How the Far-Right Views the Economy and the Stab-in-the-Back Myth

[Abdülmecid I]

To begin with, the ideology of the far-right movement regarding the economy is less coherent and more difficult to discern than its views on immigration or religion, for example. Generally speaking, right-wing extremists are rather critical about globalisation and the financial elites, support trade protectionism and insist on the conspiracy-theory of Communism silently infiltrating our system to undermine capitalism. The first two concepts are relatively easy to explain, as the identitarian movement's membership has largely suffered from the new economic trends, including globalisation, competes with immigrants for unskilled jobs and has been severely affected by the crisis of 2008 and its negative repercussions , while worker rights have been gradually eroding. The latter, however, is more surprising, as the belief that Socialism has poisoned and damaged Capitalism seems to be in direct contradiction with the previous anti-establishment message and the hostility towards core concepts of Capitalism, such as free market, the unopposed flow of workers and the abolishing of any legal obstacle that may damage the interests of the company and its owners.

In my opinion, this contradiction reveals the political immaturity of the far-right, as it seems incapable of formulating a consistent policy concerning our society's most vital issue, economy. It also shares some clear similarities with the Stab-in-the-Back myth of post-WWI myth. To give a bfief summary, Jews and Social-Democrats (despite the fact that Friedrich Ebert was essentially the first to propagate this conspiracy-theory) were blamed for the surrender of imperial Germany, which was allegedly never defeated in the front, but only collapsed as a result of the Judeo-Bolshevik betrayal. The common elements between German revisionism and the suspicions of the far-right about "liberal elites'' having been converted to Socialism and orchestrating the disintegration of capitalism from within are obvious. Moreoever, I think that both conspiracy-theories have been created and developped in a remarkably similar manner.

Τhey stem from the nostalgic attraction towards an idealised past, often considered as absolutely impeccable. To be just with the far-right, since the fall of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, the radical narrative of capitalism being flawless progressively became more and more dominant in mainstream media and serious publications, in spite of its childish hyperbole. Therefore, for many radical right-wingers, the current stagnation and growing income inequality are completely inexplicable for a system that was supposed to guarantee humanity continuous and eternal prosperity. As a result, capitalism's perfect nature must have been corrupted by a malign influence, essentially its main antagonist, which is Communism and its numerous offshoots, which subsequently led to the current misery.

The details of this reasoning vary remarkably. Sometimes, the upper classes are perceived as greedy and morally degenerate (materialistic, homosexual, atheist and etc.), in stark contrast with their more generous and less sybaritic predecessors. Alternatively, the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie has been brainwashed with "white-guilt" over the colonial past of Europe and the United States or, even more sinisterly, as the notorious prophet Yuri Bezmenov suggests, we are ruled by Soviet sleeper agents, tasked with destroying the Western paradise. However, the main gist remains identical and is directly responsible for inflaming internal tensions and propagating hatred against certain segments of the society perceived as treacherous and treated as the convenient scapegoats for the society's ills. So, what do you think? Is the alt/far/identitarian right's harsh anti-elitism indeed an alternative version of the Stab-in-the-Back myth? Is indeed the shape of the political belief's of the reactionaries determined significantly by the current financial situation, together with the non-negligible factor of naivety, ignorance and lack of critical thinking?

[Vanoi]

Great post. I definitely see the similarities between the Stab myth and current far-right ideology. Liberal elites are the most popular and common scapegoat they use fir current problems. I think you only failed to mention that immigration/immigrants and Muslims also tend to be scapegoated along with the Liberal elite. In fact they are often all included together like somee giant conspiracy.

[Coughdrop addict]

Definitely right on the money. It also fits into the framework of most supremacist conspiracy nonsense:

-My group (racial, national, religious, ect) is the very best there is, naturally superior to all others.

-Therefore, the only reason we experience difficulties must be because of "others" out to get us.

-Once we remove these human contaminants, my group's natural perfection will take us straight to the top.

