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

I. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And: 

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

III.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hitler concludes: 

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

IV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 


 

Preliminary Reflections on National Socialism and Class Struggle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Worst Enemy of 'National Socialism'

I.

Most nationalists don't like the word 'neo-Nazi': they prefer the term 'National Socialist'. I myself refuse to refer to the post-war sympathisers and revivalists of Hitler as 'National Socialist' because that would imply that they are the one and same with the German National Socialists of the NSDAP. I believe that a continuity of sorts exists but not an identity. The term 'post-Nazi' manages to encapsulate the post-war Hitler revival movement best, but I regard it as a little specious. Better to stick with 'neo-Nazi'.

 It's true that this pejorative term is used by the enemy - just like its cousins 'racist', 'sexist', 'white supremacist' and the like - but by embracing the term we neuter it. Besides which, you can use it to get right down to brass tacks when discussing politics with someone. 'My political beliefs are neo-Nazi': such a statement cuts right to the essence of things and leaves very little by way of doubt in the mind of your interlocutor as to what your actual beliefs are. It saves time.

 In order to explain what neo-Nazism is, we need to define what the historical German National Socialism was. I'd sum it up in six points: 1) anti-Semitism and folkish German nationalism; 2) the doctrine of inequality between races, nations and men (the 'theory of personality' as Hitler calls it); 3) the leader principle, or Führerprinzip; 4) anti-communism; 5) the importance of improving the lot of the working class and recruiting from the working-class; 6) the importance of struggle - that the good things in life (or in politics at least) can only be won by struggle. One can find the best explication of these doctrines in Mein Kampf.

 And what is neo-Nazism? It's most commonly defined as an attempt to revive those doctrines. A.V. Schaerffenberg's Nazi Questions and Answers (2008) gives us the best introduction to neo-Nazism, Yockey's Imperium (1948) the most impressive intellectual foundation.

Neither of these authors really revise the doctrines of Hitler: by and large, they leave them unchanged. In the same way, Marxist-Leninism hasn't changed much in the past hundred years. The immutability of both these ideas - Leninism and Hitlerism - explains their survival into the 21st century. Neo-Nazism itself has been around in one shape or form for seventy years.

This long-livedness makes it superior, in my eyes, to other 'nationalist' and Far Right ideologies and tendencies. Recently an excellent article appeared in the Occidental Observer on the shortcomings of the Nouvelle Droit or European New Right - a school of thought which rose to prominence in the 1970s and 1980s and then went the way of all fads. I can imagine newer tendencies, such as the Alt Right, going the same way. Neo-Nazism outlived the European New Right and will outlive the Alt Right, simply because intellectual ideas need to be given political form, and this is what neo-Nazism does for the intellectuals - it gives them a party. This is what the original Nazism and fascism did as well. The European New Right made a hero out of Carl Schmitt, who, it will be remembered, joined the NSDAP (along with Martin Heidegger, another New Right hero) in 1933.

 The fascist parties gave intellectuals of the Right a home, the communist parties, the intellectuals of the Left. Communism and fascism resemble one another. Both make a fetish of the great individual, the man of genius, what Marx disparages as the 'cult of personality', and it's this side of the German National Socialist doctrine, I think, which tends to rub its critics up the wrong way. These men - ostensibly 'Far Right' and 'nationalist' and 'racialist' - don't believe in Hitler's genius because they hold to egalitarian theories. They subscribe to a form of Marxism. We know that Marxist theory teaches that all men are equal and that the masses - in particular, the working-classes - are the ones who make history. (In practice, the Marxist regimes of Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, East Germany and the rest put their leaders on a pedestal and made a cult of them: the communist party line was that the revolutions in those respective countries were brought about by the individual initiative of those very great men...). The anti-Hitlerians take egalitarianism at face value. They don't follow the doctrine of racialism to its logical conclusion: that if you believe in the inequality of races, then you must believe in the inequality of nations - and men. And, from the inequality of men, we can deduce the Führerprinzip: responsibility for political decisions must be reserved for those superior men, the men who are (in Spengler's words) 'master-types' to whom the masses owe unquestioning obedience. In the words of the Italian Fascist slogan, 'Believe, obey, fight!'.

 In National Socialist propaganda, the Führer, the German Volk and the Wehrmacht form three pillars of the German national genius. The Hitler detractors take umbrage to this: how can one nation (Germany) set itself above another? Doesn't white nationalism preach that white nations such as Ireland, Portugal, Bulgaria, Finland, Serbia and Montenegro are all equal?

And on the subject of Hitler's alleged genius, his critics accuse him with making many questionable decisions (the implication being that had they been in charge, they would have done better). They don't believe in his greatness, and what's more, don't believe that any man - much less a politician - can be great.

