Cultural Productions IV: 'True Blood' and the logic of white Southern secession

Sometimes you just get the wrong impression of a TV show. Female fans of True Blood (2008-) had always, when telling me about it, conveyed that the show was about sex - and, by implication, sex with attractive vampire men. Years before seeing the show for the first time (last evening), I had seen a still from the show somewhere (on the Internet, or maybe in the DVD shop), showing a naked actress lying on a bed, or a couch, with two handsome, muscle-y young vampire men about to insert their fangs into her... From this I concluded that True Blood was nothing more than soft porn for women. I was dead wrong on this, as I will show presently.

In general, I like vampire and werewolf shows: the recent resurgence, of Romantic and Gothic horror themes, in the white Western culture (a resurgence brought about by the Twilight craze) I find very interesting. One sees vampire and werewolf themes in folk stories all around the world, of course, but it's the Romantic elements that make the depiction of vampires in the West which make it uniquely white and Western. Even as the popular culture of the West becomes more and more ethnicised and non-white, traditional Western, white and racialist themes manage to sneak themselves in through the back door, so to speak, and evade the politically-correct TV or movie maker - who wants every show or film to be 'diverse', and portray non-white minorities (Afro-Americans, Indian immigrants, Hispanic immigrants) as supermen or oppressed or both, and white people as evil or incompetent. As the American white nationalist Yggdrasil notes, it's these kinds of shows - e.g., Downton Abbey (2010-) - which often tend to be hugely successful with a white audience; likewise, it's actors who appear in these sorts of films and TV shows - e.g., Twilight star Rowan Pattinson - who tend to be hugely successful (despite their appearing in films which get uniformly bad reviews from critics). True Blood belongs in that category of unconsciously pro-white cultural productions. Upon watching it, I saw - almost at once - that the show is not about soft porn, but about the South, and the white people there. It's a celebration of their community, values, morals - and the cause (the Lost Cause) of Southern Independence in the American Civil War.

Unlike Twilight - which is set in a small, white, ethnically homogenous town of Forks County, Washington D.C. (in the rainy, cloudy North - ideal for vampires) - True Blood is set in the (small, white, ethnically homogeneous) town of Bon Temps, in the Deep Southern state of Louisiana. The heroine, Sookie, played by Anna Paquin (the New Zealand actress who played the mutant superheroine Rogue in The X-Men (2000) is a waitress in a redneck café, who has telepathic powers - she can listen in to people's thoughts - which are a burden to her (she finds her ability uncomfortable and irritating). (The character does, in fact, bear a similarity to some of the telepathic characters in the X-Men - Professor X, Jean Grey, Psylocke, Rachel Summers, the White Queen - which I'm not sure is intentional or not). Her life changes forever, of course, when the handsome, enigmatic vampire Bill Compton (Stephen Moyer) enters town: Bill is a courteous Southern gentleman, nearly two hundred years old, and an American Civil War veteran (who fought for the South). They fall in love (of course). But, just as in Twilight, this fictional universe is full of bad as well as good vampires, and Bill's full-time job becomes one of protecting Sookie from all the bad vampires who want to suck her blood. As you can imagine, the series is a formulaic one, and pretty much writes itself - just like Twilight does (all the instalments in the Twilight movie series are iterations of the same basic story, and one has difficulty telling them apart).

The twist in this show is that, in this fictional universe, all of the vampires have come out in the open - it's as though Edward and the Cullen family in Twilight openly reveal themselves to be vampires. Some of the vampires, like Bill, agitate for their 'rights' and strive to be seen as a victimised minority - and indeed, much of the series is a satire of the gay rights movement (and the push for gay marriage). The character of Bill resembles character Ben Bruckner (Robert Gant) from Queer as Folk (2000-2005), a dreary, sanctimonious gay-rights activist who is regarded as boring by his fellow gays, and I initially thought that they were the same actor. Certainly, they dress and look the same, and both of them are regarded as dullards and kill-joys by the members of their respective 'communities'. Bill spends a lot of time in the series lecturing, in a tedious fashion, on the 'myths' and 'misconceptions' normal humanity has regarding the vampires. In this, he's like Ben Bruckner, who was endlessly lecturing on the 'myths' about contracting HIV.

I got a bad impression of True Blood from the first pilot episode. I've got a few DVD sets in my collection which I gave up on - The Killing (2007, Danish version), Boardwalk Empire (2010), The Wire (2002-2008) - after a few episodes, out of sheer boredom and dislike. I gave up on The Wire after one episode: I just don't enjoy watching Afro-American actors, and couldn't bring myself to care about any of these Afro-American characters. (An Afro-American gets killed, by a drug lord, in the ghetto - who cares? I don't). I was on the verge of putting True Blood back on the shelf after the pilot episode, mainly because the show didn't gel for me, and because I found the Afro-American character, Tara Thornton (Rutina Wesley), extremely annoying. She is obnoxious, foul-mouthed, reads books on politics and has a chip on her shoulder about white "racism" and is just annoying in general. But, despite her, the show is good, and after the first episode, I persisted with the series, because I wanted to see what would happen next, and was pleasantly surprised. Perhaps it's an instance of the pilot not being representative of the series as a whole. A bad pilot, being the first one the audience sees, can make or break a show. The first series of Breaking Bad (2008-2012) takes the unusual step of showing its first and second episodes out of sequence: the second episode is played before the first. That means the viewer is plunged right into the middle of the developing story line. The producers of Breaking Bad made this decision, probably, because they didn't feel that the first episode was good enough to be shown first, and maybe the producers of True Blood should have done the same.

So, I found the stock character of the 'sassy, young, black woman feminist' to be extremely annoying in the pilot. But, in later episodes, Tara is shown to be living with her mother, who is a drunk (falling down, sleeping on the floor, urinating in your pants drunk), a drinker of something called 'Captain Morgan', and a follower of that evangelical, revivalist, Baptist brand of Christianity that Afro-Americans are partial to. (Later, in the series, she is shown begging her daughter for money to pay for her own exorcism - she believes her alcoholism is caused by a 'demon' inside her). In other words, Tara's mother confirms the worst stereotypes of Afro-Americans that all of us non-Americans get from reading David Duke and Jared Taylor. As a result, the character of Tara became a little more believable and realistic to me.

The only other prominent Afro-American character in True Blood is the short-order cook Lafayette Reynolds (Nelsan Ellis). Again, he's annoying in the pilot - portrayed as a homosexual who is superior to all the rednecks her serves - but he redeems himself, later on, in my eyes, when he is shown to be moonlighting as a drug dealer, gay prostitute and would-be pornographer: by conforming to our worst stereotypes of homosexuals, he becomes, to me, a lot more realistic and believable. He lives in a beautifully furnished apartment, which, with its rugs and cushions, seems Turkish or Arabic or Bedouin. He is an amusing homosexual, like the men in Queer as Folk. (The peculiar thing is that shows like these, which portray gay men as being promiscuous, drug users, and so forth, are intended to be pro-gay, and portray homosexuality in a positive light. The producers, directors and writers, however, don't seem to understand that many people in the audience will see this sort of behaviour as bad, not good, and get a negative impression of gay men and the 'gay community' in general...).

That's the Afro-Americans - what of the whites? It's interesting that this series portrays white Southerners, especially rednecks, in a good light. This is quite a change. The Jewish-American film critic, Pauline Kael, wrote, in the 1960s, that Southerners were portrayed, by Hollywood, as venal, lascivious, sensual, bigoted, intolerant, depraved, and so forth (she was referring to movies like the Sidney Poitier anti-white classic, In the Heat of the Night (1967) and the Marlon Brando movie, The Chase (1966)). This was a trend in Hollywood for quite a while. Kael, in her essay, deplored this negative characterisation of Southerners, and implied that it was 'liberals' (that's a code-word, in her writing, for 'Jews') for shoving it down the throats of the audience. Indeed, the evil white Southerner (especially the bigoted, overweight evil white Southern sheriff, who chews tobacco and says 'Nigra' a lot) was a stock character in American movies and TV for a while. But True Blood is devoid of anti-Southernism. Perhaps it's because the show is based on a series of books written by a white Southern author, Charlaine Harris, who looks like this:

As you can see, a very typical white American type. Interestingly, Bill Compton is invited, by Sookie's grandmother, to give a speech at her women's club (which meets at a church) on his Civil War experiences. The audience is, of course, all-white, except for the Afro-American Tara, and is moved to tears by Bill's reminisces. In another scene, at Sookie's grandmother's house, Tara upbraids Bill for the fact that his family owned slaves before the start of the war. He very gently, very courteously, puts her in her place and then manages to change the subject.

Many, many years ago, I saw a quote from a Afro-American commentator, who said that while white Americans loom large in Afro-American history, Afro-Americans are only a footnote in white American history. That's certainly the case here. The slavery question is a side-issue for the townsfolk who are interested in the Civil War: what's important is how the Civil War reflects Southerness, whiteness, their history, their values. White history is something for them to cling to, in an uncertain, dangerous America - what the author of Occidental Dissent calls 'Black Run America', that is, America run on behalf of (but not by) black people.

Occidental Dissent's push for a renewed Southern secessionism is a good one. White nationalism is a deeply flawed, American ideology (which boils down to, in the words of one nationalist comrade of mine, 'I don't like niggers') which doesn't carry well to countries outside of America (e.g., Australia) which traditionally have never had a big black population (African immigrants only started coming here to Australia in the past ten years or so - they were imported as 'refugees' by humanist church groups and refugee advocates), or a big and powerful Jewish population either. Besides which, whites, as we know from white history (which is so heavily touted by the white nationalists) are known for killing each other in the millions, for the sake of nationalism, or religion, or ideology (fascism versus communism versus liberal democracy; or Southern secessionism versus Northernism): they have never undertaken any war in the name of race and whiteness. The notion of a politicised white race, of the white race as a political entity, is without precedent. And, indeed, even the racialist states of the South, or the racialist state of South Africa, referred to whiteness in the context of Southern secessionism and Boer nationalism respectively.

Because Southern secessionism does have a historical precedent, and does refer to existing political realities, it could work. White nationalism, though, which was invented in the past forty years (by David Duke, a Southerner and a resident of Louisiana) is without precedent and doesn't accord with the realities of human nature. It's artificial, in other words. What's more, it requires a lot of work - a lot of indoctrination and propagandising - for Bulgarians, Greeks and Russians, for example, or Romanians and Hungarians, or Serbs and Croats, to see themselves as all being part of the one white race. One has to be a universalist - and, almost, a Christian, filled with brotherly love for one's fellow whites - to be a white nationalist. That's impracticable. But the doctrine of Southern secessionism is eminently practicable, given that the South is a distinct entity and is (relatively) ethnically homogenous: given that the rest of America is going to the dogs, why not just cede? The US Republican Party has always, since the time of Nixon, taken the votes of white Southern voters for granted. But, in between elections, the Republicans betray the South - by foisting huge numbers of Mexican and other Mestizo immigrants on them. Presumably, Romney will, if he wins the next election (on votes from whites mainly in the Mid-West and South) turn around and shaft the Southerners once again, by amnestying the 11.5 illegal Mestizo immigrants, and by inviting millions more to come across from Mexico and other Latin American states... Romney will do this because, as a Republican in 2012, he is convinced that the Republican vote will collapse without the votes of the 'powerful' Hispanic electoral bloc (in reality, most Hispanics don't bother registering to vote); what's more, he is part of the American business class, which is convinced that the American economy will collapse without low-wage, low-skill Hispanic labour; and he is beholden, like every white Western politician, to the anti-white clique, which wants to eliminate, once and for all, the white peoples in their own lands. So, given this, the logic of Southern secession is impeccable.

As to how this will be carried out - what the mechanics of it are - that is another question. One mustn't build castles in the air: one has to work with the existing situation. At the moment, the Southern secessionist (like the nationalist activist here in Australia) must articulate his viewpoint and inculcate his tendency as much as possible, and build and build... The idea has to take root first. From that, actions - political actions - will follow.

Aside from the theme of 'Southernism', True Blood has another theme, and that is drugs. Unlike Breaking Bad, which is about crystal meth, True Blood is about Ecstasy. People in the show consume a drug, called 'V', made out of vampire blood (well, it's not made out of, but pretty much is, vampire blood, consumed in minute quantities). Sookie's brother Jason (Ryan Kwanten), a loveable loser and simple-minded road worker (what we Australians would call a council worker - municipal councils are in charge of maintaining the roads here), takes some 'V' in a small dose and then begins to act like an Ecstasy-addled nightclub raver. He stumbles into a redneck café, his pupils heavily dilated, and tells his redneck friends (much to their amusement) that he loves them. He runs his hands over a woman's forearm and declares that, because his senses are now so heightened, he can feel every hair... Looking at some daffodils growing in a garden, he sees tiny sparks shoot out. I found these scenes to be among the funniest in the show. Later on, his 'V' inspired trips become more and more intense, and he enters a kind of virtual-reality world, which looks like one of those house-music videos from the late 1980s (the nightclub rave culture had its own music - house - to go along with the effects of drugs like Ecstasy, and was, to Ecstasy, what acid rock was to LSD). He becomes involved in a relationship with a woman who is an 'organic vegan', who wears hippie/gypsy clothes, and is a 'V' addict... All of this is damned odd stuff, which one doesn't expect to see in a Southern setting.

At any rate, the show is (and in this, the women viewers who told me about it were correct) very sexual. That is, it has about as much graphic sex as a Spanish movie: this is unusual, given how prudish North American culture is. In one comic sequence, Jason overdoses on 'V', swallowing an entire test-tube, and gives himself a permanent erection. Eventually, he goes to a doctor, who gets rid of the erection by sticking in a king-sized hypodermic into his penis and draining out all the blood.

Generally, the women in this show are over-sexed. Which again is unusual. Perhaps this is a return to the theme of the randy, licentious Southerner, which we last saw in those sixties movies. But whereas was portrayed as hateful in those films, in True Blood, the South is an object of adoration.

Memorial of Hate: Bomber Command, the British, and The Guardian

I read an interesting opinion piece this morning in the left-liberal British newspaper, The Guardian, by Richard Gott, called: 'This flurry of memorials discourages deeper analysis of the cost of war'. Gott wrote on a planned memorial, in Britain, to Bomber Command, which killed hundreds of thousands of German, Belgian, French and other European civilians in their mass bombardment of the Continent during the Second World War. Gott's message was merely: 'Let's spare a thought for the victims' - which seems reasonable enough. But I was struck by the furious reaction to the article, by the Guardian readership: most of the comments in the Comments section were, 'The Germans deserved it', because of the Holocaust of the Jews, etc. The ferocity of these statements disturbed me: were they representative of the British Left? Of British liberals (who form the majority of the Guardian's readership)? Why so much hate, and so little compassion? Suppose that the Holocaust was disproved tomorrow - that a crack team of CSI-type investigators, from all the world's leading nations, went into Auschwitz and other alleged death camps, and found insufficient traces of the poison gas there (used to kill millions of people) - would that make the liberal anti-Nazis sorry for the mass bombings of Europe by Bomber Command? Would there be an imbalance, then, on the scales: instead of the Germans having gotten their 'just desserts' for the murder of the six million, the Germans would then have something owing to them - by the British, and the Americans (whose USAAF also terror-bombed Europe)... One poster even quoted the Dresden death toll, revised downward by the German government, from 100,000-200,000 to - 25,000! Another evening of the scales. (Suppose, though, someone were to lower the Holocaust death toll from six million to 304,000? Would that even things?).

The German bombing of Britain, of course, killed 65,000 British (according to John Mosier's figures), but the Allied bombardment of Germany (and Europe) killed hundreds of thousands. So the Allies paid back the Germans for their bombing of Britain - with interest.

Perhaps the posters weren't representative of the British people: they could have been Jews, even Israeli Jews (who openly revel, on the Internet, in the deaths of the enemies of 'their people' - whether these enemies be Palestinians, Germans, or the Norwegian Labour Party youth killed by Breivik); perhaps they were part of that two-million strong Indian, Pakistani and African immigrant population, brought in by Blair, who revel in the chance to stick it to the white man by proxy - gloating over the mass murder of whites in Internet forums is one way a misanthropic non-white immigrant can enjoy himself. But, of course, the crimes of the RAF and the USAAF were perpetrated by white Anglo-Saxons on their fellow whites: that's undeniable. We have to ask ourselves why.

Clearly, it wasn't because of the Holocaust. As we know, the mounds of dead skinny people in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and other camps in Germany at the end of the war, were a propaganda boon for the Allies. It was alleged, by the Allies and the Russians, that the Germans had gassed people in the German, and Poland camps, etc., and quite a few respectable military historians on the Allied side declared that the existence of the German camps justified the entire war - which is ridiculous, but symptomatic of the liberal thinking of the time. But this wasn't the Holocaust. It was only thirty years after the war that the Holocaust - the gassing and cremation of six million Jews - first entered the white Western man's consciousness. The Holocaust then became, by the 1970s, the justification, post facto, for the entire Second World War - and that includes all the depredations, wrought by the Allies and the Soviets, on the Germans. The Holocaust is, of course, based on old prophecies on the Talmud - it's Jewish religion, in essence, just as much as the Rapture is based on prophecies in the New Testament and is Christian religion. But both the Holocaust, and the German gas chambers, were very far from the minds of the RAF and the USAAF, and the men who directed them - the Roosevelts, the Churchills - during the actual war itself. So, no, the Holocaust, and the gas chambers, were not the impetus for the aerial campaign against the Germans.

It wasn't the impetus, either, for the ferocious Allied policies (particularly American) towards the Germans after the war, which led to the death, by starvation, of millions of German POWs and civilians - under a policy enforced by Eisenhower, and devised by the Jewish-Americans Morgenthau Jr. and Harry Dexter White. American soldiers burned huge piles of food in front of starving German crowds, and watched, quite casually, while hundreds of thousands of German POWs in Eisenhower's barbed-wire enclosures perished of starvation and exposure. (Death by starvation, on all sides, was common in WWII, and took the lives of millions of Russians, Greeks, Ukrainians, Dutch and others. But, while the rest of starving, post-war Europe feasted on food rations supplied by Allied largesse, the Americans withheld the German share - in order to punish them. The American mentality at the time wasn't that far removed from that of the Guardian posters).

Whites killing their fellow whites, en masse, in cold blood - that's something that's always perplexed me, whether it be the mass murder of Germans, by the Americans and the British, or Breivik's murder of his fellow Norwegians. If one is a racialist, one is not surprised when different ethnic and racial groups kill one another - like the black South Africans killings of the white Boer farmers after the end of apartheid, or the Japanese mass killing of the Chinese during the war, or the Rwandan genocide. The Czech and Polish mass murder of ethnic Germans also constitutes another instance of this - it was the culmination of hundreds of years of pent-up Slavic antipathy to the Germans in the East. But, in the Anglo-Saxon versus German case - there wasn't any significant racial difference. Both groups belonged to the same white and Western European Culture.

My opinion is that both Breivik, and America and Britain during the war, were motivated by the same purpose: to avenge the offence, by the Norwegian liberal youth and the Germans respectively, against the Jews. The Norwegian Labour Party youth had angered Breivik by 'supporting Islam' and opposing Israel, and it was fitting, then, that Breivik would carry out his outrages on the anniversary of the King David Hotel bombing in Jerusalem... As for the case of the Allies, I read this in The Desert Rats: 7th Armoured Division, 1940-1945 (Robin Neillands, Orion, 1991, pp. 16-17):

Meanwhile, with war and rumours of war in the air, men were drifting to the Colours or into the Territorial Army. One of these was Rick Hall, who owned a Morris 8 car, and therefore joined the Royal Army Service Corps, the RASC.

'I used to do a lot of cycling and in 1936 a group of us cycled all the way to Germany to try and see the Olympic Games. We didnt'get in, having no tickets, so I didn't see Jesse Owens or Hitler, but I did see a group of Nazi Brownshirts smashing a Jew's head against a wall... terrible, and I thought, "Right, one of these days this lot are going to need sorting out". I came home convinced there would be trouble, because people like that have to be stopped. I kept telling people there was going to be a war, and they kept asking me, "What are you going to do about it?". So I joined the Emergency Reserve in 1938 as a driver... I got called up on Friday, 1st September 1939... Then on Sunday I heard Chamberlain say we were at war. I then joined 10 Coy of the 2nd Echelon, 1st Heavy Armoured Brigade, and went to France'.

I like the WWII generation very much, and I like British and Australian (and even American) soldiers very much. But I shake my head at the political and moral imbecility displayed by the above British serviceman (no doubt fêted by his relatives and the British public, given all sorts of medals and Queen's birthday telegram messages, etc.). I want to say to him - and his entire generation of British: 'You brought about the most terrible war in Europe's history, after you declared war on Germany for its invasion of Poland (but not on the USSR for its invasion of Poland); you helped bring about the end of the British Empire, and handed whatever sovereignty you had to the Americans; you and the Americans laid Western Europe to waste with your bombing; you, with your invasions of France, Italy and Germany, helped the Russians win the war and seize half of Eastern Europe and Germany - and all because some Jew had his head bashed against a wall?'.

Millions of Germans were raped, ethnically cleansed, murdered, starved after the war... Over a thousand Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg, quite a few tortured by the Allies, or the Russians, into "confessing" - I'd say that this nation was 'taught a lesson' and 'sorted out'. And no small thanks to you, Mr British!

And, no doubt, if all this was brought to the attention of this particular British veteran (or others like him), he would grow perturbed and then scream, defiantly, 'But I'm glad! I'm bloody well glad of what I did!'.

Supposing that this veteran's anecdote is true - and his memory isn't playing tricks on him, retroactively (as often happens to soldiers, especially very old ones) and inventing a false memory of a noble, pre-war anti-Nazi political stance - and supposing that it is representative: then we get a good picture of the wartime Anglo-Saxon mentality. The poor little Jews were picked on, so millions of Germans and other Europeans had to pay - with their lives. The USSR invaded Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Rumania, Poland, Finland - but these acts of aggression (unlike Germany's) could be overlooked, because the USSR didn't (unlike the Germans) hold to an official state ideology of anti-Semitism. The NKVD and the Red Army bashed quite a few heads against the wall in these countries - but these heads didn't belong to Jews. That's the main thing.

The Guardian readership, the wartime Americans and British, Breivik - all dancing to the same sick, twisted tune. The British were, during the war, in a partnership - spiritual, political, ideological - with Jewry even early on (we know, now, how close Churchill was to Chaim Waizmann, the future president of Israel); then, after 1941, they were in close alliance with Roosevelt and his Jewish Brains Trust. We can see this as a sinister American-British-Jewish tripartite pact. This continues, of course, today. Anglo-Saxons like Mitt Romney and David Cameron swear to fight to the last drop of blood to defend Israel from Iranians, who now play the role of the brownshirted head-bashers.

At any rate, the wartime annihilation of the West German cities, the post-war Morgenthau Plan of punishment, the denazification of Germany, the Allied indoctrination of the German populace with war guilt, the indoctrination of Germany with weird Judaic, Talmudic Holocaust-values - was all for naught. The simple truth is that the politics of Europe, and the Middle East, are slowly reverting to where they were a hundred years ago. Germany and Turkey are becoming 'great powers' again, as they were in the days of the Ottoman Empire and the old German Second Reich. Russia is led by a Tsar figure who is autocratic, illiberal, conservative, and perpetually suspicious of the West - blaming domestic opposition to his rule on 'Western interference' - and is buttressed by the Eastern Orthodox Church and all the forces of reaction (are the Muscovite anti-Putinists, in this scenario, the new Bolsheviks and Mensheviks?). Europe, and Turkey, are still, of course, ruled by America and Israel - but that control is gradually slipping. Both Germany and Turkey are using the newfound freedom to flex their muscles - almost on the sly (looking to make sure that America isn't looking). You can't keep an old dog down, and you certainly can't keep a German down.

One thing has changed in Europe forever, though: Britain and the British Empire. The old Britain, the Britain of the men of the 7th Armoured, is forever gone. The British are being wiped out, in their own cities, by immigration - which is doing a more efficient and thorough job than Hitler's V-rockets and Luftwaffe bombers ever did.

But to return to the subject of the British Left - the British Left which reads the Guardian every day - why are they so filled (if the Comments section is anything to go by) with hate and anger?

Leftism, especially post-Soviet Leftism, relies a lot on hatred and anger. I know this from experience, as a left-liberal student in the 1990s. Reading the works of John Pilger, Noam Chomsky filled me with anger, towards the USA, the Anglo-Saxon people, the 'crimes of colonialism', of whites against the Third World. But then, the works of Chomsky and Pilger are designed to fill their young, gullible, left-wing, white readers with hatred and rage. The left-wing creature, after 1991, subsists on on a diet of pure anger against all the wrongs, the injustices, of the world.

As to why this is so: communism, for all its faults, channeled the energies of the Left into a positive direction. Communism is about building a new society, remaking the world, correcting past injustices, about moving towards a better tomorrow; but, as we know from history, communism just doesn't achieve those goals - and it kills a lot of people on the way. But at least Marxism and revolution offers a way, for the Left, out of the quandaries of capitalism and the modern Western civilisation built on the capitalist mode of production. Take away that, and you take away hope. The Left doesn't have anything to believe, so falls into nihilism...

(The curious thing is that the likes of Gott loathe the old Britain, the Britain of Empire and colonialism. This is despite the fact that the precepts of liberalism, liberal democracy and human rights - which we moderns judge the Assads and Mubaraks by - were largely the invention of the British).

Another factor is that humans are naturally inclined to aggression and barbaric impulses. We moralise though, of course, and disparage (as well we should) the impulses to kill, rape, torture and so forth. But the useful thing about anti-Nazism is that it legitimises this destructive, terrible impulses. In other words: one can revel in the bombings of Germans because they were Nazis and 'had it coming'; likewise, one can exult in the Red Army's mass rapes of German women and girls.

I've always found the case of Hoess, the wartime commandant of Auschwitz, interesting. As we know, Allied interrogators tortured him for three days until he "confessed". A torturer of the commandant of Auschwitz - what a splendid position for a sadist! Who is going to chide you, tut-tut and wave the finger at you, for torturing (and then hanging) a Nazi? Especially the commandant of Auschwitz? One can torture, and then kill, with a clean conscience...


But to return to the British: the British instinctively hate, fear, and envy the Germans - because they know, intuitively, that the Germans are tougher, smarter, stronger, than they are (and, during the war, were better-dressed). This is why the British media obsesses over the Germans and the war 24 hours a day (Germans themselves, on the other hand, seem to hardly ever pay attention to Britain). The British don't like the French much either, but they really hate the Germans.

This is tied up with British feelings of national decline. The British, and the Commonwealth, politically, ceased to exist as an independent, sovereign political entity by the 1930s - falling into the American sphere of influence utterly and irredeemably. But, to a racialist like myself, what counts is not the political decline but the racial decline - which started in the 1970s. Britain, in subsequent decades, saw a social, economic and moral decline - as evinced by the 2011 London riots, when Afro-Caribbean, Indian and white British lumpenproles linked arms and sacked and torched together, agglomerating in one multi-coloured, multi-racial mass. To the British Far Right nationalist, all of this is connected: that is, Britain, had it not joined up with America and the forces of darkness in the 1930s, had it not laid waste to Europe and abandoned its own empire, would not be in morass it is in now. That is, liberal anti-fascism is a slippery slope to modern day liberalism, multiracialism and national decline - ending in the complete destruction of British identity, and, eventually, the British people themselves. The British, in WWII, thought that they were fighting to defend Britain and the Empire - but, in reality, they were fighting to bring about Tottenham...

Are the Anglo-Saxons of Britain - and America - not paying the price for their terrible crimes against their fellow whites, the Germans, French, Italians and others? Is not this slow, silent death (of white America and white Britain) by immigration Hitler's revenge? Is it not fate...

This is a bad thing, because I - like millions of others - loved the old America and Britain. I view their passing with a deep regret. But, in the end, there's not much I, or anyone else, can do. My feelings are best summed up in the lyrics of the splendid DJ Markus Schulz trance-pop song, You Won't See Me Cry (2005):

I turn around I walk away
There's nothing else that I can say

I turn around I walk away
But you won't see me
There's nothing else that I can say
But you won't see me cry

That's my message - to the bombardiers of The Guardian and Bomber Command.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Golden Dawn, Dialectics and Making a Nationalist Revolution

There has been a great deal of jubilation, in nationalist circles, regarding Golden Dawn's electoral success (7% of the vote, translating into 21 seats), and horror from the liberal establishment (no horror, though, regarding the success of the main Greek Communist Party, which won 8%). At the same time, a few comrades have told me that such success for a radical nationalist party - which is unashamed of its fascist, neofascist and right-wing authoritarian roots - wouldn't be possible here in Australia or indeed in any other Western European country (or colony): it's only in the East of Europe that the radical parties - the Jobbiks, the Golden Dawns - can win seats. That is, the sad reality is that a nationalist party has to go down the populist route (i.e., the Breivikist/Wilder-ist route) to achieve electoral success in the Western half of Europe. The electoral schema is, for nationalists in Europe at present: Zio-populism for the West, neofascist radicalism for the East, and for Germany, in the center, nothing at all (no nationalist party of any stripe can make much headway in Germany, at least not at a federal level). So there are certain peculiarities, on the Continent, which prevent a radical Far Right party taking off in the Western half.

On top of that, it is pointed that the Greeks suffered from extremely high levels of non-white immigration prior to the election: according to the liberal German news agency, Deutsche-Welle, 128,000 illegals came to Greece in 2010 alone, and according to the UK tabloid The Daily Mail, a 100,000 illegals entered in the 12 months to February 2012. Greece's geographical position as the gateway to Eastern Europe has led to it being inundated with immigrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, etc., so much so that the liberal democratic government of Greece, even before the election, began work on erecting a six-mile, 13 feet high, double razor-wire wall along the border. Even so, that was shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, and the presence of hundreds of thousands of non-white immigrants has led to the de facto ethnic cleansing of the majority white Greek population in certain urban areas. This awfulness, combined with Greece's economic straits, has led to a decisive nationalist vote.

In short, then, a 7% vote for a nationalist party 'won't happen here', in Australia, because (what the Marxists call) the 'objective conditions' aren't right: yes, white Australians are being gradually forced into minority status, in the urban and suburban areas, thanks to mass Chinese and Indian immigration; but they aren't in the sorry position of the Greeks, and certainly, economically, they are nowhere as badly off.

Is this fatalism and determinism warranted? Or is it unjustified? In order to arrive at an answer to that question, let's consider a few key theses: we have to get a clear exposition of the problem - the problem faced by nationalism - before we can get around to solving it.

Here are a few defining characteristics of the Golden Dawn:

1.  It has a mainly working-class, proletarian class composition;

2.  It is a radical party;

3.  It has authoritarian, anti-liberal, anti-parliamentarian leanings, and gravitates towards 'extraparliamentary opposition', i.e., activism on the street, demonstrations, and so forth;

4.  It is anti-capitalist, and opposed to the financial hegemony of the international bankers.

This last point is especially important: modern-day liberal democracy in Europe represents, to a certain extent, the 'dictatorship of finance capital'. Banks which have invested heavily in French, Greek, Spanish, Irish, Italian, etc., debt, stand to suffer if the value of this debt plummets (they will be breaking the international banking rules regarding a strict equity-to-asset ratio, which I won't detail here); certainly, they will see a loss on the value of that debt, if the governments miss out on one or two or three of their regular interest payments. Debts, such as mortgages, are assets for a bank, and just the way that the value of a mortgage (for a bank) will fall, if the borrower starts missing out on his payments, so will the value of a French government bond fall if the French government misses on its payments. Such is the power of the banks in Europe, they can compel the EU and Germany to enforce a strict 'austerity' regimen to ensure that all the interest payments from Greece, Italy, France, etc., are promptly paid and in full - even if that austerity regimen means tax hikes, cuts to welfare, etc., which end up destroying those countries economically. (This, of course, leads to a vicious circle: a country with 25% employment and zero economic growth is unlikely to reap in much of tax revenue, and so will be less likely to be able to pay its interest bill). The sensible thing would be, of course, for the Greek and other afflicted governments to default, and skip one or two payments until things improve - as they inevitably will. But it's axiomatic, for the EU and Germany, that the banks have to be insulated from losses, i.e., write-downs on the value of their bond holdings.

It goes without saying that such a policy hurts the Greek working-class: and the peculiar thing about the above defining characteristics of the Golden Dawn is that they are true of the communist parties, and, historically, the fascist parties of the 1920s and 1930s. What we have, in Golden Dawn, the Greek communist KKE and the splinter-communist Syriza, is a surge towards socialism - radical socialism - if we could define the above 1)-4) as being 'socialist'. The conventional wisdom is that socialists of one stripe or another will do well during a period of economic downturn, and the election results in Greece and France this year bear this out.

There are, of course, real differences between the Far Right socialists, and the socialists of the Far Left. The main difference is on the question of immigration. To explain this, we will have to backtrack a little, and look at some recent social history.

Since the 1960s, Europe - and the West - has been ruled by a dominating clique, which has manifested itself in politics, journalism, academia, entertainment. The intent of that clique has been to eradicate the majority white population of every white, European country and replace it with non-whites drawn from the Third World. Liberalisation of immigration from the Third World, mass indoctrination of the white populace with the virtues of 'multiculturalism', 'diversity', being nice to minorities, etc., have been put to use for that purpose. The end result of mass immigration is that whites, in cities from Oslo to London to Athens, are slowly being pushed out of the lands they have lived in for hundreds, if not thousands, of years: and this is the goal of the anti-white clique. They want, for instance, for a country like Sweden to be a wonderful smorgasbord of diversity: Afghans, Iraqis, Somalis, Kurds, Chinese, Pakistanis, will occupy Sweden from coast to coast, while the Swedes themselves will be reduced to a minority, living in the forests and mountains of the far-flung rural areas (until the cities, bulging to the brim with immigrants, expand and reach those areas too). It is a process of replacing one race by another. Non-white countries such as Kenya, Japan, Guatemala, of course, aren't expected to undergo the same process: 'diversity' is a unique gift - or punishment - reserved by the white man, to pay him back for centuries of colonialism and exploitation of the Third World. The colonies of Europe - Canada, South Africa, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, the USA - are especially deserving of punishment, because, to the anti-white clique, their existence represents an obscenity: these countries were founded on the enslavement, rape, despoliation and dispossession of the natives, who were at a far higher level of moral and spiritual attainment than the white settlers.

Of course, the anti-white clique won't achieve the 'maximalist' (to borrow a Trotskyite term) program of wiping the white race out altogether. But they will manage to increase the non-white populations of the cities of Europe (and the European colonies) to bursting point, and thus, proportionally, reduce the white populations to a minority there. This is already happening in the traditionally white working-class towns of Bradford, Birmingham and Leicester. (Ideally, the whites should be ethnically cleansed at gunpoint: just as what happened to the Germans of Eastern Europe in the late 1940s, the Palestinians in Palestine in 1948, the various Balkans ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavian provinces of the early 1990s. But that can't happen, of course, so the anti-white clique resorts to other means).

It's a grim scenario, of course, especially given that none of the élites in the West (who are the custodians of the destiny of their countries) will or can do anything about it. The mainstream liberal media is beginning to acknowledge, of course, that this process is taking place, and is cautiously suggesting that the policy should be stopped for the time being; but acknowledgements and suggestions are no substitutes for doing, i.e., none of these conservative critics are willing to fight to have their views enforced, and none of them can even suggest voting for the parties (such as the BNP) who make opposition to immigration a priority. It's become clear that conservatism just doesn't have the strength, morally, intellectually, physically, to 'defend the West' at this crucial juncture. This is shown by their policies: the conservative government of the Tory David Cameron was elected, in part, on his pledge to cut British immigration to the 'tens of thousands', but immigration into Britain is even higher than when he took office.

Amazingly, conservatives turn into mush liberals when it comes to immigration. While American conservatives are prepared to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, drop bombs on Libya, water-board Arabs, cut welfare spending to 'balance the budget', they just won't countenance the deportation of illegal Mexican immigrants (it would 'break up families') or even cut off all the public housing, health care, education and other benefits which, in part, serve to induce illegals to stay in America.

As for the Left, well, they are completely out of the loop. The truth is that while the present-day ideology of the anti-white clique seems, on the surface of it, to be left-wing - with all its ranting and raving over the 'crimes of colonialism', its declarations that the 'white race is the cancer of history', and so forth - it is something totally new in the annals of the Left: we don't find a hint of it in Lenin, Bakunin, Marx, Engels, Trotsky, the Fabian socialists, Samuel Gompers and so forth. Conservatives like to blame modern-day multiculturalism and multiracialism on the 'Cultural Marxism' of the 'Frankfurt School', but one really can't find an endorsement of ethnic cleansing (of whites), any rationale, in the works of Adorno, Marcuse, Fromm, Walter Benjamin (one does find the standard-issue liberal bilge, regarding the rights of oppressed Negroes in the American South, of course, but that's another thing entirely). Likewise, where, in the offical Soviet communist manual, The Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism (1963), is the suggestion of such a policy? There is the demand, by the communists, for 'revolutionary violence' in that manual (and in Soviet and Maoist propaganda from that time), but no demand for the disappearance of the French from France, or the British from Britain.

The Left, today, could be expected (given its ideology) to defend the interests of the white-working classes in the West and elsewhere: undoubtedly, the policies of the anti-white clique have caused great suffering to the traditional constituency of the Left (statistics show that 9/10ths of British jobs created in the Blair-Brown years went to immigrants, for example). But this isn't the case: the Left simply refuses to see any suffering. The Left believes that there is an infinite font of resources in the West - jobs, housing, education, health care, etc. - which should be shared, gratis, with the entire Third World; there's an infinite capacity which should be given to everybody. What's more, if we in the West take in immigrants and put them up in public housing, and on welfare benefits, we'll be giving them a better life - and protecting them from becoming child soldiers, or, if they are female children, from having their genitals mutilated. Those on the Right, who say that there aren't enough resources to go around, or that the immigrant groups will continue to practice female genital mutilation and honour killings (no matter what country they are living in), are just mean, nasty and horrid people.

In addition to all that, both the Left and Right are aesthetically blind. They don't see, they don't perceive, they don't understand, the concept of human degradation. There is something tremendously ugly, and sad, about immigrants sneaking into Britain, from across the Channel, by clinging to the undersides of lorries, by hiding themselves in garbage containers in trucks, or trucks carrying vats of chocolate; there is something tremendously ugly about immigrants (of a certain ethnic group I won't name, due to political correctness) of going about Melbourne, wearing ill-fitting, shabby clothes (which look as though they were stolen from the back of a barrow), sleeping, 20 people to a house, five people to a single bed, cheating utility and phone companies by not paying their bills, shopping, with their arranged marriage (and possibly co-sanguinary) wives, in the junk shops and haggling over the smallest dollars and cents... To a certain extent, life, when it gets to that level, is not worth living: these people degrade the quality of life in the West, and they are degrading to the human spirit. 'What, "spirit"?', say our establishment politicians: 'The only "spirit" I believe in is that of the Anglican Church, or the Catholic Church, which accepts all races equally, especially brown ones: your "spirit" sounds to me quite fascist'.

And so we are, in the West in 2012, at an impasse.

All of the above explains why, despite their turn towards socialism in the recent elections, the French and the Greeks didn't give complete victory to the socialist Left. As Gilad Atzmon shrewdly points out, it's strange how the Left embraces Palestinians expressing Palestinian nationalism, but can't abide by a Frenchwoman who expresses French nationalism - Marine Le Pen. But this is because, I argue, that the Left now accepts, along with the Right, all the presuppositions of the anti-white clique.

Given all this, it has become clear, to me, at least, that the West needs to adopt the most uncompromising and radical measures to save itself in its current predicament. I mean this well and truly: 'radical' comes from the Latin word radix, meaning 'from the root', and we need pull up the existing political, economic and social structures from the roots. In practical terms, this means - for Britain - the suspension (perhaps permanent) of parliament and democratic elections, the ascent to power of a new, nationalist-minded élite, and the conversion of the existing British constitutional system away from constitutional monarchy and towards a republic. In turn, the power of the City of London - Britain's financial hub - will have to be curtailed, for the future nationalist politicians simply can't be subject to the whims of the global bond and stock markets.

In any real 'dialectical' change, or evolution, the Marxists argue, the new order has to contain traces of the old: it is, in short, a 'sublation' - the present order contains the seeds of the future, within itself, and so revolution is a matter of bringing out the possibilities and making the new order sprout and grow. There is a clean break, but, at the same time, it is not the case of an old order (e.g., constitutional monarchy, liberal democracy, capitalism) being swapped for something unrelated and arbitrary. The white British simply won't convert, en masse, to fundamentalist Islam and ditch liberal democracy for Islamic theocracy: the tendencies, cultural and historical, towards radical Islam simply aren't there in the British people (whereas, in the case of the Egyptian people, they are). Whereas what I am advocating for the British is there. Britain was a republic, for ten years, under Cromwell, and parliament was suspended during his reign. But, aside from the historical precedent, the British soul, British history, British culture, contains within it radical socialism - a socialism which could form the basis of the new constitutional order. And it must, because radical ideologies such as Islam aren't an option.

The same goes for Australia: 'white man's socialism', the socialism of the old Labor Party, and the old Australian 'bush' nationalists, is still there within us, deep below the surface. But, in order to implement it, it needs to be Europeanised: not only does it need to be Marxianised, it needs to be fascist-ised. In other words, it needs to take into account recent (and by recent, in this case, I mean within the last hundred years) political and intellectual developments on the Continent.

Marx's Kapital doesn't contain the blueprint of a future communist order, as readers of it know: it attempts to describe the existing state of affairs and portends a clean break from them - the ruptures which will lead to the birth of a new order. But it doesn't describe how things ought to be, and this is one of the problems faced by the new rulers of communist regimés: where were the prescriptions, in Marx, for the new order, how would we know what socialism looks like? Engels, it is true, predicted the disappearance of money, etc., under socialism and communism, but, in general, communist theory always hedged its bets when it came to the future. It was 'dialectical', which is to say, the changes would come about organically and develop out of the old. In contrast, the so-called Utopian socialists devised detailed schemes, and drew up blueprints, for the future socialist order and how the communities in that order would live. Henceforth, the schemes would be imposed without taking circumstances and limitations into account. It was the flexibility of Marx's 'scientific' socialism, in contrast to the apriorism and inflexibility of his scheme-making 'utopian' socialist forebears, which gave it a main advantage. And this is something we nationalists, in 2012, ought to imitate.

In short: in politics, we are like painters and sculptors, who have to work with the materials we are given. We can't go beyond the given. At the same time, as revolutionaries, we recognise the need for a clean and decisive break. Revolutions make use of the existing material - the cultural, historical, economic and political tendencies - to hand. At the same time, they are brought about by élites, minorities, standing on the outside of the prevailing order. No politician, no matter what ideology, accepts the existing facts 'as they are', otherwise, he wouldn't be in politics. So, revolutions are made, they are brought about. It is our task, as revolutionary nationalists, to manufacture the conditions for revolution.

That doesn't mean that we can ignore the 'objective conditions'. One only has to recall the case of Che Guevera, who went about 'making revolution', half-cocked, in Congo and Bolivia, and failing miserably because he out-and-out ignored the 'objective conditions', didn't bother to investigate what the working-classes and peasantry in those countries were about, and so forth. A more recent example of (what the Marxists call) 'left-adventurism' is the anti-globalisation riots - the black bloc anarchists who go around assaulting police and smashing the windows of Starbucks and McDonalds - and the Occupy movement. (One really can't blame the anarchists or the Occupiers for their spontaneous disorders, given that conventional Marxism has failed the Left so dramatically). In other words, we mustn't think that inducing riot, rebellion and insurrection, leading to armed conflict - just as see in the Arab world right now - automatically adds up to revolution, although such things can, of course, occur naturally in the midst of a revolution.

The good news is that the white peoples of the West are gradually waking up to the fact that they are being shafted by the anti-white clique. They are being told, around the clock, by the establishment media, intellectuals and politicians, to pay no heed to their ethnic dispossession, but, as recent electoral events in Europe show, they are no longer listening. But they are a long way from revolting. Mainly this is because the nationalists and the Far Right have to get their house in order.

Part of the problem is that we, in our economic thinking, gravitate, by force of habit, to ideas which show a petit-bourgeois propensity. How many times do we hear a nationalist say, 'Oh, I agree with you, companies like Goldman-Sachs are bad, globalisation is bad, all the companies listed on the DJIA or the All Ordinaries Index are bad - big business, corporations, global conglomerates, are all bad. But the small proprietor, the white middle-class, the subsidised EU-farmer - we mustn't hurt them! We must go back to small business: artisans is what we need. We must have more handicrafts...'. Such thinking is reflective of traditional anarchism and socialism (the pre-Marxist 'utopian' socialism), and the petit-bourgeois class origins of such thinking, and it still holds an enormous allure for the Far Right today. It's something to be avoided, an alternative is needed. Really, such splendid experiments in socialism such as Herman Goering's Four-Year-Plan, and his Hermann Goering Steelworks, would never have gotten off the ground with such thinking.

I myself don't have an economic plan, and don't think nationalists need one. At the same time, we must have a complete break from the existing political, social and economic order, and that entails a rejection, or revision, of the existing capitalist system. The success of Golden Dawn is a step in that direction: despite their stated economic platform, they are a symptom of the ruptures and upsets predicted by Marx in Kapital. Perhaps they are a sign of the new socialist order as well.