Friday, May 27, 2005

Documentary On Greek Nationalism Reviewed

A Hellenic Nationalist comrade reviews a documentary recently aired on Greek television:

Did you happen to see ERT's "Transit" program on nationalism in Greece and Europe today? I caught it today by accident and sat down to watch the entire thing the program naturally had an anti-nationalist bias -- bringing up Nazism, racism, and showing the "victims" of "far-Right violence" -- it was actually less biased than I would have normally expected from a Greek television program. The program interviewed leaders of Galazia Stratia, Patriotic Alliance, and Hellenic Front as well as far-Leftist politicians and members of "anti Fascist" organizations. According to this program, Golden Dawn has a great presence in the Peloponnesus and specifically in Tripoli and Naufplion, which I thought was quite interesting and something I'd never noticed before. Interestingly enough, the Security Battalions also had their strongest presence in the Peloponnesus.

Anyway, here's the description of the documentary off the website for ERT'S program "

As you can see, nationalism is described as "dangerous" and Golden Dawn as "basically a Nazi prototype". But despite this, nationalist leaders interviewed AT LEAST had a chance to tell the public what nationalism really was and meant. The president of Galazia Stratia, for example, even explained how the so-called "Nazi salute" was, in actuality, an ancient Greek salute that the Romans borrowed from the Greeks (the interviewer seemed dumbfounded, if not outright shocked, by this statement and I can only have imagined how his face looked when he heard it!)and that they (Golden Dawn) aren't about superior and inferior races but rather consider miscegenation as a "mistake", "unnatural", and certainly not something God would want.

The program interviewed 2 or 3 supposed "victims" of Golden Dawn, all but one of which had their faces hidden. The one that didn't was part of some "anti-Fascist" organization. They interviewed another "anti-Fascist" member, this one a leader of such an organization in Tripoli, and also a French Socialist in the Euro-Parliament, the latter of which spoke about Le Pen.

The "Greek" Leftists interviewed kept bringing up Nazism, racism, an implied "police conspiracy" defending Golden Dawn, and discrimination against "sexual preference" rights. (On a side note, when the program began, the narrator spoke about how Hitler was "racist against homosexuals". It goes to show how extremely liberal and Leftist the Greek media has become; mimicking -- even exceeding -- their Western counterparts in the buzzwords they use and the words they twist and misuse.) The alleged Jewish "holocaust" was also brought up. And, of course, not a single victim of far-Leftist terrorism was ever interviewed.

As for the aforementioned "police conspiracy", each "anti-Facsist" member and/or "victim of far-Right brutality" interviewed stated how after they had been allegedly beat, that the police refused to show them their files of Golden Dawn members because it was against the law, even though the police had supposedly shown files containing pictures of Leftist members in various organizations in the past. This is probably all bullshit, of course, but it would be interesting if the police really did try to protect nationalists as much as they could. But this is unlikely. Even the documentary showed a nationalist denouncing (and swearing) at the riot guards as protecting "foreigners who burn the Greek flag". The guy in question was bleeding (one of his hands had been hurt, possibly broken) and it showed a riot guard attacking him a second time. So, obviously, the police in general are not protecting nationalists. But it's possible that small groups around the country prefer to ignore,brush off, or "take their time" on nationalist "crimes" when Leftists report them.

Since several nationalists (including Makis Voridis) had a chance to speak, it showed how nationalism was not intellectually or ideologically barren (even if this was not the goal of the program). The president of Galazia Stratia, when asked if he accepted the "Holocaust" stated that he didn't and that, although he was glad he currently had the freedom to challenge it (unlike other countries), that it would only be a few years until that right was no longer allowed in Greece. I especially like how he made a very sarcastic remark when asked about about how Synaspismos had tried to ban Golden Dawn. I was surprised how this program didn't edit out his commentary about how Synaspismos was a homophile party that supported anyone and anything (i.e. illegal immigrants, anarchists, "Greeks" and foreigners who burn the Greek flag, homosexuals, etc.) that was anti-Greek and anti-national.

Even though most anti-nationalist (and especially anti-Fascist/anti-National Socialist)propaganda tries to brand nationalists/Fascists/National Socialists as nothing more than disillusioned youths, the program made a point that Golden Dawn was compromised of three main age groups: the youth (15-19 years olds or thereabouts, I think), the middle-aged (20-35 year olds, or something like that), and the elderly. When it showed recordings of Golden Dawn demonstrators, you could see 20-30 year-olds and elderly men (50-60 year-old guys) taking part in the rallies. I think, again unintentionally to the program's goals, that this helped legitimize Golden Dawn.

