Sunday, September 13, 2015

The Corbyn strategy and what we can learn from it: or, how every dog has his day


Communists lost the argument after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, but you wouldn't know it to judge by the UK. There, communism lingers, communism persists.

Marxist-Leninism can be properly understood more as a way of going about things than an intellectual theory. You would be mistaken if you thought of the communists as being an intellectual and political debating club - as merely 'socialists' and intellectuals who differentiated themselves from other socialists by their adherence to the theories of Karl Marx as outlined in his Das Kapital (1867). Marxist-Leninism doesn't consist only of a collection of (highly questionable) theories regarding political economy; it consists of a set of political practices, most of which aren't contained in the Marxist-Leninist political texts - they are 'off the books', as it were.

One 'off the book' communist tactic involves infiltration and the capturing of key political and social institutions (trade unions, student groups, political parties, churches and others) as a means of expanding their political power. The successful use of this ploy surmounts one of the key hurdles to the implementation of communism in the West: the fact that hardly anybody will vote for them and that political power for them can't be won by electoral means.

Which brings us to the topic of Jeremy Corbyn and the impending communist takeover of the British Labour Party - a venerable British institution and long a target of communist (especially Trotskyite) penetration. I can't emphasise enough how significant this is: it's as though the German conservative party (the CDU / CSU), after a bruising electoral loss, decided to elect an unreconstructed neo-Nazi as their leader. A bastion of the liberal political establishment has been overcome by a fringe group with little electoral and popular appeal and who are social and political pariahs. The election of Corbyn to the Labour leadership represents a big score for British communism - a real coup, easily the biggest for the Left this century.

How did it happen? Large numbers of people who may or may not be radical left-wingers have signed up only recently to be Labour Party members; supposedly a 120,000 of those enrolled signed up (for the paltry price of £ 3) in the months before the leadership ballot. These new members swayed the vote towards Corbyn, and undoubtedly many of them are of the communist persuasion. The Labour Party leadership desperately attempted to stem the tide of entrants practising entryism, but to no avail.

Opponents of Labour may point out the obvious - that the election of Corbyn, and the swinging of the party to the far, far Left - will make the party 'unelectable'. But the communists don't want to win elections. Janet Daley makes a superb analysis of the communist strategy here. I'll quote some excerpts:

It is now the common wisdom that if the Labour Party elects Jeremy Corbyn as its leader, it will have given up the possibility of power. This is a serious misunderstanding.

Of course, when Liz Kendall says that if the party chooses Corbyn, it will “cease to be a serious party of government”, she is quite right. But being in government is not the only way – not even the most effective way, for a Left-wing activist – of seizing power.

Another constant refrain is that the apparent tide of support for Corbyn among Labour members (or affiliates, or supporters who have bought a right to vote for the leader at a knock-down price) indicates that the party has “learnt nothing” from its defeat at the last election. That’s wrong, too.

In fact, the Corbyn army is composed of two elements: the cynical, hard-nosed, experienced Left, who have a very clear idea of what kind of political strength they could wield if they gave up on the goal of electoral victory; and the grotesquely naïve, who believe that this movement actually represents a kind of idealism.

It is crucial to understand that the trade union movement that became the effective power base of the Labour Party when it succeeded in making Ed Miliband leader did learn something from the last election. The lesson was that there is scarcely any point in competing with the Tories to be in government.

The British communist movement doesn't want to be in office; it wants something different - something akin to 'direct action' and anarcho-syndicalism:

What the hard Left is now aiming for is a different sort of power altogether: the kind that is achieved by revolutionary activism through industrial disruption. By seizing the means of production and distribution directly through strikes and organised demands, the Left can take control of the levers of national life without any of the tedious hassle of legislation and parliamentary argy bargy.

This is the doctrine of direct action that has always been accepted by activists as a legitimate alternative to governmental power. It is what used to be known, when these things were debated openly at every Marxist salon, as anarcho-syndicalism.

You can see why this approach might be coming into its own: the Left has given up on the mass of the population ever escaping from the trap of false consciousness. There is no longer any hope of persuading them that life under socialism is worth voting for. They have been too successfully seduced by the false gods of private prosperity and consumerism. So why bother trying to bring them to their senses through the democratic process, if that means jumping through the humiliating hoops, and making the repugnant compromises, of a general election campaign?

Remember the life-or-death struggle with Arthur Scargill and how close the country came to having its economy undermined and the daily life of its population made unendurable. This is about making class war an everyday reality: taking the political struggle out of Westminster and into the street. That is what the Tory government – not to mention you and I – will be facing in the form of an “unelectable” Labour Party.

