Stalin's Revenge: Trump, Weimar and the American Revolution of 2020

I. 

America at present finds itself caught in the throes of a communist revolution. Many conservative commentators have noted that the upheaval bears a resemblance to the Cultural Revolution in China, which is true enough, but comparisons should also be made to the communist revolutions in Germany in the period 1918-1923 and Hungary in 1919. In particular, the establishment of a Soviet (the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, or CHAZ) in the middle of Seattle recalls the establishment of the Soviet Republic in Bavaria. 

While the recent upsurge may be a fleeting phenomenon - Kurt Eisner's Soviet did not last long, and neither will Raz Simone's - what is important is that nothing like CHAZ has ever been attempted on American soil. America today is looking more and more like the Central Europe of a hundred years ago. And that has led me to pick up and re-read a classic anti-communist work from that time, one which is written by a Central European - Hitler's Mein Kampf. It contains a great many insights which are pertinent to America's travails (and the Anglosphere's, as Australia and England are following the same path as America). 'Woke' capital, the defection of conservatives to the Left, bullying by 'SJWs' - it is all anticipated by Mein Kampf. 

Peter Brimelow once wrote a famous article, 'America's Immigration Policy - Hitler's Revenge?'; I think that the events in America today are a case of Stalin's revenge. In the early 1990s, Soviet communism collapsed, and with it, American communism. The left-wing activist Max Elbaum describes in his Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Mao, Lenin and Che (2002) the meltdown of the non-CPUSA and non-Trotskyite communist groups  in 1989: in that year, the pro-Russian communists were dealt a deathblow by the anti-communist revolts in Eastern and Central Europe, and the pro-China communists by the bad publicity after the Tiananmen Square massacre. After 1989, communists such as Elbaum tried their hand at a non-Leninist leftism before giving up, and by the 1990s, most of the hardened Marxist-Leninist cadre disappeared into obscurity. The consequence was that we enjoyed, in the 1990s, the first decade in over a hundred years which was free of communism (in that respect, the 1990s seem like a golden era). Leninism had in that decade suffered an ignoble fate and one which for it was worse than death: it became the subject of postmodern humour and irony - see, for example, the famous Seinfeld episode 'The Race' (1994). But after Obama's election and Occupy Wall Street, Marxism staged a remarkable comeback, with the results we all know. And the reason for the communist revival is not hard to discern. As Ann Coulter argues, it is immigration - massive, non-white immigration - which is to blame: if you import Third World people, you import Third World Marxism. This has what has tipped Western nations to the Left. In the Anglosphere, the two foremost Center-Left parties - the US Democratic Party, the British Labour Party - have been transformed into communist parties in all but name (and Center-Left parties elsewhere in the West (e.g., Australia, France, Germany, Sweden) have followed their example). But communists understand that parliaments and elections will only get you so far, and they feel that they cannot rely upon a 'bourgeois' figure such as a President Biden to deliver the goods; hence, they are resorting to time-honoured Leninist methods - intimidation, riots, violence... The use of these has shattered American society, and the communists will not let up in their offensive, as they believe in the long term their tactics will pay off. The riots may peter out, the Seattle Soviet may dissolve - this time. But what happens next time? And when will be 'next time'? A stormy decade lies ahead. And Stalin may have the last laugh. 

Here I am throwing around the words 'Marxist', 'Bolshevik', 'Leninist', 'communist' liberally, and this raises the question of definition. We can sum up Marxism in bullet points - e.g., Marxism is a political concept that encompasses theories of class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat, historical materialism and so forth; we can also connect it to the actual political regimes in Moscow and Beijing, and the franchisee parties that these regimes ran all around the world; but we must acknowledge, in the last analysis, that Marxism cannot be defined by mere reference to Soviet politics fifty years ago or textbooks on dialectical materialism. Marxism surpasses history and theory. Marxism exists beneath the surface of society, it then bubbles, it erupts; it is a primal force, an underground force and a spiritual force; it is what Evola would call daemonic. As Hitler says in Mein Kampf: 

International Marxism is nothing but the application - effected by the Jew, Karl Marx - of a general conception of life to a definite profession of political faith; but in reality that general concept had existed long before the time of Karl Marx. If it had not already existed as a widely diffused infection the amazing political progress of the Marxist teaching would never have been possible. In reality what distinguished Karl Marx from the millions who were affected in the same way was that, in a world already in a state of gradual decomposition, he used his keen powers of prognosis to detect the essential poisons, so as to extract them and concentrate them, with the art of a necromancer, in a solution which would bring about the rapid destruction of the independent nations on the globe. 

Few of the Black Lives Matters protesters, rioters, looters and arsonists have read Marx's Kapital or Engels' Anti-Dühring. The same can be said of the statue and monument defacers and destroyers; the corporations who have donated large sums of money to 'anti-racist' causes and who are promoting Black Lives Matters propaganda; the Social Justice Warriors who are banning movies and TV shows and are getting people fired... What counts is the underlying feeling. Modern Leftism can only be understood if we look at as a species of animus directed against a particular ethnic group. Leftism champions socialism, but hates the white working-class, which it regards as the most reactionary and 'racist' of all the social strata; it champions feminism, but hates white women, the 'Karens' and the 'Beckys'; it champions anti-racism, but hates the culture, institutions, history, habits, social mores of a particular race - the white race. 

How can Leftism, and its offshoot Marxism, be defeated? My advice is that we on the Right could do worse than following the precepts of Mein Kampf - a textbook written by one of the 20th century's foremost practitioners of anti-communism. It is true that one in the 1990s and 2000s could reasonably view Mein Kampf as rather dated and anti-communism as a relic of the Cold War; but old ideas have a way of coming back into fashion, as recent events have shown. 

The trouble is that many on the Right - the Far Right and Center - are perfectly aware of the communist problem, but are not casting about for an anti-communist solution, and certainly not the one proffered by Hitler. The Americans on the Right are clinging to the American tradition of democracy (and for the purposes of this essay I define democracy as a fair and even contest between two or more competing parties). 

The American system has survived for hundreds of years, and will continue to survive for hundreds more - if it is left alone. Hitler, in chapter three of Mein Kampf, 'Political reflections arising out of my sojourn in Vienna', runs through the structural defects of democracy and the parliamentary system, and these defects of democracy can be classified as endogenous, that is, internal to the system. The hide-bound devotee of democracy will remain impervious to such criticisms, as these by themselves do not demonstrate that the system is heading towards collapse. But later in 'Political reflections', Hitler plays his trump card. He asks: what if a political force which is exogenous, i.e., outside the system, intervenes? What if a stranger to democracy enters into it and no longer wants to play by its rules? Then democracy collapses. American democracy will meet this fate, unless communism relinquishes its hold on the Democratic Party, the press, Hollywood, academia, the 'woke' corporations, indeed, the public consciousness itself. But that seems unlikely. Trump may win the next election, but communism will not keel over and die; if anything, it will redouble its efforts.

