Ultranationalist fervor hits Europe

Ultranationalist fervor hits Europe

The Washington Times
April 20, 2007

When France last elected a president, the far right's Jean-Marie Le Pen shocked the world by muscling his way into the runoff against incumbent Jacques Chirac. The outcome seemed to underline rising fears of an ultranationalist resurgence across Europe.

Mr. Le Pen ended up soundly beaten in 2002 and is unlikely to repeat his first-round success in a presidential election on Sunday. But with polls giving him up to 16 percent of the vote, it's clear his France-first slogans still resonate.

The same issues preoccupying the French -- jobs, immigration, integrating a large and restive Muslim minority -- have catapulted many of Mr. Le Pen's views into the mainstream, with leading candidates both left and right co-opting elements of his ideas.

It's a phenomenon seen across Europe: Deep anxieties over security and unemployment have fed a sharp shift to the right, forcing mainstream politicians to embrace policies that just a few years ago would have seemed the exclusive terrain of ultranationalist forces.

These policies mainly aim to reassert the primacy of the home culture with language requirements, citizenship tests and tougher criteria for prospective immigrants.

In the Netherlands, a powerful nationalist movement sprang up around charismatic Pim Fortuyn and won a place in the coalition, only to fall apart after Mr. Fortuyn was assassinated in 2002. But his ideas live on in the citizenship tests and deportations of asylum-seekers, which are now Dutch policy.

In October, Austria's two rightist parties won more than 15 percent of the vote -- far short of the stunning 26.9 percent that firebrand Joerg Haider received in 1999 but enough to trouble the moderate majority.

The anti-immigration Danish People's Party, formed only 12 years ago, is the third-largest faction in Denmark's parliament. Far-right parties also made electoral strides last year in Sweden and Belgium.

In Germany, far-right parties remain a fringe movement, but hold seats on three regional legislatures in the formerly Communist east. Officials say crimes by far-right groups and attacks against foreigners rose 16 percent last year.

Tony Blair, Britain's center-left prime minister, campaigned two years ago on the slogan "Your country's borders protected," while his conservative rivals proposed HIV and tuberculosis tests for immigrants. A fringe nationalist party scored well in local elections in May.

The hard right does not appear to be drastically bleeding supporters as the center co-opts its agenda. On the contrary, many nationalist groups appear to be enjoying a resurgence.

In France, 78-year-old Mr. Le Pen is gloating as front-runners Nicolas Sarkozy on the right and Segolene Royal on the left hoist two of his pet issues -- immigration and national identity -- to center stage.

Thirty percent of respondents in a poll by TNS Sofres published in December said they agreed with Mr. Le Pen's positions -- the highest figure since 1996.

While neither Mr. Sarkozy nor Miss Royal echo his call for zero immigration, Mr. Sarkozy says he wants to exert more control over it by creating a Ministry of Immigration and National Identity. He also has used a variation on Mr. Le Pen's longtime catch phrase, "France: Love it or leave it."

Miss Royal, polling second, calls for all French to keep a national flag in the home and asks supporters to sing the national anthem, "La Marseillaise," at her rallies.

Mr. Le Pen's National Front today claims 75,000 members, and spokesman Thibaut de la Tocnay says membership shot up by several thousand after the November 2005 riots in immigrant-heavy suburbs of Paris.

In many European countries, support for the hard right is blamed on voters' perception of politics as a tweedledum-and-tweedledee affair that perpetuates moderate governments unwilling to tackle difficult issues head-on.

That sentiment partially accounts for Mr. Le Pen's enduring appeal.

His call for France to pull out of the European Union and its common currency, the euro, appears unworkable, but finds sympathy among those who think the country's immersion into the 27-nation bloc has diminished it.

But he has also been convicted of racist and anti-Semitic utterances.

In the end, Mr. Le Pen's 2002 triumph turned into humiliation. Appalled at the prospect of a President Le Pen, voters flocked en masse to Mr. Chirac in the second round, giving him a record 82 percent of the vote.


[source]

[Galaico]

While all this is happening in Europe, here in Spain we just have Neo-Liberals (Popular Party), Social-Democrats (Socialist Party), Neo-Communists (United Left), or separatist parties, these are our options when we have elections.

I'm so tired of throwing my vote to the dustbin by voting minoritary parties such as the anti-abortists of Familia y Vida.

I know I'm not doing anything to change all this, so I shouldn't complain, but when are we going to have a real alternative, WHEN?

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Menydh

Ultranationalist fervor hits Europe

Mmm, well, I don't really feel a fervor here, but if you say so...

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Galaico

I know I'm not doing anything to change all this, so I shouldn't complain, but when are we going to have a real alternative, WHEN?

Let us just say that things are being polished up here and there and that the results of a few localized alternatives, small as they may be, in the forthcoming municipal elections will indicate the direction to go.

There are currently a few issues that don't allow any displays just now, namely the still burden of the past decades (in more than one respect), the bi-polarisation of national politics, the yet to be seen effects of immigration (it's been so far unlike anywhere else in Europe), the still not perceived real socio-economic situation (the shock of in-home loss of purchasing power has been absorbed by an active house market.. wait for the crash of the brick which is around the corner), and others.

I would say that it will be some 4-5 years before something noticeable is seen. The possible impact size is simply impossible to even speculate with at present. It depends upon too many variables.

[Laocoon]

First I thought those Washington Times journalists had been smoking too much of weed but then I realized they were rather propagating lies as always. They don't believe a single word they wrote. It's called BS propaganda.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

First I thought those Washington Times journalists had been smoking too much of weed but then I realized they were rather propagating lies as always. They don't believe a single word they wrote. It's called BS propaganda.

