The Worst Enemy of 'National Socialism'

I.

Most nationalists don't like the word 'neo-Nazi': they prefer the term 'National Socialist'. I myself refuse to refer to the post-war sympathisers and revivalists of Hitler as 'National Socialist' because that would imply that they are the one and same with the German National Socialists of the NSDAP. I believe that a continuity of sorts exists but not an identity. The term 'post-Nazi' manages to encapsulate the post-war Hitler revival movement best, but I regard it as a little specious. Better to stick with 'neo-Nazi'.

 It's true that this pejorative term is used by the enemy - just like its cousins 'racist', 'sexist', 'white supremacist' and the like - but by embracing the term we neuter it. Besides which, you can use it to get right down to brass tacks when discussing politics with someone. 'My political beliefs are neo-Nazi': such a statement cuts right to the essence of things and leaves very little by way of doubt in the mind of your interlocutor as to what your actual beliefs are. It saves time.

 In order to explain what neo-Nazism is, we need to define what the historical German National Socialism was. I'd sum it up in six points: 1) anti-Semitism and folkish German nationalism; 2) the doctrine of inequality between races, nations and men (the 'theory of personality' as Hitler calls it); 3) the leader principle, or Führerprinzip; 4) anti-communism; 5) the importance of improving the lot of the working class and recruiting from the working-class; 6) the importance of struggle - that the good things in life (or in politics at least) can only be won by struggle. One can find the best explication of these doctrines in Mein Kampf.

 And what is neo-Nazism? It's most commonly defined as an attempt to revive those doctrines. A.V. Schaerffenberg's Nazi Questions and Answers (2008) gives us the best introduction to neo-Nazism, Yockey's Imperium (1948) the most impressive intellectual foundation.

Neither of these authors really revise the doctrines of Hitler: by and large, they leave them unchanged. In the same way, Marxist-Leninism hasn't changed much in the past hundred years. The immutability of both these ideas - Leninism and Hitlerism - explains their survival into the 21st century. Neo-Nazism itself has been around in one shape or form for seventy years.

This long-livedness makes it superior, in my eyes, to other 'nationalist' and Far Right ideologies and tendencies. Recently an excellent article appeared in the Occidental Observer on the shortcomings of the Nouvelle Droit or European New Right - a school of thought which rose to prominence in the 1970s and 1980s and then went the way of all fads. I can imagine newer tendencies, such as the Alt Right, going the same way. Neo-Nazism outlived the European New Right and will outlive the Alt Right, simply because intellectual ideas need to be given political form, and this is what neo-Nazism does for the intellectuals - it gives them a party. This is what the original Nazism and fascism did as well. The European New Right made a hero out of Carl Schmitt, who, it will be remembered, joined the NSDAP (along with Martin Heidegger, another New Right hero) in 1933.

 The fascist parties gave intellectuals of the Right a home, the communist parties, the intellectuals of the Left. Communism and fascism resemble one another. Both make a fetish of the great individual, the man of genius, what Marx disparages as the 'cult of personality', and it's this side of the German National Socialist doctrine, I think, which tends to rub its critics up the wrong way. These men - ostensibly 'Far Right' and 'nationalist' and 'racialist' - don't believe in Hitler's genius because they hold to egalitarian theories. They subscribe to a form of Marxism. We know that Marxist theory teaches that all men are equal and that the masses - in particular, the working-classes - are the ones who make history. (In practice, the Marxist regimes of Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, East Germany and the rest put their leaders on a pedestal and made a cult of them: the communist party line was that the revolutions in those respective countries were brought about by the individual initiative of those very great men...). The anti-Hitlerians take egalitarianism at face value. They don't follow the doctrine of racialism to its logical conclusion: that if you believe in the inequality of races, then you must believe in the inequality of nations - and men. And, from the inequality of men, we can deduce the Führerprinzip: responsibility for political decisions must be reserved for those superior men, the men who are (in Spengler's words) 'master-types' to whom the masses owe unquestioning obedience. In the words of the Italian Fascist slogan, 'Believe, obey, fight!'.

 In National Socialist propaganda, the Führer, the German Volk and the Wehrmacht form three pillars of the German national genius. The Hitler detractors take umbrage to this: how can one nation (Germany) set itself above another? Doesn't white nationalism preach that white nations such as Ireland, Portugal, Bulgaria, Finland, Serbia and Montenegro are all equal?

And on the subject of Hitler's alleged genius, his critics accuse him with making many questionable decisions (the implication being that had they been in charge, they would have done better). They don't believe in his greatness, and what's more, don't believe that any man - much less a politician - can be great.

 Oddly enough, it's the Left which understands the theories of 'personality' (viz., the cult of individual genius) and Führerprinzip - and national greatness too. While the anti-Hitlerians may decry neo-Nazi celebrations of Hitler's birthday as cultish, the Left has no problems with celebrating Martin Luther King's birthday and making it an American national holiday. Likewise, after the 1917 October revolution, the Left made a fetish of Russia and Russian nationalism (and Russian imperialism), recognising Russia as a superior nation. One may wonder, how many Anglophone left-wing intellectuals after 1917 strove to learn Russian? Or, after 1949, Chinese? As for democracy, the communist parties which made up the Comintern (and later the Trotskyite Internationals) were never that big on it. Even today, the communist parties run their organisations like disciplined military units and their members show more self-restraint, more subordination to authority, than our present nationalist mob. But one could say that the Marxist-Leninism of Stalin, Mao, Trotsky represents a dishonest fascism, a mealy-mouthed, hypocritical fascism which is unable to say, plainly and frankly, what it is.

One may object to German National Socialism on the grounds that it was for Germans only - that National Socialism doesn't carry across to white nations other than Germany. But we need to look at this in context. After WWI, Europe was ruled by four Great Powers, each with their sovereign independence, each with a number of smaller countries (and colonies) within their sphere of influence: Germany, Britain, France and Italy. By 1939, France and Britain had lost their sovereignty and had fallen, along with Poland, under the sway of America; by the middle of 1944, Germany, the sole power on the Continent, was engaged in a ferocious struggle with the US for control of Europe. It was in this period that Italy ceased to be a sovereign political unit. The project of Italian Fascism - along with the fascisms of Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Holland, etc. - became subordinated to the German. In connection with this, it must be recalled that Hitler's racialism was not directed at the Negroes or the Muslims or Chinese or Indians but against the Jews. By 1944 the Italian racial doctrine became explicitly Hitlerian; Fascist Italy, along with France and other European countries, had consented to the round-up and deportation of Jews. Politically and intellectually, all fascism and Far Rightism by 1944 had become Germanised and 'Nazi'; paraphrasing Sir William Harcourt, Europe's Right had said, in effect, 'We're all Nazis now'. This is why I characterise neofascism (the remnants of fascism which survived the war) as neo-Nazi.

 Despite the 'Germanness' of the National Socialist doctrine, and despite the fact that it was implemented eighty years ago, many of its ideas could still be carried across to other white countries (and solve a good many social and political problems thereby). In Australia, a nationalist government could introduce labour laws modelled on National Socialist Germany's; young men and women could be conscripted into an Australian version of the Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls (both of which were patterned on communist youth formations).

