Talk:Far-right politics/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Explain to me how the all of right-wing politics are far right.

At least without it being a pejorative. David Duke, for example, would definitely be considered far right because he's engaged in neo-Nazi, reactionary, and white nationalist activities throughout his career. But how is a person like Mitt Romney or Angele Merkel considered far right? And is the American Democratic Party, SPD, Canadian New Democratic Party, etc. considered "far left" due to being part of the stream of left-wing politics by the same token? It's absurd...maybe we need to find a better source. Just my $.02 18.244.7.149 (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that this issue is resolved now. Merkel and Romney are not included in this article at all. I just skimmed the list and it doesn't look like any mainstream right wing parties have been listed inappropriately.

There are no mainstrean right wing parties. There are socialist and corporativist/fascist parties around, where the the former are calling themselves right. There is no party that is really wishing to dissolve the power of state, there are only two ways of dealing the power: 1) directly thru laws and 2) indirectly thru regulation. While the first approach is obvious, second is far more dangerous as it aquires power and uses it to help some against the rest. 88.100.197.59 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.197.59 (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Aren't old threads here meant to be automatically archived? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Misleading.

"The term can however be misleading, as many so-called 'far-right' parties, though Nationalist and therefore right-wing on social policy have a traditionally left-wing stance on economic policies, many advocating a form of collectivist or socialist-like economy; e.g. the Kuomingtang (Chinese national Party)the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers' Party) or the National Bolshevik Party."

The above statement is only misleading if one were to view the Right-Left dichotomy through American-tinted glasses. As the recent European Parliament election has shown, such distinctions are natural for Europe and other regions and are only strange if one believes that the American system of dividing Left and Right is the only system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.202.3 (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree and removed the paragraph. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Most election in last hundred years have shown, that people want to have no personal responsibility and they want their states as powerfull as possible, which means left of far-left - thus the right have died long ago and it's current meaning is with us from second world war when communists used it for a bit different approach of nazi germany. 88.100.197.59 (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.197.59 (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

islamic fundamentalist and Far Right

I have added “islamic party” to the “far right”category seeing as many scholar and political commentator consider the nature of religious fundamentalism no different from fascist (“ultra-nationalist” or “racist right”) movement. Please refer to "Neo-fascism and religion" and "Palingenesis". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that any academic sources have made this categorization, just the popular press. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You can look up author such as roger griffin who happend to be British academic political theorist at Oxford Brookes University, England, and Dr Malise Ruthven , writer and historian. And yes, that include journalists and major press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That is absurd - islamic ruling is just another kind of almighty state - thus leftist as possible. 88.100.197.59 (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Roger Griffen and Malise Ruthven say no such thing. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Malise Ruthven may opposes redefining Islamism as `Islamofascism`, but also finds the resemblances between the two ideologies "compelling".(ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism). Roger Griffin refers to fascism as "palingenetic ultranationalism"(ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenesis). Palingenesis involve philosophy, theology, politics, geology and biology. The "far right topic" on wikipedia also includes revolutionary right, racial supremacists, religious extremists, neo-fascists, neo-Nazis, and other ultra-nationalist or reactionary ideologies and movements. Orthodox religious extremist includes christian, jewish and islamic extremist.--71.249.247.144 (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And this articles should includes "far right party list" from the "middle east".--71.249.247.144 (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that mainstream writers find parallels between some Islamic extremists and fascism and a minority even called them Islamofascists does not mean that there is consensus that they are part of the far right. The key element that is missing however is any historical connection. Islamic fundamentalism did not develop out of European ideology. There are groups in the Middle East however that did and combine Islamic, Jewish or Christian religion. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not implying that there are consensus that islamic fundamentalism has historical connection with european fascist movement. Many author find that there are fascists nature in islamic fundamentalism as in islamic form of fascism itself which has nothing to do with european far right movement. In another word islamism or islamofascism existed in its own "right-wing form" but the concept remain the same. The similar concept that we can say there's a hindu right wing extremist which has nothing to do with european far right movement.--yin and yang 11:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the concept remains the same, we must reflect what is generally agreed rather than minority opinions. Besides, people who use the term "Islamofascism" do not call them "far right" or right-wing for that matter. I do not know if the Hindu groups are considered "far right". Fascism however had a direct influence on some Asian groups which are rightfully called right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

and nazism also has direct influence on arab and islamic group during the Second World War. There are also White Supremacist and Paleo-conservative group that requested co-operation with islamis group; for instance, August Kreis the leader of Aryan Nation has reportedly attempted to forge an alliance between white supremacists and al Qaeda, hoping to exploit their shared hatred of the American government and the Jews. --yin and yang 02:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs)

