Merkel's National Socialism and 'The Wave' (1981)

This is a codicil to my recent article, Nine Turks Good, Ten Turks Bad. I am finding, in the press commentary, people who agree with the article's main thesis on Germany's national (but not nationalist) resurgence. The title of this article says it all: 'Europe, facing abyss, embraces German might as the only way to save its way of life' (Associated Press, 2/12/2011).

Here are a few choice quotations from that article:

BERLIN (AP) -- For more than half a century, the legacy of World War II has meant that the mere mention of a new rise of German power sent shudders through European nations. Now, Germany is increasingly calling the shots for the entire continent — and few seem to mind.

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski — whose nation lost millions of people in the Nazi invasion and occupation — shocked many this week when he made a dramatic appeal for greater German influence.

"You know full well that nobody else can do it," he told a largely German audience in Berlin. "I will probably be the first Polish foreign minister in history to say so, but here it is: I fear German power less than I am beginning to fear German inactivity."

And:

Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann, whose nation often lives in the shadow of its giant northern neighbor, dismissed out of hand any worries about renewed German dominance.

"I'm really happy," he said of Merkel's initiatives for saving Europe.

Some Europeans have also contemplated with horror what would happen if Germany got fed up with Europe's debt shambles and simply walked away.

"What is left of the euro if Germany says goodbye? A house of cards," Lennart Sacredeus, a lawmaker with the Christian Democrats in Sweden's governing coalition, wrote in the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet.

Further:

Finance Minister Francois Baroin this week talked about a "Franco-German political impulse" to save the euro. He noted Germany's economic successes compare favorably to France's debt difficulties, and concluded in a radio interview: "Germany is a model that interests us."

France's political opposition, meanwhile, has attacked Sarkozy for letting Merkel call the shots.

"For months, it's been Madame Merkel who decides and Nicolas Sarkozy who follows," Socialist presidential candidate Francois Hollande said this week.

But Europeans seem increasingly inclined to support Germany's leadership — or at least to go along with it.

"This government is not afraid of Germany," Italian political analyst Sergio Romano said of Rome's new regime of technocrats tasked with solving the nation's debt crisis.

"It hasn't said so explicitly, but would say the same thing Sikorski did: We are more afraid of a powerless Germany than a powerful Germany."

While former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi bristled at German interference, new Prime Minister Mario Monti has called the German culture of stability one of its "better exports."

"I have always been considered to be the most German among Italian economists, which I always received as a compliment, but which was rarely meant to be a compliment," Monti said at a recent event.

Does the Bundesrepublik itself like this new state of affairs? Of course not:

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has acknowledged the dilemma, telling foreign correspondents this week in Berlin that the government feels like it's being pulled in opposite directions: criticized by some for not being aggressive enough, and by others for pushing its agenda too strongly.

"I feel like the firefighter," Schaeuble said, "who is being attacked by the arsonist."

This isn't to say that the hapless, bungling Merkel's policies aren't disastrous: they are. It isn't to say, either, that Germany is now a "nationalist" country, which other white nations should emulate: it isn't. What it does prove is that politics is not static. Sovereign countries which were strong once, and then fell into a period of weakness (like Germany and Turkey) can become strong again; countries which were, for a long time, under a period of foreign domination (Tunisia and Egypt) can, of their own accord, throw off the yoke; countries which were, for a long time, pursuing an independent course can, all of a sudden, tilt towards a sovereign foreign power, and then fall into its orbit entirely (Libya after 2003).

All countries have certain geopolitical situations which are peculiar to it, and can't be removed - no matter the dominant ideology. Hungary and Romania, for instance, remained traditional enemies, even after their turn towards communism following the Soviet invasion of 1944-45. There is a kind of DNA, geopolitically speaking, at work here. Hitler, in his Secret Book, goes into great detail regarding the 'geopolitical DNA' of nations such as Germany, France, Russia and Britain. French governments may come and go, he tells us, but French foreign policy ambitions remain the same. Ditto Russia...

One part of the German 'geopolitical DNA' is strength, and a dominating power - that is, a power which tends to dominate the Continent (especially the eastern half). Where does that strength, in the case of Germany, come from? From the 'national virtues', Hitler would say (although he would not use that term), which, in turn, stem from Germany's racial characteristics.

In the post-war period, the Allies, and the Soviets, attempted to brainwash the Germans - and succeeded. They managed to implant a great many false ideas into the heads of Germans (and just about everyone else). One false idea was that the German 'national virtues' never existed, and that Germany's supposed strength - in the military, political and economic realms - was phoney. Hitler and the National Socialists sold the German people (and the world) a false bill of goods. Hitler taught the Germans (what we would today call) 'positive thinking' - but that positive thinking wasn't based on reality. It was all lies. The classic made-for-TV American movie, The Wave (1981), shows that: the teacher in the film, as a classroom experiment, imbues his students with the old "Nazi" virtues - strength, discipline, respect for authority, punctuality, neatness, saluting, uniforms, a willingness to (in Nietzsche's words) 'command and obey'. The students' enthusiasm for their school work improves, as so does the enthusiasm of the school's football team, which becomes dedicated to improving its performance. But, in the end, it's all shown up to be bunk. The football team performs badly, despite all the motivational psychology pumped into its heads, and loses the big game. In the novel, by Morton Rhue, one character explains that all that positive thinking on the part of the football team was fine, but didn't substitute for experience and skills. (Obviously, this lost football game is a metaphor for Germany's military performance in WWII. Similarly, the 2003 German film, The Miracle of Bern, uses a sporting analogy for war. The Germans can't believe that they'll win the World Cup in 1954, because of their defeat in the last war). Naturally, the film The Wave is a liberal anti-fascist classic, which is shown in schools in Germany as an illustration in the evils of fascism. (The film is so useful for that purpose that a German remake appeared in 2008).

Leftists, for as long as leftism has been around, have always been attracted to the idea that man is determined by his material circumstances - i.e., his environment. Change the material circumstances, and you change the man. Hence, certain laws of economics and agriculture are suspended under socialism: workers can produce miraculous results, simply because they are now labouring under a socialist state of affairs (as opposed to a capitalist one); hence the tremendous results, in terms of production, expected by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, from their 'five-year plans'. Man is infinitely malleable... All one needs is socialism and relentlessly positive thinking. And Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin were relentless optimists, who hated "defeatists" so much that they had them shot.

