Facts and Myths about Germany's Far-Right Extremists

Facts and Myths about Germany's Far-Right Extremists

By Barbara Hans, Benjamin Schulz and Jens Witte

Officials estimate that there are roughly 25,000 far-right extremists among Germany's almost 82 million residents. Still, their views enjoy much more support than the numbers would suggest. Here, SPIEGEL ONLINE takes a close look at just how rooted right-wing extremism is in Germany.

There were several people involved: two men, one woman and a handful of helpers. But they shared a single mind-set, one that focused on killing the declared enemy, that glorified killing as an ideology in itself, and that made films with cartoon characters pointing at gruesome murder scenes. Beate Zschäpe, Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt, the members of the Zwickau terrorist cell, lived to kill. They were the ones who decided who deserved to live, and who deserved to die.

They did not try to draw any attention to themselves. Instead, their mindset was apparently incentive enough. In the words of Hajo Funke, a prominent analyst of the far-right in Germany, it was about the "propaganda of the deed." But it really looked more like political insanity paired with individual psychopathology.

Whatever the case may be, a lot is known about far-right terrorists in Germany. In 2010, a study on the biographies of extremists who commit acts of violence was published after being commissioned by Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA). It concluded that extremist ideologies -- regardless of whether they are left- or right-wing -- give their adherents a sense of direction that supports them in their everyday lives. The reason that such ideologies are embraced in the first place, it said, can in most cases be attributed to some deficit or insecurity.

Indeed, family environment would seem to play a decisive role, as can be seen from the fact that hardly any of the criminals who were examined came from two-parent homes. This approach to explaining things is just as simplistic as it is plausible: Individuals who don't get the closeness and recognition they need from their mothers and fathers will go looking for it elsewhere. Most extremists have broken off ties with their parents and allowed their cliques to replace their families, a fact which helps to explain why there is such as strong sense of cohesion within these groupings. And that's also how it apparently was in the case of Zschäpe, Böhnhardt and Mundlos.

The researchers also discovered that radicalization was most often accompanied by a measure of self-dramatization: the more brutal the act, the more celebrated -- and the more one celebrates oneself.

When it comes to the Zwickau terrorist cell, their 15-minute film documents in a distressing way how much the perpetrators of these crimes craved recognition. They set the scenes of their crimes very meticulously, they mixed in the cheerful, harmless cartoon figure of the Pink Panther, and they anticipated how the film would resonate in the media -- all to mock their victims.

The murders were committed by just three people. But how do things look like if you take a broader view of the entire far-right scene in Germany?

How Many Right-Wing Extremists Are There in Germany?

In late 2010, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), Germany's domestic intelligence agency, estimated that there are roughly 25,000 right-wing extremists in Germany, but that only a certain proportion of them are organized into groups. Given Germany's overall population of just under 82 million, that entails an infinitesimal proportion of only 0.03 percent. Nevertheless, their importance in Germany is disproportionately large.
How Many of the Right-Wing Extremists Are Prone to Violence?

Of the roughly 25,000 right-wing extremists in Germany, more than one-third (or 9,500) are considered prone to violence. According to the domestic intelligence agency, the proportion of these individuals who are particularly radical neo-Nazis grew by 600 between 2009 and 2010 to reach 5,600. By definition, neo-Nazis want the "Third Reich" back and strive to have an ethnically homogenous, dictatorial state replace the democratic constitutional government based on the principle of liberty.
Although one will find the term "neo-Nazi" often being treated in public discourse as a synonym for "right-wing extremism," it does not cover the full spectrum of right-wing extremist efforts. Neo-Nazis, in other words, are right-wing extremists, but not every right-wing extremist is a neo-Nazi.

The BfV is also warning of increased radicalization within the far-right extremist scene. "On the whole," its report said, "it is possible to see a rise in the potential for violence as well as in the willingness to employ violence to attain one's political goals."