If we are going by 'notable consensus', Islamism is generally described as 'far left'. The arguments are the same as why 'nazism' should be described as 'far right' - if the majority of notable sources either say nothing or that Islamism is Far-Left, then Far-Left it 100% is (on Wikipedia).158.143.133.35 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question of "hindu nationalist" most media and journalist consider them political right. I think the reason why most author who use the term “Islam fascism” never consider them "far right" because most of these author usually are conservative or right wing commentators. And some of these right-wing commentators claimed that fascism or nazism itself is leftist ideology.--yin and yang 02:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no general agreement on their being far right, then there is no reason to classify them here. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So does it mean those conservative commentator who said that fascism and nazism itself is leftist ideology should be included in the left-wing politics just because some writer said so. Now I don't know what's malise Ruthven and Roger Griffin political position. I'm just assuming majority of those political commentators who used the term islamofascism are usually the one from conservative and righthist background(I could be wrong). There are also those from centrist and socialist background. I also find there are sites that stated both Islamism and Far right movement share the parallel principles. There are also those who claimed that Islam or Islamism itself share the same attributes with nazism due to nazi and fascist influence on arab and islamic group in world war two such as the Tony award winner Michael Moriarty who cited that islam itself ... is an Allah-worshipping, Kamikaze Nation, exactly like pre-World War II Imperial Japan. Its Bible, the Koran, can be read like Hitler's Mein Kampf. Most scholar agree that Nazism and fascism is a far right ideology. One of the good example of islamist being far right is Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal which is a far right political party in Pakistan. You should also know that many Orthodox Islamist group are oppose to leftist or marxist ideology as these islamist claimed left-wing and marxist ideolgy are secular and atheist which contradict their teaching. Just as the Muhajeedeen(including Osama Bin Laden) which fought the soviet invasion of afghanistan during the 80s. --yin and yang 02:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You should also read the topic Nazism in the Middle East. Islamic Fundamentalist group like Hindu Fundamentalism did have historical connection with european "far right" including Sayid Qutb. Please also note that most media, news and journalist also consider the Ahmedinejad and his conservative coalition in Iran "political right". I'm not denying that there's friction between islamist and "european far right". There are also far right movement who would like to forge alliance with islamist group after September 11 2001, since both share the same attributes and their hatred towards U.S. Government and JewsAnd don't forget the nazi islamic connection during the second world war with haj amin al-husseini and Hitler--yin and yang 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera (talk • contribs) 03:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter whether they are left or right but how they are seen in reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I did read Nazism in the Middle East. You should read the discussion inTalk:Nazism in the Middle East where I and other editors discuss the multiple problems with the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it very distrurbing that The 'Four Deuces' states that only whites can have far-right parties or be far-right. This is racism and wikipedia should reject this nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.133.11 (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not what I said and could you please stop making personal attacks. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Department of Redundancy Department

I really don't see a need to have an article on "Right-wing politics," and then have this one too. --Albert Sumlin (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)sock of banned editor

The right-wing politics article approaches the moderate and mainstream right, while this article deals with the revolutionary, extremist right. Doesn't seem redundant to me. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The far right is a clearly defined concept subject to numerous books. See for example The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right.[1] TFD (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialism and Far Right.

The debate about who or what is right wing or extreme rightist versus what is left wing or far leftist should go on. Nations such as the Peoples Republic of China (Red China), The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) are called communistic and left wing. While nations such as Nazi Germany (National Socialist German Workers Party, NSDAP) and Fascist Italy are considered right wing or far right. All of these examples have a common thread, forms of totalitarian socialism or total national control of the nations means of production. In brief terms they all were nearly the same in practice. They all call themselves socialist or refer to socialism in their speeches and writings. They all had/have national control over the means of production. They all have slaughtered those who opposed them by the millions.

The American Philosopher and Political analyst W. Cleon Skousen in his writings has a more accurate way of sorting this out. Left Wing means total government control and Right Wing means total anarchy. Under the current system with people like Stalin on the far left and Hilter on the far right you end up with every thing being totalitarian socialism or communism. Under Skousen all totalitarian socialists and communists would be on the left side of the spectrum while total anarchists would be on the right. Thus ending the debate over who or what is far right versus far left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.149.186 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does he put totalitarians on the left and anarchists on the right and not the other way around? The Four Deuces (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, another brilliant jewel of wisdom from this guy. What difference does it make which side is which?! 66.215.216.61 (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple - those declared as right have lost to the others and communists had to find a way of calling themselves good while corporativist also needed to negate Laises-Faire opinions. That made Hitler far right and dissolved original meaning. What is fascinating is the strength of a single communist lie in this "anticommunistic" world. 88.100.197.59 (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.197.59 (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That was not the question. Why does the John Birch Society consider anarchists to be right-wing while monarchists are left-wing? Why do they not say that anarchists are left-wing while monarchists are right-wing? In European legislatures (the source of the terminology), monarchists sit on the right, while anarchists sit on the left. TFD (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialism and Fascism are very different ideologies. The confusion seems to arrive from the fact that they both had authoritarian manifestations, i.e. Stalinism & Nazism. So the link here is their authoritarian characteristics rather than their fundamentals - which were entirely different. In the Soviet Union the government took on conservative characteristics or integrated conservative characteristics from Russian culture - these were often at odds with true socialist teachings. I think any ideology can have a conservative and progressive manifestation given enough time. Had Nazi Germany survived perhaps there may have emerged progressive, less anti-semitic factions over time. There may have been a less nationalistic "reform" Nazism appear. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Far right = left????

Political compass On the website Political compass it is argued that parties labelled as 'far right' are actually more leftist than most modern main stream parties. 'Far right' cannot be correct as a nomer because advocating government control (far left) cannot be a polar opposite to advocating government control (far right).

Actually, communism (government control) is the polar opposite of the free market ideology. Communism is primarily an economic ideology whereas fascism is a social ideology. They are not, nor have they ever been (except in rhetoric) polar opposites. The term 'far right' therefore is incorrect and used by parties identifying themselves as 'left' to discredit the 'right'. Unfortunately for them, fascism is all about state control (if not state ownership of the means of production, then certainly state control of them).

Political compass argues that advocates of state control all belong on the left.

It introduces 2 axis: -an economic x-axis (horizontal) where communism (state control) and free market ideology (no state control) are polar opposites -a social y-axis (vertical) where authoritarianism and libertarianism are polar opposites.

--82.156.49.1 04:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this is an accpeted diversion, and that far right and far left are indeed misnomers. This article is suitable in its POV/accuracy however. Flying Hamster 04:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Advocating government control can in fact be an opposite of advocating a different type of government control. The two groups may want the government to control different things, and they may wish to achieve opposite goals. "Government control" is a method, a means to an end. Ideologies may have opposing goals, while using similar means to achieve them.

