Hunter Wallace's War on Terror

Another Lebanese-Syrian car bombing, with dozens killed at Rashidin west of Aleppo: born-again Assadist Hunter Wallace, following the line of the Assadist regime, has been quick to pin the blame on 'the rebels' and to use it to justify Assad's brutal war on his own people. In effect, Hunter asks the opponents of Assad in the West: 'Are you happy now?'.

It's an old, old propaganda technique and one that takes me back years ago to the 2002 Bali bombing. At the time, Australian conservative columnist Gerard Henderson - our equivalent of George Will - wrote an article with the Hunter Wallace-esque title ' Bleeding hearts left exposed as fools'. He uses the exact same rhetorical strategy as Wallace:

Perhaps those who blamed the US for September 11 will now realise they have been deluded.

Who will be on Michael Leunig's Christmas card list this time? Last year, in the aftermath of the terrorist murders in the United States, the Melbourne-based cartoonist declared that it was time to extend "mercy, forgiveness, compassion" to, wait for it, the leader of al-Qaeda.

Writing in The Age on Christmas Eve, the intellectual guru of Down Under's leftist luvvies declared: "Might we, can we, find a place in our heart for the humanity of Osama bin Laden and those others? On Christmas Day, can we consider their suffering, their children and the possibility that they too have their goodness? It is a family day, and Osama is our relative." It remains to be seen whether Leunig will exhibit similar sentiments this Christmas with respect to the weekend's massacre of the innocents.

Bush's war on terror, and the invasion of Afghanistan, were justified by the Bali bombing: that's the lesson we can draw.

Questions were raised early on as to who did the Bali bombing. The Wiki article on it regards it as settled that the perpetrators were the Indonesian Islamist group Jemaah Islamiah. Unlike Wallace, Henderson, at least, had the decency to admit that he didn't know who carried out the bombing:

It is unclear which person or group was responsible for the terrorist attacks in Bali. The murderers could come from one of the Islamist groups in Indonesia known to have contacts with al-Qaeda, namely Jemaah Islamiah or Laskar Jundullah. It could be terrorists with a different, essentially domestic, agenda; or criminality could be the prime motive. It is too early to say. 

As for the Rashidin bombing, it is 'too early to say'. The rebels, in a fit of sectarianism, could have done it; perhaps the Assad regime did it to make the rebels look bad. We don't know with any certainty, just as we don't know who car-bombed the Lebanese politician Rafic Hariri in 2005 or who set off the wave of car-bombings in Iraq in 2006-2007. At the time, the Hariri assassination was blamed on Assad's allies Hezbollah, while the Iraq bombings were blamed on sectarians who wanted Sunnis and Shiah to fight one another. I myself, being a conspiratorial-minded individual, thought that the CIA or Mossad could have been responsible for that wave of sectarian violence in Iraq. And, seeing as the widespread backlash and revulsion against the Hariri assassination brought about Lebanon's 'Cedar Revolution' and the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, who's to say that Syria's enemies didn't do it?

The fact of the matter is that the Arabs - and foreign actors in the Arab world, such as the Americans and the Israelis - practice a duplicitous, violent and often murderous type of Byzantine politics designed to encourage sectarian divisions. Western nationalists now, thanks to recent events, have wandered onto the battlefield, but are to be advised to get out - for the sake of retaining their integrity and their sanity.

The astounding thing is that the death toll of even a hundred Rashidin bombings wouldn't approach the number of those killed by Assad, which now approaches the hundreds of thousands. The wave of rapes, tortures and murders performed by Assad is unprecedented in Arab history, and, thanks to the widespread use of social media and smart phones in the Syrian conflict, most of the atrocities are immediately verifiable. To say the least, none of this constitutes a 'good look' for the Alt Right, for Western nationalists, for Southern nationalists. By supporting Assad, we are placing ourselves in the same position as those communists in the West who supported the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. Those leftists downplayed the atrocities of the regime, and after its crimes were exposed to the world, were made to look either grossly callous or grossly ignorant. My prediction is that the Assadists and Putinistas in the West will end up looking the same way.

On the surface of it, one finds it hard to understand the newfound concern of Wallace with Syrian politics and the numbers of Syrians killed through violence. Wallace and the other 'non-interventionist' opponents of Trump pretend as though the Shayrat airfield bombing was the first air-strike carried out in Syria by the US. It wasn't: the US has launched over 8000 airstrikes since 2014. Civilian casualties from these have been significant and continue to mount. The US bombed a mosque in Al Jinnah and killed dozens in March. Why didn't we hear about it from Wallace?

The two-fold answer is that the US was bombing 'terrorists' back then, often in co-operation with Russia and the Assad regime, and that the Shayrat airstrike represented the first time that the US had raised a hand against the Assad regime - and, by extension, its sponsor Russia. Syria didn't appear on Wallace's radar until Shayrat. Carl Schmitt defines politics as the ranging of men against one another as enemies, and Trump has now become, after Shayrat, Putin's enemy. Trump must be destroyed; he must be attacked for his abandonment of 'non-interventionist principles' (overlooking the fact that Russia and Iran, along with the US, have been intervening in Syria for years) and for his Jewish and Israeli connections (overlooking Putin's Jewish connections and Russia's cordial relations with Israel and Netanyahu). The entire Alt-Right has been mobilised for this task. The American Alt Right's éminence grise, Richard Spencer, is owned by Putin - and has been for some time - as are other peripheral, fringe figures in US political life such as Tulsi Gabbard, Dennis Kucinich, Jill Stein... These 'sleeper agents', as Yuri Bezmenov would have called them, have sprung to life - they have been 'activated' - and are now to be deployed against Trump. Wallace, knowingly or unknowingly, is following in their train. In other words, he acts now as an instrument of Putin's foreign policy. He is treading a dark path.

I will conclude here with some of the wise words of Roman Skaskiw.

After two years of close observation, some strategies and motifs of Russian propaganda have become evident.  Hopefully these lessons will lend some clarity on the information war which overlays the kinetic one.

1. Rely on dissenting political groups in Western countries for dissemination.  Kremlin talking points appear with uncanny similarity in most alternative political movements in the West, including communist, libertarian, nationalist, and even environmentalist, whose protests occasionally overlap with anti-NATO protests.

I had an especially close look at the libertarian community as I have long been a part of it.  Rampant misinformation led me to write these three increasingly horrified essays about what some prominent libertarians were saying about Russia and Ukraine: Putin's Libertarians, When Your Former Libertarian Hero Calls You a Nazi and The Latest Libertarian Shillery for Russia.

The persistence of demonstrable lies and their almost word-for-word repetition in radical left media was uncanny and put into perspective only after I discovered the Active Measures interviews and the Deception was My Job interview of Yuri Bezmenov.  KGB agents who had defected to the United States in the 1970s and 80s all said the same thing.  Espionage was a minor consideration of Russian intelligence.  Their focus was controlling the message and it often happened through influencing media and political movements in freer societies.

Russian intrigue with dissenting groups even makes an appearance in Joseph Conrad's fantastic 1907 novel The Secret Agent.

Their impressively broad appeal is evidenced in their recruitment of both Western neo-Nazis and Western communists who claim to be fighting for World Communism to support the war in Eastern Ukraine.

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.

Attention, Putinistas: The Penalty for Treason is Death

I.

On March the 22nd, 2015, the Putin regime organised (through the Rodina party, a 'nationalist' party subservient to Putin) a Russian International Conservative Forum in St Petersburg. Many luminaries from the Far Right (including Jared Taylor, Udo Voigt and Nick Griffin) attended, as did some from the Far Left.

The event has drawn criticism both from the extreme Right and Left. On the Far Right, Carolyn Yeager wittily compared the nationalist attendees to Seydlitz and Paulus, two of the 'Seydlitz officers' who defected from Germany to the USSR during WWII and who made their services available to the Stalin regime; on the Far Left, one Marxist commentator, noting the attendance of both Marxists and 'fascists' at the Forum, suggested that Putin organise a Stop the War event in St. Petersburg - and that Nick Griffin, Alex Callinicos (head of the Trotskyite Socialist Worker's Party in Britain) and notorious British-based Islamic hate preacher Haitham al-Haddad could take a cab together there and split the fare.

And why not? All three men share a hatred of the US and 'NATO imperialism', and politics makes strange bedfellows. Putin, alone of all the politicians in this world, has the ability to bring nationalists, Trotskyites and Islamists together - through manipulation. We saw, at the Saint Petersburg conference, the culmination of Putin's Soviet-style campaign to inveigle politicians and intellectuals from the West over to the side of Russia. In this Putin has followed time-honoured KGB and Soviet practice. He has gone beyond the Soviets, however, insofar that he aims his propaganda and mind-control efforts at both the Far Right and Left - traditionally, the Soviets targeted only the left, the 'progressive' liberals and socialists as well as the hardcore Marxists. The Putinist ideology has shown itself to be flexible - very flexible; Putin can be portrayed as both nationalist and anti-nationalist, pro-Nazi and anti-Nazi, and can appeal to those in both political spheres.

