The far right in Europe, something to worry about?

[Relander]

Just two weeks ago the European far right managed to form its own group in the European Parliament called ITS for "Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty" with 20 MEP's due to Romania's membership. Le Pen's "Front National" in France received 9.8% of votes in EU parliamentary elections at 2004 and at 2002 presidential elections Le Pen got into second round, a heavy blow for many French. In Russia, Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democratic Party of Russia", far-right nationalist party got 12% at Russian parliamentary elections at 2003.

Should we be worried about the rising support of the far right in Europe? Are you worried? Discuss

[Akula971]

People have a right to the goverment they vote for. If people wish to vote for left, right, centre or loony, that is their choice. Personally I'm in favour of any National Socialist movement.

[MrFancypants]

Those parties are dangerous as they are often popularistic and don't really have a plan except "throw out all foreigers" (which is not exactly a clever plan either). Their popularity increases because of inactivity and conservatism in larger parties, so it isn't impossible to reduce their influence.
Education and economy are also good ways to reduce influence of extremists - in Germany most right-wing extremists are uneducated and poor.

I think western Europe has a strong liberal tradition already, so it will at least take a while before extremists will have a large enough influence.

Originally Posted by Akula971

Personally I'm in favour of any National Socialist movement.

You probably heard about a few problems connected to national socialism, so why do you support it?

[*SW3D3*]

Originally Posted by Akula971

People have a right to the goverment they vote for. If people wish to vote for left, right, centre or loony, that is their choice. Personally I'm in favour of any National Socialist movement.

I have to agree. I grew up in a time before the large masses of immigration reached atleast Scandinavia. And my first answer would be that it was better in those days. The goverment had money to put on the elder-care, hospitals, police force, defence, schools etc. Sweden didn't have the problems back in the 80's as it has today.

Some people argue that its just a natural evolution of the society, well I don't buy it.
The "multicultural experiment" has costed billions of Euros and still cost billions of Euros every year.
We can compare to countries, Denmark and Sweden. Denmark has taken in very little immigrants, and they have very strict and tight immigration laws. Sweden on the other hand has taken in fairly much immigrants and have just recently started to get stricter in their immigration laws.
The Danish society reminds me about the Swedish society as it was back in the 80's or even to the mid 90's.
The Danish economy was in a very similar situation as the Swedish economy in the early 90's. Both economies were bad with gigantic national debts to other countries.
Today, Denmark doesn't have any national debt anymore. Compared to Sweden who has over 1000 billion Swedish Crowns in national debt (1 $ = 7,04 SEK; 1 € = 9.09 SEK). Both countries have been administrated more or less the same way, except for that little detail - the immigration. As a matter of fact, if it wasn't for the immigration, Sweden would probably recovered much faster the what Denmark did, from the economical collapses in the early 1990's, due the heavy industry that Sweden atleast had.

So yes, I don't see any problem with the atleast more nationalistic approach, then what it has been before, that large parts of EU now stands before.
I also want to add, that I don't see any problems in helping people who has a bad situation in their home countries. But from the day they touch EU soil, they should sign a contract that says, something along the line with that the same day the war is over in their home country, they must return. No matter how many years they have been here. They should know that this is just a temporarily shelter so they can go on with their life, without having to be afraid of getting killed, or raped or whatever.

[Akula971]

You misunderstand the term national socialist . I'm a socialist at heart, I believe in the collective ownership of key industries and utilities that a country should have. The nationalist part is that I believe that the government in power should put the interests (not just financial) of its people (the people who they represent) FIRST, above those of corporations, foreign nationals or countries. Today government is conducted in the interests of the "vested" interests, eg corporations, multinationals, and globalist agenda's which at heart are pure capitalism and have no regard for the individual or their rights in ANY country, as their only god is profit.
I am not against a market and market forces, but it must have clear boundaries.

National socialism as seen in Germany was not based upon democracy, as the electoral process was removed once the nazi's achieved power. Just as in the same way communism was never really exercised in Soviet Russia.

As to the question of immigration, this then leads to the usual label of racism and all that goes with it. I my self am not racist. People are people the world over with similar hopes, fears and dreams. The colour of the skin has no bearing on a persons thought process or outlook. What I do object to is culture clash. And it is this that is causing so many problems in the world today. The global capitalist has no regard to the person, or his culture, or the effects of their actions on a nations economy, they are truly the locust swarm over our planet. Exploiting, devouring and destroying before moving on to the next "cheap Labour" country.

[Akula971]

Originally Posted by MrFancypants

I think western Europe has a strong liberal tradition already, so it will at least take a while before extremists will have a large enough influence.

I disagree with you. Europe has never had a tradition of liberal democracies in any form. The continent has been plagued with dictatorships for centuries, plunging Europe into centuries of war. Napoleon, The Kaiser, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, all home grown in that strong liberal tradition (you are f**king joking, are you not?)
It has usually fallen on other countries to rescue Europe from its own problems, with the British Empire, then the Americans having to step in to rid Europe of its many dictators.
And the biggest joke of all. The EU. Why have so many little regimes that sought to have control over Europe through war, when you can have one giant mechanistic bureaucracy that does it so much better.

