An Australian nationalist SYRIZA?

　
I.
　
The answer - or part of the answer - to the problem of Zionism on the Australian Far Right came to me recently when I watched the famous six-part BBC documentary The Death of Yugoslavia (1995) online. Part one - 'Enter Nationalism' - chronicles the fall of communism in Yugoslavia and contains footage of two dramatic conferences. The first of these sees the rise to power of the 'nationalist' faction within the Serbian branch of the Yugoslav Communist Party, the other, the breakup of the Yugoslav Communist Party itself. Here the Yugoslav politicians stand revealed for what they had been perhaps all along: men of a nationalist and social democratic bent, who never fully subscribed to the communist ideology but joined the party out of expediency or a hunger for power or both. They had been forced, by circumstances, to swallow communism and submit to the procedures of the communist party, procedures which had been devised by genuine communists such as Tito. While all this was a rather unique political phenomenon - unique to its time and place - it was one which I felt had applications to Australian Far Right politics. Watching the documentary led me to think, speculatively, that we nationalists in Australia needed something similar to the Yugoslav communist party: a structure which would unite for the time being all the disparate groups and individuals on the Far Right into one and force them to abide by a common code of conduct, parliamentary procedure and ideological platform. Such a party would contain Zios and 'civics' in addition to genuine nationalists. The advantage of it would be that, in effect, the party and its conferences would give we nationalists a means of dealing with our enemies the Zio bosses. We would possess the means to bring them to heel. Recalcitrants who did not abide by the party rules would find themselves disciplined and even expelled, and because of the monopoly of the new party, any expellee would find themselves locked out, not just out of the party, but of the Australian Far Right as a whole.

Just as the more successful communist parties in Europe - SYRIZA in Greece, PODEMOS in Spain, Left Bloc in Portugal - achieved unity by bringing together all of the Far Left, my projected organisation would achieve unity by bringing together all of the Far Right.

On the Far Left, the communist parties which stay aloof and sectarian remain small and achieve little - the rigid and dour Greek communist party, the KKE, scored less than the Golden Dawn at the last Greek election. One of the arguments made by contemporary left-wing scholars is that the Russian communist party, for the first twenty years or so of its existence, operated just like SYRIZA or PODEMOS - as an all-encompassing party of the broad Left. The evidence seems to support that notion, and historical evidence probably will reveal that all the successful communist parties in history - including the Yugoslav - started out much the same way as SYRIZA or PODEMOS. It's probably the case that people of extreme left convictions gravitated towards the early communist parties, not necessarily because they had a Marxist disposition, but because they had nowhere else to go. In other words, these organisations, in their early days at least, functioned more as broad left-wing movements and not as parties, and so managed to catch more people.

Some of those on the Far Right of a sectarian bent - and I am a sectarian myself - would object to my proposal of a nationalist SYRIZA. They see alliances or collaborations as proof of one's weakness. To paraphrase the title of a chapter in Mein Kampf, 'The Strong is Strongest when Alone': strong groups don't need other groups. If you aim to be dogmatic and pure - just like Hitler or Lenin or Mao or Stalin - you need to make it a point of principle not to work with politicians of an opposing tendency. The NSDAP, or the communists, didn't succeed that way. Australian nationalists, then, shouldn't leave any room for Zios or civics.

This point of view is problematic because, historically speaking, the communists and the fascists did work with other groups and wouldn't have won power without them. The NSDAP collaborated with the German People's Party (DVP), a Far Right, conservative and bourgeois party led by the industrialist Hugenberg, in the early days of the National Socialist regime, and the votes of the DVP allowed Hitler's Enabling Act of 1933 - which gave the NSDAP unlimited power in the aftermath of the Reichstag fire - to pass. After the war, the German Communist Party formed a coalition with the German equivalent of the Australian Labor Party - the SPD (Social Democrat Party) - and a new party called the Socialist Unity Party (SED). And, like a good many post-war communist parties, the Yugoslav Communists gained office as part of a 'National Front'; the People's Front of Yugoslavia, which ostensibly ran Yugoslavia after the war, contained a total of eight non-communist political parties.

To return to our idea of a nationalist and Zio 'national' or 'united' 'front': in my opinion, something like it will come about of its own accord. Nearly all the organisations on the Australian Far Right at present are seeking registration as political parties, and, to my knowledge, are struggling to do so; none of them seem able of achieving the membership numbers of institutions such as the Liberal Party (80,000), the Labor Party (54,000) and the Greens (10,000). This is despite the fact that many Australians - hundreds of thousands, if not millions - agree with certain of the stated goals of the Australian Far Right (e.g., the desire to cut immigration). So, sooner or later the aspiring registrants will come to the realisation that only if they form a grand coalition of sorts will they attain the same numbers as, say, the Greens. They will need to follow the example of the Mediterranean neo-communist parties which have proven to be so successful.

Why don't the aspiring registrants see this already? The answer lies in Australia's Anglo-Saxon national character. We Australians show a predilection for the three vices of the Anglo-Saxons: 1) parliaments; 2) individualism; 3) competition. We adhere to the ideology of parliament, liberal democracy and elections because that's all we've ever known. The first instinct of any radical right-wing would-be politician is to form a political party which will compete against the others (in a kind of Darwinian struggle), run in elections and get a seat in parliament. Politics to an Australian consists of this and only this.

Now, while no-one can argue that bourgeois individualism of the Anglo-Saxon type hasn't achieved great things in the economic sphere - even Karl Marx admitted as much in his Communist Manifesto (1848) - it has proven to be disastrous in the political. For one, it is leading our country - and the West - to disaster through mass, non-white immigration, immigration on a scale hitherto unseen in history. Only a socialism and a collectivism which are the very reverse of the Anglo-Saxon individualist impulse can save the West now.

On that note, one of my main objections to Zionism and 'civicism' is that the Zio and 'civic' parties mean business as usual - a continuation of the policies that have gotten us into trouble in the first place. England, in the words of songwriter Ian Stuart, went from an empire to a slum because of its refusal to shut its borders, and England embodies the Anglo-Saxon ideals of liberty, individualism, parliaments, tolerance and competition. England - along with two other Anglo-Saxon nations - the US and Australia - waged a ferocious war against Germany as part of the 'United Nations'; as the victor of that war, it helped devise the humanist, internationalist, globalist and multiculturalist ideology of the Nuremberg trials (and today's UN) and imposed it on Germany and all the nations of the Western world - including itself. England, by dint of its ideology has ended up destroying itself - from being coloniser it has gone to being colonised, by India, Africa and Islam.

The Trump candidacy - along with European populist parties such as the Swedish Democrats, Wilders' Party of Freedom, and the Front National - represent a resistance to the post-Nuremberg new world order, even if they don't admit it; so does the Reclaim movement (Reclaim Australia, UPF, Aussie Infidels United, Rise Up!, Australian Defence League and the rest). But Reclaim has been infected: by Zionism and Anglo-Saxon individualism, and the humanism and multiracialism of the post-war era.

One thing Reclaim has done right - and this constitutes its only genuinely 'socialist' act - is to bring the working-classes together as a political unit. And this is precisely what Reclaim's enemies - the communists and the bourgeois political establishment - fear. As Hitler writes in Mein Kampf:
This class [the proletariat] does not include the worst elements of the community in its ranks. Rather the contrary is the truth: it includes the most energetic parts of the nation. The sophistication which is the result of a so-called civilisation has not yet exercised its disintegrating and degenerating influence on this class. The broad masses of this new lower class, constituted by the manual labourers, have not yet fallen a prey to the morbid weakness of pacifism. These are still robust and, if necessary, they can be brutal.

One can't have a revolution without the workers:
New champions are attracted to a cause by the appeal of great sacrifices made for its sake, until that indomitable spirit is finally crowned with success. For such a result, however, the children of the people from the great masses are necessary. They alone have the requisite determination and tenacity to fight a sanguinary issue through to the end.

Hitler remarks of the Pan-Germans, 'The Pan-German Movement did not have these broad masses as its champions and so no other means of solution could be tried out except that of entering parliament'. Further on that theme:
Faulty recognition of the inner driving forces that urge great movements forward led to an inadequate appreciation [by the Pan-Germans] of the part which the broad masses play in bringing about such changes. The result was that too little attention was given to the social problem and that the attempts made by the Movement to capture the minds of the lower classes were too few and too weak. Another result was the acceptance of the parliamentary policy, which had a similar effect in regard to the importance of the masses.

Like the communists, Hitler was very much concerned with gaining the allegiance of the workers. He understood, however, that communists had taken over the worker's movement - that is, organised labour - lock, stock and barrel; the workers, then, couldn't be reached that way. His political problem became one of bypassing the traditional communist bastion of the trade union in an attempt to appeal directly to the masses.

We nationalists in Australia find ourselves in a similar quandary. Simply put, we need the working-classes at the Reclaim rallies - the blue collars disdained by the Australian Left as 'toothless bogans' and 'lumpenproles' - but the Zio bosses stand in our way; they are determined not to allow any of the 'hardcores' - the nationalists and racialists - to reach the working-class attendees.

It's imperative that we surmount this obstacle. As Hitler writes in Mein Kampf (here sounding
somewhat Maoist):
A movement which has great ends to achieve must carefully guard against the danger of losing contact with the masses of the people. Every problem encountered must be examined from this viewpoint first of all and the decision to be made must always be in harmony with this principle. The movement must avoid everything which might lessen or weaken its power of influencing the masses; not from demagogical motives but because of the simple fact that no great idea, no matter how sublime and exalted it may appear, can be realised in practice without the effective power which resides in the popular masses.

So what's the solution?

