The New York Times is alarmed about the rise of “right-wing populists” in Europe. After decades in which socialists/communists have ruined the Continent’s economy the Times trembles in its boots at rumblings from “conservatives”.
Not so fast… The website of the NY Times at nytimes.com reported:
HVIDOVRE, Denmark — As right-wing populists surge across Europe, rattling established political parties with their hostility toward immigration, austerity and the European Union, Michael Dencker of the Danish People’s Party has found yet another cause to stir public anger: pork meatballs missing from kindergartens.
A member of Denmark’s Parliament and, he hopes, mayor of this commuter-belt town west of Copenhagen, Mr. Dencker is furious that some day care centers have removed meatballs, a staple of traditional Danish cuisine, from their cafeterias in deference to Islamic dietary rules. No matter that only a handful of kindergartens have actually done so. The missing meatballs, he said, are an example of how “Denmark is losing its identity” under pressure from outsiders.
The issue has become a headache for Mayor Helle Adelborg, whose center-left Social Democratic Party has controlled the town council since the 1920s but now faces an uphill struggle before municipal elections on Nov. 19. “It is very easy to exploit such themes to get votes,” she said. “They take a lot of votes from my party. It is unfair.”
It 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, the Czech Republic, Finland and the Netherlands — disruptive upstart groups are on a roll.
This phenomenon alarms not just national leaders but also officials in Brussels who fear that European Parliament elections next May could substantially tip the balance of power toward nationalists and forces intent on halting or reversing integration within the European Union. (end of nytimes.com excerpt)
OK, first notice that any group that challenges the far-left Euro socialist establishment is called “disruptive.” This, friends, is the way that Tea Parties are seen in America – not as forces acting within our Constitutional system but as “disruptive upstart groups” challenging Democrat power. And notice that the rise of these “fear mongering” parties “alarms… national leaders” for showing “hostility” to illegal immigration. Notice that the whole tone is negative toward political parties that challenge the socialist left. Then look at this sentence from further down in the Times story:
In some ways, this is Europe’s Tea Party moment — a grass-roots insurgency fired by resentment against a political class that many Europeans see as out of touch. The main difference, however, is that Europe’s populists want to strengthen, not shrink, government and see the welfare state as an integral part of their national identities. (end of nytimes.com excerpt)
Woah, woah, woah!… “the welfare state as an integral part of their national identities”? This is clearly not the Tea Parties. This is more like what was called National Socialism in Germany in the 1930s.
Hitler’s National Socialism was exactly what it says. It wanted government control of German society and its economy (socialism) and it wanted a welfare state (socialism). Hitler in fact was a communist. But National Socialism had political traits that clashed with Stalinist communism in the Soviet Union and that is what garnered National Socialism the moniker of “right wing fascism” as opposed to left-wing communism or left-wing fascism.
For instance Hitler wanted businesses to be private but controlled by the government while Stalin wanted a complete takeover of business by the government, and collectivization. Also Soviet-style communism offered something like a world-without-borders ideology while nazism represented strong national pride like Germany’s national identity under Hitler.
Meanwhile something called “right-wing fascism” is generally socially conservative, for instance it supports law and order, opposes the loose sexual standards of the decadent left and it wants unreasonable immigration slowed or stopped. You might have seen this in military governments in South America in the 1950s. Yet most societies throughout history have had concerns over these issues. These are simple common sense but they are called extremist by the New York Times in order to impugn and marginalize their supporters. Look at this from nytimes.com:
The platform of France’s National Front promotes traditional right-wing causes like law and order and tight controls on immigration but reads in parts like a leftist manifesto. It accuses “big bosses” of promoting open borders so they can import cheap labor to drive down wages. It rails against globalization as a threat to French language and culture, and it opposes any rise in the retirement age or cuts in pensions. (end of nytimes.com excerpt)
Oh, gee, law and order! And immigration control! Those “right wing” causes! Better put a stop to those!
Unbelievable… But if you look at nazi society of the late 1930s it looked strangely like the Democrat left in America today.
First, there’s the National Socialism part and the welfare state. Then Hitler’s desire for government control of private business was something along the lines of Obama subsidizing and controlling General Motors and befriending business tycoons at big companies like Google.
And then consider that nazi society was famously rife with…. get this… environmentalists, nature lovers, health fanatics, animal lovers and vegetarians (Hitler even portrayed himself as a vegetarian, but whether he truly was is disputed) and they absolutely hated cigarette smoking. Sounds like your average liberal in America today does it not?
