We all have safe spaces. Most of us, with judicious use of the remote control, create within our homes a space safe from the political insult, foul language and sexual innuendo which passes for humour on television. Some of us, for whatever inexplicable reason, may even have created a space where we are safe from bagpipe music.

There is a difference between the safe space which is a matter of personal cultural preference affecting no others, and the demands for spaces in educational institutions free from ideas considered challenging or uncomfortable. Such spaces deny the very purpose of an educational institution and amount to childish temperamental censorship. They are a form of intellectual cowardice and reflect badly on those who demand them, and even more on those who permit them.

More dangerous is a continent-size safe space. Throughout their existence, the European Union and its forerunners have seen themselves as a ‘safe space’ for liberal values. Once a nation is brought inside, it is assumed that the values of the metropolitan elite are the values of all.

Following World War II, it was argued that nationalism was fascism’s breeding ground. The assumption was that if nations were gradually merged by pooling sovereignty amongst member states, nationalism would disappear and with it fascism and war. This necessitated free movement of populations between member states. To ensure that no culture valued itself over another culture, the concept of multiculturalism was promoted.

The creation of a European safe space demanded that those who wished to uphold national identity and culture be silenced. It failed. Instead of defeating nationalism it has done the opposite.

The wish to preserve your national cultural identity rather than see your nation as a haven for unfettered and unassimilable immigration was considered inherently racist. Valuing one’s own culture above others which stress differing values and priorities was supposedly an expression of xenophobia.

In the name of defeating nationalism, the anti-democratic EU and the elites trampled on national identity and sovereign institutions. The desire to expunge national culture and its expression is itself totalitarian. Yet it is those who defend national identity through self-government whom the elites denounce as racists or fascists.

Mainstream political parties throughout Europe bought into this process, and the drive to create a progressive safe space in Europe created a political vacuum. New parties emerged prepared to address the concerns of ordinary people. Some legitimately strive to defend Western democratic traditions and culture; others are loathsome and frightening. The elites of the EU are unable to differentiate between the two. They see any attempt to resist their safe space for progressivism as far-Right activism which must be no-platformed.

Thankfully, reality has a habit of breaking into safe spaces. Recent elections in Europe have seen a rise in parties stressing the importance of the nation state and indigenous cultures.

The Danish People’s Party opposes the Islamisation of the country through significant non-Western immigration. It also wants to maintain the Danish monarchy and uphold the Danish constitution.

The Finns Party, whilst welcoming work-based immigration, requires immigrants to accept Finnish cultural norms.

In Italy, the Northern League and Beppe Grillo’s Five Star movement both campaign to leave the eurozone and renegotiate Italy’s EU membership.

In Hungary, alarmed by the flood of illegal immigrants into Europe, the Orban government suspended EU asylum rules under which it must take back refugees who entered Europe though Hungary. Despite Hungarian dependence on EU subsidies, Prime Minister Orban claims to be leading a counter-revolution against EU centralisation.

Poland had the temerity to elect a government of which the EU disapproved. Since national self-determination demands respect for electoral outcomes, the Polish government sees EU disapproval as a challenge to the foundation of liberal democracy. The EU, meanwhile, sees the Polish election result as a deviation from European values. It is a question of where sovereignty lies. For Poland, this is no minor issue.

In Germany, the EU’s beating heart, the Bundestag has for the first time a significant body of MPs who are opposed to the EU and wish to reduce immigration and foster a German cultural identity.

All these parties and governments, and others, are smeared as racist and fascist and as giving cause for concern.

From within the EU safe space, the elites see themselves as a bulwark against the rampaging fascist hordes likely to erupt from the midst of the hoi polloi. They are unable to see that those wishing to preserve their national identity are not ipso facto fascist.

Neo-fascism does happen in Europe. Parties exist which are frightening. In Greece, Golden Dawn members have physically attacked immigrants, political opponents and minorities. Spokesman Ilias Kasidiaris wrote in 2011: ‘What would the future of Europe and the whole modern world be like if World War II hadn’t stopped the renewing route of National Socialism?’

