Far Right Holds Secret Congress in Hungary

Nick Thorpe, BBC News, October 6, 2014

The atmosphere beneath the arches of Budapest South railway station was reminiscent of a 1980s, communist-era protest meeting rather than a far-right European get-together banned by the Hungarian government as a “racist conference”.

Older men with wispy beards, young men in black shirts sporting crew cuts, secret policemen in the shadows, uniformed policemen, and a small huddle of journalists, all wondering what was going to happen next.

In true dissident style, small groups peeled away one by one to the secret meeting place nearby.

But the world has changed.

This was meant to be the European Congress of the National Policy Institute (NPI), based in the US state of Montana, a nationalist think-tank which billed the Budapest event as a “forum in which groups and individuals throughout Europe . . . can come together to compare notes, discuss ideas, and perhaps prepare the ground for collective action”.

Despite his nationalist reputation, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban ordered Saturday evening’s event to be banned as “an attempt to breathe new life into Nazi and . . . fascist ideology”.

Even Hungarian far-right party Jobbik, which won over 20% in April’s general election, stayed away. Jobbik’s rhetoric has softened this year, as it tries to court both conservative and former Socialist voters. Local elections take place next weekend.

In a traditional Hungarian restaurant just around the corner, about 70 participants from a dozen countries gathered around long tables laden with meat and wine.

The atmosphere was tense.

NPI President Richard Spencer was taken away by police the previous evening from a Budapest bar. He had initially evaded a ban on the eight planned speakers entering the country by arriving by train from Vienna.

Earlier in the week his colleague, William Regnery, was arrested on arrival at Budapest airport from London. After a night in detention, he was expelled the following morning.

Standing ovation

Jared Taylor, head of American Renaissance, a webzine which champions “racial difference”, gave the main after-dinner speech. He congratulated those present for the commitment they had shown for reaching the meeting “despite the threats that we have received, despite the oppression”.

He called for “a world brotherhood of Europeans”, of white people around the world, who regard Europe as their motherland, who should defend themselves from the “dilution” which immigration was causing in the European race.

“And the greatest threat to Europe is this poisonous ideology of diversity that my country wants to force upon you,” he added.

“Men of Europe, my brothers, stand together and we will prevail,” he concluded, his voice cracking with emotion. He was rewarded with a standing ovation.

The participants came from many countries of Europe, as well as the United States. Many were supporters of the “identitarian” movement, popular among radical right-wing circles in Europe.

“Identitarian means to stand up for your own identity, against globalisation, against liberalism, and against multiculturalism,” said Jens Derycke of the Flemish NSV student movement in Belgium.

“I don’t think we have anything in common with National Socialism. That was a modernist ideology of the 1930s based on racial supremacy, whereas we don’t consider ourselves superior to other races. We just want to defend our own culture.”

Sitting at the same table, Robert from the Netherlands, a campaigner for an independent Flemish state, also dismissed the neo-Nazi label: “Today there are new, different dangers in Europe.”

There were several dividing lines between participants. Much of the debate focused on Russia, and the figure of President Vladimir Putin. There is admiration in nationalist circles in Eastern and Western Europe for Mr Putin as a Russian nationalist and strongman, who has made his people proud to be Russian again.

The lead speaker at the Budapest congress was due to be Alexander Dugin, a Russian nationalist thinker who has championed the annexation of Crimea and Russian intervention in Ukraine.

He stayed away after allegedly being warned through police channels that he would not be allowed to enter Hungary.

Originally billed as a speaker, Jobbik MP Marton Gyongyosi told the BBC he had pulled out because of other commitments, and because he disagreed with the views of the US hosts.

America was another point of contention.

While Jared Taylor lambasted his own country as “a monstrous mix”, allowing its whites to be outnumbered by Hispanic and black people, another speaker, Tomislav Sunic from Croatia, praised the United States for bringing the bloodshed in Bosnia to an end in 1995.

All participants opposed widespread immigration, but some insisted on white supremacy, which others rejected.

Apart from the waitresses rushing between the tables, I counted only four women present at a very male gathering.

Beneath a display of traditional painted plates from rural Hungary, a young man with a guitar sang from a booklet of nationalist songs from across Europe, printed in Gothic script.