Firstly, we nationalists to avail ourselves of the traditional communist method for reaching the masses: we need to form 'mass organisations', that is, front groups. Secondly, we need to jump on the anti-Islamic bandwagon and use opposition to Islam as a stepping stone for greater things.
We can achieve both by a) forming an anti-Islamic think tank (or 'hate tank', as one of my friends wittily puts it) and b) forming a rough-and-ready anti-Islamic street group (based primarily around social media) composed mainly of working-class people. Through the two fronts, we'll serve the same dish as the mainstream anti-Islamics, but it'll be anti-Islam without the Zionism, multiracialism, neoconservatism...

In addition to the above, we need to work on building unity amongst the nationalist and Zio groups. We do this by circumventing the Zio bosses and appealing directly to the rank and file. Furthermore, we won't make the demand that these organisations give up their separate existences; nor should we dissuade them from attempting federal registration. The main thing is to offer fraternal assistance and to offer to work as a co-ordinating center for groups and individuals of varying ideological persuasions.

Things may turn out well for this proposed co-ordinating structure; in time, it may even serve as the skeleton for a genuine mass party (as opposed to a sect or micro-party). The organisation may turn out to be the Australian nationalist version of SYRIZA; we could find a handsome and youngish man like Alex Tsipras to front it...

Finally, we need to concentrate on forming a federation composed of non-Zio Australian nationalist groups - the one proposed in the last article - and one built upon a platform of nationalist unity and 'No room for Zionism'. To negotiate with the Zios, we need to negotiate from a position of strength, and strength comes from unity.

All of the four proposed groups - the think tank, the anti-Islamic street group, the nationalist federation and the SYRIZA-type vehicle - need to be ordered the same way. The members (or delegates for the members) vote on a central committee for the organisation at a national congress and approves a constitution or set of bylaws. Membership of the organisation can be quite broad, as can the makeup of the central committee, which will serve as a plenary body of the organisation. The central committee goes on to elect a 'central organ', which serves as the editorial board of any publications and determines the ideological line of the organisation. Finally, a general secretary is elected.

One mustn't make the criteria for membership for any organisation too narrow: especially in the case of the mass organisations, we don't want to turn away interested parties; we need to appeal to a broad cross-section.

At the same time, a founding document - the constitution - must make clear, from the start, what the rules and responsibilities of the membership are, and be specific about the grounds for discipline and expulsion.

Astute readers will have noted the parallels between the above structure and those of the communist parties. Indeed, the communists adopted the simple tripartite form (central committee, central organ, secretary) for all their organisations. The government of the USSR itself was composed of a 'Central Committee of the USSR' or 'Supreme Soviet' (central committee), a 'Presidium of the Central Committee' (central organ), and a 'Premier' or 'Chairman' and his 'Council of Ministers' or 'Council of People's Commissars' (secretariat, here the prime minister and his cabinet). The 'Central Committee of the USSR' was elected by a 'Congress of the Soviets of the Soviet Union'.

I should emphasise here the simplicity and reproducibility of these structures. Communism possesses a beautiful simplicity, like Islam, and it's the simplicity which makes both doctrines so successful. As Hitler writes of communism:
Social-Democracy and the whole Marxist movement were particularly qualified to attract the great masses of the nation, because of the uniformity of the public to which they addressed their appeal. The more limited and narrow their ideas and arguments, the easier it was for the masses to grasp and assimilate them; for those ideas and arguments were well adapted to a low level of intelligence.

II.


The communist party serves as a microcosm of the communist state. That is, the state is run along the same lines as the party. Australian nationalists should keep this in mind: any future organisation - such as a SYRIZA-type organisation which will bring the nationalists and the 'civics' together, a 'National Front' - will constitute in miniature a future nationalist government.

This brings us to the topic of organisation. Marxist-Leninism strikes outsiders as a deeply theoretical doctrine, but what makes communism is not so much the theory as the organisation. In political terms, the theories of Marxism - dialectical materialism, surplus value, Mao's theorising on 'contradictions', Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution - don't count for much; what matters more is the set communist way of going about things.

What makes fascism - and in particular, German National Socialism - so different from other nationalist, racialist and Far Right ideologies is that fascism copies the communist methods. Hitler shares the Marxist-Leninist obsession with cadres, 'party training schools', and the necessity of highly deployable cadre / leader-types. (An example of the latter, from Mein Kampf: 'The movement should acquire the necessary funds to attract and train intelligent people who would be capable of becoming leaders... The personnel thus obtained could then be systematically employed according as the tactical situation and the necessity for efficiency demanded...').

But what makes Hitler different from the Marxists? One could point to the obvious differences in political theory: Marxists subscribe to egalitarianism, multiracialism, theories of class struggle and the rest, Hitler the opposite. But I think the most significant point of difference lies in the attitude. We know that communism is dogmatic, intolerant, fanatical, hierarchical, authoritarian; but communists pretend to others - and even to themselves - that the opposite is true. Hitler, on the other hand, says, 'Yes, the National Socialists are just as fanatical, authoritarian, etc., as the communists, but unlike them, we are proud of it!'. Hitler gives in Mein Kampf a long description of how the NSDAP works which, in fact, is an almost perfect description of a communist party works in reality:
The nature and internal organisation of the new movement make it anti-parliamentarian. That is to say, it rejects in general and in its own structure all those principles according to which decisions are to be taken on the vote of the majority and according to which the leader is only the executor of the will and opinion of others. The movement lays down the principle that, in the smallest as well as in the greatest problems, one person must have absolute majority and bear all responsibility.

In our movement the practical consequences of this principle are the following:
The president of a large group is appointed by the head of the group immediately above his in authority. He is then the responsible leader of his group. All the committees are subject to his authority and not he to theirs. There is no such thing as committees that vote but only committees that work. This work is allotted by the responsible leader, who is the president of the group. The same principle applies to the higher organisations - the Bazirk (district), the Kreis (urban circuit) and the Gau (the region). In each case the president is appointed from above and is invested with fully authority and executive power. Only the leader of the whole party is elected, at the general meeting of the members. But he is the sole leader of the movement. All the committees are responsible to him, but he is not responsible to the committees. His decision is final, but he bears the whole responsibility of it. The members of the movement are entitled to call him to account by means of a new election, or to remove him from office if he has violated the principles of the movement or has not served its interests adequately. He is then replaced by a more capable man, who is invested with the same authority and obliged to bear the same responsibility.

One of the highest duties of the movement is to make this principle imperative not only within its own ranks but also for the whole State.

Hitler then goes on to make an astonishingly frank admission:
Our movement must necessarily be anti-parliamentarian, and if it takes part in the parliamentary institution it is only for the purpose of destroying this institution from within; in other words, we wish to do away with an institution which we must look upon as one of the gravest symptoms of human decline.

No communist would ever speak like this. As stated before, communists like to portray themselves as liberal, pacifist, humanist, egalitarian, democratic - as 'Left'. Once you come up close to them, you learn otherwise; but they maintain the deception - and it is a deception - for a long time. They call their version of the Führerprinzip 'democratic' centralism.

One reason why they cling to the 'Left' standpoint and phraseology is that, originally, Russian communism sprang from German social democracy - liberal and democratic socialism - and could never quite shake off the influence - theoretical, at least - of its liberal and Western predecessor. The other reason is that communists, for most of their history, needed to hide their true intentions - and their standard operating procedures - from others who are more liberal and humanist-minded, especially those in the West. They needed to conceal themselves. To that end, they lived half-in, half-out of darkness. In contrast, the fascists sought the spotlight and announced their intentions, their standard operating procedures, plainly, frankly, proudly, to the world. You can find braggadocio, even arrogance, in Mein Kampf.

But now, it seems, the shoe is on the other foot: it's the nationalists and the racialists who need to hide. The roles have been reversed. Much of communism has gone mainstream, and Western establishment politicians today stand further to the left than they did ten or twenty years ago.

Regardless of this, we nationalists must push on, and must continue to organise - as the communists do, as Hitler did. Reclaim's critics on the Far Right attack them for their multi-cultism, their anti-racism, their lack of an outlook grounded in racialism and nationalism - true enough. But the racialist world view - or völkisch worldview, as Hitler calls it - doesn't accomplish anything unless it is given political form. Hitler gives a long exposition of the racialist idea in the chapter 'Weltanschauung and Party' in Mein Kampf, but remarks that it is doomed to remain a hazy, metaphysical abstraction unless it is made political. The ideas of Christ and his followers would have forever stayed religious, spiritual and metaphysical if the Catholic Church - and the later Protestant denominations - had not made them hierarchical, even political.
A general conception of life can never be given an organic embodiment until it is precisely and definitely formulated. The function which dogma fulfils in religious belief is parallel to the function which party principles fulfil for a political party which is in the process of being built up. Therefore for the conception of life that is based on the folk idea it is necessary that an instrument be forged which can be used in fighting for this ideal, similar to the Marxist party organisation.... [emphasis mine]

And to conclude:
Through this political doctrine it is possible to bring great masses of the people into an organisation which is constructed as rigidly as it could be.
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

Smash the Zio bosses

We've seen some dramatic developments in Australian Far Right politics in the past few weeks: the communist Left who have been attempting to disrupt and prevent the mass anti-Islam rallies have been vanquished - thoroughly - which is a win for nationalism; but sympathisers with Jewry and the Jewish state of Israel have taken over the Reclaim anti-Islam movement - thoroughly - which is a blow to nationalism. The battle has now become one not between patriots and communists but between nationalists and Zionists.

The Reclaim movement (Rise Up Australia, Reclaim Australia, UPF) has been hijacked by a political machine run by sinister bosses who resemble the politicians of Boardwalk Empire and the Tammany Hall fixers in Scorsese's classic Gangs of New York (2002), men who largely eschew the spotlight and prefer to do their work in darkness.