In November 2012 Márton Gvöngvösi, deputy parliamentary leader of Hungary’s deeply anti-Semitic Jobbik party, said it was ‘timely to tally up people of Jewish ancestry who live here, especially in the Hungarian Parliament and the Hungarian government, who indeed pose a national security risk to Hungary’.

In 2005, the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution said of the NPD (National Democratic Party) that its statements ‘document an essential affinity with National Socialism’. It concluded that the NPD ‘unabashedly aims towards the abolition of Parliamentary democracy and the democratic constitutional state’.

That these parties exist and sometimes achieve electoral success is caused by the EU itself. If mainstream parties scorn the people’s concerns, and legitimate parties are contemptuously described as ‘far-Right’, then actual far-Right groups gain a hearing. By their oikophobia in seeking to stifle the legitimate concerns of ordinary people they have created a climate where extremists are able to gain influence.

The way to nip the European neo-fascist movement in the bud is for Europe to return to democratic rule as close to the people as possible and become once again an alliance of self-governing nation-states.


  1. So true and something else these parties are all minority parties, as long as we have free speech and a ‘free’ press these extremist groups cannot function. Momentum is an extremist party who have annexed the Labour Party but they have been exposed as a hard line Communist front so the basically intelligent electorate will withhold their votes from them.

  2. Very good article
    ‘That these parties exist and sometimes achieve electoral success is caused by the EU itself’.
    Isn’t this the absolute truth?.
    The totalitarians now are the Liberal left metropolitan elite.
    Brexit was the release valve for anger that will save Britain. Trump was the release valve that will save the USA.
    The rest of the countries of Europe will have to save themselves. Dont worry though, they are working it out, as the movements described in the article above show.

    • Yes, I think so as well. Well, the US and Britain have more experience at maintaining our nations somewhat near the center than anybody else, after all we built this world. I think the former east bloc learned enough between 1945 and 1990 to follow us, but that only works if Britain does save herself, again we come back to control of the sea, and Nelson’s continuing contribution to us. The US, I think will manage, we’re pretty rowdy and obstreperous about it, and our government still fears us. Britain less so, but compared with Europe, it is decidedly so. Why else would you be the most surveilled people in the world? That you carry on is an example to us all.

  3. “The Finns Party, whilst welcoming work-based immigration, requires immigrants to accept Finnish cultural norms.”

    “The UK LibLabConGreens Parties, whilst welcoming non-work based immigration, requires the British to accept immigrants’ cultural norms.”

  4. Allow me to explain, Dr. Campbell-Jack

    Pride in being a man = bad
    Pride in being a woman = good
    Pride in being born in Britain or America = bad
    Pride in being born anywhere else = good
    Pride in being a man who thinks he is a woman = good
    Pride in being a Christian = bad
    Pride in being a Muslim = good
    Pride in being white = bad
    Pride in being black = good
    Pride in being homosexual = good
    Pride in being heterosexual = bad

    (Terms subject to change without notice. Changes will be published in the Guardian editorial section on the first Friday of each month. The Left’s decision is final. No correspondence will be entered into).

  5. The very dark irony, an irony so colossal people that, people as the axiom goes: you can’t tell the wood from the trees.

    Does anyone who has read some Twentieth Century European history and better still since German reunification in 1864, and any person who retains some cognitive ability really believe that the German Die Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ever really went away?

    In the aftermath of WWII.

    The US government saw the Germans as some sort of bulwark against Soviet ambitions, the above lot and all the mainly intact [funny that eh?] big German industrial giants saw clearly a way forwards for Europe and it was German hegemony, not done through force of arms but through manufacturing, economic and political dominance. Thus, it came to pass its first incarnation was the ECSC and later crawled out its stillborn devil – as the EU.

