It's not exactly a coup either. They wanted to restore the monarchy, which was illegally deposed in 1918, which led to all sorts of nonsense. Is beating back a coup a coup?
Germany has the Verfassungsschutz which is supposed to protect democracy and the constitution. They do the exact opposite.
They are notorious for faking far-right threats to enable to the state to crack down on opposition.
When the only party in post-war German history got forbidden (back then it was actually the communists) in the 50s or 60s it later turned out their party leader AND the attorney who represented them in court were both Verfassungsschutz undercovers.
Same thing when they tried to prohibit the right-wing NPD several years back. Courts told them they cannot ban the party because they could not determine which crimes were committed by actual members and which by the many informants and undercovers.
A few years ago the head of the Verfassungsschutz didn't see evidence to put the opposition party AfD under surveillance. So Merkel replaced him with her puppet who immediately went full retard on the AfD.
Just last year it was revealed that they run hundreds if not thousands of "far-right" accounts on social media. So many of the "right-wing criminals" are their own accounts that they have to make sure they don't accidentally prosecute themselves.
Imagine the FBI except their sole purpose is to attack the opposition. They do nothing else. The Verfassungsschutz is basically the Stasi 2.0.
Far right marching at this point is stupid. If you are an actual member, there are two things you should be doing. Raising strong christian families and communities, helping those around you, and going about repairing the social and familial aspects of society, or engaging in active all out war against the governments of the West. These attempts do nothing except get you noticed.
Of course it was a set up. They rolled news footage on German media channels showing tables of scary looking guns they purportedly seized, only they forgot to edit the placard on said table that showed it was from some random unrelated police raid several years ago.
This doesn't describe a right wing coup so much as describes a coup where everybody involved would immediately be vaporized by several platoons of private mercenaries and 95% of the military.
As someone who lands clearly in the Right-wing totalitarian camp (i.e. what most people think of when they are fearmongering about the 'Far-Right'), I couldn't care less about most of what you mentioned: you seem to be conflating Far-Right with something like 'Far-Libertarian'.
More specifically:
Repeal Income Tax - Don't care about it either way.
Bar Usury - The only Far-Right argument that I can see against it is the general 'Jewishness' that is often ascribed to it (for instance, that Jews condone it whereas Muslims, say, clearly oppose it). If we ignore that, there are no longer any arguments that compel me to one side or the other.
Bans corporate ownership of media - Agree.
Bars government officials from owning any property - I've never heard anyone argue for this, and nothing about it resonates with me.
Dual citizenship in government - Well, all forms of dual citizenship would be removed. I don't see any reason to deprive it only from those who are in government: the power-averse double standard applied here, in which those with power need all sorts of constraints put upon them to assuage the fear that they might become uncontrollable, is characteristic of Libertarianism.
So what you get from me is 2/5. But even if we look at it from a Libertarian perspective, it looks to me like I would only agree with #1 and #4. I don't see how Libertarianism conflicts with #2 (for banks should do whatever they want and state intervention in anything is 'tyranny'), #3 (for all things should be privately owned and state ownership of anything is 'tyranny') and #5 (for opposition to dual citizenship is probably also 'tyranny', impinging on individual rights, or whatever). Thus you still end up with a 2/5, with the other three of your points being too 'statist' from that perspective.
Whatever Far-Right means to you: whether extreme libertarianism like that of Rothbard or a blend of totalitarianism+reactionism+exclusive form of tribalism or nationalism, your characterizations of it seem way off point.
Didn't know Germany had an FBI of its very own.
It's not exactly a coup either. They wanted to restore the monarchy, which was illegally deposed in 1918, which led to all sorts of nonsense. Is beating back a coup a coup?
Germany has the Verfassungsschutz which is supposed to protect democracy and the constitution. They do the exact opposite.
They are notorious for faking far-right threats to enable to the state to crack down on opposition.
When the only party in post-war German history got forbidden (back then it was actually the communists) in the 50s or 60s it later turned out their party leader AND the attorney who represented them in court were both Verfassungsschutz undercovers.
Same thing when they tried to prohibit the right-wing NPD several years back. Courts told them they cannot ban the party because they could not determine which crimes were committed by actual members and which by the many informants and undercovers.
A few years ago the head of the Verfassungsschutz didn't see evidence to put the opposition party AfD under surveillance. So Merkel replaced him with her puppet who immediately went full retard on the AfD.
Just last year it was revealed that they run hundreds if not thousands of "far-right" accounts on social media. So many of the "right-wing criminals" are their own accounts that they have to make sure they don't accidentally prosecute themselves.
Imagine the FBI except their sole purpose is to attack the opposition. They do nothing else. The Verfassungsschutz is basically the Stasi 2.0.
So... The fbi
Stasi joke time.
Two friends are telling jokes about life when one pauses Wait, which one of us is the spy? I hope it's not me my friend, I forgot.
Yup, the "Verfassungsschutz". If anything, they are arguably even worse than the FBI.
We also have our own "Glowies", except we call them "V-Men" here
Far right marching at this point is stupid. If you are an actual member, there are two things you should be doing. Raising strong christian families and communities, helping those around you, and going about repairing the social and familial aspects of society, or engaging in active all out war against the governments of the West. These attempts do nothing except get you noticed.
Of course it was a set up. They rolled news footage on German media channels showing tables of scary looking guns they purportedly seized, only they forgot to edit the placard on said table that showed it was from some random unrelated police raid several years ago.
Don't believe anything these clowns say.
Yep they only found swords and claimed they were planning to storm the bundestag. With swords... And I'm supposed to find this scary why?
Unarmed buffalo schizo nearly conquered The United States; you can't be too careful.
You just wait! The AfD will re-instate the Kaiser! I know they will! It was in the latest Q Anon release! Trust the plan!
Needs more executions in Minecraft.
stop i can only get so erect
This doesn't describe a right wing coup so much as describes a coup where everybody involved would immediately be vaporized by several platoons of private mercenaries and 95% of the military.
As someone who lands clearly in the Right-wing totalitarian camp (i.e. what most people think of when they are fearmongering about the 'Far-Right'), I couldn't care less about most of what you mentioned: you seem to be conflating Far-Right with something like 'Far-Libertarian'.
More specifically:
Repeal Income Tax - Don't care about it either way.
Bar Usury - The only Far-Right argument that I can see against it is the general 'Jewishness' that is often ascribed to it (for instance, that Jews condone it whereas Muslims, say, clearly oppose it). If we ignore that, there are no longer any arguments that compel me to one side or the other.
Bans corporate ownership of media - Agree.
Bars government officials from owning any property - I've never heard anyone argue for this, and nothing about it resonates with me.
Dual citizenship in government - Well, all forms of dual citizenship would be removed. I don't see any reason to deprive it only from those who are in government: the power-averse double standard applied here, in which those with power need all sorts of constraints put upon them to assuage the fear that they might become uncontrollable, is characteristic of Libertarianism.
So what you get from me is 2/5. But even if we look at it from a Libertarian perspective, it looks to me like I would only agree with #1 and #4. I don't see how Libertarianism conflicts with #2 (for banks should do whatever they want and state intervention in anything is 'tyranny'), #3 (for all things should be privately owned and state ownership of anything is 'tyranny') and #5 (for opposition to dual citizenship is probably also 'tyranny', impinging on individual rights, or whatever). Thus you still end up with a 2/5, with the other three of your points being too 'statist' from that perspective.
Whatever Far-Right means to you: whether extreme libertarianism like that of Rothbard or a blend of totalitarianism+reactionism+exclusive form of tribalism or nationalism, your characterizations of it seem way off point.