 But it goes without saying that, in these times, an insurmountable wall prevents us from introducing anything like Hitlerism here (or, for that matter, any Western country). Communist and fascist youth organisations originated in countries which were ethnically homogenous. In many Melbourne and Sydney schools, the non-whites - who are the children of non-white immigrants - can often outnumber the Aussies, and a mixed-race nationalist and fascist youth organisation, composed of Aussies and non-whites, would be a contradiction in terms. (For that matter, it's difficult to imagine Chinese or Russian communist youth organisations with members who are African). Much of historical fascism can't be transposed to the modern era. In today's multi-culti, bastardised, mixed-race Western societies, the old slogan, 'Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Führer' - 'One people, one kingdom, one leader' - doesn't hold true and can't hold true. George Lincoln Rockwell, who died in 1967, and Francis Parker Yockey, who died in 1960, would have been shocked and appalled by today's Melbourne, Los Angeles, London, Rome, Athens...

II.

One can't turn the clock back, and all the ideologies on the Far Right today face the same uphill battle. We can't return to the same ethnically homogenous societies of the 1960s and even the 1970s and 1980s - at least, not without a terrible fight.

Now, I think that neo-Nazism - with its doctrine of the importance of struggle - is uniquely suited to that task; but a great many of its critics on the Far Right don't agree. Despite the fact that everywhere on the Far Right it dominates - and even the detractors of German National Socialism, such as Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents, pay lip service to it and make their bread and butter from it - it doesn't rank high in the opinion of many. Like that other venerable racialist movement, the Ku Klux Klan, it has fallen into disrepute. Duke admitted, in his autobiography My Awakening (1998), that by the end of the 1970s, the mass infiltration of provocateurs (and degenerates) into the Klan had turned it into a violent and criminal organisation, hardly a vehicle for the white man's racial struggle; Duke had no choice but to leave. Neo-Nazism finds itself in a similar quandary. It's now tainted by an association with skinheadism, which is as unlike the historical German National Socialism as could be (see here).

 One has to ask if the powers that be deliberately engineered this situation. Did they use their power and influence in mass media and popular culture to help create the skinhead subculture and push it towards neo-Nazism, and to eventually make the skinhead subculture the public face of neo-Nazism? I've heard speculation along those lines from a few people on the nationalist scene; one of them is Esben Kristensen, the leader of the National Socialist Movement of Denmark (DNSB). As Kristensen notes, the shaven heads, bomber jackets, braces and Doc Marten boots look 'stupid'. It could be that the enemy has waged psychological warfare against its political opponents by manipulating the more impressionable and naive of them to adopt a 'stupid' look. In addition, the enemy has succeeded in encouraging an ethos of immoral and degenerate behaviour - violence, alcoholism, wife-beating - of making that behaviour acceptable, if not laudable, within the confines of that group.

 If we trace the history of skinheadism, it can be seen that skinheadism turned neo-Nazi after the formation of several skinhead rock bands under the aegis of the British National Front after 1978 - precisely at the point when the National Front had become the third-largest political party in Britain and a threat to the British establishment.

One should ask: who, exactly, introduced skinheadism into the British nationalist scene at that time? Who encouraged it to grow, flourish? And doesn't it to stand to reason that the British 'Deep State' would have taken some form of action in 1978 to disrupt, divert or destroy the National Front - and British Nationalism - by utilising provocateurs and degrading the morale of British nationalists through infiltration and subversion...

III.

It's quite true that skinheads belong to the working class - as do the chavs and bogans - and the working classes, as pointed out earlier, form the bulwark of any National Socialism, whether it be of the historical German National Socialist or the neo-Nazi variety. But, in order to defend myself, I will quote scripture here. This is a famous passage from Mein Kampf:

[The worker] cannot be raised from his present standing and incorporated in the.. folk-community by means of goody-goody meetings where people talk about the brotherhood of the people; but rather by a systematic improvement in the social and cultural life of the worker until the yawning abyss between him and the other classes can be filled in. A movement which has this for its aim must try to recruit its followers mainly from the ranks of the working class. It must include members of the intellectual classes only in so far as such members have rightly understood and accepted without reserve the ideal towards which the movement is striving. This process of transformation and reunion cannot be completed within ten or twenty years. It will take several generations, as the history of such movements has shown.

The most difficult obstacle to the reunion of our contemporary worker in the national folk-community does not consist so much in the fact that he fights for the interests of his fellow-workers but rather in the international ideas [i.e., communism] with which he is imbued and which are of their nature at variance with the ideas of nationhood and fatherland. This hostile attitude to nation and fatherland has been inculcated by the leaders of the working class. If they were inspired by the principle of devotion to the nation in all that concerns its political and social welfare, the trades unions would make those millions of workers most valuable members of the national community, without thereby affecting their own constant struggle for their economic demands...

The reservoir from which the young movement has to draw its members will first of all be the working masses. Those masses must be delivered from the clutches of the international mania. Their social distress must be eliminated. They must be raised above their present cultural level, which is deplorable, and transformed into a resolute and valuable factor in the folk-community, inspired by national ideas and national sentiment.

A few sentences stand out here: the worker must be raised from his present standing 'by a systematic improvement in the social and cultural life of the worker until the yawning abyss between him and the other classes can be filled in...'; the masses 'must be raised above their present cultural level, which is deplorable, and transformed into a resolute and valuable factor in the folk-community, inspired by national ideas and national sentiment'. Hitler places the emphasis on lifting the working classes up, improving their culture and their conditions, ennobling them. The skinhead movement can't be said to be Hitlerian in this regard; neither can chavvish nationalist and Far Right movements such as the English Defence League and Britain First.

 My point is that the system - the 'Deep State' - understands this, and understands it better than most nationalists; it could be that it has concocted the neo-Nazi skinhead movement, or at least helped it grow, as a means of sabotaging neo-Nazism and Far Right nationalism in general.

To many on the Far Right, this sort of thinking seems conspiratorial, and what's more, galling - it implies that we nationalists have little to no agency and that we are easily manipulated and duped by the political establishment. But such conspiratorial-minded views are gradually becoming more and more accepted. Most of us on the Far Right believe that the notorious Combat 18 was a creation of the 'Deep State' as was the German NSU (National Socialist Underground). We have our suspicions about the EDL (English Defence League) and Britain First looks more and more fishy by the day as well. As for Jack 'The Pak' Sen's British Renaissance, the less said, the better. Nationalists are getting wise to all this...

Aside from creating provocateur and front organisations from scratch, the 'Deep State' avails itself of the method of inserting provocateurs into the scene. This is what the German 'Deep State' has done to German nationalism (neo-Nazism). As Carolyn Yeager writes of the NSU trial,

In various parliamentary inquiries as well as during the trial itself, every effort to pin down what happened meets a barrier when it comes up against the intelligence services. The most sensational case is that of Andreas T., an informant leader who was sitting in the Internet cafe in Kassel on April 6, 2006 when the owner, Halit Yozgat, was shot. Andreas T. lied, pretending that he didn't even know of the place. Police investigations on the suspicion of murder were shelved to protect his identity from becoming known, and the files of Hesse's intelligence service remain under lock and key.

Tino Brandt is another key figure for connections between the NSU and the intelligence services. The Thuringian “Nazi” was unmasked as an informant in 2001 and was branded a traitor in the right-wing scene. Since then, he's been convicted and sentenced for sexually assaulting a minor. The secret informers for the intelligence services are a pretty sleazy bunch. I believe these informers are there to stir up activism and petty crime that they can then report to the intelligence service, giving them cause for cracking down on right-wing parties or organizations.

