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, i
t 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.
Philip Selznick's classic book, The Organizational Weapon: A Study of Bolshevik Strategy and Tactics (1952) has been republished this year, and I can't think of a better book for nationalists to buy and read. I've read the book about four times.
Some of the best books on communism are written by non-communists. J. Edgar Hoover's Masters of Deceit (1958) is surprisingly good. Another more recent book, which looks at communism in practice (in an era communists would like to forget) is Victor Sebestyen's 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire (2009). In general, the non-communist authors give the reader a better idea of communist practice, of strategy and tactics, than the works of Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, Stalin and their followers. The standard communist practice of infiltrating trade unions and other groups with a view to taking them over isn't mentioned, except obliquely, in the communist canon; neither is the other practice, the setting of 'front groups' (dummy organisations) usually organised by communists but often with non-communist figure heads ('dupes' or 'fellow travellers') to give them an aura of respectability. (The US-based ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) gives an example of one such front group). Communist theorists tend to leave those subjects off the table and prefer to train their activists in these arts off-camera, so to speak. The likes of Selznick and Hoover are under no such constraints.
Even though Selznick's book was written sixty years ago, it, and communism, still remain relevant. In fact, they are more relevant than ever. The election of a gay, dope-smoking Marxist negro to the White House - twice - shows this; so does Ferguson, where trained communist agitators worked in concert with the Marxist Obama administration and a pliant, left-liberal 'progressive' US media to bring about a race riot. (On that note, the exacerbation of racial divisions, with a view to inducing violence and riots, is a time-honoured American communist tactic. Yockey writes, in Imperium in 1948: 'Bolshevism and Culture-distortion did not miss the potentialities of the Negro for purposes of inner disintegration and race war... Trials of Negroes for felony in the Southern states are made the object of wide-spread and intense Communist propaganda along the old lines of “equality” and “tolerance.” The Communist party supplies counsel to Negroes accused of crime'). The control of the Democrat Party by the Marxist wing (and the consequent ouster of the old, trade-union and social democratic wing from the party leadership) is the fruit of decades of communist labour. Communist activists worked to infiltrate the party and pervert it and twist it to their purposes. This - the communist perversion of an institution such as a party or a trade union or student group and the directing it away from the purposes for which it was originally founded - is one of the themes of Selznick's book.
Selznick gives us the chance to 'know thy enemy'; he also allows us to 'know thyself'. I must confess that, when I read the book, it's as though I see myself in a mirror. He does mention, at several points, fascism and Nazism, and details the similarities between the two creeds - fascism and communism. People who don't see those similarities are not thinking properly - they are making an intellectual error which consists of examining what communism says and not what it does and by concentrating too much on communist theory and not enough on communist practice. It's true that, on quite a few points, the communists will differ from the fascists quite dramatically - i.e., they will nationalise everything once in power whereas the fascists won't; on the whole, however, if we are to look at how the two ideologies go about things, we will see similarities.
Firstly, let's look at communist objectives. According to Selznick (from a review by Herbert Blumer ),
The objective of the communists, Selznick shows, is not so much to indoctrinate the masses of people with an ideology, or to seize control of the Government in traditional revolutionary style, but instead to seek conquest of the strategic functioning units in a society—groups such as labor unions, veteran organizations, youth groups, the unemployed, indeed any group which offers a base for expanding operations. Thus, the effort of communists becomes primarily one of seeking initial toeholds in groups and institutions which will offer in turn means of moving progressively to greater conquests of power until the control of the social apparatus of a society is secured.
To secure 'power', the communists don't need to win elections. The conservative Rush Limbaugh made this point regarding Obama:
The sooner people figure it out... I can't fathom not understanding it six years in, but clearly people still don't get it or don't want to admit it. But it's time to get with the program and understand exactly what we're dealing with here, and it's unique. It's not the standard, "He's just the latest Democrat president. The Republicans are in opposition." This is far more involved than just that.
We've got the Democrat Party has become radicalized. They're not just the usual bunch of corrupt thieves and thugs that they've always been. There is a radical, radical, liberal element in the Democrat Party which doesn't need to win elections in order to implement what they believe throughout the strata of this country. That's the purpose of community organizations like ACORN.
They don't need to win elections in order to corrupt the institutions they don't like. Obama, he doesn't need to win. Okay, so he lost the election. Big whoop! That isn't gonna stop him from doing what he wants; it's not gonna stop his fellow community organizers or his fellow liberals. I mean, they'll take election victories, yeah, hubba hubba, but they do not get stymied when they lose them.
The traditional old hat -- the typical union, corrupt-thug, Harry Reid/Pelosi wing of the Democrats-- yeah. Now, they get upset when they lose, and there's hell to pay when they lose. 'Cause they do everything they do legislatively. Now, they work with the new liberal wing, the community organizer wing like Obama. They work with 'em. Occupy Wall Street.
But Occupy Wall Street and the militant environmentalist wacko movement and the pro-choice wackos, they are gonna continue to be organizing and causing friction and doing whatever the hell they can do to upset things, whether they win or lose. This is what I don't think is understood, widely understood by a lot of otherwise really smart Republicans.
It's an astute piece of analysis on Limbaugh's part. The communist (or the Nazi) has to ask himself the hypothetical question: given that we are unlikely to win a democratic election under these present circumstances (which are unfavourable to us), how do we 'get power'? State power is out of reach. But there are sources, or focal points, of power, and this is where the communists (and the fascists) direct their energies. One can get to the masses, not through an appeal to the 'average joe' or 'average voter', but through mass organisations and groups. This is how power is attained (Blumer again):
The mass is conceived not as an amorphous and diffused aggregate but as consisting of specialized groups and organizations which are favorably located and which are or may be sources of power. Such groups and institutions become the targets for the power seeking efforts of the communists.
So if you grab hold of the trade unions, the student groups, the police force, the churches, the army, women's groups, you will, in effect, multiply the power of your organisation over society. In fact, if you have seized hold of these institutions and these sectors of society (women, religious people, trade unionists, youth), you then get to determine the political. You can declare that such-and-such an election result didn't reflect the 'will of the people' and was thereby 'undemocratic'; you can then demand that it be revoked, cancelled, and your party - whether it be fascist or communist - be given power, or at least a seat at the table. So much power (in effect) has been accumulated by this point that state power becomes almost an afterthought. That is, your fascist or communist party de facto runs the country already - through its control of the unions, the churches, the universities - that state power (as possessed by the liberal democratic parties) almost becomes superfluous.
