Deadbeats in the Movement: the Extreme Left, the Extreme Right and the Scum

Again and again one has to ask: why is that extremist political movements, of both the extreme Left and Right, attract so deadbeats, losers, mentally-subnormal people, wasters, lumpenproles, scum?

I have to qualify my statement here, and specify which type of person I'm talking about. The type is: someone who is intensely alienated from their community and the society around them; who doesn't have the strength to hold down a job; is constantly in debt or in financial trouble, is pursued by creditors, or chased by debt-collectors, who can't, or won't pay utilities bills, phone bills, Internet bills, etc.; who has a history of brushes with the law; who can't be trusted with money or any sort of responsibility; who generally isn't someone you'd want, over in your house, for dinner, or to live with, or work with; who often suffers from what modern-day psychologists call a 'personality disorder'; who won't keep their house, their front yard, or anything, clean and tidy; who, in general, is a species apart, from all the apparently nice, normal decent people who appear to make up around 90% or so of the white population out there, who we live with, socialise with and work with.

I have run into, quite often, people of this type, on both sides of politics. On the Far Right, frequently, this type isn't interested, a jot, in the (white) community and society around them, or the fate and well-being of the Western culture and civilisation as a whole; in fact, they are so alienated from it - so far outside its traditional laws, customs and morals - they would be freaks and outcasts even in an ethnically-homogenous white society (like that of the 1950s and 1960s). They are racialist, but not out of love, or a sense of involvement with, or a feeling of concern with, the white race and the white peoples of the West. No, they are racialist, merely out of a desire to place themselves above, to hierarchisise themselves, the Chinese, Indian and Arab immigrant populations. They may be low in the totem pole, so to speak, among white people, but, they assure themselves, they are superior - in some way - to the Chinese, the Indians, the Muslims. We nationalists know what type of groups, within the nationalist spectrum, individuals of this type gravitate to (I won't name any of them here, lest I offend the sensibilities of "comrades" in the movement).

On the Left, the situation is, more often than not, just as bad. We have anarchists who live in squats, on a level little better than the animals whose rights they claim to champion; sexual deviates, who use their deviancy as the basis of a (wholly new, and really un-Marxist) form of anti-capitalist and neo-Marxist politics; ferals and dirty, grubby hippie types, often young, who waste time and money (not their own, but money from the welfare state) on pointless "anti-fascist" "activism", instead of marrying, starting a family, working, providing for one's children, paying off a mortgage and mowing the front lawn, like most decent white people do.

The good-for-nothings on the Left claim to represent the working classes, and some of the good-for-nothings on the Right claim to be "National Socialists" in the German tradition. But (bear in mind that the NSDAP was the National Socialist German Workers Party) neither of them work. It takes discipline to hold down a job, which can sometimes be a drudgery; which can require getting up, very early in the morning, and commuting long distances; and working with unpleasant (and, nowadays, often Chinese, Muslim, African and Indian) colleagues and a customer base. And that is a discipline that our good-for-nothings just don't have.

It is these people who are the true race traitors. While the immigrant Indian or Chinese comes to our country, marries, breeds (and non-white immigrants to Australia are prolific breeders), gets a job, takes a mortgage, and brings more and more of his relatives, from his country, and takes full advantage of the existing opportunities here, the deadbeat Leftist or nationalist does nothing: he lives as a fringe person in his own society. By living what is (by the standards of any society) a worthless and immoral existence, he is leaving the country wide open for exploitation, by non-whites, who will take up all the obligations of a normal working, family person and thereby end up supplanting him in his own country. The Leftist or nationalist who is a deadbeat is, in effect, practising individualism - and by individualism, I mean a lack of any responsibility to one's white community as a whole.

Why? Both the extreme Left and Right are fringe movements (for the time being) and, as a result, tend to attract fringe people: that's the conventional answer. I wonder, now, though, whether this explanation really goes to the root of the problem: I'm becoming more and more convinced that the answer lies in ideology.

In Marxism and anarchism, for example, we have an anti-work ideology. Marx famously refused to work, and support his wife and children, because he was determined not be a labouring machine, exploited by capitalism for profit. (We can see, of course, how Das Kapital justifies precisely this sort of attitude). As a result, his wife and children starved, and lived in squalor - simply because the father, the traditional breadwinner and patriarch, refused to perform his duties. Anarchism is the same, of course, but at least they are a little more honest about 'not liking work' than the Marxists.

In nationalism, however: where does the justification come from? Well, one has to look at the work of our most revered intellectuals. Take this excerpt from Savitri Devi's The Lightning and the Sun, 'Kalki, the Avenger':

The streets are full of dregs of humanity, at least full of bastards and of sub-men. One only has to look at the faces one sees in the over-crowded buses, or in the cinemas and dancinghalls and cafes in large towns, nay even in small ones, even in the countryside, everywhere, save in those lands in which the dominant race is relatively pure. It is a pitiful sight; a pitiful world; a world up-side-down; a world in which the average cat or dog is, as such, immeasurably healthier, more beautiful — more perfect — than the average man or woman and a fortiori than the average post-1945 State ruler; nearer to the ideal archetype of his species than most present-day human beings and specially than the official (and the hidden) leaders of the present-day “free world” — President Eisenhower (or rather, Mr. Baruch) Churchill, Mendes-France, etc., (let alone their most obedient servants Konrad Adenauer, Theodor Heuss and Co) — ever were to the ideal archetype of man, God’s masterpiece.

If only the, ugly sub-men were capable of lofty thoughts — or simply
of thought — that would be something! But they are not. And their leaders are worse than they, not better. True, they all speak of “free thinking”; speak of it, and write about it. They criticise their former friends (the Communists) for “killing individual thought.” Yet they are themselves the first ones to lack both freedom of judgement and individuality. They all have the same views; and the same ideal. Their views are those of the ruling press. Their ideal is to “get on in life,” i.e., to make money and to “be happy,” which means: to enjoy tasty food, fine clothing, lodgings provided with the latest commodities; and, in addition to that, as often as possible, a little drink, a little light music, a little sport, a little love-making. Maybe, they call themselves Christians — or Hindus, or anything else. But whatever religion they might profess, their faith is skin-deep. Nothing, absolutely nothing more-than-personal — and, a fortiori, more-than-human, — interests them. The one thing they all pray for, when they pray at all, is “peace”; not the unassailable, inner peace of the Best (of which they have not the foggiest experience), but peace in the sense of absence of war; the indefinite prolongation of a “status quo” which allows them to think of to-morrow’s little pleasure without the fear of to-day’s deadly danger; peace, thanks to which they will, undisturbed, — so they hope — be able to go on rotting in the midst of that increasing comfort, which technical progress secures them; peace, thanks to which they expect to remain (or gradually to become) happy — in the manner pigs are happy, when they have plenty to eat and clean straw to lie upon.

Hardly the thoughts of someone who is 'well-adjusted'! Now, of course, the brilliant Devi has an axe to grind, true. But the sort of alienation, evinced in the above quotation, is hardly conducive to discipline - the discipline of paying one's bills; paying one's debts; of getting up on time; of going to work; of caring for people who are dependent on you and more vulnerable than you (e.g., children); of not lying... In short, if you start to think things really are as bad as Devi says, you are not going to put the effort in - into working, keeping alive, being a responsible person in this society of ours.

Without the acknowledgement of customs and rules - and a society is made up of customs and rules - a society, no matter what colour it is, just can't survive. The reason why Anglo-Saxon societies (such as in North America, or (white) South Africa, or Australia and New Zealand) do so well is that, traditionally, they have stuck, more than most, to these rules. Whereas certain other ethnic groups - even within the white race - don't stick to these rules, and in fact, seem to be convinced that lying (for instance) in business, or everyday life, is a way of 'getting ahead'.

In the same way, someone who reads Das Kapital, and believes in it, is going to be less inclined to work in the capitalist system. After all, the central thesis of that book is that anyone who does work is getting 'done over', exploited, and horribly, by the capitalist, for the sake of capitalist profits. Labour, in the capitalist economy, is, in essence, exploitation, pure and simple. This intellectual thesis filters down to the deadbeat, work-shy Leftist.

