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.

The decline of Western man: can neofascism survive Internet pornography?

One problem that has interested me for a number of years is the decline of masculinity - aggressive, combative, warrior masculinity - in the West.

A decline in that masculinity is evident when we compare the Far Left of today to that of the 1930s and 1940s. The old communists were hard men, husky types, brawlers - we all know the story of William Joyce, whose face was cut open by communists wielding razors. Today, however, communist men in Australia and elsewhere in the West are sissy types; if they are not homosexual (and the vast majority of Trotskyite males in Australia are homosexual), they are sissies, a bunch of pajama boys.

Outside of politics, we see a similar decline, especially when it comes to the men of Generation X and Generation Y: we see an absence of a warrior ethos.

Part of the warrior ethos was not taking things lying down. Both the Athenians and the Spartans were willing to take up arms to defend their city-states from invasion; in the case of Australia and Britain, however, no men have taken up arms - figuratively and literally - to defend their countries from the invading armies of Africa, India, Islam and China. They don't appear to give a stuff. Passivity is the name of the game, especially among the Generation X and Y men of Australia, who tend to be a soft and flabby bunch, both physically and spiritually.

 This flabbiness relates to the growing phenomenon of mainstream nerdism and geekism in the West and the general alienation from the world outside them - including the political sphere and the community - that they exhibit. Alienation can be rudeness and a failure to adhere to society's norms when it comes to the treatment of others. One may think that bad manners, oikishness and rudeness towards women, children and old ladies are 'masculine' and make one a tough guy and thereby aren't nerdish or geekish, but that is not the case. The two - bad manners and geekish introversion - are perfectly compatible. Indeed, paying attention to one's body, hygiene, fitness, nutrition, and to manners, customs and social mores is, in essence, adaptation to the outside world (and the adaptation of it to one). Neglect of politics, community, customs, manners, social mores and neglect of one's appearance go together as a package.

Likewise, political passivity, and a lack of (what the sociobiologists call) reproductive success tend to go together. As a nationalist, I shake my head at the soft young men and feel like saying to them, 'Your country is being invaded by Chinese, and you're not married and you're not having Aussie babies. What are you doing to boost the number of Aussies relative to the Chinese invaders? Nothing. In fact, you're behaving in a way that's repellent to any prospective wife and mother of your children'.

One then has to ask if fascism really is possible in today's West. In the 1920s and 1930s, the nationalists responded to Bolshevist aggression by going out into the streets and walloping commies; they also took up a campaign against Jews and gypsies, both of whom were regarded as being the cause of many social ills. The Golden Dawn is one of the few groups in Europe and the West which shows that same combative and aggressive spirit. That spirit is lacking Australia today, and in America as well. A constant refrain, heard on American Far Right message boards, is that America's young men aren't willing to stand up to criminal African-American predators who assault whites on the streets and in their homes; that white Americans of both sexes have become the Eloi from H.G. Wells' 1895 novel The Time Machine.

Some conspiracy-minded Americans attribute this docility to the introduction of mind-control drugs in the water supply. I believe that these conspiracy-minded people are half-right: there is a mind-control drug which is consumed by a large proportion of the Generation X and Y male population in the West, and that drug wasn't there seventy to eighty years ago; in my view, it contributes a great deal to the passivity and docility of today's young men.

But before I deal with that topic in more detail, I will respond to a preliminary objection: that the absence of 'fascist masculinity' is due to massive political repression and also to the Western liberal establishment's program - which has been running for forty years now - of social engineering and political indoctrination in Culture Marxism. This objection seems plausible at first sight, but if we look a little closer, we will see flaws. For one thing, despite the police state repression and liberal-democratic authoritarianism in the West - which has only increased in the past ten to fifteen years - more people in the West are being exposed to racialist, neofascist and Far Rightist ideas than ever before because of the Internet. I first became involved in nationalism after discovering Doctor William Pierce's Internet radio broadcasts in 2000, and I estimate that tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of young men in the West became exposed to similar ideas the same way. But the phenomenon of increased freedom of speech and increased exposure to nationalist and racialist ideas hasn't stopped the slide of Western men into apathy, docility, passivity and softness.

So what is the cause of this decline? The male characters of Mad Men are, for all their faults, more rugged and assertive than today's Australian or American or British young white males - why is this the case? What did the WWII generation, and the Mad Men generation, have that we didn't? Or rather, is it the case that we have something that they (fortunately) didn't? The answer is, in my opinion, addiction to the Internet - in particular, to Internet pornography.

Up until a few months ago, I viewed Internet pornography as a vice - like smoking, alcohol, gambling, drugs, World of Warcraft - which really was an unavoidable part of life, one that would always be with us, and one which should be discouraged, perhaps, but not one worthy of censure (unless it became 'excessive', whatever 'excessive' in this case means). I didn't think that it had long-term effects on the brain, and one's character, at all. In fact, as a racialist, I believed that pornography had a long-term positive effect: it would increase the ardour of white Western man and motivate them to make babies, thereby increasing the population of white Westerners.

Then I happened upon this cross-post at the Vikingbitch blog: '10 Reasons to Stop Using Porn'. I scoffed at first, but was intrigued by the testimonials of the men who had stopped using Internet pornography and masturbating and had experienced a real turnaround in their lives. From there I went to Gary Wilson's site on Internet pornography addiction . There's a lot of material there; probably the best place to start is his six-part YouTube clip slide show. The refreshing thing about Gary Wilson's approach is that he views Internet pornography addiction in terms of neurochemicals and neuropsychology - he is bereft of any religious, Christian-fundamentalist moralising on the topic.