According to Bernd Wagner, a Berlin-based criminologist and expert on right-wing extremism, there are primarily small groups in Germany "that are working on becoming capable of performing acts of terrorism" as well as on forming networks with similarly minded groups. Wagner says these cells are usually made up of two to four people, operate underground and independently, and frequently try to get their hands on weapons and explosives so they can wage a partisan battle against foreigners and thereby inflict damage upon the democratic order.

The majority of violent right-wing extremists are recruited from among the ranks of skinheads and fans of the music genres known as "NS hatecore" and "NS black metal," with "NS" denoting "National Socialist." Members of the so-called "autonomous nationalists" -- sometimes also known as the "anarchist socialists" -- are particularly prone to violence, the report added. They represent the fastest-growing branch of the neo-Nazi scene.

The BfV report also notes that these often young neo-Nazis wear clothes that bear a resemblance to those typically seen on left-wing anarchists, strategically employ violence in order to attract widespread media attention, have become adept at using set arguments critical of the current social system, and use youth-oriented events to recruit new members, including "experience-geared activities" that are fun and give off the impression of being unrelated to anything political.

How Many Crimes Can Be Attributed to Right-Wing Extremism?

In 2010, the BfV found that there were 15,905 politically motivated crimes associated with the far right. The figure represents a 15.2 percent drop compared with the 2009 figure of 18,750 crimes. The number of violent crimes in the same period fell from 891 to 762, a 14.5 percent reduction. A large majority of these, or 638, involved bodily injuries. Investigators also put the number of violent acts of an explicitly xenophobic nature at 285, and most of these cases also involved physical harm.
The report also concludes that far-right extremist violence continues to be concentrated in the five eastern states that were part of the former East Germany. The most acts of violence were committed there when measured as a ratio of crimes to inhabitants. The state of Saxony-Anhalt topped the list, followed by Brandenburg, Saxony, Thuringia and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.

Among other crimes not involving acts of violence, the most frequent were propaganda-related offenses (11,384), incitement of the people (2,279) and property damage (1,335).

The BfV report lists no crimes involving death for 2010 and only six crimes of attempted murder related to far-right extremists. However, there are some doubts as to whether these official figures are correct.

According to research conducted by the Berlin daily Tagesspeigel as well as Die Zeit, an influential weekly paper, right-wing violence claimed 137 lives in Germany between 1990 and 2009. The BfV, on the other hand, calculates that figure to be only 47. The significant discrepancy can be attributed to faults in the system of compiling information and failures on the part of investigators to identify crimes motivated by right-wing extremism -- and to report them as such.

The Berlin-based Amadeu Antonio Foundation, which aims to combat right-wing extremism and racism, even puts the figure of deaths related to right-wing violence since 1990 at 182, including the nine believed to have been committed by Mundlos, Böhnhardt and Zschäpe. This figure also takes into account all of the cases that exhibit "credible indications of a right-wing extremist or racist background."

How Many People Sympathize with the Right-Wing Extremist Scene?

This question cannot be posed without taking another aspect into consideration first, namely, that of who can really be categorized as being a "sympathizer."
According to Eckhard Jesse, an extremism expert at the Chemnitz University of Technology in the eastern state of Saxony, "after recent days, there might not be anyone in Germany" who approves of the murders and praises the acts of the Zwickau terrorist cell. He qualifies his statement, however, as not meaning that the message of right-wing groups falls on deaf ears. Right-wing extremists can find support in parts of the population when it comes to vague sympathies, Jesse says, citing the example of "resentment against foreigners."

A study commissioned by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES), a think tank with ties to Germany's center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), found that it can be assumed that a large proportion of Germans harbor concrete right-wing extremists thoughts that are not influenced by current events.

However, Jesse points out that, despite high levels of support for anti-democratic feelings, chauvinism, xenophobia and Social Darwinism -- that is, the theory that individuals, groups and races are also subject to Charles Darwin's laws of natural selection -- "when compared with other countries, Germany is not one of the upper outliers in terms of right-wing extremism." This can particularly be seen during elections, he says, in which parties such as the far-right National Democratic Party (NPD) hardly play any role at all. "Things don't really look as good when it comes to far-right extremist subcultures," he says.

