The Moderateness of the Far Right & the Extremism of ImmigrationRicardo Duchesne
The mandated claim that mass immigration is indispensable to the cultural and economic “enrichment” of European nations is possibly the most extreme policy ever implemented in human history. This cultural Marxist-initiated policy is bringing an irreversible alteration in the intrinsic ethnic and cultural identities of European nations. Economic Marxism was reversible and indeed worked to protect the former Soviet sphere from the less physically violent but far more insidious cultural Marxism dominating the West today.
Our political landscape is so entrapped by the correctness of this sinister ideology that its proponents are portrayed as moderate and tolerant characters living up to the true spirit of liberal ideals, whereas the opponents of mass immigration are seen as “far right extremists.”
Recently I decided to investigate the ideas and policies of some of the political parties designated in the media as both “extreme” and “right-wing.” Since the parties that are so labelled exist primarily in Europe, the main search phrase I used was “Extreme Right-Wing Parties in Europe.” What struck me right away is that the only reason a political party in Europe is called “extremist,” “xenophobic,” or “ultra conservative” is its opposition to high immigration numbers — irrespective of overall platform. I was also puzzled by the fact that both the left and the “moderate” right-wing media use these inaccurate labels.
The majority of parties that are called extremist generally fit within the Western liberal tradition. They are as varied in their political viewpoints as the other mainstream parties. They include an interesting combination of nationalist, traditionalist, social conservative, libertarian, socialist, and environmentalist policies. They challenge Europe’s immigration problems within the framework of its liberal-democratic institutions. Yet these parties are regularly called “neo-fascist” and “neo-Nazi” by leftists and fake conservatives.
How has it come about in the Western world, and only in this part of the world, that parties wishing to maintain, conserve, and avoid a radical alteration in the historic identities of their nations are called “extremist” by the standard media outlets, while the forces calling for a permanent revolution in Europe’s heritage, including the rooted European character of Canada, the United States, and Australia, are called reasonable and moderate?
I will start with an overview of the respective platforms of some of the major “extremist” parties of Europe. The National Front in France led by Marine Le Pen is a nationalist party claiming to be “neither right nor left,” but simply for the cultural and economic integrity of France, advocating a combination of free market, protectionist, and social welfare policies. The party supports the typical role governments have played in France in health care, education, transportation, and energy, but criticizes the way welfare has become a form of government-assisted mass immigration into France at the cost of French tax-payers. The party’s chief concern is the threat posed to France’s liberal and secular values by Muslim culture. They want to deport illegal, criminal, and unemployed immigrants, and believe that unrestricted immigration from Islamic countries poses a “mortal threat to civil peace in France.”
The Party of Freedom in the Netherlands is led by Geert Wilders. This party, too, is primarily concerned with Muslim immigration; it advocates zero Muslim immigration, banning the Koran, repatriation of criminals of foreign citizenship, and an end to Islamic “gender apartheid.” Its other policies are also neither right nor left: a 10-year Dutch residency and work experience requirement for welfare assistance, constitutional protection of the dominance of the “Judeo-Christian” and humanistic culture of the Netherlands, repeal of anti-smoking legislation in bars, investment in more nuclear power plants and clean coal plants to reduce dependency on imported oil, withdrawal from the European Union, the cutting off of tax money to “political left” organizations, and documentation of the ethnicity of people who commit crimes. Yet these level-headed, security-oriented, libertarian and even pro-feminist policies have been deemed “far right” due to their combination with “anti-immigration” policies.
True Finns in Finland became the third largest party in the 2011 parliamentary elections. Known as a nationalist party, the party opposes the granting of Finnish nationality through mere migration or by claiming asylum. Their solution to declining birthrates is to encourage young women to give birth to more Finnish children; they are socially conservative, opposing abortion and homosexual marriage. On the other hand, the party endorses left-wing economic policies, is critical of corporate globalism, and strongly supports the Finnish welfare state. But the media, focusing only on its stand on immigration, has concluded that this is a “far right,” unreasonable, illiberal, and hateful party. They also dislike the idea that Finnish women should have children, preferring the importation of immigrants.
The Swiss People’s Party advocate low taxes and very limited immigration, and oppose increased involvement of Switzerland in supranational organizations including the UN, EEA, and EU. They stand for strict neutrality in foreign conflicts while calling for a strong role for the Swiss army as the institution responsible for national defense. Yet the Swiss People’s Party is known as an “extremist” party because it wants Switzerland to retain its ethnic character, which is already mixed, but for the cultural Marxists the mix is too “European” and “White.” This past February when a majority of Swiss citizens voted to curb immigration (a proposal that was backed by the Swiss People’s Party and opposed by all other major parties, trade unions and business groups), the international media immediately resorted to the accusation that the Swiss People’s Party had “stoked irrational fears” against Muslims and hardworking immigrants. The EU condemned this vote, insisting that the Swiss had no choice but to accept immigration if they are to meet the standards of economic progress — the Swiss, apparently, are incapable of creating wealthy nations on their own.
The Denmark’s Peoples Party, the third largest party in Denmark, is socially conservative in its defence of the traditional family, the Monarchy and the Church of Denmark, but also wishes to maintain a strong welfare system for those in need and to protect the environment and natural resources, while promoting entrepreneurship and economic growth by strengthening education and encouraging a work-ethic. On immigration, the party platform states:
Denmark is not an immigrant-country and never has been. Thus we will not accept transformation to a multi-ethnic society. Denmark belongs to the Danes and its citizens must be able to live in a secure community founded on the rule of law, which develops along the lines of Danish culture.
