The freedom of Australians to speak freely, particularly those of European/white heritage (the founders, builders, the people who comprised 98% of those who fought and died in two world wars, creators of the country that is so appealing it attracted thousands of migrants and currently still the majority demographic of ‘Australia’) is under threat, again, from Liberalism’s zeal to end any debate on multiculturalism in the name of ‘anti-racism’. A national debate is raging over a panels proposed change to the constitution, though one would hardly know it, as the public is taking very little part in the debate. The argument is about a 300 page report which contains proposed changes to the constitution to move racist sections and a recommendation to add a clause prohibiting racial discrimination.ⁱ

The report was delivered to Canberra by Melbourne lawyer, Mark Liebler, (former President of the President of the Zionist Federation of Australia and apparently the National Chairman of lobby group: Australia Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) ) ⁱⁱwho Co-Chaired the Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. In a letter which was submitted to Parliament, Leibler writes

“When it was approved one hundred and twelve years ago, the Australian Constitution established the rules for governing one of the most prosperous, peaceful and democratic nations in the world. However, the Constitution understandably reflects the values and beliefs of the time it was drafted. The Founding Fathers deserve our gratitude and respect. But their perspectives – including those on race – were of the 19th Century, not the 21st.”

Mr Leibler doesn’t elucidate why perspectives have changed, very few Liberals ever do. It is merely to be taken for granted that 19^th Century views are to be discarded, and that the ‘view’ of the 21^st century conflicts with our nations constitution. This is a common line exploited by the left, the “It’s 2012, not 1812” argument, one hollow and meaningless. An argument which is supposed to impress upon the reader the modernity of their views in contract with their opponents archaic views, without ever having to explain why it is that the supposed modern views are to supplant the old ones.
Leibler and his story continue

“But racism casts a shadow over many lives, including my own. It was racism and its off-shoot Nazism that caused my parents to flee Belgium in 1939. It was racism that saw my maternal grandparents murdered in Auschwitz. Racism turns your life into a lottery. To stay or go becomes a matter of life or death. Racism reduces your ability to control your life’s destiny or make decisions for yourself.” ⁱⁱⁱ

Leibler puts the specific so called ‘anti-Semitism’ of the German Nationalist Socialist regime under the racist umbrella, an umbrella which now includes anyone who might oppose multiculturalism, high immigration or who might simply wish to preserve their racial and cultural heritage whilst reserving the right for all peoples around the globe to do the same. In doing so, Leibler downplays the specificity of the ‘anti-Semitism’ of the German Nationalist Socialist regime, and attributes this to broad racism. This is indeed incorrect, as the Nazi preoccupation with the Jewish question was disproportionately greater than their preoccupation with racial purity, and other ‘racist’ ideals.

Hypocrisy? What if modern day Jewish concerns about intermarriage and assimilation within the Jewish community were construed as racism? Many Rabbi’s and Jewish leaders around the world openly talk of the need of preserving Jewish identity, of preserving their race or culture or religion et al. For instance recently a Likud MP in Israel Danny Danon (Likud) put a proposal to Australian Jewish MP Michael Danby re sending African migrants from Israel to Australia. Danon was quoted in the 2011 Jerusalem Post article as saying

The arrival of thousands of Muslim infiltrators to Israeli territory is a clear threat to the state’s Jewish identity,” Danon told The Jerusalem Post.

“The refugees’ place is not among us, and the initiative to transfer them to Australia is the right and just solution.” ^iv

One of the most hypocritical examples of double standards on issues of on the right of demographic survival of an ethnicity/nation is by Mark Liebler’s brother Isi Liebler. In a Herald Sun article titled “Multiculturalism not for Israel – Leibler”

Melbourne – Jewish leader Isi Leibler, a staunch defender of Australian multiculturalism, says the policy has no place in Israel.

“This is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the Jews,” he told a Jerusalem newspaper.

Mr. Leibler has previously said that multiculturalism in Australia was something that “we are all proud being part and parcel of…

Mr. Leibler said post-Zionists were pushing a universalist agenda in schools aimed at eliminating Jewish nationalism and creating a multicultural state. “ ^v

Many in the Jewish community openly discuss that in order to preserve their identity, intermarriage with gentiles must be eschewed. In a 2010 article titled Jews in the Lucky Country by Isi Liebler which appears to be mainly aimed at a Jewish audience he promotes Australia as one of the better countries for Jews who live outside of Israel.

If there were more Jewish communities like Australia’s, the future of Diaspora Jewry would be far more secure than it is now… Australian Jewry is frequently depicted as a role model for other Diaspora communities… it is dominated by painful memories but is also a forward looking Zionist community.” ^vi

The article lists what it considers positives such as Jewish dayschools and other institutions but also and notably the positive fact that intermarriage is currently relatively low

Intermarriage while growing is much lower than in other Western Jewish communities…. Of course, all is not rosy. The younger generation, like its global counterparts, lacks the passion of its forbears…

The level of intermarriage, while low compared to the US and most European countries, is growing… Yet notwithstanding these emerging challenges, if there were more Jewish communities like Australia, the future of Diaspora Jewry would be far more secure than it is.” ^vii

Would Mark Leibler consider sentiment opposing intermarriage and multiculturalism amongst his own Jewish community and indeed his own brother Isi racist?

I doubt it.

But what if it were a White gentile (non jew), expressing the same concerns. What if it were, instead of an Israeli Jew expressing the desire of maintaining Israel as a Jewish state, a White gentile expressing a desire to keep their nation White? Unfortunately, caring about our survival as a distinct people is considered racism and some in the Jewish community, who facing their own possible extinction through assimilation , who should understand and empathise with this sentiment the most, are most keen to denounce and portray this thought as racism.