My concern here today is with the Far Right, not the Far Left - they can sort out their own problems - and I regard Putinism as one of the greatest dangers, if not the greatest, facing our movement today. The success of Putin's manipulations expose, to my mind, the structural weaknesses of the Western Far Right and nationalist movement. Putin is why we fail, and my belief is that only the sternest measures will pull us out of our nosedive.

On the subject of 'sternest measures', I have a friend who is anti-Putin and who has a somewhat perverse sense of humour: he tells me that he has a fantasy of setting up a white nationalist / neo-Nazi equivalent of the ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Syria and declaring himself Caliph - Abu-Bakr al-White-man-i - and following ISIS' practice of takfiri (that is, declaring certain Muslims to be un-Islamic and executing them) and pronouncing the Putinistas to be takfiri, not according to the principles of Islam but to the principles of white nationalism and neo-Nazism; the Putinistas would then be invited to his caliphate under false pretences (perhaps the men could be offered Russian mail order brides?) and then be executed.

I asked him for the names of the Putinistas he believed ought to be executed. He came up with (off the top of his head) this list of people. I'll included it here:

Richard Spencer

Patrick Slattery

Saboteur 365 / Paladin

Pat Buchanan

Irish Savant

Jack Ryan

Paul Craig Roberts

TheTruthSeeker.Co.Uk

Bill White

Andrew Anglin

Peter Myers

Aryan Skynet

Laksha Darkmoon

InCogMan

Kevin Alfred Strom

One has to differentiate between the Putinistas above and the politicians on the Far Right who support Putin. The latter group, being politicians, will lie to further their own advantage - this is to be expected - and so really can't be held to account. The pro-Putin political parties on the Far Right include: in Central Europe, the German NPD and AfD (Alternative for Germany), the Austrian Freedom Party, the Hungarian Jobbik; in Southern Europe, the Italian Northern League and Forza Italia; in the Balkans, the Bulgarian Attack and Greek Golden Dawn; in Western Europe, the French Front National, the British BNP and UKIP, the Belgian Vlaams Belang. (The only Far Right formation which has shown itself to be inimical to Putin is the Finns Party - which shows that the closer to Russia you are, the less pro-Russian you're likely to be). We can surmise that the pro-Putin parties on the Far Right - along with those on the Far Left, e.g., Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain - probably received some financial inducement from Russia (Kremlin cash) in return for their support. For certain, they have become infected with the fantasy that Putin stood for what they stand for (Putin is all things to all men).

Before I proceed any further, I should make my position on Ukrainian nationalism clear. Looking at Ukraine and Russia, one is struck by the similarities. Both are corrupt; both are dominated by kleptomaniac and obscenely rich oligarchs and gangsters; both have Jews in government; both have leaders who (possibly) have Jewish roots; both use Chechens in their armies; both have beautiful women; both are exporters of mail order brides, prostitutes, pornographic actresses and 'white slaves' (forced prostitutes); both suffer from endemic alcoholism; both have weak economies; both have weak and unstable currencies which have a lost a lot of value; both don't have much in the way of industry, high-tech or low-tech; both have large state sectors. (On this last point, it's amusing to note that the 'rebels' (really Russians) in Donetsk and Luhansk are demanding that Kiev pay the region's pensions and wages. This shows real chutzpah. But many Ukrainians and Russians live off the state in some shape or form and are bereft without it). As we shall see, however, the Ukrainian nationalists insist that the similarities are skin deep; a truly independent Ukraine (that is, one independent of Putin) can discard the Russian characteristics, which, they argue, are the legacy of centuries of Russian rule, and become a free European-style state (like Estonia or Latvia) which respects the rule of law. I hope that they succeed in this goal, and I hope that they get the Crimea (and Donetsk and Luhansk) back, but I don't care one way or another - what matters most to me is the effect Putin has had on European and Western nationalism.

On that note, we see that Putin seeks to influence all Westerners, of whatever political persuasion, on a daily basis. If we are to look at the comments sections of the news sites and the sites of the Far Right and Left, we find a special type of Putinista - the full-time professional, who sits in a call centre somewhere in Moscow and who is paid to spam political sites (and news sites) with pro-Putin, anti-Ukrainian comments. The Kremlin Troll or sock puppet can be identified quite easily by the content of his writing: typical terms and phrases such as 'Kiev junta', 'Nazi junta in Kiev', 'fascist Kiev junta', 'Jewish neocons calling for war' (he alternates between anti-fascism and anti-Semitism, sometimes even within the same post); an obsession with Victoria 'Vicky' Nuland; the pasting of huge numbers of links (usually to Kremlin propaganda sites) to buttress his position; an a general sameness and lack of individuality. He shows no concern with the usual business of the website at hand - that is, he doesn't post comments on articles which have nothing to do with Putin, Russia and the Ukraine. When an article on the Ukraine does appear, he jumps on it and rides it for all its worth; he posts obsessively, repeatedly; fights tenaciously against anyone who disagrees with him; because of his cyborg-like persistence and tenacity, he often exhausts his opponents, who - because they aren't being paid to post - give up. You can't argue, or debate, with the Kremlin Troll: debate presupposes that the other person is willing to change his mind, or at least concede one or to points, in response to your arguments, but the Kremlin Troll won't budge, won't concede, won't give an inch, because he's paid not to. He represents the views of a state; he doesn't act as an individual. (Plenty of information can be found on the Internet on the Kremlin Trolls: this recent amusing article gives a rundown of their methods of operation, their working conditions, their wages, and the ideological constraints they labour under; interestingly, the Kremlin Trolls are not only deployed on Western websites, but Russian ones as well - all to give the impression of mass support for Putin).

II.

Viewed from the outside, Putinism seems a pliable ideology and can be stretched across every band on the political spectrum. We find, in the media, Putinistas on the Left (John Pilger) and the Right (Jewish conservative Peter Hitchens). Roman Skaskiw, the Ukrainian nationalist and libertarian, describes at length the corruption of the US libertarian movement, in particular the Ron Paul Institute, by the Putinistas, and Russia seems to have taken over the popular alternative media site Zero Hedge (which may, according to rumour, have been funded and controlled by Russian intelligence from the get-go). Most of the micro-parties and sects on the Far Left (such as the US Communist Party and the British Trotskyite Socialist Worker's Party) push the pro-Putin line, and many prominent liberal democratic politicians (in Germany and elsewhere) show signs of having been 'bought'. The remarkable thing is that none of the Putinistas in the different ideological camps seem aware that their deadly ideological enemies take the exact same line - support for Putin and Russia, hostility to the 'Nazi junta' (or 'Vicki Nuland Jewish neocon junta') in Kiev. A Putinist libertarian doesn't know that a Putinist Trotskyite feels the same way he does; John Pilger and Seamus Milne don't know that Andrew Anglin and Pat Buchanan agree with them.

None of the (non-Troll) Putinistas can be argued with. You can present multiple facts, multiple photographs, disproving their claims, and, like the Kremlin Troll, they won't give in. But unlike the Kremlin Troll, your Putinista on the Left or Right does what he does out of ideological conviction - or does he? The example of Zero Hedge, possibly created as a Kremlin front and 'activated' as a Kremlin propaganda machine only at this time of crisis, should make us wonder about the Richard Spencers, Patrick Slatterys, Paladin / Saboteur 365s, Irish Savants... What do we know about these men? To put it this way, how difficult would it be for a Kremlin-funded individual to set up a white nationalist or Far Right or neo-Nazi blog and insert the Kremlin party line on the latest incident in Russia or Ukraine (e.g., the Nemtsov assassination) in between the usual Far Right and racialist fodder? I think it would be an easy job, because white nationalist and Far Right blogs write themselves. You feed your readers a steady diet of news stories on Afro-American and immigrant crime, denunciations of Jews, Satanists, Freemasons, Muslims, paedophiles, pornographers, feminists, homosexuals, Obama and the rest, throw in one or two boilerplate white nationalist and pro-German articles, and you're done: you now have a Far Right website and you will be accepted by nationalists, the majority of whom will welcome you with open arms.

(If you want an example of a vaguely-nationalist dummy site set up by the Kremlin, read about ProtiProud in the Czech Republic, here).

Taking the events of the last year into consideration, we can see that, since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Far Right in the West has allowed its commie-spotting skills to atrophy. It has never bothered to familiarise itself with the Soviet-era political tactics - the formation of front groups, the infiltration of agents and activists into politically neutral or hostile organisations, the deployment of agents of influence, the spreading of disinformatsiya (the Soviet equivalent of the Israeli hasbara), the carrying out of false flag operations...