The deadbeats in the nationalist scene, of course, often (in my experience, at any rate) don't read Savitri Devi (they tend not to read at all). But ideas, at the top end of the spectrum, have a tendency to filter down to the lower end. The ideas of a Devi, a Yockey, an Evola, do tend to descend to the (less intellectual) on the Far Right, and so a lumpenprole will find his justification - morally, ideologically - for his deeds in some of the ideas of these great thinkers.

This raises an interesting question. Many nationalists ask me how we can go about attracting more 'normal people' to nationalism, and how, at the same time, can induce the freaks, weirdos, lumpenproles to go away. One possible answer is that we can change our movement by changing our ideas. We have to look - take a long, deep, hard look - at the intellectuals whose work provides the basis of our movement. What idea, or set of ideas, is it that attracts these freaks and weirdos? Which thinker, which book?

Guerrilla Nationalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is, how to do it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breivik, and what Israel has done to the Movement

Breivik is mad. Like a good many madmen of his type, he is attracted to joining secret societies (the Freemasons, a "Knights Templar" organisation which may have never existed accept in his head) and wearing odd costumes (only recently, he has requested that he be allowed to wear a special uniform to his first court appearance). While not a psychiatrist, I am sure that he will be diagnosed as schizophrenic, narcissistic, histrionic and the rest. What concerns me here - and what should concern the nationalist movement - is that his actions stemmed, by a crazed logic, from his pro-Israel, anti-Muslim, anti-Left but anti-racialist (or, as he calls it in his voluminous manifesto, anti-'ethnocentric) political beliefs. All his ideological firepower, so to speak, was aimed at Islam - and he states, repeatedly, that he has no objection to immigrants that assimilate, and that his objections to Muslims aren't on the grounds of race (in fact, he chides the BNP for being too 'ethnocentric'; and, as for white nationalist and Neo-Nazi types, he abominates them). This deracinated, pro-Israel and anti-Muslim ideology is inspired, in turn, by the slew of professional anti-Muslim bloggers on Document.Nu, Atlas Shrugs, Gates of Vienna, Jihad Watch, and others. In turn, politically, this ideology makes itself felt in Geert Wilders, the Danish People's Party, the Norwegian Progress Party (of which Breivik was once a member) and the English Defence League.

This is where Breivik stands. A great many professional Anti-Fascist media types have tried to link Breivik with white racialism, Neo-Nazism and neofascism; the British tabloids, always obsessed by bringing everything back to the Germans, Hitler and National Socialism, have pinned the label 'Neo-Nazi' on him. But, unfortunately for them, Breivik has left us an obsessively detailed political manifesto which tells us what his exact position is (he declares, outright, that he is part of the 'Gates of Vienna' school). This has saved journalists the trouble of working out what Breivik's ideology was exactly, and so now, thanks to it, the truth is beginning to emerge.

Another problem, for the anti-racist agitators, is that the victims of the attack were primarily white Norwegians. (The picture above is of the teenage attendees at the Labour Party youth camp in Utoeya, who have barricaded themselves in a room and are listening while Breivik, outside, is shooting their friends dead). Breivik didn't park a truck bomb outside a Norwegian mosque, and he didn't shoot up a Muslim neighbourhood in downtown Oslo. While he may have hated Muslims, his violence was directed at whites. (The footage of blood-splattered Norwegians, clambering from the rubble of the bombed government building, is shocking to Western media audiences: we are used to seeing blown-up people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine, Libya - but blown-up people who are non-white, not women who look like our mothers, grandmothers, aunts and sisters). Again, this truth can't be ignored - neither can the fact that the mourners, in Norway, are white to the last man, woman and child. (The immigrant and Muslim population of Norway doesn't seem to have turned out to mourn, despite immigrants being now 11% of the Norwegian population).

Nationalists are, in fact, not a violent bunch: aside from the odd street brawl with a commie or Antifa, they don't engage in violent activity, especially not terrorism. for one thing, they understand that terrorism doesn't work. Muslims, for instance, are now 3.4% of the Norwegian population, or 166,000, and even a slaughter on the scale of 9/11 would hardly make a dent in the Norwegian Muslim population. Even so, the question is: why did Breivik kill his own kind? Why he did he kill young Norwegian women - the progenitors of future Norwegians? Surely a 'cultural conservative' (which is what Breivik claims to be) would want continuity of his culture, his nation and his people? Isn't that what conservatism, and the ideology of the Far Right, is about? None of it makes sense.

But, in fact, it does make sense, once you consider the fact that the youth wing of the Labour Party were behind a push for a boycott campaign against Israel, were the targets (along with the Norwegian government itself) of repeated Israeli and Jewish criticism, and so were prime examples of the 'leftism' and 'treason' and 'Marxism' (i.e., left-liberalism that is opposed to Israel and supports Palestinians) that Breivik, and the 'Gates of Vienna' school, find so reprehensible. 'Norway', states Breivik, 'should do more to support Israel'. And so, the result is that Breivik's furious violence is directed, not against Muslim immigrants (who were allowed into Europe in the millions, after ceaseless "anti-racist" agitation by Jews and others in the 1960s) but against young white people.

The anti-Zionist liberal Jew, Gilad Atzmon, writes an article which lifts the lid on Breivik's ideology - showing how Breivik's actions can only be understood by taking into account Zionism (and what Atzmon calls 'Jewishness'):

      Anders Behring Breivik might indeed, have been a Sabbath Goy.

     Within its Judaic mundane-societal context, the Sabbath Goy is simply there to   
     accomplish some minor tasks the Jews cannot undertake during the Sabbath. But
     within the Zion-ised reality we tragically enough live in, the Sabbath Goy kills for the
     Jewish state. He may even do it voluntarily.

     Being an admirer of Israel, Behring Breivik does appear to have treated his fellow
     countrymen in the same way that the IDF treats Palestinians.

     Devastatingly enough, in Israel, Behring Breivik found a few enthusiastic followers  
     who praised his action against the Norwegian youth. In the  Hebrew article that
     reported about the AUF camp being pro Palestinian and supportive of the Israel
     Boycott Campaign,  I found the following comments amongst other supports for the
     massacre:

     24. “Oslo criminals paid”

     26. “It’s stupidity and evil not to desire death for  those who call to boycott Israel.’

     41. “Hitler Youth members killed in the bombing of Germany were also innocent.
     Let us all cry about the terrible evil bombardment carried out by the Allied…We
     have a bunch of haters of Israel  meeting in a country that hates  Israel in a
     conference that endorses the  boycott.. So it’s not okay, not nice,  really a tragedy
     for families, and we condemn the act itself, but to cry about it? Come on. We Jews
     are not Christians. In the Jewish religion there is no obligation to love or mourn  for
     the enemy.”

     The full facts of the Norwegian tragedy are, as yet, unknown, but the message
     should by now be transparently and urgently clear to all of us: Western intelligence
     agencies must immediately crackdown on Israeli and Zionist operators in our midst,
     and regarding the terrible events of the weekend, it must be made absolutely clear
     who it was that spread such hate and promoted such terror, and for what exact
     reasons.

Yes, just like Breivik, the white men of the RAF and USAAF killed many German young people during the Allied bombardment of Germany in WWII: just like in the above picture, there were many beautiful, blond, blue-eyed girls, huddling in shelters, waiting for the violence, the systematic mass killing, outside the shelter to subside. What motivated the Allied airmen? At first, saving the British Empire from Hitler; then, saving the Soviet Union from Hitler. Both the Empire, and the USSR, have long since gone. But there was another motivating factor, which served as the basis of the ideology of the generals and politicians on the Allied side, which is still with us in an attenuated form today: the desire to wreak vengeance, a terrible, Old Testament Biblical vengeance, on Germany for its treatment of the Jews. This campaign of vengeance was directed, in the last analysis, by the American Jews in Roosevelt's administration - his 'Brains Trust', and post-war, the American Jews Henry Morgenthau Jr. and Harry Dexter White designed the post-war occupation policy of Germany, which led to the death, by starvation and exposure, of millions of German civilians and POWs. All of this 20th century history, unfortunately, has a bearing on today. After all, the Progress Party, was, like the German NSDAP, another socialist, left-wing party (with a strong youth wing) which opposed Jewish interests. And, by the perverted logic of the Israeli posters quoted above, any opposition to Jews merits a death sentence. 'You criticise behaviour by Jews; therefore, you hate Jews; therefore, you want to destroy the Jewish people; therefore, in order for the Jewish people to live, you must die'. Again and again, we see this syllogism run its course. This is why 3.5 million Palestinians are interned in a giant open-air concentration camp: they are, collectively, 'terrorists', who 'want to murder the Jews'.

