Where the. How Glenn Beck Could Help Europe But…
Tags: Politics

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.

Götz Kubitschek accuses the left of believing in something he believes himself. PEGIDA Dresden, February. 9, 2015

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.

Soviet military students listening to the Voice of America.

Ronald Reagan in 1950s “Crusade for Freedom” commercial

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.