Who Are the Sympathizers?

So, what does the average proponent of the right-wing scene in Germany look like?
The FES study found that more men than women agree with right-wing extremist sentiments, and that the supporters were more often people living in rural settings with little formal education rather than high levels of educational achievement. Likewise, they are more likely to be unemployed than employed, and right-wing views enjoy a particularly large amount of sympathy among individuals older than 60 and who enjoyed relatively little success at their jobs.

Thomas Krüger, the president of Germany's Federal Agency for Civic Education (bpb), finds the situation in rural parts of Germany to be particularly problematic. He says there is no critical stance toward right-wing extremists attitudes in some regions of the country. Krüger primarily attributes this to demographic developments that have seen particularly well-educated youths moving away from such areas. "The old and the educationally disadvantaged are left behind," he says, "which gives rise to an ominous milieu."

How Widespread are Far-Right Views?

Part of the FES study involved a survey on responses to certain positions frequently taken by members of Germany's far right. A cross-section of the German population was asked whether they agree with the following statements. (For these results, the answers "I fully agree" and "I largely agree" were combined.)
- Foreigners come to Germany to take advantage of the welfare state: 34.3 percent

- Germany is in serious danger of being overrun by foreigners: 35.6 percent

- If it weren't for the Holocaust, Hitler would be remembered as a great statesman: 10.7 percent

- National Socialism also had its good aspects: 10.3 percent

- We need a leader who can rule Germany with a firm hand for the benefit of all: 13.2 percent

- Germans actually are naturally superior to other people: 13.3 percent

- Some lives have value while others don't: 10.8 percent

However, Eckhard Jesse, the analyst at the Chemnitz University of Technology, notes that opinion-based studies are always prone to error: "Clever respondents know right away which answers are socially acceptable," he says. In other words, they can opt to hide their true opinions. By the same token, he adds, answers from other respondents might register as far-right simply owing to the unsophisticated manner in which they are answered -- even if the respondents aren't actually extremists.

How Reliable are the Results?

Since definitions and counting methods always influence results, statistics on far-right extremism should always be read with a certain degree of skepticism. What's more, there is also a large area of uncertainty. Only known phenomena can be documented. Far-right groups that remain off the radars of experts -- as the Zwickau cell did -- won't appear in statistical surveys.
The latest report from the BvF, released in 2010, claims that "no right-wing terrorist organizations can be observed in Germany." By that time, the Zwickau cell had been operating underground for over a decade -- which leaves room for powerful criticism of the agency. Its report merely says, in terse terms: "The affinity for weapons and explosives among far-right extremists continues to represent a latent potential for danger. In view of this fact, crimes by individual actors cannot be ruled out."

Why do the media always seem to focus on the far right extremists and not give equal time to the far left extremists? At least here in the USA, the far left extremists outweigh the far right (crime stats-wise).

In this case, because far-left extremists don't travel throughout the country killing 9 people for the color of their skin..

BubbleBliss wrote:
In this case, because far-left extremists don't travel throughout the country killing 9 people for the color of their skin..

HUH?

Well I, for one, object to classifying people who hold National Socialist views as being on the "right." This is simply not true!

There is absolutely NOTHING in NS philosophy that even remotely resembles the aims and values of the right. This is a fiction that has been being perpetrated by the left for the last 70 years or more - probably more now that I think about it.

Originally a liberal (or classical liberal) was one who was dedicated to the ideals of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, the liberty of individuals, freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly and free markets. These were radical views in the 18th century (when classical liberalism was born).

All of these ideals make up the traditional platform of the Republican Party - when they are holding true to their founding values.

