Wednesday, December 3, 2014


Philip Selznick's classic book, The Organizational Weapon: A Study of Bolshevik Strategy and Tactics (1952) has been republished this year, and I can't think of a better book for nationalists to buy and read. I've read the book about four times.

Some of the best books on communism are written by non-communists. J. Edgar Hoover's Masters of Deceit (1958) is surprisingly good. Another more recent book, which looks at communism in practice (in an era communists would like to forget) is Victor Sebestyen's 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire (2009). In general, the non-communist authors give the reader a better idea of communist practice, of strategy and tactics, than the works of Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, Stalin and their followers. The standard communist practice of infiltrating trade unions and other groups with a view to taking them over isn't mentioned, except obliquely, in the communist canon; neither is the other practice, the setting of 'front groups' (dummy organisations) usually organised by communists but often with non-communist figure heads ('dupes' or 'fellow travellers') to give them an aura of respectability. (The US-based ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) gives an example of one such front group). Communist theorists tend to leave those subjects off the table and prefer to train their activists in these arts off-camera, so to speak. The likes of Selznick and Hoover are under no such constraints.

Even though Selznick's book was written sixty years ago, it, and communism, still remain relevant. In fact, they are more relevant than ever. The election of a gay, dope-smoking Marxist negro to the White House - twice - shows this; so does Ferguson, where trained communist agitators worked in concert with the Marxist Obama administration and a pliant, left-liberal 'progressive' US media to bring about a race riot. (On that note, the exacerbation of racial divisions, with a view to inducing violence and riots, is a time-honoured American communist tactic. Yockey writes, in Imperium in 1948: 'Bolshevism and Culture-distortion did not miss the potentialities of the Negro for purposes of inner disintegration and race war... Trials of Negroes for felony in the Southern states are made the object of wide-spread and intense Communist propaganda along the old lines of “equality” and “tolerance.” The Communist party supplies counsel to Negroes accused of crime'). The control of the Democrat Party by the Marxist wing (and the consequent ouster of the old, trade-union and social democratic wing from the party leadership) is the fruit of decades of communist labour. Communist activists worked to infiltrate the party and pervert it and twist it to their purposes. This - the communist perversion of an institution such as a party or a trade union or student group and the directing it away from the purposes for which it was originally founded - is one of the themes of Selznick's book.

Selznick gives us the chance to 'know thy enemy'; he also allows us to 'know thyself'. I must confess that, when I read the book, it's as though I see myself in a mirror. He does mention, at several points, fascism and Nazism, and details the similarities between the two creeds - fascism and communism. People who don't see those similarities are not thinking properly - they are making an intellectual error which consists of examining what communism says and not what it does and by concentrating too much on communist theory and not enough on communist practice. It's true that, on quite a few points, the communists will differ from the fascists quite dramatically - i.e., they will nationalise everything once in power whereas the fascists won't; on the whole, however, if we are to look at how the two ideologies go about things, we will see similarities.

Firstly, let's look at communist objectives. According to Selznick (from a review by Herbert Blumer ),

The objective of the communists, Selznick shows, is not so much to indoctrinate the masses of people with an ideology, or to seize control of the Government in traditional revolutionary style, but instead to seek conquest of the strategic functioning units in a society—groups such as labor unions, veteran organizations, youth groups, the unemployed, indeed any group which offers a base for expanding operations. Thus, the effort of communists becomes primarily one of seeking initial toeholds in groups and institutions which will offer in turn means of moving progressively to greater conquests of power until the control of the social apparatus of a society is secured.

To secure 'power', the communists don't need to win elections. The conservative Rush Limbaugh made this point regarding Obama:

The sooner people figure it out... I can't fathom not understanding it six years in, but clearly people still don't get it or don't want to admit it. But it's time to get with the program and understand exactly what we're dealing with here, and it's unique. It's not the standard, "He's just the latest Democrat president. The Republicans are in opposition." This is far more involved than just that.

We've got the Democrat Party has become radicalized. They're not just the usual bunch of corrupt thieves and thugs that they've always been. There is a radical, radical, liberal element in the Democrat Party which doesn't need to win elections in order to implement what they believe throughout the strata of this country. That's the purpose of community organizations like ACORN.

They don't need to win elections in order to corrupt the institutions they don't like. Obama, he doesn't need to win. Okay, so he lost the election. Big whoop! That isn't gonna stop him from doing what he wants; it's not gonna stop his fellow community organizers or his fellow liberals. I mean, they'll take election victories, yeah, hubba hubba, but they do not get stymied when they lose them.

The traditional old hat -- the typical union, corrupt-thug, Harry Reid/Pelosi wing of the Democrats-- yeah. Now, they get upset when they lose, and there's hell to pay when they lose. 'Cause they do everything they do legislatively. Now, they work with the new liberal wing, the community organizer wing like Obama. They work with 'em. Occupy Wall Street.

But Occupy Wall Street and the militant environmentalist wacko movement and the pro-choice wackos, they are gonna continue to be organizing and causing friction and doing whatever the hell they can do to upset things, whether they win or lose. This is what I don't think is understood, widely understood by a lot of otherwise really smart Republicans.

It's an astute piece of analysis on Limbaugh's part. The communist (or the Nazi) has to ask himself the hypothetical question: given that we are unlikely to win a democratic election under these present circumstances (which are unfavourable to us), how do we 'get power'? State power is out of reach. But there are sources, or focal points, of power, and this is where the communists (and the fascists) direct their energies. One can get to the masses, not through an appeal to the 'average joe' or 'average voter', but through mass organisations and groups. This is how power is attained (Blumer again):

The mass is conceived not as an amorphous and diffused aggregate but as consisting of specialized groups and organizations which are favorably located and which are or may be sources of power. Such groups and institutions become the targets for the power seeking efforts of the communists.  

So if you grab hold of the trade unions, the student groups, the police force, the churches, the army, women's groups, you will, in effect, multiply the power of your organisation over society. In fact, if you have seized hold of these institutions and these sectors of society (women, religious people, trade unionists, youth), you then get to determine the political. You can declare that such-and-such an election result didn't reflect the 'will of the people' and was thereby 'undemocratic'; you can then demand that it be revoked, cancelled, and your party - whether it be fascist or communist - be given power, or at least a seat at the table. So much power (in effect) has been accumulated by this point that state power becomes almost an afterthought. That is, your fascist or communist party de facto runs the country already - through its control of the unions, the churches, the universities - that state power (as possessed by the liberal democratic parties) almost becomes superfluous.

This is a big ask, for any group of any persuasion - it's impossible to control all the students, all the churches, all the trade unions. No communist or fascist party has managed to do that, at least before the seizure of state power (after that, all the trade unions, churches, student groups can be brought under state control). So the tactic becomes one of inserting a fraction in each social grouping. Either the fascists and communists infiltrate their own operatives into existing trade union and church, student, youth, groups, or they create their own from scratch. The idea is to get footings, toeholds... Which is why the NSDAP, for example, created a number of organisations - the SA and SS, the Hitlerjugend (for youth), the National Socialist women's groups, the NSBOs (National Socialist Factory Cell Organisation) and others. These groups - which are mass groups and extra-parliamentary, that is, political while being at the same time outside the purview of the state - serve a dual function. Before the seizure of state power, they serve as an alternative to the state, a state (as it were) within the state and thereby a challenge to the state; after the seizure, they become compulsory - youth are forced to enrol in the Hitlerjugend, the trade unions are forced to amalgamate into the DAF (German Labour Front). New highly politicised state institutions are formed to replace the old, e.g., the Gestapo, formed by Goering in 1933 - a political police. This process is what occurred in Italy in 1922 and Germany in 1933, and in the Eastern European states after 1945 - and elsewhere where a communist party has won state power.

To bring about this form of state (which Selznick identifies as 'totalitarian'), one needs a special type of organisation, one Selznick calls the 'combat party'. Here is Blumer again:

The foundation for this line of effort is the formation of the communist party—a "combat party" consisting of an elite of reliable agents who are thoroughly indoctrinated, skillfully trained and rigidly disciplined. The integrity of the combat party is developed and preserved by the psychological insulation of its members and by the rigid prohibition of internal disputes over aims or objectives. This gives a reliable and tightly-knit membership which may be mobilized, manipulated, deployed and directed as needed by the policy and strategy of the directing leadership...

The combat party is the instrument employed to utilize and direct for party ends the potential energy resident in the mass of people.

Selznick spends a great deal of time detailing the characteristics of the combat party. The essential thing is that all the communist factions - Stalinist, Trotskyite, Maoist, Hoxhaite, Brezhnevite, what have you - rely upon the combat party, that the communist party is built upon the combat party; the same goes for the historical fascist parties, the NSDAP, the Italian PNF and others. That's clear enough from the historical record.

Now, once you accept Selznick's characterisation of the 'totalitarian' ideologies of communism and fascism, you'll say to yourself, 'I like the sound of this "combat party", I think it sounds jolly good; I want to build it, and I want to build it now. How do I do it?'. The question becomes an instrumental one: how do I go about achieving this goal, what measures do I need to undertake... the answer is that you - as a fascist or a communist - need to examine the human material available; it becomes a matter of finding the right sort of man to be a member, and preferably a cadre member, of your party. The task becomes one of recruitment and training; you need to find the right sort of person to be a soldier - and Selznick uses many military metaphors in his book - for your army.

On this note, many of the criticisms (made by those in the nationalist scene) directed against those claiming to be 'National Socialist' or (what the mainstream media calls) neo-Nazi comes down to this: they aren't adequate human material, they are unsuited as soldiers in a fascist 'combat party'. The uniformed George Lincoln Rockwell / Gary Lauck types, the skinheads, simply don't cut it; they  don't measure up to the standards of the historical organisations such as the NSDAP or the PNF - they are not fit to be Italian Blackshirts or SA or SS men. Notable exceptions exist, of course: I've seen (in German documentaries) east German skinheads who seem to be good organiser types, and just about anyone in nationalism knows a 'good skinhead' or good Rockwell-type former uniform-wearer who is cadre level, real or potential. But the exception proves the rule.

The second criticism is that the Craig Cobb-types, the George Lincoln Rockwell-types, the tattooed
skinhead-types, through their appearance and their behaviour, end up isolating themselves from the masses that they want to win over to their cause. In other words, the tattoos, the homemade SA uniforms, the shaven heads, the brandishing of old fascist and Nazi symbols, the eccentric antics - all constitute a major turn-off. At some point, when interacting with the non-nationalist public, one has to be honest, open and upfront about one's true beliefs. But that doesn't excuse downright eccentricity, exhibitionism and obnoxiousness, and besides which, one can get very far in politics by obscuring one's beliefs and hiding behind a mask. Look at Obama, for instance. We know that he came from a radical leftist background and is a Marxist, but he and the rest of his faction with the Democrat Party have been clever enough to cover their tracks. Through their subterfuge, they cause confusion and doubt in the minds of their critics ('Is Obama a radical Marxist, or is he just an extreme liberal?'). The Obama administration represents the Marxist subversion, not of a trade union or a church group, but the office of the presidency itself - an extraordinary accomplishment - and the Democrat Party. Obama and his gang couldn't have gotten where they are now without concealment and the practicing of deception on the American public. As Selznick writes, one of the most pressing needs of the communist party is the maintenance of access to the mass organisations it seeks to capture: the communists know that they won't get anywhere with the trade unions, youth groups, churches, if they let on that they are communist - if they conspicuously display their allegiance to the Soviet Union, brandish their communist symbols and call for the overthrow of the state and all existing institutions and their replacement with a communist order. They understand, only too well, that the general public - especially in an Anglo-Saxon country - has been conditioned to hate and fear communism (this was at the time that Selznick wrote his book). They castigate, and rightly so, the open, flagrant Marxists as 'sectarian', 'isolationist', 'left-opportunist', 'dogmatist' - that is, the obnoxious and exhibitionistic Marxists are criticised for giving the game away, or giving it away too early. The communists know this, but we neofascists and neo-Nazis don't.

Metapedia gives a good summary of neo-Nazism in its entry on 'National Socialism after World War II' and makes mention of the 'sectarian', 'isolationist' tendency in the neofascist movement:

National Socialism after World War II refers to the National Socialist worldview as it has developed since the collapse of the Greater German Empire in 1945, following the Second World War. In Germany, the primary successor of the NSDAP was the Socialist Reich Party (1949-1952) led by General Otto Ernst Remer. As well as this, some former National Socialists worked for a variety of governments, from South America to Egypt: some highly skilled scientists were also poached from Germany by the Soviets and the Americans (Operation Paperclip), but this is unlikely to have constituted any sort of NS ideological continuity. Some prominent figures such as Léon Degrelle and Otto Skorzeny found refuge in Spain under Franco and founded CEDADE.

Aside from this, in the broader category of European social nationalism, there have also been some German participants, most of which were associated with National Pan-Europeanism during the 1950s, hoping to form a European third position, free from both Americanism and Sovietism. The German Reich Party, where many former NSDAP members were to be found after the Socialist Reich Party were outlawed, signed the Declaration of Venice. Francis Parker Yockey, an American dissident based in London, also helped to mould these ideas.