To return to the German example. The Left (German and non-German) has always viewed the Germans, particularly under Prussian and National Socialist rule, as a vicious, depraved people: hence its desire to change the German people through a program of indoctrination and "re-education". The German people could be remoulded into a decent, peacable, liberal democratic citizen of Europe, which no longer sought to bully other, smaller European nations - or conquer the world.

So, it was drummed into the heads of the German people, again and again, that Hitler's ideas - regarding the German 'national virtues' were just motivational psychology, 'master race' bunk and self-deception. The Germans were never as strong, or talented, or resourceful, or hard-working, as Hitler said they were. But the Germans, in the 1930s, believed Hitler, and so became swollen with pride. When a nation like Germany becomes convinced that it can run Czechoslovakia or Poland better than the Czechs or Poles can - well, it's a slippery slope to invasion, annexation and war. (The same goes for the swell-headed Italians, who had the temerity to believe that Italians could run Ethopia better than the Ethiopians). Obviously, decent nations have to unite and knock the stuffing out of Germany, and then re-educate it.

It's a simple narrative, this one, and it has a million holes in it. But, for decades, it was believed, and for one reason only: Germany lost the war. The proof is in the pudding, and the undeniable fact that Germany lost shows that Germany wasn't good enough. Germany's early successes were flukes, but, in the end, it was ground down by Allied military and industrial might. This is despite all the German military's undoubted skill, tenacity, bravery (and even liberal, anti-German commentators state that the German military possessed these qualities).

In Germany and Europe since the war, there have been two ideas: one is that Germany doesn't deserve to lead Europe (or at least, the Continent); the other is that Germany is weak and can't lead. The latter idea has now, in 2011, been blown out of the water.

To understand why, we have to take a detour into the history of left-wing theory.

Stalin's collectivisation of the Ukraine and southern Russia, Mao's Great Leap Forward, Pol Pot's plan to boost Cambodian rice output to extraordinary levels, all failed, because, in the main, they ignored the realities of human nature. Which is to say, the Left has long been used to ignoring reality, shutting out facts which don't fit their theses, and suppressing those who happen to think differently. Indeed, critics are castigated as doomsayers, reactionaries and pawns of capitalism - or agents in the pay of foreign powers. (One can see, of course, the similarities between the communists and today's Left, in how they treat dissenters. In one era, they repressed, violently, the critics of collectivisation; in today's era, the critics of multiculturalism).

The Left ignores the reality of race, and 'national virtues', all the time, of course. Racialists may allege that x, certain ethnic group (which I won't name here), has certain racial characteristics: a tendency to violent crime; alcoholism; drug abuse; mendacity and welfare dependency; having children out of wedlock; low levels of educational and professional attainment; living in filthy and squalid surroundings (which they make filthy and squalid); etc. Leftists will angrily reject such negative characterisations, and put them down to white supremacist propaganda: in effect, whites, and "capitalism", put out lies, regarding this particular x ethnic group, in order to oppress and exploit them. In other words, it's a case of whites attempting to brainwash x ethnic group - and attempting to brainwash themselves, Hitler-style, by telling themselves that they are somehow a racially superior group, another "master race". (The Left tells us that these stories of race-supremacy are "capitalism". Race-supremacy fills whites with a false pride and sense of superiority, and so legitimates the oppression and subjugation of x ethnic group. This is a swindle, which prevents working-class whites from overthrowing their oppressors, the capitalists).

The realities of race, however, are quite different. Common sense tells us that whites, and x, are very different, in the aggregate. One doesn't need statistics on brain and skull size, or IQs, or even crime and educational attainment, to show this: everyday life shows it. One merely has to go to a country where whites and x racial group live together. The true nature of x as a racial group 'bursts through'.

The post-war indoctrination of Germany was very much a left-wing project: the fact that Americans took part in it so enthusiastically shows us to the extent to which Americans, and communists, are alike (as Alex Kurtagic says, Americans have always been liberals, and America's "conservatives", who idolise George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, idolise liberals). But, just as in my hypothetical example of racial minority x, the true nature of Germans, as a racial and national group, bursts through. It turns out that Germany is a strong nation, and a leader, after all.

A global call for the use of German power was not what anybody thought they would ever hear again. And Germans themselves are only slowly waking up to the fact that they are now seen as Europe’s “indispensable power,” as the historian Timothy Garton Ash wrote. So grave is the crisis of the common currency that it now represents the third moment in 100 years when Germany has unilaterally determined the fate of Europe — after 1914 and 1939. It’s that history that weighs on German action or inaction.

['Why isn't Germany stepping up to save the euro zone?', The Washington Post, 2/12/11]

The Germany they are speaking of here isn't Turkish, or Muslim, Germany, of course. So maybe Hitler - who had an enduring faith in the German people, right to the end of the war - wasn't so wrong after all. Maybe Germans do possess strength, despite their appalling political leaders. Facts will out, reality will out, and no amount of leftist indoctrination and double-talk will change that.

But, one may say, isn't this just economics? The victors of WWII - America and Britain - are economically weak. But, supposing that the American economy picks up again? Won't Germany be relegated (again) to second-class status? Won't Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, drift back into the American-Israeli sphere of influence?

This is a good question. It's true that the Americans (in the 20th century) seemed to have nine lives. America went through a catastrophic period of weakness following its defeat in Indochina in the 1970s. Then Reagan was elected and steered the country to greatness again. Half of Germany, and all of Eastern Europe, fell into the American sphere without a shot being fired. American, and Israeli, power soared to undreamed-of heights in the late 1990s (as did the American stock market - this is no coincidence). America, by the late 1990s, built a global 'co-prosperity' sphere. The American example showed that, if you wanted to succeed, you had to become part of the American economic system. Even Russia and China had to become part of that system. The only alternative was mass impoverishment and starvation along North Korean lines.

