Sunday, February 21, 2021

Letter to a young Neo-Nazi



I see from the news that Neo-Nazism is making a comeback amongst the youth of Australia, especially in the state of Victoria. This development I find interesting, as I know a great deal of the subject of Neo-Nazism and I can share some of that knowledge with these youth. In lieu of a face to face lecture - which is difficult to organise at the moment, given the circumstances - I here present some of my insights in written form. 


Last year I showed an elderly relative of mine the movie Star Wars (1977) (I refuse to call it by its modern name, A New Hope); she had not seen it previously, having led a sheltered life. Interestingly enough, when the first Imperial officer (clad in a black Wehrmacht uniform and donning a WWII-era Japanese army style hat) came into view, she exclaimed that the Imperials were 'Nazis'. And then, at the end credits, when she saw Peter Cushing's name appear - the great Cushing having played the imperial officer Moff Tarkin - she wondered aloud, 'Which character was Peter Cushing? Oh, that's right: he was the creepy-voiced Nazi'. All this was amusing, all right, but as I reflected on it later, a train of thought started which led to some serious philosophical musings. I asked myself what exactly is it that makes a 'Nazi'? Were Moff Tarkin and the other Imperials cast in the mold of a Platonic Ideal of 'Nazidom'? And these questions in turn led to another, one which was more technical than philosophical: how is that Neo-Nazis are to be recruited, trained and deployed - how is it that they are to be mass produced, in the same way that the Marxist Left mass produces commies? 

Oddly enough, I think the second question is more easily answered than the first.

Neo-Nazism, according to the dictionary definition, seeks to revive the theory and practice of German National Socialism. That to my mind is a reasonable working definition. 

Now, no-one in the movement uses the term Neo-Nazism as I do, and do frequently; in our milieu, its usage is frowned upon and the term 'National Socialism' is much preferred. But as Carolyn Yeager points out, those who range themselves as enemies of Hitler, the NSDAP, the Third Reich, can and do borrow the term National Socialism; a much better term to use would be 'Hitlerism', which leaves others in no doubt as to where one stands.  

If an intellectual is to be a student of Hitlerism, he should read, carefully, Hitler's Mein Kampf (1923) (and its sequel, Zweites Buch (1928)); Hitler's collected speeches; and Rosenberg's Myth of the 20th Century (1931). But a full understanding and appreciation of these requires that one study German and European history, which, I regret to say, is a task that many Hitlerians never undertake - they can tell you nothing of the lives of the men Hitler considered to be the three greatest Germans, Luther, Frederick the Great and Bismarck, nor the history of the unification of Germany, nor the history of WWI... They do not know who or what a Prussian was. It is as though someone declared themselves to be a Maoist and at the same time professed total ignorance of Chinese personages such as Sun Yat Sen. 

If one does not grasp Hitlerism, one will not grasp Neo-Nazism, which is a revival of it. But fortunately, a book does exist that puts a thousand years of German and European history into political context, and that is Yockey's Imperium (1948). Much has changed since Yockey wrote his book, yes, but much has not; his chapter on the American negro and communism still holds true seventy years later, as we can see from recent events

The trouble with Imperium is that many in the movement have read it, but few shows signs of understanding it or at least assimilating its ideas. For example, the white nationalist Greg Johnson publishes new editions of Yockey's work, which I think is commendable, but Johnson opposes Hitler and German National Socialism and I find little influence of Imperium in Johnson's thinking. 

Part of the fault lies in Yockey; he is an acquired taste, and I while I find the book easy to read - I have re-read it five or six times - others do not. The study of Imperium demands a preliminary study of Spengler, which is asking a lot, as while Spengler wrote many short books - including the Hour of Decision (1934), a blatantly racialist work which is bound to appeal to many white nationalists - his magnum opus, the Decline of the West (1918-1922) clocks in at half a million words. Reading this work will take time, even though Spengler (for a German philosopher) writes clearly enough. An abridged version of the Decline does exist, but it numbers nearly 500 pages. 

All the same, Spengler's five or six published works, in combination with Carl Schmitt's The Concept of the Political (1932) (which Yockey borrowed from liberally), plus Yockey, will convert any reasonably open-minded intellectual into a 'Hitlerian'. These books cannot fail. 

After one has digested all these, the problem becomes one of orientating oneself politically, armed with these ideas, in today's world. Supposing that Yockey were to come back to life in 2021 (he died sixty years ago), would he be surprised, shocked, by recent developments? Yes and no. Both Yockey and Spengler anticipated that, at some point in the future, Russia would abandon the Marxist ideology, so one can guess that the collapse of the Soviet Union would have been no great surprise to Yockey. But he would have been surprised by the massive non-white invasion of the Western world. Yockey narrates how, in his time, American Jewish groups devoted themselves to the spreading pro-immigration propaganda and the breaking down racial barriers; but the idea that America, having fallen under the sway of these groups, would give up its immigration restrictions and allow the importation of some 59 million people (the greatest movement of any peoples in any time in history) would have seemed to Yockey to be only a theoretical, not a practical, possibility. In short, were Yockey to return to today's Los Angeles - a city he once lived in - he would be shocked, appalled, angered and confused. The same would apply were he to return to visit today's Paris, London, Rome, Berlin.

Any return to today's America would lead to some hard choices on Yockey's part, e.g., the choice between Trump and Biden in 2020. In that election, both candidates were fully embedded in the American pro-Jewish, pro-Israel power structure, and both had married their children off to Jews; but one had, during his time in office, cut legal immigration by 49%, and the other had, during the 2020 campaign, vowed to increase it a hundred fold. So should Yockey get behind the immigration-restrictionist candidate or abstain from electoral politics altogether? There are no easy answers and the past gives us no guideposts. And this brings us back to the main shortcoming of Hitler's writing. The collected speeches, which encompass the entirety of Hitler's career, put forth a compelling and tragic narrative of the rise and fall of a great man and a great nation; but the collection comes to an end of April 1945 - there it stops, abruptly, without giving any indication of what came next. This is the problem with old books: the argument could be made that Hitler's writing, and even Yockey's, constitute nothing more than white man's history, a record of a world which has been left behind. 

Having said that, Hitlerism has not been mummified, has not been turned into a dusty, inanimate object; Hitler has not gone the same way of Napoleon; he has not been made safe and respectable. Political possibilities still exist in Hitlerism. The day that a statue of Hitler has been put up in Berlin, the day that a sympathetic nine-hour movie portrayal of the rise and fall of the Third Reich - of the same stamp as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) trilogy - is released, then we know that Hitlerism has become safe, respectable, assimilated. But neither will happen any time soon. The political establishment in Europe and its colonies, including the United States, still lives in fear of a revival of Hitlerism. 

Significantly, that same establishment does not live in fear of a revival of Napoleonism nor Marxism-Leninism nor Islam. And even though the political establishment in America abominates white Americans, particularly Southerners, it does not seriously expect a return of the Confederacy and Southern secessionism; the last time that Southern nationalism and racialism posed anything like a threat to the establishment was sixty years ago. 


At the risk of repeating myself (I have written on this subject in many articles), the essence of 'Nazism' lies in 'Prussianism', or what Spengler calls 'Prussian Socialism'. Spengler calls it an 'Idea', which Yockey defines as a 'Living, breathing, formless reality'. And the best means of comprehending this Idea is to look at it in action - during the course of Germany's war. 

To give a summary of that war... It begins when Germany goes to war with France and England, and invades the Low Countries and northern France; and it invades Russia after a Russo-German peace treaty collapses under the weight of what Germany sees as Russian aggression. 

Russia, in the German ideology, represents Asiatic barbarism and despotism (by warring on Russia, Germany is defending Europe from 'The East'). The war against Russia moves quickly, and Germany is initially successful, conquering the Ukraine, the Baltics, Crimea, White Russia (Belarus) and the Trans-Caucasus. Germany, which is over-populated and demands living or elbow room, states its intention of colonising these annexed territories and populating them with peasant farmers and invalid soldiers. 

Diplomatically and militarily, the situation is in a state of flux. Sweden and Spain stay neutral, but Serbia is invaded by Germany and Hungary; Romania, initially an ally of Germany, turns against it, sides with Russia and England, and invades Hungary to reclaim lost ancestral lands. In the West, Germany is unable to invade England, a mighty sea-faring power, from across the English Channel or the North Sea, but it does wage submarine and aerial warfare against her. England, for the most part, shows itself to be incompetent in the war; its adventures - for example, an expedition sent to Greece to defend it against the Germans - turn out badly. 

It is in the field of propaganda that England proves to achieve its greatest success. It accuses Germany of unprovoked aggression. The German nation is to be condemned in the court of world opinion for its authoritarianism and militarism;  Germany is said to be an autocracy, led by a histrionic, mentally unstable despot of a leader, and Germans as a people are guilty of moral failings. Germany lusts for power and worships the use of force. And indeed, Germany's conduct in the war shocks the world. Germany adopts brutal counter-insurgency tactics; builds concentration camps; takes hostages; deports citizens (of territories it occupies) back to Germany for use as forced labour; practises scorched earth warfare... Such is the outrage that England and America demand that the German leadership be put on trial for 'war crimes'. 

America becomes embroiled in the war on the English side, thanks to America's president, a Democrat with a solid electoral base in the South and who has some sympathies with what we would today call white nationalism. Through suasion, he overcomes America's inhibitions against foreign entanglements - America's 'Isolationism' - and wages an internal war against a perceived German fifth column in America; and this takes place after he wins re-election on a promise to keep America out of the 'European War'. 

American involvement in the war leads to the decline of Germany's military fortunes: once millions of American soldiers had landed in Europe, it was all up for Germany (as Hitler later acknowledged) and Germany is forced to pull out of the conquered Eastern territories in great haste. It is at this late point that Germany's anti-Russian rhetoric intensifies; it makes an appeal to the West to aid it in a struggle against 'Asiatic Bolshevism'. But Germany's pleas fall on deaf ears. It is defeated and partitioned, and the Germans living in the territories amputated from Germany are ethnically cleansed. The German currency becomes worthless and an Allied blockade on food to Germany leads to the death of many Germans. America, however, shows signs of coming around to the German way of thinking and commences the first of many military interventions against communism. Meanwhile, in what we would today call the Third World, European's reputation among the 'coloured peoples' has diminished as a result of the fratricidal war. The natives become restless; a 'coloured' revolt stirs against Western imperialism, colonialism, racialism, the repercussions of which are still being felt today. 


