Fascism 101 

 November 9, 2023


By now everyone has heard the word “fascism” used in the news, history books, film, and music. Perhaps one may argue that the words are overused. The use of words like fascism, Nazi, fascist, Nazism, and national socialism certainly peaked during the 1940s which is a fact easy to grasp as the world stage was that of an international conflict between the forces of Liberalism, Communism, and Fascism.

The same group of words, particularly “Nazi”, saw a new increase in use which gathered steam in the 1970s. This new fascination with the word marks a change in the use of the word from that of a political taxonomical classification to that of a simple pejorative. This shift from political classification to social smear word announced the rise of the New Left in Europe and abroad, but more importantly the beginning of entire human generations that now use words that have lost any use aside from that of a club to use in silencing one’s political and social rivals. Or would the Left have everyone else believe that suddenly there are really that many more Nazis? If only that had really been the case!

While it is true that conversations around race and racism are more prevalent than ever, these are not exclusively using synonymous terms or equating the terms to any perceived Fascism or even National Socialism (Nazi). It is a reaction to criticism or efforts to silence those critics.

Calling someone a “fascist” or a “Nazi” for that matter as an attack on their policies or ideas only creates the desired effect when the person being labeled as such is, in fact, NOT a fascist or a Nazi. The intelligent reader will deduce that what we are witnessing during these peaks of use in the 1970s and mid-2010s is the use of these words by elements of Communists and Socialists to attack and smear Conservative and Progressive Liberals. Calling an actual Fascist or Nazi by their name is no insult at all!

The most desirable outcome of this smearing and mudslinging among the enemies of fascism would be a pause and reflection over the terms that are employed, followed by the soul-searching question from the person so accused, “Am I really a Fascist?” The problem is, not knowing at all what the definition is and likely being unable to find out what it even means, they immediately retort with the accusation that the other side is the REAL fascist.

On the sidelines of this mutual combat between our political foes, most Fascists are not bothered by the label whatsoever… and why would they be? Instead, they are amused by real and online arguments where the Left and Liberals go after each other and attempt to prove which of the two of them are the “real” fascist, Nazi, or “racist”. Water off a duck’s back. What would we possibly have to lose over being found out? That other Liberals, Socialists, and Communists will also hate and revile us? In the immortal words of Briar Rabbit, “Oh no, don’t throw ME in a briar patch!”

Can we equivocally say that accusations of being a fascist or Nazi have led to any new popularity in the political philosophy? We can’t say it hasn’t, but no such research currently exists. What is apparent is that many self-identified fascists and Nazis are just as confused by the terms and use them as incorrectly as do their detractors. However, the appears to be only one culprit here…

Thanks to pejorative overuse, the words have lost their real meaning but also the power of words: to convey truth using words as symbols.


Major confusion exists in the common speech and even into academia over the proper use of the words Fascist, Nazism, fascist, and racist. Even stripped of the pejorative meanings, the confusion remains.

How do these words relate to each other, how are they different, and what is their proper use in context?

Ryan Chapman, a Liberal social media lecturer, once admirably attempted to define the difference of these words. While it was a noble effort, and provides somewhat of a guideline, there is some natural ambiguity and even overlap of meaning.

The main audience for this article is self-identifying fascists and those who may be genuinely curious about fascism as a political movement. We hope to add to the self-understanding of others, but most especially those who are already sympathetic and have felt the call of their Blood to seize upon a new way forward. We hope that this article offers some insight if only into the meaning of the words that are already likely in use around the discussion.

As Fascists, we acknowledge the efforts of others even outside of our own sphere of thought. Ideas take on a life of their own and are for discussion in the public arena. However, in the end it is for us to define ourselves for ourselves and therefore we submit the following definitions:

1) Fascist: a person belonging to a Fascist party wherein the political party conforms to the “fascist minimum.” May also refer to the party itself.
2) fascist: a “generic” fascism. While the fascist minimum is met, the term must encompass people or movements which may not consider themselves explicitly fascist while at the same time meeting the fascist minimum.
3) Nazism: a short form of National Socialist. While not “Fascist”, Nazism is “fascist”. Also “Nazi”.
4) Racist: a person (or belief) which is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people based on their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group.

Is it possible that people have spent years of effort and dedication to either the thesis or the antithesis of a position …only to discover later that everyone is simply confused over the terms?

It’s not only possible, but accurately describes what has happened in many instances. Again we lay the blame at the feet of those intentionally muddying the waters.

There are not only people opposing fascism that have no idea what it is, but there are people who claim to be “fascist”, or a “nazi” and have no idea what it is either! Born of innate longing for a new national identity on one hand, or of an immature desire to be shocking and bold, however one arrives at this self-identification we feel that we owe it to all to seize upon this opportunity and then expound the most coherent definition. We must be against the confusion and the lies that try to reduce us to a meme or to shock value.

The inevitable cost and consequence of such confusion is born mostly by those who are, or who claim to be, Fascists: the result of any effort, if successful, will not be the stated goal but something altogether different. It costs the Liberal, Socialist, or Communist nothing to be wrong in the placement of an epitaph.

