As an outsider, I read an implied premise behind the First Identitarian Congress. The premise was that the “wind from the East” was real and that the resulting geopolitics made new things possible.
Hungary represented the first defection from the post-Western multicultural order of the European Union. Eurasianism could provide an opening to Russia. Putin’s state, while certainly flawed, could challenge the hegemony of American liberalism. Emerging Identitarian movements in nations such as France and Austria could be the vanguard of revolutionary change in the heart of the West.
European-Americans, by turning their back on the New World and embracing their European identity, could champion the idea of Europe as our nation, with our loyalty transferred to our existing communities of culture and blood in the United States and the Continent rather than the egalitarian abstractions of the Declaration of Independence. Identitarian movements in Western Europe were already promoting this pan-European idea. This new geopolitical reality could create an opening for ethno-nationalist and secessionist movements in the West within an overall framework of European Unity.
That was why the conference was to be held in Budapest, a city looking both East and West. And that was why the National Policy Institute, having brought the European New Right to make the case against the artificial and deracinated American identity, had to go to Europe.
Now that the dust has cleared, there are a few essential things that have to be established before we can interpret where we stand:
- First was the source of the pressure to ban the conference itself. This was mostly driven by the Hungarian Left and seized upon by the conservative government to prove their opposition to “extremism” to the West. However, a source in Hungary reports that the US State Department had also expressed its concern about the conference to the government. This is supported by the fact that the State Department, which applauds things like gay rights festivals in Budapest, stopped just short of endorsing Richard Spencer’s arrest and seemingly groused that the First Amendment would allow discussion of NPI’s ideas in the United States. It also openly approved the government’s actions, saying it was “pleased to see that the government of Hungary is speaking out to reaffirm that it does not support those who promote racial or ethnic intolerance.” Insofar as there was actual American imperialism in Hungary, it was Barack Obama’s American government seeking to prevent the conference from taking place and applauding the state action taken against it.
- Secondly, the Hungarian Left’s opposition to the conference was also grounded in its opposition to the conservative Hungarian government. Those Hungarians who protested the conference linked the NPI conference to the controversy over a new monument commemorating the German occupation. The monument portrays Hungary as a victim and conveys a kind of 19th century conservative patriotism. In contrast, the Hungarian opposition and the American press want Hungary to adopt the frankly ethnomasochist policies of a country like Germany and devote more money and resources to building Holocaust memorials. The opposition to NPI was at least partially driven by a desire to “link” Orban to scary American White nationalists; the Hungarian government’s willingness to use state power to ban the conference was at least partially driven by their fear of that charge gaining credence.
- Third is explaining the reaction of Jobbik. Of course, the party knew exactly what it was getting into, having corresponded with the organizers for months. However, the government’s ban changed the equation. Jobbik didn’t run from the conference because they only learned at the last minute what it was about–they ran because it suddenly had become too politically costly to continue. It’s equivalent to Rand Paul “accepting the resignation” of Jack Hunter–the Senator knew from the very beginning everything Hunter had said and done, had hired him because of that, and changed because politics required it. (It should be noted that even as Jobbik issued a ham-handed denunciation of American “racism,” it still praised Dugin. Interpret that as you will.)
- And finally, there’s the action of the conference organizers themselves. According to some people I have spoken to, after Richard Spencer was detained, there was a kind of indecision about what to do next. People on the ground only knew that he had been unexpectedly arrested and presumably deported immediately, as with Bill Regnery. The decision to go through with the rump conference and email all remaining registrants at the last minute resulted because all those people were still there and needed to know how to get to the already secured backup venue. Indeed, some people who wanted to go to the conference unfortunately fell through the cracks. Thus, had communications been better, there would have been more than the seventy or so people who still attended.
Behind all of the sound and fury the conference has generated within the “movement” and the sneers from System’s press, there remains one simple truth. The government of Hungary banned this conference because they could. They have paid no price for it.
That may change in the long run, but it has not yet. Indeed, Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz just cruised to another crushing electoral victory. Interestingly, Jobbik also did fairly well by striking a hard anti-Gypsy line in rural areas while trying to appear more moderate at a national level. And, thinking critically about all this, would we really want either of those parties to lose to the Socialists? The long term destination of Hungary is not yet certain, but there is still great promise.
However, what we cannot count on is having a refuge in any other nation. Putin’s Russia enthusiastically arrests and persecutes White advocates just as energetically as the United Kingdom. The Hungarian government is not appreciably different from that of Germany when it comes to discussing ideas about the future of Europe—or indeed whether Europe gets to have a future.