The Political Compass model is interesting, but has a number of major flaws. For example, the "left-wing", which is supposed to represent state control of the economy, includes the ideology of anarcho-communism, which wants to abolish the state along with private property. Conversely, "free market ideology" always needs a state to define and enforce property rights. -- Nikodemos 03:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get "free market ideology" always needs a state to define and enforce property rights? That just isn't true. SnowShoes ^{talk here} 03:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats libertarianism 101 , snowshoes. The concept basically is that the role of the state is to protect private property and maintain a currency system (which can't really exist without a state, at least not in any reliable format). Anarchism, a offshoot of socialism , propose abolishing productive property and currency, and with that the last real role of the state 121.44.251.88 (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Anarchism is no offshoot of socialism - it is it's complete oposite. Anarchy means no government control, anarchocapitalism, if you wish. That is the far right as I see it. Hitler was spoken to be far right by communists, and this lie is usefull until today as all the world is driven by leftist experiments of all kinds for last hundred of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.197.59 (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Anarchists were part of the First International but were expelled. (See: the Hague Congress (1872)). TFD (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No. There is no evidence that property rights require a state to protect them, and until such evidence can be furnished, the claim cannot stand. For what it's worth, it's a classical liberal (think, American founders) notion. 206.124.7.109 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazis far right?

I'm object to the idea that NAZIs are called "far-right". The Nazi's were extremely socialist and anti-capitalist[2]. They have the german word for socialism in their name for crying out loud. The facists were also socialist [3]. There is no far-right evil totalitarian empire like the far-left ones in every communist country and it makes no sense to perpetuate this myth that the Left is to Stalin as the Right is to Hitler. I really doubt anyone who considers themselves a far-right, right-wing extremist, dittohead would advocate any socialism at all. Ryratt 05:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet, if you visit the actual entry on Fascism, you will see the wording:

• Most scholars see fascism as on the political right or allied with right-wing movements. (John Hoffman and Paul Graham. Introduction to Political Theory. Pearson 2006, p. 288. ISBN 0-582-47373-X).

And yet, if you go thru history, you find out, that right Hitler is communist lie, that is perpentuated in many books including the cited one. 88.100.197.59 (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So while some agree with you, most do not.--Cberlet 20:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What puts them on the political right? Ryratt 03:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

While, generally speaking, I'm all in favour of challenging orthodoxies, at the same time there comes a point where you just have to accept that that's just the way certain categorisations work, and that there's a pretty broad consensus on this both in the academic world and - for what it's worth - in common conversation. It doesn't imply any particular judgement or implications, eg that if you consider yourself right-wing you are therefore a "Nazi-lite". As it happens, the Nazis were not extremely socialist - yes they, and the fascists in Italy, had socialistic and communitarian elements, including in their economic policies (and in the Nazis case, in their name) but they stood by the basics of the capitalist system, drew support from capitalists and reactionary elements, and expended quite a lot of energy persecuting socialists and communists. In any event of course, the right-left divide isn't just about capitalism/anti-capitalism. --Nickhh 07:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hitler himself said that National Socialism was not reactionary, but revolutionary. He also stated that supporting Franco was a mistake and that in the next Spanish civil war, the Nazis would work against Franco and his reactionary inner circle. (Albert Speer, Spandau: The Secret Diary) Sadistik 13:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nazi authoritarianism/nationalism trumps their center-right economic policies. You have hit on the problem with left right though. Take a look at political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 Wikipediatoperfection 23:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd definitely say that Thatcher and Friedman are rightists, but yeah, having Hitler as the most right one can be and Stalin as the most left one can be while the two of them were virtually identical (as a Nolan chart shows) in many ways kind of defeats the purpose. Nationalism and militarism should not define left/right, whereas economic and social policies should. Sadistik 07:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism and militarism should not define left/right, whereas economic and social policies should. I disagree. In most countries, nationalism and militarism pattern with socially "right" policies. The link between nationalism and social conservatism on one hand and capitalist economic policies on the other is weaker, but the correlation is better there than between internationalist and socially liberal policies and capitalist policies. Argyriou (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Stalin's article calls him a Russian nationalist and he was definitely militaristic, so I guess we'd have to label him far-right, too. Sadistik 22:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Which was my original point, the only thing the far-right and the nazis have in common are the same things the Soviets, Imperial Japan, the Roman Empire, the British Empire and just about every other nation have in common; a strong military and national pride. It obviously wouldn't be practical for a nation to have a weak military and and hate itself.

Price controls, supressing free-markets and free-trade, regulating industry, extensive social welfare, national work-programs, excessive bonds, animal rights, environmental protection, and anti-tobacco laws are not philosophies that I typically associate with the far-right:

• [[4]]
• [[5]]

Ryratt 06:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Price controls, supressing free-markets and free-trade, regulating industry" - these is typical far-right: traditionally far-right was in favour of replacing the free-market capitalism by a Middle Ages-style guild system; and, about the free trade, I think, that in almost countries of the world, the far-right is in favour of protectionism

"extensive social welfare" - what "extensive social welfare" was in Nazi Germany? However, a moderate social welfare is typical of the far-right (but perhaps more in Catholic countries)

"national work-programs" - at leat in European terms, I think this question is totally independent of the left-right axis

"excessive bonds" - what these mean? If these mean "high budget deficits", I agree that is not a traditional far-right position

"animal rights, environmental protection" - I never had heard about nazis being believers in "animal rights" (a concept different of "protection of animals"); about "environmental protection", until the Sixties, was more typical of the right-wing than of the left-wing (usually in the context of the defence of the "healthy live of the countryside against the decadent life in industrial cities")

"anti-tobacco laws" - attendig that usually far-right is against "vices", I think that an "anti-tobacco" position is not incompatible with being "far-right"

