Interview: Billy Roper of the Nationalist Party of America

Of all the people involved in extreme politics on the right, Billy Roper seems to be the one who could keep his nose the cleanest. He avoided the scandals, the illegal behavior, and remains an upstanding member of his local community and gets even grudging respect from those who totally disagree with him. In addition, his understanding of his ideology is so abstract yet pragmatic that he can apply it anywhere, and stands in the forefront of candidates to unify the far-right under a “big tent” ideology. He was kind enough to lend an ear as we interview him about his new political part, the :

How do you describe your political orientation?

I’m a National Socialist, but of the 21st century American variety, rather than the 20th century German variety.

You are running for President with the Nationalist Party of America. What are the ideals of this group, how are they coherent with your political orientation, and do they extend beyond it? What are you hoping for in the upcoming elections?

Please see the , but here’s a summary:

  • Replace income tax with flat-rate sales tax
  • End illegal immigration
  • Limit legal immigration
  • Citizenship contingent upon four years of military or civil service
  • Welfare recipients must serve in military or civil service
  • Education funded for those in civil service
  • No gay marriage
  • Replace fiat currency with gold standard
  • No usury
  • More law enforcement, and no-appeals “Guilty Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt”
  • Reform medical care
  • No globalism or entangling alliances
  • Limit the size of big media
  • End gun legislation
  • Passwords/encryption as legally isolated as sealed envelopes
  • End intellectual property, return copyright to 14 years

How can religion/faith and politics/pragmatism be unified or compatible?

I lean towards Christian Identity, now, but for most of my adult life I’ve been agnostic, although I have studied Odinism and Creativity, and I was raised as a Southern Baptist. As long as a religion is racially healthy, I’d support religious freedom for individuals.

What changes would you make immediately if given power in the West?

I’d declare martial law immediately, dissolve Congress, place majority nonWhite military units on lockdown on their bases, and use the majority White military units to arrest members of Congress and the federal judiciary. Then, gain control of as many air bases and nuclear launching facilities as possible, and after gaining control of the military, recall all U.S. military units from overseas, and use the White units among them, once sorted, to begin the relocation of nonWhites to Mexico or their native country of origin.

What do you think the results would be?

Probably, nuclear war with China, or an invasion by the United Nations.

Do your friends know about your viewpoints? Do you have friends of other ethnicities, political viewpoints, and social classes? Do they mind your outlook?

I do work every day with members of every race and sexual orientation. All of my friends and family members and co-workers know my beliefs, and the nonWhites and Anti-racists at work grudgingly respect me because I’m personally likeable and treat everyone cordially and professionally at work, but of course I do not socialize with them outside of work.

How would you categorize your outlook vis-a-vis public acceptance — is it an accepted view or a minority view? Why is that?

Ours is a minority viewpoint publicly, but still, barely, a majority viewpoint privately. The difference is that we say the things that others think. I say about 25%of what I think and about 110% of what others think.

Are there any political issues today that are totally irrelevant and yet get too much air time? Any that are ignored, and yet vital?

Professional sports get far too much mindspace and media coverage, and the changing genetic balance of the U.S. receives not enough, in my opinion.

Do you think we’re at a historical turning point?

We are at a historical turning point, in terms of the evolutionary future of the species. Multiraciaism will destroy the true diversity which nature requires for natural selection to continue, or we will pass the bottleneck and continue to evolve. This will be decided within our lifetimes, or we will be past the turning point.

How much influence does environmentalism have on your views, and is there an environmental crisis; if so, how does it influence any turning points we’re currently approaching?

Environmentalism is so important to me personally that I want to remove the least productive and least contributory ninety percent of the earth’s human population, depopulate Africa and Asia almost completely, and turn those entire continents into vast game preserves.

What are you hoping for in the 2012 elections? What do you think your chances are, and what are the effects of you being in the running?

I don’t expect to win, but I do expect to get some media publicity for our ideals, not just in unifying a set of goals and a political platform among White Nationalists, but to make our values and ideals known to more “mainstream” conservatives and single issue activists such as pro-gun activists and tea partiers and anti-immigration activists who aren’t QUITE ready to embrace full-blown racialism yet, even though they are already being called racialists and Nazis. I want to show them that they have much in common with us. I want them to, when the mainstream media attempts to besmirch the NPA with the label of “racist” for me being who I am, to be inspired to say…”well, I believe in almost everything they said in their party platform, I guess that makes me a White Nationalist, too.”

So, we have a five year, five phase plan, one for each year from 2009 to 2013, when we use the resentment of mainstream White Americans over Obama’s reelection to expand the ranks of White Nationalism. We want to marginalize them, and catalyze them.

The Occidental Quarterly tells us that: “James Howard Kunstler, a Jewish writer/Peak Oil doomer, is predicting White Nationalists will overcome their political marginalization in the year ahead.” (). Do you think this is so? Why do you think this is?

I don’t expect Whites to regain control of our destiny through political election. I expect that within ten years or so the Reconquista of the southwest, Aztlan, by Hispanics will occur, and be followed by race riots in black controlled areas, just as the book “Civil War Two” predicts. I predict the balkanization of America, followed by the political breakup of the U.S. into three nations, as well as perhaps some multiracial areas that will be U.N. occupied, or Chinese occuped, as the case may be.

Some draw a distinction between Conservationism, or preserving as much land as possible untouched by humans, and Environmentalism, which is continuing our modern society but buying green products and setting aside some rain forest. Are you a conservationist or an environmentalist? Why did you pick one over the other?

I’m a conservationist, not so much in a Walter Darre, return to Agrarianism model, I’m all in favor of technology. But, I do want to eliminate pollution and waste, either of resources, or of potential.

Your platform mentions race almost in passing, where if my historical reading is correct, as a National Socialist you support national racial and ethnic segregation. Why not make this part of your platform? Would you want to achieve total ethnic separation at some point, and how would you do it?

As far as the other races, ultimately, I want to eliminate all of them, I’m a biological racist, Brett. I want to get the evolution of the species back online by making every race except my own extinct, and then encourage the differentiation and specialization within our race so that ethnicities evolve into different new races which can them compete for territory and resources, you know, continuing the cycle. Maybe we can bioengineer new races which will be suitable for colonizing different planets with different atmospheres, eventually, so that we can exponentially increase the speed of group natural selection. Yes, I’m an extremist. But I’m also a pragmatist, and willing to put the feed down there where the chickens can get at it, as George Wallace said. I’m willing to feed mainstream Whites just as much as they are ready for at their particular point in the learning curve. Rock, crawl, totter, walk, run, fly.

