Where the
Wilders Things Are
How Glenn Beck Could Help Europe But Didn’t
In January 2015 “Blaze TV” ran a three-part series called “Red Storm Rising” explaining the play of Putin’s regime, introducing Americans to some of the key Russian figures, their fascist ideology and their pursuit of European hegemony.
The following article leaves out dozens of excruciatingly embarrassing factual errors and utterly unprofessional stretches (their exposure won’t change anything). But Beck’s show on Russia contains some important statements that shouldn’t be dismissed. He has repeated these points since and he will again. Considering his strong voice, they do too much harm to remain unchallenged. They need to be addressed and corrected. This concern is nothing new − here’s what famous counter-jihad blogger and activist Pamella Geller wrote in 2010 about the exact same issue:
“Beck could destroy the freedom movement in Europe — and the US — if he erroneously stigmatizes it as fascist.”
That’s exactly what Beck did in “Red Storm Rising” when he listed Geert Wilders’ predominantly classical liberal “Party for Freedom” (PVV) among the “far-right” (meaning fascist) parties on Russian payroll that try to bring Europe to chaos. PEGIDA movement in Germany was called a “Nazi party” also tied with Russia. Years ago Beck predicted that Europe would fall into the hands of fascists and during “Red Storm Rising” he made countless references to this past prediction.
What’s hurtful here is not just wrongfully stigmatizing a few people: Beck’s narrative clearly implies that there is some homogenous movement in Europe, to which every anti-EU, anti-immigration and anti-islamization force belongs. This accusation echoes the left-wing media’s slanderous campaign that preceded the European elections of 2014. Beck means well, but by indiscriminately equating all eurosceptics with Nazis, he drives a wedge between his American audience and the closest thing to Tea Party movement we have in Europe.
Sure, most eurosceptics aren’t exactly Ted Cruz and their policies and alliances can sometimes be highly questionable. Also something is really wrong with PEGIDA’s leadership in Dresden. But if we bash Wilders or anyone else, it’s essential that we do it for the right reasons and with our facts straight.
This article is primarily aimed at American audience. It is written from the viewpoint of European "classical liberalism", that corresponds to American conservatism and moderate libertarianism.Is Wilders on Putin’s Nazi-Team?
Beck said there had been 4 months of research for this 3-hour show. Contrary to Beck’s promise, almost none of the actual footnoted research was published. Anyway, most of the sources Beck’s team used come up unexpectedly fast: there are just a few experts who write extensively about the themes of “Red Storm Rising”, the most productive of them is Anton Shekhovtsov. He is a former member of Eurasian movement, which is led by top Russian ideologue Alexander Dugin. Shekhovtsov thoroughly researches the Russian-European alliance, the “Black International” as the press dubbed it.
So how do you judge whether a certain political force is pro-Russian or acts on behalf of Russia? There are three parameters that are used by “Black International” researchers:
- Are there any contacts with known Russian agents or leaders?
- What is their position on MH-17, Crimea, Donbass and Putin?
- What is their voting record on issues concerning Russia?
The direct contacts between Russian elites and European politicians are thoroughly investigated by experts and citizen journalists. Moreover, in November 2014 “Anonymous International”, a Russian hacker group, released hundreds of e-mails from the hacked account of Georgiy Gavrish, a close associate of Alexander Dugin. In one of the letters Dugin discusses the importance of his outreach to European far-right groups. Another letter lists some of Dugin’s propaganda agents in Europe. The list is astonishing: the network goes as far as some of the current European prime ministers and former presidents.
There are about 40 European “Black International” parties that were either hired to monitor fake elections in Crimea and eastern Ukraine or attended events featuring Dugin and his friends. Forty parties, not the eight that Beck chose to list during his show. Moreover, they aren’t all right-wing: there are communists, social-democrats, centrists and libertarians among them. There are also several times as many NGOs, think tanks, media outlets and individuals who are irrefutably allied with the Russian regime — the facts are out there. The world of “Black International” is largely explored, and only one reference to Geert Wilders’ PVV can be found within this pile of facts and letters . It was reported that Russians invited the Dutch party to “monitor” the illegitimate referendum in Crimea in March 2014. However, there is no evidence that PVV’s delegation was present at the event.