II. 

I will return to this subject - the death of democracy, as postulated by Mein Kampf - later. For the moment, I want to reproduce some passages which I feel have become extremely pertinent. 

The first of these concerns the subject of bullying, in particular, bullying by the liberals and leftists in the official media; this passage applies, in 2020, also to bullying by Social Justice Warriors on social media: 

Within less than two years I had gained a clear understanding of Social Democracy, in its teaching and the technique of its operations. 

I recognized the infamy of that technique whereby the movement carried on a campaign of mental terrorism against the bourgeoisie, who are neither morally nor spiritually equipped to withstand such attacks. The tactics of Social Democracy consisted in opening, at a given signal, a veritable drum-fire of lies and calumnies against the man whom they believed to be the most redoubtable of their adversaries, until the nerves of the latter gave way and they sacrificed the man who was attacked, simply in the hope of being allowed to live in peace. But the hope proved always to be a foolish one, for they were never left in peace. 

The same tactics are repeated again and again, until fear of these mad dogs exercises, through suggestion, a paralysing effect on their victims. 

Through its own experience Social Democracy learned the value of strength, and for that reason it attacks mostly those in whom it scents stuff of the more stalwart kind [Donald Trump?], which is indeed a very rare possession. On the other hand it praises every weakling among its adversaries [Mitt Romney?], more or less cautiously, according to the measure of his mental qualities known or presumed. They have less fear of a man of genius who lacks will-power than of a vigorous character with mediocre intelligence and at the same time they highly commend those who are devoid of intelligence and will-power. 

Here are some passages on the alliance between the finance-capitalists and the communists - an alliance which, until recently, would have seemed to we moderns something paradoxical. It is only now, with the onset of 'woke' capital, that we understand some of what Hitler is talking about (for a list of corporations that support the Black Lives Matter, antifa and communist riots, see here). 

What other country in the world possessed a better-organized and administered business enterprise than the German State Railways, for instance? It was left to the Revolution to destroy this standard organization, until a time came when it was taken out of the hands of the nation and socialized, in the sense which the founders of the Republic had given to that word, namely, making it subservient to the international stock-exchange capitalists, who were the wire-pullers of the German Revolution... 

Without knowing it, the [communist] worker is placing himself at the service of the very power against which he believes he is fighting. Apparently he is made to fight against capital and thus he is all the more easily brought to fight for capitalist interests. Outcries are systematically raised against international capital but in reality it is against the structure of national economics that these slogans are directed. The idea is to demolish this structure and on its ruins triumphantly erect the structure of the International Stock Exchange... 

The internationalization of our German economic system, that is to say, the transference of our productive forces to the control of Jewish international finance, can be completely carried out only in a State that has been politically Bolshevized. But the Marxist fighting forces, commanded by international and Jewish stock-exchange capital, cannot finally smash the national resistance in Germany without friendly help from outside. For this purpose French armies would first have to invade and overcome the territory of the German Reich until a state of international chaos would set in, and then the country would have to succumb to Bolshevik storm troops in the service of Jewish international finance. 

Finally, here is Mein Kampf on the ineffectual anti-communism of the conservatives: 

At the elections to the Reichstag the growing number of Marxist votes indicated that the internal breakdown and the political collapse were then rapidly approaching. All the victories of the so-called bourgeois parties were fruitless, not only because they could not prevent the numerical increase in the growing mass of Marxist votes, even when the bourgeois parties triumphed at the polls, but mainly because they themselves were already infected with the germs of decay. Though quite unaware of it, the bourgeois world was infected from within with the deadly virus of Marxist ideas. The fact that they sometimes openly resisted was to be explained by the competitive strife among ambitious political leaders, rather than by attributing it to any opposition in principle between adversaries who were determined to fight one another to the bitter end. 

And: 

Thus the Marxist doctrine is the concentrated extract of the mentality which underlies the general concept of life to-day. For this reason alone it is out of the question and even ridiculous to think that what is called our bourgeois world can put up any effective fight against Marxism. For this bourgeois world is permeated with all those same poisons and its conception of life in general differs from Marxism only in degree and in the character of the persons who hold it. The bourgeois world is Marxist but believes in the possibility of a certain group of people - that is to say, the bourgeoisie - being able to dominate the world, while Marxism itself systematically aims at delivering the world into the hands of the Jews. 

III.

Now we come to the passage in which Hitler prophecies the death of democracy. 

On a spiritual training ground of that kind [service in parliament] it is not possible for the bourgeois forces to develop the strength which is necessary to carry on the fight against the organized might of Marxism. Indeed they have never seriously thought of doing so. Though these parliamentary quacks who represent the white race are generally recognized as persons of quite inferior mental capacity, they are shrewd enough to know that they could not seriously entertain the hope of being able to use the weapon of Western Democracy to fight a doctrine for the advance of which Western Democracy, with all its accessories, is employed as a means to an end. 

That is to say, one cannot fight Marxism in the name of democracy. Marxists do not revere democracy, and they treat it as a means, not an end, and a means that is to be discarded at will: 

Democracy is exploited by the Marxists for the purpose of paralysing their opponents and gaining for themselves a free hand to put their own methods into action. When certain groups of Marxists use all their ingenuity for the time being to make it be believed that they are inseparably attached to the principles of democracy, it may be well to recall the fact that when critical occasions arose these same gentlemen snapped their fingers at the principle of decision by majority vote, as that principle is understood by Western Democracy.

The German Revolution of 1918 to 1919 woke the conservatives up like a bucket of cold water: 

Such was the case in those days when the bourgeois parliamentarians, in their monumental shortsightedness, believed that the security of the Reich was guaranteed because it had an overwhelming numerical majority in its favour, and the Marxists did not hesitate suddenly to grasp supreme power in their own hands, backed by a mob of loafers, deserters, political place-hunters and Jewish dilettanti. That was a blow in the face for that democracy in which so many parliamentarians believed. Only those credulous parliamentary wizards [Mitch McConnell?] who represented bourgeois democracy could have believed that the brutal determination of those whose interest it is to spread the Marxist world-pest, of which they are the carriers, could for a moment, now or in the future, be held in check by the magical formulas of Western Parliamentarianism. Marxism will march shoulder to shoulder with democracy until it succeeds indirectly in securing for its own criminal purposes even the support of those whose minds are nationally orientated and whom Marxism strives to exterminate.