It's this lack of suspicion and distrust on the part of nationalists in the West that takes us to the heart of the matter. Skaskiw distinguishes between 'high trust' and 'low trust' societies - the Western European countries are examples of the former, Russia, the latter. 'High trust' societies practise honesty in business dealings and generally work on the assumptions that a) people generally tell the truth and b) people don't have malign intentions. 'Low trust' societies are the opposite: there everyone is trying to cheat and do one another down, and the general assumptions are that everyone lies, everyone cheats, everyone tries to exploit loopholes in the system out of self-interest. The honest people are exploited and taken advantage of - nice guys finish last - and so don't become one of them. According to Skaskiw, that fits the Russian mindset to a tee. One couldn't find a greater contrast to the Western: we in the West believe a man is what he says he is, which is one of the reasons why we treat the outlandish stories of Holocaust 'survivors' such as Elie Wiesel with such credulity - we simply can't imagine others seeking to manipulate us. So when someone like Putin comes along and spreads millions of dollars - in bribing our political leaders (on the Far Left or Right) and in employing legions of Kremlin Troll spammers in call centres in Moscow and St Petersburg - we in the West don't stand a chance.

(Many in the movement, especially the white nationalists, will take umbrage against my criticising my 'fellow whites', the Russians: to them, all groups within the white race are equal and alike, and so all deserving of respect. It's true that I run the risk here of tarring all Russians with the same brush. I don't believe that Putin has an 86% or whatever approval rating, and I know that there are many good Russians who feel dreadful over what Putin and Russia has done in the Ukraine. But it's often the case that great and powerful nations, such as Germany and Russia, nearly always revert to type - a national type - and under Putin, Russia as a nation has gone back to the old Russia, feared and loathed by its neighbours. What's more, it's a fact of history that the good Russians rarely attain a position of leadership in Russia - it's nearly always the bastards (the Lenins, the Trotskys, the Stalin, the Putins) who get on top. One can say that this fact reflects something about the Russian national character. If the Russian people were, as a whole, as honest, decent, industrious, and non-corrupt as the Germans, English, French, Americans, Swedes - that is, equal on a racial level to those Western European nations - how did Putin and the political and economic system he's engineered come about?).

Putin, who, like Yanukovych, has pilfered literally billions from his people (hedge fund manager Bill Browder puts Putin's wealth at $200 billion, which would make Putin the richest man in the world), embodies the 'low trust' mentality; he also exhibits the quite incredible paranoia and conspiratorial thinking typical of the Russian people. In Marxism, strange and obscure political and economic forces determine the most innocuous phenomena - that is, one can detect a hidden 'class interest' in a play, a speech, a piece of music, a social gathering, a newspaper article... Marx's dialectical materialism tells us that there are no accidents - conspirators and wire-pullers, serving some class, stand behind a curtain and manipulate all political, economic and social events. The Russian people have carried that doctrine - one which they are particularly amenable to - over from Soviet times into the present. They believe in the most outlandish and extraordinary conspiracy theories promulgated by the state media. Putin himself couldn't imagine why any Ukrainian would object to a Yanukovych and seek to overthrow him: the CIA, in conjunction with the Mossad, NATO and Ukrainian neo-Nazis and anti-Semites, were responsible for the Maidan. Humans don't possess free will; they are pushed around, like pawns on a chessboard, by obscure social, political and economic 'forces'.

If we are to delve back further into Russian (and Ukrainian) history, we see that Putin is the Russian Abraham Lincoln and that his actions are, for a Russian ruler, typically Russian. Ukraine wants to secede from Russia and the old Soviet Union, and Putin, like Yeltsin before him, regards secessionism as an unforgivable crime. To understand this, we need to recognise that Russia, as a country, represents something of an anomaly. Made up of over 180 ethnic groups, it forms a conglomerate - a union, like the United States in Lincoln's time. In truth, no ethnically homogenous country (as homogenous and united as Australia or England or Sweden) called Russia can be said to exist. Russia should be referred to as Muscovy - an area encompassing Moscow and Leningrad and which began life as a strange amalgamam of Islamic, Mongol, Tatar and Byzantine culture. Like the Borg in Star Trek, the Muscovites conquered the peoples around them and sought to assimilate them and remove their identity - the conquered peoples were forced to declare themselves 'Russian'. Any of the conquered who want to break away from 'Russia' and assert their separateness - the Chechens and the Ukrainians, for example - will find themselves in trouble. The Russian hostility to secessionist nations applies equally to nations which are within 'Russia' (such as the statelets within the Siberian-Urals region) and to those which are former members of the USSR (such as the Ukraine). The question does not concern just one of statehood - after all, Ukraine in the USSR had a state and Chechnya is a 'republic' today - so much as emancipation from Russia and the freedom to pursue one's own path.

III.

Most of the problems in the region can be traced back to early 19th century nationalism. As Yockey's Imperium tells us, prior to the 19th century, the peoples of Europe - Western and Eastern - saw themselves as belonging to kingdoms with a certain geographic boundary; after the advent of the nationalist idea, they saw themselves as part of a mass united by the same tongue - a nation. That is, they made a transition - they believed that they owed their allegiance, not to their monarchs, but to their nation. This nationalist idea, I think, has led to great misery in Eastern Europe. Perhaps, if the residents of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth hadn't seen themselves as belonging to distinct ethnic groups, 20th century history wouldn't have taken such a tragic turn; the various peoples of the Commonwealth would have submitted to the rapacities of Austria, Prussia and Russia, and would have been unhappy about it, but would not have identified themselves as distinct national units, each with the right to persecute the other. The Czechs and Poles persecuted their minorities after achieving statehood after the First World War, even though these minorities were of the same basic genetic stock, and thus precipitated WWII; the Ukrainian nationalists under Bandera allegedly undertook a bloody vengeance on the Poles during the war. All this was because of nationalism.

On that note, don't we, in the West, consider ourselves to be nationalists? The fact of the matter is that many on the Continent (and in the UK) use the word 'nationalist' as cover - when they say they are nationalist, they really mean they are neo-Nazi. In reality, we nationalists in the West today don't stand for the nationalism of the post-Napoleonic 19th century; we stand for European Imperium and what Yockey (and Spengler) call Prussian Socialism. We recognise that a Prussian Socialism or neo-Nazism (or whatever you want to call it) is needed to defeat Islam, a creed which is stronger than Russia and which represents a greater threat to Europe and the West than Putin's Russia ever could.

I take grave offence at the actions of Putin because they have exposed the weakness of our movement. Putin, armed only suitcases of cash and old, shopworn KGB-era disinformation tricks, has managed to compromise Western nationalism; with one small push, he has nearly toppled it. Is Putinism what our forebears - the Yockeys and other activists in the gloomy period of post-war Europe - struggled, and in Yockey's case, died for? Should our forums and message boards serve as a platform for Kremlin Trolls and agitators to yap on about all the old Stalin and Khrushchev-era clichés regarding the German 'fascist beasts'; the gassing of the millions of poor little Jews, gypsies, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians; the noble, valiant struggle (over 20 million dead!) of the Russians against said 'fascist beast'? The answer - my answer, at least - is no. We should never have allowed Putinism to get as far as it did. We, as a movement - a unified, disciplined movement - should have strangled an Anglin, a Slattery, a Spencer at the first moment they made a pro-Putin utterance.

If Putin had really been a friend of Germany (and the West), he would have declassified all those documents in the Kremlin archives pertaining to a planned Soviet invasion of Germany and Romania in the summer of 1941; or the documents relating to the Soviet role in concocting stories of German atrocities (in Auschwitz and elsewhere). Those actions would have delivered a big blow to the liberals and Zionists in the West, shaken German confidence in their own liberal democratic government, and made friends of the nationalists in Europe. But Putin - a superannuated baby boomer who no doubt, like the boomers of the West, was brought up on post-war anti-German propaganda and believes every word of it - only looks out for Russia, or his version of it, and nothing else.

Likewise, the Ukrainian nationalists - that is, the Ukrainian 'civic' nationalists such the writers for the Euromaiden site - only look out for the Ukraine. When I read regurgitations of Soviet and Jewish anti-German propaganda (regarding the mass gassings of Jews and the turning of Jews into soap, etc.) at these sites, my first response is, 'Go to the devil, I hope you and Russia devour each other'. Revisionist scholars have shown Soviet allegations of German mistreatment of the Ukrainians during the war to be largely baseless. Ukrainians like to claim that they worked as slaves in Germany, whereas in reality they were paid money - and good money - for their work. (On that note: perhaps Germany should demand that the Ukrainian 'slave labourers' refund that money? Given that Germans keep records of everything, it should be easy enough to calculate what the wages were worth in today's euros (it would be a handsome sum) and present an invoice to the Kiev government). Any suffering experienced by the Ukrainians during the war can be mostly laid at the feet of the Russians, and it should be recognised (but it never is) that the Germans pumped in a good deal of resources into rebuilding the devastated Ukraine after capturing most of it in 1941. But then Ukrainians, like the Jews, Czechs and Poles, and now the Greeks, like to play the victim, and if they can extract - using half-truths and ghoulish tales about the Germans - some sympathy from the world, so be it.

If the Ukrainian patriots and their supporters really wanted to refute the Putin and Russian lies - regarding the present and the past - they'd refute all of them, not just one or two. What about that Russian lie concerning the liberation of Auschwitz - how the Pravda correspondent saw ('with his own eyes') that Auschwitz inmates had been thrown onto an electrified conveyor belt, electrocuted, and then dumped into a mass grave? Holocaust denial should be regarded as the nuclear option for the Ukrainian nationalists - more powerful than the nukes the Ukrainians gave up after 1991 - because it undercuts the legitimacy of the Putin regime and shows up the Russians for the liars that they are.

