Nationalist parties, why a rise in power as early as the 80s?

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.

Now, you could say that since it only concerned France, it didn't have much of an impact elsewhere. But in fact, it was not only a scarecrow for France, but for the whole of Europe. So the impact of the NF has been enormous. All European governments have adopted the same hysterical reaction regarding the rise of the NF.

So, okay, they could have carried out the plan without this sort of deterrent. They could have brought in tons of immigrants without an extremist nationalist movement opposing them, and even without any opposition within moderate political parties. But it was probably a part of the refinement of the plan. They could have done without it, but as it was much more practical with it and there was no problem setting it up, there was no reason not to do so.

Secondly, without the National Front, it would have seemed strange if there had not been at least one country with an extremist opposition for 20 years, if everything had gone perfectly, without making any waves and if no one had voted for anti-immigration parties. It would at least have seemed suspicious if people had gone through that without it turning into an "anti" vote somewhere.

So there had to be at least one European country with an anti-immigration political party very early on.

And of course, it had to be an important movement, that is, one that would score high in elections for a party of this kind (at least around 10%). Otherwise, it would have had no visibility and therefore no relevance. Moreover, it could not have acted as a threat to democracy. That is why the NF had good results in the elections very quickly (as early as 1983).

Here again, the Jewish leaders could have made the thing happen suddenly (have no protest movement, then, suddenly, after a few years, make a certain number of them appear). But still, it was better to have a transition, a gradual rise in anti-immigrant hostility. You have to see that Jewish leaders must be able to present a credible story so that people continue not to suspect anything about the fact that a general power manipulates them.

Thirdly, the early launch of the NF also made possible to accustom people to nationalism, to make it more widely accepted. Then, it made it possible to introduce the new nationalist movements without this shocking people more than that and without it appearing strange that they were not forbidden.

And it also allowed making a connection with the new nationalist movements.

Fourth, there had to be the NF in order to slowly move the nationalists to the "perverted" camp. Indeed, as we have seen, during the war, the nationalist movements will walk hand in hand with the white democrat camp accepting many sexual deviances and "advanced" mores. Therefore, they will have to have a certain level of acceptance of these deviances so that the alliance between the two does not appear totally unnatural.

However, the masters of the world could hardly have nationalist movements becoming all of a sudden tolerant towards homosexuality, sexual freedom, abortion, homosexual marriage, assisted reproductive technology, etc.... Traditionally, these are conservative movements regarding mores. So it would have seemed clearly bizarre to have nationalist movements suddenly open to these kinds of mores.

So, they had to have at least one nationalist party that was fairly closed at first, then slowly evolving towards greater and greater tolerance towards new sexual mores.

And since it required at least 20 years to make this change, it had to be done early. It was therefore necessary to launch at least one nationalist party of this kind in a European country in the 1980s, then give it time to change and ensure that the transformation was already well under way in the 2000s. That's what happened with the NF. Jean-Marie le Pen was an old-fashioned nationalist, very closed to these new mores. Then, at the beginning of the 2000s, his daughter, Marine le Pen, began a process of "de-demonization" by becoming, among other things, very largely more tolerant to them. The National Front no longer has any problems with homosexuality, abortion, or even gay marriage. Only medically assisted reproduction is still a problem. But eventually it will be accepted. And they will probably accept new evolutions.

In the end, when the war arrives, the nationalist movements will probably still be a little behind the perversion of the mores of the time. It will be necessary to justify a small difference between the perverted Democrat Group and the nationalist groups. But they will accept 80% of them, so the differences will be small enough for an alliance between the two to appear normal.

It is because it is necessary to make this junction with modern mores in view of the 3rd world war that certain nationalist movements launched at the end of the 90s or at the beginning of the 2000s had at their head openly homosexual persons. This was the case for Leefbaar Nederland in the Netherlands, of which Pim Fortuynes, who was openly gay, was chief candidate in 2001. And in September 2017, this was the case with Alice Weidel in Germany, who led the campaign for the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) an anti-migrant party. Alice Weidel is a lesbian who lives with his wife and two sons. And in France, since 2012, the vice-president of the National Front has been Florian Philippot, who doesn't hide from being gay.

