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

/32 Comments/in , /by

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

Free Expression Foundation needs help in this huge battle

/7 Comments/in , /by

Free Speech Worth Supporting

Getting free speech rights would be really easy these days if we donned black masks and helmets, threw on some all-black military fatigues, grabbed a few bags of dog poo and a truncheon, and showed up to harass anyone showing pride in America or our U.S. culture heroes. Who knows? You might even be able to slam seven people in the head with a metal bike lock and get away with it, as did college professor and anti-free speech activist Eric Clanton. 

Fortunately, however, we here at the Free Expression Foundation (FEF) believe in the rule of law, and we believe in free speech for everyone, whether you are a red leftist or an ultra-conservative red, white, and blue patriot.

But, we are sad to say, that is not the way those in charge think in America today.

You know that’s true, because, every once in a while, you turn on the TV and sit through a FINK broadcast—the “Fake Industrial News Komplex.” You may have also realized that never before in American history has the news been so blatantly fictional. Every mass shooter is a “white supremacist” (even if he or she is for universal healthcare, saving gay whales, stopping “apocalyptic” climate change or inspired by communist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). For instance, the “fascist” shooter in the recent El Paso massacre described himself as a progressive leftist!

In his “manifesto,” he warned that, “[T]he media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump’s rhetoric.” He then stated, “The media is infamous for fake news. Their reaction to this attack will likely just confirm that.”

But who cares about the truth? And who cares about open and stimulating political debate? Certainly not the Democrats, who have adopted the bogus narrative that white people in general and conservative white males in particular are the worst plague to have infected mankind since the first flea jumped off the first rat and bit a human, passing on the Yersinia pestis bacterium thus kicking off the Black Death. Leftists today are only concerned about acquiring complete political power, and they will support any lie to regain the White House.

And, really, the Republicans are hardly better, scratching and clawing over one another to claim their spot on the censorship bandwagon. We can’t count on them to protect free speech and to defend those whose First Amendment rights are being fed through the shredder.

We’ll have to do this ourselves—average Americans and the Free Expression Foundation. Read more

A Sad Day in Court for Men’s Group: Activist judge gives rightwingers max sentences, ignores real criminals

/25 Comments/in , /by

July 19 was a grim day for three young men from the Rise Above Movement (RAM) who were told their punishment by a federal district judge in Charlottesville, Va. The defendants had been arrested under the Anti-Riot Act, which a California federal court has found unconstitutional, and charged for their participation in the 2018 “riots” in Charlottesville and California. 

Denied bail, the RAM defendants, after many months in difficult conditions in prison, had entered into plea agreements in May 2019. A few weeks prior to the sentencing hearing and long after the plea agreements were entered into, the government announced its intention to try to increase, by means of the federal Hate Crime Enhancement Statute (part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2800003), the sentences to which the RAM defendants agreed in their plea agreements. The hate crime enhancement statute allows a court to increase a defendant’s prison time if the court determines that the defendant, in committing a federal crime, e.g., rioting, singled out members of a protected group, such as racial minorities, women, or homosexual persons.

At the hearing, the government put forward a massive effort to make its proposed hate crime enhancements stick. It called two FBI agents as witnesses and introduced and discussed over 60 exhibits, mostly photographs and videos, and invoked comparisons to Nazi Germany. 

The hearing, however, had an air of Kafkaesque, bizarre unreality. During the entire hearing the government and its FBI witnesses ignored or mitigated the provocative, aggressive, and often violent actions of the counterprotestors, which included antifa and other hard-left radicals, at the Charlottesville and California confrontations.

