Time to get radical again

Hunter Wallace wrote an article with a click-bait-ish title, 'The Trump Honeymoon is Already Over'. My response is as follows. I hope Trump turns on Putin - something which I believe will be inevitable, but won't occur in the first 100 days. As for trade, I hope tariffs stay where they are: we don't want to return to the 1930s and the days of the Smoot-Hawley tariff. On the subject of the economy, Trump's tax cuts and deregulatory bills will lead to an increase in job creation. Shutting the border - to legal and illegal immigration - will help there as well.

Trump disappoints on the subject of Israel. But then, he never pretended to be anything other than a Zionist and a Jew-fawner: look at the debates in the Republican primaries. You can't claim that Trump misrepresented himself.

The same applies to Trump's stance on Afro-Americans and race. Trump very skilfully, during the election campaign, avoided antagonising Afro-Americans, and like a standard Jack Kemp Republican, blamed the problems of Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago and black-majority cities on 'lack of school choice' and 'poor Democratic administration'. A few school vouchers, a few enterprise zones, a few capital gains tax cuts, would make inner city poverty, squalor and crime vanish as if by magic.

Trump ran for the most part as a conventional Republican. The differences between Trumpism and Republicanism lay in three areas: 1) Trump wanted protectionism, 2) he wanted immigration restriction and 3) he didn't want to touch Social Security or social welfare spending. When it came to 3), Trump very shrewdly steered the Republicans back to the center - where they had been at the time of Reagan. He recognised that the Republicans had moved - especially in the past eight years - too far to the Right and that a corrective reorientation was needed.

I think Wallace's article does possess validity insofar that it does reflect an underlying dissatisfaction with Trump on the racialist and nationalist scene: we've come to the realisation that Trump has taken nationalism - you want to call it that - as far as it can go within the arena of electoral politics; one can't go any further than Trump and expect to be elected as head of state. Trump is as good as it gets. The pessimistic conclusion one can draw, then, is that no-one to the right of Trump stands a chance; populists such as Le Pen in France and Petry in Germany can't win.

I came across a gloomy 4Chan thread, 'We have to be prepared for the worst: Germany may re-elect Merkel in 2017', which gives a damning indictment of the liberal democratic electoral system in Germany - and, when you think about it, in the West as a whole. The way some German posters explain it, AfD can't possibly win, and it's more than likely that Merkel will be re-elected.

Anonymous (ID: BkZa/jEM) 12/31/16(Sat)00:02:35

It's difficult to get rid of a chancellor when you don't just have two options.

The options we have are center left (what should be center right cdu), lobbyist left (what should have been center left spd), commie left, pedo hippie left, libtards and then there's AfD. That makes it difficult for parties to get the majority of the votes, so there's usually a coalition and with all parties leaning to the left it's easy to exclude the AfD. Some people might also be afraid of a red red green coalition, "center left", far left, pedo hippie left with (((Martin Schulz))) as chancellor, so they decide to vote CDU, because that increases the chances of a big coalition, CDU+SPD, again with Merkel as chancellor. Even if AfD somehow got enough votes to make any other coalition but CDU+AfD possible, which they don't want, Merkel would still be chancellor.

A Swiss poster puts in:

Anonymous (ID: fOmBdqlJ) 12/31/16(Sat)01:11:58 No.104968253▶

Germ-land is double cucked because the current chancellor is CDU

AfD is making most of its gains from former CDU voters

Thus if AfD becomes stronger due to general redpilling, ironically the majorities shifts towards the far left

This is because nobody will even consider a coalition with the AfD (outcasts) and therefore the next most likely coalition is SPD Linke Greens - thanks to AfD voters!

This is the kind of shit that fuels civil wars

Selznick writes, in The Organizational Weapon - a book I covered in a previous post - how the institutions of civil society can serve the useful purpose of working as a pressure valve on popular discontent. But the electoral system in Germany will in 2017 show itself not to be up to this task: it will be unable direct the anger of the German electorate - or shall we say, the German people, the German Volk - into safe channels (safe from the viewpoint of the German political establishment, that is). The system, as it exists now, is not set up this way.

But this raises some interesting questions. The Weimar constitution was widely criticised for allowing the rise to power of Hitler and the NSDAP, and so the post-war German liberal democrats - who had been installed by the Allies - came up with a constitution, the Grundgesetz, or Basic Law, which was thought to be a vast improvement on the Weimar and completely devoid of the Weimar's flaws. But Merkel, the immigrant invasion and the coming 2017 elections show that the problems of the system can't be solved within the system.

Does this entail, then, riots, revolution, the rise to power of 'fascists', 'Neo-Nazis'? It doesn't, unfortunately; but it will lead to a dull resentment, a slow-burning rage, and the tarnishing of the legitimacy of the Bundesrepublik. This is first time this has happened since 1949.

But this signifies the failure of the Allied project. The Allies conquered Germany in order to impose on it - 'democracy'. Elections, the rule of law, 'freedom', were returned to Germany - at the point of the gun - because, it was believed, these formed part of a political system ('democracy') which was superior to both fascism and communism. 'Democracy' would work well in Germany so long threats to it - from communism, or a resurgent fascism - were contained and neutralised. But these threats to the system were understood to be exogenous - that is, coming from without, not within; the notion that 'democracy', at least as embodied in the Basic Law, could collapse under its own weight was unthinkable. As the years passed, and the Bundesrepublik weathered all challenges, complacency set in. But now, in 2017, German 'democracy' appears to have hit a brick wall: it can't cope with the immigrant invasion and it can't cope with Merkel. And the present impasse can't be blamed on Neo-Nazis and communists - it can only be blamed on the structure of the German party system itself. 'Democracy' in Germany has, dare I say it, failed.

But this has wider implications. Frank Sinatra sang, in New York, New York, 'If I can make it there
/ I can make it anywhere'. I say that if 'democracy' can't make it in Germany, it can't make it anywhere.

You've got to be joking

See here for source.

Assad fighting for 'secularism' against 'Islamism'? The Assadists need a new narrative.