The venerable German neo-Nazi party, the National Democratic Party of Germany, has become hopelessly riddled with informers and provocateurs. In response to a speech by Michèle Renouf, 'In defence of Germany's National Democratic Party', one acerbic commentator wrote:

Petronius

Posted March 14, 2016 at 7:06 pm |

NPD is by now a tiny, powerless, incompetent, non-influential, rapidly vanishing party, dozing in a limbo state or zombie mode, undermined to the hilt by Verfassungsschutz snitches and agent provocateurs, thus kept alive by the state to always have a brown bogeyman and a garbage dump for any right-wing thought ready. It is also burdened with a substantial share of hopelessly narrowminded sectarian NS nostalgics blocking any progress or broader popular appeal. I hope it dies as soon as possible, being undead already.

Finally, it should be noted that the German neo-Nazis do their cause no good when they make use of street-fighting tactics. Like the EDL, Britain First, the National Front and countless other British Far Right groups, the German nationalists make a practice of provocatively marching through indifferent or hostile neighbourhoods with the intention of arousing the communist Left, who show up in large numbers with the intention of 'smashing the fascists'. In what becomes a waste of taxpayer's money, large numbers of police are required to keep the two warring parties apart, and the bewildered and alienated townsfolk are treated to the sight of one group of misfits screaming and chanting at another group of misfits separated by a police line. The nationalists here are behaving like an invading army and they don't do any political work - they don't canvass the locals and try and work out what their concerns are. And by not appearing smart and well-turned out (like Norbert Hofer, Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen) and by dressing in weird outfits, they don't give those same locals a positive impression of nationalism.

 The large presence of skinheads and provocateurs in their ranks, along with the reliance upon confrontational tactics, explains, to a great extent, the decline in the NPD's electoral fortunes and the dim view Germans have of them. It's no wonder, then, that German voters are abandoning them for Alternative for Germany (AfD).

III.

It's parties such as the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) and the AfD which point the way forward for neo-Nazis - on the Continent and elsewhere in the West. The politicians of the FPÖ have enjoyed their recent success by campaigning mostly on local issues. Grass-roots politics is combined with a concern for social welfare. In an AFP article, 'Even in "Red Vienna", Austrian far-right is king' (May 7th, 2016), we find:

Paul Stadler, since October the FPOe head of Simmering council, is no fan of mass immigration, of Muslim "parallel societies" or "economic migrants" taking jobs from Austrians.

"Austria is still a Christian country, and at the moment it looks like we are being overrun by Islamism," Stadler told AFP. "We have 500,000 unemployed. The more we take in, the harder it is to deal with the native inhabitants."

But, he says, such matters are "for the television". His job as a local politician is to deal with day-to-day concerns like public transport -- something the left forgot how to do.

"The SPOe were very arrogant. They didn't listen to the people any more, they governed over their heads," Stadler said in his office in Simmering town hall. "We talk to the people, find out what the problems are and deal with them."

That strategy has won the FPÖ hundreds of thousands of working-class votes. It can be applied here in Australia. Nationalist activists campaigning for office only need to relegate Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, 'debating anti-whites' and 'fighting white genocide', the rights and wrongs of the wars in Syria and the Ukraine, predictions of race wars, conspiracy theories regarding the New World Order, to the background - the masses aren't interested in these subjects as we are - and concentrate on what the above AFP article calls 'day to day concerns'. Instead of imposing our ideological preoccupations and obsessions on the masses, we allow the masses to impose their wants, worries and cares on us.

 In Australia, we should look at running at the council level, not at the state and federal - which are the province of the two major parties. The councils represent the one chink in the enemy's armour.

To some, I may appear to be contradicting myself here: that I'm advocating neo-Nazism on one hand and advocating the doing away with it on the other. But one's radical ideology needn't be thrown out the window in the pursuit of electoral success: one can be a grass-roots populist and at the same time retain a political world-view which is radical and intellectual. The Militant Tendency in Liverpool in the 1980s gives us the best example of this. That crackbrained Trotskyite outfit infiltrated local Labour Party branches in Liverpool, got themselves elected to the City Council, and within a short amount of time achieved absolute control over that body. How did they do this? By listening to the working-classes and by breaking down Trotskyism - which, like all Marxist-Leninist theories, is highly esoteric and intellectual - into layman's terms. One could say that they returned Bolshevism to its roots. I argue that the same can be done for Hitlerism.

2016: This Year, Zios, the Gloves Are Off

I.

2015 turned out to be a tumultuous year in Australian Far Right politics. The Reclaim movement took off, drawing working-class crowds in the hundreds and shocking the mainstream political establishment - and the Far Left.

 Quite a few people on the 'old' Australian Far Right - Australian nativists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, race realists, you name it - jumped on board, and a handful even managed to end up in prominent leadership positions within Reclaim. But, inevitably, reaction set in. Whenever a Far Right and populist movement emerges in Australia, the mainstream Australian conservative party will a) either try and infiltrate it with a view to using it as a vehicle to garner more conservative votes or b) neutralise it through dirty tricks. We've seen shady political operatives working for the conservatives - particularly in New South Wales - try both approaches. That's business as usual for Australian politics, and not only for politics in Australia: look at Russia, where Putin has jailed one half of the Russian extreme-right movement and co-opted (through bribery, or force, or both) the other half. 

 One unexpected consequence (although it should have been foreseen by the nationalists participating in Reclaim) was that the Zios and the civics in Reclaim decided that they didn't like the presence of the nationalists, and so worked to purge them. To some members of the 'Old Guard' of Australian nationalism, this seemed eerily reminiscent of Nick Griffin's attempt at a purge of racialists and 'Nutzis' from the British nationalist movement over ten years ago. Then Griffin claimed to be a 'moderniser' who would remove the 'dead wood' - all the anti-Semites, racialists, neo-Nazis, Mosleyites, League of Empire loyalists, conspiracy theorists and the like - hanging around British nationalism's neck like an albatross for decades. A purge by Griffin, or so the narrative ran, would show the British middle-classes, and the British political establishment itself, that British nationalism had cleaned up its act and was now ready to assume office. At the time, Griffin's thesis - that the 'Young Turks' of nationalism needed to sweep the 'Old Guard' into the dustbin of history - seemed a beguiling one; at the time, I was willing, for the sake of argument, to give Griffin the benefit of doubt. But he crashed and burned, as we all know, and went back on his words. I've become leery of 'modernisers' ever since that experience, and after 2015 - when I've been lumped in the same camp as the 'Nutzis' scorned and excoriated by Griffin - I've become even more averse.

 This year shall require a Herculean effort: to boot the Zios and civics out of the Australian Far Right, to lock them out of the movement they helped create - Reclaim. This shall require a recourse to communist tactics (more later) and a twin effort: one from below, one from above. The effort from 'below' shall come from the grassroots of Australian nationalism, the effort from 'above', from those nationalists and patriots - real patriots, as opposed to 'civic' ones - who are located at the top of the Reclaim leadership.

 This, in turn, necessitates a different approach from the one usually taken in nationalist and racialist politics. Which is why I have little time for snide polemics like that found in a RamZPaul video, championed by Alt Right, here.