Sometimes when mainstream media accuse Wilders of working for (or with) Russia, they argue that he was present at an event organized by Russian-tied “Northern League” sitting very close to Viktor Zubarev, a small fry from “United Russia” party. Is this the standard now? Nevertheless, most of Wilders’ critics don’t bother providing any facts whatsoever:
“…[There are] parties that while in most cases display a negative or neutral attitude toward Russia, in some important issues support the Russian position even in the absence of genuine motivation. The most prominent player in this ‘double game’ is PVV led by Geert Wilders who clearly and regularly condemns Russia at home, while abroad he has started to develop political networks with the Russians.”[Political Capital Policy Research]
“In the absence of genuine motivation”… Don’t you just love lefty think-tanks?
Geert Wilders is one of the most hated people in the Netherlands and Western Europe. The left, the media, the government, the elitist intellectuals — they all abhor him. The mere fact that they haven’t dug up anything on his alleged ties with Russia is a big argument against these allegations. If Wilders’ haters had the goods on him, we would all know by now.
Now what does Geert Wilders say about Russia and Putin? He doesn’t do it too often: it is not his focus by any means. He spoke about Ukrainian crisis on May 2, 2014:
“I believe that the European Union indeed played a very irresponsible role, should have kept out of it. [..] But I also have to be honest, it still is a sovereign country so I also believe Russia should have respected the sovereignty of Ukraine and should have stayed out of the country. [..] I’m not only blaming the EU, I’m blaming both Russia and the EU.” [Russia Today]
“I’m not the biggest believer in sanctions. It’s not good for anybody — it’s not good for Europe, it’s not good for Russia, it’s not good for Ukraine. So I think we should try to, once again, de-escalate. I mean, if the Russian army would invade Ukraine, which I believe would be a terrible mistake, then, of course, you could talk about sanctions.” [Russia Today]
Two months earlier masqueraded Russian troops occupied Crimea, an unconstitutional referendum was imitated and Russia annexed the peninsula. Until October 2014 Russia claimed that there was no Russian army there, but eventually Putin admitted the military occupation. Most people knew that all along, of course. Wilders seems not to. He condemns Russia for not respecting the sovereignty of Ukraine, he warns about possible military aggression but denies there were troops in Crimea. Even worse, two months before this interview Wilders wrote something rather disturbing about the Ukrainian revolution:
“[Europarliament members] Mr Verhofstadt and Van Baalen went to Kiev. They wanted to make history. There they stood in a square full of people, including National Socialists, Jew-haters and other anti-democrats. People with helmets and baseball bats. They went where the revolutionaries hang out. On stage they tried to stir up the mob even more. Mr Verhofstadt spoke in no uncertain terms. He talked about a fight, a fight. That is what Brussels supports. [..] Now we have always been told that the EU stands for peace. But now that these two characters have appeared on stage, we know better. The EU stands for war provocation.” [PVV & Translation]
Indeed, there was a small group of skinheads and national-socialists in Kiev and, yes, there were helmets. What Wilders forgets to mention is that the people were there to throw out a corrupt regime of known Russian agents that had just unlawfully abolished the constitution including freedom of speech and a right to due process. To call such a revolution a “war provocation” is beyond cynical. But again, in May 2014 Wilders said this:
What the President of Russia does in Crimea and in eastern Ukraine is wrong. Ukraine is a sovereign country. I do not support Putin — I am critical of the policies of the European Union. [..] The EU, more than anyone else, escalated the situation. [..]
So while Wilders is kind of close on basics, why is he so wrong on the details? There are three explanations to that:
- He perpetrates “dezinformaciya”, an act of pushing Russian agenda to the West via allegedly unbiased sources, and gets something in return from Russia. However, no known Russian-tied agent of influence ever bashes Putin so much, if they dare criticize him at all.
- He pushes pro-Russian narrative because he sincerely wants Russian influence to spread to Europe or somehow advance its ideology in Europe. So the guy acts like he’s all for freedom, but his endgame is banning gays from Holland or something along these lines.
- He’s just being ignorant, because he’s focused on anti-jihad and the EU, and he doesn’t do enough research on whatever else is going on in the world.
Some people point to voting records in the European Parliament to prove the Russian influence over eurosceptics:
In 2014 PVV’s four representatives in Europarliament voted in Russia’s favor on Russia-EU relations every time. For example, they voted against the EU imposing sanctions on Russia. What does that mean? Did they vote that way because they support Russia or because they oppose the EU’s involvement in the Ukrainian conflict? We don’t know, but here’s how Wilders criticizes the EU takeover of the foreign policy of Union’s member states:
“The party of Mrs. Le Pen, the party of Mr. Farage, UKIP, the party in Austria, the FPÖ, Sweden — we all have one thing in common. We want to have more powers to our national capitals instead of Brussels, we want more sovereignty and we want to be stronger economically, and we want to have our own foreign policy, not the foreign policy dictated by commissions, whether it’s in Ukraine or anything else, that we have not elected. It’s crazy that we have commissioners in charge that nobody elected in the Netherlands — it’s like a coup d’état, almost.” [Russia Today]
Actually if we take a look at parliamentarians with tangible Russian bonds, we see that their votes don’t always correlate with pro-Russianness.
