by Christian Gale


There are two types of nationalist politicians: those who (like Basil Fawlty in the classic Fawlty Towers episode, ‘The Germans’) implore others not to mention the war and those who do. I belong in the latter category. Viktor Orbán, the formidable prime minister of Hungary and a man who by any description is a nationalist, belongs in the former.

Orbán says, in a speech titled ‘Freedom begins with speaking the truth’:

Hungarians, in 1848 it was written in the book of fate that nothing could be done against the Habsburg Empire. If we had then resigned ourselves to that outcome, our fate would have been sealed, and the German sea would have swallowed up the Hungarians. In 1956 it was written in the book of fate that we were to remain an occupied and sovietised country, until patriotism was extinguished in the very last Hungarian. If then we had resigned ourselves to that outcome, our fate would have been sealed, and the Soviet sea would have swallowed up the Hungarians.

He’s quite right in this speech to characterise the millions of Muslim and African illegal immigrants flooding into Europe as invaders, on a par with the Soviets in 1944-1945 and 1956. The trouble is that he omits to mention what is to liberals and communists the most important episode of Hungary’s recent history: the occupation, from 1944 to 1945, of Hungary by the Germans and the subsequent round-up and deportation of Hungary’s 400,000 to 600,000 Jews to Auschwitz, whereupon they were gassed upon arrival in giant gas chambers cunningly disguised as showers. In the mainstream media, Orbán’s nativism and immigrant restrictionism is always mentioned in relation to this period – Orbán’s actions, including his fencing off of the border, evoke ‘Hungary’s dark past’.

In response to this, Orbán’s defenders can protest that comparison between the two ethnic groups – the Jews and the Muslim / African immigrants – is entirely inappropriate. The Jews of Hungary in 1944 were an established ethnic minority who had lived in Eastern Europe for centuries; the African and Muslim immigrants come from outside and have only been in Eastern Europe for less than a year. As well as that, the Germans and the Hungarians of yesteryear wanted to expel an ethnic minority from Hungary; today’s Hungarians want to keep a group of foreigners out. Nevertheless, to the liberals and communists who control the establishment media – and the European political establishment itself – Orbán’s fence represents another instance of ‘man’s inhumanity to man’, ‘fascism’, ‘racism’, ‘Nazism’, and should be seen as a great evil; whereas Islam, and multiculturalism, and the death of white Europe, should be seen as a great good.

But the masses of Europe – and the West – are beginning to wake up to them: the ordinary, apolitical European folk are experiencing doubts about the establishment political line on the ‘refugees’. Indeed, it’s hard not to experience doubt when women and teenage girls are being assaulted, molested and raped by the invaders. The politicians and journalists of Europe resemble the publicists who made propaganda for the Soviet Union at the time when the victorious Red Army was raping its way through Eastern and Central Europe: the message is the same – ‘Overlook the rapes and other atrocities and think of the blessings the invaders will bring!’.

All the same, the masses are confused. For years they’ve believed in their masters’ dogma; they’ve swallowed multi-culti – and anti-fascism – hook, line and sinker. What they’re experiencing now is cognitive dissonance. They’re beginning to realise that they’ve been lied to by their leaders: immigrants, multi-culti and Islam are making their lives worse, not better. But they lack the intellectual equipment to combat the establishment’s arguments, feeble as those arguments are. The result is that they feel befuddled, and, incredibly enough, guilty.

This sense of powerlessness and intellectual confusion relates back to Europe’s response to the terrorist attacks in France, Belgium and elsewhere.

Future Islamic terrorism can only be prevented by (what are by today’s standards seen as) brutal methods. The simplest and most effective of these would be to expel the Muslim populations of France, Belgium, the UK, Sweden, Holland and the rest and to bar any Muslims from entering Europe in the future.

In an insurgency – and the jihad in Europe is an insurgency – the guerrilla relies upon the population for support and protection. The Islamic guerrilla in Europe swims in the Muslim immigrant population as a fish in the sea, to paraphrase Mao Tse-Tung. Counter-insurgency doctrine – built up over hundreds of years – demands that the guerrilla be separated and isolated from the population; that’s the only way of defeating him. The armed forces waging the counter-insurgency war are to round up the population of sympathisers and segregate them in what are in effect concentration camps – as the French did in the Algerian War of Independence and the British in the Malaysian Emergency. But Europeans fighting a counter-insurgency in Europe don’t need camps: they just need to expel the Muslims.

