I think those are both likely potential outcomes, and I'd be interested to know why you think otherwise.
That's how fascism began, and ended. Why would fascism, the remix be different?
Because political ideologies can evolve over both time and practice.
I think that it's possible to separate the promising features of National Socialism (which, make no mistake, there were - and quite a few of them) from the sinister ones (which, make no mistake, there were - and quite a few of them) in re-articulating how a modern, mature form of fascism might work. Take, for example, the general concept of the Übermensch, which the Nazi's treated as an ideological blueprint, alongside Social Darwinism, to fine-tune their master race ideologies. Now, imagine a variant of neo-fascism where the 'superior' man achieves his social stature not from his lineage (skin tone, blood line, whatever racial element) but rather from his citizenship in the state. Obviously, there is inherent danger with this kind of proposition because history (both contemporary and past) has demonstrated ways aplenty where a 'blood and soil' approach finds itself contorted (Nativism) or weaponized for political purposes (Nazism/Trumpism vis-a-vis a Draconian immigration policy). But if you look at Volksgemeinschaft and, really, the Volksgeist concept, which the Nazis used to gain ideological traction with the German public during the fall of the Weimar Republic, you see these kind of beautiful notions of harmony and work and community that aren't so entirely different than Americana.
One of the primary differences between the two (fascism and liberal democracy), of course, are the power machinations at the top.