Germany raids over 200 suspected neo-Nazi premises (over"prohibited" items)

Reuters ^ | Wed Mar 4, 2009 9:17am GMT

[gondramB]

BERLIN (Reuters) - German police have launched a nationwide search of more than 200 homes and businesses of people suspected of belonging to the country's extreme right, the Federal Crime Office (BKA) said Wednesday.

"The primary aim of the concerted action by crime fighting authorities is to seize and confiscate prohibited items like music in order to move effectively and extensively against the spread of right wing extremism," the BKA said in a statement.

[gondramB]

Not that we should have sympathy for Neo-Nazis... In addition to their hatred, racism and violence I understand they tried to infiltrate Freep before my time here.

And Germany is our ally , and a good ally.

But the erosion of rights often starts with undesirables - if our NATO partners, in the midst of an economic crash ban music based on its political content I'm a little concerned about what else they might do.

[Parley Baer]

“confiscate prohibited items like music” Music?

[NowApproachingMidnight]

MUSIC? This sounds like the German police are the new Nazis.. Not the right.

[utherdoul]

Germans have pretty strict laws about anything involving nazism. It’s still a deservadly sore spot for them, I can see (much as I disagree with) confiscating neo-nazi music as it falls within German law. I don’t have any sympathy for them. Most of them call for cutting of relations with the United States and mass nationalization.

[swain_forkbeard]

It is ironic that Europe really is quite fascist.

[gondramB]

Not to mention Germany has real concerns they could be dealing with.

[a fool in paradise]

How many radical mosques have they raided?

[gondramB]

Bloomberg has more details

>>Police seized 70 pistols, knives and other weapons, as well as 170 computers and 45,000 Nazi-music CDs across the country, according to a faxed statement by the bureau, known as the BKA. No arrests were made, said Claudia Krauth, a spokeswoman for the state prosecutor’s office in Stuttgart. Nazi symbols, music and literature are banned in Germany.

“Right-wing extremists use music to awaken interest and win members,” said Siegfried Mahler, chief prosecutor in Stuttgart, as quoted in the statement. <<

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=agX3MhwJvSog&refer=germany

[gondramB]

I’m guessing that since there were no arrests those were lawful guns and knives the police seized while they were seizing music.

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

How many radical mosques have they raided?
________________________________________________

Ummmmmmmm..........give me a minute and I’ll get back to you. ;)

[Durus]

I am so sick of nazis being called “far right extremists”. The National socialist workers party was far-left not far-right.

[Old Professer]

“The primary aim of the concerted action by crime fighting authorities is to seize and confiscate prohibited items like music in order to move effectively and extensively against the spread of right wing extremism,”

[a fool in paradise]

Music like Wagner?

[a fool in paradise]

Why didn't the authorities crack down when this foreign national was spreading Left wing extremism in Germany?

[eyeamok]

Funny Thing is though NAZI’ism (National Socialist Workers Party) WAS AND IS A LEFTIST IDEALOGY

[ETL]

I think the ratio of neo-nazi and skinhead stories to neo-commie stories reported by the media must be something like 1000 to 1, yet there’s so many more communist organizations out there (including the new White House team). These neo-nazi idiots don’t have any real power or influence, but the communist groups have enormous power and influence. They control world opinion through their aggressive and slick propaganda campaigns. Through the bogus communist-led “anti-war” movement they manipulate large masses of people (’useful idiots’) to end wars in which America is a likely victor over some oppressive tyrannical regime. They sway millions, if not billions, into believing the man-made globull warming BS. They practically run the “education” system, on and on.

[a fool in paradise]

“You’re just using insulting language when you call someone a commie and besides the Communist party never posed a threat to America...” < / stalinist media response >

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"The National socialist workers party was far-left not far-right."

True.

Also, the "left-right" dichotomy is too simplistic. The NAZIs has leftist social programs and economic policies. Their friends, the Italian Fascists had similar policies -- but, they didn't support the Holocaust. The most important distinguishing feature of the NAZIs does not lie on the "left-right" spectrum.

NAZIs and Fascists are also associated with jackboot authoratianism. But, then so are the various flavours of Communism. The degree of authoratianism belongs on another axis from the left-right line.

[gondramB]

>>Music like Wagner?<<

That is an excellent point.