But, it goes without saying, the politicians, intellectuals, journalists, priests, et al., would find either alternative unacceptable. They would even reject the soft option – the temporary internment of the Muslim population in camps (as depicted in the Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington movie The Siege (1998)). In their view, internment would be as bad as Nazism, fascism; they would compare it to the ‘darkest episode’ in Europe’s history – the rounding-up, internment and gassing of the Jews.

In a nutshell, then, the problem for Europe is this. Only counter-insurgency methods, in one form or another, can defeat the Islamic terrorists; conventional military methods – such as the bombing of ISIS’ bases in Iraq and Syria – won’t work. (The US bombed Hanoi, Cambodia and Laos to smithereens during the Vietnam War, but that didn’t stop the Viet Cong). But European governments lack the will to implement counter-insurgency – any counter-insurgent effort would be compared to Nazism and fascism – and so Europe loses its war on terror.

Surely, then, our task – as activists for nationalism – consists of persuading white Europeans that the past doesn’t matter, and that the analogies between nationalism of today and the nationalism of the past are false? My answer to that is no: that strategy is the one advocated by the ‘don’t mention the war’ crowd and it’s one I reject. I believe that WWII and the Nazis are extremely relevant to our present dilemma. Belgium’s decline, in my view, didn’t begin when it admitted Muslim immigrants in the 1970s and 1980s: it began much earlier, straight after the Allied liberation in September 1944. I can say categorically that had Germany won the war, or at least had forced the Allies into a stalemate, Europe wouldn’t be suffering from the Muslim and African immigrant problem and the terrorist attacks in Brussels, Paris, London and other European cities wouldn’t have happened.

Your average liberal – or conservative – would be horrified by that assertion of mine: he would protest that, had the Allies and the gallant Soviet Union not defeated Germany, ‘The chimneys at Auschwitz would still be smoking’; that the relative security and peace of today’s French, Dutch, Swedes, Belgians, British, Australians, Americans would have been bought at the cost of millions of Jewish lives.

I’ll deal with this objection later. Let’s back up for a moment: when I wrote, ‘British, Australians, Americans’, did I make a slip of the pen? It stands to reason that in an alternate reality where National Socialist Germany continued to dominate most of Europe, the Continent wouldn’t have allowed millions of Muslim and African immigrants in. But surely the liberal and Anglo-Saxon islands of America, the UK and Australia would have? After all, they wouldn’t have been subject to Nazi and German tyranny, and, being liberal, humanist and Anglo-Saxon, they would have cheerfully accepted millions upon millions of non-white immigrants: the Anglo-Saxon values are pluralism, tolerance, diversity…

The answer is no: non-white immigration into the West, and the Western cult of multi-culti, are recent phenomena and owe their origin to Germany’s defeat in the war. The Allies, after their victory, put the leaders of Germany on trial – for ‘crimes against humanity’, ‘crimes against peace’, etc. – and ended up devising a brand new system of morality and international law which became compulsory not only for the defeated Germans but for the entire Western world. The Nuremberg trials saw the promulgation of a new creed: a radical ultra-humanism, universalism, globalism and (what Maurice Bardèche) calls ‘the individual conscience’, the rejection of any sense of allegiance to one’s nation, state, community, armed forces… (The German soldier who declared ‘I was only following orders’ was howled down by the prosecutors at Nuremberg: the fact that the soldier would have court-martialled and even executed for disobeying an order was no excuse – he should have followed the promptings of his conscience and allowed himself to be court-martialled and shot…). The Nuremberg ideologists sought to excise German nationalism; but their treatment ended up killing the healthy cells as well as (to what the Allies were) the cancerous ones. Any nationalism and racialism in the West became, after Nuremberg, strictly forbidden; national sovereignty was displaced by the international law – and morality – of Nuremberg and by transglobal organisations such as United Nations (which began its life during the war as an anti-fascist coalition of 26 nations). The effects of this were soon felt by the Allied victor nations themselves: they couldn’t do anything that the Nazis had done, as the Nuremberg trials – whose verdicts were indubitably true – had proved that this was immoral and evil. Racialism had to go: segregation laws in the South was abolished, as was segregation in the US armed forces and in schools; Apartheid South Africa, which had fought valiantly on the Allied side in the war, became public enemy number one. In addition, race-based immigration laws were overturned: Australia, another loyal fighter on the side of the Allies and the British Empire, renounced its White Australia policy; Churchill, to his bewilderment, was forced to acquiesce to the importation of Africans and Indians to do the jobs Britons wouldn’t do… All of this was in accord with the Nuremberg Weltanschauung, which, as Bardeché pointed out, replaces racial and national Man with universal and economic Man. And so, every year since 1949 the West becomes more humanist, universalist, leftist; the institutions of the West are continually being re-evaluated – and found wanting. The Democrat Party of the time of Roosevelt – who was fascism’s greatest opponent – would be considered ‘racist’, ‘white supremacist’ by today’s standards; the Eisenhower administration’s mass expulsion of Mexican illegal immigrants (Operation Wetback) is seen today as a vicious crime… One result of the West’s perpetual leftward swing – a permanent revolution, as it were – is that even a moderately nativist politician such as Trump is routinely compared to the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. A commentator on Steve Sailer’s recent post, ‘Germany’s Blood Guilt’, makes the same points:

