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.

Merkel's National Socialism and 'The Wave' (1981)

This is a codicil to my recent article, Nine Turks Good, Ten Turks Bad. I am finding, in the press commentary, people who agree with the article's main thesis on Germany's national (but not nationalist) resurgence. The title of this article says it all: 'Europe, facing abyss, embraces German might as the only way to save its way of life' (Associated Press, 2/12/2011).

Here are a few choice quotations from that article:

BERLIN (AP) -- For more than half a century, the legacy of World War II has meant that the mere mention of a new rise of German power sent shudders through European nations. Now, Germany is increasingly calling the shots for the entire continent — and few seem to mind.

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski — whose nation lost millions of people in the Nazi invasion and occupation — shocked many this week when he made a dramatic appeal for greater German influence.

"You know full well that nobody else can do it," he told a largely German audience in Berlin. "I will probably be the first Polish foreign minister in history to say so, but here it is: I fear German power less than I am beginning to fear German inactivity."

And:

Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann, whose nation often lives in the shadow of its giant northern neighbor, dismissed out of hand any worries about renewed German dominance.

"I'm really happy," he said of Merkel's initiatives for saving Europe.

Some Europeans have also contemplated with horror what would happen if Germany got fed up with Europe's debt shambles and simply walked away.

"What is left of the euro if Germany says goodbye? A house of cards," Lennart Sacredeus, a lawmaker with the Christian Democrats in Sweden's governing coalition, wrote in the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet.

Further:

Finance Minister Francois Baroin this week talked about a "Franco-German political impulse" to save the euro. He noted Germany's economic successes compare favorably to France's debt difficulties, and concluded in a radio interview: "Germany is a model that interests us."

France's political opposition, meanwhile, has attacked Sarkozy for letting Merkel call the shots.

"For months, it's been Madame Merkel who decides and Nicolas Sarkozy who follows," Socialist presidential candidate Francois Hollande said this week.

But Europeans seem increasingly inclined to support Germany's leadership — or at least to go along with it.

"This government is not afraid of Germany," Italian political analyst Sergio Romano said of Rome's new regime of technocrats tasked with solving the nation's debt crisis.

"It hasn't said so explicitly, but would say the same thing Sikorski did: We are more afraid of a powerless Germany than a powerful Germany."

While former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi bristled at German interference, new Prime Minister Mario Monti has called the German culture of stability one of its "better exports."

"I have always been considered to be the most German among Italian economists, which I always received as a compliment, but which was rarely meant to be a compliment," Monti said at a recent event.

Does the Bundesrepublik itself like this new state of affairs? Of course not:

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has acknowledged the dilemma, telling foreign correspondents this week in Berlin that the government feels like it's being pulled in opposite directions: criticized by some for not being aggressive enough, and by others for pushing its agenda too strongly.

"I feel like the firefighter," Schaeuble said, "who is being attacked by the arsonist."

This isn't to say that the hapless, bungling Merkel's policies aren't disastrous: they are. It isn't to say, either, that Germany is now a "nationalist" country, which other white nations should emulate: it isn't. What it does prove is that politics is not static. Sovereign countries which were strong once, and then fell into a period of weakness (like Germany and Turkey) can become strong again; countries which were, for a long time, under a period of foreign domination (Tunisia and Egypt) can, of their own accord, throw off the yoke; countries which were, for a long time, pursuing an independent course can, all of a sudden, tilt towards a sovereign foreign power, and then fall into its orbit entirely (Libya after 2003).

All countries have certain geopolitical situations which are peculiar to it, and can't be removed - no matter the dominant ideology. Hungary and Romania, for instance, remained traditional enemies, even after their turn towards communism following the Soviet invasion of 1944-45. There is a kind of DNA, geopolitically speaking, at work here. Hitler, in his Secret Book, goes into great detail regarding the 'geopolitical DNA' of nations such as Germany, France, Russia and Britain. French governments may come and go, he tells us, but French foreign policy ambitions remain the same. Ditto Russia...

One part of the German 'geopolitical DNA' is strength, and a dominating power - that is, a power which tends to dominate the Continent (especially the eastern half). Where does that strength, in the case of Germany, come from? From the 'national virtues', Hitler would say (although he would not use that term), which, in turn, stem from Germany's racial characteristics.