[gondramB]

>>I am so sick of nazis being called “far right extremists”. The National socialist workers party was far-left not far-right. <<

The press could at least acknowledge that ultra -right and far left meet like a circle at total government control of the economy and behavior.

But that might point out flaws on the left.

[a fool in paradise]

They practically run the “education” system, on and on.

In California Communists are specifically prohibited from teaching in public schools (by law). They are also prohibited from pushing the Communist system and urging seditious overthrow of our government.

There are Democrat politicians seeking to remove these barriers in California schools.

California Dems Introduce Bill To Allow Communist Indoctrination in Public Schools (3-06-08)

[gondramB]

>>I think the ratio of neo-nazi and skinhead stories to neo-commie stories reported by the media must be something like 1000 to 1<<

Gosh... funny how that happens, don’t you think?

[Philo-Junius]

What do “Left” and “Right” on the x axis mean, then?

Traditional vs. antitraditional? Collectivist vs. Individualist?

The flaw in this chart is that it defines “left” and “right” only by subtracting out an “authoritarian” and “libertarian” niche from the overall left-right tendencies. One could add any number of additional variables and map political tendencies with as many dimensions as one likes. The purpose of this chart is merely to elevate libertarianism as a political consideration equal in magnitude to all other variables.

[ETL]

What do “Left” and “Right” on the x axis mean, then?

That's easy. Right is positive. Left is negative. :)

-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

“One could add any number of additional variables and map political tendencies with as many dimensions as one likes.”

I completely agree.

I was just trying to make the point that a “left-right” spectrum is a completely misleading model.

[Philo-Junius]

It’s extremely sloppy, agreed. But to the extent that we have a sense of the underlying groupings (which we often don’t—as when the media refers to “right-wingers” in the Politburo of China to mean the old-guard Maoists) it can be a moderately useful generalisation.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

“when the media refers to “right-wingers” in the Politburo of China to mean the old-guard Maoists) ....”

That's actually part of the problem — the main use of the generalization is for smearing conservatives. Anyone the MSM likes is on the left — anyone they don't want us to like is on the “far-right”.

[Philo-Junius]

My experience is that the media doesn’t believe the “Left” exists—there are occasional mentions of “Progressives”, but I’ve never heard tell of ANY “left-wing” politicians or interests groups in the media.

Like Satan—the greatest trick was convincing the world it didn’t exist.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Good points.

[Joe Boucher]

isn’t the down economy over there.
It’s been illegal to promote nazi anything in germany.
Folks are fearful of that kind of crap happening again real easy if it were to get started.
Sort of de javu

[Durus]

With all due respect ultra right and ultra left do not meet like a circle if we are talking about nazis and communists. The left and the right are opposite ends of the spectrum. The primary difference in practice between nazis and communists is that the nazis allowed the means of production to be “owned” by the private sector. The government controlled what was made, how many were made, the prices one could charge, the people that were hired etc. Ownership by the private sector was in name only. That is the only notable difference between communism and nazi’ism and that does not make it a “ultra-right”. They both are at the far end of the left in a left-right spectrum.

[wolf78]

With all due respect ultra right and ultra left do not meet like a circle if we are talking about nazis and communists. The left and the right are opposite ends of the spectrum. The primary difference in practice between nazis and communists is that the nazis allowed the means of production to be “owned” by the private sector. The government controlled what was made, how many were made, the prices one could charge, the people that were hired etc. Ownership by the private sector was in name only. That is the only notable difference between communism and nazi’ism and that does not make it a “ultra-right”. They both are at the far end of the left in a left-right spectrum.

The insistence on libertarian economic policies is specific to modern American conservatism. Traditionally, conservatism has been somewhat more ambiguous about that topic and not shied away from intervention. While the Nazis put restrictions on the private sector, they certainly were no communists, either. At the time they were seen as right-wing due to their being nationalistic and militarily agressive (while the left at the time was internationalistic).

Either classification - right or left - doesn't really fit. It says more about the right or the left not wanting to be mentioned in the same context as the Nazis (which they shouldn't). Economically - again from a historic perspective - they were middle of the road, but absolutely totalitarian with regard to social issues. USFRIENDINVICTORIA is right with his graphic.

[wolf78]

MUSIC? This sounds like the German police are the new Nazis.. Not the right.