gdpbull says:

April 7, 2016 at 3:55 pm GMT • 200 Words

Actually, indirectly, the Nazis are responsible for the world-wide white shame epidemic. If the Nazis never happened, then there would not be the reflex adverse reaction to anything that is not an extreme rejection of all things Nazi. So today it would be ok for European countries to want to keep their own individual ethnicities. It would be ok to not want a flood of third world refugees whose culture is incompatible with Europe. It would be considered crazy to allow masses of lowly educated people with a backward culture to immigrate.

But not all the blame should be placed on the Nazis. Part of the blame goes on the victorious allies for being overly sanctimonious and actually believing themselves when they declared that they “saved” western civilization. Ever since then they have been actively destroying western civilization in a much more permanent way and in a way that the Nazis could have never imagined.


The nationalist and racialist movement in the West today can be divided up, roughly, into two camps: the first is pro-German, the second anti- (by ‘pro-German’, I mean sympathetic to Germany’s cause in WWII – and WWI). As an example of the latter group, we find Peter Brimelow, the proprietor of VDare.Com and the author of Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster (1995). A conservative and a racialist, Brimelow was recently spurred into writing an editorial, ‘Kevin Foley, Donald Trump, The Echo Chamber, And Me’, after being accused of – you guessed it, Nazism. He writes tetchily:

Over the years, I’ve ignored the sillier calumnies hurled at me by the Treason Lobby and its mouthpieces. But I’ve come to realize this is a mistake, because of the Echo Chamber effect of Googling, repetition, and the mouthpieces’ incompetent idleness.

Thus Kevin Foley of the Marietta Journal just tried to smear the heroic Ann Coulter by linking her to me:

And speaking of Nazis, Coulter mentioned her close friend Peter Brimelow, the British immigrant who is president of VDARE, an organization that “warns against the polluting of America by non-whites, Catholics, and Spanish-speaking immigrants,” according to hate-watch group, the Southern Poverty Law Center.

‘Saddam’s revenge’ unfolds in Europe, by Kevin Foley, Marietta Journal, March 31, 2016′

My father spent 6 1/2 years in the British Army in World War II when Kevin Foley’s forebears (except for the not-inconsiderable number who individually volunteered to join him) were cowering in ignominious neutrality. What is his evidence for calling me a Nazi?

Note the reproof of Ireland’s neutrality in the war. Brimelow regards his father’s military service against Germany as a source of pride, Ireland’s neutrality with noble scorn. Which raises, to me, an extremely interesting question. Suppose it’s 1943 or 1944: if Brimelow and VDare.Com had to endorse a political party (as they now in 2016 endorse Le Pen’s Front National and Wilders’ Party of Freedom), and had to choose between one of three parties – the Tories in Britain, the Democrats in the USA and the NSDAP in Germany – which one would they choose? VDare columnist John Derbyshire (who, it will be recalled, was fired from the neoconservative National Review in 2012 for writing an ‘offensive’ piece on Afro-Americans) wrote, in response to Brimelow’s editorial:

Finally, I heartily second Peter Brimelow’s scorn for ignorant lefties like Kevin Foley and the Southern Poverty Law Center who throw the word “Nazi” around with such abandon.

