Interview with Márton Békés: How to defeat liberalism?

Why is the main question today—from the USA to Germany, from Serbia to Hungary—whether we can achieve the fullness of our national sovereignty and the complete authority of popular sovereignty, or if we must surrender it to a faceless globalist elite?

Since 2010, Hungary has seen the rise of a new right-wing hegemony that has challenged the earlier post-communist liberal hegemony, which governed Hungary between 1990 and 2010. This has been our “long march.” Naturally, the work is not finished, but it can never truly be complete: we must fight on the cultural front, primarily because we are now in the midst of a cultural war—a Kulturkampf waged by the globalist elite against the heritage and cohesion of our nations, says Dr. Marton Bekesh, a historian and political scientist, in an interview for our portal. From 2009 to 2014, Bekesh worked as a broadcast editor and from 2010 to 2014 edited a young conservative website. Since 2014, he has served as Research Director at the House of Terror Museum, and since 2019 as Director of the think tank “21st Century Institute.” Since 2018, he has been the editor-in-chief of the national-conservative quarterly Commentary. His most recent books include Gerillaháború (2017, Guerrilla War), Fordul a szél (2019, The Wind Turns), Kulturális hadviselés (2020, Cultural Warfare), Nemzeti blokk (2022, National Bloc), and Konzervatív forradalom (2023, Conservative Revolution).

Dr. Bekesh, your latest book is titled National Bloc: The System of National Cooperation. What do you mean by this term, and what does the “national bloc” consist of?

“National Bloc” was published in Hungary two months before the last national elections in April 2022. The following year, in November 2023, a German edition was released by the Jungeuropa publishing house in Dresden. Both the Hungarian edition and the German translation were highly successful, with the translation being read by Björn Höcke, leader of Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Thuringia. The title reflects my vision for achieving hegemonic power in both political and cultural domains simultaneously. In Hungary, the so-called System of National Cooperation was established in 2010 and remains in place nearly 15 years later. Such a regime cannot function without a historical mission, ideological hegemony, political dominance, and a superior vision. Viktor Orbán has been Prime Minister since late May 2010, making him the longest-serving leader in Hungarian history. This is not a coincidence or anomaly; it is a norm rather than an exception. The socio-cultural field of this system, which I call the National Bloc, serves as a dual foundation of hegemony—it both represents and leads simultaneously.

In your book, you discuss social divides. What are the dominant lines of social division today?

In Europe and the United States, I believe the primary social, cultural, and political divide lies between globalist-individualist entities and local-collectivist entities. The former are visible in mainstream media, within the operations of the “cultural-industrial complex,” and in the behavior of the global elite. The latter can be found in populist-nationalist movements, right-wing working-class voters, and the cultural self-defense of normal, everyday families. The main question today—from the USA to Germany, from Serbia to Hungary—is whether we can achieve the fullness of our national sovereignty and the complete authority of popular sovereignty, or if we must surrender it to a faceless globalist elite. This is the external challenge for the national movement, but there is also an internal one. I refer to local forces that serve as auxiliaries to the globalist elite, such as NGOs funded by Soros networks, media outlets supported by NED and USAID, leftist-progressive parties, and metropolitan-cosmopolitan intellectuals, among others.

Essentially, you believe that liberalism is the main enemy today. Am I right?

Yes, that’s the same question, so I’ll continue where I left off! There is a clear frontline between democracy and liberalism. You see, one can be a good democrat without being a liberal, and one can be a good liberal without thinking democratically. It must be added that true democracy can only be envisioned within the boundaries of a nation-state and in the space of a culturally homogeneous people—this was the shared vision of national democracy as proposed by Rousseau and Carl Schmitt. I believe we need functional national institutions, including a majoritarian parliament, an effective executive authority, state media that support national interests, a strong national identity, secure borders, healthy families—these are the adversaries of modern Western liberalism. This liberalism is not the same as 19th-century European liberalism; instead, it serves as the ideology of a globalist-technocratic elite. As Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, a great conservative-revolutionary thinker, wrote in 1922: an Liberalismus gehen die Völker zugrunde—”nations perish because of liberalism.” Liberalism is the common enemy of all nations worldwide. As you can see, I am a national-populist democrat who believes in ethnopluralism.