The best way to explain it would be to use the following analogy. Suppose you have some marvellous computer program, called World of Ecstason, which allows you to plug electrodes into your brain and induce states of pleasure similar to what one gets from drugs such as Ecstasy, crack-cocaine, heroin and crystal meth. World of Ecstason has different settings: one can increase the intensity of the pleasure and other emotions by turning a dial. After repeated use of the program, the 'low' settings which were once so pleasurable and exciting become less so; fortunately, one can increase the setting from 'low' to 'medium', 'medium-high' and beyond.

If you try World of Ecstason and like it, after a while a few things will happen. You will end up using it more and more, devote more time, money and energy to it, and withdraw a corresponding amount of time and energy from your normal pursuits (including socialising with friends and family); you may become withdrawn, irritable, moody and less responsive and adaptive to the real world; you may pay less and less attention to friends, family, one's hygiene, one's appearance, one's job, one's duties (e.g., housework). Your life, and your character, may end up changing - albeit in a subtle way.

One can predict the results of all this: addiction, which makes one decadent and also a little bit crazy.
In an arc in The Flash comic book in 1979, a convict called Clive Yorkin is experimented upon using a device similar to World of Ecstason (or the pain / pleasure conditioner in A Clockwork Orange (1971)):

The homicidal Clive Yorkin learns to manipulate the pleasure-inducing function of the device and becomes a kind of masturbating, gibbering maniac:

There is also a beautifully-illustrated story in Marvel Comics' adaptation of Robert E. Howard's Kull. An evil wizard gives the barbarian Kull a magic mirror which allows Kull to see magical visions of other worlds. He ends up becoming transfixed by the mirror and neglecting his kingdom, which falls into chaos.

I'm not saying, of course, that Internet addicts will end up like Clive Yorkin or Kull of Atlantis: only that we have to see what these stories are - metaphors for Internet addiction (written long before the invention of high-speed broadband).

So, what does all this have to do with politics? The men in the testimonials mentioned before report that they saw increases in energy, enthusiasm, motivation, optimism, sociability,
assertiveness and confidence. They also became more masculine in physical ways: i.e., their voices became deeper, their facial hair started regrowing more quickly, and more thickly (and even thinning of the hair on one's head stopped altogether). In some cases, the men had suffered from erectile dysfunction - which is completely abnormal for healthy men in their twenties and thirties - and their normal sexual functioning returned after giving up pornography. They experienced a newfound appreciation for women in the real world outside of the Internet; some of them began relationships, while others saw improvements in their existing relationships and marriages.

In other words, they recovered their masculinity and became assertive and adaptive to the outside world. Adaptability and assertiveness - these some of the qualities, I believe, that are necessary for a successful activist for neofascist and nationalist politics.

One may object that 'addiction' here is too strong a word. Surely one can't be addicted to Internet pornography, in the way that one can be addicted cocaine or alcohol? Wilson's definition of addiction is a broad one and I imagine that the vast majority of habitual pornography users are addicted by his criteria. What's more, the number of addicts is growing, given that the number of users in the male population is very large (especially in Generation X and Y (the baby boomer male population is, in my experience, not very confident with computers)) and the increasing availability of high-speed broadband.

Wilson argues that pornography stimulates the same parts of the brain as drugs. What's more, the relationship between pornography and drug addiction is evident in the fact that severe and repeated use of pornography leads to desensitisation, an inability to be aroused by 'normal' pornography. One can only be turned on by harder stuff, by more and more perverse pornography: i.e., white women copulating with BDSM practitioners, negroes, midgets, transsexuals, whatever. Long-term addicts who are otherwise heterosexual admit they have developed a taste for gay and transsexual pornography (Wilson even has a jargon word for this - Homosexual Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), which of course leads them to question their heterosexuality. It's a long slide into perversion, and the end point is (fake) snuff pornography and, of course, child pornography.

What of masturbation without pornography? We are all taught today that masturbation is healthy and that no harm comes of it. In truth, however, it can cause harm. There is a splendid quotation from C.S. Lewis which appears on a thread at the Reddit No-Fap message board, which I will reproduce here:



This is my favourite NoFap material, ever, and has gotten me past 100 days:
By C.S. Lewis:

Masturbation

“For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back; sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides.
And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman.

For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no woman can rival.

Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover; no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever imposed on his vanity.
In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself…After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is to be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.”
(Bold emphasis: mine)

Remember Lewis passed in 1963, long before the Internet age gave way to easily accessible pornography and our own harem of imaginary brides (those "special" videos we save to watch especially with that certain "bride"). I suppose timeless truths never die.

http://www.reddit.com/r/NoFap/comments/1v12n0/cs_lewis_on_pornography/


So what is to be done? Politically, nothing should be done. I believe that pornography, and masturbating to pornography (or PMOing, in the jargon - Pornography Masturbation Orgasming) is really a problem for the individual. No government can stamp out vice entirely - whether it be pornography, prostitution, gambling, smoking, drinking, drugs - and it's a matter of individual choice as to whether one does anything about one's vice and what steps one takes to combat it and thereby improve one's life.

There are a number of obstacles standing in the way of a person who wants to beat his pornography addiction. It is tremendously difficult to give up pornography - some claim that it is even more addictive than nicotine or alcohol. A person who sets out to drive pornography, and all the temptations and lusts it brings, out of one's head can end up putting too much pressure on himself and developing unrealistic expectations. As a result, he will eventually snap and revert to his old ways.
Another obstacle is the fact that the anti-pornography movement (including the forums at Reddit) can really be off-putting. Christian evangelism had strong ties to the temperance movement of a hundred years ago and helped bring about, and sustain, the Prohibition in the US. Many in the anti-porn movement are fundamentalist Christians, and even the ones who claim to be secular are reminiscent of temperance evangelicals. That religious side of it is fine for some, but not for all.