It's clear that many American "conservatives" (and many Americans, full stop) are hoping for a Reagan moment - that is, for a new national saviour to appear. (The eighties, in the West, were a time for messianic politicians: Reagan, Thatcher, Hawke, viewed themselves as national saviours, redeeming their countries from ruin). Economic and geopolitical power are intertwined, and it's possible that another US president may cut taxes (especially capital gains taxes) and trigger off another huge economic boom, like Reagan and Clinton in the 1980s and late 1990s respectively. That is, Americans are very good at making money (this is one of their 'national virtues') and may, in this scenario, get on top again. Reagan and Clinton understood, intuitively, that tax barriers stood in the way of Americans trading and investing; so the answer was to lower those barriers. They also understood that strong economic growth was the best propaganda for the American political (and economic) system. Obama, of course, doesn't understand this, which is why he's been such a dismal failure.

As to whether Obama will be replaced by a new Reagan or Clinton is another story. I myself am divided as to the merits of an American economic revival. On the one hand, I don't like to see my fellow whites in America suffer from growing impoverishment and unemployment; I also happen to have an (intellectual) dislike of the Keynesian and monetarist schools of economics which Obama represents; on the other hand, I don't want to see a strong America, or Israel.

(Will a revived America, a new American ascendancy, hurt nationalism? There is an old, left-wing myth (one which liberals have adopted) that the nationalist vote goes down in periods of prosperity, and up in periods of recession. The media repeats this cliché again and again, but is it true? Surely the vote for the German NPD, or the British National Party, was better years ago - when their respective countries were doing better, economically?).

What is at stake here are two competing economic systems: an American 'co-prosperity sphere' and a European (that is, German, or Franco-German). The American sphere dominates the world, and when the American-Tel Aviv axis is politically strong, opting out of the American 'co-prosperity sphere' seems insane. Which is why, among other reasons, European nationalist parties such as the NPD appear to the average European as being quite out of touch with reality. That is, the idea that Europe could turn back to the wartime, Hitlerian economic system, during 1940-1945, seems ludicrous. This is even though the German-led system, at the time, was quite successful (the liberal, communist and Jewish coalition of anti-German propagandists will insist that that economic system was all built on slave labour and the pilfering of gold teeth from the mouths of gassed Jews; but we can take these stories with a grain of salt). Now, though, a German-led system doesn't seem like such a crazy idea: in fact, it is becoming a reality (and the inception of the EU, and the euro, laid the foundation for that reality). This is not because the German economy is so strong (and Merkel's policies are poison, economically speaking); it's just that it is strong relative to the rest of Europe right now. And this is without any swastikas, jackboots, invasions of Poland and the rest. Germany has reached this position by default. Germany always was a strong country, Germans always were a hard-working, disciplined, conscientious, productive and technologically-innovative people; the old realities have reasserted themselves.

We can see the UK's predicament. The UK, of course, always has had a strong aversion to the idea of one country dominating the Continent. In the 1920s, it was France; in the 1930s and 1940s, Germany. Which is why certain segments of the British political class (including the British Far Right, e.g., Enoch Powell) were extremely hostile to the EU from the beginning. They realised that Europe, over time, become a centralised power under Belgian, French and German rule; then French and German rule; then German rule. And, following that, an alternative economic system - an alternative to the dominant 'Atlanticist' one - would appear.

Australia's problem, of course, is not Germany and the Continent, but Asia: that is, fear of either Chinese or Japanese domination, either through Chinese labour, Japanese capital or (now in 2011) Chinese labour and capital. But, assuming that all nations revert to their geopolitical DNA, so to speak, Australia will eventually revert to type - and adopt economic and political policies towards Asia in accord with those of the past. There is hope.

But what of America (and Israel's) prospects? It is impossible to predict the future in politics with any degree of accuracy, but... My guess is that America, and Israel, right now, are down for the count and down for good. Either Obama will be re-elected, and America will continue its decline; or some 'consensus' Republican candidate, such as Romney, will be elected and continue the same anti-growth economic policies as Obama. (Romney's economic platform really is mediocre, and is derided by many right-wing economic commentators). It is true that the American electorate is intolerant of failure, and tends to take chances on untested candidates during times of uncertainty (which is why Obama was elected). There is a possibility that a new Reagan or Clinton may spring out of the woodwork. On the other hand, perhaps natural justice is asserting itself... American economic and military strength, which won the war for them (and dominance over Western Europe and most of Asia), was based on the Anglo-Saxon virtues and the gold standard; once it abandoned both (and it now has definitely abandoned both), it fell into decline.

Possibly, America will be Brazilianised in the future. That is, it will become a pyramidal society with a Hispanic majority, a Black and (native American) Indian underclass, and a small white minority (with Jewish-Americans at the top); there will be favelas (Brazilian shanty towns, full of Hispanics, poverty, crime, gangs, and squalor) everywhere.

The question then becomes: does Europe (and the West) want what America stands for now - Wal-Mart and Zionism? Or is there something else? The question then becomes one of a choice, not between two economic systems (Anglo-Saxon capitalism or 'European style' socialism) but between two contrasting ways of life...

The Rupture: Are The Jews To Blame For All The Race-Mixing?

1. Introduction

This essay is intended to address what I consider to be a logical fallacy held by many nationalists, especially nationalists of an anti-Semitic bent. It concerns Jews and their influence on immigration and race policies of Western countries. The fallacy is as follows. It is an argument from three propositions which, to me, are undeniably true, and these are:

• Jews are politically powerful;
• Jews are strongly biased towards multiracialism and are in favour of non-white immigration;
• Jews, in the past (especially in the 1960s), have been instrumental in pushing the West towards non-white immigration policies, multiracialism, desegregation, anti-Apartheid policies, anti-Rhodesian policies.

From these three propositions, many nationalists infer (erroneously, in my view) that:

• Jews are responsible for all the multiracialism in the West today;
• All the multiracialism and anti-whiteism of the West - in our government policies, in popular culture, in fashion, sport, in the workplace, and so on - is maintained by Jewish power.

