Several months ago, I wrote about the campaign by the Maltese pan-European racial nationalist group Imperium Europa, who were running candidates for the European Parliament elections. The election is over, so I’d like to summarize what happened, what I have learned, and what lessons can be derived.
The results from Malta are here. Imperium Europa did not win any seats and got less than 2% of the vote. But they did substantially increase their votes from the last election.
Despite the low numbers voting for Imperium Europa, some find its performance “worrisome,” such as Arnold Cassola, chairman of the Alternattiva Demokratika (AD), an environmentalist party that also did poorly in the election:
Initial estimates suggest that Imperium Europa could have garnered an equal number or more votes than AD — a “worrying” scenario for Cassola, who dubbed the far-rightists’ electoral performance as “preoccupying” and “bad” for all the country.
… Cassola nevertheless argued that most of the voters did not intend on voting for the far-right over their affinity with extremist policies, but conversely because of their “concerns” on migration and work.
“Most voters who voted for the far right mostly did so because they feel threatened by migrants in Malta and believed their jobs are in jeopardy. This further proves the need for the government to implement a holistic approach on job creation and a national immigration policy.” (“Far-right’s electoral performance ‘worrying and preoccupying’ — Cassola”).
I always find amusing those who have to “explain” “far right” votes as “the people really don’t believe in it, but it’s just a protest vote against W,Y,Z.” Really? How is it “worrisome” then? And why can’t electoral results be viewed at face value without constant spin? After all, if the GOP in America does well in the 2014 mid-term elections, isn’t that a “protest vote” against the Democrats? Wasn’t the 2008 election a “protest vote” against Bush and the GOP? What election result is not a “protest” against one side or another? Isn’t that “democracy?”
Despite a large increase in votes, the fact that Imperium Europa did not win a seat is disappointing. Norman Lowell has expressed his legitimate frustration at voters obsessed with minor issues, voting for establishment parties for the most petty and ridiculous of reasons:
A surge of the Right Wing Parties all across Europe.
And our People voted over 2c decrease in Petrol Price.
The tragedy of Malta.
We of Imperium Europa, could have been the Unifying IDEA of all these Patriotic Forces.
We would have placed Malta at the Pinnacle Peak of the Pyramid.
We could have saved Europe and the White Race.
Alas, it was not to be — and the Nostradamus prophesy about Malta, assumes added gravity:
“Malta will be swallowed by Africa”.
Our People, betrayed by all its leaders.
By a corrupt Catholic Church, Political Parties (two Lesbic Prostitutes) and the whole perfidious Media. There is nobody, no one to save this blind and lost People
Now the People can relish the result for which they voted.
This horrendous future that lies just ahead for them, and their children.
I am only sorry for our Adherents and Supporters and their families.
Mr. Lowell is correct, and I’ve expressed a similar attitude here. A victory for the pro-nationalist, anti-immigration right in one country could well presage victories elsewhere.
But what to do with such people? People who refuse to pursue their own self-interest, who can’t see past their own nose, who are short-sighted, ignorant, and stupid? There are many similarities between the voters of Malta and White American voters, and the latter’s servitude to the GOP and to such issues as small government, capital gains tax cuts, classroom prayer, and gay marriage.
In other parts of Europe, the voters were better. Thus, with respect to Europe as a whole, the “far right” results were mixed, but mildly encouraging. The moderately “far right” Front National (FN) in France and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) in the UK did best, finishing first, as did the moderately rightist Danish People’s Party in Denmark, but I also note that the most radical group, Golden Dawn of Greece (that the moderate “far right” parties refuse to work with), had outstanding results, finishing third. Keep in mind that the Establishment labels Golden Dawn “neo-Nazi” and has seen fit to throw its leaders in prison. These data show that Wilders’ moderate, pro-Israel PVV also finished third (in the Netherlands) — thus, the radical Golden Dawn, subject to intense suppression, finished no worse than a moderate rightist party that kowtows to the Israel Lobby.