For example, one of the government’s photo exhibits showed a RAM defendant holding a bagel and making a hand gesture that the government described as a “white power sign.” Standing next to the RAM defendant was a man who was friends with the RAM defendant. The government presented this photo as evidence that the RAM defendants were anti-Semitic and were targeting Jews at the riots. What the government failed to mention and defense counsel failed to elicit on cross examination was that bagels had been thrown at the RAM defendants by the neo-Bolshevik antifa agitators and their allies, and the man standing next to the RAM defendant was later viciously assaulted with a bike lock, and injured, by a masked antifa member. This masked antifa member was Eric Clanton, then a professor at a college in Berkeley. Clanton was charged with a misdemeanor for his assault, received a suspended sentence of 30 days, was placed on probation, and thus served no jail time.  Read more

The Supremacy of Stupid: How Dumb Ideas about Race Flourish on the Left

/49 Comments/in , /by

An ant is an amazing creature, a marvel of miniaturization and compressed complexity. With only a tiny brain, it absorbs and interprets a flood of data from its myriad sense-organs, navigating a complex and constantly changing world, co-operating and communicating with its nest-mates, collaborating in prodigies of architecture, engineering and logistics. No human robot can even come close to matching the abilities of an ant, let alone at such a minute size and on such a small budget of energy.

Dumb beats clever

But the highly sophisticated ant meets its master in the form of a mindless organism far lower in the evolutionary scale. As I described in “How to Cure a White Zombie,” the fungus Ophiocordyceps unilateralis can subvert the complex nervous system of an ant, turning the ant into a zombified spore-spreader. You can sum up the behaviour of the fungus in two words: sitting and floating. It sits in its victims and then, in the form of spores, floats off to new victims. The behaviour of ants, by contrast, is endlessly subtle and varied. Ant-behaviour has filled entire libraries and fuelled long scientific careers. But the simple fungus beats the complex ant.

The complexity of an ant

Another parasite, the microscopic protozoan Toxoplasma gondii, overcomes an even bigger evolutionary gulf and subverts the even more complex brains of rats and human beings. The fungus and the protozoan have no minds, no consciousness and no purpose but self-propagation. They’re dumb, but they’ve been beating clever for millions of years. That’s why we shouldn’t be surprised at the success of stupid ideologies in the world of politics. In competition and warfare, it doesn’t matter how you win: the only criterion of success is, well, success. The fungus and the protozoan are unconscious experts at chemical warfare, because they interfere with the brain-chemistry of their victims. In the world of human politics, parasites and predators interfere with brains by using words and ideas instead. Read more

On White Genocide: A Reply to Critics

/118 Comments/in /by

My recent TOO essay A Rejoinder on White Genocide generated a relatively large number of comments, some positive but mostly critical.  Editor Kevin MacDonald has kindly allowed me to publish this follow-up essay to address some of the many issues raised.  It’s an important topic for the alt-right, and it deserves more discussion than short blog comments can allow.  Hence the need for this essay.

By way of short recap:  I argued previously that ‘White genocide’ is a relatively useless concept.  The term ‘genocide’ has Jewish origins, arising out of Nazi actions in World War Two, and is hopelessly vague.  The formal UN definition includes “intent to destroy,” “in whole or in part,” a national or ethnic group.  It covers killing, of course, but also “serious bodily or mental harm”, and the imposition of harmful “conditions of life”, whatever those may be.  Rather than talk about some amorphous ‘White genocide,’ I suggested dealing in a concrete way with the threats facing Whites.  I defended a present figure of 800 million Whites globally—a number that will likely decline gradually, to 655 million in 2100 and to 510 million in 2200, under present assumptions.  I closed with a modest plan to rationally and humanely restore an 80% White majority in the US, primarily by incentivizing non-White emigration and birth-rate reduction.

But attacking the whole notion of ‘White genocide’ proved hazardous!  Clearly there is a diversity of views on this matter, which is both normal and healthy.  Concepts and strategies need to be debated.  Whites everywhere are undoubtedly under assault, and we need to understand this phenomenon, its causes and potential cures, if we are to move ahead.  TOO is an intellectual forum for discussion of concepts and theories related to White interests, rather than an activist site per se.  Still, the two realms are not independent; thoughts and ideas have natural implications for policy, politics, and social action.  My original piece attempted to sketch out basic governmental principles that would best serve White interests.  They were, of necessity, general and conceptual.  Below I will say a bit more about the pragmatic aspect of implementing such policies.