The epiphany for this article came to me recently when I saw, outside the gates of a prestigious Australian university, a mixed-race couple: the man was Australian, young, and a student/bohemian type; the woman was Asian (either Chinese or Vietnamese) and heavily pregnant. After asking myself why the man couldn't have found, and impregnated, a white Australian woman instead (why Asian?), I wondered who, or what, played a part in this young man's unfortunate decision. Were the social changes that came about in Australia, after the 1960s, play a part? Yes, of course. Was it the Jewish-owned media (in Australia, most of the print media is owned by the crypto-Jewish Rupert Murdoch)? No, not exactly. Jewish activism, through the media, academia, and politics, helped bring about those social changes here in Australia, as it did everywhere else in the West. But the notion that this young Australian man, today, was persuaded to embark on an interracial relationship with an Asian, because of 'Jewish-owned MTV' or other Jewish-owned media and entertainment outlets, is wrong.

A nationalist could argue the point, that such-and-such an Australian TV series, depicting white/Asian interracial relationships in a positive manner, appeared x amount of years ago, and furthermore, was produced and written by a Jew, and so ultimately helped influence this young man to make his decision. But that argument is reductionist and speculative, and not to mention factually wrong (so far as I know, no such TV series have appeared recently on Australian TV, although perhaps the popular Australian soap, Home and Away, may have had such a storyline a while ago (not being familiar with that particular soap, I can't judge)).

But, having said all this, I do not intend this essay to be taken as a defence of the Jews, or a recommendation that nationalists 'stop attacking the Jews and Israel' and 'unite with Jews and Israel against radical Islam'. Far from it. The essay is more of a call for nationalists to make better use of their resources.

2. Jewish radicals and the 1960s

As we know, the 1960s, in the West, unleashed a cultural and social revolution: in many countries, abortion, pornography and homosexuality became legalised, as did non-white immigration and interracial marriages and relationships. Drug-taking, and illegitimacy, became more socially acceptable.

What happened was, by and large, an inversion of values. That is, the values, standards, morality, of the previous generation - who had fought in WWII and Korea - were turned upside down. That generation lived in world where mixed-race affairs, drugs, promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, feminism, the evasion of military service,  were frowned upon, and immigration laws - which barred non-whites from entering Western countries - were generally approved of. Only a small minority of people - communists and counter-cultural people - bucked the mainstream consensus. Eventually, as we know, that small fringe minority became the mainstream, and the old values - including whites-only immigration laws - were overturned.

One consequence of this was as follows. The West of the 1960s and 1970s was still (by today's standards) by and large an ethnically-homogenous society. But as the new immigration laws (e.g., America's overturning of the anti-non-white immigration laws in 1965) took effect, gradually millions upon millions of non-whites began emigrating to the West. This fact has been celebrated by the élites of the West - the journalists, academics, politicians, and so forth. And now there are a plethora of "anti-racial vilification" laws forbidding anyone from criticising immigration on racial grounds. Since the 1960s, multiracialism, and the principle of "not offending anybody" (that is, not saying anything derogatory to anyone on the grounds of their race, sexual orientation, gender and so forth) has become the religion of the West. (Just recently, an Australian football player was suspended for four weeks for allegedly saying "racially derogatory" remarks to another footballer, who is black and the son of a Nigerian immigrant).

In this connection, Far Right nationalism, out of all the ideologies on the political spectrum, is the only one to oppose non-white immigration and the religion of multiracialism (although some mainstream commentators, in the establishment media, are now starting to question - in a very cautious manner - the value of immigration and multiculturalism). Something that makes nationalism unique is its analysis of why it was that the old, anti-non-white immigration laws were abandoned - and why many of the other changes of the sixties cultural revolution came about. Nationalist intellectuals and writers - among them, Kevin MacDonald, William Pierce, David Duke - attribute these changes to one group, an ethnic group: the Jews. We can find plenty of nationalist writings documenting the Jewish 'culture of critique' (that is, their habit of attacking the values and morals of the non-Jewish host societies they find themselves living in). In these writings, we see how the 'culture of critique' coincides with the Jewish historical championing of abortion, gay rights, radical feminism, desegregation, civil rights for Afro-Americans, Jewish support for laws against "racial vilification" and the dismantling of whites-only immigration laws.

In the view of these nationalists, temperamentally, the Western Jew was, in the sixties, an extreme left-wing, Marxist beatnik (or what Americans would call an extreme liberal). The argument of the Pierces and the MacDonalds is that without Judeo-beatnik's dominant, overriding influence, the sixties counter-cultural revolution, and the flood of immigration from the Third World, would never have gotten off the ground.

In a previous article, I wrote on the topic of a Frank Sinatra 1945 film, 'The House I Live In', written by a communist Jew, which espouses the virtues of multiracialism, "tolerance", "diversity", and the rest, and explicitly links these to the cause of anti-Nazism (also to, in the original script, brotherly love between white and Afro-Americans, but these parts were cut from the final draft - much to the chagrin of the screenwriter). To Pierce, MacDonald, Duke, Jews like this screenwriter had, by the 1960s, become intellectually, politically and culturally ascendant, and so were in a position to impose their values on America and the West.

(What is curious is that, at the time of that film, America was subject to two conflicting tendencies. America was, in 1945, fielding a segregated army, with Afro-American and Hispanic soldiers relegated to their own units. Racialism informed the views of the Allied politicians and generals too: wartime Allied leaders such as Roosevelt, Churchill, Patton, Eisenhower made many, off-the-record (and highly amusing) comments on the poor quality of Afro-American soldiers, and the ineptitude of Black people. So, in the America of 1945, we had two worlds. At war, the Americans were practising racialism; back home, they were soaking up multiracialist drivel in Frank Sinatra films. It was only a matter of time until the two worlds collided, and that was what happened in the 1960s).

3.       Was it only the Jews to blame?

In its defence, I will say that the MacDonald-Pierce-Duke analyses is not overly reductionist: that is, it does not attribute everything to one single cause - the Jews - plain and simple; these gentleman know that plenty of non-Jewish Westerners demanded the abolition of the whites-only immigration laws: in Britain and Australia, the extreme left-wing of the socialist parties, and the liberal wing of the conservative parties, played a big part. But, overall, the thesis is tilted towards the hypothesis that Jewish influence and Jewish power, intellectually, culturally, economically, politically, was the primary determinant of events.