The Democratic Party, on the otherhand, stands for big government, more power in the hands of the government, expanding government controls over free markets, seeks to reduce religious influence and freedoms in society, seeks ever expanding control over individual freedoms and choices, has tried to censor free speech (the "Fairness" doctrine) and has threatened to do it again, and has treated the Constitution like so much toilet paper (though truthfully, they are not alone on that one).

The left aligns almost entirely with NS values, varying only on degrees.

Again, what this article calls "far-right extremists" bears absolutely zero resemblance to a classical liberal or, what we now call in this country, a conservative, right-winger or Republican.

This trying to pin fascist/socialist motives (and NS is nothing more than a fascist/socialist movement) on the "right" is a blatant lie, a subterfuge by the left that, truth be told, is nothing more than projection on their part.

Let me put on my tin foil hat here...

National Socialism is ultra nationalist which is definitely right on the political spectrum.
The Nazis nationalized no industries and outlawed trade unions, murdered tons of communists and socialists and the government was actually shrunk to the degree that an extremely limited amount of people were able to call any shots.

BubbleBliss wrote:
Let me put on my tin foil hat here...

National Socialism is ultra nationalist which is definitely right on the political spectrum.
The Nazis nationalized no industries and outlawed trade unions, murdered tons of communists and socialists and the government was actually shrunk to the degree that an extremely limited amount of people were able to call any shots.

Tinfoil hat crack aside, let's just set you straight here.

First off all, the "nationalist" aspect of National Socialism is of absolutely zero import. More importantly, "ultra-nationalism" is not a feature of classical liberalism in any shape, manner or form. It is not "right" on the political spectrum, it is left. It is the left that elevates the state above the individual.

Second, the differences between fascism and socialism are so minor as to be of no consequence whatsoever. In the end, does it really matter who owns something if its use is directed by the state?

So the Nazis didn't nationalize industry... big deal. None of those industries were free to not produce what Hitler directed. Hitler had dictitorial control over the output of the nation. How on earth is that a feature of classical liberalism or the "right" as you say?

How does the fact that he "murdered tons of communists and socialists" alter the leftist totalitarian nature of National Socialism?

And if he shrunk government, it wasn't because he believed in the principle of limited government, it was because he believed in self preservation - limit the competition, limit the chances of opposition. And no one could "call any shots" as Hitler's word was law. Again, hardly features one finds on the "right" or rather classical liberalism.

I'm sorry Bubbles, but you've missed the mark here. Nothing you've attributed to National Socialism is even remotely a position one could attribute to classical liberalism or, as you say, the right.

The article above was dead wrong to call NS "right-wing."

I repeat my initial conclusion, calling a leftist ideology "right-wing" is simply projection on the left's part.

Nationalism has nothing to do with elevating the state over the people, it's about putting your country over everything else.

No matter what he believed in, he shrunk the government to limit the power of it.

The differences between fascism and socialism are minor?? You're kidding, right?

BubbleBliss wrote:
Nationalism has nothing to do with elevating the state over the people, it's about putting your country over everything else.

No matter what he believed in, he shrunk the government to limit the power of it.

The differences between fascism and socialism are minor? You're kidding, right

First of all, you have still not made the case of how NS is "right-wing."

NS ideology is decidedly leftist. And the ONLY reason Hitler wanted limited government power was to eliminate challenges to his own power.

And no, I'm not kidding. Both fascism and socialism centralize all power and always operate as totalitarian states with a subservient population.

Who gives a flying fornication about nitpicky details or differences between the two when under either you are a slave to the state?

I'm just gonna post some excerpts from Wiki here (with validated sources):

Fascists identified their primary opponents as the socialists on the left who had opposed intervention in World War I.[92] The Fascists and the rest of the Italian political right held common ground: both held Marxism in contempt, discounted class consciousness and believed in the rule of elites.