[Razor]

To begin with, the ideology of the far-right movement regarding the economy is less coherent and more difficult to discern than its views on immigration or religion, for example. Generally speaking, right-wing extremists are rather critical about globalisation and the financial elites, support trade protectionism and insist on the conspiracy-theory of Communism silently infiltrating our system to undermine capitalism. The first two concepts are relatively easy to explain, as the identitarian movement's membership has largely suffered from the new economic trends, including globalisation, competes with immigrants for unskilled jobs and has been severely affected by the crisis of 2008 and its negative repercussions , while worker rights have been gradually eroding. The latter, however, is more surprising, as the belief that Socialism has poisoned and damaged Capitalism seems to be in direct contradiction with the previous anti-establishment message and the hostility towards core concepts of Capitalism, such as free market, the unopposed flow of workers and the abolishing of any legal obstacle that may damage the interests of the company and its owners.

In my opinion, this contradiction reveals the political immaturity of the far-right, as it seems incapable of formulating a consistent policy concerning our society's most vital issue, economy. It also shares some clear similarities with the Stab-in-the-Back myth of post-WWI myth. To give a bfief summary, Jews and Social-Democrats (despite the fact that Friedrich Ebert was essentially the first to propagate this conspiracy-theory) were blamed for the surrender of imperial Germany, which was allegedly never defeated in the front, but only collapsed as a result of the Judeo-Bolshevik betrayal. The common elements between German revisionism and the suspicions of the far-right about "liberal elites'' having been converted to Socialism and orchestrating the disintegration of capitalism from within are obvious. Moreoever, I think that both conspiracy-theories have been created and developped in a remarkably similar manner.

Τhey stem from the nostalgic attraction towards an idealised past, often considered as absolutely impeccable. To be just with the far-right, since the fall of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, the radical narrative of capitalism being flawless progressively became more and more dominant in mainstream media and serious publications, in spite of its childish hyperbole. Therefore, for many radical right-wingers, the current stagnation and growing income inequality are completely inexplicable for a system that was supposed to guarantee humanity continuous and eternal prosperity. As a result, capitalism's perfect nature must have been corrupted by a malign influence, essentially its main antagonist, which is Communism and its numerous offshoots, which subsequently led to the current misery.

The details of this reasoning vary remarkably. Sometimes, the upper classes are perceived as greedy and morally degenerate (materialistic, homosexual, atheist and etc.), in stark contrast with their more generous and less sybaritic predecessors. Alternatively, the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie has been brainwashed with "white-guilt" over the colonial past of Europe and the United States or, even more sinisterly, as the notorious prophet Yuri Bezmenov suggests, we are ruled by Soviet sleeper agents, tasked with destroying the Western paradise. However, the main gist remains identical and is directly responsible for inflaming internal tensions and propagating hatred against certain segments of the society perceived as treacherous and treated as the convenient scapegoats for the society's ills. So, what do you think? Is the alt/far/identitarian right's harsh anti-elitism indeed an alternative version of the Stab-in-the-Back myth? Is indeed the shape of the political belief's of the reactionaries determined significantly by the current financial situation, together with the non-negligible factor of naivety, ignorance and lack of critical thinking?

I think you have a wrong conception of what "the far-right" entails. I would even refrain from calling it far-right because what does it have to do with the right in particular? Is putting the focus on your own community and having a nostalgic attraction to an idealized past and recreating that ideal society something that belongs exclusively to the far-right? Isn't that wat communism also wants: a world revolution of workers and a workers' dictatorship to eradicate the bourgeoisie and the elites (and with them capitalism) and ultimately when that is achieved the break-up of the state and the return to living in communes/communities where people own the means of production farm their fields and trade goods and commodities with other communes/communities, hence: communism? The "far-right" and "far-left" aren't so much different in their way of thinking. To put it bluntly, communism wants class nationalism and wants to end up in small communities and the "far-right" want to have some form of national (be it cultural and/or racial) socialism.

What the "far-right" is about is the renewed focus on "the people" as in: community, family and shared culture and history and in some cases shared racial backgrounds. It's a counter-reaction to the individualistic and globalist approach of capitalism and consumerism and the promotion of low/anti-culture in art and immigration promoted by the left (as well as capitalism). People see things changing way too fast and they don't feel they belong anymore and want to get a hold of it and want to call something their own and their home. Economics isn't the most important thing they care about, though they usually do like to keep things local, tangible and servicable to the people/community. I'm not sure why you think that the "far-right" thinks capitalism is perfect and that it's the intrusion of communism that ruined that perfect system. Some "far-right" people want very leftist (though national) economic policies. Also the far-right isn't a big fan of big globalist capitalism. I think the buzz word here is globalism.

