• Right Wing’s Surge in Europe Has the Establishment Rattled
    123 replies, posted
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42814535]they aren't a line in the ground because they don't go into the ground though!![/QUOTE] Oh shit There are also borders in the sky, crazy
[QUOTE=Midas22;42813854]People that live in the UK need to respect UK culture just like if you're a guest in someones house you act polite.[/QUOTE] no they don't, that's whats so cool about being a liberal nation. if you live in the UK legally you can do anything you bloody damn well want thats within the law and dont have to respect shit. [editline]9th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;42813998]Nationalism is when you identify yourself with your respective nation and its national identity/background. That's literally all it is. It can be a left-wing phenomenon as easily as it can be a right-wing phenomenon Ultranationalism/ethnic/racial nationalism is what you're describing.[/QUOTE] nationalism is far more charged as a term than you let it on to be. anyone who says they are a nationalist doesn't just mean to say one thing.
[quote] t is also Europe’s new reality. All over, established political forces are losing ground to politicians whom they scorn as fear-mongering populists. In France, according to a recent opinion poll, the far-right National Front has become the country’s most popular party. In other countries — Austria, Britain, Bulgaria, [B]the Czech Republic[/B], Finland and the Netherlands — disruptive upstart groups are on a roll. [/quote] I'd just like to point out that while new political groupings (Usvit, and ANO) did get 7% and 19% respectively, neither is a right wing wing party. But both are pretty standard populist ones. The right wing party got Dělnic.str.sociální spravedl. 0,86% in the last election a few weeks ago, which is even less than the pirates which got roughly 2,6%. Though our results are probably like this, since we don't actually have an immigration problem and most of our racist groups or racism in general is usually directed at gypsies so it's kinda hard to built up a political program on making immigration harder. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;42814386]racists hate people because of skin colour nationalists hate people because of invisible lines on the ground I didn't think it possible but nationalists may just be dumber than racists[/QUOTE] I've figured that nationalists aren't as selective about nations as they are about cultures. Or a mix of race and culture to prefer that which is a majority in their skylines.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42814011]no it isn't. nationalism is nazism, fascism, and what you call "ultranationalism" you are talking about nationality which is a different thing. there is no such thing as a moderate nationalist. a moderate nationalist is just a neo-nazi who hasn't "come out" yet.[/QUOTE] Are you seriously saying nationalism is nationalsocialism? Are you stupid?
[QUOTE=Midas22;42813997]On top of that, I didn't realize KKK or any of the other were running for office.[/QUOTE] It was called the Democrat Party before the changes under the JFK administration in the 60's.
[QUOTE=Medevila;42815478]uh more like under FDR [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] in the 30's/40's[/QUOTE] It got started there, but never really came to full force until about the mid 50's/early 60's.
People who emphasize themselves as nationalists usually have supremacist elements attached to their nationalism in my experience. I doubt this is enough to generalise nationalism though. Edit: it kind of seems to boil down to comparing nations and the firm belief that your own nation is always superior for some people.
[QUOTE=Vasili;42811538]Well from what I hear and read by people who swing on the right are paranoid about the 'liberalization' of Europe and the removal of its cultural heritage, back bone and the influx of Muslim immigration. They believe European politicians seem to not listen to the populas and turn a blind eye to its cultural dismantle by other foreign cultures in the guise of a 'progressive diverse tolerant society' which to them means anti-white agenda caused by either Jewish people, Capitalists, Liberal people or some other group. But mostly it is the belief that soft minds lead to soft empires and by being immigrant friendly or tolerant towards homosexuals, transsexuals, blacks, browns, purples, blues and other such groups etc - we are being picked off by the crows of less tolerant/progressive/liberal countries with their immigrants rooting into our societies and passing their own agendas while trying to rub the 'natives' off the map. But just to clarify, I don't actually believe this. I just hang out on /pol/ and other loonies I know.[/QUOTE] So you don't believe that when people come to your country they should respect your culture and try to adopt it instead of trying to enforce theirs? It's as if a basketball player went to play a football match and instead of trying to get better at that sport they try to switch the game rules that have already been established to those of basketball. In the case of muslims, they already tried to conquer Europe in the past and were very successful in Spain, conquering 90% of the territory of Spain and some of France. Then the catholics fought back and reclaimed all that territory. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus[/url] If if were the other way and you went to a country with 100% islamic laws would you try to integrate into them or would you expect to change all the laws in your favour even though you knew you would piss off almost everyone in that country and maybe even cause a civil war?