On top of all that, the struggle against addiction is just that - a struggle. What's often not mentioned in the message boards is the physical and psychological strain placed on one by abstention. One will experience, after a period of time, swollen testicles (which can be extremely uncomfortable - as though one has just had a vasectomy operation), knotted muscles in one's back and neck... Also, one feels increasingly aggressive. One poster at Reddit wrote:



When I went back to watching porn after 30 days, I felt like complete shit. So I realized that most of my problems were coming from the hardcore porn I was watching. Since then, I've gone 60 days without porn. But sometimes I get to the point where I just want to punch everybody in the face. I'm completely angry for no reason. And it's due to build up sexual energy. A lot of the problems people talk about here are directly related to heavy porn use. So cut that out for sure. But I find it very difficult to function without orgasm for 30+ days, coming from the habits I had before.

http://www.reddit.com/r/NoFap/comments/1v93bj/talked_to_a_psychotherapist_about_my_porn_escort/

My argument here has been that increased male aggressiveness and self-assertion in the West is a good thing - and a necessary thing if the Western civilisation is to survive. But there is a trade-off here. Does one really want to become a monster with an excess of testosterone?

I recently saw a documentary on the history of slavery in Brazil. Slavery in South America was especially brutal, and the documentary makers attributed the cruelty of the Brazilian slave-owners to the fact that the newly arrived colonial settlers were single, male and young - not many women from Europe came to live in Brazil and South America. (The European men in the Caribbean and the American South were smart enough to bring plenty of white women with them). The explanation of these documentary makers is somewhat reductionist, but I tend to agree with it; only that I contend that cruelty and aggressiveness of the European adventurers who founded Brazil is what is needed today - in small doses. A fraction of it, combined with a nationalist ideology, would lead to a surging tide among our young men - and the Culture Bolsheviks, and the immigrants they have brought to Western lands - would be swept away.

So, to get down to brass tacks: how does one give up the pornography vice? From reading the observations of others, the first thing one should do is regain control over the content of one's computer. Some people can't bear to delete their precious collection of pornographic links, saved images and videos, so the best thing to do is to save it all on a USB or external hard drive and then store it in a safe place outside of one's home (e.g., in a locker or a desk drawer at one's workplace). The next step is to put up a blocker on one's computer which will prevent the viewing of pornography - K9 is free and probably the best. K9 does have an override password, but again, one can keep that password in a safe place outside one's home which is not easy to access. Once temptation is removed, one's masturbatory urges tend to recede, and the less one masturbates, the faster one gets the 'porn monkey' (the pornography vice) off one's back. One shouldn't look at pornography, or masturbate, at all - well, maybe only a few times a year.

The goal is to drastically reduce one's pornography usage, but one shouldn't have unrealistic expectations. The main thing is: prepare to fail. One will fall off the wagon now and then, but what's important is that one makes progress towards moderation and not towards the continence of a monk or saint.

Initially, one may think that putting a blocker on one's computer and storing one's pornography collection away is a sign of weakness: the afflicted person simply doesn't have the willpower not to look at pornography and give in. But supposing that one wants to quit smoking - one wouldn't associate with smokers, at home or at work, and one would want to avoid passive smoking; certainly, one wouldn't keep cigarette cartons and ashtray filled with cigarette stubs around one's house. It's the same with pornography. Cleaning up one's computer and putting safeguards on it is the first step towards gaining a sense of control.

Australian Election 2013: Nothing Changes, More Chinese on the Way

Americans and British seem to be under the misconception that Australia has 'tough' immigration laws and a political class that is still interested in maintaining Australia's ethnic homogeneity - see, for instance, Steve Sailer's recent post. This is not the case, as anyone who visits Melbourne or Sydney will see for themselves. Since 2004, governments have lifted legal immigration to 150,000 to 230,000 a year (last year, it was a record 237,000) and most of these immigrants are non-white - Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Koreans, Maoris from New Zealand, African "refugees". (There are whites coming in from Britain and South Africa - the former are genuine refugees from British multi-culti, the latter are refugees from a barbarous African regime). The immigrants, like in Singapore and Britain (both countries which have been victims of a massive influx of immigration) are taking the majority of the jobs being created - even though economists assured that this would not happen and that the notion that immigrants take jobs is a "myth".

The Aussie majority are steadily being wiped out in their own cities, and not one politician, media commentator, priest, academic, sportsman, soldier, businessman is willing to comment on the issue. These annual intakes of immigrants are comparable to British levels under Blair and Cameron - but at least in Britain, you will find regular criticism, from dissenting members of the liberal establishment, of the Blair-induced British immigration disaster; here, in Australia, you will find none.

The sole exception is the union movement, which has opposed 457 visas for "skilled" immigrants (similar to the American STEM visa program, which Zuckerberg of Facebook wants to expand as part of the current amnesty-for-illegals bill). They make the argument that these visas are going to undercut wages, conditions, etc., and lead to the hire of non-unionised labour - which of course they will. The unions have been condemned by sectors of the Left, and the Right, for being "racist" and "xenophobic", because, of course, a reduction in "skilled" immigration will mean less Chinese, less Indians. Much has been made by these critics of the nativism of the union movement's past - its support, up to forty years ago, of the White Australia policy. That is to say, they are doing their best to tie the union movement to the past policy of White Australia. (In the US, "conservative" critics of the Democrat Party will point out the historical ties of the party to Southern segregationism).

