Add Mussolini there as well, because there were conflicts with the Catholic church and they were seen as deliberately obstructing the fascist.

You forgot to mention universal liberty, egalitarianism, fraternity, humanism etc. Fascism itself is a result of the Enlightenment, but it's the closest you can get to non-Enlightenment values in the modern age because it reduced the universal aspect while also subscribing to reason. The people within the nation were equal, it was about supporting the peasantry and the farmers of the nation by supporting class collaboration instead of class struggle, it wasn't elitist at all in the sense of castes. Neither was there a real monarchy, it was deeply republican. Also, Fascism evolved out of national syndicalism which has roots in Marxism (although I don't want to do nazi=communism thing that neocons do nowadays, just saying this as a matter of fact thing that ties it to the Enlightenment.)

My problem with Christianity actually lies in an idea it shares with the Greeks and Romans. The Greeks and Romans, along with Christians, believed that there's a universal Truth, this notion of objective Truth is opposed to most pagan religions, including the Estonian paganism I adhere to. Because of their Universal Truth, I wouldn't use the Greeks and Romans as an inspiration.

This universal Truth became even more disgusting when it mixed with the Judaic elements - the doctrine of blind obedience. Abraham killed his own son Isaac, because God promised Abraham that he'd become the progenitor of all the peoples of the world. This essentially teaches that it's okay to betray and murder your own people for material gain, something the pagans would never do, but this also made Christianity extremely successful in conquering us.

Translating it as "you could believe in any god you wanted" is a bit wrong, because the nation/ethnicity/people/culture (there is no adequate word in English for this imo - Estonian rahvus) AND the religion were one and the same. To be Norse was to worship the Norse gods, it wasn't an interchangeable thing you could convert to on a whim, it was inseparable just like the native language. Keeping this in mind, it made no sense to wage holy wars, since waging a war to change a people's religion would mean also extinguishing them entirely, and there's no reason to just destroy everyone, the wars they did have had non-religious causes. Even Ghenghis Khan, for all the conquering he did, didn't care a single bit about religious conversion.

The distinction between rahvus and religion appeared with Christianity, it introduced this aforementioned concept. Before Christianity, different gods among different peoples were just accepted as a self-explanatory thing like how water is wet, but Christianity changed everything. The destruction of the Irminsul during the Saxon wars or the statue of Perun during the baptisation of Kiev weren't just attacks against their religion, it was an attack against their entire cultures and peoples.

And while there were many flaws

Hindus caste system is bad indeed

Why are these flaws? These aspects form a hierarchy which is in harmony with the spirit of different tribes (in contrast to our current bourgeoisie - proletariat hierarchy which is very much not in harmony with any tribe that I know of). What seems wrong to you is actually something that evolved as a result of their culture, this is why multiple cultures won't fit into one country unless you brainwash them all in a Christian-like manner. This is what I meant by the second enemy of leftist egalitarianism - they apply their ideology of emancipation and egalitarianism to these different people and then say they're flawed. I for one don't care if Koreans eat dogs for breakfast or if Muslims have prepubescent sex slaves - keep that in your land, and let me have our land where we can do our things that would be equally egregious to you.

I saw a BBC documentary of this British woman traveling to the Russian north to live with their natives. When the question of their women obtaining higher education came up, they carefully placed an extra second of silence to create an atmosphere of sadness and tension, with the goal of portraying these native women as being oppressed and being in need of a great Western saviour. Of course, after the interview was over the British host told the viewers what they need to think, as if the forced tension wasn't clear enough.

Sexuality wasn't a crime and women had "more rights", but what they followed differs a lot from what we have today. They certainly wouldn't have tolerated our free love, they still valued the male hereditary line, chastity was still seen as a good characteristic etc. The ancients didn't have any idea of equal rights guaranteed by the state, they only had privileges which were earned either through outstanding actions or through a hereditary line. The Hindus would say our Enlightenment society is in a dark age: