Image created by sixninepixels.

By Michael Kennedy

One thing that can be said about the mainstream media, is that concerning real issues, they are often behind the times. “White flight”, a phenomenon which has been around for centuries elsewhere in the world, for quite a few years now in Australia, finally gets a mention in the Sydney Morning Herald.

An article titled “Fears over ‘white flight’ from selective schools” ¹ examined the shrinking diversity in elite, selective schools. Dr Christina Ho of the University of Technology Sydney found that what is essentially racial segregation by voluntary means occurring in elite private schools (and no doubt occurring in public schools as well, though the article didn’t touch this). As the article lacks further detail aside from pointing out the obvious, the article itself is not really worth further comment. What is interesting though, is the comments from the readers. If the Internet has done one good thing for news, it’s to allow readers to comment thereby opening up a window to the thoughts of the public on what is being discussed currently. One can learn far more about what’s happening around them, from readers comments than from journalists.

Many of the comment writers make the point that Asians study hard, have strong academic discipline, and as a result are more likely to achieve entry into elite schools by acing the exams. There is little doubt that this is true, and many of the comments go on to say this.

Commenter “Plus one anything you say” writes

I think “observer” is on the money. It doesn’t take much to see how much of a stronger work and study ethic immigrants have, compared to Australian-born. The hours and hard work Asian students put in has so many rewards – awards like the Young Australians of the Year, contributing to our strong academic reputation worldwide. If “white” (fairly inflammatory work there, sub-editor) kids aren’t going to work hard, they miss out.

It’s questionable whether Asians add to our ‘strong academic reputation’. It’s questionable whether Australia has a strong academic reputation at all. What’s left out, is that Asian nations don’t have a strong academic reputation, as evidenced by the simple fact that people do not go to these nations to study, but come to White, Western nations to be educated. Everyone assumes that hard work in trying to succeed in exams is the only path to intellectual creativity and innovation, but the results speak otherwise.

Another commenter called “Teacher” writes this quite succinct Orwellian comment, summing up Political Correctness’s desire to restrict freedom of speech. With teachers like this teaching Australians, it’s no wonder academic standards are failing. “Teacher” writes…

Australia should stop asking questions about race because race questions lead to race statistics, statistics lead to racist theories and racist theories lead to divisive and offensive articles like this, and to racist policies.

Commenter “Bourkie” writes…

f they were born in Australia then they are Australian; they all have Australian accents. The racist ‘White Australia’ policy based on false supremacy of europeans (implying inferiority of asians and indians) has been proven wrong. These stats only prove one thing, and one thing alone – tall poppy much?

So if “inferiority” of Asians has been proven wrong, then is this commenter implying they are superior? Besides, the ‘White Australia’ policy was not based on simple ideas of supremacy, but rather the idea that this nation was created by and belonged to whites. Discriminatory immigration practices have much more to do with ensuring the prosperity of the people who take part in the nation, than in some notion that others are simply inferior. It is Politically Incorrect to view the “White Australia” policy as anything other than simple minded. “Teacher” says so.

Other comments are from parents, who shed light on why ‘white flight’ may be occurring.

Commenter “Nero” writes

Does the ethnic mix add up to a good thing? A friends child enrolled in the school and left after a year: she reported being one of two anglo Australians in her class and of being ostracised by the others – at lunch the chinese australians spoke chinese and the indian australians spoke indian and did not mix. When there were group assignments they were labelled the ‘dumb’ group, presumably based on ethnic grounds given she was previously a school captain of her primary school and maintained an A average. This report may not be indicative of all the classes, indeed I doubt it is, but it has certainly coloured the view of families that know this fine young woman.

Here is the problem though with anecdotal reports – they give perception and not fact.

“Blaubaer” writes

Well, contrary to the political correct comments, I have a daughter coming up to Year 9 and I would like her to go to MacRob, however, I do have reservations about sending her to a school where 93% of the school population are Indian or Chinese.

Finally “labour out” writes

What a surprise. Melbourne has already become a city of tribes in so many ways.

It is true that Asians (and Indians) in Australia, the USA and other Western nations place great emphasis on study, in achieving good results and in gaining position. This may not just be a modern phenomenon, but an indicator of a deeper cultural difference, a difference in perspective between East and West, as to what education is for, and what the goals of education are.

In Australia, the parents have power over the teachers, the parents dictate terms to the and demand results. In East Asians nations, it is the teacher who is respected, and the idea that a parent could chastise the teacher for not doing a good enough job would seem strange in an East Asian community.

Whats behind cultural differences in study habits?

A study which appeared in the “International Education Journal” ² authored by Joseph Kee-Kuok Wong looked at the differences in perception between the two cultural groups. Joseph writes…

“Kirkbride and Tang (cited in Chan, 1999) stated that Chinese students preferred didactic and teacher centred style of teaching and would show great respect for the wisdom and knowledge of their teachers. The fear of loss of face, shame and over modesty made the Western participative style of learning less acceptable to them. However, Biggs (1996, p.59) believed that “Chinese students were more active in one-to-one interaction with the teacher as well as engaging in peer discussion outside the class”. ³

He then goes on further to discuss the difference in learning styles between Chinese and Australians.

Chan (1999) believed that the style of Chinese learning was still very much influenced by Confucianism that is dominated by rote learning and the application of examples. However, Biggs and Moore (cited in Biggs, 1996, p.54) highlighted that there was a distinction between rote and repetitive learning. According to them rote learning was generally described as learning without understanding, whereas repetitive learning has the intention to understand its meaning. They believed that the influence of tradition and the demands of the assessment system had affected Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) students’ choice of using a repetitive strategy in learning. The Western student’s learning strategies starts with exploration followed by the development of skills.

Loyalty is emphasized on Confucianism, as it was the only way a young scholar could make has way into the civil service of the ruler. During China’s communist revolution, Western ideas about education were purged and textbooks and exams were controlled by the ruling party. Confucian ideals were reintroduced. In Communism, the one party dictates education standards and outcomes, and one can only ascend by meeting the requirements of the party. As it has always been part of the Chinese way of life, Communist ideals survived longer in the East than in the West where they were rejected as soon as the population was free to. In Communist China, one cannot make their own destiny through free enterprise or personal inventiveness, but must attain a position by satisfying someone else s requirements, regardless of whether those requirements provide anything valuable or not. This is a situation which may sound familiar to wage slaves here in Australia!

Joseph writes…

The Chinese authoritarian education system, which demanded conformity, might not be conducive to the development of creative and analytical thinking. Furthermore, Chan (1999) claimed that Chinese students were being assessed mainly by examination with little emphasis on solving practical problems. Smith (cited in Couchman, 1997) believed that the Taiwanese students’ learning styles stressed reproduction of written work, and factual knowledge with little or no emphasis on critical thinking. Ballard and Clanchy (cited in Kirby et al, 1996, p.142) agreed that the Asian culture and education system stressed the conservation and reproduction of knowledge whereas the Western education system tended to value a speculative and questioning approach.

The differences in approach to education, and therefore education outcomes have a deep cultural basis. Societies in which conformity, position and successfully meeting the criteria set by a hierarchy for entry to positions of prestige (in particular where such positions are highly valued) will produce a culture among its people whereby they can most successfully meet these requirements. While there may be an innate talent towards rote learning and academic discipline, which is perhaps why these traits have become culturally valued, the question raised by the initial article about ‘white flight’ isn’t a simple matter of superiority.

International students bring with them a lot of money, and educational institutes are no doubt going to gear themselves towards making as much as they can. As Asian institutions are heavily exam based, exams being a test of how a student meets a set criteria prescribed by an authority and a test of rote learning, much of the study involved is geared towards simply passing the exam. Joseph writes, quoting experience of Asian students from their own home country.

The assessment system for Asian higher learning institution is generally more examination based. The style of teaching and learning is aimed at helping the students to pass the examination.

Two experiences from the home country in Asia….

Yes, this is what most of the students do. It is very exam based. They only look for the information that they get then can pass. It is very exam based, they only teach you to pass the exam. Probably also the students want it that way. [8]

and another

Before I came here…teacher will tell you everything and then you just read, memorize, and then go to the exam, that is all. Most of the students do not need to express our own opinion. [9]

This is quite the Western or Anglo-Saxon style, which tends towards group discussion.

Joseph writes

Asian students seldom did assignments in their home countries like here, so they are not familiar with the requirements of an assignment. They are unsure how to produce a good assignment, where to look for the relevant information, how much is enough and the format of the report. In the university here students no longer just reproduced what they had learnt.

Elite schools in Australia are quite exam based, entry is after all based upon an examination. There may even be a shift towards exam based assessment in order to appeal towards the Australian educators fastest growing market. Some of the comments in the Sydney Morning Herald article were bemoaning the decline of a broad based curriculum in these selective schools, where music and sport were being sidelined for raw, pressure cooker style tuition.

The simplistic comments that many may make, that we are simply inferior academically don’t really hold any weight. There are deeper cultural differences. Being a school drop out isn’t as shameful as it is in Asia. Bill Gates, Sir Alan Michael Sugar, Henry Ford, George Bernard Shaw and Vincent Van Gogh are just some examples of school drop outs who achieved success and respect. There are many, many more examples. Thomas Edison didn’t even go to school. In the West, one can attain wealth, respect and success without formal eduction, by self education. It isn’t necessary to be bestowed a position by meeting the criteria of an authority, which was principally how in the East, one advanced themselves.

Unfortunately here in the West, we are moving towards a mentality where authorities and a few select people in power decide the criteria, and one must meet the criteria to go anywhere or achieve recognition for success. Our education system, partly from the demands of parents, is moving more and more towards simply providing the skills a hiring manager would seek, rather than to provide a well rounded, educated and thinking member of society. More and more focus is put on children to ‘compete’, do better in exams and attain skills which look good in resumes. That is to say, we are heading towards the Eastern model.

The criteria that one must meet to achieve some success defines what it is that people will become skilled in. If in order to achieve success, one must do well in exams, than the end result will be to produce people who are primarily are skilled in completing exams. If in order to succeed, we create an environment where being a good self-salesperson is most important in getting a good job, then we will produce people who’s primary skill is in selling themselves.

The role of education in society.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves as a nation what we want people to be, how we want them to develop and find a place in our society. Do we want people in our society to be educated, well rounded, worldly and capable of critical though? Do we want people who are narrow minded and skilled only at rote tasks? Do we want innovators or fakers? Do we want creators and innovators, or parasitic middle men? What we demand from students will be what they produce. How our socioeconomic system rewards people and what it rewards people for, will determine what our strengths and skills will eventually become. If becoming a scientist or engineer isn’t rewarded well, then we will see fewer of them.

The fact of the matter is, that despite the over representation of Indian and East Asian students in Western elite schools, they still home here from abroad to study. White people do not go to the mother countries of these International students to get a good education. Most of the subjects were primarily created and developed in the West. If competitive cramming and pressure cooker style really did produce better results, then why is it that there is are many more Chinese and Indians who want to move here, rather than vice versa? Why is it that most of the technical and medical innovation still occurs in the West? There may be many Indians who work in the IT industry, but someone else had to make the industry, develop the technology and create the field of computer science in the first place. This act of creation is becoming less and less valued, as we seek more and more for our educated people to do mere rote work.

Education should be about producing people who are capable of creating a high quality of life for their society. If what we want to produce in our society is the best quality of life possible, then our education system should be geared towards producing that result. As it is, despite the eagerness of many people who want want to argue against Australian nationalism and why we need the East, the fact is that the people of the world are voting with their feet, and the ‘lazy’ Australians are producing a more sought after society and quality of life. There is nothing to be gained by trying to match the competitiveness that exists in other nations, in fact, we may lose overall. That is, if we are sane and value quality of life over abstract academic results. Many “anti-racists” will argue that Europe desperately needs workers from the third world, yet those from the third world have consistently failed to create a society they themselves want to live in, and Europe, despite its economic troubles is still preferred. Likewise in Australia, where according to some, are unable to function without importing the rest of the world, have managed to create a prosperous country without this supposed requirement.

Some Australians seem to understand this. The issue regarding ‘white flight’ in schools isn’t just one of whether white people are competitive enough, or smart enough. It’s one of what type of society do we want to produce.

Commenter “bleebs” writes

I believe that as a result of the so-called white flight, selective schools are increasingly forced to be too narrowly focused on knowledge instead of nurturing the many intelligences and creating a *whole* person, which is why I, for one, won’t be sending my children to one, even though I can. Happiness and life satisfaction brings its own success and wealth.

“Michaelc58” writes

Whether ‘pressure cooker’ and ‘arms race’ education produces better people and is desirable and fair to those who want a balanced childhood is, of course, another question.

“Rob” writes

Sure, your kids can keep up. Simply emulate the imported practices designed, in essense, to trick the system (that is, get a normal kid into a school for exceptional kids by way of rote learning).

But do future children in this country no longer deserve the childhood you can so fondly remember simply because your political persuasion encouraged the importation of a far more competitive brand of human being?

Seems like a race to the bottom of the ‘quality of life’ index. Study, work, die.

There was a deep shift in Western consciousness, away from a strong, inwards looking purpose and sense of destiny and real progress towards a more modern, aimless, purposeless attitude, where things are done just for the sake of being done, and if they can be done better, then so be it. It is because of this, that people no longer see the consequences of this world view. For some who put ‘anti-racism’ above everything else, above even common sense, they argue that this is just xenophobia, sour grapes and laziness.

But whether it’s competing with someone who is willing to work extra hours for less pay and less conditions, or someone who is willing to give up any extra-curricular study and activities that make one a well rounded citizen in order to do well in exams, it’s not just a matter of not wanting to compete. It’s a matter of deciding what type of society we want to create. There is no point losing your rights, your quality of life and time to engage in human relationships and hobbies, for extra productivity for no other purpose than extra productivity. There is no point becoming an intellectual robot for the purpose of just doing well in exams and getting placement positions in institutions. In both these scenarios, these conditions come about because someone is arbitrarily setting criteria, criteria which may be of profit to them, but not for the rest of us, or for society in general. We educate ourselves precisely in order to not have to toil and to constantly have to work harder for diminishing returns.

If people don’t want to return to Victorian era industrial squalor, then we have to be able to understand that the austerity that is being demanded of us by plutocrats isn’t a natural inevitability, but because of decisions made by those who hire and control our industries to allow this to happen. If we become a society where children have no other purpose than rote study for exams, then it will only happen because we have allowed educators to set these criteria. If we choose prosperity, elevating the human condition and betterment of the quality of life, then we have to demand from people, and teach people the qualities which bring this about. This can only come about by questioning authority, by having the intellectual courage to challenge the statements made by those who shape our society. By not accepting the premise that we have to compete in a race to the bottom, and demanding that those who choose for us to compete so they can profit, to restrain themselves for the sake of our society and the well being of the next generation.

The Western attitude towards education and work has historically paid off very well, producing without a doubt, among the most, or what was once among the most enviable societies on the planet. “White Flight” may be partly driven by feelings of alienation, partly by a lack of a desire to compete with the offspring of “Tiger Mums” and partly, and perhaps most importantly, a realization that the practices and attitudes that we are importing are from places less desirable than ours, and their adoption here may very well make our own society a less desirable, less humane place to live.

We are certainly on the way down that path, as we are being asked to give up our Western ideals, even our very own racial existence, for the benefit of a few greedy autocrats and for social experimentation of the misguided Marxist left. The self guilt and self hatred that has been pushed onto us has made us devalue the ideals which created a society the second and third world want to flock to, and made us discard them out of guilt, self punishment and undeserved feelings of inferiority. Quality of life, making life itself worth living is no longer the goal and ideal it was once, and we are adopting more and more an ideal where life is something to be ‘endured’, and one where the harder done by you are, the better you are.

By Michael Kennedy

The Labor government has shown that it is morally spineless by failing to make compulsory, pre slaughter stunning which would save the animals that we profit from, from the misery of appalling and barbaric slaughter techniques that exist elsewhere in the world. If we are to be honest, poor treatment of animals happens here in Australia as well, that cruel slaughter methods are used. Independent MP Andrew Wilkie stated that he would still move on a private bill to make stunning prior to slaughter compulsory. Despite the failure of the government to act on issues of moral importance, such as live export, the housing affordability crisis and the continued social engineering policies against Australians, we can’t forget there is still a small minority of politicians who have a moral compass more in line with the needs of the country, and who haven’t sold themselves out.

The fact that this issue is even considered debatable show how far we have to go in regards to animal rights. Some people still haven’t moved on and discarded Descartes damaging philosophy that animals are merely machines, unconscious and unaware of their surroundings and unable to feel pain. Others, who are probably even more callous, acknowledge that animals can experience suffering, but simply prefer to disregard it, and dismiss it as a necessary step to obtain meat, eggs, dairy product and profit. While it can be argued that meat isn’t necessary, and that humans could live without eating any animal derived food, it is difficult to see how anyone can argue that suffering is necessary if we choose to use these products. Animals can be treated humanely and their deaths don’t have to be painful, prolonged and drawn out, but it costs money. Eggs from free range chickens simply cost more than eggs from chickens de-beaked and kept in cages without room to move or turn. Given the choice, some people will still choose the caged eggs. Given the choice, some people would say that caged eggs are better than no eggs.

Are people just callous then? Some yes, but for many others, it is the distance between them as a shopper and the animal which makes such a decision easy. Place an example of a battery hen, a real live hen in front of the ‘caged eggs’ and a free rage hen next to the ‘free range’ eggs, and some people may change their minds. If someone wanted meat and they had to kill the animal themselves, there would be many people rethinking whether they really want ham in their sandwich, or chicken nuggets with their chips and vegetables. An “animal rights” equivalent of graphic cigarette packets. Nothing would make people vegetarian faster than forcing them to slaughter their own animals. Not even mad cow disease could turn people off meat that quick.

But this isn’t likely to happen, and allowing customers to choose just isn’t good enough. When people don’t have to THINK before they buy, and the food industry makes sure they don’t think the wrong things, the government has to prevent this excessive suffering.

We do hope that live animal export laws are drastically altered in Australia, even if it means that Nationalist Alternative have to be the ones to do it. The issue extends beyond the export of live animals, we must examine our practices here and not tolerate any slaughter practice or treatment of animals which is less than the most human treatment we can offer. Callousness towards animals is an indicator of callousness towards people. Profit and the economy cannot continue to be reasons to be callous towards living things. After all, I’m sure that the prohibition of slavery economically disadvantaged hard working entrepreneurs, but the benefits, which cannot be measured economically outweigh any cost. We are better people because of it. A greater regard towards animal welfare would undoubtedly make us better people, but being better people isn’t something our current government (or for that matter, the major opposition party) is interested in.

But in some ways, we treat each other like animals, living things to be exploited for profit, whether employees in debt slavery, parents gouged by high housing costs or young single people trying to make their way in early adulthood. Everyone’s focus seems to be on how productive we are, how much profit we can make, how much we are willing to let our standard of living slip to compete with foreign workers, how much we ‘cost’ to society because we get old and sick. Farmers, who are already struggling, and already gouged by big business in Australia, have little recourse but to simply oppose any further prohibition in live exports. A country with a greater degree of innovation and ability to adapt and change could offer transitional plans that won’t see farmers go to the wall, but again, it’s simply not a price people are willing to pay. They will simply not win the support of those who respect animals, by making it an argument of economy.</p>

So where do people get political opinions from? Who are the people who champion particular political schools of thought? What should be obvious is that people make a living and many in the mainstream media, and even alternative media get paid for creating political dialogue. What is also basic knowledge, is that people will only pay for something they want to pay for.

The obvious conclusion to this is that the vast majority of political discussion generated by the media, is created because someone PAID to say it. It is a fact that is too obvious for many people to notice.

The Internet is an exception, which is why both the Government and Big Media are attacking the free flow of ideas and speech.

So when a major “Conservative” columnist, who repeatedly complains about left wing bias in the media, doesn’t ask questions as to why he is still paid, then he either doesn’t care, doesn’t see the problem, or is a sell out. To be a Conservative in mainstream media, one must first accept that one will play by the rules that the mainstream media demands, which usually, almost always, means accepting Political Correctness, if not in heart, then at least in word. To be a Conservative in the mainstream media, one must be what the left consider “Respectable” or “Reasonable”, which means, almost always admitting that Progressivism is the ideological destiny of the west and that this destiny is beyond negotiation.

“Respectable” Conservatives are the Washington Generals to Liberalism’s Harlem Globetrotters. The Washington Generals were a ‘stooge’ Basketball team, created to help showcase the Harlem Globetrotter’s basketball skills and to play the role of an opposition team so there was some semblance of a basketball game occurring. They were never meant to any serious competition, just a bumbling, seemingly incompetent (yet still knowing the game) band of players whom the Harlem Globetrotters would regularly defeat.

How do you set up such a rigged game? Easy. Pay for it. Pay for both sides. As our state religion Political Correctness has virtually a monopoly over the media, it can ensure that only people who adhere to it maintain paid jobs as commentators. Just in the same way that the Harlem Globetrotter’s games were staged, as there was a particular outcome which was demanded, political debate between “Respectable” Conservatives and Liberals usually occurs in political arenas where Liberalism writes the rules, and dictates the standards.

But it is important to realise that it is not the exact same people who might campaign for hate speech laws, or push for multiculturalism who pay for conservative commentators, but these people generally share an acceptance of PC, of perhaps a varying degree. It is not a conspiracy where a shadowy cabal select all media spokespeople, but it is simply the end result of strong, one sided political pressure and activism which has resulted in a social and legal environment where this political school of thought shapes and sets the tone of debate. As “Conservatives” have to abide by this, only respectable ones make it. Many who disagree with Climatologists regarding Global Warming are aware that peer pressure and selective bias can lead to only one side of the debate being accepted, with any real opposition simply being booted out and only faux opposition being published and respected by the scientific community. It is also interesting to note that there is a notion of being a “reasonable” conservative, but few, if any leftists ever worry about whether they are a “reasonable” liberal or “reasonable” progressive.

“Respectable” Conservatives therefore can’t really and usually don’t oppose Political Correctness. They barely have the courage to properly call out Marxists as the lunatic relics, who may be motived by hate, from a bygone era that they are and never, ever give support for any real opposition to Political Correctness. They usually lead the charge against people who don’t agree with their anti-white agenda masquerading as “anti-racism”. The conservative moment has lost ground, precisely because “Respectable” Conservatives, always, in the end, make the proper propitiations to their PC masters and Liberalism always, in the end, defines what non-PC speech is allowed.

A good example is the Melbourne based Herald Sun columnist, Andrew Bolt. The left hate him, but most importantly, they don’t fear him or the commenter’s on his blog. Such is the state of “Conservatism” and “anti-leftism” in Australia, that a self styled leading conservative and champion against Political Correctness cannot bring up any other reaction than smug self righteousness from the left, and does not much more than give the left the opportunity to take part in patronising, insincere ‘pity’ for Bolts wingnuts. Some progressives may indeed ‘fear’ conservative rule, such as having Tony Abbot as Prime Minister, but it’s hard to find any substance behind this fear. This one one of the few areas which I actually agree with the left here, many of his commenter’s are indeed gutless and pathetic, but for a different reason. However, I disagree that they are ALL misguided, as among his commenter’s and fans are diamonds among the rough and many of these people are aware that they are diamonds amongst the rough.

Unfortunately, some are more astute and have realised that Andrew Bolt’s opposition to Liberalism is half baked and perhaps hasn’t even been placed in the oven at all. Some of these followers wonder whether he is actually not just another liberal himself, another PC stooge. This author has no doubt though, that Andrew Bolt, like many other mainstream Conservatives genuinely believe, at least to some degree, what they write, and they try to keep within the law. Unfortunately I believe Andrew Bolt underestimates just how little freedom of speech we have in Australia and because he has taken the “Respectable” position, he doesn’t realise that in the pursuit of Tolerance, he will be less and less tolerated until he is no longer tolerated at all.

For these people, there are unfortunately no other mainstream spokespeople they can follow or read. For many Australians, they know what we at Nationalist Alternative know, that the ‘melting pot’ future is not some inevitable result of progress or the result of Western predestination, but merely the deliberate attempt at a minority of liberal ideologues to re-engineer Western societies, a re-engineering in which there is no race. As they plan this for all and only white nations, it obviously means just the white race must go. Some might rightfully call this genocide. They are also finding that that the conservative movement has failed to prevent the encroachment of anti-vilification laws and as such, risks losing the very right to voice its position at all.

Andrew Bolt is a good lesson, a good example to demonstrate why mainstream “respectable” conservatism just doesn’t cut it, any why Liberalism always wins in the end. Most, if not all social changes in the past 50 years have been towards Liberalism, with perhaps questionable “regressions” in the economic arena.

When Bolt isn’t acting as a representative of the Liberal party, or whining about environmentalism, which accounts for 90% of his writings, he rants against Political Correctness and Liberalism, and the Liberals obsession with race based politics.

A column titled “At least our Macedonians are free” ¹, was a rather trite diatribe against Macedonian “hate speech” against Greeks. His column was a rant against Ms Noreen Megay of VCAT not finding any reason to pursue this “hate speech” further”. He starts by saying “IS it a rule that you have to be Anglo-Saxon to be a racist? “. A fair enough point, if you ignore the fact that ANY white person who objects to ANY white nations becoming a melting pot is labelled a racist, not just Anglo-Saxons. “Respectable” Conservatives are never allowed to bring this up.

What is ignored, is the fact that we have one European group who identify themselves as Macedonians, launching a tirade against another European group, Greeks, and Political Correctness doesn’t care about racism AGAINST whites, hence why Noreen Megay of VCAT didn’t find any wrong doing. Its not because it was committed by Macedonians, but its was against Greeks, who are Europeans are fair game, just as any other Europeans are far game. Just ask the Germans and Austrians.

But Andrew Bolt never makes this point, or CAN’T make it, because anti-white racism is the unstated holiest of holies in the religion of Political Correctness, and no “Respectable” Conservative can ever point this out or draw attention to it. I would also be willing to bet London to a brick, that if any white person ever wrote anything about a non-white ethnic group in a manner that these ‘Macedonians’ wrote against the Greeks, he would be leading the light brigade against “racism”. There would be no excuse, no recourse. The wrath of VCAT will rain upon them, reminding everyone else against the dangers of ‘racism’.

Bolt then complains about Noreens argument that the audience wouldn’t find the Macedonian text offensive by saying “I wonder how this argument would apply to Nazis or Ku Klux Klansmen”.

Later in the article it is unclear as to what Andrew Bolt was complaining about, whether that ‘Macedonians’ weren’t punished by leftist “hate crime” laws, or that Anglo-Saxon’s can’t get away with violating them. He ends the article with “Do you have to be Macedonian to be free to speak? Are only Anglo-Saxons racist?”. Very non-committal, we would expect nothing else from a “Respectable” conservative.

So given that he is PAID by a media which is supposedly left wing, and that the left support anti-white racism and totalitarian style “hate speech” censorship, it’s not surprising that he rarely calls out the “hate speech” laws as unjust restrictions on freedom of speech and thought, and never mentions the double standard of “racism against whites=OK”/”whites not tolerating multiracialism=pure evil”. He does stand up and take note, when they personally affect him, or when he feels they interfere with his version of Liberalism. You can’t rail for freedom of speech for all, and remain ‘respected’ by liberal intellectuals. So Andrew Bolt doesn’t. The very hate speech laws which are designed to keep a liberal monopoly on speech regarding immigration and multiculturalism get off scott free here, despite the fact he has a direct vested interest in removing them.

This is the anatomy of pretty much ALL conservative attacks against the left. Starts with a whine about liberalism not being applied correctly. In this case, Noreens decision NOT to follow up on supposed “hate crimes”.

Then afterwards, as always, a sly nod to the anti-racists (who are really just anti-white), that he is still with them. Bolt’s comment “I wonder how this argument would apply to Nazis or Ku Klux Klansmen” does just this. It lets the leftist intellectuals know that he too, is as obsessed with “Nazis” and “KKK” as they are.

Why “Nazis”, why “KKK”? Because this is the language that the left use against any Westerners, such as Nationalist Alternative, who might dare point out that mass immigration into Western countries might be destructive to Western culture and incompatible with the continued existence of European ethnicities in these nations. This is the language of ‘anti-racism’, so if you talk the talk, you hope people think you walk the walk. But despite the fact that the German Nationalist Socialist regime were bombed into dust over half a century ago, and that the KKK is defunct, and that neither exist in Australia aside from a few comical, hard to take seriously ‘activists’, it’s still the language du jour of the left, and it’s how Bolt can hint that he is still on the liberal train.

The article ends with the statement “Good on Megay. But the question remains: Do you have to be Macedonian to be free to speak? Are only Anglo-Saxons racist? “. Good on you Andrew Bolt, you tireless crusader against Political Correctness! Thank you for making your position against totalitarian hate speech laws, invented solely for the purpose of suppression of discussion about the dire failures of liberalism so clear. You care enough about it to mention it, and leave people guessing as to whether you actually are with liberals here or not.

But it’s not just Bolt who displays this half hearted “I’m a conserative, but don’t worry, I’m still with Political Correctness” attitude. Commenter “Hillbilly of Hobart” writes, with the usual explanation about how great multi-racialism is….

Terms like racist and denier have become the weapons used by those who know their position is weak.,to try and shut down any rational debate on matters where people have raised valid and legitimate concerns.

I am proud of Australia’s successful past record in immigration which on the whole has allowed mutually beneficial integration and assimilation of people from over 120 different ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds.

That has only been possible by having an orderly system where quotas have been determined on the basis of ability to provide adequate infrastructure and support in all areas and having a fair and proper assessment process to determine the suitability any applicant.

This is sadly quite typical. Why someone feels the need to keep telling everyone how they are for multi-racialism and diversity is beyond me. Why go to a conservative website to read this, when you can go to a liberal one? Well, you actually find conservatives bending over MORE than liberals, to show how tolerant they are and how accepting of a melting pot future. It’s really nothing more than conservatives trying to prove they are still PC, if not the ‘left wing’ type. Not that professing Tolerance is going to protect you anyway.

Even Andrew Bolt seemingly praises former Prime Minister Howard of all people for increasing immigration. In this blog post, “Howard shared those boundless plains”².

But no article sums up Andrew’s spineless “opposition” to Liberalism and its agenda against the West than this blog post, “Europes changing face”³. Posting pictures of French soccer teams of old and of modern teams, one aspect is striking obvious. In the early 20^th century, Frances soccer team was white, it was French. Now it is predominantly black. Andrew Bolt posts these pictures with not much more than this statement “May I please point out to hyperventilating commenters below that to notice is not to condemn – or applaud.”.

OK, he’s not specifically applauding it, which is one step better than some Liberals, who see this as a victory of progressivism over white homogeneity. But he doesn’t condemn either, essentially being neutral. Passive neutrality in the face of change is acceptance of the change. It is remaining neutral in the time of crisis, an evil in itself, one that Dante considered worthy of the innermost circles of Hell.

So lets see here, Europe’s “changing face” is the result of mass immigration and assimilation, a deliberate policy of liberalism, not the result of tolerance or genuine dislike of racism. Tolerance is demanded after multi-racialism has been forced upon the population, to ensure that it proceeds orderly without opposition.

But conservatives are silent on this transformation, because speaking against such a demographic transformation will always be construed by the left, as “racism” against non-whites. Liberals state, quite clearly that any desire to maintain the European character of France, for example, is akin to racism against non-Europeans. This isn’t true at all, and merely a propaganda tool by the left, but conservatives simply won’t challenge this rather easy to debunk fallacy.

Why the Left demands “Tolerance”.

It was revealed that the British Labour party in the year 2000 concealed plans to make Britain more multiracial by allowing in more migrants, partly to force multi-racialism and partly to rub the noses of the right in it. Many leftists openly admit that mass immigration should be forced to destroy white homogeneity and some revel in the idea. Andrew Neather, a speech writer who worked in Downing St wrote about a policy paper form the Performance and Innovation Unit

“Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

“I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” ⁴.

The Labour party tried to backtrack, but unfortunately this attitude is quite typical of leftist ideologues. This attitude is behind all Liberal governments, including France. In France, this is so open that the current President Sarkozy has said that the French people must change and that there will be dire consequences if they don’t intermarry. ⁵

But no “Respectable” Conservative is allowed to bring this up, to directly confront the Left with it. No “Respectable” Conservative would be allowed to keep bringing this revelation from the British Labour party to reveal how “Tolerance” and “Diversity” are used in a hateful manner against the British people. This is a revelation of significantly greater importance than the “Climategate” e-mails, and it’s content far more damaging and direct and far less ambiguous about the true motives behind multi-racial immigration, yet mainstream conservatism simply ignores this fact. This should ring alarm bells.

The “Respectable” Conservative counterpoint.

So with the fact that European nations are run by anti-white leftists, it is disheartening to hear that the only opposition to Europe’s gradual decline and genocide is from “Respectable” conservatives.

We wouldn’t expect Andrew Bolt to stand in defence of the destruction of Britain’s and Europe’s heritage by Liberalism and neither it seems, do many of his followers.

Jaycee of Melbourne writes,

“From Mr Bolt’s notes…

“May I please point out to hyperventilating commenters below that to notice is not to condemn – or applaud.”

As an individual, I found the comparisons interesting…nothing more. “

Of course. Genocide is “interesting…nothing more”.

Jarrod writes the following, in a response to a comment about the 1936 German team being homogeneous.

“Mon 03 Mar 08 (11:46am)

Unfortunately so!!

I think that the photo’s are a good reflection of a nation (France) who is open to globalisation, and who treats it citizens regardless of colour as French.

It’s a bit disappointing to see that Italy has not followed this trend. It appears that Italy may still be stuck with an out-dated version of nationalism – exclusion, regardless them having a lot of African immigrants. “

Again, ANY white homogeneity is denounced as evil by liberalism. It is a problem that must be remedied. This evil problem must be remedied by mass non-white immigration and assimilation. The solution to the “white problem”, is to remove whiteness. Jarrod, just like all “respectable” Conservatives agree with Liberalism here. What is even more interesting is that both Liberals and Conservatives will tell you that they have never heard of anyone talking about ‘whiteness’ being a problem that must be solved by mass non-white immigration and assimilation. This would be like a Global Warming sceptic saying they’ve never heard of “Climategate”. Go figure.

Why don’t his readers realise he is not a conservative?

Perhaps the most baffling aspect of Bolt’s blog, or any mainstream conservative blogger, commentator or pundit, is why people who actually are against Liberalism and Political Correctness follow them?

These conservatives complain about a left wing bias in the media. These SAME conservatives then get paid by the very same media they accuse of being Leftist. Said media wont pay anyone who writes columns which actually threaten the holy established religion of Political Correctness, so all opposition to Liberalism must play by their rules to be published. Because the commentator is playing by their rules, by virtue of being employed by them and seeking ‘respect’ from liberal intellectuals any opposition that he is allowed to print, they can’t be true opposition. The readers then go on thinking that this conservative movement is the one that is going to get rid of the twisted religion of Political Correctness. Because of this, the readers mindless repeat left wing slogans and enforce liberal ideas with the same zeal as the left, perhaps even more so, because they must prove to the left at every moment, they aren’t ‘racist’, which really means just doing what it takes to get leftists to stop using it as slander against you.

They must still prove to the left, they are “Respectable”, that they are “Intellectual” and that they too agree that white countries should be open for everyone. Saying “I’m not a racist…” just doesn’t cut it with the left any more. You have to prove it, and intermarriage is a good way of showing the strength of ones faith in anti-white, anti-racism. But no matter what you do, if the left are the ones who define the rules, they can simply rule that your speech, your opinion is ‘hate speech’, or ‘offensive’ or simply ‘illegal’ and be done with you. They define what ‘racist’ is, which really is just anything they don’t ideologically agree with.

This is the sad state of conservative, mainstream right wing politics in the country. You simply cannot critique multi-culturalism if you accept the basic premise that all white nations MUST become multiracial. If you accept this, then what recourse do you have against hate speech? How can you complain about ‘Macedonians’ writing slander against Greeks, when you accept Liberalism’s anti-racism, which is in reality an anti-white movement?

Because “hate speech” laws are a necessity to ensure that white people accept giving away their heritage and future, what right does someone who agrees that white people must accept this future have, in even questioning the laws which make this possible and prevent this program from being thwarted? And even if you don’t accept if, if you agree, that in principle, Western nations should head towards Liberalism, then who are you to argue against Liberals as to how its done?

Never deal with the devil, you will always lose.

On the 28^th of September Andrew Bolt was found guilty of racial vilification. His “crime” was questioning whether white looking Aboriginals would really be considered Aboriginal. As we live in a country which does NOT have freedom of speech, and therefore does NOT have freedom of thought, I am not permitted, lest I be found guilty in front of a judge, in sharing my opinion as to whether Andrew Bolt’s statement was reasonable or not. The law it appears, requires us all to believe that he was unreasonable. So sayeth the judge.

Some might see this and think “Well, doesn’t this prove that paid conservative columnists are not in bed with the left, as they too are punished by leftist, communist inspired “Hate Crime” laws? No, it doesn’t. It is important to remember that there isn’t a grand conspiracy here, that News Limited doesn’t secretly hold meetings with Socialist Alliance members and Anti-Racist organisations to elect a puppet as a columnist. Conservatives are chosen out of free will, but the system, public expectations and requirements of the vocal, and seemingly powerful leftist activist class is enough to ensure that only “Respectable” conservatives are given a voice. Anyone who they do not consider “Respectable”, such as Pauline Hanson is hounded into submission and destroyed. Even the two major political parties in this country will unite to ensure this happens. Dissenting opinion simply doesn’t survive, and by a process similar to natural selection, only “Respectable” Conservatives get any mainstream voice and get treated as being legitimate political voices, at least until someone decides a change is needed. They can serve the function of acting as a pressure valve to real dissent, a way of diverting anti PC opinion to an ineffective outlet.

There is no love for “Respectable” Conservatives like Bolt from the left, and simply because one ensures that they still have a PC outlook, doesn’t grant one immunity. Any totalitarian religion needs to become more and more intolerant of dissent if it is to consolidate its power. Those who preach Tolerance become more and more intolerant, especially of anyone who doesn’t fit their definition of Tolerant or Inclusive, definitions which can change over time. Being “Respectable”, supporting immigration and assimilation, supporting all white nations become melting pots isn’t going to protect you if you are not wholeheartedly Politically Correct. If you hold a view which Liberalism decides is no longer Tolerant, you become a target.

So Andrew Bolt has been found guilty by Judge (I use the term loosely) Mordecai Bromberg of making a statement the JUDGE found offensive. Andrew Bolt either stepped out of line, or more likely, the line was simply moved further to the side of Political Correctness and Andrew Bolt now found himself outside the line. What it takes to be “Respectable” was simply redefined, and he no longer fits the definition.

However, despite the nature of the article which lead to the proceedings, Andrew Bolt does NOT deserve to be found guilty and the verdict is deplorable. It is irrelevant whether his statement was offensive or not, or even if it was the result of less than perfect journalism. More to the point, one shouldn’t be punished for saying something about someone else, that a third party thinks may offend. Freedom of speech means the freedom to say things which people might find offensive. To deny people the right to say something that another human being might find offensive is to deny people pretty the right to pretty much any political speech whatsoever. Perhaps we are heading towards the banning of all politics that isn’t PC. Freedom of speech means freedom of thought. Curtailing freedom of speech is actually an attempt to curtail freedom of thought.

The lesson here for anyone who holds views against multiculturalism, Political Correctness or liberalism, is that being against racism, being for pluralism isn’t enough if you are not wholeheartedly for it. It isn’t enough to be against racism but also against minority pandering. It isn’t enough to fight against racism, but still believe that European and Anglo countries should be able to preserve their heritage and culture. It isn’t enough to accept a ‘little’ diversity but desire keep it under control. It even isn’t enough to be a support of Israel and denounce anti-semitism.

You may be able to get a paid job, appear on TV, you may be allowed, for a while to be considered somewhat respectable but Liberalism has for the last several decades narrowed the range of behaviour, speech and opinion which is considered acceptable. What was once considered inoffensive in the 80′s can now land you in court. What is considered allowable now will in the future be unacceptable. Each time the screws are tightened, “Respectable” Conservative opinion will simply be re-branded as hate speech and offensive and if necessary, legislated, as Mordecai Bromberg has done by setting a precedent, out of existence.

by Donald Winters

‘We have to put bodies on the street, writing letters to the Times does not work…‘ – EDL member, quoted in The Guardian, ‘English Defence League: new wave of extremists plotting summer of unrest‘, 28/05/2010)

‘I have on some occasions had discussions with SIOE [Stop the Islamisation of Europe! group] and EDL and recommended them to use certain strategies. The tactics of the EDL are now to ‘lure’ an overreaction from the Jihad Youth/Extreme-Marxists, something they have succeeded in doing several times already’ - Anders Breivik.

‘They think the league is exploiting us, while it is really we who initiated the Jewish division. If anything, we are exploiting them (the EDL)‘ – Roberta Moore, Likudnik activist and member of the ‘Jewish Division’ of the English Defence League, quoted in Ha’aretz, 13/07/2010)

1. Introduction: anti-Islamism, pro-Israelism and the European Far Right

The Bush Jr. decade – the 2000s – was ‘the Islam decade’. For the first time in history, the world’s attention was focused on Islamic fundamentalism, or Islamism, and the beliefs and practices of Islam itself, and this attention was, of course, overwhelmingly negative. A loose collection of professional anti-Islamic scholars and publicists appeared – Robert Spencer, Aayan Hirsi, Bat Ye’Or, Bruce Bawer – among others, whose ideas segued in neatly with the agenda of anti-Islamist and pro-Israel Jews such as Michael Savage, Daniel Pipes, Mark Steyn and David Horowitz. ‘Anti-Islamism’ may have begun life as a secularist, humanist, and liberal anti-Islam movement, but, since 2001, has become subordinated to the Israeli ideology and political world-view – particularly that of the Israeli Right, e.g., Likud.

During the 2000s, the Western public – particularly in Europe – at last began to acknowledge that there were huge numbers of Muslim immigrants – around 17 million in the EU alone – in the West. By this point in time, that conclusion – that Muslims, in huge numbers, were living in the cities in Europe, and had more or less taken their neighbourhoods and formed Diaspora Muslim communities, with Muslim values, laws, customs, dress, and so forth – was inescapable. The West saw that what Francis Parker Yockey calls ‘Culture Distortion’ had taken place, on a massive scale, on the streets of Europe. Furthermore, the mass Muslim migration to the West had taken place with the acquiescence and even active encouragement of the élites of Europe – the politicians, academics, journalists, intellectuals, EU bureaucrats (and even economists and business lobbies, who demanded more immigration to deal with the problem of Europe’s ‘ageing population’).

In reaction to this, Western European voters began voting, in increasingly large numbers, for Far Right, and often pro-Israel, populist political parties: the Party of Freedom in Holland, the Danish People’s Party in Denmark, the Freedom Party in Austria, the Swiss People’s Party in Switzerland, the Progress Party in Norway, the True Finns Party in Finland, the Front National in France, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden. Unfortunately, these parties are not run by political theorists and intellectuals – the politician is, by definition, a man of action – and so the platforms of these parties became inflected with the anti-Islamist and Likudnik ideology, culminating in the absurdity of a Dutch nationalist party led by Geert Wilders, a maniacal philo-Semite who declares Israel to be his second favourite country, and who should be regarded as the political representative of the anti-Islamist movement. Wilders insists that anti-Islamism has nothing to do with race, and that indeed the racialism and nationalism of the ‘old’ Far Right has to be rejected. Non-whites, such as Aayan Hirsi, should be embraced so long as they have a principled opposition to Islam (and, ideally, a love of Israel). In turn, true and lasting political success for the Far Right can be achieved only through the Far Right populist parties which have abandoned the old anti-Semitism, racialism and the traditional pro-fascist and pro-National Socialist sympathies of the old European Far Right.

Undoubtedly, the Far Right populists have been tremendously successful in Europe, and that success would appear, at first sight, to validate Wilders’ argument. The only exceptions to the rule are Britain and Germany.

Germany is an anomaly, in that it does not have a functioning, nationwide Far Right populist party: it has, instead, a fringe political party – the NPD – which has no federal representation and which is firmly grounded in the ‘old’ European Far Right, and whose primary preoccupation seems to be rehabilitating the image of Germans in WWII (an admirable task, but obviously, one that is an uphill battle). Other than the skinhead and ‘autonomous nationalist’ groups, that is all there is of the nationalist scene in Germany. Nationalism there is doomed to remain a fringe movement, and nationalist parties cannot win seats in German federal elections. The reasons why are manifold, but the primary one is this: German politics, culture and society have moved on a great deal since the aftermath of WWII (despite the opinion of the German, and world, media, which says that Germany has not moved on from the time of WWII, the Holocaust, and the immediate post-war period of German punishment and atonement); the German Far Right has not recognised this fact, and has not adapted its ideology to suit immediate political realities, in the way that, for instance, Wilders (a canny operator who has divined the Dutch national mood) has. Presumably, an organised Far Right populist party, with a charismatic, photogenic leader, would do well in Germany (although how far such a party would have to go, down the ‘Wilders path’ – to anti-racialism and Jew-worship – is debatable).

Which brings us to Britain. The BNP was restructured, by Nick Griffin, along the lines of a Continental, Far Right, populist and pro-Israel party, but, after an initial strong showing, this approach bombed. One friend, who is quite familiar with the British nationalist scene, opines that non-white immigration, into British working-class areas (who traditionally support the BNP), has increased to such a dramatic extent under New Labour, that the BNP vote has declined for this reason. The number of immigrants voting for Labour in these areas has shot up, thereby ‘swamping’ the BNP votes. Labour may have deliberately relocated immigrants (by giving them public housing, etc.) into these BNP areas as a means of combating the BNP vote. I think that this is a good explanation as any other. (Possibly, the BNP has to focus its energies on the rural and regional areas of Britain which, unlike the urban areas, are still largely white – the only trouble is that these electoral districts vote, primarily, for the Tories).

The only real contender, for the title of Britain’s most prominent Far Right organisation, is the English Defence League – a controversial and problematic group within the nationalist community. Here I shall be taking a double-edged approach: while I condemn the ‘Gates of Vienna ‘ ideology of the EDL, I laud their tactics – in particular, their mobilisation of hundreds of young working-class British men to demonstrate in Muslim immigrant areas and confront Muslim, and radical leftist, counter-demonstrators. To me, the EDL is an amorphous, spontaneous mass-movement which has been penetrated, unfortunately, by anti-Islamists with a Likudnik agenda.

The EDL members are not intellectuals and political theorists, and seem to be mostly working-class men without a tertiary education; as a result, they are more vulnerable, than most, to anti-Islamist indoctrination. The situation in the EDL – of a promising Far Right, nationalist movement which is wide open to anti-Islamist, Jewish and Likudnik infiltration – mirrors that of the Western European nationalist scene as a whole.

At the same time, one cannot dispense with the nationalist activists who make up the EDL, and the other ‘Defence Leagues’ throughout Europe. And, of course, I agree with the professional anti-Islamics in their negative characterisation of Islamism. I will be suggesting, later on, that nationalists in Europe should direct most of their energy in fighting Islamism and stop expending their resources in combats with the militant Left. The purpose of this essay, then, is to sort the good from the bad.

2. The ‘Gates of Vienna’ ideology and liberal democracy

For those seeking a summary of the beliefs of the anti-Islamist/’Gates of Vienna’ school of thought, the 1500-word manifesto of the Norwegian mass murderer Andrews Breivik is the best (for those who do not wish to read the whole thing, I recommend Kevin MacDonald’s series, which analyses the document, at the Occidental Observer site). Not that I am suggesting, for a moment, that adherents of the ‘Gates of Vienna’ school are maniacs, who, after hearing the doctrine, will go on rampages, shooting and blowing up their white countrymen. The ideology of Breivik played a part in his selection of targets, as I will argue shortly; but the blame can probably laid on psychosis-inducing drugs, a common factor in these cases of ‘mad gunmen’. As conservative Jewish columnist Peter Hitchens (brother of the notorious neoconservative Christopher) writes:

It’s the drugs, stupid. In hundreds of square miles of supposed analysis of the Norway mass murder, almost nobody has noticed that the smirking Anders Breivik was taking large quantities of mind-altering chemicals.

In this case, the substances are an anabolic steroid called stanozolol, combined with an amphetamine-like drug called ephedrine, plus caffeine to make the mixture really fizz.

I found these facts in Breivik’s vast, drivelling manifesto simply because I was looking for them.

The authorities and most of the media are more interested in his non-existent belief in fundamentalist Christianity.

I doubt if the drugs would ever have been known about if Breivik hadn’t himself revealed this.

I suspect that mind-bending drugs of some kind feature in almost all of the epidemic rampage killings that Western society is now suffering.
Anabolic steroids were also used heavily by David Bieber, who killed one policeman and tried to kill two more in Leeds in 2003, and by Raoul Moat, who last summer shot three people in Northumberland, killing one and blinding another.

Steroids are strongly associated with mood changes, uncontrollable anger and many other problems. In my view, this link remains formally unproven only because no great effort has yet been made to prove it.

A serious worldwide inquiry should be launched into the correlation between steroid use and violent incidents.

Likewise with so-called ‘antidepressants’, whose medical value has recently been seriously questioned in two devastating articles in The New York Review Of Books by the distinguished American doctor Marcia Angell. Her words ought to be reproduced and circulated to all doctors.

I pointed out some time ago how many shooting incidents involved people who had been taking these suspect pills. Patrick Purdy, culprit of the 1989 Cleveland school shooting, and Jeff Weise, culprit of the 2005 Red Lake High School shootings, had been taking ‘antidepressants’.

So had Michael McDermott, culprit of the 2000 Wakefield massacre in Massachusetts. So had Kip Kinkel, responsible for a 1998 murder spree in Oregon. So had John Hinckley, who tried to murder President Ronald Reagan in 1981. They were also found in the cabin of the ‘Unabomber’ Ted Kaczynski, of whom more later.

[Peter Hitchens, 'One more mass killer, one more drug addled mind', Mail on Sunday, 30/072011].

Hitchens concludes:

Anyone can have unusual or unconventional ideas. Unkind conservative Americans used to play a game of guessing whether various alarmist statements about the environment had been written by the Unabomber – who lived in a forest hut and murdered people by sending them letter bombs – or by Vice President Al Gore, who lived in the Washington National Observatory with a Secret Service guard. It usually turned out that the wilder ones had been penned by Mr Gore.

And I have no doubt that the eloquence of writers can move people to action. William Butler Yeats feared that his patriotic poems might have set some Irishmen on the path to Easter Rising violence in 1916. But it is rational action.

Nobody but a madman – and steroids have in my view made Anders Breivik mad – could believe that mercilessly slaughtering the flower of Norway would advance any cause.

Sensible words, for sure. But, having said that, Breivik’s choice of targets – mainly white, Norwegian anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian activists, and a center-left Norwegian government which had received scathing criticism from Israel for its support for the idea of a boycott and divestment campaign against Israel – flowed naturally from Breivik’s ‘Gates of Vienna’ school ideology; even the day of the killings (the anniversary of the King David Hotel bombing) was significant.

One would think that a self-proclaimed Norwegian nationalist, obsessed by the idea of a ‘crusade’ against Islam, and by the preservation of the white Nordic racial type, would attack Muslims, of whom there are 166,000 in Norway; instead, he chose to attack his own kind. Why?

Because, in his drug-addled, insane mind, he heard one directive, over and over: ‘Destroy the enemies of Israel and Jewry’. And anyone who criticises Israel, in any shape and form, and undertakes political activism against Israel, is, in the eyes of a Daniel Pipes or a David Horowitz, a threat to the Jews, and so, as a logical consequence, must be destroyed. It doesn’t take much to earn a rabbinical fatwa from these self-proclaimed defenders of the Jewish people, State, nation, culture, identity, and the penalty for transgressions, is, in their ideology, death.

The bizarre thing is that Breivik’s values are very much part of the Western mainstream. They are: support for Israel and the State of Israel; intense animosity of Islamic fundamentalists (including Hamas and Hezbollah) for their opposition to Israel; intense animosity towards white Europeans on the ‘Left’ who sympathise with the Palestinians and oppose Israel; anti-racialism (Breivik insists that he, and the rest of the ‘Vienna School’ are not racialists, or ethnocentrics, despite his comments, elsewhere in the manifesto, regarding the Nordic racial type) and opposition to the idea of the Western nation being considered as an ethnic and racial entity; intense animosity towards Hitler, German National Socialism, fascism (Breivik declares that he wants to go back in time to assassinate Hitler, to punish him for the Holocaust of six million Jews; Breivik shares this fantasy with a great many liberals of his type, e.g., Tom Cruise, who, at the time of filming Valkyrie (2008), declared that playing Stauffenberg was the fulfilment of a lifelong dream, that he, too, always wanted to time-travel and assassinate Hitler). Now, considering all this, how different is it from the ideology of a Sarkozy, Merkel, Berlusconi, Cameron, or the average op-ed columnist in a Western newspaper?

There is one slight difference. To the left of the Merkels, Camerons, Sarkozys, stands Obama (and many other liberals of his type). Obama, an Afro-American from a radical Leftist background, wants as many Hispanics to migrate to America as possible (either legally or illegally); the goal is for the border states of the US (originally “stolen” from Mexico) to be annexed, through Hispanic demographic expansion, to a “Greater Mexico”. The border states will be ethnically cleansed of Anglo-Americans, and become part of a Lebensraum for Mexican immigrants. Obama doesn’t care, one jot, about the strains the influx of Mexican immigrants will place on American infrastructure and the American government; the purpose of government is to pay the bills of these Mexicans, and redistribute wealth from the Anglo-American majority to the immigrants from Mexico, and to Afro-Americans. Obama’s type is quite common in Western Europe – one can find plenty examples of it there. But, on the other hand, in Europe, we have politicians who, while loving diversity and immigration, and sympathising with Israel, recognise that there is a public backlash against immigration, multiculturalism and compulsory diversity; and, as practical politicians, recognise that the huge influx of immigrants have strained their countries to breaking point. Housing, health care, education, public transport, translation services, welfare money, space in prisons, the criminal justice system, even internment camps (e.g., Lampedusa, off the coast of Italy, which has space for only 800 illegal immigrants, and is already full to overflowing), coast guards, sanitation – Europe does not have an infinite supply of these.

One cannot fit fifty people in a lifeboat: one can rail, for as long as one likes, that a lifeboat is “racist” for not being able to accommodate the entire Third World, the starving, hungry, needy masses of North Africa, the Middle East, China, India, Pakistan; but still, one can’t fight facts. The European politicians are, whatever their other failings, not stupid, and they see this. Obama, on the other hand, does not see this, or if he does, does not care.

A European example of the Obama type is former Norwegian prime minister, and now Nobel Peace Prize committee member, Thorbjørn Jagland:

Thorbjørn Jagland, a former prime minister of his country, said leaders such as the British premier would be “playing with fire” if they continued to use rhetoric that could be exploited by extremists.

Jagland, who is also secretary general of the Council of Europe, told the Observer: “We have to be very careful how we are discussing these issues, what words are used.”Political leaders have got to defend the fact that society has become more diverse. We have to defend the reality, otherwise we are going to get into a mess. I think political leaders have to send a clear message to embrace it and benefit from it.”We should be very cautious now, we should not play with fire. Therefore I think the words we are using are very important because it can lead to much more.”

Jagland has also urged leading politicians to change their terminology. He said the word “diversity” was better than multiculturalism because the latter had become defined in different ways by different groups. “We also need to stop using ‘Islamic terrorism’, which indicates that terrorism is about Islam. We should be saying that terrorism is terrorism and not linked to religion,” said Jagland. ['Nobel chairman warns Europe's leaders over 'inflaming far-right sentiment', The Guardian, 30/07/2011].

One can balk at the arrogance of this man’s message – ‘Europe is becoming diverse, you’d better get used to it’ – but this is quite typical of the Western, left-liberal, pro-multiracialist establishment. In Jagland, we have one wing of the establishment wagging his finger and admonishing the other, for daring to hint that a policy of unrestricted non-white immigration to the West may have negative consequences. Such talk may lead to another Breivik massacre (but Breivik, in the main, only got rid of white Norwegians, which is what the Jaglands want to do anyway).

I must stress that, despite the differences between the Obamas and Jaglands on one hand, and the Sarkozys and Merkels on the other, both are united on core assumptions – assumptions that they share with Breivik. The real difference between the adherents of the Gates of Vienna school, and the Sarkozys and Camerons, is that the former want action, straight away, on the question of (mainly Muslim) immigration. In the end, Wilders is a Merkel or Cameron, but with a more intense focus on immigration (and diverting state resources (e.g., welfare money) from the immigrants who have already arrived). The average European head of state is notoriously bad at dealing with immigration. David Cameron vowed to do something, once elected, to stem the tide of immigrants heading to Britain, but the dreary statistics show that things are the same, if not worse, than under Labour (immigrants continue to come in the hundreds of thousands, and take the majority of newly-created jobs, etc.). The Wilders type promises to do the job far more efficiently; and the evidence suggests that the Danish and Dutch governments have, respectively, tightened their immigration laws in response to pressure from the Far Right (these are minority governments which are dependent on support from the Dutch Party of Freedom and the Danish People’s Party). In Italy, the Far Right Northern League exerts a similar influence on the government of Berlusconi.

A common criticism, among nationalists, of the Far Right, ‘Gates of Vienna’-influenced, populists, is that they are only anti-Muslim, not anti-immigrant in general. Ergo, were a Wilders or Pjaersgaard to get a political majority, they would focus only on Muslim immigrants, to the exclusion of the rest. It is true that Muslims make up the majority of the immigrant populations in Europe; but immigrants from other groups are prominent as well. In England and Wales alone, the Indian population numbers 1.43 million (!), the Africans are at 800,000, the Chinese are at 452,000 (these are the figures from 2009). A nationalist comrade of mine, who had made a recent trip to Britain, told me that London was, at present, not in danger of being Islamised, but Africanised (the Islamic presence was more felt in other British cities). Breivik repeatedly stresses that he has no problems with immigrants who are not Muslim, and who choose to ‘assimilate’, and that he is not a racialist; Wilders and co. say the same thing, and even hint that they have no problem with ‘moderate’ Muslims (whatever ‘moderate’ Islam is). Nationalists take these sorts of statements very seriously.

I will say that it is very unlikely that the Danish and Dutch minority governments have now adopted a policy of, ‘If you’re Muslim, you can’t come in; if you’re African, Indian or Chinese, by all means, enter our country’. Indeed, it seems that Western European voters have two choices: either they can have a government which does nothing on immigration (e.g., Cameron, Gillard here in Australia); or they can have, at this point, a minority liberal democratic government, in coalition with Far Right populists, who at least take some action against immigration. Those are the only alternatives, for the present, and to me, a little Far Right nationalism in Europe is better than none.

3. The Likudnik entryists

The real danger presented by the anti-Islamics is that they are opening up the European nationalist movement to infiltration and subversion by representatives of the Israeli Right – that is, Likudniks. In other words, they are leaving themselves open to activists who are practising the old Trotskyite tactic of entryism, all in order to steer European nationalists to agitating, and fighting for, what are, in the end, Israeli interests (and, by and large, the interests of the Jewish Diaspora in Europe). The anti-racialist and philo-Semitic ideology of the ‘Vienna School’ makes inexperienced nationalist activists highly vulnerable to such a subversion and disruption.

This process – of utilisation of the European nationalist movement – is there for all to see. It is especially noticeable in the English Defence League. The Jewish anti-Zionist activist, Gilad Atzmon, writes, in an exposé of Jewish infiltration of the EDL:

I guess it shouldn’t take us by surprise that the Israeli flag has become a common feature at the ultra nationalist English Defence League’s (EDL) demonstrations and gatherings.

The EDL calls for taking action against the “Islamization of Britain” and “Muslim fundamentalists”. It is a magnet for extremist right-wing activists and is driven by xenophobia and ethno centrism. Recently the organisation gained an ‘important’ addition to its coalition of hatred. It is called the “The EDL Jewish division.” According to the Jewish Chronicle “hundreds of (Jewish) followers” joined immediately. Supporters include an ex-Community Security Trust volunteer who claims “a lot of Jewish guys want to get stuck in”. Another follower wrote on Facebook “we are all Shayetet 13″, the barbarian Israeli Navy commando unit that was directly responsible for the massacre and executions on the Mavi Marmara. It is also notable that this Jewish bloodthirsty ‘patriot’ didn’t say ‘we are all SAS, British Navy or RAF’. He for some reason preferred to affiliate himself with a foreign Navy, a Navy unit that fights Jewish wars rather than so-called British ones.

I guess that the English Defence League’s leaders are not aware of the fact that their ‘Jewish Division’ is there to exploit the new organization…

As we are trying to recover from the devastating influence of the infamous ‘Labour friends of Israel’ and while becoming accustomed to the unethical impact of the “Conservative Friends of Israel” that already has succeeded in amending British universal jurisdiction, we are also becoming used to seeing the Israeli flag wave at us in extremist right wing demonstrations. Clearly, this is far from being a big surprise. The continuum between apartheid Israel, European Islamophobia, Melanie Philips’ Londonistan and Nick Cohen’s anti Islam is apparent and transparent…

I learned from Haaretz’ expose of the Jewish Division that its leader Roberta Moore, 39, is a Brazilian Jew born in Rio de Janeiro, she once lived in Israel and now resides in north London. In the following video you can watch Moore preaching Islamophobia while covering her body with an Israeli flag.

Moore told Haaretz “We believe that if we call the enemy by his name, we will be able to fight him. We single out organizations that discriminate against Jews and Zionist organizations, and try to explain there is no difference between anti- Semitism and anti-Zionism…The problem is that they (Muslims) are being brainwashed and believe they are superior to everyone else. They have the right to think that, but don’t try to force your opinions on me and tell me the clothes I wear or the music I listen to are bad. Or that my beliefs are inferior and I must not do this or that. Why do we women have to cover anything?”

[Gilad Atzmon, 'The Jewish Division', 15/10/2010, at: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-the-jewish-division.html]

Atzmon, of course, is no friend of European nationalism. But, because he is Jewish, he can mock, and belittle, the ‘Jewishness’ of the likes of Roberta Moore and Pamela Geller, without being called anti-Semitic; gentile nationalists don’t have that luxury.

What is clear is that, from reading Atzmon’s piece, and others detailing the intersection of Likudnism, ‘Gates of Vienna’-ism and the European Far Right, is that there is a determined effort, on the part of some opportunistic pro-Israel, Jewish activists and publicists, to link up with the European Far Right and steer nationalists towards Israel, Judaism, and Zionism (which are, these days, the one and same thing). Concomitant with these ideologies is an anti-racialism and an opposition to the ‘old’ European Far Right anti-Semitism of the Vichy/German National Socialist type. These activists are working certain philo-Semitic tendencies (or rather, individuals) who are already there on the Far Right. Hence Wilders’ Far Right nationalist conferences in Israel, and the declarations, by EDL leaders, that the English Defence League is not a “racist” organisation and that it supports Israel, the “only democracy in the Middle East”. Hence Breivik, the self-proclaimed nationalist and ‘cultural conservative’ and enemy of multiculturalism, who made it a priority, on his killing spree, to kill white leftist enemies of Israel.

What is happening here is a mutual exploitation.

The nationalists want the legitimacy and respectability that a philo-Semitic ideology can provide: Kevin MacDonald writes that the white Western population is terrified of anything associated with racialism, Holocaust denial, neofascism, Neo-Nazism, white nationalism, etc., and would rather die than risk being associated with these things. What better way of reassuring those timorous Britons, French, Germans, Dutch, Swedes, Italians, that one is not of that species than by declaring that one loves Israel and the Jewish people? Marine Le Pen makes pro-Jewish statements all the time in the media (statements which are not representative, I’m sure, of the rank-and-file of the Front National); but one cannot make a successful presidential bid, in France, on a platform which is in any way critical of the Jewish people. So the European Far Right, by adopting philo-Semitism, and allowing the ‘Gates of Vienna’ school into its parties, gets a licence to practice politics.

What of the Likudniks? What do they get? In the case of the EDL, thousands of sturdy, British, white working-class lads who are determined to make a war – a political war – on the substantial Islamic immigrant populations in Britain, populations which are by and large antithetical to Israel (and Jews), and are supportive of the Palestinians, Hamas and Hezbollah.

All of this is political horse-trading. But, at this point, we must pause and take stock. We nationalists believe in what we do because we are right and the rest of the world, which disagrees with us, is wrong. Our opponents are, in fact, evil: the pilots of the RAF and USAAF, who laid waste to the cities of Europe, and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, were evil; the US Army infantrymen, who guarded Eisenhower’s POW camps, which killed hundreds of thousands of Germans in occupied France and Germany, were evil. We nationalists must not succumb to liberal democratic (and communist) brainwashing, and we must remind ourselves, continually, that we stand on the side of truth and righteousness. The Breiviks, Obamas, Camerons, Merkels, Gellers and Moores, on the other hand, are on the side of wrong. So we cannot compromise with the enemy, and accede to philo-Semitism, Atlanticism and liberal democratism, no matter how unpopular that stance makes us (and, in Europe at the present, that stance makes us very unpopular; certainly, it leads to our being persecuted by the political establishment).

Whether or not the EDL, and the European Far Right in general, rejects Breivikism, the Gates of Vienna School, and Likudism, remains to be seen; quite possibly, it will recognise this as yet another instance of Culture Distortion and spew it out.

In the case of the EDL, what we have is an anomaly, a curious hybrid. The white working-class men who make up the EDL rank and file are exactly the same sort as those who joined Mosley in the 1930s; their tactics, fighting spirit, mentality, are exactly the same. But while the body of the organisation is quasi-fascist, in its organisation and method (as I will argue below), the head is at least part Breivikist. What we have here is, in the words of the Likudnik activist Pamela Geller (and one of Breivik’s chief inspirations) is a ‘struggle for the heart and soul of the EDL’.

The situation is reminiscent of that of the New Left in the 1970s. The New Left was a student movement which practised ‘direct democracy’ – i.e., nobody leading anything, no central organisation at all. The New Left came about spontaneously, and really was an uprising by the student body, leaderless, directionless, and without a clear ideology (much like the uprisings in the Arab world at present). Over time, however, that lack of direction and leadership proved to be its undoing, and it became vulnerable to penetration by the small, dwindling, but better-organised, more disciplined Trotskyite communist groups. Will the activists of the EDL – who come from the working-class football club ‘divisions’ – go down the same route, and succumb to the Gellers and Moores? Or will it spit them out? Time will tell.

For the remainder of this article, I will detail some of the methods and tactics of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s, and explain how the EDL makes use of those same methods (probably without knowing it) and their efficacy.

4. Fascism defined: ‘emotional politics’

It is extremely difficult to define what ‘fascism’ (and hence ‘neofascism’) actually is. In my view, Part of the answer – as to what the fascist ideology really consists of – is given in the classic essay by Karl Loewenstein, ‘Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights’, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 31, No. 3. (Jun., 1937), pp. 417-432. Like most writing on fascism, Loewenstein’s essay is negative; but it does come closer than a good many others in defining the fascist fundamentals.

In Loewenstein’s essay, fascism is defined as a technique, as a method, not as an ideology. An ideology rests on a coherent set of principles, but fascism has none: it is a series of negatives – anti-Communism, anti-capitalism, anti-Semitism, anti-monarchism, anti-liberal democracy, anti-Masonry, even anti-Christian (while, at the same time, denouncing modern atheism, immorality, etc., all at once). For Loewenstein, fascism is all about emotion – arousing emotion and directing it to a certain goal.

The fact that fascism is not an ideology, but only a political technique, is abundantly evidenced by the vast experience of the last decade. Fascism is not a philosophy – not even a realistic constructive program – but the most effectivepolitical technique in modern history… Fascism simply wants to rule. The vagueness of the fascist offerings hardens into concrete invective only if manifest deficiencies of the democratic system are singled out for attack. Leadership, order, and disciple are set over against parliamentary corruption, chaos and selfishness… General discontent is focussed on palpable objectives (Jews, freemasons, bankers, chain stores). Colossal propaganda is launched against what appears as the most conspicuously vulnerable targets. A technique of incessant repetition, of over-statements and over-simplifications, is evolved and applied. The different sections of the people are played off against one another. In brief, to arouse, to guide, and to use emotionalism in its crudest and its most refined forms is the essence of the fascist technique for which movement and emotion are not only linguistically identical. It is a peculiar feature of the emotional technique that those who are brought into play as the instruments, i.e., the masses, should not be aware of the rational calculations by which the wire-pullers direct it. Fascism is the true child of the age of technical wonders and of the emotional masses. [Loewenstein, p.423].

So what are the techniques of fascism? The main one is the uniformed militia – the paramilitary organisation which ‘takes on the Reds’ in the streets. The paramilitary unit is in constant conflict with the Communists. It comes into contact with them by gatecrashing left-wing marches and events, or hosting provocative marches through communist-dominated neighbourhoods, or by organising public meetings, which, inevitably, are attended by Communists who either blockade those meetings with large groups of demonstrators (who seek to prevent people from going in by threatening them with violence or by inserting communists in the audience who either heckle the speakers or physically attack them).

This conflict, which takes place on the streets between uniformed fascist street fighters and communist thugs, serves many functions at once, as Loewenstein explains:

The [fascist] movement organises itself in the form of a semi-military corps, the party militia or private army of the party. Under the pretense of self-protection, the original nucleus of the personal bodyguard of the leaders, and of the stewards for the maintenance of order in meetings, is developed into a large fighting body of high efficiency equipped with the fullest outfit of military paraphernalia, such as military hierarchy, uniforms and other symbols, and if possible arms. Again, this technique has strong emotional values and purposes. In the first place, mere demonstration of military force, even without actual violence, does not fail deeply to impress the peaceful and law-abiding bourgeois. Its manifestation, so alien to the normal expressions of party life, is, as such, a source of intimidation and of emotional strain for the citizens. On the other hand, while democratic parties are characterised by the looseness of their spiritual allegiance, the military organisation of the fascist parties emphasises the irrevocable nature of the political bond. It creates and maintains that sense of mystical comradeship of all for each and each for all, that exclusiveness of political obsession in comparison to which the usual party allegiance is only one among many pluralistic loyalties… [Loewenstein, p.424-425].

The purpose of all this is to achieve the breakdown of law and order, and the destruction of the liberal democratic State.

When party allegiance finally transcends allegiance to the state, the dangerous atmosphere of double legality is created. The military routine, because it is directed against despised democracy, is ethically glorified as part of party symbolism which in turn is part of the emotional domination.  Disobedience towards the constituted authorities naturally grows into violence, and violence becomes a new source of disciplined emotionalism. The conflicts with the state – unavoidable when this phase of active aggressiveness is reached – increase the common sentiment of persecution, martyrdom, heroism, and dangerous life so closely akin to legalised violence during war. [Loewenstein, ibid.]

At the heart of fascism is the uniform:

The uniform has a mystical attraction also in avowedly non-militaristic countries. The effect of military display on the ‘soft’ bourgeois is all the more lasting because he contrasts the firmness of purpose of accumulated force in fascism with the uncontrolled fluctuations of normal political life…  In any democratic country, be it traditionally ever so sober and balanced, the existence of a political movement organised as a military force makes the average citizen uneasy and creates the feeling of restiveness which emotional politics needs. [Loewenstein, ibid.]

In contrast to modern day revolutionary movements which aim at conducting a war (against the forces of the state) from the shadows, under cover of the darkness of anonymity and obscurity, fascism takes the reverse route. It depends on achieving as much exposure as possible, as gaining as much attention as possible. It is, in fact, the political equivalent of the attention-seeking child.

In former ages, revolutionary movements operated cautiously and in secrecy.  They were dangerous of their underground nature. They could strike without warning. In most states, legislation was passed against secret societies. In the age of the emotional masses, the situation is reserved. Revolutionary fascism needs the spotlight of the utmost publicity. It could never unfold itself in the dark. Thus fascism forces itself into the foreground, where its emotional spell can be cast upon the masses. Its technique is relentless self-advertisement and propaganda. Democracy could not reckon with the effects of open propaganda.  While vigilance was focussed, in fatal misunderstanding of the changed technique of revolutionary movements, on secret actions, no legislative devices existed for offsetting revolutionary emotionalism in the garb of legality, propaganda, and military symbolism. Fascism shrewdly capitalised this situation and won its most notable victories by boring into the weakness of the democratic system. [Loewenstein, pp. 425-246].

Among the fascist attention-grabbing techniques there is its ‘revolutionary and subversive’ propaganda sets out to be as attention-grabbing and shocking as possible:

Overt acts of incitement to armed sedition can easily be squashed, but the vast armory of fascist technique includes the more subtle weapons of vilifying, defaming, slandering, and last but not least, ridiculing, the democratic state itself, its political institutions and leading personalities. For a long time, in the Action Française, the finesse of noted authors like Daudet and Maurras developed political invective into both an art and a science… [Liberal democracy] acquiesced, because freedom of public opinion evidently included also freedom of political abuse, and even malignant criticism was sheltered. Redress had to be sought by the person affected through the ordinary procedure of libel, thereby affording a welcome opportunity for advertising the political intentions of the offender… [Belgian Rexist leader] Degrelle… boasted that at one time more than two hundred libel suits were pending against him. [Karl Loewenstein,‘Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights, II’, in American Political Science Review, vol. 31, no. 4 (Aug., 1937), pp. 653-654.]

Then there is the practice of the cult of the political criminal:

More patently subversive is fascism’s habit of public exalting political criminals and offenders against the existing laws – a practice which serves the twofold purpose of building up the revolutionary symbolism of martyrs and heroes and of defying, with impunity, the existing order. It is still remembered that Herr Hitler, in August, 1933, when the rowdies of his party murdered, under particularly revolting circumstances, a political adversary in Potempa and were sentenced to death by the court, proclaimed his “spiritual unity” with them. [Loewenstein, p 654.].

The bottom line is that fascism aims at, and often succeeds in, delegitimising the liberal democratic status quo. Fascist politicians, when they did attain parliamentary seats in the opposition benches, often used the opportunity of parliamentary question-time to turn the parliament into a zoo – disrupting proceedings by, among other things, taunting and provoking liberal democratic MPs until they lost their temper, turning parliamentary sittings into a free-for-all of yelling, insults and general bad behaviour. Such stunts were used by fascists as propaganda for their thesis that parliament and liberal democracy is inherently chaotic (and needs to be replaced by a more orderly and disciplined system of doing things).

5. The fascist minimum

In summary, fascism rests on a number of things:

• The use of military-type uniforms, symbols, etc.: that is, ‘Private para-military armies of political parties… political uniforms or parts thereof (badges, armlets).. other symbols (flags, banners, emblems, streamers and pennants) which serve to denote the political opinion of the person in public. [These make up] the roots of the fascist technique of propaganda, namely, self-advertisement and intimidation of others. The military garb symbolises and crystallises the mystical comradeship of arms so essential to the emotional needs of fascism’. [Loewenstein, p.648-649].
  

• Provocative marches: ‘It became obvious that fascist demonstrations, processions, and meetings were held in districts where they could be considered only as a deliberate provocation because of the hostility of the bulk of the people living in these quarters. If, in such cases, disturbances occurred, they were actually created by the opponents. Exploiting this situation was one of the favourite methods of rising fascist movements whereby they could stand on the constitutional right of free processions and assembly’. [Loewenstein, p. 652].
  

• ‘Stewards’, bodyguards, militias: that is, ‘The formation of military bands or private party militias. Created originally as “stewards” for the protection of party rallies and as bodyguards for the “leaders”, they have a tendency to grow into private armies for offensive purposes and to prepare for the ultimate seizure of power. Thus they constitute intolerable competitors of the state’s own armed forces’. [Loewenstein, p. 649].

These are the main points. Other important elements are a) the cult of the martyr, fallen in battle against the ‘Reds’ (e.g., Horst Wessel) and b) revolutionary, subversive, seditious propaganda.

So: given these definitions of what fascist practice consists of – which groups are ‘fascist’ today? Are there any ‘neofascist’ groups in the post-war era?

The answer is that there groups and individuals which uses bits and pieces of the fascist ‘armoury’ of techniques. One can point to, in the modern nationalist scene, a few practices which are evocative of fascism. There are the marches commemorating the life of Daniel Wreström, the Swedish skinhead youth murdered by immigrants, and who is a kind of neofascist martyr, a modern-day Horst Wessel. There is the ‘revolutionary and subversive’ propaganda of the late William Pierce, whose broadcasts most definitely stir up emotions in the old Goebbels style. (For an instance of the cult of the political criminal, nationalists with long memories will recall Pierce’s eulogy to the Oklahoma bomber, Timothy McVeigh). Even the anti-immigrant brochures and posters of a staid populist party like the BNP (in particular, the pamphlets show disturbing pictures of indigenous British people who are the victims of immigrant crime) are fascist-type propaganda (despite the BNP declaring itself as anything but). As for street confrontations with the ‘Reds’, they are the stock in trade of the sturdy German nationalists, like the NPD, who still, seventy years on, rely on provocative marches through Communist- and Antifa-dominated neighbourhoods and the feeling of ‘mystical bonding’ which results after these often violent confrontations. (The British National Front in the 1970s, and the British National Party, in its early days, also made a specialty of street confrontations with the Communists but since then such large scale street activism in the Anglosphere nations has been very rare until the emergence of the EDL which has generated this review paper). Paramilitary uniforms in Europe are, of course, banned, but Eastern European nationalists, particularly in Hungary, the Ukraine and Russia, have formed their own nationalist paramilitary units.

6. Triangulation

So where does this leave us? Fascism, for sure, requires an opponent in order to achieve power. According to Loewenstein, fascism is a kind of political chemistry which brings about a certain reaction. The fascists and communists engage in a violent, semi-civil war in the street, while liberal democracy looks on, helplessly. In Loewenstein’s view, the state has the monopoly on all forms of coercion and violence – arrest, imprisonment, execution, conscription, declaring war – and any state that fails to keep a tight hold on that monopoly, and surrenders its exclusive rights to others (e.g., fascists, communists), will suffer. In fact, political power is, to quote Francis Parker Yockey, a plenum – which is the opposite of a vacuum, i.e., it is a space that is totally filled (as opposed to a space containing nothing). The result is that any foregoing of political power means that the political power will flow elsewhere. So if the liberal democratic gives up its monopoly on coercion and violence, it will experience a ‘leakage’ of power. That power will flow to the communists, and the fascists, who are usurping the state’s political rights, by engaging in a political struggle resembling warfare in the streets.

Historically, communists, and fascists, have resorted to thuggery, intimidation, violence. But the essential thing is that they are constituting themselves as political units which are separate from the state. Carl Schmitt declared that even a mass assembly, a crowd, at a demonstration, presents ‘potential’ political possibilities, and the crowds at mass fascist and political demonstrations are indeed political.

So we have, in liberal democracy, a state unable to stand up for itself, and enforce its political rights, i.e., the monopoly on coercion and violence, and by Schmitt’s understanding, ‘politics’ itself. That is to say, only the state has the right to engage in politics, and the state which does not, invariably experiences a leakage of political power.

The fascist method, as Loewenstein defines it, is to create a three-player contest – between fascism, communism and liberal democracy. Fascism and communism battle it out, while liberal democracy does nothing but wring its hands, and becomes more and more weak. Chaos and discord within the liberal democratic state arises, as the masses recognise that liberal democracy is unable, or unwilling, to assert its monopoly rights. Rampant communism and fascism are akin to tumours, cancers, within the political organism which is the liberal democratic state, and can make it grow sick and die. After a point, fascism is able to accomplish two things: firstly, it can crush its communist opponent, and then leapfrog over the corpse of the politically-defeated communist, and into the seat of political power – after elbowing a weakened liberal democracy out of the way.

This strategy is a high-risk one. It rests on two assumptions: a) that the communist opponent will fold, and will be unable to seize political power for itself; and b), that the liberal democratic state will not turn ‘militant’ (to use Loewenstein’s term) and vigorously defend itself and assert its (exclusive) political rights, by, among other things, banning its competitors – “extremist”, “anti-democratic” political groups such as the communists and fascists. Loewenstein, of course, recommends the latter course for liberal democracies, and the post-war government of Germany took on his recommendations, adopting a constitution that has extraordinary powers to ban political groups it deems “extremist” and “opposed to liberal democracy”.

This fascist strategy I call ‘triangulation’, out of recognition that it requires three contesting forces: communists, fascists and liberal democrats. Without a doubt, it proved to be, in the 1920s and 1930s, extremely effective. The fascist political groupings of the time understood ‘triangulation’ intuitively. While the presentation of ‘triangulation’ here has been theoretical, the fascist groups of the 1920s and 1930s, which appeared, spontaneously, all over Europe, went into action without a theoretical understanding. They knew that the ‘triangulation’ strategy had the power to topple liberal democratic governments all over Europe, that the violent, uncompromising, and above all, theatrical struggle against communism could be used as a springboard, of sorts, to launch them into political power.

Now, the reader could be forgiven that it is possible, then, for nationalist groups in the 21st century to apply the above ‘fascist minimum’, and use similar strategies to achieve ‘triangulation’. The communists of the present day, who are as violent and obnoxious as their forebears in the 1920s and 1930s, are perfectly willing to engage in a confrontation with the Far Right. And, indeed, the Left is returning to street demonstrations, and terroristic violence – as we have seen in the recent anarchist riots in Britain, and the bombings in Italy and Greece (which is in itself a return to the anarchist tactics of a hundred years ago). Any struggle, between the extreme Left and Right, then, would have the potential of weakening, and eroding, the liberal democratic state, thus allowing the nationalist groups to ‘leapfrog’ over the Left and into power. Certainly, such a strategy would be a gamble, but then, the fascist strategy of a century ago was a gamble.

7. Communism: no longer a worthy opponent

I myself object to this reasoning – not because I believe that ‘triangulation’ is impossible in today’s day and age, but because I believe that the Left is not what it was.  We have to remember that, in the 1920s and 1930s, the Left – specifically, the communist Left – was tremendously powerful, politically and militarily. Communism was controlled, and directed, from Moscow, which, at the time, had the monopoly on the Marxist idea. The communist movement in Europe was millions strong, and, by dint of its extremism and organisation, virtually controlled all the trade unions from top to bottom, or, at least, infected them with their ideas. Communism’s intention, at the time, was to spread its power into Europe by force of arms; this was the logical culmination of the Marxist idea of class war (which results in the complete and utter destruction of the bourgeoisie, and the dictatorship of the “proletariat”, namely, the Communist Party of Russia and its proxies). Accordingly, the Red Army was large, well-equipped, and aggressive – going to war with Poland in 1920, then against Spanish nationalists in the Spanish Civil War (sending “advisors” (in fact, Red Army soldiers), weapons and materiel to Spain), then Poland again, in 1939, and Finland in the same year, and then annexing Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and northern Romania. Certainly, the Red Army, in terms of leadership, tactics, skill, was not a good one – the small armies of Poland (in 1920-1921) and Finland, were able to best it. But it made up for lack of skill with its size and sheer aggressiveness. Complementing it were the communist parties of Europe, which could spread subversion, strikes, discord, sabotage, class warfare in the countries of Western Europe, should the USSR decide to invade. (This was, of course, providing that those countries were politically weak and susceptible to the communist parties which sought to erode them from within).

What changed, for Soviet communism, was the war with National Socialist Germany and its allies. The war devastated the USSR, and led to the death of many, many millions of Red Army soldiers. The USSR never really recovered from the losses (Walter Sanning puts the death toll at 13 million soldiers out of 21 million).

More than that, however, was the blow to the USSR’s image. Before the war, the USSR was hermetically sealed off from the outer world. Somewhere around five to seven million died from the Ukrainian famine in the early 1930s, but the USSR was so tightly controlled that it managed to keep this information, for the most part, from the outer world. In effect, the USSR was as closed and secretive as North Korea (only more so), and so was able to present an ideal image of itself to the left-wing activists, trade unionists and working classes of the West. The Axis invasion of the USSR “opened up” the USSR to Europe, in a dramatic way. European soldiers could see, for the first time, how the people in the Soviet Union actually lived (in the early months of the invasion, soldiers from Germany, Italy, Slovakia, Spain, Hungary and Romania participated – later this was to expand to some 30 nations). Furthermore, after the successful Soviet invasion and occupation of eastern Germany, and eastern Europe, the world finally began to understand, once and for all, that life under Soviet-style communism, was not, to say the least, as good as Soviet propaganda had portrayed it. The Western Left, had kept, up until that point, faith in the Soviet idea. It believed that life in the Soviet Union was more equitable, more just, and better, on the whole, for the working-classes than in the West. But, by 1948, that faith had evaporated. The subsequent splits and discords in the Left – which came about from Khruschev’s secret speech, and the invasion of Hungary in 1956 – were a mere formality.

So, early on in the post-war period, the Soviet Union had relinquished the Stalinist doctrine of spreading communism into Europe by force of arms – because, among other reasons, of military incapacity – and seen its image, as a progressive and socialist state, tarnished, irrevocably, by the time of the onset of the Cold War.

Soviet communism, also, had a competitor in the form of communist China, and communism’s post-war successes – in China, Indochina, Cuba, North Korea – were, not in the prosperous and advanced countries of Western Europe, but in the Third World (to use Mao’s term). Marx and Lenin’s dream, of a strong, militant (to the point of actual militarism) Left, unified and directed by communist leadership, came to an end – with the fracturing of communist world, and the Left itself.

The rise of the New Left was symptomatic of this, the New Left being much more successful in capturing the hearts and minds of progressive Western youth than the old-style, pro-Russian communist parties, who were, by then, the ‘Old Left’.

This, I think, explains why ‘neofascism’ – the revival of the aims and methods of fascism – never caught on in the Cold War period. In order to achieve ‘triangulation’, the nationalist needs a credible opponent. To use a metaphor, the communists and the fascists are two boxers in a ring, while liberal democracy is the referee. But the communists, in the post-war period, were unable to step in to the ring, because, being so weak and wizened, they were unable to pass muster in the weigh-in.

Now, many veteran nationalists will object to this. One can point to a fighting-fit Left in the seventies, for example, in the street battles in Britain between communists and the National Front; or today’s Antifa in Europe. But this only proves my point. Although quite a few pro-Soviet and pro-Russian communist groups, and trade unionists, were on the ground in that period (the 1970s), by then, the communist movement, as a whole, had been taken over by Trotskyites. That same grouping – so antithetical to Stalin, Khruschev and Brezhnev – remains firmly ensconced in the leadership of the communist movement in the West today. The fact that this dissident, essentially anti-Soviet, faction of Marxism, could take control of the international Marxist movement (along with, of course, the Maoist groupings of the West) attests to the weakness of Soviet communism in the West, compared to the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, when all communist parties (including the Chinese for most of that time) were controlled and directed by Moscow. As for the Antifa, they stem from anarchism, although, theoretically, they draw their ideas from the ideology of multiculturalism and anti-racism (which is, ironically, sanctioned by the liberal democratic state).

And, it goes without saying, one of the reasons why communism was such a credible opponent in the 1920s and 1930s was because of the fact that it had been put into practice, in the Soviet Union, and stood a good chance of being put into practice in Europe as well. The communists of the West could point to Russia and say, ‘It happened there, it could happen here’. After 1991, communists had nowhere to point to. Only North Korea and Cuba have planned, socialist economies (and even Cuba, under the previously intransigent hardliner, Raoul Castro, shows signs of turning towards a more market-based economy, at the time of writing). Eccentric communists may hold up those two countries as models for the West, but, needless to say, do not get very far in winning over the working-classes to the Marxist idea. The appeal of early Soviet communism was the notion that the working-classes of the West would be somehow better off under a Bolshevik arrangement of things. Once that simple belief – which was an article of faith – was gone, the appeal of communism in the West faded. And so have the hundreds of thousands of idealistic, pro-Moscow foot soldiers, willing to fight to the death for Stalinist rule, and who would meet fascists in battle, in the street, and so destabilise liberal democracy.

8. Islamism: the new communism?

The fascists of the early 20th century intuitively grasped the notion of ‘triangulation’. Now the working-class activists of the EDL have grasped it, intuitively, as well. But who is their ideological opponent? Liberal democracy is still around, but who, or what, has taken the place of communism? The answer is: Islam.

There are massive numbers of Muslim immigrants on European soil. At present, the numbers are: 2.4 million in Britain; 4.3 million in Germany; 7 million in France (and this is not counting the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and other Western European countries). One could argue that this is not immigration, but colonisation – colonisation on a huge scale, exceeding that of the settlement of the ‘New World’ (the Americas, Australia and New Zealand) of the 17th and 18th centuries.

Islam is not a nation, in the Western sense – that is, a nation-state. It is not identified with a nation-state (in the way that communism was with Russia); it is, in Spengler’s words, a ‘community of believers’, a nation defined by its religious faith. Having said that, Islam in the West does bear resemblance to the Soviet communism of the early 20th century on a number of points: it is well-organised; doctrinally homogeneous (there are no splits within it over points of doctrine, not even a Trotsky-Stalin split); extremely averse to doctrines and creeds which contradict it (e.g., Western secularism and liberalism); receives foreign funding, and a degree of organisational direction, from outside the West (Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic countries); and boasts millions of followers who are fanatics in believing in the rightness, and eventual triumph, of their cause.

In addition to this, some anti-Islamic writers allege that Islam is a cult: it brainwashes its members by restricting the flow of information (which may contradict the doctrines of that cult), by cutting off their contact with the outside world (friends, family, who are not Muslim, etc.), by encouraging them that they are an elect who have been specially chosen for a world-shaking mission, and so on. I would argue that Soviet communism (and, in fact, all forms of communism) was akin to a cult, and that it used exactly the same techniques on communist party members.

Most importantly of all, Islam is a political doctrine – political in Carl Schmitt’s force. To Schmitt, a doctrine is only truly political when it raises differences up to the point of war, or possible war – when it organises one side, and arrays them against the another, for the purpose of committing acts of violence. These acts of violence can either be military (that is, war between nation-states), terroristic, or those leading up to civil war. Communism has, historically, availed itself of all three, but so has Islamism. From the outset, Islam, under the rule of the prophet Muhammad, spread its rule by war, and, according to the anti-Islamists, used terror, assassination, extortion, etc., to achieve its objectives. Islamist terrorism in the 21st century is only the modern expression of this. This process – of spreading Islamism by force – will repeat itself, inevitably, in the Europe of the 21st century: according to the anti-Islamics, the nature of the Islamist doctrine is that Islam will attempt to conquer non-believers and force them to adopt Islam; Western secularism and liberalism (along with Western communism and anarchism) will be crushed. This is a certainty in countries which have large numbers of Muslims but no Islamic regime – that is, without the Islam-inspired laws of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other countries.

Multiculturalism aids and abets this process. Multiculturalism is, in practice, a ghettoism: immigrant groups to Western nations are encouraged to set up ethnically-homogenous Diaspora ghettoes, with their own schools, ethnic press, radio, customs, traditions, etc., and refuse to assimilate to the host Western nation. (The Jews in Europe in the Middle Ages were the first Diaspora group of unassimilable outsiders in a Western society, and so, possibly, were the first proponents of the multiculturalist idea in the West). Under the lax immigration laws of Europe in the 20th century, ghettoes, composed of people from the Islamic nations, have sprung up which are millions of strong. At some point, the anti-Islamists say, Islamic doctrine will reach critical mass. The leaders of those ghettoes will demand that their host nations assimilate to Islam, and not the other way around. Already, however, the Muslims are winning large swathes of European territory through ‘facts on the ground’. Israel uses the settlements to steal parts of Palestinian territory in the West Bank and Jerusalem: the aim is to settle large numbers of Jews in those areas and have them put down roots, thus building ‘facts on the ground’, all of which will serve to make any handing back of those areas to the Palestinians that much the harder. The same is occurring, “spontaneously”, in the cities of Europe which are heavily populated by Muslims and are almost bereft of members of the indigenous European population. The next step is for Muslim leaders to demand that these communities be run according to Islamic Sharia law, and/or the customs and moralities of, say, Pakistan, where honour killings and mutilations of disobedient wives and female siblings are common.

By the logic of multiculturalism, these Islamist leaders are perfectly right: why cannot, given the tenets of multiculturalism, these communities live under Sharia law? The Western liberals, all of whom support multiculturalism, are hoist by their own petard and do not have a leg to stand on.

Given these demographic facts, and the ‘political’ quality of the Islamic doctrine, the Muslim settlers are more than willing to fight, in the street, those nationalists who oppose the spread of Islam in Europe; they are willing to confront their opponents, they are willing to use physical force, they are willing to constitute an extra-parliamentary opposition to European nationalism and they are willing to usurp the rights of the state – that is, the state’s monopoly on all forms of coercion and violence; in short, they are willing to fulfil the role left vacant by Soviet, Stalin-era communism.

Ironically, it is precisely at this point in history that the Western liberal democracies have never been weaker. In the case of Germany and Italy in the 20th century, the liberal democrats were unwilling to act fast enough, or hard enough, to stamp down on the twin extremisms of fascism and communism. In Europe, in the 21st century, the liberal democracies can hardly launch a campaign of repression against Islamism – not while there are millions of Muslim immigrants, in Europe, who would view such a thing as a violation of their “rights”. Liberal democratic governments can lock up individual Islamist terrorists, but as for Islamism itself – they cannot, or will not, do nothing. In December 2010, a British Muslim blew himself up, and attempted to murder a number of people, in a shopping mall in Sweden. Ironically, at the same time, Britain was contemplating banning the anti-Islamist American pastor, Terry Jones, from entering the country. I say ironic, because this was the same government which lets individual Islamists, with terroristic intent, flit back and forth all over Europe, and which tolerates the presence of Islamism in Luton – a town in Britain notorious for being a ‘hotbed of Islamic terrorism’, a kind of incubator and training school for Islamist terrorists.

Liberal democrats, and liberals themselves, are in a terrible bind. One columnist for the left-wing Guardian newspaper suggested that the answer to Islamist terrorism of the Luton sort is ‘more outreach programs’. Obviously, a doctrine as old, and as dogmatically defended, as Islamism is, is not going to be vanquished by a few well-meaning ‘outreach programs’. And this particular columnist, along with plenty of other Western liberals, knows it. It is a case of self-division, a lack of self-belief, and an unwillingness to act decisively and firmly, which is paralysing the Western liberal democracies of Europe.

(Even modern Germany belongs in that category. While ideologically and constitutionally well-equipped to waging a struggle against the “extremisms” of communism and Neo-Nazism, it is helpless before Islamism, for the simple reason that the framers of the 1949 German constitution never foresaw the possibility of millions of Muslims living, permanently, on German soil. While it is easy enough for a government to ban a political party (communist or Neo-Nazi), it cannot ban a religious faith with millions of adherents (who have all the rights and protections of German nations, including the right to freedom of religious belief) nor can it somehow carry out some sort of theological surgery which would excise the “extreme” parts of Islam from the “moderate”).

As for nationalism, in Britain (and elsewhere in Europe) it stems primarily from the recognition that Islamic immigration, and the growth of Islam, in Europe is a threat to the West’s identity – and even to its biological survival. The mainstream political parties could combat this form of nationalist “extremism”, in theory, were they to deport the millions of Muslims to their home countries; they could do this tomorrow, and thereby make Far Right nationalism wither on the vine. But they will not do so, of course, and their only alternative is a kind of mass-brainwashing campaign designed to make people believe that Islam is “good” for Europe. Which, again, they will not do – especially as they are fighting a losing war against Islamists in Afghanistan, all in the name of freedom, liberalism, democracy, women’s rights and the rest. The West can, quite rightfully, ask its politicians: ‘You’re fighting for the rights of Afghanis to be “free” of Sharia law and extremist Islam; how about fighting for the same here?’. A good question.

Liberal democracy cannot ban Islam, and it cannot ban the reaction against it.

What has happened, in the case of the EDL, is that nationalists have formed themselves into a group, spontaneously, intuitively, into a kind of neofascist paramilitary, and are (again, intuitively) applying the fascist strategy of ‘triangulation’, but this time with Islam standing in for Stalinist communism. Fascism is a flexible, fluid doctrine, adaptive to circumstances, and willing to use various ideas as an ideological buttress for itself. Historically, it had many brilliant thinkers on its side, including Carl Schmitt, Spengler, Evola; but, in the main, its theories were a Hodge-podge of Marxism, guild socialism, racialism, conservatism, and modernism. Fascism’s real consistency lay, as Loewenstein points out, in its application of methods. The EDL are applying the same methods. Liberal commentators, in the mainstream press, compare the EDL to Mosley’s Black shirts, and they are right.

Fascism, and ‘triangulation’, have a great visceral appeal, especially to young men. The young British working-class man, who has little experience, or interest, in mainstream British politics, and very little interest in things outside of his individual wants (for a job, a car, housing, etc.), will come to an EDL rally and march against Islam, often through a neighbourhood where the majority of residents are Muslim. In his confrontation against militant Muslim counter-demonstrators, and the Antifa (in league with Islamism for the time being), he will find himself – in the solidarity, the unity, with other men of the British working-class, against a common foe. He will experience powerful emotions – the ‘emotional politics’ Loewenstein writes of – and go home, after that first experience, a changed man. What, then, do Cameron and Clegg, Tory and Liberal Democrat, have to offer against this? What could a neoliberal offer – would he preach, to these lads, the virtues of free markets?

The Far Right, in Britain, has always been strong, but has, historically, found parliament to be a tough nut to crack. My own theory is that, since the war, Britain has been the Western world’s leading experiment in immigration and neo-Marxist social engineering, and so, in Britain, the forces of darkness have been unusually strong; as a consequence, these same forces will always put up a determined (more than usual) defence against nationalists who seek to enter parliament. They will always be able to put in more manpower, money, resources, into the “anti-racist”, multiculturalist struggle, and nearly always succeed in tripping the nationalist parties up.

Nick Griffin, of the BNP, thought that he could circumvent that, by appealing to basest prejudices of the British tabloid-reading public – by appealing to, among other things, its traditional hatred of Germans (“Nazis”, real or imagined), and the Continent (as represented by the EU), and its fear of “racism”, “extremism” and anti-Semitism. He fell short, and the BNP failed to enjoy the successes of the Far Right, anti-Islamic populist parties on the Continent.

Perhaps, if the nationalists can build a sufficient mass-movement, an extra-parliamentary opposition, they can eventually end up bypassing the ballot box and achieving political power. This has long been the ambition of the radical Left itself. It is, despite first appearances, a more realistic ambition for the British nationalist than competing in the ballot box.

The street activists of the EDL understand that the goal is to create real ‘political’ possibilities; that is, to form both Far Right nationalism, and radical Islam, into distinct, competing political entities. In other words, both nationalism and Islam have to become tumours, cancers, in the organism which is British liberal democracy. Up until now, British liberal democracy has, since the war, been politically homogenous, i.e., without competing organisms growing within it; in other words, it has been cancer-free. But mass Islamic immigration, and a nationalist war against Islam, will change that. A cancer is, by definition a growth which expands against the host organism, and keeps expanding until the host dies. In Britain, the twin cancers – of a violent, militant Islamism, and a reaction, by indigenous Britons, against that Islamism – have appeared, and started to grow.

9. A new front

Politics, said Bismarck, is the art of the possible. What he meant by that was that politicians ought to explore all possible avenues towards reaching a certain political goal. The EDL ‘large scale street confrontation’ method represents one such possibility, which is not to say that there are not others.

In fact, the EDL approach, with its Islamic focus, is probably restricted only to Europe, which is facing a demographic Muslim onslaught. In America, the invaders and occupiers supported by that nations strong Zionist lobby come from, in Kevin MacDonald’s words, the ‘Failed states of Latin America’; in Australia, Indianization and Asianisation. In Britain, the vast influx of non-white immigrants in the Blair years came mostly from the Muslim countries, from Sub-Saharan Africa and from India. Out of those three ethnic groups, only the Muslims are willing to come to the fight. That is to say, only with the Muslims can ‘triangulation’ be achieved. For immigrant groups like the Hispanics, Chinese and Indians, the strategy seems to be: keep your head down and hope that you don’t get noticed, and eventually you’ll take over. This is a prudent course of action for Hispanics in America, most of whom (around 11 million) seem to be there illegally and are always dodging the law. But it is the Islamists who are, like the Bolsheviks of old, on a collision-course with Western Europe. So, the EDL strategy will not fly in America or Australia.

The EDL, and other ‘Defence Leagues’ throughout Europe, have a decentralised structure and not aligned with any particular Far Right nationalist party. Over time, by helping destabilise the liberal democratic states of Europe, they can, in effect, help out the Far Right parties seize power, fulfilling the same role as the Blackshirts or Brownshirts did for the Italian Fascist and German National Socialist parties did in the 1920s and 1930s. In countries where the Islamic presence is overwhelming and obvious to the public, there is much more possibility in a nationalist war against Islamism than there is in the same old, unproductive marches and demonstrations against ineffective Trotskyite communists and the Antifa. Islamism is the new Stalinist communism, threatening Europe, and it is the sons of the West who must rise up in its defence.

The question is, whether they or not the ‘Defence Leagues’ can do this without excising the Likudism and Breivikism in their midst.

Debunking the debunking of Bob’s Mantra

Some who may have argued with ‘anti-racists’ may very well have discovered that anti-racism is not much more than anti-white sentiment wrapped up in a phoney morality. Some of us may have heard of, or used Bob’s Mantra. Robert Whitaker has a history of political involvement, having worked on Capitol Hill from 1977 to 1982 and being a published writer.

Bob Whitaker is now the coach of BUGS (Bob’s Underground Coaching Seminar), an online seminar style blog, where participants develop and use techniques to expose the underlying anti-white sentiment of so called liberal anti-racism. BUGS is also ACTIVE plastering this over the internet so it is heard, something just as critical. The Mantra is as follows.

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realise I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

The mantra is self explanatory and simple. For people who argue with ideological opponents, this line of attack is invaluable. Too often people get sidetracked onto irrelevant issues such as colonialism, slavery, issues of supposed supremacy and such. Using the mantra exposes our opponents position for what it really is, and having used it personally I can vouch for its success. The mantra isn’t just an argument to use, its a debating strategy which forces you to stay on track, to avoid debating your opponent’s straw man arguments. It works because it is correct. Anti-racism IS anti-white. Debate with any anti-racist, and you should discover that they offer no solution to the race problem other than for white people to allow mass immigration into ALL and ONLY white nations and for whites to intermarry.

After some mention on BUGS about it supposedly being ‘debunked’, I was curious. How can simple statement, which are self evidently more or less true be debunked?

A ‘debunking’ exists on Jett and Jahn’s site ^{www.jettandjahn.com} written by Mike Jahn. Unfortunately, it really doesn’t debunk anything, in fact, it completely misses the point and in the end, doesn’t come close to even challenging the central premise of the mantra.

The first point the article makes is

The first problem with this is that Bob assumes that someone would want to be brought to a third world African country and then breed with n****s*. The second issue is that we can see that blacks  lack social stigmatisation against race mixing. *(racial epithets removed by author).

The first problem mentioned simply doesn’t matter. The point of the mantra isn’t what people living in African countries (many of which aren’t black) want, but the demands that PC liberals might place on these countries. The fact is they DON’T demand mass multiracial immigration in African countries. The second issue, which is questionable, again assumes that demands are based on what the host country wants. The mantra quite clearly is talking about the double standards that liberals have, where it is expected that a white nation opens up it borders, but no such expectation exists for other nations. Have you ever heard a white liberal say that Japan is too Japanese? Have you ever heard a white liberal say that Kenyans really need multiracial immigration and assimilation? But we have all heard of anti-racists complaining about whites.

Here are some examples.

“Neighbours TV Show too white”

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/neighbours-tv-show-too-white/story-e6freuy9-1111116943998

Royal wedding of William and Kate was ‘disturbingly white’

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/royalwedding/she_the_sacrifice_at_altar_q3kAzkx3hN6ClhLol5X6aP

“Too many white people on French television”

http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.com/2011/07/too-many-white-people-on-french.html

“Dutch civic leadership too White “

http://www.islamineurope.net/2009/11/dutch-civic-leadership-too-white.html

There are plenty more examples. One doesn’t have to look far, in fact we would have all heard many times a liberal or ‘mummy professor’ type argue that this is the future. But you never see them say this about non-white countries.

Whether people will want to move there isn’t the point, because the mantra is dealing with the anti-white motives of those so called anti-racists who make these demands. The mantra exposes the motives by which anti-racist anti-whites operate on. By revealing the underlying motive, you expose their arguments for what they really are, not arguments based on a morality which eliminates racism, but arguments for denying white nations a continued existence as a white nation. This is a critical revelation. Using the mantra aggressively and with discipline, one’s opponent has no choice but to take up an anti-white position and advocate what amounts to genocide, because their ‘anti-racist’ ideology demands it.

The second point the article makes is

The mantra’s weak stance brings me to yet another lapse in ideology – a lot of people waste a lot of time and effort on white civil rights. Why do I say it is a waste ? One has to only study academic liberal literature to understand for himself . When one takes a conservative position on the race issue and says that Whites too deserve special rights (or an equaliser) , one assumes the  classical stance that minorities took up – one of the oppressed .

This is incorrect, as exposing PC liberalism as anti-white has nothing to do with civil rights, and that the mantra doesn’t make one take the position of ‘oppressed’ but puts the opponent in a position where they have to justify the unjustifiable. Besides, one either argues that Whites have the same right as everyone else to preserve their ethnic heritage, or they don’t, and we at Nationalist Alternative argue that they do. The argument that historically Whites have been colonialists therefore cannot claim moral superiority is again flawed. The anti-racists argue that ALL whites nations must open their borders, but not all white nations have engaged in colonialism. The demands are the same for Poland as with Britain, which held a formidable empire. Liberals may use colonialism and imperialism as justification for their position, but a nation which has not engaged in such activity is still nevertheless required to become multiracial. Again, the point of the mantra is to expose that the anti-racist doesn’t really in the end, care about levelling the score, but is using past colonialism and imperialism as an excuse where applicable.

The articles third point is that

As I write this I yet again imagine the retorts I shall get so I will also address the white Genocide videos that have popped up. Genocide by it’s very definition implies that when a population is being destroyed by another, the population being destroyed does not consent to being destroyed . White people are not being killed in any direct way , not at all , they are being outbred and not through rape but by their own free will.

This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, it is arguing that there is consent, which there isn’t. Having debated with anti-whites many times, none are able to point to any specific consent being given by the people to follow a policy of mass non-white immigration and of turning their nation into a melting pot. There was no consent given except after the dog had bolted. Consent was only given (with much ‘education’ (brainwashing), browbeating and propaganda) a posteriori and even then it is questionable whether it is given now. Most Australians STILL want more restrictive immigration.

Mike argues that it is ‘suicide’ which is sadly occurring, and to a degree it may appear this way. But it is technically not. Suicide is the killing of ones self. Taking others with you is murder. Blowing up a bus is murder and the fact that you took yourself down with the bus doesn’t change this fact. Likewise, as many anti’s argue that this is ‘suicide’, it completely ignores that fact that many people wilfully and knowingly put forward arguments and demands which they know are incompatible with the secured existence of a particular race. I argue that this is pretty much genocide, and whether one is deliberately doing this to another race, or their own is irrelevant. There is nowhere in the definition of genocide which makes an exception if you belong to the group you are targeting.

Suicide is also questionable if its not willingly done. Are there suicidal whites? You bet. But the fact that the system does everything it can to prevent points of views, discussion or dissent against PC liberal orthodoxy regarding multi racialism, it is a stretch to imply that its willingly done and voluntary. People who knowingly continue this are knowingly engaging in an activity which jeopardises the future of a race. Most anti-whites will admit that whites may not have a future, and many seem to even look forward to it. To argue that this is more suicide than genocide is plainly wrong. The fact that the anti-white is white themselves makes no difference to the end result.

If Australia was a true democracy and national policy truly reflected the will of the people, there is no doubt in our minds at Nationalist Alternative, that our liberal immigration policies would be much tighter.

The rest of the article makes valid points about against being weak and the importance of giving people a sense of belonging, though worrying states that we are by nature oppressors and that this is something that we should not be afraid to continue. The lesson of the past in the West is what goes around comes back around and the fleeting glories of imperialism pale in comparison to achievements at home. Mike Jahn underestimates the role that liberalism has played in bringing about the demise of Western nations, and its continued role at keeping the status quo. The current status quo relies on oppression, on the media constantly disavowing any nationalist groups, on ‘hate speech’ laws which really only exist to stifle speech and therefore stifle discussion and thought. The mantra, unlike many other arguments cuts to the chase and exposes the core of so called ‘anti-racism’.

There is no debunking which takes place here, only a misunderstanding of what Bob’s Mantra is saying, and a misunderstanding of the role that Liberalism is playing in the decline of the West. The Mantra, and the BUGS group isn’t ‘cultish’, only very disciplined, and discipline is vital to waging a political battle. Being disciplined means lots of necessary repetition and hard headedness. It means staying on target regardless of your enemies distractions and attempts to steer you away.

By Michael Kennedy

If someone was to get a chance to see our creator for a day, what would
be the question they would most likely ask? “What is the meaning of
life?”. Unofficially regarded as the big question of life. Why are we
here? What is the purpose of life? What function does it serve? All
forms of the same query, the same desire, to seek meaning for our
existence, to seek the goal the eludes us. Biologically, we have a
reason to exist, to procreate.

In its rawest sense, life is a system, a
self replicating system that has no goal but is as mindlessly driven as
the rotation of the galaxy, the crashing of waves on the shore and the
falling of rain. Like the forest fire that takes a life of its own,
fire creating fire, life is the complex outcome of simple chemical
reactions. The simple idea that one organism will create another as a
function of its existence, is the reason we are here, and the reason
life will continue. In fact, it could be argued that virtually
everything we do, is done in order so we can procreate. So much effort
is exerted by people, in order to make themselves desirable to the
opposite sex.

People have children, despite the fact that it there is
no economic gain. Clothing and make up make us look appealing. Why do
we eat? To live, so as not to die. Why do we not want to die? It’s a
natural instinct that necessary to allow an organism to procreate. So
we fear starvation, because we fear the death that comes with it. In
doing so, we can procreate. Why are we largely attracted to the
opposite sex? Again, an instinct designed to make the organism
procreate. A living organism exists and functions, to make another that
is the same. It’s a simple idea that is the basis of anything that
could be considered life, however, despite our awareness of this fact,
we still ask, why? The biological reality to us, doesn’t explain why,
only how. The reactions that burn down a forest explain how, but not
why. We are part of a fire, but why are we burning? Why did it start?
Who started it?

Some look to religion, and it does provide a very clear account of our
purpose, what we should do, where we should and eventually will go. It
tells us why the fire was started and who started it. Religion can be
seen as a means of filling the void, of providing that deep, internal
satisfaction of being part of something greater, part of something
bigger than ones self. It provides a sense of duty and an eternal,
otherworldly reward for servitude and goodness and an eternal,
otherworldly punishment for rebellion and sin. For these people, the
afterlife, being greater than anything that can be found during their
earthly existence also makes the earthly deeds greater in significance.
The goal a good Christian works for is bigger than anything humanity
can provide and bigger than any reward anyone can give. This outlook
alone is sufficient to completely change a persons view of life, to
change the way they approach day to day activities. One person can help
feed someone, and only see only ending hunger as the result. Another
person can help feed someone, and feel that they are carrying out a
divine mission by being a good Samaritan in the eyes of God. Two
people, exactly he same action, but two completely different outlooks.
The latter person, no doubt, feels a greater sense of satisfaction in
their act of charity. Not only a greater appreciation for the
significance of their act, but a greater sense of fulfilment with their
life. He feels that he is living his life for a divine purpose, that he
understands why he is here, and he knows what he needs to do.

Does religion offer an answer, or does it indicate our desire to give
our life meaning, to answer the question, what is the meaning of life?
Religion may or may not offer the answer, but it exposes the holes in
our life. By seeking the answer, we learn what the question really is.
If the widespread popularity of religion in an age where science
provides comprehensive knowledge of the universe tells us anything, it’s
this, that our existence is unsatisfying.

For many, the meaning isn’t given by religion, but by popular society.
With the every increasing importance of ‘happiness’ and material wealth
and success, living the high life is ever increasingly becoming the
purpose of life for many. Their life is fulfilled with satisfying the
gut and the groin. Simplistic pleasures, short term goals,
near-sightedness and narcissism are terms that could describe the ends
that many people seek today. Their life is bereft of meaning, the
emptiness is exploited because human need is exploitable. By being this
way, they make themselves exploitable and this is evident in the
consumer society, which almost by definition, is a society waiting to be
exploited. Life becomes buying the better piece of technology, the
larger car, the bigger house, a faster car. Go get a good looking woman
to hang on your arm as some sort of trophy or personal ornament.
Witness professional team sports players, the idols of today, who are by
no accident, the most narcissistic, shallow and self indulgent people
that one will see in the media.

This consumerism of the masses is feeding a smaller proportion of people
that desire to profit from it. This argument is well known and there is
no need to elaborate. Leftists, socialists and the like will have no
trouble pointing this out, along with many other disenfranchised members
of humanity, that have grown weary and become cynical of such
activities. However, acquisition of wealth is not the only motivating
factor for people. Power, survival and social goals can be just as
strong a motivating factor, if not stronger.

Those who claim that everything in the world is done for profits, that
money make the world go around ignore this. In fact, assuming the
profits move everyone blinds one to religious fundamentalism, tribal
warfare and many other aspects that mobilise many people into action and
struggle, even though they may not profit in the material sense. By
aligning oneself to a group of people, by taking up religion, you not
only find an identity, but offer yourself to the group. The profit
motive is strong our our society, only because other more important
motives are so weak. It is our decadence, our belief that we have no
further purpose to enhance and build ourselves, which leads to lesser
goals, such as material acquisition, corporate ladder climbing and
building a large financial portfolio coming to the fore.

Our profit driven society is a symptom of a weak society, one near death.

Patriotism, as demonstrated in the U.S. is not only popular and
financially profitable, but also a means by which a government can offer
meaning. By identifying with the government, sympathising with military
forces fighting a so called war on terrorism, and feeling that they took
part in the process they feel a sense of fulfilment, by achieving a
goal. Consumerism, popular society, religion and many other movements
are out there to offer answers to people, and when the people are devoid
of meaning, it makes the exploitation ever so much easier.

Whatever a person’s thoughts are as to his purpose in life, it’s one
that is both a discovery and a creation. People who dedicate their
lives to a task will see their purpose as one of carrying out that task.
A soldier would dedicate his life to his country, a preacher would
dedicate it to God and a comedian to making people laugh. A suicide
bomber gives his life for his liberation and by doing this gives his
life meaning. Except for the suicide bomber, over time, peoples goals
might change, they may re-appraise their life, find new goals and
priorities. Their purpose and meaning of life is a transitory one, and
for most people that is that case. Study, raise a family, leave a mark
on the earth. Someone’s outlook on life will change with the change in
the seasons of life. The task of raising children is every increasingly
been make to seem a lesser and lesser task, and an ever increasing
burden. The spirituality and significance of childrearing has been
attacked and degraded, and with this, the sense of fulfilment and
meaning has been degraded. Tribalism has been attacked and degraded, and
with this, the sense of kinship and place in this world has degraded.
With the sense of kinship degraded, the need to create new members of
society is diminished as well. Without these aspects, the opportunities
to find meaning and kinship are limited and people feel empty and
alienated. Without kinship, the group is open to exploitation, is made
weak and can be moulded. Therefore, we need to view the trend against
motherhood with suspicion and look to whether there are ulterior motives.

These human needs exist within us, they are not manufactured nor dreamt
up and created by the minds of men and women. They are discovered, not
taught. Biology does not give a spiritual basis, religion does. Both
serve a purpose to humanity, yet neither is complete. We are driven by
biology, by instinct, but in humans, particularly Europeans, these can
appear weak, to the point where people en-mass rail against their
instincts towards their own destruction. Furthermore, instinct can
easily be overridden by indoctrination and thought control, as such
systems such as Communism or its younger cousin, Political Correctness
require. With the overriding of instinct, people can be given a
completely artificial purpose that does not benefit them nor benefit the
community. People can be given artificial instincts in which end up
destroying themselves, and to such an extent where people are not only
aware of their self destruction, but even consider it a virtue, part of
necessary progress, as evidenced in the Western world.

Looking back, we can see that biological instinct and natural law exist
to aid our survival. Many of our impulses are designed to ensure that
happens in obvious ways, such as seeking a mating partner, and in less
obvious ways, by a desire to help the community, as a strong community
aids our chances of survival. Religion is a system that provides meaning
and purpose to these desires. The laws laid down in the bible regarding
sexual behaviour are designed to make any form of sexual activity that
does not lead to conception a sin. For a biblical community, especially
a small one, such behaviour can be harmful, where child mortality is
high and violent competition prevalent. In this instance, biology lays
down the law, religion re-invents it with meaning.

So far, three sources of meaning have been discussed, the first is the
innate biological drive, the second is indoctrination by religion and
society, and the third is the personally created meaning, such as a
profession or hobby. With so many drives and priorities, no wonder we
can’t find the one true purpose! Except for religion, none of these
purposes are universal anyway, and they don’t answer the question, why
am I here? We can exist, for no apparent reason, and then find or make
some sort of reason during the course of our lives. But still, its
personal, doesn’t explain humankind, and its different for each person.
The fact is, unless there is a God that we are eventually going to
meet, we’ll never know. The only thing that is known, is that a
combination of natural forces, evolution and selection pressures gave
rise to a species that, because of selection pressure, grew in
intelligence, and until now, kept growing. We are a product of the
universe, the outcome of millions of years of evolution. We adapted and
used intelligence to survive, the best kept on going and got better
until we became not only the dominant species on the earth, but its
masters, able to control it at will.

Nature, the dominant force in our lives until civilisation moulded us
into what were are now, a species able to create a civilisation that is
so dominant in its life. That civilisation, not nature becomes the
primary moulding force. We have taken natures guiding hand, natures
powers of creation over us away from her and made ourselves the
custodians of our species. We are literally domesticating ourselves to
be suited to an environment we created! That environment we create is
then a result of our self domestication.

Evolution for humans has stopped. There is no more natural selection.
Disease and weakness is less and less a force that culls the unfit. Our
ability to provide for ourselves limits our numbers, not nature. At
least in the Western world, such as in Australia, artificial
limitations, such as seemingly arbitrarily high house prices, or the
economy, have a greater impact on the size of families, than natural
carrying capacity.

Our ability to create a strong society decides which group of humans
survive, not nature. No longer is our genetic make-up changing and
being selected, but our ideas are. The best ideas will decide who
survives and doesn’t, not the genes, though our genetic make-up does
influence our ability to create ideas. More importantly poor ideas,
such as mass immigration and assimilation have the ability to destroy
types of people. Memes can destroy genes. An idea can find success,
yet be detrimental to those who hold it, such as Liberalism, an idea
which dooms itself to existence by its own actions and takes those who
don’t abandon it with it.

We are still somewhat the product of our genes, but also our ideas. We
hold the destiny of both. Originally, procreation was mentioned as the
reason for our existence, but we’ve inherited everything else that goes
with it. Our purpose, our meaning in life, is to do what nature did.
To be custodians of ourselves and the society that supports us, to keep
the ever present urge for ourselves to advance alive and to keep
carrying out the advancement of ourselves to whatever goal is possible
and to protect ourselves from corruption and de-evolution.

Like a Christian Samaritan who may take in the homeless, and felt that
they was doing this for a purpose bigger than themselves, our existence
and contribution to society can be seen as more than just survival, but
as a means to advance us physically and intellectually. We can see our
simple tasks as being part of something greater. We can view our nation,
not just an a state vehicle that just ‘exists’, but as a creation, a
work in progress, an entity that can be whatever we want it to be.

It may seem rather ambitious to talk about the meaning of life, and to
offer an answer, but the question isn’t really all that difficult. We
know the laws of the universe, the laws of nature which govern our lives
and dictate what is possible and what is not and prescribe for us with
almost perfect reliability, the outcomes of our actions. We know what
nature has created and we know the nature of creation. Why this all
exists we don’t know, but that may not matter, as its a philosophical
question of little practical importance, because we also possess an
awareness of the nature of life, with its joys and misery.

1.         Introduction: A Personal Note

I have been reading Francis Parker Yockey’s ‘The Enemy of Europe’ (written in 1948, revised in 1953) off and on for ten years now, along with his ‘Imperium’ (1948). In that time, I have taken the message of the books to heart to such an extent that I have thoroughly internalised them. Both books are, to me, like the multiplication table, and once learned, are never forgotten.

If I were to recommend two books to any nationalist, it would be these two. Why? Because, more or less, they encompass all the developments in Western nationalist thought since the war. In them, you can find racialism (with an amusing chapter in ‘Imperium’ on the “problem” of the ‘American Negro’); hostility towards non-white immigration; Holocaust Revisionism (‘Imperium’ has, to my knowledge, the first instance of Revisionism in print); probably some of the earliest accounts of the Morgenthau Plan and other atrocities perpetrated by the Allies and Soviets against the Germans, in the aftermath of WWII; anti-Semitism; denunciations of the Roosevelt regimé; a revisionism applied to the American Civil War, with sympathies for the South; endorsements of, for white people, marriage and large families; reasoned arguments, from a nationalist perspective, against Freudianism, Marxism, Darwinism and neoliberalism; reflections on the American national character and American history; and Pan-Europeanism, mixed with vitriol against EU liberal democratic politicians.

Something that stands out, of course, is the neofascist character of the work (‘Imperium’ is dedicated to ‘The Hero of the Second World War’, i.e., Adolf Hitler) and it goes without saying that Yockey is a fanatic partisan of both German National Socialism and Italian Fascism. What makes Yockey’s work ‘neofascism’ (as opposed to the ‘old’ fascism of the 1930s and 1940s) is his new approach to political theory. He more or less jettisons the theory of Hitler’s, Rosenberg’s and Mussolini’s writings, and creates a new ideology, returning to the ideas of the two great Weimar-era German intellectuals, Oswald Spengler and Carl Schmitt. (Spengler voted for the NSDAP in 1933, but came under attack from NSDAP intellectuals and was censored. A similar fate befell Carl Schmitt, who joined the NSDAP in 1933 and helped craft the emergency ‘enabling act’ following the Reichstag fire; unfortunately, he, too, fell foul of the NSDAP intellectuals and was forced to retire from politics). The result is a kind of political revisionism: this is the ‘revised Hitler’ (in the same way European Marxists would ‘revise Marx’ in the 1950s and 1960s). I am almost tempted to call Yockey’s position ‘Post-Nazism’.

The result is a clean slate. Yockey is not a “National Socialist” in the sense that Savitri Devi and George Lincoln Rockwell are; what he has achieved, intellectually, is a new synthesis. In that respect, his work resembles that of Julius Evola, another fascist sympathiser who forged a new synthesis, not out of Spengler, but out of the occult doctrine of Traditionalism.

Yockey’s work suffers from one major defect: it is, on many points, badly out of date. Dying in 1960, he never lived to see the great cultural, demographic, political and technological developments of the 1960s and 1970s. Evola, at least, had the advantage of living until 1973, and was well up-to-date with the cultural changes of the time, making frequent (disparaging) references to the hippie and beatnik cults in his later writings. Is Yockeyism, and the basic strategy outlined in ‘Enemy of Europe’, relevant to today’s political situation? This is the question that this article will explore.

2.         Yockey and the American Jew

As readers of Yockey will know, Yockey takes from his mentor, Spengler, the idea that the world civilisations are ‘Cultures’ – organisms which are born, live and die. Cultures go through changes comparable to the seasons: hence, the (white) Western Culture has gone through a spring, summer, autumn and is now, according to Spengler, going through a winter. Democracy and liberalism is going into decline, and shortly will be abolished. The West will be united into an empire, or ‘Imperium’, under the authoritarian rule of ‘Caesars’, who, to judge by Spengler’s writings, are dictators who, while being populist, have, at the same time, contempt for the masses. After the period of the ‘Caesars’ and ‘Imperium’, the West will go into a terminal decline over the next few hundred years. We will see the rise of a ‘second religiousness’; that is, Westerners will become absorbed in religion again (for the first time since the medieval period). But this will not be a return to the Christianity of old, rather, an interest in (what appears to be) a trashy occultism and New Age-ism. Finally, the West, with its greatest political, intellectual and cultural achievements behind it, will go the way of all things, and will join the ranks of the ‘dead’ civilisations – including the (once great) Cultures of ancient India, China, Rome and Greece, Babylon, and the Middle East. The final chapter in the history of the West will be written, Western history will come to an end. Westerners will become ‘fellahin’ – that is, what is left over after a great Culture has passed away.

All of this sounds somewhat gloomy, but to Yockey, it was not. Yockey believed in the historical inevitability of ‘Imperium’ in the West as much as the Marxist believed in the historical inevitability of socialism. One of Yockey’s innovations was that he saw the correlation between the rise of fascism, in the 1920s and 1930s, and the rise of Caesarism predicted by Spengler. On that basis, the defeat of fascism in WWII was but a temporary setback. Even though liberal democracy had been restored to Europe, through American force of arms, and communism imposed on the Eastern half, both ideologies would wither on the vine. Yockey predicted that the fascist ‘Caesars’ would reappear, because Spengler’s theory predicted it.

So what was the cause of fascism’s defeat in WWII? American intervention on the Allied side, brought about by what Yockey calls Culture Distortion (another one of his additions to Spenglerian theory). When one Culture imposes itself upon another, it  distorts it, bends it out of shape, politically, economically, culturally and every other way. In the case of America, it is the Jews – who belong to the Middle Eastern, Semitic Culture (called ‘Magian’ by Spengler) and which includes Islam and Coptic Christianity – who are the Culture Distorters. Yockey writes:

America must now be counted among the enemies of Europe, since ethically and politically it is dominated by the Culture-alien Jewish entity of Church-State-Nation-Society-Race. Just how this domination came about is of less concern to Europe than the fact of it. The objective events of world-history since 1933 [when the Jewish-dominated Roosevelt administration came to power] show that in not one instance has America pursued an American nationalist policy, but exclusively a policy in the interests of the Jewish entity…

The Jewish entity is a Cultural form-world of its own stamp, and can therefore never be assimilated by the Western Culture.

In this period of history, America and Jewry form a Symbiosis. The head of the organism is the Jewish entity, the body is America. [Yockey, The Enemy of Europe, in the chapter 'The Outer Enemies of Europe'.]

Yockey writes, penetratingly, that in America, ‘For political purposes, the “elite” is the Jewish entity, which enjoys a monopoly of power in all matters but is especially conspicuous in the direction of foreign affairs’. [Ibid, 'The Concert of Bolshevism']. When one looks at the dominating influence of the Israel lobby in Washington, D.C., and the authority accorded to the neoconservatives in the Bush Jr. years, this is especially true. This is all par of the course for most nationalists in the West, who understand the idea of Jewish influence in America thoroughly (and a few non-nationalists in America are beginning to understand it as well, especially in relation to the Israel lobby). The question most nationalists will ask of Yockey, however, is whether or not white Americans will resist that Jewish influence. Yockey thinks not:

For practical political purposes, the “White America” which still existed in strength in the 1920s has today ceased to exist. Whether that submerged spirit will rise again in some remote future is unforeseeable. In any case, Europe cannot allow itself the luxury of dreaming that a revolution in America by the pro-European elements will lead to Europe’s Liberation. [Ibid, 'Introductory Note'].

The sad truth is that white Americans are too thoroughly demoralised by Culture-Distortion and multiracialist propaganda to see American Jewry as an enemy:

The [Jewish] Washington regime’s leading internal thesis – which has not changed since 1933 – is that Americans must be “tolerant” of the alien elements (which now number roughly 50% of the population), since, after all, these aliens are “brothers”. “Brotherhood” is glorified on all public occasions, by all public officials, is taught in the schools and preached in the churches, which have been coordinated into the master-plan of the Culturally-alien Washington regime. Newspapers, books, magazines, radio, television, films – all vomit forth the same “Brotherhood”. The “Brotherhood” propaganda is a ghastly caricature of the Christian idea of the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man, but there is no religious intent to the propaganda. Its sole purpose is to destroy whatever exclusiveness, national feelings, or racial instincts may still remain in the American population after twenty years of national leprosy. The result of the “tolerance” and “brotherhood” campaign is that the alien enjoy a superior position in America – he can demand to be “tolerated”. The American can demand nothing. The tragic fact is that the attenuation of the national instincts has proceeded so far that one cannot envisage how a Nationalist Revolution would even be possibile in America. [Ibid.]

Yockey concludes:

So long as America was dominated by men of stocks from Culture-European soil, America was a European colony, even though sometimes vocally rebellious. But the America that has been distorted by the Revolution of 1933 is lost to Europe. Let no European dream of help or cooperation from that quarter. [Ibid.]

Yockey was, in regard to American “brotherhood” propaganda, prescient. America was still very much a white country when he wrote the above, and the US Army in WWII was an ethnically-homogenous, racially-segregated army. Churchill and Roosevelt themselves were of a racist bent. But Yockey managed to see the existing tendencies in American society – tendencies towards multiracialism and “brotherhood” – in the late 1940s and early 1950s, and already pronounced those tendencies to be dominant.

3.         Yockey’s answer

Yockey’s ‘Enemy-’ covers, within its short number of pages, a great many topics. But the main thrust of it is to outline a strategy for European nationalists. Europe, at the time, was partioned by two Culturally-alien forces: the Soviet Union and the (Jewish by proxy) American. Nationalists, Yockey felt, had to choose between the two in the event of a Third World War. Old fascists, like Oswald Mosley and Leon Degrelle, counselled supporting the Americans in their newfound, post-war anti-communism. These men believed that America’s anti-communism was a belated recognition, by America, that the fascists had been right all along about the Soviet Union. Yockey, on the other hand, sthirf that European nationalists should relish a Soviet occupation of Western Europe in the event of a victory in the Third World War (which, like a good many intellectuals of that time, he believed was inevitable). His arguments were complex and many. Suffice to say, ‘Enemy-’ is one long propaganda pamphlet urging nationalists (particularly those of Germany’s Socialist Reich Party, for whom the book was written) to take a pro-Soviet line for strategic purposes. I will not spend any time analysing Yockey’s position here (and I think that Yockey, here, makes a very good case for it (after all, he was a lawyer)), for the reason that it is out of date. As we know, the West, particularly America, underwent an economic and political revival in the 1980s, while the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc floundered – becoming, politically and economically, as old and antiquated as their sub-standard military equipment. The result was that Yockey’s Third World War never happened, and America grabbed all of Germany, and Eastern Europe, without firing a shot. (One has to wonder if, had Yockey survived into the late 1970s, he would have adhered to his pro-Soviet thesis, had he seen the sclerotic state the USSR fell into in the time of Brezhnev).

Yockey’s notion of a judaised America – particularly in its foreign policy – is still valid, of course; in fact, one of the major political developments of the 2000s was that Israel became the sovereign nation in the Washington-Tel Aviv axis. Yockey writes, ‘Independence means being able to act alone… Sovereignty means being answerable to nobody except oneself’, and America, after Bush Jr., was unable to act without considering the interests of Israel first and foremost, and unable to formulate a clear course of action in political situations in which Israeli interests were not directly involved. But this is old news now. The entire world knows Israel is no good (a recent survey of 26,000 people placed Germany as the ‘most popular’ country in the world, and put Israel down near the bottom in terms of popularity, along with Pakistan and North Korea) and has a fairly good understanding of Middle East politics, including the dispossesion of Palestinian territory, etc.; it knows that the US is disproportionately concerned with Israeli interests, and that the US stands alone, amongst all the nations in the world, in this (the US was the sole country to veto a recent UN resolution branding the Israeli settlements as illegal). Some sectors of the educated, US, non-Jewish elite – such as Jimmy Carter, and Mearsheimer and Walt – even dare state this in print. In short, the world has, in 2011, to a large extent caught up with Yockey.

Where Yockey has really been overtaken in events is by the developments in the Western Culture itself, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s: the legalisation of homosexuality,  pornography and interracial marriage; women’s rights; desegregation; growing numbers of white children born out of wedlock; and, most significantly of all, the mass migration of non-whites to the West. Yockey would have been astounded by the demographic changes to the West in this regard, particularly in America. (Yockey called the presence of ‘Culturally alien’ immigrants ‘Culture Parasitism’. Culture Parasitism is what happens when large numbers of immigrants from another Culture (or even from a country which has not developed into a fully-fledged Culture, e.g., Russia) embed themselves in a Culture and start to divert vital resources away from it and towards themselves. Culture Parasitism only becomes Culture Distortion when the alien group actively starts to impose its mores upon the host society and bend its politics in an unnatural direction. Yockey would say that the mass Hispanic immigration to America is a case of Culture Parasitism, while the judaisation of American foreign policy is Culture Distortion). The fact that the Western élites, and the white Western layman, have internalised ‘brotherhood propaganda’, and now all sing the praises of non-white immigration, multiracialism, and race-mixing, would have perplexed him.

We can understand the recent phenomenon of mass Islamic migration to Europe, however, using Yockey’s framework. In Yockey’s view, Islam is part of the ‘Magian Culture’, which includes the Jews: ‘The Jewish entity comes from the Magian Culture and will always belong to it spiritually, that Magian Culture which during its life-span gave rise to the Arabian, Persian, Nestorian and Parsic peoples, among others’. [Ibid, 'The Definition of the Enemy'.] Yockey would regard the presence of 17 million Muslims in the EU member states as ‘Culture Parasitic’; but he would also see the potential for Culture Distortion as well.

How does this Islamic Culture Distortion make itself felt? In a sensationalist article for the British Daily Mail tabloid, a journalist identifies how Islamist groups fulfil their agenda by imposing their values, using coercion, on the communities around them:

But the Islamists seldom want to take control of the government machine; they have little interest in setting tax or energy policy. The influence they seek is cultural totalitarianism.

Bereft of sensible — let alone practical — solutions to the real ills that plague their societies, they aim to Islamise society from below…

The events in Tunisia are merely an echo of what has been happening in the region for a decade. In Yemen, Islamists have long since been busy raiding alleged brothels and campaigning against all other forms of what they denounce — wrongly — as imported western decadence.

In Bahrain, too, the Islamists have explicitly dedicated themselves to clamping down on prostitution and the sale of alcohol.

In Tunisia and Egypt, the Islamists have quickly ruled out running for the all-important presidency. They do not seek to lead a government, because with that power comes responsibility and accountability.

What they need is a government sufficiently biddable to allow them to impose their cultural tyranny — and to succeed, they don’t need majority support. All the Islamists require is to be louder, more forceful and better organised than their opponents. [Daily Mail, 'Sex, brothels and the REAL tyranny threatening the Arab world', 26/02/2011.]

These are penetrating comments. It is the ‘cultural totalitarianism’ which is making itself felt on the streets of Paris, Amsterdam, London, Stockholm and other European cities. Europe is caught between two pincers: while powerful Jewish groups in the upper political echelons of Europe advocate a NATO bombing of Iran, and demand more and more monuments to the Holocaust (itself a Jewish religious concept), from the street, radical Islamist groups, flourishing in the large, self-isolating and ethnically-cohesive Muslim diaspora communities, demand compulsory Islamisation, not only for their communities, but for the Western European host populations as well.

At last, however, the peoples of Europe are beginning to show signs of resistance, not in the militant manner that Yockey would have preferred, but through the electoral support for Far Right populist parties in Finland, Sweden, France, the Netherlands and Denmark. Likewise, in the US, the grass-roots movement against illegal Mestizo immigration is a positive development, and is the first popular American nativist movement that has appeared in many decades.

One flaw is that both the American and European tendencies frame their argument against immigration using liberal terms. The Americans claim to be not “racist”, just against people breaking the law; likewise, the Europeans will say that they are against Islam’s opposition to liberal democratic values and traditional European values of liberalism, tolerance, pluralism and women’s rights. But something is better than nothing, the question is whether or not it is all too late.

4.         The meaning of neofascism in the 21st century

After the Second World War, writes Yockey, ‘The opponents of the Hero [i.e., Hitler] of that War were still dominated by his compelling personality… Either they took up his ideas and declared them their own, or they continued to fight against him’ [Ibid, 'The American Occupation of Europe']. Continuing in that vein, he writes:

It was Cromwell who inspired generations of leaders long after his death and subsequent disgrace, not the later Stuarts who had caused his body to be dismembered by wild horses. It was Napoleon who inspired a whole century of leaders after him, not Louis XVIII, nor Metternich, nor Talleyrand. About 1840, Napoleon triumphed, he whose name one could praise in Europe twenty years before only at one’s peril. Napoleon’s Idea conquered the spiritual-political realm, his personality the Heroic realm. Who would reproach him now with the fact of the lost battles of Leipzig and Waterloo?

So it shall be with the Hero of the Second World War. He represented a new ethical type that will inspire and inwardly form all coming leaders of significance of the West. The bewailing of his “mistakes” after the Second World War was simply contemptible. Every journalist and every braggart knows bettter than the great man – they would not have made this mistake or that. Indeed, they would never have been in the place to do anything at all!

Heroism is and can never be wasted. So long as a men survive a Hero, they will be influenced by him and his legend… [Ibid, 'The Power Problems of the War'].

The BBC reported that sales of books, in Britain last year, about Hitler and National Socialism made millions of pounds; in Germany, a Hitler exhibition in Berlin drew thousands . The fascination with German fascism, and Yockey’s ‘Hero’ and his army, in the West shows no signs of ending. In comparison, Roosevelt, Churchill and their armies don’t do as well. Books on the Luftwaffe, Hitler’s panzer aces and the Tiger tank fly off the shelves, while books on the US 1st Marine division, the T-34 tank and Britain’s mass-murdering Lancaster bombers just sit there (much to the chagrin of Jewry, one can be sure). All this is because Western audiences agree, unconsciously, with Yockey’s thesis, and see National Socialist Germany’s tragic rise and fall as one of the turning points in the history of the West. Just as Napoleon defined the 19th century, Hitler defined the 20th. In the minds of the Western public, there is a question, forcing its way up from the depths of the subconscious: ‘We are told that Normandy and V-E Day were great victories for the West and for humanity, but these same victories produced Obama, David Cameron, Sarkozy and Israel. But what if we were wrong?’.

What has happened is that the meaning of German fascism has changed. Contrary to the beliefs of Jewry, fascism’s primary aim was not to destroy European Jewry, but Soviet communism. But, of course, Soviet communism no longer exists. Now, Hitler and German National Socialism stand for something else in the minds of the public: “racism”. Hitler is, erroneously, portrayed as the most racist of all politicians – despite the fact that Churchill and Roosevelt, and their contemporaries in the Anglo-Saxon world, took a dim view of the moral and economic accomplishments of Negroes, for instance. Hitler, it is true, based his world-view on German racial purity; but his doctrines (if one reads his work carefully) were designed to prevent Germans from miscegenating with Jews. But, in the 21st century, after an avalanche of non-white immigration into Europe, the meaning of that racial world-view has changed. On the Left and Right, politicians, intellectuals, journalists, are all against “racism”, in whatever form it appears, and have altered history so as to make Hitler out to be not only the worst “racist” of all time, but the only “racist” politician of the past 100 years. When the racial question is thrust into the consciousness of the average European, every day, and that same question is rapidly becoming the most important for the West in the 21st century – then a hyper-”racist” historical figure is going to end up becoming more and more attractive, despite rote condemnations by the political establishment and the Jewish lobby.

Does this mean that neofascism, or ‘Authoritarian Prussian Socialism’, as Yockey calls it, is about to burst onto the political stage once again, jackboots, uniforms, flags and banners and all? Yes and no. There are groups with strong neofascist influences in Europe: the English Defence League in Britain (which is a kind of post-Mosley, neo-Blackshirt outfit) and Jobbik in Hungary. But, in the main, neofascism expresses itself on the level of an underground subculture. One can buy music, badges, posters, flags, banners, pennants, stickers, clothes. (Even some of the songs have been inspired by Yockey). But none of this is political – i.e., running in elections and competing with the liberal democrats for political power.

If nationalists do want to get in to actual politics, they have to (in Europe) vote for and work with the populist parties. Nationalists really have no other choice, because of what Kevin MacDonald calls the ‘abject terror’ that ‘most whites have of being associated with… National Socialism, anti-Semitism or racialist sentiments’ (MacDonald, ‘The Wilders Syndrome: Jews, Israel and the European Right’, at: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/the-wilders-syndrome/). For we nationalists, racialism, anti-Semitism, etc., is the very air we breathe; our movement tends to attract individualistic people who enjoy thumbing their noses at society’s conventions (and right now, multiracialism and Holocaustism are the conventions). But, because of our absorption with the nationalist underground subculture, we often tend to fail to notice that Yockey’s ‘Prussian ethical socialism’ is, to say the least, off-putting to many of the normal white Western people we want to attract. We nationalists are daredevils and subverters, while the mass of white people in the West are, passive, conformist, and cautious to the point of cowardice. There is no in-between. This is why the European electorate expresses its support only for the ‘safe’ nationalist Far Right parties, which say all the right things on the Jewish question (even to the extent of laying wreaths for the millions allegedly gassed at Auschwitz) and frame all their anti-immigration arguments in a liberal, deracinated way. Even then, you can be sure, the average Frenchman or Swede is very timid, and does not dare admit that he voted for the National Front, or the Swedish Democrats, respectively.

So these are the two courses nationalists can take, the two possibilities: nationalists working at the ‘symbolic’ level, staying at the level of a subculture; or getting involved in political activism with the Far Right populist parties. I myself am sympathetic to both courses of action.

At the same time, by ditching Yockey’s ‘Authoritarian Prussian socialism’, we are giving up a potential source of strength. The problem the West faces, in the 21st century, is a lack of hard-heartedness. Many denizens of the Third World regard human life as cheap, but understand, at the same time, that Westerners are the biggest humanists in the world. An immigrant only has to say the magic word, ‘Asylum’, and be admitted to Europe with all the attendant rights and privileges. The countries of Europe are only now, after the Tunisian immigrant crisis, beginning to harden their hearts and say ‘No’. But it will take a great deal more to prevent the coming influx of immigrants, illegal and legal, and expel the ones already there.

Ironically, the West may not have the will any more – I say ironic, because, in the eyes of the Marxists, and many in the Third World itself, white Europeans are history’s worst exploiters and murderers, with hands stained in the blood of the coloured peoples.

The truth is that the Anglo-Saxon nations committed terrible cruelties – against their fellow whites, the Germans, in the aftermath of WWII. Today’s concentration camps in Europe for illegal immigrants are a luxury version of Eisenhower’s camps for German POWs, which killed hundreds of thousands through starvation and exposure. It is as though the Anglo-Saxons expended used up all their capacity for cruelty and violence in that period, and afterwards, cannot summon up even a fraction of it, just when they need it most (particularly Britain). (Actually, the Anglo-Saxons did commit atrocities after the war, but not with the clean conscience they had while maltreating the Germans).

Which brings us back to Yockey. His ideology is a martial one, and an intolerant one. The image the public has of Hitler is that of a hard man and a warrior – a warrior-king. (We only have to look at our history to see, to what extent, the West idolises warrior-kings: Napoleon, Bismarck, King Arthur, Charlemagne…). The West sees the “white supremacist”, “Neo-Nazi” and “Anti-Semite” as a fearsome creature, who places himself outside the pale and is prepared to sacrifice his career, his comforts, and even his life, for his beliefs, and as someone who is, above all, prepared to fight. This image – regardless of whether or not it is true – is a source of power and strength, especially so now that we whites now live in a West which would be, in Yockey’s view, soft, cowardly, and effeminate. (In contrast, Israel and the radical Muslims daily commit acts of ferocious violence against their political opponents). We are faced, in the 21st century, with a typical Yockeyist alternative: to fight, or not to fight, in order to defend the West against the threat from without.

1.         Political birthdays and the alternative to liberal democracy

Recently, an AFP report appeared:

BUDAPEST (AFP)—A Hungarian online news channel backed by the extreme-right parliamentary party Jobbik paid tribute to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler on his birthday, online observers reported.

The 30-second report, which originally aired on Wednesday evening on

Hitler’s 122nd birthday, praised the “German politician” for his economic and

moral contribution to his adopted country.

Hitler “rapidly relaunched the destroyed, impoverished Germany, where an

unprecedented upturn started in the economic, social, moral and cultural

spheres,” the news piece gushed.

However, it added that since the defeat of Nazi Germany, “the probably

best-known politician in history has been the principal target of a political

witch-hunt of the victorious powers,” which it referred to as “the Anglo-Saxon

and bolshevik allies.”

By itself, this is unremarkable: had Jobbik been a communist group marking the birthday of a Stalin or Lenin or Mao, the media would not have noticed. But, when it comes to celebrating Hitler’s birthday, the media sits up and takes notice. Why? The answer is, I think, significant. The political system of the West, for the past hundred years, has been liberal democracy (with a few excursions into conservative, military dictatorship, e.g., Portugal and Spain). There has been only one alternative to appear, in the West’s recent history, to liberal democracy and that is fascism. (And by fascism, I mean the ideology of German National Socialism, Italian Fascism, Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, Degrelle’s Belgian Rex movement, and others).

It is true that, at a few points in history, it seemed as though Soviet Communism was an alternative to liberal democracy in Europe, and, as we know, the communists had control of one half of the leading nations of the West – Germany – for nearly half a century. But Soviet Communism was a foreign import, and Russified to the core; fascism was home-grown. (Intellectually, of course, communism had its roots in the West, which was one of the reasons why it built up such a following in pre-war Germany and elsewhere in Western Europe). Liberal democracy has to fight to preserve itself, politically; and one of the ways it does so is by demonising the alternative, the ‘other’, which is fascism. Liberal democracy understands, on an instinctive level, that fascism is a competitor, and a dangerous and seductive one at that.  Hence the non-stop anti-Hitler, anti-Nazi propaganda which continues in the news media to this day, and the host of special anti-nationalist, anti-racist, anti-Holocaust Revisionist laws in Europe.

In contrast, not so much attention is paid to the militant Left. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, and China’s ‘backsliding’ into Western-style capitalism after 1979, the Left was thrown into turmoil. Now it makes itself felt primarily through hooliganism. The May Day demonstrations in Germany every year, for example, are an excuse for the militant Left (in particular, the anarchists) to go on a hooligan rampage, destroying property, assaulting police officers and causing millions of euros in damage.

The truth is that the old (mainly Trotskyite) communist parties are in decline, and the hooligan-anarchist element is on the ascendant (anarchists, for instance, threatened to disrupt the recent Royal Wedding in Britain, and assembled to do so (but were apprehended by the police in time)). With the recent riots against austerity measures in Europe, the old-style, hooligan, violent brand of Leftism – anarchism – is back, for the first time in around a hundred years.

The bottom line is, the Left will continue to be unpersecuted by the liberal democratic state so long as it does not break the law directly (i.e., commit acts of property damage and arson). The Left can continue to publish incendiary newspapers, demanding the overthrow of capitalism and the founding of a Trotskyite-style communist dictatorship; but liberal democracy tolerates this, for the simple reason that it does not see the Left as a serious competitor.

2.         The political use-by date

Fascism, on the other hand, is a serious threat. Part of this is to do with the passage of time. The fall of communism in East Germany, and Eastern Europe, was only recent, and so those countries still have fresh memories of what life in those countries was like. For the most part, those memories are not good. Communism failed because it failed to provide people with a decent standard of living. Substandard clothes, housing and other consumer items, shortages of basic necessities at state-owned supermarkets, endless queues… The problem was not so much lack of political rights (e.g., civil liberties, the right to form political parties and run in elections, press censorship) but the grinding misery and sub-standardness of it all. We see the same phenomena in North Korea and Cuba today.

In contrast, fascism never got a decent innings. German National Socialism survived for 12 years; Italian Fascism, 22; the occupation fascist regimes of Norway, Hungary, Croatia, etc., even less. Because the fascist regimes never survived the war, they never got the chance to grow old, degenerate and become decadent. An analogy could be made with the careers of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones: the Beatles broke up, in 1971, in their prime; the Stones, in contrast, are around to this day – and have produced a great number of substandard albums and played a great many substandard concerts. No wonder, then, that rock music fans only have golden memories of the Beatles.

In politics, one can outstay one’s welcome. We have seen that, recently, in the uprisings in the Arab states against regimes which have been in power for decades (Mubarak had been in power in Egypt for about 30 years, Saleh in Bahrain for about 30, Gaddafi for 40, and the Assad dynasty in Syria for over 40). One can sympathise with the Egyptian people’s impatience, for instance, with Mubarak: the best way for an Australian to think of it is to  imagine if former Australian prime minister Bob Hawke – who won the federal election of 1983 – was still in power. Hawke (despite his noxious views on Israel, South Africa, multiculturalism and the rest) was the man of the moment in 1983, Australia’s answer to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the man to lead Australia out of the terrible recession of the 1980s and into a new period of national confidence. But, while he was fresh, and very much the man of the moment in the 1980s, as soon as 1990 came around, he was old hat. Like Thatcher, he was unable to cope with the recession his policies helped brought about, and so was toppled in a party coup. Liberal democratic parties – and the liberal democratic system – has that advantage over dictatorship: it punishes failure, and manages, by introducing new players into the political system, to stay fresh (for the most part). Liberal democracy, for example, gave American voters in 2008 the chance to expel the then-unpopular Republican Party from the White House and give the presidency to the dynamic , innovative unknown, Barack Obama. (Unfortunately, Obama proved to be just as bad as, if not worse than, Bush Jr., but that is another story).

3.         Good and bad authoritarianism

Not only have the regimes of the Middle East been long-lived, they have been extremely authoritarian (and, as we have recently seen, willing to use ferocious violence against their own people). They are as authoritarian as the Italian and German fascist states, and rely upon a secret police, phone tapping, emergency laws which override constitutional law, press censorship, arrest, detention and imprisonment for political crimes, the annulment of the parliament as a legislative body, the dissolution (or neutering) of rival political parties… The intellectual arguments made in order to justify this authoritarianism are similar to those made under fascism. The first is ‘We are at war’ argument (in fascism, the enemy was communism, in the Arab states, militant Islam); the second is that ‘liberal democracy leads to chaos’.

In such a political climate, we see the ‘cult of the leader’ emerge, just as under fascism. (The leaders, in question, are Ghaddafi, El-Fadine, Mubarak, Assad Sr. and Jr…). The leaders act according to the Führerprinzip, and, as such, are responsible for all the country’s successes (and failures). One of the reasons why so much public anger in Egypt was directed at Mubarak was because he was held personally responsible for everything that had gone wrong in the Egyptian state. (According to Hitler’s theory in ‘Mein Kampf’, in a democratic system, the political leader can eschew all responsibility and slough it off on to others, which is why the Führerprinzip is so much better).

Authoritarianism, and phenomena such as the cult of the leader, are not unique to fascism, of course. There have been many military dictatorships since WWII, and of course, communism was an authoritarian, illiberal ideology which also practised the ‘cult of the leader’ – in China and North Korea, to an insane extent. In addition, even liberal democratic states have used authoritarian methods. Yockey writes, in his ‘Enemy of Europe’, of the American occupation of Western Europe after the war:

[America] proclaimed to Europe that the Americans had come as a Herrenvolk, possessed of great understanding for political realities and morality, to liberate “Europeans” and “educate” them up to True Democracy.

Although the American occupation used the slogan “democracy”, it did not make even a pretence of introducing 19th century democratic forms. The press, political parties, every kind of gathering, every move – everything required a “Licence”. This was the substitution of a negative, mechanical Führerprinzip for the natural, organic Authoritarian State [i.e., European fascist state] founded upon the inwardly imperative principles of Ethical Socialism [i.e., European neofascism], which is the destined state-form of Europe in this Age of Absolute Politics. This was the tyranny of capitalist liberalism, using the mere methods of the European state-form without understanding their spiritual content… [Yockey, The Enemy of Europe, 'The American Occupation of Europe'].

Germany, today, is very much the same as the American occupiers left it, still operating under the same “mechanical Führerprinzip” system. In fact, it is a kind of anomaly unique in the world: a hybrid between a normal liberal democracy and a Syrian or Egyptian-style police state.

As can be gleaned from the quotation from Yockey, he seeks to distinguish between ‘good’ authoritarianism (of the European fascist sort) and ‘bad’ authoritarianism. Evola makes the same distinction in his ‘Men Among the Ruins’ (1972). He contrasts the true and good authoritarianism of what he calls ‘Tradition’ with the ‘inwardly dead’ totalitarian regimes of communism. (He makes the intriguing comment that the communist totalitarian regimes are unconscious parodies of the ‘Traditionalist’ political system: the Kim Il-Sung or Mao type is portrayed, by communist propaganda, as a divinely inspired monarchical ruler with almost god-like powers).

Both of these ideologues of post-war Euro-neofascism would, were they alive today, hasten to assure their readers that their ideal political state form would not bring about a Syria, Egypt, Libya, Cuba, North Korea or Burma. They make long and complex arguments to the effect that their state would not be ‘inwardly dead’ or ‘mechanical’. In essence, the arguments boil down to the contention that their neofascist states would be ‘youthful’, ‘vigorous’, ‘fresh’ and ‘alive’ – much like the German and Italian ones they admired. (Yockey makes frequent disparaging remarks about the age of the post-war European liberal democrats installed by the Allies – that they were older, as a rule, then the fascists and Far Right collaborationists they replaced). I would argue that yes, the European fascist states were certainly modernist, fresh, forward-moving, and so forth. But this could be either due to the fascist ideology itself, or to the fact that the fascist states – unlike Mubarak’s Egypt, Ghaddafi’s Libya or Assad’s Syria – never got the chance to age and ossify.

3.         An anecdote from Syria

An Arab correspondent in Syria, Sasha Ghosh-Siminoff, relates this anecdote regarding life in Syria in ‘The Guardian’ newspaper (‘Life in Syria’s psychological prison of fear’, The Guardian, 29/04/2011). It concerns a young man he befriended in Syria called Yusuf. It is a poignant story which describes some of the bad things that can happen to ordinary, apolitical people in authoritarian regimes:

At 26 years, he was neither engaged nor married.

Marriage is an important step in Syrian culture and an individual is not really considered a man until he is married, owns an apartment and has a job. But marriage is a tricky thing in Syrian society. Assuming the girl’s family agrees to the marriage, Syrian men need to pay a dowry of roughly $4,000. Not only that, but the groom is expected to provide an apartment for the new couple. Housing in recent years has become very costly and between the dowry and the cost of housing, many young men do not have the means. Before the current wave of protests, the Syrian government was aware of this and was in the process of building thousands of new apartments to help bring down the price of housing.

Eventually my friend confided in me a story that illustrates how the arbitrariness and thoughtlessness of the Syrian regime combines with other social pressures. For a number of years, Yusuf was in love with a girl from his village. When he finally decided to ask her father for permission to marry, her father said no and proceeded to engage his daughter to another man. Yet my friend could not forget his love so easily and continued to see her even though he had been forbidden to do so. Unfortunately, her father was an important man in the internal security services. When he found out that Yusuf was still seeing his daughter, he wrote a false report that landed Yusuf in jail for several days, where he was beaten.

Even that was not enough. Yusuf was then sent to Damascus where he was held and tortured for another 11 days – until his father intervened and convinced high officials within the internal security services that my friend was a genuine supporter of President Bashar al-Assad and the regime. As proof, he showed them a poem my friend had written about the president. A general saw the poem and loved it so much that Yusuf was released.

Now, could have such a thing have happened in Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy? According to the propaganda of the time (e.g., Hollywood movies produced by Jews, British wartime propaganda from the BBC), men were arrested all the time in Italy and Germany, for arbitrary reasons, and beaten, tortured, etc., and only released after they wrote poetic and fulsome tributes to Hitler or Mussolini. We can, in 2011, write off most, if not all, of these stories as rubbish. But, having said that: suppose that both Germany and Italy had managed to survive the war and both Hitler and Mussolini died of old age – would fascist Italy and Germany have turned into Egypt or Syria, after thirty or forty years?

The trouble with authoritarian states is that they can begin life as progressive, forward-moving (Ghaddafi was a young colonel, on the political Left, and a progressive and a reformer, when he seized power in 1969). But then, after a time, the negative side of authoritarianism kicks in. A power élite forms around the leader, and becomes entrenched, and develops a monopoly on political power and the economy. One result is that fresh young people do not attain positions of power and leadership. In order to obtain money for a house, a dowry, etc., one has to curry favour with that élite. What is more, the same élite begins to act in a capricious and self-indulgent manner. In National Socialist Germany, this process was already underway, as shown in David Irving’s (largely neutral) biographies of Goebbels and Goering. The average German, of course, in the 1930s was materially better off than the average Egyptian, Tunisian, Libyan or Syrian is now. But all the negative sides of authoritarianism of the Ghaddafi sort were becoming apparent. Presumably, over the course of decades, that negative side would have become grating – Italians and Germans may, for instance, have come to resent the vast fortunes amassed by National Socialist and Fascist leaders.

4.         Can ‘Prussian Socialism’ work?

I am unfamiliar with Jobbik’s party platform, and am not aware if there is a demand, in there, for a return to the wartime Ferenc Szalasi/Arrow Cross style of rule. (As for the German, French and Italian nationalists, in those countries, one is forbidden, by law, to endorse fascist-type dictatorship). My impression is that nationalist groups in the West tend to brandish the old fascism (and, in particular, its symbols – the SS runes, the Italian fasces, the Arrow Cross, Mosley’s BUF ‘lightning-bolt’ logo, etc.) like an amulet, as a means of warding their liberal democratic and communist enemies. The thought of a ‘return’ to the old fascism fills liberal democrats and communists with fear. And while liberal democracy has (rightly so) written off communism for dead, it still sees the old fascism as a threat.

The question is, whether the authoritarian political models – built around fascism – of Yockey, Evola, Bardèche, Thiriart and other post-war neofascist intellectuals can work, whether or not they can survive in the long run. The problem is not deciding, whether or not, if they are good alternatives to Obama or David Cameron-style liberal democracy; of course they are – almost anything is. Liberal democracy, for one, has proved to be a massive failure in one particular field: immigration. If present immigration continues at the present pace (as set by our liberal democratic politicians, all elected in free and fair elections), white people of Western European descent will be minorities in their own countries by about 2050. And then there is the question of what to do with the many millions of immigrants who already upon our soil: no amount of electioneering and parliamentary debates will get rid of them. While the recent successes of the Far Right populists in Europe are heartening, there is no sign, at present, that we can simply vote our way out of our difficulties. (And then, there are no guarantees: suppose that the French Front National, or the Swedish Democrats, were voted in – but lost the next election?).

But just because the existing system is bad is not to say that ours is any better. And fascism, and neofascism, are the only real alternatives we in the West have advanced to liberal democracy in the past hundred years. The runes and other symbols of the skinhead and National Socialist Black Metal bands are uniquely ‘ours’ – uniquely Western, uniquely our own creation. Nothing else, aside from neofascism, inspires the same level of intensity and devotion on the Far Right nationalist scene, and certainly, in the nationalist scene, our best intellectuals have been of a neofascist orientation. Without a doubt, if nationalists ever came to power, in Europe, America and Australia, it would be a revolution – driven by dedicated young men – which would blow the opposition away with its intensity and conviction, and it would be a total revolution at all levels, political, economic, cultural, intellectual. But how would nationalists prevent a nationalist state from descending into the authoritarianism, capriciousness, corruption, self-indulgence, ossification and petty tyranny of the Ghaddafi and Assad variety? Would we ever be in the situation of sending in the army to fire at our own people in the streets?

Perhaps what is needed is a synthesis of liberal democracy and Yockeyist/Bardèchean euro-neofascism – taking the best elements from each. This essay is not intended to come up with a comprehensive answer, merely to state, in clear and precise terms, the question.

Nationalism for the people.

Nationalism is often associated with an unwavering national pride, with a love of country, of their nation and unquestionable loyalty. Strong feelings of patriotism, which would be more accurately termed strong feelings of allegiance are usually just called ‘Nationalist’ feelings and these are often caricatured in the media as an unwavering support of the country, regardless of facts, regardless of what the country is doing to people abroad or at home. My country right or wrong. Perhaps in the true sense of the word, someone who simply accepts as true all the time, without question or analysis, that their country or nation is supreme, superior, the leading example of civilisation could be called a bigot, but nationalism is distinct from simple minded support. After all, it is amazing how many people in the world just happen to be born in the country they believe is the best in the world. Just as its quite amazing how many people just happen to be born into the ‘one true religion’.

Nationalism is world outlook. An ideology. A belief that the nation is the most logical basis to build a state or country around, as opposed to other modern ideologies which build states and countries based on the acceptance of certain premises, or simply define and build them by who holds particular documents, or who pays taxes, or who belongs to a particular religion. While modern liberalism states that a country is nothing more than an aggregate of participants, of which the background and cultural heritage of the participants is meaningless (and at the same time very meaningful in multicultural terms, an odd paradox), nationalism states that a country is defined by the very people which founded it, and that it is an organic entity.

A nationalist country is a country which defines itself by the people. Finland for example doesn’t define what a Finn is, but a Finn defines what Finland is. Likewise, Japan isn’t a country which makes its inhabitants Japanese, but the country Japan is founded upon the Japanese culture and ethnicity. The people define what Japan the state is. Many countries around the world exist on this premise. Ireland, Italy, Greece, Slovenia, Mongolia, Fiji, these are countries which came into existence, not as blank administrative states which just ‘happened’ to be then filled with people of a particular type, but as creations of a particular type of people. Modern liberalism and its Marxist Socialist big brother work hard at denying this fact, in trying to ‘prove’ that nation states are artificial constructs, but the fact that these nation states happen to comprise of people who are ethnically and culturally and linguistically related, and that these relations existed long before the nation state was formalised, make this theory laughably absurd. Italy may be a relatively modern creation, but the shared cultural, linguistic and ethnic heritage existed long before. Italy was created because these ties existed. The creation of Italy is not considered the construct of an abstract state, but the unification of Italian states into one nation state, the result of efforts by Italian nationalists. Yugoslavia on the other hand was a single state created from Pan-Slavic ideals, a statist idea which tried to combine various (though closely related nations) into a single state. Italy still exists, Yugoslavia does not.

So a nationalist can be thought of in a strict sense, as one who holds the belief that the nation (in the literal sense) is the most appropriate basis for building political entities on. This is in opposition to the liberal ideal where a country (a term they use interchangeable with nation, as if they are the same thing) is simply an administrative entity, a resource which could consists of any type of citizen or any combination. More importantly, a nationalist works for the betterment of their nation, for its evolution, its cultural growth, its well being, prosperity and sustainability. One cannot improve their own home if they don’t admit there is room for improvement.

To a nationalist, if Australia’s population was to be replaced, then it would no longer be an Australian nation. We might have a government and political entity called a country under the name of Australia, but the Australian nation would have essentially been supplanted with another one. The globalist opponents of nationalism do not recognise that there is more to being a member of a country than simply having citizenship papers or a passport or having a tax file number. For them, to even suggest otherwise makes one a racist bigot. Clearly the ideas of nationalism are incompatible with the idea that a nation of people shouldn’t have a country they can call their own.

For Nationalist Alternative, we quite simply believe that there is more to being Australian that simply being a tax payer, or following the cricket team, or having a passport. We believe that Australia is defined by a particular group of people, NOT vice versa.

Nationalism vs ‘blind patriotism’.

But does a nationalist have to love his or her country? Is it necessary to be a nationalist to believe that your country is the best there is, that all is good? Is it necessary to defend your governments actions against critics? Holding the belief that a state needs a deeper, more significant definition that simply being a group of people who hold ideas of ‘mateship’, eating meat pies and watching football, doesn’t mean that one has to necessarily hold the idea that their country is the best there is, that it must be supported despite what it does. The actions of the state, of the government and even of many of its citizens are distinct from what the nation is. What the country has become is again distinct. A nationalists wants the best for their country, but will acknowledge if there is a sorry state of affairs. To criticise Australia’s involvement in the Afghanistan conflict isn’t to go against the nation, but to criticise the state. To many modern conservatives, who have also adopted the ‘state is the nation’ formula, one must support the country regardless, but a nationalist knows that the armed forces are doing the bidding of an administration, not the nation, and realises that there is no contradiction at all in opposing what the troops are doing, but still being committed to their nation.

Likewise, a nationalist may indeed feel dismay at their country, even so far as to hate what its become. Take for example a lady who’s husband has taken to alcoholism. She may still love him, may still support him, because he is her husband. But she doesn’t have to love what he has become, what he is. She knows deep down that he perhaps is not the best man in the world, she knows what he’s doing is wrong and damaging to both him and her. But she cannot in good conscience lash at out those who criticise him, nor lie to herself and belief that these criticisms aren’t true. Inside she may be torn between sticking by the man she met and fell in love with, and the man he has become, destructive, despotic and distant.

To love your country, make it more lovable.

For people to love a country, it must be lovable. It must provide fair opportunities for those who work to create them, a space to live, breath and be and to respect the national identity. Nationalism isn’t about simply stating that ones country does this, its about making ones own country like this. True nationalists don’t just wave flags at cricket matches, they set about making their country one they would be proud to support and live in. They oppose those manipulate the state to the detriment of the nation. A nationalist works for his or her people, and cannot improve their nation, if they don’t admit there is room for improvement.

There is little doubt that Australia has become a less likeable country, and there is little doubt that Australians still want to call this place home. Many Australians grew up seeing a generation comfortably calling this country home, being able to buy a ¼ acre block in the suburbs to call home from doing an honest job. Now they struggle to call an apartment home despite both them and their partner working. Single Australians would have a much harder time of it. Australians struggle to move to work and back home in Sydney and Melbourne, fighting traffic. The urban sprawl has laid waste to what were ones green fields, valleys and places children used to play in and enjoy nature. The night sky is disappearing from the orange glow of the city. Wages are dropping relative to the value of the dollar. People in productive jobs are watching fat cat executive ship them off overseas to line their pockets further, and the divide between the rich and the middle class grows exponentially. The politicians in power have utterly no vision, no policy and no compassion for Australians except for photo opportunities during a crisis. Suburbs which were once pleasant places to live are turning more and more into third world habitats. The very face and culture of Australia is becoming more and more alien, as the demographic make up broadens. Multicultural policies are creating suburbs where people are distant from each other, where there is no longer a community, but aggregation of people. Australians are increasingly become submerged in an environment which just doesn’t feel like home. Australians are increasingly losing a place which politically and socially is home.

For one to want to work positively for their community, they must feel attachment to it, but all the trends are moving to remove any attachment. Town planning in new urban areas is purely functional and pragmatic, with the seemingly sole purpose of maximising developer profit. The new suburbs springing up on the outskirts of Melbourne are among the most culturally desolate, isolating, anti community areas in Australia.

You cannot restore a sense of love of country by winning the cricket, hosting the ashes or having a diversity day. You cannot demand patriotism, as if it were a switch that could be flicked. You must work toward building a nation that people can be proud of, that they feel attachment to. To have Australians love and support their country, you have to work at making it worthy of support.

This is the true heart of Nationalism. Building and maintaining a country which one would want to be in. It is for this reason that Nationalist Alternative seek to redress issues of unaffordable housing, silly multicultural principles, unsustainable population growth through immigration and economic injustice. We support our nation, and want the state to be worthy of the people within the nation. For us, Australia isn’t defined by the government, but by the Australian people, as discussed in our manifesto. Our country is for our people, for ourselves, just as we believe that every other peoples of the planet should have a place they can call home, that they can be proud of. There is no need to say ‘my country is the best in the world’, but there is definitely a need to say ‘my country is the best one for ME’, something that ideally every human should be able to say, or at least aspire for.

The nuclear debate has arisen once more, not that it ever left. With the continuing tragedy in Japan from the earthquake and subsequent tsunami, focus has been on the nuclear power plants damaged by the Earth’s rumblings. The Fukishima plant has had three explosions since the quake less than a week ago and an exclusion zone tens of kilometres wide enforced. 200,000 people have been evacuated. Radioactive materials have escaped and have been detected around the vicinity of the plant. There is no denying that this is a disaster, though it has not reached meltdown proportions, despite the fear-mongering that the media has engaged in, a media which has jumped on board the numerous disasters which have occurred in the past few months and milked them and resold the gravitas of the situation in consumable units.

To put the nuclear disaster in perspective, zero people have died (yet) from it. Chernobyl killed 43. Mining of coal, to fuel coal power plants among other uses has resulted in up to 100,000 deaths¹. Coal also potentially threatens to change a climate which humanity has become accustomed to, a climate we have become reliant on to sustain the existing population. Tens of thousands are dead from the quake and tsunami itself, but this event has nevertheless reignited debate and given ammunition to the anti-nuclear movement.

It should be clearly stated that nuclear power is the best of a bad lot, with emphasis put on the fact that it is part of a bad lot. Even long term supporters of nuclear power would have to admit, that is is far from perfect (though those with a direct financial interest in the industry may disagree). It is difficult and costly to build a plant that is safe, in a safe location, it is difficult to decommission safely, something that there is no good procedure for yet and worst of all, leaves behind dangerous waste which must be kept away from people, from living things and from entering the ecosystem, water or air cycle, for tens of thousands of years. The fact that after a magnitude 9 quake, and 10 metre tidal wave the plant has held up reasonably well is a testament that the immediate dangers of a well build plant are often overstated.

Nuclears long lasting legacy.

The issue with nuclear power lies in the waste it created. Waste that remains long after the water which was boiled to create the electricity has cooled, long after the electricity has been consumed, long after the individual who used the power has died, long after the device which was used has been discarded, quite likely even long after the civilisation that used the power to drive its economy and sustain itself has ceased to exist. To believe that it is possible to take care of this waste for this period of time is frankly laughable. For a society which cannot plan more than a few years in advance, taking on the responsibility of ensuring that spent fuel from a nuclear reactor remains tightly locked away and trapped, is not a responsibility that we should be taking with, or even remotely capable of handling.

While nuclear power may provide ample energy, it creates a debt, a long lasting debt. Future generations will be burdened with the cost of dealing with the waste, with potential issues from it leaking, with potential deaths, cancers and mutations from the leak, for something they didn’t use. What if King Ur-Nammu from the Ur civilisation 4000 years ago, in order to power an entertainment device left behind a toxic package which the current inhabitants of Mesopotamia, the modern day Iraqi’s still had to concern themselves about, and contend with? Is it morally justifiable to create such a long lasting debt to satisfy contemporary needs? This is, in this authors opinion, the one aspect of nuclear power which turns it from a ‘bad, but definitely usable for now’ source of power to a ‘definitely powerful, but just wrong’ one. Is it foolish to forgo the use of nuclear power for the moral purpose of saving future generations of this debt? It’s a complex issue. It could be argued that future generations would inherit indirectly benefits gained from the use of nuclear power today in the form of technical and medical advancements, and this is indeed a good argument, but the lifetime of the waste means that these benefits must last many times longer than any civilisation has lasted for. Also, what benefit do they gain from modern day squandering and reckless use of power? From using power to run larger and larger TV’s, home theaters, unnecessary street lighting, production of goods purely to sustain a decadent, consumerist lifestyle and to sustain an obsolete economic model which only a few really benefit from?

This raises another issue, which is at the real heart of the nuclear debate. From those who vehemently oppose it, to its supporters, it has to be realised by all who engage in debate, that nuclear is only good compared to other bad and insufficiently powerful sources of power. Even some environmentalists are accepting that nuclear power may be necessary, as it is less evil than coal. Renewable energies, while inarguably much cleaner and better, aren’t reliable enough and don’t provide the quantity of energy that modern civilisation seeks to consume. The issue is how did we reach a state where considering such options become a necessity?

Is it a necessity?

It appears necessary to find sources of power which can meet current consumption levels because it is assumed that the consumption of power is necessary. But quick observation shows this isn’t true. Quite easily, power consumption can be cut by simply eliminating the most wasteful behaviours. Leaving lights on in rooms when not in use, something commercial establishments commonly due. Removing unnecessary street lighting and ‘decorative’ lighting which only exists to cast light for visual effect. Planning shopping trips better to eliminate frequent drives to pick up a few items and so on. Household devices have also become more energy hungry. TV’s of old used to have a definitely on/off button, whereas now all appliances have a ‘standby’ mode, of little use, but a mode where the appliance still draws power. TV’s are becoming larger and much more power hungry. Computer monitors larger and the computers themselves draw more and more power as they run faster processors and more powerful graphics cards. Add to that, the increasing list of devices, the DVD player, the PVR, the set top box, the modem router, the home theater and its easy to see why household energy usage is increasing, and for what?

But looking further out, we see vast amounts of energy being used to manufacture consumable and quickly replaced electronic items, marketed to have a short shelf life, designed to become quickly obsoleted by the next product. Then there is the energy used to produces a cornucopia of goods which no one really needs, energy used to market it, and energy used by people to have a job to earn the money to buy these goods.

Everywhere you look, you see a society built upon the assumption that energy is limitless. The city of Melbourne is geographically speaking, one of the largest in the world. New suburbs are built around the car. There is a lack of corner stores, as all stores are centralised into shopping centres. No public transport and few nearby working opportunities. The preoccupation with growth is creating suburbs up to 40km and more away from the CBD, which require people to use more and more fuel in order to go to work and back to earn a living. Our economic and social system, as we currently maintain it, require growth, require consumption and the production of surplus goods and services, all energy consuming activities.

But what if a change in the economic and social order could result in a state of existence by which a good standard of living was maintained, but with far less extraneous energy use? This certainly is possible but whether it would remove the need to consider nuclear is unlikely.

How did we reach this state?

This begs a deeper question. How did we reach a state where in order to maintain our current system of civilisation, we must choose between the horrendous pollution of fossil fuels, and the morally repugnant nuclear, which as the potential for quite severe accidents?

Humanity and civilisation has quite simply grown faster than the means to support it sustainably have. There is no escaping the fact that we have not restrained our growth and demand for resources and chose not to wait till a demand for power and resources could be satiated sustainably before creating the demand. Restraint is a much needed but lacking quality in modern civilisation. Had we, upon the discovery of the use of fossil fuels, been able to think ahead, to take into account their finiteness, carefully planned our growth so as to be within the limits of these resources, this debate perhaps won’t be occurring. While it may not be reasonable to have known about climate change, or how quickly these fossil fuels may be exhausted, the industrial system marched on without any restraint or planning.

The crisis isn’t simply about where to get power next, it goes much deeper than that. The nuclear debate, a debate about which of the two evils we will choose is the result of a population and industrial system which was allowed to grow to a size beyond its own capacity to support itself sustainably. Renewable energies could be viable if civilisation as a whole has the will and capacity to restrict its size and consumption within that which nature can support, but such a change of perspective is unlikely to come about with leaders who are beholden to commercial interested, to big business and who, because of the democratic political system, would have extreme difficulty in enacting unpopular, but necessary changes.

While some political schools of thought try to resist any challenge to the current status quo, it is necessary to look deeper than the nuclear/no nuclear dichotomy and challenge the assumptions about the necessity to use the quantity of energy we use now and to challenge the automatic assumption that further growth must be accommodated as is inevitable.

Our societies approach to the energy supply problems that we face have always been to force change in the source of energy, but perhaps we should look at both sides of the equation. Perhaps the issue of finding the resources isn’t simply to force more resources, but to also adapt ourselves and accept the limitations of what the planet can provide and adjust ourselves, our own practices and assumptions and social morals in order to make our lifestyle more compatible the resources our planet can provide. This requires changes which most people would immediately dismiss as a pipe dream, as impossible, but unfortunately we are left with little choice.

1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining#Dangers_to_miners