What is racist is to deny the existence of race or ethnicity, to deny or hinder directly or indirectly the right of a race/ethnic group to survive as a distinct sovereign people living according to their own culture, values and beliefs as a majority in their own land who at the same time extend that right to all other peoples.

Further on the double standards – if so much of what Liebler has helped put forward for constitutional change in Australia helps the Aborigines then why is he not pushing for the same in Israel for the Palestinians? Liebler’s bio talks about him being involved deeply with Jewish issues and Israel related organizations so he must have the time.

Tony Abbott seems to be concerned about the ramifications of adding such a clause. Abbott says “We want this to be a unifying moment, like the 1967 constitutional change, and if something is put up which is going to end up substantially distorting the traditional rights and freedoms and protections that we’ve had in this country, well I think that could be a problem. I would want to look very carefully at the legal ramifications of putting anti-discrimination provisions into the Constitution.”

We at Nationalist Alternative are more than concerned. The Liberal party, while voicing ‘concern’ would never take a Politically Incorrect position, and defend the right of a race of people to speak in defence of themselves, their culture and their right to remain a majority in their own land with laws written by us for us to ensure our survival as a people. We at Nationalist Alternative however do defend these rights for Australians and for all the peoples of the globe.

Tony Abbot scratches the surface with his comment about the threat of these constitutional changes ‘distorting the traditional rights and freedoms’ Australians enjoy. Totalitarian liberalism and its proponents already attack and attempt to legislate away the freedom of association and speech rights of Westerners to discuss matters of ethnic/cultural survival handing them constitutional power to do so will simply usher in a Stalinist state. Recent domestic political history in Australia demonstrates this with the appalling media treatment of the grassroots political party One Nation. However a particular nasty incident occurred in July 1998 that was known by some as Lieblers List.

The Australia-Israel Review somehow obtained the membership list of the newly formed patriotic party One Nation, and published the names of 2,000 One Nation members and donors along with a provocative front cover that implied in our opinion that they were some sort of criminals saying “Gotcha! …. Thousands of members revealed”

Given the publicly known physical violence that has already been directed against One Nation supporters publication of the list could only have been seen as intimidation. This blatant act left ordinary mum and dads, elderly and humble Australians from all walks of life, many participating in politics for the first time, subject to potential threats, harassment and intimidation from multicultural left wing thugs who already attacked One Nation meetings.

The newspaper article titled ‘Anger as One Nation members named ‘had the following quote

Mr William May, of Ashfield, said he did not think his membership was anyone’s business.

“It is discrimination against people who have different political views to them and a lot of these people are elderly, like myself, who have worked all of their life and a lot of them have been in World War II,” he said.” ^viii

What is particularly chilling is that Mark Leibler was the chairman of the Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council, the magazine’s publisher back in 1998 That’s right ! The same man who in 2011-12 has Co-Chaired the Panel on Constitutional Change that this article discusses. Liebler was quoted in The Daily Telegraph 1998

the decision to publish the list of members and donors was in the interests of “political transparency”. ⁸

We wonder if he would have the same attitude to transparency if a group obtained and then published in full or in part the membership lists of various Jewish advocacy groups.

The Sydney Daily Telegraph published the astonishing news on July 9 1998 under an angry banner headline that shouted LEIBLER’ LIST. “The presentation associated with the list invites vilification” the newspaper editorialized and “The McCarthy-like imputation is that these people in some way transgressed, their beliefs — like those of communist sympathisers in the United States in the 1950s — are deemed to be a danger to the state.” ^ix Interestingly a cartoon in The Sydney Daily Telegraph compared what was named by some as ‘ Lieblers List’ with the Nazis of 1938. What is also notable, is how Leibler can sit idle and take part in harassment against people because of their political beliefs. Harassment which has led to physical violence, persecution and public ‘shaming’. The very activity that Leibler should know very well, doesn’t accord with a free and open society. Yet here he sides with those that would persecute and attack someone based on their beliefs. Irony or hypocrisy?

Anti-racism is anti-white and any modern form of ‘anti-racist’ action has an anti-white component to it that makes such actions abhorrent. The issue isn’t about Aboriginals or Torres Straight Islanders, but that reliably, without fail, anti-racist action always, always goes beyond ending direct racial discrimination and violence, to controlling thought and speech which may be construed by a hyper sensitive and paranoid individual as possibly being racist, or leading to racism. Even if the sentiment isn’t racist at all, all a white Australian has to do, all any White Anglo or European has to do, is discuss in a frank manner their belief that their race too like all others, has a right to self preservation, and every Liberal, every Politically Correct zealot will automatically construe that as ‘racist’, despite the lack of any racist sentiment. Every anti-racist anti white will take anything less that complete support and devotion to the multiracial experiment as an evil that must be stomped out.

Given the disregard for our right to be concerned about our future and McCarthy like tactics illustrated above along with the anti free speech legislation (vilification laws et al) already in place and growing. We ask the people of Australia to consider this carefully and to reject any changes to our constitution which could effectively outlaw any position against Liberalisms desire to create a melting pot in ALL and ONLY white countries. Not only is the potential for organisations to be deemed ‘illegal’, for advocating for and supporting our race/culture/ethnicity, just as other groups such as the Aboriginal and Jews are free to do, but it has the potential to make YOU criminally liable for what you say, even if you just said that immigration levels are too high.

i Deadline shifts on referendum.<Patricia KarvelasThe Australian January 21, 2012
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/deadline-shifts-on-referendum/story-fn59niix-1226249860843

ii>http://www.abl.com.au/ablattach/leibler.pdf< or

http://www.jafi.org.il/NR/exeres/FA8BC582-E6DF-4FC8-9F07-A907FD618422

iii >Leibler Panel Calls for Constitution Change.January 20, 2012 by J-Wire Staff

http://www.jwire.com.au/news/leibler-co-chairs-panel-on-constition-change/21978

ivDanny Danon: Send African migrants to Australia. By Lahav Harkov
 06/30/2011. The Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=227332