Breivik was on the Far Right - the Israeli Far Right, to the right of Netanyahu and Likud. By serving subscribing to the ideology of the deracinated, and pro-Israel, 'Gates of Vienna' school, he was, in fact, subscribing to the ideology of Israel; and, by destroying enemies of Israel - who were actively, determinedly working for a boycott, something which Israel bitterly opposes - he was serving Israel's purpose. This was a more ferocious incident of terrorism than any directed against Israel in recent years. If this is a war, Israel is winning the casualty-exchange ratio, hands-down: Israel has one or two ineffective toy rockets piffed at their settlement of Askahlon, near Gaza, now and then, but that's about it. The majority of Israelis are sitting pretty, free to write derogatory posts like those above, while their enemies in the Arab world - and now the West - are being torn to bits.

(This casualty-exchange ratio, between Jew and non-Jew, is similar to that of WWII, according to the revisionist Walter Sanning. In his revisionist classic, 'The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry' (1983), the number of European Jewish deaths during the time of the "Holocaust" was only 304,000 (compared to a 7 million German war dead); in the USSR, 1 million Jews died, out of 32 million Soviets dead).

This is why I suggest (only half-jokingly) that nationalists do their bit and help out the whites of Norway make up the numbers lost in this attack - by marrying Norwegian women and having large families. That is the best revenge we can have on the Breiviks, Israel and the 'Gates of Vienna' school, who helped manipulate a man in his madness to commit violence against the helpless civilian men, women and children of a white, Western European nation.

The Rupture: Are The Jews To Blame For All The Race-Mixing?

1. Introduction

This essay is intended to address what I consider to be a logical fallacy held by many nationalists, especially nationalists of an anti-Semitic bent. It concerns Jews and their influence on immigration and race policies of Western countries. The fallacy is as follows. It is an argument from three propositions which, to me, are undeniably true, and these are:

• Jews are politically powerful;
• Jews are strongly biased towards multiracialism and are in favour of non-white immigration;
• Jews, in the past (especially in the 1960s), have been instrumental in pushing the West towards non-white immigration policies, multiracialism, desegregation, anti-Apartheid policies, anti-Rhodesian policies.

From these three propositions, many nationalists infer (erroneously, in my view) that:

• Jews are responsible for all the multiracialism in the West today;
• All the multiracialism and anti-whiteism of the West - in our government policies, in popular culture, in fashion, sport, in the workplace, and so on - is maintained by Jewish power.

The epiphany for this article came to me recently when I saw, outside the gates of a prestigious Australian university, a mixed-race couple: the man was Australian, young, and a student/bohemian type; the woman was Asian (either Chinese or Vietnamese) and heavily pregnant. After asking myself why the man couldn't have found, and impregnated, a white Australian woman instead (why Asian?), I wondered who, or what, played a part in this young man's unfortunate decision. Were the social changes that came about in Australia, after the 1960s, play a part? Yes, of course. Was it the Jewish-owned media (in Australia, most of the print media is owned by the crypto-Jewish Rupert Murdoch)? No, not exactly. Jewish activism, through the media, academia, and politics, helped bring about those social changes here in Australia, as it did everywhere else in the West. But the notion that this young Australian man, today, was persuaded to embark on an interracial relationship with an Asian, because of 'Jewish-owned MTV' or other Jewish-owned media and entertainment outlets, is wrong.

A nationalist could argue the point, that such-and-such an Australian TV series, depicting white/Asian interracial relationships in a positive manner, appeared x amount of years ago, and furthermore, was produced and written by a Jew, and so ultimately helped influence this young man to make his decision. But that argument is reductionist and speculative, and not to mention factually wrong (so far as I know, no such TV series have appeared recently on Australian TV, although perhaps the popular Australian soap, Home and Away, may have had such a storyline a while ago (not being familiar with that particular soap, I can't judge)).

But, having said all this, I do not intend this essay to be taken as a defence of the Jews, or a recommendation that nationalists 'stop attacking the Jews and Israel' and 'unite with Jews and Israel against radical Islam'. Far from it. The essay is more of a call for nationalists to make better use of their resources.

2. Jewish radicals and the 1960s

As we know, the 1960s, in the West, unleashed a cultural and social revolution: in many countries, abortion, pornography and homosexuality became legalised, as did non-white immigration and interracial marriages and relationships. Drug-taking, and illegitimacy, became more socially acceptable.

What happened was, by and large, an inversion of values. That is, the values, standards, morality, of the previous generation - who had fought in WWII and Korea - were turned upside down. That generation lived in world where mixed-race affairs, drugs, promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, feminism, the evasion of military service,  were frowned upon, and immigration laws - which barred non-whites from entering Western countries - were generally approved of. Only a small minority of people - communists and counter-cultural people - bucked the mainstream consensus. Eventually, as we know, that small fringe minority became the mainstream, and the old values - including whites-only immigration laws - were overturned.

One consequence of this was as follows. The West of the 1960s and 1970s was still (by today's standards) by and large an ethnically-homogenous society. But as the new immigration laws (e.g., America's overturning of the anti-non-white immigration laws in 1965) took effect, gradually millions upon millions of non-whites began emigrating to the West. This fact has been celebrated by the élites of the West - the journalists, academics, politicians, and so forth. And now there are a plethora of "anti-racial vilification" laws forbidding anyone from criticising immigration on racial grounds. Since the 1960s, multiracialism, and the principle of "not offending anybody" (that is, not saying anything derogatory to anyone on the grounds of their race, sexual orientation, gender and so forth) has become the religion of the West. (Just recently, an Australian football player was suspended for four weeks for allegedly saying "racially derogatory" remarks to another footballer, who is black and the son of a Nigerian immigrant).

In this connection, Far Right nationalism, out of all the ideologies on the political spectrum, is the only one to oppose non-white immigration and the religion of multiracialism (although some mainstream commentators, in the establishment media, are now starting to question - in a very cautious manner - the value of immigration and multiculturalism). Something that makes nationalism unique is its analysis of why it was that the old, anti-non-white immigration laws were abandoned - and why many of the other changes of the sixties cultural revolution came about. Nationalist intellectuals and writers - among them, Kevin MacDonald, William Pierce, David Duke - attribute these changes to one group, an ethnic group: the Jews. We can find plenty of nationalist writings documenting the Jewish 'culture of critique' (that is, their habit of attacking the values and morals of the non-Jewish host societies they find themselves living in). In these writings, we see how the 'culture of critique' coincides with the Jewish historical championing of abortion, gay rights, radical feminism, desegregation, civil rights for Afro-Americans, Jewish support for laws against "racial vilification" and the dismantling of whites-only immigration laws.

In the view of these nationalists, temperamentally, the Western Jew was, in the sixties, an extreme left-wing, Marxist beatnik (or what Americans would call an extreme liberal). The argument of the Pierces and the MacDonalds is that without Judeo-beatnik's dominant, overriding influence, the sixties counter-cultural revolution, and the flood of immigration from the Third World, would never have gotten off the ground.

In a previous article, I wrote on the topic of a Frank Sinatra 1945 film, 'The House I Live In', written by a communist Jew, which espouses the virtues of multiracialism, "tolerance", "diversity", and the rest, and explicitly links these to the cause of anti-Nazism (also to, in the original script, brotherly love between white and Afro-Americans, but these parts were cut from the final draft - much to the chagrin of the screenwriter). To Pierce, MacDonald, Duke, Jews like this screenwriter had, by the 1960s, become intellectually, politically and culturally ascendant, and so were in a position to impose their values on America and the West.

(What is curious is that, at the time of that film, America was subject to two conflicting tendencies. America was, in 1945, fielding a segregated army, with Afro-American and Hispanic soldiers relegated to their own units. Racialism informed the views of the Allied politicians and generals too: wartime Allied leaders such as Roosevelt, Churchill, Patton, Eisenhower made many, off-the-record (and highly amusing) comments on the poor quality of Afro-American soldiers, and the ineptitude of Black people. So, in the America of 1945, we had two worlds. At war, the Americans were practising racialism; back home, they were soaking up multiracialist drivel in Frank Sinatra films. It was only a matter of time until the two worlds collided, and that was what happened in the 1960s).

