1,185 words
Spanish translation here
Last September, I spoke at the London Forum en route to the National Policy Institute’s ill-fated Budapest conference. While in London, I met writers and activists from England and Wales but also from Italy, Sweden, Norway, and Poland.
It was an inspiring but also humbling experience, because I was deeply impressed by the intelligence, dedication, maturity, and professionalism of these individuals. I vowed to return to Europe as soon as possible, to meet as many European comrades as possible, and learn from them everything I could, with the hope of applying their insights and experiences in North America.
My pretext for going back was to speak, but my real purpose was to listen. And to assure that high quality people would attend from far and wide, I made sure that the programs contained speakers who are far more eminent than me.
The London Forum, April 11, 2015
On Saturday, April 11, 2015, I spoke for the second time at the London Forum, which has now established itself as one of the most important institutions in the British nationalist scene, particularly since the collapse of the British Nationalist Party and in the absence, as yet, of a clear leader among the various successor groups.
As veteran activist Richard Edmonds said to me, “Parties come and go, but the movement remains.” Groups like the London Forum are the institutional framework for that sort of movement continuity. The business of the London Forum is metapolitics as I define it: the propagation of ideas and the creation of community. The latter task is particularly difficult in the fractious nationalist scene, which the London Forum’s organizer, Jez Turner, skillfully navigates with diplomacy, charm, and infectious enthusiasm.
The recent London Forum meeting broke two records. First, with at least 113 people in attendance, it had the largest turnout to date. Second, with seven speakers, it was surely the longest and richest program ever.
The meeting began with young Canadian filmmaker Hugh MacDonald, who gave a rousing talk about how multicultural education is backfiring, giving birth to a whole generation of young European nationalists and providing us with intellectual weapons that will be turned against the estabishment. Long-time Canadian anti-immigration and free-speech activist Paul Fromm spoke next on the battle for free speech in Canada. (His speech is here.)
There were two prominent Spanish speakers as well. The first was Javier Nichols, chairman of the Spanish Wagner Society and Vice President of the Wagner Society of Madrid, who spoke on Richard Wagner’s visits to and cultural and political influence on England. (His speech is here.) The second Spanish speaker was Pedro Varela, the courageous Catalan author and bookseller, who spoke on revolutionary ethics in relation to art and religion. (His speech is here.)
There were three speakers from the United States. I gave a brief talk based on my essay “Lessing’s Ideal Conservative Freemasonry,” which you can read here and listen to here. I wrote a short talk to leave more time for other speakers, and I condensed it still further to allow for some Q&A.
Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review gave a tightly-argued, eloquent, and rousing talk on “The Challenge of Jewish-Zionist Power” (here), which is the greatest impediment for whites regaining control of our destiny.
The high point of the day was Kevin MacDonald’s talk “Psychological Mechanisms of White Dispossession” (here). Kevin MacDonald is famous for his work on the role of the organized Jewish community in engineering white dispossession and preventing us from instituting necessary pro-white policies. But Jews would have no influence if whites turned a deaf ear and were not susceptible to such influence. Now Dr. MacDonald is focusing on understanding white susceptibility to Jewish manipulation, with the aim of learning how to resist its charms.
The London Forum meeting was a great success. I met a number of Counter-Currents readers, writers, and donors from the UK, Holland, Brazil, and the Czech Republic. I also met with such veteran UK activists as John Bean, Martin Webster, Richard Edmonds, and Bill Baillie. I also had conversations with Nicholas Kollerstrom and Gilad Atzmon. I recorded interviews with Webster, Edmonds, and Atzmon, which will soon appear on Counter-Currents Radio. I plan to interview Bean, Kollerstrom, and others when I get back to the United States.
When I was in graduate school, one of my professors likened reading undergraduate papers to fever dreams, in which the events of the previous day return in garbled form. I was reminded of this when coverage of the London Forum meeting appeared in the Mail on Sunday of April 19, 2015 — a full eight days after the event. The headline says it all: “Nazi invasion of London EXPOSED: World’s top Holocaust deniers . . . filmed at secret race hate rally where Jews are referred to as the ‘enemy.’” As I said to Hugh MacDonald, “How could we be part of a Nazi invasion of London and not even know it?” We were rather galled that we were not even mentioned by name.
The article implied that the Mail had a mole in the meeting who “filmed” its shocking goings-on, which is in fact false. There was, however, a small security leak, as a photographer took pictures of people entering and leaving Victoria Station and the Grosvenor Hotel. Since these are busy public venues, however, the only people who were shown are publicly-known nationalists, lest the Mail open itself up to a lawsuit by pillorying an innocent bystander as a Nazi invader. Furthermore, the London Forum’s organizers saw and photographed the enemy photographer, so — if he has any sense — his career of skulking around outside nationalist gatherings is probably over.