The majority of non-white immigrants to Australia are legal immigrants - brought here under policies enacted by a "conservative" government in 2004. A little opposition to legal immigration, even on ostensibly non-racist grounds, is better than no opposition at all, and the union movement is the only institution in this country taking a stand against legal immigration (at least some of it); and so, paradoxically, the union movement is the most conservative political force in this country at the moment (despite the fact that union chiefs are liberals and that many unions contain some politically powerful Maoist and Trotskyite communist factions).

This is why, in my opinion, the Australian nationalist movement should align itself more closely with organised labour: there is a patriotic, conservative core there. We need to follow the Bolshevik tactics - as outlined in Philip Selznick's classic work of sociology on the communist movement, The Organizational Weapon: A Study of Bolshevik Strategy and Tactics (1952). (You can find an excellent review and summary of this book here).

One may ask, 'Communism failed - so why imitate communists?'. The answer is that, after decades of painstaking work, the American Far Left managed to get one of their own - Barack Obama, a fellow traveller or at least a communist dupe - elected. Obama has been a failure as a liberal president, but a great success as a Marxist and a black nationalist. Recently the US labour force participation rate (i.e., how many people are looking for work or are in work) has dropped to 35-year lows. More and more Americans are becoming dependent on the state for health care, employment, welfare, housing, education, etc., and this is precisely what a Marxist wants... Just imagine what the American Far Right could do, if it organised and got a white version of Obama - with ties to white nationalism and American Neo-Nazism - elected.

It's not as simple, however, as running a candidate for office: the communists in the US (and elsewhere, e.g., in Britain and Australia) have concentrated on changing the institutions of a society more than on winning elections. They have harnessed the "progressive" (i.e., degenerate) movements in society in an attempt to use them to their own advantage, and have succeeded in altering establishment opinion - which is why the establishment media now takes gay marriage, and now "transgender rights" so seriously (these two things would have been a joke two decades ago).

Having said that, following the communist course - i.e., joining a teacher's union and then taking it over from within - is not easy. Trotskyite and Maoist communists are more or less a cult, and it's quite simple for organised and disciplined people, who are part of a cult, to infiltrate an institution if they really put their minds to it - see the success of the Scientologists, for instance, in infiltrating the American Internal Revenue Service (IRS). We nationalists are not like that.

At this stage, we have to look Far Right and racialist politics as being two circles, one within the other: the outer circle consists of Far Rightism, nationalism, racialism, or whatever you want to call it; the inner circle is the actual political organisation (e.g., Golden Dawn, the BNP, Front National, the German NPD). The first priority of the nationalist activist should be to try and convert as many (intelligent, decent, principled) white Western people as possible to the beliefs of the first, outer circle. Then they can go about and try and recruit individuals to nationalist organisations - that is, the right sort of individual (what the Bolsheviks call a cadre man). In other words, emphasis should not be on recruiting people to one's organisation, but on recruiting people to the Far Right subculture - and it is a subculture.

Barack Obama, Political Zombie

Sometimes the worse thing you can do to a politician is give him a second term, and this is one of those times. Obama knows this. He didn't look like a winner on this campaign, and he didn't on victory night. His facial expression was, 'What the hell have I gotten into?'. Likewise, many an American voter will wake up tomorrow and say, 'What the hell have we done?'.

The problem is that Obama is out of ideas, and the economic and political problems which were there, at the start of the election, haven't gone away and won't go away. What will he do about unemployment? Anaemic growth? The weak dollar? Rising costs for food staples, oil and other commodities? Perhaps he'll try a program of 'stimulus', fuelled by public works and deficit spending - no, that's been done. Or devalue the currency some more: QE4, QE5, QE6... But that's been done.

The only thing left for Obama to do, when it comes to the economy, is to hike taxes - on income tax, capital gains, dividends, estate tax - and remove the tax loopholes on the Alternative Minimum Tax. Obama desperately wants this because of 'fairness'. But the House of Representatives isn't controlled by the Republicans, so, he won't be able to do that. He's the closest thing to a dead man walking: a lame-duck president who has a four-year term to sit out. Obama's second term will be 2008's mouldering corpse. Eventually - it will take a couple of days - even the dimmest liberal media commentator will see this...

(As we know, the big cuts on dividends, capital gains, income tax, etc., were introduced by Bush Jr., and they are set to expire - that is, be replaced by higher tax rates - in January 2013, unless Congress acts. If the higher rates take effect, it will be the biggest tax increase since Herbert Hoover's in 1931 - the tax hikes which, the supply-side commentators argue, caused the Great Depression. The markets are understandably jittery about such a prospect. With any luck, the legislators will muddle through, and come up with a compromise, as they did late last year. But it's just possible that Obama will get the 'fairness', i.e., the tax hikes, he's been asking for, simply because of the fiscal cliff).

Many reasons are being put forth as to why Romney didn't win. The supply-siders, such as John Tamny, will say that Romney didn't endorse a return to the gold standard (in fact, he did promise to set up a Gold Commission, which was more than Obama did); the 'liberal' Republicans - which is about 98% of the party leadership - will say that Romney should have reached out more to Mestizo voters (despite the fact that Mestizo voters didn't cast the deciding vote); American nativists, Far Rightists, racialists, white nationalists, will say that Romney should have campaigned against illegal immigration and thus 'energised the base' of white Republican Party voters more. Some blame the trade unions, and others make dark mutterings about taking the vote away from women, who, supposedly, voted for Obama in droves.

