The UKIP wipeout: was UKIP's Assadism partially to blame?

UKIP has been wiped out in UK council elections: it lost every single seat it had acquired in past elections - all 115. This stunning rout has been overshadowed by the collapse of the Left: Labour, which as we know has been heavily infiltrated by communists, lost 334 seats.

The Center Left - which these days is mostly indistinguishable from the Far Left - in Western countries has suffered badly in the past seven months: it lost the US presidential election and was wiped out in the Dutch House of Representatives election and the French presidential election. The Western electorate seems to be moving rightwards, and in the case of the UK at least, towards the Center Right and away from the Far Right.

The late American journalist and supply-sider Jude Wanniski compared electoral politics to business and believed that the customer - in this case, the electorate - was always right. Just as investors as an aggregate arrive at the correct valuation of the worth of companies in a stock market indice at the close of a trading day, the electorate, as a whole, shows a wisdom greater than its parts and always chooses the best candidate, or the least worst one. Wanniski would say that the UK electorate made the right choice in rejecting Labour, and UKIP, to the extent that it did.

The question is: why was UKIP so thoroughly trounced? The most obvious reason is that UKIP, after the Brexit referendum, has served its purpose and can't justify its existence any more. After the referendum, UKIP tried to re-invent itself as a more conventional populist and civic nationalist party - something akin to the BNP under Nick Griffin - but didn't succeed.

But I think the answer lies somewhat deeper. Suppose you are a communist running for office who is explicit in his support and admiration for Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao; the electorate could be forgiven for thinking that you, once in power, will attempt to introduce policies which are in accord with the ideologies of these four men. The electorate, not being stupid, knows that Stalinism, Trotskyism, etc., add up to poverty, misery, starvation, terror and the rest and so will rightfully reject you and your party.

Suppose you, as a British politician - whether it be on the Far Left or Right (and it doesn't matter which for the sake of this example) - tout Assad. It's reasonable to assume that you, once in power, will behave like Assad. Perhaps you and your family will stay ensconced for 41 years, and after the British people rise up against you, you'll make war on them, torture and slaughter them in the hundreds of thousands; your soldiers will rape boys and gouge out peoples' eyes with drills. Perhaps some masochistic voters will want this; most won't.

Paul Nuttall, the leader of UKIP, has made no secret of his admiration for Assad; neither has Nigel Farage, the former leader of UKIP (and still the public face of the party). Nuttall and UKIP could have taken up the Tory line on Syria - that Assad is doing terrible things, that Assad must go, etc., etc. - and this wouldn't have been inconsistent with UKIP's platform; but UKIP was forced to take up Assadism because of its commitments to Putinism.

Putin has hijacked UKIP and just about all the major parties of the European Far Right:

Europe’s far right parties have been particularly enthusiastic about Putin. Unlike most other European political groupings, they applauded his war against Georgia and military meddling in Ukraine. When Putin invited representatives of their parties to observe the referendum to have Russia annex Crimea, they dutifully attended the event, after which France’s National Front, Britain’s UKIP, Austria’s Freedom Party, and Italy’s Northern League endorsed its legitimacy. Hailing Russia’s president as a true patriot, Le Pen lauded him as a defender of “the Christian heritage of European civilization.” Farage, asked which world leader he most admired, responded without hesitation: Putin! The leader of Austria’s Freedom Party, Heinz-Christian Strache, praised Putin as a “pure democrat.” Indeed, Europe’s far right parties blame the EU and NATO for the crisis in the Ukraine, support lifting EU sanctions on Russia, and back Russia’s military intervention in Syria. In the European parliament, their representatives vote in favour of Russian interests nearly all the time.

In turn, Russia’s president has assisted these parties in their struggle for power. In 2014, the National Front received an 11 million Euro loan from a Russian bank to help finance its successful municipal election campaign. During the current French presidential campaign, the National Front applied for a substantially larger Russian bank loan, Russian media outlets are working hard for Le Pen, and Putin has received her in Moscow with the kind of buildup usually accorded a head of state. In Germany, Russian media and social networks played up a false story of an alleged gang rape of a 13-year old girl by migrants, prompting tens of thousands of Germans to take to the streets in protest and generating startling electoral gains by Alternative for Germany. That party has denied allegations that Russia is providing it with funding, but not the possibility that Russia is behind the mysterious appearance of millions of copies of its campaign newspaper and thousands of its election signs. Meanwhile, the youth group of Alternative for Germany has forged an alliance with Putin’s United Russia party.

The story is much the same in other nations. In Austria, the Freedom Party appears to be receiving Russian financial assistance through a thinly veiled intermediary, a prominent Russian oligarch. Russian cooperation with Austria’s far right became official in December 2016, when the United Russia party signed a cooperation agreement with the Freedom Party. In Britain, the Russian government, despite formal statements of neutrality, clearly sided with UKIP’s Brexit campaign. Enamoured of Farage, it provided him with frequent guest appearances on Russia Today and, following passage of the Brexit referendum, even offered him his own show on that state-funded network. In the Netherlands, Russia’s disinformation and propaganda arms have worked to assist Wilders and his Party for Freedom by trumpeting false news stories.

UKIP has been transformed from a Eurosceptic party to a party which, among other things, works as a front for Russian geopolitical interests; in this way it resembles the Communist Party of Great Britain, which received extensive financial backing from Russia and wound up after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Geopolitically speaking, a British Far Right party - or any British party - in 2017 is faced with two choices: either go with America or with Russia. No 'Third Way' exists. Britain has been run by Jews, communists and Tories since the mid-1930s, and has been in the American sphere of influence since that time. A party which declares itself to be outside this arrangement is aligning itself with Russia, which is unpalatable to most in the British electorate. In order to succeed, then, a Far Right party has to make peace with at least one of the three dominating factions - the Jewish, the communist, the conservative - and place itself at their disposal.

Perhaps a 'Third Way' does exist: a real 'Third Force' nationalism, whose slogan is, 'Neither Trump nor Putin, neither Netanyahu nor Assad'. From the time of the end of the war and up to around the 2000s, the British Far Right had been striving for a similar goal. But by around the mid-2000s, it gave up. Nick Griffin of the BNP, and then UKIP, saw that 'Third Force' nationalism was not paying great dividends electorally, and so attempted steer the Far Right towards Toryism - and Judaism - and away from the ideologies of white nationalism and Neo-Nazism, both of which are hated and feared by the British establishment. But Griffin's quasi-Toryist venture folded, and Griffin, Farage and Nuttall slid into Putinist populism.

Can the British Far Right pull itself out of the ditch? After the UKIP defeat, it must; it needs to clean house and purge the Putinistas from its ranks if it is continue to maintain the winning of elections as its primary goal. Putinism is fast becoming an electoral liability.

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.

How to form a neo-Nazi party

Introduction

This essay is divided up into two sections. The first is an attempt on my part to come up with a working definition of 'Neo-Nazism'; the second is a polemic against what I call the 'Rockwellite' brand of pseudo-neo-Nazism and gives neo-Nazism a bad name. A party can't be formed without ideology, and the polemic against Rockwell will serve as the beginnings of a new ideology.


What's a neo-Nazi?

Nationalists a strange bunch. I know a nationalist who is a Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite and a Hitler sympathiser. He likes to call himself a 'neofascist', even a 'post-Nazi', but won't call himself a 'Neo-Nazi'. He's quite particular on the subject. My position is that life's too short to beat around the bush - why doesn't someone like him call himself for what he is, and that is, a neo-Nazi?