Yockey portrays the war as a conflict between two nations, two ideas: Germany and England, Socialism and Capitalism. On deeper examination of the Allied propaganda written at the time of the war, it becomes clear that it is the bellicose - and painfully forthright and frank - German political thought which was instrumental in inciting 'Capitalist' England and America against 'Socialist' Germany. I will reproduce here, at length, some quotations from some of Germany's leading nationalist intellectuals. These were compiled by a pair of American scholars in a wartime anti-German propaganda work and grouped under the heading 'Dispossessing the Conquered'. 

[In the occupied territories] Germans alone will govern... They alone will exercise political rights; they alone will serve in the army and in the navy; they alone will have the right to become landowners; thus they will acquire the conviction that, as in the Middle Ages, the Germans are a people of rulers. However, they will condescend so far as to delegate inferior tasks to foreign subjects who live among them. 


If we take, we must also keep. A foreign territory is not incorporated until the day when the rights of property of Germans are rooted in its soil. With all necessary prudence, but also with inflexible determination, a process of expropriation should he inaugurated, by which the Poles and the Alsatians and Lorrainers would he gradually transported to the interior of the Empire, while Germans would replace them on the frontiers.

We wish to commence in a new empire a new life of which the supreme aim shall be: Greater Germany whose task shall be the well-being of Germans. All other laws are dependent on this great one... Those only may become complete citizens whose mother tongue is German, whose education corresponds to that of the common school (Volksschule), who are of pure German blood, and who take the oath of allegiance. Rights of citizenship may be canceled by the courts for any word or act contrary to German interests... No foreigner shall acquire house or land in Greater Germany.


When we have won, and obtained territorial concessions, we shall receive lands inhabited by French or Russians, consequently by enemies. One wonders if such an increase of territory will improve our situation... Those who have learned to think according to the historical school will be horrified when we demand the 'evacuation' of land inhabited by Europeans; for that signifies the violent interruption of an historical development centuries old. Besides, the idea wounds the sensibilities of civilized man and is contrary to the modern law of nations which protects individual property. But if we consider seriously the peculiar position of the German people, squeezed into the middle of Europe and running the risk of being suffocated for want of air, it must he agreed that we might he compelled to demand from a vanquished enemy, either in the East or in the West, that he should hand over the unpopulated territory.


We may depend upon the re-Germanizing of Alsace, but not of Livonia and Kurland. There no other course is open to us but to keep the subject race in as uncivilized a condition as possible, and thus prevent them from becoming a danger to the handful of their conquerors.


[In case of war with Russia:] We shall demand the cession of such territory as we need for the straightening of our frontiers and for colonization. Evacuation of it will be required. 


War will unify the strong nation that is capable of a future and make it free, and will establish the people on a healthy substantial basis. Those are the two chief purposes of war. A third can, however, be suggested, that a nation even when her national and fundamental interests do not coincide with those of another nation, still must rudely destroy this people's highest interests, must indeed remorselessly cut off from this foreign people the means of living for the future. It is a great, powerful nation which, overturns a less courageous and frequently degenerate people and takes its territory from it. For a great, strong people finds its house too narrow, it cannot stir and move about, cannot work and build up, cannot thrive and grow. The great nation needs new territory. Therefore it must spread out over foreign soil, and must displace strangers with the power of the sword.


Slowly, not too hastily, we people of Germanic blood must proceed in the settlement of the lands which are to be ours in the future.  

The lands which we need to-day and in the future for colonizing, we must thoroughly cleanse of foreign elements.


The historical view as to the biological evolution of races tells us that there are dominant races and subordinate races. Political history is nothing more than the history of the struggles between the dominant races. Conquest in particular is always a function of the dominant races. Where now in all the world does it stand written that conquering races are under obligations to grant after an interval political rights to the conquered? Is not the practice of political rights an advantage which biologically belongs to the dominant races?

In like manner there is the school question. The man with political rights sets up schools, and the speech used in the instruction is his speech... The purpose must be to crush the [individuality of the] conquered people and its political and lingual existence...

The conquerors are acting only according to biological principles if they suppress alien languages and undertake to destroy strange popular customs... Only the conquering race must be populous, so that it can overrun the territory it has won. Nations that are populous are, moreover, the only nations which have a moral claim to conquest, for it is wrong that in one country there should be overpopulation while close at hand — and at the same time on better soil — a less numerous population stretches its limbs at ease. 

[As to the inferior races:] From political life they are to be excluded. They are eligible only to positions of a non- political character, to commercial commissions, chambers of commerce, etc.,...The principal thing for the conqueror is the outspoken will to rule and the will to destroy the political and national life of the conquered.


The above passages sound as though they were taken from Hitler's Table Talk (1953), a work which has become notorious on the dissident Right for its brutal and somewhat coarse frankness; but they were in fact taken from WWI-era German nationalist publications. They are reproduced in the anti-German propaganda work, Conquest and Kultur: Aims of the Germans in their own words (1918), compiled by the Americans Wallace Notestein and Elmer Edgar Stoll. 

Likewise, my account of 'the war' does not summarise WWII but WWI. My intention here has been to show that Hitler and German National Socialism are of a piece with German history - they did not come out of the blue - and further, that Hitler's ideas were in keeping with mainstream German political thought of the time, that they were not an aberration and certainly did not stem from some bizarre set of occult, even Satanic, beliefs. 

In addition, greater clarity can be gained from studying 'Prussianism' in the context of WWI rather than WWII; the preoccupations of today's historians - among them the Holocaust - do not obscure our view of the subject. The attitudes of Germany's enemies, Russia, France, England, America, stand in sharp relief and are not overshadowed by the question of what Germany did nor did not do to the Jews. Viewed from this perspective, then, we can sum up WWI as: WWII without the Jews. 

Looking at the above quotations from the perspective of today, it is remarkable that they could be found in the opinion columns of respectable newspapers and the books of respectable publishers of the time: to our surprise, 'Prussianism' was mainstream in Germany in the late 19th century and early 20th. But, to the anti-German type on the dissident Right, all this proves only that the Germans were 'bad' long before Hitler, indeed, the Germans have been 'bad' for at least a 150 years. For these quotations offend modern sensibilities, and the sensibilities of many of those on the white nationalist side of politics who take umbrage to the Hitler of Table Talk, that is, the type of white nationalist who writes for Greg Johnson's Counter-Currents and Ron Unz' Unz.Org. 

When considering this brand of German nationalism, one can understand the frustration of those on the dissident Right who wish to turn wayward youth away from National Socialism, Nazism, all forms of 'Prussian Socialism'. 'Haven't these youngsters read Table Talk? Don't they understand that National Socialism is for Germans only, and that it counsels the most brutal, barbaric treatment of the Poles, Russians, Czechs, Ukrainians? And aren't the Poles and the Russians most "based"? Isn't their nationalism is better than German nationalism...'. 

I do not here seek to rebut the arguments of those anti-Hitlerians; I merely observe that they are rehearsing the same line as the Anglo (that is, English and American) war polemicists of a hundred years ago; today they call it National Socialism, yesterday they called it Pan-Germanism. And whatever form it takes, German nationalism touches a raw nerve. Tell an American white nationalist that a fundamental inequality exists between black and white, and you will meet with approval; tell him that the same inequality exists between a German and a Pole, or a German and a Russian, and you will meet with disapproval. But then, Americans, unlike the Germans, do not have to live next door to millions of Poles and Russians. (And as for the French, Hitler was fond of quoting Schopenhauer: 'Africa has its monkeys, Europe its French'). 

The difference between an American white nationalist and a German National Socialist can be expressed thus: the American puts race first, politics second; the German, politics first, race second. Upon interrogating the American as to his ideology, you will quickly discover that he has no theory of the State, of politics (this is true of William Pierce, George Lincoln Rockwell, Harold Covington); he seems to think that once the non-whites, in particular the negroes, are removed, the politics will take care of itself; constitutional structures which are amenable to the white man in America will spontaneously appear. This explains why the Confederacy was unable to move beyond the strictures laid down by the Founding Fathers; upon the secession, they drew up a constitution and elected a president, and by doing both, they did not depart overly much from the America of the 18th century. The founders of the new Confederate State did not crown Jefferson Davis as emperor. But, in all fairness, American white nationalists are obsessed (as their Southern forebears were) by the negro question to the exclusion of all others because it has been paramount in America for 400 years, whereas it has only made itself felt on the Continent in the past 20 or so. Even to Yockey, who favours Europe over America, the negro question hovers in the forefront of his consciousness; Yockey hailed from Chicago, Illinois, which is now a negro city, and while he wrung his hands in despair over the demographic decline of America's founding stock (which came about, in his view, because of an excess of Eastern European immigration at the turn of the century), he would be the first to admit that a Pole or Czech or Greek or Italian immigrant is  preferable to a native-born negro. It is interesting to speculate what political choices he would have made in the 1970s, when whites were being ethnically cleansed from north-eastern cities such as Detroit and a de facto anti-negro alliance sprung up between three classes of Americans: founding stock Americans, Americans who had emigrated from Eastern Europe, and Jews (see Mad as Hell: The Crisis of the 1970s and the Rise of the Populist Right (2012) by Dominic Sandbrook). Politics makes for strange bedfellows. 

But to return to Pan-Germanism: the above quotations, I think, contain some of the essence of 'Nazism', and furthermore, they illustrate the gulf that exists between German thought and English thought, or German and American. A work such as Modern Germany in relation to the great war (1916), which is an anthology of pro-German propaganda essays by German professors, contains more genuine 'Nazism' than all the works of William Pierce, Harold Covington, George Lincoln Rockwell, James Mason. The professors there express themselves in a more genteel fashion than the authors quoted in Conquest and Kultur, as after all, they are striving to put Germany in the best possible light; but the undercurrents of 'Prussianism' still move beneath the surface. (In that connection, it should be noted that the Anglo propaganda of the war did not spare the members of the German academic class who espoused nationalism: it called them 'hate professors'). 