[conon394]

@Abdülmecid I

Good post and I think a solid comparison.

[Cyclops]

Interesting thesis, may I counterpropose one?

While the alt-right do include "Soviet sleeper agents" in their diatribes there's more to it than just hot air. There are "zombie communists' in the green movement in Australia, who bring an oddly specific anti-Israel agenda to the otherwise environment-centric world view. That does not mean SJWs are the spawn of Lenin, I think the ability of all groups in society to propose and impose stupid ideas means feminism and equality is bearing fruit. It used to be just white men who got to have their nonsensical agendas given force of law.

I agree that the coherence of perceived far right movements is not strong: in the US we saw the failure of Charlottesville to unite the right, as most of them weren't murderous scum and the overt nazism of a significant section disgusted the rest. The narratives of gun enthusiasts suspicious of federal regulation, free market libertarians pushing their barrows, paedophile porn addict neckbeards raving about Jews and inbred KKK nitwits are often at odds with one another.

I'd say the "centre" in US politics is to the right of most First World polities, and the fringes of any political movement become increasingly detached from reality: the right wing fringe in the US is fringey indeed. The triumph of a nominally liberal "centrist" US in the grand battle with Soviet and Chinese communism (and that victory was complete, with the SU gone and China converting to capitalism in close symbiosis with the US for all the posturing) means the victorious faction is a big target, but the global Left is on the back foot, if not on the ropes. "Capitalism beat the Soviets, litle ol' you better fight it" is not a rallying cry too many people will heed. Nor is "lizard people paedophiles control you with chemtrails".

Russian involvement in social media has slightly increased that media's capacity for amplifying apparent conflict without producing a solid alternative narrative. "Our elites are the enemy (aside from one fat orange one he gud)" is no more mobilising than "orange man bad save the whales".

In reality the US is in a strong exploitation phase, with money draining upwards to the elite, from public to private purses and inwards from other economies. They have kicked the EU in the nuts, they have China desperately scrabbling for resources on their own doorstep while comfortably dominating the world with an idiot in the nominal top job.

Infighting between members of the elite (eg Clintons and Trump) is the only real danger: the Orange Clown has amped up the abuse but not any actual violence vs his peers.

[Cope]

Great post. I definitely see the similarities between the Stab myth and current far-right ideology. Liberal elites are the most popular and common scapegoat they use fir current problems. I think you only failed to mention that immigration/immigrants and Muslims also tend to be scapegoated along with the Liberal elite. In fact they are often all included together like somee giant conspiracy.

You can't "scapegoat" the social and political elite.

Now onto the serious discussion.

To begin with, the ideology of the far-right movement regarding the economy is less coherent and more difficult to discern than its views on immigration or religion, for example. Generally speaking, right-wing extremists are rather critical about globalisation and the financial elites, support trade protectionism and insist on the conspiracy-theory of Communism silently infiltrating our system to undermine capitalism. The first two concepts are relatively easy to explain, as the identitarian movement's membership has largely suffered from the new economic trends, including globalisation, competes with immigrants for unskilled jobs and has been severely affected by the crisis of 2008 and its negative repercussions , while worker rights have been gradually eroding. The latter, however, is more surprising, as the belief that Socialism has poisoned and damaged Capitalism seems to be in direct contradiction with the previous anti-establishment message and the hostility towards core concepts of Capitalism, such as free market, the unopposed flow of workers and the abolishing of any legal obstacle that may damage the interests of the company and its owners.

In my opinion, this contradiction reveals the political immaturity of the far-right, as it seems incapable of formulating a consistent policy concerning our society's most vital issue, economy. It also shares some clear similarities with the Stab-in-the-Back myth of post-WWI myth. To give a bfief summary, Jews and Social-Democrats (despite the fact that Friedrich Ebert was essentially the first to propagate this conspiracy-theory) were blamed for the surrender of imperial Germany, which was allegedly never defeated in the front, but only collapsed as a result of the Judeo-Bolshevik betrayal. The common elements between German revisionism and the suspicions of the far-right about "liberal elites'' having been converted to Socialism and orchestrating the disintegration of capitalism from within are obvious. Moreoever, I think that both conspiracy-theories have been created and developped in a remarkably similar manner.

