|
The following article is one man's interpretation of what has became known as 'National Bolshevism' or the 'Red and Brown Axis.' It does not purport to be an official version of Edward Limonov or the National Bolshevik Party's views any more than it is FolkandFaith.com's views. As with any and all articles on the site, feedback and intelligent dissent is fully welcomed. Offer an intelligent rebuttal and it may get put up on the site as well. As with all other political theories given space on this site, please recall that this is just an alternative view to the mainstream political view.
Nationalist Socialism, Nationalist Communism and National Bolshevism
by Andrew Webb
I've written this essay on the demand of the owner
of this site, in order to make clear some vital
distinctions between three ideologies: national
socialism, national communism and National Bolshevism.
(A note: when I refer to 'the movement' in this essay,
I am referring to the large number of anti-'Semitic' and
racialist groupings traditionally associated with the
Far Right, in North America, Europe and European
colonies such as South Africa and New Zealand).
NATIONAL BOLSHEVISM
 |
 |
| Flag of Edward Limonov's
National Bolshevik Party |
Russian National
Socialist Flag |
What is National Bolshevism?
To answer this, we must look at the development
of the socialist idea.
It was generally agreed, in the patriotic and
anti-Semitic circles in Europe at the time, that the
Russian Revolution of 1917 (and the aborted
revolutions in Hungary in 1919 and Germany in 1918)
were Jewish affairs. Jews had been fomenting
subversion against the absolute monarchist
regimés of Europe since the days of the
Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and had
appropriated the socialist idea for use as a means of
gaining power. This subversion culminated in the
Russian Revolution.
The Slavic racial element played a role, of course.
Contemporaries of the revolution such as Hitler,
Spengler and Lothrop Stoddard noted that Russia, since
Peter the Great, had been divided into two: on one
side, the Westernised Petrine aristocracy, mostly of
German stock; on the other, the Asiatic residue
possessed of a deep, primitive religiousness and a
hostility to anything Western. The Revolution saw an
uprising among the Asiatic racial element against the
Westernised aristocracy.
What the Jews did was harness the Asiatic maelstrom
and used it as a stepping-stone to power. Jewish
Bolshevists exterminated the Petrine ruling class, and
killed and starved millions of Russian supporters of
the old regimé, in particular the peasants
(who, as a class, have always been despised by Jews
everywhere).
When does the 'national' in National Bolshevism
enter the picture?
With Stalin's ascent to power to in 1924, Trotsky's
exile in 1928, and the purges of the communist party
rank and file (which, as we know, mostly consisted of
Jews) in the 1930s, some anti-Semites claimed at the
time that this saw the end of Jewish influence in the
Soviet Union. Therefore, Hitler and other fascists
were mistaken in detecting a Jewish component in
Stalinism. This doctrine is one version of National
Bolshevism.
As well as this, Stalin was condemned by the
(Jewish) Trotskyists, for restricting socialism to
'one country', for not fomenting subversion elsewhere.
Stalin had made socialism too nationalistic - a
'national socialism', in fact -when socialism, at
bottom, is incompatible with nationalism. Stalinist
'national socialism' of this kind is often called
National Bolshevism as well.
(Wartime Russian propaganda never referred to the
Nazis as 'national socialists': that was the term used
by the Stalinists to describe their own communism. The
communists testifying at the International Military
Tribunal always referred to the Nazis and the
Wehrmacht as 'Hitlerians' or 'fascists').
In Weimar Germany, some communists, such as the
Jew Karl Radek, advocated an alliance between Germany
and Communist Russia, as early as 1919. It was felt
that were Germany to take such a course, it would be
resisting the West, which had imposed the Versailles
Treaty upon it. In other words, Germany would turn
Bolshevist out of nationalist and geopolitical
reasons. That idea survived into the 1930s and could
be found in the left-currents of German National
Socialism, as represented by Goebbels, the Strasser
Brothers, and Ernst Röhm and his communist
Brownshirt faction.
So far, we have identified three National
Bolshevisms: one, anti-Semitic, pre-war Stalinism;
two, nationalist communism (or what I call national
communism); and three, the advocacy of an alliance
between Germany and a Bolshevism which may or may not
be Jewish.