But I think that what we should discuss is not if the nazis were far-right (this is "original research"), but if the nazis are considered far-right (and I think that usually they are, but with some disagreeing voices)--83.132.156.103 22:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that we are perpetuating a misconception. Ryratt 21:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I cited the parts where I got those positions of the Nazi party. If they're not correct that needs to be addressed in those articles. Ryratt (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest all of you to read a very interesting article by a neo-Nazi Povl H. Riis-Knudsen entitled National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement (1984). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.196.191 (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nazis are on the right

If you look up any of hitlers statements about communism or liberalism you will find he hated them and since by the def. of right wing republicans communism is left wing nazism must be right wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.118.232 (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits to the introduction

There have been frequent changes to the introduction in the past days. I frankly don't think one version is better than another. They all rely on different sources, and it is difficult to evaluate which source is best. The problem is that "far right" is poorly defined and very subjective. I would favor a much more general introduction, followed by a list of all the various attributes suggested by all the authors, without suggesting that one or the other is the absolute authority. Albert Sumlin (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)sock of banned editor

In fact the term "far right" is very well defined. It refers to irrational groups that are racist, anti-semitic, violent and have a paranoid view of the world. Historically they included Fascists and Nazis, today they include groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the British National Pary. There is considerable literature about them and publications about them. In what way is this "poorly defined and very subjective"? TFD (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Again with the "irrational racism," TFD? I guess left-wing extremism is rational, then? Ironically, you contradict yourself. The KKK and British National Party are examples of racialist organizations, yet, according to your own definition, the far-right is characterized by racism, anti-Semitism, violence and paranoia, meaning the far-right would be restricted solely to the groups you've mentioned. Setting aside the fact that defining the far-right with the terms you've used is idiotic (the Austrian, Dutch, French and Italian far-right have almost nothing to do with racialism, anti-Semitism or whatever your idea of "paranoia" might be), most modern far-right groups are characterized by nationalism, liberal nationalism, national conservatism, devotion to religion, in some cases, and populism, while the ones you claim are "violent" draw their roots from past fascistic organizations that ran independent paramilitary wings and are today attempting to recreate them (see Jobbik). The far-right is divided between the militaristic, anti-democratic echelon that draws heavily upon fascist theories, and the christian democratic, nationalist conservative echelon, which aims to adapt to the democratic process, seeking to distance itself from Holocaust-related, racialist and anti-Semitic politics - a system that applies to the far-left as well. I can only dread the thought of a source containing the tenets you've cited being edited into the article. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I did not say "irrational racism" and did not even mention left-wing groups. How do I contradict myself? Do you not think that the KKK is "racist, anti-Semitic, violent and paranoid?" Since you "dread the thought of a source containing the tenets you've cited", please note that I just provided one (!) (Routledge companion to fascism and the far right) in the previous discussion thread. TFD (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at recent edits, I would say that this one [6] is an improvement, because it reduces the tendency to oversimplify. This one [7] I think is better yet, because it confines itself to a very general description. This edit [8] I think is questionable, because even though it is sourced, it presents the opinions of the sources cited as universally applicable to "far right" groups, which I think is a stretch. I would prefer to start the article with a list of attributes which are universally agreed upon, which would most likely be a relatively short list. Albert Sumlin (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)sock of banned editor

Why, do you think the Klan was misunderstood? TFD (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be an insult? Look, I don't support far right wing groups. My problem with this article is that it says things that aren't backed up by sources. For example, it says "Far right politics involves supremacism, believing that superiority and inferiority are an innate reality for individuals and groups, and involves the complete rejection of the concept of social equality as a norm." Does that mean that all far-right groups are "supremacist"? I doubt that they are. Does the cited source say they are? No,it doesn't. The one mention of "supremacism" that I could find is this one:[9] Then the Wikipedia article says "Far right politics supports segregation, and the separation of groups deemed to be superior from groups deemed to be inferior." I'm sure that some far right groups support segregation, but do all of them? I doubt it. The same source is cited, and a search of the book for "segregation" turns up zero results. We shouldn't use articles to express personal opinions. There must be reputable sources for what we say. Albert Sumlin (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)sock of banned editor

What do you think "far right" means? I will add in sources, but if you disagree with how the article is phrased please find sources that support your views. Could you please read the source that I included above. TFD (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nazism is on the Right just as Communism is on the left. Ask any Nazi they hate Communsim and Liberalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.118.232 (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nazism is on the right

Hitler was by his own words a anti-communist and he saw liberalism and communusm as the same thing. Since people on the right belive communism and liberals are on the left hitler is on the right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.118.232 (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Radical Right

I am starting a new article, the The Radical Right. The two subjects are sufficiently different to require separate articles. TFD (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not merge. -- TFD (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Right-wing terrorism seems to have more extremists than actual terrorists so i propose a merger of both articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.201.92 (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Articles exist based on writing in reliable sources not our own views. TFD (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems like a pointy suggestion to me with no basis in sources. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 22:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. It isn't fair or correct to lump them together. This article is about the politics as a whole, not specific groups. Any uncontroversially non-terrorist groups should be removed from the Right-wing terrorism article or it should be recast so as to explicitly widen its remit. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Private Enterprise and Right-Wing politics

We need a section in this article that examines the connection between right-wing ideology and the tenets of private-enterprise based capitalism. The second paragraph does touch on this ("...superiority and inferiority is an innate reality..."), but far more needs to be written.

We need to consider this in the context of comparing general right-wing psychosis with the pathology of narcissistic behaviors of right-wing individuals, and how that eventually manifests itself into the development of private business, and, ultimately, large corporations.