Outside of this, some non-German groups began dressing up in quasi-Brownshirt uniforms and providing a Hollywood Nazi caricature of National Socialism. This was especially prominent in the United States since the 1960s, due to the influence of George Lincoln Rockwell and his American Nazi Party (he was from a family of vaudeville actors). This farce continues on today in various forms. It does not constitute serious political activism and is essentially a drinking club hobby for eccentrics. Nevertheless, Jewish groups such as the SPLC and the ADL of B'nai B'rith have used them, sometimes directly (see Frank Cohen✡) to discredit serious American nationalist efforts, promote Holocaustianity and create the "Neo-Nazi" caricature.  

This brings us to another important point. Like communism, neo-Nazism preaches loyalty, unswerving devotion and patriotism towards to two things - the party and the fatherland. Selznick speaks of the communism 'party patriotism' and the patriotism towards the 'Soviet Fatherland', and how even communist parties outside of the USSR were expected (so long as they were aligned with the Kremlin) to be fierce patriots for a country which is not their own, that is, the Soviet Union. Even the anti-revisionist communists - that is, the communists who broke from the USSR - were patriots, the Maoists for China, the Hoxhaites for Albania. As a movement, communism relied on these fatherlands and fell into disarray once these fatherlands ceased to exist. Many mainline pro-Soviet communist parties (including the powerful Australian Communist Party) wound up with the dissolution of the USSR in 1991; the Hoxhaite formations went down the same year. Maoism, in the West, more or less collapsed after the arrest of the Gang of Four and the rise to power Deng Xiaopeng in 1976-77. (Only the Trotskyites have survived, probably because they were never as committed to the Soviet Union as the mainline communist parties were. They were loyal and patriotic towards the USSR, most of them regarding it as a 'deformed worker's state', that is, a good nation and a good system with bad 'Stalinist' leadership, but on the whole didn't rely on the USSR for diplomatic and financial - and moral - support). Trotskyites aside, the communists in the West by 1990 were in the same position as the neo-Nazis: they had no existing fatherland to feel loyalty to, they had no party, and they had no great and wise men to look up to as leaders and teachers. (There's an interesting parallel between Maoism and fascism: none of these movements survived the deaths of their leaders. Maoism, German National Socialism and Italian Fascism ceased to exist in the same years as the deaths of Mao, Hitler and Mussolini respectively. By way of contrast, Soviet communism was far more robust and survived the 'bad' leaders Khrushchev and Stalin - the former was toppled in an internal party coup, the latter disgraced after his death. North Korean communism has continued because North Korea is, like Assad's Syria, ruled by a dynasty. It remains to be seen whether or not Cuban communism survives the deaths of the Castro brothers). The bottom line is that, while it's wonderful to live in a world of political ideals, in order for a political movement to survive, it needs something tangible to point to as the embodiment of that ideal - either Mao's China or Hoxha's Albania or Brezhnev's USSR or Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy. Soviet communism was an extension of Soviet power, Maoism Chinese power, fascism the Third Reich's power. Take away that state, and the political movement most associated with it is bereft.

Creative ways around this obstacle exist, however. The Marxists who infiltrated and now control the Democrat Party have followed the same strategy advocated by Trotsky in the 'French Turn' period of the 1930s: that is, Marxists have practised entryism on a respectable social democratic party. But these Marxists in the Democrat Party don't appear to belong to any one Marxist-Leninist party. What's more, Obama isn't a hardened communist cadre man. He is, in effect, another Martin Luther King - a man of little intellectual achievement who is a black radical and Marxist masquerading as a 'liberal' and 'progressive' and a charlatan who is good at fooling white people. This is what makes the case of Obama and the Democrats almost the reverse mirror image of the application of traditional communist 'combat party' strategy and tactics. Communist infiltrators are usually under the direction of a centralised, authoritarian single communist party and are trained and heavily-indoctrinated party men of great leadership ability - in other words, cadre men. But by not following the traditional communist path, the Democrat Party Marxists have succeeded where, it should be noted, the traditional Marxists failed. Entryism nearly always fails, as we know from history: the French Trotskyists who followed the 'French Turn' strategy were turfed out of the SFIO (French Section of the Worker's International) which was the social democratic target of the entryists; likewise, the Trotskyite Militant Tendency faction was expelled from the British Labour Party in the 1980s. There's a message there for we nationalists. (For evidence of widespread Marxist infiltration of the Democrat Party, especially at the lower, grass-roots levels, see the New Zealand conservative Trevor Loudon's site, KeyWiki). The message is: rigidity and dogmatism when it comes to one's absolute goal, flexibility when it comes to the tactics to be used in the short term.

There are those on the Far Left who are critical of Obama and the Democrats, of course: Obama is still blowing up Muslims with drones, and he hasn't pulled the troops out of Afghanistan or closed Guantanamo (or recognised Cuba); he hasn't turned the US into what Selznick calls a 'totalitarian' state yet. But these leftists simply don't recognise Obama's Marxist achievements. Obama's ultimate objective is to turn the US into a Venezuelan or Cuban style state where the majority of the population are dependent on the state for support. He is gradually steering the US towards that goal. Reliance at food stamps is at record levels, the US participation rate (a measure which records how many Americans are in work or are looking for work) is at the lowest level in nearly thirty years. As for the 'totalitarianism', well, what Obama calls 'change' (that is, progress towards communism) doesn't happen overnight; the leftist Obama critics should be chided for not thinking 'dialectically', as the Marxists say, that is, not looking at the big picture.

The communists in the US managed to get their act together after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991; surely we neofascists can get our act together after the fall of Germany and Italy in 1945. The road is hard and long, but recent events in the US show that human nature hasn't changed much since the 1920s and 1930s (despite the repeated protestations, from some quarters in the nationalist movement, that 'You can't go back to the 1930s'). If Marxism can win the presidency in the US - one of the countries which is the most resistant to the socialist and communist ideologies - then surely neo-Nazism / neofascism can get a toehold in Australia.

A real test for any political idea is to speak about it in front of an audience. That's something I've done with the ideas on this blog this year; I've road-tested the ideas and put them before a sympathetic audience of people of at a speaker's club, following Mao's edict 'From the masses, to the masses'. What I've discovered, for myself, has now given me the conviction that anyone in politics should devote most of their time and energy to speaking to a live audience - in fact, 80% of a politician's job is speaking to people, the other 20% travelling around the country to speak to people. It's only through live speaking that one determine what it is that the people want. After my first speech for the year, an old kamerad congratulated me and then made a few criticisms - good criticisms - of some of the points I raised. After that and after overhearing some of the topics of conversation of the attendees after the speech, I changed my tack. I've learned that the nationalist and Far Right base in this city - and this country - most of all wants to hear about, and talk about, Hitler, German National Socialism, fascism, WWII, Holocaust Revisionism, anti-Semitism, and, of all the political forms, is the most sympathetic to those advocated in Yockey's Imperium (without having read the book). They feel the most enthusiasm for these. This is because fascism or national socialism or whatever you want to call it is, for the West, a new Idea (at this juncture in our history) and thereby attracts the most devotion and enthusiasm. A hundred and fifty years ago, things were different: then - at the time of the Italian wars of reunification, of the Greek war of independence, of the revolution of 1848 - the Idea was nationalism. One couldn't stop the intellectuals, and the masses themselves, from talking about, and feeling passion for, the idea that the peoples of a nation were unified by ethnicity and language, and that these people - and not the monarchs of Europe - should be given sovereignty (a very dangerous idea at the time, this one). Today's 'dangerous idea' is neo-Nazism or neofascism (although many in the nationalist movement strenuously object to the use of the word 'Nazi' or 'fascist', recognising that these are loaded words). This is what people - at least, people on the Far Right today - feel the most passion and enthusiasm for. One needs that fire, because without it, Selznick's 'combat party', the cadres, the fractions and cells, the party schools, the political lectures, the study groups, the guided discussions, the party newspapers, are cold, grey and lifeless. They are mechanistic and are taken up by political activists without enthusiasm or conviction.
























Saturday, October 4, 2014

Omitting Hitler: Liddell, the Russians and the Strategy of Omission

Over the past ten or so years, I've seen the same debates again and again in nationalism.

Far Right nationalism (or neofascism or neo-Nazism or White Nationalism or Radical Traditionalism or whatever you want to call it) is made up of a certain number of beliefs, just in the same way that Marxism (for example) is. Once you buy into nationalism, you get a bunch of doctrines, a collection of doctrines. These include (and are not restricted to): racialism; anti-Semitism; Holocaust Revisionism; WWII revisionism; Southern nationalism (or at least, anti-Lincolnism); anti-Islam; antipathy towards most liberal democratic parties and the liberal democratic political system in general; a strong preference for anti-egalitarian and extreme-right thinkers such as Yockey, Evola, Kevin McDonald, Lothrop Stoddard, Carl Schmitt, Spengler, Nietzsche, Heidegger... Nationalism, as Ayn Rand would say, is a package deal and more or less you can take it or leave it. That is to say, you can accept the bundle of doctrines (and the characters who are associated with 'the movement', some of whom are quite eccentric and dubious) or not, but if you find some of the points made by nationalists debatable, and the personages attracted to nationalism unsavoury, you'd best be advised to leave.

The reason for that is that one can't 'improve' nationalism: any efforts to change the core curriculum of nationalism are doomed to failure, because - as it has evolved over the decades since the war - the corpus of nationalist thought and ideology is hidebound and resistant to change. But that doesn't stop some from trying to change it, or rather, from trying to censor little bits and pieces of it. The belief of these censors is that nationalism will become acceptable to 'normal' members of the public (that is, to people who are not part of the marginal and highly unconventional nationalist subculture (and it is a subculture)) if those 'normal' members are not told certain things. 'Don't mention the Jews' or 'Don't mention the war' or even 'Don't mention race' - leave these out of the nationalist discourse and one will become, overnight, respectable. The emphasis is not on being intelligent and asking intelligent and interesting questions on, for instance, Jews (for instance: to what extent do Jews have political influence in Russia or Iran or Ukraine, do they have it to the same degree that they do in the US and UK, and if not, why?); no, it's on forbidding, or discouraging, discussion of a topic altogether.

To me, this is a strange strategy and it underestimates the intellectual curiosity of the general public - they (in my experience, and in the experience of a good many nationalists) love to hear offbeat, out of the mainstream theories regarding Masonry, the Federal Reserve, the Jews, Israel, the New World Order, 911, Pearl Harbour, Auschwitz, the Illuminati, providing these theories are presented in a tasteful and intelligent way. At the least, they are open to debate on these things and will give them a fair hearing. Other 'normals' - usually a small minority - are absolutely horrified by unconventional Far Right and extremist ideas and simply don't want to hear them; they don't want to hear anyone cast aspersions on illegal immigrants, Muslims, Afro-Americans, Chinese, Indians, Roma and become enraged when they do. But it goes without saying that you can't have a debate with such people: why are you even trying? What's more, why are you labouring under the delusion that, if you talk racialism and White Nationalism and surreptitiously leave out the Jewish question, or Holocaust denial, you'll win over such people? And why is it that they are a priority before open-minded and unprejudiced members of the general public?

The strategy of omission, as I call it, makes no sense. A parallel is this: suppose a Marxist said, 'We won't mention dialectical materialism' or 'We won't mention the theory of surplus value' or 'We won't even mention class war', in the belief that communism would be made respectable in the eyes of the general public (even acceptable to non-communists) - he would be howled down by his comrades. You really can't have a communism without the fundamental building blocks, and when an intellectual tries to jettison the fundamentals (and change Marxism into something that it isn't) a funny thing happens - the 'old' Marxism, the fundamentalist Marxism, grows back, as solid and as nutty as ever. Nationalist doctrine is built of similar stuff. But proponents of the strategy of omission ignore this fact and there is no shortage of these proponents; in fact, the nationalist movement chooses to incubate them. Which is why I say nationalists are an odd lot - at least, odd compared to the Marxists, who have a degree of common sense.

We see the strategy of omission endorsed in a recent debate  between Colin Liddell and pseudo-neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin, the proprietor of the Daily Stormer site. Liddell is an exceptionally intelligent and talented man who has the wrong views. He more or less advocates giving in to the liberal anti-Nazis and anti-Germans and to the Holocaust Exterminationists; this way, 'White Nationalists' will be more respectable, more acceptable, to the general public and will start winning votes like the Front National and the Swedish Democrats. It's not a question of being clever-clever and practising deception, concealing what one's true beliefs are - there are plenty of party members in the Front National, UKIP, Swedish Democrats and other Far Right populist parties who are very extreme, neo-Nazi in fact, and don't swallow the official party line on race, Israel, the Holocaust and the rest of it; no, to Liddell, one must repent - one must believe, one must take to heart the liberal anti-German narrative which has pervaded the Western culture since the Nuremberg trials after WWII. Liddell is so wrong on this, so poisonous to morale, that I think his pens and papers should be taken away from him and that he should be forbidden to write. We don't need these ideas, and in fact we can a dose of liberal and communist anti-Nazism from the mainstream media - from the History Channel, for example - or one of Vladimir Putin's speeches.