    A line of 4th Reichkanzlers, from Adenauer, to Kohl and now Merkl the show goes on the names have changed but the form and direction is the same, the single currency has crippled the fringe EUzone countries but benefits the German economy no end – don’t you think that in Berlin – the Reichstag, Frankfurt BuBa and the ECB that along they knew that?
    They laughed at Maggie for doubting the intentions, of, the DDR joining their German western cousins, she was quite right but as with all tories if they had the vision to perceive the real picture, either they remained Schtumm or were incapable of such joined up thinking.

    One of the key controls of all totalitarian entities [Berlin-Brussels] is, to give people the illusion of democratic legitimacy but to maintain total dominance. North Korea has elections as do the PRC but they are sham ballots. In the EU, the order of what is, will and cannot be done, “thy will be done2.
    Now, think in the UK more especially since Major signed Maastricht, UK governments come and go but the orders and edicts and direction of governance is unaltered, we didn’t sign up to the Schengen treaty but we got open borders anyway, multikulti is the driver, vehicle and steamroller which flattens nation states into the earth not least in the UK.

    As all Totalitarian monsters do.

    Control the media, control the universities, control the cultural Marxists running the skools, Common Purpose nails down all UK institutions……….

    Aye and, control the language and be cast down if ye dare to gainsay it, be calumniated as a ‘fascist’, ‘denier!’ as a; flat earther, ‘fruitcake’ – it gets dafter as the ground disappears and all politics writhes in ambiguity and double meaning and reshaping through sowing deceit, confusion and misdirection, so that all patriots are “anti patriotism!”…………….Then pour in to the mix, the faux politics of feminism, wage equality, equality becomes to mean inequality for the majority and with, the perversity of celebrating diversity, discrimination legislation and at the root of that controlling the courts – ECHR/ECJ. Job done.

    If you stand on the extreme far left, then everybody is to your right.

    Hence, and when you control the narrative the likes of Marine Le Pen who clearly was Socialist in her outlook and policy was demonized as “far right”, the same with UKIP, AfD, Viktor Oban in Hungary, PiS in Poland blah, blah……………..and that the left are the ones “to trust” – dear God see how that worked out from Venezuela to Zimbabwe from Pyongyang to Kampuchea, to Soviet Russia. See how al beeb are currently celebration Lenin’s bloody revolution as if it was the greatest thing, revelation, salvation……………. for the Russian people…………er no, no it wasn’t.

    That alluded to ‘very dark irony’ – have you twigged it, yep, the Brown shirts – the fascists of the left from the beeb all the way to Berlin calling everybody else: a “Fascist” you see it’s only a game for them and people’s lives? when did individual people’s live when did that ever count?

    The left, in Berlin: they don’t give a flying fig for their vassalage, ie, European peoples ref: Greece.

    • To describe the EU as being ‘on the extreme far left’ is ridiculous, when so much property and power remains in corporate hands. What you are describing as the endgame is the model used by the Nazis, Mussolini, Franco and Pinochet – an alliance between industrialists, the military and a political class to deny the majority of the population political and legal rights. Much of the identity politics agenda serves this model. The women who have gained most from feminism are the rich: two high-income families have been a cause of rising inequality not equality. One consequence of the ethnic divisions of our countries is to reduce the likelihood of a trade union challenge based on white, working-class unity.

      Arguing whether the EU is ‘right-wing’ or ‘left-wing’ is to miss the point. describe it simplay as ‘authoritarianism’ and oppose it in the name of civil liberties, the rule of law and democracy.

      • I am countering their specious hollow epithets and the fundamentalist extreme left prejudice in theirs [not mine] argument, and besides haven’t you read the memo?

        corporatism = statism = Socialism.

          • ?So, what are we asking today, or – is it just plain old pedantry.

            Socialism is a disease of the human soul and causes unaccounted ill deeds, how can you distinguish it from statism? Corporatism is the same end, a concentration of money and power in the hands of the few – and that’s why they [conglomerates] love the Berlin Empire, so that the corporates can wield power, make cartels, build massive slush funds to buy up the competition and dream up, draft and etch in our blood their damned rules ref the green agenda, the auto emissions legislation and a plethora of similar schemes enshrined in law to make the consumer dance to the corporate orchestration.