3.       Was it only the Jews to blame?

In its defence, I will say that the MacDonald-Pierce-Duke analyses is not overly reductionist: that is, it does not attribute everything to one single cause - the Jews - plain and simple; these gentleman know that plenty of non-Jewish Westerners demanded the abolition of the whites-only immigration laws: in Britain and Australia, the extreme left-wing of the socialist parties, and the liberal wing of the conservative parties, played a big part. But, overall, the thesis is tilted towards the hypothesis that Jewish influence and Jewish power, intellectually, culturally, economically, politically, was the primary determinant of events.

But, in contradiction with the thesis, I will say that the overall ethic, the ideology in the West at that time, was already tilted towards multiracialism and acceptance of mass non-white immigration. By logic, if one accepted the 'American ideology' (as Yockey calls it) of freedom, democracy, equality, liberalism, individual rights, etc., then one had to, for instance, accept desegregation and the giving of equal rights to Afro-Americans in the Deep South.

Similarly, prior to the 1960s, America and the Commonwealth fought a war of extermination against the Germans in WWII, and even gave over half of Europe to communism, all in the name of racial egalitarianism: Hitler was a "racist" who believed in "phony racial science" and who "gassed the Jews" simply because they were a little "different" (this historical interpretation - of why the Allies fought against Germany in WWII - became the dominant one in America by the end of the 1960s).

So, on those grounds, no-one in America (or elsewhere in the liberal democratic Western countries) in the 1960s could oppose the legalisation of mixed-race marriages, or the abolition of the whites-only immigration law, by calling upon, for instance, the defence of "traditional American values" - because "traditional American values" were already highly favourable to these things.

Added to this is the fact that the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, was in favour of multiracialism and "brotherly love", i.e., whites treating non-whites - especially Negroes - as "brothers" who deserved "love". One cannot discount the influence, on the youth and the culture of the times, of rock groups like the Rolling Stones and the Beatles, who did more for the cause of multiracialism, and for the worship and veneration of the noble, suffering, musically-talented Afro-American, than, perhaps, Jewish radicals.

So, in its racial composition, the West was, in the 1960s, wholly white, wholly racially-homogenous; but, in its ideology, it was egalitarian, multiracialist and multicultural. So those opposing the dismantling of whites-only immigration laws couldn't put up much of a fight, intellectually, using the concepts and ideas around them. They could not argue against immigration on the basis of received values - that is, the cultural mores of their society - because those same mores were very much tilted towards doctrines of racial equality and "tolerance" for non-white immigrants. In a similar fashion, Russia, at the time of the Bolshevik revolution, was already heavily tilted towards socialism and radical progressivist ideas.

4.     Were the sixties all bad?

As an aside: this is not to say that all the changes that came after the 1960s were necessarily bad. William Pierce, in one of his radio talks, admitted that perhaps Americans were 'too prudish' before the 1960s revolution, with the implication that the relaxation of sexual mores, after that decade, may have been a good thing. Likewise, one can point to improvements in many areas. A British author, Nicholas Pringle, canvassed the views of a 150 WWII-era white British, for their views on post-war changes in British life, and wrote their comments up in a book, The Unknown Warriors. Predictably, the elderly British were scathing on subjects such as non-white immigration and law and order. But they did have some good things to say:

This particular man was unusual among the 150 respondents in believing that there were many pluses   to modern life.

He even had a good word to say about the European Union and felt it would appeal to the fallen 'if only for maintaining the peace in Europe over the past 60 years or so'.
He praised the breaking down of class barriers in Britain compared with the years when he was young and 'infinitely' increased prosperity.

'More clothes, cars, holidays abroad, home ownership. As a young teacher in the Fifties I had one suit (Army issue) and the luxury of a sports jacket and flannels at the weekend.

'Education has made vast progress. In my early days I taught classes of 50. Only five per cent of children went on to further education compared with over 40 per cent today.

'The emancipation of women has also been a huge plus, with the introduction of the Pill a large contributor. Before the war, women teachers were dismissed as soon as they married.'

[The Daily Mail, "'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII", 21/11/2009].

5. The racial rupture

At first sight, the events of the 1960s (as interpreted by the MacDonalds and Pierces) seem to confirm one of Hitler's theses. One of the questions Hitler's Mein Kampf asks is: which group, today, endorses miscegenation and the breakdown of ethnic solidarity? His answer was, of course, the Jews. At the time that he wrote that book, no-one else in the West, aside from the Jewish intellectuals of the Far Left, endorsed non-white immigration and interracial marriages: to even a Churchill or a Roosevelt, such an idea would have abominable. One of Hitler's main theses was that Jews have an agenda - to promote miscegenation and the breakdown of interethnic, tribal solidarity and community feeling as much as possible, while, at the same time, to keep their own racial group pure (and proud of their racial purity and their customs and traditions). It was not until the 1960s that we see the Jews behave, en masse, in a manner in accordance with Hitler's (at the time) radical thesis. It is precisely at this point, too, that David Duke, William Pierce, George Lincoln Rockwell, began their careers. (Kevin MacDonald, in interviews, says that he began to awaken to the Jewish 'culture of critique' during his acquaintance with radical Jewish students, on his college campus, in the 1960s).

But that was then, this is now. Flashing forward to the present year, 2011, multiracialism, multiculturalism and the principle of "not offending anybody" have become diffused into the wider white population as a whole: they are no longer the property of a few Jewish 1960s radicals or liberal Tories or left-Labor Party types. The ideas, in other words, have become mainstream, and this process has taken place since the 1960s.

As an example of this 'diffusion' process, one can look at the similar progress of social attitudes towards pornography. While definitely not being a Jewish invention, Jews, to be sure, were among the biggest proponents of the legalisation of pornography back in the 1960s, all in the name of 'freedom of speech', and were the founders of some of the biggest providers (through print and film, and then, later, the Internet) of pornography. Now pornography has (especially with the advent of the Internet) become mainstream, and part of everyday life, the world over. (I recently read a bizarre article about how some North Korean women, fleeing into South Korea, ended up in the clutches of a Chinese man, who forced them to work at online sex chat site, 'chatting', and presumably simulating sexual acts, for South Korean men. The sound on these sites was turned off, and the communication was through typing, because the Chinese man did not want the South Korean men to detect the womens' North Korean accents - it was an essential part of the fantasy that these women pretended to be South Korean). Pornography (especially through the Internet) has now become diffused, globalised, widely available and accepted, compared to a few decades ago, and Western social attitudes towards it have changed, irrevocably.

Similarly, attitudes towards immigration, multiculturalism, interracial marriages which were once held by a small (but influential and powerful) minority of Jews, left-wing radicals and counter-culture types in the 1960s have now become part and parcel of everyday life. For instance, condemnations, by nationalists, of interracial marriages are seen by most non-political people as bizarre and perplexing ('Why on earth would you deny a white person the right to marry an Asian or black person?') if not disgusting; whereas fifty years ago an opposition to interracial marriage would have been regarded as acceptable, and indeed, part of the received wisdom. Take, for instance, the British pop singer, Cheryl Cole, a woman from a council estate (that is, government welfare housing) who married a Negro soccer player. In Churchill's time, or Atlee's, a white British woman who had a child with an Afro-American serviceman would have been shunned by her community. But Cole's (abortive) marriage was seen as the most normal thing in the world by the British media, and oddly enough, the fiercely anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim Daily Mail tabloid treats her as a kind of patron saint.

On this evidence, the massive program of social engineering, since the 1960s, which was intended to change peoples' values on race, has done just that: new values - values of "diversity", "tolerance", "harmony" and so forth - have been inculcated everywhere. One can see this if one has, for instance, experience with corporate induction programs now in 2011: new employees are told that the company - whatever it is - values diversity, tolerance, pluralism, multiculturalism, etc., and that there will be harsh penalties (i.e., dismissal) for anyone who fails to pay lip service to these values.

So, there is no doubt about it: the multiracialists won a huge victory in the 1960s - a total, annihilating, crushing victory. The conservatives who did resist the move towards desegregation, immigration, etc., didn't put up much of a fight - one has to recall Enoch Powell, a fairly moderate critic of non-white immigration, who was howled down by the liberal Tories of his own party, and hounded by student radicals (including future British Labour Party politician, the Jewish Jack Straw). The result is that today multiracialism has become part of the air we breathe.