One may wonder why this type of nationalist movement was launched essentially in France at that time. Well, that's because it was harder to do elsewhere, or/and less interesting in terms of impact. They couldn't do it in Germany, given the Nazi past. They could not do it in northern Europe, because they were supposed to be very open, very tolerant, very social democrat. And they didn't have extremist movements in their history (at least powerful ones). So it would have seemed really incoherent. They could not do so in England, because it never had a history of extremist movements (apart from small groups). They could not do it in Spain, because Spain had just come out of Francoism (the same thing for Portugal and Salazarism). So it would have seemed completely incongruous for them to start voting for nationalist movements just a few years later. And Spain did not have as much intellectual and social influence as France, Germany, England and Italy. So it was less interesting. In Italy, it was possible, but still difficult to do in the early 80s, since it had been under fascism and didn't have too much immigration at the time. And Italy has a little less influence than France, Germany and England.

So the only country that remained was France. It was there that a nationalist movement could be launched as early as 1980. Indeed, France, although having been hard hit by Nazi Germany and having very moderate political movements since, had had very powerful nationalist and especially royalist movements in the years 1900 to 1930. So, one could justify a return to nationalism by evoking this French history (which the intellectuals of the time did not fail to do, heavily insisting that it was normal because France had a long history of right-wing extremism). And since it wasn't recent, it didn't seem incongruous that it came back, since people were supposed to have forgotten the history and dangers of extremism. And besides, France already had a lot of immigrants. Thus, the rise of anti-immigrant nationalist movements could be justified.

And France being one of the three most important countries in Europe, and having been hard hit by Nazism during the Second World War, it was extremely emblematic to make an extreme right-wing party grow in power there.

This is largely why small nationalist and royalist groups were kept alive in France between 1945 and 1980. They had to survive so that a rise in power from 1980 could be justified. They could hardly have come out of nowhere.

For Austria, setting up a populist party there had a somewhat bizarre side (a country hit hard by Nazism, no history of nationalist parties). But there had to be at least one other country succumbing to the sirens of nationalism. Since it was a small country, it passed more unnoticed, while still having some resonance.

Regarding the fact that there were other countries with more or less important nationalist parties in the 1980s, even if it was a little later than in France, we will see that a little more precisely now.

Austria indeed had a nationalist party fairly early, the FPO. That party had existed since 1955. But it was not really nationalist in the sense in which it is currently understood. It was only between 1986 and 2001 that it began a shift towards nationalism under Jörg Haider. But, given that the transformation took place over 15 years, we can think that in 1986 it was not yet very nationalist and that it only really became so around the 1990s. Moreover, it must not have been so nationalist, since in 1999 it was able to ally itself with the Austrian People's Party (OVP), which is a Christian-Democrat-Conservative party, to form a government (named Schüssel I). Alliance that was renewed in the 2002 elections to form the Schüssel II government in which the FPO participates until 2005. So, a priori, it must have been much less controversial than the French National Front. It must have been (at least at the time) more of a populist right-wing party than a far-right party.

In Italy: the Italian Social Movement (Movimento Social Italiano) seemed more clearly nationalist and even fascist and had been present in the Italian political landscape since 1946. But in fact, this fascist positioning was true at the very beginning. But quickly, from the early 1950s, it was the conservative elements that controlled the party and not the purely fascist elements. There were still fascist elements within that party, but they were in the minority.

In any case, since they had been there since 1946, they did not present a novelty. And their election scores stagnated in the 1980s (between 5.4 and 6.8%), with a downward trend. They were also slightly lower than in the 1970s (about 1% lower). So, with the scores of this party, you couldn't say that there was a rise of intolerance towards immigrants in Italy. And then, in 1995, this party radically changed its orientation and became a centrist party.

Besides, it is to be checked, but I do not remember that much was said about this party in France in the 80s and 90s. And you might think that if it was like that in France, it was the same in other European countries. So, it probably was not or no longer considered so extremist, or its low and falling scores made that people considered it negligible.

In fact, the Italian anti-immigrant party that has been talked about a lot in France (and most probably in Europe) is the Northern League (la Lega Nord). But the movement was created in December 1989, and only became a party in 1991. So we were already in the'90s.

And even if it was hostile to immigration, it was in fact rather a regionalist party, since its objective was essentially the separation of northern Italy from southern Italy. So the anti-immigration side was more of a secondary element. That said, in this idea of separatism, there was some underlying racism, since southern Italians were implicitly considered inferior to northern Italians. So that party could easily be considered racist. But it was still less controversial than the National Front. And its alliances with more traditional right-wing parties go in this direction. And various political scientists consider that at least until 2014, it was more a populist right-wing party than a far-right party.