 Readers can watch the video, and read the responses at Alt Right, themselves. I have nothing to contribute to the debate, except to say that two lines seem to be emerging in the Far Right racialist movement: between those who don't have a problem with the historical German National Socialism and those who want to 'play it safe' by disavowing it. Within the context of its own (hyper racialist) philosophy, the latter camp (mostly based in America) doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Surely any white nationalist, racialist, race realist, Whitakerite, what have you, would champion Hitler?

 I am, at the moment, re-reading that great political text, Mein Kampf. In an old philosophy textbook, I once saw a reference to Nietzsche as the 'King of the One-Liners'. I don't know if that is true of Nietzsche (it probably is), but certainly, in the field of politics, it is of Hitler. Consider the following, taken from volume II, chapter II, 'The State':

But it is almost inconceivable how such a mistake could be made as to think that a Ni**r or a Chinaman will become a German because he has learned the German language and is willing to speak German for the future and even to cast his vote for a German political party.

Only with the extermination of the last race that possesses the gift of cultural creativeness, and indeed only if all the individuals of that race had also disappeared, would the earth definitely be turned into a desert.

On the other hand, a State may be called bad if, in spite of the existence of a high cultural level, it dooms to destruction the bearers of that culture by breaking up their racial uniformity.

Therefore, the worth of a State can be determined only by asking how far it actually succeeds in promoting the well-being of a definite race and not by the role which it plays in the world at large.

The protest which is put forward in the name of humanity does not fit the mouth of a generation that makes it possible for the most depraved degenerates to propagate themselves, thereby imposing unspeakable suffering on their own products and their contemporaries, while, on the other hand, contraceptives are permitted and sold in every drug store and even by street hawkers, so that babies should not be born even among the healthiest of our people.

They [the Christians] talk about the Spirit, but they allow man, as the embodiment of the Spirit, to degenerate to the proletarian level.

It will be the task of the People's State to make the race the centre of the life of the community.

[The People's State] must proclaim the truth that the child is the most valuable possession a people can have.

Provision must be made for the normally fertile woman so that she will not be restricted in child-bearing through the financial and economic system operating in a political regime that looks upon the blessing of having children as a curse to their parents.

Loyalty, self-sacrifice, and discretion are virtues which a great nation must possess.

Either the German youth will one day create a new State founded on the racial idea or they will be the last witnesses of the complete breakdown and death of the bourgeois world.

The man who demands from Fate a guarantee of his success deliberately denies the significance of an heroic act.

[On modern education] And, though it may seem incredible, many a boy is told that the gallows tree is waiting for him, because he has shown certain traits which might be of inestimable value in the nation as a whole.

[On social justice ] One can be proud of one's people only if there is no class left of which one need to be ashamed.

[The individual's] real purpose in life is to better himself and raise himself to a higher level as a human being, but this he can only do in and through the community, whose cultural life he shares.

Man should take care not to have too low an estimate of the power of an ideal.

I don't see how anyone who posts on Alt Right, American Renaissance, Counter-Currents, Steve Sailer and the rest can really object to the above - especially the quotations on race. They should embrace Mein Kampf as a great racialist text, on a par with the writings of Stoddard and Grant. But they don't - because they are afraid. Fair enough. But they seem, in the words of Keats, 'Half in love with easeful death'. If you look at the RamZPaul article, you find, on the left-hand column, a picture of 'radio priest' Father Coughlin, noted Depression-era American fascist (under the heading 'Alt Right Podcasts'), a mocked-up photo of Hitler with his arm on Afro-American athlete Jesse Owens' shoulder... One angry respondent to RamZPaul made the point that RamZPaul (and, by extension, Alt Right) depends on the white nationalist / neo-Nazi / racialist / '1488' brigade for their bread and butter, and yet he spits in their faces. Which raises a valid point: how often do you see communists festoon their sites with pictures of Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Marx and Engels - in an 'edgy' and 'ironic' way - and at the same time write articles lampooning and denouncing them?

 The truth of the matter is that the Nowickis and RamZPauls and the rest of the Americans belong in the nationalist, racialist, 'neo-Nazi', 'neofascist' camp (or whatever you want to call it) but don't want to get their hands dirty and engage in actual politics - not like we Australians are presently doing.

II.

The chapter, 'The State', probably stands as the most idealistic in Mein Kampf, and Hitler seems to be an ultra-idealist - I once complained to a nationalist friend that Mein Kampf was all theory, no politics. Unlike Hitler, I lack the capacity to make stirring speeches which appeal to the deepest longings of the human heart; in response to any speech of the Hitler type, I'll ask - as a practical man - 'OK, chief, I agree with you, so - how do we put your speech into action?'. I see a Hitler piece of writing as a problem needing to be fixed, and an especially difficult problem given that Mein Kampf seems to fill the Zios - not just the Jews, but the Zios - with an irrational, psychotic fury; they don't see the idealism, or the good, in Mein Kampf - quite the opposite. They lack all objectivity, they can't see the good, and bad, sides of the doctrine, and what's more, they loathe you if they discover that you have good things to say about it and become absolutely determined to destroy you.

 Most people view politics through the prism of elections, votes, parties, polls. I view it differently. Imagine politics as an endless archipelago, with the followers of each political tendency or movement clustered on a different island. Each clump of people represents only a small percentage of the population; you can't say that large percentages are neoliberal, or Trotskyite communist, or Catholic conservative, or whatever. In politics, you will be, as an activist, working with small groups most of the time: instead of hundreds of thousands, or millions of voters, you'll be dealing with groups the size of squads, platoons, sections, companies - each occupying their own little island. The communist groups - particularly the Trotskyite ones, which multiply like vermin - in Britain consist of only small numbers of people relative to the population and have never won a general election. But look at the damage they have wrought to Britain over the past four or so decades - it's incalculable.

 For me, politics - especially after 2015 - has become a war, a war for total control, and one waged between small units. By 'total control', I mean total and absolute control over the actions of a group on another island and the flow of information from one island to another. Some may call that impulse of mine totalitarian, and so be it: I've become a totalitarian.

 To give a concrete example of the above, let's take the Reclaim rallies. Many of the speakers there extol the virtues of courage, honour, loyalty, patriotism, fellow-feeling and they sound off against Islam - all of that is OK by me. But some, subtly, will work in Zio and civic themes into their speeches: they will praise multiculturalism, multiracialism, diversity, non-immigration (so long as the immigrants aren't Muslim); they will praise Churchill and denounce Hitler, German National Socialism, and the 'racists' and 'Nazis' in the audience (whoever they may be). I was told that, at a Reclaim rally in Perth, eight flags were festooned on the stage - six of them Israeli, two Australian. (I think we see the agenda of what Yockey calls the 'Culture Distorter' here). But if I ran the rallies, I'd make sure that there would be no Israeli flags. And I'd turn off the microphone the minute any of the Reclaim speakers started inserting, at random, references to Hitler, WWII, the National Socialists; if they started engaging in 'virtue signalling' by praising multi-culti and diversity. But then, I'd warn the speakers beforehand not to spout any of the Culture Distorter's drivel, and probably wouldn't have invited them to speak in the first place if I had identified them as civics and Zios. Politics becomes a battle of opinions, and we see, from Reclaim, that the Culture Distorters are, very cleverly and subtly, doing their best to divert the rage felt by the masses against Islam in Australia to safe channels: support for Israel, votes for the Liberal Party, support for a Dresden-style bombing of 'ISIS-held' areas of Syria and Iraq... The Culture Distorters mustn't be allowed to do this. I don't expect to hear extracts from Mein Kampf and Yockey's Imperium read at these rallies, but at the same time, I expect displays of Zionist fervour, gratuitous comparisons of the Koran to Mein Kampf, coddling of negroes and other non-whites in the audience to be omitted. I think that these demands are reasonable and simple enough for the rally organisers to meet, but I know that they won't be met - not until I and my tendency (the racial nationalist or nativist tendency or whatever you want to call it) have become, in effect, the sole rally organisers. We have to run everything, and when we give an order, we will see that it's obeyed. If that makes us 'fascist', 'totalitarian', then so be it.

