The Italian Job: Europe in 2021, and do Covidians = 'Nazis'?

 

I.

I recently watched a review of Resistenza! (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. 

Most gamers like to play their games with others; Marco maintains a special wing 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. 

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? 

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. 

II. 

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. 

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'? 

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.

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. 

I will define what it is I mean by Masonry: 

1) An occult secret society which is hundreds of years old, and which borrows in its symbolism from Near Eastern cultures; 

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'; 

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. 

To sum up: Masonry is a brand of liberalism (hyper-liberalism, even), differentiated from other liberalisms by its esoteric, occult and secretive qualities. 

To understand the politics of Masonry, the reader would be best advised to read Dieter Schwarz' excellent pamphlet, Freemasonry - Ideology, Organisation and Policy (1944). A summary reads: 

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.

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. 

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 'Masonic Lockdown' in his anti-Covidian song Little Tree Big Seed (2020)? 

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. 

III. 

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'. 

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. 

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). 

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!' ('Ihren Papieren, Bitte' - 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... 

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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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'. 

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...

III. 

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. 

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. 

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, The Birth of the Tragedy (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. 

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... 

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 October 15 1940 edition of Foreign Policy Reports, we find the essay 'Europe Under Nazi Rule' by Vera Micheles Dean; here are some of the passages which pertain to Masonry: 

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. 

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.

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.

IV.

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'. 

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... 

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'. 

V.

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... 

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.

Stalin's Revenge: Trump, Weimar and the American Revolution of 2020

I. 

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 Soviet Republic in Bavaria. 

While the recent upsurge may be a fleeting phenomenon - 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 Mein Kampf. 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 Mein Kampf. 

Peter Brimelow once wrote a famous article, 'America's Immigration Policy - Hitler's Revenge?'; 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 Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Mao, Lenin and Che (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 'The Race' (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 Ann Coulter 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. 

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 Mein Kampf: 

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. 

Few of the Black Lives Matters protesters, rioters, looters and arsonists have read Marx's Kapital or Engels' Anti-Dühring. 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. 

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 Mein Kampf - 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 Mein Kampf 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. 

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). 

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 Mein Kampf, '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.

II. 

I will return to this subject - the death of democracy, as postulated by Mein Kampf - later. For the moment, I want to reproduce some passages which I feel have become extremely pertinent. 

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: 

Within less than two years I had gained a clear understanding of Social Democracy, in its teaching and the technique of its operations. 

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. 

The same tactics are repeated again and again, until fear of these mad dogs exercises, through suggestion, a paralysing effect on their victims. 

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. 

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 here). 

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... 

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... 

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. 

Finally, here is Mein Kampf on the ineffectual anti-communism of the conservatives: 

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. 

And: 

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. 

III.

Now we come to the passage in which Hitler prophecies the death of democracy. 

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. 

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: 

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.

The German Revolution of 1918 to 1919 woke the conservatives up like a bucket of cold water: 

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.

What happens when the Marxists lose an election, or if anti-communist legislation is passed? 

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. 

Hitler concludes: 

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. 

IV.

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. 

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. 

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 four stages of subversion. 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 Mein Kampf, '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'). 

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: 

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. 

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. 

V. 

Hitler wrote Mein Kampf 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. 

But Hitler's analysis of communism, at least, does hold true for America, as 2020 America has traded places with Weimar Germany. 

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 'undemocratic' 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. 

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 Mein Kampf 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. 

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. 

I mentioned earlier the prescriptions of Mein Kampf. 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 violence by the Left (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 Chile. 

 

 


 

Putinism or Nazism: Choose One

Oh no, it's that time of the year again: Russia is going to put on its annual military parade in Red Square on May 9. The British tabloid The Sun writes of the rehearsals:

More than 70 planes and helicopters practised manoeuvres overhead with the world’s largest military transport helicopter Mi-26 escorted by a quartet of Mi-8 helicopters set to open the show.

On the ground, thousands of  troops put on well-practiced parade in a huge show of military might.

No doubt this will impress the Richard Spencers, Hunter Wallaces, Andrew Anglins; they will laud it to the skies. After all, the Sun headline reads: 'PUTIN ON A SHOW OF MIGHT - Thousands of Russian soldiers, aircraft and tanks march in a massive showcase of military power'. Doesn't this prove the inferiority of American and 'Zionist' arms? That 'Russia strong, Russia strong'?

Yes, all Alt Rightists, white nationalists, Neo-Nazis should approve of this parade and do their best to promote it. But wait - let's take a closer look: what does this parade commemorate?

May 9 should be a day of mourning. Contra Putin, the fall of the Soviet Union was not the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century: it was the fall of National Socialist Germany. All our present misfortunes stem from it:

Assad and Hitler are not the same: why Holocaust Revisionists should believe the Sarin gas attack story

Assadists and Putinistas will fall into two groups: those who believe that Hitler gassed the Jews and those who don't. Both groups believe that either a) Assad has never used chemical weapons and that the April Sarin attack was a 'false flag' and never happened or b) that the gas attack happened, but it was the rebels who did it (this is now the official Kremlin line). Those Assadists and Putinistas who have doubts about the Holocaust tend to point out the resemblances between the Syrian gassing allegations and the Holocaust tale. Both Assad and Hitler have been accused of gassing innocent people, both are regarded as dictators, and both wear moustaches. On that basis, the Assadists argue that the anti-Assad atrocity propaganda is just as fabricated as the anti-Hitler was: because the Holocaust story was false, we should infer that the Assad chemical warfare allegations - and other allegations, such as the mass executions at Sednaya jail - are false. And both fabrications are said to be the work of the Jews (but never the Americans and the Russians, whose role in fomenting Holocaust propaganda is nearly always overlooked).