I put, as an example, how the typical TV commercial represents a narcissistic event. A car company will go on endlessly in its commercial on how much better it is than other cars. If that doesn’t work, the next set of commercials show how much worse its competitors are. Either way, the end result is the same: to elevate itself.

And this illustrates the point in paragraph two, referenced above: "...superiority and inferiority is an innate reality..."

This is precisely the behavior that right-wing ideologies, such as Nazism, also espouse. Thus, this connection between Nazis and business, between right-wing politics and corporations, needs to be explored in this article.
--Atikokan (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is about "far right" politics (i.e., the extreme right-wing fringe of the spectrum), not right-wing politics. TFD (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

If an article's "further reading" section is longer than the text, you've got a serious problem. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

POV

Someone should either demonstrate that those on the right wing tend to describe people with said characteristics as 'radical right wingers' or else note that the term is typically a perjorative used by the left to label certain policies in much the same way that people don't typically call themselves 'social darwinists' but instead apply that label to other people. The article touches on this in the beginning, but then seems to accept the assertion that such policies called 'far right' are in fact more strongly associated with those who label themselves as being right wing rather than those who label themselves as left wing. Further, the article fails to differentiate between those things which are labled as racist and those which are 'racist' by some objective standard. Can an argument in favor of, or predicated on the belief in equal opportunity be considered 'racist?'

Consider, for example, the fact that Fred Phelps, often depicted as radically right wing is, in fact, a registered Democrat as well as a former supporter and associate of Al Gore. [10]

Your closing argument is absurd, and shows that you do not understand the difference between being a "Democrat" and being a "Left-Winger." There are, and always have been, Left-Wing Republicans, and Right-Wing Democrats. All of Fred Phelps' positions (anti-gay, Christian Supremacist, etc.) are decidedly FAR RIGHT. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling Nazism, Fascism, and Racism "Far Right" is completely false.

This guy gets it right: "Though this definition (that Nazism is far right) is accepted and promulgated by media and educators, how does this fit into any rational system of understanding political ideology? It does not, of course, but whenever any group displays any activity that does not adhere to a politically correct agenda, and can be pronounced by liberals as being racist, sexist, bigoted, or intolerant — whether this description is accurate or not — the group is deemed “right-wing.” " http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/european/2161-ideological-bedfellows So somewhere, somebody got the idea that racism is a "far right" trait even though the only major piece of legislation in the last several decades that discriminates based on race (in the US) is affirmative action promoted by the left. But even then I give the left the benefit of the doubt. I do not think the "far left" is racist, neither is the "far right". Racism can happen regardless of political orientation. So forget about the Nazis' authoritarianism, statism, socialist qualities, and collectivism and say that because they were 'racist' they must be 'far right'. Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.67.141 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Your source is ludicrous, as is your thesis. The author you quote is no academic, and has no credentials whatsoever that I can locate. You rely upon a false dichotomy to make your assertion (i.e., the idea that Left=Statism/Collectivism, while Right=Less Gov't/Anarchy) which is absurd and has no historical justification whatsoever. I'd debunk your pathetic attempt at revisionism piece by piece, but frankly, it's not even worth taking the time. Turn off the Glenn Beck and pick up a history book. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay sir above me, no need to get hot headed. If you trust wikipedia so much as to belive Nazis are right wing then why dont you look at their definition? The Nazi party is a socialist party, and as much as i hate comparing Nazis with any political group, if you would pair the Nazis with any political position (they were radicals and should'nt) it would be left wing, not right wing. Turn off Bill Maher and pick up a history book.

I have a Master's Degree in History, and am working on my Ph.D. Every reputable history book on the planet realizes that the Nazis were far more aligned with the Right Wing than the Left. It's not about "trusting Wikipedia," it's about trusting reputable, academic sources...and you will not find ANY that claim that the Nazis were "Left Wing." It is you who needs to read a history book or two. And the idea that the Nazis were a "Socialist" party, merely because the word is in their name, is so absurd that I guess you would also conclude that the Deutsche Demokratische Republik was a "Democratic Republic," and not a Communist state. (The DDR was the official name of Communist East Germany...) German political parties have a long history of having names that don't actually mean what they actually ARE. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Im the same guy as above you. Im not claiming the name has anything to do with it. Hitler was a maniac and a murderer, However when his actual politics came into play he WAS a Dictator/communist. He hated communist, but if you actually look at his actions he was one himself. Communism is as far left as you can get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.46.76 (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hitler did not implement anything even remotely "Communist." You are attempting to claim, with no backing evidence or citations, that ALL historians and academics regarding Hitler, Fascism, and Nazism, have somehow "gotten it all wrong" and that only you truly understand that Hitler was secretly a "Communist." If you want to propose these kinds of conspiracy theories on the web, might I suggest that you go to Alex Jones or David Icke's sites, where such things are taken seriously. However, on Wikipedia, you have to back up your statements with reputable, academic citations, and you will not find any supporting your "theory." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are saying Hitler was not a Dictator? Im shocked honestly. I never said any thing that could be considered as a conspiracy. You have seemed to completely ignore everything that historians state. The Nazi party is socialist, however Hitler took it to an extreme and killed people who disagreed with him. Hitler was insane and shouldn't be taken as a true political figure. However we were not talking about hitler, we were talking about Nazism and the fact that they are a socialist party. That fact can not be argued with because it is still alive today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.46.76 (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that it's ludicrous that Hitler was a Communist or Socialist, and you will not find any reputable sources to back up your Revisionist theories. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

New to the discussion here but I think some of you should look at the article on the Horseshoe theory. Indeed under Nazi rule much of he German economy was controlled as Hitler was very much against capitalism - something generally supported by the right wing. Wikipedia even has a section about anti-capitalism under Nazism.