But, in contradiction with the thesis, I will say that the overall ethic, the ideology in the West at that time, was already tilted towards multiracialism and acceptance of mass non-white immigration. By logic, if one accepted the 'American ideology' (as Yockey calls it) of freedom, democracy, equality, liberalism, individual rights, etc., then one had to, for instance, accept desegregation and the giving of equal rights to Afro-Americans in the Deep South.

Similarly, prior to the 1960s, America and the Commonwealth fought a war of extermination against the Germans in WWII, and even gave over half of Europe to communism, all in the name of racial egalitarianism: Hitler was a "racist" who believed in "phony racial science" and who "gassed the Jews" simply because they were a little "different" (this historical interpretation - of why the Allies fought against Germany in WWII - became the dominant one in America by the end of the 1960s).

So, on those grounds, no-one in America (or elsewhere in the liberal democratic Western countries) in the 1960s could oppose the legalisation of mixed-race marriages, or the abolition of the whites-only immigration law, by calling upon, for instance, the defence of "traditional American values" - because "traditional American values" were already highly favourable to these things.

Added to this is the fact that the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, was in favour of multiracialism and "brotherly love", i.e., whites treating non-whites - especially Negroes - as "brothers" who deserved "love". One cannot discount the influence, on the youth and the culture of the times, of rock groups like the Rolling Stones and the Beatles, who did more for the cause of multiracialism, and for the worship and veneration of the noble, suffering, musically-talented Afro-American, than, perhaps, Jewish radicals.

So, in its racial composition, the West was, in the 1960s, wholly white, wholly racially-homogenous; but, in its ideology, it was egalitarian, multiracialist and multicultural. So those opposing the dismantling of whites-only immigration laws couldn't put up much of a fight, intellectually, using the concepts and ideas around them. They could not argue against immigration on the basis of received values - that is, the cultural mores of their society - because those same mores were very much tilted towards doctrines of racial equality and "tolerance" for non-white immigrants. In a similar fashion, Russia, at the time of the Bolshevik revolution, was already heavily tilted towards socialism and radical progressivist ideas.

4.     Were the sixties all bad?

As an aside: this is not to say that all the changes that came after the 1960s were necessarily bad. William Pierce, in one of his radio talks, admitted that perhaps Americans were 'too prudish' before the 1960s revolution, with the implication that the relaxation of sexual mores, after that decade, may have been a good thing. Likewise, one can point to improvements in many areas. A British author, Nicholas Pringle, canvassed the views of a 150 WWII-era white British, for their views on post-war changes in British life, and wrote their comments up in a book, The Unknown Warriors. Predictably, the elderly British were scathing on subjects such as non-white immigration and law and order. But they did have some good things to say:

This particular man was unusual among the 150 respondents in believing that there were many pluses   to modern life.

He even had a good word to say about the European Union and felt it would appeal to the fallen 'if only for maintaining the peace in Europe over the past 60 years or so'.
He praised the breaking down of class barriers in Britain compared with the years when he was young and 'infinitely' increased prosperity.

'More clothes, cars, holidays abroad, home ownership. As a young teacher in the Fifties I had one suit (Army issue) and the luxury of a sports jacket and flannels at the weekend.

'Education has made vast progress. In my early days I taught classes of 50. Only five per cent of children went on to further education compared with over 40 per cent today.

'The emancipation of women has also been a huge plus, with the introduction of the Pill a large contributor. Before the war, women teachers were dismissed as soon as they married.'

[The Daily Mail, "'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII", 21/11/2009].

5. The racial rupture

At first sight, the events of the 1960s (as interpreted by the MacDonalds and Pierces) seem to confirm one of Hitler's theses. One of the questions Hitler's Mein Kampf asks is: which group, today, endorses miscegenation and the breakdown of ethnic solidarity? His answer was, of course, the Jews. At the time that he wrote that book, no-one else in the West, aside from the Jewish intellectuals of the Far Left, endorsed non-white immigration and interracial marriages: to even a Churchill or a Roosevelt, such an idea would have abominable. One of Hitler's main theses was that Jews have an agenda - to promote miscegenation and the breakdown of interethnic, tribal solidarity and community feeling as much as possible, while, at the same time, to keep their own racial group pure (and proud of their racial purity and their customs and traditions). It was not until the 1960s that we see the Jews behave, en masse, in a manner in accordance with Hitler's (at the time) radical thesis. It is precisely at this point, too, that David Duke, William Pierce, George Lincoln Rockwell, began their careers. (Kevin MacDonald, in interviews, says that he began to awaken to the Jewish 'culture of critique' during his acquaintance with radical Jewish students, on his college campus, in the 1960s).

But that was then, this is now. Flashing forward to the present year, 2011, multiracialism, multiculturalism and the principle of "not offending anybody" have become diffused into the wider white population as a whole: they are no longer the property of a few Jewish 1960s radicals or liberal Tories or left-Labor Party types. The ideas, in other words, have become mainstream, and this process has taken place since the 1960s.

As an example of this 'diffusion' process, one can look at the similar progress of social attitudes towards pornography. While definitely not being a Jewish invention, Jews, to be sure, were among the biggest proponents of the legalisation of pornography back in the 1960s, all in the name of 'freedom of speech', and were the founders of some of the biggest providers (through print and film, and then, later, the Internet) of pornography. Now pornography has (especially with the advent of the Internet) become mainstream, and part of everyday life, the world over. (I recently read a bizarre article about how some North Korean women, fleeing into South Korea, ended up in the clutches of a Chinese man, who forced them to work at online sex chat site, 'chatting', and presumably simulating sexual acts, for South Korean men. The sound on these sites was turned off, and the communication was through typing, because the Chinese man did not want the South Korean men to detect the womens' North Korean accents - it was an essential part of the fantasy that these women pretended to be South Korean). Pornography (especially through the Internet) has now become diffused, globalised, widely available and accepted, compared to a few decades ago, and Western social attitudes towards it have changed, irrevocably.