Of the definitions given above, the most popular one to throw about is “racist”. When all you have is a hammer (and sickle) everything starts to look like a nail. While a fascist, Fascist, or Nazi may in fact be a racist, that is no requirement. Conversely, there is also no requirement that a racist be a fascist, a nazi, or a Fascist. In fact, racists can be found on the entire spectrum of political belief (including those which allege to stand against racism).

This “problem” either lies with the definition of racism, or that what is called racism today is simply the normal natural way that races interact when forced into unnatural situations. The scope of this short article will only briefly touch on racism.

Entire books have been written on the subject, but to illustrate the point here we can point the reader to the following quotations:

Abraham Lincoln (Liberal): “Negro equality, Fudge!! How long in the Government of a God great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?”

Che Guevara (Communist): “The Negro is indolent and lazy and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward‐looking, organized and intelligent.”

A racist may find themselves within any conceivable political ideology, and no political ideology can truly state that it is, in practice, “anti-racist”. As such, there is no benefit either way from proving or disproving that racism should or should not exist within a political identity. The fetish around arguing the point seems to be most prevalent among Liberals, and a Fascist should consider it the utmost waste of their time to attempt to convince anyone or argue over accusations of racism. Everyone is racist if the broadest definition is used.

In a narrower sense, it is argued by the New Left that there is a power component to racism and that only the powerful may be racist. In the thin definition, it is a foregone conclusion that if you are White, you are capable of being a racist. The thin definition admits that people inherently think and act along lines of race and to a lesser extend culture. The thin definition also admits that “White Power” is the intrinsic foundational principal and aim of American culture, and finally that cultures themselves are systemic, self-perpetuating, and self-affirming. Why would a fascist argue with that? That’s literally what we’ve been saying all along.


The diversity of fascism along with the fact it is a relative newcomer to the political stage makes the concept difficult to describe. Historian Oan Kershaw once wrote that “trying to define ‘fascism’ is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.”

Roger Griffin, author and professor of modern history and politics, has described the fascist minimum as “the unique synthesis of palingenesis and ultranationalism”. Whereas Griffin himself is no Nazi, his taxonomic definitions are scientific. The utmost care must be taken with a subject of scientific study as to present it in a way that is logically coherent and non-contradictory. That is the test of his idea.

Again: Fascism is the unique synthesis of palingenesis and ultranationalism.

Let us take the separate meaning of these words for a moment:

1) Unique: Fascism is not something else. It is not Donald Trump. It is not Liberalism, or even a conservative form of Liberalism. It is not “Antifa”. It is not found prior to its own pronouncement to the world nor is it found outside those who claim it while failing meeting the basic criteria.
2) Synthesis: the combination of ideas, in this case palingenesis and ultranationalism.
3) Palingenesis: a biological term meaning “the reproduction of ancestral characteristics”, however expanded to political terms in Fascism it speaks to the core mythic understanding of the organic State and that revolution is necessary to achieve National Rebirth. For examples, within the Rebirth is the promise of a New State, a New Civilization, a New National Economy, a New Self-Determination. Implicit in the terms is all new solutions to the old problems of the old traditional order, economy, state, civilization, and citizen which conservative traditionalism was unable to preserve from the rising tide of decay.
4) Ultranationalism: an extreme integral and passionate populist form of national consciousness which proposes a unifying National state based on the concepts of “Blood and Soil”, rejects class- or wealth-based hierarchies in favor of a servant-leadership model. Strongly favors national autarky (economic independence), dynamism, and futurism while rejecting globalist capitalism and the torpor of parliamentary governments and traditionalism. Strongly illiberal. The Ultranationalist feels a deep spiritual connection and concern to the Nation, therefore, that connection overrides all other loyalties and concerns. The past is seen as foundational, but there is no reason to recreate what failed to prevent the present morass of individualism, decadence, and national risk.

The fascist embraces Ultranationalism and that the nation arises from blood and not some propositional contract between opposing and competing groups. The nation arises from the family, the tribe from the family, the nation from the tribe, thus the “organic state”.

That said, it is not enough to be a “mere racist” to qualify oneself or their ideology as fascist or as National Socialist. The minimum requirement has not been exceeded by even the most virulent hatred of some other race alone.

On the contrary, a person of any race may in fact be a fascist or even a National Socialist. If the person or party in question views the National state as being an integral part of the Blood, then they work together with others of their own blood toward the creation or rebirth of their Nation, then they can and must be considered “fascist”.

One cannot truthfully call themselves Nazi or fascist as an Ultranationalist alone, particularly when ascribing to a Liberal or multi-cultural national identity as this negates the palingenetic quality. By way of example, “America First” is explicitly not National Socialist or even generically fascist (nor are we aware that they ever claimed to be) although it has some aspects of being ultranationalist. However, to those who wish to misappropriate the terms, they are sometimes accused of being fascists.