The answer is twofold. The first is that he feels that the term is, from an intellectual perspective, inaccurate, and, what's more, he feels that its usage is somehow improper. It is well known that communists don't like being called 'communist', 'commies' or even 'Marxist-Leninist' - they much prefer 'socialist' or 'Marxist'. Part of this is a desire for camouflage: communist, Marxist-Leninist - these words evoke North Korea, Cuba and the former USSR, not places of great light and joy. 'Socialism' is preferred because it sounds halfway respectable - the British Labour Party are socialist, the Australian Labor Party are socialist, so are the German SDP (Social Democratic Party). ('Socialism' is also preferred on the grounds that it is more technically accurate because, as students of Marxism know, it is the first historical stage after the inevitable collapse of capitalism and the worker's revolution - 'communism' is the stage that comes after socialism). The same process of equivocation occurs in the neo-fascist and neo-Nazi movement. 'Nazi' is pejorative, and 'neo-Nazi' was coined by the enemy - a name given to the post-war extreme right-wing nationalist and soldiers' groups which appeared in West Germany. Generally, neo-Nazis who openly admit that they are so prefer the term 'National Socialist' to 'neo-Nazi' - which is why Rockwell's American Nazi Party was a break from tradition (the equivalent of calling a party the 'American Commie Party').

The second objection lies in the fact that the term 'neo-Nazi' evokes rather unpleasant associations. As soon as one hears it, one thinks of American History X, Aryan Nations prison gangs, skinheads... Also, the uniform-wearing Rockwellite 'storm troops' in The Blues Brothers. These are the two types of neo-Nazi which loom large in the public consciousness: the uniform-wearers and the skinheads. My friend is a devotee of intellectuals like Yockey and Evola, neither of whom were uniform-wearers or skinheads; ergo, neither he, nor they, could possibly be called 'neo-Nazi'.

What of the word 'fascist'? I've encountered the strange paradox, again and again: join a mailing list or forum devoted to the discussion of the ideas of Evola, Yockey, Alfred Rosenberg, Ernst Jünger, Carl Schmitt, Mosley, the Strassers, and suggest - ever so innocently - that all this stuff is 'fascism', and you'll be met with howls of outrage and indignation. They deny, furiously, that they are fascist. To a certain extent, this is understandable, given how pejorative 'fascism' as a word has become, and how meaningless it has become (through overuse and misuse). But the reactions of certain people in the movement to the designation 'fascist' strike me as a symptom of denial.

My friend doesn't mind the term 'fascist' and in fact prefers the designation 'neofascist' partly because it sounds esoteric and sophisticated. Degrelle, Bardéche, Yockey, Evola, Mosley were Europeans (well, Yockey was an honorary European), intellectual. None of them were card-carrying members of the NSDAP or its offshoots either. But I lump them together as 'Neo-Nazis'. I argue that the European fascist movement of 1922-1945 (of which German National Socialism was a subset) underwent a transformation by the end of that period. One could call that transformation 'Germanification' or 'Hitlerisation'; by 1945, it could be said of the European fascist movement that 'We are all Germans now'. Having to choose between Hitler and Mussolini - and say which one was the greater - is like having to choose between Lennon and McCartney; they both did great work. Nevertheless, by the end of the war, Germany had become the dominant partner in the relationship. This dominance was reflected by not only the German occupation of Italy in 1943 but by the adoption, by Italy, of an anti-Semitic Jewish deportation policy and an acceptance by the fascist leaders and intellectuals (including Evola) of the Hitlerian anti-Semitic doctrines - prior to this, Fascist Italy had been neutral on the Jewish question. Germany, by 1943, had taken over the European fascist franchise - politically, intellectually, morally, militarily - and hence fascism would exhibit an anti-Semitic and 'volkish' character. Post-war apologists for Hitler and Germany such as Maurice Bardèche and Leon Degrelle were fascists - not National Socialists - but, in defending German policies on the Jews, were forced to take the Hitlerian position as their own, which is why their work shows a leaning towards National Socialism. The same can be said of Yockey, who completely revamped fascism in his great work Imperium (1947) - his work is, to use Bardèche's term, 'improved fascism' - and who appears, at first sight, to have completely abandoned National Socialist theory for a new synthesis; Yockey's book is dedicated to Hitler, denies the Holocaust (in what was a first) and is, needlessly to say, thoroughly anti-Semitic and has a German nationalist and 'Prussian' spirit. It's not for nothing, then, that the book has been christened by liberals as the 'Bible of Neo-Nazism'.

(It's interesting to note that the Germanification of the fascist parties occurred to some before others. The Dutch NSB (National Socialist Movement) fascist party was founded as an Italian-style fascist party by Anton Mussert. By the late thirties, a split occurred along factional lines - between an 'Italian' faction and a 'German' (the latter being under the leadership of Meinoud Rost van Tonningen, husband of prominent neo-Nazi Florentine Rost van Tonningen). The German faction won).

It's well-known that the liberal establishment is forever pronouncing groups like Golden Dawn to be 'neo-Nazi'. They point to Golden Dawn's 'swastika-like' symbol, its anti-Semitism, its use of quasi-paramilitary militia, its 'racist' ideology, its occasional utterances against liberal democracy, as proof. Nationalists and those on the Far Right may leap to the Golden Dawn's defence and condemn the charges of 'neo-Nazism' as a 'smear'. But the characterisation of 'neo-Nazi' seems to be more or less accurate, on the basis of the evidence presented by these liberal democrats. Golden Dawn fit the bill, and if they don't qualify as 'Neo-Nazi', who does? I would classify Yockey, Evola, et al., as neo-Nazi intellectuals, and the following groups and parties as neo-Nazi: the NPD, Golden Dawn, Jobbik, Slovakia's Our Slovakia - People's Party, France's Génération Identitaire and Printemps Français. None of these are skinhead or Rockwell-type groups, of course (although the NPD, unfortunately, has a large skinhead contingent).

So do we have a definition of neo-Nazism? The January / February 2008 issue of the American Far Right journal The Barnes Review reprints a chapter of the memoirs (entitled My Revolutionary Life) of the Belgian Rexist and former Waffen SS soldier Leon Degrelle. It gives a preview of a future excerpt from Degrelle's memoirs:

IN THE FINAL CHAPTER of My Revolutionary Life, "If Hitler Had Won,” written 25 years after WWII, Degrelle reviews how the great nation-states of Eu-rope and the U.S. were all formed—by war and conquest, just like the Reich—and how a Hitlerian Europe would have dealt with Britain, America and Japan after annihilating the USSR. He concludes his memoirs with a vision of the different white peoples, each with its own genius and drawbacks, and his conviction about the continuing power of the fascist or national socialist model to guide them all to a new greatness.

This very much sums up the Neo-Nazi mission statement in a nutshell. Granted, it needs to be expanded and clarified (and I don't think Degrelle's memoirs were ever published in their entirety) and I shall attempt to do so later.

Hopefully my article will encourage nationalists to set up a neo-Nazi organisation that will develop into a party. It's primarily for Western countries which don't have a strong neo-Nazi type party - e.g., Spain, Ireland, Australia. My advice for the Hungarians and the Greeks is to join Jobbik and Golden Dawn - both of these are good parties; for the Dutch and French, infiltrate the Freedom Party and Front National respectively and try and 'turn' the base of these parties to neo-Nazism. As for Germany and Britain, both of these countries are over-saturated with nationalist and Far Right extremist parties. One could join an existing party, but, in my judgement, there's always room for one more.

It should go without saying that I'm not counselling anything idiotic - for example, the formation of parties with names such as 'Irish Neo-Nazi Party' or anything of that sort; I'm not advocating political suicide. I don't think that a party should adopt a swastika-like symbol, as the Golden Dawn have done, or that members of this party should tattoo Nordic runes on their foreheads. One has to keep one's true ideology and purpose concealed from others, especially from the Western masses, many of whom, obviously, won't understand the fine intellectual distinctions I am drawing here.