'Man in the High Castle': sometimes it's good to be bad

The Amazon TV adaptation of Philip K. Dick's novel, Man in the High Castle (1962), has attracted a great deal of interest in nationalist quarters. The series - depicting a fantasy alternate reality in which the Axis won WWII and conquered America - portrays a German-occupied America, and the National Socialists, in a good light, and unintentionally so. The show wants to make an America under fascist rule to be a dystopia, but instead we see a rather pleasant post-war society which resembles clean, prosperous and smartly-dressed America of Mad Men albeit with jackboots and uniforms. As one commentator on 8Chan put it, the show uses ill-fitting uniforms and some awful pseudo-Nazi architecture; it doesn't exhibit any understanding of National Socialist ideology; but it still makes the Nazis look good.

I am a quarter of the way through Dick's novel. It contains the usual anti-German propaganda bilge we'd expect from an American - the author has swallowed the gas chamber propaganda whole, for instance - but I find the book fascinating for a number of reasons. One of these is that it shows a world in which the Germans won, are good administrators of the countries they occupy (including America and the Soviet Union) and are building a sustainable social, political and economic order. This is reassuring to many Hitler sympathisers. In their subconscious, they believe that Germany lost because it wasn't meant to win: like Knut Hamsun, they believe that Hitler was too good for this barbaric age. As well as that, for them seventy years of Allied and Soviet brainwashing - to the effect that Germany would have brought disaster to the world had it won, or at the least, would have botched the job - has had an effect; again, in their subconscious, this notion holds sway. How refreshing, then, to read of a novel where grateful Americans under German occupation are praising their rulers for 'helping America recover economically' from the war. Germany is the one standing in a superior position to the Americans after the war, and Germans are such bountiful economic producers that they are capable of largesse to defeated nations. What's more, they undertake great feats: in the novel, they are on the way to colonising Mars.

The trailer of the series shows the American 'Nazis' doing some bad things: kidnapping, torturing and killing people, and generally behaving in a brutal and barbaric way. I think that this mirrors the liberal view of what 'Nazis' and 'Nazi' rule to be like. We revisionists know, of course, that the writers of the show are engaging in what Freud called projection. The Allies and their collaborators - e.g., the French Resistance - did exactly these things to the helpless peoples of the countries they liberated. The more we Hitler sympathisers read of these atrocities, the more fearful we become: what if the Americans and the British do it again? I myself don't want to end up like Julius Streicher, who was garroted at Nuremberg - by a Jewish hangman - for the crime of writing an anti-Semitic children's book. Liberals, American liberals, organised that. But, as it turns out, those liberals are more afraid of us than we are of them. The closer any 'Neo-Nazi' politician nears to power, the greater the liberal hysteria will be.

The experience of ages has shown that fear can be a useful weapon, politically speaking. Having your political opponents fear you, and 'what you'll do' once you get into power, can be a wonderful thing.

For the past seventy years, the Far Left - and liberals - have used the 'Nazis' and 'Nazi horrors' as a stick to beat the Far Right with. But when used on the Alt Right, it hasn't worked. The Left will accuse them of being 'Nazis' who 'want to gas the Jews', just like the wicked 'Nazis' in Man in the High Castle. The Alt Right answers back: 'You're correct - that's exactly who we are and that's exactly what we want to do!'. The Left takes this at face value and goes into a hysterical overreaction. It helps that the Left perceives us as being stronger politically than we are and holds to the thesis - especially so since Trump's election - that 'fascism' and 'reaction' are on the march everywhere and are winning.

Why the Neocons should shut up about Munich

Many commentators in Bush 43 era objected to the neocons because of the role they played in fomenting the Iraq invasion and in propping up the Bush administration, ideologically, during the period of the 'War on Terror'. They took umbrage with Bush, the neocons and the 'War on Terror' on mainly humanitarian grounds: it was wrong, unethical, to kill and blow up so many Arabs and Muslims.

Moving forward to 2016, the neocons can't really be castigated for that reason: quite a few of these critics of the neocons now approve a 'War on Terror' - as it is waged by Assad; they approve the torture, kidnapping, bombing and murder of Arabs, so long as Assad, and the 'progressive', 'secularist' forces of Russia and Iran are doing it. The Syrian war is shaping up to be the most devastating conflict in the Arab world's recent history, and Assad will prove to be much worse than Bush 43. So, on this point, we should cut the neocons some slack.

I find the neocons - Krauthammer, Kristol, Podhoretz, Stephens, Kagan and the rest - fairly agreeable up to a point; they don't really differ all that much - especially since the election - from Steve Sailer, Hunter Wallace, VDare - in their criticisms of immigration, political correctness, the Democratic Party, Black Lives Matter... They are obsessed with Obama's Iran deal, but I could take or leave Iran.
As for their other obsessions - Israel, the Palestinians, the settlements in the West Bank - not being an Arab or Jew, I don't have a dog in the fight on that one either. I agree with the neocons when they make the charge that American foreign policy has been weak and unassertive, not to mention criminally irresponsible, since Obama - that's true enough. So I often experience, when picking up the National Review or Commentary or Weekly Standard, the strange sensation of reading through one of their articles and finding it not so objectionable after all - at least, not as much as I had anticipated. 'Maybe the neocons aren't as black as they're painted', I say to myself.

Then I come to the one stumbling block which prevents full agreement: Munich. Hitler. WWII. Analogies to Neville Chamberlain's deal with Germany at Munich in 1938, and to an alleged Chamberlain appeasement policy, have been made countless times in neocon propaganda; the neocons just can't keep away from the topic.

Let's take a look at the latest piece by the classicist Victor Davis Hanson, one of the few goyish neocons out there (and incidentally a big opponent of illegal immigration into California, his home state). It attacks the Obama administration for its many failings, including its lamentable foreign policy and its neglect of the fundamental truths of statecraft:

Throughout history, it has not gone well for powerful leaders when they have been perceived as being both loudly sanctimonious and weak (read Demosthenes on Athenian reactions to Philip II), as if the nation’s strength enervates the leader rather than empowers his diplomacy. Worse still is when a leader aims to loudly project strength through rhetoric while quietly fearing to do so through ships and soldiers.