In the post-war period, the Allies, and the Soviets, attempted to brainwash the Germans - and succeeded. They managed to implant a great many false ideas into the heads of Germans (and just about everyone else). One false idea was that the German 'national virtues' never existed, and that Germany's supposed strength - in the military, political and economic realms - was phoney. Hitler and the National Socialists sold the German people (and the world) a false bill of goods. Hitler taught the Germans (what we would today call) 'positive thinking' - but that positive thinking wasn't based on reality. It was all lies. The classic made-for-TV American movie, The Wave (1981), shows that: the teacher in the film, as a classroom experiment, imbues his students with the old "Nazi" virtues - strength, discipline, respect for authority, punctuality, neatness, saluting, uniforms, a willingness to (in Nietzsche's words) 'command and obey'. The students' enthusiasm for their school work improves, as so does the enthusiasm of the school's football team, which becomes dedicated to improving its performance. But, in the end, it's all shown up to be bunk. The football team performs badly, despite all the motivational psychology pumped into its heads, and loses the big game. In the novel, by Morton Rhue, one character explains that all that positive thinking on the part of the football team was fine, but didn't substitute for experience and skills. (Obviously, this lost football game is a metaphor for Germany's military performance in WWII. Similarly, the 2003 German film, The Miracle of Bern, uses a sporting analogy for war. The Germans can't believe that they'll win the World Cup in 1954, because of their defeat in the last war). Naturally, the film The Wave is a liberal anti-fascist classic, which is shown in schools in Germany as an illustration in the evils of fascism. (The film is so useful for that purpose that a German remake appeared in 2008).

Leftists, for as long as leftism has been around, have always been attracted to the idea that man is determined by his material circumstances - i.e., his environment. Change the material circumstances, and you change the man. Hence, certain laws of economics and agriculture are suspended under socialism: workers can produce miraculous results, simply because they are now labouring under a socialist state of affairs (as opposed to a capitalist one); hence the tremendous results, in terms of production, expected by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, from their 'five-year plans'. Man is infinitely malleable... All one needs is socialism and relentlessly positive thinking. And Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin were relentless optimists, who hated "defeatists" so much that they had them shot.

To return to the German example. The Left (German and non-German) has always viewed the Germans, particularly under Prussian and National Socialist rule, as a vicious, depraved people: hence its desire to change the German people through a program of indoctrination and "re-education". The German people could be remoulded into a decent, peacable, liberal democratic citizen of Europe, which no longer sought to bully other, smaller European nations - or conquer the world.

So, it was drummed into the heads of the German people, again and again, that Hitler's ideas - regarding the German 'national virtues' were just motivational psychology, 'master race' bunk and self-deception. The Germans were never as strong, or talented, or resourceful, or hard-working, as Hitler said they were. But the Germans, in the 1930s, believed Hitler, and so became swollen with pride. When a nation like Germany becomes convinced that it can run Czechoslovakia or Poland better than the Czechs or Poles can - well, it's a slippery slope to invasion, annexation and war. (The same goes for the swell-headed Italians, who had the temerity to believe that Italians could run Ethopia better than the Ethiopians). Obviously, decent nations have to unite and knock the stuffing out of Germany, and then re-educate it.

It's a simple narrative, this one, and it has a million holes in it. But, for decades, it was believed, and for one reason only: Germany lost the war. The proof is in the pudding, and the undeniable fact that Germany lost shows that Germany wasn't good enough. Germany's early successes were flukes, but, in the end, it was ground down by Allied military and industrial might. This is despite all the German military's undoubted skill, tenacity, bravery (and even liberal, anti-German commentators state that the German military possessed these qualities).

In Germany and Europe since the war, there have been two ideas: one is that Germany doesn't deserve to lead Europe (or at least, the Continent); the other is that Germany is weak and can't lead. The latter idea has now, in 2011, been blown out of the water.

To understand why, we have to take a detour into the history of left-wing theory.

Stalin's collectivisation of the Ukraine and southern Russia, Mao's Great Leap Forward, Pol Pot's plan to boost Cambodian rice output to extraordinary levels, all failed, because, in the main, they ignored the realities of human nature. Which is to say, the Left has long been used to ignoring reality, shutting out facts which don't fit their theses, and suppressing those who happen to think differently. Indeed, critics are castigated as doomsayers, reactionaries and pawns of capitalism - or agents in the pay of foreign powers. (One can see, of course, the similarities between the communists and today's Left, in how they treat dissenters. In one era, they repressed, violently, the critics of collectivisation; in today's era, the critics of multiculturalism).

The Left ignores the reality of race, and 'national virtues', all the time, of course. Racialists may allege that x, certain ethnic group (which I won't name here), has certain racial characteristics: a tendency to violent crime; alcoholism; drug abuse; mendacity and welfare dependency; having children out of wedlock; low levels of educational and professional attainment; living in filthy and squalid surroundings (which they make filthy and squalid); etc. Leftists will angrily reject such negative characterisations, and put them down to white supremacist propaganda: in effect, whites, and "capitalism", put out lies, regarding this particular x ethnic group, in order to oppress and exploit them. In other words, it's a case of whites attempting to brainwash x ethnic group - and attempting to brainwash themselves, Hitler-style, by telling themselves that they are somehow a racially superior group, another "master race". (The Left tells us that these stories of race-supremacy are "capitalism". Race-supremacy fills whites with a false pride and sense of superiority, and so legitimates the oppression and subjugation of x ethnic group. This is a swindle, which prevents working-class whites from overthrowing their oppressors, the capitalists).