Something all neo-Nazis agree on

When I use the word 'Neo-Nazi' here, I using it to refer to a wide variety of groups and individuals. An ideology may be broken down into two components: a theoretical component and a practical. What is the theoretical component of neo-Nazism? What is the ideological common denominator, something all these groups and individuals agree upon?

It is, in its briefest form, what I call 'the story'. Here it is.

When we study any political system, we must determine who has the political power. We can arrive at such a determination by asking ourselves who is feared the most, persecuted the most, by the political establishment, i.e., the state? In the West, many people who appear to challenge authority, who regard themselves as subversive (and are regarded by their followers as subversive) are, in fact, not persecuted by the state: Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, John Pilger. Whereas a marginal figure such as Ernst Zündel was kidnapped by the US government, imprisoned in a Canadian jail for two years without charge, and then deported to Germany, where he was imprisoned for five years. The same sort of repression (of people who are reputed to be Neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites) occurs throughout Europe. None of the crackpot Trotskyites, Stalinists and Maoists in Greece have been persecuted by the state; only Golden Dawn have, in violation of the rule of law and standard liberal democratic procedure.

The reason for this I shall explain in simple terms. One mob beat down another mob seventy years ago, and since then, the winner in the conflict has been terribly afraid that the loser will pick himself off his feet again and come back. That conflict was the Second World War, the victor was what I call the 'Axis of Evil' - the US, UK and Israel (which wasn't around, of course, during the war, but was there in spirit and embodied in the form Chaim Waizmann, Churchill's close friend and political associate). The losers were National Socialist Germany and, by extension, Germany's friends in Fascist Italy and German-occupied Europe. The victors used enormous repression and violence to get rid of fascism and Far Right conservatism in the lands that they conquered. Not taking post-war German deaths into account, the Allies and the various 'resistance' and communist groups killed tens of thousands of right-wing French and Italians after 'liberation', and possibly hundreds of Belgians, Dutch, Danes and Norwegians. (The political establishment and its supporters in the media either ignore this violence or claim that the victims deserved what they got). The war against Germany and its friends continues, seventy years afterward, only this time it is a psychological war, and the liberal establishment is engaged in a 24-hour a day, seven days a week, psychological and propaganda war against the Germans of such virulence and intensity that one would think that WWII was still on. It is unrelenting. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of German National Socialism, the psychological war effort is there, because the victor regards the war - and the issues over which it was fought - as a live issue. In contrast, it regards the Pacific War as a dead issue: now and then the Japanese are scolded in the Western media for not being sufficiently contrite over some of the atrocities it committed during the war, but otherwise they are left alone; very little attention is paid these days to the conduct of the Japanese in the Pacific War. Other, more recent conflicts have also become obscure. The war in Vietnam and Indochina, which went for fourteen years and which was a live issue during the time it was fought, is now largely forgotten. Even the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War are kept buried in the newspapers (mainly because the liberal establishment recognises that both wars have been lost).

The Western world is ruled by an Anglo-Judeo alliance - which owes its power and prominence to a military victory won seventy years ago. It keeps Europe down by force. That's the geopolitical reality today.

Australia, of course, is not Europe, and what's more, is unique because it occupies a geopolitical nexus between two great powers - the USA / Israel and China. The biggest problem the West and its colonies face is immigration - non-white immigration - on an unprecedented scale and Europe, the fatherland of the West, is being colonised by Africa and Islam. Australia, on the other hand, is being colonised by China, which is a great power, unlike Islam and Africa, neither of which can be described as great powers. European Far Right politics, then, aren't quite applicable here, and in a previous article I have proposed a solution  to the Chinese problem: national resistance akin to that of the communist Chinese guerrillas in their patriotic struggle against the Japanese in the 1930s and 1940s. Australian nationalists need to follow the tactics of Mao and one of the tactics is New Democracy - coalitions with people outside our party who are not necessarily 'with us'.

This, then, is the Neo-Nazi story, and attached to it as a coda is the Australian story. Does believing in the story - and I most certainly do - make one a 'Neo-Nazi'? No, it doesn't: plenty of white nationalists (see below for a definition of white nationalism) and Holocaust and WWII revisionists believe in a variant of the story. They don't combine it, however, with a course of political action; they don't subscribe to the fascist or communist political method.

The story here doesn't show any commitments to any particular constitutional order - there is none of the Führerprinzip and authoritarianism so beloved of 'fascists' and 'Neo-Nazis'. The story does seem sceptical, however, on the question as to whether any of the power-questions can be solved through voting and liberal democracy - can the electorate of Europe vote themselves out of their difficulties, can they achieve freedom and independence through electoral conservative methods? Can the Anglo-Judeo empire - more formidable than the Soviet empire - be dissolved through a vote? It would seem that the answer is no. The present day European liberal democratic system was put in place, and the European political establishment put in power, largely by the Allied victors, and besides which, a continuance of Anglo-Jewish power seems to be a built-in feature of Western democracy. As the American neo-Nazi A.V. Schaerffenberg put it, elections are free in our system until the wrong parties are elected.


Fascist tactics and the 'seizure of power'

Both communist and fascist parties have trouble getting electoral majorities in 'free and fair' democratic elections; this is a historical fact. They may do quite well in an election, and get a sizeable percentage of the vote, but they never get the simple majority that, for instance, a Republican or Democrat, or Tory or Labour, party may get. This is a simple statement of fact; I am not evaluating the merits of such electoral results and am not suggesting that a simple majority somehow confers legitimacy on the winner. It's only to say that it's extremely unlikely that a fascist or communist party could qualify, at least in the West, for an electoral majority, even a slim one. The historical record shows that.

Communists and fascists have ways of getting around that hurdle and more or less communist and fascist tactics here (as in many other places) are the same. We see those tactics on display in the Eastern European (including Eastern Germany) occupied by the Soviets after the war. These states were (nominally) liberal democratic, even though they were under Russian occupation, and pro-Soviet communist parties competed against liberal democratic parties and institutions for power. Elections were held, in which the communists often didn't get a simple majority, so the communists had to go to a plan B. The result was a flawless, seamless, smooth transition from liberal democracy to communism. No revolutionary chaos, upheaval occurred; there was very little anarchy and 'smashing of the state' of the kind advocated by Lenin in one of the early, pre-war Bolshevist texts on revolution-making, State and Revolution (1917). The communists could argue - as did the earlier Italian Fascists and German National Socialists - that the transition took place within the confines of the constitutional order.

I won't rehearse the whole history of Eastern Europe from this time; I'll give the dummies version. Here it is, from Seán Lang's Twentieth Century History For Dummies (2011):

Slicing salami, or how to take over a country without anyone noticing

Stalin had promised the Western Allies that he would hold free elections in eastern Europe. How could he hold free elections and still produce a set of communist governments? The trick was to start slicing little segments of democracy away gradually, like slicing salami, as the Hungarian leader Matyas Rakosi put it. Here's how the tactic worked:

Stage 1. Form a coalition government with your political enemies. Remember to smile at them nicely. Make sure you hold the ministries which control the police, the intelligence services, and the armed forces. (If your coalition partners prove difficult about this, throw a tantrum and threaten to resign. Doing so usually brings them round).

Stage 2. Use your control of the police, intelligence services, and armed forces to arrest or threaten your political opponents. (Hint: either accuse them of something heinous or say you're taking them into custody for their own protection. Someone will believe you.)

Stage 3. Sack any civil servants and other State employees who seem able to think for themselves. Replace them with Communist Party members who luckily just happen to be between jobs at the moment.