The actual Nazis were resisted and defeated, at great personal cost, by patriots—including close relatives of Peter and me—who would have found very little to disagree with in the material we post here at

And those patriots suffered and fought under leaders like Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill—immigration restrictionists who, if they were alive today and not otherwise employed, might comfortably be writing for VDAREcom. [‘From The Email Bag: Robot Armageddon Has Already Arrived For High-School Dropouts; Nazis; Etc.’]

Again, a revealing piece of writing. The pro-German nationalists and racialists are often accused by the anti-Germans of living in the past – of being obsessed by a now long-ago episode of history, of making a fetish of Hitler and the NSDAP. But these days I find more and more it’s the anti-Germans who are living in the past. The Brimelows and Derbyshires still believe it’s 1930 or 1940. They hardly take any of the significant developments since the war – the Nuremberg trials, for one – into account. The US and UK were implicitly racialist up to 1945; but then the unwritten assumptions of US and UK (and Western) policy (e.g. on the inadvisability of allowing non-white immigrants into the West, Negroes into white schools and neighbourhoods) came under attack and were ultimately destroyed. And so implicit whiteness, implicit racialism, went into history’s dustbin. Those who had conceived the Nuremberg ideology as a means of destroying Germany for all time, the ‘close relatives’ of Derbyshire and Brimelow – the so-called ‘Greatest Generation’ but really the stupidest generation – were to blame. (If only one British soldier had lobbed a grenade into Churchill’s tent during one of his North African visits, if one American soldier had went wild with a gun during the Tehran Conference and assassinated Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt: history would have been different).

The irony is that Brimelow, as he will tell you, spent much of his career in the 1970s and 1980s as a professional anti-communist who feared a Soviet takeover of Europe and who believed that a Soviet victory in the Cold War was a real possibility. But we must ask: where were the anti-communists in 1941? 1942? 1943? 1944? 1945? Whose side were they on?

One may object: the Brimelows and Derbyshires and the rest are on our side – the nationalist and racialist side – now in 2016; what’s more, they do good work. True enough: I don’t deny it. But in waging a war of ideas, we need to take that war right to the enemy – even if doing so means confronting some harsh truths.

Today in 2016 we live in a world where Germany, France, the US, the UK, and even Russia are half-friends. The Brimelows don’t want to return to a time when this wasn’t the case – to WWII, the last Great Unpleasantness between Whites. Carl Schmitt writes at length on the exception, which in his political philosophy is a disruption in the normal constitutional day to day order – a disruption which may be brought about by a constitutional crisis, a breakdown in law and order, insurrections and rioting, terrorism and civil war… In the 1920s and 1930s, most of the world was ruled by the West, and relations between the nations of the West proceeded smoothly and harmoniously for the most part – until the eruption of WWII, which represented a massive exception. (Other examples of exceptions: America’s revolt against the British in 1776 and the American Civil War of 1861-1865).

After Germany surrendered in May 1945, the war against Germany continued: millions of Germans were starved, ethnically cleansed, raped, killed – by their fellow whites. The Brimelows, with their creed of white racial solidarity, like to pretend that none of this happened. Why is this? I think because of a fundamental weakness. Schmitt famously declares, ‘The sovereign is he who decides the exception’. I take that to mean that (in Schmitt’s philosophy) the sovereign stands hidden for most of the time while humdrum day to day political events unfold; he reveals himself as the sovereign only after he decides that such and such a situation is an exception. The fictional US president depicted in The Siege no doubt goes about his day to day business as a normal American politician before the events of the film take place; then, after the terrorist attacks and the declaration of martial law (and the internment of Muslims in makeshift concentration camps), he, in true Schmittian fashion, makes the Decision, decides the Exception and becomes the Sovereign. All of which is no easy task: it requires courage, will – the attributes of a traditionally ‘fascist’ (by today’s standards) leader. After all, failure could mean defeat, and loss of one’s personal freedom, if not life… Jefferson Davis, the first President of the Confederacy, was imprisoned and indicted for treason after the South’s defeat in the Civil War. The Brimelows – and the other conservative half-and-halfers in the movement – don’t have Jefferson’s guts, or for that matter, Hitler’s. The Brimelows don’t like exceptions, and why not: if you align yourself with the losing side, you’ll suffer. You won’t meet with the same fate of the likes of John Amery (British fascist) and William ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ Joyce (Irish fascist), who were, being on the losing side of the Last White Great Unpleasantness, hanged; but even a mere association with the losing side, seventy years on, means you could still be punished.


