• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Worst Threat for Freedom in Western Europe Since 1945

German guy said:
I'd like to explain my view on the big picture of things, regarding world history. Maybe my view is exaggerated, maybe it is premature; or maybe it isn't far off after all -- please let me know what you think. Here it is:

Western liberalism is facing the greatest challenge since the end of the USSR these days. Perhaps the threat is even worse, because this threat is hardly a topic in Western media, and only few Westeners are actually capable of identifying the threat, which makes it much more difficult to counter it, than in case of Stalinist communism.

Who's posing the threat?

Openly authoritarian, anti-liberal right-wing forces in most European countries. Their main stance is anti-internationalism and pro-nationalism/re-nationalization (perhaps the most significant cleavage in the 21st century), usually including variants of racism and strict anti-immigration stances, a harsh anti-progressivism (rejection of "genderism"), and especially a harsh anti-Americanism and anti-Transatlanticism.


Their great idol, when it comes to organization of the state, is Putin's Russia: An authoritarian dictatorship that outwardly maintains the facade of a democratic republic, but inwardly is entirely hollowed out, because the government controls all media, controls the courts and judicative, and factually determines who is allowed to run in elections. Putin called that "directed democracy"; historically, it is not very unlike to the Nazis hollowing out the Weimar Constitution in practize (which, on paper, was still in effect until 1945), just with more show elements evoking the illusion of a democracy.


Just like the USSR used to be the idol and focal point of anti-system leftists/communists in Western Europe between 1945-1989, Russia once again is the focal point and power base of this "New Right" all over Europe.


In addition to the pressure these far-right parties and movements put on the liberal systems in their home countries, Russia puts external, military pressure on Western Europe. Should far-right forces gain the power in an EU country, they'd likely leave the Transatlantic Alliance with America, and ally with Russia instead. Should a civil war emerge in an EU country, Russia might interveen on the side of these far-right forces.


Russia has already invited representatives of most European far-right and right-wing populist parties to forge an alliance; many of them are financially supported by the Kremlin (just like Western European commies once used to be supported by the USSR), and Russia provides intellectual blueprints for their ideologies (google Alexander Dugin).


Russia has also waged a "Hybrid War" on pro-Western EU countries, by investing millions into a huge online propaganda and disinformation campaign; thousands of Russians are employed to influence social media on Western sites. This propaganda, as well as the more obvious propaganda in English, German and French language versions of "Russia Today", is deliberately and diligently designed to exploit weaknesses in Western open societies, to address all kinds of people unhappy with the liberal system in the West for various reasons -- in one word, designed for the only purpose to destabilize the West. It's no coincidence that the far-right protestors in German PEGIDA and AFD rallies, for example, wear "Russia Today" buttons and wave Russian flags. Likewise, Russia systematically rallys up Russian minorities in Western countries for that purpose.

Also, Russia has devised a system of warfare that is based on a mix of false flag and veiled operations, which was used in Ukraine in 2014; they are ready to use the same strategy in the Baltics or the Balkans.


Every kind of discontentment with "the system", its internationalism and "multiculturalism", is now catalyzed and instrumentalized by Russia; you can no longer hold such views in EUrope, without at the same time opposing NATO and the US and embracing Russia, seeking to replace the US with Russia as hegemon in Europe.


It's no longer a matter of disagreement about policies. It's a matter of alternative political systems -- internationalist liberal republicanism vs. nationalistic authoritarian right-wing "directed democracy" --, and a matter of different geo-strategic core decison -- America vs. Russia.



This is the situation, and it's most likely going to be the geo-political setting in the next decades to come (unless the West collapses much earlier than we can anticipate today).


Today already, pro-Russian right-wing forces are much stronger in EU countries, than communists ever were, during the time of the Cold War.
Click to expand...

Remember back when Mark Steyn predicted all this a decade ago, and he was crazy?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Sure, but maybe it's just a reaction, from what I see as a slide towards more leftist policies.
Click to expand...

As I see it, it is "leftist" policies as much as "libertarian" policies: The immigration issue stirs up the mob, as they perceive the government as "too leftist". And the capitalist economy including crisis and austerity, is perceived as "too capitalistic" or "too libertarian".

Many who are following the New Right now, are people who don't have much against capitalism, yet are still angry being screwed by it.

So I don't think this can be broken down exclusively to "left vs. right".


It's interesting that this new cleavage -- internationalism vs. re-nationalization -- apparently is up and well in the US, too. Both Trump and Sanders are pretty popular with anti-internationalist stances and rhetorics.
 
Last edited:
German guy said:
Well, you all pretend as if this situation was a novelty and only started with the refugee situation.