What happens when the Marxists lose an election, or if anti-communist legislation is passed? 

But if the Marxists should one day come to believe that there was a danger that from this witch’s cauldron of our parliamentary democracy a majority vote might be concocted, which by reason of its numerical majority would be empowered to enact legislation and might use that power seriously to combat Marxism, then the whole parliamentarian hocus-pocus would be at an end. Instead of appealing to the democratic conscience, the standard bearers of the Red International would immediately send forth a furious rallying-cry among the proletarian masses and the ensuing fight would not take place in the sedate atmosphere of Parliament but in the factories and the streets. Then democracy would be annihilated forthwith. And what the intellectual prowess of the apostles who represented the people in Parliament had failed to accomplish would now be successfully carried out by the crow-bar and the sledge-hammer of the exasperated proletarian masses - just as in the autumn of 1918. At a blow they would awaken the bourgeois world to see the madness of thinking that the Jewish drive towards world-conquest can be effectually opposed by means of Western Democracy. 

Hitler concludes: 

As I have said, only a very credulous soul could think of binding himself to observe the rules of the game when he has to face a player for whom those rules are nothing but a mere bluff or a means of serving his own interests, which means he will discard them when they prove no longer useful for his purpose. 

IV.

The above describes, to a tee, what America has been undergoing since at least the election of Trump. The Far Left, and its sympathisers on the Center Left and Right, have been using unconstitutional means to oust Trump. (When I say 'unconstitutional', I mean the refusal to accept established political rules, customs, traditions; this refusal may not breach the American constitution as written, but it does breach the spirit of the constitution). The Left is forever accusing Trump of breaking the rules, but it is the political actor that is breaking the rules. For example: the Left does not follow one of the underlying principles of democracy, and that is the doctrine of the consent of the loser; the Left does not recognise Trump's win in 2016 as legitimate, and instead of ceding power to its opponent after its having been defeated in a fair contest, it has sought to use its power in the spheres outside the electoral and parliamentary to unseat Trump. 

In theory, political power in a democracy resides in elected officials, but in practice, it is diffused throughout the political organism. It can be found in the Deep State (the police, the secret police, the military, the armed forces, the public sector, education) and also civil society (the trade unions, the chambers of commerce, the churches, the sports bodies, and most importantly of all, the media / entertainment complex). The last of these, the media / entertainment complex, has in 2020 become a virtual political power in itself. It has waged an unrelenting war against Trump from the beginning, and some elements of the Deep State have joined in the campaign. Only recently, certain of America's generals have been praised for their 'defiance' of Trump; both this insubordination and the praise of it are unprecedented in American history, and the conduct of the generals has fueled speculation by the Left that a military coup d'état could push Trump out of office. 

To judge by recent events, the Far Left has completed its long march through the institutions. But it is not only the institutions. The covid lockdown (which has been lauded to the skies by the communist Left) and the Black Lives Matter riots prove that the Left has colonised the American, and Western, public consciousness. How else do we explain the scenes of mass hysteria? The uniformity of slogans in both the covid and 'anti-racist' discourse? America, and the West, is being guided through Yuri Bezmenov's famous four stages of subversion. And it is at this point that democracy breaks down, as voting, and the will of the majority, now count for little. (As Hitler writes in the Vienna chapter in Mein Kampf, 'At first I was quite surprised when I realized how little time was necessary for this dangerous Great Power [the media] within the State to produce a certain belief among the public; and in doing so the genuine will and convictions of the public were often completely misconstrued'). 

On that note, to what extent was George Floyd a creation of the media? But such a phenomenon was not unknown in Hitler's day: 

It took the Press only a few days to transform some ridiculously trivial matter into an issue of national importance, while vital problems were completely ignored or filched and hidden away from public attention. 

The Press succeeded in the magical art of producing names from nowhere within the course of a few weeks. They made it appear that the great hopes of the masses were bound up with those names. And so they made those names more popular than any man of real ability could ever hope to be in a long lifetime. All this was done, despite the fact that such names were utterly unknown and indeed had never been heard of even up to a month before the Press publicly emblazoned them. At the same time old and tried figures in the political and other spheres of life quickly faded from the public memory and were forgotten as if they were dead, though still healthy and in the enjoyment of their full vigor. 

V. 

Hitler wrote Mein Kampf as a salesman: at the time, he was selling a product to the German people, and specifically, the German Far Right. His prescriptions for communism worked in Germany ten years after publication, but, one may object, will not work for America, as substantial differences between America and Germany (and America and Europe) exist. 

But Hitler's analysis of communism, at least, does hold true for America, as 2020 America has traded places with Weimar Germany. 

Americans live under a regimen of democracy, Germans do not. Democracy, in Germany since the war, means the rule of Merkel and the parties (the SPD, the CSU/CDU, the Greens, the Free Democrats), and any parties (such as Alternative for Germany (AfD)) outside this circle are regarded as 'undemocratic' even though they may play by the rules of democracy as conventionally understood. The AfD functions as though all the norms of  democracy - the fair contest, the equal chance, the consent of the loser, etc. - apply in Germany when in fact they do not. In America, in contrast, the norms still apply. But now that American democracy has come under sustained and ferocious attack by the Left, the foundations of the democratic state will be chipped away as they were in Weimar. 

Liberal historians have puzzled over why Weimar fell so easily to Hitler, as easily as a tree which has grown rotten and hollowed out from the inside topples in a storm. The truth is that Weimar democracy had attrited by 1933 and had been damaged irreparably by years of relentless and savage assaults by the Left (after 1928, the communists directed most of their (not inconsiderable) firepower at the Social Democrats (the SPD), a party which was one of the main pillars of Weimar). But in today's historiography, the NSDAP and Hindenberg reap most of the blame - the Far Right, not the Far Left, is said to have bored away at democracy from within and caused its collapse. It is clear, however, from Mein Kampf that the NSDAP would not have succeeded - indeed, it would not even have been formed - if not for the German Revolution of 1918-1919 and the Left's subsequent antics, as Hitler freely admits. 

Ann Coulter in her column reflects that a hundred years ago, Americans did not take to Bolshevism. It is the historical unpopularity of socialism in America, and the continuing survival of American democracy, which has led to complacency among conservative Americans who look to communism on the Continent and say to themselves, 'It can't happen here'. But alas, it can. A President Biden may disappoint the Far Left in much the same way as President Obama did, but one must take the long view: communism moves incrementally, two steps forward, one step back, and America has moved leftward under Obama and even further leftward under Trump to a degree which would have been unthinkable twenty years ago. It is not inconceivable that in years to come America will turn into Cuba or Venezuela. 

