Manual for the Radical Nationalist, Part II: Keeping a Group Together

I am pleased to report that, since my post, In Praise of Neo-Stalinist Doctrinairism, things have been going well for my group. Why is this? The answer is, my understanding - of how to organise in politics - increased. As to how it increased, I'll explain presently... Before I do, though, I'll note - for the sake of other nationalists who are trying to work in a group or party - that questions of organisation, management, leadership, and so forth, are different in politics than they are in fields of human endeavour. At first sight, it seems that running a political group is like running any other organisation - e.g., a trade union, a business, a bowling club, an army, whatever. But this isn't the case. Politics operates according to laws which are unique to it. The character of a political group depends on its fundamental political philosophy, which needs to be articulated and made explicit - time and time again. That philosophy encompasses everything in a group: it not only determines the objective of a group (e.g.,  a 'dictatorship of the proletariat') or its relations to rival groups and ideologies, but its internal organisation as well. In other words, theory determines practice. Some groups and parties, of course, get by with very little theory: e.g., your average conservative or social democratic party, or parties like Mussolini's PNF, or the German NSDAP... Those sorts of parties run like a smooth, well-oiled machine, with very little internal dissent over policy and objectives. For newish groups in the nationalist movement, though, a great deal of theory is necessary, and, what's more, this must be articulated, made explicit, in the form of a constitution and a party program. Without clarity, internal disagreement will fester, and the group will shrivel up and die - or, most likely, split apart...

In the past few months, I have read around 15 (!) books written by communists from the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc: it's been an invaluable education, politically, ideologically, intellectually, and an experience I recommend to all my fellow nationalist intellectuals. In truth, I enjoy, these days, reading these books more than nationalist material: I learn something new, every time (even if I don't always get something useful), whereas, if one sticks to the nationalist corpus - usually, the 'New Right' and 'Conservative Revolution' authors (Schmitt, Evola, et al.), one comes to a dead halt, sooner or later... (I speak, of course, after ten years of reading these 'approved nationalist authors').

As I mentioned before, 80% of the problems in the nationalist movement come about because groups can't last for long: because of the (near-inevitable) clashes of personalities, a group falls apart in short order. This is quite unlike conventional politics. Take, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which has been around since 1935 and has been operating under tremendous state oppression. They are, at present, on the threshold of political power in Egypt: but, even supposing that the Mubarakist military strikes back, and denies them legislative and executive power - well, the Brotherhood won't be defeated. They'll simply make a tactical retreat and prepare for the next offensive. In nationalism, though, this doesn't happen: compare the Brotherhood to One Nation or the British National Party - a real 'party machine' just never really existed there. Nor were they, or any other prestigious (prestigious in the nationalist world, that is) parties ever on the threshold of 'seizing power' in the past forty years. The German NPD, for example, has been around since 1964, and is incapable of winning federal representation. (Yes, a nationalist in Germany faces a tough assignment: but it can't be tougher than Mubarak's Egypt, or Assad's Syria). As for the non-parliamentary nationalist groups, these tend to form into small, extraparliamentary grouplets (just like the radical Left) and fall apart fairly quickly (just like radical Left). I've seen a few good groups, overseas, come and go, based on a progressive, anti-capitalist ideology (influenced by the German Frei Nationalisten groups), which got off to a good start but broke up in mutual recrimination. (You know that they've broken up when you go to check their websites, and find that they're all down, and have been so for months; and you hear gossip, on the nationalist grapevine, that the group fell apart after such-and-such an internal dispute).

