Strategy and Tactics for 2015: Winning Over the Left on Islam

I recently penned an article on the Charlie Hebdo massacre for another site. In it I played with a few ideas - booting them around as though they were footballs - and put forward an unusual one: an alliance between the Far Right and the Far Left against Islam.

Definitions are all-important in politics, and in order to clarify what I meant by an 'alliance', I have to define what the 'Far Left' and 'Far Right' (in the West) are. In the article, I analysed the main political tendencies in the West today and identified three: Islam (which has been brought to Western soil by millions of Muslim immigrants); the Far Right (a broad designation which includes everyone from neo-Nazi skinheads to Geert Wilders); and the liberal democrats (socialists, communists, anarchists, progressive liberals on the Left and libertarians, neoliberals and conservatives on the Right). The liberal democrats, or liberals, as I call them, act in partnership with Western and Israeli Jewry.

Both categories (Jewish and liberal) overlap, of course, and we find plenty of Jewish conservatives, neoconservatives, neoliberals, communists and anarchists. But there is a portion of the Jewish intelligentsia which preoccupies itself exclusively with (what Gilad Atzmon calls) 'Jewishness' and for this group within Jewry, 'Jewishness' overrides everything else - including politics. Think of Benjamin Netanyahu or Bernard-Henry Lévi. Even Atzmon himself, I would argue, hasn't managed to escape his 'Jewishness' - most of his writings are about it.

If we were to recap the political history of the West for the past 80 or so years, we would arrive at this summary. In the 1930s and 1940s, the Far Right (fascism and extreme conservatism of the Petain and Franco type) fought a pitched battle against liberals (Roosevelt and Churchill) who worked together, then as now, with Jewry (Roosevelt's and Churchill's political and financial backers). The liberal-Jewish partnership acted in concert with the third force, the communists (who, at the time, served the purposes of a foreign power - Russia). The liberal / Jewish and communist coalition managed to defeat the Far Right, although they couldn't destroy it entirely. As the years passed, the Soviet Union faded away and its followers in the West dispersed. The liberal / Jewish alliance became the winner, the sole power in Europe. But it made a crucial mistake: it allowed millions of Muslims to emigrate and thereby the formation of a new political power on European and Western soil. As we have seen from the Paris massacre, Islam in the West challenges the state's monopoly on coercion and violence; it has been doing so for quite some time and will be doing so for a long time into the future. As to whether or not the liberal opponents of Islam (and their Jewish coalition partners) will emerge victorious from a struggle against Islam, the answer is no, by my estimation. That bleak assessment is shared by many of the liberals, most of whom, of course, won't voice it publicly.

Today's unusual political situation has shaken up the status quo. The Jewish side of the Jewish / liberal partnership usually likes immigration of any sort, but Islamic immigration, and the formation of Muslim ghettoes in Europe, 'makes Jews nervous'. As for the liberals, the dominant faction of that group wants as many as immigrants - Muslim, African, Indian, Mestizo, you name it - as possible, but a minority within the liberal camp is beginning to have second thoughts about the Muslim.

As for the Far Right, the tide is beginning to shift in its favour. The decline of the American empire has led to a slackening of the liberals' grip on Europe; the European Far Right has managed to acquire itself some breathing space. On top of that, Far Right ideas - on race, immigration, Jewry, the Holocaust, WWII - have spread like wildfire. We can see this merely by looking at the comments sections in the online news every day: an establishment media article will appear denouncing PEGIDA, and the comments section will be bombarded by criticisms - from sometimes hundreds of different posters - tearing the article to shreds. The liberals, who organise the anti-PEGIDA, pro-Islam counter-demonstrations, don't compete against this and show no signs of wanting to do so.

Having said that, the Far Right hasn't yet taken power in any Western country, and among the reasons for that is that it lacks allies. Often it's the case that one political tendency will need the aid of another to attain power. The NSDAP needed Hugenberg's DVP (German People's Party) in 1933; the Czech communists, the Czech social democrats in 1948. Even the Bolsheviks relied upon the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries for a time, and Lenin's brand of Marxism was built upon an alliance between the workers and the peasantry.

In order to compensate for its lack of allies, certain sections of the Far Right have - for at least 15 years - attempted to appeal to the Jewish side of the Jewish and liberal alliance. That is, they have tried to steal away Jewry from the liberals by offering them blandishments - more support for Israel, more protection for 'nervous' Jews from Muslims. The parties which take this route - Wilders' Party of Freedom, Åkesson's Swedish Democrats, Le Pen's Front National and others - seek to buy respectability. This has made the liberals furious, because the Zio-Populists are impinging on their territory: the Jews are their friends, not the friends of the right-wing radicals.

This 'Wilders strategy' is leading nationalists down the wrong path, however. The Zio-Populists do more good than harm, and even the professional anti-Islamic intellectuals and publicists (some of them Jews) such as Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Dr Bill Warner, Bat Ye'or, Daniel Pipes, Ibn Warraq do more good than harm - at the least, they raise the racial consciousness of Westerners. This is why the liberals despise them and accuse them of 'racism' (even though Islam is a religion, not a race). But, even though the Zio-types do raise awareness, and they do infuriate the liberals, we nationalists - especially those of us on the neofascist and neo-Nazi side - shouldn't feel obliged to follow their example. My argument is that, instead of trying to win over the Jewish side of the Jewish / liberal alliance, we could try another target: the radical Left. They, perhaps more than any political tendency, stand to lose the most under Sharia. They will come to a realisation of this, and, I predict, will eventually back away from Islam.

I make this prediction on the basis of Islam's past. During the Islamic invasion of North Africa, Palestine, Syria, Iraq and Anatolia in the 7th and 8th centuries, there were, no doubt, some Christians in those countries who held that, because Islam and Christianity are 'Abrahamic' religions, Christians and Jews would be treated well under Islam; but hopes of a peaceful co-existence were dashed once Muslims achieved absolute power. The Left today belong in the same category as those Christians. Over time, they'll wake up - they'll have to. It's at that juncture that we on the Far Right can step in and offer our hand in friendship.

The Paris massacre constitutes a turning point, because most of the victims belonged
to the Left and the bourgeoisie - the Left's own class. As a result, the Left has begun to withdraw from Islam, albeit at a glacial pace. One can't see any changes yet. The Left keeps a tight lid on debate, if their websites are anything to go by: you don't see any leftists admitting, 'Perhaps we were wrong to invite Muslims to join our rainbow coalition' - no. They stick to the same line: 'The problem isn't Islam, it's Islamophobia'. Nevertheless, one can hear a few dissenting voices.

II.

We find ourselves far away from the tipping point - what the supply-side economist Jude Wanniski calls the 'margin'. The Left aren't going to distance themselves from Islam any time soon. The question is - given that Islam contradicts their doctrine - why they haven't already done so.

