Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Left Vs Right: Why The European Model is No Longer Relevant
#1
As I mentioned numerous times before, the concept of Left Vs Right is a sound one, because it highlights the outer boundaries of both extremes of political ideology.  It makes sense, and the entire thing began as a Post-French Revolution movement.  In those days, the left side of the French Parliament hall was made up of "Radicals", who were trying to make radical change within the system, while the right side was made up of "Conservatives", who resisted change.  

It made sense at that time.  And the Euros Still use that definition to describe where political parties and groups should reside.  But with the advent of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism, many of them are now the Establishment.  And the other side is filled with those fighting tooth and nail to roll their powers back.  Quite simply, they want Big Government out of their lives, pocketbooks, and homes.  In other words, they are now the New Radicals, so the old definition is now worthless, and the Euros really need to change their definitions.  

In the US, the Left Vs Right is more up to date, because it is recognized as Big Government (Collectivism) on the Left, and Small Government (Individualism) on the Right.  In other words, Fascists are NOT Ultra Right Wing.  They are Left Wing Collectivists, because they have no intent in fighting for small government individualism.  

So, when you read a European news site, and you see them use the Ultra Right title for some groups, they are usually anything else BUT Right Wing.   Its so confusing, less than logical, and past time it was halted.  

Even Roger L. Simon is frustrated by this confusion in this article the 'so called Extreme Right.

Quote:Are Europe's 'Extreme Right' Parties Really So Extreme?

Not more than an hour -- or was it ten minutes -- after news broke of Monday night's truck terror attack in Berlin, reports began to appear from the usual suspects (CNN, Reuters, AP, BBC, etc.) with the requisite sentences and paragraphs expressing concern that the horrific event would play into the hands of the "extreme right-wing" parties of Europe.

Buried not so deep was the implication that, bad as these attacks were, something even worse loomed, the return of Nazism or Nazi-like fascism.

I have always wondered how accurate this characterization of parties like Germany's relatively new Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) as "far right"  (as the BBC did Monday) really was.  I have been to Germany several times, though not recently, so my knowledge is not first hand, but I am skeptical.

I was in England around the Brexit vote and got to speak with people who were members of or sympathetic to the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and didn't find any of them particularly fascistic. On the contrary, they wanted independence from the EU so they could have local democratic rule and determine the fate of their own country apart from the undemocratic Brussels bureaucracy. But perhaps I missed something.

Perhaps I missed something too when I traveled the country covering the Trump campaign and didn't find any fascistic leanings to speak of among his supporters -- no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. -- just an over-weening disgust with Washington and a feeling they had been substantially overlooked by a morally narcissistic liberal elite busy enriching themselves. (They had.)

Of course there are Nazis in the world. How could there not be in populations, American and European, that together approach a billion? Just about anything could be found. In the USA we have this white-supremacist character Richard Spencer, whose group consists of fewer people than are normally in line for pizza at Ray's, yet the press persists on making a big deal out of him for reasons that are laughably obvious.  (If Spencer would agree to wear a "Make America Great Again" hat, they'd put him on the cover of TIME.)

But these tiny groups, domestic and foreign, do not constitute the remotest proof that parties seeking to limit Islamic immigration in European countries are extreme or far right. This is what one might call  "guilt by the most minute association."

What is really going on is an ideological fracturing with extreme -- in the real sense -- violent implications.  The European left -- lost for so many years in a blind, virtue-signaling multiculturalism -- now has to come to grips with the fact that maybe all cultures are NOT equal, that some cultures truly are racist, sexist, and homophobic and are governed by a religious ideology that seeks to rule the world with no separation of mosque and state and human rights virtually non-existent, the very things the left claims it abhors. And those same leftists don't know how to handle this contradiction.  So they blame those who do and call them neo-Nazis.

Ironically, those called neo-Nazis and the like are often the most open-minded people, seeking to preserve Europe's gift to humanity, the Enlightenment.

Such a person is the extraordinary Geert Wilders, recently found guilty of "discrimination" by a Dutch court and now the odds-on favorite to be the next prime minister of that country. The Dutch are in many ways the most honest people in Europe.  Wilders -- no shrinking violet -- has already tweeted out in no uncertain terms that Angela Merkel has blood on her hands for what transpired in Berlin.  She does.

The irony of ironies may be that the true heirs to the Nazis are the Merkels of the world, not the AfD, etc. While not Hitler-like in mass murder and megalomania, not to mention all the master-race insanity, they do share a background with the genocidal dictator -- socialism.  The Nazis were the National Socialist Party.  That Merkel is East German is not accidental.  Leading (and controlling) from the top is what she is used to. (The AfP, paradoxically, originated in the same area of Germany as Merkel, still an economically disadvantaged region.)


Now these guilty, pseudo-pacifist heirs of their crazy Fuhrer have to confront Hitler's old ally in irredentist Islam, invading their country under cover of "political asylum" from a situation created, at least in part, by Barack Obama's Middle Eastern fecklessness.  Aleppo belongs to Barack, but Berlin is Angela's (and "progressive" Germany's).

As the madman who drove through the Christmas market disappears into the European night, we wonder where Islam will strike next. France again? Belgium? Sweden? Things look pretty bad there.  Or perhaps Spain -- the original home of La Reconquista? Land once claimed by Islam is theirs forever, according to their holy book that even the more peaceful and supposedly moderate of their faith believe. Why then do we expect them to intervene when their more bloodthirsty brethren act out? And indeed they don't.

The complex knot that Europe needs to cut through is Gordian indeed and the continent is barely in shape to do it.  It may be too late.  Should America help?  Despite Trump's "America Firstism," I think we have to, to the extent we can, and I suspect he knows it. Without Old Europe, we're basically friendless in the world.

Well.... there's  always Australia. And now Taiwan. And maybe, once in a while, India. (And of course that place the French like to call the "petit pays merdique.")
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Old Topic, still relevant Multipolarity, is it good? Baldar 9 2,173 05-23-2007, 01:08 AM
Last Post: ag
  Collapse of the European Model mv 4 1,042 03-16-2006, 12:30 PM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)