Capitalism only became a major issue for the Right-Wing in the 20th century. Originally, it was the Left who favored free market capitalism (classical liberalism). Besides, the main reason that the Nazis are considered Right-Wing has to do with SOCIAL, not ECONOMIC issues, as these are the primary criteria denoting Left from Right, and pretty much always have been, up until recent Conservative Revisionism has tried to use economic issues to "change the rules of the game." Again, it's absurd, and you won't find any reputable sources backing up those assertions...which are required for making claims on Wikipedia. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

To resolve this argument: there were two types of right-wing and far-right-wing politics that existed around the end of World War I: the reactionary right and the radical right. The reactionary right wanted a restoration of past systems and ideas, like religious values, monarchism, etc. The radical right recognized the rise of radical left-wing ideologies like communism and anarchism as being a response to failures in society, i.e. class division and conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The radical right's solution was not egalitarianism, like the left, but it involved an attempt to resolve class conflict through ideas such as nationalism and corporatism. The radical right maintained the traditional right's emphasis on order and hierarchy. The Italian Fascists openly declared themselves right-wing, here is a quote from the Doctrine of Fascism: "It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the 'Right,' a Fascist century." [11].--R-41 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you people not familiar with the Nolan chart? Social freedom is not the only way to defferentiate left form right. It would be absurd to suggest that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union when both rejected free enterprise and both practiced genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.68.3 (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand the Nolan Chart at all. Nazi Germany is an example of "Right-Authoritarianism," while the Soviet Union is an example of "Left-Authoritarianism." Nazi Germany was opposed to all forms of Egalitarianism, which is what puts it on the Social Right scale, while the Soviet Union attempted to force Egalitarianism, which puts them on the Social Left scale. I swear, the Nolan Chart was invented to help people understand politics...but it seems like 99% of people are completely incapable of understanding it. Either way, it's not an RS, nor does it have anything to do with the subject. And finally, if the Nazis were so against "free enterprise," you might want to inform the Krupps of that. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What puts the NAZI party on far left are the historical documents themselves. Read the 25 point manifesto from hitler himself and tell me hes not a socialist. Attempts at providing your revisionist theorys dont wash when one goes to the source documents.Haphaestus123

No, you are being revisionist, which is why no reputable historian on the planet backs up your ludicrous views. Now stop trying to mess up this page with your unsourced propaganda. We've had these arguments many times on Wikipedia, and every time, the outcome is the same: Your views are not backed up with scholarly research. End of story. You are wasting your time. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No reputable historian...lol...see above for dozens of extremely reputable scholars who all agree Nazis were far left. Its ok to be wrong byron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haphaestus123 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the far right is in fact the side of liberalism and freedom. This entire article is trite and complete BS. The nazis, the national socialist party, is of COURSE left wing. It should be noted however that a favorite tactic of fascists is to "redefine" terms to suite their own needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.52.180 (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Byron. The Nazi party has no similarities with the Communist party of Russia. The only similarity to Socialism that the National Socialist party has is in its name, and "Socialist" was put in the name to attract the working class. I've read the both the Communist manifesto and Mien Kampf, and there are no similarities. I myself am a Socialist and I find no similarities in my beliefs and that of the Nazis. so to the people who keep putting the National Socialist party of Germany on the Left of the political spectrum, stop trying to put fascism (which is an extreme version of conservatism) off on us and acknowledge that the right wing has screwed up at times, so has the left. Hitler wasn't out fault though, it was yours. Capitalism has nothing to do with the right wing, freedom has nothing to do with the right wing, liberty has nothing to do with the right wing. You can be Progressive and still be Libertarian, you can be Conservative and still be Authoritarian. Progressivism represents the Left, with Libertarianism and Authoritarianism making up their halves of that. Where as Conservatism represents the Right, with Libertarianism and Authoritarianism making up the halves on that side as well. Liberalism is pretty much the same thing as Libertarianism, they come from the same root. Socialism is an economic system much like Capitalism, it is not an Ideology. Fascism represents Authoritarianism. Get it, you can't say that Communism and Dictatorship are the same thing, Communism is an economic system, Dictatorship is political system like a Monarchy, a Democracy or a Republic. a Communist can be Authoritarian or Libertarian, a Dictator can only be Authoritarian. Therefore we have discerned that Nazism is on the Authoritarian side of the spectrum, good half the work done, now we have to look at whether the National Socialist party was Progressive or Conservative, the quick answer is both, the National Socialist party was progressive for those it deemed worthy (which in itself makes the act of having progressive policies for those it deems worthy not progressive, making it an autocracy [which cannot be progressive, and can only be conservative], and then we look at how it treated those who it deemed not worthy, it treated blacks, homosexuals, communists, socialists, liberals, libertarians, the disabled with imprisonment, execution and genocide. now are you telling me that a left winger would imprison and kill it's fellow left wingers, no you can't because this has never happened in history. The Nazi party is decidedly Right-Wing (Far Right, Authoritarian Right), and the only thing it shares with the Left is having the name of one of the Left wing philosophies in it's name. So please take your ignorance elsewhere people who say that the Nazis were Left wing, because as I just showed they are Right Wing, without any connection to the Left besides in name itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.121.183 (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Le sigh...I have absolutely NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what I'm doing here, or even if I'm posting this correctly (is there some kind of formality I have to go through, or some kind page I have to access first?). Regardless, I have to say that I agree with Mr. Morrigan here. He's correct in that Nazism and Communism (Stalinist communism to be more precise in this context) are on totally different sides of the spectrum. Any political scientist worth his salt will tell you this. There are similarities, no doubt, but there certainly weren't enough to keep them from fighting like cats and dogs. I've long since come to the personal conclusion that the only people who claim otherwise are conservative blowhards looking to vilify the left by any means necessary in the hope of validating the supposed superiority of their own ideology.