6.     The consequences

The racial consequences, for the West, have been disastrous. To take Britain as an example (and I always use Britain as an example of how far multiculturalism and non-white immigration can go), the number of minorities who live in England and Wales has shot up to 2.5 million in eight years. The Indian population has risen to 1.43 million, and the Pakistani population has climbed to one million, the number of Africans to 800,000, and even the Chinese are on the rise, doubling to 452,000 by 2009. Obviously, even if one loves "diversity" to the utmost, such a huge increase in population places tremendous pressure on housing, rents, public transport, welfare services, public health, law enforcement, jails and the like. Other countries in the West (including Australia) show similar percentage increases in their "minorities" and a similar deterioration in their quality of life as a result. Even those in the political establishment show signs of worry by all this, and the effects that the immigrant populations have on their host populations (ironically, Jack Straw recently denounced Pakistani immigrant pimps and suggested that their behaviour was, in part, caused by Pakistani and Islamic culture).

The same establishment figures (including media commentators) are now struggling to articulate their opposition to immigration in a "non-racist" context. The problem is that anyone who suggests that immigrants may feel racial antagonism to their white host populations, and that immigrant behaviour may be due, even in part, to race, ethnicity or religion, is vilified, in today's world, as a kind of monster. The likes of Jack Straw, Jewish-Briton and former 1960s student radical, have only themselves to blame for this: they themselves created the culture of "not offending anybody" and the castigation of anyone who speaks, or thinks, in racialist (or quasi-racialist) terms.

It is best to think of the sixties revolution as the point of a rupture; it is what divides, historically, the old world from the new, and we can see the effects of that massive, irrevocable change in, to use a select few examples: race, homosexuality and pornography. The question is, can we turn back time to the way things were before; and can we do so by relentlessly exposing the Jewish 'culture of critique', past and present, as Pierce did and Duke and MacDonald do?

7. Battlestar Galactica and the white racial plight

To frame this question with more clarity, I will use an analogy to describe today's West in its current predicament. The 2004-2009 remake of the American TV sci-fi series, Battlestar Galactica, portrays a science-fiction world of the future, populated by the descendants of the planet Earth. The descendants live in twelve planets, called the 'Twelve Colonies', and build a race of robot slaves, the Cylons, who, true to science-fiction form, revolt against their human masters. After a bloody human-Cylon war, the Cylons disappear for forty years, and then launch a massive attack on the twelve colonies, rendering the human space navy helpless (by infecting their computers with a virus) and exterminating billions of humans with nuclear bombs. A small number of 30,000 humans survive, and flee, in search of their ancient homeland of Earth, with the Cylons (determined to finish the job of exterminating humanity) in hot pursuit.

The story, of course, has plenty of precedents - the massive, surprise attack on the colonies evokes Pearl Harbour and 9/11, as the producers and writers intended; as well as that, Battlestar- was conceived by Glen A. Larson, a Mormon, and is obviously intended to evoke the flight of the Mormons, across 1300 miles, to (what is now) Salt Lake City, Utah, after the death of their founder, Joseph P. Smith, at the hands of unbelievers.

But what is striking is that the story also evokes the situation of the Western white peoples in 2011. For one, the Cylons have won a total, crushing, irrevocable victory over their human opponents. The education minister of the twelve colonies, Laura Roslyn (played by Mary Hart), is on board a passenger liner between planets when the attack begins. She gets in touch with another government minister on the radio, and asks, 'Has President Adair [the ruler of the colonies] discussed the possibility of unconditional surrender?'. The minister replies, 'President Adair has offered full, unconditional surrender'. Roslyn asks, 'What did the Cylons say?'. The minister replies that there was no response. And why should there have been. You don't parley with a totally defeated, crushed and helpless enemy - any more than the Allies and Soviets did with the Germans in May 1945, or the Japanese in August 1945.

Likewise, the radical Jews of the sixties, and their white cohorts - the liberal conservatives, humanist priests, hippy rock stars, student radicals, Black civil rights demonstrators and 'Black Power' radicals, the feminists, the gay rights activists - won a total, crushing victory by 1970. The Enoch Powells, George Wallaces and other conservatives didn't up much of a fight. Rockwell, who understood, quite accurately, the role of the "Jew commie finks" in helping bring about racial, social and cultural discord, was dismissed, by most of his contemporaries, as an attention-seeking eccentric. Resistance, against this massive assault on the Western ethnic homogeneity, was weak and ineffective indeed - almost as though our space-naval fleet was infected by a computer virus.

Another point of similarity is the plight of the 30,000 humans, after the Cylon attack. The rag-tag fleet of humans, fleeing the Cylons on civilian ships, is protected by a naval ship - the Battlestar Galactica - which alone, out of all the ships in the human fleet, survived the Cylon onslaught. The commander of the ship, the aged veteran Admiral Adama (Edward James Olmos) at first wants to launch a counter-attack against the Cylons at once, being a military man and seeking a military solution to the problem. Laura Roslyn, however, advises him against the foolishness of such a decision - an attack against the Cylons would be suicidal - but tells him, simply, 'The war is over, and we lost'. She advises that if the remnants of humanity are to survive, 'Then humans better had start making babies'.

Certainly, for nationalists, the choices are not so stark: either launch a counter-attack against our enemies, or retire and start 'making babies'. But it is the case that, like the beleagered human race in Galactica, we racial nationalists are faced with a number of problems, post-apocalypse, and have to decide how to use our the few remaining resources we have the most effectively.

Undoubtably, it is the case that the MacDonalds, Pierces, Dukes and other nationalists are right in their analysis of the Jewish 'culture of critique'. But, all in all, they resemble, in our Battlestar Galactica analogy, a human survivor of the Cylon attack who, obsessively, recounts, over and over again, how the Cylons launched a devastating surprise attack which wiped out the human civilisation and culture. Without doubt, the Cylons did pull the attack off; furthermore, post-attack, they remain the enemies of humanity. The question is whether recounting the details of the attack, in one endless history lesson, accomplishes anything, considering that it is a irrevocable historical fact, like the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, or the English Civil War, or the Protestant Reformation.

8.    Are Jews necessary?

Another question is - given the widespread apathy towards, or even widespread support for - Cheryl Cole, Internet pornography, and the campaign for gay marriage, whether or not the Jewish presence is necessary for the whole structure to continue.

American Jews own the American media, and bully and browbeat American politicians into a uniform support for Israel. It is no surprise, then, given Jewish political power in America, if US immigration policy should be 'good for the Jews', that is, that it should be geared towards allowing in as many non-whites as possible. As the MacDonalds and Pierces state, the Jewish-American view of their adopted country's history is that America was founded as a 'nation of immigrants', who emigrate from all corners of the world in search of a better life, the 'American dream'. American Jews use their power, in the social, economic, cultural and intellectual spheres, to impose this view of American identity and history upon Americans. Besides which, from the Jewish-American viewpoint, mass non-white immigration is to be supported because it weakens WASP American ethnic homogeneity and so is 'good for the Jews', as it lessens WASP resistance to cultural 'out-groups' (e.g., the Jews).

These are undeniable facts about Jewish-American attitudes and American politics in general. But, while there are loud and obnoxious Jewish community lobby groups in Australia, a Jewish newspaper baron who owns a sizeable chunk of Australian print media, and a pro-Israel consensus between the two major parties - the Jews aren't as strong, or as visible, here in Australia as they are in America. Indeed, Jewish attempts to exert influence here are often bizarre and irrelevant. A recent The Australian newspaper editorial augured a bright and promising future for the left-wing Greens party, if only the Greens would renounce their 'jejune' anti-Israel sentiments. This is bizarre because Australians don't vote (or choose not to vote) for the Greens because of the Greens' position on Israel.

(The fact, too, that prominent Australian-Jewish groups have written statements applauding multiculturalism in Australia, and denouncing "racism" in Australia, proves nothing - for what group, in Australia in 2011, doesn't applaud multiculturalism and denounce "racism"? (The sporting body, the Australian Football League, is at one with the Jewish groups in this respect). That one group or individual writes a statement applauding such-and-such a phenomenon doesn't mean that they own that particular phenomenon, or are responsible for bringing it about. The neoconservative Jewish-American Elliot Abrams wrote, a few months ago, an article applauding the Arab Spring; this doesn't not mean that the hundreds of thousands of Arabs, revolting in Syria, Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, are pawns of the neocons (besides which, the Israeli media, by and large, has been hostible to the Arab Spring) and that they are poor dupes, pawns on a chessboard, being moved around by American Jews in Washington and New York).