French “National Front” is funded by Russia, “Northern League” leaders can be found on Dugin’s list of friends. However, for some reason they voted for sanctions against Russia. Then there is the paleo-libertarian “Congress of the New Right” from Poland, the party of Janusz Korwin-Mikke. The man is favorable to Putin; he also appeared on the guest list of the conference in Yalta where Dugin and Mozgovoy were keynote speakers. The same thing can be said about pseudo-liberal “Alternative for Germany”: their leader was in Yalta and he admits consulting with the Russian embassy on key issues, yet his party votes against Russia in many cases. On the other hand, UKIP and Swedish Democrats have no known Russian connections − yet they vote like Putin would want. I hope someone will ask them why they do that. However, if we consider Wilders’ above mentioned comment on foreign policy, their votes start to make some sense.
Finally, Beck’s claim that classical liberal PVV is Neo-Nazi is just beyond moronic. PVV wants stricter immigration and naturalization laws, they want to stop the islamization of their public institutions, they criticize the appeasement of Muslim crime, they want smaller government and less welfare state, they support Israel more than 60% of Israelis, they also are known for supporting LGBT-rights in the Netherlands.
The only way they can be Nazis is if they lied about everything they do from the beginning because they found a way to establish a fascist state by posing as libertarians. How likely is that? Anyone who did any legitimate research on Wilders knows that’s nonsense. Glenn Beck knows that. Here’s what he said back in 2012:
“The way it looks to me, Geert Wilders is not [an extremist].”
That’s right. In 2010 Beck basically called Wilders a “far-right” fascist, two years later he did a full show with him and they seemed to agree on most things except the possibility of reforming Islam. Beck also repeated his past prediction about the future rise of fascism and Nazism in Europe, which Wilders flatly dismissed. Does the fact that they agree on so much make Beck also a Nazi? Because Geert Wilders hasn’t changed a bit since 2012. Has Beck?
Beck hasn’t denounced what he said in 2010 or 2012. It’s up to you to decide whether he is unprofessional or hypocritical. It seems as if he tries to squeeze just about anything into his past predictions, no matter how complex the reality actually is. Sure, Beck knows his Woodrow Wilson and FDR: he has spent years studying the Progressive Era. However, he is absolutely clueless about Europe. Years go by, and sadly this doesn’t change.
In late 2013 Beck changed his mind yet again. On his radio show he referred to “the only guy in Europe who gets small government” − UKIP leader Nigel Farage. According to Beck, Farage smashed both Le Pen and Wilders as “too far-right”. In reality Farage has never said anything bad about PVV, moreover Farage invited PVV to join his coalition in 2010.
The only way left to defend Beck’s logic − PVV formed a coalition with Putin-funded “National Front”. “National Front” stands for big government and they are nationalists, therefore they are national-socialists, in other words Nazis. It makes their allies PVV also a Nazi party on Russian payroll.
That sounds a bit too twisted to be plausible. But what else in the world could ever bring a classical liberal Dutch party together with big government French sellouts?
Whose Enemy is the EU Really?
According to Beck, xenophobic and fascist eurosceptics oppose the EU because the EU is anti-nationalist. Russian fascists are reaching out to them in order to sow chaos and subjugate Europe to Russia:
“Similarly to how Karl Marx believed working class people should be constantly informed of their place in society and become class-conscious, so they would unleash the struggle against the rich, Dugin’s recipe calls for all of Europe to become aware of their race in order to bring forth racial struggle. This would not only unite Russians, but it would break apart the European Union bit by bit. So how does one go about making Europeans aware of their race? European Right-wing Extremism. Their Right-wing is fascism: “Golden Dawn”, Marine Le Pen, PEGIDA − any group pushing some sort of xenophobia will do.”
Beck adds later:
“Far-right groups currently rising up all over Europe. People think that it’s not connected − it is. [… If Russia] can provoke nations to move towards an eventual break with the EU, eventually you break it all apart and you neutralize your top enemy. [..] Russia is reaching out to almost every major far-right nationalist group involved in European unrest.”