I don't support how Mr. Morrigan is combating this trend, however. His condescending attitude represents what I think is wrong with academia these days, people who assume that because they have a piece of paper with a signature on it they can view the unwashed Huns with contempt and disdain. If the aforementioned blowhards are really giving him a hard time about this issue, he simply needs to edit-lock the page, rather than flip out and attempt use the fact that he's still a lowly grad student (in history, no less!) to convince people to stop doing what they're doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.188.163 (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I am astounded by the poor quality of this article

1. This article is useful if you want to understand what a person means when the term "far right wing" is used as a pejorative / expletive. Its relevance in understanding the philosophy of an individual that self-identifies as "far right wing" is completely non-existent. 2. The terms "left" and "right" in American politics have little relation to how the terms were used in the time of the French Revolution, and are further lost in this article. This is a weakness. 3. Despite an association between "left wing" and "egalitarianism", it completely biased to say that from left to right it is a choice between "egalitarianism" and "racism". I can not imagine that a person other than one that would identify as "left" would make this harsh juxtaposition. 4. While I can appreciate the verifiable sources of self identified historians here, their use of sources throughout this talk seems to be "appeals to authority" RATHER than, and even at the expense of, evidence to support the epistemological value of the term being defined; other than, as mentioned, a pejorative / expletive used to criticize or otherwise demean those of opposing ideologies. This is short sighted at best, and even then it is assuming a lot.

For the sake of making a positive contribution to the direction this article could go, I would say that the most consistant element of "far right politics", at least in American Politics, is an ideological leaning towards a "Strict Constructionist" interpretation and application of the Federal Constitution, deferring to Black Letter Law and documented contemporary Legislative Intent, and rejecting the concept that the Constitution is a Living Document other than as specifically prescribed in Article V. I think this maintains the connection to the French Revolution, highlights the terms transformation over time, and giving a hint of insight to the criticisms of opposing ideology. Further, it maintains the concept of a spectrum whose end behavior is both conceivable, and consistently identifiable across varying ideologies meaning that two people of different ideologies could look at a person's political views and each identify them as "far right". It would also allow for the potential inclusion of evidence to support labeling people in the article as "far right" for the sake of being informative, without being a personal attack.

By contrast, a historical consensus about a conceptual minority is in very poor taste and inconsistent with the quality standards more commonly seen with controversial topics throughout Wikipedia. Adelie42 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your OPINION is not backed up by scholarship, and is therefore irrelevant. Furthermore, just as "Far Left" is not something most Liberals would consider themselves (as it generally denotes Communists and Hippie Anarchists...), "Far Right" is also something most Conservatives would not want to consider themselves...particularly if they understand the fact that Far Right does INDEED denote Neo-Nazis, Fascists, and other assorted types. The idea that Far Left and Far Right are separated by a love/hate relationship to the Constitution is ludicrous and absurd, and not backed up by any facts whatsoever. It's simply a relatively recent attempt at "re-branding." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My contribution to this talk was not intended to be a well researched thesis. My intent was to discuss the fact that this article sucks. I did not suggest something be copy and pasted into the article. Further, I never said that left/right was a love/hate relationship with the Constitution but implied that there is a relatively smooth gradient from left to right regarding the role the Federal Constitution does and should play in politics depending on the debate. I will completely agree with you that it has been a recent development and tactic in American politics by self-identifying "right wingers" to label "left-wingers" as haters of the Constitution for not sharing their perspective. For the sake of argument, do you think "Communists and Hippie Anarchists" would self identify as "far left", and while it is outside the scope of my initial criticisms, do you think there is a clearly definable or should be a clearly definable end behavior for the left/right spectrum? Adelie42 (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The clearly definable description of the left/right spectrum is as it always has been, with the Left tending towards Egalitarian reform (culminating in the Radical, forced, Totalitarian attempts under Communism), with the Right tending towards support for established, traditional structures, and opposing change and reform (culminating in the Reactionary, forced, Totalitarian attempts under Fascism). Furthermore, with respect to the Constitution...it is usually the Left that supports the Constitution the most in regards to Civil Liberties (as with the ACLU, for example), while the Right often only supports the Constitution insofar as economic issues are involved...and usually oppose the expansion of any kinds of Civil Liberty aspects, such as with Abortion, LGBT Rights, Civil Rights-era legislation, etc. (Of course, this last bit of commentary is completely subjective...which is why it isn't in an encyclopedia article...) Furthermore, while I really don't know whether "Communists and Hippie Anarchists" would self identify as "Far Left", I know with certainty that Neo-Nazis and Fascists self-identify as "Far Right." Just read their own words and you will see. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Ever since Schleslinger in the late 40's, discussions about the problems of using a "left riht spectrum" have pervaded political science studies. That you are able to find it "clearly definable" places you head and shoulders above the actual experts, and we should be glad to have you assert the WP:TRUTH on articles. Unfortunately we can not avail ourselves of your absolute knowledge but are stuck with those idiot professors who do not know what you know, and who happen to write scholarly articles discussing many different ways of looking at political groups. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That's funny. A "mythical, cave-dwelling being depicted in folklore as either a giant or a dwarf, typically having a very ugly appearance," who posts wacky conspiracy theories, and never relies upon, or defers to, any kind of RS (or even appears to understand the concept of RS)...accuses me, a well-educated person who defends RS and reputable academic scholarship from vandals and POV warriors, of the very behavior that he himself engages in? Hilarity, thy name is "Collect." The Left/Right spectrum is the same as it has always been, since being created in the French National Assembly. Positions change (such as the Left's original support for laissez-faire Capitalism and the Right's support for Monarchy), but the over-arching concept of Left/Right does not. The attempts to change the definitions of Left/Right are nothing more than a fairly recent invention of Right-Wingers who wish to disassociate themselves from the Right's "villains" (Nazis, Fascists, the KKK, etc.). It's no more of a "valid" position than if modern Liberals started claiming that the Communists and Stalinists were "really" Right-Wingers all along (LOL!) and just as laughably absurd as "Holocaust Revisionism." I'd post sources, but that would be a waste of time, considering your long history of completely ignoring any sources posted to contradict your absurd claims. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped not to see such sophomoric analogies on this page. My hopes are dashed. Your post shows a substantial POV inconsistent with that required for an editor on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Pot. Kettle. Black. LOL. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 00:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

