I am just sceptical, that there ever was a time, when the "Verfassungsschutz" was actually different. It was founded and staffed with ex Gestapo personal after all and the main historical mission was anti bolschewistic - and (ex) nazis are plausible anti communists, so they were hired.
There are difference in how the different branches operate, though (every federate state has also their own agency) and some seem to do good work, but others (thuringa) seem to be made up of Nazis themself, who rather support the neonazi organisations, they are supposed to be fighting against.
Frankly, I don't see a strong argument why they should exist in the first place and why their work cannot be done by ordinary (professional) police.
So yes, neonazis (and left wing extremists and islamists) operate in secrecy. But so do common criminals.
Edit: And the actual dangerous nazi terrorism cell that operated for years was indeed caught not by the specialised secret agency Verfassungsschutz, but by ordinary police. (With strong hints, that they were protected by some parts of the Verfassungsschutz)
Its not really a "both sides" issue - employees of the state naturally tend towards the left (except military and special forces), for obvious reasons. Over 90% of US state personnel vote Democrat. And since no administration can function effectively without this "deep state", this kinda invalidates democracy itself.
Could you enlighten me and list some of these "obvious reasons"? Also, since you say "naturally", I assume there are sources you might be able to point at?
Not the OP, but let’s use a more libertarian definition of the right— that is, let’s say the Republicans actually believe “that government governs best that governs least.”
If that was so, then it’s natural for folks employed by the government to vote to keep their own jobs. If one party thinks, we need fewer government employees, and one side thinks, we need more of them, you can see how incentives might line up.
That said, Republicans talk about limited government, but in my lifetime, I’ve seen very little difference in the expansion of governmental powers regardless of which party is in control.
> If one party thinks, we need fewer government employees, and one side thinks, we need more of them, you can see how incentives might line up.
It doesn't even have to be the "greedy self-serving" kind. Just thinking you want "to make the world a better place" is enough to justify funds, power and influence. It takes a very rare kind of restraint to not intervene.
> That said, Republicans talk about limited government, but in my lifetime, I’ve seen very little difference in the expansion of governmental powers regardless of which party is in control.
> That said, Republicans talk about limited government, but in my lifetime, I’ve seen very little difference in the expansion of governmental powers regardless of which party is in control.
Since what they say in order to get votes and/or keep up the facade of democracy, can be 180deg opposite of what they big biz "partners" and "campaign donors" what them to actually do. Govt does not serve people at this point, it merely claims it does and that is just one of their many lies (especially on the top, less so at the municipality level).
> Not the OP, but let’s use a more libertarian definition of the right— that is, let’s say the Republicans actually believe “that government governs best that governs least.”
Tell me about how libertarianism and Christian nationalism come together to form a base that supports law enforcement (eg FBI), the military and CBP.
Frankly, I find the current version of the party most confusing, but especially the “small government” part.
Im sure they will be just as compelling as his last 3 of a random self published audiobook, a known propaganda rag and a random Twitter user posting a Fox News clip.
The audiobook isn't quite so random. The author[1] worked for Nixon under some of the names made infamous by Watergate: Erlichman, Egil Krogh, and Nixon's lawyer Fred Buzhardt. Attempts to paint Nixon as an innocent victim of Deep State machinations should therefore be treated with appropriate caution
It is true of course that "Deep Throat", the source who allegedly kept the journalistic investigation climbing through the Nixon Administration's ranks, is commonly held to have been Mark Felt[2], occupant of the number two job at the FBI at the time, so there is that.
What did for Nixon in the end, though, was mostly the taped evidence of his clumsy attempts to have the CIA, in the person of Richard Helms, warn the FBI off investigating his campaign's dubious money trail, or risk having "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" revealed if they didn't. (Whatever that might have been!)
> no administration can function effectively without this "deep state"
Why? I mean we need "dark budgets" to some extend (spy agencies, military). But do we need a "deep state", meaning: big biz and govt make the decisions behind closed doors and then merely project an image of democracy/voting/transparency?
Where was the public support for Iraq/Afghanistan/Unkrain and soon Taiwan? The deep state need no public support, they just need a "positive impact on the bottom line" (profit) of their "partners". Disgusting.
Since I can't find my original source anymore, I cannot defend this statement right now - consider it retracted. There are multiple sources for "majority democrat", but nothing close to 90%.
What I did find, and what I possibly confused it with, was that political spending of the respective government employee unions are overwhelmingly democrat:
"Of course, it’s not just teachers’ unions. In the 2020 election cycle alone, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) dedicated 99.1% of its political spending to Democrats. The American Federation of Government Employees gave 95.6% to Democrats." [0]
There are difference in how the different branches operate, though (every federate state has also their own agency) and some seem to do good work, but others (thuringa) seem to be made up of Nazis themself, who rather support the neonazi organisations, they are supposed to be fighting against.
Frankly, I don't see a strong argument why they should exist in the first place and why their work cannot be done by ordinary (professional) police.
So yes, neonazis (and left wing extremists and islamists) operate in secrecy. But so do common criminals.
Edit: And the actual dangerous nazi terrorism cell that operated for years was indeed caught not by the specialised secret agency Verfassungsschutz, but by ordinary police. (With strong hints, that they were protected by some parts of the Verfassungsschutz)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Undergrou...