To boost the narrative of “fascist Europe” Beck avoids to mention there can be other reasons to oppose the EU. This omission creates an false impression that every eurosceptic is engaged in “racial struggle” and that they are all “connected”.
In reality euroscepticism it not just a “far-right” issue. It attracts communists as well as libertarians, moderates as well as radicals. This shows it’s not about ethnic nationalism: it is about self-governance, which is something that can be agreed upon by many diametrically opposed politicians.
As for Russia, there are two motives to fight the EU: practical and ideological. In the short term they want to end what they see as American CIA control that pushes Europe to sanction and oppose Russia. The long-term goal is world dominance. Here’s how Anton Shekhovtsov, a big expert on Dugin describes this:
“The Kremlin’s Eurasianist plan for the EU is different [from Ukraine]: while the Baltic States and Poland may indeed be invaded [..], the Kremlin probably relies on soft power in most of the EU countries. The Kremlin’s main allies in the EU are extreme right parties. Putin believes that the European extreme right are on the rise, and when they eventually take power, their countries will leave — and ultimately destroy — the EU to pave a way for the “Euro-Soviet Empire”.
So Putin and Dugin believe that fascists will rise, the EU will fall apart, and Europe will surrender to Russia. But will it really?
This Russian worldview is based on several assumptions. First, that a considerable part of European “far-right” actually wants to form a continental empire and not just to milk Russia for sponsor money. Second, that without the EU Europe will be up for grabs. Russians therefore believe that today the EU is an efficient protector of the Western civilization, its independence, freedom and security − whether we talk about military or economic encroachment. They think individual states will be less efficient in that.
In his analysis Beck relies on a similar worldview. Just as Geert Wilders is ignorant about Russia, Beck knows very little about the EU, the ultimate project of European progressives, the successors of “Fabian Society” and European communists allied with the USSR.
Although European integration was started as a customs union, in the eighties the process was taken over by the left who turned Europe into a state. Not a union the “Federalist Papers” describe, but a totalitarian empire, that begins to look more and more like the Soviet Union as time passes. Listen to the legendary Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, a classical liberal, who draws parallels between the two entities:
When Europe faces threats from Russia and Islamic world, when, according to Beck, Europe is on the verge of World War III, can something like the EU be good for Europe in any capacity? Does the EU, a centralized socialist regime of unelected unaccountable technocrats and former communists, make Europe safer from external threats? Can pan-European socialism provide something that independence and self-governance can’t? A passage from Ludwig von Mises, arguably the most important economist in history, may shed some light:
“Capitalism is essentially a scheme for peaceful nations. But this does not mean that a nation which is forced to repel foreign aggressors must substitute government control for private enterprise. If it were to do this, it would deprive itself of the most efficient means of defense.”
It works the other way too: a socialist nation can only get stronger if it embraces free market. But the very nature of the EU pushes Europe further and further away from it. Without the EU the states will obtain freedom to govern themselves and finally get a chance to turn completely around, become more like Switzerland.
Beck says that the fall of the EU will destabilize Europe and bring chaos, making Europe vulnerable. Bukovsky warns as well, that just as the collapse of the Soviet Union brought to life many local ethnic conflicts, the collapse of the EU will do too. Should this be a reason to try to preserve the EU? Not really. Just as the Soviet Union, the EU will fall down eventually anyway because of elemental laws of economics. Until then the sickness will only grow bigger, making the treatment more and more torturous.
The idea that abolishing the EU will help fascists is questionable too. With virtually no democracy, with all decisions made by bureaucrats in Brussels, ordinary people feel like it’s an occupation, like they have no voice. This is the best environment for delusional ideas to grow and spread. On the contrary, more freedom will bring more voices and, therefore, more sanity.
The EU is an enemy of European freedom and prosperity, and delaying its deconstruction will only make things worse. That’s why we should start thinking in terms of abiding principles, not current interests. Stop playing political chess and simply start doing what’s right.
A week after “Red Storm Rising” Beck said on the radio that the time to listen to Geert Wilders was seven years ago. Ok. So what’s the recipe for Europeans now? Duck and cover?
Well, there’s hope they can do just the opposite.
There Still Can Be a Tea Party in Europe.