Otherwise, Belgium had the Vlaams Block, which had already existed since 1978. But, as mentioned earlier, it was initially more of a separatist party than an anti-immigrant party. And it scored fairly low until the 1988 Antwerp elections when it did 17.7%. But it was only in one town. And it didn't result in such high scores in the general election. It was only in 1991 that the party rose above 2% in the House of Representatives with a score of 6.6%. It then slowly increased to reach 9.9% in 1999. So, there too, it was especially from the 90s that it really took off, but without really taking off completely, since scores of less than 7 or 8% remain limited.

And of course, until 1989, all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe were in the Soviet bloc. So they were necessarily out of the game until the early'90s. This means that in the 1980s, things could only be done in Western European countries.

During the 90s

So in short, we had two major nationalist movements in the 1980s, first in France and then in Austria. Then two other countries followed in the 1990s. And in the 2000s, this was then the case again in other countries. That's normal. It was necessary to have a progressive development of nationalism in the various European countries. It would have been suspicious if only France (and to a lesser extent Austria) had remained in this case after 20 years of massive immigration throughout Europe.

And the countries have once again been chosen carefully and the type of parties too. In the 1990s, it still could not be Germany, Spain, Portugal or England, nor Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands, for the same reasons as in the 1980s. Neither was Switzerland, too rich and not yet expected to have many immigrants at the time.

So, the only candidates remaining were Italy and Belgium.

Italy was a possible candidate. It is true that its fascist history in the 20s to 40s should have been a big handicap, because it should have got rid of these tendencies definitively after the purges carried out at the end of the war, a little like Germany. But this disadvantage was partly cancelled out since, as we have seen, it had continued to have a party considered as neo-fascist since the end of the war (the Italian social movement created in 1946). So it seemed quite normal that it should succumb again to the sirens of nationalism, since it had never really completely stopped succumbing to it. By the way, we can think that the creation and continuation of this party during all this time was in part done on purpose for that.

In fact, we have here one of those WTF elements that show the illuminati manipulation (a bit like Dunkirk for World War II, but less obvious), but where theses ones think it will pass because nobody will understand the general plan. Because, after all, having a neo-fascist movement as early as 1946 in Italy seems incredible, completely incongruous. It should have been banned immediately. And the fact that it wasn't should seem very strange to people. And that must sometimes be the case for the few who know this information. But since they are not aware that it is the result of a conspiracy, they do not look any further than that. Or they rationalize by thinking that the Italians were more permissive than the Germans, or that certain groups supported them so that Italy would not sink into communism, or something like that. And of course, another way people don't wonder is ignorance. Very little has been reported in the newspapers about this movement outside Italy. So very few people are aware of its existence (which was my case). And even for the few who are, they usually don't know its creation date which is the most shocking element here.

But still, illuminatis aren't stupid. They made sure that this movement quickly became more moderate than at the beginning. From the beginning of the 1950s, conservatives took control and gave a less neo-fascist orientation than at the beginning (even if internally, neo-fascist tendencies continued to exist). As a result, it became more normal for this party not to have been banned. Because it was incredible enough that it was allowed in 1946 so, if it had continued to be that radical afterwards, it would have seemed very suspicious. Thanks to this conservative evolution, but still with a part of neo-fascism, it was therefore logical that the party was not banned, and at the same time, it made it possible to say that neo-fascist tendencies had persisted in Italy since the war, which made possible the emergence of a party like the Northern League in 1991.

In short, in order not to create a shocking and visible weirdness in 1991, they created one as shocking, but much less visible in 1946.

An advantage of choosing Italy was the extravagance of Italian political life that makes people tend not to take it seriously. And indeed, that was the case with the Northern League. You wondered what's got into the people of the north to want to separate from southern Italy. This made it possible to impose a separatist movement (the Northern League) whereas, from the outside, it seemed rather delirious, given that Italy's economic situation was rather good. It is as if a French party decided to exclude a part of southern France because of its high unemployment. So, that allowed the arrival of this new populist party to pass without people worrying and reacting too much. And it allowed this type of party to become a little more established in the European political landscape.

