I am not saying Fascism itself is being more prominent.
Just those that support Fascism is becoming more mainstream. - I.E. Trump could potentially fall within that definition as he doesn't speak to kindly about Muslims, Mexicans and so on.

Generally the Fascist view of a nation is of a single entity that binds people together by their ancestry, such people usually have very anti-immigration views.
I.E. Anti-Islam is no different from Anti-Semitism that Hitler pushed extremely hard.

I agree.
And I am a massive supporter of healthy debate.

I wouldn't call it Fascism, but it is certainly toxic.

I live on an entirely different continent in an entirely different part of the world.
It's not a case of "I  haven't been watching". - It's actually a case of, it hasn't happened here.

In Australia that is not an entirely accurate assertion.
The Far-Right has a ton of power here, the same-sex marriage plebiscite showed how deep that rabbit hole can go.

Swathes of Europe have seen a shift to the right as well and far-right groups voicing their Anti-Islamic views have grown significantly more prominent.

However, jump over to the pond over to the USA and Trump has shown the far-right has some leverage and is actually growing.
Is that a bad thing? Probably not... Provided they have an opposition which is equal in strength in order to float arguments between the two so that the majority that are in the center part of the political spectrum can opt for the more compelling argument for the benefit of all.

Far Left and the Far Right are just as bad as each other, the real issue... Is when one side has significantly more influence than the other and can thus dictate the political playing field.

1.  Here is the chain of events: 
You (exact quote): 

Me (restating in different words the same point I was trying to make earlier, because by your own claim you didn't understand me the first time): 

(The exact words I originally said were:  "No, I disagree that "democracy is antithetical to private enterprise" is socialist anything, let alone socialist policy.") 

You (exact quote): 

Me (restating in different words the same point I was trying to make earlier, because by your own claim you didn't understand me the first time): 

(The exact words I originally said were:  "@ the part of your post that I just now bolded:  that was part of the "everything" that you had previously "just quoted" that you claimed was "socialist policy".  Now you say that it's not socialist policy, which is fine (we agree), but that vindicates me in my position that your earlier claim was wrong.")

1. conclusion:  Do you think you understand me now?  If so, do you dispute what I was actually saying now? 

2.  We can argue about a lot of things on that article, I'm sure, but first I was trying to see if we agreed or disagreed on some basic points of fact that are relevant to the discussion of how socialist the Nazi Party was, such as: 
—[Hitler] "promised to destroy the German left and the trade unions"
—"In exchange [for financial support that business groups gave to the Nazi Party], owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level. Business profits also rose very rapidly, as did corporate investment. In addition, the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, but at the same time they increased economic state control through regulations."
—"Private property rights were conditional upon following the economic priorities set by the Nazi leadership, with high profits as a reward for firms who followed them and the threat of nationalization being used against those who did not."
—"The Nazi Left itself was annihilated during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934"

You repeatedly ignored my explicit request that you tell me whether you have reason to disbelieve these specific claims or otherwise dispute the idea that we can assume they are true for the purpose of discussion.  Eventually I told you that I was just going to proceed under the presumption that you have no objection to these things being considered factual accurate information, since you repeatedly refused requests to produce such an objection if such an objection existed. 

3.  You yourself defined socialism as "an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state."  That being the case, it seems completely antithetical to the ideals of socialism to EXPLICITLY AND DIRECTLY destroy the ability of the working community to collectively bargain with employers.  Your claim that socialists would do this because they are just too stupid to see that their polices have unintended negative consequences is beyond foolish when in the example it's not an unintended consequence but the entire fucking point of what they are doing.  It's like saying a member of PETA decided to "save the animals" by shooting into a cattle pen with a machine gun.  I think PETA is stupid as all hell, but they aren't THAT stupid.  "Stupidity" utterly fails as an explanation here. 

Also, would you say that socialism is a leftist ideology?  If so, and if "the Nazi Left was annihilated in 1934", then how do you explain these two things which seem at first glance in opposition to each other? 

"one of the things you just quoted is Hitler's claim that "private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy", and I reject that this is anything to do with socialist ideology at all, let alone a "socialist policy". "

it is socialist policy to abolish private property... how could you not know that?

what do you think seizing the means for production is referring to? its private property - what they claim is property used for profit... which the numbskulls who just follow the idea blindly don't realise could mean anything since any possession could potentially be used for profit

"f we agreed or disagreed on some basic points of fact that are relevant to the discussion of how socialist the Nazi Party was, such as:  

—[Hitler] "promised to destroy the German left and the trade unions""

and trump promised to curb government spending... so what?

as i've said for what seems like 1000 times i don't care about anything beyond POLICIES when it comes to determining someone's political stance, not what car manufacturer they are a fan of, not how big their penis is, not whether they prefer sony or nintendo or any of the millions of other criteria anyone could pull from anywhere

because POLICIES are what determine the interaction between the state and the people which is the topic at hand here

is that somehow hard to understand? who gives fuck about what some politician says? how naive are you to take that shit seriously?