This brings us to the relation (if any) of Ukrainian nationalism to Nazism. Putin is forever decrying the Kiev government as 'fascist', 'anti-Semitic', 'neo-Nazi' - if only that were true! (The right-wing Putinistas choose not to acknowledge Putin's concerns, however: tell an Anglin, a Kevin Alfred Strom or a Paladin / Saboteur 365 of them, and they stick their fingers in their ears and sing, 'La la la - I'm not listening...'). The supposedly conservative Jewish-American Ron Unz published an article by a Putinista Leftie entitled 'Ukraine is chock full of fascist formations: better deal with it'. But it should be noted that Hitler salutes and the wearing of Wolfsangel and Celtic Cross symbols doesn't make you a true neo-Nazi. As one commentator, Tomi, wisely notes:

Tomi says:

March 12, 2015 at 8:16 pm GMT • 100 Words

I don’t understand why are people so concerned about few neofascists in Ukraine. Far-right groups and individuals always thrive in war. National conflicts promote nationalism. Nothing unusual about that. There was a lot of fascist symbols in Yugoslav Wars and none of those countries became totalitarian and Nazi. They are being slowly integrated in EU in the same way Ukraine will be. Compared with that conflict, there aren’t any large-scale war crimes or ethnic cleansing in Ukraine.

Ukrainian elections don’t even show any significant far-right sympathies. There’s probably more fascists in Hungary today than in Ukraine. Of course, all those concerned “anti-fascists” won’t comment much on Hungary because neofascist and antisemitic Jobbik is financially supported by Russian government, same as many other far-right and anti-EU parties in European Union.

Words of wisdom - but words which won't intrude upon the world of Vladimir Putin, who remains beholden to the 'Great Patriotic War' fantasies he imbibed during his Soviet youth: Putin serves as the Russian equivalent of the millions of American, Canadian and British boomers who subscribe to the myth of the 'Good War'.

IV.

The question is, why is Putin react in the way he did to the fall of Yanukovych? One reason is that Putin has amassed enormous wealth during his lengthy tenure, like Ghaddafi and Mubarak, and the possibility that he may lose that wealth - and be put on trial for corruption and other crimes - frightens him. In reality, he could have quit years ago and taken his ill-gotten gains with him, and still be regarded by many as a hero for turning Russia around after the Yeltsin era. But, like a good many wealthy dictators, he wants to remain at the trough forever and is convinced that the country would fall apart without him; in his mind he has confused the national interest with his personal interest.

That doesn't explain, however, why the majority of Russians support him and why the Russian security state stands behind him - and why they are engaging in (what at first sight appears to be) irrational behaviour. Why did Russia go along with the annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Crimea, the Donetsk and Luhansk regions? Why did Russia feel the need to take these territories - when it has more land than it knows what to do with? Why won't it let Siberia and other regions secede? The answer lies in Russia's political DNA. Russia - or Muscovy - has always sought to conquer the territories around, take what land it could and incorporate it into the Russian empire. It does so with purely negative intentions. As Hadding Scott observed, Russia doesn't take land in order to make use of it but to deny others the use of it. The Russophiles, Putinistas and Stalinists may blather on about how unfair it was for Germany to want to conquer the Eastern territories - how they shouldn't have looked down on the Russians, Poles and Ukrainians, how it should have made allies of the people in those territories instead of treating them (allegedly) as 'üntermenschen'. (It's the inegalitarianism of the National Socialist doctrine, and the notion that one white racial and ethnic group can be superior to another, which really offends people). But can't we say that - putting all the Stalin-era propaganda lies to one side for the moment - the Russians and the Ukrainians would have been better off under German rule? The Germans, had they won, would have developed industry, created jobs and built roads and railways. Putin, after 15 years of rule, has left large sections of Russia undeveloped; he hasn't bothered to improve basic infrastructure at all - why should he, the money, in his opinion, rightfully belongs in his pockets and those of his friends. It's the Russian way. But the fact that Russia doesn't make use of her resources doesn't entail that she will allow others to do so; what's more, she'll actively prevent others from making use of their resources - by stealing their land and merging it into the great, amorphous Russian empire, which is run on slovenly socialist principles.

It's at this point that I should put my cards on the table and declare what it is that I stand for.

Political activity consists of discovering what one's political principles are, imagining what the world would look like were the principles put into practice, and considering what the obstacles are preventing the implementation of those principles. Take neo-Nazism (or National Socialism or neofascism or whatever you want to call it): we know what the neo-Nazi prospectus contains - we know from reading Yockey and other neofascist theorists, and from reading the works of the original fascists themselves (Hitler, Mussolini and others). We know that it entails following the Hitler model. And that, in turn, entails some major disruption. Power will be seized in a coup or 'revolution' (however you want to look at it) like that in Germany in 1933 and Czechoslovakia in 1948; political opponents of the new order will be done away with - either imprisoned or killed. The new regime will make war, relentlessly, on the Jews, the Marxists, the Masons, the liberals and take the power away from these shadowy and conspiratorial forces and restore it to the Volk. Institutions such as the armed forces, the judiciary, the churches, the trade unions, the universities, the press, will be turned upside down. People will be forced to participate in the political and the social - youth and children will be made to enrol in youth and children's leagues, women into women's leagues, workers into trade unions into 'national' trade unions... All of this sounds terrible to the 'freedom' lovers and the lovers of liberal democracy, but to my mind, it will all to be for the good, because I believe that this Hitler model is the one that we (in the West) more or less ought to follow. I think that the Hitler model would bring joy and happiness to the Western peoples and that it beats the liberal democratic model - which, as we can see from today's France, Britain, Australia and other countries, has failed.

This isn't to say that I don't recognise that times have changed since the 1930s and 1940s. Today one can't be an out-and-out opponent of democracy and liberalism, and even Putin has to make his rule in Russia appear democratic, with elections, parties, parliaments. On top of that, the fact that millions of non-whites have emigrated to the West has implications for the Hitler model - or even for the old communist model. Suppose that something like National Socialism, or communism, were restored in Germany today: the modern equivalents of the Hitler Jugend and Bund Deutscher Mädel (League of German Girls), the communist Thälmann Pioneers and FDJ (Free German Youth), would include Kurdish, Turkish, African, Syrian and other non-German children - all as members of a supposedly German organisation. That's a problem Thälmann and Hitler never had to deal with: even post-war theorists of fascism such as Yockey and Evola could never have imagined such a thing. So the answer to modern ills doesn't lie in a simple turning back of the clock to the days of mass, Volk and totalitarian politics.

Nevertheless, the Hitler model - or something approaching it - should be fought for; we in the West simply can't make progress any other way. It should be noted, however, that the Hitler model - unlike the communist model - doesn't fit all sizes; it can't be applied in any country, regardless of that country's race and culture. It won't do in Iran, and it won't do in Russia (more on that in a moment). What's more, it won't work in countries which aren't to a certain degree ethnically and culturally homogenous. That's why neo-Nazism won't fly in a country such as the USA. North America is composed of separate 'nations' (as Colin Woodard calls them), each bound together by a shared lineage, religion, ethnicity, history and even Weltanschauung. Only someone with a limited understanding would lump them all together into the same category ('American') and the only reason why these nations exist together in a union was because they were forced to - after an unsuccessful attempt by the Deep South, Tidewater, and New France (in the South) to secede. Lincoln, like Putin, waged a ferocious war of extermination to prevent their departure and to hold the union together.

But, when you don't have ethnic, cultural and racial homogeneity underlying your nation, you don't have a nation - you have a state which is a collection of nationalities. And, in such a state, there can be no national socialism. That axiom holds true not only in the US but in other Western states which suffer from national schisms - Belgium, Spain, the United Kingdom.

One has to take the ethnic and cultural reality of America into consideration because the Hitler philosophy obliges us, when making a political analysis, not to abstract away race, culture, nationality, ethnicity, history and religion. One can make up abstract and universalist political formulas - as the US founding fathers (influenced by the Rationalist philosophy of the Continent) did, but these aren't true to life. The Hitler philosophy is grounded in the blood and soil - and in politics and history - and looks at the capabilities of a Volk when making its assessments. I think, then, that even if North America would break up into separate nations or confederations thereof, none of the nation-states would be able to become truly 'neo-Nazi'. In theory, a 'neo-Nazi' Left Coast, a 'neo-Nazi' north-east union (composed of the Midwest, Yankeedom, New Amsterdam and northern New France (Quebec)), a 'neo-Nazi' Dixie (composed of the Deep South, Tide Water, the Appalachians and southern New France) is possible; in practice, it is extremely unlikely. Simply put, none of the American people have it in them, and neither for that matter do the Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians. But the English and Scots nationalists, the Spanish, the French, the Belgium Walloons, the Dutch, the Swedish, the Italians do, and history shows that: precedents for Nazism and fascism exist for each.