 Oddly enough, it's the Left which understands the theories of 'personality' (viz., the cult of individual genius) and Führerprinzip - and national greatness too. While the anti-Hitlerians may decry neo-Nazi celebrations of Hitler's birthday as cultish, the Left has no problems with celebrating Martin Luther King's birthday and making it an American national holiday. Likewise, after the 1917 October revolution, the Left made a fetish of Russia and Russian nationalism (and Russian imperialism), recognising Russia as a superior nation. One may wonder, how many Anglophone left-wing intellectuals after 1917 strove to learn Russian? Or, after 1949, Chinese? As for democracy, the communist parties which made up the Comintern (and later the Trotskyite Internationals) were never that big on it. Even today, the communist parties run their organisations like disciplined military units and their members show more self-restraint, more subordination to authority, than our present nationalist mob. But one could say that the Marxist-Leninism of Stalin, Mao, Trotsky represents a dishonest fascism, a mealy-mouthed, hypocritical fascism which is unable to say, plainly and frankly, what it is.

One may object to German National Socialism on the grounds that it was for Germans only - that National Socialism doesn't carry across to white nations other than Germany. But we need to look at this in context. After WWI, Europe was ruled by four Great Powers, each with their sovereign independence, each with a number of smaller countries (and colonies) within their sphere of influence: Germany, Britain, France and Italy. By 1939, France and Britain had lost their sovereignty and had fallen, along with Poland, under the sway of America; by the middle of 1944, Germany, the sole power on the Continent, was engaged in a ferocious struggle with the US for control of Europe. It was in this period that Italy ceased to be a sovereign political unit. The project of Italian Fascism - along with the fascisms of Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Holland, etc. - became subordinated to the German. In connection with this, it must be recalled that Hitler's racialism was not directed at the Negroes or the Muslims or Chinese or Indians but against the Jews. By 1944 the Italian racial doctrine became explicitly Hitlerian; Fascist Italy, along with France and other European countries, had consented to the round-up and deportation of Jews. Politically and intellectually, all fascism and Far Rightism by 1944 had become Germanised and 'Nazi'; paraphrasing Sir William Harcourt, Europe's Right had said, in effect, 'We're all Nazis now'. This is why I characterise neofascism (the remnants of fascism which survived the war) as neo-Nazi.

 Despite the 'Germanness' of the National Socialist doctrine, and despite the fact that it was implemented eighty years ago, many of its ideas could still be carried across to other white countries (and solve a good many social and political problems thereby). In Australia, a nationalist government could introduce labour laws modelled on National Socialist Germany's; young men and women could be conscripted into an Australian version of the Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls (both of which were patterned on communist youth formations).

 But it goes without saying that, in these times, an insurmountable wall prevents us from introducing anything like Hitlerism here (or, for that matter, any Western country). Communist and fascist youth organisations originated in countries which were ethnically homogenous. In many Melbourne and Sydney schools, the non-whites - who are the children of non-white immigrants - can often outnumber the Aussies, and a mixed-race nationalist and fascist youth organisation, composed of Aussies and non-whites, would be a contradiction in terms. (For that matter, it's difficult to imagine Chinese or Russian communist youth organisations with members who are African). Much of historical fascism can't be transposed to the modern era. In today's multi-culti, bastardised, mixed-race Western societies, the old slogan, 'Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Führer' - 'One people, one kingdom, one leader' - doesn't hold true and can't hold true. George Lincoln Rockwell, who died in 1967, and Francis Parker Yockey, who died in 1960, would have been shocked and appalled by today's Melbourne, Los Angeles, London, Rome, Athens...

II.

One can't turn the clock back, and all the ideologies on the Far Right today face the same uphill battle. We can't return to the same ethnically homogenous societies of the 1960s and even the 1970s and 1980s - at least, not without a terrible fight.

Now, I think that neo-Nazism - with its doctrine of the importance of struggle - is uniquely suited to that task; but a great many of its critics on the Far Right don't agree. Despite the fact that everywhere on the Far Right it dominates - and even the detractors of German National Socialism, such as Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents, pay lip service to it and make their bread and butter from it - it doesn't rank high in the opinion of many. Like that other venerable racialist movement, the Ku Klux Klan, it has fallen into disrepute. Duke admitted, in his autobiography My Awakening (1998), that by the end of the 1970s, the mass infiltration of provocateurs (and degenerates) into the Klan had turned it into a violent and criminal organisation, hardly a vehicle for the white man's racial struggle; Duke had no choice but to leave. Neo-Nazism finds itself in a similar quandary. It's now tainted by an association with skinheadism, which is as unlike the historical German National Socialism as could be (see here).

 One has to ask if the powers that be deliberately engineered this situation. Did they use their power and influence in mass media and popular culture to help create the skinhead subculture and push it towards neo-Nazism, and to eventually make the skinhead subculture the public face of neo-Nazism? I've heard speculation along those lines from a few people on the nationalist scene; one of them is Esben Kristensen, the leader of the National Socialist Movement of Denmark (DNSB). As Kristensen notes, the shaven heads, bomber jackets, braces and Doc Marten boots look 'stupid'. It could be that the enemy has waged psychological warfare against its political opponents by manipulating the more impressionable and naive of them to adopt a 'stupid' look. In addition, the enemy has succeeded in encouraging an ethos of immoral and degenerate behaviour - violence, alcoholism, wife-beating - of making that behaviour acceptable, if not laudable, within the confines of that group.