At the same time, this should also strip any illusions from those championing a kind of isolationist 19th century nationalism. The current Hungarian government showed itself to be either a satrap of America or, at best, authoritarian conservatives with no ideology beyond preserving their own power and raging at the European Union they are economically dependent on. The experience of Fr
anco’s Spain should show us how empty Reaction works out long term. Identitarians should also heed the lessons of the last European elections, where even parties like the Front National found themselves with essentially no representation in the European Parliament because of the inability to work together and form a bloc.
As Jared Taylor’s passionate—and historic—speech made clear, we face a common struggle. No nation or people within the great European family will be able to survive unless the increasingly frantic tide of anti-White hatred is overcome. The Broken Empire of Europe must be restored, in spirit if not as a political entity. And this has to take place–not just as the fulfillment of a dream–but as a tactical necessity for mere survival.
From that point of view, this First Identitarian International should be regarded as a success for three critical reasons:
- It announced Identitarians as a movement in its own right that is beginning to build institutions in the real world. This isn’t simply “White nationalism” or ethno-nationalism or whatever political hobbyhorse. It’s the beginning of a vehicle whereby the key intellectual and political figures in each European nation can coordinate their efforts, meet in fellowship, and hammer out the ideas that will take us to victory. Moreover, the atmosphere of state persecution has made it abundantly clear that this movement of intellectuals and political soldiers is now seen as a real threat to the current System, a victory in its own way. The media, the System’s most fanatic defender, gave the conference a great deal of attention and couldn’t even get the smears together until the conference was long over, as if unsure how to react to this new force.
- It established the core doctrine of European unity as fundamental. From all over Europe, attendees came and they carried with them a simple message—we share one struggle. From Flemish nationalists to Swedish pagans, Eastern Europeans to native English speakers, there was a startling recognition that there is no contradiction between pursuing ethno-nationalism and localism on the one hand and pursuing the dream of Europa on the other. Indeed, one cannot be accomplished without the other, as Whites are targeted by our global enemies because of our identity as a race, not because of the passport we carry, the geography in which we reside, or the language we speak.
- Its impact is already being felt in the real world—not on the Internet. From corresponding with various people who were there, one of the most interesting reactions has been the relative competition between the different countries to host the next Identitarian Congress. Partnerships were formed, relationships were established, and projects are underway that will not be broadcast on the Internet or subject to the various infighting and bickering that unfortunately plagues anything based online. The shock of state persecution and the bracing realization that you faced legal consequences for listening to a speaker hardened both those who attended and those who followed it from afar. I predict that this one conference will spawn many more organizations and institutions beyond itself.
Still, there are three things to come to mind that are less cheerful. First is the necessity to hold another conference–preferably one that won’t be interrupted and that everyone who wants to attend can attend safely. Second is the loss of connection with figures in Hungary, which can hopefully be re-established or re-formulated on another level as soon as possible. And finally, and most importantly, the realization that American Identitarians need to start building real power on the ground in the real world and not count on the democratic parties.
The fact is Identitarians offer nothing to democratic political parties as they stand today. As a movement, we don’t even offer anything to our own members besides a vague feeling of solidarity or faith that we are doing the right thing. The costs of open involvement can be incredibly harsh. Perhaps the biggest takeaway is the urgent need to start building power on a local level in the here and now. Being a spectator is simply no longer an option.
This doesn’t mean quitting your job to become a full time organizer, waving signs along the highway, or even starting another website under your own name is what you have to do.
But it means you have to start building structures and figuring out ways to assist like-minded people.
It means you have to start tithing to groups you deem worthy of support.
And it means that you–yes you, sitting there right now—need to start working with like-minded friends in your communities to build an explicit White tribe. (If you don’t have any—well, these sites and others exist for a reason.) The purpose isn’t to create headlines or even advertise your existence, but to serve as a mutual aid society, a vehicle for the upward development of everyone involved, and an eventual base for building power. The Revolution will not be online.
The experience of the European Congress showed that we will not be able to rely on anyone else to come save us. The different tribes of our European family are all under occupation. However, what the Congress began is the kind of competition that we need among each other—working to outdo each other in our contributions towards the dream of Europa instead of engaging in pointless and petty internecine warfare. If that spirit can be taken to heart by those who were there and those who couldn’t make it, we might look back to the meeting in Budapest as the key moment when Europeans—those on the Continent and those in the New World—began to make real progress towards realizing their common destiny.