Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin delivers the speech he would have given at the first European Congress in Budapest, Hungary.Read More
Piero San Giorgio addresses The National Policy Institute's 2013 Leadership Conference.
Alex Kurtagic addresses The National Policy Institute's 2013 Leadership Conference.
Alain de Benoist addresses The National Policy Institute's 2013 conference in Washington, DC.
Tomislav Sunic addresses The National Policy Institute's 2013 Leadership Conference.
Jack Donovan addresses The National Policy Institute's 2013 Leadership Conference.
Richard Spencer appears on Russia Today to discuss the new "Cold War" between Moscow and Washington.
Russia is on the side of established sovereign authorities. And Washington is playing a kind of dangerous game of both desiring hegemony in the region and trying to achieve that by creating chaos and riding the wave of Muslim discontent.
Richard Spencer argues that *World War Z* reflects hipsters' and liberals' unease with the rising tide of color and Third World immigration. Their survival strategy is to inject themselves with a deadly virus—White guilt—so as to appear weak and avoid the wrath of the ravenous hordes.
Richard Spencer discusses the “Southern Avenger” racism scandal—and the revelation that Jack Hunter used to be an interesting political commentator.
When apologizing for Rand Paul’s non-libertarian foreign-policy statements, Hunter claimed that Paul was just “playing the game.” Paul’s and Hunter’s political trajectory demonstrate the ineffectualness and meaningless of such a strategy.
At first glance, one might conclude that the prospects for a nationalist Right are quite bright in Europe, whereas in America, rather dim. Europe has a host of self-consciously nationalist parties that are established and well-funded, and which have achieved electoral success. In the United States, on the other hand, outside of a handful of individuals and small groupings, there are no major parties or political actors that explicitly stand for the country’s historic majority.
One is thus surprised when Tomislav Sunic, a political theorist and former Croatian diplomat, states that Europeans have as much to learn from Americans as Americans, from Europeans. The reason is that far too many European nationalists still define themselves through a hostility and antagonism towards neighboring Europeans. As Sunic argues, in light of our current geopolitical situation, European nationalists cannot afford the luxury of dwelling on historical grievances, no matter how real they might be. Europeans could learn something from Americans, who understand themselves as “White”—that is, deriving first from a race and civilization and, second, from a particular ethnic community.
Not skirting controversy, Sunic closes his talk with a discussion of the prospects for population transfers (often referred to as “ethnic cleansing”) in an increasingly Balkanized North America.
Even if all immigration, legal and illegal, were halted immediately, Whites would still become a minority in the United States by the end of the century. This fact brings into question the means and ends of the immigration-restriction movement, as well political reform in general.
Few have confronted this challenge with more clarity and resolve than Samuel Dickson, an attorney, White advocate, and noted orator. In his keynote address to NPI’s Washington gathering, Dickson demands that American racial nationalists stop hoping for help from Washington, DC, and stop playing Left vs. Right games.
Instead Dickson challenges racial nationalists to begin working towards the birth of a new kind of social and political order—a White Ethno-State on the North American continent, a project analogous to the creation of Israel in the first half of the 20th century.
Drawing on the thought of Wilmot Robertson and others, Dickson stresses that the Ethno-State is based on “racial idealism”—but it is also the White man’s only practical step forward.
In “How We Can Get There,” Jared Taylor sets out to answer a simple, yet far-reaching and perplexing, question—“How can we build a White society, one that reflects the values and traditions of our people?” In the context of a world informed by multiculturalism, “anti-discrimination” legislation, and White guilt, such a task is daunting to say the least. Indeed, many nationalists have been driven to despair…
But Taylor looks with a critical eye on those who think that the White Man will only “wake up” after a terrifying economic collapse or social calamity. Instead, Taylor counsels that the way forward to a self-consciously White society is through the creation of smaller self-consciously White communities. Though there are certainly obstacles in our path, European-American communities can be organized in ways that are legal, moral, and, most important, effective.
Novelist, commentator, and musician Alex Kurtagic relates that for at least 50 years, nationalists in America and Europe have been accumulating mountains of data and sound intellectual arguments regarding the dangers of egalitarianism, multiculturalism, and mass immigration. And yet, the nationalist side has been consistently losing the battles for political power and, more important, the hearts and minds of Western peoples.
The reason for this is not that the Left won the argument, but that the equality zealots were able to use the power of the state and similar institutions to reconfigure how we see the world, how we learn about the world, and even how we think about the world. Western peoples were enveloped in symbols and values that have emotional, pre-rational resonances. And the global Left became Masters of the Universe.
Far from descending into despair, Alex calls those gathered to begin looking beyond rational argumentation and sober warnings of destruction and begin developing a worldview and symbology based on our own values of Tradition, Identity, and Hierarchy—which are, we shouldn’t forget, more inspiring than what the Left has on offer.
As Keith Preston quips, some might wonder how a libertarian anarchist like himself ever got involved with people who identify themselves as nationalists. Are not liberty and nationalism polar opposites, never to be reconciled or aligned? Preston does not think so. Indeed, if one can say that both nationalists and anarchists stand against world government and “globalization,” then the two actually have a lot in common. Moreover, if freedom of association is to have any meaning at all, then it must necessarily entail rights of discrimination as well as kinship and tribe.
And today, anarchists and nationalists share a common enemy—what Preston calls “Totalitarian Humanism,” and which stands as the reigning ideology of the state as well most cultural, educational, and religious institutions. In a nutshell, Totalitarian Humanism means a universalist political order, mass-ification of peoples, and the destruction of cultural and individual differences—all in the name of “equality.” Totalitarian Humanism is a doctrine of both the contemporary Left and Right, and which is often masked by the Establishment’s favorite bogeymen: “racism,” “fascism,” “right-wing extremism” etc. Liberty and nationalism are not enemies after all.
The era of mass immigration into Western countries coincided with stunning advances in consumer capitalism, technology, and access to higher eduction. As Richard Spencer, NPI’s Executive Director, explains, the result was that in the public’s imagination, multiculturalism was linked (however irrationally) with increased living standards and general “progress.”
But Spencer demonstrates that this link is breaking down—indeed, we are at a point of seismic rupture in social mood, when credit-boom lifestyles can no longer be maintained and the chickens of non-White immigration are coming home to roost.
History has no guarantees, but Spencer argues that racialists are well positioned to take advantage of this world-historical turning point, because only racialists fully understand the importance of human differences. It was, in this way, the out-of-season Enoch Powell—and not his “conservative” allies—who fully understood the implications of mass non-White immigration into Britain in the ‘60s.
Drawing on political theory as well as popular-culture imagery, Spencer stresses that the collapse of the postwar multiculti paradigm is real; to take advantage, the watchword for nationalists should be “What Would Enoch Do?”