Stage 4. Hold an election. Make sure all the voters are thoroughly intimidated and that the only candidates are communists. (If some aren't, go back to Stage 2). You should aim for a 95 per cent vote for the Communist Party. Don't get cocky and go any higher or people might think you've rigged things. Silly, I know, but people do get these ideas.

Thanks to salami tactics, the countries of central and eastern Europe fell to communist rule one by one. In 1947 the Russians set up the COM inform, an international organisation to make sure all these different communist governments did as they were told.

An astute reader will notice the similarities between Ramos's 'salami tactics' and those of the NSDAP in 1933. One of the turning points in the German national revolution was Goering's takeover of the massive Prussian police force after being made the Minister of the Interior, which led to his mass sacking of anti-Nazi police officers and his replacement of them with NSDAP members and 'deputised' Brown Shirts.

The 'salami tactics' at the top - at the level of the state - were accompanied, in the communist example above, by mass mobilisation tactics from below. The communist coup-d'état in Czechoslovakia, 1947-1948, stands as the classic example. During the height of the political crisis in early 1948 - which saw the voluntary surrender of power by the liberal democrats to the communists - the communist party helped speed things along through mass mobilisation. Enormous crowds - of communist party members and affiliates - marched through the capital; workers paraded with guns. 'Action committees' - militias made up of communist party members and members of communist party front groups - seized control of factories, schools, government buildings and trade union headquarters. (The 'action committees' are reminiscent of Mao's Red Guards, or perhaps the hordes of Kremlin-sponsored 'separatists' wreaking havoc in the eastern part of Ukraine). All of this helped put pressure on the besieged liberal democratic government. Weren't these 'masses' 'the people'? Weren't they proof that 'the people' wanted communism, that communism was an expression of 'the people's will'?

The NSDAP and Italian PNF, of course, used the same street- and mass-mobilisation tactics. Does that mean that the neo-Nazi parties (and communist parties) are using the same tactics today? The answer is, by and large, no. What we have is a potentiality. That is, it's quite possible that neo-Nazis could infiltrate the trade unions or the police with intention of subordinating them to neo-Nazi political control, and this sort of activity is more likely to be carried out by a neo-Nazi - or a communist - than by, say, a member of the British Conservative Party or the Australian Labor Party. The Greek liberal democratic government is wary of the police officers who are sympathisers, or even members, of Golden Dawn for this reason and I'm sure that the German conservative and socialist governments have taken stringent measures to keep members of the NPD and other Far Right extreme nationalist groups out of the trade unions and the army. (This isn't a justification, of course, of the state repression of neo-Nazi and extreme right-wing organisations - merely an acknowledgement that the liberal democrats are right in recognising that the neo-Nazi groups, at least, are a different animal than your average socialist, liberal or conservative political party). This isn't to say that the Jobbiks, NPDs and Golden Dawns are using, everywhere and at all times, Marxist-Leninist tactics; only that the potentiality is there.

It is the use of these tactics - or the potentiality for their use - that makes a 'Nazi' a true 'Nazi'. Anti-Semitism doesn't make you a Nazi, neither does racialism, neither does extreme nationalism. But when these are combined with an approach - essentially the equivalent of a computer's operating system - borrowed, without acknowledgement, from the communists, then you have authentic Nazism.

Events like the German revolution of 1933, or the Czech coup of 1948, are rather spectacular, of course, and are difficult, to say the least, for a nationalist group - neo-Nazi or no - to replicate. Gaining control over even a trade union is a hard thing to do, and even communists have traditionally had difficulty in that endeavour (surprisingly enough). I am presuming here that the nationalists reading this article are beginning at a very low level - that a) that they aren't part of a large nationalist political party and b) can't simply waltz into their local church or trade union office, sign up and then commence a slow 'takeover'.

One must have a clear set of priorities. I'll state my own opinions on the subject - opinions based on years of observation. Firstly, trying to convert the ordinary apolitical man in the street is a waste of time - it's far better to concentrate on politicised people. Secondly, trying to bring the conservatives, left-liberals, socialists and communists around to one's thinking, to make them see the other side of the story, is fruitless. German nationalists, for example, have been promulgating Holocaust Revisionism and WWII revisionism (with a special emphasis on the extraordinary post-war slaughter of German civilians and POWs) with very little effect; the mainstream political parties and forces in Germany and Europe are a hard-hearted, implacable bunch and simply won't yield an inch when it comes to German 'war guilt' and the 'crimes of fascism'; in fact, they will use these to buttress state-sanctioned multiculturalism and mass non-white immigration. It's far better, in my opinion, to concentrate on people who are politicised but not against you from the outset.

Who are these people? The nationally-minded people who stand between the two main groupings in the nationalist movement. On the one side are those we generally classify as neo-Nazis - the skinheads, the Rockwell-types - we shall hear more of them in a moment. On the other side are what I call the 'national bourgeois' parties - for example, the Front National, Wilders' Freedom Party, UKIP, the Danish People's Party - and groups (Jared Taylor's American Renaissance, Peter Brimelow's VDare, among others). There are those who are too radical-minded for the national bourgeois types and too conservative for the American NSM and Harold Covington types. We should be investing most of our energies in these sorts of people. They are the building blocks of a real movement which is to be gathered around a unified party.


Rockwellism and its discontents

The 'Rockwellites', as I call them, are the main obstacle to the formation of a decent neo-Nazi party. The crux of the problem is this: the Rockwellites don't form political organisations, i.e., parties which compete in elections, and tend to dissuade any conventional political activity; they are a subculture, a lifestyle; at the same time, they pass themselves as the 'true' neo-Nazis and disparage the efforts of others. They may end up attracting and recruiting many men whose energies can be better put to use elsewhere and so therefore end up taking up movement time, effort and money - all scarce commodities on the Far Right scene.

The Rockwellites can be classified into three sub-groups: the uniformists (e.g. Harold Covington, Bill White, Matt Koehl, Frank Collin); the skinheads; the esotericists - intellectuals who preach that National Socialism is a form of mysticism and a lifestyle choice (William Pierce, Savitri Devi, Miguel Serrano).

Rockwellism can be objected to on the grounds that it contains many theoretical errors - simply put, it misinterprets German National Socialism - but the main fault with it is that it seems to attract the most scoundrelly and rascally people. I recently discovered a biography by Iiro Nordling, Pekka Siitoin, Cold War product, Satanist Neo-Nazi Fuehrer of Finland (2014). When reading the blurb (in badly written English), I was half-inclined to suspect that someone was pulling my leg and had invented 'Pekka Siitoin' with the intention of parodying Rockwellism:

This books deals with some undercurrents in Finland's recent history. Foreigners were told about idyllic relations between Finland and Soviet Union during the Cold War. However, there was a man named Pekka Siitoin who proclaimed to be Fuehrer of Finland. He started to trim his moustache the Hitler style around 1976. That was to give everyone correct signal what his activity was about. Swastika flag was flying high on top of his building. He organized threatening calls to communist newspaper journalist. He had military training camp for his supporters. Then one of his followers set ablaze communist printing house that was paid by Soviet Union. Pekka Siitoin was sentenced to prison. He spent three and half years in prison. He was released from prison and at the same time his hated president Kekkonen became ill. As an ex-convict his movement was limited. Besides all kinds of KGB people were after him. His drinking problems worsened and family life was disaster. He was father of four kids.

Pekka Siitoin came back to spotlight in the nineties. When he had started his activities, Finland didn't have many immigrants. Siitoin had correspondence with all kinds of Neo-Nazis and right wing characters. He received a letter from David Duke in the early eighties. Duke wanted to see Siitoin and asked if Siitoin would come to Stockholm to see him. Siitoin had come out of prison, totally broke and family life in mess. He sold illegal booze to finance his family. And was caught by police. Nobody wanted to hire him for his reputation.