The realities of race, however, are quite different. Common sense tells us that whites, and x, are very different, in the aggregate. One doesn't need statistics on brain and skull size, or IQs, or even crime and educational attainment, to show this: everyday life shows it. One merely has to go to a country where whites and x racial group live together. The true nature of x as a racial group 'bursts through'.

The post-war indoctrination of Germany was very much a left-wing project: the fact that Americans took part in it so enthusiastically shows us to the extent to which Americans, and communists, are alike (as Alex Kurtagic says, Americans have always been liberals, and America's "conservatives", who idolise George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, idolise liberals). But, just as in my hypothetical example of racial minority x, the true nature of Germans, as a racial and national group, bursts through. It turns out that Germany is a strong nation, and a leader, after all.

A global call for the use of German power was not what anybody thought they would ever hear again. And Germans themselves are only slowly waking up to the fact that they are now seen as Europe’s “indispensable power,” as the historian Timothy Garton Ash wrote. So grave is the crisis of the common currency that it now represents the third moment in 100 years when Germany has unilaterally determined the fate of Europe — after 1914 and 1939. It’s that history that weighs on German action or inaction.

['Why isn't Germany stepping up to save the euro zone?', The Washington Post, 2/12/11]

The Germany they are speaking of here isn't Turkish, or Muslim, Germany, of course. So maybe Hitler - who had an enduring faith in the German people, right to the end of the war - wasn't so wrong after all. Maybe Germans do possess strength, despite their appalling political leaders. Facts will out, reality will out, and no amount of leftist indoctrination and double-talk will change that.

But, one may say, isn't this just economics? The victors of WWII - America and Britain - are economically weak. But, supposing that the American economy picks up again? Won't Germany be relegated (again) to second-class status? Won't Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, drift back into the American-Israeli sphere of influence?

This is a good question. It's true that the Americans (in the 20th century) seemed to have nine lives. America went through a catastrophic period of weakness following its defeat in Indochina in the 1970s. Then Reagan was elected and steered the country to greatness again. Half of Germany, and all of Eastern Europe, fell into the American sphere without a shot being fired. American, and Israeli, power soared to undreamed-of heights in the late 1990s (as did the American stock market - this is no coincidence). America, by the late 1990s, built a global 'co-prosperity' sphere. The American example showed that, if you wanted to succeed, you had to become part of the American economic system. Even Russia and China had to become part of that system. The only alternative was mass impoverishment and starvation along North Korean lines.

It's clear that many American "conservatives" (and many Americans, full stop) are hoping for a Reagan moment - that is, for a new national saviour to appear. (The eighties, in the West, were a time for messianic politicians: Reagan, Thatcher, Hawke, viewed themselves as national saviours, redeeming their countries from ruin). Economic and geopolitical power are intertwined, and it's possible that another US president may cut taxes (especially capital gains taxes) and trigger off another huge economic boom, like Reagan and Clinton in the 1980s and late 1990s respectively. That is, Americans are very good at making money (this is one of their 'national virtues') and may, in this scenario, get on top again. Reagan and Clinton understood, intuitively, that tax barriers stood in the way of Americans trading and investing; so the answer was to lower those barriers. They also understood that strong economic growth was the best propaganda for the American political (and economic) system. Obama, of course, doesn't understand this, which is why he's been such a dismal failure.

As to whether Obama will be replaced by a new Reagan or Clinton is another story. I myself am divided as to the merits of an American economic revival. On the one hand, I don't like to see my fellow whites in America suffer from growing impoverishment and unemployment; I also happen to have an (intellectual) dislike of the Keynesian and monetarist schools of economics which Obama represents; on the other hand, I don't want to see a strong America, or Israel.

(Will a revived America, a new American ascendancy, hurt nationalism? There is an old, left-wing myth (one which liberals have adopted) that the nationalist vote goes down in periods of prosperity, and up in periods of recession. The media repeats this cliché again and again, but is it true? Surely the vote for the German NPD, or the British National Party, was better years ago - when their respective countries were doing better, economically?).

