An independant article by contributor by Wade Chambers

1. Introduction: A Fantasy Scenario

 Would anyone vote for Hitler, were he alive today? Let us perform a thought-experiment: suppose that, by a miracle, Hitler and the NSDAP were around today, in the year 2012. Despite the NSDAP’s chequered history (the mass gassing of 8 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and others, in giant gas chambers disguised as showers and vans; turning those said people into, according to the Nuremberg trial, bars of soap, lampshades, upholstery, pocketbooks, gloves and other items), all the party’s past excesses are forgiven. Hitler and the NSDAP are allowed to run on the same electoral platform as they did in the 1930s. How successful would they be?

 I would argue: not so successful. Once a politician enacts a certain reform, or policy, and it becomes law, and remains law – then he can’t run with that policy or reform again. For example: a politician running on a platform of decriminalising homosexuality, or allowing the widespread use of contraceptive pills. In the West, this would be a redundancy (although it would be, perhaps, in the Islamic and Arabic world, quite radical). Likewise, just about every part of the Hitler/NSDAP platform has become redundant. There are exceptions, of course, but the exception proves the rule.

 2. How we are already National Socialist

 Take the National socialist doctrines on anti-smoking and the cult of physical fitness and beauty. In Australia (and most western countries), these are part of everyday life, and certainly cultural life. Laws in Australia prevent smoking in just about every public place (and often in private places too, with the advent of mandatory smoke detectors in every apartment). As for physical fitness, the hobby, the lifestyle, has taken off everywhere in the West (since around the 1980s or so), and the craze shows no signs of abating – something which is visible to everyone (through fashion, media, advertising) and which anyone can see for themselves (unless they have been living in a cave for the past thirty years).

 Then there is National Socialist environmentalism. Just about every politician, whether on the Left or the Right, today wants to be seen as an environmentalist and holding to environmentally-friendly policies. Things have changed a lot in this regard since Hitler’s time. The NSDAP was the first green party, and the only left-leaning party to hold to environmentalism (the Soviet Union, before, during and after Hitler, pursued policies which were environmentally destructive).

 Since Hitler’s time, environmentalism has become an establishment doctrine, and, in fact, has mutated into a sort of Marxism. Just as the Marxists of old held to ‘scientific socialism’, and declared that only Marxism was true ‘science’ (dismissing everything else as mere ‘ideology’ or ‘false consciousness’), the environmentalists of today uphold true ‘science’ and dismiss anything that disagrees with it as ‘not science’. ‘Science’ (that is, environmentalist science) in their view, is unanimous, all-knowing, all-true and fixed, rigid, certain and immutable – just as Marxism was. (This is despite the fact that science has been, since the Einsteinian revolution in physics, an uncertain thing; almost two scientists, outside of the environmentalist sciences, can hardly agree on anything (except for the principles of something basic – say, combustion)).

 Environmentalism was always mixed with anti-capitalism. But, in 2012, the anti-capitalist parts of the doctrine have gained ascendancy, and a new element has emerged – scientism, that is, bowing down to the opinion of science, what Nietzsche called ‘submission to the facts’ (viz, the facts as determined by scientists).

 Along with this, governments – and corporations – have instituted environmentalist policies everywhere. The result has been a real perversion of the doctrine. In an anti-environmentalist article, James Delingpole writes that: ‘Wind farms, besides blighting views, destroying topsoil and causing massive noise pollution, kill around 400,000 birds a year in the U.S. alone’ (‘How green zealots are destroying the planet: a provocative claim from a writer vilified for denying global warming’, The Daily Mail, 7/2/2012). This is hardly a picture of man living in harmony with nature.

 That aside, a NSDAP couldn’t succeed today running on a green platform, for the simple reason that there are plenty of green parties out there which do environmentalism better – and that environmentalism has become part of Western culture anyway.

 What else is there? Autobahns, of course: well, Australia, and Europe, has plenty of these. In the time of Mussolini and Hitler, motorised transport was a new thing (and the German army, as we know, relied to a large extent, on moving around soldiers and supplies around by foot, horseback and train). It was National Socialist policy that every German family should have a car, and the chance to drive these cars on the autobahns criss-crossing the country (and, perhaps, the conquered East – i.e., those parts of the USSR conquered and colonised by the Germans – as well). In an odd way, this policy is evocative of the American way of life – then and now, America is the country of the car, the country which makes the ownership of one’s means of transport (whether it be a horse or a car) a sacred right. But, now, Europe (and Australia and North America) suffer from too many cars, and too many roads: our cities, suburbs and workplaces are designed for cars and around cars, and not for human beings. Cars are a nuisance (along with bicycles and motor bikes), and, while all these forms of transport are needed for modern civilisation to continue, it is arguable whether or not we need to work, live and play on top of giant roads and parking lots (which is what our living spaces have become).