This is a big ask, for any group of any persuasion - it's impossible to control all the students, all the churches, all the trade unions. No communist or fascist party has managed to do that, at least before the seizure of state power (after that, all the trade unions, churches, student groups can be brought under state control). So the tactic becomes one of inserting a fraction in each social grouping. Either the fascists and communists infiltrate their own operatives into existing trade union and church, student, youth, groups, or they create their own from scratch. The idea is to get footings, toeholds... Which is why the NSDAP, for example, created a number of organisations - the SA and SS, the Hitlerjugend (for youth), the National Socialist women's groups, the NSBOs (National Socialist Factory Cell Organisation) and others. These groups - which are mass groups and extra-parliamentary, that is, political while being at the same time outside the purview of the state - serve a dual function. Before the seizure of state power, they serve as an alternative to the state, a state (as it were) within the state and thereby a challenge to the state; after the seizure, they become compulsory - youth are forced to enrol in the Hitlerjugend, the trade unions are forced to amalgamate into the DAF (German Labour Front). New highly politicised state institutions are formed to replace the old, e.g., the Gestapo, formed by Goering in 1933 - a political police. This process is what occurred in Italy in 1922 and Germany in 1933, and in the Eastern European states after 1945 - and elsewhere where a communist party has won state power.
To bring about this form of state (which Selznick identifies as 'totalitarian'), one needs a special type of organisation, one Selznick calls the 'combat party'. Here is Blumer again:
The foundation for this line of effort is the formation of the communist party—a "combat party" consisting of an elite of reliable agents who are thoroughly indoctrinated, skillfully trained and rigidly disciplined. The integrity of the combat party is developed and preserved by the psychological insulation of its members and by the rigid prohibition of internal disputes over aims or objectives. This gives a reliable and tightly-knit membership which may be mobilized, manipulated, deployed and directed as needed by the policy and strategy of the directing leadership...
The combat party is the instrument employed to utilize and direct for party ends the potential energy resident in the mass of people.
Selznick spends a great deal of time detailing the characteristics of the combat party. The essential thing is that all the communist factions - Stalinist, Trotskyite, Maoist, Hoxhaite, Brezhnevite, what have you - rely upon the combat party, that the communist party is built upon the combat party; the same goes for the historical fascist parties, the NSDAP, the Italian PNF and others. That's clear enough from the historical record.
Now, once you accept Selznick's characterisation of the 'totalitarian' ideologies of communism and fascism, you'll say to yourself, 'I like the sound of this "combat party", I think it sounds jolly good; I want to build it, and I want to build it now. How do I do it?'. The question becomes an instrumental one: how do I go about achieving this goal, what measures do I need to undertake... the answer is that you - as a fascist or a communist - need to examine the human material available; it becomes a matter of finding the right sort of man to be a member, and preferably a cadre member, of your party. The task becomes one of recruitment and training; you need to find the right sort of person to be a soldier - and Selznick uses many military metaphors in his book - for your army.
On this note, many of the criticisms (made by those in the nationalist scene) directed against those claiming to be 'National Socialist' or (what the mainstream media calls) neo-Nazi comes down to this: they aren't adequate human material, they are unsuited as soldiers in a fascist 'combat party'. The uniformed George Lincoln Rockwell / Gary Lauck types, the skinheads, simply don't cut it; they don't measure up to the standards of the historical organisations such as the NSDAP or the PNF - they are not fit to be Italian Blackshirts or SA or SS men. Notable exceptions exist, of course: I've seen (in German documentaries) east German skinheads who seem to be good organiser types, and just about anyone in nationalism knows a 'good skinhead' or good Rockwell-type former uniform-wearer who is cadre level, real or potential. But the exception proves the rule.
The second criticism is that the Craig Cobb-types, the George Lincoln Rockwell-types, the tattooed
skinhead-types, through their appearance and their behaviour, end up isolating themselves from the masses that they want to win over to their cause. In other words, the tattoos, the homemade SA uniforms, the shaven heads, the brandishing of old fascist and Nazi symbols, the eccentric antics - all constitute a major turn-off. At some point, when interacting with the non-nationalist public, one has to be honest, open and upfront about one's true beliefs. But that doesn't excuse downright eccentricity, exhibitionism and obnoxiousness, and besides which, one can get very far in politics by obscuring one's beliefs and hiding behind a mask. Look at Obama, for instance. We know that he came from a radical leftist background and is a Marxist, but he and the rest of his faction with the Democrat Party have been clever enough to cover their tracks. Through their subterfuge, they cause confusion and doubt in the minds of their critics ('Is Obama a radical Marxist, or is he just an extreme liberal?'). The Obama administration represents the Marxist subversion, not of a trade union or a church group, but the office of the presidency itself - an extraordinary accomplishment - and the Democrat Party. Obama and his gang couldn't have gotten where they are now without concealment and the practicing of deception on the American public. As Selznick writes, one of the most pressing needs of the communist party is the maintenance of access to the mass organisations it seeks to capture: the communists know that they won't get anywhere with the trade unions, youth groups, churches, if they let on that they are communist - if they conspicuously display their allegiance to the Soviet Union, brandish their communist symbols and call for the overthrow of the state and all existing institutions and their replacement with a communist order. They understand, only too well, that the general public - especially in an Anglo-Saxon country - has been conditioned to hate and fear communism (this was at the time that Selznick wrote his book). They castigate, and rightly so, the open, flagrant Marxists as 'sectarian', 'isolationist', 'left-opportunist', 'dogmatist' - that is, the obnoxious and exhibitionistic Marxists are criticised for giving the game away, or giving it away too early. The communists know this, but we neofascists and neo-Nazis don't.
Metapedia gives a good summary of neo-Nazism in its entry on 'National Socialism after World War II' and makes mention of the 'sectarian', 'isolationist' tendency in the neofascist movement:
National Socialism after World War II refers to the National Socialist worldview as it has developed since the collapse of the Greater German Empire in 1945, following the Second World War. In Germany, the primary successor of the NSDAP was the Socialist Reich Party (1949-1952) led by General Otto Ernst Remer. As well as this, some former National Socialists worked for a variety of governments, from South America to Egypt: some highly skilled scientists were also poached from Germany by the Soviets and the Americans (Operation Paperclip), but this is unlikely to have constituted any sort of NS ideological continuity. Some prominent figures such as Léon Degrelle and Otto Skorzeny found refuge in Spain under Franco and founded CEDADE.
Aside from this, in the broader category of European social nationalism, there have also been some German participants, most of which were associated with National Pan-Europeanism during the 1950s, hoping to form a European third position, free from both Americanism and Sovietism. The German Reich Party, where many former NSDAP members were to be found after the Socialist Reich Party were outlawed, signed the Declaration of Venice. Francis Parker Yockey, an American dissident based in London, also helped to mould these ideas.