As for why Russia can't take up neo-Nazism, the reason is that Russia presents us with a mirror-image of North America - a reverse mirror-image. The Yankees, the descendants of the Puritan witch-burners and Cromwellians, won the Civil War - which, rightly viewed, was a struggle for power between two nations, Yankeedom and the Deep South. Whatever can be said about them, it can't be said that the Yankees don't possess a national character and a firm sense of identity. The Muscovites, on the other hand, suffer from what the sociologist Durkheim called anomie - a lack of identity. They make up for this lack by borrowing (or stealing) - from the Byzantines, the Muslims, the Tatars, the Mongols; even the design of the Russian flag was borrowed from the Dutch, and the name 'Russia' was taken from the Kievan Rus. As Roman Saskiw never tires of pointing out, the Russians are a state in search of a nation, the Ukrainians a nation in search of a state. The Muscovites, like the Yankees from 1861 to 1865, force the disparate ethnicities and nations in their surrounding environs to be in a union with them, and like the Yankees in the period of 'civil rights' (which arguably extends from the time of Reconstruction up to today), force them to conform to their rules. The Yankees, however, do what they do out of a sense of self-righteousness: they believe that they have been blessed and that they labour under the duty to show the path towards salvation to others - or compel them to follow that path. The Muscovites, in contrast, don't believe in anything - they act out of a bellicosity and bloody-mindedness that conceals an inner fear and a sense of emptiness. That's Saskiw's assessment, and one I happen to agree with.

We see, then, the difficulties in reconciling a European-style neofascism with North Americanism or Russianism. I don't think the so-called 'neo-Nazis' in Russia (many of them co-opted by Putin) represent true neo-Nazism; neither do the neo-Nazis in America. Rockwell, the Aryan Nations prison gangs, the NSM (National Socialist Movement), don't, or can't, follow the Hitler model, so can't be true neo-Nazis. Having said that, the Americans can do a great deal of good for the international neo-Nazi movement; Yockey praised the efforts of wartime American fascists and Nazi sympathisers such as Ezra Pound and Charles Lindbergh. The Institute of Historical Review performed a similar useful function (up until the time it was co-opted by Mark Weber and David Cole, men who actually believe that the Holocaust half-happened). I'm sure that many Pounds and Lindberghs, many Institutes of Historical Review, will appear in America in the future. But, if one thing is for sure, nothing good for our cause will ever emerge from Russia.

V.

During the Seydlitz conference in St Petersburg, we heard this:

"The forum's speakers echoed the Russian state narrative on the pervasiveness of an ill-defined "fascism" in Europe.

"My family died because of the Nazis. Russians died too," Scottish pro-life activist Jim Dowson said as he flipped through his PowerPoint presentation featuring the image of a bare-chested Putin on horseback. "How dare you called me a Nazi. The EU are Nazis."

Goodness knows what Udo Voigt thought of this. I'm not against neo-Nazis working together politically with people of different tendencies, but such alliances must serve the purpose of benefiting the movement. For example, the Far Right and Far Left should work together for the purpose of combating Islam, because a) such an alliance would go some way to defeating Islam in the West and b) it would help the nationalist movement as a whole. But Voigt, Taylor, Jim Dowson, Nick Griffin and others participated in the Putin conference so as to benefit Putin - not to fight Islam and not to help nationalism; Voigt and other sympathisers with German National Socialism were forced to eat crow and listen to Dowson's drivel for that purpose. One must ask how far the nationalists will go: will Voigt (and Griffin) attend the Russian 70th anniversary celebrations of the defeat and occupation of Germany?

I think Voigt must have experienced some shame at the conference, or must be experiencing it now, at least. Shame can work as a corrective, but to me, it's not enough. We need stern punishments. A.V. Schaerffenberg alleges that the Seydlitz officers defected to Stalin out of coercion: they were forced to watch German soldiers being flayed alive by the Russians, and along with starvation, exposure to such a horror was sufficient enough to make them defect. If this was the case, I sympathise with the plight of these men - I myself certainly wouldn't be able to stand up to such treatment. At the same time, I can't condone treason, especially in the ranks of the German officer corps. A soldier signs his life away the moment he joins the army, and by all rights, Paulus and Seydlitz should have (in the best Prussian tradition) committed suicide rather than allow themselves to be captured (as Model did). But they didn't; instead, they betrayed their nation and through their actions undoubtedly took the lives of many of their fellow soldiers. The penalty for treason, in their case, should have been death.

Indeed, treason in political ideologies other than National Socialism merits the death penalty. The view of the Kremlin after 1927 was that Trotsky and his followers outside the USSR betrayed the international communist movement; by the mid-1930s, they were de facto sentenced to death. A political movement which is really serious about taking political power ought to mete out its own death sentences. Which is why, I think, a good result to come out of the Putin scandal (the scandal of how Putin managed to corrupt the Western nationalist and racialist movement so easily) would be death sentences all around - Anglin, Nick Griffin, Pat Buchanan, Richard Spencer and others should wind up dead in a ditch. This is despite all the 'good work' these men and women have done for 'the movement' in the past. (It goes without saying that Seydlitz, Paulus and the others did 'good work' for the Wehrmacht and for Germany before they were captured).

Now, I don't seriously believe that anyone out there will 'terminate' a Buchanan or Laksha Darkmoon on the say-so of my friend, the 'Caliph Abu-Bakr al-White-man-i'. But we ought to take treason as seriously as other 'extremist' political ideologies. The example of Islam shows us how traitors to the cause (Islam calls them 'hypocrites') are dealt with, and anyone familiar with the history of orthodox communism knows that the Soviet regime spent an inordinate amount of time and money tracking down and killing Trotsky and the Trotskyites outside the Soviet Union.

The USSR saw Trotsky as being especially dangerous because, as a former Bolshevik, he was in a position to spill the beans on communism - to detail how it looked from the inside, how it worked - and, to add insult to injury, he presented himself to the world as the representative of 'true' communism, 'true' Bolshevism, someone who was a purveyor of the genuine product. Trotsky was regarded as a threat to the Soviet Union worse than the capitalists and fascists. Likewise, it's clear from watching the antics of ISIS that they accord the 'hypocrites' and 'idolators' within Islam and the Arabic and Islamic world greater priority than Western khafirs. I think that both examples (ISIS-ism and Stalinism) point to a fundamental political truth. When you're building a political movement (and both ISIS and the USSR were political in the Schmittian sense), it's the traitors, defectors, hypocrites, splitters, runners or whatever you want to call them who present the greatest danger. To restore order to the ranks, then, logic entails that you need to make use of the death penalty and apply it to deserters.

VI.

As to why it is that Putin found nationalism so easy to infiltrate, the answer is that nationalists in general see themselves (as do the Left) as outriders, people living on the fringes of society; as a result, they don't trust the official news media very much; but, while they exhibit scepticism (and rightly so) to everything the Western media says, they show downright gullibility and credulity towards the 'alternative' - the Russian and Iranian state media. Nearly everyone in our movement prates about the influence of the Jewish-owned media, but hardly anyone touches on the subject of the Russian influence. The latter strikes me as more dangerous to the movement than the former, because while we are accustomed to treating the output of the 'Jewish' and 'Cultural Marxist' media with the utmost caution, we tend to accept that of the Russian state media unquestioningly. It's this lack of scepticism and realpolitik on our part goes some part of the way to explaining why the Far Right has so readily accepted the lies of Putin and Assad regimes (Assad is propped up by Iran).

But, on that point, Iran hasn't sought to capture the Far Right in the West, and if it has attempted to do so, it hasn't had much luck; Putin, on the other hand, has tried very hard and has succeeded in part. He hasn't achieved total domination in the intellectual sphere: a few leading lights, such as Carolyn Yeager and Greg Johnson (of Counter-Currents), oppose the Putinistas, while others, such as Colin Liddell, show themselves to be neutral, if not sceptical. But otherwise, if we are to survey our movement, we find three types: uncommitteds, Putinistas or useful idiots (Jared Taylor falls into that category - in his account of the Saint Petersburg forum, he writes, 'It is common in the West to assume that Russia does not distinguish itself in support of free speech, but a number of the speakers were probably right: This meeting was an exercise in vigorous free speech that probably could not have been held anywhere else in Europe...' - no, it could not have been organised in Europe, because it was organised by the Russian state).

What do we do about all this? As I said before, anyone can put up a neo-Nazi or white nationalist site and post boilerplate articles about the latest Jewish malfeasances or Afro-American horror-crimes against whites. I look beyond this sort of material when I wish to examine a site for its ideological content. The first thing I ask myself is, 'What's his position on the war in the Ukraine?'; the second is, 'Is the comments section infested by Kremlin Trolls and / or Putin sympathisers?'. Nothing can be done if the regular poster or owner of the site - an Irish Savant, Ron Unz, Paladin / Saboteur365, Patrick Slattery - has gone over to the enemy: the best one can do is boycott it. Other sites, however, haven't been taken over completely, and at the worst, they are run by useful idiots such as Taylor (for whom there is some hope). My suggestion is that all sites in the movement (white nationalist, Far Right, neo-Nazi, whatever) which haven't been co-opted by Putin enforce a no-Kremlin Troll, no-Putinista policy - that they block the Trolls and Putinistas and delete their comments.

