I did not yet get a chance to share my take on the two notable votes that took place last week, so I am going to do so below. Obviously they were events we had long looked forward to, and that could have had- and may have- profound effects for the situation in Europe.
I also wanted to announce that I am getting ready to publish a fascinating interview with ‘AC’ from anonymousconservative.com. I think it is highly relevant to the situation in Europe and contains some extremely solid thoughts and ideas I am very excited to publish. It also includes some ideas I will be referencing and attempting to build upon in my next book.
For right now though, here is my take on the two votes, I highly welcome any feedback as I am still grappling over exactly what conclusions are warranted.
Brief Thoughts On Austria And Italy Votes, One Week On
1. I would probably have preferred the opposite outcome.
While I am grateful ‘our side’ prevailed in at least one of the contests, I think the visuals would have been more powerful from a Hofer win than an Italian referendum one. Hofer would have been the first ‘far-right’ President of any European country in something like half a century or more, and the Austrian contest was framed by both sides as a referendum on mass immigration.
With that being the case, it is highly unfortunate Hofer lost. If he had won it would have been a huge moral and political victory for our side – right in line with Brexit or Trump’s victory and potentially even more powerful, since it would take place ‘in the belly of the beast’ right smack dab in the middle of Europe. The Italian referendum is anxiety-provoking for the globalist elites of course, but does not have the optics vis a vis Identitarianism and immigration that the Austrian election could have.
2. I think, however, that the actual results might be more likely to bring destabilization and collapse.
While the optics would have been better with a win in Austria vs in Italy, I think the win in Italy has greater potential to really destabilize the EU. It of course depends on whether the Italian people follow up by electing an anti-EU government to power. If that is the case, and a referendum on EU membership comes, a death blow could be delivered to the corrupt, infanticidal macro-government and ruling elites. If that is the case, the process will have started with this referendum vote, and its importance in Europe’s collapse (and subsequent rebirth) will be vast.
3. The change in vote count in the Austrian election is telling.
I like many was quite surprised at the shift in votes between round one and round two of the Austrian elections. In the first the vote was almost split exactly 50-50, while in the second Hofer lost by several percentage points. This seemed odd. Yet as I immediately realized, and as numerous commenters on this site pointed out, this discrepancy most likely matches the numbers of new voters given citizenship in Austria during that time. Austria has- pound for pound- had immigration every bit as massive as Germany and Sweden, and just like in those countries, these newly arrived Muslims are hurriedly given citizenship so that they can vote for left-wing political parties.
This is more than just the migrant crisis, this is the countless Muslims who come to Austria every year as part of ‘family re-unification’ procedures, in which migrants given citizenship can then bring all their extended family members and have them be granted citizenship too. This is the ‘silent’ side of Europe’s murder by immigration, as opposed to the flashy, front-page news of the ‘migrant crisis’.
This is just further proof- as if any was needed- that mass-immigration and democracy are mutually exclusive, and that such mass-immigration itself is nothing but the co-opting of the democratic process. The question of who rules a country used to be decided- long before voting became the norm- by rule of force and civil war. As Martin van Crevald writes though, immigration is just war by other means, and the Left in Europe has been successful in waging it thus.
4. The other side seems to utilize fear better than we do.
In following the elections one saw over and over again the left describe the dangers of voting for Hofer. Yet as we know, in reality voting for Van der Bellen and further immigration is the most unsafe, suicidal decision an Austrian could make. The FPO did not seem to make such arguments though, and I think this was to their detriment. I am as always hesitant to criticize these European politicians who are devoting far more of their time and money to the cause than I am currently able to, but I would love to see one of them just really lay things out on the line, and play to the (quite realistic) dangers that voting for the left represents.
Voting for left-wing pro-invasion candidates like Merkel, Cameron, and Van der Bellen means vast crime, murder, sexual assault, organized child-rape, terrorism, and all the things mass-Muslim immigration brings. It means your country will eventually be taken over and your children forced to flee or become enslaved. Every sober observer knows this, and it is the subtext implicit in arguments against Islamic immigration, so why not just come out and say it explicitly?
5. Apologizing does not work.
This is almost the same point as number four, but it bears pointing out separately. Trump NEVER apologized during his winning presidential campaign. Sure, he (very understandably) disavowed the pu*** grabbing video, but beyond that he stayed strong, refused to back down, and did not play into the liberal dynamic in which conservatives must ask permission of the left for everything, and morally prostrate themselves before the media and liberal intelligentsia. I think most everyone has to agree that not doing so was integral to his win, because it allowed Trump himself to frame the narrative.
Watching candidates like Hofer however, and Frauke Petry in Germany, they seem to always fall into this trap of arguing against the left on the left’s own terms, which is a no-win prospect.
6. The importance of economic ambiguity.
I think this is another thing we learned from both Brexit and Trump’s win. In each, the economic message was somewhat ambiguous. Sure, Trump did commit to specific economic policy proposals and positions, but he made sure his economic message (protect jobs, build business, lower taxes, more public works spending) was something that all sides would find positives in. Apart from the most die-hard multinational globalists, there were few who couldn’t somewhat comfortably fit within Trump’s economic worldview.
The Brexit campaign similarly deigned to take an economic hardline in one way or another. I think this was important in the two victories. Hofer, on the other hand, did not seem to cultivate such economic ambiguity or ‘big tent-ism’, and it seems like some Austrians found in his free market economic proscriptions the excuse they were looking for to vote for the mainstream.
7. Minorities not majorities.
In my interview with Les Brigandes, they talk about their view that majorities have never catalyzed great political change. They argue that it is powerful, vocal minorities that do so. The idea seems to be that such (minority) groups or movements create a message or vehicle of such metapolitical power and persuasion that it eventually overtakes the mainstream, but that visions of such power and persuasion never come from a ‘majority’ because most people in society are not interested in such things, only in surviving and in the pleasure and minutiae of everyday life. Therefore only a dedicated, focused minority can build a wave of requisite momentum to truly overtake society.
I have thought about this alot and think it makes sense. I am still sorting through the ramifications, but I am reminded of it when some of these parties, such as the FPO and the Sweden Democrats, for instance, seem to try to truck so hard to the center. In doing so they make make themselves more ‘palatable’, but they also seem to dilute their own ‘power’.
I am not too brokenhearted about Hofer’s loss, since we all know real salvation can unfortunately only come to Europe through non-electoral means (destabilization leading to rebirth and reconquest).
I do find all the metrics and angles and perspectives interesting though. All of these elections- Trump, Brexit, Austria, Italy, France, Germany- are to varying degrees experiments in metapolitical thought and persuasion. None will save our people by itself- nothing electoral or political can fully do that at this point. However, through observing them I believe we can learn much about how our people think, what works, what doesn’t work, how best to awaken those who are sleeping, and how best to defeat both our enemies.
To my fellow Preservationists reading this: What observations am I missing? Do you think Italy or Austria was more important? What would you MOST like to see one of these ‘far-right’ politicians do or say? I highly value any feedback you have!