The Left changes its tune on Trump

With such vehement opposition from Big Business - and I mean really Big Business - to Trump's travel ban, the fiction that Trump is a 'neoliberal' and a tool of the capitalist class becomes harder to sustain; so too does the notion that Trump's 'racist' immigration policies are caused by 'capitalism'.

One could oppose immigration on socialist, and not racialist, grounds. Marx writes that capital needs as big a population as possible, because the more 'variable capital' - i.e., labour - there is, the more surplus value the capitalist can extract. A lot of Marxism is true, but today's Left chooses to ignore it.

Trump will soon be cracking down on H-1B visas:

As the article tells us, H-1B enables 'tech' companies to dump American workers and exploit foreign ones:

There are signs that the Left is beginning to wake up to reality, and is seeing that what Trump wants and what the 'capitalist class' wants are two different things. A communist called Marvin Gandall wrote this and uploaded it to the Marxist PEN-L list, and reposted it at the Marxmail list:

(posted to PEN-L by Marvin Gandall)

Unlike Trump’s base in the petty bourgeoisie and declining sectors of the working class, the dominant multinational corporations require the free flow of labour, capital, goods and services.

The business breach with the anti-immigrant position of the Trump administration extends across the spectrum from the liberal capitalists of Silicon Valley to the right-wing libertarians aligned with the Koch brothers.

He includes a link to the Washington Post article, 'Backlash from big business grows over Trump travel ban'.

In Defence of 'Scum' Nationalism

Joe Owens has done another inflammatory video - he cranks out half a dozen a week - attacking other British nationalists and proffering civic nationalism, populism and UKIP as the solution to all of nationalism's ills: this one is entitled 'REAL NATIONALISM or SCUM nationalism'.

Owens shows us a few clips of odd British nationalists at demonstrations, some of whom seem lumpenproletarian and defective. We see a few strange-looking and obese people. I was struck by the sight of one youngish man (at 06.18), walking with a cane and who appeared to have gout - a rich man's disease. Owens contrasts this with photos of nationalist demonstrations - including those held by the National Front - from the 1980s, when nationalists, and British people as a whole, were skinnier and fitter.

I can't speak for the British nationalists, of course; I can only speak for the Australian. Owens' video does relate back to us. A common complaint which has been heard on the Australian scene for years is, 'Why can't we attract more decent and healthy people - nice, well-educated, clean-cut, middle-class types...'. The answer is that those types for the most part don't participate in fringe politics, whether it be of the extreme Right or Left (and we should keep in mind that the ranks of the Far Left itself today are filled mainly with 'marginalised' people who appear weird or defective in some way - not healthy proletarians). The ones who do will, at the most, vote for the civic populists - such as One Nation, Rise Up!, Australian Liberty Alliance. They may even join those parties (but it should be noted that Australians in the main do not like joining political parties, even the mainstream ones). In other words, the 'nice, normal' types will gravitate, always, towards the mainstream political parties or their offshoots (such as the civic and populist formations); what's more, they confine their political activities to participation in the normal electoral process - that is, campaigning for parties and voting for them. They don't recognise that a politics exist outside the electoral sphere; they don't want constitute themselves (as the Far Left does) as an 'extra-parliamentary opposition'.

This brings us back to a criticism I made earlier of Joe Owens: those of the electoralist mentality believe that one should engage in politics only on election day (in state and federal elections) once every three years; for the intervening periods between election days and campaigns, one ought to just to sit idle - and perhaps fulminate, as Owens does, against those nationalists who are doing something during those periods.

Owens is asking a lot. We in Australia have just had a federal election, in which One Nation did well, and this year the state of Queensland will hold an election in which One Nation is expected to well. Those Australian nationalists outside of Queensland, then, are meant to do nothing and go to sleep for the next three years until the next federal election, when they ought to - according to Owens' recommendations - campaign and vote for One Nation, again.

But, contrary to what Owens says, politics in Australian nationalism does manifest itself in between elections and outside elections. In fact, we ought to take up a Marxist-Leninist, 'totalitarian' view of politics. Here is Selznick in the Introduction to The Organizational Weapon (1952):

The nature of bolshevism cannot be understood unless we grasp the fact that Leninist political doctrine rests upon a broad interpretation of the nature of power. In particular, bolshevik theory and practice recognize that power is social,- generated in the course of all types of action (not simply the narrowly “political”) and latent in all institutions.

