After the Austrian Freedom Party politician Norbert Hofer nearly won the presidential election with 49.7
percent of the vote, we are witnessing a flurry in the right-wing press. Each person tries to analyse this unique success and seek guidance from it for the patriotic movement in his own languishing nation. But I am afraid it is not so easy to just copy the concept of Mr. Hofer and the Freedom Party and apply it precisely in the same way to your own country.
Matt Parrott, in his article The "Prole Gap" in White Nationalism expresses the view that parts of the American White nationalist movement is too intellectual and elitist to appeal to the uneducated masses and that it therefore needs to change in order to do so. His opinion might be based upon a disputable poll that circulated soon after the election, claiming to prove that more people with higher education voted for the leftist candidate Alexander Van der Bellen, while the majority of the working class chose Norbert Hofer. This seemed to suggest that metapolitics and Gramscianism are less important for our victory, than the Alt Right likes to point out.
Mr. Parrott, like a lot of American writers, is looking yearningly towards his “brothers abroad in Europe,” who seem to be more advanced concerning real world realisation of our nationalist ideas. I am not a naysayer who moans that "a miss is as good as a mile," but even in Austria, a country that is sometimes referred to by the mainstream media as being the most right-wing Western European state, we are still far away from gaining the power we need to prevent the multicultural genocide that is waiting for us.
Regardless of what the leftist media tries to tell you, the Freedom Party is not a far-right party and Norbert Hofer is not a hard-line "nationalist." In fact he is the softest politician the party came up with in the last few years, and that is one of the main reasons why so many Austrians voted for him this time. The party had in the past a lot of provocative representatives that had spoken out straightly and loved to shock the liberals with their blustering. But those politicians have all gone. Some have even been dismissed from the party by Mr. Hofer himself.
The more the Freedom Party gained popularity, the more it took pains to be careful and acceptable to the majority of the brainwashed and fearful citizens who still are terribly afraid of being called a “Nazi.” So also for us it is important to spread our ideas in the periphery of the party to ensure that it continuously moves towards “the real right”.
Mr. Parrott is also wrong when he asserts that:
Mr. Trump, of course, is the opposite, and this is good. As I have already mentioned, the Freedom Party also had more aggressive and controversial candidates in the past, and it was the right strategy back then. In our modern media world provocation is the political weapon of choice for those who have no power. A few years ago deliberate provocation was an easy and reliable tool for the Freedom Party to gain attention, but now there is no need for that anymore and instead it tries to be respectable.
As Mr. Parrott correctly stated, Mr. Trump starts from a completely different position without having a big organisation and established structures behind him. But the big difference between the American and the Austrian political situation is, that in the USA it is obviously possible to become the front-runner of one of the big parties without having the approval of the majority of the important lobbies within the party. In Austria, and I think in most of Europe, this is not possible. Such things as primary elections do not exist in the Old World.
In Austria we have our own cuckservative party too, but there is no real chance that it will ever change. So American conservatives theoretically can carry out a revolution within the old organisations and structures. I can, however, not judge if this really could be an option on the long run. But to establish a new “third” party instead, seems also almost impossible. Even in a small country like Austria, this is very hard, and I really cannot imagine how such a giant project could be effected in a huge Leviathan like the USA.
So metapolitics is still of great importance. Every movement needs its intellectual leaders and ideological background. Also, the Freedom Party is not only composed of "proles." It has its own close corporations and academics within its ranks. Gustave Le Bon wrote in his magnum opus The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, that the big ideas of an age are adopted by the masses in an oversimplified way, but that they first have to exist within the intellectual circles. What I agree with Mr. Parrott on is that the movement has to leave the internet and the sacred halls of philosophy and to reconquer the streets. Or in other words: The USA also needs its "PEGIDA" to pressure its dusty conservatives.