Τhey stem from the nostalgic attraction towards an idealised past, often considered as absolutely impeccable. To be just with the far-right, since the fall of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, the radical narrative of capitalism being flawless progressively became more and more dominant in mainstream media and serious publications, in spite of its childish hyperbole. Therefore, for many radical right-wingers, the current stagnation and growing income inequality are completely inexplicable for a system that was supposed to guarantee humanity continuous and eternal prosperity. As a result, capitalism's perfect nature must have been corrupted by a malign influence, essentially its main antagonist, which is Communism and its numerous offshoots, which subsequently led to the current misery.

The details of this reasoning vary remarkably. Sometimes, the upper classes are perceived as greedy and morally degenerate (materialistic, homosexual, atheist and etc.), in stark contrast with their more generous and less sybaritic predecessors. Alternatively, the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie has been brainwashed with "white-guilt" over the colonial past of Europe and the United States or, even more sinisterly, as the notorious prophet Yuri Bezmenov suggests, we are ruled by Soviet sleeper agents, tasked with destroying the Western paradise. However, the main gist remains identical and is directly responsible for inflaming internal tensions and propagating hatred against certain segments of the society perceived as treacherous and treated as the convenient scapegoats for the society's ills. So, what do you think? Is the alt/far/identitarian right's harsh anti-elitism indeed an alternative version of the Stab-in-the-Back myth? Is indeed the shape of the political belief's of the reactionaries determined significantly by the current financial situation, together with the non-negligible factor of naivety, ignorance and lack of critical thinking?

There isn't a coherent economic policy on the far-right because it, much like all other movements on the political axis, is not a homogeneous entity. The Anglo-American right has tended to favour the more libertarian economics of Reagan and Thatcher whereas in Europe, the NF, LN and AfD have typically support state intervention to prop up working communities and regulations to control multinational corporations. The extreme right (neo-fascists) effectively support the destruction of international finance all together.

The comparison you made between attitudes on the right and the post war betrayal myth suffers from the same false assumptions that there is a single "ideology of the far-right" and that blame culture is somehow uniquely associated with right wing politics. It very much seems to me that the desire to accuse others for one's own suffering is a human attribute which transcends political boundaries. In a world which is dominated by competition, this is entirely unsurprising: it is usually the case that one person's gain is another's loss. T

[fkizz]

What is perceived as "far-right" is a very heterogenous group. Despite the efforts over the past 3-4 years to put on a single stereotype to define this group of people, the fact that they are heterogenous doesn't allow to understand or predict their overall doctrine, because there is no consensus asides for a dislike of current zeitgeist.

From a less political and more doctrinal/theory point of view, as everything rises and falls, rises and gets recombined one day eventually, be it a matter of years and centuries, it seems that Illuminism is starting to wear out. Most modernism uses Illuminist ideas to sustain itself, and such ideas that provided solutions and improvement for their time, maybe until mid XX century, no longer work for the problems of today in the practical manner they did back then, and just serve as theorical inspiration at most.

[Muizer]

I think you have a wrong conception of what "the far-right" entails. I would even refrain from calling it far-right because what does it have to do with the right in particular?

I think your analysis is in general closer to the mark, but it has to be noted that even if this demographic combines a social conservatism more traditionally found on the right with an aversion of economic globalism more commonly considered leftist, the individuals who speak on behalf of if almost universally blame 'the left' for all their woes. I think that is what Abdulmecid's post is trying to get at, because in this narrative, somehow traditionallly rightist developments (like economic deregulation and globalisation and military interventionism) have to be attributed to leftist agents, so that traditional right wing parties (natural allies of the socially conservative agenda) are somewhat absolved. I don't think they care the least bit whether that story is even consistent, let alone founded in reality as long as it's what gets the desired reaction. It's not called populism for nothing.

[Abdülmecid I]

There isn't a coherent economic policy on the far-right because it, much like all other movements on the political axis, is not a homogeneous entity. The Anglo-American right has tended to favour the more libertarian economics of Reagan and Thatcher whereas in Europe, the NF, LN and AfD have typically support state intervention to prop up working communities and regulations to control multinational corporations. The extreme right (neo-fascists) effectively support the destruction of international finance all together.