It was recently reported that forensic tests have been carried out on the victims of the Sarin gas attack:

Autopsies on victims of the Syrian poisoning gas attack have confirmed chemical weapons were used in the daybreak strike that led the United States to fire more than 50 missiles into Syrian territory. 

The autopsies, conducted on three victims by Turkish doctors, provide the most concrete evidence to date for why more than 80 civilians - including about 30 children - were killed. The chemical used was most likely the deadly nerve agent sarin, the Turkish Health Ministry said.

"According to the preliminary results, the findings suggest that the patients were exposed to a chemical substance [Sarin]," the statement said.

Sarin is 20 times as deadly as cyanide. Within seconds of exposure noses run, tears form, mouths drool and vomit. If exposed to a high concentration, victim will convulse, become paralysed and die within 10 minutes.

Turkish Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag said that the World Health Organisation supervised the autopsies and that the results were sent to The Hague for further analysis.

Does this blow the thesis of the Mike Enochs - that the Sarin gas attacks never happened - out of the water? I think so. We can scoff at Turkey and point out that Turkey is hardly 'neutral' and 'objective', but at least Turkey is doing a forensic analysis (and so will the analysts at the Hague). The results of that analysis can be disputed all one likes, but at least it was carried out. Mike Enoch can carry out his own forensic analysis, or petition for 'neutral' and 'objective' nations such as Russia, Iran and North Korea to do their own. Even Iran has suggested that an 'impartial' enquiry should be held.

The fact that the Turks carried out autopsies illustrates the qualitative differences between the Syrian and German gassing allegations. In the seventy years since the end of the war, not one autopsy of any of the six million Jews killed by Hitler has been performed that shows death by gassing - not one. And hardly any forensic analysis of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor and other Holocaust murder sites has taken place: we simply haven't bothered - at least to the extent that the Turks have done in Syria.

It would be easy enough to do, one would think. Scientists have detected the cosmic background radiation that appeared during the Big Bang; surely they could detect residues of the poison gas at Auschwitz which killed 1.5 million people? After all, the gassings at Auschwitz took place over seventy years ago, the Big Bang, thirteen billion.

The Holocaust story, when it first appeared, was a huge dump of unsubstantiated and unsupported information, as in this British Daily Telegraph article from June 1942:

If you read it, you'll all see that it depends one man's say-so. No forensic evidence was provided. The British didn't take the story seriously at the time, which is why they buried it on page five of a six-page newspaper.

The Soviets, after the liberation of Treblinka, did attempt to provide some forensic evidence: piles of shoes, eyeglasses and human hair. The perfectly innocent explanation for these was that the camps doubled as textile factories. At any rate, piles of glasses don't prove that a mass extermination - with or without poison gas - took place.

The second difference that arises after a comparison between the Holocaust and Assad stories is that the former seem wildly implausible, the latter do not. Anyone who has read the wartime and Nuremberg trial accounts of German atrocities - killing Jews with poison gas and electrocution, chasing Jews into pools of acid, forcing Jews to climb up trees which are then cut down - is struck by their Kafkaesque absurdity and unreality (but then Kafka was a Jewish writer, and wild stories of persecution and violence by Gentiles form part of the Jewish folk literary tradition). The figures, too, seem wildly inflated: 35,000 to 80,000 Jews - which is two to three infantry divisions worth - were shot dead in the ravine of Babi Yar in the space of a few days. Whereas the allegation that Assad hanged 5000 to 13,000 people in the jail at Sednaya over the course of four years seems perfectly plausible. At the least, if and when the regime falls, the story can be verified through forensics. As for chemical weapons, Libya under Ghaddafi developed them, and Iran and Iraq used them against each other in the war in the early eighties (some have speculated that Russia transported Iraq's stockpile of chemical weapons to Syria in the weeks prior to the 2003 American invasion); there's no reason why Syria shouldn't be using them as well.

To pull back now and look at the big picture. The US and Russia - and Jewry - are engaged in a new Cold War. All sides loathe anti-Semitism, and National Socialist Germany, with a fanatic intensity. Shouldn't we in the movement take a position of 'a pox in both your houses'? Why favour one over the other? Why go to bat for Assad, an Arab and a Muslim, and Putin, who despises National Socialism, bans Holocaust denial, encourages Muslim and non-white immigration into Russia... Assad may look white, but he is not; Putin is nominally white, but, being a Russian revanchist, hates the West, the white man, Europe.

Here's the other argument. Why should we associate ourselves with brutal regimes such as Syria, North Korea and Iran - the three of which are now aligned - when the three have perfectly verifiable and well documented human rights abuses which are appalling enough make Israel look good? It goes without saying that Hitler has a bad reputation and that the task of refuting the Holocaust story burdens us (as it was designed to do); so why add to that burden by carrying the flag for the Assads, Jong Uns and Rouhanis?

Finally, many on the Alt Right are angry with Trump and are doing their best to whip up hatred towards Trump. But, while they may be anti-Semitic, the Hunter Wallaces, the Kevin MacDonalds, the Mike Enochs, the Richard Spencers, were never on our side - the Holocaust Revisionist side - anyway. They were, however, on the side of Putin, who believes in the Holocaust, uses it to justify the 'Great Patriotic War', bans Holocaust denial in Russia, and accuses the Ukrainians of being Nazis (as if being a Nazi was a bad thing).

D-Day, June 1944: Evil Wins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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