Outside of this, some non-German groups began dressing up in quasi-Brownshirt uniforms and providing a Hollywood Nazi caricature of National Socialism. This was especially prominent in the United States since the 1960s, due to the influence of George Lincoln Rockwell and his American Nazi Party (he was from a family of vaudeville actors). This farce continues on today in various forms. It does not constitute serious political activism and is essentially a drinking club hobby for eccentrics. Nevertheless, Jewish groups such as the SPLC and the ADL of B'nai B'rith have used them, sometimes directly (see Frank Cohen✡) to discredit serious American nationalist efforts, promote Holocaustianity and create the "Neo-Nazi" caricature.
This brings us to another important point. Like communism, neo-Nazism preaches loyalty, unswerving devotion and patriotism towards to two things - the party and the fatherland. Selznick speaks of the communism 'party patriotism' and the patriotism towards the 'Soviet Fatherland', and how even communist parties outside of the USSR were expected (so long as they were aligned with the Kremlin) to be fierce patriots for a country which is not their own, that is, the Soviet Union. Even the anti-revisionist communists - that is, the communists who broke from the USSR - were patriots, the Maoists for China, the Hoxhaites for Albania. As a movement, communism relied on these fatherlands and fell into disarray once these fatherlands ceased to exist. Many mainline pro-Soviet communist parties (including the powerful Australian Communist Party) wound up with the dissolution of the USSR in 1991; the Hoxhaite formations went down the same year. Maoism, in the West, more or less collapsed after the arrest of the Gang of Four and the rise to power Deng Xiaopeng in 1976-77. (Only the Trotskyites have survived, probably because they were never as committed to the Soviet Union as the mainline communist parties were. They were loyal and patriotic towards the USSR, most of them regarding it as a 'deformed worker's state', that is, a good nation and a good system with bad 'Stalinist' leadership, but on the whole didn't rely on the USSR for diplomatic and financial - and moral - support). Trotskyites aside, the communists in the West by 1990 were in the same position as the neo-Nazis: they had no existing fatherland to feel loyalty to, they had no party, and they had no great and wise men to look up to as leaders and teachers. (There's an interesting parallel between Maoism and fascism: none of these movements survived the deaths of their leaders. Maoism, German National Socialism and Italian Fascism ceased to exist in the same years as the deaths of Mao, Hitler and Mussolini respectively. By way of contrast, Soviet communism was far more robust and survived the 'bad' leaders Khrushchev and Stalin - the former was toppled in an internal party coup, the latter disgraced after his death. North Korean communism has continued because North Korea is, like Assad's Syria, ruled by a dynasty. It remains to be seen whether or not Cuban communism survives the deaths of the Castro brothers). The bottom line is that, while it's wonderful to live in a world of political ideals, in order for a political movement to survive, it needs something tangible to point to as the embodiment of that ideal - either Mao's China or Hoxha's Albania or Brezhnev's USSR or Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy. Soviet communism was an extension of Soviet power, Maoism Chinese power, fascism the Third Reich's power. Take away that state, and the political movement most associated with it is bereft.
Creative ways around this obstacle exist, however. The Marxists who infiltrated and now control the Democrat Party have followed the same strategy advocated by Trotsky in the 'French Turn' period of the 1930s: that is, Marxists have practised entryism on a respectable social democratic party. But these Marxists in the Democrat Party don't appear to belong to any one Marxist-Leninist party. What's more, Obama isn't a hardened communist cadre man. He is, in effect, another Martin Luther King - a man of little intellectual achievement who is a black radical and Marxist masquerading as a 'liberal' and 'progressive' and a charlatan who is good at fooling white people. This is what makes the case of Obama and the Democrats almost the reverse mirror image of the application of traditional communist 'combat party' strategy and tactics. Communist infiltrators are usually under the direction of a centralised, authoritarian single communist party and are trained and heavily-indoctrinated party men of great leadership ability - in other words, cadre men. But by not following the traditional communist path, the Democrat Party Marxists have succeeded where, it should be noted, the traditional Marxists failed. Entryism nearly always fails, as we know from history: the French Trotskyists who followed the 'French Turn' strategy were turfed out of the SFIO (French Section of the Worker's International) which was the social democratic target of the entryists; likewise, the Trotskyite Militant Tendency faction was expelled from the British Labour Party in the 1980s. There's a message there for we nationalists. (For evidence of widespread Marxist infiltration of the Democrat Party, especially at the lower, grass-roots levels, see the New Zealand conservative Trevor Loudon's site, KeyWiki). The message is: rigidity and dogmatism when it comes to one's absolute goal, flexibility when it comes to the tactics to be used in the short term.
There are those on the Far Left who are critical of Obama and the Democrats, of course: Obama is still blowing up Muslims with drones, and he hasn't pulled the troops out of Afghanistan or closed Guantanamo (or recognised Cuba); he hasn't turned the US into what Selznick calls a 'totalitarian' state yet. But these leftists simply don't recognise Obama's Marxist achievements. Obama's ultimate objective is to turn the US into a Venezuelan or Cuban style state where the majority of the population are dependent on the state for support. He is gradually steering the US towards that goal. Reliance at food stamps is at record levels, the US participation rate (a measure which records how many Americans are in work or are looking for work) is at the lowest level in nearly thirty years. As for the 'totalitarianism', well, what Obama calls 'change' (that is, progress towards communism) doesn't happen overnight; the leftist Obama critics should be chided for not thinking 'dialectically', as the Marxists say, that is, not looking at the big picture.
The communists in the US managed to get their act together after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991; surely we neofascists can get our act together after the fall of Germany and Italy in 1945. The road is hard and long, but recent events in the US show that human nature hasn't changed much since the 1920s and 1930s (despite the repeated protestations, from some quarters in the nationalist movement, that 'You can't go back to the 1930s'). If Marxism can win the presidency in the US - one of the countries which is the most resistant to the socialist and communist ideologies - then surely neo-Nazism / neofascism can get a toehold in Australia.