 An outside observer may ask: 'Why the devil do you care about what is said and not said at a rally?'. I'll answer the question this way. The old cliché in politics goes, 'If you can't run your party, you can't run the country'. Like it or not, the vast number of nationalist and 'patriot' groups constitute my party. And if I, as a nativist or racialist or whatever, can't get the most basic strictures enforced, then how can I ever expect to run the country?

 Selznick wrote, in his Organizational Weapon (1953) that the NSDAP and the communist parties of Europe resembled a 'state within a state'. Now, one must ask: did those organisations permit anarchy in their ranks? Did they tolerate anarchy within their 'states within a state'? Or did every publication, every rally, every march, every demonstration, every radio broadcast not reflect one view, one line - the line held by those at the top...

III.

So how are the political battles of this year to be fought? By using certain communist tactics which seem to have been borrowed from the NSDAP (but it's hard to tell what came first - the chicken or the egg). To explain this, let's take a look at the British Labour Party.

 I wrote in a recent article that communists had succeeded in taking over that venerable British institution, the Labour Party. The Party had been falling into the communist orbit for some time - and it's hard to tell, from looking at its present array of MPs, who's a communist and who's not - and the mass infiltration of communist members, and subsequent election of Jeremy Corbyn, an unreconstructed eighties-era Trotskyite, represented the death blow to Labour's social democratic wing. But it looks like the takeover wasn't quite complete: pockets of resistance remain. Now the Corbynista Marxists in the party have set themselves the task of eradicating them...

 As to how they intend to do this, the Corbynistas appear to be taking a leaf out of the old communist playbook - one in particular by Jan Kozak, And Not a Shot is Fired (1999). In the late 1940s, communists in Eastern Europe managed to take over states which were ostensibly liberal democratic in what was a series of more or less bloodless coups. Kozak, a Czech communist, wrote two lengthy papers outlining the methods used and giving an ideological justification for them. These papers were collected and published in 1999 by a conservative American publisher who sought to warn the post-cold war world of the dangers of a resurgent communism. Roman Saskiw has done a short review on YouTube of the book here.

 To explain Kozak in a nutshell. In Eastern Europe after the war, the communist parties manage to a) get elected as part of a coalition government (which included many non-communist parties) and b) get control of two vital government departments - the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Information. Flows of information through the media were cut off, or regulated, by the communist-controlled Ministry of Information, while anyone belonging to one of the non-communist parties who take a stand against the communists was hounded, harassed, and even arrested, by the Ministry of Interior's secret police. Because of this pressure, politicians opposed to communism were often expelled from their parties and replaced with quiescent, pro-communist fellow travellers. Eventually the parliamentary majority held by the non-communist parties was whittled down. Meanwhile, the communists in the cabinet managed to get a few communist laws passed, nationalising key sectors of industry as well as churches and schools, introducing land reform, raising taxes on the wealthy... These procedures - or perhaps we should call them tactics, as we see that the entire thing resembles a war - made up what Kozak calls 'pressure from above'. 'From below', the communists organised a massive extra-parliamentary opposition, composed of trade unions, armed worker's militias, 'action committees', student groups and the like. These agitated in the usual communist manner and availed themselves of the usual protest methods - grievance meetings, resolutions, delegations to politicians' offices, demonstrations, strikes. During the assumption of power by the Czechoslovak communists in 1948, the 'action committees' even occupied factories and government offices. All of this was stage-managed by the communists; you could say the extra-parliamentary opposition was mobilised and deployed like a military unit on the battlefield.

 Kozak speaks of this as a 'two pincer' strategy: one from below, the other from above, bear down and crush liberal democracy like an eggshell. The Corbynistas are applying this method in miniature, but to the Labour Party, not to the British State itself. Corbyn can, as leader of the party, apply pressure from above to the 'old' Labour holdouts and to insubordinate MPs. 'Grass-roots' organisations such as Momentum - a communist front group - apply the pressure from below.

 Unfortunately for the Corbynistas, a secret paper (called 'Taking Control of the Party') by the director of Momentum, Jon Lansman, (ex-member of the notorious Trotskyite outfit the Militant Tendency) was leaked to the media. We find this account of 'Taking Control of the Party' in the lurid Daily Mail:

The document calls for control of:

Selections of all candidates for parliamentary seats and even appointments of all senior staff in the party. The NEC [National Executive Committee] currently has nothing to do with recruitment.

Making policy - all Labour policies would have to be put to members for debate before they can be adopted, which would give Mr Corbyn a chance to change party policy on Trident. But it would provoke a major row with his shadow cabinet and unions, who largely support renewal of the nuclear deterrent.

Media strategy: a 'communications committee' would be set up to 'oversee the party's media and campaign messages' – implying it would vet all the press releases of shadow ministers. It would also develop a programme of unspecified 'political education activity'.

Boundaries: most chilling for moderate MPs, it lays out how Mr Corbyn's supporters could get involved of the review of constituency boundaries in 2018, in which some MPs will lose their seats. If the hard Left seized control of this independent process they could ensure moderate MPs are ousted in favour of Mr Corbyn's supporters.

The Mail goes on to say:

Mr Corbyn has the support of only a small number of Labour MPs but was elected with an enormous mandate from party members and assorted left-wingers who signed up to vote for £3.

His supporters have been trying to tighten their grip on the party's machinery. They already have a majority on the NEC - the main administrative body which has representatives from local parties, unions, MPs and affiliated groups - after installing members from hard Left unions and Corbyn-supporting MPs.

Now this is real politics. One can't imagine a RamZPaul or a Greg Johnson or Andy Nowicki or Jared Taylor engaging in it.

IV.

One has to ask - when looking at the history of Eastern Europe in the late 1940s - why the non-communists allowed the communists to get away with what they did - why they didn't put up more resistance. The answer lies in the prestige and power of the socialist idea. This idea had few detractors in intellectual circles: you didn't find many propagandists and agitators for neoliberalism and free-market capitalism in those days. Besides which, the masses really didn't understand that communist program - nationalisation, collectivisation, five-year plans, forced requisitioning of produce from peasants - entails misery. Communism resembles a confidence trick which can only be pulled off once. Having fallen for it once, the peoples of Russia and China - after 1990 - aren't going to fall for it again. Today's Far Left knows this fact and feels depressed by it.