This insight stems in part from basic Marxist theory and in part from the over-all aim of bolshevism—a total transformation of society that will invest every institution with political meaning. Leninism views politics as omnipresent. As a consequence, bolshevik strategy has identified vast new areas of political potential in what are usually thought to be nonpolitical special-purpose social institutions and mass organizations. This theory of power has increased the sensitivity of bolshevik strategy to unconventional methods of gaining influence. Exploitation of these devices has helped to keep the communist movement from adapting itself to constitutional methods; in this way, it has rejected the path of accommodation taken, for example, by most sections of the international socialist movement.

The bolshevik pursuit of power is subversive (1) because it is not limited to the areas where constitutional, responsible power is won, but is carried on everywhere in the social structure, wherever an increment of power can be squeezed from control of an institution or a portion of it; and (2) because communism knows no stopping place in its search for power short of concentrating total control in its own hands. This unceasing and unbounded struggle, associated with the politicalization of every facet of society, is a basic characteristic of totalitarian politics. Many of communism’s specific techniques are found elsewhere as well, but total subversion summons all the devices normally hidden in the interstices of a political order, emerging temporarily and episodically in times of constitutional weakness or crisis.

It is convenient for a subversive group to seek sources of power that may be won without bidding for direct popular support. Consequently it is better to work where small disciplined minorities can have their greatest impact. These are areas neglected by the major political forces, where the marginal strength of a minority can be most effective. Recognizing the importance of such areas of operation. Leninism stresses the need to build organizations designed to compete effectively in nonelectoral arenas.

There you have it: Joe Owens and civic nationalism refuted in four (not so simple) paragraphs. Communists understand the above on an intuitive level, even though they would not have phrased it as bluntly as Selznick does here; so did the earlier generation of British nationalists such as John Tyndall. Owens belongs to that generation which was well-versed in 'totalitarian' theory and practice, which is what makes Owens' rejection of building 'organizations designed to compete effectively in nonelectoral arenas' so jarring.

To return to Australia: our nationalists and populists were given a signal opportunity to engage in politics in 'nonelectoral arenas', to summon 'devices normally hidden in the interstices of a political order', on Australia Day. They could have held some event to commemorate our national day. But, so far as I know, Hanson's One Nation, Katter's Australian Party, Hinch's Justice Party and the rest did nothing. I can reveal that one function was held in Victoria, attended by representatives of four nationalist organisations - and most of these attendees were what the Left, and the media, would characterise as 'Neo-Nazis'; Owens might even think that one or two of them were 'scum nationalists'. The point is that the civics, populists, anti-Islamic patriots, were conspicuous by their absence on that day, in Victoria at least; they could have held their own civic nationalist, 'anti-Nazi', 'anti-white nationalist' Australia Day commemoration, but they didn't. Only 'Neo-Nazis' possessed sufficient motivation, and organisation, to do anything.

As the Americans say, 'Personnel is policy', and when most of those who are driving ordinary, day-to-day activity in the nationalist scene are 'Neo-Nazi' and 'scum' nationalist, that scene will take on a 'Neo-Nazi' character by default. That's what happens when the civics and 'nice people' abandon the nonelectoral arena.

The same process can occur within an organisation which is infiltrated by communists: it becomes communist because most of the personnel is communist. When the communists who are members are the only ones bothering to turn up to meetings of a British Labour Party branch or a trade union, and doing all the legwork, the non-communist members - who are usually apathetic and don't have the energy or the motivation to put up a fight for the control of the organisation - will be thrust out. Selznick in his book describes this progression many times. In order to justify the sidelining of non-communists in a target organisation and that organisation's takeover, the communists will call upon a doctrine Selznick calls 'activism', which says in essence, 'We communists are the ones turning up to these sparsely-attended meetings, we are doing most of the work, so therefore we deserve the right to rule'.

It's not my intention to debate the rights or wrongs of this, merely to inject a note of realpolitik. We need to acknowledge the facts. If 'Neo-Nazis' predominate in the most basic day to day activities of the Far Right, then they will invest it with a 'Neo-Nazi' character - it matters little whether they are 'scum' or not.