I don't have the answer. Except that I observe this: Afro-American voters vote for Obama because he's one of them - he's their man. The mainstream media notes this, and more or less acknowledges that the Democrats, and Obama, will take the black vote for granted. This is even though the Afro-Americans are suffering under Obama. (Similarly, black South Africans will vote for the ANC, even though life, for them, is bad under ANC; Mugabe's tribe voted, and continues to vote, for ZANU-PF...). Whites, though, are held to a different standard of morality: they aren't mean to vote for a Romney because he's white. No, they are morally obliged to vote for Obama.

In contrast to the liberal media, the right-wing media tells white Americans (and Hispanics and Afro-Americans) to vote for Romney because Romney and the Republicans will 'restore the republic as intended by our Founding Fathers', because they restore 'liberty and free markets, as intended by our Founding Fathers', and similar such nonsense. In other words, they are meant to vote 'conservative' on the basis of abstract and universalist principles. In reality, Afro-Americans, and Mestizos, don't abide by such principles. They play by the rules of tribalist politics, identity politics.

Supposedly, the white nationalists are meant to abide by a tribalist, ethnicist politics. By that reasoning, they should have endorsed Romney. The leaders of white nationalism and American Far Right nativism should have told their followers - and they do have a sizable following - to do all they can for Romney, to get out there and vote for their man Romney, and despite the fact that white Americans won't necessarily be better off under Romney.

But these leaders (and I won't name names) didn't. They smirked, they sneered, they talked Romney down, they told their following that 'Voting changes nothing', 'America and the white race are doomed', 'Things have to get worse before they get better', 'Democracy and politics are a farce', and on and on.

AFRO-AMERICAN: Votes for Obama because he's black;

WHITE NATIONALIST: Don't vote for Romney, he's not pure enough, 'Voting changes nothing', 'Romney and Obama are the same', race doesn't matter.

To repeat: Afro-Americans are suffering under Obama. They are suffering under his economic policies, and his immigration policies - immigrants are consistently snapping up most of the jobs created under the Obama Administration, and taking them from white and Afro-Americans. But they vote for their man. I can think of one or two of Romney's policies which would have had a positive effect on the lives of white Americans, but that's besides the point: someone who's white, and who promulgates racialist, ethnicist and identity politics, should have endorsed Romney, and done everything in their power to get him elected - because he was white.

Quite a few white American 'conservatives' vote Republican because of dog whistle signals - they pick up on, subconsciously, the fact that the Republican Party is the party of the married white person who owns a home or has a mortgage (as Steve Sailer points out). I'm sure that there's an enormous anger, among that segment of the American population (which is quite sizable), against the Obama voters and supporters: the college students, the Jewish-American hedge fund managers, the fat cat public sector unionists, the hipsters, the Hollywood actors and directors, the rock stars like Bruce Springsteen, the stupid soccer moms, the homosexual journalists at The New York Times, The Washington Post... Were I a white American 'conservative', my first impulse would be to approach one of these Obama voters and say, 'F*ck you, for making my life, and the lives of my countrymen, that little bit harder for the next four years'. The same goes for all the Australians, Canadians and Europeans who support Obama.

But really, I can't castigate these Obama-supporters: they are, after all, voting according to type, just as much as the African-Americans, who want their 'Obama phones', are. No, it's the white nationalists, the movement purists, in America, who deserve the anger.

White nationalism really is a contrived, ahistorical, abstract and universalist ideology. In a way, it's a form of Christianity: one is obliged to unconditionally love one's brethren, simply on the basis of their race, and ignore any unique ethnic, national and regionalist features. Such an enterprise is doomed to fail, of course, and historically, has never been enacted. Perhaps this is why white nationalism is so purist and aloof from the doings of the real world. Because it is so abstract, and doesn't take into account political realities, it counsels its followers not to engage in politics, in any shape or form.

America is a weak country under Obama, and for that, European nationalists should be grateful. Had Obama the gumption of a Franklin Roosevelt or a Winston Churchill, he would have invaded Greece and Hungary by now to 'stop fascism' by stamping out the Golden Dawn and Jobbik; he would have also loudly remonstrated with Germany and told it to stop bullying its fellow European nations (or perhaps, solicitously, offered those bullied nations some Marshall Plan-type aid - to get them on their feet again). But America (and Israel) have lost all interest in Europe, and will only pay attention if and when Germany starts inclining on the same path as Greece and Hungary. But by then it will be too late. We nationalists can pray and hope.

As for the American whites, well, they'll have to start looking at the political possibilities - outside of libertarianism, conservatism and white nationalism.

Golden Dawn, Dialectics and Making a Nationalist Revolution

There has been a great deal of jubilation, in nationalist circles, regarding Golden Dawn's electoral success (7% of the vote, translating into 21 seats), and horror from the liberal establishment (no horror, though, regarding the success of the main Greek Communist Party, which won 8%). At the same time, a few comrades have told me that such success for a radical nationalist party - which is unashamed of its fascist, neofascist and right-wing authoritarian roots - wouldn't be possible here in Australia or indeed in any other Western European country (or colony): it's only in the East of Europe that the radical parties - the Jobbiks, the Golden Dawns - can win seats. That is, the sad reality is that a nationalist party has to go down the populist route (i.e., the Breivikist/Wilder-ist route) to achieve electoral success in the Western half of Europe. The electoral schema is, for nationalists in Europe at present: Zio-populism for the West, neofascist radicalism for the East, and for Germany, in the center, nothing at all (no nationalist party of any stripe can make much headway in Germany, at least not at a federal level). So there are certain peculiarities, on the Continent, which prevent a radical Far Right party taking off in the Western half.