 What of communism? Since 1991, we don’t have communism any more, and that’s that. Communist parties dominate some Third World countries (the notion of a ‘Third World’ being itself a Maoist one); but the only two countries which pursue strict communist policies are North Korea and Cuba.

In Hitler’s time, communism was a deadly foe; not only was it militarily powerful, and aggressive (having invaded Finland, Rumania, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia; given the Japanese a pasting in Mongolia; and ‘intervened’ in the Spanish Civil War), but millions of working-class people around the world believed that communism stood for a better way of life. The jury is out as to whether or not the Soviet Union was, in the post-war era, capable of defeating NATO and subjugating Western Europe; but certainly, the perception of communism, by the working-classes in the West, as offering the ‘good life’ was invalidated fairly quickly by the end of the war.

 The decline and fall of the Soviet Union, and the backsliding of China into capitalism, was a huge set-back for Marxism; but it was an equally grievous blow for fascism. Contrary to post-war (Jewish) myth, Hitler maintained a very simple political objective throughout his career: not to destroy Jewry, but to destroy communism, by force, in Europe and the Soviet Union itself if necessary. Mussolini, and the rest of the fascist movement, maintained the same objective. (Which is why Mussolini, during the time of the Hitler-Stalin pact, wrote, in an aggrieved letter to Hitler, that the pact was a gross violation of the fundamental principles of fascism). Like many ideologies, fascism (and National Socialism) depended on its political opponent for the justification of its existence. If you were to take away communism, you would take away the justification for fascism.

 A German politician, whether Hitler or anyone else, would meet with indifference and incredulity, were he to campaign on a platform of sturdy anti-communism, in Germany or anywhere else in the West. Which is not to say that the radical Left in Germany aren’t a nuisance: they are. But they are not as egregious as, say, cars.

 3. The fascist as street-fighting man

 So, in 2012, we live in a West without communism. Which brings us to the next topic: fascism and the street-fighting man. In an article by Donald Winters, (‘The Neofascist Method’, at: ), the topic of fascism and its tradition of association combat with communist opponents is explored. Just as Islamism relies upon terrorism as method for gaining power, fascism relied upon a violent, theatrical and paramilitarised confrontation, played out in public, with communism.

 The fascist strategy was obvious. The resulting social and political chaos, brought about by the confrontation (bordering on civil war), destabilises liberal democratic governments. This, in turn, leads to the opening of the field, so to speak, in politics: radical, extra-parliamentary movements, like fascism or communism, have the chance of seizing power from a weak, embattled liberal democratic government. (Liberal democracy is ‘suspended’ by the new fascist government in the interests of upholding ‘law and order’ and ‘decency’). It was a simple enough method – so simple that even the most dim-witted brownshirt or blackshirt could understand it – and, at the time, extremely effective.

 One of the theses of the Winters article was that, possibly, the fascist method could be transposed to the present: Islamism could take the place of communism, and a series of highly stylised, ritualised and theatrical street confrontations with Islamism could destabilise liberal democracy – just as the fascist and communist confrontations did in the 1920s and 1930s.

 This is logical enough: after all, it is fairly easy to draw comparisons between Islamism and communism. Both are dogmatic; both are intolerant of opposing creeds and religions; both are hierarchical and led from the top down (clerics and mullahs, Marxist intellectuals and philosopher-kings); both have a large compendium of theoretical texts behind them, ‘holy scriptures’ (Marx, Engels, Lenin for one, the Koran on the other); both have millions of fanatical adherents willing to die for the cause; both, once they are implemented, have a terrible record when it comes to liberalism, human rights and basic freedoms (all of which are taken for granted in the West); both are politically active and want to control their immediate environments (and the people in them); both use subversion, violence and extra-parliamentary activities in order to achieve that control; both are – and this is the most important thing – willing to come out, in large numbers, and fight fascists in the street.

 Time – and history – will prove if this thesis is correct. The Winters article raises possibilities; it does not say, ‘This is only way forward’ for nationalism; it merely says that this is one possible avenue. I myself am divided on it. The presence of millions of Muslims in the West, along with the Islamification of many Western European neighbourhoods and cities, is, quite possibly, a symptom of an underlying disease – not the disease itself. The millions of Muslims do want, paradoxically, to make Western Europe more like the Islamic countries they have fled; and their presence alone has transformed Europe. But they are not, like the aggressive communists of the 1920s and 1930s, seeking to subjugate, to conquer, the West: that is, they are not acting to a prearranged master plan (unlike the Muslims of old – e.g., during the expansionist phase of the Ottoman Empire). They are, in Spengler’s view, part of a spent civilisation; they are the remnants – fellahin – of that civilisation. They have no more ‘world-conqueror’ left in them – any more than today’s Mongolians have any Genghis Khan left in them.