You see, in this wartime literature, the national virtues of Germany on display, one of them being a frankness, a forthrightness, that borders on rudeness - there are times when virtue of honesty becomes a vice. Here is a quotation from Conquest and Kultur

Within Europe... we must be exceedingly careful, and must acquire new territory only after the most mature deliberation, especially where it will take years of unremitting labor to convert our antagonists to the view that the under the German scepter — 'War state' though we proclaim ourselves — is well worth living. True, our foreign policy must not be too tender-hearted — hard times need stout fists. In the coming diplomatic convention, if the glib foreign hucksters present cooked-up objections to our taking our rights, our fist, like Bismarck, must pound the green table till the ink bottles dance, if they refuse to give us our due — what we think necessary for permanent peace. This is self-evident, and must remain so.

Now, this Pan German author - who made the above statement in a book published in 1915 - could be accused, perhaps by a white nationalist of the Greg Johnson type, of fomenting divisiveness between the European nations. But I think extenuating circumstances exist for the ideologists of both the Second and Third Reich. If we are to watch these two excellent animated map videos, on the fall out from the Trianon and St Germain Treaties, we will be confronted with the tawdry spectacle of the post-WWI white nations of Eastern and Central Europe waging war against one another (wars which continued long after the end of WWI); partitioning and annexing one another's territories; carrying out pogroms of the Jews; and practising 'ethnic transfers'. Eastern and Central Europe are a byword for ethnic mayhem, and literal imperialism (German and Austro-Hungarian) was all that held Eastern and Central Europe together. Each nation could only make gains at the expense of the other in what was a classic example of a zero-sum game. It is no surprise, then, that F.A. von Hayek, an Austrian, makes reference (in a work published some thirty years after the war) to the 'poison of nationalism'. 

All this is moot, perhaps, given that now Europe is being colonised by the Third World - by its former colonial subjects in Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean and Asia, in fact - and so the feeling today is that whites in Europe ought to be uniting in racial solidarity against the common foe. Accounts of WWI tell us that disputes in 1905 and 1911 over which European country should own Morocco - France or Germany - helped cause WWI, but the disputes between the European Great Powers over colonial possessions seem to we moderns to be quaint, and unbearably so: we want to say to the Europe of a hundred years ago, 'Worry not about going to Morocco, for Morocco will come to you - especially you, France'; for as we know, hundreds of thousands of North Africans migrated to France after WWII, the result being that the Muslim population of France now numbers in the millions. 

But this state of affairs has come about precisely because of colonialism, or rather lack of it, and the lack of Prussian-style forcefulness and vigour. It is no coincidence that almost immediately after the breakdown of European colonial and imperialist rule in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, millions of the former colonial subjects began to invade Europe. This causal link between the invasion of Europe and the decline of colonialism has become more and more evident with the passing of years, so much so that Europeans can now say to themselves of the non-white world that 'We fought over there to prevent them from coming here'. Sadly, Europe could not maintain its empire 'Over there' because Europe had become weak - weak because of two fratricidal wars or as part of a natural biological decline or both. Today's Europe presents a striking contrast with the Europe of a hundred years ago, when whites ruled most of the world, and inwardly believed that they had the right to do.  

A measure of cant and hypocrisy prevented those Europeans from openly declaring that they had that right, and that they were good rulers, and that they were engaged in colonial enterprises for purely selfish reasons. But the German habit of a rather coarse and brutal honesty expunged any trace of English-style cant and liberalism from German discourse. It is this German trait that helped earn the enmity of the Anglos before the outbreak of WWI - that and the German argument that the British Empire was fading, and that of all the Western European nations, Germany alone possessed the vitality which was a requisite for leadership. As honesty carried to excess can become rudeness, self-confidence can become arrogance: 

Mere force or calculation gives mastery; for leadership more is required — superior culture, superior morality, respect for distinctive national characteristics, an intelligence capable of comprehending and assimilating foreign elements. These qualities insure to the people which possesses them all the world power of the future, and we Germans are that people. [Conquest and Kultur-]

The reader can see for himself that a continuity exists between the self-confidence of the German in WWI and WWII; a direct line can be traced from the Pan-German of WWI and the German soldier of WWII, who, as we know from a thousand war movies and TV shows, wears a resplendent uniform, is full of an insufferable cockiness, and whenever he comes across a female character in occupied France or Holland, addresses her as 'My good woman' with a supercilious smile - Moff Tarkin, when he addresses Princess Leia, smiles in exactly the same way. As to whether or not one likes this type, well, that is a matter of taste. I myself enjoy reading the WWI books written a hundred years ago, as in that time, the white man -  and especially the German - embodied strength, power, self-confidence; furthermore, the primary concern of the white nations of that time - which of them should rule the non-white world - makes a piquant contrast with those of the present. And many others come away with the same impression. It is this modern-day nostalgia for the old European imperialism that explains, to my mind, the appeal of the representations of that imperialism in popular culture - e.g., the Steampunk genre of alternative history fiction and the Kaiserreich modifications of the computer game Hearts of Iron IV


I think that the above goes some way to explaining what a 'Nazi' is. But much of it concerns external policy, that is, Germany's relation to other nations; what of the internal? 

Much has been written in dissident Right circles on the German jurist Carl Schmitt and his famous Friend / Enemy distinction. The anti-Nazi American academic, William Ebenstein, gives an excellent summary of Schmitt's theory in the wartime book, The Nazi State (1943) under the heading 'The Nazi Theory of Politics'. He includes a lengthy quotation from Goebbels so as to prove his thesis that the National Socialists were Schmittians: 

In an editorial on “Politics and Warfare,” in Das Ketch of May II, 1941, Dr. Goebbels, member of the German Government, states that “it is frequently not easy to distinguish, in the existential struggle of people, whether the means employed belong to the realm of politics or warfare. . . . The western democracies do not have the slightest notion of the working of National Socialist politics. They measure them with categories typical of these democracies, and then inevitably arrive at catastrophical blunders. With us, politics is as soldierly as the waging of war is political. Both pursue the same aims.” Dr. Goebbels at the same time thanked providence that the enemies of National Socialism, both inside Germany and outside, failed or refused to understand this Nazi conception of politics as perpetual total war aiming at the total destruction of the enemy. This failure of understanding the nature of Nazi politics. Dr. Goebbels concluded in the quoted editorial, “is one of the most puzzling characteristics of the forces which have opposed Nazism from its evolution from a small group of men to a great world power.”

To we moderns, who lived our entire lives in what is supposedly a 'liberal democracy', Goebbels' way of thinking sounds strange, if not foreign. But I think when it is applied to three of our modern shibboleths - democracy, the multi-party system, and press freedom - it produces some interesting results. 

Before WWI, the German political system - which was a constitutional monarchy, not unlike England's - could be classified as democratic. I here define democracy as an equal and fair contest between two or more candidates: for there to be a democracy, there must be what Schmitt calls the 'equal chance'. In 1914, Germans were allowed to choose between competing political parties, and it mattered not that suffrage was not universal; women were not allowed not to vote in England and America, the two most exalted 'democracies', until WWI was over. But Germany's enemies England and America considered the German and 'Prussian' system to be authoritarian and the Kaiser a tyrant. In the hundreds of anti-German polemics published during the war, Germany's critics demanded reform, and these demands were packaged as helpful suggestions and recommendations. But Germany was not fooled. In response, Germany asked the question why it was that Germany should accept the recommendations of two of its worst enemies, England and America? Furthermore, was the exchange intended to flow both ways: would America and England accept it if the suggestions for reform were made by Germany? That question answers itself, and in the negative. During WWI, France, England, America had ranged themselves against Germany as the Enemy in Schmittian terms; a conflict existed, and this conflict was existential, that is to say, it concerned the matter of Germany's very existence as a political unit. The best argument for the German political system in WWI - and by extension, WWII - was that the Enemy opposed it. One could write sophisticated political treatises, of the order of Plato's Republic, defending the German system, but after a certain point the conflict ceases to be intellectual and becomes political, which is to say existential. Intellectual disputation and discussion crosses over into warfare, in this case, psychological warfare. 

Schmitt's theory and Goebbels' practice applies to the second institution we in the West today value: the multi-party electoral system. In the ideal democratic system, ideologically-differing candidates and parties compete against one another in a free and fair contest, and nowhere is it presupposed that the losing contestants are to be annihilated; instead, the rule is that they are to sit on the back bench until a short number of years pass, and it is then that they will get their chance to mount a serious bid for office. The tradition in American politics is that a candidate who is elected to the presidency for one term shall get a second; that is a matter of mutual agreement - unspoken agreement - between Republicans and Democrats. The opposition party will get their shot at the presidency once the incumbent party has served two terms: then the two parties will compete in what is called a 'change election', and usually the opposition party will win. The incumbent party, having lost the presidency, is then demoted to the opposition party, but in the mid-terms it will almost always win House of Representatives. And so it goes, in a circle. But the 'totalitarian' ideology is, by its nature, bound to reject such this rather neat and well-functioning system; it views politics not as a friendly and fair contest but as a war. This is what the quotation from Goebbels tells us. In keeping with this Schmittian thesis, the NSDAP saw electoral campaigns as military campaigns, and it demanded - and got - what Roosevelt later called the 'unconditional surrender' of its opponents, the rival political parties. (But the NSDAP did not quite obtain unconditional surrender from its opponents the Centre Party, the Social Democrat Party, the German People's Party,the Bavarian People's Party; politicians of the rival parties were granted some leeway by the NSDAP after it achieved complete dominance in March 1933; candidates from the parties, which had been dissolved, were allowed to run as independents, or 'guests', in the November 1933 elections, and the elections of 1936 and 1938). But to the modern reader, all this sounds somewhat archaic, it smacks of the politics of the 1930s; do these formulas of war and 'unconditional surrender' hold true in modern times? Well, they do: we saw it in the 2020 US Presidential election. The Democrats stole the election from Trump through fraud, and possibly won the run-off campaign in Georgia for the two Senate seats using the same fraudulent methods. The Democrats won in 2020 a monopoly of state power (by cheating) with the consequence that after January the 6th - the day of the Democrat coup against Trump - that monopoly is being exploited by the Democrats, who want to use the offices of state to eliminate their opponents. They are attempting to achieve this elimination by declaring all voters and followers of Trump to be the 'Internal Enemy'. (Such declarations do not happen often in American political life; according to Yockey, the designation of the 'Internal Enemy' has been used only three times in American history; the first during the aftermath of the War of Independence, the second during the Civil War, the third during WWII (when American sympathisers with Germany were treated as hostiles)). And what the Democrats demand from conservatives and pro-Trump Republicans is unconditional surrender. 