On top of that, it is pointed that the Greeks suffered from extremely high levels of non-white immigration prior to the election: according to the liberal German news agency, Deutsche-Welle, 128,000 illegals came to Greece in 2010 alone, and according to the UK tabloid The Daily Mail, a 100,000 illegals entered in the 12 months to February 2012. Greece's geographical position as the gateway to Eastern Europe has led to it being inundated with immigrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, etc., so much so that the liberal democratic government of Greece, even before the election, began work on erecting a six-mile, 13 feet high, double razor-wire wall along the border. Even so, that was shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, and the presence of hundreds of thousands of non-white immigrants has led to the de facto ethnic cleansing of the majority white Greek population in certain urban areas. This awfulness, combined with Greece's economic straits, has led to a decisive nationalist vote.

In short, then, a 7% vote for a nationalist party 'won't happen here', in Australia, because (what the Marxists call) the 'objective conditions' aren't right: yes, white Australians are being gradually forced into minority status, in the urban and suburban areas, thanks to mass Chinese and Indian immigration; but they aren't in the sorry position of the Greeks, and certainly, economically, they are nowhere as badly off.

Is this fatalism and determinism warranted? Or is it unjustified? In order to arrive at an answer to that question, let's consider a few key theses: we have to get a clear exposition of the problem - the problem faced by nationalism - before we can get around to solving it.

Here are a few defining characteristics of the Golden Dawn:

1.  It has a mainly working-class, proletarian class composition;

2.  It is a radical party;

3.  It has authoritarian, anti-liberal, anti-parliamentarian leanings, and gravitates towards 'extraparliamentary opposition', i.e., activism on the street, demonstrations, and so forth;

4.  It is anti-capitalist, and opposed to the financial hegemony of the international bankers.

This last point is especially important: modern-day liberal democracy in Europe represents, to a certain extent, the 'dictatorship of finance capital'. Banks which have invested heavily in French, Greek, Spanish, Irish, Italian, etc., debt, stand to suffer if the value of this debt plummets (they will be breaking the international banking rules regarding a strict equity-to-asset ratio, which I won't detail here); certainly, they will see a loss on the value of that debt, if the governments miss out on one or two or three of their regular interest payments. Debts, such as mortgages, are assets for a bank, and just the way that the value of a mortgage (for a bank) will fall, if the borrower starts missing out on his payments, so will the value of a French government bond fall if the French government misses on its payments. Such is the power of the banks in Europe, they can compel the EU and Germany to enforce a strict 'austerity' regimen to ensure that all the interest payments from Greece, Italy, France, etc., are promptly paid and in full - even if that austerity regimen means tax hikes, cuts to welfare, etc., which end up destroying those countries economically. (This, of course, leads to a vicious circle: a country with 25% employment and zero economic growth is unlikely to reap in much of tax revenue, and so will be less likely to be able to pay its interest bill). The sensible thing would be, of course, for the Greek and other afflicted governments to default, and skip one or two payments until things improve - as they inevitably will. But it's axiomatic, for the EU and Germany, that the banks have to be insulated from losses, i.e., write-downs on the value of their bond holdings.

It goes without saying that such a policy hurts the Greek working-class: and the peculiar thing about the above defining characteristics of the Golden Dawn is that they are true of the communist parties, and, historically, the fascist parties of the 1920s and 1930s. What we have, in Golden Dawn, the Greek communist KKE and the splinter-communist Syriza, is a surge towards socialism - radical socialism - if we could define the above 1)-4) as being 'socialist'. The conventional wisdom is that socialists of one stripe or another will do well during a period of economic downturn, and the election results in Greece and France this year bear this out.

There are, of course, real differences between the Far Right socialists, and the socialists of the Far Left. The main difference is on the question of immigration. To explain this, we will have to backtrack a little, and look at some recent social history.

Since the 1960s, Europe - and the West - has been ruled by a dominating clique, which has manifested itself in politics, journalism, academia, entertainment. The intent of that clique has been to eradicate the majority white population of every white, European country and replace it with non-whites drawn from the Third World. Liberalisation of immigration from the Third World, mass indoctrination of the white populace with the virtues of 'multiculturalism', 'diversity', being nice to minorities, etc., have been put to use for that purpose. The end result of mass immigration is that whites, in cities from Oslo to London to Athens, are slowly being pushed out of the lands they have lived in for hundreds, if not thousands, of years: and this is the goal of the anti-white clique. They want, for instance, for a country like Sweden to be a wonderful smorgasbord of diversity: Afghans, Iraqis, Somalis, Kurds, Chinese, Pakistanis, will occupy Sweden from coast to coast, while the Swedes themselves will be reduced to a minority, living in the forests and mountains of the far-flung rural areas (until the cities, bulging to the brim with immigrants, expand and reach those areas too). It is a process of replacing one race by another. Non-white countries such as Kenya, Japan, Guatemala, of course, aren't expected to undergo the same process: 'diversity' is a unique gift - or punishment - reserved by the white man, to pay him back for centuries of colonialism and exploitation of the Third World. The colonies of Europe - Canada, South Africa, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, the USA - are especially deserving of punishment, because, to the anti-white clique, their existence represents an obscenity: these countries were founded on the enslavement, rape, despoliation and dispossession of the natives, who were at a far higher level of moral and spiritual attainment than the white settlers.