So far, so good. I haven't read Demosthenes on Philip II, but when it comes to that subject, I'm willing to take Hanson's word for it. I'm no classicist.

But then, here it comes:

Think again of Neville Chamberlain at Munich, who gave Hitler everything — including lectures on proper international behavior. Anthony Eden remarked at the time that British statesmen thought Hitler and Mussolini were like typical British elites with whom they could do business; the British diplomats mistakenly believed they could appeal to the dictators’ reason and common interests, and thus they were bound to be sorely disappointed.

This is wrong in so many ways.

From 1938 to 1939, Czechoslovakia was breaking up, in the same way that Yugoslavia was to nearly six decades later. The 1938 partition deal, in which Germany, Poland and Hungary got pieces each of Czechoslovakia, wasn't enough to forestall the inevitable.

Here's what John Mosier - not a Hitler fan - has to say in his Cross of Iron: The Rise and Fall of the German War Machine, 1918-1945 (2006):

On November 22, the Czecho-Slovak Republic officially became a confederation of Czechs, Slovaks, and Ruthenians, each group to have considerable local autonomy in its local areas. But by then the Slovaks were beginning to panic. Negotiations with Hungary had broken down, and on November 2, representatives from Germany and Italy met in Vienna and readjusted the boundary between Czecho-Slovakia and Hungary; the latter thus got back the roughly 600,000 ethnic Hungarians who had been stuck inside the Czech Republic at Versailles. Teschen was restored to Poland, and Germany acquired a small piece as well. The Slovaks, who had been hapless bystanders with no say in the foreign policy of the republic, saw that at this rate, they would end up again under Hungarian domination. ('Bloodless victories, or nearly so: toward a Greater Germany, 1935-1939')

The Slovaks then upset the applecart by demanding independence - a demand which entailed the breakup of Czechoslovakia:

While some Slovaks sought real independence, as far as the Czechs could make out, the Slovak idea of autonomy was, for all practical purposes, de facto independence. Thus in February 1939, as the Spanish civil war slowly came to a bloody end, the Czechs drew up a plan to occupy Slovakia. The plan was so secret that neither the Czech prime minister nor his minister of defense knew about it; it nonetheless existed. On March 10, a version of the plan was put into effect, and Prague attempted to name a new Slovak government. On the thirteenth, the Slovak leaders went to Berlin, because Hitler had agreed the day before to guarantee the new state’s independence (as it were). Without Slovakia, there was obviously no more Czecho-Slovak Republic, so events happened quickly: by March 15, German armored cars were in the streets of Prague. On that same day, the Ruthenians declared their independence, only to see Hungarian troops invading the country, with the tacit approval of Warsaw. (Ibid)

Perhaps the US, and Britain, should have gone to war, like Lincoln in 1861, and Serbia in 1992, to keep the country together? In the view of the neocons, yes: this would have 'stopped' Hitler. But Mosier injects a note of realism:

Although it soon became established in the West that Hitler had orchestrated all these events, the motivating tensions predated Hitler’s rise to power by decades. Considered from the point of view of diplomatic history after 1918, Hitler’s decision was harmless. The Slovaks had always (post–1918) wanted their own country, they were as entitled to one as anyone else, and Germany had every right to guarantee its existence and to insist that Hungary and Slovakia settle their differences peacefully. Hitler would insist on the same thing with Hungary and Romania, embellishing his credentials as a man who had unified Germany peacefully and had reversed the injustices of the Versailles and Trianon treaties without a shot being fired. From the point of view of the Germans, the Poles, the Slovakians, most Hungarians—and some Ruthenians—this was a perfectly logical development, and one probably viewed favorably (in private at least) by a good many foreign ministries in the West as well. For the French and the British public at large, however, the dismemberment of the Czecho-Slovakian Republic was the last straw. Again the complexities of Central European ethnicity were, for most people, not merely abstractions; they were daunting abstractions of the sort that only the professional diplomats of the previous century understood. The disappearance of an entire country, though, was concrete enough. It was rendered all the more so by the defiant “come and get us” speeches that Hitler had been making through the fall of 1938. (Ibid)

Germany, then, prevented war by acting as it did -  a war which Roosevelt and Churchill so dearly wanted.

The neoconservatives will counter this by pointing out that the Czechs lost any independence and self-determination as a result of the Slovaks getting theirs - (what later became) the Czech Republic was annexed to Germany and became Bohemia and Moravia. I agree in principle that's a bad thing when a country loses its independence and ceases to exist. But then I remember another the fate of another country - Palestine - which disappeared in 1948: what happened to it?

We know the answer: in 1948, Jews took over most of Palestine and forced the original inhabitants - who had been there for far longer than these newly-arrived Jewish 'settlers' from Europe - to leave; at the same time, they attacked Palestine's neighbours with a numerically superior army. They won, and literally overnight, Palestine became Israel. All traces of the original Palestinian nation were wiped out; the nation was replaced with a new, synthetic, Hebrew-speaking one.

Now, in 2016, the neocons - and Israel - are outraged with Obama's abstention on the UN resolution on settlements: they find the notion that Israel should be censured for taking whatever scraps of land that the Palestinians have left deplorable. When it comes to the Palestinians - and the ethnic minorities who lived in Czechoslovakia in the 1930s and who were oppressed by the Czechs - all the neoconservative principles of liberalism, freedom, fairness, decency, 'moral clarity' and the rest go out the window.

It's here that the anti-Semites step in and accuse neoconservatism of being a Jewish thing; the only real principle the neoconservatives by is, 'Is it good for the Jews?'. The neocons oppose National Socialist Germany because of its anti-Semitism; likewise, they support the state of Israel, and the dismemberment of Palestine, because they believe in old Talmudic prophecies to the effect that the founding of the Jewish state shall lead to the return of the Moschiah (the messiah) and the dominion of the Jews over all life on Earth...

The destruction of Palestine in 1948, and the ethnic cleansing of the Germans by the Czechs from Sudetenland from 1945 to 1948, happened a long time ago. It's the 21st century, and I'm prepared to let them go. But the neocons - and Jewish intellectuals in general - keep on bringing the past up again and again; worse, their ethnic self-interest, which can be barely restrain itself for a moment, keeps on appearing again and again, and inserting itself into the discourse.