Usually, after a point about something was made by nationalists, the program tried to refute it. Before some questions were asked, various "discrediting facts" were sometimes brought up. Like when the guy was asked about the "Holocaust", it had just shown recordings of Jews with a voiceover talking about how all of Europe (the world?) recognizes the "Holocaust" or something like that. Another example is when the program made it clear how Hellenic Front and Golden Dawn were not at all friendly. Right after that, it tried to link them ideologically by their common denouncement of illegal immigration.

In the end, I think this program actually had unimagined detrimental effects to the Left, even though this was definitely not its goal or expected outcome. Considering how just about every single "anti-Fascist" interviewer spoke about how it was "wrong to be racist against homosexuals", I think that most Greeks watching would be somewhat appalled to hear such things. After all, even though most Greeks are without a doubt Leftists, most of them still harbor very conservative views concerning homosexuality. Seeing nationalists implicitly denounce homosexuality may have even made a few of the Leftist viewers question their loyalties to the Left.

I think that the producers of this documentary took a Western prototype when making it, assuming most viewers were Liberals who believed in "gay rights" and were against conservative values. However, they failed to get the nationalist speakers to say self-damaging things with the result that the speakers seemed intelligent (and indeed were intelligent) --this is in contrast to Western documentaries which always include self-harming, fanatical, and emotionalist statements coming from the mouths of Neo-Nazis.

The program ended with cuts between a Golden Dawn nationalist rally and a far-Left anti-Fascist/anti-Junta/anti-racist rally. If this wasn't coming from the Greek media, and hadn't been supportive of the Left, it would have almost seemed as if the creators of the documentary were trying to say both groups -- as different as they are -- were both extremists in the end.


Blogger Ionios Dorikos said...

Wonderful review. Is there any way to obtain a copy of it here in the US?

6:25 PM  
Blogger Hellenic Nationalist said...

Hey Ionios. Long time, no see. Good to see you again.

I'm glad you liked the review.

I know that New York-based National Greek Television ( broadcasts various stations from Greece on cable, including ERT. Perhaps they have a copy?

7:22 PM  
Blogger Johnny said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7:25 PM  
Blogger Deucalionite said...

Great post Hellenic Nationalist. This proves that the liberal media in Greece is willing to downplay any nationalist sentiment from even intelligent Greeks who only wish to help Greece.

When it comes to demographics, the liberal media will always say that "Greeks are multicultural" or that "more and more Greeks are intermarrying with foreigners." These lies in a way upset the Greek populace. Greek people love to voice their opinions. In fact, the majority want the foreigners in Greece to leave. Go to my blog and click on the link called "Apelasis (Deportation)." It is only in Greek so I apologize to those who can only read in English. Anyway, the website shows yearly statistics of a majority of Greeks wanting foreigners to leave their country.

Does the media show how the majority of Greeks truly feel about "sensitive" subjects like race, ethnos, and immigrants in Greece? No. The Greeks believe that the reason that their country has been so cohesive was because of three things: same blood (omaimon), same language (omoglosson), and same religion (omothriskon). That cohesion is still existant and is currently threatened by the presence of illegal immigrants and foreigners that Greeks feel should leave.

When I hear someone say that Greece is multicultural or multiethnic, I always retort that Greeks are purposely resisting that sort of society from being built in their own country. They do not resist out of racism, but rather out of patriotism. Greeks love their country too much to see "invaded" by foreigners they did not invite. Greece is the home of the Greeks. It is a small country and it should only be populated by Greeks. The Greeks died for their land a thousand times. Why shouldn't they maintain the sovereignty rights of their own homeland? This is no different from when the owner of a home feels agitated when someone he/she did not invite just decides to enter without any consideration for the owner of the home.

Multiculturalism works in the United States because the first people to develop the thirteen colonies were Western European immigrants from various nations. Europe itself cannot foster multiculturalism, because it goes against everything that has defined Europe in the world for millenia.

Europeans possess a mentality that is sensitive to cultural, racial, ethnic, and religious differences. No one can that and no one should change that lest we force people to forsake their identity for beliefs oriented around things like market values and consumerism.

Sorry. I feel as if my ramblings went a little off topic. I just thought it would be a good idea to discuss about things the Greek media in general fails to report.

Anyway, great post adelphe. Keep it up!


P.S. Adelphe, did you check my comment on the post previous to this one? Just wondering. Sto kalo.

7:56 PM  
Blogger Hellenic Nationalist said...


