If you’ve
been following European politics for the past year, you know that one of the
biggest news stories is the rise of anti-establishment right-winged parties all
across the continent – these are sometimes referred to as “far right”,
sometimes “new right”, and sometimes as “right-winged extremist”. Personally, I
like the term “new right”, which was originally used to refer to Thatcher’s
movement – but then as a Thatcher fan I do have a personal bias. Whichever name
we consider appropriate, what’s important is what these parties have in common:
They oppose the European Union, and want to see immigration reduced.
Many
political commentators and analysts are worried about this trend – after all,
this is how Europe looked in the early 1930’s, right? Back then, we had a bad
economy which made people turn to racist parties in desperation all across the
continent. These commentators would have you believe that we are now witnessing
history repeat itself.
Is that
really true though?
As a member
of one of these “far right” parties (actually,
we’re centrist, but never mind), I’d like to offer a different perspective both
on our movement, and on the tragic part of Europe’s history that led up to
World War II.
Let’s start
with the history:
It is true
that nationalism was on the rise in the 1930’s in the parts of Europe that
would later on be known as the “Axis” powers. It is also true that the most
famous non-European axis power – Japan – was an extremely nationalistic
country.
So far, the
narrative seems very clear cut: Nationalism is a breeding ground for fascism
and totalitarianism, and so in the interest of preserving peace and defending
democracy, nationalism must be destroyed and its proponents silenced.
However,
when you look at the full picture, it gets more complicated. While it is true
that the Axis powers were ultra-nationalist in nature, this can also be said
about the allies.
Don’t
believe me? Think about it: Winston Churchill, the UK’s prime minister during
WWII, was probably the greatest admirer of the British Empire the world has
ever seen. He was far from some kind of cozy internationalist; he was a
nationalist to the bone, and he appealed to nationalism when he rallied the
British nation during the war. That’s right – nationalism, the evil ideology
accused of creating fascism, actually motivated tens of millions of Britons to
stand up against fascism even when facing the grimmest of odds.
Roosevelt
too was no internationalist – he held a firm belief in American exceptionalism
and in the supremacy of Western culture & values. The same can be said
about Charles De Gaulle, the French resistance leader, and also every other
resistance fighter in Europe. Max Manus was a Norwegian who risked his life
fighting the Nazis because he was a
nationalist during the German occupation. Anthropologists & sociologists today would
have you believe that nations are “artificial”, that they are “figments of
imagination” and “only exist in people’s heads” (… isn’t that the case with all
kinds of human emotions?) but to people like Max Manus, the Norwegian nation
was real enough that he was willing to risk his life to restore its freedom.
And millions of Norwegians today are grateful that he did.
Clearly,
nationalism is not what separates Axis from Allies. In order for A to be able
to explain B, A must be present when B is present and not present when B
isn’t present. If nationalism is to explain fascism, we’d expect nationalism to
be absent everywhere where fascism is absent. As we’ve seen above, this is
clearly not the case.
On a side
note, the Soviet Union is the sole exception among the Allies when it comes to
nationalism: The Soviet Union rejected the notion of nationalism and the rights
of nation-states, and consequently, after World War II, the Soviet Union went
from being a liberator to an oppressor of the nations of Eastern Europe. After
liberating them from Nazi Germany, the Soviets did not give these nations their
independence back like the United States & UK did with France and the other
countries on the western front that they liberated – because the Soviet Union
did not believe in nation-states and so did not believe that a nation such as
the Polish had a right to be free. Poland’s right to independence was not
nearly as important as the global proletarian revolution. The US & UK,
being nationalistic countries proud of their heritage, understood and respected
other countries’ desire to be free, which is why France regained its
independence after World War II and did not end up as the 51st state.
But if
nationalism didn’t cause fascism/Nazism, what did? The first thing we need to
note is that all the countries that succumbed to totalitarian ideologies were
countries that had never really been stable democracies in the first place – countries
with populations that were used to the idea of a strong leader and a state with
near-unlimited power. Even an ultra-nationalist like Churchill never tried to
uproot democracy, because Churchill was British and as such he believed in
democracy and human rights – two things that the Brits pretty much invented. And
even if he had tried, he would never have succeeded – democracy is just too
deeply ingrained in the British national identity. Not so with the German,
Japanese or Italian national identities.