Since December Glenn Beck has made it clear many times what he thinks of Germans who went out into the streets to protest islamization and destructive immigration policy:
“15,000 Nazi’s marched in Germany last month.” − glennbeck.com
In his show Glenn Beck calls PEGIDA a “Nazi party”, which Russians “seem to position outside of [their] border”. PEGIDA is surely not a perfect small-government movement that Europe needs, but is PEGIDA Nazi, is it pro-Russian and should we, as classical liberals, condemn or support it? Although PEGIDA has passed its peak and some even suggest it’s almost over, the consequences of movement’s spontaneous rise will be long-lasting.
PEGIDA began when three murky Dresdeners with no political background started to organize demonstrations via Facebook. First time 350 people came, next time a thousand, then ten thousand. At some point in many cities throughout the country and abroad people started their own PEGIDAs. It’s reported that “the founding branch in Dresden has repeatedly disassociated itself from many of the cadet franchises set up in other German cities”.
Some local organizers are more liberal, others more anti-liberal. Still they declare support for the initial list of goals posted by the original PEGIDA. The document calls to curb uncontrolled immigration, stop violent Islam and Sharia practices, get rid of political correctness and implement direct democracy principle like in Switzerland. If this protest took place in America, its core issues would be amnesty and border security. If PEGIDA is indeed Nazi, then we kinda lost Germany already: 30% of Germans support PEGIDA “completely and absolutely,” 19% lean in favor, 26% partly and 23% not at all. One in eight would join the protest if it took place nearby.
Why do so many people support PEGIDA? Two factors are seen in the polls. First, 73% of all Germans are concerned about radical Islam gaining ground in their country. Second, people are fed up with the establishment. There’s a poll about attitudes toward PEGIDA within different voter groups. The closest to PEGIDA are voters of new mildly-eurosceptic party “Alternative for Germany” (76% of “AfD” voters are pro-PEGIDA), the second closest are non-voters (36% of them support the movement), followed by communists (25%) and centrists (23%).
PEGIDA became, as described by academics, a middle-class center-right populist movement because it appeals to the general population, whose opinion is not represented in the government and whose concerns are never addressed by politicians or the media. Undoubtedly, the best environment for radical ideas to spread.
So is the general population Nazi? On January 21, PEGIDA founder Lutz Bachmann announced his resignation after someone leaked his photo with Hitler mustache and a screenshot of his racist KKK-themed post on Facebook. Bachmann still wanted to be on the team, and that caused his spokeswoman Kathrin Oertel and four other organizers to resign and form a new, “less radical” political movement “For Direct Democracy” with rather unclear future. Lutz Bachmann then retracted his resignation and stayed with PEGIDA. Following the split, the attendance in Dresden dropped 800%, and in Leipzig 500%. Until now (late February) no city has hit 5000 attenders again.
But let’s allow protestors to speak for themselves. Here are some highlights we’ve compiled and translated from 3-hour footage of the latest PEGIDA protests in Munich, Bavaria:
These aren’t the people who support rounding up Muslims, contrary to what Glenn Beck says. PEGIDA is maligned as a racist flat-earth society even more than Tea Party, but as you can see, there is a lot of intelligent and well-informed people out there, who are outraged to be branded as Nazis. If you speak German, go watch the whole thing.
Because PEGIDA is so fiercely anti-establishment it is inevitably joined by loonies from all walks of life. Sure, there are some fascists, racists and conspiracy theorists in the crowd as well. The question is: does their presence change the essence of the movement? Since its conception in October 2014 PEGIDA hasn’t changed that much, they stick to their original peaceful position paper. At least when it comes to their rhetoric.
Mainstream media made a number of compilations with protesters who sound bigoted, but they are just too confused to be Nazis. Maybe they can become Nazis one day, but until some violent extremism is made an acceptable social norm they are unlikely to approve of it. Nazism is an ideology − these people don’t have one, they are just uneducated: they know the media and politicians lie to them, but they can’t come up with a reasonable alternative explanation. The lack of healthy political discussion is also the reason some people fall for Russian propaganda. If we consider other views of those who wave Russian flags at PEGIDA rallies, most of them don’t support Dugin’s ideas. They just believed the propaganda about peaceful “Christian Russia”, that is attacked by Western political establishment. And this Russian sentiment is very important to fully understand who is behind PEGIDA.
It all comes down to the media. When people get fed up with “Lügenpresse” (lying press), they go for alternative sources. In America there’s a tremendous diversity in alternative media, they provide dozens of perspectives to compare and choose from. German alternative media scene is in a deplorable state. It’s safe to say that “Politically Incorrect News” is the only viable alternative media outlet that addresses the issues of Islam, immigration and the EU from a broad center-right perspective, with the least fascist or blatantly conspiratorial overtones.