The Washington Times is a newspaper which loses money year after year but is kept going to distribute propaganda and disinformation by people with very deep pockets. Even in the US it is not well thought of; which is saying something.

I'll answer here someone's comment via the reputations system.

Does "ultranationalist" apply to people like us?

It does. But ultranationalist is only a journalist's label to make it sound all the more alarming. Think about it, ultra is a Latin prefix that means beyond, even more than. I don't know how it is to be "non ultra" nationalist. Or ultra nationalist for that matter. There is undoubtedly people with different ideologies wrapped around Nationalism (I always argue that Nationalism is not an ideology, but a sentiment that must be accompanied by a consequent ideology or a political idea attached to it). But, what is to be "beyond nationalist" is uncertain if it is at all.

I don't mind the labelling of ultra. In Spain the journalists used to call Ultras to Patriots in past decades. It was short for ultra-rightists. Today it is sometimes used to label football supporters groups.. unfortunately. They also employed "extreme rightists" as an alternative labelling to ultras. Now, I do mind a bit that one. I find it very inexact and there is a lack of imagination and of style in its usage.

Another usual labelling is that of radical. Again, used with the intention of making it sound as alarming as possible. I don't mind that one either. Probably without being fully aware, they are employing here a word with an etymological meaning in Latin derived from the word for "root[s]": radix, radices.

Many people assume that a journalist is a well informed and even cultivated person, without a reason for such a belief other than that journalists should in the theory be well informed and cultivated people. But in the practice they are not and journalism is not about informing but about creating opinion or a means for propaganda. Much unfortunately.

So, their intention behind the employment of the word radical is to equate it to the alternative meaning of extremist. Well, that's their saying. I choose to think of it in its meaning of "from the root[s]".

Main Entry: 1rad·i·cal
Pronunciation: 'ra-di-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin radicalis, from Latin radic-, radix root -- more at ROOT
1 : of, relating to, or proceeding from a root: as a (1) : of or growing from the root of a plant <radical tubers> (2) : growing from the base of a stem, from a rootlike stem, or from a stem that does not rise above the ground <radical leaves> b : of, relating to, or constituting a linguistic root c : of or relating to a mathematical root d : designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue <radical surgery> <radical mastectomy>
2 : of or relating to the origin : FUNDAMENTAL
3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : EXTREME b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>
4 slang : EXCELLENT, COOL

Notice in the above definition of radical from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary that in the second definition, fundamental is given as a synonimous of radical.

Now, when you read of Muslim fundamentalists you are used to --or rather programmed to-- think in terms of extremists. But again, what's wrong with following the fundaments of a doctrine, and ideology or a belief? Maybe if one sticks to them beyond what's reasonable.. and again, how do we measure what is reasonable and what is not for each and every single case? Surely our own perception of things, influenced by our education, our cultural and our social background among many other factors allow us to judge or to measure within an own bias.

But if we think well over it, what's wrong with following the fundaments of the Islamic doctrine and religion in an Islamic country? I don't know and, quite honestly, I don't care. But I do know that it is fundamentally wrong if these fundaments are followed in European countries. Excuse the redundancy here. Among other things, because being strange to Europe they have to be forced in. And then I do care and I have no doubts that so do most others on Stirpes.

So, it is within a context that a label used with the intention of making something or someone look and sound wrong, that we can think of it in some terms or another. Undoubtedly, the journalists who employ such labels do it with clearly dishonest intentions.

To give you another example, through the 60s and 70s and even still in the early 80s journalists created and spread what they labeled the Black International. This was supposed to be a secretive and obscure underground network in Europe and beyond, of Nationalist activists with the intention of destabilising the system and/or attempting to gain power through subversive and even armed actions. The terming "black" was employed because of its identification with Fascism. The terming "international" is most laughable at if you think of the non internationalist nature of Nationalism in those years (and to some point still today, although the world has changed and even turned upside down, and adaptation to the new times has been necessary for survival.. something that is more clear each year). But if you had read the news related to the Black International in those years, you would have been left with the deep impression of a well organized and strong underground network.

I have to admit that there was a flair to the story which was likeable and even enjoyable. But apart from that flair there was next to nothing to it. Such an "international" never existed, neither in an official nor in an unofficial form. It was a smoke screen to justify to the public the persecution of Nationalist elements. People from those years, when the subject of the Black International arises today in a conversation, joke saying how they were leaders or elements of an all-powerful international network which they didn't even know that it existed.

Of course there were contacts here and there, and of a varied nature. But such contacts were largely unconnexed one to each other and often as a result of the works of individuals or small groups who on occasions did not even trust each other to work together. And, of course, the invisible hand of the secret services of some country or another making sure that things were messy and troubled enough for convenience.

In a matter of a few lines on a newspaper, someone could become a highly dangerous individual with powerful and obscure contacts, and be involved in all kind of imaginable and unimaginable actions ranging from entangled financial operations to the overthrown of regimes around the world.

As the saying goes, information is power.

So, to answer the initial question if the label of ultranationalist applies to us, I would say yes. Ultranationalist, radical nationalist and what not. It doesn't matter how exact or inexact it is, or if it's being used fairly or not, or with such or such other intention. You can say that you are just a Nationalist or a Patriot, to try to dettach yourself from the intended demonization of the other labels. But tomorrow some journalists can re-construct the words Nationalist and Patriot, distorting their meaning and making them synonimous with the rest of the labels. You can't allow yourself to be bothered with such labels. It's a waste of time.

[Marulus]

The title of this article does not, unfortunately, correspond with the truth.