On the contrary, the fact that it didn't have much immigration yet was a big problem. According to Wikipedia, in 1991 there were still only 625,000 immigrants in Italy. While at the beginning of the rise of the NF in 1983, there were 4,000,000 immigrants in France (for a roughly similar population of about 50 million), that is 6.5 times more. And there were already 3.2 million in 1968, when the French nationalist movements were still in limbo and there was no mention of the immigration problem at all. So it would still have seemed odd if many Italians started voting for anti-immigrant parties while the percentage of immigrants was still low.

Austria had about the same problem. It didn't have a Nazi past of its own. But since it had been included in Germany because of the Anschluss, people tended to amalgamate. So it was still problematic that in a country supposedly denazified after the war, we were witnessing the emergence of a populist party.

Finally, Belgium also posed a problem since it could be assimilated more or less to the very tolerant nations of the north. On the other hand, it is close to France. Thus, part of its evolution could be justified by its partial proximity to the French character (the Walloon side).

To solve these various problems, Jewish/illuminati leaders used 3 tricks.

The first trick was to make them take off after the NF in France. Then, it seemed much less surprising, since it had already been done elsewhere in an important and also very tolerant country.

The second trick dealt with the types of party. They were more populist parties than extreme right-wing parties as in France, i.e. more hard right-wing than extreme right-wing. So it was less shocking. It seemed more credible given the character and history of these countries.

The third trick was that two of these three parties (in Italy and Belgium) were more separatist than purely nationalist. So, once again, we were in a different pattern than in France. You could say that their election scores were based more on this separatist component than on their xenophobic side, which exonerated their voters from being truly xenophobic. Also, it was part of the history of these countries. So, for Belgium, it made it possible to explain the rise in power of the Vlaams Block without it appearing strange compared to the tolerant and liberal character of this country. And for Italy it explained that a country that did not yet have much immigration could suddenly have this kind of party.

Now, it is true that in the 1990s there were nationalist movements very early on in some former countries of the USSR, some of them very powerful. But people's perception was completely different from what was happening in Western European countries. All this was happening in the context of the collapse of the USSR and the economic and geopolitical chaos that reigned there at that time. As a result, it was not seen as a rising threat as in Western Europe, but rather as a transitional situation that was to end with the gradual improvement of the economic situation in the Eastern countries (see footnote* for more details).

The relative stagnation of these parties in the 90s and 2000s

It can be noted that most of these different movements, while they have had their ups and have become firmly entrenched in the political landscape, have also experienced many downs and finally made only moderate progress during the 1990s and 2000s (with the exception of the FPO in the 1990s). It is only from the years 2010 that their scores increase again strongly (with the exception of Vlaams Belang).

The NF stagnated in the legislative elections between 1993 and 2012 (with a period of sharp decline in 2007, with only 4.29%). It returns towards its best scores in 2012 and 2017, with 13.6% and 13.2%, but never equals them. The same is true for the presidential elections, with 14.38% in 1988 and only 10.44% in 2007 (the date from which its scores increase again, reaching all-time highs, with 17.9% and 21.3% in 2012 and 2017).

After a brilliant start in 1992 (with 8.6%), the Northern League suffered a stagnation of its results in the 1990s, at around 9-10% in the elections to the Chamber of Deputies, then suffered a sharp drop in the 2000s, with scores turning around 4% until 2013. But it grew strongly in 2018, reaching 17.4%, its highest result since its creation.

In Austria, the FPO really took off in the 1990s, rising from 16.6% in 1990 to 26.9% in 1999 in the National Council, which enabled it to return to government until 2005. Before, it only reached 5% in 1983 and 9.7% in 1986. These scores show once again clearly that it was certainly much more a populist right-wing party than a far-right party as was the case in France. However, it collapsed in the 2000s, with results falling to 10% in 2002 and 2006, before returning to scores similar to those of the 1990s from 2013 onwards (20,5 % this year and 26 % in 2017).

Finally, in Belgium, the Vlaams Block, which later became the Vlaams Belang, grew steadily in the 1990s, going from 6.6% in 1991 to 9.87% in 1999 at the House of Representatives. But it never exceeded 10% during those years. Then, unlike other movements in Europe, it continued to rise in the 2000s, reaching 11.59% and 11.99% in 2003 and 2007. But they're still modest scores. And since then it has only declined to a mere 3.67% in 2014.

The fact that these parties never took off completely is of course intended and planned. For Jewish leaders, it was necessary to ensure that they did not grow too much right away. They had to remain simple scarecrows.

This is also the case for most of the nationalist parties which began to succeed in the 2000s. They have never been much further than 20%.