Founded in 2004 to fight growing anti-American sentiment within German society, “PI-News” positions itself as pro-American, pro-Israel and pro-human rights. Nevertheless, in today’s Germany this website is the second biggest (after “Russia Today”) cheerleader for “conservative Christian” Russia, which is supposedly under attack by warmongering Obama/CIA/EU.
“Politically Incorrect” heavily promotes “Dr. Alfons Proebstl”, a mystical political pundit with mask-covered face, who seems to have come out of nowhere in April 2014. In his videos Proebstl criticizes Western establishment and media, agitates for gold standard and pushes Kremlin’s imbecile talking points. His latest videos gather about thirty thousand viewers each.
Many left-wing pundits and politicians in Germany support Putin too. But larger part of Lügenpresse and, more importantly, Chancellor Angela Merkel, says Russia is the bad guy. At the same time “PI-news”, that is usually correct on many key issues, shows Russia as the good guy by repeating easily refutable lies. Many people believe them, because people are overwhelmed and don’t do their own homework.
No wonder, PEGIDA leadership often spreads pro-Russian sentiment too, especially in Eastern Germany. Although foreign policy was not an issue of PEGIDA officially, some leaders and many protestors made it one. It is noticeable even in details like the design of official PEGIDA website: a photo of demonstrators, German flags fly above them and one of the flags is half-Russian. PEGIDA posts anti-Ukrainian messages on Facebook, promotes Alfons Proebstl’s YouTube channel of and invites him to address the crowd in Dresden. Finally, in February 2015 PEGIDA founder Lutz Bachmann taped his new 10-point “Thesis of Dresden” to the door of Cross Church. The new demand in it is to normalize relations with Russia, stop warmongering. So the legitimization of Russian regime is now an official policy.
Many demonstrators are also sympathetic to Russia, they wave Russian flags (along with Israeli, Ukrainian, Dutch and even Japanese), many reportedly call for peace with Russia and accuse America and the EU of unleashing war in Ukraine.
Still, PEGIDA is a diverse movement: some demonstrators refer to it as a platform for discussions and point out that people there disagree on solutions even to the core issues. On foreign policy they will disagree even more.
We’ve read the first 100 comments to PEGIDA’s recent anti-Ukrainian post, and 20% of PEGIDA supporters distinctly expressed an objection to leadership’s pro-Russian position. That’s on Facebook, where normal people are always underrepresented because they don’t comment nearly as much.
If we overlay the Russia surveys with a PEGIDA survey, we can roughly estimate the upper range limit for Putin supporters within PEGIDA. If literally all Putin fans are in PEGIDA (which is unlikely), they will still only amount for 57% of hardcore PEGIDA supporters, or for 35% in a broader group of supporters. In reality the numbers will be much lower because many Putin fans are aligned with anti-PEGIDA “Die Linke”, a communist party with extensive ties to Russia and a pro-Russian position.
Since May 2014 there is a downfall trend in support for Russia. As Putin’s aggression escalates, things become clear. Sooner or later the only people to support Russia in Germany will be either Russians or ideological fascists and communists with no interest in the facts. It is likely that pro-Russian politicians won’t be taken seriously and will be forced to hide their real views.
So why are alternative media and PEGIDA leadership so detached from the people on the Russian issue? Actually it makes sense if we assume that the influence over the center-right constituency in Germany was seized by a pro-Russian fascist movement called the New Right (not to be confused with American New Right).
For instance, Jürgen Elsässer from Leipzig, who believes that CIA is behind ISIS − the editor in chief of a conspiracy news magazine “Compact” and a frequent guest on “Russia Today”. Or Götz Kubitschek, one of the leaders of Leipzig PEGIDA (the second-largest branch), is also the founder of a New Right think-tank “Institut für Staatspolitik” and a New Right magazine Sezession.