The Mail only learned what was said inside the meeting when the rest of the world did, i.e., when five videos and the audio of my speech went up on YouTube. (The event was “filmed” by the London Forum itself.)
What was really said at the meeting hardly mattered, though, as the article was probably substantially written before the YouTube videos were released. Indeed, as Margot Metroland remarked, some of it seems to have been written ten years ago, since the ages given for both Mark Weber and Kevin MacDonald were a decade too low.
The Mail decided that the event was about the Holocaust, even though it was the topic of none of the speeches. Indeed, I do not recall it being mentioned once. Mark Weber, of course, is the Director of the Institute for Historical Review. But Weber did not speak about the Holocaust, and in any case is not really a Holocaust “denier.”
I believe in freedom of the press, but that is no defense for outright lies. Frankly, if I could make laws for the UK, the authors of this article would be publicly flogged then suffer complete social and professional death. They should never be allowed to speak or write in public again. Freedom of the press is too important to allow public discourse to be corrupted by vulgar sensationalism and deliberate deception.
I want to thank Jez Turner, his fellow organizers at the London Forum, and everyone who attended for another exemplary event.
11 Comments
The Mail’s article is absurd. This is not the first time I have seen these journalists using the word “EXPOSED” (always with block-caps) in such an inappropriate context. It implies that they’re spilling the beans on things that are intended to be hidden from the public, but I’m not sure how that can apply to this event, if the organisers had already uploaded several of the speeches before the article had been published. It is pathetic to see them masquerading as cutting-edge investigative journalists.
I’m interested in hearing your interview with Gilad Atzmon. I was hoping to meet him a couple of years ago, but the brave anarchists who’d scheduled his film screening/concert in my city decided to cancel at the last minute, on the basis that he is a “racist, homophobic, rape-apologist”. I’m not sure that he qualifies as any of those, unless he has revised his views since writing The Wandering Who, a book which is critical of all identity politics. I disagree with his fundamental argument, but his analysis of the Jewish question is interesting.
I would like to be part of the next ‘invasion’ (next to the real and current one)
I wish to attend a LF, now I have the insight of the quality and excellence of the subjects and speakers at the LF , provided by your visit.
Thanks for listening and thanks for the links. This is a real resource.
(I wonder what MacDonald and Weber were doing ten years ago, that Searchlight happened to have this ‘potted evergreen’ writeup in their trunk. The Searchlight scribe suggests Weber’s age might have been a keying or transcriptional error, but you don’t get two people’s ages a decade off merely by mistake.)
Greg wrote: I recorded interviews with Webster, Edmonds, and Atzmon, which will soon appear on Counter-Currents Radio.
It is my hope at least the interview with Atzmon is transcribed.
Kevin MacDonald’s speech is good.
There is one danger: Suggesting a moral continuum of Protestant dissenters of four hundred years ago, the anti-slavery movement of two hundred years ago, and the aggressive “Multicultacracy” that has developed over the past fifty years is dangerous. It leads people down a dead-end path of thinking that Jewish influence is unimportant, it leads people to dismiss the “JQ” outright and focus on the “WASP Q”. As racehist has demonstrated, people of WASP ancestry form almost none of the leadership of major left-wing movements today. Voting patterns bear out the same.
MacDonald himself is not directly alleging that a “WASP Q” is paramount, I think (Dr. MacDonald of all people cannot be accused of dismissing the JQ), but certain others today are doing this). This is dead-end thinking for present purposes.
As I understand him, Dr. MacDonald is saying that certain currents of White thought and perhaps biology allowed the Jews to rise as a hostile elite, and not that Whites have had a “native hostile (sometimes-)elite” for centuries, always working away to undermine and destroy their own society. This is an important distinction to make.
Because any society is going to have fringes of its politics. The completely uninformed observer could be forgiven for coming away from the MacDonald talk at the April 2015 London Forum thinking that White North American civilization was always highly left-wing and “racially egalitarian”, so would be puzzled, for instance, to see no Amerindians almost anywhere in the Eastern USA.How could that have happened?
The glaring fact is that the core of White North American civilization was always highly racialist, very often explicitly so and actively so. These Puritans were engaged in a prolonged race war with Amerindians, which they won. Dr. MacDonald mentions Grant and Stoddard, also WASPs. It’s hard to imagine that these people suddenly just decided to create the Multicultacracy in the mid-1900s.