 But, at the time of the East European coups - the late 1940s - the Marxist ideal stood high. The communists spent a lot of time attacking their social democrat rivals for falling short of that ideal. They intended to 'expose' and 'unmask' the social democrats before the 'masses': they informed the 'masses' that the social democrats weren't the real deal, that the social democrats had sold out to capitalism and the bourgeoisie and were diverting the working peoples from true socialism. This strategy proved to be quite effective. The communists would ask, 'If you want socialism, why settle for half-measures? Why not go the whole hog? Doesn't social democracy represent a step down?'; the social democrats were unable to answer these questions adequately. On a subconscious level, they felt guilt, and it could be said that the communists were able to guilt-trip the majority of them into submission. 

 This 'unmasking' strategy paid dividends for the communists at a time when the prestige of socialism - and Marxism - was soaring; it can pay dividends for we nationalists today. We know from the history of the Weimar Republic that the NSDAP's rivals on the Far Right - Hugenberg's German National People's Party (DNVP) - promulgated a German nationalism that agreed with German National Socialism on many points, and from a superficial perspective, the ideology of the two parties look identical. But Hugenberg was selling soft soap, just like the social democrats, and in the end the 'moderate' Hugenberg was defeated by the 'extremist' Hitler. A lesson there can be found for us. No doubt, in those election campaigns in the early 1930s, National Socialist agitators asked the question, 'Why vote for a watered-down German nationalism when you can have the real thing?'. The question doesn't have a real answer. If the Hugenbergites made the rejoinder, 'Hitler is too extreme, Hugenberg is a moderate, a sensible man, a man who'll get things done', they'd have put themselves on the back foot and appeared defensive. 

 The applications of this strategy to the present dispute between Reclaim and the nationalists seem obvious. The nationalists can make the argument: 'Why cut only Muslim immigration? Why not all immigration? After all, White Australia was a national institution which came to an end only fifty years ago. What real "patriot" would be against White Australia? Or does the so-called "patriot" movement support the state-sanctioned multi-cultism of Whitlam and Fraser... Are we rolling that multi-cultism back? At all? You don't sound like a "patriot" to me'. Many nationalists dwell in the Reclaim ranks, some of them in leadership positions. They can be made to feel ashamed - guilt-tripped - for supporting a movement which a) equates the Koran with Mein Kampf, b) supports non-white immigration and c) supports Israel.

 These nationalists can serve as the men on the inside; like Corbyn's communists within the Labour Party, they can apply pressure 'from above' and carry out the Eastern European communist program of, in Selznick's words, 'purges, indoctrination and intimidation'. In turn, 'spontaneous', 'grass-roots' mass organisations can pressure Reclaim 'from below'.

 Really, though, everything turns on the nationalists within Reclaim. Do they have the requisite strength to carry out the task of de-Zionifying and de-civicising the Reclaim movement from within? Can they demonstrate the toughness and political acumen of the Corbynistas or the East European communists? Or the NSDAP, for that matter? We need political operators who are tough men, men who'll eat glass for breakfast. Can we find them?

 On the answer to that, the future of nationalism in Australia depends.

An Australian nationalist SYRIZA?

　
I.
　
The answer - or part of the answer - to the problem of Zionism on the Australian Far Right came to me recently when I watched the famous six-part BBC documentary The Death of Yugoslavia (1995) online. Part one - 'Enter Nationalism' - chronicles the fall of communism in Yugoslavia and contains footage of two dramatic conferences. The first of these sees the rise to power of the 'nationalist' faction within the Serbian branch of the Yugoslav Communist Party, the other, the breakup of the Yugoslav Communist Party itself. Here the Yugoslav politicians stand revealed for what they had been perhaps all along: men of a nationalist and social democratic bent, who never fully subscribed to the communist ideology but joined the party out of expediency or a hunger for power or both. They had been forced, by circumstances, to swallow communism and submit to the procedures of the communist party, procedures which had been devised by genuine communists such as Tito. While all this was a rather unique political phenomenon - unique to its time and place - it was one which I felt had applications to Australian Far Right politics. Watching the documentary led me to think, speculatively, that we nationalists in Australia needed something similar to the Yugoslav communist party: a structure which would unite for the time being all the disparate groups and individuals on the Far Right into one and force them to abide by a common code of conduct, parliamentary procedure and ideological platform. Such a party would contain Zios and 'civics' in addition to genuine nationalists. The advantage of it would be that, in effect, the party and its conferences would give we nationalists a means of dealing with our enemies the Zio bosses. We would possess the means to bring them to heel. Recalcitrants who did not abide by the party rules would find themselves disciplined and even expelled, and because of the monopoly of the new party, any expellee would find themselves locked out, not just out of the party, but of the Australian Far Right as a whole.

Just as the more successful communist parties in Europe - SYRIZA in Greece, PODEMOS in Spain, Left Bloc in Portugal - achieved unity by bringing together all of the Far Left, my projected organisation would achieve unity by bringing together all of the Far Right.

On the Far Left, the communist parties which stay aloof and sectarian remain small and achieve little - the rigid and dour Greek communist party, the KKE, scored less than the Golden Dawn at the last Greek election. One of the arguments made by contemporary left-wing scholars is that the Russian communist party, for the first twenty years or so of its existence, operated just like SYRIZA or PODEMOS - as an all-encompassing party of the broad Left. The evidence seems to support that notion, and historical evidence probably will reveal that all the successful communist parties in history - including the Yugoslav - started out much the same way as SYRIZA or PODEMOS. It's probably the case that people of extreme left convictions gravitated towards the early communist parties, not necessarily because they had a Marxist disposition, but because they had nowhere else to go. In other words, these organisations, in their early days at least, functioned more as broad left-wing movements and not as parties, and so managed to catch more people.

Some of those on the Far Right of a sectarian bent - and I am a sectarian myself - would object to my proposal of a nationalist SYRIZA. They see alliances or collaborations as proof of one's weakness. To paraphrase the title of a chapter in Mein Kampf, 'The Strong is Strongest when Alone': strong groups don't need other groups. If you aim to be dogmatic and pure - just like Hitler or Lenin or Mao or Stalin - you need to make it a point of principle not to work with politicians of an opposing tendency. The NSDAP, or the communists, didn't succeed that way. Australian nationalists, then, shouldn't leave any room for Zios or civics.

This point of view is problematic because, historically speaking, the communists and the fascists did work with other groups and wouldn't have won power without them. The NSDAP collaborated with the German People's Party (DVP), a Far Right, conservative and bourgeois party led by the industrialist Hugenberg, in the early days of the National Socialist regime, and the votes of the DVP allowed Hitler's Enabling Act of 1933 - which gave the NSDAP unlimited power in the aftermath of the Reichstag fire - to pass. After the war, the German Communist Party formed a coalition with the German equivalent of the Australian Labor Party - the SPD (Social Democrat Party) - and a new party called the Socialist Unity Party (SED). And, like a good many post-war communist parties, the Yugoslav Communists gained office as part of a 'National Front'; the People's Front of Yugoslavia, which ostensibly ran Yugoslavia after the war, contained a total of eight non-communist political parties.

