A New Europe
There is a spectre haunting Europe, and the spectre is Nationalism.
There is neither silence nor upheaval in its wake; indeed, the rise of the European New Right is an event that lacks much precedence in modern times. It is a movement that is nationalist, anti-islamist, and unabashedly nativist. It is a movement that rejects the notion of multiculturalism, and to some extent: multiracialism. It is a movement that, by its own proclamation, refuses to bow to accusations of racism or islamophobia, be they from the left or even the “center right.”
Some, in Europe, have compared these movements to that of Donald Trump: using his association to smear these movements in bad light, as “racist” and “deplorable.” But this is huge mistake, for Trump is far from a true nationalist or even a “racist.”
The gild of civic nationalism that our own President portrays, with his stunts to encourage domestic manufacturing and promises to put “America First,” accompany a public disavowal of the countercurrents that form the “Alternative Right.” However, in Europe, the New Right openly embraces th ouvelle Droite, a movement that utterly rejects the modern conservative movement as a globalist, “cultural marxist,” and leftist ploy to bring forth a genocide of the European peoples.
For the past twenty years the movement has struggled to gain foothold. With the aid of what is referred to a a ordon Sanitaire, European parties, even in the right, have repeatedly refused to form coalitions with the new right, isolating them and leaving their constituents without representation.
However, this policy of soft censorship seems to have only backfired.
Today, the Dutch “Center Right” VVD only seems nearing its deathbed, the establishment wing of the French Socialist party is all but alive, and the Austrian “center right” does not seem to exist any longer.
On the other hand, Marine Le Pen has tripled her following in three short years, Geert Wilders is predicted to win the next election, and the Freedom Party of Austria, one that was founded by former members of the SS, just received 46% of the vote for presidency.
However, before assuming in unison that half the population of Western Europe has witnessed a rebirth of racism, one only needs to analyze European policy, especially in migration, for the past twenty years to find out why this is.
Unlike American immigration policy, or Canadian immigration policy, or even Australian immigration policy, which prioritizes that immigrants be skilled to enter; the European Union has long faced shortages in unskilled labor; this, coupled with the post-war constitutions of mainland Europe, heavily prioritize refugees and menial laborers as immigrants.
This, combined with its proximity to North Africa and the Middle East, has yielded an untenable combination. Year after year, Europe has taken in over one million migrants of completely foreign cultures. With them, it has imported a wave of criminality and a population with no intent to assimilate.
Sweden, a nation which was regarded as tolerant, peaceful, and socialist, has especially shown its generosity in this matter. Over the past fifteen years Sweden (a nation of ten million) has taken in over 630,000 individuals just under its asylum policy. While many came in the aftermath of conflicts in the Balkans, nations which share a rather similar culture and heritage with Sweden, most came from nations such as Somalia and Eritrea, long after their respective civil conflicts had ended, using Sweden’s generosity as a stepping stone towards economic migration.
The effects of this become horrifyingly clear if one is to observe the statistics that propped up in the aftermath. Sweden has undergone a quadruple in rape rates since it first started this generous asylum policy, France has witnessed a wave of terror unlike any other, and the Netherlands has seen criminal activity increase by a factor of nearly ten from immigrant majority communities.
Not only this, the economic integration of migrants (and their descendants) into the economy has proven to be challenging. Unlike the US, where immigrants are usually accused of stealing jobs, migrants in the EU are accused of refusing to work. According to Eurostat, individuals who were born in non-EU countries fare ten whole percentage points worse in unemployment figures than natives.
Now, put yourself in the shoes of a native European. Imagine that waves of individuals are imported into your country under the auspices of cultural diversity and economic enrichment. Imagine that these individuals, for some reason, fail to integrate into your culture, demanding that their beliefs be imposed upon you rather than the other way around. Imagine that these individuals are unable to work, unable to contribute, and add strain to an already generous welfare state.
Would you not be a little bit concerned?
Would you not ask that your representatives to address these issues?
Would you not expect reforms to migration policy that would prevent migration into social systems?
Would you not want terrorists to be vetted before they are allowed to enter?
Now, imagine that your “center right” and socialist politicians absolutely refused to even consider these thoughts. Imagine that they thought that addressing these issues would give credence to the “far right,” and actively expelled members of their own party said anything remotely “politically incorrect.” Imagine that the European parliament, in large part, chided figures such as Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel (yes, Merkel) for criticizing multiculturalism.
That is exactly what happened.
The result, as expected, has been a surge in support for the European New Right. People don’t care about political correctness, people care about economic security, safety, and liberty.
Bjorn Hocke, a man who actively endorses the ̈lkisch sitions that Germany has long since abandoned, draws a crowd of 20,000 in his speech in Thuringia as he makes his case for a new and distinct “National Conservatism.”
Marion Marechal Le Pen, granddaughter of Jean Marie Le Pen, bathes in Catholic support as she makes her bid for re-election for the Front National in ovence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur.
Geert Wilders, addressing his supporters in The Hague, asks them what they want, they chant “fewer Moroccans.” As of now, Wilders is winning in the polls.
If one is to ask why these individuals, call them demagogues, xenophobes or racists, are so popular, one only needs to look at the policies that put them there.
If European politicians are to continue these policies and to continue to take in waves of “refugees” without considering the economic and political circumstances of their arrival, they are only driving their own demise. Indeed, the slogan of “We can do it” can only apply for so long, Frau Merkel.
If European Conservatism is to survive, it must readjust, and it must properly address the issue of migration into social systems or that of the social systems itself.
If it truly seeks to reinvigorate the stagnant economies of the EU, to fasten assimilation and to encourage only the educated to migrate into the EU, it must seek to follow a platform similar to that of Francois Fillon, to put away the dogmatic belief that addressing issues in migrant communities is “Racist.”
A new brand of conservatism is needed, one that is neither blatantly xenophobic (as per its principles) nor an embracer of political correctness.
If this brand does not come about, expect the EU to fall apart and a new political order to be established.