First, though, it may be best to begin with areas of common agreement.  I think it’s safe to say that there is broad consensus on the following points:

  • The White race is of inherent value to humanity, and as such deserves protection and defense.
  • Whites globally are under threat, due to (a) declining numbers, (b) declining physical, mental, and moral health, and (c) loss of political autonomy and self-government.
  • Some of the threats are sociological, economic, or environmental in nature, but others arise from deliberate and intentional actions.
  • The global Jewish lobby has an intrinsic interest in seeing a general decline in White well-being and a loss in White political power. They and their non-Jewish supporters pose the primary direct threat.
  • Racial and cultural diversity has a net negative effect on human society.
  • All humans are, by nature, best suited to live in social and environmental settings from which they evolved—societies that are broadly uni-racial and monocultural. Humans have little or no evolutionary experience living with diverse races or ethnicities, and doing so causes inevitable problems.
  • From the early Industrial Revolution, modern society has enabled the mass movement of people from indigenous to foreign lands. Left to their own initiative, people will always attempt to move from ‘worse’ to ‘better’ societies, but if this happens en masse, it will contribute to the decay of the very societies that they seek out.  Such movement must therefore be stopped.
  • The only long-term solution for many present-day problems is to restore human society to its natural and original conditions—uni-racial and monocultural, broadly speaking. This entails political separation and/or repatriation of minority peoples to their native lands.

Perhaps this qualifies as a ‘manifesto’ of White Nationalism.  It should garner something approaching universal consent. Read more

Tucker Carlson: “White Supremacy” is a “Hoax”

/14 Comments/in /by

Tucker Carlson stated that “White Supremacy” is a “hoax.” Should we care? I posted a Twitter rant consisting of 5 linked tweets:

Patriots, Identitarians, Nationalists and Sovereignists: They must all be positive

/11 Comments/in , /by

What follows is the text of my speech given at the Generation Identity conference in London, UK, July 27, 2019.

Words such as “sovereignty” and “identity,” both belonging to the family of patriotism, have become trendy words among European nationalists of different stripes. They are even used as synonyms along with their new derivatives “sovereignists” and “identitarians” respectively. Many of these verbal derivatives did not even exist in the English language until recently. In the German language these words, which are of Latin origin, have also come into use recently—words such as der Patriot, der Identitäre and der Souveränist, although they often sound odd and un-German to traditional German ears. These replacement words for the old word “nationalist” owe their birth to two political and historical factors: 1) The German language, shortly after World War II, was subjected to a profound cleansing process carried out by the occupying Allied forces and their re-educational apparatchiks, the latter mostly recruited among academics of the newly re-established, Jewish-dominated Marxist Frankfurt school. Their task was to impose on the German people a new political vocabulary, a new way of communication — and a new identity. 2) The old German words associated with the notion of patriotism such as the German adjective “völkisch” or the compound noun “Volksgenosse,” which stands for a fellow patriot, or the unique German word “artfremd,” which means an alien of different biological stock, or the word “gleichrassig,” meaning someone of the same racial stock, vanished overnight in 1945. Ever since they have become crimethink words banned from public discourse. Henceforth many modern German and other European nationalists, burdened by the stigma of the National-Socialist past, prefer to use imported words such as “patriots” or “identitarians” instead, well aware that these new words can provide them with a modicum of political legitimacy in the mainstream media.

The new word “identitiarian” sounds quite romantic and is often used by patriots today all over Europe and America although it is not specific enough. Our identity cannot be unitary; it can have multiple facets. How should we define our identity? In singular or in plural? For example, in my case, which identity comes first and which one comes second? Am I first a Croat or an American? Or a hyphenated Croat-American? Or a European-White-American? On the professional level I can also display triple or quadruple identities; I can first define myself as a writer, as a professor, a translator, or as a political activist. On the religious level, my identity may first be Catholic or agnostic. And finally, there is also my racial identity, which is being dismissed as a social construct today by the majority of System-friendly scholars and the mainstream media. There are, fortunately, a few prominent scholars today who consider race the first marker of man’s identity. Even a half-blind man when stepping out of this London hotel can notice swarms of individuals of different races milling around.

So which identity should I pick first in my case? Should it be based on my racial, national, political, religious, sexual, or professional preferences? Read more