Lessons from Europe Regarding Political Earthquakes

Spain’s Right-wing populist Vox party, which began polling at over 20% only five years after its foundation.

3,126 words

The 2004 Spanish general elections, held three days after the Madrid train bombings, only gave the main anti-immigration party 0.1% of the votes. And that was a long-standing record! However, votes are not always a good instrument to measure the support that ideas enjoy among the population, since the System uses several tricks to falsify the popular will.

The most obvious of them is that people only vote for parties they know, and the media mute the ones they have no stake in (assuming that the law in that country allows them to become a legal political party in the first place). And when they cannot ignore them anymore, they tend not to interview them; instead, they call in pseudo-specialists who have no other task than to denigrate them and “instruct” us on what the leaders and voters of that party supposedly say or think. That is why there can never be a change of system without developing our own media.

Another dirty trick, a fundamental one, is the two-party system. The reason why the United States has lagged behind other countries in terms of identitarian presence in its institutions is with most certainly not because of a lower level of support among the people, but because of the particularities of its electoral system.

Like the US, Spain was for a long time a two-party country, and this always delays the transference of the political awakening from society towards the institutions.

The two-party system — which rests on the two pillars of the Establishment, the government and the approved “opposition” — is the first target to be overthrown by any identity movement, because it provokes mental inertia among the masses and a pernicious tendency towards so-called “tactical voting,” or voting for a bad option just because it is apparently the “less bad” of the two. This never solves anything; it only guarantees the Establishment’s gradual success in pushing the Overton window in the direction they desire. G. K. Chesterton was right when he said that the business of conservatives is to prevent progressives’ mistakes from being corrected. People need to understand that no victory is possible without first eradicating conservatism — along with its losing strategy — from the political arena.

Supporting a lesser evil not only means nevertheless supporting an evil, but it also channels the efforts of the genuine opposition into a strategy that has already proven to be a total failure, and which only manages to prevent the acceleration of events that is required to provoke a popular awakening and the creation of a fierce and effective resistance.

It is not possible to win without breaking the duopoly of these two systemic paws of the false Left/Right confrontation. We must have our own infrastructure. We cannot leave the role of opposition in the hands of others; we must be the opposition ourselves.

It is not a question of being the Right wing of the Republican Party and leaving as orphans the defenders of a traditional pro-white Left (as the Democratic Party used to be until the middle of the last century) , but of uniting pro-whites in a transversal movement which will appeal both to the white working class, who are the first to suffer the consequences of the migrant invasion, and to the morally traditional factions, which are today associated with the Right.

One of the factors that has contributed to the delay in breaking the two-party system in the United States is that its electoral lists are open, something that does not happen in other white countries such as Spain, Italy, New Zealand, Iceland, and so on.

Having closed lists means that there is no possibility of standing as a party candidate without the approval of the person who heads the electoral list. In other words, it is the leader who decides who can run as candidates on the party lists and in what order. Candidates cannot be voted for individually by the people. It would therefore be absolutely unthinkable that someone like Dr. David Duke, for example, could run for either of the two major parties. Here in Spain, the closed lists make it virtually impossible to enter politics other than through the creation of a third party. We simply had no choice.

In the United States, thanks to the open lists, it might make some sense to run as a Democratic or Republican candidate at the local level; but at the national level, it favors things to remain as they are.

No reason for despair

Frustration in the past seemed understandable, considering that the white countries were and are being filled with aliens while the institutions are still governed by the same dogs with different collars. Nevertheless, frustration is unfounded because, as often happens, in a few years the political situation of a country can shift in such a way that it becomes unrecognizable from the point of view of the present.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.

Despite the apparent political immobility, the fact is that, since Jörg Haider’s party managed to enter the Austrian government in 2000 and Jean-Marie Le Pen made it into the second round of the French presidential elections in 2002, the following ten years witnessed the entry of other anti-invasion parties in almost all the parliaments of European countries.

The System’s usual dirty tricks have proved unable to stop the advance of history. The common European scheme of demanding that any party must obtain a minimum of 5% of the vote to have parliamentary representation, which prevents new parties unrelated to the Establishment from making any headway in the institutions, has ultimately failed.

The two-round system, instituted in France as a way of closing the door to the National Front as it grew, did not prevent it from winning the most votes in many French departments, and the same can be said about the concept of tactical voting in general in many other countries. This technique has gotten to the point that today in some cases the two Establishment parties are beginning to be harmed by it, as new philo-identity parties have been able to surpass them. Overcoming these obstacles has already granted us considerable legislative power.