What is at stake here are two competing economic systems: an American 'co-prosperity sphere' and a European (that is, German, or Franco-German). The American sphere dominates the world, and when the American-Tel Aviv axis is politically strong, opting out of the American 'co-prosperity sphere' seems insane. Which is why, among other reasons, European nationalist parties such as the NPD appear to the average European as being quite out of touch with reality. That is, the idea that Europe could turn back to the wartime, Hitlerian economic system, during 1940-1945, seems ludicrous. This is even though the German-led system, at the time, was quite successful (the liberal, communist and Jewish coalition of anti-German propagandists will insist that that economic system was all built on slave labour and the pilfering of gold teeth from the mouths of gassed Jews; but we can take these stories with a grain of salt). Now, though, a German-led system doesn't seem like such a crazy idea: in fact, it is becoming a reality (and the inception of the EU, and the euro, laid the foundation for that reality). This is not because the German economy is so strong (and Merkel's policies are poison, economically speaking); it's just that it is strong relative to the rest of Europe right now. And this is without any swastikas, jackboots, invasions of Poland and the rest. Germany has reached this position by default. Germany always was a strong country, Germans always were a hard-working, disciplined, conscientious, productive and technologically-innovative people; the old realities have reasserted themselves.

We can see the UK's predicament. The UK, of course, always has had a strong aversion to the idea of one country dominating the Continent. In the 1920s, it was France; in the 1930s and 1940s, Germany. Which is why certain segments of the British political class (including the British Far Right, e.g., Enoch Powell) were extremely hostile to the EU from the beginning. They realised that Europe, over time, become a centralised power under Belgian, French and German rule; then French and German rule; then German rule. And, following that, an alternative economic system - an alternative to the dominant 'Atlanticist' one - would appear.

Australia's problem, of course, is not Germany and the Continent, but Asia: that is, fear of either Chinese or Japanese domination, either through Chinese labour, Japanese capital or (now in 2011) Chinese labour and capital. But, assuming that all nations revert to their geopolitical DNA, so to speak, Australia will eventually revert to type - and adopt economic and political policies towards Asia in accord with those of the past. There is hope.

But what of America (and Israel's) prospects? It is impossible to predict the future in politics with any degree of accuracy, but... My guess is that America, and Israel, right now, are down for the count and down for good. Either Obama will be re-elected, and America will continue its decline; or some 'consensus' Republican candidate, such as Romney, will be elected and continue the same anti-growth economic policies as Obama. (Romney's economic platform really is mediocre, and is derided by many right-wing economic commentators). It is true that the American electorate is intolerant of failure, and tends to take chances on untested candidates during times of uncertainty (which is why Obama was elected). There is a possibility that a new Reagan or Clinton may spring out of the woodwork. On the other hand, perhaps natural justice is asserting itself... American economic and military strength, which won the war for them (and dominance over Western Europe and most of Asia), was based on the Anglo-Saxon virtues and the gold standard; once it abandoned both (and it now has definitely abandoned both), it fell into decline.

Possibly, America will be Brazilianised in the future. That is, it will become a pyramidal society with a Hispanic majority, a Black and (native American) Indian underclass, and a small white minority (with Jewish-Americans at the top); there will be favelas (Brazilian shanty towns, full of Hispanics, poverty, crime, gangs, and squalor) everywhere.

The question then becomes: does Europe (and the West) want what America stands for now - Wal-Mart and Zionism? Or is there something else? The question then becomes one of a choice, not between two economic systems (Anglo-Saxon capitalism or 'European style' socialism) but between two contrasting ways of life...

Nine Turks good, ten Turks bad: the Gaza flotilla, the Döner Kebab murders and the future of Germany

I have a nationalist friend who refuses to discuss the recent news story - of the 'Döner Kebab Murders' in Germany - on the phone. He is convinced that the secret police are tapping his phone, and will use whatever comments he makes to arrest him, and frame him, for the idea of supporting a 'Döner Kebab' copycat murder spree: while (rest assured) he never will murder any döner kebab vendors, he wouldn't put it past the state to frame him for wanting to do so.

This is unlikely. Suppose that two members of the Trotskyite-communist Socialist Alliance were discussing the latest outrages by the Colombian FARC, or the Indian Maoists - would they be arrested and framed for plotting acts of left-wing violence? But such is the paranoia on the Far Right.

As we know from the news, a group calling itself the National Socialist Underground in Germany killed ten Turkish immigrants - all vendors of disgusting döner kebabs - over the course of ten years, without being detected; they also robbed a bank and killed a female police officer. They made a bizarre video, which has the faces of their victims imposed on a 1960s Pink Panther cartoon (and slogans such as 'Actions, not Words'). Their actions were only discovered recently after two of the men in the gang committed suicide (by shooting each other) and then blowing themselves up with a timed explosive. (A female member turned herself in). The German press has, delightfully, christened the gang 'the Brown Army Faction', and the reactions have been predictable. Merkel has declared herself shocked and ashamed. There will be compensation paid by the German government (the German government is always good for money), a minute's silence in the Bundestag, while members of the German establishment are renewing their calls to ban the NPD and proposing that all German nationalists be registered with the German secret police.

