tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-58352309439586037152024-03-18T20:03:01.818-07:00Wehrmacht CandyPOST-WAR REFLECTIONS OF A RADICAL HIPSTER NEOFASCISTDas Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.comBlogger133125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-53583904446368852942024-03-14T18:56:00.000-07:002024-03-16T14:33:49.125-07:00'Madness & Doom': Trump 2024, American White Nationalists, and the War on the Living<p></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ_IULcY5F_tqTRPKgjZiLAI36AvLKfW6PqxiYx8myjRzl0SJ4JIfD_Qx3O-Svx9ulDFfwYpaDboyI2uivIhMdYlQ63UqPlvFttMpAV2k62z_iIekcBaDQqWZKW_Rs4WDg5-frTGgT8xdrjLpxbRWySH8O4qZWYfPZiENfYWUNqcTfLTwsvVC-EI_lez5M/s754/Screenshot%202024-03-15%20123722.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="518" data-original-width="754" height="440" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ_IULcY5F_tqTRPKgjZiLAI36AvLKfW6PqxiYx8myjRzl0SJ4JIfD_Qx3O-Svx9ulDFfwYpaDboyI2uivIhMdYlQ63UqPlvFttMpAV2k62z_iIekcBaDQqWZKW_Rs4WDg5-frTGgT8xdrjLpxbRWySH8O4qZWYfPZiENfYWUNqcTfLTwsvVC-EI_lez5M/w640-h440/Screenshot%202024-03-15%20123722.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">I. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">In an election year in America, even the most eccentric and
isolated member of the dissident Right must acknowledge the existence of
mainstream American politics, if only for a moment, and who knows, under
pressure to remove himself from his self-imposed isolation, even if only
temporarily, he may even concede that the outcome of the election will have a
great bearing on the fate and well-being of white people in America. Drawing
upon my knowledge of mainstream economics and politics, I will be writing here
in order to help the dissident Rightist navigate American politics and arrive
at a fixed position, but I do not intend to inveigle him into taking a ride on
the Trump train, for the Trump campaign should not want the support of the
American white nationalist - look at the harm that David Duke's endorsement,
which was most suspiciously timed, did in 2015. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">We know that in an election year, the left-wing media will
do its best to associate in the public's mind Trump and 'white nationalism' to
the detriment of the former; and that the same media will be making a false
comparison. Race and immigration play an outsized role in the election of 2024,
perhaps more than in any other election in recent history, but if we were to
view the matter objectively, we shall see that white nationalism and MAGA
travel along tracks that run parallel to one another but never intersect.
'White nationalism', 'National Socialism', 'Third Positionism', 'Tradition',
and any other factional grouping of the dissident Right stand not to benefit
politically from a Trump victory, and I think that the American dissident Right
has finally comprehended this fact; the American dissident Right did not
comprehend it during Trump's first term, a time when it had invested a great
deal in Trump and when the investment did not pay off; and that disappointment
is why for years afterwards bitter and disaffected members of the American
dissident Right complained, and most angrily, that Trump 'didn't keep his
promises' and that he 'did nothing'. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">So, would a Trump victory in 2024 change anything in America
- would it lead to a cessation of the depravity that Kevin Alfred Strom
chronicles <a href="https://nationalvanguard.org/2024/03/the-only-real-white-redoubt/" target="_blank">here</a>? Maybe, maybe not; regardless, American mainstream politics now
is an interesting subject in itself: it should be discussed, it should be
examined in its own right. I here ask the 'extremist' reader for forbearance. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">II. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The astute reader will see in this article the appearance of
the 'rational markets hypothesis', which asserts that when all participants are
put together in the same market on the same day they always make the right
decision. According to the theory, an individual participant in the stock
market may be wrong and spectacularly so; but when all the participants are
pressed into an aggregate, the 'wisdom of crowds' emerges. Take, for example,
the crash on October the 29th 1929: this was the most famous day in Wall
Street's history; it was the day of the crash that precipitated the Great
Depression. No doubt you could have found a single investor on that day who was
quite bullish and at the same time quite ignorant, a man who made the wrong
call (to avail ourselves of financier's jargon), a man who saw no reason to
dump his stocks all at once. But that is one man plucked out of a crowd; the
great majority made the right call. It was entirely justified in selling its
stocks; in abandoning the market; and in holding a pessimistic view of
America's future. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">So why was it justified? The answer is to be found in the research
of the publicist of supply-side economics Jude Wanniski, who contended that the
market crashed on that day after a piece of dramatic breaking news, which was
that the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill had passed the US Senate. I will not rehearse
the story of the notorious bill; suffice to say that its passage plunged
America into recession, and then, after President Herbert Hoover signed into
law a series of brutal tax hikes, depression. Wanniski's point is that the
market responded and responded rationally to bad news. The countervailing
thesis is that the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) crashed on October 29th,
1929, for no reason at all, the market being irrational, the crowds possessing
no wisdom. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Controversially, Wanniski extended the rational markets
hypothesis to politics: an individual voter may be quite stupid, but when all
voters, including the stupidest, are put together in aggregate on election day,
they always make the right choice. For example, when choosing between two
objectionable and lacklustre candidates A and B, <a href="http://www.polyconomics.com/ssu/ssu-010302.htm" target="_blank">voters will always choose theone who will do the least harm</a>. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">I remember Bob Bartley, editor of the WSJ editpage and my
boss back then, asking me why I thought Jimmy Carter [in 1976] was winning the
primaries when he did not seem to stand for anything, with his competitors
complaining that he fuzzed and fudged all the issues being debated. I recall
telling Bartley that if one candidate says, "Elect me and I will kill
every fifth American," and another says, "I will kill every tenth
American," and another says "every 15th," and another
"every 20th," and then Jimmy Carter steps forward and says "I
haven’t made up my mind. Maybe I won’t kill any Americans." The voters
will of course pick Carter, as they did, going on to beat President Ford in the
general election.</span></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The electorate cannot be fooled any more than the market
can, and it works with all the information, however incomplete that information
may be, made available to it, and in essence Wanniski's theory is that, like
the participants in the stock market, the electorate uses all the information
it can gather, and it goes on to act rationally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">But if Wanniski's theory is true, how does it explain the
presidential election of 2020? Voters knew in advance that Biden suffered from
cognitive difficulties; that he was in poor physical health; that he and his
family were corrupt; that he was a nasty, aggressive old man; that he was prone
to outbursts of irrational anger, as dementia sufferers often are. And
furthermore, they understood what the Biden platform entailed. Now in 2024, one
must laugh and laugh maliciously at the Democratic voters in Denver, Colorado,
and Chicago, Illinois, and Boston, Massachusetts, all of whom are complaining
most vociferously about the consequences of the Biden immigrant invasion: the
voters in these sanctuary cities have now got what they voted for - and in
spades. And Wanniski's thesis is that they knew what they were voting for. The
Biden package - tax hikes, environmentalism, Covidian mandates, open borders,
transsexualism, a pro-crime policy that protects the criminal and punishes the
victim - was hardly a secret. In addition, the electorate, which according to
Wanniski understands economics better than any economist, would have known what
the consequences of Bidenomics were. Nevertheless, Americans put Biden into
office. He won 81 million votes, more votes than Obama, more votes than Hilary,
more votes than any presidential candidate in history. Or did he? Perhaps we
can rescue the Wanniski hypothesis by arguing that the electorate did not want
Biden and that he did not win 2020; what happened was that the Democratic Party,
the Far Left, Big Tech, and the Hollywood entertainment and media complex,
carried out a coup against Trump. Biden was installed; he was selected, not
elected. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">To say the least, what happened was extraordinary; all
American presidential elections had been free and fair up to that point
excepting the election of 1864, which took place when America was chopped into
two. Granted, there have been some extremely close elections - think of Nixon
versus Kennedy in 1960 and Bush versus Gore in 2000 - but as I will argue, 2020
was not one of those. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">So, what happened in 2020? Wanniski speaks of the 'rights of
the minorities'. Being a family man and a New Yorker, he expounds the doctrine
by sketching out the following parable. A family of five pile into a car and
drive to the Hamptons or the Catskills on a vacation; on the way there, the
youngest child, a little girl, becomes upset and agitated, yells and screams,
and demands to be taken home. The rest of the family views the prospect of a
trip as being neither nor there, and does not care all that much about it: it
could easily out-vote the girl and proceed on, but if the trip is to be
cancelled in order to assuage the girl, and keep peace in the family, and put
an end to the girl's caterwauling - then so be it. The father turns the car
around, the family drives home. The little girl stands in the minority; in a
democracy she would be outvoted; but she possesses in this instance a weighted
vote, that is, a vote that counts two, three, or more times more than a single.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The parallels between this and 2020, and indeed the entirety
of Trump's first term, are obvious. Those suffering from TDS (Trump Derangement
Syndrome) behaved like spoiled children. And unfortunately for Americans, the
anti-Trumpers wielded most of the political power. Although they did belong to
a minority, they did enjoy weighted voting privileges. On election night in
2020 and in the months leading up to Biden's inauguration in January 2021, they
got their way; and Americans - except for the small minority who protested at
the Capitol on January the 6th - allowed them to have it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Wanniski gives a formal explanation of the theory in <u>The Way
the World Works</u> (1979):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">But while a politician can not satisfy electors who are
diametrically opposed, neither can he ignore one class of elector or another,
perhaps with the idea that because he can not possibly satisfy both, he will
throw in his lot entirely with the one. Even when an issue can be settled by
numerical voting, ninety-nine-to-one, the politician must attempt in some way
to accommodate the one. At the extreme, if the issue settled ninety-nine-to-one
is perceived by the one as in some way threatening his very survival or
directly inviting his extinction, the one may resort to extralegal balloting to
defend himself, perhaps even attempting assassination. In determining the
consensus of the electorate, then, the successful politician does not view the
electorate as a collection of numerical units, but as a bundle of individual
interests each with a different set of intensities.</span></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Now after three years of Biden, voters in the cities of
Denver, Chicago, and Boston are experiencing buyer's remorse, and that places
the Biden junta's survival in doubt. <a href="https://carolynyeager.net/joe-biden-running-2nd-term-so-he-can-protect-son-hunter" target="_blank">Carolyn Yeager</a> observes, 'Even the
sophisticated electoral cheating technologies semi-mastered by his Democrat
party will probably not be sufficient to keep him [Biden] in the White House';
that was written in April 2023, and Biden's chances have hardly improved since
then. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Rest assured, on election night 2024, history will repeat
itself, and 2024 will look a lot like 2020: voting machines will mysteriously
malfunction and flip millions of votes from Trump's column to Biden's, and
after an order is given after midnight to stop the counting in seven swing
states, millions of postal votes all for Biden will magically appear. But the
difference between 2020 and 2024 is that the Democrats must defend everywhere.
They cannot afford to lose one single traditionally blue state. And then there
is the question of morale: the anti-Trump brigade who ousted Trump in 2020 will
do their best to make sure that Biden 'wins' another term, but their hearts
will not be in it, because after three years of Biden we can safely assume that
they are quite demoralised and deflated. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">III. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">In 2020, Biden made history, or more accurately, broke with
history, and to understand the rupture, let us look to the history, starting
with the 30 presidential elections held from 1900 onwards. An outside observer
who was ignorant of American political history could easily determine with a
reasonable degree of certainty who was the winner of each election by knowing only
handful of variables, and he could achieve this feat without knowing the actual
outcome, i.e., without know who was declared the winner. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The first variable is this: who did the state of Ohio go to?
From 1900, when the state went to McKinley, to 2016, when the state went to
Trump, Ohio has gone to the winner 28 out of 30 times. And twelve out of 30
times Ohio, in conjunction with one of the two other states Iowa and Florida,
has gone to the winner; and in 16 out of 30 times, all three states have gone
to the winner. In short, the general rule is: if you win Ohio and either
Florida or Iowa or both, you win the election. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Another variable we must account for is the increase in the
number of voters voting for the incumbent's party. In the presidential election
of 1928, Herbert Hoover, the presidential candidate of the incumbent party,
which was the Republican Pary, won Ohio, Florida, and Iowa, and at the same
time won more votes than the Republican candidate Calvin Coolidge in the
election of 1924, and Coolidge had won that election in a landslide. By
improving upon Coolidge's vote, and winning the three key states of Ohio, Florida,
and Iowa, Hoover was bound to win. And so, for the next hundred years
afterwards, the pattern was set. The principle became that a presidential
candidate who is an office holder running for re-election has won the election
every time upon winning Ohio, Florida, and Iowa and at the same time improving
upon the incumbent party's popular vote. This is true of Roosevelt in 1936;
Eisenhower in 1956; Johnson in 1964; Nixon in 1972; Reagan in 1984; Clinton in
1996; and Bush 45 in 2004. As we can see, the electorate behaves in a
consistent and predictable manner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">This is why 2020 broke the mold. Trump improved upon the
popular vote of the 2016 election, and he improved upon it by 12 million; the
charge that in 2020 Trump had lost his base in 2020 does not stick; in 2020
Trump won all the votes that he had won in 2016, and he went on to win an
additional 12 million. As well as that, Trump won Florida, Ohio, and Iowa
handily (and in the polls for 2024, in Ohio he enjoys a double-digit lead). But
in 2020, none of that sufficed to stop the electoral dynamo that was Joseph
Robinette Biden. He won Hilary's 65 million votes and an additional 16 million.
One of the great puzzles is where that 16 million came from: between them,
Trump and Biden won more votes than there were registered voters. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl9gm8GsigJ-NBERdAc17VxsKmFUQ6q9exiJJAkPp2C2MTlOKarCCScMYz9uCvirhMAy83gbui9lXDiVPFxP8TEWK0tXu_Y7jhJYnI-jzeGxGKWKCouh6ZDXBNjlVap93FbEn_IYKymjeYD548cu9AxS6TkQfviLfmn2hkwjftLJexaalMK_Amj0O3GJei/s400/einstein_election_fraud-min.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="360" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl9gm8GsigJ-NBERdAc17VxsKmFUQ6q9exiJJAkPp2C2MTlOKarCCScMYz9uCvirhMAy83gbui9lXDiVPFxP8TEWK0tXu_Y7jhJYnI-jzeGxGKWKCouh6ZDXBNjlVap93FbEn_IYKymjeYD548cu9AxS6TkQfviLfmn2hkwjftLJexaalMK_Amj0O3GJei/w360-h400/einstein_election_fraud-min.png" width="360" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The most important question of 2024 is whether the 16
million voters, if they ever existed, will be returning. I tentatively answer
no: that in 2024 we will be seeing a dramatic shortfall in the number of votes
for Biden. To repeat, we can hazard a guess that the Democratic Party and its
anti-Trump base have by now become deeply demoralised. The evidence for that is
all around us. According to the polls, Biden's approval rating has reached a
record low, and in those polls, a majority of those asked if Biden deserves
re-election answer in the negative. In most national polls, Trump is equal or
ahead of Biden by a few percentage points. We can predict that if the momentum
away from Biden and towards Trump keeps up, the Democratic Party base vote will
collapse, which is to say that the 65 million who voted for Hilary in 2016 and
Biden in 2020 will not be returning. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Students of American political history know that what counts
more than the popular vote is the electoral college. In polls of the more
decisive battleground states, Trump is pulling ahead. Supposing that Trump wins
Arizona and Georgia and picks up Nevada (which has not gone to a Republican
presidential candidate in 20 years), then the electoral college count
approaches a near draw: the Republicans win 268 and Democrat 270, and that is
even if Biden 'wins' Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In such a scenario
Biden only needs to lose one traditionally Democratic state, one that could be
either be on the eastern seaboard, or in the south towards the border with
Mexico, or in the Mid-West, and then - the election will be handed to Trump. It
is within the bounds of possibility that angry residents of Chicago, Illinois,
or Denver, Colorado, or Baltimore, Maryland, could turn on the Democrats. And so,
the election stands on a knife-edge. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">IV. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">As well as the polls, two markets are predicting a Trump
victory - the betting market and the stock market. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Interestingly, the odds of Trump being the next president
reached a high in May 2022 and then crashed around the time of the November
2022 House of Representatives election; Trump's odds stood at their lowest in
this period and DeSantis' at their highest. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbVkA9RPbHuE52XYYlRRuUAsqvA9xOTMI48xfm97f1347w6_k4PtDlxoNzL8j5KAbl4aAYzeNkP8qtsAdg8n58RyR0IAhqs8Wwr429F3L6vc-hE6gomhallM3R_MrIFSvdOtXu0wevsqU6i5_JMMS64DYChRFUFoUre30XBX2Qoo3rWdhmdjaKp9JWZlcq/s1361/Screenshot%202024-03-15%20124829.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="827" data-original-width="1361" height="389" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbVkA9RPbHuE52XYYlRRuUAsqvA9xOTMI48xfm97f1347w6_k4PtDlxoNzL8j5KAbl4aAYzeNkP8qtsAdg8n58RyR0IAhqs8Wwr429F3L6vc-hE6gomhallM3R_MrIFSvdOtXu0wevsqU6i5_JMMS64DYChRFUFoUre30XBX2Qoo3rWdhmdjaKp9JWZlcq/w640-h389/Screenshot%202024-03-15%20124829.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The rise and fall of Biden's odds follow a different
trajectory; they did increase in 2023 but never exceeded 39%. In contrast, as
of the time writing, Trump's odds have never reached a higher level. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/02/01/billionaire-investor-bessent-bets-trump-rally-stock-market-before-election-big-boom-trump-wins/" target="_blank">Some financial commentators</a> assert that the recent rally in
the stock market should be attributed to the likely prospect of Trump's return
to office; it is pricing in that possibility, or to use financier's jargon, it
is 'discounting', that is, it is carrying over the future into the present. And
what lies in that future? The market sees all the familiar supply-side-isms,
mainly tax cuts and deregulation. And it anticipates an increase in the
production and export of oil, natural gas, and coal, and a decrease in the use
of wind farms, solar panels, and electric cars; in short, it expects President
Trump to repudiate environmentalism wholesale. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">To understand the extent of the stock market's rallying, we
need to use gold. In the supply-side doctrine, the value of anything can be
expressed as a fraction or multiple of an ounce of gold, and to be included in
that anything is the American stock market index. We have recourse then to the
gold Dow, which is the DJIA index divided by an ounce of gold. If we look at a
chart of the gold Dow, we see that the highest it reached in the past five
years was 20 ounces, which is high, but nowhere as high as it was in the late
1990s and early 2000s. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicSCzC946FqaCLOx9YHT0pYF9Y9U10ddnbGgfltoQHWbNfBWCpj97yHIb399SL58CVePGnot4YQs2euq53BafgrhjCHPoGoeC9zB2fi7mLKIqnCC3FrhvES2kYeZGWTp9R5f2ilJfSY96Uez89IOm7FDlkBUDl5FthrCHK121EwXd6wD94NGf3lWBLe9w-/s1033/Screenshot%202024-03-15%20124041.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="657" data-original-width="1033" height="408" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicSCzC946FqaCLOx9YHT0pYF9Y9U10ddnbGgfltoQHWbNfBWCpj97yHIb399SL58CVePGnot4YQs2euq53BafgrhjCHPoGoeC9zB2fi7mLKIqnCC3FrhvES2kYeZGWTp9R5f2ilJfSY96Uez89IOm7FDlkBUDl5FthrCHK121EwXd6wD94NGf3lWBLe9w-/w640-h408/Screenshot%202024-03-15%20124041.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">We cannot explain every twitch and tremor in the stock
market, but we can account for some of the big falls and rises. Without a doubt
the big fall from 19 to 13 ounces in early 2020 can be laid at the door of the
Covidians: the lockdowns, forced shutdowns of business, and forced layoffs,
devastated the market. The gold Dow had recovered by early 2022, but then fell
after the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War in February 2022. By October
2022, the market had recovered from this mini recession, so why did it fall
again? One can blame <a href="https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/fed-funds-rate-history/" target="_blank">successive interest rates increases</a>; these hurt the bond
market and the commercial real estate market, and while the rate increases were
small by the standards of the 1970s and 1980s, they were large by those of the
2020s. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPt-OYtvS6SJtc9ZenMA-h20ndRJ_RXjSmzII2_8_AsVajq13wYaKVTHrAbv1FMHQiMcNcXdGni4IPq3qlC-lVK1ZNG_US1r1VUnilMgmwnMx5i5SRLZrsLsi3r4ietCqqC6Hv3KyZGH5RuLd6px-rF8agpx8ZuhnNKNENE4lcMG8Wmu_v_LGU0vkf2bH3/s1206/Screenshot%202024-03-15%20123921.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="784" data-original-width="1206" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPt-OYtvS6SJtc9ZenMA-h20ndRJ_RXjSmzII2_8_AsVajq13wYaKVTHrAbv1FMHQiMcNcXdGni4IPq3qlC-lVK1ZNG_US1r1VUnilMgmwnMx5i5SRLZrsLsi3r4ietCqqC6Hv3KyZGH5RuLd6px-rF8agpx8ZuhnNKNENE4lcMG8Wmu_v_LGU0vkf2bH3/w400-h260/Screenshot%202024-03-15%20123921.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">And the reason for the fall of October 2023 is obvious:
Hamas' raid, Israel's retaliatory offensive, and fears of a spread of a
regional conflagration. After that came the Trump re-election rally, and it is
no coincidence that at this point - October 2023 - that the betting markets
graph shows Trump's odds overtaking Biden's. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The <a href="https://www.newsmax.com/stephenmoore/joe-biden-stock-market/2024/02/20/id/1154238/" target="_blank">supply-sider Stephen Moore</a> expresses scepticism towards
the notion that the stock market is rallying because of Trump's improved
performance in the polls and the betting markets: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Trump has made the case that the rise in the stock market in
recent months is a result of the higher likelihood that he will be elected in
November. I don't put too much stock in that claim. If the stock market tanks,
is he responsible for that, too?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">However, an analysis by ace investor Scott Bessent and a
member of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity economic council finds that
fluctuations in the stock market over the past year HAVE correlated positively
with the betting market odds that Trump will win. Right now, he stands at just
above 50%.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">This relationship could be spurious, and of course, by far
the biggest factor that drives stock valuations is profits.</span></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Having said that, he does concede that Biden's economic
agenda is poison: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">One last piece of investment advice: Investors should pay
attention to the Democratic agenda if they win in November. The Biden economic
plan calls for doubling the capital gains tax, taxing unrealized capital gains
and raising both the corporate tax rate and the dividend tax.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">That is very bad news for sure for stocks. And THAT, you can
take to the bank.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Now, this lends weight to Wanniski's rational market
hypothesis. If the market is always right, and if it believed that Biden was
going to 'win' in November, then it would be crashing right now, because there
is nothing it dislikes more than what Biden is proposing. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">IV. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">One of the main reasons why the electorate seems to have
turned on Biden is inflation, that is, Bidenflation. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5969lX_g_JlCfjbb2qYBabURF1XhMhaEaEo3seE6KhXWMayGxyeQm5GUixz6FQ6atvqdMEd5wEx2SfUj8QHMKh410uHMHsGqpSKfMW78_Xs10ITN1mZBo-mzvTCiHHXKxLS1gtyx7FHyURpSao4OQj9t6hggaIbE46EOpEIWixhsyRVDZfpWYnn4dMgkV/s1091/Screenshot%202024-03-15%20123952.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="664" data-original-width="1091" height="244" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5969lX_g_JlCfjbb2qYBabURF1XhMhaEaEo3seE6KhXWMayGxyeQm5GUixz6FQ6atvqdMEd5wEx2SfUj8QHMKh410uHMHsGqpSKfMW78_Xs10ITN1mZBo-mzvTCiHHXKxLS1gtyx7FHyURpSao4OQj9t6hggaIbE46EOpEIWixhsyRVDZfpWYnn4dMgkV/w400-h244/Screenshot%202024-03-15%20123952.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">This has been exported worldwide, and there is not a country
that is not suffering from the highest inflation since the 1980s. Trump has
vowed to reduce inflation, but the irony is that he and the Covidians he
surrounded himself with in 2020 bear the main responsibility for it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">When taking the extraordinary decade of the 2020s into
consideration, for the first time in recent history we see a global inflation
that has not been brought about by bad money, i.e. by depreciating currencies.
It is true that the dollar has depreciated against gold by over 55% in the past
five years: in 2019, it took only $US1300 to buy an ounce of gold, and now it
takes over $USD2000. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRp6FcPHp_P60VrsPGE8aDdsIzPW4LFQJStuTMhxkQo-kqfLYEbLzv6UWLsumLRfJuiM8ucGZe-zyGdsR6EHVmX-zYwdpNw1fD6Kxhyphenhyphen6L3hHbC97oFw2PDB5hdPYaxaOqtLehhK81r7Okin_1lDg9fNd6n14giApaoaNZgR4hwCNQ-k_D3lLZDi4T6QWwL/s955/Screenshot%202024-03-15%20123602.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="494" data-original-width="955" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRp6FcPHp_P60VrsPGE8aDdsIzPW4LFQJStuTMhxkQo-kqfLYEbLzv6UWLsumLRfJuiM8ucGZe-zyGdsR6EHVmX-zYwdpNw1fD6Kxhyphenhyphen6L3hHbC97oFw2PDB5hdPYaxaOqtLehhK81r7Okin_1lDg9fNd6n14giApaoaNZgR4hwCNQ-k_D3lLZDi4T6QWwL/w400-h208/Screenshot%202024-03-15%20123602.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">But the depreciation of the dollar, while harmful, occurred
gradually over the course of five years and not all at once, unlike the sudden
and shocking depreciation of the 1970s. No, the cause of the inflation of the
2020s can be traced back to what economists euphemistically call breakdowns in
the supply-chain, which are what happens when millions across the globe are
forced to stop supplying and exchanging their goods and labour because work has
become somehow 'unsafe'. One cannot think of another time in history when
global economic activity, and a good chunk of it at that, came to a halt
because of government efforts to combat a virus. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Once a supply-chain has been broken in several places, it
cannot be fixed easily. But we can return to normalcy by returning to what we
had before 2020. And what was that? An absence of Covidian mandates, that is,
regulations that prevent people from trading their production with one another;
an increase in supply by cutting taxes on production; and little to no
restrictions on the production and consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">We must fear a further depreciation of the dollar, which
along with other currencies has a lost a great deal of value over the past few
decades - it is hard to believe that 25 years ago gold only cost $USD250 an
ounce and oil only $USD10 a barrel - but I think that in the current year
central banks have realised the error of their ways and are not willing to
devalue their currencies further. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Having said that, at the time of writing, gold has climbed
past $USD2100 an ounce, which goes to show that one can never tell with the
Federal Reserve, which, when every time in the past twenty years it has met
with an economic quandary, has devalued.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">V. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Instinctively, Trump wants to move America to the opposite
place of where it is under Biden. The market recognises that and is responding
accordingly. It does dislike Trump's tariff-hike threats, but it puts these to
one side; any imposing by Trump of trade barriers, particularly barriers
against China, will hurt no more in the 2020s than it did in the 2010s. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">In one of the strange echoes of history, 2024 is revisiting
1980. Despite being aged 69, the always-smiling <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVGlxq0wmKA" target="_blank">Reagan of the 1980 campaign</a>
conveyed youth, vigour, optimism, belief in America's future, and an
irrepressible forward rhythm. And as the market discounted a Reagan victory,
some economic indicators improved even before Reagan was sworn in: in the
middle of 1980, before the election was held, the dollar firmed, and the price
of gold collapsed: it fell from $USD850 an ounce, which is the highest it had
ever been in history up to that point, to $USD300. The market anticipated that
Reagan would win, and the prospect of a Reagan boom led to an increase in
demand for dollars. The demand outstripped the supply, and so the value of the
dollar increased. That is, the increase in the value of the dollar meant that
one needed to spend fewer dollars to buy the same amount of gold. This foretold
that inflation, which had plagued America and the world throughout the
seventies, would soon wane. Relief was at hand, even though Carter still was in
office. The phenomenon reminds us of the rally we have seen in the DJIA since
October 2023. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The market looks to the future, but its knowledge of what
will happen in that future is limited to the information it possesses at the
time. In the sweet summer of 1980, it foresaw the Reagan victory, but it did
not foresee the Reagan recession that would follow, a recession that was the
worst since the end of WWII. Nowadays we look at the eighties through
rose-coloured glasses, and we fail to understand how difficult it was for so
many - particularly in the first two years under Reagan - and how we are better
off now than then. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">VI. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">This brings up to the subject of national morale. In Biden's
America, there are three nefarious forces working to lower it, and the first of
these is Biden himself, a man of a gloomy mien, a man whose body and mind are
deteriorating, a man who naturally enough has no reason to look forward to the
future. During one of his typically rambling speeches at the campaign stops in
the 2020 Democratic primaries, one of those in attendance was struck by the
incoherence of Biden's talk but also by its extreme pessimism; Biden was
preoccupied by the themes of decline, cancer, death. The second force, and one
that a man of Biden's temperament was instantly attracted to, was Covidianism.
During its zenith, Covidianism locked down millions with the intent of driving
as many mad as possible, and if any one of the lockdown's victims were to take
his own life - and a large number did - then the Covidians counted that as a
win. Such nihilism and misanthropy met its match in that of the third force,
the environmentalists. They want to drastically limit the number of
air-breathers, preferably white-skinned ones; the environmentalists are
uninterested in the carbon emissions of the denizens of Africa, China, India,
and the Middle East. An ideology that is as destructive as the ideology of
Covidianism, environmentalism in the 21st century is proving to be as dangerous
as Freemasonry in the 20th. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The three forces have combined to make America a sad place
to be. I know nothing more demoralising than the sight of three obese - and
probably diabetic - African Americans Alvyn Bragg, Fani Willis, and Letitia
James persecuting Trump and members of his administration. And all this while
Democratic mayors, governors, district attorneys, and judges have turned not
soft on crime but pro-crime. This is perverse. The present regime goes against
nature, and such deviating cannot be sustained at least not for long, which is
why Covidianism, the ultimate anti-natural ideology, burned itself out after a
run of two and a half years. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">VII.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Can we frame the conflict between Trump and Biden,
Republicans and Democrats, as a conflict between capitalism and socialism? At
first sight, that would make sense. Trump has worked most of his life in
business, and big business at that, whereas Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, Harris,
Feinstein, et al., have never worked a day in their lives in a real job. And
since at least the 2010s, the Democratic Party has been in the grip of the
radical Left, the six factions of which from 2020 onwards were: 1) Black Lives
Matter; 2) 'woke' capital; 3) proponents of Critical Race Theory and other
forms of academic neo-Marxism; 4) anarchists and antifa; 5) old-school
communists; and 6) Social Justice Warriors (SJWs). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Covidians, who infiltrated both the Trump and Biden
administrations, are the odd man out. Covidian practices were inspired by those
of the Chinese, particularly in Shanghai, and these in turn were rooted in
Chinese techniques that sought to engender what Mao called 'thought reform' and
'the washing of the brain'; if you want to read more on this unsavoury subject,
click <a href="https://wehrmachtcandy.blogspot.com/2021/10/cult-city-melbourne-and-sydney.html" target="_blank">here</a>. But despite the Maoist antecedents, the Covidians did not follow a
particular ideology of either the Left or Right; they portrayed themselves as
being pure technocrats who had abstracted themselves away from any ideological
commitment, scientists who had moved beyond politics. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Nonetheless, if we are to delve further, we can find certain
themes underlying the thought of the Democrats, the Covidians, and the Left,
for when writing about Marx, Wanniski observes penetratingly that Marxism can
only be valid when an economy is contracting, not expanding; it only holds true
for states of economic crisis, of recession, depression. The classic problem
faced by all communists after they had seized power was how to get the wheels
of production turning again. They were unable to find an answer in the
economics of Marx, because Marx wrote only on things going wrong, not right. It
was not that the communist regimes were opposed to growth and expansion, only
that they did not know how to bring these about. By the end of the seventies -
when Wanniski published his book - Wanniski declared that Marxism, along with
the two other prominent schools of economic thought Keynesianism and
monetarism, had failed, but he warned that if the capitalists of the West
proceeded on their present course, they would meet the same fate as the
capitalists of the East, in particular the capitalists of the former Republic
of South Vietnam. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">In the conflict between capitalism and socialism, Wanniski
found a division between the desire for risk, adventure, and entrepreneurialism
on one hand, and the desire for safety, comfort, and caution on the other; we
know on which side of the ledger the Covidians, for whom 'safety' was absolute
and paramount, stood. Cults, too, prize security and safety before all else and
forbid their followers from venturing into the outside world, and the man who
escapes a cult often has difficulties adjusting to real life. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The exploring of these themes - 'Life', 'Death' capitalised
- brings us close to the doctrine of vitalism. Half in jest, Nietzsche wrote
that the sight of the ugly, the aged, and the infirm, lowers our vital
energies; it saps our will to live. Nearly 140 years after Nietzsche made his
famous remarks, we can see in them a grain of truth. In 2024, the sight of the
Soviet-style gerontocracy in America depresses and enervates. And in addition,
it encourages intergenerational resentment; the boomers will not stand down,
they are hogging the trough. Biden epitomises this aspect of boomerdom. Part of
the hostility expressed towards Biden by Democrats in a state such as Michigan
can be traced back to Biden's favouring Israel in the current
Israeli-Palestinian war, true, but also to the age gap between Biden and the
anti-Israel protestors. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">It is easy enough to find an instance of the prominence of
the aged and infirm in American life; what of the ugly? The answer is it is all
around us. Wind farms, transsexualism, fat acceptance, LGBTism in its more
grotesque forms, AI art (especially the AI art of Google Gemini) - all of it is
ugly. One of the worst things one can say about the Great Replacement is that
it has made life in the West increasingly ugly; one must agree with this under
the pressure of the facts, unless one in the spirit of an unyielding
contrarianism argues that Palestinian diaspora protestors, the dysgenic trash
that is <a href=" https://vdare.com/posts/laken-riley-venezuelan-rapists-per-capita-crime-rates-and-hispanic-identities" target="_blank">Jose Antonio Ibarra</a>, and the encampments of illegals in New York,
Boston, and Chicago, are aesthetically pleasing, beautiful even. And perhaps
our leftist does really treasure them, for one thing that we have learned after
2020 is that the American ruling class really does despise white Americans,
that is, Americans, and really wants them gone, dead, replaced. And as goes
America, so goes the rest of the Anglosphere; one can find the same sort of
ugliness in Australia as well as America. And it spreads across an entire
nation: the wind farm disfigures the country; the Great Replacement disfigures
the city. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">VIII. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">American boomers are an enfeebling but also a conserving
force. Trump for the life of him cannot understand how things have gotten to
where they are now, and he wants to turn the clock back, to the good old days,
to the way things used to be. Trump is old enough to remember the past, the
America of Operation Wetback, the America before Hart Celler. Most importantly,
he does not hate Americans, and he does not want to destroy. Critics of Trump
will object to this assertion of mine and they will point to Trump's conduct in
2020; but, if we view the world events of 2020 and with objectivity, we shall
that not a single major head of state in the entire world (and these states
included Russia and Ukraine) refused the blandishments of the Covidians; all of
them locked down their people, made them wear masks, and mandated the clot
shots. Politicians who bucked the Covidian consensus, like certain heads of
state in Africa, wound up mysteriously dead. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">It is possible that these forces of darkness will 'win' once
again. The subject of the 2024 election rarely comes up for discussion in the
writings of the Americans of the dissident Right. The sole exception is VDare,
which, four years after the fact, is countenancing the possibility that Biden
may have not won 2020. In 2024, VDare is cultivating an atmosphere of pessimism
and gloom: polls, betting markets, and stock markets be damned, 2024 is just
like 2020, and the Democrats will use cheating to flip the states of Arizona,
Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan to Biden once again. America is
due for another four years of Biden, and Biden's second term will be worse than
his first, if that is possible. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">If VDare is correct, Americans are faced with an insoluble
paradox. To secure free and fair elections, America must ban postal voting,
same-day registration, voting machines; it must enforce voter ID; and it must
make a practice of the speedy counting of ballots and not allow counting to
drag on for <a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/03/14/whats-happening-in-californias-elections-is-a-disgrace-n2636504" target="_blank">weeks and months on end</a>. Such legislation would bring America's
electoral system into line with that of other countries in the Anglosphere. But
here is the rub: to enact these reforms, the Republican Party needs to win
elections, and the Democratic Party will not allow it to. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Prudence advises caution, and perhaps we should be
pessimistic about 2024. Perhaps Trump will win in a landslide, but the Biden
junta will falsify election results once again; perhaps, even if Trump does get
into office, he will not be able to make a difference. Either way, America's
long national nightmare will continue. That is the default American dissident
Right and white nationalist view. Who is to say that they are not correct? But
we need hope, and living without hope is no way to live.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p><br /><p></p>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-76468588571937831162023-12-24T19:03:00.000-08:002024-02-05T23:22:07.417-08:00Fire Tricks part II: on the Bible, Vaporwave, and American TV<br /><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PO4uDd9J6sk" width="320" youtube-src-id="PO4uDd9J6sk"></iframe></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">VI. The Talmud Unveiled</span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Both Jews and Muslims, 'People of the Book', wrote extensively, and for the purposes of an investigation of Judaism, which Jewish books should we use? For centuries, those opposed to Judaism have relied upon the Talmud. Perhaps they are drawn to it because of the enormous secrecy that surrounds it. Eckart's <u>Moses</u>- is the record of a conversation between Dietrich Eckart and his good friend Hitler, and in it Hitler exclaims:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"> "They [the Jews] are incessantly boasting, too, that their religion is such a masterful creation that it stands alone in the world. Then bring the Talmud forward! It contains the Jewish religion in its purest form — theology, dogmatics, morality, everything together in the same place. Why do they hold back the magnificent book so nervously, if indeed 'the millennia have given the breath of its existence' to it? As born benefactors of mankind they should have long since made it accessible to the general populace. Instead, it still hasn't been completely translated, even today. And who in the devil has read what there is of it? One would think they are afraid some medieval church is still waiting to burn it for heresy.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Written in the centuries after Christ's death, the Talmud forms a massive commentary on the Old Testament that is longer than the Old Testament itself and it comes with strict instructions warning its readers not to reveal its secrets to non-Jews; insensitive as they were, the authors must have understood that non-Jews would object to the Talmud's inanities, obscenities, and blasphemies, the last of these being directed at Christianity, the religion against which according to Guyénot the Talmud was conceived as a riposte: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">For the Jews, the door became more and more narrow as the doctors of the Church, seized with dogmatic hubris, turned Jesus into God. Jews were asked to relinquish whatever common sense they had to convert to the Christian creed. To this must be added the Judeophobia of the Great Church under imperial protection. The Talmud was the Jews’ response to the appropriation by Christians of their heritage. It transformed rabbinic Judaism into a fundamentally anti-Christian religion. Christianity and Talmudism were both born from the ashes of the old biblical religion after the crises of the first two centuries CE, which saw the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 and the expulsion of its Jewish population in 135. Both reached their discernible outlines only in the fourth century, and both pretended to reform ancient Judaism, but in opposite directions and in vicious competition: Talmudism, emerging from the Pharisaical current, exacerbated the purificationist, ritualistic, legalistic, and separatist tendencies; while Christianity opposed it and, under the inspiration of Paul, rejected circumcision and the Mosaic law as a whole... The great Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner goes so far as to write that “Judaism as we know it was born in the encounter with triumphant Christianity.”137 Rabbinic orthodoxy, which became the new cement holding the Jewish community together, hardened in the rejection of Christianity and its growing influence. At the beginning of the second century, a ritual prayer was introduced into synagogues to curse the mînim or “sectaries,” a term referring particularly to Christians. [Guyénot, <i>ibid</i>]</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">For centuries, Jewish publicists have defended the Talmud and argued that anti-Semites have misrepresented it. And indeed, one can easily get the Talmud wrong seeing that it uses a coded language that only the experienced can decipher, and what European wants to spend years, decades, needed to attain that mastery? Fortunately now and then a defector from the ranks of Judaism will step forth and spill the beans. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">The “Jewish question” became complicated in Europe when the Talmud became known to Christians. Written in Hebrew, it had been carefully concealed from public view, actually containing the statement: “The goyim who seek to discover the secrets of the Law of Israel commit a crime that calls for the death penalty” (Sanhedrin 59a). It was in 1236 that Nicolas Donin, a converted Jew who became a Dominican monk, gained an audience with Pope Gregory IX to convince him of the blasphemous character of the Talmud, which presents Christ as the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier and a prostitute (Sanhedrin 106a), capable of miracles only by sorcery, and not risen but “sent to hell, where he was punished by being boiled in excrement” (Gittin 56b).162 A disputatio (debate on the public square lasting sometimes several months) was organized in Paris in the presence of Blanche of Castile, between Donin and Rabbi Yehiel, during which the latter failed to convince his audience that the Talmud was talking about another Jesus and another Mary. Following these exchanges, Gregory IX publicly condemned the Talmud as “the first cause that keeps the Jews stubborn in their perfidy.” In 1242, more than 10,000 volumes were burned. Judaism stopped being perceived as the religion of the Old Testament, and began to be viewed as a threat to public order, since the Talmud preaches violence and deception against Christians. [<i>ibid</i>]</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We understand the appeal to the Western intellectual of an investigation of the Talmud, especially to the intellectual of a Romantic bent; a secret book with a sinister reputation, written by Near Eastern authors and filled with foul doctrines and perhaps magic spells, it reminds one of H.P. Lovecraft's Necronomicon, the volume of black magic written by the "Mad Arab" Abdul Alhazred. But obstacles are strewn in the path of the intellectual who wishes to sally forth and joust against Jews on this plain, and these are threefold: 1) the obscure language of the Talmud, 2) the unavailability of the Talmud in English, and 3) the Talmud's sheer length. In contrast, the knowledge of the Jews that we draw from the Old Testament is much easier to assimilate, and authorities such as Guyénot rule that the Old Testament takes precedence over the Talmud: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Whether Jewishness is defined as religious or ethnic, its roots are in the Bible. Therefore, its essence must be sought there. Whether he has read it or not, whether he judges it historical or mythical, every Jew ultimately bases his Jewishness on the Bible—or whatever he knows about the Bible. This venerable corpus—which includes the five “Books of Moses” (the Pentateuch, or Torah), the Historical Books, and the Prophets—constitutes the unshakable foundation of both Jewish religion and Jewish identity. (The Talmud is only a commentary on the Bible, and does not fundamentally alter its core ideology). From a religious viewpoint, the Bible preserves the memory and the essence of the Covenant with God that the believer internalizes. From an ethnic viewpoint, the Bible is the foundational collective memory of the Jewish people, and the pattern by which Jews interpret their whole subsequent history (the Dispersion, the Holocaust, the rebirth of Israel, and so on). Any nation is a narration, and what makes the Jewish nation special is ultimately what makes the biblical narration special. The Bible has always been the “portable fatherland” of the Diaspora Jews, as Heinrich Heine once put it. But it also became and has remained the heart of Israel, whose founders did not give it any other Constitution. [<i>ibid</i>]</span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The reverse of the Talmud, the Old Testament is transparent and brazenly so; it is shorter; and it is available to anyone. These advantages recommend the Old Testament, which is open-source material. In the introduction to his translation of Eckart's <u>Moses</u>-, William Pierce writes admiringly:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Although the last forty years have unfortunately provided us with considerably more experience of Jewish- Bolshevist activities, Eckart did quite well with the materials available to him in 1923. Of particular interest is his use of the Old Testament, as a history of the Jews, to throw light onto more recent Jewish activities.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">VII. Muslim Apologetics</span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Like the Koran, the Old Testament tells a story, and like the Koran, the Old Testament comes to a sudden halt. The reader badly wants to know what happens after Ezra and Nehemiah, but he is left hanging because the authors did not finish. After the Old Testament, Bible history is succeeded by Jewish history, which is long, complex, and for wont of a better word, secular: it is devoid of Yahweh and devoid of the supernatural. After studying it, if the bored reader does want excitement and mystery once again, he is forced to return to the Old Testament and re-read it perhaps from the start. In this he treads the same path as the pop culture fan who continually re-reads Tolkein's <u>Lord of the Rings</u> or re-watches George Lucas' <u>Star Wars</u> trilogy in order to regain the sense of excitement, discovery, and mystery that he experienced when he first encountered these works. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Koran and the Old Testament, being collections of stories that are set in a distant past and possessing more than a touch of the otherworldly, could be written up as fantasy novels, but any such novels would differ from others in the genre insofar as that in the Koran and the Old Testament there are no heroes; there is no Frodo Baggins, no Luke Skywalker; the protagonists of the Old Testament and the Koran are villains, and contemporary audiences would see that in an instant if honest and accurate Hollywood adaptations were filmed. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Amusingly enough, Christians write apologetics even to this day attempting to square the circle and justify the lying, betraying, thieving, raping, and slaughtering in the Old Testament. This signifies that their moral sense has deserted them; the acts of immorality, great and small, in the Old Testament stand in opposition to the Christian virtues and flagrantly so. Thomas Paine in <u>The Age of Reason</u> (1794) shows himself to be more of a Christian than today's American Evangelicals: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The task of explaining away and covering up this malice, cruelty, and wickedness falls to the philo-Semite and anyone else who wants to persuade us that the 'Word of a demon' is the 'Word of God'. We can expect Jewish publicists to attempt this difficult feat, and early on a Jewish publicist did so: the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus wrote perhaps the first book - <u>Antiquities of the Jews</u> (c. 93 AD) - that extols the wisdom and splendour of the Jews to a non-Jewish readership, and in it he relates stories from the Old Testament and of course distorts and lies about them. This sort of obfuscating does not surprise when it is attempted by a Jewish publicist - we have had plenty of experience of it in the past two thousand years - but it does surprise when it is attempted by a Muslim; to our amazement, we learn that the 'Jew-hating' founder of Islam himself once strove for political reasons to put the antics of the Jews in the Old Testament in a good light.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In Exodus, Moses commits his first murder. He kills an Egyptian who struck a Jew; he then conceals the body much like a serial killer who is experienced in doing so: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Exodus 2:12, “And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.”</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">After that, Moses is forced to leave town, because his act of murder has angered not only of the Egyptians but the Jews living in Egypt who are worried that Moses' crime will bring the wrath of the Egyptians down upon the heads of the Jews. Writing of the incident many centuries later, Muhammad defends Moses' conduct, and Muhammad's apologetics cast a light on the internal politics of the newly formed cult of Islam and its relations with Jewry. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Muhammad changed Moses first degree murder to manslaughter by making it unintentional. Furthermore, he told us that Moses was very repentant and asked God for forgiveness. And, of course, God forgave him. Which story about Moses is better? Shouldn’t the Hebrews be very grateful to Muhammad? For a while, he was their best ally. Muslims consider Moses, Jacob, David, Solomon, Ezra, etc. as heroic agents from God. Hence, the ancestors of the Jews are heroes to the Muslims. Why would they hate each other? </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Let me explain. When Muhammad migrated to Medina, he had close contact with its sizeable Jewish community. Muhammad respected the Jews, and his early teachings appeared to borrow from Jewish tradition. When they refused to recognize him as a prophet, he began to distance himself from them and began to minimize or eliminate the Jewish influence on Islam. Muhammad was frustrated with the Jews. As soon as he was strong enough, he expelled two Jewish tribes from Medina and murdered all the members of a third Jewish tribe. He also began to utter inflammatory statements about Jews in the Quran. This was the start of animosity between Muslims and Jews. We have to thank Muhammad for the nonstop hate between the Muslims and the Jews. [Khamis, <i>ibid</i>]</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">VIII. Christian apologetics</span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Since October 7, many Americans in the movement have professed themselves to be baffled by the intensity of anti-Arab and pro-Israel feeling on the American Right, especially the Christian Right. And indeed, one has to ask if Americans, especially American Christians, have taken leave of their senses. Have the more intelligent of them ever in their lives actually read the Old Testament? If they had done so, perhaps they would have understood that Netanyahu's pronouncement of Hamas and by extension the Palestinians as 'Amalek' is to be considered to be a Jewish and rabbinical <i>fatwah</i>, that is, a religious death sentence; for the Amalekites were a race who were thoroughly exterminated by Jews who followed Yahweh's orders. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As is typical, the story of the Amalek wipeout has an unusual sequel. The perpetrator of the crime, Saul, displeased Yahweh for three reasons: Saul kept the Amalekite livestock for himself and his men; he performed holocausts in the incorrect manner; and he spared Agag the king of the Amalekites. It should be noted that Agag bought himself only a temporary reprieve. Because Saul displeased Yahweh, Samuel stripped Saul of office and then hacked Agag to death with a sword: 'And Samuel cut Agag to pieces before the LORD at Gilgal” (1 Samuel 15:33)'. Ever since the murder of the Amalekites and Agag, Jews have applied the names 'Agag' and 'Amalekite' to anyone who they considered to be an enemy of the Jews and wanted to be destroyed and destroyed utterly. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Many non-Jewish scholars when confronted by this awfulness take one of two courses of action: they either practice apologetics like Muhammad, sometimes with comical results, or they bowlderise. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As an example of the latter, let us examine this Biblical tale of butchery by sharp implements:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">In Moses’s time, when the kings of Heshbon and Bashan wanted to prevent the Hebrews from entering their territory, the Hebrews “captured all his towns and laid all these towns under the curse of destruction: men, women and children, we left no survivors except the livestock which we took as our booty, and the spoils of the captured towns” (Deuteronomy 2:34–35).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">That is nothing compared to what King David did to the people of Rabba, after having sacked their town and “carried off great quantities of booty”: “And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem” (2 Samuel 12:31). The episode is repeated in 1 Chronicles 20:3: “And he brought forth the people that were therein, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon.” [Guyénot, <i>ibid</i>]</span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This seems straightforward enough. But in modern times, the story is retconned ('retrospectively configured'); the inhabitants of Rabba and Ammon are not hacked to death and their corpses cut into pieces, but they ae turned into brickmakers and construction workers: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">I have quoted here from the King James Revised Version. Significantly, this episode has been fraudulently retranslated after 1946. We now read in the Revised Standard Version: “And he brought forth the people who were in it, and set them to labor with saws and iron picks and iron axes, and made them toil at the brickkilns.” And in the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible: “And he expelled its inhabitants, setting them to work with saws, iron picks and iron axes, employing them at brickmaking.” This new rendering makes the story politically correct, but highly improbable, since iron tools were never needed to make bricks—certainly not axes, picks and saws—but made deadly weapons that no victor in his right mind would distribute to the men he had just vanquished. [<i>ibid</i>]</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This suggests that the Old Testament, the open-source material that Eckart and Hitler made use of, may be altered beyond recognition by the bowlderisers of the future; fortunately, they cannot destroy or re-translate all the old copies in circulation. But one has to wonder at the mentality the people who seek to soften the image we have of the Bible Jews. Yes, the Christians among them mistakenly identify the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New; but that alone does not explain their conduct, and besides which, a large number of American conservatives who favour Israel in the current war, who applaud the destruction of Gaza and the deaths of Palestinians, who condone Netanyahu's 'Amalek' ritual curse, do not claim to be Christian. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">IX. The Future of Jews in America</span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">From the Talmud we can draw the surprising conclusion that in the Jewish and Talmudic scheme of things, Hitler, the National Socialists, and the Germans do no matter. The Talmud did not prophesy, of course, that the Germans would be the ones to throw the six million Jews into the giant ovens as part of a holocaust, for Germany as a nation did not exist at the time of the writing, and the Jewish authors hardly knew the precursors of the Germans, namely the Visigoths and other Germanic tribes. All the Talmud stipulates is that the Gentiles, any Gentiles, will be the ones to immolate the six million; these Gentiles could be Arabs, Chinese, Indians, Byzantines, Persians... For the fulfillment of the prophecy, anyone would do; what mattered is that it would be done and that the Jewish death toll would amount to exactly six million. Guyénot writes that at the 1911 Zionist Congress Max Nordau, 'A speaker with incomparable prophetic talent' declared that 'the European governments were preparing the “complete annihilation for six million [Jewish] people”'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Many articles have been published since October 7 by those in the movement who have sought to orient themselves in the present chaos, and the authors of these aim to grasp precisely what it is that their ideological opponents, the Jews, are about. I think that Guyénot has performed the task by explaining that the Jews are the Old Testament, and that in turn the Old Testament can be summed up as: fire-paganism, the mass slaughter of non-Jews by Jews, and circumcision. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">One has to ask what it is that the American conservative receives in exchange for his associating with such barbarity and backwardness. Even before October 7, I scratched my head wondering what it is that an American gains from favouring Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict; the rhetoric of the Anti-Defamation League, for example, is unpleasant, harsh, and hectoring, and the Jews who head the ADL - Jews such as Jonathan Greenblatt, who looks like a bit player from a Lon Chaney or Basil Karloff horror movie - promise no rewards. In contrast, liberalism, if we are to take one example of an ideology that is a rival to Judaism, is fundamentally benevolent; Yockey acerbically notes that liberalism 'Wants every day to be a birthday, Life to be a long party'. Unfortunately for the American conservative, Zionism does not deliver to him birthday parties, and he gets little to nothing in return for his allegiance to Israel. <span style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Perhaps the American conservative in his disordered mind links Israel and Zionism with 'conservative values', this being the code word for the old America, the white America, the America that existed and flourished before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Hart Celler Act of 1965. Today even some Jews feel nostalgia for that era, even though prominent Jews at the time did everything in their power to bring the Civil Rights Act and Hart Celler about. For that reason, I find the linking of 'conservative values' and Zionism to be incongruous; the pairing of the two is contradictory, in the same way that the concept of 'Judeo-Christian values' is an oxymoron. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But we must distinguish here because we are dealing with real life. White nationalists allege that everything that American Jews produced in the 20th century, especially in the field of entertainment and popular culture, is corrupt and corrupting. But this is not the case when we look at the popular culture even of the late 20th century. The Jewish writer Stan Lee, often in collaboration with Jewish artist Jack Kirby - both WWII veterans - gave us the Marvel superheroes the Fantastic Four, Spiderman, the Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, the X-Men, and the Avengers. In what offends modern sensibilities, the Marvel stories published in the 1960s are set in a Manhattan that is whiter and more segregationist than South Africa at the time of Apartheid, and the race of the heroes and heroines is unquestionably Nordic. Furthermore, the men are masculine and assertive, the women are feminine and wilting. The Jews who produced the Marvel epics affirmed the 'conservative values' of the time; they did not subvert them. Some white nationalist polemicists have attempted to draw comparisons between Superman, who was created by the Jews Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, and Moses; but these white nationalists have never read a Superman story in their lives; if they were to do so, they would see from the stories - most of them drawn by Curt Swan, a Minnesotan of Swedish descent - that the public-spirited, fair-minded, and gentle Superman is the antithesis of Moses. But American white nationalists tend to be misanthropes who dismiss American popular culture, and they care little that Superman's companions Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, and Perry White are Nordic American types as are Superman's parents Jor-El and Lar-El (is the 'El' surname taken from the Semitic pre-Jewish and pre-Yahweh god El?); all that matters is sniffing out the Jew. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This should not be taken as a defence of everything done by American Jews in the entertainment medium. Siegel and Shuster, Kirby and Lee, produced their greatest work at a time when America was predominantly white and 'conservative'; Jews, being chameleons, change their colour in order to blend in with their environment; any Jewish writer in the 1950s and 1960s who proposed for a TV series, comic book, or movie a heroic protagonist who was a lesbian butch overweight negress with shaven sides of the head and tattoos and piercings would have been fired on the spot, and this suggests that in the main that is Americans themselves and not only the Jews who brought about the degradation of popular culture that the American conservatives so despise. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But then, the non-whites living in America are as much to blame for producing the 'wokeness' that took root in the 2010s as much as the Americans, and the 'woke', 'social justice' phenomenon has put American Jewry in a bind. By all rights, American Jews ought to support 'wokeness'; they are the Sons of the Covenant ('the Sons of the Cut', i.e., the circumcised) who are bound to Yahweh and as such they are a people who 'Dwell alone' and are 'Not to be reckoned among the nations' (Numbers 23:9); and from this it follows that they ought to separate themselves from their host population in America; and seeing that the majority of that population has been historically white, they ought to oppose themselves to that white majority, especially to the majority that is made up of the racial type that has been for most of America's history predominately Nordic; and the corollary is that they ought to see American non-whites as (in social justice speak) allies. But the divide between American Jewry and the non-white and immigrant population in America, most of which dislikes Israel, has been broadened after the advent of the Arab Israeli conflict and further still after October 7, and a schism now exists between non-Jews (whether they be white or non-white) and Jews, who see themselves as being a poor, persecuted, frightened, and powerless minority who happen to be aliens living in America, which is as Jewish ideologists never cease telling us a 'nation of immigrants'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The accentuating of divisions does not bode well for American 'soft power', because the world likes America more if the divisions between Americans and anti-Americans living in America are kept in the background. The non-American world - and this includes Russia and China - thinks the better of America if America stays true to the American ideal, that is, the mythical and absurd America, the America of dreams, the America portrayed in Hergé's <u>Tintin in America</u> (1932), a European fairy-tale in which the intrepid Belgian reporter Tintin travels to America and experiences hair-raising adventures that see him encountering Chicago gangsters and Blackfeet Indians in quick succession. In case one thinks I am exaggerating the appeal of American myth to non-Americans, I note that even the Russians, who these days profess to despise America and the 'Anglo-Saxons', adore the American daytime soap <u>Santa Barbara</u> (1984-1993) and continue to remember it fondly thirty years after its cancellation. No doubt white nationalists who investigate this frivolous concoction will find Jews here there and everywhere in its making, but the important point is that in it Jews and Jewishness feature little, because the Russians regard it as being quintessentially American.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">X. Vaporwave, superficiality, and American conservatism</span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">To repeat, white nationalists seem to take a puritan view of American pop culture; they view it as warped and perverted, corrupting and dangerous; but most in the West find it fascinating, and I am one of them. I could easily imagine myself playing all day the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO4uDd9J6sk" target="_blank">24/7 Vaporwave music channel</a> that features old American commercials from thirty to forty years ago on an endless loop and allowing it to bathe me in its healing rays for the reason being that it connects me to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporwave" target="_blank">a glorious past</a>. 'The surrounding subculture [of Vaporwave] is sometimes associated with an ambiguous or satirical take on consumer capitalism and pop culture, and tends to be characterized by a nostalgic or surrealist engagement with the popular entertainment, technology and advertising of previous decades'. The white nationalist may deride this 'surrounding subculture' as decadent, depraved, and 'Jewish', but a closer inspection reveals that this brand of American pop culture lacks all the qualities that characterise the Jewishness of the Old Testament: where is the anger, the malice, the jealousy, the alienation from all of humanity, and above all, the terrible seriousness? Vaporwave values have been excised after October 7 and in the aftermath Bible values have come to the forefront. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When confronting the endless 'anti-Nazi' 'anti-Hamas Nazi' propaganda we see in the conservative media these days, we may ask the American conservatives who are presently raving like maniacs: what is 'Semitism' exactly, who are the 'Semites', and why is being 'anti-Semitic' the worst thing in the world? The response of the conservative is: do not ask questions; kill and kill in the name of the 'Lord your God'. Needless to say, levity and a lack of seriousness have become unfashionable. The frivolous man, the ironic man, the shallow man, the postmodern man, the man of the End of History, has been dragged kicking and screaming out of his pop culture bubble. Vaporwave reruns of 1980s and 1990s American TV shows have been interrupted by regular breaking news reports on the worsening situation in Israel and Palestine. All in all, the sharp change in tone resembles that in the rupture that occurred in America and the West after the terrorist attacks of September 11; 9/11 marked the end of the nineties, which was a decade of great prosperity and vacuity, and it signaled that America had entered a new era, one which according to cultural commentators saw the death of postmodern irony and the birth of a new sincerity. It is pertinent that Vaporwave is only interested in pop culture before 9/11: 'Generally, artists limit the chronology of their source material between Japan's economic flourishing in the 1980s and the September 11 attacks or dot-com bubble burst of 2001 (some albums, including Floral Shoppe, depict the intact Twin Towers on their covers)'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The difference between then and now is that in the 2000s, there were white people in politics. Now in 2023 the cities have the Anglosphere have become battle zones or rather stages for political street theatre, and the play is a two-man show, one character being the Jew, the other, the Muslim. We are told daily by the American conservative press that the interests of Jews and Israel are to be held as paramount, and the countervailing voices on the Left tell us that the interests of the Gazans, Palestinians, and Muslims must be considered. But nowhere appear the white man's interests; the white man is conspicuous by his absence; at the most, he serves as a mediator between Jews and Muslims. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Appropriately enough, hundreds of thousands of Muslims and their followers marched through London on Remembrance (or Armistice, or Veteran's) Day, a sacred day in the West that celebrates the defeat, destruction, and unconditional surrender of Germany in WWI. From the London march, we can see the truth of Yockey's contention that by working to destroy the Germans in WWI and WWII, the British were working to destroy themselves. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As to which nation forced the surrender of the Germans on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, it is America; the British and to a lesser extent the French like to take all the credit, but a close analysis of the military history reveals that it was the Americans on the Western Front in WWI who defeated the Germans; they bear the responsibility for the defeat of 'Germandom', 'Prussianism', 'Prussian militarism' as they called it at the time (two decades afterwards they would call it 'Nazism').</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd19gEJJjKuxWZdNHoyvkVQEDIMggyX_yX4Msv8tOVwCNJ-O7miRwlQnOSwhWPUM8lZsmfiKzew4C1E3j_8Vi-eXKPYQp6FxIcG3dVlwT5gAGRf9HbZWc56oR_kUCqMWeW_MwP1_h26W_2rMJI032VM-GHoxhbeGPQiWtvKmvNyTZ7VAcZ-CGU9csI3OyY/s1240/wawro_sons-of-freedom.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1240" data-original-width="800" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd19gEJJjKuxWZdNHoyvkVQEDIMggyX_yX4Msv8tOVwCNJ-O7miRwlQnOSwhWPUM8lZsmfiKzew4C1E3j_8Vi-eXKPYQp6FxIcG3dVlwT5gAGRf9HbZWc56oR_kUCqMWeW_MwP1_h26W_2rMJI032VM-GHoxhbeGPQiWtvKmvNyTZ7VAcZ-CGU9csI3OyY/w413-h640/wawro_sons-of-freedom.webp" width="413" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">Their antipathy towards all things German, all things 'Nazi', is well-known; but it is only now after October 7 that their devotion to all things Jewish, Zionist, and Old Testament, has become equally as well-known or at the least unavoidable. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But can one understand it? The answer is no, because in order to understand Americans, we must empathise with them and the word empathy means feel into, vibrate in sympathy with; and knowing what we know of the Bible and the Talmud, it, we find it near impossible to feel as Americans do about the Jewish people, Zionism, and Israel. The American devotion to Israel casts a light on deficiencies in the American character, deficiencies that had already become apparent in the one year and six months before October 7, which is when we saw how Americans on the Right reacted to the second Russian invasion of Ukraine in the 21st century. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">After the outbreak of the 2022 War, we in the West if we are honest are compelled to acknowledge oft with great regret the sad truth that the Russian is, to paraphrase General Patton, a son of a bitch: he is a mendicant, a drunkard, a liar, and he loves to steal, torture, rape, and kill. And geopolitically speaking he is a malicious, highly aggressive, rapacious, and expansionist animal. A study of Russian history and indeed the rhetoric of the present-day Russian state itself reveals that in all probability that were Ukraine were to fall then Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldova, would be next; Ukraine serves as a buffer between Russia and Europe, which is one of the reasons why the Germans in WWII fought as long as possible there before being ejected; the Germans reasoned quite rightly that it was far better to defend on Ukrainian soil than European; the more you fight Russia in Ukraine, the less you fight Russia in Europe. The European understands this but the American does not. We must ask what sort of person would wish the Russians on the Germans, Austrians, and Hungarians and the answer is: the American, who welcomed the Russian incursions of 1914 and 1945, two years in which Russia invaded Germany, Austria and Hungary. Being 'Nazi', the Germans in both wars fought to the last bullet and the last man; the German attitude, the attitude of '<i>Kapitulierin, nein</i>!', is the antithesis of the American; in February 2022, the American paleocons and dissident Rightists to their eternal shame wanted Ukraine to surrender and surrender unconditionally. But the distinctions 'Left', 'Right', 'Paleocon', 'Dissident Right' matter little and are fast vanishing, and even racial distinctions are breaking down. The 'conservative' negress Candace Owens is pouring scorn on Ukraine and its resistance to Russian imperialism, which is the imperialism of <i>Russkiy Mir</i> that stays constant whether Russia be Tsarist or Leninist or Putinist. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I perceive in the American character a tendency towards unity and sameness when it comes to the Russian question. Against this interlocuters may object; they will point to the Biden regime's donating billions in aid to Kiev in its fight against Moscow. But in WWII, America gave 13 million tonnes of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union in its war against Europe, and it was this - and the building of the far-reaching logistical network composed of American and Commonwealth jeeps, trucks, and rolling stock - that turned the war on the Eastern Front in favour of the Russians; and yet only a few years after the end of the war, America began to bestow its bountiful aid not on Russia but on Russia's opponents. Why? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Supplying the answer, Yockey writes of Hobbes' Law of Protection and Obedience. To explain the Law I will resort to a crude analogy, which is as follows. A mafioso takes control of a neighbourhood and promises the small businesses in that neighbourhood something called 'protection'; what that means is that he will extort and simultaneously 'protect' from rival mafiosos; all these shop-owners need do is obey. Yockey illustrates the principle at work by painting a vivid portrait of occupied Germany and Berlin that were partitioned between the Russians and the Americans in the late 1940s, a dangerous time in which it was feared that a new World War would break out on German soil. The American now find himself in the same position as the American then. In order to hang on to its ill-gotten gains, the America of either 1953 or 2023 must be prepared to fight Russia even though deep down it does not want to - a reluctance discussed in Yockey's last published essay 'The World in Flames' (1960). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The two most important wars so far of the 2020s, the Russo-Ukrainian War of 2022 and the Israel-Palestinian War of 2023, have taught us two lessons. From the Russo-Ukrainian War, the European has learned that the American is not his friend, and from the Israeli-Palestinian, he has learned that he is not wanted, not wanted at all, and that - to add insult to injury - he is not to be accounted for politically. This is something that is largely his own fault: he has chosen to absent himself, vacate the premises, exit the stage. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">XI. Escaping into Americanism</span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">For those of us in the West who find Zionism, Judaism, American conservatism, and Old Testament values unacceptable, an avenue of escape does present itself. It lies in America's mythic past; in order to remove yourself from the present America, you only need to move to the America of the past, which is the America of pop culture myth. Immerse yourself - for example - in episodes of <u>Star Trek: The Next Generation</u>, a splendid series that was broadcast over thirty years ago. I have recently been watching nineties-era episodes on YouTube of an American ABC daytime soap and I have been enjoying the show's warmth and humanity. At the end of every episode, we hear the show's theme, which has a saxophone line that is soaring and sensual, and then we hear the announcer's voice - and it is always a pleasant, warm, and welcoming voice - cutting in and informing us of the contents of the upcoming broadcast of <u>Good Morning America</u>; all at once, we are thrown back in time to an America in which media and entertainment sought to give you a sensation of comfort, familiarity, and enjoyment, in which media and entertainment treated you as a friend and not an enemy. The impression is enhanced when we delve back further to forty years ago. Recently I had the good fortune to see the Christmas episode of an NBC daytime soap from 1985. In it, a handsome blue-eyed smiling young priest delivers a church service to a congregation that is all white; perhaps the grooming of the participants leaves something to be desired - the men wear mullets, the women impossibly big hair - but that being by the by the setting makes you feel at home. Do not listen to the white nationalists who disparage like the authors of the Talmud Christ and Christianity; do not listen to the white nationalists who belittle Christmas; do not listen to the white nationalists who attempt to tear down the American pop culture of the past. They take a jaundiced view of America, and something that I have discovered in recent years is that American white nationalists do not like Americans all that much. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When it is good, American pop culture - and usually the pop culture of the past is good - may serve to convince you to be an advocate of a 100% Americanism, and perhaps this is what the American white nationalist is afraid of. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In addition, the American pop culture of the past performs the useful function, useful in the time of Covidianism, of instructing us how to live. When the first lockdowns were enforced in early 2020, an emotional pall like a thundercloud about to burst seemed to settle over the city I lived in and the rest of the country. It was then that I started to think negatively of modern life in cities, the suburbs, and even the regional and rural areas; after getting my thoughts in order, I came to the conclusion that I found modern life a deeply alienating experience; and further, I began to suspect that such feelings of emotional distance in me and others predated the reign of the Covidians; it could be that these feelings were intrinsic to life in the West. Throughout the 2010s, politics took up all my attention, and I did not notice the strangeness - the philosopher Heidegger calls it <i>unheimlichkeit</i>, which means un-homeliness, unfamiliarity - of modern city living; I thrust it from my mind; but Covidianism, lockdowns, shutdowns, forced me to remove myself mentally from my fellows, who overnight seemed to have been driven mad by Covidian indoctrination. Cities had become deserted because the vast majority had been locked down and ordered to stay at home by the government and the 'health professionals', and this naturally enough made me feel as though I dwelt in a strange and alien world. My feeling of a vast distance was increased whenever I walked to a grocery store wearing my mask (if I did not wear a mask, I would have been arrested); in the street, I would encounter most of the time only non-whites, and we would not greet one another or even make eye contact; it felt as though I were living in a giant open-air POW camp, the population of which was composed of the alien races we see locked up in an intergalactic prison depicted in a <u>Star Trek</u> episode; in short, I had become Captain Kirk. This was the darkest and most disorienting period in Australian history, and when confronted with bizarre behaviour that persists even today - I can still see people in the supermarket wearing masks - one must ask oneself, what is normal and what is human? How do I regain this normality and humanity, how do I feel like myself again - and indeed, what is myself? By watching TV dramas that depict rituals and events of the past - in America, these are TV dramas that put forward to us Thanksgiving, school dances, weddings, Christmas, everything denied to us by the Covidians - we reconnect with the essence of what it is to be human. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the first years of the decade, the political establishment - and that includes not only the politicians but the journalists, the police, the 'health professionals' - behaved in a manner that was quite inhuman, reptilian even. The masses, the 'normies', followed them unquestioningly. Had the 'normies', in the first months of 2020, withdrawn their consent and refused to wear masks, refused shut down their businesses, refused to confine themselves to their homes, refused to stand one and a half meters from one another in the supermarket, refused to 'check in' with a QR code when entering every building, then the Covidian regime would have collapsed. But the 'normies', as we know, went along with it each and every step of the way. They even agreed to being injected with a potentially lethal substance in order to enjoy the privileges of attending their place of employment in person, shopping at a shoe store, and drinking at a bar.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">What does this have to do with the Bible and the Middle East? The word 'reptilian' denotes someone who is cold-blooded, strange, devoid of any human instincts, cruel, predatory, merciless; it applies to the Covidians and also to the Jews of the Old Testament; the fabulist David Icke, with his talk of 'reptilian elites', has been accused of anti-Semitism - 'reptilian' is a code-word for 'Jew', his detractors allege. Icke seemed to have been inspired by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_Men" target="_blank">Robert E. Howard's Serpent Men</a>, 'An ancient pre-human race who had founded Valusia but were almost extinct, rule from the shadows, using their Snake Cult religion and ability to disguise themselves with magic'. This shape-shifting race worships a serpent-god called Set who of course takes his name from the ancient Egyptian god of chaos, darkness, famine, and war. Guyénot writes that the ancient Egyptians, confused by the hostility of the Jews towards them, identified Yahweh with Set.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">By associating Jews with such strange, non-human, magical, sinister beings, the conspiracy theorist forms a certain mental image of the Jew, one that is half-real, half-fantasy, and one that is the opposite of the mental image of the American that is impressed on us by popular culture; in contrast to the Old Testament Jew, the American is warm, friendly, avuncular, open, familiar, talkative, polite, hospitable, honest, fair-dealing, and plain-spoken. One of the greatest mysteries of the past one hundred years is how the American, who diverges so much from the Bible Jew, felt such an extraordinary attraction to his antithesis. Lizard-Men, Israel, burnt offerings, race-hatred, volcano gods: all of these are distinctly un-American. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">To repeat, Israel is not 'The West', 'civilisation', and the West and civilisation are endangered neither by Hamas and nor by Palestinian immigrants - immigrants who for the reasons we all know by now are regarded as objectionable whereas Indian, Chinese, and African immigrants are not. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We are free to shut our ears to the lizard men, who speak with a forked tongue, and we can enjoy life, and white privilege, and Christmas; we can, like this Ukrainian fellow, put our feet up: </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIZCfyoxFgoCr0K9BbqFthgL1IegrDhW6SVIngDD48UAZ52w-Zpp4nmEyQ0VIIXixSHoU_qN5weis6-ol3mXx9xi2nPYDMXguniCgVr3t8_coLSeLjltUArshGIwFUrUExnNcOwmkrOBtsVUfy0WRf3RBwpPfp3K2i6Gnp3z8Ny8sLhcBtg5TwFn9uKCEj/s1280/1646215591564.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="1280" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIZCfyoxFgoCr0K9BbqFthgL1IegrDhW6SVIngDD48UAZ52w-Zpp4nmEyQ0VIIXixSHoU_qN5weis6-ol3mXx9xi2nPYDMXguniCgVr3t8_coLSeLjltUArshGIwFUrUExnNcOwmkrOBtsVUfy0WRf3RBwpPfp3K2i6Gnp3z8Ny8sLhcBtg5TwFn9uKCEj/w640-h480/1646215591564.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br />Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-59838073143375648152023-12-03T04:44:00.000-08:002023-12-29T17:59:46.770-08:00Fire Tricks: on Israel, the Palestinians, the Bible, 'Nazis', and American Conservatism, Part I<p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnp6CR11tIbrb5T-7hdsFjCh_ue7WccmgJAHmJIL_qwu9At3YMMei2rEZmceIRTOSSfUUED4OnAkqKNPU5hdUKAawA3X9tld-hsSANIZ_V2CcTUb3TPMVSN4jFyjmO5E0wdiUkvyjHSJXttKmxhNrZMAZZE8aQvtqOZy6s7SMiI1PAFiASOEyaMMtaal2x/s640/3ef1bb7ed400578f9bc772639e2e1d76.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="640" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnp6CR11tIbrb5T-7hdsFjCh_ue7WccmgJAHmJIL_qwu9At3YMMei2rEZmceIRTOSSfUUED4OnAkqKNPU5hdUKAawA3X9tld-hsSANIZ_V2CcTUb3TPMVSN4jFyjmO5E0wdiUkvyjHSJXttKmxhNrZMAZZE8aQvtqOZy6s7SMiI1PAFiASOEyaMMtaal2x/s320/3ef1bb7ed400578f9bc772639e2e1d76.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">I. America Gone Mad? </span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">After the rampage of Hamas on the border of Gaza and Israel on October 7, the American conservative press has become unreadable. When studying it, we see something strange going on: all conservatives, whether they be neocon paleocon, are mounting furious attacks on the opponents of Israel inside America; they are using the word 'Nazi' a million times a minute and in the most inappropriate contexts; and in doing so they are following the example of an Antifa - or Vladimir Putin. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In this discourse, Muslims in America, anti-Zionist left-wing students in America, are castigated as 'Nazis'. The conservatives direct hatred and scorn towards anyone who shows the slightest sign of indifference towards Israel and Jewry's well-being; anyone who fails to show compliance and obedience is denounced as a compromiser and a traitor. The conservatives are attempting to steer America towards naming an Inner Enemy - a term that Yockey introduces in <u>Imperium</u>. He writes (in 1947) that the declaring of a group in America to be the Inner Enemy has occurred only three times in American history: the first during the Revolutionary War against the British, when it was the loyalists to Britain who were named as the Inner Enemy; the second during the American Civil War, when it was the Confederates; and the third during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's reign, when it was the German-Americans and the American sympathisers with Germany. In 2023, it seems that the American conservatives are going for the fourth: the anti-Zionists, the so-called 'Anti-Semites', 'Nazis', and 'Jew Haters' are to be named the new Inner Enemy. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">One has to ask how all this came about. The man in the street, the typical American, will ask why it is that of all the victims of Islamic terrorism, the Israeli Jews killed on October 7 are the most important. In response, the American conservative will of course denounce this man as a shirker and perhaps even accuse him of harbouring a latent 'Nazism,' however Nazism be defined, for in American discourse and Russian, Nazism is <a href="https://redstate.com/streiff/2023/10/12/putins-war-week-85-n2164739" target="_blank">infinitely elastic</a>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">This Probably Isn't Having the Effect You Think You're Having</span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Farther down in this post, I cover a missile attack on the Ukrainian village of Hroza, where literally a third of the population was killed. The missile strike targeted a funeral. This is how Russia's UN Ambassador, the troglodyte Vasily Nebenzya, defended the incident.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span face="TwitterChirp, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space-collapse: preserve;"></span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">How nice is that, huh?
Russia's rep. to the UN said the recent missile strike upon the eastern Ukrainian village of Hroza took place as there was a funeral of a "high-ranking Ukrainian nationalist," at which "a lot of his fellow neo-Nazis" were present.
52 people were killed, including a 6-year-old boy.
