[Friedrich]

Hello my friends!

I want to start a debate you can join here!

I just wrote a text and want to ask what you think about it. To understand my intention and the sense of this debate, i advise the other thread!
_________________________

To make this debate more coherent, we have to specify what we mean by “right wing”. I cannot talk for the whole world, but for Europe and especially for Germany. One of the most important topics of right wing politics is the foreign infiltration (in Europe and in North-America). If you are not afraid of foreign infiltration at all, you are not a right winger, because the sovereignty and the preservation of our fatherlands are the minimum factors to be a right wing. How would someone be right wing if he do not want his country being alive? And exactly there is the point where we have to discuss about how many immigrants we tolerate, and how it depends on the different countries.
But the base is: Foreign infiltration is not good for the countries health!

Now I turn to another example. The question of nationality. On which point is someone integrated, and what are the assumptions to be a member of the nation. That topic underline the differences of the USA and Europe. The USA is a state which was established by immigrants, and it would not be a problem to integrate a person there in the society, while in Europe we have a nationality understanding which is based on culture and origin.

My (on Germany based) opinion: The identity card does not make a person a member of the nation. No one (in Germany) can tell me that the origin and the culture have no influence. Someone thinks its racist, but I do not think that this is racism. I could never say that a (for example) African is a German just because he got the identity card (most of them just receive it as a gift, without any language skills and so on).

I think that the right wing people all over the world should accept the differences between the cultural backgrounds!

We can do it!

[Kaiser Alex]

I understand the point you are making Fredrich and I agree with it to an extent.

For example, not all right wingers are anti immigration, and some even actively promote it. I consider myself right wing, and I am certainly against the levels of immigration we have in todays world, but I dont speak on behalf of everyone on the right wing in the world.

We need to find core issues that we can all agree on, and simply campaign in support of them, but if we dont, there is a serious doubt cast over international co-operation.

[Friedrich]

I did not say that I am completly against immigration. But the human waves we have to face with nowadays has nothing to do with a normal immigration. It is, how I said, an infiltration!

[starman2003]

You're right about the difference between the USA and european nations. Of course those who want to preserve the culture and identity of european states don't like immigration. But face it, it's a lost cause; between low native birthrates and a foreign influx you're on your way to becoming a US style "melting pot." Which means that, after national distinctions are sufficiently blurred, a future global hegemon will have a somewhat easier time.

[Preston Cole]

The identity card does not make a person a member of the nation. No one (in Germany) can tell me that the origin and the culture have no influence. Someone thinks its racist, but I do not think that this is racism.

If anyone tells you that's racist, that someone is retarded and you shouldn't attempt to continue conversing with them, unless they're a friend.

If you are not afraid of foreign infiltration at all, you are not a right winger, because the sovereignty and the preservation of our fatherlands are the minimum factors to be a right wing. How would someone be right wing if he do not want his country being alive? And exactly there is the point where we have to discuss about how many immigrants we tolerate, and how it depends on the different countries.

Unfortunately, that's not an issue at all for right-wing parties nowadays. Democratic conservatism and liberal-conservatism have proven that they're no different from Marxists and Capitalists, in that the economy overrides the needs of the nation and whatever boosts a capitalist economy is by definition good for the nation. They're not preoccupied with nationhood and they need to be replaced by a fascist elite. It's 1922 Italy all over again, only on a global scale.

Basically, the Fascist perspective on what it means to be right-wing is similar to yours, sans the free market stuff, but totalitarian and progressive. Progressive in the sense that without national conscience, there is no progress. If there is no strong community, the individual is nothing. Religion may or may not be useful to an early national fascism, but secular separation is needed for technological and scientific advancement, and generally more freedom from religious, ridiculous constraints for the state. That is what I like to call a less conservative, progressive fascism.

[Rich]

Its funny but I often feel that people in Europe who call themselves right wing and want to restrict immigration, are just Liberals who want to preserve their countries Liberal culture, where as Libertariansm, supposed colour blind economism covers up an agenda that is racist to its very core. I mean as a Liberal what excuse is there for restricting Mexican immigration to the United States, its not like Mexican immigrants are going to want to turn America into a fiefdom of the Papal state.

[starman2003]

..as a Liberal what excuse is there for restricting Mexican immigration to the United States..

So their constituents won't have to compete with cheap labor, perhaps?

..generally more freedom from religious, ridiculous contraints for the state.

Very important indeed. Stupid holy joes get in the way of certain types of research, eugenics etc.

[Rei Murasame]

preserve their countries Liberal culture

This is something that really depends on what you define as "Liberal culture". For example - I think it was Carl Schmidt that pointed this out - some (not all) of what is called 'Liberal culture' by some people, is actually just the social mores of a nation that happened to develop while liberals were in charge. Defending a particular part of culture doesn't always mean that they are defending the ideology that it's commonly associated with.

So I think it really depends on what you are calling 'Liberal culture', give us an example, or something.