Ironically, the story broke on the fiftieth anniversary of the first Turkish "guest-workers" arriving in Germany. (Turkish immigrants were brought in, as "guests", to fill a supposed labour-shortage; but the guests continued to stay, and now number 3 million - and many of them now find it hard getting any work at all).

The National Socialist Underground were undetected for a long time, and the Turkish immigrants in Germany are arguing that this is proof of an endemic German "racism". This, of course, is an argument against their position. Supposing that the Germans are (as the immigrants imply) a nasty, horrible, "racist" people: why, then, are the millions of Muslim immigrants in the country? Surely, in this instance, you'd want to stay in, and live in, a Muslim country, where you won't get discriminated against for being a Turk or Muslim? But actually, no. To the Turkish immigrants, the purpose of the Bundesrepublik is to protect them from the nasty "Neo-Nazis" and other racists, so their vendors can continue to sell their greasy döners in peace. (As a friend said to me, 'There are SO many Doner Kebab vendors in Germany, its unbelievable that they can all stay in business.  It's easier to get a Kebab in Germany, than actual German food').

The attitude of Germany's Turks reflects the immigrant mentality: they believe they have the "right" to a better life - in a wealthy country like Germany. The fact that they are, by emigrating there in the millions, actually colonising those countries (like the Jewish settlers in Jerusalem and the West Bank) with the effect of dispossessing the indigenous Germans (or British or Swedes), crowding them out of their own cities and reproducing, in those cities and council-housing estates, a downtown Istanbul or Islamabad or Mogadishu, in miniature - is of no concern to them. The white man has to lump it: the immigrant has his "right to a better life", and that's that.

As we know, this emigration is, in the end, counter-productive. There are no magical properties in the German, British, Australian or American soil, which make these countries prosperous, safe, clean; no, these qualities - which are really the virtues of the white nations - come about from the people. Displace the people, and you end up with something like a China, India, Pakistan, Mexico or Congo. (Now, nothing against those countries in particular, but it's evident that literally millions of their inhabitants are desperate to get away from them, and go somewhere else - preferably to a white man's country).

What sticks in the throat of the Germans (or Swedes, or British), is that the immigrants from Pakistan or Somalia don't even make the effort to pretend to like the native inhabitants (I myself have never met a Chinese or Indian immigrant who, while liking Australia, actually admits to liking 'Aussies' themselves). Indeed, it's only a matter of time before the immigrant population starts to make demands - loud demands - that the host country adopt to its ways. In a recent article in The Age newspaper ('Too-white TV must tune in to the real Team Australia', 26/11/2011), a few immigrant "entertainers" declared that Australian TV was 'too white', and that changes needed to be made. (The author writes, 'MORE than 2 million Australians were born in Asia and our Indian-born population has more than trebled in a decade, but mainstream television, other than SBS, rarely reflects this fact'). Presumably, these immigrants can go home to their countries of origin and watch Chinese, and Indian soaps all day long, and feel included that way; but they don't want to. It is we who have to accommodate them.

The irony of the Döner Kebab murders is that the liberal establishment sometimes looks at the murder of Turks, and other non-whites, as a sad necessity. As we know, Israel killed nine Turks on the Gaza flotilla, which was on its way to break the Israeli embargo of Gaza and deliver supplies of nappies, toilet paper and goat meat. As to why they were killed, well, in the disordered mind of the Jewish-Israeli, nappies and goat meat are, in fact, weapons of mass destruction which can be used to murder the poor little Jews of Israel (in the nearby settlement of Ashkalon, for instance). In addition, the sight of anyone wanting to help Israel's chief enemy - the Palestinians - fills Jewish-Israelis with a murderous rage. Hence, the murder of the nine Turks. The liberal establishment makes excuses: 'The Turks were attacking the Israeli commandos with iron bars! The commandos were acting in self-defence!'. But then, suppose that it was Jews who were embargoed by an occupying (Arab or German) army, and Jewish activists, seeking to break that embargo, were shot dead... The Western liberal establishment, despite being ostensibly egalitarian, does categorise peoples according to their worth: and Jewish Israelis, along with Jews in general, are on a higher plane than Turks and other non-whites.

Amusingly, I saw a news item, on SBS, with a story on Palestinian 'freedom-ride' activists, who tried to catch a Jews-only bus to Jerusalem. They were forcibly removed, from the bus, by Jewish-Israeli soldiers, to the approval and delight of the Jewish-Israeli passengers. In the interest of freedom from bias, the news report took up half its time explaining the Israeli point of view: Palestinians had, in the past, blown up buses with Jewish-Israelis; therefore, Palestinians had to be prevented from riding buses with Jewish-Israelis on them. Of course, the Palestinian 'freedom-riders' compared themselves to the heroic Negroes of the US civil rights struggle in the 1960s; but American proponents of segregation could have used exactly the same arguments as the Israeli government in this story (given the fact of interracial, black-on-white crime in the US).

