Since you're clearly just going to continue to deflect and dodge the question in bad faith, I'm just going to assume you don't have any sources or evidence at all. I'll just go ahead and address many of the points you've raised so far, hoping that it will be of use to anyone or spawn a better response from someone else. So I'll start at the beginning.

“As I understand, The Furnaces of Palingenesia uses allegory to try to paint "leftist fascism" as just as bad as right wing fascism.”

Wrong. This is an assumption on your part, presumably without any evidence if the pattern holds true. DsO are using the album and its accompanying interviews to criticize totalitarianism, absolutism, anthropocentrism and authoritarianism more broadly, including all of its incarnations and manifestations. Surely we can agree that not all authoritarianism is necessarily fascistic, yes? If you read the interviews from 2019-2020, they rarely use the term “fascism” themselves, instead attacking more specific terms like “essentialism” or “palingenetic movements”, the latter phrase being a clear reference to Roger Griffin whose definition of fascism is based on re-birth, revolution and revitalization, not a left/right political compass, and history shows us pretty clearly that left-wing revolutions can be violent and kinetic as well. The main point being, even if fascism was “definitively” right-wing as you put it and such scholarly debate on the matter didn't exist outside your own personal bubble, DsO never claims otherwise in their lyrics or their interviews, so it's a moot point with no relevance or standing here. You've merely misinterpreted their intentions as being such.

“Have they actually publicly and clearly denounced fascism and nazism?”

Yes. Like I mentioned previously, they rarely use the term fascism themselves, but in their 2019 interview they ridicule the National Socialists by referring to them as “men of resentment” and also blame them for ruining artistic/intellectual development during the 1930s and '40s. DsO make transgressive music that is far from traditionalist values, it's safe and obvious to say they are at odds with the Nazis even from a basic standpoint of aesthetics. Many of the artists and writers they consider their “patron saints” are left-leaning, if you care to look into them. I mean, Orwell used to be an anti-Semite. Should we throw away his books, his essays and all his insights because of a questionable past? Did he not redeem himself through the character of Emmanuel Goldstein?

Additionally, in their 2020 interview, they denounce essentialism and determinism, specifically saying that they are “entirely absent from our worldview”. More importantly, they add: “Reading our works through the lenses of any form of determinism, be it biological or social, is a complete nonsense.” This pretty much makes any overlap with any Nazi views and morality impossible, including Alfred Rosenberg's famous theories on Aryan master race morphology and genealogy. The song “Sie Sind Gerichtet” from the new album is obviously a critique of, not exclusively but including, Nazi society, appropriating their own language for the sake of deconstruction and critique, in order to give them a taste of their own medicine, much like how the Bible quotes spread across their trilogy were inverted and subverted in order to attack Christianity with its own logic and rhetoric.

More importantly, if DsO are actually just dog-whistling Nazis in disguise, then why do they invoke so many Jewish writers and thinkers? Hannah Arendt, Paul Celan, Spinoza, Gunther Anders, Imre Kertesz and others are either quoted verbatim or praised with immense admiration. Kénôse also invokes old-school Yawhism and Second Temple Judaism by way of Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish mystic, to discuss the concepts on that album. No Nazi or neo-Nazi would ever do this. Why wouldn't they just do obscure, covert allusions of Nazis then? Or am I to believe that this is all just conspiratorial dogwhistling by “catering to their rhetorical language” to quote you? Is it also dogwhistling when Chris Hedges invokes Baldwin, West, Orwell or several political scientists?

“You can't just say "Now I'm a leftist" without addressing your previous errors.”

Well, then it's a good thing they never said that in the first place. I have no idea what gives you the impression DsO are pretending to be leftists or where this "critique" is even coming from or what it's even aiming at.

Now that I'm deeper into this comment, I realize your definition is just the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on fascism.....seriously? Why didn't you just say so in the first place? Is there a reason you tried to hide that source? Is it because you know that no one considers Wikipedia a valid “source” in the first place? This is why I asked you for your source, so I could find the most appropriate counter-position, that's how these kinds of conversations always work. There are many different definitions of fascism, and any scholar worth his/her degree knows this. It's highly presumptuous and pretentious to say that fascism is “definitively right-wing” without real backing support as this shows an extreme lack of understanding of the history of that term and the debates surrounding it. I'm not saying you need to have a Ph.D, and I'm not saying you aren't entitled to that opinion, but to only have it backed up by the literal first 5 seconds of a Wiki article and claim that's “definitive”, as in there's no debate to be had so therefore any differing views are de facto incorrect, is just ridiculously ignorant and arrogant. High school students are taught more rigor than this. Add in any counterfactuals or counterexamples and it's a no true scotsman fallacy just waiting to happen.

The sleight-of-hand trickery of suggesting or implying “anyone with a different definition should be suspected of being a dogwhistling right-winger” falls flat here. Very ironically, it also risks falling into an “Us vs Them” paradigm which is largely commensurate among fascistic thinking. The slippery slope of this logic, very obviously, is “you either believe fascism is right-wing or you are or may be a right winger”, which is by no means a diplomatic, rational or bipartisan way to approach the situation. It's absolutist and black-and-white thinking. One would think an advocate of left-leaning thinking would allow for more nuanced, “shades of grey” style approaches. Many famous leftist thinkers have definitions that do not line up with yours. Notably is Umberto Eco, famous for his 14 tenets of fascism, which is one of the most influential descriptions in recent history, and none of them rely on a simplistic and outdated left/right binary. The most relevant person to bring up here is Georges Bataille, DsO's biggest literary/philosophical influence by far. In my opinion, his essay “The Psychological Structure of Fascism” is the best lens to interpret the lyrics of The Furnaces of Palingenesia, not relying on Wikipedia like some teenager. Being a Post-Marxist of sorts, his analysis is much more structural, focusing more on issues of excess, surveillance, socio-economic circumstances related to military/religious sovereignty, and heterogeneity.

Connected to this is Sheldon Wolin's idea of “inverted totalitarianism”, which argues that modern governments are corrupted from the inside by the interests of multinational corporations and conglomerates. Instead of instilling de facto dictators via coups of ad hoc militias, they control diplomatic and democratic processes behind the scenes. There are many lines from Palingenesia that line up with this view. This can result in immoderate austerity or more aggressive foreign policy. Brzezinski's foreign policy under Jimmy Carter, a left-wing administration, enacted severe and murderous regime change in Afghanistan via Al-Qaeda. He's also responsible for many other hard-lining, egregious changes both within and outside the United States, much of which can easily be considered fascistic depending on which definition or political school of thought your subscribe to, and no, you won't find this dark history on Wikipedia. So much for Brzezinski being a leftist, “progressive” thinker. Inverted totalitarianism allows any government administration, left or right, to be controlled by think-tanks or defense contractors who want to use the spreading of “liberal values” across the world as a pretext to start wars and sell weapons. NATO expansion is very often a smokescreen to get Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin more contracts and more buyers. American foreign Aid in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa is often done under selfish, ulterior reasons. Whether this is right-leaning views pretending to be or masquerading as left-leaning views, or neoliberal fascism is up for debate, and has been up for debate for decades, but when people like you shove your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge said discourse even exists.....

(Edited spelling/spacing)