White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy

Exclusive Interview with Andrew Clarke on the National Action Trials and His 18 Months in Prison

Introduction.

Several weeks ago, Andrew Clarke, a former member of Britain’s National Action, walked free with no criminal convictions after 18 months in prison. During that period of time, Andrew, along with some of his former colleagues, was subjected to two trials at the direction of the Crown Prosecution Service, neither of which convinced a jury that Clarke was guilty of the charge levelled at him – that he remained a member of National Action after the banning of the organization under terrorism legislation in December 2016. Shortly after his release from prison, Andrew reached out to me on social media, in part because I was one of the very few people on the dissident Right to speak out at the time of the banning of National Action and again during the subsequent series of arrests. I was extremely disturbed by what he then described to me about the background and nature of his arrest and imprisonment, and I felt that the attention of a wider audience should once again be directed to these events in England, and for Andrew to be able to have a voice for his experiences.

The nature of increasingly oppressive developments in legislation require that, in order to ensure the continued freedom of Andrew and others, this interview begins with certain legal caveats. Part II, Section 12 of the Terrorism Act (2000) makes it an offence to “invite support for a proscribed organisation,” or to arrange a meeting that is to be addressed by someone “who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.” It should be abundantly clear from the following interview, but just to reiterate: the following interview is with an individual who ceased to be a member of National Action either before, or at the event of, its banning under the Terrorism Act (2000). Furthermore, no aspect of this interview should be interpreted as lending or inviting support for National Action, an organisation that is now defunct and probably has been since it was arbitrarily banned by the Home Office. That being said, the position is firmly and unashamedly maintained that the banning process itself, and the background to that process as it relates to a specific proscription, should, in any truly democratic society, be open to scrutiny and critique. The arrest and imprisonment of the many individuals following the proscription of National Action in December 2016 should also be open to scrutiny and critique, especially since these arrests have evidently resulted in the jailing of innocent men.

It is hoped that this interview breaks some of the fear that surrounds the discussion of “right wing terrorism.” The banning of National Action, and subsequent related arrests, have been met with almost complete silence from the dissident Right, presumably because many are fearful of making any kind of statement that could make them liable to arrest themselves. And yet the proscription of National Action is a key element in trends of government actions against the dissident Right, preceding Unite the Right by 8 months, but in many respects also prefiguring the response to the latter. To be clear, the proscription of National Action marked the beginning of the most recent wave of mainstream associations between dissident Right thought and “terrorism” — a term that had hitherto been reserved for acts of violence in the pursuit of political goals. Just days after the proscription of National Action, and long before Charlottesville, I warned:

Faced with a White identity movement that remains, frustratingly for its opponents, law-abiding and peaceful, we can expect an elaboration on existing tactics. The meaning and definition of words like ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’ will themselves be expanded to encompass non-violent entities and individuals in an effort to drag them into hastily constructed spheres of illegality and, thus, deeper social opprobrium and even prison sentences.

This prophecy was to come ominously to fruition around a year later, when Andrew Clarke and several others had their homes raided, before being summarily charged and dragged into police vehicles to begin an 18 month odyssey of prison transports, trials, and intense media demonisation. While some would eventually walk free, many remain in prison, and will remain in prison for many years to come. The vast majority were never convicted under the original charges, or indeed under any aspect of the Terrorism Act. Instead, a slow trickle of speech laws and related legislation was brought into play in order to imprison individuals for up to 16 months for placing stickers reading “White Zone” around university campuses. One of the most striking features of all of the trials, and the related media coverage, has been the focus not on what these individuals have or have not done, but on what they think and believe. Thus, regardless of one’s opinion on the organisation that was once in existence, or on any style of activism, these arrests have grave implications for anyone still entertaining the idea they live in a free society.