A real test for any political idea is to speak about it in front of an audience. That's something I've done with the ideas on this blog this year; I've road-tested the ideas and put them before a sympathetic audience of people of at a speaker's club, following Mao's edict 'From the masses, to the masses'. What I've discovered, for myself, has now given me the conviction that anyone in politics should devote most of their time and energy to speaking to a live audience - in fact, 80% of a politician's job is speaking to people, the other 20% travelling around the country to speak to people. It's only through live speaking that one determine what it is that the people want. After my first speech for the year, an old kamerad congratulated me and then made a few criticisms - good criticisms - of some of the points I raised. After that and after overhearing some of the topics of conversation of the attendees after the speech, I changed my tack. I've learned that the nationalist and Far Right base in this city - and this country - most of all wants to hear about, and talk about, Hitler, German National Socialism, fascism, WWII, Holocaust Revisionism, anti-Semitism, and, of all the political forms, is the most sympathetic to those advocated in Yockey's Imperium (without having read the book). They feel the most enthusiasm for these. This is because fascism or national socialism or whatever you want to call it is, for the West, a new Idea (at this juncture in our history) and thereby attracts the most devotion and enthusiasm. A hundred and fifty years ago, things were different: then - at the time of the Italian wars of reunification, of the Greek war of independence, of the revolution of 1848 - the Idea was nationalism. One couldn't stop the intellectuals, and the masses themselves, from talking about, and feeling passion for, the idea that the peoples of a nation were unified by ethnicity and language, and that these people - and not the monarchs of Europe - should be given sovereignty (a very dangerous idea at the time, this one). Today's 'dangerous idea' is neo-Nazism or neofascism (although many in the nationalist movement strenuously object to the use of the word 'Nazi' or 'fascist', recognising that these are loaded words). This is what people - at least, people on the Far Right today - feel the most passion and enthusiasm for. One needs that fire, because without it, Selznick's 'combat party', the cadres, the fractions and cells, the party schools, the political lectures, the study groups, the guided discussions, the party newspapers, are cold, grey and lifeless. They are mechanistic and are taken up by political activists without enthusiasm or conviction.
Over the past ten or so years, I've seen the same debates again and again in nationalism.
Far Right nationalism (or neofascism or neo-Nazism or White Nationalism or Radical Traditionalism or whatever you want to call it) is made up of a certain number of beliefs, just in the same way that Marxism (for example) is. Once you buy into nationalism, you get a bunch of doctrines, a collection of doctrines. These include (and are not restricted to): racialism; anti-Semitism; Holocaust Revisionism; WWII revisionism; Southern nationalism (or at least, anti-Lincolnism); anti-Islam; antipathy towards most liberal democratic parties and the liberal democratic political system in general; a strong preference for anti-egalitarian and extreme-right thinkers such as Yockey, Evola, Kevin McDonald, Lothrop Stoddard, Carl Schmitt, Spengler, Nietzsche, Heidegger... Nationalism, as Ayn Rand would say, is a package deal and more or less you can take it or leave it. That is to say, you can accept the bundle of doctrines (and the characters who are associated with 'the movement', some of whom are quite eccentric and dubious) or not, but if you find some of the points made by nationalists debatable, and the personages attracted to nationalism unsavoury, you'd best be advised to leave.
The reason for that is that one can't 'improve' nationalism: any efforts to change the core curriculum of nationalism are doomed to failure, because - as it has evolved over the decades since the war - the corpus of nationalist thought and ideology is hidebound and resistant to change. But that doesn't stop some from trying to change it, or rather, from trying to censor little bits and pieces of it. The belief of these censors is that nationalism will become acceptable to 'normal' members of the public (that is, to people who are not part of the marginal and highly unconventional nationalist subculture (and it is a subculture)) if those 'normal' members are not told certain things. 'Don't mention the Jews' or 'Don't mention the war' or even 'Don't mention race' - leave these out of the nationalist discourse and one will become, overnight, respectable. The emphasis is not on being intelligent and asking intelligent and interesting questions on, for instance, Jews (for instance: to what extent do Jews have political influence in Russia or Iran or Ukraine, do they have it to the same degree that they do in the US and UK, and if not, why?); no, it's on forbidding, or discouraging, discussion of a topic altogether.
To me, this is a strange strategy and it underestimates the intellectual curiosity of the general public - they (in my experience, and in the experience of a good many nationalists) love to hear offbeat, out of the mainstream theories regarding Masonry, the Federal Reserve, the Jews, Israel, the New World Order, 911, Pearl Harbour, Auschwitz, the Illuminati, providing these theories are presented in a tasteful and intelligent way. At the least, they are open to debate on these things and will give them a fair hearing. Other 'normals' - usually a small minority - are absolutely horrified by unconventional Far Right and extremist ideas and simply don't want to hear them; they don't want to hear anyone cast aspersions on illegal immigrants, Muslims, Afro-Americans, Chinese, Indians, Roma and become enraged when they do. But it goes without saying that you can't have a debate with such people: why are you even trying? What's more, why are you labouring under the delusion that, if you talk racialism and White Nationalism and surreptitiously leave out the Jewish question, or Holocaust denial, you'll win over such people? And why is it that they are a priority before open-minded and unprejudiced members of the general public?
The strategy of omission, as I call it, makes no sense. A parallel is this: suppose a Marxist said, 'We won't mention dialectical materialism' or 'We won't mention the theory of surplus value' or 'We won't even mention class war', in the belief that communism would be made respectable in the eyes of the general public (even acceptable to non-communists) - he would be howled down by his comrades. You really can't have a communism without the fundamental building blocks, and when an intellectual tries to jettison the fundamentals (and change Marxism into something that it isn't) a funny thing happens - the 'old' Marxism, the fundamentalist Marxism, grows back, as solid and as nutty as ever. Nationalist doctrine is built of similar stuff. But proponents of the strategy of omission ignore this fact and there is no shortage of these proponents; in fact, the nationalist movement chooses to incubate them. Which is why I say nationalists are an odd lot - at least, odd compared to the Marxists, who have a degree of common sense.
We see the strategy of omission endorsed in a recent debate between Colin Liddell and pseudo-neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin, the proprietor of the Daily Stormer site. Liddell is an exceptionally intelligent and talented man who has the wrong views. He more or less advocates giving in to the liberal anti-Nazis and anti-Germans and to the Holocaust Exterminationists; this way, 'White Nationalists' will be more respectable, more acceptable, to the general public and will start winning votes like the Front National and the Swedish Democrats. It's not a question of being clever-clever and practising deception, concealing what one's true beliefs are - there are plenty of party members in the Front National, UKIP, Swedish Democrats and other Far Right populist parties who are very extreme, neo-Nazi in fact, and don't swallow the official party line on race, Israel, the Holocaust and the rest of it; no, to Liddell, one must repent - one must believe, one must take to heart the liberal anti-German narrative which has pervaded the Western culture since the Nuremberg trials after WWII. Liddell is so wrong on this, so poisonous to morale, that I think his pens and papers should be taken away from him and that he should be forbidden to write. We don't need these ideas, and in fact we can a dose of liberal and communist anti-Nazism from the mainstream media - from the History Channel, for example - or one of Vladimir Putin's speeches.
