RadixJournal - Richard Spencer - Victory Has Destroyed You

June 10, 2017 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer

01:09:04

Victory Has Destroyed You

Andrew Joyce, Charles Lyons, and Richard Spencer discuss the 2017 UK General Election: Teresa May's colossal miscalculation, the collapse of British nationalism, the aftermath of Brexit, and the relationship between nation and empire. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit radixjournal.substack.com/subscribe

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey, y 'all.
	It's been too long.
	Andrew Joyce, Charles Lyons, two of my favorite people, were back to talk about Theresa May's triumphant victory last night in the UK general elections.
	Psych.
	It was a catastrophic victory, as I called it, but Andrew, first off...
	Welcome back.
	I know you're not feeling too well, so I'm glad you're weathering the storm, but welcome back to the podcast.
	Thank you very much, Richard.
	Pleasure to be here.
	Why don't you go first on this matter?
	Welcome back, Charles, as well.
	You'll probably jump into the conversation before I introduce you, so welcome back, Reactionary Tree.
	Oh, I'm excited to be here.
	You really sounded.
	Yeah, in an election between Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May, there are no winners and everyone loses.
	So I'm very happy to talk about this today.
	That is true.
	All right, Andrew, I wanted you to go first because you live in the United Kingdom.
	And why don't you just give us your take on everything that went down last night and everything leading up to it, because it was just about a month ago or so that we thought Theresa May was going to and the Tories were going to win in a landslide.
	And then last night happened.
	Yeah, I think it's worth casting our minds back to the kind of rationale that Theresa May had in mind whenever she called the SNAP election.
	It seemed like a good idea at the time to her, and there were, I think, three reasons why she thought it would be a good idea.
	The first was she wanted a strong mandate to go into the Brexit negotiations.
	So in her mind, if she could come off of a strong election victory, and she did believe that it would be a strong election victory, then it would strengthen her hand going into the Brexit negotiations.
	And somehow that would mean that she could make stronger demands from the EU.
	How realistic that would be in terms of getting to the negotiating table in Brussels and saying, look, just because I've come off a strong election victory, that means you need to give me all these concessions.
	I don't think it would have worked out quite that way.
	But that was one aspect of her reasoning.
	The second, and this has been less discussed, And this is a hunch of my own, personally, from looking at Theresa May's career, from looking at the way she presents herself, and the way she's involved herself in politics previously.
	I actually believe that she wanted to win an election in her own right.
	Don't forget that she became Prime Minister not by being elected and leading a party to victory, but because David Cameron stood down.
	Following the loss of his position in the Brexit vote.
	And I think she wanted to prove to herself that she could win an election, which she has done, but not in the style that she thought she would have not, to the extent that she thought she would win.
	I think that in her mind, Theresa May perceives herself as this kind of Iron Lady figure, in much the same way that Margaret Thatcher was.
	And I think she views herself as an heir to Thatcher in several respects.
	But I think she definitely aspired to that strength of a role.
	And in order for that to come to fruition in reality, to the extent that it was in her mind, she needed a dominant electoral victory.
	That didn't happen.
	The reason it didn't happen, I believe, and this is the third aspect, I think, of her decision to go for this snap election, is I think she's deeply hubristic.
	And I think that in this instance, she genuinely believed that she would crush Corbyn.
	And I think that there were people within her inner circle, and she's known for having quite a close-knit, secluded, and introverted inner circle of advisors, that this was a genuine belief.
	She was doing things like refusing to turn up for televised leadership debates.
	And I think that...
	In her mind, this made her look like she was above politics, and there was almost an effort to create a kind of personality cult during this election campaign around Theresa May.
	As absurd as that might seem, looking at her and listening to her, but there was an effort to create a Theresa May personality cult.
	And she refused to participate in leadership debates.
	And there were a lot of instances whenever she was being interviewed on television where she refused to engage in meaningful dialogue with her interviewer.
	I think that she viewed herself as above the powers of the electorate in the sense that they are the kingmakers.
	I think that they just want to...
	Now, having said that, I don't quite understand the media's shock, because the British media at the minute is convulsing in apparent shock that this resulted in a hung parliament, and that Theresa May did not lead the Conservatives to a position at the end of this election where they could form a government in and of themselves.
	They've had to form a government by reaching out to the Democratic Unionist Party, which is the largest unionist party in Northern Ireland.
	So whenever Theresa May goes into government, the opening of the next parliament, she will do so with 10 Northern Irish MPs that will be required to exercise extreme discipline over those Tory MPs who are in parliament with her in order for her to progress.
	The pieces of legislation that she's proposed and that are a part of her manifesto.
	So it's going to be a difficult road ahead.
	But I wasn't surprised that there was a hung parliament.
	And one of the reasons why I wasn't surprised wasn't just because Theresa May was being hubristic and she was setting herself up for disaster.
	When you actually looked at the electoral promises of the Tories and Labour, and we were talking about this earlier, They're barely distinguishable on a number of key aspects of policy and the work of government.
	In particular, I want to just highlight housing, education and health.
	I'm going to give you the briefest of summaries of the manifesto pledges of the Conservatives and Labour.
	In terms of housing, one of the big...
	One policy proposals or manifesto pledges of the Tories was that they were going to build one million new homes.
	Now, what did Labour promise?
	Labour promised that they would build one million new homes.
	Both parties also promised that they would improve tenants' rights.
	In terms of education, the Tories promised they would build new schools and would provide a free breakfast for every elementary school child or primary school child.
	Labour, on the other hand, said that they would also invest more money in building schools, and they would provide a little bit further and provide free school meals for all children.