All of the above goes some way to explaining why we in the West find ourselves in our current predicament and why the ‘don’t mention the war’ strategy won’t work. More or less, the West at this point in its history seems headed towards an inexorable decline, and the causes of that decline can be traced back to the Second World War, seventy years ago (and not to the wars afterwards – the Vietnam War, the two Iraq Wars, the still running Afghan War…). Three men – Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill – continue to exert an influence beyond the grave; their three ideologies – liberalism, Marxism and faux conservatism respectively – still hold sway. Their ideas need to be overthrown if we nationalists are to make any progress against modern degeneracy.

If we are to look at the situation in terms of geopolitical power, we will see that one group of nations – the US, the UK and Israel (which didn’t exist in 1945 except as an idea in the minds of Jews such as Chaim Waizmann, Churchill’s close friend and later first President of Israel) – seized control of half of Europe in 1945 and wiped out Germany, perhaps for all time, as a geopolitical unit; Russia grabbed the other half and lost it in 1989 but continues to exert not inconsiderable diplomatic influence. So since 1945, the politics of Western Europe has been largely left unchanged. The politicians installed by the Allies, the ‘stuffy dictators’ (as Carolyn Yeager calls them) of Europe – the Tsiprases, the Hollandes, the Merkels, the Renzis, the Rajoys, all of whom openly call for the death of the white race in Europe – reign, and the chances of them being booted out by an uprising of The People are slim.

As I wrote before, the European – and Western – masses are confused and demoralised; they won’t overthrow their globalist masters without being led. In short, it’s down to we nationalists. In these liberal democratic times, we nationalists need to take upon the mindset of the communists. Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Lenin didn’t get power through the ballot box: they got it through war. And, in waging that war, they sought unconditional surrender of their opponents: no deals. Once in power, they dealt with their opponents ruthlessly, as we all know.

Having said all that, I don’t believe that a communist-style insurrection could succeed. Mao, Castro and Ho Chi Minh won their respective civil wars because they received the full backing – diplomatic and military – of a geopolitical great power, the Soviet Union; what’s more, they achieved their victories when the communist idea was still en vogue and before the masses of their respective countries had the time to become disillusioned with it.

But, while I rule out insurrection, I rule out the ballot box as well. It’s not 1922 or 1933, and the liberal democratic system – which has gotten used to fascism by now – won’t let an openly fascist and ultra-nationalist party constitute itself and then win political power. (Golden Dawn in Greece regularly wins 18% of the vote, which is a remarkable feat for an openly neo-Nazi party, but the Greek electorate doesn’t want to give them power – it prefers the communists). While Mein Kampf is a great political text worthy of study and repeated re-reading, it doesn’t sketch out a path to power; liberal democrats can’t be fooled a second time around.


But, instead of looking at the means, why not look at the ends? What exactly is it that the nationalists want to achieve? Is there any end goal that they agree upon?

The answer to that last question is yes: for starters, nationalists want to see a return to a white Europe – and a white America and Australia. But my argument is that before that objective can be attained, a number of ancillary tasks need to be carried out. The one big goal can’t be reached until the preliminary chores have been done.

The first of these tasks which Europe must perform is: a thorough purge of the Cultural Marxists from the institutions – from the trade unions, the churches, the universities, the media, the student unions, the sports bodies, the political parties… The Cultural Marxists, who, starting in the 1970s, carried out a Gramscian long march through the institutions, need to be thrown out and locked up – preferably in detention centres with the African and Muslim immigrants they love so much.

The second is that the press, academia, education, etc., need to be brought under central government control – nationalist government control, that is. Some may object to this as ‘totalitarian’; my answer to that is that we in the West already live in a totalitarian state where institutions such as the press are unified and centrally controlled. We can find examples of that all around us. But under a nationalist government, journalists, academics, educators will be forced to tell the truth.