The townsfolk were having a memorial feast at a local dining hall (that's what we do after funerals in east Ukraine) for Andriy Kozyr, a killed soldier who was originally from the town.</span></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span face="TwitterChirp, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space-collapse: preserve;"></span></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijwc0qg3_Eu_dnqCvGyDdG0xkaNXnmeEnqojzAJHlaUduxkAm-S8Lyoo9n5qlnvnwEuINrJd6cumgNYX52gcDDo0Ai5tc3ErXTb60jV-qQbz16QJGpdNlqf4UjLTs-GxcAZ8ay4cOyTxbFN2VA9fdDIsBmTFJU8DoHjhrVcWsqDbtmOM20qnUVfxPMMPnc/s862/image_2023-12-03_224004430.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="862" data-original-width="777" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijwc0qg3_Eu_dnqCvGyDdG0xkaNXnmeEnqojzAJHlaUduxkAm-S8Lyoo9n5qlnvnwEuINrJd6cumgNYX52gcDDo0Ai5tc3ErXTb60jV-qQbz16QJGpdNlqf4UjLTs-GxcAZ8ay4cOyTxbFN2VA9fdDIsBmTFJU8DoHjhrVcWsqDbtmOM20qnUVfxPMMPnc/s320/image_2023-12-03_224004430.png" width="288" /></span></a></div><p><br /></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Watching the horrific assault against Israeli civilians in Southern Israel and the hijinks of Russian troops, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that the only real difference between the Russian government and Hamas is that Hamas doesn't drink as much vodka.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If the American conservative wants to go further, he will invoke patriotism: many of the people who were 'trapped' in Israel after October 7 and needed to be evacuated were 'American', or so we are told. But the conservative here is playing with fire. If we are to look at the footage of the 'Americans' in Israel and the Jews who attended the pro-Israel rallies in for instance Sydney and Melbourne, we are struck by the physiological differences between them and us, namely: the curled (and what Hitler called) cruel nostrils; the drooping ear lobes; the thick sensual lips; the deeply inset eyes; the downward-sloping outer corners of the eyes; and above all, the strange elongated and indented skull shape, which looks as though, in the words of one American white nationalist, the skull had been squeezed in the middle by a giant vise. The 'Americans' in Israel are no more of the American nationality than I am, and the blond and blue-eyed, left-wing and anti-Zionist American college student who is being excoriated in the American conservative press looks more American than the 'American' who had to be 'evacuated' from Israel after October 7. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYvEH4SO9QFiaYXaMGD8O4ZIy5-7aiuiB3EIXxWy7aNQk8pEOLKfhUhpQcf5Hir46QoJR_Yp6K1NBVPQLM5yqILunx6nm3NaggT2qzn77QGYPuz-cSKOfVC5AKORfTox-GlyU3EcuDdxfk4IwSamWuhXEpHOY331uPN21xcR9NQJzp3K1Dll9Kezhyphenhyphen-c16/s927/missing-girls-israel-1-1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="927" data-original-width="828" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYvEH4SO9QFiaYXaMGD8O4ZIy5-7aiuiB3EIXxWy7aNQk8pEOLKfhUhpQcf5Hir46QoJR_Yp6K1NBVPQLM5yqILunx6nm3NaggT2qzn77QGYPuz-cSKOfVC5AKORfTox-GlyU3EcuDdxfk4IwSamWuhXEpHOY331uPN21xcR9NQJzp3K1Dll9Kezhyphenhyphen-c16/w358-h400/missing-girls-israel-1-1.jpg" width="358" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><p><span style="font-size: large;">One must trust one's instincts. Twenty five years ago, I read an article by a writer at a white nationalist website who counseled his readers: 'Don't listen to Jews, look at them': wise advice. In a more recent article, one that appeared in the Renegade Tribune years ago and written on the Ultra-Orthodox Jews of New Jersey, someone in the comments section said that the Jews in the pictures and videos 'looked <i>off</i>', that is, off-kilter. Another commentator agreed, and humorously suggested that Jews were not human after all; perhaps they were descendants of a race that had visited Earth long ago from a distant planet (I think he was only half-joking). Memories of the old white nationalist screeds came back to me all at once in the week after October 7 when the media bombarded us with images of Israeli Jews, American Jews, Australian Jews; I could not help but find the strangeness of the Jewish physiognomy confronting; it was as though the splitting off between the white racial type and the Jewish was being rubbed in my face. Added to the racial difference was the symbolic: the aggressive waving of the Israeli flag, the proud display of the Star of David, sent the message, 'See! We are different! We are not like you!'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As a rule, Muslims and Jews are stuck in their own pasts, and their histories are always repeating themselves, and contemplating the history made me recall my past researches. In the 2000s, I made a study of Judaism in order to understand the Jews and in the 2010s, Islam in order to understand the Muslims. The diatribes after October 7 against the Palestinians, Hamas, and Islam had me look back nostalgically on my reading - in the 2010s - the work of the great anti-Islamic scholar Dr Bill Warner, who streamlined the Islamic doctrines and made them comprehensible to the Westerner. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">After you acquaint yourself with the classic Muslim texts, which, when properly viewed, possess a marvelous beauty and simplicity, you agree with Warner that the Muslim follows a 1400 year old program. Now, a great deal of uncertainty exists at the time of writing as to what exactly happened on October 7; but we can guess that the Palestinians murdered, chopped off heads, kidnapped, and humiliated, defiled, and violated; and if they had done so, they were following the tradition of the founder of Islam as laid down in the Koran, the Hadiths, and the Siri. Was Hamas consciously re-enacting the beheading, rape, kidnapping, and enslavement of the <a href="https://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Massacre_of_the_Banu_Qurayzah" target="_blank">Jews of the Banu Qurayzah tribe</a> - an event that took place after Muhammad's victory in the Battle of the Trench in 627 AD? It would seem so. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We learn from an account of the massacre that 'Muhammad as was custom received his pick of the loot including his pick of the females, a beautiful Jewish woman named Rayhana whose husband was decapitated, and the rest went to all the rest of the Muslims, with a Muslim on horse receiving 3 times the spoils of a foot soldier'. Amusingly enough, the Muslims perpetrators justified the crime by quoting a verse from Deuteronomy, a typically bloodthirsty passage in the Old Testament in which Yahweh directs Joshua:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Deuteronomy 20:12-14</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> But if the city makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.</span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Thus, the Muslims argued, the Jews of the Banu Quarayza were being judged by their own law. One could assemble a hundred quotations from the Bible like the above, in which the 'Lord your God' urges the utmost violence towards his enemies, and in reading these, one not for the first time asks if Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, is not the God of Christianity but the Devil. Parallels can be drawn between Yahweh and Allah also: if one substitutes 'Allah' for 'Lord your God' in the passage, it reads like something out of the Koran. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Both Muslims and Jews are 'Peoples of the Book', and books make investigating easy. All the same, we should not lose sight of race. Islam merely formalises Arab practices, and Judaism, Jewish. As Dietrich Eckart opines in <u>Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin</u> (1924): </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">"A few hours spent browsing in the Talmud," I proceeded, "is quite sufficient to remove any doubt about the Jews. It is understandable that they have only the most inordinate praise for the book. When they peep into it their own peculiar nature peers back out at them. And that, of course, is the greatest source of joy for them. Thus, in essence, every Jew is a Talmudist, even if he has never looked at the Talmud. It makes no difference when it was written; in fact, it needn't have been written at all. The first Jew comprised all its essential ingredients. The Jewish leaders fully understand that, but they only say it metaphorically".</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Nearly a hundred years ago, the Germans cruelly and ruthlessly emphasised the differences in physiognomy between Jews and Germans, Jews and Europeans. But what interests today is the politics, not the biology. After all, in 2023 all the countries of the West are filled with a great many strange-looking people who in their appearance deviate from that of the white population. But in Jewry we have one alien group that possesses disproportionate power especially in the Anglosphere (as we have seen in the past weeks), and given that, to paraphrase Yockey, all politics is an activity related to power, Jewry in the Anglosphere is political. Naturally, the Jews themselves do not see it that way; like the Muslims, they believe that they are powerless, not powerful; that they are politically weak; and that they are being victimised by non-Jewish oppressors who are cruel, ruthless, bigoted, and intolerant. But this idea - that the Jews are weak and downtrodden, poor and helpless - itself becomes a point of contention between Jews and non-Jews. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Twenty years ago, I viewed this 'great game' between Jew and non-Jew as the most interesting - and important - political contest in the world; nowadays, I have moved on; I have detached myself from the wars in the Middle East, the rabid pro-Zionist and pro-Jewish rantings of Western politicians and journalists whenever one of these wars breaks out, the accompanying anti-Jewish protests and riots by Muslims in the West; and I have all but given up hope that the Americans like their European forebears would eventually 'get wise' to the Jewish question. But October 7 stimulated me enough to sit down and think on these matters once again, and I pulled Eckart's chestnut down from the bookshelf for the first time in twenty years. The renewal of interest led me to undertake an intellectual exercise: could one come up with an anti-Judaism that was as clean and precise, simple and comprehensible, as Dr Bill Warner's anti-Islamism? The pursuit of such an end should be considered worthwhile because, as those with experience in the movement know, waking the 'normie' up to the Jewish question is one of the toughest assignments there is; waking the 'normie' up to Muslim question is comparatively easy. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Once we follow the course sketched out above, we will acknowledge two truths, one is that one cannot separate Jewish politics in the Middle East from Jewish history, and other is that one cannot separate Jewish history from Jewish religion; that is why traditional left-wing arguments against Israel and Zionism do not work; the arguments are always couched in in terms of secular concepts. When examining the Arab-Israeli conflict, or the history of Zionism in the West, one must delve deep into the religious and the mystical. But Westerners show a marked reluctance to do so for the reason that the contents of the Old Testament and the Talmud repel the Western mind. Being modern, our first impulse is to dismiss the accounts of miracles, extraordinary catastrophes, supernatural phenomena, in the Old Testament as balderdash. But Julius Evola did not see the Old Testament in that way; he took the stories in it seriously. In his <u>Revolt against the Modern World</u> (1934), he recounts how the story of Noah and his ark belongs to a class of legends and myths that speak of a catastrophic flood that overtook the world and nearly destroyed all life. Living in the antediluvian age were a race of superior beings whom are called Nephilim ('Giants') in the Bible, Titans in Greek myth; in the narrative, this race became degenerate, and its hubris and evil habits led to its destruction; its counterpart in Mesopotamian myth is the dark and monstrous goddess Tiamat, who is slain by the younger and more 'solar' god Marduk. On the evidence of these myths, Evola chose to believe that once such a race of Titans or Nephilim existed; far better to posit that the authors of the Old Testament were telling the truth, or at least the truth as they saw it, than to dismiss it all as a hoax. The bestselling author Immanuel Velikovsky takes the same approach, and in <u>Worlds in Collision</u> (1950) he comes up with a naturalistic explanation of some of the strange phenomena in the Old Testament, particularly in Exodus - the parting of the Red Sea for Moses, the falling of manna from the sky, the turning of the Nile to blood.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In our pursuit of truth, however, sooner or later we must abandon naturalism and cross from the material to the spiritual, and by spiritual I do not mean theology. In the Old and New Testaments we find plenty of what we today would call paranormal phenomena; both Jesus and Elisha possessed supernatural powers; both performed the miracles of feeding the multitude, raising the dead, and healing leprosy. According to the Old Testament, Elisha went further and performed more miracles than Jesus, miracles that include parting the Jordan River, flooding a dry land, removing poison from food, purifying water, making iron float, and reading minds. Elisha sounds like a cross between Gandalf in <u>Lord of the Rings</u> and the Israeli conjurer Uri Geller. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Supernatural beings accompanied the paranormal phenomena. The Koran was dictated to the illiterate Muhammad by a shadowy armoured man who claimed to be the angel Gabriel, or Jibreel as the Arabs call him. Almost at all times by Muhammad's side, Gabriel serves as Muhammad's friend, mentor, counselor, religious instructor, and military advisor. The last of these hints to us that Gabriel was not the angel that Muhammad took him to be, even though Gabriel sometimes appeared to Muhammad in the form of an angel with 'Six hundred wings'. Assuming that Gabriel was real and not the product of Muhammad's fevered imagination, those who are familiar with schlock paranormal and occult literature (as I am) recognise Gabriel as being a discarnate non-human intelligence, that is, an entity without a material body and with the mind of a human. He cannot be classified as human; he is not even the spirit of a deceased human, that is, he is not a soul that wanders the Earth after the death of the physical body. The Arabs in Muhammad's time believed in Jinns (known in the West as genies) and accused Muhammad, when he first began preaching, of being possessed by one. Jinns would go on to play a significant role in Islamic theology, and belief in them remains widespread across the Arab world even today. The question is, did Gabriel belong, like the Jinns, to the category of discarnate intelligences? And after reading the Old Testament, we must ask: did Yahweh? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It is quite jarring to move from a discussion of such speculative and nebulous matters to a discussion of the Israeli ground offensive into Gaza; but I hope that by the end of this essay that I will have persuaded the reader that the two spheres, the mystical and political, are related when it comes to the Middle East. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">II. Left versus Right</span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">American conservatives want you to take the 2023 war between Israel and the Palestinians extremely seriously, and the second Russo-Ukrainian War, the one that started in 2022, <a href="https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1712229964098216065" target="_blank">not so much</a>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB29eeVtpI4a1SDiKQok1ghHTV_xvksNMUOKZ5H_3YK_H_0fEMcI-rAX33Kp3lafeCW3mzInvLLopLQVSrlEfMrgGGZXKlPQok0WI3fpQ96ZAYV7qbs5Es6B0nEbIhlAPYuf03FYesblBtwaGi3zUu8DJa9W5zQkK4LK7EYcd9hgDqZbhA0OCKJ1IbqQcX/s760/Screenshot%202023-12-03%20225309.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="760" data-original-width="753" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB29eeVtpI4a1SDiKQok1ghHTV_xvksNMUOKZ5H_3YK_H_0fEMcI-rAX33Kp3lafeCW3mzInvLLopLQVSrlEfMrgGGZXKlPQok0WI3fpQ96ZAYV7qbs5Es6B0nEbIhlAPYuf03FYesblBtwaGi3zUu8DJa9W5zQkK4LK7EYcd9hgDqZbhA0OCKJ1IbqQcX/s320/Screenshot%202023-12-03%20225309.png" width="317" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The contrast is significant and telling, and it indicates a major factional difference in the American conservative movement. On the one hand, we have the neoconservatives, or 'neocons' as they are perjoratively known, of whom one conservative thinker made the famous quip that a neoconservative is an American conservative who believes that the capital of America is not Washington DC but Tel Aviv. But we can, after our experiences of American conservatives in the 2020s, turn the definition around: a paleoconservative is an American conservative who believes that the capital of America is not Washington DC but Moscow. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">At first sight, the two factions seem incompatible, but the aftermath of the Hamas rampage shows that this is not so; the paleocons and neocons are now united in their fury against Hamas and their desire to avenge Israel's honour. To see how this happened, let us look to the recent past. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Under the growing influence of the Tucker Carlsons, who are Russian agents in America operating deep behind enemy lines like so many Spetznaz commandos, the mainstream American conservative is being forced to hedge, to qualify, to set conditions for American aid to Ukraine in Ukraine's war against Russia, an equivocating that the conservative would never allow for Israel. The reason for favouring Israel over Ukraine is that the American conservative is a man possessed when it comes to 'Nazism'. Nearly eight decades after the end of the last world war, he abominates the wartime Germans, the 'Nazis', and the 'anti-Semites' as the most vile and despicable creatures who have ever walked the earth; after the October 7 rampage, the journalist John Nolte of Breitbart raved that the Palestinians, Hamas, Gaza, must be treated the same as 'Hitler, the Nazis, Berlin'; and just think, you believed only the week before Nolte published his inflammatory article that he was your friend because he opposed woke-ism and Social Justice Warrior-ism in Hollywood. Nolte is hardly an outlier. The disturbing side of American - and North American - conservatism became apparent after the exposure of Yaroslav Hunka, a Ukrainian WWII veteran, after his feting in the Canadian parliament. Every single American single conservative news organ joined in the denunciations of Hunka and the Canadians who hosted him: the Gateway Pundit, Twitchy, Just the News, Breitbart, RedState, the Blaze, the Western Journal, the Federalist, the Powerline Blog, the Daily Wire, the Right Scoop... They repeated WWII-era American talking points and Russian. Having said that, not all of these sites can be categorised as pro-Russian. Perhaps only the Gateway Pundit - which condones the 2022 invasion, celebrates Russian military victories and Ukrainian defeats, and serves up the daily slop of Kremlin lies no matter how absurd the lies may be - qualifies as a Kremlin platform of the same rank as Russia Today (RT).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjJjbNHaWGh5UGjA219dA3JJ1S3o-VxYpoSIxli77Ufe_U3BBHo7_2a7zrGvD1iI46apcEYAZ-_MGrGIgEJIfkYPy6vflmUPMphpBW8i62lu7lhHbfZFTr8FY04zO9iOc6JRiBCUp0daPcYZsEGK4MPz4L1AZrzEFYlp_2gNEXh0WjM1lBtP_mxO_7hSfG/s599/SexTunnels.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="523" data-original-width="599" height="279" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjJjbNHaWGh5UGjA219dA3JJ1S3o-VxYpoSIxli77Ufe_U3BBHo7_2a7zrGvD1iI46apcEYAZ-_MGrGIgEJIfkYPy6vflmUPMphpBW8i62lu7lhHbfZFTr8FY04zO9iOc6JRiBCUp0daPcYZsEGK4MPz4L1AZrzEFYlp_2gNEXh0WjM1lBtP_mxO_7hSfG/s320/SexTunnels.PNG" width="320" /></span></a></div><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">What is interesting from our perspective is that the Pundit, Twitchy, and the other reliably pro-Russian outlets now stand firmly in the Israeli camp and are baying for vengeance. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The American conservative is obsessed by WWII - the American view of WWII, that is. Let us note one item in the American conservative news that appeared in the days before October 7 and one that the conservative news outlet The Blaze found highly praiseworthy: the director Steven Spielberg and the actor Tom Hanks are making a new TV series celebrating the exploits of the American Eighth Air Force, which, if you know your WWII history, killed many Germans and many other Europeans; the exact number of dead is unknown but it must reach a million. What is to be done with American conservatives?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now, we can understand why it is that the American conservative is so fired up over the wrongs, real or imagined, visited upon the Israelis: it gives him the chance to land a blow on the American Left. For nearly three years, the American Right looked on helplessly while America was transformed into a banana republic. Like a president of a third world country, the president of America, ousted in a coup, is being put on trial - by the junta that ousted him - for vague 'crimes'; simultaneously, the junta is persecuting his followers and anyone unlucky enough to be adjacent to him at the time of the coup. The Biden junta holds all the cards: it owns the police, the secret police (that is, the FBI), the courts, the press; and even though it is unpopular, as juntas often are, and would in normal circumstances lose an election in a landslide, it is possible that in 2024 Biden could go on to lose Ohio, Iowa, Florida, most of the counties, and most of the bellweather counties as he did in 2020 - and yet 'win' 're-election', and this time with a 100 million votes. And again, the courts, the FBI, the police, the 'respectable' conservatives will connive; nothing will be done; those who protest, or even speak up, will receive the J6 treatment. To the American conservative, then, the prognosis looks grim. But one chink in the armour of the Democratic Party has been exposed after October 7, and that is this: the Democratic Party, and the American Left, are insufficiently beholden to Israel - and by extension to the 'Lord your God'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In 2023, the divide between the liberal Left and the radical Left has all but disappeared, and this melting away of separating walls began even before the advent of Trump; but the fusion of extreme and center Left may not hold for long. The American Left has come under furious assault since the October 7 rampage, not only from the mainstream American Right but from certain prominent personalities and institutions in American popular culture, and most importantly from the Israel lobby, which maintains a vice-like grip on the Democratic Party. Now, in the 2020s, the old-fashioned centrist Democrat, who was elected in the years when the Democratic Party was still a relatively mainstream part of American life, has long ceased being left of center; old fogeys such as Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, became radicals or were forced to be pretend to be radicals. Obama, who got his start in Far Left circles and was known in his youth to subscribe to pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli views, was in large part responsible for transforming the likes of Biden; so was the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon in the early 2010s; so was Black Lives Matter in 2020. In reality, the Bidens and Pelosis are opportunists who have used their positions to enrich themselves and their families, and they believe in nothing; but under enormous pressure since October 7, they have been forced to reaffirm their Zionist bona fides. The old 'centrist' Democrat has returned, and now a battle between the Far Left and the Center Left will commence, a battle that will be fascinating to behold; an irresistible force shall meet an immovable object. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I say immovable because the Left refuses to budge; the American Far Left have chosen their hill to die on, and that hill is Palestine. An interesting question, and one that has been asked many times in the past two decades, is why the Far Left in America - and elsewhere in the Anglosphere - has taken up cudgels against Israel and Zionism. In our attempt to answer it, we can examine the history of Leftism and Israel, which in brief summary is this. In 1948, the Soviet Union armed Israel in its war against the Palestinians and other Arabs, but after Israel's victory, the Soviet Union cut off military and diplomatic aid, and by the sixties, it chose to arm Israel's opponents; and then, after the Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian defeats in the 1967 war, secular Palestinian nationalism emerged and moved to the forefront; it then quickly became fashionable on the Left. Flashing forward to the early nineties, the collapse of the USSR threw the American Left into confusion, but by the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the Second Intifada, it had recovered some of its old fire. But the renewed fervour led to the Left's accepting Islam and abandoning time-honoured principles. The American Left in the seventies understood that the Palestinian nationalists were not communist but only affiliates of the communists; likewise it understood that the Arab socialist regimes were not communist but only beneficiaries of the communists; the Left in those years was prepared to make concessions for the sake of expediency to 'bourgeois' Arab nationalism in an instance of what Lenin called 'thinking dialectically'. But by the 1990s, which was the 'End of History', the appeal of communism had vanished and with it the appeal of secular Arab nationalism. By the 2010s, the most powerful political actors in the Middle East were the Mullahs in Iran; Hezbollah (armed and equipped by Iran) in Lebanon; ISIS in Iraq and Syria; and Hamas in Gaza. 'Arab socialism' in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, had become a stale old joke, and the old links between it and the Far Left were sundered. But by this point, the Far Left had dropped the pretense that it opposed Israel out of a desire for socialism. It wanted only to destroy. Simply put, by the 2010s, Leftism had run out of targets to shoot and it needed new ones. To the Left's delight, the Great Replacement had become an inevitability, and white people had been cowed into accepting it and accepting it without demur. Where, then, was the challenge? Leftism thrives on conflict, discord, aggression, and the violent overcoming of its opponents; it requires enemies. Who, then, was to be the new enemy of the Left and an enemy with a measure of political power? The answer is, the Zionist Jew, the 'European' 'colonialist' who maintains an 'Apartheid' regime in occupied Palestine, Apartheid being the name of the political and racial order maintained by the white South Africans, who, in Leftist myth, were as nearly as vile as the National Socialist Germans. In 21st century Leftist narrative, the Israeli Jew substitutes for the white man; admittedly, he is a poor substitute, but the Left has little else. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As <a href="https://counter-currents.com/2023/10/its-not-about-the-palestinians/" target="_blank">one poster at Counter-Currents</a> puts it: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"> October 10, 2023 at 6:44 am</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Palestinians have an antiwhite line of rhetoric. It goes like this. Israel is an “apartheid” state. As a racist, colonialist entity it is illegitimate, and so Palestinians have every right to rise up and strike it down in any way.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This rhetoric justifies Palestinian terrorism by placing it in an antiwhite frame. Non-Whites are on the right side of history and can do anything to Whites. Whites, or relatively White people like Jews, can be annihilated morally.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I don’t agree that Jews are White or nearly White, but that is irrelevant to the logic of the Palestinian struggle seen as part of a morally justified antiwhite movement. This is how antiwhite Palestinians see themselves and want to be seen by their fellow antiwhites, and this is a large part of how their fellow antiwhites see them and why their fellow antiwhites support them. Simply put, genocidal terrorism is appropriate against Whites or groups seen as “too White.”</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We pro-Whites shouldn’t support this.</span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">III. Holocausts great and small</span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Leftist attempts to dislodge Zionism usually fail and for one reason: they show a distinct reluctance to take the bull by the horns and tackle the thorny question of the lore, history, myth, and tradition in the old Jewish religious texts, and in particular, the holocausts. The Old Testament is filled with animal sacrifices and burnt offerings to Yahweh, who seems most partial to the slaughtering and burning of cattle, sheep, goats, and birds; he subsists on a diet of them; and these are known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice" target="_blank">the holocausts</a>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">All or only part of a sacrificial animal may be offered; some cultures, like the ancient and modern Greeks, eat most of the edible parts of the sacrifice in a feast, and burnt the rest as an offering. Others burnt the whole animal offering, called a holocaust. Usually, the best animal or best share of the animal is the one presented for offering.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXlHH0B78Y3QMgplwxoD2-c1zZSNvMLIX810Gta0DS47RHBsC2eZu6YvElKfzHaYSUXALKbOxQk2RtwF09VT0n6v_FFCr06EBrU_b8MxLLZelYuT9cRGTI1glWrtUr-q8Fm0doY69UkyBlSE-fVvNQUDcRyviag0ZwFyqL1YDBB2dl0LfsEek37cnyxE_f/s1228/Screenshot%202023-12-03%20230119.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="1228" height="96" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXlHH0B78Y3QMgplwxoD2-c1zZSNvMLIX810Gta0DS47RHBsC2eZu6YvElKfzHaYSUXALKbOxQk2RtwF09VT0n6v_FFCr06EBrU_b8MxLLZelYuT9cRGTI1glWrtUr-q8Fm0doY69UkyBlSE-fVvNQUDcRyviag0ZwFyqL1YDBB2dl0LfsEek37cnyxE_f/w640-h96/Screenshot%202023-12-03%20230119.png" width="640" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">No doubt some scholar has counted the number of dead animals in the Bible killed as sacrifices. Considered by itself, Yahweh's appetite alone for animals killed in this fashion ought to disturb us; as the Syrian author Maan Khamis has observed, 'Blood and sacrifices are the cornerstones of satanic and pagan cults'. But sometimes in the Bible the dead on offer are human beings. And according to prophecies made in the Talmud, we will someday be seeing the biggest burnt offering of all, and the sacrificed creatures will be humans, millions of them. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the Talmud, written some fifteen hundred years ago, the story runs like this: the Gentiles will murder six million Jews by immolating them in giant ovens; but the murdered Jews will come back to life, and Yahweh, acknowledging their sacrifice - the word Holocaust means burnt offering to God and comes from the Greek verb <i>kauston</i>, to burn - will return to them the lost State of Israel. Now, when confronted with this apocalyptic and eschatological mummering, you can either conclude that the Talmud predicted the events of the 20th century with uncanny accuracy or that it is pure religious hokum that anyone can see through. If one takes the latter view, one can look to the tales of Elie Wiesel as forming a similar species of fabulism: the way Wiesel tells it, the Germans tried to kill him four times, once by throwing him into a giant fire pit in Auschwitz, an immolation from which he emerged unscathed in what was a miracle, a Jewish miracle, and one that echoes the miracle of the six million surviving Jews in the Talmudic prophecy; but then, Wiesel was a religious student and would have known his Talmudic lore.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">IV. The First Zionist</span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On one side of the Zionist coin we find stamped the holocaust doctrine and the prediction of the biggest burnt offering of all, the Holocaust with a capital H; on the other, actual historical events that occurred some 2500 years ago. Jewish immigrants, highly charged with Jewish nationalism and messianism, return to the Holy Land after a long period of time residing in a great and powerful empire nearby, and they do not like what they see: the locals show insufficient zeal for the Jewish national and religious cause, and worse, they have in large part ceased being Jewish. Changes need to be made, then, and fast, if these new arrivals are to be accommodated. In that spirit, all of the country in which they have made their new home in is renamed 'Israel'. Jews fencing themselves off from non-Jews (in order to preserve Jewish racial purity) and ethnic cleansing soon follow. It all sounds like what happened in Palestine in the years 1947 and 1948, but it took place long before then; the story comes to us from the time of the Old Testament. In the Book of Ezra, we are presented with an image of the obnoxious, arrogant, entitled, exclusionist, and 'European' Jewish settler of Palestine, the villain who looms large in leftist anti-Zionist myth. Khamis writes: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"> The “Holy Race” is a term coined by the Hebrews. In Ezra 9:2, we read, </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><span>“They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their </span><span>sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them.” </span></span></blockquote></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Let us examine the history behind this verse in order to understand its racist implications. When the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah, he made it a tributary state. Shortly after, Judah’s King revolted against Babylon and allied with Pharaoh Hophra of Egypt. When the Babylonians defeated Egyptians at the battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem and eventually destroyed most of it. He had enough of the Hebrew troublemakers, so he scattered them throughout his empire. This period is called Babylonian captivity. It was, however, a peaceful period in the holy land. </span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">The remaining Hebrews and the locals lived in peace and mingled with each other. After the fall of Babylon to the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE,exiled Jews were encouraged to go back to Jerusalem. Some Jews gradually moved back to Judah and started rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem. Local leaders welcomed them and offered to take part in building the temple. The local leaders told the returning Hebrews, “We all seek God. Let us build a temple together?” Ezra 4:2, “Then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as ye do”. But, the returning Jewish leaders replied “He is our God; not yours. We alone will build our Lord a temple.” This utterance is coming from the samefolks whom the Bible insists on calling “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” </span></p></blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel. </span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The evil of “us against others” reared its ugly head again thanks to these returning troublemakers...</span></p></blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> The locals saw the writing on the walls when the Hebrew extremists returned and began their divisive actions. The local leaders tried to work with them and failed. So they sent a letter to King Artaxerxes describing the situation, Ezra 4:12, </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations. </span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As can be seen, it is not others who isolated the Jews; it is the Jews who isolated themselves from everyone else. The returning Hebrews could not wait to separate themselves from the locals after the completion of the temple. </span></p></blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The supposed holy book tells us, “The Israelites have married the people living around them and mixed with the other people.” Ezra proceeded to force the Hebrew men, including priests and Levites, who were married to gentile women, to leave their wives and abandon their children. They were told, these mixed marriages were polluting the holy race of God. “have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them... Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives.” Ezra even published a list containing the names of all the men that were married to unholy wives starting in Ezra 10:18. [Maan Khamis, <u>Chosen by Satan</u> (2017)]</span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Anyone familiar with the history of Israel and Palestine in the 20th century can see the parallels. The book of Nehemiah takes up the thread of this story of Zionist-'colonialist' conquest that leads to ethnic cleansing. Like the Palestinians who entreated the British in the time of the Mandate, the non-Jewish inhabitants of Judah entreated the authorities and begged for protection from the Jews, but as the above shows, their efforts were to no avail. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZ2AlAPLzdkeJ8dpgpVvRNWNXj_H1yjYp35Y1LJPAcIynAii8cZWi8MQasmoSB1qu95CDjqlzYsy5ujDFXf5MXlRW3gBWwdNr9NFrVAgGSjnwM-MvUL2qtp8Fz_SOP_Fe4rEMOWiJHCfQZc1BG6ffanMYjoL1e1xeRyBjrGgQLzjXyjJQKvY6qZKLyNzxH/s677/Screenshot%202023-12-03%20231354.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="677" height="319" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZ2AlAPLzdkeJ8dpgpVvRNWNXj_H1yjYp35Y1LJPAcIynAii8cZWi8MQasmoSB1qu95CDjqlzYsy5ujDFXf5MXlRW3gBWwdNr9NFrVAgGSjnwM-MvUL2qtp8Fz_SOP_Fe4rEMOWiJHCfQZc1BG6ffanMYjoL1e1xeRyBjrGgQLzjXyjJQKvY6qZKLyNzxH/s320/Screenshot%202023-12-03%20231354.png" width="320" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">After the arrival of Ezra, Nehemiah also came to Jerusalem and started repairing the walls around it. When the locals enquired, they were told to get lost, Nehemiah 2:20, “but ye have no portion, nor right, nor memorial, in Jerusalem.” The local governor, Sanballat, was worried that the Israelites were getting ready to revolt and start trouble again. So he sent Nehemiah a letter expressing his concerns, Nehemiah 6:6,</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Wherein was written, It is reported among the heathen, and Gashmu saith it, that thou and the Jews think to rebel: for which cause thou buildest the wall, that thou mayest be their king, according to these words.</span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Despite the oppositions, the wall was eventually built. As expected, as soon as the wall was built the Israelites separated themselves from all others and even abandoned their gentile wives and children again, Nehemiah 10:28,</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinims, and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons.</span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">They immediately populated Jerusalem with Hebrews from the surrounding cities and kicked out the Gentiles. I guess, the locals were right. They knew exactly what these racist were up to. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Interestingly, after kicking out the Gentiles, the Hebrews turned on each other. The wealthy Jews were enslaving and exploiting the poor Jews as stated in Nehemiah 5:5, </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already.</span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Lord even encouraged the Israelites to sell their children. He also set the prices of these children. Leviticus 27:6, “And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.” </span></p></blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Any cooperation between the Hebrews and the Gentiles was immediately condemned by Hebrew leaders. As an example, after Nehemiah left to visit the king of Persia, The Hebrew high priest [Eliashib] tried to work with the gentiles. He allied with Tobiah the Ammonite and allowed him to use a great chamber in the temple, Nehemiah 13:7, </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">And I came to Jerusalem, and understood of the evil that Eliashib did for Tobiah, in preparing him a chamber in the courts of the house of God. </span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Nehemiah upon his return, however, was very angry and kicked Tobiah out of the temple. He also, insisted on firing all the gentile employees and replaced them with Hebrews, Nehemiah 13:30, “Thus cleansed I them from all strangers,and appointed the wards of the priests and the Levites, every one in his business;” In summary, this supposed man of God was telling the Gentiles, you are dirty swine; you do not belong to our temples or our Lord. Despite that, we are supposed to think of these folks as holy men chosen by God. </span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Khamis concludes: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">I firmly believe, after WWII, Europeans were content to send the few Hebrew troublemakers to Palestine. They secretly thought, “We will send them as far away from us as possible. They love drama and war, and they will find it in Palestine. They will fit well with the Muslims who also love drama and war.” If two families in your town always cause trouble for everyone. Wouldn’t everyone be happy if they are fighting each other and fully occupied. As soon as you stop them, they will turn on you. The world loves the idea of having the extremist Jews and the extremist Muslims busy with each other. That is why the world is not anxious for peace. Israel is a magnet for Jewish and Christian fundamentalists, and the rest of the world is happy to send them there. We can see thesame strategy played with the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq (ISIS). Despite their evil, ISIS is the best thing ever to happen to the west. It is a magnet for all the Muslim extremists in the world. Instead of chasing them all over the world, the United States knows exactly where they are and can monitor, capture, or kill them; all in one place.</span></p></blockquote><p></p><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><p><u><span style="font-size: large;">IV. Fire and Sacrifice</span></u></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As Khamis notes, 'Blood and sacrifices' are associated with 'satanic and pagan cults'. That did not hold true at the time that the Old Testament was written, and does not hold true even today; in 2023, all the world's religions - with the notable exceptions of Christianity and Buddhism - sacrifice animals. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">By and large, 'satanic cults' did not appear in the West until the 1960s, the time of the occult revival and the first appearance of American 'Satanism' under the auspices of the charlatan Anton La Vey; and at that precise point the Satanist who sacrifices animals at midnight on an altar or or a crypt or a grassy knoll makes his debut in popular culture and sensationalist news media. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Having said all that, Yahweh in the pages of the Old Testament behaves much like the Satan or Devil as conceived by Westerners. In the <a href="https://academic.oup.com/book/34310" target="_blank">abstract</a> for a compilation of academic writings, <u>Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham</u> (2010) Michael Bergmann (ed.), Michael J. Murray (ed.), Michael C. Rea (ed.) we find: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Numerous critics of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have argued that God, especially in the Hebrew Bible, is often portrayed as morally vicious. For example, historical narratives in these texts apparently describe God as ordering or commending genocide, slavery, and rape among other moral atrocities...</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Like the Devil in any Satanic horror movie, Yahweh will turn on his followers at a moment's notice, and in such moments he will expunge all of a follower's history of service and obeisance from his memory. A capricious god, he will become angry with the Israelites for no reason at all and proceed to exact a terrible revenge. To take one example: after David does his duty and takes a census at Yahweh's behest, Yahweh decides to punish the Israelites and makes David choose between three years of famine, three of years of Israelites fleeing from their enemies, and three years of plague. David opts for the last of these, and a plague sent by Yahweh goes on to kill 70,000 Israelites before Yahweh relents. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">At other times, Yahweh will butcher the Israelites when they old standards slip; in this way he behaves like the Satan in the X-Files episode <u><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Hand_Die_Verletzt" target="_blank">Die Hand Die Verletzt</a></u> ('The Hand that Wounds') (1995), a macabre story that parodies the Satanic horror movie genre of the seventies. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Surprisingly, this version of Satan, the one that we all know, nowhere appears in the Old Testament; it as though the Hebrews had no concept of a god of evil. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There is no trace in the Torah of a cosmic struggle between two principles, as in the myth of Osiris or in Persian Zoroastrianism. The fundamental tension is not between good and evil, but between Yahweh and the other gods. The snake (Nachash) tempting Eve in the Garden of Eden disappears forever from the Bible after that: it has no ontological consistency. The “devil” (<i>diabolos</i> in Greek) will make his appearance in the Gospels, and “Lucifer” later still, based on a tendentious exegesis of Isaiah 14:12 in the Latin translation (Vulgate). As for “the satan,” it appears to be borrowed from a Sumerian legal word meaning the “accuser,” and it never occurs as a proper name in the Pentateuch (Torah). “Satan” is the prosecution lawyer in Zechariah 3:1 and in the book of Job.51 In the Old Testament, when he personifies a destructive principle, Satan is hard to distinguish from Yahweh himself. Thus, in 2 Samuel 24, Yahweh incites David to abuse his power, while in the same episode recounted by 1 Chronicles 21, the role is given to Satan. One reads in the latter narrative that “Satan took his stand against Israel” (21:1), that “God […] punished Israel” (21:7),that “the angel of Yahweh wreaks havoc throughout the territory of Israel” (21:12) and that “Yahweh unleashed an epidemic on Israel” (21:14). Ultimately, it is always God who strikes not only the enemies of Israel, but also Israel itself when it proves unworthy of him. It is he who triggers wars, epidemics, and plagues of every imaginable sort; he uses alternately Israel to destroy the nations (as a “mace,” Jeremiah 51:20), and the nations to destroy Israel. Yahweh is the source of both good and evil. (It follows logically, according to some kabbalistic schools, that one can serve him through evil as well as through good.) [Laurent Guyénot, <u>From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land... Clash of Civilizations</u> (2018)</span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">All of this contradicts the standard Christian doctrine. In the Old Testament, Satan is the name of the office held by a judging angel who performs a similar function to the Assessors of Maat, 42 deities who, in the religion of ancient Egypt, judge the souls of the dead in the afterlife, the main difference here being that the Satans judge the living, not the dead. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Other conceptions of the Evil One that we hold are not to be found in the Old Testament. Christianity's Lucifer, the 'fallen angel' cast out of Heaven for his pride and hubris, is no such thing in Jewish lore; Lucifer is merely the name of the star Venus, which appears in the morning and disappears ('falls') in the evening. The prophet Isaiah exalts in the political downfall of an unnamed Babylonian king whom is compared to 'Morning star, son of the Dawn!'. As for the snake in the Garden of Eden, it cannot be considered to be a forerunner of the Devil; the author of Genesis performed an unusual 'transvaluation of values' here and turned the snake, in the ancient world a honourable animal, into a dishonourable one: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">The serpent, associated throughout the Near East with the chthonian divinities but also with revealed or intuitive knowledge (the gnosis of the Greeks), is likewise the object of an inversion: when it offers to the first humans the means of acquiring knowledge and to “be like gods” (Genesis 3:5), it borrows the language of initiatory mysteries; but the Bible presents the serpent as a liar. [Ibid]</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Christianity invented the Devil and that Western Christianity took the idea and ran with it, making the Devil, or Satan, into the figure that we know today. In the Middle Ages, Western Europeans, who believed in witchcraft, black magic, supernatural powers, and strange creatures of the night, were obsessed by the Devil and visions of the torments of Hell; and it is at this point in the development of European culture that the imagery of the Old Testament begins to merge with that of the Satanic. Fire, flame, and smoke - all are symbols of Yahweh, who adores his burnt offerings, his holocausts. Here are a few examples from Khamis: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Further in Genesis 15, we encounter a full satanic ritual between Abraham and the Lord. Whereby, this Lord asked Abraham to get a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon. Abraham started the ritual by cutting these animals into halves and laid each piece one against another. The Bible tells us that Abraham eventually fell asleep and a “horror of great darkness fell upon him.” Later on, a “smoking furnace, and a burning lamp” passed between the animals’ carcasses. What is godly about this ritual? It is satanic to the highest degree. [Khamis, Ibid]</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This image, of a 'smoking furnace and a burning lamp' trundling between animal carcasses, could be put to good use in a Hammer horror movie. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">In Exodus 2, God heard the cries of the Israelites out of Egypt and remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob... This time God showed up to Moses in a burning bush and asked him to take off his shoes. Why burning bush? Why fire? Isn’t fire a portrayal of Hell? [Ibid]</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Yahweh kills with fire. He incinerates two of Moses' nephews Nadab and Abihu for carrying out a sacrifice in the wrong way; the altar for sacrifices is before the Ark of the Covenant, a box in which Yahweh is said to reside. By all accounts, whatever was in that box was radioactive: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Even touching this Ark was deadly. In II Samuel 6, the Ark was being transported to Jerusalem on a cart. The oxen stumbled tipping the Ark. A man named Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark to stabilize it. The Lord’s anger burned against him and killed him, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. </span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><blockquote><i><span style="font-size: large;"></span></i></blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.<i> </i>[Ibid]</span></blockquote><p></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Was Yahweh a fire demon then? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Numbers 11:1, the Israelites were burned by fire for complaining about the hardship to which Moses was subjecting them.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">And when the people complained, it displeased the Lord: and the Lord heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the Lord burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp. [Ibid]</span></p></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The fire motif extends to Yahweh's servants the angels, as we learn from the story of Samson: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Samson, son of Manoah</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">He was also born miraculously. His mother was barren and was able to conceive only by the aid of a Lord’s angel, Judges 13:5,</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.</span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This angel performed fire tricks for Samson’s parents in order to convince them, Judges 13:20, “For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar.” The angel of the Lord ascended in the flames of the burned offering. Again, why flames and fire? [Ibid]</span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Finally, consider the appearance of Yahweh before David; Yahweh's mien matches that of a Balrog from Tolkein's <u>Lord of the Rings</u>: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">In Psalm 18, the Lord swiftly came to David aid and delivered him from his enemies. David’s description of this Lord is either the product of vivid imagination or a description of Satan. This Lord was angry. He had flames leaping from his mouth and setting fire to the earth. He was blowing smoke from his nostrils. He came down enshrouded with darkness. He angrily destroyed all David’s enemies, Psalm 18:8, “There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet.” [Ibid]</span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">V. The Bible and the Paranormal</span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">To continue with the theme of fire, death by fire, and sacrifice by fire. Yahweh forbids Moses from throwing any of Moses'children into Molech's flames, implying that only he, Yahweh, deserves fiery sacrifices; and after Moses' death, the Israelites continue to sacrifice their children and in particular their first-born sons. As well as other scholars, Guyénot argues that Molech and Yahweh are one and the same: Molech ('King') = Yahweh ('Lord'). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">After a time, Yahweh modifies the law that every first-born son and 'Every first born of flock or herd' (Exodus 34:19-20) must be sacrificed to him. The Hebrews became civilised, and it goes without saying that today's Israelis, unlike the Israelites depicted in the Old Testament, do not throw their firstborn into the fire; nor do they make animal sacrifices to a box that is placed on an altar behind a veil in a tent (the 'tabernacle'). Jews have become comparatively more refined, progressive, evolved, and that is not entirely due to Western influence. Jews, like most people in the 21st century, no longer believe by and large in the doctrines of Judaism as expounded in the Old Testament, which make outrageous claims that offend reason. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Let us list the objectionable items here. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">1) <i>Psychic phenomena and paranormal powers.</i> See Elisha in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">2) <i>Extraordinary phenomena.</i> Related to 2), we see miraculous phenomena on display that is in keeping with the 'anomalous', 'unexplained' phenomena chronicled by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fort" target="_blank">Charles Fort</a>. Velikovsky attempts to find a rational explanation for the extraordinary happenings in Egypt in the time of Moses. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">3) <i>Extraordinary events, e.g., catastrophes, that occurred before the time of any known civilisation. </i>See the Flood, and also the age of the 'giants' or Nephilim. These accounts, to the Traditionalists such as Evola, allow us to peer into part of mankind's distant past that has been obscured by the passage of time. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">4) <i>Questionable Middle Eastern history.</i> Much has been written by historians disputing the Bible's accounts of wars, slaughters, and other events; did the slaughter of 75,000 Persians by the Jews as recounted in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Esther" target="_blank">Book of Esther</a> really happen? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Unable to annul a formal royal decree, the King instead adds to it, permitting the Jews to join together and destroy any and all of those seeking to kill them (8:1–14).[12][13] On 13 Adar, Haman's ten sons and 500 other men are killed in Shushan (9:1–12). Upon hearing of this Esther requests it be repeated the next day, whereupon 300 more men are killed (9:13–15). Over 75,000 people are killed by the Jews, who are careful to take no plunder (9:16–17). Mordecai and Esther send letters throughout the provinces instituting an annual commemoration of the Jewish people's redemption, in a holiday called Purim (lots) (9:20–28). Ahasuerus remains very powerful and continues his reign, with Mordecai assuming a prominent position in his court (10:1–3).</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">5) <i>Theological accounts of what happened in the past and what will happen in the future. </i>The prophecies of the 'Holocaust' belong in this category, and as does the Jewish creation myth - the Garden of Eden, the creation of Adam and then Eve, the eating of the forbidden fruit, the Fall. Guyénot should be commended for observing that the story of the casting out of Adam and Eve from Eden turns an ancient religious metaphor on its head: Man in the course of his spiritual journey ascends to a paradisical state once he reaches the journey's end and he does not descend from the state at the journey's beginning. The last stage in what Joseph Campbell called the 'hero's journey' is attained by the getting of wisdom, <i>sophia</i>; the Old Testament goes against the grain because the getting of wisdom brings about Adam and Eve's downfall and regression.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">6) <i>Reflections on the nature of the divine and God.</i> I think by now we have established that the Jewish God does not equal the Christian God and nor does he equal the Supreme Principle, the God of Plato and Aristotle - the God that Hegel called the Absolute. People who approach the Old Testament and the Koran for the first time imagine that these books are set in a monotheistic universe, but this is not true: the world of the first Jews and Muslims is teeming with gods, and Yahweh is jealous of them all.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Deuteronomy 5:9: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Nahum 1:2: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth, and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.</span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Yahweh seeks to destroy his rival gods by destroying their worshipers, for gods are sustained, it seems, through belief and sacrifice. Later on in the piece, the authors of the Old Testament attempt some back-stitching; they want to incorporate monotheism and make Yahweh more of an all-embracing God on a plane with Yahweh's chief competitor Baal, who does more represent the one supreme principle (in some traditions Yahweh and Baal are sons of the father of the gods El, which means 'God' and from which the Muslims derive 'Allah').</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Something that becomes clear, after we lay out the six 'outrageous claims' in this manner, is that the two theological claims - 5) and 6) - arouse the least controversy, perhaps because these are the most philosophical and hence the most resistant to proof or disproof; can one travel backwards in a time machine and witness the creation of the universe in seven days or for that matter the springing to life of Adam after he has had air blown into his nostrils by Yahweh? The theologian can fall back into an agnostic position and refuse to pass judgment on either the truth or the untruth of Eden and the Fall; but a discussion of Elisha's miracles, Moses' parting of the Red Sea, makes him uncomfortable, because he must give a firm yes or no to the question of whether for instance Elisha's bones brought dead men back to life: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">II Kings 13:21</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.</span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If he says no, he admits by default that he has become rational, modern, secular, almost a materialist and an atheist. What if he says yes? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When we are confronted with the Old Testament and its progeny Zionism, we can devise a stance that puts the weighty theological questions considered by 5) and 6) to one side: the man who holds to it tables any discussion of these. In addition, that man can view 1), 2), and 3) in a lackadaisical fashion, and he can counsel others to keep an open mind to the paranormal and the supernatural; 'There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy'. As for 4), he may feel averse to studying the history of the Middle East in the time of the Bible in any detail. Willfully ignorant, he accepts the history taught to him by his Sunday school teacher, and he is not inclined to explore the question whether or not Mordecai, Esther, Haman, ever existed. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When the freethinker described above looks at the Old Testament, the first thing he will notice is that Yahweh ceases to play a part in the daily lives of the Jews after the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the two books that make up the last chapters of the epic. In the period spanned in the Old Testament, Jews converse and interact with Yahweh as if he were a next-door neighbour; he is a god who walks among men, and indeed, he is so physical and earthly that he dislocates Jacob's hip in a wrestling match. But after Ezra and Nehemiah, the prominent Jews who are Yahweh's interpreters no longer receive first-hand directives from Yahweh; it as though he has pulled a disappearing act. The same occurred to the Muslims immediately after the death of Muhammad; Allah no longer conveyed his wishes through the angel Jibreel to any of Muhammad's successors no matter how worthy. And the miracles cease as well; holy men no longer possess the same awesome supernatural powers. The surcease mirrors what happened in the West after the occult revival of the sixties and seventies tailed off. By the time of the advent of the smartphone, all the paranormal figures that we were preoccupied with in the seventies - the Loch Ness monster, UFOs, and Bigfoot - were no longer to be seen, and neither were the spectacular and spooky phenomena that attend poltergeist hauntings, spiritualist seances, and demonic possessions. The spirits grew camera shy. A cynic would say, well, what do you expect; Moses and Jesus were charlatans who fooled the masses with conjuring tricks; the masses who believed them were deluded; and so were the masses who later believed in UFOs and poltergeists. Once the smartphone, the Internet, and social media became available, those who told stories of ghosts, monsters, and the supernatural were forced to submit their claims for verification, and they did not, because, the sceptic argues, their claims were unfounded. This is Enlightenment man, rationalist man, speaking, and I disagree with him; I contend that magic was real at some point in the past and so were the spirits, but both disappeared perhaps because we were unworthy. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It is a tragedy when the gods leave the Earth. Without a doubt, the Jews who lived after Ezra and Nehemiah longed frantically for Yahweh to return; they understood that Yahweh was cruel and capricious - after all, he had killed tens of thousands of his most faithful followers - but they believed it was better to have one god in their corner than none at all. </span></p>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-64597494447029986642023-08-22T06:03:00.002-07:002023-10-05T02:04:08.823-07:00Escaping the Normieverse: the seventies, Covidianism, occultism, Holocaust Revisionism, and Man, Myth and Magic<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SerFglFhPds" width="320" youtube-src-id="SerFglFhPds"></iframe></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>I. Why the seventies?</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Over the past few years, I have written extensively on the subject of the 'normie', who I define as the normal, apolitical person, the 'Joe Average', the man in the street, the man who has not been infected by Far Right political views or for that matter any views of the 'extremist' type. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When you become involved in radical politics, you distance yourself, without thinking, from the normie. You regard your own ideas, beliefs, opinions, as being more advanced than his; you do not hold the same opinions as him when it comes to race, immigration, Judaism, Islam, WWII, the 'Holocaust'. At the same time, you look to him as a touchstone of normality, decency, sanity. He was you before you became indoctrinated, and he is still normal society should you ever choose to return to it. When comparing yourself to him, whenever it is that you deign to scrutinise your views at length, you come to realise that after your conversion to extremist politics you have become a free-thinker and perhaps (if you are feeling uncharitable towards yourself) something of a crank. For most of a quarter of a century, I held to that division between myself and the normie: that is, between the 'red-pilled' man and the Joe Average; the man of superior knowledge who was perhaps a little eccentric, and the ordinary man who is apolitical and uninformed but good, decent, proper, and sane. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But this way of thinking, which had become an unconscious habit, was overturned in 2020. Then, as we all know, the world went mad, almost overnight, and plunged into Covidian hell, and the strangest thing is that Joe Average accepted it and still does. In doing so, he showed himself to be more unnatural, more deviate, than any Far Right extremist could ever be. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But the acceptance of the status quo has not turned out well for the normie. Ever after the lockdowns, shutdowns, contact tracing, 'checking-in', QR codes, masking, injections, mandates, and all other procedures of Covidianism ceased, the normie is still a miserable fellow. Australia in 2023 can be summed up as: mortgages, obesity, and the Great Replacement. The three combine to make Joe Average unhealthy and unhappy. As a result, his future looks scary and uncertain. Physically, mentally, and spiritually, he was better off thirty to forty years ago; materially, he was worse off, but that hardly counts. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I miss that old normie, that is, the normie who lived before 2020, and this longing of mine explains why it is that my attention has been increasingly drawn to the past. In 2020, the year of the lockdowns and the Black Lives Matter riots, one poster at Counter-Currents admitted that he and his friends had spent hours watching TV shows such as <u>The X-Files</u> and <u>Dawson's Creek</u> - shows that had aired twenty to thirty years before - because they needed to recover a sense of reassurance, normality, and sanity. I understand the impulse. If we are to delve into the popular culture of three to four decades ago, we encounter a much better normie who differs from the normie that we know today. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I recently saw episodes of two daytime American dramas from one series that aired in 1986 and the other in 1992. The men and women who worked on these shows, the actors, directors, writers, producers, loved their work; they believed in it; they felt that they were contributing something of value. It is this enthusiasm that distinguishes the dramas, which are daytime soaps, of yesterday from those of today. In 2023, four of the old daytime soaps are still running, but the men and women who work on them now do so out of a sense of obligation and perhaps spite. As we know, many of the old American pop culture franchises have been taken over by writers, directors, and producers who dislike them and want to deconstruct them, make them 'woke', more progressive, and so forth, and these efforts have drained the life out of American pop culture. This holds political ramifications, for the appeal of American pop culture has long enhanced America's 'soft power' and transmitted itself to men who would otherwise be foes of everything American: Adolf Hitler adored the novels of cowboy author Karl May, and Boris Yeltsin, the music of Elvis Presley. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In these circumstances, one not only wants to escape the present, one wants to escape all reality. Such a desire is widespread; the normie himself, deep down, does not like the status quo of 2023. He yearns for freedom. And this has a precedent. Fifty years ago, he wanted to get away from reality as far as possible; if we are to judge by the popular culture, we can infer that he wanted to board a UFO and take off to another part of the galaxy or enter a time machine and journey into a distant fantasy past - the past, for example, of J.R.R. Tolkien or Robert E. Howard. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Such a solution was apolitical, and the decade of the 1970s presents this curious double aspect: one part was apolitical, the other intensely political. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It is the former that concerns me here. How did seventies man seek to escape reality, a reality which, in the view of the mystics of the time, was merely the reflecting of the narrow bounds of everyday consciousness? Many answers can be given, and for the purpose of clarity, here we will be devoting our attention to a single theme, and that is occultism. Mysticism, occultism, the paranormal, the unexplained, all these preoccupied seventies man and served as the easy way out - easy, that is, in comparison to the difficult and closed-off way of radical political change. But that should not be condemned. The seventies man who avoided politics can be forgiven for doing so; his wanting to get away from it all, and his wanting to not take a stand, can be understood once we plainly consider the chaos and tumult of the seventies, a decade that suffered from a surfeit of politics. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Our seventies man locks himself away in an apartment and spend his days stoned on marijuana cigarettes and tabs of LSD, with a stack of books - fantasy novels, the I-Ching, astrology, the chronicles of the spoon-bending magician Uri Geller, and photographic documentaries of UFO and Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster - beside his bed. Perhaps, in the evening, our stoned seventies man bestirs himself and walks down to the disco or perhaps the pub - Australia and England, in the seventies, had a splendid pub culture - and he discusses occult and mystical matters with his friends while songs by David Bowie and Elton John blare in the background. Of course, I am here sketching out a caricature, perhaps an idealisation, for seventies man did not really live like that; he lived a humdrum life in an office or factory nine to five. But all the same, his life, as we see it through the prism of pop culture, seems to be a lot more fun than ours. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwPY57e3ew0jaACMuGS3yx_fX4GkKSWbJhC1dQKGEVm2UdR2rdsqeaODzcH23d_92wc_7qvC2x96js4OEYtwsYngwf2VbfGe5-mMt5JDIf2M32j2mVk-sLnS76FLIknLUBTjfDwAExApNp-f5xOkCt_0Sx68sKUrpH5ksr32VkajDPxUO5B1xuw8noNcVp/s761/occult-70s.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="761" data-original-width="689" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwPY57e3ew0jaACMuGS3yx_fX4GkKSWbJhC1dQKGEVm2UdR2rdsqeaODzcH23d_92wc_7qvC2x96js4OEYtwsYngwf2VbfGe5-mMt5JDIf2M32j2mVk-sLnS76FLIknLUBTjfDwAExApNp-f5xOkCt_0Sx68sKUrpH5ksr32VkajDPxUO5B1xuw8noNcVp/w363-h400/occult-70s.png" width="363" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But one cannot escape politics, and one cannot run from it forever. Politics has a way of catching up with you, and by politics, I mean not the mediocre politics of the statesman of that era (men who are best forgotten and men whose names I will not mention here), but the politics of the statesmen three decades before the 1970s: men such as Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Churchill. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">WWII, in the seventies, was a recent memory, and the great men of the war were, in comparison of the politicians of the present age, young. Hitler may have been 90 in 1979 had he lived, but Degrelle, still living, was 73, and Remer, still living, a spry 67. Compare the ages of these two men to the ages of Biden, Trump, Pelosi, Feinstein, McConnell. The parents of boomers in the seventies belonged to the generation that had served in WWII, and this explains why it is that fascism and Nazism seemed relatively fresh in the seventies, and why they formed one of the central preoccupations of the pop culture, as I have recounted in my last post. But fascism did not fly in the seventies and could not fly, perhaps because fascism presupposes neat, well-groomed men with smart uniforms and short hair, and the men of the seventies were anything but. Added to that, Israel, Zionism, Judaism, the Holocaust, had become strong and made themselves everywhere felt. In the seventies, the Holocaust took root. Consuming the mainstream media and entertainment in his typically gullible and unquestioning fashion, the boomer became well and truly convinced that 'Nazi Germany' had gassed six million Jews in giant gas chambers disguised as showers; hence, Israel, the Jewish State, owed its legitimacy to restitution for the terrible crime of the Holocaust, a term that first entered the vocabulary in the seventies. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Revisionists in this period faced an uphill battle and did not score their first successes until the eighties. The salesman for 'Neo-Nazism' was for most of the seventies forced to fight a rearguard action comparable to Germany's anti-partisan campaign in Yugoslavia in WWII; he was compelled to hose down the spreading fire of Holocaustism, Judaism, Zionism. In addition, he had to mount a campaign against the fashion of sideburns, jumpsuits, and long hair. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In his defence, we can say that overall the boomer who sought to escape from the reality of life in the seventies fought with valour and distinction; he may have been sidetracked by Zionism here and there, but as his cultural productions - the TV shows, movies, comic books, novels - prove, he really did escape from planet Earth or at least from the confines of everyday consciousness. He illuminates a path, and it is this path, one in particular that leads towards the supernatural, that I am exploring. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>II. The Second Religiousness </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">To set the scene, I must describe how life in the seventies differed from life in the 2020s. Western man in the seventies lived, and lived well, without the smartphone, the Internet, social media. He read print media and read it profusely; he read novels, magazines, newspapers, and comic books, all of which were sold in the millions. Constantly deluged with reading material that was fresh and new, he seized on the new mania of occult and what was later called New Age literature. The previous decade he had made bestsellers out of <u>The Morning of the Magicians: Secret Societies, Conspiracies, and Vanished Civilizations</u> (1960) by Pauwels and Bergier, and <u>Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past</u> (1968) by von Däniken. These works may have been ill-founded, poorly researched, unscholarly, speculative, and in the final analysis, nonsensical, but hardly any of that mattered; what did matter was that these books fitted in with the Zeitgeist, which was inclined to the fantastic, the mystical, the paranormal. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As to why the preoccupation existed, various hypotheses have been advanced. Spengler speaks of a Second Religiousness: in the last stages of a Culture or civilisation, the peoples of that Culture, after a long experience with atheism, rationalism, scepticism, materialism, want to return to the innocence of an earlier time and thereby take up once again religious faith; but such a faith is insincere, at least compared to the faith of a thousand years before. The believers in the Second Religiousness are merely pretending, and 4Chan would call them LARPers - Live Action Role Players. Of the Western Culture founded in Europe 1100 years ago, we can say that the Europeans at the point of origin held sincere religious beliefs; they well and truly believed in the Christian doctrine and all the associated religious phenomena of the 'Middle Ages', phenomena which included, among other things, witchcraft and consorting with the devil. Following Spengler, one cannot say the same of the spiritual beliefs of the seventies; they were not sincerely held. They represent the Second Religiousness manifesting itself, according to the inexorable laws discovered by Spengler, at the decline of a Culture. Evola approved of Spengler's hypothesis and mentions it in <u>Ride the Tiger</u> (1961):</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">On the fringes of structures of barbaric grandeur—rationalism, practical atheism, and materialism — there spring up sporadic forms of spirituality and mysticism, even irruptions from the supersensible, which do not indicate a re-ascent but are symptoms of decay. Their expressions no longer take their stamp from the religion of the origins... The “second religiosity” develops outside them — often even in opposition to them - but also outside the principal and predominant currents of existence, and signifies, in general, a phenomenon of escapism, alienation, and confused compensation that in no way impinges seriously on the reality of a soulless, mechanistic, and purely earthly civilization. </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A typically gloomy interpretation by Evola and one contradicted by that of Colin Wilson, the author of the bestseller <u>The Occult</u> (1971), which after publication outsold all of Wilson's previous books put together; to Wilson, the 'occult revival' (as he calls it) represents a furtherance, a step forward, in the self-actualisation of Western man. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>III. Occultism and Inflation</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We can arrive at a more prosaic explanation for seventies man's taking up the occult and the paranormal, an explanation that does not rest upon a premise of spiritual advance or decline, an explanation that can be found in supply-side economics. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">For most of the twentieth century, America had fixed its dollar to gold, and after 1934, the US dollar could buy 1/35 of an ounce of gold, which is to say that gold was worth $USD35/oz. Most countries fixed their currencies to the US dollar and so enjoyed the benefits of the gold standard, and in the post-war years, prosperity reigned. But America began to wind the system called Bretton Woods down in the late sixties, and abolished it altogether in 1971. All at once, inflation broke out all around the world; currencies depreciated in value dramatically; and as could be expected, social, economic, moral, and political unrest ensued. Labour unions went on strike for higher wages, and the Arab oil-producing nations demanded more dollars for a barrel of oil. In such an atmosphere, the old certainties, built up and largely maintained over the course of seven decades, crumbled. The spread of international terrorism was symptomatic. The seventies saw a great deal of political violence, especially in America, and there, hundreds of terrorist bombings took place. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Taxes played a role as well. On paper, taxes were high in the fifties and sixties; the top rate in the US was 70% in 1971, in Australia 65%, and in the UK 83%. But enough loopholes existed for the wealthy capitalist to avoid these high rates, and the working man payed little in tax because of generous rebates and deductions. But by the mid-seventies, these benefits melted away as inflation forced the the working and middle classes into higher and higher tax brackets, brackets that were reserved for the wealthy (the US top rate of 70% applied to anyone earning over $USD100,000 a year). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">An astute politician would have campaigned on a platform of cutting taxes and restoring the gold standard; Reagan managed to achieve the first goal of such a platform and failed to achieve the second. Even so, by the time of Reagan, Thatcher, and their imitators elsewhere in the Anglosphere, the seventies had been left behind; the West had entered a new era. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Looking at the culture of the seventies, we can say without a doubt that the economic calamity lay behind the political, social, moral decline of the period, and its coups, revolutions, and wars. We can grasp the scale of the catastrophe if we are look at the crash of the most important stock market in the world - the American. To gauge its worth, divide the Dow Jones Industrial Average by the price of an ounce of gold. If we are to do this, we see that the DJIA was worth 24 ounces in April 1971, a few months before Nixon left gold and abolished Bretton Woods; the DJIA then fell and fell hard, its rapid descent mirroring the crash of 1929; it was worth only 3 ounces by December 1974. By January 1980, we learn that it had reached a low of 1.29 ounces, the lowest it had been since February 1933. That month saw the worst of the bear market of the Great Depression and, in what is no coincidence, Hitler's rise to power. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This method of analysis helps quantify economic decline, as do inflation statistics, unemployment statistics, GDP statistics. But perhaps the statistics do not give the full picture. Working class seventies man, in many respects, was better off than the working class 2020s man; for one, he could buy a house on the cheap. As well as that, he could live in the Anglosphere cities New York, Los Angeles, Toronto, Vancouver, Sydney, Melbourne, when they were primarily white. See <a href="https://youtu.be/KVSEiveFY7g" target="_blank">this</a> music video from 1975, which was filmed in Melbourne: in it, everyone is an Aussie, everyone is a white - quite unlike in today's Melbourne. The Great Replacement was underway in the Anglosphere and the West as a whole, but its effects did not become noticeable, or rather could no longer be ignored, until the 2000s. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">All the same, Westerners in the 1970s wanted to escape - into a world of fantasy, horror, the occult, the supernatural, as is evinced by the explosion of escapist literature. The sword and sorcery genre, although hardly new, took off in this period, as did the fantasy genre, which again was hardly new - the two great innovators Tolkien and Lewis had written their masterworks decades before. Tolkien and Robert E. Howard were dusted off and reissued, imitators followed in their train, and the book shops and paperback stands were deluged with fantastical novels with lurid covers. The sword and sorcery novels featured sinewy, muscled men waving swords, wearing bear-skin loincloths; these men, of grim visages, had long hair billowing in the wind; and when fighting off dangerous monsters, giant apes, orcish warriors, and zombies, the warrior man was accompanied always by a buxom maiden kneeling by his side and wearing the obligatory metal bikini. The sword and sorcery paperback art style was reproduced on the rock album covers of the period, as was the science-fiction art style. Like the fantasy genre, the science-fiction genre flourished in this period, and the covers - depicting vast and mysterious alien landscapes, strange alien beings, and slender attractive females - drew the reader in, and he longed to step through them, as though they were magic doorways into other worlds. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Unfortunately, the sleazy airport novel genre - the sort made famous by Harold Robbins (real name Harold Rubin) - flourished as well, as did another genre linked to it: the horror bestseller. The loosening of restrictions on pornography and gore meant that the horror novelists of the period had free rein to indulge their most base fantasies. William Peter Blatty's <u>The Exorcist</u> (1971) was sanitised in the 1973 movie adaptation; the <u>Exorcist</u> novel is sordid, filthy, disgusting, life-denying, as are most of the horror bestsellers of the seventies; reading these is reading degenerate art, and after reading them, one comes away with the feeling that they should be burned. John Sutherland, in his <u>Bestsellers: popular fiction of the 1970s</u> (1981), gives a graphic and disturbing account of the plots of these bestsellers, plots that would have made the old American masters of horror Poe and Lovecraft blanch. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This newfound grossness and vileness holds up a mirror to the erosion of certainty. Western man no longer knew what was what; he no longer understood definitions. Again, this traces back to economics, and gold. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A unit of measurement is clearly defined: one foot equals twelve inches. Suppose that this definition was changed frequently over the course of ten years: one foot equals ten inches, now thirteen and three quarters, now twelve and a half, now six. Defining a foot thus would play havoc with, among others, the building industry. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the seventies, currencies changed their definition almost daily. For nearly forty years, the US dollar had been defined as one thirty-fifth of an ounce of gold: $USD35 bought one ounce. Nixon abolished the gold standard and Bretton Woods, and the US dollar promptly lost its definition. Exchange rates 'floated', the US dollar depreciated; by 1980, at the peak of the inflation, it took $USD850 to buy one ounce of gold. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Keynes says that there is no surer way to debauch the morals of a nation than by debauching its currency. A man borrows a large sum of dollars, then the dollar erodes in value, and then he pays back the loan in dollars that are worth less. In effect, he is cheating his creditor. The same occurs when an employer contracts employees to work for him in dollars when the dollar is worth something; then inflation occurs, and he pays wages in dollars that are worth less, and he cannot be surprised when the workers strike for higher wages. The debauching of the currency, and the consequent theft and fraud, explain why it is that inflation and hyperinflation are forever associated with immorality and crime. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Brian de Palma's movie <u>Scarface</u> (1983) chronicles this sordidness, one that reached its lowest depth at the end of the seventies; the cocaine trafficking boom in Florida in the Jimmy Carter years (1977 to 1980) serves as the perfect metaphor for the decade's dark side. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In a time of shifting sands, people look for certainty - metaphysical certainty. That explains, I think, the appeal of occultism.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>IV. Witchcraft and London</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EN1MvSkNKb0" width="320" youtube-src-id="EN1MvSkNKb0"></iframe></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eMAgmFScQvU" width="320" youtube-src-id="eMAgmFScQvU"></iframe></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the seventies, occultism was not only a set of beliefs in the metaphysical and the paranormal, it was part of a certain atmosphere, and the essence of that atmosphere can be found in two trashy movies of the period, <u>Dracula A.D. 1972</u> (1972) and its sequel <u>The Satanic Rites of Dracula</u> (1973), both from the Hammer studio and both starring, of course, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. The two films take us to the London of fifty years ago, and without intending to, convey to us London's peculiar charm. The Thames, London bobbies, double-decker buses, Morris Minors - they are all there. And the city possesses a strange tension, an electricity in the air. That emotional atmosphere moves certain of the characters to make forays into the occult. In <u>Dracula A.D.</u>-, it is London youth who don black robes and participate in a witchcraft ceremony; in <u>Satanic Rites</u>, London's social elite. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Those who are familiar with the seventies know of the seventies witchcraft ceremony, as seen in a hundred movies and TV shows. A naked or half-naked young woman lies on an altar in the middle of a pentagram; the onlookers wear monk's robes; the scene is lit by torches. The nudity, and the scarcely-concealed sexual undertones, of these pagan ceremonies excite prurient interest. Certainly, the rituals provide relief from boredom, and indeed, the whole point of them is twofold: one is to remove tedium and monotony, the other is to allow the participants to pierce the barriers that stand between the ordinary everyday world and the world of the supernatural, a world that lies beyond our senses. In their view, these pagans are doing something heroic; they are exploring, in the words of that famous American science-fiction TV show that was canceled a few years before, 'Strange new worlds'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">By that logic, one must salute, then, these occultists, wiccans, dabblers in magic (and what Aleister Crowley called 'sex magick'). But you need not attend candlelit ceremonies in the nude to undertake a journey into the unknown; you can be a reserved gentleman scholar, like Peter Cushing's Van Helsing, and spend your days in a library filled with tomes on the occult, magic, spirits, vampires, witches, religion, and the like (and Van Helsing's library is quite impressive). Scholars in the Van Helsing mold gave us one of the most important works of occult literature of the seventies - <u><a href="https://wearethemutants.com/2017/01/10/man-myth-magic-an-illustrated-encyclopedia-of-the-supernatural-part-one-1970/" target="_blank">Man, Myth, and Magic</a></u>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><u>Man, Myth & Magic</u>, dubbed “the most unusual magazine ever published,” was the first mass market encyclopedia of the occult, published in the U.K. and Australia in 112 issues beginning in 1970. A 24-volume hardcover set was released shortly thereafter, and the magazine debuted in the U.S. in 1974, heralded by a particularly memorable television commercial. Edited by occult historian Richard Cavendish (1930-2016) with contributions from an international cadre of academics, <u>Man, Myth & Magic</u> was hugely successful and spawned numerous copycat occult and paranormal encyclopedias well into the 1980s, when the Age of Aquarius gave way to the Satanic Panic.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Like the two Hammer movies, <u>Man, Myth</u>- appeals to the eye; it is visually sumptuous; it boasts much in the way of beautiful artwork; it uses photographs taken in film that gives camera's subjects dark and rich colours. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If we are to immerse ourselves in it, we are to journey across space as well as time; <u>Man, Myth</u>- chronicles all the folklore, superstitions, and religions of countries from England to Papua New Guinea (international travel, by then cheap, easy, and convenient, became a recurring theme in seventies popular culture). But <u>Man, Myth</u>- is intensive as well as extensive; as well as spanning far and wide, it burrows down deep - into our own culture, which is the European and Western. It allows us to fathom the extent to which ritual, magic, faith, pervade Western life, and to which the towering figure of the magician dominates our Culture; examples of the magician are Paracelsus, Cagliostro, John Dee, St Germain, Éliphas Lévi, Aleister Crowley, and above all, Faust; it should be noted that Spengler names our Culture after Faust. A charlatan and a scoundrel (and most likely a pederast), Faust nonetheless was gifted with some degree of magical power or at least charismatic and spell-binding charm; he most certainly possessed a complement of the Will to Power that Spengler identifies as uniquely Western. In his peculiarities and in the progress of his career (which was plagued by bad luck), Faust creates the model for Western magicians. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When we are to consider the lives of these magicians, along with those of the famous quacks, mediums, and seers Swedenborg, Blavatsky, Mesmer, and Daniel Douglas Home - whose miraculous feats were never convincingly disproved - we are plunged into a world of colour and movement that is so much more intriguing than our own. We can understand, at once, how <u>Man, Myth</u>-, which gave vivid accounts of the lives of these men and women, attracted and compelled. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>V. Rationalism and Zionism</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Skeptics, atheists, rationalists, materialists, may have balked at the seventies obsession with the paranormal; they attempted to debunk and discredit the occult divines of the past, and are still attempting to this day - see the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dunglas_Home" target="_blank">Wiki entry on Home</a> - but amusingly enough, they lacked the courage to debunk and discredit other feats of legerdemain, the most important of which is the greatest miracle of the twentieth century: the German gassing of one million Jews in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, and the disposal of one million corpses without a trace. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The occultist and the rationalist stand opposed because of the difference in the cultural and religious makeup of their world views. The dry and threadbare rationalist world view does not appeal; the seventies reader of <u>Man, Myth</u>- would respond to the rationalist debunking (even if it had been thorough and comprehensive, which it was not) with the retort, 'Fantasy my ideas may be, but my fantasy is better than your reality'. And they would be right to feel contempt. I think a divergence exists here that is fundamentally racial, or at least owing in its origin to the clash between the Cultures. Despite the inflection of Eastern elements, the ideology of Steiner, Cayce, Blavatsky, Kardec is a European product, for better or worse; whereas the ideology of the Holocaust, with its six million immolated in giant ovens, its triumphant resurrection of murdered Jews, its return of the Jewish State of Israel to the Jewish people, a return granted to them by Jahweh - all of it is thoroughly Zionist and Jewish. The rationalists felt brave enough to take up cudgels against the likes of Uri Geller, but not Geller's homeland, Israel. Occultism is a soft target and an easy kill, Zionism is not. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>IV. National Socialism, Normies, and the Occult</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On the opposite side of rationalism stands blind credulity. We must ask, when contemplating any of the hundreds, if not thousands, of titles published in the seventies on the paranormal, if we are to believe every word - on Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, UFOs, telepathy, astrology, psychokinesis, numerology, and the rest. Colin Wilson confidently announces, in one of his many works on the paranormal, that a few miles from your home a poltergeist haunting is taking place. He gives many well-documented cases of poltergeist hauntings, so well-documented that they serve to convince. But oddly enough, all of these hauntings stopped by the time of the eighties, and twenty years later, all incidents of the paranormal seem to have ceased. Sightings of UFOs, so ubiquitous in the fifties, rarely if ever occur in the smartphone age; and the same holds true for sightings of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Someone of a rationalist bent would find in this fact grounds for skepticism. But poltergeists are spirits, and so are - according to one elaborate occult theory - UFOs and the Loch Ness monster; UFOs are not aliens in flying saucers, and the Loch Ness Monster is not a giant reptile living in a lake in Scotland; both are, according to the theory, denizens of the spiritual world who have escaped into the material. Taking this to be true for the sake of argument, we can surmise that the reason why paranormal phenomena died off some time shortly after the start of the 21st century is this: by the turn of the century, the spirits had left the Earth. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">That we live in such a bleak and bare landscape, one denuded of spiritual life, should not prevent by all rights our escape, our retreat into the past, our immersion in the 'occult revival' of fifty years ago. The desire is still there. The grotesque spectacle of Biden as a president can only induce gloom in any American contemplating it, and five decades ago, the spectacle of Nixon, Ford, and Carter induced a similar feeling; and who can blame the American then and now who wants to free himself from the present? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">One obstacle does the bar the way, however, and that is our politics; we belong to the movement, a movement which is nationalist, or Far Right, or white nationalist, or Neo-Nazi, or whatever you want to call it, and however we define them, our political convictions at first sight would stop us from seeking the path to spiritual freedom. For the truth of the matter is that occultism is infested with 'normies'. If one digs deep, one will find that Blavatsky, Steiner, and Kardec held opinions on subjects as race that were close to our own; but these opinions only mirrored those of their contemporaries, and in any case, have disappeared from today's Theosophy, Anthoposophy, and Spiritism, in much the same way that Luther's opinions on the Jews were expunged from the Lutheranism that came long after his death. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Some of the entries in <u>Man, Myth</u>- give an insight into the views of occult scholars on the subjects of racialism and National Socialism. On reading these, we are surprised to learn that these scholars are generally as not as 'pozzed' as we would assume. The entry on National Socialism is sober and judicious, and not given to flights of fancy, that is, to speculations to the effect that the National Socialists were occultists, Satanists, black magicians and the like. The entry details the rather sudden and brutal suppression of occultists in Germany after Hitler's coming to power; among the victims of the suppression was, ironically enough, the 'racial occultist and founder of the Ariosophical movement', Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels, ironic because Lanz' ideas anticipated those of the National Socialists in many ways. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">After Rudolf Hess' flight to Scotland in May 1941, another round of suppression ensued: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Time was required to plan the 'Aktion Hess', which led to the arrest on 9 June 1941 of hundreds of occultists, with the astrologers at the top of the list... The 'Aktion Hess' was organised on a nation-wide basis and practically all the arrests were made early on 9 June 1941. The victims included many Party members. Apart from the astrologers the Gestapo arrested a wide range of occultists: alleged clairvoyants, radiesthetic (pendulum) practioners, faith healders and Nature cure pundists, Ariosophists of the Lanz von Liebenfels school, members of the Christian Community (an Anthroposophical sect), antisemite Ariosophical Cabalists, and so on. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the majority of cases those arrested were released within a few days or weeks, although were were a few important exceptions. Before being set free all were required to sign a declaration that they would neither practise astrology or any other occult science, nor discuss the subject with anyone. All publishers' and booksellers' stocks of astrological and occult literature were seized and many private collections were confiscated. Any public identification with the occult now became extremely dangerous. </span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The entry 'Neo-Pagan German Cults' reads much the same way; occultists and pagan are portrayed as victims of the National Socialists, a class of victims who are decent people persecuted for their unusual beliefs; but there is little in the way of animosity towards the National Socialists. The tone becomes different in the entry 'New Templars', which gives an account of 'Viennese occultist, racial theorist and founder of the Order of New Templars, Dr Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels'. Here the author stoops to condemn. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">At least theoretically, Lanz anticipated all or most of the Nazis' repressive racial measures, such as the eradication of 'unsatisfactory' racial types or groups by castration or sterilisation, starvation, forced labour and other means. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that he would have countenanced the 'gas chamber' solution if he had been in a position to implement it. Lanz and his followers belonged to the absolutely lunatic fringe sector of the pre-Nazi Pan Germanic movement'. </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The author of this entry mentions the 'g' word - genocide; this is a term coined by the Jewish anti-Nazi activist Rafael Lemkin, and one that is suspect, not only because of its provenance but because of its logic - see <u>The man who invented "genocide" : the public career and consequences of Raphael Lemkin</u> (1984) by James Joseph Martin. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Having said this, the exception proves the rule. I call <u>Man, Myth</u>- as a witness in my case that by and large the occult movement of the seventies, at least, was blissfully unaware of the larger political currents of the times. The attitudes of this movement, which was largely apolitical, contrast against those of the politically engaged. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And in the politics of the time, Jews and Middle Easterners starred. The man engaged in politics could not avoid Israelism, Zionism, Judaism, Holocaustism - all one and the same thing - for the world's attention seemed inordinately focused on Israel and the Middle East more so than in preceding decades, and the blame can be laid at the door of the spectacle of Palestinian terrorism (which had quickly became a media spectacle), the 1973 October War, the oil crisis, the Lebanon Civil War, and the toppling of the Shah in Iran. Reacting to it all in a manner that is completely understandable, the occultist's response to it was simple: shut it out and pretend that it did not exist. Switch off the evening news; that way, one does not have to look at the ugly faces of Golda Meir and Yasser Arafat. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The question of how long this sidestepping of political realities can be sustained must be addressed later; for now, we must ask this. We know that the occultist wants to embark on a voyage to the unknown realms of consciousness, to the astral plane, perhaps; he wants to transcend the limitations of the everyday. He wants to escape. But who or what is he escaping? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">With the benefit of hindsight - fifty years worth of it - we see that our mystical sensitive wants to escape the normie. The normie revealed his destructive and irrational character in the Covidian period of 2020 to 2022, and we can assume that this character was more or less the same in 1972 as it was in 2022. But at first sight, this seems debatable. The normie of the 1970s would not have acceded to lockdowns, testing,contact tracing, masking, social distancing, mandates; after all, he scarcely noticed an Asian flu epidemic that killed hundreds of thousands in the late seventies. We can guess that the normie of the 1970s was more decent, healthy and sane than the normie of the 2020s - but was he? The pessimist says no; the only reason why the political, media, and science establishment in the seventies could not pull off something like Covidianism was that the time was not ripe, the conditions were not there, and other problems were pressing. Assuming that the pessimist is correct, we can understand the occult scholar's bleak assessment of human nature - and his renouncing the world and his burying himself in volumes on the witchcraft of the Middle Ages. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now, fifty years after, I understand him. Those who were unaffected by the Covidian madness of the early 2020s and were repelled by it, realised within the first months of 2020, and with a sensation of dawning horror, that the normie populace had gone mad, stark staring mad. The sane ones, those still possessed of natural human impulses, experienced an instinctual desire to flee. Perhaps the flight would be to the rural and regional areas, the areas outside of the cities, cities that had become eerie and deserted as the millions of inhabitants complied with stay-at-home edicts and placed themselves under voluntary house arrest. In those years I myself fantasised every night before going to sleep about moving to some shack in the countryside, perhaps in the woods - somewhere where the masking, testing, and injecting freaks could not find me. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But one has to effect a mental removal as well as a physical. And the only means of doing that is to distance oneself from the normie media. In order to isolate oneself completely, one would need to relocate to a country shack and cut oneself off, for perhaps at least six to twelve months, from radio, TV, newspapers, the Internet. But perhaps isolating oneself from the modern world is impossible: even if our hypothetical country shack-dweller was reasonably self-sufficient, even if he grew most of his own vegetables, he would still need to descend periodically into town for supplies - and there he would encounter, if in the year 2021, people wearing masks, and newspaper headlines giving the latest lockdown updates. In 2021, the only real means of emancipating oneself completely would be to relocate to an abandoned oil rig, or an Antarctic base, or the Moon.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The views, opinions, desires, aspirations, fears, prejudices, of the normies - many of these of the product of manipulation by the political, media, and scientific establishment - have a way of bleeding through whatever barriers one may put up; one may erect formidable defences against normie ideas, but in the end one is only human - one has to descend from one's mountain shack at some point and commune with one's fellow human beings. Even the the most grizzled and ornery nationalist and racialist must concede this; he cannot live as a complete hermit. Now, seeing how tough it is for the hard-bitten Far Rightist, imagine how tough it is for the 'sensitive plant' (to paraphrase Shelley), that is, the occultist; for him attaining inner freedom becomes difficult work indeed. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Given this, it becomes understandable how by the 1980s the devotee of New Age would take on board, perhaps inevitably, Judaism, Zionism, and Holocaustism. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>V. Markides and the Magus</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Study reveals unexpected correspondences between occultism and Far Right extremism. The use of the word normie, which first begins in the 2010s, implies an acknowledgment of a distinction between esoteric and exoteric spheres of knowledge, the same distinction that exists in occultism. The most significant Alt-Right and 4Chan ideas of the 2010s were inspired by <u>The Matrix</u> (1999), a movie that famously divides humanity into two classes: those who have swallowed the 'blue pill' and those who have swallowed the 'red pill'. Again, the division is nothing new; it is taken from one in the Western esoteric tradition, a division between those who have imbibed the secret knowledge and those who have not. The latter class, in 4Chan parlance, are christened 'normies'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But the nationalist and the paranormalist must soon part ways even if they do agree that they both possess esoteric knowledge; for the paranormal believer, seeing that this is the 21st century, more likely than not is in 4Chan parlance 'pozzed', that is, infected with left-liberal ideology (in the spirit of irony, the word was appropriated from homosexual slang; it is short for 'HIV positive'). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">After the seventies, occultism changed its name and became New Age, and classic works appeared in the new genre, one of them being <u>The Magus of Strovolos: The Extraordinary World of a Spiritual Healer</u> (1985) by American academic Kyriacos C. Markides. The book chronicles Markides' journey to Cyprus in the seventies and his encounter with a remarkable man, Spyros Sathi, known in Cyprus as Daskalos (a Greek word for teacher). Daskalos routinely makes extraordinary claims, one of them being that he is the reincarnation of John the Evangelist, and Markides becomes convinced of their veracity. He decides to study under Daskalos, and in doing so he treads the same path as P.D. Ouspensky and Carlos Castaneda, two other writers who succumbed to the charm of charismatic gurus. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Markides’ remarkable book <u>The Magus of Strovolos</u> makes it clear that Daskalos is a magus in the most precise sense of the word. Daskalos, who lives in Nicosia, is widely known among Cypriots as a healer, and it was to learn more about his healing powers that Markides visited him in 1978. It soon became apparent that Daskalos is far more than a healer: that as a teacher, he deserves to be classified with Steiner and Gurdjieff. When Markides visited him Daskalos looked like what he was — a tall, mild civil servant in his mid-sixties. He explained to Markides that most of his healing was carried out in an ‘out-of-the-body’ state (which he calls exomatosis) with the aid of invisible helpers. Markides talked to a peasant whom Daskalos had just cured of a long-standing spinal injury and received from Daskalos permission to study him with the aim of writing a book about his powers. [Colin Wilson, <u>Beyond The Occult: Twenty Years Research into the Paranormal</u> (1988)]</span></blockquote><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Like Castaneda and Ouspensky, Markides expounds the complex philosophical system of his mentor, one which is so impressive that an open-minded reader, like Markides, is won over to it and embraces it completely. Daskalos' ideas resemble Rudolf Steiner's, but as transmitted through the amanuensis Markides, they are more palatable, for the simple reason that Markides could write well and Steiner could not. Because of Markides' skill, Markides explains Daskalos' ideas better than Daskalos himself - Daskalos wrote at least one book, which is unreadable - and he makes Daskalos' anecdotes, which if told by anyone else would strain credulity, entirely plausible. Such is the spell that Markides, by dint of his literary talent, weaves. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">What brings one back to earth and returns one to reality - like a wandering astral body that is suddenly snapped back into a comatose physical body - is Markides tipping his hand and revealing his sheer pozzedness. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Markides gives an account of hauntings of Jewish girls by evil Nazi ghosts, and no, I am not making this up. Here is Colin Wilson again: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">One of Markides’ first experiences of these powers was strikingly dramatic. A friend asked if Daskalos could see three Jewish women, two of whom had just come from Israel. The daughter of one of the women was suffering severe psychological problems. Daskalos lost no time in establishing his credentials as a psychic: he told the daughter that she was wearing a star of David over her heart, which was correct. The girl — who was called Hadas — then explained the problem: she was possessed by demons who would not allow her to rest. Her aunt declared this was sheer imagination. But after asking the girl to close her eyes and studying her for some time, Daskalos declared that she was possessed by the spirits of two Nazis, husband and wife, who had died in the bombardment of Hamburg and who hated Jews. They had already sent four other Jewish women into asylums and had succeeded in taking possession of the girl ‘when their vibrations and yours were on the same frequency’. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Daskalos lit a candle and proceeded to perform a cabbalistic ritual using a six-pointed star and a white eagle. Markides noticed that when Daskalos concentrated on the candle flame it behaved in a peculiar way, becoming elongated and producing black smoke, then shrinking and guttering. As soon as Daskalos stopped staring at the flame — which was several feet away — it became still. The ritual went on for a long time, with Daskalos sternly addressing the flame. Finally, with an expression of relief, Daskalos told them that the spirits had been driven out and could no longer do anyone any harm. As always, he refused to accept money for his services. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A week later Markides talked to the girl, who had ceased to hear voices after the ritual of exorcism. She told him how the trouble had started after a quarrel with her boyfriend: as she lay in bed something seemed to enter her head. She became ill and nervous and vomited a great deal. A rabbi told her that on the fortieth day she would vomit more than usual, and that the problem would then go away. This proved to be true. But after a later quarrel with another boyfriend she felt something enter her stomach. After this she began to hear voices that told her they would torture her and make her go mad. Every night they tried to make her commit suicide. Then, through her aunt who lived in Cyprus, she had heard of Daskalos, who had now cured her. </span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Up to this chapter, I was prepared to give Markides the benefit of doubt; I would listen with perfect equanimity to stories of astral projection, karma, past lives, reincarnation, black magic, spiritual healing, esoteric Christianity, angels, demons, and the rest; but the gratuitous inserting of 'The Nazis' at this juncture led me to a breaking point. Markides' anecdote goes to show that 'cucks' (in AltRight parlance) and normies infest even the realm of the paranormal. We cannot escape them; presumably, they shall follow us to the astral plane (or what Daskalos calls the 'psycho-noetic plane') after our deaths. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>VI. The Permanent and the Present</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">All in all, one can, despite the evidence to the contrary above, get much in the way of deep wisdom from a system such as Daskalos', and the good news is that we can even apply that wisdom to the present political situation. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Sadly, Markides disagrees. He wrote two sequels to <u>The Magus-</u>, both of which are worth reading, but after these he ended up disillusioned with the teachings of his guru. He then turned towards Greek Orthodox Christianity, a Christianity more rooted than Daskalos' in his Greek cultural and national heritage.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Moving back to <u>The Magus-</u>, we find a useful distinction between the two selves that make up Man: one self pointing to the outside of Man, towards higher ideals, the Absolute, God; the other pointing towards the inside, towards Man's dreams, hopes, fears, aspirations, regrets, desires. The objective side contains, among many other things, the history of his race; and the subjective, the history of himself. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Colin Wilson writes, in <u>Beyond the Occult</u>: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Daskalos explained the essence of the problem when one of his followers asked him about the meaning of personality. He explained that there are two personalities: the permanent personality and the present personality. The present personality is ‘who I think I am at this moment’. The permanent personality is ‘that part of ourselves upon which the incarnational experiences are recorded and are transferred from one incarnation to the next’: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Let us assume [Daskalos said] that the permanent personality is a large circle. Imagine another circle outside without a periphery. We call that the soul, which is within God, within infinity and boundlessness ... . There is also a small circle inside the other two which I call the present self-conscious personality. All three circles have the same centre... . The centre of the present and permanent personality, as well as the self-conscious soul, is the same. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The more the present self-conscious personality opens up as a circle, the more the permanent personality penetrates into the present personality. The higher you evolve on the spiritual path, the greater the influence and control of the inner self over the present personality. We habitually say, for example, that this man has conscience whereas another one does not. In reality there is no human being who does not have a centre. </span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So how, Wilson asks, can a man escape the bounds of his 'present personality'? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Daskalos would say that he must keep on maturing until he grasps the paradoxical fact that he is not his present personality. But this answer is bound to be disappointing for the rest of us, who feel that we would like some more specific recommendation. The alternative — trying to dive head first into mystical experience like Merrell-Wolff — is hardly more satisfying since as Merrell-Wolff himself admits, the experience evaporates and refuses to return when we want it. </span></blockquote><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Common sense says that in order to appreciate absolute ideals, the Infinite, the Absolute, one must look outside of oneself, one's narrow preoccupations, one's subjectivity; but the paradox is that such an action, worthy as it may be, can lead one away from high ideals. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Consider the history of the past three years. The political establishments of China and America became captured by Covidianism and determined to make everyone's life as miserable as possible, and in 2023, even though the mandates have ended for the most part, the misery continues; people are still getting sick, and even dying, as a result of the injections, and one of the lingering side effects of the lockdowns is the worst inflation in forty years. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The inflation of the 2020s differs from that of the 1970s in that it was not brought about by depreciating currencies but by 'supply-chain difficulties', that is, by what happens when you prevent by lockdowns millions of people producing their goods and trading them with another. Because of the smoke-screen erected by the media, we are prevented from seeing this instance of cause and effect, and indeed we are now meant to forget that Covidianism ever happened. But the media and the political establishment cannot conceal the truth that Australia in the 2020s remains a grim place.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now, when one contemplating the world today, and doing so from the side of 'objectivity', one cannot ignore all the recent privations, disappointments, failures, catastrophes - all the shortcomings of life. And if your neighbour's life showed a deficit in the past three years, so did yours. You do not live in isolation from your fellows. Covidianism proved that; the phenomenon of Covidianism was not confined to the Western world and China; countries as disparate as the Philippines and Russia both imposed, through unilateral use of force, the brutal practices of Covidianism upon their citizenry. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Thoughts about the Covidian years, which spanned from 2020 to 2022, induce a negative reaction; no-one can look back at those years without regret and sorrow, and one feels the same when one today sees the grim survivals of that era - Biden, Trudeau, Putin, and even mediocre regional politicians such as Gretchen Whitmer and Daniel Andrews. All of it serves to drive one's consciousness back into the 'present personality', which these days threatens to become a swamp from which the 'permanent personality' must be freed. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So the best advice is: ignore these 'objective events', even though others may claim that they are serious, important, and worthy of notice; and read <u>Man, Myth, and Magic</u>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><br /></p>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-34587351309319328362023-07-20T02:23:00.003-07:002023-10-16T03:43:48.040-07:00The Kornilov Rebellion 2.0: Prigozhin, airport novels, Nazi gold, and why nothing good ever comes from Russia<p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivLUvCQk2Ly14DCADERkKaWVpY_CP3kjaomWylb_9YcD0qOdwI_HoS_D0fOBGGpo63vLz2lpBCBp-md_0dv4k419EVyV9wFXHIE8YdW2nO8H2pEpyhc4kNhzOulXO-0AxXAtlgHrZpjkjhgwKLrg9GhEEXAuguF2wAqxjH-hhJYVeapsmHQjs3SGlHh0mK/s1536/1687522419443519.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="1080" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivLUvCQk2Ly14DCADERkKaWVpY_CP3kjaomWylb_9YcD0qOdwI_HoS_D0fOBGGpo63vLz2lpBCBp-md_0dv4k419EVyV9wFXHIE8YdW2nO8H2pEpyhc4kNhzOulXO-0AxXAtlgHrZpjkjhgwKLrg9GhEEXAuguF2wAqxjH-hhJYVeapsmHQjs3SGlHh0mK/w450-h640/1687522419443519.jpg" width="450" /></a></div><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Students of Russian history soon learn the lesson that Russian history repeats. The past carries on over to the present, and in that past one can discern outlines of a racial type. Alfred Rosenberg would call this type a 'shape', Jung an 'archetype', Plato and Aristotle a 'Form', 'Universal', and 'Idea'. It recurs in the Russian history of the twentieth century and the twenty-first; the Prigozhin rebellion re-enacts the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kornilov_affair" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Kornilov Rebellion</a> of 1917, the main difference being that unlike Kornilov's drive on St Petersberg, Prigozhin's 'March of Justice' on Moscow met with little in the way of political resistance. But like Kornilov's putsch, it failed nonetheless. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Prigozhin mounted his putsch for much the same reason that Kornilov mounted his: dissatisfaction with the war. By 1917, the Russians were losing badly to the Germans and the Austro-Hungarians, and Russian appetite for war had begun to wane. A last-ditch offensive - later dubbed the Kerensky Offensive - was launched into what is today Ukraine in order to deliver a victory that would boost Russian morale. The Kerensky Offensive did hurt the Austro-Hungarians, but not as badly as the Brusilov Offensive did the year before, and it was all for naught, as a combined German and Austro-Hungarian counter-offensive drove the Russians back to their starting line. Russian morale deteriorated further, and Kornilov, a Russian general, vowed to improve Russia's military fortunes. Like Prigozhin, Kornilov belonged to the 'patriotic' faction of the Russian armed forces that wanted Russia to stay in the war, but in a war to be waged the right way, that is, without the interference of civilians; and like Prigozhin, Kornilov advocated strict and brutal military discipline. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As to how Kornilov's coup attempt went: it got off to a good start as Kornilov advanced on the Russian capital, as Prigozhin did over a hundred years later; Kornilov intended to wipe out the St Petersburg Soviet, and the communists fortified St Petersburg (under the direction of Trotsky, or so the story goes) to protect the city against the anticipated attack. But they need not have bothered. Inexplicably, Kornilov's drive fizzled out at the last minute, like Prigozhin's. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW3ZhJVdRSGUATJBAuY8S2p30hWjVzUt08KOO0J4BFotsyizBIgALW5Q05Y2jTQv1xQA7Au0vlHFzGkH3jzK-XDclp57gs4e63-iisJPcfg5xx0F-f7E3JKoiCvOXQbiNh0FmdzwrCvyqgCFae_pteQ6XhjbGYJKoekTVHlAqHvZ8rFAt8n0Px55PYNfd3/s467/1687611434983001.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="467" data-original-width="444" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW3ZhJVdRSGUATJBAuY8S2p30hWjVzUt08KOO0J4BFotsyizBIgALW5Q05Y2jTQv1xQA7Au0vlHFzGkH3jzK-XDclp57gs4e63-iisJPcfg5xx0F-f7E3JKoiCvOXQbiNh0FmdzwrCvyqgCFae_pteQ6XhjbGYJKoekTVHlAqHvZ8rFAt8n0Px55PYNfd3/s320/1687611434983001.jpg" width="304" /></a></div><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Had Kornilov succeeded, Russia may have become a military dictatorship; as we know, Russia wound up with a Dictatorship of the Proletariat instead. What if Prigozhin had succeeded? We can make an educated guess after we study his character. Wolf Stoner delivers a brief chronicle of Prigozhin's life <a href="https://odysee.com/@wolfstoner:9/State-of-Confusion:d" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. From it, we can find little to admire in Prigozhin, a shady Jewish-Russian businessman who made a fortune (like so many of the 'Jewish oligarchs' Putin supposedly had purged after his ascent to power) in the chaos following the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the 2000s, he flourished like all the post-Soviet nouveau riche, and in the 2010s, he formed a private military company (PMC) called Wagner, which drew recruits from Russia's prison system and which was what in WWII would have been called a penal battalion. Being recruited into Wagner is a punishment. In the present war, Wagner has suffered horrendous casualties on a scale comparable with those of a French division on the Western Front in WWI. But Wagner remains one of Russia's most experienced units, and in a war, the degree of a unit's experience determines much of its combat effectiveness. It remains to be seen how Russia will fare once the Wagner is withdrawn from the front line. And aside from the military repercussions, there are the political. An aspiring 'ultranationalist' (that is, pro-war) politician, Prigozhin has skilfully cultivated an image of himself as a populist and tough-talking, hard-bitten, no-nonsense man who gets things done. In spite of Wagner's reputation for cruelty and brutality, or perhaps because of it, Wagner has earned a following in Russia. One Prigozhin enthusiast is Rolo Slavski, whose work has been featured on Kevin MacDonald's Occidental Observer and Ron Unz' Unz.Com. Wolf Stoner argues convincingly that Slavski is a press agent paid for by Wagner. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If Putin had been ousted, it is quite possible that his successor would have put an end to the war. My reasoning is as follows. In the day before the coup attempt, Prigozhin let the cat out of the bag so far as the reasons why Russia went to war are concerned, as we can see from the quotations below. Prigozhin here goes beyond criticising the Ministry of Defence and the conduct of the war; he is attacking the rationale for the war itself. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIZy5OyCIevjqjIj0ZBNO_YO9cT1BCAvWHP7hLi59FkEwgISYGZL82wTMRAsfAS6ck7umyG7C2mmLhngzmuQhdU8_EMl2DwRDolw5BZTIWaiO9rX_AVzy_ce8N5ktSDIGFymYE8JBf8gE8A-d19SqkvZYP47T8VoxcAE9j2YH4k1g9dyZRSzY1f-s3QdJp/s1762/1687576742811440.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1762" data-original-width="1248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIZy5OyCIevjqjIj0ZBNO_YO9cT1BCAvWHP7hLi59FkEwgISYGZL82wTMRAsfAS6ck7umyG7C2mmLhngzmuQhdU8_EMl2DwRDolw5BZTIWaiO9rX_AVzy_ce8N5ktSDIGFymYE8JBf8gE8A-d19SqkvZYP47T8VoxcAE9j2YH4k1g9dyZRSzY1f-s3QdJp/s16000/1687576742811440.png" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This action makes him a dangerous man. We can deduce from his opinions that had he been in charge of Russia, he could have shut the war down, seeing its absurdity and folly. This ceasing of the war was a distinct possibility after Wagner's seizure of Rostov, Voronezh, and Tula, all towns vital to supplying the Russian army in Ukraine. These offered no resistance to Wagner, as they were unmanned - the majority of combat-effective Russian forces had been stationed at the front - and Wagner was received by the populace with enthusiasm or indifference. This makes Prigozhin's surrender a few miles from Moscow all the more strange. Prigozhin held the advantage; for the first time in a quarter century, Putin was in danger of losing power. The Russian people could have struck a blow against the Russian state the only way they know how: through rebelling, through staging a coup-d'état, through changing the regime through force. These methods are supremely Russian, as we know from 1905, 1917, and 1991, and Russians resort to them because of the simple fact that one cannot vote out the Tsar. And it is significant that the upsurges of 1905, 1917, and 1991 followed in the wake of military disasters, as did the one of 2023. In Russia, regime change, or reform, coincides with the winding down of a war effort and the ceasing of a foreign adventure. To go by history, then, we are right to think that Putin's dethroning could have led to the end of the war. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The end of the war, and a Russian retreat to the borders of 1991: would that be a good or a bad thing? I argue that it would be for the good. Russia has held the Western dissident Right movement in a death grip since at least 2014 and much of the mainstream conservative Right as well, especially the conservative Right of the Anglosphere. (The lines between the Center and Far Right have blurred in recent years, and as have those between the Far Left and Far Right, and recognising this, Putin makes appeals to both extremes on the Left and Right simultaneously, sometimes within the same speech). Were the grip on the Right to slacken, as it would after a Russian military defeat, then we would be freeing ourselves from political influence. But then, is defending the Right and prying it from the clutches of Russia worth it? To judge by the experience of the last ten years, the answer is no; the dissident Right does not want to emancipate itself. Whereas Ukrainians believe that the defense of their interests against Russia is worth it, dissident Rightists do not. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If a member of the movement is to distinguish his ideology from that the Kremlin's, he needs to ask himself who he really is and what he really believes. Clarifying is required because we on the Right today find ourselves in an absurd position. During the Prigozhin putsch, Zelensky promised to defend the West: 'Ukraine is able to protect Europe from the spread of Russian evil and chaos'. But many of those on the Far Right, especially in the Anglosphere, endorse the Russian 'evil and chaos'; fighting NATO expansionism, denouncing Victoria Nuland's cookies, etc., takes precedence over any racialism, white nationalism, anti-Semitism, 'National Socialism', and the like. Beliefs held to for two decades more were thrown out overnight after the Russian invasion of February 2022; anti-Nazism, anti-fascism, became 'based' (in 4Chan parlance); as did Russia's 'defensive' wars against Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Hitler; as did the Soviet Union's decades-long campaign (in the First World and the Third) against Western 'imperialism', 'colonialism', and 'racism'. Is Zelensky, then, the real Neo-Nazi? What is a Neo-Nazi anyway? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtcsw-FbP3tJ5Vt7ONKfAkZKgFHktjzJdBCpbGRq7Y87WMNLYS6psAiL6jDKD3y8jLyl7VYqpQloerajzwxWg_ly0jBdn3tnibhHzcdEgXW1j2cSOcw4piSycNg0XR-UYKxtFCu8qZ5JN4wwMTzMhgdfzAyMuO3OyV48gZLZFbZF9ljcWndwSaPg5dp9tt/s1728/1688313906902160.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1728" data-original-width="1080" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtcsw-FbP3tJ5Vt7ONKfAkZKgFHktjzJdBCpbGRq7Y87WMNLYS6psAiL6jDKD3y8jLyl7VYqpQloerajzwxWg_ly0jBdn3tnibhHzcdEgXW1j2cSOcw4piSycNg0XR-UYKxtFCu8qZ5JN4wwMTzMhgdfzAyMuO3OyV48gZLZFbZF9ljcWndwSaPg5dp9tt/w250-h400/1688313906902160.jpg" width="250" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">II. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Russian World, or Russkiy Mir, is organised around a few central principles that have been upheld for hundreds of years by a Russian ruling elite whether it be Tsarist or Communist or Putinist; the principles have been impressed upon a Russian populace that obeys its rulers with a serf-like obedience. The ruling elite uses a set of procedures of social control that have not changed since Czarist times. In that connection, the Marquis de Custine's observations on Russian life could have been written yesterday. Amusingly enough, Custine undertook a pilgrimage to Russia, like a member of the dissident Right in the Putin years, in order to learn from Russia's 'based' ways. He came away <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Custine" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">disillusioned</a>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Custine visited Russia in 1839, spending most of his time in St. Petersburg, but also visiting Moscow and Yaroslavl. A political reactionary in his own country, fearful that democracy would inevitably lead to mob rule, he went to Russia looking for arguments against representative government, but he was appalled by autocracy as practiced in Russia and equally by the Russian people's apparent collaboration in their own oppression. He attributed this state of affairs to what he saw as the backwardness of the Russian Orthodox Church, combined with the disastrous effects of the Mongol invasion of medieval Russia, and the policies of Peter the Great.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Most of Custine's mockery was reserved for the Russian nobility and Nicholas I. Custine said that Russia's aristocracy had "just enough of the gloss of European civilization to be 'spoiled as savages' but not enough to become cultivated men. They were like 'trained bears who made you long for the wild ones.'" Custine criticized Tsar Nicholas for the constant spying he ordered... </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">According to Kennan, Custine saw Russia as a horrible domain of obsequious flattery of the Tsar and spying. Custine said the air felt freer the moment one crossed into Prussia. </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Russia, then as now, is the only country run by its secret service. Left to their own devices, the Russians would be harmless enough; but the Russian secret service, and the Russian state, devote an enormous amount of time, energy, and effort to the task of subverting dissident movements in the West. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">After the 2014 invasion of Ukraine, neutral observers in the West noticed the enormous number of spam in the comments section of every article devoted to news on Ukraine. All of these sounded as though they were written by the same person and all concerned the same themes - the Maidan 'coup', Victoria Nuland's cookies, Ukrainian 'repression' of Russian speakers in Ukraine and the Donbas, Ukrainian Neo-Nazism, interference in Ukrainian politics by a combination of the Mossad, MI5, and the CIA. The new line was echoed by respectable luminaries on the Far Right and the Far Left. In 2014, shortly after the Euromaidan, I along with my nationalist friends had been proud of the Ukrainian nationalists' participating in the ouster of the Yanukovych; it seemed as though our side of politics had become involved in great world events at last. But I was soon aghast to discover that, in the eyes of my peers on the Far Right, Ukrainian nationalism and 'Neo-Nazism' was not good but bad and that it deserved to punished. And punished it was, firstly by Russia's annexing of Crimea, then by Russia's setting up of Soviet-style phony 'independent people's republics' in Donetsk and Luhansk, and finally by Russia's making open war on Ukraine. Before 2014, I felt vague misgivings towards Putin; after 2014, I began to realise, with a growing certainty, that Putin was not the friend we on the Far Right had assumed him to be. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I became baffled by Russia's attracting both the Left and Right; after 2014, Putin assembled a real Red-Brown coalition. We saw an instance of it at work at the 'Rage Against the War Machine' rally held in Washington, D.C., in February 2023; there communists and libertarians demonstrated as part of a 'Stop the War' effort in support of the country that was making war (of course Tucker Carlson praised those in attendance as 'reasonable people'). I saw the phenomenon repeated many times in 2014 and after. To take one example: during the 'referendum' on the annexation of Crimea to Russia, communists and neofascists from Europe did duty together as 'election observers'. In retrospect, the sight of these left-wing and right-wing 'extremist' serving the Kremlin together induces mirth; one has to ask if these Far Rightist and Far Leftist 'election observers' talked to one another; what were the conversations like, did they compare notes? In Putin's world, any differences between Left and Right only exist on the surface and as such are trivial. Western commentators in 2022 and 2023 were bemused by the sight of Russians on the battlefield and social media wearing Neo-Nazi symbols one day, neo-Bolshevik symbols the next. This was equally as jarring as the sight of Russian Orthodox priests blessing framed portraits of Josef Stalin. <a href="http://romaninukraine.com/long-time-observers-may-be-confused-why-russia-so-readily-embraces-the-most-obviously-conflicted-ideologies-ideologies-are-just-costumes-for-russia-underlying-everything-is-a-religious-belief-in-an/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Roman Skaskiw</a> explains it: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"> Long time observers may be confused why Russia so readily embraces the most obviously conflicted ideologies. Ideologies are just costumes for Russia. Underlying everything is a religious belief in an all powerful Czar, and in salvation through enduring and inflicting suffering.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Here we have the key. The two main principles of Russkiy Mir are: religious suffering and fealty to the Czar. Again, both of these would be harmless enough if confined to Russia; but Russia must perpetually export them. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">III. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Russian propaganda is all-pervading and unrelenting. It is also extremely centralised, as much today as it was eighty to ninety years ago. Then communist parties all around the world (including Australia) were perfectly synchronised, and directives transmitted via the Comintern instructed Russia's agents what to say and think. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Over-centralising can make propaganda sometimes strong, other times weak. Deficiency manifests itself when the absence of directives from a center panics and disorients. The soldiers waging war for Russkiy Mir in the 'information sphere' are then cut adrift. We saw this on display when Prigozhin launched his coup.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the Anglosphere, three types of nationalist and racialist organisations exist: those who are closed off to Kremlin propaganda, those are open to it, and those who are indifferent to it. If I survey some of my most visited sites, I see that Renegade Tribune and National Vanguard belong in the closed category, Occidental Observer and Unz.Com in the open, and American Renaissance in the indifferent. Counter-Currents and VDare sit on the fence. VDare appears to be in the indifferent category, but whoever controls the VDare Twitter account does post messages about 'Corrupt Ukraine' and Victoria Nuland's cookies. In the case of Counter-Currents, the editor Greg Johnson aligns himself with the Ukrainians against the Russians - he forged links with Ukrainian nationalists in the 2010s - but I have noticed a number of 'neutralist' (or 'nootralist' in 4Chan speak) articles recently. I suspect that Johnson, who needs to publish new articles every day, cannot afford to be too choosy. He overlooks the content of these neutralist screeds and publishes them regardless. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3FD0LofDHo_hyIMm3y9I7QwfGnzlSNULuPmvmLq-pO57VhSpgM7_UpXjWrvb_itI-iFbAKLnACZDGJcBFeFU1CtNUg7mVaWfDomwUugxtfOp7eNvq0f0ndaLjFXEXXrRN3mbRRMGxSzRRvMeCaO21J5bROrk5ptaOuodqH06Vq-mnaGyGYEucPvnjGvxP/s1500/1678344420764663.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="898" data-original-width="1500" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3FD0LofDHo_hyIMm3y9I7QwfGnzlSNULuPmvmLq-pO57VhSpgM7_UpXjWrvb_itI-iFbAKLnACZDGJcBFeFU1CtNUg7mVaWfDomwUugxtfOp7eNvq0f0ndaLjFXEXXrRN3mbRRMGxSzRRvMeCaO21J5bROrk5ptaOuodqH06Vq-mnaGyGYEucPvnjGvxP/w640-h384/1678344420764663.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Russian trolls, Vatniks, FSB agents, CHUGgers (see below), stay away from the open category sites as a rule; there no need to spend time there. The Vatniks will make a sortie into the closed sites, but are usually swatted away quickly. Their advances are rebuffed. So where do they go? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The answer is, to the one popular racialist, nationalist, Neo-Nazi site that has no editorial policy and little to no moderation, and that is 4Chan/Pol. This board, influential in the 2010s and perhaps not so much in the 2020s, is still seen by Vatniks as a prize. They fight for control of it, and they fight 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Their efforts have paid off; they have not yet subdued it, but they have caused a split. 4Chan is now divided up into two 'sticky' forums, and these are the anti-Russian UHG (Ukrainian Happenings General) and the pro-Russian CHUG (Comfy Happenings in Ukraine General). A poster who subscribes to the doctrines of the latter is a CHUGger. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0DfdXLWX8LB3loZ2DjVyrAGsMP4I7oopoeaLyNqhNZ0uWjfMRUQAyfVcONFoXt0TY4GSqEAT0JquO9unjDZBaccKplNV9TGQ0LA_SZrjPdMu9rHwgV5jZLfTqI6WSANCzvgqAJVBIkBQnsTnkUtekoBbwjeLTI4X2tr4ZQhhIV7e31YEbMoW2TPnOY6qM/s2324/1687008895545223.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2324" data-original-width="2000" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0DfdXLWX8LB3loZ2DjVyrAGsMP4I7oopoeaLyNqhNZ0uWjfMRUQAyfVcONFoXt0TY4GSqEAT0JquO9unjDZBaccKplNV9TGQ0LA_SZrjPdMu9rHwgV5jZLfTqI6WSANCzvgqAJVBIkBQnsTnkUtekoBbwjeLTI4X2tr4ZQhhIV7e31YEbMoW2TPnOY6qM/w550-h640/1687008895545223.png" width="550" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">During the Prigozhin putsch, the CHUGGers, Vatniks, and FSBers fell strangely silent, almost as though the Internet in Moscow had been turned off (in fact, it had). They were unsure as to who to favour - Putin and Prigozhin - and were awaiting orders, orders which in the chaos were not forthcoming. Their uncertainty mirrored that of the agents of the Kremlin state itself. One of Russia Today's leading propagandists, Margarita Simonyan, claimed that she had been unaware that a putsch was taking as place, as she had been holidaying on the Volga at the time. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the days before the putsch, the CHUGgers had of course been busy propagating the Kremlin line on these subjects: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">- The Kalkhovka Dam explosion: the Ukrainians had done it;</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">- The June 19th rocket attack on Kiev, which had sent a delegation of African Heads of State scurrying to a bomb shelter: it either never happened, or it was the fault of the Ukrainians, who wanted to frame the Russians; </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">- The Ukrainian counter-offensive: a failure, one that had taken many Ukrainian soldiers' lives needlessly; it would be canceled any moment now, and could NATO and America have their money back please? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">CHUGgers seek to: demoralise (in Yuri Bezmenov's sense) those in the West; ridicule non-Russian opponents; and discourage Russian opposition and resistance to the Putin regime. Putin's Russians are not ones for self-sacrifice and high ideals, which is why so few of them have volunteered for the war. The coarseness and baseness of the CHUGger world-view explain why it is that CHUGgers abstain from an attempt to influence and persuade their opponents through careful reasoning and logic; instead they are to constantly abuse and insult opponents and call their motives into question; anyone against the Putin agenda is a homosexual, a Jew-lover ('Zelensky is a kike, don't you know?'), a multi-cultist, an enthusiast for unrestricted non-white immigration, and an advocate of 'globohomo' (a shortening of 'global homogeneity' and a sly pun on 'globalist homosexual'). This world-view contradicts the official Kremlin line - after all, we know what Putin's opinions are on Jews and anti-Semites - but as we have seen, Russians view consistency as the hobgoblin of small minds. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMvL5u9qOEuUj_vTzqUqWAk1NeMzKp67rkJnzcS3A5xmZdKDP2pyiYzmJlAXB3ZHb9UsvDW3eBwqvG-5BKbQ9bP7dSbOfTGgc8nd_93bsv1UH1E8QCWAqxV_sSsvPhbs3NXzLoYRFjzNmh5Fl9nxnizuQra1TBHurvr50-OyZCbUe7dDzkaFfxEFWCq4EL/s1024/1688644105391052.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="1024" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMvL5u9qOEuUj_vTzqUqWAk1NeMzKp67rkJnzcS3A5xmZdKDP2pyiYzmJlAXB3ZHb9UsvDW3eBwqvG-5BKbQ9bP7dSbOfTGgc8nd_93bsv1UH1E8QCWAqxV_sSsvPhbs3NXzLoYRFjzNmh5Fl9nxnizuQra1TBHurvr50-OyZCbUe7dDzkaFfxEFWCq4EL/w400-h225/1688644105391052.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But it would be a mistake to classify all these trolls, Vatniks, CHUGgers, et al., as Russian; many of them are Indians posting from India, for instance, or non-white immigrants living in the Anglosphere (in countries such as Canada, for example). They do what they do either because they have been paid or indoctrinated, and they are tasked with creating certain illusions. One of these is that Russia enjoys support all across the world and especially in the Anglosphere, and to that end, they will hide their locations using a VPN, for on 4Chan, the flag of the country you are posting from appears at the head of your post. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the 24 hours of the Prigozhin coup, the CHUGgers stayed away from 4Chan, and once the news broke that Prigozhin had cut a deal, the CHUGgers returned. And as could be expected, they reacted with malice and glee. In their minds, they had triumphed over the anti-Russians on 4Chan; they had 'won'. Putin had narrowly averted an African or Latin American-style coup, this counted as a 'win', and 'winning' is all that matters to the troll, whose entire life revolves around asserting himself over strangers.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">IV. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">All this bewilders, and what is most bewildering of all is the lack of principles involved. How, exactly, is Putin 'based'? Biden likes non-white immigrants, and lots of them; so does Putin. Biden likes the Great Replacement; so does Putin. Biden likes Jews, and appoints them to his cabinet; so does Putin. Biden likes miscegenation; so does Putin. Biden likes brown people; so does Putin. And so forth.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoo7zgUOcazUFriI0AMlV6NrzUtWXTsGKZKBwJpEz5iHUQFJSkcVQmFJ37g7M_Emv9RJIfPmEpRjePiB2izoSQrewYC2zogMH4ENh1hnprKk6Z4Jf68ieXGjGIUwBRa3ZO_LMmjYQ8gcwnzBnKUazBthnfo7OU18AX_BaF3g9x3TQ-ODsXA2ZEQI2uPv1N/s690/1688126611174500.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="470" data-original-width="690" height="435" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoo7zgUOcazUFriI0AMlV6NrzUtWXTsGKZKBwJpEz5iHUQFJSkcVQmFJ37g7M_Emv9RJIfPmEpRjePiB2izoSQrewYC2zogMH4ENh1hnprKk6Z4Jf68ieXGjGIUwBRa3ZO_LMmjYQ8gcwnzBnKUazBthnfo7OU18AX_BaF3g9x3TQ-ODsXA2ZEQI2uPv1N/w640-h435/1688126611174500.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> But we are told by Putin's followers that this is all an imposture, a ruse; we are told that the day is coming when Putin shall unmask himself and reveal himself to the world as an immigration restrictionist, a racialist, an anti-Semite, and a Nazi sympathiser; and on that day, the Jews of Russia will be put in their place and the 'churka' (a Russian derogatory term meaning 'blockhead from the Caucasus') immigrants who have flooded the country in the millions will be deported. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Those followers of Putin's are fostering illusions, of course; we know what the ideology of Putin, which is the ideology of Russkiy Mir, consists of. As an example of it, see the tweets of the Russian Embassy in America in the Trump years. The Embassy bragged that Russia is building a big mosque, bigger than any ever built on American soil. The Embassy feels that this is 'owning' Trump, 'owning' America. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjko0zLEgDW2csB40Cf6ZF3i5R4mk09lPxsJO1r6B0vodul_DwQwSeoVrR1UWrZ4a74r8rMIdkvilUAVD8far4rf4Ct7yEQhlXQuICu7CwtIcPf20KA8CI9-9ag9HvgbEBV02R--m_AQ-ZhxlvC3XvY5mnZULysNEPTe3S4_AISPIjwErQldmOrxtDqF7JZ/s615/1686980390071054.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="615" data-original-width="601" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjko0zLEgDW2csB40Cf6ZF3i5R4mk09lPxsJO1r6B0vodul_DwQwSeoVrR1UWrZ4a74r8rMIdkvilUAVD8far4rf4Ct7yEQhlXQuICu7CwtIcPf20KA8CI9-9ag9HvgbEBV02R--m_AQ-ZhxlvC3XvY5mnZULysNEPTe3S4_AISPIjwErQldmOrxtDqF7JZ/w391-h400/1686980390071054.jpg" width="391" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">All of this brings to mind Evola and his theses that a) America and Russia are two sides of the same coin, and that b) the Modern World is sinking into decadence and its final age, the age of the Kali Yuga, the age before the End of Everything. What can arrest that slide? Agents of decline such as Putin have presented us with clues. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Putin hates above all else 'Neo-Nazism', and he launched the 2022 invasion of Ukraine because of it; so what is it? One could deduce from Russian rhetoric after 2014 that 'Neo-Nazism' is the handful of Ukrainian soldiers who wear Wolfsangle rune tattoos. This, according to Putin, is a great evil; and it is something so despicable, so deplorable, that it merited an invasion. Young Ukrainian couples are to be blown up in their apartments daily by Iranian drones, children are to be blown up in their cribs, and this is a sad necessity; the blood of innocents must be spilled in order to destroy 'Neo-Nazism'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>I define Neo-Nazism differently from Putin. In order to arrive at a definition, and glean what the world-view of the real Neo-Nazis was, a good place as any to start is </span><span>Martin E. Lee's <u>The Beast Reawakens</u> (1998)</span><span>:</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Tracing the history of neo-Nazism over the past half-century, this book sets out to demonstrate the growing symbiosis between right-wing groups in Europe and America. From Nazi spymasters in the post-war German intelligence services to Nazi emigres in South America, it describes how a well-organized underground network kept memories of the Third Reich alive thoughout the Cold War. And while European Nazis necessarily kept a low profile, American groups such as the Holocaust-denying Liberty Lobby openly promoted the fascist agenda. When the Berlin Wall fell, fascism in Europe, dormant for 45 years, began making headlines again. German skinheads, many inspired by neo-Nazi propaganda originating in the US, terrorized minorities and then, through the Oklahoma City bombing, America's own militia movement served notice that fascist extremism was alive and well on both sides of the Atlantic.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As could be expected, the book's author, who is a liberal anti-fascist, feels nothing but enmity towards nationalism and racialism, especially German nationalism and racialism, but the book can serve as a useful guide to the prominent personalities on the Far Right in America and Europe after WWII, and I wish I had read it in my youth, as I would have become familiar with the movement in a shorter amount of time.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It goes without saying that Lee holds up a distorting mirror to the movement. Like the trashy novelists of the period, Lee sensationalised and exploited Neo-Nazism. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Before the advent of the Internet and the smart phone, boomers read a lot of print - they still do - and they would make a bestseller out of what in the seventies and eighties became known as the airport novel. These were usually thick, so as to entertain the reader for a flight that would take hours, and they were easy to read. Appropriately enough, the spy and thriller airport novels were jet-setting; the story would take place across several countries and continents, and the plots usually involved international intrigue and mystery. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In keeping with the loose morals of the time, the novels exploited sex. A sleazy tone pervaded. For that reason, I devoured these novels as a teen after I had grown tired of fantasy and science-fiction, because I wanted to read what the adults were reading. And I discovered a world in which men did not make love to women or even have sex with women; no, they 'bedded' them, as if women were foam batting. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">One cannot not discount these thrillers as escapism and romanticism, because of all the literary genres, the airport thriller is the most political of all. By studying it, a sociologist can learn a great deal about Cold War politics, and terrorist politics, and Neo-Nazi politics. One novel, <u>Black Sunrise</u> (1997) by a Robert Hayden sums up Lee perfectly; Lee's 'investigative' journalism is embodied in schlock-literary form: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">ONE THING IS ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN: MARTIN BORMANN DID NOT PERISH IN THE RUINS OF BERLIN. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">JULY 1956</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Eleven years have passed since the end of World War II and the collapse of Nazi Germany. But in those years Martin Bormann and Mengele, safe in their hideouts in the jungles of South America, have been planning the birth of the Fourth Reich. Eleven years have passed since the end of World. War II and the collapse of Nazi Germany. But in those eleven years Bormann and the notorious Doctor Mengele, safe in their hideouts in the jungles of South America, have been planning the birth of the Fourth Reich. Now, with the help of Colonel Nasser’s military junta, they are preparing to launch their evil plan codenamed</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>Project Sunrise. </i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It is to begin with the seizure of Britain's oil jugular, the Suez Canal. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Between them and the success of this diabolical plan stand two men: CIA superstar Matt Corrigan and Mossad spymaster Mike Sharon. With invaluable help from the "Committee", a secret shadowy group of ex-concentration camp survivors, they uncover Sunrise, led in Europe by a sinister figure known only as Vulcan. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Who is Vulcan? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The deadly race is on to find out, and to stop him as East and West are brought to the brink of World War III. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Hayden blends fact and fiction seamlessly in his terrifyingly believable new thriller. </span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Black Sunrise borrows much of its plot from Frederick Forsyth's <u>The Odessa File</u> (1972), the book that began the 'Nazism resurgent' sub-genre of the airport novel. Among other notable works in the genre are William Goldman's <u>Marathon Man</u> (1974), Ira Levin's <u>The Boys from Brazil</u> (1977), and many novels by Robert Ludlum. Novels in the genre cry out for parody, but in the end, there is no need; the novels parody themselves. By the time of <u>The Watchdogs of Abaddon</u> (1980) by Ib Melchior, we have reached the heights of bathos: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">1945: A NEW MESSIAH RISES FROM THE ASHES OF THE THIRD REICH</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A group of SS officers flees in mortal terror from a remote hut in the heart of Nazi Germany. In their wake, a trail of bloody carnage - and in their keeping a secret prized possession: the son of Adolf Hitler. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">1978: THE WATCHDOGS ARE WAITING</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A motiveless murder, a single photograph and an instinct for trouble plunge Harry Bendicks, ace investigator, into a nightmare world of political intrigue, frenzied murder and power-crazed manipulation. The trail leads Bendicks back 30 years to war-torn Europe and the deadly horror of a lethal conspiracy that threatens to destroy the very fabric of the Western word. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">THE WATCHDOGS HAVE WOKEN - AND THEY HERALD THE FOURTH REICH! </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">THE WATCHDOGS OF ABADDON blazes a trail from Nazi Germany to the heart of Washington to the fabulous wealth of the Middle Eastern oil empires, and explodes in a brilliant nerve-shattering climax... </span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">With only a little imagination, one could conceive of a Russian novel published in 2023; its plot would concern a brilliant Russian secret agent who sneaks into Ukraine in early 2022 and blows up one of the US and German biolabs that are growing the virus that infects and kill only Russians. (Perhaps, too, the laboratory is breeding the mosquitos that attack only Russian soldiers). Zelensky will be portrayed as belonging to a secret cabal of Zionists, Banderites, and Neo-Nazis; as one literary critic has observed, the 'Nazism resurgent' airport novel turns the <u>Protocols of the Elders of Zion</u> on its head; the Neo-Nazis and not the Jews are the ones who have founded a secret society that engages in international conspiracies and aims to take over the world. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">To convey overtones of Ludlum, such a novel should be given a double-noun title, e.g., <u>The Kornilov Affair</u>. But that title, good as it is, sounds too soft. We need something harder-edged, perhaps something such as <u>The Kornilov Memorandum</u>. Other titles for our Putinesque thriller could be <u>The Kiev Protocol</u>, <u>The Dnieper Pact</u>, <u>The Kharkov Covenant</u>, <u>The Kherson Factor</u>, <u>The Melitopol Exchange</u>, and <u>The Rostov Ultimatum</u>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">VI. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><u>The Odessa File</u> was named after Odessa, a city in Ukraine that became important after the outbreak of the war in 2014; the name Odessa re-entered circulation decades after the publication of Forsyth's best-seller. This, I think, lends weight to the argument that airport thrillers are grounded in political reality. We must take the Neo-Nazi novels seriously and ask what it is in <u>The Odessa File</u> that a Neo-Nazi such as William Pierce would not like? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">In <u>The Odessa File</u>, without the mass of the similarly unsuspecting West German population having the slightest inkling, the remnant of the SS has assumed sufficient power to start the Third World War (by means of rockets, equipped with bubonic plague bacillus and nuclear waste, launched against Israel). It typically requires only the slightest stimulus to galvanize the still existing frame of Nazism back to violent life. [John Sutherland, <u>Bestsellers : popular fiction of the 1970s</u> (1981)]</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Such an outcome is deplored by the Anglo-Saxon and the Russian. Forsyth's novel was inspired by a visit to a German ex-servicemen's club in the early 1960s; Forsyth was dismayed by these soldiers' boisterousness, their pride in their military service, and their lack of repentance for 'Nazi crimes' (here we can see where the ideology of a Forsyth intersects with that of a Putin). Afterwards, Forsyth conceived the idea for his novel and wrote the book in co-operation with 'Nazi hunter' Simon Wiesenthal. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I read the novel in my teens, and in my memory only a few passages stand out - passages of the sort that induce laughter (in a teenage boy) that are not meant to. Far more memorable was the movie adaptation. This was released in 1974 and starred American actor Jon Voight (a lifelong activist for Israel and a big supporter of Trump) as the hero, a crusading West German journalist named Peter Miller. Opposing him is the villain, the Nazi Eduard Roschmann, who is known as the 'Butcher of Riga'; Roschmann is played by the great Austrian actor Maximilian Schell, who steals the show. (Bizarrely, IMDB (Internet Movie Database) claims that Schell was a 'dedicated anti-Nazi', even though he was a seven year old at the time of the union between Germany and Austria). The highlight of the movie occurs when Roschmann delivers a monologue at the end; in this scene, Roschmann, declaiming before Miller, is the old Germany speaking to the new. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When one is watching the movie and others like it, one contemplates a paradox: the villain of the piece, a 'Nazi', seems to be talking nothing but sense. By dint of his charisma, he makes 'Nazism' glamourous, alluring, and seductive. Surely, then, the Jews who make these movies (and we know from Pierce that American entertainment and media is controlled by Jews) are flirting with danger? Do they have a death wish? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Here I am not interested in plumbing the depths of the Jewish psyche; I want to come to a conclusion as to what makes Roschmann and the other villains of the </span><span style="font-size: large;">'Nazism resurgent' genre attractive. And I think the answer lies in the simplicity of their world view: the Roschmanns and their objectives are easy enough to understand and delimit. Hegel said that we can define a thing by limiting it. This is true when it comes to a Hollywood Nazi such as Roschmann. We know who he is, where he stands, and what he wants to do. His objectives are easy to understand and fulfill: he wants to bomb the Jews of Israel with plague-infected rockets - what could be simpler? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the movie, Miller pays a visit, like Forsyth, to a German ex-serviceman's club, and he spies on the reunion of the veterans of a fictional SS division. Despite their age, the veterans have not grown 'wiser' with time. They feel no repentance; they love life; and they are still proud, boastful, arrogant, and patriotic Nazis; and this repels Miller. When he confronts Roschmann, he finds Roschmann exhibiting the same distasteful qualities. But these are not confined to the Germans of the Third Reich. Roschmann merely echoes the arrogant, militaristic 'Prussian' whom the British and French confronted in 1914; this is the Prussian who is cast as the villain in thousands of British and American polemics that were so many morality plays. It is the cockiness of these 'Prussians', in the war years 1914 to 1918, and 1939 to 1945, that really gets under the skin of the Americans and the British; the Anglo wants to get back at this German and take him down a peg or two; 'I'll teach you, I'll learn you, I'll re-educate you!'. The goal is to break the Teuton's pride and make him hate himself. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">VII. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Novelists such as Forsyth, Ludlum, and Crichton made a fortune out of writing paranoid thrillers that exposed international conspiracies. In these tales, ordinary people are directed and manipulated by shadowy elites and mysterious men behind the scenes; these hidden individuals wield great power - the power over life and death. This world-view is political, however much these novelists may profess otherwise - they may state that they are mere entertainers out to make a fast buck - and its political assumptions, frighteningly enough, were borne out in the Covidian years. Journalists, politicians, 'health professionals', and other members of the political establishment all spoke with one voice, and from Auckland to Manila, Moscow to London, Ottowa to Buenos Aires, they followed the one script. And the masses followed obediently, like sheep. Unveiled was a new political model, one in which democracy, the will of the people, elections, opinion polls, etc., were to be circumvented. Life imitated art; events mimicked those of a cheap thriller. Suddenly, Forsyth and Ludlum no longer seemed implausible. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The heroes in these thrillers are often presented with a stark choice: they can either be one of the ordinary folk or one of the globalist master-men, a transnational member of one of elites whose existence is posited by Nietzsche and Michels. As master-types, Prigozhin and Putin belong to this class, and so do Fauci and Gates. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The spiritual home of these master-men is Switzerland, which hosts the Davos forum; it is no coincidence that the action of many of the seventies thrillers (see Ludlum's Bourne novels, which were turned into a movie series starring Matt Damon) takes place there. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Soros, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Putin, Schwab, have all been compared to James Bond villains, and any of these men could double as Jason Bourne villains as well. But, when we are reading airport thrillers, we detect an ambiguity in the feelings of their authors towards the men of power. The master-men may be immoral, but they grasp how it is that the political, economic, and social system works, and to a certain extent they steer the system. In this they show themselves themselves superior to the average man; they are men of a higher type. Reading between the lines, we can surmise that if a paranoiac conspiracy theorist such as Ludlum were to be given the choice of being ignorant and being in the know, he would choose the latter. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the airport novels, then, the hero, once he crosses the Rubicon and sets out on a journey to becoming a master-man, puts morality by the wayside; he views the world in terms of what Spengler calls technics, that is, the technical means of achieving one's goals without considering morality or anything else that could stand in one's way. Viewing these men from such a perspective, one asks how it is that a master-man of the Soros or Bezos type uses his wealth and power. What are the means, not the ends, and what patterns does a Soros or Bezos follow, and can their procedures be imitated? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We can bring the question to bear on our politics - movement politics. What if our master-man were, in the best tradition of Ludlum and Forsyth, to use the wealth and power of a Soros to 'build the Fourth Reich'? If he were a Mengele or Bormann figure lurking in his South American hideaway, what would he do? (A man of Bormann or Mengele's age would be very old, but we can assume in this scenario that he has discovered, like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu_Manchu" target="_blank">Doctor Fu Manchu</a>, an elixir of youth). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In Ludlum's novel <u>The Holcroft Covenant</u> (1978), the hero Noel Holcroft (played by Michael Caine in the 1985 movie adaptation), an American architect who lives in New York, receives a bequest from his late father, Heinrich Clausen, a German who has served as an economic advisor to Hitler. The inheritance is stored in a Swiss bank, naturally enough, and comes to the tune of $USD780 million - a handsome sum then as it is now. Holcroft is told the story that his father, one of the 'good Germans', stole the money from his fellow Germans, and that he wants it distributed to Holocaust survivors. But all is not as it seems. In a superb plot twist, it is revealed that Clausen is tricking his son from beyond the grave; the money is to be put to work building the Fourth Reich. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Forty-five years after the novel was published, any member of movement reading it will ask himself what he would do with the $USD780 million: what and who would he spend it on? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The first impulse, I think, of any 'Neo-Nazi' would be to spend at least some of that money on altering the public's perception of Hitler, National Socialism, the Third Reich; that is, the money should be spent on Holocaust Revisionism. But most of the work of Revisionism has been done already, and on a shoestring budget, by men such as Carlo Mattogno and Germar Rudolf. Much can be done, still, to disseminate the ideas of these men until they become as nearly as popular as, say, the ideas of the global-warming doom-mongers. But would such an effort bring a Roschmann or Vulcan closer to his goals? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In 2023, I think, our Bormann or Mengele figure would be more certain what not to do with his Nazi gold. He would not sink money into, for instance, pro-Russian political parties such as <i>Alternativ für Deutschland </i>(AfD). The reason for his aversion would be twofold. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Firstly, National Socialists, or 'Nazis', uphold truth; truth is most Aryan; Evola writes in <u>The Doctrine of Awakening</u> that the ancient Aryans held telling a lie to be worse than committing a murder. Now, before his abortive coup, Prigozhin told some of the truth, and this outraged sections of both the Left and Right. The British communist Jack Conrad <a href="https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1449/notes-on-the-war/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">dismisses</a> Prigozhin's statements: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Of course, this narrative echoes western propaganda - conveniently ignoring, as it does, Ukrainian plans to dramatically escalate military attacks on the Russian majority areas in Donbass and Nato expansionism (Ukraine was placed on the first rung with a Nato membership action plan in November 2002).</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This is unhinged: Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 because of a 'Nato membership action plan' twenty years before? Conrad is far more plausible when he contends that the 2022 invasion was a spoiling attack: Ukraine planned to 'dramatically escalate military attacks on the Russian majority areas in Donbass', and so Russia invaded in early 2022 to forestall the attacks and throw Ukraine off-balance. That is the official Kremlin line. But no evidence can be found for a Ukrainian military build-up and plans for a massive assault on the Donbas. Even so, had Ukraine planned an offensive, it would have been in the right; Ukraine cannot invade its own territory. In 1914, France invaded Alsace-Lorraine and Russia invaded East Prussia, and Germany launched a series of counter-offensives to drive the French and Russians out. If France and Russia behaved in the same manner as Putin did a hundred years later, they would have made the spurious claim that there were no French or Russian soldiers in Alsace-Lorraine and East Prussia; instead, there were only 'French and Russian backed separatists'. But this was in the days before Putin's brand of 'hybrid warfare', which operates on Mossad's principle, 'By Way of Deception Thou Shalt Wage War'. And that principle is most un-Aryan. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The second principle of National Socialism is race, or at least the recognition of racial otherness. Yockey writes that Europe by the 1930s and 1940s recognised itself, for the first time, to be a Culture, and as such, distinct from other Cultures such as the Magian, to which Jews and Muslims belong. Before Hitler, Europe did not really concentrate its attentions on the Jew overly much - the Jew was an afterthought and an annoyance - and after Hitler, Europe saw the Jew for what he was: a member of another Culture, an alien, a foreigner, a non-Westerner. When it considered the Russians, National Socialism did not put the Russian on the same plane as the Jew. But the heightened racial sensitivity of the National Socialists entails a recognition of Russian racial otherness; the Russian is 'not like us'; he is The Other. This characterising has been validated by the present war. One can find a thousand examples of how the Russian thinks, feels, behaves differently from the Westerner. And in this day of social media and the smartphone, none of it can be covered up, as it was in 1945. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In future writing, then, we should examine how Russian conduct during the present war has affected the world's view of Russia, and in particular, the West's view; and how that same conduct leads the world, and the West, to revise its opinions of Russia in WWII. In advance, I can state that the war has been a godsend to Holocaust and WWII Revisionists, and to 'Nazis' (if they still exist). </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrUDHHXdIgMRxW_Y-QA7PDoQHqbg-HjuOEFRfkqSAcCyguyWtrJ7OqSP9AgvlQ_o6PmLcCLo9zPw72yANq1dOwmCgiwAqF-X9pZIstz1LH3C3m5d9lmFwr9tszi_msSP01aEvyjX_Z_DjP6PXyaJeB8539JjVztwnT29fBFhs9rAO-hfgeDyQnK4T5zZaa/s604/1686998544687012.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="537" data-original-width="604" height="570" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrUDHHXdIgMRxW_Y-QA7PDoQHqbg-HjuOEFRfkqSAcCyguyWtrJ7OqSP9AgvlQ_o6PmLcCLo9zPw72yANq1dOwmCgiwAqF-X9pZIstz1LH3C3m5d9lmFwr9tszi_msSP01aEvyjX_Z_DjP6PXyaJeB8539JjVztwnT29fBFhs9rAO-hfgeDyQnK4T5zZaa/w640-h570/1686998544687012.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><br /></p>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-90359534955810811532023-06-16T09:31:00.001-07:002023-06-16T09:31:29.332-07:00The Way of the Bugman<p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBQ9yk26fO6awaMzTOewAK3t57utO6eWOKYIq1X0tZ3EOrO7kUAlkcSEslOIwlRwbzuSf7ANz_N4OsoNgI6pib9dNlRC9qpSN54IK4JEkVzhD-2WZoNwDmkWj63qx2u15AfgJoSNSf1bXtLtdU0N2OfBuElX1OeSNJE-mCxUBPnk_7UOySxNITqIBTiA/s1097/Bugman.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="562" data-original-width="1097" height="328" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBQ9yk26fO6awaMzTOewAK3t57utO6eWOKYIq1X0tZ3EOrO7kUAlkcSEslOIwlRwbzuSf7ANz_N4OsoNgI6pib9dNlRC9qpSN54IK4JEkVzhD-2WZoNwDmkWj63qx2u15AfgJoSNSf1bXtLtdU0N2OfBuElX1OeSNJE-mCxUBPnk_7UOySxNITqIBTiA/w640-h328/Bugman.PNG" width="640" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>I. Introducing the Bugman</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Beginning in 2020, the Covidians revived a science I call applied or practical political psychology. Of all the ideologies on the Left, Maoism went furthest in applying political psychology, Maoism being the ideology that gave us 'thought reform' and the 'washing of the brain', and this was pertinent to Covidianism, because starting its life in China, Covidianism used many of the brainwashing techniques of Maoism. Cults, too, avail themselves of the same techniques, and both Maoism and cultism operate on the same principle, which is: Change a man's thoughts, change a man. Over the course of three years, we saw the principle put into practice across the globe, and the result of the Covidians' employing it was that millions of people allowed themselves to be persuaded that masking could 'stop the spread'; that lockdowns, shutdowns, forced closure of businesses, forced unemployment, contact tracing, etc., were all necessary to combat the virus; and that the 'vaccines' were 'safe and effective'. Those caught up in the mass hysteria were cajoled by the media, the 'health professionals', the politicians, and the promptings of their own consciences. Most important of all, the last of these was worked to the utmost in a typical cult-like fashion. Cult leaders seeking to indoctrinate a person appeal to his conscience and exploit his natural tendency to persuade and monitor himself. The conscience, when the leader's manipulating it is attended with success, helps the leader tighten his grip on the minds of his followers, and eventually the directed conscience places the recruit under the leader's complete control. After the first round of brainwashing takes hold, the recruit becomes a devotee, and he remains so on his own initiative and without external compulsion. One consequence is that even if he is taken out of the cult environment - to be sent on canvasing and hawking missions, for example - he can be trusted to return to it. Physically he can leave the cult, mentally he cannot. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">One can use methods of auto-suggestion for purposes that are not sinister and destructive; indeed, one can use them to improve one's life. But doing so takes one away from politics, as we shall see. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The principle of 'Changing a man thoughts, changing a man' is put to beneficial use in pop psychology and self-help; there, the right thoughts can overcome any obstacle, and in the doctrine of Norman Vincent Peale and Mary Baker G. Eddy, a thing cannot be evil, only thinking makes it so. Such a view is far removed from all politics. For in politics, the world is always incomplete, lacking, and while the world exists in this state of privation, it is bad, even evil. To complete it and make it whole, something external is needed - something only the politician can bring about. In order to make the world better again, a politician may propose a Bolshevik revolution, a Greater East Asian Prosperity Sphere, a Third Reich. Today we regard these goals as vague and ethereal, but at the time politicians promulgated them, they were always within reach; that is, they were feasible. And as a matter of course, the canny politician understands the usefulness of practicable ideals. He will posit simple, discrete, achievable objectives, knowing that if he demands the impossible from his followers, they will desert him. (For that reason, the crusade against global warming will eventually fail, seeing that the end goal of reducing carbon emissions and then stopping them altogether can never be achieved). His realism means that Political Man differs from Self-Help Man. It means he differs from New Age Man as well, 'New Age Man' being the type who follows a Rudolf Steiner or Helena Blavatsky. A spiritual thinker, New Age Man desires to comprehend the nature of reality from the vantage point of mysticism. Moreover, he strives to accept reality without qualm. In other words, he wants to make peace with the world as it is. Nothing could be more unpolitical. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This topic brings us to another unpolitical type: the Bugman. The Bugman is a subset of the 'normie', and like the normie, he approves of the existing social, political, and consumerist order. When it comes to politics, the Bugman may hold political opinions that he regards as non-conformist, but at bottom these are only commonplaces and half-baked notions. Fundamentally he agrees with the existing order, and this agreement makes him apolitical. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">During the lockdown years, I became fascinated by the Bugman. In the first year, I believed - mistakenly, as it turned out - that the indignities heaped upon the normie population would cause it to revolt. And in that time of turmoil, even a Bugman could show revolutionary gumption. But over the course of three years, the Bugman followed the diktats of the Covidians unquestioningly and took all the outrages in stride. In 2020, only one thing excited him: the release of <u>Cyberpunk 2077</u>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I must admit that in those years, I envied the Bugman, especially the Bugman who enjoyed his leisure after being made unemployed by the lockdowns and shutdowns. To be laid off from one's job, and then to while away one's time sitting on a couch, smoking dope, eating junk food, playing 'vidya' games: that seemed to me to be a pleasant life, albeit not a virtuous one. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Moreover, I envied the Bugman's naivete. The contentedness of the Bugman neared the state of those characters in <u>The Matrix</u> (1999) who chose forgetfulness and oblivion over knowledge and truth. In the movie, the 'red pill' gives knowledge and the 'blue pill' takes it away, and those who swallow the blue pill are made as innocent as Adam and Eve before the Fall. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The question to be considered here is whether or not political psychology holds true for the Bug Man. Does the Bugman confirm the hypothesis of the Maoists, the cultists, and the Christian Scientists in its essentials, that is, does the Bug Man's innocence and passivity come about from his ideas? If so, this brings up the possibility that we ourselves can become Bugmen. To do so, we need only change our ideas to match his. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>II. The Politics of Anti-Politics</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I mentioned the game <u>Cyberpunk 2077</u> because its subject matter does bear upon politics: one of the reasons why I never became a fully-fledged 'National Socialist' or white nationalist was because I liked the cyberpunk genre too much. The denizens of <u>Blade Runner</u> (1982) live in a dark, smooty, grimy Los Angeles in the year of the future 2019, and the futuristic and grim milieu befits the central theme of cyberpunk, which is 'High tech, low life'. In keeping with the anti-natural tendencies of the genre, many characters are cyborgs or (in the case of <u>Blade Runner</u>) artificially-grown human beings, that is, homonculi. Cyberpunk shares a theme with postmodernism, and that is the distancing and isolating of man from nature. Urban living, modern thinking, perception, thought, language - all of these form a wall between man and the natural world, man and the absolute truth, man and the spiritual. As such, white nationalism, Neo-Nazism, and blood and soil ideology must by definition repudiate cyberpunk. <u>Blade Runner</u> is un-völkisch. But as someone who has seen <u>Blade Runner</u> a dozen times and will probably watch it a dozen times more, my response is: so much the worse for völkischness. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In a time when the term had not yet been invented, I was once a Bugman. In my youth, I was dissatisfied with my own life but well-satisfied with life at large, by which I mean the prevailing political, cultural, and economic order, an order to which no alternative existed, the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc having collapsed a few years before. In that period, I may have disliked certain political parties, journalists, intellectuals, and opinion-makers, and disliked them intensely; but I never questioned the existing order's underlying precepts, rules, and assumptions. In the same way, one may become aggravated by other drivers when caught in a traffic jam, but such a judgment, which takes place during an instance of a temporary and fleeting emotion, does not entail one's rejecting cars and driving in general. The driver abides by the rules of the game, and so does the Bugman. And like the Bugman, when it came to politics, I prided myself on my political insight and sophistication, but I held opinions that were only a confused heaping of fashionable Left and Right ideas, neither of which I committed to. In the last analysis, I was, just like the Bug Man, apolitical. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The question is whether or not apoliticism is itself political in a covert and subterranean fashion. It may be that, perversely, the act of choosing not to choose constitutes an political ideology in itself. Carl Schmitt thought so: see <u>Political Romanticism</u> (1919). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This intellectual attitude of mine, which was akin to political romanticism, was reinforced by my reading a textbook on the contemporary postmodern age. The book was divided up into three parts: the first was written on art history, the second on the French post-structuralist thinkers (Derrida, Foucault, Lacan, Lyotard, Baudrillard, et al.), and the third on postmodern culture and life. The third section struck a chord with me. It resonated, because it held up a mirror to my life. The author here made mention of <u>Blade Runner</u>, <u>Robocop</u>, <u>Silence of the Lambs</u>, <u>Total Recall</u>, and other famous films of the period, and also Nike sneakers, Madonna (then in her 'Vogue' phase), virtual reality, Disneyland, McDonalds, karaoke. The author deplored all of it, but I found his depiction of modern popular culture, capitalism, and postmodernism to be wonderful: it captured the essence of what it was that made life worth living. For every weekend, me and my friends would pile into a car, commute to the city, and drive around without pause, and on those trips, I felt a tremendous sensation of freedom; I understood what it was like for an Eastern European who had lived in a communist country for forty years and who all of a sudden was allowed out to travel and shop in the West. In those fast-paced, frenetic years, I spent long hours at the nightclub, the shopping mall, the fast food restaurant, the petrol station, and the 24/7 convenience store, and I treated all these abodes as though they were sacred, that is, houses of worship. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">My exalted feelings in response to this 'capitalist' and 'postmodern' existence may have only been a preference of mine: they may have been only feelings, and as such, merely subjective. But perhaps they owed their origin to a distinct intellectual idea. The ideas of Thomas Hardy, which are gloomy, fatalist, and pessimistic, hold much in common with those of Schopenhauer. Even though it is uncertain whether Hardy had ever read Schopenhauer, it is certain that Schopenhauer could have supplied the intellectual justification for Hardy. In the nineties, I asked myself if there was a philosopher who could give a voice and a name to the feelings that I had - feelings that were as positive as Hardy's were negative. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">At first I thought that I had found that philosopher in Baudrillard. Of all the French thinkers, he seem to be the one who was most in touch with the present - what academics called 'modernity'. He did own a television set after all. Unlike him, other French intellectuals seemed mired in the first half of the 20th century, when modernism held sway; witness their obsession with Freud and Joyce. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Something that could be said in the favour of the French post-structuralists was that all of them repudiated Marx; they held to an anti-Marxism that bordered on anti-communism. The anti-Marxism was symptomatic of the political struggle in French intellectual circles of the sixties and seventies. Then, Marxism rode high, and the post-structuralists sought to prove their intellectual superiority to it. They wanted to make their own thought distinct, and in hindsight, they chose wisely, for after the fall of communism, the Marxists were left looking foolish. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On closer examination, Baudrillard turned out to be something of a disappointment. In the first half of his career, he wrote on the subjects of consumerism, shopping malls, TV advertising, consumer credit. All these formed part of the experience of someone living in the modern world, and Baudrillard's according these subjects importance gave his thought an air of timeliness and immediacy. But at root, Baudrillard disdained consumerism, he considered it fake and unreal, and he sought after the more honest, pure, natural. In the second half of his career, his work lost clarity. As could be expected from a French thinker, he obscured and mystified. Much has been written on the French intellectual's habit of putting up walls of verbiage, and putting up these walls is what Baudrillard did. Some critics suggest that these walls were built in order to mask Baudrillard's true political opinions. Like the Bugman, Baudrillard's attitude is one of passivity and assent, and perhaps deep down Baudrillard really did approve of the existing order. When he is forced to confront it, he feigns helplessness and passivity; it is all so terrible, but what can one do. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I moved on from Baudrillard and looked to conservative thinkers such as Hayek. If one affirms capitalism, consumerism, surely one is affirming the market order Hayek speaks of? And in turn, if one does so, one is surely classifying oneself as a neoliberal or (to use the American term) libertarian. But I resisted designating myself as such, and while I recognised the greatness of Hayek's endeavour, I saw Hayek himself as something of a relic. He was a man who belonged to the era of the eighties, that is, of Reagan, Thatcher, the New Right, and the Cold War. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A prominent conservative thinker of post-Cold War era was Francis Fukuyama, the author of 'The End of History?' (1989) and <u>The End of History and the Last Man</u> (1992), both, unusually enough, conservative and at the same time nihilistic (the 'Last Man' is taken from Nietzsche's Zarathustra). Fukuyama was influenced by the Russian thinker Alexandre Kojève. Years after I first came across a mention of Kojève, I stumbled on Jan-Werner Müller's adequate summarising of Kojève's ideas in <u>A Dangerous Mind. Carl Schmitt in Post War European Thought</u> (2003). My subsequent exploring of the twists and turns of Kojève's thought led me to a paradox worthy of Fukuyama. This was the hypothesis that what I had affirmed in the carefree years of my youth was not capitalism but communism; the truth was that I had been a Marxist. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>III. Kojève</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Kojève called himself a Marxist and even a Stalinist, and he was joking, but only half-joking. When the body of his work is considered as a whole, we are tempted to discount his so-called Marxism as a mere instance of his typical Kojèvean irony and facetiousness. But we would be mistaken to do so. The truth of the matter is that he did promote Marxism, but that he departed from the orthodox interpretations of Marx. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Before the nineties, this Marxism could have been dismissed as the doctrine of a dilettante, but after nineties, it could not. For intellectuals had established unorthodox Marxism as the reigning orthodoxy in the last remaining Marxist superpower in the world - China. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">After the death of Mao, the Chinese turned away from Soviet-style Marxism. Whether or not this reflected an expediency, or a growing influence of 'capitalist roaders' in the Chinese Communist Party, or a recognition that Soviet methods simply did not work, or all three, one cannot say. What we do know is that by the late seventies and early eighties the Chinese communist intellectuals were forced to devise, and devise quickly, apologia for Deng Xiaoping's new course. In their attempts to do so, they undertook the task of squaring the circle. Capitalist and communist policy were being implemented at the same time. How could one argue that this was Marxist? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The effort led to the re-examining of the now-dusty and moldy works of Marx and Engels; the Chinese intellectuals scoured these in a search for different path to socialism, one that did not terminate in the Russian model. The discussions of what the Chinese call the 'initial stage of socialism' make for some interesting reading, if one finds Marxism interesting, and certain passages of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_stage_of_socialism" target="_blank">Wiki summary</a> are striking. One intellectual puts forward the notion that the new Chinese version of Marxism contradicts orthodox Marxism when it suggests that 'History was unilinear rather than multilinear'. 'The problem facing the CPC [the Chinese Communist Party] was that a unilinear view of history meant that China could not adopt socialism because [China] had skipped the capitalist mode of production, but a multilinear view meant that China did not need to adopt socialism because it was not a specific "stage in human evolution"'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This implies that a non-socialist country such as China may still qualify either as socialist or as being on the road to socialism. Kojève concluded likewise. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Marx and Engels wrote their main works in the mid to late nineteenth century, and their writings often seem more bound to that particular time more than the writings of other thinkers of that period; if these works could be said to have an odour - and Nietzsche believe that certain writings had a distinctive 'smell' - then they are redolent of the antiques store. The opponent of Marx must Marx's portrayal of Victorian-era capitalism and in order to use it against Marx, he must choose between two avenues of attack.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The first is that Marxism was not only wrong and it had always been wrong; nothing Marx writes of factory conditions, for example, is true. Conservatives such as Hayek take this route, and this type of anti-Marxist is inclined to revisionism: 'Was 19th century England as bad as Marx said it was?'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The second is that Marxism was once right. Marx did describe the social and economic conditions of his time accurately, he was right, but the caveat is that he was right for his time only. This line recommends itself to the anti-Marxist taking it because it presents him with one singular advantage, which is that a good many Marxists agree with him. After WWII, the intellectuals of the Frankfurt School and the New Left asked how it was that Marxism could still hold true. Had not Western Europe moved beyond the Victorian-era smoke-stack capitalism and the attendant phenomena of children being chained to workbenches? Most certainly it had. And so one asks how it is that in such a Europe that Marxist revolution is possible. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Kojève looks to the same questions in one of the most famous of his post-war lectures, 'Colonialism from a European perspective', which was held at a business club in Düsseldorf in 1957. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Without naming them, Kojève dismisses the Lenins, Trotskys, Maos, as 'Romantics' who 'distorted the Marxist theories in order to apply them to noncapitalist relations, i.e., precisely to economic systems Marx did not have in view'. This touches upon a salient point, one that is brought up by many a non-Marxist. Communism took root only in agrarian, semi-capitalist, and semi-feudal countries such as Russia and China; industralised countries such as Germany and England resisted its blandishments. But Marx devised his theories precisely for the industrialised countries. This is a leak in Marxist theory, and one that Marxists beginning with Lenin attempted to patch up. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Kojève proceeds with the 'Marx was true, but true only for his time' line of argument. Expanding upon it, he makes an extraordinary assertion: the greatest Marxist of the 20th century was Henry Ford. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">[The capitalists] rebuilt capitalism in a Marxist way. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">To put it briefly, the capitalists saw exactly the same thing as Marx saw and said although independently of him, and with some delay. Namely, that capitalism can neither progress, nor even exist, if the 'surplus value' produced through industrial technologies is not divided between the capitalist minority and the working majority. In other words, the post-Marxist capitalists understood that the modern, highly industralised capitalism of mass production not only permits, but also requires, a constant increase in the income (and of the standard of living) of the working masses. And they behaved accordingly. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In brief, the capitalists did exactly what they ought to have done according to Marxist theory in order to make the </span><span style="font-size: large;">'social revolution' impossible, i.e., unnecessary. This 'Marxist' reconstruction of the original capitalism was accomplished more or less anonymously. But, as always, there was a great ideologue here, too. He was called Henry Ford. And thus we can say that Ford was the only great, authentic Marxist of the 20th century. </span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Those who lived in the West after 1991 and who shared in its prosperity and comforts were living in societies that were post-Marxist in two ways. The first of these was that we who lived in those societies lived in a world in which there was no Soviet communism; the second, that after the reforms by the likes of Ford, we lived in a political, social, and economic order that had deliberately forestalled the Marxist revolution. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>IV. America as communist</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">None of the above quite captures the spirit of the post-1991 age, however. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Marxism traditionally concerns itself with capitalism that has gone wrong, never with capitalism gone right. To use the jargon of economists, it is contraction that preoccupies the Marxists, not growth. Now, Western countries such as Australia and America experienced contraction in the early nineties, as did the countries of the former Eastern bloc, and the post-communist countries experienced the worst of it after their abrupt shifting-over from communism to capitalism. In Yugoslavia, the currency became worthless, and the resulting economic disruption brought about break-up and war. But unlike the Easterner, the fortunate Westerner in that period could know poverty and at the same time good living; poverty did not bar the way to the enjoying of the fruits of consumerism. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When we think of consumerism and growth, we think of America; the country seems to embody both. Kojève agreed. In a famous passage in Introduction to the Reading of Hegel, we find:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">One can even say that, from a certain point of view, the United States has already attained the final stage of Marxist "communism," seeing that, practically, all the members of a "classless society" can from now on appropriate for themselves everything that seems good to them, without thereby working any more than their heart dictates. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now, several voyages of comparison made (between 1948 and 1958) to the United States and the U.S.S.R. gave me the impression that if the Americans give the appearance of rich Sino-Soviets, it is because the Russians and the Chinese are only Americans who are still poor but are rapidly proceeding to get richer. I was led to conclude from this that the "American way of life" was the type </span><span style="font-size: large;">of life specific to the post-historical period, the actual presence of the United States in the World prefiguring the "eternal present" future of all of humanity.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">What Kojève is referring to in the last sentence is his notion of the end of history: there shall be no history after a certain point, that is, no great historical events, and thereafter humanity will continue to live in time but not in history. That living will be for the day and not the morrow. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Derrida attempts to clarify the passage in <u>Specters of Marx</u> (1994). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Why and how was Kojève able to think that the United States had already reached the "final stage" of "Marxist 'communism'"? What did he think he perceived there, what did he want to perceive there? Answer: the appropriation, in abundance, of everything that can respond to need or desire, the cancellation of the gap between desire and need suspends any excess, any disadjustment, in particular in work. It is not at all surprising that this end of the disadjustment (of the being "out of joint") "prefigures [an] eternal present". </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Derrida here is florid and French, that is, typically Derrida. But we get his meaning. 'The end of disadjustment' implies an end of conflict and the reaching of a resolution. Thereafter, one can appropriate 'in abundance', of everything that can respond to need or desire'; 'the gap between desire and need' has been cancelled. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Derrida has put his finger on what capitalism is and paradoxically, what communism is. For this abundance, this growth, this 'cancellation of the gap', was promised to us by Marx and the Marxists of the first half of the 20th century. We find these themes in the writings of Lenin and Trotsky, and even of Stalin and Khrushchev. In the form given to it by Kojève, the communist idea may have won me over in my youth. Perhaps, had I encountered it, I would have declared myself to be a communist. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>V. In conclusion: Hegel and Christian Science</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The idea of the reconciliation and the unity of opposites stands at the center of Hegel's philosophy, and I will explain it in non-philosophical language and how it bears on the subject of the discussion. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In our reading of Hegel, we see that his account of the self, or consciousness, or soul, is a narrative proceeding through stages. In the narrative's first half, the inner self and the outer world stand opposed to one another. That is to say, one is dissatisfied with the world because it does not live up to one's expectations, it does not conform to the ideal one may have of it. But then a change takes place, and the situation improves. Suddenly - and the transition can be quite abrupt - the outer world and the inner become the one and same. One's fond imaginings become reality; the world of one's heart's desire, and the world as it really is, become identical. Thus, the 'gap is canceled'. This is Hegel's Absolute Idea. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">How did the improvement come about? From Hegel, we can deduce two answers, one contradicting the other. The first is that the outer world was brought closer to one's heart's desire by a deliberate effort: one worked to make the ideal real. The second is that perhaps the reality of the outer world matched the ideal of one's inner all along: the outer world does not need any improvement, it has already met one's heart's desire, it already stands there complete and perfect. And we fail to recognise its completeness because our consciousness is defective. Here Hegel begins to sound like Peale and Eddy. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now, as stated at the outset, Positive Thinking does not sit well with the politically-minded. In particular, it meets with a violent reaction from the Marxists, who are a perpetually dissatisfied people. To repeat, the political activist is someone who wants something that is not there, that is, he wants something that is missing; he detects a privation in the world and he wants ameliorate it. And the more radical he is, the more completion he wants. </span><span style="font-size: large;">He invites his audience to inspect the existing state of affairs and find it wanting, which is why he often meets with the accusation that he wants to induce a state of discontent. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Usually in the narrative put forth by the rabble rouser a fix can be achieved through a simple means: a vote for Trump, a Marxist revolution. But if the remedy is not close to hand, then one is made to feel discontented and for nothing. One then arrives at the sad truth that lofty goals cannot be attained in this world, only in the next. When the normie realises that he has been backed into such a corner, he drops out of politics, and after the experience, he is a little wiser and a little more discontented than before. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Under the direction of the demagogue, the masses are to turn away from what little sources of satisfaction there in their lives, and they become worse off as a result. </span><span style="font-size: large;">The normie then rues his dabbling in politics and his allowing himself to be seduced by what Spengler calls 'subverters, rhetors, and fantastics'. Perhaps he would have benefited from the ideas of Peale and Eddy. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The standard objection to Peale and Eddy is that evil does exist in the world and that it exists objectively; it is not a trick played upon oneself by one's own mind. But Peale and Eddy, and Hegel before them, were striving for a mystical insight that is detached from everyday perception. The man who secures the insight stands far above. His view of human existence is (in language of cinematography) a bird's eye view as opposed to a worm's eye. In one of his most famous poems ('Lapis Lazuli', written in 1936), Yeats, after climbing to the top of a summit from which he looks down upon on mankind, acquires the bird's eye view. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">One has to ask if the political activist today can stand on that plane; if the activist can reach that mystical objectivity; and to reach it, if he must be made of the same stuff as a Taoist sage or a Buddhist monk. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">To arrive at an answer, we need understanding of what it is that distinguishes the right-wing mind from the left-wing, seeing that we are on the Right, and that we must know our own politics, for inability to know it could stand in the way of our apprehending the truth, which is what Hegel calls the Absolute Idea. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The conservatives who claim that radical leftists are mentally ill (that is, insane - 'mental illness' being a euphemism for insanity) are correct: discontent lies at the heart of the leftist's being, and this is a discontent that makes him unhinged, a discontent that will always be there, a discontent that will always finds it justification in whatever the ideology he comes across. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Unlike the man of the Left, the man of the Right started off his life as contented, not discontented, and he was fortunate enough to experience only recently a way of life that was good and proper. The life in that past compares favourably to life in the present, for at some point in the recent past society took a wrong turn; now life gets worse every year. Henceforth the rightist devotes himself to the task of stopping the rot and preserving what is good, true, and sane. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The thought of almost every radical rightist from Hitler to Trump progresses in such a manner. In the time of his innocence, the intelligent and distinguished man who has not yet entered politics may lean towards a nationalism and patriotism that are mundane and everyday. His opinions may be so widely shared, and so ordinary and commonsensical, such that he may define himself not as a radical or a conservative but as a moderate; he may incline towards liberalism, even socialism. But then a catastrophic event intervenes, the old certainties vanish, and the world as he knows it is turned upside down. But while it changed, he stayed the same. And by his clinging to what was once previously regarded as the norm, he is abominated as a reactionary. The Left considers him to be dangerous. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">He could be either Hitler or Trump: Hitler once knew a Vienna that was supreme and good before the catastrophe, Trump once knew a Manhattan. In the first half of the essay, I lauded the past like a Hitler or a Trump would have, and it would be easy to build a conservative, even reactionary, position upon that past, setting off the good past against the bad present. This conservatism would point out the undeniable truth that the West of twenty and thirty years ago compares most favourably against the West of 2023. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Such a position would be right-wing and reactionary; at the same time, it would be something of an evasion. For the likes of Hegel, Eddy, and Peale reached a mystical objectivity that looms far above the populism of a Hitler or a Trump. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When faced with a choice between those two perspectives, to which one should we ourselves strive towards: the mystical or the political? Our first instinct is to respond, the political. This is because we find it difficult to escape the prosaic and the everyday; we lack the detachment of a Hegel, who wrote the <u>Phenomenology of the Spirit</u> (1807) when the French and Prussian armies were coming to blows in Jena a few kilometres away. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Of course, the privations experienced by Europeans in the Hegel's exceed those of ours. Everyday wisdom says: compare and contrast the bad times against the good, and count your blessings. But platitudes miss the point. According to his interpreters Koyré and Kojève, Hegel understood that a fundamental change had occurred at the turn of the 19th century, a change which, in Kojève's view, was for the better. And its beneficial effects were such that they would not have disappeared one to two hundred years later; that is, they would not have been negated by Biden, transsexuals, Black Lives Matter, wokeness, inflation, Covidianism, LGBTism, and race-swapping Disney movies. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The detachment of Hegel approaches that of a Buddhist sage, and clinging it to it through circumstances as adverse as those endured by Hegel requires determination and grit; we can infer that Hegel himself practised a daily mental self-discipline and made a habit of shutting out of his consciousness the Napoleonic Era's cholera, starvation, economic disruption, and corpses. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As profound as it was, the truth of Hegel did not differ overly much from the truth of the Bugman. But whereas Hegel came to that truth by means of logic, the Bugman came to it by dint of his existence. The Bugman understands Hegel's Absolute Idea only instinctively, and he cannot put it into intellectual form. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We have, then, come full circle, and if we are to take the Bugman as an exemplar, we must follow Bugman law. We must live according to his precepts. And what are these? Sit on one's couch, play 'vidya', eat junk food, and smoke dope. Live the life that I did thirty years ago: frequent the convenience store, the fast-food restaurant, the shopping mall, the comic book shop, and treat those places as sacred sites. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">An alternative to the Bug Man does exist, that alternative being the political in Carl Schmitt's sense. Reading between the lines in Kojève, we almost detect Kojève and Schmitt, who were good friends, exchanging views. Here one thinker who is apolitical confronts another who is political. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the present, the Apolitical Man stands on top; but Political Man, long suppressed, may erupt to the surface. </span><span style="font-size: large;">For now, he stands in abeyance, and if we are to decide between the two, we must come down in favour of the Apolitical. When taking all the evidence of the past three years into consideration, we must render the verdict that the Political has not delivered, and that our hankering after it has caused unneeded mental strife, friction, and turmoil. In order to ameliorate our condition, we must seek something else. And perhaps that something else is the way of the Bugman. </span></p>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-27184073167300148612023-05-30T05:01:00.000-07:002023-05-30T05:01:30.639-07:00On the Russian Way of War<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimKtq9JNe9XR7cEXTOF3DETrEjEp0Ft-XYFpZqR8iFVniRPUYljrIcgv6vQzJq1k5E4v74mg3gr4mznxZMT5AJSnC5Zs5E7wIiTLWssdi6USExzWv2VVHqv7IjOmIYUjlhYCfhGbEtxygkgUKjUrG1TTIcUDI5PUF_TXJcMmD-kMYc77lhYme5JDqFVQ/s1024/1647004141315.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="746" data-original-width="1024" height="466" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimKtq9JNe9XR7cEXTOF3DETrEjEp0Ft-XYFpZqR8iFVniRPUYljrIcgv6vQzJq1k5E4v74mg3gr4mznxZMT5AJSnC5Zs5E7wIiTLWssdi6USExzWv2VVHqv7IjOmIYUjlhYCfhGbEtxygkgUKjUrG1TTIcUDI5PUF_TXJcMmD-kMYc77lhYme5JDqFVQ/w640-h466/1647004141315.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>I. Don't mention the war</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Certain of my readers have asked why I have not written here at length on the present Russo-Ukrainian War. My answer is that we in the nationalist community are not military analysts by profession, and our falling short in the field of military science is evident from many of our writings on the war, most of which lack real depth and evince little knowledge of Russian military history and by extension little knowledge the Russian national character. On top of this, events in the war move quickly, too quickly, for us; by the time an article is published online analysing the latest developments, the war has moved on. To keep readers up to date, one must work as a reporter does and file a news story nearly every day, and journalism of that sort is not our job. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Our natural instinct is to get to the bottom of the political implications of the war, and one means of doing this is to determine in advance what the outcome of the war will be. Yockey once wrote that Americans see as a kind of sport, and perhaps this explains why it is that so many analyses published by the American dissident Right show a preoccupation with 'winning': who is 'winning' the war at the moment, will the Russian capture of a few city blocks in some Ukrainian podunk town lead to a Russian 'victory'? The trouble with this line of thinking is that wars in the 21st century do not lead to clear-cut outcomes, the Afghanistan War of 2001-2021 being the exception; wars these days are often indecisive. Who 'won' the Nagorno-Karabakh War of 2020? Who won the American-Iraq War that began in 2003 but finished who knows when? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In order to obtain a more accurate understanding of what actually happens in a war, we must look to the military capabilities of both the belligerents and assess an army's performance using the criterion of military competence. Such an investigation will reveal more than a recounting of who won and who lost, and in particular, it will reveal which side was qualitatively the better. Napoleon's La Grande Armée lost Waterloo, but no-one would deny - even Napoleon's enemies would not deny - that the Grande Armée was the finest army in Europe at the time, perhaps of all time. Likewise, Germany lost both world wars, and no-one esteems the German Army any the less. When it comes to the present war, then, can we say that the Russian army has performed brilliantly, or at least competently? If not, what does that say about Russia's chance of 'victory'? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Casualties make a good measure, perhaps the best, of an army's skill, but the difficulty presented to us by an examination of casualties is that casualties are always subject to dispute, especially in the present war. Whereas the American army assiduously keeps records of its casualties, counts its dead, publicises its dead, and makes sure that the remains of its soldiers are repatriated and buried in well-tended graves, the Russian army is completely the opposite, a reverse-mirror image of the American. In the present war, Russian casualties are hidden, not only from foreign observers but from the Russian people themselves; indeed, Russian leaders took some time to acknowledge that there was a war on. The true figures are hidden behind a thicket. But this is nothing new. We are still debating the casualty count for the siege of Verdun a hundred years ago, and it took British historians decades to raise the possibility that their casualties in that war may have exceeded those of the Germans; when Churchill in the 1920s touched upon this discomforting subject, he was howled down. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Losses in tanks, other vehicles, weapons, equipment, are easier to verify than losses in men; we can count the number of Russian wrecks in Ukraine and note the paucity of Russian tanks and vehicles at this year's May 9 Victory parade in Moscow. From observation we can infer reasonably enough that Russian stocks are running low - and evaluate the Russian army's competence thereby. For even the best armies can experience grievous losses - superior generalship, training, weapons, equipment, military traditions, do not make soldiers bulletproof - but the losses endured by Russia in such a short time, against an army that is not one of the world's finest, really do indicate something important, and that is, the Russian army has not changed much in the past 170 years. The Russian people themselves have not changed much either. The war so far confirms one of the main assertions of racialism and hereditarianism, and that is, people do not change, they do not improve; altering their environment and even their ideology (e.g., communism) will not affect them - you will see no progress, no evolution, no development, in their national and racial character. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The Marquis de Custine wrote in 1839 that Russia was the only country in the world run by its secret service; that is true then as it is now: old books written on the old Russia do not lie. The past, then, will be our guide if we are to predict the outcome of this war - who will win and who will lose, and what the fate of the Russian people and the Putin regime will be. The history we will be examining here will be the history of Russians and war, and in particular, Russia's military performance, and this is in the war that changed the course of history and that led to the decline and destruction of the West. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>II. A War to End All Wars</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The war in Europe that had such irrevocable effects on Western man's destiny took place in the century. Then Germany was caught on a war on two fronts: Russia in the East, England, France, and then finally the USA in the West. Germany lost, but performed admirably well all throughout the war, whether its army was fighting on the offensive or the defensive. The army owed its defensive successes to its elaborate fieldworks and fortifications - as Rommel noted during the war, 'Our recent experiences indicated but one way of keeping casualties down—the deep </span><span style="font-size: large;">trench' - and its offensive successes, to its possessing weaponry that was technologically advanced (at least at the start of the war), its deployment of enormous numbers of well-trained officers, and its use of innovative tactics that were to become <i>de rigueur</i> for all the armies of the world. And more than any other army, the German army understood that a fundamental change in war had occurred in the 20th century, and that was this: firepower had replaced marksmanship. The machine gun, the mortar, the grenade, the flamethrower, and above all, the high-accuracy artillery bombardment: all had usurped the rifle and the bayonet. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The war introduced Europe to the phenomena of death from above, something we have seen plenty of in the present Russo-Ukrainian War (in the opening days of Russia's offensive, a column of Chechens sent to kill Zelensky and his government in Kiev was massacred by drones). This form of warfare is impersonal; a soldier will rarely see the other soldier who kills him. As Montgomery wrote in his memoirs: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">The Germans advanced... and began shelling us heavily.... The fire was so heavy we had to retire as we had not time to entrench ourselves.... We had to advance through a hail of bullets from rifles and machine-guns and through a perfect storm of shrapnel fire.... the whole air seemed full of bullets and bursting shells.... the whole of the rest of the day we were heavily shelled by the Germans.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The war raged all over the world, including the Pacific, where the Japanese went on a rampage fueled by a barely-disguised racial animus, a form of smash and grab raid that stole the white man's colonial possessions. For the purposes of this essay, we shall ignore this theater, as we are concentrating on Russia's performance in the East. All the same, the Eastern theater cannot be isolated from that of the West, especially so because it was on the Western Front that the war was lost for Germany. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Let us recount the particulars of the war on that Front. Germany invades the Low Countries and occupies the northern half of France; England is forced to retreat from Belgium in a humiliating fashion, but thanks to its skill at public relations (and what Churchill called the 'War of communique'), manages to spin the retreat as a great military triumph; even today Wikipedia calls the British evacuation a 'strategic victory'. The truth is that overall, the British and French military performance in the war left much to be desired, which explains why it is that the British and French today avoid dwelling on it much. Nonetheless, Germany was unable to invade and conquer England, and so the German navy and air force resorted to strategic warfare against the English; Germany attacked English shipping with u-boats and subjected the British to an aerial bombardment (in what became known as the Battle of Britain). The British retaliated in kind with their own 'strategic bombing' of Germany and using its navy to blockade the Continent; the blockade, which was illegal under international law, led to the death by starvation of hundreds of thousands. These efforts were unable to budge the Germans from the Continent, however, and in compensation the British embarked on a series of hare-brained schemes around the Continent's periphery - the Balkans, East Africa, and the Middle East (England invaded Iraq; the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which saw American and British troops invading Iraq together, was not the first). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As a means of improving its military fortunes, England sought to build political alliances, and relationships between nations became pivotal as the war expanded northward and southward of the Continent. The Germans formed an anti-communist alliance with the Finns. Italy, and then Romania, flipped on the Germans and went over to the Allied side, much to Germany's chagrin, and to punish the Italians, the Germans invaded Italy from the north. In the case of Romania, perhaps sections of the Hungarian elite wanted to join Romania in betraying Germany, but Hungary by this point was too tightly bound to Germany to escape. But these alliances did Germany little good, because England managed to forge the most fruitful alliance of all - the one with America - and it was this 'special relationship' that tipped the war in England's favour. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The joint Anglo-American offensive against Germany began in the realm of ideas. In this period, the mass media acquired for itself enormous power; the era saw, thanks to the media, the rise to fame of what I call the celebrity soldier - Rommel, Montgomery, Patton, MacArthur, von Rundstedt, all of whom fought in the war. Inevitably, the media was put to military use and forged into a weapon. America and England waged war against Germany using propaganda disseminated through the mass media. In the space of a short few years, thousands of books, pamphlets, propaganda news articles (military censorship was extremely tight) were published; these were all incendiary and defamatory. The leader of Germany was slandered as a vain, capricious, erratic tyrant, given to displays of feminine histrionics; the German soul was dissected in relentless psychological analyses - and found wanting. It is interesting to note, from a modern day perspective, the sheer depth of the animus in these polemics. One has to ask why it is that the American and British never directed the same degree of hatefulness against the traditional enemies of Europe - Russia, Japan, Turkey - in this war and all the wars since. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This is not to say that Germany had a spotless record. It pursued a counter-insurgency campaign in the countries that it occupied, and it availed itself of draconian methods of collective punishment (but then, the Americans and the British did the same in the colonies). Because of German industry's rapacious appetite for foreign workers, Germany dragooned Europeans as forced labour for the German war effort. Germany's reputation diminished, and not the least because of the wild propaganda stories - including stories of Germans gassing uncounted numbers in Eastern Europe - circulating. Out of the steady and unceasing diet of anti-German propaganda, a new image of Germany was formed, one that survives to the present day day: the 'Prussian militarist', cruel, unyielding, harsh, authoritarian, clean, neat, efficient, impeccably groomed and dressed, and undeniably skilled in the arts of war. The gentle, artistic, sensitive, poetic German of the 19th century, with his taste for Romantic poetry and philosophy, Kant and Hegel, Beethoven and Wagner - that German vanished. His place was taken by the 'Prussian', who was said to be inspired by philosopher Nietzsche, the military theorist Bernhardi, and the historian Treitschke. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The actual Germans who fought in the war were baffled by this image of cold 'Prussian' brute; to judge by his memoirs, the German soldier saw himself a decent, noble, and above all earnest fellow. One could make an interesting digression here and write a monograph on what it is that the German means to the Anglo-Saxon; did he contrive this 'Prussian' German out of some (as the psychoanalysts would put it) 'deep rooted anxiety'? Does the Anglo-Saxon see the 'Prussian' as an 'Oedipal' figure.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The Anglo-Saxons, as the war progressed, became determined to destroy Germany; Germany had to be put down like a mad dog; its leaders were to be put on trial for 'war crimes'. Eventually, they got their wish and Germany was defeated; when America joined the war, it was all over for Germany. America at the time was led by a bespectacled Democrat president who was a progressive, an idealist, and who was what we would call today a simp and a most dangerous one at that - a dangerous fool. Paradoxically enough, we moderns would also call him (to use 4Chan parlance) 'based'. He had strong electoral support in the Deep South, which was segregationist at the time, and his views of the negro that we would today consider to be white nationalist and racialist. One could debate whether or not he was good for America; but certainly one cannot debate that he was bad for Europe. He managed to coax America out of its traditional Isolationism and intervene on the side of the English, the result being the defeat of Germany, the breakup of Eastern Europe, the subsequent European ethnic turmoil, and (as Yockey noted) the strengthening of Europe's enemies. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">For many reasons, the Americans fought much better than the French, the British, and the Italians. The American landing in France had a ripple effect; the Germans were forced to withdraw their forces from the East to counter those of the Americans (and the resurgent British and Commonwealth) in the West. Perceiving the growing American threat, towards the end of the war the Germans launched a surprise counter-offensive against the American and Commonwealth armies with a view to encircling and then destroying them; the planning was carried out in great secrecy, the offensive took the Allies by surprise, and it was executed with the usual German élan. But despite great initial success, which saw the rout of some of the Allied forces and an advance many kilometers deep, it quickly bogged down, partly because of strong American resistance. And now the Germans had shot their bolt; and now the Allies were now able to smash through the German lines with ease. Rapid German disintegration happened elsewhere as well; the German positions collapsed in the Balkans and the north of Italy (the Allies defeated them there with an agglomeration of American, Commonwealth, 'Free' French, and 'Free' Italian forces). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">One of the odder sequels of the war was that America's eyes were opened, at last, to the danger that was Russia. As the war drew to a close, Germany made appeals to European unity - and Western unity - against the menace from the East and against 'Bolshevism'. Eventually those appeals were heard by the Americans and certain of the British, including Churchill. After Germany's defeat, America began a series of military interventions against Russia and at home, it underwent a 'Red Scare'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But America could never bear to pull itself away from Russia for too long. It is at this point that we see the beginnings of a pattern in American relations with Russia. America makes friends with Russia, Russia behaves in a barbarous fashion, making America feel misgivings. Finally the extent of the Russian wrongdoing, and its provocative character, forces America to break off its friendship. Russia collapses militarily, politically, economically; America then comes to Russia's aid; America renews its friendship with Russia. And so on, ad infinitum. If after the present Russo-Ukrainian War, Russia collapses, and descends into the abyss, plenty of Americans will be clamouring for relief for Russia - 'The faults of the Putin regime are not the faults of the Russian people' - and inevitably, America will rescue Russia, only to be met with Russian ingratitude. And so the cycle will continue. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>III. The War in the East</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This brings us to the East. From a modern perspective, the war on the Eastern Front is much more interesting than the war on the Western, and one of the reasons why is because of the underlying racialism. The French and the Germans disliked one another, but this was a hatred between brothers; as Spengler says, no hatred is deeper than that between brothers. On the other hand, the enmity between the Russians and the Germans was racial, not familial. In the past, the Germans and the Russians had made a marriage of convenience - especially at the time of the partitions of Poland - but by the time of the war, neither had any illusions about the other. A wide gap separated the two. A mutual awareness of racial dissimilarities caused that division. The Germans were accused of harbouring impious racial thoughts against the Russians, and to this day, English and American historians assert that the supposed German 'anti-Slavic' racialism contributed to Germany's defeat; if Germany had not viewed 'The Slavs' as 'subhuman', well, perhaps they would have fared better politically in the occupied Eastern territories. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">We have this from a book written by Anglo-Saxon authors on the Eastern Front: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The Germans, for their part, saw nothing worth admiring in Russia. Much of this attitude came from centuries-old German racism against Slavs. The Germans saw </span><span style="font-size: large;">in the Russians, and Slavs more generally, everything that they despised. The Russians were the polar opposites of Germans: unruly, filthy, and backward in almost every sense. They had failed to take advantage of the massive natural resources of the Russian hinterland and had been badly humbled by an Asian power in war, both inexcusable failings in the eyes of early twentieth-century Germans. If anything, the Slavs were seen as impediments to the modernization and development of Eastern Europe and its incorporation into the European system. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">German disregard for the Russians had serious consequences. The Germans expected that the Russians would be slow to mobilize and inefficient in their use of their military power. German officers were aware of some of the strengths of the Russians, especially the size of their army and the expanse of their territories, but the Germans were not afraid. They presumed that the natural German advantages of efficiency, leadership and industry would allow them to win a war against a gigantic, but clumsy Russia. Most German senior officers, moreover, believed that an offensive war against Russia was preferable to defensive holding operations because a major offensive would put unbearable strains on the Russian state, as the war against Japan had done in 1904 and 1905.