You have been involved in and helped to form several
political groups such as: the National Front, International Third Position,
English Nationalist Movement, National Revolutionary Faction and and the New
Right. Did you become dissatisfied with where various of these groups were
going, or were your own views evolving into new directions?
Both, actually. The National Front (NF) was already evolving
into a revolutionary organisation when I joined it in 1984-5, but due to personality
issues it became fragmented in the Autumn of 1989 and myself and a few others –
among them Derek Holland, Nick Griffin, Roberto Fiore and Colin Todd – left to
form the International Third Position (ITP). The NF, meanwhile, changed its
name to Third Way in March 1990 and sadly exchanged its earlier revolutionary
nationalist impetus and support for Khomeini’s Iran and Qathafi’s Libya for a
self-proclaimed ‘radicalism of the centre’. The ITP also changed, however, and
by September 1992 I left to form the English Nationalist Movement (ENM) because
several ITP figures such as Roberto Fiore and Derek Holland were trying to
promote a form of clerico-fascism. I was also a Traditional Catholic at that
time, but was not prepared to sacrifice my own revolutionary ideology for a
backward-looking dependence on the likes of Mussolini, Petain and Franco.
Most people joined us in the new ENM venture and the ITP
became irrelevant and ineffectual in the British Isles from that moment on. The
ENM, I felt, both reflected and reclaimed the uncompromising principles that we
had developed in the NF during the mid-to late-1980s. Apart from the name
itself, the group was also distinctly English in terms of advancing the ideas
of men such as William Cobbett, Robert Blatchford, Robert Owen and William
Morris. However, we eventually changed the ENM into the National Revolutionary
Faction (NRF) because we were being closely monitored by Special Branch and MI5
and wanted a security-conscious movement based on an underground cell
structure. For this purpose we used an organisational manual that had been
developed by Hamas. This, combined with our entryist strategy of infiltrating
other groups and organisations, worked very effectively indeed.
At the beginning of the 1990s we became aware of Richard
Hunt’s ‘Alternative Green’ magazine and that began to influence the way we
continued to evolve during that crucial and fomative decade. Hunt had been the
founder of Green Anarchist, but eventually resigned once his views on
patriarchy began to conflict with the interests of other members. The NRF was
shelved when we finally embraced Anarchism ourselves, forming a new current –
rather than a party or movement – known as the National-Anarchists. The New
Right soon followed, in January 2005, when we saw the need for two groups. The
former being political and active, and the latter metapolitical and
intellectual.
Would you describe yourself as a “White nationalist” as
such? If so,or if not, why is that?
I am no longer a nationalist because I do not recognise the
boundaries of the existing nation-states. The nation is always defined by the
ruling class, too, so we end up with a contrived entity which does not reflect
the ethnicity of those who happened to form the nation in the first place. England,
for example, has changed so drastically over the last 50 years or so that it cannot seriously be regarded as the nation that it was half a
century ago. If you change the demographic identity of a nation’s people,
therefore, the nation becomes a total nonsense. As far as we are concerned, a
nation is constituted by blood, not wholly by territory and certainly not by a
governmental administration (state). But neither do I describe myself as
‘white’. This term is actually very unscientific, because whilst it refers to
skin colour (phenotype) it does not take into consideration the underlying
genetic factors. Race, as Baker tells us, is chiefly based on skeletal
considerations. Black Ethiopians, for example, are completely different to
other Blacks in Africa and make up part of the racial category known as
Europid. So being ‘white’ is really only part of the story. Another danger with
‘white’ nationalism is that it tends to centralise huge sub-racial and tribal
swathes that actually have their own distinct cultural and behavioural
attributes. Many Americans use the term to identify themselves with other
‘whites’, but it really is a fairly spurious form of terminology given the
things that I’ve just mentioned.
Is it likely, do you feel, that the UK will, in the next few
decades, lose territory to Islam (with government collusion in this) and that
there will be an armed struggle during this process?
Yes, I do believe that racial conflict is inevitable in many
parts of the country. But I don’t believe the government will help the Muslims
in any way. In fact the only type of Islam that the government here respects or
favours is the watered-down, liberal version such as that fronted by the Muslim
Council of Britain. The British Establishment does not tolerate religious ‘extremism’ of any kind, so has its own court imams, rabbis and
priests. These are often ecumenicalist and have a strong multi-faith agenda
that concords with the objectives of the existing multi-cultural society that
we live in. But I do believe that as the British State weakens,
‘fundamentalist’ Muslims themselves will seize power in certain areas. The
State believes that it can still eradicate traditional Islamic communities by
indoctrinating their children with Americanised values, but its running out of
time. Personally, my view is that Islamic groups and communities will be
assisted by the worsening economic situation. They already have their own
banking, trading and educational structures.
To what extent do you feel that the White birth rate (standing
on average at one child per woman, thus halving each generation) is a key
problem?
It’s a problem if people of Indo-European stock with to have
an influence in the nations in which they presently reside, but in the long
term I believe that ‘whites’ will have to leave the multi-racial cities and
towns of Europe and North America and set up new areas elsewhere. But I don’t
usually make an issue of bemoaning the declining population levels, thereare
far too many people in the world today as it is and I would like to see a
drastic fall everywhere.
Is it too late now to up the birth rate enough to avoid
civil war? Or do you tend to think that there will be no major clash and that
the White British (and Europeans generally) will simply fizzle out slowly if our
people do not unite to protect their survival?