Pekka Siitoin sent letter to international right wing people, saying that Finland had only problem with communists. According to Siitoin Finland had then only 3500 gypsies and 1000 Jews and 20 African origin people. Siitoin boasted that through his efforts the last Jews were fleeing the country to Israel. All that was not of course true, but there was some truth in it.

Finland started to accept refugee in bigger numbers since the 1990's. That was a period of deep recession in Finland and anti-immigrant sentiment was rising. Siitoin got some new followers from skinheads. However, Siitoin himself considered himself Satanist. He said sometimes that his group consisted of ex-Freemasons who didn't accept Jewish principles.

In personal life Siitoin didn't have very high ideals. He was a drinker and a womanizer. He boasted that he had slept with over 800 woman in his life - mostly street girls.

Any way this book tries to picture darker side of Finland. As a Finn, I am tired of listening the propaganda by our politicians, who portray Finland as a role model country to the World. High educational standards. Finland has produced lot of lunatics and highly original characters. Pekka Siitoin was one of them.

Most people on the Far Right have the misfortune of meeting at least one Pekka Siitoin in their lives. I wish here I could distinguish between the 'good' and 'bad' Neo-Nazis, but I can't: Neo-Nazism is, well, a form of fascism, and the historical fascist movement - like communism - attracted many thugs and rogues. The question is, does the presence of such men invalidate the ideology? It all comes back to whether the men like Bill White or Pekka Siitoin can be put to use - to be made to work for the good of a political party.


The errors of white power

Rockwellism is deeply influenced by white nationalism (also known as 'white separatism', 'white power'-ism, 'pro-whiteism', 'race realism', etc.), an American doctrine which is anti-political.

A dictionary definition of white nationalism would be: the doctrine of white racial supremacy, an obsession with racial purity and the prevention of race-mixing with non-white races (particularly the Negro race), a cult of the white man as explorer and coloniser of the world and, quite possibly, the founder of far-flung civilisations (ancient China, India, the Americas, Egypt - see Arthur Kemp's classic March of the Titans: A History of the White Race (2006) for an explication of this race myth). It is highly sympathetic to eugenicist and social Darwinist theories, although it predates 19th century Darwinism and eugenicism. White nationalism owes its origin to the European slave trade, and first appeared - in modern Western history - with the founding of the racially-segregated slave colonies of France, Spain and Britain in the Caribbean. Barbados, with its laws against miscegenation, its racial composition (wherein a small white minority of 20% of the island's population ruled over an 80% black population - the same ratio in later South Africa), its white militia on standby to crush any black revolt, was perhaps the first white nationalist state and the prototype for the segregated slave society of the Deep South. Today's white nationalists are the descendants of the ferociously anti-Negro Southern secessionists of the early to mid 19th century; an unbroken line runs from the antebellum and reconstructed South to the 20th century's Ku Klux Klan and conservative opponents of desegregation to David Duke and American Renaissance today. White nationalism doesn't resonate much outside the US, mainly because one of the prerequisites of white nationalism is a large, non-white and Negro population. While the white nationalist is opposed to Mexican and Central American immigration, the traditional 'other' in white nationalist polemics is the Negro, who is for all intents and purposes indigenous to America. Which explains the affinity the American white nationalists feel for the Afrikaaners and the white Rhodesians. Simply put, neither Europe nor Australia (yet) have enough Negroes to develop a true white nationalist feeling and racial consciousness.

The white nationalists are politically weak, that is to say, they don't participate in elections and have no political parties. By all rights, they should have, given their racialised view of the world: to them, the US Democrats are the party of Negroes, Hispanics and elite, wealthy liberal Jews; because (according to the white nationalists) all politics is on a racial and ethnic basis, a White Race Party ought to have millions of followers - but no such party exists. White nationalists in America have been remarkably inept, politically, and have been unable to organise a single nationwide party - a failing they are well aware of. Partially this is because white nationalism - like most American Far Rightism - is strangely apolitical and anti-nationalist; it is, in fact, idealistic and internationalist. It believes that all white people are brothers and can't account for the historical fact of white and European nations going to war against one another. This comes about from white nationalism's lack of understanding of the power of nationhood and machtpolitik. Ethnically homogenous and white nations such as Russia shouldn't go to war against their fellow white nations, but they do; white nationalism can't account for this fact.

On a practical, nationwide level, one can only have a Far Right nationalist party in a unified nation - a nation state with a homogenous people. Colin Woodard's American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America (2011) argues that North America is composed not of two but eleven different nations; the South, or Dixie, is made up of five different 'nations'.

Despite its shortcomings, white nationalism, as a creed, is probably the most influential doctrine on the Far Right today. It wormed its way into neo-Nazism thanks to Rockwell, who conflated 'white power' with (what he called) 'National Socialism'. As an example of this confusion, there is a recent article by Greg Johnson, in which he defends Hitler against criticism by white nationalists:

The “blame Hitler” argument boils down to this: If only Adolf Hitler had not started World War II, killed six million Jews, and tried to conquer the world, White Nationalism would get good press and perhaps make some progress in the political realm. Hitler is the reason why race realism, eugenics, immigration control, and nationalism have been discredited in the eyes of whites the world over. Thus if White Nationalism is to have any chance of changing the world, we need to ritually condemn and repudiate Hitler and everything he stood for, as well as all his present day followers.

I find this argument to be morally contemptible and politically naïve.

It is contemptible, because it is essentially an attempt to curry favour with our enemies and pander to ignoramuses and fools by throwing a loyal white man under the bus. And make no mistake: Adolf Hitler, whatever his faults, was a loyal white man who fought and died not just for Germany, but for our race as a whole.

Blaming Hitler is also morally obscene because it absolves a whole host of villains who are the real architects of our race’s doom: the slave traders and plantation owners who introduced blacks into the Americas, the railroad magnates and other plutocrats who brought Orientals to our shores, the traitorous capitalists who are destroying the white working and middle classes by importing non-white labor (legal or illegal) and shipping American jobs to the Third World, the egalitarians who have not hesitated to spill oceans of white blood to promote the moral and political equality of non-whites — and of course every politician who has done the bidding of all of the above.

Perhaps the Afrikaaners should have stayed home and never bothered to conquer southern Africa? It goes without saying that white nationalism wouldn't exist without the much-maligned 'slave traders and plantation owners' - indeed, the concept of a 'white race' as such wouldn't exist without them. Neither would much of American civilisation without the European slave trade, which began in 1441. Perhaps we should go back in time and eliminate the 'anti-white' slave trade, which began in the fifteenth century, along with a host of other 'anti-white' historical mistakes so that we arrive at a 'pro-white' historical result today - but this is absurd.

(At any rate, Hitler, Germany and Germany's friends didn't fight for 'our race as a whole': weren't the British, Americans and Russians - white?)

It would seem, at first sight, that white nationalism and German National Socialism would go together hand in glove. After all, we are told that National Socialism was a 'race-based', 'racialist' political philosophy, which exalted the 'race' and the 'volk' above all; it practised racial purity and inveighed against 'racial admixture' - doesn't Hitler sound like a 19th century Southerner?

The truth of the matter is that hardly any Rockwellites have bothered to read what Hitler actually said. Hitler quite frequently refers to the 'German race'. German isn't a racial category - like, e.g., Caucasian, Negro, Arab, Mestizo, Dravidian - it's a nationality and ethnicity. 'Aryan' in Hitler is a shorthand term for white and Christian (non-Jewish) Europeans. 'The white race', when this term appears in Hitlerian discourse (and it does so rarely) always refers to the European colonial powers - Britain, Portugal, Holland and others - and he uses it in the context of a speech on geopolitics and Europe's relations to its (non-white) colonies.