Notice, that when Elsässer and Kubitschek speak at PEGIDA rallies, they hide their real views as much as they can and instead convey quite a liberal rhetoric, to which they unconditionally oppose. The only explanation is that they consider PEGIDA protestors in East Germany unready for their ideas. Political scientist W. Gessenharter notes that “political mimicry” is a common practice for German New Right. By posing as moderates they want to convert the population softly and gradually. That feature actually parallels an integral part of the whole New Right movement, an equivalent of Frankfurt School for fascism:
“[Their] doctrine is based on the concept that a revolution can only be successful if based on the cultural domination over a given society by implanting certain ideological messages through newspapers, conferences, and higher education”. (Shekhovtsov)
What are the New Right ideas? Actually, it’s a disaster that nobody talks about them. These are not your typical “Golden Dawn” thugs with flare torches. Simply put, New Right stands for intellectual fascist traditionalism. The movement was started by French philosopher Alain de Benois in 1968. It has spread through Europe with minor peculiarities: for instance, while the broad New Right movement is neo-pagan and anti-Christian, in Germany it’s not always the case. The New Right rejects economic science and largely rejects politics itself. Like all fascists, they oppose modernity (progress, individualism, equality, capitalism, pluralism), they expect the ongoing “age of decadence” to end with a rebirth: a “new man” will arise and build a new totalitarian Europe, return to the hierarchical, elitist, homogenous, “rooted” and “traditional” values of ethnic communities of the premodern past.
The New Right want to end the Peace of Westphalia, abolish the nation states and replace them with “Europe of a hundred flags” − a federation of tribes, “where the political units [..] should be established in accordance with cultural, historical, and ethnic identifications rather than simple administrative division”. That’s their key concept called “ethnopluralism” − basically, Germany is for Germans, Catalonia − for Catalans. New Right followers can say that they only oppose “unbridled” immigration as much as they want, but that’s a lie. They inherently oppose the very idea of cosmopolitanism because it represents modernity and blood-mixing, of which they want none. Not because of racism, to which they oppose, but because all ethnic groups are equal and each of them should exist separately and according to its own medieval traditions. That’s some real flat-earth society for you.
According to Alexander Dugin, who represents the Russian branch, the New Right is “unambiguously” pro-Russian and anti-American, its members stand in solidarity with anti-American Islam, primarily with Iran. The main ideologists of “National Front”, “Austrian Freedom Party” and “Northern League” also adhere to the New Right camp. Dugin adds, that the New Right account for about half of all European “far-right”. The other half are Nazis with flare torches.
Some PEGIDA leaders are reportedly tied with “Generation Identitaire”, an influential New Right youth movement, that has recently spread across Europe using a good branding and marketing strategy.
Again, this is not something people know about. Mainstream media just makes things worse when they label the New Right as Nazis. When people don’t hear typical Nazi rhetoric from the podium at PEGIDA rallies, they disregard the media’s claims and lose vigilance. It’s very unlikely that even PEGIDA founder Lutz Bachmann knows what New Right ideas are about: he’s a just a useful idiot. There are several conclusions to be made here.
- The goals declared by PEGIDA are not extremist and an overwhelming majority of PEGIDA supporters associate with liberal values.
- There is a great ideological divide between the majority of PEGIDA supporters and the majority of PEGIDA leaders.
- PEGIDA leadership in large part consists of people from well-established intellectual neo-fascist circles − they saw the opportunity and seized the momentum to advance the New Right agenda and stealthily promote ideas of collectivism, anti-liberalism, anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism, racial hygiene and conspiracism.
- To appeal to the public these leaders are forced to use liberal arguments to such extent that some left-wing commentators accuse PEGIDA of neoliberalism (leftist term for unbridled capitalism, the rule of 1%).
A classical liberal view of PEGIDA must combine opposition to its leadership with support for demonstrators and the original position paper that brought them into the streets. Even if we don’t agree with PEGIDA on everything, we should remember that anti-communist “Solidarity” was a trade union and its members were hardly Ayn Rand fans, yet they’ve made Poland freer. Similar thing with Ukraine last year. What matters is this: are the protestors for more freedom or less freedom? Are they fighting for the right thing?
In today’s Germany there is no politics in the normal sense, there is no dialog about ideas, principles or vision. Politicians pose as pragmatists, nobody believes in anything. PEGIDA started a discussion on a seditious issue that concerns 73% of population − half the country supports the movement, yet the government slanders them all as Nazis. That can wake many people up, get them involved and curious. The discussion that started in the streets and online can trigger a much broader debate and bring about changes that lie far outside immigration issue and sharia courts issue. Thus begins the battle for the minds, for shaping the narrative.
Today the New Right are in a better position since they got hold of a great platform. Yet for protesters it isn’t about who’s preaching from the stage: the preachers will only say as much as the people will allow them to. Rather it’s about the cause, ideas, values and vision, which is a good thing because ideas can compete and evolve. In six months PEGIDA may not even exist, but the people who supported the movement will remain involved to some extent, political life will be more active than it was a year ago.