From this, we can say that democracy in 2021 is finished in America. It may be that democracy will be restored, but prospects look bleak. The pessimistic conclusion to be drawn that if the Right is ever to regain State power, it can only do so if it avails itself of the same 'totalitarian' methods of the Left. And that means it must go down the 'Nazi' path. 

And this leads us to the subject of the third valued institution, and that is the free press. 

Schmitt, in more than one of his works, defines the intellectuals as the discussing class. Parliament, in the liberal world view, should act as a forum for free and untrammeled discussion between distinguished gentlemen who, by disputing, and disputing freely and openly, will arrive at the truth, much like the philosophers in the agoras of ancient Greece. Politics is to be reduced to debate, and the precondition of the liberal political order or system is that this debate be free and untrammeled, and furthermore, open to all - it must be transparent. Liberalism, as Schmitt points out, believes in the redeeming value of publicity. 

The ideal of the free press fits in with all this; the free press is to function as a journalistic parliament. It allows the free and frank exchange of opinions - and perhaps it did in 1980 or 1990 or 2000, but does it do so in 2021? The answer is no. Since 2015, when Trump announced his candidacy, the press in America and everywhere else in the West, has arrogated to itself political powers. It has become a political force. One consequence of this was that the New York Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, AP, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, et al., waged war every day on the Trump administration. After the stolen election of 2020, that almost military-campaign concluded in a victory for the media and the two other institutions with which the media shares power: Big Tech and Hollywood. It is this - a triumvirate - that now reigns, not the Democratic Party (and as for Biden, he is an empty vessel). 

The triumvirate does not allow ideological competitors: it seeks to destroy them - as is becoming painfully apparent, day by day. The left-wing ideology that animates the triumvirate counsels the crippling, decapitation, extermination of the triumvirate's political opponents. Such a Leninist mentality could not be further removed from the liberal ideal. 

Complete freedom of the press, and intellectual discussion, does not exist in its entirety in the West - try and publish an op-ed denying the Holocaust in an American or European newspaper and see what happens to you - and it never has. But one could say, up until recent times, that the media approached the liberal ideal, at least to a reasonable degree. Now all that has changed. The repressiveness, the deplatforming, the progandising, the vilification, the twisting of the truth, has reached such proportions that even the most dimwitted conservative (the type of conservative always insisting that the commies, SJWs, antifa are the 'Real Nazis') is beginning to see. 

Once we have identified a certain class - in this case, journalists - as a political actor, we should be asking: does that class use its political power in ways which are beneficial? Clearly the answer in this case is no. In 2020, the Western media (and not only the US media) aided and abetted the Black Lives Matter (BLM) rioters, and through these actions sought to trigger a race war; it incited violence against Trump and his supporters, and is still continuing to do so; and it induced a state of hysteria regarding Covid-19, which has led to consequences we are all too familiar with. 2020 would have looked very different had the media shown some more of the objectivity and neutrality it had displayed thirty to forty years ago - and the willingness to do actual journalism. And in the present year, the media is committing the worst crime of all from our point of view: the media, along with the Far Left, is fostering a climate of race-hatred - race-hatred against white people. All this goes some way to explaining why it is that so many in the West hold the journalistic profession in contempt - why so many believe that there is no lower form of human life than a journalist. 

In 2021, we are faced with two possibilities. The first is that future conservative governments intervene to restore a measure of freedom of discussion, debate and enquiry. The second is that a civil war of sorts gets underway as it did in Weimar Germany or Salvador Allende's Chile or Isabel Peron's Argentina; this war is to take place between the Far Right and the Far Left, and in the event of a victory for the Far Right, press freedoms are to be suspended. (But from the perspective of we moderns, that suspension would be purely formal and no great loss, as freedom of the press, freedom of discussion and freedom of expression today have already disappeared).

It seems unlikely that the old liberal order in journalism can be restored. Suppose that Trump had attempted to do that, he would have been accused of 'assaulting press freedom' and 'endangering democracy', the media having become adept at borrowing liberal rhetoric in order to camouflage itself. The journalist has made himself a political actor, and he will, upon coming under attack, do what all politicians do, and that is, fight for his survival as a political unit. Enoch Powell frequently quoted Thucydides' maxim that political power, once gained, is never relinquished - at least not voluntarily. It is unlikely that, now that the Left - which is the media, Big Tech, Hollywood, the SJW Twitter mob, the Antifa, the Critical Race Theorists - has attained near-absolute power that it will give it up. The Left will not experience a sudden religious conversion and then decide to behave in keeping with the ideals of classical liberalism. And so, the present state of affairs could continue indefinitely; the example of Venezuela shows that once the Left get in power, they cannot be gotten out. To this, the Friend / Enemy distinction provides the only redress. But once we begin to talk this way, we are speaking the language of Schmitt and Goebbels. 


At the beginning of this article, I posed the question, 'What is a "Nazi"?' and I challenged myself to come up with an answer which was not something along the lines of, 'Go read a book on 20th century German history'. 

The screenwriters of the science fiction TV and movie franchises Star Wars, Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica were faced with a similar challenge. They had to create characters - who were to be the bad guys, naturally - who were to be distinctly 'Nazi' and at the same time not German, for these stories were set in galaxies far, far away. And some subtlety was required (and was achieved): the Empire in Star Wars, for example, were not to merely serve as a stand-in for the Nazis, the Rebels not as a stand-in for the resistance fighters in German-occupied Europe: no, George Lucas made the story a metaphor for (among other things) the American war in Vietnam. 

Dissecting the political philosophy of Star Wars and other science-fiction franchises is a difficult and onerous task, but one that must be done, for a political philosophy does animate the more overtly 'Nazi' science-fiction characters, and the purpose of my article has been to divine what that philosophy was. And my answer? Take some of the 'Prussian Militarism' of the first half of the 20th century and add Schmitt's concept of the political: we then arrive at something which is not the last word on the subject, but a point of departure. 

It should be noted that 'Prussianism', 'Prussian Militarism', need not be grounded in the actual and historical Prussia - the Prussia of Frederick the Great and the House of Hohenzollern. The writers of the science-fiction franchises took 'Prussianism' out of its historical context and transported it to a place as far removed from Prussia as possible. In much the same way, George R. Martin, who wrote the fantasy novels which were adapted in the TV series Game of Thrones (2011-2019), modeled his world on Europe of the feudal era - comparisons have been drawn between his story and the history of the War of the Roses - but at the same time, his characters are not English (even though they speak (in the TV adaptation) with English accents). 

Here I have only attempted to define 'Nazism'; I have left open the question of its value - that is, whether it is good or not - and also the question of whether or not Hitlerism can stage a comeback, in Germany and Europe, some time in the future. Spengler and Yockey made predictions of a resurgence of 'Socialism' some time in the 21st century, but as I lack their prophetic vision, I will not be as bold. My current thinking is that the effective political activist must position himself with a view to the immediate and not the distant, to the present and not the future. 

Sunday, January 3, 2021

Yesterday's Hero: on post-war prosperity, postmodern apathy, pop Nazism and punks (cyber)



Politically speaking, nothing matters more at the time of writing than the electoral fraud of the 2020 American presidential election - that and what those on the Far Left will do to us on the Far Right if they assume absolute power. So my writing on what is a purely theoretical question will appear to some to be an evasion. But in my own defence, in the last analysis one has to let the Americans - and Trump - fight their own battles. The Western nationalism that exists outside of America will survive 2020, albeit under straitened circumstances, and  it will after 2020 face an uphill battle no matter who becomes US president, as it must contend with a Left which is in near-complete control of the media, popular culture, the Internet... 

So let us look at a subject close to home. In my article, 'The Aussies and the Nazis', I defended the NSN (National Socialist Network) against that the charge that their National Socialism was un-Australian; my argument was that in fact the most prominent Australian nationalist group of the 1930s and 1940s (the Australia First Movement) did have close ties with the German National Socialists, as did most other nationalist groups (the ones that mattered anyway) in Europe. Today a Slovenian or Belgian or Swedish or Portugese anti-Nazi and anti-fascist may take the gambit of declaring German National Socialism to be un-Slovenian, un-Belgian, un-Swedish, etc., but that will not pay off, and we can see why from looking at the historical record, which is one of Nazi sympathising and even collaboration. 

A charge which is far more difficult to refute is that the ideas of German National Socialism do not bear upon the present era, that they are not pertinent to it; they have no relevance. They are a finished historical product, bound to their particular place and time; their importance, their meaning, does not extend past the 1930s and 1940s. 

The line of attack does hit home, and it is all the more powerful because any discussion resulting from it will bring up some thorny and profound philosophical disputes, one of them being the following: the Russian philosopher Kojève, when examining various Western philosophical world-views (or Weltanschauungen, as Hitler would call them), asks the important question, are these world-views ever-lasting or are they ephemeral? Are they are grounded in eternal truths or the fleeting notions of the day? Those who take the latter view argue that ideas, like popular music, are subject to fashion; they can be in one day, out the next. In this they follow the same course as any cultural fad. (Take the Emo subculture, for example, which was popular in the 2000s and then vanished without a trace in the 2010s, having went the way of the platform shoes and disco music of the 1970s). 

Kojève regards this historical relativism as false, and furthermore, pernicious, and he compares it to the doctrine of the
Sophists.  Nevertheless, my view is that its charges must be answered, especially when they are raised against a political ideology. 

It is a fact that the passage of time, which leads to a distance in time, does bring with it a certain objectivity. We recognise, at once upon encountering them, what exactly the fashions of the 1970s and 1980s were, but we do not recognise, at least with as much precision, the distinctive attributes of the fashion of 2010s or even the 2000s; in the former case, much time has passed (hence the instant recognition) since those decades, in the latter, too little. Historical distance and the flow of time make the past a finished product, a closed book, and thereby give us an understanding of what a thing essentially is. This is what Hegel meant when he said that the 'Owl of Minerva [the goddess of wisdom] spreads its wings only with the coming of dusk'. 

