So, Heimbach, you want to be a commie?

I. 

Recently Matt Heimbach of the Traditionalist Worker's Party caused a scandal by renouncing white nationalism and crossing over to communism. But watching Heimbach's video here with a commentary by Alternate Hypothesis, I could find no real evidence of any Marxism in Heimbach's new Weltanschauung. 

This disappointed me somewhat, as the idea of a conversion from Far Left to Right intrigues me. In the Road to Serfdom (1944), Hayek observed that fascists can frequently convert to communism, and communists, to fascism (Hayek here was propounding an early version of horseshoe theory), and I initially thought that Heimbach's recent change of heart would constitute another instance of that Left to Right and Right to Left phenomenon, that, in other words, Heimbach would be following in the footsteps of Jacques Doriot, a fascinating figure who made a transition from communism to fascism. But I am not quite sure that Heimbach has thought everything through. 

Alternative Hypothesis refers to Heimbach throughout as a Nazi. Is he one? The answer is no, not in the usual (German) sense of the word, only in the American. Alternate Hypothesis' video has made me realise that when Americans use the word 'Nazi', they are making a cultural and class distinction: they are referring to redneck and hillbilly white nationalists who hail from what Colin Woodard calls Greater Appalachia. The Traditionalist Worker's Party, and Schoep's National Socialist Movement, were made up of men of this stripe, as is (most likely) the Aryan Nations prison gang. Surrounded by such people, day in and day out, one can understand why it was that Heimbach, even in his Naz Bol days, declared that he was a socialist and champion of the working class. 

So why did Heimbach break from the Right? It becomes clear from the video, and Heimbach's back story, that Heimbach is a man who craves fame and celebrity, and it is this that explains why he made the jump. He wanted acceptance from his peers. Being a white nationalist, Neo-Nazi, Naz Bol, makes one an outlaw in society, and while some on the Far Right relish that outlaw status, others find the life of an outlaw hard going, understandably enough, and it is the wavering type that will evince a desire to come in from the cold and be a 'normie', even at the expense of renouncing one's beliefs, cutting ties with one's comrades, and foregoing one's status in the movement.

Unfortunately, Heimbach has been misled - by the political establishment that controls the media / entertainment complex, education, organised religion and so forth - as to what 'normal' is. The Far Left is composed of what Steve Sailer calls the 'coalition of the fringes', and that is: Social Justice Warriors; Greta Thunbergs; crazy cat ladies who voted for Hillary; LGBT activists, Jewish, Hispanic, African-American, Asian-American, Muslim and other minority activists; Marxists (real and crypto); antifa and anarchists; Hollywood progressives; crusading liberal billionaires of the George Soros / Mark Zuckerberg / Bill Gates type; degree-holders in black studies, queer studies, women's studies, and post-colonial studies... The political establishment has succeeded in framing this coterie of cranks, oddballs, misanthropes and radicals as mainstream. But the reality is that the 'KKKrazy glue' (to use Sailer's phrase) that holds the coalition together is hatred of the average white American male. Now, while the Coalition of the Fringes does contain whites, these left-wing whites do not represent salt of the earth American whites, who are mostly either indifferent to politics or who voted for Trump. The conclusion, then, is that Heimbach, who is looking for crossover appeal to 'normies', is looking for it in the wrong place. While the newly-minted leftist Heimbach may meet with approval from the Left, he will never get it from the Right or Center. Yes, it is true that the average Republican opposes racism, but he does so only from the position that 'Democrats are the real racists', Martin Luther King Jr was a conservative, white nationalism is identity politics and therefore collectivist, etc., etc. In other words, the average conservative opposes racism not from perspective of a Marxist or antifa, but a middle of the road civic nationalist who would rather not talk about race at all. 

Heimbach's conversion may have been misguided, but the question of Heimbach's socialism remains interesting. Even before his recent break from the Right, Heimbach, along with Matt Parrott, Richard Spencer, Eric Stryker, Hunter Wallace and other 'wignats' and 'Naz Bols' was accused of attempting to steer the nationalist and racialist movement towards communism. Here I will be the exploring what communism, in 2020, means and how any adoption of it by a nationalist may entail some conclusions which he will find quite unpalatable.

I will be resisting the temptation to write another anti-communist polemic - we have enough of those. The fact of the matter is that right-wing polemics cannot approach communism in a detached, analytic manner because they cannot consider a single tenet or thesis of communism in isolation from the whole. A nationalist writer cannot examine, say, Lenin's political position in the year 1905 or 1917 as a subject in itself because he knows what happened after 1905 or 1917, and he feels compelled to draw a connection between Lenin's position at that time particular point in time and communism's subsequent history. It is difficult to write from a neutral, detached perspective when one is anti-communist: one feels a moral obligation to lecture the reader on the evils of communism, and so, when one writes an abstract article on (for example) Che Guevara's theory of the foco, one will turn it - almost without intending to - into a sermon on the misery of life in communist Cuba. 

For the purposes of exposition, then, one must shut out or excise large sections of communist reality. I will concede that the reader may think that this is an evasion, as the Marxist Left itself believes only in looking at politics as a whole, not in parts. 

In communism and leftism, the connections that exist cannot be avoided. If you support Marxism in 2020, you must support, for example, 1) the Greta Thunberg-type radical environmentalism, 2) the mass non-white immigration into white countries, 3) the anti-covid 19 lockdown measures, and 4) the rioting, looting and arson underway at present win America's cities. Heimbach may be labouring under the delusion that one can take up a Marxist position and at the same time oppose 1), 2), 3) and 4). But Marxism does not allow you to pick and choose. One must go the whole hog, and that is the price of admission to the Marxist fraternity. 

II.

Before we proceed, we must define our terms. Until Lenin and the Russian Revolution, 'Marxist' referred to an adherent of the theories of Marx and Engels, nothing more. Hitler, in the first sections of Mein Kampf, uses the word in this sense and applies it to his opponents on the Left - the Social Democrats and their affiliates. Later in the book, after the November Revolution of 1918 and the formation of the German Communist Party (KPD), Marxism takes on its 20th century meaning: it is a form of socialism founded on principles laid down by Lenin and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) - what we know today as communism. (In 1917, Lenin insisted that the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) change its name to the Communist Party, as a means of differentiating itself from other parties of the Left). Some anti-Soviet left-wingers have attempted to recover Marx from Lenin, but after 1917, in the public consciousness, Marxism and Soviet communism became inextricably linked: Marxism was transformed into Bolshevism, (what the Maoists call) Marxism-Leninism. 

Heimbach, the Naz Bols, the Wignats, have stated that they are sympathetic to the Bernie Sanders Left. The question is, how far to the Left does the 'democratic socialism' of Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) extend? Are the Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, the DSA, Marxist? And if so, which Marx is it: the Marx of the 'democratic socialists' or the Marx of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao? The lines between the two forms of Marxism have, after Sanders, become increasingly blurred, and this is no accident, as Lenin would say: the result has been brought about by the Left deliberately. The communist Left wants to use 'democratic socialism' as a Trojan horse and as a gateway drug to Bolshevism. 

In order to expand on the subject, we need to turn our attention to the interaction between Marxist theory of old and the post-communist practice of the present. Our story starts after the fall of communism in Europe, thirty years ago, and here I will give some of my reminisces of the immediate post-communist era.

Many intellectuals and bohemians in the West became indoctrinated with Marxism after attending university in their youth. I was fortunate in that, by the time I got to university and began reading books on politics, economics, philosophy and other weighty subjects, the Soviet Union had been extinct for two years. Without the example of 'really existing socialism' before me, communism (and anti-communism) lacked immediacy, relevance. In my browsing of the local library, I happened upon Marx Refuted: The Verdict of History (1987), an anthology of anti-communist writings by Soviet dissidents and Anglo intellectuals. Its arguments against Marx as a thinker, and its hardline, uncompromising stance against Marx and socialism, impressed me so powerfully that I could never look at Marx the same way again; the book turned me away from Marxism for all time. Interestingly, the authors by and large did not take a free-market liberal position so much as an anti-socialist one; indeed, they often strike an anti-political, post-communist chord, one which almost anticipates Fukuyama's 'End of History' essay published two years later. Marxism has been found wanting, its long reign is over, and now that we are on the verge of finishing with it, we can get on with our lives... The book's theme was reinforced when, in my wanderings around campus, I came across Trotskyists running a stall, hawking copies of Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed (1936). I asked myself who cared if Stalin betrayed the ideals of the Russian revolution, given that communism had imploded in the former states, had vanished in Eastern Europe, and had fallen out of fashion (as an economic-developmental model) in Africa and Asia. The conclusion I drew was that the Trotskyists and their pamphlets and books belonged in the past. If I opened up the Trotskyist newspaper the Green Left Weekly, then on sale at university campuses, I would see an illustration of the profiles of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky in a row - the 'gallery of men with beards', I called it. One could almost smell, in the pages of that newspaper, musty air left over from the 19th century. Trotskyism evoked the politics, culture, ideas of the turn of the turn of the century in a nostalgic fashion; in fact, like the genre of Steampunk, it aimed at recreating the atmosphere of the Victorian and Edwardian era, the difference being that it situated itself in the Central and Eastern European cultural context, not the British and Anglo-Saxon. 

I have spent much time recounting my experiences with Trotskyism because Trotskyism dominates the Far Left in Australia - of the dozen communist groups we have here, nine of them follow Trotskyism. But all of them share in common the belief that Soviet communism was good until, at some point, it turned bad. Three of the groups hold that Bolshevik revolution was 'betrayed' in 1956, when Khrushchev denounced Stalin in the Secret Speech; for the other nine, the revolution was either 'betrayed' in 1924, when Lenin died and was succeeded by Stalin, or in the years 1927 to 1929, when Trotsky was expelled from the Communist Party and the USSR. 

