Traditie Tegen Tirannie (deel 3)

1
224

In het laatste deel van het interview met Tradicija Proti Tiraniji, de Sloveense etnonationalistische beweging, staan we stil bij de hedendaagse geschiedenis van het land gezien vanuit nationalistisch perspectief en kijken we naar de toekomst. Eerdere delen van het interview bindt u hier: deel 1, deel 2

In one of your articles you refer to cultural marxism and the ride through the institutions by the Frankfurter Schule. How did this affect your country in the Yugoslav era? And what were the developments after 1991?
Looking back at the post-WW2 history and the rise of what we refer today as “cultural Marxism”, we can say that ironically the countries that fell under Marxist socialism were in a way shielded from cultural Marxism, and of course from the liberal agenda that was considered a part of the capitalist West. The “old” socialists and communists did not approve of a number of degenerate elements that were appearing in liberal democracies. This was also in many ways true for Yugoslavia, especially in the first decades, as is illustrated, among other things, by the fact that in the 1950s homosexuality was a crime that could earn the “perpetrator” up to two years in jail, and wasn’t completely decriminalized until late 70s when the first traces of liberal influence and cultural Marxism started to appear.

We should also stress the fact that Yugoslavia broke off with the Soviet Union soon after the war and that we had a “softer” version of communist socialism when compared to the Soviet dominated countries from the eastern bloc. This of course did not spare tens if not hundreds of thousands of people who were slaughtered without trial after the war. Those killed were not only the ones who took arms against the red partisans, but also those deemed “opponents of the revolution”, or simply seen as a threat to the new regime. It also did not spare many of the “dissidents” being jailed or sent to the infamous political prison located on a Croatian barren island called Goli Otok (Naked Island). But the everyday life conditions were better than in Eastern Europe, and what’s important in this context, the country was open to the West. Marshall Tito, the well-known leader of Yugoslavia, who was guilty of many atrocities still not completely known to the public until this day, had good relations with liberal democracies, and it should be noted that he was ideologically more of a social democrat than a Bolshevik. So, already in the 60s, the hippie movement, and various student movements that were used by cultural Marxists in the West, also appeared and grew in Yugoslavia. They were looked down by the “old” communists and there were some cases of police harassment, but since the country had in general good relations with the West, the liberal influence got its foothold especially in the larger cities of Yugoslavia. During the 70s, organized liberal and “new left” groups appeared, and in the 80s such groups, which were mostly pro-western, and most likely financed from the West grew stronger, planting the seeds of the modern liberal views and principles, which would later fall under the umbrella of cultural Marxism.

After the Slovenian independence in 1991 when we became a democratic country moving towards Western liberal democracies, the liberal influence grew freely within Slovenia, and the cultural Marxist subversion became more visible, especially after 2004 when we joined the new liberal version of the Soviet Union, known as the EU. Now, since we had a “softer” version of Marxist socialism, there was no lustration or purge of the former communists and no hard break from the communist past at the time of our independence.

Many of the old commies who were personally not too glad about the breakup of Yugoslavia, just put on the masks of the born-again liberals or democrats, and took important leading positions within our newly founded state. Such is the case of our first president Milan Kučan who said in 1990: “It is even hard for me to think about the secession of Slovenia from Yugoslavia, as this was never my first most intimate option”. But regardless, he became president after the independence and is today one of the main representatives of the Slovenian “deep state”, alongside other former communists and their leftist disciples. Today´s Slovenian leftist and liberal-left political parties and various leftist activist groups and NGOs have incorporated both, the Yugonostalgia and the communist mythology as well as the “new left” pro-migration, feminist and LGBT stance. The leftist parties, such as the Social Democrats, or various activists whose imagery includes rainbow flags as well as red stars, will praise the old communists, such as Edvard Kardelj, Boris Kidrič, and of course Tito, while at the same time push for the typical globalist agenda like open borders, LGBT rights, and so on. They are of course agents and useful idiots of the Slovenian “deep state” who is in turn under the control of the international globalists. So, the leftist or “cultural Marxist” cultural hegemony arose in Slovenia through the merging of the old Yugonostalgic and communist sentiments with the modern leftist liberal agenda. Our media, schools and many state institutions are in the hands of leftists and of the deep state agents who are directing the main public discourse, as is the case in almost all of the European and Western countries today. Hopefully, think tanks like Erkenbrand, and other identitarian groups such as ourselves, will be able to counter and eventually break this leftist cultural hegemony in the future.