As a final note, the story of these arrests, and of Andrew’s in particular, is an important corrective and admonition to those among us who have waxed eloquently with their “disavowals” of “terrorism” because it “undermines White Nationalism.” I have always had a problem with such disavowals, and for a few simple reasons. More often than not, they are simply exercises in preaching to the converted. Most disavowals are made by people “plugged into” the “movement”, while the very rare handful of extreme acts of White violence are carried out by isolated fringe individuals who never hear such disavowals or are least likely to be moved by them. Disavowals are thus, more or less, languid and effete acts of moral self-satisfaction. Second, disavowals simply add to, and increase the volume of, discourse critiquing the dissident Right, and they are divisive and demoralising. They implicitly assume a problem within the “movement” that needs to be addressed (where none in fact exists because the movement is already overwhelmingly non-violent), a pernicious trend that conforms very strongly to opposition narratives. They are, therefore, in terms of image management or “optics” undoubtedly worse than mere silence – we can’t correct criticism and image problems by making concessions to the opposition’s vision of our cause. Third, and related to the second, “right wing terrorism” is a largely invented phenomenon, embellished by falsified statistics, media tactics, and the steady production of propaganda by dedicated anti-White groups. It is a largely fictional opposition talking point that would be foolish to adopt ourselves. Fourth, and most important, by adopting discussions and perceptions of “right wing terrorism” we are easily corralled into fear and silence when entirely innocent activists are swept up in “terrorism” arrests. We allow ourselves to be pre-programmed to disavow these individuals and abandon them to their fate. I personally find this mode of conduct to be shameful, cowardly, and highly revealing. I reject it in disgust. Read more

Racial Politics in Latin America: What Race in Another America Tells Us About Our Destiny, Part 2

Go to Part 1.

Racial Politics

What should we make of this history? Given a chance, the left did eventually rise to power as expected, riding a wave of support from impoverished Brown and Black voters in nations where Whites were usually a minority. But just a few years later, many of these same nations voted the left out of power again. How could this happen? Are race and demography less important than the Dissident Right imagines?

The answer is no, race matters enormously, but election results are the product of several different forces that are pushing in different directions simultaneously. The first of these is the one that is most apparent from this history — pendulum effects that swing elections back and forth depending on the public’s view of the government’s performance. In Latin America’s case, just about every government has struggled with persistent poverty, crime, and corruption, so these pendulum effects tend to work against whoever is in power. The effect is so strong that, unlike the United States, major political parties often come and go, exiting the stage once their brand has become too tarnished.

Beneath these pendulum swings, however, there are strong structural forces at work that continue from election to election. Race-based voting is one of the most important. A close examination of elections held across the region repeatedly shows that leftists rely heavily on support from Browner and Blacker voters who are usually poor, while conservatives rely heavily on Whites and Whiter mestizos (who are typically over half European genetically).

One illustrative example is the 2018 election of Jair Bolsonaro, the new right-wing Brazilian president dubbed the “Trump of the Tropics.” Bolsonaro drew his support from the Whiter southern part of the nation and the socially conservative rural heartland. His leftist opponent did better in the northeast, which is mostly Black and mulatto, and the northwest, which is substantially Indigenous. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Bolsonaro also did better among Whites who live closer to the crime-ridden areas of major cities and a bit worse among Whites who live further south, a safe distance from the mayhem.

These racial patterns repeat themselves throughout the region. Argentina’s conservative president Mauricio Macri won his 2015 election by winning the Whiter heart of Buenos Aires and most of Whiter central Argentina. The conservative Sebastián Piñera won in the Whiter parts of central Chile and Santiago. The conservative Iván Duque Márquez won in Colombia in the Whiter sections of Bogotá and the center of the country.

The leftist Nicolás Maduro won his last competitive election in Venezuela in 2013 in heavily Brown and Black areas of the country, while losing the Whiter areas of the east and west. The leftist Evo Morales consistently wins reelection in Bolivia with the support of his Indigenous base in the Western highlands.

The exception that proves the rule is Uruguay, the Whitest nation on the continent. It has continued to support the Broad Front, a leftist coalition that includes socialists and communists and touts legalized pot, abortion, and same-sex marriage among its policy achievements. Such leftist politics are typical of Whiter nations that have yet to experience the full benefits of diversity.

In most other Latin American nations, these racial voting patterns persist despite the presence of an important moderating influence — a large mixed-race population that seems resistant to explicitly race-based political appeals. Leftist academics bemoan this resistance, usually attributing it to a lack of social awareness and widespread acceptance of the theories of mestizaje and racial democracy, which argue that mixed-race societies do not suffer the same levels of racism and discrimination as other places like the United States.

Surveys of Latin America’s poor do not support this notion. Latin America’s mixed-race populations are well aware of existing racial disparities, they just do not strongly identify with them. This points to a different explanation that is less favored by leftists: genetic similarity theory, which says that people are more altruistic and less hostile to those who are genetically similar. This explanation is borne out by interviews with mixed-race voters.