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • SolStans

    I am shocked at the relative balance to this article, and from BBC, no less. Is this Nick Thorpe “family”?

    • JohnEngelman

      Labeling the meeting as “far right” was an effort to prejudice the reader against the gathering. When I think of far right, I think of Adolf Hitler or Ayn Rand.

      • B.A_2014

        Ayn Rand?

        Was she not more a classical liberal or a libertarian as they are now known. I have never read any of her works. I hear the fountainhead is pretty good.

        • Julius Caesar

          Libertardians are a joke, in my opinion. They are “extremist” (Understand that I’m using that ironically) in their own way.

          • Sick of it

            Some are extreme multiculturalists, others are extreme anarchists. None want to do what needs to be done in order to save civilization.

        • JohnEngelman

          Ayn Rand is a reactionary who wanted to restore the economic status quo of the nineteenth century.

          • B.A_2014

            Not the goose stepping, jack boot wearing Germans that come to mind when I hear the word FAR RIGHT!

        • baldridge999

          Rand was an economic determinist who said racial loyalty is “the lowest form of collectivism.”

          • Cobbett

            Unless you were referring to Israel, that is.

      • WR_the_realist

        Today if you are against illegal immigration and mass immigration that is enough, all by itself, enough to make you “far right”. I believe that makes you far right even though you voted for Obama.

        • JohnEngelman

          I guess it depends on who is doing the labeling. As far as some people are concerned, agreeing with Charles Murray and Philippe Rushton makes me one third of a Nazi death camp guard.

          • baldridge999

            No, to an anti-white you’d be the equivalent of a Nazi death camp guard.

      • Bantu_Education

        It seems that there is a huge empty void on the right side of the political spectrum. There seems to be only “Far Right” (i.e., Nazis) and that is it.
        Its like a clock which has all its numbers from 1 to 6 and then jumps to No 12. Not sure thats the best analogy but I think you get my drift. So called “conservatives” like David Cameron (and possibly Mitt Romney) are just slightly to the right of socialist parties and certainly a long way to the left of where the centre used to be.

        • JohnEngelman

          During the 1960’s is was fun to be a liberal. The problems seemed easy to solve, if only the conservatives would get out of the way.

          Racial inequality could be solved by ending racial discrimination. Poverty could be solved by giving the poor money. The War in Vietnam could be solved by withdrawing.

          I continue to believe that the War in Vietnam was tragically futile. Unfortunately, racial inequality and poverty are caused genetically. They can be alleviated, but only at great economic and social costs.

          • Bantu_Education

            “I continue to believe that the War in Vietnam was tragically futile.”

            If it had been fought “no holds barred” like WW2 it would have been won, although at what gain to the US I’m not sure. In the event it was a victory for Thailand, which would have been the next domino to fall had S.Vietnam, etc., gone communist say in 1963 when the US began to get seriously involved in defending the South. Had the US not fought so hard to stop it the communist expansion would have continued throughout SE Asia – Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, etc., may all have gone.

            Every war “fought” by the West since Vietnam, including those by Israel, has been lost (or certainly not won decisively) because the media has helped our enemies by eliciting tear-jerking sympathy for “civilian” deaths. If we had fought WW2 that way Hitler would never have been defeated.

            The phoney “War on Terror” should be what the Muslims claim it is but luckily for them it is not, i.e., a war on islam.

          • Franklin_Ryckaert

            That is the “domino theory” that has not been proven right by the facts. The Vietcong were nationalists who happened to be communists. They were as little interested in spreading the gospel of communism to the world as was Tito’s Yugoslavia. Eventually they embraced the market economy and are now happily trading with America. The war was entirely for nothing.

            Allied bombing of civilians during WW II was a crime and entirely unnecessary. The German army surrendered because of military defeat, and not because the civilian population urged them to do so.

            As for the phoney war on terror, if it would be real it could only be won by special actions and not by attacking whole countries.

          • Bantu_Education

            As far as the 3 countries of Indo-China are concerned the domino theory WAS confirmed as Laos and Cambodia both fell very soon after the US pulled out. Whether Thailand and the other SE Asian countries I mentioned would have gone communist we will of course never know, but they were ripe to be plucked in the 1960’s when their economies were very weak.

          • JohnEngelman

            If the War in Vietnam had been won, what would have been “won?”