Sure does. So when you hear a left-wing publication like the New York Times lamenting the rise of “right-wing” populists it is generally talking only about a few social issues like immigration and cultural standards. Otherwise the Times should be perfectly at home supporting these “populists” in Europe who cannot distance themselves from Euro socialism. In fact the Times today actually would support much of the nazi agenda (the welfare state, government control of business, environmentalism, vegetarianism etc.)
Meanwhile any conservative response to the radical socialism imposed by far-left parties all the way over to conservative opposition to the Islamic intrusion into Denmark is seen as a “disruptive” bogeyman. But here is the truth: What is called “right wing” and “far right” extremism in the global media today is often nothing more than a reasoned response to the radicalism of various factions like the giveaway welfare state in America or radical Islamists infiltrating into the United States and Europe.
In fact we American conservatives are not “right wing” at all. It is radical Islam that is “right wing” religious fanaticism. And we liberty-loving American conservatives oppose that fanaticism just as we oppose all forms of extremism. Because freedom can only flourish when extremism is vanquished and when reason and rationality are restored. We American conservatives are in fact rational centrists. That is why radical factions of every stripe around the world and in the United States hate American conservatism… because it by nature opposes their extremism. Now look at this pair of sentences from nytimes.com:
Similarly, in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, the anti-Islam leader of the Party for Freedom, has mixed attacks on immigration with promises to defend welfare entitlements. “He is the only one who says we don’t have to cut anything,” said Chris Aalberts, a scholar at Erasmus University in Rotterdam and author of a book based on interviews with Mr. Wilders’s supporters. “This is a popular message.”
Mr. Wilders, who has police protection because of death threats from Muslim extremists, is best known for his attacks on Islam and demands that the Quran be banned. (end of newyorktimes.com excerpt)
So Muslims move out of their tyrannical, impoverished countries and into democratic, prosperous Europe and then refuse to act in a democratic manner but threaten Europeans who oppose them with death. Thus obviously Geert Wilders is on to something. We all know that radical Islamists are violent people who are hiding in European and American society, preparing to strike. And that they are utterly incapable of democratic rule as exposed in the very UNdemocratic natures of Islamic nations today and throughout history. Individual liberty is far too delicate for their way of thinking. Meanwhile Christianity has coexisted with various forms of freedom for many centuries. Here is more from nytimes.com:
Ms. Kjaersgaard, a former social worker who led the party until last year, said she rigorously screened membership lists, weeding out anyone with views that might comfort critics who see her party as extremist. She said she had urged a similar cleansing of the ranks in Sweden’s anti-immigration and anti-Brussels movement, the Swedish Democrats, whose early leaders included a former activist in the Nordic Reich Party. (end of nytimes.com excerpt)
Note that they are called “extremists” if they want immigration controlled and oppose the heavy control of the European Union. Yet where are the political leaders to “weed out” the communist “extremists” who favor policies like open borders and total EU control over every aspect of Europeans’ lives?
There are none. Because extremism is accepted on the political left and at the New York Times and in Europe. Reported nytimes.com:
In Hvidovre, Mr. Dencker, the Danish People’s Party mayoral candidate, wants the government in, not out of, people’s lives. Beyond pushing authorities to make meatballs mandatory in public institutions, he has attacked proposals to cut housekeeping services for the elderly and criticized the mayor for canceling one of the two Christmas trees the city usually puts up each December. (end of nytimes.com excerpt)
Folks, government-funded housekeeping services for the elderly represents an extremist welfare state extending into every home. Can’t old folks in Denmark have their homes cleaned at their own expense?
Yes, they could if they were allowed to keep their money. But the fraud of the socialist state is that you pay and pay and pay in taxes and then, sure, you get some services in return, but only after the government has siphoned off a huge chunk of your money. As Ronald Reagan used to say, “It costs the government $2 in administrative costs to give away $1 in welfare” which is probably not far from the truth. So elderly people in Denmark would actually have MORE money for services like housecleaning if the government didn’t take so much of their income in the first place. But they are bamboozled into thinking otherwise as socialism bamboozles billions of people worldwide.
(Please bookmark this website and visit my Google sponsors. And please click the Google button (g+1) at the top of this page and recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook, MySpace and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)