Far-right parties rattled the traditional powers in the European Union and made major gains in parliamentary elections Sunday, dealing an especially humiliating defeat to French President Emmanuel Macron.

On a night where the 27-member bloc palpably shifted to the rightItalian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni more than doubled her seats in the EU parliament. And even if the Alternative for Germany extreme right party was hounded by scandal involving candidates, it still rallied enough seats to sweep past the slumping Social Democrats of Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

Sensing a threat from the far right, the Christian Democrats of EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had already shifted further to the right on migration and climate ahead of the elections — and were rewarded by remaining by far the biggest group in the 720-seat European Parliament and de facto brokers of the ever expanding powers of the legislature.

  • @Madison420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    16 months ago

    The same is true now and the same was true for WW2, perception of reality is much different than reality. Your not making the point your thinking you are, we’ve literally never lived in a safer world and you’d think that aren’t true given the far rights screeching about jobs and crime.

    Correct, the right wasn’t happy about that weren’t they? Similarly Germany WW1 and Germany ww2 are quite literally the poster children of far right nationalism given that their sole reason for entering the war was to rid themselves of their neighbors and gain territory.

    Unintended? All these people were writing letters to each other pantomiming their intentions, like 90% were family Members and the rest might as well have been.

    • @FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Perception is much different from reality. It’s true, but not how you think. You are perceiving, or at least trying to portray, the causes of WW2 as similar to WW1. But in reality they can’t be shoehorned into your framework.

      Again, the left, not the right, was ascendant in that period. The left was in control of the German and French parliaments. The left was on its way to overthrow the government of Russia. After the assassination of a leftist leader, the Second International, a leftist organization, made pro-war statements. This was immediately followed by the entry of France and other countries into the war. The right as we know it did not exist yet.

      Immigration was not a major concern in Europe in the period before WW1. People were not immigrating to Europe. If anything, they were emigrating from Europe to America.

      Germany and other countries were not scheming to gain territory. The geopolitics of the time were aimed at containment, not expansion. The goal was to preserve the balance of power. This was supposed to be achieved by a network of alliances that would deter war. If you must draw an analogy, the politics of the time were far closer to the nuclear detente in the 1970s between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

      Finally, Germany entered the war because they were obligated by treaty, just as America would have been dragged into a war if someone had invaded Portugal in 1970. Kaiser Wilhelm was notoriously uninterested in military affairs, and he realized almost immediately that war would be pointless. Hence his lack of involvement in Germany’s war effort, earning him the nickname “Shadow Kaiser”.

      • @Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        16 months ago

        They are, you’ve as of yet not offered a single shred of evidence otherwise aside from your opinion. Cite it, I’m referring to Dan Carlins vast commentary on both WW1 and WW2.

        “Left” you know the left that supported Germany’s colonial efforts… The left that supported excluding polish immigrants… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelminism Don’t confuse winning an election with winning the population. Biden won, the rise of right wing christofascism is still accelerating because they’re two separate things.

        Yeah except all the contemporary compliants and attempts to expel polish people in germany…

        In 1908, Germany legalized the eviction of Poles from their properties under pressure from pan-German nationalist groups who hoped this law would be used to reduce the number of Poles in the East.[4]

        Sounds like it wasn’t an issue huh?

        Germany was literally caught scheming to gain territory, it’s historical record. There’s quite literally no good faith argument about it.

        Sure, that doesn’t change my point or strengthen yours. It’s just information for informations sake.

        Please provide a single reference once ever.

        • @FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          excluding polish immigrants

          I think you’re confused. Prussia had annexed regions of Poland in the 18th century. The Poles in question were born there. They weren’t immigrants, just as Native Americans and Hawaiians are not immigrants.

          “Left” you know the left that supported Germany’s colonial efforts

          Yes, the “left” that supported organized labor and opposed capital. Which was the original goal of leftism. In Germany, the left was led by August Bebel who was described as a “model worker’s leader” by none other than Vladimir Lenin.

          Anti-colonialism is a relatively new project for leftists. Old school leftists, including Marx, defended colonialism as a necessary step from feudalism to communism. Marx himself described the colonization of India as a “tool of history” in ending the “Oriental despotism” of the caste system and other “traditional rules”:

          we must not forget that these idyllic village-communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies. We must not forget the barbarian egotism which, concentrating on some miserable patch of land, had quietly witnessed the ruin of empires, the perpetration of unspeakable cruelties, the massacre of the population of large towns, with no other consideration bestowed upon them than on natural events, itself the helpless prey of any aggressor who deigned to notice it at all. We must not forget that this undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life, that this passive sort of existence evoked on the other part, in contradistinction, wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious rite in Hindostan. We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow.

          England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution.

          • @Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            15 months ago

            Yes yes, let’s exclude the evidence showing you’re not correct. Similarly native Americans were considered immigrants not entitled to us citizenship. Do you not remember the whole “they’re savages” let’s exterminate them thing?

            No you’re simply confusing left leaning with left and taking a weirdly myopic view based on that.

            Wrong again, marx said it was necessary for capitalism and benefited the world. That doesn’t imply support it just didn’t imply vehement distaste.

            • @FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              0
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Non-citizen and immigrant are not the same. Plenty of immigrants are citizens. In fact, the opposite of “immigrant” is … “native”.

              The next time you meet a Native American, tell them they are considered immigrants. Please post their reaction on YouTube, your video will surely go viral.

              • @Madison420@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                15 months ago

                Explain that to the American nativist movement created by immigrant occupiers, you say these things from ignorance of history my friend.

                I am native boss.

                • @FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  05 months ago

                  Then you should easily be able to find a quote by someone in that movement referring to Native Americans as immigrants.

                  • @Madison420@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    15 months ago

                    They call them savages, they’d have to consider them people to consider them immigrants but give me a minute I’m sure someone somewhere said it.

                    Similarly, look at you demanding evidence but providing none.