	So if you're under the age of 18 and you're in any kind of education, you're going to get a free meal and free breakfast and whatever.
	So both of them are kind of going at this with no such thing as a free lunch.
	Well, there would be if you vote for us.
	The only distinguishing factor there was that the Labour Party promised to abolish tuition fees for universities, and that would be effective.
	I think Corbyn, in the end, promised it would be effective pretty much immediately, so from September.
	So anyone starting a university course from September onwards under a Jeremy Corbyn government would not have to pay any kind of college tuition fees.
	A big promise, and that was one of the things that I believe They mobilized the youth vote in this election, and the youth vote did turn out in style, actually, at this election.
	Now, just in terms of health, then, the Tories promised to increase NHS spending, National Health Service spending.
	Labour promised the exact same thing.
	The only difference in their pledges was that Labour promised, without providing any kind of concrete detail on how this was to be accomplished, but they promised to lift one million people off of hospital waiting lists.
	And promised that they would get care or treatment within 18 weeks.
	Again, how feasible that is is almost beyond belief.
	But this is one of the pledges that were made.
	And we all know that many, many electoral pledges are never acted upon and certainly aren't followed through with.
	But you can see there with these broad similarities and those key aspects of policy that the distinguishing Features just aren't there.
	The main distinguishing points between the Tories and Labour came with Brexit.
	And that was just that the Tories were promising that they would still manage to maintain a close relationship with the EU, but they were determined to leave the single market in the customs union.
	Labour said that they would retain the single market if they could and remain part of the customs union.
	And their emphasis would be on getting a good deal.
	And any kind of a deal would do, whereas Theresa May went into the election saying no deal is better than a bad deal and kind of leaving it open-ended in that respect.
	So you have to ask yourself then, well, how did people decide who to go for?
	Yes, Brexit was a factor.
	One of my own personal theories about this election, and I've very recently, and that's in the last few hours, looked at some of the media reporting on the demographics behind the vote.
	One of my own theories is that we're seeing definitely in the UK, I think perhaps across Europe, maybe even the United States, but there's a dissolving of economic class as a motivating factor in how we vote.
	One of the striking things about this election is that some of the most impoverished people, What you might call the classic English working class voted conservative in this election.
	They did not go for labor as their grandfathers might have done when the mining pits were still open and the factories were still open.
	We're now post-industrial.
	And the way that people seem to be voting now, and particularly in this election, is that the working class is not voting necessarily—I'm referring here to the white working class.
	The white working class is not necessarily voting in line with whatever economic promises are made to them.
	They are voting for socially conservative values or what they perceive to be socially conservative promises made by parties like the Conservatives.
	Or in a previous incarnation, UKIP, which of course has now collapsed.
	But they're voting for socially conservative values.
	For example, they want stronger policing.
	They want curbs on immigration.
	And unfortunately, they're very easily fooled on that matter.
	All the conservatives really had to do was mumble that they would try to...
	Reign in immigration in some way.
	And I think that was enough to pull in a lot of white working class voters for them.
	But on the other side of the coin, you've got lots of educated, middle class, reasonably wealthy cosmopolitans who are voting for the Labour Party, which is this party that was traditionally the party of miners and factory workers.
	And they're voting for the Labour Party because they see it as more in tune with their identity as a cosmopolitan, urbanite, multicultural identity.
	So we're seeing identity voting more and more rather than the economic voting styles that were definitely a part of political life, certainly in the UK, in the previous century or more.
	We're entering a new age of politics and there are a lot of lines being blurred.
	And I think that hung parliaments like this, particularly with Britain's first-past-the-post system, may become more and more common because of the blurring of the lines.
	I think you're clearly correct.
	And also, it is interesting that there's this parallel development of that in the United States.
	I mean, perhaps the United States was out in front in this development.
	I mean, it's usually called polarization.
	But effectively, these parties are identity symbols, you could say.
	So the Republican Party are for well-to-do.
	White Anglo-Saxons, Protestants, but they're also a party for the working class.
	I mean, the Trump GOP really hammered that home.
	And so the GOP is this effectively implicitly white party, or at least implicitly normal white party.
	And then the Democrats are...
	The party for, you know, hipsters, liberal whites, and then everyone else in this big, you know, roundabout coalition.
	And, you know, where we are in terms of demographics means that we are at this, we're at loggerheads and we're at a tipping point where, you know, Trump can win as the, you know, normal person's party.
	He can win with razor-thin margins.
	And win through the Electoral Congress.
	But once he gets in there, you just have this extreme polarization where the other side thinks he represents an existential threat because he represents the other to them, and vice versa, I would say as well.
	So yeah, that's where we're going.
	And it is interesting that this British election...
	I'm an outsider.
	I don't know exactly why there is this party as opposed to the labor left, the liberal Democrats left.
	I think they might have gained some seats, but they did not do well.
	They are a very minor party.
	And this was a party that was in a coalition with David Cameron just, say, four or five years ago.
	And they're a minor party.
	Actually, Nick Clegg lost his seat, which I'm sure is pretty humiliating.
	And so basically, Britain is going into a two-party system where the Tories are going to represent white people.
	And that is certainly a lot of well-to-do types, but also the white working class.
	And then the labor is going to be this, you know, grab bag of hipsters, immigrants, non-whites, etc.
	I think that in the United Kingdom that it's kind of ripe for some type of political happening.
	So UKIP is pretty much collapsed.
	They're gone because mission accomplished.
	You got Brexit done.
	Other than that, most Brits don't really find a lot of the libertarianism that runs rampant in the UKIP.
	To be very appealing to them.
