Defining fascism is challenging for three reasons.
The first is that unlike, for example, communists, fascists have been very reluctant to use the term to describe themselves.
Gosh. The Italian fascist party actually called itself the Italian Fascist Party, the intriguingly misleading little bastards that they were.
Second, those groups which have been described as fascist are not all consistent in their attitudes or behaviour.
Oh. So if they’re so different from each other then perhaps they’re not all fascists then?
The third reason is that the term is usually actively resisted by those to whom it is applied. Rather as one of the surest signs that a place is a tax haven is its vehement denial that it is a tax haven, so is it the case that a group that appears fascist in inclination is absolutely vehement in its denial of the fact.
Don’t you just love the logic there? If ‘Tater denies being a fascist then by definition he is one?
As to the actual attributes there see if you can fill out the bingo card y noting examples of ‘Tater doing each and every one of those.
2 for example, rejecting neoclassical economics is rejecting that enlightenment. 7 and 8 are, of course “neoliberals!” and so on.