As Carolyn Yeager has explained in her summary of Maurice Bardèche's classic book Nuremberg or the Promised Land (1948), nationalists and racialists can't avoid addressing the subject of Nazism, the Holocaust, the Nuremberg trials, simply because we live in a post-Nuremberg social, political and moral order, a post-Nuremberg New World Order. There's a reason why all European nationalism is outlawed or has the potential to be outlawed; why illegal immigrants to Europe have more rights than indigenous Europeans; why the Pope Francis brand of liberal humanist morality is de facto the compulsory morality of today; why Britain began to dismantle its immigration restriction laws after 1949 and not before; why allegiance to that morality comes before any allegiance to fatherland, state, the armed forces, nation, community, race. The reason is the legal precedent of the Nuremberg trials. Bardèche predicted it all - and non-white immigration and the destruction of any immigration restrictionism in Europe and the West - back in 1948, simply by outlining the implications of the Nuremberg ideology and following it to its conclusion. This is why, I think, so many nationalists and revisionists state today that had Hitler won the war, things would have been very different from Britain - that the mass non-white immigration after 1949 would not have taken place, for example. Bardèche would have agreed, and would have pointed out that the reason why 'things would have been different' was that the Nuremberg trials would have never have happened. The truth of the matter is that the US and UK soldiers of the war, who had a high degree of racial and national consciousness, and pride and patriotism, were in fact fighting for the death of patriotism and the destruction of their own countries.

The fate of Western nationalism is inextricably bound up with the Nuremberg precedent. Populist parties such as UKIP and the Swedish Democrats have been successful, and will continue to be successful, while ducking it. But sooner or later they will run up against it, most likely when they near closer and closer to political power - and to actually doing things, like building an Israeli-style border fence or cutting off welfare to immigrants or even deporting illegal immigrants. An Italian nationalist could make a case that the illegal immigrants of Lampedusa shouldn't be allowed into Italy, as there's enough unemployed in Italy as it is and there isn't enough welfare money to go around - besides which, things like jobs and welfare and public services in Italy should go to Italians first. All reasonable enough, you might think, and inarguable; what's more, the position of this nationalist doesn't evoke WWII and the Holocaust and doesn't call for fascist revival. But your Pope Francis liberal humanist, your crusading liberal journalist from the Swedish Expressen newspaper, would object by stating, 'But the immigrants on Lampedusa are human'. End of argument. Humanity, you see, trumps everything; it comes before love of fatherland and love of Italians, it even comes before the rational use and expenditure of national resources; it even comes before common sense - it allows Ebola-infected illegal immigrants to come into one's country. These are the implications of the Nuremberg doctrine and they are all-powerful - more powerful than Nigel Farage's English nationalism which is not really a nationalism. The closer the Farages, Le Pens and Åkessons come to power, the more their parties will be treated like criminal gangs - and some sections of the establishment media are doing that already. To ameliorate the position of one's nation is a violation of international law, post-1945, and a political party formed for this purpose is in actual fact a criminal organisation engaged in a criminal conspiracy. Which is why the entire Western liberal establishment views nationalist parties as being no better than the Nazis.

To me, the conundrum can only be solved by a frontal assault. That, in turn, means adopting all or some of the doctrines of neo-Nazism. Assuming for the moment that I'm right, here's the question: what, according to the proponents of the strategy of omission, is the problem with neo-Nazism?

There's a big difference between opposing neo-Nazism because it is wrong and because a) it is extremely unpopular, b) faces extreme resistance from the liberal establishment and therefore c) is extremely difficult to implement. No communist would ever, ever renounce his communism because of a), b) and c) (communism, like neo-Nazism, is, in the West, extremely unpopular, faces extreme resistance and is extremely difficult to implement); he doesn't renounce it, because he believes it is true and that there's no running from the truth. The same goes for the real neo-Nazi or neofascist. He believes that the doctrine is true: the Holocaust is Jewish religious rubbish and simply didn't happen - six million, or even one million, Jews weren't gassed in giant gas chambers; that the Germans didn't start WWII; that the racial question is the paramount question in politics... He believes in the core tenets and doesn't bail on neo-Nazism because of the resistance it faces and because of its unpopularity. Indeed, Hitler and Mussolini never promised their followers a rose garden; they never said that being a Fascist or a National Socialist wasn't a tough slog and wasn't unpopular. Our ideas determine our actions, and our actions reveal what we believe. The real National Socialists, the real Fascists, were the (in American Mafia parlance) 'stand-up guys' who didn't quit, didn't renounce their beliefs, when the going got tough, as it did in 1944 and 1945. We find this line from an April 1945 propaganda text by Werner Naumann, Goebbels aide and post-war German nationalist, The Time to Decide: 'Now it will become clear who is really ready to stand without compromise for the principles proclaimed during good times, and who belongs to the lukewarm and weary whose cowardly conduct in these days only proves that they do not belong to us'. But Liddell, as I will prove in a moment, shows every sign of giving up a large part of the post-war Far Right nationalist doctrine not only because it is unpopular (e.g., these are the parts of the doctrine which can get people chucked into jail) but because he believes it is untrue.

Again it has to be pointed out that the strategy is one of omission; it's not one of proselytising to a (as yet not fully indoctrinated) 'normal' member of the general public and holding back certain unpalatable or esoteric subjects until the time is right. It's true that one must use discretion in politics and possess a sense of timing, and it's understandable why a nationalist should dance around, at first, the Jewish question or Holocaust denial or even the subject of race and IQ. Marxists follow a similar strategy - deferring on the 'difficult' subjects. This is a different thing from not mentioning them altogether. It's clear that Liddell is no fool when it comes to the Jewish question: one respondent, 'Augur Mayson', writes, 'It is folly to believe that we can triumph while sheltering the identity of the enemy'; Liddell replies, 'That's more of your bullshit. I am open to the JQ [Jewish question]'.

I said before that the debate between Liddell and Anglin was one between a liberal anti-Nazi and a pseudo-neo-Nazi. What's 'pseudo' neo-Nazism? There's a way of sorting the sheep from the goats, or the real neo-Nazis from the pseudos; I call it the Bagration test. I ask the reputed neo-Nazi the question, 'What do you think of Operation Bagration in 1944? Were the results good or bad?' and 'What do you think of the aftermath?'. To explain: Operation Bagration was the codename of a successful offensive against the German army in 1944, which led to the encirclement and destruction of an entire Army Group and to the 'liberation' of Minsk. The Germans got their arses handed to them on a plate in that one, and the aftermath I am referring to was the parading and humiliation of the German POWs through Moscow afterwards. The Germans were forced to take laxatives, were paraded past a jeering Muscovite crowd (who yelled abuse and threw objects at them); as they defecated involuntarily through their trouser legs, a street sweeper sprayed water on the streets behind them. The significance of this is that this year in Eastern Ukraine the Russian 'rebel' soldiers in the east of the Ukraine re-enacted the infamous post-Bagration parade - they herded captured Ukrainians past an crowd who threw bags of flour and yelled 'Fascist pigs!' at them. Both the 1944 parade and the 2014 parade were pieces of Stalinist nastiness, and war crimes - it's an offence to humiliate POWs - and the 'rebels' did their cause no good by it (although I imagine that they thought it was quite splendid and clever, very Russian, very patriotic). The question is, though, what a so-called 'neo-Nazi' thinks of it. A real 'National Socialist' wouldn't support the Germans being defeated in Minsk and wouldn't abide by any glorious commemorations of it; he wouldn't support the humiliation of German POWs, or the re-enactment of it, either. Anglin, being a Putinista - one of Putin's useful idiots in the West - supports both, ergo, he is not a real neo-Nazi. This is the Bagration test. There's no way of evading it - no Stalinist, Putinist, neo-Bolshevist, National-Bolshevik / Eurasianist trickery and nonsense and mind-bending rhetoric which attempts to prove that Stalin and Russian communism were good and German National Socialism and European fascism were bad. Either you are or your aren't.

The Bagration test applies to quite a few Russian 'neo-Nazis' as well. Half of Russia's nationalists are in jail right now because of Putin, the other half are working for him - as propagandists, agitators, soldiers - in the Ukraine. Clearly the 'National Socialism' - all the uniforms, runes, swastika tattoos, Hitler salutes - of these Putinista Russian nationalists didn't add up to much; what matters is what one believes and does, not the symbols and tattoos that one wears.

'What matters is what one believes and does' - this is a truism, a platitude, a commonplace, but it has to be repeated again and again. Supposing one was a member of the Charlemagne SS division in the Battle of Berlin - what would one do? One could either a) attempt to desert and then surrender to the Allies out of a (mistaken) belief that the Allies treat their POWs better than the Russians or b) defect to the Russians and make spurious Duginist / Eurasianist / Putinist arguments to the effect that Stalin and Russia 'resist' 'Truman's Yankee-imperialist New World Order', that Russia is to be praised for 'resisting' 'The West'? Now, the trouble with b) is that you, as a Frenchman, are the West - so you are 'resisting' yourself; you can't change into an honorary Mongol or Tartar or Tajik. The better, more honourable, option is c) fight and die for an ideal you believe in, an ideal which you were fortunate to live to see brought into being during the years 1940-1945 - Hitler's social, cultural and economic policies. You have only one life to give, and you've come this far, so why not. This is something the Liddells don't understand - honour. The Liddells don't have anything to offer except carping, cavilling, sneering - it's the conduct more becoming of what Yockey calls the Age of Criticism rather than the present Age (the age of neofascism and neo-Nazism), the Age of Faith and Authority.

The ironic thing is that the Liddells believe that trimming and tacking the sails, corner-cutting, is a real winner: just admit that Hitler started WWII, that Hitler gassed the Jews, and don't mention, whatever you do, the Jewish question, and you'll be fine. The fallacy is that the sensitive people who are likely to be offended by Holocaust Revisionism and anti-Semitism - the people who, for some unexplained reason, we must all go out to propitiate - are just as likely to be offended by the other parts of the Far Right doctrine. This is brought up in an exchange between Liddell and his respondents:

YAZATA: And yet Hitler is seen as edgy and countercultural by some western youth too. You've no reason to say, the aesthetic can't become more mainstream again.

LIDDELL: Until that happens, Hitlerphilia will just serve as a ghettoizing device for White nationalism.

DANIEL J ANTINORA: focusing explicitly on race serves equally well to 'ghettoize' us. vaguely mentioning race as well. citing crime statistics as well.

But let us look at a statement Liddell makes in the comments section of his article, a statement which is useful to us because of its length and because of its explicitness - it tells us exactly where he stands. He gives his version of WWII:

here was a war on so all the big powers committed what are commonly called "atrocities" - too many to mention. But this was also an unnecessary war that was started by the German invasion of Poland and ended by German defeat, so there is a certain logic in the Germans getting to carry the can.

This might not be entirely fair, but that is the way it is. The worst excesses of the past - be it the rape of millions of German women by Soviet troops, the starving and execution of civilians (Jewish and otherwise), the forced repatriation of the Cossacks by the British to the Soviet Union, Katyn, the various bombing of cities by all the combatants, etc., etc. - can all be laid, to some extent, at the door of Hitler and the Nazis, and of course they are. Modern Germans passively go along with this even though there is a lot they could do to help balance the narrative.

It would have been a different story, of course, if they had won, but the fact is they lost and the price of losing was to be forever associated with the negatives of the war.

You can work overtime to bring this or that aspect of the war to the public's attention, including allied atrocities like Rhine Meadows, the Marocchinate, etc., but it's always uphill work and even if you succeed, you end up with "yes, but they started it."

To make European nationalism today contingent on changing deeply ingrained negative perceptions of German Nazism is simply a mechanism for neutralizing nationalism and destroying Europe. This means that European nationalism has to be decoupled from the debacle of WWII. The Daily Stormer essentially exists to prevent this decoupling happening. It's a cinch therefore that the Stormer is financed and run by globalists and anti-nationalists, who may or may not be Jews. Even if it isn't, it may as well be in terms of its effects.

This is a terrible doctrine. For one thing, it leaves Germany - the most important nation in Europe today - hanging high and dry. The French and Italian nationalists can lay the blame on the Germans, and even claim that they were 'victims' of the Nazis during the occupation of their respective countries; for the German nationalist parties, such as the NPD, this is no option. As German nationalists they are forced, by definition, to defend German National Socialism and the conduct of their grandfathers during the war. Their nationalism is 'contingent on changing deeply ingrained negative perceptions of German Nazism' and can't be 'decoupled from the debacle of WWII'; the NPD, and all the German nationalist organisations today, 'essentially exists to prevent this decoupling happening'. Meaning that they are mechanisms 'for neutralizing nationalism and destroying Europe'. Perhaps one can say, then, that they are 'financed and run by globalists and anti-nationalists, who may or may not be Jews' or 'may as well be' in terms of their effects. But what goes for the NPD, goes for Jobbik and the Golden Dawn. The latter has become something of a sacred cow among nationalists, so Liddell is wading into dangerous waters. One must ask, why is Greek neo-Nazism acceptable and not German? British? Australian?

One poster made a good reply to Liddell, which I shall reproduce here in full:

Thank you for your reply.

You say "European nationalism has to be decoupled from the debacle of WWII."

Well, there are two possible ways forward: one as you say, is to attempt to decouple nationalism from the debacle of WWII."

But is this not accepting that white nationalism is/was indeed evil and that we would only seek to decouple if the narrative as presented by Jews were true? What do we do if, as I and many other people believe, the Germans were the good guys, and Hitler the ultimate good guy? He tried to remove the Jewish shackles from his country (which would undoubtedly have benefited all our white countries) but ultimately, the Jews defeated him, with the help of millions of white people who believed their lies.

The other is to tell the truth about that time and rather than decouple ourselves from someone who spoke the truth, rather, decouple the Jewish LIES from the truth and stand by that truth rather than accept their lies as truth.

