Far-right parties rattled the traditional powers in the European Union and made major gains in parliamentary elections Sunday, dealing an especially humiliating defeat to French President Emmanuel Macron.

On a night where the 27-member bloc palpably shifted to the rightItalian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni more than doubled her seats in the EU parliament. And even if the Alternative for Germany extreme right party was hounded by scandal involving candidates, it still rallied enough seats to sweep past the slumping Social Democrats of Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

Sensing a threat from the far right, the Christian Democrats of EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had already shifted further to the right on migration and climate ahead of the elections — and were rewarded by remaining by far the biggest group in the 720-seat European Parliament and de facto brokers of the ever expanding powers of the legislature.

  • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    excluding polish immigrants

    I think you’re confused. Prussia had annexed regions of Poland in the 18th century. The Poles in question were born there. They weren’t immigrants, just as Native Americans and Hawaiians are not immigrants.

    “Left” you know the left that supported Germany’s colonial efforts

    Yes, the “left” that supported organized labor and opposed capital. Which was the original goal of leftism. In Germany, the left was led by August Bebel who was described as a “model worker’s leader” by none other than Vladimir Lenin.

    Anti-colonialism is a relatively new project for leftists. Old school leftists, including Marx, defended colonialism as a necessary step from feudalism to communism. Marx himself described the colonization of India as a “tool of history” in ending the “Oriental despotism” of the caste system and other “traditional rules”:

    we must not forget that these idyllic village-communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies. We must not forget the barbarian egotism which, concentrating on some miserable patch of land, had quietly witnessed the ruin of empires, the perpetration of unspeakable cruelties, the massacre of the population of large towns, with no other consideration bestowed upon them than on natural events, itself the helpless prey of any aggressor who deigned to notice it at all. We must not forget that this undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life, that this passive sort of existence evoked on the other part, in contradistinction, wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious rite in Hindostan. We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow.

    England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yes yes, let’s exclude the evidence showing you’re not correct. Similarly native Americans were considered immigrants not entitled to us citizenship. Do you not remember the whole “they’re savages” let’s exterminate them thing?

      No you’re simply confusing left leaning with left and taking a weirdly myopic view based on that.

      Wrong again, marx said it was necessary for capitalism and benefited the world. That doesn’t imply support it just didn’t imply vehement distaste.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Non-citizen and immigrant are not the same. Plenty of immigrants are citizens. In fact, the opposite of “immigrant” is … “native”.

        The next time you meet a Native American, tell them they are considered immigrants. Please post their reaction on YouTube, your video will surely go viral.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Explain that to the American nativist movement created by immigrant occupiers, you say these things from ignorance of history my friend.

          I am native boss.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Then you should easily be able to find a quote by someone in that movement referring to Native Americans as immigrants.

            • Madison420@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              They call them savages, they’d have to consider them people to consider them immigrants but give me a minute I’m sure someone somewhere said it.

              Similarly, look at you demanding evidence but providing none.