Talk:Far-right politics/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

The Far Right in America

An editor and an IP have inserted an unsourced section about the far right in America, which does not appear to be correct.[1] TFD (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to report this person and its fake IP address, as it doesn't look like it is going to listen to reason or play by the rules. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 11:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BITE. Odds are this person is new to Wikipedia and should be so treated. Collect (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC) BTW, the IP address is not "fake." Collect (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It's likely "fake" in that it is likely the same person as the other editor, since they're making identical edits. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Then file an SPI if you feel the IP is "fake." This is not the proper place to do so. Collect (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this message is from the person who has been inserting the new section "The Far Right in America" into the article. Needless to say, the IP is not fake. I understand that this back and forth with the editing must be frustrating, and I sincerely apologize. Yes, I am new to Wikipedia, but I wish to do this properly from now on. As for the content of what I have attempted to add, it is accurate - and I will explain why. In the past, groups in the USA that can arguably be described as far-right have met the description given in the current version of the article. Today, any such groups have been marginalized to the point of insignificance. Where any individual lies on the political spectrum in the USA depends primarily on where he or she stands on the relationship between the individual and the state. On this American spectrum, therefore, Fascism is far to the left of mainstream liberals and conservatives. Without the distinction made clear by my section, the article unfairly and innacurately portrays the political views of many people in the United States. If you compare the current versions of the Wikipedia articles "Far-right politics" and "Far-left politics" with a truly objective mind, you will have to see some clear bias. The latter is brief and lacks any mention of the negative aspects of far-left politics, the negative parts of the ideology and of the history. In stark contrast, "Far-right politics" includes genocide, oppression, racism, and xenophobia as essential elements. In fact, these are common elements of far-left politics as well. The article "Far-left politics" does not even include a "History" section! Why is this? As for citations, the general description in "Far-right politics" (contained in the first two paragraphs) includes but one source. And this source is the work of one person who presents his own analysis, something that should not be considered indisputable fact. I can add citations to my own contribution, but they will be just the same; I will have cited the opinion of another who agrees with me. What is very clear is that these two articles must be altered in the interest of fairness and accuracy. I would like to achieve this with anyone whose primary concern is presenting the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgePierBain (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant, and CONTRARY to all of the established scholarly consensus. If you continue to add these things without citations from REPUTABLE SOURCES (i.e., NOT the opinions of Rush Limbaugh, David Barton, or Jonah Goldberg), then they will be removed, and you may face sanctions or banning. Opinions are of little weight without authority. For Example: A journalist or radio talk show host with no education has no "authority," particularly when compared to a historian with a Ph.D. who has spent the last few decades studying the issue. For example, no reputable source will describe Fascism as "Far Left" as you claim...and in fact, the greatest scholars in the field have denounced such erroneous thinking. I think you need to read more about these subjects before coming here to "tell" us we're all "wrong" based on nothing but your opinion, formed by...what exactly? Where did you learn these things? Who told you? What was that person's background in the subject? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I fear you misstate Wikipedia's policies here. And also note WP:BITE may be considered as your problem with such posts. Cheers. BTW, there are a great many sources which find "far left" and "fascism" to be not totally unrelated -- including such horrid sources as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. <g>. Collect (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Schlesinger said that the right and left met, not that they were the same thing. He had the intelligence to realize that the Communist Party of the United States of America and the National Socialist Free Enterprise Party of the United States were two separate organizations with different memberships, different policies (especially regarding foreign affairs) and their members even dressed differently, listened to different music, and differed on what you may consider to be minor issues such as religion, racial equality, gender rights, capitalism, nationalism, and foreign policy. If you have a book that explains that they were secretly cooperating, I would find it interesting. TFD (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually he stated that a circle shaped spectrum" was gaining in popularity in his works - and you seem to misapprehend what he wrote utterly. I commend you to read what he wrote and not to state what you "know" he meant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Schlesinger [2]

Yet the terms themselves have bred a new confusion. They were adequate to the political simplicities of the nineteenth century, when the Right meant those who wished to preserve the existing order and the Left meant those who wished to change it. But the twentieth century, here as elsewhere, introduced new ambiguities.

This dilemma drove Prof. DeWitt C. Poole to an inspired suggestion. Right and Left, he said, should be conceived, not in terms of a line, but in terms of a circle, with the extremes of Right and Left-fascism and communism-meeting at the bottom. You can then look at the circle in two ways: with respect to property, fascism and the moderate Right are side by side against communism and the moderate Left; with respect to liberty, the moderate Right and moderate Left are side by side against fascism and communism.

Which disposes of your misapprehension as to what his position was. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find any source that he wrote an article called "Beyond Left and Right", and the horseshoe theory was developed by Jean-Pierre Faye. Schlesinger did write however, in the "Vital Center", "Right and Left, [DeWitt C. Poole] said, should be conceived, not in terms of a line, but in terms of a circle, with the extremes of Right and Left - fascism and communism - meeting at the bottom."[3] Mind you, despite our many conversations, we are no longer living in the 1950s and you are excused for having a poor memory of theories that are long forgotten. TFD (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Your response is to the first wording of my post above, and I rather think you know it. Schlesinger did refer to differing "spectrums" and the piece I cite verbatim is from his article in The New York Times as previously discussed with you. Since that discussion including you was not held in the 1950s, I find that aside to be a teensy bit worthless here. As for "long forgotten" as your view of the theories of a non-linear political spectrum, I suggest you do some reading on the topic instead of demonstrating the validity of Josh Billings' dictum. [4] Laird Wilcox states:

Rokeach goes on to say "authoritarianism and intolerance in belief and intercpersonal relations are surely not a monopoly of fascists, anti-Semites, Ku Klux Klanners, or conservatives." 3 I agree, and would add that the same behaviors merely take different forms and utilize different vocabulary on the "left" side of the political spectrum. The essential characteristics remain quite similar. The choice of adjectives used to describe the behavior in question often derives more from the biases and interests of the observer than from the objective facts of the situation. (1992 - not the 1950s)

Dobson states [5]

In standard political terms and in order to help distinguish ecologism from other political ideologies, it is useful to examine the widespread green claim to ‘go beyond’ the left-right political spectrum: ‘In calling for an ecological, nonviolent, nonexploitative society, the Greens (die Grünen) transcend the linear span of left-to-right’ (Spretnak and Capra, 1985, p. 3). Jonathon Porritt translates this into a transcendence of capitalism and communism, and remarks that ‘the debate between the protagonists of capitalism and communism is about as uplifting as the dialogue between Tweedledum and Tweedledee’ (Porritt, 1984a, p. 44). (2000, not the 1950s)

Freeden in 1996 [6]

It may well be that a multi-dimensional model is more appropriate to conceptualizing the interrelationships among ideologies, even if less amenable to graphic illustration or to marketing in terms of the requirements (as distinct from the actual belief-components) of political parties Also post 1050s.

Harrison and Boyd in 2003 (well after the 1950s) [7]

In recent years the political 'spectrum' has been largely replaced as a conceptual tool by a 'political horseshoe', in which the far left and far right bend round to be so close as to have much in common in terms of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. It is relatively easy for some voters to shift their support from communist to fascist parties and vice versa.

Heywood in 2000, well after the 1950s) [8]

For these reasons various horseshoe-shaped and two-dimensional spectrums have been developed to offer a more complete picture of ideological positions (see Figures 2.3 and 2.4). Finally, some argue that the emergence of new political issues such as *feminism, *ecologism and animal rights, which simply do not fit in to the conventional spectrum, and the development of *’third way’ politics have rendered the ideas of left and right largely redundant.

All of which should adequately debunk what you asert to be the WP:TRUTH here. The fact remains over hundreds of texts - there is no single left right linear political spectrum valid for all places and all times. And again you silly aside about the 1950s ill-serves the discussion here. Collect (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing that you have posted "validates" the absurd theme of the original poster, which was to say that "Far Right" means Individualism, whereas "Far Left" means Collectivism, and therefore the "Far Right" equals Libertarians, Anarchists, and hardcore Conservatives, (even though Libertarians and Anarchists are generally Far Left on social issues!) whereas Fascists, Neo-Nazis, and every other "Far Right" group...is actually "Far Left." This is a meme presented by pundits, not scholars. On the other hand, the "horseshoe theory", that both Far Right and Far Left tend towards Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, and Collectivism...THAT is a reasonable theory, and one with which I (and many scholars) am in general agreement. That doesn't mean that "Far Left" and "Far Right" are "meaningless" terms, it just shows that they are often misrepresented by people, usually uneducated drop-outs who get jobs as talk radio hosts. Such theories, like the idea that Fascism is "Left," are worthy of nothing but scorn and ridicule, and that's EXACTLY what the experts have agreed upon. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Read the thread. And note the sources I provided in response to the comments of others. Your post, alas, contributes nil. Collect (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what thread YOU are reading, but I'm responding to the one where GeorgePierBain stated, "On this American spectrum, therefore, Fascism is far to the left of mainstream liberals and conservatives." and he added the statements "In the American political spectrum, Fascism, Socialism, and Communism can all be considered to be far left." and "Those on the far right in America advocate maximum individual liberty and the absolute mimimum amount of government involvement in the lives of citizens." (LOL) to the article. (The deletion of which is the topic of this thread.) You then defended said poster's opinion of Fascism, and later posted a bunch of quotes, none of which back up a single one of the George's absurd conspiracy theories. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read the damn section I entered because you were accusing a new user of socking etc. and I pointed out WP:BITE. Now you accuse me of saying Fascism is left wing? Dear me -- how the heck can you reach that conclusion based on the cites I gave? Your personal attacks on the IP and on me are not warranted by a hundred miles, BM! In short -- please refrain from personal attacks on any editors entirely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have any problems with my behavior, please fill out this form and send it to the Wikipedia administrators. [9] I really do care about your opinion of me, Sport. Truly. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 00:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a side issue. We call the groups in this article "far right" because that is what reliable sources call them, if only for want of a better term. TFD (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The. End. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Racism

Racism needs to stay in the lead because it is the main characteristic of the far right from the Nazis to the Ku Klux Klan. That racism also exists outside the far right is a side issue. TFD (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And this is as has been discussed before -- useless. As racism has also been identified in every single part of the "political spectrum." It is just about as useful as saying "members of the far right tend to have had parents." Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So your argument basically is that when we write about nazi and klan ideology we should not mention racism because people of other ideologies can also be racist. Incidentally, the "political spectrum" is a red herring. These groups are called "far right" because historically that is where they were placed on the left-right political spectrum, and no better term has been found. But racism is not an essential principle for any other political ideology. One can be a liberal and a racist or not a racist. But one cannot be far right and not racist. TFD (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk about using a Straw man argument! When a term becomes useless in a discussion -- as I show with reliable sources in the next section -- try reaching for Godwin's law! As for your claim that everyone on the "far right" must be racist -- that is fully belied by the sources I give, so again your assertion that you know the "truth" fails. Especially note the integrated "militia groups" which from what you say must be "racist" in some ineffable manner. Problem is the sources do not agree that you are infallible in this claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hard not to mention nazis when discussing the far right. And militia groups are not necessarily or even usually far right. TFD (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Godwin. And I would note that you have on other pages specifically called militias "far right" - you could try to be consistent. Collect (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No I have not called them far right. Again since admiration for Adolf Hitler is a typical feature of the far right, it is difficult not to mention nazism.. TFD (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Really -- do you really mean everyone who is right wing is secretly a Nazi-lover and supporter of Hitler? I am amazed that anyone would hold such a simplistic world view. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Collect, this article is about the "far right", not the Right. And yes, I believe that most neo-nazis openly admire Hitler. TFD (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What you wrote was Again since admiration for Adolf Hitler is a typical feature of the far right, it is difficult not to mention nazism which is not what you just write here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"Admiration for Adolf Hitler is a typical feature of the far right" and "most neo-nazis openly admire Hitler". It probably has something to do with the fact that today's far right largely developed out of inter-war fascism and nazism. TFD (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Your "logic" is astounding. And that you find all of the "far roight" to be fascist or neo-nazi is telling. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit

Lord knows I don't want to start a whole thing here, but an IP removed the word "racialist" from the list of descriptions of the far right, without an explanation. I undid this change. Collect reverted my revert saying something about the centre and the left also being racist. Given that there is a source for the use of that word and that the article mentions racism in the lead paragraphs and the article discusses racism and the far right, including this word in this section is quite appropriate. I'd suggest bringing it to the talk page for further discussion if you must. freshacconci talktalk 15:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

TFD knows the problem -- and it has been discussed about a number of groups. "Racism" is found in just about every part of the political spectrum in just about every society. It is as useful here as saying "members of the far right tend to have had parents." It is found in left wing, right wing, and centrist groups. On every continent. In Russia, Isarel, Palestine, Venezuela etc. With no exceptions I know of. Cheers. I do greatly dislike racism, but it is a useless demarcation here. Collect (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Racism is central to far-right ideologies, i.e. Nazism, KKK, and so on. This is well-sourced and the article mentions this elsewhere. Racism is not central to every political ideology. Individual members may be racist but it is not a central ideology to left or centrist groups. Making that claim in order to remove the term is disingenuous unless you have some kick-ass sources to back it up, which I doubt. Give it a rest. Cheers. freshacconci talktalk 17:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You are arguing what you think you WP:KNOW. I am using what reliable sources state. E.g. the former Soviet Union was quite profoundly racist. Specifically anti-Semitic [10] and scads of reliable sources), etc. Unless you wish to deny the racism in the Soviet Union?

See also [11] various forms of anti-Semitism and misogyny are far from rare on the Left, Racism in the modern sense first arose in a ‘democratic’ society, a mass society whose expressed ideals were fraternal and egalitarian, one in which individualism was becoming accepted, cultural difference was no longer a hindrance to citizenship, and different forms of popular nationalism were attaining almost religious status etc.

Using George & Wilcox (source of the "early twentieth century" inclusion of "racism") [12] gives: A study by John J. Ray of the University of New South Wales, Australia, entitled "Half of All Racists Are Left Wing," calls into question some conventional beliefs about authoritarianism, conservatism, and racism. Dealing with prejudice toward Asians among white Australians, Ray found that individuals with traditional "left-wing" values were just as likely to be prejudiced against Asians as individuals with traditional "right-wing" values,

In discussing Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality, Ray says that it has "a particularly paranoid and misanthropic flavor...." He also says that Adorno's suggestion that conservatism, authoritarianism, paranoia, misanthropy, rigidity, or some combination of these all go together "cannot, unfortunately, any longer be accepted." He adds, 'Ethnocentrism may be present on the political Right but is not confined to it. Any theory that links ethnocentrism with the political Right alone is therefore fundamentally faulty.' .

Same source: As a leader of the "left-wing" People's party, better known as the Populist party, Watson was adamantly opposed to racism and anti-Catholicism in the 1890s. In one of those remarkable conversions where an individual attached to one set of views switches and becomes attached to an opposing set, by the 1910s Watson launched Watson's Magazine and began attacking blacks, Roman Catholics, and Jews.

One of the most profoundly racist events in the US was the internment of US citizens in WW II - based on race. How many examples do you need considering I use your own sources as well? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a rational argument. Chickens have feathers, but ducks also have feathers. Therefore we cannot state in the article that chickens have feathers. Incidentally reactionaries typically hold beliefs that at one time were considered mainstream or even progressive. TFD (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Straw man arguments on a single page! Please, please, please try to address the content of the post and the sources therein. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"[T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists."[Webb, Clive. Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2010, p. 10.] If this information is incorrect please provide a source. (BTW your links to Questia take me to the sign-in section, not the article. I imagine you were referring to their book on extremism.) TFD (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you understand what "straw man" means, Collect? In any case, we are addressing your interpretation of the sources, not what the sources actually say. Stating that the internment of Japanese Americans is racist and therefore the left wing is racist is bizarre to say the least. Most opponents of the internment were in fact progressives, communists and others on he left. In any case, the internment wasn't done on ideological grounds so wherever you may place the US government of the time along the spectrum, the internment does not represent ideology whereas racism in Nazism, the Klan, any nativist groups, is central to the belief systems. That racism and anti-semitism is found amongst, for example, the Soviets does not mean left-wing ideologies are in principle racist. You just cannot make that leap and the handful of sources you provide to coroborate this proves actually that this is a minority view, not the mainstream. As an encyclopedia and a tertiary source, Wikipedia only focuses on the mainstream views for the most part. It sounds ike you have a lot to say on this subject. Maybe you should write a book. This, however, isn't the place for you theories. freshacconci talktalk 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not offering an "interpretation" of anything I am presenting reliable sources and what they state. Period. And unless you say that the sources which one you yourself cite are not RS, then I do not know how anyone can discuss anything with you here. I quoted reliable sources including one you cited yourself -- DEAL WITH IT. I think the stress is warranted here -- unless you manage to disavow the same sources you cite, of course. And agin -- I assert nothing at all -- other than what the sources say. That you find this to be a "theory" is absurd -- it is a "theory" which your own sources give. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you're cherry picking in order to bolster your claims, and not just here, on this one topic. You either cannot see that or you can and you're being disingenuous. Either way, this isn't the place for your theories. freshacconci talktalk 18:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking? Using your own sources? Amazing! OK -- how many cites would you need? 20? 200? 500? Gladly given - but none of them are my "theories" - they happen to be mainstream academic publications from such extreme places as Oxford University Press etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Fascism: A Very Short Introduction By: Kevin Passmore, OUP 2002 The history of left-wing racism lies outside the scope of this book, but it is worth pointing out that leftwing racism differs from fascism in important respects. etc.