White nationalism has made no serious attempt to stand by the truth of that time - we have ALWAYS yielded to the Jewish lies. We are therefore always beaten before we even start - we always accept that white nationalism leads to evil and throwing millions of people we don't like into gas chambers. Knowing what we know about our enemy, how will "they" ever let us decouple ourselves from that, if we just accept their version of events, lies masquerading as truth? They won't - surely you understand that?

Now, it is one thing to reject Hitler and NS symbolism on "purely tactical grounds" because of his ultimate defeat and because of the negative associations falsely, but incredibly successfully built up against it by our mortal enemy, the Jews. It is quite another to reject it because you accept as truth, most if not all of the jewish inspired demonology.

Sadly, for me, the whole tone of your article went way beyond rejecting Hitler on purely tactical grounds. Many of the phrases you wrote can not possibly have been written by someone sympathetic to the cause fought by Germany to determine their own future. Rather, many of them have come straight out of the jewish inspired anti-Nazi handbook. Some of your phrases, to me, evinced hatred of Hitler and Germany rather than any admiration of his/their attempts to extricate themselves from jewish hegemony.

He tried. He tried damn hard. Can you even begin to imagine the magnitude of his struggle, knowing what we know now about how difficult it is to win this struggle - where are we now? What progress do WE ever make? Nobody has ever tried harder, or done better to retake control of their lives from the jews, but he lost. The jews, with our help, defeated him, but his cause was true and he made the ultimate sacrifice in the attempt. Is that any reason to mock him by asking such as "When, since Hitler blew his brains out ..." Can you not see how disrespectful that is? Does such disrespect not look sort of, well ... "jewy" ... or at least, something that could well have been written by a Jew?

I have read many articles of yours in the past, often referenced by sites I respect, and generally admired them, but this one has gone too far in the opposite direction and placed you in a category of, at best "no longer to be trusted."

This poster has said it all here. The question is, where do we nationalists go to from here? One step would be to acknowledge what it is we are, and not go for the omissions and amputations of the nationalist doctrine (which has built up over the past 75 years) that the Liddells demand; another is to address the confusion brought about by the recent Ukraine crisis. It's been very disorienting, these past few months, to see two nominally white countries, Russia and Ukraine, comparing each other to the Nazis, using Jews in high positions of power and each deploying 'neo-Nazis', real or pseudo, as activists for their respective national causes and even combatants. Even more confusing is that many neofascist, neo-Nazi and Far Right parties and individuals in Europe and America have championed a country which has been the enemy of the West for at least 200 years and is led by a self-proclaimed anti-fascist and anti-Nazi who has made any questioning of the Nuremberg trial a criminal offence. It's as though Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, Hungary, Finland and other European countries expended all those lives in the 1941-1945 war for nothing. Waffen-SS and Spanish Blue Division soldiers are turning in their graves. Shame! In my opinion, the Putinista neo-Nazis - the Anglins, the Kevin Alfred Stroms, the Bill Whites and others - need to be driven out of the movement, their errors corrected.

To those who charge that this would lead to (what the Marxists call) sectarianism, splitting, dogmatism in the nationalist movement - I agree. It's just that sort of thing which is sorely needed.










Friday, June 6, 2014

D-Day, June 1944: Evil Wins

On June 6, 1944, seventy years ago, evil won.

Here's what happened. The Allies launched a massive, successful amphibious invasion of German-occupied France in June 1944. For the next three months, the Allies were confined to a small, Anzio-type bridgehead on the Normandy coast. During that time, the American soldiers went on a rape and murder rampage, killing and raping hundreds of French women. French cities, such as Caen, were laid to waste by Allied aerial bombardment and thousands of French died. Finally, in August 1944, the Allies broke out and pursued the Germans across France and Belgium and back into Germany. After the 'liberation' of France, the French resistance (communists and petit-bourgeois Gaullist nationalists) killed upwards of ninety to a hundred thousand right-leaning French. German POWs, in Allied-occupied France and (later) occupied Germany were put in POW camps which were little more than barbed-wire enclosures; Eisenhower saw to it that the POWs were not protected by the Geneva convention and made feeding of the soldiers punishable by death. Hundreds of thousands of German POWs (not all soldiers - some were captured civilians) died of starvation, disease and exposure; some were used as slave labourers. Eisenhower and the Americans, after the defeat and occupation of the Western half of Germany, employed similar starvation tactics on the German populace as a whole; the result was that millions of Germans died in the hunger years of 1945-1949.

By the moral standards taught to me as a boy by American popular culture (the Star Wars movies, Batman, Superman, the Marvel comic books of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby (both WWII veterans), TV shows such as Six Million Dollar man and countless Saturday morning action-adventure cartoons) the American 'liberators' and 'heroes' of France qualify as evil. The veterans of Normandy on the Allied side men were brave - no doubt about that - but they were soldiers in the service of evil.

That's not the way our journalists, politicians and intellectuals see it, however. To them, the Germans ('Hitler', the 'Nazis') were the evil ones, because, during the war, they gassed six million Jews and an undefined, ever changing number of homosexuals, gypsies and Poles. The D-Day landings, the liberation of France and the Low Countries, were a victory for good, not evil. The liberal establishment holds to this line even though, explicably, the Allies themselves in WWII never held to it. One can search in vain in the memoirs of de Gaulle, Churchill, Eisenhower, Truman for references to the six million. Indeed, it was never made clear, during the war, why it was that 'we' (the Anglo-Saxon nations - the US, the UK, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand) were fighting the Germans and why we needed to wage a war of annihilation, of 'unconditional surrender', without negotiation and why we needed to be communism's best friend. Now, though, what happened has been retrospectively configured - or 'retconned', to use a slang term of comic book fans. History has been changed, so WWII is all about the Jews, racism and protecting ethnic minority groups. The Holocaust - the fulfilment of millennia-old Jewish religious prophecies contained in the Jewish religious text, the Talmud - is the prime justification for WWII and anti-Nazism.

WWII, the Allied atrocities against the European population, the occupation of Europe and the installation of liberal democracy against the will of the people - all this is justified, ex post, by the Holocaust. But there are is an unfortunate consequence of this: take the Holocaust away, and you are left with nothing - no stick to beat Hitler, the Germans, the fascist and Nazi movements of 1922-1945 with. Hitler and Mussolini weren't so bad after all. What a shocking conclusion! I often wonder what would happen if weapons inspectors were sent into Auschwitz and other German 'death camps' to look for traces of Hitler's weapons of mass destruction - the gas chambers - and the chemical residues left behind by the mass execution through gassing of millions of human beings. What would happen if the weapons inspectors came back empty-handed? How would your self-righteous, ignorant little liberal American or British or German or French person react? Would they experience some sort of psychological collapse?

One thing is for sure: the main argument against neo-Nazism would be taken away. The liberal establishment in Europe and the West would have nothing left to fight it with. They would need to resort to logic, argument for a change; they couldn't call upon those old stock photos of dead skinny people at Dachau or the bizarre anecdotes of the 'Wolf Woman of Auschwitz' and other Jewish Holocaust 'survivor' fakes and bores.

This would have terrible political consequences for the powers that be. Since 1945, the West has been in the control of an Anglo-Saxon, Judeo-Masonic elite. They rule the Continent with an iron fist. The outcome of the war - the defeat of Germany and Italy - and the ceding of Eastern Europe and half of Germany were, for this elite, a success of perhaps unprecedented scale; never before in history has one single power had complete, unchallenged control of all of Europe - the Continent, Scandinavia, the British Isles. The occupation of Europe in 1943-1945 was the turning point in their political fortunes, and the successful invasion of France was a turning in the point in the war. This is why the liberal establishment media gives so much prominence to anniversaries of the Normandy invasion; in contrast, it hardly pays any attention to the anniversaries of other significant events - the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, the 1990 war in Kuwait, the Inchon landings in Korea, the first American battle in Vietnam in 1965... The Anglo-Saxon elite doesn't like reminding people of these battles because the wars were either outright defeats or were 'inconclusive'. The war in Europe in 1944-1945, however, was an out-and-out crushing victory, militarily and politically.

The reason as to why the 1944 invasion of France was such a success is, from a political perspective, an interesting one. The media attributes the success to military factors such as Allied superiority in air and naval armaments, the 'element of surprise', the skill and valour of the Allied soldiers, brilliant Allied deception plans and so forth; it also attributes it, as part of anti-Nazi, anti-Hitler propaganda, to incompetence, ineptitude on the part of Hitler and the Germans. This seems a reasonable thesis on the face of it, but it's actually skilful propaganda aimed at demoralising the Germans and the sympathisers of fascism and Nazism everywhere. The message is, 'You Germans are destined to always lose - sure, we lost Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, but when we Anglo-Saxon liberals and judeophiles put our minds to it, to defeating evil, we always win! Because you are stupid and we are great...'. Such a propaganda line is extremely effective, in part because it's human nature to go with the winning side. We are more inclined to sympathise with those who are 'predestined' to win and less inclined with those who are 'predestined' to lose. No-one likes a loser.

Was the Allied victory in June 1944 predestined, however? Militarily, it was a near thing. The massive aerial and naval bombardment of the Normandy coastline, the presence of Allied paratroopers in the German rear, didn't 'take out' the German defenders. In essence, the invaders were lightly-armed men wading in water in the face of murderous fire. There was no body armour in those days, and one hit from a bullet or a piece of shrapnel meant you as a soldier were out of the war - for good. The invasion could have been thwarted had not things gone wrong on the German side - gone wrong deliberately; more or less, it only succeeded because of traitors in the German high command. We read in David Irving's classic biography of Rommel, Trail of the Fox: The Life of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel (1977), of how Rommel's Chief of Staff, Hans Speidel, prevented the 21st Panzer division from reinforcing the coastal defenders in those crucial hours of the invasion, thereby probably ensuring that the Allied waders weren't done away with. Speidel's actions on that day puzzled and upset Rommel, who was unaware that Speidel was part of a vast underground anti-Hitler network in the German military High Command - a network of pro-Allied, Atlanticist sympathisers (Speidel, in his post-war autobiography, openly admitted to help sabotage any German counter-offensive against the Allies on the day of the invasion and went on to a successful career as a NATO general). Speidel and the generals who participated in the abortive July 1944 military coup against Hitler were Badoglios - i.e., German versions of the Italian general who toppled Mussolini in the coup of September 1943 and betrayed him to the Allies. They, more than anyone else, made the invasion a success. (In August 1944, Hitler ordered a bold counter-offensive against the American armoured spearheads in Avranches - an offensive which went mysteriously awry. Irving records, without comment, Hitler's opinion that this failure was the result of betrayal by the Badoglios).

The Germans in June 1944 had advance warning of the time and date of the invasion, but didn't act upon it. Perhaps this could have been the result of not recognising, in time, the significance of this piece of intelligence - they were, most likely, overwhelmed with intelligence on Allied troop movements and invasion plans; but it could also have been because of betrayal at the highest levels. I tend to subscribe to the latter theory. As time goes on, I think, more and more evidence will emerge substantiating Irving's thesis. There is already a book called Verrat in der Normandie: Eisenhowers deutsche Helfer ('Betrayal in Normandy: Eisenhower's German Helpers') (2010) by Friedrich George, a liberal anti-Nazi author who takes the same position as Irving; more will come out in the future.

One can speculate and advance an alternative history: the traitors in the German High Command are purged before June 1944, the Allies launch the invasion anyway on June the 6th and find the 21st Panzer waiting for them - and are destroyed. This would have arguably changed the course of the war in Germany's favour. Irving recounts, in Hitler's War (1977), that by 1944 Hitler's strategic thinking had changed: Germany and its allies couldn't conquer the USSR, but could stop them in their tracks and prevent them from invading eastern Europe; this was on the proviso that an Allied invasion of France was soundly defeated. Hitler believed that the Allies only had enough materiel for one big invasion; were the Allies to fail, that would be it - the Allies would call off their war and perhaps 'Roosevelt will be sent to jail'. The scenario was: the Allies launch their big invasion, and are defeated by Germany's panzer divisions and its new jet bombers; then the panzer divisions in the West can be turned on the Russians. The Third Reich, then, would win a defensive victory.

The liberal establishment journalists and military historians scoff at such thinking. Hitler was overly-optimistic (to believe that he could win the war against the Allies is proof of his insanity); what's more, by that point, nothing could stop the colossus which was the 'superb' Red Army. But there are signs of a break in the narrative. The American historian John Mosier, in his Death Ride: Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945 (2010) takes the line that the Russians could have been stopped if it weren't for the Normandy invasion - German combat replacements on the Eastern front could have increased by 40 to 50%. He notes that the Russians always launched a really big, successful offensive on the heels of an Allied one - Sicily and Italy, Normandy, the crossing of the Rhine.

Supposing that Irving and Mosier are right, two lessons emerge: one is, Hitler should have purged his generals; the second, Germany's defeat wasn't inevitable and neither was the Allied victory. Future generations of German and European nationalists should pay heed.





Tuesday, April 29, 2014

How to form a neo-Nazi party


This essay is divided up into two sections. The first is an attempt on my part to come up with a working definition of 'Neo-Nazism'; the second is a polemic against what I call the 'Rockwellite' brand of pseudo-neo-Nazism and gives neo-Nazism a bad name. A party can't be formed without ideology, and the polemic against Rockwell will serve as the beginnings of a new ideology.

What's a neo-Nazi?

Nationalists a strange bunch. I know a nationalist who is a Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite and a Hitler sympathiser. He likes to call himself a 'neofascist', even a 'post-Nazi', but won't call himself a 'Neo-Nazi'. He's quite particular on the subject. My position is that life's too short to beat around the bush - why doesn't someone like him call himself for what he is, and that is, a neo-Nazi?