The Fascists assisted the anti-socialist campaign by allying with the other parties and the conservative right in a mutual effort to destroy the Italian Socialist Party and labour organizations committed to class identity above national identity

Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but Italian fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.[18][19] Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century." However they also officially declared that although they were "sitting on the right" they were generally indifferent to their position on the left-right spectrum, as being a conclusion of their combination of views rather than an objective, and considering it insignificant to their basis of their views that they claimed could just as easily be associated with "the mountain of the center" as with the right.

American 'conservatives' oppose 'big government' (and 'liberals' today are often defined as proponents of big government). Conservative advocacy of individual freedom appears to place them close to the champions of emancipation on the left, but their goals are very different, and it is the goals that ultimately are decisive for location on the left-right continuum. The goal of conservatives in liberal societies today is to curtail the power of government and in defending laissez-faire, American conservatives today are really old-fashioned liberals more akin to nineteenth-century liberals than to nineteenth-century conservatives in continental Europe who championed the strong monarchical state. It is that latter conservative tradition to which Nazism and fascism are related...

-----

And you're quite wrong about the fact that "both fascism and socialism centralize all power and always operate as totalitarian states"! Those European states you always label as "socialist" surely do not operate as totalitarian states, no matter how much you'd like to think so.
Socialism actually never says anything about a totalitarian state, that is just the way it was adopted by the most prominent socialists who were in fact dictators. Socialism and dictatorship do NOT go hand in hand, as plenty of right wing dictatorships around the world have shown you.

TexasBlue wrote:Why do the media always seem to focus on the far right extremists and not give equal time to the far left extremists? At least here in the USA, the far left extremists outweigh the far right (crime stats-wise).

Examples of this would be?

The far right extremists in the US, with about as much representation as in Germany, seems to mirror the stats and location and lack of education and nature of crimes; except for the material read by the man who shot Representative Giffords.

BubbleBliss wrote:
Let me put on my tin foil hat here...

National Socialism is ultra nationalist which is definitely right on the political spectrum.
The Nazis nationalized no industries and outlawed trade unions, murdered tons of communists and socialists and the government was actually shrunk to the degree that an extremely limited amount of people were able to call any shots.

Which was by design.

Thanks...I like this topic. Maybe we can dispense of the Limbaugh lies and actually get the correct definition of the terms on here.

BubbleBliss wrote:
I'm just gonna post some excerpts from Wiki here (with validated sources):

Fascists identified their primary opponents as the socialists on the left who had opposed intervention in World War I.[92] The Fascists and the rest of the Italian political right held common ground: both held Marxism in contempt, discounted class consciousness and believed in the rule of elites.

The Fascists assisted the anti-socialist campaign by allying with the other parties and the conservative right in a mutual effort to destroy the Italian Socialist Party and labour organizations committed to class identity above national identity

Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but Italian fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.[18][19] Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century." However they also officially declared that although they were "sitting on the right" they were generally indifferent to their position on the left-right spectrum, as being a conclusion of their combination of views rather than an objective, and considering it insignificant to their basis of their views that they claimed could just as easily be associated with "the mountain of the center" as with the right.

American 'conservatives' oppose 'big government' (and 'liberals' today are often defined as proponents of big government). Conservative advocacy of individual freedom appears to place them close to the champions of emancipation on the left, but their goals are very different, and it is the goals that ultimately are decisive for location on the left-right continuum. The goal of conservatives in liberal societies today is to curtail the power of government and in defending laissez-faire, American conservatives today are really old-fashioned liberals more akin to nineteenth-century liberals than to nineteenth-century conservatives in continental Europe who championed the strong monarchical state. It is that latter conservative tradition to which Nazism and fascism are related...

-----

And you're quite wrong about the fact that "both fascism and socialism centralize all power and always operate as totalitarian states"! Those European states you always label as "socialist" surely do not operate as totalitarian states, no matter how much you'd like to think so.
Socialism actually never says anything about a totalitarian state, that is just the way it was adopted by the most prominent socialists who were in fact dictators. Socialism and dictatorship do NOT go hand in hand, as plenty of right wing dictatorships around the world have shown you.

