Nazism is a meme ideology about the meme Reich meme Volk meme Fuhrer, Memensraum, memester race.

You could say fascism has a history and is a legit serious ideology.

Although Memeler then memed his memes and his memes spread. The biggest meme being anti-semitism.

That is where we disagree, I see anarcho-communism is inherently authoritarian, or at the very least it is incredibly naive to assume it can achieve its ends without rigid authoritarian control. Abolition of private property, direct democracy, etc. etc. Anarcho-communism assumes this will be done on a voluntary basis without any kind of compulsion or violent force? If you want to argue that, go ahead, but I think that the problem an anarcho-communist would have in debating anyone whehter it would be a capitalist such as myself or even just your run of the mill statist is a fundamental difference in an understanding of human nature. Anarcho-communists (from my understanding) seem to posit that humans can be made into angels that are purley selfless whereas I think the self-evident stance is that humans are inherently selfish and self serving (even if we ignore human behavior, biology seems to argue this to in propagation of genes). 

Also, I was quoting him as an example of someone who should have a very good idea of what the nature of the Nazi idealogy was; not only a Nazi intellectual and prominent member of the Nazi party, but also someone very close to Hitler. 

true

I'm gonna guess ancoms just don't want a state.

That day when people call the ANTIFA the real fascists, is when fascism has already taken over.

Not apologising violence of any form though. Fuck those extremists on all sides.

ANTIFA and actual fascists are similar in that they are extremely authoritarian, collectivist, and willing to achieve their ideological goals through authoritarian means, usually violence. This is why a lot of people believe in the horseshoe theory and apply it to ANTIFA and right wing ethnonationalists.

Of course I understand the analogy and this is true but generalising all antifascist movement as some extremist behaviour is the problem.

Average attendance in 2015 = 78,000 to 79,000
Average attendance in 2014 = 78,000
Average attendance in 2013 = 77,000 to 80,000
Average attendance in 2012 = 79,000 to 80,000

It's not that difficult to do some research before you respond.

Yes, and here's a one and a half audio recording of an ANTIFA meeting with timestamps in the description to prove my point. And your assertion that they aren't much more violent than a football game is not true either. Unfortunately, I didn't submit my edit before you hit the quote button so here's an excerpt:

"The Giants and Jets play at Metlife Stadium, which can seat up to 82,500 people. The 21.5-22.5 arrests per game equals to 0.26-0.27 arrests per 1000 people. At Heinz Field, the 16.8 arrests equals to 0.25 (or 16.8/68,200 x 1000) arrests per 1000 people. At the Oakland Colliseum, the 17.8 arrests equal to 0.32 (or 17.8/56,000 x 1000) arrests per 1000 people. At Berkley, there were 4000 protesters and 13 arrests, which make 3.25 arrests per 1000 people. At Boston, there were 40,000 protesters and 33 arrests, which make 0.825 arrests per 1000 people."

And while Rol is right that they don't always fill up all the seats, even when taking the actual attendances into account, the per capita rate at the football games are still significantly lower. Berkley is the only one where the per capita rate is above 1. In addition, you also have to consider what kinds of violence that are committed by ANTIFA vs those committed by football fans. A few from ANTIFA that I can remember off of my head is Eric Clanton splitting someone's head open with a bike lock and a woman wearing a parody of the MAGA hat getting pepper sprayed in the face. I don't recall crimes of this severity being committed at football games.

Aaaand there is the strawman fallacy. Asking the question if football fans hit each other in the head with bike locks or pepper spray each other in the face at games is far more relevant than what you just asked.

Violence against people who commit violence should be expected. Physically harming someone because he/she expresses views that are abhorrent is not self-defense unless he/she is inciting violence (e.g. 'everyone, let's target some Jews and beat'em up!').

You are still not sticking to the topic and I'm also not giving them a pass. You are addressing a phantom argument and this is something you have already done twice.

If you don't believe in the authenticity of the video, then allow me to share the story that ANTIFA was running a website called "It's Going Down" and one of their sources of revenue was Patreon. However, Patreon removed ANTIFA funding page as the site's extremism violated Patreon community guidelines (presumably under the "Bullying, Harassment, Threats and Hate Speech" and "Facilitating Harmful or Dangerous Activity" guidelines). If your #NotAll argument held water, then someone in ANTIFA should've fixed the website so that it wouldn't violate Patreon's community guidelines. However, that didn't happen. So either ANTIFA is generally extremist or someone rational in ANTIFA tried to make the website more palatable, but the rest of the group opposed it.