THE MYTH OF PRE-WAR ANTI-SEMITIC STALINISM
Did an anti-Semitic Stalinism of the 1930s exist?
In my opinion, no: the notion that Jews had been
purged by Stalin in the 1930s is a falsehood. This is
proved by the Holocaust Revisionist Walter N.
Sanning's The Dissolution of Eastern European
Jewry (1983), a study of Jewish demography in
Europe and the Soviet Union before and after the
"Holocaust".
Sanning's figures showed that from 1926 to 1939,
the Jewish population in the Soviet Union increased
from 2.6 million to 3 million - a jump of over 12%.
Furthermore, the Jewish population of Leningrad
increased from 84,000 in 1926 to 200,000 in 1940 and
the Jewish population of Moscow increased from 131,000
to 400,000 in the same years.
As for the war, 200,000 Jews died as servicemen in
the Red Army and 130,000 Jewish civilians died in the
Nazi-occupied areas of the Soviet Union. An unknown
but high percentage of the latter were killed as
partisans, or in retaliation for partisan atrocities;
others were killed by the Soviet natives for their
role in the slaughter and deportation of tens of
thousands of Slavs.
Added to this, there is plenty of anecdotal
evidence concerning Jewish commissars, Jewish
partisans, Jewish collaborators with Soviet occupiers,
and so on. Jewish communists, and Jews in general,
supported the Soviet Union's war against fascism, and
certainly the very Jewish Roosevelt administration
did.
THE DEJUDAISATION OF BOLSHEVISM?
Nevertheless, the Soviet Union stopped, at some
point, being Jewish. Historians of international
relations would agree that the Soviet Union had become
an enemy of America (and hence Jewry) sometime around
1948. Stalin, of course, armed Israel in its "war of
independence" against the Arabs in 1948, funnelling
arms through Czechoslovakia, and the USSR was one of
the first States to recognise Israel diplomatically.
But 1948 also saw the breakdown of amicable relations
between America and the USSR. And by 1953, the year of
the 'doctor's plot' and Stalin's aborted plan to
exterminate Soviet Jewry, the love affair between the
Jews and Soviet communism was over.
The question is: why did the Jews fall out with
Stalin? The answer, I think, is to be found in
Sanning's statistics.
The USSR incorporated 2 million Jews in 1940 (with
the annexation of Eastern Poland, the Baltic States
and North-Eastern Romania), raising its Jewish
population from 3 to 5 million. But it lost 1 million
Jews in the war, many of those in senior positions in
the communist hierarchy. The majority of those
fatalities - 700,000 - had died in labour camps in the
Siberia and the Urals alongside millions of other
Soviet citizens.
Stalin had been prepared years in advance for a
European assault on the USSR. Before and during the
Nazi attack, he deported millions of Soviet citizens
(Sanning gives the figure of 25 to 30 million) away
from the front line and to Siberia and the Urals.
There they were put to work manufacturing arms and
electricity.
The production of arms and electricity required
skilled personnel. Jews occupied the leading
administrative positions in the Soviet Union and
formed the most educated class, standing at the top of
the social pyramid in the Soviet Union, just as they
do in America now. Stalin deported them for this
reason. (A large number of women and their children
were deported because many women were employed in
Soviet industry, thanks to feminist reforms).
Sanning estimates that of the 3.6 million Soviet
Jews living in areas which later came under Nazi
control, 80%, or 2.9 million, were evacuated. Five
million people alone from the Ukraine were deported, a
high proportion of whom were Jews or ethnic Russians
(both of whom occupied the leading professional and
administrative positions in Ukraine, to the detriment
of Ukrainians).
Because of the losses in the labour camps, and in
combat with European armies, the élite Soviet
Jewish class was gutted. Although a large number of
Jews remained in the Soviet Union - over 4 million -
the power of the Jews there had been broken.
(For more on the implications of Sanning's work,
see Yggdrasil's essay Princeton Tries to Explain a Drop in Jewish
Enrollment; or "What is Communism?"