The answer lies in the leftist ideology. All followers of Marx to a man, the leftists believe that the capitalist system is exploitative, brutal, wicked and cruel. To them, it resembles the system we see in the classic movie, The Matrix (1999), in which robots - the former slaves of the humans - keep humanity captive in suspended animation and farm them for battery acid. That movie is an allegory of the Marxist view of capitalism, and leftists do really see themselves as being like the rebel heroes Keanu Reeves and Laurence Fishburne. Theirs is a righteous cause which sweeps all before it. They believe that the struggle for 'social justice' is the most important thing in the world and that class - and class war - override all ethnic, national and religious distinctions. They see humans as interchangeable, deindividualised and deracinated economic units. That's why they stand on the side opposite to nationalists, who in their eyes are, like Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving), working to maintain a vile, inegalitarian and exploitative system. Racialism, nationalism, opposition to Islam, only serve to deceive the working classes and divert them from the only thing that matters - revolution.

It's here that we need to distinguish between Marxism and Marxist-Leninism. The former tells us that the revolution against the capitalist system is inevitable: the transition to socialism and the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', and then to pure communism and the 'withering away of the state', constitutes a final progression - as final as the transition from the Cretaceous to the Palaeogene. The capitalist system, the bourgeoisie, opponents of socialism and the revolution, will all wind up in the dustbin of history. Marxist-Leninism improves upon Marxism insofar as that it contends that the Russian revolution of 1917, the Chinese revolution of 1949 and other revolutions stand as confirmations of Marx's theory - they serve as proof that unstoppable global Marxist revolution is on the way, first in the Third World, then the First.

But, in the late twentieth century, the Marxist doctrine suffered two blows: the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern bloc in the period 1989-1992, and the backsliding of China into capitalism after 1976. Marxist theory made no provision for those catastrophic events: according to the theory, socialism could no more de-evolve back into capitalism any more than the Palaeogene could revert back to the Cretaceous.

After the collapse of communism, orthodox Marxist-Leninism (that is, pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese Marxist-Leninism) in the West disappeared virtually overnight. But the Left today makes the claim that the events in Europe and the former USSR didn't affect it at all, because, according to the Left, many of the Marxist-Leninist regimes should never have been regarded as Marxist, or even Leninist, in the first place. Even before the collapse of the USSR, Marxist theorists such as Trotsky, Mao and Hoxha put forward the notion that, after some point in time - either after the ascent of Stalin or Khrushchev - the USSR had become 'Stalinist' and had 'degenerated' into a 'bureaucracy', or had turned 'revisionist', 'bourgeois' and 'state capitalist'. We recall how, at the end of Orwell's Animal Farm (1945), the pigs transform into humans - and capitalists. Orwell intended this to be a metaphor for the USSR after the death of Lenin, and Animal Farm, rightly considered, is a Maoist parable.

As I shall explain later, it's necessary to examine the claims of the Trotskyists and the 'anti-revisionists' in detail. If we are to do so, we shall see that they are wrong (in Marxist terms, that is).

The Trotskyist / Maoist / Hoxhaist theory contradicts Marx and Engels, who never said that a socialist state, after a revolution, would suddenly and magically transform (or rather, de-evolve) back into capitalism as though the revolution had never happened: we've already covered that point. A bigger error is that the theory turns Marx on his head. Maoists and Hoxhaists argued that the USSR had devolved into a 'bourgeois' and 'capitalist' state because of the ideas of its leadership. The 'bourgeois' ideas, the 'bourgeois' essence, of the CPSU leadership (and the leadership of sister communist parties) meant that the Soviet economy had become 'state capitalist'. In their view, the 'bourgeois' and 'capitalist' Khrushchevs and Brezhnevs exploited the Soviet workers and extracted surplus value. But in Marxism, categories such as 'bourgeois' and 'capitalist' are applied only in an economic context and pertain only to economic functioning. They don't refer to thoughts, ideas: one can't think oneself into being a bourgeois or a capitalist. Furthermore, ideas themselves only reflect the economic - consciousness springs from being, not the other way around. If the USSR really had turned 'state capitalist' and the CPSU 'bourgeois' in 1956 (after Khrushchev's secret speech denouncing Stalin), something dramatic must have happened to the Soviet economy: perhaps state enterprises were sold off to capitalist oligarchs, or capitalist enterprises were allowed to compete against state ones. But, as we know, nothing remotely like this happened in the USSR before Gorbachev and Yeltsin.

The 'anti-revisionist' theorists like to argue that even nationalisation of 99% of an economy doesn't equal Marxist-Leninism, which is true enough. But the converse is also true. Let's suppose a hypothetical Marxist-Leninist party could take power in some country and refused to abolish property - should such a country be regarded as socialist and Marxist-Leninist because of the Marxist-Leninist thoughts of its leadership? According to the 'anti-revisionist' theory, the answer is yes. But in reality, the Marxist-Leninist character of a state does depend on the extent of nationalisation, and even a bourgeois-ruled capitalist country which has nationalised 99%, or even 80%, of its economy is well and truly on the path towards some form of socialism or another. Likewise, if a country such as China privatises most of the state assets and allows competition, it can't rightly be characterised as Marxist-Leninist.

The conclusion to be drawn is that the 'anti-revisionist' theories don't hold water. Obviously, the Trotskyites, Maoists and Hoxhaists concocted these theories for political purposes - to argue that only their brand of communism deserved to be called Marxist and socialist.

As to why this so relevant to the political situation of the Left today, before 1991, a number of Western Marxists subscribed to the 'anti-revisionist' theories and formed little sects around them, and after the collapse of the USSR, these micro-parties and sects survived and flourished - they make up the bulk of the left-wing formations in 2015. They still hold to 'anti-Stalinist' or 'anti-revisionist' theories and still believe that they, and only they, are truly socialist, i.e., Marxist-Leninist. The Trotskyite or 'anti-revisionist' view is that, circa 1970, the governments of Moscow, Beijing, Havana, Hanoi, Belgrade, Tirana, Prague, Bucharest, Budapest, Berlin, Sofia, Warsaw may have christened themselves Marxist-Leninist, but they weren't really Marxist - they were 'Stalinist' or 'state capitalist' and 'bourgeois'; the parties in those respective countries may have had millions of members who believed that they were Marxist, but this was a delusion. An insignificant sect in the US or UK has more right to call itself Marxist-Leninist than the parties of Ho Chi Minh, Tito, Ceaușescu, Brezhnev.

Their position represents the height of arrogance. But in all fairness, it's the obtuseness of these sects which allowed them to survive the collapse of the USSR - the mainline communist parties didn't. Perhaps one could explain the one-eyedness of the Left as an evolutionary adaptation. That is, just as certain animals developed sharp teeth and claws to aid them in the struggle for existence, Marxists have learned to block out reality so as to survive. They forever pretend it's still 1972 or 1982, when communist regimes existed and the communist idea still had some validity, and that enables them to keep going. If they did yield to the dreadful facts of 1989-1991, they'd cease existing.