Some may object to this on the grounds of freedom of speech - that if we start censoring and deleting comments, why, we're no better than the Cultural Marxists we oppose. That isn't true. American Renaissance already practices a comment censorship policy, as does Paul Kersey's Stuff Black People Don't Like; VDare doesn't allow comments at all, while Kevin MacDonald's Occidental Observer switched comments off for a while. As to why they do this, the answer is that many posters on Far Right sites overload their comments with racial epithets (something that offends the moderators of the more genteel sites) and tend to lower the tone; others are agents provocateurs, or just stupid people, who advocate terrorism. Both types - the blatantly obnoxious and the agents provocateurs - are usually the ones who end up getting banned or censored. My policy of active forum moderation, then, has a precedent. Besides which, the Kremlin Trolls and Putinistas can always post elsewhere - they are free to do so. The Trolls can stick to the comments section of Business Insider, or the website of Orsky-Borsky municipality, while the Putinistas can, perhaps, occupy themselves on the opposing views section of a Ukrainian nationalist site; their rights to freedom of speech aren't being violated.

On that topic - freedom of speech - I believe in the principle of free discussion and debate and think that nationalists ought to be free to express their points of view, for sure. But the Kremlin Trolls aren't nationalists expressing their point of view (most of the time they don't believe in what they're posting): they are being paid, by a foreign state, to spread disinformation and bring about what Yuri Bezmenov calls 'demoralisation'. As for the Jack Ryans, Pat Buchanans, Irish Savants, they are either dupes, victims of that disinformation, or are being paid to say what they say.

VII.

Let's hone in here on the Putinistas / Kremlin Trolls, the way they operate and the arguments they use. In the Jared Taylor account of the St Petersburg conference, we'll find in the comments section some posts which are most illuminating. One obnoxious poster, called '1RW' (does this stand for 'One Russian World'?) writes:

Russia has enough problems on its own. If America weren’t aggressively being a threat to Russia by constantly meddling in its politics and those of its neighbors, and trying to eliminate Russia’s ability to retaliate to a nuclear first strike with its missile defense then Russia wouldn’t want anything but friendship and cooperation with the states.

Now, that sets the alarm bells ringing - in my head at least. My suspicion that this fellow is a Kremlin Troll is deepened when an obvious Troll, 'Mixa', comments approvingly on 1RW's comment:

Putin !! Bravo !! It has been over a year of blood, tears and destruction in Ukraine especially in SE Ukraine. The new country now called Novorossia, has been fighting the puppet government in Kiev; however, it is the USA which is encouraging the genocide in the Donbass region.

One Kremlin Troll supporting another on the same board - that is, giving covering fire: that's a typical Kremlin Troll tactic.

Here are some other comments representative of Mixa...

“Love for one’s motherland is one of the most powerful and uplifting feelings. It manifested itself in full in the brotherly support to the people of Crimea and Sevastopol, when they resolutely decided to return home,” Putin said.

Here's some old Soviet style nuclear chest-thumping:

Russia carried out a successful test of its new Bulava intercontinental nuclear missile on Wednesday and will perform two more test launches in October and November, the head of its naval forces said. The armed forces have boosted their military training and test drills since the start of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, which Russia considers in its traditional sphere of influence. The 12-meter long Bulava, or mace, has undergone numerous tests, some successful, and can deliver an impact of up to 100 times the atomic blast that devastated Hiroshima in 1945.

Naval Commander-in-Chief Admiral Viktor Chirkov said the test launch had been carried out from the White Sea and that the test missile had hit its target in Russia’s far east." In October and November of this year, the naval fleet will carry out two more launches with two rocket cruisers equipped with ballistic missiles,” Interfax quoted Chirkov as saying. A Bulava missile weighs 36.8 tonnes and can travel 8,000 km (5,000 miles) and hold 6-10 nuclear warheads.

 Just what you need to make you like Putin's Russia: the not-so subtle threat of being nuked.

Then some boilerplate anti-Americanism and accusations about the 'fascist CIA Mossad coup' in Kiev:

The US provokes and provokes Russia.. It reminds me of a kid provoking a dog. The dog might not bite for the first or second time, or even the third time. But eventually it will bite, and the kid will get hurt only because he did not listen to his parents telling him not to do that. For the US it’s a game: Ukraine now, Iraq, former Yugoslavia, Lybia etc…a “color” revolution here, another one there.. what a fun. They never think of the people who live in those countries, of the people that died because of their game. It’s really sad.

And now, instead of finally doing at least one good thing and stopping supporting a war in a country which is thousands of km far away from the US, they continue pushing and pushing…. now Kerry comes to Kiev and we’ll see if another provocations comes right after this visit…

https://youtu.be/rtVqrkxcu9Q

[...]

America murdered hundreds of thousands of natives

America murdered and enslaved Africans ….

America murdered hundreds of thousands of Japanese .

America murdered in Iraq ….

America murdered in Afghanistan….

America murdered in Serbia ….

America caused the wars in Yugoslavia

America started the war in Syria.

America started the war in Vietnam …

America started the war in Ukraine….

[...]

Read history: Crimea was, is and forever will be Russian.IF the US would NOT have made a coup and would NOT have installed an illegitimate gov in Kiev – Russia would NOT have encouraged Crimeans to make a referendum in order to be re-united with Russia. Russia NEEDED to PROTECT its military port from being taken over by NATO.

[...]

The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs.

Read more at

http://observer.com/2015/01/the-new-ukraine-is-run-by-rogues-sexpots-warlords-lunatics-and-oligarchs/#ixzz3Srimau00

Now, let's return to 1RW. This fellow doesn't strike us, at first sight, as being an open Kremlin Troll; he behaves in a far more subtle manner.

On the ethnic cleansing and annexation of Königsberg, and the transformation of it into Kaliningrad, he writes:

Kaliningrad got ethnically cleansed, not Russified. And frankly, the Germans brought it on themselves. Next time don’t sneak attack Russia, kill 20 million of them, and then loose. Germany got off light considering what they had in mind had they won.

This is what Germans were taught in East Germany; it is what we are taught today in the West.

Then we have a debate regarding who started WWII. One commentator, Alden, makes the penetrating observation that:

Soviet Russia got into WW2 because it’s economy was destroyed and it needed to plunder Central Europe to survive

1RW responds:

Soviet Russia got into WW2 when Hitler’s Germany launched operation Barbarossa in June 1941.

Another commentator, Fredrik_H, replies:

It invaded Finland, the Baltic countries and Poland before that. [And Romania, I should add.]

1RW shoots back with the old Soviet-era chestnut: Russia need 'buffer zones' around it to protect itself from the British, the Nazis, the Americans, whoever:

That was to push the borders out in case of German or British attack. It had nothing to do with economics. Poland, Baltics, and Finland didn’t have the massive tank plants, aircraft factories, armaments factories etc… that Stalin loved and built in the ’30s.

We know why Stalin embarked on his military build-up - so he could invade neighbouring countries. But this leads to a circular argument: Stalin needed to invade other countries to stave off invasion.

At any rate, that was the last post in that mini-thread: the Kremlin Troll always gets the last word in, because only he possesses the requisite persistence (or maybe it's the fact that he's getting paid). The comments section for Taylor's article ends with a back-and-forth with 1RW and another poster Martel (1RW asserts that the Estonians didn't do too badly under Russian occupation, Martel scoffs at this, as he should). Then, in the very last post, we have Mixa's rantings and a statement (an obvious lie) that the attendees at the conference didn't receive one ruble from Putin:

According to official data, the event was attended by 400 people (although the site was announced the arrival of one thousand five hundred). Among them – 40 representatives of European and American organizations. The receiving party – the organization “People’s House” – provided to foreigners spending on accommodation and visa (which, by the way, given not all). Flights forum members bought their own expense.In Russia, the Nazi movement did not have popular support. This organization unpopular.

There you go, Taylor - not only are you lumped in with the 'Nazis', you are not popular with the Russian people! (He is popular with American white nationalists, though, and that's why he was invited).

As I said, 1RW is far more subtle. He knows the score, he knows his audience. He attacks Americans for tolerating homosexuality and contrasts America unfavourably with Russia in this regard. In a back and forth with a poster called 'The All Seeing Bry', we have:

The All Seeing Bry

Russians: The White people that failed.

1RW

Failed to evolve into a bunch of fags like Western Europe and American SWPLs?

The All Seeing Bry

No, failed to create a high trust society.

1RW

Of SWPL fags that let their daughters date negroes?

 As everyone knows, Putin doesn't put up with homosexuality - he believes in 'traditional' societies. One poster made a stunning comeback to 1RW:

newscomments70

According to Pravda, the Russian army plagued with sex slavery and male prostitution:

http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/15-02-2007/87441-army_prostitute-0/

It seems as though gay is wrong, unless they can make money at it through forced prostitution. Who are the faqs now? (I am not putting down the innocent young men who are forced into these disgusting acts. I feel badly for them.)

