Thursday, May 18, 2017

Templates of resistance

If you were to go back even 30 years the template of resistance to liberalism was limited. There were journals in which people could signal an intellectual or cultural superiority to leftists, without much passion or focus on changing things. The template changed a little with the advent of the internet, with a group of more intellectually principled intellectuals emerging. More recently the template changed again with a much larger and more combative opposition using social media.

There are still some key changes to be made to the template. We can become more activist and more willing to establish our own communities. You can see the potential for this in recent months. The Battle for Berkeley demonstrated that the dissident right can hold its own against the far left.

But there still needs to be a psychological shift on our side of politics. For this reason, I am closely following the efforts of the Identitarians in Europe to organise an activist opposition to the smuggling of illegal immigrants. Even if it doesn't succeed in closing down the smuggling rings, it can still be important in helping our side break through to a newer, more activist template.

I have to congratulate Lauren Southern for helping to publicise the campaign. She joined the Identitarians in steering a small boat toward one of the smuggling ships - she was detained by the coastguard for doing this. In the video below she talks with Martin Sellner, an Austrian Identitarian, about a plan to launch a more ambitious campaign against the ships:

The Identitarians have put out a publicity video of their own:

It's important that traditionalists here in Australia also help shift the template toward a more active politics. We've become involved in a few initiatives in recent months and we have decided as well to raise some money to help fund the Identitarian campaign. We're encouraging those attending our next meeting in June to bring along a donation, and we'll send this off as a group (if you're a Melbournian interested in our group feel free to contact myself at swerting (at) or Mark Moncrieff via his website Upon Hope).

If readers are considering donating to the Identitarian efforts you can do so via the official campaign website.


  1. @ Mark Richardson,

    I would like to thank you for your very positive coverage of various nationalist movements in Europe. You may not realize it, but it really stands out.

    The media in Europe has been very successful in keeping the various movements apart. Read a German newspaper and the Austrian nationalist (Haider) are Nazis. Read a UK newspaper and Le Pen is a fascist. Read a Swedish newspaper and there are right wing extremist everywhere....

    All of this has lead to that the path of least resistance is for these parties not to support each other, because then there will be loads of guilt by association.

    For the liberals, this is very clever. They all work together and help each other and now they have made the resistance fragmented. I strongly believe that the only way to reverse this is that the different nationalist movement support each other. Maybe something like a coalition of white nationalist, since we really are the same people. Anybody that has read any history would be hard pressed not to see how close we are. Sure, we have been fighting each other for a very long time, but Germans, Scandinavians and Brits (and some others) are really one people.

    Now, it is clear that there is room for Australian or UK or Finnish nationalism, but we must start but joining together against the common enemy. And it is not about "immigration" in a generic sense. Nobody in Germany minds people from Holland coming there and it would be almost impossible to find a Scandinavian opposing immigration from Australia or Canada. I assume that this goes both ways, but please correct me if I am wrong.

    What it is, is simply a desire to maintain white, western societies. We have the same right as any other peoples to demand this. But we will need to work together to get there.

    If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately.........

    1. Thanks Euro Swede. It seems that the political atmosphere in Western European countries is tougher for nationalists than it is in Anglosphere countries, but that the nationalist movements in countries like France and Sweden are also nonetheless better organised than they are in countries like Australia or New Zealand.

      I agree with you that there needs to be, wherever possible, cooperation. There is an American website called Social Matter which has been very good at encouraging crossover between different dissident tendencies in the Anglosphere countries. I hope it leads ultimately to cooperation between the groups in the middle of the dissident right.

      You are right, of course, that nobody in Australia has ever felt threatened by immigration from traditional sources - i.e. from closely related Western countries. First, because the numbers would never be overwhelming. Second, because it would not radically alter the existing tradition or identity (and, similarly, migrants from these sources rarely attack the existing tradition - they don't feel alienated from it).

    2. "It seems that the political atmosphere in Western European countries is tougher for nationalists than it is in Anglosphere countries"

      Maybe! But are there any real, meaningful nationalist in any Anglo country? I used to follow UKIP a bit. Now, we all love Farage but he is very, very soft when it comes to issues like islamization. I don't even think that something like UKIP would be called "nationalist" in the rest of Europe. Also, the UK is maybe the most repressive state in Europe when it comes to the methods used against dissidents.

      Trump I just flat out don't understand. I was very happy when he got elected, but since then his actions are really a mystery to me. Is he a nationalist? I have no idea, but maybe somebody else has.

      What about Canada and Australia? Do you have "real" nationalist that get any meaningful number of votes?

    3. What about Canada and Australia? Do you have "real" nationalist that get any meaningful number of votes?

      In Australia we have One Nation. They've been around for a while and they've had their ups and downs. Alternative parties have had some success in Australia but unfortunately their support usually maxes out around the 10-12 percent mark.

      The big advantage we have in Australia is our preferential voting system, especially in the Senate. Minor parties can actually win seats in the Senate and One Nation currently have four senators. And minor parties can control the balance of power in the Senate. If a minor party in Australia could get even close to the level of support the FN gets in France they could potentially win a dozen or more Senate seats and they could make or break governments.