So, in 2015, the Left finds itself in the following quandary. It remains addicted to Marxism - it can't let go of the 19th century Marxist political and economic theory. In turn, it can't let go of the 20th century Leninist model, because, after 1917, a political activist can't not be a Marxist and Leninist at the same time. And that means that the Left is caught in a bind. It has lumbered itself with a theory which postulates the 'inevitability' of revolution, socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat - the final (that is, no turning back) evolution from capitalism to socialism. In support of the theory and its apocalyptic predictions, it found confirming instances in Russia, China, Cuba and elsewhere. But then came along the events of 1989-91, which blew Marxist-Leninism out of the water. As a consequence, a radical left-winger today is restricted to two alternatives: either dump Marxist-Leninism or pretend that Maoism, Trotskyism, Hoxhaism and their variants represent 'true' Marxist-Leninism. Most left-wingers - especially those who have spent decades in the movement - would rather die than choose the first, so they opt for the second.

Surveying the leftist terrain today, then, we see that Marxist-Leninists bury their sands in the sand: they don't face up to reality. They don't answer the difficult questions - such as how would Trotsky have run the USSR differently from Stalin, how would Mao have run the USSR or East Germany in a 'non-revisionist' and 'non-bourgeois' way? How would today's Trotskyites, Maoists, Hoxhaists run a North Korea or Cuba any differently... It never occurs to them that perhaps the Stalins, Ho Chi Minhs, Titos, Kim il Sungs and Castros chose their respective paths out of necessity - that, the situation being what it was, there was no other way for a Marxist to proceed.

But they don't want to think along those lines, because that would require staring at their difficulties in the face and then coming to a realisation of the enormity of the task before them. That is, they would be forced to concede that they have their work cut out for them. This is why they tend to hash over the Russian revolution of 1917 over and over - they prefer to dwell on a time when revolution was easy. It's far more enjoyable to contemplate the Russia of the past than the present. That way, they don't have to ask the question, 'How is a second Bolshevik revolution to occur in Russia today?'. That's a question to which they have no answer, and to which, perhaps, there can be no answer. A return to communism in today's Russia seems unlikely, and one might say that if Bolshevism can't stage a comeback in the land of Lenin, it can't do it anywhere. Putin - a champion of state capitalism if there ever was one - may be a Stalin apologist, but Putin's Russia stands a long way away from communism, Bolshevism, Marxism.

The blinkered attitude of the Marxist Left goes some way to explaining why it can't reconcile with the Far Right on any point. The Left dwells permanently in the past. In regard to race relations in the US, the Left thinks that all of the USA is Alabama, 1963. As for immigration, the Left doesn't see what's happening in the West - wholesale demographic replacement - and persists in comparing the present wave of immigration to previous, far smaller ones, say, the immigration of Chinese labourers into California in the 19th century. On the topic of the Holocaust, the Left doesn't acknowledge that little to no hard forensic evidence for the existence of Hitler's WMDs - the gas chambers - has turned up since 1945. Finally, the Left can't reconcile itself to developments in its own history. It's an old joke on the Left that a Trotskyite is someone who doesn't understand that Stalin died sixty years ago; but all Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyite or not, have difficulty in recognising that there was a USSR after Lenin's death in 1924. After Lenin, the saint of Marxism, died, the USSR to them may as well not have existed - nothing of importance went on there. They likewise disregard the regimes of the Eastern bloc. According to them, communism was never tried in East Germany and Romania for forty years; those regimes were 'state capitalist' or 'bureaucratic' or 'Stalinist', not the socialism that Lenin intended, etc., etc.

Because of its isolation from reality and history, the radical Left has degenerated - it has become a sect. Many of its problems are due to the fact that the socialist idea itself hasn't much of a following since 1991: no mass movement stands behind it. Dramatic upsurges appear - in Seattle in 1999, in Wall Street in 2011 - only to then flicker and die. This represents a change from the past, when the masses found socialism to be a fresh and exciting idea. One could say with some justification that 'the workers' and 'the peasants' really may have wanted communism in Russia in 1917 or in China in 1949 (and more fool they). But hardly any of the 'working classes' in those countries today want communism. Unfortunately for the Left, socialism is an idea whose time has come and gone.

III.

Nevertheless, the Left endures, and one must reckon with it as a political force. The question is, how do we persuade them to join us? The difficulties of such a venture are compounded by the fact that the Left regards us on the Far Right as a race of demons. They dehumanise us. In part this reflects their frustration and pique: they know that the masses are on our side, or at least on the side of conservatives, when it comes to race, immigration and Islam. Whatever the reason, they don't want to talk to us - dialogue of any sort is impossible.

But they find dialogue even amongst themselves difficult. The Left admits that it could never put together a message board like Stormfront, a tremendously popular site where all the factions and tendencies of the Far can come together and engage in a civil (well, not always civil) conversation. The closest the Left have come to an all-encompassing forum is RevLeft, which is run by Trotskyites and sees more splits, quarrels and expulsions than probably any other message board in existence - RevLeft is a Trotskyite party in miniature. Administrative heavy-handedness, and an unwillingness to let any differences of opinion pass, mean that discussion is shut down before it begins.

On that topic, it is significant that many of the Far Left parties don't allow comments on their posts. Such a policy in this day and age - when websites have usurped newspapers - prevents any debate from getting off the ground. Today, participants in left-wing politics are treated as computers which need to be programmed with the 'right' Marxist-Leninist thinking; their role is a passive one. Which explains why so many left-wing sites seem dead.

But while many obstacles exist, there are still plenty of avenues from which to approach leftists for a discussion. As a word of warning (before one enters the strange world of the Left), one must remember that, when dealing with the Left, one can't pick and choose when it comes to the elements of the leftist ideology: leftism is a package deal. In theory, one could be a Marxist and a Holocaust denier at the same time; in practice, it doesn't work out that way. If one buys into leftism, one gets, not only socialism, but anti-racism, feminism, homosexualism and the rest. So a nationalist is not going to feel comfortable talking left-wing people.

(As part of the package deal, a leftist today must take up a hyper-leftism or anarchism on the question of US race relations. Soviet communism had long exploited the negro question in the US as a means of promoting discord and with the intent of recruiting disaffected Afro-Americans into the communist party; we now know the extent of the communist involvement in the civil rights struggle. But events have moved on since those days. Reality has not only caught up with the Soviet communist position on race, it has surpassed it. That is to say, politicians, the churches, the media, academia, entertainment and all the other institutions today stand far, far to the left of the communists at the time of Martin Luther King. The radical Left, then, finds itself made redundant in today's America, which is why it pushes a hyper-leftism. To judge by the Left's propaganda, the Left today demand a) the banning of all US police officers from carrying guns (so as to prevent shootings of Afro-Americans) and b) the release of all Afro-American offenders from jail. To the Left, this would be 'social justice'. But here Marxism has been transmuted into anarchism, and on the topic of race, as on many others, many on the Left have gone crazy).