"You repeatedly ignored my explicit request that you tell me whether you have reason to disbelieve these specific claims"

i already commented on how ridiculous it is to claim that a business is privatised while also conceding that its controlled by government... i mean that's obviously retarded... did i really have to point that out?

what you should be doing is wondering why such an obviously oxymoronic idea is being pushed to begin with

" That being the case, it seems completely antithetical to the ideals of socialism to EXPLICITLY AND DIRECTLY destroy the ability of the working community to collectively bargain with employers."

well that's what happens when you are so stupid that you seize the means of production and hand them to a tyrant, because obviously at some point decisions have to be made and if you centralise those decisions then you are flipping a coin with regards to whether that central chain of command is beneficial to you or not

which is why i'd argue that its not a good idea

"our claim that socialists would do this because they are just too stupid to see that their polices have unintended negative consequences is beyond foolish"

you can call it foolish but the fact of the matter is that it has happened repeatedly throughout history and it will happen again

its happening in Venezuela right now

"Also, would you say that socialism is a leftist ideology?  If so, and if "the Nazi Left was annihilated in 1934", then how do you explain these two things which seem at first glance in opposition to each other? "

you are a smart chap, i expect you to be able to figure that one out

What I have figured out is that you are probably trolling and have no genuine interest in the discussion.

"Hitler promised to destroy the trade unions"
—"I don't care what he promised, I care what he DID
"Hitler actually did destroy the trade unions"
—"lol socialists so stupid"
"The Nazi Party had been purged of its old leadership, including self-described socialists, by the early 1930s"
—"lol socialists so stupid"

How can you still control something when you give it over to the private sector that is pretty much impossible.  Any way I'm done arguing with you.  You obviously like to live in a fantasy world based on alternate facts and not the real world. 

you do so by shutting them down if they do not abide by your demands... are you fucking serious?

i mean are you really trying to argue that the nazis did not control the businesses in nazi germany? 

"Hitler made a personal appeal to German business leaders to help fund the Nazi Party for the crucial months that were to follow. He argued that they should support him in establishing a dictatorship because "private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy""

—"but at the same time they increased economic state control through regulations.["
—"private property rights were conditional upon following the economic priorities set by the Nazi leadership""

thanks finalfan

"What I have figured out is that you are probably trolling and have no genuine interest in the discussion. "

i find it interesting that you pretty much dismissed everything that i said to pull out a couple points to give the illusion that i haven't explained with evidence upon evidence why i hold the position that i do

""Hitler promised to destroy the trade unions" 

"Hitler actually did destroy the trade unions"

ok fair enough, are trade unions the sole determining aspect for whether a regime is socialist or not?

can the means of production be seized and controlled by government regardless of what happens with trade unions? well duh obviously

can you show me where in the definition of socialism trade unions are mentioned as a necessary component?

""The Nazi Party had been purged of its old leadership, including self-described socialists, by the early 1930s""

and yet their policies were by the vast majority SOCIALIST FUCKING POLICIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i mean what is going on here? why keep bringing this up when it has absolutely no bearing on what their policies were

isn't it funny that everyone who wants to deny the nazis being socialists want to talk about everything under the sun except policy? lmao i mean its so ridiculous that it still gets me

and people kill other people of the same political persuasion all the time... doesn't mean shit

It's not that I "dismissed everything you said", it's that you are continually trying to expand the discussion to include more shit and if I argued against every single thing I disagreed with my posts would get outrageously big.  So I set priorities on what parts I wanted to talk about FIRST, and TOLD YOU THAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO GET TO THE OTHER STUFF LATER ONCE THAT WAS SETTLED BUT YOU DON'T FUCKING LISTEN TO ME. 

I can prove that you don't listen to me until I fucking rub your nose in it because it just happened:  I had to dumb my post down to three sentences before you saw that Hitler followed through on his promise to destroy the trade unions.  That's another reason I don't want these posts to continuously balloon in size. 

I identified the things that seemed to me to most blatantly expose the fact that the Nazis acted in ways that you would expect a socialist to fight to his dying breath, such as destroying trade unions.  No, trade unions aren't the be-all and end-all of socialism, but if YOUR OWN DEFINITION of socialism is "an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state.", then if the state is doing something that DIRECTLY AND EXPLICITLY AND PURPOSEFULLY REDUCES the level of ownership by the community of the means of production, distribution, and/or exchange, then that suggests that the state in question is not being run by socialists. 