But, having said that, perhaps even the Duke-Pierce-MacDonald analysis of recent US immigration and racial policy, and the remedy, are deficient. How many ordinary white Americans, for instance, continue to regard Martin Luther King Jr. as a secular saint? The white nationalist will respond, 'Oh, Americans are brainwashed. They only have to read David Duke, or http://www.martinlutherking.org/, to learn the truth about King. The reason why they don't is because of the Jewish-owned American media'. It's true that, were the scurrilous side of King's ideology and private life were given relentless, round-the-clock news coverage, then perhaps white Americans would think less of King. But isn't it possible that white Americans (who are, in my experience, very polite and well-mannered, and as well as that, very conformist in their manners and morals) would find the white nationalist material on King repulsive and vulgar? Can we blame the failure of white nationalism in America to 'catch on' entirely on hostility from the Jewish-owned media?

9.  A West without Jews

So it is possible that the major political parties in the West will continue in their grim crusade to 'de-whiten' the West without Jewish direction and support.
From 1945 to 1949, Germany was under Allied occupation, and Allied guns held to German heads ensured that Germany would embark on a program of "de-Nazification" and destroying and delegitimising German nationalism. Now, in 2011, the Bundesrepublik does that job without Allied coercion - one only has to look at the kidnapping of Zündel, the extradition and prosecution of Demjanjuk on trumped-up charges and non-existent evidence, and the like. The present-day German regime is more anti-Nazi than the best anti-Nazis, more anti-German than the best anti-Germans. In a similar fashion, governments in countries where Jewish power is politically, culturally and economically weak in comparison to the United States (e.g., Australia, Sweden) pursue a radical pro-immigrant agenda.

In the Netherlands, only recently, a law forbidding the religious ritual slaughter of animals was passed, despite bitter protestations from the Muslim and Jewish minorities who will be affected the most by the bill. (Ironically, the maniacal pro-Israel, pro-Zionist populist Geert Wilders supports the bill). The Netherlands is an example of Jews becoming relativised - to the status of another minority group, without special power and influence, endlessly demanding special rights and complaining of their treatment at the hands of the white ethnic majority.  Possibly, this is a portent for the future: Jews becoming merely another "minority", endlessly demanding their "rights", along with all the Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Iranian, Afghani, Turkish, etc., diaspora groups in the West.

Another irony is that Israel is now under constant attack, ideologically, by today's leftists and liberals, because Israeli immigration policy today shows the same ethnocentrism and the same desire for ethnic homogeneity as that of the Western countries of the 1960s, which, at the time, was so offensive to Jewish radicals. The multiracialist brigade, who ended segregation in the Deep South in the 1960s, and helped hand over white, "racist" Rhodesia and South Africa to black rule, now scent new prey: Israel. Perhaps the story of Israel will meet with a similar happy ending. Will Israel will eventually allow the millions of Palestinians, expelled from Palestine in 1948, to return to their homeland? Will Israel elect, like America, a leader who is a member of a minority - not an Afro-American, like Obama, but a Muslim Israeli Arab? A leftist can dream. Meanwhile, in Europe, the Jewish diaspora complains that the ever-increasing Muslim immigrant population doesn't respect their rights and privileges like the white Europeans do. (This does not mean for one second, however, that Jews will not end their endorsement of mass non-white immigration into Europe, even Muslim immigration).

The beast of multiracialism has been let out of its cage, and the Jews, in the 1960s, were among those who released it. The Jews, in 2011, are not about to be devoured by it; but certainly, in Israel at least, they are being harassed and hounded by it. Which is not to say that Israel will not continue to survive as an ethnically homogenous state: because of the United States, Israel has the power to do whatever it wants, and get away with it, even it earns the opprobrium of the entire world. MacDonald predicts that Israel, because of the growing influence of Orthodox Jews in Israeli life, and the demographic increase of Israeli Haredim, will eventually steer Israeli politics to Jewish religious extremism and fundamentalism. As a result, Israel will become more isolationist and inward-looking, more extreme and even less willing to come to a compromise with the Palestinians and even more contemptuous of world opinion. And American liberals (and former student radicals) of the Obama and Hilary Clinton variety will continue to support it, through thick and thin.

10. In conclusion?

What, then, are nationalists to do?

In Marxism, there was a tendency called 'economism', denounced by many (including the French Marxist philosopher, Louis Althusser), which said that all human phenomena, ultimately, has economic causes: religious, racial, national, cultural, political and other causes didn't count. Marx and Engels, according to Althusser, never held to such a reductionist thesis. They argued that non-economic phenomena does, of course, have an influence on human affairs, only that the economic is, in the last analysis, dominant - that the economic is, in Althusser's words, 'determinate in the last instance'.

In nationalism, there is a similar tendency to 'economism'. This tendency blames Jewry for all the multiracialism in the West today - that is, the continued, day to day maintenance of the multiracialist status quo, in the West, is down to Jewry. This is why, for instance, the likes of Martin Webster (the co-founder, along with John Tyndall, of the British National Front) thinks that he is doing great things when he posts, on the Internet, the names of all the Jewish newspaper and other media owners in Britain - the implication being that all the degeneracy and squalor in Britain today, immigration, Cheryl Cole, chavs and all, is down to the Jews.

Another implication is that, if only these Jewish billionaires, and other powerful Jews, were packed off to Israel and their assets stripped from them, then we would have governments which were much more amenable to nationalist values. But this is a tautology, because the only government which would expel the Jews from the West, and expropriate them, would be a racialist, anti-Semitic one. (Possibly, a communist government would do such things to the Jews, but, were the fantasies of the Trotskyite communists West to come true, and communists were to seize power in the West, then, in all probability, that communist government would be run by Western Jews, just as, historically, most Trotskyite movements in the West have always been). So, of course things would look better, on the racial front, once the Jews were, in this scenario, banished.

Immigration, today, has many causes. What are they? Firstly, there is the ideology of multiracialism, which has been, in the West, for a long time, and came to flower by the 1960s; secondly, the influence of Jews, radicals, humanist liberal types, humanist Catholic types and other professional do-gooders, who feel pity for the toiling masses of the Third World and dearly want them to live here; third, the economic crises of the 1970s which wrecked the economies of the Third World (and led the immigrants to travel to the West in search of a "better life"); fourth, the influence of the business lobbies, who demand "skilled" immigrants to fill up "labour shortages", no matter where these immigrants come from; and last, but not least, there is the greed of the individual immigrants themselves, who are prepared to pack their bags and leave their home countries in search of the rich, easy pickings in the West, and who are prepared to this by any means necessary - even if that includes clinging to the undersides of trucks travelling under the English Channel, or sailing in leaky boats, or crossing deserts. Indeed, it is the immigrants today - the massive flood of Hispanics, Chinese, Indians, Muslims coming to the West - who are most responsible for immigration.

Part of the present nationalist obsession with the Jewish role in immigration and multiracialism lies in the fact that we whites (especially the Anglo-Saxons) are unwilling to look at our own role in bringing about this state of affairs. The biggest obstacle to the spread of racialist and nationalist ideas is other whites: the nationalist often has the experience of meeting with resistance to these ideas from one's friends, family, colleagues, superiors, and often these non-racialist whites will break down and concede, at least part of the way, ('Yes, you're right that there are too many immigrants coming here, but...') after much haranguing. On top of that, there is the historical role of the white establishment, which, in the 1960s, dismantled immigration barriers, all in the name of democracy, humanity, decency, equality, etc. Given all this, it is much easier, then, to blame a cultural alien, who happens to have a long antipathy towards the white, Western, European and Christian civilisation, rather than acknowledge our own faults. So we nationalists have constructed a narrative , in which whites decided to abnegate their leading position in the world, and their demographic majority in their own countries, solely because of cultural aliens who are hostile to us and who happened to live among us at that time. While that narrative is, at first sight, plausible, it is not the entire truth.