Of course, the anti-white clique won't achieve the 'maximalist' (to borrow a Trotskyite term) program of wiping the white race out altogether. But they will manage to increase the non-white populations of the cities of Europe (and the European colonies) to bursting point, and thus, proportionally, reduce the white populations to a minority there. This is already happening in the traditionally white working-class towns of Bradford, Birmingham and Leicester. (Ideally, the whites should be ethnically cleansed at gunpoint: just as what happened to the Germans of Eastern Europe in the late 1940s, the Palestinians in Palestine in 1948, the various Balkans ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavian provinces of the early 1990s. But that can't happen, of course, so the anti-white clique resorts to other means).

It's a grim scenario, of course, especially given that none of the élites in the West (who are the custodians of the destiny of their countries) will or can do anything about it. The mainstream liberal media is beginning to acknowledge, of course, that this process is taking place, and is cautiously suggesting that the policy should be stopped for the time being; but acknowledgements and suggestions are no substitutes for doing, i.e., none of these conservative critics are willing to fight to have their views enforced, and none of them can even suggest voting for the parties (such as the BNP) who make opposition to immigration a priority. It's become clear that conservatism just doesn't have the strength, morally, intellectually, physically, to 'defend the West' at this crucial juncture. This is shown by their policies: the conservative government of the Tory David Cameron was elected, in part, on his pledge to cut British immigration to the 'tens of thousands', but immigration into Britain is even higher than when he took office.

Amazingly, conservatives turn into mush liberals when it comes to immigration. While American conservatives are prepared to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, drop bombs on Libya, water-board Arabs, cut welfare spending to 'balance the budget', they just won't countenance the deportation of illegal Mexican immigrants (it would 'break up families') or even cut off all the public housing, health care, education and other benefits which, in part, serve to induce illegals to stay in America.

As for the Left, well, they are completely out of the loop. The truth is that while the present-day ideology of the anti-white clique seems, on the surface of it, to be left-wing - with all its ranting and raving over the 'crimes of colonialism', its declarations that the 'white race is the cancer of history', and so forth - it is something totally new in the annals of the Left: we don't find a hint of it in Lenin, Bakunin, Marx, Engels, Trotsky, the Fabian socialists, Samuel Gompers and so forth. Conservatives like to blame modern-day multiculturalism and multiracialism on the 'Cultural Marxism' of the 'Frankfurt School', but one really can't find an endorsement of ethnic cleansing (of whites), any rationale, in the works of Adorno, Marcuse, Fromm, Walter Benjamin (one does find the standard-issue liberal bilge, regarding the rights of oppressed Negroes in the American South, of course, but that's another thing entirely). Likewise, where, in the offical Soviet communist manual, The Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism (1963), is the suggestion of such a policy? There is the demand, by the communists, for 'revolutionary violence' in that manual (and in Soviet and Maoist propaganda from that time), but no demand for the disappearance of the French from France, or the British from Britain.

The Left, today, could be expected (given its ideology) to defend the interests of the white-working classes in the West and elsewhere: undoubtedly, the policies of the anti-white clique have caused great suffering to the traditional constituency of the Left (statistics show that 9/10ths of British jobs created in the Blair-Brown years went to immigrants, for example). But this isn't the case: the Left simply refuses to see any suffering. The Left believes that there is an infinite font of resources in the West - jobs, housing, education, health care, etc. - which should be shared, gratis, with the entire Third World; there's an infinite capacity which should be given to everybody. What's more, if we in the West take in immigrants and put them up in public housing, and on welfare benefits, we'll be giving them a better life - and protecting them from becoming child soldiers, or, if they are female children, from having their genitals mutilated. Those on the Right, who say that there aren't enough resources to go around, or that the immigrant groups will continue to practice female genital mutilation and honour killings (no matter what country they are living in), are just mean, nasty and horrid people.

In addition to all that, both the Left and Right are aesthetically blind. They don't see, they don't perceive, they don't understand, the concept of human degradation. There is something tremendously ugly, and sad, about immigrants sneaking into Britain, from across the Channel, by clinging to the undersides of lorries, by hiding themselves in garbage containers in trucks, or trucks carrying vats of chocolate; there is something tremendously ugly about immigrants (of a certain ethnic group I won't name, due to political correctness) of going about Melbourne, wearing ill-fitting, shabby clothes (which look as though they were stolen from the back of a barrow), sleeping, 20 people to a house, five people to a single bed, cheating utility and phone companies by not paying their bills, shopping, with their arranged marriage (and possibly co-sanguinary) wives, in the junk shops and haggling over the smallest dollars and cents... To a certain extent, life, when it gets to that level, is not worth living: these people degrade the quality of life in the West, and they are degrading to the human spirit. 'What, "spirit"?', say our establishment politicians: 'The only "spirit" I believe in is that of the Anglican Church, or the Catholic Church, which accepts all races equally, especially brown ones: your "spirit" sounds to me quite fascist'.

And so we are, in the West in 2012, at an impasse.

All of the above explains why, despite their turn towards socialism in the recent elections, the French and the Greeks didn't give complete victory to the socialist Left. As Gilad Atzmon shrewdly points out, it's strange how the Left embraces Palestinians expressing Palestinian nationalism, but can't abide by a Frenchwoman who expresses French nationalism - Marine Le Pen. But this is because, I argue, that the Left now accepts, along with the Right, all the presuppositions of the anti-white clique.

Given all this, it has become clear, to me, at least, that the West needs to adopt the most uncompromising and radical measures to save itself in its current predicament. I mean this well and truly: 'radical' comes from the Latin word radix, meaning 'from the root', and we need pull up the existing political, economic and social structures from the roots. In practical terms, this means - for Britain - the suspension (perhaps permanent) of parliament and democratic elections, the ascent to power of a new, nationalist-minded élite, and the conversion of the existing British constitutional system away from constitutional monarchy and towards a republic. In turn, the power of the City of London - Britain's financial hub - will have to be curtailed, for the future nationalist politicians simply can't be subject to the whims of the global bond and stock markets.