In the current state of affairs do you have any room for an ethnonationalist party? Or do you only have ‘kosher’ populist parties?
Early in 2020 at the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, a center-right government led by the Prime Minister Janez Janša and his conservative right-wing Slovenian Democratic Party (Slovenska Demokratska Stranka) came to power, after the previous liberal Prime Minister Marjan Šarec resigned and the government collapsed. At that time, Janša managed to form a fragile coalition with some other centrist and conservative parties, as his SDS won in our last election in 2018, but was at the time unable to form a ruling coalition, as none of the liberal and left-leaning parties would join them. Janša is a seasoned politician, who also played a role in the independence of our country, and has held many different positions in the past, including being the Prime Minister before.
Slovenian Democratic Party used to be your typical centre-right conservative party, until the migration crisis in 2015, at which time they adopted more strict rhetoric against illegal migrations and a more populist stance, similarly to Hungarian Fidesz and their leader Victor Orban, who is a close ally of Janša. It would be fair to assume, that this shift towards a more anti-migration politics was at least in part a stunt to gain the support of people who were dissatisfied with the growing number of dark aliens at our borders. Nevertheless, their gaining support which led to their victory in 2018 showed us that many people were indeed at least worried and skeptical about the mass migrations, which is in a way a good sign in itself, regardless of the true aspirations or interests of the winners.

But of course, their public opposition to mass migrations also earned them the burning hatred from the Left, and the disapproval of the mainstream media. So, from the moment they were able to form a new coalition and take power, the leftist-liberal parties in the opposition alongside various NGOs and mainstream media mobilized and started attacking them, talking about the “growing threat of fascistic totalitarianism”, “dictatorship” and of the “Orbanization of Slovenia”, a term coined by the Left in regard to above mentioned friendship and dealings between SDS and Fidesz. All this was done mostly under the guise of the criticism aimed at the COVID-19 related restraints and lockdowns, and during the late spring and summer it erupted in weekly protests against the government, orchestrated by the Left. These protests are supposedly aimed against the “growing fascism” and encroachment on our personal liberties due to Covid-19 crisis, but the real reason is that the government wants to shut down the state financing of various NGOs and so called “cultural workers”, and is also to some extend battling the prevailing leftist hegemony in our media. So, the leftists, “human rights” type NGOs connected to Soros, and various performers known as “cultural workers” are afraid that they will lose their privileges and the taxpayer’s cash flow. On the other hand, the liberal left opposition parties, connected to what we might call the Slovenian “deep state”, joined in the protests as they want to topple the current government and return to power, so they can continue with the advancement of their openly pro-migrant, globalist agenda, including censorship of different views and tougher “hate-speech” laws. They even formed their own coalition, and are trying to take over by recruiting and persuading some of the ruling coalition parties and their individual members to join them. Soon we will see how everything will play out.

We strongly oppose the Left and the liberals, but we are also well aware that the conservatives have their own interests and gains in such “struggles for power”, and their own connections and dealings with certain international groups and big businesses. We are against the so-called “civic nationalist” approach seen regularly among the conservative ranks everywhere, since we believe that nation is firmly rooted in race, and we do not like their support for modern capitalism and their connections with big capitalists and corporations. Many who criticize migrations and attack the Left for wanting to import their “future voters”, forget that liberal capitalism and big corporations are equally guilty of facilitating mass migrations, so they can gain cheap labor force and new masses of consumers. This connection between big corporations, capitalist businessmen and centre-right conservative politics can also be observed in the case of SDS, as they allow and even support the import of cheap labor force from such places as Kosovo and Albania. Also, as is the case with many conservative parties and with politicians of all colors in general, they will say one thing, then do something opposite. For example, despite of their anti-migrant rhetoric, some SDS members of the European Parliament voted in favor of the migrant quotas in 2015, and despite being a strongly family-oriented party, majority of their members who sit in the city council of our capital Ljubljana refrained from voting against the inclusion of LGBT material in the educational plans for local schools, when the issue was being decided. Now to be fair, we should give Janša and SDS some credit for standing up to the leftist NGOs, the leftist “cultural workers, and the mainstream media, in spite of the opposition trying to trip them on every step of the way. They also deserve credit for upholding the freedom of speech, and are at least for now not trying to pass the above mentioned, stricter “hate speech” laws like their liberal leftist predecessors planned to do, but this is also partly because SDS themselves are being regularly accused of some forms of “hate speech” by the Left. In any case we are wary of politicians and parties from both the Left and the Right, and do not support any political party at this time.

As to the second part of your question, there are a few smaller political parties that may include some elements of “ethnonationalism”, but none of them gets many votes during the elections, and they are quite rare. We believe that as long as the leftist hegemony rules our societies, there will be no real chance for a successful openly ethnonationalist party. That’s why we rather concentrate on metapolitical activities, trying to affect the society as a whole, and by establishing a successful nationalist “counter-culture”, win the hearts and minds of our people, and create circumstances in which a real political change will be possible.