Just let you know, I was not the one to see and review the aforementioned documentary, it was a review that was passed on to me from a comrade. I can, however, comment on the review itself, but I cannot comment on what actually occured, but I trust the judgement of the comrade who did see the documentary and write the review.

Hellenic Nationalism , at this stage in our history, is a radical political position and our strugle is not a comfortable debate, it is a battle for the hearts and minds of our beloved nation which has been under an anti-Nationalist occupation since the leftist-counter coup of 1974. Consequently the anti-Nationalist forces have embedded themselvs , with the support of foreign interests, and have come the establishment, and have continued a perpetual stranglehold on the government, military, education and by extension mass media and mass culture to this day. The characters who usurped control in 1944 have played a game of musical chairs , which they like to call parliamentary procedure, with the nation only experiencing a fleeting moment of liberation under the noble leadership of the bold Aprilist Revolution of 1967.

That said, it is understood , that the masses have been taught to despise us, despise their own nation and accept the spoon-fed versions of history regurgitated by the ruling order. myths like the Polytechnic University "massacre", for instance, have become a part of "official" history. Villians , such as the mass murderer Aki V elochiotis , have become "heroes"

The European continent, with few exceptions, prior to the Second World War was a sea of Fascism, National Socialism and Authoritarianism. The Third Reich, once vanquished by overwhelming enemy firepower, become a tragedy for Germany and Europe--and some would say a victory for Jews/Israel. Many people suffered, many Greeks suffered , many Jews , momentarily suffered. Soon afterwards the Western Democracies consolidated their absolute rule, by various victor's courts etc etc. , by martial law, by censorship, one should not forget that Nationalism was not voted out of office in Germany. It was a democracy that was imposed and parties were outlawed for a long time. Anyway, the whole issue of discredited symbols from that era are based on interpretations by "court historians"

In post-Aprilist, and post- metaxas Greece, hisotry has become co-opted by a ruling order that is bound to the greater Western democratic ruling order. Since we , as Nationalists , are not in the establishment we must adopt a revolutionary mindset , and even look towards successful Revolutionaries who successfully struggled for power against the democratic mantra, this means we cannot rule out learning from the methods of marxists , for instance. Some marxist analysis, particularly Marx's analysis The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon where he offers his first and original conception of materialist history "Hegel remarks somewhere[*] that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce" Basically he is saying that the ruling order uses history as a tool, the tragedy of the Second World War in our times and under the Western democratic order, has become a farce called "the Holocaust" which now trys to justify ignoble conditions imposed on us by the ruling order. As Revolutionaries , following this formula , we must try to deoncstruct this official history and put it into perspective. At first glance the miserable mass man is shocked when some version of history is revealed as a farce.

This type of method is not reserved for Marxists operating in 19th Century France. In the first half of the twentieth century polite German society was suprised by the coarseness of National Socialism and advisers told their leader to tone down their rhetoric , so as to keep the polite middle class. His response was they will come to us when we take over, they are conservatives anyway and would not be wih us regardless, or something to that effect. In any case, this type of daring took his once miserable party of seven members to the lead of many popular elections, along with other daring and sometimes violent brashness.

Le Pen , on several occassion , has publicly questioned "the Holocaust" in various ways,in France, where such questioning is outlawed, yet his brashness is rewarded by beating out the tired old leftist parties in several elections.

my point in this incomplete rsponse, is that politness and the meek round about ways of attorneys and comfortable men of the establishment is not the formula for a revolutionary movement with goals of challenging an oppresive ruling order.

10:31 PM  
Blogger Hellenic Nationalist said...


Multiculturalism CAN work in Western Europe because they were societies that managed empires of many different cultures and ethncities. France , for example, is a mixing pot of every race of man, so is england. if you draw a line around London , you will not be able to cut London off from pakistan and Bengaldesh. And Paris is not disconnected from Alegria, it owes its prominence in the world on the rape and colonisation of Algeria, much like England owes its prominence to a more or less immense degree to raping India. We can say the same of Brussels and the Congo , or of Holland and the South Pacific. We cannot say this of Greece. Greece was a victim of imperialism and was and IS colonized. Therein lies a major difference in the historical narrative of Greece and of Western Europe. Historically , we have more, much more , in common with Libya than we do with France. Multiculturalism ,"the Holocaust" and other such malakies are just more of the same imperialism imposed on us by the Franks (i.e. the EU and America)

I will look into that link in more detail. About your previous post, I am still examining it and digesting it, it's a lot of info to look into.

Thanks for all your encouragement.

10:42 PM  
Blogger Deucalionite said...

