This way of thinking never really made sense to me. It's not like they can do anything with votes, only the number of votes compared to other parties matter (and not the absolute number). I mean, you don't like or dislike every single party exactly equally much, right? So even if you only dislike one party a little bit more than the rest, you'd still take a tiny part out of their voting share by voting for any other party.

I currently do not know enough about any party to make a decent vote,i used to follow recordings of them debating eachother but stopped watching those because it got me too annoyed. I also do not trust most media in their coverings about politics and i do not believe in empty promises to gain votes.

if i could have voted on a small starting party i might had invested time into researching those but im not going to make any blind decisions

There's a Brexit Party? I honestly was not aware of that.. Guess I'm perpetuating the stereotype of the ignorant American XD.

I have to ask to you Europeans, is this sudden rise of Nationalism (mainly right-wing leaning populism) mainly a backlash to globalism/immigration, etc, or is there more to it than that that I'm missing? It interests me b/c I feel there seems to be largely a repeat of "Trumpism" happening in many countries there now (England w/Brexit, France w/the protest and Le Penn, Poland, Italy, etc..)

No shame in not knowing Brexit party outside of the UK, as they were founded six months ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit_Party

The leader Nigel Farage was before a member of UKIP.

About the rise of nationalism… many speculate about the reasons for that. That was by the way happening before Trump already, I feel Trump is more like part of the phenomenon, not a special case.

I personally think this has to do with economical differences created in part by globalization. In the last decades in the western world (europe, north america) the differences between rich and poor get bigger and bigger. This is a result of policies installed by Reagan and Thatcher and then followed by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. We had similar things happen in many countries, in germany for instance Helmut Kohl (conservative) was followed by social democrat Gerhard Schröder.

All of them realized economic reforms, that in the end helped the economy along the globalization, but at the cost that social securities were cut and some people fell through the cracks. At the start this were only a few, but over time more and more people felt lost economical, seeing the country flourishing and rich people get more rich, while these people had a hard time to come by. You can see it at the rise of people, that are unable to stem unexpected expenses, like if your car breaks suddenly down you don't have enough to repair it. And this development was slowly, at first only a few people were lost along the lines.

Politics mostly ignored them, at first this was without repercussion as these were too few. For a long time then no one cared about them. Until nationalists realized their chance and blamed everything on migrants and globalization (although globalization itself would be fine as long economic policies would provide social security adapted to globalization). This is in my opinion the reason, nationalists targeting the poor and classic politicians ignoring them. This includes the left, which in the past was for the poor man, but mostly ignored the struggles in the past and focused more on identity politics and climate change. Without a doubt important topics, but they ignored the poor people.This feeling of being ignored by classic politics led more and more to anger, which is utilized by the nationalists.

EDIT: By the way, your sig shows this. Back then movies like They live showed the struggles of poor people. Remember the main characters being poor (and moreso a white and a black guy working together both being poor and both being in the same situation) and all the obey, consume stuff is symbolic for the situation. This movie wasn't alone, many movies back then showed poor people, also tv shows, remember Roseanne. But Hollywood elites stopped caring about poor people, this leading to todays movies practically never use poor people as heroes or even displaying the struggles of poor people. This is all part of the feeling of many, that all the "above", be it in politics or media, ignore the poor. This feeling of being outside is what helped the nationalists taking over.

It certainly makes sense. But it doesn't explain the issue entirely, I believe. Otherwise a lot of people in East Germany, for instance, would not have traded Die Linke for the AFD. Like Rol mentioned, the vote for the nationalists etc. strongly correlates with the countries where xenophobic sentiment is stronger - Italy, Poland, Hungary.

We'll see how these countries will vote when faced with a recession under these governments, and realize their claims and promises are mostly bull. Italy's probably going to be the first.

We need to stop viewing the differences between the poor and the rich getting bigger because that is only a temporary effect of globalization. In the end, the main participants of globalization are the nations themselves and not their people because the winners and losers in the long-term are going to be the nations themselves. Currently, the biggest winner of globalization has been China and so far the biggest loser of globalization has been the western world because the former just keeps encroaching on the west's monopoly of the higher value chain ... 

The western world arrogantly thought that they could just keep countries like China constrained on low-end manufacturing indefinitely so they initially dismissed the threat of them being able to technologically compete. When that day comes so too will the fall of the liberal leaning metropolitan elites as they begin to face the future of deindustrialization just as small towns previously had ... 

Lower end industries kept this "buffer zone" intact between the haves and the have-nots but as a certain nation comes to decapitate the high-end industries, soon there will only be have-nots as the rich will have to close their business as well if they can't compete. The knock on effect of deindustrialization towards the liberal leaning metropolitan elites means that they'll lose their main (jobs) social security and thus will more easily fall victim to nationalism ... 

We can not have world of globalization where the livelihoods of nations (mainly western) are threatened in the process and where they have interests in defending (nationalism) against that happening. A specific nation (China) is only interested in globalism so that they can appropriate technology from other nations (west) for their own nationalistic purposes. As petty as it may seem the western world don't want competition at the highest end sectors because they want to profit all of it for themselves by not having to share it ... (as the peoples profits keep declining, they will come under more pressure to take extreme measures) 

Sorry, people don't care about nations winning or losing, they care about themself. And in that the western nations did nothing to distribute the winnings of globalization (because it is an overall win for humanity) equally amongst their people. Instead rich people in western states won while poor people lost. China instead increased the general wealth level of most of it's people (in result the chinese government is pretty stable although they don't have a democracy). And 3rd-world countries mostly were seen as resource deliverer. As in the western nations the poor people were left behind, they were lured by the nationalists. You can say that the nations winning or losing is more important, but the effect on people is what affects elections.

Globalization means that nearly EVERY industry is at risk of foreign competition so you can't have it two ways ... 

Globalization isn't just going to take away low margin businesses but it'll take away rich high margin businesses as well. In the not too distant future the rich will face the negative consequences of globalization just as the poor did and will become poor themselves thus becoming more susceptible to nationalism in the end ... 

In a world of globalization, there is no "win-win" case but there is only a "winner takes all" scenario so it's far away from being an overall win for humanity if one part of the world has to keep losing jobs. It's bad for the western world to keep lowering their prices because their foreign competition is superior. It then becomes a toxic cycle of competition where western firms keep sustaining losses that they can't pay their employees and then they have to downsize until they eventually go out of business ... 

Nations winning or losing are more important because once just about everyone feels the effects of 'losing', they'll turn to nationalism to protect themselves against losing. Globalization in it's purest form is capitalism under the hood ... 

it's great to see Europeans finally wake up and realize how important it is to support the EU, turnout record since 1994 and the far-right falling short of predictions expanding only by 17 seats in a parliament of 751 while the pro-federation ALDE made the biggest gains

of course we need a strong far-right presence in there but certainly not to a point where it threatens the EU functioning

pretty ironic how Brexit party's success in the UK gets all the publicity when the election was an overall shift towards remain with remain parties getting 40% combined compared to 35% of no-deal parties, Wales has shifted to remain if you add the numbers up and Scotland proved it is very serious about getting independence, UK ended up giving more pro-EU seats, 39 compared to 34 anti-EU

Yup. Centre of left parties actually gained a lot of seats compared to 2014 in both France and the UK, and yet most of the time we hear is this noise about Farage and Le Pen (the latter actually underperforming from the previous election).