How fascist are you?

That's why he was a national SOCIALIST, he never wanted to take the economy, the industry over, that's why the firm owners and rich supported him as did the poor and lower class Germans...kind of a social market economy in a way.....he was a socialist but wanted all the stuff only for GERMANS or those he deemed as true Germans.

That kind of socialism was killed in '45.

Today most socialists are of the globalist/internationalist sort...

But as I said you can see the national socialism coming back...but today it's called often "rightist populism"!

Many here in the States complain that FRD was not a democrat at all, but actually a socialist.
When somebody declares themselves a "New Deal Democrat", far too many would call out COMMIE!!!

No, he was not a socialist, because he never believed in it, and never persued socialist goals. He implemented some social benefits policies, but I think we can all agree that this does not make one a socialist.

Hitler made it clear several times that he opposed socialist ideas. He threatened to leave the party in the early 20s, when the NSDAP wanted to cooperate with the local communist party against the government. He killed Röhm and others because their socialist views threatened to creat a rift between the NSDAP and the conservative elite in the military and industry.

Right on, Tacitus!

As stated on numerous occasions, Hitler distrusted anything which might foster chaos, as did the German populace at large. With uncertainty of any kind, Germans feared the return of poverty and hunger.

Well, that is a personal interpretation...because it naturally sucks to think one of the biggest massmurderer harboring socialist ideas...understandable...

But the facts speak their own language....Nazi-Germany was a socialist dictatorship with an ethnic selection process on top. You behaved and could prove your "correct" heritage and you could have a good life, even if you were poor...with lotsa governmental support.


Again...he was a NATIONAL Socialist...not an INTERNATIONALIST Socialist. And wanting to implement social benefits is the main goal of socialists I would think.

(Revolution and upheaval is more a feature of communists!)

Haha... Im 38% fascist Iron!

I can tell there were several loaded questions, but a fun poll.


Just like in the USA where the MSM is just an extension of the Democratic Party and basically reports only fake news. Ok, they still give some good weather forecasts...


#3 Announcing your are going to Impeach the President even before his inauguration and creating false stories and acting upon them...Bingo! Impeach 45! Impeach 45! Ive been hearing this for years now:(

#4 Good ol` Antifa! Soon to be considered a terrorist network and treated as such:)

#5 Crooked Hillary and the rest of the crying libtard snowflakes! LOL

You've got that one right. It's also called "Nationalism" or "Conservatism" sometimes to hide the real intentions.

I deeply resent comparing Pravda with the propaganda outlets like CNN. Pravda occupied much higher moral ground because they were forced to lie or else.

CNN is doing it voluntarily and with a smile.

Why would that suck? Perhaps for socialists, but then again, enviromentalists are usually not too bothered by the fact that Hitler implemented some of the enviromental policies.

This is just about historical accuraccy. It is absurd to call a man a socialist, who was never interested e.g. in redistributation of wealth, and whose "vision" for Germany was nowhere near equalitarian. Hitler was a social darwinist who believed that war was a natural part of human life, something to be welcomed because it eliminated the weak.

It is also worth noting that Hitler did far less for the poor people than is usually believed. This image is mostly created by his propaganda, but his government only cared about the rearment process. Bismarck implemented far more daring social policies, which would make him a bigger socialist than Hitler when we follow this logic.

As have Socialists in general.
Sorry mate, you have lost this one, Hitler was a Nationalist Socialist who brought in racism to help his cause.
Just like Stalin.
No difference.

Did you read the wiki page about the social benefits in the Third Reich??? A socialists dream!

Why are you giving us history lessons? Who cares about the dead fascists? The real danger comes from the current fascists, the antifas, the screaming SA-like thugs, and their sponsors like that pos, Soros.

I have no doubt that the PF "historians" rehashing stuff about Hitler and Stalin are just in a deflection mode - "look here, not there".

The present fascists have a dilemma: how to push for the elements of the old fascism without looking like fascists. Hence, the cute and confusing names like "Antifa".

Like, how could anyone belonging to Antifa be a fascist? No way!
Reminds me of the cases where the murderers were looking for their victims with the victim's parents and holding candles after they were found dead.

Agreed 100% and most of them are Socialists, just like the Nazis and Communists of the 30's and 40's.
Same sh#t going round and round.
Why don't people learn from history?

Because it's easier to believe that "this time will be different" because we, the current generation, are special. Fools.
Plus, to the young and the restless - and stupid like a brick - anyone older than 40 is a fossil and overdue for a burial. Preferably before they are declared legally dead.

You are spot on Rich.
It is like when Socialists are told that Socialism has historically always failed.
They answer that it has never been done properly.
You just can't make this stuff up........

Racism was the only cause Hitler believed him. You Brits have written the best Hitler biographies, they usually explain this very profoundly.


I prefer reading books that deal with this issue, but does the Wikipedia page also point out e.g. that the Third Reich spend a smaller percentage of its' budget on social benefits than the Weimar Republic did before the economic crisis?

Cool, so we have two people with balls hmm sort of ...Lenka is the other one. The rest just talk about their obsessions'.


check under your bed boo ho !
here no hiding - youtu.be/xid2_oEP5ho

Iron's approach: closing his eyes, sticking two fingers in his ears and screaming "La la la ... I can't hear you"....

Anyone who is against free speech and armed civilians is already 90% fascist material. The last 10% is always trusting the government.

The people who are complaining the loudest about infringement on their right to free speech are usually the ones who have no problem taking it away once they are in power.

Yup, that's our president:-)

I just took this test.
It's just a bit of fun and not based on anything sensible.
I am pretty right of centre but also very liberal, in the freedom sense.
So I have no idea why they judged me as 44% Fascist........ :-(

I do: The test is stupid.
Like I wrote before, a test like this and humor do not go together very well. How about a test to find out if you (editorial) are a good material for a rapist? Or if you would be good shoving people into gas chambers?

It is.
But your response, as usual, is more brutal than it needs to be.
And I say that as someone who genuinely likes you....

Because the number of victims of fascism and communism is in millions. So to treat this subject like "are you a good lover" is sick.

Fascism and communism, which in my opinion are broadly the same thing,have caused untold misery.
And now these morons have tried to start again.
In Europe in qeneral....in the UK they infiltrated The Labour Party but our electorate saw to that.
You Americans are next and then we will see how the "Continentals" cope.....

Difference is that Marx didn't intend for his philosophy to be used to support evil ends, e.g. Stalin, Pol Pot etc..
Hitler in >Mein Kampf< had an overtly evil agenda beginning on page one, his twisted, warped ends clearly justifying whatever means necessary in order to fulfill them with the ultimate purpose of inflicting as much human misery as was possible!

This then is a clear distinction between the two philosophies.

But Marx's philosophy inevitably led
To supporting evil ends.......it never worked!
For Gods sake give it up!

You are right. This:

outline.com/xdVwRr

explains it so well.

Political systems should be judged on the scale that shows how powerful and brutal the government is with fascism and communism at one end of that scale and the anarchists and libertarians at the other.

The critical question for the masses in between is this: do you want your government more powerful and more involved in everything or less?

If you answered "more", you are a fascist or at least a fascists' useful idiot.

However, we also have to look at intent!
While Marx would seem to go against all human nature which is to be sure based on healthy competition, indeed, competitiveness, the extremes of capitalism of winner take all, get rich quick or starve on your own time, as its converse certainly can't be much better, can they.

That people such as the two I mentioned inevitably corrupted Marx' original purpose wasn't and isn't Marx' fault now, is it?

Latter day Marxists took a good thing and made it rotten, agreed. The Nazis were rotten to begin with:-)