Texas Secession movement warming up

On April 15, which in the United States is the day that yearly taxes must be filed, people of political persuasions closer to paleoconservatism held “Tea Parties” to protest rising tax rates levied against the upper half of the middle class. In Texas, some interesting results came out:

Texans are fed up with federal tax policies, and might get so fed up that they decide they want to secede from the union, Gov. Rick Perry told reporters today after he attended an anti-tax tea party rally in Austin.

“Texas is a unique place,” he said. “When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.

“My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention,” he said. “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.”

At a tea party rally in Austin City Hall, chants of “Secede” could be heard during speeches.

This shows exactly how much libertarian economic ideas have infiltrated the moderate right (if nationalists are the far-right, and neoconservatives are the near right, then paleconservatives are most likely the moderate right, although illiterates will call them the far right).

Plato predicts this, of course:

And there is another class in democratic States, of respectable, thriving individuals, who can be squeezed when the drones have need of their possessions; there is moreover a third class, who are the labourers and the artisans, and they make up the mass of the people.

When the people meet, they are omnipotent, but they cannot be brought together unless they are attracted by a little honey; and the rich are made to supply the honey, of which the demagogues keep the greater part themselves, giving a taste only to the mob.

Their victims attempt to resist; they are driven mad by the stings of the drones, and so become downright oligarchs in self-defence.

Then follow informers and convictions for treason.

Why does the right love libertarianism? Because it seems like it will defend them against this mob. The right is composed mostly of middle-class, suburban, Caucasian and East Asian voters. They want to be able to be responsible, earn money, and take most of it home.

The problem is that libertarianism, by enforcing de facto anarchy, will actually deplete their power by giving the masses the mandate toward “freedom” — which they will promptly use to organize themselves to crush the bourgeoisie/middle class. The masses want their freedom too, which takes the form of leaders who will continue to penalize the upper half of the middle class, as Barack Obama is, in order to appease its voters.

It happened in France, Russia, Greece and Rome, but in America it may take on a more civil form. After all, the masses have the numbers; they can simple vote themselves into power. As the moderate right complains about Barack Obama, I wonder how many of them have read history, and know what else is to come. Until they find some way of countering the power of this mass, they’re doomed.

Any philosophy like anarchy or libertarianism which tries to liberate us, as if by an invisible hand, from government, is oblivious to the consequences of lawlessness. With no goal except “freedom,” the tendency to form a crowd that beats up on the people with money or power is unchecked.

What I think will be interesting to observe here — and let me be honest: I’m an observer with my cash in offshore accounts — is how the Left responds as they watch this crowd take liberal ideals and turn them into lynch mob justice. As in France, the liberals who believe a revolution is deliverance are shocked to see the carnage, infighting, injustice and corruption that follows.

While the mob still thinks it cares about liberal ideals, leftist leaders can re-direct that mob toward more productive activities than retribution. I don’t think Dennis Kucinich and his ilk, who are starry-eyed dogmatists, can do that, but someone like Ralph Nader could.

Nationalism: ethnic identity is important

So far, just a trickle of news, but it finally spits out the vital phrase:

Support for Norway’s Progress Party rose this month, with one pollster ranking it the country’s biggest political group, as voters backed its anti-immigration stance less than six months before parliamentary elections.

“People are losing their jobs, the economy seems to be going into recession but people are focusing on these issues instead,” said Torkel Brekke, professor of culture studies and oriental languages at the University of Oslo. “It tells you how important issues of identity are to small European countries and how people feel insecure about immigration.”

A survey by Opinion, published by news Web site Hegnar on March 18, gave the Progress Party a backing of 30.9 percent after gaining 6.4 percent in March, making it the country’s largest party.

Let’s catch that on the instant replay:

“It tells you how important issues of identity are to small European countries and how people feel insecure about immigration.”

OK, stop. This is what nationalists have always said — here’s their argument, briefly.

  1. Countries need a consensus and goal in order to move ahead. Otherwise, they become facilitative states that are basically open markets.
  2. The best way to pass on this consensus is not government, but culture, customs, language, values and heritage. Because genetics encodes abilities and traits, culture shapes genetics/ethnicity and vice-versa.
  3. Therefore, one people (ethnicity) should form one nation; this is the nation in contrast to the nation-state, or political grouping based on a social contract formalized by the values of the government.
  4. This organic state, formed of the same customs, language, culture, values and heritage, is the best way to resist being assimilated by commerce (rampant Capitalism) or social pressures (Socialist revolution, as in 1789, 1917, etc).
  5. Because the ethnostate guarantees a consensus and goal, people do not mind doing selfless altruistic acts that better the state, instead of engaging in competitive altruism to look good while secretly doing things against the interests of the people.
  6. Culture unites us on a goal, and therefore lets us delegate that goal to those who have the aptitude to apply it; not every citizen needs to be engaged in a constant internal argument as is the case in democracies.

Nationalists don’t want to just change laws — they want an entirely different type of civilization. We haven’t heard much from them since 1945, since nationalist groups have been the province of mostly violent losers with a few disaffected intellectuals, but now nationalism seems to be coming back.

Because it was marginalized, and because people who take on the world with losing “but correct” causes are idolized by those who did not adapt to the current social order, nationalist movements have been cross-associated with hate groups, with few nationalist movements escaping the epithets, violence, anti-Semitism and similar brouhaha within their ranks.

However, that is changing, as nationalist movements make alliances with Zionists and vice-versa and nationalist movements grow across Europe as they drop violent orthodoxy for a coherent vision of an organic society that is both cultured, green — and monocultural.

Of course, nationalists are quick to point out that globalism, and its counterpart ethnic and cultural diversity or multiculturalism, creates a de facto monoculture in which each nation on earth, stripped of its native culture and people, adopts the same mix of ethnicities with a cultureless lowest common denominator of values, generally those of free markets and televisions.

What of “monoculture,” then? Extending the crop-related definition, there are analogs everywhere: tract housing; commercial strips; people at ballgames; 12-lane highways; rows and rows of pointless merchandise. In nearly all of these cases an observer can point to all the diversity: “there are four types of house in that subdivision,” or, “but the product choices are infinite,” or perhaps can describe the barely detectable minutiae that make every person special in the crowd.

We are lead to believe that all this represents a marked improvement in history and in our lives. An astute observer might wonder about systemic consequences, the validity of the claims themselves, and the seemingly intertwined paths of the things we might describe with such a word. For instance: those homes sure do shelter a lot of folks, but they are an ugly, destructive blight on what may have been a vibrant natural or human landscape; or: the commercial strip down the road really does sell a lot of neat gizmos, but the sore eyes from having it there, the infrastucture needed to build, maintain, and access it, and the fate of most of the eventually discarded, unnecessary products it sells really make it seem like an act god-awful planning and not worth all the energy.