Instead of the Muslims (and the millions of African, mainly Christian, immigrants to Europe), we should be focusing upon the whites who brought these groups here. It was whites who, for instance, abolished the whites-only immigration laws in the US in 1965; it was whites who, in Australia, created the intellectual climate which led to the downfall and destruction of the White Australia policy in that same decade; it was whites who were among the chief agitators for the destruction of apartheid and white South Africa (and white Rhodesia). A number of Jews, of course, played a significant role in all of this (as will be detailed later); but, in the end, it was all down to white people.

 Part of the beauty of fascist ideology was its simplicity. The enemy is communism; the enemies are communists; the communists are holding a rally next week: let’s turn up with some sturdy, uniformed lads and smash it! But how, in 2012, do we confront multiracialism – a destructive tendency which is spread among the white population at large and is not centrally located in any individual or party? Multiracialism and multiculturalism – nice terms which mean, in fact, the destruction of white people – don’t have a Comintern; nor do they have offices; or party rallies; or parties one can join. (They don’t have armies one can fight against, unless one counts the modern-day US army).

 My own conclusions are that we nationalists, today, are in a similar position to that of the French Situationists in the 1950s and 1960s. ‘Capitalism’ and the ‘consumer society’ are so endemic, so widespread, that they are a state of mind. Radical politics must apply a series of shocks, in order to wake people up – or jar them out of their normal, somnolent, accepting state of consciousness. In other words, what is needed is a mental revolution before a political revolution. Situationism, of course, ended in failure (after the failure of the May 1968 revolution in France), although its unique approach, and world-view, still dominate sectors of the Left today. But the fact that these methods didn’t really work for the extreme Left doesn’t mean that they can’t work for the extreme Right.

 In turn, this means that the nationalists need to win over two groups: the youth and the intellectuals. It is a new decade, a new century, and not only do we nationalists have a new weapon – the Internet – but also millions of disaffected white youths unhappy with the way things are. (Possibly, they are only unhappy, in America and Europe, because of the present economic malaise, but still…). We are only going to win the youth over to the nationalist cause by bypassing the mainstream media (and entertainment) with the Internet, and other tools, and by forcing them to think – and abandon the old dogmas held by their parents. (One of them is: the West’s colonies and empires were founded by the brutal mass-murder and despoliation of the coloured peoples of the Third World; the other dogma is regarding Germany and Italy and their conduct during the war, and the reasons why that war started. (It’s actually easier to persuade today’s youth to revise their views on the subject of Germany and the war, given that they – unlike their parents – are open to new media and new means of the transmission of information)). The multiracialists, in their portrayal of white people, in history books, and mass entertainment – as a nasty, brutal, degraded, murderous lot, forever committing terrible crimes against Jews and black people – wage psychological warfare against the whites of the West. The aim is to get white people to think less of themselves – to really see themselves as horrible, not worthy of life. The British get a steady dose of the ‘crimes of British imperialism’; the Germans, of course, get endless doses of Elie Wiesel, mass gassings at Auschwitz, etc.; the Americans, crimes of the segregationists in the South, and the alleged mass murder of native American Indians; and so forth. No group likes to see themselves as a bunch of killers and bastards. (Which is why Israeli Jews, for instance, have contrived an elaborate series of psychological defence-mechanisms to insulate themselves from the reality of what they do, and have done, to the Palestinians). If you alter the perception, created by the Left, white people have of themselves, then you have changed the way they think; if you change the way they think, then you change the way they act.

 4. Hitler, race and Eastern Europe

 I once asked a Serbian friend why Hitler, and National Socialism, were so popular in nationalist circles in Eastern Europe – despite the historical enmities some of the countries in these regions feel towards Germany. He replied that the peoples of Eastern Europe were being deluged by the biggest wave of immigration (from sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East) that the world had ever seen; and, in response to this, they felt that Hitler’s racialist doctrine was highly pertinent.

 In the 1930s, there were two racialist creeds: one was the white Anglo-Saxon one, which we would, today, call ‘white supremacist’, and which every leading white politician, journalist and intellectual more or less accepted (including Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Patton, Montgomery); the other was Hitler’s rather strange brand of Germanic racialism. The Anglo-Saxonist racial view never really was intellectually articulated, or at least, made the subject of a fully-fledged political ideology. Hitler’s racialism, on the other hand, was fully-developed and lay at the centre of his ideology. Hitler’s notion that states owe their greatness (or inferiority) to their racial state was, at the time, a radical one – and still is. What British, Australian or American politician would dare assert, today, that the national greatness of their respective countries is due to their racial composition?

 Hitler’s doctrine, then, is a timely one, simply because of the terrible realities for white people today.

 The problem with the racially homogenous liberal democracies of the 1950s and 1960s – in Europe, Australia, and North America – was that they worked: there was no need for a neo-fascist revolution of any sort. Communism didn’t present the existential threat to the West, in those decades, that it did in the 1920s and 1930s. Fascism (or neo-fascism), as a creed, was unused and unloved – the property of a few eccentrics, like Yockey and Evola, and a few old nostalgics, like Mosley and Degrelle. Then along came multiracialism – which, carried to its logical conclusion, will see the utter biological extirpation of the peoples of the West. Now here is an existential threat – and one that is, in its way, worse than communism. (Had the communists taken over Britain, Italy, France, Germany, in the 1940s, millions would have been starved to death or executed; but at least a proportion of the indigenous inhabitants of those countries would have survived as a demographic majority. Not so now). Hitler’s racialism – and Mussolini’s – was dusted off and re-presented to the nationalist world. The line, taken by the nationalists and Far Rightists of the West, was almost: ‘Hitler anticipated this! He was right on race all along!’.

 At first sight this seems to be the case. But the fact is: today’s immigration problem is, in the West, completely without precedent; no sane white person, in Hitler or Mussolini’s time, have advocated the extirpation of the British, Dutch, Belgian, French, Swedish, et al., peoples through mass non-white immigration to Europe and the colonies of the West. Such an idea would have been beyond the ken of a Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill or Stalin – as much as, say, a manned flight to the moon, or, for that matter, rock music.

 The second objection is that the doctrinal content of today’s racialism stems, not so much from Hitler’s rather peculiar anti-Slavic racialism as much as the Anglo-Saxon racialism of Britain, America and Australia. It was the politicians and intellectuals who invented ‘the white man’ and ‘the white peoples’ as a cultural and political category (Hitler preferred the term ‘Aryan’). This kind of Jack London, Rudyard Kipling racialism underwent a mutation by the 1970s, insofar as the peoples of Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union (Russia, Belarus and the Baltic States anyway) were now counted as honorary members of the ‘white race’. In other words, Canadians and Slovenians, Germans and Poles, Australians and Russians, both have the same racial and political status.

 Whatever the biology of the matter: many Westerners, before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, assumed that the Eastern Europeans (e.g., the Serbs, or the Russians, or the Poles) thought and behaved exactly the same as the British, Swedes, Spanish, Irish, New Zealanders and Canadians did – in other words, that they were the same as us. Now, though, in 2012, we see a mass migration, from the economically depressed areas of Eastern Europe, to the more prosperous West. Many of these migrants are questionable from a racial point of view: e.g., many nationalists would dispute that the Albanians, Bosnian Muslims or ‘Romanians’ (most of the time, Roma, gypsies) flocking to Britain, France and Sweden are, in fact, white. But we also see the intriguing phenomenon of Western European whites (e.g., the British) coming into contact with Eastern European whites (e.g., Poles) in large numbers, for the first time, and not liking them very much (an additional question is: are all these Romanians in Britain, collecting huge welfare benefits and being put up in million-pound mansions by local councils, really Roma? Or are they just mendacious white Romanians?). We see where some of that anti-Slavism in Mein Kampf came from. In other words, not all members of the white race are brothers despite the fact we should be.

 Part of the problem is that today’s racialism, in the nationalist movement, is Americanised. To the American, the Negro and the Hispanic is the racial Other: and a very prominent, visible and identifiable racial Other. Compared to the Negro and the Hispanic, the American of Lithuanian, Slovak or Greek immigrant origins is mighty ‘white’, that is to say, Anglo-Saxon.

 In turn, this is because America has been so successful, historically, in assimilating European immigrants. The immigrants from Greece, Russia, Italy, Poland, etc., were forced to learn English – Americanised English – in order to enter, and live in, the country. There are Italian and Irish Americans (particularly in New York) who claim to possess some filial bond with the country of their ancestors, but this is so much bunk: these are Americans, and are no more Irish, Polish or Italian than I am. Whereas, in Australia, the situation is completely the reverse: the Greeks, Italians, Poles, Lithuanians, Serbs, Hungarians, et al., were encouraged to retain their own language, and their own sense of separate ethnic identity (separate from the Anglo-Saxon racial host population); separate churches, ethnic newspapers, schools, radio stations, cultural events, were encouraged by the state. They were never ‘broken’ and ‘melted down’ in the way that their ethnic compatriots emigrating to America were. Australians never go to political demonstrations on behalf of Wales, Ireland or Scotland; but Greeks, Macedonians and Serbs, for instance, turn out in the thousands for rallies whenever a current issue, affecting their respective countries, crops up.