Was there a point in time after the war when we in the West understood what National Socialism was and viewed it with a degree of objectivity? Yes: in the 1960s. Given that politics is a visual medium - a thesis Hitler would surely agree with - my argument is that one means of getting to grips with a political idea is to see it. In the 1930s and 1940s, we grasped politics through newsreels and newspaper photographs; in the 1960s and 1970s and after, through popular culture - that is, movies, TV shows, comic books. Put that way, we see that a great deal of change in the popular depictions of National Socialism occurred over the past six decades. For one, by the time of Schindler's List (1993), the National Socialists (and the German people themselves) in popular culture had been transmogrified into a race of demons. A cynic would remark that such extreme ugliness in the portraiture of National Socialism always could be expected, but my contention is that it was not always so. Ernst Zündel remarked (in the 1990s) that whereas once the hero of the American war movie once raced against time to storm the beaches of Iwo Jima, he now races to liberate the concentration camps; popular culture, in portraying the war, had by the 1990s begun to favour the European theater at the expense of the Pacific and show signs of an obsession with the Holocaust. A shift had occurred, and I identify the turning point as the 1960s. In Rat Patrol (1966-68), Twelve O'Clock High (1964-1967), Combat! (1962-67) (the TV action shows devoted to the Western theater) the Germans are portrayed with (as Zündel observes) grudging respect, and in The Producers (1967) and Hogan's Heroes (1965-71), the subject of comedy. Undoubtedly the writers, directors and actors who served up this fare were attuned to the desires of the audience, a large proportion of which was made up of ex-servicemen, and this segment of the audience knew, from first-hand experience, that the Germans were not the monsters Allied wartime propaganda made them out to be. And so, perhaps, there was a pending reconciliation of sorts between the Germans and the Anglos? Whatever the case, the point is moot, because as Zündel remarks, by the 1970s the Holocaust had stepped in and nipped any rapprochement in the bud. 

Time heals all wounds, and by the 1960s, enough distance had been gained from the war for it to be represented with a reasonable degree of objectivity, or near enough to objectivity - as close as Hollywood could be expected to get. But that brought with it its own dangers. When you turn National Socialism into a not-so-serious TV show or movie or board game, you are showing a high level of detachment from it - you are not feeling a sense of involvement, politically, emotionally, spiritually or otherwise. This is what happens when National Socialism, and the war, become part of the past: the pages written on them have become closed in the book of history. For you, a member of the audience of Hogan's Heroes and Dad's Army (1968-77) and who lived through the 1930s and 1940s, the realities of that time are unpleasant to recall, especially when you compare them to those of the present, the present being distinguished by its peace and prosperity; but the fact that you enjoy these comedies reveals that you do not feel much in the way of trauma regarding the recent past, as it is water under the bridge. You have achieved closure. In this state of mind, one can look at the battles of WWII with nearly as much detachment as one would at the battles of the Napoleonic Wars or the Wars of the Austrian Succession. But that means you are approaching postmodernism, and with it, postmodern apathy and irony. 

What does that entail? In the past year, Azerbaijan and Armenia have been engaged in a war over a disputed territory called Nagorno-Karabakh. The Far Right, the Western nationalist movement, does not have a stake in the war; it has not pronounced, by and large, that one side is more 'based' than the other (as it did in two of the wars of the last decade - the Syrian Civil War and the Russo-Ukrainian War). If members of the Far Right were called on to play a wargame based on conflict, or role-play as soldiers in re-enactments of key battles, they would feel a sense of non-involvement; they would feel detachment. And no doubt they would utter witticisms while role-playing as the Armenian or Azerbaijani soldiers, witticisms which would express their ironic detachment. This is one of the key themes of postmodernism: a feeling of irony when one is re-enacting or repeating a past which one cares nothing about. 

Perhaps the first person on the Far Right to act as a postmodernist was George Lincoln Rockwell. His politics exhibited a dual nature: on the one hand, he took his brand of racialist conservatism extremely seriously; on the other, he treated National Socialism as a prank, a joke (that was the subtext of his actions - had he been confronted about it, he would have denied it furiously and declared that he was a sincere and committed 'Nazi'). Fifty years later, we come to Rockwell's spiritual successors - the pranksters of 4Chan who ironically espouse National Socialism and fascism. 

In a way, it was Jewish activism in the 1970s that saved National Socialism from descending into postmodern irony. As stated before, in the previous decade, the National Socialists were treated as objects of gentle ridicule in TV comedies such as Dad's Army and Hogan's Heroes, worthy opponents in action movies such as Battle of the Bulge (1965) and Anzio (1968). They were depicted as bad, but not evil. But then Jewish activists thrust the Holocaust story to the forefront of the public consciousness. No doubt the movie and TV audiences of the 1970s began to feel pangs of guilt at laughing at the antics of Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schultz. By the time of the 1980s - the time of Sophie's Choice (1982) and Shoah (1985) - audiences had stopped laughing altogether. The Holocaust onslaught was well and truly underway, and audiences were being deluged by hundreds - no thousands - of Holocaust novels, movies, comic books, plays, ballets, education classes, documentaries, museum exhibits... National Socialists were no longer to be laughed at, they were to be taken seriously, extremely seriously: the war was painted as a primordial clash between good and evil. (It is no coincidence that at this time the governments of Europe began to introduce serious penalties for denying the Holocaust, penalties which included fines and imprisonment, whereas only ten years before, the same governments did not actively seek to punish Holocaust denial - one could then write a Revisionist work and travel through Europe a free man). 

Oddly enough, Holocaustism reached a fever pitch in the 1990s, the decade which represented the high-water mark of postmodernism. The postmodern-themed TV show, Seinfeld (1989-98), poked fun at Schindler's List, but that was the exception; 1990s popular culture for the most part treated the Holocaust with the utmost gravity. And the postmodernist, post-structuralist French intellectuals, who espoused a sturdy scepticism towards all 'grand narratives' (and the Holocaust, being part of Judaism and Zionism, is nothing if not a grand narrative), were taken in by the Holocaust like everyone else; hence their rote denunciations of the French  Revisionist Robert Faurisson. I must confess that I was taken in at the time as well - not having access to any of the Revisionist works on the Internet - and I, too, viewed the Germans as a race of monsters. But then, when all your intellectual peers are declaiming with absolute certainty that a certain event actually did happen and that an ideology (and the country that gave to birth to it) responsible for it are evil to the core, you tend to believe them - it is human nature.

By turning the National Socialists into creatures of evil - akin to vampires, warlocks, witches, werewolves - the Jewish activists reanimated National Socialism; they gave the corpse new life - a strange, unnatural life, but a life nonetheless. In order to kill National Socialism, to deprive it of life, they would have been better advised to mummify it, to make it a thing of the past, something which could be handled as a relic, a curio. The 1990s was the ideal decade to accomplish this. In a 1992 work which was perfectly in accord with the times, Francis Fukuyama, inspired by Kojève, pronounced the End of History. What Fukuyama and Kojève meant by the idea was that history could be conceived up as an epic with a beginning, middle and end; and once the epic had come to an end, there was nothing left for the protagonists to do - no great feats to accomplish, no high ideals to die for. At the conclusion of the original Star Wars trilogy (1977-83), the Empire is defeated and the heroes Han, Luke and Leia resume their normal lives - lives which to us in the audience would have seemed dull and listless had they been put up on the big screen, as they would have been bereft of heroic exploits. Kojève's contention was that Man had arrived at the same point: the end of the story. Henceforth, Man would live an uninspired, base, even animal existence; he would be what Nietzsche called a Last Man, Spengler a Fellahin. And being situated at the end of history, he would look at the great and significant preceding events - for example the 30 Years War, or the War of Austrian Succession, or the Napoleonic Wars, or even the First and Second World Wars - with detachment. And with detachment, comes irony... One can see how this sense of historical distance lends itself to the anti-Nazi argument 'It's not the 1930s any more' - that is, while German National Socialism and Italian Fascism suited the 1930s and 1940s, perhaps, they do not the current year. And as it so turns out, Jewry in the 1990s could made effective use of that Kojèvean argument but instead it promulgated the Holocaust tale for what was mostly a religious purpose. 

But I must emphasise, again, how damaging the 'It's not the 1930s any more' line of argument can be. Leon Degrelle writes in his memoirs how terrible it was in his post-war exile in Spain to read through the morning newspapers every day and not see his name mentioned; as a man accustomed to notoriety, this was a cross to bear. In the same memoirs, he makes the passing remark, with a sniffing condescension, that anti-tank weapons in WWII did not work the same way as they they are shown in the movies today. One can speculate that it must have been an alienating experience for Degrelle, once a soldier, now a spectator, to watch the war movies of the 1950s and 1960s in a Spanish cinema. Degrelle would no doubt have felt that he had been left behind by history. Which raises the question, what would he have thought of today's cultural developments? Only a few weeks ago, the bestselling computer game Cyberpunk 2077 was released. The game pays tribute to the Cyberpunk movie genre and hacking subculture of the 1980s and 1990s, and boomers (the children of Degrelle's generation) have a hard time making sense of these. Given that, what would Degrelle and his fellow post-war fascists Otto Remer and Otto Skorzeny, have made of them? They would have no doubt felt consternation and confusion. And this lends weight to the accusation that Degrelle was an old fuddy-duddy and that his wartime fascism today smells rather musty. 


Before anti-Nazi readers start congratulating themselves, I will make the point that, at some juncture in our lives, we all grow old; and for those of us who have political careers, at some juncture, we all become yesterday's hero. The aged and declining despot Ghaddafi of 2011 (the year he was overthrown) presents a sad contrast with the young and exuberant reformer Ghaddafi of 1969 (the year he came to power). 

As a man goes, so does a civilisation: this thesis underlay Spengler's monumental work, The Decline of the West (1918-22). Kojève took much from Spengler, who anticipated his idea of the 'historyless man' (a phrase Spengler uses repeatedly), that is, the man left over after the end of the history of a civilisation; but Kojève's borrowing has never been acknowledged by scholars. 