“Monoculture,” like so many other abstract, modern catchphrases (“freedom,” “equality”) is truth merely in principle. De facto “monoculture” is, of course, what we are subject to every day, everywhere, visually far from those endless acres of soybeans but in reality no different, and no less destructive. Inverting the meaning of the word is to ignore the rootedness of component parts and to deny the interconnectedness of the same – something undoubtedly not understood to the woman only applying the term as cleverly as she could to what she, as an author, does get, which is the fragile grammar of the modern condition.

This generalized realization is causing far-right, New Right, third front, National Anarchist, conservative, neo-Nazi, White Nationalist and Nationalist movements to blur the lines between them, creating free nationalists, or small cells without allegiance to a party but with allegiance to one cause that in their view unites all other issues into a single vision of an organic society: nationalism.

What’s bringing nationalists together, despite their inherent desire not to work together as each ethnicity relates well only to itself in their worldview, is a common threat. Usually it is disguised as Islam, but it is more complex. Worldwide, third world populations are immigrating to first-world nations where they work as manual laborers, and this is causing upset on two levels: first, the lack of integration of the newcomers; second, the threat it poses to national identity, which nationalists see as a necessary precursor to the cultural values that hold rampant commerce, consumerism, media culture, globalism and de facto monoculture at bay.

Italy said Thursday it is pulling out of a U.N. conference on racism — the latest blow to a meeting seen by many Western governments as marred by Muslim attempts to attack Israel and shield Islam from criticism.

Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said Italy has withdrawn its delegation from the preparatory negotiations ahead of the so-called Durban II conference due to “aggressive and anti-Semitic statements” in the draft of the event’s final document.

Muslims do not like Jews. The two Semitic groups have had a fight going for so long it requires quantum physics to pinpoint its origin. Their ideals conflict; they are sworn enemies; and worst of all, the Jewish population has Europeanized itself while the Arab and Persian populations remain wholly middle-eastern.

This means that in Israel, the first-world population are Europeanized Jews, and the third world population are Palestinian Arabs who want to out-breed them and vote them out of power. In Europe, the situation is the same: indigenous Europeans and Europeanized Jews are finding themselves in conflict with immigrants who, often angry at the host nation for failing to embrace them, are becoming increasingly violent in protest.

The number of anti-Semitic incidences in Europe through the first three months of this calendar year exceeds the total number of such occurrences from all of 2008, according to a report issued by the European Jewish Congress.

The findings were announced by EJC president Moshe Kantor during a special session of the European Parliament which was devoted to the subject of anti-Semitism on the continent.

The report cites the reaction to this past January’s Israel Defense Forces operation in Gaza as one of the key triggers of anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish communities in Europe. In addition, the current financial crisis is giving rise to age-old anti-Semitic stereotypes suggesting “Jewish control of the global financial system.”

Now, the first world nations pride themselves on being “progressive,” which since 1789 has meant a gradual liberalization — or making egalitarian, a state in which all people have political and social equality — of policies. However, some oppose that; to gain power over them, the left has traditionally embraced minorities and immigration as a way of creating a permanent voting base that can smash not only entrenched interests but any right of moderate voting bloc.

This process peaked in the 1990s, and is slowing down, but has taken on absurd dimensions at times:

There is no justification for conservationists to defend particular species because of their “ethnicity”, Professor Christopher Smout writes in a new book, Exploring Environmental History.

Campaigns against “alien invaders”—such as the cull of American ruddy ducks to prevent them from breeding with European duck species—have no basis in science, he argues.

“Conservationists are up in arms because they fear the ducks will all get turned into some kind of mishmash,” he told The Independent.

“The conservationists would say: ‘We’re doing this because it’s endangering the genetic integrity of the white-headed duck.”

“I don’t think that’s a scientifically valid point of view. The concern with genetic integrity seems almost quasi-racist.”

If the roles were reversed, nationalists say, we’d see this as racist: white people pouring into Africa and demanding the indigenous population not throw them out, even as they bred the purest strains of black into a comfortingly middle of the road cafe au lait. Since the first world has the cash, and the third world does not, it’s unlikely we’re going to see this migration.

As this uneasy situation dawns on the average person, normally too busy raising a family and running a business and making sure the tags on the car are renewed to notice politics much except as a topic of polite conversation, they are becoming drawn to this idea the nationalists propose, of an organic society:

I think it’s possible to want a traditional order, including ethnic nationalism, without hating others. It isn’t “we’re excluding you because you’re inferior.” It’s that we want to live among our own, and that requires we exclude everyone, whether they claim to be superior or inferior.

That’s only one part of the social order we’d desire. One of the neat things about feudal societies like those in The Hobbit is that everyone has a place, and there’s a clear social order. You don’t just plop down a McDonald’s anywhere you feel like it, or ignore reality. Society is an organic framework that works together.

I think we all avoid talking about differences between people to keep the peace. We extend that to ethnicity, and endorse multicuturalism, as a result. We think that supporting pluralism, or the coexistence of many different viewpoints at once, is healthy and not chaotic.

My readings of history suggest exactly the opposite: these things are an absence of order and a desacralization of life, and all societies that have adopted them are heading downward into disorder and eventually, third-world status. (This third world status is not related to ethnicity, but the kind of corruption, disorganization, apathy, etc. you find in failed states, always accompanied by third-world poverty and development levels.)

Interestingly, one of our era’s most vaunted political thinkers has been indicating that a shift toward nationalism — or at least a state defined by a unity of religion and politics, or culture and politics, which nationalists would say requires an ethnic component — is inevitable following what Francis Fukuyama called “the end of history” as the world standardized on liberal democracy and consumerist utilitarianism, enabling us to have a global economy and political agenda.

Samuel Huntington, the thinker in question, stated that we were approaching a clash of not nation-states, but civilizations, where the civilization was defined by its values and organic traits more than the political symbols used to represent them:

Three possible American futures beckoned, Huntington said: cosmopolitan, imperial and national. In the first, the world remakes America, and globalization and multiculturalism trump national identity. In the second, America remakes the world: Unchallenged by a rival superpower, America would attempt to reshape the world according to its values, taking to other shores its democratic norms and aspirations. In the third, America remains America: It resists the blandishments — and falseness — of cosmopolitanism, and reins in the imperial impulse.

Huntington made no secret of his own preference: an American nationalism “devoted to the preservation and enhancement of those qualities that have defined America since its founding.” His stark sense of realism had no patience for the globalism of the Clinton era. The culture of “Davos Man” — named for the watering hole of the global elite — was disconnected from the call of home and hearth and national soil.

But he looked with a skeptical eye on the American expedition to Iraq, uneasy with those American conservatives who had come to believe in an “imperial” American mission. He foresaw frustration for this drive to democratize other lands. The American people would not sustain this project, he observed, and there was the “paradox of democracy”: Democratic experiments often bring in their wake nationalistic populist movements (Latin America) or fundamentalist movements (Muslim countries). The world tempts power, and denies it. It is the Huntingtonian world; no false hopes and no redemption.