I advise people to read the article linked above. Russia watchers have long been aware that abuse of young men is endemic in the Russian army, and that this practice has been going on since at least Soviet times. But the article informs us that the abuse includes buggery and forced prostitution as well. How does the Russian army differ from the American, in which gay sexual assaults and rapes are rife? The answer is, not much. But the fact of the matter is that the Russian state - and the army is an organ of the state - tolerates homosexuality, so long as it's kept out of the spotlight and in the army. In Russia (as in North Korea and Iran), state-sanctioned 'traditionalist' moralism and abstemiousness exists side by side with hypocrisy.

(On the point about 'allowing one's daughters to date negroes': Putin married off his charming and attractive daughter to a Korean (which is a step up from a negro, I suppose). Putin's 'Eurasianism' doesn't frown on race-mixing and mixed-race marriages, it seems. In fact, it probably endorses these, so long as they help build political and racial alliances against the hated West. The conclusion is then that a true Putinist by all rights should be prepared to marry his daughter off to a Korean or perhaps the Muslim Kadyrov).

VIII.

We can conclude, from the example of the Jared Taylor article, the following. Facebook, forums and comments section serve an invaluable role in our movement; they give us 'political centers' (to borrow a term from the New Left) around which we can organise. Discussion must be kept free, and constant. A bad moderator and a bad comments policy will kill off a forum quickly. But the openness of the Internet, and forums and comments sections, constitute a point of vulnerability, and it's here that the Kremlin Trolls attack.

Before I saw the Bezmenov video, I felt somewhat flattered that Putin should pay so much attention to we nationalists - that he should regard us as being important: after all, the Western political establishment encourages everyone to view us as akin to the dirty, disgusting creatures you find underneath a stone, and it's very rare that we receive the attentions of the intelligence services of a foreign state. But nationalists lie at the periphery of politics, and the Bezmenov / KGB technique was to target the periphery - all the journalists, intellectuals and others not directly connected to the seats of political power. The Soviets used those people to spread 'demoralisation', the aim of which was to soften the peoples up, to make them weak and vulnerable and unable to respond to a Soviet invasion or the seizure of power by a Soviet-backed political group. In other words, moral weakness leads to military and political weakness. Putin doesn't intend to invade America, of course, but if he can demoralise Americans - and thereby retard their response to the ongoing invasion of the Ukraine, and future invasions of Moldova, Poland, etc. - then he's achieved his goal. The American Far Right (and the European and Australian) provides Putin with an entry point, but only because it doesn't offer any resistance to the manifestations of Russian state power.

One may ask, of a Russian invasion of one's country, or a Russian-backed coup, whether or not it would do any good: would Putinist rule in Poland or the Baltic States or Finland or even Sweden and Germany, provide benefits to those countries? Before 1991, communists in the West dearly hoped for something like that to happen: they believed that any Russian invasion would be very good, and worked with the Russian and the Eastern bloc states to spread as much 'demoralisation' as possible so as to speed the Red Army on its way. They acted according to their beliefs, because a true communist at that time would be bound, by dint of his ideology, to support either Russia or China in whatever they did. (The difference between then and now is that Putin, unlike Brezhnev or Khrushchev, doesn't stand for Marxism - or anything much). My own answer to the question is that Russian rule almost always brings about misery. That was true in 1930 and 1940, and it's true in the Crimea now. Donetsk and Luhansk, and all of the projected territories in 'Novorussia', will wind up in the same sad state as Crimea (don't believe a word about Donetsk and Luhansk's 'secessionism' - they will be annexed into Greater Russia). One may ask, if life in Putin's Russia is so good, why are so many of its best and brightest fleeing the country? Why do so many of the country's wealthy buy up property in London? Today's Russia equals inflation, a weak currency, capital flight, people flight (which is worse), shortages of consumer goods, corruption, brutality, nepotism, alcoholism. Russia's misery only differs from Venezuela's by a matter of degree and one or two distinctly 'Russian' touches.

Russia's economic problems began before the ouster of Yanukovych in February 2014 - probably brought on by the worldwide collapse in commodity prices - and the Maidan revolt signified a rejection of the Putin model and a turning to the EU model; that is, the Ukrainians decided that they didn't want to follow Russia on the way down. (Again, we must ask why it is, if the EU is so decadent, immoral and dastardly, that so many Russians want to live and invest there). In other words, the Ukrainians revolting in the Maidan believed that a rejection of Putinism leads to happiness and increased national well-being while being forced to stay with Russia leads to unhappiness and national decline. We may chide the Ukrainians for holding such a simple - one could say naive - view, but have any of us in the West ever lived next door to Russia...

IX.

As we have seen, trying to debate a Putinista is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. We are reminded of that famous passage in Mein Kampf, in which Hitler recounts his arguments in his youth with Jewish Marxists. They would be forced to concede a point, after a long debate, and then take it up again the next day, as though the previous day had never happened. Evidence of Putin's multiculturalism and support for non-white immigration, or his philo-Semitism, or his anti-Nazism and anti-Germanism, can be presented to the Putinista time and time again - and it will all be shrugged off. So will all the evidence of Soviet falsifications of history, Soviet lying - 1RW's comments on Germany and the war discounted seventy year's worth of scholarship. Unfortunately for Germany, it has no-one in its corner at American Renaissance or any of the other nationalist sites infested by Putinistas.

Most Western interlocutors are completely unprepared for Russian rhetorical techniques, especially victim-mongering and appeals to pity and humanism. To explain. When we survey Russian history of the past hundred years, we see a duality: Russians like to play the victim and like to pose as the liberal, the humanist, while at the same time engaging in the most terrible depredations. Stalin deported millions of his own people (Soviet citizens, including Russians) to certain death in Siberia before, during and after the war, and built a society which squashed people like ants, but he did so, however, in the name of Marxist humanism. Even though he was primarily responsible for running up the butcher's bill of Soviet civilian and military casualties in WWII, and was an aggressor, he saw himself as the good guy. It's hard to argue with someone like that. How do you put up military resistance to an invader who is invading you and deporting you to Siberia in the name of socialism, humanism, progress and equality? Yockey writes, in Imperium, of Machiavelli:

Actually Machiavelli’s book is defensive in tone, justifying politically the conduct of certain statesmen by giving examples drawn from foreign invasions of Italy. During Machiavelli's century, Italy was invaded at different times by Frenchmen, Germans, Spaniards and Turks. When the French Revolutionary Armies occupied Prussia, and coupled humanitarian sentiments of the Rights of Man with brutality and large-scale looting, Hegel and Fichte restored Machiavelli once again to respect as a thinker. He represented a means of defense against a foe armed with a humanitarian ideology. Machiavelli showed the actual role played by verbal sentiments in politics.

Another weapon in the Russian arsenal is lying - lying which serves to disarm Westerners. Much of the anti-German gas chamber propaganda emanates from the Russians as well as the Jews. The USSR hanged some German officers in Kharkov in 1943 after putting them trial for 'war crimes' - they had gassed thousands of the locals in mobile gas chamber vans (and why not, it's what Germans (and Nazis) do, just for the hell of it), and kicked off the Holocaust story, big time, after liberating Auschwitz, Treblinka and other camps. We in the West have been suffering the consequences ever since. Russians make it a practice to fabricate atrocity stories about the enemy; they are making up stories, the wilder the better, about Ukrainian atrocities right now. (How many observers draw the link between anti-Ukrainian propaganda in 2015 and anti-German propaganda in 1945?). They also use lies to conceal their military intentions. Suppose that Hitler, instead of attacking the USSR in the summer of 1941, took his photographic evidence of the Soviet military build-up to the League of Nations? Stalin and the USSR would have lied through their teeth, as Khrushchev did when Kennedy brought his allegations of Soviet missiles in Cuba to the UN in 1962. Khruschev played the poor innocent Russian - 'I didn't do nuffin'. We see that the Soviet practice of lying through your teeth, in the face of indubitable evidence, has been revived by Putin today.

Summing up, we can say that, at present, the European Continent (and Northern Europe) faces three dire threats from three disparate sources. The first is Islam; the second, the Anglo-Judeo alliance (the US, UK and Israel); the third, Russia. Out of the three, perhaps Russia alone presents a direct military threat. Muslims occupy large parts of Europe - perhaps more square kilometres than they did in the Middle Ages - but the occupation is demographic, and to a certain extent, cultural; the US / UK / Jewish occupation, on the other hand, is, in 2015, not so much military (many of the British and American soldiers have left the Continent) as mental and spiritual. In contrast, Russia possesses the capabilities to invade Europe and impose its political will through military force. We've seen in the past year a return to the Russian Cold War-era intimidatory tactics - the invasions of European airspace with military aircraft (some armed with nuclear weapons), submarine expeditions, nuclear sabre-rattling (threats to nuke London, Paris, Warsaw)... Russia now dangles the possibility of further invasions - of Poland, the Baltic States - through bellicose press releases, speeches and rumours, and we must take her at her word: it's conceivable that Russia could even use its bases in Kaliningrad, Transnistria and elsewhere in Europe as bridgeheads for an invasion.