Instead, you can turn this outfit called the Labour Party into an effective, on-the-ground fighting machine that will seize the levers of economic and social activity at the levels that directly affect daily life. In that way, public consciousness can be engaged in a concrete, urgent form that cuts right through the establishment chatter of the governing class: stop the trains, turn the electricity off, disrupt essential services. That will make them listen to you.

Who cares how Jeremy Corbyn performs at PMQs apart from a few journalists? Parliament will become an irrelevance. What will matter to most real people is whether they can get to work or turn the lights on. Bring chaos to public infrastructure and the country will soon see who is really in charge. What will follow from that enlightenment – so the theory goes – will be the understanding that it is workers, not governments, that make society run. And so the loyalty and sympathy of the people will be transformed.

If you remember what life was like in Britain during the Left’s heyday then you will appreciate precisely what it would mean for a Corbynista Labour Party to revive the politics of that time.

This is not about the democratic process or governmental institutions at all. Forget the Michael Foot electoral debacle; forget the absurdity of Labour’s performance in the House of Commons.

Remember, instead, the life-or-death struggle with Arthur Scargill and how close the country came to having its economy undermined and the daily life of its population made unendurable. This is about making class war an everyday reality: taking the political struggle out of Westminster and into the street. That is what the Tory government – not to mention you and I – will be facing in the form of an “unelectable” Labour Party.


By himself, Corbyn doesn't seem that interesting ideologically: he peddles the same old Trotskyism - the 'transitional program' of unrealisable demands, the cuddling up to dubious Third World 'anti-imperialists' (Putin, Chavez, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Castro brothers)... Even the Corbyn tactic of mass communist infiltration of the Labour Party reprises Trotsky (that is, Trotsky's endorsement of entryism during the 'French Turn' in the 1930s). One can't find anything new there. But the 'direct action' strategy outlined in Daley's article seems to me to be entirely unprecedented. I think of it as a creative solution to a difficult problem: how the devil do you steer the British, after 1991, towards socialism? communism?

The problems we nationalists face resemble those of the communists - for one, we have difficulty in getting large numbers of people to vote for us - but they go deeper. To me everything goes back to Bardèche's classic work Nuremberg or the Promised Land (1948) - a remarkable work which anticipates the multiculturalism, open borders and mass non-white immigration forced upon the West.

Bardèche identifies three moral, political and legal principles set forth at the trial - principles which, if taken seriously, would (he warned) lead to the destruction of the West's ethnic homogeneity, the sovereignty of Western nations and nationalism itself.

The first of these he called the 'religion of humanity'. This means a compulsory ultra-humanism, an exaggerated concern for the welfare of humanity in the abstract - a concept which embraces all races except your own - which is shoved down our throats. Observance of this principle will be enforced by bombs, if necessary.

I call the 'religion of humanity' Pope Francis morality. We know that the Pope doesn't endorse violence, but can there be any doubt that if a nationalist Germany, France or Britain began expelling immigrants en masse, the Pope would be calling for a UN intervention and the 'humanitarian bombing' of Berlin, Paris and London?

The second principle he calls the 'human person'. That is, the highest qualities of man are represented by a universal Man with a capital 'M' - who doesn't show any European rational and national characteristics, a 'citizen of the world', a citizen of the 'universal republic'. The Jew, the African, the Chinaman, the Muslim are regarded as being more universal than the white European male; as a consequence, they are considered to be far more admirable. As Bardèche writes:

The respect for human dignity consists in recognizing an equal human essence in all (une égale spécificité humaine) and consequently equal rights for the Negro of Douala and the Archbishop of Paris. One cavels about equal rights: it will certainly be necessary one day to recognize them or our motto ['Liberty, equality, fraternity'] will no more make sense.

From this day forward, the free expression of the equal rights of two billion human beings is distributed as follows: 600 million whites, and the rest in Negroes, Asians or Semites. By what reasoning will you make the Negroes, Asians or Semites admit that their equal rights cannot be expressed in equal representation, and that, when it concerns serious matters, the opinion of a white is worth that of ten blacks?

It goes without saying that the cult of the human person is backed by force:

There is only one argument which makes perceptible a truth so little
evident; it is the presence of Her Majesty’s fleet, to which one has recourse indeed each
time the discussion threatens to go astray toward generalities. Thus, the defense of the human person still terminates in the same contradiction: it is established with canon
shots, or it consists in hearing submissively whatever orders it will please the colored
gentlemen to give us.

