|
Each of the European peoples, distinct and yet bonded in being European people, unwilling to lose their distinctiveness and yet willing to support the distinctiveness of others. Extended, such a nationalist philosophy can also support the distinct national identities and rights of national determination of any people who desire it, so long as they do so on their own native ground.
I'm not an *advocate* of this philosophy, but I know what the philosophy is. It isn't as contradictory as it first appears. Nationalism is more than just "we don't like foreigners" to nationalists who actually have a political philosophy. These same parties have tried philosophical approaches before, as have others further to the right, and have achieved some measure of success with international and intercultural cooperation. Yes, the past coalition collapsed, but it existed for decades before that collapse under the same accusations of improbability and contradiction.
The problems are that philosophical nationalism is difficult to explain to simplistic thinkers, who will be confused by the apparent contradiction between "we do not want to lose our national identity to immigration by people X" and "we fully support the development and preservation of the uniqueness and interests of people X so long as they remain in country X". To sell this idea, it is absolutely critical to sell the idea of Blood and Soil. Just the Blood, you get ordinary racism without the concept of cooperation. Just the Soil part, you get a mystic environmentalism.
So, as a nationalist (again, I'm not one), how does one sell this to people who refuse to think? It is far easier to rally support for nationalism between peoples by pushing hate for the outsider rather than love for the insider. How do you paper over the issue of Europe's historically fluid borders? By expanding the concept of the Blood to all European nations. Essentially, drop the European pretense, and go simply to "white people". This also allows an expansion to historically majority white or historically white-run countries like Canada, Australia, and the United States.
How does one solve the issue, then, of different European nations facing different groups of outsiders? Pick the outsiders that are common between the nations. In their case, they're calling out "Islamisation" and Muslim immigrants. Historically, Jews and Gypsies have been the universal outsiders. They will both catch the fallout from this even if it isn't explicitly directed at them, but there aren't enough of them across Europe to serve the purpose of rallying the sense of people and place, of blood and soil.
They've got all the ingredients they need to make this work. Another poster pointed out that they lack a Hitler. Personally, I don't see this as a problem for them. Hitler wasn't that special, and could be recruited in much the same way as one would recruit an actor for a particularly challenging role. Find a high-energy narcissist, teach him how to talk, convince him he's the next Hitler, and he will be.
... okay, I didn't mean that to be funny, but I can't help but thinking of the auditions. It's coming out in my mind as a cross between American Idol and a scene from The Producers :-D
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
