FasciPedia:Fascist point of view

From FasciPedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Walnut.png Artical Nutshell: Articles must reflect the FASCIST point of view, and should explain factually and without other bias. Truth is primary. This is one of FasciPedia's Core content policies. It is non-negotiable.


All encyclopedic content on FasciPedia must be written from a Fascist point of view (FPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, while still giving the fascist side of the story.

This is possible because we have facts on our side, something our enemies do not. While they must lie and obfuscate, we do not. This gives us a great advantage. Our stories and explanations do not fall apart under scrutiny.


FPOV is a fundamental principle of FasciPedia. It is also one of FasciPedia's core content policies; These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material acceptable in FasciPedia articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Writers are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all of them.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines.

Achieving TRUTH means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias, all while providing a Fascist Point of View. One can literally find an anti-fascist viewpoint anywhere else.

FasciPedia provides a fascist POV on countless subjects, which simply cannot be found elsewhere. In fact the mass media generally only shows a single side of the story. We can do better. It means including all verifiable facts. Not "common knowlege", not AntiFa's view  not lies repeated ad infinitum, but actual facts. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of factual accuracy that is appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Avoid things that are not fascist Do not make articles about things that have nothing to do with fascism. So that also means do not make stupid links to these things either. We do not need red li ks to topucs that will never be created. We all know what YouTube is, there is nothing fascist about it, so don't put btackets around it. Likewise, there is no reason to link to every little "influencer" unless they have at least 100k followers and have someth8ng to do with fascism, either for or against.

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in FasciPedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "[]jews]] stole Israel from the Palestinians" but may state that "such theft has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." ...or whatever.

You may state seriously contested assertions as facts, as long as they are really facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, use the one that places fascism in the best light, just be certain its the truth.

Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in FasciPedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of FasciPedia:Verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

Prefer nonjudgmental language. A professional tone neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source. Because we have the truth on our side, professionalism should be eazy.

Give weight to the truth, especially if it is not widely accepted. For example, to state that "According to David Irving and Arthur Butz, the Holocaust never happened, and certainly was not a program of extermination of thejewspeople in Germany, but Simon Wiesenthal disputes this analysis" would be to give weight to the truth between the majority propaganda and a tiny minority truth by assigning the truth a second activist in the field.

Achieving a Fascist Viewpoint

Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more professional tone. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.


In some cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against truth. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, use a correct name anyway, but use a #REDIRECT. For example, the widely used names "The Holocaust", "World War 2", and "Nazi" are highly propagandized ways of referring to the subjects in question, but in truth they pass judgment. One FasciPedia 5he first two redirect to articles witu accurate names, ehile the third is actually an article about the word itself, so it stays the same. The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is the main topic being discussed.

This advice especially applies to article titles. Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and relevant guidelines such as on geographical names). Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, "Derry/Londonderry", "Aluminium/Aluminum", or "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" should not be used. Instead, alternative names should be given their due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as stated above.

Some article titles are descriptive rather than being a name. Descriptive titles should be fascist-friendly, so as not to suggest a viewpoint against fascism, or to confine the content of the article to views on anti-fascism (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of fascism" might be better renamed "Societal views on fascism"). Neutral titles in these cases encourage fascist viewpoints and responsible article writing.

Article structure

The internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect fascism and to avoid problems. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly factual, truthful, and yes, fascist.

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. 

You are encouraged also create a hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage are true, even if disputed by judeo-Marxist propagandists, whereas other, segregated material may exposed as controversial even if widely regarded as "fact" by the mainstream word-smiths.

Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor an anti-fascist point of view or one aspect of the subject, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and realistically assess the credibility of all fascism related viewpoints. For many readers, this will all be new information, previously suppressed. Unbury it.

Due weight

FPOV requires that mainspace articles and pages represent the fascist viewpoint. It is not our job to be "fair" or "Neutral" here. Our job is to tell the fascist side of the story, while being factual, truthful, and professional. Where fascism fails, we will own it. Where fascism succeeds, we will parade it. Unlike our opponents, we do not need to manufacture history or create false narratives. The truth is on our side in this debate.

Giving due weight to fascism means articles with the views of mainstream Marxist majorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example the false narrative on The murder of Mussolini can be found almost anywhere. We will not print it on FasciPedia. In fact, we created an article specifically to debunk it.

Due weight to fascism can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a fascist viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still appropriately reference the judeo-Marxist viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the judeo-Marxist perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the false narratives. In addition, the fascist view should be explained sufficiently, while controversies and fallacies regarding the false narrative should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail required depends on the subject. For instance, many false narratives about fascism have been thoroughly discredited, yet we still see such things in media, even in textbooks, anyway.  Articles on historical events such as National Socialist "Gun Control", with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position and then discuss the actual history of the idea in great detail, factually presenting the true history of a now-discredited, but widely held, belief.