Similarly, attitudes towards immigration, multiculturalism, interracial marriages which were once held by a small (but influential and powerful) minority of Jews, left-wing radicals and counter-culture types in the 1960s have now become part and parcel of everyday life. For instance, condemnations, by nationalists, of interracial marriages are seen by most non-political people as bizarre and perplexing ('Why on earth would you deny a white person the right to marry an Asian or black person?') if not disgusting; whereas fifty years ago an opposition to interracial marriage would have been regarded as acceptable, and indeed, part of the received wisdom. Take, for instance, the British pop singer, Cheryl Cole, a woman from a council estate (that is, government welfare housing) who married a Negro soccer player. In Churchill's time, or Atlee's, a white British woman who had a child with an Afro-American serviceman would have been shunned by her community. But Cole's (abortive) marriage was seen as the most normal thing in the world by the British media, and oddly enough, the fiercely anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim Daily Mail tabloid treats her as a kind of patron saint.

On this evidence, the massive program of social engineering, since the 1960s, which was intended to change peoples' values on race, has done just that: new values - values of "diversity", "tolerance", "harmony" and so forth - have been inculcated everywhere. One can see this if one has, for instance, experience with corporate induction programs now in 2011: new employees are told that the company - whatever it is - values diversity, tolerance, pluralism, multiculturalism, etc., and that there will be harsh penalties (i.e., dismissal) for anyone who fails to pay lip service to these values.

So, there is no doubt about it: the multiracialists won a huge victory in the 1960s - a total, annihilating, crushing victory. The conservatives who did resist the move towards desegregation, immigration, etc., didn't put up much of a fight - one has to recall Enoch Powell, a fairly moderate critic of non-white immigration, who was howled down by the liberal Tories of his own party, and hounded by student radicals (including future British Labour Party politician, the Jewish Jack Straw). The result is that today multiracialism has become part of the air we breathe.

6.     The consequences

The racial consequences, for the West, have been disastrous. To take Britain as an example (and I always use Britain as an example of how far multiculturalism and non-white immigration can go), the number of minorities who live in England and Wales has shot up to 2.5 million in eight years. The Indian population has risen to 1.43 million, and the Pakistani population has climbed to one million, the number of Africans to 800,000, and even the Chinese are on the rise, doubling to 452,000 by 2009. Obviously, even if one loves "diversity" to the utmost, such a huge increase in population places tremendous pressure on housing, rents, public transport, welfare services, public health, law enforcement, jails and the like. Other countries in the West (including Australia) show similar percentage increases in their "minorities" and a similar deterioration in their quality of life as a result. Even those in the political establishment show signs of worry by all this, and the effects that the immigrant populations have on their host populations (ironically, Jack Straw recently denounced Pakistani immigrant pimps and suggested that their behaviour was, in part, caused by Pakistani and Islamic culture).

The same establishment figures (including media commentators) are now struggling to articulate their opposition to immigration in a "non-racist" context. The problem is that anyone who suggests that immigrants may feel racial antagonism to their white host populations, and that immigrant behaviour may be due, even in part, to race, ethnicity or religion, is vilified, in today's world, as a kind of monster. The likes of Jack Straw, Jewish-Briton and former 1960s student radical, have only themselves to blame for this: they themselves created the culture of "not offending anybody" and the castigation of anyone who speaks, or thinks, in racialist (or quasi-racialist) terms.

It is best to think of the sixties revolution as the point of a rupture; it is what divides, historically, the old world from the new, and we can see the effects of that massive, irrevocable change in, to use a select few examples: race, homosexuality and pornography. The question is, can we turn back time to the way things were before; and can we do so by relentlessly exposing the Jewish 'culture of critique', past and present, as Pierce did and Duke and MacDonald do?

7. Battlestar Galactica and the white racial plight

To frame this question with more clarity, I will use an analogy to describe today's West in its current predicament. The 2004-2009 remake of the American TV sci-fi series, Battlestar Galactica, portrays a science-fiction world of the future, populated by the descendants of the planet Earth. The descendants live in twelve planets, called the 'Twelve Colonies', and build a race of robot slaves, the Cylons, who, true to science-fiction form, revolt against their human masters. After a bloody human-Cylon war, the Cylons disappear for forty years, and then launch a massive attack on the twelve colonies, rendering the human space navy helpless (by infecting their computers with a virus) and exterminating billions of humans with nuclear bombs. A small number of 30,000 humans survive, and flee, in search of their ancient homeland of Earth, with the Cylons (determined to finish the job of exterminating humanity) in hot pursuit.

The story, of course, has plenty of precedents - the massive, surprise attack on the colonies evokes Pearl Harbour and 9/11, as the producers and writers intended; as well as that, Battlestar- was conceived by Glen A. Larson, a Mormon, and is obviously intended to evoke the flight of the Mormons, across 1300 miles, to (what is now) Salt Lake City, Utah, after the death of their founder, Joseph P. Smith, at the hands of unbelievers.

But what is striking is that the story also evokes the situation of the Western white peoples in 2011. For one, the Cylons have won a total, crushing, irrevocable victory over their human opponents. The education minister of the twelve colonies, Laura Roslyn (played by Mary Hart), is on board a passenger liner between planets when the attack begins. She gets in touch with another government minister on the radio, and asks, 'Has President Adair [the ruler of the colonies] discussed the possibility of unconditional surrender?'. The minister replies, 'President Adair has offered full, unconditional surrender'. Roslyn asks, 'What did the Cylons say?'. The minister replies that there was no response. And why should there have been. You don't parley with a totally defeated, crushed and helpless enemy - any more than the Allies and Soviets did with the Germans in May 1945, or the Japanese in August 1945.

Likewise, the radical Jews of the sixties, and their white cohorts - the liberal conservatives, humanist priests, hippy rock stars, student radicals, Black civil rights demonstrators and 'Black Power' radicals, the feminists, the gay rights activists - won a total, crushing victory by 1970. The Enoch Powells, George Wallaces and other conservatives didn't up much of a fight. Rockwell, who understood, quite accurately, the role of the "Jew commie finks" in helping bring about racial, social and cultural discord, was dismissed, by most of his contemporaries, as an attention-seeking eccentric. Resistance, against this massive assault on the Western ethnic homogeneity, was weak and ineffective indeed - almost as though our space-naval fleet was infected by a computer virus.