 Nationalist intellectuals have never really faced any of this. Hitler’s racialism was unique, a form of particularism, intended (mainly) for the Germans, and for the Germans alone; but what happened was that, in the hands of the George Lincoln Rockwells, it became transmuted into a kind of universalism which holds true for every white person in the world. It is one of the peculiarities of the Far Right that nationalism has become a doctrine of transnationalism.

 5. Today’s Jewish question

 Hitler’s thesis, of the Jew as the ‘race poisoner’ of the ‘Aryan’ people, was a radical one when it appeared in Mein Kampf. Many readers simply couldn’t understand how one ethnic group, living in the midst of a host population, could promote multiracialism, miscegenation, individualism and the extirpation of a unique national, racial and cultural identity (and the pride that comes with it), while at the same time holding their own group racially pure. That changed – in the nationalist world, at least – after George Lincoln Rockwell, David Duke, William Pierce and Kevin MacDonald. These men could draw upon their bountiful experience with, for instance, counter-culture Jews (hippies and communists) during the civil rights crusade in America in the 1960s. All they had to do was juxtapose Jewish activity in the anti-Apartheid struggle, or the Jewish role in the founding of the NAACP, with Jewish racial policies in Israel. (Also, Pierce and Duke would also use techniques such as reproducing full-page advertisements, taken out by Jewish activists, in the New York Times – these advertisements, penned by Jews, would be pleas for Americans Jews to marry only other Jews, lest ‘3000 years’ of cultural, racial and religious history be sacrificed).

 Another thesis – of Jews and their relationship to Russian communism – also met with disbelief and incomprehension. The idea that Jews, in Europe and elsewhere, viewed communism as a vehicle for advancing their own ethnic interests, seemed absurd. Why would, for instance, a Jewish member of the capitalist class support a Bolshevik revolution in Russia or Hungary? Ethnic solidarity coming before class divisions? Madness!

 But post-war communist experience changed that. Maoism, for instance, utilised Chinese nationalism, Chinese transnational solidarity, the patriotic anti-Japanese resistance by the Chinese, and class collaboration between nationalist Chinese businessmen and Chinese communists. Successive communist groups availed themselves of the same techniques: we have a Kurdish separatist and nationalist Maoist communist group – the PKK – which is supported by wealthy capitalist Kurds, living overseas, and Kurds who don’t usually have any time for communism or Marxism. Which is how I explain Hitler’s thesis of ‘Judeo-Bolshevism’ to non-nationalists (of an intellectual bent): the Jews, in Russia and the USSR in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, practised a form of Maoism and advanced the cause of Stalinist communism – a universalist, internationalist, humanist and anti-nationalist ideology – simply because it would advance the Jewish ethnic interest in Russia (and, it was hoped, communist-occupied Western and Eastern Europe). In other words, they saw Stalin as their boy. Once Stalin, by 1952, turned on the Jewish minority in Russia, of course, Jewry worldwide turned on Stalin, who was denounced as an ‘anti-Semite’. Then we began to hear about all the terrible ‘anti-Semitism’ in the USSR, and why millions of captive Soviet Jews, a people ‘in bondage to the pharaoh’, should be allowed to emigrate to Israel.

Non-nationalists can easily be made to understand this idea – of an ethnic group utilising ideology and foreign policy in order to serve its group interest. One simply has to say something like, ‘Israel, the Israel lobby and their supporters amongst Jewish-Americans have large influence on the US political system in the US. If they decide that the US will bomb Iran, the US will bomb Iran, no questions asked. That doesn’t matter if Obama, or Mitt Romney, is president’. Non-nationalists can’t argue with that. Neither can the Left, and there are signs that even the Left is, now, becoming aware of the existence of a Jewish and Israel lobby. The idea that, of course, an ethnic minority group – the Jews – can control the entire politics of a state is, of course, a Hitlerian thesis. So the Left is articulating Hitlerism without knowing it.

 So, in that regard, certain of Hitler’s positions on the Jews have met with a kind of (covert) acceptance throughout the West: it’s just that these things must be spoken of, behind closed doors, and to people whose minds have not been corrupted by Israeli and US propaganda (and there are surprisingly many of these people). This represents an advance on, say, twenty years ago.

 The question is: are Hitler’s views on Jewry as ‘race poisoner’ still correct today?