One should imagine Australian nationalism as a city, a municipality, like Chicago, New York or the sleepy cities in the South which were once dominated by infamous political machines and bosses with colourful names such as Tweed, Plunkitt and Crump. Likewise, the Reclaim anti-Islam rallies should be considered as elections - elections for the positions of leadership of the Australian nationalist movement - and just like the machines of old, the present array of Zio-bosses have perverted the electoral process. In Gangs-, on election day, some demagogues hired by Tammany Hall run for various offices, some of them spouting anti-immigrant (Irish immigrant) inflammatory rhetoric and others championing the interests of the Irish; these demagogues rile up the poor and downtrodden masses (who go on to vote Tammany) and then disappear, never to be seen again. The orators of the Reclaim travelling circus pretty much do the same. As for who gets the prestigious appointment of Reclaim speaker, well, the Zio-bosses decide that - just like Boss Tweed. And the Zio-bosses decide who gets the favour, the privilege, of attending the rally.

The results of the 'election' are fixed as well: like Tammany Hall, the Zio-bosses use intimidation and fraud against the 'voters'. (Without going into detail, some of the anti-Zionist Aussie nationalist groups at the rallies have been on the receiving end of trickery and violence).

Where's the justice? To get justice, you must have the ear of the king - the supposed leaders of Reclaim - but Reclaim runs along a system of courtier and clique politics, just like Medusheld in Lord of the Rings and King's Landing in Game of Thrones. An aggrieved nationalist who seeks an audience with the king will find his way barred. (He'll even find his way barred to the after-rally drink or barbeque: just like the Tammany bosses who gave their constituents dinners, dances, picnics and hikes, the Zio-bosses control access to Reclaim leisure time and socialising).

How did all this come about? For starters, we nationalists were distracted - understandably enough - by the epic (by Australian standards) battle between the communists and the patriots; we didn't pay that much attention to internal nationalist politics. We assumed that the anti-Islamics were 'on our side' and were just like us. We saw what we wanted to see. Those of us of a neo-Nazi and neofascist bent confused Reclaim - just like the Left - with neofascism and neo-Nazism. Mussolini, Hitler and Mosley used demagoguery and rabble-rousing, so did the orators of Reclaim, so what was not to like? But being a stirring orator at a right-wing event doesn't necessarily make you the reincarnation of Hitler; after all, look at the demagoguery of Tammany's rent-a-politicians or Louisiana's famous boss politician Huey Long.

But while self-deception on our part was involved, a little deception - on the part of the enemy - was as well. We were told, again and again, that such and such a person in Reclaim held 'racialist' and even pro-Hitler views, even though he had never made those views known publicly, and that all the Zionism and the potshots against Hitler and National Socialist Germany in every second Reclaim speech (all to prove that Reclaim really wasn't 'racist' or 'Nazi') were mere window-dressing. The impression was given that a sophisticated bunch of Far Right, racialist and neofascistic activists were running Reclaim as a front group; anti-Islam was being used to open the door wide to other things.

Now, without doubt a skilled, experienced political operator - a party man, a cadre man - for Far Right nationalism could set up an anti-Islam front group, and provided he keeps a tight grip on the reins of power, use it for good; he could attract plenty of Australians using anti-Islam as bait and then go on to introduce them to other, more subversive concepts. But in order to that, he must keep a tight lid on the Zionists, who will inevitably flock to an anti-Islam organisation like bees to honey. The cause is lost if he allows the Zionists to take over and impose their own rules. And the Zionists invariably do.

I'm sure that some in Reclaim will attempt to persuade me that all is not lost, that the Zios are at the point of being purged from the movement, that genuine nationalists are welcome, that progress is just around the corner. But, in order to understand our present position, let's consider some history - the US presidential elections of 1948 and 2008, when communist proxies (Wallace and Obama respectively) were running for office. The communists at that time would have debated amongst themselves whether or not to get behind these candidates - whether or not the expenditure of finite party resources was worth it - but they never debated whether or not their presence would be accepted in the Progressive or Democrat parties. Wallace, in particular, refused to expel the communists from his party. The contrast between their situation and ours couldn't be more apparent. In the anti-Islam movement - thanks to Zio control - nationalists and racialists find themselves to be unwelcome and have been de facto expelled.

Paradoxically, while racialist, race realist, nationalist, Alt Right, New Right, neo-Nazi, neo-fascist, white nationalist ideas (or whatever you label want to pin on them) find themselves enjoying unprecedented success in 2015, we are faced, in Australia, with a proliferation of pro-Zionist and multiracialist groups. Just as the Far Left in Australia loves its Trotskyism, the Far Right loves its Zionism. On the Trotskyite side, we find a very long list: Australasian Spartacist League, the Freedom Socialist Party, Socialist Alternative, Socialist Equality Party, Solidarity, Trotskyist Platform, Socialist Party (Australia), Socialist Alliance; on the Zionist side, Reclaim Australia, Rise Up Australia, Australian Party of Freedom, Australian Liberty Alliance, Wanted (WA), Aussie Infidels, Australian Defence League, Patriotic Defence League of Australia, the Q Society and now the UPF....

So what's wrong with all this Zionism? Rather than engage in a theoretical polemic, I'll merely point out one difficulty posed to us by Reclaim's political model (Zio-bossism). We know from history that  machines can last up to fifty to a hundred years; it may be that Reclaim will be around for years to come. But in terms of achieving any long-term political success, its prospects are limited, for one reason only, and that is its lack of cadre. In rural and regional areas such as Bendigo, Reclaim has generated tremendous excitement and interest; but, just like the demagogues of Gangs-, who deliver one rabble-rousing speech on election day and then disappear, Reclaim has left its followers in these towns hanging. Reclaim ought to be sending cadre men to these areas to indoctrinate and educate through party meetings, lectures, study circles, discussion groups; patriot- and nationalist-minded men and women in the rural and regional areas should be learning all aspects of modern Far Right politics - about Judaism, Islam, communism, Australian political history... If this campaign of political education is carried out, the political educators will succeed in replicating themselves - cadre begets cadre. And as we know from the past of other countries - Germany, for example - political education is the only this way that an extremist movement, whether it be of the Far Left or Far Right, can put roots (deep roots) into a community. But, in order to implement it, the Reclaim activist will need to think like a commie or a Nazi - and he is incapable of doing that.

One has to ask if the Zio-bosses actually do intend to 'win over the masses' with their anti-Islam and assimilationist message of if they merely want to perpetuate their grip on power. I say the latter over the former and that the next step for the anti-Zionists (and there are a few) on the Australian Far Right should be to challenge them for that power. How to do this? Part of the inspiration for my post here comes from the American communist William Z. Foster, who wrote an article on communism versus boss politics in an obscure journal. He endorses the creation of a political group (communist controlled, of course) which shall be the reverse mirror image of the boss political machine: the group or party shall be financed by dues, not by donations from shady patrons; it shall undertake a rigorous political education of its sympathisers; it will make appointments on the basis, not of favouritism and nepotism, but of political reliability; it will manage social events...

One with any experience of communism won't find any of this particularly new. But Foster does introduce two new ideas which (to my knowledge) haven't been tried before, at least in Australian nationalist politics: the pressure group and the 'People's Legislative Conference'.

For the former, Foster conceived the idea of a communist-controlled 'grievance committee of the people' which would use conventional protest methods - strikes, pickets, boycotts, petitions - to put pressure on City Hall and force it to address long-standing issues (poor sanitation, lack of roads, lack of housing, etc.). Such a grievance committee 'massifies' problems, i.e., politicises them and puts them before the mass. This approach constitutes a different one from that of the bosses, which keeps problems out of view of the public and resolves them by 'fixing' - a phone call from the boss ensures that so-and-so gets a council job, or that a new road gets built, or that so-and-so gets off a speeding ticket...

The pressure tactics and 'massification' that Foster advocates can be applied by nationalists to the Zio-bosses. We can make our differences with the Zionists and multiracialists known - widely known - throughout the nationalist community; furthermore, we can put pressure on the Zios to allow nationalists to attend anti-Islam rallies without fear of violence. Our problems need to be 'massified', i.e., put before the nationalist community, and made public. We shouldn't act as individuals and attempt to plead with the Zios as individuals, and we shouldn't feel the need to resort to flattery, schmoozing and begging of the Zio-bosses in order to have our case heard. No, we need to involve all the nationalist and racialist groups and build up a united front against the Zios and use moral shaming (i.e., the censure of the nationalist community). We won't necessarily get our way, any more than Foster's grievance committees could expect to get their way. But we will show that we are capable of organising.