Speaking Truth to Power: Essays on Race, Resistance, and Radicalism By Manning Marable, Westview Press 1996 Part of the rationale for some black nationalists' fears that Marxism is a form of "left-wing racism" must be attributed to the writings of Marx himself. Marx's vicious statements about German socialist leader Ferdinand Lassalle were both racist and anti-Semitic: "It is now quite clear to me that, as shown by the shape of [ Lassalle's] head and . . . hair, that he is descended from the negroes who joined the flight of Moses from Egypt (unless his mother or grandmother . . . were crossed with a nigger). This union of Jew and German on a negro foundation was bound to produce something out of the ordinary.

Three in One: Essays on Democratic Capitalism, 1976-2000 By Michael Novak, Edward Wayne Younkins, Rowman & Littlefield, 2001 I became increasingly aware of what struck me as "left-wing racism."

The Nature of the right: American and European politics and political thought since 1789 Roger Eatwell, Noël O'Sullivan; Twayne Publishers, May 1, 1990: Even today it could be argued that there are examples of left-wing racism in this sense, notable in Chinese communist attitudes to the outside world.

The New Leader Volume 65; American Labor Conference on International Affairs, 1982 This is Left wing racism (regarding anti-Semitism)

Scads available. Unless, of course, Eatwell is unknown to you? Collect (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In the current news [13] Henrique Capriles Radonski - whose Jewish grandparents fled the Nazis before settling in Venezuela - was accused by pro-Chavez media of representing "international Zionism, which threatens to destroy the planet" , in another story An article published on the web site of the Venezuelan National Radio immediately after Capriles' Feb. 12 primary victory attempted to discredit the candidate's credentials based on his Jewish ancestry. The article, titled "The Enemy is Zionism," also promoted the classic anti-Semitic stereotype of a global Jewish cabal reminiscent of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. I rather think blatant anti-Semitism is racism. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these are examples of racism or possible examples of racism. That does not make left-wing ideologies inherently racist. What is it about that you do not understand? That's the cherry picking. You are basically stating that because there are racists to be found, left-wing ideologies are racist. That's where your particular theory is coming in (based of course on the big issue, that you hate it that the far right is described as ideologically racist and you are apparently obsessed with changing this on Wikipedia. You have been stopped from doing this on certain articles so you've moved on to certain more obscure areas and article sectins hoping to slip this POV in). So no, the sources do not state that leftist and centrists are just as racist. They state, as you've demonstrated, that sure, some on the left are racist. But that is very much a different thing than to say that a far-right ideology like Nazism is inherently racist, which it is. Deal with it and cheers. freshacconci talktalk 19:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could show what you say about me is true. It ain't. And having people say things which ain't true about another editor is a very hard sort of discussion to keep up. As for your invoking Nazism here -- that is such a blatant example of argumentum ad Godwinum as to be risable. Collect (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Collect, this article is about the far right. Find a source that says that contradicts the reliable sources presented that they are racist. TFD (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You asserted that it is an absolute connection. I showed it is not using reliable sources. Frankly, the definition of the "political spectrum" is not constant from time to time or place to place, and I rather think you know it. The point is, however, that ascribing "racism" as a "core principle" for the "far right" is not supported by the sources given - and the only source which directly seems to support the claim as worded restricts itself to the ealy 20th century for it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about the political spectrum, it is about a group of ideologies that for want of a better term are called "far right". Whether they actually lie of the far right of the political spectrum is irrelevant. If you would like to suggest a name change for the article then please provide one. TFD (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And Collect, you seem to not know what Godwin's Law means, nor argumentum ad Nazium/Hitlerum/Godwinum for that matter. freshacconci talktalk 21:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Contrariwise - I recall when it was formulated and why it was formulated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a notice at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Far_right. If Collect wishes to continue his argument that racialism forms no part of the ideology of klansmen and neo-nazis then he may continue his defense there. TFD (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your claim has no connection with the facts as to my position. Nor do I find your claim as to what I write to be in congruence with truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum

The tag at the top of this page says "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Anyone who believes that the term far right is meaningless and cannot be defined should probably just boycott the article or go through the proper process of nominating it for deletion. The talk page is for discussing actual improvements to the article.Spylab (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The talk page is absolutely the proper place to discuss the nature of the article, and a belief that it should accurately state what the article is about. Right now it is almost entirely US-centric in nature, and not all that accurate even in that area. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Spylab. We cannot debate the existence of the term far-right. If it is meaningless, then we should delete the article. Otherwise we move forward as I suggested above. freshacconci talktalk 15:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The article does not discuss the US at all. TFD (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The tag at the very top of this page — even higher than the other tag I mentioned — says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Far-right politics article." That is very clear and unambiguous.Spylab (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And writing an accurate lead is absolutely discussing an improvement to the article. We are not discussing what is good or bad about any group - but whether the article needs improvement. And the article is absolutely and obviously US-centric <g>. Collect (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Who is far-right?