Multiculturalism not for Israel – Leibler. By John Masanauskas. Herald Sun.September 27, 2000
http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/purejews.htm/a>

viJews in the Lucky Country – Isi Leibler visits Australia By J Wire staff. September 25, 2010

http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/jews-in-the-lucky-country-isi-leibler-visits-australia/11837

viiJews in the Lucky Country – Isi Leibler visits Australia. By J Wire staff. September 25, 2010

http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/jews-in-the-lucky-country-isi-leibler-visits-australia/11837

viii Anger as One Nation members named. The Sydney Morning Herald. July 10 1998.
By Greg Roberts,Andrew Clennell And Nick Papadopoulus
Also here http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/98/07/articles/Leibler100798.html

ix The Daily Telegraph. London July 10 1998
Or

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/98/07/articles/Leibler100798.html

The world is stagnating after the Global Financial Crisis of 2008.  The cowboy bandits of Wall Street, the architects of the GFC, perhaps the only accomplishment outside of growing their own portfolio, got off basically scott free.  Many are expecting Global Financial Crisis Mark II.  As every cloud comes with a proverbial silver lining, the silver lining around the clouds of the financial storm is the increased awareness of people that something is wrong, and something needs to be done.  Discussion about the flaws of our financial system are propelled by the sense of urgency and despair.  The “Occupy” movement is gaining traction and gaining support.  They may not understand the issues and have much of an idea of the cause of financial catastrophes, and some may be there purely to try and promote an even worse alternative, but they at least understand that morality has a place in economics.  That’s a start, a good start.

The mood has certainly shifted.  Misplaced optimism about a never ending housing bubble is all but gone and something else is happening which is even more foreboding.  The media is now openly stating that the boom is finished, and that things may well be on their way down.

An article in The Age¹ by the economics writer for the Sydney Morning Herald titled “Top Bosses’ riches are undeserved”1 doesn’t just call into question whether our top CEO’s are overpaid, but openly states they aren’t.  A bold move, for a mainstream publication.

Her argument is that in Australia, we have many Oligopolies, and that making a profit in an Oligopoly isn’t that hard.  Corner the market, and you have your customers hostage.

Our greatest period of economic growth and prosperity, a period when the standard of living was on the increase, rather than the current trend downwards, was during a period when high incomes were taxed quite thoroughly, and where CEO remuneration where closer to that of average worker than today.  Arguments that we NEED to pay our CEO’s exorbitant ransoms fall flat as soon as one realises that our current economy is in a miserable state.  The large quantities of money that CEO’s rake in and pull from our economy seems inversely proportional to the health of our economy.  Given the sick state of Western economies, we are clearly paying big amounts for nothing, yet CEO’s, like snotty school children stamp their feet down and demand more and more, lest they leave.

They know where the door is.

The arguments that they, Free Market ideologues, ‘too much Ayn Rand’ Capitalists and their assorted lick spittles put forward as justifications are nonsensical at best.

One argument is risk.  CEO’s deserve a Kings ransom because of risk.  Given that they shed jobs at an astounding rate, it can be hardly argued that they get paid because they ‘risk’ losing our jobs.  If the share price of the stock of the company can increase through out sourcing, off to India those jobs go. Also, during a bull market, making a profit and increasing your share price is a given, no risk there. The only personal risk is their career, their job.  But when the WORST case scenario is that you leave with hundreds of thousands, or more likely, millions of dollars, it can hardly be considered a risk. Many Australians would jump at the chance to take a risk, where the losing position is making enough money to be set for life.  Risk, hardly.  A CEO can run a company into the ground, lose hundreds or thousands of jobs and even commit fraud, and come out better off.  Ralph Norris has little to worry about.  A $16 million per-annum pay packet, and a taxpayer guarantee to back up the banks in case they fail.  He has risk, but it is the government which ultimately is stopping the banks from failing, through regulating them, and underwriting them with tax payers money.

Another popular argument is the importance of their job.  Well, when neurosurgeons, ambulance drivers and pilots get paid millions, I’ll take this argument seriously.

The fact is, our corporations, our businesses have been hijacked by a boys club, an inner circle of parasites who are merely using the economic instruments that others have built as a vehicle for bleeding our country dry.  We don’t live in an ideal free market economy, or even a Capitalist one.  We live in a plutocracy, where corporate interests have bought our politicians, and our supposed “free market” has been usurped for the benefit of a few crony sociopaths who masquerade as entrepreneurs and have suckered many others into believing that they are anything other than socialist crooks.

To go against this excess greed is not advocating socialism, or a desire to be like North Korea.  In fact, if anything, our corporations are replicating that philosophy here.  It is highly unlikely that North Korea’s leaders choose to be paid marginally more than their workers.  They no doubt do well for themselves, because they too, of course, deserve it, or so they would argue.  North Korea’s boys club is just as busy convincing their populace that their austere lifestyle is necessary, while they horde the excess for ourselves.  Sound familiar?  Profits are privatised and losses are socialised.

Why are there huge remunerations, and why aren’t ordinary Australians, who are supposedly now Howards “mum and dad” shareholders simply exercising their right to vote against this excess in companies they part own?  All working people are supposedly shareholders through their superannuation, and we are constantly reminded that we must have a strong share market and not interfere with super profits as it is in our interests.  But why don’t we do anything about it?  When you look at who actually owns the shares of these companies, it is generally large financial companies.  You may own parts of Australian businesses through your super, but it is your super fund which votes.   Quite simply, because shares are owned by similar large companies, they are the ones who exercise power, and they would benefit from voting for larger and larger remunerations, as it sets the industry standard which will apply to them.  If you are a high level executive of CEO of a company which owns shares in other companies, then voting for a pay increase in the companies you own, means an increase for you as well.