Some of my nationalist friends believe that we shouldn't talk about the war; nor should we talk about Jewishness. I see their point: we shouldn't live in the past, and we shouldn't be taking up the worldview of the obsessive anti-Semites David Duke and Kevin MacDonald either. But what happens when the neocons and the Israel lobby - two extremely politically powerful groups - won't shut up about the two topics of the Hitler era and the State of Israel? When they have bent the most powerful man in the world - Donald Trump - to their will?

It's almost as though we can't escape the Jewish question. Perhaps Hitler's doctrines represent inescapable truths - even in this day and age.

Could the British Labour Party have been saved from Corbyn? An anti-communist strategy

In my previous post, I gave a grossly simplified picture of how communists operate. I said that the main objective of the communists in Hitler's time was to win over the working classes, who, in communist theory, were the most revolutionary of all the classes and were amongst those who suffered the most from the inequities of capitalism. The impression I gave - and the impression Hitler gives in Mein Kampf - is that the communists spent a lot of time exhorting, persuading and haranguing the working classes in mass meetings in the street or in smoky taverns and the like. The truth is, however, that they don't now go about it this way, and haven't done so for a while.

Perhaps one of the reasons why they don't manoeuvre in this manner is because they know, were they to put their ideas plainly and frankly to the working class, that they'd lose - almost every time. Just imagine a debate between a communist speaker and a nationalist in an auditorium filled to the brim with the type of Aussie 'bogans' - working class types - who attend Patriot / Reclaim Australia rallies. The communist would inveigh against the evils of capitalism, and attempt to win the working lads and women over to communism; the nationalist, on the other hand, would sell Far Right nationalism, perhaps even some variant of neofascism or white nationalism. It would be an interesting sight, watching the communist straining his rhetorical muscles and using all his intellectual power to win over converts to Trotskyism or Maoism or Stalinism or whatnot; but we can say in advance that he'd lose. Hitler once said that the German workers truly want socialism, just not socialism of the international - i.e., Soviet - type. The same could be said of Australian workers...

Communists then, knowing this, are inclined to try a different tack and go about their job in a more roundabout way. In his classic work, The Organizational Weapon: A Study of Bolshevik Strategy and Tactics (1952), Philip Selznick writes:

[The communist] use of “unity” tactics and of peripheral organizations is based on the assumption that leaders of mass organizations [i.e., the British Labour Party] and those who mold public opinion [i.e., intellectuals] are susceptible to manipulation. Through such activity, oriented to elites, the communists seek to gain access to the major sources of power in the society. In general, the direct relation of the communists to the masses comes only after considerable preparatory work among the “natural” leaders of workers, farmers, and middle-class groups. (Chapter 8, 'Problems of Counter-Offence')

In the Bolshevism of the early days - Lenin's times - communists were to look at such 'petit bourgeois' 'elites' as enemies; now they are to look them as potential friends:

Such intervening elites, standing between the communists and the masses, have always been regarded as the “main enemy” in bolshevik political strategy. Although this basic perspective has not changed, latter-day communism has adopted amore flexible and sophisticated approach to the “petty-bourgeois” leaders and publicists. Lenin stressed the need for a frontal attack upon these elites to isolate them from the masses. In this, however, he displayed too much faith in the potentialities of open communist agitation; his successors have relied more on deception, using the techniques he himself developed. This has required an attempt to gauge the differential vulnerability and potential utility of elite members for the movement, instead of writing them off as simple collaborators and defenders of the “class enemy.” (Ibid)

That's how, as I've written before, the British communist movement gained almost complete control of the British Labour Party: instead of appealing to the working class Britons who would ordinarily vote for Labour, they went straight to the political institution which (supposedly) represents those workers and took it over. In Selznick's book, the communist appears, not as an orator who stands on top of tables in smoky taverns, haranguing the workers (the image Hitler used in Mein Kampf) but as a giant, amorphous organism - a blob - which extends itself and probes every nook and cranny in an institution, every interstice, with the intent of exerting control.

British communists are not satisfied with installing the aged Marxist Jeremy Corbyn as leader: some holdouts - liberal socialist types - still exist in the party, which must, in the communist view, be turned into a 'party of the new type', i.e., a communist party, or to use communist weasel-words, one more responsive to the British people's need for 'social justice' and one that encourages 'participatory democracy'. To this end, communists set up a front group - a support group for Corbyn, called Momentum - as a means of giving communists an entry point into the party.

You'd think - given the irrelevance and powerlessness of the non-communist section of the Labour Party (which failed to oust Corbyn as leader) - that it would be all smooth sailing for the communists. Unfortunately, British communism doesn't consist of one 'vanguard' party - the monolithic Communist Party of Great Britain performed that function in the old days of the Soviet Union - but dozens. All sorts of sects and microparties have, since Corbyn and Momentum, emerged from the woodwork, and each of them wants their piece of the pie. We are now treated to the unedifying spectacle of several parties and groups - including AWL (Alliance for Worker's Liberty), Left Unity, Worker's Power, the Independent Socialist Network, the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee) and a host of others  - battling for power. This has been taking place not only in meeting halls but on Facebook and Twitter. They are fighting each other - and, incidentally, the hapless, naive non-communist liberals who wandered into Momentum thinking that its objective was to further the welfare of their communities.

The whole affair reminds me of a wrestling match, and it's one I enjoy hugely. Amusingly enough, some communist groups are so despised by the others that they seem to have been barred from participating in Momentum: these include the large and powerful, and obnoxious, Trotskyite sect the Socialist Worker's Party (SWP) and the Socialist Party of England and Wales (SPEW), which is descended from the Militant Tendency, which, as you may know, heavily infiltrated the British Labour Party in the eighties before being expelled.

Above the fray floats Corbyn, serene and untouched, a man who has been a member of the Labour Party for thirty years and a lifelong communist and admirer of the Soviet Union; Corbyn never made the mistake of commiting himself to a particular communist sect or party - he remained a 'lone wolf' communist his entire life. His non-sectarianism, and his deep cover entryism, are now paying off.