</span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">True or not, the above crystallises for us the image of the evil (and efficient) 'Prussian' who is biased against 'The Slavs'. Psychologist that I am, I detect - reading between the lines - the author's sympathy with the 'Prussian' view of the 'Slavs'. 'Unruly, filthy, and backward in almost every sense': could the author be using the 'Germans' as a sort of substitute mouthpiece for his own views of a people he deep down considers to be barbarous and backward? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In any case, even the authors are forced to acknowledge that the Germans for most of the war used the Russians as a punching bag. I use 'Germans' here loosely; in truth, the Germans of the Reich fought alongside Germans from other countries in Central Europe who were drafted into the German effort; one could say that these soldiers came from a Greater Germany. In addition, other nationalities outside of Germany - and religious faiths (e.g., the Muslim) - went to war for the Germans, and many of these were Slavic. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The progress of the war in the East is as follows. The Russian Empire is invaded by Germany and Germany's allies; Germany and its comrades sweep into the Russian half of Poland, the Baltics, the Ukraine, and the Caucasus; Russia, in turn, invades the German half of Poland, East Prussia, and Hungary. In an action that causes resentment against Russia that lingers to this day, Russia invades the Baltics with the intention of bringing its former colonies to heel. In typical Russian fashion, the military invasion is preceded by a political operation; Russia avails itself of the same tactics that, in the 21st century, it was to use in Ukraine, the chief of which is the founding of an 'Independent People's Republic' on enemy soil. In this timeline of Russian aggression in the Baltics we discover: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Founding of the Commune of the Working People of Estonia in Narva, seemingly an independent Estonian Soviet republic</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In reality, this was a puppet state of Soviet Russia founded solely for the purpose of portraying the conflict as a civil war. All the while, underground communist agitators were actively undermining the Estonian cause on the home front – something they would continued to do throughout the War of Independence.</span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Russia is as Russia does; we find in the Independent Estonian Soviet Republic (and the many other 'independent republics' after that) the precursors of the Donetsk and Luhansk 'republics'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Russia, then and now, is fighting to retain its empire. The question faced by the Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Ukrainians, and even Poles during the war is: who do you want as a master - the Germans or the Russians? The 'Slavs' were caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">To return to our narrative. Germany ousted the Russians from Ukraine with ease, and then settled down to the task of mobilising Ukraine and exploiting its resources for the German war effort. Opinions are divided as to how good or bad German rule was for Ukraine. The authority John Mosier states that the Germans did good things for Ukraine. But the Germans, even though using the services of Ukrainian collaborators (of the type that Putin today castigates as 'Nazi' and 'Banderist'), aroused resistance, and the Ukrainians began a ferocious partisan war against the Germans. This came to an end only after the setbacks in the Western Theater. Then the Germans pulled up stakes and left the Ukrainians to the tender mercies of the Russians. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">How did the Russians perform militarily against the Germans? To their credit, the Russians, like the British, never wavered for the most part, despite extraordinary losses in men and materiel in battles of encirclement and annihilation. Viewed from a distance, the German effort seemed somewhat pointless, as the Russians, even after suffering a defeat, could trade men for space; that is, they could retreat, and the Germans could advance, but the Russians had plenty of room to fall back to; they could retreat to Moscow, then Siberia, and then Vladivostok if need be. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">And on the offensive, the Russians could get their licks in. No one can doubt the ability of the 'Russian Steamroller' to terrify. (A nationalist comrade of mine recalls the fear he felt for the Ukrainians in the opening days of the 2022 invasion, when the Russians reached all the way to Kiev). In the middle of the war, the Russians launched one well-planned and devastating operation against the Germans in the south; this is the most famous (thanks to Russian publicity) offensive of the war, and it shattered an entire German group. At their best, he Russians could administer a punch that would make their opponent's teeth rattle. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Little discussed, however, is the simultaneous offensive in the north; this belongs among the worst disasters in Russian military history; it incurred disastrous losses. To convey the character of this botched offensive, we should attend to the words of a German soldier who fought in the battle: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">Towards evening the enemy fire became somewhat quieter, allowing us to ascertain the situation in case of possible deployment in the German positions. At the same time, work columns strove to bring forward ‘Spanish riders’ [pre- </span><span style="font-size: large;">assembled barbed wire obstructions] for essential reinforcement and improvement of the partly badly damaged entanglements. By the ghostly light of the con</span><span style="font-size: large;">stantly fired illumination rounds, I was able to get a view of the field. In any case, I had to accompany my men who were moving forward. It was a grim scene. Entire assault columns lay, or rather seemed to stand, as if they had been so determined to force a breakthrough that the dead still threatened to attack, forming grotesque heaps of corpses. The flickering light of flares gave them the illusion of sinister movement … All of us who saw these dreadful sights were certain that German soldiers could never have been made to suffer en masse like this. All of this could really only be achieved by barbaric training in blind obedience, which eliminated every independent thought. Stifled groans and tormented whimpers came from the macabre faces before us. They were just hopeless struggles against death, as any help merely meant more suffering. The dreadful horror of war clutched at our hearts with its loathsome claws... nobody said a word on the march back to our holding position... everyone was preoccupied with himself – and with thoughts that fled homewards.</span></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">If anything, the above quotation understates the carnage wrought. From a historian's perspective, the above account is noteworthy because it illustrates a Russian military tradition; this serf-like obedience - or is it ant-like obedience? - carries on into the conduct of the Russian army in the present war. <a href="https://nationalvanguard.org/2023/03/russia-the-bloody-insanity-of-we-can-repeat-part-2/" target="_blank">Wolf Stoner</a> writes of the parallels between the disastrous Russian crossing of the Severskii Donets south of Belgorod in late 1943 and the equally as disastrous crossing of the same river in May 2022. His account is tragi-comic: it both amuses and saddens. And such a recital leads naturally to somber ruminations on the character of the Russian soul. Once again, the truths of racialism and hereditarianism are confirmed. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>IV. The War for Empire</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In the above section, the war I have described is WWI, not WWII, and the two quotations were taken from books on the Eastern Front in WWI, T<u>he Eastern Front 1914–1920: From Tannenberg to the Russo-Polish War</u> by David Jordan and </span><span style="font-size: large;">Michael S Neiberg, and <u>Russia's Last Gasp: The Eastern Front 1916–17</u> by Prit Buttar. To those familiar with both WWI and WWII, the parallels are striking: for example, Operation Uranus (the encirclement of the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad) and the following offensives = the Brusilov Offensive, and Operation Mars (the catastrophic failed offensive against the German Army Groups Center and North outside Moscow and Leningrad) = the Lake Naroch offensive, the aftermath of which is described in the gruesome battlefield description above. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">One key difference between the wars lies in the perception we have of them today, and that is, WWI is generally perceived as more mobile and more fast-moving than WWI. The Western Front in WWI - and much of the Eastern and the Mediterranean - is depicted as 'static', 'trench warfare', a 'war of attrition', in the popular narrative. After the opening months of the war, both the Allied and the Central Powers realised that the other was not going to capitulate soon, and indeed, had no need to capitulate; if forced to retreat, an army could move back a few kilometers and set up a new line; and if it lost men and equipment in a key battle, it could furnish plenty more. The end result was that one thick and immovable wall of troops faced another thick and immovable wall: one could not nip around the enemy's flanks like Napoleon or Frederick the Great, surround the enemy forces, and destroy them in a classical battle of annihilation. Because of these constraints, offensives in WWI are to be judged differently than those in WWII; any offensive that led to an advance of a significant distance (say, 20 kilometers) and with minimal casualties should be considered a great success. The tragedy of the British and French offensives was that they killed many British and French soldiers and accomplished little in the way of ground gained. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The other key difference is that the Russians won WWII and lost WWI. Even though the Germans and their Allies the Austro-Hungarians and the Turks administered a drubbing to the Russians, they lost regardless. One could conceive of an alternate history of WWII in which the Germans won the war on the Eastern Front and made Stalin sign a humiliating peace treaty and forfeit the Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltics, and the Caucasus; but in this history, the Germans would still go on to lose on the Western Front and the Mediterranean just as they did in WWI. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">While the Russians won WWII and lost WWI, the level of the Russian army's military competence stayed the same throughout the wars and the intervening pre-war period. The same cannot be said of the British and French armies, however. The French and British armies performed poorly in WWI but had high morale, and performed well in WWII but had low morale. At the time of the German offensives in 1940, the French and the British in the Western Front had some excellent soldiers, weapons, and equipment, but crumbled at the first of trouble. The British abandoned Norway, Belgium, France, and then Greece when put under pressure by the Germans, and the French capitulated, and then formed the collaborationist state of Vichy. Whereas, in WWI, France and England fought on and on, despite suffering huge casualties; they never wavered. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Militarily, Russia stayed the same and politically it stayed the same as well. In the period of the Russian Civil War (really a misnomer, as we shall see), the Russians set to work conquering their lost colonies Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine; they also went to war in East and Central Asia to regain the colonies originally in the 19th century; some of the biggest revolts against the Moscow Bolshevik regime took place in Asia. The objective of Lenin, and then Stalin, was to reconstruct the empire of the Tsars. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Often the flimsiest of excuses would be used for a <i>causus belli</i>. Russia invaded Finland in 1939 on the justification that the German fascists would use Finland as base from which to attack the USSR - and this barely months after the ink had dried on the Hitler-Stalin Pact. The real motive, of course, lay in Russia's imperialism; ever since Ivan the Terrible's massacre of the inhabitants of the mercantile city-state of Novgorod, the Russians showed a desire to quash, with force and fury, any Russian subjects who show inclinations to sovereignty and independence. In the post-Soviet period, this paradigm carries over into the Chechen Wars and the present Ukrainian War. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">When it comes to Ukraine, we can note the Ukrainian armed forces did succeed in beating the Russian - twice - but that they did so only with the assistance of the Germans and then the Poles. Once Germany and Poland had vacated the battlefield, Russia had an open field. The Ukrainians, in 1917, were as weak as they were in 2014; they had no real army, no strong state, no unified leadership, and they withered in the face of the Russian onslaught, which was both military and political. For the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 1918 followed the same script as the invasion of 2014; the Russian set up an 'Independent People's Republic' on Ukrainian soil (this time in Kharkov) and then went and invaded to 'rescue' the 'separatists' in that 'republic' from the Kiev regime. In <u>The Ukraine: A Submerged Nation</u> (1944) by William Henry Chamberlin, we find: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The disappearance of a strong central government in Russia [in 1917] favored the growth of Ukrainian nationalism up to the point of separatism. There was a political vacuum, which the Rada [Ukrainian parliament] naturally filled. But the building up of a strong and stable Ukrainian Government in an atmosphere of social chaos, hunger, and economic collapse proved impossible. </span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">The Soviet Government on December 17, 1917, sent an ultimatum to the Rada, accusing it of “carrying on a two-faced bourgeois policy, concealing itself </span><span style="font-size: large;">behind nationalist phrases.” Specifically it demanded that the Rada should stop the passage of anti-Bolshevik military units through the Ukraine, support the </span><span style="font-size: large;">Bolshevik effort to put down the hostile forces led by the Don Cossack Ataman Kaledin, and cease disarming Soviet regiments and Red Guards (a Bolshevik </span><span style="font-size: large;">workers’ militia) in the Ukraine. Unless these demands were accepted within forty-eight hours, the Soviet Government announced it would consider the </span><span style="font-size: large;">Rada “in a state of open war against the Soviet regime in Russia and in the </span><span style="font-size: large;">Ukraine.” </span></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">How much this reminds us of Putin's ultimatum to Ukraine and demand for compulsory 'de-Nazification'. Putin was following <a href="http://romaninukraine.com/rt-munsecconf-our-most-watched-video-of-2022-prime-minister-of-estonia-kajakallas-explaining-soviet-negotiating-tactics/" target="_blank">principles enunciated by Soviet foreign minister Andrei Gromyko</a>: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">According to FM Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet negotiation strategy had three principles:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">1. Demand the Maximum. Don’t ask, demand something that has never been yours.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">2. Give Ultimatums. Threaten</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">3. Don’t give an inch in negotiations. Rely on Westerns who will always offer something.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Russia accuses a neighbour of perfidy, makes an ultimatum (no negotiations, no compromise), and then invades. It is easy to imagine that at the time of the first Russo-Ukrainian War, Ukraine and its friends were as paralysed by the Bolshevik ideological offensive as they later were by the Putinist. One's first instinct is to dispute these accusations, and make an argument with the Russian enemy, and deny that one is a bourgeois, a capitalist lackey, a tool of the bourgeoisie, etc; but one gets sucked into quicksand in doing so. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Unfortunately for Ukraine, it lost the first Russo-Ukrainian War. It did not get to enjoy, like Finland, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, the fruits of independence. The Poles abandoned Ukraine, having become exhausted after its war with Russia, and signed the Treaty of Riga in 1921. As to why the Russians signed a treaty, as usual they were forced to do so only by adverse circumstances. Russia had suffered a military setback - it had just lost the Polish-Russian War - and was facing revolt at home; the peasants were revolting against Moscow in the region of Tambov. (As to what became of these peasants: the Moscow regime used poison gas on them; the peasants were crushed with the usual brutality). Ukraine, then, was doomed, and it entered seventy years of Russian captivity (de Custine called Russia the 'prison of the nations'). The episode of the 1917-21 Russo-Ukrainian War should be studied carefully, as it gives the lie to the new Russian contentions that 'Ukraine is a made-up country' and that 'Lenin created Ukraine'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>V. Why the War?</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">When looking at the history of Russia in the past seventy-five years, we are confronted by two wildly diverging estimates of the power and skill of the Russian army. Any young man who grew up during the Cold War and who took in interest in military affairs respected and feared the Red Army. A hundred movies, TV shows, novels, and works of speculation as to what WWIII would look like assured him that the USSR possessed overwhelming might and that in a conventional war, the East would overcome the West in Europe in the space of a few weeks. <u>Inside the Soviet Army</u> (1984) by Viktor Suvorov has a photo of a massed formation of tanks; in a caption underneath it, Suvorov writes:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">Soviet standard: 120 tanks and 250-300 guns to one kilometre of penetration front. Only a neutron bomb can stop them. </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As a corrective to this view, we have the analysts who after the end of the Cold War took a dim view of Russian military capabilities. John Mosier, who writes extensively on the Russian army in WWI and WWII, is scathing. Like a good many good many observers before 2022, I agreed with Suvorov, and after 2022, with Mosier - as must Putin and other members of the Russian leadership in their heart of hearts by now. But it</span><span style="font-size: large;"> would seem that, contra Mosier, Putin wildly overestimated the Russian army's abilities before 2022. In February 2022, he and the Russian leadership evidently believed that Russia could defeat, conquer, and occupy a nation of 45 million with a scratch force of less than 200,000 men. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Why, then, was it that Russia decided to invade Ukraine again and precisely at that moment? To ask that question is to ask what are the underlying causes of war. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I find a good working hypothesis in the work of the supply-side publicist Jude Thaddeus Wanniski (1936-2005). Being a sort of economic determinist (like Marx) and a neoliberal free-marketeer, he found his answer to the question 'Why war?' in economics. He sketched out a theory that economic tensions, caused by high taxes, bring about the political tensions that can threaten to explode into war. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The history of Japan in the 1930s and 1940s furnishes us with the classic example that confirms Wanniski's hypothesis. In 1929, the US Senate passed the Smoot-Hawley bill that imposed a tariff of 60% to 80% on virtually all imported goods. Other nations retaliated with their own high tariffs, and to understand how devastating this was to international trade, imagine that tomorrow every sales tax or value-added tax (VAT) or goods and service tax (GST) in your country was raised to 60%; markets would crash, participants in the market (that is, everyone) would cease or slow down their trading, and many would be unable to afford to survive. As goes the individual, so goes the nation. After 1929 Japan was locked out of the world trading system; unable to make its own oil, rubber, wool, wheat, etc., it was forced to raid other countries to obtain these basic goods, all of which are necessary to keep a country alive. In 1941, America, with a view to aggravating Japan, imposed draconian sanctions, compounding Japan's economic difficulties, and inevitably, Japan lashed out. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Was Russia in 2022 embroiled in a trade war? No, but it suffered from high taxes nonetheless. We must here broaden our definition of the word 'tax'. Inflation can be a tax; if the price of groceries rises by 10% (as it has in every supermarket in Australia), where did that 10% of one's income ago? In a tax - the inflation tax. Likewise, governments can impose a tax on the supply of labour and capital when it forces hundreds of thousands of businesses to close and people to be unemployed - this is what happened in the Covidian years. If we are to cast our minds back to late 2021 and early 2022, we will recognise how brittle the state of affairs was, not only in Australia but in the entire world. Along with Ukraine, Russia was embroiled in Covidianism, up to its neck in it, in fact, and evidence exists that Putin himself - like a good many boomers - was completely taken in by it. In such a morbid and suffocating atmosphere, a man can become unhinged - as can a nation. That, combined with a deliberately engineered worldwide economic contraction, explains why it is that Russia snapped, and in 4Chan parlance, it 'sperged out'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">One irony is that the onset of a war in Europe led to the end of the mandates. Another irony is that after the outbreak of war the Russians ended up behaving exactly as German WWII (and WWI) propaganda said they would. The Russians are performing the role assigned to them by that propaganda - the role of barbarians and marauders from 'The East'. This is from a <a href="https://freebeacon.com/culture/from-world-wars-to-the-cold-war-to-ukraine-how-central-europe-survives/" target="_blank">review</a> of a new book <u>The Middle Kingdoms: A New History of Central Europe</u> (2023) by Martyn Rady: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">Rady draws Central Europe to include the lands from Germany to Poland and then south to Slovenia, with some brief excursuses into the Baltic and Ukraine. By doing so, Rady draws one of the key underlying threads of the book, namely that Central Europe's main threats have always come from the east, from the Huns and the Tatars to the Russians. Indeed, Central Europe thus conceived is the bulwark, the Christian antemurale, against the mythical Scythians riding their horses from the Asiatic steppes on their destructive westward raid. Today's Ukraine tragically carries this role as it grinds, at heavy cost to its own people, the Russian military machinery led by a modern-day tsar on another imperial push.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Such themes formed a staple of German propaganda. From a <a href="http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-reich-and-europe/" target="_blank">speech</a> by Himmler in 1943: Today there are only these heathen alternatives: Either Germany, the German Wehrmacht and the countries allied with us and thus Europe are victorious, or the inner-Asiatic-Bolshevik wave breaks over the oldest cultural continent from the East, just as destroying and annihilating as this was already the case in Russia itself.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In a sense, Putin is right: any nation to the Russia that resists the onward sweep of Russia is Nazi; Zelensky and the Ukrainians qualify as honorary Nazis. But in all seriousness, Putin's 'Nazism' is far older than Zelensky or even the actual NSDAP; in the same way, Himmler's 'Bolshevism' was far older than Stalin and the actual Communist Party of the Soviet Union. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">After 2022, the European and Russian past came back to haunt us; we saw an instance of what Freud called (in another connection) 'The return of the repressed'. We are forced to confront that past, whether we like it or not, now that Russia has revealed its true face. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The question I today regard as the most pertinent concerns the political fate of those in the West (both on the Far Left and Far Right) who have invested so heavily in the Putin regime after 2014. Their future depends much on a Russian victory in this war. What will befall them if and when Russia loses the war and the Putin regime collapses? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><br /></p>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-33295985126832920412023-05-20T23:47:00.006-07:002023-05-21T01:23:04.359-07:00On a self-imposed exile from American politics: Trump, Thailand, Covidianism, diet, soap operas, self-help<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qj9uxk0ASsk" width="320" youtube-src-id="Qj9uxk0ASsk"></iframe></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b> I. Where we are</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">After the start of 2020, the Covidians in Australia, America, Canada, and elsewhere in the Anglosphere crushed all politics; they plunged us into what Carl Schmitt called the age of 'depoliticisation and neutralisation'. Many of the Far Right comrades in my circle gave up on politics in that dark period - the darkest in Australian history - and few of them show a willingness to take it up again. Perhaps this spread of apathy is a natural phenomenon, one that accompanies growing old and the passage of time, but I think of it as being symptomatic of underlying realities. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The 2020s differs politically from the 2010s as the 1920s did from the 1910s. The Zeitgeist has changed, and the change has made itself felt in America as well as Australia, and in fact, signs of it first manifested themselves in America. The change is a deterioration, a rot, and America has been infected by it; America has come down with nihilism, and this is a malady that America has exported around the world. Australia would never have taken up Covidianism - lockdowns, shutdowns, compulsory masking, mandates - if America had not done it first; likewise, Australia took up obesity, 'trans rights', 'woke' activism, cancel culture, critical race theory, racial animosity to white people, following America's example. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The media, on the Left or Right, customarily exaggerates the evils of the world and always seeks to make things seem worse than they are. But even taking that fact into consideration, if we are to judge by news reports, life in America has become unlivable. For a few years now, I have every morning read through a selection of conservative and white nationalist American news sites; on these the pundits deliver nothing but bad news, so much so I have come to call this daily serving the 'bad news bulletin'. A sort of defeatism pervades the American Right, whether it be Center Right or Far Right (the lines between the two are becoming increasingly blurred), and if we are to ask the pundits if a political solution exists to the American problem, the answer more often than not is: no. Their directive is that one must eschew participation in politics and concentrate one's attention on the task of improving one's own lot in life. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The theme of individual self-fulfillment recurs constantly in the American political (or perhaps anti-political) tradition; Americans understand racial unity - on this subject they are expert - but not national, certainly not political. Americans on the Far Right especially tend to spurn politics and cut themselves off from the mainstream of American society. This is why the American Far Right, over the course of the past forty or fifty years, has stood apart from America. In this tendency one can detect not only aloofness but a sort of puritanism. The Far Right rejects American life and the small pleasures and enjoyments that can be found in American life. Light and dark shades appear in every decade of American history, and in American Far Right discourse, usually the light receives little in the way of emphasis. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A cheerfulness, confidence in the future, glamour, beauty, pervaded 1980s American pop culture - we see it in TV shows that became wildly successful in that time (e.g. <u>Miami Vice</u> and <u>Bold and the Beautiful</u>) - and contemporaneous American white nationalists such as William Pierce did not like it one bit. To take another example: the lifestyle of the characters in Oliver Stone's <u>Wall Street</u> (1985) seduces and entices - this is the point Stone was trying to make - and the William Pierces and Harold Covingtons rejected it. After repeated exposure to the writings of such men, we begin to suspect that they dislike the world view of <u>Wall Street</u>, <u>Bold and the Beautiful</u>, <u>Santa Barbara</u>, etc., because it is insufficiently bleak and myopic. Perhaps they would have approved more a popular culture and a Zeitgeist in which darkness overcame light. </span><span style="font-size: large;">It is true that a dark undertone did exist in the 1980s: the popular culture of the decade reveals a fear, bordering on a pathological obsession, of nuclear war between America and the Soviet Union, between West and East. But while this dark strain marred the eighties, it did not spoil it. </span><span style="font-size: large;"><span>In the decade following, darkness became more prevalent in pop culture - see the rise to eminence of goth and grunge - but overall, the tone of the 1990s, the decade of the 'End of History', was self-satisfied and complacent, free of guilt and self-reproach. The dark side, what Freud called the 'Id' and Jung the 'Shadow', reared its ugly head only in the form of the strange, fringe groups of which Pierce's National Alliance was one; these groups espoused radicalism, apocalyptism, and millenarianism. Considering the matter further, we can conjecture that perhaps the embrace of the millenarian worldview attests to a religiosity in the American soul. America enjoyed a period of economic prosperity in the 1990s, especially towards the end, but free-thinking Americans came to the conclusion that Man does not live by bread alone; and so they turned their backs on the world and thereby placed their worldview squarely in the tradition of Manichean and fringe religious tendencies. Continuing our joruney, and s</span><span>kipping over the following two decades, we come to the 2020s. In this decade so far, there is all dark, no light; and that suits many on the American Far Right just fine. Finally the Far Right is finding itself in tune with the Zeitgeist. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In this essay I will be looking at America, and America's domestic policy only; I will not be looking at America's foreign relations with, say, Europe, Russia, China, nor with the history of those relations; further, I will not be discussing America's participation in the war - any war, that is, WWI, WWII, the present Russo-Ukrainian War... My reason is as follows: all three of these wars involve Russia, and the Russian question these days is so powerful that it predominates in any essay and has a way of taking over the discussion. Here I do not want attention diverted away from America. Furthermore, as Roman Skaskiw <a href="http://romaninukraine.com/new-right-shares-the-same-underlying-precepts-of-the-old-hippie-left/" target="_blank">notes</a>, the American New Left - and now today much of the American dissident Right (see Unz.Org) - subscribes to two theses, the first of which that America never brings forth any good, and the second, that America is responsible for all the evil in the world. Like Skaskiw, I dispute both. The question I am tackling here is, 'Can an American drop out of Far Right politics and still enjoy the good life in America?', and Aristotle's Good Life stands out of reach in the hellish America that New Left propaganda depicts. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As to why one should drop out of the movement, the answer is that since the start of the decade, the movement has demonstrated its ineffectuality, powerlessness, and weakness; for one, it was crushed by the Covidian juggernaut. In addition, the latest Russo-Ukrainian War (really a re-run of the failed Ukrainian war of independence of 1917 to 1921) has split the movement. No better evidence of that split can be found than in 4Chan/Pol; two competing sub-forums now exist, one anti-Russian and pro-Ukrainian, the other pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian. Given all this, one is compelled to ask if one needs the movement and if one can find a use for it. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>II. The coup that dare not speak its name</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The American malaise extends beyond politics but owes part of its origin to politics, and the facts of American politics today are as follows. In 2020, for the first time in American history, a president was ousted in a coup. It was masterminded by Big Tech, Hollywood, the American Deep State, and the radical Left, all of them working in concert with the Democratic Party. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Almost overnight, North American politics became Latin American. A comparison must be made between Trump and Peron, a populist with deep support from the Argentinian working-class - the so-called '<i>demiscados</i>' (shirtless ones), who were the equivalent of Trump's deplorables. Peron, who was condemned by America at the time as a 'dictator' (despite his winning two elections in a row), was ousted in a 1955 coup and forced to flee the country. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Similarly, we can draw a comparison between Trump and the populist Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. When one assumes the mantle of the populist, one becomes loved by the people and one earns the wrath of the anti-people - the establishment; in populist political scenarios, 'the people' and 'the establishment' act in accordance with their roles, roles that seem almost pre-arranged, and they follow a set script. Predictably, Thaksin was ousted in a military coup in 2006. In exile, he plotted to regain power for his party and he organised for his sister Yingluck Shinawatra to run for prime minister in the elections of 2011. This saw another landslide victory for Thaksin's party, but Yingluck was ousted in the coup of 2014 and forced, like Thaksin, <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/08/asia/paetongtarn-shinawatra-thaksin-daughter-thailand-election-intl-hnk/index.html" target="_blank">to leave the country</a>. Thai courts tried both in absentia for 'crimes' and found both guilty. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Thaksin and his party remain popular, and now the question on everyone's lips is whether or not, after the current election, in which Thaksin's daughter Paetongtarn won big, the Royal Thai Army (RTA) will launch another coup. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">How the military might respond is a salient question. The RTA’s interventions over the past 15 years have been aimed at averting the return of the fugitive former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who became resoundingly popular after his election in 2001. Viewed as a threat to the country’s traditional royal establishment, Thaksin was removed from power in a coup in 2006, but the old guard has never quite succeeded in scrubbing away his influence.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">After 2006, as Thaksin-aligned parties won repeated elections, the establishment used a variety of underhand legal means, some straying into the absurd, to remove his proxies from office. Eventually, it lost patience and launched another coup in 2014 to remove his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, from power.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Despite all of these efforts, however, the Pheu Thai Party remains the largest party in the Thai parliament, and the five years of direct military dictatorship that followed the 2014 coup helped radicalize a younger generation of political activists that have taken aim not just at the military’s outsized role in Thai politics, but the monarchical power that stands behind it. True to type, after the youth-focused Future Forward Party scored significant gains in the 2019 election, a court banned it on a technicality. Its successor, the Move Forward Party, is now poised to run in the 2023 election.</span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">In this context, it is therefore perfectly reasonable for journalists to ask how military commanders would react to the return of opposition forces at next year’s election. Whether their answers tell us anything of substance is another question. Indeed, the RTA’s history of interventions in Thai politics ensures that the promises of its commanders are pretty much the opposite of reassuring.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Unlike Peron and Thaksin, Trump has not been forced to flee, but the Mar A Lago raid portends that he might. And Trump may like Thaksin be put on trial for 'crimes'. Already, an unconstitutional impeachment trial in the Senate has been held. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Up until the end of 2022, it was an open question as to if Trump and the Republicans would be allowed back into power. After the mid-terms, we can answer in the negative. The expertly rigged mid-terms of 2022 show that the Biden junta is not prepared to relinquish power; nor will it make even the slightest concession to Trump's party. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">After the events of 2020 and 2022, America at stands at a crossroads; this is one of the most significant periods in American history, perhaps the most significant since the American Civil War; the Democrats are now, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, in the business of 'abolishing elections'. Surely, then, the American dissident Right should take an interest in American politics? Perhaps it should fight the Democrats and the Left with a view to defeating them? But no: the American Far Right is thoroughly demoralised. See, for example, the slew of articles at Counter-Currents after the mid-terms; these seemed to welcome the American decline or at least acquiesce to it, and blame the Republican 'loss' not on the Left but the Right: 'A Faint Redward Dribble'; 'Why White Nationalists Don't Want a Red Wave'; 'The GOP Deserved to Lose, but Now What?'; 'The Red Ripple Was a Triumph for White Advocates'; 'A Depressing Election' (the title of this Kevin McDonald article has a picture of McDonald's melancholy visage underneath). In contrast, it is conservatives - many of them elderly - who showed fighting spirit, masculine vigour, and a willingness to call a spade a spade. 'Democrats are trying to steal our election, again'; 'America owes Donald Trump a 2nd term to finish the job'; 'Gaslighted: It's clear Democrats just stole another election'. The irony is that twenty years ago, white nationalists relentlessly attacked the boomer Ziocon Joseph Farah, chiding him for his pusillanimity; now the shoe is on the other foot. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It has become clear that the American Far Right repudiates politics; it has become (in Carl Schmitt's sense) apolitical, it no longer wants to make The Decision, if it ever did. Perhaps if we were to travel back in time to a hundred and sixty years ago, we would find, during the outbreak of the American Civil War, discontented and misanthropic intellectuals who insisted that both sides (the Union and Confederacy) were qualitatively the same - perhaps both were controlled by the Jews or Masons or Illuminati or whoever; ergo, neither represented the true interests of the white man; ergo, these intellectuals were not obliged to choose between Jefferson and Lincoln. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The American Far Right - and much of the Center Right - has abandoned the political; it fights on the field of culture. What can we say about that culture in the present decade? That it has been infected by a nihilism, as has been stated before; so what can be done to alleviate it? Would the re-election of Trump help? Another Trump term would see an improvement in American life, and on this I agree with the pro-Trump conservatives; but after performance of the Republicans in the mid-terms, a Democratic victory in 2024 seems likely, as does the margin of that victory exceeding that of 2020. In the last presidential election, Biden won 81 million votes, more votes than any presidential candidate in history. We can surmise that were the brain-damaged and cognitively challenged Fetterman, who 'won' the Senatorial race in Pennsylvania, to run for the Presidency in 2024, he would 'win' with not 81 but somewhere in the region of a 100 million votes. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Trump would be blamed for the loss, even if were not on the ticket (and he was not on the ticket in 2022 mid-terms); but it matters not if Trump were dead or exiled to Mars. The Republican candidate, whoever he may be, is being set up to lose.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">One prognostication is that the Democratic Party stands to stay in power for the remainder of the century, and this in part because the American Right has ceded all the ground to the American Left. A dark future looms ahead, one that many Americans, paradoxically enough, seem to relish. In the not-so-distant past, Americans exhibited many admirable personality traits, and one of them being an attitude - a 'can-do' attitude. This American optimism and determination achieved many extraordinary feats, and Trump belongs to that older generation of Americans who lived that ethos; these Americans would look at a problem and declare at once that it could be solved with a little American ingenuity. But for all his troubles, Trump is almost universally reviled on the American Right, especially by the many white nationalists and mainstream conservatives who seem to take a perverse pleasure in America's decline.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>III. The way of the 'normie'</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Given these gloomy predictions, it would make sense for the American individual concerned with his own self-preservation to get out of politics, altogether. And who knows, perhaps he could find inner freedom and satisfaction as a 'normie'. Dropping out of politics, he could become an average apolitical citizen. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">That would seem a wise course of action on the assumption the 'normie' perspective is the most wise, at least more wise than that of the dissident Rightist. This thesis has been propounded relentlessly by the liberals and the antifascists over the course of the past thirty years. The enemies of the Far Right will accuse anyone who takes up nationalist, racialist, anti-Semitic ideas, and even anyone who counsels even a mild immigration restrictionism, of cutting himself from good, normal, decent, human society. By adopting Far Right beliefs, he makes himself irrational, and he stands at risk of destroying himself and others. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When first encountered, the thesis is appealing, especially to the Far Right activist who feels burned out after many years of fruitless service in the movement. Apparently it seems confirmed by his everyday experience. But now, three years after 2020 and the onset of Covidianism, the thesis has been blown of the water. The 'normies', so commonsensical, so full of everyday salt of the earth wisdom, so moderate, so sane - have all revealed themselves to be the cranks, the crazy ones, the freaks. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Covidianism originated in communist China. The Chinese communists were the first to introduce cultism into modern politics, and to devise techniques of 'thought reform' or 'washing of the brain' (brainwashing). Following the Chinese example, the Australian political establishment (which includes doctors, politicians, journalists, police) turned cities such as Melbourne and Sydney into vast POW camps; and the residents were treated much like the American POWs in Chinese prison camps during the Korean War. Cults seek to remold a person, and one of the means of doing this is to make the abnormal normal. Behaviour that from any rational point of view which seems insane - behaviour such as wearing a filthy bacteria-ridden mask over one's face most hours of the day in the name of 'health' and 'avoiding infection' - becomes the dominant norm. It is the person outside the cult, the non-devotee, who is framed as the abnormal and crazy one, and peer-pressure and shaming, among other tried and true cult techniques, are used to bring him to heel. The member of the Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, etc., believes he is rational and in full possession of his faculties; it is you, the non-believer, who is hiding from the truth, and it is you who is the deviate. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Cultism cannot be maintained for long, however. Those who allowed themselves to be swayed by the Covidians, those who complied with the social distancing, the forced masking, the contact tracing, the endless and self-defeating Covid tests, the 'checking in' to visit a grocery store, the placing oneself under house arrest, the 'working remotely' (because offices were so 'unsafe'), the internment in concentration camps of people who 'tested positive', the mandates, and the persecution of the 'unvaccinated'; all of them were warring against nature. And this was a war they could not win. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">One has to ask why it is that they started the war in the first place. The answer is that the 'normie' is not so wise and moderate as first assumed. Covidianism revealed the darkness, irrationality, and self-destructiveness in his soul. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-dsBc9IBkNSzAAauISGZprYH7fKDoboYo9tidE4wuCoOV-MqrPQlxOYsro_bSEJBSMO4q9AGG3SGqHtIhxO-zm8y6HGfYCDGskdl_qAKaE6UyZbANtr-B-m7-JkJB4PhsMAowr4QGvsM5ecVWmXyAmKDtoDZkqCEd2RpklXbt5f9Oc7o7RY4gx3IHbA/s1260/PastaOnNormies.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="210" data-original-width="1260" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-dsBc9IBkNSzAAauISGZprYH7fKDoboYo9tidE4wuCoOV-MqrPQlxOYsro_bSEJBSMO4q9AGG3SGqHtIhxO-zm8y6HGfYCDGskdl_qAKaE6UyZbANtr-B-m7-JkJB4PhsMAowr4QGvsM5ecVWmXyAmKDtoDZkqCEd2RpklXbt5f9Oc7o7RY4gx3IHbA/w984-h247/PastaOnNormies.PNG" width="984" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Such knowledge breeds contempt. Before 2020, I believed that the 'normie', at least when he was gathered in a mass, possessed some form of nous, self-directedness, motive power. I also believed that if he was sufficiently angered and outraged, particularly by the exposure of a truth that had been hidden from him, he would revolt. But I was mistaken. Supposing that, in a surprising <i>volte-face</i>, the establishment admitted that it had sought to deliberately poison millions of people by foisting the clot shots upon them: what would the reaction of the 'normie' be? Would he revolt, assemble a pitchfork mob, descend upon Fauci and Gates, and lynch them? I do not think so: the 'normie' would probably yawn, shrug his shoulders, and go about his business. Like Nietzsche's Last Man, he would blink.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>III. In search of well-being</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">For the first three years of the 2020s, the West was obsessed by health. It put absolute security, absolute safety (from infection with Covid) before all else; this disproportionate concern made people unbalanced. One could not share a bus or train carriage, or walk into an office, for fear of being infected by others; one could not go out one's business without a wearing a mask and standing three feet away from others at all times. And the irony is that millions endangered their health in the pursuit of health. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A preoccupation with safety and self-preservation and an aversion to risk and danger is associated with the feminine, and one detect in Covidianism, and all cults, the womanly. And women hanker after security more than anything else. Many observers ask why it is that an indoctrinated member of a cult cannot simply walk out the door of the cult compound; why it is that he cannot extricate himself from the cult's grip. The answer is that in him a need for absolute security has been inculcated; the world outside the cult has been made to seem a dangerous place and freedom, threatening. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This is not to say that one should not value one's health. Many of the refuseniks who turned down the 'vaccine' did so because they wanted to preserve their health; they sought to avoid any of the sickness and even fatality associated with the 'vaccine'. This concern outweighed the admission to a bar or restaurant, the diminution of one's social status, the retention of one's job. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Health, well-being, the body, athleticism, vitality, aestheticism - all these are linked. One asks why it is that so many cities in America, Australia, and elsewhere in the Anglosphere, are so ugly; why the lives lived in them are so sub-optimal. The Great Replacement, of course, bears responsibility for bringing this state of affairs about, as does the architectural design of our cities - the American economist Nathan Lewis has made a convincing argument that cities are designed for cars and not for us. As for the inhabitants of these cities, well, today they tend more often than not to look unhealthy and unhappy. The reason for that (and it is one overlooked by nationalist and racialist polemicists) is simple: diet. Western man has, for the past seventy years or so, been overdosing on protein, fats, cholesterol, food acid (of the sort found in animals), and sulfur (also found in great quantities in mostly animals and animal products such as eggs). The carnivore can consume, digest, and excrete this offal with ease, and metabolise it, that is, turn it into energy, and do it all without harming itself; but Man, not being a carnivore, cannot. Because of the food he eats, Western man is afflicted by a number of ailments which could easily be avoided: heart disease, diabetes, atherosclerosis, strokes, cancer. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Something we notice most of all these days is obesity. Western man is more overweight than ever; one is shocked, when one looks at photographs of Australians and Americans forty to fifty years ago, to see how slender they once were. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The subject of what a man eats does not fit into an essay on politics; or so one would think. Oswald Spengler disagrees. In Spengler's <u>Decline-</u>, we are told that the philosophy of a Culture, along with its politics, art, mathematics, undergoes changes as it nears the end of a Culture's life. One symptom of change is that the philosophers who built grandiose systems - philosophers such as Kant and Hegel - pass out of fashion. The thinkers who succeed such men in the Culture's progression now educate, instruct, legislate; they teach men how to live their lives. The Culture enters the age of what Spengler calls 'unmathematical philosophy'. In the Western Culture the men who dominate this epoch are Nietzsche, Wagner, Schopenhauer, Ibsen. The 'unmathematical' intellectuals contemplate matters that were once regarded as mundane, and one of these is the question of correct diet. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Western (or Faustian) Culture has moved past the age of unmathematical philosophy, the high point of the philosophy having been reached around 150 years ago; we have now entered an epoch of 'Degradation of abstract thinking into professional lecture-room philosophy' and 'Compendium literature'. The history of the second half of the 20th century shows this to be true. In the end, the university reclaimed Sartre and Heidegger, the last two of the unmathematical philosophers, and made them safe, and as Colin Wilson notes, by the end of the century, Nietzsche - hitherto the most dangerous of modern philosophers - had become as respectable as Kant or Hegel. Even so, the episode of unmathematical philosophy, brief as it was, does give me a precedent for the explorations of apparently trivial questions of living. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If one takes the apolitical path and devotes oneself to the pursuit of freedom and self-actualisation, one usually immerses oneself in works of religion, philosophy, self-help, mysticism, New Age. Great as these are, they draw an incomplete picture, and they give an incomplete guide to living. One may follow the wisdom contained in the works of these schools of thought, one may gain great insight into the riddles of the universe, one may arrive at The Truth; but none of it will do any good if one is overweight, if one is suffering from a multitude of ailments, if one's body is breaking down. A physical deterioration leads to a mental and emotional. Any survey will reveal that most people who fall prey to vice eat am unsatisfactory diet, and the primary reason why they indulge in alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, is because their bodies are being deprived of vital nutrients. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">How then does one assure oneself of a sound body and thereby a sound mind? For European man, the answer is to return to what has been his traditional diet of the past four hundred years, and that is: potatoes and bread. A vegan diet - or as I prefer to call it, plant-based diet (something that sounds much less frightening) - constitutes the reverse of the 'keto' diet: a diet of potatoes, rice, lentils, split peas, corn, chickpeas, etc., is characterised by high levels of fiber and carbohydrate and low levels of fat and protein. If European man were to adopt the diet, he would return to form and eat what he has normally eaten for the past few hundred years. He would stop gorging himself on animals and animal products, which were once regarded as rarities and luxuries. And as a result, his health problems would be solved. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Veganism alone will not cure all man's ills, however. One can be vegan and unhealthy; earlier this year I saw in an Australian country town a grossly overweight young woman wearing a t-shirt that read 'Happy fat vegan'. Soy products combined with fake meat and dairy (usually both of these these are composed of soy) most likely caused her condition, as did no doubt copious quantities of the liquid fat that is vegetable oil, something that seems to be in everything these days, even bread.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>IV. In search of the past</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So far we have been concerned with Aristotle's notion of the Good Life. Is such a life still possible in America today? Was there a time in recent American history when people lived and lived well? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">During the lockdowns and riots of 2020, a poster on Counter-Currents remarked that his friends and relatives were retreating into the past to escape the present. They would seek entertainment - and reassurance - by watching episodes of old American TV shows such as <u>Dawson's Creek</u> and <u>The X-Files</u>. I understood this impulse of theirs, for in that year and the next two, I pulled off my own escape into the pop culture past; while working from home, I let hundreds of hours of a sixty-year-old American daytime TV soap play in the background. To keep up with the action, I would look up now from my desk and see what was happening on the TV screen; this is how one is meant to watch daytime TV soaps - not with one's full attention. (One could call it not overhearing, but over-watching). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The show became one of my favourites. I was particularly taken with the episodes of the 2000s; these had been put together by someone with an artist's eye. The soft and muted colours of the bedspreads, lampshades, wall paintings, stained wooden panels, were carefully coordinated. The sense of style impressed. The men's clothes pleased the eye; men's blazers, jeans, leather jackets, t-shirts, were of a cut that flattered the male figure irrespective of the wearer's age and size. The women's clothes registered, too, with the exception of one item fashionable at the time, this being a Lindsay Lohan-style blouse that looked like a cross between a chemisole and a maternity dress. In general, the characters looked good and lived well; they led better lives than I and millions of others did in 2020. One may object that this is TV and therefore it is a fantasy that bears no resemblance to real life, but I disagree; I myself owned and wore the same jackets, shirts, jumpers that the actors wore; unfortunately, these clothes grew old and tatty, as they always do, and I threw them out. So I see this TV show as being true to life. And watching it twenty years after, it seemed like a dream life. In particular, I was touched by one scene where two male friends, wearing svelte jeans and jackets, were enjoying a beer together in a bar that had techno music thumping in the background (the 2000s gave rise to good dance music); this was a pleasure forbidden to me and millions of others, because in 2020 bars and restaurants were closed down, and then reopened - but only for the 'vaccinated'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Am I making out that the 2000s was a golden era? Certainly, it was not - not politically, anyway - but Americans, to judge by the TV shows and commercials of the time, seemed to live Aristotle's Good Life. Now they live in a <a href="https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2023/03/10/pajama-nation-americans-have-morphed-into-the-people-of-walmart/" target="_blank">Pajama Nation</a>. The decade following the 2000s seems cheap and impoverished in comparison, something that can be attributed to the adverse economic circumstances following the 2008 financial collapse. But one cannot blame the markets entirely: fashion, culture, and aesthetics in the 2010s did not improve even after the brief economic revival under Trump. In the 2010s, it was as though Americans made the choice to live sub-par lives. It is no coincidence that in the 2010s all the daytime TV soaps in America were either canceled or deprived of the lavish funding that they had enjoyed in the decades prior. One can argue that these were sound business decisions - the popularity of print media and free to air TV was fading at the time - but all the same, Americans could have afforded to bolster these confections and bagatelles, which received far more by way of investment in the 1970s and early 1980s, when the American economy had hit rock bottom (and when, paradoxically enough, Americans had been more cheerful). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the 2010s, one sees the ghost of a more prosperous past in Lifetime and Hallmark movies. The Hallmark and Lifetime channels churn out by the dozen what were once called 'women's pictures' that go straight to TV. Clearly, an audience - a female American audience - exists for these (but not, apparently, for daytime TV soaps anymore). These productions are usually set in middle America, and watching them brings to mind the America of twenty to thirty years ago. The men and women characters (usually played by former soap actors) are predominately white and always look clean, healthy, and well-groomed; the leading men are often handsome, the leading women beautiful; the homes they live in look clean and prosperous (for one, the kitchen surfaces always gleam). Evidently the makers of these shows are portraying how decent working-class and middle-class Americans live - or want to live. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This ideal, which is perhaps only a fantasy, appears elsewhere in the Anglosphere. During the lockdown years, thousands of Australians who lived in Sydney and Melbourne sought to emigrate to rural and regional Australia, and as a result, house prices in those areas shot up to record highs. It is reasonable to assume that these Australians were leaving the city for the country to regain a lost purity and innocence; and perhaps they too wanted to live like Americans in a Hallmark or Lifetime movie. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Perhaps they were chasing a dream. America manufactures dreams and exports them all over the globe. Baudrillard explores the American world of myth and fantasy in his <u>Amerique</u> (1986), a chronicle of his road trip in the early eighties through America. This is his most readable work, and one feels the urge, after reading it, to hit the road and drive through American desert highways and drink whiskey in motels. It could be that after such a tour one will come away disappointed - in the words of the movie poster for <u>Easy Rider</u> (1969), 'A man went looking for America... And couldn't find it anywhere'. But illusion matters more than reality, at least to Baudrillard. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Truth does come into it as well; the reason why the soap opera subculture attracted a huge following is that the daytime TV soap genre reflects life. The soap is concerned with the feminine and the maternal; the heroine undertakes a journey through life marked by stops along the way, and these stops are romance, sex, marriage, pregnancy, childbirth, child-rearing. If the character is popular enough, she be the bride at an extravagant wedding (a soap staple) and wear a beautiful wedding dress. The female characters are always shown to be enjoying these events, and why not: they get to wear exquisite clothes. To judge by these weddings, American women's formal wear is eye-catching, even ostentatious, and men's is sombre, muted; men's clothes are always black or gray. Indeed, only in the 2000s could men in the West display plumage: the splendid colours and patterns on the men's shirts of the time gave a man a means of expressing his aesthetic sensibilities. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The soap subculture is feminine, to be sure, and watching soaps, I learned a great many new things about women; for the first time I heard about Lamaze exercises and something called 'spotting'. My friends ask why it is that I like the genre; my answer is that one cannot subsist entirely on manly fare - war movies and war documentaries, for example - and that one needs a balanced diet. And in addition, the soap genre, twenty years ago, showed us some of the best sides of American life. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>V. NEETs and a conclusion</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Today many Americans do not need to be enjoined to an escape from the past. They are already doing it. Something that I have noticed over the years is that the bookish American men who are students of military history are interested - one could even say obsessed - by the subject of the American Civil War. And if you draw them into a discussion, you will see them exhibit an amazing erudition. Why the interest? Because the story of the American Civil War, and the events leading up to it, and the aftermath of the War, is a story that is American. And I will leave it at that; there is no need to speak here of 'implicit whiteness' and the like. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">An American could spend a lifetime studying this period of American history and beyond, and profit greatly as a result. He could delve further - into the history of Europe and the white race - and rely upon even mainstream and respectable authors for this task, as the authors at least until fifty years ago are by the standards of today quite conservative. Through his researches, the American will learn the salutary fact that American history did not begin with WWII and the 'Civil Rights Struggle'; and that American history is refreshingly free of political correctness and 'pozzedness', at least before the mid-20th century, which represents a change of course. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Research into philosophy, religion, New Age, self-help, will likewise broaden his horizons and develop his spirit. But (and here is the point of this article) any quest for spiritual self-fulfilment, for self-actualisation, is doomed to fail if one is physically unwell. Feelings of fatigue, and of being old, sick, worn-out, and of being pessimistic towards one's prospects - all these indicate that the body is not functioning at the peak of its capacity. Most of us ought to start the day feeling clear-headed and strong, but many of us do not. That can be attributed, much of the time, to vice. Lassitude, irritation, headaches, fatigue, can come from over-indulgence from the night before; perhaps one has embarked on a <u>Mad Men</u>-style debauch and smoked a great many cigarettes and drank a great deal of alcohol; perhaps one has wasted precious night time hours by staying up late and browsing online pornography; and to cap it off, perhaps one, in order to boost one's energies the following morning, drinks the first coffee of the day - certainly this blast of caffeine revives, but afterwards, it enervates. Vice is always to be enjoyed now and paid for later. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The vices mentioned above are harmless in comparison with the vices that are sweeping America today - e.g., the consumption of Fentanyl - but they take their toll on one's mental and physical soundness all the same. Americans understand the dangers of vice - after all, they did ban the drinking of alcohol for ten years, and America is the only Western nation (to my knowledge) to have done so - as did the Covidians; this is why during the lockdown years the Covidians encouraged people to indulge themselves and their weaknesses as much as possible. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But all the clean living and exercise in the world will fail to produce the desired outcomes - health, strength, a confident attitude towards one's life and future - if one indulges in the wrong food; e.g. if one eats a greasy pizza for lunch, steak and fries for dinner, eggs and bacon for breakfast. Even food devoid of any trace of animal products can do harm: what if one's preferred meals are vegan pizza and soy steak? Teetotalism alone does not guarantee perfect health. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If the right food is consumed, one over time enters a state of well-being and serenity. The digestive system, for instance, will improve. It will begin to function normally, and one's body begins to run like a smooth, well-oiled machine. Cybernetics then ensures a steady flow of positive feedback to the brain. One gets high, high on life. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This puts one in condition, in form. By training the body, one is training the mind, and so an American who wishes to embark on a spiritual emigration from America is prepared for his journey. As to where he goes - it could be into the past, or into the worlds of Eastern religion, New Age, German philosophy. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In 2016, Dr Nicholas Eberstadt published <u>Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis</u>. In a recent <a href="https://lawliberty.org/podcast/men-not-at-work/" target="_blank">interview</a>, he describes in detail the phenomenon of men who have dropped out of the workforce and who are now doing absolutely nothing. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">I think over on the other side of the ocean, they call it NEET, N-E-E-T, neither employed or in education or training. If we look at that group, which is not a small group, well over 6 million, they basically don’t do civil society. Almost no time invested in either worship, or volunteering, or charity work. Although you might think they have practically nothing but time on their hands, they do surprisingly little help around the house with other people, other family members, or with housework, a lot less than employed women with kids, who are more or less the most time-scarce, time-poor people in America. They don’t even get out of the house that much. They’re getting out of the house less and less according to their self-reporting. What they do is they spent a lot of time in front of screens. Now, these clunky surveys won’t tell us what they’re watching or what sorts of devices they’re watching, but they’re reporting, spending about 2000 hours a year in front of screens. Now, for many people, that’s like a full-time job. And when we bear in mind that other reports indicate that about half of these men say that they’re taking pain medication every day... I mean, not necessarily prescription or illicit, over-the-counter, maybe in some cases, but half of them are taking pain medication every day. We’ve got this vision not just of people spending all day playing World of Warcraft or Call of Duty. They’re doing it stoned, and it’s a kind of picture of life in limbo in purgatory. It’s miserable, and certainly, these are not the sorts of skills that are going to get you back into the workforce. They’re going to make you much more likely A, a long-termer, and B, possibly a candidate for deaths of despair.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In another <a href="https://www.iwf.org/2022/09/14/nicholas-eberstadt-on-the-rising-non-working-class/" target="_blank">interview</a>, Eberstadt explains: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">We’re not supposed to talk in value terms, at least in many parts of polite society these days, but it is apparent, it is manifestly apparent, it’s screaming out at us, the evidence of our senses, that people who are not connected to work or to their families or to their faiths or to their communities are not engaged in leisure. They’re not boning up on their Schopenhauer. As I say, they’re, in so many case, in trainer courses for deaths of despair. We’ve had this simultaneous explosion of wealth and explosion of misery in our society that can’t be explained unless we take a look at morals, values, and personal ethos.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I will not here evaluate Eberstadt's thinking, but I will say this: by all means, the drop-out men described above ought to be studying Schopenhauer. We Generation Xers and Millenial do not have much time left and so we must use it wisely. A study of Schopenhauer - or the American Civil War, or anything from the 19th century for that matter - takes us away from the ugly, vulgar, self-destructive world that is the 2020s. </span></p><div><br /></div>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-28548100935474397712022-05-04T01:46:00.002-07:002022-05-05T04:39:11.227-07:00Putin's fever dream and the ghosts of Prussia<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp6HCTEJZrT2t1FKql9dOy8wyt5GAhETHWEJVd0PLzo_bw3nqTYQ1vOvcsDsmvTukxw33Y2BeQbYuHN1wxxzTHDCT5kmrUjDT97cgWIAJAIvUPzZRTcmg6EnR6vc_TQgzW-dYWnP8pHsI7V2mJ-tqlnSw28vEd8rfjdSK0pnb8xMGew64aQXvOvVnC9A/s1536/1651415316349.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1283" data-original-width="1536" height="534" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp6HCTEJZrT2t1FKql9dOy8wyt5GAhETHWEJVd0PLzo_bw3nqTYQ1vOvcsDsmvTukxw33Y2BeQbYuHN1wxxzTHDCT5kmrUjDT97cgWIAJAIvUPzZRTcmg6EnR6vc_TQgzW-dYWnP8pHsI7V2mJ-tqlnSw28vEd8rfjdSK0pnb8xMGew64aQXvOvVnC9A/w640-h534/1651415316349.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">At the beginning of the war, Putin called his invasion of Ukraine a 'Demilitarisation and de-Nazification operation'; he vowed to excise 'Drug addicts and Neo-Nazis' from the Ukrainian government. Of course he was misusing the word 'Nazi', and the misuse - not only by Putin but by others - threatens to make the word meaningless and confronts us with yet another instance of an underlying degeneration of modern language and thought. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">(For another instance, given to us again by the Russians, read of this <a href="https://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2022/04/to-de-nazify-ukraine-moscow-must-impose.html" target="_blank">'De-Nazification' manifesto</a> by the Kremlin publicist Timofey Sergeytsev, a surreal and hallucinatory screed which has already earned for itself international notoriety). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">So what does the word 'Nazi' mean? My answer is - among other things - German soldiers. Recently- the conservative YouTube star Tim Pool came under fire for calling the <i>Bundeswehr's</i> military tattoo, the <i>Zapfenstreich</i>, 'Nazi'. His detractors accused Pool of being ignorant of German history, but I believe he was on to something. One can see at once the correlations between <a href="https://youtu.be/Sx2Qik4aXVk?t=845" target="_blank">the <i>Bundeswehr's</i> torchlit ceremonies</a> and the <i>Wehrmacht's</i>; and surely the Wehrmacht qualifies as 'Nazi'? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I think what it is that American conservatives such as Pool object to (and have objected to for the past hundred years) is not so much 'Nazism' as (what used to be called) 'German militarism'. Pool is denigrating German soldiery, and he is doing so because this is what Americans have been doing for a long time. Right from the outset of WWI, English, American and Canadian propaganda sought to make Germany and her military, Germany and her allegedly bloodthirsty Wilhelmine Prussians, one and the same in the Anglo public's mind. The Anglos were by doing so making an attack on a German political institution: in German political life, the Prussian and then the German army possessed outsized power right up until 1945. And what made that army different from others that intervene frequently in civilian political life was that it had fought in actual wars - quite big ones - and had fought effectively. The Anglos feared the Germany army because it was strong; they would not have feared if it were weak. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The Allied effort to dismantle the institution of the German army after WWI failed; after WWII, it succeeded. So it is a great irony of history that <a href="https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/03/russias-nightmare-comes-true-germanys-military-is-back/" target="_blank">Germany recently announced its intention to remilitarise</a> (and with tacit American approval).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Last week, German Chancellor Olag Scholz made a shocking announcement, declaring that Germany would massively increase its defense spending in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">If Berlin carries this plan out, German rearmament may be the most significant geopolitical consequence of Russia’s unprovoked aggression.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Russia invaded Ukraine, and it appears to have transformed German security policy overnight.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Chancellor Olaf Scholz declared that Germany would increase its defense budget until it exceeded the 2% NATO benchmark, an increase of more than 30%. The announcement was greeted positively by the German public, which seems suddenly to have awoken to the threat of a hostile and resurgent Russia.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">And thus far, fears of German rearmament in Europe appear invisible. Scholz has backed up the decision to rearm by taking steps to reduce German dependence on Russian natural gas and will allow the transfer of lethal arms to Ukraine.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">At first sight, it seems odd for a man of the Left such as Scholz to be undertaking a 'militarist' course of action and one that could potentially shake modern Germany (which is supposedly pacifist) to its core. But a precedent does exist: we only need to consider German military history at time of the Weimar Republic; then - and this may be a surprise to many - the Germans went to war several times (at least three times against the Poles) even though the Republic was led by social democrats and liberal conservatives. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">So history could be repeating itself. But the announcement of Germany's remilitarisation seems to have passed largely unnoticed by those on the dissident Right, even by those who proclaim themselves to be 'National Socialist'. Unfortunately, many on the Right (including myself at times) have fallen into the habit of discounting modern Germany; indeed, they often give the impression that they believe German history came an end in 1945. To them, the Bonn Republic (West Germany) and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) never existed. One consequence of this shortsightedness is that important political developments in Germany, Europe, the West, are neglected. Contrary to the point of view that says that nothing in recent German history is worthy of note, I believe that the implications the current war in Ukraine does hold for Germany are indeed important, and I shall be exploring these here. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">II.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">One of the themes of the present crisis is: political change only occurs through changes of the facts on the ground. War constitutes one of those facts, and the disruptions we are seeing in the present global order would not have occurred without the Russo-Ukrainian war: as the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, 'War is the father of all things'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The corollary of the above is that political discussions, polemics, propaganda do not count for much. At least for the past eight years we have been subjected to what I call the 'Putin line', a line which has been disseminated far and wide through Western intellectual circles and media outlets. Arguments against the line so far have showed themselves to be useless; experience demonstrates that one cannot prove the line to be false through argument, discussion, intellectualising. The repeated failure of such attempts gives rise to the disturbing possibility that the Putin line can only be proven false through through great events - such as a war. That is, if Russia loses the current war, support for the Putin line in the West will erode. And the tragedy is that it took a war, and enormous suffering, to bring about that result. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">So what is the Putin line? How does one detect it? Through a series of key words and phrases which appear <i>ad nauseam</i> throughout the 'alternative media' (and by extension the normal media - the lines between 'alt' and 'normal' media have become increasingly blurred). A certain script has been generated, almost as if by a bot, and it replicates itself, reproduces, spreads. Here is a sample. 'Victoria Nuland, 2014 Maidan coup, CIA coup, Neo-Nazis in Kiev, Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, Russia's geopolitical interests, Ukraine is not a real country, Crimea has always been Russian, the Donbas is filled with Russian speakers and so belongs to Russia, the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics are rebels who are seeking freedom from Kiev's oppressive rule, the Ukrainians are genociding the Russians of the Donbas, NATO has been provoking Russia, Russia is being encircled by NATO, Russia is fearful of Western depredations because of its past experiences with the Nazis in WWII, attacking Russia is suicide (ask Napoleon and Hitler), Russia needs a buffer against NATO expansionism, neocon warmongers are leading us to the abyss of WWIII, securing Russia's flank against NATO makes geopolitical sense, Putin makes good points...'</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">One discovers a rich lode of the Putin line at Unz.Org; there the purveyors are, among others, Philip Giraldi, John Mearsheimer, Andrew Anglin, Pat Buchanan, Pepe Escobar, Anatoly Karlin, Paul Craig Roberts, The Saker, Eric Margolis, the late Stephen F. Cohen, Eric Striker... But one even encounters proponents of the line at some of the sites which are more hard-edged than Unz.Org - that is, the radical white nationalist, racialist and anti-Semitic sites. Kevin McDonald has recently published a piece at the Occidental Observer with the title (surely generated by an artificial intelligence algorithm?) 'Neocons, Ukraine, Russia, and the Western Struggle for Hegemony'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The first thing one observes in this rhetoric is that it is not racialist, nationalist, white nationalist, even populist; no, it is centered around a deracinated geopolitics. Perhaps because of its odd rootlessness, it wanders around and makes itself felt everywhere. You can find it in - to take two examples completely at random - the writings of Larry Johnson, a journalist for the conservative pro-Trump site The Gateway Pundit, and David Stockton, an economist for the Reagan administration. Doubtless the reader can think of his own examples. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">To repeat, one cannot argue against the line on any of its points - against the theses (for example) of 'NATO expansionism', 'the Vicki Nuland / CIA / Mossad / Neo-Nazi EuroMaidan coup'; argumentation holds no sway. In that connection, a number of commentators have noted that the Russian people themselves, when the subject of the war in Ukraine is brought up, remain remarkably obtuse when presented with facts that contradict the Putin line. One cannot consider a discussion with them to be a discussion, for that term implies a willingness to change one's mind, and the minds of the Putin line's proponents cannot change. Arguing with them is akin to arguing with a computer. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">III.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The intellectual is naturally biased towards argumentation, rationality, ideas. He therefore fails to understand - in instances such as the present war - why it is that the belligerents do what they do. The simple explanation for this complex behaviour is this truism: that nations and peoples over the course of a time show a propensity towards certain actions; that they travel in a certain groove. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Once an intellectual realises this, answers to some troubling political questions present themselves at once. Something that has puzzled me over the course of the past eight years is the number of Americans - some of them quite intellectually distinguished (see Kevin McDonald and John Mearsheimer) - who tout the Putin line. It seems that the deepest attraction to the Putin line is to be found among Americans. At first this strikes us as paradoxical: the most blistering invective of the Putin line's proponents is showered upon Americans and to a lesser extent other Anglo-Saxons. But the fact is that America and Russia have shared a long friendship. Twice in the last century they have allied themselves against the Germany and Germany's allies so as to ensure Germany's defeat. Yockey writes in <u>Imperium</u> (1948): </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>During the Second World War, for instance, freedom and democracy were used as terms to describe all members of the coalition against Europe, with an entire </span><span>disregard of semantics... In the American press, for example, both during the 1914 war and the 1939 war, Russia was always described as a "democracy". The House of Romanov and the Bolshevik regime were equally democratic. This was necessary to preserve the homogeneous picture of these wars which this press had painted for its readers: the war was one of democracy against dictatorship; Europe was dictatorship, ergo, anything fighting Europe was democracy.</span></span></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Yockey lists America and Russia, along with Japan, as the three major enemies of Europe at the turn of the 20th century. It is significant that the American enmity towards Europe and the alliance with Russia are over a hundred years old; this shows that the Americans have been at it for a long time. And, added to that, so have the Russians. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Much of what held true then (a century ago) holds true today for Ukraine as well as Russia. What we are seeing today in Ukraine is nothing new. Ukraine has been treated in an imperialist fashion by Russia for centuries. In order to understand the Russian political and military strategy of the present, we need to look to that of the past. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">A hundred years ago, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_People%27s_Republic#Directorate" target="_blank">Russia invaded Ukraine</a> because of disagreements with the ideology of the Kiev government: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">The Bolsheviks invaded Ukraine from Kursk in late December 1918 where the new Ukrainian Soviet government was reestablished earlier in November of the same year. On 16 January 1919 Ukraine officially declared a war on Russia while <i>the Russian Soviet government continued to deny all claims of invasion</i> [emphasis mine; Russia today is denying that the 2022 invasion of Ukraine is an invasion]... On 5 February, the Bolsheviks captured Kyiv.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">(Incidentally, the Russians had in 1917 invaded Ukraine from Belarus - just as they had in 2022). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">An examination of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict of a hundred years ago brings to light <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_War_of_Independence#Ukraine_after_the_Russian_revolution" target="_blank">the first use</a> by the Russians of what became a time-honoured maneuver: the Russian setting up of a 'Independent People's Republic' on enemy territory and the Russian denial of all connection between that 'Republic' and Moscow. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">All this [the Russian political tumult of 1917] led to the October Revolution in Petrograd, which quickly spread all over the empire. The [Ukrainian nationalist] Kiev Uprising in November 1917 led to the defeat of Russian Republic forces in the capital. Soon after, the Central Rada [Ukrainian nationalist council] took power in Kiev, while in late December 1917 the Bolsheviks set up a rival Ukrainian republic in the eastern city of Kharkov – initially also called the "Ukrainian People's Republic". Hostilities against the Central Rada government in Kiev began immediately. Under these circumstances, the Rada declared Ukrainian independence on January 22, 1918 and broke ties with Russia. </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Thirty years later, Finland saw an iteration of one of the 'People's Republics': the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic" target="_blank">Terijoki Government or Finnish Democratic Republic</a>, which was founded by the Russians before the outbreak of the Russo-Finnish War (also known as the Winter War) in 1939; and a hundred years later, Ukraine saw another: the Donetsk and Luhansk 'People's Republics', founded after the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2014. And now, in southern Ukraine in 2022, it appears that the Russians are planning to set up another 'Independent People's Republic' - in the captured region of Kherson. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">IV.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">To judge by history, the Russians do not make good neighbours; ask not only the Ukrainians, but the Finns, Poles, Georgians, Balts. But Germany has found it difficult to face this truth. The reluctance of Germany to acknowledge the affects Russia has upon its neighbours can be traced back to Germany's history. For over a hundred years, the Germans have felt a powerful attraction towards Bolshevism. The eastern half of Germany lived under communism for forty years, and the former DDR (German Democratic Republic) was sustained not only by force and fear but also the warm acquiescence of a significant proportion of eastern Germany's elite. In the post-communist era, Germany - along with France, another nation strongly attracted to Russia - numbered among one of Putin's enablers. And after the outbreak in 2014 of war with Ukraine, the Putin line worked its magic among the uppermost echelons of German state and society. <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60099924" target="_blank">Schönbach, the head of the German navy, was filmed spouting the Putin line at a conference in January this year</a> and was forced to quit afterwards. (Ironically enough, Schönbach declared that the idea Russia wanted to invade Ukraine was 'Nonsense'). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But one cannot lay all the blame at the door of Putin. Obviously, 'guilt for Germany's Nazi past' forms the biggest obstacle towards the German recognition of what Russia is. The social democrats and liberal conservatives who run Germany today do not want to be associated with anything 'Nazi'; this is to say, they do not want to be seen as belonging to the Germany of old, which fought two wars against Russia, one of which Germany won, the other Germany lost; for they believe that the Germans of those times were quite literally mad; they see the German militarists as being in the grip of fevered hallucinations. The German General Staff of 1914 and 1941 viewed Russia as the enemy; it ascribed negative qualities to the Russian character; it considered the possibility of Germans having to live under Russian rule, or even continuing to have Russia as a neighbour, most unpleasant. But it was wrong to think so; in fact, it had deluded itself - at least, that is what the German communist propaganda of the past hundred years has attempted to convince us. The leftist Germans of the <i>Bundesrepublik</i> here agree with the communists for the most part, but only because with the passage of time, the history of the German Left has been largely forgotten. It should be remembered that the German Social Democrats voted in 1914 for war credits to fund Germany's war against Russia and France, thereby placing themselves in what today would be called the 'Russophobe' camp. After the vote, Lenin denounced the Social Democrats for this 'betrayal of the working class' and accused them of splitting the Left. (But it was not so cut and dried: the Social Democrats have always talked out of both sides of their mouths: after Germany's defeat in WWI, they insisted that they had never, never supported 'Prussian militarism'). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">History shows us that powers such as Germany are bound by certain realities. Germany at the start of its two wars with Russia lived next door, or at least within marching distance, to Russia; it did not exist in isolation, in a vacuum. The reality of Germany's geopolitical situation helped determine Germany's peculiar national character: had the country been relocated somewhere else - to the moon, perhaps, or the planet Mars - it would not have been 'militarist'. Thus, the German General Staff, the 'Prussian militarists', were only responding to certain realities. In both WWI and WWII, the German behaviour can only be understood properly in relation to the Russian. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">What if the above 'certain realities' held true for Germany in 2022 as they did in 1914 and 1941? The Ukrainians, Poles, Georgians, Finns, the Balts take a negative view of their Russian neighbour; what would happen if the Germans were to do the same? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">One step may be (to follow Carl Schmitt) naming Russia as the enemy, and after that, remilitarisation and rearmament. From this it follows, almost inevitably, that any ideology of the past is to be swept aside as a change in ideas leads to a change in actions. Scholz, in his speech announcing what is in effect Germany's rearmament, made the usual praises of 'democracy' and implied that Russia was not 'democratic' (how so?). But we can dismiss this talk of 'democracy' as mere talk. The changes being made under the surface count more than the ideology being planted on the top. To put it another way, institutional structures determine, or at least, constrain, thought; a German who founds a monastery or convent would be forced, by circumstances, to think like a German Catholic monk or a nun; a German who founds an army, to think like a 'Prussian militarist'. And this is despite any reservations that the German may have felt beforehand towards Catholicism or militarism; he may even have been, prior to his career as a monk or a general, an atheist or a pacifist. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">V.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Russians such as Dugin enjoy talking of geopolitics; let us, then, in order to indulge them, talk geopolitics. Before WWII, Germany, Italy, France, England, could be considered to be great powers, or at least sovereign nations; after WWII, each of them was reduced to a position of inferiority in relation to the two colossi America and Russia. As a consequence, it follows that if the European powers were to put up a successful defence against the Russian and American, they could only do so if they all stood together. A European unity, then, would need to be forged. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I am saying nothing new here, as the thesis of a necessity of European unity has become a cliché of post-war political thought - see the work of Yockey, Bardèche, Thiriart. It even appears earlier in the genuflections of two conquerors of Continent, Napoleon and Hitler. Both men, after they both had attained to the heights of success, could afford the luxury of pondering an age-old problem: how to unify Europe's fractured and squabbling nations. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It should not be forgotten of Napoleon and Hitler that their military triumphs underlay their lofty aspirations towards a pan-European unity; if France and Germany had not achieved victory on the battlefield, well, their leaders would have been in no position to spare a thought for the noble (and perhaps unworldly) idea of Pan-Europeanism. Military weakness translates into political weakness, so much so that the two can barely be separated. The grand cause of Pan-Europa around 1800 rode on the back of the French army, and around 1900, on the back of the German. In the respective epochs it was France and Germany that did the heavy lifting. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This forces us to confront a truth which some of us may not be comfortable with, and that is this: in any Pan-European State (present or future), all nations are not equal. Sweden does not count as much as Germany, Portugal not as much as France. Germany occupies a higher place in the hierarchy than Greece or Ireland. The conclusion to be drawn, then, is that some care and consideration should be accorded to Germany, given the fact that in any Pan-European State, Germany most likely will be contributing the bulk of the military and economic resources. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But after its defeat in two world wars, Germany was weakened politically and militarily. Considering the post-war amputations of Germany's territories alone, one can say that after WWI, one arm and one leg were torn off, and after WWII, the other arm and the other leg. (And this is putting to one side, for the moment, the questions of the Allied 'denazification' of the Germans after WWII, the war guilt inculcation for both world wars, the forced imposition of Holocaust propaganda...). Assuming that Germany does occupy a position of extreme importance in the European project, how, then, with a weak Germany, is the motor of Pan-Europa expected to run? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">We must look to the past and ask ourselves what it is that made the Germany of 1922 so different to the Germany of 2022; the former was more 'based' (to use 4Chan parlance) compared to the latter - many aspects of it are far more desirable (and this is despite the fact that the Germany of 1922 was plagued with a multitude of woes, one of them being the notorious hyperinflation). Look at the many great thinkers that Weimar produced; Martin Heidegger, Carl Schmitt, Oswald Spengler and other 'Conservative Revolutionaries' are still admired and discussed on the Far Right a hundred years later. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It is fitting that the themes of conflict, war and death appear so frequently in the thinking of the Conservative Revolutionaries: at least three of them, Heidegger, Schmitt, and Jünger, served along with millions of other Germans in WWI. Moreover, the 400-year-old institution of the German army still existed (albeit in attenuated form) in the Weimar years. One cannot say that the <i>Reichswehr</i> was as 'pozzed' (again to borrow from 4Chan parlance) as the <i>Bundeswehr</i>: the <i>Reichwehr</i>, like the old Imperial Army, was led by patiots and 'German militarists', men such as von Seeckt, the archetypal Prussian general. (Spengler for a brief time worked as a political activist on behalf of von Seeckt; he wanted the general to become leader of Germany). So before, during and after WWI we find a continuity. That tradition - so despised by the Anglo world - persisted into WWII. As the British author Keith Simpson writes of Germany in WWI, 'The general staff, and in turn the German government, adopted an increasingly unrealistic policy of territorial annexation, and the occupation policy and behaviour of the army in Belgium, northern France, Poland and Russia was to give it a reputation for brutality which foreshadowed that of the Führerheer [Führer army] in the Second World War'. (<u>History of the German Army</u>, 1985). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">On that note, Russia's invasion of Ukraine does present a few problems for German nationalists and self-proclaimed 'National Socialists'. We now hear moral condemnations of the Russians, statements of principles which ought to have been binding but have been violated in the Russian war against Ukraine: 'Bigger countries should not invade smaller countries'; 'Occupying powers should not behave in a high-handed manner'. But Germany, the Soviet Union, Japan, repeatedly violated these precepts in WWII and the years immediately leading up that war. If a big nation did not act contrary to these precepts, the pages of history, to borrow from Hegel, would not have been written. (In that connection, one ought to read the chapters in <u>Imperium</u> concerning America and how America won its colonial empire). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">So, assuming that this <i>realpolitik</i> or <i>machtpolitik</i> perspective is right, the problem for the apologists of Russia, Germany, Japan becomes one of justification of these countries' conduct; this can become quite sophisticated and can extend into the fields of law, philosophy...</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">So one must resist the temptation, when writing on the present conflict, to borrow (consciously or unconsciously) the Anglo rhetoric of 1914 and compare Ukraine to 'brave little Belgium' or 'brave little Serbia'. This does bear on the problem we are considering, which is how Germany was in 1922. Then Germany in that year was not ashamed of itself, its strength, its upholding of valour, discipline, self-sacrifice, obedience, etc. as virtues. Five years of a relentless Anglo propaganda barrage, the opening salvo of which was a denunciation of the invasion of Belgium as the worst crime in the history of the world and one that should damn Germany for all time, had not budged the Germans one inch. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But in addition, much of modern Germany's aversion to the martial comes about from the fact that in the past 75 years, Germany has never had the opportunity - or the inclination - to stand up on its own, show its strength, fight. In short, Germany has lacked a real army. That army, and its ethos of 'Prussian militarism', underlay Weimar Germany - and the thought of the Conservative Revolutionaries. 'Prussian militarism' lay so deep in the foundations of German life that the Conservative Revolutionaries were unable to see it beneath their feet. All that is needed for a recovery of it in the 21st century is the rebuilding of the army. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Perhaps, too, another war is needed. In keeping with the past, that war would either be against France and England (now a distant possibility) or Russia (now a close possibility). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">VI.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">One beneficial outcome of the present war is that we are no longer paying attention to the Covidians. The Covidians had been waging their own war, a war against all of humanity, since 2020, but by the start of 2022, their offensive - which had been extraordinarily successful - was running out of steam, as all offensives do eventually; and the Russo-Ukraine war drove the final nail into the coffin. Human nature, long repressed, had reasserted itself. For two years, we had been forced to make 'safety' the supreme value; we had been locked in our homes, been made to take injections, etc., etc., all in the name of 'staying safe'. As a counter-reaction to this, now a sort of war fever has broken out. One of the phenomena that always accompanies such a fever is the sight of men who are rushing to the front, volunteering to fight, deliberately placing themselves in danger - all of which is the very reverse of the Covidian ethos. (Ironically, both Ukraine and Russia were in thrall to the Covidians before the war and had adopted a harsh Covidian regime (not dissimilar to the one that pervades in Australia and New Zealand), one which I imagine has been now largely swept away). Covidianism has been sidetracked, and much of that is due to the problem of scarce resource allocation, or economics, that surfaces at a time of war. The satisfaction of the wants of the Covidians clashes with those of the warriors. A soldier cannot be expected to wear a muzzle-mask and follow the injunction to 'stay safe' while coming under enemy fire; an army recruiter who is desperately short of manpower cannot be expected to bar the 'unvaxxed' from enlisting. In 2022, a nation can either allocate scarce resources to war or Covidianism; there is no middle ground.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">So the war has already produced one beneficial outcome; and it may produce more. Let us look at the effects of a war upon Germany; suppose Germany was mobilised for what Ludendorff (the WWI German general) called 'total war'? The investment of scarce resources into war - and total war demands the investment of all of those resources - means that certain parasitic, anti-national elements in German life would be starved. It is almost as if there are two competing spheres, the 'militarist' and the 'anti-national', and if the former expands at the expense of the latter, then the latter is pushed out and made smaller. This principle - which only applies, perhaps, to the Germans - explains why it is that they were so 'unpozzed' before 1945. A military tradition had existed for hundreds of years, a distinctly Prussian one, which formed the backbone of the nation, and it had consistently - and effortlessly - repelled the 'anti-national' elements and forced them to the margins of national life. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Does that tradition exist today? Survivals did exist in the army of the Bonn Republic, as we have seen, and the army of the DDR. The East German army, the National People's Army (NVA), notoriously drew upon <i>Wehrmacht</i> dress and drill. One can see this in evidence in the many YouTube clips of the NVA marches; a snide person in the comments of one of these remarked that East Germany was so poor, it could not afford new uniforms and so had to use 'Nazi' ones (which was a low blow, but perhaps true). What is interesting is that the Russians, and the East German communists, allowed this. The survivals of the old, prewar German army in both East and West Germany indicate that either the Americans and the Russians could not extirpate the German military tradition completely or at least felt that a complete extirpation was not desirable.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">VII.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I agree with the Russian white nationalist <a href="https://nationalvanguard.org/2022/03/icebreaker-2/" target="_blank">Wolf Stoner</a> that the war represents a turning history in the West; and furthermore, it exposes certain underlying realities of human existence. As such, Stoner believes that a return to 'normiedom' is impossible - at least for now. The prospect of more war, and not less, looms on the horizon: Russia is slating Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Moldova and Kazakhstan (!) for 'de-Nazification' (<a href="https://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2022/05/besides-ukraine-russia-must-de-nazify.html" target="_blank">'Besides Ukraine, Russia Must "De-Nazify" Six More Countries, Moscow Deputy Says'</a>). Russia lacks the military capacity to make good on these threats, of course, but that hardly matters - what does is that the threats are being made and the world is taking them seriously.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">What has concerned me here are not the consequences for Russia, or even Ukraine, but Europe. One of the consequences is that Germany has moved by a small increment to where it was a hundred years ago. This movement, small as it is, has proven too much for some, as <a href="https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/372082961/#372091605" target="_blank">this post</a> by a German at 4Chan shows: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZ5UuA1UD9G-BJz35jW6O3j5w2yz-p5L5Llt5jIGA6pEFp6nKFhNAbWSbwHrKCiPPHh8L9q31NlN6801jTX1v46mOrGPLyUzxtZHZmpNsoOmMbjOnOYG_C6jC4iT8wXrQPS0iGWmNztHJaxy9HCF2OKS2Dtv4aa38UJopAcg7kgh2fXmXE9ZPDOHABgg/s1247/Frightening.PNG"><img border="0" data-original-height="117" data-original-width="1247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZ5UuA1UD9G-BJz35jW6O3j5w2yz-p5L5Llt5jIGA6pEFp6nKFhNAbWSbwHrKCiPPHh8L9q31NlN6801jTX1v46mOrGPLyUzxtZHZmpNsoOmMbjOnOYG_C6jC4iT8wXrQPS0iGWmNztHJaxy9HCF2OKS2Dtv4aa38UJopAcg7kgh2fXmXE9ZPDOHABgg/s16000/Frightening.PNG" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Supposing that Germany reintroduced conscription (which was abolished there in 2011), built up an army of up to a million strong, and threw into battle in 'the East'; the experience of war would permanently alter the lives of German men - and their ideology. The Freikorps sprang up after WWI because hundreds of thousands of German men were unable to return to civilian life. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Two ironies have emerged. Putin intended to prevent 'NATO expansionism' by force, but has only ended up <a href="https://redstate.com/streiff/2022/04/09/ukraine-has-joined-nato-whether-russia-likes-it-or-not-and-more-are-yet-to-follow-n547867" target="_blank">NATO-ifying Ukraine</a>; Putin intended to combat 'Nazism', but has only pushed Germany closer to 'Nazism' - the real 'Nazism', that is, not some hallucinatory construct - than at any time in the past seventy-five years. </span></p><div><br /></div>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-49134925075102973442022-01-01T20:44:00.012-08:002022-01-21T01:09:17.665-08:00A Farewell to Normiedom? On the 1990s, the End of History, American White Nationalism and German Neo-Nazism <p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mj5PfPWI_js" width="320" youtube-src-id="mj5PfPWI_js"></iframe></div><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b> I. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Before Christmas, I commiserated with some of my friends in the movement and swapped stories about life under the lockdowns and mandates. I raised eyebrows when I declared that the past two years were perhaps the worst in Australian history. My argument was that one could point to, say, the Great Depression as being on the face of it a worse time, but even the Great Depression did not deprive one of freedom - the freedom to enjoy small pleasures and be a normal human being. Back then, if one could afford it, one could smoke and drink in a bar without a capacity limit, for instance - a bar in which one did not have to 'check in' with a QR code, present a 'digital passport' to the publican, or wear a surgical mask... When I put it this way, my friends agreed.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Given that we on the Far Right are living in a time of great crisis, we should be expected to scent an opportunity in it; surely we should be excited over our prospects? One cause for optimism is that many of those attending the Freedom marches are 'normies' who had been 'red-pilled' by recent events. But the evidence suggests to me that the answer to the above question is no: for at present the Far Right seems demoralised and despondent. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">And as to why, I think the answer lies in the fact that politics often disappoints - Far Right politics especially - but up until now the Far Right activist could always escape any discouragement and disappointment and seek passage from the 'red-pilled' world to the 'blue-pilled', from the world of radical Right politics to the world of 'normiedom'. But after 2020 that avenue has been closed off; the gateway to 'normiedom' has been shut, perhaps permanently. And perhaps, once the Covidians are through with them, the 'normies' will have been done way with altogether. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>II.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Usually around this time of year, I re-read Yockey's <u>Imperium</u> (1948), and I re-read this work, a profoundly spiritual one, so as to renew my faith. But this year I feel a reluctance to read it: I feel that it belongs to a past age - the age of dramatic politics - and that the difference between the past age and the present has become too large to ignore.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><u>Imperium</u> was written in 1947, and the 1940s, perhaps Europe's most tragic decade in a millenia, saw a great deal of drama. Some politicians (such as Stalin) seem to thrive in such a dramatic environment: they have an endless appetite for crises, confrontations, wars; for their politics is the politics of what Carl Schmitt calls the exception. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">After Stalin's death, the leadership of the Soviet Union and the communist world was handed to Khrushchev, a much duller man than Stalin - certainly a less confrontational one - and by the middle of the 1950s the countries of the Eastern and Western bloc had settled down to the task of peaceful economic development. They sought to rebuild their countries, many of which had been laid waste to by deprivation and war. But Mao rejected any politics of compromise and conciliation and he stood as an odd man out: privately the other communist heads of state were appalled by his extremism and immoderation. For in that period, non-dramatic politics held sway and Western leaders followed the same path as Khrushchev. The result of it was that, when one looks back on history the East and West in the 1950s, one spies at once on its surface a patina of dullness - even if one takes all the Cold War hysteria, nuclear-saber rattling, wars in the former Western colonies, etc., into account. Daniel Bell drew a similar conclusion in his <u>The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties</u> (1960): the sharp opposition between Left and Right had been muted; the politics of confrontation had been replaced by the politics of technocracy. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It took time, but even Yockey came to acknowledge the truth of Bell's thesis. He had spent most of the decade building a post-war fascist international with links to the non-aligned regimes of the Third World - an international like that depicted in Frederick Forsyth's far-fetched novel <u>The Odessa File</u> (1972). WWII veterans filled the ranks of these European organisations which perhaps in truth were nothing more than old soldiers' clubs. The members belonged to another time and one can intuit a recognition of this fact - at least at the subconscious level - in Yockey's writings as the decade drew to a close. His last essay, 'The World in Flames: An Estimate of the World Situation' (1960), does not exhibit as nearly as much a sense of self-assurance and grandeur as <u>Imperium</u>; Yockey here hovers at the edge of great world events; he is an onlooker, not a participant. In its undertone of ironic detachment I find an anticipation of postmodernism. And indeed, a connection exists between the sleepy 1950s and the postmodern 1990s - both of them decidedly dull decades from a political standpoint - and this explains in part why it was that the postmodernists alternatively paid homage and made fun of the 1950s. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Yockey felt out of place in the 1950s and hated it. Nowadays we in the movement view the 1950s in a different light. Many white nationalists, race realists, immigration skeptics, et al., do not understand Yockey's objection to the America of the 1950s, for example: they see the America of that time as a white man's paradise and that decade as a golden age. To the white nationalist, statistics bear both these contentions out. William Pierce often remarked in his radio talks that America in 1950 was 90% white - something to be proud of. The Americans in this time kept both immigrants and negroes under wraps, and while it is true that desegregation began in earnest in the 1950s, many of the great cities in the north of America were majority white and remained so for the next two decades. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Another reason for the divergence between the views of Yockey and the white nationalists is that the white nationalists show a pronounced tendency to laud the past at the expense of the present. In a <a href="https://counter-currents.com/2021/12/house-of-gucci/" target="_blank">review</a> of the film <u>House of Gucci</u> (2021), Trevor Lynch writes that the film is a 'Meticulous, nostalgia-infused reconstruction of another era, this time the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, a time that seems impossibly glamorous, wholesome, and white compared with the present'. It is at this point that Pierce would take exception to Lynch; Pierce depicts America in the era of the 'Late 1970s to the mid-1990s' as a dystopian hellscape (he published the <u>Turner Diaries</u>, the ultimate dystopian novel, in 1978) but was forever waxing lyrical over the greatness and whiteness of America in the 1950s: a decade can be one white nationalist's hell and another's heaven. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I agree with Lynch and disagree with Pierce. In part, this is because at the time of writing I would prefer to live in any decade except for the 2020s - I would even be prepared to travel back in time and live in the 1940s: one, I imagine, could live a good life then, provided one was able to dodge all the bombs and bullets. But the main source of my disagreement with Pierce is because I have for the past few months been watching episodes of a famous American daytime TV soap from the time of the late 1990s, and this delving into the recent past - even if it is a mythical and fantastical past - has prompted me to ask myself what possibly could have been wrong with the 1990s. An objective view of the decade would reveal in that decade we had it all. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>III. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Unlike the 2020s, the 1990s were characterised by an absence of politics. Electoral politics was relegated to the background: the three presidential elections in that time (1993, 1996, 2000 (the 1990s as a decade came to an end, in my judgment, on September 11, 2001)) were dull affairs, and more or less, you could take or leave mainstream politics - it did not interfere with your life in any appreciable manner. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This state of affairs came about because of the collapse of the Left in the years 1989 to 1991. For hundreds of years, the Right had functioned as a response, a reaction, to the Left; but with the disappearance of the Left came the disappearance of the Right. And that in turn led to the cessation of the political. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">After the end of the Soviet Union thirty years ago, the Left was decimated. The old school communist parties (including the Australian) were wound up for the most part. As for the other sectors of the Left - the anarchists and antifa - they lived at the fringes of society: there was no mainstream acceptance or even awareness of them. And as for Black Lives Matter, social justice warriors (SJWs), 'woke' capital - they did not exist. So: thirty years ago we lived in a world which was blessedly free (mostly) of leftism. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But a serpent did dwell in this garden of Eden: academic neo-Marxism (known by many as 'cultural Marxism'). Critical Race Theory (CRT), Postcolonial Theory, Black Studies, Queer Studies, Gender Studies began to rear their heads. Generally, though, this new tendency - labeled 'political correctness' by hostile conservative commentators - was confined to academia. And on occasion it was mocked and not feted (as it is now) by the media. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">By and large, the Left had been forgotten and what really stung the Left was the speed with which it had been forgotten. Only a few months after the dissolution of the USSR, race war was to take precedence over class war. Ethnic wars broke out in the <a href="http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2021/12/demise-of-ussr-was-anything-but.html" target="_blank">former Soviet republics</a> and Yugoslavia - wars which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives - and intellectuals such as Bell pronounced these to be portents of the wars to come: wars henceforth were to be motivated not by ideology but ethnicity. This seemed to be an accurate assessment given that the move away from Marxism was permanent and irrevocable. Botched privatisations, IMF 'shock treatment', etc., may have plunged the economies of Eastern Europe and the former USSR into chaos, but there was never any question of a return to communism. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It is this rather peculiar set of circumstances which explains much of the apoliticism of the period. On a personal note, at the time I took politics - mainstream politics - seriously. I read a number of books written by authors of the mainstream Left and Right (so as to be 'even-handed' and 'objective') and following the lead of my baby boomer parents, I read the newspapers, listened to the radio news and watched the TV news every day so as to keep up with current events. But at the same time, I had no fixed political convictions. I clung to a rather confused and incoherent collection of Left and Right ideas. Had I been pressed, I would have admitted that I was more interested in hobbies and popular culture than politics. In this, I was a typical 'normie'. I have since discovered how typical I was from reading Carl Boggs' classic work <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/748143.The_End_of_Politics" target="_blank"><u>The End of Politics: Corporate Power and the Decline of the Public Sphere</u> (2000)</a>: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">Why do so many Americans feel that politics has become irrelevant to their daily lives? Why is there so little public discussion of important social issues, despite unprecedented access to mass media and new communication technologies? This book delves beneath the sound bites and news headlines to explore the ongoing process of depoliticization in the United States. Attuned to the many contemporary trends eroding the public sphere, Carl Boggs illuminates the American retreat to an eerily privatized landscape of shopping malls, gated communities, new-age fads, rural militias, isolated computer terminals, and postmodern intellectual discourse. Yet Boggs maintains hope that current trends can be reversed, issuing an eloquent call for revitalizing politics, culture, and civic society. The paperback concludes with a new postscript on the movement against corporate globalization and the tumultuous presidential election of 2000.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>IV.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In the nineties, the Far Right prospered and the Far Left did not, and in response to the burgeoning popularity of the Far Right, Boggs wrote a chapter on the proliferating Far Right movements of the decade. He regarded these as 'apolitical' - apolitical in the sense of being detached from civic society (and by that definition he was correct). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">What was my view of these 'apolitical' Far Right movements? For most of the nineties I was blissfully unaware of William Pierce's National Alliance, Richard Butler's Aryan Nations, Jared Taylor's American Renaissance, Tom Metzger's WAR. I was not exposed to their ideas; I was perfectly 'blue-pilled'. Perhaps for that reason I could enjoy with a clean conscience American TV shows such as <u>Seinfeld</u>, <u>The X-Files</u>, <u>The Simpsons</u>, <u>Melrose Place</u> (and lesser-known action TV shows such as <u>Renegade</u>, <u>Pointman</u>, <u>M.A.N.T.I.S.</u> and <u>Fortune Hunter</u>) like the rest of the sheep. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I can imagine a white nationalist objecting to my consumption of this fare. The white nationalists would ask me in an accusatory tone: was I not aware that these TV shows were decadent garbage - and Jewish? Did I not know that David Duchovny, the star of the <u>X-Files</u>, was a Jew, that Mark Frankel, the star of <u>Fortune Hunter</u>, was a Jew? That the cast of <u>Seinfeld</u> were all Jews? (This is the standard white nationalist debating tactic; to pronounce something to be Jewish is to refute it, whether it is Jewish or no). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Had I encountered these scolding white nationalists in the time of my innocence, I would have recognised them at once for what they were: killjoys. Pierce made America in the 1990s out to be unlivable when it was not. Pierce could always be counted on to bring the dark side of American life to your attention; he would always be regaling you with gruesome accounts of black on white atrocities such as the Wichita Massacre and the Knoxville Horror. But no rational American could be expected to live their lives in constant fear of being robbed, raped or murdered. But that was the outcome that Pierce and Taylor (author of <u>The Color of Crime</u> (1999)) apparently wanted. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This is not to say that Pierce and Taylor did not provide value: of course they did. The question concerns what economists call opportunity costs: what would have benefited the average 'normie' c. 1995 - 'blue-pilling' or 'red-pilling'? The benefit of one cancels out of the other: this is the opportunity cost. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The price paid for 'red-pilling' is that the 1990s-era state of mind - which was one of contentment and complacency - would have been spoiled for good. Pierce, a proponent of dramatic politics to be sure, opposed this 1990s mood, and surprisingly enough, he would have half-agreed with Fukuyama, who argued in an essay (and then a book) that while it is true that the the summit of human achievement had been reached by the 1990s, the peak had been attained only at the expense of foregoing of all heroism, risk and adventure. 'The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one's life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands'. [Francis Fukuyama, 'The End of History?', <u>The National Interest</u>, Summer 1989]. To this, Fukuyama expressed reservations and Pierce, full-blown opposition. For what mattered to Pierce more than anything else was the 'Fame of a dead man's deeds' - the remembrance through the ages of a life heroically lived. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>V.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Fukuyama built his argument on Hegel - and Marx, a fact which outraged the Left. History, Fukuyama says, results from Man's 'thinking things through': Man only explores the full implications of an idea - such as Bolshevism - by living through an idea. After 75 years of living the Bolshevist idea, Man had come to the conclusion that the idea did not work: hence the end of socialism in Eastern Europe, China and the Soviet Union. In this Hegelian discourse, the operative word is 'end': Fukuyama takes up the Hegelian thesis that history is a story with a beginning, middle and end, and as such it cannot be properly understood until the end is reached. Hegel writes, 'The owl of Minerva [the goddess of wisdom] spreads its wings only with the coming of dusk'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">One should not overestimate the influence of intellectuals: they do not determine all that goes on in the culture of a particular period of time (e.g., the 1990s). All the same, credit must go to where credit is due to Fukuyama and the French postmodernist thinkers. In the decade of the 1990s they alone succeeded in capturing the essence of the age. It should be not forgotten that thinkers such as Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, and Baudrillard - all outcasts from the French Left - opposed Marxism for most of their careers and so naturally enough their ideas suited the post-Marxist era. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Thirty years later, one intriguing possibility is that the ideas of Hegel and Fukuyama could serve as a means of illuminating one way out of our predicament. Covidianism has been forced upon humanity, much like Bolshevism, and is the product of a plan years in the making, much like Bolshevism; so Covidianism could be overturned, once Man has 'thought it through', that is, lived through the implications right to the end, much like Bolshevism. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>VI. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The coming year will see a battle - perhaps the final battle - between what I call Covidian Man and what Fukuyama calls (after Nietzsche) the Last Man. I believe that the Last Man would win any such battle as he is in accord with nature whereas Covidian Man is not - Covidian Man is decidedly unnatural. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Like any Far Right political activist, I have often come to lose my patience with the Last Man, the 'normie': his slothfulness and contentedness at times have made me despair of him so much so that I at have often considered dropping out of politics altogether. In one such dark period I was rescued from the slough of despond by re-reading Spengler and Yockey. I came to the realisation that the 'normie' had existed in every Culture prior to the Western. The 'normie' was with us in the days of ancient Babylon, Egypt, China, India; he is with us today; and he will be with us in the future. After our Western Culture perishes - like all the Cultures that preceded it - he will preponderate. The ruin of Western Culture will be inhabited by Nietzsche's Last Man, Spengler's Fellahin.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">(It is this prediction of Spengler's that warranted, in the eyes of many, charges of pessimism). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">At the beginning of this essay, I intimated that that the Far Right activist occupies two worlds - the world of the 'red-pilled' and the world of the 'normie'. The cause of the activist's recent despondency is that our activist much likes the world of the 'normie' and he is sorry to see it go - he mourns its demise at the hands of Covidianism. On a personal note, my friends and I have many fond recollections of many happy hours spent in the bars and restaurants in the bohemian and 'normie' quarter of the city I live in; we spent those hours discussing politics and ideas while enjoying food and wine in a carefree and convivial atmosphere - like normal humans. All of these pleasures have been taken away by the Covidians. Are they gone for good? The Covidians say yes. According to them, the masks, hand dispensers, capacity limits, digital passports, QR codes, social distancing, working remotely, coerced injections, contact tracing, nasal swab tests, lockdowns, prison camps, etc., will stay in place forever and ever; certainly we cannot foresee any abeyance in the new year. No wonder then that so many in the movement have been driven to despair; the ground - the 'normie' ground - has disappeared beneath us. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>VII.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Something that is missing from today which was present yesterday is trust - trust in politicians, journalists, health officials, intellectuals, our peer group in other words. Only a few years ago we believed that the globalist elites - the Davos men - did not want to kill us or make us sick; we believed there was a lack of animus on their part towards us or at the least a lack of interest; and we believed that they were content to leave us alone. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">That trust can only exist if you believe that the universe is benevolent and means well by you. We find that optimism in evidence in many of the movies representative of the 1990s - one in particular being the negro comedy <u>Friday</u> (1995). The movie is set in the suburb of South Central Los Angeles, but surprisingly enough, the suburb is not portrayed as a hellhole rife with gang shootings, etc.: the producers originally wanted a violent film but were persuaded by one of the stars, Ice Cube, to downplay any violence - a violent (and exciting) film, Ice Cube argued, would not have been true to life. In the completed movie, South Central LA comes across as a sunny, prosperous, happy place,and perhaps a little dull - certainly a place in which the Last Man lives. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Spengler writes of the Cosmopolis - the World City - the city which appears with the onset of the old age of a Culture and which devours and incorporates all the suburbs, towns and countryside around it, making it all urban. The World City spawns copies of itself everywhere. This is why the suburb of South Central LA - in the 1990s, at least - resembles the outer suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne; and in much the same way, the fictional Mid-Western town portrayed in the daytime TV soap I mentioned earlier resembles any town in rural and regional Australia. The World City is omnipresent. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">One can criticise the Cosmopolis for its ubiquity, its homogeneity and its universality, but one must concede that in it, one could lead a life of freedom, one could enjoy the fruits of a consumer society and one could enjoy these - following the collapse of Marxism - without guilt. How life has changed today! By 2022, the World City had been turned into a giant prison. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Perhaps - and this is a pessimistic line of thought - the free life of the World City contained the seeds of its own destruction. The cults and secret societies run by egalitarians, republicans, technocrats, intellectuals, free-thinkers, et al., only appear towards the end of a Culture's life and not its beginning. Furthermore, they only appear in the cities. Perhaps, then, it is the World City which bears the burden of guilt for giving us Klaus Schwab, Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, George Soros... </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>VIII.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Even so, who is it that shoulders the ultimate responsibility for the granting of the Schwabs and Faucis power - absolute power - over us? The answer is the 'normie'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Covidianism has met with a great deal of resistance - it has not had things all its own way - and a common theme in the polemics against it is the stupidity of the sheep who allowed, step to step, the Covidians to take over their lives. All activists against Covidianism have run up against the obstacles of 'normie' stupidity, gullibility and the rest; the 'normie' seems impervious to facts. When the 'normie' is told that the mask he wears everywhere looks stupid, and worse, is useless in protecting him against Covid, he shrugs - all that matters is that his peer group endorses it and makes it compulsory; likewise, when he is presented with proof that the injections will kill or incapacitate a fifth or third or half of their recipients, this means nothing to him, he will not be deterred at all from lining up for his seventh or eighth booster shot. But of course he will be the first to complain that he was not sufficiently warned should it finally be acknowledged, by the political and health establishments, that the injections are almost guaranteed to cause a compromised immune system, strokes, heart attacks and even death. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In short, his conditioning has proven to be extremely strong and effective. Supposing that the Covidians were overthrown tomorrow, at least 50% of the population would continue to wear their masks. This really should not surprise us, seeing that that the former members of a cult have a difficult time shrugging off the cult's beliefs and practices. Exiting a cult physically is one thing, exiting it mentally is another; the latter can take years. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The above does seem to go against my earlier contention that the 'normie', seeing that Covidianism is unnatural and destructive, rise up against it. But the contradiction can be resolved if we accept that yes, the 'normie' will revolt, but only after a period of time. And how long would that period be? It took Eastern and Central Europe forty years to do away with communism (another unnatural doctrine); earlier revolts, such as those in Berlin in 1953 and Hungary in 1956, were brutally crushed. But we should not speculate: we can scarcely tell if the anti-Covidian revolution will take four years or forty. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Two lessons emerge from the two revolts in Hungary in the last century, that is, the revolt of 1956 and the revolt of 1989. The first lesson is that the Left does not change; the second lesson, that the Right does. As an example of the former, consider the fact that the revolts against communism in 1956 and Covidianism in 2021 were regarded by the Left to be at both times the work of a neofascist conspiracy. This shows that the Left has hardly changed its tune in the past 65 years. In contrast, the Right has changed its tune. A prime example is Viktor Orbán: this is a man who in his youth fought for freedom as an anti-communist activist; this a man who became one of the heroes of the 1989 revolution; but this is also a man who has now joined the ranks of the Covidians; this is a man who no longer fights against totalitarianism but throws in his lot with it. The Orban case shows that Covidianism corrupts and corrupts absolutely. One could hypothesise that other anti-communists activists from the eighties, activists who at the time were the darlings of the conservative Right, men such as Václav Havel and Lech Walesa - would have been corrupted by Covidianism as well. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In his anti-communist days, Orban would have believed, along with Fukuyama and Fukuyama's mentor Kojève, in Hegel's 'cunning of reason'. This is the idea that Man possesses enough logical capability to arrive at the correct conclusion after 'thinking things through'. Following Hegel, anti-communist liberals such as Orbán and Havel in the 1980s took an optimistic view of human nature: they believed that Man was smart enough to see through Marxism and so would be smart enough to reject it. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But to paraphrase Keynes, in the long run we are all dead, and the Covidians could, up until the time that they meet the same fate as the Eastern European communists in 1989, cause tremendous damage - and they have done so already. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Besides which, some of us in the movement do not believe in the 'cunning of reason'. The dark thought has crossed our minds that perhaps the 'normie' cannot be relied upon to make decisions in his own best interest. As proof, we only need look at the history of the past two years. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>IX.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I have written here on the travails of the Far Left in the 1990s, and now I will touch upon those of the Far Right. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Ironically, by the 1990s, German nationalism had become a victim of its own success. As a thought experiment, let us suppose that we were to take an old-school German National Socialist - one who had lived through the war - from 1955 and transport him in time to 1995. We would see at once that the man was an anachronism; the events of 1989 to 1991 had put him out of business. Deeply disturbed, he would be asking himself a number of discomforting questions. With the reunification of Germany and the destruction of communism, what use was there for National Socialism? Why should he continue to be a National Socialist? Why would his fellow Germans want to become National Socialist again? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Perhaps our time-traveller would knuckle under and resign himself to life as a German 'normie'. He would learn to amuse himself by watching American trash television, dancing at the Berlin Love Parade and shopping at the Bonn malls. The last activity should occupy an important place in his new political world-view, for in Fukuyama's interpretation of Hegel's concept of freedom, freedom means freedom to shop. Acceding to this thesis, in the months before the fall of the Berlin Wall, the communist government of East Germany relented: it allowed Berliners from the Eastern half of the city to cross into the Western in order to shop. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Our hypothetical National Socialist would, under the compulsion of events, be forced to navigate his way back to 'normiedom'. But I can imagine that many of the old fascists of his generation, men who knew and respected Hitler and lived through National Socialism - men such as Otto Remer, Otto Skorzeny, Léon Degrelle, Hans-Ulrich Rudel - would have objected. I would have found it interesting to debate post-communist politics with these men while they were in full possession of their faculties. To that end, a time machine would be necessary to pluck them out of the past and from a past in which they were young and vigorous - and hungry for political power. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Debate matters here. In this modern age, we no longer believe in the divine right of kings and we expect politicians - even the most firmly entrenched ones - to argue the case for their legitimacy. Why should such and such a politician rule over us? The politician has to give reasons why and he must win over any sceptics and doubters. Even a politician who seizes through power through force of arms must devote an inordinate amount of time and energy to persuasion and speech-making. See Castro, for instance, who like every successful communist revolutionary, won power not through the ballot box but a successful military campaign. Castro, a former lawyer, had to argue his case in the court of public opinion constantly. All politicians labour under similar constraints, even Neo-Nazi ones. So if we were to transport into the early nineties the young and vigorous Otto Remer of the early fifties, what arguments would he make for his being elected to office? Why should Germans vote for his Socialist Reich Party? My guess is that Remer's arguments would have fallen short; the sudden and abrupt changes in Germany and Eastern Europe would have revealed him to be a relic. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This touches upon the question of the relation of the 'new' National Socialism to the 'old'. In a conversation fifteen years ago with a German nationalist who had met Remer, I argued that Remer's positions in the 1950s represented a departure from 'classic' National Socialism. My friend dismissed the notion and referred to Remer condescendingly as an 'Old Nazi', and reflecting later and looking at photos of Socialist Reich Party rallies (which looked a lot like 'old' Nazi rallies) I came to the conclusion that my friend was right. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Up to the 1970s, the German nationalist movement was filled with old Nazis who had new obsessions; these were Holocaust and WWII Revisionism. It is a knowledge and agreement with these that constitutes 'red-pilling': unless one is accordance with Remer's views on these, one is not 'red-pilled'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The great obstacle that the German nationalist - and we in the movement outside Germany - encounters when attempting to 'red-pill' the 'normie' is not hostility but indifference. He is not interested in the correct view of WWII or the Holocaust because he feels - rightly or wrongly - that the events of eighty years ago do not affect his life. And that is especially true today after two years of lockdowns. Why should he want to know the truth about the Holocaust when he has been unable to get a haircut for three months? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The 'normie' often cannot see the wood for the trees. We can set ourselves the task of educating him, and in this educating him on the connections between the Covidians of today and the Masons of old; but it is more important that we exploit the openings that the Covidians have given us. They have made a rift in the social, economic and political structure. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Like a good many observers, I find the behaviour of the globalist elites perplexing. Up until 2020, everything was going their way - the Great Replacement was proceeding along nicely, for example - and whatever they did met with the assent of the population. But in 2020, they undertook two actions that would endanger their position. The first of these was the ouster of an American president in a left-wing coup, the first in America's history; the second, the imposition of Covidianism across the entire world. In both instances, the elites broke with normality - and perhaps with the 'normie' as well. To judge by their actions of the last two years, it is as if the globalist elites, the neo-Masons, et al., have a political death wish: they want the 'normie' to turn against them - and terminate them with extreme prejudice. To that end they are doing everything possible... </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In 1969, Lord Russell of Liverpool published <u>Return of the Swastika? The Rising Threat of Resurgent Nazism in Germany</u>; Russell was one of the prosecutors at the Nuremberg war crimes 'trials', and twenty five years after the war, he finds that the Germans are not behaving to his satisfaction. Russell is filled with suspicion and rage; he excoriates the Germans - for their obduracy and also for their attitudes. He does not give one inch on the Holocaust story (and why should he, given the instrumental role he played in building it) and he rakes the Germans over the coals. What is interesting here is that both Russell and Covidians perceive their enemies in exactly the same way, their rhetoric takes the same tone. Reading Russell, we half-expect him to denounce the Germans for fomenting (to use a favourite pejorative term of the globalists) 'conspiracy theories'. In the parlance of 4Chan, too large a sector of the German population was 'based' and 'red-pilled' - that, in Russell's eyes, was their crime. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The war crimes 'trials', the Morgenthau Plan, etc., and even Russell's propaganda were inflicted upon the Germans with the intention of continuing the war after the war. We in 2022 are approaching a state of war; abiding by Carl Schmitt's Friend / Enemy distinction, the globalists now see a large sector of the population as the Enemy. If Remer or any of the other 'old Nazis' were to return to the present, they would see that as a positive development; at last their Enemy has given them something to work with. </span></p><p><br /></p>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-62089425635357153762021-10-02T16:23:00.007-07:002021-10-23T02:53:33.619-07:00Cult City: Melbourne and Sydney, Covidians, and Biderman's Chart of Coercion<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimzySLBRyP7_qsQ9P-SIShUqz1lk-FM5LCqhWgJrzrctkBS8PivaTpqt0Dra0ZAWq-mrhQO3RJSGhvmKxlos7j8GZKTMgVWNz_FjKDNAo1Komjx3b4TFu1Ce9juG5fucXFP3qybaxigqQD/s2048/NINTCHDBPICT000579126637.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1395" data-original-width="2048" height="435" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimzySLBRyP7_qsQ9P-SIShUqz1lk-FM5LCqhWgJrzrctkBS8PivaTpqt0Dra0ZAWq-mrhQO3RJSGhvmKxlos7j8GZKTMgVWNz_FjKDNAo1Komjx3b4TFu1Ce9juG5fucXFP3qybaxigqQD/w640-h435/NINTCHDBPICT000579126637.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The brutality of the Victorian police in crushing the anti-mandate protests and the police's harassment, detention, beatings, etc., of Melbournians going about their everyday business has shocked the world: it is here that the power of the Covidian police state displays itself naked, unconcealed, unashamed. But, if we are to look past spectacle, we are confronted by a Covidian state at work in a less overt and perhaps more insidious manner: Covidianism has gotten inside the heads of Melbournians and Sydneysiders, which is to say that the residents of these cities have internalised the dogma of the Covidians and made it part of their personalities. I saw that one weekend when I was walking, on a sunny Saturday afternoon, through an inner-city suburb: while strolling by a cobble-stoned laneway in a quiet and lonely street, I spied a young man washing his car and wearing a Covid face mask; I wanted to stop to talk to the man and tell him that he had nothing to fear - that he could take off his mask, the police would not find out: for the police were more likely to be concentrated in the city center; they rarely appeared in this part of town, which is one of the reasons why I had decided to take a walk there. Why, then, should he be wearing a mask? It was because he had achieved a state that cults aim to induce in their members: a state of self-surveillance, self-monitoring. I strongly doubted that he was wearing the mask for reasons of health: the 'coof' would not be blowing down that laneway, and even if it were, it would have been undeterred by flimsy cloth. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I consider that man to be a prisoner - like millions of Melbournians and Sydneysiders - and I believe that he has been damaged psychologically by his internment. As part of what has been the greatest social experiment in Australia's history, his psyche has been taken apart and rebuilt by the Covidians, and by doing so, the Covidians have warped his mind. But such turning of the mind inside out, and consequent psychological disruption, is quite common in cults. According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/15/style/the-psychology-of-the-cult-experience.html" target="_blank">this</a> 1982 article from the New York Times, 'the experiences described by cult members resemble personality changes regularly associated with disorders of the temporal lobe of the brain': </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">''The symptoms of temporal lobe epilepsy,'' said Dr. Clark, ''are similar to those seen or reported as resulting from cult conversions: increased irritability, loss of libido or altered sexual interest; ritualism, compulsive attention to detail, mystical states, humorlessness and sobriety, heightened paranoia.''</span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Nothing indicates the cultishness of Covidianism more than the ubiquitous Covid mask, which serves the purposes of the cult in a number of ways:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Firstly, the mask destroys a person's individuality: if we cannot see a person's face, we cannot know them to be an individual. For that reason, members of the Synergon cult in California in the 1960s and 1970s had their heads shaved (as can be seen in the photo above). Other cults avail themselves of similar methods. In a chapter on Reverend Jim Jones' People's Temple cult, Colin Wilson writes, </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">In 1972, Jones began to institute an even more authoritarian regime. All church members were ordered to cut their hair short, and a squad of barbers enforced this' [<u>Rogue Messiahs: Tales of Self-Proclaimed Saviours</u> (2000)]. </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Secondly, the mask denotes submission. Worn virtually all the time, under threat of shunning, shaming, fines, imprisonment, even a beating at the hands of the police (as we have seen in Melbourne), the mask signals the acquiescence of the wearer. Significantly, the mask covers the mouth, and resembles nothing more (and here I apologise in advance for the vulgarity of the comparison) than a BDSM 'cuck' or 'gimp' mask or a BDSM 'ball gag'. I think that the analogy is perfectly apt, as cults are not about religion, they are about power; they aim at nothing more than breaking the individual and forcing him to submit to the cult leader's will. Which is another reason why cults demand uniformity of clothing, hair styles, speech, thought, etc., from their members: the cult only wants members who have been 'broken in'.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Thirdly, the mask looks absurd - and this is quite intentional. People labouring under mask mandates have become so accustomed to wearing surgical masks (well, pseudo-surgical - these masks do not come up to the standards of those worn in hospitals) that they have forgotten how ridiculous they look. (This why during the disturbances in Melbourne, the riot police presented us with this jarring sight: the same men who were wearing Judge Dredd-style helmets and battle armour wore surgical masks). In contrast, one can find throughout history plenty of examples of face coverings which are both smart-looking and functional. Think of the Tuareg's facial and head coverings, which protect him from the sand and the heat; think of - in popular culture and folklore - the English highwayman's face scarf, the Wild Western cattle rustler's bandanna, the Japanese ninja's face mask and cowl... The Covid mask does not possess nearly as much elan; to put it plainly, it looks stupid. But once again, this is deliberate. A cult works at breaking a member's will through degradation, and it will use public ridicule, humiliation, etc., to that end. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">All this brings us back to the mandates for the injections of Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson and Johnson, Moderna. In my view, the pro-choice advocates concentrate far too much on what is in these concoctions and not enough on the fact that these are being forced upon people. Even if the injections were vaccines (they aren't), were effective (they aren't), were harmless (they aren't), they would still be detrimental to our well-being, as they are being introduced into our bloodstreams through compulsion for the sake of compulsion. The man who has taken one, two, three injections, and then six-monthly, monthly, bimonthly 'booster shots' - he has submitted, and submitted thoroughly. And, as a mark of his submission, he will proudly display the band-aid over the puncture on his arm or even have a tattoo engraved upon it... </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Such submission brings with it benefits. It shows that he is acceptable, as a person, to his community, and it differentiates him from those who will not abide by the standards of the community - those who do not take the injection. The latter group, in his eyes, are not only wrong but downright irrational, mad; and like all mad dogs, they must be put down: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">[Cults] generate an elitist mentality whereby members see themselves as lone evangelists struggling to bring enlightenment to the hostile forces surrounding them. There is only truth - that espoused by the cult. Competing explanations are not merely inaccurate but degenerate. Cults do not have opponents. They have enemies and frequently dream about their ultimate destruction. [<u>On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left</u> (2000), Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth]</span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In late 2021, our society is clearly heading in the above direction. And this is quite an abnormal development: what we are seeing is not politics as usual. And in order to understand what has happened, we need to look beyond politics and into the meta-political. Which is why I will here be discussing cults, and an esoteric subject - the attempted brainwashing of American POWs by the Communist Chinese during the Korean War. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This is necessary because those who are opposed to the mask mandates, the lockdowns, the injection mandates, are looking at it all in the wrong way: they have developed the bad habit of using inappropriate historical analogies. They scratch around the past, dig up ideologies a hundred years old (fascism, for instance, or communism) and use them as a reference point or framework in which our current predicament can be viewed correctly. But in Australia, the lockdowns, the coming injections of children, etc., can be only be properly understood if we are to consider the recent history of cults in this country: the Australian Covidians have more in common with the members of notorious Australian cults such as, for instance, the Family and the Universal Brotherhood. Indeed, the former can be used as a guide to the present and anticipated strategies of the Covidians: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_(Australian_New_Age_group)" target="_blank">the Family</a> abducted children, concealed their original identities, disguised them, made them wear peculiar costumes and adopt unusual hairstyles, indoctrinated them, and plied them with enough drugs to kill a horse: the reader will agree, I think, that Australia is heading down the same path, or at least its widespread acceptance. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">II.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This year I came across the following chart, entitled '"Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance": The Biderman Report of 1956 and COVID-19': </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvrXTIHA5WlvBasa-XnDoeMBsUJ_jjkH7W8R0Z-WHf3C-2mwekUT_mAeKqnpQmCmynR3iYSgrD1ysCxXOVrCwDS_PGB4_zqcS-9SGe4OMp94WEVXrj3G8fcDz_W6o8gHb7ALpH4Vr1s28Q/s1200/covid-commies.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="904" data-original-width="1200" height="482" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvrXTIHA5WlvBasa-XnDoeMBsUJ_jjkH7W8R0Z-WHf3C-2mwekUT_mAeKqnpQmCmynR3iYSgrD1ysCxXOVrCwDS_PGB4_zqcS-9SGe4OMp94WEVXrj3G8fcDz_W6o8gHb7ALpH4Vr1s28Q/w640-h482/covid-commies.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This graphic used Biderman's famous <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biderman%27s_Chart_of_Coercion" target="_blank">Chart of Coercion</a>. When I first saw it, I was impressed by how it correlates with the treatment of Australians under the Covidian regime. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The chart comes from a 1956 paper by the American academic Albert J. Biderman, 'Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions from Air Force Prisoners of War'. During the Korean War, Chinese interrogators, skilled and experienced in what Mao called 'the washing of the brain', used manipulative techniques to break down the resistance of captured US airman so as to persuade them to admit 'guilt' and sign 'confessions' to 'crimes'. But Biderman was not writing a polemic against Chinese Communism: he was outlining general principles which be applied outside of the unfortunate circumstances these airmen found themselves in. Anyone familiar with the history of cults in the 20th century will see the similarities between the points on Biderman's chart and the methods of cult indoctrination. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I have read Biderman's paper (which is a fascinating historical document in itself) and found an expanded version of the chart, which I shall reproduce here: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnCv6xShqhb66tuCzATnRIxvmRJaPw6njzt1iy4Y5P5hVof69qHHtETUXfradJUT59mj4pCQEK1fNGf1NvZkhCxPeMynybxiBJP9Z_wnY7wA1vXwsy0Y2t91HnEiHEq5qDG4nj-71A3BJ5/s768/ChartCoercionimage_large.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="434" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnCv6xShqhb66tuCzATnRIxvmRJaPw6njzt1iy4Y5P5hVof69qHHtETUXfradJUT59mj4pCQEK1fNGf1NvZkhCxPeMynybxiBJP9Z_wnY7wA1vXwsy0Y2t91HnEiHEq5qDG4nj-71A3BJ5/w362-h640/ChartCoercionimage_large.jpg" width="362" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p></p><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">The 'Variants' column, I think, bears a great deal on our present quandary. I will go through some items. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">1) ISOLATION: Complete solitary confinement, complete isolation, semi-isolation, group isolation.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">2) MONOPOLISATION OF PERCEPTION: Physical isolation, barren environment, restricted movement.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">4) THREATS: Threats of Death, threats of non-repatriation, threats of endless isolation, vague threats, threats against family, mysterious changes of treatment.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">5) OCCASIONAL INDULGENCES: Occasional favours, fluctuations of interrogators' attitudes, promises, rewards for partial compliance, tantalising.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">6) DEMONSTRATING "OMNIPOTENCE" AND "OMNISCIENCE": Confrontations, pretending co-operation [is to be] taken for granted, demonstrating complete control over victim's fate.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">7) DEGRADATION: Personal hygiene prevented, demeaning punishments, insults and taunts, denial of privacy.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">8) ENFORCEMENT OF TRIVIAL DEMANDS: Enforcement of minute rules. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">We can see the above at work every day, not only in Melbourne, Australia, but in New York, USA: there the governor Kathy Hochul has announced the mass firing of thousands of health care workers who refused to be injected - and the stripping of welfare benefits from these workers. That certainly accords with what Biderman calls 'threats' and 'demonstrating "omnipotence" and "omniscience"'. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">(It should come as no surprise that Hochul is a <a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2021/09/28/hochul-vax-sermon-n2596585" target="_blank">religious maniac</a>: </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div></div><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: medium;">New York Gov. Kathy Hochul stood at a Brooklyn pulpit on Sunday and preached to the congregation about how the Covid-19 vaccines “are from God to us" and asked those present to be her “apostles.”</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Instead of wearing a cross to deliver her Covid "sermon," Hochul donned a “vaxed” necklace. </span></div></blockquote><div></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">If you read Hochul's sermon, you'll see that she states, quite plainly, that the 'vaccinated' can catch Covid from the 'unvaccinated' - one of the now-typical absurdities spouted by the Covidian regime).</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">I found, in the Variants column, 'Personal hygiene prevented' intriguing. A few weeks ago I happened across an televised interview with Noam Chomsky, who had grown long hair and a rather unkempt beard during a lockdown. (On a side note: do you think that Chomsky, a self-professed 'anarchist', was in favour of the injection mandates? Of course he was - he is a leftist, and leftists are a 100% in favour of them). I marveled at Chomsky's dishevelment and recalled to myself other instances of people 'letting themselves go' during lockdowns. Now, after reading Biderman, I now see that our captors - for Australia is now a big prison - sought that result. They wanted people to 'let themselves go', become disheveled, because a prisoner who is unkempt is more likely than not to lack self-respect and is thereby more susceptible to conditioning. This explains why it is that hairdressers, barbershops, beauty salons were among the first businesses to be closed during the recent crisis, and why it is that shopping for new clothes and shoes has been made extremely difficult. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">III.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Normal political paradigms do not help us in understanding our current predicament; only the above will. Once you realise that Melbournians and Sydneysiders have been catapulted into a Korean POW camp (or perhaps Jonestown 2.0), then everything becomes clearer. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">How, then, to resist? Biderman's chart tells us that degradation 'reduces [the] prisoner to "animal level" concerns' - and unfortunately, we in our present captivity do need to start paying more attention to animal level. In order to resist, anyone under lockdown ought to be focusing upon domestic minutia, part of which is the looking after one's clothes and shoes (as these cannot be easily replaced) and making sure that one's house (which at the moment is a prison cell for millions of Australians) is clean, bright, well-ordered and uncluttered. As well as the care of one's clothes, the care of one's skin and hair should take priority as well. Even if one lacks the services of a drycleaner or a hairdresser, one can still look reasonably smart - and thereby retain some self-respect. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Related to this is the subject of vice, which has exploded under the lockdowns. One really should avoid as much as possible alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, pornography, distracting as all these can be: you need to keep your wits about you, and conserve your energies and not dissipate them.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">One should cut down on one's consumption of the news as well. Many have developed the habit of scouring the news for the latest government communique on 'plans' for 'easing restrictions' (that is, what Biderman calls 'occasional indulgences'). But the government uses the media as a platform for the 'demonstration of "omnipotence" and "omniscience"'; and the government uses it as a means of uttering 'threats', of achieving the 'monopolisation of perception', of inducing 'debilitation, exhaustion'. Through 'insults and taunts' disseminated through the media (including social media (e.g., platforms such as Twitter) the government and its accomplices effect 'degradation'. The media can be compared to a loudspeaker in a Korean POW camp, through which Chinese propaganda is blared at all hours. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Perhaps, when all of this is over, studies will show that individuals who had consumed less media fared better psychologically than those who had consumed more. I am at the moment uncertain as to the value of news even from sites which are opposed to the mask mandates, lockdowns, injection mandates, etc., and which report daily on abuses by the Victorian and New South Wales police. Does this reporting - even though it intends not - lead to a growing sense of helplessness, powerlessness, fear, demoralisation, despair? Should one not direct one's attention to other things? </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">To put it another way. Three groups of people who are responsible for our present predicament: politicians (especially regional ones), journalists and health officials. These groups want to shun those of us who 'won't get with the program' - should we not in turn shun them? And that would entail our not listening to anything they have to say. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">One can object, 'But not all journalists...'. True enough, but what, at present, is the value of any reporting on Covid, lockdowns, mandates, etc.? If by now you do not know by now of the adverse affects of the injections, then you will never know. And while it may seem a good idea to tune into news bulletins to keep track of the ever-shifting and arbitrary rules changes, I think one can negotiate one's way through life without knowing the rules in great detail. One knows enough by now to wear a mask in public; one knows enough to be careful around the police. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">IV.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">A study of the history of cults will reveal that cults often function as a state within a state: they will have their own courts, judiciary, police, informants - and in the case of Jones' People's Temple, executioners. Cults will use their state apparatus to punish rule-breakers within the cult often for the most innocuous things - e.g., expressing a desire to see one's family again, or evincing doubts and misgivings towards the cult's doctrine. In the early years of Mao's China, a student was put on 'trial' for masturbating in the privacy of his room. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">All this helps us understand the pivotal part of Biderman's essay - that dealing with forced confessions and the degrees of resistance towards this Chinese demand. (The attribution of 'guilt' for alleged 'crimes', the admission of 'guilt' under tremendous pressure, and the cleansing, cathartic nature of the 'confession', occupy a central place in Chinese Communist ideology; we can glean from Frank Dikötter's <u>The Tragedy of Liberation: A History of the Chinese Revolution 1945-1957</u> (2013) that the number of 'defendants' in 'trials' for ideological 'crimes' in that period must have run into the hundreds of thousands). </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">This section of Biderman is pertinent because many residents of Melbourne and Sydney since the lockdowns began have committed crimes which are not crimes. Here is a partial list: </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">- Travelling outside the 5 kilometre (or whatever the arbitrary and ever-shifting distance is) radius outside one's home; </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">- Travelling across state lines, e.g., from New South Wales to Queensland;</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">- Not wearing a mask, or not wearing at the right time (for instance, in Queensland there is a rule that says one must, at a workplace, wear a mask when standing, but one has the freedom to take it off while sitting);</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">- Taking one's mask off to drink alcohol in the street (yes, this is a rule in Melbourne);</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">- Not scanning a QR code or 'checking in' when entering a store; </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">- Failing to respect the one and a half metre 'social distancing' rule while shopping in a supermarket aisle;</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">- Attending a funeral, wedding, religious service or celebration, etc., or attending one of these where the number of those present exceeds the prescribed limit; </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">- Attending or organising a demonstration against the lockdown measures; </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">- Showing up to work when you are not an 'authorised' worker;</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">- Leaving one's house without a 'valid reason'; </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">- Staying outdoors for more than the time allotted for 'recreational activity'; </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Etc., etc. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Soon, no doubt, spreading 'misinformation' ('Covid denial', for instance) will be criminalised, as will reluctance to take the 'vaccine' and refusal to divulge one's 'vaccination' status. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">All of these laws were introduced piece by piece, in what Tourish and Wohlforth call a 'spiral of escalating commitment': </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div></div><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Prospective members adopt what are at first small behaviours in line with the group's belief system, and which do not require the formal endorsement of its ideology. An example would be the act of attending a group meeting. In the first instance, the new behaviours are not perceived as challenging the prospective recruit's preexisting belief systems. However, the new behaviours are slowly escalated. Attendance at a meeting might be followed by a forceful "request" to participate in a weekend conference, followed by voting for the group's proposals at other public forums, leading to asking others to do likewise, resulting in the selling of group literature on the streets and climaxing in a public identification with the group's goals. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">The gradual nature of what is involved enables the recruit's belief system to slowly adjust to the new behaviours they have adopted. By the time the full impact of the changes is apparent, they have become for all practical purposes a new and permanent identity. [<u>On the Edge</u>-.]</span></div></blockquote><div></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">The result produced by the above 'spiral' is that many Australians have lost sight of normality; they are unable to see how absurd the pettifogging rules introduced by the Covidians are. We need, then - in order to grasp Biderman's point on the crime which is not a crime - a fresh pair of eyes. Suppose that, in a science fiction scenario, a time-travelling battalion of Victorian police 'arrest' a number of Melbournians from 1956, the year of publication of Biderman's essay, and proceed to detain them and interrogate them, seeking to force an admission of 'guilt' for the above anti-Covidian 'crimes'. The captive Melbournians would see, at once, that they are being held hostage by madmen. Here is our fresh pair of eyes...</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Biderman sketches out, in a chart, an exhaustive list of 'Responses to demands for false confessions; [degrees of] resistance and compliance'. Now, in our above science-fiction scenario, the captive Melbournians would after a time realise that the Victorian policeman are deadly serious; some of them would, in order to avoid detention, decide to 'be smart' and play a game with their captors. Perhaps they would acquiesce - or pretend to acquiesce - to the statements of identity that 'not wearing a mask' = 'crime', 'travelling 5 kilometres outside one's home' = 'crime', etc. They may 'confess' that yes, indeed, they did drink beer in public while not wearing a mask, or they did attend a large wedding - but they may ask, was that a crime? Or perhaps they would agree with the policeman that from a 'certain perspective', yes, not signing one's name and giving one's phone number when entering a public building could be considered a 'crime'. Such equivocations belong in Biderman's categories of 'defensive compliance' and 'active compliance', both of which are perhaps the two most interesting. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">What is the appropriate response to the captor's demand for a 'confession'? Too many of those opposed to Covidianism respond with what Biderman calls 'defensive resistance' (see below); they respectfully disagree with the Covidians, and list their reasons for that disagreement in bullet points. But arguing one's case with the Covidians does not work. I remember seeing footage of an unfortunate man in Melbourne who, while crossing the road, blundered straight into a group of police, who went and arrested him for not wearing a mask. He attempted to argue his way out of the arrest by reciting Covid facts and statistics (which were probably true) but the police wrestled him to the ground and handcuffed him anyway while a policewoman soothingly intoned 'It's for your own good'. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">The only response to a demand for a 'confession' or admission of 'guilt' is what Biderman calls 'complete resistance' (see below). No compliance, only defiance. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0KAztwLbghykd9Nbdz7EPfIsEL1xk4JXQko5wSXqb344flpU2rV05CfICmsut7wFMrA99UIRjgo9hpSco3zMZKG7FWPH8rvMVbZ33kdImV4itT-765KoA1Tl6koHeXiPoeUKca-Gb5MEd/s588/Compliance1.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="588" data-original-width="489" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0KAztwLbghykd9Nbdz7EPfIsEL1xk4JXQko5wSXqb344flpU2rV05CfICmsut7wFMrA99UIRjgo9hpSco3zMZKG7FWPH8rvMVbZ33kdImV4itT-765KoA1Tl6koHeXiPoeUKca-Gb5MEd/w533-h640/Compliance1.PNG" width="533" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfqa6Eiv9foK5gmKyJvTKHZjWrE3kVCEleC89d3kEhtQKMDadVR1PWMHIwDyFOp12L9EVudGOg9WD5Y_tDbNfJd9sLrOaJzFC-ZU8BFmQg2Xejf30DynWf4PhbJEiqgfeptDcMC5qTY3CG/s478/Compliance2.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="218" data-original-width="478" height="292" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfqa6Eiv9foK5gmKyJvTKHZjWrE3kVCEleC89d3kEhtQKMDadVR1PWMHIwDyFOp12L9EVudGOg9WD5Y_tDbNfJd9sLrOaJzFC-ZU8BFmQg2Xejf30DynWf4PhbJEiqgfeptDcMC5qTY3CG/w640-h292/Compliance2.PNG" width="640" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><div><br /></div>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-49098423830283286382021-08-24T03:37:00.010-07:002021-08-30T00:11:39.750-07:00The Italian Job: Europe in 2021, and do Covidians = 'Nazis'?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyvGTJq5DAwAMAtJqE85ykpTlNA2ydA4rEEp8e55XbXCh2NGYPzzHoQMyn4k7u9OVfLx4GrKGG10AlJA0Re_PsWg130gT_5-CL7MFdA23nXqahFEtubv2BU-Kn8DgWKK5aFGYbB5BGRLFv/s788/1619264418623.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="541" data-original-width="788" height="440" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyvGTJq5DAwAMAtJqE85ykpTlNA2ydA4rEEp8e55XbXCh2NGYPzzHoQMyn4k7u9OVfLx4GrKGG10AlJA0Re_PsWg130gT_5-CL7MFdA23nXqahFEtubv2BU-Kn8DgWKK5aFGYbB5BGRLFv/w640-h440/1619264418623.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I recently watched a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMaN5EylOXI" target="_blank">review</a> of <u><a href="https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/337232/resistenza" target="_blank">Resistenza!</a></u> (2021), a board game which deals with the communist partisan war against the German National Socialists and Italian Fascists in northern Italy during the last years of WWII. The reviewer, Marco, lives in the north of Italy, and his family comes from there, and so he feels a connection with the subject. And the game holds significance for him politically as well as personally: while he holds no strong political opinions, it seems, he as a modern-day liberal Italian evidently regards the partisan struggle as a noble cause, and thinks that the game is important as it shines a light on an oft-neglected episode of Italian history. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Most gamers like to play their games with others; Marco maintains a special <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lvup_UdBd8" target="_blank">wing</a> of his house stocked with hundreds of games, and it is set aside for when his gamer friends come to visit and play games with him. Unfortunately, Marco, living in the north of Italy, has been under house arrest for a year and a half because of the edicts of the Covidians; so he has been unable to receive visitors, he has been made to home school his children, he has deteriorated (as can be seen, I think, from his videos) psychologically under the government-imposed isolation. But Marco can be counted among the lucky ones, as the the Italian lockdown would have damaged more the northern Italians living in single-person households, that is, those who are unmarried or widowed and without children: these men and women have been sentenced to solitary confinement for nearly two years, and solitary confinement, as we know, is a form of punishment for prisoners, reputedly one of the worst a jailer can inflict. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I sympathise with Marco because, at the time of writing, at least 12 million Australians are now under house arrest, many of them in solitary confinement. This is an extraordinary moment in Australian history, considering that the 12 million figure approaches 50% of the population. (The jibe now is that Australia has returned to being a penal colony). How did Australia - and the other locked-down nations (Italy, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom, France, Ireland, etc.) - fall into this lamentable state? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Covidianism has been foisted upon us by three groups: journalists, politicians and 'white coats' (that is, medical professionals and health officials). But what are the underlying causes which allowed the imposition of the Covidian Great Reset upon us? In the case of Italy, there are two: the apathy of the 'normies' and the triumph of the partisans - or at least, the Allies - in WWII. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">II. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The partisans, after the Allied 'liberation' of Italy, killed tens of thousands of Italians; mainstream historians, who are liberal and anti-fascist, put the death toll as high as 80,000. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This fact is unremarked upon today - it simply does not suit the politically correct narrative - and were you to bring it to the attention of an apolitical man such as Marco, he would exclaim that it is a terrible thing, to be sure, but: 'What about Auschwitz'? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Even if you were to disabuse Marco of the notion that Italian Jews were carted off to Auschwitz to be gassed (perhaps he could be persuaded to read the work of the great Italian Revisionist Carlo Mattogno), the conversation would, after a point, tail off, as Marco would lose interest in the subject; after a point, he would shrug his shoulders and evince a desire to go back to his gaming. In the last analysis, 'normies' really are not that interested in history, or at least not in the implications that history holds for the present.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But he ought to be interested, because the partisan victory and subsequent massacre of all conservative and Fascist-leaning Italians ensured that Masonry was unchecked and unimpeded; and it is Masonry which begat Covidianism. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I will define what it is I mean by <i>Masonry</i>: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">1) An occult secret society which is hundreds of years old, and which borrows in its symbolism from Near Eastern cultures; </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">2) A doctrine of liberalism, internationalism, cosmopolitanism, egalitarianism, republicanism, anti-traditionalism, individualism, rationalism; its Enlightenment values informed the French and American Revolutions of the 18th century so much so that whenever an American conservative speaks of 'Judeo-Christian', he really means 'Judeo-Masonic'; </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">3) The political rule by a shadowy, technocratic elite, which views the populace instrumentally, i.e., something to be manipulated, used, shaped, by those possessed of a higher rationality. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">To sum up: Masonry is a brand of liberalism (hyper-liberalism, even), differentiated from other liberalisms by its esoteric, occult and secretive qualities. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">To understand the politics of Masonry, the reader would be best advised to read Dieter Schwarz' excellent <a href="https://archive.org/details/FreemasonryIdeologyOperationAndPolicy" target="_blank">pamphlet</a>, <u>Freemasonry - Ideology, Organisation and Policy</u> (1944). A summary reads: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">This book was printed by the SchutzStaffel ϟϟ and issued to Waffen SS, Ghestapo and German command, it was also available to the general population. This short book summarizes and exposes the subversive, anti-western nature of Freemasonry and how they have conspired and were conspiring against the traditional Europe. It also goes into the Jewish dominance and influence over Freemasonry. Arguably Freemasonry is the Jewish revolutionary spirit in action. The book also goes into how Freemason Richard Von Coudenhove-Kalergi, the founder and president of the Pan-Europa movement that would become the European Union received Jewish funding.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">If we are to trace the political fortunes of Masonry, we will see that they reached their peak some time around WWII; after that, Masonry stagnated. No longer centers of political intrigue, the Masonic lodges today serve as social clubs for old men - such are the consequences of modern day individualisation and atomisation. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Given the highly visible decline of Masonry in the present age, why, then, do I consider Covidianism to be 'Masonic'? Why does the British musician Ian Brown sing of the <a href=" https://entertainment.ie/music/ian-brown-spotify-censorshi-478393/" target="_blank">'Masonic Lockdown'</a> in his anti-Covidian song <u>Little Tree Big Seed</u> (2020)? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The answer is that certain prominent individuals have acquired massive political power in the past two years, and the spectacular careers of these individuals embody some of the key tenets of Masonry, in particular, 2) and 3) above. These men are Schwab, Fauci, Gates, and the legion of faceless and nameless technocrats and experts who set the UK, USA, Australia, Spain, Italy, on the dark path towards Covidianism. And, perhaps, for all we know, 1) above applies to these men as well - that is, that the Faucis and Schwabs actually belong to an occult international, an occult secret society which transcends borders. Speculation on the Internet as to these occult links is rife, at present, and such speculation is understandable, given that we are faced with a dearth of information on the ideological motivations and affiliations of these men, who were two years ago largely unknown to us before they were jockeyed into positions of enormous power. In a vacuum of information, conspiracy theories flourish. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">III. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In the 20th century, German and Italian fascism fought relentlessly against Masonry of any kind. From this it follows that if you were to terminate fascism (and it was terminated, with extreme prejudice), you are to terminate one of the bulwarks against Masonry - perhaps the only bulwark. I will make this argument later. For the moment, I want to examine the accusation - from the 'normie' conservatives - that Covidianism is somehow 'Nazi' and 'fascist'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">You only need to watch a few newsreels to prove the falsity of this charge; the Germans, in the 1930s and 1940s, did not wear masks and did not practice social distancing. And the Germans of this era did not sequester people in doors, close down businesses, force people into unemployment; all throughout the war, for example, they wanted people to work - and go outdoors. The Germans of this period would have regarded today's house arrests, solitary confinements, sequestrations, social distancing, forced idleness, 'working remotely', etc., as akin to a crime against nature - and Life itself. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As can be seen from the conservative news, some 'normie' conservatives have drawn a comparison between the forcible wearing of masks (and adoption of 'vaccine' passports) and the Star of David. They are making another inappropriate historical analogy, and one which we can easily recognise as inappropriate with a little thought. According to the conservative narrative, the 'vaxxed' are the new 'Nazis', the 'unvaxxed', the new 'Jews'. The latter shall be marked out and segregated from normal society, like the wartime European Jews forced to wear the Star of David. But the analogy makes no sense. Why would a new 'Nazi' elite inject themselves with a substance which could make them sick and die? Why would they inject their own public sector workers - and soldiers and police! - with that substance? How could self-poisoning denote social distinction? (I suppose the People's Temple in Jonestown through their act of mass suicide distinguished themselves from the rest of humanity - and perhaps a comparison between the 'vaxxed' and the suicides of the People's Temple could be extended further by pointing out that the latter killed themselves through injecting as well as drinking poison). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Another comparison between the Covidians and the WWII Germans: the police in the locked-down nations regularly badger people - and often arrest them - for not wearing masks, they will stop people in the street and demand proof of 'vaccination', and so forth; this, to our 'normie' conservative, calls to mind the German soldiers in occupied Europe in WWII, who, as we know from Hollywood movies, are always stopping civilians and asking for papers. 'Papers, where are your papers!' ('<i>Ihren Papieren, Bitte</i>' - your papers, please). The Covidian police = the 'Nazis' for this reason in the mind of the 'normie' conservative, because to him, WWII - in German-occupied Europe - was the only time in history that soldiers stopped civilians in the street and asked for identification... </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">That brings us to another association between Covidianism and 'Nazism' - and one which is more difficult to avoid. This is the analogy that the 'normie' conservatives are prone to make between the Covid 'vaccination' and the German wartime compulsory euthanasia program. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">To recite some history for the reader: allegedly, during WWII, the Germans killed - through gassing or lethal injection - tens of thousands of retarded or incurably insane people, with the permission of their families; this was done ostensibly to free up hospital beds for wounded German soldiers. Now, the comparison between the 'Nazis' and the Covidians here seems appropriate, insofar as that lethal injections in both instances are a weapon of choice, and one used to accomplish a feat of mass murder: for the Covid 'vaccine' has so far killed (if reports of its 'adverse effects' are anything to go by) thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, depending on whose figures you believe.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I contend that further investigation of the German euthanasia program is required before we can pass final judgment. For the interim, I will not here take the path - one which is taken by most sympathisers with National Socialist Germany when discussing this subject - of arguing that such eugenic programs were only in keeping with the standards and practices of the time. Such an assertion is true enough, but it avoids the fact that eugenics formed one of the cornerstones of the National Socialist ideology and made that ideology distinctive. German National Socialism, unlike Italian Fascism, championed eugenics (the breeding of better human beings) and dysgenics (the weeding out of undesirable human beings). This is one side of the National Socialist doctrine that rival ideologies (such as Catholicism) found to be particularly gross and immoral. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But even if one is inclined to agree with the Catholics, one must concede that the motive force behind eugenics differs from that of Covidianism. For the neo-Masons who have enforced house arrest, solitary confinement, 'vaccinations' with lethal consequences, and the like, do what they do with the intention of denying life. It is anti-natalism and population reduction which seem to animate them, and the values behind both those goals run counter to those of the National Socialists - and the Catholics as well. Catholicism wants all people - regardless of race or colour or creed - to reproduce as much as possible, and holds all life to be sacred; National Socialism wants only those of sound racial stock to reproduce as much as possible, and holds only ascendant life to be sacred; neo-Masonic Covidianism wants no-one (regardless of their racial fitness or lack thereof) to reproduce, and does not hold any form of life to be sacred. Catholicism wants an increase in the population, unfit or unfit; National Socialism, an increase in the population of the fit and a reduction in that of the unfit; Covidianism, a reduction in the entire population, fit or unfit. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">National Socialism, Catholicism and Covidianism find themselves incompatible. But Covidianism is compatible with Masonry, and it can be made compatible with the two other political forces which were the enemies of National Socialism - Judaism and Bolshevism. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This is despite the fact that there incidences of 'friendly fire' all around. To explain. In the first years of the Soviet Union, Masonry was outlawed by the Bolsheviks and lambasted by Marxist luminaries such as Trotsky, but even so, in the first half of the twentieth century, Masonry used its not inconsiderable powers to help Bolshevism. Liberalism here recognised socialism as a cousin. As for Judaism, Schwarz chronicles the 18th century Jewish practice of joining Masonic lodges and cultivating powerful Freemasons; from the time of the Enlightenment on, Judaism utilised Masonry as a means of breaking down the barriers which prevented Jews from entering Gentile society. Historically, Jews have felt sympathy for the Freemasons. But, seventy-five years after the publication of Schwarz' book, the neo-Masonic Covidians, being opposed to all religious services (and all religion on principle), aroused the wrath of American Jewry by forcing the closure of synagogues in New York during one of the lockdowns in that city; the egalitarian ideology of Covidian neo-Masonry does not recognise Jews as 'The Chosen', hence the Jewish denunciations of the closures as 'anti-Semitic'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This may confuse the observer, but it all can be understood once we take into account the fact that Bolshevism, Masonry and Judaism are a troika in which one of the three will always enjoy a temporary dominance over the other two. At the moment, the Masonic faction is riding high. But not for long! Sooner or later, the Masons will be cut down to size...</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">III. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Many commentators have remarked that since 2020, we have been living in a dream world - or a nightmare world. The most extraordinary thing about it is that misanthropy, life denial and nihilism have been made a policy of state. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Around a 150 years ago, that philosophy of life - or anti-life - was represented by Schopenhauer; and around twenty to thirty years ago, by certain nihilistic tendencies within the subcultures of the West - such as, for instance, the black metal music genre. And, astoundingly enough, that philosophy has now become policy. To someone looking in from the outside, all this must seem absurd - as though some Satanic black metal musician, or some devotee of Atomwaffen and the Order of Nine Angles, has overnight become world dictator. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">On a personal note, all this runs contrary to my nature. I will admit that like many, in my youth, I was attracted to the philosophy of Schopenhauer, and even now, many years later, I still regard Nietzsche's first book, <u>The Birth of the Tragedy</u> (1872) (written in his youth, during his Schopenhaurian phase) as his finest. But in my own defence, an attraction to a philosophy of nihilism is not uncommon among free thinking young men (of which I was one): many of them are attracted to the misanthropy, pessimism and darkness of black metal, for example. But I can state that now that I am older, I do not understand Covidianism and its associated doctrines of nihilism, life-denial and the rest. I do not want to see a cessation of births or a culling of the population. I certainly do not want to live the rest of my life sequestered, or wearing a piece of cloth tied to my face, and I deplore the tragedies which have occurred since the onset of Covidianism - for example, the epidemic of teen suicides in the UK following Johnson's lockdown. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">How, then, can we avert further tragedies and recover our lost freedom? It is: stamp out Covidianism, and in doing so, show the Covidians the same ruthlessness to them that they have shown to others - to (for example) the grandmothers and pregnant women barred by the Australian police from resting on park benches, the teenage girls pepper-sprayed by that same police for not wearing masks... </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">For inspiration, we ought to cast our eyes to the Europe of eighty years ago, when the old Masonry (paleo-Masonry?) was terminated and with extreme prejudice. In the <a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_foreign-policy-reports_1940-10-15_16_15/page/n1/mode/2up" target="_blank">October 15 1940 edition</a> of <u>Foreign Policy Reports</u>, we find the essay 'Europe Under Nazi Rule' by Vera Micheles Dean; here are some of the passages which pertain to Masonry: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Whatever may be Hitler’s ultimate plans for the political reorganization of Europe, it is already clear that many of the practices familiar in Germany have been introduced in conquered countries, at least for the duration of the war—either directly by the Nazis, or by native administrators under Nazi pressure. Among such measures are... the spread of anti-Semitism, and abolition of secret societies, notably Free Masonry. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Relations between the German occupying authorities and the Dutch population, at first marked by extreme civility on the one side, and stunned resignation on the other, have shown signs of increasing strain as the Dutch began to realize the consequences of conquest... Free Masonry was abolished on September 5.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Meanwhile, the French social and economic system was rapidly being adapted to “new conditions"... Republican legislation banning anti-Semitic activities was repealed, and a number of demonstrations against Jews were reported in both occupied and unoccupied France. Free Masonry, long denounced for its political influence by the Right and by the Church, was abolished, and all French government officials and employees were required to take on oath that they had no connection with Free Masonry.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">IV.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In 2021, the fight for freedom for Europe rests in the hands of the European people, the masses; no political leaders, certainly not those seeking a revival of the politics of 80 years ago, are coming over the horizon to save Europe. And a survey of the terrain reveals that Europeans cannot expect relief from the conservatives: after all, some of the worst Covidians in Europe (Johnson of the UK, Mitsotakis of Greece, Macron of France, et al.) are 'conservative'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But then, in the 1930s and 1940s, Churchill was considered a 'conservative'; and Roosevelt would be considered by today's standards to be well to the Right of anyone in the today's Democratic Party. And we can trace a line of development from the politics of these men - and De Gaulle, Weizmann and the others of that circle - to the politics of today's neo-Masons and Covidians. Johnson = Churchill, Macron = De Gaulle, Biden = Roosevelt... </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, some may object that the politicians of eighty to ninety years ago would never have countenanced Covidianism, which is true enough but only for the reason that these men had not thought of it at that juncture. In much the same way, the communists of Italy in the 1940s and 1950s would never have supported the idea of the Great Replacement for Italy (and Europe), but that is not because the 'old' Italian Left lacked the malice of the 'new'; no, it is because the idea had not occurred to them. Furthermore they would have recognised that such a misanthropic idea would not have caught on. They would have been politically astute enough to recognise that the Great Replacement, along with Greta Thunberg environmentalism, Social Justice Warrior cancel culture, etc., would have seemed a bridge too far for Italians in the 1950s. But now, seventy years later, the Italians are more than ready - and this is 'progress'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">V.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I began drafting this essay at the start of July, and revisiting the draft at the end of August, I find little to nothing has changed for Australia - it remains in its Covidian rut. A resolution to the crisis seems as far as away as ever. One of the reasons why I held off completing and posting the essay was that I wanted to be seen as 'positive', not 'negative', and my thinking was that if I could not say something 'positive', well, better not say it at all - and truth to tell, I could think of nothing 'positive' to say. I still cannot, and I do not think anyone with any intellectual honesty can assert that salvation lies just around the corner... </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">At present, it will take a miracle to extricate ourselves from our plight - a miracle much like that occurred in a Central European nation nearly ninety years ago (in what Yockey called the 'European Revolution of 1933'). Until then, I advise readers: escape! If you cannot leave present Australia - or Europe - materially, leave it spiritually. Send your mind back, through time, to the past if need be.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-82182910467235374912021-05-22T22:13:00.010-07:002021-05-23T16:56:02.421-07:00A Racialist and a Gentleman: Elitism on the 1990s American Far Right<p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6h5JczlFvvzyaHxInu3YtdlVXREwCcgulPzt8INekIlzu2fVeWsaLSzdpggwuZWA9BC_PPv1SalqS9-pzyt09kYsDVbGnq9OG_UkRCbQo7deGuiPmYwMDX1HmkSPn_6vEgXqsSvvPZKC-/s515/Jonathan-Higgins-Magnum-PI-John-Hillerman.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="515" data-original-width="500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6h5JczlFvvzyaHxInu3YtdlVXREwCcgulPzt8INekIlzu2fVeWsaLSzdpggwuZWA9BC_PPv1SalqS9-pzyt09kYsDVbGnq9OG_UkRCbQo7deGuiPmYwMDX1HmkSPn_6vEgXqsSvvPZKC-/s320/Jonathan-Higgins-Magnum-PI-John-Hillerman.jpg" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I have been meaning to compose an article on the American dissident Right for some time, but I have been hesitating, as the old adage 'If you don't have anything positive to say, don't say it' has been lurking in the back of my mind. I have become somewhat alienated from the Americans over the course of the past ten years, and if I were to write anything on them, I would be writing a condemnation, but I am reluctant to do so, as I do not want to appear to be 'negative'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Why the alienation? See the recent events in Gaza. We find lamentations for the Palestinians - from white nationalists, race realists, neo-Nazis, immigration restrictionists and so forth; they call the Israeli bombing 'butchery', 'genocide'. But I do not recall any bemoaning the fate of the civilians who were being bombed and shelled by Russia and Syria in Idlib; these relentless and malicious attacks on civilian targets - marketplaces, hospitals, etc. - were not denounced by the dissident Right, which showed little to no awareness that these were taking place. The one or two commentators who were aware dismissed the actions of Putin and Assad as taking care of the 'terrorists' in the region. In the past ten years I have learned, from the dissident Right, that there are good terrorists and bad, good jihadis and bad. Hamas and Hezbollah stand on the 'good terrorist' and 'good jihadi' side of the ledger, the rebels in Idlib on the 'bad'; and also, every Arab civilian death in Gaza is a tragedy, every Arab civilian death in Syria, a non-event. But I myself cannot understand the basis of this evaluation, as it is never been explained to me successfully, and it is one of the reasons why I stopped comprehending the dissident Right. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Likewise, events in Ukraine after 2014 added to my confusion and alienation. The question I ask, nearly ten years later, is: what was it, precisely, that made the Ukrainians deserve to lose Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and what made the Russians worthy enough to annex them? The corrupt and incompentent Yanukovych was toppled and fled the country after Maidan - which most on the American dissident Right seem to regard as a crime for the ages - but it has never been explained how Yanukovych's policies differed from his successors; that is, why it was that Yanukovych was so good and Poroshenko and Zelensky so bad. Would Yanukovych's return to power make life better for Ukrainians, and if so, how? Inquiring minds want to know. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I would sum up the 2010s as the decade in which the movement was taken in by Russian propaganda; the movement made a large investment in it. But that Russian propaganda shall one day be exposed in the same way that Soviet propaganda (on Katyn, for instance) was. Putin will not live forever and eventually the internal Russian documents on Syria and Ukraine will be declassified. And then we shall discover, lo and behold, that Russia knew all along that flight MH17 was shot down by Russians in Eastern Ukraine in 2014, that chemical weapons were used by Assad in Douma in 2017. Will, I wonder, the dissident Right then express its shame over being taken in? The answer is no. I think shame presupposes conscience, and many of today's luminaries on the dissident Right lack it; they are an unprincipled bunch. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">More and more people in the movement are beginning to see through 'based' Putin, but the old attitudes, and the old lies, persist. But I could be here reproached for judging the dissident Right unfairly: why deprecate it for Ukraine and Syria, both of which are peripheral to the cause of white survival? And it is true that Ukraine and Syria should not occupy our attentions overly much. The reason why the dissident Right has taken up Russia's cause is that the Right has navigated off-course; it has waded into unfamiliar territory; it should have stuck to what it was good at. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As what is the American dissident Right's metier, we have to look at what was a better, purer time - the 1990s. (That decade began on the 1st of January, 1990 and ended (in my view) on the 11th of September, 2001: after the terrorist attack of 9/11, America and the world entered the 2000s, the decade of Bush's War on Terror). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">II. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I ask: was life for Americans better in the 1990s? That is impossible to judge. So I will rephrase: was life for those on the American dissident Right better? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The answer is yes. America, in 2021, since the Biden coup, is ruled by three political actors: Big Tech, Hollywood and the Media. The ideology that animates this terrible trio is extreme leftism. In order to understand that ideology, we must recognise that the modern Left can be divided up to six different factions. The past of twenty to thirty years ago was an improvement on the present insofar as that none of the factions had political power. Someone on the Center or Far Right, were they travel in a time machine back to America in the 1990s would discover that the country was blessedly free of Marxism. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Here I will go through each of the six and explain where each stood in the 1990s: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">- <i>Old school Marxism / communism:</i> Marxism had been discredited with the fall of the Soviet Union and the backsliding of communist China into capitalism. Communist parties in the Anglosphere (e.g., the United Kingdom and Australia) dissolved themselves. In America, traditional Marxist stalwarts the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) and the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) were relegated to obscurity, as were their Trotskyite and New Communist Communist Movement (NCM) offshoots; many of the NCM groups had dissolved themselves by the time of the fall of the Eastern European communist bloc and the scandal of the Tianamen Square massacre. In the 1990s, for the first time in over a hundred years, conservatism did not have contend with Marxism, which had ceased to exist. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">- <i>Antifa and anarchism:</i> these could be found only at the fringes of society - along with the goth, skinhead, 'black' heavy metal subcultures - and did not possess a fraction of the political power that they possess in 2021. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">- <i>Woke capital:</i> corporations paid lip service to liberal causes such as environmentalism, but only lip service. In 2021, companies such as Facebook (which recently prevented its users from posting news articles on race riots in Minneapolis) seek to actively control their customers, which is unprecedented. In the 1990s, or any foregoing decade for that matter, corporations did not behave in this way. The profit motive came first. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">- <i>Social Justice Warriors / SJWs:</i> Popular culture was not as corrupted by the Left in the 1990s; it was bereft of overt demands for 'representation', 'equity', 'social justice' and the like, and it did not engage (for example) in the practice of race-swapping white characters for black. And, furthermore, the infrastructure which supports SJWs - social media, especially Twitter - did not exist in the 1990s. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">- <i>Black Lives Matter (BLM):</i> like SJWism, this did not exist in the 1990s.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">- <i>Queer Studies, Women's Studies, Black Studies, Post-colonial Theory, Critical Race Theory:</i> like a serpent in the garden of Eden, this brand of academic neo-communism marred what would otherwise have been a perfectly post-leftist and post-political decade. Troublesome as it was when it first appeared, postmodernist and post-structuralist academic theory did not involve itself overly much politics, but its children - in particular, Critical Race Theory - did, with consequences we all know too well. Academic neo-Marxism (or Cultural Marxism) was conceived in the 1990s, was born in the 2000s, and grew to maturity (and attained, we hope, what was the full extent of its power) in the 2010s. Every silver lining has its cloud, and in the 1990s, postmodern academic 'pozzedness' was it, and I think that it gradually seeped into the popular culture of the time. This phenomenon explains, for instance, the 'pozzedness' of Kurt Cobain, the first politically correct rock star in history (Cobain, it should be remembered, named his daughter after a runaway negro slave). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I made mention of the post-political, and this is important. One common argument in political theory is that the Right only defines itself in relation to the Left: conservatism, as we know it, only came into being after the advent of leftism, which was sometime a few hundred years ago, in the 18th century: see Edmund Burke, who wrote the founding text of conservatism in reaction to the French Revolution, which was the culmination of the rationalist, egalitarian, democratic French ideas of that period. If it were not for the Left, the Right would not exist; so what happens when the Left disappears? The answer is, the Right disappears with it. In the 1990s, Thatcherism, Reaganism, and all the 'New Right' ideology became passé: after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was no ideology enemy for the Right to fight against, Russians and Eastern Europeans all agreed with Thatcher and Reagan that capitalism was a good thing, so, what was the point of Thatcherism and Reaganism? But, so the argument goes, with the termination of the Left came the termination of the Right: so, no more politics. And this respite from the political raised serious questions. For the first time in over a hundred years, conservatives lived in a world which was free of Marxism; socialism no longer dangled over their heads like a sword of Damocles. Did that mean that they had ceased to be conservatives? Did that entail the end of politics? The American sociologist Daniel Bell wrote a famous work, <u>The End of Ideology: on the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the 1950s</u> (1960), on that subject: after 1945, he argued, the appeal of socialism and class war had diminished and both sides of politics in Western life had settled into a consensus. In the 1990s, Bell's ideas were dusted off and revived. As a Swedish academic, Daniel Strand, <a href="http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A974844&dswid=-9722">wrote</a>: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">In the 1950s, scholars in Europe and the United States announced the end of political ideology in the West. With the rise of affluent welfare states, they argued, ideological movements which sought to overthrow prevailing liberal democracy would disappear. While these arguments were questioned in the 1960s, similar ideas were presented after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Scholars now claimed that the end of the Cold War meant the end of mankind’s “ideological development,” that globalization would undermine the left/right distinction and that politics would be shaped by cultural affiliations rather than ideological alignments. In the 1950s, scholars in Europe and the United States announced the end of political ideology in the West. With the rise of affluent welfare states, they argued, ideological movements which sought to overthrow prevailing liberal democracy would disappear. While these arguments were questioned in the 1960s, similar ideas were presented after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Scholars now claimed that the end of the Cold War meant the end of mankind’s “ideological development,” that globalization would undermine the left/right distinction and that politics would be shaped by cultural affiliations rather than ideological alignments.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Hence, we saw Francis Fukuyama's <u>The End of History and the Last Man</u> (1993), which encapsulated the spirit of the age - or the decade - perfectly; and then Carl Boggs' <u>The End of Politics: Corporate Power and the Decline of the Public Sphere</u> (2000), which is one of the best books that summed up the political developments - or lack of them - in that decade. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">One might think that in the 1990s, the Far Right would have sunk into oblivion, given that the West, in the post-Cold War, post-political era, had fallen into somnolence, complacency and self-satisfaction. But the end of politics, the end of ideology, the end of history, liberated the Far Right, and for the first time since the end of WWII, it came into its own. In its way, the 1990s were insurrectionist from a political and cultural standpoint; as Boggs documents, the decade saw a proliferation of cults, gangs, militias, terrorists, all with a decidedly apocalyptic and millenarian bent; these were extremist and radical, but not of course left-extremist and left-radical; they were inclined to conspiracy theories and anti-government paranoia (both of which abounded in the great TV series of that time, <u>The X-Files</u>, which like Fukuyama's book, was representative of the zeitgeist). Did anything unite these disparate tendencies? Yes: I would argue it was the desire to retrieve a lost spiritual essence and state of purity. It is this, I feel, that marks the ideology of the groups as reactionary, even right-wing. The Right wants such a retrieval or recovery; the Left, a redistribution of wealth and resources. Given that in the 1990s, the odds were stacked more in favour of the Right than the Left, naturally, 'extremists' of the William Pierce or Richard Butler sort flourished - and the more apocalyptic and millenarian their beliefs were, the larger their audience. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This leads to the question of how it was that these 'extremists' got their message across. In the 1990s, old-school forms of entertainment (movies, TV shows, comic books, popular music on AM and FM radio) drew audiences numbering in the millions, as did old school forms of media (newspapers and other journals, radio, TV). The American Far Right, at the start of the nineties, used print media - books, magazines, newsletters, journals - to disseminate propaganda, and also other forms of old media. William Pierce read his incendiary polemics on radio, and even, for a time, appeared on his own cable TV channel; we moderns live in a comparatively unfree time, and we find it remarkable that the likes of Pierce were able to make his message heard in forums now unavailable to us.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Pierce saw a great potential in radio. He says: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>And we can do it. Three years ago there was no one willing to say publicly what we are saying now. Everyone was letting himself be intimidated into going along with the controlled media and the government. Then we started broadcasting on one radio station - just one broadcast a week. A year ago we had grown to seven stations. Now we're broadcasting on 15 stations each week. We have been able </span><span>to grow like that because the people who listened to us on our first station three years ago told other people about us, and they began listening too, and then they told their friends. And our support grew, so that we could add more stations to our network. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>And we can keep growing. The 100,000 of us who now gather each week can grow to a million and then to ten million. All we have to do is keep spreading the word to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers, and to strangers too. We can spread the word by telephone, by letter, by spray-painting </span><span>the time and frequency of this broadcast on fences and walls, by taking out advertising, by handing out leaflets. We can have 100 stations in our network by the end of this year. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">And we really must do that. Not just because it'll feel good to have a million of us together each week instead of only 100,000. We have to do it because we need to be able to speak with a big enough voice to prevent the enemies of America, the enemies of our people, from silencing us. [From the radio talk, 'Freedom: Use It or Lose It', February 1995.]</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Pierce evidently saw himself as a rebel, a resistant, and that is the reason why his radio program was titled <u>American Dissident Voices</u>, his journal <u>Free Speech</u>. He operated outside the accepted American culture, and like the anti-hero of Dostoyevsky's famous novel, he wrote missives which were notes from the underground. Being under ground means being in the dark, and that made up one of the themes of nineties. One could find that theme - of a life lived in darkness and shadow - in the popular culture of the period. Compare the dim lighting and dark colours of the nineties TV show the <u>X-Files</u> to the bright lighting and pastel colours of the eighties TV show <u>Miami Vice</u>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The underground man theme was also embodied in the work of Art Bell, the late-night radio host who broadcast to millions of listeners from his studio in the Mojave Desert; Bell was obsessed by UFOs, the paranormal and anti-government conspiracy theories - many of the favourite preoccupations of Americans in that period. It is appropriate that in one of his famous broadcasts Bell clashed with Pierce, another titan of the airwaves; Bell and Pierce could be seen as two competing brothers. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Wilmot Robertson sums up the feeling of being an underground man, an outsider, in a January 1995 issue of his journal <u>Instauration</u>: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><u>Instauration</u> is a small journal, known to only a thin number of Americans. It cannot be bought on any newsstand. You will never see it hawked by the corner paperboy. Whenever it is mentioned in the mainstream press, the words are couched in tones of fear and loathing. The handful of public figures who have suggested that the world's most controversial magazine might have some slight merit have been treated as if they were advance agents of the Anti-Christ. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Despite these rather lethal drawbacks, it is comforting to know that even if we are undersized, underfinanced and furiously ignored, Instauration is more perceptive, perspicacious and prescient than Time, Newsweek, the New Republic, the New York Times and the Washington Post. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The simple truth is that what has been predicted on Instauration's pages is relentlessly coming true. The political, social, cultural and racial policies the magazine generally espouses are unquestionably coming to the fore. Nothing can stop this process and our enemies know it. Thus their frenzied hatred. The bell tolls for them, not us. ['Things are coming together']</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">III. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Robertson gives us an example of an American persona - both a literary and political - I call the gentleman scholar as racialist, the racialist as patrician. The great racialist authors Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard represent the type in the first half of twentieth century, and Wilmot Robertson, Jared Taylor and the anonymous author of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_newsletters">Ron Paul newsletters</a> in the second. They are distinguished from the more crude type of racialist by their learning, culture, refinement, literary skill, and above all, class. As one letter writer to<u> Instauration</u> (February 1995) puts it: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I never met an Instaurationist and often tried to visualize one. I pictured an older gentleman of Anglo-Saxon background, but not too old, mind you. Are you familiar with the TV show, <u>Magnum PI</u>? If so, the delightful older chap, Higgans or Higgins, fits the bill. He is the fellow with the aristocratic English accent.</span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">At first sight, Pierce - an erudite and cultured man - would belong in this category, but on further examination, he does not; his radicalism precludes it. Even though he finds himself mostly in agreement with Robertson, he presents his ideas in a different manner: his incendiary radio broadcasts recall those Father Coughlin, the Depression-era 'radio priest', and the political strategy of his hero of the <u>Turner Diaries</u> - a book written in the seventies - that of the urban guerrilla left-wing groups of that decade. It is this violent and radical streak which separates him from the genteel Grant and Stoddard. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Pierce's journal <u>National Vanguard</u> (the official organ of his National Alliance) differs in its tone from three of the patrician-racialist journals of the 1990s: <u>Instauration</u>, the <u>American Renaissance</u> newsletter and the <u>Ron Paul Survival Report</u>: these three sounded conservative, <u>National Vanguard</u> sounded radical. Ron Paul's newsletter - which may or may have not been written by him - spoke of African-Americans, homosexuals, immigrants and Jews in what Pierce would have called euphemistically a 'political incorrect' manner, but all the same, the newsletters were grounded in American conservatism, Paul being a free-market libertarian. Likewise, two of the American Renaissance circle - Joe Sobran and Sam Francis - began their careers as op-ed writers for conservative journals (which they were later blacklisted from). Conceivably, Robertson and the other contributors could have written for conservative journals (providing that they kept well away from 'politically incorrect' subjects). But Pierce, an affiliate of George Lincoln Rockwell and a contributor to <u>National Socialist World</u> in the 1960s, would have never been allowed near a conservative publication; his reputation would have preceded him. The same could be said of other white nationalist luminaries of the decade David Duke, Don Black, Tom Metzger, Ben Klassen. A distinction which I am inclined to call a class distinction existed. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But what united all these men, patricians and non-patricians? First and foremost, a concentration upon the negro question, which in the 1990s was thrust to the forefront of the American national consciousness by the spectacle of the 1992 Los Angeles race riots - the first race riots (at least, the first which attained prominence) since the 1960s. The Los Angeles riots demonstrated that the negro question could not be ignored, and set the pattern for the race riots to follow, including those that took place in 2020. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Here is one account of a race riot in Cincinnati - all italics are mine:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Everyone in America knows about Cincinnati. That is, everyone at least has seen the sanitized images of the Cincinnati race riot that have appeared on television screens across the country. In that regard the Cincinnati riot is different from the Seattle race riot of nearly two months ago. News of the Seattle riot </span><span>was successfully suppressed by the controlled media outside the Seattle area. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>In other ways, however, the riots were very similar. Although the controlled media decided not to try to suppress the news from Cincinnati, it is clear that the sympathies of the media bosses were as much with the Blacks in Cincinnati as they were in Seattle. Here's one small example of that: <i>The 19-year-old </i></span><span><i>Black thug whose shooting by a White policeman was the Blacks' excuse for rioting in Cincinnati had a long arrest record. There were 14 more arrest warrants outstanding for him at the time he was shot. </i></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The policeman who shot him, in other words, realized that he was dealing with <i>a habitual criminal,</i> and he responded to what he believed was an attempt by the Black to draw a weapon from his waistband by shooting him. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>None of this was mentioned on the television news coverage of events in Cincinnati, of course. <i>The Black who was shot was described by the media as "an unarmed Black youth" - or, in the case of Cincinnati's Channel 9 television news program, as "an unarmed African American teenager."</i> And here's the clincher: <i>Instead of using one of the readily available police mug shots of the Black, the media managed to dig up a photo of him in a formal suit with a big, innocent smile on his face, presumably taken at some high-school dance - and that is the photograph shown repeatedly to Americans on their television screens: not the police mug shots of a hardened, 19-year-old Black criminal, but a photograph </i></span><span><i>of smiling, well-dressed, teenaged Black innocence. </i>You can be sure that some Jewish news director got a bonus from a Jewish network boss for digging up that photograph. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>At the Black's funeral last Saturday the White governor of Ohio and the White mayor of Cincinnati both appeared among the mourners. That's a symbolic thing. <i>You can be certain that they wouldn't have attended the funeral of some White street thug shot by a Black cop.</i> They attended the funeral, alongside Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam people, Kweisi Mfume of the NAACP, and members of the </span><span>New Black Panther Party, and they looked appropriately contrite and said nice things about the deceased for one reason only:<i> they were frightened to death that the Blacks would continue rioting. </i></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>And why were they afraid of that? <i>They could have stopped the riot dead in its tracks any time they wanted. </i>That is, physically they could have stopped the riot. Even though 43 per cent of the population of Cincinnati is Black, the police could have wound up the riot within half an hour, and the Blacks who </span><span>survived the gunfire would have been trembling behind closed doors, afraid to show their faces. Militarily it would have been a trivial matter. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>But both Mayor Charles Luken and Governor Bob Taft understood that politically they were at the mercy of the Black rioters. They knew which side the Jewish media were on. <i>They knew that if they took strong measures against the rioters they would be crucified by the media. </i>So just as in Seattle the cops, under </span><span>orders from the politicians, simply let the riot run its course. They arrested 200 or so Blacks they caught looting stores or setting fires when they could do so without danger of any real conflict, but it was more a matter of picking off stragglers than it was any real attempt at riot control. <i>For the most part the </i></span><span><i>police just watched. </i>They watched while Blacks stopped cars with White drivers, pulled the drivers out of their cars, and stomped and beat them mercilessly. They stood by and watched the Blacks beat a White woman "to a pulp." Those words - "to a pulp" - aren't mine; they came from the April 12 edition of the <u>Cincinnati Post</u>. The rule governing the cops was: don't provoke the Blacks. </span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The reader may be surprised to learn that the above excerpt was taken from a May 2001 talk by William Pierce, 'Riot and Revolution', as the riot it describes could have taken place yesterday. African-American riots did not begin with the advent of Black Lives Matter. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">What is significant is that the race riots of 1992 and 2001 could not be blamed on communism - i.e., the African-American rioters, looters and arsonists had not been stirred up by communist agitators; neither could be blamed on economic misery and hardship, as America in the 1990s was the most prosperous it had been since the 1960s. No, any honest commentator, after the riots of 1992, needed to face (and face squarely) certain immutable racial realities and this is what Pierce and Taylor did. What divided the two men was their approach. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">IV.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Patrician racialism is still with us, but it was dealt a blow by the decline of the print media and the rise of the Internet. <u>Instauration</u>, the <u>Ron Paul Survival Report</u>, and the <u>American Renaissance</u> newsletter ceased publication. The Internet became the primary means of disseminating racialist ideas and perspectives, and this development worked against the genteel and literary brand of racialism, as discourse became open to all - democratised. The quality of thought diminished. In the 1990s, readers of <u>Instauration</u> and the <u>American Renaissance</u> journal needed to master the art of composition if they wanted their comments to appear in the letters pages; nowadays, those who post their comments on any white nationalist site do not bother. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The decline of 'gentleman racialism' helps explains why it is that so much of the American dissident Right has veered into what is not American. Robertson wrote extensively on the Jewish question and Holocaust and WWII revisionism (although you would never know from this recent American Renaissance <a href="https://www.amren.com/blog/2021/04/dark-humor-instauration-wilmot-robertson/" target="_blank">post</a>); even Taylor looked at these subjects (albeit in passing) in the 1990s newsletters. But articles on these controversies were outweighed by those on the subject of race and the 'colour of crime'. One advantage of writing for a print journal is that you can weight your articles; you can bring articles on the more important subjects close to the front pages and consign the less important to the back; using a website, you cannot direct your reader's attention the same way, as you are forced to give all the articles equal billing. Their format was one of the reasons why the gentlemanly journals stayed focused. In contrast, very little in the way of a unifying American theme can be found in most of today's white nationalist or dissident Right sites. We see posts on Celtic myth; on 19th century Romantic art; on Ukraine and Syria (of course written from a pro-Russian perspective); on Israel and Zionism; on Holocaust Revisionism. Posts of speeches and articles by German National Socialists written over 75 years ago sit incongruously alongside current American news stories. A melange, a chaos, arises as a result of this lack of a theme - the Renegade Tribune being the best example. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Once a site deviates away from the 'dispossession of the majority' and the 'colour of crime', the quality of its comments deteriorates. Sites which tackle Israel, Zionism and Middle East politics (such as Unz.Org) attract some of the worst people in the comments, and sites which stay grounded (such as American Renaissance and Stuff Black People Don't Like) some of the best. This is because decent, ordinary Americans from all walks of life can relate to the 'colour of crime', for it is omnipresent in their lives; whereas the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Syria, are not. Paul Kersey's Stuff Black People Don't Like only deals with the negro question - nothing else! - and Jared Taylor's American Renaissance only deals with race; neither will touch the Jewish question with a barge pole, as evidently Taylor and Kersey are of the opinion that it will go over the heads of most Americans. There is something to be said for this empiricism and pragmatism. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Here an objection may be raised and Pierce pointed to as an example of an activist who, his writing and speaking, shifted between a number of subjects and at the same time stayed coherent. It is true, I will concede, that Pierce achieved this feat; but I will observe that Pierce, who died in 2002, did not write for the new media but for the old - print and radio - in which a certain amount of craft and skill was required. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">V. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Speaking of Pierce, an examination of his speeches from the nineties show that he would disagree with me that the decade was 'conservative' in any shape or form; Pierce saw the America of the time as a multi-racial dystopia, in which the political system and the culture was hopelessly Judaised, and in which leftism ran amok. I will qualify my earlier remarks by stating that in the nineties liberalism (or leftism) was prevalent, but this was a 'soft' leftism, unconnected to the 'hard' leftism of the Marxist-Leninist variety. The latter has come back into a fashion, in a big way, and its revival can be attributed to increased non-immigration: Third World immigration brings with it Third World Marxism - something 'race-blind' conservatives are unwilling to acknowledge.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As for Judaisation, the 2010s have seen a slight diminution of Jewish power - on the Left, at least. In the 1990s and 2000s, any criticism of Israel by any politician, either of the Left or Right, was equated with anti-Semitism and discouraged - the African-American Democratic Party Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney#2002_primary_defeat" target="_blank">ousted</a> because of a perceived 'anti-Semitism' - but in the Left today, anti-Semites are more than welcome. During the recent bombing of Gaza, we were treated to headlines (in the conservative media) such as 'Pro-Hamas mobs are hounding Jews coast to coast'; left-wing activists (who more often than not people of colour) were insulting, harassing and attacking Jews in what the pro-Israel conservative media saw as a pogrom. This 'left' anti-Semitism has been furthered by non-white immigration, in particular, immigration from the Islamic world; it does not (as Pierce would have hoped) represent any anti-Semitic 'racial awakening' on the part of whites. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Pierce, in his radio talks, was always documenting instances of some of the bad behaviour of African-Americans, including some of the grisly black-on-white murders which took place in that period, and he was always pointing out that these had been hushed up by a complaisant media. One development - and this is one he would have approved of - is that since the Black Lives Matter riots, the conservative media, while holding to its usual anti-racist line, is posting pictures and videos of African-American public nuisances and criminals, and is even reporting on some black-on-white murders. It does so in a passive-aggressive manner; it understands that it is still beholden to what Paul Kersey calls 'Black Run America' and it does not want to openly acknowledge the 'colour of crime'. But it is reflecting, I think, the mood of its audience: there is a new impatience on the part of white Americans with African-Americans. Some of the commenters at American Renaissance have declared that they were ordinary Americans who were led on the path to 'race realism' by mainstream news stories chronicling African-American misbehaviour. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">One has to ask what Pierce of the 1990s would have made of today's America. I think it would have been beyond his comprehension; he would not have understood it. And such is the disconnect between his time and ours, if you were to travel back in time and tell him that the 2020s would be much worse by way of comparison to the 1990s, he would have regarded you as insane. </span></p><p><br /></p>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-76157141595864214472021-02-21T00:26:00.008-08:002021-02-28T03:36:19.996-08:00Letter to a young Neo-Nazi<p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHh7Aqvof-fbJMmcCy3Z8hjOc2FcFjTp5URmY7sQAYm7iil9dknohkDicAwGa5bbxs2y88HOSRuc9nZQDbYDwnvH3MB_nB6K_UYGPx9utzFlvzEhkpPwYaVAOv1oAgTzIwmCEdo8KPDjkB/s402/Duped.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="402" data-original-width="401" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHh7Aqvof-fbJMmcCy3Z8hjOc2FcFjTp5URmY7sQAYm7iil9dknohkDicAwGa5bbxs2y88HOSRuc9nZQDbYDwnvH3MB_nB6K_UYGPx9utzFlvzEhkpPwYaVAOv1oAgTzIwmCEdo8KPDjkB/s320/Duped.PNG" /></span></a></div><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I see from the news that Neo-Nazism is making a comeback amongst the youth of Australia, especially in the state of Victoria. This development I find interesting, as I know a great deal of the subject of Neo-Nazism and I can share some of that knowledge with these youth. In lieu of a face to face lecture - which is difficult to organise at the moment, given the circumstances - I here present some of my insights in written form. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">II.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Last year I showed an elderly relative of mine the movie <u>Star Wars</u> (1977) (I refuse to call it by its modern name, <u>A New Hope</u>); she had not seen it previously, having led a sheltered life. Interestingly enough, when the first Imperial officer (clad in a black Wehrmacht uniform and donning a WWII-era Japanese army style hat) came into view, she exclaimed that the Imperials were 'Nazis'. And then, at the end credits, when she saw Peter Cushing's name appear - the great Cushing having played the imperial officer Moff Tarkin - she wondered aloud, 'Which character was Peter Cushing? Oh, that's right: he was the creepy-voiced Nazi'. All this was amusing, all right, but as I reflected on it later, a train of thought started which led to some serious philosophical musings. I asked myself what exactly is it that makes a 'Nazi'? Were Moff Tarkin and the other Imperials cast in the mold of a Platonic Ideal of 'Nazidom'? And these questions in turn led to another, one which was more technical than philosophical: how is that Neo-Nazis are to be recruited, trained and deployed - how is it that they are to be mass produced, in the same way that the Marxist Left mass produces commies? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Oddly enough, I think the second question is more easily answered than the first.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Neo-Nazism, according to the dictionary definition, seeks to revive the theory and practice of German National Socialism. That to my mind is a reasonable working definition. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, no-one in the movement uses the term Neo-Nazism as I do, and do frequently; in our milieu, its usage is frowned upon and the term 'National Socialism' is much preferred. But as Carolyn Yeager points out, those who range themselves as enemies of Hitler, the NSDAP, the Third Reich, can and do borrow the term National Socialism; a much better term to use would be 'Hitlerism', which leaves others in no doubt as to where one stands. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">If an intellectual is to be a student of Hitlerism, he should read, carefully, Hitler's <u>Mein Kampf</u> (1923) (and its sequel, <u>Zweites Buch</u> (1928)); Hitler's collected speeches; and Rosenberg's <u>Myth of the 20th Century</u> (1931). But a full understanding and appreciation of these requires that one study German and European history, which, I regret to say, is a task that many Hitlerians never undertake - they can tell you nothing of the lives of the men Hitler considered to be the three greatest Germans, Luther, Frederick the Great and Bismarck, nor the history of the unification of Germany, nor the history of WWI... They do not know who or what a Prussian was. It is as though someone declared themselves to be a Maoist and at the same time professed total ignorance of Chinese personages such as Sun Yat Sen. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">If one does not grasp Hitlerism, one will not grasp Neo-Nazism, which is a revival of it. But fortunately, a book does exist that puts a thousand years of German and European history into political context, and that is Yockey's <u>Imperium</u> (1948). Much has changed since Yockey wrote his book, yes, but much has not; his chapter on the American negro and communism still holds true seventy years later, as we can see from <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/philadelphia-fifth-graders-forced-to-celebrate-black-communism" target="_blank">recent events</a>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The trouble with <u>Imperium</u> is that many in the movement have read it, but few shows signs of understanding it or at least assimilating its ideas. For example, the white nationalist Greg Johnson publishes new editions of Yockey's work, which I think is commendable, but Johnson opposes Hitler and German National Socialism and I find little influence of <u>Imperium</u> in Johnson's thinking. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Part of the fault lies in Yockey; he is an acquired taste, and I while I find the book easy to read - I have re-read it five or six times - others do not. The study of <u>Imperium</u> demands a preliminary study of Spengler, which is asking a lot, as while Spengler wrote many short books - including the <u>Hour of Decision</u> (1934), a blatantly racialist work which is bound to appeal to many white nationalists - his magnum opus, the <u>Decline of the West</u> (1918-1922) clocks in at half a million words. Reading this work will take time, even though Spengler (for a German philosopher) writes clearly enough. An abridged version of the <u>Decline</u> does exist, but it numbers nearly 500 pages. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">All the same, Spengler's five or six published works, in combination with Carl Schmitt's <u>The Concept of the Political</u> (1932) (which Yockey borrowed from liberally), plus Yockey, will convert any reasonably open-minded intellectual into a 'Hitlerian'. These books cannot fail. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">After one has digested all these, the problem becomes one of orientating oneself politically, armed with these ideas, in today's world. Supposing that Yockey were to come back to life in 2021 (he died sixty years ago), would he be surprised, shocked, by recent developments? Yes and no. Both Yockey and Spengler anticipated that, at some point in the future, Russia would abandon the Marxist ideology, so one can guess that the collapse of the Soviet Union would have been no great surprise to Yockey. But he would have been surprised by the massive non-white invasion of the Western world. Yockey narrates how, in his time, American Jewish groups devoted themselves to the spreading pro-immigration propaganda and the breaking down racial barriers; but the idea that America, having fallen under the sway of these groups, would give up its immigration restrictions and allow the importation of some 59 million people (the greatest movement of any peoples in any time in history) would have seemed to Yockey to be only a theoretical, not a practical, possibility. In short, were Yockey to return to today's Los Angeles - a city he once lived in - he would be shocked, appalled, angered and confused. The same would apply were he to return to visit today's Paris, London, Rome, Berlin.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Any return to today's America would lead to some hard choices on Yockey's part, e.g., the choice between Trump and Biden in 2020. In that election, both candidates were fully embedded in the American pro-Jewish, pro-Israel power structure, and both had married their children off to Jews; but one had, during his time in office, cut legal immigration by 49%, and the other had, during the 2020 campaign, vowed to increase it a hundred fold. So should Yockey get behind the immigration-restrictionist candidate or abstain from electoral politics altogether? There are no easy answers and the past gives us no guideposts. And this brings us back to the main shortcoming of Hitler's writing. The collected speeches, which encompass the entirety of Hitler's career, put forth a compelling and tragic narrative of the rise and fall of a great man and a great nation; but the collection comes to an end of April 1945 - there it stops, abruptly, without giving any indication of what came next. This is the problem with old books: the argument could be made that Hitler's writing, and even Yockey's, constitute nothing more than white man's history, a record of a world which has been left behind. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Having said that, Hitlerism has not been mummified, has not been turned into a dusty, inanimate object; Hitler has not gone the same way of Napoleon; he has not been made safe and respectable. Political possibilities still exist in Hitlerism. The day that a statue of Hitler has been put up in Berlin, the day that a sympathetic nine-hour movie portrayal of the rise and fall of the Third Reich - of the same stamp as Peter Jackson's <u>Lord of the Rings</u> (2001-2003) trilogy - is released, then we know that Hitlerism has become safe, respectable, assimilated. But neither will happen any time soon. The political establishment in Europe and its colonies, including the United States, still lives in fear of a revival of Hitlerism. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Significantly, that same establishment does not live in fear of a revival of Napoleonism nor Marxism-Leninism nor Islam. And even though the political establishment in America abominates white Americans, particularly Southerners, it does not seriously expect a return of the Confederacy and Southern secessionism; the last time that Southern nationalism and racialism posed anything like a threat to the establishment was sixty years ago. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">III.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">At the risk of repeating myself (I have written on this subject in many articles), the essence of 'Nazism' lies in 'Prussianism', or what Spengler calls 'Prussian Socialism'. Spengler calls it an 'Idea', which Yockey defines as a 'Living, breathing, formless reality'. And the best means of comprehending this Idea is to look at it in action - during the course of Germany's war. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">To give a summary of that war... It begins when Germany goes to war with France and England, and invades the Low Countries and northern France; and it invades Russia after a Russo-German peace treaty collapses under the weight of what Germany sees as Russian aggression. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Russia, in the German ideology, represents Asiatic barbarism and despotism (by warring on Russia, Germany is defending Europe from 'The East'). The war against Russia moves quickly, and Germany is initially successful, conquering the Ukraine, the Baltics, Crimea, White Russia (Belarus) and the Trans-Caucasus. Germany, which is over-populated and demands living or elbow room, states its intention of colonising these annexed territories and populating them with peasant farmers and invalid soldiers. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Diplomatically and militarily, the situation is in a state of flux. Sweden and Spain stay neutral, but Serbia is invaded by Germany and Hungary; Romania, initially an ally of Germany, turns against it, sides with Russia and England, and invades Hungary to reclaim lost ancestral lands. In the West, Germany is unable to invade England, a mighty sea-faring power, from across the English Channel or the North Sea, but it does wage submarine and aerial warfare against her. England, for the most part, shows itself to be incompetent in the war; its adventures - for example, an expedition sent to Greece to defend it against the Germans - turn out badly. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It is in the field of propaganda that England proves to achieve its greatest success. It accuses Germany of unprovoked aggression. The German nation is to be condemned in the court of world opinion for its authoritarianism and militarism; Germany is said to be an autocracy, led by a histrionic, mentally unstable despot of a leader, and Germans as a people are guilty of moral failings. Germany lusts for power and worships the use of force. And indeed, Germany's conduct in the war shocks the world. Germany adopts brutal counter-insurgency tactics; builds concentration camps; takes hostages; deports citizens (of territories it occupies) back to Germany for use as forced labour; practises scorched earth warfare... Such is the outrage that England and America demand that the German leadership be put on trial for 'war crimes'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">America becomes embroiled in the war on the English side, thanks to America's president, a Democrat with a solid electoral base in the South and who has some sympathies with what we would today call white nationalism. Through suasion, he overcomes America's inhibitions against foreign entanglements - America's 'Isolationism' - and wages an internal war against a perceived German fifth column in America; and this takes place after he wins re-election on a promise to keep America out of the 'European War'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">American involvement in the war leads to the decline of Germany's military fortunes: once millions of American soldiers had landed in Europe, it was all up for Germany (as Hitler later acknowledged) and Germany is forced to pull out of the conquered Eastern territories in great haste. It is at this late point that Germany's anti-Russian rhetoric intensifies; it makes an appeal to the West to aid it in a struggle against 'Asiatic Bolshevism'. But Germany's pleas fall on deaf ears. It is defeated and partitioned, and the Germans living in the territories amputated from Germany are ethnically cleansed. The German currency becomes worthless and an Allied blockade on food to Germany leads to the death of many Germans. America, however, shows signs of coming around to the German way of thinking and commences the first of many military interventions against communism. Meanwhile, in what we would today call the Third World, European's reputation among the 'coloured peoples' has diminished as a result of the fratricidal war. The natives become restless; a 'coloured' revolt stirs against Western imperialism, colonialism, racialism, the repercussions of which are still being felt today. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">IV. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Yockey portrays the war as a conflict between two nations, two ideas: Germany and England, Socialism and Capitalism. On deeper examination of the Allied propaganda written at the time of the war, it becomes clear that it is the bellicose - and painfully forthright and frank - German political thought which was instrumental in inciting 'Capitalist' England and America against 'Socialist' Germany. I will reproduce here, at length, some quotations from some of Germany's leading nationalist intellectuals. These were compiled by a pair of American scholars in a wartime anti-German propaganda work and grouped under the heading 'Dispossessing the Conquered'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>[In the occupied territories] Germans alone will govern... They alone will </span><span>exercise political rights; they alone will serve in the army and in the navy; they alone will have the right to become landowners; thus they will acquire the conviction that, as in the Middle Ages, the Germans are a people of rulers. How</span><span>ever, they will condescend so far as to delegate inferior tasks to foreign subjects who live among them. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">[...]</span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>If we take, we must also keep. A foreign territory is not incorporated until the day when the rights of property of Germans are rooted in its soil. With all necessary prudence, but also with inflexible determination, a process of expro</span><span>priation should he inaugurated, by which the Poles and the Alsatians and Lorrainers would he gradually transported to the interior of the Empire, while Germans would replace them on the frontiers.</span></span></blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>We wish to commence in a new empire a new life of which the supreme aim shall be: Greater Germany whose task shall be the well-being of Germans. All other laws are dependent on this great one... Those only may become complete citizens whose mother tongue is German, whose education corresponds to that of the common school (<i>Volksschule</i>), who are of pure German blood, and who take the oath of allegiance. Rights of citizenship may be canceled by the courts for any word or act contrary to German interests... No foreigner shall acquire house or land in Greater Ger</span><span>many.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">[...]</span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>When we have won, and obtained territorial concessions, we shall receive lands inhabited by French or Russians, consequently by enemies. One wonders if such an increase of territory will improve our situation... Those who have learned to think according to the historical school will be horrified when we demand the 'evacuation' of land inhabited by Europeans; for that signifies the violent </span><span>interruption of an historical development centuries old. Besides, the idea wounds the sensibilities of civilized man and is contrary to the modern law of nations which protects individual property. But if we consider seriously the peculiar position of the German people, squeezed into the middle of Europe and running the risk of being suffocated for want of air, it must he agreed that we might he compelled to demand from a vanquished enemy, either in the East or in the West, </span><span>that he should hand over the unpopulated territory.</span></span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">[...]</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">We may depend upon the re-Germanizing of Alsace, but not of Livonia and Kurland. There no other course is open to us but to keep the subject race in as uncivilized a condition as possible, and thus prevent them from becoming a danger to the handful of their conquerors.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">[...]</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">[In case of war with Russia:] We shall demand the cession of such territory as we need for the straightening of our frontiers and for colonization. Evacuation of it will be required. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">[...]</span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>War will unify the strong nation that is capable of a future and make it free, and will establish the people on a healthy substantial basis. Those are the two chief purposes of war. A third can, however, be suggested, that a nation </span><span>even when her national and fundamental interests do not coincide with those of another nation, still must rudely destroy this people's highest interests, must indeed remorselessly cut off from this foreign people the means of living for the </span><span>future. It is a great, powerful nation which, overturns a less courageous and frequently degenerate people and takes its territory from it. For a great, strong people finds its house too narrow, it cannot stir and move about, cannot work </span><span>and build up, cannot thrive and grow. The great nation needs new territory. Therefore it must spread out over foreign soil, and must displace strangers with the power of the sword.</span></span></blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">[...]</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Slowly, not too hastily, we people of Germanic blood must proceed in the settlement of the lands which are to be ours in the future. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The lands which we need to-day and in the future for colonizing, we must thoroughly cleanse of foreign elements.</span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">[...]</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>The historical view as to the biological evolution of races tells us that there are dominant races and subordinate races. Political history is nothing more than the history of the struggles between the dominant races. Conquest in particular is always a function of the dominant races. Where now in all the world does it stand written that conquering races are under obligations to grant after an </span><span>interval political rights to the conquered? Is not the practice of political rights an advantage which biologically belongs to the dominant races?</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In like manner there is the school question. The man with political rights sets up schools, and the speech used in the instruction is his speech... The purpose must be to crush the [individuality of the] conquered people and its political and lingual existence...</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The conquerors are acting only according to biological principles if they suppress alien languages and undertake to destroy strange popular customs... Only the conquering race must be populous, so that it can overrun the territory it has won. Nations that are populous are, moreover, the only nations which have a moral claim to conquest, for it is wrong that in one country there should be overpopulation while close at hand — and at the same time on better soil — a less numerous population stretches its limbs at ease. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">[As to the inferior races:] From political life they are to be excluded. They are eligible only to positions of a non- political character, to commercial commissions, chambers of commerce, etc.,...The principal thing for the conqueror is the outspoken will to rule and the will to destroy the political and national life of the conquered.</span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">V. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The above passages sound as though they were taken from Hitler's <u>Table Talk</u> (1953), a work which has become notorious on the dissident Right for its brutal and somewhat coarse frankness; but they were in fact taken from WWI-era German nationalist publications. They are reproduced in the anti-German propaganda work, <u>Conquest and Kultur: Aims of the Germans in their own words</u> (1918), compiled by the Americans Wallace Notestein and Elmer Edgar Stoll. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Likewise, my account of 'the war' does not summarise WWII but WWI. My intention here has been to show that Hitler and German National Socialism are of a piece with German history - they did not come out of the blue - and further, that Hitler's ideas were in keeping with mainstream German political thought of the time, that they were not an aberration and certainly did not stem from some bizarre set of occult, even Satanic, beliefs. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In addition, greater clarity can be gained from studying 'Prussianism' in the context of WWI rather than WWII; the preoccupations of today's historians - among them the Holocaust - do not obscure our view of the subject. The attitudes of Germany's enemies, Russia, France, England, America, stand in sharp relief and are not overshadowed by the question of what Germany did nor did not do to the Jews. Viewed from this perspective, then, we can sum up WWI as: WWII without the Jews. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Looking at the above quotations from the perspective of today, it is remarkable that they could be found in the opinion columns of respectable newspapers and the books of respectable publishers of the time: to our surprise, 'Prussianism' was mainstream in Germany in the late 19th century and early 20th. But, to the anti-German type on the dissident Right, all this proves only that the Germans were 'bad' long before Hitler, indeed, the Germans have been 'bad' for at least a 150 years. For these quotations offend modern sensibilities, and the sensibilities of many of those on the white nationalist side of politics who take umbrage to the Hitler of <u>Table Talk</u>, that is, the type of white nationalist who writes for Greg Johnson's Counter-Currents and Ron Unz' Unz.Org. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">When considering this brand of German nationalism, one can understand the frustration of those on the dissident Right who wish to turn wayward youth away from National Socialism, Nazism, all forms of 'Prussian Socialism'. 'Haven't these youngsters read <u>Table Talk</u>? Don't they understand that National Socialism is for Germans only, and that it counsels the most brutal, barbaric treatment of the Poles, Russians, Czechs, Ukrainians? And aren't the Poles and the Russians most "based"? Isn't their nationalism is better than German nationalism...'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I do not here seek to rebut the arguments of those anti-Hitlerians; I merely observe that they are rehearsing the same line as the Anglo (that is, English and American) war polemicists of a hundred years ago; today they call it National Socialism, yesterday they called it Pan-Germanism. And whatever form it takes, German nationalism touches a raw nerve. Tell an American white nationalist that a fundamental inequality exists between black and white, and you will meet with approval; tell him that the same inequality exists between a German and a Pole, or a German and a Russian, and you will meet with disapproval. But then, Americans, unlike the Germans, do not have to live next door to millions of Poles and Russians. (And as for the French, Hitler was fond of quoting Schopenhauer: 'Africa has its monkeys, Europe its French'). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The difference between an American white nationalist and a German National Socialist can be expressed thus: the American puts race first, politics second; the German, politics first, race second. Upon interrogating the American as to his ideology, you will quickly discover that he has no theory of the State, of politics (this is true of William Pierce, George Lincoln Rockwell, Harold Covington); he seems to think that once the non-whites, in particular the negroes, are removed, the politics will take care of itself; constitutional structures which are amenable to the white man in America will spontaneously appear. This explains why the Confederacy was unable to move beyond the strictures laid down by the Founding Fathers; upon the secession, they drew up a constitution and elected a president, and by doing both, they did not depart overly much from the America of the 18th century. The founders of the new Confederate State did not crown Jefferson Davis as emperor. But, in all fairness, American white nationalists are obsessed (as their Southern forebears were) by the negro question to the exclusion of all others because it has been paramount in America for 400 years, whereas it has only made itself felt on the Continent in the past 20 or so. Even to Yockey, who favours Europe over America, the negro question hovers in the forefront of his consciousness; Yockey hailed from Chicago, Illinois, which is now a negro city, and while he wrung his hands in despair over the demographic decline of America's founding stock (which came about, in his view, because of an excess of Eastern European immigration at the turn of the century), he would be the first to admit that a Pole or Czech or Greek or Italian immigrant is preferable to a native-born negro. It is interesting to speculate what political choices he would have made in the 1970s, when whites were being ethnically cleansed from north-eastern cities such as Detroit and a de facto anti-negro alliance sprung up between three classes of Americans: founding stock Americans, Americans who had emigrated from Eastern Europe, and Jews (see <u>Mad as Hell: The Crisis of the 1970s and the Rise of the Populist Right</u> (2012) by Dominic Sandbrook). Politics makes for strange bedfellows. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But to return to Pan-Germanism: the above quotations, I think, contain some of the essence of 'Nazism', and furthermore, they illustrate the gulf that exists between German thought and English thought, or German and American. A work such as <u>Modern Germany in relation to the great war</u> (1916), which is an anthology of pro-German propaganda essays by German professors, contains more genuine 'Nazism' than all the works of William Pierce, Harold Covington, George Lincoln Rockwell, James Mason. The professors there express themselves in a more genteel fashion than the authors quoted in <u>Conquest and Kultur</u>, as after all, they are striving to put Germany in the best possible light; but the undercurrents of 'Prussianism' still move beneath the surface. (In that connection, it should be noted that the Anglo propaganda of the war did not spare the members of the German academic class who espoused nationalism: it called them 'hate professors'). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">You see, in this wartime literature, the national virtues of Germany on display, one of them being a frankness, a forthrightness, that borders on rudeness - there are times when virtue of honesty becomes a vice. Here is a quotation from <u>Conquest and Kultur</u>: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Within Europe... we must be exceedingly careful, and must acquire new territory only after the most mature deliberation, especially where it will take years of </span><span>unremitting labor to convert our antagonists to the view that the under the German scepter — 'War state' though we proclaim ourselves — is well worth living. True, our foreign policy must not be too tender-hearted — hard times </span><span>need stout fists. In the coming diplomatic convention, if the glib foreign hucksters present cooked-up objections to our taking our rights, our fist, like Bismarck, must pound the green table till the ink bottles dance, if they refuse </span><span>to give us our due — what we think necessary for permanent peace. This is self-evident, and must remain so.</span></span></blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, this Pan German author - who made the above statement in a book published in 1915 - could be accused, perhaps by a white nationalist of the Greg Johnson type, of fomenting divisiveness between the European nations. But I think extenuating circumstances exist for the ideologists of both the Second and Third Reich. If we are to watch these two excellent animated map videos, on the fall out from the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VNQG5Ug2Jc" target="_blank">Trianon</a> and <a href="https://youtu.be/0RRuENXQ-sY" target="_blank">St Germain</a> Treaties, we will be confronted with the tawdry spectacle of the post-WWI white nations of Eastern and Central Europe waging war against one another (wars which continued long after the end of WWI); partitioning and annexing one another's territories; carrying out pogroms of the Jews; and practising 'ethnic transfers'. Eastern and Central Europe are a byword for ethnic mayhem, and literal imperialism (German and Austro-Hungarian) was all that held Eastern and Central Europe together. Each nation could only make gains at the expense of the other in what was a classic example of a zero-sum game. It is no surprise, then, that F.A. von Hayek, an Austrian, makes reference (in a work published some thirty years after the war) to the 'poison of nationalism'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">All this is moot, perhaps, given that now Europe is being colonised by the Third World - by its former colonial subjects in Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean and Asia, in fact - and so the feeling today is that whites in Europe ought to be uniting in racial solidarity against the common foe. Accounts of WWI tell us that disputes in 1905 and 1911 over which European country should own Morocco - France or Germany - helped cause WWI, but the disputes between the European Great Powers over colonial possessions seem to we moderns to be quaint, and unbearably so: we want to say to the Europe of a hundred years ago, 'Worry not about going to Morocco, for Morocco will come to you - especially you, France'; for as we know, hundreds of thousands of North Africans migrated to France after WWII, the result being that the Muslim population of France now numbers in the millions. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But this state of affairs has come about precisely because of colonialism, or rather lack of it, and the lack of Prussian-style forcefulness and vigour. It is no coincidence that almost immediately after the breakdown of European colonial and imperialist rule in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, millions of the former colonial subjects began to invade Europe. This causal link between the invasion of Europe and the decline of colonialism has become more and more evident with the passing of years, so much so that Europeans can now say to themselves of the non-white world that 'We fought over there to prevent them from coming here'. Sadly, Europe could not maintain its empire 'Over there' because Europe had become weak - weak because of two fratricidal wars or as part of a natural biological decline or both. Today's Europe presents a striking contrast with the Europe of a hundred years ago, when whites ruled most of the world, and inwardly believed that they had the right to do. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">A measure of cant and hypocrisy prevented those Europeans from openly declaring that they had that right, and that they were good rulers, and that they were engaged in colonial enterprises for purely selfish reasons. But the German habit of a rather coarse and brutal honesty expunged any trace of English-style cant and liberalism from German discourse. It is this German trait that helped earn the enmity of the Anglos before the outbreak of WWI - that and the German argument that the British Empire was fading, and that of all the Western European nations, Germany alone possessed the vitality which was a requisite for leadership. As honesty carried to excess can become rudeness, self-confidence can become arrogance: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Mere force or calculation gives mastery; for leadership more is required — superior culture, superior morality, respect for distinctive national characteristics, an intelligence capable of comprehending and assimilating foreign elements. These qualities insure to the people which possesses them all </span><span>the world power of the future, and we Germans are that people. [<u>Conquest and Kultur</u>-]</span></span></p><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The reader can see for himself that a continuity exists between the self-confidence of the German in WWI and WWII; a direct line can be traced from the Pan-German of WWI and the German soldier of WWII, who, as we know from a thousand war movies and TV shows, wears a resplendent uniform, is full of an insufferable cockiness, and whenever he comes across a female character in occupied France or Holland, addresses her as 'My good woman' with a supercilious smile - Moff Tarkin, when he addresses Princess Leia, smiles in exactly the same way. As to whether or not one likes this type, well, that is a matter of taste. I myself enjoy reading the WWI books written a hundred years ago, as in that time, the white man - and especially the German - embodied strength, power, self-confidence; furthermore, the primary concern of the white nations of that time - which of them should rule the non-white world - makes a piquant contrast with those of the present. And many others come away with the same impression. It is this modern-day nostalgia for the old European imperialism that explains, to my mind, the appeal of the representations of that imperialism in popular culture - e.g., the Steampunk genre of alternative history fiction and the Kaiserreich modifications of the computer game <u>Hearts of Iron IV</u>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">VI.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I think that the above goes some way to explaining what a 'Nazi' is. But much of it concerns external policy, that is, Germany's relation to other nations; what of the internal? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Much has been written in dissident Right circles on the German jurist Carl Schmitt and his famous Friend / Enemy distinction. The anti-Nazi American academic, William Ebenstein, gives an excellent summary of Schmitt's theory in the wartime book, <u>The Nazi State</u> (1943) under the heading 'The Nazi Theory of Politics'. He includes a lengthy quotation from Goebbels so as to prove his thesis that the National Socialists were Schmittians: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">In an editorial on “Politics and Warfare,” in <u>Das Ketch</u> of May II, 1941, Dr. Goebbels, member of the German Government, states that “it is frequently not easy to distinguish, in the existential struggle of people, whether the means employed belong to the realm of politics or warfare. . . . The western democracies do not have the slightest notion of the working of National Socialist politics. They measure them with categories typical of these democracies, and then inevitably arrive at catastrophical blunders. With us, politics is as soldierly as the waging of war is political. Both pursue the same aims.” Dr. Goebbels at the same time thanked providence that the enemies of National Socialism, both inside Germany and outside, failed or refused to understand this Nazi conception of politics as perpetual total war aiming at the total destruction of the enemy. This failure of understanding the nature of Nazi politics. Dr. Goebbels concluded in the quoted editorial, “is one of the most puzzling characteristics of the forces which have opposed Nazism from its evolution from a small group of men to a great world power.”</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">To we moderns, who lived our entire lives in what is supposedly a 'liberal democracy', Goebbels' way of thinking sounds strange, if not foreign. But I think when it is applied to three of our modern shibboleths - democracy, the multi-party system, and press freedom - it produces some interesting results. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Before WWI, the German political system - which was a constitutional monarchy, not unlike England's - could be classified as democratic. I here define democracy as an equal and fair contest between two or more candidates: for there to be a democracy, there must be what Schmitt calls the 'equal chance'. In 1914, Germans were allowed to choose between competing political parties, and it mattered not that suffrage was not universal; women were not allowed not to vote in England and America, the two most exalted 'democracies', until WWI was over. But Germany's enemies England and America considered the German and 'Prussian' system to be authoritarian and the Kaiser a tyrant. In the hundreds of anti-German polemics published during the war, Germany's critics demanded reform, and these demands were packaged as helpful suggestions and recommendations. But Germany was not fooled. In response, Germany asked the question why it was that Germany should accept the recommendations of two of its worst enemies, England and America? Furthermore, was the exchange intended to flow both ways: would America and England accept it if the suggestions for reform were made by Germany? That question answers itself, and in the negative. During WWI, France, England, America had ranged themselves against Germany as the Enemy in Schmittian terms; a conflict existed, and this conflict was existential, that is to say, it concerned the matter of Germany's very existence as a political unit. The best argument for the German political system in WWI - and by extension, WWII - was that the Enemy opposed it. One could write sophisticated political treatises, of the order of Plato's <u>Republic</u>, defending the German system, but after a certain point the conflict ceases to be intellectual and becomes political, which is to say existential. Intellectual disputation and discussion crosses over into warfare, in this case, psychological warfare. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Schmitt's theory and Goebbels' practice applies to the second institution we in the West today value: the multi-party electoral system. In the ideal democratic system, ideologically-differing candidates and parties compete against one another in a free and fair contest, and nowhere is it presupposed that the losing contestants are to be annihilated; instead, the rule is that they are to sit on the back bench until a short number of years pass, and it is then that they will get their chance to mount a serious bid for office. The tradition in American politics is that a candidate who is elected to the presidency for one term shall get a second; that is a matter of mutual agreement - unspoken agreement - between Republicans and Democrats. The opposition party will get their shot at the presidency once the incumbent party has served two terms: then the two parties will compete in what is called a 'change election', and usually the opposition party will win. The incumbent party, having lost the presidency, is then demoted to the opposition party, but in the mid-terms it will almost always win House of Representatives. And so it goes, in a circle. But the 'totalitarian' ideology is, by its nature, bound to reject such this rather neat and well-functioning system; it views politics not as a friendly and fair contest but as a war. This is what the quotation from Goebbels tells us. In keeping with this Schmittian thesis, the NSDAP saw electoral campaigns as military campaigns, and it demanded - and got - what Roosevelt later called the 'unconditional surrender' of its opponents, the rival political parties. (But the NSDAP did not quite obtain unconditional surrender from its opponents the Centre Party, the Social Democrat Party, the German People's Party,the Bavarian People's Party; politicians of the rival parties were granted some leeway by the NSDAP after it achieved complete dominance in March 1933; candidates from the parties, which had been dissolved, were allowed to run as independents, or 'guests', in the November 1933 elections, and the elections of 1936 and 1938). But to the modern reader, all this sounds somewhat archaic, it smacks of the politics of the 1930s; do these formulas of war and 'unconditional surrender' hold true in modern times? Well, they do: we saw it in the 2020 US Presidential election. The Democrats stole the election from Trump through fraud, and possibly won the run-off campaign in Georgia for the two Senate seats using the same fraudulent methods. The Democrats won in 2020 a monopoly of state power (by cheating) with the consequence that after January the 6th - the day of the Democrat coup against Trump - that monopoly is being exploited by the Democrats, who want to use the offices of state to eliminate their opponents. They are attempting to achieve this elimination by declaring all voters and followers of Trump to be the 'Internal Enemy'. (Such declarations do not happen often in American political life; according to Yockey, the designation of the 'Internal Enemy' has been used only three times in American history; the first during the aftermath of the War of Independence, the second during the Civil War, the third during WWII (when American sympathisers with Germany were treated as hostiles)). And what the Democrats demand from conservatives and pro-Trump Republicans is unconditional surrender. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">From this, we can say that democracy in 2021 is finished in America. It may be that democracy will be restored, but prospects look bleak. The pessimistic conclusion to be drawn that if the Right is ever to regain State power, it can only do so if it avails itself of the same 'totalitarian' methods of the Left. And that means it must go down the 'Nazi' path. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">And this leads us to the subject of the third valued institution, and that is the free press. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Schmitt, in more than one of his works, defines the intellectuals as the discussing class. Parliament, in the liberal world view, should act as a forum for free and untrammeled discussion between distinguished gentlemen who, by disputing, and disputing freely and openly, will arrive at the truth, much like the philosophers in the agoras of ancient Greece. Politics is to be reduced to debate, and the precondition of the liberal political order or system is that this debate be free and untrammeled, and furthermore, open to all - it must be transparent. Liberalism, as Schmitt points out, believes in the redeeming value of publicity. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The ideal of the free press fits in with all this; the free press is to function as a journalistic parliament. It allows the free and frank exchange of opinions - and perhaps it did in 1980 or 1990 or 2000, but does it do so in 2021? The answer is no. Since 2015, when Trump announced his candidacy, the press in America and everywhere else in the West, has arrogated to itself political powers. It has become a political force. One consequence of this was that the New York Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, AP, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, et al., waged war every day on the Trump administration. After the stolen election of 2020, that almost military-campaign concluded in a victory for the media and the two other institutions </span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>with</span><span> which the media shares power: Big Tech and Hollywood. It is this - a triumvirate - that now reigns, not the Democratic Party (and as for Biden, he is an empty vessel). </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The triumvirate does not allow ideological competitors: it seeks to destroy them - as is becoming painfully apparent, day by day. The left-wing ideology that animates the triumvirate counsels the crippling, decapitation, extermination of the triumvirate's political opponents. Such a Leninist mentality could not be further removed from the liberal ideal. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Complete freedom of the press, and intellectual discussion, does not exist in its entirety in the West - try and publish an op-ed denying the Holocaust in an American or European newspaper and see what happens to you - and it never has. But one could say, up until recent times, that the media approached the liberal ideal, at least to a reasonable degree. Now all that has changed. The repressiveness, the deplatforming, the progandising, the vilification, the twisting of the truth, has reached such proportions that even the most dimwitted conservative (the type of conservative always insisting that the commies, SJWs, antifa are the 'Real Nazis') is beginning to see. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Once we have identified a certain class - in this case, journalists - as a political actor, we should be asking: does that class use its political power in ways which are beneficial? Clearly the answer in this case is no. In 2020, the Western media (and not only the US media) aided and abetted the Black Lives Matter (BLM) rioters, and through these actions sought to trigger a race war; it incited violence against Trump and his supporters, and is still continuing to do so; and it induced a state of hysteria regarding Covid-19, which has led to consequences we are all too familiar with. 2020 would have looked very different had the media shown some more of the objectivity and neutrality it had displayed thirty to forty years ago - and the willingness to do actual journalism. And in the present year, the media is committing the worst crime of all from our point of view: the media, along with the Far Left, is fostering a climate of race-hatred - race-hatred against white people. All this goes some way to explaining why it is that so many in the West hold the journalistic profession in contempt - why so many believe that there is no lower form of human life than a journalist. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In 2021, we are faced with two possibilities. The first is that future conservative governments intervene to restore a measure of freedom of discussion, debate and enquiry. The second is that a civil war of sorts gets underway as it did in Weimar Germany or Salvador Allende's Chile or Isabel Peron's Argentina; this war is to take place between the Far Right and the Far Left, and in the event of a victory for the Far Right, press freedoms are to be suspended. (But from the perspective of we moderns, that suspension would be purely formal and no great loss, as freedom of the press, freedom of discussion and freedom of expression today have already disappeared).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It seems unlikely that the old liberal order in journalism can be restored. Suppose that Trump had attempted to do that, he would have been accused of 'assaulting press freedom' and 'endangering democracy', the media having become adept at borrowing liberal rhetoric in order to camouflage itself. The journalist has made himself a political actor, and he will, upon coming under attack, do what all politicians do, and that is, fight for his survival as a political unit. Enoch Powell frequently quoted Thucydides' maxim that political power, once gained, is never relinquished - at least not voluntarily. It is unlikely that, now that the Left - which is the media, Big Tech, Hollywood, the SJW Twitter mob, the Antifa, the Critical Race Theorists - has attained near-absolute power that it will give it up. The Left will not experience a sudden religious conversion and then decide to behave in keeping with the ideals of classical liberalism. And so, the present state of affairs could continue indefinitely; the example of Venezuela shows that once the Left get in power, they cannot be gotten out. To this, the Friend / Enemy distinction provides the only redress. But once we begin to talk this way, we are speaking the language of Schmitt and Goebbels. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">VII. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">At the beginning of this article, I posed the question, 'What is a "Nazi"?' and I challenged myself to come up with an answer which was not something along the lines of, 'Go read a book on 20th century German history'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The screenwriters of the science fiction TV and movie franchises <u>Star Wars</u>, <u>Star Trek</u> and <u>Battlestar Galactica</u> were faced with a similar challenge. They had to create characters - who were to be the bad guys, naturally - who were to be distinctly 'Nazi' and at the same time not German, for these stories were set in galaxies far, far away. And some subtlety was required (and was achieved): the Empire in <u>Star Wars</u>, for example, were not to merely serve as a stand-in for the Nazis, the Rebels not as a stand-in for the resistance fighters in German-occupied Europe: no, George Lucas made the story a metaphor for (among other things) the American war in Vietnam. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Dissecting the political philosophy of <u>Star Wars</u> and other science-fiction franchises is a difficult and onerous task, but one that must be done, for a political philosophy does animate the more overtly 'Nazi' science-fiction characters, and the purpose of my article has been to divine what that philosophy was. And my answer? Take some of the 'Prussian Militarism' of the first half of the 20th century and add Schmitt's concept of the political: we then arrive at something which is not the last word on the subject, but a point of departure. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It should be noted that 'Prussianism', 'Prussian Militarism', need not be grounded in the actual and historical Prussia - the Prussia of Frederick the Great and the House of Hohenzollern. The writers of the science-fiction franchises took 'Prussianism' out of its historical context and transported it to a place as far removed from Prussia as possible. In much the same way, George R. Martin, who wrote the fantasy novels which were adapted in the TV series <u>Game of Thrones</u> (2011-2019), modeled his world on Europe of the feudal era - comparisons have been drawn between his story and the history of the War of the Roses - but at the same time, his characters are not English (even though they speak (in the TV adaptation) with English accents). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Here I have only attempted to define 'Nazism'; I have left open the question of its value - that is, whether it is good or not - and also the question of whether or not Hitlerism can stage a comeback, in Germany and Europe, some time in the future. Spengler and Yockey made predictions of a resurgence of 'Socialism' some time in the 21st century, but as I lack their prophetic vision, I will not be as bold. My current thinking is that the effective political activist must position himself with a view to the immediate and not the distant, to the present and not the future. </span></p><div><br /></div>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-27071847508369820802021-01-03T02:37:00.004-08:002021-01-03T03:52:29.216-08:00Yesterday's Hero: on post-war prosperity, postmodern apathy, pop Nazism and punks (cyber)<p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KVSEiveFY7g" width="320" youtube-src-id="KVSEiveFY7g"></iframe></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><span style="font-size: large;">
I.<br />
<br />
Politically speaking, nothing matters more at the time of writing than the electoral fraud of the 2020 American presidential election - that and what those on the Far Left will do to us on the Far Right if they assume absolute power. So my writing on what is a purely theoretical question will appear to some to be an evasion. But in my own defence, in the last analysis one has to let the Americans - and Trump - fight their own battles. The Western nationalism that exists outside of America will survive 2020, albeit under straitened circumstances, and it will after 2020 face an uphill battle no matter who becomes US president, as it must contend with a Left which is in near-complete control of the media, popular culture, the Internet... <br />
<br />
So let us look at a subject close to home. In my article, '<a href="https://wehrmachtcandy.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-aussies-and-nazis.html" target="_blank">The Aussies and the Nazis</a>', I defended the NSN (National Socialist Network) against that the charge that their National Socialism was un-Australian; my argument was that in fact the most prominent Australian nationalist group of the 1930s and 1940s (the Australia First Movement) did have close ties with the German National Socialists, as did most other nationalist groups (the ones that mattered anyway) in Europe. Today a Slovenian or Belgian or Swedish or Portugese anti-Nazi and anti-fascist may take the gambit of declaring German National Socialism to be un-Slovenian, un-Belgian, un-Swedish, etc., but that will not pay off, and we can see why from looking at the historical record, which is one of Nazi sympathising and even collaboration. <br />
<br />
A charge which is far more difficult to refute is that the ideas of German National Socialism do not bear upon the present era, that they are not pertinent to it; they have no relevance. They are a finished historical product, bound to their particular place and time; their importance, their meaning, does not extend past the 1930s and 1940s. <br />
<br />
The line of attack does hit home, and it is all the more powerful because any discussion resulting from it will bring up some thorny and profound philosophical disputes, one of them being the following: the Russian philosopher Kojève, when examining various Western philosophical world-views (or <i>Weltanschauungen</i>, as Hitler would call them), asks the important question, are these world-views ever-lasting or are they ephemeral? Are they are grounded in eternal truths or the fleeting notions of the day? Those who take the latter view argue that ideas, like popular music, are subject to fashion; they can be in one day, out the next. In this they follow the same course as any cultural fad. (Take the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo" target="_blank">Emo subculture</a>, for example, which was popular in the 2000s and then vanished without a trace in the 2010s, having went the way of the platform shoes and disco music of the 1970s). <br />
<br />
Kojève regards this historical relativism as false, and furthermore, pernicious, and he compares it to the doctrine of the</span><div><span style="font-size: large;">Sophists. Nevertheless, my view is that its charges must be answered, especially when they are raised against a political ideology. <br />
<br />
It is a fact that the passage of time, which leads to a distance in time, does bring with it a certain objectivity. We recognise, at once upon encountering them, what exactly the fashions of the 1970s and 1980s were, but we do not recognise, at least with as much precision, the distinctive attributes of the fashion of 2010s or even the 2000s; in the former case, much time has passed (hence the instant recognition) since those decades, in the latter, too little. Historical distance and the flow of time make the past a finished product, a closed book, and thereby give us an understanding of what a thing essentially is. This is what Hegel meant when he said that the 'Owl of Minerva [the goddess of wisdom] spreads its wings only with the coming of dusk'. <br />
<br />
Was there a point in time after the war when we in the West understood what National Socialism was and viewed it with a degree of objectivity? Yes: in the 1960s. Given that politics is a visual medium - a thesis Hitler would surely agree with - my argument is that one means of getting to grips with a political idea is to see it. In the 1930s and 1940s, we grasped politics through newsreels and newspaper photographs; in the 1960s and 1970s and after, through popular culture - that is, movies, TV shows, comic books. Put that way, we see that a great deal of change in the popular depictions of National Socialism occurred over the past six decades. For one, by the time of <u>Schindler's List</u> (1993), the National Socialists (and the German people themselves) in popular culture had been transmogrified into a race of demons. A cynic would remark that such extreme ugliness in the portraiture of National Socialism always could be expected, but my contention is that it was not always so. Ernst Zündel remarked (in the 1990s) that whereas once the hero of the American war movie once raced against time to storm the beaches of Iwo Jima, he now races to liberate the concentration camps; popular culture, in portraying the war, had by the 1990s begun to favour the European theater at the expense of the Pacific and show signs of an obsession with the Holocaust. A shift had occurred, and I identify the turning point as the 1960s. In <u>Rat Patrol</u> (1966-68), <u>Twelve O'Clock High</u> (1964-1967), <u>Combat!</u> (1962-67) (the TV action shows devoted to the Western theater) the Germans are portrayed with (as Zündel observes) grudging respect, and in <u>The Producers</u> (1967) and <u>Hogan's Heroes</u> (1965-71), the subject of comedy. Undoubtedly the writers, directors and actors who served up this fare were attuned to the desires of the audience, a large proportion of which was made up of ex-servicemen, and this segment of the audience knew, from first-hand experience, that the Germans were not the monsters Allied wartime propaganda made them out to be. And so, perhaps, there was a pending reconciliation of sorts between the Germans and the Anglos? Whatever the case, the point is moot, because as Zündel remarks, by the 1970s the Holocaust had stepped in and nipped any rapprochement in the bud. <br />
<br />
Time heals all wounds, and by the 1960s, enough distance had been gained from the war for it to be represented with a reasonable degree of objectivity, or near enough to objectivity - as close as Hollywood could be expected to get. But that brought with it its own dangers. When you turn National Socialism into a not-so-serious TV show or movie or board game, you are showing a high level of detachment from it - you are not feeling a sense of involvement, politically, emotionally, spiritually or otherwise. This is what happens when National Socialism, and the war, become part of the past: the pages written on them have become closed in the book of history. For you, a member of the audience of <u>Hogan's Heroes</u> and <u>Dad's Army</u> (1968-77) and who lived through the 1930s and 1940s, the realities of that time are unpleasant to recall, especially when you compare them to those of the present, the present being distinguished by its peace and prosperity; but the fact that you enjoy these comedies reveals that you do not feel much in the way of trauma regarding the recent past, as it is water under the bridge. You have achieved closure. In this state of mind, one can look at the battles of WWII with nearly as much detachment as one would at the battles of the Napoleonic Wars or the Wars of the Austrian Succession. But that means you are approaching postmodernism, and with it, postmodern apathy and irony. <br />
<br />
What does that entail? In the past year, Azerbaijan and Armenia have been engaged in a war over a disputed territory called Nagorno-Karabakh. The Far Right, the Western nationalist movement, does not have a stake in the war; it has not pronounced, by and large, that one side is more 'based' than the other (as it did in two of the wars of the last decade - the Syrian Civil War and the Russo-Ukrainian War). If members of the Far Right were called on to play a wargame based on conflict, or role-play as soldiers in re-enactments of key battles, they would feel a sense of non-involvement; they would feel detachment. And no doubt they would utter witticisms while role-playing as the Armenian or Azerbaijani soldiers, witticisms which would express their ironic detachment. This is one of the key themes of postmodernism: a feeling of irony when one is re-enacting or repeating a past which one cares nothing about. <br />
<br />
Perhaps the first person on the Far Right to act as a postmodernist was George Lincoln Rockwell. His politics exhibited a dual nature: on the one hand, he took his brand of racialist conservatism extremely seriously; on the other, he treated National Socialism as a prank, a joke (that was the subtext of his actions - had he been confronted about it, he would have denied it furiously and declared that he was a sincere and committed 'Nazi'). Fifty years later, we come to Rockwell's spiritual successors - the pranksters of 4Chan who ironically espouse National Socialism and fascism. <br />
<br />
In a way, it was Jewish activism in the 1970s that saved National Socialism from descending into postmodern irony. As stated before, in the previous decade, the National Socialists were treated as objects of gentle ridicule in TV comedies such as <u>Dad's Army</u> and <u>Hogan's Heroe</u>s, worthy opponents in action movies such as <u>Battle of the Bulge</u> (1965) and <u>Anzio</u> (1968). They were depicted as bad, but not evil. But then Jewish activists thrust the Holocaust story to the forefront of the public consciousness. No doubt the movie and TV audiences of the 1970s began to feel pangs of guilt at laughing at the antics of Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schultz. By the time of the 1980s - the time of <u>Sophie's Choice</u> (1982) and <u>Shoah</u> (1985) - audiences had stopped laughing altogether. The Holocaust onslaught was well and truly underway, and audiences were being deluged by hundreds - no thousands - of Holocaust novels, movies, comic books, plays, ballets, education classes, documentaries, museum exhibits... National Socialists were no longer to be laughed at, they were to be taken seriously, extremely seriously: the war was painted as a primordial clash between good and evil. (It is no coincidence that at this time the governments of Europe began to introduce serious penalties for denying the Holocaust, penalties which included fines and imprisonment, whereas only ten years before, the same governments did not actively seek to punish Holocaust denial - one could then write a Revisionist work and travel through Europe a free man). <br />
<br />
Oddly enough, Holocaustism reached a fever pitch in the 1990s, the decade which represented the high-water mark of postmodernism. The postmodern-themed TV show, <u>Seinfeld</u> (1989-98), poked fun at <u>Schindler's List</u>, but that was the exception; 1990s popular culture for the most part treated the Holocaust with the utmost gravity. And the postmodernist, post-structuralist French intellectuals, who espoused a sturdy scepticism towards all 'grand narratives' (and the Holocaust, being part of Judaism and Zionism, is nothing if not a grand narrative), were taken in by the Holocaust like everyone else; hence their rote denunciations of the French Revisionist Robert Faurisson. I must confess that I was taken in at the time as well - not having access to any of the Revisionist works on the Internet - and I, too, viewed the Germans as a race of monsters. But then, when all your intellectual peers are declaiming with absolute certainty that a certain event actually did happen and that an ideology (and the country that gave to birth to it) responsible for it are evil to the core, you tend to believe them - it is human nature.<br />
<br />
By turning the National Socialists into creatures of evil - akin to vampires, warlocks, witches, werewolves - the Jewish activists reanimated National Socialism; they gave the corpse new life - a strange, unnatural life, but a life nonetheless. In order to kill National Socialism, to deprive it of life, they would have been better advised to mummify it, to make it a thing of the past, something which could be handled as a relic, a curio. The 1990s was the ideal decade to accomplish this. In a 1992 work which was perfectly in accord with the times, Francis Fukuyama, inspired by Kojève, pronounced the End of History. What Fukuyama and Kojève meant by the idea was that history could be conceived up as an epic with a beginning, middle and end; and once the epic had come to an end, there was nothing left for the protagonists to do - no great feats to accomplish, no high ideals to die for. At the conclusion of the original <u>Star Wars</u> trilogy (1977-83), the Empire is defeated and the heroes Han, Luke and Leia resume their normal lives - lives which to us in the audience would have seemed dull and listless had they been put up on the big screen, as they would have been bereft of heroic exploits. Kojève's contention was that Man had arrived at the same point: the end of the story. Henceforth, Man would live an uninspired, base, even animal existence; he would be what Nietzsche called a Last Man, Spengler a Fellahin. And being situated at the end of history, he would look at the great and significant preceding events - for example the 30 Years War, or the War of Austrian Succession, or the Napoleonic Wars, or even the First and Second World Wars - with detachment. And with detachment, comes irony... One can see how this sense of historical distance lends itself to the anti-Nazi argument 'It's not the 1930s any more' - that is, while German National Socialism and Italian Fascism suited the 1930s and 1940s, perhaps, they do not the current year. And as it so turns out, Jewry in the 1990s could made effective use of that Kojèvean argument but instead it promulgated the Holocaust tale for what was mostly a religious purpose. <br />
<br />
But I must emphasise, again, how damaging the 'It's not the 1930s any more' line of argument can be. Leon Degrelle writes in his memoirs how terrible it was in his post-war exile in Spain to read through the morning newspapers every day and not see his name mentioned; as a man accustomed to notoriety, this was a cross to bear. In the same memoirs, he makes the passing remark, with a sniffing condescension, that anti-tank weapons in WWII did not work the same way as they they are shown in the movies today. One can speculate that it must have been an alienating experience for Degrelle, once a soldier, now a spectator, to watch the war movies of the 1950s and 1960s in a Spanish cinema. Degrelle would no doubt have felt that he had been left behind by history. Which raises the question, what would he have thought of today's cultural developments? Only a few weeks ago, the bestselling computer game <u>Cyberpunk 2077</u> was released. The game pays tribute to the Cyberpunk movie genre and hacking subculture of the 1980s and 1990s, and boomers (the children of Degrelle's generation) have a hard time making sense of these. Given that, what would Degrelle and his fellow post-war fascists Otto Remer and Otto Skorzeny, have made of them? They would have no doubt felt consternation and confusion. And this lends weight to the accusation that Degrelle was an old fuddy-duddy and that his wartime fascism today smells rather musty. <br />
<br />
II. <br />
<br />
Before anti-Nazi readers start congratulating themselves, I will make the point that, at some juncture in our lives, we all grow old; and for those of us who have political careers, at some juncture, we all become yesterday's hero. The aged and declining despot Ghaddafi of 2011 (the year he was overthrown) presents a sad contrast with the young and exuberant reformer Ghaddafi of 1969 (the year he came to power). <br />
<br />
As a man goes, so does a civilisation: this thesis underlay Spengler's monumental work, <u>The Decline of the West</u> (1918-22). Kojève took much from Spengler, who anticipated his idea of the 'historyless man' (a phrase Spengler uses repeatedly), that is, the man left over after the end of the history of a civilisation; but Kojève's borrowing has never been acknowledged by scholars. <br />
<br />
But Spengler contradicts Kojève on when it is that history, at least history in the West, comes to an end. Kojève says it was in the year 1806, when Hegel saw Napoleon on horseback in the town of Jena and subsequently conceived <u>The Phenomenology of Spirit</u> (1807), an ambitious work which aimed to encapsulate all of philosophy, all of thought ('Spirit') up that time. Hegel therein concluded that, after Napoleon, Man had reached the last stage in his progress, the terminus of his historical evolution. Spengler differed in that he believed that there was no history of Man as such, only the history of the eight High Cultures, seven of which had died long ago - today only the Western Culture is left standing. And that Culture would not reach the end of its natural life until three hundred years (or thereabouts) after the writing of the <u>Decline</u>. For Spengler's prediction was that by the 23rd century, Western Man will enter the last stage in the West's historical cycle and will become 'historyless', a Fellahin, a Last Man. He will look back on all that has gone before in the history of his race without any emotional connection, without any emotional involvement, and he will devote himself to animal pleasures. His vast empire - which he had built in the preceding centuries - will go to rot and ruin, and he will become the prey of newer, younger, more 'barbarian' races. In other words, the West will suffer the same fate as ancient Rome, India and China. <br />
<br />
Unlikely as it seems, it is here that Spengler rides to the rescue of the National Socialist (or as Spengler would call it, 'Prussian Socialist') idea. <br />
<br />
Spengler's maudlin and frightening vision of a fading West, if it is to come true, will only come true hundreds of years in the future. According to Spengler's prediction, the 21st century shall see no Fellahin and no pacifism, only dangerous political struggle. Politics in that time will be taken extremely seriously, as it was in the time of Caesar and Augustus. And after the time of struggle is a time of peace - a peace imposed by the new Imperium. As to whether or not in this period the German Idea (which Spengler called 'Socialist') would ultimately triumph, Spengler hedged his bets; suffice to say, he did not foresee a liberal future, and indeed, he prophesied that in the 21st century the system of ballot-box electoralism would come crashing down. (And I would argue of that of this the events of 2020 give us a portent). (In order to avoid misunderstanding Spengler on this point, it should be made clear that is not the case that such political systems simply stop functioning; it is that they fail to maintain the confidence in them that they had enjoyed before). Taking all of Spengler's predictions into account, then, one can infer from them, as Spengler's disciple Yockey did, that in the new century Spengler's 'Socialism' does indeed stand a chance. <br />
<br />
III.<br />
<br />
My intention here has been to make vivid a contrast that exists between two different historical periods and their accompanying <i>Weltanschauungen</i>. <br />
<br />
Spengler and Yockey published their work in what was undeniably a most dangerous and unpleasant time in Western history; Fukuyama revived Kojève's ideas in a time which was not dangerous and not unpleasant. Given the choice, any Western European (or North American or Australian) would prefer to live in the latter period over the former. And he would prefer, one over the other, one of the two ethics that accompanied each of the two periods. What are these ethics? We find them in our four authors. Spengler and Yockey praise the martial virtues (self-sacrifice, renunciation, discipline, courage, sternness...) whereas Kojève and Fukuyama reject them - in the world view of the latter pair, Man is to become a contented cow or sheep, a creature which poses no threat to anyone, a 'herbivore'. It goes without saying Western Man, c. 2020, prefers the latter ethos over the former. And it is this preference which has placed an obstacle in the path of all Western nationalism for the past seventy-five years. The nationalist believes that the West, and the entire white race, are in danger of extinction, but upon becoming a political activist and commencing a crusade to defend the West, he quickly discovers, to his frustration, that Western Man, because of complacency or stupidity, will not fight to save himself. <br />
<br />
Discussions of this subject in nationalist polemics often lead to speculations as to what the breaking point, the last straw, for Western Man will be. And such a breaking point exists, for every nationality; September 1939 and December 1941 showed that even the most stoic and patient of peoples, once goaded beyond endurance, can snap. <br />
<br />
Western Man has for the last hundred years been forced to shoulder a number of burdens. These are political and are in effect taxes which have been imposed upon him. They could be thought of as the price he pays for participating in normal society; if he does not pay them, he will be punished. A comparison could be drawn between them and the protection money paid to a gangster. <br />
<br />
The rate and number of these taxes has been steadily mounting since the end of WWII. Taking America as an example, Americans, by the 1960s, had laboured under what I call the negro tax for hundreds of years, and the rate of that tax was dramatically increased at the time of the race riots and the new desegregation laws; by the 1970s, whites had been ethnically cleansed from some of the great cities of the North-East - for example, Detroit. Around the same time came a new tax, a new levy - the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, which abolished the whites-only immigration system which had been in place for forty years. Hart-Celler led to a massive immigrant invasion, the largest in history. Following this tax - which should be called the Great Replacement tax - Americans had to put up with an additional one, the mandatory Holocaust education and indoctrination tax, which took effect in the 1970s and 1980s. Forty years later, new taxes were introduced: the Social Justice Warrior (SJW) tax, the transsexual tax, the 'Woke Capital' tax, the Greta Thunberg tax, the '#MeToo' tax, the deplatforming tax, the cancel culture tax... The year 2020 saw a Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa riot tax, and one of the most devastating taxes of all - the Great Reset tax, which has led to the vexations of social distancing, mask mandates, contact tracing, lockdowns, house arrests, curfews, forced unemployment, forced closure of businesses and perhaps, in the future, the introduction of a compulsory (and potentially lethal) vaccine. The Great Reset has engendered, as we know, pathological social phenomena on a stupendous scale. And in case one thought that things could not get any worse, the year 2020 concluded with the Joe Biden electoral fraud tax, which will exacerbate tensions between the Left and Right to an alarming degree and could eventually lead to a sundering of the American republic.<br />
<br />
Economic theory posits the hypothesis of what is called the Laffer Curve: this is the proposition that past a certain point additional tax hikes will see a diminution, not an increase, in revenue. Diminishing returns apply to tax collection. The same holds true to the burdens, impositions, outlined above. Past a certain point, the last straw will have been reached for American (and Western) Man; he will refuse to pay these levies. <br />
<br />
The Western nationalist's tolerance for these impositions is low, the normie's is high. The British nationalist, for instance, finds the Great Replacement tax (which was first levied in England seventy years ago) outrageous, and thinks that the British normie should be outraged by it too; he cannot understand why the normie is not outraged and was not even outraged after the Pakistani grooming gang scandal came to light. But the truth is that when it comes tolerance and endurance of burdens and impositions, different sections of the populace have different thresholds. We activists are all familiar with the somnolent type of normie who feels nothing but complete indifference towards politics and indeed any of the higher fields of human endeavour; prior to 2020, none of the taxes mentioned made the slightest impression on him. One is inclined to suspect that the political establishment, being aware of his notoriously high tolerance, imposed the Great Reset in order to test his limits; and in doing so, that establishment was possessed of a certain impishness and malice - like a child who teases an animal so as to make it bite. <br />
<br />
Looking past the somnolent and insensate type of normie, we come to others who are more promising. There is the conservative boomer, who was accepting of all the taxes levied up to 2000 or so, but has been baffled and confused - and angered - by the new SJW, transsexual, Greta Thunberg, etc., taxes, and wants things to go back to where they were. Another nostalgic is the popular culture-obsessed normie, who often belongs to either the boomer generation or Generation X. He lives in a dream world, a bubble, which is filled with popular culture - computer games, anime, comic books, movies, TV shows, action figures, role-playing games... Unfortunately for him, the late 2010s saw the infiltration by the extreme Left into popular culture, and as a result, his beloved franchises (among them <u>Star Wars</u>, <u>Star Trek</u>, <u>Doctor Who</u>, Marvel and DC, James Bond) have been ruined by SJW politicisation. Like the conservative boomer, he instinctively holds to reactionary views and wants life to return to where it was in 1990 or 2000 or even 2010 - when the impositions were not as pronounced. He is prepared to pay some taxes, but not others. The negro tax and the Great Replacement tax do not bother him, as he is not a white nationalist by any description; the Holocaust indoctrination tax does not bother him, as he has been trained to hate all Germans, 'Nazis', by Hollywood; but 'SJW <u>Star Wars</u>' - that he will not abide. One consequence of his displeasure is that he has produced literally thousands of YouTube videos containing hundreds of hours of intricate analyses of Lucasfilm, Disney, Kathleen Kennedy, <u>The Mandalorian</u> (2019-), etc. <br />
<br />
Now, he can be chided for not spending his time on more worthy, serious subjects; but he could counter this attack with the question: after he comes home tired at the end of the working day, what is there for him but escapism? In his judgment, he feels he has the right to lose himself in the world of heroic myth. It means something spiritually higher to him, something he needs - man does not live by bread alone. <br />
<br />
IV.<br />
<br />
The pop-culture obsessed normie is closely related to the <a href="https://hackernoon.com/on-the-infestation-of-small-souled-bugmen-6561ae922e07" target="_blank">bug man</a>, who is in turn related to Nietzsche's Last Man and Spengler's Fellahin. The bug man, a conformist by nature, accepts nearly all of the aforementioned taxes, much like the somnolent, insensate and bulletproof type of normie. <br />
<br />
The Western nationalist will castigate the bug man: the bug man does not engage in a revolt against the modern world (Evola), lament the passing of the great race (Grant), hanker after the Imperium (Yockey); he is politically inactive and perfectly content with the way things are. But I envy him to a certain extent. To be obsessed by nothing but computer gaming, for example - that would be a life (I imagine) of uninterrupted bliss. <br />
<br />
This is where <u>Cyberpunk 2077</u> comes in. <br />
<br />
The computer game was based on a pen and paper role playing game, <u>Cyberpunk: The Roleplaying Game of the Dark Future</u> which was published in 1988 and set (amusingly enough) in the far-flung future of 2013. The original game portended, as one could expect, a dark, dystopian future for the West, like all the works in the cyberpunk genre; but paradoxically, the genre makes urban dystopias look exciting, glamourous, seductive. It prettifies the urban science-fiction hellscape and turns it into something beautiful. And this has real world implications. The Los Angeles of the movie <u>Blade Runner</u> (1982), the Chiba City of the novel <u>Neuromancer </u>(1984) and the Night City of the game <u>Cyberpunk 2077</u> seem strangely familiar to us, as they resemble cities in which we live - Sydney and Melbourne, for example - and because of this, <u>Cyberpunk 2077</u>, an aesthetically pleasing game which beautifies the modern city, makes us appreciate our cities all the more. <br />
<br />
It is no exaggeration to say that for some, the game made 2020 worth living. The game had been in development for eight years (!) and the release date for 2020 had been slated for April, and then it was pushed back to November, and then December. The delay only increased the anticipation. The release of <u>Cyberpunk 2077</u> was eagerly awaited by gaming fandom, and even those on the Far Right were swept up by the enthusiasm. On 4Chan, a common slogan was, 'Still buying <u>Cyberpunk 2077</u>': that is to say, despite all the negative political developments of the year 2020, I am still looking forward to playing this game which, I have been assured, will be a masterpiece. <br />
<br />
All this has an unlikely sequel, but before I detail it, I should be point out that the audience for cyberpunk is meant to react with revulsion, and not pleasure, at the prospect of the West turning into a dystopia filled with cyborgs, low-lifes, and servants of evil corporations ('corpos';); and it goes without saying that the white nationalist or National Socialist is meant to react negatively as well. (Read what Alfred Rosenberg, in <u>The Myth of the Twentieth Century</u> (1930), has to say on the evils of city life). On that, the cyberpunk dystopia presents a reverse mirror image of what Far Rightists, traditionalists, fascists of all stripes value. Peasants, cosy cottages, clean and healthy country living, beautiful landscapes, <a href="https://duckduckgo.com/?q=aryan+women+wheatfields&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images" target="_blank">'Aryan women standing in wheatfields'</a>: these occupy the most prominent place in white nationalist iconography, not corpos, low-lifes, urban squalor, smog, neon signs and cyborgs. You can find these typical white nationalist icons on display at the <a href="http://www.renegadetribune.com" target="_blank">Renegade Tribune</a> website; Renegade travels down the Rosenberg route, and goes even further, endorsing homeopathy and veganism. <br />
<br />
But all this raises the question: which of the two - the cyberpunk urban dystopia or the National Socialist eco-utopia - is the more modern and the more real? Reluctantly, I have to say, the former; perhaps we could have lived more close to nature, as Rosenberg wanted, over a hundred years ago, but not now. <br />
<br />
Another difficult question. The video for the song <a href="https://youtu.be/KVSEiveFY7g" target="_blank">'Yesterday's Hero'</a> by John Paul Young is set in the all-white city of Melbourne of 1975. Supposing that you could go forward or back in time, would you travel to the Melbourne of that year or to the Melbourne of some hundred years after (say, the year 2077)? The pop culture-obsessed normie would choose the future: he operates under the assumption that the future will not only be more technologically advanced, but more exciting, which is one of the reasons why he likes <u>Star Trek</u>, <u>Star Wars</u>, so much. <br />
<br />
That type of normie accepts much of the existing political order, and modern technology, and modern urban living, as does the bug man. The underlying philosophy of these types of normie was first outlined in Fukuyama's essay 'The End of History?' (which appeared in the summer of 1989, right before the fall of the Berlin Wall). Fukuyama here expounded upon two propositions which many commentators found objectionable: the first was that we live in the best of all possible worlds, the second, that our existing political arrangements could scarcely be improved upon. Many on the Far Left took umbrage with Fukuyama, as could be expected, but so did many on the Far Right who are forever denouncing capitalism and consumerism. When I am in one of my less charitable moods, I am inclined to say that those the Far Right who adopted this position did so only because they are (like their counterparts on the Far Left) killjoys and moreover, people who are stuck in a distant past. The bugman, and the pop-culture obsessed normie, would agree. And they would venture that Fukuyama could have been right. Perhaps it is the case that a society which produces a work of beauty such as <u>Cyberpunk 2077</u> cannot be all that bad. Why not, then, kick back and enjoy this marvellous world of supermarkets, shopping centers, and computer games - the world which our forefathers shed their blood, sweat and tears to build? Throw out your dusty volumes of Spengler, Yockey, Evola, and stop obsessing over race, immigration and Holocaust Revisionism. Become a postmodernist. 'It's not the 1930s any more'...<br />
<br />
But there is a twist in the tale when it comes to <u>Cyberpunk 2077</u>. The game sold millions on the day of its release, but after playing it, gamers discovered that it suffered from glitches and other shortcomings; the sad truth was that it had been released before it was ready. The most hyped and anticipated game of the year - if not the century - had turned into a failure. The producers of the game, CD Projekt Red, took the unprecedented step of offering refunds to Playstation and XBox users. Disappointment was followed by fury; CD Projekt Red, are now facing a class action law suit from disgruntled investors. <br />
<br />
One moral of the story is, perhaps, that those wanting a more authentic cyberpunk experience would have been better advised to stick to the pen and paper games. But more than that, the story illustrates the ultimate failure of bugman-ism and normie-ism. The bugman could only justify Western liberal society and its economic system throughout 2020 with the following argument: despite the collapse brought about by the Great Reset, despite the scandal brought about by the Biden fraud, we in the West still live in a time which is unparalleled for its prosperity, luxury, technological advancement - and what better proof of this is <u>Cyberpunk 2077</u>? Even those on dissident Right, says the bugman, must acknowledge the truth of this argument, and they did acknowledge the truth of it, through their actions (but not their words), as the excitement the game caused led the 'Alt-Rightist' to drop his anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist pose. Anticipation for the <u>Cyberpunk 2077</u> masterwork broke down all social and political barriers. Both Mark Zuckerberg - the king of the bugmen - and the anonymous 4Chan poster who coined the 'Still buying <u>Cyberpunk 2077</u>' phrase stood side by side in the queue outside the game store on the morning of December the 10th, the day of the game's release. And to paraphrase the Bible, Zuckerberg saw this, and behold, it was very good. For Zuckerberg wants nothing more for a member of the 'Alt-Right' than to become like him; he wants that 'Alt-Rightist' to buy a computer game, adopt postmodernist views, be content with the existing social order and take an Asian wife. <br />
<br />
But, as we know, things did not work out that way. 'Truth will have its revenge', as Carl Schmitt used to say, and perhaps, in 2020, 'Alt-Right' politics, white nationalism, Neo-Nazism, Far Right Populism were in accordance with the times after all, and were the truth. </span><br /></div>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-74053526517095822152020-11-07T03:38:00.000-08:002020-11-07T03:38:40.336-08:00Advice for Americans: a Communique in the Course of a Coup<p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHbGLyzizWKveXoA5piyWOMVipbcADbUYsbdYq93nEBQFszBYm4e8BKiV0r24gMcpXp6pomg26zdCVGEe_jzISAUeOjrzhDYZwLR3w-VdHyOsFviBShKTprV26G_19ayd3mUk097s8lkaM/s1920/1603418656103.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHbGLyzizWKveXoA5piyWOMVipbcADbUYsbdYq93nEBQFszBYm4e8BKiV0r24gMcpXp6pomg26zdCVGEe_jzISAUeOjrzhDYZwLR3w-VdHyOsFviBShKTprV26G_19ayd3mUk097s8lkaM/w640-h360/1603418656103.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>I. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I should have put a qualifying sentence at the end of my last article, and that is: these are the reasons why Trump will win if the election is free and fair. As we now know, the election was not free and fair, and it was more befitting of a Third World country than the United States. Trump would have scored well above 300 electoral college votes if not for Democratic electoral fraud in four Democrat-controlled cities in the north (Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta), and for all we know, he may have even won Nevada and Virginia were it not for possible fraud there as well. The American Left is at present executing a plan which it had laid down in advance of the election; it is following a coup scenario which was 'wargamed' as part of what is called the Transition Integrity Project. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, some (only a minority, I am pleased to say) on the dissident Right contend that none of this matters, both Trump and Biden are the same, etc., etc. I am writing to persuade those who are undecided or who have fallen under the influence of the black-pillers and nay-sayers. I wish to impress upon the Americans in the dissident Right that there is a time for political activism, it is now. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>II. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The American Far Right or nationalist Right or racialist Right (or whatever you want to call it) should want to save Trump's presidency. Why? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The first argument is: it is in the self-interest of the dissident Right that the presidency be saved. For years leading up to the 2020 election, the Left has vowed to punish anyone who supported and voted for Trump. Now <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/11/06/leftists-never-trumpers-begin-compiling-lists-of-trump-supporters/">reports</a> indicate that an incoming Biden administration will pursue this goal; it will hardly be interested in national reconciliation and harmony. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">At the moment, the Left is focusing all its attentions on Trump, his base and the Republican Party - it wants to depose Trump, demoralise his base and turn the Republican Party against Trump and populism - but sooner or later it will turn to the Far Right. White nationalists, race realists, 'neo-reactionaries', Neo-Nazis, et al., will be deplatformed and perhaps even fined and imprisoned. The Biden regime may not have control of the Senate or even the House, but it will have control of the Justice Department and a myriad of other institutions control of which goes to the candidate who won the election for the presidency. It goes without saying that Biden's handlers will insert socialists, Marxists, communists, etc., into every key position, and these newly appointed nominees will seek a bloody retribution against all 'white supremacists' and 'Nazis', real or imagined. Center-right conservatives ('normiecons') and colour-blind civic nationalists can be expected to be caught up in the coming conflagration. (Indeed, the first shots in the war against 'normiecons' have already been fired: dozens of Republican and conservatives were struck off YouTube weeks before the election). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The bottom line is: the Left seeks to control everything, and like some amorphous blob monster out of a horror film, it never stops until it has devoured everything in its path. Before the election, the Left ran Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, YouTube, Amazon, Hollywood, popular culture (DC, Disney, Marvel, etc.), nearly all the national news TV networks and newspapers; now it wants the government. It never stops. And sooner or later, it will come for you. The Left will not allow you, a dissident Rightist and freethinker, to have your corner of the Internet; it will not leave you unmolested; so long as you exist, it will attempt to destroy you. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The second reason wanting a Trump second term is: immigration. As Kevin MacDonald notes in an <a href="https://www.unz.com/article/first-thoughts-on-the-election/" target="_blank">article</a> on the election, the Biden regime will usher in a massive wave of non-white immigration. That, combined with electoral cheating of the sort we saw in the four pivotal Democratic-run cities, will ensure that no Republican will be elected to the presidency for the next few decades. Many of the Trump's critics on the Right chide him with abandoning his white working-class base, and they point to the drop in white electoral support as proof of this; but I ask them, how do you think the white working-class (let alone the white middle-class) will fare under Biden? As it is, Trump has brought legal and illegal immigration to record lows, and not all of this reduction is attributable to covid. Name one other head of state in the West, or at least the Anglosphere, who has done as much to restrict immigration as Trump (as they say on 4Chan, 'Pro-tip: you can't). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The third reason is: Marxist gradualism. Biden may not get control of the Senate, or even the House. But history shows that while a president does not always get the tax cuts he wants, he always gets the tax hikes, and this is despite his party's not having control of the legislature. Taxes on the supply of capital and labour will lead to less of it, and Americans can expect a gradual economic decline under Biden, a decline which will at first make itself felt only at the margins. The decline will proceed bit by bit and the inadequacy of capitalism compared to socialism will 'proven' over a period of time. This is important. Biden's handlers know that they cannot introduce Marxism all at once - e.g., Biden will not write an executive order to nationalise, overnight, all the companies in the S&P 500 - so they will avail themselves of salami tactics. We are seeing these gradualist methods at work already, and these recall those used during the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Czechoslovak_coup_d%27état" target="_blank">communist coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948</a>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I do not want here to revisit the now-centuries old capitalism versus socialism debate; all I want is to ask the dissident Right to consider the politics of the matter. The fact is that millions of Americans, 'normies' all, will not stand for socialism; millions of Floridan Hispanic voters will not abide Biden. My question to you is, are you prepared to be outflanked from the Right by immigrant Cubans and Venezuelans? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The fourth reason is: fairness. Democracy can be defined as a fair contest between two more or less evenly-matched opponents - something like a game of chess or soccer. MacDonald and other race realists have written volumes on how whites have produced high-trust societies, and while democracy has been adopted by many non-white nations since WWII, it was whites who invented it in its modern form and one could say that it was built upon white values. For democracy requires the following norms: a sense of fair play; the consent of the loser (which we have not seen from the Left since 2016); the abstention from the use of force and intimidation against one's political opponents (which again we have not seen from the Left since 2016)... All of this could be said to be white, and Anglo-Saxon. It is true that over the course of hundreds of years, British and American politicians seeking office have gone against these precepts and doing so, have won; but there has always been the awareness that these men broke the rules and thereby did a bad thing and put themselves outside the pale. Generations of whites have regarded electoral fraud not as business as usual, politics as usual, but as a deviation from norms. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">One should separate all this - the history of democracy in the West - from the question of its actual value. Hitler did not think much of democracy, but democracy, in the period of the Second Reich and even Weimar worked well enough - at least, in pre-WWII Germany, you can find little evidence of Chicago-style ballot-box stuffing, because Germans as a people are too scrupulous and honest for that. But the communist Left destroyed the democracy of the Second Reich and Weimar, because it knew, on an instinctive level at least, that it could not win a fair contest. In much the same way, Lenin abolished the Duma because the Bolsheviks did not win the elections held after the October Revolution. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This brings us to America today. We can envisage the American election of 2020 as a chess match between a blue player and a red. The blue player, through an illegal move, checkmates his opponent. The red player brings this cheating to the attention of the referee. The blue player, defending his conduct, says that the illegal move should be overlooked as the red player is a disgrace to the game of chess, has brought it into disrepute, is a odious individual, etc. The referee is torn: on the one hand, the denunciations of the red player by the blue strike a sympathetic chord; on the other, rules are rules. At this point, everything depends on how the referee will act. Will he follow the rules, or will he look the other way? Will he follow his better or lesser angels? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The consequences are tremendous if the referee chooses the latter course. MacDonald is not alone in predicting that the reputation and sanctity of democracy will be called into question, and that civil war may result. He writes, 'It’s going to be interesting... Perhaps too interesting'.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">That 'interesting' civil war may come about simply because the Left, as Rush Limbaugh points out, not believe in following the rules - it believes that is for suckers. The smart people, the clever people, bend the rules and even cheat so as to win, because winning - by any means necessary - is the supreme value. (It is doubtful that the men who fixed the vote in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Detroit, will ever evince remorse for their crime once they emerge in years to come and brag about their role in toppling Trump in 2020). And this is all in keeping with Leninism. If you, like Lenin, put socialism on a pedestal, if you prize it before anything else, if you make it the core of your morality - then woe betide anything that gets in the way of socialism. All the Anglo-Saxon ideals of fair play, of decency, of free and fair contests, can be trampled upon. They are all 'bourgeois'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The stench of cheating will cling to Biden throughout his entire term. To the Left, that hardly matters - they won, that is that, and now they have the <a href="https://www.unz.com/isteve/biden-claims-a-mandate-on-systemic-racism/" target="_blank">mandate</a> to fight against 'systemic racism'; but to the dissident Right, it should matter.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>III.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">To put aside for the moment the question of the worth of second Trump term , I shall look at the strengths and weaknesses of both the contestants - Trump and Biden. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Biden has little free will of his own - he is the puppet of the amorphous Left. What is that Left in 2020? It is radical, it is Marxist, but it is not the same as sixty or seventy years ago. Then, the American Left consisted of the Communist Party of the USA (the CPUSA) and its splinter groups, some of which went over to Trotskyism, others to Maoism. The Far Left then was centralised, not diffuse, and it was small in number. Branches and cells met in dusty basements and belonged to a hierarchical and centralised organisation (a 'vanguard party') which was controlled by Moscow. Splinter groups did not receive their orders (or funding) from Moscow, but they did emulate the CPUSA's 'revolutionary vanguard' structure.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, in 2020, Marxism and leftism have broken with the 'old Left' model. They are diffuse and decentralised as a virus is; they are a virus inhabiting the minds of the public, not so much a mass movement as a mass psychosis. In it we can identify the following factions:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">- Anarchists and Antifa;</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">- 'Woke' capital (or corporate Leninism, as I like to call it);</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">- Academic and cultural Marxism: Critical Race Theory, Gender Studies, Black Studies, post-Colonial Studies, Queer Studies, etc.;</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">- Social Justice Warriors (SJWs);</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">- Black Lives Matter (BLM);</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">- Remnants of the old Marxist organisations: the CPUSA (which still exists), the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the old Trotskyite groups, the survivors of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Communist_movement" target="_blank">New Communist Movement</a> (NCM) groups.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">All of these tend to cross over and overlap. A 'woke capitalist' could be found on the board of a big tech or media company who declares himself to be simultaneously a Marxist (without knowing a thing about Marxist theory), a crusader for social justice, a supporter of BLM and Antifa. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">How does this leftism manifest itself politically? As we know, the Left has spread itself into every nook and cranny of civil society, from churches to the TV and film studios. It sees the Democratic Party as its own, and the Party serves as the focal point for the Left's operations. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The Democratic Party - and the grand cause of getting Trump - allows the Left to build bridges to the Right. This is how the Left has built an alliance with the Never Trump conservatives, who were present at the Transitional Integrity's Project's 'wargaming' of the anti-Trump coup. (The Never Trumpers represent the faction of the Republican Party which was ousted after Trump's hostile takeover of the party in the years 2015 and 2016. This is the faction of the conservative movement which is attempting at present to persuade Trump to 'do the right thing' and concede the election and acknowledge that he lost 'fair and square'; it is also placing pressure on the Republicans to distance themselves from Trump and any 'conspiracy theories' which say that the Democrats cheated). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The Left has made a puppet of Biden (and Harris), and it is Biden who suffers from the same shortcoming as the Left and the Never Trumpers: a lack of popular support. No-one voted for Biden, at least not in the numbers claimed in Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan. In a democracy, this lack of electoral support translates into illegitimacy. One can be a cynic about this, one can sneer, one can quote Stalin approvingly to the effect that 'It matters not who wins the votes, but who counts them'; but this illegitimacy is a black mark against Biden, at least in the eyes of a large section of the American people. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In contrast, Trump has his base which is extends both inside and outside the Republican Party. In addition, he possess great strength and fortitude. Even his enemies admit that he is not the type to go down quietly. It is for this reason that I believe that Trump will not give up. Those who say he will, I think, are projecting themselves onto Trump: they imagine that if they were in his shoes, they would have crumbled right now (I know I certainly would have). They simply do not believe in him. They show all the signs of having been taken in by the media anti-Trump propaganda, which is part of the massive psychological warfare campaign against Trump and his followers. But we should remember that only a week ago, the polls - and the betting markets - made the forecast that Trump would lose to Biden in a landslide (and the Republicans in the Senate and House as well). As of now, the betting markets indicate that Biden will be president. But why should we believe them? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It is of course in Trump's personal interest to fight to the bitter end. The Left has vowed to arrest, convict and imprison Trump for his 'crimes' while in office (and needless to say, if it cannot find evidence of any criminal wrong-doing, it will manufacture it) the moment he departs from the White House; and they have vowed to go after his family as well. Trump is fighting for not only his own preservation but his children's as well. In this, the Left have made a mistake. Sun Tzu counsels that one must avoid encircling one's enemy completely: one must give him an avenue of escape, otherwise he will fight all the more harder. The Left, which is always overreaching, has not heeded Sun Tzu on this point. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Another reason why Trump will not concede is that he sees himself as the winner of the election of 2020. History and tradition show that he is right. Out of the 31 elections since 1892, the state of Ohio has only gone with the loser twice - to Dewey in 1944 and Nixon in 1960. And in 30 out of 31 of those elections, the candidate who won Ohio and Florida together went on to win the office of presidency (and that includes George W. Bush in the extremely tight election of 2000). Nixon in 1960 is the exception which proves the rule: Nixon won Ohio, Florida and California and lost the popular vote to Kennedy by a narrow margin. Viewed in the light of this history, Trump won in 2020.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In my last article, I looked at Helmut Norpoth's model in depth. Were we to ask him why Trump did not win 362 electoral votes as his model predicted, Norpoth would shrug and say, 'Biden cheated'. And he would be right. The electorate knows it, Trump's voters know it, and for this reason Trump's base at this point will not allow him to concede. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">One must fight while one has breath. One cannot allow the American democratic system (and by extension, all democratic systems) to be destroyed by a few ballot-box stuffers in Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Georgia. It is a matter of principle. Rush Limbaugh understands this and has vowed to keep on fighting, and he is dying of lung cancer. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>IV. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Many on the dissident Right have given up on a Trump second term: they were pessimistic a few weeks ago, believing that Biden would win in a landslide (mistakenly, as it turns out), and are even more pessimistic now, believing that Biden has pulled off his coup. What if they are correct, and Biden and the Left have won? What must we do to prepare for a future in which no Republican, or at least no immigration restrictionist, will ever win the presidency in our lifetimes? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Firstly, we must remove ourselves from the conventional Internet platforms - YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, etc. - before we are removed. (YouTube is no good anyway: its content is being marred by excessive advertising). We can find alternative platforms such as BitChute, but these are <a href="http://www.renegadetribune.com/jewish-lawyers-are-targeting-bitchute-for-termination/" target="_blank">being targeted by the Left as we speak</a>. When it comes to these battles, the Left always wins. But the Left can only control HTTP, which is not all there is to the Internet; it cannot control the platforms which existed before HTTP. On these one can distribute all the content - written, audio, visual - one wants.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Secondly, as a corollary to the above, we must boycott as much of the mainstream media and entertainment, etc., as much as we can. In selecting what YouTuber to watch, what newspaper to read, we must go by the following criteria: what is the content creator's attitude towards leftism and to the American coup of 2020? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Thirdly, we must become accustomed to two words - electoral fraud - and repeat them as much as possible in any discussion in relation to the election of 2020. The Left always projects - it thought that Trump somehow cheated his way to power in 2016 (that was what the whole Russian collusion narrative was about) - and it always accuses others of what itself is doing. Now, in 2020, Biden is doing what Trump is supposed to have done in 2016. It is at this point I propose that we take a leaf out of the Left's book. Following its defeat in 2016, the Left used the tactic in all places and all times of denying the Trump administration any legitimacy. We on the Right should do the same with the Biden / Harris regime. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Someone on the dissident Right may object to this on the grounds that they do not like Trump; but how many leftists in 2016 liked Clinton? The Left went after Trump and sought to drive him out of office, not because he 'cucked' to the Jews or African-Americans or Hispanics, but because of his immigration restrictionism and nativism; the Left abominated him because of his calling all Mexicans rapists, because of his Muslim ban, because of his proposed wall... As MacDonald notes in his article, the Left will seek to destroy any candidate who is immigration restrictionist (and, for that matter, who has cultivated a large electoral base among white people). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">MacDonald concludes his piece with some uncharacteristic musings on the fall of democracy and the rise of Caesarism, and here he sounds like Spengler. In the long term, perhaps, Spengler will be proven correct, but in the short term, we are left with democracy - at least for a little while longer - and circumstances behoove us to fight for it in America in the year 2020. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In that struggle, we must not let our judgement be clouded by dark thoughts; we must not mistake pessimism for realism. Trump himself is reputedly a follower of Norman Vincent Peale, the self-help priest who believed that positive thoughts can bring about positive outcomes. In the vein of Trump (and Peale), I declare the future to be still open.</span></p><p><br /></p>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-20454608357028849602020-11-03T03:14:00.003-08:002020-11-03T05:25:44.255-08:00Why Trump will win the Captain America election<p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5wZ4kzqalfbC2vpUP38KgAnsyMA3Y68QS1qZFnIEOhwiKMvqD11bshYCclxBcA2EdbDf-E-YcWdr72oXQLNCjkZkiD0__XvDmcG9LUMTK1A1cpXjCsQzUD9766PSFLsXVkKjGLdfi7rzq/s780/CapAntiCom.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="413" data-original-width="780" height="338" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5wZ4kzqalfbC2vpUP38KgAnsyMA3Y68QS1qZFnIEOhwiKMvqD11bshYCclxBcA2EdbDf-E-YcWdr72oXQLNCjkZkiD0__XvDmcG9LUMTK1A1cpXjCsQzUD9766PSFLsXVkKjGLdfi7rzq/w640-h338/CapAntiCom.PNG" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>I. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It is difficult for those on the Right to be dispassionate about the 2020 presidential election when they believe - and I do - that America stands on the verge of a communist takeover if Biden wins. But here I will strive to be impartial and 'objective', and I will not indulge in a polemic against Biden and the Democrats. For it is the case that those who hold strong political opinions, on either the Right or Left, can develop tunnel vision and over time can come to assume that the 'people' think exactly as they do, and it is then that their view has become blinkered, their judgment coloured. And the result is that they will make the wrong call as to who will or will not win an election. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">For it could be - contrary to the opinions of many on the Right - that the American electorate this time around wants socialism, Marxism, communism. Sometimes the electorate can make that decision. The great political pundit and supply-side publicist, Jude Wanniski, wrote that every election gives a choice between economic growth and economic security; between capitalism and socialism; between the (what he calls) the 'mommy' party, which favours security, and the 'daddy' party, which favours risk-taking. There is no reason why in 2020 voters can opt for security over growth, socialism over capitalism, as they did in 2008 and 2012; in other words, there is no reason why they would not vote for the Democratic Party. Biden - who believes that a 'dark winter' lies ahead - definitely prioritises economic security over growth, and the voters may choose him, even though they have been warned, by Biden's opponents on the Right, that his policies will snuff out America's economic recovery and that his cabinet will socialist, crypto-communist; voters may have the reaction, 'So what?' to all that, as they favour a strong social safety net over economic growth. And conservatives and anti-communists have a hard time understanding this preference. The conservatives' dislike of socialism and communism and their antipathy towards a particular left-wing candidate (Obama, Biden) obscures their view of what it is that the electorate wants and how the electorate will vote. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">So, without going into the politics of the matter, without taking on board ideological preconceptions, I will outline in a 'scientific' fashion why it is that Trump will be re-elected. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>II.