There are people who are worthy of being wealthy.  People who are truly entrepreneurs, who actually create a business and enhance the nation.  Australians are not succumbing to “tall poppy syndrome”, but are rightfully outraged at what is essentially hoarding through unproductive means wealth.  They are outraged that our nation, our livelihoods and futures are being stripped so someone who knows where their next thousand hot meals are coming from, and has already a lifestyle better than pretty much any human who ever lived, can get even more.

True entrepreneurs are people like Dick Smith, who has added to our business sphere, who has supported the nation which game him such opportunity.  Even now Dick Smith is still supporting the nation, arguing against our unsustainable population growth and supporting Australian made products by offering Australian made and owned varieties of popular foreign owned goods. Dick Smith is an example of the type of wealthy person we could use more of, people who’s personal wealth represents the wealth that that person adds to our nation.

1http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/top-bosses-riches-are-undeserved-20111101-1mttj.html?comments=302#comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why the Left demands “Tolerance”.

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

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

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

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

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

The “Respectable” Conservative counterpoint.

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

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

Jaycee of Melbourne writes,

“From Mr Bolt’s notes…

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

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

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

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

“Mon 03 Mar 08 (11:46am)

Unfortunately so!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never deal with the devil, you will always lose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Donald Winters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hitchens concludes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The Likudnik entryists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is happening here is a mutual exploitation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Fascism defined: ‘emotional politics’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the heart of fascism is the uniform:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. The fascist minimum

In summary, fascism rests on a number of things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Triangulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Communism: no longer a worthy opponent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Islamism: the new communism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. A new front

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

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

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

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

1.         Introduction: A Personal Note

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

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

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

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

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

2.         Yockey and the American Jew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yockey concludes:

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

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

3.         Yockey’s answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.         The meaning of neofascism in the 21st century

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.         Political birthdays and the alternative to liberal democracy

Recently, an AFP report appeared:

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

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

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

moral contribution to his adopted country.

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

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

spheres,” the news piece gushed.

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

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

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

and bolshevik allies.”

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

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

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

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

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

2.         The political use-by date

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

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

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

3.         Good and bad authoritarianism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.         An anecdote from Syria

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

At 26 years, he was neither engaged nor married.

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

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

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

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

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

4.         Can ‘Prussian Socialism’ work?

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

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

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

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

Nationalism for the people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nationalism vs ‘blind patriotism’.

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

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

To love your country, make it more lovable.

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

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

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

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

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

(In this essay, I shall be looking at the phenomenon of political correctness and cultural-Marxism, and one possible intellectual response to it, from the work of a French philosopher, Gilles Deleuze. The issues involved can be potentially too abstract for some, so I shall resolve to bring them down to earth – into the nitty-gritty of contemporary political reality – as much as possible).

One of the most significant changes in the history of the Left was the adoption of politically-correct Marxism in the 1990s. Appearing, mostly, on university campuses, the new ‘P.C. Marxism’ or Leftism took the radical step of abandoning the old-fashioned worker’s struggle for socialism, instead focusing on the “oppression” of women, gays, Blacks, Hispanics and other minority and victim groups by the white, male Western culture. The new Marxism first appeared in the humanities departments (mainly literary departments) at the universities, and was inspired by French postmodern thinkers who were, even by academic standards, difficult to read and often incomprehensible. As the Jewish-British writer Loren Goldner (an orthodox, old-fashioned Marxist) complained:

The big debate on the American left in the late 1980′s and early 1990′s was about the “difference” of the “identity” of every oppressed group, with the notable exception of the working class as a whole, and that this difference was, in fact, just…difference.

Multiculturalism is in… To the pseudo-radicals of the academic intelligentsia, who have turned social class into a “text”, multiculturalism is the freeing of a “multiplicity of discourses”, a dissolution of the ostensible “phallologocentrism” of an ostensible “Western” cultural tradition… The purveyors of the post-modern “French disease” continue a frenzied production of self-involved books and posh academic journals which communicate nothing so much as a basic ignorance of real history and the pathetic belief that the deconstruction of literary texts amounts to serious radical political activity.

(Loren Goldner, ‘Multi-Culturalism or World Culture? On a “Left”-Wing Response to Contemporary Social Breakdown, 1991, at http://libcom.org/library/multi-culturalism-or-world-culture-left-wing-response-contemporary-social-breakdown )

Like a good many things from 1990s, P.C. Leftism went out of fashion with the Left – Queer Studies, Women’s Studies, Black Studies and other departments still exist on university, of course, but the Left realised, after a time, that postmodern political correctness diverted their energies from what should have been their true focus – communism, anarchism, and the ‘overthrow of capitalism’. (Whether or not such goals are achievable is another thing entirely. The reason why politically-correct, cultural Marxism appeared in the 1990s was because of the disillusionment, among the Left, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the ‘back-sliding’ of China into capitalism. According to Marx’s theory, these two events shouldn’t have happened, but they did).

However, like a cancer, or a poisonous gas which has escaped its containers, P.C. Marxism lingers on. In Tuscon, Arizona, a Hispanic version of Queer Studies and Black Studies existed until recently: ‘Mexican-American Studies’, which indoctrinates Mexican immigrant high school students in Mexican and Latino nationalist propaganda. A liberal, Tom Horne, who was the state’s superintendent of education, opposed the program on the grounds that it created ethnic divisions and helped draft a law against them. So what went on in these classes?