These Palestinian tactics will, over time, prove to be very effective. The activists understand that the civil rights Negroes (along with Mandela) are venerated as gods in the West; they want to drive a wedge between the liberal Westerners and the (now) not-so-liberal lovers of Israel and Jewry. In short, they want to bring this hierarchy - where Jews are placed on a pedestal, above Muslims - to light.

Where, however, does this leave the Germans? The National Socialist Underground are the equivalent of the urban guerrilla, left-wing terrorist groups (such as the Baader-Meinhof gang, or Denmark's pro-Palestinian 'Left Wing Gang'). In their ideology, they more resemble the white nationalists of Robert Jay Matthews and the Order; they are not, so far as I can see, National Socialists: the Third Reich had excellent relations with Turkey (although Turkey never joined the Axis cause), and never suffered from a Turkish immigrant problem.

A friend of mine writes that the purpose of the modern German political establishment 'like any other Western one, is to ensure there IS no Germany, or Italy, or England, or America, or Australia... [The Bundesrepublik] too "Officially" supports the German people but "unofficially" would prefer to see them gone'. That is, the German establishment wants to get rid of the Germans, en masse, and replace them with an immigrant Islamic or African or Indian or Asian population; the same goes for the political establishments in Britain, Australia, etc. Whether or not these respective establishments succeed in their task is another thing altogether. Some countries (like Britain) are bringing in such huge numbers of immigrants that they are actually succeeding in displacing the white inhabitants to an enormous degree (57% of students in schools in England, for example, are now non-white); other countries, like Germany, are, despite their best efforts, not reaching British levels. The point is, the intent - and it is a genocidal intent - is there.

Morally, then, the likes of the National Socialist Underground stand on the same plane as the Palestinians, in the West Bank and Jerusalem, who commit acts of violence against Jewish settlers: violence is the last resort after any negotiations have broken down and attempts at a peaceful resolution have been thwarted. The Western political establishment views all nationalists and racialists and disgusting, filthy creatures. Nationalists are locked out of the political establishment, and out of the political (and intellectual) debates of our age. The German nationalists of the National Socialist Underground, then, felt that they had no choice but to commit violent crimes, which in turn leaves the political establishment feeling validated in their low estimation of nationalists.

It is always fascinating, from an intellectual point of view, watching extremist types - whether of the Far Right or Left - pursuing the logical implications of their ideology to the bitter end. It is also a saddening sight when the efforts of those same extremists are so counter-productive and futile. The Baader-Meinhofs and Red Brigades didn't succeed in their objectives (and, by the end, they seemed somewhat confused as to what their objectives were); the National Socialist Underground, despite its killing the döner vendors, won't put a dent in the 4.3 million-strong Muslim immigrant population. What's more, they may end up making things worse for German nationalism. The West, of course, reveres some terrorists (who make futile, and violent, gestures against repressive regimes - e.g., Mandela); but it comes down hard, especially hard, on right-wing, nationalist terrorists, and non-terrorists on the Far Right suffer too.

To return to my question: are the National Socialist Underground, and the "Neo-Nazis", really National Socialists?

One of my objections to the ideology of "Neo-Nazism" is that it (as in the case of Savitri Devi) puts Hitler and the National Socialists almost at the level of a trans-national religious cult; whereas Hitler and the National Socialists were Germans first, German nationalists second, and National Socialists third. The volunteers who fought in the German army in WWI, or in the Freikorps after WWI, were closer to the true, historical German National Socialism than many of the so-called "Neo-Nazis" of today.

One of the interesting things about the recent European financial crisis is that the old stereotype - of Germany, and the Germans, as the bully, and the bully with the power and the money - has returned, especially in the British media. One has to scan the tabloids daily to find comparisons of Merkel and Sarkozy to Hitler and Petain (the tabloids, of course, intend such comparisons to be offensive, because they are full of a vindictive hatred of the Germans, and the French, in general). All this proves that nations don't deviate much from their national types, no matter who is in charge; the fact that Sarkozy is a French Jew, and Merkel is a German who hates Germans (and daughter of an East German pro-communist priest), makes no difference. Now, in 2011, a powerful bully runs Germany, a toady of Germany runs France, an exhibitionist buffoon (the recently-deposed Berlusconi) runs Italy, while a spluttering, impotent Britain wrings its hands and looks on - all of this looks like the Europe of 1941!

