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.