“It’s propagandizing and brainwashing that’s going on there,” Tom Horne, Arizona’s newly elected attorney general, said this week…

To buttress his critique of the Tucson program, Mr. Horne read from texts used in various classes, which in one instance referred to white people as “gringos” and described privilege as being related to the color of a person’s skin, hair and eyes. He also cited the testimony of five teachers who described the program as giving a skewed view of history and promoting racial discord.

For the state, the issue is… some of the texts used in the classes, among them, “The Pedagogy of the Oppressed” and “Occupied America,” which Mr. Horne said inappropriately teach Latino youths that they are being mistreated.

Teaching methods in the classes are sometimes unconventional, with instructors scrutinizing hip-hop lyrics and sprinkling their lessons with Spanish words.

The state, which includes some Mexican-American studies in its official curriculum, sees the classes as less about educating students than creating future activists.

“On the first day of school, they are no different than students in any other classes,” said John Ward, who briefly taught a Latino history class in Tucson. “But once they get told day after day that they are being victimized, they become angry and resentful.” (‘Rift in Arizona as Latino Class Is Found Illegal’, The New York Times, January 7, 2011).

Amusingly, ‘Mexican-American Studies’ was banned in Arizona – under an anti-racist law:

Under the law signed on Tuesday, any school district that offers classes designed primarily for students of particular ethnic groups, advocate ethnic solidarity or promote resentment of a race or a class of people would risk losing 10 percent of its state financing.

“Governor Brewer signed the bill because she believes, and the legislation states, that public school students should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people,” Paul Senseman, a spokesman for the governor, said in a statement on Thursday. (‘Citing Individualism, Arizona Tries to Rein in Ethnic Studies in School, The New York Times, May 13, 2010).

So what is at the basis of ‘Mexican-American Studies’, and the entire identity-politics movement of the 1990s? The answer is: dialectics, and the German philosopher Hegel’s parable of the master and the slave.

‘Dialectics’ is not a mere subject for academic study by philosophers. As students of Marxism know, dialectics is at the centre of the communist ideology – which went on take over large parts of the world, and oppress, starve and kill millions. So what is it?

In the textbooks, it is explained as a form of argument: one starts with a proposition (thesis), engages in discussion with someone who has an opposing view (antithesis). Finally, an agreement is reached, where both opposing viewpoints are reconciled (synthesis) and blended into one another to form a new whole. Importantly, there are always left-over elements of the original thesis, but these are transformed and never entirely culled. They undergo a process of what Hegel calls sublation, or elsewhere, ‘Aufheben’, or overcoming.

This is, admittedly, quite abstract. Dialectics is easier to understand if we look at it from the point of view of the Marxist version of history. Capitalism appears, and enslaves the working class. The workers adopt socialist ideas, and revolt against their capitalist masters, and negate him and all his works. Finally, there is the overthrow of capitalism and the appearance of socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The ‘sublation’ occurs when the capitalist’s technology is used – his modes of production. So capitalism, its technology, its methods, have not disappeared entirely – it has been ‘sublated’.

In the ideology of politically correct Leftism, it is probably Hegel’s famous parable of the Master and the Slave which has been the biggest influence. The parable is a strange passage, ‘On Lordship and Bondage’, in his master work ‘The Phenomenology of the Spirit’ (1807). It is an answer to the question: how did slavery come about? What was the state of consciousness of the two parties, master and slave, at the beginning of slavery?

The parable describes, at the dawn of history, an encounter between two human beings who are complete strangers to one another. At first there reaction is one of mutual astonishment, that another like himself can exist, and both are thrown into a state of confusion. Then one, attempting to regain control of himself, attempts to gain control of the other. The two beings undergo a fight to the death – one is braver than the other, and more willing to risk his life, so wins. Then the winner becomes the master and forces the loser to work for him as a slave. But the good news is that the slave is forced to labour and produce products and then develops consciousness of himself, for the first time, during that labour, and his conquest of nature, through that labour. The master, in the meantime, develops a parasitic dependency on the slave for his products, and, worse, he needs the slave for recognition: he needs to be recognised as the master. But recognition from a lesser being – a slave – is insufficient. Eventually the institution of slavery passes away. As Francis Fukuyama writes, in his classic book, ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ (1993):

By Hegel’s account, the desire to be recognised as a human being with dignity drove man at the beginning of history into a bloody battle to the death for prestige. The outcome of this battle was a division of human society into a class of masters, who were willing to risk their lives, and a class of slaves, who gave in to their natural fear of death. But the relationship of lordship and bondage, which took a wide variety of forms in all of the unequal, aristocratic societies that have characterised the greater part of human history, failed ultimately to satisfy the desire for recognition of either the masters or the slaves. The slave, of course, was not acknowledged as a human being in any way whatsoever. But the recognition enjoyed by the master was deficient as well, because he was not recognised by other masters, but slaves whose humanity was as yet incomplete. Dissatisfaction with the flawed recognition available in aristocratic societies constituted a “contradiction” that engendered further stages of history.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/fukuyama.htm

One can recognise, of course, the ‘dialectical’ overtones of the parable; and also see how it would apply to any ideology – Marxism, feminism, Black Power, Hispanic Power, and so on – which takes itself to be the ideology of the oppressed, the slave, the victim. (The academic, Susan Buck-Morss, wrote a paper, ‘Hegel and Haiti, for the journal Critical Enquiry, which argued that Hegel was influenced by the slave uprising in Haiti at the time – an uprising which saw the thorough slaughter, by blacks, of the white French of the island).