            In his memoirs President Eisenhower estimated that as many as eighty percent of the Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh. It is difficult to fight for democracy when one is fighting against a man who could have won a fair election by a blowout.

            The War in Vietnam was an expensive losing conflict fought with a tough, resourceful enemy, in which the rewards of victory and the penalties of defeat were imperceptible.

            France did not have enemy villages. South Vietnam did.

          • propagandaoftruth

            At one point the French were negotiating with Ho. Pointed out to him how they were killing 10 of his for every one of theirs they lost.

            He responded that at that rate his side would win.

            Those were about the figures for the conflict, 60,000 for us, 600,000 them.

          • JohnEngelman

            Confucius lived during a war lord period between two dynasties when China was divided by competing war lords.

            One time a war lord came to Confucius and asked, “Master, how can I conquer the province next to mine?”

            Confucius answered, “If you govern your province well, the people in the next province will fight to join you.”

            The vast majority of the Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh. The Geneva Agreement of 1954 scheduled an election to be held under international supervision in July 1956. Ngo Dinh Diem refused to allow the election to be held in South Vietnam, knowing he would lose.

            If Ho Chi Minh had been a better, and a more clever man, he would have allowed the election to be held in the North anyway. He would have invited journalists from all over the world to report on it so they could verify that it was fair.

            President Eisenhower estimated that as many as eighty percent of the Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh. It must have been ninety percent in North Vietnam. With that kind of support Ho could have allowed a loyal opposition. He could have allowed a free press. He could have subsidized both if they were short of funds.

            Meanwhile, Ho Chi Minh could have drawn international attention to the dictatorship in South Vietnam. He could have drawn attention to the South Vietnamese migrating to the North.

            This would have been embarrassing for the United States during the Cold War. It also would have been embarrassing for the dictators of the Soviet Union, Communist China, and North Korea. People would ask why they did not hold fair elections in their countries.

            Unfortunately, Ho Chi Minh did not follow Confucius’ advice. At least two million Vietnamese were killed in a war that could have been avoided.

          • propagandaoftruth

            Unfortunately, Ho Chi Minh did not follow Confucius’ advice. At least two million Vietnamese were killed in a war that could have been avoided.
            ———————-
            Sure, but…
            I ain’t messing with them ever again.

        • baldridge999

          When do you ever hear the media refer to anyone as “far-left?”

  • Frank_DeScushin

    Far right = People with common sense

  • DaveMed

    They castigate us for holding “secret” meetings, but their own impositions and pressures are what make such discretion necessary.

    • Dead accurate, and yet your words are considerably more genteel than the ones which come to my mind…

  • Lewis33

    Here in the US many NPR stations go to BBC radio after midnight, has anyone else ever had the joy of listening to these? Race story, poor African story, girl got her feelings hurt story, and then back to another race story. All gibberish.

  • newscomments70

    I love it, it’s free publicity. Without such articles, the meeting may have faded into obscurity.

  • FloridaGal2005

    British Bolshevik Communications is hardly the source to get information as to whether a group is Far Right or not. It is filled to the brim with people left of Mao.

  • LHathaway

    If this was balanced I’d hate to see a negative article.

  • cherrie greenbaum123

    “monstrous mix”! I love it!

  • jayvbellis

    Very fair BBC article. In these fallen times it’s nice to find surprisingly honest examples of Brit honesty.

  • Article fairer than most, but of course “white supremacy” is a loaded phrase. If you are Chinese, Mexican or Nigerian you can praise your people to the sky. If white, you are being a scary “supremacist”!

    • Giovanni704

      This is the rhetorical bomb that always gets thrown in. Anyone on the right (but not quite on the racial right) who reads this will shudder and move on to Fox News or ESPN.

      • Well said. And of course if we try to integrate ourselves with others, we are still ‘supremacist’ just because of our ‘white privilege.’ If we try to separate ourselves and live all by our lonesome where we can’t hurt anyone just by being white, ‘separatists’ are also automatically considered ‘supremacists.’ So our existence is the big problem, except for our tax dollars, First World standard of living, First World infrastructure, First World inventions, etc, etc.

        • LHathaway

          “So our existence is the big problem, except for our tax dollars, First World standard of living, First World infrastructure, First World inventions, etc, etc”.