Salvador Allende - the could have been Gottwald, could have been Hitler

I've just re-read Robin Harris' A Tale of Two Chileans - Pinochet and Allende (1999) - a book I haven't touched for ten years. The book was written as agitprop for Pinochet during the time of Pinochet's internment in Britain (by then Home Secretary, Jack Straw) for the alleged torture of a Spanish national. At the time, Pinochet became a sort of Julian Assange of the Right, held under house arrest in Surrey (on charges that his many supporters thought were trumped up) and unable to return to his home country. Harris - a Tory and a sympathiser with Croatian nationalism - thought the situation dire enough to swing into action and write the small volume (published by 'Chilean Supporters Abroad') in defence of Pinochet and his record. 

I'm not interested in Harris' justification for Pinochet's regime here (although I did find it interesting that about half of deaths under Pinochet occurred in gun battles with the Left in the months after the September 1973 coup - they weren't all deaths by helicopter); it's the far more intriguing figure of Salvadore Allende who deserves our attention. I've always thought that parallels existed between Allende and Hitler, especially in the manner of their respective deaths;  here I was amused to read that Allende enjoyed the protection of his own hand-picked Schutz-Staffel:

Already in 1971 Allende had created his own praetorian guard, known euphemistically as the Groups of Personal Friends (GAP - Grupos de Amigos Personales). These increasingly heavily armed thugs effectively took over the President’s protection from the state authorities. The decision was strongly attacked by the Christian Democrats. [Chapter Two, 'Allende's Programme - "Total, Scientific, Marxist Socialism"']

To judge by their activities in the lead-up to the September coup, Allende and his fellow Marxist-Leninists were practitioners of the 'Bolshevist strategy and tactics' outlined in Philip Selznick's Organizational Weapon (1952).

As we know, Selznick looks at the revolutions (or coup d'états, depending on your perspective) in Germany in 1933 and Czechoslovakia in 1948. Hitler and Gottwald conquered their respective states using 'organizational weapon' tactics, and Allende must have been inspired by their example or something like it. Here is Harris:

The whole notion of a "coup against oneself" or "self-coup" (autogolpe) seems on the face of it bizarre: after all, why should those in charge of the government themselves wish to overthrow the state? In fact, though, this is a revolutionary tactic with a well established pedigree. It was, after all, what the Nazis under Hitler perpetrated in Germany in the years after 1932 (when they received a slightly higher vote than did Allende in 1970), and - a still more appropriate model - it was precisely the same approach as that used by the Communists under Gottwald in Czechoslovakia after 1946. In all three cases - Germany, Czechoslovakia and Chile - the revolutionaries gained a limited, temporary, hold on power which they then used in order to make their power unlimited and permanent. Subversion, terror, violence and intimidation were employed, both from within and from outside the apparatus of the state, in order to take total control of all institutions and thus of society itself. The difference between Chile on the one hand and Germany and Czechoslovakia on the other was that in the nick of time the Chilean armed forces acted to prevent this revolutionary plan succeeding. [Chapter Five, 'The Background to the Marxist "Self-Coup"']

The tragedy of today's Venezuela - which has descended into the same conditions as Chile in 1973 - is that no Pinochet, no caudillo, is waiting in the wings to boot Maduro out; Chavez, before his death, ensured that the Venezuelan military was thoroughly politicised and purged of 'reactionary' elements.

As to why Allende failed and Hitler and Gottwald didn't... It's a matter that merits serious examination. Students of 'extremist' politics ought to make case studies out of Hitler in 1933, Gottwald in 1948 and Allende in 1970-73. We on the Far Right have much to learn from the three.

An East Asian 'National Socialist' shows how it's done

Occasionally, a good article appears at Greg Johnson's Counter-Currents, and Riki Rei's 'Confessions of an East Asian National Socialist' is one. What is significant about it is that, not only is it written by an Asian, but that it does a lot better at defending Hitler's legacy than many articles and posts written by white people. In the comments section, Rei does a good job rebutting negative remarks made by the ubiquitous and inevitable Polish nationalist. In this he's done nationalism - or at least, neofascist nationalism - a service.

As to why, I'll explain in a moment. Let's deal with - in passing - the two questions, 'Did Hitler hate the Slavs?' and 'Did Hitler kill the Slavs?'.

