This is a good article on the guy...

and why he basically wasn't on the right or left, but rather his own "side" politically.

If you honestly believe that, you're only fooling yourself. It would be nearly impossible for a mentally unstable guy like that to get a gun in my country; but he can get them easily in the US. The US gives guns away for free at banks, and people sleep with magnums under their pillows; that sort of stuff doesn't happen in any other first world country.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,718340,00.html

Crazy German woman shoots and stabs a bunch of people... also maybe sets off a bomb?  This happened last year in september.  I'd think that'd of been big news you wouldn't of so eaisly forgotten.  Also the only reason it wasn't so bad was because ANOTHER shooting happened in that state just a couple years before.

PS... don't actually get your information from Michael Moore documentries.

His movies are so misinformed Sicko was banned from cuba because they were afraid their misrepresentation about cuban healthcare would cause a riot because of how fictitiously good it was.

Wow...It is a very scary thought to actually think that Americans believe this. Is this what you're taught in school? That the Nazi's were liberals? If there hasn't been enough evidence that there is some very deep sickness in the American culture, this thread certainly is a good place to look.

As a culture, I very much hope the US sobers up.

You have some amazing selective reading going on there.  Though your selecting reading has apparently made you ignore crazy people shooting people in your own country.

You should also note that Nazis weren't the original facists.

If you'll note, when it comes to "Political Compass" type ratings.  Facists don't actually rank as "extreme rightwing" people.

They actually tend to Rank as Authrotarian Moderates.

Example

The Democrats... our leftwing... tend to be Authoritarian Liberals, the Necons, Authortairan Conservatives,   the Conservatives, Libretarian Conservatives, and the Libretarians, Libertarian Liberals.

Heck, Fascism's big slogan was that it was the "Third way".  Neither Capatilist nor Communist.

Though still Super Authoritarian.  Which, in America it's argueable which Party is the Authoritarian party... hence general confusion.

Of course terms like "right and left" itself is rather stupid, since there are plenty of differnet sliders and placing it on a simple one line is well... stupid.

An Ideal Facism actually tries to provide well for it's people.  Afterall it prevents unrest, and it's a lot easier to stoke nationalistic tendencies when you keep people happy.   Fascist Germany actually rebounded economically for example, and Mussolini actually tried to improve life for the peasents... he just kinda sucked at it.

In a weird way... China actually seems like the perfect example of a "well functioning facism" despite being called communist.

I think you are the one who needs a history lesson:

he Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences within it.[91] Adolf Hitler, both in public and in private, held strong disdain for capitalism; he accused modern capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitanrentier class.[93] He opposed free-market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy where community interests would be upheld.[94] He distrusted capitalism for being unreliable, due to it having an egotistic nature, and he preferred a state-directed economy.[95] Hitler told one party leader in 1934, "The economic system of our day," referring to capitalism, "is the creation of the Jews."[96] In a discussion with Italian Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, Hitler said that "Capitalism had run its course".[95]

To Hitler, the economy must be subordinated to the interests of the Volk and its state.[96] In Mein Kampf, Hitler effectively supported mercantilism, in the belief that economic resources from their respective territories should be seized by force; he believed that the policy of lebensraum would provide Germany with such economically valuable territories.[97] He believed that the only means to maintain economic security was to have direct control over resources rather than being forced to rely on world trade.[98] He claimed that war to gain such resources was the only means to surpass the failing capitalist economic system.[97] He believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical".[94]

A number of Nazis held strong revolutionary socialist and anti-capitalist beliefs, most prominently Ernst Röhm, the leader of the Nazis' main paramilitary group, the Sturmabteilung (SA).[99] Röhm claimed that the Nazis' rise to power constituted a national revolution, but insisted that a socialist "second revolution" was required for Nazi ideology to be fulfilled.[100] Röhm's SA began attacks against individuals deemed to be associated with conservative reaction.[101] Hitler saw Röhm's independent actions as violating and possibly threatening his leadership, as well as jeopardizing the regime by alienating the conservative President Paul von Hindenburg and the conservative-oriented German army.[102] This resulted in Hitler purging Röhm and other radical members of the SA.[102]

Joseph Goebbels adamantly stressed the socialist character of Nazism, and claimed in his diary that if he were to pick between Bolshevism and capitalism, he said "in final analysis", "it would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism."[103]

In 1920, the Nazi Party published the National Socialist Program, an ideology that in 25 points demanded:

During the 1920s, Nazi Party officials variously attempted either to change or to replace the National Socialist Program. In 1924, the Nazi Party economist theoretician Gottfried Feder proposed a new, 39-point program, retaining some old and introducing some new ideas.[105] Hitler did not directly mention the program in Mein Kampf; he only mentioned "the so-called programme of the movement".[106] Also during the 1920s, however, Hitler urged disparate Nazi factions to unite in opposition to "Jewish Marxism."[107] Hitler asserted that the "three vices" of "Jewish Marxism" were democracy, pacifism, and internationalism.[108]

In 1927, Hitler said: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."[109] Yet two years later, in 1929, Hitler backtracked, saying that socialism was "an unfortunate word altogether" and that "if people have something to eat, and their pleasures, then they have their socialism." Historian Henry A. Turner reports Hitler’s regret at having including the word socialism in the Nazi Party name.[110]

The Nazi Party’s early self-description as "socialist" caused conservative opponents, such as the Industrial Employers Association, to describe it as "totalitarian, terrorist, conspiratorial, and socialist".[111]

In 1930, Hitler said: "Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[112] In 1931, during a confidential interview with influential editor Richard Breiting of the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, a pro-business newspaper, Hitler said:

I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.[113]

In 1932, Nazi Party spokesman Joseph Goebbels said that the Nazi Party was a "workers’ party", "on the side of labour, and against finance."[114]

Nazi propaganda posters in working-class districts emphasized anti-capitalism, such as one that said: "The maintenance of a rotten industrial system has nothing to do with nationalism. I can love Germany and hate capitalism."[115]

Philosopher Stephen Hicks writes: "The issue about how socialist the Nazis were is, in part, a judgment call about long-term principles and short-term pragmatism."[116] Hicks argues that the Nazis claimed to be more devoted to socialism than the Soviet Bolsheviks: the Russians were preoccupied with economics while the Nazis thought socialism should control not only economics but breeding, religion and other intimate details of life.

Fascism has far more in common with left wing politics in a democratic capitalistic state than right wing politics.

I wouldn't say that's completely true Happy.  Afterall the Rightwing groups are more likely to play up nationalism and start proactive wars.

Furthermore violation rights seemed to be a republican thing... though Obama and the senates refusal to get rid of Fiza or the Patriot act does bring the leftwing further up the pole.

It's why I say Facism is really more "in the middle".  It's a moderate's road to tyranny really.

I always liked them in Civ 2 because they were fun to play with their Fantatic units.  Though I never did get why they looked like the KKK of all people.

I don't deny that Fascism is a mix of extreme views from the political spectrum; and I (mostly) said that it was more related to left wing politics because (currently) the mix of social conservatism and libertarianism in most democracies means that conservatives mostly only agree on economic issues, and  the heavy influence and control of the economy by the state is more related to current liberal/progressive politics in most nations.

It's a cliche at this point, but a 1-dimensional political spectrum makes really little sense. As soon as you have at least two axis, say Nolan's economic freedom/individual freedom ones which is mirrored in the political compass, you can put much better tags on historical cases. And it still won't catch anything of the finer grain: objectivists despise libertarians and reject anarchism' bottom-up justice, but they're generally tagged as capitalist libertarians, or even more simply right-wing libertarian extremists by most (mis)informed europeans.