Why can't such groups - that is, progressive, anti-capitalist nationalist ones - stick together? I think the answer is simple: anarchism. Trotskyite and Maoist groups are heavily influenced by anarchism - hence their tendency to split and subdivide into smaller and smaller groups - and so are the anti-capitalist groups on the Far Right: the Freie Nationalisten are more or less a German nationalist version of the neo-anarchist Autonomen groups. Anarchism is prone to splitting, divisiveness, sectarianism, lack of sustained action towards socialism: anarchism, because of lack of mutual agreement on a constitution and a democratic, party-like structure, leads to hierarchy, authoritarianism and individualism (surprisingly enough). The conventional charge against Marxism is that it leads to hierarchy and a lack of democracy, whereas anarchism is free, non-hierarchical and democratic: but, in truth, it's the other way around - that's the conclusion I've drawn from the literature on the subject. At any rate, Marxist-Leninist theory - for all its many faults - provides a skeleton, a structure, for a left-wing group. Without it, left-wing groups degenerate into neo-anarchism - and end up falling apart. That's what's happening to the once-promising Occupy movement in America.

(This is the conundrum of the Left in America: they'll only get anywhere if they form a communist type party, with the old democratic centralism, Leninist discipline and the rest; but obviously, this has already been tried there a thousand times in the past hundred years. Obviously, the old Marxist-Leninism is unsatisfactory to the modern American Left, which is why it opted for the New Left in the sixties and now Occupy. But without Marxist-Leninism, the American Left can't get together even the beginnings of a disciplined offensive against American capitalism. It's a catch-22. In my opinion, the only way the American Left can break out of the vicious circle is to go back towards the old party methods of organisation, but adopt racialism, anti-Semitism and nationalism as an ideological platform and embrace the white working-class American. But that, of course, will never happen...).

So, it's the lack of Marxism which explains the failures of the nationalist groups, in Europe and elsewhere, which have adopted anti-capitalism. In the end, it gets down to the class-content of one's ideology: which class do you, as a nationalist group, represent? If you're going to be an neo-anarchist type group, you'll end up gravitating towards a representation - of the classes traditionally attracted to anarchism, viz, the lumpenproles, and the peasantry. (We don't have peasants any more in the West, of course, but we do have lumpenproles - among the the poor students and punks who live in squats and eat charity food, who are a declassé social group and who seem to make up the anarchist and Antifa formations). It's not that these types are undesirable people (they are): it's that they are not the right fit for Far Right nationalism. We have to recall the fascist parties of our forebears, the parties of Hitler, Mussolini, Mosley: the class composition was working-class - the disciplined white European working-class (particularly the German, which was extolled by Marx, Engels, Lenin). True, many of these men were indigent, out of work, in straitened circumstances - but they were still of the working-class. They didn't lower themselves by dropping out of their class, in the way that quite a few students have (here in Australia and Europe): viz, the students have renounced their petit-bourgeois origins (many Australians students come from middle-class families, as do many British students) and descended, on the rungs of the ladder, to the level of the lumpenproletariat.

This is important to nationalism, because so many of nationalists one encounters are precisely from the same class - the petit bourgeoisie. The tendency for that class - especially at the fringes of politics, i.e., at the extreme Left or Right - is to gravitate towards a freakish individualism, an excessive 'subjectivism', of 'me-firstism', where one's tastes, preferences, self, dominate over the 'objective' (that is, politics, economics, class). Nothing wrong with subjectivism and individualism, of course. But these have to be put to good use: to the pursuit, in a straight line, of an impersonal goal, which is, of course, the communist or fascist state, Marx's 'dictatorship of the proletariat', whether it be a red dictatorship or a brown dictatorship... In this regard, the amazing thing about the pre-war fascist movement in Europe was that these men and women organised themselves, in a socialist and Marxist-Leninist way, without paying attention to Marxist theory! They were influenced by Lenin, and Marx, to an incredible degree: but you will (hardly ever) find a fascist politician or intellectual quoting Lenin or Marx or Stalin in support of their positions. Which is why I define fascism as a kind of pre-reflexive Marxism: that is, a Marxism without theory, a Marxism which doesn't think of itself as Marxist...

