I see London, I see France

I see Europe's underpants.

And they are gross 70 year old underpants. They are nasty, shit-stained, fascist colored underpants.

Haven't we done all of this before? What happened to Europe the shining star of liberalism? What happened to the Europe that learned from the mistakes of their predecessors? I don't expect as much from Americans, but the Europeans have made such a big deal about how they have moved on since WWII and everyone is all enlightened since the end of the Cold War. Aren't they all just one big happy European family with a regional parliament and everything? Isn't the EU supposed to be some kind of model for something?

Then explain this one.

"The "Identity, Tradition, and Sovereignty" caucus, born Jan. 16, is constituted inside the European Parliament. It includes the "Attack" party from Bulgaria, which published lists of Bulgarian Jews on its website; the party of Alexandra Mussolini, grand-daughter of Italy's World War II fascist leader; and is led by Bruno Gollnisch of Jean-Marie Le Pen's far-right French party, who faced trial in Lyon this fall for Holocaust denial...

European democracies are "now under the influence of a ultranationalist current," argues Pascal Perrineau, a university professor at the Fondation National de Sciences Politiques in Paris. The right is given a boost by East European groups: "In less than a year, we saw in Poland a government with the hardest extreme-right representatives. We saw in Slovakia the building of an coalition with social-democrats, nationalists, and right populists. We saw in Hungary increasing agitation maintained by the extreme right, in reaction to declarations of Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany.

"All these are examples of a rapid populist development, waiting since the end of the fall of the Iron Curtain, but more noticeable when these countries joined the European family."

Europe now has two variants of the far right, "the respectable far-right parties, and the unrepentant extremist far right. In fact, they don't have much difference between them."

"We had 23 million voters for our party, so I hardly think we are extremists," counters Claeys. "We expect by 2009 [the next European-wide election] to be in much better shape."

Hell, 23 million voters in America is enough support to justify a war. What's happening to this place? How can anyone get so upset over an imaginary line someone drew on a piece of paper 800 years ago?

For your continued reading pleasure:

In Spain, signs that far right is on the rise

"[Spain] hosts a bewildering array of smaller extremist groups. Their numbers appear to be expanding as old-style fascists and Franco-supporters are joined by young neonazis, skinheads, and the "ultras," or politically extremist hooligans, who congregate at soccer games. Most of these groups espouse racist, anti-Semitic, and xenophobic ideas; many promote "white pride." All embrace violence."

And I know Japan isn't in Europe, but read this one too.

So much for Abe's reconciliation policy

"Whether it is on education, textbook revision, the emperor system, relations with Taiwan or any of the other touchstone ideological issues facing Japan, Abe belongs to the very far right. A key tenet of this far right is that Japan is destined to confront China in Asia. Abe has surrounded himself with defense and foreign-policy advisers who make no secret of their hostility to China. Among them is former diplomat and prominent rightwing ideologue Hisahiko Okazaki, who is quoted by Time Asia as saying: "The balance of power will be between the U.S.-Japan alliance and China. China has to deal with this reality. We have to be prepared for war." Is Beijing really doing itself a favor by seeming to want to accept the presence and attitudes of these people?"

Personally, I would like to know if it is in America's interests to accept the presence and attitudes of these people. Do we really want to hang out with a bunch of guys who think it is their destiny to go to war with China? By the way, it is another of Abe's stated policy positions that he wishes to amend the Japanese constitution to provide for either the creation of an offensive military or for a "defensive" nuclear arsenal. He then would like to "defensively" use this nuclear weapon against N. Korea. You know, following the Bush doctrine of preemptively "defending" yourself against any potential future threat, whether real or imagined, by completely destroying it now, thus guaranteeing that at some point in the future, that entity will be strong again, and will surely seek retribution, even though it may not have ever been a threat to you in the first place. Oh, just read the rest of the article. You'll see what I mean.