But to return to the narrative. In the 1990s, I was exposed to many political ideas but never committed to any one of them; I would read Hayek and Friedman one day and vote Labor the next, and never felt strongly about communism one or the other. I looked at Marxism as an antique, and like Keynes - a centrist - I saw no need to abolish the entire system of free enterprise so as to prevent the evils of unemployment and inequality. But, after my exposure to white nationalism and Neo-Nazism, I threw my lot in with the radical Right, and as a result, I took communism far more seriously, and dedicated myself to the study of it. 

I came to see that Lenin had attempted to come up with a solution to a problem - of how to apply Marxism in the Third World. The layman's understanding of Marxist theory of revolution is that it is a theory that only concerns industrialised nations such as England and Germany, and the white countries of Western Europe and its colonies. But Lenin wanted it applied to Russia and the black, brown and yellow countries - the 'oppressed nations'. Lenin believed that Russia was an oppressor nation, but understood (perhaps on an intuitive level), that while Russians are biologically white, Russia is not white all the way through - it is composed of over 180 different nationalities, the vast majority of them Asian or at least non-white. Russia, after the October Revolution, identified with its Asian side over its white: it became part of the rising tide of colour against white world supremacy, as Lothrop Stoddard argues in the book of the same name. 

Lenin also needed to make a departure from orthodox Marxism so as to take into consideration the fact that Russia's social and economic system, unlike Germany's or England's, was geared to the past. Recognising this, Lenin rebuilt Marxism accordingly and turned it into a peasant doctrine. This explains why it is that Marxism-Leninism achieved its greatest successes in agrarian countries - Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam... 

Surprisingly enough, Lenin agrees with Fukuyama on some points. Both declare that the transition from feudalism to capitalism is 'progressive', and thereby good; so is the transition from constitutional monarchy to bourgeois liberal democracy. Both grade fascist, colonialist, military, or imperialist rule as 'reactionary', and thereby bad, and both put these political forms in the same category as feudalism, medievalism and monarchy. Neither appreciate nationalism. (Lenin makes an exception for the nationalism of countries oppressed by wealthy and powerful Western European ones: Irish nationalism meets with his approval, as would have the later Third World nationalism, had he lived to see it). The main difference between Lenin and Fukuyama lies in their disagreement over socialism. To Fukuyama, history comes to an end with the arrival of 'free markets' and 'democracy', whereas to Lenin, history progresses past these. But both men follow Hegel in seeing a forward-moving motion in history. 

Fukuyama's theories suited the post-communist era perfectly, Lenin's did not. Leninism, in its pure form, can only be applied in countries experiencing revolutionary upheaval. In what countries, in the post-communist era, can we find that upheaval? 

None, you might say: but you are mistaken. It is only after an honest examination of the period that we are forced to admit that the answer was staring at us in the face all along: the upheaval can be found in the countries that went through the Colour Revolutions of 2000 to 2010, and then the Arab Spring of 2010 to 2011, and then the Maidan Square uprising in Ukraine in 2014.

To narrow our focus onto the Colour Revolutions (and to put the Arab Spring and Maidan to one side): years ago, I read of a left-wing activist who stated proudly that the Revolutions were applied Leninism, Leninism put into practice, but unfortunately, I never screencapped that quotation, and now I cannot find it anywhere on the Internet (I have found a throwaway line in a paper by the academic David Lane (not the white nationalist David Lane!), 'The strategy of the coloured revolutions is Leninist in conception', but Lane does not dig in here and go into detail). Anyone who has a passing acquaintance with Leninist theory can understand what that left-wing activist meant. Lenin, like Fukuyama, throws 'authoritarian' leaders in the same bag as the feudalists, monarchists and medievalists: these systems are all reactionary, must all be overcome, and must all be overthrown and replaced with 'democracy'. (I dislike Fukuyama's (and Lenin's) habit of using simplistic, single-word political concepts - 'democracy', 'dictatorship', 'centralism', 'freedom', 'authoritarian', and the like - words which become more hazy and nebulous the more you look at them; but, one must recognise that neither man is inclined to complexity and subtlety, and if one writes on them, one must be willing to use their language). In the Leninist world-view, 'authoritarianism' is to be toppled in what is a liberal-bourgeois 'democratic' revolution - exactly the sort that Fukuyama applauds, and exactly the sort that the Coloured Revolutions sought to bring about.

As to why these 'democratic' revolutions did not flow and merge into 'socialist' (that is, communist) ones, the Leninist theory has its answers there as well: the proletariat, the working-classes, were defeated in a succession of class struggles, etc. Perhaps because of these failures, Western communists in the years 2000 to 2010 refused to acknowledge that the Coloured Revolutions could be considered to be revolutions as such, and so therefore could be accounted for by Leninist theory. In the 2000s, Communists scorned and reviled the Coloured Revolutions, and alleged that they were a put-up job, a scam. In their view, the perpetrators of this fraud were the CIA, George Soros, American neoconservatives, American think-tanks, the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commission... In this the Far Left took the same line as the Far Right, remarkably enough. 

One cannot have communism without Lenin - he is to communism what Muhammad is to Islam. The communists who oppose the Coloured Revolutions have departed from Lenin's teachings and strayed from the path of righteousness. But perhaps they were correct in doing so, as Lenin's model poses all sorts of questions. 

Take the 2019 protests in Hong Kong against the Chinese communist government. China has denounced them as another instance of a CIA- and Gene Sharp-contrived Colour Revolution, as China, along with Russia, hates and fears Coloured Revolutions, but given that China is a socialist and Marxist state, is China not justified in condemning the Revolutions from a left-wing perspective? If the communists in China are on the Left, then the protesters in Hong Kong must be on the Right. In Marxist-speak, the Hong Kong protest movement could be described as reactionary, even counter-revolutionary.

Now Marxism's troubles begin. If a repressive and authoritarian communism in China were to incite a liberal and bourgeois revolution in Hong Kong (a revolution which, according to Lenin's theory, can progress into a communist revolution), then history must go around in a circle. We can solve that paradox by pointing out the obvious - that China ceased being socialist forty years ago, that it is now state-capitalist. But, the more one thinks about the implications of that truth, the more one sees that they upend Lenin's (and Marx's) theory altogether. The question then becomes: is Fukuyama right?

III.

Both the Far Right and Left share a disdain for the Coloured Revolutions (and the Revolutions' alleged architects Soros and Sharp). But a real communist understands the progressive potential in bourgeois revolutions and ought to throw his weight behind any of these, whenever they occur; he must support revolution by any means necessary. He must take this position if he wishes to follow Lenin and therefore Marx, as Lenin buttressed his arguments for the necessity of the bourgeois revolution and the 'revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat' with copious quotations from Marx and Engels. Leninism incarnated Marxism in the 20th century - or so the Soviet Union and Red China wished us to believe. 

Assuming that this claim of the Marxist-Leninists was correct, the difficulty faced by the wignats and Nazbols becomes apparent. If you want to be a socialist, you must be a Marxist; if you want to be a Marxist, after 1917 you have no choice but to be a Leninist; if you want to be a Leninist, then by all rights you ought to get behind the bourgeois democratic revolution, as it has manifested itself in the Coloured Revolutions, the Arab Spring, Maidan. And it is this consequence of socialism that the Heimbachs, Spencers, Wallaces, Strykers cannot abide.  

Could the British Labour Party have been saved from Corbyn? An anti-communist strategy

In my previous post, I gave a grossly simplified picture of how communists operate. I said that the main objective of the communists in Hitler's time was to win over the working classes, who, in communist theory, were the most revolutionary of all the classes and were amongst those who suffered the most from the inequities of capitalism. The impression I gave - and the impression Hitler gives in Mein Kampf - is that the communists spent a lot of time exhorting, persuading and haranguing the working classes in mass meetings in the street or in smoky taverns and the like. The truth is, however, that they don't now go about it this way, and haven't done so for a while.

Perhaps one of the reasons why they don't manoeuvre in this manner is because they know, were they to put their ideas plainly and frankly to the working class, that they'd lose - almost every time. Just imagine a debate between a communist speaker and a nationalist in an auditorium filled to the brim with the type of Aussie 'bogans' - working class types - who attend Patriot / Reclaim Australia rallies. The communist would inveigh against the evils of capitalism, and attempt to win the working lads and women over to communism; the nationalist, on the other hand, would sell Far Right nationalism, perhaps even some variant of neofascism or white nationalism. It would be an interesting sight, watching the communist straining his rhetorical muscles and using all his intellectual power to win over converts to Trotskyism or Maoism or Stalinism or whatnot; but we can say in advance that he'd lose. Hitler once said that the German workers truly want socialism, just not socialism of the international - i.e., Soviet - type. The same could be said of Australian workers...

Communists then, knowing this, are inclined to try a different tack and go about their job in a more roundabout way. In his classic work, The Organizational Weapon: A Study of Bolshevik Strategy and Tactics (1952), Philip Selznick writes:

[The communist] use of “unity” tactics and of peripheral organizations is based on the assumption that leaders of mass organizations [i.e., the British Labour Party] and those who mold public opinion [i.e., intellectuals] are susceptible to manipulation. Through such activity, oriented to elites, the communists seek to gain access to the major sources of power in the society. In general, the direct relation of the communists to the masses comes only after considerable preparatory work among the “natural” leaders of workers, farmers, and middle-class groups. (Chapter 8, 'Problems of Counter-Offence')

In the Bolshevism of the early days - Lenin's times - communists were to look at such 'petit bourgeois' 'elites' as enemies; now they are to look them as potential friends:

Such intervening elites, standing between the communists and the masses, have always been regarded as the “main enemy” in bolshevik political strategy. Although this basic perspective has not changed, latter-day communism has adopted amore flexible and sophisticated approach to the “petty-bourgeois” leaders and publicists. Lenin stressed the need for a frontal attack upon these elites to isolate them from the masses. In this, however, he displayed too much faith in the potentialities of open communist agitation; his successors have relied more on deception, using the techniques he himself developed. This has required an attempt to gauge the differential vulnerability and potential utility of elite members for the movement, instead of writing them off as simple collaborators and defenders of the “class enemy.” (Ibid)

That's how, as I've written before, the British communist movement gained almost complete control of the British Labour Party: instead of appealing to the working class Britons who would ordinarily vote for Labour, they went straight to the political institution which (supposedly) represents those workers and took it over. In Selznick's book, the communist appears, not as an orator who stands on top of tables in smoky taverns, haranguing the workers (the image Hitler used in Mein Kampf) but as a giant, amorphous organism - a blob - which extends itself and probes every nook and cranny in an institution, every interstice, with the intent of exerting control.

British communists are not satisfied with installing the aged Marxist Jeremy Corbyn as leader: some holdouts - liberal socialist types - still exist in the party, which must, in the communist view, be turned into a 'party of the new type', i.e., a communist party, or to use communist weasel-words, one more responsive to the British people's need for 'social justice' and one that encourages 'participatory democracy'. To this end, communists set up a front group - a support group for Corbyn, called Momentum - as a means of giving communists an entry point into the party.

You'd think - given the irrelevance and powerlessness of the non-communist section of the Labour Party (which failed to oust Corbyn as leader) - that it would be all smooth sailing for the communists. Unfortunately, British communism doesn't consist of one 'vanguard' party - the monolithic Communist Party of Great Britain performed that function in the old days of the Soviet Union - but dozens. All sorts of sects and microparties have, since Corbyn and Momentum, emerged from the woodwork, and each of them wants their piece of the pie. We are now treated to the unedifying spectacle of several parties and groups - including AWL (Alliance for Worker's Liberty), Left Unity, Worker's Power, the Independent Socialist Network, the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee) and a host of others  - battling for power. This has been taking place not only in meeting halls but on Facebook and Twitter. They are fighting each other - and, incidentally, the hapless, naive non-communist liberals who wandered into Momentum thinking that its objective was to further the welfare of their communities.

The whole affair reminds me of a wrestling match, and it's one I enjoy hugely. Amusingly enough, some communist groups are so despised by the others that they seem to have been barred from participating in Momentum: these include the large and powerful, and obnoxious, Trotskyite sect the Socialist Worker's Party (SWP) and the Socialist Party of England and Wales (SPEW), which is descended from the Militant Tendency, which, as you may know, heavily infiltrated the British Labour Party in the eighties before being expelled.

Above the fray floats Corbyn, serene and untouched, a man who has been a member of the Labour Party for thirty years and a lifelong communist and admirer of the Soviet Union; Corbyn never made the mistake of commiting himself to a particular communist sect or party - he remained a 'lone wolf' communist his entire life. His non-sectarianism, and his deep cover entryism, are now paying off.

In an interesting article, the Jewish journalist Nick Cohen makes much of the ideological differences between the various actors struggling for power within the Labour Party:

To understand the collapse of the Labour party just at the moment we needed it most, you must understand the history of the far left. Stalinist communists used to hate and murder Trotskyists. By contrast, at least some Trotskyists could give the impression that they were against mass murder in the name of the revolution. These differences are less pronounced than they once were. But it is a measure of the morally and politically disastrous position Labour is in that these old battles, once of interest only to left-wing historians, have contemporary force.

Corbyn and much of the trade union leadership are the Stalinists’ fellow travellers. Corbyn wrote regularly for the communist daily the Morning Star, and still praises it today. His chief spin doctor Seumas Milne regrets the fall of the Soviet Union. The ‘Stop the War’ coalition Corbyn chaired has replaced support for the Soviet Union with support for Putin, as indeed has Milne. John Rees, Stop the War’s national officer, says that he is against ‘regime change’ in Syria. For good measure, the ‘anti-imperialist’ backed Russia’s annexation of Crimea, describing it as the ‘Russian state defending its interests’.

Most pertinent for our story is Andrew Murray, of the Communist Party of Britain, who was once parliamentary lobby correspondent for the Soviet state-owned Novosti news agency. He is now Len McCluskey’s chief of staff at Unite, and yet another Stop the War apparatchik. As luck would have it, he is also the father of that apparent enemy of the ‘hard left’ Laura Murray. No less a figure than Jeremy Corbyn hired her as a Labour party adviser.

The Alliance for Workers Liberty is, by contrast, resolutely anti-Stalinist. Its origins lie in Trotskyism. Shachtmanite Trotskyism if you want to be picky about it, named after Max Shactman, a mercurial American activist, who could at least see Stalin’s terror for what it was, and eventually gave up on Marxism. I will say this for the AWL, amid its totalitarian theory and regimented thinking, it has a record of honourable opposition to modern dictatorships, and has not joined the rest of the far left in supporting any secular or clerical variant of fascism as long as it is anti-Western. Naturally, the heirs to the Stalinists of the 20th century hate it.

Go through the article by the supposedly innocent Laura Murray and you see the ghouls of the past, shaking off the graveyard soil, and stalking the present. She objects to the ‘extreme Trotskyist politics’ of the AWL, in language that a Stalinist from the 1930s would instantly recognise. The supposed moderate damns them for their ‘uncritical support for Israel’ – by which she means that it does not want to abolish the ‘Zionist entity’ and drive the Jews into exile – and its ‘fanatical support for the European Union’ – by which she means that the AWL doesn’t see the EU as a capitalist club, as any supporter of Corbyn must.

Fascinating stuff, and this relates back to my earlier article on left-wing anti-Semitism. But Selznick - also a Jew - would regard these doctrinal differences as by and large irrelevant. He believed that once you let any Leninist - philo-Semitic or anti-Semitic or Semitic-neutral - into your organisation, your goose was cooked.

In his chapter, 'Problems of Counter-Offence', Selznick offers a comprehensive and subtle strategy for beating back communist infiltrators in academia, trade unions, political parties and other institutions which are frequently targeted by communists for penetration. In my view, the non-communist elements of the Labour Party should follow Selznick's recommendations; they could end up de-Marxifying the party and making themselves electable again.

Now, you may ask, is the British Labour Party worth saving? British nationalists would answer 'No'. They despise the Labour government of 1997-2010 for bringing millions of non-white immigrants - Indians, Chinese, Africans, Muslims - into the country. The men and women running the government at the time - Blair, Mandelson, Brown, Harman - were not, so far as I can ascertain, card-carrying communists; they were liberal socialists who hated the British working class and wanted to replace them. It's these 'Blairites' who now form the nucleus of the anti-Corbyn opposition within the party. What British nationalist would want to see them succeed?

The Corbyn and Momentum saga is important because it gives us a real-life political case study which serves to illustrate how communism works; Selznick's theses have been validated by it. And Selznick's observations pertain to, I think, nationalism. We on the Far Right are now being subject to manipulation by forces outside of us. Selznick defines the organisational weapon in his 'Introduction':

We shall speak of organizations and organizational practices as weapons when they are used by a power-seeking elite in a manner unrestrained by the constitutional order of the arena within which the contest takes place. In this usage, “weapon” is not meant to denote any political tool, but one torn from its normal context and unacceptable to the community as a legitimate mode of action. Thus the partisan practices used in an election campaign—insofar as they adhere to the written and unwritten rules of the contest—are not weapons in this sense. On the other hand, when members who join an organization in apparent good faith are in fact the agents of an outside elite, then routine affiliation becomes infiltration.

Organizational weapons exploit a source of power that is latent in every group enterprise. This is the capacity of almost any routine activity to be manipulated for personal or political advantage.

Selznick goes on to give some concrete descriptions of how an organisational weapon may be put to use. The essential thing is that it applies to us: Little Vladimir Putin, and the Kremlin, have put together an organisational weapon to subvert, manipulate, infiltrate nationalists and Far Right organisations such the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), Greece's Golden Dawn, France's Front National, Italy's Forza Nuova and others. Putin has done this not only to the Far Right but to the Far Left as well - and also to tendencies in between (such as libertarianism).

The Australian federal election of 2016 and the National-Trotskyites

I.

We saw mixed results for the Australian Far Right - and I use that term loosely - in the federal election: an amazing (and entirely unexpected) result for the populists Pauline Hanson and Derryn Hinch (both of whom are, like Donald Trump, TV celebrities) and comparatively poor results for the remainder.

Firstly, the figures for the mainstream parties. According to the Australian Electoral Commission's first preference by party count, the (mainstream center Left) Labor Party won 4.7 million votes, or 34.73%, and the (mainstream center Right) Liberal-National coalition, 6.87 million votes, or 42.04%; the Greens, an environmentalist party which aspires to be Australia's leading third party and these days seems to have been largely infiltrated by Marxists, won 1.38 million votes, or 10.23%. (Another alternative party, and one which I voted for, the Animal Justice Party, won over 94,000 votes or 0.70%).

How did the Far Right do? One Nation garnered over 175,000 votes, or 1.29%, Katter's Australian Party over 72,000 or 0.54%. The pro-Zionist, evangelical party Rise Up Australia, over 68,000 or 0.51% and the other pro-Zionist party, Australian Liberty Alliance, over 25,000 or 0.19%. Australia First Party NSW (Incorporated) won over 6800 votes, or 0.05%, the Citizens Electoral Council, a Larouchean outfit, over 5000, or 0.04%. Palmer United did very badly, only getting 315 votes, or 0.00%. Derryn Hinch's Justice Party lagged behind Australian Liberty Alliance, winning over 16,000 votes or 0.12% (but they did score a Senate seat). To rank these parties by first preference vote:

1. Pauline Hanson's One Nation
2. Katter's Australian Party
3. Rise Up Australia
4. Australian Liberty Alliance
5. Derryn Hinch's Justice Party
6. Australia First Party NSW (Incorporated)
7. Citizens Electoral Council
8. Palmer United

Most Australian nationalists (including myself) regard Pauline Hanson as a charlatan and an opportunist, but Pauline Hanson's One Nation was, for this election, what the Australian people wanted from the Far Right. The party won over 13% of the vote in the New South Wales seat of Paterson and 15-20% in four Queensland seats, and four seats in the Senate. Not bad for a party which was written off twenty years ago.