Foster's grievance committee is related to the 'People's Legislative Committee'. Foster conceived of a conference made up of several interlocking communist front organisations with titles such as the Women's League, the All-Negro People's Union, the Farmer's Association, the Unemployed Youth Party... Such a conference would pass resolutions on political and social questions of the day, but more importantly, serve to demonstrate communism's size and power. The skilful deployment of a large number of 'paper' organisations (and most communist fronts exist only on paper) would bring about a multiplier effect. An American Renaissance article reports on what it calls a 'National Coalition in Favor of Campus Censorship', a communist controlled alliance of groups which has drawn up a petition with a staggeringly long list of signatories:


Feminist Majority Foundation
Advocates for Youth
American Association of University Women
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
Black Women’s Blueprint
Black Women’s Health Imperative
Center for Partnership Studies
Center for Women Policy Studies
Champion Women
Clearinghouse on Women’s Issues
Digital Sisters/Sistas
End Rape on Campus
GLSEN
Hollaback!
Human Rights Campaign
Institute for Science and Human Values
Jewish Women International
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Legal Momentum
Media Equity Collaborative
Muslim Advocates
National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of Women’s Organizations
National Disability Rights Network
National Domestic Violence Hotline
National LGBTQ Taskforce
National Organization for Women
National Women’s Law Center
SPARK Movement
SurvJustice
The Andrew Goodman Foundation
Turning Anger into Change
UltraViolet
WMC Speech Project
Women’s Media Center
YWCA USA
Local Organizations
Atlanta Women for Equality
Collective Action for Safe Spaces
DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence
DC Rape Crisis Center
Democratic Women’s Club of Northeast Broward
Empowerment Center – Maryland
Lincoln County Oregon Democratic Central Committee
National Organization for Women – Akron Area, Ohio Chapter
National Organization for Women – Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania Chapter
National Organization for Women – Boulder, Colorado Chapter
National Organization for Women – Brevard, Florida Chapter
National Organization for Women – Central Oregon Coast Chapter
National Organization for Women – Florida Chapter
National Organization for Women – Greater Orlando, Florida Chapter
National Organization for Women – Indiana Chapter
National Organization for Women – Maryland Chapter
National Organization for Women – Middlesex County, New Jersey Chapter
National Organization for Women – Ni-Ta-Nee, Pennsylvania Chapter
National Organization for Women – Oregon Chapter
National Organization for Women – Palm Beach County, Florida Chapter
National Organization for Women – Pennsylvania Chapter
National Organization for Women – Rhode Island Chapter
National Organization for Women – Shore Area, New Jersey Chapter
National Organization for Women – Tacoma, Washington Chapter
National Organization for Women – Tampa, Florida Chapter
National Organization for Women – Thurston County, Washington Chapter
National Organization for Women – Virginia Chapter
National Organization for Women – Washington Chapter
National Organization for Women – Washington, DC Chapter
Network for Victim Recovery of D.C.
PFLAG Oregon Central Coast
Women’s Production Network (Florida)

How many of these organisations are 'paper'? We don't know - we can only assume the majority.

What I'm suggesting is not that we nationalists go out and form an improbably large number of front groups; rather, that we get our existing groups and parties together in an 'All-Nationalists Legislative Conference', which will deliberate interstate via teleconference and come up with resolutions against, among other things, Zionism.

The conference should restrict itself to broad questions: it will only obtain unity by doing so. If it touches on controversial questions - such as war in the Ukraine or in Syria, or on the 'correct' assessment of political figures such as Hitler, Milosevic, Ghaddafi, Putin, Assad, Saddam Hussein, et al., or on who is an informant and who isn't - it will fall apart. Many splits and schisms have occurred on the Left in the UK and the US precisely because these sorts of things have been brought up for discussion. (Communist groups in the West will tear themselves apart over far away events of which they have no control over - e.g., the wars in Ukraine or Libya or Syria; they don't abide by the maxim, 'Think global, act local', and thereby end up splitting).

Workers band together in a trade union to defend themselves, and that's precisely what we nationalists who are opposed to Zionism need to do: we need to form a union for our own protection. At present, it seems that we nationalists and racialists are an endangered species.

It's also true that workers form unions in order to build a monopoly, and that's something we nationalists should emulate. Simply put, our conference (or federation or whatever you want to call it) will make resolutions which are binding on all nationalists and patriots; nothing in Australian Far Right politics will be able to pass without its approval.

Now, that sounds terribly presumptuous, and so it is. But no other grouping will make the claim to represent the entirety of nationalism and Far Rightism in Australia - victory goes to those who do - and over time, nationalist activists and groups will see the federation as a body capable of granting legitimacy. That is, if the federation approves of it, it must be good.

Why haven't nationalists in Australia engaged in a joint action such as this before? At first sight, it would seem that the notorious feuding and quarrelling - which has persisted for thirty to forty years - on the Australian Far Right is to blame, but in truth the cause lies deeper.

Karl Marx used to refer to the First International as 'the party' when he really meant 'the movement': that is to say, he used the term 'party' as shorthand for all the little groups and parties which made up the European left-wing movement in the late 19th century. Movement = Party. Likewise, the Russian Communist Party (once known as the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, or RSDLP) could be characterised as more movement than party, more multi-tendency than single-tendency. Supposedly, the RSDLP split into two parties - one Bolshevik, one Menshevik - after the famous Prague conference of 1912, but recent scholarship by the Asian-American communist Pham Binh has revealed this to be a myth (and in this he is supported by Lenin scholar Lars Lih); the Menshevik and other factions endured in the RSDLP for quite a long time - nearly ten years until the ban on factions at the 10th party congress in 1921.

The point is that communists misunderstand their own history. A myth has built up on the Left that true, decent Marxist-Leninists need to form their own little sects and micro-parties, hold dogmatically to the party line, and expel anyone who deviates from that line. By clinging fast to its rather narrow and circumscribed set of beliefs (such as the 'correct' analysis of the former Soviet Union, or Cuba, or North Korea) the sect will prosper and eventually gobble all the rival sects and micro-parties - which are burdened with the 'incorrect' line - up. A Great Big Party will emerge, the worker's revolution against capitalism will begin, etc. (It should be noted that the RSDLP was built on a broad platform, not a narrow one, a fact which made it strong enough to withstand the internal pressures of factionalism and intra-party quarrelling and debate).

One has to admit that analogies can be drawn between the Far Left and Far Right here: after all, the Australian nationalist scene is littered with sects and micro-parties, and I haven't encountered one which doesn't aspire to be the Great Big Party which, by divine right, should gobble all the others up.

So, am I saying that all the existing parties and organisations should dissolve themselves and merge into one generic nationalist and Far Right party? No: each group should continue to exist and to retain its sovereignty; federalism implies that each constituent part of the federation exists separately and autonomously from the other. But those on the anti-Zionist side need to act in concert.

We can understand the Far Right in Australia and the West as being clustered around a pole or 'political center' (to borrow a term from the American New Left theorist Hal Draper). That pole consists of a number of nationalist and racialist political ideas from Europe: the work of Evola and Yockey - for all its faults - best sums up these ideas. Certain groups and tendencies find themselves very close to that pole, while others - such as the Zionists - stand far, far away. The closer groups to the political center have the right to split away from those who diverge and who occupy the outer perimeter, as Draper argues. Here we can find grounds for a legitimate division; here sectarianism helps and not hinders the movement.

But how do we bring about a joint action by the nationalists clustered around the middle against those on the outer (the Zionists?). We need to understand that every group, every tendency, possesses a value - no matter how eccentric, isolated and small that group is. I recently put this argument to a nationalist friend, and observed that Stormfront Down Under still had value, even though it had been surpassed, as a communication tool, by Facebook. My friend dismissed Stormfront Down Under rather peremptorily: 'Oh, it's nothing'. I pressed on and reeled off a big list of names of nationalist groups in Australia, and remarked that all these could be dismissed as being 'nothing' but when all of them are added together, they form a 'something'.

One needs to draw a distinction not between big and small groups, or relevant and irrelevant groups, but between ones which were prepared to undertake political action and those that aren't. For years, we nationalists have avoided the skinhead movement in this country because we viewed them as black sheep, or perhaps the crazy half-brother in a Gothic romance who is locked away in the attic. But they won't go away and have endured for longer than a good many other nationalist formations. And, try as we might, the establishment media and the communist Left will always associate them with us. To me, the real objection towards the skin groups is not their lifestyle - we in the nationalist movement aren't a temperance society - but the fact that the majority of them won't participate in any sort of politics. Those who are willing to come out of their isolation should be accepted.

In the end, it becomes a matter of organisation. You won't introduce skinhead nationalists to intellectual and middle-class nationalists, and you'll keep two nationalists who have a long-running feud away from one another. A real nationalist leader must get used to shuttling back and forth between different groups of people in the movement, making sure that they don't come to blows, and uniting them enough to commit them to a joint action.

What are the joint actions? So far I've proposed 1) a petition to Reclaim and 2) an 'All-Nationalists Legislative Conference', but there needs to be a 3) campaign to drive the Zios out of Aussie nationalism. Every nationalist, no matter what group he belongs to, needs to make war - relentlessly - upon Zionism, whether it be via social media, blogs, print media, word of mouth; he must explain, factually and logically, that there are two separate entities - the Australian nationalist and racialist movement and Zionism - and that one cannot continue to exist without the destruction of the other.

All of our efforts, all of our resources, must be mobilised for this task. In the end, we will succeed in prising the grip of the Jewish nationalists and the Judaised bosses from the Australian nationalist movement.

　

　

The Corbyn strategy and what we can learn from it: or, how every dog has his day

I.

Communists lost the argument after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, but you wouldn't know it to judge by the UK. There, communism lingers, communism persists.

Marxist-Leninism can be properly understood more as a way of going about things than an intellectual theory. You would be mistaken if you thought of the communists as being an intellectual and political debating club - as merely 'socialists' and intellectuals who differentiated themselves from other socialists by their adherence to the theories of Karl Marx as outlined in his Das Kapital (1867). Marxist-Leninism doesn't consist only of a collection of (highly questionable) theories regarding political economy; it consists of a set of political practices, most of which aren't contained in the Marxist-Leninist political texts - they are 'off the books', as it were.

One 'off the book' communist tactic involves infiltration and the capturing of key political and social institutions (trade unions, student groups, political parties, churches and others) as a means of expanding their political power. The successful use of this ploy surmounts one of the key hurdles to the implementation of communism in the West: the fact that hardly anybody will vote for them and that political power for them can't be won by electoral means.