You're right, I should have clarified what part of the far-right I was actually referring to. I wasn't addressing the more extreme and ideologically coherent fascists and Nazis, but the slightly milder and newer trend of reactionarism, as expressed by National Rally (great target for satirists for treating the word "capitalism" as a taboo), Alternative für Deutschland (created and still led by import-orientated businessmen) or even outright Neo-Nazis, who moderated their rhetoric, like Golden Dawn, who moderated their rhetoric, in order to increase their realistic chances of gaining more political power.

Manwhile, the differences between the economic policies of American and European right-wingers have been gradually fading out, especially since 2016 and the unexpected election of Donald Trump. As a result, European nationalists have begun to imitate his rhetoric in a great number of issues, from global warming to Red Scare and social welfare. Finally, accusing others of your own suffering is indeed common to almost every ideology, from centrism to Communism, but that's not exactly the issue I described in the opening post. I was mentioning specifically the conspiracy-theory of your enemy secretly infiltrating your community and leadership and attempting to undermine it from within. Such suspicions usually stem from fanaticism and dogmatism, as the subject refuses to recognize the internal and structural flaws and weaknesses of the society, so he tries to interpret the otherwise inexplicable issues he faces, by blaming them on the corrupting influence of a subversive, alien power.

What the "far-right" is about is the renewed focus on "the people" as in: community, family and shared culture and history and in some cases shared racial backgrounds. It's a counter-reaction to the individualistic and globalist approach of capitalism and consumerism and the promotion of low/anti-culture in art and immigration promoted by the left (as well as capitalism). People see things changing way too fast and they don't feel they belong anymore and want to get a hold of it and want to call something their own and their home. Economics isn't the most important thing they care about, though they usually do like to keep things local, tangible and servicable to the people/community. I'm not sure why you think that the "far-right" thinks capitalism is perfect and that it's the intrusion of communism that ruined that perfect system. Some "far-right" people want very leftist (though national) economic policies. Also the far-right isn't a big fan of big globalist capitalism. I think the buzz word here is globalism.

Communism certainly doesn't want a return to a glorified past. Even the rosy description of pre-historic communities as class-free utopias never meant that the goal was supposed to be a progressive return to that social situation. Even if it was, I doubt it is comparable to the nostalgia felt by many supporters of the alt-right about the prosperous '80s and '90s, when dad's salary in the Chrysler factory in Detroit or the steel industry of Metz. I also disagree with the argument that the economy is not the primary factor for the rise of extremist populism. Although far-right groups prefer to insist more on cultural or ethical controversies for obvious reasons (lacking a sufficiently coherent manifesto), the role of the economy is undisputed, according to the statistical data. In the United States, blue-collar workers were crucial for the defeat of Clinton, in Sweden, the declining welfare protections are mainly responsible for the growth of the far-right Swedish Democrats, in Britain, impoverished Wales is a bastion of Brexit feeilings and in France, Marine Le Pen owes her popularity to rural regions, with tiny financial opportunities and an almost zero presence of immigrants.

Infighting between members of the elite (eg Clintons and Trump) is the only real danger: the Orange Clown has amped up the abuse but not any actual violence vs his peers.

Conflict between the members of the financial elite is an often neglected factor, without which the far-right movement would have probably been deprived of the crème de la crème of its leadership. Contrary to the common narrative, globalism has not harmed the interests of only the unskilled workers, but also those of certain corporations, which are either incapable of resisting against the increasing competition or whose investments are threatened by the new legislation. The fossil lobby of the Republicans is the most famous example, but there are many similar cases in European countries, like Italy or Germany, where the Alternative fûr Deutschland had originally been established by ''entrepreneus'', whose interests were harmed by Berlin's policy concerning the Euro currency. Disgruntled magnates like them do not necessarily ignite the spark, but instead usually dedicate their efforts at organising popular opposition to said policies (for reasons often irrelevant to theirs), in order to gain a sufficient political capital to reverse the initiatives of the government.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

created and still led by import-orientated businessmen

I think, you mean export-orientated businessmen or for the german home market producing businessmen.

