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:
http://www.natalt.org/2011/08/11/the-neofascist-method-the-edl-breivik-and-double-legality/
), 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.