	And the liberal Democrats, I think they also went under a collapse, and that in part had to do with the rise of UKIP over the past several years.
	And so now both parties are gone.
	And you now have the possibility for the...
	Ascendancy of some type of new third party that can perhaps be the nationalistic party, but is also much more left-leaning on,
	say, economic issues like UKIP is not willing to go there, but that could also be appealing to the former I
	mean, looking at this election from the outside, this is like...
	Like I said at the very beginning, nobody wins.
	This is like a big snore fest of an election.
	It wasn't very exciting.
	It was Theresa May versus Jeremy Corbyn, who's kind of this bizarre...
	To be honest, Jeremy Corbyn was the more fascinating candidate, but he's like some senile, kind of weirdo, old tanky.
	The thing that was most interesting about him was probably his foreign policy views because they're kind of in line with, I guess, what our foreign policy views would be.
	Probably he's not militantly russophobic.
	He's anti-Saudi.
	He's against...
	He supports Zionist foreign policy in the Middle East, and he supports Bashir al-Assad.
	And so I think those are all things that pretty much everyone in our movement would be in agreeance with.
	But still, he was a very boring candidate, and he still obviously represents a lot of the multicultural pause that we're all opposed to.
	So I think, given what we saw in this election, just like...
	How boring and unexceptional it was that this is the grounds for something to come in the very near future to capitalize on the political scene in the UK because the UK is in a rough boat and the people there do want change.
	The other thing is it's extremely difficult to express a lot of your opinions, especially if they are in opposition to multiculturalism or immigration, because you're going to lose your job and most likely be jailed.
	So it's like a tinderbox or a powder keg right now.
	There's an opportunity for a spark to come.
	And to really blow it all up and make a wild political movement happen in the United Kingdom that the United Kingdom deserves, because right now it looks like a whole lot of nothing is going on in the UK in mainstream politics, but also in our circles in the UK.
	There's just not a lot going on there right now when there should be.
	It should be one of the most exciting political scenes in all the world.
	One of the reasons why it isn't is because of the electoral system in the United Kingdom.
	And the first-past-the-post system, as opposed to the proportional representation system, which you see in a lot of European countries, really restricts the growth of any new party.
	It entrenches and reinforces a two-party system.
	And we have diverted from that somewhat in recent years.
	UKIP was an exception.
	Lib Dems were an exception for a longer period of time, although they now finally seem to be dying a death.
	And there probably will be no way back for them at all.
	But it suffocates the prospects of any kind of new party coming through.
	One of the innovations, one of the promises that Lib Dems had long...
	What they sort of tabled was that they promised to change the electoral system to proportional representation.
	But because so much of the rest of their manifesto was awful, I mean, they were promising to make hate crimes an aggravated offense, so like the sentencing times, you know?
	So if you got two years for kneeling a bit of bacon to a mosque door before, you were going to get four years now.
	And they were making these...
	On the one hand, they were making these really egalitarian, freedom-loving proposals, like let's change our electoral system to make it more democratic and more easier for smaller parties to flourish.
	On the other hand, they were promising these really draconian measures for anyone who had an opinion that differed from their left liberalism.
	So that was never going to take off.
	And of course, Labour and the Tories were never going to go for a proportional representation system because Turkeys don't vote for Thanksgiving.
	They aren't going to introduce a system which is going to result in them bleeding out The first-past-the-post system that prevails currently results in a tremendous number of wasted votes, where you might have second and third preferences, and so much of it just gets scrapped.
	So much of the will of the people gets entirely dismissed.
	Because you just kind of cream off the top layer of votes, and that's what pushes your MPs into Parliament.
	So you end up with these members of Parliament representing constituencies where they have very slim mandates, and they're elites, and they're aloof from the people, and you get circumstances in which a constituency might, on the whole, be, for example, opposed to mass immigration.
	But you've got this guy who managed to come through in the two-party system with first-past-the-post, and he's on a completely different level.
	He's coming at the issue of immigration from a completely different ideological standpoint.
	Well, explain that.
	Before we go on, explain that to our American listeners, the first past the post, because I think most of us are under the impression that it is a proportional parliamentary system.
	It's been some time since I studied politics in detail.
	I'm going to give you the briefest and usable summary of it.
	You go into a polling booth and you have a ballot sitting in front of you.
	You can take your candidate of choice and your second preference and your third preference.
	The way those get added up Because in a proportional representation system, the smaller parties will get on the ballot paper and all of those votes count.
	So even if they get a certain number of third preference votes or second preference votes, they're all added up.
	And if they get 3% of the vote nationally, then they will get 3% of seats in Parliament, which is...
	You know, if 3% of the people want to be represented by this party, well then 3% of the seats in the National Parliament should go to that particular party.
	Under first-past-the-post, the goal is different.
	The goal is not to have an accurate representation of the will of the people.
	The goal is to form stable government.
	That's the idea.
	You don't want all these coalition governments that you see.
	You want stable government.
	So the emphasis is on generating a small number of parties.
	With a greater number of MPs in Parliament or representation.
	So you find that the second and third preference votes don't really count unless there's a draw at the top between the top two candidates.
	But really it's whoever gets the most votes wins and anything below that second and third preferences for other parties gets dismissed.
	So it's kind of like a race to the finish line as opposed to a race.
	It's like a race where there's only a gold medal and there's no silver or bronze.
	It honestly sounds like the American system where whoever gets the most votes in a particular congressional district They win, and it doesn't matter if there's some massive third party or independent insurgents.
	If they don't win a district or state, then they don't have any representation in Congress.
	Yeah.
	It's disheartening to voters, and it dissuades them from moving away from the big two parties.