The third is a revision of the Holocaust. Weapons inspectors from all nations – including Israel – should be sent to Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor and other camps, as well as to alleged murder sites such as the Babi Yar ravine in the Ukraine, to gather the forensic and archaeological evidence for the mass gassing and shooting of the six million Jews. They won’t find anything, of course: less evidence exists for Hitler’s weapons of mass destruction – the gas chambers – than even for Saddam’s. But Western empiricism, rationality and science shall expose the Holocaust, the ‘Shoah’, the ‘Great and Terrible Wind’, for the Jewish crypto-religious mumbo-jumbo that it is. The West shall see, for the first time, the extent of (what Yockey calls) the Culture Distortion the Jew has wrought. Holocaust memorials and education centres, like mosques, represent an overlay of Semitic and Arabic Culture over the Western.

The fourth is the setting up of commissions to investigate Allied war crimes – and the punishment of Allied war criminals (not that the concept of ‘war crimes’ isn’t intellectually dubious). The British soldiers who served for Bomber Command, for instance, can have their medals stripped from them – even posthumously. Keep in mind that Germany continues to put soldiers on trial for gassing the Jews (one Auschwitz guard in his nineties died the other week while awaiting trial); the victors of the war will harass and harry their defeated enemies even if they are in the grave or have one foot in it, and will do so forever and ever. They don’t flinch from offending ‘Nazi’ (that is, pro-German) sensibilities. We nationalists should follow their example.

The fifth is WWII Revisionism. The Anglo-Saxon countries mark the anniversary of the June 6th D-Day landings in Normandy every year; Russia celebrates the German surrender on May 8th 1945 with a military parade through Red Square in Moscow. A united, nationalist Europe could stage its own commemoration – of the invasion of the USSR on the 22nd of June, 1941. (Most revisionist historians see the invasion as a successful thwarting of Stalin’s plan to invade Germany and Romania in the summer of that year). Such an event should be celebrated – by a march of the armies from the countries that took part in the initial invasion (Germany, Romania, Slovakia, Finland) through Berlin. The anniversary of June the 22nd every year will be called ‘Europe Day’, and the parade will in terms of spectacle surpass anything that the Anglo-Saxons and Russians could put together. And after the annual commemorations show themselves to be a tremendous success, other nations which in 1941 participated in Germany’s ‘Crusade Against Bolshevism’ – Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Spain, France – will want to participate; so will nations such as Latvia, Norway, Belgium after they remember that they too contributed brigades and divisions of volunteers in the common effort for the European good.

All of the above is required to wash away decades of European – and Western – guilt and self-flagellation. We in the West have gotten into our current predicament because, simply put, we don’t feel good about ourselves. The Left makes the argument that the West must be swamped by Muslims and Africans, and its women raped by non-whites, as punishment for the ‘crimes of colonialism’. The Western political establishment subscribes to that argument; in Australia, it tells us that Australia must perish for its crimes against the Aboriginals, in America, the crimes against the native Americans Indians and the blacks, etc. But, in the minds of the establishment – and the masses they have managed to manipulate and confuse – Europe’s ‘crimes of colonialism’ are outweighed by Germany’s; the crimes of the Nazis – war guilt, the use of slave labourers in camps, the internment and gassing of millions of Jews, Poles, gypsies and homosexuals – serve as the touchstone of modern evil (white man’s evil, that is). The Germans were in 1945 held collectively responsible for these alleged atrocities, and now, seventy years later, the surrounding nations – in the ever-widening circumference of guilt – France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Hungary, Romania and the rest are held responsible as well. This even carries over into the sphere of Europe’s colonies: in Australia, nationalist groups which don’t show fealty to Zionism and multi-culti are denounced as ‘Nazis’ by the Zio ‘patriot’ movement and the ‘civic’ nationalists… This is despite the fact that German National Socialism (which died in 1945) is for Germans only and that most Australian nationalists don’t have a drop of German blood in them – and that most have parents and grandparents who fought in the war against German and Japanese fascism.

