The Perils of Victimhood: on Master Races and National Bolsheviks

I.

In reading Heel of the Conqueror (1991), a Time-Life book on the German occupation of Western Europe, I came across this choice quote on the German expulsions of French nationals from the contested province of Alsace-Lorraine:

Wagner expelled 105,000 Jews and pro-French citizens into unoccupied France; Bürckel prepared a similar exodus involving another 100,000 people. 

The deportations caused a minor uproar in high Nazi circles. Although the Führer approved the action, Himmler did not. Charging Wagner and Bürckel with wastefully giving away redeemable racial stock to Germany's age-old enemy, the SS chieftain drew up new resettlement guidelines based on what he considered to be proper Nazi principles. Henceforward, he said, Wagner and Bürckel should expel only the lesser breeds, meaning Jews, Gypsies, blacks, criminals, the mentally ill, and 'all other trash that does not belong to us on the basis of blood'. Alsatians and Lorrainers with proper lineage but improper political ideas were to be resettled in Germany or in eastern Europe where they could acquire appreciation for national socialism. Those who persisted in proclaiming loyalty to France were to be sent to concentration camps. 

The exigencies of the war in Russia postponed the full enactment of Himmler's fantastic scheme... 

In defence of the Germans, Germany, in expelling the French from Alsace-Lorraine, was paying them back for the expulsion of over a 100,000 Germans by the French after WWI. The depressing reality of Europe in the first half of the 20th century was that, if you wanted to improve the lot of your country, you felt it best if you were to annex part of another, expel all or part of its people and repopulate it with some of your own. That was how things were done.

More important to me is the question: is the Himmler quote is genuine? We know that the Americans, Russians, and British forged an enormous number of documents - including speeches and directives of Nazi leaders - during the war and afterwards (mainly for use in the Nuremberg trials), in what was to become the biggest lie factory in history. Most authors on the war - authors whose books flood our shelves - have accepted all of these without demur (Goebbels' diaries, which are probably forged, have formed the basis of innumerable books on the Third Reich, including those of David Irving, an author who is supposedly a 'revisionist').

After some thought, I am inclined to think that the Himmler quotation is true, not invented. And my response to it is: what's not to like? Far Right nationalists in Europe - and its colonies - all agree on the need to expel the millions of Africans, Muslims and Asians from the Continent; they believe that, in particular, careful attention needs to be paid to the cities of Rome, Amsterdam, Paris, Berlin, Stockholm, Athens... They only diverge on one point: where the Jews fit in. The Zio-populists believe that the colossal feat of the European Reconquista can be undertaken without mentioning the Jewish question; at the least, they believe it can be undertaken with European Jewry's tacit approval. The other faction of the Far Right, the anti-Semitic, believes that nothing can be accomplished without tackling the Jewish question first.

Let us return, though, to WWII. In Spoil of Europe, a 1941 book by Thomas Reveille on German-occupied Western Europe, we find :

 At the other end of the caste system, and next removed from the lowest species, would be "Negroid" peoples; in Mein Kampf Hitler asserts that a fair number of Frenchmen are of this type. This theme was taken up with great vigour by the German press and periodicals during the summer and autumn of 1940. Even supposedly technical periodicals, such as the Deutsche Volkswirt , had special review columns, headed "Frankreich gegen die Zivilisation" (France Against Civilization), devoted to pamphlets and books describing France as the center of world prostitution, trade in narcotics, and Negroid development. In the hope of forestalling serious German measures, the Vichy regime has expelled from Metropolitan France Algerians, Moroccans, Arabs, and Negroes.

By the time of the outbreak of the war, France had earned the dubious distinction as the most 'pozzed' (to use Alt Right parlance) country in Europe. Alone of all the nations in Western Europe - which was ethnically homogeneous at the time - France had tolerated, and even encouraged, the formation of a sizable non-white immigrant population. By 1941 France changed her mind, but only because of her defeat and occupation by the Germans. Vichy made the French cities free of non-whites, for the first, and last, time in the 20th century (we can assume that the non-whites were allowed to return to the cities after the American and British 'liberation').

So, from the dissident Right, something good came out of a bad war. Another example: the wartime German treatment of France's foremost minority - the Jews. The OSS (the Office of Strategic Services, the precursor of the CIA) wrote a classified wartime report 'German Military Government over Europe, 1939-1943' (1944) which can be found here. In the section 'German anti-Jewish legislation in occupied France and Alsace-Lorraine', the OSS writes :

On 21 and 27 August 1940 Gestapo agents in Paris made the rounds of the leading Jewish organizations, including the Jorid Jewish Congress, the Jewish National Fund, and the Ecole Rabbinique. On 3 and 28 November the offices of the Alliance Israelite Universelle and of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency were raided, and some sixty thousand volumes from the libraries of the Alliance and the Ecole Rabbinique were removed to the Institute for Research on the Jewish Problem in Frankfort.

The Germans here were behaving in a 'based' (again, to use Alt Right parlance) manner. You expect, then, the professional anti-Semites in the dissident Right movement - the Greg Johnsons, Kevin MacDonalds, Hunter Wallaces - to be full of praise as a consequence for Hitler, the NSDAP and the Germans in WWII, but alas, they are not. They do not see the German 'New Order' in Europe to be a model. This suggests to me that they are interested only in the problem, not the solution.

'Solution' here is the key word. It requires, when applied to Europe's Jewish question, and Muslim question, and African question, pragmatist, instrumentalist thinking. It becomes a matter of technics: if you have snow in your driveway, you need a shovel to clear it. And the example of Europe in WWII shows us that a precedent exists for the moving of millions of people around Western Europe. Europe does possess the logistical capability, it has demonstrated it.

Thought such as this naturally suggests political clichés along the lines of, 'Yes, we can do it, but do we have to will?'. No one denies that, in the aforementioned example, France could have expelled the non-whites from the cities before the Germans came; But it did not, because it did not want to; it liked having the non-whites there; it lacked the will to expel them.

A newly-found French resolve in this case proved to be decisive, as did institutions such as the Wehrmacht and the Gestapo, as did war (Hitler reflected that the war helped him accomplish much more, domestically and abroad, than during peacetime; in that regard, he was fond of quoting the Greek philosopher Heraclitus: 'War is the father of all things'). The Allies and the Soviets understood all this, which is they expended so much effort, after their victory, in destroying all traces of 'Prussianism' and 'Prussian militarism'. The great institution of the German army itself was wiped out, although for decades after the war ghostly after-images of it lingered in the East German Nationale Volksarmee.

This brings us to the concept of what I call the package deal. It is unlikely, at this juncture, that the conservatives of the Boris Johnson ilk will be able to make Europe's capital cities white again; ditto the populists of the Salvini and Orban ilk. Suit-and-tie conservatism, whether centrist or populist, has not  shown the capacity to deport millions of Africans, Muslims, Indians and Asians who invaded and occupied Europe after the war; indeed, that conservatism struggles, for the most part, to keep even the illegal of these immigrants out. Only the Germans, and the Germans of WWII at that, have proven to be capable of moving around non-Europeans around Europe. And the Germans, at the time, acted under the aegis of German or 'Prussian' militarism, which, if we are to make Europe white again, needs to be resurrected. The fulfillment of one demand depends upon the fulfillment of the other.

As noted in my last article, war (in Europe at least) has entered a new era in the 21st century: any war against the non-whites of Europe will be waged by the 'dregs of war', and this war will be so limited as not to be called war. But such an evolution does not preclude standing armies in the tradition of WWI and WWII. As the need arose, the Germans, before and during WWII, formed and built up a variety of paramilitaries and conventional armies. The Brownshirts, or SA, were tasked with ridding Germany of communists up until and after Hitler's ascent to power; the Waffen-SS was conceived first as a bodyguard for Hitler and a German conventional fighting force, and then a pan-European one; anti-communist forces, such as the Police Battalions in Greece, were organised to destroy resistance fighters and communist partisans... To go by history, then, we can imagine, in a future Europe, three armies: a conventional standing army, to defend Europe against Russia; a paramilitary, to quash the communist Left; an army of the 'dregs', to round up and turf out the Muslim, African and Indian invaders. Perhaps the second of these, the Brownshirt or Blackshirt-style paramilitary, will not be needed, given the extraordinary political (and military) weakness of the European Left after the collapse of communism in 1991; as the anti-Hitlerians in the Far Right never tire of reminding us, 'It's not the 1930s any more'. (It should be remembered that the SA, after 1933, by and large had outlived their usefulness - they had become a political and military liability by 1934).

The argument against this view always is: the spirit of the past - even the past of a not-so-distant 75 years ago - cannot be brought back. This objection, at first sight, expresses a common-sense 'realism', but is, in fact, rooted in ideology. Yockey observes in The Enemy of Europe (1953) that both the USSR and USA 'believe it possible to attain a static world-order in which History would have ceased exist'. That is to say, the West cannot possibly improve upon what America and Russia have accomplished: the door to any further development has been closed. The conclusion to be drawn from this is, naturally, that America and Russia's victory in WWII means that Europe will never see the reappearance of anything 'fashy' again.

Certainly, to judge by present events - and the events of the past 75 years - one must conclude that the Americans and Russians are right: the realists and pessimists have founded their view upon the facts - the brute facts. But this illustrates only a difference in perception. Spengler and his disciple Yockey perceived the shape of things to come, whereas the realists only perceive what is put in front of them. One side derives its worldview from the evidence of the senses, the other, from intuition. We on the Far Right have, in the modern era, tilted the scales to the realist side and have neglected the idealist. That explains why now we have taken such a pessimistic view of life in the West, seeing it as a prison from which there is no escape.

II.

The opponents of the Far Right dislike our anti-Semitism, naturally enough, but they dislike it even more when it threatens to become political - that is, political in Carl Schmitt's sense, in that it makes a distinction between Friend and Foe. It is one thing when anti-Semites write screeds and propagate memes; it is another when they seek to get into an actual position of power. This explains one of the reasons why the National Socialists and their allies were so despised, and that is because they actually did something about the Jewish question. The Far Left, and the Center, resist this 'doing something' because they understand that it meant curtains for them - the 'Jew fawners' as William Pierce used to call them; the Far Right, on the other hand, resists on the principle that - absurdly - nothing should be done. The modern-day anti-Semite's kingdom is not of this world. The real-world and political attempts to enact anti-Semitic strictures, in Europe from 1939 to 1945, created chaos and dissolved traditions of long standing. The Far Right today is opposed to this chaos, and moreover, it does not want to assume the responsibility, the burden, that comes with office. It prefers to snipe from the sidelines.

This explains, in part, the attraction the Far Right feels towards National Bolshevism and National Bolshevism's heroes in the struggle against USA, 'The West' and the 'New World Order': Ghaddafi, Milosevic, Hussein, Putin, Chavez,  Maduro, Assad... The National Bolshevik sees himself and the 'Axis of Resistance' as the underdog. Despite the fact that many of his heroes - the Mullahs of Iran and Putin of Russia - have held power, with an iron grip, for many decades, and could be described euphemistically as authoritarian, he sees himself as a rebel; despite the fact that they have accumulated obscene amounts of wealth, he sees himself as a socialist. He feels a resentment against the US - in particular against any of its authority and father figures, a resentment which a psychoanalyst would describe as Oedipal. That makes a perfect fit with the ideology of the 'Axis of Resistance': its leaders still a bear a grudge against 'Western imperialism', even though that ceased to exist (or at least ceased to function with good conscience) over a hundred years ago, as the downfall of the West probably could be traced back to the time of the end of WWI.

But it is not as though that the US, UK and Israel defend the West and the 'Axis of Resistance' ranges itself against it. As Yockey never ceased to iterate, America is a Jewish controlled entity - Jewry forms the mind, America the body - and it opposes the West as much as the 'Axis of Resistance' does. Both the USA and USSR formed, in Yockey's words, a 'concert of Bolshevism'.

Incongruous as it sounds, both Judeo-America and Israel see themselves as the oppressed, not the oppressor. (Zionism, as an ideology, has its roots in progressivism, liberalism, and nationalism (which itself began life as a left-wing idea)). And who is on the receiving end of the anti-authoritarian imprecations of Judeo-America? Who plays the role of the demonic and authoritarian father figure? The answer is of course Hitler. This can be easily revealed by a survey of all the Anglo-Jewish propaganda of the past eighty-five years. How many of the books published since then concern tricking, hoodwinking, evading, escaping Hitler and the Nazis: as if Hitler were some vengeful and demonic father god, who, like Jahweh or Saturn, punishes his worshipers and devours his children.

In contrast, Hitler - and before him, Kaiser Wilhelm - never, in their speeches,  took up the mantle of the underdog: they saw themselves as the equal, not the inferior, of their opponents. And this is understandable, as Germany - along with France, Spain, Italy, France, England - is to be identified with the West: it is no 'Bolshevik' nation rebelling against Western imperialism, it is Western imperialism. Because, by the time of the beginning of WWII, Germany had occupied more than was occupied, it took a dim view of guerrillas, partisans, irregulars, francs-tireurs, rebels, 'patriots' and 'nationalists' fighting for independence against a foreign oppressor. (Nationalism of this sort and guerrilla warfare go together, as Carl Schmitt I think has shown in his classic study, The Theory of the Partisan (1962)).

(Germany's ally in the war, Imperial Japan, did take up the underdog mantle: it saw itself as leading a 'Bolshevik' (in Yockey's sense) crusade against the West, which would culminate in the white's man ejection from Asia and the building of a 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere').

On this subject, when reading Anglo-Saxon publications from the war, one notices an English and American obsession with the National Socialist concept of the Herrenvolk, a word which is (deliberately) mistranslated into English as 'Master Race' but in reality means 'Gentlemanly people' or 'Lordly people'. The Anglo authors are irked no end by this word: to them it signifies an infernal German arrogance. How dare the Germans believe that they are to be situated above the Poles, the Czechs, the Ukrainians? The insolent German pride had to be broken - among other things by putting the German leadership on trial for 'war crimes'. (The Allies demanded a trial during both WWI and WWII, but only after the latter was their demand met).

But if one wants to rule over people from other lands, one must believe in one's right to rule. One needs to believe in one's worth. In other words, self-confidence, bordering on arrogance, is required. If that quality had been missing in the Anglo-Saxons, then the Dravidians of India would never have been suborned and administered by a handful of British, the blacks of the American South and the Caribbean by a handful of white men.

Yockey writes, 'All politics is an activity related to power'. Politics can be compared to a game: you want power, the other man has it, so you 'strike him down' (in Yockey's words) and appropriate it. The dissident Right (for the most part) agrees that Jewry has accumulated a great deal of power in the West, but does it want to take that power from Jewry? Or does it want to be the perpetual complainant and rebel...

If the dissident Right chooses the former course of action, it must follow the example of the Germans in WWII. For as Ernst Zündel - normally a pacifistic and idealist man - once remarked, in that time the Germans, and the peoples of Europe, for once, and once only, had the upper hand over Jewry; they were the subject, not the object. And Jewry has never forgotten, which is why they have kept a watchful eye on the neofascists in Europe and the nativists in America for the past 75 years. (This ties in with the Jewish mentality in Israel: despite being one of the richest countries in the Middle East, and the most powerful military, Israel still sees itself as an injured party 'oppressed' by the Palestinians).

The Germans, from 1933 to 1945, were faced with an existential choice - to be or not to be - in relation to Jewry: were they to be the master or the servant? They chose to be the master. In doing so, they knew they were kicking a hornet's nest, flying into a storm; they recognised that the spirit of the age - of Masonry, liberalism, 'Jew-fawning', tolerance of the alien,  - was against them; but nevertheless, they staked all on the one claim. And for this, they never received gratitude from the Far Right: 'Why did you invade Poland? You should have stopped at Czechoslovakia - or Austria'. All the same, the Far Right (particularly in America) will need to study their example.

Much of all this depends upon psychology. In the Genealogy of Morality (1887), Nietzsche sketches out his famous theory of Master and Slave morality - a theory that the dissident Right is by and large enamored of. The most important aspect of Nietzsche's idea is that yes, while it is the case that the being, the character, of the Master and the Slave determine their qualities, individual choice plays a part as well. To transpose the theory into the modern era (and a transposition is needed, as in Nietzsche and Hegel the encounter between the Master and the Slave takes place in some primeval past), we see that Masters and Slaves choose to be so: they act upon their better or lesser angels. The Far Right can, in effect, talk itself into being a Master or a Slave - into being either the rebel Spartacus or the emperor Augustus. So far, under the influence of National Bolshevism, they have opted for Spartacus.

III.

This brings us to a related question. Before, during and after the war, the Germans, the 'master race', were victimised to an extraordinary degree. This has been chronicled by a multitude of revisionist-minded authors, among them to be counted are Austin J. App (one of the earliest writers to tackle the subject) and the most famous Thomas Goodrich (one of the latest). But, it goes without saying, all this material makes depressing reading. Joe Owens, the British nationalist, observed that, to judge by Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 (2010), German nationalism - and by extension any Far Right and European nationalism - leads to economic ruin, misery, poverty, destruction. One has to ask, then, does the Hellstorm thesis in fact serve as propaganda against nationalism and the Far Right, and could it be that this propaganda in its demoralising power is more effective than the Jewish, liberal, 'anti-racist' and 'anti-fascist' sort?

In Nietzsche's narrative, the Master is tricked into adopting the morality of the Slave. Prior to his encounter with the Slave, the Master values strength, mastery, pride, a belief in his good fortune and the ability to surmount all obstacles with ease. He begins to doubt, however, his self-worth and think of himself small, weak, insignificant, unlucky, after exposure to the toxic Slave morality. He becomes transformed. He no longer sees himself as the hammer, but the anvil, in the words of Bülow's famous speech.

Whereas the Master is poisoned by the morality of the Slave, the dissident Rightist is poisoned by the morality of the victim - or rather, the morality of victimology. Reading of the tremendous suffering of the Germans - and the nations that helped them (Italy, France, Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary) - in the aftermath of the war lowers one's morale. Why embark on the nationalist venture, why challenge Jewish (and Masonic, and liberal, and Marxist) power if it leads to one's cities being turned into rubble, and to one's people being starved, impoverished, immiserised, enslaved, raped, murdered? Far better to follow the example of Joe Owens, and campaign for local government on promises of improved bin collection; throw your weight behind a third party (the Brexit Party) which goes nowhere; better yet, found your own 'British nationalist' party (after all, Britain can't have too many of those): that is the pragmatic, sensible way of going about things.

After contemplating the horrors of Hellstorm, one must ask what the political use of it all is: does victimology bring benefits? Jewry has proven to be adept at exploiting its victim status in WWII (as have China and Russia); its suffering won for it an entire country - Israel. But Western countries, such as Germany, cannot play the victim as well as Jewry. For one, Germany will always be placed at the bottom of the list of people who suffered the most during the war, Jewry always at the top. And Germany, like Britain, or France, or Italy, or Portugal or any other Western country which had arrogated colonies to itself, is temperamentally unsuited to seeing itself as a poor, downtrodden, weak, suffering and brutalised nation, despite the fact that it, out of all the Western European countries, lost the most people during and after the war.

This explains why National Bolshevism can never succeed in Germany or any other Western European country. On a subconscious level, the Western countries know that the incendiary 'Bolshevik' (in Yockey's sense) rhetoric of the Slobodon Milosevics, Saddam Husseins, Muammar Ghaddafis, Aleksander Dugins, is aimed at them. In the eyes of these men, Europe and its colonies have bullied, oppressed and exploited the coloured world. The achievements of white Australians, for instance, count for nothing, as Australia, rightly understood, is a nation of convicts and murderers of aboriginals.

In the world view of Yockey's 'Bolshevik' - which is the same as that of the contemporary Left - the German stands at the top of the hierarchy of bullies. The Anglo-Saxon of WWI acted as the midwife to this conception, which is now a hundred years old: the war was portrayed as a life and death struggle between Anglo-Saxon freedom and German tyranny, and between Anglo-Saxon respect for human life and 'Prussian' contempt.

In the end, the German is unable to shake this national self-image off: he cannot exchange the role of the wolf for that of the lamb. This is especially the case in view of the events of WWII. Many of the countries allied with the Germans during the war strove afterwards to absolve themselves of accusations of wrongdoing against the Jews by making the argument, 'It wasn't us, it was the Germans'. The Germans themselves cannot use that argument. In the words of Harry Truman, 'The buck stops here'.

IV.

In a recent article on Brian Ruhe, we find one commentator exclaiming, 'Man, what in the names of the Gods is going on here?'; another replies, 'Nazbols, that’s what’s going on. They’re sick in the head'.

National Bolshevism exerts a grip on the impressionable minds of many in the nationalist movement, and one has to ask why. After some reflection, I believe I have come up with the answer, and this is what I call the 'theory of baggage'.

Once you buy into 'neofascism' or 'Neo-Nazism', you are in effect assuming the debts of not only the Third Reich but the entire German people: you are buying into 'Germanism', 'Teutonism', 'Prussian Socialism' (as Spengler calls it), and must, as a consequence, justify nearly everything that the Germans and their helpers did before and during the war. One thereby shoulders a heavy burden. But the heaviness of one's load gives one an advantage, as I will demonstrate.

Suppose you are an international traveler about to board a plane. As you are wheeling your bags through the terminal, a Russian traveler notices you and remarks that you have plenty of space left over in your suitcase. Would it be too much trouble, he asks, if you can make room for one item that he wants you to carry? The item is marked 'Syrian War'. Agreeing with him that indeed you have too much room, you cheerfully assent. He then asks you to carry a second item: 'Ukrainian War'. And then another two: 'Georgian War' and 'Chechen War'. It goes without saying that soon you will be encumbered with Russian gear - all of it impeccably 'anti-imperialist' and 'anti-Zionist' and 'anti-NWO', but a hindrance nonetheless. And by taking on Russian obligations, you have marked yourself out as a fellow traveler with National Bolshevism.

On the other hand, suppose you are a sincere, committed 'Neo-Nazi' - not a Strasserite or some other permutation, but someone who follows (more or less) the Hitler party line. When approached by a mysterious Russian asking you to carry things for him, you'll reply, 'Sorry - I've too much baggage'.

Movement people only become National Bolshevist because of a vacuity - too much empty space in their luggage. Whereas mainline fascism of the old school (with no Strasserite deviations) fills up all spaces: it is a plenum, not a vacuum. And it represents the furthest advance in Far Right ideology up to, and including, WWII. But because any open espousal of it places you, as an activist, in danger, most Far Rightists find it too hot to handle. The result is that they contrive substitute ideologies, such as Identitarianism and Southern nationalism, which lack content. One does not go far with stop gap ideas, which is why, for example, Hunter Wallace abandoned Southern nationalism - there simply was not much to it. The other flaw with makeshift ideas is that they leave you open and vulnerable to the blandishments of the Putins, Ghaddafis and other high-octane salesman who, in the last analysis, stand for nothing except crude despotism and personal power.

One might object Russia (and China, another country touted by the Naz Bols) wield the upper hand: the Putins and Xis run actual states, with actual armies, whereas I - and other like me - are dreamer intellectuals in the same position as, say, an Ernst Jünger or Arther Moeller van den Bruck between the wars. One cannot deny that, in comparison to Hitler and Mussolini, Putin and the Chinese communists, show real staying power. One cannot argue with material success.

My response to that is that a difference exists (as mentioned before) between a politics derived from the senses and from intuition. We can either live in accordance with what is present before us or what may come to be. The Spenglers and Yockeys take after the latter, not the former. They encourage us to dare to dream, and take a gamble on what is not present before us. And without trances and vagaries, nothing is accomplished. One must remember that, before he founded the SS, Himmler was a chicken farmer...

American white nationalism: Will the wolf survive?

I.  The Marxification of the US conservative movement

It seems that the Epstein suicide scandal eclipsed the most three mass shootings - the news cycle in America is fickle and ephemeral - and to judge from recent news reports, the American public has already moved on from Epstein. But the political reaction to the mass shootings is worth analysing in depth because of what it reveals about American politics, and American dissident Right and white nationalist politics in particular.

The establishment American Right called for gun-grabbing and pronounced a fatwah on 'white nationalism' and 'white supremacy' soon after the El Paso shootings, and this was spear led by the National Review, the mouthpiece of Conservatism, Inc.:

The term 'white supremacy', if not invented by American communists, has been appropriated by them, and you can correctly infer - most of the time - that anyone who uses it in 2019 is either a communist or infected with communist ideas. (So far as the term 'white privilege' or 'white skin privilege' is concerned, we can be certain as to its provenance: it most definitely was coined by American communist groups - in particular, the neo-Maoist and Third World Marxist groups of the 1970s). Communists more or less control American political life, or at least, what I call the back end of politics, not necessarily the front end. For example, the candidates running in the Democratic Party primaries for the 2020 presidential election may not be card-carrying communists, but they are pandering to a base that supports communism and Marxism. (Given that many of the proposed Democrat policies (such as free healthcare for illegal immigrants) are unpopular with actual registered Democrat voters, the question is who are the candidates trying to appeal to: who is it that runs the Democratic Party?). As to why the conservatives of the National Review and similar publications are pandering to the Far Left, the answer is that these conservatives believe that they can cut a deal with the Left, much like the conservative Christian Democrats of East Germany, who you can read about here.

Anne Applebaum's book Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944-1956 (2012) details how the Christian Democrats and other conservative Central and Eastern European parties were absorbed into the communist political system during the postwar Soviet occupation, and, to add insult to injury, forced to take Marxist ideology on board - Marxism became part of their 'conservative' platforms. The US Republican Party seems, at present, to be undergoing a similar transition, but one would never guess from surface appearances alone that this Leftification is taking place. The Republican Party, and the conservative moment, spends much of its time denouncing socialism, and Trump - who is hated by the Left above all - follows their lead. This is why I said before that communists have taken over the back end but not the front.

II.  The three factions of American white nationalism

Ironically enough, American white nationalism forms one of the last bastions of conservatism and right-wing ideas in America: they are doing the job that the Republican Party and the mainstream conservative institutions should be doing but are not. With that in mind, let us look at the three main factions of the American white nationalist (or anti-immigrant nativist) movement and their relations to Trump, who is (according to the media) white nationalism's man in the White House.

The Trumpian Populists. The supporters of Trump still exist on the dissident Right, even though the impression on the dissident Right is that Trump has largely discredited himself. Trump will be going to the 2020 election with some awful metrics not in his favour: how many immigrants, legal and illegal have entered America, before the beginning of his first term and at the end; how many miles of the wall have been built; how many American jobs have been lost to immigrants, legal and illegal. Trump has performed poorly on all these except for, perhaps, the last - the job market may be finally moving in favour of the native-born. The question is whether or not one or more rays of sunshine suffice, whether they justify the Trump presidency. Judging by the numbers overall, Trump, if he had been an employee at his own organisation or a contestant on his own TV show The Apprentice, would have been fired long ago. The Trumpian Populists on the dissident Right will not abide by this, however, which reminds me of something the Jewish conservative Michael Savage said of Trump's followers - that they are akin to a cult. (Another irony: Savage, a Jew - and Jews occupy prime place in white nationalist demonology - stuck up for white people after Trump's recent condemnation of 'white supremacy').

The other two factions of white nationalism are divided when it comes to Trump and his re-election: on the one side are the Greg Johnsons, who run with 'Trump is all we've got' argument, on the other, the Hunter Wallaces, who are of the 'Punish Trump and Conservatism Inc. at the polls' school.

This brings us to the next faction of white nationalism: the genteel conservatives. In this category we find Greg Johnson (Counter-Currents), Peter Brimelow (VDare), Jared Taylor (American Renaissance), Kevin MacDonald (Occidental Observer), Steve Sailer (Unz.Org) and a few others who seek to make white nationalism 'respectable' and 'American'. They do not really seek to make great changes to America's social, economic, political structures: they only  want to return America to the days when it had a white majority, the time when it was last the 'historic American nation' - the America of 1960 or 1970 or even 1980. The genteel conservatives belong to the mainstream of the American conservative and nativist tradition, and for that reason, do not go near controversial topics such as Holocaust or WWII Revisionism. For example, Johnson is renowned for castigating European fascism (while simultaneously exploiting it thoroughly at Counter-Currents), and even MacDonald, anti-Semitic as he is, will not touch Holocaust Revisionism and German National Socialism with a barge pole.

The genteel conservatives are disappointed with Trump by and large, and a few (such as Johnson and Taylor) have openly denounced him.

The National Bolsheviks make up the third and final category. Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent leads this gang - other contenders for the leadership such as Richard Spencer seem to have disappeared into obscurity. When it comes to the Trump administration, Wallace takes the same positions as the Marxists. He preaches class war, e.g. he opposes Trump's tax cuts for 'the rich'; he opposes any US intervention in Maduro's socialist paradise; he opposes US intervention in Syria; (he wants the US to pull out of its piece of Syria and hand it over to the Russians; in much the same way, the US Left wanted to relinquish South Vietnam to the communists of the North); and, it goes without saying, he opposes American warmongering and interventionism while supporting Russia's. In the American National Bolshevik worldview, capitalism as a system is viewed as the enemy and economic and social policy must be directed towards the interests of the (white) working class. It follows quite naturally then that Wallace, along with many others of the National Bolshevik and Alt-Right faction of white nationalism, was strongly attracted to Andrew Yang campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. Ideologically, the National Bolsheviks more less stand on the same side as the CPUSA in 1975 or 1985.

One may object that the comparison is invalidated by the fact that the CPUSA  championed busing and the like in the 1970s, and actively fought against segregation, Jim Crow, state's rights, for most of the 20th century. But this ignores the underlying racial dynamics in American communism at the time. An interesting and trenchant critique made of the CPUSA in the seventies and eighties was made by the Third World Marxist, 'anti-revisionist', New Communist Movement - the same movement that invented the concept of 'white privilege' - to the effect that by around 1970, the CPUSA had geared itself surreptitiously towards a class struggle on behalf of the white working class only. In practice but not in theory, the CPUSA had become the domain of Jews and blue-collar WASPs, and by way of contrast, the New Communist Movement had embraced black, Asian-American, Puerto Rican and Chicano nationalism and racialism. Unlike the CPUSA, the New Communist Movement understood that the identity politics of the 1970s presaged the future of American leftism, and so by the 1980s, the Movement had thrown its weight behind Democratic Party African-Americans running for office (the most famous of these being Jesse Jackson, who ran for the Democratic nomination in the presidential primaries of 1984 and 1988). This divide between the two communisms should be not be seen as a mere historical footnote: events have shown that the New Communist Movement won the argument: in leftist circles in 2019, a non-white, 'ethnic' communism rules the roost. The Gus Halls, for all their rote denunciations of 'racism' and 'white supremacy', belonged to old guard - which was mainly white, and Jewish - of US Marxism, and is to this tendency that the Wallaces and Spencers vibrate in sympathy with.

It goes without saying that the National Bolshevik faction repudiates Trump. The brilliant Wallace has written some of the best polemics against him - polemics which are witty and amusing.

III. A fourth faction?

Here belong the white nationalists who cannot be categorised, or at least, cannot be classified as Trumpian populist, genteel conservative or National Bolshevik. Because they do not belong to the big three, they lack political power and should be viewed as minor players on the white nationalist scene.

In this rag-tag collection of individualists, we get: the occult, pagan and Satanist nihilist types (Andrew 'Weev' Auernheimer and the Atomwaffen Division gang) who endorse violence and accelerationism; the bohemian and avant-gardists of the Alt-Left (see Robert Stark); the neo-pagans and conspiracy theorists (see the Renegade Tribune and the like). The nihilists and neo-pagans claim to be grounded in meat-and-potatoes National Socialism, whereas the Alt-Left are so far away from it - and traditional white nationalism - that they may as well be on another planet. Sometimes you can stray so far from your roots that you lose your moorings.

IV. The end of white nationalism

James Kirkpatrick of VDare writes that 'The Alt Right remained a coherent force even after Charlottesville until it was essentially crushed by government action, lawfare, defunding and deplatforming'. White nationalism could meet with the same fate. But it faces its biggest threat from forces which are internal, not external.

In politics, one needs to bow to certain realities, one of these being the fact that even the most elitist and aristocratic political movement needs to form a party, run in elections and win votes. To those ends, some nationalist organisations do better than others. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) at present leads the pack of German nationalist parties - its electoral success has left the National Democratic Party (NPD), Third Way and others in the dust. Likewise, the Brexit Party in the UK has become Britain's premier nationalist party and has eclipsed UKIP, which went astray following Farage's departure. (UKIP after Farage left the mainstream of British politics and descended into the murky netherverse of the British Far Right, to the level of the British National Party, Britain First and other now inconsequential parties).

Because of the unique structure of the American political system, a third party in America will never succeed; America has always been and always will be a two-party state. Anyone on the dissident Right, then, who wants to engage in politics must work with the Republican Party. (The communist Left instinctively this principle, i.e., that in the last analysis, one's best efforts should be made within the sphere of mainstream politics, which is why the Left has expended so much energy on infiltrating and corrupting the US Democratic Party and the UK Labour Party). The implication of this is that the dissident Right must get used to looking at the Republican Party as its own and struggle to wrest control of it from the hated donor class, which wants unrestricted non-white immigration.

In 2015-16 a miracle occurred: a Far Right populist and avowed nationalist undertook a hostile takeover of the Republican Party, won the primaries and then the presidential election. But after Trump's inauguration, the donor class faction of the party struck back and seemed to have taken control back from the civic nationalists and populists. Or perhaps Trump's heart was never in it in the first place. One can understand the disappointment of the American white nationalists. Yes, Trump should be praised for several of his initiatives (such as the proposed Public Charge law), initiatives which would have been unthinkable ten years ago, but so far, Trump has not performed up to expectations.

Imagine that you manage a large retail store and hire a store detective or security guard to apprehend shoplifters and other rapscallions, but despite an enthusiastic attitude, the new employee only delivers on 10-15% of what he promised at the interview - he does not meet his key performance indicators (KPIs, in today's annoying corporate jargon) at all. To make matters worse, the previous man who occupied that position - a skinny black homosexual who had attitude problems and hated the company - performed better when it came to certain metrics. (Obama had deported more illegals than Trump). By all rights, the new employee should be fired and replaced - but, say some of the store owners who are fond of him and praise him , 'He's all we've got'. Indeed, he is all you've got - and what does this say about Trump? The Republican Party? White nationalists in general? Given that the Tories under the new British prime minister Boris Johnson (who is ideologically sympathetic to Trump) seem to have gone back on their earlier promises to curtail immigration, one has to ask why the Anglo-Saxons find it so difficult to close their borders and why the Italians and Hungarians find it so easy?

The Far Left in the US and UK are playing a long game; they don't expect to win overnight. Any year now they can expect to take complete control, and this will happen, like the Czechoslovak communist coup of 1948, without a shot being fired. Time is on their side, but the clock is ticking for white nationalists, who want results and want them now.

When they don't get those results, white nationalists are inclined to give up, and are then faced with the question of what to do once a return to an American white majority no longer seems possible. This became one of primary themes of the discourse of Andrew Yang's white nationalist followers. We began to hear, on the Robert Stark radio show and elsewhere, talk of a 'post-America', that is, a post-white America. One compelling argument for Yangism, made again and again (see here for an example) was that 'White America is going down the tubes, so I may as well kick back and enjoy the decline - and pocket my $1000 a month UBI cheque'.The prevalence of that argument and its ready acceptance by many white nationalists indicate that by early 2019, white nationalists had become severely demoralised.

Such demoralisation ('black pilling', in chan speak) will lead white nationalism down some strange paths. Suppose you are a white nationalist, and out of a desire to hew to the center (or cowardice, or both), and you are willing to steer away from certain uncomfortable subjects out of fear that you will alienate 'middle America', among those subjects being Holocaust Revisionism and revisionism regarding America's involvement in both world wars; suppose that you find yourself in opposition to any sort of German nationalism, like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and at the same time broadly supportive of any Polish nationalism, like Wilson and Roosevelt; suppose you have reached an uneasy peace with right-leaning Jews of the Israeli nationalist sort, Jews who applaud Bibi Netanyahu's highly effective 'anti-infiltrator' border wall; suppose you have reached a 'black pilled' state of mind, and now despair of Americans ever getting their country back from illegal immigrants (in the way Italy, Hungary and Israel seem to be doing); where does that leave you? The answer is, on the same page as the conservatives who never gave a damn about thwarting non-white immigration in the first place; that is, the anti-white nationalist, anti-fascist, anti-anti-Semitic conservatives - David French, Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, John Podhoretz, Kevin D. Williamson-type conservatives, schmaltzy 'America is an idea' conservatives, Never Trump conservatives... 

In Defence of Trump

Carolyn Yeager has written a few articles recently criticising Trump: see here and here. These are significant as Yeager, unlike Trump's critics on the Alt Right, comes from the Holocaust Revisionist and Neo-Nazi wing of the Far Right; so does another recent Trump  critic, Art Jones:

In a tent deep in the woods of rural Kentucky, an old neo-Nazi spoke bitterly of how he feels “betrayed” by Donald Trump.

“I’m sorry I voted for the son of a bitch, I really am,” said Art Jones, who the Anti-Defamation League identifies as a Holocaust denier who has been dressing in Nazi garb and celebrating Hitler since the 1970s.

“I’m sorry I spent $180 out of my own pocket to buy three big banners that said, ‘President Trump, build the wall’,” the blazer-clad Jones said, to a tent full of about 100 men, some of whom wore paramilitary-style uniforms. “Now he says, ‘Eh, what wall?’ I’m embarrassed that I voted for him.”

Jones blamed Trump’s failures on the “Jewish lobby” and the president’s son-in-law and aide, Jared Kushner, who is Jewish.

“If I could take the vote back,” he said. “I would.”

Yeager, unlike Richard Spencer and Andrew Anglin, doesn't serve Putin; she hasn't been corrupted by Putin and has attacked - as any decent person should - Putin over the annexation of the Crimea, the attempt to annex Eastern Ukraine, the downing of MH17 - all topics on which the Spencers, Anglins, Mike Enochs, Hunter Wallaces have stayed conspicuously silent. (I can't speak for Art Jones: I don't know enough about him to know what his opinions on Putin are). But both Yeager's criticisms of Trump and those of the pro-Putin side of the Alt Right stem from a common source: a belief that Trump, since becoming elected, has become a pawn of Zionism and Jewry.

In a comprehensive profile on the Alt Right in the New Yorker, we find this:

As you may have read, the reactionary honeymoon is already over in the White House; the Trump Train is losing its alt-right cars. After the president announced an airstrike against a Syrian military airfield last month, his biggest and loudest supporters on the countercultural right — who would generally rather be fomenting authoritarian regimes at home than opposing them abroad — publicly broke with their god-emperor, muttering that the inciting chemical attack was a “false flag.” “We voted for ‘Make America Great Again,’ ” wrote new-right blogger Brad Griffin after Trump sharply criticized anti-Semitism at a Holocaust-remembrance event. “Instead, we got Jarvanka, Gary Cohn and a bunch of globalist neocons foaming at the mouth to start new wars.” The apparent status decline of Steve Bannon seemed only to confirm a parting of ways between the alt-right and their would-be Crusader king. To guys like Richard Spencer, Alex Jones, or Andrew Anglin, Trump — the savoir of the white race, melter of snowflakes, and slayer of social-justice warriors — has started to look like just another cuckservative.

I disagree with this entirely. Trump, after the bombing of the Shayrat airstrip, didn't steer the US on the path towards 'war' in Syria. The US has already been at war in Syria for since 2014 and has made over 8000 airstrikes which have inflicted severe casualties on the Syrian population - and on ISIS and the anti-Assad rebel fighters.

Wallace, Anglin, Spencer, Enoch objected to the Shayrat bombing, not out of a phony 'anti-interventionism', but because of what it portends. America's bombing Shayrat represents the first crossing of swords with Putin; through this action, it has named Putin as the enemy (in Carl Schmitt's sense of the word).

The Spencer faction of the Alt Right has served Putin's interests at least since the Maidan uprising and the Crimea annexation. Around the time of the commencement of hostilities with the Ukraine, Putin began to cultivate fringe extremist political movements - from Neo-Nazis to white nationalists to libertarians to communists to nationalist populists - in the West; he also targeted fringe Western political figures such as Tulsi Gabbard, Jill Stein and Dennis Kucinich, and former heads of state such as Gerhard Schroeder. That's in addition to hiring a vast army of professional, underpaid Kremlin trolls to spam message boards and forums on both the Left and Right with nearly identical propaganda arguments and links. Putin doesn't care about ideology and he doesn't care about consistency; he only wants to maintain power for himself and his corrupt, oligarchic clique.

The Alt Right, and the Neo-Nazis and white nationalists, being politically - and often intellectually, sadly enough - weak, didn't have the strength to resist Putin's blandishments. As a result, they have betrayed their fundamental principles. Putin represses Russian nationalism (and Neo-Nazism) at home; he represses Holocaust denial; he encourages massive non-white and Muslim immigration. In fact, he pursues exactly the same policies as any Western, 'globalist' politician.

Putinism shows sharp contradictions which cannot be reconciled. Putin encourages separatism abroad while repressing it at home; he makes a practice of interventionism in Syria and the Ukraine while repressing isolationism, interventionism, pacifism, etc., at home; he, being one of the richest men in the world, if not the richest, belongs to the well-heeled globalist elite but at the same time portrays himself as a simple nationalist and populist, etc., etc. In the West, the Alt Right, the Neo-Nazis, the white nationalists, the paleoconservatives, the communists who do support Putin are well aware of these contradictions, but choose to ignore them; the lure of Kremlin favour has proven to be too strong.

In the end, Putinism comes down to geopolitics. To understand this, we need to look at geopolitical realities and how these affect the internal policies of the US.

Putin wants as much power for his geopolitical unit as possible, and being a revanchist, wants to regain as much external territory from his neighbours as possible. He also wants to restore lost prestige by bombing Syrians and propping up the butcher Assad, the greatest mass murderer in Arab history (and who, even if he was entirely innocent of the Sarin gas attack at Idlib, is not someone you want on your side). But one obstacle stands in Putin's way: the US. Putin can't survive a direct military confrontation with the US, but he can undermine it. He can achieve this by using the old Soviet tactic of cultivating the internal opposition within the US - by buying fringe political groups and politicians. As a general rule, Putin always supports the opposition (so long as they're opposition). This is why he throws his weight behind the American Far Left and Far Right. He supported Trump in the 2016 election because he expected - like most - that Clinton would win; but, to his surprise, the opposition candidate won. But Putin could not take advantage of this. Ideally, Trump as president would serve the Russian national interest like Roosevelt before him. And ideally Trump would even do what Roosevelt never did and dissolve America's geopolitical independence entirely and turn America into an 'ally' (that is, a vassal) of Russia. But this was not to be. America stayed the way it was - an independent political unit, as Yockey would call it - and hence the disappointment of Putin and the fury of Putin's American followers, who perhaps invested too much hope in Trump. (It would seem that the American Putinistas expected Trump to be another Henry Wallace, who ran as a third-party candidate in the 1948 presidential election and who was thoroughly under communist, that is Russian, control).

Now, as it so happens, the Far Right critics of Trump are correct: he - and America - are controlled by Jews: America has been under Jewish control since 1933, when Roosevelt was elected in what Yockey called the 'American revolution of 1933'. The surprising thing is that Trump's followers on the Far Right expected him to change that; they believed he would lead some sort of Yockey-esque uprising against Jewish power in America. At the least, they downplayed Trump's Jewish connections, even his Jewish style. (Trump, with his accent, his speech patterns, his affectations and mannerisms, does look and sound like a Jewish New Yorker). It was only after the Shayrat bombing that the Alt Right discovered, and announced to a shocked world, that Trump and the Trump family had been thoroughly Judaised.

But how does this matter? America is ruled by Jews, Russia, by Slavs; China by Chinese, Iran by Persians... Does the fact that Russia, China, Iran, North Korea are ruled by their own people make those countries superior to America? The anti-Semites will answer yes; and they demand that America be ruled by white Americans - not by an alien minority.

The question is how is this to be achieved, and when: Enoch Powell was fond of quoting Thucydides, who said famously that the powerful never willingly relinquish power, and this is true of the 'Culture Distorters' in America, who will not be relinquishing power any time soon.

So what should patriotic Americans do in the interim? For a start, they should get behind a president - any president, no matter how 'Zionist' he is - who opposes non-white immigration and does something, anything, about it.

At only 100 days in, Trump has shown himself to be the most anti-immigrant president since Coolidge or Eisenhower:

The number of migrants, legal and illegal, crossing into the United States has dropped markedly since Trump took office, while recent declines in the number of deportations have been reversed.

Many experts on both sides of the immigration debate attribute at least part of this shift to the use of sharp, unwelcoming rhetoric by Trump and his aides, as well as the administration’s showy use of enforcement raids and public spotlighting of crimes committed by immigrants. The tactics were aimed at sending a political message to those in the country illegally or those thinking about trying to come.

“The world is getting the message,” Trump said last week during a speech at the National Rifle Association leadership forum in Atlanta. “They know our border is no longer open to illegal immigration, and if they try to break in you’ll be caught and you’ll be returned to your home. You’re not staying any longer. If you keep coming back illegally after deportation, you’ll be arrested and prosecuted and put behind bars. Otherwise it will never end.”

The most vivid evidence that Trump’s tactics have had an effect has come at the southern border with Mexico, where the number of apprehensions made by Customs and Border Patrol agents plummeted from more than 40,000 per month at the end of 2016 to just 12,193 in March, according to federal data.

Immigrant rights advocates and restrictionist groups said there is little doubt that the Trump administration’s tough talk has had impact.

“The bottom line is that they have entirely changed the narrative around immigration,” said Doris Meissner, who served as the commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Clinton administration. “The result of that is that, yes, you can call it words and rhetoric, and it certainly is, but it is changing behavior. It is changing the way the United States is viewed around the world, as well as the way we’re talking about and reacting to immigration within the country.”

Experts emphasized that it is still early and that the initial success the administration has had in slashing illegal border crossings could be reversed if it fails to follow through on more aggressive enforcement actions that will require more than just rhetorical bombast.

Many of the other initiatives Trump has called for — including additional detention centers and thousands of new Border Patrol officers and immigration agents — are costly. Others, such as his vow to withhold federal funds from “sanctuary cities” that protect immigrants, are facing legal challenges.

Yet unlike areas such as trade, health care or foreign policy, where Trump has moderated his extreme campaign positions or failed to advance his agenda, the administration has systematically sought to check off the president’s immigration promises.

Most notably, Trump signed an executive order during his first week in office that, among other things, vastly expanded the pool of the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants who are deemed priorities for deportation.

Deportations had fallen sharply in the final years of the Obama administration as the former president tightened enforcement guidelines to focus on hardened criminals. But under Trump, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has begun to ramp up the number of immigrants who are being placed in removal proceedings.

Federal agents arrested 21,362 immigrants, mostly convicted criminals, from January through mid-March, compared with 16,104 during the same period last year, according to federal data. Arrests of immigrants with no criminal records more than doubled, to 5,441 in that period.

And keep in mind that Trump is just getting started.

Trump is having an effect on legal immigration as well: see here.

Steve Sailer: Putin Sponsors Muslim Migration

Will you see any Putinista acknowledge the above? No, never. They simply don't listen.

We can find a few thoughtful comments for the Sailer piece, but inevitably, the Putinistas come out of the woodwork to defend their great pro-Muslim immigration leader. I've noticed a pattern: the Putinista defender will ignore the Muslim immigration question and attempt to change the subject by yammering on about Soros and how anyone inside Russia who opposes Putin - nationalist or not - is a Jew or in the pay of the Jews. Or he will gratuitously insert one of his favourite topics, the perfidy of the Ukrainians, who are run now by both Neo-Nazis and Jews.

It's as if the Putinistas don't want you to notice that the same demographic displacement that is happening to the West is happening to Russia.

I see now that Putinism, and Alt Rightism, is multiculturalism - a new 'civic nationalism' or 'civicism', you could say, a creed in which race and religion doesn't matter: the main thing is that you oppose 'interventionism' and 'neoconservatism' and 'wars in the Middle East' and 'Trump plunging us into WWIII'.

Take a look at the below Man with the Golden Gun - he's the face of the Alt Right now.

Donald Trump, American Zio: Should We Do Anything About It?

A few of my anti-Semitic friends in the movement have been disturbed and confused by Trump's Israel First foreign policy, especially by his position on the anti-settlement vote at the UN:

We certainly live in strange times - of weird 'intersectionalities' to borrow a term from the Left. Assad, the 'anti-Zionist', talks - and acts - like the IDF; he is friends with Putin - who is friends with Netanyahu - and wants to be friends with Trump. Meanwhile, some of Trump's most passionate supporters can be found amongst the ranks of the Alt Right and the American white nationalist movement - both of which are anti-Semitic and despise the Jews and Israel. Other Trump supporters on the Far Right can be characterised as anti-Islamic only, and they make a profession out of opposing Islam. Most of these anti-Islamics like Assad, who portrays himself as a noble crusader against 'Islamism' and for 'secularism' - but wait, most of the soldiers doing the fighting and dying for him are 'Islamist' and 'fundamentalist', not to mention sectarian 'Islamists' and 'fundamentalist'. (I've learned from the Syrian war that one must draw a distinction between not only good and bad Muslims, but good and bad Islamists: the Islamists against Assad are bad, and 'Zionist'; the Islamists for him are good, and 'anti-Zionist'). Quite a few on the communist Left support Assad and Putin, but oppose Trump and the anti-Islamics and the populists; the latter group are condemned as 'fascist' and 'racist'. The communist Assadists decry 'Islamophobia' and view calls for 'secularism' in the West - e.g., the call for the banning of veils and hijabs in France - as a disguise for that 'Islamophobia'. At the same time, while virulently polemicising against any sort of 'ethnic profiling' - any sort of targeting of a people because of race, ethnicity, nationality and religious belief - they single out Israel and Jews and of all the nations and races of the world and vehemently denounce their 'Zionism'. It's all very confusing.

As to where I stand... I have identified myself several times - times without number, in fact! - on this blog as an anti-Semite, neofascist, Neo-Nazi,  whatnot; that remains my position to this day. But, to me, 'Neo-Nazism' doesn't mean a resolute opposition to Israel, Zionism, settlements in the West Bank; nor does it entail a firm advocacy of Palestinian rights and Palestinian nationalism. What matters above all is racialism; the main thing that counts is immigration restrictionism in the West. And here Trump will deliver the goods. Trump will build the wall. Trump will cut down - severely - on legal and illegal non-white immigration, and will give other Western nations (such as Germany, the UK, France and Australia) the impetus to do the same. The rights of Palestinians, or the fact that Israel is a nasty, deplorable and irredeemable state - on a par, I will add, with Syria and Iran - don't count for much in this equation.

We whites must look after ourselves. We don't do a good job of it; the Palestinians, on the other hand, do. In fact, they manage to get other people to attend to Palestinian interests too. The Palestinians have UN representation, for example. Supposing that the 'white ethnostate' existed: do you think that this would reap a fraction of the political, economic, diplomatic support that the Palestinians receive? The most likely answer is no. Look at what happened to apartheid-era South Africa, a white ethnostate which was Jew-friendly and even anti-Nazi (it fought for Britain against Germany in the Second World War): by the 1980s it had the entire world ranged against it. So did the American South in the 1950s and 1960s. The Palestinians, being brown, have done all right for themselves, unlike the white Southerners and Afrikaaners: they have respectability. True, they lost most of Palestine in 1948, and the remainder of it in 1967; but they have others fighting for them. We don't.

I bring this up because many nationalists seem to want to wage a jihad against Israel and 'Zionism' out of a desire to protect and further the Palestinian and Arab cause; they don't take up cudgels against international Jewry for the same reasons that Hitler and fascist Europe did in the 1930s and 1940s. Two anti-Semitisms exist, one pre-war, the other post-war. The two are inextricably linked, of course: the Talmud prophesies that the lost State of Israel shall be returned after a 'Holocaust', a 'fiery sacrifice' to the god Yahweh, which shall consume six million Jews, and that's exactly what happened after 1948. Israel would not have been founded without Hitler's gassing and cremation of the six million Jews. But, when all is said and done, the politics of today's anti-Semitism - inside and outside the West - bears little relation to the anti-Semitism of Europe past. Time has moved on since the 1940s and the politics have largely changed. Some of the Jewiest of right-wing publications, such as the Weekly Standard, Commentary and Breitbart (which is commonly miscategorised as 'Alt-Right') these days don't differ much in terms of content from Hunter Wallace, Steve Sailer, American Renaissance and VDare.

A few white nationalists of the George Lincoln Rockwell and William Pierce stripe make today's Jewry out to be the chief purveyors of all the filth, decadence and pornography of the world. The truth is that we non-Jews are now more than capable of coming with our own filth, decadence and pornography: we don't need Jewish help any more in that department, if we ever did. The same goes for race-mixing and non-white immigration.

Left-wing, liberal Jews did lobby to have laws against these things removed in countries such as Australia and America (but not in Israel, naturally); but that took place fifty years ago. White and Western politicians - and journalists, and intellectuals, and economists, and business leaders, and trade unionists - now, in the current year, are the ones responsible for bring hundreds of thousands of non-whites to our shores every year. Australian men don't race-mix with Chinese women because of the urgings of a Shlomo Shekelberg whispering, Wormtongue-like, in their ears... Many nationalists use the spectre of the Jew so that whites can be exonerated of any guilt, relieved of any responsibility. A Rockwell or Pierce would blame the North's desegregation drive in the 1950s and 1960s on the malign influence of 'commie and pinko Jews' on the Republican and Democrat administrations. Certainly, Jews from the North were involved, all right, but desegregation was mostly the doing of the Yankee WASPs. It was the Yankee's hatred of the Southerner, not the Jew's hatred of the goy, which served as the prime mover.

If anything, Jewish power has declined in the past ten years - ever since the catastrophe of the Bush 43 administration and the ascendancy of Obama and the (mainly non-Jewish) Social Justice Warriors. Which is why we hear endless complaining from the Jews about the new anti-Semitism of the 'Left' (really, the anti-Semitism of the Left and the Muslim immigrants); Jews are 'nervous', they feel discomfort, even fear, on campus and at left-wing demonstrations...

At any rate, we nationalists are called on to lend our support to Assad's blowing up and shooting down his fellow Arabs, because Assad is an 'anti-Zionist' and 'anti-Zionism' is good for the Arabs. Likewise, we must oppose Jewish settlements in the West Bank, because the dispossession of the Palestinians is bad for the Arabs. I don't understand how the interests of the white peoples of the world are affected in either case.

Australian Election 2013: Nothing Changes, More Chinese on the Way

Americans and British seem to be under the misconception that Australia has 'tough' immigration laws and a political class that is still interested in maintaining Australia's ethnic homogeneity - see, for instance, Steve Sailer's recent post. This is not the case, as anyone who visits Melbourne or Sydney will see for themselves. Since 2004, governments have lifted legal immigration to 150,000 to 230,000 a year (last year, it was a record 237,000) and most of these immigrants are non-white - Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Koreans, Maoris from New Zealand, African "refugees". (There are whites coming in from Britain and South Africa - the former are genuine refugees from British multi-culti, the latter are refugees from a barbarous African regime). The immigrants, like in Singapore and Britain (both countries which have been victims of a massive influx of immigration) are taking the majority of the jobs being created - even though economists assured that this would not happen and that the notion that immigrants take jobs is a "myth".

The Aussie majority are steadily being wiped out in their own cities, and not one politician, media commentator, priest, academic, sportsman, soldier, businessman is willing to comment on the issue. These annual intakes of immigrants are comparable to British levels under Blair and Cameron - but at least in Britain, you will find regular criticism, from dissenting members of the liberal establishment, of the Blair-induced British immigration disaster; here, in Australia, you will find none.

The sole exception is the union movement, which has opposed 457 visas for "skilled" immigrants (similar to the American STEM visa program, which Zuckerberg of Facebook wants to expand as part of the current amnesty-for-illegals bill). They make the argument that these visas are going to undercut wages, conditions, etc., and lead to the hire of non-unionised labour - which of course they will. The unions have been condemned by sectors of the Left, and the Right, for being "racist" and "xenophobic", because, of course, a reduction in "skilled" immigration will mean less Chinese, less Indians. Much has been made by these critics of the nativism of the union movement's past - its support, up to forty years ago, of the White Australia policy. That is to say, they are doing their best to tie the union movement to the past policy of White Australia. (In the US, "conservative" critics of the Democrat Party will point out the historical ties of the party to Southern segregationism).

The majority of non-white immigrants to Australia are legal immigrants - brought here under policies enacted by a "conservative" government in 2004. A little opposition to legal immigration, even on ostensibly non-racist grounds, is better than no opposition at all, and the union movement is the only institution in this country taking a stand against legal immigration (at least some of it); and so, paradoxically, the union movement is the most conservative political force in this country at the moment (despite the fact that union chiefs are liberals and that many unions contain some politically powerful Maoist and Trotskyite communist factions).

This is why, in my opinion, the Australian nationalist movement should align itself more closely with organised labour: there is a patriotic, conservative core there. We need to follow the Bolshevik tactics - as outlined in Philip Selznick's classic work of sociology on the communist movement, The Organizational Weapon: A Study of Bolshevik Strategy and Tactics (1952). (You can find an excellent review and summary of this book here).

One may ask, 'Communism failed - so why imitate communists?'. The answer is that, after decades of painstaking work, the American Far Left managed to get one of their own - Barack Obama, a fellow traveller or at least a communist dupe - elected. Obama has been a failure as a liberal president, but a great success as a Marxist and a black nationalist. Recently the US labour force participation rate (i.e., how many people are looking for work or are in work) has dropped to 35-year lows. More and more Americans are becoming dependent on the state for health care, employment, welfare, housing, education, etc., and this is precisely what a Marxist wants... Just imagine what the American Far Right could do, if it organised and got a white version of Obama - with ties to white nationalism and American Neo-Nazism - elected.

It's not as simple, however, as running a candidate for office: the communists in the US (and elsewhere, e.g., in Britain and Australia) have concentrated on changing the institutions of a society more than on winning elections. They have harnessed the "progressive" (i.e., degenerate) movements in society in an attempt to use them to their own advantage, and have succeeded in altering establishment opinion - which is why the establishment media now takes gay marriage, and now "transgender rights" so seriously (these two things would have been a joke two decades ago).

Having said that, following the communist course - i.e., joining a teacher's union and then taking it over from within - is not easy. Trotskyite and Maoist communists are more or less a cult, and it's quite simple for organised and disciplined people, who are part of a cult, to infiltrate an institution if they really put their minds to it - see the success of the Scientologists, for instance, in infiltrating the American Internal Revenue Service (IRS). We nationalists are not like that.

At this stage, we have to look Far Right and racialist politics as being two circles, one within the other: the outer circle consists of Far Rightism, nationalism, racialism, or whatever you want to call it; the inner circle is the actual political organisation (e.g., Golden Dawn, the BNP, Front National, the German NPD). The first priority of the nationalist activist should be to try and convert as many (intelligent, decent, principled) white Western people as possible to the beliefs of the first, outer circle. Then they can go about and try and recruit individuals to nationalist organisations - that is, the right sort of individual (what the Bolsheviks call a cadre man). In other words, emphasis should not be on recruiting people to one's organisation, but on recruiting people to the Far Right subculture - and it is a subculture.

Guerrilla Nationalism

Some nationalists have asked me, 'If your article, "The Rupture", is right, what do we do?'. Here I will attempt to provide an answer, or the beginnings of an answer, to that question.

The thesis of that article was that attitudes in the West have changed irrevocably since the 1950s and 1960s. The attitudes which have changed are towards: non-white immigration; mixed-race marriages; homosexuality; drugs; pornography; births of children outside marriage; co-habitation of men and women outside marriage; evasion of military service; smoking; physical health and fitness; and a host of other things. As well as that, attitudes towards certain elements of the West's history have changed. In the 1950s and 1960s, American youth were taught to regard Davey Crockett as a great American hero; now they are taught to venerate Martin Luther King Jr., or perhaps the black communist activist, Rosa Parks.

Really something that sums up the changes that have taken place since the 1960s is the career of 'Johnny Anglais', a teacher in Britain who was dismissed from his job for moonlighting as a male stripper. Now, in 2011, he has been reinstated to his job, and writes articles extolling the British to become less prudish and more accepting of pornography. Can one imagine a Johnny Anglais getting his job back in 1980? Or even 1990?

The avalanche of non-white immigration to the West, and the white indifference (and helplessness) in the face of it, is part and parcel of the same social changes which produced a Johnny Anglais. They come together in the same package. One cannot have non-white immigration without the push for gay marriage; or female priests without interracial marriage. They are the one and the same thing. Nationalists, unfortunately, fail to recognise this. Often they seem like bewildered whites, transported through time to the present day from the 1960s and 1970s to the present: 'What are all these non-whites doing in Los Angeles? Melbourne? London? I don't understand it! It was all white yesterday - how did this happen?'. The answer is that it happened in tandem with all the other social changes.

Using this (undeniable) fact, a proponent of immigration could make it the starting point of the following argument: 'You'll agree that certain of the social changes wrought after the 1960s were good. Immigration was one of those changes, but, unfortunately for you, we couldn't have one change without another'.

Yes, it is true that certain things, now in 2011, are very good, and that we didn't have those things in the 1960s and 1970s. Among them are: mobile phones, the Internet, CDs and DVDs. In addition, certain of the social changes were, indeed, good. There is much more awareness of sexual crimes against children, whereas (if the news is to be believed), such crimes were rampant in state homes, religious schools, etc., in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. (But one of the side-effects of that awareness is an extraordinary media obsession with paedophilia - an obsession with paedophiles (viewed, of course, in a negative light) and with homosexuals (viewed, of course, in a positive light) seems to be one of the dominant themes of the news media these days). But while I agree that all the changes did come at the same time, in the same package, so to speak, I disagree that it was necessarily so. We could have had an ethnically homogenous society, and, at the same time, cracked down on smoking, obesity, paedophilia, and developed an acceptance of defacto partnerships too.

My proponent might persist: 'These changes were part of a naturally-occurring historical process for which no-one was responsible. You try and find heroes and villains in the piece - by blaming the 1960s social revolution on Jewish counter-culture activists, for example - when, in reality, these events occurred by themselves, of their own accord. No-one was to blame for them, any more than anyone is to blame for natural phenomena, like the wind and rain, or the orbit of the planets around the sun... Therefore, you have to accept the fact of immigration, and the erasure of white, Christian and Western identity because of that immigration'. This argument, in my view, is a kind of quasi-Marxist argument. The events of history, so the Marxist argument runs, are part of an inevitable historical process, which no-one is in control of. The economies of the West shifted, naturally, from feudalism to 19th century capitalism, and will, in the end, terminate in socialism and communism. Individuals don't really exert that much of an influence upon events, and neither do ideas - events are determined by economics or, in the words of Althusser, 'social structures'. When we apply an analogous argument to multiculturalism and immigration, we end up with: 'Multi-culti, immigration and the death of the white race is inevitable, white man: face up to it! No-one is to blame. Whites have had their time in the sun; now it's time for them to shuffle off the stage, and make way to China, India, Islam, Africa...'.

My response to this is to quote the words of Hitler: 'What is made by man, can be unmade by man'. Multiculturalism and immigration didn't come about 'naturally', 'spontaneously'; they came about by a concerted push, from mainly white liberals, and Jews, who were determined to launch a massive program of social engineering, with the intention of changing the face of the West forever. They achieved this with the connivance of some of the members of the WWII generation - the Whitlams, Frasers, Ted Heaths, Lyndon Johnsons - who had decidely liberal views which were radically out of step with those of their peers. (One can't blame the baby boomer generation entirely). The views of the sixties radicals were anti-establishment at the time, but now are the consensus. It's only a matter, now, of replacing that establishment, of extirpating the Sarkozys, Merkels, Camerons and Obamas.

The question is, how to do it?

The problem seems insurmountable, when one considers the extent of social changes which have taken place. If one were to do a survey of every white American, asking them if whites should be prevented, by law, from marrying Afro-Americans, or Hispanics - their reaction to such a question would be bafflement, followed by 'No'. The same survey, in the UK, but with a different question - should whites be prevented from marrying Indians or Afro-Caribbeans - would meet with the same reaction. Likewise, a survey in Australia, on whether or not whites should be prevented from marrying Chinese, Vietnamese and Filipinos. In a similar fashion, were one to survey their opinions on Martin Luther King Jr., the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, and desegregation, the answer would be overwhelmingly positive; as to their opinions on Apartheid and South Africa, overwhelmingly negative. The possibility that desegregation in the US, and the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, was a disaster - for both blacks and whites - would never occur to them. And why not? Not even today's "conservatives" would dare suggest such a thing.

Aside from the change in attitudes, there are the changes in the facts of the ground: that is, the sheer number of immigrants here in the West (and a number which is growing every day). Even mainstream politicians, like David Cameron, nowadays make vague promises to 'cut immigration'; a politician in the US can gain some popularity by promising to do something about illegal immigration from Mexico. But no politician ever talks about what's to be done with the enormous number of immigrants already here in the West. How do we make them go home? Can we, in fact, make them go home? How?

Everything could be changed through a radical change in the political system. But that cannot be achieved without something like civil war. It would be delightful if a Libyan style convoy of armed revolutionaries were to descend on Washington, London, Berlin, Paris, Canberra, turf the politicians out and occupy the White House, 10 Downing Street, the Lodge, just like the Libyan rebels did with Ghaddafi's palaces. Unfortunately, nationalists don't have an army and they are a small minority in the population with minimal political support for the time being.

To revert to my analogy in "The Rupture": we whites are like the humans in the series Battlestar Galactica. The enemies of the human race, the Cylons, have won a devastating, overwhelming victory. In Battlestar-, the initial Cylon attack was modelled on Pearl Harbour, and many of the space battles which followed - between human and Cylon spaceships which were, essentially, aircraft carriers - were evocative of the Pacific War. In the real Pacific War, of course, the US, the British and Australia managed to build up enough men and materiel to strike back, defeat the Japanese and conquer Asia; in Battlestar-, the humans don't have the military resources, or even the numbers, to mount such a counter-offensive. In that regard, their plight is similar to ours.

In season two of Battlestar-, it is revealed that a small number of humans, on the planet Caprica, did survive the terrible, devastating Cylon nuclear onslaught. They take to the hillls and take up guerrilla warfare against the Cylon occupiers. Militarily, such a course of action doesn't make much of a difference, but it does make life harder for the Cylons, and something is better than nothing.

In the same way, we nationalists have to continue to exist - and cause discomfort and embarrassment, to the liberals, multi-culturalists, multi-racialists and proponents of mass non-white immigration (not to mention the non-white immigrants themselves), with the fact that we do exist. Is it the year 2011, and we still have people who oppose the joys of diversity? Who insist on asserting a unique white identity in the face of globalisation and multiculturalism? Who have the same attitudes towards mixed-race marriages as the Ku Klux Klan or the National Socialists? How can it be?

Not only do we nationalists need to continue to survive, but we also need to be intellectual. If anyone ever reads any compendiums of writings by the New Left, one sees the hippies and beatniks were an intellectual bunch, and made their arguments within the intellectual framework of their time. It wasn't all peace, love, and smoking dope. The New Left, via theorists such as Marcuse, drew upon the Western cultural and intellectual tradition (one of the paradoxes of the West is that it gave birth to ideas which have the potential of undermining it and eventually destroying it). To bring about a cultural revolution - and this is what the sixties boomers did - one first needs an intellectual revolution...

At this point in time, no one political party is strong enough, or powerful enough, to turn back the tide. This is, in part, because we are now fighting on enemy territory - the Western political landscape now belongs to the enemy, not to us. The initial offensive, launched back in the 1960s, devastated our position, and we have no position to fall back on. (We whites can't exactly leave America, Canada, Europe, Australia, and migrate to an island somewhere). What we need to do, then, is follow the guerrilla dictum and harass, hound and harry the enemy. The modern leftist anti-capitalist movement has the right idea, I think, in regard to tactics - it's just that they are confused (and hopelessly self-divided) when it comes to ideology.

We are, as Evola said in another connection, men among the ruins. We, now in 2011, need to be guerrillas among the ruins.