The answer is twofold. The first is that he feels that the term is, from an intellectual perspective, inaccurate, and, what's more, he feels that its usage is somehow improper. It is well known that communists don't like being called 'communist', 'commies' or even 'Marxist-Leninist' - they much prefer 'socialist' or 'Marxist'. Part of this is a desire for camouflage: communist, Marxist-Leninist - these words evoke North Korea, Cuba and the former USSR, not places of great light and joy. 'Socialism' is preferred because it sounds halfway respectable - the British Labour Party are socialist, the Australian Labor Party are socialist, so are the German SDP (Social Democratic Party). ('Socialism' is also preferred on the grounds that it is more technically accurate because, as students of Marxism know, it is the first historical stage after the inevitable collapse of capitalism and the worker's revolution - 'communism' is the stage that comes after socialism). The same process of equivocation occurs in the neo-fascist and neo-Nazi movement. 'Nazi' is pejorative, and 'neo-Nazi' was coined by the enemy - a name given to the post-war extreme right-wing nationalist and soldiers' groups which appeared in West Germany. Generally, neo-Nazis who openly admit that they are so prefer the term 'National Socialist' to 'neo-Nazi' - which is why Rockwell's American Nazi Party was a break from tradition (the equivalent of calling a party the 'American Commie Party').

The second objection lies in the fact that the term 'neo-Nazi' evokes rather unpleasant associations. As soon as one hears it, one thinks of American History X, Aryan Nations prison gangs, skinheads... Also, the uniform-wearing Rockwellite 'storm troops' in The Blues Brothers. These are the two types of neo-Nazi which loom large in the public consciousness: the uniform-wearers and the skinheads. My friend is a devotee of intellectuals like Yockey and Evola, neither of whom were uniform-wearers or skinheads; ergo, neither he, nor they, could possibly be called 'neo-Nazi'.

What of the word 'fascist'? I've encountered the strange paradox, again and again: join a mailing list or forum devoted to the discussion of the ideas of Evola, Yockey, Alfred Rosenberg, Ernst Jünger, Carl Schmitt, Mosley, the Strassers, and suggest - ever so innocently - that all this stuff is 'fascism', and you'll be met with howls of outrage and indignation. They deny, furiously, that they are fascist. To a certain extent, this is understandable, given how pejorative 'fascism' as a word has become, and how meaningless it has become (through overuse and misuse). But the reactions of certain people in the movement to the designation 'fascist' strike me as a symptom of denial.

My friend doesn't mind the term 'fascist' and in fact prefers the designation 'neofascist' partly because it sounds esoteric and sophisticated. Degrelle, Bardéche, Yockey, Evola, Mosley were Europeans (well, Yockey was an honorary European), intellectual. None of them were card-carrying members of the NSDAP or its offshoots either. But I lump them together as 'Neo-Nazis'. I argue that the European fascist movement of 1922-1945 (of which German National Socialism was a subset) underwent a transformation by the end of that period. One could call that transformation 'Germanification' or 'Hitlerisation'; by 1945, it could be said of the European fascist movement that 'We are all Germans now'. Having to choose between Hitler and Mussolini - and say which one was the greater - is like having to choose between Lennon and McCartney; they both did great work. Nevertheless, by the end of the war, Germany had become the dominant partner in the relationship. This dominance was reflected by not only the German occupation of Italy in 1943 but by the adoption, by Italy, of an anti-Semitic Jewish deportation policy and an acceptance by the fascist leaders and intellectuals (including Evola) of the Hitlerian anti-Semitic doctrines - prior to this, Fascist Italy had been neutral on the Jewish question. Germany, by 1943, had taken over the European fascist franchise - politically, intellectually, morally, militarily - and hence fascism would exhibit an anti-Semitic and 'volkish' character. Post-war apologists for Hitler and Germany such as Maurice Bardèche and Leon Degrelle were fascists - not National Socialists - but, in defending German policies on the Jews, were forced to take the Hitlerian position as their own, which is why their work shows a leaning towards National Socialism. The same can be said of Yockey, who completely revamped fascism in his great work Imperium (1947) - his work is, to use Bardèche's term, 'improved fascism' - and who appears, at first sight, to have completely abandoned National Socialist theory for a new synthesis; Yockey's book is dedicated to Hitler, denies the Holocaust (in what was a first) and is, needlessly to say, thoroughly anti-Semitic and has a German nationalist and 'Prussian' spirit. It's not for nothing, then, that the book has been christened by liberals as the 'Bible of Neo-Nazism'.

(It's interesting to note that the Germanification of the fascist parties occurred to some before others. The Dutch NSB (National Socialist Movement) fascist party was founded as an Italian-style fascist party by Anton Mussert. By the late thirties, a split occurred along factional lines - between an 'Italian' faction and a 'German' (the latter being under the leadership of Meinoud Rost van Tonningen, husband of prominent neo-Nazi Florentine Rost van Tonningen). The German faction won).

It's well-known that the liberal establishment is forever pronouncing groups like Golden Dawn to be 'neo-Nazi'. They point to Golden Dawn's 'swastika-like' symbol, its anti-Semitism, its use of quasi-paramilitary militia, its 'racist' ideology, its occasional utterances against liberal democracy, as proof. Nationalists and those on the Far Right may leap to the Golden Dawn's defence and condemn the charges of 'neo-Nazism' as a 'smear'. But the characterisation of 'neo-Nazi' seems to be more or less accurate, on the basis of the evidence presented by these liberal democrats. Golden Dawn fit the bill, and if they don't qualify as 'Neo-Nazi', who does? I would classify Yockey, Evola, et al., as neo-Nazi intellectuals, and the following groups and parties as neo-Nazi: the NPD, Golden Dawn, Jobbik, Slovakia's Our Slovakia - People's Party, France's Génération Identitaire and Printemps Français. None of these are skinhead or Rockwell-type groups, of course (although the NPD, unfortunately, has a large skinhead contingent).

So do we have a definition of neo-Nazism? The January / February 2008 issue of the American Far Right journal The Barnes Review reprints a chapter of the memoirs (entitled My Revolutionary Life) of the Belgian Rexist and former Waffen SS soldier Leon Degrelle. It gives a preview of a future excerpt from Degrelle's memoirs:

IN THE FINAL CHAPTER of My Revolutionary Life, "If Hitler Had Won, written 25 years after WWII, Degrelle reviews how the great nation-states of Eu-rope and the U.S. were all formedby war and conquest, just like the Reichand how a Hitlerian Europe would have dealt with Britain, America and Japan after annihilating the USSR. He concludes his memoirs with a vision of the different white peoples, each with its own genius and drawbacks, and his conviction about the continuing power of the fascist or national socialist model to guide them all to a new greatness.

This very much sums up the Neo-Nazi mission statement in a nutshell. Granted, it needs to be expanded and clarified (and I don't think Degrelle's memoirs were ever published in their entirety) and I shall attempt to do so later.

Hopefully my article will encourage nationalists to set up a neo-Nazi organisation that will develop into a party. It's primarily for Western countries which don't have a strong neo-Nazi type party - e.g., Spain, Ireland, Australia. My advice for the Hungarians and the Greeks is to join Jobbik and Golden Dawn - both of these are good parties; for the Dutch and French, infiltrate the Freedom Party and Front National respectively and try and 'turn' the base of these parties to neo-Nazism. As for Germany and Britain, both of these countries are over-saturated with nationalist and Far Right extremist parties. One could join an existing party, but, in my judgement, there's always room for one more.

It should go without saying that I'm not counselling anything idiotic - for example, the formation of parties with names such as 'Irish Neo-Nazi Party' or anything of that sort; I'm not advocating political suicide. I don't think that a party should adopt a swastika-like symbol, as the Golden Dawn have done, or that members of this party should tattoo Nordic runes on their foreheads. One has to keep one's true ideology and purpose concealed from others, especially from the Western masses, many of whom, obviously, won't understand the fine intellectual distinctions I am drawing here.

Something all neo-Nazis agree on

When I use the word 'Neo-Nazi' here, I using it to refer to a wide variety of groups and individuals. An ideology may be broken down into two components: a theoretical component and a practical. What is the theoretical component of neo-Nazism? What is the ideological common denominator, something all these groups and individuals agree upon?

It is, in its briefest form, what I call 'the story'. Here it is.

When we study any political system, we must determine who has the political power. We can arrive at such a determination by asking ourselves who is feared the most, persecuted the most, by the political establishment, i.e., the state? In the West, many people who appear to challenge authority, who regard themselves as subversive (and are regarded by their followers as subversive) are, in fact, not persecuted by the state: Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, John Pilger. Whereas a marginal figure such as Ernst Zündel was kidnapped by the US government, imprisoned in a Canadian jail for two years without charge, and then deported to Germany, where he was imprisoned for five years. The same sort of repression (of people who are reputed to be Neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites) occurs throughout Europe. None of the crackpot Trotskyites, Stalinists and Maoists in Greece have been persecuted by the state; only Golden Dawn have, in violation of the rule of law and standard liberal democratic procedure.

The reason for this I shall explain in simple terms. One mob beat down another mob seventy years ago, and since then, the winner in the conflict has been terribly afraid that the loser will pick himself off his feet again and come back. That conflict was the Second World War, the victor was what I call the 'Axis of Evil' - the US, UK and Israel (which wasn't around, of course, during the war, but was there in spirit and embodied in the form Chaim Waizmann, Churchill's close friend and political associate). The losers were National Socialist Germany and, by extension, Germany's friends in Fascist Italy and German-occupied Europe. The victors used enormous repression and violence to get rid of fascism and Far Right conservatism in the lands that they conquered. Not taking post-war German deaths into account, the Allies and the various 'resistance' and communist groups killed tens of thousands of right-wing French and Italians after 'liberation', and possibly hundreds of Belgians, Dutch, Danes and Norwegians. (The political establishment and its supporters in the media either ignore this violence or claim that the victims deserved what they got). The war against Germany and its friends continues, seventy years afterward, only this time it is a psychological war, and the liberal establishment is engaged in a 24-hour a day, seven days a week, psychological and propaganda war against the Germans of such virulence and intensity that one would think that WWII was still on. It is unrelenting. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of German National Socialism, the psychological war effort is there, because the victor regards the war - and the issues over which it was fought - as a live issue. In contrast, it regards the Pacific War as a dead issue: now and then the Japanese are scolded in the Western media for not being sufficiently contrite over some of the atrocities it committed during the war, but otherwise they are left alone; very little attention is paid these days to the conduct of the Japanese in the Pacific War. Other, more recent conflicts have also become obscure. The war in Vietnam and Indochina, which went for fourteen years and which was a live issue during the time it was fought, is now largely forgotten. Even the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War are kept buried in the newspapers (mainly because the liberal establishment recognises that both wars have been lost).

The Western world is ruled by an Anglo-Judeo alliance - which owes its power and prominence to a military victory won seventy years ago. It keeps Europe down by force. That's the geopolitical reality today.

Australia, of course, is not Europe, and what's more, is unique because it occupies a geopolitical nexus between two great powers - the USA / Israel and China. The biggest problem the West and its colonies face is immigration - non-white immigration - on an unprecedented scale and Europe, the fatherland of the West, is being colonised by Africa and Islam. Australia, on the other hand, is being colonised by China, which is a great power, unlike Islam and Africa, neither of which can be described as great powers. European Far Right politics, then, aren't quite applicable here, and in a previous article I have proposed a solution  to the Chinese problem: national resistance akin to that of the communist Chinese guerrillas in their patriotic struggle against the Japanese in the 1930s and 1940s. Australian nationalists need to follow the tactics of Mao and one of the tactics is New Democracy - coalitions with people outside our party who are not necessarily 'with us'.

This, then, is the Neo-Nazi story, and attached to it as a coda is the Australian story. Does believing in the story - and I most certainly do - make one a 'Neo-Nazi'? No, it doesn't: plenty of white nationalists (see below for a definition of white nationalism) and Holocaust and WWII revisionists believe in a variant of the story. They don't combine it, however, with a course of political action; they don't subscribe to the fascist or communist political method.

The story here doesn't show any commitments to any particular constitutional order - there is none of the Führerprinzip and authoritarianism so beloved of 'fascists' and 'Neo-Nazis'. The story does seem sceptical, however, on the question as to whether any of the power-questions can be solved through voting and liberal democracy - can the electorate of Europe vote themselves out of their difficulties, can they achieve freedom and independence through electoral conservative methods? Can the Anglo-Judeo empire - more formidable than the Soviet empire - be dissolved through a vote? It would seem that the answer is no. The present day European liberal democratic system was put in place, and the European political establishment put in power, largely by the Allied victors, and besides which, a continuance of Anglo-Jewish power seems to be a built-in feature of Western democracy. As the American neo-Nazi A.V. Schaerffenberg put it, elections are free in our system until the wrong parties are elected.

Fascist tactics and the 'seizure of power'

Both communist and fascist parties have trouble getting electoral majorities in 'free and fair' democratic elections; this is a historical fact. They may do quite well in an election, and get a sizeable percentage of the vote, but they never get the simple majority that, for instance, a Republican or Democrat, or Tory or Labour, party may get. This is a simple statement of fact; I am not evaluating the merits of such electoral results and am not suggesting that a simple majority somehow confers legitimacy on the winner. It's only to say that it's extremely unlikely that a fascist or communist party could qualify, at least in the West, for an electoral majority, even a slim one. The historical record shows that.