 According to the Pierces and Dukes, multiracialism is a vast edifice, which is maintained by (mainly Jewish-American owned) media, which pumps out ‘race-mixing’ propaganda 24 hours a day; furthermore, the same Jews, advocating race-mixing and mass non-white immigration, also are supporters of the most radical, liberal causes as well – e.g., gay marriage. One cannot deny these facts; and, if one needs evidence, one can find copious amounts of it in Pierce, Duke, MacDonald. Likewise, one cannot deny the role Jews played in agitating for Negro civil rights, or the end of Apartheid, or the anti-war movement, in the sixties; or their long involvement, predating the 1960s, in radical causes.

 I have two problems with this thesis: one is that it neglects the role whites – particularly baby boomer whites – played in the sixties cultural revolution. It’s true that Jewish beatniks, hippies, communists and counter-cultural agitators played a big part; but so did many British, American, German, Australian, French, et al., whites. And these were not all at the cultural fringes: the whites who abolished the American immigration law in 1965 were white, and by today’s standard, conservative; as were the white Liberal Party politicians who overturned the White Australia policy in the late 1960s.

 The truth is that, just as in the Chinese Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, there was a kind of madness in the air infecting all the participants in the 1960s Western cultural revolution. It was inescapable. One only had to turn on the television and see the film clip for the Beatles’ ‘Hey Jude’ – where a black Afro-Caribbean immigrant is holding hands and singing along, with British whites, around Paul McCartney’s piano. How could one fight the Beatles?

 (In this connection, one wonders what Hitler would have thought, had he lived to see the ‘Prague Spring’ – essentially a revolution against authoritarian, Brezhnev-era communism by liberals and hippies within the Czechoslovakian communist state – in 1968. I am inclined to speculate that one of Hitler’s age, temperament, life experience and politics would have led him to sympathise with Brezhnev).

 In short, the great cultural changes of the 1960s can be put largely at the feet of white people, not just ‘the Jews’. Now, though, in 2012, we in the West are enjoying the after effects of that sixties cultural revolution (just recently, we had to live through another American celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. Day). What strikes me is the degree to which multiracialism has become incorporated into the world-view – the way of acting, thinking, believing – of ordinary white people. The celebrants of Martin Luther King Day are ordinary, Anglo-Saxon Americans, who are completely ignorant of King’s dubious past – his debauchery, his plagiarisation of his doctoral thesis, his shadowy connections to communism. King the man has become subsumed to King the myth: and it is that ‘I have a dream’ myth which captivates white America (it is the same with the Mandela cult). And this is without ‘The Jew’.

 What I compare multiracialism to is a computer virus, like the malignant Stuxnet virus (created, according to rumour, by Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities). In my analogy, all the computers in the network – e.g., all the white Western European people in the world – are infected by it, and, to a certain extent, are completely unaware that they are infected. And, while ‘The Jew’ (along with Lyndon Johnson and John Lennon) contrived to release the virus upon an unsuspecting world – he is no longer soley responsible for maintaining its existence. The genie is out of the bottle, so to speak.

 In other words, Hitler’s ‘race poisoner’ thesis has become completely outdated. The reason why so many in the nationalist movement – particularly some white nationalists – cling to it is that they are unwilling, or unable, to acknowledge the whiteness of the multiracialist doctrine – or the fact that it is our own racial kind (our own parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles) who are using it to destroy us.

6. Germany Rising

 Other of Hitler’s doctrines which have now become commonplace are welfare subsidies to women, encouraging them to have children; others have not become that commonplace (e.g., animal welfare, vegetarianism, and laws against cruelty for animals). But we will finish here by concentrating on something else: geopolitics and Germany – one of the central themes of Mein Kampf and its successor, Secret Book.

 In international power-politics, independence, sovereignty, is a rare thing: one’s country is either a great power (like the US/Israel, Russia, China) or a vassal (one could use a nicer word: ‘ally’; ‘friend’; ‘beneficiary’) of them. A small nation, true, can eke out an existence independent of the great powers: Cuba does, as do Iran, Vietnam, Laos, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua. But generally, this is not a position one wants to be in: one’s subordination to a great power means one is protected by that power (what Yockey calls, following Hobbes, the ‘law of protection and obedience’).

 This geopolitical model is an either/or model. But there are, in the real world, shades, gradations.

 One can, for instance, ‘lean towards’ a great power, and show signs of ‘toppling over’ and ‘falling into’ its sphere of influence: such was the case of Libya (previously a small, independent state, like Cuba or Vietnam) after 2003. Now, after the anti-Ghaddafi rebellion, the state is in the Washington/Tel Aviv camp – if one could call the anarchistic hodge-podge, which Libya is today, a state.