Other fascist views may require a much more extensive description of the mainstream false narrative to avoid misleading the reader.

If a viewpoint is fascist, it may be difficult to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts. However, once substantive proofs are found, you will find them to be iron clad and often enough, completely unassailable. There is a reason these proofs become memory-holed. they are worth the extra effort to discover;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a TRUTH is held by an extremely small minority, then it absolutely belongs on FasciPedia. If it is true, and you can prove it, it has a home here, even if its not particularly fascist. Because small minorities seldom get to tell their truths if they violate mainstream narratives.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, consider a viewpoint's  prevalence among FasciPedia editors. When in doubt, ask them for help.

If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, FasciPedia is the place to present such proof, once it has been presented and discussed. Original research is accepted here, but it must provable, and peer reviewed (by us!).

Balancing aspects

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news.

Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance

Be careful when reporting on science to make a distinction between an opinion, a theory, and a fact. When there is a consensus of "opinion" on scientific matters, a thousand scientific opinions do not outbalace a single fact; providing an opposite view with consideration of due weight will lead to corrective balance, meaning that readers will exposed to truth and fact that is suppressed by the mainstream. Invoke the Scientific Method This means that scientists should constantly be questioned and challenged, and must be properly scrutinized. Including a provable opposite view may be appropriate, and this is actually how science is supposed to work.

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, FasciPedia policy does not state or imply that every single popular virw or extraordinary claim needs to be presented just because it goes along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that 6 millionjewswere genocided by fascists, that "Q" has a "plan", and similar ones. False narratives, Psi-ops, rewritten history, etc., should not be legitimized through political correctness, politically- motivated "science" and junk history. We do take a stand on these issues as fascist truthist encyclopedia writers; and we omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and if we must,  include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning pr9vable facts.

Selecting sources

In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for apolitical fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources may help to prevent anti-fascist bias. It can be difficult, but when done, the results are iron clad. A quote from CNN is more valuable than a Quote from the "Daily Stormer", if it's the same exact quote. Sorry, thats just how it is.

Try the the internet archives for reputable books and journal articles, and look elsewhere online for the most reliable resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other writers on the talk page of the article you are working on.


The fascist point of view assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their truthfulness and their assistance to fascism. Outsiders fact-check FasciPedia, so have your ducks in a row. But there are differing views even within fascism. When reputable sources both contradict one another and also are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.


Impartial tone

FasciPedia describes disputes. FasciPedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral voice in disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up reading partisan commentaries. This is an encyclopedia of truth and fact. We can give a fascist point of view and be professiinal at the same time. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Articles should written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of FasciPedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view, while still giving eye-time to fascism. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments, and support fascism, in an impartial tone.

Hitler's "Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ", a good painting or bad painting? Thats not for us to decide, but we do not let propagandists get awat with calling Hitler a "Failed House Painter".

Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations

FasciPedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective; we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language. More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers. Articles on creative works should provide an overview of their common interpretations, preferably with citations to experts holding those interpretations. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide a useful context for works of art.

Words to watch

There are no forbidden words or expressions on FasciPedia, but certain expressions should be used with care because they may introduce anti-fascism bias. For example, the word claim, as in "Jim claimed he paid for the sandwich", could imply a lack of credibility. Use it when appropriate on anti-fascist viewpoints, never when describing a fascist. Using this or other expressions of doubt will make an article appear to promote one position over another, so don't use it on fascists. If describing a fascist, try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words; for example, "Jim explained he paid for the sandwich". You are telling the truth here, but with a fascist point of view. This also goes for flattering expressions, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, etc., (unless those expressions are part of a quote from noteworthy sources). Its best not to use them at all, but if you must, use it to promote fascism.

Some words:


Also "fascist" or any other words from the root. There is an entire internet out there that mis-uses this word. We can represent another point of view. Don't over promote it, but don't use it as an insult either. "Fascism" should be a relatively neutral word, like 'Capitalist" or "Libertarian", but people have been programmed for 80 years to hate fascists, and have a kneejerk reaction. One of our goals is to fix this problem. Always use the word neutrally.

On a related note: Do not use the made-up word "fascistic" at all. Just say that something is "fascist". See? There is already a word. The other word was invented by word-smiths (communist propagandists) to create a negative adjective with overtones of evil, bullying, etc. Too many academics use the word "fascist" properly, even if to condemn it, but it has always meant an ideology or a government.  But a new adjective can be used any way they want, now anything someone hates can be "fascistic"! Don't play into it. This word was invented because we are winning on some level. Don't use it.