Likewise, one cannot truthfully call themselves Nazi or fascist by having simply holding a palingenetic view of race alone. There is probably the greatest number of people today making this mistakenly than the previous example. Various forms of hyper liberal or “libertarian capitalist” racism may serve as examples, although one must implicate many in the so-called “White Nationalist Movement” of this as well. Simple racism doesn’t suffice again.

So-called “traditionalism” is another example of ideological insufficiency. The mythic race must move forward and not perennially fall to degradation as before. The nation itself is its people, and the people are the nation.


What is the opposite of a Fascist? What is the opposite of a Nazi? What is the opposite of blue?

If the answer one arrived at for the first two questions was “antifascist” and “anti Nazi” then we look forward to their elucidations on the color “anti-blue”.

It is more likely that the person claiming to oppose fascism is just a run-of-the-mill Liberal, a Socialist, or a Communist. All three have their conservative, reform, and revolutionary factions. When they get tired of fighting among their own group and get bored of fighting with the fellow travelers on the Left, they may get around to fighting fascism again. Assuming they can find it, that is.

They are likely too lazy to determine why they are opposing fascism in the first place. All three are inherently intellectually lazy because they have been in power too long and have succumbed to the rigor mortis of all dead ideas. What can we expect from these tired old ideas? However, it must not be forgotten that these ideas die hard, too. They should not be expected to just give way to us, although some will change their stripes once they have been shown the way forward. In order to accomplish this in others, we must first accomplish this in ourselves:

Every measure must be taken by the committed political Fascist to seize, in its entirety, the minimum requirements of fascism and to communicate those aspects into ACTION.

For now, the disaffected Socialist, Liberal, and Communist are the most fertile ground for conversation. The comfortable will be unlikely to hear you. As AH wrote, “The… bourgeoisie, especially in its upper circles, is pacifist even to the point of complete self-abnegation-though some may not be aware of this-wherever the internal affairs of the nation or state are concerned. In good times, which in this case means times of good government, such a psychological attitude makes this class extraordinarily valuable to the state.

But when there is bad government, such a quality has a destructive effect. To assure the possibility of carrying through a really serious struggle, the…movement should have devoted its efforts to winning over the masses. The failure to do this left the movement, from the very beginning, without the elemental impulse that such a wave needs if it's not to shortly ebb away.”

Once an idea has been defined and fully grasped, those that may be reached must either have nothing to lose, or be shown that, with sacrifice and dedication, their lives and those of that come after they will be made immeasurably better by such sacrifices.

They must be shown what fascism proposes to accomplish. You as a fascist embody those accomplishments.

All failures on the propaganda front by those styling themselves as National Socialists or even generic fascists are due to the failures to address those two aspects.


Fascism is perhaps more diverse than any other political ideology and is the only truly modern political ideology. 17th century Liberalism, 18th century Socialism, and 19th century Communism have all failed spectacularly to address the changes brought during their own centuries, they will continue to fail moving forward. The history of the 20th century teaches us that only a massive, global, total mobilization of the combined forces of Liberalism, Socialism, and Communism could stop Fascism from freeing the people of the world from their antiquated and moribund social and economic systems.

We can see the integral Fascist concept of National Rebirth coming to the forefront of politics in many nations and cooperation between them like never before as the first Fascist century began to take hold in Europe. While the Liberal, Socialist, and Communist world starved and begged for change the Fascists in short order seemed to slay one dragon after another. Even in non-aligned countries that were not swept up in the great rebirthing had significant presences of home-grown fascists which influenced their paths, while astute Liberals and Socialists outright copied the policies of Fascists.

From Germany, to Italy, to Great Britain, Flanders, Ukraine, Sweden, France, Romania, the USA, and Australia and many others there have been men and women who have led the fascist world from within the confines of the opposing systems, ready to step forward when their Nation calls them. Show them forth today by leading through service to your people and nation.

How can an idea which alone integrates our natural existence with the challenges of the modern world be so elusive to commentary? How can something so ably equipped to solving the conflicts of the modern geopolitical landscape be so ignored? Is there a reason that no credit is given to the innovation and talent that was cultivated during the few short years before the weeds of Liberalism, Communism, and Socialism grew up around the gardens of mankind and temporarily choked out the fruits of fascism?

What could be more efficacious in solving race-conflict, class-conflict, wealth inequality, environmental concerns, territorial and cultural disputes? Neither Liberalism, Socialism, nor Communism has had any answer for these that doesn’t intensify and magnify these problems into world slavery, war, abuse, envy, and destruction of the environment.

While we state the preceding claims with utmost confidence, the situation of the post-war period only helped muddy the waters further. In fact, the temporarily defeated Fascists went on to lead Europe under new names, while their technological and political advancements were quietly incorporated into extending the life of the decaying political regimes around the world. There is not a single first-world nation today that does not owe its continued existence to the infusion of Fascism’s ideas, energy, and talent


Getting Started, NS Policy

You may also like

The 25-Point Program of NSF

The 25-Point Program of NSF
{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}