national level where the populace agrees?
>It's belief that any dissent is inherently "wrong" because the political fashion says so.
No, you have to evaluate the consequences of dissent and it's aim, the heart of it. You can't just say "we need to allow a voice for dissent"-
This really is a case by case basis issue- what is the dissent over.
>that a Nazi assumes a Jew is a dissenter and deny them a job.
The state is for the people, not foreigners and outsiders that don't have the citizen's interests in mind. May I remind you in a "free" society people are preyed upon easily without a just and moral society.
And honestly- I would rather have cohesion and justice and miss out on foreign and usurious elements. It really boils down to where you are willing to sacrifice and what you value.