Isabel Peralta was interviewed this week by the Spanish newspaper El Independiente.
Below we present video extracts from that interview, with English subtitles provided by Isabel’s comrades at Heritage and Destiny.
An English translation of the full interview text follows and is available in Spanish at the website at the website of El Independiente.
Question: What role can your organisation aim to play in the current context, in which right-wing groups and parties are booming?
Answer: Many people accuse us of being agitators, of seeking merely to sow chaos in society, to generate hatred. I truly believe that today those telling the truth are persecuted, the value of truth is denied even in an era supposedly dedicated to objective science, telling the truth is criminalised – even truths immanent in human nature itself, truths once accepted as absolute values. I believe that our political doctrine is simply the voice of reason, based on nature. So, I think our role is to be a contrast to the political forces trying to destroy justice, truth and nature. That I think is our role today.
Q: What is your organisation’s position in relation to other parties: for example, how do you see Vox?
A: We start from the basis that Vox is a ‘democratic’ party, fully adapted to and built on the precepts of Spain’s 1978 Constitution, and therefore completely contrary to us, for several reasons. Those who adhere to the current parliamentary system have to accept principles incompatible with our political doctrine and with the vision we propose for the organisation of society. That is what we would call a system party that, regardless of whether it has good intentions, such as Vox’s political program, at first glance, I understand that… controlling immigration is not a negative thing and many people may even consider it positive.
However, the moment you come up against the legal system – the Civil Code – you realise you can’t simply strip someone’s nationality. You come up against Article 14 of the Spanish Constitution, you realise that a person who has obtained a Spanish ID card and barely speaks our language is considered exactly the same as you, who are Spanish, you whose parents and grandparents were Spanish: you who are Spanish by right of blood. So, what does Vox do about these kinds of problems, this constitutional inviolability? They ‘respect’ the constitution.
Therefore, their policy, their political project, is left dead in the water.
The measures that Vox proposes in the field of immigration are, in practice, unfeasible. Parties that accept this system cannot really solve the problems they denounce. In our view, they are only a parody of the ideas that would ultimately seek to restore a different order to the present one.
Q: But if you are not part of a political project, how can you participate in advancing your ideas within today’s society?
A: It’s been less than a century since the world began those forms of political organisation we know today – seventy-five or seventy-six years, more or less – and in that time the human psyche, especially the mass psyche, has completely changed. People think that revolutionary change is not possible today. People think it impossible to depart from ‘democratic’ values: that the majority has internalised such values. It is assumed that the system is as it is, that the status quo cannot be changed. But I don’t share that vision. I believe that, when the time comes, it will be possible to return to different, more organic political forms, and we understand that we must act in that direction.
Q: But to implement such a project wouldn’t you have to impose it by force? Isn’t that the only way?
A: Hitler won an election. But in present circumstances we can’t even start down that road. In my case, for example, I am presently prohibited by law from standing as a candidate. In addition, there are constitutional limits that would prevent us from accessing power through this route. That method was successfully employed once and for that reason wouldn’t be allowed to be repeated.
Even so, I do not consider it necessary to resort to violence in the general sense. I do not understand it as something wholly negative, but as an inherent element of human nature. The problem is not in the violence itself, but in its implementation. Violence can be a useful impulse of self-organisation. If, for example, one day you do not want to get out of bed and an inner force prompts you to do it against your will, that is already a form of tension between internal forces: an internal violence. And, as Heraclitus said, that contrast is what organises and moves the world.
Q: But by recognising that violence is part of human nature, are you not legitimising the use of violence by others against you and your ideas?
A: Yes. And in fact, if someone uses violence against me, in the same way that today it’s used collectively against the Spanish people, I consider self-defence legitimate. It’s clear that there is violence against us; it is already happening. We are the only ideology for which it is tolerated that, even in parliament, a minister openly says that the ‘nazis’ must be killed or that violence against fascism is lawful. No one would imagine a politician saying ‘death to Peruvians’ or ‘attack Peruvians,’ but it is accepted when talking about the ‘nazis’. The very concept of anti-fascism implies violence against us, and we fully recognise that. We know that this violence exists and we accept it as a real and constant threat.
Q: It is now 50 years since Franco’s death. How is Franco perceived within your organisation?
A: Personally, I believe Franco must be studied objectively. He’s no longer treated like most historical/political figures; I don’t think talking about Franco is the same as talking about, for example, Gen. Miguel Primo de Rivera. Franco has become one of the most reviled figures in our modern history.