 If we trace the history of skinheadism, it can be seen that skinheadism turned neo-Nazi after the formation of several skinhead rock bands under the aegis of the British National Front after 1978 - precisely at the point when the National Front had become the third-largest political party in Britain and a threat to the British establishment.

One should ask: who, exactly, introduced skinheadism into the British nationalist scene at that time? Who encouraged it to grow, flourish? And doesn't it to stand to reason that the British 'Deep State' would have taken some form of action in 1978 to disrupt, divert or destroy the National Front - and British Nationalism - by utilising provocateurs and degrading the morale of British nationalists through infiltration and subversion...

III.

It's quite true that skinheads belong to the working class - as do the chavs and bogans - and the working classes, as pointed out earlier, form the bulwark of any National Socialism, whether it be of the historical German National Socialist or the neo-Nazi variety. But, in order to defend myself, I will quote scripture here. This is a famous passage from Mein Kampf:

[The worker] cannot be raised from his present standing and incorporated in the.. folk-community by means of goody-goody meetings where people talk about the brotherhood of the people; but rather by a systematic improvement in the social and cultural life of the worker until the yawning abyss between him and the other classes can be filled in. A movement which has this for its aim must try to recruit its followers mainly from the ranks of the working class. It must include members of the intellectual classes only in so far as such members have rightly understood and accepted without reserve the ideal towards which the movement is striving. This process of transformation and reunion cannot be completed within ten or twenty years. It will take several generations, as the history of such movements has shown.

The most difficult obstacle to the reunion of our contemporary worker in the national folk-community does not consist so much in the fact that he fights for the interests of his fellow-workers but rather in the international ideas [i.e., communism] with which he is imbued and which are of their nature at variance with the ideas of nationhood and fatherland. This hostile attitude to nation and fatherland has been inculcated by the leaders of the working class. If they were inspired by the principle of devotion to the nation in all that concerns its political and social welfare, the trades unions would make those millions of workers most valuable members of the national community, without thereby affecting their own constant struggle for their economic demands...

The reservoir from which the young movement has to draw its members will first of all be the working masses. Those masses must be delivered from the clutches of the international mania. Their social distress must be eliminated. They must be raised above their present cultural level, which is deplorable, and transformed into a resolute and valuable factor in the folk-community, inspired by national ideas and national sentiment.

A few sentences stand out here: the worker must be raised from his present standing 'by a systematic improvement in the social and cultural life of the worker until the yawning abyss between him and the other classes can be filled in...'; the masses 'must be raised above their present cultural level, which is deplorable, and transformed into a resolute and valuable factor in the folk-community, inspired by national ideas and national sentiment'. Hitler places the emphasis on lifting the working classes up, improving their culture and their conditions, ennobling them. The skinhead movement can't be said to be Hitlerian in this regard; neither can chavvish nationalist and Far Right movements such as the English Defence League and Britain First.

 My point is that the system - the 'Deep State' - understands this, and understands it better than most nationalists; it could be that it has concocted the neo-Nazi skinhead movement, or at least helped it grow, as a means of sabotaging neo-Nazism and Far Right nationalism in general.

To many on the Far Right, this sort of thinking seems conspiratorial, and what's more, galling - it implies that we nationalists have little to no agency and that we are easily manipulated and duped by the political establishment. But such conspiratorial-minded views are gradually becoming more and more accepted. Most of us on the Far Right believe that the notorious Combat 18 was a creation of the 'Deep State' as was the German NSU (National Socialist Underground). We have our suspicions about the EDL (English Defence League) and Britain First looks more and more fishy by the day as well. As for Jack 'The Pak' Sen's British Renaissance, the less said, the better. Nationalists are getting wise to all this...

Aside from creating provocateur and front organisations from scratch, the 'Deep State' avails itself of the method of inserting provocateurs into the scene. This is what the German 'Deep State' has done to German nationalism (neo-Nazism). As Carolyn Yeager writes of the NSU trial,

In various parliamentary inquiries as well as during the trial itself, every effort to pin down what happened meets a barrier when it comes up against the intelligence services. The most sensational case is that of Andreas T., an informant leader who was sitting in the Internet cafe in Kassel on April 6, 2006 when the owner, Halit Yozgat, was shot. Andreas T. lied, pretending that he didn't even know of the place. Police investigations on the suspicion of murder were shelved to protect his identity from becoming known, and the files of Hesse's intelligence service remain under lock and key.

Tino Brandt is another key figure for connections between the NSU and the intelligence services. The Thuringian “Nazi” was unmasked as an informant in 2001 and was branded a traitor in the right-wing scene. Since then, he's been convicted and sentenced for sexually assaulting a minor. The secret informers for the intelligence services are a pretty sleazy bunch. I believe these informers are there to stir up activism and petty crime that they can then report to the intelligence service, giving them cause for cracking down on right-wing parties or organizations.