It didn't.
Click to expand...

when did it really start to catch on? the Marie Le Pen group in France has been mostly about muslim immigrants for quite a while now?

seems like EU members of govt are quite out of touch because i hear one of them went around giving away 500 Euro notes to "refugees"
if that was his own money i say great but i doubt it.

the other thing is, this isn't the old Soviet Union. How much power + money does Russia really have to influence these groups?
 
lb_on_teh_cb said:
when did it really start to catch on? the Marie Le Pen group in France has been mostly about muslim immigrants for quite a while now?
Click to expand...

It's different in each country. Le Pen's Front National has been around since the 80s. Dutch Wilders for 10 years. Germany's AFD only emerged 3 years ago.

seems like EU members of govt are quite out of touch because i hear one of them went around giving away 500 Euro notes to "refugees"
if that was his own money i say great but i doubt it.
Click to expand...

As JOG suggested, the elites being "out of touch" for quite a while already, probably has a lot to do with it.

the other thing is, this isn't the old Soviet Union. How much power + money does Russia really have to influence these groups?
Click to expand...

Good question.

In mere military terms, I wouldn't underestimate Russia.

The link JOG provided points to Russia's program of modernizing its forces.

And then, Russia is only as strong as it is in comparison to Europe. Europe has next to none military capacities.

So even if Russia looks weak compared to the US, compared to the EU countries, it's a powerhouse.
 
German guy said:
As I see it, it is "leftist" policies as much as "libertarian" policies: The immigration issue stirs up the mob, as they perceive the government as "too leftist". And the capitalist economy including crisis and auterity, is perceived as "too capitalistic" or "too libertarian".

Many who are following the New Right now, are people who don't have much against capitalism, yet are still angry being screwed by it.

So I don't think this can be broken down exclusively to "left vs. right".
Click to expand...

It's a reaction to current government, which was seen as incompetent.
Not that I necessarily agree with it, but just because things are sliding in a different direction, doesn't mean all hell is going to break loose.
I have to say I don't know that much about this, but from an outsiders perspective, that's my opinion.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's a reaction to current government, which was seen as incompetent.
Not that I necessarily agree with it, but just because things are sliding in a different direction, doesn't mean all hell is going to break loose.
I have to say I don't know that much about this, but from an outsiders perspective, that's my opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid it runs deeper than just current government.

For decades, the European elites have failed -- on economic policies, on the EU experiment and on immigration. In the eyes of those who are dissatisfied.

Angry east Germans, for example, now look at "the system" with much the same contempt their looked at the failed GDR system 26 years ago. The elites and their "system" have lost all legitimacy.
 
German guy said:
I'm afraid it runs deeper than just current government.

For decades, the European elites have failed -- on economic policies, on the EU experiment and on immigration. In the eyes of those who are dissatisfied.

Angry east Germans, for example, now look at "the system" with much the same contempt their looked at the failed GDR system 26 years ago. The elites and their "system" have lost all legitimacy.
Click to expand...

Elites tend to fail.
They really don't feel/see/experience the same problems that everyone else does.
Living it tends to open ones eyes.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Elites tend to fail.
They really don't feel/see/experience the same problems that everyone else does.
Living it tends to open ones eyes.
Click to expand...

What's interesting is that the same kind of discontentment seems to exist in America, yet the American system has mechanisms to channel and tame it:

Trump is basically the ideological twin of these European righties (except that he's not necessarily anti-Constitution -- unlike in Europe, American nationalism is value based, rather than ethnic). He's shrill anti-Muslim, anti-immigration, anti-internationalism, even anti-capitalist.

But in America, the right-wing, namely the Republican party, absorbs these populist sentiments and tames them this way (or so I hope). Trump doesn't have to create a party on his own, he can use the Reps, but depends on them too, on the other side. In case he became President, he'd be limited by his party and couldn't go totally crazy (or so I hope). Maybe Trump isn't even a genuine New Right quasi-fascist, but just playing that role, neutralizing the mob's anger in the process.

This, and he certainly isn't prone to an alliance with Russia; the US are the big player, they're strong, not trapped between the powers like the EU countries.

Maybe the American oligarchy with negligeable democratic influence is an advantage; even someone like Trump couldn't win without big money, and big money most likely does not want an alliance with Russia.

Or I'm wrong and Trump goes Hitler once elected. ;)
 
German guy said:
What's interesting is that the same kind of discontentment seems to exist in America, yet the American system has mechanisms to channel and tame it:

Trump is basically the ideological twin of these European righties (except that he's not necessarily anti-Constitution -- unlike in Europe, American nationalism is value based, rather than ethnic). He's shrill anti-Muslim, anti-immigration, anti-internationalism, even anti-capitalist.