None of this would be a shock to Plato, the Greek philosopher who wrote The Republic 2400 years ago. In it, he described a civilization life cycle with several stages: aristocracy, rule by military elite, rule by commercial elite, democracy, a conflict between bourgeois and the masses, and finally, tyranny as they elect a protector who demands absolute power to protect himself.

Plato predicted that democracies, by splintering the consensus that founds a civilization into atoms formed of individual wills, become so chaotic that at some point, tyranny is desired by the citizens and so comes to pass.

Every civilization has a life cycle, from birth to death, says Plato. At birth, it has the simplest form of rule, which is aristocracy, or a hereditary group of its morally best and smartest people. When they run down or are overthrown, in comes military rule. After that, it’s oligarchy, which roughly corresponds to a libertarian ideal — those who have money rule, like a Southern Plantation culture. But that gives way to democracy, he says…

{ big snip }

In that final step, you have reached a Soviet/French Revolution style state. These in turn collapse because, since all of their goals like freedom are negative, they have no actual plan and end up dividing up the wealth and infighting while the country collapses around them.

However, since the tyrant already has the power… well, there’s not much chance of him or her being overthrown. In fact, The People have put him in power and for at least the first few decades find it hard to admit they’ve screwed up, which gives the tyrant a free ride to strengthen the centralized power of the state.

Nationalists, as they see it, want to re-start the cycle by returning to aristocracy. They do that by isolating the population so it is all the same culture and heritage, then picking the best, and having those lead the civilization according to its values, ignoring all globalist or external influences.

This allows them to pick the best for the purposes of enacting the values of that civilization, and requires that they have their own group to pick from, or the process will seem discriminatory. From this we imagine hereditary groups of leaders will emerge, a feudal caste system will keep the masses from intervening in politics, and a unification of religion, philosophy, science and politics will keep the civilization in consensus.

That’s the ideal that the organic society seems to lead to: an entirely different form of civilization, one that looks less “free” in the short-term but in the eyes of nationalists, is less moribund in the long-term (and less environmentally destructive) than the self-interest free-for-all of modern society.

They are talking about nothing less than the end of the nation-state and of the empires that grouped nation-states of similar ideals together. In the eyes of a nationalist, the first World War was started by these groupings; the Cold War perpetuated them; and the gradual liberalization of society and grouping us into a global monoculture will bring even worse consequences. This is why nationalists agitate for and its replacement with the nation, or a society in which the people, the culture, the heritage and the values are one.

Should make for interesting times. First-world nations face a crisis of epic proportions in overpopulation the consequent lack of clean water, clean air, food and energy; they also face waves of people trying to escape a third world pressured by the same, and squeezed even harder by whatever climate changes lie ahead of us. These are the conditions which bring about dynamic change in our civilizations, and I’m glad to have a front row seat.

Far-right making alliances with Zionists

I think they have documented the phenomenon well, but not understood its reasoning:

A wave of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric in Europe is being met by a surprising countertrend: right-wing political factions, including those rooted in Nazism, who have embraced Jews and Israel as “the quintessential guardians of European culture.”

So argues Matti Bunzl, director of the program in Jewish culture and society at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who contends that the European far Right is becoming “genuinely philo-Semitic.”

“Even strong support of Israel among the Right is driven by Islamophobia and perception of Israel as a bastion of European civilization,” said Bunzl, author of Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: Hatreds Old and New in Europe. For European nationalists, “the Jewish state is trying to preserve its European values against the onslaught of Muslims. It is a European state trying to defend itself and its Western culture and democracy.”

The reason the far-right is supporting Jews is that Jews in Israel are creating an ethno-state, or “nation” (as opposed to nation-state like the USA), in which an ethnic population, its religion and its values, its language and its customs, are one with the government.

This means one ethnicity per nation. Upholding that idea is the essential concept of the far right; Blood and Soil means not only the ethnostate, but ethnic stewardship of the local environment and culture as a more important goal than commerce or popularity with the drones. The far-right desires this kind of society.

This is why you’re seeing stuff like this:

On May 15, the Gregorian date in which the State of Israel was established, a group called National Socialists for Israel launched its online manifest.

“A strong nation is worthy of life; an ailing nation deserves death,” it said, before detailing an ideology sporting the traditional Nazi concept of purity of the race on the one hand, and calling on National Socialists to let go of their hatred for Jews and support the Jewish people’s right to their own homeland on the other.

“Deportations, pogroms and inquisitions were all understandable acts which were carried out by nations merely trying to defend themselves,” said the website of past persecution of Jews.

“That is also the context in which the event called the ‘Holocaust’ must be viewed… This does not justify it. Instead of destroying the Jews we should have taken every measure possible to support the Zionist movement.”

Both groups are fighting the same war: to avoid being assimilated by globalism/diversity/multiculturalism, and by avoiding that assimilation, being able to hold on to their religions, traditions, culture, values, customs and heritages.

This isn’t written to play into the hands of the mostly leftist pundits who compare Israel to the NSDAP. Instead, it’s to speak honestly of nationalism, which demands one ethnicity per nation and that the nation instead of being divided by infighting, be unified in religion, culture, heritage, and values.

It can even be tolerant in doing so. A nation can group actions and ideas into three categories: those supporting the national values system, those against it, and those indifferent to it. It can politely ignore the third category, prosecute the second, and embrace the first.

In Israel, we are seeing a unified culture, religion and heritage that is defending itself against a diverse population which grows faster than it does, thus stands to inherit Israel unless stopped by political or military means:

Hamas is beginning to see something else. At this point, the best way to destroy Israel, is to leave it exactly as it is.

Titrate, adjust the flow of rockets fired at Israeli civilians to a level which is thoroughly acceptable to the rest of the world, but which is also entirely unbearable to Israelis.

Then, sit back and watch demographics and despair work their magic. No wonder Hamas officials who are seen as moderates urge a 50-year truce. By that time, Israeli Arabs will be able to simply vote the Jewish state off the map.

Jews have traditionally not supported nationalist movements because nationalists want only one ethnicity per nation, which excludes Jews from anywhere but Israel. However, both sides are coming closer — because both want to assert the right of any ethnicity to have a one-state solution.

Even worse, the left which has traditionally allied itself with immigrants’ rights issues has now turned against Israel, prompting a rise in anti-Semitic acts which show how much larger the left is than the right:

The number of anti-Semitic incidences in Europe through the first three months of this calendar year exceeds the total number of such occurrences from all of 2008, according to a report issued by the European Jewish Congress.