[Dreadnought[DK]]

Far-rightwing movements are always dangerous because they represent an uncivilised and inhumane world-view.

[Elektrofaust]

Far-rightwing movements are always dangerous because they represent an uncivilised and inhumane world-view.

Not really...depends on whos calling the shots. Nationalism is actually something good, but socialism is questionable.

[Rich19]

Originally Posted by Elektrofaust

Not really...depends on whos calling the shots. Nationalism is actually something good, but socialism is questionable.

...because?

I have to agree with Dreadnought. Their support lies in people's suspicions of foreigners, and the current terrorism situation facing the west can only build on this.

[Relander]

Originally Posted by Akula971

People have a right to the goverment they vote for. If people wish to vote for left, right, centre or loony, that is their choice.

In principle, yes that's the case: people have a right to vote for loony but the other question is, how wise it is. Though I think that parties/groups like neo-nazis etc. shouldn't be allowed to exist due to their dangerous ideas (racism, violence for example) and before some human rights liberal jumps into my throat: it's pretty obivious which ideas can be regarded directly dangerous by common sense rather than what some democratic only-by-name government think what is dangerous.

I agree with MrFancypants: strong education & economy are best ways to fight against intolerance, ignorance and pipe vision.


*SWEDE*: isn't that rather simplistic to blame just the immigrants about the condition of Swedish economy? In addition to administrative methods & politics, have you taken into account different exports & imports of countries, emphasizes at national budget, corporations, amount of national debt etc? Even if the immigrants would cause so big drain of money (how about bums, indifferent & lazy people, "work is poverty" idealists etc?), it's not just them to blame but the whole structure of Swedish social security network, in the end the Social Democrats.

The Alliance led by Fredrik Reinfeldt brought the issue into the table in the elections of last Autumn, system which isn't just expensive but also ineffective & passivating. The government employs hundreds of thousands of people by trick employment policies: getting people from job course to other, state's support employment, transferring people to live out from state benefit and so on.

Sweden has failed in its integration policies and it has taken too many immigrants too quickly. Though we must take into account the conditions where the immigrants arrive: new country with different culture, habits, language and perhaps with no proper training or work experience and with little money. Attitudes of employers and Swedish nationals doesn't make the situation any easier. However I agree that the government should take tougher stance on crimes committed by immigrants and when the situation in the home country has become peaceful, it should be possible to return the immigrants back to their home country.

Originally Posted by Akula971

the government in power should put the interests (not just financial) of its people (the people who they represent) FIRST, above those of corporations, foreign nationals or countries. Today government is conducted in the interests of the "vested" interests, eg corporations, multinationals, and globalist agenda's which at heart are pure capitalism and have no regard for the individual or their rights in ANY country, as their only god is profit.

Perhaps it's time to VOTE some other canditate and/or party. "They're all the same" is not just untrue, but also rather lame excuse for not trying to make a difference through own actions.

What country do you live in and could you provide some examples about this greed of the government? Just for interest.

Europe has never had a tradition of liberal democracies in any form.

How about Great Britain?

It has usually fallen on other countries to rescue Europe from its own problems, with the British Empire, then the Americans having to step in to rid Europe of its many dictators.

Napoleon's Empire? Collapsed even without Great Britain when Napoleon got this great idea of invading Russia.

First World War? It can be argued that Great Britain & France with their Allies would have eventually beaten Germany even without the direct involvement of the USA.

World War Two? The Allies won Germany together and when the Americans landed on North Africa at November 1942 with the Brits, Germany had already lost the war. Due to Roosevelt's weak health & blue eyes, Churchill was left pretty much alone when it came to fending of USSR's and Stalin's influence in Europe. Francisco Franco lived long life until 1975 when he died.

And the biggest joke of all. The EU. Why have so many little regimes that sought to have control over Europe through war, when you can have one giant mechanistic bureaucracy that does it so much better.

True, EU is partially undemocratic machinery with huge bureaucracy & inefficiency led by power elites in Brussels and Strasbourg but that doesn't put away its fine idea, goals and achievements. "What achievements": read some history and news.

Nationalism has created many new nations (like Ireland, Belgium, Finland) and brings people closer together in times of crisis but that's much about its achievements. After all, nationalism was part of the reason why dictators such as Mussolini, Franco and Hitler rose to power, and nationalism sparks racism, violence and intolerance at its extreme form. Nationalism protects national interests but may also put aside multi-national cooperation and compromises in trying to achieve greater good. It's two-edged sword really.


I'm worried about the rise of the far right in Europe. Sure some people are tired on traditional major parties but aren't there other than extremist parties to give your vote for or other means to express dissatisfaction? At least for me the answer is yes. Europe had its time of far right extremists and it didn't end up that well.