Talk:Far-right politics

KKK are NOT far-right

The KKK, in present times, are anti-government, anti-establishment, and libertarian. They are not statist, which is a central aspect (arguably the main one as most historians argue) of the far-right.

Therefore, the KKK should be removed. Racism does not make them far-right. If racial or ethnic pride is far-right, then Pol Pot was far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.194.158 (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This kind of argument often comes up but is slightly off the point. Not only are the claims about the relationship between statism vs libertarianism and far-rightism debatable but, more importantly for WP purposes, pages are not written to the analysis or speculative conclusions of individual editors about where the KKK or Khmer Rouge respectively etc stand – or ought to stand – on the political spectrum. The reality is that most serious real-world sources, for better or worse and however simplistically, usually place the KKK on the extreme or far right (on account primarily of their reactionary stand on racial equality) and the Khmer Rouge on the far left (on account, primarily, of their professed adherence to communism; whatever else they believe in or actually did). Hence, that's what happens here too. As for your addition to the KKK photo caption, I'm going to remove it. That kind of discursive personal commentary would be inappropriate for the main text, let alone for a caption. N-HH talk/edits 11:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to reflect what mainstream sources say, not provide original analysis. TFD (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Libertarians are socially LIBERAL. Show me a Klanmember that believes in same-sex marriage, legalization of drugs, religious freedom, or any of the other central tenets of Libertarians in the USA. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"Libertarians are socially LIBERAL." Well, not quite accurate. Libertarians can tilt right or left. The single most prevailing characteristic is the degree of involvement they're willing to grant the federal government, as opposed to state and local governments. To a right-libertarian, the point of politics is to allow communities to set their own standards, as much as possible, minimizing a liberty- and diversity-crushing mandate from the top. A right-libertarian might not be particularly in favor of a given city legalizing prostitution, but he would be in favor of that city coming to its own conclusions about its legality. I'm not particularly thrilled to see the KKK included under the libertarian banner, but if they're interested in limited federal government, they have at least some of the hallmarks. Byff (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The KKK came out last year as being in favour of Obama's left leaning economic policy. They supported taxing the 1%, job security, Obamacare and what not. They might be right wing on social policy, but when it comes to economics the KKK has historically stood right behind the left. They were started by Democrats, don't forget, who were already in the 1920's pushing for stricter segregation, more spending in infrastructure and eduction as well as prohibition. 01:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Fartnut (talk)

Really? Because when I go to www.kkk.com, I see the following sentences on their homepage:

"Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers." National Director of The Knights, Pastor Thomas Robb"

Of course, it's pretty obvious that your uneducated "version" of history precludes you from actually reading anything that isn't dictated to you by other uneducated people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. If you HAD actually done so, you'd know how utterly ridiculous your entire premise is, and how everyone is laughing at you for typing it. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 02:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, according to Jim Lo Scalzo and interviews with local Klansmen in Virginia by the Southern Poverty law center it was concluded that...

"Last summer’s budget battle between President Obama and congressional Republicans seemed to crystallize the economic clash as one between the haves and have-nots—a dynamic not lost on those I was photographing. Even if most Klan members did not admit siding with president Obama, they openly railed against Republican budget proposals, specifically the GOPs attempts to cut social programs like Medicaid and food stamps while maintaining tax breaks for the wealthy."

Your inane blabber was essentially just "Hurr durr Glenn Beck Rush Limbo durr durr". I love it when you leftists and racists have to resort to name-calling to fool yourselves into thinking you've actually won an argument. It's truly adorable. I would recommend reading a history book before making a such a clown of yourself. Fartnut (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Like many people who protect these pages from uneducated idiots, I actually have an MA in History, and have read far more than you on the subject. You will not convince anyone to suddenly adopt your ignorant views, which are neither based on reputable sources, nor have any business on an encyclopedia site. You really should get a better hobby, Sport. You will accomplish nothing here. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 03:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

When did this talk page turn into the YouTube comments section? Anyway, whether the KKK have come out in support of more social spending or not is entirely irrelevant to the discrete point of whether they are usually placed on the far right of the spectrum. Nothing in that quotes explicitly disputes that placement. You're drawing your own conclusions based on what you believe "right wing" always might mean and what you believe some KKK positions might therefore mean. Find a serious, mainstream source that explicitly says the KKK are a left-wing and not a right-wing group, or are usually described as such, and what you want then to do with the article itself, or pass on by please. Good luck. N-HH talk/edits 12:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Adopting a few left-wing populist positions is a common characteristic of far right parties and groups. That doesn't stop them from being accurately described as far right. This is nothing new.Spylab (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber took welfare because he "paid into it." Does that make him left-wing? TFD (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Nazis not Far Right either

The Nazi Party (National SOCIALIST German Workers Party) was Far-Left. Also, please remove the "genocide" part, as it is ignorant. Only far-leftists start genocides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.112.152 (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Read a book. -- Bryon Morrigan --

Talk 01:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Follow your own advice. Erik_von_Kuehnelt-Leddihn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.34.59.148 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 21 November 2013