The Puritans made great efforts to reach out to the Indians, evangelize them, and make them part of a larger society before the untenability of that aim — due largely to the agency of the Indians — led to brutal struggles like King Philip’s War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip%27s_War). These Puritan evangelical efforts were not a matter of “fringe” elements, but were central to their self-image and morality.
Whites most certainly do have an indigenous culture of critique and indigenous hostile elites, and in England and America they are very much tied to the Protestantism. One cannot, for example, blame the American Civil War on Jews. There most certainly is a WASP (Anglo Protestant) problem, and the Jewish problem was merely grafted onto that. The fact that certain Jews like Paul Gottfried and Curtis Yarvin stress the WASP problem to exculpate Jews does not allow us to dismiss the issue.
I am not sure why so many whites are so resistant to self-examination and self-criticism, and so eager to blame Jews for all our problems. This is dishonest, dishonorable, and self-defeating. Jews have much to answer for, but they would never have gained power over us if we were immune to their appeals. Figuring out why whites are susceptible to Jewish manipulation is the first step toward correcting that susceptibility.
When it comes to slavery and the American Civil War, the picture is complicated by the fact that the WASP abolitionists were correct. Slavery is evil, and it should have been abolished. They were mistaken only in thinking that blacks could be integrated into our society as free men and in their willingness to shed the blood of fellow whites in the interest of blacks. The humane and pragmatic solution would have been the abolition of slavery with compensation to the slave owners. Slavery was abolished in many places without bloody civil warfare. After abolition, all slaves should have been resettled back in Africa.
One variant of the WASP critique that is common today, and seems to be popular in NRx circles is religiously based more often than not, by Catholics, Orthodox or high church Protestants. In terms of the first two groups, it’s your more typical anti-Protestantism, nothing new there. With the latter it focusses on egalitarian vs hierarchical social organisation, siding with high church hierarchicalism because it has over 1000 years of observable success in creating stable societies. This more interesting argument is flawed for many reasons, cardinal among them being that it presumes that Christianity is the religion of the future European culture. For a grouping of thinkers that pride themselves as the only people in the dissident right to come up with policy analysis, this argument strikes me as unmitigated naïvety. Secondly, this is where NRx agrees with age old Reaction in pining for the middle ages to the neglect of other white social organising principles as found in the Indo-European period, Classical Antiquity, medieval republics and so forth.
The “Puritan thesis” argued as low church vs high church isn’t bad in and of itself, but its the underlying assumptions on Europe’s past and future that are amiss. The “Puritan thesis” that has been worked out—in conjunction with the Jewish problem—by the New Right is a more holistic, and I think truthful approach.
I would like to ask some questions.
Why would there be a white elite hostile to us ‘ordinary’ whites? Could it have something to do with the English civil war and regicide, the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution? Has the bond between ‘us’ and ‘them’ been broken? Have we lost faith in each other?
Or is there something else going on?
Just think of the class structure in white societies, especially the class divide between labor and capital, the educated and the non-educated, the enlightened and the unenlightened. Anglo-Protestants are extremely insecure about their status and are constantly aware of the necessity to separate themselves from “those people” — declasse whites. Add to this a penchant for moral fanaticism and a willingness to scourge those members of our own group that we label evil, even at enormous costs to the group’s fitness for survival and flourishing. The result is a hostile white elite, with two wings:
1. the plutocratic (I’ve got mine buddy; if you’re poor, God must not like you) and
2. the moralistic/idealist (We’re building an ideal world, and no cost is too great, no burden is too heavy, no dissent is tolerable: dissenters are enemies of humanity; they must be spied upon, informed upon, shunned, perhaps even punished and killed — a Salem village on every college campus, in every corporation, everywhere people are frantically signalling their moral worth and the correctness of their thoughts).
In present terms: Republicans and Democrats.
The divide between our hostile elite and the rest of us is the wound in our racial body in which the Jewish maggots feed.
OT:
I think Trevor Lynch needs to bust on the film Ex Machina. The film deals with an extremely conspicuous and somewhat paranoid Jewish character who owns a Google-like search engine company. He creates a female AI, and then he manipulates a conspicuously goyish looking programmer into participating in a kind of Turing test for the AI, except it isn’t a Turing test but just an exercise in deception. Along the way, while the duping the hapless goy, the Jew is repeatedly compared to God and Prometheus. Could be a lot of fodder there for people with a keener eye for these things than I have myself.
Thanks for the tip.