18 March 2014

ВО "Свобода" vs. Австрийская партия свободы

Крайне правая партия "Свобода" продолжает писать жалобные письма своим бывшим европейским "побратимам". Сначала они написали французскому "Национальному фронту" - партии, которая из всех европейских крайне правых была наиболее близка к "Свободе", начиная с конца 1990-х гг. Именно "имидж-мейкеры" "Национального фронта" помогали "Свободе" реформировать Социал-национальную партию Украины (СНПУ) в 2003-2004 гг.

Недавно "свободовцы" написали письмо праворадикальной Австрийской партии свободы (FPÖ). Именно из ее названия СНПУ взяла слово "свобода". Само письмо приводится ниже (нажмите на изображения чтобы увеличить).

Проблема не только в том, что почти все европейские крайне правые стали все в большей мере ориентироваться на путинский режим, а "Свобода" фактически жалуется тем, кто является коллаборационистами Кремля (как минимум два члена FPÖ были "наблюдателями" на крымском "референдуме"). Проблема в самой идеологии - и европейских крайне правых, и Кремля - анти-либеральной, анти-демократической, социал-консервативной и ультранационалистической. Если сам правый радикализм является проблемой, то ответом на него не может быть подобная же идеология. Ответом на правый радикализм является его полная противоположность: либерализм, демократия, социальная свобода и мультикультурализм.

В ответ на теракты Андреса Брейвика, премьер-министр Норвегии Йенс Столтенберг сказал:
Вы нас не разрушите. Вы не разрушите нашу демократию и идеалы. Нашим ответом на насилие будет еще большая открытость нашего общества, еще большая его демократичность.

Таким же должен быть и наш европейский и демократический ответ на любые проявления радикализма в нашей новой Украине.

1 comment:

  1. Better a collaborationist of the "Putin régime" than of the IMF and NATO, truly imperialist organisations. The rest of the European Right understands this, that is, that in a unipolar world, none of us is safe. The Ukrainian far-right membership is duped, blinded by its hatred of Russia, while the leadership is obviously collaborationist, having capitulated to the organs of aggressive globalisation as the price for a false sense of power. If we must choose between the FPÖ and Svoboda, it is obvious the FPÖ is a more responsible and rational organisation. I recall Jörg Haider also maintained links with Arab leaders and opposed illegal Western military actions.

    But no, we should just oppose Putin at all costs, as if he were the world face of Evil, despite being in a totally defensive position?! We should choose the far more openly anti-Semitic Svoboda, speaking of the "Jewish-Moscow régime" over the FPÖ which got in trouble merely for speaking of Third Reich labour policy (full employment). Of course, Svoboda would be outright illegal in Austria or Germany, and the speech of its leaders imprisonable, but their foreign ministers meet and are photographed with Svoboda politicians. So, who is the Nazi? Shame on you all!

    By the way, it is strange to see the Kremlin as strongly anti-liberal when Putin started out surrounded by neoliberals like Kudrin and Gref. In some ways, it is more economically liberal than the rest of Europe. Russia has only become a symbol of hope for the European Right insofar as Eurocrats, liberals, neoconservatives, and cultural Marxists have collaborated in its dæmonisation. If European and American mass media come out in unison and say it is legitimate to desecrate Orthodox cathedrals, that homosexuality should be propagated to youth, that we should only talk about gay sex around the Olympics, etc., then obviously a lot of conservatives worldwide rise up to defend Russia.

    I lived in Russia off and on from 2001-06, I recall at least half the native far-right being anti-Putin. I recall the State defending the multi-national and multi-religious character of the Rossiiskoje obshchestvo. Putin's view of nationhood is not like Tyanybok's. Who is democratic? I would say obviously neither the Russian Federation nor the Maidan coup régime, nor the European Union, nor the United States is particularly democratic. The internal affairs of some West European countries may be relatively democratic, but the EU itself is not. The International Monetary Fund is less democratic than all of the above.

    "В ответ на теракты Андреса Брейвика"
    ---Interesting that you bring up Breivik in a cheap propagandistic fashion, tarring Putin with Breivik's terror. Actually, Breivik was an extreme Islamophobe, close to the English Defence League, which is also an ultra-Zionist organisation. This is a current of North European thought close to American neoconservatism, although perhaps more neutral towards Russia than the latter. His political party, Fremskrittspartiet/Framstegspartiet, an anti-Russian party, now sits in Norwegian government, accepted by NATO (whereas the FPÖ, supporting an independent and peaceful foreign policy, was not accepted)!


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.