In response to this spreading of the blame, the ‘don’t talk about the war’ crowd in the nationalist and racialist movement tells us to ‘let the war go’. But the Left won’t let it go. When he came to office in 2015, one of the first things the communist Greek prime minister Tsipras did was to pay tribute to the 200 Greek communists killed by the Germans in Kaisariani in 1944. The Left doesn’t forget; the Left believes in symbolism. None of this would matter if the Left didn’t rule Europe – and the West – but it does.

After succeeding Margaret Thatcher as British prime minister in 1990, John Major made a declaration which became famous: ‘I want to see us build a country that is at ease with itself, a country that is confident and a country that is able and willing to build a better quality of life for all its citizens’. One may ask: is Germany at ‘ease with itself’? Evidently it isn’t. A country at ease with itself, which can sleep soundly at night with a clean conscience, wouldn’t have gotten into the mess which it finds itself in today. And this flows on to Europe (Germany is the leader of Europe) and to the West (Europe is the cradle of Western civilisation). Only after a rejection of guilt – and that’s what weapons inspectors in Auschwitz, commemorative parades through Berlin and other ritual exorcisms are – would Europe be able to look at itself in the mirror and say: ‘You did nothing wrong’.


To conclude. The Allies believed that Nuremberg – and the Dachau and Bergen-Belsen atrocity propaganda – would castrate Germany; it would expunge the martial instinct from Germany. They certainly achieved their goal, but only at the expense of hurting themselves. In the classic movie The Battle of Algiers (1966), the paratrooper Colonel Matthieu (Jean Martin), who has masterminded a brilliant counter-insurgency campaign against the Algerian NLF (National Liberation Front) guerrillas, tells journalists at a press conference bewilderedly that ‘We soldiers have been called fascist’. But how can that be, he asks: after all, ‘Some of us [French soldiers in Algeria] were in Dachau’. At the end of the movie, the Algerian independence movement triumphs and the French settlers – the pieds noirs – are driven out of Algeria. (The ironic coda, not shown in the film, of course, is that hundreds of thousands of Algerians and other North Africans then went on to settle in France and Holland – permanently). France couldn’t sustain the war against the Algerian guerrillas for many reasons, but chief among them was the accusation of ‘fascism’. France and other European powers couldn’t maintain their colonies after WWII with a clean conscience: colonialism implies that the European coloniser is somehow superior to the colonised, and this notion of superiority – racial superiority, when you think about it – is what the egalitarians who have dominated the West since the war reject. In the case of the Algerian War, we meet with the irony of ironies: France, one of the ‘good guy’ nations of WWII, couldn’t shake off accusations of ‘fascism’. Which points to the continued failure of any counter-insurgency effort by the French (or the Belgians, or the Dutch, or the British, or, for that matter, the Australians).

Conservative pundits today often make the claim that ‘Islam is the new communism’. I think that those commentators are right: Islam has taken the place of communism in the minds of many aggrieved Third Worlders who want a theoretical and ideological basis for a War against the West. Islam, properly understood, justifies war – just as much as Marxist-Leninism did – against the white man.

But Islam shouldn’t be seen as the only threat. In 2016, China, India and the nations of Africa and the Middle East have taken up the theses of Japan and Germany in the 1930s: peoples in an overpopulated country lack living space, Lebensraum and they have the right – the right of the stronger – to expand into weaker countries with a smaller population. Right now, cities such as London and Melbourne are being colonised by non-whites seeking Lebensraum.

The most important thing to note is that we in the West don’t have a defence against either of these two threats. Because of the inhibitions placed upon us by seventy years of anti-racist and anti-fascist propaganda, we’re not fighting back.

Tagged with:

One Response to Why Not Talk About The War? Or, Why Europe Needs an Exorcism

  1. Ursula Haverbeck says:

    “the occupation, from 1944 to 1945, of Hungary by the Germans and the subsequent round-up and deportation of Hungary’s 400,000 to 600,000 Jews to Auschwitz, whereupon they were gassed upon arrival in giant gas chambers cunningly disguised as showers”. This is a blatant lie of the HOLOHOAX.

    “Actually, indirectly, the Nazis are responsible for the world-wide white shame epidemic. If the Nazis never happened, then there would not be the reflex adverse reaction to anything that is not an extreme rejection of all things Nazi.” This is shameful slander against NSDAP German Third Reich.

    You are a jewish liar, pretending to be a White patriot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter CAPTCHA *