We have to ask ourselves, then, what if Russia sends an expeditionary force to Kaliningrad, and through Kaliningrad, Poland and Germany, to reclaim 'lost Russian lands'? (Or perhaps it will demand that these territories be handed over as 'buffer zones' to 'protect Holy Mother Russia' from a 'NATO invasion'). Will the milksop leaders of the West - Hollande, Cameron, Merkel, Obama - put up much in the way of resistance... We know that they won't, given the extent of the Putinist 'demoralisation' of the West, and the fact that liberal democracy this time around has produced an unusually weak bunch of leaders.

On the latter point, the recent events in Ukraine have proven, to my mind at least, that liberalism and the American doctrine of libertarianism don't work in the face of political realities. They are designed for peace time - but who protects the peace? What does a high-trust society do when it is endangered by a low-trust one (Russia, Islam)?

As I said before, nations tend to revert to type: they possess a national, cultural and political DNA which they can't escape. Hitler and German National Socialism recognise this (white nationalism doesn't - it only believes that heredity applies within the racial type, not to the national and geopolitical). Any impartial observer will note that, in light of events in the Ukraine, how right Hitler was on Russia, and how much of the German National Socialist doctrine was formulated in response to Russia (it could be said that Lenin and Stalin created German National Socialism). I now make the bold prediction that, over time, the West shall be forced, by the inexorable logic of events, to adopt Hitler's position on Russia, just as it shall be forced to adopt Charles Martel's stance on Islam.

Two of Hitler's tactics in dealing with Russia should be singled out for mention - these strike me as especially pertinent. Countries which lie in proximity to Russia, and stand in danger of being overwhelmed by it - countries such as Latvia and Estonia - should adopt them.

The first of these is the policy of interning the pro-Russian fifth column (in Hitler's day, the communist party). Hitler understood that even a small pro-Russian communist party with little popular support could do damage out of all proportion to its actual size, providing that it was reasonably disciplined and well-run (and the German communist party, the KPD, was exceptionally disciplined and well-run). Hitler also understood Bezmenov's concept of 'demoralisation' (fifty years before Bezmenov's famous interview) and how effective and skilful the communists of Europe were in its practice. The conclusion Hitler drew, then, was that it was better to put communists away and lock them up in camps rather than let them run loose all over Europe. The Estonians, Poles, Latvians and other affected nations should identify the Putinistas in their countries and lock them up or deport them before it's too late.

The second tactic was one of not debating Russians and communists. According to Irving's Hitler's War (1977), Hitler dismissed the Russian allegations of atrocities at Treblinka and Auschwitz when they were brought to him at his bunker in January 1945 - he compared them to the old WWI atrocity stories of the Germans cutting off the hands of Belgian children. He could have, of course, done something to quash the rumours of mass gassings, etc., although it was rather late in the game to do anything about them - he could hardly have sent a team behind enemy lines into Poland to discredit the Soviet 'death camp' propaganda. Refuting claims which at the time seemed nonsensical didn't occupy the number one spot on his list of priorities - he and the German high command were more concerned with the problem of forestalling the Russian invasion of Western Germany and Central Europe. But one can say that, throughout his career, he didn't waste much time on debating Russians and communists and defending National Socialism against the allegations made against it - he constantly went on the attack. He realised early on that when you debate a communists, you'll get nowhere - in fact, you'll end up getting sucked into a mire.

If we look today on our message boards, our forums, our comments sections, at the debates between the Putinistas and those who disagree with them, we'll come to a similar realisation. Supposing that you engage a Putinista in a debate about German conduct during WWII - you could trot out a dozen well-referenced sources refuting charges of a German policy of 'exterminating' the poor little Slavs, and get nowhere. The Putinista won't be convinced, no matter how good your references are and how good your arguments are (and neither will be the Polish or Czech nationalist, for that matter). He will chip away at you and exploit your typically Western impartiality, objectivity and tendency to doubt. (And, after all, how can anyone, save an all-seeing, omnipotent deity, know with certainty - absolute certainty - everything that happened in the East? Can we possibly know for certain who was ultimately responsible - Hitler or Stalin - for the untimely death of every single civilian in the USSR during the war? The answer is that we can't, given that we're not gods. The Putinista understands this fact and uses it).

Hitler adopted a simpler - and far more effective - rhetorical strategy when dealing with the subject of communism. He took it as a given that Stalin, Bolshevism, the USSR and Russia were wicked and cruel, and that the doctrine of communism was responsible for massive death and destruction, inside the USSR and outside in Western Europe, and that anyone who didn't understand this was a nincompoop. Stalin and the communists made it political practice to lie, lied, lie about everything, and anyone who was taken in by those lies was a fool - and should be regarded as such. In the same way, vampires in horror fiction seek to kill you or do horrible things to you, and they utilise deception in order to do so. That's a given - vampires do as vampires do - and you don't need dozens of well-sourced, peer-reviewed articles to back you up on this point.

The Russo-Ukraine war should give us an incentive to revisit Hitler's writings - to dust off our copies of Mein Kampf and Table Talk. I myself don't agree with Hitler on every theoretical point, but all the same, I accord neo-Nazism a higher value than all the other ideologies - including libertarianism. Why? Because neo-Nazism provides with a Volk conception that recognises racial differences, and the differences not only between one race and another, but within a race. Supposing that, by a military miracle, the forces of NATO - including Germany - were able to drive the Russians out of the Ukraine and were to occupy the Ukraine and large stretches of historical Muscovy (including Saint Petersburg and Moscow). During the war, Hitler regarded the Ukraine and south-eastern Russia as having great strategic and economic value: he particularly prized the factories and mines of eastern Ukraine, and, as we know, diverted the panzers from Moscow in the summer of 1941 and towards Kiev - faced with the choice of capturing Moscow or Kiev, he chose Kiev. But it can't be said that, in 2015, either Russia or Ukraine possess much in the way of resources - there's nothing worth capturing. The Russian military sorely misses the parts and equipment manufactured in the rustbelt factories of eastern Ukraine, but that doesn't mean that those factories (which are decrepit) could be put to use by France or Germany or Britain or Sweden. The fact of the matter is that any conquest and occupation of Ukraine and Muscovy in 2015 would be a net drain on Europe. Worse, a European occupation would lead to millions of Ukrainians, Russians and strange Asiatic minorities emigrating to Eastern and Western Europe as 'refugees' in search of 'jobs'. The Schengen agreement has proven to be a disaster for Europe, and the EU doesn't need to be expanded to include Ukraine and Muscovy. This may sound blasphemous to the white nationalist, but to Hitler, it would have been common sense.

X.

Hitler makes a prophecy, in his Zweites Buch (1928), of what would happen once Jewry (who, in his view, became masters of Russia after 1917) in Russia were ejected from the seat of power by indigenous Russian elements - a process he regarded as inevitable. He doesn't think things would turn out well for Russia, and he believed that Germany would not benefit from the resulting chaos:

[Jewry in Russia] has summoned to its help spirits of which it can no longer rid itself, and the struggle of the inwardly anti State Pan Slav idea against the Bolshevist Jewish State idea will end with the destruction of Jewry. What will then remain will be a Russia as insignificant in governmental power as she will be deeply rooted in an anti German attitude. Since this State will no longer possess a Statepreserving upper stratum anchored anywhere, it will become a source of eternal unrest and eternal insecurity. A gigantic land area will thus be surrendered to the most variegated fate, and instead of stabilisation of relations between States on Earth, a period of the most restless changes will begin.

Thus the first phase of these developments will be that the most different nations of the world will try to enter into relations with this enormous complex of States in order thereby to bring about a strengthening of their own position and intentions. But such an attempt will always be linked to the effort also to exert their own intellectual and organisational influence on Russia at the same time.

Germany may not hope to come up for consideration in any way during this development. The whole mentality of present day and future Russia is opposed to this. For the future, an alliance of Germany with Russia has no sense for Germany, neither from the standpoint of sober expediency, nor from that of human community.

Let German nationalists, and sympathisers with German nationalism, draw their own conclusions from these passages. I myself believe that his ideas here are correct: a 'period of the most restless changes' has now begun. The trouble is that here as in elsewhere, Hitler was ahead of his time - in this instance, over sixty years ahead. Russia continued to exist in a more or less stable form long after the ouster of Jewry from positions of power in the USSR (Yockey believes that this ouster took place sometime around 1952) and even survived the collapse of communism; but now the entire Russian project - initiated by (who Hitler saw as) the 'Germanic' Peter the Great - is called into question. Putin knows that he's living on borrowed time. Eventually, others within Russia will seek to leave the fold - 'Putinism' and 'Russianism' doesn't exert that much of an attraction - and who knows, parts of Siberia could secede and wind up in the Chinese sphere of influence (China lays claim to many of these Russian territories). Would Germany gain in the coming Russian fire sale? Hitler's answer is no. I agree, and think that it's a delusion to believe that Germany - and the Continent - could free themselves of US / UK / Israeli influence if only they hitched their star to Putin's wagon.