Bardèche names the third and final principle the 'universal conscience'. We know that the Nuremberg prosecutors didn't see the famous Nuremberg defence - 'I was only obeying orders' - as no defence at all. In the light of the examination of his conscience, the German soldier should have refused to obey orders, even at the risk of facing a court martial and a firing squad. The universal conscience instructs us in the right humanist and egalitarian moral conclusions and it ought to be obeyed above all other things: it comes before any sense of affiliation, obedience, honour and duty towards the community, nation, race, state, army.

A ludicrous statement in an article by a Reuters journalist gives us an example of the universal conscience in action: 'Impossible circumstances [for the non-white immigrants invading Europe at present] — coupled with basic human conscience — prompt us to think radically of larger solutions' to the so-called 'humanitarian crisis' presented to us by the illegal immigrant tidal wave lapping at the shores of Europe. That was written a few weeks ago. Now that the 'refugee crisis' has exploded in the world's headlines, one can find many more instances of 'universal conscience' drivel in the media.


After Bardèche published his book, the effects of the Nuremberg morality were felt straight away. The US desegregated its armed forces and began an assault on segregation in the South; the UK brought in the first boatloads of Afro-Caribbean immigrants; Western countries began dismantling any restrictions on non-white immigration; Apartheid South Africa - a loyal servant and brother-in-arms of the US and UK in their war against Europe - became public enemy number one. The Nuremberg morality entailed all this. That was because everyone in the West regards the verdict of the trial as just and binding and everyone believes that the charges against the Germans - of crimes of conspiracy and crimes against humanity, peace and the laws of war - are a 100% true. The corollary of those two beliefs is that every nation in the West is compelled, by their belief in the goodness and righteousness of the trials, to uphold the three principles of the trials - the religion of humanity, the universal conscience and the human person.

Another consequence of Nuremberg is that every Western government which attempts to impose immigration restrictions and deport illegal (or legal) immigrants will run up against the obstacle which is the Nuremberg morality. Cameron's Tory government can't escape it, and Trump is being condemned for the mere proposal that the existing laws on the books against illegal immigration into America be enforced. Nuremberg morality shows signs of catching up even to the Jews, who are being criticised roundly for their treatment of the Palestinians and their anti-African border wall. The three victors of WWII - Jewry, the US and the UK - are being hoisted on their own petard.

Nuremberg explains why any individual who advocates immigration restriction is accused of a lack of 'humanity' and compassion' and worse, an incipient Nazism. Many on the Far Right can't wrap their heads around the following fact: the Nuremberg moral system applies, not merely to defeated Nazi Germany, but to the entire West - even to the Western nations that together defeated Germany. Had Churchill's opposition to non-white immigration to Britain after the war been more widely known at the time, no doubt he would have been rounded on for harbouring racial theories not unlike those of the recently defeated National Socialists. He would have also been chided for his inhumanity and his inability to see that the economic usefulness of the Indian and African low-wage, low-skill workers overrides any consideration of the long-term national interest.

We can call ourselves various names: nationalists, immigration restrictionists, immigration patriots, conservatives, nativists... But one thing is certain: in the eyes of Nuremberg, we are all Nazis now. It doesn't matter where you stand on German National Socialism, the accusations will come. The liberals, the Jews, the Marxists and even the conservatives are already beginning to circle around Trump, and comparisons to National Socialism are being made.

Many on the Far Right will attempt to refute the allegation - that they are 'Nazi' or 'neo-Nazi' - by protesting that they are not 'Nazi', that they are Greek or British or Dutch or Southern nationalists or whatever. I think it's far more important to understand why our liberal and left-wing interlocutors are calling us 'Nazis'. This rhetorical tactic of theirs makes sense once you understand that the liberals, left-wingers, conservatives - everyone, practically, on the entire political spectrum - subscribe to the Nuremberg morality, which was designed to serve the purpose of delegitimising German nationalism and fascism. As a consequence, anyone who transgresses and deviates from that morality will find themselves lumped in with the fascists and German National Socialists, like it or not.


Given that the Nuremberg morality will eventually lead to the destruction of the West - including the Western countries (the US and UK) who helped devise it - we nationalists, who are concerned with the welfare of the West above all, need to do something to overcome it. But what?