Right. Completely forgot about the multicultural empires of Europe. Yet, there are still differences between the "multiculturalism" of Europe and true multiculturalism developed in the United States.

In general, one should not compare the U.S. to Europe even if both show signs of multiculturalism in their histories. The multiculturalism of the United States was created as a result of people fleeing away from the empires of Europe. Even though colonies from European empires were built, the people living in the New World always wanted to be free from imperialist forces and influences (much like the Puritans who were persecuted for their religious beliefs).

In contrast, the "multiculturalism" of Europe was (and to some extent still is) based on imperialism and exploitation of foreigners deemed as "savages" in European imperialist narratives.

It is true that both the French and British Empires managed different peoples from different parts of the world. However, their narratives were based on the discrimination of non-English or non-French peoples.

However, from a different point of view, (if one were to read Edward Said's book about post-colonialism entitled "Culture and Imperialism") the anti-indigenous narratives generated by both the British and French empires belied the multiethnic and multicultural aspects of the territories within the metropolis (heartland of an empire) and the periphery (outside territories within the sphere of influence of an empire) of the empires.

In other words, intermarriages occurred on many levels within the territories of the British and French empires.

Yet, there are many instances where intermarriages between colonizers and colonized was unthinkable. Take for instance, Cyprus. The Greeks of Cyprus never intermarried with the British who first colonized the island in the 19th century. The Greeks perceived the British as no different from the Ottomans (in terms of the British placing another imperialist yoke over the island).
The social mentality of the Greeks of Cyprus was always oriented around pure resilience against empires (both stoic and revolutionary). This resilience began when the Catholic empires of Western Europe began colonizing the island. From then on, Greek-Cypriots learned to persevere and retain their racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural heritage in order to survive.

During the Age of Empires, you could see a trend of severe dissonance between colonizers and the colonized. Now that the British and French Empires have lost their colonies, they are now, as modern nations, living their lives as "ghost empires." A ghost empire (wonder if anyone coined this term) is an empire that has lost its direct influence upon the territories that make up its periphery, but the connection between a colonizer and the colonized is still existant.

Of course, there are instances where intermarriages between colonizers and the colonized occurred. Keep in mind that these instances are directed towards the British and French empires ("global empires") as opposed to, let's say, the Ottoman Empire. The reason why there were no intermarriages between peoples in the Ottoman Empire (except Turks taking innocent Christian children and turning them into Jannisaries and hence "Turks" as perceived by other Greeks), was because of the millet system, which segregated peoples based on religion. The different ethnicities in Haimos (Balkans is the Turkish word for "mountains") segregated themselves within the millet system and preserved their identities in order to prevent the Turks from completely assimilating them.

I would love to go into greater detail. However, I think I have written enough.

Later adelphe.

12:10 PM  
Blogger Hellenic Nationalist said...


The American Republic , for the first one hundred years of its existence , had it's southern states as its comprable empire. Until the 1960s , the United States was based on a legal system of "white supremacy" the raw material exports of cotton and tobacco from the 15th Century on through the 1860s was, as everyone already knows, harvested by black slaves who took no part whatsoever in the administration of the republic and until the 20th Century miscegenation was outlawed by stiff penalties, so conditions were almost exactly simiar to those of France and england, the difference being that england colonized faraway India, where it practised its "white Supremacy" and the American Republic practiced this within its borders. I'm glad you brough up Said's book, I think that is where i originally got my idea of drawing a line around London and Paris and so on.

You said: "In contrast, the "multiculturalism" of Europe was (and to some extent still is) based on imperialism and exploitation of foreigners deemed as "savages" in European imperialist narratives."

And how is this any different from the early American expansion into the West , and it conquest of savage American Indians? In fact, in the American case it was even more absolute since the native population was not only exploitated for its labor , it was worked to death and eventually Holocausted.

Look up some of Mark Twain's anti-imperialist writing regarding the American conquest of the Philipines in the 19th Century, to get some more correlative examples of American imperialism , mirroring that of England and France. The difference was that England and France did not import non-white slaves , by the boatloads, into their own territory as well. That didn't happen until after the Second World War. Thus , becoming exactly like America, post-imperial , but not really. Definitely post-modern and ripe for "multiculturalism' one and the same.

As for Cypriots not marrying English colonizers. It's intesting if we study post-Imperial England and "post-nationalist"( is there usch a word ?) Cyprus and the rate of intermarriage. This could be an odd example but the former Cyprus head of state Glafkos Clerides was/is married to a British national of Indian extraction. Ironic, isn't it?

I'm being called away...

Later bro,

5:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home