As to why the fascists were like this... The answer is, they absorbed communism into their bloodstream, by osmosis. It was part of the air that they breathed. Soviet communism, under Lenin and then Stalinism, was a viable alternative to liberal democracy. When people of my generation think of Soviet communism, they, of course, think of the decrepit communism of the 1980s - of Brezhnev and his (soon-deceased successors) and the 'young' Gorbachev. But, back in my great-grandfather's time, Soviet communism really was something. Someone on the Far Right had to acknowledge it: one couldn't escape it, or the effects on people's lives. It was like the iPhone, or Twitter, or Facebook (all of which I despise)... We moderns - we Westerners in the year 2012 - can't understand this. Hence, we have to re-educate ourselves. We have to go through the necessary stages before we can duplicate the success of the old, European, working-man's movement of the 1920s and 1930s which was fascism. In other words, we must learn to be Marxists and socialists before we make ourselves to be fascists. Which leads to a kind of over-compensation: one has to go full-tilt to Marxist-Leninism and take on board all it has to offer - in terms of political economy, politics, philosophy. We simply can't suck in Marxism from the air and absorb it into our bloodstream, in the way that Hitler, Mussolini, Primo de Rivera did - for the simple reason that, in 2012, communism, much less a viable Stalinist, Soviet communism, is no longer with us.


So, nationalist intellectuals need to embrace Marxist theory. 'But what of all the faults in that theory?'. Well, of course there are faults; but, in the end, these don't matter. It seems that every day, on the front page of some respectable newspaper, an announcement will appear (from some respectable scientist) that the Earth isn't warming as rapidly as the environmentalists claim; or that the Earth is cooling; or that 'greenhouse gases' weren't as responsible for that warming as once thought; or that the warming isn't going to be disastrous as once throught... These scientists aren't in the pay of Big Oil, or neoliberal think-tanks, either. Despite this countervailing evidence, however, environmentalism keeps marching on its way; more and more useless, environmentalist legislation - to 'combat global warming' - will be introduced... Pretty much communism went the same way. Trenchant criticisms of Kapital, made as early as the turn of the century, had zero effect. The fact that millions starved to death in the Ukraine in the early 1930s, or in China in the early 1960s - that wasn't a disproof of Marx's theory.

(What did make a difference to Marxism was the collapse of the USSR in 1991 - and the backsliding of China after 1979. But that's a story for another day).

But to return to fascism: the difference between Bolshevik Marxism, and the socialism of the fascist kind, was not only on the national question, but on the extent to which a socialist government, a revolutionary government, should abolish property.

One can say, on this point, that the fascists were right. Perhaps the communist governments went too fast - and this is a retrospective criticism - in getting rid of property altogether; perhaps they would have survived longer, had they not been in such a rush to introduce socialist property relations... Perhaps man could be steered away from capitalist property relations towards socialist ones, but this 'steering' would take a hundred years or more. This sort of thinking, of course, is 'right-wing', even 'revisionist' and 'social democratic' of me: but the capitalist, liberal democrat and bourgeois system is still here, while the USSR isn't. So, who is right and who is wrong?

But this, in turn, raises a number of questions: one of them is the fascist 'line' on capitalism and private property. In Hitler's speeches, we find him lauding private enterprise and individual initiative in one speech (before one audience, usually a business audience), and then praising socialism and the German worker the next (before a different audience). Overall, we do find a consistency in Hitler's day-to-day policy - which is, I argue, a 'Left' policy - but from speech to speech, pronouncement to pronouncement, an inconsistency. The same goes for Mussolini. The anti-fascist Left will use Hitler's pronouncements on private enterprise to prove that he was a neoliberal - which is nonsense. But then, the Left has a tendency to go by what a man says, and not what he does. By his actions, Hitler wasn't a neoliberal; his immediate successors, in the post-war Bonn republic, were (Ludwig Erhard is one of the gods in the pantheon of neoliberal-approved politicians). The fact is, in the day-to-day running of the country, or in the contesting of an election, a politician will occasionally contradict himself. Mussolini and Hitler did this to an alarming degree. But the Left does it as well. Many years ago, I stumbled across a quote from Lenin (in the first pages of the anti-communist compilation, Marx Refuted: The Verdict of History (1986), edited by Colin Wilson and Ronald Duncan) from 1917 in which he declares he is 'No longer a Marxist'. One has to consider the context of such an extraordinary statement. But, suffice to say, the Soviets would have obscured such a statement from the historical record: that is, everything written, or said, by Engels, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, was presented in order to give readers a portrait of men who were fully consonant in thought and deed - for every single day of their lives. When, in reality, such a thing is not possible...