As to what rhetorical techniques to use, Dr Bill Warner has written an excellent little book, Can We Talk? A Manual of Persuasion about Islam (2010), in which he outlines some strategies for bringing over others (especially progressive, liberal-minded people) to anti-Islam. If a nationalist manages to have a dialogue with a leftist on Islam, Dr Warner's recommendations should be followed. The problem is, however, getting a foot in the door and engaging in a conversation on Islam in the first place. The way to do that is to get the leftists to realise that, like it or not, Islam works against their interests. One simply has to hammer home the point, over and over that while leftism and Marxism believe in progress, Islam does not - that Islam is literally reactionary, perhaps the most reactionary ideology of all. Islam can't be reconciled with Marxist-Leninism. In that regard, an instruction in the finer points of Sharia - especially Sharia in relation to khaffirs - will prove to be revelatory.

IV.

In conclusion, then, I'm fairly certain that, if the Far Right and Far Left in any Western countries were to sit down together and engage in a dialogue - with a view to reaching some sort of political agreement - they would find (surprisingly enough) that they tally on a good many points. Over time the Far Left would grow to appreciate the nationalists' arguments. It seems that many on the Left may be halfway over to our side already. According to the pro-Israel agitators and publicists on the conservative Right, the Left has been infected with anti-Semitism. We on the Far Right are anti-Semitic and have been so for many, many years. So, if the characterisation of the Left as 'anti-Semitic' is correct, the Left is only now beginning to catch up with us. Our job then is to persuade the Left to go the whole hog and embrace anti-Islam as well as anti-Semitism; then they'll come around to our side almost entirely.

Given the commonalities that exist between the Far Left and Right, why is it that they haven't they engaged with us already? The reason is twofold. They have become, since 1991, pathologically quarrelsome, disputatious and sectarian; they can't even reach an understanding amongst themselves, let alone with the evil white supremacists and neo-Nazis, whom they abhor above all. As well as that, they have become cocky and arrogant - and why not, because, in many ways, they are winning - and don't feel the need to negotiate with the Far Right, or, for that matter, any other grouping on the political spectrum. They think that their rainbow coalition of Muslims, gays, lesbians, transsexuals, illegal immigrants, indigenous peoples and environmentalists is sufficient enough to catapult them to political power.

But the fault doesn't lie with them entirely: part of it lies with us. Like the Left, we've forgotten much of our own history. Something we nowadays fail to take note of is the fact that many NSDAP writings were devoted to the problem of how to win over the Left. Today's depiction of National Socialist Germany emphasises only the repressive and coercive measures used to subdue the Left - street brawls with communists, the internment of communists in concentration camps; it neglects the political and intellectual propagandising which was designed to entice the workers and intellectuals away from the communists. In Mein Kampf, we read how Marxist workers will attend a beer hall speech by Hitler with the intention of breaking it up, and coming away, if not wholly converted to National Socialism, at least more thoughtful. Such is the power of persuasion. I think that the Far Right today doesn't believe in itself, or at least, doesn't believe that it has the ability (of a Hitler or a Mussolini) to alter the opinions of its political opponents through oratory. Instead, it has withdrawn into its shell. It's become convinced, or half-convinced, that its views are untenable and ugly - that the entire world is against it and will never, never change its mind.













　









　

　





　

　

　
　

Communism still the the threat? 'Agenda: Grinding America Down' (2010)

I recently managed to see Curt Bowers' documentary, 'Agenda: Grinding America Down' (2010), which I recommend to anyone on the Far Right. While the documentary is deeply flawed, on an intellectual level, and doesn't offer what I see as being the correct solution to America's ills (Christian fundamentalism, conservatism and the values of the Founding Fathers), it will change one's views of communism. One can glean the content of Bowers' research on Cultural Marxism from other sources (e.g., William S. Lind), but it's in this documentary that one can find it all in the one place. What's more, much of the documentary was new to me - I hadn't heard of the 'Cloward-Piven strategy' before seeing it - and I'm sure that a good many others will something new in it too.

So what is it about? Bowers claims to have attended, as a young undergraduate in the University of California in Berkeley in 1992, a Marxist conference held by some respectably-dressed academic greybeards. It was at that conference that these Marxists outlined their strategy for the future and vowed to press on with communism and not be dissuaded by the recent dissolution of the USSR and the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe - events which were more devastating to communism than any theoretical refutations of Karl Marx's texts. The strategy was to infiltrate and make use of the burgeoning homosexual and environmentalist movements and mount an assault on capitalism, the traditional heterosexual family, Christian morality, in the name of "social justice", "equality" and the rest. To achieve this end they would make use of the traditional communist method of setting up front groups (with names like 'Centre for Political Progress and Change') which would agitate for environmentalism or illegal immigrant rights, for example, while concealing the communist intentions of their founders.

Communists in America have traditionally practised entryism in trade unions, Christian religious groups, academia, education, organisations such as American Civil Liberties Union and the Democratic Party); also movements such as the Afro-American civil rights movement, the 1960s student movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement, the anti-nuclear weapon movement, feminist movement... It goes without saying that Bowers' thesis isn't that communism brought these movements about: communism didn't invent homosexuality, environmentalism, the anti-war movement, Afro-American civil rights... It's a matter of harnessing the energy of the mass movements and exploiting them for communist purposes.

In 2008, as a legislator in Idaho, Bowers wrote a controversial op-ed article in a newspaper which declared that American communists and their associated 'front groups' and 'fellow travellers' had succeeded in implementing many of the goals outlined at that conference in Berkeley in 1992. The article aroused shock and indignation, but also met with public support. It was after that episode that Bowers turned his attentions to researching the American left-wing radical and Marxist groups which had played such a large role in America's decline. 'Agenda-' is the result.

One of the good things about 'Agenda' is the use of diagram charts. Here's one, showing the drift of the Democrat Party (especially under Obama, Reid and Pelosi) to the Far Left, and the drift of the Republican Party to where the Democrat Party once stood:

 

Here is Bowers' other chart diagram, which traces the progressive lineage from Marx to Obama.

Bowers relies upon many of the classics of American anti-communism, such as Cleon Skousen's 'The Naked Communist' (1963) - and also interviews with leading conservatives, including a few former Republican Party politicians and also the New Zealand Americaphile conservative author, Trevor Loudon. It's for this reason - the reliance on secondary sources - that Bowers' documentary (and the chart above) contains a few errors - errors which wouldn't have been made, perhaps, if Bowers had bothered to read books written by actual communists.

One error is the ascribing of too much importance to Fabianism. The Fabians weren't Marxists and have had little influence except outside the Labour Party of Britain, the Australian Labor Party and perhaps the Indian nationalist Nehru. It's true that the Fabians did provide a few 'useful idiots' - people who were sympathetic to Lenin, and then Stalin: Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells and Sidney Webb. But one shouldn't confuse a useful idiot with an actual communist.

The other error regards the Frankfurt School. I haven't read much of them - only a little Marcuse - but I know enough of them to question whether the Frankfurt School really did found Cultural Marxism and political correctness - which is what Bowers, William S. Lind and other conservatives assert. The Frankfurt School really were men of the thirties and forties, while political correctness emerged (in the West) in the 1990s. Paul Gottfried wrote a book, 'The Strange Death of Liberal Marxism: The European Left in the New Millennium' (2005) which is about the rise of political correctness and goes into the doctrines of the Frankfurt School in detail (he knows enough about the School to be considered an expert), and he doesn't link them together.

