Randarkman posted:

None of this is really all that relevant to the discussion of fascism, but it is kind of interesting that you have these people who are seen to have contributed the basic building stones to what we think of as Western civilization, however when people had to face the fact that they mostly did not look like exemplarie of the "nordic race" they made up all these narratives explaining how that was not the case now but back when they made those contributions they were as white as any Englishman. To some extent this is still true today, though less obviously, the above narratives of "admixture" in Greece and Italy are still pretty common, and there's also the fact that Hollywood's cating for dramas set in Ancient Greece and/or Italy tends to feature people who still have a bit of that "nordic" look, what with the blond hair and blue eyes.

Randarkman posted:

Ofcourse there's been a lot of "racial mixing", for lack of a better term. It's just that, especially in the case of Greeks, this mixing is mostly brought up in order to explain "how they don't look like they should look anymore" (okay, perhaps that's a bit 19th century) due to Turks/Muslims/mongrelization and it is thought to be relatively recent, thereby freeing Plato and Socrates and the Spartans from being depicted as dark-skinned mediterranean types. Even though we, for instance, have sources of Spartans making fun of Persians for their light skin (and their pants, thought to be very unmanly).

Randarkman posted:

Pretty much its as if the whole strict dividing line between white people and non-white people is pretty much bullshit. Who'd have thought it?

my dad posted:

My great-grand-somethings who ended up being murdered in concentration camps (or simply shot/hacked to pieces where they stood) were as white as one can get, had blue eyes and light brown hair, some of them were even blonde. Don't bother trying to poke holes in fascist logic. Fascists don't care. They just kill.

Kieselguhr Kid posted:

While I've done a bit of Heidegger I'm nowhere near confident enough to enter the question of Heidegger's Nazism, but I am curious about this (if you know). As far as I understand, what's at least definitely true about Heidegger's comments on his Nazism is that the Nazis just weren't very fond of him. I was told that if you want a model of a 'Nazi philosopher' it's pretty much the exact opposite of Heidegger, a sort of British empiricist-type 'scientific racist,' who'd probably dismiss Heidegger as writing overcomplicated nonsense.

I'm mostly curious because, if true, it would be an interesting demonstration of the way Nazism wasn't all that Germanic or anti-modern.

HEGEL CURES THESES posted:

In this context, "Germanic" means one of two things: (1) within the German philosophical tradition that stretches either from Kant to Nietzsche, from Kant to Heidegger, or from the post-Kantians to either of them (depending on how you define a bunch of things/how much of an angry sperg you are) or (2) invested in the idea of "Germanness" that was promulgated in the nineteenth century and which informed a bunch of strains of thought that went on to make up Nazism.

Both of these statements could work.

If it's (1), the Nazis are only tangentially interested in German Idealism. Where they are influenced by it (nationalism a la Fichte, making a world of meaning out of your own stance toward things a la Nietzsche) it's interesting, but large chunks of the discussion seems to pass them by. They're interested in science, or the idea of science and the appearance of technology (the SS adopted the Luger because Himmler thought it looked like a ray gun from science fiction), not so much in "why there is something and not nothing" or in "the movements of Spirit." And forget telling some brownshirt barroom meathead that the world he sees around him isn't "real."

If it's (2), that's more complex--the German intellectual landscape at the time is heavily focused on discussions of its own heritage, and a lot of Nazis cared about what "Germanness" meant in the historical context, which could also involve adopting "German" rather than "foreign" ideas/philosophy. But that was a dicey idea--if we're talking about "Aryanness," that included India--also the brown parts? no? in what way?--and if we're talking about "Nordicness," that included the Nordic countries, whether or not Germany was at war with them. On the other hand, certain members of the Nazi high command, Hitler most notably among them, didn't seem to give a single poo poo about the ancient Teutons and their hypothetical belief system, or about using that hypothetical belief system as a model for the present.

poidinger posted:

There actually was for quite some time prior to 1871, in the fighting between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the North German Confederation (to determine a Grossdeutsches Reich which the Austrians favored, and, ironically, the Austrian Adolf Hitler later implemented after gaining control of the Prussian-backed Kleindeutsches Reich that actually won the historical "argument"), and before that Austro-Prussian wars revolved around conceptions of "Germanness" and domination of the German peoples and even before that the Thirty Years War of Protestantism vs Catholicism (The Church of Rome, mind you) taking place primarily within the borders of Germany was also, in part, a war to determine what the Actual Religion of the "German Peoples" would be. Even the HRE was an administrative alliance of the Germanic peoples, and they saw it as such. You can even make the argument that the Regnum Teutonicum/Germaniae (Kingdom of Teutons and later "Germany") that emerged from the Carolingian Empire would be the first emergence of a sort of Ur-Germanic "nationalism." "Germany" itself comes from the (incorrect) Roman designation of all the tribes living in the province north of the Danube, east of the Rhine as "Germania," populated by the supposedly monolithic Germani people. This designation caught on after the Roman Conquests and basically stuck

OwlBot 2000 posted:

What happens if you have German militarism / Polish nationalist buildup in Eastern Poland? Do you allow that on right on your border? Though any occupation Post WWII was unjustified, any serious military leader is going to want a buffer there. Furthermore, Finland were Nazi collaborators and the USSR needed to gain Karelia/Lake Ladoga to ensure supplies to Leningrad during the Siege. There were bigger things at play here, such as, I don't know, the possible victory of Nazi Germany and the enslavement or extermination of tens of millions more.

KomradeX posted:

It's rather clear that the Soviets intentions was grabbing the bits that had been part of the Russian Empire, eastern Poland, Finland and the Baltic states. But this just seems like a derail, or at best proves the contention that Liberals prefer fascists to socialists since they keep turning the fascism in Europe thread into why those filthy commies are worse than Hitler. It's no ones contention that the Soviet Union, even post-Stalin was a terrible place. But there is tons of Socialist thought that contends that the State Capitalism practiced by the USSR is not the only way to do that, nor is claiming that the Soviet Union might not have been socialist, is a no true scotsman since socialism has a specific meaning, the workers owning the means of production. In the Soviet Union the State owned the means of production.

But this is all a derail since this thread is suppose to about the rise of the Far Right in Europe.

OzyMandrill posted:

I think Europe is kind of laissez-faire on most 'territorial claims', as generally the border lands between todays countries have swapped hands many times, countries merge & split, etc. It may have been yours 50 years ago, but 150 years ago it was ours, any 575 years ago it was theirs, etc. etc. There's at least a good 500 years of well documented stupidity between pretty much any two European countries you can draw on if you really want, so no-one much bothers. We were all assholes, just let it lie. Certainly for much of the younger generations, the EU & the internet leads to much more mixing and travel between countries so it is largely the older generations who carry grudges.

Nova Bizzare posted:

Ottoman revivalism/revanchism.

SaltyJesus posted:

Yeah, like the time Ottomans finally solved the Armenian problem.

SaltyJesus posted:

I guess my pun was , I wasn't 100% serious either.

Cerebral Bore posted:

It's all well and good that these fuckers got the boot, but the question is who they'll replace them with. If people this high up are GD sympathizers then it's pretty much certain that the problem isn't contained to the regular beat cops and that the police force is in fact shot through with fash from top to bottom, so where will you find competent, non-fascist people to replace them with?

Torrannor posted:

I guess he plays to the old rivalry with the Ottoman Turks, when their armies nearly conquered Vienna and besieged the city several times? Being German I don't know if the old Habsburg-Ottoman enmity is still relevant or remembered in Austria. Or it is just a general revulsion to a majority Islamic city.

QUILT_MONSTER_420 posted:

YF-23 posted:

Many of these people don't actually consider Greeks to be white/white enough so this is par for the course for this sort of racist bullshit.

Jedit posted:

Ah yes, that well known visual shorthand for working: lying in a hammock.

I don't know what they could have done to say "Greeks are lazy scroungers stealing our money" without printing those exact words.

ashgromnies posted:

I saw the guy laying in the Greek hammock as one of the Greeks in Greece(hence the flag), collecting Euros sent back from Austria.