Another point of similarity is the plight of the 30,000 humans, after the Cylon attack. The rag-tag fleet of humans, fleeing the Cylons on civilian ships, is protected by a naval ship - the Battlestar Galactica - which alone, out of all the ships in the human fleet, survived the Cylon onslaught. The commander of the ship, the aged veteran Admiral Adama (Edward James Olmos) at first wants to launch a counter-attack against the Cylons at once, being a military man and seeking a military solution to the problem. Laura Roslyn, however, advises him against the foolishness of such a decision - an attack against the Cylons would be suicidal - but tells him, simply, 'The war is over, and we lost'. She advises that if the remnants of humanity are to survive, 'Then humans better had start making babies'.

Certainly, for nationalists, the choices are not so stark: either launch a counter-attack against our enemies, or retire and start 'making babies'. But it is the case that, like the beleagered human race in Galactica, we racial nationalists are faced with a number of problems, post-apocalypse, and have to decide how to use our the few remaining resources we have the most effectively.

Undoubtably, it is the case that the MacDonalds, Pierces, Dukes and other nationalists are right in their analysis of the Jewish 'culture of critique'. But, all in all, they resemble, in our Battlestar Galactica analogy, a human survivor of the Cylon attack who, obsessively, recounts, over and over again, how the Cylons launched a devastating surprise attack which wiped out the human civilisation and culture. Without doubt, the Cylons did pull the attack off; furthermore, post-attack, they remain the enemies of humanity. The question is whether recounting the details of the attack, in one endless history lesson, accomplishes anything, considering that it is a irrevocable historical fact, like the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, or the English Civil War, or the Protestant Reformation.

8.    Are Jews necessary?

Another question is - given the widespread apathy towards, or even widespread support for - Cheryl Cole, Internet pornography, and the campaign for gay marriage, whether or not the Jewish presence is necessary for the whole structure to continue.

American Jews own the American media, and bully and browbeat American politicians into a uniform support for Israel. It is no surprise, then, given Jewish political power in America, if US immigration policy should be 'good for the Jews', that is, that it should be geared towards allowing in as many non-whites as possible. As the MacDonalds and Pierces state, the Jewish-American view of their adopted country's history is that America was founded as a 'nation of immigrants', who emigrate from all corners of the world in search of a better life, the 'American dream'. American Jews use their power, in the social, economic, cultural and intellectual spheres, to impose this view of American identity and history upon Americans. Besides which, from the Jewish-American viewpoint, mass non-white immigration is to be supported because it weakens WASP American ethnic homogeneity and so is 'good for the Jews', as it lessens WASP resistance to cultural 'out-groups' (e.g., the Jews).

These are undeniable facts about Jewish-American attitudes and American politics in general. But, while there are loud and obnoxious Jewish community lobby groups in Australia, a Jewish newspaper baron who owns a sizeable chunk of Australian print media, and a pro-Israel consensus between the two major parties - the Jews aren't as strong, or as visible, here in Australia as they are in America. Indeed, Jewish attempts to exert influence here are often bizarre and irrelevant. A recent The Australian newspaper editorial augured a bright and promising future for the left-wing Greens party, if only the Greens would renounce their 'jejune' anti-Israel sentiments. This is bizarre because Australians don't vote (or choose not to vote) for the Greens because of the Greens' position on Israel.

(The fact, too, that prominent Australian-Jewish groups have written statements applauding multiculturalism in Australia, and denouncing "racism" in Australia, proves nothing - for what group, in Australia in 2011, doesn't applaud multiculturalism and denounce "racism"? (The sporting body, the Australian Football League, is at one with the Jewish groups in this respect). That one group or individual writes a statement applauding such-and-such a phenomenon doesn't mean that they own that particular phenomenon, or are responsible for bringing it about. The neoconservative Jewish-American Elliot Abrams wrote, a few months ago, an article applauding the Arab Spring; this doesn't not mean that the hundreds of thousands of Arabs, revolting in Syria, Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, are pawns of the neocons (besides which, the Israeli media, by and large, has been hostible to the Arab Spring) and that they are poor dupes, pawns on a chessboard, being moved around by American Jews in Washington and New York).

But, having said that, perhaps even the Duke-Pierce-MacDonald analysis of recent US immigration and racial policy, and the remedy, are deficient. How many ordinary white Americans, for instance, continue to regard Martin Luther King Jr. as a secular saint? The white nationalist will respond, 'Oh, Americans are brainwashed. They only have to read David Duke, or http://www.martinlutherking.org/, to learn the truth about King. The reason why they don't is because of the Jewish-owned American media'. It's true that, were the scurrilous side of King's ideology and private life were given relentless, round-the-clock news coverage, then perhaps white Americans would think less of King. But isn't it possible that white Americans (who are, in my experience, very polite and well-mannered, and as well as that, very conformist in their manners and morals) would find the white nationalist material on King repulsive and vulgar? Can we blame the failure of white nationalism in America to 'catch on' entirely on hostility from the Jewish-owned media?

9.  A West without Jews

So it is possible that the major political parties in the West will continue in their grim crusade to 'de-whiten' the West without Jewish direction and support.
From 1945 to 1949, Germany was under Allied occupation, and Allied guns held to German heads ensured that Germany would embark on a program of "de-Nazification" and destroying and delegitimising German nationalism. Now, in 2011, the Bundesrepublik does that job without Allied coercion - one only has to look at the kidnapping of Zündel, the extradition and prosecution of Demjanjuk on trumped-up charges and non-existent evidence, and the like. The present-day German regime is more anti-Nazi than the best anti-Nazis, more anti-German than the best anti-Germans. In a similar fashion, governments in countries where Jewish power is politically, culturally and economically weak in comparison to the United States (e.g., Australia, Sweden) pursue a radical pro-immigrant agenda.

In the Netherlands, only recently, a law forbidding the religious ritual slaughter of animals was passed, despite bitter protestations from the Muslim and Jewish minorities who will be affected the most by the bill. (Ironically, the maniacal pro-Israel, pro-Zionist populist Geert Wilders supports the bill). The Netherlands is an example of Jews becoming relativised - to the status of another minority group, without special power and influence, endlessly demanding special rights and complaining of their treatment at the hands of the white ethnic majority.  Possibly, this is a portent for the future: Jews becoming merely another "minority", endlessly demanding their "rights", along with all the Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Iranian, Afghani, Turkish, etc., diaspora groups in the West.