To me, politics can be understood as attitudinal control, adjustment and reinforcement. In order to change people's behaviour, you need to change their ideas. Supposing that, of all of a sudden, Germany debanned Holocaust Revisionism and, instead of throwing its revisionists in jail, gave them the highest state honours; suppose that every newspaper, TV show, movie studio, school textbook, academic journal all went to work at once showing up the Holocaust for what it is (Judaist religious hokum) 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We'd know, for certain, that ideas in Germany have changed, and changed drastically; what's more, we could predict, with a near-degree of certainty, that behaviours in Germany would change as a result. It would seem unlikely that, after repudiating the Holocaust, Germany would go on to take on the projected burden of up to 800,000 immigrants ('refugees') from the Middle East and Africa. In fact, Germany would most likely spearhead the charge to throw the non-white immigrants (legal and illegal) out of Italy, the Balkans, Europe. The new barbarian invasions of Europe would come to an end, and Europe would ensure its safety and security for the next thousand years.

Holocaust Revisionism by itself wouldn't lead to all this. The adoption of Revisionism by Germany would signal to us that a massive change had taken place in the German body politic, that is all. In other words, the effect would follow the cause. And what is the cause? What brings about this attitudinal change in Germans?

The answer is politics - the right sort of politics. We need, as a movement, to be organised around one central principle, and that principle is neo-Nazism or neofascism or white nationalism or racial nationalism or whatever you want to call it.

Some racialists and nationalists will object to this. They will argue, 'Don't let the enemy frame you', that is, don't let the liberal multi-cultists set the terms of engagement and christen you a 'neo-Nazi'. Or a 'white supremacist'. One writer, at the Occidental Observer site opines (regarding the recent Muslim immigration invasion of Europe),

It is therefore imperative that in order to mobilize the vast numbers of people who “think” in this fashion, the state media — and the social media — frame the refugee debate in purely emotional terms. Pictures of desperate people, of tragedy being played out every day and every hour, must be front and centre of every news item on the subject. The tragedy must be given a human face.

However, those in the host countries who must move over for these migrants, or see their social safety net collapse from the burden, or face future job displacement from cheap labour, are left unseen by the cameras. There is no human face attached to their plight. The only images of them that we are permitted to see are those of angry demonstrators — spiced up with a few neo-Nazis for good measure — shouting outside of migrant reception areas. Nothing like tarring legitimate outrage with the Nazi brush to discredit their grievances.

The trouble is this: who in Europe, outside of these 'neo-Nazis', is bothering to oppose this invasion? Who? No one that I can see. In Germany, the 'neo-Nazis' are the ones burning the immigrant hostels down.

The enemy fears the German nationalists because it understands it is fighting a war against white Europe and for the Muslim and the Jew; it finds itself opposed to the army of the enemy side - the 'neo-Nazis'. My position is that we need to induce fear in our enemy (because he is an enemy in the sense that Carl Schmitt means it); we must cause him to feel terror. To achieve that goal, we need to become what he fears most.


In answer to the question, 'How would the Germans change their ideas?', I say the most brutal, dogmatic and intolerant evangelisation for three ideas in particular - the three ideas outlined in Hitler's essay, 'Road to Resurgence' (1927). These include: 1) the racial idea; 2) the idea of the leading personality; 3) the idea or conception of life as struggle:

Let's quote some relevant passages:

To fulfil this mission, not only individuals of great stature but also a nation firmly welded into a single common community of interests is required. Three great fundamental principles must be observed in this context.
The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:

1. The merit of their own race;
2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;
3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. 

It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.

Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.

The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.
And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.

Undoubtedly, Hitler here is talking in broad terms, abstractions, and we can't see, at first sight, how exactly these ideas can be applied in our present-day political situation. But let's look at each of them in turn.

1) Race. Hitler's 'racism' should be understood as being part of an ethnic and not a racial nationalism; Hitler wasn't concerned so much with the racial distinctions between white and negro or white and mestizo so much as German and Jew; he wanted Germans - and Europeans - to recognise Jews as a breed apart from Germans.

We know that the Holocaust story is contained in the Talmud: that it is based on ancient Talmudic prophecies of 'six million Jews' being thrown into giant 'ovens' by the wicked Gentiles; that these murdered Jews will miraculously come back to life; that these Jews will then reclaim the lost Jewish State of Israel. Holocaust Revisionism reveals the hidden Jewish religious foundations of the Holocaust story. What more could illustrate the differences between Jews and Europeans? That these people really are not like us?