The report cites the reaction to this past January’s Israel Defense Forces operation in Gaza as one of the key triggers of anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish communities in Europe. In addition, the current financial crisis is giving rise to age-old anti-Semitic stereotypes suggesting “Jewish control of the global financial system.”

“Public opinion links Israel with the local Jewish community, which turns us into enemies,” [ Rony ] Smolar [ head of Scandinavian Jewish community ] said, adding that his country has seen “a dramatic rise” in the number and severity of anti-Semitic attacks.

It seems to me that true hate crimes are not as much a political statement as a demographic one: holding territory, and forcing others out like you’d squeeze a tube of toothpaste. In other words, it’s not designed to send up a flag for a political theory or even a bigger idea; it’s pure inter-group demographic warfare.

And even from Canada — Canada! — where leftist interests and a strong Muslim population have converged to create hate crimes where people draw the swastikas backward:

Anti-Semitism in Canada reached an all-time high last year, despite the government’s efforts to combat the phenomenon, B’nai Brith said Tuesday in its annual report, adding that Jews were being used as scapegoats for the ailing economy.

The report also linked the rise in anti-Semitism in Canada to the Bernard Madoff fiasco and Israel’s recent military offensive in Gaza.

The group’s audit counted 1,135 attacks on Jews or Jewish targets in 2008, an 8.9% increase over the previous year, and a more than fourfold increase over the past decade.

Generally regarded as left-leaning in the West because they opposed nationalism after WWII, Jews are now being seen as right-leaning because they wish to have an ethnic state — some call this an assault on diversity, others point out that for us to have diversity we must preserve cultures/heritages intact — and as the outcry from the left against Israel grows to the point of blatant anti-Semitism, they’re starting to see what the far right was saying all along: if nationalism is not defended, the crowd will inundate every nation in generic culture with generic heritages.

About the rise of right-wing militias and breakup of the USA

This report is really well done, in my opinion. It looks into the reasons why militias emerge in addition to describing them factually, giving a compassionate yet realistic look into their psychology.

Even more interesting, it describes their fears — RFID, marked ammunition, the NWO — and points toward others theorizing the USA will break up because of a permanent values schism between the liberal Left and the traditional Right.

Why the far-right is bouncing back across Europe

With incidents like these, you know there’s a finger on the pulse. The most visible event always conceals many that don’t get reported:

Erica Connor was forced into early retirement through stress after governors at New Monument School in Woking turned her into a scapegoat by claiming she was Islamophobic.

The court heard that in 1998 Mrs Connor took over the school – where up to 85 per cent of pupils were Muslim and 90 per cent spoke English as a second language – and test results improved “very considerably” for the first few years.

However in 2003 two new members – Paul Martin, a parent governor, and Mumtaz Saleem, a nominee of the local education authority – joined its governing body and tried to take it over.

While clearing Mr Saleem of harassment, the judge added: “Mr Saleem’s approach extended to offensive verbal attacks at governing body meetings.”

Eventually Mr Martin was voted off the “dysfunctional” governing body but claimed he had been “removed for blowing the whistle on institutional racism” and “cited an old school document with pictures of seven children, only one of them dark-skinned”, the court was told.

An anonymous petition was circulated, “attacking Mrs Connor falsely and in vituperative terms”, it was claimed.

The High Court agreed that the Surrey County Council was negligent in not stepping in to support the headteacher, and ordered it to pay £407,781 in compensation.

How does this happen? Monkey follow monkey: everyone is afraid of being called a racist, so if someone brings it up, they automatically assume the accused is guilty. Not surprisingly, this gets abused by those who hunger for power. But apparently such events are relatively commonplace, and the tension is rising.

Last September, Austria’s far right gained massive political influence in an election that saw the FPO along with another far right party – Alliance For The Future (BZO) – gain 29 per cent of the vote, the same share as Austria’s main party, the Social Democrats. The election stirred up terrifying memories of the rise of the Nazi Party in the Thirties.

Recently, in Hitler’s home town of Braunau, a swastika flag was publicly unveiled. The FPO wants to legalise Nazi symbols, while its firebrand leader has been accused of having links to far right extremists.

After the FPO’s election victory, Nick Griffin, leader of the British Nationalist Party (BNP), sent a personal message to Strache.

‘The Jew on Wall Street is responsible for the world’s current economic crisis. It is the same now as in 1929 when 90 per cent of money was in the hands of the Jew. Hitler had the right solutions then,’ [former SS man Herbert Schweiger] says, invoking the language of Goebbels.

‘The black man only thinks in the present and when his belly is full he does not think of the future,’ he says. ‘They reproduce en masse even when they have no food, so supporting Africans is suicide for the white race.

‘It is not nation against nation now but race against race. It is a question of survival that Europe unites against the rise of Asia. There is an unstoppable war between the white and yellow races. In England and Scotland there is very strong racial potential.

That’s about enough extreme for us, but it’s quoted for a reason: you’ll see reference to those issues again.

We all know that the far-right has been rising in Austria. The BNP continues to succeed in England.

And in Germany?

“The neo-Nazi scene, both inside and outside the NPD, is becoming stronger, not as a nationwide electoral force but in its influence on racist attitudes and violence,” Professor Hajo Funke, a prominent analyst of the far right at Berlin’s Free University, told SPIEGEL ONLINE. “There are places I wouldn’t advise anyone who looks foreign to go without protection.”

Funke’s analysis was backed up this week by a major new study which showed that fully one in seven German teenagers — 14.4 percent — have attitudes deemed highly xenophobic. They agreed with statements like, for example, “Most immigrants are criminal.”

The two-year, government-commissioned survey of more than 20,000 15-year-old schoolchildren concluded that a further 26.2 percent held “fairly xenophobic” attitudes. A proportion of 5.2 percent of teenagers were classified as far-right because they had racist views, listened to neo-Nazi music, wore corresponding fashions or had committed a far-right crime, the survey showed. A further 11.5 percent had strong far-right sympathies.

Of more concern is the fact that the financial crisis may boost the NPD, which has proved before that it can win protest votes by tapping discontent about the economy. In 2004, it won 9.2 percent in the last regional election in Saxony after it campaigned against cuts to unemployment benefits.

What’s most interesting, and this is why the neo-Nazi is cited above, is that the same problems still exist with the same solutions which do not appear to be working. Therefore, people are turning to more extreme forms of activity, which is why they qualify as EXTREME POLITICS.

Yet for all the differences, intriguing echoes from the 1930s can still be heard. It is not that bits of Europe are flirting with fascism again. It is rather that the same issues irk voters then as now—and politicians are responding to them in similar ways.