Another error is Bowers' assertion that North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, China and the rest are communist states. But what we have in Vietnam, Laos and China is a curious anomaly: authoritarian states which are one-party states with a political system which is ostensibly communist but with market economies. China and Indochina stopped believing in communism a long time ago, although there is no sign that the communist parties in those countries will relinquish power.

This is all mere quibble, however. It's after seeing this documentary that I understood the true character of Obama. I'd previously seen him as a standard centre-left Democrat who wanted - like any other US president - strong economic growth, social harmony, prosperity... Obama and his fiscal and monetary stimulus have been a massive failure, of course, and he and all his supporters know it; but what if he didn't want economic prosperity? It's only after you look at his radical left-wing neo-Marxist background that you begin to understand that maybe Obama wants economic stagnation. He wants the capitalist system to fail - and for government and the welfare state to step in. Everything Obama puts forward is designed to push the communist agenda. He wants illegal immigration and gay marriage because he subscribes to neo-Marxist fantasies of gays and Latinos as being "oppressed" (oppressed by the wicked heterosexual WASP, that is); he wants Obamacare because he wants an America that is dependent on the government for its healthcare (and housing, and employment, and education); he wants to combat global warming because he wants state control over the industries (and the Americans) who produce carbon emissions; he attacks the rich because he wants class war between worker and capitalist; he uses the slogan 'Change' because he believes in dialectical change, that is, the transition from a capitalist society to a socialist one.

Is Obama a Marxist? J. Edgar Hoover made the distinction between five types: the open, 'card-carrying' communist; the undercover communist who conceals his beliefs from view; the potential communist convert; the fellow traveller; and finally, the dupe, or useful idiot. By all accounts, Obama was an avowed Marxist in his youth, either an open or undercover one, or maybe a potential convert. This by itself doesn't mean and could be considered a youthful dalliance; after, all we in Australia recently had a prime minister who, in her undergraduate days, was a Maoist. But the fact is that Obama has always associated with communists and left-radicals, and his appointees seem to be left-over commies and the radicals from the 1980s - the type who supported the Sandinistas and Palestinian nationalism and who made plane trips to Moscow and Cuba. What's more, communists campaigned for his election in 2008 and his re-election in 2012, and various radicals and malcontents (such as Jeremiah Wright and the bisexual former New Left terrorist Bill Ayers) form his milieu. There is his family background - his mother, Stanley Dunham, and his mentor, the hardline Afro-American Stalinist Frank Marshall Davis. One can overestimate the influence of one's family on one's politics - after all, I'm sure quite a few people on the Far Right had Far Left parents, and vice versa. But the point is, when one puts this all together, it seems too much of a coincidence. My estimate is that Obama is at the least a fellow traveller or a dupe.

The documentary raises some interesting questions. One is the extent to which communists wield power in our society and to what extent they have become the masters of contemporary social movements such as environmentalism and homosexualism. (One can easily verify for oneself Bowers' claims regarding the communist and Far Left involvement in both of these). But more than that is the general culture: how did the media, for instance, become so unquestioningly pro-multi culti and pro-immigrant? How did we get a justice system where rapists, murderers and illegal immigrants wander around free and unpunished while the likes of Emma West are locked up for something they said on a train?

Future historians will chart the degeneration of Western society from the 1960s, when left-wing radical baby boomers, with the help of "humanist" conservatives, pushed through an agenda of 'change' and 'progress' which has nearly destroyed Western civilisation, mainly through mass non-white immigration. During the 1960s, Australian communist groups were at the forefront of 'change' - campaigning the loudest for the abolition of White Australia and for indigenous rights, simply because they believed that these would be useful to the Soviet and Chinese communist cause. One has to ask: supposing that the communists in Australia had been locked up in concentration camps (like Hitler did to the German communists) or butchered (like Suharto did to hundreds of thousands of Indonesian communists) - would the abolition of White Australia gone ahead? Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps the changes of the 1960s couldn't have been stopped that way. But move forward a few decades - it's certainly true that, had prophylactic measures been taken against British and American communists, Obama wouldn't have won election in 2008 and 2012, Emma West wouldn't have gone to jail and the British Labour Party most likely wouldn't have been able to bring in 3.8 million immigrants from 1997 to 2010.

The White Nationalists blame the West's modern ills on 'Jewish-owned MTV'; the EDL and the other anti-Islamics blame it on Islam; Bowers, on communism and lack of prayer in schools. I think Bowers - more than the White Nationalists and the anti-Islamics - is onto something. This is where we Far Rightists, neofascists, Neo-Nazis come in. We don't know much about prayer in schools but we certainly know about fighting communists.

Bowers has shown us the enemy; now it's a question of which tactics we use to defeat them.

Romney or Obama '12? American Jews, the Euro and a Return to Gold

'Carthage must be destroyed': I've always, so long as I've been a nationalist, subscribed to the notion that 'America must be destroyed'. (I mean, by 'America' what I call 'The Anglo-Judeo Alliance' (America, Israel, the United Kingdom)). In the 1930s, after the election of Roosevelt, the US, the UK and Jewish-Americans entered into a sinister alliance, which proved to be the most destructive and malevolent force in the history of Western civilisation up to that time; the alliance, as we know, started (and finished) WWII, laid waste to Europe, enslaved the Western half and gave over the Eastern half to communism... We nowadays assume that America was always liberal, anti-"racist", anti-German, pro-Israel and pro-immigrant, but that wasn't the case: America only took that turn comparatively recently, in the past eighty years after Roosevelt. (Likewise, "The West" has only been liberal, pro-Israel, etc., since 1945). We in the West are still in the grip of three men - Roosevelt, Churchill and Churchill's friend and political accomplice Chaim Waizmann - who have been running the show, in effect, since the 1930s. It's this sinister alliance which has been at the root cause of all the problems in the West since then. Which is why I look at anything that sets today's America - Roosevelt's America - back with untrammelled glee.

Having said that, there are two Americas: there is today's America - the America of Wal-Mart, Zionism, anti-depressants, Afro-Americophililia which venerates Martin Luther King Jr. as a secular saint - and the 'old', good America of the immediate post-war period, which is portrayed by the TV series, Mad Men (2007-2012). Paradoxically, it's the old America - which was run by handsome, immaculately-groomed WASPs like Don Draper - which bombed German cities, occupied half of Germany, cut German rations below starvation levels, and tortured and hanged Germans at Nuremberg, and it's the old America I prefer to today's. I wouldn't like to live in 1962, of course - I don't think anyone of my generation could survive a day without mobile phones or the Internet or DVDs - but, in the old America (and old Australia) of 1962, I would have lived in an ethnically-homogeneous society. America, right now, is suffering - from its defeats in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, from Obamanomics, from enormous Mestizo immigration, from blighted cities like Detroit, from geopolitical decline - but this isn't the same America that enforced the Morgenthau Plan, and it's not the America of WASP scions Don Draper, Bert Cooper and Roger Sterling (who would have been horrified by Obama). If there were any justice in the world, the old America should be the one suffering, not the new, but such is life.