	I mean, we were talking earlier about how UKIP have collapsed.
	Well, 57% of...
	2015's UKIP voters went Tory, Conservative, in this election.
	So they don't kind of drift off into other kind of smaller parties.
	They don't stay with the smaller parties.
	UKIP was kind of an experiment, and it's burned itself out, and it's fulfilled the purpose that it was created for, really.
	And it's like, okay, party's over, let's go home.
	So, you know, a lot of those voters.
	Just went right back to where they came from, which was the Conservative Party.
	And 18% went to Labour, and the rest just kind of either stayed at home or fizzled out.
	Let me do this.
	Let me throw a little bit of cold water on what Charles was talking about earlier in the sense of this, you know, Britain is ripe for something new.
	I agree to a large extent, but I also don't want us to underestimate what we just saw last night in a real collapse of British nationalism.
	And I also want to jump onto one of my hobby horses, which is my criticism of Euroscepticism, because I think we have seen...
	Two things that are very related, and that is first the collapse of the BNP, but also just this problem of making Euroscepticism the center of any kind of right-wing ideology or right-wing populist movement.
	And I can remember back to June 23rd of last year, and that was Brexit Day.
	We forget about it now, but Nigel Farage actually conceded the election on that afternoon.
	He said, the turnout was great.
	We're moving forward.
	More people have expressed Euroscepticism than ever before, but we probably won't win tonight, but that's okay.
	And there's still videos up of that, and that is a very surreal video at this point, because obviously Brexit did pass.
	My, you could say, Freudian reading of that weird press conference was that Nigel Farage secretly didn't want Brexit to win.
	It was something actually Freud talked about, about being ruined by your success.
	Obviously, overtly, he wanted Brexit to pass, but there's probably a little part of him that didn't, because he recognized that UKIP would have blown its wad if Brexit passed.
	There would be no longer a raison d 'etre for the party.
	And that is exactly what happened.
	So UKIP achieved its goal, and now it is nothing.
	And that is, I guess, maybe not a huge problem for us, but it...
	But it actually is a tremendous problem for us, and I think it has actually been a terrible wound on nationalism in Britain.
	And obviously we can always recover from something like that, but I don't think we should also underestimate the depth of this wound.
	And that is that, you know, I have been doing this for a long time, and I have certainly been paying attention, close attention to, you know, Euro nationalism and nationalism in the United States for, you know, most of my adult life, really ever since graduating from college back in 2001.
	And I can remember getting very excited about the BNP in the mid-2000s.
	Nick Griffin.
	He was not perfect, but he was riding high.
	He certainly had his talents.
	The BNP was a legitimate party.
	It was getting major votes.
	They had built an infrastructure.
	They had built a hierarchy, etc.
	And I remember actually Nick Griffin, I think, even came to an American Renaissance conference maybe back in 2004.
	He's like, oh, you guys should have a BNP in America, you know, an ANP or something like that.
	And we were all jealous and so on.
	Oh, hell.
	The tables have turned.
	The BNP evaporated.
	I mean, the BNP might as well not exist at all.
	It has no representation.
	And one of the reasons was that was the flaws of Nick Griffin, which are very real.
	But another reason for that was that nationalism got channeled into this The UKIP party, the Civic Nationalist Party, but also a party that was filled with libertarians and neoliberals, people who wanted more globalism.
	They even explicitly wanted more immigration, some of them.
	Nigel Farage wasn't exactly like that.
	Nigel was, or is, more of a populist and so on, someone who's more attractive to people like us.
	The fact is that was the party.
	And even if you want to put aside the neoliberalism, the party was totally myopic.
	I remember I was actually at the – I spoke at the 2012 Traditional Britain Group.
	And I actually gave this kind of rip-roaring anti-American speech in the sense of America's founding principles were wrong.
	There were some other people who talked about Evola and the Roman Empire and all this kind of stuff.
	And we had someone there from UKIP, and he came up, and it was like we were just talking to this just...
	Utterly clueless person who had no idea where he was.
	He was talking about reducing marginal tax rates on textile industries.
	I'm really not joking.
	He had no connection to these ideas.
	He apparently had no connection to even basic bitch populism.
	Basically, nationalism was channeled into this single-issue thing where we viewed...
	Brussels and Europe as the problem and everything is going to be fine if we just got out of this big bureaucracy, blah, blah, blah.
	And what are we left with?
	Basically, we're left with the UKIP has been ruined by its success.
	It is almost evaporated.
	And I could safely predict that UKIP will be nowhere four years from now.
	It won't even be a party.
	And all the British nationalist eggs were put into that basket.
	And so now we're in just this malaise.
	And, you know, there's no discernible British nationalist force.
	I mean, as Charles was saying, before we turn the recorder on, I mean, there's, you know, our friend Matthew Tate, and there's, you know, the London Forum, or there's certainly some great individuals, Adrian Davis, so on, but there's no...
	discernible institution or force that you can point to and say, this is British nationalism.
	I'm not saying this to some American chauvinist who wants to piss on our cousins.
	I'm absolutely not saying that.
	That is absolutely not my motivation.
	It's quite the opposite.
	But, you know, facts are facts.
	And so I just think these are the problems.
	These are the problems of channeling nationalism, A, into civic nationalism, but also into just single issue kind of libertarian stuff and euroskepticism.
	I just I don't think it.
	We've seen what it wrought, and it's never a good idea.
	And if we're going to...
	If we're all going to be part of—I can't even set foot on the island, as we know, due to Theresa May, who banned me when she was interior minister, that probably says something about her.
	But I won't set foot on the island, but I certainly want to be a part of, in some way, an identitarian movement in Britain.