As Carolyn Yeager has explained in her summary of Maurice Bardèche's classic book Nuremberg or the Promised Land (1948), nationalists and racialists can't avoid addressing the subject of Nazism, the Holocaust, the Nuremberg trials, simply because we live in a post-Nuremberg social, political and moral order, a post-Nuremberg New World Order. There's a reason why all European nationalism is outlawed or has the potential to be outlawed; why illegal immigrants to Europe have more rights than indigenous Europeans; why the Pope Francis brand of liberal humanist morality is de facto the compulsory morality of today; why Britain began to dismantle its immigration restriction laws after 1949 and not before; why allegiance to that morality comes before any allegiance to fatherland, state, the armed forces, nation, community, race. The reason is the legal precedent of the Nuremberg trials. Bardèche predicted it all - and non-white immigration and the destruction of any immigration restrictionism in Europe and the West - back in 1948, simply by outlining the implications of the Nuremberg ideology and following it to its conclusion. This is why, I think, so many nationalists and revisionists state today that had Hitler won the war, things would have been very different from Britain - that the mass non-white immigration after 1949 would not have taken place, for example. Bardèche would have agreed, and would have pointed out that the reason why 'things would have been different' was that the Nuremberg trials would have never have happened. The truth of the matter is that the US and UK soldiers of the war, who had a high degree of racial and national consciousness, and pride and patriotism, were in fact fighting for the death of patriotism and the destruction of their own countries.
The fate of Western nationalism is inextricably bound up with the Nuremberg precedent. Populist parties such as UKIP and the Swedish Democrats have been successful, and will continue to be successful, while ducking it. But sooner or later they will run up against it, most likely when they near closer and closer to political power - and to actually doing things, like building an Israeli-style border fence or cutting off welfare to immigrants or even deporting illegal immigrants. An Italian nationalist could make a case that the illegal immigrants of Lampedusa shouldn't be allowed into Italy, as there's enough unemployed in Italy as it is and there isn't enough welfare money to go around - besides which, things like jobs and welfare and public services in Italy should go to Italians first. All reasonable enough, you might think, and inarguable; what's more, the position of this nationalist doesn't evoke WWII and the Holocaust and doesn't call for fascist revival. But your Pope Francis liberal humanist, your crusading liberal journalist from the Swedish Expressen newspaper, would object by stating, 'But the immigrants on Lampedusa are human'. End of argument. Humanity, you see, trumps everything; it comes before love of fatherland and love of Italians, it even comes before the rational use and expenditure of national resources; it even comes before common sense - it allows Ebola-infected illegal immigrants to come into one's country. These are the implications of the Nuremberg doctrine and they are all-powerful - more powerful than Nigel Farage's English nationalism which is not really a nationalism. The closer the Farages, Le Pens and Åkessons come to power, the more their parties will be treated like criminal gangs - and some sections of the establishment media are doing that already. To ameliorate the position of one's nation is a violation of international law, post-1945, and a political party formed for this purpose is in actual fact a criminal organisation engaged in a criminal conspiracy. Which is why the entire Western liberal establishment views nationalist parties as being no better than the Nazis.
To me, the conundrum can only be solved by a frontal assault. That, in turn, means adopting all or some of the doctrines of neo-Nazism. Assuming for the moment that I'm right, here's the question: what, according to the proponents of the strategy of omission, is the problem with neo-Nazism?
There's a big difference between opposing neo-Nazism because it is wrong and because a) it is extremely unpopular, b) faces extreme resistance from the liberal establishment and therefore c) is extremely difficult to implement. No communist would ever, ever renounce his communism because of a), b) and c) (communism, like neo-Nazism, is, in the West, extremely unpopular, faces extreme resistance and is extremely difficult to implement); he doesn't renounce it, because he believes it is true and that there's no running from the truth. The same goes for the real neo-Nazi or neofascist. He believes that the doctrine is true: the Holocaust is Jewish religious rubbish and simply didn't happen - six million, or even one million, Jews weren't gassed in giant gas chambers; that the Germans didn't start WWII; that the racial question is the paramount question in politics... He believes in the core tenets and doesn't bail on neo-Nazism because of the resistance it faces and because of its unpopularity. Indeed, Hitler and Mussolini never promised their followers a rose garden; they never said that being a Fascist or a National Socialist wasn't a tough slog and wasn't unpopular. Our ideas determine our actions, and our actions reveal what we believe. The real National Socialists, the real Fascists, were the (in American Mafia parlance) 'stand-up guys' who didn't quit, didn't renounce their beliefs, when the going got tough, as it did in 1944 and 1945. We find this line from an April 1945 propaganda text by Werner Naumann, Goebbels aide and post-war German nationalist, The Time to Decide: 'Now it will become clear who is really ready to stand without compromise for the principles proclaimed during good times, and who belongs to the lukewarm and weary whose cowardly conduct in these days only proves that they do not belong to us'. But Liddell, as I will prove in a moment, shows every sign of giving up a large part of the post-war Far Right nationalist doctrine not only because it is unpopular (e.g., these are the parts of the doctrine which can get people chucked into jail) but because he believes it is untrue.
Again it has to be pointed out that the strategy is one of omission; it's not one of proselytising to a (as yet not fully indoctrinated) 'normal' member of the general public and holding back certain unpalatable or esoteric subjects until the time is right. It's true that one must use discretion in politics and possess a sense of timing, and it's understandable why a nationalist should dance around, at first, the Jewish question or Holocaust denial or even the subject of race and IQ. Marxists follow a similar strategy - deferring on the 'difficult' subjects. This is a different thing from not mentioning them altogether. It's clear that Liddell is no fool when it comes to the Jewish question: one respondent, 'Augur Mayson', writes, 'It is folly to believe that we can triumph while sheltering the identity of the enemy'; Liddell replies, 'That's more of your bullshit. I am open to the JQ [Jewish question]'.
I said before that the debate between Liddell and Anglin was one between a liberal anti-Nazi and a pseudo-neo-Nazi. What's 'pseudo' neo-Nazism? There's a way of sorting the sheep from the goats, or the real neo-Nazis from the pseudos; I call it the Bagration test. I ask the reputed neo-Nazi the question, 'What do you think of Operation Bagration in 1944? Were the results good or bad?' and 'What do you think of the aftermath?'. To explain: Operation Bagration was the codename of a successful offensive against the German army in 1944, which led to the encirclement and destruction of an entire Army Group and to the 'liberation' of Minsk. The Germans got their arses handed to them on a plate in that one, and the aftermath I am referring to was the parading and humiliation of the German POWs through Moscow afterwards. The Germans were forced to take laxatives, were paraded past a jeering Muscovite crowd (who yelled abuse and threw objects at them); as they defecated involuntarily through their trouser legs, a street sweeper sprayed water on the streets behind them. The significance of this is that this year in Eastern Ukraine the Russian 'rebel' soldiers in the east of the Ukraine re-enacted the infamous post-Bagration parade - they herded captured Ukrainians past an crowd who threw bags of flour and yelled 'Fascist pigs!' at them. Both the 1944 parade and the 2014 parade were pieces of Stalinist nastiness, and war crimes - it's an offence to humiliate POWs - and the 'rebels' did their cause no good by it (although I imagine that they thought it was quite splendid and clever, very Russian, very patriotic). The question is, though, what a so-called 'neo-Nazi' thinks of it. A real 'National Socialist' wouldn't support the Germans being defeated in Minsk and wouldn't abide by any glorious commemorations of it; he wouldn't support the humiliation of German POWs, or the re-enactment of it, either. Anglin, being a Putinista - one of Putin's useful idiots in the West - supports both, ergo, he is not a real neo-Nazi. This is the Bagration test. There's no way of evading it - no Stalinist, Putinist, neo-Bolshevist, National-Bolshevik / Eurasianist trickery and nonsense and mind-bending rhetoric which attempts to prove that Stalin and Russian communism were good and German National Socialism and European fascism were bad. Either you are or your aren't.