It should be noted that the above parties don't represent the Australian Far Right in its entirety. At the moment, there are two tendencies in the Far Right here and elsewhere in the West: the electoralists and the activists. The former believe in running in elections; the latter, 'activism' along the lines of the French nationalist group, Génération Identitaire - that is, putting stickers on lampposts, climbing up the side of the buildings, and hosting sit-ins, lie-ins and die-ins.

There's value in 'activism', but, as that nationalist scold from Liverpool, Joe Owens, points out, marches don't change anything - after all, a million marchers didn't stop the Iraq invasion in 2003. As for electoralism, none of the above 'Far Right' parties on offer seem to get to the essence of what Australian nationalists - particularly the youth - are interested in, which is (to use one of Yockey's terms) an Idea: that Idea being a compound of white nationalism and neo-Nazism, what Yockey would call (after Spengler and the German Idealist school of philosophy) the Resurgence of Authority in the Age of Absolute Politics. When I meet nationalist youth, that's all they want to talk about. Granted, a gap exists between what they want and what the Australian electorate wants - at this point, an openly 'Hitlerist' party would get even less votes than Clive Palmer's - but, in the end, that hardly matters. The ultimate success (or failure) of nationalist politics will depend upon geopolitical - and what Yockey calls spiritual - realities.

To get some understanding of this, let's look at Europe nearly a hundred years ago, in the year 1923 - the year of Hitler's Munich beer hall putsch. Europe then was divided up between four great powers: Germany, France, Italy and England, with France and England being the stronger of the four. Flash forward to 1933, and all this had changed. In the words of Yockey (from Enemy of Europe, 1953):

During the 1930’s, French mastery over Europe dwindled away like a morning mist. There was no great crisis at that time, no epochal war. The very fact of the European Revolution of 1933 [Hitler's ascent to power] dissolved French hegemony without a struggle, without a trace of hostilities. France’s position was due solely to material factors, to simple control of the apparatus of power. The inner qualities of the régime that had this power at its disposal were not equal to asserting and preserving it. This régime was the bearer of no World-Hypothesis, no Idea, no Ethic. Its dynamism a crude desire for mastery: it utterly lacked the feeling of a superpersonal Mission, lacked a world-outlook, a European Hypothesis. When it was confronted with the European Revolution of 1933, its power simply evaporated. Bayonets can give one neither a good conscience nor the Inner Imperative to rule. The vassals defected, and France suddenly found itself in the position of a vassal vis-à-vis England. The choice of its lord and master was the last formal act testifying to the political existence of France as a nation.

By 1943, ten years later, Germany - now the sole power on the Continent - and the US were locked in a deadly struggle for control; Italy, France and England had ceased to exist as independent political units. In 1953, we see Europe - and Germany - partitioned between the US and Russia. Forty years later, the USSR had ceased to exist and Russia had departed from Europe. Now, in 2016, Russia seeks to exert diplomatic influence and is using the time-honoured Soviet method - subversion - to do so. Generally, though, the US rules the roost in Europe, and the great political problem of our age is: how to get the US off Europe's - and Germany's - back, how to bring about the 'Resurgence of Authority'?

Elections hardly come into this at all, but this isn't to say that the Trump candidacy for president isn't important: it is. But the Trump candidacy only bears on the internal political arrangements of the US. For the past seven and a half years, the US has been ruled by a cabal of Marxists in the Obama administration, the media and the SJW (Social Justice Warrior) movement; this troika will be swept out of power if Trump wins. The Left knows this, and we can see - as the likelihood of Trump winning increases - them beginning to panic. But the US will remain the US, just as China - after the sudden purge of the ultra-leftist Gang of Four faction of the communist leadership party in 1976 - remained China. The Trump presidency - which will lead to the dramatic downfall of the Obama Left - won't affect political realities. Perhaps a US 'made great again' will prove to be stronger; perhaps it will beat back its enemies (Russia, China, the burgeoning threat of Islam); but a Trump administration won't free Europe from its bondage and servitude of the past 75 years.

But one interesting implication of a Trump electoral win is that it will free up Europe - and the West - to name the Muslim immigrant as the 'Inner Enemy' (to use Yockey's and Carl Schmitt's term); Trump has no time for 'political correctness', and he recognises Islam as the Enemy. Measures - political measures - may follow. As to what those measures will be, they can vary. As Yockey writes (again in Enemy-):

This organic right to determine the inner enemy is not always exercised in the same manner. It may be open: arrest, sudden attack, shooting down at home, butchery in the streets. It may be concealed: drawing up of punitive laws general in their terms but applying in fact only to one group. It may be purely formless, but nonetheless real: the ruler may attack verbally the individual or group in question. Such a declaration may be used only to intimidate, or it may be a method of bringing about assassination. It may be economic pressure— such a tactic is naturally the favorite of Liberals. A “blacklist” or boycott may destroy the group or individual.

In these circumstances, 'constitutional rights' go out the window:

It goes without saying that the exercise of such a right has no connection whatever with any written “constitution” which purports verbally to distribute the public power in a political unit. Such a “constitution” may forbid such a declaration of inner enemy, but units with such constitutions have never hesitated in need, and have often invoked such procedure independently of need. Thus the transatlantic part of the anti-Europe coalition in the Second World War carried out, quite independently of necessity, since there was no real inner enemy as a matter of fact, extensive inner persecutions directed against groups [German, Japanese and Italian-American] and strata of its population. It does not affect the political nature of this activity that it was done by culture-distorting elements [i.e., the Jews who ran the Roosevelt administration], for the organic laws set out here describe all political units whatever, even if they fall into the hands of political and cultural outsiders.

The idea that Trump may do any of the above has brought dismay to the Left: the Far Left - in particular, the Marxists - regard Muslim immigrants as 'agents of revolutionary change'; they want to use them as foot soldiers to destroy the West. What if those foot soldiers are locked up, expelled or prevented from entering Western countries?

No doubt about it, the Trump presidency will be seismic, earth-shattering. But Europe - and Australia - are still beholden to the US; they will imitate Trump if and only if Trump wins.

II.

Reading Yockey, we see that Islam, rightly understood, is 'political' in the sense meant by Yockey and Schmitt: Islam names the enemy, it abides by the friend / enemy distinction. We also see that Islam forms an 'Internationale' - a political entity that transcends borders. I argue that the 'Hitlerist' movement today in 2016 is an 'Internationale' and is 'political'.

The implication of this is that 'Hitlerism', like Islam (and communism in the old days) in fact forms a political organism, a state. It bears this distinguishing characteristic - one which differentiates it from the 'Far Right' parties in Australia - even though its representatives may be an unprepossessing bunch. As such, it is subject to all those laws expounded by Yockey in Imperium - 'The Laws of Totality and Sovereignty', 'The Law of Constancy of Inter-Organismic Power' and the rest.

One of Yockey's insights in that book was that a political organism can make a bid to expand its power, fall flat on its face and see an increment of power transferred to its enemies, the other political organisms. George W. Bush's disastrous attempt to expand US power in the Middle East by invading Afghanistan and Iraq serves as one example: the US went into a sharp decline while its enemies - Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, the Palestinians - strengthened.

But a loss of power and prestige need not always be so dramatic: sometimes a political organism can lose power and see its strength ebb away without war. Something - or someone - within the organism may distort it, turn it away from its natural direction, pervert it from its aim. This frequently happens when a group or groups within the organism make it serve the purposes of other states.

This is something that has been happening on the Far Right - here in Australia and elsewhere in the West - for the past 15 or so years. Simply put, the energies of the Far Right have been diverted away from the advancing of its political position and towards improving that of Russia, Iran, Syria and the Palestinians.

I should state that I've been delighted by the US decline: as the US weakens, we 'Hitlerists' grow stronger. But at the same time, the other enemies of America are benefiting during its decline, and to my mind a big difference exists between wanting to see your own position strengthen at the expense of America and working to improve that of America's enemies. The latter gives an instance of what Yockey called 'distortion'.

Earlier I drew a distinction between 'Hitlerism' and the Far Right, especially as it exists here in Australia. Really, the two make up a continuum. The difference is that 'Hitlerism' forms a pole, or 'political center' (to borrow a term from the Marxist Hal Draper) around which the rest of the Far Right more or less revolves. Some tendencies, such as white nationalism, stand close to the pole; others - such as Katter's Australian Party and One Nation - stand far, far away. But all are connected. If the Far Right in general suffers from an outflow of power to a rival political unit, so does its 'Hitlerian' constituent. Which is why even the 'Hitlerists' ought to be concerned by the transfer, or leakage, of power from the Far Right to the Syrians, Russians, Iranians and the other foes of the 'West' and 'NATO imperialism'.

III.

The Far Left has been about as equally as corrupted by Putin and the others, if not more so, and many have remarked on the extent to which the Far Left rhetoric - especially on Syria and the Ukraine - mimics that of the Far Right. One can attribute it to Russia's clever strategy of betting on each horse - slinging bagfuls of cash to both the Far Right and Left in equal measure - but I think that it goes further than that. A Trotskyite tendency exists on the Far Right, and has for some time. The Trotskyites among us seem to have taken one idea from Trotsky in particular - that of 'permanent revolution' - and applied it within a nationalist context; I call them the National-Trotskyites.

What is Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution? It posits that the entire world - or at least Europe and its colonies - behave according to a Marxist textbook; the world has progressed, politically, to the point where the capitalist order breaks down under the weight of its own contradictions and is replaced by the socialist one; workers everywhere are ready to take up arms against their masters, and stand right at the tipping point of revolution. The fact that some countries are not as developed economically as others doesn't matter; neither do the contradictions inside those countries other than the socialist / capitalist  - e.g., contradictions between different religious belief systems, cultural practices, etc.