To answer the latter: at least in the case of the Poles, Hitler didn't kill the Slavs. An excellent monograph at VHO.Org, 'Polish Population Losses During World War Two' - which uses reliable statistics - shows that the (non-Jewish) Polish population didn't go down by much after the war; perhaps only a few hundred thousand died, which is about the same as the death tolls of France, the UK, the US, Italy... Certainly, three hundred thousand doesn't equal three million - which is the number often put forward by historiographers.

As for the former question: has anyone made a serious study of what Hitler actually said on the topic of the Slavs? Do a control-F of the Hitler writings and speeches meant for public consumption - Mein Kampf and his collected speeches (a good many of them are here) - and you won't find that many denunciations of the Slavs as such: only polemics against the Czech nationalists and the 'Pan-Slavists' and multiculturalists of the Hapsburg Empire. He opines in Zweites Buch (which was unpublished in his lifetime) that the Slavs don't possess much in the way of 'stateforming' abilities, but this is in connection with a particular Slavic country - 'Slavic Russia', as he calls it. His Table Talk - which, we should note, contains statements meant for private consumption - is filled with some very low estimations of the national character of the Poles, the Russians, the Ukrainians and the Czechs (who, he assures his dining companions, aren't really Slavic - they're Mongol). (The Serbs hardly put in an appearance in either the private or public texts, which is surprising, because it is generally as assumed that Hitler was filled with a terrible hatred towards the Serbs). The Ukrainians are mentioned the most frequently, and in a negative way. Hitler regards them as a decent but childlike and dim-witted people who exist at the same level as the Australian Aboriginals and the Native American Indians during the time of their first contact with the white man. But, all in all, you don't find the wholesale animosity towards the Slavs which is attributed to him by his opponents. Indeed, such an attitude would have been impolitic. Germany relied heavily upon Slavs heavily during the war: the Slovaks helped Germany invade Poland and the USSR, for example, and perhaps the finest of all the foreign Waffen-SS divisions - the Latvian - was Slavic.

Why does any of this matter? The answer is the notion that there are great men, Hitler's doctrine of 'personality' (some may call it the cult of personality) is bound up with the fascism in an intimate way and can't be separated; therefore, by attacking Hitler (or Mussolini or Mosley or Degrelle...) you are attacking the idea that great men exist - and thereby fascism itself.

In much the same way, criticisms, attacks, slanders of the person of Muhammad constitute criticisms, attacks, slanders of Islam. Imagine that you're an Arab seventy years after the death of Muhammad; you believe that the Arab Peninsula, and the entire Middle East, should be under the rule of something very much like Islam; at the same time, you don't think much of Muhammad, his practices and his rule, and don't hesitate to tell others of your opinions - I would say that you're logically inconsistent. The biography of Muhammad (the Sira) and the practices of Muhammad (the Hadith) can't be untangled from the doctrine of Islam. In turn, the latter can't be improved upon by some later interpreter who wishes to correct the 'mistakes Muhammad made'; Islam can't be improved upon, only adapted.

Many nationalists find themselves in the same position as my hypothetical Arab: I call them the 'yellowfashies'. Greg Johnson himself serves as an example of the yellowfashie. His site makes a living off fascist - and neofascist - personages, but he himself criticises Hitler, declares that Holocaust Revisionism is a waste of time, and wants to make white nationalism 'respectable' by distinguishing it from any form of Neo-Nazism: hence his horrified reaction to the Hitler salutes at Richard Spencer's NPI conference in 2016.

Now it could be that fascism - which was crushed in 1945 - can't be brought back into the present; German National Socialism died with Hitler (and it should be noted that the German army collapsed in a matter of weeks after Hitler's death). Philip Selznick wrote in his Organizational Weapon (1952) that a good (that is, well-built) communist party can survive a bad leader; the Soviet Communist Party emerged largely unscathed after Stalin and continued on its way for forty years after his death. Institutional traditions existed in Soviet communism which preserved it. Did such traditions exist in the NSDAP and the other European fascist parties? We don't know. Works of speculative fiction, such as Philip K. Dick's Man in the High Castle (1962), attempt to answer that question.