The question is, who should, in the upcoming US presidential elections, a nationalist support? Who do we want to win? Who will (inadvertently) help the nationalist cause the most?

After September 11, it became clear that the perpetrators of the attack (whoever they were) had gauged American psychology beautifully. The perpetrators sought to provoke America and give it the impetus to undertake rash, precipitous action - i.e., invade a country like Afghanistan, which they couldn't possibly hope to conquer (at least, by using their standard conventional-warfare tactics) and thus give it its second Vietnam. The results, in 2012, are better than could be expected: two lost wars, and on top of that, America's proxies Israel and George lost a total of three wars. It would take a very skillful leadership to negotiate one's state to an improved power-position, in spite of such a succession of military defeats, or perhaps really good luck (America won half of Europe off the Soviet Union, nearly fifteen years following its catastrophic defeat in Indochina). America, fortunately, doesn't have that skillful leadership. Military defeats have led to a geopolitical decline, a loss in power and prestige. America has lost Nicaragua, Bolivia and Venezuela (which are now firmly in the anti-American camp), longtime enemies Russia and China have become stronger, and long-suppressed Germany and Turkey are, incredibly, beginning to resume their natural leadership roles (perhaps, at this rate, even Japan may awaken after its seventy-year slumber). This is quite a fall from the late 1990s, when America (and Israel) were at the peak of their political and economic strength.

The reason why this is important to nationalism is because the internal policy of a country - e.g., the ideology of its leadership - is largely determined by external geopolitics. Fascism, in the 1920s and 1930s, would never have gotten off the ground without the example of Germany and Italy, and the fact that Western Europe has been so liberal democratic, so pro-Zionist, for seventy years comes about from the Allied victory in 1945. Were the Allies - that is, Churchill, Roosevelt and Waizmann and their spiritual heirs -  to suddenly become geopolitically weak, then the ideology of Europe would change. Just as Libya, Syria and Egypt, in the absence of the Arab secular socialism of Ghaddafi, Assad and Mubarak, stand in danger of turning towards the most extreme (Salafist) Islamism - Europe could turn to Far Right conservatism and fascism.

The Left understands this process very well. Both Mao and Lenin attributed the success of communism in their countries in part to China's and Russia's military defeats at the hands of the Japanese and Germans respectively. Without the displacements brought about by war, China and Russia would probably have remained non-communist. In the case of Europe and Germany, it's all about getting the boot - the American jackboot - of one's neck. Once that boot is removed, Europe can breathe a little more freely, and then start behaving like itself.

In order for German nationalism - and by nationalism, I mean the ideology of the German NPD, the DVP, the Freie Nationalisten and others - to succeed, certain fundamentals must be in place. Germany has to be strong again. And what is good for Germany, in this case, is good for Europe and all of the West.

In the post-WWI, Weimar period, Germany was stronger, politically, more sovereign than it was now (surprisingly enough). America, which was largely responsible for the Allied victory, had no interest in occupying Germany and making Europe a permanent vassal (although it did interfere by breaking up the Austro-Hungarian Empire, giving Poland its independence, and so forth). As a result, Germany, France, Italy, Britain, were largely left to their own devices. France quickly became the ascendant power on the Continent (much to the alarm of Britain) and pushed Germany around quite a bit; but, all the same, Germany was never as pulverised, demoralised and brainwashed as it was after 1945. After Hitler's ascent to power, of course, Germany became steadily more powerful, more sovereign, and resumed its old, traditional role of The German Bully. It goes without saying that this would never have happened had the Allies been as brutal and repressive in 1918 as they were in 1945.

Which helps explain why nationalism, in Europe, can only be achieved in stages. I've always thought that the likes of the NPD were too ambitious for this reason: I want to say to them, 'Hang on a minute, Germany has been under Anglo-Judeo occupation - politically and mentally - for the good part of seventy years; and now you want it to become a great, powerful and sovereign nation, like it was in WWI and WWII, and the Weimar era, and thus bring down the wrath and enmity of the USA and Israel upon your heads'. One has to walk before one can run. Fortunately, Germany is beginning to walk. Prior to 2011-2012, Germany was part of that amorphous entity called 'Europe', that is, the EU, and if there was a sovereign state in the EU, it was Brussels. Now, of course, Germany has leaped to the forefront and de facto owns the Continent.

It's as though a long-running company - let's call it Western Civilisation Holdings, European Division - had a CEO who all of a sudden became sick and unable to perform his duties (interestingly, Forbes had a recent article, 'New York Times proves Clint Eastwood correct - Obama is a lousy CEO', 03/09/2012). The members of the board get together and discuss the worsening situation: 'It's evident that we need a new CEO to replace this one. Who is there? Why not that Fritz guy? He can do the job... In truth, there's no-one but him who'll take it on anyway'. Fritz is a former CEO, who was demoted a long time ago in an internal coup following a scandal - a man of great competence and skill, who is known for being hard but fair, capable of getting the job done, but something of a bully. If you want Fritz, you have to obey him unconditionally, and overlook his abrasive manner, his guttural way of speaking. The board decides: 'We've no choice! Fritz it is'. And Fritz resumes his old position, without barely batting an eyelid - it's as though he never was away. Formerly, there was resistance to him, but now, because of the extent of the crisis, there is none. Fritz doesn't gloat over his return to power; Fritz is where he is because, in part, he's not the type to gloat. Instead, he sits down with the board members, opens the company's books, and recounts, in a pedantic fashion, the company's rather dire fiscal position, and the harsh measures needed to remedy it...

Today's Germany, and its liberal democratic politicians, of course, are far away from being nationalist. But at least it is slowly clawing its way back to its position in 1918, when the Kaiser abdicated and German liberals and communists instituted the Weimar Republic. Things in politics take time - it's taken Germany seventy years to reach its current position...

The same could be more or less said of Turkey, and who knows, maybe even Japan will grow a backbone. To me, however, the main concern is Europe - as Kevin MacDonald says, 'The [nationalist] revolution will begin in Europe', and I think that things, as they are in Europe, are progressing nicely. My only fear is a resurgence in American strength. One can never say never in politics, and it's possible that the Anglo-Judeo Empire may come roaring back. In other words, the match is still ongoing, and one shouldn't call the match at half-time. In this instance, however, I'm not willing to be prudent, and I think that America (and Israel) are down and out. They aren't going to have the streak of luck that they had in the 1980s, with the resurgence of America under Reagan, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and then the Soviet Union - and the surreptitious abandonment, by its enemies China and Vietnam, of the communist project.

The fate of America has implications for Australia, of course. Australia has never been a sovereign nation: prior to the 1930s, it was a vassal of Britain, and then, when America began its big acquisition of European states - Britain, France and Poland - the British subsidiary, Australia, came under American ownership. The absence of sovereignty is not necessarily a bad thing: small states, like Romania, or Belgium, have traditionally been content to let a bigger country run things, and let's face it, not every country wants to be a leader. But when the sovereign power, the 'protector', of Australia, is the Anglo-Judeo Empire, then Australia has problems. Jewish-Americans determine America's foreign policy (and, by extension, Australia's) and a large part of its internal policy as well. This wouldn't be a problem if Jewish-Americans were a race of super-beings, but the fact is that they're not. White people make mistakes - it was a series of mistakes by President Herbert Hoover which brought about the Great Depression, and the ascent of Roosevelt, and his Jewish-American 'advisors', to political power. But (so the classical anti-Semite thesis runs), Jews, in the long run, tend to make more mistakes than white people.

