Many European nationalist parties were launched in the late 1990s or even the early 2000s. And their rise in power has been essentially from the 2000s. This is the case in Finland with the Finns Party (from 1999), in Greece (Golden Dawn, Popular Orthodox Rally), in Hungary (Jobbik), in Norway (Progress Party), in the Netherlands (Party for Freedom), in Sweden (Sweden Democrats), etc.... So, it corresponds roughly to the agenda described in the previous article (necessity to have nationalist parties in the late 90s and early 2000s, especially on the Internet, to counter anti-illuminatis).
But there are two nationalist parties which have become important in European countries since the 1980s, this is the case of the National Front (NF) in France and the FPO in Austria (with a score of 9.7% since 1986).
It is true that there was also the Italian Social Movement. But it was stagnating at around 5% or 6%, and those scores were down from the 1970s. Similarly, there was the Vlaams Block in Belgium, which had already existed since 1978. But, at first, it was more of a separatist party than an anti-immigrant party. And he scored fairly low until the 1988 Antwerp elections when he scored 17.7%. But it was only in one town. And it didn't result in such high scores in the general election. So, in the 1980s, the only two real nationalist parties, with significant and increasing scores were the FN and the FPO.
That said, the FPO was a little behind the National Front, because it was more a populist party than a far-right party as heretical as the National Front. So his positioning was less extreme. Moreover, even if it belonged to an ideologically emblematic country (Austria, the homeland from which Hitler came), it was of much less geopolitical importance. So it had an impact, but clearly less than that of the NF.
So, in reality, it was mainly the National Front that, in the 1980s, was the great far-right party in Europe.
Once again, one can wonder why the masters of the world made these parties become important so early, when they could have made them emerge towards the end of the 90s, like the others.
In my opinion, there are several reasons.
First, it was used as a deterrent. It was important to continue to impose immigration hysterically, making it a moral problem, almost religious, therefore, a choice that is not debatable. Since Jean-Marie le Pen, the leader of the National Front, was presented as Hitler's spiritual son, who was considered then almost as the devil, to fight against the Pen was to fight against the devil, against the threat of a society with values totally contrary to those in place then, a little hell on earth, therefore clearly a religious type of fight. Moreover, French nationalists regularly complained about the "reductio ad Hitlerum", of the demonization to which they were subjected.
And it ensured that people didn't think clearly. If the debate had been dispassionate, people would have been able to say to themselves that it was not normal to bring so many immigrants without training, without money and without speaking the language, which meant that most were unemployable and this, in countries already suffering mass unemployment. But now, with the NF's rejection, people were only thinking with their guts, with their emotions. And as a result, the masters of the world could impose this immigration in European countries easily.