Now, regardless of the fact that I disagree ideologically with Franco in many areas, and with the doctrine that was ultimately implemented during the Franco regime, especially after the technocrats’ movement and the expulsion of the old guard from the state apparatus, I believe he was a politician who performed his duties efficiently, who was useful to society, and we should take all of this into account, not just the version that today is presented about Francoism, but really how he rebuilt the country, how he managed certain achievements – that is, look at him objectively. Because you can’t demonise Franco’s Spain for killing who knows how many, or who knows how many thousands of bodies in ditches, and accept that this is the only acceptable version of Franco’s story.
So, objectively, I consider Franco a very effective politician, although, I repeat, ideologically I’m not in alignment with him and his doctrine isn’t what I would regard as healthy in the broader sense.
Q: Does Franco’s route to power seem a practical possibility for you?
A: No, that doesn’t seem at all realistic in today’s circumstances, and not a method that has intrinsic merits from my point of view.
Q: But if circumstances were to change?
A: If the Spanish people demanded such a solution, then it would become likely. But the problem here is that most of the people in our society are passive in their daily lives. Even if it disturbs them, even if it makes them angry when they see on the news that a 14-year-old girl has been raped by a Maghrebi immigrant, or that immigrants are benefiting from Spaniards’ tax payments. Perhaps momentarily they can become angry enough to do something as brave as posting on Twitter, or even at the very most they might attend a protest demonstration, but then they return home, watch a Netflix movie, and the next day they have forgotten everything.
Q: You realise that not everyone thinks like you. Not even in your closest circles, where some will have similar views, others will think very differently. How would you deal with those who think very differently, who see immigration as a positive development for the country, who see immigrants as enriching the country?
A: As I have previously explained, fascism is widely assumed to mean that we are those who have to use violence and who have to impose our way of thinking on others, but really today this isn’t so. It’s the opposite. No one from any other part of the ideological spectrum will be kicked out of work for their political thinking.
I believe that those who today are persecuted and censored are us. It’s we who have our social media accounts closed systematically. It’s we who have problems at work, or as students, or with family. And I’m not some skinhead stereotype. I don’t get myself kicked out of work for vandalising the soda machine because Coca-Cola is Jewish. That is, I am a reasonable person: and yet it is purely due to our ‘thought crime’ that our opponents take this stance.
Q: But if my world-view understands that it is preferable, good and valuable to admit people of other races, considering it to be good for the country, why should your vision prevail over mine?
A: My view maintains an order, which a Christian could attribute to God, while a non-Christian might perhaps simply attribute it to nature. My view maintains that peoples exist, that a differentiation of human races exists, and that the world is structured around these values of identity and idiosyncrasy. So, I’m really trying to preserve that. The opposing idea involves destroying natural order, and therefore is a harmful idea.
We are racist, but for us racism is like a communist believing in communism or a liberal believing in liberalism; it is our belief in races. We start from that base. And to believe in races we have to affirm their existence and want to preserve them. He who defends a doctrine that seeks mixture of races, really what he is doing is going against his blood and not only his blood, but going against the natural organising principle of the world.
Q: What if I tell you I simply don’t believe in God?
A: Neither do I. I’m speaking about nature. I’m talking about there being a natural order and that one has to preserve it.
Q: An anthropologist could give you another version of human nature. But hey, so as not to get entangled in this, that’s where the motto of blood and soil comes in?
A: Of course. Today they apply a right of ‘ius soli’, meaning that within two years someone from certain territories of South America (and also Sephardic Jews) can acquire Spanish nationality; and refugees (in practice tending mainly to be from the Arab world) within five years. But it’s ten years for an Italian, who genetically does not have a difference with us, meaning that in terms of behavioural an educational level, there is also no essential difference, but he has to wait ten years to acquire Spanish nationality.
Once he acquires nationality an immigrant has exactly the same rights as someone of Spanish blood. And we aren’t yet seeing the scope of this problem today. Our idea is almost prophetic because people don’t yet see the problem, they think only of how well we are providing a new opportunity to a Syrian refugee who is fleeing the worst of barbarities. The future will be that when such people have nationality, they have children who born with that nationality, and they conquer us: they will vote, for example, and they will decide on Spain’s national destiny based on interests that will absolutely never be the same as ours.
Q: What good are such racial ideas to some young man who comes to your headquarters?
A: Usually, when someone comes to us here it’s simply because they are worried that in their neighbourhood it’s no longer safe to walk the streets at certain times; or because they perceive that immigration is producing serious conflict in somewhere like Vallecas; or that their own grandmother is unable to live her life without disturbance. They don’t have to study or understand anything about races or genetics to understand and see that the mixing of races and the so-called multicultural world is a problem. There’s no need to study for them to perceive this.