Likewise, the banning of parties such as the Vlaams Blok — at a time when it represented 24.2% of the Flemish population — was also of little use to the Establishment, and it was quickly replaced by a similar party.

It is true that the System parties, from the Right to the most extreme Left, tend to unite as a gang when it comes to preventing the anti-invasion parties from governing, so it is difficult for the latter to gain access to government unless they obtain an absolute majority. But even these rigged rules of the game are beginning to be ineffective. In France, Marine Le Pen has already exceeded 41% of the vote, maintaining a clear upward trend over time. And in Hungary, Victor Orbán won 54% in this year’s election, alongside the success of other Hungarian parties even more pro-identity than his own.

All these obstacles only delay the inevitable, but they can never permanently stem the tide of identity politics. That is why a good portion of our enemies consider that their best strategy is to speed up the replacement of the white population to head off its rise before that happens. But even if they were successful, white creativity may find new solutions, such as regrouping through politically-motivated migration to selected territories and eventually winning their independence.

Spain, which until very recently was one of the rare exceptions among European states in that it did not have a populist party in Parliament, now has one: Vox. It burst onto the scene in 2019, becoming the third-largest party, and has not stopped growing in the polls since then, and is already rivaling the two largest parties.

An undisputed two-party system has ruled Spain since shortly after the death of General Francisco Franco. But it is not even relevant which third party put an end to it. In the end it was not the identitarians who broke it, but rather a Communist party called Podemos (following a “historical autonomy” strategy, by the way), with a message focused on fighting corruption, which many apolitical people voted for as a way to punish the two System parties.

Then, in the midst of the Catalan independence challenge, a centrist and centralist party called Ciudadanos emerged and began to steal votes from Podemos, which caused the latter to abandon its aspirations of conquering the centrist electorate and instead reinvent itself as a purely misandric party, with the usual degenerate Cultural Marxism as its flag. This presence of the Communists in the institutions has in turn generated strong popular opposition, and this is how Vox, the first populist party with parliamentary representation since the end of the Spanish Transition in 1982, has appeared.

Thus, after decades when it seemed that the two-party system could never be broken, in just a five-year period no less than three parties have appeared that put the two classic ruling parties in check.

This does not, of course, mean that Vox is going to be the definitive party that will free Spain from the invasion it is suffering, any more than Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National in its current form is going to save France. Before these parties can save anyone, they will have a lot of radicalizing to do, or else they will end up being superseded by other, more racially explicit parties. One simply cannot be moderate when our survival depends on taking bold and resolute action. In such historical times, the center always gets gobbled up. In the last elections, Marine Le Pen was almost overtaken in the polls at some points in the campaign by Éric Zemmour’s newly-formed Reconquête party, which used a message that was tougher than hers. They introduced into the political debate new concepts such as “remigration,” which unexpectedly received a very wide welcome among the French population.

Despite these parties’ limitations, they are useful in breaking taboos, radicalizing the centrist electorate, and helping public opinion to move in the right direction in quite a few fields. They also serve as a school to train experienced cadres for the electoral scene.

How to get out of a two-party system

All of this therefore teaches us a few lessons about how to provoke a political earthquake in a country to overturn its institutions and replace System officials with pro-white activists. In the long run, that means getting rid of the two-party system. But how?

Abandoning the “tactical vote” and false conservative delusions

The vicious circle of the “tactical vote” is only broken when the population is persuaded that voting for either of the two major parties is pointless because they are two sides of the same coin; they only confront each other on issues that are not important, and agree on all the rest. It is necessary to understand that voting for the conservatives is even counterproductive, because the destination toward which they lead us is the same as that of the progressives; conservatives just drive there slower. Between the two there is only a difference in speed, but not in direction. The slower speed, far from being an advantage, only means rendering the dangers of white genocide and Cultural Marxism less visible, giving people time to get used to it and to internalize the media brainwashing.

Conservatism prevents us from winning because no one can win by being permanently on the defensive, which is the nature of the conservative. That is why they always fail to conserve anything. We have in fact reached a point of decadence where conserving what we currently have is absolutely undesirable and unacceptable. Salvation can only come from a revolutionary attitude. This does not mean violence, but rather politically going on the offensive. It also means not trying to conserve anything, but rather changing the present to achieve something much better in the future.

There is no point in fearing the conservatives’ weakening. The creation of a third party that would take away a large part of the conservatives’ electoral base could easily cause them to be unable to win any more elections. This is good insofar as it promotes their replacement by the new, more vivacious and dynamic parties. No doubt, the conservatives will then try to copy the discourse of these newer parties, and part of their policies, just as how the classical Right in France has tried in several elections to replicate part of Le Pen’s program in order to steal part of her electorate. Of course, once the conservatives won, everything remained mere words and did not materialize in concrete measures. That deception may work with the most naïve on one or two occasions, but in the long run, it has been proven that the electorate ends up preferring the original rather than the copy. And in the meantime, all the conservatives will have accomplished is to help further popularize our views at the expense of their own in exchange for some short-term gains.