Identity politics, dialectics, Hegel’s parable, are all about defining oneself as a slave, as oppressed, and the question is, ultimately, about how one defines oneself philosophically. Is there, then, a philosopher who is anti-Hegel, anti-dialectic, anti-identity politics (as described above)? According to Gilles Deleuze, the answer is yes: Friedrich Nietzsche. In his influential 1965 book on Nietzsche, ‘Nietzsche and Philosophy’, Deleuze outlines Nietzsche’s position. I will quote from some of it here and show, in brackets, how the passages can apply to the problems we have considered already (all quotations are from Deleuze, pp.9-10]:

It is an exhausted force [e.g., Hispanic radicalism, Black revolutionaries] which does not have the strength to affirm its difference [e.g., its own individuality, its own sense of itself as a separate, self-contained race or ethnic group], a force which no longer acts but rather reacts to the forces which dominate it [e.g., the white man] – only such a force brings to the foreground the negative element in its relation to the other [e.g., the desire to revolt against, and destroy, the white "oppressor"]. Such a force denies all that it is not and makes this negation its own essence and the principle of its existence [e.g., the ethnic group defines itself only in opposition to its oppressor, the white man]. “While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is ‘outside’, what is ‘different, what is ‘not itself’ and this No is its creative deed” (Nietzsche, ‘The Genealogy of Morals’). This is why Nietzsche presents the dialectic as the speculation of the pleb, as the way of thinking of the slave: the abstract thought of contradiction [e.g., the desire for revolution, for reconquista of land taken from the Mexicans by the white man] then prevails over the concrete feeling of positive difference [e.g., the white man's sense of individuality], reaction over action, revenge and ressentiment take the place of aggression.

[...]

The essential thing is that the identities of the oppressed – Black, Hispanic, and so on – in identity politics are, in effect, created in response to the white man and his activities. They do not exist independently:

Nietzsche shows that what is negative in the master [e.g., the presence of Blacks in America, Hispanics] is always a secondary and derivative product of his existence [e.g., the white man's founding of the American state]… Who dialectises the relationship? [i.e., who invents Hegel's parable?]. It is the slave, the slave’s perspective, the way of thinking belonging to the slave’s perspective. The famous dialectical aspect of the master-slave relationship depends on the fact that power is conceived not as will to power but as representation of power, representation of superiority, recognition by “the one” of the superiority of “the other” [i.e., when the slave triumphs over the master and delivers his comeuppance].

[...]

In other words, what the ‘oppressed minority’ wants, above all, is to be recognised by the white oppressor:

What the wills [i.e., the human beings] in Hegel want is to have their power recognised, to represent their power. According to Nietzsche we have here a wholly erroneous conception of the will to power and its nature. This is the slave’s conception, it is the image that the man of ressentiment has of power. The slave only conceives of power as the object of a recognition, the content of a representation, the stake in a competition, and therefore makes it depend, at the end of a fight, on a simple attribution of established values [i.e., becoming respectable, a 'success' in American, and Western, society]… The portrait of the master that Hegel offers us is, from the start, a portrait which represents the slave, at least as in his dreams, as at best a successful slave. Underneath the Hegelian image of the master we always find the slave [i.e., in his mind, the slave misrepresents his master, and imagines him to be only a version of himself].

Deleuze himself would be shocked by my interpretation of Nietzsche in this fashion: Deleuze was a Marxist and was one of the leading philosophers of the French postmodern Left. His philosophy of ‘difference’ was one of the influences on politically-correct, Marxist thought (only not as big an influence as Hegel). Contradictorily, though, he thoroughly approved of Nietzsche’s ideas – perhaps he was unable to see the implications of them for P.C. identity politics. (Deleuze died in France in 1995, and quite possibly he never encountered culture Marxism, which first appeared in American universities).

There is much in Deleuze’s book on Nietzsche – and in certain of his other books – for the nationalist intellectual to ponder. Quite possibly, the ideas could form the basis of a new intellectual defence of the white Western culture against the onslaught cultural Marxism and multiculturalism. This would be ironic, given Deleuze’s own political views, but postmodernism is full of ironies.

Philosophy and politics don’t usually mix. But sometimes philosophy can shed light, in an interesting way, on political problems. The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, I believe, can be applied to one serious political problem afflicting the West today: I am speaking of the desire, of millions of non-white immigrants to the West, to ‘pay back’ the white man for hundreds of years of colonialism and privilege.

I will not summarise the philosophy of Nietzsche here; instead, I will focus on one element. That element is revenge, and as readers and admirers of Nietzsche know, revenge plays an important role in that great thinker’s philosophy. An account of Nietzsche’s doctrine on revenge can be found in a paper by University of Wisconsin professor, Lester H. Hunt, ‘The Eternal Recurrence and Nietzsche’s Ethic of Virtue’, at http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/ER&VIRT.htm .

So what does Nietzsche mean by revenge? It is the desire to right past wrongs:

As he describes it, revenge is essentially an attitude toward time itself: it is “the will’s ill will against time and it’s ‘it was’.” It is the result of the fact that, from a certain perspective, the past appears both to need changing and to be impossible to change, so that the will is left painfully powerless, “an angry spectator of all that is past.” Among the effects of this painful condition is a desire to cause additional pain, either to oneself or to others: “on all who can suffer” the will “wreaks revenge for his inability to go backwards.” (II 20.)(4) Revenge is responsible for the ideal of equality, the urge to punish, and the excessive desire to be just (II 7). Among the other works of revenge are… a longing to escape from this world (II 20).