Communists and fascists have ways of getting around that hurdle and more or less communist and fascist tactics here (as in many other places) are the same. We see those tactics on display in the Eastern European (including Eastern Germany) occupied by the Soviets after the war. These states were (nominally) liberal democratic, even though they were under Russian occupation, and pro-Soviet communist parties competed against liberal democratic parties and institutions for power. Elections were held, in which the communists often didn't get a simple majority, so the communists had to go to a plan B. The result was a flawless, seamless, smooth transition from liberal democracy to communism. No revolutionary chaos, upheaval occurred; there was very little anarchy and 'smashing of the state' of the kind advocated by Lenin in one of the early, pre-war Bolshevist texts on revolution-making, State and Revolution (1917). The communists could argue - as did the earlier Italian Fascists and German National Socialists - that the transition took place within the confines of the constitutional order.

I won't rehearse the whole history of Eastern Europe from this time; I'll give the dummies version. Here it is, from Seán Lang's Twentieth Century History For Dummies (2011):

Slicing salami, or how to take over a country without anyone noticing

Stalin had promised the Western Allies that he would hold free elections in eastern Europe. How could he hold free elections and still produce a set of communist governments? The trick was to start slicing little segments of democracy away gradually, like slicing salami, as the Hungarian leader Matyas Rakosi put it. Here's how the tactic worked:

Stage 1. Form a coalition government with your political enemies. Remember to smile at them nicely. Make sure you hold the ministries which control the police, the intelligence services, and the armed forces. (If your coalition partners prove difficult about this, throw a tantrum and threaten to resign. Doing so usually brings them round).

Stage 2. Use your control of the police, intelligence services, and armed forces to arrest or threaten your political opponents. (Hint: either accuse them of something heinous or say you're taking them into custody for their own protection. Someone will believe you.)

Stage 3. Sack any civil servants and other State employees who seem able to think for themselves. Replace them with Communist Party members who luckily just happen to be between jobs at the moment.

Stage 4. Hold an election. Make sure all the voters are thoroughly intimidated and that the only candidates are communists. (If some aren't, go back to Stage 2). You should aim for a 95 per cent vote for the Communist Party. Don't get cocky and go any higher or people might think you've rigged things. Silly, I know, but people do get these ideas.

Thanks to salami tactics, the countries of central and eastern Europe fell to communist rule one by one. In 1947 the Russians set up the COM inform, an international organisation to make sure all these different communist governments did as they were told.

An astute reader will notice the similarities between Ramos's 'salami tactics' and those of the NSDAP in 1933. One of the turning points in the German national revolution was Goering's takeover of the massive Prussian police force after being made the Minister of the Interior, which led to his mass sacking of anti-Nazi police officers and his replacement of them with NSDAP members and 'deputised' Brown Shirts.

The 'salami tactics' at the top - at the level of the state - were accompanied, in the communist example above, by mass mobilisation tactics from below. The communist coup-d'état in Czechoslovakia, 1947-1948, stands as the classic example. During the height of the political crisis in early 1948 - which saw the voluntary surrender of power by the liberal democrats to the communists - the communist party helped speed things along through mass mobilisation. Enormous crowds - of communist party members and affiliates - marched through the capital; workers paraded with guns. 'Action committees' - militias made up of communist party members and members of communist party front groups - seized control of factories, schools, government buildings and trade union headquarters. (The 'action committees' are reminiscent of Mao's Red Guards, or perhaps the hordes of Kremlin-sponsored 'separatists' wreaking havoc in the eastern part of Ukraine). All of this helped put pressure on the besieged liberal democratic government. Weren't these 'masses' 'the people'? Weren't they proof that 'the people' wanted communism, that communism was an expression of 'the people's will'?

The NSDAP and Italian PNF, of course, used the same street- and mass-mobilisation tactics. Does that mean that the neo-Nazi parties (and communist parties) are using the same tactics today? The answer is, by and large, no. What we have is a potentiality. That is, it's quite possible that neo-Nazis could infiltrate the trade unions or the police with intention of subordinating them to neo-Nazi political control, and this sort of activity is more likely to be carried out by a neo-Nazi - or a communist - than by, say, a member of the British Conservative Party or the Australian Labor Party. The Greek liberal democratic government is wary of the police officers who are sympathisers, or even members, of Golden Dawn for this reason and I'm sure that the German conservative and socialist governments have taken stringent measures to keep members of the NPD and other Far Right extreme nationalist groups out of the trade unions and the army. (This isn't a justification, of course, of the state repression of neo-Nazi and extreme right-wing organisations - merely an acknowledgement that the liberal democrats are right in recognising that the neo-Nazi groups, at least, are a different animal than your average socialist, liberal or conservative political party). This isn't to say that the Jobbiks, NPDs and Golden Dawns are using, everywhere and at all times, Marxist-Leninist tactics; only that the potentiality is there.

It is the use of these tactics - or the potentiality for their use - that makes a 'Nazi' a true 'Nazi'. Anti-Semitism doesn't make you a Nazi, neither does racialism, neither does extreme nationalism. But when these are combined with an approach - essentially the equivalent of a computer's operating system - borrowed, without acknowledgement, from the communists, then you have authentic Nazism.

Events like the German revolution of 1933, or the Czech coup of 1948, are rather spectacular, of course, and are difficult, to say the least, for a nationalist group - neo-Nazi or no - to replicate. Gaining control over even a trade union is a hard thing to do, and even communists have traditionally had difficulty in that endeavour (surprisingly enough). I am presuming here that the nationalists reading this article are beginning at a very low level - that a) that they aren't part of a large nationalist political party and b) can't simply waltz into their local church or trade union office, sign up and then commence a slow 'takeover'.

One must have a clear set of priorities. I'll state my own opinions on the subject - opinions based on years of observation. Firstly, trying to convert the ordinary apolitical man in the street is a waste of time - it's far better to concentrate on politicised people. Secondly, trying to bring the conservatives, left-liberals, socialists and communists around to one's thinking, to make them see the other side of the story, is fruitless. German nationalists, for example, have been promulgating Holocaust Revisionism and WWII revisionism (with a special emphasis on the extraordinary post-war slaughter of German civilians and POWs) with very little effect; the mainstream political parties and forces in Germany and Europe are a hard-hearted, implacable bunch and simply won't yield an inch when it comes to German 'war guilt' and the 'crimes of fascism'; in fact, they will use these to buttress state-sanctioned multiculturalism and mass non-white immigration. It's far better, in my opinion, to concentrate on people who are politicised but not against you from the outset.

Who are these people? The nationally-minded people who stand between the two main groupings in the nationalist movement. On the one side are those we generally classify as neo-Nazis - the skinheads, the Rockwell-types - we shall hear more of them in a moment. On the other side are what I call the 'national bourgeois' parties - for example, the Front National, Wilders' Freedom Party, UKIP, the Danish People's Party - and groups (Jared Taylor's American Renaissance, Peter Brimelow's VDare, among others). There are those who are too radical-minded for the national bourgeois types and too conservative for the American NSM and Harold Covington types. We should be investing most of our energies in these sorts of people. They are the building blocks of a real movement which is to be gathered around a unified party.

Rockwellism and its discontents

The 'Rockwellites', as I call them, are the main obstacle to the formation of a decent neo-Nazi party. The crux of the problem is this: the Rockwellites don't form political organisations, i.e., parties which compete in elections, and tend to dissuade any conventional political activity; they are a subculture, a lifestyle; at the same time, they pass themselves as the 'true' neo-Nazis and disparage the efforts of others. They may end up attracting and recruiting many men whose energies can be better put to use elsewhere and so therefore end up taking up movement time, effort and money - all scarce commodities on the Far Right scene.

The Rockwellites can be classified into three sub-groups: the uniformists (e.g. Harold Covington, Bill White, Matt Koehl, Frank Collin); the skinheads; the esotericists - intellectuals who preach that National Socialism is a form of mysticism and a lifestyle choice (William Pierce, Savitri Devi, Miguel Serrano).

Rockwellism can be objected to on the grounds that it contains many theoretical errors - simply put, it misinterprets German National Socialism - but the main fault with it is that it seems to attract the most scoundrelly and rascally people. I recently discovered a biography by Iiro Nordling, Pekka Siitoin, Cold War product, Satanist Neo-Nazi Fuehrer of Finland (2014). When reading the blurb (in badly written English), I was half-inclined to suspect that someone was pulling my leg and had invented 'Pekka Siitoin' with the intention of parodying Rockwellism:

This books deals with some undercurrents in Finland's recent history. Foreigners were told about idyllic relations between Finland and Soviet Union during the Cold War. However, there was a man named Pekka Siitoin who proclaimed to be Fuehrer of Finland. He started to trim his moustache the Hitler style around 1976. That was to give everyone correct signal what his activity was about. Swastika flag was flying high on top of his building. He organized threatening calls to communist newspaper journalist. He had military training camp for his supporters. Then one of his followers set ablaze communist printing house that was paid by Soviet Union. Pekka Siitoin was sentenced to prison. He spent three and half years in prison. He was released from prison and at the same time his hated president Kekkonen became ill. As an ex-convict his movement was limited. Besides all kinds of KGB people were after him. His drinking problems worsened and family life was disaster. He was father of four kids.

Pekka Siitoin came back to spotlight in the nineties. When he had started his activities, Finland didn't have many immigrants. Siitoin had correspondence with all kinds of Neo-Nazis and right wing characters. He received a letter from David Duke in the early eighties. Duke wanted to see Siitoin and asked if Siitoin would come to Stockholm to see him. Siitoin had come out of prison, totally broke and family life in mess. He sold illegal booze to finance his family. And was caught by police. Nobody wanted to hire him for his reputation.

Pekka Siitoin sent letter to international right wing people, saying that Finland had only problem with communists. According to Siitoin Finland had then only 3500 gypsies and 1000 Jews and 20 African origin people. Siitoin boasted that through his efforts the last Jews were fleeing the country to Israel. All that was not of course true, but there was some truth in it.

Finland started to accept refugee in bigger numbers since the 1990's. That was a period of deep recession in Finland and anti-immigrant sentiment was rising. Siitoin got some new followers from skinheads. However, Siitoin himself considered himself Satanist. He said sometimes that his group consisted of ex-Freemasons who didn't accept Jewish principles.

In personal life Siitoin didn't have very high ideals. He was a drinker and a womanizer. He boasted that he had slept with over 800 woman in his life - mostly street girls.

Any way this book tries to picture darker side of Finland. As a Finn, I am tired of listening the propaganda by our politicians, who portray Finland as a role model country to the World. High educational standards. Finland has produced lot of lunatics and highly original characters. Pekka Siitoin was one of them.

Most people on the Far Right have the misfortune of meeting at least one Pekka Siitoin in their lives. I wish here I could distinguish between the 'good' and 'bad' Neo-Nazis, but I can't: Neo-Nazism is, well, a form of fascism, and the historical fascist movement - like communism - attracted many thugs and rogues. The question is, does the presence of such men invalidate the ideology? It all comes back to whether the men like Bill White or Pekka Siitoin can be put to use - to be made to work for the good of a political party.

The errors of white power

Rockwellism is deeply influenced by white nationalism (also known as 'white separatism', 'white power'-ism, 'pro-whiteism', 'race realism', etc.), an American doctrine which is anti-political.

A dictionary definition of white nationalism would be: the doctrine of white racial supremacy, an obsession with racial purity and the prevention of race-mixing with non-white races (particularly the Negro race), a cult of the white man as explorer and coloniser of the world and, quite possibly, the founder of far-flung civilisations (ancient China, India, the Americas, Egypt - see Arthur Kemp's classic March of the Titans: A History of the White Race (2006) for an explication of this race myth). It is highly sympathetic to eugenicist and social Darwinist theories, although it predates 19th century Darwinism and eugenicism. White nationalism owes its origin to the European slave trade, and first appeared - in modern Western history - with the founding of the racially-segregated slave colonies of France, Spain and Britain in the Caribbean. Barbados, with its laws against miscegenation, its racial composition (wherein a small white minority of 20% of the island's population ruled over an 80% black population - the same ratio in later South Africa), its white militia on standby to crush any black revolt, was perhaps the first white nationalist state and the prototype for the segregated slave society of the Deep South. Today's white nationalists are the descendants of the ferociously anti-Negro Southern secessionists of the early to mid 19th century; an unbroken line runs from the antebellum and reconstructed South to the 20th century's Ku Klux Klan and conservative opponents of desegregation to David Duke and American Renaissance today. White nationalism doesn't resonate much outside the US, mainly because one of the prerequisites of white nationalism is a large, non-white and Negro population. While the white nationalist is opposed to Mexican and Central American immigration, the traditional 'other' in white nationalist polemics is the Negro, who is for all intents and purposes indigenous to America. Which explains the affinity the American white nationalists feel for the Afrikaaners and the white Rhodesians. Simply put, neither Europe nor Australia (yet) have enough Negroes to develop a true white nationalist feeling and racial consciousness.

