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

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

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