The venerable German neo-Nazi party, the National Democratic Party of Germany, has become hopelessly riddled with informers and provocateurs. In response to a speech by Michèle Renouf, 'In defence of Germany's National Democratic Party', one acerbic commentator wrote:

Petronius

Posted March 14, 2016 at 7:06 pm |

NPD is by now a tiny, powerless, incompetent, non-influential, rapidly vanishing party, dozing in a limbo state or zombie mode, undermined to the hilt by Verfassungsschutz snitches and agent provocateurs, thus kept alive by the state to always have a brown bogeyman and a garbage dump for any right-wing thought ready. It is also burdened with a substantial share of hopelessly narrowminded sectarian NS nostalgics blocking any progress or broader popular appeal. I hope it dies as soon as possible, being undead already.

Finally, it should be noted that the German neo-Nazis do their cause no good when they make use of street-fighting tactics. Like the EDL, Britain First, the National Front and countless other British Far Right groups, the German nationalists make a practice of provocatively marching through indifferent or hostile neighbourhoods with the intention of arousing the communist Left, who show up in large numbers with the intention of 'smashing the fascists'. In what becomes a waste of taxpayer's money, large numbers of police are required to keep the two warring parties apart, and the bewildered and alienated townsfolk are treated to the sight of one group of misfits screaming and chanting at another group of misfits separated by a police line. The nationalists here are behaving like an invading army and they don't do any political work - they don't canvass the locals and try and work out what their concerns are. And by not appearing smart and well-turned out (like Norbert Hofer, Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen) and by dressing in weird outfits, they don't give those same locals a positive impression of nationalism.

 The large presence of skinheads and provocateurs in their ranks, along with the reliance upon confrontational tactics, explains, to a great extent, the decline in the NPD's electoral fortunes and the dim view Germans have of them. It's no wonder, then, that German voters are abandoning them for Alternative for Germany (AfD).

III.

It's parties such as the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) and the AfD which point the way forward for neo-Nazis - on the Continent and elsewhere in the West. The politicians of the FPÖ have enjoyed their recent success by campaigning mostly on local issues. Grass-roots politics is combined with a concern for social welfare. In an AFP article, 'Even in "Red Vienna", Austrian far-right is king' (May 7th, 2016), we find:

Paul Stadler, since October the FPOe head of Simmering council, is no fan of mass immigration, of Muslim "parallel societies" or "economic migrants" taking jobs from Austrians.

"Austria is still a Christian country, and at the moment it looks like we are being overrun by Islamism," Stadler told AFP. "We have 500,000 unemployed. The more we take in, the harder it is to deal with the native inhabitants."

But, he says, such matters are "for the television". His job as a local politician is to deal with day-to-day concerns like public transport -- something the left forgot how to do.

"The SPOe were very arrogant. They didn't listen to the people any more, they governed over their heads," Stadler said in his office in Simmering town hall. "We talk to the people, find out what the problems are and deal with them."

That strategy has won the FPÖ hundreds of thousands of working-class votes. It can be applied here in Australia. Nationalist activists campaigning for office only need to relegate Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, 'debating anti-whites' and 'fighting white genocide', the rights and wrongs of the wars in Syria and the Ukraine, predictions of race wars, conspiracy theories regarding the New World Order, to the background - the masses aren't interested in these subjects as we are - and concentrate on what the above AFP article calls 'day to day concerns'. Instead of imposing our ideological preoccupations and obsessions on the masses, we allow the masses to impose their wants, worries and cares on us.

 In Australia, we should look at running at the council level, not at the state and federal - which are the province of the two major parties. The councils represent the one chink in the enemy's armour.

To some, I may appear to be contradicting myself here: that I'm advocating neo-Nazism on one hand and advocating the doing away with it on the other. But one's radical ideology needn't be thrown out the window in the pursuit of electoral success: one can be a grass-roots populist and at the same time retain a political world-view which is radical and intellectual. The Militant Tendency in Liverpool in the 1980s gives us the best example of this. That crackbrained Trotskyite outfit infiltrated local Labour Party branches in Liverpool, got themselves elected to the City Council, and within a short amount of time achieved absolute control over that body. How did they do this? By listening to the working-classes and by breaking down Trotskyism - which, like all Marxist-Leninist theories, is highly esoteric and intellectual - into layman's terms. One could say that they returned Bolshevism to its roots. I argue that the same can be done for Hitlerism.

2016: This Year, Zios, the Gloves Are Off

I.

2015 turned out to be a tumultuous year in Australian Far Right politics. The Reclaim movement took off, drawing working-class crowds in the hundreds and shocking the mainstream political establishment - and the Far Left.