            Now grow up snowflake and do try very, very hard to think on.

  6. “Following World War II, it was argued that nationalism was fascism’s breeding ground.”

    Following WWII it was argued that the earth was flat, that gravity was a myth and the US president was a reptile from the centre of the Earth!

    You simply cannot make statements like the one above without any kind of provenance and attribution! Post WWII is a long long time now and if you don’t pin down when this started it is pretty much meaningless.

    I don’t remember anyone saying these kind of things when Wilson / Callaghan were in power or they would have implemented them, the first time I recall hearing such things was during the Thatcher / Major years by uni students.

    Of course the borderless conglomeration was discussed far earlier than WWII by someone whos double barrelled name escapes me & I haven’t time to look him up.

    “To ensure that no culture valued itself over another culture, the concept of multiculturalism was promoted.”

    No it wasn’t! Multiculturalism was the brain child of Black Jamaican Marxist Stuart Hall, not to be confused with the sports commentator!

    Your memory is certainly extremely faulty ! Most of the post war period up until the 1980s was spent in the cold war with the Left actively engaged attempting to disarm the country to allow a Communist invasion. Soviet funded groups such as CND, the NUM and other far leftist groups widely influenced the Lefts damaged and faulty thinking.
    It was only post Gorbachev without a controlling direction that they began to move towards the ideological subversion the KGB had unleashed in the US, and the Left began to take their lead from there.

    I’m sorry but this article is so flawed it shouldn’t have been published.

    • Finally I recall his name !

      Richard Nikolaus Eijiro, Count of Coudenhove-Kalergi

      Coudenhove-Kalergi is recognized as the founder of the first popular movement for a united Europe, this was just after the end of WWI in 1918.

      • Has it not occurred to you why Coudenhove-Kalergi started arguing for a united Europe ‘just after the end of WWI in 1918’ ? Is it really so unreasonable to suggest that the same arguments were made with great force after the end of WWII?

        • I think you need to read my post again regarding this.

          “Is it really so unreasonable to suggest that the same arguments were made with great force after the end of WWII?”

          That would include the first argument being made just yesterday! The point here is that if you don’t name names or pin down times 70 years in recent history is just too broad a canvass.

    • …You simply cannot make statements like the one above without any kind of provenance and attribution! Post WWII is a long long time now and if you don’t pin down when this started it is pretty much meaningless….

      Hmm…. you are quite correct to point out that the truth is much more nuanced and complex than ‘after WW2’ – but i suspect that you are asking for perfection when the (admittedly simplistic) statement was made in an item which was about the present situation – not about the history of the ‘eradicate nations’ concept.

      That said, I believe that the idea that suppressing European (primarily German) nationalism by merging all the European nations has been around since WW2 – perhaps even before that. And ‘multiculturalism’ as a concept has certainly been around since the 1960s – really, since intercontinental travel became relatively easy. These ideas might originally have only been held by a few – they have recently blossomed as activists pressured politicians to put them into action…

  7. “The Finns Party, whilst welcoming work-based immigration, requires immigrants to accept Finnish cultural norms”.
    This is my attitude. Immigrants should adopt our British cultural norms and any traditional practices they bring with them should only continue if the have minimal affect on our way of life.
    Which is incidentally why I have no problem with Jews. They don’t want to forcibly convert me to their religion, they don’t go around killing people who speak out or make jokes about their religion, thy don’t try to make “no-go” areas where they live and anything they do with regards to their culture and religion has minimal impact on the lives of the rest of us.
    If only other religions and cultures did the same.

  8. The EU wants to replace national identity with a European identity. Hence the flag and anthem and plans for a EU army. What did not occur to the anti-fascist EU builders was that this European identity would be based on race and religion – to an even greater extent than the national identities of countries such as Britain and France that had had expansive empires and in Britain’s case a tradition for religious tolerance that had developed out of a desire to avoid civil wars between Protestants and Catholics.