But this is not an excuse for inconsistency. On the contrary, a nationalist group should strive for the utmost consistency: its press releases, articles, transcribed or recorded speeches, etc., should be fully consonant with the principles and positions as outlined in the constitution and party program.

All this talk of economics brings us to another point. Would, or should, major nationalisations take place under a Far Right government? Critics of socialism argue that widescale nationalisations 'destroy the economy' and 'reduce the confidence of foreign investors', etc., etc. Communist governments, operating under the constraints of Marxist ideology, view capitalist property relations as 'the exploitation of man by man', and so are bound, by that view, to abolish all property (the USSR, of course, abolished all property except at the local, market garden level). The conservative anti-communists argue that this policy led to economic ruin. But it is possible for a country to do well, in 2012, with a nationalised economy - to a certain extent. The UAE, for instance, doesn't have income, corporate, value-added, capital gains, or sales taxes: the country is about as tax-free as one can get. The UAE's revenue comes from state-owned oil. Oil-rich countries like Iran, with a state-owned oil sector, though, don't do well - possibly, this is because of an extensive corporate, sales and income tax regime, with rates cutting in at low thresholds of income (inflation, brought about by loose monetary policy, in Iran only increases the 'bracket creep' effect, in which Iranians are pushed into higher and higher progressive tax brackets through inflation). The point is, one can envisage, then, a UAE-type arrangement in Australia, in which the mining and resources sector is state-owned, while all taxes are, in effect, abolished.

But one should not be hamstrung to such a policy. One wouldn't think it, but one of the tenets of Marxist-Leninism is that communist leaders should not be bound to an economic policy which has been devised (as I have just done) in abstraction, a priori, separate from existing reality. Marxist-Leninism does justify discretion on the economy. In this regard, it is flexible, fluid, organic... It castigates the 'Left' communists who demand that such-and-such an economic scheme (which was devised a priori) be introduced, as a matter of principle, even if the existing realities don't call for it. This is what the Marxist-Leninists call 'dogmatism'. And it is this 'dogmatism' which is one of the distinguishing traits of Trotskyism and Maoism. (But, it should be said, the line between a mad, 'Left-adventurist' and 'dogmatic' scheme, and a good, proper, socialist one, is thin: how are we to distinguish between, say, Stalin's collectivisation program in the Ukraine, and Mao's crazed, 'adventurist' Great Leap Forward?).

Marxism's organic approach is what separates it from the 'utopian' forms of communism. 'Utopian' communism devises abstract, a priori schemes for social reform, and demands that they be imposed, from the top down, and all at once. Marxism, on the other hand, believes that reality is gradually inclining towards socialism - that's the tendency in the economic and social arrangements of the world today - but these tendencies may end up zig-zagging: that is, there may be a sudden spurt towards socialism, and then a turning away from it... The goal of the Marxist political leadership is to divine the existing tendency and work with it, and not against it.

The essential thing is that there will be struggle between the existing tendencies - the one towards capitalism and away from socialism, and vice versa. Marxism is the metaphysics of struggle.

Nationalists should take this metaphysics on board. Many of them exhibit surprise that there is a struggle, that there is a terrible fight, in politics. Some profess to be bemused by present-day policy on immigration, for example: 'Why doesn't' Romney and the US Republican Party see sense on non-white immigration, and just ban it? But, according to Marxism, there must be a struggle: a fight, a battle, will be necessary. Marxism is a close cousin of Darwinism, of course, and it's not for nothing that Hitler named his memoirs, 'My Struggle'...