I mentioned earlier the prescriptions of Mein Kampf. If we in the Anglosphere were to follow the book literally, we would form a third political party, wear uniforms, hold huge rallies, make demagogic speeches, mobilise a bunch of paramilitary toughs to keep order at party rallies and crack communist skulls... But that would be applying, in a mechanistic fashion, tactics which would not be appropriate for America in 2020 (for one, third parties in America have never worked and never will). The conditions for the efficacious use of such tactics have not been met, the time is not ripe. In contrast, by 1933, democracy in Germany had been eroded; Weimar resembled nothing more than a collapsing glacier. In such a state of affairs, freedom - and chaos - reign. The reason why the NSDAP got away with street violence is because the Far Left got away with it. (On that topic, the Trump supporters at his upcoming rallies may be subjected to violence by the Left (we saw a foretaste of this in the lead-up to the election of 2016). That would violate another of the unwritten rules of democracy, namely, the principle of allowing your opponent's rallies and conventions to proceed without intimidation and violence, and again it is something that would have been unthinkable twenty or even ten years ago).But when cracks and chasms appear, opportunities present themselves. One of the unintended consequences of the recent upheaval is that not only does it represent a breakthrough for the Far Left, it represents a breakthrough for the Far Right. The Left's devices can, and often do, backfire - remember the case of Chile. 

 

 


 

The Metalstorm: Why some nationalists dislike the Nazis

I.

After the eruption of hostilities in Europe in 1914, the English - and the Americans - produced a torrent of literature denouncing German and 'Prussian' cruelty, aggression, rapacity, militarism, authoritarianism, racial self-aggrandizement, Machtpolitik, Kultur, and war crimes (real or imagined); a hundred years later, this torrent shows no signs of abating. But if the English polemicists and the German nationalists - who wrote rebuttals - agreed on one thing, it was that 'Prussianism', 'Prussian militarism', 'Prussian ethical-socialism' (as Spengler called it), defined the essence of the German national character.

To Spengler, each of the five leading nations of the West - England, Germany, France, Spain and Italy - could be summed up a certain Idea, a style, a culture, and it is this that distinguishes one nation from the other. In much the same way, a certain style of each race - in that most racialist and ethnocentric of sci-fi TV shows, Star Trek - helps us to tell one race apart from another, so much so that one would never mistake a Klingon for a Vulcan, a Romulan for a Ferengi. Of course to a Ferengi or Klingon, all kinds of difference - mainly political - exist within the race, but the casual outside observer hardly sees these: he only sees unity and homogeneity. And this uniformity is determined by the style of the race as much as the genetics.

After Germany's defeat in 1918, venerable German institutions - the German Army, the German General Staff, Junkerdom, and the East Prussian state itself - survived; after Germany's defeat in 1945, they were destroyed. Nothing of them remained, not even the 'Prussian Idea' itself. We see here the complete disappearance of a culture, a style. Only ghosts of it linger: we find fleeting images of it in the first three Star Wars movies, in episodes of Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica, in the multitude of computer and board wargames devoted to WWI and WWII. Pertinent to this subject - the prevalence of Nazi and 'Prussian' types in popular culture - is this comment at Steve Sailer's site:

Having Nazi bad guys in situations where Nazism isn’t at all relevant is just the mark of a lazy writer who can’t be bothered to develop good antagonists on their own. Even in situations where they aren’t actual Nazis, the aesthetic provides a convenient visual shorthand.

In Star Wars we would know the empire was evil just by looking at the officers’ uniforms, which were heavily reminiscent of the uniforms worn by Wehrmacht and SS officers during WW2. Additionally, the peaked caps were shaped like those worn by Imperial Japanese military during the war. Add in the patrician affect of Imperial officers(a lot like the aristocratic manner stereotypical of German officers in movies of that period) and you have instant baddies without having them say or do anything evil. Vader’s helmet was specifically designed to be recall the German stahlhelm.

But times of changed. It seems that American filmmakers no longer want to depict dapper fascists. To judge by the listings of upcoming movies at IMDB.Com, Hollywood seems to have slowed down on the production of one of its staples - the anti-German war propaganda movie: I count only one WWII drama slated for release in 2020.

In the world of politics, outside of entertainment and popular culture, the 'Prussian' - with his monocle, riding crop, long boots, dueling scars, smart uniform, and cap set at a jaunty angle - has ceased to exist. His resurrection was predicted by Yockey on the reasoning that while one can kill a man, one cannot kill an idea: one can lop off the top of a tree, but so long as the tree has roots deep in the soil, it will regrow. But 75 years after the end of WWII, this analogy has been shown to incorrect.

The disappearance of 'Prussianism' violates one of the tenets of geopolitics - that nations almost always revert to type. For the past 75 years, Japan has kept its head down and sought to avoid being noticed, and it shies away from all war and all power-politics. But because of the recent Chinese bellicosity in the South China Sea, smaller nations such as the Philippines and Vietnam are looking to Japan as a protector, and as a result, Japan is being forced to accept the mantle of a leading Asian power. One cannot escape one's geopolitical destiny. But for Germany, this law has been suspended. In all the negotiations between the UK and the EU over Brexit, France has taken the lead: the understanding is that France, and not the faceless EU bureaucracy, which gives voice to the sentiments of the EU, and if Boris Johnson or Theresa May want to parley, they must parley with Emmanuel Macron. Germany has been conspicuous by its absence. One would think that Germany was not the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the Continent, and that it had no opinions on what is the most important question for the EU for the 21st century. The British press, performing its traditional role of stoking British resentment against the Germans, continually tries to goad Germany into making provocative statements on Brexit, but Merkel refuses to take the bait.

II.

The Germans will not be taking up Spengler's 'Prussian Socialism' any time soon. But suppose that certain prerequisites were fulfilled for its return, one of the prerequisites being the election to office of a German nationalist party (such as the AfD): what would happen then? I think we all know the answer. England and America, Israel and Russia, would demand that the results be overturned and 'democracy' restored - otherwise, war.

The world will ignore the calls of the 'international community' for sanctions and war only under one condition: that it ceases to believe or starts to doubt that the Holocaust happened. As part of a public relations campaign for German nationalism, the new German nationalist government could deban all Holocaust Revisionism within Germany's borders and promulgate Revisionism across Europe and the world. It could muster up an international task force of forensic investigators to take examine the 'death camps' of Auschwitz, Treblinka and Sobibor for traces of the poison gas which killed millions of people. If no traces were found, or even if the final report of the investigators was divided on the matter, doubt and confusion would be sowed in the minds of British and American public - the same public which normally would join wholeheartedly the chorus of condemnation of the nationalist Germany.