The white nationalists are politically weak, that is to say, they don't participate in elections and have no political parties. By all rights, they should have, given their racialised view of the world: to them, the US Democrats are the party of Negroes, Hispanics and elite, wealthy liberal Jews; because (according to the white nationalists) all politics is on a racial and ethnic basis, a White Race Party ought to have millions of followers - but no such party exists. White nationalists in America have been remarkably inept, politically, and have been unable to organise a single nationwide party - a failing they are well aware of. Partially this is because white nationalism - like most American Far Rightism - is strangely apolitical and anti-nationalist; it is, in fact, idealistic and internationalist. It believes that all white people are brothers and can't account for the historical fact of white and European nations going to war against one another. This comes about from white nationalism's lack of understanding of the power of nationhood and machtpolitik. Ethnically homogenous and white nations such as Russia shouldn't go to war against their fellow white nations, but they do; white nationalism can't account for this fact.

On a practical, nationwide level, one can only have a Far Right nationalist party in a unified nation - a nation state with a homogenous people. Colin Woodard's American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America (2011) argues that North America is composed not of two but eleven different nations; the South, or Dixie, is made up of five different 'nations'.

Despite its shortcomings, white nationalism, as a creed, is probably the most influential doctrine on the Far Right today. It wormed its way into neo-Nazism thanks to Rockwell, who conflated 'white power' with (what he called) 'National Socialism'. As an example of this confusion, there is a recent article by Greg Johnson, in which he defends Hitler against criticism by white nationalists:

The “blame Hitler” argument boils down to this: If only Adolf Hitler had not started World War II, killed six million Jews, and tried to conquer the world, White Nationalism would get good press and perhaps make some progress in the political realm. Hitler is the reason why race realism, eugenics, immigration control, and nationalism have been discredited in the eyes of whites the world over. Thus if White Nationalism is to have any chance of changing the world, we need to ritually condemn and repudiate Hitler and everything he stood for, as well as all his present day followers.

I find this argument to be morally contemptible and politically naïve.

It is contemptible, because it is essentially an attempt to curry favour with our enemies and pander to ignoramuses and fools by throwing a loyal white man under the bus. And make no mistake: Adolf Hitler, whatever his faults, was a loyal white man who fought and died not just for Germany, but for our race as a whole.

Blaming Hitler is also morally obscene because it absolves a whole host of villains who are the real architects of our race’s doom: the slave traders and plantation owners who introduced blacks into the Americas, the railroad magnates and other plutocrats who brought Orientals to our shores, the traitorous capitalists who are destroying the white working and middle classes by importing non-white labor (legal or illegal) and shipping American jobs to the Third World, the egalitarians who have not hesitated to spill oceans of white blood to promote the moral and political equality of non-whites — and of course every politician who has done the bidding of all of the above.

Perhaps the Afrikaaners should have stayed home and never bothered to conquer southern Africa? It goes without saying that white nationalism wouldn't exist without the much-maligned 'slave traders and plantation owners' - indeed, the concept of a 'white race' as such wouldn't exist without them. Neither would much of American civilisation without the European slave trade, which began in 1441. Perhaps we should go back in time and eliminate the 'anti-white' slave trade, which began in the fifteenth century, along with a host of other 'anti-white' historical mistakes so that we arrive at a 'pro-white' historical result today - but this is absurd.

(At any rate, Hitler, Germany and Germany's friends didn't fight for 'our race as a whole': weren't the British, Americans and Russians - white?)

It would seem, at first sight, that white nationalism and German National Socialism would go together hand in glove. After all, we are told that National Socialism was a 'race-based', 'racialist' political philosophy, which exalted the 'race' and the 'volk' above all; it practised racial purity and inveighed against 'racial admixture' - doesn't Hitler sound like a 19th century Southerner?

The truth of the matter is that hardly any Rockwellites have bothered to read what Hitler actually said. Hitler quite frequently refers to the 'German race'. German isn't a racial category - like, e.g., Caucasian, Negro, Arab, Mestizo, Dravidian - it's a nationality and ethnicity. 'Aryan' in Hitler is a shorthand term for white and Christian (non-Jewish) Europeans. 'The white race', when this term appears in Hitlerian discourse (and it does so rarely) always refers to the European colonial powers - Britain, Portugal, Holland and others - and he uses it in the context of a speech on geopolitics and Europe's relations to its (non-white) colonies.

The 'racial admixture' condemned by Hitler was the miscegenation between Jews and Germans: the Nuremberg laws were designed to prevent such 'race-mixing'. National Socialist 'racialism' was directed at Jews - it intended to draw a sharp distinction between Jews and Europeans. Yockey praises this coming-to awareness of 'the Jew' as something separate, alien and parasitic in Western civilisation as a great turning point in the history of the white Western Culture. The distinctions drawn by the National Socialists were part-racial, part-cultural, part-religious. Jews, according to Hitler, attempt to pass themselves off as German, and even intermarry with them - while maintaining their own sense of separate, Semitic and Middle Eastern identity. This is, to Hitler, 'poisoning other races' while 'keeping their own race pure'.

The white nationalists are obsessed by miscegenation. Terrible things happen when miscegenation occurs - the great Southern politician and race-agitator, Theodore G. Bilbo, blamed the downfall of ancient civilisations on race-mixing. This is traditional American racialist thinking. The innovation of the Rockwellites was to introduce The Jew. Being a race-poisoner, and someone who wants to bring about the downfall of white Western Christian civilisation, the Jew attempts to persuade - through means of his monopoly of ownership on the media, advertising, fashion, intellectual culture - American whites to integrate, copulate and breed with the negro. That way, the white race in America shall be destroyed, replaced with a bunch of mulattoes, quadroons and octoroons (which is what happened to the white race in Brazil at the time of the original European settlement).

This is the Rockwellite and Piercian doctrine. Hitler never subscribed to it and would have found the notion of Europeans perishing through miscegenation with negroes (and other non-white races) abhorrent and unthinkable - as would any European politician at the time. Such a concept wasn't in the bounds of possibility for Hitler's contemporaries, and not even the 'enemies of the white race' who Hitler fought against - Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill - would have countenanced it. But the doctrine is very much in tune with Southern thought and Southern polemics against the Yankee North. The Yankee conquerors were accused, after the Civil War, of wanting to destroy the whites of the South by forcing them to mix with negroes. Rockwell's 'National Socialism' is more or less a Bilbo or Strom Thurmond doctrine with some anti-Semitism thrown in. (I'll point out that William Pierce, born in Atlanta, Georgia was a man of the South and rest my case).

Another target of American white nationalism is illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America. Again, the Jews are accused of being the biggest proponents of amnesty for illegal Mestizo immigration - and of seeking to 'keep their own race pure' by using strict measures against illegal African immigration into Israel. While there is a grain of truth to this - more than a grain - Hitler's racial doctrines don't refer to any illegal or legal non-white immigration into Europe, much less the role of Jews as enablers of it, simply for the reason that the prospect of mass non-white immigration to Europe was inconceivable at the time. Hitler does mention, in Secret Book (1928), the existence of large numbers of negroes in France, and he evidently regards them as a blot on French and European racial purity, but he doesn't appear to blame the Jews for their presence in France - instead he attributes it to a terminal French decadence:

On top of that, in proportion as France declines in her own Folk's power, this State proceeds to the opening up of her reservoir of niggers. Thus a danger of unimaginable proportions draws near for Europe. The idea of French niggers, who can contaminate white blood, on the Rhine as cultural guards against Germany, is so monstrous that it would have been regarded as completely impossible only a few decades ago. Surely France itself would suffer the greatest harm through this blood pollution, but only if the other European nations remain conscious of the value of their white race. Viewed in purely military terms, France can very well supplement her European formations, and, as the World War has shown, also commit them effectively. Finally, this completely non French nigger army indeed vouchsafes a certain defence against communist demonstrations, since utter subordination in all situations will be easier to preserve in an army which is not at all linked by blood to the French Folk. This development entails its greatest danger for Italy first of all. If the Italian Folk wants to shape its future according to its own interests, it will ultimately have nigger armies, mobilised by France, as its enemy.

There are passages which lend support to the Rockwellite and Piercite doctrine. There is this one from Secret Book, which is a condemnation of the idea of 'European union', a 'Pan European movement', by which Europe will abolish its borders and agglomerate all of its individual nationalities into one 'European' nationality:

Thus, first and foremost, the Pan European Movement rests on the fundamental basic error that human values can be replaced by human numbers. This is a purely mechanical conception of history which avoids an investigation of all shaping forces of life, in order, in their stead, to see in numerical majorities the creative sources of human culture as well as the formative factors of history. This conception is in keeping with the senselessness of our western democracy as with the cowardly pacifism of our high economic circles. It is obvious that it is the ideal of all inferior or half breed bastards. Likewise, that the Jew especially welcomes such a conception. For, logically pursued, it leads to racial chaos and confusion, to a bastardisation and Negrification of cultural mankind, and thereby ultimately to such a lowering of its racial value that the Hebrew who has kept free of this can slowly rise to world domination. At least, he fancies that ultimately he will be able to develop into the brain of this mankind which has become worthless.

This sounds very much like Pierce and Rockwell's Jew who deliberately wrecks other races through bringing about 'bastardisation and Negrification' and who, by keeping his own race pure and his people unified, manages to achieve a position of ascendancy over the whites. But it would seem that Hitler is talking in metaphors most of the time. He contends that the liberal democratic parties of Germany are 'the same people who in Germany most cruelly wage war on anyone who understands being national as something other than defencelessly surrendering his Folk to syphilisation by Jews and Negroes'. Surely he doesn't mean that Jews and Negroes are spreading syphilis throughout Germany?

It must be emphasised, again and again, that when Hitler uses the word 'race', he isn't necessarily referring to the Caucasian race, the Semitic-Arab race, the Negro race, etc. He is usually referring to different nationalities, who he regards as different 'races'. Here is another passage from Secret Book:

It is an old experience that a lasting unification of nations can take place only if it is a question of nations which are racially equivalent and related as such, and if, secondly, their unification takes place in the form of a slow process of struggle for hegemony.

Thus did Rome once subjugate the Latin States one after the other, until finally her strength sufficed to become the crystallisation point of a world empire. But this is likewise the history of the birth of the English World Empire. Thus, further, did Prussia put an end to the dismemberment of Germany, and thus only in this way could a Europe one day rise that could attend to the interests of its population in a compact governmental form.

But -- this would only be the result of a centuries long struggle, since an infinite quantity of old customs and traditions must be overcome and an assimilation of Folks who are already extraordinarily divergent racially would have to materialise [italics mine]. The difficulty, then, of giving a unitary State language to such a structure can likewise be solved only in a centuries long process.

So much for the idea of Hitler as 'National Socialist'! Why doesn't anyone in the movement ever read Hitler's books, as opposed to Pierce and Rockwell's 'white power' nonsense?

I don't wish to disparage the Rockwellites entirely - there are plenty of good things to be said about them: Ian Stuart was a great songwriter, Rockwell a funny and brave man, Pierce a superb propagandist and speaker. Many good articles have appeared in Rockwellite publications (such as Pierce's National Vanguard) over the course of the past thirty years. Some believe that Covington's novels are worth reading. But ultimately the Rockwellites must be rejected for their incorrect interpretation of Hitler and German National Socialism and their wholesale falsification of the historical record. One can't say that they have built upon the original National Socialism, in the way that Lenin built upon Marx (20th century communism was very much Lenin's, not Marx's, creation); they haven't improved upon National Socialism. Rather, they have distorted it... One of the consequences of this is that, by removing German National Socialism from its historical, political and national context, they have ended up turning into a universalist, and, strange as it sounds, deracinated doctrine. Which is why we have the Neo-Nazis of Mongolia (the best way to make a Rockwellite squirm is to bring up the Mongolian 'National Socialists').

(Another way to make them uncomfortable is to bring up the topic of Povl Riis-Knudsen, the Danish neo-Nazi who is the author of two widely influential tracts - 'National Socialism - The Biological World View' and 'National Socialism - A Left-Wing Movement', two of the foundational texts of Rockwellism. He was expelled from the DNB (Danish National Socialist Movement) for his engagement to Palestinian woman who he described as a 'white Arab').

A real neo-Nazism

What is genuine Neo-Nazism? By and large, all the neofascism and Nazi revivalism which appeared in West Germany after the war. Remer's Socialist Reich Party, which was banned in 1952, was the real deal so far as Neo-Nazism was concerned - and after all, the party leadership and the membership were former soldiers and NSDAP members. One won't find any Devi or Serrano in there: there is no nature-mysticism, anti-smoking, vegetarianism, mystic Führer cultism, animal liberationism in the Social Reich Party program. Yet it looks, sounds like Nazism.

The New Zealand expert on neofascism, Kerry Bolton, wrote a monograph on immediate post-war German nationalism, 'Stalin's German-Nationalist Party'. Bolton gives an account of the little-known NDPD (National Democratic Party of Germany, not to be confused with the nationalist party of the same name, the NPD). East Germany was a sham multi-party state: various democratic parties existed and elections were held, but the reality was that the country was a single-party dictatorship (Bashir Assad's Syria follows the same model). Early after the founding of East Germany, the Russians decided that the former Nazis deserved to play a role in the political life of the new state, and so a German nationalist party, composed of former German soldiers and NSDAP members, was formed. Bolton writes:

In February 1948 the Soviet Military Administration (Sowjetische Militäradministration in Deutschland:SMAD) announced the end of denazification. In March 1948 the prosecution of Germans for alleged “war crimes” was formally ended. The same month the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NDPD) was formed. The German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik: DDR) was announced in 1949, from elections in the Soviet occupied zone, after the failure of the USSR and the Western occupiers to agree on terms for elections on the reunification of Germany.