(All references in footnotes are included in Hunt’s paper). So what are the implications of wanting revenge? Is it healthy? Beneficial? Clearly not, according to Nietzsche. It stands in the way of (what we moderns would call) psychological wholeness, spiritual fulfilment. One part of that wholeness is the development of generosity in oneself, what Nietzsche calls the ‘gift-giving’ or ‘bestowing’ virtue:

Conceived in this way, revenge has a very broad impact on human life; Zarathustra says, “it has become a curse for everything human that this folly has acquired spirit.” The trait he is describing here is purely reactive, negative, and destructive. As such, it is just the sort of trait Nietzsche would see as standing in the way of virtue. In obvious ways, it is the opposite of the spontaneous, enthusiastic, and creative activity he calls “gift-giving virtue” elsewhere in Zarathustra (I 22). Getting rid of revenge, if that should be possible, would plainly be a long step toward achieving virtue as he understands it.(5) In fact, Nietzsche more or less tell us so himself: “that man be delivered from revenge, that is for me the bridge to the highest hope” (II 7).(6)

The implications of all of this are wide-reaching and profound. Certainly, we can all see, in our own lives, a desire to ‘right past wrongs’. Perhaps that desire, too, stands in the way of fulfilment. All of what Nietzsche is saying here occurs at the individual, moral level; that is, at helping the individual reach a level of spiritual fulfilment and self-actualisation. Those who embrace revenge deny themselves that fulfilment and become stunted human beings (I will explore, in part, Nietzsche’s solution to ‘the problem of revenge’ later).

But how does the doctrine become political? In order to become political, it must be applied to a very large number of human beings, and here I am thinking of the millions of non-white immigrants who have come to the West in the past thirty to forty years.

In that connection, I found the following comments on a message board to be of interest. They were by African immigrants, in response to an English-language news article, ‘Illegal Immigrants to get New Rights in Sweden’, at: http://www.thelocal.se/32372/20110303/. I will reproduce some of them here:

22:28 March 3, 2011 by penzy

I have read some of the comments here and I am not surprised even though it is a bit sad the way some people prefer to come and display their overt ignorance for the whole world to see.

Okay so Sweden has decided to be kind and nice to other people in need and some of you have reservations. Rightly so, afterall who would want to be taken by surprise in his own household. But let’s get some facts straight.

Some of us (immigrants), are here not because we feel this place is heaven. No, it cannot be. Sweden cannot in anyway take away the kind of atmosphere and environment I get in my continent. But circumstances which did not start so soon dictates that I should be here. And so am here by hook or by crook.

#1. When your great grandfathers came to my continent to kidnap my great grandfathers, they came ILLEGALLY. You called them EXPLORERS! In the same vein, those of us who are here (whether legal or illegal), are here to EXPLORE and you view us as ILLEGALS who should not be here. What do you think my great grandfathers were thinking when you were kidnapping them to come and WORK for you!

#2. After all these years of inflicting such pains on us, you have not even compensated us for the wrongs you did. Infact, you are still enslaving us economically. (Afterall, slave trade was all about economics). You are still coming to buy my cocoa seedlings at a cheaper rate (no, your own rate) and then you bring it back to me at a price beyond me which then encourages people to do what they have to do.

#3. This has led us to come to you and beg for loans. Loans you give to us at a higher interest rate and then you impose your own kind of politics which is capital intensive. That has led to corruption, erode our cultural lives and many more. Why do you think there are a lot of kidnappings in Africa? How come the Ogoni people in Nigeria cannot farm anymore because your desire for oil is polluting their land and taking their livelihood away.

Take the three reasons (there are many more) into consideration and think about it. If only you will be fair to us. If only you will honestly deal with us like you deal with your kinds. If only you will leave us to have our own unique political system, maybe, just maybe, I would be back in my continent basking in sunshine instead of having heavy clothes on me.

You sow what you reap, the bible says. You sowed something and here we are. You came to us in the name of God and now, we are here telling you about this same God you told us about and to share in the profit of what you took from us.

Is this not fair enough?

[...]

Another African gentleman, who is nowhere as eloquent as Mr ‘Penzy’, more or less has the same message:

23:05 March 3, 2011 by Cuttingedge

Crazy to hear this, whe European come to Africa, Asia and arabian countries and take our every thing, they were not illegal, when we come here to enjoy our natural resorces, which they are still taking from ours, the we are illegal, shame on you, go back to history. wait the fire is coming to you cowards

23:49 March 3, 2011 by Cuttingedge
Look at this crazy Chortlle

From UK, why are u forgeting what you did in Africa you English people, you did everything bad for us, like french, like every European guys and you still doing it using the so called stupid presidents you force us to accept them using our resources. we are here to get our Gold, our diamonds back, got it crazy

[...]

The responses, overall, to the news article at this message board were quite intelligent and well-written: there are a lot of educated, articulate and thoughtful people, on both sides of the political fence, in that forum. Most of it, though, I had heard all before (that is, pro- versus anti-immigrant opinons); what struck me was the position of the immigrants themselves. The anti-colonialist ideology espoused by Mr ‘Penzy’ was fairly typical of the Third World ideologues in the post-colonial era (e.g., the 1950s and 1960s): e.g., the Black French intellectual Franz Fanon, the dictator of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, who was a pioneer of ‘African socialism’. Quite a few on the radical Left still uphold it, and, for all I know, it could be still be current in certain African countries today.

Does it represent the view of a number of immigrants to Europe and elsewhere in the West? I think so. But we have to be clear, most immigrants come for economic reasons: they want ‘a better life’, and feel that they are entitled to it in the West. To do so, they will pay any amount of money to people smugglers, come up with phony stories of political persecution and abuse, submit themselves to any level of hardship, indignity and danger (including drowning, in boat trips from North Africa to southern Europe), and, once in Europe, will work in menial, badly paid and insecure jobs and face risk of deportation or imprisonment in one of Europe’s tens of thousands of detention centres – really concentration camps. The motives of the immigrant are not ideological, they are economic. But, when ideology comes into play, it is the ideology of anti-colonialism, and, ultimately, revenge – revenge on the white man.