 Quite a few people on the 'old' Australian Far Right - Australian nativists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, race realists, you name it - jumped on board, and a handful even managed to end up in prominent leadership positions within Reclaim. But, inevitably, reaction set in. Whenever a Far Right and populist movement emerges in Australia, the mainstream Australian conservative party will a) either try and infiltrate it with a view to using it as a vehicle to garner more conservative votes or b) neutralise it through dirty tricks. We've seen shady political operatives working for the conservatives - particularly in New South Wales - try both approaches. That's business as usual for Australian politics, and not only for politics in Australia: look at Russia, where Putin has jailed one half of the Russian extreme-right movement and co-opted (through bribery, or force, or both) the other half. 

 One unexpected consequence (although it should have been foreseen by the nationalists participating in Reclaim) was that the Zios and the civics in Reclaim decided that they didn't like the presence of the nationalists, and so worked to purge them. To some members of the 'Old Guard' of Australian nationalism, this seemed eerily reminiscent of Nick Griffin's attempt at a purge of racialists and 'Nutzis' from the British nationalist movement over ten years ago. Then Griffin claimed to be a 'moderniser' who would remove the 'dead wood' - all the anti-Semites, racialists, neo-Nazis, Mosleyites, League of Empire loyalists, conspiracy theorists and the like - hanging around British nationalism's neck like an albatross for decades. A purge by Griffin, or so the narrative ran, would show the British middle-classes, and the British political establishment itself, that British nationalism had cleaned up its act and was now ready to assume office. At the time, Griffin's thesis - that the 'Young Turks' of nationalism needed to sweep the 'Old Guard' into the dustbin of history - seemed a beguiling one; at the time, I was willing, for the sake of argument, to give Griffin the benefit of doubt. But he crashed and burned, as we all know, and went back on his words. I've become leery of 'modernisers' ever since that experience, and after 2015 - when I've been lumped in the same camp as the 'Nutzis' scorned and excoriated by Griffin - I've become even more averse.

 This year shall require a Herculean effort: to boot the Zios and civics out of the Australian Far Right, to lock them out of the movement they helped create - Reclaim. This shall require a recourse to communist tactics (more later) and a twin effort: one from below, one from above. The effort from 'below' shall come from the grassroots of Australian nationalism, the effort from 'above', from those nationalists and patriots - real patriots, as opposed to 'civic' ones - who are located at the top of the Reclaim leadership.

 This, in turn, necessitates a different approach from the one usually taken in nationalist and racialist politics. Which is why I have little time for snide polemics like that found in a RamZPaul video, championed by Alt Right, here.

 Readers can watch the video, and read the responses at Alt Right, themselves. I have nothing to contribute to the debate, except to say that two lines seem to be emerging in the Far Right racialist movement: between those who don't have a problem with the historical German National Socialism and those who want to 'play it safe' by disavowing it. Within the context of its own (hyper racialist) philosophy, the latter camp (mostly based in America) doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Surely any white nationalist, racialist, race realist, Whitakerite, what have you, would champion Hitler?

 I am, at the moment, re-reading that great political text, Mein Kampf. In an old philosophy textbook, I once saw a reference to Nietzsche as the 'King of the One-Liners'. I don't know if that is true of Nietzsche (it probably is), but certainly, in the field of politics, it is of Hitler. Consider the following, taken from volume II, chapter II, 'The State':

But it is almost inconceivable how such a mistake could be made as to think that a Ni**r or a Chinaman will become a German because he has learned the German language and is willing to speak German for the future and even to cast his vote for a German political party.

Only with the extermination of the last race that possesses the gift of cultural creativeness, and indeed only if all the individuals of that race had also disappeared, would the earth definitely be turned into a desert.

On the other hand, a State may be called bad if, in spite of the existence of a high cultural level, it dooms to destruction the bearers of that culture by breaking up their racial uniformity.

Therefore, the worth of a State can be determined only by asking how far it actually succeeds in promoting the well-being of a definite race and not by the role which it plays in the world at large.

The protest which is put forward in the name of humanity does not fit the mouth of a generation that makes it possible for the most depraved degenerates to propagate themselves, thereby imposing unspeakable suffering on their own products and their contemporaries, while, on the other hand, contraceptives are permitted and sold in every drug store and even by street hawkers, so that babies should not be born even among the healthiest of our people.

They [the Christians] talk about the Spirit, but they allow man, as the embodiment of the Spirit, to degenerate to the proletarian level.

It will be the task of the People's State to make the race the centre of the life of the community.

[The People's State] must proclaim the truth that the child is the most valuable possession a people can have.

Provision must be made for the normally fertile woman so that she will not be restricted in child-bearing through the financial and economic system operating in a political regime that looks upon the blessing of having children as a curse to their parents.

Loyalty, self-sacrifice, and discretion are virtues which a great nation must possess.

Either the German youth will one day create a new State founded on the racial idea or they will be the last witnesses of the complete breakdown and death of the bourgeois world.

The man who demands from Fate a guarantee of his success deliberately denies the significance of an heroic act.

[On modern education] And, though it may seem incredible, many a boy is told that the gallows tree is waiting for him, because he has shown certain traits which might be of inestimable value in the nation as a whole.

[On social justice ] One can be proud of one's people only if there is no class left of which one need to be ashamed.