With the NDPD’s creation, Stalin stated that the party would “erase the line between non-Nazis and former Nazis.” On March 22, a newspaper was launched to pave the way, National-Zeitung, announcing: “while in other areas there remains the atmosphere of denazification of Germany, in the eastern part the people’s eyes light up again. Simple party comrades no longer have to be timid and fearfully look around as if they were pariahs.” The party was founded three days later, under the chairmanship of Lothar Bolz, who held the post until 1972. Bolz had been a member of the pre-war German Communist party and was one of the few German Communist leaders to have survived Stalin’s hazardous hospitality towards Communist refugees. During much of the time Bolz served in the government of the DDR, including the position of Foreign Minister (1968-1978), the vice chairman of the NDPD was Heinrich Hohmann, who had joined the National Socialist party in 1933, and was a co-founder of the League of German Officers, which formed the initial nucleus of the NDPD.

The NDPD program was stridently nationalistic; as much as the Socialist Reich Party which was being outlawed in the Federal Republic:

   America violated the Treaty of Potsdam and plunged us Germans with malice into the biggest national distress of our history. … But the American war may and shall not take place! Germany must live! That’s why we National Democrats demand: the Americans to America. Germany for the Germans! The Federal Republic of Germany is a child of national treason... That's why we National Democrats demand: German unity over the head of the government of national treason in Bonn, as a basis for peace, independence and prosperity for our entire German fatherland [...]

The party reached a peak of 230,000 members in 1953, and during the 1980s still had a significant membership of 110,000. In 1948 the party sent 52 members to the DDR parliament, the Volkskammer. One of its primary aims was German unification, and the party drew on ex-NSDAP members and army veterans to support its campaigns. One such appeal from the party issued in 1952 included 119 names of officers from the Wehrmacht, SS, Hitler Jugend, League of German Maidens (BDM) and German Labor Front.

I argue that this sham German nationalist party, fake and contrived as it was, is far more 'Nazi' than any Rockwell or skinhead group.

One blogger sums it all up here:

Firstly, National Socialism (1923-1945) is German and for Germans only. It’s true that neighbouring countries at the time, such as Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, had Nazi parties, but generally, it was for Germans at that particular historical time. The objectives were to break the Versailles Treaty, find living space for overpopulated Germany, deal with the military threat posed by France and the USSR, solve the German unemployment problem (not to mention the communist problem)…

Is there such a thing as Neo-Nazism? Otto Remer’s Socialist Reich Party (1949-1952) in West Germany attempted it. It certainly looked and felt like Nazism. But even so, given that Germany’s position had radically changed since the days of the Versailles Treaty, the SRP’s program differed from the original.

Most people, when they use the word ‘Neo-Nazi’, are referring to the American/British variety. The movement was founded by George Lincoln Rockwell and Colin Jordan, two clowns who loved dressing themselves and their followers up in brownshirt uniforms. One couldn’t find anything more different from German National Socialism: the Neo-Nazis insisted – and still do – that Nazism was intended, not only for Germans, but for ‘all white people’, including Russians, Czechs and Poles! These ‘white nationalist’ beliefs have been adopted by the skinhead movement.

(Ernst Zundel wrote recently that he disparages those people who dress up in Nazi uniforms, as it’s an insult to the 15 million Germans who died for the National Socialist cause. I agree, it is insulting).

The blogger k0nsl's account has more brevity than mine and is true enough. But is it the case that only Germans can be 'Nazi'? Not at all. I would classify William Joyce, John Amery and Douglas Chandler as wartime non-German and Anglo-Saxon (well, Joyce was Irish, but let's not be pedantic) Nazis. It should be remembered that the Allies viewed them as such and viewed them seriously - Amery and Joyce were hanged by the British.

Given that they represented an inauthentic Neo-Nazism, how was it that the Rockwells, Pierces and Ian Stuarts swept the world while the Yockeys and Remers languished in comparative obscurity? Part of the answer lies in the language barrier. English is the most spoken language in the world, and Evola and Bardèche have been translated into English only recently; so far as I know, none of Jean-François Thiriart's work, which has been hugely influential on the Continent, has been translated into English. An additional explanation is the universalism of the Rockwellite doctrine. Pierce's, Stuart's and Rockwell's Neo-Nazism is for the entire white race, while Serrano and Devi claimed that National Socialism was a religion (and nothing is more universal than a religion). The third reason for the popularity of Rockwellism is that it is, I argue, a lifestyle choice and a subculture, and it's fairly easy to participate in a subculture or adopt a lifestyle - far more easy than forming a political party and doing hard, dirty activist work.

Another interesting question is why white nationalism left its spiritual home - the Deep South - and made its way to the United Kingdom: surely it wasn't just both the US and the UK spoke English? The answer is, I think, the emigration of black people. Hundreds of thousands of Africans and Afro-Caribbeans emigrated to the UK after the abolition of immigration restrictions in 1948. Anyone who is familiar with the work of the stalwarts of post-war British Far Rightism - Mosley, John Tyndall, Colin Jordan, John Bean - knows that their work took a pronounced anti-Negro character after 1948. One liberal British newspaper accused Mosley of sounding like a Southerner in one of his 1950s speeches. British fascists, in effect, became American. Hence Ian Stuart, hence the success of 'white power' neo-Nazism in the UK.

In Conclusion: Electoral Conservatives, Jews, Uniforms

As stated before, Rockwellism is an isolated and apolitical doctrine. It tends to alienate many, inside and outside the movement. It becomes extremely harmful to the nationalist cause when it succeeds in turning away people who may be able to help us - in particular, those who I call the 'electoral conservatives'. There are those who preach the constitutional path and believe that, if they form parties and participate in elections, they will win an electoral majority or at least a sizeable number of seats. They believe in adhering to the constitutional system as it exits in the West and holding to the principles of liberal democracy.

This type is especially prevalent in Australia. Many Australian nationalists are possessed of a bourgeois or liberal mentality which says that the electoral conservative way is the only way. Australians, after all, live in what is one of the oldest liberal democracies in the world and it is the ideology of this system which saturates their every waking thought. It's quite natural, then, for Australian nationalists to believe that all they need to do is form an electoral party and then, after getting their message through to the Aussie voter, win a crushing electoral majority and then implement a nationalist program. But it's very difficult, of course, to form and run an electoral party - this takes skills that many Australian nationalists regrettably don't have - and to break into parliament, especially the Australian Lower House, is one of the hardest things in the world. Having said that: we need political parties - only, we need a type of party which is radically different from the standard liberal democratic one. But supposing that a person who is willing to be an electoral organiser, campaigner, or candidate for such a nationalist party approaches our movement - especially the neo-Nazi side of the movement - what will he find? No doubt, after meeting a skinhead or a Harold Covington, he is bound to be discouraged. He will go on his merry way and apply for membership in one of the national bourgeois parties…

I'm not suggesting that we should change our program in order to appeal to the electoral conservatives. It's been a long-running debate - for at least forty years - in the British Far Right: so long as the British nationalist parties can get rid of all the 'neo-Nazis' and 'anti-Semites', why, 'ordinary British people' will want to join us and vote for us. This 'denazification' strategy didn't for the BNP under Nick Griffin, and it will probably fail when applied elsewhere. An astute observer will notice that the media is pushing the line - in a stealthy way - that Le Pen and Front National owe their recent electoral success to her 'softening' of the party and steering the party away from the 'anti-Semitism' and the 'taint' of Vichy conservatism, and, by extension, French fascism. Now, admittedly, the Western European voter is incredibly timid - he doesn't go for the Golden Dawns or the Jobbiks. One only has to look to Britain. There, UKIP is enjoying great success while Griffin's BNP is a flop. UKIP concentrates on EU immigration and doesn't bring up Islamic, African and Indian immigration at all; it's such a scaredy-cat of party that it refuses to have anything to do with Front National or even Wilders. The British voter seems to prefer this brand of Far Right conservatism over Nick Griffin's. But, in the end, if we allow the Le Pens and Griffins to purge us, then we're out of business. We may as well do what Pierce did, and drop out of politics, retreat to the countryside and chop wood in a rural retreat.

We have to win over, then, the electoral conservatives and form electoral vehicles - that is, parties - and appear to be competent enough to run them. That means: no skinheads, no swastikas, no runes, no tattoos. We must be deep cover.

This brings up two related questions: the right use of uniforms and the right treatment of the Jewish question.

Firstly, the Jews. There is a species of nationalist I call the 'professional Jew baiter'. He concentrates on the Jewish question, and everything else - race, nationalism, economics, philosophy, political organising - becomes secondary. 'Fighting the Jew' becomes his main aim in life. David Duke is the most prominent example of the professional Jew-baiter. Once a Southern nationalist, he became a white nationalist and then a full-time Jew baiter.

The national bourgeois American Renaissance doesn't permit anti-Semitic comments in the replies section of its website posts; Kevin MacDonald's Occidental Observer and Peter Brimelow's VDare switch comments off altogether. The reasons for this are twofold: one is that the professional Jew-baiters will hijack the topic thread, and go on and on about the Jew; two is that provocateurs and dangerous types may end up posting about violence and thereby getting the site moderators in trouble with law enforcement. (Recently, a longtime poster on the notorious Vanguard News Network Forum, Frazier Glenn Miller, went on a shooting rampage outside a synagogue in Kansas - he intended to kill some Jews, but only killed three non-Jewish Americans. Predictably, he had posted on VNN that Jared Taylor, the leader of American Renaissance, was a 'kosher conservative').

I don't think one should impose a silence on oneself when it comes the Jewish question or Holocaust denial. At the same time, one has to keep everything in proportion. It becomes clear, after prolonged contact with the professional Jew-baiter, that he really isn't political at all. When you ask him who he supports politically, it's either Iran or, paradoxically, the anti-anti-Semite and antifascist Putin - either of these will 'stand up to the Jew'. He won't support your political organisation - to engage in politics, that's too much for him.

Contra the professional Jew baiter, then, the Jewish question, and Holocaust denial, must be tackled in a tasteful, intelligent way; if one exaggerates too much, one ends up looking like a crank - or a professional Jew baiter - and one thereby turns off the electoral conservative.

The other point of contention is the use of uniforms. It must be remembered that fascism adopted uniforms out of necessity. In the early years after the Bolshevik revolution in the USSR, European communists would make a sport of attacking nationalists and conservatives and breaking their meetings up - Hitler describes this in detail in Mein Kampf. As a result, leaders like Mussolini and Hitler needed a personal bodyguard and also stewards to keep order in meetings and at marches. Bodyguards and stewards needed a uniform to distinguish them from a) other party members and b) audience members and onlookers, and so the Brownshirts and Blackshirts, and the Schutzstaffel, were born. From that point on, the power, the propaganda value, of the uniform was recognised by the fascist leadership - the uniform and the uniformed march in effect became fascism.

Rockwell, Colin Jordan and their ilk adopted uniforms out of a fetishism and exhibitionism. It was out of a desire to shock - not out of necessity. One of the consequences was that they only attracted small numbers of people, and so the aesthetic effect of the uniform was diminished: fifty to a hundred men in uniform look better than half a dozen.

As one's party gets bigger, and holds rallies, marches and demonstrations, it will inevitably be attacked by the communist Left. There's no doubt about it… Many nationalists who take up nationalist activism for the first time are shocked and appalled by left-wing violence and left-wing attempts to deny them basic rights of freedom of speech and association. It's only after they've been on the receiving end of the communist use of force that they begin to understand what the likes of Mosley were up against. It's then that march stewards and bodyguards became a practical requirement - if one's party doesn't have these things, one won't be able to hold a meeting in a public hall.

It would make sense to put such men in uniform. From then on, such a uniformed section could be used to great effect, propaganda-wise. Suppose that a hundred of one's party, in uniforms, marched through the heart of Sydney or Melbourne - that would cause quite a stir. The liberal establishment, and the international Jewish groups, would descend into a state of hysteria - there would be calls from Jewish and groups for one's party to be banned. Why a uniformed march would (inevitably) bring such a reaction, I don't know - what's there to be afraid of in a march of a hundred uniformed white men? How is it more fearsome than a march of, say, a hundred trade unionists or communists? But that's how the psychology of our enemies works. Suffice to say, such a march would gain one's party immediate worldwide publicity. That's what happened to Jobbik after its uniformed paramilitary organisation, the Magyar Garda, first appeared, in its uniforms modelled upon those of the Arrow Cross (the wartime Hungarian fascist party).

I think that if a uniformed paramilitary organisation is formed organically, that is, in response to events (that is to say, attacks by the communist Left), then the electoral conservatives will accept it. They will see the rationality, the good sense of it. But that will only happen if the paramilitary is kept distinct from the main party organisation - it is not the organisation itself. The NSDAP wasn't made up of just the SS or the Brownshirts, and it had many people in plain clothes; what's more, it was a real political party, unlike Rockwell's American Nazi Party.

Again, a sense of proportion must be maintained. In the early days of one's party, it's enough to get half a dozen nationalists and right-wing people in the one meeting hall. What will the effect be on those people if you show up in a Rockwell outfit or skinhead dress?

I mentioned before the national-minded people who stand between the Rockwellites and the national bourgeois parties and groups. Quite a few of these people are electoral conservatives who expect a modicum of political professionalism and are repelled by the freakishness of the Rockwellites. The political problem faced by authentic neo-Nazis is this: how to win these people over, how to assure of them of one's radical commitments while at the same time not frightening them away.