To return to our idea of a nationalist and Zio 'national' or 'united' 'front': in my opinion, something like it will come about of its own accord. Nearly all the organisations on the Australian Far Right at present are seeking registration as political parties, and, to my knowledge, are struggling to do so; none of them seem able of achieving the membership numbers of institutions such as the Liberal Party (80,000), the Labor Party (54,000) and the Greens (10,000). This is despite the fact that many Australians - hundreds of thousands, if not millions - agree with certain of the stated goals of the Australian Far Right (e.g., the desire to cut immigration). So, sooner or later the aspiring registrants will come to the realisation that only if they form a grand coalition of sorts will they attain the same numbers as, say, the Greens. They will need to follow the example of the Mediterranean neo-communist parties which have proven to be so successful.

Why don't the aspiring registrants see this already? The answer lies in Australia's Anglo-Saxon national character. We Australians show a predilection for the three vices of the Anglo-Saxons: 1) parliaments; 2) individualism; 3) competition. We adhere to the ideology of parliament, liberal democracy and elections because that's all we've ever known. The first instinct of any radical right-wing would-be politician is to form a political party which will compete against the others (in a kind of Darwinian struggle), run in elections and get a seat in parliament. Politics to an Australian consists of this and only this.

Now, while no-one can argue that bourgeois individualism of the Anglo-Saxon type hasn't achieved great things in the economic sphere - even Karl Marx admitted as much in his Communist Manifesto (1848) - it has proven to be disastrous in the political. For one, it is leading our country - and the West - to disaster through mass, non-white immigration, immigration on a scale hitherto unseen in history. Only a socialism and a collectivism which are the very reverse of the Anglo-Saxon individualist impulse can save the West now.

On that note, one of my main objections to Zionism and 'civicism' is that the Zio and 'civic' parties mean business as usual - a continuation of the policies that have gotten us into trouble in the first place. England, in the words of songwriter Ian Stuart, went from an empire to a slum because of its refusal to shut its borders, and England embodies the Anglo-Saxon ideals of liberty, individualism, parliaments, tolerance and competition. England - along with two other Anglo-Saxon nations - the US and Australia - waged a ferocious war against Germany as part of the 'United Nations'; as the victor of that war, it helped devise the humanist, internationalist, globalist and multiculturalist ideology of the Nuremberg trials (and today's UN) and imposed it on Germany and all the nations of the Western world - including itself. England, by dint of its ideology has ended up destroying itself - from being coloniser it has gone to being colonised, by India, Africa and Islam.

The Trump candidacy - along with European populist parties such as the Swedish Democrats, Wilders' Party of Freedom, and the Front National - represent a resistance to the post-Nuremberg new world order, even if they don't admit it; so does the Reclaim movement (Reclaim Australia, UPF, Aussie Infidels United, Rise Up!, Australian Defence League and the rest). But Reclaim has been infected: by Zionism and Anglo-Saxon individualism, and the humanism and multiracialism of the post-war era.

One thing Reclaim has done right - and this constitutes its only genuinely 'socialist' act - is to bring the working-classes together as a political unit. And this is precisely what Reclaim's enemies - the communists and the bourgeois political establishment - fear. As Hitler writes in Mein Kampf:
This class [the proletariat] does not include the worst elements of the community in its ranks. Rather the contrary is the truth: it includes the most energetic parts of the nation. The sophistication which is the result of a so-called civilisation has not yet exercised its disintegrating and degenerating influence on this class. The broad masses of this new lower class, constituted by the manual labourers, have not yet fallen a prey to the morbid weakness of pacifism. These are still robust and, if necessary, they can be brutal.

One can't have a revolution without the workers:
New champions are attracted to a cause by the appeal of great sacrifices made for its sake, until that indomitable spirit is finally crowned with success. For such a result, however, the children of the people from the great masses are necessary. They alone have the requisite determination and tenacity to fight a sanguinary issue through to the end.

Hitler remarks of the Pan-Germans, 'The Pan-German Movement did not have these broad masses as its champions and so no other means of solution could be tried out except that of entering parliament'. Further on that theme:
Faulty recognition of the inner driving forces that urge great movements forward led to an inadequate appreciation [by the Pan-Germans] of the part which the broad masses play in bringing about such changes. The result was that too little attention was given to the social problem and that the attempts made by the Movement to capture the minds of the lower classes were too few and too weak. Another result was the acceptance of the parliamentary policy, which had a similar effect in regard to the importance of the masses.

Like the communists, Hitler was very much concerned with gaining the allegiance of the workers. He understood, however, that communists had taken over the worker's movement - that is, organised labour - lock, stock and barrel; the workers, then, couldn't be reached that way. His political problem became one of bypassing the traditional communist bastion of the trade union in an attempt to appeal directly to the masses.

We nationalists in Australia find ourselves in a similar quandary. Simply put, we need the working-classes at the Reclaim rallies - the blue collars disdained by the Australian Left as 'toothless bogans' and 'lumpenproles' - but the Zio bosses stand in our way; they are determined not to allow any of the 'hardcores' - the nationalists and racialists - to reach the working-class attendees.

It's imperative that we surmount this obstacle. As Hitler writes in Mein Kampf (here sounding
somewhat Maoist):
A movement which has great ends to achieve must carefully guard against the danger of losing contact with the masses of the people. Every problem encountered must be examined from this viewpoint first of all and the decision to be made must always be in harmony with this principle. The movement must avoid everything which might lessen or weaken its power of influencing the masses; not from demagogical motives but because of the simple fact that no great idea, no matter how sublime and exalted it may appear, can be realised in practice without the effective power which resides in the popular masses.

So what's the solution?

Firstly, we nationalists to avail ourselves of the traditional communist method for reaching the masses: we need to form 'mass organisations', that is, front groups. Secondly, we need to jump on the anti-Islamic bandwagon and use opposition to Islam as a stepping stone for greater things.
We can achieve both by a) forming an anti-Islamic think tank (or 'hate tank', as one of my friends wittily puts it) and b) forming a rough-and-ready anti-Islamic street group (based primarily around social media) composed mainly of working-class people. Through the two fronts, we'll serve the same dish as the mainstream anti-Islamics, but it'll be anti-Islam without the Zionism, multiracialism, neoconservatism...

In addition to the above, we need to work on building unity amongst the nationalist and Zio groups. We do this by circumventing the Zio bosses and appealing directly to the rank and file. Furthermore, we won't make the demand that these organisations give up their separate existences; nor should we dissuade them from attempting federal registration. The main thing is to offer fraternal assistance and to offer to work as a co-ordinating center for groups and individuals of varying ideological persuasions.

Things may turn out well for this proposed co-ordinating structure; in time, it may even serve as the skeleton for a genuine mass party (as opposed to a sect or micro-party). The organisation may turn out to be the Australian nationalist version of SYRIZA; we could find a handsome and youngish man like Alex Tsipras to front it...

Finally, we need to concentrate on forming a federation composed of non-Zio Australian nationalist groups - the one proposed in the last article - and one built upon a platform of nationalist unity and 'No room for Zionism'. To negotiate with the Zios, we need to negotiate from a position of strength, and strength comes from unity.

All of the four proposed groups - the think tank, the anti-Islamic street group, the nationalist federation and the SYRIZA-type vehicle - need to be ordered the same way. The members (or delegates for the members) vote on a central committee for the organisation at a national congress and approves a constitution or set of bylaws. Membership of the organisation can be quite broad, as can the makeup of the central committee, which will serve as a plenary body of the organisation. The central committee goes on to elect a 'central organ', which serves as the editorial board of any publications and determines the ideological line of the organisation. Finally, a general secretary is elected.