2) The role of individual personality. We all recognise that some artists, composers, film directors, et al., are better than others; but how often do we put certain politicians and leaders on a different plane from others? In the nationalist and Far Right scene, we don't do this much. Outside of nationalism, we find that it's a different story: liberal journalists and educators will uphold Churchill or Martin Luther King or Mandela or Obama as 'great men'; communists erect a cult of personality around Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Guevara, Kim Il-Sung, Ho Chi Minh... Inside nationalism, quite a few will disparage Hitler and the leaders of National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy and subject them to a barrage of relentless criticism and carping - as though they themselves could have done better, much better, had they been in Hitler or Mussolini's shoes.

It goes without saying that Hitler and Mussolini made mistakes - as did Napoleon, Caesar, Alexander the Great and every other politician who has ever lived; the truth of the matter is that only God doesn't make mistakes. No one denies this, but the problem is that the nationalist critics of German National Socialism will start any discussion of Hitler and Nationalism with an obviously true premise - 'Hitler made mistakes' - and, once they win assent to this, go on to attack Hitler, the German National Socialists and the Germans themselves, who were, from the period 1941-44, the masters of all Europe.

The effect of this is to disparage the idea of human greatness and the notion that any politician can be good at all. The defender of Hitler, the fascists and the NSDAP will ask our critic, 'But who do you think was superior to Hitler - Roosevelt, Churchill, de Gaulle, Badoglio? Do you regard our present-day leaders - Obama, Cameron, Merkel, Hollande, Tony Abbott, Stephen Harper - as being better than Hitler and Mussolini?'. It turns out that our critic, more often than not, doesn't think much of these politicians either; in fact, he's a nihilist - he doesn't think that any politician has ever been any good, or will do any good.

If we are to uphold the principle of 'personality', we must defend the record of Hitler, German National Socialism, the NSDAP politicians and the German people from every attack within our own ranks; we must challenge the critics and defeat them in argument. In other words, we must defend our leaders, and, like it or not, the Germans, before their surrender in May 1945, were our leaders. The critics and carpers behave like soldiers who turn their guns on their own officers.

Fortunately, our job - one of defence - has been made easier by the fact that historical research has moved on from the immediate post-war era. We know a little more about why Hitler made the political and military decisions that he did.

We now know, in 2015, more about Russia. Putin and the Russian war with Ukraine have revealed to us moderns a hitherto unknown side to the Russian character. Putin mimics Stalin, and Putin's Russia reminds us of the old Soviet Union which was hated and feared by its neighbours, including Germany. We now understand a little more why Germany, the Baltic States, Poland, Finland, Hungary and Romania disliked the Soviet Union (really, Russia) so much and why they went to war against it. Hitler regarded Russian communism as the primary political enemy not merely because of the personality of Stalin, or because of the preponderance of Jews in the leading positions in the Russian communist party and Soviet society, but because of the Russian people themselves. Nations exhibit characteristics in the same way that people do, and so long as Russia as a geopolitical power exists, Russia will do as Russia does.

3) Life as struggle. This precept can be understood as: we can only achieve good things in life, and in particular, things which are politically good, through struggle - these aren't given to us on a plate. It would be nice if Merkel listened to the Germans of the East who are expected to house hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa: instead, she derides them as scum and people whose opinions aren't worth paying to attention to. The patriotic Germans - or perhaps just the Germans who are fed up with immigrants - need to engage in political struggle in order to stop these immigrants from coming into the country: that's the way it is.

Likewise, in a perfect world (or even in a halfway-decent world), the Reclaim Australia patriots could hold their rallies without communist interference and wouldn't risk being physically assaulted by the communists. But, because of the traditional dominance of the communist and Trotskyite Left in Australia, Australian patriots and nationalists need to fight for the democratic rights taken for granted by other Australian political actors. The Reclaim patriots need to wage de facto war on the communists... Such is life, as one Australian rebel once said, or, as Hitler said, Leben ist Kampf = Life is Struggle.


Now, the three principles outlined above don't sum up the entirety of Hitler's thought, but they do give us a starting point, and I hope that I've given the reader an idea as to how to apply the ideas in the modern political context.

The main thing is that we stick to the principles through thick and thin. That's why Corbyn has enjoyed his success. He's never wavered - not once - from his commitment to Marxist-Leninist and Trotskyite principles. Expediency must have counselled him, many times in his career, to drop a principle, to perhaps 'tone it down' and make himself more acceptable to the Labour Friends of Israel, to the British financial sector, to the journalists and pundits demanding a 'sensible' and 'pragmatic' Labour and socialism... But he's ignored, steadfastly, such proffered 'wisdom' and remained an unrepentant and unreconstructed Marxist.

