Political Dominoes are Falling in Europe

As in Sweden, the politics are flipping in Italy.

‘Mother, Italian, Christian’: Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s far-right leader on the cusp of power

How far-Right Sweden Democrats are bringing Trump's America to a small country town

"It's completely crazy that so many people here vote for them," complains Johan Tinné, the co-owner of the central Café Innegarden. "I think they've grown because of all the shootings and the gang crime. They blame everything on immigrants, and when something bad happens, they use that as propaganda." When asked if any friends and family also vote for the party, he shakes his head. "The day they start voting for SD, I'll end all my contact with them."

If you view politics somewhat objectively, if you can set bias aside when observing the whole picture, you can see how easily the populace can swing from a complex false reality such as "systemic racism" to innate tribalism. Or from one form of racism to another. It isn't that one is right or wrong, though your bias may argue that. It's merely the observation that, if you raise a population to think native populations are inherently evil, then it isn't at all a stretch for the public to then switch out white for black, or Russians, Chinese, Jews, migrants. What looks like moral authority is merely popularity and power. It's almost impossible that the natives, who are the dominant population group, won't eventually retake power on their terms.

My biased opinion is that the Western media, government and educational institutions rely less and less on dialectic, and more and more on rhetoric and intellectually-devoid ad hominems. As Biden did in his "MAGA are fascists" speech. A good reason not to engage in this type of propaganda is that it has a raw effect on the public.

Take a very complex theory such as systemic racism. Take the in extremis example of blaming anti-Asian violence on white supremacy, when nearly every single video shows a black assailant. If the propaganda pushes the public into an place of extreme emotional agitation and cognitive dissonance, if the public is starting to feel an emotional reaction such as whites believing they are being blood libeled and Asians are becoming anxious by the dichotomy of reality and propaganda, politics can quickly swing 180 degrees. An emotionally agitated population swings from "anti-white" to "anti-black," and stays there because of the video evidence. It doesn't require concocting bizarre political theories to defend "an epidemic of black crime." It's kind of funny that people who don't like the rise of SD in Sweden, say things such as "I think they've grown because of all the shootings and the gang crime." When a political movement intentionally increases shootings and gang crime, a backlash is inevitable.

In the 1980s, a reaction to the 1970s consisted of the Moral Majority turning against the smut and drugs of the 1970s. "Just Say No" emerged.  The moral part peaked in the late 1980s with Congressional hearings on rock and rap music lyrics. Crime was met with increased policing and incarceration.  "Three Strikes You're Out" laws proliferated. NYC saw crime rates plummet with "stop and frisk" and "broken windows" policing. Going farther back, the laissez-faire USA of the 1920s was effectively erased by FDR's New Deal, which vastly expanded government in a way that prior generations of Americans would have openly rebelled against. I believe current conditions are far closer to the 1930s than the 1970s. 

In times of extreme negative mood, political reversals are likely. If the right is in power, expect the left will win and vice versa. Across the West presently, extremist left-wing/liberal ideas are in power. It expresses itself mainly through extremist immigration policies (effectively open borders) and anti-racist ideology that treats native populations as the worst/lowest group in society. Global corporations tag along with policies aimed at crushing local labor. My view is these ideas have drifted into absurdity and cannot be defended. Since espousing common sense policies on immigration and race gets people labeled racists, then a shift back to "the middle" is unlikely. Instead, the public will flip into a moral mirror.

Moreover, it doesn't require complex theories. Should the government treat citizens better than foreigners? Should the government treat victims of crime better than criminals? Should government help workers more than giant corporations? Should government help companies build businesses at home instead of abroad? Should government fund social welfare at home instead of funding wars overseas? Most people will choose the former over the latter, except the current people in power. Two consequences follow. First, the people in power are going to lose that power. Second, I predict that every movement that is aligned with power from BLM to LGBTQ and so on, is at risk of also losing their social status. Not that they will, but that they could and some definitely will. For example, anti-LGBTQ laws that exist in Hungary, Poland and Russia will be found across the West.

The far right is having a moment in Europe. Actually, everywhere.

Pietro Castelli Gattinara, associate professor of political communication at Université Libre de Bruxelles and Marie Curie Fellow at Sciences Po, said that the far right is a global movement and a global ideology, even though one of the core tenets of these parties is a kind of nativism. That translates into a rejection of migration, but also of the social and cultural changes taking place within societies. The “woke” culture wars may look different in the US or Italy, but they are a feature of the modern far-right.

The "far-right" is diverse. The "Woke" around the world all believe the same things. They are globalists. They want to wipe out the nations. They call their movement diverse, but it is really homogenous. If everywhere is diverse, then it's homogenous. NYC is diverse because people from distinct cultures live/travel/work there. If everywhere is as diverse as NYC, then it is no longer unique.

The globalist goal isn't stability, but instability. They are using migration to destroy nations that resist globalism. Nationalists only share their love of their own people and cultures. Indian, Japanese, American and Swedish nationalists all agree that the nations (people) of India, Japan, America and Sweden should not be destroyed by globalism and diversity. The world is made more diverse by having these nations, than it is by putting all these people into a blender. 

War in Ukraine only highlights the battle. Russian areas of Ukraine want to breakaway and join Russia. Globalists are like the Ukrainian government trying to rule over diverse peoples. How much easier would it be if Eastern Ukraine was flooded with migrants who oppose joining Russia?

It is possible this is a temporary "moment" for the "far-right." I instead see a major turning point in the world. I believe it is very possible no one above the age of 50 will see the stock market higher (in real terms) than it was at the end of 2021. Prosperity is going away and whatever is associated with power today, could very well become unpopular in the decades-long downturn. More to the point, poor people value things like safety, community and culture in politics because they lack the wealth to buy it. The government cannot provide better material welfare if the economy is shrinking, but they can always provide more security and increase social cohesion with policies enforcing the dominant language, religion, family structure and so on.

One example: countries have already ended easy international travel with the pandemic. That is an anti-globalist, nationalist policy and it was mostly done by the globalist governments. A logical next step is to ban all migration, as that is a more "invasive" type of population movement. Even when they "win," the globalists will have to behave more like nationalists in the same way that laissez-faire accepted the welfare state as a practical matter.