Which brings us back to the problems of economics. Many advocates of supply-sideism believe (correctly) that America's, and the West's, economic problems today are largely the result of America, and the world's, abandonment of the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates in 1971. They are perfectly right in this, I believe, and had America been still on gold, the 2008 financial crisis (and its aftermath) would never have happened. But the supply-side analysts are mistaking the effect for the cause. One has to ask: why did America abandon gold? It had stayed on gold for a hundred years prior to 1971, out of a belief that abandoning gold, and undertaking a system of floating exchange rates, would lead to inflation, disorder and ruin (as it did during the American Civil War, when America (briefly) abandoned gold). My thesis is that Nixon broke up Bretton Woods, and left gold, largely at the urging of his (Jewish-American) economists, and what's more, stayed off gold because of those same economists (initially, he put it about that the abandonment of gold was a temporary measure, but, after he announced, in 1973, that the float was permanent, he oversaw a huge stock market collapse - which was, in real terms, the worst collapse in value since 1929). We know the results, of course, of Nixon's decision: monetary chaos and disorder (which led to, among other things, the creation of the euro). The reason why Nixon, and subsequent US presidents, didn't reverse this decision was because Jewish-Americans occupied all the positions of power and influence - in finance, economics, journalism, academia and so forth. Classical anti-Semitism says that Jews will make the wrong decisions, again and again, more often than not; it also says that Jews prefer chaos to order. It's almost as though they gain a pleasure and delight in flushing a country down the tubes, while not being consciously aware that they are doing so. (Indeed, when they lead a country, as they do America, they will blame its travails, not on themselves and their bad decisions, but on external circumstances of which they have no control; what's more, they will make problems out to be more difficult than they actually are; and claim that these problems are, ultimately, insoluble).

America's progress, economically, under Obama has been an interesting textbook study in Keynesianism: to whit, Keynesianism has been tested under near-perfect laboratory conditions, and been shown not to work. Obama has devalued the currency against gold, just like Roosevelt did, and instituted a huge program of public works and deficit spending, like Roosevelt; he has also sought to raise taxes - like Roosevelt - to an astronomic degree - he hasn't achieved this goal yet, but may, if he gets his way and allows the Bush Jr. tax cuts to expire and levies new taxes (we can see his proposed tax hikes from this article from the Wall Street Journal):

It's enough to make a supply-sider choke. Obama wants these tax increases because he's an instinctive socialist, of course, but mainly, he wants them because he's a Keynesian. The old New Deal / Keynesian doctrine was that the economy was driven by consumer spending. Because the poor spend their money more than the rich (who have a tendency to save), the rich have to be taxed and their wealth redistributed to the poor - who will go on and spend it. (At the same time, interest rates have to be driven down, so that people will save less and spend more). All this is designed to bring about 'full employment' - something which is conspicuously absent under the Obama administration.

Bernanke, of course, has been the partner in crime, monetarily, with Obama. The Keynesian monetary doctrine is that the currency has to be devalued until it's a worthless peso, in order to bring about an inflation, 'lower interest rates', 'boost exports' and 'create jobs' (not that the policy of devaluation has done much good for Zimbabwe). The US Federal Reserve has succeeded spectacularly in implementing devaluation: since 2000, the US dollar has been devalued, against gold, by nearly 800%. (In contrast, Roosevelt devalued the dollar from $USD20 a gold ounce to $USD35 - a devaluation of 75%). Bernanke's third round of devaluation - or 'quantitative easing' - will, no doubt, devalue the dollar even more. (Because the global economy is so interconnected, other currencies - such as the Australian dollar, the pound and the euro - will have to be devalued in tandem). More rising commodity prices, more chaos, more political upheaval in the Middle East and the rest of the world, more US economic stagnation...

So what will the US presidential election bring? The founding text of supply-side economics is Jude Wanniski's The Way the World Works (1978), which is to supply-sideism what Keynes' General Theory- (1936) is to Keynesianism. Wanniski was a journalist by trade, not an economist (although he was tutored, in the supply-side doctrine, by two professional, academic economists, Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer). One consequence of this is that half of Wanniski's great work is devoted to his unique musings on politics, in particular, electoral politics, or what he calls his 'political model'. The supply-sider, John Tamny, gives a capsule summary of it:

In The Way the World Works, the late Jude Wanniski’s classic 1978 book which explained how economies grow and contract, he introduced an electoral model that remains controversial to this day. Put plainly, Wanniski argued that the electorate always gets things right, or in his words:

“…the electorate as a whole is wiser than any individual member in understanding its interests, it is wiser than any economist or group of economists.”

No doubt many readers are scratching their heads in response to the above, but as Wanniski put it to the late William F. Buckley (paraphrase), “You’re likely smarter than every individual inside a packed football stadium, but collectively those individuals are smarter than you are.” The wisdom of crowds….

The logical response is that if the electorate is so smart, why then did it foist on us ghastly presidents of the Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush and Barack Obama variety? Isn’t the electorate instead overemotional, and too impassioned to vote the right people into office? Readers would have a point, but going back to Carter’s election, and really long before that, the electorate has gotten it right every time. We may not have always liked the end result, but the electorate has always been right.

['Jude Wanniski's Electoral Model Points To a Slim Romney Victory', Forbes, 16/09/2012.]

In the Wanniski electoral model, the electorate's wisdom is greater as a whole than in the sum of its parts, and pretty much has what the economists call 'perfect information', which Wikipedia summarises as thus:

In microeconomics, a state of perfect information is assumed in some models of perfect competition. That is, assuming that all agents are rational and have perfect information, they will choose the best products, and the market will reward those who make the best products with higher sales. Perfect information would practically mean that all consumers know all things, about all products, at all times (including knowing the probabilistic outcome of all future events), and therefore always make the best decision regarding purchase. This is physically impossible, however, as the Bekenstein Bound provides a physical limit to the amount of information that can be stored in a given physical system (in this case, a market participant). Still, perfect information is a common assumption in economic models because it allows mathematical derivation of desirable results. ['Perfect Information', Wikipedia]

In its collective wisdom, the electorate is an economist, and what's more, a supply-side economist. When it comes to elections, then, it prefers a politician who is a supply-sider. But when such a candidate isn't available (and more often than not, they aren't), the electorate will go for more of the same - or a socialist who will redistribute wealth to the suffering...

