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.

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.

by Tom Sinclair

1. What every nationalist politician needs

We nationalists certainly have a radical program – if by radical we mean uprooting the tendencies and habits which have formed in the West over the past thirty years. The chief tendency, which we oppose is, of course, multiculturalism and mass non-white immigration into the West – a development foisted upon the Western nations by our own politicians, and welcomed by our media, intellectuals, economists, trade union and business groups. Disparate nationalist groups, from Britain to Russia to New Zealand to Canada, are all united on one thing: non-white immigration into the West must cease; and the non-white immigrants already here must be encouraged, through state policy, to return to the homelands of their forefathers.

That is, one could say, our key policy: and certainly the one which attracts the attention of the public. The masses are not really interested in, for instance, the BNP or the NPD’s opinions on global warming, industrial relations, or public health care: they want to hear about immigration. They will vote for a nationalist party for its positions on immigration, mostly because no other politician is brave enough to speak out against it, no matter his or private feelings on the issue, and every political tendency across the board – from the mainstream, liberal democratic parties, conservative and social democratic, to the radical Left – are all for multiculturalism and immigration. “Racists” have been purged, even from the conservative parties of the West, long ago. The likes of the BNP and the NPD, then, constitute an alternative to the mainstream political consensus.

It has to be admitted, however, that the policies of nationalists on non-racial topics which have little to do with immigration – e.g., trade union law, interest rates, financial regulation, recycling, old growth forest logging, maternity leave and the like – attract little attention from the public for another reason. That is, those policies are undeveloped – which is a euphemistic way of saying that nationalists don’t have any. There is very little consensus on these areas of policy in the nationalist world when they do come up for discussion.

The danger is that this locks nationalists out of mainstream political debate. Suppose that a representative for an Australian nationalist party were to do an interview on the current affair program The 7.30 Report. Kerry O’Brien, the host of the show, and a notoriously tough interviewer, would hammer that representative, relentlessly, on areas where the nationalists are weak: he would ask, ‘What does your party think of the ACTU’s latest Living Wage claim? Or increased financial regulation in the wake of the recent financial crisis?’. The representative would mumble some clichés about ‘true Australian worker’s socialism’ in response to the first question, and, in response to the second, perhaps blame the recent financial crisis solely on a single special interest group. All the while he would be hoping that O’Brien would turn the line of questioning back to the question of immigration. At home – in the living rooms across the country – the average Australian television viewer would be shaking his head: even though he may agree with that nationalist party about immigration, he can see, straight away, that the party – given its inability to formulate even the most basic positions on current political topics – is, in the jargon of the mainstream media, ‘unelectable’.

Is it so hard? Does a politician need to have a clear, fixed position on everything to be able to negotiate an interview, or hold a press conference? Does he need to be able to recite facts and figures on almost everything, at a moment’s notice? No: all he – and his party – needs are positions on three or four contemporary political issues. In an interview, at a press conference, on the campaign trail, he can adroitly steer the discussion towards one of those key issues, and then expound the party’s position on it. Enoch Powell made a political career on four issues: immigration; Britain’s membership in the EU; the conflict in Northern Ireland; and monetarism. For Pauline Hanson, it was Aboriginal welfare, Asian immigration, protective tariffs for Australian industry and agriculture, and rural and regional unemployment and under-employment (and socialist remedies for solving that problem). In the case of both Hanson and Powell, their ideology covered a broad range of issues. It should be noted that with his discussion of monetarism alone, Powell was involving himself in a discussion of one of the most contentious issues of the day, involving many mainstream, respectable politicians, economists, journalists and academics. He was not simply a ‘Send the Asians and Coloureds home’ one-trick pony.

And this is the main problem: to introduce the nationalist to mainstream debate – to open doors which have been closed to him because his opposition to immigration was not ‘respectable’.

The purpose of this article is to look at a particular issue which is of great relevance to Australia today, and to educate the nationalist reader who has little to no prior acquaintance with it: hopefully, then, a clear position can be formulated in his or her mind on the topic.

2. Chile in the 1970s

The history of Chile in the 1970s is, in itself, intrinsically interesting to the student of politics. Chile, a Latin American country with a predominantly white population, went from a Chavez-style socialist banana republic to a typical Latin American style military dictatorship banana republic in the space of a years – albeit with a difference: Chile, under the military dictatorship, was the first experiment, in the post-war era, in what is now known as neoliberalism. After the military coup in 1973 that deposed the Marxist Allende, the Chilean military junta enjoyed – after imprisoning, exiling or killing thousands of Chilean communists – absolute power. Faced with a desperate economic crisis, the junta took the (uncharacteristic, for a Latin American ‘fascist’ government) the step of implementing structural reforms to the Chilean economy, which included deregulation, privatisation (Chile’s electricity grid was sold to the Australian entrepreneur Alan Bond), the privatisation of superannuation (or social security, to American readers), labour law reform, cutting of tariffs on imports and the like. The junta’s economic policy-makers were known as the ‘Chicago Boys’, having studied economics in the University of Chicago under the economists Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger. This was the first instance in history of an authoritarian regimé applying neoliberal measures.

The results are controversial: those with inclinations towards neoliberalism use statistics to show that the Chilean experiment was a success – inflation and unemployment fell, economic growth rose, etc. – while the opponents of neoliberalism (a diverse array of Communists, socialists, Keynesian economists) use statistics to show that the Chilean experiment was a failure. What is certain is that Chile broke new ground: Australia, along with many other Western countries, embarked on widespread deregulation, privatisation, cutting of import tariffs, in the 1980s, a decade later (the Chilean privatisation of superannuation preceded the Australian). Furthermore, it is unlikely that the ‘Chicago Boys’ could have carried out their program without the complete control of economic policy given to them by the Chilean military: their policies met with substantial opposition, not only from the regime’s Communist opponents, but from organised labour and big business as well.

Communism is based on myths and personality cults. The case of Allende in Chile is no exception. Allende was, and continues to be, exalted by the radical Left as a superman figure, a sort of Marxist higher man bringing socialism to the masses, wooing them with his oratory, charisma and rare genius. In his personality cult, he is like so many Communist leaders before him: Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Che, and lesser lights such as East Germany’s Honecker, Romania’s Ceauşescu and Albania’s Hoxha.

The BBC documentary series on Allende and the coup that toppled him – ‘The Other 911’, which is available on YouTube – even evokes, unwittingly, parallels to Hitler and his fall. Allende perishes, by his own hand (blowing his head off with a submachine gun given to him by Fidel Castro), in a fortified presidential palace, besieged by soldiers from the outside, defended by a small, but ideologically determined, praetorian guard of Chilean Communists. The females are evacuated as the palace is besieged (bombed by Chilean air force jets) and Allende, to the last, makes heroic addresses over the radio to the Chilean people, mourning the end of the Chilean socialist dream. The similarities between Allende’s last days, and Hitler’s, are obvious – even if the Left is not willing to acknowledge them.

The circumstances leading up to the Chilean coup, and the aftermath, will not be covered here, interesting as they are. The objective is to look at the main myth about Allende’s Chile: that he had introduced valuable ‘social reforms’, that it was a kind of ‘socialist paradise’. At the time, Allende’s Chile was upheld by the radical Left – like Chavez’ Venezuela now – as a model to the world, as a path, towards ‘democratic socialism’ and ‘development’ worth emulating. In contrast, Pinochet’s Chile, when the ‘Chicago Boys’ ran rampant, was a time of great poverty, misery, inequality, etc. My intention here is to expose the myth: not by measuring statistic against statistic, but by showing how everyday life was, in Allende’s Chile, would be unbearable – in terms of personal freedom, comfort, and the efficiency in the provision of services – even to the most radical of Leftists in the West today.

The question is: why is this of relevance to nationalists in the West?

In the year 2009, Communists have, by and large, infiltrated the environmentalist and anti-globalist movement, and are bending both to Communist purposes. And they are not troubling to define their terms and substantiate their claims. They speak of themselves as anti-capitalist, without defining precisely what capitalism is, or, moreover, what their alternative to capitalism is (at least to the general public – at bottom, they want Soviet-style Communism).

Now, many nationalists are eager to join forces with the anti-globalist movement, or at least, find common ideological ground. Because of their ideological and theoretical vulnerability – in short, their not having a position on these subjects – they can easily be seduced by the arguments of the anti-globalist/anti-capitalist crowd, and end up endorsing a kind of hazy socialism or communism without thinking of the implications of their statements (against greedy bankers, corporations, excessive economic growth and personal consumption, neoliberalism (however neoliberalism is to be defined). So they need to be shown what the consequences are – in a country such as Allende’s Chile, in which the government provisions ‘social justice’ and ‘social reform’, and is run by ‘the workers’. However Communists don’t seem to concern themselves too much in relation to the Ethnic/Racial Heritage of its workers and this is one of the major contrasts between it and Nationalism.

Perhaps the difference between the nationalist and the anti-capitalist/anti-globalist is that the nationalist has only a very vague idea of an alternative to ‘capitalism’ (however capitalism is defined) while the anti-capitalist/anti-globalist (who is, more often than not, a secret Marxist, or a radical environmentalist who wants to take the world back to the pre-industrial age) has a very clear, well-thought out plan. To the Marxist, the ‘anti-capitalist’ world of the future will be a lot like Honecker’s East Germany, or, at the least, Chavez’ Venezuela or Allende’s Chile.

The anarchist is, on the other hand, halfway between the Marxist/environmentalist and the nationalist in terms of vagueness. His idea of the future is one where property is abolished and where businesses are ‘run by the workers’ (syndicalism); or, better still, one where no-one has to work. How people are meant to survive without working – which, in the anarchist doctrine, is considered to be degrading and dehumanising – is not quite explained. All the same, the anarchist does, unlike the nationalist, have a consistent position as to what the alternative to capitalism is. Some Nationalists have flirted with using ideas from Social Credit and we do not discredit the possibility but it has never really been tried and tested too much.

While history has, most definitely, rejected Marxism, it has not rejected socialism. Indeed, socialism has, across the Western world, enjoyed something of a revival during the current recession (socialism in general always does well during a recession). At one point, then, the nationalist – if he wants to stay relevant – will need to come up with an answer to the question: socialism, for or against. Being vague in this area – while being extremely detailed on immigration (or rather, anti-immigration) policy will not do.

3. How it was

So, given the importance of the subject, what was everyday life in Allende’s Chile like? Rather than looking at statistics – which certainly do not give a full picture – we shall examine small bits and pieces, as it were, of Chilean-style socialism in action. (The quotations here are from an account by a Chilean economist, Daniel L. Wisecarver, who is quite biased against socialism, and definitely in favour of neoliberal formulas, but who has some quite hard to come by information).

We shall begin here with a description of the quite bizarre practice of setting ‘fair’ and ‘socially just’ prices by the government in Chile:

By the end of the Allende government, more than 3000 prices were explicitly fixed, primarily by DIRINCO (the Directorate of Industry and Commerce). It is quite clear that the process of price fixing could only be negotiating sessions (when interested firms were allowed to participate) and that the post of price fixer had to be one of the most remunerative employments in all of Chile. The printout lists of fixed prices, including such items as “chalet type” dog houses and woollen gloves for infants, served as inventories of goods that had at one time been available for purchase… [Even after the Junta took power] some specific price fixes were remarkably detailed, particularising the name and type of product, the distributor’s name, and the place sold. For example, in July 1974, maximum prices were set for retail sales of RANN brand detergent, imported by the Center for Purchases of the Ancud Chamber of Commerce; or the retail price of soybean oil from the Netherlands imported by Domingo Coro and Son… [Wisecarver, Daniel L., ‘Economic Regulation and Deregulation in Chile 1973-1983’, in ‘The National Economic Policies of Chile’, ed. Walton, Gary M., Jai Press, 1985, pp. 154-156]

Such a policy had consequences:

One of the most dramatic and visible effects of [Allende’s] price controls and economic policy was the generalised scarcity of most goods in formal markets, the emergence of well-developed black markets, and long queues. In fact, it is now part of Chilean folklore that, upon seeing any queue, people lined up, sometimes for hours, without knowing what was for sale but buying whatever it was in the maximum quantity allowed. [Ibid, p. 154]

Wisecarver gives examples of, of all things, socialist and interventionist policies in buses:

Some of the regulations that existed in 1973 and 1974 were truly spectacular. For example, children could be transported only in yellow buses, so much so that owners of yellow buses were at times able to convince the police to give traffic violation tickets to parents who took more than their own children to school in the family car. Or if any organised group wanted to charter a bus (or drive its own) for a weekend outing to the beach, it was first necessary to get permission from the Sub secretary of Transportation, with at least three days’ anticipation. In fact, no bus could go anywhere, anytime, for any purpose without express authorisation. And one of the many crucial decisions reserved for the Subsecretary of Transportation, one which required careful study and consultations with other ministers, was the color and fabric of the uniforms that bus drivers were to wear in the coming year. [Ibid, p.161]

On a more mundane level,

The authorities fixed the number of buses and the frequency of runs; the frequencies were uniform, regardless of the day of the week or the hour of the day, and were monitored by the police. To help enforce required time schedules, bus drivers were prohibited from taking rest periods in bus terminals… The Ministry of Transportation also set quotas on the number of buses that could be brought into Chile, their make, model, size, country of origin, etc. Most of these restrictions and controls were codified [in a decree]… which also required that the Subsecretary of Transportation ensure that there appear no unfair competition from similar transport services, specifically not from artificial cost reductions. Hence, all bus fares were fixed.

[Ibid, p. 161-162]

Price-setting and regulations gave the government officials in charge enormous privileges, and the right to be inefficient in providing a service:

It is necessary to mention the state’s ex-entry in this sector, ETC (the collective transportation enterprise), a firm which ran annual deficits on the order of US $10-15 million. At the outset of the current government, this public firm possessed approximately 35% of Chile’s buses, its own set of exclusive routs, its own replacement-parts factory, and more than 5000 employees. ETC was well known for its free “social” routes and for having its vehicles broken down in the shop up to half the year. [Wisecarver adds in a footnote] These routes often turned out to exist for the exclusive benefit of a variety of government officials, their employees, and their related social groups. [Ibid, pp. 164, 199]

As for taxis:

The number of autos that could be employed as taxis was strictly controlled by the Subsecretary of Transportation, the Traffic Director, and indirectly by the union of professional taxi drivers. Each municipality was assigned a fixed quota of taxis which were identified with special license plates, and the taxi plates were naturally worth several times the value of the car itself. The monopoly enjoyed by these taxis permitted them to provide poor service (they might agree to take a customer to certain places only if it was convenient). The only “control” exercised over those drivers who were lucky enough to be cabbies took the form of fixing legal taxi rates. [Ibid, p. 164]

Wisecarver gives an account of the practices of Chile’s longshoremen and dock workers, which makes bizarre reading. He first describes the activities of the unions:

In Chilean ports before 1981, there were a total of 77 separate unions up and down the coast, with as many as 17 in any one port. These groups had total monopoly control on moving any cargo within the ports; they determined the number of workers on each crew and fixed their remunerations as a function of the type of cargo. Every worker had his precise job and could and would do nothing more; no one not explicitly named to each task could work. In practice, the system degenerated to such a point that work crews doubled true labor requirements and, of course, the wage bill was correspondingly duplicated [i.e., workers would be paid for two jobs despite only doing one]. One of the major concerns of workers during half of each shift was said to be finding the most comfortable place to sleep. [Ibid, p.173]

Strangely, the Chilean port workers lived in a kind of feudal, hierarchical society, where unions had complete control over the workers’ lives:

The social structure that grew up around the port workers’ monopoly was, if anything, even more remarkable. There were at least five categories of workers:

1. Stevedores – These were the truly high-class workers, the ones with the legal monopoly to work, granted by the possession of an official ID (identity) card issued by the authorities.

2. Supplentes – These were the first-round substitutes for the stevedores, logically but not necessarily the first ones in line to receive the coveted (and lucrative) ID card. The suplentes were the first ones called to work if there were insufficient stevedores.

3. Pincheros – These “helpers” were a large group of lower class (at least in the port hierarchy) workers who might one day hope to be granted stevedore status. Meantime, they waited in the ports for any jobs that might be handed down to them by the higher-ups.

4. Medio Pollos [‘Half chicken’] – These were lower-class pincheros.

5. Cuarto Pollos [‘Quarter chicken’] – Lower-class medio pollos.

For every ship that had to be loaded or unloaded, the stevedores would be called in to determine work crews and costs. Only the stevedores had the legal right to employment, and therefore they were the only ones directly paid. They would then dole out jobs to their pincheros, who in turn would distribute tasks to medio pollos and cuarto pollos. The stevedores collected all the wages and passed them along, after deducting a sort of “commission”, to those below them who had participated in each specific job. At the same time, the union leaders collected a separate round of contributions from all the workers in order to finance the unions’ network of social benefits – housing, schools, health, etc. This network was sufficient to maintain the support of the lower-level workers for the union leaders and hence to maintain the pecking order within the ports. [Ibid, pp. 173-174]

Wisecarver mentions that, under these arrangements, workers were effectively controlled in where they wanted to work and live: ‘Anyone wishing to move and be able to work in a different port had to receive explicit authorisation from the authorities and respective unions’. [Ibid, p.175]

On the topic – of workers being paid for more than they actually worked – Wisecarver writes amusingly:

When the time arrived (1981) to change the legislation and eliminate the monopoly, the card-carrying stevedores reportedly “worked” between 400 and 600 days per year and earned more than $US2000 per month, substantially more than annual per capita income in the entire economy. Such statistics were of great use in stifling potential opposition to the new law among nonparticipants in the ports. [Ibid, p.174]

Finally, we shall look at a topic which has the most relevance to conditions in Australia at the present: Chilean labour law. A kind of guild socialism existed:

Consider the case of “professional colleges”. These colleges were basically highly specialised unions formed to protect the interest of the profession practiced by their members; each College, along with its legal faculties and responsibilities, was created by its own law. Without being a registered, paid-up member in good standing with the relevant college, regardless of professional qualifications, one could not work as a lawyer, public administrator, architect, librarian, accountant, newsman, doctor, nurse, pharmacist, professor, etc. The specific laws gave colleges the right to set fees charged by their members as well as standards for their work, prohibit the public sector from hiring nonregistered professionals, prohibit non-members from offering professional services to the general public, ensure that only dues-paying professional were registered, and so forth. [Ibid, p.186]

In general, the Chilean labor law was based on an ideological worldview akin to that of Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd and the modern Australian union movement:

Starting with publication of the 1931 Labor Code, legislation governing labor relations blossomed into a network of some 70 fundamental labor laws by the end of 1973. Aside from the numerous statutes granting special privileges, two general types of legislation might be considered. On the one hand, for individual contracts, lawmakers acted as if employees were gullible and naive while employers were shrewd and ruthless. Therefore, in order to protect the former from the latter, it was necessary to legislate hours of work (normal and maximum overtime), wages (minimum at least), work conditions, length of vacations and when they could be taken, and so forth and so on – nothing was left to change or negotiation. [Ibid, p.187]

One consequence of the Chilean system was that unions played an increasingly politicised role – just as they did in Britain and Australia in the 1970s:

Over time the unions began to acquire more and more economic and political power, particularly those that could associate themselves with important, protected industries. As the unions became more extensive, and with state intervention in the economy becoming continually more generalised, any labor problem quickly became a political problem, one that was most readily resolved by granting union demands. Given the ubiquitous state intervention, once the firm or industry had granted union requests, it could turn to the state for a compensating favor of some sort – a price readjustment, higher protective tariffs or tighter import restrictions, a tax exemption, whatever. It was a neatly closed, if totally distorted, system. [Ibid, p.188]

4. Solutions

We have only covered part of Wisecarver’s article: not included are agriculture, railroads, air transport, maritime shipping, electricity, telephones, water, fuel, finance and banking…

To Wisecarver, what matters the most is greater ease, comfort, efficiency and freedom of personal choice in day-to-day living. Wisecarver looks at Chile, sector by sector, and recounts what to him are the happy results of a policy of deregulation. For example, he enthuses that:

Before deregulation the route between Santiago and Valparaiso/Vińa del Mar was served by two firms which were characterised by old, uncomfortable buses and somewhat less than reliable service. By the end of 1982, there were 12 firms covering the same route. Nowadays, at any time of the day, one can, for example, take the subway to the outskirts of Santiago, wait no more than 15 minutes, and get on a new, modern, air-conditioned bus, arriving at one’s destination within two hours The fare was lower in nominal terms than it had been five years earlier. And passengers to the coastal cities and sea resorts were not the only beneficiaries; daily rates for swimming pools in Santiago also fell. [Ibid, p.164]

Less electricity brown-outs, better phone coverage, less theft of cargo at the docks, less wasteful employment of government workers who do little to no work, better customer service in taxis and airlines… The list goes on and on. Life was bad under socialism; after the downfall of socialism, and the rolling-back of many of Allende’s splendid ‘social reforms’ (and the ‘reforms’ by the administrations prior to Allende) life improved – even if it became less ‘socially just’, more ‘inequitable’, more prone to ‘dog-eat-dog competition’ and ‘capitalism’. In other words, Chile approached the standards of ease, comfort, efficiency that we have become accustomed to in the West. Today’s Left, in Australia and elsewhere, could not abide life in Allende’s Chile – or Castro’s Cuba, or Chavez’ Venezuela, or Kim Jong-Il’s North Korea. (And lest one object that such ‘standard of living’ concerns are trivial, it is undoubtable that the rather dismal and grim existence in the Eastern European and Soviet regimes in the 1980s hastened the demise of Communism in that region).

That question – of whether life under Allende-style socialism is better (or worse) than under deregulation – is one we will avoid here. The question which should be asked, and which we rarely hear, is, ‘How on earth do we get deregulation?’. That is, how does a country, politically, go about getting these things?. The surprising answer is: to a large extent, not through liberal democracy.

In Australia, the remuneration of almost every single occupation is fixed by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), which in turns makes it decisions based on claims put forward by Australia’s small, but powerful, trade union movement and the reckonings of a special ‘judiciary’ whose job it is to decide what is a ‘living’ wage, a ‘fair’ wage. Competition is outlawed: one cannot offer to work for less than the specified award rate (that is, the minimum rate for each and every occupation). Under the Liberal government of 1996 to 2007, some competition was introduced: workers were able to negotiate their own agreements, called Australian Workplace Agreements, outside the award system. The agreements were vehemently opposed by the union movement, and one of the first tasks of the Labor government elected in 2007 was to abolish them and tighten up laws against competition in the labour market further.

That is what one expects of the Labor Party, which is a centre-left party completely funded and controlled by trade unions. But the Labor government, once elected, did introduce competition into the wheat export market, in a move which would have delighted Wisecarver. Before 2008, Australian wheat-growers had to sell their wheat through a government board, the Australian Wheat Board (AWB). Because it had the monopoly – it was the only entity which had the legal power to sell – it could charge a ‘fair’ price, a ‘just’ price, for wheat exported overseas. Australian wheat-growers were forbidden to sell wheat at anything less than a price determined by the AWB. Why, given its adherence to deregulation, privatisation, liberalisation, individual choice, etc., did not the Liberal Party abolish the monopoly? The answer was because it was in a political coalition with the National Party, an agrarian socialist party, for its entire time in office. The Labor Party, which was not bound by such an alliance, and therefore not in need of propitiating a small special interest group, had no trouble at all in abolishing the monopoly – despite the vociferous opposition of rural socialists such as the senator Bob Katter. (One beneficial effect of the policy, and one which was intended, has been to open the export market to farmers prepared to sell their wheat at below the ‘socially just’, ‘living’ rate set by the AWB).

And there is the answer: under a representational liberal democracy, which, by design, represents small sectors of the Australian population, and not the nation as a whole, as an entire unit, deregulatory measures cannot be enacted on a large scale without offending some special interest pressure-group which demands that a government-enforced monopoly be upheld as long as possible. Furthermore, a democratically-elected political party often lacks the political power to take a policy of deregulation, liberalisation, etc., to the limit. To be consistent with regard to its stated beliefs, the Liberal Party ought to have abolished the entire award system, and the minimum wage; possibly, it could have done this in 1996 or in 2004, when it won crushing majorities (in 2004 in particular, it attained, for the first time, a majority in the Senate). But it did not. The reason why is that the Liberal Party had to contend with a pluralist liberal democracy. It is no coincidence that the policies of Chile after 1973 were enacted after the suspension of Chile’s liberal democratic constitution and a wide-reaching internal military campaign against the Chilean Left.

Advocates of neoliberalism do not often recognise this: they sneer at ‘big government’ and politicians and statesmen in general, and excoriate the state. They call for a ‘limited government’ which protects individual liberties against ‘tyranny’, that is, socialists in the legislative chambers. How that protection is to be achieved – through the diminution of the functions of government, and the excising of power-politics and national-minded statesmen from government – is never explained.

Some neoliberal theorists do recognise the conflict – between a competitive liberal society, and liberal democracy – presented here. In a pamphlet (‘The Conflict between Democracy and Economic Reform’, Political Notes no. 77, The Libertarian Alliance, 1993), Adriana Lukasova examines three governments which, in her view, successfully enacted neoliberal measures: the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile; the Thatcher government in Britain; the post-war occupation government in Germany in 1948. These governments were authoritarian (the occupation government in Germany was an Allied-installed dictatorship) and imposed their measures against the wishes of pressure groups such as the trade union movement, big business and the Left. Lukasova approvingly quotes the Chilean finance minister of 1981, Rolf Luders:

The Chilean tradition shows that governments endowed with strong authority, which have simultaneously guaranteed the exercise of economic freedom and of private initiative, have presided over the periods of greatest progress in the history of the country. (Lukasova, ‘Conflict-‘, p.2).

The formula is expressed, in some academic writings on the subject, as ‘Strong state, free economy’. Lukasova writes, of Britain in the Thatcher period,

In 1982 police were equipped with weaponry, police vehicles, communications devices, protective body armour and crowd control equipment. A system of national co-ordination was devised. The police National Reporting Centre, based at Scotland Yard, became a permanently available facility – to provide some of the benefits of a national police force without the odium of establishing one. (Ibid).

Again, the terms need to be defined: does a ‘Strong state’ equate a state with a large, well-equipped police force and army, and a secret police with special powers to carry out surveillance and arrest people without due process? France and Germany traditionally have had very powerful state security services: yet the French government is notorious for caving in whenever a large union demonstration against some unpopular ‘free-market reform’ takes place. President Sarkozy was elected as a neoliberal, but, in the end, gave in to the ‘French consensus’ – that is, sectional-group pressure – to abandon his proposals and stay with the same old French socialism and welfare-statism.

The same can be said of the term ‘free market’, or ‘free economy’. How are they free? No-one is free to buy or sell whatever they like and at any price. Otherwise, there would be, considering the large number of deviant consumers for them, a trade in child pornography or heroin.

These are some of the problems with the formula, ‘Strong state, free economy’. A more accurate formulation would be: ‘The state that says no’. That is, a state run by a small group of men and women who stay focused, at all times, on the national interest, and have the political strength to resist the demands of small, but highly vocal, political pressure groups. Such a state can ignore the union movement, and the industrial-relations judiciary, when introducing competition in the labour market; it can ignore the Marxist category of environmentalists and the indigenous rights lobbies in proposing sustainable development of the country’s gas, coal and minerals where it benefits the national (not international) interest; it can ignore the Bob Katter’s when deregulating agriculture; it can ignore General Motors when it asks for a $US70 billion bail-out (wasted on a company which is going bust anyway), it can ignore big business demands to increase the migration program to 300,000 per year, or developers demands to constantly expand cities and strip away every green belt. Such a state is a rare thing indeed, and rarely appears in a liberal democracy.

That state – one that says no – is one, by definition, that should appeal to nationalists. After all, a nationalist is someone who puts the well-being of the nation first and foremost. And surely it is no good for the nation when, for instance, 1.8 million Australians on welfare are unable to obtain work because, under the award system, the minimum wage rates for every occupation are being kept artificially high by a small special-interest minority, and so less jobs are created than would exist under a fully competitive system?

Many politicians confuse the special interest group for the people who make up the nation. The trade union movement, for instance, can mobilise large numbers of activists to demonstrate against an Australian government, in short notice; and, given its wealth, can mount extremely effective public relations campaigns using advertisements and other forms of propaganda and outreach. The politician, on the cusp of putting forward some proposal to reduce union powers to strike, or to bring about competition in one sector of the market, will look at those large masses of people and think, erroneously, ‘The Australian people are against me’. And often the battle can get ugly and involve actual violence, between unionists and ‘scabs’, and unionists and the police – as during the Australian maritime workers’ dispute of 1998, or the coal miners’ strike in Britain in 1984. In the liberal model, the state has the monopoly in coercion: that is, only the state has the legal right to arrest people, fine them, prevent them from entering certain premises, use some form of restraint and violence against lawbreakers. In a country politically dominated by large, violent trade-union movements, those functions are usurped: the state loses its monopoly, and unions can carry out coercion, commit acts of violence, at will. Given the seriousness of such conflicts, the politician can again mistake the actions of a small but powerful and well-organised group for the popular will, and hold back on introducing legislation for fear of starting what seems almost like civil war.

This is a problem in liberal theory: the constitution, the state structure, is there, in the liberal model, to protect individual freedom. What happens, then, if a small, well-organised pressure group use that freedom to push through legislation in parliament that violates that individual freedom – to work at a certain job at a certain rate, or to supply wheat on the international market at a certain price, or to prevent a rural land-owner from chopping down trees on his own property (in order to protect his house against a fire outbreak)? The answer is that freedom needs to be protected against such groups. Which is why a government, run on nationalist principles, needs to rule with a guiding hand, a firm hand.

Not serving the interests of such groups means that one is serving the interests of whole: which is what nationalism is all about. So, paradoxically, nationalists are, in this regard, advocates of a liberal society – perhaps the last defenders of liberalism in a socialist and environmentalist world. Nevertheless, it should also be noted that Nationalist Alternative is very much against unrestricted Free Market Fundamentalism which is Capitalism in its most terrorizing form. Genuine Nationalism is also intrinsically against Globalization too. This is because Nationalism wishes to preserve the identity, culture, and heritage of people and their Nations.

In this broadcast David Ellerton speaks about what has been happening in Britain, and how Britain, which has close cultural ties with Australia, serves as a warning to Australia as to where left wing politics will lead. David Ellerton will explain how New Marxism (Neo Communism) and political correctness has been destroying  British culture, way of life and society. Australia needs to heed this warning from Britain. Otherwise, Australia will have the same terrible things happen here. Stay tuned for more episodes of Nat-Alt Radio coming out soon!

To listen to the audio, click here.

Video: Part 1

Video: Part 2

[Editor’s note:

This article by a guest writer is the first of a ‘foreign’ series that will step outside the Australian nationalist scene to investigate, review, analyse and remark on struggles elsewhere in the world. What those activists in the region the article comments on do with any suggestions or criticisms made is entirely up to themselves in line with the principles of autonomy and independence. It also fits under the ‘commentary’ category which indicates it is firstly the opinion of the individual or group of authors who penned it rather then necessarily the position of Nationalist Alternative. As part of contributing to Australian nationalist thought and free speech this site in part, acts as a think-tank and internet repository for nationalist discussion pieces which may at times provide contrasting views in some sections. The fact that this occurs simply reflects the spectrum between both method and substance in the struggle to ensure the survival of the West, its culture and its creators the white European peoples.

Here in Australia the situation is very different from that described in this article. A Pro-Israeli standpoint could be risky and controversial. Islam, while still an issue in this country, is not the number one priority. If anything, probably the main threat to Australia is still the overwhelming possibility of Asianisation. The fact that the Australia-Israel Review published the names of several hundred One Nation members back in 1998 shows that Jewish groups are hostile against any political group with Nationalistic beliefs. Those that wish to lure Jewish groups into thinking that they are "kosher" will inevitably follow the path of civic patriotism rather than of true Australian Nationalism.]

1 Introduction

This essay was written at the request of a comrade in the British National Party, a member of almost 3 decades. It is written by an Australian with a keen interest in German political affairs and who wants to help German nationalists win elections at the federal level in Germany today, and thereby gain office. Such a goal is possible, in my view, but not if the present course continues to be followed.

German nationalist groups – in terms of numbers, morale and organisation are superior, in my experience, to Australian groups: there is much the Australian nationalist can learn from the German. This essay is not written with the intention, not of belittling the German nationalists, but of giving them the observations of an outsider, who, perhaps, may see the present German political situation with more clarity than a German nationalist living in Germany today. Here I shall be advocating a broad range of strategies denazification, radical right-wing populism, an acceptance of liberal democracy, the use of certain safe national symbols, a new nationalism which are used, with great success, by the British National Party. It should be noted that every nationalist group, in every European and Western country, faces a different set of problems: the situation of the Swedish nationalist is not the same as that of the Spanish, or the Canadian, or the South African. So what works well for the BNP in Britain will not necessarily work in Australia, for example. But the argument of this essay is that the methods of the BNP (and the Danish Peoples Party, the Swiss Peoples Party, the Dutch Freedom Party and other radical right-wing populist European parties of that type) will work in the circumstances of Germany today.

In the following article, I will be presenting a long intellectual justification of the main theses. For the reader who is unwilling to read through what is quite a long piece of writing, I will summarise my main conclusions here:

This article proposes a new German nationalism. The elements of this nationalism are: populism; anti-Islamism and an attack on The Left for letting immigration and totalitarian Islam get out of hand; nostalgia for the good old days of culture, morals and fashions of the 1950s and 1960s, and the German economic miracle; a championing of such past German liberal democratic figures as Stresemann, Adenauer and the men of the Reichsbanner Schwarze-Rot-Geld; and definitely no references, especially visual references, to the Third Reich and German National Socialism. (There are other elements of populist policy which could be included here too perhaps a demand for a flat income tax, or a Swiss-style system of citizen-initiated referenda. German nationalists can look to the Swiss Peoples Party, or the Dutch Freedom Party, for policy ideas. But these policies will be in response to internal German political, economic and social problems and must, in the end, be conceived by German nationalists on the ground).

Following this course of action will, I believe, prove to be spectacularly successful: German nationalists will win seats at the federal level, and win seats in large numbers as many as needed to gain political power.

2 The importance of Schmitt

In Germany today, there are two threats to the national well-being: there is an external threat, presented by Islamic immigration; an internal threat, which is the rule of a particular political and intellectual class. The latter is more dangerous. The German political parties, together with the trade unions, intellectuals, media and the rest, form a class of (primarily) baby-boomers who grew up in the post-war years and were inculcated with a hatred of Germany and German history. This class runs Germany today, and, with the aid of the strict provisions of the German constitution, the Grundgesetz , or Basic Law, they rule with an iron fist. Which is why, in the first part of this essay, I shall be explaining the Basic Law and the peculiarities of Germanys political structure. In order to understand it and the implications for German nationalists we need to use a few concepts from the German jurist, Carl Schmitt. As they are quite complex, I shall explain them first in a broad outline. The first point is that the constitution is a system of laws which keep the country together, and is not necessarily written down on a piece of paper (Britain, for example, has no written constitution). Indeed, the most important parts of a constitution may not even be written down: they may be implied.

Schmitt calls the defining parts of a constitution substantive values; here I shall refer to them as the spirit of a constitution. One of the implications of this is that a supreme court or legislature has some leeway in interpreting what is constitutional, e.g., what is in the spirit of it, and what is not. A political party, such as the NPD, or the German Communist Party, may conform to the law, but may exist in opposition to the spirit of that law. Another important point is that constitutional forms (liberal democracy, monarchy, communism, fascism, military dictatorship) change, and can change quite often, while the people who make up that nation rarely do. Who, then, decides to make, or break, a constitutional form? In the age of democracy, it is the sovereign people. They have the power, what Schmitt calls the constituent power, to unmake constitutional forms. In the 1918 German revolution, for example, the German people made the collective decision to abandon monarchy, and vested their sovereignty in a constitutional committee who drew up what later became the Weimar constitution. The Schmittian scholar, Jan Müller, summarises this in the following paragraph.

Schmitt makes the seminal distinction between [constitution] and [constitutional law]. The former referred to the essence of the constitution, and in particular, in Schmittian parlance, its political form such as a democracy or a monarchy; the latter simply designated particular constitutional provisions. The constituting power [in most democracies, the people], according to Schmitt, had made a fundamental decision in favour of a political form of existence and this form had to be guarded and should be changed by majorities. Constitutional amendments and breaking thoughi.e., destroying] the constitution as such had to be carefully distinguished. [Müller, Jan-Werner, A Dangerous Mind: Carl Schmitt in Post-War European Thought, Yale University Press, 2003, p. 65].

3 Liberal democratic totalitarianism

4 The British Machiavelli

One can see, from all this, the difficulties that the German nationalists labour under. The question is: can the Basic Law, so inimical, so hostile, to German nationalists and to anything extreme, radical, be amended?

The answer is, only with great difficulty. To amend the German constitution, a two-thirds vote is needed in the Bundestag (the lower house) and the Bundesrat (the upper house). The latter has all its delegates appointed by state (Länder) governments, which is the equivalent of having all Australian senators in the Australian Senate being appointed by the parties holding office at the state and territory level e.g., the present NSW Labor state government, the Victorian Labor state government, and so on. So the German nationalists would need attain a two-thirds majority, not only in the federal parliament, but in the Länder as well: a tall order.

Part of the problem is that the German nationalists are so radically opposed to the present constitutional order that, in order for them to gain power, there would have to be a complete break with the constitution a constitutional breaking-through, or verfassungsdurchbruch. Complying with the constitution does not merely mean complying with the letter of the law; complying means adhering to the spirit of the constitution, the liberal democratic ideals and values. The German nationalists comply with the letter, to a certain extent, but certainly not with the spirit.

The central point of this essay is that the German nationalists do not have to abandon their nationalism, their opposition to the Bundesrepublik and the Basic Law; only that they have to adapt themselves halfway to it, or three-quarters of the way. Rather than observing only the letter of the law, they have to attune themselves to the spirit of the Basic Law.

The British National Party, today, has successfully adapted itself to the spirit of the British constitution. It does this mainly through symbolism. The BNP, like the German nationalist groups, is regularly denounced as Nazi, fascist. But the average Briton, understandably enough, connects these two concepts with uniforms, swastikas, runes, armbands, jackboots, posters of heroic-looking men holding banners and the like. So, when he sees the BNPs visual propaganda Union Jack flags, Churchill, RAF Spitfire planes, the Churchillean V for victory sign he becomes, on a subconscious level, confused. He is being told by the BNPs detractors to associate fascism/National Socialism with safe, secure, comfortable, all-British symbols and images (which he has been taught, from childhood, to revere) and that will not do. He concludes, again in his subconscious, that the BNPs detractors do not know what they are talking about: apples are not oranges. He may come across, later, other pieces of information about Nick Griffins past Holocaust denial, or the fact that the BNP was founded by John Tyndall, who used to wear home-made Brownshirt uniforms but these are words, mere words. Already, the battle, on the visual, and subliminal level, has been lost: he cannot understand, on a simple level, why the BNP is called Nazi.

Does this mean, then that the BNP which was founded as a neofascist party has gone liberal democratic? Has it gone over to the enemy? The answer is: no. The British establishment politicians, journalists, academics, intellectuals hate and fear the BNP. The BNP has not given up its racialist and nationalist views, has not broken links with other nationalist groups (including the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands). Indeed the NDP regularly has a stall at the BNPs red, white and blue festival. The enemies of the BNP understand that the use of Churchill imagery, the Zionism, the apparent support for Israel, is a clever trick it is camouflage designed to make the party appeal to British voters, to convey the image of respectability. In other words, the BNP is appropriating the rhetoric and symbolism of the liberal democratic parties in order to make itself look electable: it is using the weapons of the enemy against him. Their stance attempts to make the accusation of anti-Semitism a non-issue, effectively neutralising the damage it does to nationalism in those countries with populations taught from birth that certain ideas/events are absolute and never to be questioned.

5 The German dilemma

Given all this, what of the German nationalist groups? What is their symbolism? What message do they convey through their appearance? Well, for starters, photographs and footage of German nationalists always contain rather frightening-looking skinheads, wearing boots, T-shirts with iron crosses (a symbol which is still legal in Germany, surprisingly enough, and is used as an emblem by the German army, the Bundeswehr). The flags are the tricolour 1871-1918 German flag, the Imperial WWI German flag and the WWI Imperial Jack flag (used by German nationalists to assert a continuity with the German past before the Allied occupation). The German nationalists, also regularly demonstrate for recognition of the Wehrmacht, or against slandering of the Wehrmacht; these posters, fliers, pamphlets, banners use pictures of Wehrmacht soldiers. As well as that, there are marches in recognition of Rudolf Hess attempts to make peace between Germany and Britain, which are attended by prominent German nationalist leaders.

All of this is, for the average German, off-putting. He can only agree when the opponents of German nationalists label them Neo-Nazi. And Neo-Nazism means a number of things: social ostracisation; unemployment; possibly even jail. It also evokes a past which he has been conditioned, since birth, to feel guilty and ashamed about. Again, the perceptions of the average German voter are determined by what goes on at the simple, visual, subliminal level. The average German sees all the Nazi stuff, feels fear and discomfort (and looks over his shoulder he doesnt want the authorities catching him looking at it), and then closes his mind accordingly. On a simple, primeval level, he associates German nationalism, not with pleasure, but with pain.

The German nationalist may go on to make an excellent written or verbal presentation of his case, but to no avail: the decision against the nationalist, a decision which has its basis solely in emotion, has already been made. The German nationalists, though, are completely oblivious to the effect that the deployment of this Nazi, Far Right imagery and symbolism creates. Why? The answer lies in the following analogy. Suppose that a certain person was wrongly accused of being a serial killer or highway bandit or whatever, and that you became convinced, because of evidence in your exclusive possession, that he was not guilty on all charges, and lobbied, along with your friends and family, to get him exonerated. That criminal you are championing is as hated a figure as Fritzl, the Austrian incestuous rapist and murderer. But because you were so used to associating with other activists who feel exactly as you do, and because you are convinced that your views are right, you end up, over time, becoming desensitised to what the public perception of that wronged man is. You are oblivious, then, to the effects of displaying his image on your office desk; or on a poster in your house; or on a bumper sticker. The reaction of other people who do not share your convictions is one of discomfort, and whats more, fear of you and your crank views. This reaction, however, only confirms your view that most people are stupid and ignorant, or just unwilling to face the facts, and that you have to get used to the idea of a long, hard and lonely struggle for justice and truth…

One can see the parallels with the German nationalist.

But let us, for a moment, consider the overall political strategy of the German nationalists. They believe that they will be able to form a mass, street-based movement made up primarily of youth but also Germans from every walk of life like the rioting students in Iran in 2009, the Chinese students in Tiananmen in 1989. After a series of election victories, and political and economic crises which will bring the Bundesrepublik to its knees, they will overthrow the parties who rule the Bundesrepublik and set up a national republic in its place. And that will be the end of Germanys problems.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the German population can look past the National Socialist imagery and rhetoric of the contemporary German nationalists and that it is so discontented with the Bundesrepublik that is willing to rise up against it, like the East Germans did against the DDR in 1989. What of the foreign policy situation? What will it look like once the nationalists take over? It will be almost identical to that of Germany in 1933. Militarily, at present, Germany, France and Britain are weak and unprepared for war; but the Jewish community, the international Left, and Washington and Tel Aviv will urge the liberal democratic governments of France and Britain to prepare for war against the nationalist German state, to restore democracy and teach the Germans another lesson. There will be a build-up of arms on all sides. Eventually, Britain, France and the other democracies will be militarily strong enough to attack…

It goes without saying that they will level enormous trade and diplomatic sanctions against the fledgling nationalist government, in the hope of bringing the German people to their knees. Perhaps Britain, France and NATO will make war early, by bombing Berlin – like Belgrade in 1999. It is possible that the German people will cave in under all this pressure: they are, between ourselves, not as tough as their grandparents, who withstood far worse aerial bombardments than Belgrade in 1999. It is also possible that the German air force may cut the French and British bombers down before they reach Berlin. But who wants to think of these things? Who wants war? Germans do not want war, which is one of the reasons why they do not vote for German nationalists in large numbers – their current policies will entail another fratricidal war between European states their white populations, with Washington and Tel Aviv being the only beneficiaries.

The primary difference between Germany today and in 1933 is in the global attitude towards German nationalism. In 1933, most of the states of Europe were either indifferent, or accepting, of the new German nationalist government. Now, after seventy years of relentless, round-the-clock brainwashing, German nationalism is the most hated doctrine in the world: even Indians, Arabs and Africans are taught to look at it with contempt. The humanist liberals and socialists, who protested against the bombing of Belgrade, and the war against in Iraq in 2003, will welcome a war against a nationalist Germany with a kind of crazy, sadistic enthusiasm. German nationalism is a kind of test, these days, of ones morality: you prove your own worth by denouncing Nazism, Hitler and the rest. So a nationalist Germany will be a punching bag for the whole world.