One can dream: the above scenario at the present seems highly unlikely. The reason for that is that German nationalists, even nationalists of the most populist and civic stripe, are faced with a paradox, and this is: they cannot win power without the help of Holocaust Revisionism, but they cannot disseminate Revisionism unless they win power.

The stalemate can only be broken by a miracle. In the South Park episode 'Are You There God? It's Me, Jesus', God visits Earth and before an assembly of South Park residents, offers to answer one question - any question. One of the South Park children, Stan Marsh, asks a question which is quite trivial. God answers it easily (with His perfect and omniscient knowledge) and then departs the Earth, promising to return in the year 4000, much to everyone's dissatisfaction. Now, suppose that this celestial visitation were to occur today and the question was asked of God, 'Did the Holocaust happen?'. Suppose that God's answer was no, and that Hitler and the NSDAP did not order the extermination of Europe's Jews, did not gas the Jews (or shoot them en masse) and did not kill 60,000, let alone six million, Jews. And then suppose that God's answer was beamed into the minds of every sentient being on Earth: that and only that would bring about the change in the attitude of humanity towards Germany that the German nationalists so sorely need.

This story line - and indeed, it will remain nothing but a story - implies that Holocaust Revisionism constitutes a revelation to the world (and in my daydream above, a divine revelation), but in truth, the world has known, and known for some time, that the Holocaust did not happen. But this understanding has not been acted upon because those in authority will not acknowledge the truth of Revisionism.

When I am speaking of those in authority, I am speaking of three leading groups in particular. These are:

- International Jewish groups. If six million did not die, then Jewry would lose its right to Palestine. Jews see the Holocaust as a religious justification, in accordance with ancient Talmudic prophecies, for the recovery of the lost State of Israel.

- The Anglo-Conservatives. By 'Anglo-Conservative', I mean American and British conservatives of the Victor Davis Hanson and Rush Limbaugh sort. Usually boomers, they hew to the official party line on WWI and WWII and America's involvement, and they hate German nationalism (of any era) with a vengeance.

- Left-wing journalists. If God were to come to Earth (as per my South Park fantasy above) and reveal the truth to the world regarding the Holocaust, the media would simply refuse to report it.

All politics is an activity related to power, Yockey writes, and we would assure the triumph of Revisionism were we were to knock the three groups out of their leading position in the power structure. The question is, how?

III.

It goes without saying that the 'Prussian' is a soldier. This is important for the reason that in German nationalist ideology, politics is tied to war.

The Left takes the same view of politics. One of the dirty secrets of 20th century communism is that no communist won power without waging war beforehand: the successful communists did not win elections in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, they won battles. Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Tito, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Castro: all commanded soldiers, their example presenting a stark contrast to the anemic leftism of today.

The former left-wing terrorist T. Derbent wrote a classic monograph, 'Categories of Revolutionary Military Policy' (2006), which is a treatise on military science and left-wing politico-military strategy. Much of it can be applied by both the Left and Right: the white nationalists in William Pierce's Turner Diaries (1978), for instance, followed the same strategy as the left-wing urban guerrilla groups operating in the 1960s and 1970s. (Pierce, much to his chagrin, was compared by hostile reviewers to the left-wing Brazilian guerrilla Carlos Marighella).

And this brings us to the heart of the problem. Warfare has changed since the time of Hitler and the Kaiser, Guderian and von Moltke. In the first half of the 20th century, the Germans led the way when it came to warfare, but since then, 'Prussian militarism' and the institution of the General Staff have become archaic, outmoded. This partially explains, to my mind, the success of computer games such as Hearts of Iron IV. Gamers can exercise their 'Prussian' world-conquering urges and live vicariously through it, but they can also return to a distant past which is unlike our present and in some respects qualitatively better.

But in other respects, nationalists see the past as worse than the present. No nationalist in the West wants to see a return to WWI or WWII. Today nationalists see white life as something precious and whites as an endangered species. Our sons are not be sent off to die in wars, and no blood of a white Western man is to be spilled.

And this contravenes National Socialist (and 'Prussian militarist') doctrine. In the wartime book 'The Spoil of Europe' (1941), written by an anti-Nazi, Thomas Reveille, we find an (mostly accurate, to my view) enunciation of the fundamental principles of National Socialism:

The State, according to Hitler, has a twofold domestic task. The first is to ''forge the sword” which shall "secure for the German Volk the land and soil that is due to them on this earth” and "their position as lords of the world.” The second domestic task of the Nazi State is to ensure "the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually similar living creatures.” This twofold task is to be pursued simultaneously. In case of need, however, the latter should be temporarily sacrificed for the former...

[In order to conquer Europe, Germany needs] The forging of the sword and the creation of an indissolubly unified Germanic community in the existing frontiers of the Reich. The Nazi doctrine always assumes that the sword must be ultimately wielded in order to achieve each major objective...

Germany's mission is to rule the world and to fulfill this by any and all means. Europe is the center of the world. The Reich has obligations to its kith and kin overseas. It has also the imperious duty of making Germany's acquisitions perpetually secure not only by forging a sword for their defense but also by a simultaneous attack, through political disintegration or war, against possible enemies and coalitions. Full account is also taken of obstacles to the process of the continuous outward push of Germandom. 

The white nationalist may like the Volk talk, the talk of blood and soil, and the goal of 'the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually similar living creatures', which sounds rather like David Lane's slogan of the 14 words. But the 'forging of the sword' frightens the white nationalist, because a war waged by any European or Western nation automatically entails casualties - white casualties. And indeed, not only white nationalists but most European white men object to going to war, possibly because they  understand (more than they did a hundred years ago) what it means. As Steve Sailer writes in 'The Dregs of War', 

I want to mention how this latest phenomenon supports John Mueller’s hypothesis in The Remnants of War (which he should have titled The Dregs of War).

Mueller is the Woody Hayes Professor of National Security Studies at Ohio State. He argues that Kursk-Orel battles between mass armies in open fields are over. If they gave that kind of war, nobody would show up.

His specific examples had to do with the 1990s Balkan Wars, which were portrayed in the press as driven by ancient mass enmities. But Mueller argues that the amount of bloodlust in the overall populations was quite low. The various states had massive problems with draft evasion. Basically, nobody wants to go to a modern battlefield with state of the art weapons because everybody figures they wouldn’t last long in the metalstorm.

Sailer points to the conflict in Ukraine as an example of the new kind of war, a war which differs from WWII: 'The Battle of Stalingrad, it isn’t. So far'.

Because the realities of war have changed, then, the Far Right needs to grope around like the Far Left (as Derbent does in his monograph) for a new politico-military strategy.