The 'racial admixture' condemned by Hitler was the miscegenation between Jews and Germans: the Nuremberg laws were designed to prevent such 'race-mixing'. National Socialist 'racialism' was directed at Jews - it intended to draw a sharp distinction between Jews and Europeans. Yockey praises this coming-to awareness of 'the Jew' as something separate, alien and parasitic in Western civilisation as a great turning point in the history of the white Western Culture. The distinctions drawn by the National Socialists were part-racial, part-cultural, part-religious. Jews, according to Hitler, attempt to pass themselves off as German, and even intermarry with them - while maintaining their own sense of separate, Semitic and Middle Eastern identity. This is, to Hitler, 'poisoning other races' while 'keeping their own race pure'.

The white nationalists are obsessed by miscegenation. Terrible things happen when miscegenation occurs - the great Southern politician and race-agitator, Theodore G. Bilbo, blamed the downfall of ancient civilisations on race-mixing. This is traditional American racialist thinking. The innovation of the Rockwellites was to introduce The Jew. Being a race-poisoner, and someone who wants to bring about the downfall of white Western Christian civilisation, the Jew attempts to persuade - through means of his monopoly of ownership on the media, advertising, fashion, intellectual culture - American whites to integrate, copulate and breed with the negro. That way, the white race in America shall be destroyed, replaced with a bunch of mulattoes, quadroons and octoroons (which is what happened to the white race in Brazil at the time of the original European settlement).

This is the Rockwellite and Piercian doctrine. Hitler never subscribed to it and would have found the notion of Europeans perishing through miscegenation with negroes (and other non-white races) abhorrent and unthinkable - as would any European politician at the time. Such a concept wasn't in the bounds of possibility for Hitler's contemporaries, and not even the 'enemies of the white race' who Hitler fought against - Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill - would have countenanced it. But the doctrine is very much in tune with Southern thought and Southern polemics against the Yankee North. The Yankee conquerors were accused, after the Civil War, of wanting to destroy the whites of the South by forcing them to mix with negroes. Rockwell's 'National Socialism' is more or less a Bilbo or Strom Thurmond doctrine with some anti-Semitism thrown in. (I'll point out that William Pierce, born in Atlanta, Georgia was a man of the South and rest my case).

Another target of American white nationalism is illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America. Again, the Jews are accused of being the biggest proponents of amnesty for illegal Mestizo immigration - and of seeking to 'keep their own race pure' by using strict measures against illegal African immigration into Israel. While there is a grain of truth to this - more than a grain - Hitler's racial doctrines don't refer to any illegal or legal non-white immigration into Europe, much less the role of Jews as enablers of it, simply for the reason that the prospect of mass non-white immigration to Europe was inconceivable at the time. Hitler does mention, in Secret Book (1928), the existence of large numbers of negroes in France, and he evidently regards them as a blot on French and European racial purity, but he doesn't appear to blame the Jews for their presence in France - instead he attributes it to a terminal French decadence:

On top of that, in proportion as France declines in her own Folk's power, this State proceeds to the opening up of her reservoir of niggers. Thus a danger of unimaginable proportions draws near for Europe. The idea of French niggers, who can contaminate white blood, on the Rhine as cultural guards against Germany, is so monstrous that it would have been regarded as completely impossible only a few decades ago. Surely France itself would suffer the greatest harm through this blood pollution, but only if the other European nations remain conscious of the value of their white race. Viewed in purely military terms, France can very well supplement her European formations, and, as the World War has shown, also commit them effectively. Finally, this completely non French nigger army indeed vouchsafes a certain defence against communist demonstrations, since utter subordination in all situations will be easier to preserve in an army which is not at all linked by blood to the French Folk. This development entails its greatest danger for Italy first of all. If the Italian Folk wants to shape its future according to its own interests, it will ultimately have nigger armies, mobilised by France, as its enemy.

There are passages which lend support to the Rockwellite and Piercite doctrine. There is this one from Secret Book, which is a condemnation of the idea of 'European union', a 'Pan European movement', by which Europe will abolish its borders and agglomerate all of its individual nationalities into one 'European' nationality:

Thus, first and foremost, the Pan European Movement rests on the fundamental basic error that human values can be replaced by human numbers. This is a purely mechanical conception of history which avoids an investigation of all shaping forces of life, in order, in their stead, to see in numerical majorities the creative sources of human culture as well as the formative factors of history. This conception is in keeping with the senselessness of our western democracy as with the cowardly pacifism of our high economic circles. It is obvious that it is the ideal of all inferior or half breed bastards. Likewise, that the Jew especially welcomes such a conception. For, logically pursued, it leads to racial chaos and confusion, to a bastardisation and Negrification of cultural mankind, and thereby ultimately to such a lowering of its racial value that the Hebrew who has kept free of this can slowly rise to world domination. At least, he fancies that ultimately he will be able to develop into the brain of this mankind which has become worthless.

This sounds very much like Pierce and Rockwell's Jew who deliberately wrecks other races through bringing about 'bastardisation and Negrification' and who, by keeping his own race pure and his people unified, manages to achieve a position of ascendancy over the whites. But it would seem that Hitler is talking in metaphors most of the time. He contends that the liberal democratic parties of Germany are 'the same people who in Germany most cruelly wage war on anyone who understands being national as something other than defencelessly surrendering his Folk to syphilisation by Jews and Negroes'. Surely he doesn't mean that Jews and Negroes are spreading syphilis throughout Germany?

It must be emphasised, again and again, that when Hitler uses the word 'race', he isn't necessarily referring to the Caucasian race, the Semitic-Arab race, the Negro race, etc. He is usually referring to different nationalities, who he regards as different 'races'. Here is another passage from Secret Book:

It is an old experience that a lasting unification of nations can take place only if it is a question of nations which are racially equivalent and related as such, and if, secondly, their unification takes place in the form of a slow process of struggle for hegemony.

Thus did Rome once subjugate the Latin States one after the other, until finally her strength sufficed to become the crystallisation point of a world empire. But this is likewise the history of the birth of the English World Empire. Thus, further, did Prussia put an end to the dismemberment of Germany, and thus only in this way could a Europe one day rise that could attend to the interests of its population in a compact governmental form.

But -- this would only be the result of a centuries long struggle, since an infinite quantity of old customs and traditions must be overcome and an assimilation of Folks who are already extraordinarily divergent racially would have to materialise [italics mine]. The difficulty, then, of giving a unitary State language to such a structure can likewise be solved only in a centuries long process.

So much for the idea of Hitler as 'National Socialist'! Why doesn't anyone in the movement ever read Hitler's books, as opposed to Pierce and Rockwell's 'white power' nonsense?

I don't wish to disparage the Rockwellites entirely - there are plenty of good things to be said about them: Ian Stuart was a great songwriter, Rockwell a funny and brave man, Pierce a superb propagandist and speaker. Many good articles have appeared in Rockwellite publications (such as Pierce's National Vanguard) over the course of the past thirty years. Some believe that Covington's novels are worth reading. But ultimately the Rockwellites must be rejected for their incorrect interpretation of Hitler and German National Socialism and their wholesale falsification of the historical record. One can't say that they have built upon the original National Socialism, in the way that Lenin built upon Marx (20th century communism was very much Lenin's, not Marx's, creation); they haven't improved upon National Socialism. Rather, they have distorted it... One of the consequences of this is that, by removing German National Socialism from its historical, political and national context, they have ended up turning into a universalist, and, strange as it sounds, deracinated doctrine. Which is why we have the Neo-Nazis of Mongolia (the best way to make a Rockwellite squirm is to bring up the Mongolian 'National Socialists').