Manual for the Radical Nationalist, part I: Demonstrations and Mass Movements

I witnessed, in the city today, another pointless, Trotskyite-commie demonstration: this time one against the extradition of Assange. It's amazing how, during a working day, people find the time off from their jobs to participate in this nonsense (but do Trotskyite communists work?); it's amazing, too, that they are demonstrating on behalf of the rights of the sleazy Assange. The man is a born con-man. He ran afoul of the Swedish authorities after a) having a fling with a Swedish feminist, who was a sexual harassment counsellor, in her thirties, and b) cheating on her with Swedish women in her twenties. The women met up by chance, compared notes, and realised that Assange had been cheating on them both (doesn't this sound like a soap opera?) and then went to a leading Swedish rape lawyer. The rest is history. Assange managed to convince the Left that he was a victim of a CIA conspiracy, and now has them working on his behalf. But one should be aware: when a man says, 'I love women', as Assange did, in one of his TV interviews - translated, it means, 'I have deep-seated issues with women'. Perhaps he hates them and wants revenge on them - an impulse common among some men, especially unattractive ones like Assange - and, unfortunately, he messed with a woman who, like him, hates the opposite gender and wants revenge on them.

The Assange demonstration, though, got me thinking, not about sexual politics, but about the efficacy of demonstrations in general. Schmitt wrote, in his Constitutional Theory (1928), that almost any mass gathering can present unexpected political opportunities, and may display political elements, and this is what demonstrations, by the Left, are trying to tap into. Demonstrations, in the Middle East right now, are thoroughly political; they represent the mass and are pure, unadulterated political, democratic rage. A million people in Tahrir Square, crowds of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, in Syria or Yemen, being shot at by security forces: these are real demonstrations. Such demonstrations, and the deployment of the new medias of Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, end up overwhelming the establishment. Even if the state-controlled media under-counts the numbers, or doesn't report them altogether, word of mouth will spread news of the demonstrations. The demonstration becomes known, becomes attractive, to the people as a visible manifestation of the people's power, its pouvoir constituant, to make or break the constitutional order (I am following Schmitt's thesis here, of course). The Trotskyites and anarchists in the West aim at the same effect, of course, but fail miserably. In Australia, the Trots can't arouse the mass' collective rage and direct it against the prevailing political order; they certainly can't do so with demonstrations on behalf of Assange, or gay marriage, or boat people, or gay Palestinian boat people being allowed to marry one another in detention centres. Demonstrations in Australia, particularly by the Left, tend to be a waste of time.

In the 1920s and 1930s in the West, of course, it was all different. People really did believe in fascism, or communism, and would come out on the streets, in the tens of thousands, in favour of it. Partly that was because of the extremist political climate of the time; part of it was that, before television, the Internet and computer games, people didn't have much in the way of home entertainment, and so, if they wanted a fun evening, they would go to a demonstration or a Mosley rally in a stadium. On top of that, fascism was, and is, a lot of fun all around, and that's why English Defence League demonstrations, for instance, appeal to white working-class Britons. Even though I would draw the line at waving an Israeli flag, I myself - were I to go to England on a trip - to attend an EDL rally; or, if I were in Hungary, a Jobbik rally (no Israeli flags there). But can this be applied to an Australian context, one may ask, and would it have the desired effect.

Putting that to one side: we have seen spontaneous, left-leaning (or at least, anti-capitalist demonstrations) in the West recently: e.g., the Occupy movement, the 'Indignant' movement in Spain, and so forth. These sorts of demonstrations are very much like the ones in the Arab world, insofar as they are not directed, or controlled, by a single political group or ideology (as opposed to demonstrations for fascism and communism, which were tightly controlled by a single party); certainly, the views expressed by the participants in these movements aren't 'scientific', i.e., based on the 'scientific' socialism which is Marxism.

At first sight, then, these movements present an opportunity for the Left. All the commies need do is worm their way into them, preach the truths of the 'science' which is Marxism, and hey presto, instant communist revolution - or the beginnings of one. The commies have been doing this for the past ten years or so, with the environmentalist movement, the anti-globalisation movement, and so forth: they haven't converted, or co-opted, the participants in these, but they have managed to assert themselves at these events, through fear, intimidation, and the sheer size and strength of their presence, with some success. But, in truth, I don't think the commies will have much luck in bringing Occupy, et al., around to communism.