Today’s German and French governments talk loudly about clamping down on tax havens: this is a highly visible way to seek extra revenue and punish errant plutocrats. Almost 80 years ago, an identical outrage gripped Europe, when French police in 1932 raided the Paris offices of a Swiss bank for customer records, coming away with the names of French members of parliament, newspaper editors and a brace of bishops.

Before the depression, France also had one of Europe’s most open labour markets, home to millions of Poles, Czechs, Belgians, Italians, Spaniards and Swiss, plus impressive numbers of political refugees. But between 1932 and 1935, a string of laws and decrees set quotas on foreign workers and stopped them moving from job to job. Tens of thousands, mostly Poles, were eventually expelled by force. The middle classes also protected themselves: new laws closed the French medical and legal professions to foreign-born graduates, often Jewish refugees.

I think this is what governments must understand: successful responses to problems indicate a vital civilization. Inability to deal with problems suggests a civilization which is oblivious to reality, and that’s when anger converges on an intellectual desire for a different type of society, and people go to the extremes.

A final note on an even earlier historical cycle –

Social conditions by 1848 had piled up tinder for a conflagration. Resentments over everything from unemployment and taxes to labor demands on peasants — not to mention the aspirations among regional elites for greater autonomy — had rallied support for revolution. But transforming myriad grievances into positive program proved difficult. Tocqueville saw France drifting in June from political struggle to a social war of proletariat against the propertied classes. The specter of social revolution turned many toward accommodation with governments that, however imperfect, would at least provide security.

Many older accounts of 1848 depict the year’s events as a flowering of liberal nationalism crushed by the forces of order. A.J.P. Taylor described abortive revolution in Germany as a turning point that failed to turn, thereby directing Germany on a separate path — toward authoritarianism rather than liberal democracy. In “1848,” Mike Rapport sympathizes with European liberals but nonetheless offers a fully nuanced portrait of a tumultuous year. Ethnic conflict and deep social tensions, he notes, complicated the task of constructing liberal, constitutional regimes. Different interests had their own agenda, and Otto von Bismarck, the German statesman, grasped an essential point when he argued that liberalism appealed only to the urban middle classes. That fact gave the revolution a narrower foundation than its architects had expected.

Ethnic conflict had a major role in the events of 1848 because nationalism served to exclude as well as unite. Liberal nationalists were caught in a now familiar dilemma: whether citizenship would rest on pluralism or require the assimilation of ethnic and religious minorities. Smaller nationalities looked suspiciously at German and Hungarian aspirations, especially when nationalist leaders spoke of Slavs with disdain. The Czech liberal Frantisek Palacky argued that Austria protected the Slavonic peoples from both internal strife and Russian domination. Localism, and loyalty to the Catholic Church, remained a strong counterweight to nationalism in Italy. Even Giuseppe Garibaldi came to see “how little the national cause inspired the local inhabitants of the countryside.”


Conservatives before 1848 failed to implement the reforms that the most imaginative of them had envisioned to create a more flexible political order — one that would draw local elites and subjects into closer cooperation. (British leaders had managed to do just that decades before.) After 1848, the backlash against revolution brought an insistence on authority that made politics less flexible. Even where some liberal reforms survived, they operated to consolidate state power. The experience demonstrated that change with continuity works much better than revolution.

As in that time, the liberal rhetoric dominates politics. But problems remain, and people are starting to wonder if liberalism addresses the issues at hand, or whether it has always been a means of pacifying the proles while business as usual goes on.

Interesting commentary on US dissolution

All things have a beginning, a middle and an end, except perhaps existence itself.

At the middle point, they’re at the height of their powers, but also are halfway through the cycle, which means they can be outlasted.

That’s when the pundits start talking about breakup. They did it with Rome; they’re doing it with the USA.

“I think it’s ongoing right now,” Corsi says. “We’re already becoming a dual country.”

The author, pundit and political scientist says that Obama is using open borders, economic integration, and the crises surrounding the financial meltdown to “advance the agenda of worldwide integration, economically on the way to political integration.”

The goal is simple: “redistribution of income.”

“I think the idea for Democrats on the left is that open borders imports an underclass which will vote Democratic for generations to come,” Corsi says of the administration’s plan to nationalize illegal aliens. But Republicans, too, are responsible for the trend: their pro-business wing favors “cheap workers that can be used in the jobs that can’t be outsourced overseas,” Corsi says.

Corsi sometimes comes across as an extreme paleoconservative version of Alex Jones, but if we’re open-minded, we can see there is some historical truth to what he’s saying. This is a nation divided. It was once conservative; now it’s mostly liberal. Those who are conservative don’t want to live by the agenda of the liberal, and liberals find living under conservative rule unbearable.

Yet liberals have popularity and demographics on their side:

The electoral victory of Barack Obama symbolizes the culmination of the long march from the streets of Chicago to full institutionalization of the radical Left of a previous era. That Obama, the individual, is more of a centrist than a leftist and was only a child in 1968 is less significant than what he represents. The 68ers have now seized the establishment and those who insisted the establishment could never be trusted have become the establishment.

On virtually every issue, the radical Left of the 1960s has either won or is in the process of winning.

Though the Left has achieved complete or nearly complete victory on just about every issue, the Left will never admit as much. Sixties radicalism has become what any other movement becomes once it is institutionalized. The purpose of the Left today is to simply perpetuate its own existence and its own vested interests. For this reason, invisible armies of racists, sexists, homophobes and theocrats must constantly be said to be hiding behind every rock or tree. Heretics who dissent from left-wing orthodoxy on any number of matters must be constantly sought out for denunciation, repression or persecution.

While some will claim this is as predicted by Plato in The Republic, others point out that it’s part of an evolving process of self-definition for the most powerful nation without a native culture:

But as Juan Enriquez notes in his amazing PopTech talk, based on his book “The Untied States of America: Polarization, Fracturing, and Our Future”, no US president has ever died under the same flag that he was born under. That is, the borders of the United States has constantly shifted even in modern times. The last state was added in 1959 (after I was born!) and more could be added still. Americans are comfortable ADDING states, but it might not take much to subtract one. The outcome of the US Civil War has biased Americans to disbelieving in subtraction, but that might change.

In past decades bold American thinkers have imagined how the US might break up, but these were more thought experiments indicating the cultural differences within this large country.

Many others understand Plato’s logic.

A civilization needs to have some core that binds it together. In America, we have always thought that was a belief in freedom, but now as we seem to have different definitions of freedom, that gets difficult. What if we’re using the same word to mean radically different things?

We worry that we cannot reconcile these claims. After all, America was born as a nation-state when the nation-state was still new; previously, nations, or ethnic groups incorporated into political entities, prevailed. The nation-state grouped people together by a political belief, like belief in the ideals of the French Revolution, and made nationality secondary.