For this position alone, the Denmark’s Peoples Party is identified as a “fear-mongering populist” group.
The Progress Party of Norway, the second-largest party in the Norwegian Parliament, is libertarian, a firm advocate of classical liberal principles, small government, low taxes, and individual rights. It is against the radical transformation of Norway into a globalized multicultural place; hence the media calls it “extremist.”
The Sweden Democrats describes itself as a “nationalist” party: “Keep Sweden Swedish.” The media calls it a party “for anti-immigrant nationalism.” It acknowledges the value of Sweden’s “generous welfare state” while identifying itself as a conservative party in matters of law and order, advocating life without parole for the worst crimes and repatriation of foreign citizens found guilty of serious crime. It also wants to end funding for multicultural initiatives and strengthen support for traditional Swedish culture. It favors the “traditional” family, stating in its website that every child should have “one father and one mother.” Accordingly, the media has labelled this party “fascist.”
The Freedom Party of Austria, which had support in opinion polls of around 24-29 per cent in 2011, believes that nationalism, liberalism, and social democracy are not only compatible but intrinsically connected. It is neither left nor right in supporting privatization and low taxes combined with support for the welfare state. It maintains that current immigration policies undermine the welfare state; socialism and national identity are impossible together with unrestricted immigration. It wants to ensure the survival of Austrians’ German identity — ergo, the media has decided it is a fascist party.
Finally, UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party), basically known for its advocacy that Britain leave the European Union, supports both “traditional conservative and libertarian values,” including cuts in corporation taxes, abolition of inheritance taxes, a 40 percent increase in defense spending, but lo and behold, this rather mainstream party, which is only calling for a five-year “freeze” on immigration and an end to the active promotion of multiculturalism, has not escaped the media’s wrath. Its leader, Nigel Farage, opined recently that “in scores of our cities and market towns, this country in a short space of time has frankly become unrecognizable . . . Whether it is the impact on local schools and hospitals, whether it is the fact in many parts of England you don’t hear English spoken anymore.” The mainstream liberal media and academic elites accused UKIP of just about any offense they could muster: “homophobia,” “bigotry,” “misogyny,” “far right extremism,” return of the African slave trade and singing “Nazi-themed songs”!
It is truly astonishing that all these parties have been so designated by both the left and the mainstream “conservative” news and opinion outlets: Business Week, TIME, Guardian, the New York Times, Nation, National Review, Slate, National Post, Euro News, CBC, CTV, BBC, The Economist, and, in agreement with all these venues, Al Jazeera. Such uniform inaccuracy bespeaks the successful “march through the institutions” carried out by cultural Marxists. The mere wish to retain the ethnic and cultural identity of one’s nation in opposition to unrestricted immigration makes one a xenophobic fascist.
In the near past, love of country, loyalty, attachment, and respect for one’s ancestors was normal and accepted by the both the right and left parties. People then did not consider European nations to be mere deracinated places defined by “universal values” (democracy and equality) for the benefit of every ethnic group in the world. Nations were homeland to historic peoples with a particular set of customs and religious beliefs, a people rooted in a unique historical and ethnic landscape.
The political landscape has undergone a fundamental shift since the implementation of mass immigration in the last few decades. It is hard to believe that during the 1950s and 1960s members of the Labour Party in Britain were making the case for immigration controls on the grounds that Britain could not afford to be the “welfare state” for the whole of the Commonwealth. Labour was then a party that actually represented the interests of the native working class and did not want competition for jobs and downward pressure on wages. Elsewhere in Europe the left also objected to guest workers in the early days of immigration. But times have changed, and today the left looks upon immigrants as a future constituency to promote multiculturalism, government expansion, and the overthrow of the traditional values of the European peoples.
On the other side of the political ledger, the right views immigrant labor as essential to economic well-being and corporate globalization. It reduces everything to economics and regularly uses the Marxist language of “inevitable” in reference to a “looming” labor shortage due to low birth rates and retiring baby boomers. It barely challenges, if not welcomes, the feminist downgrading of motherhood and the traditional family. It subordinates non-economic concerns to international capitalism and views ethnic attachment as an obstacle to be thoroughly demonized and suppressed. It refuses to ask why non-Western countries facing the same economic and demographic trends are refusing immigrant multiculturalism, and why all Western nations were created in the past under far more difficult circumstances without employing policies that would forever destroy their heritage. The mainstream right has accepted the leftist claim that opposition to immigration is “xenophobic.”
Both the conventional right and left should therefore be held morally accountable for endorsing the extreme policy of mass immigration that is abolishing the genetic diversity of Europe and the world in the name of a generic racially mixed humanity without roots and pride in ancestry and easily manipulated by global elites interested in leveling cultural and economic differences across the world combined with rabid consumerism.
Big Bruthah’s Group Evolutionary Strategy
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 371 The Writers’ Bloc with Nick Jeelvy, Hapaperspective, & Ricardo Duchesne
Is Nicki Minaj Super Bass-ed?
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 370 Greg Johnson, Mark Gullick, & Stephen Paul Foster Ponder The Deep Questions
Bread & Chocolate
Le Nationalisme Blanc est-il haineux ?
Qu’est-ce que le nationalisme américain ?
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 368 Martin Lichtmesz on Ethnopluralism