From this doctrine, the Trotskyites deduce that the only 'revolutions' that can occur in a country are communist ones - or they are not 'revolutions' at all and so are unworthy of notice. An adherent of the theory of permanent revolution, then, will see liberal and bourgeois revolutions - such as the Arab Spring of 2011 and the overthrow of Yanukovych in Ukraine in 2014 - as being either communist (or, in Trotsky-speak, 'socialist') in character or not revolutions at all. (Trotskyites don't believe that a historical progression from liberal democracy to 'socialism' exists. Instead, they hold that a true communist will want to skip any liberal and bourgeois reforms and go straight to revolution: what is desired is a jump from point A to point C and a skipping of point B in between).

Another corollary of the theory is that Trotskyites must lend 'military, but not political' support to regimes which are anti-Western, in particular to the regimes which came to power through revolutions and coups - the Ayatollahs in Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Assads in Syria, Ghaddafi in Libya and the rest. (Strongmen such as Milosevic in Serbia and Putin in Russia are acceptable, even though they came to office through ostensibly legal and constitutional means, because they are sufficiently anti-NATO, anti-Western, anti-imperialist). Trotskyites support these states, and may even proclaim them to be  'revolutionary' (despite the fact that the regimes may - and this is especially true in the case of Iran - violently suppress their communist parties). This habit of the Trotskyites goes all the way back to the 1930s, when Fascist Italy invaded Ethiopia: the regime of the emperor Haile Selassie was upheld by Trotsky as 'anti-imperialist', simply because it was engaged in a war against the White Man. We could view the Assads, Ghaddafis, Putins, Milosevics, Husseins as the Haile Selassies of their time. The Trotskyite support for these regimes relates back to the fact that Trotskyites don't pay much attention to the internal contradictions which appear in a revolutionary situation: it is sufficient that a Milosevic or Hussein or Putin regime takes a stand against the NWO (New World Order), because, from the Trotskyite point of view, the stance alone of these countries makes them 'socialist', 'anti-imperialist' and therefore not worthy of further investigation.

This relates back to the Russian revolution of 1917, which saw the explosion of a number of pent-up tensions - between the nobility and the peasantry, capitalism and feudalism, Orthodox religion and irreligiosity, progress and backwardness, autocracy and democracy; in their studies of the revolution, the Trotskyites only regard the main contradiction - between capitalist and socialist - as decisive.

All this is relevant to we nationalists because Trotsky's doctrine of permanent revolutionism has been transposed and applied to the Far Right. To look at the case of America alone: David Duke, Paul Craig Roberts, Pat Buchanan, et al., all take the pro-Putin, pro-Assad, pro-Iranian Ayatollah line on the grounds that these men are all revolutionaries against the NATO-imperialist One World Global New Order - Duginite rebels against the White West. Dugin's peculiar brand of Russian nationalism is predicated, not on a love of Russia, but on a hatred of the West and the White Man; he shares the illusion - along with the Left - that the US today is run by and for WASPs, racialists and white racial supremacists who are the savage oppressors of blacks and other non-whites. (The Left, in the 2000s, used to refer to George W. Bush and the Republicans as 'white nationalist'). It's odd that David Duke should share a platform with Dugin. But Duke long ago ceased being a Southern nationalist and has since become an Iranian nationalist.

IV.

All this raises an interesting question: what would a National-Trotsky political party look like?
In order to answer that, we need to look at Trotskyite theory and practice of politics and the party.

The first distinguishing characteristic of a Trotskyite political party is intense factionalism. This is a residue of Trotsky's own political career. At the turn of the 20th century, the Russian Marxists were more of a movement than a party - much like Occupy Wall Street or the anti-globalisation movement of the late 1990s - and in the Russian communist party itself, lines between party member and non-party member, and member of one faction and another, were fluid. Contrary to myth, the Bolsheviks never split from the Mensheviks in 1912 and continued to work with them - and their other rivals, the Social Revolutionaries - even after their victory in the Russian Civil War. Trotsky himself, a longtime activist in the Russian Marxist movement, never became a Bolshevik - much less a 'Leninist' - until 1917. This multi-faceted and confused character of Russian communism during and after the 1917 revolution explains, in part, why Trotsky engaged in non-stop factional manoeuvring, leap-frogging from one faction to the other, forming and in turn dissolving cliques and alliances. In his intrigues, he behaved much like a character from Game of Thrones, and his preference was to work through the men at the top of such and such a faction or group within the party - coming to mafia-like deals and arrangements between party bosses, as it were. He went directly over the heads of the masses - i.e., the Russian and Soviet working-classes - and even the party rank and file; he was much more inclined to deal 'man to man' with other leaders.

He retained this 'factionalist' view of politics throughout the remainder of his life. Even after his expulsion from the Soviet Union, he viewed his Trotskyite splinter group as merely a faction of the Soviet communist party (albeit one standing outside the Third International), nothing more. By the mid-1930s, after his failure to reconcile with Stalin and the Soviet party, he instructed his French followers to dissolve their organisations and reconstitute themselves as a faction inside the French Socialist Party (the SFIO) - this was his famous 'entryist' period - and win the bourgeois socialists there over to Trotsky's version of communism. (Some time afterwards, the Trotskyites took to infiltrating the mainline pro-Soviet communist parties as well).

Perhaps we should call the 'factionalist' tendency of Trotsky and Trotskyites 'movement-ism'. They saw themselves as one little sliver belonging to a wide-ranging Marxist and socialist movement, a movement without clear boundaries and with constant revision in its internal arrangements.

Today, plenty of movement exists in this movement. Trotskyite organisations form, dissolve or split; they gobble one another up in 'unity mergers' (Trotskyites call this process 'regroupment') and form new organisations. They seek to expand by poaching - that is, borrowing or stealing - 'cadre' members (that is, activists who actually bother to do any work) from one another's organisations.

The Trotskyites have come under criticism from the Left for all this. The conventional Marxist view is that a Marxist Leninist should ideally be a mass movement and one which boasts large numbers of working class members; as well as this, the Marxist Leninist party should be a party of what Lenin calls a 'party of the new type', namely one organised around Marxist Leninism as a central principle. According to this Marxist critique, Trotsky, who was there at the birth of Leninism, never really was a true Leninist. (As to what 'Leninism'  was: in my view, it was whatever Lenin said or did at the time). Trotsky never truly appreciated Lenin's precepts, and he treated the communist party as being, in essence, the same in its factional structure as any social democratic party (such as our Australian Labor Party, which is highly factionalised).

The second distinguishing characteristic of a Trotskyite party is (and this is related) lack of party-building. We may define party-building as the expansion of the party through enrolling more and more members (particularly working-class ones) and indoctrinating and educating them. Trotsky saw not the need for it. His doctrines (including the doctrine of permanent revolution) entailed that the working classes everywhere were fermenting and at the point of revolt against their capitalist masters; no need to work on enrolling them - they would join the Marxist-Leninist movement of their accord. Trotsky seemed to base this doctrine on his own experiences in the quasi-anarchic Soviets. A critical Marxist commentator, Joseph Green, writes:

Trotsky seemed to have felt that his views about organization were verified by the Russian revolution of 1905 and, in particular, by the emergence of the Soviets. Neither the Bolsheviks nor the Mensheviks nor any other party had foreseen the Soviets, which could thus be regarded as a creation of the self-activity of the masses. Moreover, no single party came to the head of the Soviets, but instead the various factions and parties cooperated. Trotsky held that, indeed, Soviet decisions were simply obvious and beyond party. As he wrote: "From the hour it came into being until the hour it perished, the [1905 St. Petersburg] Soviet stood under the mighty, elemental pressure of the revolution, which most unceremoniously forestalled the work of political consciousness. " And, he said, "Its 'tactics' were obvious. The methods of struggle did not have to be discussed; there was hardly any time to formulate them." Moreover, Trotsky himself played a prominent role in the St. Petersburg Soviet, which, in his view, made him essentially the leader of the revolution and made his personal activity far more important than the influence of mere party organizations on the revolutionary movement...

Trotsky was influenced in his anti-organizational views by the stand of a number of socialist leaders in Germany, Austria and Poland. His view of party organization was particularly close to that of Rosa Luxemburg. Luxemburg stressed the role of the mass strike and revolutionary mass action in opposition to the growing conservatism of much of the German socialist leadership. She was no doubt right in this. But she saw the growing conservatism as the inevitable result of party organization, thus denigrating party organization rather than seeking to build up truly revolutionary organization. Moreover she thought that the conservative party leaders would be forced, at the moment of crisis, to go along with the revolution by the spontaneous mass upsurge. This too denigrated the need to build up revolutionary organization. And her views on organization were widespread in the left-wing of the German socialist movement.

This view of the party was reflected in the way the Social-Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (SDKPL), in which Luxemburg did much of her work, was organized. The leadership of the SDKPL was informal; the leaders weren't too concerned about organizational matters; and they weren't bound by holding definite posts...

The upshot of this is that the Trotskyite parties are never that well organised - at least not in comparison to mainstream political parties such as, say, the Labor or Liberal parties (or even Pauline Hanson's One Nation). Nor do they pay much attention to the crucial task of steering a Marxist-Leninist party through a doldrum period - when the 'objective conditions' are not ripe for 'socialist revolution' (since 1989-1991, the entire Marxist-Leninist movement has been going through one long doldrum period). Because revolution is just around the corner, party-building and organisation in the face of adversity are not required.

Finally, we come to the third distinguishing characteristic: internal authoritarianism. Trotsky and the Trotskyite leaders after him behaved like dictators within their organisations; as Joseph Green puts it euphemistically, most Trotskyite parties have a 'harsh inner life'. Trotsky treated the party as if it were an army and he the general. In an army, poorly-performing officers are sacked and replaced, poorly-performing units are broken up and incorporated into new ones, disobedient soldiers are disciplined and court-martialled. Substitute a) officers for cadre members, b) units for branches and c) soldiers for rank and file members, and you get an idea of the inner life of a typical Trotskyite organisation. (On the subject of discipline, it should be noted that in one of Britain's most famous and powerful Trotskyite outfits, Gerry Healy's Revolutionary Workers Party, badly-behaved members were punished by being beaten). Organisation in a Trotskyite party tends to be loose at the bottom and tight at the top. Trotsky's experience in the St Petersburg Soviet led to the view that he, as a socialist leader, was in charge of what was little more than a rabble, a mob; he saw it as an army blessed with a never-ending stream of new recruits. Military-like discipline, then, seemed to him to be more than appropriate. As for the charge of dictatorialness, well, Trotsky admired dictators and strongmen such as Robespierre and Cromwell, and saw himself as a strongman.

In conclusion, we can say that Trotsky's a) factionalism, b) lack of party-building and c) authoritarianism set the precedent for all the Trotskyite organisations came afterwards and are what gives Trotskyism its peculiar character. Trotskyite parties strike many outsiders as being small, clique-ish and narrow organisations with little mass appeal,  run by bullying and dictatorial leaders who control almost every aspect of the membership's lives. In other words, they are cults. They tend not to do well at elections - in the 2016 federal election, the Socialist Equality Party won over 1600 first party preference votes, or 0.01%, Socialist Alliance over 3600 votes, or 0.03% - and get less working-class votes than the Far Right populist parties.

The Trotskyite way of doing things tends to be duplicated across the Left: Maoist cults resemble the Trotskyite, and I'm sure that, in the late 19th century - in the age of Marx and the Second International - there were more than a few proto-Trotskys running the equivalent of today's Trotskyite sects (a researcher could unearth a few).

Socialist organisations turn into cults and sects a) when they lose contact with the political mainstream (and the working-classes) and b) when they take up a position of ultra-radicalism. What is ultra-radicalism? The Trotskyites (and their cousins, the Maoists) follow Marx but disagree with other Marxists on the question of timing: capitalism, in the Trotskyite point of view, is 'decaying', in its 'death throes', and we are about to see a violent and sudden transition from capitalism to socialism. 'Intermediate trends' - such as an agrarian peasant revolt, a liberal and bourgeois revolution against a dictatorial regime - on the road towards socialism can be discounted. We see this Trotskyite tendency at play in the left-wing debates over the Bernie Sanders campaign. A conventional Marxist would regard Sanders as a step in the right direction, as progress - the fact that an open socialist got that far in the Democrat primaries is unprecedented. But the left-Trotskyites chide Sanders' followers on the US Left for having 'reformist illusions'. (Generally, left-Trotskyites are sectarian, right-Trotskyites are entryist. In the US, the latter group seems, after the demise of the Sanders campaign, bent on infiltrating the Greens and getting behind the candidacy of Jill Stein). No in-between exists for the ultra-radical of the Trotskyite or Maoist type. Indeed, right before his death, Trotsky made apocalyptic pronouncements to the effect that WWII would terminate in the triumph of either global communism or global fascism.

Communism has always possessed a cultish tincture: one could make the argument that the Soviet and Chinese communist parties were, at the time of the 1930s Stalinist purges and the 1960s Cultural Revolution respectively, nothing more than cults. The question is whether Trotsky-type cult organisations and parties can't appear in the Far Right milieu as well as the Far Left. My answer is yes. If the Stephen Cohens, Israel Shamirs, Pat Buchanans, William Engdahls and Gearóid Ó Colmáins were to form their own 'anti-imperialist, anti-NATO, anti-Zionist' parties, I'm sure that these would resemble Socialist Alliance, Socialist Alternative, SEP (Socialist Equality Party)...

One other point of concordance between Trotsky and the National-Trotskyites is that both take a dim view of struggles for national self-determination. Trotsky inclined towards USSR / EU type supra-national, federal structures and called for a 'United States of Europe'. He only felt sympathy towards calls for national self-determination only in the context of a global revolutionary and communist struggle; bourgeois and liberal (that is, non-communist) struggles were to be ignored or regarded, in the words of Joseph Green, as being nothing more than a 'counter-revolutionary plot'. Added to this, Trotsky seemed to think that countries such as Russia and China which had freed themselves from the yoke of colonialism (i.e., had achieved independence from the White Man) were incapable of oppressing others and practicing their own imperialism. It's Trotskyite doctrines such as these which explain the hostility of many of today's Trotskyites towards Ukraine's attempts to emancipate itself from Russia. And the non-Trotskyite Left - and the National-Trotskyites - here follow Trotsky. Putin's Russia has freed itself from NWO Zionist, Masonic and Fascist imperialism, so by definition it can't be an oppressor of smaller countries within its orbit (or, for that matter, separatist nations within Russia); the Ukrainian revolution in the Maidan was not an expression of genuine nationalist feeling, but part of a counter-revolutionary plot. If Ukraine were really revolutionary, it would join hands with Putin and incorporate itself into Putin's anti-imperialist Eurasian Economic Union...

As stated before, Trotskyism believes in 'skipping over the stages' to revolution: any sort of 'reformism' or 'gradualism' is denounced, as it's important to proceed with revolution right now. In essence, it's a question of timing. We are to jump from one stage (the capitalist) to another (the socialist); Trotskyites don't concede that anything that can appear between these two stages is of political significance. Which is why they tend to reject bourgeois (non-communist) struggles for self-determination: they don't fit into Trotsky's scheme. Such struggles can even be counter-revolutionary.

But non-communist revolts - such as we saw in Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya in 2011 - are lumped in the same category. Some Trotskyites insist that these were 'socialist' and 'revolutionary', i.e., communist; others view them as either being a non-event or the work of the CIA, Mossad, Soros and the global NATO / NWO imperialists - part of a counter-revolutionary plot, in other words. In the view of these suspicious and conspiratorial-minded Trotskyites, the Arab masses protesting were protesting against Baathist and Arab nationalist regimes which were already sufficiently anti-imperialist and anti-NWO - proof, then, of the Arab Spring's reactionary quality.

V.

As we have seen, the lines between the Far Right and Far Left are becomingly increasingly blurred. The Far Right will support the Putins, Assads, Ayatollahs, Milosevics, Husseins and the rest regardless of the fact that these men have amassed extraordinary wealth for themselves (at the expense of their people); this is because the Far Right traditionally doesn't ascribe much importance as to the class character (capitalist or non-capitalist) of the regimes it supports. But, surprisingly enough, the Far Left doesn't seem to either: it's here that the Trotskyite doctrine - of ignoring the 'internal contradictions' of a regime, i.e., the extent to which is socialist and progressive - comes into play. Many Trotskyites supported the Iranian revolution of 1979 because of the revolution's 'progressive' (i.e., anti-Western, anti-imperialist) character: it ignored the internal contradictions. The fact that the Ayatollahs were against progressivism - on women's rights, religion, and the rest - didn't bother them; neither did the fact that, after the revolution, the Iranian theocrats murdered tens of thousands of people, among them former communist allies. (Healy's WRP, which had close contacts with the Iranian Left, was complicit in the deaths of these communists: allegedly it passed on information and identified them to the mullahs). To use Marxist speak, multiple contradictions were in evidence during the 1979 revolution, but the Trotskyites regarded the anti-imperialist versus imperialist one as being decisive, the one that overrode the rest. When it comes to Putin, Assad, et al., our National-Trotskyites more or less follow the same pattern.

Even some on the Left recognise this. The Australian communist Michael Karadjis writes, in a post on the MarxMail list, 10/8/2016:

The contrast of this reactionary "left" has-been mob is with the young people of the Arab world, who took to the streets to face bullets and tanks in 2011, and still fight on, despite the immeasurable terror launched against them by the near-genocidal counterrevolution that has the full support of Ali, Fisk, Cockburn, Hersh, Galloway, Anderson (the douche bag's name), alongside their close co-thinkers Trump, Cruz, David Duke, Le Pen, Boris Johnston, UKIP, Golden Dawn and all the rest of that far-right pro-Putin European party.

It is the youth of the Arab world that inspire the support of many of us on the western left. Strangely, it is those who kill them with tanks, barrel bombs, cluster bombs, ballistic missiles, starvation sieges and medieval tortures that inspire others on the western left.

A left-wing homosexual blogger writes:

Lets not forget he [Putin] also has unsavoury cheerleaders in the West too, like the BNP’s Nick Griffin, Front National’s Marine Le Pen and basically EVERY other neo-Nazi leader in Europe. You’d think, for the scores of gormless communists who idolise Assad these nauseating bedfellows would be a big wake-up call! But nooo. I’m also SO DONE with these lousy socialists defending Russia’s intervention. They’re idiots. If they had any sense they’d realise Russia is not ‘fighting terrorism’ but actually dropping deadly incendiary bombs on civilians. Why is there no leftist outrage about this? When America destroys a hospital, the world is livid, and rightly so. But when Russia does it, idiot left-wingers (who have the CHEEK to call themselves ‘internationalists’) shrug their shoulders and dismiss it as collateral damage! It makes me so mad. I just wish we could kill off this cringey love affair with Putin’s Russia full-stop. ‘He challenges American dominance!’, I hear the fascist apologist bleat. Fuck off. Who cares about his baseless ‘anti-imperialist’ credentials when he’s perpetuating a genocidal conflict in Syria. And back home in Mother Russia, Putin is destroying the free media, killing journalists and democracy activists, pouring cash into breakaway military juntas in East Ukraine, repressing Chechen nationalists and colluding with your ACTUAL Nazis in the persecution of LGBTQ Russians. If ‘the left’ had any sense or principles, they wouldn’t touch him with a 6ft bargepole. But they do. Hence, they’re idiots.

The question I ask is: what do we on the Far Right get out of the deal? Does National-Trotskyism increase our political power? Do we get any benefits out of it whatsoever?

We remember those thrilling days when Tehran hosted its Holocaust Revisionist conference in 2006: for the first time a state - a non-white one, but a state nonetheless - lent support to Holocaust Revisionism. This was of incalculable benefit to neo-Nazis, white nationalists and Revisionists around the world. (But alas, Mark Weber, the semi-Revisionist, informed the Iranian intelligentsia at a Tehran Revisionist conference six years later that the mass extermination of the Jews by the Nazis during WWII did indeed happen, only not the way that the history books describe it (this was the watered-down Revisionism of David Irving). After that, the Iranian leadership went back on their Holocaust denial). Iran in 2006 stands as an example of one of the few 'anti-imperialist, anti-Western, anti-Zionist, anti-NATO, anti-globalist' states which have done anything for us. Nowadays, the traffic all goes one way: German nationalist organisations such as PEGIDA and AfD support Putin and get nothing in return. What would Hitler have said? Indeed, what would any German nationalist leader of the past said...

At any rate, the future looks bright in Australia for we white nationalists, neo-Nazis, racial nationalists or whatever it is you want to call us: to my mind, the wins of Hanson and Hinch - and even the Zio anti-Islamic parties - represent a step in the right direction. As stated before, many of the Trotskyites and the other ultra-radicals have taken umbrage with the Sanders campaign and accused the Sanders camp of nourishing 'reformist illusions', of being 'gradualist' and the like, whereas more optimistic and less sectarian Marxists regard Sanders' success as a positive sign. I am of the same disposition as the gradualist Marxists when it comes to Hanson, Hinch and even the Australian Liberty Alliance: the fact that Australians voted for these parties in such numbers, and even gave two of these parties seats in the Senate, represents, to me, real progress.

Smash the Zio bosses

We've seen some dramatic developments in Australian Far Right politics in the past few weeks: the communist Left who have been attempting to disrupt and prevent the mass anti-Islam rallies have been vanquished - thoroughly - which is a win for nationalism; but sympathisers with Jewry and the Jewish state of Israel have taken over the Reclaim anti-Islam movement - thoroughly - which is a blow to nationalism. The battle has now become one not between patriots and communists but between nationalists and Zionists.

The Reclaim movement (Rise Up Australia, Reclaim Australia, UPF) has been hijacked by a political machine run by sinister bosses who resemble the politicians of Boardwalk Empire and the Tammany Hall fixers in Scorsese's classic Gangs of New York (2002), men who largely eschew the spotlight and prefer to do their work in darkness.

One should imagine Australian nationalism as a city, a municipality, like Chicago, New York or the sleepy cities in the South which were once dominated by infamous political machines and bosses with colourful names such as Tweed, Plunkitt and Crump. Likewise, the Reclaim anti-Islam rallies should be considered as elections - elections for the positions of leadership of the Australian nationalist movement - and just like the machines of old, the present array of Zio-bosses have perverted the electoral process. In Gangs-, on election day, some demagogues hired by Tammany Hall run for various offices, some of them spouting anti-immigrant (Irish immigrant) inflammatory rhetoric and others championing the interests of the Irish; these demagogues rile up the poor and downtrodden masses (who go on to vote Tammany) and then disappear, never to be seen again. The orators of the Reclaim travelling circus pretty much do the same. As for who gets the prestigious appointment of Reclaim speaker, well, the Zio-bosses decide that - just like Boss Tweed. And the Zio-bosses decide who gets the favour, the privilege, of attending the rally.

The results of the 'election' are fixed as well: like Tammany Hall, the Zio-bosses use intimidation and fraud against the 'voters'. (Without going into detail, some of the anti-Zionist Aussie nationalist groups at the rallies have been on the receiving end of trickery and violence).

Where's the justice? To get justice, you must have the ear of the king - the supposed leaders of Reclaim - but Reclaim runs along a system of courtier and clique politics, just like Medusheld in Lord of the Rings and King's Landing in Game of Thrones. An aggrieved nationalist who seeks an audience with the king will find his way barred. (He'll even find his way barred to the after-rally drink or barbeque: just like the Tammany bosses who gave their constituents dinners, dances, picnics and hikes, the Zio-bosses control access to Reclaim leisure time and socialising).

How did all this come about? For starters, we nationalists were distracted - understandably enough - by the epic (by Australian standards) battle between the communists and the patriots; we didn't pay that much attention to internal nationalist politics. We assumed that the anti-Islamics were 'on our side' and were just like us. We saw what we wanted to see. Those of us of a neo-Nazi and neofascist bent confused Reclaim - just like the Left - with neofascism and neo-Nazism. Mussolini, Hitler and Mosley used demagoguery and rabble-rousing, so did the orators of Reclaim, so what was not to like? But being a stirring orator at a right-wing event doesn't necessarily make you the reincarnation of Hitler; after all, look at the demagoguery of Tammany's rent-a-politicians or Louisiana's famous boss politician Huey Long.

But while self-deception on our part was involved, a little deception - on the part of the enemy - was as well. We were told, again and again, that such and such a person in Reclaim held 'racialist' and even pro-Hitler views, even though he had never made those views known publicly, and that all the Zionism and the potshots against Hitler and National Socialist Germany in every second Reclaim speech (all to prove that Reclaim really wasn't 'racist' or 'Nazi') were mere window-dressing. The impression was given that a sophisticated bunch of Far Right, racialist and neofascistic activists were running Reclaim as a front group; anti-Islam was being used to open the door wide to other things.

Now, without doubt a skilled, experienced political operator - a party man, a cadre man - for Far Right nationalism could set up an anti-Islam front group, and provided he keeps a tight grip on the reins of power, use it for good; he could attract plenty of Australians using anti-Islam as bait and then go on to introduce them to other, more subversive concepts. But in order to that, he must keep a tight lid on the Zionists, who will inevitably flock to an anti-Islam organisation like bees to honey. The cause is lost if he allows the Zionists to take over and impose their own rules. And the Zionists invariably do.

I'm sure that some in Reclaim will attempt to persuade me that all is not lost, that the Zios are at the point of being purged from the movement, that genuine nationalists are welcome, that progress is just around the corner. But, in order to understand our present position, let's consider some history - the US presidential elections of 1948 and 2008, when communist proxies (Wallace and Obama respectively) were running for office. The communists at that time would have debated amongst themselves whether or not to get behind these candidates - whether or not the expenditure of finite party resources was worth it - but they never debated whether or not their presence would be accepted in the Progressive or Democrat parties. Wallace, in particular, refused to expel the communists from his party. The contrast between their situation and ours couldn't be more apparent. In the anti-Islam movement - thanks to Zio control - nationalists and racialists find themselves to be unwelcome and have been de facto expelled.

Paradoxically, while racialist, race realist, nationalist, Alt Right, New Right, neo-Nazi, neo-fascist, white nationalist ideas (or whatever you label want to pin on them) find themselves enjoying unprecedented success in 2015, we are faced, in Australia, with a proliferation of pro-Zionist and multiracialist groups. Just as the Far Left in Australia loves its Trotskyism, the Far Right loves its Zionism. On the Trotskyite side, we find a very long list: Australasian Spartacist League, the Freedom Socialist Party, Socialist Alternative, Socialist Equality Party, Solidarity, Trotskyist Platform, Socialist Party (Australia), Socialist Alliance; on the Zionist side, Reclaim Australia, Rise Up Australia, Australian Party of Freedom, Australian Liberty Alliance, Wanted (WA), Aussie Infidels, Australian Defence League, Patriotic Defence League of Australia, the Q Society and now the UPF....

So what's wrong with all this Zionism? Rather than engage in a theoretical polemic, I'll merely point out one difficulty posed to us by Reclaim's political model (Zio-bossism). We know from history that  machines can last up to fifty to a hundred years; it may be that Reclaim will be around for years to come. But in terms of achieving any long-term political success, its prospects are limited, for one reason only, and that is its lack of cadre. In rural and regional areas such as Bendigo, Reclaim has generated tremendous excitement and interest; but, just like the demagogues of Gangs-, who deliver one rabble-rousing speech on election day and then disappear, Reclaim has left its followers in these towns hanging. Reclaim ought to be sending cadre men to these areas to indoctrinate and educate through party meetings, lectures, study circles, discussion groups; patriot- and nationalist-minded men and women in the rural and regional areas should be learning all aspects of modern Far Right politics - about Judaism, Islam, communism, Australian political history... If this campaign of political education is carried out, the political educators will succeed in replicating themselves - cadre begets cadre. And as we know from the past of other countries - Germany, for example - political education is the only this way that an extremist movement, whether it be of the Far Left or Far Right, can put roots (deep roots) into a community. But, in order to implement it, the Reclaim activist will need to think like a commie or a Nazi - and he is incapable of doing that.

One has to ask if the Zio-bosses actually do intend to 'win over the masses' with their anti-Islam and assimilationist message of if they merely want to perpetuate their grip on power. I say the latter over the former and that the next step for the anti-Zionists (and there are a few) on the Australian Far Right should be to challenge them for that power. How to do this? Part of the inspiration for my post here comes from the American communist William Z. Foster, who wrote an article on communism versus boss politics in an obscure journal. He endorses the creation of a political group (communist controlled, of course) which shall be the reverse mirror image of the boss political machine: the group or party shall be financed by dues, not by donations from shady patrons; it shall undertake a rigorous political education of its sympathisers; it will make appointments on the basis, not of favouritism and nepotism, but of political reliability; it will manage social events...

One with any experience of communism won't find any of this particularly new. But Foster does introduce two new ideas which (to my knowledge) haven't been tried before, at least in Australian nationalist politics: the pressure group and the 'People's Legislative Conference'.

For the former, Foster conceived the idea of a communist-controlled 'grievance committee of the people' which would use conventional protest methods - strikes, pickets, boycotts, petitions - to put pressure on City Hall and force it to address long-standing issues (poor sanitation, lack of roads, lack of housing, etc.). Such a grievance committee 'massifies' problems, i.e., politicises them and puts them before the mass. This approach constitutes a different one from that of the bosses, which keeps problems out of view of the public and resolves them by 'fixing' - a phone call from the boss ensures that so-and-so gets a council job, or that a new road gets built, or that so-and-so gets off a speeding ticket...

The pressure tactics and 'massification' that Foster advocates can be applied by nationalists to the Zio-bosses. We can make our differences with the Zionists and multiracialists known - widely known - throughout the nationalist community; furthermore, we can put pressure on the Zios to allow nationalists to attend anti-Islam rallies without fear of violence. Our problems need to be 'massified', i.e., put before the nationalist community, and made public. We shouldn't act as individuals and attempt to plead with the Zios as individuals, and we shouldn't feel the need to resort to flattery, schmoozing and begging of the Zio-bosses in order to have our case heard. No, we need to involve all the nationalist and racialist groups and build up a united front against the Zios and use moral shaming (i.e., the censure of the nationalist community). We won't necessarily get our way, any more than Foster's grievance committees could expect to get their way. But we will show that we are capable of organising.

Foster's grievance committee is related to the 'People's Legislative Committee'. Foster conceived of a conference made up of several interlocking communist front organisations with titles such as the Women's League, the All-Negro People's Union, the Farmer's Association, the Unemployed Youth Party... Such a conference would pass resolutions on political and social questions of the day, but more importantly, serve to demonstrate communism's size and power. The skilful deployment of a large number of 'paper' organisations (and most communist fronts exist only on paper) would bring about a multiplier effect. An American Renaissance article reports on what it calls a 'National Coalition in Favor of Campus Censorship', a communist controlled alliance of groups which has drawn up a petition with a staggeringly long list of signatories:


Feminist Majority Foundation
Advocates for Youth
American Association of University Women
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
Black Women’s Blueprint
Black Women’s Health Imperative
Center for Partnership Studies
Center for Women Policy Studies
Champion Women
Clearinghouse on Women’s Issues
Digital Sisters/Sistas
End Rape on Campus
GLSEN
Hollaback!
Human Rights Campaign
Institute for Science and Human Values
Jewish Women International
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Legal Momentum
Media Equity Collaborative
Muslim Advocates
National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of Women’s Organizations
National Disability Rights Network
National Domestic Violence Hotline
National LGBTQ Taskforce
National Organization for Women
National Women’s Law Center
SPARK Movement
SurvJustice
The Andrew Goodman Foundation
Turning Anger into Change
UltraViolet
WMC Speech Project
Women’s Media Center
YWCA USA
Local Organizations
Atlanta Women for Equality
Collective Action for Safe Spaces
DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence
DC Rape Crisis Center
Democratic Women’s Club of Northeast Broward
Empowerment Center – Maryland
Lincoln County Oregon Democratic Central Committee
National Organization for Women – Akron Area, Ohio Chapter
National Organization for Women – Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania Chapter
National Organization for Women – Boulder, Colorado Chapter
National Organization for Women – Brevard, Florida Chapter
National Organization for Women – Central Oregon Coast Chapter
National Organization for Women – Florida Chapter
National Organization for Women – Greater Orlando, Florida Chapter
National Organization for Women – Indiana Chapter
National Organization for Women – Maryland Chapter
National Organization for Women – Middlesex County, New Jersey Chapter
National Organization for Women – Ni-Ta-Nee, Pennsylvania Chapter
National Organization for Women – Oregon Chapter
National Organization for Women – Palm Beach County, Florida Chapter
National Organization for Women – Pennsylvania Chapter
National Organization for Women – Rhode Island Chapter
National Organization for Women – Shore Area, New Jersey Chapter
National Organization for Women – Tacoma, Washington Chapter
National Organization for Women – Tampa, Florida Chapter
National Organization for Women – Thurston County, Washington Chapter
National Organization for Women – Virginia Chapter
National Organization for Women – Washington Chapter
National Organization for Women – Washington, DC Chapter
Network for Victim Recovery of D.C.
PFLAG Oregon Central Coast
Women’s Production Network (Florida)

How many of these organisations are 'paper'? We don't know - we can only assume the majority.

What I'm suggesting is not that we nationalists go out and form an improbably large number of front groups; rather, that we get our existing groups and parties together in an 'All-Nationalists Legislative Conference', which will deliberate interstate via teleconference and come up with resolutions against, among other things, Zionism.

The conference should restrict itself to broad questions: it will only obtain unity by doing so. If it touches on controversial questions - such as war in the Ukraine or in Syria, or on the 'correct' assessment of political figures such as Hitler, Milosevic, Ghaddafi, Putin, Assad, Saddam Hussein, et al., or on who is an informant and who isn't - it will fall apart. Many splits and schisms have occurred on the Left in the UK and the US precisely because these sorts of things have been brought up for discussion. (Communist groups in the West will tear themselves apart over far away events of which they have no control over - e.g., the wars in Ukraine or Libya or Syria; they don't abide by the maxim, 'Think global, act local', and thereby end up splitting).

Workers band together in a trade union to defend themselves, and that's precisely what we nationalists who are opposed to Zionism need to do: we need to form a union for our own protection. At present, it seems that we nationalists and racialists are an endangered species.

It's also true that workers form unions in order to build a monopoly, and that's something we nationalists should emulate. Simply put, our conference (or federation or whatever you want to call it) will make resolutions which are binding on all nationalists and patriots; nothing in Australian Far Right politics will be able to pass without its approval.

Now, that sounds terribly presumptuous, and so it is. But no other grouping will make the claim to represent the entirety of nationalism and Far Rightism in Australia - victory goes to those who do - and over time, nationalist activists and groups will see the federation as a body capable of granting legitimacy. That is, if the federation approves of it, it must be good.

Why haven't nationalists in Australia engaged in a joint action such as this before? At first sight, it would seem that the notorious feuding and quarrelling - which has persisted for thirty to forty years - on the Australian Far Right is to blame, but in truth the cause lies deeper.

Karl Marx used to refer to the First International as 'the party' when he really meant 'the movement': that is to say, he used the term 'party' as shorthand for all the little groups and parties which made up the European left-wing movement in the late 19th century. Movement = Party. Likewise, the Russian Communist Party (once known as the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, or RSDLP) could be characterised as more movement than party, more multi-tendency than single-tendency. Supposedly, the RSDLP split into two parties - one Bolshevik, one Menshevik - after the famous Prague conference of 1912, but recent scholarship by the Asian-American communist Pham Binh has revealed this to be a myth (and in this he is supported by Lenin scholar Lars Lih); the Menshevik and other factions endured in the RSDLP for quite a long time - nearly ten years until the ban on factions at the 10th party congress in 1921.

The point is that communists misunderstand their own history. A myth has built up on the Left that true, decent Marxist-Leninists need to form their own little sects and micro-parties, hold dogmatically to the party line, and expel anyone who deviates from that line. By clinging fast to its rather narrow and circumscribed set of beliefs (such as the 'correct' analysis of the former Soviet Union, or Cuba, or North Korea) the sect will prosper and eventually gobble all the rival sects and micro-parties - which are burdened with the 'incorrect' line - up. A Great Big Party will emerge, the worker's revolution against capitalism will begin, etc. (It should be noted that the RSDLP was built on a broad platform, not a narrow one, a fact which made it strong enough to withstand the internal pressures of factionalism and intra-party quarrelling and debate).

One has to admit that analogies can be drawn between the Far Left and Far Right here: after all, the Australian nationalist scene is littered with sects and micro-parties, and I haven't encountered one which doesn't aspire to be the Great Big Party which, by divine right, should gobble all the others up.

So, am I saying that all the existing parties and organisations should dissolve themselves and merge into one generic nationalist and Far Right party? No: each group should continue to exist and to retain its sovereignty; federalism implies that each constituent part of the federation exists separately and autonomously from the other. But those on the anti-Zionist side need to act in concert.

We can understand the Far Right in Australia and the West as being clustered around a pole or 'political center' (to borrow a term from the American New Left theorist Hal Draper). That pole consists of a number of nationalist and racialist political ideas from Europe: the work of Evola and Yockey - for all its faults - best sums up these ideas. Certain groups and tendencies find themselves very close to that pole, while others - such as the Zionists - stand far, far away. The closer groups to the political center have the right to split away from those who diverge and who occupy the outer perimeter, as Draper argues. Here we can find grounds for a legitimate division; here sectarianism helps and not hinders the movement.

But how do we bring about a joint action by the nationalists clustered around the middle against those on the outer (the Zionists?). We need to understand that every group, every tendency, possesses a value - no matter how eccentric, isolated and small that group is. I recently put this argument to a nationalist friend, and observed that Stormfront Down Under still had value, even though it had been surpassed, as a communication tool, by Facebook. My friend dismissed Stormfront Down Under rather peremptorily: 'Oh, it's nothing'. I pressed on and reeled off a big list of names of nationalist groups in Australia, and remarked that all these could be dismissed as being 'nothing' but when all of them are added together, they form a 'something'.

One needs to draw a distinction not between big and small groups, or relevant and irrelevant groups, but between ones which were prepared to undertake political action and those that aren't. For years, we nationalists have avoided the skinhead movement in this country because we viewed them as black sheep, or perhaps the crazy half-brother in a Gothic romance who is locked away in the attic. But they won't go away and have endured for longer than a good many other nationalist formations. And, try as we might, the establishment media and the communist Left will always associate them with us. To me, the real objection towards the skin groups is not their lifestyle - we in the nationalist movement aren't a temperance society - but the fact that the majority of them won't participate in any sort of politics. Those who are willing to come out of their isolation should be accepted.

In the end, it becomes a matter of organisation. You won't introduce skinhead nationalists to intellectual and middle-class nationalists, and you'll keep two nationalists who have a long-running feud away from one another. A real nationalist leader must get used to shuttling back and forth between different groups of people in the movement, making sure that they don't come to blows, and uniting them enough to commit them to a joint action.

What are the joint actions? So far I've proposed 1) a petition to Reclaim and 2) an 'All-Nationalists Legislative Conference', but there needs to be a 3) campaign to drive the Zios out of Aussie nationalism. Every nationalist, no matter what group he belongs to, needs to make war - relentlessly - upon Zionism, whether it be via social media, blogs, print media, word of mouth; he must explain, factually and logically, that there are two separate entities - the Australian nationalist and racialist movement and Zionism - and that one cannot continue to exist without the destruction of the other.

All of our efforts, all of our resources, must be mobilised for this task. In the end, we will succeed in prising the grip of the Jewish nationalists and the Judaised bosses from the Australian nationalist movement.