[The individual's] real purpose in life is to better himself and raise himself to a higher level as a human being, but this he can only do in and through the community, whose cultural life he shares.

Man should take care not to have too low an estimate of the power of an ideal.

I don't see how anyone who posts on Alt Right, American Renaissance, Counter-Currents, Steve Sailer and the rest can really object to the above - especially the quotations on race. They should embrace Mein Kampf as a great racialist text, on a par with the writings of Stoddard and Grant. But they don't - because they are afraid. Fair enough. But they seem, in the words of Keats, 'Half in love with easeful death'. If you look at the RamZPaul article, you find, on the left-hand column, a picture of 'radio priest' Father Coughlin, noted Depression-era American fascist (under the heading 'Alt Right Podcasts'), a mocked-up photo of Hitler with his arm on Afro-American athlete Jesse Owens' shoulder... One angry respondent to RamZPaul made the point that RamZPaul (and, by extension, Alt Right) depends on the white nationalist / neo-Nazi / racialist / '1488' brigade for their bread and butter, and yet he spits in their faces. Which raises a valid point: how often do you see communists festoon their sites with pictures of Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Marx and Engels - in an 'edgy' and 'ironic' way - and at the same time write articles lampooning and denouncing them?

 The truth of the matter is that the Nowickis and RamZPauls and the rest of the Americans belong in the nationalist, racialist, 'neo-Nazi', 'neofascist' camp (or whatever you want to call it) but don't want to get their hands dirty and engage in actual politics - not like we Australians are presently doing.

II.

The chapter, 'The State', probably stands as the most idealistic in Mein Kampf, and Hitler seems to be an ultra-idealist - I once complained to a nationalist friend that Mein Kampf was all theory, no politics. Unlike Hitler, I lack the capacity to make stirring speeches which appeal to the deepest longings of the human heart; in response to any speech of the Hitler type, I'll ask - as a practical man - 'OK, chief, I agree with you, so - how do we put your speech into action?'. I see a Hitler piece of writing as a problem needing to be fixed, and an especially difficult problem given that Mein Kampf seems to fill the Zios - not just the Jews, but the Zios - with an irrational, psychotic fury; they don't see the idealism, or the good, in Mein Kampf - quite the opposite. They lack all objectivity, they can't see the good, and bad, sides of the doctrine, and what's more, they loathe you if they discover that you have good things to say about it and become absolutely determined to destroy you.

 Most people view politics through the prism of elections, votes, parties, polls. I view it differently. Imagine politics as an endless archipelago, with the followers of each political tendency or movement clustered on a different island. Each clump of people represents only a small percentage of the population; you can't say that large percentages are neoliberal, or Trotskyite communist, or Catholic conservative, or whatever. In politics, you will be, as an activist, working with small groups most of the time: instead of hundreds of thousands, or millions of voters, you'll be dealing with groups the size of squads, platoons, sections, companies - each occupying their own little island. The communist groups - particularly the Trotskyite ones, which multiply like vermin - in Britain consist of only small numbers of people relative to the population and have never won a general election. But look at the damage they have wrought to Britain over the past four or so decades - it's incalculable.

 For me, politics - especially after 2015 - has become a war, a war for total control, and one waged between small units. By 'total control', I mean total and absolute control over the actions of a group on another island and the flow of information from one island to another. Some may call that impulse of mine totalitarian, and so be it: I've become a totalitarian.

 To give a concrete example of the above, let's take the Reclaim rallies. Many of the speakers there extol the virtues of courage, honour, loyalty, patriotism, fellow-feeling and they sound off against Islam - all of that is OK by me. But some, subtly, will work in Zio and civic themes into their speeches: they will praise multiculturalism, multiracialism, diversity, non-immigration (so long as the immigrants aren't Muslim); they will praise Churchill and denounce Hitler, German National Socialism, and the 'racists' and 'Nazis' in the audience (whoever they may be). I was told that, at a Reclaim rally in Perth, eight flags were festooned on the stage - six of them Israeli, two Australian. (I think we see the agenda of what Yockey calls the 'Culture Distorter' here). But if I ran the rallies, I'd make sure that there would be no Israeli flags. And I'd turn off the microphone the minute any of the Reclaim speakers started inserting, at random, references to Hitler, WWII, the National Socialists; if they started engaging in 'virtue signalling' by praising multi-culti and diversity. But then, I'd warn the speakers beforehand not to spout any of the Culture Distorter's drivel, and probably wouldn't have invited them to speak in the first place if I had identified them as civics and Zios. Politics becomes a battle of opinions, and we see, from Reclaim, that the Culture Distorters are, very cleverly and subtly, doing their best to divert the rage felt by the masses against Islam in Australia to safe channels: support for Israel, votes for the Liberal Party, support for a Dresden-style bombing of 'ISIS-held' areas of Syria and Iraq... The Culture Distorters mustn't be allowed to do this. I don't expect to hear extracts from Mein Kampf and Yockey's Imperium read at these rallies, but at the same time, I expect displays of Zionist fervour, gratuitous comparisons of the Koran to Mein Kampf, coddling of negroes and other non-whites in the audience to be omitted. I think that these demands are reasonable and simple enough for the rally organisers to meet, but I know that they won't be met - not until I and my tendency (the racial nationalist or nativist tendency or whatever you want to call it) have become, in effect, the sole rally organisers. We have to run everything, and when we give an order, we will see that it's obeyed. If that makes us 'fascist', 'totalitarian', then so be it.