The second
thing we need to understand is the difference between nationalism in countries
like Germany and nationalism in countries like the UK. German nationalism had
an element which British nationalism lacked: Genetics. In less technical terms,
German nationalism was based on the idea that the Germans were a separate,
superior race, bound by blood – they claimed to have unique genetic traits that
other humans didn’t have.
One problem
with this type of nationalism is that it is exclusive.
There is no
way for a non-Aryan to become Aryan. Either you are Aryan, or you’re not. That
is also why Nazi Germany rejected potential collaborators in Eastern Europe –
they largely refused to accept help from Slavic people even though they shared
a common enemy (the Soviet Union). When you are a nation tied together by
blood, there is absolutely no room for outsiders.
British/American
nationalism however is not like that – there is no emphasis on DNA at all.
Whatever your origin, you can become British by assimilating into British
society – essentially, anyone who adapts British culture & values can
become British, even if they were born thousands of miles from England and even
if their skin isn’t fair.
British
nationalism can never be anti-democratic, because belief in democratic values
is such an essential part of the national identity that British nationalists
demand that immigrants who arrive in Britain adapt.
And hence, it
follows that the rise of British nationalism in today’s world – whether in
Britain or elsewhere – will not be followed by a subsequent rise in Fascism and
a new Kristallnacht.
The
question that we must ask ourselves is therefore – is the national conservative
movement led by parties such as UKIP a British or a German nationalist movement?
The truth
is of course a bit complicated – every political party has to be evaluated on
its own merits. However, when we look at the overall picture, it becomes clear
that German nationalism has not made any kind of continent-wide resurgence.
Let’s start
with my own party – the Sweden Democrats. We believe in “open Swedish-ness” –
the concept that anyone can become Swedish. Of course, this requires a certain
degree of assimilation on behalf of the person seeking to become Swedish, but
we do not believe that Swedish-ness is in any way shape or form a genetic
trait. Nor do we believe that Swedes are superior to others; indeed we support
equal rights both for those who identify as Swedish and those who don’t.
Moving on
to my “other” party, UKIP – again, UKIP does not oppose the idea of non-Brits
becoming British. They are a traditional British nationalist party in this
sense – a strong belief in British identity, pride of British history and
heritage, but lacking the exclusiveness displayed by nationalism in continental
Europe.
The same
pattern continues when we look at parties such as the Norwegian Progress Party,
the Danish People’s Party, the Finnish True Finns and also the French Front
National.
However,
there are a few disturbing exceptions from the rule as well – the most famous
one being Golden Dawn in Greece, a party that very much promotes the idea of
racial supremacy and nations bound together by common DNA lineage. While it is
horrible to see such parties and ideas advance, we have to remember that their
advance is limited to a few isolated examples (Greece, Ukraine) – not a
Europe-wide trend, and it should also be noted that every party in the “new
right” have distanced themselves from Golden Dawn and their ilk. That is why
UKIP is not in the same group as Golden Dawn in the European Parliament, and
neither is Front National (though FN unfortunately isn’t quite as staunchly
opposed to racism as UKIP). And that is why anyone who has ever been a member
of the BNP, the EDL or any other group which promotes racial biology and the
idea of superior races can never be a member of UKIP.
Some would
argue that it’s just a matter of semantics – that some parties talk about “race”
and others talk about “culture”, but that they mean the same thing. Anyone who
accepts that however is forced to conclude that Churchill’s ideology was the
same as Hitler’s. Because, like I said, they were both nationalist – their ideology
with regards to race and a lot of other things differed, but they both loved
their country, they were proud of their country’s heritage and they wanted to
preserve their country’s respective cultures. Of course, this does not make
them equal – and just like Churchill isn’t equal to Hitler, neither is the
Sweden Democrats, UKIP and the rest equal to the NSDAP.
Let me
finish up by admitting that we are far from a perfect movement. We have our
fair share of nut jobs, and we make mistakes as we go along. However, as I hope
is clear to anyone who has made it this far in this article, it is absolutely
ridiculous to conclude that the rise of the likes of my party and our
colleagues in Europe is foreshadowing another holocaust. While fascism and
nationalism can co-exist, they are different animals, and one does not cause the
other.
I hope we
can now have a serious debate about immigration and leave the scaremongering
aside.
Thank you
for reading.
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.
No comments:
Post a Comment