	My last name is Spencer, after all.
	But if that's going to happen, it has to have a proper basis.
	And I'm sorry.
	I know that I am one of the more controversial people when I make these pro-Europe utterances and so on.
	But that basis just can't be anti-Europe.
	It's got to be something bigger.
	And I actually think it should be bigger than nationalism.
	I would propose that we need something that's almost like an international party, or at the very least, an international party.
	We think on a racial basis.
	We think, certainly, I think in an identitarian lines.
	And we think on a civilizational basis as well.
	And so, you know, again, I do agree.
	Maybe like, you know, we could say, oh, you know, your death is also a rebirth or your success is also your ruin.
	This is how life works.
	Very true.
	So I do think there's a void there.
	But it's very important that that void be filled with something that is animated by our ideas, and not petty nationalism, not neoliberalism, not metax cuts, and not Euroscepticism.
	Yeah.
	You guys can vehemently disagree if you want.
	Well, no, I agree with what you're saying, and it's like, I don't know, it's like poking that body, like, you know, do something.
	You're looking at the UK, and there's just nothing.
	You know, after Brexit, now it's like, now what?
	Now you go back to...
	You have these lackluster elections, or you're going to get free lunch, or you're going to get free lunch in a pudding, you know?
	What's the vote going to be about?
	It seems like there's such major issues still that have not been addressed in the United Kingdom, and it just, to me, it seems like...
	Something has to happen.
	And so, you know, we're talking about how it's like this, it's ultimately a two-party system now.
	Well, then, something has to happen within the conservative party, much like how the Trump movement happened within the Republican Party.
	You kind of need to have just like a hostile takeover of one of these political vehicles in order to make something happen, to make something happen that matters.
	You mean you could form your own little party like Jack Buckby created the Liberty GB party or whatever?
	No one's voting for that.
	I mean, it's just like that's a symbol, if anything, these little parties that it's like the Libertarian Party in the United States.
	Yeah, it's quaint, and I'm sure they have great ideas, but they're never going to accomplish anything ever.
	Something needs to happen in the United Kingdom, and I think if, you know, basically you need some type of a strongman figure who's going to carry out a hostile takeover of the Conservative Party, and that's a tall order considering, you know, these Labour and Conservative parties are like major institutions in the United Kingdom, similar to how the Democrats and Republicans are.
	Are there any based billionaires in the United Kingdom who are going to take over the Conservative Party?
	I don't know.
	But also then it's like the identitarian question in the United Kingdom is...
	We need something, you know, beyond the London former traditional Britain group.
	I mean, all throughout continental Europe, young people are going into the various identitarian movements in Eastern Europe.
	It's, you know...
	It's like light years ahead of us in terms of where the youth are and where the Overton window is.
	In the United States, Donald Trump won the white millennial vote.
	Generation Z is supposed to be the most right-wing generation of young people to come up in the United States in a long time.
	Then we look over at Profidius Albion and it's like young people are voting labor and they're like having anxiety.
	Just on that point that Richard raised earlier where he sort of had this idea that perhaps the British could move to a more international white identity or something that sort of reaches beyond British parochialism, something to that effect.
	That's going to be a stumbling block.
	And it's going to be very difficult to achieve any kind of move in that direction.
	And the reason is that the British have for a long time developed a habit and have become expert at defining themselves against other whites.
	And just as a personal anecdote, I remember my own grandmother before she died.
	One of the last things, actually, that she said to me, because my family's Scottish, and she had said to me, you know, the Scots are nothing like the Irish.
	This is what she would say, because in earlier years, I come from a military family.
	She and my grandfather had been stationed for a while in Northern Ireland, along with many different other countries, but she didn't much like her time there, and it stuck with her.
	And she didn't much like the English either.
	Now, in interacting with Welsh people, and I have some Welsh in me as well, and English, and Scottish and Irish, and also from observing history and reading around the subject, going back to how the English remember the First World War, the Second World War.
	Or even how they relate stories about Napoleon and celebrate Waterloo and Trafalgar.
	If it comes down to insulting the French or insulting a Pakistani, they'll insult the Frenchman first.
	Or they'll insult the Germans before they insult the Nigerian.
	Or they'll insult their direct neighbor, the Scots.
	I mean, the number one so-called hate crime in Scotland is not against non-white ethnic minorities.
	It's Scots.
	So, you know, the Scots tend to be more anti-English than anything else.
	The English tend to be more anti-Irish or anti-Scottish than anything else.
	And it's this kind of...
	It's like the Brits are consumed and so easily diverted into really parochial types of nationalism.
	Like, extravagantly parochial.
	Forms of nationalism.
	And yes, there are Brits who think along ethnic lines and aren't caught in that trap.
	But in some ways, UKIP has died the same death that they caused the BNP to die of.
	And it's that whenever you...
	The BNP was always sort of ethnically focused.
	But in the period in which it became really successful, it adopted an almost UKIP-like aura.
	So it was forced to adopt a constitution where it had to let non-white members in, and they started parading Sikhs wearing turbans in front of the camera as BNP members and stuff like this.
	And it was all nice at the time, and it wasn't quite full civic nationalism, but it was drifting in that direction.
	Well, a lot of the voters then for the BNP that made it successful were of the UKIP type.
	All those BNP voters were not convinced ethnic nationalists.
	They weren't deeply rooted in an ethnic sense of identity.
	They were just civic nationalists who voted for something that looked like civic nationalism.
	Oh, well, the BNP have this Sikh guy and he's mouthing platitudes, and the BNP can't be that bad, although the media Well, as soon as those civic nationalists were presented with a slightly more media-palatable option in the form of UKIP...
	They abandoned the BNP pretty much overnight, and they went to UKIP.
	Well, once the UKIP's raison d 'etre was achieved with Brexit, and you had to look at the rest of the party, it succumbed to pretty much the same malaise.
	It's like, okay, the voters just passed on through.
	They started off completely as Tories going back in the 80s and early 90s.
	Then they sort of slowly bled into the BNP and they drifted out of the BNP into UKIP and now they're drifting right back into the Tory party again.
	It's like they've went on this little sojourn through these smaller parties that offered a slightly more edgy type of nationalism than that offered by conservatism.
	It's like I'm looking at the British scene at the minute and I'm thinking if there's any lesson to be gained here it's that you You set your stall out.
	You say, this is who we are.
	We are racial.
	We are ethnic.
	We are radical in so many senses.
	And we are uncompromising.
	We will not parade the beast Sikh in a turban.
	We will not.
	It's an analogy, but it encompasses so much.
	There's a lot to be said in that.
	We aren't going to play the game.
	This is who we are.
	We are a white interest, white identity party.
	And if you don't like it, go vote for someone else.
	Go vote in the multicultural society that's going to see your grandchildren hunted down in the streets.
	Go for it.
	But we're standing for something different.
	We're standing for ethnic survival.
	We're standing for ethnic success.
	And you know what?
	It's going to come down to whether at least give people that option.
	But there's just so much blurring of the lines, it makes it very easy for our opponents to just keep playing the game that they're playing.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	I mean, because there is a status quo that is maintained.
	I mean, Trump proves that.
	You know, the Trump that we've gotten isn't really too different from what we would have had under Ted Cruz or Jeb or even Hillary.
	I mean, the missile strikes on Syria, his foreign trip outside of the, you know, bullying of European leaders, it was basically what Hillary would have done.
	So, yeah, I mean, there is like the current establishment is stable and we shouldn't underestimate that.
	On the other hand, you could also make the argument that, you know, whatever Trump has been like over the past, He still is Trump.
	I mean, he still did achieve this amazing victory that we should never discount, and I agree with that, and that maybe the way of doing this is this top-down, you know, putting a wild man in charge and just engaging in a top-down revolution of the existing structure.
	Maybe that's more successful.
	I don't know.
	Trump got elected because he refused to play by a lot of the rules of the game.
	He was saying things that people could not believe anyone could get elected after saying.
	And that's a lesson that we need to take to heart.
	We need to say and keep saying the things that will make jaws drop and people go vote.
	People want to learn more.
	We've learned that lesson.
	Oh, that's the alt-right.
	That's the alt-right.
	Because that's the thing.
	It's like, I don't know how many people that, you know, I'll talk to a journalist or others and they'll stand there, you know, agog, you know, when they're like, is it true that you, I remember our press conference, they're like, is it true that you think all women want to be taken by a strong man?
	I was like, yep.
	And then Kevin MacDonald was like.
	Is it true you don't think that Jews are real people?
	Well, I was like, being that they have tails and cloven hooves, I'm not sure they are homo sapiens.
	Yeah, no, I totally agree.
	It's to be radically mainstream, and that is the way that we get our message out there.
	I mean, I just...
	Just all the pussyfooting has just gained us nothing.
	And also all these guys, I don't know how many people I know who get jobs in the conservative movement and then don't really do anything for us.
	I mean, it's just kind of like, you know, I guess it's great that you're earning a pretty decent salary and all that kind of stuff, but, you know, you could earn more money doing other shit.
	I don't know.
	I do think that the strategy that has worked has been the uncucked strategy and the no apologies and the willingness to say things that are, to normie ears, outlandish.
	I mean, obviously, this is like the Richard Spencer philosophy.
	Shock the bourgeoisie.
	But look, obviously, I...
	It's my personality, for one thing, but also I think this is clearly what we need to do.
	There isn't going to be some long march that we're going to be able to, like 50 years, we'll wake up and it's like, oh, look, we slowly transform society back.
	I mean, we are going to be confronted rather dramatically when we attempt to do anything.
	And we're going to be confronted maybe even violently when we try to do things like this.
	We've seen the first taste of that this past year.
	So this is where we are, and we need to recognize that.
	I was saying one of the things I was thinking of is that there should be a structure in place, and this is why I was talking about an international party or an international coalition that is a body and has a hierarchy.
	It's a real corporation.
	As just a shadow party, even if these national parties aren't winning elections, there is a structure in place that could take power when that opportunity presents itself.
	And again, I do think that...
	You know, we're being confronted on a racial basis.
	We aren't being confronted on a, you know, merely ethnic basis, in that sense of the word ethnic.
	In the sense of like, you know, Welsh or Irish or what have you.
	And so, you know, we need to, obviously race and ethnic are the same word at some level, but we, you know, use them different ways.
	We need to think on those terms and think politically on those terms.
	I just think, I find it kind of exciting.
	Like, I'm not really blackpilled by anything.
	Maybe that also is my personality, but I just, I'm kind of like, look, this is...
	We just saw what happened.
	We see a definite story that took place, and let's move forward and think what is next.
	How can we be more radical and more daring?
	And not just reproduce the BNP.
	We had the BNP.
	We saw it.
	And I'll actually defend Nick Griffin.
	Look, I'm not directly involved in any of those things.
	And so I just hear bits and snippets, and I certainly have talked with people who are, let's just say, not fans of Nick Griffin, and I have no doubt that he made a lot of mistakes and he's a flawed guy.
	But I'm not sure I just want to blame him.
	Like, this was just all his fault.