All of this is obvious, but the German nationalist lives in a world of cognitive dissonance, i.e., an unwillingness to see the facts as they are. Most of the problem lies in the fact that the German nationalist today is unable, or unwilling, to recognize the political realities of the present, and work with them and adapt them to his purpose. Germany after 1949 is still Germany, and the German people remain the same even if their constitution has been imposed on them from without. The constitutional form of Germany has changed a number of times in the past hundred years: it has experienced constitutional monarchy, liberal democracy, fascism, communism, and then liberal democracy again. During that time, there have been plenty of reactionaries who have resisted constitutional change: in the Weimar era, there were nationalists who wanted to turn the clock back to before 1918; in the National Socialist era, there were liberals who wanted to go back to Weimar; and so on. In todays Germany, there are communists who cannot accept that the constitutional order of the GDR has gone, changed irrevocably; likewise, there are nationalists who cannot accept that the constitutional order of National Socialism (with Admiral Doenitz being the last legitimate head of state) has gone. Neither can make their peace with the existing constitutional order.

Which, in turn, raises the question: what came first? The particular constitutional form Communism, National Socialism or the German people? Did German people create the NSDAP and the Wehrmacht, or was it the other way around? The correct answer, for a true nationalist and democrat at least, is that the Wehrmacht, the German Imperial Army, Rudolf Hess, Bismarck, Moltke and the rest were, at the time, the servants of the German people, indeed the creations of the German people. The true German nationalist aims to serve the German people of today and this cannot be achieved by hankering after the sovereign Germany before its occupation and partition in 1945. The past constitutional form cannot be recreated, and, what is more, should not be viewed as an end and not a means. The past constitutional form was a creation of the German people, not its master.

In addition, politics, in any country, is geared towards present-day problems and conflicts not those of the past. Germany’s past is, of course, used by its opponents against it in no other country is the past used, like a hammer, to beat the German people with. This disguises the fact that the concerns of the masses are geared towards the problems of the moment (the problems, as of the time of writing, are the financial crisis, unemployment, immigration, among others). What, then, are we to make of a political movement which constantly dwells on the past specifically, German nationalism, which is preoccupied with the war crimes committed against German civilians and POWs from 1944 to 1949? Undoubtedly, the average German voter ought to know about Allied and Soviet atrocities. But the truth is that he lives in the present, and that what happened to the generation of his grandparents is of little immediate concern to him.

The young Germans I encounter are people who are backpackers, soccer fans, travelling businessmen, university students – do not want to think of such things. Not only do accounts of post-war atrocities by the Allies and the Soviets seem antiquated, they are also, oddly enough, disempowering by constantly being forced to reflect on past atrocities, the young German does not feel like a confident German proud of himself and his country in the present day. (Nothing can be more depressing for the German woman of today, for instance, than hearing about mass rapes of German women and girls by Russians, Poles and Czechs: such stories make her feel weak and powerless, victims which is what the original atrocities were intended to do).

The main priority, for nearly all nationalists in the West is to encourage Third World immigrants to return to their own countries, and to stop potential immigrants from the Third World from entering Western countries. There are a host of other problems to be tackled, of course, but that is the main one. And it is a problem very much of the present. Terrible as it sounds, the massacres of millions of German POWs and civilians in the aftermath of the Second World War has little to no bearing on the German (and European) political problems of the present. Yes, those atrocities should be brought to the public consciousness of Germans, and the entire world; yes, Germans should receive compensation for them. But a modern German government, basing its policies on the ideas of todays German nationalists would be a government legislating for the purpose of redressing the wrongs of the past instead of the present, that is, one not geared to the present-day preoccupations of the German people.

There is, of course, one ethnic group in the world today (which shall not be named here for reasons of political correctness) which revels in stories of its past suffering, and even invents, by the thousand, stories of past atrocities. The more gruesome and fantastic these stories are, the better. But the Germans, as a whole, are a healthy people, and do not like to contemplate their past suffering and tragedies. They get no joy from it.

6 The populist solution

Supposing, then, that German nationalists make the political, economic and social problems of todays Bundesrepublik their number one priority: how do they go about winning federal and state office? The answer is to move a few more steps towards accepting legality, which means accepting the spirit of the present 1949 constitution: that is, being legal, not only in the acceptance of the constitutional law for the formation of political parties, but the acceptance of the underlying doctrines, the spirit, of that constitution (e.g., modern liberal democracy is splendid; so is liberalism; so is the multi-party electoral system; totalitarian political systems, like Communism, fascism and Islam, are bad). That does not mean accepting the modern-day German Parteienstaat entirely. No, it means three-quarters acceptance which is considerably more than that shown by most German nationalists so far. That acceptance of the virtues of liberal democracy also allows German nationalists to make an attack on the liberal democratic system, not from the position of fascism or National Socialism, but from populism.

Likewise, radical Islam which has a vice-like grip on the Muslim immigrant populations in Europe is no friend of the Parteienstaat and liberal democracy. One could speculate that, if the Muslim populations to be in charge of European government, the constitutions of the liberal democratic European states would be changed to resemble those of Iran and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan: the rule of the parties would be replaced by the rule of the Imams. Even without an Islamic theocracy, womens rights, and a host of individual freedoms, could be dramatically curtailed under political pressure from Muslims: as they are even in more liberal democratic Muslim countries such as Malaysia. A populist agitator could easily stir up the passions of the German people by painting a picture of a future Germany where nudism and scanty dress are banned, and beer houses are shut down, for fear of offending Germany’s substantial Islamic population.

7 Westenalgie replaces Ostalgie

Nationalism has to have, of course, a positive component. What should that component be in German nationalism? The answer is: nostalgia for the good old days of the West German Bundesrepublik an equivalent of the nostalgia, called Ost Nostalgie, or Ostalgie, for the Eastern German Democratic Republic, which is so prevalent these days.

One of the components of current Far Right European populist ideology is nostalgia nostalgia for the way things were in Britain/France/Denmark/the Netherlands/[insert Western European country here] in the 1950s and 1960s, before the mass Islamic immigration into Europe began. Not only did the Europeans, in this blessed period, live in an ethnically homogenous, traditional society, they lived at a time of great economic prosperity. Furthermore, the European welfare state functioned at its peak.