This is why neo-fascists who were more sensitive to
geopolitical developments, such as Francis Parker
Yockey and Jean-Francois Thiriart, proposed an
alliance between post-war fascism and Soviet
communism. They believed that were the Russians to win
the Cold War and overrun Europe, Europe would be
dejudaised as well. Therefore, an opening could exist
to mobilise the Continent for a war against America
(and Israel).
NATIONAL COMMUNISM
After the war, and the breakup of the European
empire, a new phenomenon emerged: national communism,
or more accurately, national liberation communism.
Yockey held that ever since the First World
War, the 'Outer World' (the non-European colonial
world) had been agitating against the colonial powers
Europe and America. He called the desire of the
coloured races to overthrow the white man 'Bolshevism'
(although of course, the anti-colonialist tendencies
were not restricted to the communism of the USSR).
It was Europe's defeat at the hands of America in
WWII, Yockey argued, that saw the downfall of the
European colonial empire - the largest in history.
'Bolshevism' stood triumphant. Although America, by
winning the war against Europe, inherited Europe's
empire, it showed no interest in maintaining it,
giving the most valuable possessions away (China and
India in particular).
Many of the 'Outer World' countries did not win
their independence at once, having to overthrow
colonial rulers like Britain and France by force. The
national revolutionaries adopted communism as an
anti-colonialist ideology, as communism is uniquely
suited to that purpose. But they gave it a different
slant from orthodox Soviet Marxist-Leninism, a more
'national' flavour. Hence Maoism, Castroism, Ho Chi
Minhism and the rest.
This independence from Soviet communism,
however, was only ideological. After achieving
independence, a country like Vietnam or Cuba would
have no option but to join forces with one of the two
communist superpowers, China and Russia.
NATIONAL SOCIALISM
By 'National Socialism', I am not referring to the
German variety, of course, but a post-war variant of
national communism. More or less, other
anti-colonialist tendencies in the 'Outer World' did
not want to go the whole route towards communism,
opting instead for 'socialism', which would see the
retention of some private property.
In addition, they differed from the national
communists in that they followed the policy of
non-alignment. This refers to the practice of
neutrality in the Cold War: non-aligned countries went
with neither the East nor West, choosing instead a
'Third Position'.
The most famous exponents of the 'Third Way' were
Juan Peron (Argentina), Nassar (Egypt), Sukarno
(Indonesia), and a host of other Third World
demagogues. Yockey writes, in his essay The World
in Flames (1961):
No estimate would be complete which leaves two
great political developments out of account, both of
recent years. The first is the Arab Revolt, led by a
great and vigorous man, Gamal Abdul Nasser. The second
is the formation of nationalist, neutralist regimes by
such brilliant statesmen as Marshal Jozef Broz Tito of
Yugoslavia, Nehru of India, Field Marshal Ayub Khan of
Pakistan, General Ibrahim Abboud of the Sudan, Sekou
Toure of Guinea, Sukarno of Indonesia, Nkruniah of
Ghana, and others. These personalities embody an Idea,
none are out for money or publicity. They live simply,
work for and live for their ideas. One such man, in a
position of leadership, is a world-historical force.
All lead weak political units, and cannot by
themselves fight either of the great world-powers. But
all want independence for their people; Nasser, for
example, for some 300,000,000 Moslems. Each is a
symbol to great human masses. Their significance, in
each case, in this Estimate, is that they diminish the
Jewish-American power without augmenting the
Russian-Chinese power. By their Palestine policy, the
Zionists may even succeed in driving the Arab world to
fight for Russia.
Eventually responsible leadership for a restive
mass of some 180,000,000 Latin Americans will evolve.
Already the seeds of revolt against Jewish-American
economic domination have been sown. Witness Cuba.
Nowadays, the surviving national socialist regimes
include Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Burma. The Burmese
junta are the authors of a manifesto called 'The
Burmese Path to Socialism;' Iraq and Syria both
subscribe to the Arab nationalist and socialist
ideology of Ba'athism.
The national socialist regimés mentioned
by Yockey have either crossed over into the American
sphere of influence or have become irrelevant.
Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Egypt now serve as
vassals to the West; the African nations have become
insignificant - which is another way of saying that
they are so strife-torn that no superpower can be
bothered gaining a foothold there. (I am speaking of
the black African states, of course, not the Arab ones
in North Africa: Libya, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria,
because of their proximity to Israel, occupy important
places on the geopolitical chessboard). For the most
part, the West has regained control over all its
errant colonies - except that the Jews of Washington
and Tel Aviv, and not Europeans and Americans, now
rule 'the West'.
JEWISH ANTI-COMMUNISM
Up to 1948, we could say that all Jews were united
in support of two causes: 'Bolshevism', as defined by
Yockey, and the destruction of fascism and monarchism
in Europe. Jews, in America and elsewhere, were
Stalinist communists or liberal supporters of
communism.
Then, after 1948, Jewish-controlled America became
the biggest enemy of communism. All at once, we saw:
former Jewish communists, such as Sydney Hook and
Irving Kristol, leading an ideological assault on
communism and founding the neoconservative movement;
the Red Scare; the coming to American consciousness of
the extent of Stalin's cruelty; accusations that the
USSR was 'anti-Semitic'; and so on. Why?
Yockey's answer was as follows: in 1917, the
Jews gained control of the Soviet Union; in 1933, the
Jews gained control of America upon the election of
Roosevelt; in 1945, the Jews, through the USA,
controlled Europe and the entire colonial world; but
by 1948 or thereabouts, the Jews had lost control of
the Soviet Union, for the reasons described above.
At the end of the war, the Jews, possessed a vast
European colonial empire; but, with the onset of the
Cold War, they had to fight the colonial subjects who
wanted 'Third Positionism' or an alliance with the
Soviet Union.
But Jews are inherent Bolshevists, motivated by
one desire: to destroy European-Western civilisation.
Their quarrel is not with the peoples of the coloured
races, but Westerners. They do not hate Russia with
the same intensity that they hate the Germans.
As Yockey writes, in The World-:
Most of the cinema in North America treats Russia
and Russians as interesting and admirable, human and
good. The cinema's purpose in the general scheme of
propaganda is to control the emotional attitudes of
the population. Control of the intellectual attitudes
is the work of the press, and here Russia is treated
negatively. Why this duality? Every ruling regime
gives perforce in its propaganda a picture of itself,
and the Washington Zionist regime itself suffers from
this quality. Russia is not a total enemy, but a
rival. The Korean war, 1950-1953 expressed the limited
hostility of the Washington regime toward Russia and
its official war-aim was not "victory" or
"unconditional surrender" [as per against Nazi
Germany], but "a just truce".
When the Germans in Russia make some new technical
advance, Eisenhower congratulates the Moscow regime.
Roosevelt never congratulated Hitler on such
occasions. The Russian flag is flown in the United
States on all festive, "international" occasions.
Never did the German flag appear, nor does it today.
The fundamental ineradicable Jewish hatred of Germany
appears in the fact that even the Germany they control
directly is not permitted to sit among the United
Nations, on a par with the other puppets. The spate of
anti-German films in the theatres and on television
continues unabated. The anti-Russian films are few
indeed.
One conclusion emerges, of military-political
significance: in the Third World War, the Washington
regime will list Germany among its enemies. Already
the radio propagandists say "Russia and Red Germany."
The intention here is, not only that the German rifle
battalions be slaughtered by the Russian advance, but
that the way be opened for the bombardment of Germany
again, this time with more destructive bombs.
To a certain extent, Jewry considered communist
Russia and China to be friendly rivals, not deadly
enemies, like Nazi Germany, which had to be destroyed
at all costs. And, certainly, Jewry sympathised with
the Bolshevist aims of the Russians and Chinese- eg,
the goal of the liberation of the Third World from
European and white domination.
THE FACTIONAL SPLIT IN JEWRY
One of the most common objections to anti-Semitism
is that anti-Semites lump all Jews together, making
them out to be a monolithic conspiracy, when clearly
Jews disagree on a good many questions - Israel for
instance.