 Tamny does a good account of recent US electoral history, in the light of this model, and makes the interesting point that Obama really is the reincarnation, economically, of George W. Bush:

Readers can cite the long list of errors made by Obama since his election, I’ll agree with many of their criticisms, but the reality is that absent egregious errors of George W. Bush’s own making, there’s no President Obama today. Republicans can wail that they don’t recognize what the U.S. has become (funny because Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, followed Bush’s lead on the bailouts and nosebleed spending, reappointed Bush’s Fed appointee in Ben Bernanke, and doubled down on Bush’s weak dollar policies), but the reality is that policies given us by admittedly clueless Republicans gave us Obama. Of course in doubling down on Bush’s policies of dollar debasement, heavy spending and bailouts, along with his own personal disaster in the form of Obamacare, President Obama was disciplined by an all-knowing electorate.

Unbeknownst to Obama, Bush handed him the opportunity of a lifetime in the form of an economy that was on its back. Here it can’t be stressed enough that when economies are recessing, they are healing themselves. The greater the downturn the greater the recovery, and that’s the case because the greater the downturn, the more the healing that is occurring. If Obama had sat back and done nothing upon arrival in Washington, he would today be presiding over a nice recovery. And then if he’d sat back and done nothing while adopting Reagan/Clinton dollar policies, he’d be presiding over the kind of boom that would have him on the verge of a Reagan style victory circa 1984.

But as we all know, Obama wasn’t immune to the “do something” illness that endangers the political health of nearly every politician, and because he wasn’t, he proceeded to try and fix an economy that would have fixed itself if left alone. The pro-growth policy in Obama’s case was to be Clinton-like with the dollar, and then do little else. Obama reversed the latter playbook, he’s as a result presiding over a sick economy that should be strong, and as the electorate dislikes failures, Obama’s days in the White House are numbered. [Ibid.]

Tamny is, of course, quite disappointed in Romney, as are many supply-siders, Republicans and conservatives, but he still believes that Romney will be the winner:

Indeed, Obama’s only hope for a voter reprieve lies in his opponent, Mitt Romney. Oblivious to the historical truth that Americans consider themselves winners soon to be among the 1%, Romney has pursued his own version of class warfare with targeted tax cuts, China bashing that plays to society’s losers in a nation of winners, and an alteration of Obamacare that fails to remove one of its most offensive aspects: mandated insurance for those with pre-existing conditions.

Put plainly, Romney doesn’t understand an electorate that is seeking a growth message. The electorate is dying to fire Obama, history says it will given its aversion to failures, yet Romney’s timidity with regard to policies actually meant to grow the economy point to a close win for Romney when it should be a rout. Wanniski’s electoral model says so. [Ibid.]

I will say that, by supply-side standards, Romney's tax policies pass muster, as the above table shows: in 1986, Reagan cut the top rate of income tax to 28%, which is what Romney wants to do. The Republican Party thoroughly understands supply-side fiscal policy. The trouble is that the Republicans don't fully appreciate the supply-side doctrine on monetary policy, and the 'bad' monetary policy (i.e., massive dollar devaluations) swamps the 'good' fiscal policy. As Tamny observes:

Bush partisans point to the ’03 tax cuts, and while it’s true that those cuts were the only smart major legislation achieved on his watch, they were more than blunted by the above-mentioned mistakes, not to mention the Bush Treasury’s weak-dollar policies that revealed themselves on day one in the form of the much lamented Paul O’Neill. The list of errors by Bush (think steel and softwood lumber tariffs,  Ben Bernanke,  Harriet Miers, Obamacare designer John Roberts?) could surely fill a book, but with space in mind, his saving grace in 2004 was that the horrors of his dollar policies had not quite hit the economy yet, plus we were at war. The electorate unhappily gave him another shot; one it presumably came to regret.

Indeed, by 2006 so disgusted was the electorate with Bush that it handed control of the House and Senate back to the Democrats. Amid this handover, an economy sapping rush into housing was taking place thanks to a weak dollar that forced limited capital away from future seeing companies a la the Reagan/Clinton era, and into the tangible inflation hedges of yesterday. To remember what the housing boom was like one need only refer to the Gilder quote from earlier about the Carter years, but needless to say it slowed economic growth enough that mortgage payments from overextended borrowers seeking shelter in homes started to come in late, or not at all. [Ibid.]

The supply-siders, however, did achieve a victory insofar as Romney - at the urging of the supply-side wing of his party - has promised a 'Gold Commission' to investigate the feasibility of a return to the gold standard. The Reagan administration launched a Gold Commission in 1981, and because the Commission was dominated by monetarists (advocates of a Bernanke-like policy of floating exchange rates and devaluations), it came out against a return to gold. The supply-sider Brian Domitrovic, however, makes a convincing argument that the mere fact of a Gold Commission frightened the Federal Reserve into tightening monetary policy and ending the devaluation of the US dollar. Who knows how a second Gold Commission will turn out if Romney is elected.

I don't like Obama, Bernanke, Paul Krugman and the legions of monetarists and Keynesians very much. I'd like to see their economics thrown into the dustbin of history, and see the election of a US president who will bring back gold, who will show gold to be superior to the present system, and thus refute the nay-sayers and reduce them to an impotent rage. This is despite the fact that any revival of fortunes for America (and the Judeo-American Empire) would be against my own best interests as a nationalist. It's a purely intellectual exercise...

Romney is a nice enough fellow, but a bland creature - a LDS Mormon (that is, a non-polygamist Mormon) whose only motivation in life has been to make money. He is financed by the shadowy Jewish-American (and maniacal Israel-Firster - he has dual citizenship with both the US and Israel) Sheldon Adelson, and can be expected, of course, to carry out a pro-Israel foreign policy (including bombing Iran, if need be) once elected. Which really doesn't mean that much, in real terms: it doesn't portend Armageddon for the enemies of Israel and Jewry - Israel hasn't won a war since 1982. It will be the same old Roosevelt-Churchill-Waizmann gang (with Netanyahu playing the role of Waizmann), but much less powerful, geopolitically speaking. In other words, more of the same.

Like Reagan (and Hitler), I believe problems often have simple solutions. Europe has to go first towards nationalism, and then the rest of the West will follow. In order for Europe to 'go nationalist', a certain number of prerequisites have to be met. The euro has to be fixed to gold, and Europe has to achieve a certain level of economic self-sufficiency (a goal which can be reached - Europe's oil needs can be satisfied by Norway and Romania, also, oil can be imported from Russia). After that, the millions of Muslim, Indian and African immigrants can be persuaded - nicely - to leave. It's then that a certain number of important lifestyle questions can be addressed. Europe's cities need to go car-less, and much, much needs to be done for animal rights. Europe also has to enact a program of public education, warning its youth about the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle... Then there's a need to introduce the death penalty (for serious sexual crimes). But the economics has to be taken care of first. Luckily, Europe is moving, ever so slowly, towards self-sufficiency and a separation from the Anglo-Judeo global economic order, and towards Hitler's 'New European Order', or (the German ideologist Naumann's) 'Mittel Europa'.

What's the goal of all this? To ensure good lives for we white Westerners, and our children and grandchildren. America and Israel (and possibly Britain) will object, furiously, to the 'New Europe', but, over time, America and Britain (and Australia, New Zealand and Canada) will lean towards following the European example.