The Bagration test applies to quite a few Russian 'neo-Nazis' as well. Half of Russia's nationalists are in jail right now because of Putin, the other half are working for him - as propagandists, agitators, soldiers - in the Ukraine. Clearly the 'National Socialism' - all the uniforms, runes, swastika tattoos, Hitler salutes - of these Putinista Russian nationalists didn't add up to much; what matters is what one believes and does, not the symbols and tattoos that one wears.
'What matters is what one believes and does' - this is a truism, a platitude, a commonplace, but it has to be repeated again and again. Supposing one was a member of the Charlemagne SS division in the Battle of Berlin - what would one do? One could either a) attempt to desert and then surrender to the Allies out of a (mistaken) belief that the Allies treat their POWs better than the Russians or b) defect to the Russians and make spurious Duginist / Eurasianist / Putinist arguments to the effect that Stalin and Russia 'resist' 'Truman's Yankee-imperialist New World Order', that Russia is to be praised for 'resisting' 'The West'? Now, the trouble with b) is that you, as a Frenchman, are the West - so you are 'resisting' yourself; you can't change into an honorary Mongol or Tartar or Tajik. The better, more honourable, option is c) fight and die for an ideal you believe in, an ideal which you were fortunate to live to see brought into being during the years 1940-1945 - Hitler's social, cultural and economic policies. You have only one life to give, and you've come this far, so why not. This is something the Liddells don't understand - honour. The Liddells don't have anything to offer except carping, cavilling, sneering - it's the conduct more becoming of what Yockey calls the Age of Criticism rather than the present Age (the age of neofascism and neo-Nazism), the Age of Faith and Authority.
The ironic thing is that the Liddells believe that trimming and tacking the sails, corner-cutting, is a real winner: just admit that Hitler started WWII, that Hitler gassed the Jews, and don't mention, whatever you do, the Jewish question, and you'll be fine. The fallacy is that the sensitive people who are likely to be offended by Holocaust Revisionism and anti-Semitism - the people who, for some unexplained reason, we must all go out to propitiate - are just as likely to be offended by the other parts of the Far Right doctrine. This is brought up in an exchange between Liddell and his respondents:
YAZATA: And yet Hitler is seen as edgy and countercultural by some western youth too. You've no reason to say, the aesthetic can't become more mainstream again.
LIDDELL: Until that happens, Hitlerphilia will just serve as a ghettoizing device for White nationalism.
DANIEL J ANTINORA: focusing explicitly on race serves equally well to 'ghettoize' us. vaguely mentioning race as well. citing crime statistics as well.
But let us look at a statement Liddell makes in the comments section of his article, a statement which is useful to us because of its length and because of its explicitness - it tells us exactly where he stands. He gives his version of WWII:
here was a war on so all the big powers committed what are commonly called "atrocities" - too many to mention. But this was also an unnecessary war that was started by the German invasion of Poland and ended by German defeat, so there is a certain logic in the Germans getting to carry the can.
This might not be entirely fair, but that is the way it is. The worst excesses of the past - be it the rape of millions of German women by Soviet troops, the starving and execution of civilians (Jewish and otherwise), the forced repatriation of the Cossacks by the British to the Soviet Union, Katyn, the various bombing of cities by all the combatants, etc., etc. - can all be laid, to some extent, at the door of Hitler and the Nazis, and of course they are. Modern Germans passively go along with this even though there is a lot they could do to help balance the narrative.
It would have been a different story, of course, if they had won, but the fact is they lost and the price of losing was to be forever associated with the negatives of the war.
You can work overtime to bring this or that aspect of the war to the public's attention, including allied atrocities like Rhine Meadows, the Marocchinate, etc., but it's always uphill work and even if you succeed, you end up with "yes, but they started it."
To make European nationalism today contingent on changing deeply ingrained negative perceptions of German Nazism is simply a mechanism for neutralizing nationalism and destroying Europe. This means that European nationalism has to be decoupled from the debacle of WWII. The Daily Stormer essentially exists to prevent this decoupling happening. It's a cinch therefore that the Stormer is financed and run by globalists and anti-nationalists, who may or may not be Jews. Even if it isn't, it may as well be in terms of its effects.
This is a terrible doctrine. For one thing, it leaves Germany - the most important nation in Europe today - hanging high and dry. The French and Italian nationalists can lay the blame on the Germans, and even claim that they were 'victims' of the Nazis during the occupation of their respective countries; for the German nationalist parties, such as the NPD, this is no option. As German nationalists they are forced, by definition, to defend German National Socialism and the conduct of their grandfathers during the war. Their nationalism is 'contingent on changing deeply ingrained negative perceptions of German Nazism' and can't be 'decoupled from the debacle of WWII'; the NPD, and all the German nationalist organisations today, 'essentially exists to prevent this decoupling happening'. Meaning that they are mechanisms 'for neutralizing nationalism and destroying Europe'. Perhaps one can say, then, that they are 'financed and run by globalists and anti-nationalists, who may or may not be Jews' or 'may as well be' in terms of their effects. But what goes for the NPD, goes for Jobbik and the Golden Dawn. The latter has become something of a sacred cow among nationalists, so Liddell is wading into dangerous waters. One must ask, why is Greek neo-Nazism acceptable and not German? British? Australian?
One poster made a good reply to Liddell, which I shall reproduce here in full:
Thank you for your reply.
You say "European nationalism has to be decoupled from the debacle of WWII."
Well, there are two possible ways forward: one as you say, is to attempt to decouple nationalism from the debacle of WWII."
But is this not accepting that white nationalism is/was indeed evil and that we would only seek to decouple if the narrative as presented by Jews were true? What do we do if, as I and many other people believe, the Germans were the good guys, and Hitler the ultimate good guy? He tried to remove the Jewish shackles from his country (which would undoubtedly have benefited all our white countries) but ultimately, the Jews defeated him, with the help of millions of white people who believed their lies.