Most rational non-Jews, who are not completely
deluded by philo-Semitic and Zionist propaganda, will
agree that Israel and its supporters in Diaspora Jewry
are a vicious bunch. But, say the incorrigible
philo-Semites, 'Not all Jews support Israel. Why, my
friend Greenburg hates Israel, and he's a Jew'.
The fact that Bush Jr (like every American
president before him) is a slave of Israel, and that
his foreign policy is written for him by hard-right
Zionist Jews like Richard Perle, is an open secret.
But we all know, too, that Jews such as Noam Chomsky,
Israel Shamir, Israel Shahak, Norman Finklestein and
even mainstream Jewish reporters such as Suzanne
Goldenberg (of the British newspaper The Guardian) and
Orla Guerin (of the BBC) number among the biggest
boosters of the Palestinian cause.
The dichotomy is explained by the fact that Jewry
now is in the possession of the mightiest military and
political power in history - the United States - and
all the vassal states which the US has conquered
through force or diplomacy. As the ruling élite
of the Jewish-American State, it is under an
obligation to maintain the empire if it does not wish
to surrender it. At the same time, it feels sympathy
for the 'Third World', even for the Palestinians in
their national liberation struggle against Israel.
Jewry is divided into two factions: on the
left, we find the liberal Zionist or anti-Zionist Jews
who feel that the Arabs are their natural allies in
the struggle against European civilisation; on the
right, the neoconservative hawks - a tendency
represented now by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz -
who want to use goyim armies to annihilate the
enemies of Israel.
Yockey, describing the factional split in
Jewry, writes in The World- that:
It is a psychological riddle, decipherable only
thus: the Zionists have two minds, which function
independently. As Zionists, they are committed to the
destruction of the Western Civilization, and in this
they sympathize with Russia, with China, with Japan,
with the Arabs, and as such they anathematize Germany,
which is the mind and heart of the Western
Civilization. As custodians of the United States, they
must half-heartedly remain at least the technical and
political domination of that Civilization even while
destroying its soul and its meaning. In a word, they
are working simultaneously for and against the Western
Civilization. Quite obviously they are thus doing more
damage than conferring benefit! If a commander of a
fortress sympathizes with the enemy, but yet insists
in defending the fortress rather than surrendering it,
he has surely found the highest formula of
destruction.
GOOD JEW, BAD JEW
William Pierce, in a radio talk, once spoke of the
factional divisions in the (2002) coalition government
in Israel: on one side, Shimon Peres, the leader of
the Labour Party, the "dove"; on the other, Ariel
Sharon, the leader of the Likud, the "hawk". Peres and
Sharon, Pierce said, were 'good cop and bad cop', or
at least hoped to present themselves as so to the
goyim of the West.
Clearly one could not find two Jews more
dissimilar than, for instance, radical leftist Noam
Chomsky and extreme Likudnik Richard Perle - but are
they that dissimilar?
Both the Zionists and anti-Zionists only differ in
the field of foreign policy. The Zionist Right in
America generally agrees with the social program of
the anti-Zionist Left. That is, both favour: more
forced immigration of non-whites; more
multiculturalism; more MTV; more pornography; more
cultural nihilism; more permissiveness towards Negro
and Hispanic crime; more attacks on the cultural
heritage of Europeans and Americans; and so on.
Certainly neither Jewish faction can abide any Nazism,
fascism, anti-Semitism or "racism" of any sort
(although the neoconservative Right is sympathetic to
anti-Muslim "racism"). Holocaust Revisionism is
definitely out.
The truth of the matter Jewish-American "liberals"
and "conservatives" are working towards the same
Jewish-Bolshevist goals: they only disagree on how
these are to be implemented.
The neoconservatives believe that 'democracy' and
'free markets' will do the trick and should be imposed
upon recalcitrant Muslim nations, by force if
necessary. The radical Jewish-American left, on the
other hand, focuses on domestic policy: it wants to
eliminate 'capitalism'.
That 'capitalism' is not, of course, Jewish
capitalism (Jews are the wealthiest economic group in
America), but the capitalism of the Rockefellers and
Fords and other Yankee, WASP, East Coast plutocrats -
the kind who ruled America before the ascent to power
of Roosevelt and his gang of Jewish liberals and
crypto-communists.