Since then, liberal politicians have used demographics as a means of controlling their presence in nation-states, which conservatives have danced around the fact that their ideology only functions well in a nation. Some simply point to the values divide: if you have a Christian-values right, and a relativist/Marxist-values left, how on earth will the two ever get along?

If either one gets control, it’s oppression to the other.

Patrick Buchanan, in his book, Day of Reckoning, writes, “To hold together a multiethnic or multilingual state, either an authoritarian regime or a dominant ethnocultural core is essential.”

In the past, immigrants and natural-born citizens alike worked together to get through difficult times, and though there were still distinct differences in ethnicity, culture and race, they were bound together by their common Christian-Judeo roots. But many of the immigrants that come to America today do not come here with the intent to assimilate themselves as Americans, nor do they come here with the same kind of faith that core Americans hold.

This drive toward socialism, if not a thinly veiled dictatorship, has been determined to be the answer to this not-so-silent breakup of our country.

Setting aside the “thinly veiled dictatorship” for another blog post, let’s think about the silent breakup. If two groups exist in the same community, but do not interact, and basically hate each others’ ideologies, how are they going to collaborate? If a war comes, the party that started it will be left to fight it; the others may even work against them. If a long-term plan is needed, it will be voted out of existence the instant the other party gets into office. And so on.

The American experiment is only 220 years old. It will be interesting to see how it mutates to fit this new stage, or whether it dissolves into two or more nations of contradictory beliefs.

Russia returns

Once you’ve been a world power, you don’t want to let that out of your sight.

Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia has been trying to return to that state of power.

Its government increasingly resembles the Communist ideal, toned down to a socialist system that admits but controls capitalism.

In defiance of the West, it does not mind autocratic leaders or oligarchs.

And its military power is ratling its sabers.

Russia is planning a “comprehensive rearmament” of its military, President Dmitry Medvedev said Tuesday.

The country will aim for 70 percent of its weaponry to be “modern” by 2020, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said, according to RIA-Novosti, the state-run news agency.

Russia invaded Georgia, to its south, in August of last year — the first time Russian military forces had engaged in an offensive outside their borders since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Russia is also looking for allies. In addition to making oil-based business partnerships with and , Russia has been courting some old allies — and some new. Among other things, she’s getting cozy with India and China, who like Russia do not identify themselves as European. The new Russian vision is of Russia as a superpower, with strong allies to form a Bloc .

First, look at how all three are preparing themselves for the kind of conflict that can be waged without triggering nuclear war — high intensity conventional air-driven combat. This means that a huge ground force surges in, but unlike past East Bloc strategies, this ground force has a NATO-style air shield over it and overwhelming munitions capacity.

In the last two years, Russia, India and China have all announced or clarified major defense programs that include everything from the development of advanced fighters to upgrading aircraft carriers.

It turns out that adversaries took careful note of the way the United States
and its allies used air dominance in all its operations. They reshaped their defense plans to make inroads on that asymmetric advantage. They are building advanced missiles, aircraft and subsystems, and there’s also a world market for their best wares.

Next, look at how Russia is shoring up its national borders:

What does this look like, my fellow students of history and politics? It’s a classic power-concentrating move. First, gain allies out there in the world who will make you look good and provide support. Second, kick out the ethnics and others who threaten the solidarity of culture and values. Finally, bulk up your military and rattle some sabers.

The most interesting things here are that Russia is learning from NATO’s successful strategies of years past, including the knowledge that in wargaming with NATO, Russia lost out because of its diminished air power, and that Russia is determined to meet the West technology-for-technology and force-for-force. See this:

Russia has deployed its second state-of-the-art S-400 anti-ballistic missile system regiment, RIA Novosti reported Tuesday.

Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said the regiment had been armed with the new S-400 Triumf air defense missile system and it already had been put into combat service in Russia, the report said.

If the S-400 (NATO designation SA-21 Growler) lives up to its specifications, it could be the most advanced air defense system in the world against low-flying aircraft, cruise missiles and even intermediate-range ballistic missiles. U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles are far more vulnerable to advanced air defense interceptor systems because they fly relatively slowly, at only 650 mph, a subsonic speed. By contrast, Russia’s most advanced cruise missiles fly at three times that speed — Mach 2.8, or 1,900 mph.

The message is clear: we can stop enough of your missiles, and hit you with enough of ours, that you’re not the only top dog in town. The keyword Russia and its allies want to stress is “multipolar world order,” or one in which there is more than one superpower. They want you to know that one of those superpowers is Russia, that she’s back and she’s bad, and you’d better not cross her or you’ll face the wrath.

Fascism and moral equivalence

Israel should realize by now that it has become an enemy of the left. I view this as very sad, considering the vast contributions by many supporters of Israel toward making the left a more interesting read and experience.

After all, extreme politics is my hobby, which lets me be insincerely transparent and just enjoy the great game it is, even if the stakes are humanity’s future.

By now, many in Israel have realized the following thought process:

  1. The Palestinians are never going to love us, because no one loves being a minority.
  2. The Palestinians will outbreed us and eventually dominate us. All they have to do is hang around and, in 25 years, they win.
  3. The rest of the world is going to beat up on us because the Palestinians are the underdog, so in the narrative of media/culture we’re the oppressor.
  4. If we do nothing, they will continue to launch rockets or suicide bomb or do whatever they can to provoke us, hoping the rest of the world will then beat up on us.
  5. However, most people are nitwits who forget what was in the news two weeks ago.
  6. Ergo, if we beat up on the Palestinians in quick bursts and drive them out of Israel, people will forget two weeks later; if we keep trying monthly police actions, we’ll always be in the increasingly anti-Israel media as The Oppressor.

This is why Israel has gotten more serious about aggression against Palestinians. The longer it drags on, the more Israel loses. It’s exactly like the situation the USA was in in Vietnam, or any other situation of first-world versus third-world.

At one point, the excited audience reportedly chanted “Zionism is Nazism” and worse.

Jewish leaders condemned this hate-fest as a dangerous invitation to anti-Semitic hysteria, and pointed to the chilling effect it had on UCLA students and faculty on a campus known for its open and civil atmosphere. The organizers, some of them Jewish, took refuge in “academic freedom” and the argument that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.

Anti-Zionism rejects the very notion that Jews are a nation — a collective bonded by a common history — and, accordingly, denies Jews the right to self-determination in their historical birthplace. It seeks the dismantling of the Jewish nation-state: Israel.

Anti-Zionism earns its discriminatory character by denying the Jewish people what it grants to other historically bonded collectives (e.g. French, Spanish, Palestinians), namely, the right to nationhood, self-determination and legitimate coexistence with other indigenous claimants.

The basic question revolves around how we define a nation.

In the oldest and most enduring use, it means an organic society: a single set of customs, a single language, a single religion, a single set of values, a single philosophy, a single culture, and a single heritage, ethnicity or racial make-up.