Again, I must stress that the fascist animosity towards socialists and communists is of no import. Both ideologies ultimately end in the same place, dictatorial rule by a single person and the suppression of individual freedom in the interest of the state.

All of the infighting between fascists and socialists means nothing. Their ideological differences, their animosity towards one another, none of this means a single thing! And just because the Italian fascists self-described as being right-wing, that does not make it so. I could self-describe as a Martian, that doesn't make me one. In the end fascism is as far from the right as one can get. Anarchism is a much truer description of the far right than fascism.

That quote from the Wiki "...this is the century of authority..." attributed to an unamed Italian fascist really says it all. Central "authority" is the absolute opposite of classical liberalism, or the "right" if you will.

All of those notions of "class identity" vs. "national identity, anti-socialist vs. pro-socialist, they mean nothing in the end. Both fascism and socialism end up in the same place - totalitarian rule. History is littered with the proof of this simple truth.

As for your claim that I have labeled European states as socialist, that simply isn't true. I have never labeled them as pure socialist states. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck there kiddo. But I suspect you already know that.

Most European states employ a hybrid political system - a "social democracy" if you will, combining democracy with varying degrees of socialist concepts. This is not "socialism' with a capital S. Hell, we employ socialist elements in this country. More than I am comfortable with to be honest.

But even social democracies are prone to weaknesses that would not present in a true constitutional republic with a real free-market capitalist economy. Just look at what is happening in Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, the UK, Poland - all of these near or teetering on the brink of economic disaster.

And while a social democracy is not destined to end in tryanny, the chances of that are not non-existent in view of the history of the world.

In the end, the only thing your Wiki entries got right - and I mean the ONLY thing - is that American conservatives today are really old fashioned liberals more akin to 19th century liberals than 19th century conservatives.

And that has been my whole point in this thread. The term liberal has been co-opted by the left in an attempt to demonize the right in this country.

Please expand on how "both end up in the same place" as dictators.

Show me the similarity of the place.

Cookie Parker wrote:Please expand on how "both end up in the same place" as dictators.

Show me the similarity of the place.

THEY'RE BOTH RULED BY TOTALITARIANS!!! That's the place they all land, fascism by design, socialism by design and/or necessity!

You cannot possibly know this little about history!

Of course, I don't actually know if that's true. I know absolutely nothing about you, how old you are, what education you've had, etc.

So in case you're a high school student or something, forgive the emphatic response.

If not, Google fascism and read the whole Wiki of which Bubbles posted but a tiny bit.

Fascism is just about as far from the "right" or classical liberalism as you can get.

What about all those countries in Europe you claim to be socialist? They're by no means ruled by totalitarians...

I've already answered that question a few posts back.

Check my last long response to you, you will find the answer to your question there.

dblboggie wrote:

As for your claim that I have labeled European states as socialist, that simply isn't true. I have never labeled them as pure socialist states. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck there kiddo. But I suspect you already know that.

Most European states employ a hybrid political system - a "social democracy" if you will, combining democracy with varying degrees of socialist concepts. This is not "socialism' with a capital S. Hell, we employ socialist elements in this country. More than I am comfortable with to be honest.

But even social democracies are prone to weaknesses that would not present in a true constitutional republic with a real free-market capitalist economy. Just look at what is happening in Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, the UK, Poland - all of these near or teetering on the brink of economic disaster.

And while a social democracy is not destined to end in tryanny, the chances of that are not non-existent in view of the history of the world.

How many times have you claimed that Obama has an outright socialist agenda?
Never once have I heard you use the term "social democracy" when talking about European nations.
In all your previous posts on this board, you've made it very clear that you see no difference between social democracy and socialism.

BubbleBliss wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

As for your claim that I have labeled European states as socialist, that simply isn't true. I have never labeled them as pure socialist states. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck there kiddo. But I suspect you already know that.