Which brings us to the topic of Jeremy Corbyn and the impending communist takeover of the British Labour Party - a venerable British institution and long a target of communist (especially Trotskyite) penetration. I can't emphasise enough how significant this is: it's as though the German conservative party (the CDU / CSU), after a bruising electoral loss, decided to elect an unreconstructed neo-Nazi as their leader. A bastion of the liberal political establishment has been overcome by a fringe group with little electoral and popular appeal and who are social and political pariahs. The election of Corbyn to the Labour leadership represents a big score for British communism - a real coup, easily the biggest for the Left this century.

How did it happen? Large numbers of people who may or may not be radical left-wingers have signed up only recently to be Labour Party members; supposedly a 120,000 of those enrolled signed up (for the paltry price of £ 3) in the months before the leadership ballot. These new members swayed the vote towards Corbyn, and undoubtedly many of them are of the communist persuasion. The Labour Party leadership desperately attempted to stem the tide of entrants practising entryism, but to no avail.

Opponents of Labour may point out the obvious - that the election of Corbyn, and the swinging of the party to the far, far Left - will make the party 'unelectable'. But the communists don't want to win elections. Janet Daley makes a superb analysis of the communist strategy here. I'll quote some excerpts:

It is now the common wisdom that if the Labour Party elects Jeremy Corbyn as its leader, it will have given up the possibility of power. This is a serious misunderstanding.

Of course, when Liz Kendall says that if the party chooses Corbyn, it will “cease to be a serious party of government”, she is quite right. But being in government is not the only way – not even the most effective way, for a Left-wing activist – of seizing power.

Another constant refrain is that the apparent tide of support for Corbyn among Labour members (or affiliates, or supporters who have bought a right to vote for the leader at a knock-down price) indicates that the party has “learnt nothing” from its defeat at the last election. That’s wrong, too.

In fact, the Corbyn army is composed of two elements: the cynical, hard-nosed, experienced Left, who have a very clear idea of what kind of political strength they could wield if they gave up on the goal of electoral victory; and the grotesquely naïve, who believe that this movement actually represents a kind of idealism.

It is crucial to understand that the trade union movement that became the effective power base of the Labour Party when it succeeded in making Ed Miliband leader did learn something from the last election. The lesson was that there is scarcely any point in competing with the Tories to be in government.

The British communist movement doesn't want to be in office; it wants something different - something akin to 'direct action' and anarcho-syndicalism:

What the hard Left is now aiming for is a different sort of power altogether: the kind that is achieved by revolutionary activism through industrial disruption. By seizing the means of production and distribution directly through strikes and organised demands, the Left can take control of the levers of national life without any of the tedious hassle of legislation and parliamentary argy bargy.

This is the doctrine of direct action that has always been accepted by activists as a legitimate alternative to governmental power. It is what used to be known, when these things were debated openly at every Marxist salon, as anarcho-syndicalism.

You can see why this approach might be coming into its own: the Left has given up on the mass of the population ever escaping from the trap of false consciousness. There is no longer any hope of persuading them that life under socialism is worth voting for. They have been too successfully seduced by the false gods of private prosperity and consumerism. So why bother trying to bring them to their senses through the democratic process, if that means jumping through the humiliating hoops, and making the repugnant compromises, of a general election campaign?

Remember the life-or-death struggle with Arthur Scargill and how close the country came to having its economy undermined and the daily life of its population made unendurable. This is about making class war an everyday reality: taking the political struggle out of Westminster and into the street. That is what the Tory government – not to mention you and I – will be facing in the form of an “unelectable” Labour Party.

Instead, you can turn this outfit called the Labour Party into an effective, on-the-ground fighting machine that will seize the levers of economic and social activity at the levels that directly affect daily life. In that way, public consciousness can be engaged in a concrete, urgent form that cuts right through the establishment chatter of the governing class: stop the trains, turn the electricity off, disrupt essential services. That will make them listen to you.

Who cares how Jeremy Corbyn performs at PMQs apart from a few journalists? Parliament will become an irrelevance. What will matter to most real people is whether they can get to work or turn the lights on. Bring chaos to public infrastructure and the country will soon see who is really in charge. What will follow from that enlightenment – so the theory goes – will be the understanding that it is workers, not governments, that make society run. And so the loyalty and sympathy of the people will be transformed.

If you remember what life was like in Britain during the Left’s heyday then you will appreciate precisely what it would mean for a Corbynista Labour Party to revive the politics of that time.

This is not about the democratic process or governmental institutions at all. Forget the Michael Foot electoral debacle; forget the absurdity of Labour’s performance in the House of Commons.

Remember, instead, the life-or-death struggle with Arthur Scargill and how close the country came to having its economy undermined and the daily life of its population made unendurable. This is about making class war an everyday reality: taking the political struggle out of Westminster and into the street. That is what the Tory government – not to mention you and I – will be facing in the form of an “unelectable” Labour Party.

II.

By himself, Corbyn doesn't seem that interesting ideologically: he peddles the same old Trotskyism - the 'transitional program' of unrealisable demands, the cuddling up to dubious Third World 'anti-imperialists' (Putin, Chavez, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Castro brothers)... Even the Corbyn tactic of mass communist infiltration of the Labour Party reprises Trotsky (that is, Trotsky's endorsement of entryism during the 'French Turn' in the 1930s). One can't find anything new there. But the 'direct action' strategy outlined in Daley's article seems to me to be entirely unprecedented. I think of it as a creative solution to a difficult problem: how the devil do you steer the British, after 1991, towards socialism? communism?

The problems we nationalists face resemble those of the communists - for one, we have difficulty in getting large numbers of people to vote for us - but they go deeper. To me everything goes back to Bardèche's classic work Nuremberg or the Promised Land (1948) - a remarkable work which anticipates the multiculturalism, open borders and mass non-white immigration forced upon the West.

Bardèche identifies three moral, political and legal principles set forth at the trial - principles which, if taken seriously, would (he warned) lead to the destruction of the West's ethnic homogeneity, the sovereignty of Western nations and nationalism itself.

The first of these he called the 'religion of humanity'. This means a compulsory ultra-humanism, an exaggerated concern for the welfare of humanity in the abstract - a concept which embraces all races except your own - which is shoved down our throats. Observance of this principle will be enforced by bombs, if necessary.

I call the 'religion of humanity' Pope Francis morality. We know that the Pope doesn't endorse violence, but can there be any doubt that if a nationalist Germany, France or Britain began expelling immigrants en masse, the Pope would be calling for a UN intervention and the 'humanitarian bombing' of Berlin, Paris and London?

The second principle he calls the 'human person'. That is, the highest qualities of man are represented by a universal Man with a capital 'M' - who doesn't show any European rational and national characteristics, a 'citizen of the world', a citizen of the 'universal republic'. The Jew, the African, the Chinaman, the Muslim are regarded as being more universal than the white European male; as a consequence, they are considered to be far more admirable. As Bardèche writes:

The respect for human dignity consists in recognizing an equal human essence in all (une égale spécificité humaine) and consequently equal rights for the Negro of Douala and the Archbishop of Paris. One cavels about equal rights: it will certainly be necessary one day to recognize them or our motto ['Liberty, equality, fraternity'] will no more make sense.

From this day forward, the free expression of the equal rights of two billion human beings is distributed as follows: 600 million whites, and the rest in Negroes, Asians or Semites. By what reasoning will you make the Negroes, Asians or Semites admit that their equal rights cannot be expressed in equal representation, and that, when it concerns serious matters, the opinion of a white is worth that of ten blacks?

It goes without saying that the cult of the human person is backed by force:

There is only one argument which makes perceptible a truth so little
evident; it is the presence of Her Majesty’s fleet, to which one has recourse indeed each
time the discussion threatens to go astray toward generalities. Thus, the defense of the human person still terminates in the same contradiction: it is established with canon
shots, or it consists in hearing submissively whatever orders it will please the colored
gentlemen to give us.

Bardèche names the third and final principle the 'universal conscience'. We know that the Nuremberg prosecutors didn't see the famous Nuremberg defence - 'I was only obeying orders' - as no defence at all. In the light of the examination of his conscience, the German soldier should have refused to obey orders, even at the risk of facing a court martial and a firing squad. The universal conscience instructs us in the right humanist and egalitarian moral conclusions and it ought to be obeyed above all other things: it comes before any sense of affiliation, obedience, honour and duty towards the community, nation, race, state, army.

A ludicrous statement in an article by a Reuters journalist gives us an example of the universal conscience in action: 'Impossible circumstances [for the non-white immigrants invading Europe at present] — coupled with basic human conscience — prompt us to think radically of larger solutions' to the so-called 'humanitarian crisis' presented to us by the illegal immigrant tidal wave lapping at the shores of Europe. That was written a few weeks ago. Now that the 'refugee crisis' has exploded in the world's headlines, one can find many more instances of 'universal conscience' drivel in the media.

III.

After Bardèche published his book, the effects of the Nuremberg morality were felt straight away. The US desegregated its armed forces and began an assault on segregation in the South; the UK brought in the first boatloads of Afro-Caribbean immigrants; Western countries began dismantling any restrictions on non-white immigration; Apartheid South Africa - a loyal servant and brother-in-arms of the US and UK in their war against Europe - became public enemy number one. The Nuremberg morality entailed all this. That was because everyone in the West regards the verdict of the trial as just and binding and everyone believes that the charges against the Germans - of crimes of conspiracy and crimes against humanity, peace and the laws of war - are a 100% true. The corollary of those two beliefs is that every nation in the West is compelled, by their belief in the goodness and righteousness of the trials, to uphold the three principles of the trials - the religion of humanity, the universal conscience and the human person.