When speaking about this to nationalist friends, they have remarked to me, 'If what you're saying is true, then we whites are doomed'. The implication is that the diseases which afflict Western culture come from within, and indeed may be part of our genetic makeup. I take a more sanguine view, and that is, historically, whites have made many, many mistakes, but have managed, in the end, to preserve themselves. Multiracialism and mass non-white immigration is merely another mistake. In the end, nationalists will win, but only if we look past the (superficially plausible) narrative which blames all the multiracialism and immigration in the West on Jewish influence.

A Plea to Nationalists: Read Louis Althusser

'I am a fascist intellectual', wrote Maurice Bardèche in his classic work, 'Qu'est-ce que le fascisme?' (1961), which sought to outline a theory of European neofascism. Bardèche's statement raises a number of questions, one of which is: what are the theoretical tasks of the neofascist intellectual?

One of them is directly related to Western nationalist and Far Right activism, and that is to recreate the successful fascist formula of the 1930s and 1940s (the fascism of Hitler, Mussolini, Codreanu, Primo de Rivera, Degrelle and others). The neofascist intellectual is a revivalist. He is like a chemist who has discovered a magnificent formula in a laboratory. But the laboratory is destroyed in a fire, and so are all his notes. So he spends his time trying to work out how to recreate that formula - a process of discovery that can take years.

So, at first sight, his activity may consist of answering a question: 'What were the components of fascism?'. But that is the wrong question to ask. For one thing, it is trivial - too easy enough to answer. By studying the history, the intellectual lineage, of fascism, one can give a list: the components of fascism were nationalism, corporatism, racialism, socialism, a theory of authoritarian politics, and a series of 'anti-s' (anti-liberal democracy, anti-Masonry, anti-Semitism, anti-communism...). The more interesting, profitable, question is: in what proportion was fascism corporatist, racialist, socialist, nationalist, etc.? That is, how much, or how little, was it (for example) socialist? If we get the proportions right, we have successfully recreated (what academics call) the 'fascist minimum', and have 'built' a fascism.

That fascism has a great deal of Marxist socialism in it is well-known, and even some on the Left admit this fact. As proof of it, we only have to look at Mein Kampf (which is inflected, heavily, with Marxist language: proletariat, bourgeois, capitalist, exploitation, struggle (in the very title itself); the class composition of the fascist movement (with many coming from a working-class, and/or Marxist background); the symbols, uniforms, organisation, discipline, etc., of fascism... Critics of the Right (e.g., the great neoliberal thinker, Hayek) allege that fascism was a brother of communism. The two are not related in the way that Maoism and Stalinism were, for example, or Castroism or Ho Chi Minh-ism; but they are related.

In Mein Kampf, we find many ideas which seem to come second-hand, or even third-hand, from Marx. For one of (many examples) there is the famous chapter, 'Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna', which has social analyses similar to those in Das Kapital. The musings on the proletarianisation of rural German youth, in that chapter, are almost pure Marx. This is despite the fact that, of course, Hitler's attitude towards Marxism, communism and the German Social Democratic Party is one of pure enmity; and that the left-wing, socialist and anti-capitalist elements of the book are mixed, bizarrely, with other things - e.g., racialism, or an admiration for the role of the German army in preserving the German state... The example of Mein Kampf is proof that ideas have a capacity to escape their inventors. Marx's ideas ran away Marx and ended up forming the hybrid of ideas, taken from various places, which make up German (and European) fascism.

Which is not to say, of course, that the state between the two is not one of enmity. It was, and ever shall be: communism and fascism have an undying enmity for the other. Which raises another question: what were the intellectual grounds for that enmity, today and in the past?

The first reason for the enmity involves race and immigration. The West is being overrun by non-white immigration, and in Britain, for example, white British in working-class towns such as Bradford and Leicester are becoming minorities. Possibly, in the coming decades, the white British will be reduced to a minority, in a country of immigrants from the Middle East, Africa and India. Is this, in the view of today's Left, a bad thing? Not at all: the Left only see classes and class struggle. The only thing of concern to them, in this future non-white Britain, is the class divide between capitalist, Muslims, Africans and Indians on the one hand and the Muslims, Africans and Indians (who don't own property) on the other. The main thing is to get the proletarian non-whites to revolt against their capitalist non-white masters, and then introduce a Soviet-style communist state. (The fact that many of the non-white British are Muslim is of concern, but only because Islamists are anti-communist, and will make short work of communists. Under Islamist rule (and Sharia law), communists won't have a hope).


The other main difference is regarding (what Yockey calls) the economic method. Communists want to abolish property 100%: everything must be nationalised, and farmers won't even be able to sell produce at a stall by the side of the road. What is more, all economic production must be planned, all prices regulated, and so forth. This, to the communists, is the only 'pure' socialism, and a communist would rather spend seventy years in a communist Albania, for example, than one day in a capitalist Albania. One is qualitively better than the other. Cuba and North Korea are better than Australia, because there is no property, no 'exploitation of man by man', etc.

So the main communist criticism of Hitler, Mussolini and the other fascists was that they didn't go far enough: that is, they did not abolish property, they took what was a genuinely working-class mass movement and then 'sold out' to German and Italian capitalists. This criticism (from the communists) is identical to that of the 'Left' National Socialists, the Strasserites. (One could then ask: why did the Strasserites then, go the whole hog and embrace East German-style communism?).

So these are two main points of difference: why nationalists object to communists (they object to the communist position on the race question) and why communists object to fascists (they differ when it comes to economic method).

Having said that, the communist economic method does not define what communism truly is. Communism, historically, has always been willing to back down when it comes to method. As we know from Soviet history, the USSR experimented with a number of economic methods - it went from 'war communism' to Lenin's 'New Economic Policy' (which was a class collaboration with the Russian capitalist class) to Stalinist collectivisation... At each turn, there were tortuous intellectual justifications for each change in policy. Likewise, China went through a number of permutations in its treatment of the economy, and now has abandoned, more or less, communism altogether. (Cuba, likewise, is "reforming" - that is, moving away from state ownership of the modes of production).

Which raises the thorny question: what is communism? What is true Marxism? This is no trivial thing. Interpreting Marx the "wrong" way could, in Stalin and Mao's time, lead to you being expelled from the communist party, arrested, tortured, and executed... Many Marxist intellectuals have attempted to answer this question, and it will not concern us here. For a working definition (for the purposes of this essay), we will say, Marxism is Marx's Das Kapital - Marx's definitive work.

Now, we stated previously, that fascism had a Marxist/socialist content. Assuming that this is true: is the case that today's Far Right, Western nationalism has a Marxist/socialist content, and, if so, does it have that content in the same proportions as the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s?

The answer is yes and no.

In terms of class composition, the nationalist skinheads are working-class, and blue-collar, almost to a man; so are the 'soccer hooligans' of Europe (affiliated with the Far Right, and making up the ranks of the English Defence League). Electorally, the Front National enjoys large support from the French working-class (and is stealing working-class voters away from the venerable French Communist Party); the same goes for the populist Swedish Democrats.

A political movement which has a large working-class membership, and electoral following, is not necessarily 'Marxist': look at (a hundred years ago) the Australian Labor Party or the British Labour Party. But that class composition is a necessity for a party that wants to be 'socialist', and, further, 'Marxist-socialist'. On that point, it is well known, many of the social democrat (or liberal-socialist) parties of the West have moved away from their working-class base. The British Labour Party, for instance, regarded (behind closed doors) its white, British working-class constituents as "racist", and recognised that, in order to carry its program of mass, non-white immigration into Britain, it would have to overcome white, British working-class opposition. (This is according to the British Labour party consultant Andrew Neather). We can safely assume that the Swedish Social Democrats, who are maniacally pro-immigrant (and pro-Muslim), take the same dim view of the "racism" of the Swedish working class.

So, in that regard - immigration and the racial question - the nationalist parties are more 'in tune' with the values, mores, needs of the working-classes of their respective Western countries than the mainstream social democrat, center-left parties. As for certain of the the non-party, 'extraparliamentary' nationalist organisations and groupings - the skinhead groups, the soccer hooligans, the EDL - they are white working-class.

But are today's nationalists armed with theories and concepts which are anti-capitalist, socialist, and quasi-Marxist - theories and concepts which are close cousins to those in both Mein Kampf and Das Kapital? Or, to put it more succinctly, are they as "Marxist" as Hitler and Mussolini were?