“Do I value my Blackness? Of course! I take pride in it,” said one Brazilian mulatto in an interview. “But am I only Black? No!  I also am descended from Indians and from Europeans. Should I disdain these heritages? Why shouldn’t I value all my heritages? Why should I pretend I only have one heritage when this is just not true?” Read more

The National Premise Revisited

This is a much shortened and slightly revised version of the author’s article “Visions of the Ethnostate” which was featured in the Fall 2018 issue of The Occidental Quarterly.

*  *  *  *

 

It is an interesting fact that in the already vast and ever-growing corpus of works, books, essays, articles and videos addressing the racial problem by those who can be, and often are, denoted as “White advocates” there is a glaring lack of actual advocacy. Of the varied aspects of the racial problem, the more obvious ones, including their history and causes, are typically covered in great detail. The less obvious aspects, such as the long-term consequences of the racial problem, admittedly requiring some degree of projection and speculation, receive much less attention. Given the grim prospect of their continued racially destructive course, and the stark either-or choices they present, a reluctance to address or confront these consequences is understandable. To fully confront them, considering the full extent of their effects, would force one to face the logical and much more controversial next step of advocating or proposing possible alternative courses or solutions.

In The Dispossessed Majority in 1972 Wilmot Robertson set a new standard for describing the racial problem, but he didn’t propose a solution for it.1 He addressed this omission in his second book Ventilations in 1974, proposing a solution of territorial racial separation in which the far greater part of the United States would be kept together in what he called “The Utopian States of America,” with minorities concentrated in semi-autonomous enclaves under White hegemony.2 For example, Jews would be concentrated in enclaves in New York, Los Angeles, and Miami Beach. All Blacks outside the south would be concentrated in the twenty largest urban ghettos, which would be enlarged as needed for this purpose, while Blacks in the south would be concentrated in those counties where they were already the majority. The exceptions would be the Latinos who would be ceded a 40-mile deep band along the full length of the Mexican border, and the East Asians who would be given the Hawaiian Islands except for some US military bases.

Soon after reading Ventilations I met Jim Feller. He had also read Robertson’s books and showed me a partition map he had drawn up that was mostly based on Robertson’s proposal but with a different plan for Black separation, and apparently a much wider band for the Latino country than Robertson’s 40 miles. Less than two years later I saw Feller’s map again on the cover of the April 1976 issue of Instauration (Figure 1) illustrating an article by Robertson titled “The National Premise” that proposed a racial partition of the United States.3 With the exception of the change in the location of the Blacks, and making the minority states independent, it was close enough to Robertson’s earlier proposal that he was probably happy to adopt it.

Figure 1: Feller Partition Map

At the end of a sidebar explaining the map Robertson wrote:

If all this sounds impractical, we ask our readers to think of the alternatives. If the races are not separated soon, the Majority [Whites] will have to fight for survival or go completely under. Already we have lost many of our largest cities . . . and if things continue at their present pace, it is quite possible that we may soon be reduced to a formal and permanent state of serfdom. Separation and the surrender of a great deal of our land and property may well be our only means of survival.

That was 43 years ago. Since then we have witnessed the continuing “browning” of America, the ongoing dispossession and replacement of the White population by invasion-levels of non-White immigration, the more than doubling of the non-White (i.e., non-European) proportion of the population from 20% in 1976 to 41% in 2016, non-Whites becoming a majority of the population under the age of ten and projected to become an absolute majority around 2040, the rate of White reproductive intermixture with non-Whites doubling about every twenty years (e.g., per CDC figures, from 5.2% in 1990 to 11.6% in 2010), and cultural changes corresponding to the demographic changes. Read more