	Oh, if only we had a different person in charge of the BMP, everything would have been different.
	I'm not sure about that, actually.
	And yeah, I mean, as you're saying, I doubt it.
	And so I think maybe that model was wrong and that we need a new business model.
	You know, it's not always like the CEO of a corporation.
	It's not like, you know, BlackBerry went from like, sorry for the stupid technology, but like BlackBerry went from like ruling the roost, oh, it's amazing, amazing company, to like...
	Dissolving overnight.
	Was their CEO really stupid?
	Was he just a dumb guy?
	I doubt it.
	I bet whoever was in charge is actually quite competent and highly intelligent.
	But sometimes the model's wrong, and that's the way that I see these ethno-nationalist parties.
	It's just kind of like, well, we actually did try that, and they looked like they were achieving success.
	I wasn't on Twitter back in 2006, but if I were, I would be tweeting out dank, you know, dank Griffin memes.
	So, you know, it's just we are where we are, and it's just incumbent upon us to always rethink things and always come up with new ideas.
	And so anyway, that is my perspective on this whole thing.
	I'm not, absolutely not black-billed, but I'm not going to...
	I'm not going to also be one of these conservatives that almost think it's a virtue to go down to the ship.
	It's like, the ship is sinking, but we must stay.
	We're the captain, and let's just stay on board.
	We signed up for this.
	It's a sunk cost, so let's die.
	I mean, no.
	Maybe bail the ship out or get in a lifeboat.
	I don't know what to say.
	There is a virtue to being flexible and creative and not going down to the ship.
	If we want to stick with that analogy, I think one of the ways, just to start with, that Britain can keep its ship afloat, or British nationalism can keep its ship afloat, is if it throws Nigel Farage overboard.
	Because he's, as far as I'm concerned, a big obstacle.
	You saw the tweet that I put out yesterday because he had tweeted something like, the Conservative Party needs a leader that believes in Brexit.
	I just had this horrible feeling that he's going to obstruct British nationalism for years because Charles was mentioning earlier about the need for this strongman character to come in and shake things up.
	Farage is just one of these doppelgangers where he's just there and he has some of the ambience and he's got Some of the charisma, but he's just diverting and occupying space.
	He's obstructing space when someone else could come in and use that space so much more usefully.
	Farage is not the man.
	He's not that person.
	Not in any sense whatsoever.
	To my mind, as long as Farage is on the scene of British nationalism, it will never be what it can be.
	And my fear is that this guy's going to...
	He's already said, oh, I'm thinking about coming back to frontline politics, and my heart sank.
	I thought, shit.
	Well, that's it.
	That's like another decade gone down the toilet.
	And he'd come back as a Tory, no doubt.
	Oh, of course.
	Of course.
	And suck in so many votes, and we just keep playing the same game, and he's not going to be radical, and he's just going to be a typical Eurosceptic Tory.
	I'm very happy to meet someone who's more hostile towards UKIP and Faraj than myself.
	I like being a moderate.
	I always like that position.
	I am fanatically anti-UKIP.
	I place a lot of the blame of the death of the BNP on UKIP.
	Yeah, no doubt.
	I was a member of the BNP for a while, too.
	A Jews-paying member.
	A meeting-attending member.
	Just as things were looking rosy, Farage sank the whole fucking ship.
	Before we go, I'm curious because, again, you're more embedded in this than Charles and I are, but just in terms of short-term petty politics, house of cards stuff, do you think that Theresa May will be out?
	No.
	Interesting.
	That same arrogance that caused her to call the snap election will cause her to cling on for dear life to her position.
	She's incredibly arrogant.
	She won't make room for someone else.
	I'm convinced of it.
	She won't stand down.
	And unless something absolutely catastrophic happens in the next five years during the course of her government, I can't see her relinquishing.
	Do you think Boris Johnson has a chance of achieving a coup?
	No, I don't.
	I think that Boris himself likes being the clown, but he reminds me a lot of the Joker in The Dark Knight, where he's speaking with Batman, and Batman is sort of confronting him on his goals and what he wants, and the Joker says, I'm just a dog chasing a car.
	If I caught the car, I wouldn't know what to do with it.
	Boris Johnson is the dog chasing the car.
	He likes the limelight and he likes the excitement of the chase and everything else that comes with that and being a Flash character and being the eccentric.
	But he strikes me as someone who, if you placed a great amount of responsibility onto his shoulders, he would collapse at the House of Cards.
	I am not a fan of Boris Johnson.
	Yes.
	We should remember also this Brexiteer, it was like four years before, was making videos in favor of Turkey entering the European Union.
	So he was actually pro-EU and pro-Turkey.
	That's because he's part-Turk.
	Yeah, I know.
	And yeah, he strikes me as a dilettante buffoon.
	And yeah, what is it?
	Never trust a teetotaler or a Turk?
	Yeah.
	Good advice.
	Donald Trump's a detotaler.
	You're right.
	That's right.
	Any so-called British conservative or nationalist who advocates admitting Turkey to the European Union is a liar or he's completely insane.
	He made anti-racist arguments.
	He's like, how could we not do this?
	He made an argument that is actually true from our perspective, has very different resonances, to say the least, where he said, you know, Turkey has all these great European traditions.
	It was once the eastern half of the Roman Empire.
	And it's like, yeah, that's why we should take it back.
	You know, kick the Turks out.
	But he's like, you know, how could we prevent Turkey from entering the EU?
	What, aren't we a racist?
	And so just that kind of stuff.
	I mean, again, that's not unusual at all, but you don't have to say it, you know, if you're one of these typical cucked conservatives.
	And he did.