Which parties and which persons are far-right?

I am not against an abolishment of the term "far-right", but I am very critical towards those who use it because it seems to me that every party that shows a form of traditional conservatism. Are you far-right for being critical against mass-immigration, are you far-right for wanting to preserve traditional values, wanting to preserve a national identity, being critical against extreme religious activists or are just far-right for being white? I know it can sound like I bring in a lot of personal opinions in here, but I just think that if we're going to use this term, we need to use it towards parties and people that actually are far-right and not just social conservative parties.

I worry because when parties that are less extreme than others are called far-right and people find a different opinion and think that what they say and want are not far-right, they might believe that all far-right parties are actually normal parties, just with a different opinion on the society's certain policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.70.82.14 (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

My choice would be to use the most common one, which is that it refers to fascists and groups in the fascist tradition. Some of the groups today are Golden Dawn (Greece), the British National Party, Sweden Democrats, and the Ku Klux Klan. They are distinct from the Progress Party (Norway) and the Tea Party Movement, which are more often described as Right-wing populist, for which another article already exists, although those parties are sometimes referred to as far right as well. There are obvious differences between these two groups, from their historical origins to their commitment to democracy. Unfortunately we get bogged down with semantic issues. TFD (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is it that makes these parties "Far-Right"? I especially wonder about the Swedish Democrats as I can't see why they would be labelled "Far-Right". 85.166.252.9 (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It is because many of their founders were Nazis active in the former Nordic Reich Party, although they rejected Nazism in 1999 and no longer allow their members to wear Nazi uniforms or celebrate Hitler's birthday. TFD (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't find anything about the party was founded by Nazis. The founders were clearly racists, they were split out of the group Bevara Sverige Svenskt (BBS), meaning "Keep Sweden Swedish", but if they were Nazis, am I not sure of. Either way, if the party was founded by Nazis or not, why is that a reason to call it the party far-right today? I mean several party members are immigrants and one of the top politicians in the party is a Jew. I can't see why you would label them Nazis or far-right based on their history. With that logic, the Democrats of the United States would be racists or far-right, since they fought for preserving slavery and had numerous of propaganda drawings. SD also right in their program that they reject nationalism as a form of or genetic group membership (just search "nationalism" in their search box and you'll find it) and bases nationalism rather in terms of culture, language, identity and loyalty. So I can't see why you would label SD racists or far-right.

Also, its not just SD that are being labelled far-right. Pretty much every party that have Nationalism as an ideology are being called far-right, whether they really promote ethnic nationalism, anti-Semitism or pro-white or if they promote nationalism as a form of solidarity and welcome Jews, blacks, Asians etc to their country as long as they adapt to that country's culture. Also, parties and people who criticises Islam are also being called far-right, like Fjordmannen, who is a Norwegian blogger.

85.166.252.9 (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a recursion problem here -- you seek to define fascists as "far right" and you seek to define the far right as "fascist." See "Recursion" in Google. We still have the problem, artfully stated at RS/N etc. that there is no current or past uniform definition of "far right" in the first place, that its usage varies from time to time and place to place. And you forget that your deisre to so label the "Tea Party Movement" failed mightily to get consensus behind it. In fact, IIRC, some rebuked you for blatant misuse of a source. See also [14] where misuse of a source is clearly shown, [15] misuse of source, [16] where an admin agreed point blank about a claim being improper, and so on. Your position failed in the past, and it is clearly not going to get consensus from anyone reading the sources you proffer. Seeing misuse of a term as simply a "semantic issue" is wondrous! Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: As the definition of the political spectrum is not constant from place to place or from time to time, any definition must include that caveat from the start. What is "right wing" in Russia today is not at all like what is "right wing" in Egypt, or in Niger, or in New Zealand, or in the US or in Mexico or in Poland etc. etc. All are different, with different characteristics, positions and political strengths and weaknesses. Collect (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Your position which you have posted before is that "far right" is contextual and means nothing more than the farthest right position on any political spectrum and therefore does not represent a distinct topic. However, sources do use it as distinct concept, for example, The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right and Web of hate: inside Canada's far right network.

Incidentally, there are similarities between far-right groups in different countries. The symbol of Russia's Pamyat (Russia) is the Swastika; the New Zealand National Front was an initiative of British neo-fascist John Tyndall; the US Ku Klux Klan is white supremicist; Mexico's Unión Nacional Sinarquista has fascist roots, the National Revival of Poland is openly fascist. Many far right parties belong to intra-national groups such as the Alliance of European National Movements and the European National Front. I am not aware of any far right groups in Egypt or Niger. With some notable exceptions, these groups are restricted to nations with European heritage.

Do you think that there should not be article about these groups or do you think that a different name would be more appropriate? I notice you use the terms "far-right" and "right-wing" interchangeably. Do you not draw any distinction between the groups I listed and the mainstream Right?