The main thing is that the fascist doctrine - just like the communist - hasn't changed much in the past hundred or so years; both of them depend upon, as a structural support, Hitler's theory of 'personality' (the main difference being that fascism does so overtly, communism, covertly). Communism could never have gotten anywhere without its 'great men' Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Tito, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Castro... The same applies to fascism: without Hitler, Mussolini, and the rest, it is nothing. The corollary of this is that we won't see a revival of fascism without a revival of the theory of great men. But Hitler (and Mussolini and the others) serve as the exemplification of that theory. By denigrating them, you are undercutting the theory; and hence, fascism loses one of its key structural supports.

The Holocaust Undermines Itself: WWII Twitter on Auschwitz Liberation Day

I've been subscribing to WWII Twitter (@RealTimeWWII) for years. It has been tweeting every day of the war, since the start of it in September 1939, and often includes some interesting photos.

Unfortunately, the feed showcases plenty of Holocaust propaganda, which has marred all the histories of WWII published since the 1970s. After the Holocaust has been debunked, future historians will look at the West's Holocaust obsession and shake their heads...

WWII Twitter has now come up to January the 27th - Auschwitz Liberation Day. (Amusingly, Holocaust Revisionists have grabbed the domain name for January the 27th for their own: see here). The interesting thing about the Auschwitz liberation tweets is that the emancipated prisoners don't seem emaciated; they look like sleek, happy, well-fed seals. Indeed, some of them look fatter than I do.

The text of these tweets is at odds with the content of the pictures.

The only person who looks badly off is this poor little fellow, who probably is suffering from typhus:

Doxing the Enochs: Who Snitched?

According to Yockey's friend Gannon, doxing has been around since the 1950s at least. In those days - before the Internet - undercover members of the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith would meet with nationalists, obtain their contact details (so as to 'stay in touch') and then use that information to find out their identities, destroy their reputations and get them fired from their jobs.

The modus operandi - and the intent - of anti-nationalist and left-wing doxers hasn't changed those days, but something additional has been added - publicity. Starting from the 1970s, left-wing doxers would publicise the identities and addresses of nationalists far and wide, and attempt to whip up the populace into a hate-filled frenzy against a particular nationalist in the hope that some public-spirited individual - like the gunman who attempted to assassinate Governor George Wallace - would assault or even kill him.

So we shouldn't underestimate the seriousness of doxing. Those who make a practice of doxing their political foes are in effect calling for their destruction, which, taken to the ultimate level - Schmitt or Yockey would say the level of politics - means the death of one's opponent. Doxing, then, in nationalist and racialist circles should be treated as a crime meriting the severest penalty.

Regarding the Mike Enoch dox, the sequence of events is these. An anonymous person put out a call for the 'Death Panel' hosts of the Daily Shoah radio show at TheRightStuff.Biz to be doxed; this was in the /baphomet/ sub-forum of 8Chan which is entirely devoted to doxing. Two of the hosts - BulbaSaur and Seventh Son ('Sven') - were doxed at /baphomet/, and the information was posted for all to see at the main forum of 8Chan, which is the political one, /pol/. The moderators of /pol/ did not remove this information, and anyone who protested was shouted down. The excuse was that the members of the Right Stuff forum, 504um, had 'offended' 8Chan /pol/ somehow, and so the hosts of the Daily Shoah deserved to be doxed. All this raises these interesting questions: who put the call out for the Shoah hosts to be doxed at /baphomet/, who - if anyone - leaked that information at /baphomet/, and who posted that information at /pol/? And why was an ostensibly nationalist and racialist forum - /pol/ - used in this manner?

As readers may know, Mike Enoch - real name Mike Peinovich - was doxed at /baphomet/ soon afterwards, and the information again was circulated at /pol/. If it was the Antifa who did this, this time they scored an own goal. The New York resident Peinovich - who himself had long been rumoured to have been Jewish - was revealed to have been married to a Jewess for at least ten years, a woman who was a typical New York 'liberal values', ethnocentric Jewess at that. The odd thing was that Enoch, the main host of the Daily Shoah, had taken an aggressively anti-Semitic line for years, and his wife would have known of his politics - indeed, she even participated in it, reading a 'Nazi Christmas poem' on air a few episodes ago. Peinovich became disgraced in the eyes of many of the movement. Luminaries such as Andrew Anglin, David Duke, Richard Spencer and Greg Johnson have leapt to his defence, but the majority of The Right Stuff's followers feel betrayed.

