I think it's quite obvious that he was a right wing nut-job. I'm not interested in a getting side-tracked by a pseudo-philosophical/semant ic discussion that misses the main point of my original post.

You Wrote: "Hey, I like social freedom for all, like gay marriage, but I like small government and fiscal responsibility. So what am I?

Many would consider that person a libertarian..."

Answer: You're probably a fiscal conservative. If you include legalized prostitution and drugs and a non-interventionist foreign policy *then* the libertarian tag would be more appropriate.

PS---I recognize that not everyone fits a phrase 100%, but I also recognize that if someone fits the core principles heavily, completely avoiding the phrases is silly and cumbersome. And I'm sorry, but there is no serious debate (outside maybe right wing think tanks, etc.) about Hitler being "left".

At any rate, it's clear that left wing extremism is also terrible (obviously), but thankfully we don't have a violent outbreak of that in the US at the moment to worry about on top the right wing extremism (the threat of which was highlighted by the DHS).

it really isn't as simple as you make it to be

Sure it is. History closed the book on Nazi and fascists years ago. There is no reason to quibble about a few definitions. The answer to the big question is clear for all to see in Buchenwald, Auschwitz, Dachau and the other camps. There is no moral equivocation big enough to blur the definition and the true intent of the Nazis.

As far as von Brunn is concerned he supported and followed neo-nazi groups, he wrote about the threat of "liberalism" and followed the nativist veiw of the Consitution that he claimed was subverted by the Jews. It doesnt get much clearer than that.

 Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.

However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.

The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." (1)

The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first nation was Sweden, in 1934. Following Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way out of the Depression, proving that state economic policies can be successful without resorting to dictatorship or war.)

Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread all across Germany in response to the Great Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living. But these were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power. Historian William Shirer describes the Nazi's dual strategy:

Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able... to perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited. Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down on any protest.

There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled socialism.

And TWBA is not a "classic liberal"

This conversation has already been closed, and your weak attempt to reopen it is not fooling anyone outside of Fox News viewers and Limbaugh/Savage fans.

Better luck next time!