    The EU Establishment is now being faced by a rebellion from countries in Eastern Europe who are seeking to uphold this very European identity by refusing to accept Muslim immigrants. (Nor is the EU sensitive to the histories of the countries occupied by the Soviet Union and the consequent reluctance of their peoples to submit to the dictates of another empire.)

    • “This European identity would be based on race and religion” What do Europeans, among whom I am happy to be counted, have in common with each other, sufficient to be the foundation of a common “identity”? Race and religion, mostly. And yet the EU, in opposition to which I hope always to be counted in the first rank, explicitly denies this.

  9. Peter Hitchens is well worth listening to on the EU being the means by which Germany achieves its historical aims and the means by which the US prevents an alliance between Russia and Germany. I could summarise but it’s best to hear his own words on youknowwhere.

  10. One thing which really annoys me about the elites is the way they assume greater insight knowledge and wisdom than the rest of us, never so acutely thrown into sharp relief than the referendum when they now believe those not in their circle did not have the necessary intellect to understand what was being asked of them.

    And yet when I look back at the time when the EEC changed to the EU and the Maastricht treaty it is also clear that most of those in power didn’t have the first clue what it contained.

    I can remember taking the view back then, that our MPs are paid an awful lot of money (much more than now) to read these documents, to analyse them and to form an opinion as to the best way to vote. That did not happen, and most of the lazy sods allowed other people to do the thinking for them. Worse than that the ones who were directly tasked with interpreting the consequences didn’t do it either with one reported quote being from Douglas Hurd “We’ve signed it now, we’d better read it”.

    No wonder Majors government lost the election to Bliar!

    As for informed debate the BBC made damn sure that the British public were kept in the dark about what this treaty was going to do – either deliberately, or because they didn’t know what was contained in it either !

    The treaty changed the EEC trading bloc to the EU with a social policy, a common currency and a whole host of other things, and yet Major lost the support of his own party in backing this, he came close to losing the confidence of the House of Commons in the process too.

    Ever closer union now meant even more than it did before, and it is this treaty which marks the watershed moment when the EU changed its prime objectives.

    If the EEC had remained as it was I doubt there would have been the calls to leave, and maybe not even a referendum needed.

    • “It is clear that most of those in power didn’t have the first clue what the Maastricht treaty contained.” Ken Clarke tried to turn his deliberate ignorance into some kind of virtue. Ad he’s still at it, a quarter-century later.

    • We were sold the EEC in the full knowledge by the powers that be, that the ultimate goal was the EU and beyond.
      At that time, people only had the MSM to get their information from, so if we currently are unable to understand the ramifications of leaving, they were certainly not capable of understanding the ramifications of joining in the first place.

  11. Talk of “fascism” gives me the opportunity to get something off my chest that’s almost on topic.

    I had to turn off the Third Programme yesterday. There was a folk song being played in which the singer, in that strange voice folk singers affect, sang, in close paraphrase “In 1936 I was just of lad of 16, but with Hitler and Franco on the continent we knew what fascism was.” I think it’s a pretty safe bet that the number of 16-year old English boys in 1936 who had any experience or even inkling of conditions in Germany, let alone Spain, was vanishingly small. They had no more idea about “fascism” than today’s EU “elite”.

    We never hear “folk” songs about the atrocities in the USSR, do we? Not to mention the crimes of the Spanish republicans?

    • Interestingly, what the world actually thought of Fascism and Nazism during the 20s and 30s, was entirely different from the leftist revisionist narrative we have today.

  12. “The way to nip the European neo-fascist movement in the bud is for Europe to return to democratic rule as close to the people as possible and become once again an alliance of self-governing nation-states.”
    And if they then decide that they don’t want to be !slamised are they still F4sc1sts?
    Currently anyone who doesn’t agree with the open borders, one world doctrine are N4z1s and F4sc1sts, making a mockery of the term and allowing real Totalitarians to hide in plain site.

Comments are closed.