The interesting question - again - is, who did the doxing? Rumours have swirled that the Alt-Lite personality Rob Cernovich - a Jew and a Zionist - was responsible; Cernovich had announced weeks beforehand that a prominent, 'obese' leader of the Alt-Right was married to a Jewish wife, without naming names. (It turns out that a few higher-ups in the Alt-Right -= Greg Johnson, for example - had known about Peinovich's Jewish wife all along). The doxer could have been Cernovich or someone else who had known. My guess is that it was an inside job. In my experience, the Antifa don't do much doxing - they don't possess sufficient skill or knowledge to work out someone's identity online; it's the people in the nationalist and racialist scene - often people you counted as friends - who end up being the ones who supply the information. They do this out of spite or, more often, because they've cut a deal with the Antifa or the Feds or both.

The Peinovich drama is still ongoing, and Peinovich is attempting to save what is left of his political career. He claims to have separated from his wife, an announcement which has been met with scepticism and is seen as the transparent political ploy that it is.

I will save an evaluation of Peinovich's and the Right Stuff's politics for another post. For now I just want to make the argument that, putting Peinovich and his wife to one side for the moment, BulbaSaur and Seventh Son shouldn't have been doxed, especially by a board which claims to be nationalist, racialist, fascist. Some at /pol/ have threatened to dox JazzHands and Halberstram, the hosts of Fash the Nation - the other premier Right Stuff radio show. Given that we don't know who the doxers, snitches and informants are at the moment, we should stay away from 8Chan /pol/ and not trust it; the people who are snitches, informants and left-wing doxers there are using the board for their own ends.

Trump and the Putinistas: Not Looking Good

Following on from my last post on Putin and Russia: it amazes me how gullible my nationalist and racialist comrades can be on topics such as Syria, Russia, Ukraine, Iran; they swallow Syrian, Russian and Iranian state propaganda hook, line and sinker. It's often the man in the street - and the 'normie' journalists - who are in possession of more facts and have a more correct view. The more you are exposed to Sputnik and RT (Russia Today), the less you know.

Ordinary conservatives, such as Paul Roderick Gregory for Forbes, write some good things on Russia (see 'Why Russia Cannot Become Our Friend: Memo to President Trump'): he knows more about Little Vladimir Putin, and understands Russia, better than any Alt-Righter. Another journalist, the Jewish writer Leonid Bershidsky, also does a good job when it comes to writing on Putin.

The essence of Bershidsky's recent article, 'Trump's Team Looks Smarter on Russia', is as follows. Trump wishes to follow in the footsteps of Obama and Bush 43 when it comes to Russia: he wants rapprochement, a 'reset'. Like Bush 43, he gives the impression of hopeless naiveté: possibly, after his meeting with Putin in Iceland, he will say that he 'looked in his eyes and saw his soul' and saw the soul of a good man. (Most Alt-Righters don't remember that; to them, the history of the world started eight to ten years ago).

Perhaps Putin will walk over Trump, like Khrushchev did to the inexperienced Kennedy at the 1961 Vienna summit. Who knows. But the Trump appointees recognise Putin, and Russia, for what they are.

Some critics of Trump's views on Russia couldn't believe it.

Tillerson understands - just like Hitler did in the summer of 1940, when Russia annexed Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina - that in the face of Russian aggression, iron resolve backed by the threat of the use of military force is needed. How should the Ukraine have reacted after the annexation of the Crimea?

I support neither the US nor Russia. European and Western nationalism finds itself in the same diplomatic position as the Third Reich in the early months of 1945: Hitler and Ribbentrop desperately hoped that cracks would appear in the US and Russian coalition and that the two countries would soon come to blows - and give Germany the breathing space it needed to survive the war. Alas for Germany - and fascism - that vision didn't come to pass. But there's no reason why a nationalist Europe today couldn't follow a similar strategy: wait for the two Great Satans - Russia and the US - to have a falling out and then seize the opportunity when it does appear, that is, the opportunity to enlarge nationalist Europe's power, or to regain European sovereignty, which is the same thing.

But wait - isn't Trump on our side? He may do a great job on building the wall and deporting the illegals; he may even tighten legal immigration; but on the whole, he doesn't stand what we stand for:

Too bad Trump doesn't stand for the ideals of the original America First.