I got the idea because there are Greek immigrant laborers in Austria and nationalists tend to make the same sorts of arguments regardless of where they're from or whom they're arguing against.

Edit: I also got the idea because Google is a filthy liar and I have a poor attention to detail. I searched "Greek laborers in Austria" and it showed me articles about Australia. Stop trying to outsmart me, Google

Riso posted:

The problem of the established parties is not only that they often refuse to address concerns of the people, like immigration, but that they also give up their original values to chase after the ever elusive center for more votes until they become completely exchangeable.

Ambrose Burnside posted:

How do I get to Bizzaro Fantasy Europe, is it via wardrobe or secret fractional train platform?

Raskolnikov38 posted:

If you get a chance before being probated again, I'm curious, can you even conceive of evidence that would convince yourself that non-whites are not inferior to whites?

Omi-Polari posted:

I endorse using force against fascists when they attempt to politically organize. I don't endorse it in all circumstances. I'm also aghast at some anti-fascists who don't really seem much different than the fascists they oppose, [b]even down to the clothing they wear and how they seem driven by primordial hatred (except against fascists so it's okay apparently). When really, you should understand that what you're doing when you use violence is a terrible thing, even though it may be necessary depending on the circumstances.

Warcabbit posted:

Ain't that generally what got them into prison in the first place?

SplitSoul posted:

Social Democrats 29,5% (-1,1), 774 mandates (-27). Leadership consists of avowed neo-liberals, and no one below dares do anything about them.
Liberals 26,6% (+1.8), 746 mandates (+67). Still liberals, less able to gently caress us over due to tribalism.
Danish People's Party 10.1% (+2), 256 mandates (+70). Home of former Social Democrats, still racist as gently caress.
Conservatives 8.6% (-2.4), 205 mandates (-57). The economic side of the Republicans.
Unity List 6.9% (+4.6),119 mandates (+105). General socialist list, from old-school Social Democrats to Stalinists. As united as the name might suggest.
Socialist People's Party 5.6% (-8.9), 115 mandates (-225). Like the Social Democrats, except perhaps less committed to neo-liberalism. (They still went along with it because they love power though.)
Social Liberals 4.8% (+1.1), 62 mandates (+12). Terrible people, great politicians. For neo-liberalism and gay marriage.
Liberal Alliance 2.9% (+2.6), 33 mandates (+32). American style libertarians, many candidates supported the idea that criminals should lose their voting rights, literally citing Viking Age thralldom as their inspiration.
Others 5% (+0.4), 114 mandates (-1).

Ardennes posted:

So what would be the spectrum economically (Unity List...Danish People's Party (a guess), Socialist People's Party, Social Democrats, Social Liberals, Liberals, Conservatives, Liberal Alliance)?

Ardennes posted:

It sounds like most of those parties except maybe the Unity list could find a place in the American political spectrum if they "Americanized" their party names (Libertarian Alliance! American Patriot Party! Progressive People's Party!).

Guildencrantz posted:

From some Unity List bragging about their results on the Party of the European Left's Facebook page:

Obviously this is a PR release from the party and the triumphalism is probably premature. Still, while I only occasionally follow Scandinavian politics, this does actually seem like something of a big deal. It's not a leap towards power or anything, but breaking out of the margins and into the mainstream in an established democracy is pretty hard and it looks like they're over that hurdle. Unless they gently caress it up, of course, since with over a hundred people elected there are bound to be some crazies.

In any case it restores a tiny bit of hope to see the radical left make more gains than the radical right somewhere

SplitSoul posted:

Ahahahaha, the Danish People's Party gave up their bid for mayor in the suburb of Hvidovre and supported a Social Democrat after tough negotiations. Why? In addition to the vice mayor seat, they received a guarantee that public childcare would serve "traditional Danish food" (that's code for LOTS OF PORK). This follows an embarrassing national debate where people lost their minds over the fact that less than 0.1% of public childcare institutions, ones that have a large Muslim clientele, democratically elected to remove pork from the menu to save on expenses. The Prime Minister weighed in on the matter as well, saying that pork must reign supreme.