There have been attempts, by certain nationalist groupings, to steer nationalism back to its socialist and anti-capitalist roots - e.g., there are the Freie Nationalisten of Germany (who have imitators in Sweden, Greece and other European countries), nationalist anticapitalist sites such as the Norwegian http://www.antikap.nu website which is down at the time of writing), and others. Much of this, in my view, has been a shallow appropriation of left-wing tactics: getting at the surface, but not the essence.

What are these left-wing tactics? The Left, as we know, was completely confused and demoralised by the collapse of the former Soviet Union (and the abandonment of Maoism in China). Attempts have been made, by left-wing intellectuals, to salvage Marxist, Leninist and communist theory: many books have appeared with the hopeful (and pathetic) titles along the lines of 'How Marx is still relevant in the 21st century' and which, of course, detect a Marxist 'crisis of capitalism' in the recent financial crisis. (Strangely, no 'crisis of communism' was ever detected in the economic downturns in the USSR, China, Cambodia and North Korea - which lead to famines claiming millions of lives...). One left-wing response to the post-1991 'crisis of Marxism' has been the revival of zany Situationist pranks (e.g., 'culture-jamming'), which are held up to be 'resistance to capitalism'. Often, however, such things end up being a strange and ironic commentary on capitalism and consumerism. This zaniness and irony is very much part of the contemporary Hipster subculture.
I do not mean to dismiss such things out of hand: it may be that this kind of 'Neo-Situationism' has a great deal of value in it. (Certainly, it is more constructive than smashing cars and shop windows, and assaulting police, which is what the "anti-globalist" anarchists of today do). But - in the Hipsters and anarchists of today - there is a genuineness, and a theoretical basis, which does not exist in the 'anti-cap' tendency. (A few intellectuals have linked Hipsterism to the ideas of the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu; which isn't to say that the Hipsters have read Bourdieu, only that this is another instance of ideas running away from their creators). That is, those in the 'anti-cap' tendency have not given sufficient evidence that they have taken socialism and quasi-Marxist ideas to heart, in the way that Hitler, Mussolini, Degrelle, did. Their tactics are just that - tactics - designed to 'confuse the Left' and scare them.

And, indeed, the Left is always very nervous, and was, initially, frightened that the Freie Nationalisten and 'anti-cap' types would lure left-leaning youth into their fold. They needn't have worried, however. The 'anti-cap' types have only done what Rockwell did with German National Socialism: they have put on a uniform (in this case, the Black Bloc uniform) but not assimilated, refined and adapted the actual Hitlerian and National Socialist ideas. (The same goes for the Trotskyite communists: take away the red flags, banners and Lenin busts, how much of contemporary Trotskyism is communist and Marxist? Is support for gay marriage, for instance, truly Marxist?). Were communists prepared to sit down, talk and exchange views with a few 'anti-cap' types of my acquaintance, they would have seen through them straight away. The 'anti-capitalism' would be revealed for what it is, just hot air, confusion, or worse, a deceptive tactic. 

In summary, the 'anti-cap' tendency of the last decade needed theoretical credentials. They needed intellectuals, theorists, and theorists who - if they were to develop a true understanding of capitalism, and to develop a left-wing, socialist opposition to it, and to develop the beginnings of a strategy for resisting it - were influenced by Marxism. What is more, they needed modern Marxist intellectuals - not intellectuals from the time of Trotsky and Mao in their heyday, but intellectuals from the time of the New Left and after... In short, they needed someone like a Pierre Bourdieu. That would have put their ideas on a contemporary theoretical, and truly socialist and anti-capitalist, basis.

At this point, nationalists may object: 'Marxism preaches class war and class struggle; nationalism, on the other hand, believes in racial and national unity...'. Yockey and Evola outlined this idea of 'horizontal' and 'vertical' differences in a nation. The 'vertical' differences were those inside a nation - the hierarchical differences between, say, German capitalist and German worker, or French king and French serf. The 'horizontal' differences, on the other hand, were differences expressed on the national, or racial level: white and non-white, French and German, Jew and non-Jew... Yockey protested that Marxism, and the socialisms that were variants on Marxism, divided up the nation (or the Culture) vertically, encouraging class-war and individualism (that is, individualism in the sense of one's not having any concern for one's nation or Culture).

At first sight, this is true. But matters are more complex than that. In Degrelle's hagiographic writings on Hitler, we see that Degrelle regards the Weimar Era German state (at the time when the aristocratic von Papen was chancellor) as being anti-democratic and based on pure brute force and rule by decree (that is, overriding of the German parliament, in order to get laws passed). What is more, the class composition of that government was aristocratic and traditional German ruling-class. On the other hand, the NSDAP was working-class, socialist, and Hitler had a popular mandate (and therefore, was the true democrat). In Degrelle, we have, in this instance, the Marxist view of the liberal democratic state as being a 'separation' from class struggle. That is, the Papen government, by recourse to authoritarianism and calls for 'national unity', kept out - tried to separate the state from - a genuine socialist German worker's movement. And the Hitler dictatorship represented a true dictatorship of the German working-class - a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'...

Communists will scream, of course, 'You have no right to use these words and phrases to describe a fascist regimé! Those words and phrases are ours...'; but no-one has a monopoly on ideas. The main thing is that political realities are complex. One can view fascism through the prism of Evola's Traditionalism; or Yockey and Spengler's 'Morphology of Civilisations'; or through Marxism... For the intellectual, it is never a case of only one thinker, and one school of thought, being right, and all the others wrong. Marxism, as a 'science' (or what Germans call Wissenschaft) is a way of making an incision into reality, of cutting into reality. It is one way of analysing the particular phenomenon of fascism - and one can do this without regurgitating the clichés of two of fascism's bitterest opponents, Stalin and Trotsky. But, aside from the analysis of history, it is a way of looking at contemporary political realities. The trouble in the 21st century is that, because Marxism, as a tool (and a basis for political action), has been so abused by contemporary communist activists (as a justification for gay marriage, or illegal immigration, or student rights, or whatever), Marxist theory has to blown up and reassembled. In other words, we nationalist intellectuals have to rediscover socialism - what it means to be socialist - and see how we can use it.

One cannot simply pick up a book, however, and read it: one needs to be disciplined in philology, the science of interpreting texts (Nietzsche, as we know, was a philologist, and took a philological approach to philosophy). Philology is, to Nietzsche, the 'fine art of reading'. In Marxism, the best interpreter (to me, at the present time) is the New Left French philosopher, Louis Althusser. He took a revisionist approach to Marxism, blowing it up and reassembling it again, through a precise analysis of the real meaning of Marx's work, and the demolishing of the myths and erroneous ideas built up around it by Marxists themselves.

I myself find Althusser exciting, but some on the Left decry Althusser's Marxism as a drab, dry, cold philosophy. I can understand such views, but obviously, those Leftist critics have never really read Marx - Kapital is not a scintillating read. Unfortunately, too, much of the writing in the social sciences is 'cold and drab'. There is none of the colour and excitement one finds in, for example, a Carl Schmitt or Oswald Spengler. But Althusser is good for orienting readers, for assisting them in navigating the terrain of the German philosophy (in particular, Hegel and Feuerbach) and 19th century German history which influenced Marx (and today's European Left, and, incidentally, today's German nationalism). Just as important is the fact that Althusser looks at Marx through 'modern ideas', through Nietzsche and Heidegger... Marxism is still Marxism, of course, but Althusser's Marxism is more modern than that of the tired old Trotskyist, Stalinist and Maoist variety.

Politically, Althusser was the standard, garden-variety French Communist Party member - an admirer of Lenin and Mao, a critic of Stalin, a supporter of the communist North in the Vietnam War, and obviously, there is nothing of interest to nationalists there. Nationalist readers of Althusser have to 'divide through' this and (strange as it sounds) just ignore Althusser's actual politics.

To sum up: now is a good time for nationalists to challenge the Left when it comes to anti-capitalism and socialism. The Left is disorganised, demoralised, confused (I am often surprised by how many left-wing Internet sites, purportedly representing 'hard-boiled', radical communist groups, have not been updated for months, even years... Which suggests to me that there is not a lot of real, serious activism and theoretical activity going on). It abandoned the white working-classes and diverted its energies into side-issues which have nothing to do with socialism (gay rights, immigrant rights, environmentalism, gay student rights, and so on). The Left has left a gap, a void, which is there for nationalists to fill.