(One has to drawn the distinction between downplaying certain sides of one ideology and abandoning it altogether. Corbyn has, in true slippery communist style, wriggled out of questions regarding his commitment to Marxism and the communist idea. That represents tactical expediency. We should follow him in this regard, and I should make clear that I'm not endorsing stupidity). 

His adherence and faithfulness to Marxist-Leninist principles explains Corbyn's election to the Labour Party leadership. The British Labour Party, and the British Left, has suffered over the course of the past five years because of Labour's relentless focus on electoral politics and its neglect of its core idea - socialism. The British Jew Miliband failed as a leader because he concentrated too much on the polls and the task of regaining office; he paid little attention to the demands of the base, which wants left-wingism, socialism and Marxism. Corbyn gives the base what it wants: a hard dose of seventies and eighties Trotskyite communism. He doesn't care about getting elected; he only cares about satisfying the base.

I should point out that this base extends outside the Labour Party. Whenever Karl Marx, in the days of the First International, referred to 'the party', he meant the socialist movement as a whole, not just one part of which had deigned to convert itself into a political organisation. In the case of Britain, the British Left - especially since the Labour leadership contest of 2015 - looms far above the British Labour Party; the mass movement stands above the actual political party. What's made the difference between the Labour Party of 2015 and the Labour Party of the past is that now every communist crank - Maoist, Trotskyite, Stalinist, you name it - from outside the party has come into the party.
Corbyn and the Marxification of the Labour Party represents the triumph of sectarianism and dogmatism. If only the British nationalists had clung to their faith (neofascism, neo-Nazism, white supremacism, whatever you want to call it) with the same zeal as Corbyn clings to his, well, British politics would be very different. The lesson I draw from the Corbyn story is that every dog has his day; nationalists need to be persistent and not give in.


Corbyn has notoriously compared the actions of US soldiers in Iraq to those of ISIS, and has been attacked for doing so. The political establishment regards such statements as treasonous (and so they are) and these shine a light on an often hidden side of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine - another one hidden 'off the books'. Official Marxism preaches that 'the worker has no fatherland' and that Marxism replaces 'petty-bourgeois nationalism' with internationalism. But, as we know from history, the Marxist-Leninists did have a fatherland and did pledge allegiance to it: the Soviet Union. It mattered not if the Marxist was born in Australia, the US, the UK, Cameroon, Argentina, Singapore: he always put the geopolitical interests of the USSR above those of his own state. That is why American communists, during the 'red scare' of the 1950s, were likened to Soviet guerrilla detachments operating on US soil - an apt analogy.

The Soviet Union may have ceased to exist 24 years ago, but the West's communists are still practicing treason. I suggest that we nationalists - and in particular, British nationalists - follow their lead and practice treason, not on behalf of the USSR, but on behalf of a state which perished 70 years ago: German-occupied Europe.

Today's British nationalists need to recognise that the UK (along with Commonwealth nations Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia) has been dominated politically by the US and American Jewry since the mid-to-late 1930s; that it lost its sovereign independence in this period; that it has made false prophets, false gods, out of the politicians who went to war against Germany on behalf of the US and the Jews - Chamberlain and Churchill. In the period from 1940 to 1941, Britain faced a choice between the US and Germany. It could either continue being dominated by the US or submit to the rule of a new master - Germany: it could never regain its sovereignty, its status as one of leading European powers, again. Throwing in its lot with Anglo-Jewry, Britain chose to stick with the US, with the consequences that we all know. The British decline dates from that point, not from the election of Tony Blair in 1997.

Churchill is hailed as a hero for his work in keeping the UK on the side of the US in this crucial period, but really he (along with de Gaulle and Badoglio) should be considered as a 'collaborator', just like Petain and Quisling. But many of the more conservative British nationalist parties - such as the BNP and UKIP - won't dare think along these lines. That's understandable, as these parties are in the game to win elections, and any nationalist politician British who promulgated Holocaust and WWII revisionism would be committing political suicide. But the example of Corbyn shows that a politician can hold to unorthodox and even treasonous political views and achieve success. No real political reason exists, then, for the British nationalist to knock down Churchill, Chamberlain and Atlee from their pedestals and replace them with Mosley, John Amery and the British Legion - the 'traitors'.


No comments:

Post a Comment