The America before 1933, as Pierce wrote, was, for
all its faults, healthy and white, and for this reason
the American Jews of both the Right and Left hate it
and want to extirpate it. The neoconservatives may not
be as obsessed with destroying European culture and
civilisation from within as the liberal and
anti-Zionist Jews are, but this is because they give
the political destruction of enemies of Israel more
priority than anything else.
Even so, the neoconservatives are not completely
indifferent to domestic politics. They will use the
opportunity of a civil state of emergency, like the
present one that exists in America, to crack down on
white nationalists, anti-Semites, Holocaust Deniers,
and so on.
OPPORTUNITIES & STRATEGIES
The Bush administration, since 9-11, has been a
godsend for anti-Semites: America, as a power, has
become completely Israelised; it emanates the
obnoxiousness, the self-centredness, the solipsism and
the bullying arrogance of the Jew. As a result, it has
alienated the Muslim world and not a few
independent-thinking Europeans, of all political
persuasions, as well. (At this rate, we can only hope
that Bush and his neoconservative coterie win
re-election in 2004).
It is possible that Jewry will win its war
against the Muslim enemies of Israel: after all, it
won the war against Nazi Germany, and against
post-Stalinist Russia - both of whom were tougher
opponents than the Arabs. But the world has become
tired of Jews. One can say that Jewry has long been
the chairman of the board of the 'Bolshevist'
corporation, but now the shareholders - the coloured
peoples of the Third World countries the USA rules or
seeks to rule - are becoming disgruntled. Perhaps the
coloured peoples will look for, and find, a new leader
in the person of Russia or China.
What of the peoples of European descent? Should
they join forces, like the National Bolshevists of
old, with the Third World enemies of Jewry - ie,
China, Russia and the 'rogue states'?
Obviously, the National Bolshevism of Yockey,
Thiriart, Otto Remer ended in failure: by the 1980s,
it was apparent to all that any alliance between
European nationalists and the USSR would fail to
deliver the goods. The world economy had been torn
apart in the 1970s, and the USSR's brand of socialism
- unlike China's - was incapable of weathering the
storm. The USSR, then, was placed in a position of
extreme weakness, with the results we all know. We in
the movement sided with a loser; it is possible that,
by siding with the Arabs, we are siding with another
loser, and that the Arabs will be defeated just as the
Russians were.
One of the problems with Arab nationalism and
Islamic fundamentalism is that neither of them
possesses a true antagonism towards the Jews and
Israel. The truth is that Judaism is part and parcel
of the Arabic-Middle Eastern culture, history and
civilisation. At bottom, the quarrel between the Arabs
and the Jews is nothing more than a brother's quarrel
- like, for instance, a quarrel between French and
Germans. The Muslims really only make two demands on
America and Israel: that Israel withdraw from the
Occupied Territories, evacuate the settlements, and
allow the formation of a Palestinian State; and that
Israel withdraw from the Golan Heights. Were Israel to
do so, it would guarantee peace with the Palestinians
and with Syria, and the entire Muslim world, and we in
the West would lose an ally in the Arabs.
On the other hand, we in the West who are aware
of the Jews' true character have grievances against
the Jew too numerous to mention. At bottom is our
visceral disgust for the Jew: we do not see him as a
wayward brother, as the Muslims do, but a total enemy
who is completely foreign to us and who is responsible
for the most terrible crimes in history. We will not
be satisfied by a mere Israeli withdrawal from the
Territories and the Golan - what good would that do
us?
Eventually, we in the West will need to wage
war against the Jew - a total, no-holds barred, war.
The Arabs and the rest of the coloured world will have
no stomach for that: their opposition to the Jew is
merely political, not racial, cultural, spiritual.
Furthermore, the Arabs and the rest of the
Third World will oppose the revival of an America and
a Europe under a white, as opposed to Jewish,
leadership. The three superpowers today are China,
Russia and Israel-America. The coloured races have no
real objection to this arrangement: they much prefer
that America and Europe be ruled by Jews than by
whites, for Jews are fellow members of the
'Bolshevist' club, and victims, like them, of Western
"racism" and oppression.