Although Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn thought that the nazis were left-wing, he never questioned that that was how the mainstream saw them. TFD (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate claims have been raised here, and ignored. I am removing all mentions of the Nazis from this page. They were Far Leftists. Daniel the duck (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well no, such claims have been addressed, for example in the above section. Whether you, or one or two polemical American libertarian writers, believe Nazis to be far left – or indeed whether any other WP editor "believes" them instead to be far right – is irrelevant. The point, as noted above in respect of the KKK, is simply that we go by the terminology and classifications of the mainstream, real-world consensus. Which is, in both academic and everyday discourse, that Nazism falls under the far right umbrella. Furthermore, please do not blank content, especially content that is clearly referenced and sourced, because it happens to conflict with your personal beliefs about "the truth". N-HH talk/edits 08:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No. No legitimate claims have been made, because there are no legitimate sources disputing this classification. It's a conspiracy theory on par with "truthers", "birthers", and "flat Earthers". --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles are based on sources, not what individual editors believe. TFD (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Bill Clinton quote

I find the Bill Clinton statement to be irrelevant and misleading for the article. The statement according to reference is made to a BBC journalist: "that’s why people like you always help the far right cos you like to hurt people, and you like to talk about how bad people are and all their personal failings". The "you people" who help the far right that Clinton is referring to here are clearly journalists, but the idea that journalists always help the far right is quite strange, and not of encyclopedia value. Clinton's statement is simply a polemic against his adversaries and we should be very careful about inserting political polemics in an encyclopedia article about a scholarly term. Overall, I don't think this article has a good quality and isn't stringent enough in explaning the term far right. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The terms "far" or "extreme" right are frequently used pretty casually and/or polemically, as "far right" was being there, and I don't see that we need to include references to every such individual example of passing usage. The page here is a meant to be a bit more academic in its treatment and to focus on the substantive topic. N-HH talk/edits 09:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

you guys are making a big deal out of this...

1)this is not SOME random person making an uneducated accusation against just anyone: one of the most influential presidents in the history of the u.s. claims that the people who impeached him, the neo-conservatives (see wikipedia's article about them here yourself),were far-right politicians. I am pretty sure president clinton knows what he is saying better than you and I do

2)that is why in the paragraph that you deleted it clearly said "according to former u.s. president bill clinton" because it is completely understandable that some people will disagree with him there; it was necessary to add that aforementioned line to indicate that we added it here only because it was a claim made by an recognized head of state.

3)when he said "you people" he did not just mean the "journalists" as you said; he, more precisely, was referring to the propaganda “advertisers” of his far-right political enemies like the interviewer who handled his interview there (that was a very simplified and shallow generalization from you to interpret president clinton's words like that)

4)discuss with other editors before removing paragraphs from any articles first pleaseGrandia01 (talk)

If you can find a book about the far right that finds this quote just as important as you do, then please provide it. Otherwise it is tendentious to include it. TFD (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

you ignored ALL four arguments of mine there simply with "find a book"? did ANY book in the world also point out that bill clinton's impeachment was nothing but an internal political war? (even some of us know that NOW with the advantage of hindsight only)

you know what, on second thought, whatever, i have wasted enough time here already.

"Don't argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Grandia01 (talk)

As well as having been president, Bill Clinton is a politician with an axe to grind and a point to make like every other politician. I'm sure we could all dig up hundreds of quotes by politicians of similar stature throwing the term around. People who happen to disagree with you about the need to single out and flag up with such prominence a passing quote by one such politician, whether clearly attributed or not, are not idiots, they just disagree with you. Anyway, we have had the discussion and no one agrees with you. N-HH talk/edits 08:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That quote is non-notable trivia and does not belong in this article.Spylab (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

UK government and Zionism

An anonymous IP continues to add current UK government policies and Zionism to the article, without sources. Whatever one's opinion on these subjects, they are rarely described as far right and sources are required to include them. TFD (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of the Left/Right paradigm

As clearly seen from points raised on this talk page, and when comparing the pages of "far left" and "far right", this interpretation of politics and views is a gross simplification at best and a tool to mindlessly associate and discredit opposing policy or views at worst. Personal views aside, any objections to a section being added about the commonly made criticisms of this phenomenon? What is left, what is right. Only directions, and generic positions slowly built into existence through political propoganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.63.147.224 (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is reaching new heights of crazy. Benboy00 (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The issues raised by 122.63.147.224 are more suited for other articles, such as political spectrum or left-right politics.Spylab (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a more commonly used term that is used to describe the KKK, BNP, EDL, NF, BUP etc. then please provide it. TFD (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This entire page is a horrifyingly slanted abomination and should be deleted and rewritten from the first word. The entire article could be replaced with the words RACIST HATEMONGERS and its content would be the same.

Muslim Brotherhood

Books about the far right do not list the Muslim Brotherhood, books about the Muslim Brotherhood do not call it right-wing. It is not mentioned in the article and no sources have been provided to include it. I will therefore remove the image.[1] Please do not re-add without sources and discussion. TFD (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)