In an interesting article, the Jewish journalist Nick Cohen makes much of the ideological differences between the various actors struggling for power within the Labour Party:

To understand the collapse of the Labour party just at the moment we needed it most, you must understand the history of the far left. Stalinist communists used to hate and murder Trotskyists. By contrast, at least some Trotskyists could give the impression that they were against mass murder in the name of the revolution. These differences are less pronounced than they once were. But it is a measure of the morally and politically disastrous position Labour is in that these old battles, once of interest only to left-wing historians, have contemporary force.

Corbyn and much of the trade union leadership are the Stalinists’ fellow travellers. Corbyn wrote regularly for the communist daily the Morning Star, and still praises it today. His chief spin doctor Seumas Milne regrets the fall of the Soviet Union. The ‘Stop the War’ coalition Corbyn chaired has replaced support for the Soviet Union with support for Putin, as indeed has Milne. John Rees, Stop the War’s national officer, says that he is against ‘regime change’ in Syria. For good measure, the ‘anti-imperialist’ backed Russia’s annexation of Crimea, describing it as the ‘Russian state defending its interests’.

Most pertinent for our story is Andrew Murray, of the Communist Party of Britain, who was once parliamentary lobby correspondent for the Soviet state-owned Novosti news agency. He is now Len McCluskey’s chief of staff at Unite, and yet another Stop the War apparatchik. As luck would have it, he is also the father of that apparent enemy of the ‘hard left’ Laura Murray. No less a figure than Jeremy Corbyn hired her as a Labour party adviser.

The Alliance for Workers Liberty is, by contrast, resolutely anti-Stalinist. Its origins lie in Trotskyism. Shachtmanite Trotskyism if you want to be picky about it, named after Max Shactman, a mercurial American activist, who could at least see Stalin’s terror for what it was, and eventually gave up on Marxism. I will say this for the AWL, amid its totalitarian theory and regimented thinking, it has a record of honourable opposition to modern dictatorships, and has not joined the rest of the far left in supporting any secular or clerical variant of fascism as long as it is anti-Western. Naturally, the heirs to the Stalinists of the 20th century hate it.

Go through the article by the supposedly innocent Laura Murray and you see the ghouls of the past, shaking off the graveyard soil, and stalking the present. She objects to the ‘extreme Trotskyist politics’ of the AWL, in language that a Stalinist from the 1930s would instantly recognise. The supposed moderate damns them for their ‘uncritical support for Israel’ – by which she means that it does not want to abolish the ‘Zionist entity’ and drive the Jews into exile – and its ‘fanatical support for the European Union’ – by which she means that the AWL doesn’t see the EU as a capitalist club, as any supporter of Corbyn must.

Fascinating stuff, and this relates back to my earlier article on left-wing anti-Semitism. But Selznick - also a Jew - would regard these doctrinal differences as by and large irrelevant. He believed that once you let any Leninist - philo-Semitic or anti-Semitic or Semitic-neutral - into your organisation, your goose was cooked.

In his chapter, 'Problems of Counter-Offence', Selznick offers a comprehensive and subtle strategy for beating back communist infiltrators in academia, trade unions, political parties and other institutions which are frequently targeted by communists for penetration. In my view, the non-communist elements of the Labour Party should follow Selznick's recommendations; they could end up de-Marxifying the party and making themselves electable again.

Now, you may ask, is the British Labour Party worth saving? British nationalists would answer 'No'. They despise the Labour government of 1997-2010 for bringing millions of non-white immigrants - Indians, Chinese, Africans, Muslims - into the country. The men and women running the government at the time - Blair, Mandelson, Brown, Harman - were not, so far as I can ascertain, card-carrying communists; they were liberal socialists who hated the British working class and wanted to replace them. It's these 'Blairites' who now form the nucleus of the anti-Corbyn opposition within the party. What British nationalist would want to see them succeed?

The Corbyn and Momentum saga is important because it gives us a real-life political case study which serves to illustrate how communism works; Selznick's theses have been validated by it. And Selznick's observations pertain to, I think, nationalism. We on the Far Right are now being subject to manipulation by forces outside of us. Selznick defines the organisational weapon in his 'Introduction':

We shall speak of organizations and organizational practices as weapons when they are used by a power-seeking elite in a manner unrestrained by the constitutional order of the arena within which the contest takes place. In this usage, “weapon” is not meant to denote any political tool, but one torn from its normal context and unacceptable to the community as a legitimate mode of action. Thus the partisan practices used in an election campaign—insofar as they adhere to the written and unwritten rules of the contest—are not weapons in this sense. On the other hand, when members who join an organization in apparent good faith are in fact the agents of an outside elite, then routine affiliation becomes infiltration.

Organizational weapons exploit a source of power that is latent in every group enterprise. This is the capacity of almost any routine activity to be manipulated for personal or political advantage.

Selznick goes on to give some concrete descriptions of how an organisational weapon may be put to use. The essential thing is that it applies to us: Little Vladimir Putin, and the Kremlin, have put together an organisational weapon to subvert, manipulate, infiltrate nationalists and Far Right organisations such the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), Greece's Golden Dawn, France's Front National, Italy's Forza Nuova and others. Putin has done this not only to the Far Right but to the Far Left as well - and also to tendencies in between (such as libertarianism).

Preliminary Reflections on National Socialism and Class Struggle

Thought clichés abound on the nationalist scene. I frequently come across one that purports to be an explanation of German National Socialism: German National Socialism exists in the national sphere, Marxist-Leninism in the international - that's how you tell the two apart, one socialism is national, the other, international.

My opinion is that this definition sounds too pat, too easy. After all, we could sum up the views of Ho Chi Minh, Nicholae Ceaucescu, Mao Tse-Tung or even Fidel Castro as being national socialist, national communist; but these men can't be characterized as fascist, let alone Nazi.

A connection does exist between Marxist-Leninism and fascism, and someone experienced with the writings of both will see correlations between Marx's ideas and Hitler's. We can find, in the latter, plenty of Marxist themes: do a control-f search of Mein Kampf, see how many times you can find the words 'class', 'bourgeoisie', 'proletariat', 'labour', 'dignity of labour', 'capitalist', read the passages so as to understand the context in which Hitler is using those words, and you'll discover the hidden Hitler - the Marxist Hitler, the socialist Hitler - who is neglected by so many today who claim to be 'National Socialist'.