Why is that? Aren't these movements a response to 'the crisis of capitalism'? Indeed, they are. 'Capitalism' means different things to different people, at different points in history, of course: right now it stands for Goldman Sachs, financial profiteering and loansharking, a disproportionate, bloated financial sector which wields undue influence over the governments of Europe (including the present German government); it also stands for mass unemployment in Europe and America; it also stands for monetary chaos; it also stands for Jews, in particular, the Jewish-American Bernanke and the predominantly Jewish-American financial sector, both primarily responsible for bringing about the present crisis. 'Capitalism', these days, also stands for immigration: unlimited, non-white immigration.

The latter is particularly important, especially in today's political, intellectual and media discourse. Every day, we hear a different story as to why immigration is necessary. The first is that white workers are fundamentally lazy, and that we need mass immigration of non-white, unskilled labour to do the jobs whites won't do. The second is that white workers - despite having the highest rates of literacy and education in the world, and leading the world in the development of technology and science - haven't the 'skills' to do their jobs, and so mass immigration of non-white 'skilled' labour (viz, labour from India and China) is a necessity. The third is that white workers are too old - who will pay their pensions, except for immigrants, who will generate enough tax revenue to pay for their pensions and that of the greying white man? The fourth is that white workers are too selfish, and should share their welfare state, with its public health, education, housing, its unemployment benefits, disability benefits and old age pensions, with the entire Third World.

The 'capitalist' economy today suffers from severe defects. The US labour market, and financial markets, are in bad shape - the worst since the early 1990s recession (which brought us the terrible 'grunge' music craze, and goth culture, among other dreadful cultural things). Overall, confidence in the Western political and economic system hasn't been at such a low ebb since the 1970s. Western politicians oscillate between two poles in response to this crisis: there is the 'austerity' of Merkel (higher taxes, and fiscal tightness) and the 'growth' policies of Obama (higher taxes, huge deficits and currency devaluation). Obama's policies, in fact, produce no growth, as we know, and are uncannily like Roosevelt's in the 1930s, which likewise produced no growth. So, if the term 'capitalism' means the prevailing political and economic system - and things like Wal Mart and trash multiplex blockbuster films, and Mitt Romney - then yes, the present spontaneist movements are revolts against capitalism.

The Left - and by that, I mean the anarchists, Trotskyites and small handful of Maoists who make up the modern-day radical Left - can't tap into this, however. When all is said and done, a mass movement needs a solid, unified, strong political party - like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, for instance - because spontaneism, by itself, leads, in the end, to nothing; if anything, it burns itself out, just like the New Left did in the 1970s. And the Far Left today doesn't have such a party. In the West, the communist parties used to perform such a function, and while they are (in countries like France and Italy) still kicking around, they don't attract the support they used to. (Indeed, the once-mighty French Communist Party has steadily been losing ground, in terms of working-class support, to the Front National). More or less, the 'mainline' - that is, pro-Moscow - communist parties took a big hit after the collapse of the USSR in 1991, and quite a few didn't survive. As a result, the vacuum was filled by the Trotskyite communist groups. And, as anyone knows, the Trotskyites really attracts the freaks, crazies, dilettantes, of the Left - flakes, adventurers and students going through their radical phase. The Trotskyites are incapable of keeping order, even within their own ranks, and are forever more and more parties and grouplets, each smaller than the last. Given their lack of discipline, organisationally and politically, they aren't bound to make much of an impression on the real, working-class people they encounter at Occupy and other rallies. So a highly volatile, potentially radical European mass isn't going to be led to the truths of 'scientific socialism'. (Half the time, though, I'm not convinced that the Trotskyites really stand, especially these days, for communism at all: are they Marxist?).

What of the rest of the Left? As mentioned before, a proportion of working-class French voters are abandoning the communists for the Front National; likewise, working-class districts in Sweden are voters for the populist Far-Right Swedish Democrats. Why? Well, the colonisation, and ethnic cleansing, of indigenous Europeans - by Indian, Pakistani, Arab and African immigrants - is hurting the European people, especially the working-class Europeans who have to live alongside their conquerors; that segment of the electorate feels abandoned by the traditional bourgeois liberal democratic parties, but also the Far Left as well.

