Far-right party wins seats in German election

The terms Extreme right or Ultra right are used by some scholars to discuss only those right-wing political groups that step outside the boundaries of traditional electoral politics. This generally includes the revolutionary right, militant racial supremacists and religious extremists, Fascists, neo-fascists, Nazis, and neo-Nazis. In this usage the terms are distinct from other forms of right wing politics such as the less-militant sectors of the Far Right and Right-Wing Populists, as well as from the more traditional conservatives (Betz & Immerfall 1998; Betz 1994; Durham 2000; Durham 2002; Hainsworth 2000; Mudde 2000)

His background as an Austrian nobleman gives him a perspective on politics that is very different and unique compared with the vast majority of Americans. Kuehnelt also openly writes from a Roman Catholic viewpoint and pro-Christian viewpoint. He defines as "leftist" as any movement that emphasizes "identitarianism" (i.e. sameness) and either the total rule of the state or "the will of the people" over the populace's affairs. The political writings of Aristotle identify three poor forms of government: democracy, oligarchy and tyranny; and three good forms: constitutional republic, aristocracy and monarchy. Democracies tend to degenerate into tyranny as witness by the chaotic Weimar republic sowing the seeds for the Nazi takeover because it lacked any foundations in traditional German politics, which was dominated by the nobility. What is especially odd about Kuehnelt's study is he classifies Nazism and Fascism as "leftist" movements. The Nazis were anti-aristocratic and anti-tradition, and tried to create a revolutionary state. Since left wing movements tend to want to standardize everything and make everything the same, Nazism had a leftist tendency when it emphasized the "Aryan race" as the ideal for all humanity. Hitler was a product of the mass society of the early 1900s. Nazism is similar to the more familiar liberal, internationalist Leftism, which denies racial and gender differences and seeks to make the world a giant unisex, brown conglomerate. In both perspectives, one race (the Aryan or the hybrid) is given the key to the future as the harbinger of a worldly, conflict free paradise. Marxism and socialism during the 19th and 20th centuries was of course profoundly leftist. They tried (and were successful in Russia) to overthrow all of the "bourgeoisie" establishments in society and set up a totally ahistorical new form of government that supposedly would accommodate the interests of the majority of humanity, the proletariat, by eradicating traditional religion and having a small party of government bureaucrats dictate economic policy. This of course resulted in human catastrophe, as the deportations, famines and sheer brutality of life in Communist Russia and China have shown. Hatred of the Jews is generally attributed to the right, but Kuehnelt provides examples of Marx's distaste for the Jewish culture he grew up in. Democratic tyranny (this is not an oxymoron) in the name of "the people" has a heritage reaching back to the Enlightenment, the ideals of Rousseau and the violence of the French Revolution. Then of course don't forget the liberalization-at-gunpoint programs of Peter the Great, Kemal Ataturk and the US Civil Rights movement. America started off with a constitutional republic and has since fallen prey to democratic tendencies. The Founding Fathers were not egalitarians by any sense of the word (especially not Jefferson, who is usually touted as having the most egalitarian views), but were rather aristocrats who wanted to protect their own interests in the US and opposed royal authority over them. Especially harmful in the international scene were the utopian pretensions of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. The most prominent example of a true rightist government in the 20th century was Francisco Franco's who defeated communists, socialists and assorted enemies of the Catholic Church in the Spanish Civil War. Kuehnelt's book is also greatly helpful because he defines how true rightists in different countries may in fact be very different from each other because of a variety of cultural and national circumstances. He does not want conservative groups solely made up of the "haters of the haters," like the neo-Nazis who opposed democracy and liberalism today. He decries the harmful rightist tendency, especially prominent in America, towards anti-intellectualism. The term "liberal" can also be redefined to its more original usage. "Liberty" meant personal freedom, restriction from government control. "Liberty" is mutually exclusive with "Equality" whenever people are forced intentionally by an external institution to be the Equal (in education, occupation, physical appearance, financial income, etc) because enforced equality (a type of 'secular monasticism' as Kuehnelt describes it) goes against human nature. It is the product of a more or less conscious rejection of Christian theology because it presupposes man's perfectibility in this life.

I don't think, any historian quotes Kuehnelt-Leddihn and poltical sciences he's really an ousider with his view that racism and patriocism are 'left', while 'patriocism' is considered by him as being 'right'.

(He said about himself to be a "Catholic right-radical liberal" ('liberal' here not 'left' but in the Euopean sense).

Austria, btw, has no nobility since 1918 anymore.

Lately there seems to be an effort by the right to paint the Nazis as left-wing socialists. It is generally understood that fascists and nazis are right wing and communists are left wing

Totalitarian regimes differ from older concepts of dictatorship or tyranny. Totalitarian regimes seek to establish complete political, social and cultural control, whereas dictatorships seek limited, typically political, control. Two types of totalitarianism can sometimes be distinguished: Nazism and Fascism which evolved from "right-wing" extremism, and Communism, which evolved from "left-wing" extremism. Traditionally, each is supported by different social classes.
.
Right-wing totalitarian movements have generally drawn their popular support primarily from middle classes seeking to maintain the economic and social status quo. Left-wing totalitarianism has often developed from working class movements seeking, in theory, to eliminate, not preserve, class distinctions. Right-wing totalitarianism has typically supported and enforced the private ownership of industrial wealth. A distinguishing feature of Communism, by contrast, is the collective ownership of such capital.

That's because they had undeniably leftist characteristics. I find it dishonest that leftists constantly try to dump off the nazis on the conservatives.

This is demonstrably false. Naziism rose out of the desperate poverty of post World War I Europe. The Fascists and Communists came from the same environment and their recruits were often interchangeable.

Atavistic wrote:

This is demonstrably false. Naziism rose out of the desperate poverty of post World War I Europe. The Fascists and Communists came from the same environment and their recruits were often interchangeable.

Sorry to sound harsh, but that is completely nonsense and demonstrates deficiencies in European and German history.

Which is quite understandable, as I've noticed.

Don't play name games. Names mean nothing in politics.
.
btw, before Hitler took power, the communists and the socialists were the worst enemies of the Nazis.
.................................
The National Socialists
The National German Workers Party
.
'Democratic' People's Republic of Korea
conventional short form: North Korea

Yes the Nazis battled the communists, but they also recruited many of them into their fold. The true "right-wing" that is the nobility and conservatives (such as von Hindenburg) despised Hitler.

Atavistic, I'm German and speak German fluently.
I've studied history (meaning: at university) and didn't leave out the Nazi-period.

Besides that, I'm quite informed about German Party History.

All at least up to the level of Wikipedia entrances.

But thanks, nevertheless.