[QUOTE=OnDemand;42817025]So you don't believe that when people come to your country they should respect your culture and try to adopt it instead of trying to enforce theirs?[/QUOTE] nope, dont care. you follow the law you can do whatever the heck you want, i don't care if you take a wee on the queen's picture.
[QUOTE=thisispain;42817044]nope, dont care. you follow the law you can do whatever the heck you want, i don't care if you take a wee on the queen's picture.[/QUOTE] That's one of the benefits of the sharia law.
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;42815444]Are you seriously saying nationalism is nationalsocialism? Are you stupid?[/QUOTE] nationalism is more fashionable and doesn't sound as scary as "neo-nazi", but if you are a nationalist you are probably about as good as a neo-nazi so w/e. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] it's all the same root logic, same root hate, neo-nazis at least get swastikas and the ss bolts so i can tell at a glance you are a piece of shit.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42811623]If you want to have a welfare state it does make sense to limit immigration.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. You don't get welfare for nothing, you have to contribute before you get it, it's not unlimited and more often than not it helps people who really need it. And last but not least I'm very happy about sharing all of the wealth that Europe and the other "western" countries leeched out of the world throughout history.
[QUOTE=OnDemand;42817064]That's one of the benefits of the sharia law.[/QUOTE] What does that have to do with Sharia Law?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42817297]nationalism is more fashionable and doesn't sound as scary as "neo-nazi", but if you are a nationalist you are probably about as good as a neo-nazi so w/e. [/QUOTE] Believing that groups of people have the right to self determination does not make anybody a facist or even a supremacist.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42820308]Believing that groups of people have the right to self determination does not make anybody a facist or even a supremacist.[/QUOTE] nationalists don't believe that. that isn't part of nationalism and has nothing to do with nationalism.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42820436]nationalists don't believe that. that isn't part of nationalism and has nothing to do with nationalism.[/QUOTE] How do you define nationalism? Is it the white supremacist and Nazi stereotype? I don't consider myself much of a nationalist but I would reject an American annexation of Canada for example.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42820460]How do you define nationalism? Is it the white supremacist and Nazi stereotype? I don't consider myself much of a nationalist but I would reject an American annexation of Canada for example.[/QUOTE] american annexation of canada has nothing to do with nationalism. national identity, being part of a nation, is not nationalism. nationalism is an ideology of national superiority and separation. nationalism is exclusive by nature because it says that people of certain nations should stay with those nations and that multiculturalism ultimately causes societal problems. nationalism is an idea of cultural homogenization of a specific area. the most "progressive" nationalist can only tolerate immigrants as long as they promise to integrate fully into the nation. they must learn the language, take part in the customs, and relinquish their past society and culture for the privilege of living in the nation. it is also an ideology that seeks to make countries "british national state for the british people", "american national state for the american people", instead of the idea that government should be a representative force that incorporates all peoples within the jurisdiction for everyone's benefit. to say that the usa is an american state for the american people means that anyone who lives here, pays taxes, and works will never have participation in issues until they meet some arbitrary definition of what an american is. this is contrary to the idea of inclusiveness among people, and it is contrary to the idea of democracy. having a nationality is fine; identifying yourself as an american(or a southerner, new englander, w/e) is tolerable because it is simply a culture and history. it's when you begin to exclude others from benefiting from society or trying to prevent people from taking part in your society(generally through the creation of national states) that nationality becomes nationalism.
[QUOTE=Midas22;42813790]Preservation of national identity and culture. You don't really need to close the entire flood gates and halt immigration 100% to do it either.[/QUOTE] Okay but what snapshot of ~national identity and culture~? Celtic britain? roman britain? anglosaxon britian? Norman Britain? Medieval Britain, Imperial Britain, Postwar Britain? post windrush britain, modern liberal britain? I could go on nearly forever. Maybe nationalists need to give up on the concept of national identity and culture as something they can stop and freeze it at some arbitrary point in history where they think its the best and has the least immigrants.
[QUOTE=thisispain;42817044]nope, dont care. you follow the law you can do whatever the heck you want, i don't care if you take a wee on the queen's picture.[/QUOTE] It's not just about what the law says. The big problem, atleast in Sweden is that our politicians don't stand up for the ideals that the majority in Sweden believe in. We have, for example, a very secular society so when all of a sudden there is special rules for immigrants, in school, at the workplace and so on it's kinda annoying. Also the fact that they refuse to even take the criticism seriously is disheartening. Like when the sweden democrats got representatives in our Riksdag the other parties didn't speak to them, and even refused to stay in the same room as them. They were elected by the people with almost 6 % of the votes, that is quite alot of peoples opinion that they simply dismiss.