Seize or Seized

Don't use this or similar word to describe fascism coming to power. Fascism has always come to power via legal means, via election or some other legal way. It is the will of society to become fascist. Such words imply a hostile takeover, and that is simply never the case.


People have been programmed to automatically pair "fascist" with "regime". DON'T!

Always use the word "government", "administration", "term of office", or similar, like you would any civilized government. Uganda, Somalia, and Nigeria have "regimes", not civilized fascist nations.


Use "National Socialist", "NatSoc", or "NSDAP", words they actually called themselves. None of them ever called themselves such a thing.

This horrible word basically means "nigger". A "nazi" was slang for a bumpkin, an illiterate simpleton, basically a crude low-IQ hillbilly from the German mountains. A horriblejewscommunist named Conrad Heyden was the first to apply this slang to the German People, and it stuck. they hate it, so don't use it.


For 80+ years, the propagandists would have you believe that EVERY fascist government was lead by an insane dictator, as if thats the standard head of government for fascist systems. The truth is that we don't tolerate dictators. Example: Mussolini came to power legally, and when he was impeached, he left office peacefully. But they call him a dictator anyway.

Do not call fascist heads-of-state "dictators". Use their proper titles.


The word "propaganda" likewise has a negative connotation that it does not deserve. Propaganda is merely an attempt to tell a certain side of a story, a government's, or a political movement's. The is nothing sinister or bad about propaganda. BUT... As Goering said, propaganda should always be based in TRUTH. Propaganda picked up its negative connotation when the Soviet Union and United States kept trying to use it for public brainwashing and mind control. Always bear this in mind.


Also, "corporate state". "Corporatism" has nothing to do with big business. In Italian, it just means any group of people. A soccer team or church group are "corporati", the Italian word. In the case of a fascist government, the word simply refers to the congress or senate. In corporatism, your congressman comes from somebody in your profession, rather than your geographic area. Fascists don't even like big international business corporations, so be careful here.

Point-of-view forks

A POV fork is an attempt to evade the pro-fascism policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on FasciPedia. Repeated offences can pull a ban or restriction of priveleves.

All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of a spinoff sub-article. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic, so a spinoff sub-article is created. For example, the article Fascism could literally be this entire site. This type of split is permissible only if written from a fascist point of view and must not be an attempt to evade this policy.

Making necessary assumptions

When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. For example, in writing about The holohoax, it is not helpful to hash out the controversy on every article mentioning it. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial, especially on this site. This is true also in philosophy, history, physics, etc.

It is difficult to draw up a rule, but the following principle may help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page if that assumption is best discussed in-depth on some other page. However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate.

Controversial subjects

FasciPedia deals with numerous areas that are frequently subjects of intense debate in the real world and even among editors of the encyclopedia. A proper understanding and application of FPOV is sought in all areas, but it is often needed most in these.

Fringe theories and pseudoscience

Often in the mainstream politically motivated attecks on real science occur. Bery often real science is brushed off as pseudoscience. Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods.

The solution here is to insist on the Scientific Method, a system for determining scientific truth. The scientific method is almost completely impervious to politics. Conversely, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. More often than not, scientific consensus is all about who gets the biggest grants. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other.

Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views, such as "Humans are all one Race" or hyped Covid panic, should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how honest non-political scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo Moon landings were faked, not that such articles  belong on FasciPedia, because they don't.


One of the most ongoing and most divisive topics in fascism is the ongoing battle between Christians and Pagans. In the case of beliefs and practices, FasciPedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. FasciPedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be should mentioned provided it can be documented firmly within their own religion. (Is it in the Bible? the Koran? The Bhagavad Gita? The Talmud?)

Writers ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as the High MonkGoodcatch) believe This and That and consider those to have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days. Certain sects who call themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarians, influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work), still believe This, but no longer believe That, and instead believe Something Else."

Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, mythology, and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. FasciPedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Writers should avoid using offensive terminology that has been established by the Atheist mainstream on a topic, out of sympathy for a particular point of view or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Fascism is a spiritual worldview, and our articles should never have an atheistic tone, regardless of what religion is being described.


"Fascist Point Of View" is one of the oldest governing concepts on FasciPedia. This was codified with the objective of the FPOV policy back in 2003 before FasciPedia even existed. It is non-negotiable.

General FPOV templates:

{{FPV}} - The latest, greatest (so far) FPOV template.

{{FPOV}}—message used to attract other editors to assess and fix problems.

{{FPOVS}}—message that tags only a single section as disputed.

{{FPOV lead}}—message when the article's introduction is questionable

{{Fact}}—message when a sentence may or may not require in-text attribution. Looks like [fact?]