TFD (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Your claim about my "position" is dead wrong, false, inaccurate, misleading, errant, preposterous, unsound, and the equivalent roughtly of a GPS saying we are on Venus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm going to ask point-blank: what is it that you want, Collect? This is an article called Far-right politics. In your opinion, should this article be deleted? Renamed? If not, what is "far right"? What groups would belong in this category? I ask, not to get a reaction or to start a debate but to frankly know what it is you are trying to achieve with these conversations. TFD has clearly stated what he feels and I am pretty much aligned with him as far as definitions go. As TFD states, you use the terms far right and right wing interchangably. Is that your position, that there is only a right wing on the spectrum? If that's the case, what groups belong in the right wing? What I cannot figure out is what you want to happen here. If you got to be dictator for a day of this article, what would it be about? freshacconci talktalk 15:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• If it's explained to you again, is it really going to sink in this time? I mean, is your issue that hearing it 11 times just doesn't quite get it done, and you need that 12th repetition to finally grok it? Belchfire-TALK 15:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, I asked Collect, not you, unless there's something we should all know. And no, it's never been clear. TFD has asked the question and there has never been a direct answer. I was asking some simple, direct questions. Nothing more and certainly nothing warranting insults. But if that's how you have to do it, more's the pity. freshacconci talktalk 15:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I want the article to accurately state facts. It should indicate the range of definitions from different places and times, and not be "US-centric." I do not use "far right" "extreme right" "radical right" and "right wing" interchangeably, nor would I do so, nor can you show me doing so. I am vastly amused by TFD's assertion that Egypt has no "far right" groups -- what the hell does he consider the Muslim Brotherhood at this point? An organization which proposes a constitution allowing freedom of religion only for "divine" religions? I sugges that such a group is "far right" by most definitions. Collect (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The article on the Muslim Brotherhood identifies it as right wing. If there are good sources identifying it as far-right, by all means bring them to the table. freshacconci talktalk 15:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually we can not use Wikipedia as a "source." We do have

There, finally, we have something to work with, at least your first sentence. As for your use of terms, the fact that this article is called Far-right politics and you used the term "right wing" above leads to confusion. I don't think it was meant as an accusation but an attempt to clarify terms. As for your first sentence, the only one actually relevant to this article, we can certainly have sections dealing with the history of the use of the term, cultural differences and so on. As far as the basic definition, we can and should use scholarly definitions of far right which may be US-centric (I'd argue Eurocentric) but it is hard not to be Eurocentric within the so called West, writing in English, using English-language sources for the most part. In academia that is common and accepted as long as it is understood that it is Eurocentric. Naturally, any honest researcher is going to at least acknowledge other traditions, definitions and so on while stating that it is beyond the scope of the study to elaborate further. In the case of this article, and in the spirit of moving an article from start to something else, we can only go with our limitations. We can provide info on different definitions, cultural attitudes and so on, but for the purposes of clarity, ease and maintaining Wikipedia standards, the lede needs a clear definition, Eurocentric that it is. freshacconci talktalk 15:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Collect you said, "there is no current or past uniform definition of "far right" in the first place", then you said the Muslim Brotherhood is far right because it "proposes a constitution allowing freedom of religion only for "divine" religions". Obviously you are using a definition. freshacconci, it is likely that the far right is primarily a European phenomenon, although there have been notable far right movements in Japan, Turkey, Lebanon and Palestine. I cannot access the source for calling the Muslim Brotherhood right-wing, but books about the far right do not include Muslim extremism. TFD (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Try [17] He said that the Muslim Brotherhood now claims to be moderate, while seemingly oblivious to the fact that Islamic Jihad, al-Jamaa al-Islamiya and al-Takfir wal Hijra all had their roots in the Brotherhood, before going on to terrorize Egyptians - in the well-known attacks and clashes throughout the nineties. , [18] It is not an exaggeration or act of slander to say that the Muslim Brotherhood has always been the fascist alternative to what has been a reactionary regime. [19] One important point and one thing that has really affected how people see the Muslim Brotherhood, of course, is that Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two in al-Qaeda to Osama bin Laden, used to be a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood and so it's very much seen as this extremist group and in many ways, it's clear it has links with extremist groups around the region. [20] "My essential argument is that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't function like other political parties and is unlikely to moderate its long-held extremist views," Trager said during a telephone interview. etc.

Now as to a definition in general of "far right": "That political segment in a society which most opposes social, religious, political or economic change." is supportable from a number of sources.

Dillon writes:[21]

In thinking about plausible configurations of the paradigms discussed above, one might intuitively expect the individualistic paradigms of modernism and libertarianism to occur together and be opposed to an alliance between the collective paradigms of traditionalism and communalism. In fact, American ideology has been counterintuitive in this respect. Although they may have used different terms, various writers have noted the paradoxical combination of traditionalism and libertarianism in conservative or right-wing American ideology (e.g., Nash 1976; Lipset and Raab 1978; Himmelstein 1983; Platt and Williams 1988). Although many scholars view this paradox as primarily a characteristic of post-1945 American conservatism, de Tocqueville (1831/1969), as far back as the 1830s, noted in Democracy in America that traditional religion in the United States had combined with unrestrained self-interest to promote the general welfare. In contrast, the American left has combined modernism with communalism, supporting both the moral autonomy of the individual and the regulation of economic and political activity in defense of the public good. These are, of course, ideal-typical characterizations. They represent two poles on the American ideological spectrum. Clearly, there is a large ambiguous middle position; but there is, nevertheless, a clear contrast between the right and left in its “pure” forms. Recognizing the contrasts between and paradoxes within mainstream American ideological positions is important for understanding specific cases of ideological change or conflict. One can speculate about the reasons for these paradoxical configurations. Perhaps there is a “need” for a balance between individual and collective values. Himmelstein (1983) suggests that, on the right, neither traditionalism nor libertarianism carries much appeal on its own, but each provides a corrective to the unappealing aspects of the other. More recently, writers promoting “communalism” as a school of social thought have made normative arguments about the necessity of balancing individual and collective concerns (e.g., Taylor 1991; Etzioni 1996; Putnam 2000).

Making clear the interconnectivity of religion and politics, citing Lipset et al. The other criteria are similarly citable. I suggest this definition is closest to a "universal definition" one is likely to obtain.