It's this underlying socialism that gives Hitler's speeches and writings their peculiar flavour, which is why I always advise students of National Socialism wanting to get a better understanding of the creed to read up on Marxism. Some of the primers and study guides on Marx's Kapital make a good starting point.

Hitler seems to mention Kapital only once in his writings, and there it is only to make one of his favourite points: that any agitator is best advised to pitch his propaganda at the masses, not at the intellectuals. In Chapter VI, 'The First Period of Our Struggle', he writes:

What gave Marxism its amazing influence over the broad masses was not that formal printed work which sets forth the Jewish system of ideas, but the tremendous oral propaganda carried on for years among the masses. Out of one hundred thousand German workers scarcely one hundred know of Marx’s book. It has been studied much more in intellectual circles and especially by the Jews than by the genuine followers of the movement who come from the lower classes. That work was not written for the masses, but exclusively for the intellectual leaders of the Jewish machine for conquering the world. The engine was heated with quite different stuff: namely, the journalistic Press. What differentiates the bourgeois Press from the Marxist Press is that the latter is written by agitators, whereas the bourgeois Press would like to carry on agitation by means of professional writers. The Social-Democrat sub-editor, who almost always came directly from the meeting to the editorial offices of his paper, felt his job on his finger-tips. But the bourgeois writer who left his desk to appear before the masses already felt ill when he smelled the very odour of the crowd and found that what he had written was useless to him.

What he says here regarding Kapital is true even today. Barely any communists have read the book, and even then, most of the time they've only read the first volume, which has become famous as a Victorian-era social tract condemning the Dickensian conditions the British working class lived in at the time. A few articles appear here and there on the topic of Marxist economics do appear in communist journals, but overall, your average bull-dyke member of Socialist Alternative hasn't read the book, doesn't know about the ideas and doesn't want to. This is because Kapital in actual fact doesn't possess much in the way of political value; the Marxist-Leninists - as opposed to the Marxists - were interested in mobilising as large a mass of people as possible, not in engaging in hair-splitting discussions of variable and constant capital, the average rate of profit, Ricardo's theory of rent, etc. And it's here that Hitler's and the Marxist-Leninist's objectives coincided. Both of them were engaged in a political struggle for the hearts and minds of the German working class, for the soul of the German worker.

Technically speaking, 'working class' in Marxist theory refers to anyone who doesn't own the means of production: even if I work in a white-collar job, I belong to the working class, as I earn a salary; even my manager, who earns a six-figure salary (or close to it) could be said to be working class.

But common usage takes 'working class' to refer to blue-collar labour, menial labour, labour which relies more on (in Wanniskian parlance) physical capital rather than intellectual capital. Hitler sometimes elides the difference between physical and mental labour - between the worker of the 'hand' and the 'brain' - but generally follows common usage in speaking of the working class as being blue-collar and menial.

Communism in the 1920s and 1930s - to judge by Hitler's writings - certainly had a large working class (in the above sense) following; Hitler describes vast legions of working class men (and they are invariably men) marching under the red banner. (In my mind's eye, I always picture them as sturdy men wearing cloth caps and overalls, and carrying sledgehammers on their shoulders).

How things have changed in what has been nearly a hundred years. Today's communists can't attract the working classes to save their lives. The communist party today serves as a refuge for the freakish, marginalised people of society who possess a university education. And today's Left despises the working class, especially the white working class, which perceives this hatred, on a subliminal level at least, and reacts to it by voting for Trump or for some other right-wing populist. (Remember that line from Trump's speech in Michigan the night before the election: 'Tomorrow the American working class strikes back!'). The communist would like to steer those white working class voters towards communism, of course, and away from all that 'racism, sexism, Islamophobia, populism, nationalism', but he can't stomach them long enough for the time it takes to do so. He prefers the company of non-whites - Muslims, Afro-Americans, Hispanics - who he believes can be more easily manipulated into the overthrow of capitalism and the installation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc.

Being of a genteel disposition myself, I understand some of this distaste. Hitler did too. He writes in Mein Kampf of how proletarianisation tends to degrade the morals of the working class; he speaks of the many working class people - perhaps today we would call them chavs, or bogans -  he had encountered who, in his view, possessed low moral character. This mirrors my own experience. I've found that a thin line can separate the proletariat from the lumpenproletariat.

Textbook Marxist theory teaches that this class, more than any other, possesses 'revolutionary' potential, and that it suffers more than any other from the poverty, immiseration, etc., that capitalism brings. I find both of these assertions dubious. But every communist and anarchist agitator rediscovers these truths again and again: that the Marxist theory of the 'revolutionary potential' of the working class falls down in reality; that the working classes are not discontented with their lot, at least, not enough to embrace 'revolutionary socialism' - perhaps they were a hundred years ago (around the time when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf) but not today.

On the other hand, enough American working class voters felt discontented enough to vote for Trump. One could blame that discontent on the shortcomings of the capitalist system. Even the enormous levels of non-white immigration into America could be blamed on that same system, because Marx's Kapital tells us that capitalists will always favour a large and growing population of workers because of a need to extract as much 'surplus value' as possible. (I myself find that explanation too simple, however, and many on the Far Right wouldn't like it. They would prefer to indict, not capitalism, but Judaism, or Freemasonry, or Cultural Marxism, or the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan...).

To sum up, then, agitators for 'revolutionary socialism' find themselves in a quandary: they can either stick to the traditional Marxist-Leninist model, and aim at winning over as many of the working classes as possible; or they can adopt an anti-capitalism and 'socialism' which seeks to enrol both menial and mental, blue-collar and white-collar labour - this Marxism would depart from Marxist-Leninism but would be closer to what Marx intended.

Those who seek to revive Hitler's approach are faced with the exact same dilemma: either take up a new, weird anti-capitalist doctrine which would lead goodness knows where, or stick with the original National Socialism, which was grounded on blue-collar, menial labour.