One mustn't make the criteria for membership for any organisation too narrow: especially in the case of the mass organisations, we don't want to turn away interested parties; we need to appeal to a broad cross-section.

At the same time, a founding document - the constitution - must make clear, from the start, what the rules and responsibilities of the membership are, and be specific about the grounds for discipline and expulsion.

Astute readers will have noted the parallels between the above structure and those of the communist parties. Indeed, the communists adopted the simple tripartite form (central committee, central organ, secretary) for all their organisations. The government of the USSR itself was composed of a 'Central Committee of the USSR' or 'Supreme Soviet' (central committee), a 'Presidium of the Central Committee' (central organ), and a 'Premier' or 'Chairman' and his 'Council of Ministers' or 'Council of People's Commissars' (secretariat, here the prime minister and his cabinet). The 'Central Committee of the USSR' was elected by a 'Congress of the Soviets of the Soviet Union'.

I should emphasise here the simplicity and reproducibility of these structures. Communism possesses a beautiful simplicity, like Islam, and it's the simplicity which makes both doctrines so successful. As Hitler writes of communism:
Social-Democracy and the whole Marxist movement were particularly qualified to attract the great masses of the nation, because of the uniformity of the public to which they addressed their appeal. The more limited and narrow their ideas and arguments, the easier it was for the masses to grasp and assimilate them; for those ideas and arguments were well adapted to a low level of intelligence.

II.


The communist party serves as a microcosm of the communist state. That is, the state is run along the same lines as the party. Australian nationalists should keep this in mind: any future organisation - such as a SYRIZA-type organisation which will bring the nationalists and the 'civics' together, a 'National Front' - will constitute in miniature a future nationalist government.

This brings us to the topic of organisation. Marxist-Leninism strikes outsiders as a deeply theoretical doctrine, but what makes communism is not so much the theory as the organisation. In political terms, the theories of Marxism - dialectical materialism, surplus value, Mao's theorising on 'contradictions', Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution - don't count for much; what matters more is the set communist way of going about things.

What makes fascism - and in particular, German National Socialism - so different from other nationalist, racialist and Far Right ideologies is that fascism copies the communist methods. Hitler shares the Marxist-Leninist obsession with cadres, 'party training schools', and the necessity of highly deployable cadre / leader-types. (An example of the latter, from Mein Kampf: 'The movement should acquire the necessary funds to attract and train intelligent people who would be capable of becoming leaders... The personnel thus obtained could then be systematically employed according as the tactical situation and the necessity for efficiency demanded...').

But what makes Hitler different from the Marxists? One could point to the obvious differences in political theory: Marxists subscribe to egalitarianism, multiracialism, theories of class struggle and the rest, Hitler the opposite. But I think the most significant point of difference lies in the attitude. We know that communism is dogmatic, intolerant, fanatical, hierarchical, authoritarian; but communists pretend to others - and even to themselves - that the opposite is true. Hitler, on the other hand, says, 'Yes, the National Socialists are just as fanatical, authoritarian, etc., as the communists, but unlike them, we are proud of it!'. Hitler gives in Mein Kampf a long description of how the NSDAP works which, in fact, is an almost perfect description of a communist party works in reality:
The nature and internal organisation of the new movement make it anti-parliamentarian. That is to say, it rejects in general and in its own structure all those principles according to which decisions are to be taken on the vote of the majority and according to which the leader is only the executor of the will and opinion of others. The movement lays down the principle that, in the smallest as well as in the greatest problems, one person must have absolute majority and bear all responsibility.

In our movement the practical consequences of this principle are the following:
The president of a large group is appointed by the head of the group immediately above his in authority. He is then the responsible leader of his group. All the committees are subject to his authority and not he to theirs. There is no such thing as committees that vote but only committees that work. This work is allotted by the responsible leader, who is the president of the group. The same principle applies to the higher organisations - the Bazirk (district), the Kreis (urban circuit) and the Gau (the region). In each case the president is appointed from above and is invested with fully authority and executive power. Only the leader of the whole party is elected, at the general meeting of the members. But he is the sole leader of the movement. All the committees are responsible to him, but he is not responsible to the committees. His decision is final, but he bears the whole responsibility of it. The members of the movement are entitled to call him to account by means of a new election, or to remove him from office if he has violated the principles of the movement or has not served its interests adequately. He is then replaced by a more capable man, who is invested with the same authority and obliged to bear the same responsibility.

One of the highest duties of the movement is to make this principle imperative not only within its own ranks but also for the whole State.

Hitler then goes on to make an astonishingly frank admission:
Our movement must necessarily be anti-parliamentarian, and if it takes part in the parliamentary institution it is only for the purpose of destroying this institution from within; in other words, we wish to do away with an institution which we must look upon as one of the gravest symptoms of human decline.

No communist would ever speak like this. As stated before, communists like to portray themselves as liberal, pacifist, humanist, egalitarian, democratic - as 'Left'. Once you come up close to them, you learn otherwise; but they maintain the deception - and it is a deception - for a long time. They call their version of the Führerprinzip 'democratic' centralism.

One reason why they cling to the 'Left' standpoint and phraseology is that, originally, Russian communism sprang from German social democracy - liberal and democratic socialism - and could never quite shake off the influence - theoretical, at least - of its liberal and Western predecessor. The other reason is that communists, for most of their history, needed to hide their true intentions - and their standard operating procedures - from others who are more liberal and humanist-minded, especially those in the West. They needed to conceal themselves. To that end, they lived half-in, half-out of darkness. In contrast, the fascists sought the spotlight and announced their intentions, their standard operating procedures, plainly, frankly, proudly, to the world. You can find braggadocio, even arrogance, in Mein Kampf.

But now, it seems, the shoe is on the other foot: it's the nationalists and the racialists who need to hide. The roles have been reversed. Much of communism has gone mainstream, and Western establishment politicians today stand further to the left than they did ten or twenty years ago.

Regardless of this, we nationalists must push on, and must continue to organise - as the communists do, as Hitler did. Reclaim's critics on the Far Right attack them for their multi-cultism, their anti-racism, their lack of an outlook grounded in racialism and nationalism - true enough. But the racialist world view - or völkisch worldview, as Hitler calls it - doesn't accomplish anything unless it is given political form. Hitler gives a long exposition of the racialist idea in the chapter 'Weltanschauung and Party' in Mein Kampf, but remarks that it is doomed to remain a hazy, metaphysical abstraction unless it is made political. The ideas of Christ and his followers would have forever stayed religious, spiritual and metaphysical if the Catholic Church - and the later Protestant denominations - had not made them hierarchical, even political.
A general conception of life can never be given an organic embodiment until it is precisely and definitely formulated. The function which dogma fulfils in religious belief is parallel to the function which party principles fulfil for a political party which is in the process of being built up. Therefore for the conception of life that is based on the folk idea it is necessary that an instrument be forged which can be used in fighting for this ideal, similar to the Marxist party organisation.... [emphasis mine]

And to conclude:
Through this political doctrine it is possible to bring great masses of the people into an organisation which is constructed as rigidly as it could be.
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

Smash the Zio bosses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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