Maerkl[22] makes an interesting claim which does not seem to be widely held:

What distinguishes the contemporary radical right from other movements is less their stance on democracy and the rule of law; rather it is their espousal of an explicitly radical nativist position reflected in an overtly 'ethnopluralist' notion of cultural protectionism, based on the notion that cultures and ethnicities are incompatible with each other and that cultural mixing should therefore be resisted. 14

Thus saying that it is "nativism" which is the primary characteristic of the outward fringes of the right.

Michael explicity states the difficulty of a definition:[23]

This therefore presents a definitional problem for researchers and scholars. With the preceding discussion, I have tried to make clear that is very difficult to rigidly define the term “far right. using "Particularism" It tends not to have ambitions to proselytize the whole world to its belief system. , "Low regard for democracy" (alas - this appears not widely held as a view), "anti-statism" which he notes is a US position and not the European position, "a conspiracy view of history" and "an ethnic component." He then states that these are not specifically found in all right wing groups, but that he would label a group having any one of these characteristics as "right wing."

Mudde: [24]

Almost every scholar in the field points to the lack of a generally accepted definition. Even though the term right-wing extremism itself is accepted by a majority of the scholars, there is no consensus on the exact definition of the term. A variety of authors have defined it in a variety of ways. This has been partly caused by the fact that the term is not only used for scientific purposes but also for political purposes (Knütter 1991; Kowalsky and Schroeder 1994). Several authors define right-wing extremism as a sort of anti-thesis against their own beliefs and/or as (closely) linked to their `democratic' political opponent.

Which might be the basis for the first sentence in the lede. I trust these give a sense of why the simplistic definition does not and can not work in a Wikipedia article. Collect (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

While there are always differences in definitions used in social sciences, it is not the same thing as using the same words to refer to different concepts. Maerkl for example (who uses the term "radical right") appears to be referring to a broader concept, since he includes both neofascist and right-wing populist groups. Mudde uses the term "right-wing extremism" in a similar way. Michael who uses the term "far right" seems the best source. Notice he says, "One should not confuse the far right as an extrapolation of the conservative right wing. The contemporary conservative right wing for the most part espouses principles such as limited government, fiscal restraint, and support for business and free enterprise. The far right by contrast often has a quasi-socialist populist element along with a suspicion of big business and global capitalism. In general, economic issues do not loom large in the far right’s agenda; cultural issues figure more prominently. Indeed, the far right is a different entity." That brings us back to the original issue. What is the topic? Is it the "radical right" or "right-wing extremism" of Maerkl/Mudde that groups what Michael calls the "far right" and the "conservative right wing" together, or is it just what Michael calls the "far right"? My one reservation on the book is that it is specific to the US. Your source on the Muslim Brotherhood btw appears to express an individual view ("It is not an exaggeration or act of slander to say....") But certainly there is a minority view that Muslim extremism is "Islamofascism", which perhaps should be mentioned in the article. Nor should we ignore links between the far right and Muslim extremists, for example at the Tehran Holocaust conference. TFD (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Then we should discuss what the sources state -- not what you "know" they meant. And the key connection with the MB is the specific reliance on continuity of religion, which you appear to miss -- in fact it is a direct and substantial connection between the KKK and the Muslim Brotherhood from the start. I seem to recall, however, that you were the editor who removed the Muslim Brotherhood from "right wing articles" in the past? Ansari [25] makes clear the political nature of the Muslim Brotherhood: The alliance between the New Wafd and the Muslim Brotherhood was a marriage of convenience to improve the former's electoral chances, but it was consumated at the cost of liberals and secularists, who then defected. Judging from the results of the elections, apparently the Wafdist leadership miscalculated the strength of the Muslim Brotherhood among the urban lower middle classes and rural migrants. Nonetheless, the Wafdists were not the only ones who found the appeal to religion too strong to resist. So by pretty solid agreement, that religious character defines its position on the political spectrum clearly. Collect (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussing "what the sources state -- not what you "know" they meant" means, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." For example we cannot call groups "far right" when sources do not say that, just because you have made a connection. And I do not understand how having a "religious character" identifies a party as "far right". Can you provide any sources for the "direct and substantial connection between the KKK and the Muslim Brotherhood from the start". TFD (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The connection drawn by reliable sources is that the Muslim Brotherhood tends to be an Islamic fundamentalist organization (I find "Islamofascist" to be an absurd neologism). Did you not notice that about the Muslim Brotherhood as referenced in the sources now? If you missed it, I think you ought well re-examine what you know about that party.

Following Riḍā, the Salafīyya movement sought to halt the internal decline and help gain independence from the West by rejecting ṭaqlīd and popular Ṣūfīsm, calling for a return to the example of the pious ancestors (salaf). It saw Islam as the religion of reason, nature and science, and sought to restore its initial vitality by freeing it from traditionalism. Salafīyya was influenced both by the reformist stress on reinterpreting the origins in order to face the modern world, and by a narrow Wahhābī puritanism. It advocated educational and social reforms, establishing schools and welfare programs, publishing books and magazines, and mobilizing the masses in support of the nationalist liberation movements. It became very influential by shaping an activist fundamentalist ideology across the Muslim world. from The Resurgence of Religion: A Comparative Study of Selected Themes in Christian and Islamic Fundamentalist Discourses By: David Zeidan, Brill 2003

The Muslim Brotherhood, a fundamentalist religious organization that espoused a return to pristine Islam and the establishment of a theocratic state, took credit for the assassinations (in Syria, but same organization across national boundaries) from Politics of the Dispossessed: Superpowers and Developments in the Middle East By: Hafizullah Emadi, Praeger