And this gets right to the heart of the matter. The immigrant ideology is, above all, impudent. A country like Sweden takes in huge quantities of Third Worlders, gives them shelter, food and clothing, and now, thanks to the Swedish government, free education, health care and the ‘right’ to start a business; what’s more, Sweden does so regardless of the effect such policies have on its own people – (e.g., overcrowding, shortages of housing, health care, school places, a growing sense of alienation which comes about through the breakdown of an ethnically homogenous community). One would expect gratitude on behalf of the immigrant – and surprise that a foreign government is doing such a thing (after all, no African or Middle Eastern government would do the same for white people). But instead, the attitude is: ‘I’m going to pay you back, white man – for  blood diamonds, stolen oil, and slavery, and all the other crimes of the past… You’ll reap what you have sown!’.

Much has been written, by nationalists, on the sanity of the white, Western politicians who are pro-immigrant – are they mad? But little has been written on the question of the sanity of immigrants, especially illegal immigrants. The illegal immigrants are not fleeing some humanitarian catastrophe. In 2010, 128,000 immigrants tried to gain access to Greece, and there is a backlog of 46,000 applications for ‘asylum’; clearly, if these were all refugees, they would be fleeing the biggest humanitarian catastrophe since the end of WWII, when millions of (mostly German) refugees fled, in fear for their lives, the advancing Red Army. But Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and the Sub-Continent (Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bangladesh) are not in such a condition. So the question is, why is it that immigrants do what they do? The British tabloids are daily full of accounts of immigrants (mostly Arab or Indian) trying to enter Britain through the French port of Calais by clinging to the underside of lorries, hiding in garbage bins, refrigerators, tubs of chocolate, etc., being taken to Britain by truck. Given that, and the ‘ideology of revenge’ described above, one has to question the sanity of many of these people. So the immigrant problem becomes a kind of psychological/philosophical problem.

Nietzsche’s answer to the problem of revenge was the doctrine of eternal recurrence. That is, one’s life will repeat itself, exactly as it is now, an infinite number of times in the future – and it has done so an infinite number of times in the past. One will live the same life over and over again, experiencing the same hardships and sorrows, and the same joys, without change. The classic Bill Murray movie, ‘Groundhog Day’ (1993) depicts this idea, except that the Bill Murray character is conscious of living the same day, over and over again.

What does this have to do with revenge? In the theory of eternal recurrence, time really has no beginning – there was no point, in history, when the process of time began. There may have been a big bang, a point where the universe was created. But there were an infinite number of big bangs in the past (as there will be in the future); so, one cannot say where the ‘starting point’ of time itself was. The implication of this is that there is no point where time (or history) will come to a stop, and all wrongs will be righted. There is no point for the African immigrant to migrate to Sweden, and ‘get his revenge on the white man’ for ‘the crimes of colonialism’, because the peoples of Africa will have to undergo their sufferings and hardships (blood diamonds, stolen oil, slavery, etc.) an infinite number of times in the future. In other words, there is no ‘happy ending’ for the African immigrant, where his people suffer, under the jackboot of the Western colonialists, and then finally become free and take their revenge on the evil whites. As Hunt writes:

For vengeful thinking – in fact, for any sort of intelligible use of the concept of punishment – the story that has the happy ending must not end at an arbitrary place. Suppose that Billy the Kid kills six people and then is captured. Our vengeance – or whatever drive it is that is gratified by punishment – is not satisfied if he overpowers his jailor and escapes. Nor is it satisfied if Billy is recaptured and executed, but somehow rises from the dead and commits six more murders. Our urge to punish will not accept it as satisfactory if we end the story of a punishment at some arbitrary point simply to create a happy ending. Revenge cannot knowingly do such a thing. If Nietzsche is right about the eternal recurrence, however, there is no natural place to end the story of the world. Time is not naturally divided into cycles which, like a replayed movie, have beginnings and ends. There is simply no non-arbitrary place at which we can decide that our story ends and no reason, other than the need for a happy ending, to end it at any particular place. Our desire to create art can be satisfied by such solutions, but our sense of justice cannot.

So far, then, the eternal recurrence frustrates revenge and – so, at least, we can hope – makes room for virtue by making it impossible for revenge to solve the problems that it sets for itself. Revenge aims at the satisfaction of feeling that something is being done about the evil past, but it cannot achieve this satisfaction unless the vengeful subject can think certain thoughts and see things in a certain way. Recurrence makes such states of mind impossible. It does so by healing a fissure in the world – a break in time – that the vision of vengeance requires.

[...]

Again, the implications of this are profound, and one could write a (much longer) essay on them. Here we can only state the problems (the psychology of immigration, the non-white’s ideology of revenge), and not come up with a solution. Nor can we fully answer the question, ‘Is Nietzsche’s solution adequate?’. My short answer is, ‘No’. One should not underestimate the power of ideas to affect large numbers of people: certainly, the immigrant ‘Penzy’ came under the influence of someone who themselves was under the influence of a Fanon, Nkrumah, Lenin or Marx. But, all the same, it is too much to hope for  to expect that immigrants, after reading, and taking on board Nietzsche, will stop emigrating to the West in the millions. It would be akin to a mass religious conversion. Millions of people would have to examine their motives, very deeply and thoughtfully, for wanting to live in the West, and ask themselves if they really will find happiness there (a happiness they feel ‘entitled’ to).

At the same time, certain of Nietzsche’s ideas can, I think, have a powerful effect on the white intellectuals who ultimately the determine the course of our civilisation. It is this topic that I shall explore in a future essay.