IV.

We should keep in mind that the socialist and conservative regimes in Western Europe today were (in the case of France, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Italy, Norway, and Denmark) installed at the point of a bayonet: the British and Americans waged a ferocious war to 'liberate' them from fascism and Far Right conservatism. It could be that the Far Right, the nationalist Right, in those countries may need to wage another war to win them back: quite possibly, the Merkels and Macrons cannot be pushed out any other way. If that is the case - and keep in mind we are in the new age of the 'dregs of war' - what would that war look like?

Years ago, a poster on 4Chan/Pol detailed a long-running fantasy of his - a fantasy informed by the Terminator movies and other cyberpunk pop culture works. A race of cyborg warriors would time-travel from the future, wage war against the Merkels and Macrons, and free Europe. This post stood out for me, as I  - in a similar science-fiction-ish mood - had indulged in a similar daydream. And at the time it seemed quite logical to me, given the circumstances, that the only army which could take on the liberal establishment and win would be one composed of super-soldiers using a technology far advanced from that of present.

In my scenario, the soldiers would win eschew a direction confrontation with the armies of Europe and avail themselves of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara guerrilla tactics, which, to my mind, would prove to be extremely effective.

Of course I understand that such a war (cyber-war?) can only take place only in the realm of fantasy. But does another way forward exist? Bismarck famously said that politics is the art of the possible, and by this he meant there is more than one path to the fulfillment of a political task. He may have been right in this, but at present, I can only see one possibility - one which is (I admit) quite impossible. 

American white nationalism: Will the wolf survive?

I.  The Marxification of the US conservative movement

It seems that the Epstein suicide scandal eclipsed the most three mass shootings - the news cycle in America is fickle and ephemeral - and to judge from recent news reports, the American public has already moved on from Epstein. But the political reaction to the mass shootings is worth analysing in depth because of what it reveals about American politics, and American dissident Right and white nationalist politics in particular.

The establishment American Right called for gun-grabbing and pronounced a fatwah on 'white nationalism' and 'white supremacy' soon after the El Paso shootings, and this was spear led by the National Review, the mouthpiece of Conservatism, Inc.:

The term 'white supremacy', if not invented by American communists, has been appropriated by them, and you can correctly infer - most of the time - that anyone who uses it in 2019 is either a communist or infected with communist ideas. (So far as the term 'white privilege' or 'white skin privilege' is concerned, we can be certain as to its provenance: it most definitely was coined by American communist groups - in particular, the neo-Maoist and Third World Marxist groups of the 1970s). Communists more or less control American political life, or at least, what I call the back end of politics, not necessarily the front end. For example, the candidates running in the Democratic Party primaries for the 2020 presidential election may not be card-carrying communists, but they are pandering to a base that supports communism and Marxism. (Given that many of the proposed Democrat policies (such as free healthcare for illegal immigrants) are unpopular with actual registered Democrat voters, the question is who are the candidates trying to appeal to: who is it that runs the Democratic Party?). As to why the conservatives of the National Review and similar publications are pandering to the Far Left, the answer is that these conservatives believe that they can cut a deal with the Left, much like the conservative Christian Democrats of East Germany, who you can read about here.

Anne Applebaum's book Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944-1956 (2012) details how the Christian Democrats and other conservative Central and Eastern European parties were absorbed into the communist political system during the postwar Soviet occupation, and, to add insult to injury, forced to take Marxist ideology on board - Marxism became part of their 'conservative' platforms. The US Republican Party seems, at present, to be undergoing a similar transition, but one would never guess from surface appearances alone that this Leftification is taking place. The Republican Party, and the conservative moment, spends much of its time denouncing socialism, and Trump - who is hated by the Left above all - follows their lead. This is why I said before that communists have taken over the back end but not the front.

II.  The three factions of American white nationalism

Ironically enough, American white nationalism forms one of the last bastions of conservatism and right-wing ideas in America: they are doing the job that the Republican Party and the mainstream conservative institutions should be doing but are not. With that in mind, let us look at the three main factions of the American white nationalist (or anti-immigrant nativist) movement and their relations to Trump, who is (according to the media) white nationalism's man in the White House.

The Trumpian Populists. The supporters of Trump still exist on the dissident Right, even though the impression on the dissident Right is that Trump has largely discredited himself. Trump will be going to the 2020 election with some awful metrics not in his favour: how many immigrants, legal and illegal have entered America, before the beginning of his first term and at the end; how many miles of the wall have been built; how many American jobs have been lost to immigrants, legal and illegal. Trump has performed poorly on all these except for, perhaps, the last - the job market may be finally moving in favour of the native-born. The question is whether or not one or more rays of sunshine suffice, whether they justify the Trump presidency. Judging by the numbers overall, Trump, if he had been an employee at his own organisation or a contestant on his own TV show The Apprentice, would have been fired long ago. The Trumpian Populists on the dissident Right will not abide by this, however, which reminds me of something the Jewish conservative Michael Savage said of Trump's followers - that they are akin to a cult. (Another irony: Savage, a Jew - and Jews occupy prime place in white nationalist demonology - stuck up for white people after Trump's recent condemnation of 'white supremacy').

The other two factions of white nationalism are divided when it comes to Trump and his re-election: on the one side are the Greg Johnsons, who run with 'Trump is all we've got' argument, on the other, the Hunter Wallaces, who are of the 'Punish Trump and Conservatism Inc. at the polls' school.

This brings us to the next faction of white nationalism: the genteel conservatives. In this category we find Greg Johnson (Counter-Currents), Peter Brimelow (VDare), Jared Taylor (American Renaissance), Kevin MacDonald (Occidental Observer), Steve Sailer (Unz.Org) and a few others who seek to make white nationalism 'respectable' and 'American'. They do not really seek to make great changes to America's social, economic, political structures: they only  want to return America to the days when it had a white majority, the time when it was last the 'historic American nation' - the America of 1960 or 1970 or even 1980. The genteel conservatives belong to the mainstream of the American conservative and nativist tradition, and for that reason, do not go near controversial topics such as Holocaust or WWII Revisionism. For example, Johnson is renowned for castigating European fascism (while simultaneously exploiting it thoroughly at Counter-Currents), and even MacDonald, anti-Semitic as he is, will not touch Holocaust Revisionism and German National Socialism with a barge pole.

The genteel conservatives are disappointed with Trump by and large, and a few (such as Johnson and Taylor) have openly denounced him.