In the context of denazification there's a law in Germany against what is called "Wiederbetaetigung" (literally reviving or restarting). It bans any actions that could serve as a means to revive the Nazi movement and the use of Nazi symbols etc. (exceptions: movies, educational material etc.). So a song can indeed be illegal in Germany if it e.g. uses Nazi slogans.

[Durus]

"The insistence on libertarian economic policies is specific to modern American conservatism. Traditionally, conservatism has been somewhat more ambiguous about that topic and not shied away from intervention".

Libertarian economic principles are based upon what was the traditional American economy, namely that of unbridled economic freedom. Only modern conservatives have not shied away from intervention. Which brings up the point of what modern conservatives are trying to conserve if it's not the Constitution and the intended scope of government.

At the time they were seen as right-wing due to their being nationalistic and militarily agressive (while the left at the time was internationalistic).

At the time they were both seen as ideological brethren and offshoots of socialism. They were even allies until they realised they both couldn't occupy the same space. It was much later, when communists had gained influence and control that they reframed the left-right concept as being Communist (as far left) and Nazis (as far right). They can only win from this new concept as both are in actuality far left. Terms like "nationalistic", "internationalistic" were really terms of self identification. When it comes to objective reality they did primarily the same things, used primarily the same methods, up to rounding up classes of people and killing them. The biggest variance between the two was the stated reasons for doing this, but even that was obviously a lie.

While the Nazis put restrictions on the private sector, they certainly were no communists, either.
If the government completely controls all economic factors, which nazis did, then it's a centrally controlled economy. That is the same thing as communism except for the propaganda of why they are controlling the economy.

[wolf78]

Libertarian economic principles are based upon what was the traditional American economy, namely that of unbridled economic freedom.

Historically however, it was the Manchester liberals, those peacenik, anti-slavery hippies that stood for free market capitalist principles. Conservatives not so much. You cannot simply apply modern American notions to historic world events. That's my whole point: you have to be careful with labels / definitions.

Only modern conservatives have not shied away from intervention.

Well, Hoover and Nixon also come to mind. Coolidge serves as a counter-example and Reagan is, of course, iconic for his modern liberal (classical usage) aka. libertarian (American definition) conservatism. Recent Republicans (Bush administration) were conservatives? I'd rather say they were corporatists. But then again, I'm not really a conservative, I'm a libertarian.

Which brings up the point of what modern conservatives are trying to conserve if it's not the Constitution and the intended scope of government.

I've been asking myself the very same thing.

When it comes to objective reality they did primarily the same things, used primarily the same methods, up to rounding up classes of people and killing them.

I couldn't agree more. However, where socialism and communism meet is in the authoritarian / totalitarian aspect, which has little to do with the classical left / right spectrum. See USFRIENDLYVICTORIA.

If the government completely controls all economic factors, which nazis did, then it's a centrally controlled economy.

Every war economy is centrally administered - only that Nazism has seen little else than war. One could argue that the US defense sector is a prime example of politbureau-style economics.

[Durus]

"You cannot simply apply modern American notions to historic world events. That's my whole point: you have to be careful with labels / definitions."

Given a left right dichotomy both nazis and communists are leftist. We can dispute terms a lot, but that is simply a fact. I was actually careful of the labels I used and in the context they were used in, I believe that they were correct. If you wish to obscure the issue by giving examples of where they might not be correct then have a blast.

"Hoover and Nixon"

Are both modern conservatives.

However, where socialism and communism meet is in the authoritarian / totalitarian aspect, which has little to do with the classical left / right spectrum. See USFRIENDLYVICTORIA.

The spectrum being discussed, from the context of the article, is left-right. It's overall accuracy in describing all aspects of a social movement is suspect, but that is a mute point. I did not choose this spectrum, but if people insist on using it, both nazism and communism must logically be considered leftist.

Every war economy is centrally administered - only that Nazism has seen little else than war. One could argue that the US defense sector is a prime example of politbureau-style economics.

The national socialist workers party came in control with the stated intent of controlling the economy. The platform of the party was well know, the historical record is sound, and the bottom line is there is very little difference between communism and nazism and/or fascism. Even the communists and the nazis knew it. They are the ideological offspring of socialism.
I would be curious how your logic would work concerning "US defense sector is a prime example of politbureau-style economics". I was under the impression that the defense sector was run by private corporations and not the government. Perhaps you could say that the defense department acquisition system has more then a passing resemblance to a politbureau.