Another consequence of Nuremberg is that every Western government which attempts to impose immigration restrictions and deport illegal (or legal) immigrants will run up against the obstacle which is the Nuremberg morality. Cameron's Tory government can't escape it, and Trump is being condemned for the mere proposal that the existing laws on the books against illegal immigration into America be enforced. Nuremberg morality shows signs of catching up even to the Jews, who are being criticised roundly for their treatment of the Palestinians and their anti-African border wall. The three victors of WWII - Jewry, the US and the UK - are being hoisted on their own petard.

Nuremberg explains why any individual who advocates immigration restriction is accused of a lack of 'humanity' and compassion' and worse, an incipient Nazism. Many on the Far Right can't wrap their heads around the following fact: the Nuremberg moral system applies, not merely to defeated Nazi Germany, but to the entire West - even to the Western nations that together defeated Germany. Had Churchill's opposition to non-white immigration to Britain after the war been more widely known at the time, no doubt he would have been rounded on for harbouring racial theories not unlike those of the recently defeated National Socialists. He would have also been chided for his inhumanity and his inability to see that the economic usefulness of the Indian and African low-wage, low-skill workers overrides any consideration of the long-term national interest.

We can call ourselves various names: nationalists, immigration restrictionists, immigration patriots, conservatives, nativists... But one thing is certain: in the eyes of Nuremberg, we are all Nazis now. It doesn't matter where you stand on German National Socialism, the accusations will come. The liberals, the Jews, the Marxists and even the conservatives are already beginning to circle around Trump, and comparisons to National Socialism are being made.

Many on the Far Right will attempt to refute the allegation - that they are 'Nazi' or 'neo-Nazi' - by protesting that they are not 'Nazi', that they are Greek or British or Dutch or Southern nationalists or whatever. I think it's far more important to understand why our liberal and left-wing interlocutors are calling us 'Nazis'. This rhetorical tactic of theirs makes sense once you understand that the liberals, left-wingers, conservatives - everyone, practically, on the entire political spectrum - subscribe to the Nuremberg morality, which was designed to serve the purpose of delegitimising German nationalism and fascism. As a consequence, anyone who transgresses and deviates from that morality will find themselves lumped in with the fascists and German National Socialists, like it or not.

IV.

Given that the Nuremberg morality will eventually lead to the destruction of the West - including the Western countries (the US and UK) who helped devise it - we nationalists, who are concerned with the welfare of the West above all, need to do something to overcome it. But what?

To me, politics can be understood as attitudinal control, adjustment and reinforcement. In order to change people's behaviour, you need to change their ideas. Supposing that, of all of a sudden, Germany debanned Holocaust Revisionism and, instead of throwing its revisionists in jail, gave them the highest state honours; suppose that every newspaper, TV show, movie studio, school textbook, academic journal all went to work at once showing up the Holocaust for what it is (Judaist religious hokum) 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We'd know, for certain, that ideas in Germany have changed, and changed drastically; what's more, we could predict, with a near-degree of certainty, that behaviours in Germany would change as a result. It would seem unlikely that, after repudiating the Holocaust, Germany would go on to take on the projected burden of up to 800,000 immigrants ('refugees') from the Middle East and Africa. In fact, Germany would most likely spearhead the charge to throw the non-white immigrants (legal and illegal) out of Italy, the Balkans, Europe. The new barbarian invasions of Europe would come to an end, and Europe would ensure its safety and security for the next thousand years.

Holocaust Revisionism by itself wouldn't lead to all this. The adoption of Revisionism by Germany would signal to us that a massive change had taken place in the German body politic, that is all. In other words, the effect would follow the cause. And what is the cause? What brings about this attitudinal change in Germans?

The answer is politics - the right sort of politics. We need, as a movement, to be organised around one central principle, and that principle is neo-Nazism or neofascism or white nationalism or racial nationalism or whatever you want to call it.

Some racialists and nationalists will object to this. They will argue, 'Don't let the enemy frame you', that is, don't let the liberal multi-cultists set the terms of engagement and christen you a 'neo-Nazi'. Or a 'white supremacist'. One writer, at the Occidental Observer site opines (regarding the recent Muslim immigration invasion of Europe),

It is therefore imperative that in order to mobilize the vast numbers of people who “think” in this fashion, the state media — and the social media — frame the refugee debate in purely emotional terms. Pictures of desperate people, of tragedy being played out every day and every hour, must be front and centre of every news item on the subject. The tragedy must be given a human face.

However, those in the host countries who must move over for these migrants, or see their social safety net collapse from the burden, or face future job displacement from cheap labour, are left unseen by the cameras. There is no human face attached to their plight. The only images of them that we are permitted to see are those of angry demonstrators — spiced up with a few neo-Nazis for good measure — shouting outside of migrant reception areas. Nothing like tarring legitimate outrage with the Nazi brush to discredit their grievances.

The trouble is this: who in Europe, outside of these 'neo-Nazis', is bothering to oppose this invasion? Who? No one that I can see. In Germany, the 'neo-Nazis' are the ones burning the immigrant hostels down.

The enemy fears the German nationalists because it understands it is fighting a war against white Europe and for the Muslim and the Jew; it finds itself opposed to the army of the enemy side - the 'neo-Nazis'. My position is that we need to induce fear in our enemy (because he is an enemy in the sense that Carl Schmitt means it); we must cause him to feel terror. To achieve that goal, we need to become what he fears most.

V.

In answer to the question, 'How would the Germans change their ideas?', I say the most brutal, dogmatic and intolerant evangelisation for three ideas in particular - the three ideas outlined in Hitler's essay, 'Road to Resurgence' (1927). These include: 1) the racial idea; 2) the idea of the leading personality; 3) the idea or conception of life as struggle:

Let's quote some relevant passages:

To fulfil this mission, not only individuals of great stature but also a nation firmly welded into a single common community of interests is required. Three great fundamental principles must be observed in this context.

The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:

1. The merit of their own race;
2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;
3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. 

It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.

Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.

The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.

And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.

Undoubtedly, Hitler here is talking in broad terms, abstractions, and we can't see, at first sight, how exactly these ideas can be applied in our present-day political situation. But let's look at each of them in turn.

1) Race. Hitler's 'racism' should be understood as being part of an ethnic and not a racial nationalism; Hitler wasn't concerned so much with the racial distinctions between white and negro or white and mestizo so much as German and Jew; he wanted Germans - and Europeans - to recognise Jews as a breed apart from Germans.

We know that the Holocaust story is contained in the Talmud: that it is based on ancient Talmudic prophecies of 'six million Jews' being thrown into giant 'ovens' by the wicked Gentiles; that these murdered Jews will miraculously come back to life; that these Jews will then reclaim the lost Jewish State of Israel. Holocaust Revisionism reveals the hidden Jewish religious foundations of the Holocaust story. What more could illustrate the differences between Jews and Europeans? That these people really are not like us?

2) The role of individual personality. We all recognise that some artists, composers, film directors, et al., are better than others; but how often do we put certain politicians and leaders on a different plane from others? In the nationalist and Far Right scene, we don't do this much. Outside of nationalism, we find that it's a different story: liberal journalists and educators will uphold Churchill or Martin Luther King or Mandela or Obama as 'great men'; communists erect a cult of personality around Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Guevara, Kim Il-Sung, Ho Chi Minh... Inside nationalism, quite a few will disparage Hitler and the leaders of National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy and subject them to a barrage of relentless criticism and carping - as though they themselves could have done better, much better, had they been in Hitler or Mussolini's shoes.

It goes without saying that Hitler and Mussolini made mistakes - as did Napoleon, Caesar, Alexander the Great and every other politician who has ever lived; the truth of the matter is that only God doesn't make mistakes. No one denies this, but the problem is that the nationalist critics of German National Socialism will start any discussion of Hitler and Nationalism with an obviously true premise - 'Hitler made mistakes' - and, once they win assent to this, go on to attack Hitler, the German National Socialists and the Germans themselves, who were, from the period 1941-44, the masters of all Europe.

The effect of this is to disparage the idea of human greatness and the notion that any politician can be good at all. The defender of Hitler, the fascists and the NSDAP will ask our critic, 'But who do you think was superior to Hitler - Roosevelt, Churchill, de Gaulle, Badoglio? Do you regard our present-day leaders - Obama, Cameron, Merkel, Hollande, Tony Abbott, Stephen Harper - as being better than Hitler and Mussolini?'. It turns out that our critic, more often than not, doesn't think much of these politicians either; in fact, he's a nihilist - he doesn't think that any politician has ever been any good, or will do any good.

If we are to uphold the principle of 'personality', we must defend the record of Hitler, German National Socialism, the NSDAP politicians and the German people from every attack within our own ranks; we must challenge the critics and defeat them in argument. In other words, we must defend our leaders, and, like it or not, the Germans, before their surrender in May 1945, were our leaders. The critics and carpers behave like soldiers who turn their guns on their own officers.

Fortunately, our job - one of defence - has been made easier by the fact that historical research has moved on from the immediate post-war era. We know a little more about why Hitler made the political and military decisions that he did.

We now know, in 2015, more about Russia. Putin and the Russian war with Ukraine have revealed to us moderns a hitherto unknown side to the Russian character. Putin mimics Stalin, and Putin's Russia reminds us of the old Soviet Union which was hated and feared by its neighbours, including Germany. We now understand a little more why Germany, the Baltic States, Poland, Finland, Hungary and Romania disliked the Soviet Union (really, Russia) so much and why they went to war against it. Hitler regarded Russian communism as the primary political enemy not merely because of the personality of Stalin, or because of the preponderance of Jews in the leading positions in the Russian communist party and Soviet society, but because of the Russian people themselves. Nations exhibit characteristics in the same way that people do, and so long as Russia as a geopolitical power exists, Russia will do as Russia does.