Besides Malta, results in other some nations were disappointing, for example, in Germany, with the NPD (one seat) and in Bulgaria, with the radically far right ATAKA party (no seats). On the other hand, in Hungary, the “extremist” party Jobbik finished second, albeit far behind the Establishment Right. In Sweden, the Swedish Democrats finished respectably, with ~10% and a couple of seats. In Italy the Lega Nord won five seats, the FOP in Austria four seats (~20% of the vote), and the SNS in Slovakia no seats. Vlaams Belang in Belgium won a seat. The tendency in many of these nations — like Malta and the USA — is that “rightists” do not want to “waste” their vote” on “unelectable extremists” and instead actually waste their votes on electable Establishment Conservatives who are no different than the Left on all matters of true importance.
Taking a “glass half full” approach, some of these results are indeed encouraging, although given the level of the crisis in Europe one could have hoped for better. A big problem is that one can question whether these groups really represent our ethnic genetic interests and our High Culture. Some of these parties have been watered down and moderated (e.g., FN) or were never radical to start with (e.g., UKIP, PVV). The Lega Nord is mostly a regional secessionist party, although they do take a healthy attitude toward overall Third World immigration. The Swedish Democrats seem to have been moderating their message as well.
This is more moronic petty nationalism aimed toward fellow Europeans that does not advance the interests of either side; petty nationalism is therefore a major stumbling block to the type of cooperation required by the “far right.” Narrow provincialism rules the day, and, as Tom Sunic has documented repeatedly, we see a pathetic spectacle in which nationalists focus their animus at their European neighbors across the border, rather than dealing with the current and direct demographic threats. Such attitudes are short-sighted and juvenile. What? While your nations are being over-run by Third Worlders and/or repopulated by Gypsies, you are going to pick fights with your European neighbors over long-ago battles about borders and micro-territorial units? To what end? So colored folks can have more room to expand into what used to be your nation?
What we need is for a Slovak nationalist leader to come out and say, “Hungarians are not the problem.” Jobbik needs to say the same re Romanians; Lega Nord re southern Italians; German and Polish nationalists about each other; England and Ireland; Flemish and Walloons. A leader who does so would show true statesmanship, true far-sighted leadership. Such a person would be someone to admire and support.
Another problem is a lack of political comity among “far right” European nationalist parties and groups, independent of the historical ethnic hostilities; in particular, the more moderate of these parties try to curry favor with the Left and the Establishment by disavowing those more radical. Note the Left rarely if ever does this; but those on the right will often point and sputter at those on their own side — “throw under the bus” those on their own side who are a bit more radical and forthright about certain issues. If the cost of “victory” is watering down your message so that the foundational aspects of your group’s original ideals no longer hold — what’s the point?
This is a concern in France. The success of the FN could be gratifying, but we really don’t know if they are in the process of transitioning into another moderate right Establishment party. If so, their success is worthless — less than worthless, actually harmful, if it takes away from genuine activism. On the other hand, if the FN still retains true nationalist fervor, and they leverage their recent success to pushing policies that favor the French ethny and the preservation of Europe, all to the good. We need to wait and see.
It does seem like groups such as FN, UKIP, PVV in the Netherlands (and some of the other rightist parties as well) want to stake out a niche nestled in between the Establishment Right and the “far right extremists.” In the short run, it seemed to have worked. But, in my opinion, it cannot work in the long run, because that “on the fence,” “neither fish nor fowl” position is not stable. They will be pulled in both directions and, in the absence of a rock-solid “extremist” ideological foundation, the pull of the Establishment — with all its money, power, media influence, prestige, and myriad NGOs — will be far more powerful. These “niche rightists” find it easy to denounce and distinguish themselves from those farther to the right; however, it will be more difficult to distinguish themselves from the Establishment without themselves promoting “extremist” policies. If the “niche right” doesn’t have the stomach to move far enough right from the Establishment so as to be truly unique, they’ll eventually become merged into the Establishment. It would be a bad outcome if the FN and UKIP simply replace the already existing conservative parties in France and the UK and become a new, aracial Establishment Right, leaving the True Right empty and leaderless.