Taking advantage of our enemies’ growth

We also should not fear the rise of our most direct enemies. Moreover, it is well known that the growth of an extreme group — especially when the repercussions are as disastrous as those brought about by Cultural Marxism and globalism — is something that fuels the growth of a vigorous resistance in the opposite direction, thus fostering the rise of the opposite extreme (in this case, the racial nationalists).

The presence of a strong and violent far Left strengthens us at the same time that it weakens the immobilists of the center, which is absolutely necessary, since we already know that immobility in the power structure in our current situation means the suppression and death of our race.

This is a common rule in history. In just a few years, Germany went from the Red Terror and the chaotic Weimar Republic — which wasn’t very different from the present state of affairs — to the Third Reich. Or, in other words the NSDAP went from 2.6% of the vote in 1928 to 44% only five years later. The following year, they had more than 90%. Who could have predicted such a change in such a short time?

Of course, we will not fall into the simplistic error of considering National Socialism in this case as having been a mere reaction against Communism, with no life of its own and no doctrine other than its negation, as the historian and philosopher Ernst Nolte suggested. But it is evident that the existence of the Communist danger was what pushed many to support the emerging National Socialist movement as the only force that could stop its barbarian enemies.

Moreover, another thing that history has shown is that the growth and success of enemies often motivates the silent majority to stop being silent.

Collecting the protest vote

Those who understand that there is no meaningful difference between Left and Right today are the wedge — or bridgehead — that allows a new party to enter the political arena and the parliamentary spectrum.

One of the main reasons, if not the most important, why people start voting for a third party in its first stage is as a protest vote, a way of punishing the current political caste, thus showing their rejection in a more visible way than if they voted blank or null, even if they do not strictly agree with the principles of the party they are voting for. Punishment voters may not be reliable, but they can be decisive for a party to obtain a sufficiently relevant percentage to make itself visible to the average elector and encourage others to vote for it.

Fighting with full confidence in the future

The example of a new populist and identity-based party’s emergence shows us that, when the breeding ground is ideal, the most unthinkable becomes possible, and that the political situation, which may seem solidly consolidated, can radically change within a few years – sometimes more so than what had occurred within the preceding decades. In barely five years, Vox has surpassed 20% in the polls, a milestone that the French National Front took more than four decades to achieve.

Society is changing by leaps and bounds, so there is no room for pessimism or despair among those who hope that one day there will be a regime change.

Taking advantage of the domino effect

After decades where anyone who expressed a preference for the local white population was demonized as a “bogeyman,” the fact that such a party triumphs somewhere is enough for ordinary people to see that the outcome is not as “terrible” as what they had been told would happen. When this occurs, the people lose their fear and the enemy loses his credibility, and the new movement begins a rapid expansion throughout the white countries.

That is what happened in Austria, when Haider managed to enter the government. Immediately, the European Union and the so-called international community imposed sanctions to punish the Austrians for expressing their popular will in favor of a candidate who was disapproved by the global Orwellian System in force.

It is inevitable that the labels “racist” or “Nazi” will eventually lose their power as well due to the universal superficiality with which they are applied, as well as the growing disregard that such words represent for based people.

What began in Austria with the populist parties will also happen with the emergence of openly White Nationalist parties. If White Nationalism succeeds in a single country, things will escalate, and it will rapidly spread among the other states of the white world.

It is time to get involved and ensure that false dissent does not take the place of our movement in an increasingly near future.

One last piece of advice

Note that the boundaries between populist and racial nationalist factions are somewhat blurred on the European continent and often coexist within the same party because of the gag laws that prevent us from speaking freely about the racial question from a pro-white point of view, or even elaborating official statistics broken down by race.

This is why it is so important that, in countries where this message is legal, you take advantage of that opportunity while it lasts. Don’t be afraid to use that freedom, because there are few countries where whites are lucky enough to be able to do so without being prosecuted on charges of “racial hatred” without having committed any crime other than speaking out against white genocide.

On the other hand, the United States, which already has a population that is 40% non-white, already has more than enough of the necessary breeding ground to welcome an overtly racial message. Don’t forget that America is ready for white identity politics!

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

• First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
• Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
• Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments. 
• Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:

Paywall Gift Subscriptions

If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:

• your payment
• the recipient’s name
• the recipient’s email address
• your name
• your email address

To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.