In practice, the truly great (worth studying) Italian linguist, journalist, writer and Marxist politician Antonio Francesco Gramsci (Antonio Francesco Gramsci, 1891-1937) was the first to realize, at the beginning of the 20th century, that every political mechanism is strengthened by a civil consensus, the psychological support of the masses. This psychological support is expressed through consensus regarding the level of culture, the prevailing worldview and morals. So, then, political power depends on a cultural force that spreads to the masses. The ruling class exercises and reproduces its power in the developed capitalist states both through state repression and violence, as well as ideologically, that is, through the consent it manages to extract from subordinate social forces.
Based on his analysis, the demonic Gramsci claimed that this was also the key reason why Marxists failed to seize power in bourgeois democracies: They lacked the required cultural power. He precisely argued that it is impossible to overthrow the political apparatus without first changing the control of cultural power, without winning the consent of the people or without changing their ideas, morals, way of thinking, value system, art and his education, that is, without the crucial “cultural transformation” having occurred. Only when people feel the need for change as self-evident will the existing authority begin to crumble and be overthrown. According to this perspective, postpolitics can be seen as a truly revolutionary war at the level of worldviews, ways of thinking and culture.
The development of the idea of ”cultural-ideological hegemony”, by Gramsci, gradually led to the formation of “terrible cultural Marxism” and tyrannical “political correctness”, through the Frankfurt School and the development of Critical Theory. (Critical theory concerns the thorough re-examination of the very foundations of Marxist theory, with the dual aim of explaining the errors of the past and preparing for future action. It includes multi-dimensional interdisciplinary efforts to approach the theory-practice relationship, as well as redefining the purpose of Critical theory aims at re-examining the theoretical assumptions, perceptions and practice of Marxism and points out the timely role of social psychology in bridging the gap between the individual and society).
Certainly, the idea that post-political “cultural transformation” is a basic condition for political transformation also decisively influenced the new Nationalists, who, first in France, at the end of the 60s, within an extremely turbulent social Becoming and with the left now dominated ideologically, they broke with the ideological-political immobility, the intellectual “spastic and impotent paralysis” of the French right, challenged, revised and renewed situations and interpretations of political terms, forming the post-political movement of the European “New Right”.
This movement was an extremely active intellectual movement, which opened new horizons for the European nationalist movement, because of this process of active and widespread questioning, entering areas such as cinema, rock music, comics, fictional literature, but also ecology and local traditions, as essential components of national traditions. Through the publication of a sufficient number of books and magazines, the organization of lectures, debates and conferences, with consistency and seriousness, the New Right movement managed to highlight outstanding intellectuals – personalities with international prestige and recognition, to go beyond the national borders of France and not only , to force the main establishment media to engage with him, but also to set them, often, the content and terms of current affairs discussion.
Such an effort, of course, could not develop within the finite and restrictive frameworks and anchoring seals of a party. On the contrary, the New Right movement was ultimately the one that helped, indirectly or even immediately, in the development of the positions, the evolution and the upgrading of the French “National Front”, of the great fighter Jean-Marie Le Pen, but also of other European political formations.
Identity, ethics and practice
As previously analyzed in detail, metapolitics is concerned with the design and foundation of political change. The intellectual dimension of metapolitics centers around three main issues:
- Identity, that is, who we are and who we are not.
- Ethics, i.e. what are our obligations towards ourselves, our race, our nation, other nations and other races.
- And the practice, that is, what is it that we want to create against the ruins of the decadent and rotting contemporary world and how will we implement it.
The issue of identity concerns, among other things,
- the sustainability,
- cultivation,
- development and promotion of existing national European identities,
- to the major and undermining problem of dysfunctional and disruptive chauvinism,
- at the deepest roots of common European identity, including biological race;
- in European history and prehistory,
- in the concept of collective fate,
- in self-criticism,
- in traditionalism,
- to the problems of reverse colonization,
- of the great replacement of populations and the globalizing non-national neo-imperialism of the Dominators.
In the matter of ethics, the main question that concerns us is whether it is right for one to prefer one’s own people to foreigners or people of the opposite sex, especially since the logic of globalization dictates the opposite. Furthermore, despite the fact that ethno-racial diversity is perfectly legitimate, however, ethno-racial conflicts are inevitable when different groups try to “occupy” the same spaces. As the modern (“eunuchoid” at the mercy of political correctness) European gradually turns into a xenophilic and xenophobic ethno-masochist, they believe that in this way he will practically create a wonderful utopia without national animosities and conflicts. It is precisely this illusion and delusion that must be dispelled, before they lead us all to destruction and annihilation.
So, on the one hand, we must demonstrate that enmity and conflict are inevitable in the process of globalizing homogenization, and on the other hand, we must convince that the durable foundation for the survival of our national communities is the recognition and realization that all peoples have an interest to maintain the principle of national self-determination.
In the practical issue of the struggle for political change is concerned, there are three different levels:
1. First of all, at the first level, there is the fundamental process of changing values, of changing cultural cultivation, (“culture”) and changing worldviews. A process which is clearly a spiritual and evolutionary affair, and can only be achieved through education. Consequently, the supposedly inspired, stereotypical view is a priori at least stupid and unfortunate: “In the nationalist movement we don’t want professors, we want fighters. Three professors and Patrice is gone! ». The careless, superficial and arrogant paraphrasing of the distorted (by purpose or ignorance) speech of the great Bismarck, has been a regulatory rule of the illiteracy of the leaders of the nationalist movement throughout the past fifteen years.
2. Then, at the second level of political struggle, the forming “nationalist counter-culture”, the object of the ruling ethno-destroying regime culture needs to be integrated into a “counter-community”, which lives according to its principles. Not in a virtual community of “cleaners”, nor necessarily in a community of idiosyncratic “leavers”, but in a real, tangible community, even if it exists on a parallel level, but within the existing social structures.
3. At the third and last level only, comes the struggle for the conquest of political power, because the survival and flourishing of our people is a fundamental law for the Nationalists. We must always keep in mind that the history of the world has been written by active organized groups, by “pioneering groups”, but only when they incorporated the will and expectations of the majority into their choices!
Because the pre-eminent means of post-political change is culture and culture is a complex object, multi-layered, mysterious and changeable, consequently the process of cultural change at the social and historical level is extremely difficult, particularly uncertain and dramatically slow. Certainly, in order to present metapolitics to the people as something visible, tangible, feasible and practical and not as a big-mouthed vagueness of an ideological “ghetto”, it is necessary to define, as precisely as possible, its overall framework, quantitatively and temporally, based on the actually existing and the potentially possible.
As metapolitics concerns the struggle for ideological and cultural hegemony, it takes place simultaneously in many fields and at many levels. Obviously, cultural hegemony cannot be achieved “overnight”, but specific autonomous zones must be carved out, shaped and supported, actively and relentlessly, from which the ground will be properly prepared for the cultural challenge of the existing “occupying” situation.
Whether we like it or not, we are in the center, in the “heart” of a total war. The front is everywhere. Our invincible weapons, according to this annihilating clash of cultures, are the idea and the aesthetic, against the frenzied consumerism and the dissolving hedonism of the permeating septic and ethno-destructive ideology of the genocidal “global market”. Our overriding objective is to shape our own, multi-layered and complex, alternative social model, against the variously promoted model of the non-national consumer society. To establish it solidly and flesh it out in detail through our own symbolism and our own rhetoric. To put an end to the mental poisoning and the galloping cultural necrosis, guiding our people towards the idealized change.