Oh wait — that’s a taboo. Speaking about race is bad enough, but mentioning racial exclusivity is bad. None of us want to end up being Simon Legree, so we demand that none of us can have any society that is racially homogenous by its own choice.

National Socialism Comes To Israel

Benjamin Netanyahu chooses Avigdor Lieberman as his Foreign Minister. We Leftists have always considered Zionism to be more or less be [ National Socialism ] anyway, and now I figure the mask has finally fallen off. This is more predictable than anything else. Why doesn’t the fascist Right around the world cheer for this? Because fascism and Nazism are only bad when Jews do it.

Nothing good can possibly come of this, but the Middle East has been pretty hopeless for a while now. It will be entertaining to watch the traitors in AIPAC cheer on this little Jewish Hitler. The fetes at the White House for this guy ought to be a kick too. Who says realpolitik can’t be entertainment?

In that sense, Zionism is like National Socialism (Nazism): it demands an organic society. “Germany for Germans!” and “Israel for Jews!” aren’t so different. But as any conservationist will tell you, in order for us to have true diversity, we need to preserve each distinct population.

That means that while some areas will be the great racial grab-bag of multiculture (diversity), other areas need to be ethnically isolated so that we can have all the different ingredients of a successful diversity.

The big threat of diversity is that it will become a , blending everyone into the exact same mixture over time, thus destroying actual diversity.

Bradley Burston, never a fool when it comes to international politics, knows this:

Hamas is beginning to see something else. At this point, the best way to destroy Israel, is to leave it exactly as it is.

Titrate, adjust the flow of rockets fired at Israeli civilians to a level which is thoroughly acceptable to the rest of the world, but which is also entirely unbearable to Israelis.

Then, sit back and watch demographics and despair work their magic. No wonder Hamas officials who are seen as moderates urge a 50-year truce. By that time, Israeli Arabs will be able to simply vote the Jewish state off the map.

The historical name for the organic society is Nationalism. That term is used now to mean patriotism, but patriotism is really a replacement for nationalism. Patriotism is a belief in the politics, policies and ideals of a nation-state, where nationalism deals with a nation — a political entity where the economic, social, political and physical state is determined by the people, or the nation, that founded it.

National Socialism in Germany was to a great degree borrowed from the ideals that have kept Jews worldwide healthy for centuries. Keep the people together; exclude outsiders. Study hard, work hard, and think harder and fight harder than the other guy. Always have loyalty to the same principles, not only in religion but in philosophy and values. Recognize that those who want you to take on a relaxed dogma of letting it all hang out really just want your culture to decay, so you decay, so they can feast on the rotting remains.

Seems harsh, but, history seems to be shifting in favor of the Nationalists. Here’s an example of how much the Germans understood the Jewish quest to remain an organic society distinct from all others:

If we destroy any organizational cooperation of the Jews and expel the dangerous, subversive Jewish agitators who show any signs of conspiratorial activities, the Jews will still have the synagogue, the rabbi, to shield them. If we support Zionist plans and attempt an international solution by establishing a homeland for the Jews, we will be able to solve the Jewish Question not only in Germany, but in Europe and the entire world. The entire world has an interest in such a solution, on eliminating this source of disorder, which constantly proceeds from Bolshevism. We must establish that clearly.

Perhaps the Jews will be able to become a nation, a people. That would require that Jewish workers, craftsmen, and settlers would develop from the Jewish population. If we regulate this plan, they we will create new foundations for such a settlement. Scattering the Jews to the four winds does not solve the Jewish Question, but rather makes it worse. A systematic program of settlement, therefore, is the best solution.

by Dr. Achim Gercke, Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte, Heft 38 (May 1933), pp. 195-197

In the eyes of Nationalists, Anti-racism (applied everywhere) is racism (in their home countries). They want the right to keep Germany German, Israel Jewish, Britain British and Latvia Latvian — in culture, language, customs, values and heritage, all together at once.

ABOUT 300 Latvians marched through Riga on Monday to honour soldiers who fought in an elite nazi unit during World War II.

The Russian Foreign Ministry condemned the Legionnaires Day rally as a march by nazi supporters and drew parallels between it and Holocaust denial.

Soviet soldiers moved into Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in June 1940 but were driven out by nazi occupation forces a year later…the Red Army liberated the country in 1944.

Relations between Russia and Latvia and Estonia have been strained by the two Baltic states’ persecution of Red Army veterans…The dismantling of the Soviet war memorial…triggered street protests in which over 1,000 people were arrested and one Russian national was killed.

Latvians want to be Latvians. They sided with the German Nazis, and created a strong Latvian Nazi movement, because they wanted to keep the Russians out. Russians are not Baltics in heritage, like Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are; Russians are Slavic. Not surprisingly, Russians often treat Latvians badly, and Latvians mostly hate Russians as a result.

The same is true of Jews and Arabs. They are from similar but distinct ethnic groups and Jews, like Baltics, are the more successful but less numerous group. The others want to absorb them and take their wealth, and they know their best strategy is to pick away slowly at their culture, destroying it and the ethnicity behind it, while encouraging the rest of the world to call them fascists.

Roughly one in twenty 15-year-old German males is a member of a neo-Nazi group, a higher proportion than are involved in mainstream politics, according to a newly released study.

Many politicians fear a resurgence of right-wing extremism as unemployment creeps higher in Germany, which is facing its deepest recession since World War Two. Government figures have shown anti-Semitic crimes rose at the end of last year.

Pfeiffer said fewer than 2 percent of young men were active in mainstream politics, compared to the 5 percent involved in far-right groups.

The study, conducted in 2007 and 2008, also revealed that neo Nazi-symbols – in either rock music, stickers or special clothing – were used by one in 10 of the youths surveyed.

Ironically, it’s this conflict — the perceived need to take on Nationalism to defend against cultural assimilation by the world at large — that is driving Nationalism back into the political sphere, not away from it. But this would not be the first time well-meaning people created their nightmare by fighting too literally against it.

Just like 1918: right-left violence in the streets

Violence broke out as 30 people surrounded a BNP vehicle outside the Ellesmere Pub in St Helens Road in Leigh on Friday evening, said police.

Tony Ward, 48, was hit with a hammer and later treated in hospital.

One witness told BBC News: “They had hammers and they smacked the vehicle to pieces, smashed all the windows and tore off the bumper, completely decimated it.

When the economy tanks, everyone’s fed up with the political elites, and doom is on the horizon, people get serious about politics. And this causes violent right-left clashes to become more common. Luckily, this process forces people to define themselves politically, which in turn forces them to figure out what they actually think about the meta-platforms of right and left. Look for more excitement coming in England, Germany and Austria soon.