I pointed out that just because the Nazis nationalized some stuff and regulated some stuff, and socialists often nationalize some stuff and regulate some stuff, socialists aren't the ONLY people who do that, so that doesn't support your argument that they were socialist very well.  I think SpokenTruth nailed it when he said, "Some of you guys are seriously mixing up socialism with totalitarianism."

I would say this is a fair characterization of what the Nazi Party was doing as described in our posts thus far: 
"Nationalize some stuff, privatize some other stuff, regulate some stuff, but most of all destroy anyone and anything that gets in the way of what the state wants while rewarding those who play along." 

Which of these two things do you think that fits the definition of better? 
Socialism:  "an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state."
Totalitarianism:  (first sentence of wikipedia)  "a mode of government that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life."
(dictionary)  "1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority; 2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority"

Now, to be clear, although it might not be impossible for a state to be both socialist and totalitarian, if a state is acting in ways entirely consistent with totalitarianism but in ways that are frequently inconsistent with socialism, then I think it's not appropriate to chalk their policies in general up to socialism.  Totalitarians might enact a policy that socialists would like out of coincidence, but that doesn't make the totalitarian a socialist.  You claim that "their policies were by the vast majority SOCIALIST FUCKING POLICIES" but I disagree.  You also say "why keep bringing this up when it has absolutely no bearing on what their policies were" but I say that the fact that socialists were kicked out of leadership implies that the new leaders wanted to do stuff that wasn't very socialist.  Now, if in fact they did nothing but socialist stuff from then on, then there must be some other explanation, but to repeat myself (because that's apparently what it takes) I dispute your claim about that. 

Can you at least agree with me that the name "National Socialists" (Nazi) cannot be presumed to indicate whether the new leadership was socialist after kicking out the old socialist leadership?  They just kept the name, that's all.  "Nazi" probably sounded catchy and they didn't want to have to rebrand. 

I have also been talking about policy.  You just don't want to hear it. 

"I pointed out that just because the Nazis nationalized some stuff and regulated some stuff, and socialists often nationalize some stuff and regulate some stuff, socialists aren't the ONLY people who do that, so that doesn't support your argument that they were socialist very well. "

be specific what exactly are you talking about?

"Which of these two things do you think that fits the definition of better?  "

both do they are not mutually exclusive

it hinges upon whether the authority elected under socialism tilts towards being benevolent or malevolent

" then if the state is doing something that DIRECTLY AND EXPLICITLY AND PURPOSEFULLY REDUCES the level of ownership by the community of the means of production"

the community owns the means of production through the state... the theory does not mean that each and every single member of the community directly controls the means of production

and this is the inherent flaw in the concept because whoever becomes a representation of the will of the people as a human being or group is susceptible to corruption and may choose to use their position of power to exploit the people of the community

"a mode of government that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life."

this depending on the person elected under socialism can come about through socialism which again is its inherent flaw

" the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority""

that sounds just like socialism which demands that no one in a community have private property for the purpose of generating profit... which therefore subjugates them to the power of the state and how the state decides to alot resources to them

"if a state is acting in ways entirely consistent with totalitarianism but in ways that are frequently inconsistent with socialism"

totalitarianism is not inconsistent with socialism so you've already started this wrong

"Totalitarians might enact a policy that socialists would like out of coincidence, but that doesn't make the totalitarian a socialist."

huh? what do you call a person who likes totalitarian policies?

" You claim that "their policies were by the vast majority SOCIALIST FUCKING POLICIES" but I disagree. "

that's ok, its up to you to decide whether you want to acknowledge reality or not, i'm not your mommy i can't force you

what i have done is list the policies repeatedly and then have them hand waved away constantly

" but I say that the fact that socialists were kicked out of leadership implies that the new leaders wanted to do stuff that wasn't very socialist. "

and yet its historical fact that they did... so again.. what's your point?

" I dispute your claim about that. "

look i'm not going to post the policies again just to have them ignored but again if you want to "dispute" historical fact go ahead

"Can you at least agree with me that the name "National Socialists" (Nazi) cannot be presumed to indicate whether the new leadership was socialist after kicking out the old socialist leadership?"

it can because again THEIR POLICIES WERE SOCIALIST POLICIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"I have also been talking about policy."

trade unions are not a necessary component to socialism so that's irrelevant and again what does the killing of socialists indicate if they still went on and implemented or enforced socialist policies?

what is relevant here is how the state interacted with the people economically and socially

I agree with Wil Wheaton in this case. If Alex Jones is breaking the TOS, he deserves to be banned. Wil Wheaton should not be banned as he did not break the TOS. I don’t see how this is so difficult for people to understand. There is no double standard here.