If the Far Left were to adopt an attitude of resistance to the colonisation of Europe - and the colonisation of Australia by Chinese and Indians - then the Far Left would regain a measure of credibility. It would be dealing with a very real problem that affects white working-class people worldwide.

But, the Far Left shuts its eyes; what's more, it regards the Far Right, especially the populists, as its bitterest enemy. This is, to a certain degree, un-Marxist. While it is true that some of the European Far Right groups contain fascist and neofascist elements - and communism is, of course, the hereditary enemy of fascism - the present 'immigration' problem (that is, ethnic cleansing and eventual genocide of white people) is unique in Western, and world, political history. We've never seen anything like it. Consequently, there is nothing, in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and the rest, on it. The USSR, of course, spent a great deal of time ranting on about the rights of poor Negroes in the US (who weren't allowed to drink at whites-only water fountains - you know the drill) and the white supremacist South Africans; but the present avalanche of non-white emigration to the West, and the subsequent remoulding of white racial attitudes, didn't get started until the 1970s, and didn't take full effect until the 2000s. (Non-white immigration in Australia exploded in John Howard's fourth and final term, after 2004; in Britain, after 2001). Consequently, the USSR never survived long enough to see the pernicious effects of present-day Western racial policy.

The Far Left can't change its position on race and immigration, in part, because it is following the lead of the Center Left. A few nationalists have made intriguing observations about the new policy of the traditional social democratic parties in Europe: this is the currying favour with Muslim and other immigrant groups in exchange for votes, e.g., in the recent French presidential election of Hollande, who campaigned for, among other things, illegal immigrants in France to be given the right to vote in elections (following the lead of the former socialist government in Spain) and who used a Jay-Z and Kanye West rap song ('Niggaz in Paris') in one of his campaign advertisements in an attempt to appeal to Afro-French voters. Elsewhere, British nationalists have long held that one impetus behind the extraordinary mass non-white immigration under Blair was the desire, on the part of the Labour Party, to bring in non-white voters (who, being reliant on welfare and council housing, would be more likely to vote Labour). In the US, Democrat Party strategists have been quite open about targeting 'minority' groups - that is, Hispanic immigrants and Afro-Americans - and abandoning the white working-class vote to the Republicans. This is all very cynical and self-destructive, no doubt, but indicative of an entire generation of white Western politicians - the Hollandes and Blairs - who have a real hatred of white people. But why is the Far Left following their lead? Why should they be following the liberals and the social democrats? The answer is nihilism. The Far Left used to believe in the communism of the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic (don't laugh); but, after 1991, and the advent of the post-modern, post-communist era, it doesn't believe in anything. So it follows the nihilism of the liberals and socialists of the West, who want to destroy the white Western culture and civilisation, and want to, in Europe, replace it with Islam and Pan-Africanism, and, in Australia, replace the traditional culture of British imperialism with Chinese and Indian imperialism.

Marxism is meant to be a theory which is highly responsive to economic and political developments. Which is to say, the true Marxist activist will divine the fault lines in the society around him and try and ignite class struggle and class war, the war between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, which will bring about the socialist revolution. He must, in this endeavour, take an un-biased, unprejudiced approach. Supposing that he recently came to Earth from Mars, and landed in Paris and London: the first thing he would ask himself is, 'Hm, I'm on Earth, among the Parisians and Londoners: what are the existing fault-lines? How can I lead the way for the working-class? How can I unify the working-class and at the same time turn them against the bourgeoisie?'. If he really were unbiased, he would see that the ethnic cleansing of British working-class whites - in Birmingham, Leicestershire and Bradford - could be used for this purpose. In other words, Marxism is, as a theory, a means of analysis which works with reality, which 'bounces off' reality, and tries to work off the existing patterns, structures, boundaries in reality - as opposed to imposing theory upon it and make reality conform to it. The true Marxist ought to be prepared to accept whatever he finds in the course of his investigations and work with it, unpleasant as it may be (and racialism and racial feelings are extremely unpleasant to many sensitive white, Western intellectuals).

