Okay: I'm oversimplifying somewhat, but I'm doing so to show a tendency that's glossed over right now. As long as a large number of people think that the best response to failed policies is to double down, the spirit behind Golden Dawn will metastasize and spread across Europe.
The first Fascist leader in Europe was not Hitler: it was Mussolini. Until he agreed to be under the thumb of the Nazis, his rule didn't seem all that bad to the chattering classes in his heyday. In fact, none other than the New York Slimes had favourable articles about him circa 1930 - back when the Nazis were in about the same position as Golden Dawn is now.
Maybe Golden Dawn's rule will be like Mussolini's: shelve the democratic process, throw a few hundred political enemies into the hoosegow but treat them fairly decently while confined, no massacres or (initially) wars, hold up the Potemkin village of the trains being run on time. Although we have only case to go on, history shows that the first Fascist government isn't the big worry. It's the second, as ensconced in a much bigger and more powerful country.
And the second slides in courtesy of the legitimacy provided by the first.
I say this because Greece in in huge trouble for reasons not specific to Greece. We're not talking about a domestic breach of the Constitution, a domestic civil war [even if proxyish] or widespread domestic anarchy. The problem that Golden Dawn purports to double-down solve is trans-European. I'm tempted to say trans-First-World.
If one group of blokes get in and don't do that badly, we'll be lulled. And fascists of other nations will be encouraged. "Common problem, common solution" and so on.
Remember: in a very real way, full fascism is a double-down in the teeth of austerity. And there are lots of people whose response to austerity will be to double down.
Also remember: the relative 'civility' of Mussolini's rule eased the path for Hitler. Had Mussolini not taken over, it's highly unlikely that the Nazis would have won. Their apologists couldn't intimate that Hitler's fascism would be a lot like Mussolini's had there been no Mussolini. And Mussolini's Fascism did gain semi-legitimacy in the Western World as the '20s turned into the '30s.
No real dispute there, however, if you look at Germany of the period, there was an almost equal chance that it could go fascist, or that it could go communist. Ernst Thälmann, the chairman of the KPD, was in Stalin’s pocket, and was just as megalomaniac as was Hitler.
He would likely not have started World War II, but the end result could have been a communist Europe aligned with the Soviet Union, dominating the world militarily and murdering far more people than Hitler did.
True, and there are indeed other examples of what could be called “fascist” rule not being as bad as is made out. Chile is a good example. General Pinochet gets a horrible reputation, but his counterparts in places such as Argentina were far worse than he was. In fact, many in Chile today regard Pinochet as a hero.
My hope is that we won’t have to worry about the prospect of autocratic rule under men like Nikos Michaloliakos in any countries with geo-political significance.
Remember that in most European countries, Euroskeptic anti-immigration parties and leaders have a strong foothold already and are respectable individuals who are genuinely concerned for their countries.
You can break these counter-supernationalists down into three groups.
Group 1 - The Dutch Freedom Party, the Sweden Democrats, the True Finns, the Danish People’s Party, and the Swiss People’s Party.
These are groups that have an agenda of reversing Europe’s unfluence on their individual countries, getting rid of mass immigration (especially of Muslims), promoting faith and family again, and embracing truth while destroying political correctness. They are usually pro-Israel and pro-America. They are the new wave of what you could call “right wingers” in Europe
Group 2 - The National Front, the freedom party of Austria
These are groups that try to walk the line between the new right wing and the old remnants of Europe’s xenophobic past. While they emulate popular positions of those in group 1 (which is why they have a lot of youth support), they are also heavily influenced by the ‘old guard’, anti-semites, former fascists, and national socialists.
Then, there is Group 3 - Jobbik, Golden Dawn, possibly ATAKA
Controlled and operated by traditional, old style nationalists. Are more prone to using violence, many having been not only supporters of, but members of, fascist regimes. (I believe Michaloliakos was part of the Metaxas regime). They run their operation following the fascist playbook step by step, gaining popular support. Whether they would be more like Italy or Germany when all is said and done, is debatable, but yes, we should keep a close and skeptical eye on them, keeping in mind that what many of these European nations have right now can be classed as a dictatorship. The people have little to no control of their destiny anymore.
Beyond these impoverished countries in the east however, I could never see these kinds of people turning, let’s say Sweden, into an autocracy. I just don’t think the conditions could get to that stage unless something truly catastrophic happens, like an overnight collapse of the world economy. If totalitarian regimes seize control in Hungary or Greece, it won’t have much of an impact on the world. If it happens in France or Spain, then we can get a little worried.
What we see in Greece, and many other places (including here in the US) is a lot of government intrusion, government spending, government charity. When they run out of other peoples' money, the governments start looking around for new solutions. Well, the new solution is the same as the old solution -- they double down on Socialism, but they call it "far right" and they claim that it's a totally new approach. It isn't. But they hope to sell it to a public that is desperate for an easy fix.