Invitation to the Scandza Forum in Stockholm, March 30th

The next Scandza Forum is coming up in Stockholm, on March 30th. We are proud to give you a truly all-star lineup of advocates for Europe:
  • Martin Lichtmesz is a prolific writer, translator, and one of the intellectual leaders of the German New Right. Mr. Lichtmesz’s speech from the 2017 AmRen Conference can be seen here and his appearance on the 2018 Millenniyule is available here. His latest book Rassismus – Ein amerikanischer Alptraum (Schnellroda 2018) was recently reviewed at Counter-Currents and an overview of his impressive oeuvre can be found in the journal Sezession.
  • Millennial Woes is a Scottish vlogger, writer and coordinator. He is part of the international “Dissident Right” but particularly concerned with Great Britain. His work has covered psychology, morality, religion, culture, politics and identity.
  • Jared Taylor is a veteran champion of our cause. Fluent in Japanese and French, and educated at Yale, Mr. Taylor has dedicated more than 25 years of his life to bringing reason, dignity, and eloquence to the issues surrounding race in society. You will find his work in his several books and on his website, amren.com. His latest book is If We Do Nothing (New Century Books, 2017). This will be Jared Taylor’s third appearance on the Scandza Forum stage.
  • Greg Johnson, PhD, is former editor of The Occidental Quarterly, founder and editor of Counter-Currents/North American New Right, and author of many articles and books pertaining to the destiny of the West. His latest book is The White Natioanlist Manifesto (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2018). Dr. Johnson is one of the leading ideologists of White Nationalism and the Alternative Right, and an outstanding speaker.
  • Olena Semenyaka, head of the international bloc of the Ukrainian National Corps party and a researcher of the Conservative Revolution, with a focus on Ernst Jünger’s planetary analysis, pan-Europeanism, and philosophy of technology. Miss Semenyaka is an highly regarded speaker of international standing and a first-class intellectual.
  • Mark Collett, a political activist and author from Great Britain. He has been actively involved in the nationalist movement for nearly two decades and was formerly the youth leader and Head of Publicity for the British National Party. He now hosts This Week on the Alt Right – a popular YouTube discussion show and produces a weekly short on current affairs.  He is the author of The Fall of Western Man.
  • Fróði Midjord, founder of the Scandza Forum and host of the “Guide to Kulchur” podcast.

***

Our discussions will focus on Anarcho-Tyranny, which the late Sam Francis described as follows: “they refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so they control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).” Throughout the West, crime and immigration are out of control. In 2018, there were more than 300 criminal shoot-outs and 44 people shot to death in Sweden. According to one study from Malmö university, there have been 116 hand grenade attacks over the past eight years!

At the same time, even elderly ladies will be convicted of “incitement of hatred” if they use strong language as they post frustrated comments online. If you dare protest the downfall of our civilization, you will feel the wrath of the globalist establishment. They shoot the messenger who points out the destructive consequences of the situation they have brought about.

We will discuss how we, as advocates for White interests, can navigate this hostile environment in which dissidents are silenced and deplatformed. Most importantly, however, you will  network with comrades who share your concerns.

We meet as an act of defiance against the dispossession of our people.

***

If you want to know more about our events, please watch any of my several appearances on podcasts and live streams lately, where I have been interviewed about the Scandza Forum and Anarcho-Tyranny:

***

If you want to attend, please contact us at: info@scandzaforum.com

Because we care about your safety, we have a vetting procedure to make sure that everyone who attends does so with honest intentions. There arethree ways you can get admission to the event, so remember to include the necessary information:

  1. If you have attended one of our events previously.
  2. Get a trusted person to vouch for you (i.e., vouch that you want to attend with honest intentions and that you will follow our security procedure). If you know someone who has attended a previous event, or is otherwise knows us, let us know this in your email. Remember to also ask that person to send me confirmation that he/she can vouch for you.
  3. Send us photo ID and some personal details (e.g., address/phone nr/social media) that will allow us to verify your identity, so that we can make an evaluation. No anonymous registration is accepted.
This will be an unforgettable event – register now!

I am looking forward to seeing you in Stockholm on March 30th.

There is no morality to accepting extinction

They lie.

They lie when they speak in glowing terms of the “enrichment” created for us by America’s burgeoning “diversity.”

In reality, a vast and inexorable destruction is spreading across America, and it is the entirely unnecessary and entirely deliberate dissolution of what we once revered as our nation and culture.  Americans had a people to which they belonged, and a cultural identity as distinct as that of any other society on earth.  Only the willfully blind can fail to see that both of those things are now vanishing quickly and forever.

It is a tribute to the gullibility of human beings, our acceptance of the lie that our dispossession “enriches” us, even as the waves of people displacing us reach deeper and deeper into our public coffers and polling booths.  It is a tribute to our ignorance, that we sit unblinking when our leaders tell us America has always been an experiment in multiculturalism, and the evolving New Babylon is rooted in our historical experience.

At its founding, America was 80 percent European, and undeniably Christian, Western, and European in its character.  For 200 years that identity was promoted by our immigration laws, and those laws in time fostered a nation 90 percent European.  It was indeed no perfect experiment, and there were definite fault lines involving race or ethnicity, but we knew who we were and with God’s help and great sacrifice we created the most magnificent civilization in human history.