3) Life as struggle. This precept can be understood as: we can only achieve good things in life, and in particular, things which are politically good, through struggle - these aren't given to us on a plate. It would be nice if Merkel listened to the Germans of the East who are expected to house hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa: instead, she derides them as scum and people whose opinions aren't worth paying to attention to. The patriotic Germans - or perhaps just the Germans who are fed up with immigrants - need to engage in political struggle in order to stop these immigrants from coming into the country: that's the way it is.

Likewise, in a perfect world (or even in a halfway-decent world), the Reclaim Australia patriots could hold their rallies without communist interference and wouldn't risk being physically assaulted by the communists. But, because of the traditional dominance of the communist and Trotskyite Left in Australia, Australian patriots and nationalists need to fight for the democratic rights taken for granted by other Australian political actors. The Reclaim patriots need to wage de facto war on the communists... Such is life, as one Australian rebel once said, or, as Hitler said, Leben ist Kampf = Life is Struggle.

VI.

Now, the three principles outlined above don't sum up the entirety of Hitler's thought, but they do give us a starting point, and I hope that I've given the reader an idea as to how to apply the ideas in the modern political context.

The main thing is that we stick to the principles through thick and thin. That's why Corbyn has enjoyed his success. He's never wavered - not once - from his commitment to Marxist-Leninist and Trotskyite principles. Expediency must have counselled him, many times in his career, to drop a principle, to perhaps 'tone it down' and make himself more acceptable to the Labour Friends of Israel, to the British financial sector, to the journalists and pundits demanding a 'sensible' and 'pragmatic' Labour and socialism... But he's ignored, steadfastly, such proffered 'wisdom' and remained an unrepentant and unreconstructed Marxist.

(One has to drawn the distinction between downplaying certain sides of one ideology and abandoning it altogether. Corbyn has, in true slippery communist style, wriggled out of questions regarding his commitment to Marxism and the communist idea. That represents tactical expediency. We should follow him in this regard, and I should make clear that I'm not endorsing stupidity). 

His adherence and faithfulness to Marxist-Leninist principles explains Corbyn's election to the Labour Party leadership. The British Labour Party, and the British Left, has suffered over the course of the past five years because of Labour's relentless focus on electoral politics and its neglect of its core idea - socialism. The British Jew Miliband failed as a leader because he concentrated too much on the polls and the task of regaining office; he paid little attention to the demands of the base, which wants left-wingism, socialism and Marxism. Corbyn gives the base what it wants: a hard dose of seventies and eighties Trotskyite communism. He doesn't care about getting elected; he only cares about satisfying the base.

I should point out that this base extends outside the Labour Party. Whenever Karl Marx, in the days of the First International, referred to 'the party', he meant the socialist movement as a whole, not just one part of which had deigned to convert itself into a political organisation. In the case of Britain, the British Left - especially since the Labour leadership contest of 2015 - looms far above the British Labour Party; the mass movement stands above the actual political party. What's made the difference between the Labour Party of 2015 and the Labour Party of the past is that now every communist crank - Maoist, Trotskyite, Stalinist, you name it - from outside the party has come into the party.
Corbyn and the Marxification of the Labour Party represents the triumph of sectarianism and dogmatism. If only the British nationalists had clung to their faith (neofascism, neo-Nazism, white supremacism, whatever you want to call it) with the same zeal as Corbyn clings to his, well, British politics would be very different. The lesson I draw from the Corbyn story is that every dog has his day; nationalists need to be persistent and not give in.

VII.

Corbyn has notoriously compared the actions of US soldiers in Iraq to those of ISIS, and has been attacked for doing so. The political establishment regards such statements as treasonous (and so they are) and these shine a light on an often hidden side of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine - another one hidden 'off the books'. Official Marxism preaches that 'the worker has no fatherland' and that Marxism replaces 'petty-bourgeois nationalism' with internationalism. But, as we know from history, the Marxist-Leninists did have a fatherland and did pledge allegiance to it: the Soviet Union. It mattered not if the Marxist was born in Australia, the US, the UK, Cameroon, Argentina, Singapore: he always put the geopolitical interests of the USSR above those of his own state. That is why American communists, during the 'red scare' of the 1950s, were likened to Soviet guerrilla detachments operating on US soil - an apt analogy.

The Soviet Union may have ceased to exist 24 years ago, but the West's communists are still practicing treason. I suggest that we nationalists - and in particular, British nationalists - follow their lead and practice treason, not on behalf of the USSR, but on behalf of a state which perished 70 years ago: German-occupied Europe.

Today's British nationalists need to recognise that the UK (along with Commonwealth nations Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia) has been dominated politically by the US and American Jewry since the mid-to-late 1930s; that it lost its sovereign independence in this period; that it has made false prophets, false gods, out of the politicians who went to war against Germany on behalf of the US and the Jews - Chamberlain and Churchill. In the period from 1940 to 1941, Britain faced a choice between the US and Germany. It could either continue being dominated by the US or submit to the rule of a new master - Germany: it could never regain its sovereignty, its status as one of leading European powers, again. Throwing in its lot with Anglo-Jewry, Britain chose to stick with the US, with the consequences that we all know. The British decline dates from that point, not from the election of Tony Blair in 1997.

Churchill is hailed as a hero for his work in keeping the UK on the side of the US in this crucial period, but really he (along with de Gaulle and Badoglio) should be considered as a 'collaborator', just like Petain and Quisling. But many of the more conservative British nationalist parties - such as the BNP and UKIP - won't dare think along these lines. That's understandable, as these parties are in the game to win elections, and any nationalist politician British who promulgated Holocaust and WWII revisionism would be committing political suicide. But the example of Corbyn shows that a politician can hold to unorthodox and even treasonous political views and achieve success. No real political reason exists, then, for the British nationalist to knock down Churchill, Chamberlain and Atlee from their pedestals and replace them with Mosley, John Amery and the British Legion - the 'traitors'.


　
　
　
　
　
　

The death of the sect and the birth of the mass movement

I haven't been posting here for the past few months because I've been busy - busy engaged in the world of real politics. I've been participating in (and to a certain extent, helping to organise) the Reclaim Australia rallies, and will be attending one tomorrow - one which will be perhaps the biggest nationalist event in Australian history.

 Reclaim Australia was organised - like so many other mass movements today - primarily on social media; it held its first nationwide rally in April 2015. It managed to succeed in doing what no other Far Right, nationalist and patriot movement has done in Australia: bring together hundreds, if not thousands, of Australians out on to the streets - Australians of all ages, all classes, both genders and of all political persuasions. I myself had seen nothing like it, and made more contacts and did more networking for my particular group in one day than in fifteen years.

 One simple idea stood behind Reclaim: anti-Islam. Anyone of any race, any creed was welcome to the rallies, so long as they were opposed to Islam. Reclaim can't be categorised as a white nationalist or neo-Nazi movement at all, and its openness - and the absence of any racial aspect to its ideology - helps explain its success. 'Bogans' - that is, working-class Australians (who make up the majority of the Reclaim attendees) - won't attend a rally in the name of Australian nationalism or white nationalism (i.e., a 'Worldwide White People's Day'), but they will attend something that purports to be 'patriotic'. And for Aussies, Islam provides a focus and a starting point and serves many a useful purpose. For one, as we are told, over and over, 'Islam is a religion, not a race', and anti-Islamists can't be accused of 'racism'. Secondly, no-one can deny - after reading Bill Warner's works - that Islam preaches values which are antithetical to Western values (or, for that matter, anyone's values). Third, a connection exists between Islamic jihad and violence - a connection which is undeniable. (On the Friday before the Reclaim rally in April, Islamic 'extremists' massacred around 150 Kenyan schoolchildren). These three points, I think, suffice to put anti-Islam and the anti-Islamic political movement on a higher level than any other 'Far Right' and nationalist political movement out there, in Australia at least; anti-Islam excels in terms of efficacy and sheer usefulness.

 After April, anti-communism was added to the Reclaim platform. As of now, the platform consists of three planks: 'patriotism', anti-Islam and anti-Communism. Why the latter? In Melbourne in April, hundreds of Trotskyite communists turned up and attempted to prevent the Reclaim rally from going ahead; they used coercion and violence, spat at and assaulted people (including the elderly), etc., etc., and did all the things that communists have been doing for the past hundred years. For many on the Australian Far Right, the events of April in Melbourne provided a wake-up call. Many patriots and nationalists must have thought, beforehand, that the state decided which political movements were allowed to march and to assemble in public; that wasn't the case. The communists decide it, and for forty years or more they have attempted to usurp the state's monopoly on violence and coercion. They decide who gets to march and who doesn't. That explains, in part, why the Far Right in this country hasn't succeeded in getting off the ground. A political movement that exists in the real world - as opposed to on the Internet - needs to rent halls and hold meetings, distribute literature, hold rallies, advertise itself, stand in elections, assemble in public. It can't do any of these if, for instance, three to four hundred communists line up outside a meeting hall rented by nationalists and use violence to prevent attendees from going in.

 As I said, for many patriots and nationalists in April, the veil dropped; communist violence awoke them to the reality of the political situation of nationalists in Australia. I like to think that, on an instinctive level, many of them began to understand what Mosley, Hitler, Mussolini were all about. The BUF, the Italian Fascists, the NSDAP Brownshirts, didn't engage in street brawls with commies for fun; they did so because they knew, as political movements, they wouldn't flourish, much less survive, if they allowed the communists to keep hold of the streets.