But in America, the right-wing, namely the Republican party, absorbs these populist sentiments and tames them this way (or so I hope). Trump doesn't have to create a party on his own, he can use the Reps, but depends on them too, on the other side. In case he became President, he'd be limited by his party and couldn't go totally crazy (or so I hope). Maybe Trump isn't even a genuine New Right quasi-fascist, but just playing that role, neutralizing the mob's anger in the process.

This, and he certainly isn't prone to an alliance with Russia; the US are the big player, they're strong, not trapped between the powers like the EU countries.

Maybe the American oligarchy with negligeable democratic influence is an advantage; even someone like Trump couldn't win without big money, and big money most likely does not want an alliance with Russia.

Or I'm wrong and Trump goes Hitler once elected. ;)
Click to expand...

American elections tend to be big on partisan/extremist rhetoric, but after it's the over, the winners nearly always verge to the middle.
I think Trump knows this and that's why he's dominating, when elected he'll be like Obama, Bush, etc.
He has to be, to be effective.
 
German guy said:
What do you think? Too pessimistic a view? A too bleak analysis?
Click to expand...

Probably, too simplistic and too self-righteous, hence, coming to dubious conclusions at best.
Not only that your "analysis" doesn't have a coherent timeline, but also it fails to account for the fact that a lot of the issues you've mentioned can be easily attributed to failures of the "Western liberalism" on multiple fronts over the past decades, rather than to evil Putin and his supposed right-wing minions.

At least it seems that the likes of BBC's "World War Three: Inside the War Room" productions, etc... do seem to reach their intended audience.

Fallen.
 
Fallenangel said:
Probably, too simplistic and too self-righteous, hence, coming to dubious conclusions at best.
Not only that your "analysis" doesn't have a coherent timeline, but also it fails to account for the fact that a lot of the issues you've mentioned can be easily attributed to failures of the "Western liberalism" on multiple fronts over the past decades, rather than to evil Putin and his supposed right-wing minions.

At least it seems that the likes of BBC's "World War Three: Inside the War Room" productions, etc... do seem to reach their intended audience.

Fallen.
Click to expand...

Well, I did not deny that much of the problem is due to the failure of Western liberalism.

And why do you need a timeline, when we're just looking at what's happening now?

Do you agree or disagree that Russia is waging a "hybrid war" against the West and exploiting any and every weakness it can find in the West? Do you disagree that Russia is presenting itself as the messiah idol for EU far-righties today?
 
German guy said:
Well, I did not deny that much of the problem is due to the failure of Western liberalism.

And why do you need a timeline, when we're just looking at what's happening now?
Click to expand...
Because without a timeline all you have left with is a mishmash of facts, half facts and speculations that you decided to mention as they support your point, while not addressing the others. I don't know much about Europe's far-right and right parties but I do know a lot about military stuff and conflicts ... so for instance your Ukraine example is so simplistic to a point when it simply becomes false.

German guy said:
Do you agree or disagree that Russia is waging a "hybrid war" against the West and exploiting any and every weakness it can find in the West?
Click to expand...
First, define exactly what you mean by "hybrid war", as the term is being used for pretty much everything Russia related today.

If you're talking about RT, Sputnik etc...these are Russia's gov. outreaches that indeed mostly try to convey Russia's stance on different issues and lobby for Russia's interests in the West. They are not really that different from any other so-called media aimed at Russian speaking/non-Russian speaking audience with aims of promoting Western ideas and lobbying Western interests and view point on world events.

German guy said:
Do you disagree that Russia is presenting itself as the messiah idol for EU far-righties today?
Click to expand...
Like I said earlier, don't know much about Europe's right-wing parties, so can't really comment.

Fallen.
 
Last edited:
German guy said:
No. With what? The UK and France are the only EU countries (one of which might soon no longer be one) that have something resembling a small force. The rest of the EU has basically none.

Germany's army can hardly fulfil the most basic duties of national defense even in peace time.

Now of course that might be one course of action -- the EU countries massively rearming. But given the public opinion in most countries, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. A European army is a must for credibility of the EU.
 
German guy said:
No, I neither remember what he wrote, nor that he was crazy.