Suppose that the Negroes of America were given a
choice between the present Jewish-controlled
politicians - who at least can be counted upon to give
them plenty of welfare - and a government of white
separatists: who would they choose? The question
answers itself.
FNF NOTE: At this point I must object. Why should they have to choose between either? Why not give them a government and a community/land of their own which they and they alone are responsible for its success or failure?
It is true that Westerners who want to
overthrow Jewish rule are in a vulnerable position,
that we need all the help we can get - and that means
help from the Russians, Chinese and the Arabs.
American nationalists should not even spurn offers of
assistance from disaffected Negroes and Hispanics.
THE VERDICT ON NATIONAL SOCIALISM
Whether or not one adopts a National Bolshevist
stance - and by that I mean a stance of anti-Semitic
socialism - depends on one's economic views. Some in
the movement see capitalism as a degrading,
exploitative, unstable economic system which must be
replaced with socialism at all costs; others have no
problem with it. Clearly, socialism, at the present,
is further away from realisation in the Western world
more than ever. Despite the recurring financial and
economic crises which have occurred since 1970,
capitalism still endures. I would venture to say that,
at this point in time, socialism - or even
corporatism, which has been championed by many
distinguished theorists of post-war fascism - is an
unrealistic option.
At any rate, we in the movement should strive
for product differentiation: that is, offering
prospective recruits something they will not find in,
for instance, the ideologies of anarchism/Marxism,
environmentalism, conservatism, and so on. Our
strength lies in our willingness to address racial
politics, and, above all, our willingness to name the
Jew.
Certainly anti-Semitism is compatible with a wide
variety of ideologies: there is no reason why the
Green parties around the world should not stand on
anti-Semitic, anti-Israel platforms and espouse
Holocaust denial. Likewise, there is no reason why a
'pink' liberal cannot be racialist: after all, the
Democrat Party in America was the bastion of Southern
racialism for many years.
But it just so happens that only our movement is
left to take up cudgels on the race question and the
Jew question. The Jews and their vassals have seized
control of all the disparate political factions of the
West - on both the Left and Right - and succeeded in
removing any "racist" and anti-Semitic ideological
elements. The movement, on the other hand, has been
left alone. Part of this is because our movement, in
the post-war years, has been too small and unimportant
for the Jews to infiltrate and take over; but mostly
it is because we have deliberately fostered an
environment in which no Jew could ever feel welcome.
As a result, we in the movement have the monopoly
on racialism and anti-Semitism, and, in these present
times, when the Jewish domination of American and
European policy is becoming clear to even the most
imperceptive individuals, we should be exploiting that
monopoly as much as possible. That means, then,
putting our doctrines on economics and social policy
on the back burner for the time being. The movement,
at the present, is incapable of steering the Western
world towards socialism: but it can foment
anti-Semitism, which will do more to destabilise the
Jewish (and Masonic?) political and financial power
structure more than any socialist polemics.
Russian National Unity and National Bolshevik Flags provided courtesy of FOTW. For further information on the flags of the rising 'Red and Brown Axis,' visit:NAT. BOLSH. FLAGS
FNF NOTE: The author's conclusion that for now, we must place all other Social Justice issues and environmental concerns aside are entirely disagreed with. Our greatest strength is that we are not just simple minded racists like the majority of the "movement" he speaks of. Our strengths are given to us by the fact that we are concerned with a plethora of issues, folkish autonomy is but one of the many issues we are taking heed to. Those that only concentrate one the one issue, we believe, are doomed to failure. The so-called "movement" that is referred to throughout the article has only that one cause. It is for that reason that their "movement" is stagnant and hasn't moved anywhere for decades. The very thought of giving space on one of their websites to causes like National Bolshevism, National Anarchism, and Third Position movements would send most of these pathetic right-wing reactionaries into anaphylactic shock! Instead, we must move forward, not left or right, and continue in the fight for National Freedom, as well as Social Justice!
To discuss this article and other issues please visit the Folk And Faith Forum.
|