The other is to tell the truth about that time and rather than decouple ourselves from someone who spoke the truth, rather, decouple the Jewish LIES from the truth and stand by that truth rather than accept their lies as truth.
White nationalism has made no serious attempt to stand by the truth of that time - we have ALWAYS yielded to the Jewish lies. We are therefore always beaten before we even start - we always accept that white nationalism leads to evil and throwing millions of people we don't like into gas chambers. Knowing what we know about our enemy, how will "they" ever let us decouple ourselves from that, if we just accept their version of events, lies masquerading as truth? They won't - surely you understand that?
Now, it is one thing to reject Hitler and NS symbolism on "purely tactical grounds" because of his ultimate defeat and because of the negative associations falsely, but incredibly successfully built up against it by our mortal enemy, the Jews. It is quite another to reject it because you accept as truth, most if not all of the jewish inspired demonology.
Sadly, for me, the whole tone of your article went way beyond rejecting Hitler on purely tactical grounds. Many of the phrases you wrote can not possibly have been written by someone sympathetic to the cause fought by Germany to determine their own future. Rather, many of them have come straight out of the jewish inspired anti-Nazi handbook. Some of your phrases, to me, evinced hatred of Hitler and Germany rather than any admiration of his/their attempts to extricate themselves from jewish hegemony.
He tried. He tried damn hard. Can you even begin to imagine the magnitude of his struggle, knowing what we know now about how difficult it is to win this struggle - where are we now? What progress do WE ever make? Nobody has ever tried harder, or done better to retake control of their lives from the jews, but he lost. The jews, with our help, defeated him, but his cause was true and he made the ultimate sacrifice in the attempt. Is that any reason to mock him by asking such as "When, since Hitler blew his brains out ..." Can you not see how disrespectful that is? Does such disrespect not look sort of, well ... "jewy" ... or at least, something that could well have been written by a Jew?
I have read many articles of yours in the past, often referenced by sites I respect, and generally admired them, but this one has gone too far in the opposite direction and placed you in a category of, at best "no longer to be trusted."
This poster has said it all here. The question is, where do we nationalists go to from here? One step would be to acknowledge what it is we are, and not go for the omissions and amputations of the nationalist doctrine (which has built up over the past 75 years) that the Liddells demand; another is to address the confusion brought about by the recent Ukraine crisis. It's been very disorienting, these past few months, to see two nominally white countries, Russia and Ukraine, comparing each other to the Nazis, using Jews in high positions of power and each deploying 'neo-Nazis', real or pseudo, as activists for their respective national causes and even combatants. Even more confusing is that many neofascist, neo-Nazi and Far Right parties and individuals in Europe and America have championed a country which has been the enemy of the West for at least 200 years and is led by a self-proclaimed anti-fascist and anti-Nazi who has made any questioning of the Nuremberg trial a criminal offence. It's as though Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, Hungary, Finland and other European countries expended all those lives in the 1941-1945 war for nothing. Waffen-SS and Spanish Blue Division soldiers are turning in their graves. Shame! In my opinion, the Putinista neo-Nazis - the Anglins, the Kevin Alfred Stroms, the Bill Whites and others - need to be driven out of the movement, their errors corrected.
To those who charge that this would lead to (what the Marxists call) sectarianism, splitting, dogmatism in the nationalist movement - I agree. It's just that sort of thing which is sorely needed.
On June 6, 1944, seventy years ago, evil won.
Here's what happened. The Allies launched a massive, successful amphibious invasion of German-occupied France in June 1944. For the next three months, the Allies were confined to a small, Anzio-type bridgehead on the Normandy coast. During that time, the American soldiers went on a rape and murder rampage, killing and raping hundreds of French women. French cities, such as Caen, were laid to waste by Allied aerial bombardment and thousands of French died. Finally, in August 1944, the Allies broke out and pursued the Germans across France and Belgium and back into Germany. After the 'liberation' of France, the French resistance (communists and petit-bourgeois Gaullist nationalists) killed upwards of ninety to a hundred thousand right-leaning French. German POWs, in Allied-occupied France and (later) occupied Germany were put in POW camps which were little more than barbed-wire enclosures; Eisenhower saw to it that the POWs were not protected by the Geneva convention and made feeding of the soldiers punishable by death. Hundreds of thousands of German POWs (not all soldiers - some were captured civilians) died of starvation, disease and exposure; some were used as slave labourers. Eisenhower and the Americans, after the defeat and occupation of the Western half of Germany, employed similar starvation tactics on the German populace as a whole; the result was that millions of Germans died in the hunger years of 1945-1949.
By the moral standards taught to me as a boy by American popular culture (the Star Wars movies, Batman, Superman, the Marvel comic books of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby (both WWII veterans), TV shows such as Six Million Dollar man and countless Saturday morning action-adventure cartoons) the American 'liberators' and 'heroes' of France qualify as evil. The veterans of Normandy on the Allied side men were brave - no doubt about that - but they were soldiers in the service of evil.
That's not the way our journalists, politicians and intellectuals see it, however. To them, the Germans ('Hitler', the 'Nazis') were the evil ones, because, during the war, they gassed six million Jews and an undefined, ever changing number of homosexuals, gypsies and Poles. The D-Day landings, the liberation of France and the Low Countries, were a victory for good, not evil. The liberal establishment holds to this line even though, explicably, the Allies themselves in WWII never held to it. One can search in vain in the memoirs of de Gaulle, Churchill, Eisenhower, Truman for references to the six million. Indeed, it was never made clear, during the war, why it was that 'we' (the Anglo-Saxon nations - the US, the UK, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand) were fighting the Germans and why we needed to wage a war of annihilation, of 'unconditional surrender', without negotiation and why we needed to be communism's best friend. Now, though, what happened has been retrospectively configured - or 'retconned', to use a slang term of comic book fans. History has been changed, so WWII is all about the Jews, racism and protecting ethnic minority groups. The Holocaust - the fulfilment of millennia-old Jewish religious prophecies contained in the Jewish religious text, the Talmud - is the prime justification for WWII and anti-Nazism.
WWII, the Allied atrocities against the European population, the occupation of Europe and the installation of liberal democracy against the will of the people - all this is justified, ex post, by the Holocaust. But there are is an unfortunate consequence of this: take the Holocaust away, and you are left with nothing - no stick to beat Hitler, the Germans, the fascist and Nazi movements of 1922-1945 with. Hitler and Mussolini weren't so bad after all. What a shocking conclusion! I often wonder what would happen if weapons inspectors were sent into Auschwitz and other German 'death camps' to look for traces of Hitler's weapons of mass destruction - the gas chambers - and the chemical residues left behind by the mass execution through gassing of millions of human beings. What would happen if the weapons inspectors came back empty-handed? How would your self-righteous, ignorant little liberal American or British or German or French person react? Would they experience some sort of psychological collapse?