If I was in a room with the Swedish Democrats I'd want to leave too so I can't really blame, no matter how large a percent of racist votes they got
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42823143]If I was in a room with the Swedish Democrats I'd want to leave too so I can't really blame, no matter how large a percent of racist votes they got[/QUOTE] Yes because it's better to walk away right? If you disagree with them you have to show why you think they are wrong, atleast if you are a politician. Not insulting or ignoring them
[QUOTE=DooHoop;42822952]It's not just about what the law says. The big problem, atleast in Sweden is that our politicians don't stand up for the ideals that the majority in Sweden believe in. We have, for example, a very secular society so when all of a sudden there is special rules for immigrants, in school, at the workplace and so on it's kinda annoying.[/QUOTE] deal with it. obviously the majority of Sweden doesn't find this a problem or else they'd vote otherwise. you have immigrants because you need them, don't blame them for things that are your problem.
BUUUH DUUUH EUUUGH BLOODY IMMIGRANTS!
immigrants are the root cause of all problems dontcha know [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] all of them ever
[QUOTE=person11;42824616]immigrants are the root cause of all problems dontcha know [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] all of them ever[/QUOTE] naw, it's lack of jesus love repent y'all
[QUOTE=thisispain;42823505]deal with it. obviously the majority of Sweden doesn't find this a problem or else they'd vote otherwise. you have immigrants because you need them, don't blame them for things that are your problem.[/QUOTE] Well in a recent poll SD was the third biggest party in Sweden so I guess more more are starting to consider it a problem. Not blaming immigrants either, it's the politicians. And I think you Americans compare SD to your right wing parties which is wrong because they are probably alot worse than those in europé I Think.
[QUOTE=Killuah;42817612]No it doesn't. You don't get welfare for nothing, you have to contribute before you get it, it's not unlimited and more often than not it helps people who really need it. And last but not least I'm very happy about sharing all of the wealth that Europe and the other "western" countries leeched out of the world throughout history.[/QUOTE] Honestly? Leeched off? Most of European wealth was from mutual trade with the near east and Asia. While the colonies were incredibly important as well, the impact they had wasn't as strong for a huge number of nations - the russians, the Germans, the nations in the Habsburg monarchy, polish and many many others saw very little of this. As to leeching off - why not draw the same line for the spice trade which nearly bankrupted Europe and led to a huge monetary reform after new silver mines were discovered. On top of that, many old world colonies actually improved economically as colonies and to make it even more interesting, a lot of New world ones as well. I'd say that the continent that suffered the most was South America, most others probably didn't. [QUOTE=DooHoop;42823238]Yes because it's better to walk away right? If you disagree with them you have to show why you think they are wrong, atleast if you are a politician. Not insulting or ignoring them[/QUOTE] Communists here get between 10 and 15% every elections which pretty much makes the third biggest party every time. Yet the same applies and I am happy it applies. A party which wants to dismantly a cornerstone of a democratic state should be blocked if possible, regardless of how many votes it actually gets. If it ever gets enough votes to act alone, then you have issues, but until then, other parties would do well to distance themselves from them. Plus, not doing so is political suicide in a sense as well. Since the majority of voters aren't extreme and wouldn't probably vote for a party that discusses stuff with extremists.
[QUOTE=DooHoop;42826237]Well in a recent poll SD was the third biggest party in Sweden so I guess more more are starting to consider it a problem. Not blaming immigrants either, it's the politicians. And I think you Americans compare SD to your right wing parties which is wrong because they are probably alot worse than those in europé I Think.[/QUOTE] im not american and i know what the right wing parties are like in europe thanks
[QUOTE=wraithcat;42827863] Communists here get between 10 and 15% every elections which pretty much makes the third biggest party every time. Yet the same applies and I am happy it applies. A party which wants to dismantly a cornerstone of a democratic state should be blocked if possible, regardless of how many votes it actually gets. If it ever gets enough votes to act alone, then you have issues, but until then, other parties would do well to distance themselves from them. Plus, not doing so is political suicide in a sense as well. Since the majority of voters aren't extreme and wouldn't probably vote for a party that discusses stuff with extremists.[/QUOTE] First off, the party I was referring to (SD) does not want to dismantle the cornerstone of a democratic state as you say, they are not a nazi party. Rather it's the other more established parties who are undermining the democratic system when they ignore the opinions of so many people. I don't see how it could ever be a good idea to ignore them since you wont persuade the people by ignoring, you have to explain why their ideology is bad.
[QUOTE=DooHoop;42829060]Rather it's the other more established parties who are undermining the democratic system when they ignore the opinions of so many people.[/QUOTE] This is not how representative democracies work.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.