Likewise, a state – usually one with a past track record of greatness and independence – can show signs of ‘bursting out’, of ‘breaking away’, out of the sphere of influence of a great power; it, in turn, may lead to true independence, true sovereignty, and end up accruing great power and respect for itself. Such is the case with Turkey after 2010 and Germany after 2011. (A recent poll of around 26,000 people put Germany up the top as the most popular country in the world; the bottom three were Pakistan, Israel and North Korea).

 The latter would make the NSDAP member exclaim, upon hearing it: ‘What’s this! My beloved Germany, again becoming a great power! Then the program of Mein Kampf is well and truly fulfilled’.

 Germany is still under the thumb of Israel and the US. But the recent financial crisis, and the almost complete absence of US influence and interference on the Continent (and indeed, Obama can scarcely summon up any interest in European matters) has led to a strange power vacuum.

 This is a period in European history which is oddly evocative of the US isolationism of the 1930s, before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941. Nothing, but nothing, could persuade the American people to take an interest in events on the Continent: not even a war between Germany and Britain. This was a source of great frustration to Roosevelt and his Jewish ‘Brains Trust’, who longed to throw America’s resources into the war. As a result of this isolationism, Germany scooped the pools and was the master of the Continent – and, except for Britain, all of Europe.

 Germany, in 2012, out of all the Continental European nations, has, as we know, avoided the worst effects of the European debt crisis, and is now taking upon itself the control of the fiscal affairs of all the other EU members (using the medium of the EU and France). Merkel’s fiscal austerity policies are dreadful, of course, and it is no wonder that Britain, and Greece, are resisting Germany’s power. But resistance is a sign of power being exerted, Nietzsche says. The fact that these countries are putting up a fight is a sign that Germany does have the power (and not Russia, the US or Israel). The Second World War was a battle for, among other things, German political and economic control of the Continent. Arguably, there can be no political control without economic control, and the adoption of a Europe-wide monetary policy – and now, under Merkel, a Europe-wide fiscal policy (awful as it is) – has facilitated Germany’s wartime aims of control of the Continent. This is without a shot being fired, and, unlike the first time around, it has happened with very little struggle. Certainly, other countries – like Poland, and Austria – have fallen like ninepins.

The strange thing is that none of this was intended: it simply happened. The Germans, under Merkel, never sought power, and, after Hitler and the war, were reluctant to be in a position of power over their fellow Europeans. Now we are seeing, for the first time in seventy years, a powerful Germany – led by a leader who is portrayed as a bully, and who has that grating, ugly, discordant German accent – which is imposing its own rather peculiar brand of economics on the subjugated European nations.

 This is, at first sight, due to the fact that, after the financial crisis, Germany was the last man standing, and that Germany is one of the wealthiest (if not the wealthiest) of the European nations, and blessed with a populace of hard workers, a large industrial base, innovative technology, and a fiscally prudent government. In other words: you can’t keep a good German down.

 But it goes deeper than that. Roosevelt, the interventionist, fought a tremendous, horrific war for control of the Continent. The ‘expulsion of the Nazis [viz., Germans]’, from ‘All the countries they’ve conquered’, was dear to him: it was his penultimate aim. But Obama, and the US, are preoccupied with Iran only; they ignore Europe because American foreign policy is written for them by Tel Aviv. What’s more, America, under Bush Jr. and Obama, has gone through a deep economic, political and social decline. It is no longer interested, really, in maintaining a foothold in East Asia; likewise, it has let Latin America – its other backyard – be taken over, virtually, by populist demagogues of the Chavez, Ortega and Morales type. In effect, it no longer has the resources – political, economic, moral – to maintain its power in the two backyards. This decline is the outcome of five lost wars – in Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, Lebanon in 2006, Georgia in 2008 and Gaza in 2009 – wars lost by itself and its proxies. It takes great skill and statesmanship to arrest a political decline following such a series of military reverses, but, under Obama and Netanyahu, the Washington/Tel Aviv power unit hasn’t got it.

 So, what we are seeing at this point of history, is an extraordinary thing: Turkey, increasingly alienated from Israel and America, shows signs of shrugging off the yoke and wanting to become the strong man of an increasingly liberalised Middle East; Germany is already the strong man of Europe, and is forming an economic space which will be completely independent of the British and American one – a new European order which is for Europeans, and led by Germany. (Hitler, in one of his last radio addresses (in January 1945) speaks of Germany’s ‘destiny’ to ‘lead this continent’).