Most European states employ a hybrid political system - a "social democracy" if you will, combining democracy with varying degrees of socialist concepts. This is not "socialism' with a capital S. Hell, we employ socialist elements in this country. More than I am comfortable with to be honest.

But even social democracies are prone to weaknesses that would not present in a true constitutional republic with a real free-market capitalist economy. Just look at what is happening in Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, the UK, Poland - all of these near or teetering on the brink of economic disaster.

And while a social democracy is not destined to end in tryanny, the chances of that are not non-existent in view of the history of the world.

How many times have you claimed that Obama has an outright socialist agenda
Never once have I heard you use the term "social democracy" when talking about European nations.
In all your previous posts on this board, you've made it very clear that you see no difference between social democracy and socialism.

Obama DOES have a socialist agenda! If there was ever any doubt about that, his speech in Kansas the other day should erase any doubts about the truth of that statement. Likewise, I'm quite sure the Socialist Party members in various European nations (as well as in this country) also have a socialist agenda. That does not mean that they will realize that agenda, or by a single measure remake a country into a socialist nation.

And it is just not true that I have "never" used the term social democracy to describe European nations, I most certainly have!

The claim that I see no difference between unadulterated socialism and a social democracy is equally fallacious.

Rather than nitpick on these points, why not address my larger points?

For instance, how about those countries I named above going broke thanks to their government's attempts at establishing "social and economic justice" through the coercive power of the state?

How about my point on fascism/socialism vs. classical liberalism?

Or my point on the differences between fascism and socialism, which I contend are trivial and, in the end, of no consequence as both end in totalitarianism?

dblboggie wrote:

Cookie Parker wrote:Please expand on how "both end up in the same place" as dictators.

Show me the similarity of the place.

THEY'RE BOTH RULED BY TOTALITARIANS!!! That's the place they all land, fascism by design, socialism by design and/or necessity!

You cannot possibly know this little about history!

Of course, I don't actually know if that's true. I know absolutely nothing about you, how old you are, what education you've had, etc.

So in case you're a high school student or something, forgive the emphatic response.

If not, Google fascism and read the whole Wiki of which Bubbles posted but a tiny bit.

Fascism is just about as far from the "right" or classical liberalism as you can get.

No, don't show me with your opinion...show me with your facts.

Cookie Parker wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

Cookie Parker wrote:Please expand on how "both end up in the same place" as dictators.

Show me the similarity of the place.

THEY'RE BOTH RULED BY TOTALITARIANS!!! That's the place they all land, fascism by design, socialism by design and/or necessity!

You cannot possibly know this little about history!

Of course, I don't actually know if that's true. I know absolutely nothing about you, how old you are, what education you've had, etc.

So in case you're a high school student or something, forgive the emphatic response.

If not, Google fascism and read the whole Wiki of which Bubbles posted but a tiny bit.

Fascism is just about as far from the "right" or classical liberalism as you can get.

No, don't show me with your opinion...show me with your facts.

That is HISTORY not opinion! I am not going to write an entire history of socialism/communism/fascism in the 20th century!

If you don't believe me, PICK UP A HISTORY BOOK!!!

EVERY socialist/communist/fascist nation in the 20th century has been ruled by totalitarians!

If you don't know this your history teacher owes you a HUGE apology!

I would like to revisit this topic with you Bubbles.

I believe that I am right on my original thesis; that NS, fascism, socialism, communism and Marxism are species of the genus of collectivism, and diametrically opposed to classical liberalism, or what we in America now call conservatism - and that the term liberal was co-opted by left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism

I think this should answer all your questions.

BubbleBliss wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism

I think this should answer all your questions.

I am almost certain that it won't, but I will give a fair read and let you know.

Oh, and thanks for not just abandoning this thread. I am really interested in this topic as I feel that there has been almost a century dedicated to blurring the lines between classical liberalism, classical conservatism and socialism.

I became acutely aware of this after reading F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom."

I would highly recommend this book to you.