 An outside observer may ask: 'Why the devil do you care about what is said and not said at a rally?'. I'll answer the question this way. The old cliché in politics goes, 'If you can't run your party, you can't run the country'. Like it or not, the vast number of nationalist and 'patriot' groups constitute my party. And if I, as a nativist or racialist or whatever, can't get the most basic strictures enforced, then how can I ever expect to run the country?

 Selznick wrote, in his Organizational Weapon (1953) that the NSDAP and the communist parties of Europe resembled a 'state within a state'. Now, one must ask: did those organisations permit anarchy in their ranks? Did they tolerate anarchy within their 'states within a state'? Or did every publication, every rally, every march, every demonstration, every radio broadcast not reflect one view, one line - the line held by those at the top...

III.

So how are the political battles of this year to be fought? By using certain communist tactics which seem to have been borrowed from the NSDAP (but it's hard to tell what came first - the chicken or the egg). To explain this, let's take a look at the British Labour Party.

 I wrote in a recent article that communists had succeeded in taking over that venerable British institution, the Labour Party. The Party had been falling into the communist orbit for some time - and it's hard to tell, from looking at its present array of MPs, who's a communist and who's not - and the mass infiltration of communist members, and subsequent election of Jeremy Corbyn, an unreconstructed eighties-era Trotskyite, represented the death blow to Labour's social democratic wing. But it looks like the takeover wasn't quite complete: pockets of resistance remain. Now the Corbynista Marxists in the party have set themselves the task of eradicating them...

 As to how they intend to do this, the Corbynistas appear to be taking a leaf out of the old communist playbook - one in particular by Jan Kozak, And Not a Shot is Fired (1999). In the late 1940s, communists in Eastern Europe managed to take over states which were ostensibly liberal democratic in what was a series of more or less bloodless coups. Kozak, a Czech communist, wrote two lengthy papers outlining the methods used and giving an ideological justification for them. These papers were collected and published in 1999 by a conservative American publisher who sought to warn the post-cold war world of the dangers of a resurgent communism. Roman Saskiw has done a short review on YouTube of the book here.

 To explain Kozak in a nutshell. In Eastern Europe after the war, the communist parties manage to a) get elected as part of a coalition government (which included many non-communist parties) and b) get control of two vital government departments - the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Information. Flows of information through the media were cut off, or regulated, by the communist-controlled Ministry of Information, while anyone belonging to one of the non-communist parties who take a stand against the communists was hounded, harassed, and even arrested, by the Ministry of Interior's secret police. Because of this pressure, politicians opposed to communism were often expelled from their parties and replaced with quiescent, pro-communist fellow travellers. Eventually the parliamentary majority held by the non-communist parties was whittled down. Meanwhile, the communists in the cabinet managed to get a few communist laws passed, nationalising key sectors of industry as well as churches and schools, introducing land reform, raising taxes on the wealthy... These procedures - or perhaps we should call them tactics, as we see that the entire thing resembles a war - made up what Kozak calls 'pressure from above'. 'From below', the communists organised a massive extra-parliamentary opposition, composed of trade unions, armed worker's militias, 'action committees', student groups and the like. These agitated in the usual communist manner and availed themselves of the usual protest methods - grievance meetings, resolutions, delegations to politicians' offices, demonstrations, strikes. During the assumption of power by the Czechoslovak communists in 1948, the 'action committees' even occupied factories and government offices. All of this was stage-managed by the communists; you could say the extra-parliamentary opposition was mobilised and deployed like a military unit on the battlefield.

 Kozak speaks of this as a 'two pincer' strategy: one from below, the other from above, bear down and crush liberal democracy like an eggshell. The Corbynistas are applying this method in miniature, but to the Labour Party, not to the British State itself. Corbyn can, as leader of the party, apply pressure from above to the 'old' Labour holdouts and to insubordinate MPs. 'Grass-roots' organisations such as Momentum - a communist front group - apply the pressure from below.

 Unfortunately for the Corbynistas, a secret paper (called 'Taking Control of the Party') by the director of Momentum, Jon Lansman, (ex-member of the notorious Trotskyite outfit the Militant Tendency) was leaked to the media. We find this account of 'Taking Control of the Party' in the lurid Daily Mail:

The document calls for control of:

Selections of all candidates for parliamentary seats and even appointments of all senior staff in the party. The NEC [National Executive Committee] currently has nothing to do with recruitment.