I think there will be clashes between the immigrant
communities and those who – for a variety of reasons – have remained in the
same area as these relative newcomers. Some people are already becoming absorbed
and have completely lost their identity altoegether. But, on the whole, I
believe that economic decline will lead to a huge increase in social problems
and that large numbers of Europeans will move away from these areas as a direct
result of that. I once knew someone who constantly praised a young woman for
being the last remaining English resident in her street, the rest were
Pakistani and despite them breaking her windows on a regular basis she refused
to leave. But I don’t consider that to be admirable at all, it’s pure stupidity
and she – like many other people – need to start facing reality by reading the
writing on the wall and forming new communities elsewhere. Europe in her
present form is finished, but on a more positive note our people have migrated
before and must do so again. Adapt and survive.
Do you feel that the disintegration of families as stable
units (loss of family values) has a destructive effect on society?
Families lie at the bedrock of any community, but I don’t
take the bourgeois view that everything must be based upon family values.
Communities begin with the individual and then extend to the family, the tribe
and, ultimately, the nation. But there is still a place for the outsider, so
it’s not all about families. Communities need families, yes, but they are not
the be-all-and-end-all of our existence. Some people are monogamists, others
are polygamists. Some will be celibate, others will be downright ‘anti-social’.
That’s all part of being human.
Would you say that it’s advantageous for a nation to have
more than one ethno-nationalist movement, so long as this does not mean
competing for votes that could be required for the electoral victory of the
most successful of these parties? Cooperation rather than rivalry?
I don’t agree with voting, so that doesn’t really apply to
the National-Anarchist worldview. We want to reach the stage where people are
completely disillusioned with politicians and the charade of party politics.
Any cooperation would involve uniting against the System itself.
What is your view on the Green Party, in terms of how
genuine or phony their stance is on the environment?
I think it’s members have a genuine concern for the
environment, but they refuse to discuss the effects of immigration. Large
numbers of people, regardless of what colour they happen to be, are extremely
destructive for the natural environment and surely it follows that opposition
to immigration should be a logical part of their programme? But again, as a
revolutionary I don’t support any party or movement that participates in the
parliamentary system.
Your enthusiasm for Julius Evola seems somewhat at odds
with your anarchist ideas. Given that Evola advocated caste systems based on
natural hierarchies, how do you reconcile Evola’s ideas with an anarchistic
view?
We are not ‘anarchists’ in the sense that the term is
usually understood. There is also an ‘anarchism of the Right’ that has its
roots among people like Ernst Junger and Gustav Landauer. Friedrich Nietzsche,
too, in my opinion , was also an important anarchist thinker and his views on
the corrupting nature of morality and the role of the free-spirited individual are very important. But Evola, too, realised that the nihilist – for example –
has a very crucial role to play in the greater scheme of things. Following
Nietzsche, the Italian thinker appreciated that a sterile, bourgeois society
must be swept away by a new, dynamic force that will help to regenerate and
replenish the society in general. This is the pendulum of Ancient Greek civilisation
that swung between the poles of the Apollonian and the Dionysian. Mikhail
Bakunin tells us that ‘destruction is also a creative urge’, so again, we can
see the positive role that anarchy can have in the period leading up to a new
Golden Age (Satya Yuga). Out with the old and in with the new. The caste system
of the traditional society, which Evola discussed at some length, is not at
odds with the kind of organic, tribal communities that National-Anarchists wish
to establish. But our communities will be voluntary, rather than enforced.
To what extent do you feel politics by itself is sufficient
to inspire a people to victory against strong religiously driven forces arrayed
against them?
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by ‘strong religious
forces’, but I believe that political factors are best assisted by cultural
factors. In Nazi Germany, for example, the reason National-Socialism became so
immensely popular is a result of the tidal wave of culture that had been
growing since the 1880s. The Nazis knew how to tap a vein, so to speak, and
this is why they adopted the hiking fraternities, mannerbunds, old soldiers’
clubs, ecological societies, occult groups and various other cultural facets
for themselves. In many ways, of course, they jumped on the bandwagon. So I
don’t think that politics ever succeed on their own, it’s necessary to work on
all levels: music, film, theatre, economics, schools and universities. The key,
too, is to establish alternative revolutionary structures that will eventually
come to replace the infrastructure of the State itself. I am a strong believer
in the power of counter-culture and the effect it can have on politics.
Would you agree that, while ethno-nationalist politics can
gather disaffected masses, there is a need for a strong common ideology
encapsulating common identity and based on a positive vision of something to
create, rather than merely a backlash against all that is angering people?
Again, we must work on various levels. As the ‘destructive’
nihilists are helping to eradicate the last vestiges of Western civilisation
(‘That which is falling must be pushed’ – Nietzsche), so then will the great
cultural innovators begin to create an atmosphere in which the ideas and spirit
of the future can grow and flourish. As a musician who is also political, I
have seen for myself how these ideas can take shape within the cultural sphere
and gradually begin to attract like-minded people with similar political views.
Eventually, the key is to get everyone moving in the same direction. I think
that’s happening already in parts of the musical underground that includes
bands of the ‘Industrial’, ‘Gothic’ and ‘Neofolk’ genres. Things are beginning
to merge, very carefully, and these are the areas where you will find some of
the exciting revolutionary initiatives that will – I hope – serve as the
cultural impetus that eventually assumes a more political and intellectual
form. This explains the increasing interest in figures such as Evola, Guenon,
Codreanu, Junger and Mishima, all of whom are being promoted extensively
through a whole range of music projects, labels and concept albums. We may be
living in very depressing times, but there is a still a great deal that we can
be optimistic about.
Posts