One thing is for sure: the main argument against neo-Nazism would be taken away. The liberal establishment in Europe and the West would have nothing left to fight it with. They would need to resort to logic, argument for a change; they couldn't call upon those old stock photos of dead skinny people at Dachau or the bizarre anecdotes of the 'Wolf Woman of Auschwitz' and other Jewish Holocaust 'survivor' fakes and bores.
This would have terrible political consequences for the powers that be. Since 1945, the West has been in the control of an Anglo-Saxon, Judeo-Masonic elite. They rule the Continent with an iron fist. The outcome of the war - the defeat of Germany and Italy - and the ceding of Eastern Europe and half of Germany were, for this elite, a success of perhaps unprecedented scale; never before in history has one single power had complete, unchallenged control of all of Europe - the Continent, Scandinavia, the British Isles. The occupation of Europe in 1943-1945 was the turning point in their political fortunes, and the successful invasion of France was a turning in the point in the war. This is why the liberal establishment media gives so much prominence to anniversaries of the Normandy invasion; in contrast, it hardly pays any attention to the anniversaries of other significant events - the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, the 1990 war in Kuwait, the Inchon landings in Korea, the first American battle in Vietnam in 1965... The Anglo-Saxon elite doesn't like reminding people of these battles because the wars were either outright defeats or were 'inconclusive'. The war in Europe in 1944-1945, however, was an out-and-out crushing victory, militarily and politically.
The reason as to why the 1944 invasion of France was such a success is, from a political perspective, an interesting one. The media attributes the success to military factors such as Allied superiority in air and naval armaments, the 'element of surprise', the skill and valour of the Allied soldiers, brilliant Allied deception plans and so forth; it also attributes it, as part of anti-Nazi, anti-Hitler propaganda, to incompetence, ineptitude on the part of Hitler and the Germans. This seems a reasonable thesis on the face of it, but it's actually skilful propaganda aimed at demoralising the Germans and the sympathisers of fascism and Nazism everywhere. The message is, 'You Germans are destined to always lose - sure, we lost Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, but when we Anglo-Saxon liberals and judeophiles put our minds to it, to defeating evil, we always win! Because you are stupid and we are great...'. Such a propaganda line is extremely effective, in part because it's human nature to go with the winning side. We are more inclined to sympathise with those who are 'predestined' to win and less inclined with those who are 'predestined' to lose. No-one likes a loser.
Was the Allied victory in June 1944 predestined, however? Militarily, it was a near thing. The massive aerial and naval bombardment of the Normandy coastline, the presence of Allied paratroopers in the German rear, didn't 'take out' the German defenders. In essence, the invaders were lightly-armed men wading in water in the face of murderous fire. There was no body armour in those days, and one hit from a bullet or a piece of shrapnel meant you as a soldier were out of the war - for good. The invasion could have been thwarted had not things gone wrong on the German side - gone wrong deliberately; more or less, it only succeeded because of traitors in the German high command. We read in David Irving's classic biography of Rommel, Trail of the Fox: The Life of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel (1977), of how Rommel's Chief of Staff, Hans Speidel, prevented the 21st Panzer division from reinforcing the coastal defenders in those crucial hours of the invasion, thereby probably ensuring that the Allied waders weren't done away with. Speidel's actions on that day puzzled and upset Rommel, who was unaware that Speidel was part of a vast underground anti-Hitler network in the German military High Command - a network of pro-Allied, Atlanticist sympathisers (Speidel, in his post-war autobiography, openly admitted to help sabotage any German counter-offensive against the Allies on the day of the invasion and went on to a successful career as a NATO general). Speidel and the generals who participated in the abortive July 1944 military coup against Hitler were Badoglios - i.e., German versions of the Italian general who toppled Mussolini in the coup of September 1943 and betrayed him to the Allies. They, more than anyone else, made the invasion a success. (In August 1944, Hitler ordered a bold counter-offensive against the American armoured spearheads in Avranches - an offensive which went mysteriously awry. Irving records, without comment, Hitler's opinion that this failure was the result of betrayal by the Badoglios).
The Germans in June 1944 had advance warning of the time and date of the invasion, but didn't act upon it. Perhaps this could have been the result of not recognising, in time, the significance of this piece of intelligence - they were, most likely, overwhelmed with intelligence on Allied troop movements and invasion plans; but it could also have been because of betrayal at the highest levels. I tend to subscribe to the latter theory. As time goes on, I think, more and more evidence will emerge substantiating Irving's thesis. There is already a book called Verrat in der Normandie: Eisenhowers deutsche Helfer ('Betrayal in Normandy: Eisenhower's German Helpers') (2010) by Friedrich George, a liberal anti-Nazi author who takes the same position as Irving; more will come out in the future.
One can speculate and advance an alternative history: the traitors in the German High Command are purged before June 1944, the Allies launch the invasion anyway on June the 6th and find the 21st Panzer waiting for them - and are destroyed. This would have arguably changed the course of the war in Germany's favour. Irving recounts, in Hitler's War (1977), that by 1944 Hitler's strategic thinking had changed: Germany and its allies couldn't conquer the USSR, but could stop them in their tracks and prevent them from invading eastern Europe; this was on the proviso that an Allied invasion of France was soundly defeated. Hitler believed that the Allies only had enough materiel for one big invasion; were the Allies to fail, that would be it - the Allies would call off their war and perhaps 'Roosevelt will be sent to jail'. The scenario was: the Allies launch their big invasion, and are defeated by Germany's panzer divisions and its new jet bombers; then the panzer divisions in the West can be turned on the Russians. The Third Reich, then, would win a defensive victory.
The liberal establishment journalists and military historians scoff at such thinking. Hitler was overly-optimistic (to believe that he could win the war against the Allies is proof of his insanity); what's more, by that point, nothing could stop the colossus which was the 'superb' Red Army. But there are signs of a break in the narrative. The American historian John Mosier, in his Death Ride: Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945 (2010) takes the line that the Russians could have been stopped if it weren't for the Normandy invasion - German combat replacements on the Eastern front could have increased by 40 to 50%. He notes that the Russians always launched a really big, successful offensive on the heels of an Allied one - Sicily and Italy, Normandy, the crossing of the Rhine.
Supposing that Irving and Mosier are right, two lessons emerge: one is, Hitler should have purged his generals; the second, Germany's defeat wasn't inevitable and neither was the Allied victory. Future generations of German and European nationalists should pay heed.