          All things they seem set to take from you on the road to making the world a better place with the final item on their agenda your existence.

          • Yes, and most have no appreciation for the long-term consequences of what they are doing. For example, once Whites are gone from South Africa, it will turn into another starving Zimbabwe. All that gets lost in the rush to divide up the last of the White honeypot.

          • Franklin_Ryckaert

            Well, you have intelligent parasites and stupid parasites. African parasites are of the latter sort.

          • Giovanni704

            And White parasites are of the former sort. They too are greedily dividing up the last of the White honeypot while many of their White brethren suffer the consequences of diversity.

        • Giovanni704

          tma,_sierrahill, this is well-said too. Is that your own analysis or did you read it somewhere? The idea that Whites are supremacists no matter what they do, either through privilege and separation.

          • Giovanni704, thanks, I don’t specifically remember reading it put that way, but I’m sure many others have made that point. You are so right, they won’t even allow us to go away, unless stripped of all possessions and dead. Guess that’s what the ‘Rainbow Nation’ means, there being no white in a rainbow.

    • Sloppo

      True. A real “white supremacist” would want whites to rule over other races. About 99% of the time, so-called “white supremacists” are only people who want the right to live separately from other racial/cultural groups.

      • Well put. Yes, most Whites who want to separate are intelligent enough to know that trying to go back to some sort of colonialism would mean nothing but endless grief and strife and eventually our own destruction, as we see today.

        • Bantu_Education

          Its always ignored that most so-called “colonialism” was not colonialism at all. Aside from S.Africa and Rhodesia and, to a lesser extent the Portuguese colonies, there was no attempt to colonise or replace the indigenous people. That also applies to all the Asian “colonies”, India, Indo-China, Hong Kong, Singapore, you name it. Only the Spanish and Portuguese really engaged in “colonialism” on a large scale in what is today known as “Latin America”.

      • baldridge999

        Its actually more simple than that. Any white person who says anything positive about whites or opposes the eradication of white people in their own countries is automatically denounced as “white supremacist”, “racist”, “hater”, “bigot” or a nazi-who-wants-to-kill-six-million-jews.

    • baldridge999

      If Africa was being flooded with non-blacks and these non-blacks were given affirmative action, special rights, free health care and being force integrated until black people were predicted to become a minority in Africa and when blacks complained would they call them black supremacists?

      • Sloppo

        Good question. I hope you don’t mind if I ask that question to other people in other places.

    • Those are nationalities/ethnic groups. They aren’t individual races. I doubt the media would be so outraged if people demonstrated German pride, Irish Pride, Dutch pride, Russian pride, Greek pride, etc. Then again, I could be wrong.

  • Viking_61

    You guys can thank the European Jewish Congress, B’nai B’rith, the probably the ADL for this government intervention. Hungary and Greece were on the list of rogue “no guilt” states for the Jews. Of course nobody will say anything about this.

    • Viktor Orban is part of World Jewry?

      Jobbik, who denied the conference like Peter did Christ, is part of World Jewry?

      • Julius Caesar

        I’d be extra careful when referencing the Chosen ones on here. I had all of my comments deleted that even mentioned them offhand.

      • Franklin_Ryckaert

        Machinations behind the scenes.

        • anony

          Most politicians are Front Men for some “outfit”. As usual, they’ve been bought.

        • anony

          “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” — A letter written by Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Colonel House, November 21, l933

  • baldridge999

    The media and the usual anti-white cretins and brainwashed boobs are always outraged when white people speak against their own genocide.

    • Franklin_Ryckaert

      Well, “abolishing the White race” is the highest moral duty (as per Noel Ignatiev) so if Whites reject that it must be out of pure wickedness.

      • LHathaway

        There was a time it was understood we were all wicked. Then the anthropologists and sociologists taught us that only white men are evil. Everyone else is a more pure being only doing what is right and best.

  • Julius Caesar

    Hey AmRen Mods, I’d just like to know if the irony of deleting my comments is lost on you.

    • Stiv44

      I had a comment deleted too. I thought it was rather mild and didn’t mention ‘those who shall not be named’.

      • Julius Caesar

        I had about 5 or 6 deleted, and then when I told someone else who mentioned “those who shall not be named” to be careful about mentioning them…THAT was deleted too.