But Spengler contradicts Kojève on when it is that history, at least history in the West, comes to an end. Kojève says it was in the year 1806, when Hegel saw Napoleon on horseback in the town of Jena and subsequently conceived The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), an ambitious work which aimed to encapsulate all of philosophy, all of thought ('Spirit') up that time. Hegel therein concluded that, after Napoleon, Man had reached the last stage in his progress, the terminus of his historical evolution. Spengler differed in that he believed that there was no history of Man as such, only the history of the eight High Cultures, seven of which had died long ago - today only the Western Culture is left standing. And that Culture would not reach the end of its natural life until three hundred years (or thereabouts) after the writing of the Decline. For Spengler's prediction was that by the 23rd century, Western Man will enter the last stage in the West's historical cycle and will become 'historyless', a Fellahin, a Last Man. He will look back on all that has gone before in the history of his race without any emotional connection, without any emotional involvement, and he will devote himself to animal pleasures. His vast empire - which he had built in the preceding centuries - will go to rot and ruin, and he will become the prey of newer, younger, more 'barbarian' races. In other words, the West will suffer the same fate as ancient Rome, India and China. 

Unlikely as it seems, it is here that Spengler rides to the rescue of the National Socialist (or as Spengler would call it, 'Prussian Socialist') idea. 

Spengler's maudlin and frightening vision of a fading West, if it is to come true, will only come true hundreds of years in the future. According to Spengler's prediction, the 21st century shall see no Fellahin and no pacifism, only dangerous political struggle. Politics in that time will be taken extremely seriously, as it was in the time of Caesar and Augustus. And after the time of struggle is a time of peace - a peace imposed by the new Imperium. As to whether or not in this period the German Idea (which Spengler called 'Socialist') would ultimately triumph, Spengler hedged his bets; suffice to say, he did not foresee a liberal future, and indeed, he prophesied that in the 21st century the system of ballot-box electoralism would come crashing down. (And I would argue of that of this the events of 2020 give us a portent). (In order to avoid misunderstanding Spengler on this point, it should be made clear that is not the case that such political systems simply stop functioning; it is that they fail to maintain the confidence in them that they had enjoyed before). Taking all of Spengler's predictions into account, then, one can infer from them, as Spengler's disciple Yockey did, that in the new century Spengler's 'Socialism' does indeed stand a chance. 


My intention here has been to make vivid a contrast that exists between two different historical periods and their accompanying Weltanschauungen

Spengler and Yockey published their work in what was undeniably a most dangerous and unpleasant time in Western history; Fukuyama revived Kojève's ideas in a time which was not dangerous and not unpleasant. Given the choice, any Western European (or North American or Australian) would prefer to live in the latter period over the former. And he would prefer, one over the other, one of the two ethics that accompanied each of the two periods. What are these ethics? We find them in our four authors. Spengler and Yockey praise the martial virtues (self-sacrifice, renunciation, discipline, courage, sternness...) whereas Kojève and Fukuyama reject them - in the world view of the latter pair, Man is to become a contented cow or sheep, a creature which poses no threat to anyone, a 'herbivore'. It goes without saying Western Man, c. 2020, prefers the latter ethos over the former. And it is this preference which has placed an obstacle in the path of all Western nationalism for the past seventy-five years. The nationalist believes that the West, and the entire white race, are in danger of extinction, but upon becoming a political activist and commencing a crusade to defend the West, he quickly discovers, to his frustration, that Western Man, because of complacency or stupidity, will not fight to save himself. 

Discussions of this subject in nationalist polemics often lead to speculations as to what the breaking point, the last straw, for Western Man will be. And such a breaking point exists, for every nationality; September 1939 and December 1941 showed that even the most stoic and patient of peoples, once goaded beyond endurance, can snap. 

Western Man has for the last hundred years been forced to shoulder a number of  burdens. These are political and are in effect taxes which have been imposed upon him. They could be thought of as the price he pays for participating in normal society; if he does not pay them, he will be punished. A comparison could be drawn between them and the protection money paid to a gangster. 

The rate and number of these taxes has been steadily mounting since the end of WWII. Taking America as an example, Americans, by the 1960s, had laboured under what I call the negro tax for hundreds of years, and the rate of that tax was dramatically increased at the time of the race riots and the new desegregation laws; by the 1970s, whites had been ethnically cleansed from some of the great cities of the North-East - for example, Detroit. Around the same time came a new tax, a new levy - the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, which abolished the whites-only immigration system which had been in place for forty years. Hart-Celler led to a massive immigrant invasion, the largest in history. Following this tax - which should be called the Great Replacement tax - Americans had to put up with an additional one, the mandatory Holocaust education and indoctrination tax, which took effect in the 1970s and 1980s. Forty years later, new taxes were introduced: the Social Justice Warrior (SJW) tax, the transsexual tax, the 'Woke Capital' tax, the Greta Thunberg tax, the '#MeToo' tax, the deplatforming tax, the cancel culture tax... The year 2020 saw a Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa riot tax, and one of the most devastating taxes of all - the Great Reset tax, which has led to the vexations of social distancing, mask mandates, contact tracing, lockdowns, house arrests, curfews, forced unemployment, forced closure of businesses and perhaps, in the future, the introduction of a compulsory (and potentially lethal) vaccine. The Great Reset has engendered, as we know, pathological social phenomena on a stupendous scale. And in case one thought that things could not get any worse, the year 2020 concluded with the Joe Biden electoral fraud tax, which will exacerbate tensions between the Left and Right to an alarming degree and could eventually lead to a sundering of the American republic.

Economic theory posits the hypothesis of what is called the Laffer Curve: this is the proposition that past a certain point additional tax hikes will see a diminution, not an increase, in revenue. Diminishing returns apply to tax collection. The same holds true to the burdens, impositions, outlined above. Past a certain point, the last straw will have been reached for American (and Western) Man; he will refuse to pay these levies.  

The Western nationalist's tolerance for these impositions is low, the normie's is high. The British nationalist, for instance, finds the Great Replacement tax (which was first levied in England seventy years ago) outrageous, and thinks that the British normie should be outraged by it too; he cannot understand why the normie is not outraged and was not even outraged after the Pakistani grooming gang scandal came to light. But the truth is that when it comes tolerance and endurance of burdens and impositions, different sections of the populace have different thresholds. We activists are all familiar with the somnolent type of normie who feels nothing but complete indifference towards politics and indeed any of the higher fields of human endeavour; prior to 2020, none of the taxes mentioned made the slightest impression on him. One is inclined to suspect that the political establishment, being aware of his notoriously high tolerance, imposed the Great Reset in order to test his limits; and in doing so, that establishment was possessed of a certain impishness and malice - like a child who teases an animal so as to make it bite. 

Looking past the somnolent and insensate type of normie, we come to others who are more promising. There is the conservative boomer, who was accepting of all the taxes levied up to 2000 or so, but has been baffled and confused - and angered - by the new SJW, transsexual, Greta Thunberg, etc., taxes, and wants things to go back to where they were. Another nostalgic is the popular culture-obsessed normie, who often belongs to either the boomer generation or Generation X. He lives in a dream world, a bubble, which is filled with popular culture - computer games, anime, comic books, movies, TV shows, action figures, role-playing games... Unfortunately for him, the late 2010s saw the infiltration by the extreme Left into popular culture, and as a result, his beloved franchises (among them Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, Marvel and DC, James Bond) have been ruined by SJW politicisation. Like the conservative boomer, he instinctively holds to reactionary views and wants life to return to where it was in 1990 or 2000 or even 2010 - when the impositions were not as pronounced. He is prepared to pay some taxes, but not others. The negro tax and the Great Replacement tax do not bother him, as he is not a white nationalist by any description; the Holocaust indoctrination tax does not bother him, as he has been trained to hate all Germans, 'Nazis', by Hollywood; but 'SJW Star Wars' - that he will not abide. One consequence of his displeasure is that he has produced literally thousands of YouTube videos containing hundreds of hours of intricate analyses of Lucasfilm, Disney, Kathleen Kennedy, The Mandalorian (2019-), etc. 

Now, he can be chided for not spending his time on more worthy, serious subjects; but he could counter this attack with the question: after he comes home tired at the end of the working day, what is there for him but escapism? In his judgment, he feels he has the right to lose himself in the world of heroic myth. It means something spiritually higher to him, something he needs - man does not live by bread alone. 


The pop-culture obsessed normie is closely related to the bug man, who is in turn related to Nietzsche's Last Man and Spengler's Fellahin. The bug man, a conformist by nature, accepts nearly all of the aforementioned taxes, much like the somnolent, insensate and bulletproof type of normie. 

The Western nationalist will castigate the bug man: the bug man does not engage in a revolt against the modern world (Evola), lament the passing of the great race (Grant), hanker after the Imperium (Yockey); he is politically inactive and perfectly content with the way things are. But I envy him to a certain extent. To be obsessed by nothing but computer gaming, for example - that would be a life (I imagine) of uninterrupted bliss. 

This is where Cyberpunk 2077 comes in. 

The computer game was based on a pen and paper role playing game, Cyberpunk: The Roleplaying Game of the Dark Future which was published in 1988 and set (amusingly enough) in the far-flung future of 2013. The original game portended, as one could expect, a dark, dystopian future for the West, like all the works in the cyberpunk genre; but paradoxically, the genre makes urban dystopias look exciting, glamourous, seductive. It prettifies the urban science-fiction hellscape and turns it into something beautiful. And this has real world implications. The Los Angeles of the movie Blade Runner (1982), the Chiba City of the novel Neuromancer (1984) and the Night City of the game Cyberpunk 2077 seem strangely familiar to us, as they resemble cities in which we live - Sydney and Melbourne, for example - and because of this, Cyberpunk 2077, an aesthetically pleasing game which beautifies the modern city, makes us appreciate our cities all the more. 

It is no exaggeration to say that for some, the game made 2020 worth living. The game had been in development for eight years (!) and the release date for 2020 had been slated for April, and then it was pushed back to November, and then December. The delay only increased the anticipation. The release of Cyberpunk 2077 was eagerly awaited by gaming fandom, and even those on the Far Right were swept up by the enthusiasm. On 4Chan, a common slogan was, 'Still buying Cyberpunk 2077': that is to say, despite all the negative political developments of the year 2020, I am still looking forward to playing this game which, I have been assured, will be a masterpiece. 