Which raises the question: what if German does revert to type? What if decades of Allied brain-washing, Judaist Holocaust religious propaganda and Bundesrepublik-ism make no difference and the old, pre-1945 Germany feels compelled to reassert itself? This is what the British tabloids, and other commentators, are thinking. You can kidnap a man, and brainwash him, as in the famous movie The Manchurian Candidate (1962); but, after a while, the brainwashing will wear off and that man will revert to who he is - his essence. (And remember, brainwashing, as a method of mind-control, was devised, and first put into practice, by communists). As it is with human beings, so it is with nations: nature triumphs nurture.

I, almost daily, read (in the popular press) sombre ruminations by British commentators, who remind their readers that British policy on the Continent has always been to maintain a 'balance of power' and prevent any country from gathering up all the power for itself. Now that Germany is (under Merkel) accrueing power for itself, the British have to sit up and take note. But all the British can do is isolate themselves, further and further, from the Continental powers, and the EU. All this reminds me of the popular journalism of the 1920s and 1930s.

I myself think that these commentators are right. Because of the geopolitical, and economic, realities, Germany is reverting to the old nationalistic Germany - of Bismarck and Wilhelm II - whether it wants to or not, and despite the best efforts of its anti-German, anti-nationalist political establishment.

If only there were some way to connect the two threads - the realities of Germany's geopolitical position, and the Far Right German nationalism of the NPD: so far, they stand on separate sides of the fence.

I have written here before about how difficult it is for today's nationalist intellectuals to reproduce, exactly, the ideology of a German National Socialism or an Italian Fascism. (The Trotskyites who want to 'bring back' the old pre-Stalin communism have the same difficulty). It is a difficult intellectual exercise simply because so much water has flowed under the bridge. (You may as well try and understand the "original" Christianity of Jesus and his disciples, or the "original" Buddhism). Something happens, in cases like these, is that strange deviations of the doctrine emerge, which have little or no relation to the original. Modern-day Trotskyism, as represented by the Socialist Alliance, Socialist Alternative and other Australian communist groups, has no relation to Trotskyism or even communism. The modern Australian "Trotskyist" platform is: gay marriage, Palestinian nationalism and student rights (plus a dose of 'Free the Refugees'). Trotsky himself would have been baffled.

But what was National Socialism's original doctrine? One of the main components of it was a faith in the German people: that they were a resourceful, hard-working and above all resilient people - given the chance; other nations (and the less said of them, the better) didn't have those qualities. The same qualities stemmed from the people themselves; they weren't magical properties of the German soil. This was Hitler's "racialism", which communists and liberals have found so outrageous (and British nationalists, like the Churchill types, whose nationalism consists of hating, actively, other nations).

One of the reasons why they found it so outrageous was that "racialism" was that, in Hitler's ideology, in order for Germans to be 'given the chance', the Jewish population of Germany had to be booted out of the leading positions it occupied in commerce, academia, politics, the trade union movement, the media; and, furthermore, communism in Germany had to be quashed, for all time. Communism, and Jewry, had plenty of supporters at the time (and still do); these supporters regarded Jewry, and communists, as an inoffensive people undeserving of such a fate.

The German National Socialist doctrines here are logical and self-consistent: one proposition naturally flows from the other. Do they apply, however, to Germany (and Europe) today?

Yes and no. There is, constitutionally, a profound difference between Hitler's Germany and the Bundesrepublik today; there is also a profound spiritual difference - Judaism, Holocaustianism and the worship of the Jewish-Israeli people (all the one and same thing) is the official state-sponsored religion of Germany (and much of the West). But these 'overlays' are superficial. The core of Germany - the German people - is still there; furthermore, that core hasn't changed much since the time of Bismarck or Wilhelm II. The old characteristics of the Germans are popping up again, in the recent financial crisis. As Walter Russell Mead writes, in the Wall Street Journal:

France is basically a Club Med country with some northern features (historically often found among the Huguenots and Jews, out of which communities many of its most successful business leaders have come). It wants a "political" economic system for Europe, one in which political pressures can ensure the kind of steady devaluation of the euro that Italy, Spain, France, Greece and Portugal used to enjoy with their national currencies in the good old pre-euro days. The only problem with this old system was that it gave too many advantages to the Germans, Dutch and others (in the form of lower interest rates). France wants to stick the Germans with a Latin currency and Latin rules for running it.

Germany, on the other hand, wants the Latin countries to live by northern rules: Keep the currency sound, the budgets balanced and let the chips fall where they may. There is zero, repeat, zero consensus in Germany to go Latin and give the euro into the hands of slick French and Italian politicians. Technocrats bound by rules, the Germans can accept: That is why an Italian technocrat is following a Frenchman at the head of the ECB. But that is also why the Germans are being such sticklers about ECB rules against bailouts and unlimited ECB purchases of sovereign bonds.

['The Culture War Over Europe's Money' (subtitled, 'The Germans are richer and more stubborn... The French are flashier and faster on their feet', WSJ, 17/11/2011)].