It is not surprising, therefore, that the first Islamic fundamentalist movement should have emerged in Egypt in the shape of the Muslim Brotherhood. The ideological lineages of such contemporary jihadist movements as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Qaida can be traced back, along parallel lines, to this same inheritance. from Nationalism and Post-Colonial Identity: Culture and Ideology in India and Egypt By: Anshuman A. Mondal, Routledge 2003

With the failure of Liberal Nationalism to provide solutions to Egypt's growing social ills, the field was left open to religiously oriented political movements such as the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood from Christians versus Muslims in Modern Egypt: The Century-Long Struggle for Coptic Equality By: S. S. Hasan, OUP 2003

Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate the comments and see nothing wrong with them. But what do they have to do with this article? TFD (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You asked a question. I answered it. If you do not recall asking the question, there is precious little I can do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! So you do understand the concept of circular reasoning, you just have trouble recognizing it when that would prevent you from branding a right-wing group as racist. Belchfire-TALK 23:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain what are you talking about TFD (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Collect, how does any of that make them "far right"? TFD (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

From the lede: The far right is commonly associated with persons or groups who hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views. Did you not read the lede? Seems pretty clear to me. Collect (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The lead says, "commonly associated with", not that people holding these views are necessarily far right. If you remember the discussions on Christian terrorism, not all of them were far right. I do not have access to the book however, and the fact that someone has put it in the article does not necessarily mean that it is correct. I will ask for a direct quote at the help desk. TFD (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

OK -- look at Although Egypt has elections, it does not fully follow democratic principles. Islam is a very strong force in Egypt, and in the last couple of decades a right-wing Islamic group known as the Muslim Brotherhood (which the government of Egypt has outlawed) has terrorized the country for being contaminated by western influences. from Handbook of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Administration and Policy By: Wallace Swan,Dekker 2004.

Behaviour of the MB? [26] Members of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood unlawfully detained and abused at least 49 anti- government protestors outside the Presidential Palace last week as security forces stood by, Human Rights Watch said.

[27] “Our right wing here in Egypt is different from the U.S. because people here are more emotional about religion, they can’t differentiate between politics and religion. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis are the right wing, I don’t deal with them as religious groups but as political groups,” he said.

I have shown "right wing" including "far" and "extreme" being used about the MB, that it is a "fundamentalist group" which the lede of this article characterises as "far right", thatit has been so described in scholarly journals and books, that it has a violent history, is nationalist and is anti-Semitic, and that reliable sources so term it. Now what, precisely, is your problem? A group which is staunchly anti-gay and anti-woman? This is not "my opinion" - it is what the reliable sources state in black and white. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

@TFD - this was not "recently added" at all -- the wording about religious fundamentalists has been in this article since 2004. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The closest your sources come to saying the MB is far right is one that says Egypt's Jon Stewart considers them "Egypt’s right wingers". But calling them "far right" is synthesis. The source is not even sufficiently adequate to call them right wing. Again the source added i 2004 does not say that extreme fundamentalists are right-wing, just that they may be. We do not even know if it includes "Muslim fundamentalists". TFD (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the sources I gave which specifically use the damn term? You missed them? That explains it. The problem here is that this article specifically includes "religious fundamentalism" as "far right", the reliable sources call the MB "fundamentalist" and "far right" or "extreme right", and you do not like labeling the MB as right wing. That uis because you know it is not right wing. Alas - we use what the reliable sources state. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Collect, you are misreading the article. Far right-wingers may be fundamentalist but not necessarily are. By your reading, Jimmy Carter would be far right. It is synthesis anyway. You are taking a definition of far right from one place and a description of a party in another and concluding the party is far right. I know you know that and know you know that I know that you know that. Enough already. TFD (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Collect about something: Muslim extremists are just as Right-Wing as Christian ones. On the other hand, I believe that the issue is that "Far Right", "Extreme Right", and "Radical Right" are all used without a lot of consistency. It appears that academics use the terms to mean completely different things...but journalists and political commentators use the terms as synonyms for anyone that is more "Right" than the mainstream. The funny thing is that by using the non-academic usage of the terminology...it lumps in the Tea Party, the Republican Party, the Ku Klux Klan, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Qaeda into one big "very" Right-Wing stew...something that I personally agree with, but not something that I'd think pro-Right-Wing editors would be amenable to...but hey, whatever floats your boat! --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That is trying to find similarities between Islamic and Christian extremism in the two countries. But the dynamics of the two differ. The Muslim brotherhood are not close to big business, libertarians and the military, nor are they exclusive on the basis of race or class. They are similar in some ways to left-wing groups, while the right in the Arab world, to the extent the term has any meaning there, has been more associated with militarism, monarchy, and cooperation with Western powers. However we should have sources that say they are "far right", not just an essay by Collect. TFD (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

IOW you do not like the reliable sources and what they say in black and white. That is fine. But pretending that they do not support what they print is absurd. And since you have iterated that libertarians are not far right in the first place, arguning that a group which is not libertarian can not be far right is incredible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I like sources that support text. I do not like sources that do not. You should make constructive suggestions rather than make arguments against common sense and policy. What do you want me to think when you continue with these arguments? That you lack the capability of understanding the sources and that I should patiently try to explain it once again? Or that for reasons of which I do not know you enjoy repeating the same odd arguments. When you reply btw there is no need to use bold type and links to your essay. TFD (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In which case 'read the sources given above' And I assure you that reading the sources comports both with common sense and with policy! And what the hell do you mean by "links to your essay" here? Do you have anything at all to justify that sort of ad hominem attack here? One iota? Cheers -- and please when you make snarky asides without any basis at all, be man enough to admit your error. Collect (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)