All this has an unlikely sequel, but before I detail it, I should be point out that the audience for cyberpunk is meant to react with revulsion, and not pleasure, at the prospect of the West turning into a dystopia filled with cyborgs, low-lifes, and servants of evil corporations ('corpos';); and it goes without saying that the white nationalist or National Socialist is meant to react negatively as well. (Read what Alfred Rosenberg, in The Myth of the Twentieth Century (1930), has to say on the evils of city life). On that, the cyberpunk dystopia presents a reverse mirror image of what Far Rightists, traditionalists, fascists of all stripes value. Peasants, cosy cottages, clean and healthy country living, beautiful landscapes, 'Aryan women standing in wheatfields': these occupy the most prominent place in white nationalist iconography, not corpos, low-lifes, urban squalor, smog, neon signs and cyborgs. You can find these typical white nationalist icons on display at the Renegade Tribune website; Renegade travels down the Rosenberg route, and goes even further, endorsing homeopathy and veganism. 

But all this raises the question: which of the two - the cyberpunk urban dystopia or the National Socialist eco-utopia - is the more modern and the more real? Reluctantly, I have to say, the former; perhaps we could have lived more close to nature, as Rosenberg wanted, over a hundred years ago, but not now. 

Another difficult question. The video for the song 'Yesterday's Hero' by John Paul Young is set in the all-white city of Melbourne of 1975. Supposing that you could go forward or back in time, would you travel to the Melbourne of that year or to the Melbourne of some hundred years after (say, the year 2077)? The pop culture-obsessed normie would choose the future: he operates under the assumption that the future will not only be more technologically advanced, but more exciting, which is one of the reasons why he likes Star Trek, Star Wars, so much. 

That type of normie accepts much of the existing political order, and modern technology, and modern urban living, as does the bug man. The underlying philosophy of these types of normie was first outlined in Fukuyama's essay 'The End of History?' (which appeared in the summer of 1989, right before the fall of the Berlin Wall). Fukuyama here expounded upon two propositions which many commentators found objectionable: the first was that we live in the best of all possible worlds, the second, that our existing political arrangements could scarcely be improved upon. Many on the Far Left took umbrage with Fukuyama, as could be expected, but so did many on the Far Right who are forever denouncing capitalism and consumerism. When I am in one of my less charitable moods, I am inclined to say that those the Far Right who adopted this position did so only because they are (like their counterparts on the Far Left) killjoys and moreover, people who are stuck in a distant past. The bugman, and the pop-culture obsessed normie, would agree. And they would venture that Fukuyama could have been right. Perhaps it is the case that a society which produces a work of beauty such as Cyberpunk 2077 cannot be all that bad. Why not, then, kick back and enjoy this marvellous world of supermarkets, shopping centers, and computer games - the world which our forefathers shed their blood, sweat and tears to build? Throw out your dusty volumes of Spengler, Yockey, Evola, and stop obsessing over race, immigration and Holocaust Revisionism. Become a postmodernist. 'It's not the 1930s any more'...

But there is a twist in the tale when it comes to Cyberpunk 2077. The game sold millions on the day of its release, but after playing it, gamers discovered that it suffered from glitches and other shortcomings; the sad truth was that it had been released before it was ready. The most hyped and anticipated game of the year - if not the century - had turned into a failure. The producers of the game, CD Projekt Red, took the unprecedented step of offering refunds to Playstation and XBox users. Disappointment was followed by fury; CD Projekt Red, are now facing a class action law suit from disgruntled investors. 

One moral of the story is, perhaps, that those wanting a more authentic cyberpunk experience would have been better advised to stick to the pen and paper games. But more than that, the story illustrates the ultimate failure of bugman-ism and normie-ism. The bugman could only justify Western liberal society and its economic system throughout 2020 with the following argument: despite the collapse brought about by the Great Reset, despite the scandal brought about by the Biden fraud, we in the West still live in a time which is unparalleled for its prosperity, luxury, technological advancement - and what better proof of this is Cyberpunk 2077? Even those on dissident Right, says the bugman, must acknowledge the truth of this argument, and they did acknowledge the truth of it, through their actions (but not their words), as the excitement the game caused led the 'Alt-Rightist' to drop his anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist pose. Anticipation for the Cyberpunk 2077 masterwork broke down all social and political barriers. Both Mark Zuckerberg - the king of the bugmen - and the anonymous 4Chan poster who coined the 'Still buying Cyberpunk 2077' phrase stood side by side in the queue outside the game store on the morning of December the 10th, the day of the game's release. And to paraphrase the Bible, Zuckerberg saw this, and behold, it was very good. For Zuckerberg wants nothing more for a member of the 'Alt-Right' than to become like him; he wants that 'Alt-Rightist' to buy a computer game, adopt postmodernist views, be content with the existing social order and take an Asian wife. 

But, as we know, things did not work out that way. 'Truth will have its revenge', as Carl Schmitt used to say, and perhaps, in 2020, 'Alt-Right' politics, white nationalism, Neo-Nazism, Far Right Populism were in accordance with the times after all, and were the truth. 

Saturday, November 7, 2020

Advice for Americans: a Communique in the Course of a Coup



I should have put a qualifying sentence at the end of my last article, and that is: these are the reasons why Trump will win if the election is free and fair. As we now know, the election was not free and fair, and it was more befitting of a Third World country than the United States. Trump would have scored well above 300 electoral college votes if not for Democratic electoral fraud in four Democrat-controlled cities in the north (Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta), and for all we know, he may have even won Nevada and Virginia were it not for possible fraud there as well. The American Left is at present executing a plan which it had laid down in advance of the election; it is following a coup scenario which was 'wargamed' as part of what is called the Transition Integrity Project. 

Now, some (only a minority, I am pleased to say) on the dissident Right contend that none of this matters, both Trump and Biden are the same, etc., etc. I am writing to persuade those who are undecided or who have fallen under the influence of the black-pillers and nay-sayers. I wish to impress upon the Americans in the dissident Right that there is a time for political activism, it is now. 


The American Far Right or nationalist Right or racialist Right (or whatever you want to call it) should want to save Trump's presidency. Why? 

The first argument is: it is in the self-interest of the dissident Right that the presidency be saved. For years leading up to the 2020 election, the Left has vowed to punish anyone who supported and voted for Trump. Now reports indicate that an incoming Biden administration will pursue this goal; it will hardly be interested in national reconciliation and harmony. 

At the moment, the Left is focusing all its attentions on Trump, his base and the Republican Party - it wants to depose Trump, demoralise his base and turn the Republican Party against Trump and populism - but sooner or later it will turn to the Far Right. White nationalists, race realists, 'neo-reactionaries', Neo-Nazis, et al., will be deplatformed and perhaps even fined and imprisoned. The Biden regime may not have control of the Senate or even the House, but it will have control of the Justice Department and a myriad of other institutions control of which goes to the candidate who won the election for the presidency. It goes without saying that Biden's handlers will insert socialists, Marxists, communists, etc., into every key position, and these newly appointed nominees will seek a bloody retribution against all 'white supremacists' and 'Nazis', real or imagined. Center-right conservatives ('normiecons') and colour-blind civic nationalists can be expected to be caught up in the coming conflagration. (Indeed, the first shots in the war against 'normiecons' have already been fired: dozens of Republican and conservatives were struck off YouTube weeks before the election). 

The bottom line is: the Left seeks to control everything, and like some amorphous blob monster out of a horror film, it never stops until it has devoured everything in its path. Before the election, the Left ran Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, YouTube, Amazon, Hollywood, popular culture (DC, Disney, Marvel, etc.), nearly all the national news TV networks and newspapers; now it wants the government. It never stops. And sooner or later, it will come for you. The Left will not allow you, a dissident Rightist and freethinker, to have your corner of the Internet; it will not leave you unmolested; so long as you exist, it will attempt to destroy you. 

The second reason wanting a Trump second term is: immigration. As Kevin MacDonald notes in an article on the election, the Biden regime will usher in a massive wave of non-white immigration. That, combined with electoral cheating of the sort we saw in the four pivotal Democratic-run cities, will ensure that no Republican will be elected to the presidency for the next few decades. Many of the Trump's critics on the Right chide him with abandoning his white working-class base, and they point to the drop in white electoral support as proof of this; but I ask them, how do you think the white working-class (let alone the white middle-class) will fare under Biden? As it is, Trump has brought legal and illegal immigration to record lows, and not all of this reduction is attributable to covid. Name one other head of state in the West, or at least the Anglosphere, who has done as much to restrict immigration as Trump (as they say on 4Chan, 'Pro-tip: you can't). 

The third reason is: Marxist gradualism. Biden may not get control of the Senate, or even the House. But history shows that while a president does not always get the tax cuts he wants, he always gets the tax hikes, and this is despite his party's not having control of the legislature. Taxes on the supply of capital and labour will lead to less of it, and Americans can expect a gradual economic decline under Biden, a decline which will at first make itself felt only at the margins. The decline will proceed bit by bit and the inadequacy of capitalism compared to socialism will 'proven' over a period of time. This is important. Biden's handlers know that they cannot introduce Marxism all at once - e.g., Biden will not write an executive order to nationalise, overnight, all the companies in the S&P 500 - so they will avail themselves of salami tactics. We are seeing these gradualist methods at work already, and these recall those used during the communist coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948

I do not want here to revisit the now-centuries old capitalism versus socialism debate; all I want is to ask the dissident Right to consider the politics of the matter. The fact is that millions of Americans, 'normies' all, will not stand for socialism; millions of Floridan Hispanic voters will not abide Biden. My question to you is, are you prepared to be outflanked from the Right by immigrant Cubans and Venezuelans? 

The fourth reason is: fairness. Democracy can be defined as a fair contest between two more or less evenly-matched opponents - something like a game of chess or soccer. MacDonald and other race realists have written volumes on how whites have produced high-trust societies, and while democracy has been adopted by many non-white nations since WWII, it was whites who invented it in its modern form and one could say that it was built upon white values. For democracy requires the following norms: a sense of fair play; the consent of the loser (which we have not seen from the Left since 2016); the abstention from the use of force and intimidation against one's political opponents (which again we have not seen from the Left since 2016)... All of this could be said to be white, and Anglo-Saxon. It is true that over the course of hundreds of years, British and American politicians seeking office have gone against these precepts and doing so, have won; but there has always been the awareness that these men broke the rules and thereby did a bad thing and put themselves outside the pale. Generations of whites have regarded electoral fraud not as business as usual, politics as usual, but as a deviation from norms. 