Now, towards the end of 2010, things are finally starting to progress in some of these 4 countries and in others that have seen nationalist movements gain strength since the 2000s. But, in the 4 countries in question it exceeds 20% only in Austria with the FPO (for the parliamentary elections). So, we remain at the same levels of results as before. We don't get 30 or 35 percent. So overall, it's not making much progress if you look at the trend over 30 years.

It is also true that some nationalist movements are again entering governments (Austria, Italy, Bulgaria, etc.). But it's not at all the same as if they were alone. And it had already been done in the 90s without changing anything. And then, it is sometimes done at the cost of a significant softening of these movements, as in Bulgaria.

So will the current progress be confirmed or will the nationalist parties continue to stagnate or even regress?

Personally, I think that it will stagnate more or less at the level of the last results, that is to say oscillate around 15-25 % during still 15 or 20 years. Some countries will continue from time to time to have political coalitions with populist movements inside (as in Austria or Italy). But their policy will remain soft. Only after that will nationalist movements become powerful in some countries that will be on the "white" side during the war, with results rising to at least 40%. This rise in power will be accompanied by a radicalization towards Muslims and generally a greater moderation towards mores.

Nationalist parties are likely to grow earlier in some Eastern and Central European countries. Given how these are already presented as tough countries politically speaking, it will be possible to increase the scores of these parties and make them more radical without making it seem bizarre.

The question is: "What will happen to the nationalist parties in the countries that will fall under the Muslim yoke? It's hard to say. Normally, they should decline. But it is also possible that they are relatively powerful (in the 20 to 30 %), in order to justify possible defections during the war. And once some of these countries have been freed from the Muslims, it will make it possible to say that a large part of the population was fighting against them. It will also allow the installation of extremist nationalist governments that will rely on this anti-Muslim population. In short, continuing to have relatively strong nationalist movements could be useful for future events. But depending on the plans of the Jewish/illuminatis leaders, the situation may vary from country to country.

Note* (about nationalist parties of Eastern Europe):

Nationalist movements have been powerful rapidly especially in the Balkan countries. But it was mainly in the context of wars or tensions between certain countries or certain regions of certain countries. So it seemed natural that there should be nationalist movements. Especially since these countries were traditionally considered as a powder keg. It seemed normal that after having suffered a glaciation of their situation for decades, the old tensions had suddenly returned. Moreover, given the situation, these tensions and wars seemed to be only temporary. So even though people deplored the situation, they were not overly concerned. There was not the spectre of a return to Nazism on the horizon as with the nationalist movements of Western Europe. And finally, it affected small countries, like Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, etc., so it wasn't very worrying.

What is certain is that, since the countries of the former USSR were poor and therefore countries of emigration and no immigration, these nationalist parties had nothing to do with anti-immigrant parties as could be seen in France or Austria.

It was not until the late 2000s that these movements evolved with the economic situation in their countries and began to be seen in the same way as the nationalist movements in Western Europe.

There has also been a nationalist party in Russia since 1989, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, and it has scored around 8-12% since 1995 (except in 1993, when it made 22.9%) until 2016 in parliamentary elections. In Russia, there was not really any war threatening the security of the country, just a few small military actions at the borders of the country. So, at least initially, this party could have been considered in western countries as a resurgence of Nazism, something very worrisome. But this was no more the case than for the nationalist movements in the Balkan countries.

At the beginning, people in the West considered that it was a temporary phase linked to the economic chaos of this country. Things had to get back to normal once this phase was over. So no one was overly concerned about the emergence of a nationalist movement in that country as they were about what was happening in France or Austria. At first, it was almost considered folklore because it seemed so strange. It was seen more as a thing of the past and destined to disappear after 10 or 15 years than a force with a future, as was the case in Western Europe.

Then, as this party never made more than 12% after 1993, it remained a party of little importance, so that it continued not to worry many people. In fact, since the 2000s, most people in Western Europe have more or less forgotten its existence (which was my case).

By the way, we can think that this party was created so early in part in order to justify a more nationalist orientation of Russian politics from the years 2000 with Putin.

Similarly, it may be thought that the war of the 1990s in the Balkans served in part as a pretext for continuing to have fairly strong nationalist parties in these countries thereafter.

Otherwise, it would have seemed surprising if countries that had come out of communism and were very poor and were therefore countries of emigration rather than immigration had suddenly started to have powerful nationalist parties.