How redolent this is of the (often crass) generalisations of Hitler's Table Talk and Mein Kampf! And yet, the likes of Mead are not accused of being German nationalists, National Socialists, or NPD-sympathisers.

The problem for the nationalist intellectual (and the German nationalist) is that we have been so deluged with propaganda and misinformation, regarding Hitler, National Socialism and the 'old' Germany (that is, the Germany before the Allied-Soviet occupation), is that we have lost sight of the old Germany - that is, we don't know what it looks like. As well as that, we have distorted perceptions of Hitler and National Socialism. (The opponents of National Socialism - Jewry in particular - are not the only source of these misperceptions. There are the "Neo-Nazis" themselves, who see Hitler as a "saviour of the white race" and a prototypical white nationalist).

Now, of course, the 'old Germany' is starting to come back. For decades, the Germans have been told that any manifestations of German strength are evil - and are the purest, deepest evil known to man; furthermore, Germans have been told that, in any case, they are very weak, and that life under the dreadful Allied-Soviet occupation has made them weak, and that they will continue to be weak for a long time. Now, though, the perception is that Germany is strong, and strong once again. They are exhibiting (according to the commentators in and outside Germany) the same old German virtues - the virtues which, ironically, were lauded by Hitler (e.g., the virtue of resilience - see Hitler's final radio address on January 30, 1945). The modern foes of Germany (among them, the British) see this and are furious: they recognise that, despite Merkel, despite the attempt to dilute, and destroy, the German identity through Turkish immigration and Islam - the old Germany is back.

Which isn't to say that the 'austerity' policies Merkel advocates aren't disastrous: they are. Italy, Spain, Greece, Belgium, France, need strong economic growth to meet the interest payments on their debts, and won't get that growth by raising their taxes to the stratosphere (the taxes are high enough already). Supply-side economic theory predicts that, if a nation starts cutting its tax rates to the levels needed to deliver increased production and commerce, interest rates on national debt will drop - just as they did on US debt in the 1980s (and this was despite the US, under Reagan, running a record deficit for the time). The "Latin" countries of Southern Europe are quite right to reject the austerity measures demanded by Germany and the EU. Furthermore, it is not clear as to why the EU has to use taxpayer's money to prevent bondholder losses (losses which would come about were Greece, Italy or Spain to default).

But the Eurozone is, despite the dire predictions of the financial press, not about to 'break up'. The euro is not collapsing: it is one of the strongest currencies in the world - along with the yen and the pound. And, were any of the Eurozone countries to abandon the euro, they would still have to pay back debts denominated in euros. Greece would be crazy to revert to the drachma (but then, no country in the Eurozone is seriously considering going back to the old national currencies, no matter what the financial press says).

The question is, if my thesis is correct, why, now, are countries such as Germany, France, Britain, Greece, Italy 'reverting to type'? Why didn't they do it years ago? The answer is America - or rather, America's decline in the past ten years. It has exhausted itself fighting two long wars (which aren't over yet) which it could not win, and thereby showed up the myth of American military supremacy. It is no coincidence that its economy took a nosedive around the same time. Political power, as Yockey never tired of saying, is a plenum, the opposite of a vacuum: it fills all available spaces. When power departs from one country, it arrives at another. The dead hand of America has been on Britain, Poland and France since the 1930s, and then all of Western Europe since 1945. Now, though, the grip has loosened somewhat. The nations of Europe are beginning to move around a bit - and rediscover what life was like before America.

Hitler would have attributed America's problems to 'The Jew' - and certainly, Jewish-American policy-makers are responsible for America's foreign policy woes (which will be compounded if America, at Israel's behest, attacks Iran). But Europe's problems - particularly the immigrant problem - are somewhat more complex. What is clear that European nationalism, particularly German nationalism, needs to adopt a new ideology to deal with the new realities. The German nationalists are completely out of step with the changes that are taking place. The NPD and Merkel (who may be voted out at the next election) need to meet in the same room, so to speak. But, at the moment, this is impossible. The Merkels want to Islamify Germany, thereby wiping them out, in order to atone for the "Holocaust"; the NPD want to revise the results of WWII, and throw out the Muslims. Neither can see past these (obviously irreconcilable) differences and see the commonalities - i.e., their shared 'German-ness'.

The quest is on for new political forms. A true German nationalist party would get rid of, not only Bundesrepublik theories and forms, but also the old National Socialism (or the caricature National Socialism has become). Again, this would be impossible for the time being, simply because (in my experience) German nationalists lack the foresight and imagination to do such a thing (but then, Germans have always been such a stubborn people).

But for non-Germans, today's events show the closest thing to an approximation of what the old Germany - before the Allied/Soviet conquest and subjugation of 1945 - looked like. The question is, do we like what we see?