The National Bolsheviks make up the third and final category. Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent leads this gang - other contenders for the leadership such as Richard Spencer seem to have disappeared into obscurity. When it comes to the Trump administration, Wallace takes the same positions as the Marxists. He preaches class war, e.g. he opposes Trump's tax cuts for 'the rich'; he opposes any US intervention in Maduro's socialist paradise; he opposes US intervention in Syria; (he wants the US to pull out of its piece of Syria and hand it over to the Russians; in much the same way, the US Left wanted to relinquish South Vietnam to the communists of the North); and, it goes without saying, he opposes American warmongering and interventionism while supporting Russia's. In the American National Bolshevik worldview, capitalism as a system is viewed as the enemy and economic and social policy must be directed towards the interests of the (white) working class. It follows quite naturally then that Wallace, along with many others of the National Bolshevik and Alt-Right faction of white nationalism, was strongly attracted to Andrew Yang campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. Ideologically, the National Bolsheviks more less stand on the same side as the CPUSA in 1975 or 1985.

One may object that the comparison is invalidated by the fact that the CPUSA  championed busing and the like in the 1970s, and actively fought against segregation, Jim Crow, state's rights, for most of the 20th century. But this ignores the underlying racial dynamics in American communism at the time. An interesting and trenchant critique made of the CPUSA in the seventies and eighties was made by the Third World Marxist, 'anti-revisionist', New Communist Movement - the same movement that invented the concept of 'white privilege' - to the effect that by around 1970, the CPUSA had geared itself surreptitiously towards a class struggle on behalf of the white working class only. In practice but not in theory, the CPUSA had become the domain of Jews and blue-collar WASPs, and by way of contrast, the New Communist Movement had embraced black, Asian-American, Puerto Rican and Chicano nationalism and racialism. Unlike the CPUSA, the New Communist Movement understood that the identity politics of the 1970s presaged the future of American leftism, and so by the 1980s, the Movement had thrown its weight behind Democratic Party African-Americans running for office (the most famous of these being Jesse Jackson, who ran for the Democratic nomination in the presidential primaries of 1984 and 1988). This divide between the two communisms should be not be seen as a mere historical footnote: events have shown that the New Communist Movement won the argument: in leftist circles in 2019, a non-white, 'ethnic' communism rules the roost. The Gus Halls, for all their rote denunciations of 'racism' and 'white supremacy', belonged to old guard - which was mainly white, and Jewish - of US Marxism, and is to this tendency that the Wallaces and Spencers vibrate in sympathy with.

It goes without saying that the National Bolshevik faction repudiates Trump. The brilliant Wallace has written some of the best polemics against him - polemics which are witty and amusing.

III. A fourth faction?

Here belong the white nationalists who cannot be categorised, or at least, cannot be classified as Trumpian populist, genteel conservative or National Bolshevik. Because they do not belong to the big three, they lack political power and should be viewed as minor players on the white nationalist scene.

In this rag-tag collection of individualists, we get: the occult, pagan and Satanist nihilist types (Andrew 'Weev' Auernheimer and the Atomwaffen Division gang) who endorse violence and accelerationism; the bohemian and avant-gardists of the Alt-Left (see Robert Stark); the neo-pagans and conspiracy theorists (see the Renegade Tribune and the like). The nihilists and neo-pagans claim to be grounded in meat-and-potatoes National Socialism, whereas the Alt-Left are so far away from it - and traditional white nationalism - that they may as well be on another planet. Sometimes you can stray so far from your roots that you lose your moorings.

IV. The end of white nationalism

James Kirkpatrick of VDare writes that 'The Alt Right remained a coherent force even after Charlottesville until it was essentially crushed by government action, lawfare, defunding and deplatforming'. White nationalism could meet with the same fate. But it faces its biggest threat from forces which are internal, not external.

In politics, one needs to bow to certain realities, one of these being the fact that even the most elitist and aristocratic political movement needs to form a party, run in elections and win votes. To those ends, some nationalist organisations do better than others. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) at present leads the pack of German nationalist parties - its electoral success has left the National Democratic Party (NPD), Third Way and others in the dust. Likewise, the Brexit Party in the UK has become Britain's premier nationalist party and has eclipsed UKIP, which went astray following Farage's departure. (UKIP after Farage left the mainstream of British politics and descended into the murky netherverse of the British Far Right, to the level of the British National Party, Britain First and other now inconsequential parties).

Because of the unique structure of the American political system, a third party in America will never succeed; America has always been and always will be a two-party state. Anyone on the dissident Right, then, who wants to engage in politics must work with the Republican Party. (The communist Left instinctively this principle, i.e., that in the last analysis, one's best efforts should be made within the sphere of mainstream politics, which is why the Left has expended so much energy on infiltrating and corrupting the US Democratic Party and the UK Labour Party). The implication of this is that the dissident Right must get used to looking at the Republican Party as its own and struggle to wrest control of it from the hated donor class, which wants unrestricted non-white immigration.

In 2015-16 a miracle occurred: a Far Right populist and avowed nationalist undertook a hostile takeover of the Republican Party, won the primaries and then the presidential election. But after Trump's inauguration, the donor class faction of the party struck back and seemed to have taken control back from the civic nationalists and populists. Or perhaps Trump's heart was never in it in the first place. One can understand the disappointment of the American white nationalists. Yes, Trump should be praised for several of his initiatives (such as the proposed Public Charge law), initiatives which would have been unthinkable ten years ago, but so far, Trump has not performed up to expectations.

Imagine that you manage a large retail store and hire a store detective or security guard to apprehend shoplifters and other rapscallions, but despite an enthusiastic attitude, the new employee only delivers on 10-15% of what he promised at the interview - he does not meet his key performance indicators (KPIs, in today's annoying corporate jargon) at all. To make matters worse, the previous man who occupied that position - a skinny black homosexual who had attitude problems and hated the company - performed better when it came to certain metrics. (Obama had deported more illegals than Trump). By all rights, the new employee should be fired and replaced - but, say some of the store owners who are fond of him and praise him , 'He's all we've got'. Indeed, he is all you've got - and what does this say about Trump? The Republican Party? White nationalists in general? Given that the Tories under the new British prime minister Boris Johnson (who is ideologically sympathetic to Trump) seem to have gone back on their earlier promises to curtail immigration, one has to ask why the Anglo-Saxons find it so difficult to close their borders and why the Italians and Hungarians find it so easy?

The Far Left in the US and UK are playing a long game; they don't expect to win overnight. Any year now they can expect to take complete control, and this will happen, like the Czechoslovak communist coup of 1948, without a shot being fired. Time is on their side, but the clock is ticking for white nationalists, who want results and want them now.