The latter course of action - sticking with the original - should be favoured over the former. This is because any diverging away from what has become the traditional and conservative in Far Right nationalism makes our job too difficult for us: weird deviations such as National-Anarchism prove to be a much harder sell than plain old White Nationalism / Neo-Nazism. Besides which, the working classes flock to nationalism these days, as shown by the recent elections in America and Austria (the Far Right populist Freedom Party is now the party of choice of the Austrian working class).

Out of all the Far Right and nationalistic tendencies in Australia, only the Patriot / Reclaim Australia movement has managed to attract wide and spontaneous working class support. (I will qualify this by noting that the Patriot movement hasn't run in an election and so doesn't receive working class votes - these in all probability go to One Nation, Australian Liberty Alliance and other populist formations). Nationalists including myself have made many criticisms of the Patriot movement, criticisms which I won't repeat here. But all the same, the Patriot movement resembles the communist and fascist movements of old in some respects, which is one of the reasons why it made the Left hysterical - the Left detected the resemblances between the organisation and practices of the Patriots and the NSDAP.

The upshot of this is: if you're an Australian Neo-Nazi, and want to put the doctrines of Mein Kampf into practice, you could do worse than the Patriot movement. In fact, out of all the political groupings and tendencies in Australia, only the Patriot movement is reminiscent of the 'socialist' movements - national or international - of a hundred years ago. A real Nazi, or a real commie, starts off with a working class base.

A Christmas Gift from the Commies: Racist Anti-Semitism on the 'Left'

The phenomenon of left-wing anti-Semitism raises a few interesting questions. Number one, how real is it? We know that Jews habitually exaggerate anti-Semitism; they are often prone, for example, to conflating criticisms of Israel with anti-Semitism, even Nazism. Only today Jewish actress Roseanne Barr compared Obama to the Nazis because of the abstention on the UN anti-settlement vote.

Ah, Roseanne, if only that were true!

Question number two: who's behind it? You could be forgiven for thinking that the left-wing anti-Semites are white -  and that the Far Left has been infiltrated by the Far Right, and by Jew-baiters of the Julius Streicher type. But the racial and ethnic composition of the Left has changed since twenty years ago, especially in America and the UK. Muslims and other non-whites now predominate, and we know that anti-Semitism is acceptable in the Muslim world, and that blacks - especially Afro-Americans - are partial to it as well.

Which brings me to the blog of Andrew Coates, a left-winger from Britain. I'm not sure whether he's Jewish or not, but he certainly doesn't like left-wing anti-Semitism. He found this splendid image on a British Labour Party supporter Facebook group and it was not to his liking:

It was posted by a Muslim, Abdul Mansur.

An Ian Leask added:

From his Facebook profile, we can determine Leask is a Briton - not a Muslim.

Doesn't Leask sound like Oswald Mosley? Arnold Leese? The British fascism of the 1920s and 1930s originated on the Left - I don't care what the likes of Coates say - and perhaps a new fascism in Britain will emerge, organically, from today's British Left. One can only hope.

But we should be cautious. The British Left at present is divided up into two: on one side, the George Galloways, Tariq Alis, Seamus Milnes and all the rest of the neo-Stalinist, Assadist, Putinista and Islam-sympathising gang; on the other, the likes of Andrew Coates - men who won't countenance the Assads, Ghaddafis, Putins and other dictators and who shouldn't, unlike the first group, be viewed as agents of influence for the Iranian, Russian and Syrian Arab Republic states. As you may have guessed, the anti-Semites of the British Left belong to the first faction - unfortunately. Any Red-Brown alliance between anti-Semites of the Left and Right, then, is doomed to fail, because both the Far Right and Far Left members of such an alliance would only end up serving the interests of a Russia or China or Syria or Iran; they would not be agitating for a truly independent Europe outside of American and Russian influence - the Europe Yockey and other post-war fascist theorists wanted.

The liberal Far Left faction - the Coates faction - haven't thought things through. They don't understand that, when you renounce politics, you become the victim of someone else's politics. Those who in the 19th century anarchist and liberal tradition relinquish the state will end up being captured by a state. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.

In addition, politics entails (what 19th century idealists) regard as nasty things: taxes, conscription, secret police, executions - and war. Certain schools of socialism once preached that these would disappear once capitalism was abolished and true socialism achieved. Marx and Engels prophesied that, after the advent of true communism, the state would 'wither away'. But the heirs of Marx and Engels - Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro - proved to be the most warlike, brutal and oppressive of men. But they got to where they were, not through any 'revolution', but through force of arms, and once having seized power, they were prepared to fight - and kill - so as to keep that power.

The liberal Marxists of the Coates school would find my understanding of politics abhorrent - and fair enough. But it puts them in an interesting position. The likes of Putin, Ghaddafi, Assad can only be beaten, as a last resort, through the application of military force. But the only state actor which would use that force against them is - the United States. The liberal Marxists, then, must end up in bed with the liberal interventionists, the neoconservatives, the more hawkish of the Republicans and Democrats...

I myself would welcome an armed confrontation between Russia and the United States; I would like Russia to experience a military humiliation similar to the one it suffered at the hands of the Japanese in 1905. That would destabilise the Putin regime, and perhaps a discombobulated Putin would stop his incessant interfering in Western Far Right and nationalist politics. We on the Far Right would get the breathing space we need, to form our own 'Third Camp' which is neither US nor Russian.

The prospects for a recruitment drive for the Far Right from the Far Left look good. It's interesting to note that it's Jewry which has driven the likes of Ian Leask to take up what I would characterise as a Mosley-esque or Leese-esque position. We on the Far Right always assumed that it would be mass non-white immigration which would make the Far Left see the light; but, as things turn out, it's the Jews...

Donald Trump, American Zio: Should We Do Anything About It?