Making policy - all Labour policies would have to be put to members for debate before they can be adopted, which would give Mr Corbyn a chance to change party policy on Trident. But it would provoke a major row with his shadow cabinet and unions, who largely support renewal of the nuclear deterrent.

Media strategy: a 'communications committee' would be set up to 'oversee the party's media and campaign messages' – implying it would vet all the press releases of shadow ministers. It would also develop a programme of unspecified 'political education activity'.

Boundaries: most chilling for moderate MPs, it lays out how Mr Corbyn's supporters could get involved of the review of constituency boundaries in 2018, in which some MPs will lose their seats. If the hard Left seized control of this independent process they could ensure moderate MPs are ousted in favour of Mr Corbyn's supporters.

The Mail goes on to say:

Mr Corbyn has the support of only a small number of Labour MPs but was elected with an enormous mandate from party members and assorted left-wingers who signed up to vote for £3.

His supporters have been trying to tighten their grip on the party's machinery. They already have a majority on the NEC - the main administrative body which has representatives from local parties, unions, MPs and affiliated groups - after installing members from hard Left unions and Corbyn-supporting MPs.

Now this is real politics. One can't imagine a RamZPaul or a Greg Johnson or Andy Nowicki or Jared Taylor engaging in it.

IV.

One has to ask - when looking at the history of Eastern Europe in the late 1940s - why the non-communists allowed the communists to get away with what they did - why they didn't put up more resistance. The answer lies in the prestige and power of the socialist idea. This idea had few detractors in intellectual circles: you didn't find many propagandists and agitators for neoliberalism and free-market capitalism in those days. Besides which, the masses really didn't understand that communist program - nationalisation, collectivisation, five-year plans, forced requisitioning of produce from peasants - entails misery. Communism resembles a confidence trick which can only be pulled off once. Having fallen for it once, the peoples of Russia and China - after 1990 - aren't going to fall for it again. Today's Far Left knows this fact and feels depressed by it.

 But, at the time of the East European coups - the late 1940s - the Marxist ideal stood high. The communists spent a lot of time attacking their social democrat rivals for falling short of that ideal. They intended to 'expose' and 'unmask' the social democrats before the 'masses': they informed the 'masses' that the social democrats weren't the real deal, that the social democrats had sold out to capitalism and the bourgeoisie and were diverting the working peoples from true socialism. This strategy proved to be quite effective. The communists would ask, 'If you want socialism, why settle for half-measures? Why not go the whole hog? Doesn't social democracy represent a step down?'; the social democrats were unable to answer these questions adequately. On a subconscious level, they felt guilt, and it could be said that the communists were able to guilt-trip the majority of them into submission. 

 This 'unmasking' strategy paid dividends for the communists at a time when the prestige of socialism - and Marxism - was soaring; it can pay dividends for we nationalists today. We know from the history of the Weimar Republic that the NSDAP's rivals on the Far Right - Hugenberg's German National People's Party (DNVP) - promulgated a German nationalism that agreed with German National Socialism on many points, and from a superficial perspective, the ideology of the two parties look identical. But Hugenberg was selling soft soap, just like the social democrats, and in the end the 'moderate' Hugenberg was defeated by the 'extremist' Hitler. A lesson there can be found for us. No doubt, in those election campaigns in the early 1930s, National Socialist agitators asked the question, 'Why vote for a watered-down German nationalism when you can have the real thing?'. The question doesn't have a real answer. If the Hugenbergites made the rejoinder, 'Hitler is too extreme, Hugenberg is a moderate, a sensible man, a man who'll get things done', they'd have put themselves on the back foot and appeared defensive. 

 The applications of this strategy to the present dispute between Reclaim and the nationalists seem obvious. The nationalists can make the argument: 'Why cut only Muslim immigration? Why not all immigration? After all, White Australia was a national institution which came to an end only fifty years ago. What real "patriot" would be against White Australia? Or does the so-called "patriot" movement support the state-sanctioned multi-cultism of Whitlam and Fraser... Are we rolling that multi-cultism back? At all? You don't sound like a "patriot" to me'. Many nationalists dwell in the Reclaim ranks, some of them in leadership positions. They can be made to feel ashamed - guilt-tripped - for supporting a movement which a) equates the Koran with Mein Kampf, b) supports non-white immigration and c) supports Israel.

 These nationalists can serve as the men on the inside; like Corbyn's communists within the Labour Party, they can apply pressure 'from above' and carry out the Eastern European communist program of, in Selznick's words, 'purges, indoctrination and intimidation'. In turn, 'spontaneous', 'grass-roots' mass organisations can pressure Reclaim 'from below'.

 Really, though, everything turns on the nationalists within Reclaim. Do they have the requisite strength to carry out the task of de-Zionifying and de-civicising the Reclaim movement from within? Can they demonstrate the toughness and political acumen of the Corbynistas or the East European communists? Or the NSDAP, for that matter? We need political operators who are tough men, men who'll eat glass for breakfast. Can we find them?

 On the answer to that, the future of nationalism in Australia depends.

An Australian nationalist SYRIZA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what's the solution?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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