Now, in the course of a single lifetime, our identity will be extinguished.  With the gutting of our immigration laws in 1965, in the course of a single 70-year average life span, by the year 2035 or thereabouts we will have gone from a nation ninety percent white to one in which Europeans are but one of many minorities, floating in a polyglot sea of people drawn from every corner of the globe.

In the fevered minds of the Cultural Marxists and the stupid, we will be a happy picture of coexistence and cooperation to which the rest of the world can aspire.  Such folks currently argue that the rights of the individual will still take precedence over group rights.  They insist our standard of living will remain intact or actually improve, as the numbers of consumers and producers expand.  They reassure us our principles of government will protect everyone, and those, along with the English language, will be the glue that will bind our society together.  This future, they would have us believe, is our natural and inevitable destiny as a nation, a destiny we can embrace without further examination or fear.

Those are the biggest lies of all. Read more

Fighting the Juggernaut

“In those dark hours [for the French in World War I], that vision of France as a generous nation, of France as a project, of France promoting universal values, was the exact opposite of the egotism of a people who look after only their interests, because patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism:  nationalism is a betrayal of it.” —    President Macron of France, flatulating on Armistice Day, November 11, 2018

“The beginning of any society is never charming or gentle.” — Franca Bettoia, as Ruth Collins, in The Last Man on Earth, 1964

The Last Man on Earth was a Vincent Price movie made in 1964.  The year before the beginning of the end.  In 1965, all of our restrictive immigration laws were dismantled, in accordance with ushering in a new era of civil rights, and, in many ways, I personally date all subsequent historical events using that milestone.  Even in 1965, as a child, I understood that this was a watershed moment, and one ominous in its implications.

Few others had the same forebodings.  America, people reasoned, was strong, invincible, and confident.  With promises from politicians that the demographics and politics of the U.S. would remain unaltered, our nation’s gates were flung open to the world.

They lied, as the evidence of our own eyes verifies, and, forty years later, I entered the lobby of a local library and encountered an ancient woman diligently yanking down public notices from a bulletin board.  When I asked what she was doing, she smiled, and said, in accented English, “These notices are written in ten different languages, translations paid for with my tax dollars.  If someone had the right to put them up on a public board, I have the same right to pull them down.  Let them learn English, as I did.”  As I pondered the woman’s response, she trundled out the door and down the street, away from the scene of her mischief. Read more

Joyeux Noёl: The Beginnings of WWI and the Christmas Truce of 1914

MerryChristmasfilmPoster3

Editor’s note: Christmas is a special time of year, and over the years TOO has posted some classic articles that bear on the season. This article by F. Roger Devlin was originally posted in December, 2013. It is an important reminder of the disastrous intra-racial wars of the twentieth century—wars that may yet deal a death blow to our people and culture given the processes that they set in motion. 

With the hindsight offered by ninety-nine years, it is obvious that the outbreak of the World War I marked not merely the beginning of the most destructive war in history up to that time, but a fundamental civilizational watershed. While the fighting was going on, nearly all participants assumed they had been forced into the struggle by naked aggression from the other side. It took historians years to unravel what had actually happened.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the German Army was the best in Europe, capable of defeating any individual rival. Yet Germany had no natural borders, and was vulnerable to a joint attack on two fronts: by France and Britain in the West and the Russian Empire in the East. A German defeat was considered virtually inevitable in such a scenario.

The Franco-Russian alliance of 1894, which became the Triple Entente when Britain joined in 1907, realized Germany’s worst fears.

However, there were important differences between Germany’s Western and Eastern rivals: France and Britain were modern, compact, efficiently-organized countries capable of rapid mobilization, while sprawling Russia with its thinly spread population and economic backwardness was expected to require up to 110 days for full mobilization. Taking advantage of this asymmetry, the German High Command developed the Schlieffen plan: upon the outbreak of hostilities, close to ninety percent of Germany’s effective troops would launch a lightning attack in the West; this campaign was to be completed within forty days, while lumbering Russia was still mobilizing. With the Western powers out of the way, massive troop transfers to the Eastern front were expected to arrive in time for Germany to face down Russia. Speed—of mobilization, of offensive operations, and of troop transfer—was critical to the success of this plan. Read more