[Cope]

You're right, I should have clarified what part of the far-right I was actually referring to. I wasn't addressing the more extreme and ideologically coherent fascists and Nazis, but the slightly milder and newer trend of reactionarism, as expressed by National Rally (great target for satirists for treating the word "capitalism" as a taboo), Alternative für Deutschland (created and still led by import-orientated businessmen) or even outright Neo-Nazis, who moderated their rhetoric, like Golden Dawn, who moderated their rhetoric, in order to increase their realistic chances of gaining more political power.

Manwhile, the differences between the economic policies of American and European right-wingers have been gradually fading out, especially since 2016 and the unexpected election of Donald Trump. As a result, European nationalists have begun to imitate his rhetoric in a great number of issues, from global warming to Red Scare and social welfare. Finally, accusing others of your own suffering is indeed common to almost every ideology, from centrism to Communism, but that's not exactly the issue I described in the opening post. I was mentioning specifically the conspiracy-theory of your enemy secretly infiltrating your community and leadership and attempting to undermine it from within. Such suspicions usually stem from fanaticism and dogmatism, as the subject refuses to recognize the internal and structural flaws and weaknesses of the society, so he tries to interpret the otherwise inexplicable issues he faces, by blaming them on the corrupting influence of a subversive, alien power.

It doesn't take a fanatic to engage in denialism: people often refuse to accept reality when they're challenged on a fundamental level. The hysteria over Russia's alleged involvement in the US election is one example of otherwise moderate people clutching to the myth that Trump's presidency was/is the work of "a subversive, alien power". Similar things were/are also said about the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom: the decision to leave is characterized by some as the work of a Kremlin propaganda campaign. Then there are accusations (made, once again, primarily by moderates) that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by antisemitic forces of the hard left and that Johnson's election as leader of the Conservative Party was the result of Faragists saturating the Tory membership. Finally, and I think perhaps the most pernicious of the modern conspiracy theories, is the anti-white and "patriarchy" mythologies which are often accepted uncritically in the mainstream. Much like the Dolchstoßlegende, there is a kernel of truth in all of these claims, but the way they are deployed is often wholly unrepresentative of reality.

[Aexodus]

I thought this thread was about the likes of Golden Dawn the BNP, but now you added the AfD to the mix I’m not sure I can take it seriously. Most of this stuff, like fear of infiltration is simply an aspect that all ideologues share. Sometimes it’s justified. For example, at the top of the Labour party you have real communists, socialists and anti-capitalists, such as John McDonnel or Andrew Murray.

insist on the conspiracy-theory of Communism silently infiltrating our system to undermine capitalism.

I have no idea what you’re referring to here, if the other thing was about infiltration of political parties.

[Abdülmecid I]

McDonnell doesn't strike me as an unrepented Bolshevik. As for the AfD, if they don't want to get labelled as far-right, they are welcome to modify their manifesto, in order to respect the human right of religious freedom, and to also definitely expel all the Antisemites that they have sought refuge there. Of course, the majority of their fans believe that Jews have too much power in the world, so I understand their unwillingness, but I'm not going to condone it, by using more politically correct terms. The infiltration part never concerned exclusively political parties. According to their narrative, Communists have infiltrated every prestigious, profitable and influential sector of the society, from state administration and justice to the academia and industry.

It doesn't take a fanatic to engage in denialism: people often refuse to accept reality when they're challenged on a fundamental level. The hysteria over Russia's alleged involvement in the US election is one example of otherwise moderate people clutching to the myth that Trump's presidency was/is the work of "a subversive, alien power". Similar things were/are also said about the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom: the decision to leave is characterized by some as the work of a Kremlin propaganda campaign. Then there are accusations (made, once again, primarily by moderates) that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by antisemitic forces of the hard left and that Johnson's election as leader of the Conservative Party was the result of Faragists saturating the Tory membership. Finally, and I think perhaps the most pernicious of the modern conspiracy theories, is the anti-white and "patriarchy" mythologies which are often accepted uncritically in the mainstream. Much like the Dolchstoßlegende, there is a kernel of truth in all of these claims, but the way they are deployed is often wholly unrepresentative of reality.