How would you picture a post-liberal, traditionalist Europe? Centralized and strong, or more like a confederation? In what way should Europe behave towards the other big players like the USA, Russia and China?
We would say that there are two prevailing views among white identitarian thinkers and movements regarding this subject; one is that we should establish a European federation, or a new European “Empire”, stretching from “Lisbon to Vladivostok”, as Guillaume Faye suggested. The other is that of the creations of white ethnostates across Europe and the West as advocated by Greg Johnson in his White Nationalist Manifesto. We are perhaps a bit more inclined towards the idea of an “Empire” or a European federation, which was also presented by Alain de Benoist in his Manifesto for a European Renaissance. As he said, such Federal Europe would be built on a principle of subsidiarity, and would “organize itself into a federal structure, while recognizing the autonomy of all the component elements and facilitate the cooperation of the constituent regions and of individual nations”. But as a metapolitical group we also consider other ideas on this subject that have their own positive aspects. In any case, one thing is clear to us: a post globalist, post liberal, nationalist-orientated Europe should be built on the common bonds of her peoples and should be able to stand united against both inner and outside threats. In the case of separate ethnostates, European nations should form strong military and economic alliances, sort of an alternative to EU or NATO, working for the common good and for the racial interests of all Europeans, instead of being puppet organizations serving the interests of globalists as is the case today.

The most realistic view is that as nationalism and identitariansim would gain strength, first through metapolitical, and later political developments, different white ethnostates would be established, that could after the complete and true liberation of Europe – as opposed to the “liberation” of 1945 – form a new federal Europe, which would then grow into a superpower. But we think that we are still at relatively early stages of our struggle, certainly at the metapolitical stage, and many things can happen. Our success is not guaranteed and future looks quite dark at times. It would be fair to say that if together we will be able to move onto the later stages of the struggle, there is a good chance of rising conflicts that could turn into a European “racial” civil war, as the current elites won’t just give up their power.

Regarding the USA, we see our struggle not just as a struggle of European continent, but of all white peoples everywhere. We have the same enemies, and similar problems. So we hope that the later developments of the struggle would happen more or less simultaneously across the West and that as we built new Europe, new white America, Australia and New Zealand will arise as well. Of course the Americans have different historical circumstances and their own ideas about a white homeland, and the ordering of their continent. We also believe that, concerning the recent BLM riots and now the stolen elections, the escalation of conflicts that could lead to civil war is more likely to happen in the USA, and could happen sooner than in Europe.

However, just like identitarian and nationalist groups from USA and Europe are cooperating today, we should also cooperate in the future and present a common white front against such growing superpowers as China which could become our main adversary on the world stage. And if, by any chance Europe would be able to liberate herself, while the USA would still remain the stronghold of globalists, we should help and support U.S. dissidents in their struggle by means and actions that would seem the most effective in such a scenario.

As for Russia, regardless of geography Russians should as a white nation be a part of the new Europe and should be included in any developments toward an “Imperium” Europa. Or if there should happen that while Europe would rise free, Russia would still be in the clutches of oligarchs and globalist mafia, we should also help Russian dissidents, while remaining extremely vigilant toward their state. But such developments may be less likely for Russia in the event of growing ethnical conflicts. In both cases of USA or Russia it could easily be the other way around and they would be the ones to help our struggle.
As we already said about China, it could very well happen that this vast nation could become our main rival, so we should be prepared for any hostilities in stopping her grasp towards the West. On the other hand, we should also be open to any kind of mutual arrangement with foreign nonwestern countries, and should leave them in peace as long as they do not threaten our existence, self-determination and racial interests.
This is of course a complex topic and as our struggle develops new thinkers will arise, as some already have, with new and more detailed proposals about the foreign policy and the future ordering of Europe free from the shackles of globalism, who will build upon the ideas of the thinkers already mentioned in this interview.

How objective is the media in your country? Is it, like in most Western European countries, completely biased towards liberal-progressive globalism?
Just like elsewhere, the mainstream media in our country is extremely leftist and liberal, and is regularly pushing the multiculturalist, pro-migration, cultural Marxist agenda and an essentially “anti-white” narrative. There is one smaller conservative media outlet, which manages to operate within the “mainstream”, and is also sympathetic toward identitariansim and the new right, occasionally publishing interviews with identitarian and rightist thinkers, but all of the big media outlets are completely in the hands of the post-communist left. These big media outlets are also connected with various NGOs, mostly financed by George Soros, and with the leftist politicians. There were even such cases when some female reporters left their job in the supposedly objective leading media houses to have a political career in liberal-leftist parties. Many of the journalists and reporters working for our national radio television Slovenia, and other big media, are openly completely leftist, yet they still dare to talk about “objective” journalism. Under the guise of objectivity, the media is pushing the above-mentioned agenda, looking out for the interests of their leftist “comrades” and of their globalist masters. We know that such situation prevails within the mainstream media all across the West, and that is why we must constantly warn our countrymen that the media today are just the propaganda machinery of globalism.

Finally, what are the plans of Tradicija proti Tiraniji for the future?
As we mentioned at the beginning, we are a fairly new organization. So, our plans include building a strong metapolitical movement and laying the foundations for an identitarian community and a counter-culture within our society, through various activities and actions mentioned in the first answer. We also seek cooperation and contacts with other identitarian nationalist groups across the West. For any additional information we invite the readers to visit http://tradicijaprotitiraniji.org and to feel free to contact us through our contact form. Thank you for your interest, and for this opportunity.

1 COMMENT

  1. Mooie serie. Goed om te horen dat er een Europese beweging ontstaat die het chauvinisme ontstegen is!

Comments are closed.