One should separate all this - the history of democracy in the West - from the question of its actual value. Hitler did not think much of democracy, but democracy, in the period of the Second Reich and even Weimar worked well enough - at least, in pre-WWII Germany, you can find little evidence of Chicago-style ballot-box stuffing, because Germans as a people are too scrupulous and honest for that. But the communist Left destroyed the democracy of the Second Reich and Weimar, because it knew, on an instinctive level at least, that it could not win a fair contest. In much the same way, Lenin abolished the Duma because the Bolsheviks did not win the elections held after the October Revolution. 

This brings us to America today. We can envisage the American election of 2020 as a chess match between a blue player and a red. The blue player, through an illegal move, checkmates his opponent. The red player brings this cheating to the attention of the referee. The blue player, defending his conduct, says that the illegal move should be overlooked as the red player is a disgrace to the game of chess, has brought it into disrepute, is a odious individual, etc. The referee is torn: on the one hand, the denunciations of the red player by the blue strike a sympathetic chord; on the other, rules are rules. At this point, everything depends on how the referee will act. Will he follow the rules, or will he look the other way? Will he follow his better or lesser angels? 

The consequences are tremendous if the referee chooses the latter course. MacDonald is not alone in predicting that the reputation and sanctity of democracy will be called into question, and that civil war may result. He writes, 'It’s going to be interesting... Perhaps too interesting'.

That 'interesting' civil war may come about simply because the Left, as Rush Limbaugh points out, not believe in following the rules - it believes that is for suckers. The smart people, the clever people, bend the rules and even cheat so as to win, because winning - by any means necessary - is the supreme value. (It is doubtful that the men who fixed the vote in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Detroit, will ever evince remorse for their crime once they emerge in years to come and brag about their role in toppling Trump in 2020). And this is all in keeping with Leninism. If you, like Lenin, put socialism on a pedestal, if you prize it before anything else, if you make it the core of your morality - then woe betide anything that gets in the way of socialism. All the Anglo-Saxon ideals of fair play, of decency, of free and fair contests, can be trampled upon. They are all 'bourgeois'. 

The stench of cheating will cling to Biden throughout his entire term. To the Left, that hardly matters - they won,  that is that, and now they have the mandate to fight against 'systemic racism'; but to the dissident Right, it should matter.


To put aside for the moment the question of the worth of second Trump term , I shall look at the strengths and weaknesses of both the contestants - Trump and Biden. 

Biden has little free will of his own - he is the puppet of the amorphous Left. What is that Left in 2020? It is radical, it is Marxist, but it is not the same as sixty or seventy years ago. Then, the American Left consisted of the Communist Party of the USA (the CPUSA) and its splinter groups, some of which went over to Trotskyism, others to Maoism. The Far Left then was centralised, not diffuse, and it was small in number. Branches and cells met in dusty basements and belonged to a hierarchical and centralised organisation (a 'vanguard party') which was controlled by Moscow. Splinter groups did not receive their orders (or funding) from Moscow, but they did emulate the CPUSA's 'revolutionary vanguard' structure.

Now, in 2020, Marxism and leftism have broken with the 'old Left' model. They are diffuse and decentralised as a virus is; they are a virus inhabiting the minds of the public, not so much a mass movement as a mass psychosis. In it we can identify the following factions:

- Anarchists and Antifa;

- 'Woke' capital (or corporate Leninism, as I like to call it);

- Academic and cultural Marxism: Critical Race Theory, Gender Studies, Black Studies, post-Colonial Studies, Queer Studies, etc.;

- Social Justice Warriors (SJWs);

- Black Lives Matter (BLM);

- Remnants of the old Marxist organisations: the CPUSA (which still exists), the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the old Trotskyite groups, the survivors of the New Communist Movement (NCM) groups.

All of these tend to cross over and overlap. A 'woke capitalist' could be found on the board of a big tech or media company who declares himself to be simultaneously a Marxist (without knowing a thing about Marxist theory), a crusader for social justice, a supporter of BLM and Antifa. 

How does this leftism manifest itself politically? As we know, the Left has spread itself into every nook and cranny of civil society, from churches to the TV and film studios. It sees the Democratic Party as its own, and the Party serves as the focal point for the Left's operations. 

The Democratic Party - and the grand cause of getting Trump - allows the Left to build bridges to the Right. This is how the Left has built an alliance with the Never Trump conservatives, who were present at the Transitional Integrity's Project's 'wargaming' of the anti-Trump coup. (The Never Trumpers represent the faction of the Republican Party which was ousted after Trump's hostile takeover of the party in the years 2015 and 2016. This is the faction of the conservative movement which is attempting at present to persuade Trump to 'do the right thing' and concede the election and acknowledge that he lost 'fair and square'; it is also placing pressure on the Republicans to distance themselves from Trump and any 'conspiracy theories' which say that the Democrats cheated). 

The Left has made a puppet of Biden (and Harris), and it is Biden who suffers from the same shortcoming as the Left and the Never Trumpers: a lack of popular support. No-one voted for Biden, at least not in the numbers claimed in Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan. In a democracy, this lack of electoral support translates into illegitimacy. One can be a cynic about this, one can sneer, one can quote Stalin approvingly to the effect that 'It matters not who wins the votes, but who counts them'; but this illegitimacy is a black mark against Biden, at least in the eyes of a large section of the American people. 

In contrast, Trump has his base which is extends both inside and outside the Republican Party. In addition, he possess great strength and fortitude. Even his enemies admit that he is not the type to go down quietly. It is for this reason that I believe that Trump will not give up. Those who say he will, I think, are projecting themselves onto Trump: they imagine that if they were in his shoes, they would have crumbled right now (I know I certainly would have). They simply do not believe in him. They show all the signs of having been taken in by the media anti-Trump propaganda, which is part of the massive psychological warfare campaign against Trump and his followers. But we should remember that only a week ago, the polls - and the betting markets - made the forecast that Trump would lose to Biden in a landslide (and the Republicans in the Senate and House as well). As of now, the betting markets indicate that Biden will be president. But why should we believe them? 

It is of course in Trump's personal interest to fight to the bitter end. The Left has vowed to arrest, convict and imprison Trump for his 'crimes' while in office (and needless to say, if it cannot find evidence of any criminal wrong-doing, it will manufacture it) the moment he departs from the White House; and they have vowed to go after his family as well. Trump is fighting for not only his own preservation but his children's as well. In this, the Left have made a mistake. Sun Tzu counsels that one must avoid encircling one's enemy completely: one must give him an avenue of escape, otherwise he will fight all the more harder. The Left, which is always overreaching, has not heeded Sun Tzu on this point. 

Another reason why Trump will not concede is that he sees himself as the winner of the election of 2020. History and tradition show that he is right. Out of the 31 elections since 1892, the state of Ohio has only gone with the loser twice - to Dewey in 1944 and Nixon in 1960. And in 30 out of 31 of those elections, the candidate who won Ohio and Florida together went on to win the office of presidency (and that includes George W. Bush in the extremely tight election of 2000). Nixon in 1960 is the exception which proves the rule: Nixon won Ohio, Florida and California and lost the popular vote to Kennedy by a narrow margin.  Viewed in the light of this history, Trump won in 2020.

In my last article, I looked at Helmut Norpoth's model in depth. Were we to ask him why Trump did not win 362 electoral votes as his model predicted, Norpoth would shrug and say, 'Biden cheated'. And he would be right. The electorate knows it, Trump's voters know it, and for this reason Trump's base at this point will not allow him to concede. 

One must fight while one has breath. One cannot allow the American democratic system (and by extension, all democratic systems) to be destroyed by a few ballot-box stuffers in Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Georgia. It is a matter of principle. Rush Limbaugh understands this and has vowed to keep on fighting, and he is dying of lung cancer. 


Many on the dissident Right have given up on a Trump second term: they were pessimistic a few weeks ago, believing that Biden would win in a landslide (mistakenly, as it turns out), and are even more pessimistic now, believing that Biden has pulled off his coup. What if they are correct, and Biden and the Left have won? What must we do to prepare for a future in which no Republican, or at least no immigration restrictionist, will ever win the presidency in our lifetimes? 

Firstly, we must remove ourselves from the conventional Internet platforms - YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, etc. - before we are removed. (YouTube is no good anyway: its content is being marred by excessive advertising). We can find alternative platforms such as BitChute, but these are being targeted by the Left as we speak. When it comes to these battles, the Left always wins. But the Left can only control HTTP, which is not all there is to the Internet; it cannot control the platforms which existed before HTTP. On these one can distribute all the content - written, audio, visual - one wants.

Secondly, as a corollary to the above, we must boycott as much of the mainstream media and entertainment, etc., as  much as we can. In selecting what YouTuber to watch, what newspaper to read, we must go by the following criteria: what is the content creator's attitude towards leftism and to the American coup of 2020? 

Thirdly, we must become accustomed to two words - electoral fraud - and repeat them as much as possible in any discussion in relation to the election of 2020. The Left always projects - it thought that Trump somehow cheated his way to power in 2016 (that was what the whole Russian collusion narrative was about) - and it always accuses others of what itself is doing. Now, in 2020, Biden is doing what Trump is supposed to have done in 2016. It is at this point I propose that we take a leaf out of the Left's book. Following its defeat in 2016, the Left used the tactic in all places and all times of denying the Trump administration any legitimacy. We on the Right should do the same with the Biden / Harris regime. 

Someone on the dissident Right may object to this on the grounds that they do not like Trump; but how many leftists in 2016 liked Clinton? The Left went after Trump and sought to drive him out of office, not because he 'cucked' to the Jews or African-Americans or Hispanics, but because of his immigration restrictionism and nativism; the Left abominated him because of his calling all Mexicans rapists, because of his Muslim ban, because of his proposed wall... As MacDonald notes in his article, the Left will seek to destroy any candidate who is immigration restrictionist (and, for that matter, who has cultivated a large electoral base among white people). 

MacDonald concludes his piece with some uncharacteristic musings on the fall of democracy and the rise of Caesarism, and here he sounds like Spengler. In the long term, perhaps, Spengler will be proven correct, but in the short term, we are left with democracy - at least for a little while longer - and circumstances behoove us to fight for it in America in the year 2020. 

In that struggle, we must not let our judgement be clouded by dark thoughts; we must not mistake pessimism for realism. Trump himself is reputedly a follower of Norman Vincent Peale, the self-help priest who believed that positive thoughts can bring about positive outcomes. In the vein of Trump (and Peale), I declare the future to be still open.