How to improve this article

I posted the following suggestions originally on the Far-left article's talk page because that article needed a lot of improvement but many of the suggestions also apply to this article too, which is also in need of improvement, so I'll repost the suggestions here.

Some observations about term far-right that should help with improving the article:

• The term "far-right" refers to those on the far-right of the left-right political scale but due to limitations with the left-right scale, there is not a lot of disagreement as to which political parties or groups qualify as far-right, just as there is with the label far-right. It seems to be largely subjective as to who is far-right and who is not and their is no simple criteria you can apply to determine if a political groups qualifies as far-right. As such, a lot of people on the left view the term is a pejorative, rather then simply descriptive, and I don't hear many allegedly far-right groups or individuals self-identifying as far-right, though if there are any then the article should mention them.
• Various commentators, political writers, academics, etc. have offered definitions of the term "far-right" and we can reference those without taking any position as to their accurateness.
• We should avoid categorizing any particular political party or group as "far-right" ourselves but we can mention groups that have been labeled as far-right by others notable individuals or groups, with inline references include referencing examples where the label was used. For example, if the several prominent conservatives have called some communist party "far-right" then we can quote sources that support them as having used the label against this group.
• We should also mention groups or individuals who have expressed disagreement with the use of the label far-right by others against themselves or others groups or individuals.

--Cab88 (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly agree with these suggestions. Given the disagreement and controversy over how the term is used, this article should, in short, be a meta-analysis of the debate rather than what appears to be the conclusion of a battle over the words meaning. I don't think any amount of documented historical consensus over the "correct" way to use the term justifies the current state of the article. All that is defined here is the term "right wing" as a pejorative / expletive. Even if such use is commonplace, I hardly think this properly covers the term. Adelie42 (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

We shold also include the well-established discourse that there is no fixed "left right spectrum" at all -- that different countries, different eras, different issues, different religious views, and so on are all variables which current political scientists understand as making clear-cut categorization impossible. Collect (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Indeed. PLEASE agree with the user whose alias contains an "88" in it.[12] /facepalm. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you expect me to respect a person who makes personal attacks on this page? BM - you should know better by this time. Collect (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

We need to avoid original research. "Far right" is the term used to describe neo-nazis, skinheads, klansmen and similar groups. While the term itself derives from the fact that the Nazis and similar groups were/are typically seated literally on the far right of legislatures, use of the term does not imply acceptance of the left-right political spectrum. These groups usually oppose constitutions, break the law and do not call themselves "far right". If anyone wants to change the definitions used in the article then please find reliable sources, rather than simply changing the article to reflect individual beliefs. (BTW, Collect, I came across another editor on far right articles who used 88 as part of his name and a number of editors questioned it.) TFD (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And why would anyone mention that number in connection with me? Seems quite inane at that point. Collect (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

TFD: It's less common in the US, but in Europe, particularly in Germany, Neo-Nazis generally self-identify as "Far Right," or more specifically "Rechtsextremismus" (Extreme Right). They even listen to music that they call "Rechtsrock," or "Right-Rock." And yes Collect, usually when someone adds an "88" to their name on the Internet, (particularly when they have the kind of interest in Right-Wing politics, Anti-Semitism, and revisionism that the aforementioned user seems to have...) it generally denotes the "Heil Hitler" mentioned in my link. Either way, as noted by TFD, the article has RS, while you do not. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 00:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Provide actual WP:RS reliable sources for your claims - many of them seem quite far afield at best, and as I have not seen what you consider a strong cite, I fear I doubt the nature of them. rankly, the "definitions" present in the article are far from sufficiently sourced at present, they presnt a mish-mash of conflicting "bad things" and no single source presents them all in this "combination of ingredients." It is quite nearly as bad as Fascism was when it had a dozen conflicting attributes assigned to it - including being pro-abortion, anti-abortion, pro-religion, anti-religion, pro-capitalist, anti-capitalist, pro-socialist, anti-socialist, and so on <g>. Find a good source with a single actual definition, then maybe this article could be salvaged. And drop the asides about editors, please. It does not benefit you one iota. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that my comments "seem quite far afield at best" to you speaks to your ignorance of the topic, wilful or otherwise. I have pointed them out to you countless times in other articles. Try for example The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right: "The 'far right' consists of those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in the pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy. However, their view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left." (p. 5) Before you recycle your old arguments: the political spectrum is meaningless, fascism is actually left wing, only left-wing people define them like that, there are BLP issues - I've heard them all before. Bryon, none of the sources I have read said they describe themselves as "far right", although often they call themselves right-wing. TFD (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I am not "ignorant of the topic" what I do is follow Wikipedia policies which means I do not assert what I WP:KNOW but only look at what reliable sources state in clear language. 2. I note you do not view Schlesinger as a reliable source as to the non-utility of a linear political spectrum. Most people, in fact, conisder his views quite notable. 3. Do not make false statements about my positions. I NEVER said that "fascism is left-wing" and that sort of argument is one of the worst forms of argument known to man. And making that sort of statement makes your rationale entirely too clear to others. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)