If the New Right’s strategy proves effective, we’ll have fascism in Europe, Glenn Beck will be proven right. Though, as stated in the previous chapter, until people have the prophetic power, the best strategy is still just to do what’s right and moral. On the contrary, if the New Right’s strategy proves ineffective, it’s possible classical liberals will have on their hands the biggest opportunity since 1870's to turn the politics in Europe upside down and push towards individual liberty and laissez-faire capitalism.
The failure of European socialism is imminent, the whole fiat money bubble may burst within this decade; many believe the Old Media is doomed; arguably the whole higher education system will shrink significantly; the technology will repeatedly prove state-provided services ineffective and unnecessary; the proliferation of 3D-printed handguns may raise the question of self-defense rights.
There can be a Tea Party in Europe because the people are good, all they need is a good alternative, a good proposal, a good vision − they don’t want New Right’s medieval fascism. In Britain the issue of the EU and open borders led to an exploding rise of classical liberal UKIP. In the Netherlands the issue of islamization brought noticeable success for classical liberal “Party For Freedom” (PVV).
In order to make sure that the above-mentioned changes work in favor of constructive forces and not some deranged fascists, Germany (and Europe for that matter) needs more political competition in the opposition today: more voices, more media outlets, more groups that will investigate and expose each other, making the political scene more transparent, providing the public with better choices − or just any choice.
The most feasible danger of the New Right is that they can hamper the discussion from taking the proper direction, that’s why they must be exposed for who they really are. But until it is done from a credible right-wing (meaning classical liberal) perspective, until it’s done in a fact-based way − it is impossible to do. The left-wing media can’t do it because they are imbecile, nobody trusts them, and they can only yell “racism” − which exposes nonе of the real contents and dangers of New Right ideology.
There already seems to be some alternative to the New Right, it just doesn’t have a strong voice yet. The Munich branch of PEGIDA is now led by Michael Stürzenberger from largely unknown “Die Freiheit”, the only political party in Germany that looks like it’s consistent and truly rooted in individual liberty. With 500 members “Die Freiheit” is a copycat from Geert Wilders’ PVV, and Stürzenberger has confronted New Right intellectuals over their destructive views.
More people like this should follow, but actually the future of Europe depends not just on Europeans, but on all people over the world who know the right answers and the right ways to deliver them. That’s us − conservatives, classical liberals, libertarians, economists, artists, bloggers, commentators.
In the Soviet Union with total censorship there was only one way to get more or less consistent and intellectually sterling explanation of things − foreign shortwave radio. It was called “listening to the voices”. “Radio Liberty”, “Voice of America” and BBC broadcasted real news and commentary and played western Rock music. Listening was sometimes dangerous and the signal was bad because from 1948 to 1988 the Soviets jammed these broadcasts with 1700 specially built noise generators, but the broadcasts gathered weekly audience of tens of millions anyway.
Today it is vital for Europeans to hear legitimate “voices”, especially American voices, that understand freedom and can share it − otherwise those who seek answers will fall into the trap of “Infowars”, “Russia Today” and other trashy sources and ideologies.
Unfortunately, most American conservatives today are largely detached from what goes on in Europe and such voices sound too quiet. The notable exceptions are American activists like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, who became very influential in Europe for addressing Europe’s problems and explaining them in rational liberal terms. They make things clear: it’s not about race, it’s not about “natives vs. foreigners”, it’s about freedom. Because of the American influence over counter-jihad movement many people in Europe become interested in learning things that are never discussed in Europe: the dichotomy of collectivism vs. individualism, the roots of “repressive tolerance” and leftist-Islamic alliance (Frankfurt School), the benefits of small government (if you’re really lucky). This is the basis for individualistic worldview, which makes one immune to fascism.
Even Glenn Beck could influence PEGIDA in a positive way because of his large following. However, in order to do that, he would have to become less obsessed with proving his past predictions and more focused on doing research and being consistent with his “strange bedfellows” strategy. Beck could support PEGIDA’s strive for more freedom, he could address the actual issues in the right way and warn Europeans about dangerous propaganda directed at them. Make a call to Spencer or Wilders, shoot a video − there are many ways to spread the message, that Beck and his team surely know of. By telling only a half of the story, by maligning the freedom movement in Europe as he did with Wilders and PEGIDA, Beck deprives Europeans of any solidarity and support from a big fraction of American conservatives. The solidarity that is necessary to bring people together, to establish mutual support and help both sides change the world for the better.
Still we can believe in the best: maybe Europeans will have a moment of revelation on their own, wake up and embrace a new vision based on liberty. Maybe they’ll save us all in the end.
