[Inexorable]

Are you sure that's only a slight difference? I would say that the Tea Party is the diametric opposite of anything that people are trying to do in Europe right now.

You are right, the differences are vast, especially economically and religiously. The point is that the right in America is having cross-cultural dialogue with the right in Europe, overcoming traditional hatreds of eachother. Pragmatically, that is a start.

The Tea Party and the European Right are expressions of the same basic feeling among frightened Whites of their "inability to control the world".

Call it White fear, call it greed, call it whatever the case may be It's a matter of practical thought: Despite the crimes and decadence of Western civilization and Americanism in general, do you want the world to be governed by Western, secular, meritocratic and prosperous nations or by third world hellholes, theocracies, and entitlement societies that demand handouts for their failing regimes and dysfunctional societies? We don't need to do a psychoanalysis of the xenophobic evil White man's mind to point out that countries like Iraq, Somalia, Mexico, and Brazil are failed societies. The right wing never claimed have beautiful souls, we don't have ideological purity and living sainthood, we have practical solutions. Nationalists care about making their own society a better place, not subsidizing others for their failures.

As for the rest of your analysis, it's spot on.

[Ombrageux]

Call it White fear, call it greed, call it whatever the case may be It's a matter of practical thought: Despite the crimes and decadence of Western civilization and Americanism in general, do you want the world to be governed by Western, secular, meritocratic and prosperous nations or by third world hellholes, theocracies, and entitlement societies that demand handouts for their failing regimes and dysfunctional societies? We don't need to do a psychoanalysis of the xenophobic evil White man's mind to point out that countries like Iraq, Somalia, Mexico, and Brazil are failed societies. The right wing never claimed have beautiful souls, we don't have ideological purity and living sainthood, we have practical solutions. Nationalists care about making their own society a better place, not subsidizing others for their failures.

Um. Nice point man.

You know what else? I wouldn't like to live under Nazis or Pol Pot or flesh-eating space monkeys either.

[Figlio di Moros]

The problems with immigration, Ombreaux, have more to do with securing our own nation and welfare than "being pissed off we can't control the world." The EU is more a reaction to lost empire than True Finns, the BNP, or Pim Furtyn.

[Ombrageux]

It depends who we're talking about. What I wrote I think describes the Tea Party quite exactly as it does to the Front National. In both cases it is a sense of "losing the country" (hence the need to "take it back") to bankers, decadent and distant elites, and non-Whites (foreigners, Muslims, blacks...). America is a very politically correct country so the racial fear is muted but Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and other popular right-wing opinion-makers have addressed the racial point quite explicitly (anti-white president, reparations for slavery...). In short, it all boils down to individuals feeling "we" are losing all voice and influence in their own society to "them".

I do not mean "control" in an imperial sense but in an individual "within society" sense. The EU, incidentally, was not created because of a desire to recreate empire but against war. As it has grown in power, yes, nations have since sought to use the EU to compensate for their striking relative decline in the world.

There can be specific arguments about whether immigrants contribute more to or draw from welfare, whether they drive down wages, whether things could not be done better in Brussels/Washington (and more generally if specific problems come from bad policies in those places, as opposed to "Government" or "Washington" in general). However, the Tea Party, Parties of Freedom (Dutch and Austrian), Front National and BNP are not motivated by these nuanced policy critiques, but by the overarching fears, prejudices and conspiratorial tendencies I described above. Hence Geert Wilders is not just anti-immigrant or welfarist, he is anti-Muslim (anyone who believes in Islam is a threat). The BNP is not just expressing legitimate working class fears but was founded on a racial ideology (hence only whites could constitutionally be members until recently). Etc.

These fears express themselves variously in different times, e.g., Poujadism/Maurrassianism (little guy/small business loses power to oligarchical Republic/Jews/Protestants/Metics), McCarthyism (country being sold out to essential evil), electoral Nazism (loss to cultural Marxists, Jews, international finance, "politicians")... Breivik's manifesto is somewhat unique in encapsulating all these fears into one sordid whole, but his ideology is very clearly part of broader set of movements (he similarly saw "loss of power" of white Norwegians in the face of the media, government, EU, cultural Marxists, Muslims...), hence why he quoted so much from "respectable" right-wing writers.

[Figlio di Moros]

And these fears exist for a reason. We have an innate need to protect our stock, and the desire to protect our society from overpowerment. Fears arise as the society we grew up in becomes decadent, invaded, or overpowered- in short, the rise of the right in the occident is because our fears are being realized.

Atleast on the American "right", our ethnic fears aren't stated so explicitly.

[Ombrageux]

Well then we're in agreement that you believe this stuff. That I think it is phooey is another matter entirely

[Figlio di Moros]

What we're in disagreement of isn't that the right believes certain things, but in your characterization of it.