Again, time will tell. But, there really is no excuse for them to fire political salvos to their right.
And moderation is no guarantee of even short-term success, as Wilder’s disappointments show us. One can be “properly” pro-Israel, nicely moderate, denounce “extremism” — and while you may have some success, you still won’t be able to match pre-election predictions, you still be blocked from the corridors of power. And, guess what — the tribe is still against you, and against the very principle of European nationalism, no matter how much you grovel.
Comparing, say, FN to Golden Dawn, one can see the strengths of each. FN is superior when it comes to marketing, image, political skill, and, of course, mainstream electoral success. Golden Dawn is superior when it comes to ideology, commitment to principle, and the radical vision to identify real problems and their solutions.
Now, I realize that some would argue that the FN’s success in marketing, politics, and image is precisely due to their moderation, and one can never make truly radical politics palatable to both the masses and the elites (with the exception of certain historical figures of the 1920–1945 period who combined radicalism with image and political success).
However, I do not believe this is truly so: likely, radical politics can be “imaged up” for greater political success.. The truth I think is closer to this: the type of person attracted to more moderate politics — pragmatic, flexible, materialistic, cynical about ideology, more short-sighted, more interested in power than in ideas. This type is much better at marketing, image, and manipulating public opinion.
On the other hand, the type of person attracted to more radical politics — idealistic, inflexible, far-sighted and visionary, more interested in ideas than in the mechanics of political power. This person is more “politically autistic” and not very good at marketing, image, and playing the political games of compromise and intrigue. Unfortunately, if you believe, as I do, that only truly radical politics are of long-term benefit, then this “autism” is a real problem that needs to be overcome. Thus, it is more of a human problem (the personality types that are today attracted to radicalism) than a problem with the political ideals themselves.
One thing the Right in Europe needs to be aware of, especially in those nations in which they have done well in 2014, is the danger of complacency. That’s a fundamental difference between Left and Right: the Left never tires, never gives up, is never satisfied, and always is pushing. The Right loves to “declare victory” and go home, letting the Left surge back and get their agenda done. The relative success of the Right in the recent elections, particularly in certain countries, will be meaningless if the Third World continues to invade Europe, if Europeans are by law prohibited from even speaking out in defense of their own ethnic interests, if native birthrates continue to plummet and all sorts of perversion spread. The Right needs to be dynamic, revolutionary, never satisfied, always pushing, always fighting, always aiming upwards and forwards.
I tend to doubt that the moderate “niche right” has such a character, so we must hope that the “extremists” can step up and do the work to save Europe and the West. Of course, the Establishment solution to “extremist” electoral success may be to simply ban these parties (as they have done before); however, at some point, supporters of the “far right” have to draw a line in the sand with respect to such totalitarian tactics. When popular political parties are banned, when political speech is outlawed, when politicians and historians are jailed merely for expressing opinions, a point has been reached where putative “democracy” has lost all legitimacy.
We cannot predict exactly how this will all play out in the months and years to come. If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say that the narrow niche of “moderate extremism” will not hold, and we will eventually have the battle between the Far Right and the Establishment Right, with only the former having any hope whatsoever of saving what’s left of Europe and its race and civilization.
There are those who disagree, particularly with respect to the FN. I hope I am wrong. But the “proof is in the pudding,” as they say — if the FN and similar niche groups are “the answer” then they need to actually do something other than winning elections and trumpeting their success. How will they actualize nationalist ideals into policy? — first in the EU Parliament and then in their own nations, if their political success continues (as their supporters assure us it will).
Here in America, we’ve seen more than enough of politics for the sake of politics — of “winning elections” as the end, not the means to an end. Here in America, policy positions and ideals are merely the means to achieve the objective of electoral success, instead of the reverse — electoral success and the attainment of power in order to actualize policy objectives. It’s up to the “moderate far right” to demonstrate that they want to win in order to affect change, rather than to modify and moderate their policy positions in order to win elections merely for the sake of winning elections.
Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words. If the Third Worlding of France and the rest of Europe continues apace,