What did he say?
Click to expand...
That Muslim immigrants combined with undemocratic governance would spark an ugly, semi or openly fascist backlash that would become increasingly popular over time. :(
 
German guy said:
What's interesting is that the same kind of discontentment seems to exist in America, yet the American system has mechanisms to channel and tame it:
Trump is basically the ideological twin of these European righties (except that he's not necessarily anti-Constitution -- unlike in Europe, American nationalism is value based, rather than ethnic). He's shrill anti-Muslim, anti-immigration, anti-internationalism, even anti-capitalist.
But in America, the right-wing, namely the Republican party, absorbs these populist sentiments and tames them this way (or so I hope). Trump doesn't have to create a party on his own, he can use the Reps, but depends on them too, on the other side. In case he became President, he'd be limited by his party and couldn't go totally crazy (or so I hope). Maybe Trump isn't even a genuine New Right quasi-fascist, but just playing that role, neutralizing the mob's anger in the process.
This, and he certainly isn't prone to an alliance with Russia; the US are the big player, they're strong, not trapped between the powers like the EU countries.
Maybe the American oligarchy with negligeable democratic influence is an advantage; even someone like Trump couldn't win without big money, and big money most likely does not want an alliance with Russia.
Or I'm wrong and Trump goes Hitler once elected. ;)
Click to expand...
I do not have a deep experience with what is happening in EU and only a peripheral on Russia but I appreciate your write up. I've found this threads one of the better reads and now I at least feel I know more than I did.
Most Americans, liberal, conservative, Dems and Reps don't really want an "alliance" with Russia as long as it is a Putin regime. We kind of see it (and I am being very generalistic and very simple here) as a military psycho who is willing to starve his own people for a war to "regain sovereignty". But the flip side is that most Americans don't want a war with Russia either. As we consider the war against ISIS as still a war then a war on two fronts really makes no sense.
Not trying to represent the entire country here, this is just my general sense from the media, polls, articles, and people I see face to face daily.

Harry Guerrilla said:
American elections tend to be big on partisan/extremist rhetoric, but after it's the over, the winners nearly always verge to the middle.
I think Trump knows this and that's why he's dominating, when elected he'll be like Obama, Bush, etc.
He has to be, to be effective.
Click to expand...
My genuine gut feeling for Trump is "My ego hasn't tried out the presidency yet". I am sure he doesn't believe half of the outrageousness he peddles. He might come closer to being in line as a centrist much like Clinton would or he might actually try to push his outrageousness out of ego which would lead us down a possibly disastrous path.
 
Ntharotep said:
My genuine gut feeling for Trump is "My ego hasn't tried out the presidency yet". I am sure he doesn't believe half of the outrageousness he peddles. He might come closer to being in line as a centrist much like Clinton would or he might actually try to push his outrageousness out of ego which would lead us down a possibly disastrous path.
Click to expand...

I think that's the case and generally don't think the doom and gloom of a Trump presidency is necessary.
He's a show man, a very good show man, but otherwise a likely moderate/centrist.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think that's the case and generally don't think the doom and gloom of a Trump presidency is necessary.
He's a show man, a very good show man, but otherwise a likely moderate/centrist.
Click to expand...

Well, problem is that the European far-righties believe every single word of what they say, even base their stuff on ideological concepts and would actually take radical measures to act accordingly, no matter if a constitution is in the way or not.

So perhaps the similarity to Trump's rhetorics is merely superficial.
 
German guy said:
Well, problem is that the European far-righties believe every single word of what they say, even base their stuff on ideological concepts and would actually take radical measures to act accordingly, no matter if a constitution is in the way or not.

So perhaps the similarity to Trump's rhetorics is merely superficial.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess we may have discovered the problem with proportional representation.
The nutters are more likely to be elected.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Well, I guess we may have discovered the problem with proportional representation.
The nutters are more likely to be elected.
Click to expand...

They are more likely to get elected into parliaments, yes.

On the other side, in most majority systems, a mere plurality suffices to win the office. While in proportional representation, a party needs a 50%+ majority to actually win the office.

It's my hope that the far-right forces in Europe have reached their peak already; 35% of the votes (as in some current polls) maximum, which is not enough for them to win the office via legal means. However, it might get ugly once they get the idea of taking up arms.

(On a side note, ca. 35% of the votes is the maximum the Nazis ever reached in free elections prior to 1933.)
 
Last edited:
German guy said:
They are more likely to get elected into parliaments, yes.

On the other side, in most majority systems, a mere plurality suffices to win the office. While in proportional representation, a party needs a 50%+ majority to actually win the office.

It's my hope that the far-right forces in Europe have reached their peak already; 35% of the votes (as in some current polls) maximum, which is not enough for them to win the office via legal means. However, it might get ugly once they get the idea of taking up arms.

(On a side note, ca. 35% of the votes is the maximum the Nazis ever reached in free elections prior to 1933.)
Click to expand...

True, but if the threshold never gets above, yet they have staying power, they may moderate their positions some, to form a government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom