Introduction
This essay is divided up into two sections. The first is an attempt on my part to come up with a working definition of 'Neo-Nazism'; the second is a polemic against what I call the 'Rockwellite' brand of pseudo-neo-Nazism and gives neo-Nazism a bad name. A party can't be formed without ideology, and the polemic against Rockwell will serve as the beginnings of a new ideology.
What's a neo-Nazi?
Nationalists a strange bunch. I know a nationalist who is a Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite and a Hitler sympathiser. He likes to call himself a 'neofascist', even a 'post-Nazi', but won't call himself a 'Neo-Nazi'. He's quite particular on the subject. My position is that life's too short to beat around the bush - why doesn't someone like him call himself for what he is, and that is, a neo-Nazi?
The answer is twofold. The first is that he feels that the term is, from an intellectual perspective, inaccurate, and, what's more, he feels that its usage is somehow improper. It is well known that communists don't like being called 'communist', 'commies' or even 'Marxist-Leninist' - they much prefer 'socialist' or 'Marxist'. Part of this is a desire for camouflage: communist, Marxist-Leninist - these words evoke North Korea, Cuba and the former USSR, not places of great light and joy. 'Socialism' is preferred because it sounds halfway respectable - the British Labour Party are socialist, the Australian Labor Party are socialist, so are the German SDP (Social Democratic Party). ('Socialism' is also preferred on the grounds that it is more technically accurate because, as students of Marxism know, it is the first historical stage after the inevitable collapse of capitalism and the worker's revolution - 'communism' is the stage that comes after socialism). The same process of equivocation occurs in the neo-fascist and neo-Nazi movement. 'Nazi' is pejorative, and 'neo-Nazi' was coined by the enemy - a name given to the post-war extreme right-wing nationalist and soldiers' groups which appeared in West Germany. Generally, neo-Nazis who openly admit that they are so prefer the term 'National Socialist' to 'neo-Nazi' - which is why Rockwell's American Nazi Party was a break from tradition (the equivalent of calling a party the 'American Commie Party').
The second objection lies in the fact that the term 'neo-Nazi' evokes rather unpleasant associations. As soon as one hears it, one thinks of American History X, Aryan Nations prison gangs, skinheads... Also, the uniform-wearing Rockwellite 'storm troops' in The Blues Brothers. These are the two types of neo-Nazi which loom large in the public consciousness: the uniform-wearers and the skinheads. My friend is a devotee of intellectuals like Yockey and Evola, neither of whom were uniform-wearers or skinheads; ergo, neither he, nor they, could possibly be called 'neo-Nazi'.
What of the word 'fascist'? I've encountered the strange paradox, again and again: join a mailing list or forum devoted to the discussion of the ideas of Evola, Yockey, Alfred Rosenberg, Ernst Jünger, Carl Schmitt, Mosley, the Strassers, and suggest - ever so innocently - that all this stuff is 'fascism', and you'll be met with howls of outrage and indignation. They deny, furiously, that they are fascist. To a certain extent, this is understandable, given how pejorative 'fascism' as a word has become, and how meaningless it has become (through overuse and misuse). But the reactions of certain people in the movement to the designation 'fascist' strike me as a symptom of denial.
My friend doesn't mind the term 'fascist' and in fact prefers the designation 'neofascist' partly because it sounds esoteric and sophisticated. Degrelle, Bardéche, Yockey, Evola, Mosley were Europeans (well, Yockey was an honorary European), intellectual. None of them were card-carrying members of the NSDAP or its offshoots either. But I lump them together as 'Neo-Nazis'. I argue that the European fascist movement of 1922-1945 (of which German National Socialism was a subset) underwent a transformation by the end of that period. One could call that transformation 'Germanification' or 'Hitlerisation'; by 1945, it could be said of the European fascist movement that 'We are all Germans now'. Having to choose between Hitler and Mussolini - and say which one was the greater - is like having to choose between Lennon and McCartney; they both did great work. Nevertheless, by the end of the war, Germany had become the dominant partner in the relationship. This dominance was reflected by not only the German occupation of Italy in 1943 but by the adoption, by Italy, of an anti-Semitic Jewish deportation policy and an acceptance by the fascist leaders and intellectuals (including Evola) of the Hitlerian anti-Semitic doctrines - prior to this, Fascist Italy had been neutral on the Jewish question. Germany, by 1943, had taken over the European fascist franchise - politically, intellectually, morally, militarily - and hence fascism would exhibit an anti-Semitic and 'volkish' character. Post-war apologists for Hitler and Germany such as Maurice Bardèche and Leon Degrelle were fascists - not National Socialists - but, in defending German policies on the Jews, were forced to take the Hitlerian position as their own, which is why their work shows a leaning towards National Socialism. The same can be said of Yockey, who completely revamped fascism in his great work Imperium (1947) - his work is, to use Bardèche's term, 'improved fascism' - and who appears, at first sight, to have completely abandoned National Socialist theory for a new synthesis; Yockey's book is dedicated to Hitler, denies the Holocaust (in what was a first) and is, needlessly to say, thoroughly anti-Semitic and has a German nationalist and 'Prussian' spirit. It's not for nothing, then, that the book has been christened by liberals as the 'Bible of Neo-Nazism'.
(It's interesting to note that the Germanification of the fascist parties occurred to some before others. The Dutch NSB (National Socialist Movement) fascist party was founded as an Italian-style fascist party by Anton Mussert. By the late thirties, a split occurred along factional lines - between an 'Italian' faction and a 'German' (the latter being under the leadership of Meinoud Rost van Tonningen, husband of prominent neo-Nazi Florentine Rost van Tonningen). The German faction won).
It's well-known that the liberal establishment is forever pronouncing groups like Golden Dawn to be 'neo-Nazi'. They point to Golden Dawn's 'swastika-like' symbol, its anti-Semitism, its use of quasi-paramilitary militia, its 'racist' ideology, its occasional utterances against liberal democracy, as proof. Nationalists and those on the Far Right may leap to the Golden Dawn's defence and condemn the charges of 'neo-Nazism' as a 'smear'. But the characterisation of 'neo-Nazi' seems to be more or less accurate, on the basis of the evidence presented by these liberal democrats. Golden Dawn fit the bill, and if they don't qualify as 'Neo-Nazi', who does? I would classify Yockey, Evola, et al., as neo-Nazi intellectuals, and the following groups and parties as neo-Nazi: the NPD, Golden Dawn, Jobbik, Slovakia's Our Slovakia - People's Party, France's Génération Identitaire and Printemps Français. None of these are skinhead or Rockwell-type groups, of course (although the NPD, unfortunately, has a large skinhead contingent).
So do we have a definition of neo-Nazism? The January / February 2008 issue of the American Far Right journal The Barnes Review reprints a chapter of the memoirs (entitled My Revolutionary Life) of the Belgian Rexist and former Waffen SS soldier Leon Degrelle. It gives a preview of a future excerpt from Degrelle's memoirs:
IN THE FINAL CHAPTER of My Revolutionary Life, "If Hitler Had Won,” written 25 years after WWII, Degrelle reviews how the great nation-states of Eu-rope and the U.S. were all formed—by war and conquest, just like the Reich—and how a Hitlerian Europe would have dealt with Britain, America and Japan after annihilating the USSR. He concludes his memoirs with a vision of the different white peoples, each with its own genius and drawbacks, and his conviction about the continuing power of the fascist or national socialist model to guide them all to a new greatness.
This very much sums up the Neo-Nazi mission statement in a nutshell. Granted, it needs to be expanded and clarified (and I don't think Degrelle's memoirs were ever published in their entirety) and I shall attempt to do so later.
Hopefully my article will encourage nationalists to set up a neo-Nazi organisation that will develop into a party. It's primarily for Western countries which don't have a strong neo-Nazi type party - e.g., Spain, Ireland, Australia. My advice for the Hungarians and the Greeks is to join Jobbik and Golden Dawn - both of these are good parties; for the Dutch and French, infiltrate the Freedom Party and Front National respectively and try and 'turn' the base of these parties to neo-Nazism. As for Germany and Britain, both of these countries are over-saturated with nationalist and Far Right extremist parties. One could join an existing party, but, in my judgement, there's always room for one more.
It should go without saying that I'm not counselling anything idiotic - for example, the formation of parties with names such as 'Irish Neo-Nazi Party' or anything of that sort; I'm not advocating political suicide. I don't think that a party should adopt a swastika-like symbol, as the Golden Dawn have done, or that members of this party should tattoo Nordic runes on their foreheads. One has to keep one's true ideology and purpose concealed from others, especially from the Western masses, many of whom, obviously, won't understand the fine intellectual distinctions I am drawing here.
Something all neo-Nazis agree on
When I use the word 'Neo-Nazi' here, I using it to refer to a wide variety of groups and individuals. An ideology may be broken down into two components: a theoretical component and a practical. What is the theoretical component of neo-Nazism? What is the ideological common denominator, something all these groups and individuals agree upon?
It is, in its briefest form, what I call 'the story'. Here it is.
When we study any political system, we must determine who has the political power. We can arrive at such a determination by asking ourselves who is feared the most, persecuted the most, by the political establishment, i.e., the state? In the West, many people who appear to challenge authority, who regard themselves as subversive (and are regarded by their followers as subversive) are, in fact, not persecuted by the state: Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, John Pilger. Whereas a marginal figure such as Ernst Zündel was kidnapped by the US government, imprisoned in a Canadian jail for two years without charge, and then deported to Germany, where he was imprisoned for five years. The same sort of repression (of people who are reputed to be Neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites) occurs throughout Europe. None of the crackpot Trotskyites, Stalinists and Maoists in Greece have been persecuted by the state; only Golden Dawn have, in violation of the rule of law and standard liberal democratic procedure.
The reason for this I shall explain in simple terms. One mob beat down another mob seventy years ago, and since then, the winner in the conflict has been terribly afraid that the loser will pick himself off his feet again and come back. That conflict was the Second World War, the victor was what I call the 'Axis of Evil' - the US, UK and Israel (which wasn't around, of course, during the war, but was there in spirit and embodied in the form Chaim Waizmann, Churchill's close friend and political associate). The losers were National Socialist Germany and, by extension, Germany's friends in Fascist Italy and German-occupied Europe. The victors used enormous repression and violence to get rid of fascism and Far Right conservatism in the lands that they conquered. Not taking post-war German deaths into account, the Allies and the various 'resistance' and communist groups killed tens of thousands of right-wing French and Italians after 'liberation', and possibly hundreds of Belgians, Dutch, Danes and Norwegians. (The political establishment and its supporters in the media either ignore this violence or claim that the victims deserved what they got). The war against Germany and its friends continues, seventy years afterward, only this time it is a psychological war, and the liberal establishment is engaged in a 24-hour a day, seven days a week, psychological and propaganda war against the Germans of such virulence and intensity that one would think that WWII was still on. It is unrelenting. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of German National Socialism, the psychological war effort is there, because the victor regards the war - and the issues over which it was fought - as a live issue. In contrast, it regards the Pacific War as a dead issue: now and then the Japanese are scolded in the Western media for not being sufficiently contrite over some of the atrocities it committed during the war, but otherwise they are left alone; very little attention is paid these days to the conduct of the Japanese in the Pacific War. Other, more recent conflicts have also become obscure. The war in Vietnam and Indochina, which went for fourteen years and which was a live issue during the time it was fought, is now largely forgotten. Even the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War are kept buried in the newspapers (mainly because the liberal establishment recognises that both wars have been lost).
The Western world is ruled by an Anglo-Judeo alliance - which owes its power and prominence to a military victory won seventy years ago. It keeps Europe down by force. That's the geopolitical reality today.
Australia, of course, is not Europe, and what's more, is unique because it occupies a geopolitical nexus between two great powers - the USA / Israel and China. The biggest problem the West and its colonies face is immigration - non-white immigration - on an unprecedented scale and Europe, the fatherland of the West, is being colonised by Africa and Islam. Australia, on the other hand, is being colonised by China, which is a great power, unlike Islam and Africa, neither of which can be described as great powers. European Far Right politics, then, aren't quite applicable here, and in a previous article I have proposed a solution to the Chinese problem: national resistance akin to that of the communist Chinese guerrillas in their patriotic struggle against the Japanese in the 1930s and 1940s. Australian nationalists need to follow the tactics of Mao and one of the tactics is New Democracy - coalitions with people outside our party who are not necessarily 'with us'.
This, then, is the Neo-Nazi story, and attached to it as a coda is the Australian story. Does believing in the story - and I most certainly do - make one a 'Neo-Nazi'? No, it doesn't: plenty of white nationalists (see below for a definition of white nationalism) and Holocaust and WWII revisionists believe in a variant of the story. They don't combine it, however, with a course of political action; they don't subscribe to the fascist or communist political method.
The story here doesn't show any commitments to any particular constitutional order - there is none of the Führerprinzip and authoritarianism so beloved of 'fascists' and 'Neo-Nazis'. The story does seem sceptical, however, on the question as to whether any of the power-questions can be solved through voting and liberal democracy - can the electorate of Europe vote themselves out of their difficulties, can they achieve freedom and independence through electoral conservative methods? Can the Anglo-Judeo empire - more formidable than the Soviet empire - be dissolved through a vote? It would seem that the answer is no. The present day European liberal democratic system was put in place, and the European political establishment put in power, largely by the Allied victors, and besides which, a continuance of Anglo-Jewish power seems to be a built-in feature of Western democracy. As the American neo-Nazi A.V. Schaerffenberg put it, elections are free in our system until the wrong parties are elected.
Fascist tactics and the 'seizure of power'
Both communist and fascist parties have trouble getting electoral majorities in 'free and fair' democratic elections; this is a historical fact. They may do quite well in an election, and get a sizeable percentage of the vote, but they never get the simple majority that, for instance, a Republican or Democrat, or Tory or Labour, party may get. This is a simple statement of fact; I am not evaluating the merits of such electoral results and am not suggesting that a simple majority somehow confers legitimacy on the winner. It's only to say that it's extremely unlikely that a fascist or communist party could qualify, at least in the West, for an electoral majority, even a slim one. The historical record shows that.
Communists and fascists have ways of getting around that hurdle and more or less communist and fascist tactics here (as in many other places) are the same. We see those tactics on display in the Eastern European (including Eastern Germany) occupied by the Soviets after the war. These states were (nominally) liberal democratic, even though they were under Russian occupation, and pro-Soviet communist parties competed against liberal democratic parties and institutions for power. Elections were held, in which the communists often didn't get a simple majority, so the communists had to go to a plan B. The result was a flawless, seamless, smooth transition from liberal democracy to communism. No revolutionary chaos, upheaval occurred; there was very little anarchy and 'smashing of the state' of the kind advocated by Lenin in one of the early, pre-war Bolshevist texts on revolution-making, State and Revolution (1917). The communists could argue - as did the earlier Italian Fascists and German National Socialists - that the transition took place within the confines of the constitutional order.
I won't rehearse the whole history of Eastern Europe from this time; I'll give the dummies version. Here it is, from Seán Lang's Twentieth Century History For Dummies (2011):
Slicing salami, or how to take over a country without anyone noticing
Stalin had promised the Western Allies that he would hold free elections in eastern Europe. How could he hold free elections and still produce a set of communist governments? The trick was to start slicing little segments of democracy away gradually, like slicing salami, as the Hungarian leader Matyas Rakosi put it. Here's how the tactic worked:
Stage 1. Form a coalition government with your political enemies. Remember to smile at them nicely. Make sure you hold the ministries which control the police, the intelligence services, and the armed forces. (If your coalition partners prove difficult about this, throw a tantrum and threaten to resign. Doing so usually brings them round).
Stage 2. Use your control of the police, intelligence services, and armed forces to arrest or threaten your political opponents. (Hint: either accuse them of something heinous or say you're taking them into custody for their own protection. Someone will believe you.)
Stage 3. Sack any civil servants and other State employees who seem able to think for themselves. Replace them with Communist Party members who luckily just happen to be between jobs at the moment.
Stage 4. Hold an election. Make sure all the voters are thoroughly intimidated and that the only candidates are communists. (If some aren't, go back to Stage 2). You should aim for a 95 per cent vote for the Communist Party. Don't get cocky and go any higher or people might think you've rigged things. Silly, I know, but people do get these ideas.
Thanks to salami tactics, the countries of central and eastern Europe fell to communist rule one by one. In 1947 the Russians set up the COM inform, an international organisation to make sure all these different communist governments did as they were told.
An astute reader will notice the similarities between Ramos's 'salami tactics' and those of the NSDAP in 1933. One of the turning points in the German national revolution was Goering's takeover of the massive Prussian police force after being made the Minister of the Interior, which led to his mass sacking of anti-Nazi police officers and his replacement of them with NSDAP members and 'deputised' Brown Shirts.
The 'salami tactics' at the top - at the level of the state - were accompanied, in the communist example above, by mass mobilisation tactics from below. The communist coup-d'état in Czechoslovakia, 1947-1948, stands as the classic example. During the height of the political crisis in early 1948 - which saw the voluntary surrender of power by the liberal democrats to the communists - the communist party helped speed things along through mass mobilisation. Enormous crowds - of communist party members and affiliates - marched through the capital; workers paraded with guns. 'Action committees' - militias made up of communist party members and members of communist party front groups - seized control of factories, schools, government buildings and trade union headquarters. (The 'action committees' are reminiscent of Mao's Red Guards, or perhaps the hordes of Kremlin-sponsored 'separatists' wreaking havoc in the eastern part of Ukraine). All of this helped put pressure on the besieged liberal democratic government. Weren't these 'masses' 'the people'? Weren't they proof that 'the people' wanted communism, that communism was an expression of 'the people's will'?
The NSDAP and Italian PNF, of course, used the same street- and mass-mobilisation tactics. Does that mean that the neo-Nazi parties (and communist parties) are using the same tactics today? The answer is, by and large, no. What we have is a potentiality. That is, it's quite possible that neo-Nazis could infiltrate the trade unions or the police with intention of subordinating them to neo-Nazi political control, and this sort of activity is more likely to be carried out by a neo-Nazi - or a communist - than by, say, a member of the British Conservative Party or the Australian Labor Party. The Greek liberal democratic government is wary of the police officers who are sympathisers, or even members, of Golden Dawn for this reason and I'm sure that the German conservative and socialist governments have taken stringent measures to keep members of the NPD and other Far Right extreme nationalist groups out of the trade unions and the army. (This isn't a justification, of course, of the state repression of neo-Nazi and extreme right-wing organisations - merely an acknowledgement that the liberal democrats are right in recognising that the neo-Nazi groups, at least, are a different animal than your average socialist, liberal or conservative political party). This isn't to say that the Jobbiks, NPDs and Golden Dawns are using, everywhere and at all times, Marxist-Leninist tactics; only that the potentiality is there.
It is the use of these tactics - or the potentiality for their use - that makes a 'Nazi' a true 'Nazi'. Anti-Semitism doesn't make you a Nazi, neither does racialism, neither does extreme nationalism. But when these are combined with an approach - essentially the equivalent of a computer's operating system - borrowed, without acknowledgement, from the communists, then you have authentic Nazism.
Events like the German revolution of 1933, or the Czech coup of 1948, are rather spectacular, of course, and are difficult, to say the least, for a nationalist group - neo-Nazi or no - to replicate. Gaining control over even a trade union is a hard thing to do, and even communists have traditionally had difficulty in that endeavour (surprisingly enough). I am presuming here that the nationalists reading this article are beginning at a very low level - that a) that they aren't part of a large nationalist political party and b) can't simply waltz into their local church or trade union office, sign up and then commence a slow 'takeover'.
One must have a clear set of priorities. I'll state my own opinions on the subject - opinions based on years of observation. Firstly, trying to convert the ordinary apolitical man in the street is a waste of time - it's far better to concentrate on politicised people. Secondly, trying to bring the conservatives, left-liberals, socialists and communists around to one's thinking, to make them see the other side of the story, is fruitless. German nationalists, for example, have been promulgating Holocaust Revisionism and WWII revisionism (with a special emphasis on the extraordinary post-war slaughter of German civilians and POWs) with very little effect; the mainstream political parties and forces in Germany and Europe are a hard-hearted, implacable bunch and simply won't yield an inch when it comes to German 'war guilt' and the 'crimes of fascism'; in fact, they will use these to buttress state-sanctioned multiculturalism and mass non-white immigration. It's far better, in my opinion, to concentrate on people who are politicised but not against you from the outset.
Who are these people? The nationally-minded people who stand between the two main groupings in the nationalist movement. On the one side are those we generally classify as neo-Nazis - the skinheads, the Rockwell-types - we shall hear more of them in a moment. On the other side are what I call the 'national bourgeois' parties - for example, the Front National, Wilders' Freedom Party, UKIP, the Danish People's Party - and groups (Jared Taylor's American Renaissance, Peter Brimelow's VDare, among others). There are those who are too radical-minded for the national bourgeois types and too conservative for the American NSM and Harold Covington types. We should be investing most of our energies in these sorts of people. They are the building blocks of a real movement which is to be gathered around a unified party.
Rockwellism and its discontents
The 'Rockwellites', as I call them, are the main obstacle to the formation of a decent neo-Nazi party. The crux of the problem is this: the Rockwellites don't form political organisations, i.e., parties which compete in elections, and tend to dissuade any conventional political activity; they are a subculture, a lifestyle; at the same time, they pass themselves as the 'true' neo-Nazis and disparage the efforts of others. They may end up attracting and recruiting many men whose energies can be better put to use elsewhere and so therefore end up taking up movement time, effort and money - all scarce commodities on the Far Right scene.
The Rockwellites can be classified into three sub-groups: the uniformists (e.g. Harold Covington, Bill White, Matt Koehl, Frank Collin); the skinheads; the esotericists - intellectuals who preach that National Socialism is a form of mysticism and a lifestyle choice (William Pierce, Savitri Devi, Miguel Serrano).
Rockwellism can be objected to on the grounds that it contains many theoretical errors - simply put, it misinterprets German National Socialism - but the main fault with it is that it seems to attract the most scoundrelly and rascally people. I recently discovered a biography by Iiro Nordling, Pekka Siitoin, Cold War product, Satanist Neo-Nazi Fuehrer of Finland (2014). When reading the blurb (in badly written English), I was half-inclined to suspect that someone was pulling my leg and had invented 'Pekka Siitoin' with the intention of parodying Rockwellism:
This books deals with some undercurrents in Finland's recent history. Foreigners were told about idyllic relations between Finland and Soviet Union during the Cold War. However, there was a man named Pekka Siitoin who proclaimed to be Fuehrer of Finland. He started to trim his moustache the Hitler style around 1976. That was to give everyone correct signal what his activity was about. Swastika flag was flying high on top of his building. He organized threatening calls to communist newspaper journalist. He had military training camp for his supporters. Then one of his followers set ablaze communist printing house that was paid by Soviet Union. Pekka Siitoin was sentenced to prison. He spent three and half years in prison. He was released from prison and at the same time his hated president Kekkonen became ill. As an ex-convict his movement was limited. Besides all kinds of KGB people were after him. His drinking problems worsened and family life was disaster. He was father of four kids.
Pekka Siitoin came back to spotlight in the nineties. When he had started his activities, Finland didn't have many immigrants. Siitoin had correspondence with all kinds of Neo-Nazis and right wing characters. He received a letter from David Duke in the early eighties. Duke wanted to see Siitoin and asked if Siitoin would come to Stockholm to see him. Siitoin had come out of prison, totally broke and family life in mess. He sold illegal booze to finance his family. And was caught by police. Nobody wanted to hire him for his reputation.
Pekka Siitoin sent letter to international right wing people, saying that Finland had only problem with communists. According to Siitoin Finland had then only 3500 gypsies and 1000 Jews and 20 African origin people. Siitoin boasted that through his efforts the last Jews were fleeing the country to Israel. All that was not of course true, but there was some truth in it.
Finland started to accept refugee in bigger numbers since the 1990's. That was a period of deep recession in Finland and anti-immigrant sentiment was rising. Siitoin got some new followers from skinheads. However, Siitoin himself considered himself Satanist. He said sometimes that his group consisted of ex-Freemasons who didn't accept Jewish principles.
In personal life Siitoin didn't have very high ideals. He was a drinker and a womanizer. He boasted that he had slept with over 800 woman in his life - mostly street girls.
Any way this book tries to picture darker side of Finland. As a Finn, I am tired of listening the propaganda by our politicians, who portray Finland as a role model country to the World. High educational standards. Finland has produced lot of lunatics and highly original characters. Pekka Siitoin was one of them.
Most people on the Far Right have the misfortune of meeting at least one Pekka Siitoin in their lives. I wish here I could distinguish between the 'good' and 'bad' Neo-Nazis, but I can't: Neo-Nazism is, well, a form of fascism, and the historical fascist movement - like communism - attracted many thugs and rogues. The question is, does the presence of such men invalidate the ideology? It all comes back to whether the men like Bill White or Pekka Siitoin can be put to use - to be made to work for the good of a political party.
The errors of white power
Rockwellism is deeply influenced by white nationalism (also known as 'white separatism', 'white power'-ism, 'pro-whiteism', 'race realism', etc.), an American doctrine which is anti-political.
A dictionary definition of white nationalism would be: the doctrine of white racial supremacy, an obsession with racial purity and the prevention of race-mixing with non-white races (particularly the Negro race), a cult of the white man as explorer and coloniser of the world and, quite possibly, the founder of far-flung civilisations (ancient China, India, the Americas, Egypt - see Arthur Kemp's classic March of the Titans: A History of the White Race (2006) for an explication of this race myth). It is highly sympathetic to eugenicist and social Darwinist theories, although it predates 19th century Darwinism and eugenicism. White nationalism owes its origin to the European slave trade, and first appeared - in modern Western history - with the founding of the racially-segregated slave colonies of France, Spain and Britain in the Caribbean. Barbados, with its laws against miscegenation, its racial composition (wherein a small white minority of 20% of the island's population ruled over an 80% black population - the same ratio in later South Africa), its white militia on standby to crush any black revolt, was perhaps the first white nationalist state and the prototype for the segregated slave society of the Deep South. Today's white nationalists are the descendants of the ferociously anti-Negro Southern secessionists of the early to mid 19th century; an unbroken line runs from the antebellum and reconstructed South to the 20th century's Ku Klux Klan and conservative opponents of desegregation to David Duke and American Renaissance today. White nationalism doesn't resonate much outside the US, mainly because one of the prerequisites of white nationalism is a large, non-white and Negro population. While the white nationalist is opposed to Mexican and Central American immigration, the traditional 'other' in white nationalist polemics is the Negro, who is for all intents and purposes indigenous to America. Which explains the affinity the American white nationalists feel for the Afrikaaners and the white Rhodesians. Simply put, neither Europe nor Australia (yet) have enough Negroes to develop a true white nationalist feeling and racial consciousness.
The white nationalists are politically weak, that is to say, they don't participate in elections and have no political parties. By all rights, they should have, given their racialised view of the world: to them, the US Democrats are the party of Negroes, Hispanics and elite, wealthy liberal Jews; because (according to the white nationalists) all politics is on a racial and ethnic basis, a White Race Party ought to have millions of followers - but no such party exists. White nationalists in America have been remarkably inept, politically, and have been unable to organise a single nationwide party - a failing they are well aware of. Partially this is because white nationalism - like most American Far Rightism - is strangely apolitical and anti-nationalist; it is, in fact, idealistic and internationalist. It believes that all white people are brothers and can't account for the historical fact of white and European nations going to war against one another. This comes about from white nationalism's lack of understanding of the power of nationhood and machtpolitik. Ethnically homogenous and white nations such as Russia shouldn't go to war against their fellow white nations, but they do; white nationalism can't account for this fact.
On a practical, nationwide level, one can only have a Far Right nationalist party in a unified nation - a nation state with a homogenous people. Colin Woodard's American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America (2011) argues that North America is composed not of two but eleven different nations; the South, or Dixie, is made up of five different 'nations'.
Despite its shortcomings, white nationalism, as a creed, is probably the most influential doctrine on the Far Right today. It wormed its way into neo-Nazism thanks to Rockwell, who conflated 'white power' with (what he called) 'National Socialism'. As an example of this confusion, there is a recent article by Greg Johnson, in which he defends Hitler against criticism by white nationalists:
The “blame Hitler” argument boils down to this: If only Adolf Hitler had not started World War II, killed six million Jews, and tried to conquer the world, White Nationalism would get good press and perhaps make some progress in the political realm. Hitler is the reason why race realism, eugenics, immigration control, and nationalism have been discredited in the eyes of whites the world over. Thus if White Nationalism is to have any chance of changing the world, we need to ritually condemn and repudiate Hitler and everything he stood for, as well as all his present day followers.
I find this argument to be morally contemptible and politically naïve.
It is contemptible, because it is essentially an attempt to curry favour with our enemies and pander to ignoramuses and fools by throwing a loyal white man under the bus. And make no mistake: Adolf Hitler, whatever his faults, was a loyal white man who fought and died not just for Germany, but for our race as a whole.
Blaming Hitler is also morally obscene because it absolves a whole host of villains who are the real architects of our race’s doom: the slave traders and plantation owners who introduced blacks into the Americas, the railroad magnates and other plutocrats who brought Orientals to our shores, the traitorous capitalists who are destroying the white working and middle classes by importing non-white labor (legal or illegal) and shipping American jobs to the Third World, the egalitarians who have not hesitated to spill oceans of white blood to promote the moral and political equality of non-whites — and of course every politician who has done the bidding of all of the above.
Perhaps the Afrikaaners should have stayed home and never bothered to conquer southern Africa? It goes without saying that white nationalism wouldn't exist without the much-maligned 'slave traders and plantation owners' - indeed, the concept of a 'white race' as such wouldn't exist without them. Neither would much of American civilisation without the European slave trade, which began in 1441. Perhaps we should go back in time and eliminate the 'anti-white' slave trade, which began in the fifteenth century, along with a host of other 'anti-white' historical mistakes so that we arrive at a 'pro-white' historical result today - but this is absurd.
(At any rate, Hitler, Germany and Germany's friends didn't fight for 'our race as a whole': weren't the British, Americans and Russians - white?)
It would seem, at first sight, that white nationalism and German National Socialism would go together hand in glove. After all, we are told that National Socialism was a 'race-based', 'racialist' political philosophy, which exalted the 'race' and the 'volk' above all; it practised racial purity and inveighed against 'racial admixture' - doesn't Hitler sound like a 19th century Southerner?
The truth of the matter is that hardly any Rockwellites have bothered to read what Hitler actually said. Hitler quite frequently refers to the 'German race'. German isn't a racial category - like, e.g., Caucasian, Negro, Arab, Mestizo, Dravidian - it's a nationality and ethnicity. 'Aryan' in Hitler is a shorthand term for white and Christian (non-Jewish) Europeans. 'The white race', when this term appears in Hitlerian discourse (and it does so rarely) always refers to the European colonial powers - Britain, Portugal, Holland and others - and he uses it in the context of a speech on geopolitics and Europe's relations to its (non-white) colonies.
The 'racial admixture' condemned by Hitler was the miscegenation between Jews and Germans: the Nuremberg laws were designed to prevent such 'race-mixing'. National Socialist 'racialism' was directed at Jews - it intended to draw a sharp distinction between Jews and Europeans. Yockey praises this coming-to awareness of 'the Jew' as something separate, alien and parasitic in Western civilisation as a great turning point in the history of the white Western Culture. The distinctions drawn by the National Socialists were part-racial, part-cultural, part-religious. Jews, according to Hitler, attempt to pass themselves off as German, and even intermarry with them - while maintaining their own sense of separate, Semitic and Middle Eastern identity. This is, to Hitler, 'poisoning other races' while 'keeping their own race pure'.
The white nationalists are obsessed by miscegenation. Terrible things happen when miscegenation occurs - the great Southern politician and race-agitator, Theodore G. Bilbo, blamed the downfall of ancient civilisations on race-mixing. This is traditional American racialist thinking. The innovation of the Rockwellites was to introduce The Jew. Being a race-poisoner, and someone who wants to bring about the downfall of white Western Christian civilisation, the Jew attempts to persuade - through means of his monopoly of ownership on the media, advertising, fashion, intellectual culture - American whites to integrate, copulate and breed with the negro. That way, the white race in America shall be destroyed, replaced with a bunch of mulattoes, quadroons and octoroons (which is what happened to the white race in Brazil at the time of the original European settlement).
This is the Rockwellite and Piercian doctrine. Hitler never subscribed to it and would have found the notion of Europeans perishing through miscegenation with negroes (and other non-white races) abhorrent and unthinkable - as would any European politician at the time. Such a concept wasn't in the bounds of possibility for Hitler's contemporaries, and not even the 'enemies of the white race' who Hitler fought against - Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill - would have countenanced it. But the doctrine is very much in tune with Southern thought and Southern polemics against the Yankee North. The Yankee conquerors were accused, after the Civil War, of wanting to destroy the whites of the South by forcing them to mix with negroes. Rockwell's 'National Socialism' is more or less a Bilbo or Strom Thurmond doctrine with some anti-Semitism thrown in. (I'll point out that William Pierce, born in Atlanta, Georgia was a man of the South and rest my case).
Another target of American white nationalism is illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America. Again, the Jews are accused of being the biggest proponents of amnesty for illegal Mestizo immigration - and of seeking to 'keep their own race pure' by using strict measures against illegal African immigration into Israel. While there is a grain of truth to this - more than a grain - Hitler's racial doctrines don't refer to any illegal or legal non-white immigration into Europe, much less the role of Jews as enablers of it, simply for the reason that the prospect of mass non-white immigration to Europe was inconceivable at the time. Hitler does mention, in Secret Book (1928), the existence of large numbers of negroes in France, and he evidently regards them as a blot on French and European racial purity, but he doesn't appear to blame the Jews for their presence in France - instead he attributes it to a terminal French decadence:
On top of that, in proportion as France declines in her own Folk's power, this State proceeds to the opening up of her reservoir of niggers. Thus a danger of unimaginable proportions draws near for Europe. The idea of French niggers, who can contaminate white blood, on the Rhine as cultural guards against Germany, is so monstrous that it would have been regarded as completely impossible only a few decades ago. Surely France itself would suffer the greatest harm through this blood pollution, but only if the other European nations remain conscious of the value of their white race. Viewed in purely military terms, France can very well supplement her European formations, and, as the World War has shown, also commit them effectively. Finally, this completely non French nigger army indeed vouchsafes a certain defence against communist demonstrations, since utter subordination in all situations will be easier to preserve in an army which is not at all linked by blood to the French Folk. This development entails its greatest danger for Italy first of all. If the Italian Folk wants to shape its future according to its own interests, it will ultimately have nigger armies, mobilised by France, as its enemy.
There are passages which lend support to the Rockwellite and Piercite doctrine. There is this one from Secret Book, which is a condemnation of the idea of 'European union', a 'Pan European movement', by which Europe will abolish its borders and agglomerate all of its individual nationalities into one 'European' nationality:
Thus, first and foremost, the Pan European Movement rests on the fundamental basic error that human values can be replaced by human numbers. This is a purely mechanical conception of history which avoids an investigation of all shaping forces of life, in order, in their stead, to see in numerical majorities the creative sources of human culture as well as the formative factors of history. This conception is in keeping with the senselessness of our western democracy as with the cowardly pacifism of our high economic circles. It is obvious that it is the ideal of all inferior or half breed bastards. Likewise, that the Jew especially welcomes such a conception. For, logically pursued, it leads to racial chaos and confusion, to a bastardisation and Negrification of cultural mankind, and thereby ultimately to such a lowering of its racial value that the Hebrew who has kept free of this can slowly rise to world domination. At least, he fancies that ultimately he will be able to develop into the brain of this mankind which has become worthless.
This sounds very much like Pierce and Rockwell's Jew who deliberately wrecks other races through bringing about 'bastardisation and Negrification' and who, by keeping his own race pure and his people unified, manages to achieve a position of ascendancy over the whites. But it would seem that Hitler is talking in metaphors most of the time. He contends that the liberal democratic parties of Germany are 'the same people who in Germany most cruelly wage war on anyone who understands being national as something other than defencelessly surrendering his Folk to syphilisation by Jews and Negroes'. Surely he doesn't mean that Jews and Negroes are spreading syphilis throughout Germany?
It must be emphasised, again and again, that when Hitler uses the word 'race', he isn't necessarily referring to the Caucasian race, the Semitic-Arab race, the Negro race, etc. He is usually referring to different nationalities, who he regards as different 'races'. Here is another passage from Secret Book:
It is an old experience that a lasting unification of nations can take place only if it is a question of nations which are racially equivalent and related as such, and if, secondly, their unification takes place in the form of a slow process of struggle for hegemony.
Thus did Rome once subjugate the Latin States one after the other, until finally her strength sufficed to become the crystallisation point of a world empire. But this is likewise the history of the birth of the English World Empire. Thus, further, did Prussia put an end to the dismemberment of Germany, and thus only in this way could a Europe one day rise that could attend to the interests of its population in a compact governmental form.
But -- this would only be the result of a centuries long struggle, since an infinite quantity of old customs and traditions must be overcome and an assimilation of Folks who are already extraordinarily divergent racially would have to materialise [italics mine]. The difficulty, then, of giving a unitary State language to such a structure can likewise be solved only in a centuries long process.
So much for the idea of Hitler as 'National Socialist'! Why doesn't anyone in the movement ever read Hitler's books, as opposed to Pierce and Rockwell's 'white power' nonsense?
I don't wish to disparage the Rockwellites entirely - there are plenty of good things to be said about them: Ian Stuart was a great songwriter, Rockwell a funny and brave man, Pierce a superb propagandist and speaker. Many good articles have appeared in Rockwellite publications (such as Pierce's National Vanguard) over the course of the past thirty years. Some believe that Covington's novels are worth reading. But ultimately the Rockwellites must be rejected for their incorrect interpretation of Hitler and German National Socialism and their wholesale falsification of the historical record. One can't say that they have built upon the original National Socialism, in the way that Lenin built upon Marx (20th century communism was very much Lenin's, not Marx's, creation); they haven't improved upon National Socialism. Rather, they have distorted it... One of the consequences of this is that, by removing German National Socialism from its historical, political and national context, they have ended up turning into a universalist, and, strange as it sounds, deracinated doctrine. Which is why we have the Neo-Nazis of Mongolia (the best way to make a Rockwellite squirm is to bring up the Mongolian 'National Socialists').
(Another way to make them uncomfortable is to bring up the topic of Povl Riis-Knudsen, the Danish neo-Nazi who is the author of two widely influential tracts - 'National Socialism - The Biological World View' and 'National Socialism - A Left-Wing Movement', two of the foundational texts of Rockwellism. He was expelled from the DNB (Danish National Socialist Movement) for his engagement to Palestinian woman who he described as a 'white Arab').
A real neo-Nazism
What is genuine Neo-Nazism? By and large, all the neofascism and Nazi revivalism which appeared in West Germany after the war. Remer's Socialist Reich Party, which was banned in 1952, was the real deal so far as Neo-Nazism was concerned - and after all, the party leadership and the membership were former soldiers and NSDAP members. One won't find any Devi or Serrano in there: there is no nature-mysticism, anti-smoking, vegetarianism, mystic Führer cultism, animal liberationism in the Social Reich Party program. Yet it looks, sounds like Nazism.
The New Zealand expert on neofascism, Kerry Bolton, wrote a monograph on immediate post-war German nationalism, 'Stalin's German-Nationalist Party'. Bolton gives an account of the little-known NDPD (National Democratic Party of Germany, not to be confused with the nationalist party of the same name, the NPD). East Germany was a sham multi-party state: various democratic parties existed and elections were held, but the reality was that the country was a single-party dictatorship (Bashir Assad's Syria follows the same model). Early after the founding of East Germany, the Russians decided that the former Nazis deserved to play a role in the political life of the new state, and so a German nationalist party, composed of former German soldiers and NSDAP members, was formed. Bolton writes:
In February 1948 the Soviet Military Administration (Sowjetische Militäradministration in Deutschland:SMAD) announced the end of denazification. In March 1948 the prosecution of Germans for alleged “war crimes” was formally ended. The same month the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NDPD) was formed. The German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik: DDR) was announced in 1949, from elections in the Soviet occupied zone, after the failure of the USSR and the Western occupiers to agree on terms for elections on the reunification of Germany.
With the NDPD’s creation, Stalin stated that the party would “erase the line between non-Nazis and former Nazis.” On March 22, a newspaper was launched to pave the way, National-Zeitung, announcing: “while in other areas there remains the atmosphere of denazification of Germany, in the eastern part the people’s eyes light up again. Simple party comrades no longer have to be timid and fearfully look around as if they were pariahs.” The party was founded three days later, under the chairmanship of Lothar Bolz, who held the post until 1972. Bolz had been a member of the pre-war German Communist party and was one of the few German Communist leaders to have survived Stalin’s hazardous hospitality towards Communist refugees. During much of the time Bolz served in the government of the DDR, including the position of Foreign Minister (1968-1978), the vice chairman of the NDPD was Heinrich Hohmann, who had joined the National Socialist party in 1933, and was a co-founder of the League of German Officers, which formed the initial nucleus of the NDPD.
The NDPD program was stridently nationalistic; as much as the Socialist Reich Party which was being outlawed in the Federal Republic:
The party reached a peak of 230,000 members in 1953, and during the 1980s still had a significant membership of 110,000. In 1948 the party sent 52 members to the DDR parliament, the Volkskammer. One of its primary aims was German unification, and the party drew on ex-NSDAP members and army veterans to support its campaigns. One such appeal from the party issued in 1952 included 119 names of officers from the Wehrmacht, SS, Hitler Jugend, League of German Maidens (BDM) and German Labor Front.
I argue that this sham German nationalist party, fake and contrived as it was, is far more 'Nazi' than any Rockwell or skinhead group.
One blogger sums it all up here:
Firstly, National Socialism (1923-1945) is German and for Germans only. It’s true that neighbouring countries at the time, such as Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, had Nazi parties, but generally, it was for Germans at that particular historical time. The objectives were to break the Versailles Treaty, find living space for overpopulated Germany, deal with the military threat posed by France and the USSR, solve the German unemployment problem (not to mention the communist problem)…
Is there such a thing as Neo-Nazism? Otto Remer’s Socialist Reich Party (1949-1952) in West Germany attempted it. It certainly looked and felt like Nazism. But even so, given that Germany’s position had radically changed since the days of the Versailles Treaty, the SRP’s program differed from the original.
Most people, when they use the word ‘Neo-Nazi’, are referring to the American/British variety. The movement was founded by George Lincoln Rockwell and Colin Jordan, two clowns who loved dressing themselves and their followers up in brownshirt uniforms. One couldn’t find anything more different from German National Socialism: the Neo-Nazis insisted – and still do – that Nazism was intended, not only for Germans, but for ‘all white people’, including Russians, Czechs and Poles! These ‘white nationalist’ beliefs have been adopted by the skinhead movement.
(Ernst Zundel wrote recently that he disparages those people who dress up in Nazi uniforms, as it’s an insult to the 15 million Germans who died for the National Socialist cause. I agree, it is insulting).
The blogger k0nsl's account has more brevity than mine and is true enough. But is it the case that only Germans can be 'Nazi'? Not at all. I would classify William Joyce, John Amery and Douglas Chandler as wartime non-German and Anglo-Saxon (well, Joyce was Irish, but let's not be pedantic) Nazis. It should be remembered that the Allies viewed them as such and viewed them seriously - Amery and Joyce were hanged by the British.
Given that they represented an inauthentic Neo-Nazism, how was it that the Rockwells, Pierces and Ian Stuarts swept the world while the Yockeys and Remers languished in comparative obscurity? Part of the answer lies in the language barrier. English is the most spoken language in the world, and Evola and Bardèche have been translated into English only recently; so far as I know, none of Jean-François Thiriart's work, which has been hugely influential on the Continent, has been translated into English. An additional explanation is the universalism of the Rockwellite doctrine. Pierce's, Stuart's and Rockwell's Neo-Nazism is for the entire white race, while Serrano and Devi claimed that National Socialism was a religion (and nothing is more universal than a religion). The third reason for the popularity of Rockwellism is that it is, I argue, a lifestyle choice and a subculture, and it's fairly easy to participate in a subculture or adopt a lifestyle - far more easy than forming a political party and doing hard, dirty activist work.
Another interesting question is why white nationalism left its spiritual home - the Deep South - and made its way to the United Kingdom: surely it wasn't just both the US and the UK spoke English? The answer is, I think, the emigration of black people. Hundreds of thousands of Africans and Afro-Caribbeans emigrated to the UK after the abolition of immigration restrictions in 1948. Anyone who is familiar with the work of the stalwarts of post-war British Far Rightism - Mosley, John Tyndall, Colin Jordan, John Bean - knows that their work took a pronounced anti-Negro character after 1948. One liberal British newspaper accused Mosley of sounding like a Southerner in one of his 1950s speeches. British fascists, in effect, became American. Hence Ian Stuart, hence the success of 'white power' neo-Nazism in the UK.
In Conclusion: Electoral Conservatives, Jews, Uniforms
As stated before, Rockwellism is an isolated and apolitical doctrine. It tends to alienate many, inside and outside the movement. It becomes extremely harmful to the nationalist cause when it succeeds in turning away people who may be able to help us - in particular, those who I call the 'electoral conservatives'. There are those who preach the constitutional path and believe that, if they form parties and participate in elections, they will win an electoral majority or at least a sizeable number of seats. They believe in adhering to the constitutional system as it exits in the West and holding to the principles of liberal democracy.
This type is especially prevalent in Australia. Many Australian nationalists are possessed of a bourgeois or liberal mentality which says that the electoral conservative way is the only way. Australians, after all, live in what is one of the oldest liberal democracies in the world and it is the ideology of this system which saturates their every waking thought. It's quite natural, then, for Australian nationalists to believe that all they need to do is form an electoral party and then, after getting their message through to the Aussie voter, win a crushing electoral majority and then implement a nationalist program. But it's very difficult, of course, to form and run an electoral party - this takes skills that many Australian nationalists regrettably don't have - and to break into parliament, especially the Australian Lower House, is one of the hardest things in the world. Having said that: we need political parties - only, we need a type of party which is radically different from the standard liberal democratic one. But supposing that a person who is willing to be an electoral organiser, campaigner, or candidate for such a nationalist party approaches our movement - especially the neo-Nazi side of the movement - what will he find? No doubt, after meeting a skinhead or a Harold Covington, he is bound to be discouraged. He will go on his merry way and apply for membership in one of the national bourgeois parties…
I'm not suggesting that we should change our program in order to appeal to the electoral conservatives. It's been a long-running debate - for at least forty years - in the British Far Right: so long as the British nationalist parties can get rid of all the 'neo-Nazis' and 'anti-Semites', why, 'ordinary British people' will want to join us and vote for us. This 'denazification' strategy didn't for the BNP under Nick Griffin, and it will probably fail when applied elsewhere. An astute observer will notice that the media is pushing the line - in a stealthy way - that Le Pen and Front National owe their recent electoral success to her 'softening' of the party and steering the party away from the 'anti-Semitism' and the 'taint' of Vichy conservatism, and, by extension, French fascism. Now, admittedly, the Western European voter is incredibly timid - he doesn't go for the Golden Dawns or the Jobbiks. One only has to look to Britain. There, UKIP is enjoying great success while Griffin's BNP is a flop. UKIP concentrates on EU immigration and doesn't bring up Islamic, African and Indian immigration at all; it's such a scaredy-cat of party that it refuses to have anything to do with Front National or even Wilders. The British voter seems to prefer this brand of Far Right conservatism over Nick Griffin's. But, in the end, if we allow the Le Pens and Griffins to purge us, then we're out of business. We may as well do what Pierce did, and drop out of politics, retreat to the countryside and chop wood in a rural retreat.
We have to win over, then, the electoral conservatives and form electoral vehicles - that is, parties - and appear to be competent enough to run them. That means: no skinheads, no swastikas, no runes, no tattoos. We must be deep cover.
This brings up two related questions: the right use of uniforms and the right treatment of the Jewish question.
Firstly, the Jews. There is a species of nationalist I call the 'professional Jew baiter'. He concentrates on the Jewish question, and everything else - race, nationalism, economics, philosophy, political organising - becomes secondary. 'Fighting the Jew' becomes his main aim in life. David Duke is the most prominent example of the professional Jew-baiter. Once a Southern nationalist, he became a white nationalist and then a full-time Jew baiter.
The national bourgeois American Renaissance doesn't permit anti-Semitic comments in the replies section of its website posts; Kevin MacDonald's Occidental Observer and Peter Brimelow's VDare switch comments off altogether. The reasons for this are twofold: one is that the professional Jew-baiters will hijack the topic thread, and go on and on about the Jew; two is that provocateurs and dangerous types may end up posting about violence and thereby getting the site moderators in trouble with law enforcement. (Recently, a longtime poster on the notorious Vanguard News Network Forum, Frazier Glenn Miller, went on a shooting rampage outside a synagogue in Kansas - he intended to kill some Jews, but only killed three non-Jewish Americans. Predictably, he had posted on VNN that Jared Taylor, the leader of American Renaissance, was a 'kosher conservative').
I don't think one should impose a silence on oneself when it comes the Jewish question or Holocaust denial. At the same time, one has to keep everything in proportion. It becomes clear, after prolonged contact with the professional Jew-baiter, that he really isn't political at all. When you ask him who he supports politically, it's either Iran or, paradoxically, the anti-anti-Semite and antifascist Putin - either of these will 'stand up to the Jew'. He won't support your political organisation - to engage in politics, that's too much for him.
Contra the professional Jew baiter, then, the Jewish question, and Holocaust denial, must be tackled in a tasteful, intelligent way; if one exaggerates too much, one ends up looking like a crank - or a professional Jew baiter - and one thereby turns off the electoral conservative.
The other point of contention is the use of uniforms. It must be remembered that fascism adopted uniforms out of necessity. In the early years after the Bolshevik revolution in the USSR, European communists would make a sport of attacking nationalists and conservatives and breaking their meetings up - Hitler describes this in detail in Mein Kampf. As a result, leaders like Mussolini and Hitler needed a personal bodyguard and also stewards to keep order in meetings and at marches. Bodyguards and stewards needed a uniform to distinguish them from a) other party members and b) audience members and onlookers, and so the Brownshirts and Blackshirts, and the Schutzstaffel, were born. From that point on, the power, the propaganda value, of the uniform was recognised by the fascist leadership - the uniform and the uniformed march in effect became fascism.
Rockwell, Colin Jordan and their ilk adopted uniforms out of a fetishism and exhibitionism. It was out of a desire to shock - not out of necessity. One of the consequences was that they only attracted small numbers of people, and so the aesthetic effect of the uniform was diminished: fifty to a hundred men in uniform look better than half a dozen.
As one's party gets bigger, and holds rallies, marches and demonstrations, it will inevitably be attacked by the communist Left. There's no doubt about it… Many nationalists who take up nationalist activism for the first time are shocked and appalled by left-wing violence and left-wing attempts to deny them basic rights of freedom of speech and association. It's only after they've been on the receiving end of the communist use of force that they begin to understand what the likes of Mosley were up against. It's then that march stewards and bodyguards became a practical requirement - if one's party doesn't have these things, one won't be able to hold a meeting in a public hall.
It would make sense to put such men in uniform. From then on, such a uniformed section could be used to great effect, propaganda-wise. Suppose that a hundred of one's party, in uniforms, marched through the heart of Sydney or Melbourne - that would cause quite a stir. The liberal establishment, and the international Jewish groups, would descend into a state of hysteria - there would be calls from Jewish and groups for one's party to be banned. Why a uniformed march would (inevitably) bring such a reaction, I don't know - what's there to be afraid of in a march of a hundred uniformed white men? How is it more fearsome than a march of, say, a hundred trade unionists or communists? But that's how the psychology of our enemies works. Suffice to say, such a march would gain one's party immediate worldwide publicity. That's what happened to Jobbik after its uniformed paramilitary organisation, the Magyar Garda, first appeared, in its uniforms modelled upon those of the Arrow Cross (the wartime Hungarian fascist party).
I think that if a uniformed paramilitary organisation is formed organically, that is, in response to events (that is to say, attacks by the communist Left), then the electoral conservatives will accept it. They will see the rationality, the good sense of it. But that will only happen if the paramilitary is kept distinct from the main party organisation - it is not the organisation itself. The NSDAP wasn't made up of just the SS or the Brownshirts, and it had many people in plain clothes; what's more, it was a real political party, unlike Rockwell's American Nazi Party.
Again, a sense of proportion must be maintained. In the early days of one's party, it's enough to get half a dozen nationalists and right-wing people in the one meeting hall. What will the effect be on those people if you show up in a Rockwell outfit or skinhead dress?
I mentioned before the national-minded people who stand between the Rockwellites and the national bourgeois parties and groups. Quite a few of these people are electoral conservatives who expect a modicum of political professionalism and are repelled by the freakishness of the Rockwellites. The political problem faced by authentic neo-Nazis is this: how to win these people over, how to assure of them of one's radical commitments while at the same time not frightening them away.