Another irony is that Israel is now under constant attack, ideologically, by today's leftists and liberals, because Israeli immigration policy today shows the same ethnocentrism and the same desire for ethnic homogeneity as that of the Western countries of the 1960s, which, at the time, was so offensive to Jewish radicals. The multiracialist brigade, who ended segregation in the Deep South in the 1960s, and helped hand over white, "racist" Rhodesia and South Africa to black rule, now scent new prey: Israel. Perhaps the story of Israel will meet with a similar happy ending. Will Israel will eventually allow the millions of Palestinians, expelled from Palestine in 1948, to return to their homeland? Will Israel elect, like America, a leader who is a member of a minority - not an Afro-American, like Obama, but a Muslim Israeli Arab? A leftist can dream. Meanwhile, in Europe, the Jewish diaspora complains that the ever-increasing Muslim immigrant population doesn't respect their rights and privileges like the white Europeans do. (This does not mean for one second, however, that Jews will not end their endorsement of mass non-white immigration into Europe, even Muslim immigration).

The beast of multiracialism has been let out of its cage, and the Jews, in the 1960s, were among those who released it. The Jews, in 2011, are not about to be devoured by it; but certainly, in Israel at least, they are being harassed and hounded by it. Which is not to say that Israel will not continue to survive as an ethnically homogenous state: because of the United States, Israel has the power to do whatever it wants, and get away with it, even it earns the opprobrium of the entire world. MacDonald predicts that Israel, because of the growing influence of Orthodox Jews in Israeli life, and the demographic increase of Israeli Haredim, will eventually steer Israeli politics to Jewish religious extremism and fundamentalism. As a result, Israel will become more isolationist and inward-looking, more extreme and even less willing to come to a compromise with the Palestinians and even more contemptuous of world opinion. And American liberals (and former student radicals) of the Obama and Hilary Clinton variety will continue to support it, through thick and thin.

10. In conclusion?

What, then, are nationalists to do?

In Marxism, there was a tendency called 'economism', denounced by many (including the French Marxist philosopher, Louis Althusser), which said that all human phenomena, ultimately, has economic causes: religious, racial, national, cultural, political and other causes didn't count. Marx and Engels, according to Althusser, never held to such a reductionist thesis. They argued that non-economic phenomena does, of course, have an influence on human affairs, only that the economic is, in the last analysis, dominant - that the economic is, in Althusser's words, 'determinate in the last instance'.

In nationalism, there is a similar tendency to 'economism'. This tendency blames Jewry for all the multiracialism in the West today - that is, the continued, day to day maintenance of the multiracialist status quo, in the West, is down to Jewry. This is why, for instance, the likes of Martin Webster (the co-founder, along with John Tyndall, of the British National Front) thinks that he is doing great things when he posts, on the Internet, the names of all the Jewish newspaper and other media owners in Britain - the implication being that all the degeneracy and squalor in Britain today, immigration, Cheryl Cole, chavs and all, is down to the Jews.

Another implication is that, if only these Jewish billionaires, and other powerful Jews, were packed off to Israel and their assets stripped from them, then we would have governments which were much more amenable to nationalist values. But this is a tautology, because the only government which would expel the Jews from the West, and expropriate them, would be a racialist, anti-Semitic one. (Possibly, a communist government would do such things to the Jews, but, were the fantasies of the Trotskyite communists West to come true, and communists were to seize power in the West, then, in all probability, that communist government would be run by Western Jews, just as, historically, most Trotskyite movements in the West have always been). So, of course things would look better, on the racial front, once the Jews were, in this scenario, banished.

Immigration, today, has many causes. What are they? Firstly, there is the ideology of multiracialism, which has been, in the West, for a long time, and came to flower by the 1960s; secondly, the influence of Jews, radicals, humanist liberal types, humanist Catholic types and other professional do-gooders, who feel pity for the toiling masses of the Third World and dearly want them to live here; third, the economic crises of the 1970s which wrecked the economies of the Third World (and led the immigrants to travel to the West in search of a "better life"); fourth, the influence of the business lobbies, who demand "skilled" immigrants to fill up "labour shortages", no matter where these immigrants come from; and last, but not least, there is the greed of the individual immigrants themselves, who are prepared to pack their bags and leave their home countries in search of the rich, easy pickings in the West, and who are prepared to this by any means necessary - even if that includes clinging to the undersides of trucks travelling under the English Channel, or sailing in leaky boats, or crossing deserts. Indeed, it is the immigrants today - the massive flood of Hispanics, Chinese, Indians, Muslims coming to the West - who are most responsible for immigration.

Part of the present nationalist obsession with the Jewish role in immigration and multiracialism lies in the fact that we whites (especially the Anglo-Saxons) are unwilling to look at our own role in bringing about this state of affairs. The biggest obstacle to the spread of racialist and nationalist ideas is other whites: the nationalist often has the experience of meeting with resistance to these ideas from one's friends, family, colleagues, superiors, and often these non-racialist whites will break down and concede, at least part of the way, ('Yes, you're right that there are too many immigrants coming here, but...') after much haranguing. On top of that, there is the historical role of the white establishment, which, in the 1960s, dismantled immigration barriers, all in the name of democracy, humanity, decency, equality, etc. Given all this, it is much easier, then, to blame a cultural alien, who happens to have a long antipathy towards the white, Western, European and Christian civilisation, rather than acknowledge our own faults. So we nationalists have constructed a narrative , in which whites decided to abnegate their leading position in the world, and their demographic majority in their own countries, solely because of cultural aliens who are hostile to us and who happened to live among us at that time. While that narrative is, at first sight, plausible, it is not the entire truth.

When speaking about this to nationalist friends, they have remarked to me, 'If what you're saying is true, then we whites are doomed'. The implication is that the diseases which afflict Western culture come from within, and indeed may be part of our genetic makeup. I take a more sanguine view, and that is, historically, whites have made many, many mistakes, but have managed, in the end, to preserve themselves. Multiracialism and mass non-white immigration is merely another mistake. In the end, nationalists will win, but only if we look past the (superficially plausible) narrative which blames all the multiracialism and immigration in the West on Jewish influence.