Q: Does that help push certain youth groups towards violence against immigrants?
A: In Núcleo Nacional I know of no such case, not a single legal complaint of violence against migrants, nor against antifa. It is like the subject of ‘supremacism’, it is a certain negative notion raised around our ideas and that presents an archetype completely contrary to what we really are or think or say.
Violence against immigrants, beating up immigrants, hunting down immigrants, perhaps in the 1990s was an issue. Not today. And if within the framework of this organisation we learn that some elements are dedicated to such migrant-hunting, evidently those types of elements would be expelled from the group, because it’s not what we defend. We do not want immigration, but we do not argue that a Moroccan man who wakes up at 6 a.m. to attend to his greengrocers’ shop and who doesn’t rest until midnight is intrinsically bad, or deserves a beating. We want them to leave the country because we believe they are destroying our identity.
Q: What did you think about what happened this summer in Murcia?
A: That was good and beneficial, because I repeat again, in those cases they deserved it. When I went to Torre-Pacheco, the first thing I noticed was that the shop fronts and business signs were written in Arabic.
I started investigating census data of how many migrants lived in the town. I think it reached – I don’t remember exactly, but I believe it was around 38% –and I immediately came across the crime rates, the crime statistics in Torre-Pacheco. I spoke with people, we interviewed people on the street, and they all agreed on the same thing: that immigration was a source of very serious problems.
Q: Many of those immigrants who are there working are present because Spanish businessmen hire them to carry out jobs that they need to support themselves and their families.
A: This is one of the main economic mistakes of our century: trying to replace technological advancement, which should be researched and promoted, with cheap labour. Cheap labour that, in the long run, actually harms the national interest.
Q: What do you think of current German politics with the rise of far-right parties?
A: They’re charades, not ‘far-right’ parties. Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the only party in Germany with a formal Jewish clique within its own organisation. These are parties that arise from the system’s need to limit people’s ability to vote for a viable solution.
There has been a significant increase in support for German parties that are indeed analogous to Núcleo Nacional, but in Germany, obviously, they face far more legal restrictions than in our country. And this, naturally, has led to the creation of these kinds of democratic solutions that give a voice to this political trend, moving towards what is labelled the far right, which isn’t far-right at all.
But in order to prevent the growth of truly independent parties and groups seeking a non-democratic solution, other groups and parties that will do absolutely nothing are created, funded, promoted, and propagated. Look at Giorgia Meloni, for example: she is the Italian politician who has brought most immigration to the country since World War II. When people see the statistics, they say it has decreased, but no, illegal immigration decreased, but legal immigration has increased!
Q: What do you think of figures such as Alvise Pérez?
A: It’s very topical, but really he’s best defined as someone who sells out his country. He is a man whose initial outlook seemed genuine, independent, even altruistic, but Alvise is now driven by his salary – whether as an MEP, or as president of his party SALF, and whatever he earns through social networks and other forms of financing.
Q: What do the guys who come to the NN headquarters think of such people: Alvise, Meloni, the German ‘far right’?
A: They have no faith in them. Many of them have enough political insight to understand the corruption that money brings and to see, moreover, how on certain occasions ‘leaders’ have preferred to betray decent political doctrines, selling themselves for a pittance. For example, in Torre-Pacheco, we saw how – I don’t remember exactly, I think it was Daniel Esteve from Desokupa, another self-proclaimed saviour of the nation, who’s already caused trouble several times at Ferraz, along with Alvise Pérez, discouraging people from attending – he did exactly the same thing in Torre-Pacheco. When the police approached him and advised him that the gathering had to be dispersed, what he did was publicly declare that they hadn’t been allowed in, that he was confronting a hellish situation, and so on and so forth, and that he was going to take a well-deserved week’s vacation. What do people make of this?
The very next day, immediately after this cabal of superheroes disappeared from Torre-Pacheco, I went there myself. No-one prevented me, even though people with 6 million views on social media had announced that it was impossible to get in and that the police weren’t letting anyone in. It was a lie. I got in. If even I can get in, I imagine that any normal person could easily get in, i.e. someone who isn’t politically affiliated with any kind of ‘extreme’ ideas. These are lies they spread, and they achieve a very clear objective.
Q: I understand that you don’t have good relations with such people?
A: Absolutely not. I think their path is very different from ours. I think that, in the end, they do seek to do some kind of politics, yes, to give a voice to certain ideas, but I think it’s too weak and vague. I mean, right now I’d bet my life that none of them would die for their ideas, and I’m serious, if I had the chance, I’d bet it, because I know they won’t.
Q: But you would?
A: Yes, of course.