(Another way to make them uncomfortable is to bring up the topic of Povl Riis-Knudsen, the Danish neo-Nazi who is the author of two widely influential tracts - 'National Socialism - The Biological World View' and 'National Socialism - A Left-Wing Movement', two of the foundational texts of Rockwellism. He was expelled from the DNB (Danish National Socialist Movement) for his engagement to Palestinian woman who he described as a 'white Arab').


A real neo-Nazism

What is genuine Neo-Nazism? By and large, all the neofascism and Nazi revivalism which appeared in West Germany after the war. Remer's Socialist Reich Party, which was banned in 1952, was the real deal so far as Neo-Nazism was concerned - and after all, the party leadership and the membership were former soldiers and NSDAP members. One won't find any Devi or Serrano in there: there is no nature-mysticism, anti-smoking, vegetarianism, mystic Führer cultism, animal liberationism in the Social Reich Party program. Yet it looks, sounds like Nazism.

The New Zealand expert on neofascism, Kerry Bolton, wrote a monograph on immediate post-war German nationalism, 'Stalin's German-Nationalist Party'. Bolton gives an account of the little-known NDPD (National Democratic Party of Germany, not to be confused with the nationalist party of the same name, the NPD). East Germany was a sham multi-party state: various democratic parties existed and elections were held, but the reality was that the country was a single-party dictatorship (Bashir Assad's Syria follows the same model). Early after the founding of East Germany, the Russians decided that the former Nazis deserved to play a role in the political life of the new state, and so a German nationalist party, composed of former German soldiers and NSDAP members, was formed. Bolton writes:

In February 1948 the Soviet Military Administration (Sowjetische Militäradministration in Deutschland:SMAD) announced the end of denazification. In March 1948 the prosecution of Germans for alleged “war crimes” was formally ended. The same month the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NDPD) was formed. The German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik: DDR) was announced in 1949, from elections in the Soviet occupied zone, after the failure of the USSR and the Western occupiers to agree on terms for elections on the reunification of Germany.

With the NDPD’s creation, Stalin stated that the party would “erase the line between non-Nazis and former Nazis.” On March 22, a newspaper was launched to pave the way, National-Zeitung, announcing: “while in other areas there remains the atmosphere of denazification of Germany, in the eastern part the people’s eyes light up again. Simple party comrades no longer have to be timid and fearfully look around as if they were pariahs.” The party was founded three days later, under the chairmanship of Lothar Bolz, who held the post until 1972. Bolz had been a member of the pre-war German Communist party and was one of the few German Communist leaders to have survived Stalin’s hazardous hospitality towards Communist refugees. During much of the time Bolz served in the government of the DDR, including the position of Foreign Minister (1968-1978), the vice chairman of the NDPD was Heinrich Hohmann, who had joined the National Socialist party in 1933, and was a co-founder of the League of German Officers, which formed the initial nucleus of the NDPD.

The NDPD program was stridently nationalistic; as much as the Socialist Reich Party which was being outlawed in the Federal Republic:

   America violated the Treaty of Potsdam and plunged us Germans with malice into the biggest national distress of our history. … But the American war may and shall not take place! Germany must live! That’s why we National Democrats demand: the Americans to America. Germany for the Germans! The Federal Republic of Germany is a child of national treason... That's why we National Democrats demand: German unity over the head of the government of national treason in Bonn, as a basis for peace, independence and prosperity for our entire German fatherland [...]

The party reached a peak of 230,000 members in 1953, and during the 1980s still had a significant membership of 110,000. In 1948 the party sent 52 members to the DDR parliament, the Volkskammer. One of its primary aims was German unification, and the party drew on ex-NSDAP members and army veterans to support its campaigns. One such appeal from the party issued in 1952 included 119 names of officers from the Wehrmacht, SS, Hitler Jugend, League of German Maidens (BDM) and German Labor Front.

 I argue that this sham German nationalist party, fake and contrived as it was, is far more 'Nazi' than any Rockwell or skinhead group.

One blogger sums it all up here:

Firstly, National Socialism (1923-1945) is German and for Germans only. It’s true that neighbouring countries at the time, such as Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, had Nazi parties, but generally, it was for Germans at that particular historical time. The objectives were to break the Versailles Treaty, find living space for overpopulated Germany, deal with the military threat posed by France and the USSR, solve the German unemployment problem (not to mention the communist problem)…

Is there such a thing as Neo-Nazism? Otto Remer’s Socialist Reich Party (1949-1952) in West Germany attempted it. It certainly looked and felt like Nazism. But even so, given that Germany’s position had radically changed since the days of the Versailles Treaty, the SRP’s program differed from the original.

Most people, when they use the word ‘Neo-Nazi’, are referring to the American/British variety. The movement was founded by George Lincoln Rockwell and Colin Jordan, two clowns who loved dressing themselves and their followers up in brownshirt uniforms. One couldn’t find anything more different from German National Socialism: the Neo-Nazis insisted – and still do – that Nazism was intended, not only for Germans, but for ‘all white people’, including Russians, Czechs and Poles! These ‘white nationalist’ beliefs have been adopted by the skinhead movement.

(Ernst Zundel wrote recently that he disparages those people who dress up in Nazi uniforms, as it’s an insult to the 15 million Germans who died for the National Socialist cause. I agree, it is insulting).

 The blogger k0nsl's account has more brevity than mine and is true enough. But is it the case that only Germans can be 'Nazi'? Not at all. I would classify William Joyce, John Amery and Douglas Chandler as wartime non-German and Anglo-Saxon (well, Joyce was Irish, but let's not be pedantic) Nazis. It should be remembered that the Allies viewed them as such and viewed them seriously - Amery and Joyce were hanged by the British.

Given that they represented an inauthentic Neo-Nazism, how was it that the Rockwells, Pierces and Ian Stuarts swept the world while the Yockeys and Remers languished in comparative obscurity? Part of the answer lies in the language barrier. English is the most spoken language in the world, and Evola and Bardèche have been translated into English only recently; so far as I know, none of Jean-François Thiriart's work, which has been hugely influential on the Continent, has been translated into English. An additional explanation is the universalism of the Rockwellite doctrine. Pierce's, Stuart's and Rockwell's Neo-Nazism is for the entire white race, while Serrano and Devi claimed that National Socialism was a religion (and nothing is more universal than a religion). The third reason for the popularity of Rockwellism is that it is, I argue, a lifestyle choice and a subculture, and it's fairly easy to participate in a subculture or adopt a lifestyle - far more easy than forming a political party and doing hard, dirty activist work.

Another interesting question is why white nationalism left its spiritual home - the Deep South - and made its way to the United Kingdom: surely it wasn't just both the US and the UK spoke English? The answer is, I think, the emigration of black people. Hundreds of thousands of Africans and Afro-Caribbeans emigrated to the UK after the abolition of immigration restrictions in 1948. Anyone who is familiar with the work of the stalwarts of post-war British Far Rightism - Mosley, John Tyndall, Colin Jordan, John Bean - knows that their work took a pronounced anti-Negro character after 1948. One liberal British newspaper accused Mosley of sounding like a Southerner in one of his 1950s speeches. British fascists, in effect, became American. Hence Ian Stuart, hence the success of 'white power' neo-Nazism in the UK.


In Conclusion: Electoral Conservatives, Jews, Uniforms

As stated before, Rockwellism is an isolated and apolitical doctrine. It tends to alienate many, inside and outside the movement. It becomes extremely harmful to the nationalist cause when it succeeds in turning away people who may be able to help us - in particular, those who I call the 'electoral conservatives'. There are those who preach the constitutional path and believe that, if they form parties and participate in elections, they will win an electoral majority or at least a sizeable number of seats. They believe in adhering to the constitutional system as it exits in the West and holding to the principles of liberal democracy.