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The first reason is that historical precedents usually determine American electoral outcomes. Trump, a Republican, is running for re-election, and if he is to lose, the Republicans will have lost the White House after one term for the first time since 1892, a prospect which is possible but highly unlikely. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Secondly - and looking, as above, at the 2020 election from the viewpoint of history - incumbent presidents running for re-election tend to win a second term: see Clinton in 1996, Bush 45 in 2004, Obama in 2012. (In that vein, it should be noted that men who are running for the presidency and who come from the Senate tend to lose: see Mondale in 1984, Dole in 1996, McCain in 2008. It may be that Biden, another Senator, is to be added to the list). If we are to look back over a hundred year's worth of elections, we will see that the incumbent president has lost re-election only three times: Hoover in 1932, Carter in 1980, and Bush 43 in 1992. But Hoover and Bush 43 were both seeking a record fourth Republican term in the White House, and the incumbent party seeking a third or fourth has the odds stacked against it. (As well as losing re-election, Hoover and Bush 43 hold this in common: they both hiked taxes and caused a recession, and they both were punished by voters for doing so, Bush 43 being voted out exactly sixty years after Hoover's defeat). Here it is Carter that really stands out as the odd man out, the exception proving the rule. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Third, in order to determine the winner, we should look to what the polls (and betting markets) say as to which candidate is leading in the bellwether state of Ohio. That state has gone with the winner for all the elections after 1892 (that year again), with the exception of two years - 1944 and 1960; Ohio has functioned as the bellwether in 29 out of 31 elections. Now, Trump was leading in the polls and in the betting markets in Ohio on the eve of the 2016 election, and he is leading now; so he may be about to win again. (Despite its track record, many pundits today do not believe that Ohio is a bellwether. For 2020, many pundits have already conceded it to Trump but opine that Biden can without it. Some of them go far as to say that Biden can lose Ohio and Florida and still win. (That in itself seems improbable, given that Florida has gone with the winner for every election after 1992)). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Fourth, Helmut Norpoth's Primary Model predicts a big Trump win with 362 votes in the Electoral College to Biden's 176 - a real blow-out. (Norpoth's official paper on 2020, which at this point in time no-one but me seems to have read, can be found <a href="http://primarymodel.com/2020-1" target="_blank">here</a>). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Norpoth's prediction rests upon two presuppositions. The first is that the incumbent party is favoured to win the election for a second term, but not a third or fourth. (An election after an incumbent's second term is what the Americans call a 'change' election: see 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, 2008, 2016). The incumbent party can win a third term only if the size of its popular vote in the election for a second term exceeded that of the first; for example, the Republicans won a third term in 1988 because their share of the popular vote in 1984 had increased upon that of 1980. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The second presupposition is that the vote in the primaries anticipates that in the general - and in one primary in particular, and that is New Hampshire. That primary serves as a pre-election election. The candidate who wins big in New Hampshire cruises to victory in the general; the candidate who struggles, loses. For examples of candidates from the incumbent party struggling in New Hampshire and going on to lose the general, see Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, Bush 43 in 1992, McCain in 2008, Clinton in 2016. For examples of candidates from the incumbent party seeking re-election and who won New Hampshire and then the general decisively, see Truman in 1948, Eisenhower in 1956, Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984, Clinton in 1996, Bush 45 in 2004, Obama in 2012; in those instances, the incumbent faced no significant challengers in New Hampshire, and the election held there was a formality. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">For various reasons, the New Hampshire primary works better than any other in giving us an indication of the results in the general. But in recent years, Norpoth has factored in the results of the South Carolina primary, as South Carolina records the preferences of African-American voters (New Hampshire voters are mostly white). In the 'change' elections of 1992, 2000 and 2008, the opposition party candidate did poorly in New Hampshire and well in South Carolina before going on to win in the general. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In 2016 - a 'change' election - Trump won easy victories in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries, while Clinton lost in New Hampshire and won handily in South Carolina. In 2020, history repeated itself, with Biden standing in for Clinton; Biden was beaten by Sanders in New Hampshire but triumphed over Sanders in South Carolina thanks to black voters. As for the Republican primaries for 2020, Trump won a crushing victory in New Hampshire, and while he did not contest South Carolina - the primary for that state was not held - Norpoth assumes that Trump would have won easily. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In keeping with his model, then, Norpoth forecasts a Trump win in 2020. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>III.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Does the Norpoth Primary Model stand up to scrutiny? The model considers all the elections from 1912 onwards (1912 is the year in which the two political parties first allowed votes in the primaries). Norpoth uses the Democratic Party share of the two-party popular vote as a constant. He does not predict that vote with great accuracy, as we see from the below table. All the same, we can ascertain from Norpoth's table that the rule is if the Democrat vote falls below 50%, the Democrats lose the election. It is this question - will the Democratic vote fall or rise above 50%? - that Norpoth answers correctly in 22 out of 24 elections. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKJ1yhXAIFfDuQUL32d0W6PpCH-9vCV03pY_aRmT-1tkW_Ac_0XhBKAkTKufcvL-Mh8Op_ui1ZHy8KFelG5jTzn4CSIFN82wZk6I2RTG8P2wBhzoAK7fXSowPbRHVfHwfx_Lbm6ED1U0bB/s694/BuLYq.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="690" data-original-width="694" height="398" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKJ1yhXAIFfDuQUL32d0W6PpCH-9vCV03pY_aRmT-1tkW_Ac_0XhBKAkTKufcvL-Mh8Op_ui1ZHy8KFelG5jTzn4CSIFN82wZk6I2RTG8P2wBhzoAK7fXSowPbRHVfHwfx_Lbm6ED1U0bB/w400-h398/BuLYq.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The model got it wrong for two elections: 1960 and 2000. Why? For 1960, the model predicts that the Democrat vote would fall well below 50%; in actual fact, Kennedy got 50.1% - an extremely tight win in what was one of the closest elections in American history. For 2000, another close election, Norpoth predicts a vote of 50.2% (a Democratic win) and the actual vote was 50.3%, which was extraordinarily close to Norpoth's prediction; but as we know, Gore narrowly lost in the Electoral College. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Norpoth can be excused here, I think, because both of these 'change' elections were unusually tight and marred by allegations of irregularities in vote counting. It is only in 2016 that the model really falls down. Then, Norpoth predicted a big drop in the Democratic two-party vote, but in actual fact Clinton won the two-party and lost the College. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Taking this into account, Norpoth has adjusted his model. He no longer predicts the Democratic vote, only the Democratic performance in the Electoral College. The rule this time is that if the number of Democratic votes fall below 270, the Democrats lose. As we see from below, Norpoth gets it right in 25 out of 27 elections; the two he got wrong were (again) 1960 and 2000. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8Hdh67kGEYojB0UCr4xflRF_P73St_8-g-962fZPUZ0gCMC-kFOYhHVFkYKzLee0NJNQBKeJsyUXFfKSUWw-n9QhvIofILsErH4rXfpu1rue9yLIisU0lmBXfqGMMde-wDtCwpZE8LwG3/s1196/TABLE_4_VOTE_2020_FINAL.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1196" data-original-width="618" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8Hdh67kGEYojB0UCr4xflRF_P73St_8-g-962fZPUZ0gCMC-kFOYhHVFkYKzLee0NJNQBKeJsyUXFfKSUWw-n9QhvIofILsErH4rXfpu1rue9yLIisU0lmBXfqGMMde-wDtCwpZE8LwG3/w206-h400/TABLE_4_VOTE_2020_FINAL.jpg" width="206" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The actual Electoral College counts deviate wildly from Norpoth's predictions for the most part, as could be expected; but as we see from the table, he was well within the margin of error for 2012 and 2016. And he anticipated the count for 2016 with precision: he forecast 236 for Clinton and the actual number was 232. This suggests to me that the mathematics of his model are improving.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Assuming that Norpoth is right, then, if Trump is to win 362 Electoral College votes - or thereabouts - he needs to win not only all the states he won in 2016 but some additional states as well, and big ones at that; even Virginia, Minnesota, Nevada will not be sufficient. Trump's performance would need to match that of Reagan and Bush in the Republican landslides of the eighties - 1980, 1984, 1988. Is this possible? Norpoth says yes, as we fail to appreciate how unenthused Democrat voters were for Biden, who came in a distant third behind Sanders and Buttigieg in the New Hampshire primary (as for Harris, Biden's putative successor, she dropped out of the race before the voting began, and nationwide she won only 844 votes - as a write-in).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>IV.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now we have examined Norpoth's model in detail, we can move on to Wanniski's. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Wanniski's classic <u>The Way the World Works</u> (1978) looks at why it is that the electorate will vote for a candidate who emphasises security over growth. Socialism, he argues, helps tide the electorate through a period of economic contraction, and he warns that if the electorate does not have the socialist escape route in a time of capitalist crisis, a civil war could result. Which is why he says that good socialism beats bad capitalism. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Wanniski says that while the Right usually blames the Left for causing contractions - Trump, for example, is arguing that Biden's tax hikes would cause a recession, if not a depression - but usually these contractions are brought about by the Right or at least the political establishment. And this was true of American history at the time of writing (1978). Hoover, a Republican, had hiked tariffs and taxes and caused the Great Depression; Nixon, a Republican, had taken America off the gold standard and caused a global inflation. And after the disasters wrought by these two right-wing presidents, left-wing presidents were elected. The pattern is, the Right brings about a contraction and the Left cleans up the mess. The elections of 1992 and 2008 fit the Wanniski model in that regard. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But the 2020 election breaks the mold. At the start of the year, the Trump bull market was powering ahead, and using the Wanniskian methods of analysis, we see that the <a href="https://www.macrotrends.net/1378/dow-to-gold-ratio-100-year-historical-chart" target="_blank">Gold Dow</a> (the Dow Jones divided by the price of an ounce of gold) had dropped off from its September 2018 highs and we see that the US dollar had lost value against <a href="https://www.macrotrends.net/2627/gold-price-last-ten-years" target="_blank">gold</a>; but we can say overall that Americans were enjoying prosperity in that period. The reason why the markets plummeted was because of the Corona lockdowns, and the lockdowns were engineered by the Left and the liberal political establishment - the responsibility for the economic calamity can be laid at the door of the Left. In WWII, the Allies waged a ferocious strategic bombing campaign against National Socialist Germany with the intention of a) wrecking the German economy, b) killing or at the least demoralising as many Germans as possible and c) persuading Germans to depose their democratically elected leader. In 2020, the liberal establishment has taken up Allied-style strategic warfare, but this time the war is not being waged against Germans but Americans. And it is no coincidence that the lockdowns have also helped further traditionally Marxist objectives. Marriage and the family unit have been put under pressure, as has organised religion; the authority of the state has been increased to an extraordinary degree; and mass unemployment and the downturn in business activity have forced millions to rely upon the state for their subsistence. All of this is unprecedented; Wanniski in his lifetime had never seen anything like it. Given all that, it makes sense to say that in all probability the American voter in 2020 will take revenge on the Left by hurting it in the worst way possible - through a vote for Trump. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The changed circumstances explain why it is that the Trump platform of 2016 differs from that of 2020. Each election presents different issues to the electorate, and in keeping with this, Trump has changed his tactics. Trump no longer caters exclusively to a white working-class base. Instead, he is attempting to build a multi-ethnic coalition, one which cuts across race and class lines, and the coalition is to be thrown into battle against the radical Left; Trump is in effect forming an anti-communist alliance. Trump is portraying myself as a defender of the American way of life, much of his rhetoric evoking that of the multi-racialist, assimilationist and civic nationalist conservatism of the Cold War. (In some respects, the 2020 election repeats the 1948 election, in which communists infiltrated the Progressive Party and ran Henry A. Wallace - an unsuspecting communist dupe - as a third-party candidate; Wallace is Biden, Trump is Truman). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">While it is possible that Trump's civic nationalist and conservative gambit will not work - perhaps, this time around, Americans will choose Marxism - Wanniski gives a reason as to why Americans will not. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In Wanniski's world view, the electorate understands economics better than any economist, and it is applied economics - fiscal and monetary policy - that decides almost every election. And what sort of economics does the electorate prefer? Supply-side, of course: for fiscal policy, the electorate wants low tariffs and taxes; for monetary, a gold standard and fixed exchange rates. Wanniski wrote a 2001 article <a href="http://www.polyconomics.com/fyi/fyi-010614.htm" target="_blank">'Only Supply-side Republicans Win'</a> in which he expounds his theory, here breezing through the history of over 20 presidential elections and using them as case studies to support his hypothesis. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">If we are to look at the 2016 and 2020 elections within Wanniski's framework, we see the following. In 2016, candidate Trump offered big cuts to income and corporate tax, his platform being the work of Larry Kudlow and Steve Moore, two disciples of Wanniski; Trump ran as a supply-sider. In contrast, Clinton wanted to hike taxes, especially taxes on capital gains - a policy which, in the supply-side economic model, would have caused a recession. American voters did not want to commit economic suicide and so voted for Trump. Four years later, we find that history is repeating itself. The Republican candidate is promising tax cuts; the Democratic, tax hikes. Biden is following Clinton's path, and in fact is going further than Clinton - his tax hikes will exceed hers. We can judge from this, then, which of the two candidates, Trump and Biden, is the more supply-side. But we must add this caveat. Neither candidate can be viewed as completely supply-side: Biden and Trump have both been silent on monetary policy - neither of them oppose the depreciation of the dollar - and Trump has not acted as a supply-sider when it comes to trade. But on tariffs, Trump's bark has been worse than his bite, and the tariff wall on trade with America has not reached the dizzying heights of that of the 1930s. In the last analysis, then, Trump is more supply-side than Biden, and so, according to Wanniski's model, Trump wins 2020. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">A stark contrast exists between Biden and Trump. But often, in American history, neither candidate offers supply-side panaceas. In those cases, the electorate will go with the devil it knows or the candidate it feels will do the least amount of damage. In other elections, the electorate will find such little difference between the candidates so much so that it will have difficulty making up its mind (see 1960 and 2000). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>V.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Many observers detect a lack of enthusiasm for Biden but have difficulty in quantifying it; hence, they will resort to the counting of yard signs and crowd signs. Norpoth's system can quantify enthusiasm or the lack thereof, using the hard empirical evidence of votes tallied in the primaries, and so it gives us reassurance; it tells us that our impressions of the feebleness of Biden's campaign are not based merely on hunches or anecdotal evidence. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Wanniski performs the same task. We use adjectives such as 'old', 'tired', 'gloomy' to describe Biden, 'vigorous', 'dynamic', 'optimistic' to describe Trump. A mere four years separates the two men in age, so what is that makes Trump seem so fresh and alive? Wanniski would say that it is Trump's economic platform, which aims at growth - one of the favourite words in the supply-side lexicon.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">If Norpoth and Wanniski are right, a Trump victory is assured. As for the political implications of the victory - implications that will unfold over the next four years - that is a subject we will have to explore next time. </span></p><p><br /></p>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-75093767998157358602020-10-14T17:18:00.004-07:002020-10-19T00:55:35.878-07:00The Aussies and the Nazis<p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAiKmCJunG5KVLDEjIXRfBjDXQUpfqt18-KhKi3fnbGMqSQmy55KuQLlhUT686nimyNduQz1kWuhQUCbHUXOoxXzfvBPVFi5PG1TXyCeHQIcsLNwhvd2r2aL6hwD1Z75cVU7i_pn_cmiZQ/s885/102113474-5923d0d7-f792-4541-8a09-5ad0220a7a27.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="560" data-original-width="885" height="253" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAiKmCJunG5KVLDEjIXRfBjDXQUpfqt18-KhKi3fnbGMqSQmy55KuQLlhUT686nimyNduQz1kWuhQUCbHUXOoxXzfvBPVFi5PG1TXyCeHQIcsLNwhvd2r2aL6hwD1Z75cVU7i_pn_cmiZQ/w400-h253/102113474-5923d0d7-f792-4541-8a09-5ad0220a7a27.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b> I. Introduction: The 'Axis' Australia First Movement</b><br />
<br />
I have read the article <a href="https://national-socialist-network.info/article/the-dawn-of-australian-national-socialism/">The Dawn of Australian National Socialism</a> and here I am offering some thoughts in response. <br />
<br />
Some call it 'National Socialism', Yockey calls it the 'Resurgence of Authority', I call it 'Neo-Nazism': all refer to the one and same thing. I do not like to use the term 'National Socialism' much, as it is hard to define, like so many political concepts (define for me, if you can, 'democracy' or 'liberalism' or even 'socialism'). One problem I have with the term is that 'National Socialism' can be applied to many socialisms: was Mao's communism 'National Socialism'? Stalin's? Perhaps the word 'Nazi' works better at distinguishing the German National Socialism from all the others, but the word 'Nazi' has now in 2020 been destroyed through overuse and misuse. <br />
<br />
The <u>Dawn</u> article raises the question: can there be such a thing as an Australian 'Nazism'? Stephensen and the Australia First Movement (AFM) were not Nazis in the sense of being card-carrying members of the NSDAP; but then, neither were many of Hitler's collaborators - Degrelle, Tiso, Pavelić, Quisling, Szálasi, and others. Stephensen - and his letters, his essays in the <u>Publicist</u>, prove this - sympathised with the Nazis from 1937 onwards, and in an offhand manner, you could classify him and the entire AFM as Nazi sympathisers. But we do not know how far that sympathy would have extended. If we were to sketch out some alternative history fantasy - along the lines of Philip K. Dick's <u>Man in the High Castle</u> (1962) - in which the Germans invaded and occupied Australia, we could use it as a foundation for speculating as to whether or not Stephensen and the AFM, in these circumstances, would have crossed the line from sympathy to collaboration. Based on the evidence, I answer yes, Stephensen and AFM would have collaborated. <br />
<br />
More controversially, Stephensen and the AFM sympathised with the Japanese after the outbreak of the second Sino-Japanese war in 1937 and up to Pearl Harbour. Again, we must ask how far that sympathy would have extended. Suppose that, in 1942, there had been a Japanese invasion and occupation (something much more probable than a German): would Stephensen and the AFM collaborated? A strong possibility is that at least the Western Australian branch of AFM would have, which is why the Australian government rounded up the AFM and interned them in a concentration camp (along with other Nazi and Japanese sympathisers) for the remainder of the war. (Stephensen himself, before and after the beginning of his pro-Japanese phase in 1937, poured cold water on the notion of a Japanese invasion of Australia and mostly refused to discuss it; if he did touch upon it, he would use it in an argument for one of his favourite theses, that Australia could not rely for its defence upon Britain). <br />
<br />
Even though the AFM ceased to exist and Stephensen's political career came to an end nearly eighty years ago, the AFM / <u>Publicist</u> circle should be studied because they formed the mold for contemporary Australian Far Right activism. When I read about the AFM, I experience a shock of recognition: we modern activists tread along the roads which were laid down by the AFM in the late 1930s and early 1940s. (The AFM's fervently pro-Nazi and bilious anti-Semitic journal, the <u>Publicist</u> (1936-1942), could be compared to one long series of 4Chan 's<span style="font-style: italic;">**</span>t-posts'). Everything the AFM did in the 1930s and 1940s bears on what came in the decades afterwards. Today's Australian Neo-Nazis are ideologically descended from Billy Miles, the activist who founded the <u>Publicist</u>. And he could be described as the grandfather of 20th century Australian nationalism; he coined, or at least helped promulgate, the slogan 'Australia First' as early as 1917. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>(I should note here that the AFM did not officially form until October 1941; before then, the AFM circle had been informally gathered around the </span><u>Publicist</u><span>. Throughout this article I use 'AFM' to refer to the </span><u>Publicist</u><span> circle before and after the AFM's founding). </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">
The older Miles played Socrates to Stephensen's Plato, and probably is the one who bears responsibility for steering Stephensen - and a generation of Australian nationalists - towards sympathising with National Socialist Germany and Imperial Japan. It is the AFM example that shows that nationalism for one's own country can co-exist with a sympathy for German National Socialism - and so do the examples of Degrelle, Pavelić, Tiso, Quisling, etc. (It should be noted that both Stephensen and Miles in the late 1930s had close contacts with German agents - real live breathing Nazis - in Australia's pre-war diplomatic underworld and Stephensen commingled with Japanese agents in this period as well). <br />
<br />
But: many of the partisan and resistance fighters in German-occupied Europe claimed to be 'nationalist' during the war, even if they were on the Left; Greek communists claimed to be fighting for the Greek national cause, French communists for the French, and so forth. It is possible that, after a Japanese occupation of Australia, a split could have emerged between the Australian nationalists who supported the Japanese and the Australian communists who opposed them (on supposedly 'patriotic' and 'nationalist' grounds). Who knows, the Australian communists could have taken up arms and waged a guerrilla war with help from the Americans and the Russians, and in this scenario, the most notorious Japanophiles of the AFM (Stephensen, Adela Pankhurst-Walsh and her husband Tom Walsh among them) could have been denounced as traitors and even targeted for assassination. For it could have been that after the Japanese invasion and occupation, the AFM could have taken the same line as the collaborators in German-occupied Europe: yes, patriots were right to resist the invasion, but after the country's defeat, they ought to pitch in and help the occupiers rebuild the country and 'renovate' its culture. <br />
<br />
This is an alternative history novel that almost writes itself. But in order to research it, one would need to examine the history of the collaboration with the Japanese in occupied Philippines, Thailand, French Indochina, the Dutch East Indies, Manchukuo, etc., as Australia is in Asia. <br />
<br />
On that note, until I came across the AFM, I had no idea that the Far Right in both Australia and America contained sympathisers with Imperial Japan. Yockey, in his account of the American Isolationist movement, portrays the American Far Right ('nationalists', he calls them) as being either hostile or indifferent to Imperial Japan. But the example of the great American author, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Townsend">Ralph Townsend</a>, shows that this is not entirely correct. Townsend wrote the anti-Chinese classic <u>Ways That Are Dark</u> (1933), extracts from which often appear on 4Chan, and his career followed the same trajectory as that of the AFM activists who were interned. <br />
<br />
The pro-Japanese sympathies on the Far Right in America and Australia in the 1930s made sense geopolitically, as both Australia and America (at least the West Coast side of America) are Pacific nations and both regard China as a deadly enemy. In defence of their actions in light of what came after, Stephensen and Townsend in the 1930s were only following the adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. <br />
<br /><b>
II. Predictions and the Führer Problem</b><br />
<br />
This brings us to the subject of America and how political changes there today affect the prospects of 'Neo-Nazism' in Europe and Australia. <br />
<br />
The circumstances of Trump's illness are shrouded in mystery. I am unable to ascertain whether or not Trump was ill or feigning illness as a publicity stunt; and if he was sick, was he sick with covid or something else? And what of the conspiracy theories - had he and the other Republicans been deliberately infected as part of what was an assassination attempt by the Left? But in the end, he will go on to win the election, and his victory will mark the beginning of the end of the lockdowns in America and Australia, as Australia (like most of the Western world) goes as America goes. This will free up the Far Right to start organising again (it is no coincidence that the activism of the Far Right in America has been suppressed by the lockdowns while that of the Far Left has been unimpeded). <br />
<br />
But a Trump victory does not rule out a civil war in America; <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/11/the-left-is-setting-the-stage-for-a-coup-if-trump-wins/">one commentator</a> has compared the 2020 presidential election to the 1860. The Left does not think of much of Biden, and so will be saddened, but not surprised, by a Trump victory, and evidently it is making plans to resume rioting, etc., the day after re-election. <br />
<br />
One result of Far Left malfeasance is that American 'normies', and even American conservatives, are beginning to rediscover anti-communism. The boundaries between the Center Right and Far Right are becoming subtly blurred. We in 2020 live in a landscape which differs completely from that of 2017, when the Center Right turned on the Far Right after Charlottesville. The conservatives - and not only in America - are catching up with the Far Right. But this was to expected; as Mike Enoch says, 'Everyone hates SJWs'. And the significance of this is that in 2021 the Center Right will be off the back of the Far Right, at least for a while. <br />
<br />
What of Europe? My prediction is that it will remain 'pozzed' for some time. Yockey, in <u>Enemy of Europe</u> (1953), blames the American occupation of Western Europe for Europe's general 'pozzedness'. But the trouble is that even if America were to let go of Europe - and even if the entire North American Continent to disappear into thin air tomorrow - the political, social and economic structures erected by the by the Anglo victors would remain. Germany, in particular, labours under a system which is not democracy but a parody of democracy, a system in which political parties dominate every aspect of political and social life. <br />
<br />
As to how Germany could be 'uncucked'... In the 1991 movie <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102216/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0">King Ralph</a>, the entire British Royal Family dies in a freak accident, and a yokel from America (played by John Goodman) is discovered to be next in the line to throne; hilarity and hi-jinks ensue. For Germany to free itself, the entire elite of Germany - which must number in the tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands - would need to vanish in a similar freak accident. Next in line to the throne would be the German nationalist and Far Right formations - the AfD, the informant-riddled NPD, and assorted skinhead and Neo-Nazi groups. All of these are hardly a prepossessing bunch, but they are all Germany would have in terms of political leadership. <br />
<br />
The moral is that it is only internal collapse which can bring about the displacements which in turn lead to change. Historical observers ask why it was that France, in 1936, did nothing to stop Germany from remilitarising the Rhineland. The answer is that France at the time was experiencing a political and economic collapse. <br />
<br />
Now, we could hope for a similar implosion in Germany's 'democratic' order, but barring a miracle, that will not happen. The problem comes down to lack of leadership - charismatic leadership. The Nazi slogan goes, '<i>Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer</i>'. If we are to look at Germany and Europe today, we must ask: where are the <i>Führers</i>? This is a singularly important question, as fascism subscribes to the great man theory of history. Fascism could be considered a system of neo-monarchy; the <i>Duce</i> or the <i>Führer</i> steps into where the King would be in a feudal or dynastic regime. The <i>Volk</i>, the people, constituted the infrastructure of National Socialist Germany; the <i>Führer</i> (and the rest of the NSDAP leadership) the superstructure. <br />
<br />
From that perspective, the Neo-Nazi movement resembles one of those royalist tendencies in Europe from hundreds of years ago which await the return of an exiled king or which get behind a pretender (or more accurately, a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretender">claimant</a>) to a throne. Such 'royalist' political movements can survive and even prosper for a long time. The Peronist movement, for example, in Argentina waited nearly twenty years for the return of the exiled populist and quasi-fascist Juan Perón. Political tendencies such as the 'royalist' can prevail because concreteness can be located at their center: the tendency is bound up with a particular person. It is significant that Germany collapsed militarily one week after Hitler's death; Hitler, while he was alive, held the Third Reich together. In America, the Republican Party's relation to its leader has become like that of the NSDAP to its <i>Führer</i>, and so the question is being asked, what will the Republican Party do once Trump goes? <br />
<br />
Can a 'royalist' movement survive the death of its leader? The populist governor of Louisiana, Huey Long, founded a Share the Wealth movement during the Great Depression which attracted a significant number of Americans; after he was assassinated in 1935, the Share the Wealth clubs fell apart. Likewise, Maoism disappeared from China almost immediately after Mao's death in 1976. One could enumerate many such cases. (Trotskyism could be the exception to the rule, as Trotskyite parties have only multiplied after his assassination in 1940, but Trotkskyism claims to be only a continuation of Leninism - the Leninism supplanted by Stalinism). But that places Neo-Nazism in a position which is unique of all the ideologies in the world: it seeks to survive as a nostalgia movement designed to promote the wise policies of a deceased leader. Perhaps an ingenious political thinker could transform this liability into an asset. <br />
<br /><b>
III. 'Not for Export'</b><br />
<br />
Hitler said famously that 'National Socialism is no article for export'. This quotation has been used in arguments for the thesis that German National Socialism is restricted to Germany and consequently, the Anglo nations - America, England, Australia, New Zealand, Canada - have nothing to learn from Hitler's teachings. <br />
<br />
German National Socialism may be divided up into three periods: the Years of Struggle (1919 to 1932), the golden years in which Germany enjoyed a national revival and great foreign policy success without bloodshed (1933 to 1938), and finally the Third Reich years (1939 to 1945). As Carolyn Yeager points out, white nationalists - and the dissident Right - tend to lavish praise on the first two periods and heap scorn on the third. They take this dim view of the Third Reich years for reasons which I will not elaborate here. What is important to note is that intellectuals and scholars of the Far Right will pass over the Third Reich period in their researches. <u>Mein Kampf</u> gets the lion share of their attention, even though that book - crucial as it is to understanding the National Socialist <i>Weltanschauung</i> - was written by Hitler as a young man in the Years of Struggle; the main enemy in <u>Mein Kampf</u> is not the Jews, but the French. <br />
<br />
The Third Reich period ought to be studied the most, for in the last analysis it is this on which Hitler and the NSDAP will be judged. So, what resources do we use? For the purposes of a study of the political history - and not just the military history - of the Third Reich years, books published in the war and immediate post-war years provide the best store of knowledge, even if these are written by Germany's enemies (and virtually all of the books in English from that time are), as they are (surprisingly enough) relatively free of the bias of later years. None of the books from the war mention the Holocaust, and only a few of them mention the gas chambers; at the very most, they will make in passing allusions to an 'extermination' of the Jews, and even then they choose not to dwell on it, as they feel that they lack the evidence to verify the Jewish atrocity claims. (Most writers, even during the war, did not take the propaganda utterances of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) and the Polish government in exile all that seriously). The 1942 book, <u>The New Order in Poland</u> (1942) by Simon Segal (presumably a Jewish author) describes the hard lot of Jews and Poles under German occupation but gives us a reasonably fair and balanced account. One is almost tempted to call the work Holocaust Revisionist even though Revisionism had not come into being yet. <br />
<br />
The wartime accounts disprove the 'No article for export' thesis, as it becomes clear that Germany did a great deal of exporting National Socialism in the years 1939 to 1945. Millions of Europeans were mobilised - many, admittedly, against under duress - for the German war effort, such that Europe came to be a cross between a beehive and a foundry. To the modern reader, German-occupied Europe foreshadowed the European Union (but a different European Union to the one we know today). And indeed, in Albert Lauterbach's <u>Economics in Uniform: Military Economy and Social Structure</u> (1943), we find headings such as 'European Union - National Socialist Edition' and 'Continental "Socialism" on the German Model'. <br />
<br />
In principle, Lauterbach likes a European Union; in practice, he does not like it - if the Germans are the ones running it. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">I cannot claim, as others have done, to have uncovered the secret of the actual intentions or discussions of the Nazi rulers, and evidence from German sources on definite details of the proposed Nazi reorganization of Europe has been limited. However, unless the term <i>Grossraumwirtschaft</i> is used in an unusually narrow sense, it seems to make little difference which particular administrative technique of domination the Nazis proposed to use. They might or might not decide to admit local puppet governments, they might apply different methods of control to various regions, but their general policy was always directed toward a centrally planned management of all Europe's economic activities in the exclusive interest, as they saw it, of the German nation. </span></blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />
<br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">
In other words, in the event of a decisive German victory, the policy envisaged was clearly a militarized <i>Grossraumwirtschaft</i> within a comparatively self-sufficient European continent, controlled by National Socialist ideas, interests, and methods. The power and potentialities of such an economic and political unit were bound to be tremendous. </span></blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />
<br />
It is the German influence, the German control, the German domination, which was resented the most. England fought two wars (and in the process destroyed itself) to prevent Germany from becoming the leading force on the Continent, and one of the main geopolitical objectives of England and America after the war was to prevent a German return to ascendancy. But inevitably, the Continent will fall into the German orbit - it is doing so already. Germany exerts a magnetic attraction even under its present hapless leadership. Books such as Lauterbach's give us a portent.<br />
<br />
I began my political life as a pan-European, an advocate of European unity, of Imperium Europa - it was a vision inspired by Yockey, Thiriart and Mosley - and it was not until the 2010s that I came across the writings of Yeager and started to myself how it was how the structure of the new Imperium would work. Which European nation would do the heavy lifting? The question answers itself. We know which nation it is, and it is not Portugal nor Ireland nor Denmark nor Hungary, it is not even England nor France. And once I began to explore the matter, my writings began to meet with a frosty reception. Talk of European unity, pan-Europa, would induce warm fuzzy feelings, but I once I brought up the subject of Germany and the Germans, well, that only served to awaken latent hostility towards Germany that was always simmering below the surface. And this is related to one of the persistent themes in the wartime writings by Anglos, an objection to the National Socialist idea of the <i>Herrenvolk</i>. Anti-Nazi propagandists mistranslate <i>Herrenvolk</i> as 'Master Race' when it means something more like a 'People who are Gentlemen', and this mistranslation in itself is revealing. Hitler's <u>Table Talk</u> offends because Hitler here states crudely and bluntly that Germany could do a better job of running Ukraine and the tracts of German-occupied Russia than the Ukrainians and Russians themselves. And that really gets up the nose of the dissident Right movement. We on the Far Right can accept the idea of a qualitative differences between races but not nationalities. <br />
<br /><b>
IV. AFM and the Jews</b><br />
<br />
A staple of German propaganda during the wars is: German rule will do good things for your country. In the chapter, 'The Occupied Countries and Fortress Europe' of <u>German Radio Propaganda: Report on Home Broadcasts during the War</u> (1944), we find: <br />
<br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">
Countries conquered by the German army fulfil a threefold function in German propaganda: as occupied territories, they are reconstructed; as neutrals, their approval is quoted, as allies, they send troops. Reconstruction starts with the arrival of the German soldier, whom National Socialist propagandists describe as even more civilized and considerate than did propagandists of Imperial Germany Germany builds new schools in the protectorate, it repairs devastation in the Ukraine; the Dutch, Danes, and Slovaks enjoy the blessings of her protection, and the consolidation of France advances rapidly after her submission. The appreciative response of the conquered is regularly stressed, and whenever possible the German character of the conquered territories: Alsace is rescued and returns to the homeland. </span></blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />
<br /></span><blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">
[From a German news broadcast:] Colmar, a German town in Alsace, with its Gothic St. Martin’s Cathedral, shows little sign of damage. This town has been wearing a strong French ‘make-up’ for the past twenty years, not at all in keeping with its German character . . . Life in Colmar is returning to normal.</span></blockquote></blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />
<br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">
The phrase ‘returning to normal,’ like the word ‘reconstruction,’ occurs frequently. In Norway, in Denmark, in Holland, life returns to normal in a very short time. But there is something more than normality in the German picture of reconstruction. Liege, which had been a very dirty city, was turned by the efficient Germans into an earthly paradise. The railroads which the French had neglected were thriving. And there was remarkable engineering in process to unite the north of Norway with the south. The German listener is regularly informed of every school that is re-opened in conquered Russia. On the German radio, conquered Europe becomes a region of flowers, gladness, and reconstruction. </span></blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />
<br />
The Germans may have repaired infrastructure, true, but what of the cultural and racial domain? National Socialism is 'Not for export': if you were a Jew or Mason or Bolshevik in wartime Hungary or Norway or Greece or Holland or France or Italy, you could take comfort in the phrase; the Nazis would leave you unmolested because 'It can't happen here', that is to say, National Socialism is only for Germans, not for Hungarians or Danes. France is to be allowed to rot under Jewish or Communist or Masonic domination because Germans - being selfish - do not want to share the blessings of National Socialism with the French. <br />
<br />
But of course that was not true. <br />
<br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">
While some conquered lands are always referred to as conquered, others, in propaganda, regain their neutrality. They achieve this status by adopting Germany’s enemies as their own. The first enemy they acknowledge is the Jew. The quisling governments, step by step, adopt National Socialist principles of anti-Jewish legislation.</span></blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />
<br />
The dissident Right today should take great interest in that legislation, study it, examine it. But an Australian nationalist can object that it was all European, specifically Continental European, and that European-style anti-Semitism would have found no foothold here in Australia. But, eighty years ago, an Australian Far Right political movement walked down the same road as the Continentals in regard to anti-Semitism, and that movement was the AFM. In the most succinct book on the AFM, <u>The Puzzled Patriots: The Story of the Australia First Movement</u> (1968), Bruce Muirden writes that in 1941: <br />
<br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">
Stephensen also found a foe in Cyril Pearl, editor of the Sydney Sunday Telegraph, who had asked the government to act against the Publicist... Pearl said of the Publicist that 'month after month it churns out a stale mixture of rabid anti-British nationalism, Nazi-inspired, and anti-Semitism and windy Fascist pseudo-philosophy'. Stephensen's counterblast had in it a certain inevitability: 'We of the Publicist do not know whether or not the editor of the Sunday Telegraph is a Jew'. </span></blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />
<br />
I think Pearl's characterisation of the <u>Publicist</u> is harsh but true. (Amusingly, Stephensen typically responded to his opponents with a typical Far Right tactic which is still used today on 4Chan and other forums: he accused them of being Jewish). <br />
<br />
Muirden goes on to say of the <u>Publicist</u> contributors: <br />
<br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">
Miles, Graham, Arnold and Stephensen were beyond question anti-Semitic, and their increasingly unpleasant attacks on Australian Jews constituted one of the least savoury and defensible aspects of Publicist and Australia First propaganda. When the flow of Jewish refugees from Europe increased from 1938, the <u>Publicist</u> became more offensive. Miles and Stephensen, who gradually became as adept as his master in Jew-baiting... </span></blockquote><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> The Jewish refugee question in the 1930s obsessed the AFM circle. <u>Publicist</u> contributor William Hardy Wilson, an architect who lived in Melbourne, designed a concentration camp for the Jews which was to be situated in the Dandenong Ranges. (The name of this camp? Israelia). </span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />
Stephensen's attitudes to Germany on the outbreak of war are interesting. Muirden recounts: <br />
<br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">
Stephensen wrote in the delayed September Publicist that before the war he had done his best to create goodwill between Australia and Germany, 'not because I held a brief for the Germans, but because I thought Australians were being mentally weakened by the revengeful Jewish campaigns of anti-Hitler hate which for years has flooded our Australian news press. If we are to fight against Germany, let us at least fight for an Australian, not a Jewish, reason'. </span></blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />
<br />
The last sentence at first appears to be an evasion until we think it over. Stephensen's drift is that Australia in 1939 had no reason to 'fight against Germany', and so, had not reason to go to war. This was in keeping with Stephensen's anti-war position throughout all his career; he fiercely objected to Australia's participation in British punitive expeditions in Sudan, China and South Africa and, it goes without saying, Australia's entrance into the war on the British side in WWI. <br />
<br /><b>
V. Priorities</b><br />
<br />
I have dwelt on the AFM circle at length because I wish to make the point that German and Nazi-inspired politics did not drop into Australia from the heavens; it is not a utopia without a material basis; it is not a castle in the sky. The AFM, and Stephensen, eighty years ago provided us with a precedent. One can ask whether the AFM's politics are entirely appropriate to the present day. I answer no: I myself do not believe that Melbourne's Jews should be interned in a concentration camp in the Dandenongs. More important is the fact that politics of the Stephensen sort once existed in this country. In the same way, today's <a href="https://identitydixie.com">Southern nationalism</a> - a uniquely American product, definitely not for export - is founded on historical practice. It once existed. Much of the dissident Right makes fun of the Americans because of their inability to organise at a national level, e.g., form a nationwide party capable of taking on the Democrats and the Republicans; but at one point, the Southerners formed their own ethnostate - the Confederacy - and printed their money, elected their own president, etc., and even after their crushing defeat in the Civil War they maintained a regime of segregation right up until sixty years ago. In Far Right politics, one must always be grounded in the historical, the actual. So, if you want to build a Hitler-centered and anti-Semitic movement here in Australia, look to the example of the AFM, whose leaders networked with NSDAP members in Melbourne and Sydney. One will arrive not at a 'Nazism with Australian characteristics' (to paraphrase Mao) but at the least a nationalist philosophy which could be considered to be Nazi-compatible, Nazi-adjacent, a philosophy that puts the AFM in the same sphere as Petain, Tiso, Quisling, Pavelić and others. <br />
<br />
No doubt, 'Nazi-adjacent' politics poses all sorts of difficulties. A biography of Quisling reveals that a tension - which manifested itself behind closed doors - existed between Quisling's Nasjonal Samling and Norway's German occupiers. The Germans demanded that Quisling's party be reorganised along German lines so as to make it more like the NSDAP; they attempted to reorganise Norway's labour organisations along German lines as well (and in doing so met great resistance). Overall, a tension existed between the Norwegian interests and that of German 'New Order' imposed upon Europe. Both Hitler and Quisling shared the same ideology - fascism - but shared the same ideology of nationalism as well, and it was their differing perceptions of the national interest of their respective countries that led to a clash. Similar complications would have emerged in Australia had the Axis won the war: the ideology of Stephensen and Miles would inevitably have clashed with that of the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese. <br />
<br />
But such is politics. In the end, when one evaluates a political system, one must do so by the criterion, how far did it go to meet my political priorities? A Marxist in the early years of the Soviet regime would have been perfectly indifferent to the famine, poverty, misery and deaths brought about by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. He would have justified it all on the the grounds that, in the USSR, for the first time in history capitalism had been abolished and a dictatorship of the proletariat introduced. Socialism trumps humanism in the Marxist's world-view. We could here make an analogy with an anti-Semite - an obsessive anti-Semite of the Stephensen or Miles sort - living in German-occupied Europe. Accounts of Europe in that period make it sound like an unpleasant place, to put it mildly: Europeans lived through great suffering, deprivation and misery - black markets, rationing, Allied blockades, Allied bombing, deportations, labour conscription, starvation... But the anti-Semite living in German-occupied Oslo or Athens, Budapest or Paris, could at least console himself with the thought that someone was finally doing something about the Jewish problem - and the Mason problem and the Marxist problem. The great French nationalist thinker, Charles Maurras, loathed Germany and spent a great deal of his career attacking it, but he loathed Jewry more, and he criticised the Vichy 1940 anti-Jewish laws as being too soft. Maurras never had a good word to say about the Nazis, but I am sure that - when pressed - he would have admitted that the German occupation had its positive aspects. (Maurras resembled Miles in temperament to a great degree - both were irascible old men - with the main difference being that Miles was favourably inclined to the Germans). <br />
<br /><b>
VI. The hero ideal</b><br />
<br />
In politics, one has to balance negatives with positives, and today, Far Right politics is overly weighted to the negative. A thoroughly representative American website, which I shall not name here, is filled every day with posts which are obsessively anti-Semitic, which denounce Trump as being a pawn of the Jews, which denounce Christianity, which promulgate depressing, fatalistic conspiracy theories, and which feature stories detailing some really unsavoury subjects. The same site also puts up speeches by Nazis and articles on Holocaust Revisionism, but it does so apparently out of a sense of duty, that is, only because it is expected to do so. The site's owner is definitely not a 'Nazi', and is a scruffy, bearded American white nationalist type - he does not even deign to sport a 'fashy' haircut like Richard Spencer. In its defence, I will say that the site champions things which it regards as positive - homeopathic remedies, a simple, agrarian 'Volkisch' lifestyle, veganism, and so forth; but on the whole this is too little, too late, and the positive is outweighed by the negative. <br />
<br />
In contrast, the Southern nationalist emphasises the positive, and he has a hero ideal, an archetype which inspires him - the Southern Gentleman. <br />
<br />
Hunter Wallace's <a href="http://www.occidentaldissent.com">Occidental Dissent</a> used to be Southern nationalist but then dropped it; now its comments section is filled with who are nihilists who do nothing but sneer, scorn and 'spew anti-Semitic bile' (as Abe Foxman would put it) as a means of demonstrating their supposed integrity. There is a point when rote 'Jews this, Jews that' rhetoric becomes obnoxious, and Occidental Dissent - and so many other white nationalist sites - reached it long ago. Fine, get rid of the Jews and the Zionists, but what do you have to put in their place? The answer is, nothing: hence, nihilism. <br />
<br />
If the Southern nationalist holds up the Southern Gentleman as his hero ideal, the German National Socialist holds up the German or Prussian soldier. This archetype - who debuted on the world political stage around the time of the Napoleonic Wars - evolved by 1939 into the one we are familiar with today through thousands of movies, novels, comic books, computer games... He is clean-shaven, has dueling scars, wears a monocle, wields a riding crop or baton or even a whip. Even though he is reviled by the rest of the world, the true German nationalist regards him as a hero, a positive rather than a negative. In German National Socialist ideology, he balances out anti-Semitism. Jewry, Masonry, Bolshevism, liberalism, feminism, national decadence, etc., are portrayed as obstacles which are preventing his rise. <br />
<br />
Whatever you can say of him and the Southern Gentleman, and there are many intellectual criticisms one can make of both, it must be conceded that they are a something, not a nothing. The choice becomes one of having an ideal or no ideal.<br />
<br />
As a rejoinder to this, the materialist will point out the obvious: neither of the two archetypes exists today. The materialist will regard this as the final refutation, because to him, what is in front of him is all there is and all there ever will be - if he cannot see an idea (and it is the nature of an idea that it cannot be seen) when he looks out his window, he does not believe in that idea. The vast majority of nationalists and racialists today in the West, especially in the Anglosphere, hold to materialism, and so will pour scorn on the notion of a revival of the two archetypes. But the argument can be turned back on them. You can make the observation that the ethnic homogeneity enjoyed by Americans (for example) during the 1930s and 1940s does not exist, so by their logic, that homogeneity will never return - ever. A good many American white nationalists have apparently accepted this rather defeatist argument, which goes some way to explaining why so many of them seem to have given up. <br />
<br />
My advice to young 'National Socialists' is, make the German archetype your avatar, your totem. And form relationships with German nationalists (the 'based Kraut bros' in 4Chan parlance). In this you will be following the example of Miles and Stephensen. As David S. Bird writes in <u>Nazi Dreamtime: Australian Enthusiasts for Hitler's Germany</u> (2012): <br />
<br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">
Miles ensured from this time onwards [1937] that his journal endorsed every aspect of German Nazism that came under its scrutiny in the belief that there was no conflict between national-socialism and 'Australianism'. He appeared to have no concern for public opinion other than brazenly to deny it and would go where even the appeasers feared to tread, endorsing Germany's claims for the return of colonies like New Guinea in September 1937. This was hardly 'Australia First', but it did elicit good wishes from Baroness von der Golz in Pommerania (<i>sic</i>) in December and an editorial acknowledgment: 'Your German leaders appear to us to be doing very well. May Germany prosper!'. </span></blockquote><p></p>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-64364278767461477862020-07-31T09:06:00.006-07:002020-08-16T08:06:19.425-07:00A Trump Victory in 2020 and the Coming Left-Wing Retaliation<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGfz_LhE5mLVleddMd5oNBJlPUsjhnQDCvJ9XJUMFSzHYi3vk51HGyKFzOCIClybrt3LsgxRxCqdKqwET3r0xLsGfNHeVdWnZovRz45qlrCnAkDRhn_6jn0-eZPhYhIXxUplInfXnO1n4z/s512/unnamed+%25281%2529.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="288" data-original-width="512" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGfz_LhE5mLVleddMd5oNBJlPUsjhnQDCvJ9XJUMFSzHYi3vk51HGyKFzOCIClybrt3LsgxRxCqdKqwET3r0xLsGfNHeVdWnZovRz45qlrCnAkDRhn_6jn0-eZPhYhIXxUplInfXnO1n4z/w640-h360/unnamed+%25281%2529.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><font size="5"><br /></font></div><div><br /></div><div>I. </div><div><br /></div><div>Unlike a good many on the Far Right, I am forecasting a Trump victory in November for reasons that I shall explain below. I think that the victory is a foregone conclusion; the only question is what it will mean for our side of politics. My prediction is that the Center and Far Right, not only in America but in the entire Western world, can expect massive retaliation from the Left in the event of a Trump victory, and my warning is that anyone on the Right will need to take shelter from the coming storm, as even if Trump is re-elected, he will be unable to arrest America's slide into left-wing chaos. </div><div><br /></div><div>II. </div><div><br /></div><div>Trump's victory, according to <a href="http://primarymodel.com" target="_blank">Helmut Norpoth's model</a>, was preordained in February 2020. </div><div><br /></div><div>Once you assume that Norpoth's forecast is correct, then you dispense with the debates which are taking place on the Far Right - debates as to whether Trump deserves to be re-elected, and if so, why. (On that note, Trump is often castigated by the Far Right as a do-nothing president when it comes to restricting immigration, but in his defence, I venture that his record shows otherwise - see <a href="https://thenationalpulse.com/news/trump-cuts-legal-immigration/" target="_blank">here</a>). </div><div><br /></div><div>In Norpoth's model, an incumbent president will fail to win a second term if he struggles in the New Hampshire primary - as Ford did in 1976, Carter in 1980, Bush 43 in 1992. If the incumbent cruises through New Hampshire, then, as has been shown multiple times, he will be re-elected easily. As for the opposition candidate, in order to beat the incumbent he must do well in New Hampshire and South Carolina (a state which is significant in that it contains a large black population). This is Norpoth's 'primary model' in essence. </div><div><br /></div><div>How do the primaries of 2020 fit in with the model? Trump won New Hampshire easily (as he did in 2016) whereas Biden struggled (as Clinton did in 2016). And like Clinton, Biden lost to Sanders in New Hampshire and achieved a comeback in South Carolina. While Biden's victory in the latter ensured his winning the nomination, in Norpoth's model it will not ensure his winning the presidency. Bill Clinton in 1992 and Barack Obama in 2008 performed badly in New Hampshire and won convincingly in South Carolina, and victory in the latter state gave them the edge in the general, but only because the candidate from the incumbent party performed sub-optimally in New Hampshire. (It should also be taken into consideration that in both 1992 and 2008 the incumbent party was aiming at a third term, something which is difficult to achieve. Norpoth's model tells us that the incumbent party will win a third term if and only if it won by a greater margin in the election for its second term than in its first: e.g., the margin of Reagan's victory in 1984 eclipsed that of 1980 and was enough to guarantee a third Republican term). </div><div><br /></div><div>The one flaw in Norpoth's model is that it uses the Democratic popular vote as the basis for its predictions - given that the Democratic Party has been around for a while, the model relies upon the vote as a constant - and it predicted a fall in the Democratic vote in 2016. But, as we know, Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote, 48% to 46%. How Norpoth will explain this - when he publishes his academic paper (which will contain the mathematics) on the 2020 election - remains to be seen. </div><div><br /></div><div>Most polls at the moment show Trump losing to Biden, but Norpoth airily dismisses these: voters have not made up their minds yet and election campaigns do not commence formally until after the Republican and Democratic national conventions. The polls will tighten towards election day. (Norpoth, being a centrist, does not suspect left-wing malfeasance in the polls which forecast a crushing Biden victory). </div><div><br /></div><div>Norpoth's model accords with common sense. It is difficult, for an outside observer, to believe that Biden, an elderly recluse suffering from dementia and whose campaign platform has been written for him by Marxists, will win the election, and win in the landslide that the polls are predicting; likewise, it was difficult to believe that in 2016 the Democrats would win a third term when third terms are historically difficult to achieve. (The incumbent party lost the 'change elections' in 1960, 1968, 1976, 1992, 2000 and 2008). Those on the Left auguring a Biden victory ignore the fact that American presidential elections proceed in a rigid and deterministic manner which deviate little from the past. But the American Left suffers from an excess of what the Marxists call voluntarism, that is, the belief that political outcomes can be brought into being by sheer force of will. </div><div><br /></div><div>III. </div><div><br /></div><div>Assuming Trump has won, what does the future hold? </div><div><br /></div><div>America is heading in a European and German (20th century European and German, that is) direction. America is becoming Weimar and Trump, Hindenberg. And this brings us to the ideas of Carl Schmitt. </div><div><br /></div><div>Schmitt became involved in conservative politics in the dying days of Weimar. Contrary to popular belief, he did not want the Republic to be replaced by a dictatorship. Schmitt wanted to keep the Republic alive with Hindenberg as a unifying force standing above party, pluralism, parliamentary gridlock, negative majorities; to Schmitt, the office of the presidency embodied the 'substantive values' written in the Weimar Constitution (perhaps written between the lines) itself - values that were, like those of the American constitution, conservative and non-communist. Schmitt could be categorised as radical centrist. Hindenberg in Schmitt's model stands in the center, in the eye of the storm. </div><div><br /></div><div>Schmitt outlined this doctrine in the last of his Weimar books - <u>The Guardian of the Constitution</u> (1931) and <u>Legality and Legitimacy</u> (1932). These will serve as the foundational texts of Trump's second term, a term which in retrospect will only be understood in light of Schmitt's model. After 2020, Trump will undergo a metamorphosis from anti-establishment populist to revered (revered by conservatives) and venerable (Trump will be 78 by 2024) centrist who is a member of his own party (a party of one). He will be transformed into a lonely 'Guardian of the Constitution' defending the American constitutional order against extremists. </div><div><br /></div><div>The difference between Germany in the thirties and America in the twenties lies in the fact that, in America today, no Hitler and no NSDAP are waiting in the wings to take over. As well as that, Marxism - in the form of Black Lives Matter, anti-racism, 'woke' capital - has won almost complete control. In the German revolution of 1918 to 1919, the communists split from the Social Democrats and went to war against them (as Hitler recounts in <u>Mein Kampf</u>); in American revolution of 2020, the communists have not split from the Center Left - they have seized control of it and purged it of any centrist and moderate elements. They have also made use of the institutions outside the legislature, mobilising most of the media, parts of the judiciary, and sections of the 'deep state' (the secret police, the spy agencies, even the armed forces) against Trump. And institutions such as the churches and sports bodies, which could have been expected to be a moderating or conservative force in American life, have been cowed into submission and cannot resist: they have been vanquished, politically and morally. </div><div><br /></div><div>The American Far Right cannot, in these circumstances, act as the Brownshirts did and duke it out on the streets with the communists. As <a href="https://identitydixie.com/2020/07/07/the-communist-coup-in-real-time/" target="_blank">Identity Dixie</a> writes in a July 7 article:</div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote>Mass Riots and Civil Unrest</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote>These riots could easily be quelled. However, military personnel, police officers, and leftist organizations, particularly the news, are constantly on the lookout for rightwingers to show up to fight the leftist mobs, and in some cases Black Nationalist militias, so that the Left may have a scapegoat. These rightwing groups have consistently been a no-show, having learned their lessons from previous experiences in physical activism, and have been so viciously targeted that they really do not have a presence in American society anymore, not even as a boogeyman.</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote>As a result, radical leftist terror groups and sympathizers have effectively ensured chaos in urban locales across the country with the most concentration being in the South. An armed black militia named NFAC marched through Stone Mountain, Georgia on July 4th, 2020, one of the largest contemporary marches of its kind, and the leader mockingly made note of the fact that no white militias have shown up in opposition.</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div>The upshot is that the Left has won: </div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote>The GOP continues to constantly stab its jaded constituency in the back with the most notable recent act of tyranny being the Mississippi flag decision. The GOP also endorses changing the names of military bases named in honor of Confederate officers, and a number have even proposed swapping Columbus Day with Juneteenth. There is no resistance to the Left anymore. As the previously mentioned Black militia leader stated, without understanding the deeper significance of it, the Right has no means of resisting the Left or any willingness to make a physical appearance in a protest. The Left has utterly crushed its resistance. The typical modus operandi is to allow rightwingers just barely enough to form groups and even publicly protest, which allows the news media to run wild with stories about white supremacists and racists behind every tree. That no longer exists. The Right does not really even exist on the internet anymore.</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote>Things don’t look too bright for the future, fam.</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div>IV. </div><div><br /></div><div>While the Far Left faces an uphill battle winning elections, it does hold enormous institutional power - power which has been acquired in what Selznick (in <u>The Organizational Weapon: A Study of Bolshevik Strategy and Tactics</u> (1952)) calls an 'unconstitutional', that is, an underhanded and deceitful, manner. Through coercion and infiltration, the Far Left has garnered massive influence in much of the sphere which is outside the parliamentary. Given that, a Trump victory will not lead to an ouster of the Left from the institutions. It will not, for instance, break the hold of the Left on Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and other 'woke' companies; it will not lead to a cessation of left-wing bullying and manipulation of institutions such as the churches and the sports bodies, the military and the police. The prospects, then, for the Far Right and even the Center Right regaining some measure of prominence in civil society look bleak. </div><div><br /></div><div>Recently Google <a href="http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/07/21/social-justice-search-results/" target="_blank">mysteriously disappeared</a> a number of Center and Far Right sites from its search results for a few hours and then mysteriously brought them back. Many conservatives were surprised to learn that they had been deplatformed along with Steve Sailer, Peter Brimelow, Hunter Wallace, Jared Taylor and other deplorables. But the practice of censorship and deplatforming has been extended to the executive of the American state itself. Trump had one of his tweets pinned with a warning label from Twitter and his Twitch stream temporarily taken down. Can one imagine any media company doing that to Truman or Kennedy or Nixon or Reagan? But the left-wing view is that Trump is an illegitimate president - he is not really head of state and he did not really win the 2016 election - and so he does not deserve the respect traditionally accorded to his office. </div><div><br /></div><div>Google's conduct portends the future, and in order to predict what will come after the 2020 election, we need to put ourselves in the shoes of Google and the other pillars of'woke' capital. Ask yourself: if you ran the Internet - and 'woke' capital runs large portions of the Internet, or at least, the World Wide Web (which is not the same as the Internet) - and you saw, to your shock and horror, that Trump had won re-election, what would you do? You would most likely enact vengeance against all those on the Far Right who helped Trump win; you would even consider punishing those on the Center Right. To that end, the deplatforming of the latter could be accomplished easily: the Twitter and Facebook accounts of Trump supporters could be removed, the channels of the remaining conservatives on YouTube taken down. As for the white nationalists and anti-Semites, they could receive the same treatment as the Daily Stormer in 2017 and 8Chan in 2019, and after being scourged from the World Wide Web, they will come to look at the 2000s as the golden age of Internet freedom - which it was. </div><div><br /></div><div>Can the Far Right survive under a regime of Chinese-style Internet censorship? White nationalists in the 1990s relied primarily on traditional media - newspapers, pamphlets, posters - for the dissemination of their ideas (William Pierce did have a cable TV show at one point, but the exception proves the rule). In the early 2000s, the white nationalist movement en masse shifted over to the World Wide Web, and it was there that I discovered Stormfront and the National Alliance. My politics would have stayed in a 'normie', centrist zone had the World Wide Web operated under the same regimen that existed in the aforementioned Google black-out period (when one could find articles by the SPLC and the ADL on white nationalist sites but not the sites themselves). The Left understands this and it now appreciates that, had it the foresight to stifle freedom on the World Wide Web in the 2000s, it could have strangled today's Far Right in its cradle. White nationalism, anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism, even Far Right populism could have been stopped dead in their tracks. </div><div><br /></div><div>Since 2016, the Left has been making up for lost time, and in this election year, the Left has redoubled its efforts and gone on a deplatforming blitz. Examples of this abound. In the space of 24 hours, broadcasts of a conference by a group of doctors called America's Frontline Doctors <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/27/facebook-censors-viral-video-of-doctors-capitol-hill-coronavirus-press-conference/" target="_blank">were taken down</a> by Facebook, Google and Twitter despite getting millions of views, and Trump's son Donald Jr had his Twitter account suspended for linking to a video of the conference. To insult to injury, the organisation was <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/28/dr-simone-gold-squarespace-shuts-down-americas-frontline-doctors-website" target="_blank">dumped</a> by its Internet host. Keeping in mind that this happened to a conservative group - the conference was organised by Tea Party Patriots, who are hardly white nationalist - it is not difficult to imagine that by this time next year any individual is even vaguely white nationalist or neo-Nazi or race realist or even Trump populist will be locked out of any Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Blogger, GMail, PayPal, Reddit, Patreon accounts and his site struck from the Google search engine results permanently. And even ownership of one's own site provides no defence, as the Daily Stormer, 8Chan and America's Frontline Doctors show. The result is that the Trump victory of 2020 will not matter, as the Right - both Center and Far - will have been set back twenty-five years. </div><div><br /></div><div>If one's site comes under direct attack, as 8Chan and the Daily Stormer did, one has no recourse but to fight (but such resistance necessitates the expenditure of a great deal of time and effort, and from an Internet-technical point of view, can be extremely difficult - as we can see from <a href="https://www.coindesk.com/93-days-dark-8chan-coder-explains-how-blockchain-saved-his-troll-forum" target="_blank">this</a> article on the death and resurrection of 8Chan). One faces a similar choice if one is evicted from Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, PayPal, etc.: one can migrate to another platform or one can stand one's ground. <a href="https://vdare.com/articles/tech-censorship-intensifies-but-trump-and-matt-gaetz-finally-acting" target="_blank">VDare</a> endorses the latter: </div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote>Some people want Trump to leave Twitter and Facebook for Gab or Parler to send a message. My opinion: that won’t work. The tech tyrants probably want Trump and his supporters to leave. Preaching to the choir, he would interact with far fewer people, and worse still, leave the major platforms the domain of liberals.</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote>Noble efforts they are, but Gab and Parler are right-wing ghettoes. Twitter, Facebook and the rest are the public forums of our era. The tech tyrants know that.</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote>Ensuring Big Tech respects free speech is the First Amendment fight of our time. The tech tyrants have shown can literally shut down conservative ideas if something isn’t done. Trump cannot win an election if he and his supporters are silenced.</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div>V.</div><div><br /></div><div>When I wrote above that the right-wing movement will be put back twenty-five years after being kicked off the World Wide Web, I meant that literally: in 1995 or 1996 the Right did not have any significant presence on the World Wide Web, and neither did the Left. But politics did exist on the antecedents to the World Wide Web, and that is on Usenet, Internet Relay Chat (IRC), Gopher and the Bulletin Board System (BBS) - all of which continue survive today albeit in attenuated form. If the nationalist movement is pushed off the World Wide Web, it could return to the 'old' Internet, and if it does so, it cannot be deplatformed, as the 'old' Internet is not controlled by any single agency. </div><div><br /></div><div>At this point the 20th century-minded politician (perhaps a Hitler or Lenin) will interject and ask whatever was wrong with the old media - newspapers, handbills, pamphlets, posters, billboards, radio and TV. In this connection, the late Robert Faurrison mocked those who used the Internet and chided them for being seduced by an glittering, beautiful 'aquarium'. But Faurisson, an elderly man, did not see that the Internet had brought his ideas into millions of homes: before the Internet, one had to work extremely hard to obtain his writings and speeches. And this was true of any figure of interest on the Far Right. But the Faurrisons see the Internet as false, artificial, as something not part of 'activism' in the 'real world', and it is this line that forms part of the discourse in the movement for the past ten years - the line that there are too many activists on the Internet only, too many 'keyboard warriors'. The trouble with this thinking is that the distinction between the 'real world' and the 'Internet' is fast breaking down: was Don Trump Jr. doing 'activism' in the 'real world' by posting the video that got him suspended? And if Trump Jr. is not truly political, then who is? </div><div><br /></div><div>Trump Jr. will not no doubt follow VDare's recommendations and stand his ground and fight to stay on Twitter. But what should the movement do - should it stay and fight? VDare is concerned that, by migrating to alternative platforms, the movement will be consigning itself to a 'ghetto'; it will be cutting itself off from an audience of millions. But political propaganda aims at disseminating ideas and changing beliefs, and it is difficult to determine if these aims have been achieved by the use of social media. How many view counts on YouTube, Facebook, etc., translate into actual conversion rates: that is, what are the numbers of the viewers who have been converted to a Stefan Molyneux or Alex Jones? One cannot possibly answer with any certainty. Is it fair to say, then, that if one leaves Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc., and even the World Web altogether, that one isolating oneself from the masses? Or could it be that one would be merely sequestering oneself away from curious onlookers who would never have become that interested in the first place? Yes, if you are building a political base away from the World Wide Web (which, to repeat, is not the same as the Internet), you are in effect forming an elite club. But let us not deceive ourselves: Far Right politics, for the past seventy-five years, has been the province not of the many, but the few. </div><div><br /></div><div>VI. </div><div><br /></div><div>The current year will see escalating left-wing oppression and violence, which will occur side by side with a Trump victory. The latter will only inflame the Left further and motivate it to redouble its efforts to topple the Trump administration through subterfuge, demagoguery, and extra-parliamentary opposition (which will be obstruction and resistance escalating to civil disobedience and violence). </div><div><br /></div><div>Politics in a democratic society ought to proceed like a friendly competition: one could compare it, by way of analogy, to a soccer match between two teams - a blue and a red. But suppose, on the day of the match, the blue team announces to the red: 'We want to kill you and your families'. The essence and nature of the game would change: it would no longer be a competition but a war. The rules of the game would be dispensed with because one team no longer believes in them and what is more, no longer believes that the game should be a game - the game should be replaced by a fight ending only with the defeat and subjugation of one's opponent (Lenin tells us that the state is nothing more than an instrument for the suppression of one class by another). Democracy under such conditions dies. And as politics changes in its quality, so do the venerable institutions such as the press. The <u>New York Times</u>, in the hands of today's Left, is no longer a newspaper, it is a siege tower, an instrument of war. </div><div><br /></div><div>Once a society and its institutions undergo this transformation, there is no going back. The SJWs, the Black Lives Matter racial bolsheviks, 'woke' capital, the old school Marxist-Leninists and the new school 'critical race theorists', will not suddenly see the error of their ways and moderate their behaviour accordingly. Historically, the Left has never been able to stop itself from driving off a cliff. And that is how we arrived at the Germany of 1933, the Spain of 1936, the Chile of 1973, and the Argentina of 1976. Democracy ended in those countries because of the Left, and while it was restored in all of them (with the exception of Germany - Germany has not been a democracy since 1932), this was only after the Left had been annihilated in a series of exceptionally brutal and vicious civil wars which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. </div><div><br /></div><div>All this makes the conduct of the anti-Trump and Never Trump conservatives all the more puzzling (these are the conservatives at The Dispatch, The Bulwark, Commentary and other places). They fail to see that it is not the man, but the system, that is under attack, and that it is under attack from the radical Left. American democracy is wilting under the assault; over time, will crumble, as it cannot weather these repeated blows - no political system is impervious to an onslaught of the kind America has endured since 2016. </div><div><br /></div><div>The coming decade will see the Latin Americanisation of US politics: the US politics of the twenties will follow the course of the Latin American politics of the Cold War. We already see a <a href="https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2020/07/29/1950_gold_will_depress_growth_so_did_1200_500_and_36_gold_500323.html" target="_blank">depreciating currency</a>; populism; a militant Left; a breakdown of democratic institutions; an increased preponderance of the executive over the judiciary and legislature. </div><div><br /></div><div>In the long term, crisis presents opportunity for nationalists and racialists, but in the short term, my advice for them is: duck for cover. </div><div><br /></div>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-31429941374923077322020-06-20T03:53:00.004-07:002020-06-20T14:27:13.923-07:00Stalin's Revenge: Trump, Weimar and the American Revolution of 2020<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6MJ6C2GvgR3Bxs8dA0u5CO0jnljZbFXzIiHHHlgUpi06xjtEt6kRXHAZtRoYIwB2vU7LUHOcTJSEMIs8zmNnGb5g0LoxNIkbcXfm18VJmldoGTBjiW8fHH1hZoZQkNSif0m31Ouyoak-O/s793/GeorgeAnnotation+2020-06-20+174404.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="793" height="341" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6MJ6C2GvgR3Bxs8dA0u5CO0jnljZbFXzIiHHHlgUpi06xjtEt6kRXHAZtRoYIwB2vU7LUHOcTJSEMIs8zmNnGb5g0LoxNIkbcXfm18VJmldoGTBjiW8fHH1hZoZQkNSif0m31Ouyoak-O/w500-h341/GeorgeAnnotation+2020-06-20+174404.png" width="500" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>
I. <br />
<br />
America at present finds itself caught in the throes of a communist revolution. Many conservative commentators have noted that the upheaval bears a resemblance to the Cultural Revolution in China, which is true enough, but comparisons should also be made to the communist revolutions in Germany in the period 1918-1923 and Hungary in 1919. In particular, the establishment of a Soviet (the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, or CHAZ) in the middle of Seattle recalls the establishment of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic" target="_blank">Soviet Republic in Bavaria</a>. <br />
<br />
While the recent upsurge may be <a href="https://freebeacon.com/columns/the-seattle-soviet/" target="_blank">a fleeting phenomenon</a> - Kurt Eisner's Soviet did not last long, and neither will Raz Simone's - what is important is that nothing like CHAZ has ever been attempted on American soil. America today is looking more and more like the Central Europe of a hundred years ago. And that has led me to pick up and re-read a classic anti-communist work from that time, one which is written by a Central European - Hitler's <u>Mein Kampf</u>. It contains a great many insights which are pertinent to America's travails (and the Anglosphere's, as Australia and England are following the same path as America). 'Woke' capital, the defection of conservatives to the Left, bullying by 'SJWs' - it is all anticipated by <u>Mein Kampf</u>. <br />
<br />
Peter Brimelow once wrote a famous article, <a href="https://vdare.com/articles/america-s-immigration-policy-hitler-s-revenge" target="_blank">'America's Immigration Policy - Hitler's Revenge?'</a>; I think that the events in America today are a case of Stalin's revenge. In the early 1990s, Soviet communism collapsed, and with it, American communism. The left-wing activist Max Elbaum describes in his <u>Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Mao, Lenin and Che</u> (2002) the meltdown of the non-CPUSA and non-Trotskyite communist groups in 1989: in that year, the pro-Russian communists were dealt a deathblow by the anti-communist revolts in Eastern and Central Europe, and the pro-China communists by the bad publicity after the Tiananmen Square massacre. After 1989, communists such as Elbaum tried their hand at a non-Leninist leftism before giving up, and by the 1990s, most of the hardened Marxist-Leninist cadre disappeared into obscurity. The consequence was that we enjoyed, in the 1990s, the first decade in over a hundred years which was free of communism (in that respect, the 1990s seem like a golden era). Leninism had in that decade suffered an ignoble fate and one which for it was worse than death: it became the subject of postmodern humour and irony - see, for example, the famous Seinfeld episode <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Race_(Seinfeld)" target="_blank">'The Race' </a>(1994). But after Obama's election and Occupy Wall Street, Marxism staged a remarkable comeback, with the results we all know. And the reason for the communist revival is not hard to discern. As <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/10/ann-coulter-why-you-no-longer-recognize-your-country/" target="_blank">Ann Coulter</a> argues, it is immigration - massive, non-white immigration - which is to blame: if you import Third World people, you import Third World Marxism. This has what has tipped Western nations to the Left. In the Anglosphere, the two foremost Center-Left parties - the US Democratic Party, the British Labour Party - have been transformed into communist parties in all but name (and Center-Left parties elsewhere in the West (e.g., Australia, France, Germany, Sweden) have followed their example). But communists understand that parliaments and elections will only get you so far, and they feel that they cannot rely upon a 'bourgeois' figure such as a President Biden to deliver the goods; hence, they are resorting to time-honoured Leninist methods - intimidation, riots, violence... The use of these has shattered American society, and the communists will not let up in their offensive, as they believe in the long term their tactics will pay off. The riots may peter out, the Seattle Soviet may dissolve - this time. But what happens next time? And when will be 'next time'? A stormy decade lies ahead. And Stalin may have the last laugh. <br />
<br />
Here I am throwing around the words 'Marxist', 'Bolshevik', 'Leninist', 'communist' liberally, and this raises the question of definition. We can sum up Marxism in bullet points - e.g., Marxism is a political concept that encompasses theories of class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat, historical materialism and so forth; we can also connect it to the actual political regimes in Moscow and Beijing, and the franchisee parties that these regimes ran all around the world; but we must acknowledge, in the last analysis, that Marxism cannot be defined by mere reference to Soviet politics fifty years ago or textbooks on dialectical materialism. Marxism surpasses history and theory. Marxism exists beneath the surface of society, it then bubbles, it erupts; it is a primal force, an underground force and a spiritual force; it is what Evola would call daemonic. As Hitler says in <u>Mein Kampf</u>: <br />
<br /><blockquote>
International Marxism is nothing but the application - effected by the Jew, Karl Marx - of a general conception of life to a definite profession of political faith; but in reality that general concept had existed long before the time of Karl Marx. If it had not already existed as a widely diffused infection the amazing political progress of the Marxist teaching would never have been possible. In reality what distinguished Karl Marx from the millions who were affected in the same way was that, in a world already in a state of gradual decomposition, he used his keen powers of prognosis to detect the essential poisons, so as to extract them and concentrate them, with the art of a necromancer, in a solution which would bring about the rapid destruction of the independent nations on the globe. </blockquote><br />
<br />
Few of the Black Lives Matters protesters, rioters, looters and arsonists have read Marx's <u>Kapita</u>l or Engels' <u>Anti-Dühring</u>. The same can be said of the statue and monument defacers and destroyers; the corporations who have donated large sums of money to 'anti-racist' causes and who are promoting Black Lives Matters propaganda; the Social Justice Warriors who are banning movies and TV shows and are getting people fired... What counts is the underlying feeling. Modern Leftism can only be understood if we look at as a species of animus directed against a particular ethnic group. Leftism champions socialism, but hates the white working-class, which it regards as the most reactionary and 'racist' of all the social strata; it champions feminism, but hates white women, the 'Karens' and the 'Beckys'; it champions anti-racism, but hates the culture, institutions, history, habits, social mores of a particular race - the white race. <br />
<br />
How can Leftism, and its offshoot Marxism, be defeated? My advice is that we on the Right could do worse than following the precepts of <u>Mein Kampf</u> - a textbook written by one of the 20th century's foremost practitioners of anti-communism. It is true that one in the 1990s and 2000s could reasonably view <u>Mein Kampf</u> as rather dated and anti-communism as a relic of the Cold War; but old ideas have a way of coming back into fashion, as recent events have shown. <br />
<br />
The trouble is that many on the Right - the Far Right and Center - are perfectly aware of the communist problem, but are not casting about for an anti-communist solution, and certainly not the one proffered by Hitler. The Americans on the Right are clinging to the American tradition of democracy (and for the purposes of this essay I define democracy as a fair and even contest between two or more competing parties). <br />
<br />
The American system has survived for hundreds of years, and will continue to survive for hundreds more - if it is left alone. Hitler, in chapter three of <u>Mein Kampf</u>, 'Political reflections arising out of my sojourn in Vienna', runs through the structural defects of democracy and the parliamentary system, and these defects of democracy can be classified as endogenous, that is, internal to the system. The hide-bound devotee of democracy will remain impervious to such criticisms, as these by themselves do not demonstrate that the system is heading towards collapse. But later in 'Political reflections', Hitler plays his trump card. He asks: what if a political force which is exogenous, i.e., outside the system, intervenes? What if a stranger to democracy enters into it and no longer wants to play by its rules? Then democracy collapses. American democracy will meet this fate, unless communism relinquishes its hold on the Democratic Party, the press, Hollywood, academia, the 'woke' corporations, indeed, the public consciousness itself. But that seems unlikely. Trump may win the next election, but communism will not keel over and die; if anything, it will redouble its efforts.<br />
<br />
II. <br />
<br />
I will return to this subject - the death of democracy, as postulated by <u>Mein Kampf</u> - later. For the moment, I want to reproduce some passages which I feel have become extremely pertinent. <br />
<br />
The first of these concerns the subject of bullying, in particular, bullying by the liberals and leftists in the official media; this passage applies, in 2020, also to bullying by Social Justice Warriors on social media: <br />
<br /><blockquote>
Within less than two years I had gained a clear understanding of Social Democracy, in its teaching and the technique of its operations. </blockquote><blockquote>
I recognized the infamy of that technique whereby the movement carried on a campaign of mental terrorism against the bourgeoisie, who are neither morally nor spiritually equipped to withstand such attacks. The tactics of Social Democracy consisted in opening, at a given signal, a veritable drum-fire of lies and calumnies against the man whom they believed to be the most redoubtable of their adversaries, until the nerves of the latter gave way and they sacrificed the man who was attacked, simply in the hope of being allowed to live in peace. But the hope proved always to be a foolish one, for they were never left in peace. <br />
<br />
The same tactics are repeated again and again, until fear of these mad dogs exercises, through suggestion, a paralysing effect on their victims. </blockquote><blockquote>
Through its own experience Social Democracy learned the value of strength, and for that reason it attacks mostly those in whom it scents stuff of the more stalwart kind [Donald Trump?], which is indeed a very rare possession. On the other hand it praises every weakling among its adversaries [Mitt Romney?], more or less cautiously, according to the measure of his mental qualities known or presumed. They have less fear of a man of genius who lacks will-power than of a vigorous character with mediocre intelligence and at the same time they highly commend those who are devoid of intelligence and will-power. </blockquote><br />
<br />
Here are some passages on the alliance between the finance-capitalists and the communists - an alliance which, until recently, would have seemed to we moderns something paradoxical. It is only now, with the onset of 'woke' capital, that we understand some of what Hitler is talking about (for a list of corporations that support the Black Lives Matter, antifa and communist riots, see <a href="https://vdare.com/posts/be-brave-do-something-ashley-rae-goldenberg-s-list-of-corporations-that-support-the-riots-and-want-you-dead" target="_blank">here</a>). <br />
<br /><blockquote>
What other country in the world possessed a better-organized and administered business enterprise than the German State Railways, for instance? It was left to the Revolution to destroy this standard organization, until a time came when it was taken out of the hands of the nation and socialized, in the sense which the founders of the Republic had given to that word, namely, making it subservient to the international stock-exchange capitalists, who were the wire-pullers of the German Revolution... <br />
<br />
Without knowing it, the [communist] worker is placing himself at the service of the very power against which he believes he is fighting. Apparently he is made to fight against capital and thus he is all the more easily brought to fight for capitalist interests. Outcries are systematically raised against international capital but in reality it is against the structure of national economics that these slogans are directed. The idea is to demolish this structure and on its ruins triumphantly erect the structure of the International Stock Exchange... <br />
<br />
The internationalization of our German economic system, that is to say, the transference of our productive forces to the control of Jewish international finance, can be completely carried out only in a State that has been politically Bolshevized. But the Marxist fighting forces, commanded by international and Jewish stock-exchange capital, cannot finally smash the national resistance in Germany without friendly help from outside. For this purpose French armies would first have to invade and overcome the territory of the German Reich until a state of international chaos would set in, and then the country would have to succumb to Bolshevik storm troops in the service of Jewish international finance. </blockquote><br />
<br />
Finally, here is <u>Mein Kampf</u> on the ineffectual anti-communism of the conservatives: <br />
<br /><blockquote>
At the elections to the Reichstag the growing number of Marxist votes indicated that the internal breakdown and the political collapse were then rapidly approaching. All the victories of the so-called bourgeois parties were fruitless, not only because they could not prevent the numerical increase in the growing mass of Marxist votes, even when the bourgeois parties triumphed at the polls, but mainly because they themselves were already infected with the germs of decay. Though quite unaware of it, the bourgeois world was infected from within with the deadly virus of Marxist ideas. The fact that they sometimes openly resisted was to be explained by the competitive strife among ambitious political leaders, rather than by attributing it to any opposition in principle between adversaries who were determined to fight one another to the bitter end. </blockquote><br />
<br />
And: <br />
<br /><blockquote>
Thus the Marxist doctrine is the concentrated extract of the mentality which underlies the general concept of life to-day. For this reason alone it is out of the question and even ridiculous to think that what is called our bourgeois world can put up any effective fight against Marxism. For this bourgeois world is permeated with all those same poisons and its conception of life in general differs from Marxism only in degree and in the character of the persons who hold it. The bourgeois world is Marxist but believes in the possibility of a certain group of people - that is to say, the bourgeoisie - being able to dominate the world, while Marxism itself systematically aims at delivering the world into the hands of the Jews. </blockquote><br />
<br />
III.<br />
<br />
Now we come to the passage in which Hitler prophecies the death of democracy. <br />
<br /><blockquote>
On a spiritual training ground of that kind [service in parliament] it is not possible for the bourgeois forces to develop the strength which is necessary to carry on the fight against the organized might of Marxism. Indeed they have never seriously thought of doing so. Though these parliamentary quacks who represent the white race are generally recognized as persons of quite inferior mental capacity, they are shrewd enough to know that they could not seriously entertain the hope of being able to use the weapon of Western Democracy to fight a doctrine for the advance of which Western Democracy, with all its accessories, is employed as a means to an end. </blockquote><br />
<br />
That is to say, one cannot fight Marxism in the name of democracy. Marxists do not revere democracy, and they treat it as a means, not an end, and a means that is to be discarded at will: <br />
<br /><blockquote>
Democracy is exploited by the Marxists for the purpose of paralysing their opponents and gaining for themselves a free hand to put their own methods into action. When certain groups of Marxists use all their ingenuity for the time being to make it be believed that they are inseparably attached to the principles of democracy, it may be well to recall the fact that when critical occasions arose these same gentlemen snapped their fingers at the principle of decision by majority vote, as that principle is understood by Western Democracy.</blockquote><br />
<br />
The German Revolution of 1918 to 1919 woke the conservatives up like a bucket of cold water: <br />
<br /><blockquote>
Such was the case in those days when the bourgeois parliamentarians, in their monumental shortsightedness, believed that the security of the Reich was guaranteed because it had an overwhelming numerical majority in its favour, and the Marxists did not hesitate suddenly to grasp supreme power in their own hands, backed by a mob of loafers, deserters, political place-hunters and Jewish dilettanti. That was a blow in the face for that democracy in which so many parliamentarians believed. Only those credulous parliamentary wizards [Mitch McConnell?] who represented bourgeois democracy could have believed that the brutal determination of those whose interest it is to spread the Marxist world-pest, of which they are the carriers, could for a moment, now or in the future, be held in check by the magical formulas of Western Parliamentarianism. Marxism will march shoulder to shoulder with democracy until it succeeds indirectly in securing for its own criminal purposes even the support of those whose minds are nationally orientated and whom Marxism strives to exterminate.</blockquote><br />
<br />
What happens when the Marxists lose an election, or if anti-communist legislation is passed? <br />
<br /><blockquote>
But if the Marxists should one day come to believe that there was a danger that from this witch’s cauldron of our parliamentary democracy a majority vote might be concocted, which by reason of its numerical majority would be empowered to enact legislation and might use that power seriously to combat Marxism, then the whole parliamentarian hocus-pocus would be at an end. Instead of appealing to the democratic conscience, the standard bearers of the Red International would immediately send forth a furious rallying-cry among the proletarian masses and the ensuing fight would not take place in the sedate atmosphere of Parliament but in the factories and the streets. Then democracy would be annihilated forthwith. And what the intellectual prowess of the apostles who represented the people in Parliament had failed to accomplish would now be successfully carried out by the crow-bar and the sledge-hammer of the exasperated proletarian masses - just as in the autumn of 1918. At a blow they would awaken the bourgeois world to see the madness of thinking that the Jewish drive towards world-conquest can be effectually opposed by means of Western Democracy. </blockquote><br />
<br />
Hitler concludes: <br />
<br /><blockquote>
As I have said, only a very credulous soul could think of binding himself to observe the rules of the game when he has to face a player for whom those rules are nothing but a mere bluff or a means of serving his own interests, which means he will discard them when they prove no longer useful for his purpose. </blockquote><br />
<br />
IV.<br />
<br />
The above describes, to a tee, what America has been undergoing since at least the election of Trump. The Far Left, and its sympathisers on the Center Left and Right, have been using unconstitutional means to oust Trump. (When I say 'unconstitutional', I mean the refusal to accept established political rules, customs, traditions; this refusal may not breach the American constitution as written, but it does breach the spirit of the constitution). The Left is forever accusing Trump of breaking the rules, but it is the political actor that is breaking the rules. For example: the Left does not follow one of the underlying principles of democracy, and that is the doctrine of the consent of the loser; the Left does not recognise Trump's win in 2016 as legitimate, and instead of ceding power to its opponent after its having been defeated in a fair contest, it has sought to use its power in the spheres outside the electoral and parliamentary to unseat Trump. <br />
<br />
In theory, political power in a democracy resides in elected officials, but in practice, it is diffused throughout the political organism. It can be found in the Deep State (the police, the secret police, the military, the armed forces, the public sector, education) and also civil society (the trade unions, the chambers of commerce, the churches, the sports bodies, and most importantly of all, the media / entertainment complex). The last of these, the media / entertainment complex, has in 2020 become a virtual political power in itself. It has waged an unrelenting war against Trump from the beginning, and some elements of the Deep State have joined in the campaign. Only recently, certain of America's generals have been praised for their 'defiance' of Trump; both this insubordination and the praise of it are unprecedented in American history, and the conduct of the generals has fueled speculation by the Left that a military coup d'état could push Trump out of office. <br />
<br />
To judge by recent events, the Far Left has completed its long march through the institutions. But it is not only the institutions. The covid lockdown (which has been lauded to the skies by the communist Left) and the Black Lives Matter riots prove that the Left has colonised the American, and Western, public consciousness. How else do we explain the scenes of mass hysteria? The uniformity of slogans in both the covid and 'anti-racist' discourse? America, and the West, is being guided through Yuri Bezmenov's famous <a href="https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/02/28/former-kgb-agent-yuri-bezmenov-explains-our-four-stages-the-new-normal-2/" target="_blank">four stages of subversion</a>. And it is at this point that democracy breaks down, as voting, and the will of the majority, now count for little. (As Hitler writes in the Vienna chapter in <u>Mein Kampf</u>, 'At first I was quite surprised when I realized how little time was necessary for this dangerous Great Power [the media] within the State to produce a certain belief among the public; and in doing so the genuine will and convictions of the public were often completely misconstrued'). <br />
<br />
On that note, to what extent was George Floyd a creation of the media? But such a phenomenon was not unknown in Hitler's day: <br />
<br /><blockquote>
It took the Press only a few days to transform some ridiculously trivial matter into an issue of national importance, while vital problems were completely ignored or filched and hidden away from public attention. </blockquote><blockquote>
The Press succeeded in the magical art of producing names from nowhere within the course of a few weeks. They made it appear that the great hopes of the masses were bound up with those names. And so they made those names more popular than any man of real ability could ever hope to be in a long lifetime. All this was done, despite the fact that such names were utterly unknown and indeed had never been heard of even up to a month before the Press publicly emblazoned them. At the same time old and tried figures in the political and other spheres of life quickly faded from the public memory and were forgotten as if they were dead, though still healthy and in the enjoyment of their full vigor. </blockquote><br />
<br />
V. <br />
<br />
Hitler wrote <u>Mein Kampf</u> as a salesman: at the time, he was selling a product to the German people, and specifically, the German Far Right. His prescriptions for communism worked in Germany ten years after publication, but, one may object, will not work for America, as substantial differences between America and Germany (and America and Europe) exist. <br />
<br />
But Hitler's analysis of communism, at least, does hold true for America, as 2020 America has traded places with Weimar Germany. <br />
<br />
Americans live under a regimen of democracy, Germans do not. Democracy, in Germany since the war, means the rule of Merkel and the parties (the SPD, the CSU/CDU, the Greens, the Free Democrats), and any parties (such as Alternative for Germany (AfD)) outside this circle are regarded as <a href="https://carolynyeager.net/german-establishment-tries-create-scandal-around-afd-star-alice-weidel" target="_blank">'undemocratic'</a> even though they may play by the rules of democracy as conventionally understood. The AfD functions as though all the norms of democracy - the fair contest, the equal chance, the consent of the loser, etc. - apply in Germany when in fact they do not. In America, in contrast, the norms still apply. But now that American democracy has come under sustained and ferocious attack by the Left, the foundations of the democratic state will be chipped away as they were in Weimar. <br />
<br />
Liberal historians have puzzled over why Weimar fell so easily to Hitler, as easily as a tree which has grown rotten and hollowed out from the inside topples in a storm. The truth is that Weimar democracy had attrited by 1933 and had been damaged irreparably by years of relentless and savage assaults by the Left (after 1928, the communists directed most of their (not inconsiderable) firepower at the Social Democrats (the SPD), a party which was one of the main pillars of Weimar). But in today's historiography, the NSDAP and Hindenberg reap most of the blame - the Far Right, not the Far Left, is said to have bored away at democracy from within and caused its collapse. It is clear, however, from <u>Mein Kampf</u> that the NSDAP would not have succeeded - indeed, it would not even have been formed - if not for the German Revolution of 1918-1919 and the Left's subsequent antics, as Hitler freely admits. <br />
<br />
Ann Coulter in her column reflects that a hundred years ago, Americans did not take to Bolshevism. It is the historical unpopularity of socialism in America, and the continuing survival of American democracy, which has led to complacency among conservative Americans who look to communism on the Continent and say to themselves, 'It can't happen here'. But alas, it can. A President Biden may disappoint the Far Left in much the same way as President Obama did, but one must take the long view: communism moves incrementally, two steps forward, one step back, and America has moved leftward under Obama and even further leftward under Trump to a degree which would have been unthinkable twenty years ago. It is not inconceivable that in years to come America will turn into Cuba or Venezuela. <br />
<br />
I mentioned earlier the prescriptions of <u>Mein Kampf</u>. If we in the Anglosphere were to follow the book literally, we would form a third political party, wear uniforms, hold huge rallies, make demagogic speeches, mobilise a bunch of paramilitary toughs to keep order at party rallies and crack communist skulls... But that would be applying, in a mechanistic fashion, tactics which would not be appropriate for America in 2020 (for one, third parties in America have never worked and never will). The conditions for the efficacious use of such tactics have not been met, the time is not ripe. In contrast, by 1933, democracy in Germany had been eroded; Weimar resembled nothing more than a collapsing glacier. In such a state of affairs, freedom - and chaos - reign. The reason why the NSDAP got away with street violence is because the Far Left got away with it. (On that topic, the Trump supporters at his upcoming rallies may be subjected to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/chris-swecker-trump-tulsa-campaign-rally-anarchists" target="_blank">violence by the Left</a> (we saw a foretaste of this in the lead-up to the election of 2016). That would violate another of the unwritten rules of democracy, namely, the principle of allowing your opponent's rallies and conventions to proceed without intimidation and violence, and again it is something that would have been unthinkable twenty or even ten years ago).But when cracks and chasms appear, opportunities present themselves. One of the unintended consequences of the recent upheaval is that not only does it represent a breakthrough for the Far Left, it represents a breakthrough for the Far Right. The Left's devices can, and often do, backfire - remember the case of <a href="https://lawliberty.org/book-review/understanding-pinochet/" target="_blank">Chile</a>. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /><br /></div>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-78779583186137605022020-06-03T05:08:00.002-07:002020-06-05T00:52:21.280-07:00So, Heimbach, you want to be a commie? <div><font size="4"><br /></font></div><font size="4"><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1mqxU4WgL7RCQbKMb8_8rxFhNXY5hi_DlhP5CwmjSsL0-iwDfLJJinr8QnwXteoQZuva5vlZNh5V-bbeDQCpyiu_L5EVcbqWYp_CZbikBBRxzAI5GHLPDYPjx4pRejUYyMZtZMzTDVNf0/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="467" data-original-width="336" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1mqxU4WgL7RCQbKMb8_8rxFhNXY5hi_DlhP5CwmjSsL0-iwDfLJJinr8QnwXteoQZuva5vlZNh5V-bbeDQCpyiu_L5EVcbqWYp_CZbikBBRxzAI5GHLPDYPjx4pRejUYyMZtZMzTDVNf0/s320/leaflet_5x7_appalachia-336x467.jpg" /></a></div><font size="4"><br /></font></div>
I. <br />
<br />
Recently Matt Heimbach of the Traditionalist Worker's Party caused a scandal by renouncing white nationalism and crossing over to communism. But watching Heimbach's video <a href="https://youtu.be/hxwFVoY1qDc" target="_blank">here</a> with a commentary by Alternate Hypothesis, I could find no real evidence of any Marxism in Heimbach's new <i>Weltanschauung</i>. <br />
<br />
This disappointed me somewhat, as the idea of a conversion from Far Left to Right intrigues me. In the <u>Road to Serfdom</u> (1944), Hayek observed that fascists can frequently convert to communism, and communists, to fascism (Hayek here was propounding an early version of horseshoe theory), and I initially thought that Heimbach's recent change of heart would constitute another instance of that Left to Right and Right to Left phenomenon, that, in other words, Heimbach would be following in the footsteps of Jacques Doriot, a fascinating figure who made a transition from communism to fascism. But I am not quite sure that Heimbach has thought everything through. <br />
<br />
Alternative Hypothesis refers to Heimbach throughout as a Nazi. Is he one? The answer is no, not in the usual (German) sense of the word, only in the American. Alternate Hypothesis' video has made me realise that when Americans use the word 'Nazi', they are making a cultural and class distinction: they are referring to redneck and hillbilly white nationalists who hail from what Colin Woodard calls Greater Appalachia. The Traditionalist Worker's Party, and Schoep's National Socialist Movement, were made up of men of this stripe, as is (most likely) the Aryan Nations prison gang. Surrounded by such people, day in and day out, one can understand why it was that Heimbach, even in his Naz Bol days, declared that he was a socialist and champion of the working class. <br />
<br />
So why did Heimbach break from the Right? It becomes clear from the video, and Heimbach's back story, that Heimbach is a man who craves fame and celebrity, and it is this that explains why he made the jump. He wanted acceptance from his peers. Being a white nationalist, Neo-Nazi, Naz Bol, makes one an outlaw in society, and while some on the Far Right relish that outlaw status, others find the life of an outlaw hard going, understandably enough, and it is the wavering type that will evince a desire to come in from the cold and be a 'normie', even at the expense of renouncing one's beliefs, cutting ties with one's comrades, and foregoing one's status in the movement.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Heimbach has been misled - by the political establishment that controls the media / entertainment complex, education, organised religion and so forth - as to what 'normal' is. The Far Left is composed of what Steve Sailer calls the 'coalition of the fringes', and that is: Social Justice Warriors; Greta Thunbergs; crazy cat ladies who voted for Hillary; LGBT activists, Jewish, Hispanic, African-American, Asian-American, Muslim and other minority activists; Marxists (real and crypto); antifa and anarchists; Hollywood progressives; crusading liberal billionaires of the George Soros / Mark Zuckerberg / Bill Gates type; degree-holders in black studies, queer studies, women's studies, and post-colonial studies... The political establishment has succeeded in framing this coterie of cranks, oddballs, misanthropes and radicals as mainstream. But the reality is that the 'KKKrazy glue' (to use Sailer's phrase) that holds the coalition together is hatred of the average white American male. Now, while the Coalition of the Fringes does contain whites, these left-wing whites do not represent salt of the earth American whites, who are mostly either indifferent to politics or who voted for Trump. The conclusion, then, is that Heimbach, who is looking for crossover appeal to 'normies', is looking for it in the wrong place. While the newly-minted leftist Heimbach may meet with approval from the Left, he will never get it from the Right or Center. Yes, it is true that the average Republican opposes racism, but he does so only from the position that 'Democrats are the real racists', Martin Luther King Jr was a conservative, white nationalism is identity politics and therefore collectivist, etc., etc. In other words, the average conservative opposes racism not from perspective of a Marxist or antifa, but a middle of the road civic nationalist who would rather not talk about race at all. <br />