	So, yeah, I think that guy is total bad news.
	But interesting.
	So another, say, half decade of staring at Theresa May.
	Yeah, it's one of these weird symptoms of modern political culture that the most stern and unwavering characters within the Conservative Party are women.
	Because you've got Theresa May, who was a tyrant in the Home Office, and in her position you've got Amber Rudd, who is just as intransigent and bullish and Foe or pseudo-masculine in how she behaves and the kind of policies that she proposes.
	Horrible woman.
	Repulsive.
	Yeah.
	Well, should we put a bookmark in it or anything else?
	Let's not finish with me just calling Amber Rudd repulsive.
	We can come up with something better than that.
	Charles?
	It's up to you to save.
	Save the podcast?
	Well, you know, we can celebrate the fact that in the 2017 UK election, the most amount of women MEPs have been selected more than ever before.
	So this is the March of Progress, and it's female, you sexist bigots.
	That is just wonderful.
	Yeah, let's celebrate.
	Who's that weird black autistic woman who's like a laborer?
	Diane Abbott.
	Diane Abbott, yeah.
	Corbin's former love interest.
	That is a really...
	Yeah.
	That is really revolting.
	Just to imagine that.
	I mean, good God.
	Oh my God.
	Yeah, we should not even publish this podcast because we might, like, lower birth rates just by bringing that up.
	Good God, man.
	Who could conceivably do that?
	But anyway.
	That works as dog print those strange things.
	It's true.
	Maybe we should praise him for, like, you know, being a true leftist.
	Like, going all the way.
	He's no...
	You know, he's no suburban Bernie supporter who, you know, lives with their little white family out in the suburbs, but, you know, has a subscription to the nation or whatever.
	He's like, he goes all the way.
	Oh, God.
	Another interesting thing, real quick tidbit before we go, Scottish National Party lost big, including, I believe his name's Salmon.
	Salmon.
	Salmon.
	Alex Salmon.
	He lost his seat.
	So I would say that Scottish independence is probably dead for a generation.
	It is.
	The Scots are interesting.
	I've spoken a lot with my dad about it.
	He really is a Scottish nationalist.
	He believes in Scotland.
	He believes it should be independent.
	And when I interrogate him on that, he would often say that...
	I believe in an independent Scotland.
	I believe in Scottish identity.
	But I do not believe that the Scottish National Party is the party to get us there.
	He always hated Alex Salmond.
	And I think it's the leftist taint.
	I mean, it's kind of a fake nationalism.
	Absolutely.
	Let's have an independent Scotland so that we can make it multicultural like every other part of the world.
	Let's be so distinctively Scottish.
	That we swamp ourselves with the entire world and just become another globalist state.
	It's one of these oxymorons.
	Ireland is going through the same thing where it's like they fought for such a long time for independence from Britain.
	We are the Irish and Irish for the Irish people.
	Ireland for the Irish people.
	Get the British out.
	What have they done with it?
	They've just become just another globalist state, globalist project that is becoming Rapidly multicultural to the point where it might be one of the first states in Europe for its native population to go into a minority status.
	I mean, it's ridiculous.
	We're coming right back to this issue of petty nationalism.
	You can become so absorbed in defining yourself against other whites that you just cannot see or it becomes very difficult to see the dangers around you from Those who aren't the objects of your pet hates.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I think there's also...
	I was talking with Hannibal Bateman about this.
	We were, I think, drinking red wine and listening to Morrissey.
	And we were musing on different petty nationalisms.
	But we were listening to Morrissey's great...
	I mean, I like Morrissey's whole work, but...
	I definitely, the National Front Disco is a really great song.
	And it's, you know, English for the English.
	And there is something where, you know, not all petty nationalisms are equal, in fact.
	That there's something about being an underdog petty nationalist, being an Irish nationalist or a Scottish nationalist or something like that, where it does have this tendency towards...
	Because it's always coming from that underdog mentality.
	It's like, oh, the cruel English tyrants who ruled us, or potato famine, or something like that.
	But being an English nationalist is different, much like being a German nationalist.
	Being a true English nationalist means a desire to rule.
	And I think that's...
	What our nationalism has to be.
	It can't just be this endless brothers' wars or endless victimhood.
	It needs to be a we want to rule for us.
	And yeah, that is the future.
	Hopefully, where we're done for.
	Just on that note, the period in which all these petty nationalisms within the United Kingdom dissolved and disappeared.
	was the period of empire.
	So the pact that was made was, let's rule together.
	So they did.
	Britain was forged to rule together.
	So Scots and English and Irish and Welsh went to Africa and went to South America and went to different parts of the world together to rule and to take land.
	And all those petty nationalisms that were...
	Put to bed, really, with the exception of Ireland, in the 18th and 19th centuries, all bubbled up again in the 20th century because empire collapsed, self-pitying populations in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales came to the fore and started reaching out to other self-pitying narratives and ideologies, imbibed a healthy dose of Marxism, and it was catastrophic.
	This could be a whole other podcast of that interesting dialectic between nationalism and empire, because it's the you could look at a similar experience with Russia, where you have a country that's basically born as an empire.
	German nationalism is intrinsically it's a Prussianism, but it's a it's an imperial sense.
	Yeah, so there is actually a fascinating...
	And then there's this kind of also interesting dialectic between petty nationalism, which on its surface is ethnic and racist, you could say, like Ireland for the Irish, but which has this strange relationship with multiculturalism, mass immigration, Marxism.
	But I think that's a podcast for another time.
	So, gentlemen, this was excellent, and we need to do more of these.
	So I will talk to both of you soon.
	Thanks.

▲