Fair enough and although I agree that the impact of Russian meddling has been indeed grossly exaggerated by the media and centrist politicians, I don't think it has reached the sheer paranoia of Dolchstosslegende and the "Communist Infiltration" conspiracy theory.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The AFD is / or more and more becoming a far-right party:

Höcke, AFD's Mini Adolf, and his "immigration since 1955 another lost war financially" lie:

"What is also clear is that the policy of open borders practiced for decades, ever since 1955, this irrational migration policy for which the old parties are responsible, has bled us financially, as if we had lost another war," Höcke told his supporters."

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-confli...ght/a-49501455

Höcke narrowly kept hold of his party membership last year after comments made in 2017, when he lamented that Germany's "stupid" efforts to remember and learn from its Nazi past had "crippled" the country.


https://www.dw.com/en/germany-rupture-emerges-in-afd-around-extreme-regional-leader-h%C3%B6cke/a-49539900

[Cope]

Fair enough and although I agree that the impact of Russian meddling has been indeed grossly exaggerated by the media and centrist politicians, I don't think it has reached the sheer paranoia of Dolchstosslegende and the "Communist Infiltration" conspiracy theory.

You aren't wrong that the fascist betrayal myth was substantially more extensive in its "paranoia" than contemporary Russian conspiracy theories, but its important to remember that it was spawned and cultivated in a milieu which was decidedly more fraught than that of the modern West. In a sense, it was proportional to its circumstances.

[Aexodus]

As for the AfD, if they don't want to get labelled as far-right, they are welcome to modify their manifesto, in order to respect the human right of religious freedom, and to also definitely expel all the Antisemites that they have sought refuge there. Of course, the majority of their fans believe that Jews have too much power in the world, so I understand their unwillingness, but I'm not going to condone it, by using more politically correct terms.

What’s far right about any of that. Sure it’s disagreeable, but I feel you’re drawing partisan lines around certain ideas where none exist.

The AFD is / or more and more becoming a far-right party:

Höcke, AFD's Mini Adolf, and his "immigration since 1955 another lost war financially" lie:

"What is also clear is that the policy of open borders practiced for decades, ever since 1955, this irrational migration policy for which the old parties are responsible, has bled us financially, as if we had lost another war," Höcke told his supporters."

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-confli...ght/a-49501455

Höcke narrowly kept hold of his party membership last year after comments made in 2017, when he lamented that Germany's "stupid" efforts to remember and learn from its Nazi past had "crippled" the country.


https://www.dw.com/en/germany-rupture-emerges-in-afd-around-extreme-regional-leader-h%C3%B6cke/a-49539900

Quite the leading headline from your public broadcaster there. You don’t see that from the BBC.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

You mean this?

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-48871400

Nothing new.

[Aexodus]

What about it? I thought DW calling the man extreme was being partial.

[Love Mountain]

There isn't a coherent economic policy on the far-right because it, much like all other movements on the political axis, is not a homogeneous entity. The Anglo-American right has tended to favour the more libertarian economics of Reagan and Thatcher whereas in Europe, the NF, LN and AfD have typically support state intervention to prop up working communities and regulations to control multinational corporations. The extreme right (neo-fascists) effectively support the destruction of international finance all together.

What you're essentially saying here is that all political movements are different. While this is certainly accurate, it doesn't really address the argument. The far-right has no economic coherence because their economics are often self-contradictory. They fear socialism and "socialist" economic policies, yet the oppose trade liberalization and embrace protectionism. This incoherence extends itself to other policy spheres.

The comparison you made between attitudes on the right and the post war betrayal myth suffers from the same false assumptions that there is a single "ideology of the far-right" and that blame culture is somehow uniquely associated with right wing politics. It very much seems to me that the desire to accuse others for one's own suffering is a human attribute which transcends political boundaries. In a world which is dominated by competition, this is entirely unsurprising: it is usually the case that one person's gain is another's loss. T

The comparison relies on the fact that the "heterogeneous" far-right shares a large number of narratives and criticisms. Are the liberties taken in the assumptions inaccurate? Of course. Modelling is generally purposefully ignorant of deviations from stated assumptions, even if those deviations are significant. That does not make the model "wrong" in its conclusion or criticism.

What’s far right about any of that. Sure it’s disagreeable, but I feel you’re drawing partisan lines around certain ideas where none exist.

What exactly isn't "far-right" about it? Can you be more precise in your objections?