In any real 'dialectical' change, or evolution, the Marxists argue, the new order has to contain traces of the old: it is, in short, a 'sublation' - the present order contains the seeds of the future, within itself, and so revolution is a matter of bringing out the possibilities and making the new order sprout and grow. There is a clean break, but, at the same time, it is not the case of an old order (e.g., constitutional monarchy, liberal democracy, capitalism) being swapped for something unrelated and arbitrary. The white British simply won't convert, en masse, to fundamentalist Islam and ditch liberal democracy for Islamic theocracy: the tendencies, cultural and historical, towards radical Islam simply aren't there in the British people (whereas, in the case of the Egyptian people, they are). Whereas what I am advocating for the British is there. Britain was a republic, for ten years, under Cromwell, and parliament was suspended during his reign. But, aside from the historical precedent, the British soul, British history, British culture, contains within it radical socialism - a socialism which could form the basis of the new constitutional order. And it must, because radical ideologies such as Islam aren't an option.

The same goes for Australia: 'white man's socialism', the socialism of the old Labor Party, and the old Australian 'bush' nationalists, is still there within us, deep below the surface. But, in order to implement it, it needs to be Europeanised: not only does it need to be Marxianised, it needs to be fascist-ised. In other words, it needs to take into account recent (and by recent, in this case, I mean within the last hundred years) political and intellectual developments on the Continent.

Marx's Kapital doesn't contain the blueprint of a future communist order, as readers of it know: it attempts to describe the existing state of affairs and portends a clean break from them - the ruptures which will lead to the birth of a new order. But it doesn't describe how things ought to be, and this is one of the problems faced by the new rulers of communist regimés: where were the prescriptions, in Marx, for the new order, how would we know what socialism looks like? Engels, it is true, predicted the disappearance of money, etc., under socialism and communism, but, in general, communist theory always hedged its bets when it came to the future. It was 'dialectical', which is to say, the changes would come about organically and develop out of the old. In contrast, the so-called Utopian socialists devised detailed schemes, and drew up blueprints, for the future socialist order and how the communities in that order would live. Henceforth, the schemes would be imposed without taking circumstances and limitations into account. It was the flexibility of Marx's 'scientific' socialism, in contrast to the apriorism and inflexibility of his scheme-making 'utopian' socialist forebears, which gave it a main advantage. And this is something we nationalists, in 2012, ought to imitate.

In short: in politics, we are like painters and sculptors, who have to work with the materials we are given. We can't go beyond the given. At the same time, as revolutionaries, we recognise the need for a clean and decisive break. Revolutions make use of the existing material - the cultural, historical, economic and political tendencies - to hand. At the same time, they are brought about by élites, minorities, standing on the outside of the prevailing order. No politician, no matter what ideology, accepts the existing facts 'as they are', otherwise, he wouldn't be in politics. So, revolutions are made, they are brought about. It is our task, as revolutionary nationalists, to manufacture the conditions for revolution.

That doesn't mean that we can ignore the 'objective conditions'. One only has to recall the case of Che Guevera, who went about 'making revolution', half-cocked, in Congo and Bolivia, and failing miserably because he out-and-out ignored the 'objective conditions', didn't bother to investigate what the working-classes and peasantry in those countries were about, and so forth. A more recent example of (what the Marxists call) 'left-adventurism' is the anti-globalisation riots - the black bloc anarchists who go around assaulting police and smashing the windows of Starbucks and McDonalds - and the Occupy movement. (One really can't blame the anarchists or the Occupiers for their spontaneous disorders, given that conventional Marxism has failed the Left so dramatically). In other words, we mustn't think that inducing riot, rebellion and insurrection, leading to armed conflict - just as see in the Arab world right now - automatically adds up to revolution, although such things can, of course, occur naturally in the midst of a revolution.

The good news is that the white peoples of the West are gradually waking up to the fact that they are being shafted by the anti-white clique. They are being told, around the clock, by the establishment media, intellectuals and politicians, to pay no heed to their ethnic dispossession, but, as recent electoral events in Europe show, they are no longer listening. But they are a long way from revolting. Mainly this is because the nationalists and the Far Right have to get their house in order.

Part of the problem is that we, in our economic thinking, gravitate, by force of habit, to ideas which show a petit-bourgeois propensity. How many times do we hear a nationalist say, 'Oh, I agree with you, companies like Goldman-Sachs are bad, globalisation is bad, all the companies listed on the DJIA or the All Ordinaries Index are bad - big business, corporations, global conglomerates, are all bad. But the small proprietor, the white middle-class, the subsidised EU-farmer - we mustn't hurt them! We must go back to small business: artisans is what we need. We must have more handicrafts...'. Such thinking is reflective of traditional anarchism and socialism (the pre-Marxist 'utopian' socialism), and the petit-bourgeois class origins of such thinking, and it still holds an enormous allure for the Far Right today. It's something to be avoided, an alternative is needed. Really, such splendid experiments in socialism such as Herman Goering's Four-Year-Plan, and his Hermann Goering Steelworks, would never have gotten off the ground with such thinking.

I myself don't have an economic plan, and don't think nationalists need one. At the same time, we must have a complete break from the existing political, social and economic order, and that entails a rejection, or revision, of the existing capitalist system. The success of Golden Dawn is a step in that direction: despite their stated economic platform, they are a symptom of the ruptures and upsets predicted by Marx in Kapital. Perhaps they are a sign of the new socialist order as well.