 Communists can't present a challenge to the state, and the existing political system, through the ballot box, but they can use violence and coercion to pick off any fringe political movements - and that includes Reclaim - and by doing so they challenge the liberal democratic state. Liberal democracy protects weak, small and fringe movements; it allows them to participate in political life and gives them a seat at the table, as it were. But if it fails to protect those movements from communist thugs, it fails, as it were. So, by attacking nationalists, communist manage to chip away, a small piece at a time, at the foundations of the liberal democratic state.

 The communist 'vanguard party' (or, as Trotsky calls it, the 'combat party') must be kept in condition; it must be used, constantly, or otherwise fall into a state of disuse and disrepair. The membership must be radicalised and be kept in fighting form; the leadership orders the members to participate in acts of political violence. If they don't do this, then, like any army which has been kept out of combat for a while, they will atrophy. Then their precious revolution won't come about.

 One can't debate a communist; he won't listen to reason. You can try and persuade him that his actions - at the April rally, for instance - were immoral and illegal; you can try and argue that communism doesn't work, didn't work in Russia or China, and has been rejected - and will continue to be rejected - by the Russians and Chinese themselves. But you're wasting your breath. Communism tends to brainwash its adherents, who become immune to proof or disproof. Trotskyism in practice seems to be much more cultish than the other communist subgroupings, and Australia boasts a large number of Trotskyite communist groups - around six or seven. The largest of these - Socialist Alternative - numbers, according to former member John Passant, only around 300. But, if you put all the Trotskyite subgroups together on the same day in Melbourne, you wind up with a sizeable force.

 (I don't want to give the impression that the communists here in Australia are made up of tough nuts; most of the communists I've encountered strike me as being physically weak and, what's more, confused - about their racial and sexual identity, among other things. Suffice to say that they do present a bigger political obstacle here than in many other Western countries. The Southern nationalist and pro-Confederate flag rallies in the US have met with little organised communist opposition, for instance).

 Reclaim resembles the German movement PEGIDA in several ways, and as we know, the communist opposition in Germany was unable to shut down PEGIDA - in Dresden at least. The Dresden marchers outnumbered the communists every time. The PEGIDA marchers didn't need to protect themselves from the communists, because the latter weren't large enough, and weren't willing to physically attack the big numbers of 'ordinary' Germans - the German equivalent of our 'mums and dads' and 'bogans'. The German communists tried to sell the public on the idea that PEGIDA were, like all Far Right movements in the West, 'Nazi' and 'fascist', but this didn't fly. Perhaps the example of PEGIDA offers a way forward for Reclaim.

 The question is, will Reclaim last, or will it fizzle out - like PEGIDA, like Occupy Wall Street, like the Tea Party, like so many other groups built on the back of a mass movement.

 The Jewish-American communist theorist Hal Draper wrote at length on the difference 'sects' (or 'micro-parties') on the Left and between real socialist mass movements. A man of libertarian-Marxist leanings, he regarded the mass movements of the Left as being more authentic than the sects and micro-parties. I agree with him on that point and think that his political model can be carried across to nationalist politics. If you look at nationalism in Australia and elsewhere, you'll find plenty of sects and micro-parties and very little in the way of a mass movement (which I define as an unorganised mass of people united around one central political idea). Australian nationalists (and I am one of the guilty ones) form groups with a small number of long-term activists (the 'hardcores', the 'cadre men') and then go to play a game of 'let's pretend' - let's pretend we're a political party (with tens of thousands of members, like the mainstream political parties) with a genuine mass base. These micro-parties and sects engage in frantic stickering, postering, pamphleteering, electioneering; they hold poorly attended political rallies, party meetings, lectures and socials; they write up constitutions, party platforms, and, for their meetings, agendas and minutes; they beat their breasts and make outrageous claims - claims to represent the great Australian nation and even the entire white race. But it turns out that hardly anyone out there in the Australian electorate is listening. In a strange way, the nationalist micro-parties turn into mirror images of the communist.

 Having said that, something can be said for the sect: it endures - many a mass movement doesn't. As Marx said, the left-wing sect proves its usefulness by keeping the flame of socialism flickering during lean times (lean times for socialism, when nobody is interested in it, least of all the workers). But during times of great political ferment, when the masses are moving towards socialism, the left-wing sect becomes an impediment - 'reactionary', in Marx's words, that is, an obstacle to progress. I categorise these times as ones of great ferment for nationalism: certainly more of the Australian masses than ever are becoming involved in nationalism or 'patriotism' or anti-Islam. The political sects on the Far Right - including my own - have become, to a certain extent, redundant, and it behoves any sect-monger at this time to get out of the way and not impede progress. But, on the other hand, Reclaim could easily fall apart. Mass movements don't last long, and the historical record shows this. If and when Reclaim - or any similar mass movement in Australian Far Right politics - ceases to exist, the little sects (including my own) will carry the torch.

 What differentiates a mass movement from a micro-party? The sect leader tends to draw up an party platform of, say, 30 or 40 ideas that everyone - no exceptions allowed! - must take on board if they decide to become a member of the sect. Now, in politics, disagreement constitutes the norm. In the interests of peace and harmony, a political movement should restrict itself to two or three points. The communist platform - for over a century - has consisted of two planks: the abolition of property and the dictatorship of the proletariat (that is to say, the dictatorship of the communist party). On those two points, the communist party will not bend. The simplicity of this platform explains much of communism's historical success.

 Likewise, the NSDAP platform could be summed up in three points. To be a German National Socialist, one had to be of the Germanic racial character; anti-Semitic; and cognisant of the absolute and unquestioned leadership of Adolf Hitler. Historians of the NSDAP may warble about the '25 points' of German National Socialism, but the three I've mentioned here make up the essentials. Again, we see here a simple party program.  The sect monger makes things unnecessarily complicated and by his actions encourages foment and discord. This explains why so many of the Trotskyite sects fall apart and splinter; they show a knack for encouraging disagreement - strong disagreement - amongst their members. The Trotskyite leadership takes one firm, uncompromising line on, for instance, far-off events in Syria, Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan and expects all the party rank and file to submit to this line (that's 'democratic centralism'). This approach causes fractures. (The irony is that a Trotskyite micro-party in the West can do very little about events in, say, Iraq, but it will stake its political reputation on them). Far better to keep things simple, and to repeat, historical communist movements - such as the Chinese and the Russian - succeeded only by keeping things simple and tolerating a fair amount of disagreement over unessential points.

 I don't deny that dogmatism and rigidity have a place in a political movement. In communist lore, a distinction is drawn between the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions in the Russian communist party: the former followed the path of 'true' Marxism, the latter a liberal version. Communists call this the two-line struggle, and it's here - on the side of Marxism-Leninism in the Bolshevik versus Menshevik debate - that the communist theorist makes his stand. Even the most open-minded communist here can be dogmatic, exclusionary and sectarian with a clean conscience. I posit that a similar two-line struggle exists in the Australian nationalist and patriot movement. What are those lines? To me, the line exists between the neo-Nazis and the non-neo-Nazis. Undoubtedly, 'neo-Nazis' exist in the Reclaim movement and in the Australian nationalist scene; they are outnumbered - in the Reclaim movement, but not in Australian nationalism as a whole - by the non-neo-Nazis.

I'll give here a working definition of 'neo-Nazism'. We could say that German Nationalism consists of three main principles, as outlined by Hitler in his essay 'Road to Resurgence' (1927). These are: a) the importance of race and, furthermore, the quality of the race; b) a conception of life as struggle; c) the importance of 'personality' - the idea of greatness, in individual men and in nations. I think that the first explains itself. The other two, however, require explanation. Regarding the conception of life as struggle - Hitler and the National Socialists believed that good things came about only through struggle - that is to say, good political things. Unfortunately, if we want a good political result (especially in Australia), we will only arrive at it through struggle - struggle against the communists. We know that the communists need to be thoroughly defeated, defeated in detail, and driven in to the ground. It's only then that we can hold our meetings, rallies, conferences in public. As for 'personality', well, that's easy enough to understand. We need to recognise the differences, not only between races and between nations, but between men. Some men show a genius; they may be more talented - at music, painting, architecture, science - than others. The same applies in the political sphere: great political leaders exist. We can regard Hitler as one of those leaders. Without doubt, he made mistakes here and there but only God doesn't make mistakes. The crucial thing is that we must beware of the anti-Hitlerians - those in the 'nationalist movement' who constantly carp, criticise when it comes to Hitler and National Socialist Germany. These people, by attacking Hitler relentlessly, constantly, are in fact denying the idea of the greatness of Man - that Man can (especially in politics) be great. They don't want you to believe that there can be good and great politicians. (As I said, one can find many of these sceptics and scorners in our movement; they often masquerade as those who hold the interests of the Western peoples, and the white race, at heart).

 So, the 'neo-Nazi' activist needs to obey three precepts: defend the importance of race; defend the conception of 'life as struggle'; defend Hitler, National Socialism and Germany, especially against the charges of 'Holocausting' six million Jews in giant gas chambers in Auschwitz and other places.
 Obviously, one can't do this at all places, all times. One needs to bend a little here and there. In a mass movement, one will come across plenty of people who make foolish and fatuous statements about 'Nazism' and 'fascism': an ill-informed person may make comparisons between, say, Nazism and Islam or even Hitler and Obama. One has to let that pass. Likewise, if the organisers at a nationalist rally - such as the one being held tomorrow - bring in busloads of supporters who are not, in their racial provenance, white, well, one has to let that pass also. One must prioritise: communism in Australia must be defeated, so, ill-informed people - and, for that matter, non-whites - must be allowed into the movement, temporarily. After communism has been expunged, then we shall straighten people's thinking out. But, before we shall enforce any 'party line' - that is, any neo-Nazi (as I have defined it) party line - we must build a genuine mass movement, and from there, a real political party.