The remnants of the Marxist Left today, of course, take the opposite approach to the one above. To them theory comes before practice, theory is a substitute for reality. This is something that is condemned, in the Marxist literature, as 'dogmatism'. Unfortunately for Marxists, the Marxist school of thought - being based primarily on books written by, and for, bourgeois intellectuals - has always exhibited a strong bias towards 'dogmatism': at times, it just can't help it. Marxist-Leninism always strove to look at reality without prejudice, to take existing biases and tendencies in reality (in particular, the reality of the white working-class) into account; it always strove to present itself as a flexible doctrine, able to respond to new opportunities and changing, ever-changing, political conditions. But, as we know, it failed in this as often as it succeeded, and often lurched towards 'dogmatism', again and again. It is because of the 'dogmatist' tendency in traditional Marxism that the Marxist Far Left can't see today's reality - the dispossession and destruction of the whites of Europe, by the anti-white crazies in power - for what it is. So, while the present anti-white attitudes of the Far Left aren't indicative of historical Marxist theory, the Far Left has accumulated a number of dogmas in recent years and is now imposing them on the present. It sees, for example, the seven million or so Muslims in Europe, not as raiders, colonisers and dispossessors, but as poor little non-whites denied their rights by the evil whites: that is, the equivalent of the Afro-Americans who weren't allowed to drink from whites-only water fountains, or the Africans under Apartheid. In other words, the Far Left is using entirely inappropriate historical analogies, left over from the Soviet, Cold War era.

(Who knows how Marxism, as a body of thought, will fare in the new world of non-white Europe: perhaps Marxist books will be banned, and burned, by the future Muslim rulers of Europe, and Marxist intellectuals will be thrown into jail or killed; or perhaps Marxism will co-exist, side by side, with a non-white liberalism - the kind of liberalism which is taken root, intellectually, right now in the Middle East).

At any rate, we Western intellectuals on the Far Left, or the Far Right, are free to use the existing body of Marxist theory in any way we like. During the 1960s, the Western intellectuals who made up the New Left substantially revised the Marxist theory - much to the chagrin of the Soviets, who published stinging rebuke after rebuke of Adorno, Marcuse, Sartre, Fanon and the rest. No-one in the world knew Marxism-Leninism better than the communist intellectuals of Russia and the Eastern bloc, and so, the mainstream Marxists put up a very good argument that New Leftism and the student movement didn't constitute 'real Marxism', that it was a deviation, just like Maoism. But, since the collapse of the USSR, a kind of intellectual anarchy prevails so far as Marxism, communism and 'scientific socialism' is concerned. Marxism can be used for destructive, nihilistic, anti-white and anti-Western purposes, or for nationalistic purposes. No intellectual authority in Moscow is going to say, 'You can't do that'.

As to why this is important for the nationalist movement: many of us look to Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy as a model, and we need to appreciate the extent to which Bolshevism and Marxism influenced the thought and actions of these men. To politically-conscious men of their generation (my great-grandfather's generation), Bolshevism was unavoidable, ubiquitous, just like Twitter, Facebook and the IPhone today: one couldn't walk out of one's house, and buy a pint of milk, without having communist slogans shouted at you. This is something very hard to understand for my generation of nationalists. One could say, for argument's sake, that Hitler's socialism was a truly German socialism, that is, non-Russian, non-Leninist, representing indigenous German traits as opposed to Slavic, Leninist and Bolshevik ones; but this isn't true for Hitler, or fascism in general. Both Mussolini and Hitler were profoundly influenced by the Russian model.

It's only radical change, revolutionary change, which can allow the white Western man to escape the present morass. That means examining, and using, theoretically, all forms of radicalism, past and present - and that includes the most successful radicalisms of the 20th century, fascism and communism. But, to apply these to the present, means that the doctrines will be transmuted. They will appear in entirely new forms. As Yockey speculates, in Imperium (1948), the future fascism - or 'authoritarian socialism', as he calls it - will take unprecedented forms.