A new nationalist wind is blowing through eastern and central Europe, and our ideas are moving in with that wind! The now confirmed results from the Austrian election show that the moderately hard-right FPO (Austrian Freedom Party) came second with a score of 27.4%, pushing the outgoing Socialist Party, SPÖ, into third place with 26.7%. The conservative ÖVP party, led by 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz won the poll with 31.4% of the votes.
The Austrian political system requires the establishment of coalition governments to introduce some sort of partial proportionality into governance. Sebastian Kurz must now make a choice. To ally with the rising FPÖ although labelled of being a far right party due to its views regarding illegal migration, or to ally with the outgoing socialists constantly falling in the polls, following their mismanagement of the migratory crisis, but also as a result of a recent ‘dirty tricks’ scandal.
Just two weeks ago, the press revealed the SPÖ’s direct involvement in a massive Facebook ‘fake news’ scandal, with anti-Kurz groups accusing him of being supported by George Soros, and another accusing him of anti-Semitism or of racism. An Israeli elections professional hired by the Socialist SPÖ, Tal Silberstein (above), has been exposed as responsible. Tal Silberstein has counted among his clients, as an advisor in election strategy, personalities like Benjamin Netanyahu, Bill Clinton, Gerhard Schröder and the Hungarian Socialist Péter Medgyessy.
Sebastian Kurz seems to want to ally with the FPÖ, in a context of reaction to two years of mismanagement of the migratory crisis and tensions around the questions of Islam. Kurz has already changed the position of the ÖVP, giving it a more muscular discourse on Islam and immigration. In this sense, his alliance with the FPÖ seems logical and is expected. Even if the absolutely final confirmed vote were to show the Socialists sneaking second place, it is likely that the FPO will become the junior coalition partner.
If it does, it is likely to push for better relations with Russia and for closer ties with the anti-Brussels Visegrad4 Group of Hungary, Poland, Czechia and Slovakia. In the debates between Sebastian Kurz and FPÖ leader Hanz-Christian Strache, the main point seemed to be to prove who had the better relationship with Orbán.
Particularly if the European Union over-react to the result and an ÖVP/ FPÖ coalition, it is clearly possible that Austria could be forced away from the Brussels orbit and end up in the camp of the Visegrad “anti-Brussels”.
The FPO was in a coalition government between 2000 and 2005, while led by Jorg Haider. The experience damaged the party electorally and in the end seemed to make no appreciable difference to Austria, which has continued to be hit by the usual liberal Establishment ‘Great Replacement’ policies.
Similarly, the measures proposed during the election by both parties are in themselves wholly inadequate. The idea that halting mass migration, expelling a few thousand criminal migrants and shutting down some radical mosques can in any way turn around the twin demographic catastrophe of a below-replacement native birth-rate and a sky-high migrant Muslim on is, sadly, the politics of the Tooth Fairy. However, it is a start, and this looks likely to be the most radical shift from liberalism to something approaching ethno-nationalism so far.
Likewise, geopolitically, a move by Austria from the liberal West European camp and into the Central/East European Visegrad block would be hugely significant. And it makes sense, as the map of the existing Visegrad block makes clear, and also given Austria’s old and very close historic links with Hungary.
And there is more: Some 60% of Austrians just voted for parties genuinely opposed to mass immigration and openly talking about both sovereignty, survival and the threat of Islamisation. That is hugely different to election results across most of Western Europe, and particularly from neighbouring Germany, which recently re-elected Angela Merkel despite her central role in the bogus ‘refugee’ invasion.
So even though the proposed policies of the likely new coalition are totally incapable of turning the situation around, the public will to do so seems to be building up in Austria, and the new government is likely to be at least partly sympathetic to a further toughening of position.
Encouraging huge numbers of migrants to return to their lands of ethnic origin and embarking on a hugely-funded urgent programme to encourage the locals to breed their own replacements is an almost impossibly hard sell, but if the Austrians want to survive, as opposed to protest, it’s what they would have to do.
If an ÖVP/ FPÖ coalition is formed, there will also be an interesting historical/ideological significance which sets Austria very much apart from the suicidal mentality of the West: The hardline origins of the FPÖ are well known, and our acquaintance with a number of its lawmakers and functionaries tells us that – despite public kow-towing to the Zionist lobby – those roots are not entirely forgotten.
Less well known, however, is the fact that the ÖVP is now firmly in the tradition of the ‘Catholic Austrofascism’ of Austria’s pre-war leader Englebert Dollfuss. Faced with the threat of both Communism and Nazism, Dolffuss banned all other parties and ran Austria as a one-party state, under the banner of the Christian Social Party.
His mixture of Catholic corporatism and anti-secularism was closely modelled on the Mussolini regime in neighbouring Italy. Indeed, when Dolfuss was assassinated during a pro-Nazi coup attempt, Mussolini came close to declaring war on Hitler’s Germany.
Thus the ÖVP comes from a tradition of hard-line Austrian nationalism and anti-liberalism (and it contains an increasingly radical strand of nationalism today), while the FPÖ has its origins in the pan-German nationalism which was also always a significant strand of Austrian political thought. If there is any possibility of turning around the demographic and immigration crisis in Austria, it must surely therefore lie in a coalition between these two parties.
This, together with the uncommonly ‘awake’ position of a large majority of the electorate, and the vicinity of Hungary and its alternative block to the Brussels Suicide Pact, makes this election hugely significant.
If the new government does what ‘conservative’ regimes normally do – which is to break their anti-immigration promises as soon as they are elected – then the rot will go on and Austria, like Germany, will run out of time.
But if the right coalition is formed, and if it rejects Brussels pressure and immediately begins to introduce effective measures to reverse the problems that worry its voters, and if this process then develops momentum, then Vienna may once again be a city whose name rings throughout Europe as the place that – with the help of Eastern Europe – successfully resists the otherwise deadly combination of Islamist aggression and Western elite treason (not just today with Brussels and its Eurabia fantasies, Louis XIV supplied the Turks with the advanced cannons that helped their siege of Vienna).
What we see taking shape in Austria is not a radical nationalist state, but it is a government susceptible to – and to some extent at least not unsympathetic to – radical nationalist ideas, while the tide of events may well also push it down a more radical road. This would make it part of a historically vital trend – on show from Belarus to Switzerland, whereby the nations of central Europe are moving at an increasingly rapid pace away from the orbit of Brussels and Washington, and gravitating instead to a new position, in which identity, tradition and the survival of Christianity and celebration of its values are crucial.
At such a time, it is more important than ever that the Alliance for Peace and Freedom continues and steps up its role as an ideological vanguard and political pole of attraction for full-blooded revolutionary nationalism. Our ideas are on the march, and this is only the beginning!