This type is especially prevalent in Australia. Many Australian nationalists are possessed of a bourgeois or liberal mentality which says that the electoral conservative way is the only way. Australians, after all, live in what is one of the oldest liberal democracies in the world and it is the ideology of this system which saturates their every waking thought. It's quite natural, then, for Australian nationalists to believe that all they need to do is form an electoral party and then, after getting their message through to the Aussie voter, win a crushing electoral majority and then implement a nationalist program. But it's very difficult, of course, to form and run an electoral party - this takes skills that many Australian nationalists regrettably don't have - and to break into parliament, especially the Australian Lower House, is one of the hardest things in the world. Having said that: we need political parties - only, we need a type of party which is radically different from the standard liberal democratic one. But supposing that a person who is willing to be an electoral organiser, campaigner, or candidate for such a nationalist party approaches our movement - especially the neo-Nazi side of the movement - what will he find? No doubt, after meeting a skinhead or a Harold Covington, he is bound to be discouraged. He will go on his merry way and apply for membership in one of the national bourgeois parties…

I'm not suggesting that we should change our program in order to appeal to the electoral conservatives. It's been a long-running debate - for at least forty years - in the British Far Right: so long as the British nationalist parties can get rid of all the 'neo-Nazis' and 'anti-Semites', why, 'ordinary British people' will want to join us and vote for us. This 'denazification' strategy didn't for the BNP under Nick Griffin, and it will probably fail when applied elsewhere. An astute observer will notice that the media is pushing the line - in a stealthy way - that Le Pen and Front National owe their recent electoral success to her 'softening' of the party and steering the party away from the 'anti-Semitism' and the 'taint' of Vichy conservatism, and, by extension, French fascism. Now, admittedly, the Western European voter is incredibly timid - he doesn't go for the Golden Dawns or the Jobbiks. One only has to look to Britain. There, UKIP is enjoying great success while Griffin's BNP is a flop. UKIP concentrates on EU immigration and doesn't bring up Islamic, African and Indian immigration at all; it's such a scaredy-cat of party that it refuses to have anything to do with Front National or even Wilders. The British voter seems to prefer this brand of Far Right conservatism over Nick Griffin's. But, in the end, if we allow the Le Pens and Griffins to purge us, then we're out of business. We may as well do what Pierce did, and drop out of politics, retreat to the countryside and chop wood in a rural retreat.

We have to win over, then, the electoral conservatives and form electoral vehicles - that is, parties - and appear to be competent enough to run them. That means: no skinheads, no swastikas, no runes, no tattoos. We must be deep cover.

This brings up two related questions: the right use of uniforms and the right treatment of the Jewish question.

Firstly, the Jews. There is a species of nationalist I call the 'professional Jew baiter'. He concentrates on the Jewish question, and everything else - race, nationalism, economics, philosophy, political organising - becomes secondary. 'Fighting the Jew' becomes his main aim in life. David Duke is the most prominent example of the professional Jew-baiter. Once a Southern nationalist, he became a white nationalist and then a full-time Jew baiter.

The national bourgeois American Renaissance doesn't permit anti-Semitic comments in the replies section of its website posts; Kevin MacDonald's Occidental Observer and Peter Brimelow's VDare switch comments off altogether. The reasons for this are twofold: one is that the professional Jew-baiters will hijack the topic thread, and go on and on about the Jew; two is that provocateurs and dangerous types may end up posting about violence and thereby getting the site moderators in trouble with law enforcement. (Recently, a longtime poster on the notorious Vanguard News Network Forum, Frazier Glenn Miller, went on a shooting rampage outside a synagogue in Kansas - he intended to kill some Jews, but only killed three non-Jewish Americans. Predictably, he had posted on VNN that Jared Taylor, the leader of American Renaissance, was a 'kosher conservative').

I don't think one should impose a silence on oneself when it comes the Jewish question or Holocaust denial. At the same time, one has to keep everything in proportion. It becomes clear, after prolonged contact with the professional Jew-baiter, that he really isn't political at all. When you ask him who he supports politically, it's either Iran or, paradoxically, the anti-anti-Semite and antifascist Putin - either of these will 'stand up to the Jew'. He won't support your political organisation - to engage in politics, that's too much for him.

Contra the professional Jew baiter, then, the Jewish question, and Holocaust denial, must be tackled in a tasteful, intelligent way; if one exaggerates too much, one ends up looking like a crank - or a professional Jew baiter - and one thereby turns off the electoral conservative.

The other point of contention is the use of uniforms. It must be remembered that fascism adopted uniforms out of necessity. In the early years after the Bolshevik revolution in the USSR, European communists would make a sport of attacking nationalists and conservatives and breaking their meetings up - Hitler describes this in detail in Mein Kampf. As a result, leaders like Mussolini and Hitler needed a personal bodyguard and also stewards to keep order in meetings and at marches. Bodyguards and stewards needed a uniform to distinguish them from a) other party members and b) audience members and onlookers, and so the Brownshirts and Blackshirts, and the Schutzstaffel, were born. From that point on, the power, the propaganda value, of the uniform was recognised by the fascist leadership - the uniform and the uniformed march in effect became fascism.

Rockwell, Colin Jordan and their ilk adopted uniforms out of a fetishism and exhibitionism. It was out of a desire to shock - not out of necessity. One of the consequences was that they only attracted small numbers of people, and so the aesthetic effect of the uniform was diminished: fifty to a hundred men in uniform look better than half a dozen.

As one's party gets bigger, and holds rallies, marches and demonstrations, it will inevitably be attacked by the communist Left. There's no doubt about it… Many nationalists who take up nationalist activism for the first time are shocked and appalled by left-wing violence and left-wing attempts to deny them basic rights of freedom of speech and association. It's only after they've been on the receiving end of the communist use of force that they begin to understand what the likes of Mosley were up against. It's then that march stewards and bodyguards became a practical requirement - if one's party doesn't have these things, one won't be able to hold a meeting in a public hall.


It would make sense to put such men in uniform. From then on, such a uniformed section could be used to great effect, propaganda-wise. Suppose that a hundred of one's party, in uniforms, marched through the heart of Sydney or Melbourne - that would cause quite a stir. The liberal establishment, and the international Jewish groups, would descend into a state of hysteria - there would be calls from Jewish and groups for one's party to be banned. Why a uniformed march would (inevitably) bring such a reaction, I don't know - what's there to be afraid of in a march of a hundred uniformed white men? How is it more fearsome than a march of, say, a hundred trade unionists or communists? But that's how the psychology of our enemies works. Suffice to say, such a march would gain one's party immediate worldwide publicity. That's what happened to Jobbik after its uniformed paramilitary organisation, the Magyar Garda, first appeared, in its uniforms modelled upon those of the Arrow Cross (the wartime Hungarian fascist party).

I think that if a uniformed paramilitary organisation is formed organically, that is, in response to events (that is to say, attacks by the communist Left), then the electoral conservatives will accept it. They will see the rationality, the good sense of it. But that will only happen if the paramilitary is kept distinct from the main party organisation - it is not the organisation itself. The NSDAP wasn't made up of just the SS or the Brownshirts, and it had many people in plain clothes; what's more, it was a real political party, unlike Rockwell's American Nazi Party.

Again, a sense of proportion must be maintained. In the early days of one's party, it's enough to get half a dozen nationalists and right-wing people in the one meeting hall. What will the effect be on those people if you show up in a Rockwell outfit or skinhead dress?

I mentioned before the national-minded people who stand between the Rockwellites and the national bourgeois parties and groups. Quite a few of these people are electoral conservatives who expect a modicum of political professionalism and are repelled by the freakishness of the Rockwellites. The political problem faced by authentic neo-Nazis is this: how to win these people over, how to assure of them of one's radical commitments while at the same time not frightening them away.