When they don't get those results, white nationalists are inclined to give up, and are then faced with the question of what to do once a return to an American white majority no longer seems possible. This became one of primary themes of the discourse of Andrew Yang's white nationalist followers. We began to hear, on the Robert Stark radio show and elsewhere, talk of a 'post-America', that is, a post-white America. One compelling argument for Yangism, made again and again (see here for an example) was that 'White America is going down the tubes, so I may as well kick back and enjoy the decline - and pocket my $1000 a month UBI cheque'.The prevalence of that argument and its ready acceptance by many white nationalists indicate that by early 2019, white nationalists had become severely demoralised.

Such demoralisation ('black pilling', in chan speak) will lead white nationalism down some strange paths. Suppose you are a white nationalist, and out of a desire to hew to the center (or cowardice, or both), and you are willing to steer away from certain uncomfortable subjects out of fear that you will alienate 'middle America', among those subjects being Holocaust Revisionism and revisionism regarding America's involvement in both world wars; suppose that you find yourself in opposition to any sort of German nationalism, like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and at the same time broadly supportive of any Polish nationalism, like Wilson and Roosevelt; suppose you have reached an uneasy peace with right-leaning Jews of the Israeli nationalist sort, Jews who applaud Bibi Netanyahu's highly effective 'anti-infiltrator' border wall; suppose you have reached a 'black pilled' state of mind, and now despair of Americans ever getting their country back from illegal immigrants (in the way Italy, Hungary and Israel seem to be doing); where does that leave you? The answer is, on the same page as the conservatives who never gave a damn about thwarting non-white immigration in the first place; that is, the anti-white nationalist, anti-fascist, anti-anti-Semitic conservatives - David French, Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, John Podhoretz, Kevin D. Williamson-type conservatives, schmaltzy 'America is an idea' conservatives, Never Trump conservatives... 

What went wrong with the NPD? What went right?

My last article got me thinking about German politics again and had me mulling on the question, 'What went wrong with the NPD?'.

The decline of the NPD, and the rise of the AfD, touches a sore spot with me: I've always liked and admired the NPD, and viewed it as the model we Australian nationalists ought to follow; at the same time, I now acknowledge that the NPD approach hasn't generated much in the way of success. Is it the case, then, that 'neofascists' and 'Neo-Nazis' won't ever do well at elections (at least in Western Europe - let's leave out the examples of Jobbik and Golden Dawn)?

Should the NPD be considered a 'Neo-Nazi' party? My answer is: absolutely. I could reel off a list of the similarities between the NSDAP and the NPD. But I can detect some crucial differences: 

1) No charismatic leader. The NPD has been led by men who may be ideologically sound but are not as brilliant as Germany's former Führer: Voigt, Apfel, Pastörs... Which is strange, considering that National Socialism is structured around the 'leadership principle' and what Hitler called 'personality' (that is, the cult of personality around great men). And not just National Socialism: all of the fascism of the 1920s and 1930s revolves around this notion of the importance of charismatic and attractive leadership. Were some fascist from that period to time-travel to the present, the first thing he'd ask of the NPD is, 'Who's your leader? Is he smart? Do people respect him? Does he deliver a good speech? Does he look good in photographs and newsreels? Is he well-dressed? Do women like him?'...

The NPD leadership don't have well-defined media personalities: simply put, no-one knows them nor can they remember, after seeing them, who they are. This is not true of the leaders of the populist parties - men and women such as Farage, Le Pen, Wilders, Åkesson - who are memorable, and well-presented. Compared to them Voigt looks scruffy and ordinary; he reminds everyone of their father. What a contrast Frauke Petry of the AfD presents. It's a great advantage when your party is headed by such a well-dressed, and distinctive, woman.

Oddly enough, the populists - with their understanding of the visuals of politics and politicians - stand closer to Hitler and the NSDAP than the NPD.

2) No uniforms. The NPD has badges, banners, flags, drums, bugles, just like the NSDAP, and does marches and rallies just like the NSDAP. But it doesn't do salutes, doesn't wear uniforms and doesn't structure itself as a paramilitary organisation. It can't do those things because of the law. One might say that this is a good thing, because very few groups can wear a fascist-type uniform with panache and style, and besides which, wearing uniforms - LARPing, as Colin Liddell, a foe of National Socialism, contemptuously calls it - distracts from the doctrine, the politics.

But the fascist doctrine is embodied in the uniform, and the salutes, and the paramilitary ranks. Men in civilian clothes, in business suits, won't bring about Yockey's 'Age of Authority' (that is, age of fascism).

I sometimes ask myself what would happen in Germany were the uniform ban, and the salute ban, lifted. The German nationalists would go back to wearing uniforms in a thrice. Perhaps they wouldn't look good; perhaps the Germans don't have the fashion sense that they did seventy years ago. As one British journalist put it, 'WWII was the last time the Germans dressed well'. But maybe the NPD would manage to pull it off - and enjoy tremendous success.

3) The constitutional order. The trinity of nation, state and party lay at the heart of the National Socialist doctrine, and the Führer - with his special (one might say mystical?) - insight into the minds and hearts of the German people serve to mediate the three. This is the rationalisation, the justification, for the constitutional arrangements adopted by Germany in the years from 1933 to 1945 - arrangements which differ radically from today's and which give National Socialism its character.

We know that the NPD don't think much of the present political system and the Grundgesetz, or Basic Law, imposed on Germany by the Allies and their collaborators: the NPD can't attack the Bundesrepublik openly, but it's safe to assume that their feelings towards it are negative. The question is, would they replace it with the old legal, constitutional system which existed before Germany's defeat - with the essentials of that system at least? Would the offices of the chancellor and president be combined into one; would all other political parties be abolished; would the parliaments of the Länder (states of Germany) be abolished; would Germany become a state with parliamentary elections for candidates one party only... Enquiring minds want to know.

I myself favour Germany returning to the old ways, simply because the system as it stands now doesn't work anymore - if it ever did - and can't be saved. (Or more accurately, it won't be saved: to amend the Basic Law, a majority of votes from the Länder are required, and such votes for an amendment - to deal with the Merkel problem - won't be happening any time soon).

Three alternatives exist: Germany can stay where it is, Germany can turn back to the old days of the NSDAP, or Germany can turn back to the old days of the KPD and SED. (Perhaps a fourth possibility exists: Germany can become an Islamic state under shariah law).

I much prefer the second option to the others. German nationalist intellectuals have to make the case for it. With his brilliant analyses of the Weimar constitution in the 1920s, Carl Schmitt exposed its flaws for all to see, and helped - inadvertently - to weaken Germany's faith in Weimar. Perhaps some modern nationalist intellectual could perform the same service with the Basic Law and the Bundesrepublik.

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.