<br />
Heimbach's conversion may have been misguided, but the question of Heimbach's socialism remains interesting. Even before his recent break from the Right, Heimbach, along with Matt Parrott, Richard Spencer, Eric Stryker, Hunter Wallace and other 'wignats' and 'Naz Bols' was accused of attempting to steer the nationalist and racialist movement towards communism. Here I will be the exploring what communism, in 2020, means and how any adoption of it by a nationalist may entail some conclusions which he will find quite unpalatable.<br />
<br />
I will be resisting the temptation to write another anti-communist polemic - we have enough of <a href="https://www.counter-currents.com/2020/05/aleksandr-solzhenitsyns-lenin-in-zurich/" target="_blank">those</a>. The fact of the matter is that right-wing polemics cannot approach communism in a detached, analytic manner because they cannot consider a single tenet or thesis of communism in isolation from the whole. A nationalist writer cannot examine, say, Lenin's political position in the year 1905 or 1917 as a subject in itself because he knows what happened after 1905 or 1917, and he feels compelled to draw a connection between Lenin's position at that time particular point in time and communism's subsequent history. It is difficult to write from a neutral, detached perspective when one is anti-communist: one feels a moral obligation to lecture the reader on the evils of communism, and so, when one writes an abstract article on (for example) Che Guevara's theory of the <i>foco</i>, one will turn it - almost without intending to - into a sermon on the misery of life in communist Cuba. <br />
<br />
For the purposes of exposition, then, one must shut out or excise large sections of communist reality. I will concede that the reader may think that this is an evasion, as the Marxist Left itself believes only in looking at politics as a whole, not in parts. <br />
<br />
In communism and leftism, the connections that exist cannot be avoided. If you support Marxism in 2020, you must support, for example, 1) the Greta Thunberg-type radical environmentalism, 2) the mass non-white immigration into white countries, 3) the anti-covid 19 lockdown measures, and 4) the rioting, looting and arson underway at present win America's cities. Heimbach may be labouring under the delusion that one can take up a Marxist position and at the same time oppose 1), 2), 3) and 4). But Marxism does not allow you to pick and choose. One must go the whole hog, and that is the price of admission to the Marxist fraternity. <br />
<br />
II.<br />
<br />
Before we proceed, we must define our terms. Until Lenin and the Russian Revolution, 'Marxist' referred to an adherent of the theories of Marx and Engels, nothing more. Hitler, in the first sections of <u>Mein Kampf</u>, uses the word in this sense and applies it to his opponents on the Left - the Social Democrats and their affiliates. Later in the book, after the November Revolution of 1918 and the formation of the German Communist Party (KPD), Marxism takes on its 20th century meaning: it is a form of socialism founded on principles laid down by Lenin and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) - what we know today as communism. (In 1917, Lenin insisted that the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) change its name to the Communist Party, as a means of differentiating itself from other parties of the Left). Some anti-Soviet left-wingers have attempted to recover Marx from Lenin, but after 1917, in the public consciousness, Marxism and Soviet communism became inextricably linked: Marxism was transformed into Bolshevism, (what the Maoists call) Marxism-Leninism. <br />
<br />
Heimbach, the Naz Bols, the Wignats, have stated that they are sympathetic to the Bernie Sanders Left. The question is, how far to the Left does the 'democratic socialism' of Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) extend? Are the Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, the DSA, Marxist? And if so, which Marx is it: the Marx of the 'democratic socialists' or the Marx of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao? The lines between the two forms of Marxism have, after Sanders, become increasingly blurred, and this is no accident, as Lenin would say: the result has been brought about by the Left deliberately. The communist Left wants to use 'democratic socialism' as a Trojan horse and as a gateway drug to Bolshevism. <br />
<br />
In order to expand on the subject, we need to turn our attention to the interaction between Marxist theory of old and the post-communist practice of the present. Our story starts after the fall of communism in Europe, thirty years ago, and here I will give some of my reminisces of the immediate post-communist era.<br />
<br />
Many intellectuals and bohemians in the West became indoctrinated with Marxism after attending university in their youth. I was fortunate in that, by the time I got to university and began reading books on politics, economics, philosophy and other weighty subjects, the Soviet Union had been extinct for two years. Without the example of 'really existing socialism' before me, communism (and anti-communism) lacked immediacy, relevance. In my browsing of the local library, I happened upon <u>Marx Refuted: The Verdict of History</u> (1987), an anthology of anti-communist writings by Soviet dissidents and Anglo intellectuals. Its arguments against Marx as a thinker, and its hardline, uncompromising stance against Marx and socialism, impressed me so powerfully that I could never look at Marx the same way again; the book turned me away from Marxism for all time. Interestingly, the authors by and large did not take a free-market liberal position so much as an anti-socialist one; indeed, they often strike an anti-political, post-communist chord, one which almost anticipates Fukuyama's 'End of History' essay published two years later. Marxism has been found wanting, its long reign is over, and now that we are on the verge of finishing with it, we can get on with our lives... The book's theme was reinforced when, in my wanderings around campus, I came across Trotskyists running a stall, hawking copies of Trotsky's <u>The Revolution Betrayed</u> (1936). I asked myself who cared if Stalin betrayed the ideals of the Russian revolution, given that communism had imploded in the former states, had vanished in Eastern Europe, and had fallen out of fashion (as an economic-developmental model) in Africa and Asia. The conclusion I drew was that the Trotskyists and their pamphlets and books belonged in the past. If I opened up the Trotskyist newspaper the <u>Green Left Weekly</u>, then on sale at university campuses, I would see an illustration of the profiles of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky in a row - the 'gallery of men with beards', I called it. One could almost smell, in the pages of that newspaper, musty air left over from the 19th century. Trotskyism evoked the politics, culture, ideas of the turn of the turn of the century in a nostalgic fashion; in fact, like the genre of Steampunk, it aimed at recreating the atmosphere of the Victorian and Edwardian era, the difference being that it situated itself in the Central and Eastern European cultural context, not the British and Anglo-Saxon. <br />
<br />
I have spent much time recounting my experiences with Trotskyism because Trotskyism dominates the Far Left in Australia - of the dozen communist groups we have here, nine of them follow Trotskyism. But all of them share in common the belief that Soviet communism was good until, at some point, it turned bad. Three of the groups hold that Bolshevik revolution was 'betrayed' in 1956, when Khrushchev denounced Stalin in the Secret Speech; for the other nine, the revolution was either 'betrayed' in 1924, when Lenin died and was succeeded by Stalin, or in the years 1927 to 1929, when Trotsky was expelled from the Communist Party and the USSR. <br />
<br />
But to return to the narrative. In the 1990s, I was exposed to many political ideas but never committed to any one of them; I would read Hayek and Friedman one day and vote Labor the next, and never felt strongly about communism one or the other. I looked at Marxism as an antique, and like Keynes - a centrist - I saw no need to abolish the entire system of free enterprise so as to prevent the evils of unemployment and inequality. But, after my exposure to white nationalism and Neo-Nazism, I threw my lot in with the radical Right, and as a result, I took communism far more seriously, and dedicated myself to the study of it. <br />
<br />
I came to see that Lenin had attempted to come up with a solution to a problem - of how to apply Marxism in the Third World. The layman's understanding of Marxist theory of revolution is that it is a theory that only concerns industrialised nations such as England and Germany, and the white countries of Western Europe and its colonies. But Lenin wanted it applied to Russia and the black, brown and yellow countries - the 'oppressed nations'. Lenin believed that Russia was an oppressor nation, but understood (perhaps on an intuitive level), that while Russians are biologically white, Russia is not white all the way through - it is composed of over 180 different nationalities, the vast majority of them Asian or at least non-white. Russia, after the October Revolution, identified with its Asian side over its white: it became part of the rising tide of colour against white world supremacy, as Lothrop Stoddard argues in the book of the same name. <br />
<br />
Lenin also needed to make a departure from orthodox Marxism so as to take into consideration the fact that Russia's social and economic system, unlike Germany's or England's, was geared to the past. Recognising this, Lenin rebuilt Marxism accordingly and turned it into a peasant doctrine. This explains why it is that Marxism-Leninism achieved its greatest successes in agrarian countries - Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam... <br />
<br />
Surprisingly enough, Lenin agrees with Fukuyama on some points. Both declare that the transition from feudalism to capitalism is 'progressive', and thereby good; so is the transition from constitutional monarchy to bourgeois liberal democracy. Both grade fascist, colonialist, military, or imperialist rule as 'reactionary', and thereby bad, and both put these political forms in the same category as feudalism, medievalism and monarchy. Neither appreciate nationalism. (Lenin makes an exception for the nationalism of countries oppressed by wealthy and powerful Western European ones: Irish nationalism meets with his approval, as would have the later Third World nationalism, had he lived to see it). The main difference between Lenin and Fukuyama lies in their disagreement over socialism. To Fukuyama, history comes to an end with the arrival of 'free markets' and 'democracy', whereas to Lenin, history progresses past these. But both men follow Hegel in seeing a forward-moving motion in history. <br />
<br />
Fukuyama's theories suited the post-communist era perfectly, Lenin's did not. Leninism, in its pure form, can only be applied in countries experiencing revolutionary upheaval. In what countries, in the post-communist era, can we find that upheaval? <br />
<br />
None, you might say: but you are mistaken. It is only after an honest examination of the period that we are forced to admit that the answer was staring at us in the face all along: the upheaval can be found in the countries that went through the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution" target="_blank">Colour Revolutions</a> of 2000 to 2010, and then the Arab Spring of 2010 to 2011, and then the Maidan Square uprising in Ukraine in 2014.<br />
<br />
To narrow our focus onto the Colour Revolutions (and to put the Arab Spring and Maidan to one side): years ago, I read of a left-wing activist who stated proudly that the Revolutions were applied Leninism, Leninism put into practice, but unfortunately, I never screencapped that quotation, and now I cannot find it anywhere on the Internet (I have found a throwaway line in a paper by the academic <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13523270902860295?src=recsys" target="_blank">David Lane</a> (not the white nationalist David Lane!), 'The strategy of the coloured revolutions is Leninist in conception', but Lane does not dig in here and go into detail). Anyone who has a passing acquaintance with Leninist theory can understand what that left-wing activist meant. Lenin, like Fukuyama, throws 'authoritarian' leaders in the same bag as the feudalists, monarchists and medievalists: these systems are all reactionary, must all be overcome, and must all be overthrown and replaced with 'democracy'. (I dislike Fukuyama's (and Lenin's) habit of using simplistic, single-word political concepts - 'democracy', 'dictatorship', 'centralism', 'freedom', 'authoritarian', and the like - words which become more hazy and nebulous the more you look at them; but, one must recognise that neither man is inclined to complexity and subtlety, and if one writes on them, one must be willing to use their language). In the Leninist world-view, 'authoritarianism' is to be toppled in what is a liberal-bourgeois 'democratic' revolution - exactly the sort that Fukuyama applauds, and exactly the sort that the Coloured Revolutions sought to bring about.<br />
<br />
As to why these 'democratic' revolutions did not flow and merge into 'socialist' (that is, communist) ones, the Leninist theory has its answers there as well: the proletariat, the working-classes, were defeated in a succession of class struggles, etc. Perhaps because of these failures, Western communists in the years 2000 to 2010 refused to acknowledge that the Coloured Revolutions could be considered to be revolutions as such, and so therefore could be accounted for by Leninist theory. In the 2000s, Communists scorned and reviled the Coloured Revolutions, and alleged that they were a put-up job, a scam. In their view, the perpetrators of this fraud were the CIA, George Soros, American neoconservatives, American think-tanks, the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commission... In this the Far Left took the same line as the Far Right, remarkably enough. <br />
<br />
One cannot have communism without Lenin - he is to communism what Muhammad is to Islam. The communists who oppose the Coloured Revolutions have departed from Lenin's teachings and strayed from the path of righteousness. But perhaps they were correct in doing so, as Lenin's model poses all sorts of questions. <br />
<br />
Take the 2019 protests in Hong Kong against the Chinese communist government. China has denounced them as another instance of a CIA- and Gene Sharp-contrived Colour Revolution, as China, along with Russia, hates and fears Coloured Revolutions, but given that China is a socialist and Marxist state, is China not justified in condemning the Revolutions from a left-wing perspective? If the communists in China are on the Left, then the protesters in Hong Kong must be on the Right. In Marxist-speak, the Hong Kong protest movement could be described as reactionary, even counter-revolutionary.<br />
<br />
Now Marxism's troubles begin. If a repressive and authoritarian communism in China were to incite a liberal and bourgeois revolution in Hong Kong (a revolution which, according to Lenin's theory, can progress into a communist revolution), then history must go around in a circle. We can solve that paradox by pointing out the obvious - that China ceased being socialist forty years ago, that it is now state-capitalist. But, the more one thinks about the implications of that truth, the more one sees that they upend Lenin's (and Marx's) theory altogether. The question then becomes: is Fukuyama right?<br />
<br />
III.<br />
<br />
Both the Far Right and Left share a disdain for the Coloured Revolutions (and the Revolutions' alleged architects Soros and Sharp). But a real communist understands the progressive potential in bourgeois revolutions and ought to throw his weight behind any of these, whenever they occur; he must support revolution by <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121101101837/https://thenorthstar.info/?p=1263" target="_blank">any means necessary</a>. He must take this position if he wishes to follow Lenin and therefore Marx, as Lenin buttressed his arguments for the necessity of the bourgeois revolution and the 'revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat' with copious quotations from Marx and Engels. Leninism incarnated Marxism in the 20th century - or so the Soviet Union and Red China wished us to believe. <br />
<br />
Assuming that this claim of the Marxist-Leninists was correct, the difficulty faced by the wignats and Nazbols becomes apparent. If you want to be a socialist, you must be a Marxist; if you want to be a Marxist, after 1917 you have no choice but to be a Leninist; if you want to be a Leninist, then by all rights you ought to get behind the bourgeois democratic revolution, as it has manifested itself in the Coloured Revolutions, the Arab Spring, Maidan. And it is this consequence of socialism that the Heimbachs, Spencers, Wallaces, Strykers cannot abide. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></font><br />Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-36881716380665156762020-05-13T04:11:00.002-07:002020-05-18T19:41:34.862-07:00Europe's Destiny: America, the Germans and VE Day<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjddxZthWwscMJq37hllARB-oA1ogEPR_1yfadwANhAHcyE9NLuMatiE-TlWxLfF14dZ3VBmaAJy9keAQu2OAol_aWzu5CPcQ7a8IZC_CZQlstvUxJLWEPOTgHtXOKM4TapkSCSOTQhmIQk/s1600/RushVEDayAnnotation+2020-05-10+073439.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="373" data-original-width="725" height="328" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjddxZthWwscMJq37hllARB-oA1ogEPR_1yfadwANhAHcyE9NLuMatiE-TlWxLfF14dZ3VBmaAJy9keAQu2OAol_aWzu5CPcQ7a8IZC_CZQlstvUxJLWEPOTgHtXOKM4TapkSCSOTQhmIQk/s640/RushVEDayAnnotation+2020-05-10+073439.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">I.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">One of the blessings wrought by the Coronavirus is that VE Day celebrations have been muted this year - indeed, Putin has postponed Russia's until September. Given the importance accorded by our globalist masters to anniversaries, I expected - before the breakout of the virus - for 2020, the 75th anniversary of the unconditional surrender of National Socialist Germany, to be an orgy of triumphalism, a real grinding of the boot in the face of Germany and sympathisers with German, European and Western nationalism everywhere. In contrast, I anticipated that the 75th anniversary of the unconditional surrender of Japan would receive much less attention, because, despite the fact that the Pacific War claimed millions of lives, 'Jewish America' (as Yockey calls it) regards the War as a sideshow to the more important war in Europe.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">To explain the political significance of the VE Day celebrations, I must go over some of the history of the thirties and forties, at the risk of putting off some of the more experienced and well-read members of the nationalist movement, who will find the following so much boilerplate. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Before 1933, America had a government but lacked a State. As Yockey explains it, no elite existed which looked out for the interests of the American nation - no Continental-style cabinet politics existed, not even the equivalent of an English upper class (which held sway in the English Parliament) steering the ship of state. The two-party system, and elections, were designed to facilitate the divvying up of spoils, nothing more, and America acquired its colonies the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, etc., instinctively, that is, without thinking about it, as America, unlike its European forebears, did not working according to a conscious plan for expansion.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Then came the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and what Yockey calls the 'American Revolution of 1933'. In that year, American Jewry took over America, formed a State, and set to work plotting war against National Socialist Germany, which had humiliated their compatriots in Europe. (If you want a crash-course in how Jews achieved their takeover, watch the <u>Star Trek: The Next Generation</u> episode '<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708691/">Conspiracy</a>' (1988) - this allegory will teach all you need to know. It is surprising that the Anti-Defamation League of the B'Nai B'Rith, which is always on the lookout for anti-Semitic 'tropes' and 'canards', hasn't called for 'Conspiracy' to be banned). America used France, Poland and England (which by then had fallen into a decrepit state) as proxies to start a war with Germany, and did while it did wage undeclared war against Germany in the years 1940 and 1941, it struggled to bring that war out into the open. It faced an uphill battle against the Isolationist movement, which sought to prevent America's involvement in another fratricidal war on England's behalf. But after America provoked Japan into attacking it at Pearl Harbour, the Isolationist movement was finished off once and for all, and America threw its massive industrial might into battle. It ground Germany and Japan into a powder.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">During the years 1942 to 1945, America (and Britain) carried out a war of extermination against the civilian population of Europe, a war which continued after the German surrender: according to James Bacque's figures, as many Germans died after the war as during. (You can read about the Allies' post-war depredations in James Wear's <a href="https://www.unz.com/book/john_wear__germanys-war/">Germany's War: The Origins, Aftermath and Atrocities of World War II</a> (2014)).But future generations will marvel at how America succeeded in framing the Germans as the villains. America accepted, and helped promulgate, anti-German atrocity propaganda from Jewish groups (who alleged that the Germans gassed, poisoned, electrocuted, steamed, parboiled, etc., Jews in the millions) and it got into the game itself and concocted its own spurious propaganda (during the Nuremberg Trials, prosecutor Robert H. Jackson produced evidence that the Germans had killed 20,000 Jews at Auschwitz with an atomic bomb).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">All of this is past history, water under the bridge, you might say. But Jewish influence in America has not diminished since 1945, and it is directly - or indirectly - responsible for many of the difficulties America finds it in now. As the American Neo-Nazi Bill White once observed, Jews, once in power, never seem to 'get it right': they do harm even when they intend to do good. Whites, on the other hand, nearly always 'get it right'. That explains how white people built, from nothing, America up into one of the most prosperous nations in the world - so much so that 67 million emigrated there (in what was the greatest wave of immigration in the world) after Hart-Celler.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">For an example of Jews 'getting it wrong', take the <a href="https://wehrmachtcandy.blogspot.com/2010/11/obama-gold-standard-and-jewish.html">gold standard</a>. Until 1971, America fixed its dollar to gold, floating it only a few times in its history (most notably during the American Civil War and WWII); its politicians, central bank governors, economists, journalists, businessmen may not have possessed the most sophisticated understanding of how the gold standard worked, but they did know that it did work. But in the summer of 1971, that American tradition was shoved to the way side. Nixon came under tremendous pressure to leave gold from all sections of American society, but most notably, from his Jewish economists, and it was their counsel, I argue, which proved to be decisive. Nearly fifty years later, it has become clear - especially during the most recent financial crisis - that the advocates of floating exchange rates have lost the argument. Trump would make America great again by restoring the dollar's link to gold. But a chorus of Jewish economists, journalists, academics, finance industry professionals, would condemn such a move, and not just because Trump was proposing the policy. They know, instinctively, that bringing back the gold standard would lead to order, and they instinctively cleave to the side of chaos, not order, and it was for that reason that the German historian Mommsen referred to the Jews as a 'ferment of decomposition'. The Jews in charge of American economic life do not want America to win.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">It should be pointed out that Nixon's Jewish economic advisers Milton Friedman and Ben Stein wanted nothing but good for America: these two men were not malign individuals. It is simply that, given two alternatives, one good and one bad, these men would always choose the latter over the former. And if they do not bear the bulk of the responsibility for pushing Nixon towards floating over fixed rates, they and their co-religionists bear responsibility for cementing floating rates some fifty years on, to such an extent that Americans policymakers cannot even engage in a serious discussion on reestablishing gold without it being shouted down.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Immigration constitutes another example of destructive influence. In the 1920s, America, after a short post-war recession, 'got it right': it stuck to gold, cut its taxes, and kept to a regimen of free trade. The supply-side publicist Jude Wanniski called this system 'perfection', but what supply-siders (most of whom today are for open borders) never acknowledge is that America in that same decade brought into force a tough anti-immigration law with the intent of preserving America's white racial majority, a law which was stay until Hart-Celler. Again, as with the abolition of the gold standard, the entire blame for Hart-Celler should not be laid at Jewry's door: whites do make bad decisions by themselves. But supposing that the 'American Revolution of 1933' did not take place, supposing that Jewish intellectuals, journalists, academics, lobbyists, businessmen, et al., did not wield enormous clout in American life, it seems unlikely that Hart-Celler would have ever been passed into law, or at least not been repealed or watered-down some time after 1965 after its disastrous effects had been felt. (I contend this even though - in irony of ironies - the biggest immigration restrictionist in the Trump administration, Stephen Miller, is Jewish: the exception proves the rule). As Yockey writes, in the introduction to the <u>Enemy of Europe</u> (1953),</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">The Washington regime’s leading internal thesis — which has not changed since 1933 — is that Americans must be “tolerant” of the alien elements (which now number roughly 50% of the population), since, after all, these aliens are “brothers.” “Brotherhood” is glorified on all public occasions, by all public officials, is taught in the schools and preached in the churches, which have been </span><span style="font-size: large;">coordinated into the master-plan of the Culturally-alien Washington regime. Newspapers, books, magazines, radio, television, films — all vomit forth the same “Brotherhood.” The “Brotherhood” propaganda is a ghastly caricature of the Christian idea of the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man, but there is no religious intent to the propaganda. Its sole purpose is to destroy whatever </span><span style="font-size: large;">exclusiveness, national feelings, or racial instincts may still remain in the American population after twenty years of national leprosy. The result of the “tolerance” and “brotherhood” campaign is that the alien enjoys a superior position in America — he can demand to be “tolerated.” The American can </span><span style="font-size: large;">demand nothing.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">II.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In the <u>Hour of Decision</u> (1934) (a book subtitled, 'Germany in danger'), Spengler, the prophet of decline, conducts a gloomy survey of the white world's prospects. But he does put his hope in Germany:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">Why is the German people the least exhausted of the white world, and therefore the one on which may be placed the most hope? Because its political past has given it no opportunity to waste its precious blood and its great abilities. This is the one blessed aspect of our wretched history since 1500: it has used us sparingly. It turned us into dreamers and theoreticians in matters of world policy, made us ignorant of the world, narrow, quarrelsome, and provincial; but that can be got over. It was no organic defect, no inherent lack of ability — the days of the Holy Roman Empire are there to show that. Good blood, the </span><span style="font-size: large;">foundation of every kind of intellectual as well as physical superiority, there was and still is.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">And:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">Germany, too, has lost a great deal of its best blood in foreign armies and to </span><span style="font-size: large;">foreign nations. But the provincialism of its political conditions tuned down the ambitions of young talent to service at small courts, in small armies and administrations. These settled down to form a healthy and prolific middle </span><span style="font-size: large;">class. The nobility remained for the most part a superior peasantry. There was no high society and no fullness of life. “ Race,” in the people, was asleep, waiting for the call of a great age. But in this people there lies, notwithstanding the devastations of the last decades, a store of excellent blood such as no other nation possesses. It can be roused and must be spiritualised to meet the stupendous tasks before it. The battle for the planet has begun. The </span><span style="font-size: large;">pacifism of the century of Liberalism must be overcome if we are to go on living.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Modern-day academic commentators on Spengler, who are sympathetic, try their best to distance him from the National Socialists. But one can see the parallels between the above ideas and those of Hitler, Himmler, Rosenberg - and between National Socialism and Spengler's 'Prussian Socialism'. And, like the National Socialists, Spengler opined that the Western world had a great deal to learn from Germany:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">True — truly Prussian — loyalty is what the world most needs in this age of great catastrophes. We can only lean on what offers resistance... It is high time that the “white” world, and Germany in the first place, should consider these facts. For behind the world wars and the still unfinished proletarian world-revolution there looms the greatest of all dangers, the coloured menace, and it will require every bit of “race” that is still available among white nations to deal with it. Germany, of all countries, is not an island, as the political ideologues who would make it the object of their programs seem to imagine. It is but a small spot in a great, fermenting world, though undoubtedly a spot in a decisive position. But it alone has Prussianism as a fact within itself. With this treasure of exemplary Being it may become the “educator” of the “white” world, and perhaps its saviour.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Spengler distinguishes between 'old' and 'young' nations, nations which are used up and nations which still possess something in the way of possibilities. He correctly points out that England belongs in the category of the used-up. Seventy-five years after its 'victory' in the war, it has earned itself the reputation as the most 'pozzed' (to use Alt-Right parlance) nation in Europe, an Orwellian and totalitarian nightmare state... It is this undeniable fact that makes Queen Elizabeth's <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/05/09/queen-honours-war-dead-they-died-so-we-could-live-free-people/">statement</a> on the British war dead, 'They died so we could live as free people', so ironic.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">But does Germany still qualify as an exemplar, an educator, a potential saviour? Spengler in these passages exhibits a certain German self-confidence, one might say arrogance - the same German arrogance one finds in the Nazis in hundreds of Hollywood war movies. It did exist, it was real - it was not a mere figment of the imagination of the anti-German war propagandists (in both world wars). General Otto Remer, in his post-war memoirs, comes across as thoughtful and introspective man, but in his wartime footage, a strutting cockerel. He had that 'Nazi' look, that mien, that swagger. But, seventy-five years after the war, we can safely surmise that the Germans have had that self-confidence driven out of them, and with it, the 'Prussianism'. And the results we all know...</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In his anti-Nazi book <u>The War Against the West</u> (1938), the Jewish intellectual Aurel Kolnai examines the ideas of a German nationalist, Franz Haiser, who believes that 'Germany many needs the Man who will knock down all unmanageable fellows, all "personalities". The Man to Come, he writes (1926), must be a man of action, he must even have something in common with "adventurers" and "brigands"' - in other words, a Jack the Lad. We must ask the Germans: where is that Jack the Lad today? The German will retort, 'Gone', because 'We tried Haiser's ideas, and they didn't work'. In the jargon of the evolutionary biologists, Germany (in both wars) undertook a high-risk, high-reward strategy - one which failed, hence the disappearance of the leaders like unto 'adventurers' and 'brigands'.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I argue that it is not so much the failure but the knowledge of that failure which has affected Germany's self-assurance the most. In the decades following the end of the war, revisionists (starting with Austin J. App) shone a light on the horrors meted out to the German population by the Allies, the Soviets, the Czechs, the Poles after the German surrender. Now in 2020 we know more than ever how the Germans suffered (and also the people who helped them during the war - the French, Italians, Yugoslavs) in that dark period of Europe's history. But this knowledge has only served to demoralise the Germans and the people who would follow them into battle: would Leon Degrelle have signed up with the Germans had he received, through a time machine, a copy of Thomas Goodrich's <u>Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 </u>(2010)? After years of revisionist education, the self-image of the German-as-Nazi, the German-as-soldier, has become transformed. The Jack the Lad had been turned into a victim.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">III.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In the<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idP5-vtkhBE"> famous scene</a> in <u>The Godfather</u> (1972), the singer Johnny Fontane (a character modeled on Frank Sinatra) pours out a litany of woe to his godfather, Don Corleone, who snaps back: 'Be a man!'. Today's blackpilled German nationalists, and today's sympathisers with German nationalism, remind me of Fontane. 'Everyone hates our ideas... The Jews are too strong... They've forced us to submit to their Holocaust story, which is nothing more than <a href="https://wehrmachtcandy.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-mystical-sand-book-holocaust.html">Jewish religious gibberish</a>... Germans won't listen to us anymore, they only want to get on with their lives... We're not relevant any more... I've read "Hellstorm" and now I'm depressed... I'm weak, weak...'.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">We on the Right hold to racialist and hereditarian beliefs which teach us, above all, that people do not change and that they always revert to type. This doctrine should not be suspended in the case of Germany. It will reassert itself, and gain ascendancy - its natural ascendancy - on the Continent, and the nations of Western and Eastern Europe will look to it for leadership. This will occur over time as the grip of America and England loosens. In three years, America will mark another anniversary - the 90 years since the 'American Revolution of 1933', nearly a hundred years of Jewish rule! But what is a hundred years from the viewpoint of history? The Germans, the French, the Italians, the Spanish, have been on the Continent for a long time and have endured far worse than the years 1944 to 1947... </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Spengler makes the prediction that this current age - the age of liberalism, materialism, rationalism, the age of the rule of the money-power and the trade-union barons and the city-pavement intellectuals - will come to end, and the new age, the age of Caesarism, will commence, and according to his tables in the <u>Decline</u>, unfold over the course of the next two hundred years. Again, this fits in with the Far Right's racialism and hereditarianism. The message is that the West cannot escape its destiny; it cannot avoid the fate of the seven Cultures that preceded it. Spengler, wisely, did not give much in the way of detail as to the future, but suffice to say, the American ideals of liberty, equality, democracy, the rule of law and the rights of man, will not carry over into the new Imperium. And that is good news for Germany, and for 'Prussian Socialism', and for Europe (as Spengler points out, 'Prussianism' is not confined to Germany). I think that the signs of coming Caesarism are apparent even in the supposedly authoritarian Trump, and this is one of the reasons why the Left despises him so much. The tremors we feel in 2020, which signify a coming earthquake, puts the lie to the notion, spread by Hitler's detractors on the Far Right, that 'We cannot return to the politics of the 1920s and 1930s'.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The bad news is that Germans lost millions during the war and after - men, women and children of that fine racial stock that Spengler rhapsodises over. (Plenty of German newsreels from the war can be found on YouTube, and something that strikes me is how physically healthy these people are, how good looking, how beautiful). Additional bad news is that what Spengler calls 'race' and 'blood' will out over time, but time, a precious commodity, is in short supply for Europe. Given the speed of the 'great replacement', it is not inconceivable that within fifty to a hundred years the whites of Western Europe will wind up in the same position as the whites of South Africa.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Only Germany can prevent that. Yes, Germany cannot go it alone, and Germany needs a united Europe - as the post-war architects of European unity (Mosley, Yockey, Evola, Thiriart) asserted; at the same time, a proud, dignified, united Europe cannot come about with a humble, prostrate Germany at its center.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-51583113031117113302020-04-03T05:17:00.000-07:002020-04-04T20:17:01.185-07:00The Perils of Victimhood: on Master Races and National Bolsheviks<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9fjgHVMZTCM9B8F7TWath3j9h6Anx2nLiISgi5nCwzzGH2HPUuHManwniwEg-Twxo_fm44WxT91rUJtHZQ-i1jNkD7vXi7NdAkQLTeV4pU8ScFAKww0fi6dojhLBW3-XRps9nNfEECq7E/s1600/ae6zf75mfd841.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="795" data-original-width="551" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9fjgHVMZTCM9B8F7TWath3j9h6Anx2nLiISgi5nCwzzGH2HPUuHManwniwEg-Twxo_fm44WxT91rUJtHZQ-i1jNkD7vXi7NdAkQLTeV4pU8ScFAKww0fi6dojhLBW3-XRps9nNfEECq7E/s400/ae6zf75mfd841.jpg" width="276" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">
I.<br />
<br />
In reading <u><a href="https://archive.org/details/heelofconqueror0000unse">Heel of the Conqueror</a></u> (1991), a Time-Life book on the German occupation of Western Europe, I came across this choice quote on the German expulsions of French nationals from the contested province of Alsace-Lorraine:<br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">
Wagner expelled 105,000 Jews and pro-French citizens into unoccupied France; Bürckel prepared a similar exodus involving another 100,000 people. </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">
The deportations caused a minor uproar in high Nazi circles. Although the Führer approved the action, Himmler did not. Charging Wagner and Bürckel with wastefully giving away redeemable racial stock to Germany's age-old enemy, the SS chieftain drew up new resettlement guidelines based on what he considered to be proper Nazi principles. Henceforward, he said, Wagner and Bürckel should expel only the lesser breeds, meaning Jews, Gypsies, blacks, criminals, the mentally ill, and 'all other trash that does not belong to us on the basis of blood'. Alsatians and Lorrainers with proper lineage but improper political ideas were to be resettled in Germany or in eastern Europe where they could acquire appreciation for national socialism. Those who persisted in proclaiming loyalty to France were to be sent to concentration camps. </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">
The exigencies of the war in Russia postponed the full enactment of Himmler's fantastic scheme... </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
In defence of the Germans, Germany, in expelling the French from Alsace-Lorraine, was paying them back for the expulsion of over a 100,000 Germans by the French after WWI. The depressing reality of Europe in the first half of the 20th century was that, if you wanted to improve the lot of your country, you felt it best if you were to annex part of another, expel all or part of its people and repopulate it with some of your own. That was how things were done.<br />
<br />
More important to me is the question: is the Himmler quote is genuine? We know that the Americans, Russians, and British forged an enormous number of documents - including speeches and directives of Nazi leaders - during the war and afterwards (mainly for use in the Nuremberg trials), in what was to become the biggest lie factory in history. Most authors on the war - authors whose books flood our shelves - have accepted all of these without demur (Goebbels' diaries, which are probably forged, have formed the basis of innumerable books on the Third Reich, including those of David Irving, an author who is supposedly a 'revisionist').<br />
<br />
After some thought, I am inclined to think that the Himmler quotation is true, not invented. And my response to it is: what's not to like? Far Right nationalists in Europe - and its colonies - all agree on the need to expel the millions of Africans, Muslims and Asians from the Continent; they believe that, in particular, careful attention needs to be paid to the cities of Rome, Amsterdam, Paris, Berlin, Stockholm, Athens... They only diverge on one point: where the Jews fit in. The Zio-populists believe that the colossal feat of the European <i>Reconquista</i> can be undertaken without mentioning the Jewish question; at the least, they believe it can be undertaken with European Jewry's tacit approval. The other faction of the Far Right, the anti-Semitic, believes that nothing can be accomplished without tackling the Jewish question first.<br />
<br />
Let us return, though, to WWII. In <u>Spoil of Europe</u>, a 1941 book by Thomas Reveille on German-occupied Western Europe, <a href="https://archive.org/details/TheSpoilOfEurope/page/n57/mode/2up">we find</a> :<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">
At the other end of the caste system, and next removed from the lowest species, would be "Negroid" peoples; in <span style="font-style: italic;">Mein Kampf </span>Hitler asserts that a fair number of Frenchmen are of this type. This theme was taken up with great vigour by the German press and periodicals during the summer and autumn of 1940. Even supposedly technical periodicals, such as the <span style="font-style: italic;">Deutsche Volkswirt</span> , had special review columns, headed "<span style="font-style: italic;">Frankreich gegen die Zivilisation</span>" (France Against Civilization), devoted to pamphlets and books describing France as the center of world prostitution, trade in narcotics, and Negroid development. In the hope of forestalling serious German measures, the Vichy regime has expelled from Metropolitan France Algerians, Moroccans, Arabs, and Negroes.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
By the time of the outbreak of the war, France had earned the dubious distinction as the most 'pozzed' (to use Alt Right parlance) country in Europe. Alone of all the nations in Western Europe - which was ethnically homogeneous at the time - France had tolerated, and even encouraged, the formation of a sizable non-white immigrant population. By 1941 France changed her mind, but only because of her defeat and occupation by the Germans. Vichy made the French cities free of non-whites, for the first, and last, time in the 20th century (we can assume that the non-whites were allowed to return to the cities after the American and British 'liberation').<br />
<br />
So, from the dissident Right, something good came out of a bad war. Another example: the wartime German treatment of France's foremost minority - the Jews. The OSS (the Office of Strategic Services, the precursor of the CIA) wrote a classified wartime report 'German Military Government over Europe, 1939-1943' (1944) which can be found <a href="https://archive.org/details/germanmilitarygo00unit">here</a>. In the section 'German anti-Jewish legislation in occupied France and Alsace-Lorraine', the OSS <a href="https://archive.org/details/germanmilitarygo00unit/page/76">writes</a> :<br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">
On 21 and 27 August 1940 Gestapo agents in Paris made the rounds of the leading Jewish organizations, including the Jorid Jewish Congress, the Jewish National Fund, and the <span style="font-style: italic;">Ecole Rabbinique</span>. On 3 and 28 November the offices of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Alliance Israelite Universelle</span> and of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency were raided, and some sixty thousand volumes from the libraries of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Alliance</span> and the <span style="font-style: italic;">Ecole Rabbinique</span> were removed to the Institute for Research on the Jewish Problem in Frankfort.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
The Germans here were behaving in a 'based' (again, to use Alt Right parlance) manner. You expect, then, the professional anti-Semites in the dissident Right movement - the Greg Johnsons, Kevin MacDonalds, Hunter Wallaces - to be full of praise as a consequence for Hitler, the NSDAP and the Germans in WWII, but alas, they are not. They do not see the German 'New Order' in Europe to be a model. This suggests to me that they are interested only in the problem, not the solution.<br />
<br />
'Solution' here is the key word. It requires, when applied to Europe's Jewish question, and Muslim question, and African question, pragmatist, instrumentalist thinking. It becomes a matter of technics: if you have snow in your driveway, you need a shovel to clear it. And the example of Europe in WWII shows us that a precedent exists for the moving of millions of people around Western Europe. Europe does possess the logistical capability, it has demonstrated it.<br />
<br />
Thought such as this naturally suggests political clichés along the lines of, 'Yes, we can do it, but do we have to will?'. No one denies that, in the aforementioned example, France could have expelled the non-whites from the cities before the Germans came; But it did not, because it did not want to; it liked having the non-whites there; it lacked the will to expel them.<br />
<br />
A newly-found French resolve in this case proved to be decisive, as did institutions such as the Wehrmacht and the Gestapo, as did war (Hitler reflected that the war helped him accomplish much more, domestically and abroad, than during peacetime; in that regard, he was fond of quoting the Greek philosopher Heraclitus: 'War is the father of all things'). The Allies and the Soviets understood all this, which is they expended so much effort, after their victory, in <a href="https://wehrmachtcandy.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-dark-tower-apologetics-for-neo.html">destroying all traces</a> of 'Prussianism' and 'Prussian militarism'. The great institution of the German army itself was wiped out, although for decades after the war ghostly after-images of it lingered in the East <a href="https://youtu.be/qmQZX4wmAIM">German Nationale Volksarmee</a>.<br />
<br />
This brings us to the concept of what I call the package deal. It is unlikely, at this juncture, that the conservatives of the Boris Johnson ilk will be able to make Europe's capital cities white again; ditto the populists of the Salvini and Orban ilk. Suit-and-tie conservatism, whether centrist or populist, has not shown the capacity to deport millions of Africans, Muslims, Indians and Asians who invaded and occupied Europe after the war; indeed, that conservatism struggles, for the most part, to keep even the illegal of these immigrants out. Only the Germans, and the Germans of WWII at that, have proven to be capable of moving around non-Europeans around Europe. And the Germans, at the time, acted under the aegis of German or 'Prussian' militarism, which, if we are to make Europe white again, needs to be resurrected. The fulfillment of one demand depends upon the fulfillment of the other.<br />
<br />
As noted in my last article, war (in Europe at least) has entered a new era in the 21st century: any war against the non-whites of Europe will be waged by the 'dregs of war', and this war will be so limited as not to be called war. But such an evolution does not preclude standing armies in the tradition of WWI and WWII. As the need arose, the Germans, before and during WWII, formed and built up a variety of paramilitaries and conventional armies. The Brownshirts, or SA, were tasked with ridding Germany of communists up until and after Hitler's ascent to power; the Waffen-SS was conceived first as a bodyguard for Hitler and a German conventional fighting force, and then a pan-European one; anti-communist forces, such as the Police Battalions in Greece, were organised to destroy resistance fighters and communist partisans... To go by history, then, we can imagine, in a future Europe, three armies: a conventional standing army, to defend Europe against Russia; a paramilitary, to quash the communist Left; an army of the 'dregs', to round up and turf out the Muslim, African and Indian invaders. Perhaps the second of these, the Brownshirt or Blackshirt-style paramilitary, will not be needed, given the extraordinary political (and military) weakness of the European Left after the collapse of communism in 1991; as the anti-Hitlerians in the Far Right never tire of reminding us, 'It's not the 1930s any more'. (It should be remembered that the SA, after 1933, by and large had outlived their usefulness - they had become a political and military liability by 1934).<br />
<br />
The argument against this view always is: the spirit of the past - even the past of a not-so-distant 75 years ago - cannot be brought back. This objection, at first sight, expresses a common-sense 'realism', but is, in fact, rooted in ideology. Yockey observes in <u>The Enemy of Europe</u> (1953) that both the USSR and USA 'believe it possible to attain a static world-order in which History would have ceased exist'. That is to say, the West cannot possibly improve upon what America and Russia have accomplished: the door to any further development has been closed. The conclusion to be drawn from this is, naturally, that America and Russia's victory in WWII means that Europe will never see the reappearance of anything 'fashy' again.<br />
<br />
Certainly, to judge by present events - and the events of the past 75 years - one must conclude that the Americans and Russians are right: the realists and pessimists have founded their view upon the facts - the brute facts. But this illustrates only a difference in perception. Spengler and his disciple Yockey perceived the shape of things to come, whereas the realists only perceive what is put in front of them. One side derives its worldview from the evidence of the senses, the other, from intuition. We on the Far Right have, in the modern era, tilted the scales to the realist side and have neglected the idealist. That explains why now we have taken such a pessimistic view of life in the West, seeing it as a prison from which there is no escape.<br />
<br />
II.<br />
<br />
The opponents of the Far Right dislike our anti-Semitism, naturally enough, but they dislike it even more when it threatens to become political - that is, political in Carl Schmitt's sense, in that it makes a distinction between Friend and Foe. It is one thing when anti-Semites write screeds and propagate memes; it is another when they seek to get into an actual position of power. This explains one of the reasons why the National Socialists and their allies were so despised, and that is because they actually did something about the Jewish question. The Far Left, and the Center, resist this 'doing something' because they understand that it meant curtains for them - the 'Jew fawners' as William Pierce used to call them; the Far Right, on the other hand, resists on the principle that - absurdly - nothing should be done. The modern-day anti-Semite's kingdom is not of this world. The real-world and political attempts to enact anti-Semitic strictures, in Europe from 1939 to 1945, created chaos and dissolved traditions of long standing. The Far Right today is opposed to this chaos, and moreover, it does not want to assume the responsibility, the burden, that comes with office. It prefers to snipe from the sidelines.<br />
<br />
This explains, in part, the attraction the Far Right feels towards National Bolshevism and National Bolshevism's heroes in the struggle against USA, 'The West' and the 'New World Order': Ghaddafi, Milosevic, Hussein, Putin, Chavez, Maduro, Assad... The National Bolshevik sees himself and the 'Axis of Resistance' as the underdog. Despite the fact that many of his heroes - the Mullahs of Iran and Putin of Russia - have held power, with an iron grip, for many decades, and could be described euphemistically as authoritarian, he sees himself as a rebel; despite the fact that they have accumulated obscene amounts of wealth, he sees himself as a socialist. He feels a resentment against the US - in particular against any of its authority and father figures, a resentment which a psychoanalyst would describe as Oedipal. That makes a perfect fit with the ideology of the 'Axis of Resistance': its leaders still a bear a grudge against 'Western imperialism', even though that ceased to exist (or at least ceased to function with good conscience) over a hundred years ago, as the downfall of the West probably could be traced back to the time of the end of WWI.<br />
<br />
But it is not as though that the US, UK and Israel defend the West and the 'Axis of Resistance' ranges itself against it. As Yockey never ceased to iterate, America is a Jewish controlled entity - Jewry forms the mind, America the body - and it opposes the West as much as the 'Axis of Resistance' does. Both the USA and USSR formed, in Yockey's words, a 'concert of Bolshevism'.<br />
<br />
Incongruous as it sounds, both Judeo-America and Israel see themselves as the oppressed, not the oppressor. (Zionism, as an ideology, has its roots in progressivism, liberalism, and nationalism (which itself began life as a left-wing idea)). And who is on the receiving end of the anti-authoritarian imprecations of Judeo-America? Who plays the role of the demonic and authoritarian father figure? The answer is of course Hitler. This can be easily revealed by a survey of all the Anglo-Jewish propaganda of the past eighty-five years. How many of the books published since then concern tricking, hoodwinking, evading, escaping Hitler and the Nazis: as if Hitler were some vengeful and demonic father god, who, like Jahweh or Saturn, punishes his worshipers and devours his children.<br />
<br />
In contrast, Hitler - and before him, Kaiser Wilhelm - never, in their speeches, took up the mantle of the underdog: they saw themselves as the equal, not the inferior, of their opponents. And this is understandable, as Germany - along with France, Spain, Italy, France, England - is to be identified with the West: it is no 'Bolshevik' nation rebelling against Western imperialism, it <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> Western imperialism. Because, by the time of the beginning of WWII, Germany had occupied more than was occupied, it took a dim view of guerrillas, partisans, irregulars, <span style="font-style: italic;">francs-tireurs</span>, rebels, 'patriots' and 'nationalists' fighting for independence against a foreign oppressor. (Nationalism of this sort and guerrilla warfare go together, as Carl Schmitt I think has shown in his classic study, <u>The</u><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><u>Theory of the Partisan</u> (1962)).<br />
<br />
(Germany's ally in the war, Imperial Japan, did take up the underdog mantle: it saw itself as leading a 'Bolshevik' (in Yockey's sense) crusade against the West, which would culminate in the white's man ejection from Asia and the building of a 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere').<br />
<br />
On this subject, when reading Anglo-Saxon publications from the war, one notices an English and American obsession with the National Socialist concept of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Herrenvolk</span>, a word which is (deliberately) mistranslated into English as 'Master Race' but in reality means 'Gentlemanly people' or 'Lordly people'. The Anglo authors are irked no end by this word: to them it signifies an infernal German arrogance. How dare the Germans believe that they are to be situated above the Poles, the Czechs, the Ukrainians? The insolent German pride had to be broken - among other things by putting the German leadership on trial for 'war crimes'. (The Allies demanded a trial during both WWI and WWII, but only after the latter was their demand met).<br />
<br />
But if one wants to rule over people from other lands, one must believe in one's right to rule. One needs to believe in one's worth. In other words, self-confidence, bordering on arrogance, is required. If that quality had been missing in the Anglo-Saxons, then the Dravidians of India would never have been suborned and administered by a handful of British, the blacks of the American South and the Caribbean by a handful of white men.<br />
<br />
Yockey writes, 'All politics is an activity related to power'. Politics can be compared to a game: you want power, the other man has it, so you 'strike him down' (in Yockey's words) and appropriate it. The dissident Right (for the most part) agrees that Jewry has accumulated a great deal of power in the West, but does it want to take that power from Jewry? Or does it want to be the perpetual complainant and rebel...<br />
<br />
If the dissident Right chooses the former course of action, it must follow the example of the Germans in WWII. For as Ernst Zündel - normally a pacifistic and idealist man - once remarked, in that time the Germans, and the peoples of Europe, for once, and once only, had the upper hand over Jewry; they were the subject, not the object. And Jewry has never forgotten, which is why they have kept a watchful eye on the neofascists in Europe and the nativists in America for the past 75 years. (This ties in with the Jewish mentality in Israel: despite being one of the richest countries in the Middle East, and the most powerful military, Israel still sees itself as an injured party 'oppressed' by the Palestinians).<br />
<br />
The Germans, from 1933 to 1945, were faced with an existential choice - to be or not to be - in relation to Jewry: were they to be the master or the servant? They chose to be the master. In doing so, they knew they were kicking a hornet's nest, flying into a storm; they recognised that the spirit of the age - of Masonry, liberalism, 'Jew-fawning', tolerance of the alien, - was against them; but nevertheless, they staked all on the one claim. And for this, they never received gratitude from the Far Right: 'Why did you invade Poland? You should have stopped at Czechoslovakia - or Austria'. All the same, the Far Right (particularly in America) will need to study their example.<br />
<br />
Much of all this depends upon psychology. In the <u>Genealogy of Morality</u> (1887), Nietzsche sketches out his famous theory of Master and Slave morality - a theory that the dissident Right is by and large enamored of. The most important aspect of Nietzsche's idea is that yes, while it is the case that the being, the character, of the Master and the Slave determine their qualities, individual choice plays a part as well. To transpose the theory into the modern era (and a transposition is needed, as in Nietzsche and Hegel the encounter between the Master and the Slave takes place in some primeval past), we see that Masters and Slaves choose to be so: they act upon their better or lesser angels. The Far Right can, in effect, talk itself into being a Master or a Slave - into being either the rebel Spartacus or the emperor Augustus. So far, under the influence of National Bolshevism, they have opted for Spartacus.<br />
<br />
III.<br />
<br />
This brings us to a related question. Before, during and after the war, the Germans, the 'master race', were victimised to an extraordinary degree. This has been chronicled by a multitude of revisionist-minded authors, among them to be counted are Austin J. App (one of the earliest writers to tackle the subject) and the most famous Thomas Goodrich (one of the latest). But, it goes without saying, all this material makes depressing reading. Joe Owens, the British nationalist, observed that, to judge by <u>Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947</u> (2010), German nationalism - and by extension any Far Right and European nationalism - leads to economic ruin, misery, poverty, destruction. One has to ask, then, does the <u>Hellstorm</u> thesis in fact serve as propaganda against nationalism and the Far Right, and could it be that this propaganda in its demoralising power is more effective than the Jewish, liberal, 'anti-racist' and 'anti-fascist' sort?<br />
<br />
In Nietzsche's narrative, the Master is tricked into adopting the morality of the Slave. Prior to his encounter with the Slave, the Master values strength, mastery, pride, a belief in his good fortune and the ability to surmount all obstacles with ease. He begins to doubt, however, his self-worth and think of himself small, weak, insignificant, unlucky, after exposure to the toxic Slave morality. He becomes transformed. He no longer sees himself as the hammer, but the anvil, in the words of Bülow's <a href="https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/B%C3%BClow%27s_%27Hammer_and_Anvil%27_Speech_before_the_Reichstag_(The_English_Translation)">famous speech</a>.<br />
<br />
Whereas the Master is poisoned by the morality of the Slave, the dissident Rightist is poisoned by the morality of the victim - or rather, the morality of victimology. Reading of the tremendous suffering of the Germans - and the nations that helped them (Italy, France, Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary) - in the aftermath of the war lowers one's morale. Why embark on the nationalist venture, why challenge Jewish (and Masonic, and liberal, and Marxist) power if it leads to one's cities being turned into rubble, and to one's people being starved, impoverished, immiserised, enslaved, raped, murdered? Far better to follow the example of Joe Owens, and campaign for local government on promises of improved bin collection; throw your weight behind a third party (the Brexit Party) which goes nowhere; better yet, found your own 'British nationalist' party (after all, Britain can't have too many of those): that is the pragmatic, sensible way of going about things.<br />
<br />After contemplating the horrors of <u>Hellstorm</u>, one must ask what the political use of it all is: does victimology bring benefits? Jewry has proven to be adept at exploiting its victim status in WWII (as have China and Russia); its suffering won for it an entire country - Israel. But Western countries, such as Germany, cannot play the victim as well as Jewry. For one, Germany will always be placed at the bottom of the list of people who suffered the most during the war, Jewry always at the top. And Germany, like Britain, or France, or Italy, or Portugal or any other Western country which had arrogated colonies to itself, is temperamentally unsuited to seeing itself as a poor, downtrodden, weak, suffering and brutalised nation, despite the fact that it, out of all the Western European countries, lost the most people during and after the war.<br />
<br />
This explains why National Bolshevism can never succeed in Germany or any other Western European country. On a subconscious level, the Western countries know that the incendiary 'Bolshevik' (in Yockey's sense) rhetoric of the Slobodon Milosevics, Saddam Husseins, Muammar Ghaddafis, Aleksander Dugins, is aimed at them. In the eyes of these men, Europe and its colonies have bullied, oppressed and exploited the coloured world. The achievements of white Australians, for instance, count for nothing, as Australia, rightly understood, is a nation of convicts and murderers of aboriginals.<br />
<br />
In the world view of Yockey's 'Bolshevik' - which is the same as that of the contemporary Left - the German stands at the top of the hierarchy of bullies. The Anglo-Saxon of WWI acted as the midwife to this conception, which is now a hundred years old: the war was portrayed as a life and death struggle between Anglo-Saxon freedom and German tyranny, and between Anglo-Saxon respect for human life and 'Prussian' contempt.<br />
<br />
In the end, the German is unable to shake this national self-image off: he cannot exchange the role of the wolf for that of the lamb. This is especially the case in view of the events of WWII. Many of the countries allied with the Germans during the war strove afterwards to absolve themselves of accusations of wrongdoing against the Jews by making the argument, 'It wasn't us, it was the Germans'. The Germans themselves cannot use that argument. In the words of Harry Truman, 'The buck stops here'.<br />
<br />
IV.<br />
<br />
In a recent article on <a href="http://www.renegadetribune.com/were-under-attack-by-brian-ruhe-and-his-circus-crew/">Brian Ruhe</a>, we find one commentator exclaiming, 'Man, what in the names of the Gods is going on here?'; another replies, 'Nazbols, that’s what’s going on. They’re sick in the head'.<br />
<br />
National Bolshevism exerts a grip on the impressionable minds of many in the nationalist movement, and one has to ask why. After some reflection, I believe I have come up with the answer, and this is what I call the 'theory of baggage'.<br />
<br />
Once you buy into 'neofascism' or 'Neo-Nazism', you are in effect assuming the debts of not only the Third Reich but the entire German people: you are buying into 'Germanism', 'Teutonism', 'Prussian Socialism' (as Spengler calls it), and must, as a consequence, justify nearly everything that the Germans and their helpers did before and during the war. One thereby shoulders a heavy burden. But the heaviness of one's load gives one an advantage, as I will demonstrate.<br />
<br />
Suppose you are an international traveler about to board a plane. As you are wheeling your bags through the terminal, a Russian traveler notices you and remarks that you have plenty of space left over in your suitcase. Would it be too much trouble, he asks, if you can make room for one item that he wants you to carry? The item is marked 'Syrian War'. Agreeing with him that indeed you have too much room, you cheerfully assent. He then asks you to carry a second item: 'Ukrainian War'. And then another two: 'Georgian War' and 'Chechen War'. It goes without saying that soon you will be encumbered with Russian gear - all of it impeccably 'anti-imperialist' and 'anti-Zionist' and 'anti-NWO', but a hindrance nonetheless. And by taking on Russian obligations, you have marked yourself out as a fellow traveler with National Bolshevism.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, suppose you are a sincere, committed 'Neo-Nazi' - not a Strasserite or some other permutation, but someone who follows (more or less) the Hitler party line. When approached by a mysterious Russian asking you to carry things for him, you'll reply, 'Sorry - <span style="font-style: italic;">I've too much baggage</span>'.<br />
<br />
Movement people only become National Bolshevist because of a vacuity - too much empty space in their luggage. Whereas mainline fascism of the old school (with no Strasserite deviations) fills up all spaces: it is a plenum, not a vacuum. And it represents the furthest advance in Far Right ideology up to, and including, WWII. But because any open espousal of it places you, as an activist, in danger, most Far Rightists find it too hot to handle. The result is that they contrive substitute ideologies, such as Identitarianism and Southern nationalism, which lack content. One does not go far with stop gap ideas, which is why, for example, Hunter Wallace abandoned Southern nationalism - there simply was not much to it. The other flaw with makeshift ideas is that they leave you open and vulnerable to the blandishments of the Putins, Ghaddafis and other high-octane salesman who, in the last analysis, stand for nothing except crude despotism and personal power.<br />
<br />
One might object Russia (and China, another country touted by the Naz Bols) wield the upper hand: the Putins and Xis run actual states, with actual armies, whereas I - and other like me - are dreamer intellectuals in the same position as, say, an Ernst Jünger or Arther Moeller van den Bruck between the wars. One cannot deny that, in comparison to Hitler and Mussolini, Putin and the Chinese communists, show real staying power. One cannot argue with material success.<br />
<br />
My response to that is that a difference exists (as mentioned before) between a politics derived from the senses and from intuition. We can either live in accordance with what is present before us or what may come to be. The Spenglers and Yockeys take after the latter, not the former. They encourage us to dare to dream, and take a gamble on what is <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> present before us. And without trances and vagaries, nothing is accomplished. One must remember that, before he founded the SS, Himmler was a chicken farmer...<br />
</span>Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-62561673605179916532020-03-28T18:06:00.000-07:002020-03-29T06:23:26.535-07:00Coronavirus Keynesians kill the Trump economy<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoPEtLsu8lxSatx0jheRdudmGlub0lkooPbFaJDfPmmdCnIAHY1zhA4w3SPyI5KEqXD63X2tZtaG-yxOjvW-CynOXUeF9K7E-_0XCBOx2zNc6Umg5xSlsXyH2rVH01nsosPkZOF_oknj5h/s1600/Annotation+2020-03-29+114357.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="583" data-original-width="847" height="440" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoPEtLsu8lxSatx0jheRdudmGlub0lkooPbFaJDfPmmdCnIAHY1zhA4w3SPyI5KEqXD63X2tZtaG-yxOjvW-CynOXUeF9K7E-_0XCBOx2zNc6Umg5xSlsXyH2rVH01nsosPkZOF_oknj5h/s640/Annotation+2020-03-29+114357.png" width="640" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Since my <a href="https://wehrmachtcandy.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-trump-recession-its-already-here.html">last article</a> on Trump and the economy, the DJIA has deteriorated even further. Above we have a <a href="https://www.macrotrends.net/1378/dow-to-gold-ratio-100-year-historical-chart">chart</a> which shows the DJIA's worth in gold. At the peak of the Trump boom (in September 2018), the DJIA stood at 22 ounces; now it stands at 13 - all the gains of the Trump years have been wiped out completely . </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">As to why the Dow / gold ratio matters, I'll go over (once again) the basics of the supply side model. The first axiom is that gold is money, and has been for thousands of years. While today the dollar price of gold does go up and down wildly, rightly considered, this is the dollar going down (or up) in terms of gold, not the other way around. Gold is the constant, the dollar the variable. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The DJIA represents the value of America's capital stock, adjusted for future earnings, and to ascertain the true worth of the DJIA, we must divide it by the price of gold. (In the same way, the worth of almost anything - a pack of cigarettes, for example, or a nuclear submarine - can be expressed as a fraction or a multiple of an ounce of gold). </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">One important point made by the supply-siders is that the Dow / gold ratio reflects not what that American capital stock is worth now, but what it will be worth in the future. It is discounted to the present, meaning that all possible future information regarding earnings has been taken into account by the DJIA's price that day. The principle of the wisdom of crowds operates here: an individual investor, picked out at random, may gauge the worth of the DJIA inaccurately, but the investors in the aggregate always get it right. They made the correct assessment of the DJIA's worth in October 1987, and in October 1929. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">So why is the DJIA crashing? The supply-side model gives us three possible explanations for a severe market downturn. The first is bad fiscal or regulatory policy: a threatened hike in taxes or tariffs, or in an increase in regulation, can derail the market. The same result can be brought about by bad monetary policy, e.g., a devaluation of the dollar. The third explanation concerns the geopolitical: a nuclear war breaking out tomorrow will most certainly sink stocks. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The supply-sider John Tamny wrote an <a href="https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2020/02/27/surprise_leads_to_market_corrections_coronavirus_wasnt_a_surprise_485356.html">article</a> blaming the February 2020 crash on Bernie Sanders' success in the Democratic Party primaries. Much as changed since then - Sanders' star has waned - so why has the market continued to collapse? The answer lies the aforementioned reason: bad regulatory policy, in this instance caused by the adoption of disproportionate anti-Coronavirus measures. In effect, the US government is forbidding people to work. Producers cannot supply goods and services, and in the supply-side model, that is devastating. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Some of Trump's circle of supply-side advisers - Larry Kudlow, Steve Moore, Steve Forbes - are urging to Trump ramp down the restrictions, and any market rebounds of the past few weeks perhaps can be attributed to Trump's showing signs of relenting. (Certainly, the markets have ignored the Keynesian $USD2 trillion spending bill: the day after it was passed, the DJIA closed down by 4%). Perhaps because of their closeness to Trump, the supply-side advisers have not pushed hard enough. Out of all the supply-siders, only John Tamny has fought like a hellion on <a href="https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2020/03/28/those_shutting_down_have_no_sense_of_the_cruelty_of_being_let_go_487719.html">behalf of those</a> who have been made unemployed and whose businesses have been damaged by the restrictions. Tamny has acted without restraint because he is not connected, so far as I can tell, to Trump. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Some on the dissident Right have welcomed the anti-virus measures because they will lead the death of globalisation, a reduction in non-white immigration, and so forth. But rest assured, the globalists still plan on bringing in plenty of non-white immigrants into the West this year (see <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/03/27/donald-trump-dhs-starts-to-import-85000-h-1b-graduate-gig-workers/">this article</a>, for example). There is no escape. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">And this violates the social contract written around the time that the politicians began their program of the 'great replacement', the 'white genocide'. Yes, the whites of Europe and its colonies may be dispossessed, and soon they are to be done away with altogether - that is the globalist plan - but they still enjoy a level of prosperity not experienced by previous generations and the freedom to buy whatever they want. They can shop to they drop. But take that right away, and the Western masses are left with nothing. The globalist masters, the elites, are not living up to their end of the bargain. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835230943958603715.post-45142902810357125892020-03-06T04:16:00.000-08:002020-03-08T01:13:31.316-08:00The Dark Tower: Apologetics for Neo-Fascism in 2020<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZs3SahGTW_fp1NNomTIb4195A9S7s_ZxG7v1oP6B8zckVIvxuqEZ4pB8vBmM7es4jCMe-DxXZgbDhkSBMluWomviZZXJTJ-9Vo9ETnEipDvj2qd5QDgFqYubqQzH36TfZLrg_DfsUjzrc/s1600/large_blade_runner_final_blu-ray_1x.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="770" data-original-width="1223" height="251" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZs3SahGTW_fp1NNomTIb4195A9S7s_ZxG7v1oP6B8zckVIvxuqEZ4pB8vBmM7es4jCMe-DxXZgbDhkSBMluWomviZZXJTJ-9Vo9ETnEipDvj2qd5QDgFqYubqQzH36TfZLrg_DfsUjzrc/s400/large_blade_runner_final_blu-ray_1x.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">1. 'Neo-Nazism' - the fortunes of a word</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">When I meet fellow members of the Far Right in person for the first time, I like to characterise my politics as 'Neo-Nazi'. I do this for two reasons: one, the word possesses shock value (and I confess that I like to shock) and two, usage of the term helps you get down to brass tacks fairly quickly - your position will not be be confused with that of one of the other disparate factions of the Right, e.g., the conservative. It is true that when you use the word 'Neo-Nazi', you are wielding a blunt instrument, and by calling yourself it, you run the risk of lumping yourself with some of the more unpleasant and embarrassing factions of the Far Right, namely the skinheads and the Rockwellians. But upon meeting you, your fellow Far Rightists will quickly see that you are not to be classified with Ian Stuart or George Lincoln Rockwell so long as you <i>a</i>) wear longish hair and <i>b</i>) do not wear a homemade Stormtrooper uniform. A normal hairstyle and set of clothing will suffice, by themselves, to make you appear in Far Right circles a sophisticated and genteel man.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Unfortunately, 'Nazi', as a word, has become perverted and distorted by the American Far Left. As we all know, after Trump's election, the Far Left went on a witch hunt against Trump voters and sought to smear them as 'Nazi'. The word no longer referred to the NSDAP (a German political party which had ceased to exist in 1945) nor to someone attempting to revive the NSDAP's doctrines: it was transformed into something polemical and became part of an invective aimed not at Germans or even Europeans, but Americans - in fact, any American to the Right of Hillary Clinton.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The American Left has performed this act of appropriation in the past. The American left-wing journalist Eric Norden wrote a novel in 1973 called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Solution">The Ultimate Solution</a>, a fantasy (much like Philip K. Dick's <u>Man in the High Castle</u> (1962)) which projects a German victory in WWII and an Axis takeover of America. In the novel, Norden turns the 'Nazis' into - Americans:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">The book is criticized as being too "farfetched", as many subjects in the book contradict real-life Nazism and some find it hard to believe that America could be occupied so easily. In the view of some critics, Norden – a radical opponent of the Vietnam War and other aspects of official US policies – might have meant to present to fellow Americans their reflection in "a very dark mirror" rather than portray a realistic alternate scenario of how World War II might have ended.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">In support of the latter view can be cited such features as that except for one German appearing briefly in the first chapter, all Nazis in the book are Americans, including the members of the SS and Gestapo, the concentration camp guards and commanders etc. Specifically, the commander of the extermination camp where the New York Jews were killed is presented as a kind of "All-American Boy", universally regarded as a hero, and who did it "not for hatred of Jews, but because it was a job which needed to be done". Further, these Nazis use typical colloquial American expressions while on their Nazi business; members of the New York Police Department use the term "The Feds" when referring to the Gestapo; and they are proud of the Reich's space program and of having landed the first man on the Moon.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">One can surmise that Norden was mainly targeting Americans, not Germans, with his absurd and grotesque propaganda screed. The past was altered to suit the needs of the present, politically speaking. Today's American leftists operate in much the same manner as Norden.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Similarly, communists in the period of the Cold War reworked the concept of 'fascism'. Communists used it to refer to, not to the Far Right regimes which flourished in Europe from 1922 to 1945, but to any political position which was both conservative and actively anti-communist. By this feat of legerdemain, communists in their polemics turned even mild and inoffensive figures such as Nixon and Reagan into 'fascists'. (Communists speak in code and use certain words and concepts (such as 'bourgeois', 'working class', 'fascist', 'racist', 'white supremacist') differently from the layman, and as a result, the uninitiated will find the communist oeuvre difficult to understand).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The contemporary misuse of the word 'Nazi' makes me inclined to cast about for a better, more appropriate word when describing my beliefs, and I wonder to myself: would the word 'fascist' serve me better? The answer to that is both yes and no. The layman takes 'fascism' to mean a loosely-bound collection of right-wing ideologies which held sway in the first half of the twentieth century and which comprised both German National Socialism and Italian Fascism. After the war, 'fascism', in lay-speak, refers to any regime - in the First World or the Third - which is right-wing and authoritarian. All well and good, but certain factions of the Right (the Counter-Currents faction, for example) which are opposed to Hitler and German National Socialism use 'fascism' as a means of distinguishing between 'good' leaders such as <a href="https://www.counter-currents.com/2020/01/the-fascism-we-lived-with/">Franco</a> and Mussolini from the 'bad' leader Hitler. (One must remember that up to the outbreak of the war, Mussolini was feted in the same Anglo-Saxon countries that Hitler was reviled).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">As Francis Parker Yockey observed, the word 'fascist' is a loaded one. In <u>Imperium</u> (1948), he chronicles how America applied it throughout the 1930s and 1940s to <i>a</i>) any regime that America disliked and <i>b</i>) any country that enjoyed friendly relations with Hitler's Germany at the time (both <i>a</i>) and <i>b</i>) were commensurate).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">This suggests that the much-mishandled term 'fascism', like that other nebulous term 'democracy', eludes precise definition and will forever do so. Much ink has been spilled on this by intellectuals who have attempted to come up with the 'fascist minimum', a bullet-pointed list of the key tenets of the 'fascist' doctrine. Others have taken a different route, arguing that 'fascism' should be understood not as a set of axioms but as an aesthetic.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">If the latter is the case, one has to ask: which nation, in the twentieth century, led the way in setting the tone for the 'fascist' aesthetic style? The answer is, naturally enough, Germany. What France did for women's fashions, Germany did for men's. The Germans in the first half of the twentieth century transformed politics into a visual medium, and this 'fascist chic' was rooted deep in German - and Prussian - history and culture. It is mainly for this reason that one cannot separate 'fascism' neither from the Germany of the Hitler years nor from the Germany of the hundreds of years before Hitler (both Yockey and Spengler lauded Mussolini as a honorary 'Prussian').</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Perhaps, following Yockey and Spengler, one can speak of a <span style="font-style: italic;">German Idea</span>. Before WWI, this Idea was called 'Pan-Germanism'; at the outbreak of WWI, 'Prussianism', 'Prussian Militarism'; in the Weimar Years, the 'Conservative Revolution' (see Armin Mohler's famous book of the same name); in the Hitler years, 'National Socialism', 'Nazism', 'Hitlerism'; in the years immediately after WWII, 'Prussian Socialism', 'Prussian Ethical-Socialism' (at this historical juncture Yockey revived Spengler's term for it); in more recent years, 'German nationalism', '<i>Deutscher Nationalismus</i>'. The last of these names for the Idea gives rise to the impression that the Idea is to be restricted to Germans only - an impression strengthened by Hitler's famous pronouncement that 'National Socialism is no article for export'. But this is contradicted by the fact that the Germans did a good deal of exporting of the Idea in both WWI and WWII. And today the Germans are being accused of wanting to do the same - by the British nationalists and conservatives who fought for Britain's departure from the European Union. (The EU, in the minds of British conspiracy theorists, is laying the foundations for a 'Fourth Reich', a 'European Super-State' dominated by Germany).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">After this brief sojourn through the history of an idea, the reader will agree, I think, that the concept 'Prussian Socialism' is beginning to take shape; an outline of it is beginning to form. We can now look at the arguments for and against. I intend here here to look at some of the objections made against it in my own article, '<a href="https://wehrmachtcandy.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-metalstorm-why-some-nationalists.html">The Metalstorm</a>'.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: grey;">2. </span>Argument the first: 'The masses don't want it'</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the masses of Germany - and the nations of Europe and its colonies (including America and Australia) - do not want 'Prussian Socialism' in any shape or form: one can make the rebuttal, quite cynically, that their wants and desires do not, in the last analysis, come into the question. After all, the masses did not want the tidal wave of non-white immigration that came to their shores after WWII, but they got it anyway; likewise, they did not want Greta Thunberg; nor did they want 'gender-neutral' toilets... The view of our reigning elites is: the will of the masses can be disregarded, and when important matters are being considered, it should be disregarded on principle.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Ironically enough, 'democracy', the bane of the Far Right in the thirties and forties, allows the masses to indulge their right-wing predilections and vote down, at every turn, communists running in elections: see the electoral defeats of the Far Left (which has hijacked the parties of the Center Left) in Britain, Germany, Sweden, France, Australia...</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">From that one may draw the pessimistic conclusion that the masses, in the West anyway, are content to stay within the bounds of 'normal' politics: that is, they will never vote for the Far Right, only the Center Right. The argument is that the masses want pragmatism. Even an economic calamity will not force them to move. Over the past few decades, we on the Far Right have taken up the Marxist thesis that economic collapse always brings about political collapse, a thesis which has been disproved by the example of Venezuela. Maduro may have ruined Venezuela, but he is still standing strong, and the peoples of Venezuela would rather flee than overthrow him (and fled they have, in the millions). The German economy at present is experiencing a downturn, but this will not translate into Germany's going 'fash', because of Germany's traditional resilience.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The Germans, for the past 75 years, have put up with an onerous tax - the Holocaust tax - which has been imposed upon them by America and international Jewry. While the Germans, deep down, may not believe that Germany during WWII exterminated the six million Jews, they are prepared to make obeisance to the Holocaust idea for the simple reason that their prostration makes them respectable. Economically, submission to Holocaust Exterminationism - and anti-anti-Semitism - allows Germany to survive: it grants them entry into European and world markets. But in the past five years, a new tax has been imposed by Merkel and German (and European) elites: the Muslim tax. (It is Germany's destiny, or curse, to be burdened - politically, economically, morally, socially, culturally - by the Semitic peoples). Will the mass invasion of Muslims finally budge the Germans? Time will tell.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The recent pseudo-scandal in <a href="https://www.amren.com/news/2020/02/kammerich-angela-merkel-german-elections-afd/">Thuringia</a> raises some interesting questions. In a minor piece of parliamentary horse-trading in a provincial legislature, the Far Right nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD) joined with the conservatives to deny a communist, Bodo Ramalow, the state premiership. This has caused an uproar in Germany and elicited a disproportionate response from Germany's ruling class.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In the German media, the AfD are forever being compared to the NSDAP, co-operation with them to co-operation with Hitler in the Weimar years, but the reality is that the AfD only takes the same positions as Merkel's 'conservative' CDU twenty years ago. The sustained and violent emotional reaction has led me to ask, Freudian-style, if some deeper desire - in the unconscious? - stands behind it. Could it be that the German political establishment is in denial and secretly wants the Nazis back? This would constitute an example of one the favourite themes of Hegel's philosophy, and that is of an idea that brings forth its own opposition before uniting with it in a synthesis.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The German communists spent forty years in office, the National Socialists, twelve: but no-one in the German establishment treats a return of communism as an impending danger, and the former east German communists, who have rebranded their party as <i>Die Linke</i> ('The Left'), are allowed to go about their business unmolested by the German state. The German establishment lacks confidence in the efficacy of 75 years of Allied and Jewish brainwashing: it takes a catastrophist view of 'Prussian Socialism' and sees Germany as always standing on the verge of a National Socialist comeback. This proves to me that in Germany, at least, that 'Prussian Socialism' is a live idea, not a dead one. The corollary of this is that the Germans, as a people, have not yet been beaten down and worn out.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: grey;">3. </span>Argument the second: 'No-one wants war'</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Anti-German propaganda from 1914 onward portrays Germany as a nation of maniacs who worship war and death. Anyone under the sway of such propaganda would conclude, naturally enough, that a reappearance of 'Prussian Socialism' in Germany would inevitably lead to another European and fratricidal war, and even if you do not yourself subscribe to anti-German propaganda, you must concede that plenty of powerful opinion-makers and politicians do, and that the mere presence of the anti-'Nazi' politicians in the governments of Britain, America, Russia, France, Poland, alone is enough to guarantee war. And this no German - not even the most ardent 'Neo-Nazi' - wants.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">One must concede that 'No-one wants war' is an effective argument. Its simplicity conceals its profundity. On the surface of it, it looks like a repeat of the hundred-year-old German war guilt thesis, but a closer inspection reveals that it contains something deeper.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The first of its hidden implications is that warfare has changed since the start of the 21st century. We probably never will see the large scale conventional battles, in the style of WWI and WWII, on European soil ever again. The future success of 'Prussian Socialism' presupposes a strong German - or pan-European - conventional standing army, but at the end of WWII, the centuries-old institutions of the German Army and the General Staff were destroyed and with them 'Prussian Militarism'. In 1933, Spengler wrote that 'Caesar's legions are returning to consciousness', which at the time was a true statement: Caesar had his legions and Napoleon his <i>Grande Armée</i>, and Hitler was about to have his Wehrmacht. But the traditional 'Prussian Militarism' shows no signs of coming back, and - fortunately for the cause of European peace - neither the British, German nor French armies in their present condition demonstrate the capacity to wage war against one another. At first sight, then, history has shown that Spengler's predictions did not come true - neither Spengler's nor Yockey's. In his last essay, 'The World in Flames' (1960), Yockey meditates on the possibility of the Cold War turning hot, and he attempts to anticipate what would occur were this war to break out. He held that it would be a war of both conventional armed forces and nuclear weapons and one waged between the USA and the USSR with Europe stuck in the middle. He believed that such a war was just around the corner, and he was quite reasonable, given the circumstances, in thinking so, but luckily for us, he turned out to be wrong.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">But a careful distinction must be made here. A war in Europe in the 21st century cannot be ruled out, as after all, two countries on the border of Europe - Russia and Ukraine - have been warring on one another for the past six years. The difference between 21st and 20th century wars lies in the fact that the style of war has changed. Steve Sailer points this out in his article '<a href="http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-dregs-of-war-2/">The Dregs of War</a>'.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">So it could be that the 'dregs', and not conventional armies, will be doing the bulk of fighting in Europe's future wars. And because of the 'dreg' quality of these soldiers, one can speculate that the wars will be fought, not against the armies of America and Russia, but against the Muslims and Africans of Europe.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The second implication of the 'No-one wants war' argument is: the Germans do not want to live through another war (which, throughout WWII and at the end of WWI, was waged against the German civilian population), or defeat in that war, or the inevitable humiliation and punishment after that war. The Germans have by now gotten it into their heads that they cannot win a conventional war of tanks, planes, submarines and battleships, and they know that if they were to elect a nationalist government, international Jewry - and probably the British - would be clamoring for war the next day. A scratch force of French, British and Polish troops would be assembled in record time, and Germany would be invaded so that 'democracy' could be restored - even if the German nationalist party had won an electoral majority fair and square. (Perhaps an invasion force would not be needed, as the American soldiers garrisoned in Germany could be used to depose the nationalists). And would the Germans put up a fight? The more pessimistic among us will answer no: the Germans would fold straight away.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">But here the pessimist is relying upon two assumptions. The first is that Germany's potential enemies would be implacably united in the face of a resurgence of 'Prussian Socialism', when it is equally possible that they could be hopelessly disunited - as the French were when Germans reoccupied the Rhineland. The second assumption is that the German nationalists will attain office in a traditional manner when, for all we know, history could take an unexpected turn. It is possible that the Germany of tomorrow could, say, tread the same path as the Cuba of 1959. Castro came to power after waging a guerrilla war as part of a 'united front' anti-Batista coalition only partially controlled by the communists, and after taking office, he hid his communism from the Americans for the better part of two years. (By the time the Americans found out, it was too late). One must admire Castro for his cleverness and guile. Nationalists - in Germany or any other Western country - could learn from him. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: grey;">4. </span>Argument the third: 'But Prussia is dead'</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In Spengler's theory, each Culture understands the word 'nation' in a different way. In the Islamic-Magian-Semitic Culture, a 'nation', properly understood, consists of religious believers; in the Classical, citizens of a city-state, such as Athens or Rome; in the Western, the embodiment of an Idea. To Spengler, only five countries - Italy, England, Germany, Spain, France - are to be considered 'nations'. Four out of the five possess an Idea; Italy, peculiarly enough, does not. Spengler does not explain this inconsistency: perhaps he meant to say that Italy boasts a unique style, but is not possessed of an Idea, which is among other things a concept which can be expressed in a tangible <span style="font-style: italic;">political</span> form.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Now, the Idea of Germany can be summed up as 'Prussianism', or 'Socialism', or 'Prussian Socialism', and that means that the Idea of 'Prussian Socialism' is grounded in the reality of a particular state - Prussia, or East Prussia. But that state was wiped out after 1945, and from this it is to be surmised, quite reasonably, that the 'Prussian Idea', 'Socialism', was wiped out in turn. And that would explain why it is that the Germans, since 1945, have displayed very little in the way of 'Prussian' or 'Nazi' characteristics. Yockey, Spengler's disciple, may have believed up to the time of his death in the inevitable return of 'Prussian Socialism' in Germany - and Europe - but he died in 1960, and did not live to see the Germany of 75 years after the war, a Germany which is (to use the Alt Right term) wretchedly 'pozzed'.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In response to this, I could embark on a careful, scholarly exegesis of Spengler and make the argument that no, 'Nations' and 'Ideas' in Spengler do not work quite the same way as described above. But I will take a different tack and move to untether the concept of Socialism from the actually-existing nation-state of Germany.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Since the war, the only place 'Prussian Socialism' has been revived is in popular culture: that is where the depictions of it (or as the unthinking Left would call it today, 'Neo-Nazism') have been made. I am not speaking here of the portrayals of the historical German National Socialism from the period of 1919 to 1945, but the fantasy National Socialism set in a far-flung future or alternate reality. The really vivid, powerful depictions of a renewed 'Prussian Idea' turn up in science-fiction, and this is how - these days - that 'Prussianism' of any sort manifests itself. So how does this relate to Spengler and Yockey? The answer is that, in their non-fiction, both men wrote a science fiction which belongs in the dystopian or post-apocalyptic genre. Their work is best understood when it is situated in a cultural context - the context of <u>Dune</u> novel series, the <a href="https://www.counter-currents.com/2020/01/warhammer-40000/">Warhammer 40,000</a> game, the <u>Star Wars</u> movie franchise... One cannot separate Yockey and Spengler from the popular culture and myth of the 20th century. (One has to ask: does the Empire in <u>Star Wars</u> incarnate the Spenglerian concept of Imperium?)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">'Prussianism' in popular culture appears in these story-forms:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">1) <i>The Axis victory. </i>In this genre, the Axis have won WWII, and now rule America. Best example: Philip K. Dick's <u>Man in the High Castle</u> (1962) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">2) <i>Travel into the future.</i> German National Socialism is transposed into another world, another time, a setting which is far in the future. Best example: the <u>Star Trek</u> episode 'Patterns of Force' (1968)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">3) <i>The time loop. </i>WWII never ends, mankind is perpetually stuck in the early 1940s, and the Axis armed forces are making better headway than they did historically and have nearly conquered England and America. Best example: the <u>Star Trek Enterprise</u> episode 'Storm Front' (2004).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">4) <i>The allegory.</i> Characters (always the villains) in a future setting display typically 'Prussian' and 'Nazi' traits in their dress, mannerisms, attitudes, but have no connection to the actual German National Socialists. Best example: the Empire in the <u>Star Wars</u> movies, also the 'evil' version of the Voyager crew in the <u>Star Trek Voyager</u> episode 'Living Witness' (1998).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">It is the last of these, the allegory, which helps us understand Prussian Socialism the best, as it presents us with a clean, uncluttered picture of the typical 'Nazi' and 'Prussian' attributes. It reveals the Platonic Ideal of 'Nazism', a pure symbol of 'Nazism' which is not weighed down by references to German history.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">One could be forgiven for thinking that contemporary politics and popular culture each exist in their own spheres, neither of them communicating with the other. But this is not the case. Anyone who watches YouTube has been made aware of a recent scandal in popular culture, and that is the subversion of classic franchises such as <u>Star Wars</u>, <u>Star Trek</u> and <u>Doctor Who</u> by 'Social Justice Warriors', left-wing activists who have politicised present-day myths and sagas and ruined them thereby. A legion of YouTube commentators regard this politicisation as an attack on the foundations of present-day Western culture or at least an assault on the pleasant memories of their boyhood. Oddly enough, these commentators - and their hundreds of thousands of followers and viewers - did not pay much attention to politics before the SJW movement began its long march through the institutions. The question of whether or not Trump or Corbyn would win the election meant little to them. Most aficionados of popular culture devote all their energy to manga, anime, action figures, comic books, movies, TV shows, and have little left over for politics or any of the other pursuits of the 'real world'. But they have been hit where they live by the takeover of their beloved pop culture franchises by Cultural Marxist and SJW takeover. Their values, what they believe is the most important thing in their lives, have come under attack.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">So 'Prussianism' today may be confined to the level of the mythical, Jungian underworld. But as the 'SJW <u>Star Wars</u>' phenomenon shows, a corridor exists between the dream world of popular culture and the waking world of contemporary politics.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: grey;">5. </span>Argument the fourth: 'Everything good in modern life will be taken away'</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In my 'Metalstorm' article, I gave two reasons as to why we wouldn't see a resurgence of 'Prussian Socialism'.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The first reason was that the fascist, historically, ranges the heroic values of the fascists against the unheroic values of the bourgeoisie: as Orwell said (in his essay on <u>Mein Kampf</u>), most politicians offer their followers comfort and security whereas Hitler offers heroism and death. But what, in the late 20th century, was the more preferred: hedonism or heroism?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The question answers itself. After the fall of communism and the beginning of the 1990s we had reached - so the argument ran at the time - the 'end of history'. And in that decade, we saw the cessation of all violent <span style="font-style: italic;">ideological</span> conflicts. The possibility of a nuclear war between the USA and the USSR, as foreseen by Yockey, was closed. And Yockey's dreams of a neofascist pan-Europe emerging from the wreckage of the Cold War were not to come to fruition. After 1991, the ideologies of eighties-era Russia and America - Marxism-Leninism and anti-communist, free-market conservatism - had canceled one another out, and with the demise of Soviet and Eastern bloc communism, Reaganism and Thatcherism could no longer find a justification for their existence. And so we slipped into an era of consumerism, hedonism and anomie - as summed up by the symbol of the American shopping mall. And this was good. What rational person would not prefer the nineties over the forties? Fascism may have been uniquely suited to the thirties and forties, and apologists for German National Socialism have long argued (and correctly) that without it, Europe would have been overrun by Russia. But by 1990, Germany (and Europe, and the West) had put the dark days of the 1930s and 1940s behind it - and breathed a collective sigh of relief for having done so. And that was the healthy, normal, rational reaction.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The second reason is related to the first. If we are to look at politics from the viewpoint of utility, profit and loss, what does one gain from being part of the Far Right movement today? The dissident Right - which has become increasingly negative through the Trump years - offers nothing but 'black pills' (in Alt Right parlance). To listen to it, Americans (and other Westerners) live on a hell planet. Because of non-white immigration, state repression and general 'pozzedness', the walls are closing in white people, and whatever oases of goodness and enjoyment they might find will soon be wiped out. But like the advocates of a fascist revival after the war (that is, Yockey and Evola), the dissident Right today finds itself increasingly out of step with the times. The Far Right's misanthropy isolates it from the world: like Nietzsche's ascetic priest, the Far Right repudiates the world, and then becomes <span style="font-style: italic;">nihilist</span>. Nietzsche said that the nihilist repudiates the material world but, being an atheist and a modern, can no longer believe in the spirit world - the world of the spirit, which, in religion, saves and redeems mankind from the world of matter. A parallel can be drawn between this process and the dissident Right's intellectual wanderings. Like Marxism and fascism, the dissident Right opposes itself to the contemporary political reality, but unlike Marxism and fascism, it offers no way out. (The reader may be surprised as to the extent the dissident Right has spurned Mussolini and Hitler's project - especially in the Anglosphere). And so after a period of time, any intelligent and self-aware person who has joined the Far Right must ask themselves why it was that they did - what do they get out of it, exactly? They may receive wisdom from it, perhaps - but it is a bitter wisdom.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">To look at each of the two arguments - one against fascism of old, the other, the Far Right of today - in turn. The first says that fascism does not fit in with the modern era, or more accurately, the postmodern era and the era of the end of the Cold War (a time in which postmodernism reached its zenith). Now, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union may have taken place thirty years ago, but even so, those events seem closer to us - in time and in spirit - than the Great Depression, the Spanish Civil War, the Second World War...</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">A debate exists as to whether or not we still live in the postmodern era. Some say that postmodernism ceased to exist in 2001, the year in which 9/11 happened, the year which inaugurated the Bush '43 era and the War on Terror, the year which saw the birth of a new seriousness which stood in sharp contrast to the vapid and comparatively carefree nineties. The counterargument to this point of view is that postmodernism, with its jokiness, irony and kitsch, survived - or perhaps reared its head again - through the medium of the Alt Right and chan culture.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Whatever the answer to the question, 'Did postmodernism survive the end of the 1990s or not?', it is correct to say that fascism, or neofascism of the Yockey type, is not so far removed from postmodernism. The latter owes a huge debt to Nietzsche, as does Spengler. Nietzsche anticipated most of postmodernism - especially with his theory of perspectivism. Nietzsche (and Spengler) only disagree with the postmodernists on a few points, namely, postmodernism's sense of irony and detachment, its recycling and commodification of past styles, its juxtaposition of those styles. As an example of postmodernism in action, take the commodification of communism in the nineties - the faces of Lenin, Mao and Stalin appearing on bottles of wine. That would have been something neither Nietzsche, Spengler nor Yockey would have approved of.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Two movies - <u>Blade Runner</u> (1982) and <u>The Matrix</u> (1999) - serve as the bookends of the postmodern era. In response to critics of Spengler, who allege that his work is old hat - redolent of the bygone decades of the 1920s and 1930s - I contend that many of themes of <u>Blade Runner</u> match those of Spengler. One could write a dissertation on how the concordances of themes of <u>Blade Runner</u> and <u>Decline of the West</u>: for instance, the city of Los Angeles as portrayed in the movie gives us an example - a shocking, fantastical one - of what Spengler calls the Megalopolis. In that vein, the offshoots of <u>Blade Runner</u> - the novel <u>Neuromancer</u> (1984) and the yet to be released game <u>Cyberpunk 2077</u> - conform to Spengler's vision as well.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Spengler anticipated modern developments in the realm of culture, and it may be that he may anticipated the coming developments in the realm of politics. Perhaps Caesarism, the fall of liberalism, the end of the rule of money, etc., all the phenomena foretold by Spengler, lurk around the corner. One cannot write off what Yockey calls the 'Resurgence of Authority' yet.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Here I have finished with the argument against neofascism. What of the argument against the contemporary Far Right, and all the alienation and pessimism its world view induces?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The Far Right consistently rejects the modern world and the more grotesque appurtenances of modern consumer culture. It longs for a return to nature, or at least something more authentic. Often the more conservative of the white nationalists want to turn the clock back to a time when the world was more white and more wholesome. Southern Nationalists, for example, look nostalgically back to the 19th century, whereas others misinterpret German National Socialism and posit that it is a pagan 'back to nature' doctrine. In this Americanised version of National Socialism, all the 'Prussian Socialism' is stripped out. The National Socialist becomes an advocate for a healthy lifestyle - and needless to say, a pure, organic, natural lifestyle. The 'return to nature' is held up as a contrast to the inorganic, artificial world of the shopping mall and Wal Mart, <u>Blade Runner</u> and <u>Cyberpunk 2077</u> (a computer game which depicts a future world bereft of children, families and old people).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">But as Spengler records, the West's progression into the era of the Megalopolis cannot be turned back. Some things are forever lost - high rates of fertility, for example. Spengler tells us that the Roman emperor Augustus tried to turn around the decline in the Roman birth rate by the expedient of cash prizes to large families - but all for naught. Yockey, unlike Spengler, believes that fertility can be and ought to recovered, but on this point, he diverges from his master. Spengler may have died in 1936, but his work has proven to be - in comparison to Yockey's - to be more in tune with the modern era. Today's dissident Right could use some of Spengler's realism.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The dissident Right favours the past and rejects the present, and this attitude entails, oddly enough, a form of puritanism - puritanism which is rejected by most 'normies'. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Audiences react with ambiguity towards sci-fi dystopias such as <u>Blade Runner</u> and <u>Cyberpunk 2077</u>. On the surface, we feel distaste towards these portraits of the Megalopolis, but deep down we find them familiar - and thereby comforting. Those of us who belong on the dissident Right are likewise torn in two directions when it comes to Retrowave, a new musical genre which recreates, in an uncannily accurate fashion, the sounds of eighties synthesiser pop. (These recreations sound more eighties than eighties: another instance of Baudrillard's 'hyperreality'). The genre, in its video clips, uses the imagery of eighties TV shows, movies and movie posters, and looks back on the eighties with love. But nearly all dissident Right activists condemn, like puritans, like moralists, that decade (Ronald Reagan looms large in American dissident Right demonology). From this, one conclusion to be drawn is that the adopting the positions of the dissident Right means renouncing what the 'normie' sees as some of the good things in modern life: it is almost as if one cannot be on the Far Right and at the same time a 'normie' who enjoys the Megalopolis, the shopping mall, the nostalgia for the eighties in the Retrowave genre...</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I regard this as the most compelling argument against the Far Right. But it can be refuted by an iteration of Spengler's thesis that we in the West have advanced, too far, down the path to Civilisation and the Megalopolis. There can be no turning back, no 'return to nature'. We cannot give up shopping malls, artificiality, postmodernism, anomie, 'modern vices'. Any Resurgence of Authority will not see a return to the West's primeval past, to the Gothic Age, to the days of the Holy Roman Empire. We should not confuse Spengler's Imperium with Evola's 'Revolt against the modern world'. The Spengler Imperium will lack any return to the Evola 'Tradition'; its leaders will not possess the mystic corona that Evola detects in the Emperors of the Dark Ages. And if this inability to turn backwards to (what Spengler calls) the West's Gothic Age represents the 'Decline of the West', so be it.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Spengler does not make a fetish the past: he propounds a doctrine of change and evolution. But then, the NSDAP did the same. They revived 'Prussianism' but gave it a modern twist, and they pruned it of any the detritus that it had accumulated over the course of the 19th century. This refinement of the German Idea suggests that in coming years, 'Prussianism', 'Socialism', 'Prussian Socialism', can be pared down to their essentials even further (and as noted earlier, this task has already been accomplished in science fiction).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Spengler and Yockey regard the downfall of the Rule of Money, Liberalism, Rationalism, and Materialism, and the rise of the age of Caesarism and 'Prussian Socialism' as an inevitability. But one should not be led astray and regard this inevitability as being of the same class as the old Marxist thesis of the inevitability of the collapse of capitalism, the revolt of the working classes, the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Marxists believed that history, and all of humanity, was converging upon a certain point: communism. But correctly understood, 'Prussian socialism' should be seen as one contending perspective, Nietzschean-style, among many. We live in - to use modern jargon - a multi-polar world. We should not see victory, in the sense of a 'Prussian Socialist' perspective thrusting out all others, as an imperative.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
Das Racisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04741823605556514431noreply@blogger.com0