A few of my anti-Semitic friends in the movement have been disturbed and confused by Trump's Israel First foreign policy, especially by his position on the anti-settlement vote at the UN:

We certainly live in strange times - of weird 'intersectionalities' to borrow a term from the Left. Assad, the 'anti-Zionist', talks - and acts - like the IDF; he is friends with Putin - who is friends with Netanyahu - and wants to be friends with Trump. Meanwhile, some of Trump's most passionate supporters can be found amongst the ranks of the Alt Right and the American white nationalist movement - both of which are anti-Semitic and despise the Jews and Israel. Other Trump supporters on the Far Right can be characterised as anti-Islamic only, and they make a profession out of opposing Islam. Most of these anti-Islamics like Assad, who portrays himself as a noble crusader against 'Islamism' and for 'secularism' - but wait, most of the soldiers doing the fighting and dying for him are 'Islamist' and 'fundamentalist', not to mention sectarian 'Islamists' and 'fundamentalist'. (I've learned from the Syrian war that one must draw a distinction between not only good and bad Muslims, but good and bad Islamists: the Islamists against Assad are bad, and 'Zionist'; the Islamists for him are good, and 'anti-Zionist'). Quite a few on the communist Left support Assad and Putin, but oppose Trump and the anti-Islamics and the populists; the latter group are condemned as 'fascist' and 'racist'. The communist Assadists decry 'Islamophobia' and view calls for 'secularism' in the West - e.g., the call for the banning of veils and hijabs in France - as a disguise for that 'Islamophobia'. At the same time, while virulently polemicising against any sort of 'ethnic profiling' - any sort of targeting of a people because of race, ethnicity, nationality and religious belief - they single out Israel and Jews and of all the nations and races of the world and vehemently denounce their 'Zionism'. It's all very confusing.

As to where I stand... I have identified myself several times - times without number, in fact! - on this blog as an anti-Semite, neofascist, Neo-Nazi,  whatnot; that remains my position to this day. But, to me, 'Neo-Nazism' doesn't mean a resolute opposition to Israel, Zionism, settlements in the West Bank; nor does it entail a firm advocacy of Palestinian rights and Palestinian nationalism. What matters above all is racialism; the main thing that counts is immigration restrictionism in the West. And here Trump will deliver the goods. Trump will build the wall. Trump will cut down - severely - on legal and illegal non-white immigration, and will give other Western nations (such as Germany, the UK, France and Australia) the impetus to do the same. The rights of Palestinians, or the fact that Israel is a nasty, deplorable and irredeemable state - on a par, I will add, with Syria and Iran - don't count for much in this equation.

We whites must look after ourselves. We don't do a good job of it; the Palestinians, on the other hand, do. In fact, they manage to get other people to attend to Palestinian interests too. The Palestinians have UN representation, for example. Supposing that the 'white ethnostate' existed: do you think that this would reap a fraction of the political, economic, diplomatic support that the Palestinians receive? The most likely answer is no. Look at what happened to apartheid-era South Africa, a white ethnostate which was Jew-friendly and even anti-Nazi (it fought for Britain against Germany in the Second World War): by the 1980s it had the entire world ranged against it. So did the American South in the 1950s and 1960s. The Palestinians, being brown, have done all right for themselves, unlike the white Southerners and Afrikaaners: they have respectability. True, they lost most of Palestine in 1948, and the remainder of it in 1967; but they have others fighting for them. We don't.

I bring this up because many nationalists seem to want to wage a jihad against Israel and 'Zionism' out of a desire to protect and further the Palestinian and Arab cause; they don't take up cudgels against international Jewry for the same reasons that Hitler and fascist Europe did in the 1930s and 1940s. Two anti-Semitisms exist, one pre-war, the other post-war. The two are inextricably linked, of course: the Talmud prophesies that the lost State of Israel shall be returned after a 'Holocaust', a 'fiery sacrifice' to the god Yahweh, which shall consume six million Jews, and that's exactly what happened after 1948. Israel would not have been founded without Hitler's gassing and cremation of the six million Jews. But, when all is said and done, the politics of today's anti-Semitism - inside and outside the West - bears little relation to the anti-Semitism of Europe past. Time has moved on since the 1940s and the politics have largely changed. Some of the Jewiest of right-wing publications, such as the Weekly Standard, Commentary and Breitbart (which is commonly miscategorised as 'Alt-Right') these days don't differ much in terms of content from Hunter Wallace, Steve Sailer, American Renaissance and VDare.

A few white nationalists of the George Lincoln Rockwell and William Pierce stripe make today's Jewry out to be the chief purveyors of all the filth, decadence and pornography of the world. The truth is that we non-Jews are now more than capable of coming with our own filth, decadence and pornography: we don't need Jewish help any more in that department, if we ever did. The same goes for race-mixing and non-white immigration.

Left-wing, liberal Jews did lobby to have laws against these things removed in countries such as Australia and America (but not in Israel, naturally); but that took place fifty years ago. White and Western politicians - and journalists, and intellectuals, and economists, and business leaders, and trade unionists - now, in the current year, are the ones responsible for bring hundreds of thousands of non-whites to our shores every year. Australian men don't race-mix with Chinese women because of the urgings of a Shlomo Shekelberg whispering, Wormtongue-like, in their ears... Many nationalists use the spectre of the Jew so that whites can be exonerated of any guilt, relieved of any responsibility. A Rockwell or Pierce would blame the North's desegregation drive in the 1950s and 1960s on the malign influence of 'commie and pinko Jews' on the Republican and Democrat administrations. Certainly, Jews from the North were involved, all right, but desegregation was mostly the doing of the Yankee WASPs. It was the Yankee's hatred of the Southerner, not the Jew's hatred of the goy, which served as the prime mover.

If anything, Jewish power has declined in the past ten years - ever since the catastrophe of the Bush 43 administration and the ascendancy of Obama and the (mainly non-Jewish) Social Justice Warriors. Which is why we hear endless complaining from the Jews about the new anti-Semitism of the 'Left' (really, the anti-Semitism of the Left and the Muslim immigrants); Jews are 'nervous', they feel discomfort, even fear, on campus and at left-wing demonstrations...

At any rate, we nationalists are called on to lend our support to Assad's blowing up and shooting down his fellow Arabs, because Assad is an 'anti-Zionist' and 'anti-Zionism' is good for the Arabs. Likewise, we must oppose Jewish settlements in the West Bank, because the dispossession of the Palestinians is bad for the Arabs. I don't understand how the interests of the white peoples of the world are affected in either case.