We mentioned hegemony. Why is it important for today’s right to study the work of Antonio Gramsci?

The study of Gramsci by the right has been a major political-philosophical project of Alain de Benoist since 1968. Over half a century ago, the French New Right (Nouvelle Droite) developed the concept of “metapolitics.” This is a long-term cultural effort aimed at achieving power. The formula is simple: first, win the battle of ideas, and only then engage in the political struggle. The cultural field is far more important than the economic structure—this was the primary innovation of Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist thinker, socialist theorist, and communist party leader. From his imprisonment in 1928 until his death in 1937, Gramsci wrote 33 prison notebooks—nearly 3,000 pages—partly reflecting on the failed revolution in the West after World War I. I believe he died as an idealist, not a materialist, because he wrote about the dialectic between the material base and the cultural superstructure, ultimately prioritizing the latter. As Gramsci wrote, there is another way to seize power beyond revolution or a Leninist coup d’état: it is through long-term cultural struggle. Intellectual and cultural conquest has its own tools, such as newspapers, books, publishing houses, schools, and so on. To conduct politics through culture—this is the most precise definition of Gramscian “metapolitics.”

So, the question arises: what should this new hegemony represent, and through which channels can it be established?

Every society has its dominant social, cultural, and political power. However, two methods must be distinguished—this is also Gramscian thought: commanding through force represents pure “power,” but leading people through culture (ideas, ideology, loyalty, tradition) constitutes hegemony, otherwise known as “rule.” As you can see, hegemony is a consensual agreement on a national level, developed through the government, the ruling party, and its intellectuals. Establishing hegemony is a daily task, primarily an ideological effort to win the loyalty of the vast majority of society. A new hegemony can be organized through the apparatus of broadly interpreted cultural institutions—not only those Gramsci identified in his time but also newer ones (films, social networks, podcasts, video content).

So, you advocate for integration from the right?

We must support methods that integrate our nations: strengthening identity, affirming normal family life, bolstering cultural heritage, and creating stronger national cohesion. Since culture is the foundation of a nation’s life, we must introduce a new concept of “cultural sovereignty.” I believe that by constitutional force, we must ensure the elements of our own culture (ethnic composition, traditional family, language, national identity, religion) because these are the ultimate sources of the state and the vital lifeblood of the nation. The so-called “color revolutions” were about “velvet coups d’état” in sovereign states, but now we face a “postmodern coup d’état” that operates from below and acts through culture. If a nation’s “cultural sovereignty” disappears, the sovereignty of the state will eventually fall as well.

However, liberalism cannot be defeated solely in Hungary. So, what does all this mean for Hungary’s foreign policy orientation?

Hungary has historically been situated between the East and the West, and between the northern and southern sides of Europe. For over a thousand years, we have played the role of a Central European bridge. Currently, we are all facing global changes, a planetary crisis, as the “liberal international order” collapses and a new world order is emerging. This will be a multipolar world order based on large spaces with distinct civilizations (what Carl Schmitt called Großraumordnung). In such a major transition, a country like Hungary must establish connections with as many states as possible and maintain good relations with its neighbors. The Hungarian government has many friends worldwide, and Viktor Orbán enjoys the support of numerous states—these are important allies.

What is Serbia’s role for Hungary?

I am a great friend of the Serbian people, I respect Serbia, and I value Serbs as a nation of saints and warriors, much like my own. I admire the concept of Svetosavlje and appreciate the Vidovdan ethics. I think Serbia and Serbian culture are wonderful, and I truly enjoy Serbian cuisine. Long ago, I traveled from Belgrade to Kosovska Mitrovica and from Banja Luka to Niš—it was a beautiful time to visit Serbian lands. Serbs and Hungarians are alike in many respects: we are Christians living in the heart of Europe, we are proud European nations, we have compatriots living beyond our borders, we are theocratic states that do not want illegal migrants living in our countries, and we respect one another. In these turbulent times, strong nations like ours need strong neighbors, such as we are. Hungarian-Serbian relations are the best guarantee for mutual prosperity in our region.