SplitSoul posted:

The Unity List

Guildencrantz posted:

I don't really want to get into my own ideological position here because it's not the thread for that, but suffice to say you could put my definition of "democratic socialism" somewhere further left than welfare statism, but definitely to the right of any form of communism. Not a fan of revolutions.

PT6A posted:

To make it more applicable to, you know, this thread, there were plenty of people who supported fascism, and wish to go back to it. They're as deluded and dangerous as people who think Marx-Leninism is a good idea. Why don't we try social democracy for a while, and keep it on the rails without letting it tip to full communism, regress to neoliberal democracy, or turn into a strange fascist state?

Fojar38 posted:

So nobody should support Marxism or Communism because we've all seen that it either leads to a psuedo-fascist plutocracy like in Russia or a neoliberal autocracy like in China?

Fojar38 posted:

Yes, the refusal to compromise has certainly worked out well for far leftists, don't you think?

And before you point out that compromising hasn't worked either, consider for a moment that maybe in fact the working class that communists claim to represent might not in fact want socialism (under the Marxist definition of the term) or communism. You're going to have a really hard time convincing anyone but the most destitute that they should give up the notion of private property when it turns out people really like owning stuff.

Rutkowski posted:

Fun fact: Of all the anti-semitic poo poo I've had thrown at me(sometimes literally!) over the years not once have it been from muslims but rather from nazis and those who now proclaim to protect the jews; members of SD.

Not saying antisemitism doesn't exist amongst muslims, far from it, but like most other prejudices it can and is educated away(I work in schools and have discussed this often). poo poo, as a teacher I've seen and debated antisemitism and prejudism and it's far from uncommon that the kids realize how insane they sound and that they should probably employ more critical thinking when it comes to other etnicities.

Torrannor posted:

Pan-European generalizations are generally (sorry!) useless, since the differences in wealth/culture/education/religion etc. between various European states are immense.

ekuNNN posted:

Is this true? Because if I am to believe the media the only anti-semites in the Netherlands are all those drat moroccans

But seriously, I wouldn't have guessed that there was that large a percentage of white people in the active anti-semitic group, because of the way the media portrays anti-semitism as a problem caused by immigrants (and neo-nazis). I wonder if this study includes anti-Ajax football hooligans, which doesn't strike me as actual anti-semitism meant against real jewish people, but more as dumb football rivalry.

Ian Winthorpe III posted:

Crazy stuff.

quote:

Trying to convince people by regular information campaigns has proven useless too. If anything the double facts that the 9/11 Truth movement has proven far beyond reasonable doubt that the Twin Towers and WTC7 have been brought down by controlled demolition AND the fact that his has had exactly zero impact on the political process in the USA proves that most people have been either zombified beyond rescue or have given up hope in complete disgust and despair.

itsnice2bnice posted:

A Buttery Pastry already pointed out that it has a bit of 9/11 Trutherism in it, but it also goes on to mention the CIA and French plutocrats orchestrating May 68, points to the Rotschilds being behind mass immigration as well as the French Socialists acting as the puppet masters of Front Nationale. Crazy stuff seems a pretty accurate description.

Silver2195 posted:

Actually, there are a lot of cordon sanitaires (or whatever the plural of cordon sanitaire is): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

Someone earlier mentioned hating Muslim immigrants while praising Ahmadinejad for his views on Israel as if it were a contradiction; frankly, it isn't. Race theory is based on complete bunk science but that doesn't necessarily mean it's simple or ultra-reductive; cultish mythologies tend to become more complex, not less, as they shore themselves up against external contradiction and pressure.

V. Illych L. posted:

We basically are. The European communist parties are shells of their former selves, and European leftists on a whole are suddenly finding themselves in the curious and very uncomfortable position of playing conservatives in the face of a neo-liberal ideological onslaught. This leaves fascism as an obvious "progressive", active response to the problems of international capitalism. We see this in Denmark, in France and elsewhere - proto-fascist parties (or parties veering on bona fide straight-on fascism) are massively on the rise already in response to the european crisis, and they're gaining confidence.

V. Illych L. posted:

For now, most right-populists are sort of fixed in this weird racial-libertarian paradigm, but I doubt that this will last.