 During December last year, The Daily Mail (the British tabloid, which runs stories on Hitler, the NSDAP and WWII in the European theater, virtually every day) ran a feature on the anniversary of Germany’s ill-fated 1944 Ardennes offensive, (‘Vivid new Battle of the Bulge photos offer never-before-seen look at the war-weary soldiers braving the frigid weather as they fight off Nazi Germany’s last major offensive of World War II’, 18/12/11). As we know, the offensive was narrowly thwarted by the Allies, at great cost in American casualties. In the voluminous comments section for the article, one British poster commented acerbically, ‘Seems like a useless war. Less than a century later, Germany is in control of continental Europe again’. Another British poster wrote: ‘And some of us still want to join up with these Europeans, get out of europe before they try to destroy us again. Germany having lost twice has now got wise to itself and has taken over Europe at last without a shot being fired. All those brave men died for Nothing. LET THEM HAVE IT’.

 In an odd way, the British and Greek media propaganda comparing Merkel’s Germany to the Third Reich is accurate: the writers of these hate-filled screeds understand, intuitively, that Hitlerism and German National Socialism stood for a strong Germany – a Germany that is in a position of power over the other European nations (and being in a position of power is what leadership is about). National Socialism is a complex, multi-faceted ideology; but it is this belief in the German national virtues, and the belief that Germany should lead, which makes up the bedrock, the foundation, of German National Socialism. Hitler’s racialism is, in the end, a German racialist chauvinism: an expression in the belief in the German’s superiority to other Europeans (in particular, the French, and the Eastern Europeans) and an exhortation for Germans to take pride in this fact.

 (Much of Germany’s political success depends on its current popularity. It is seen, by the world, as a good country and a desirable place to live. Likewise, Turkey is popular in the Middle East – for standing up to Israel, among other things – and is economically prosperous, and what’s more, a model of how an Islamic country can develop itself along quasi-Western lines. Today’s anti-Iran propaganda tries to portray Iran as being much like 1930s Germany – that is, a small, bellicose nation, led by an arrogant, eccentric little leader, pursuing a policy of brinkmanship and no compromise. But this is imposing today’s political requirements on the past, malforming the past to suit the political needs of the present. Germany, in the 1930s, was a large, wealthy, successful and well-liked nation; it wasn’t isolated at all; and, just like today, it was held up as a model of prosperity and growth).

 Given this new modern context, who needs remixed 1930’s German ‘Neo-Nazism’? Who needs, indeed, a ‘German nationalism’ of the NPD variety? Or at least many of its older policies. It’s true that Germany has been inundated with Middle Eastern immigration, and that the new Germany shows no signs of wanting to sweep these immigrants away. Likewise, Germany – just like Turkey – shows no signs of edging towards out-and-out war with the US/Israeli political entity. But, in response to that, I say war is a means of attaining political control: one can attain power without war, and the remarkable thing about the Turkish and German ascent is that it has all happened so easily, viz, without war. Secondly, as for German immigration and racial policy: we can only hope that things will steer towards a new ethnic nationalist (ie. not the Wilders/Gates of Vienna civic camp) direction in the future (once Merkel and her ilk are gone). The main thing is that Europe, under the EU construct, is achieving a degree of economic independence and self-sufficiency. This will form the foundation of an immigration and racial policy which is separate from that of the US and the UK (it must be emphasised here: the foundation, not the policy itself).

 This is important, because Europeans – and Westerners – have become convinced that they cannot lead decent lives (the ‘good life’) without dependence on foreign labour and investment. Part of the justification for mass non-white immigration to the West is that the West cannot simply survive a day without the labour of the Hispanic from Mexico, or the menial labour from Africa, or the smart IT engineer from India. (As for Britain: the popular press, and the politicians, are continually lamenting that indigenous, white British won’t do the jobs that immigrant Romanians and Poles do, instead choosing to live their lives on welfare). This is an absurd argument, but Westerners have come to believe it. Once Europe, under the EU, becomes a self-sufficient entity, free of both immigrant labour and US investment, and trading with Russia and the Middle East (e.g., for gas and oil) on its own terms, then it can prove that Westerners don’t need the Third World – or the US. The ‘good life’ is possible without being part of the US-UK Anglo-Saxon economic sphere, or being part of a ‘globalised world economy’, viz., China and India.

 In an odd way, then, another of Hitler’s doctrines is becoming true, and is becoming assimilated to the cultural mainstream.

4 Responses to Why I am not a National Socialist: or, do we need ‘Neo-Nazism’ any more?

  1. […] at school? There are a couple of recent educational pieces, among thousands I'd recommend too: Why I'm not a National Socialist: or do we need Neo Nazism anymore? Robert Stark and Greg Johnson: New Right vs Old. __________________ Voice Of Reason […]