Matt Parrott, in his article The "Prole Gap" in White Nationalism expresses the view that parts of the American White nationalist movement is too intellectual and elitist to appeal to the uneducated masses and that it therefore needs to change in order to do so. His opinion might be based upon a disputable poll that circulated soon after the election, claiming to prove that more people with higher education voted for the leftist candidate Alexander Van der Bellen, while the majority of the working class chose Norbert Hofer. This seemed to suggest that metapolitics and Gramscianism are less important for our victory, than the Alt Right likes to point out.
Mr. Parrott, like a lot of American writers, is looking yearningly towards his “brothers abroad in Europe,” who seem to be more advanced concerning real world realisation of our nationalist ideas. I am not a naysayer who moans that "a miss is as good as a mile," but even in Austria, a country that is sometimes referred to by the mainstream media as being the most right-wing Western European state, we are still far away from gaining the power we need to prevent the multicultural genocide that is waiting for us.
Regardless of what the leftist media tries to tell you, the Freedom Party is not a far-right party and Norbert Hofer is not a hard-line "nationalist." In fact he is the softest politician the party came up with in the last few years, and that is one of the main reasons why so many Austrians voted for him this time. The party had in the past a lot of provocative representatives that had spoken out straightly and loved to shock the liberals with their blustering. But those politicians have all gone. Some have even been dismissed from the party by Mr. Hofer himself.
The more the Freedom Party gained popularity, the more it took pains to be careful and acceptable to the majority of the brainwashed and fearful citizens who still are terribly afraid of being called a “Nazi.” So also for us it is important to spread our ideas in the periphery of the party to ensure that it continuously moves towards “the real right”.
Mr. Parrott is also wrong when he asserts that:
"Norbert Hofer is not exceptional, save perhaps for being an exceptionally disciplined and loyal member of his large and well-organized far-right political party."Mr. Hofer is indeed exceptional and definitely the most likable Austrian politician at the moment. The party has more than enough hacks who are also disciplined and loyal, but Mr. Hofer is really outstanding when it comes to appearances in the media. As always they did their best to throw dirt at him but he always keeps smiling and stays friendly and likeble while he is still making his points and attacking his opponents. Throughout the whole campaign, the united forces of the establishment could not manage to destroy his reputation or seriously discountenance him.
Mr. Trump, of course, is the opposite, and this is good. As I have already mentioned, the Freedom Party also had more aggressive and controversial candidates in the past, and it was the right strategy back then. In our modern media world provocation is the political weapon of choice for those who have no power. A few years ago deliberate provocation was an easy and reliable tool for the Freedom Party to gain attention, but now there is no need for that anymore and instead it tries to be respectable.
As Mr. Parrott correctly stated, Mr. Trump starts from a completely different position without having a big organisation and established structures behind him. But the big difference between the American and the Austrian political situation is, that in the USA it is obviously possible to become the front-runner of one of the big parties without having the approval of the majority of the important lobbies within the party. In Austria, and I think in most of Europe, this is not possible. Such things as primary elections do not exist in the Old World.
In Austria we have our own cuckservative party too, but there is no real chance that it will ever change. So American conservatives theoretically can carry out a revolution within the old organisations and structures. I can, however, not judge if this really could be an option on the long run. But to establish a new “third” party instead, seems also almost impossible. Even in a small country like Austria, this is very hard, and I really cannot imagine how such a giant project could be effected in a huge Leviathan like the USA.
So metapolitics is still of great importance. Every movement needs its intellectual leaders and ideological background. Also, the Freedom Party is not only composed of "proles." It has its own close corporations and academics within its ranks. Gustave Le Bon wrote in his magnum opus The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, that the big ideas of an age are adopted by the masses in an oversimplified way, but that they first have to exist within the intellectual circles. What I agree with Mr. Parrott on is that the movement has to leave the internet and the sacred halls of philosophy and to reconquer the streets. Or in other words: The USA also needs its "PEGIDA" to pressure its dusty conservatives.