      One Nation leader Pauline Hanson isn't everyone's cup of tea. She's a bit of a rough diamond. On the other hand she has real guts and she's shown the ability to make her lack of polish into an asset. And the good news is that she's not only strong on immigration but also very socially conservative.

      The big problem here is that Australians in general just don't recognise the dangers of multi-ultural. Australians cling to the belief that somehow multi-cultural works here even though it doesn't work anywhere else in the world. Australians also cling to the belief that the US is a trustworthy ally.

      There's also a new alternative conservative party with a vague paleo-conservative outlook. The other advantage here is that our political system makes it easy, and very advantageous, for smaller parties to work together by swapping preferences so splitting the vote isn't a problem.

  2. I tried to read up a bit regarding Australian immigration policy. Much of it is held in very high regard among nationalist in Europe. And I agree with this!

    But, if I may, some things are downright disturbing. If I understand it correctly, you have hard rules about deporting criminals. Well, in general, that is fine. But you apply the same rules to people from New Zealand as for somebody from Somalia!

    Now, you can look at this in several different ways. But to me, it seems like a clear case of liberals trying to make the case that all "immigrants" are the same. And it is a powerful argument! Why should we not deport a rapist from Auckland, just as we deport a rapist from Kabul? Well, to start, it is a lot harder to deport the people from Kabul....

    But the main thing is that all immigrants are not the same. The people from New Zealand are as close to you as a Norwegians are to Swedes. You should not treat them as aliens. And if you do, you accept a vital part of the liberal narrative!

    Why is the spelling Zealand and not Zeeland, as in the dutch province? As it is, you could think that it was discovered by the Danes!

    1. It alarms me that Australian immigration policy is held in high regard. We have very high levels of foreign immigration which is changing Australia rapidly.

      It is true that the policy is tough on illegal arrivals by boat. However, the Liberal Party which implemented this policy claims that by discouraging illegal arrivals it is possible to have a much larger legal flow of immigrants.

      Many of our immigrants are students from East and South Asia. There is also a growing population from the Middle-East and there are many Sudanese and Somalians as well.

      The latter group have attracted most of the negative publicity, by forming youth crime gangs and carrying out crimes that were once rare in Australia (carjackings, home invasions).

      You're right that the Australian policy fails to recognise the connection and the special compatibility between the founding Australian population and other related Western peoples. The policy at the moment strongly favours students from Asia.

      As for the question of New Zealand, I don't really know the answer. It was called Nieuw Zeeland by the Dutch but for some reason was Anglicised early on to New Zealand.

    2. "However, the Liberal Party which implemented this policy claims that by discouraging illegal arrivals it is possible to have a much larger legal flow of immigrants."

      These people ARE clever. But also evil. Any and all tricks are used to get the white population replaced. This seems almost diabolical.

      And it as very much the case that nationalist in Europe all hold up Australia a ideal example of how you can stop third world immigration. It comes up quite often in the debate and I have also seen people thinking seriously about relocation to Australia, based mainly on this perceived hard line.

      Nobody talks about high levels of legal immigration. "Many Sudanese and Somalians" is a one way ticket to BIG problems. There are around 50 thousand Somalis in Sweden and they cause problems way out of proportion the their numbers. Also, they have MANY kids.

      Regarding New Zealand, I just got a spellcheck warning when I wrote it as "Zeeland" and then started to wonder why this was. But I guess it is as you say, i.e was just Anglicized that way. But it is a bit odd, since there is a province in Denmark called "Zealand" in English.

    3. "the special compatibility between the founding Australian population and other related Western peoples."

      Long before this EU nightmare, we had a form of Scandinavian union. It had no institutions or bureaucrats. All it was, was an agreement that all Scandinavians could live and work in each other countries and then be treated the same as a citizen. This was almost 100% problem free for many decades.

      Later on the liberals used this in their argumentation for third world immigration. It was mainly two lines of argument:

      1. Look how well "open borders" work!
      2. If you oppose "immigration", then you are also opposing this free movement within Scandinavia.

      It is sad to say, but this did work! If you said that you did not want immigration from Somalia, the response was that then you must also deport the Danes living i Sweden. Otherwise, you are a RACIST.

      I mention this as an example of how easy it is for the liberals to get you in a rhetoric trap, if you do not clearly stand up and proclaim that all immigrants are not the same.

    4. The people from New Zealand are as close to you as a Norwegians are to Swedes. You should not treat them as aliens.

      Most Australians regard New Zealanders as being very close cousins. They're not actually regarded as foreigners. That's the way ordinary people feel anyway.

    5. It is true that the policy is tough on illegal arrivals by boat. However, the Liberal Party which implemented this policy claims that by discouraging illegal arrivals it is possible to have a much larger legal flow of immigrants.

      The results of Australian immigration policy demonstrate very clearly that legal immigration is much much more dangerous than illegal immigration. It's a deliberate deception on the part of the Australian government and unfortunately Australians have fallen for it.

  3. Is this event covered in the mainstream media ? anywhere?!

    1. I haven't seen it anywhere. The mainstream media have mostly frozen out the Identitarians in the Anglosphere countries. That's why I was pleased that Lauren Southern gave them a boost within the American alt-right.

  4. How do you know where the donations go or who controls them? Identarians are open membership groups which anyone, intelligence officers included, can join. Open groups get subverted (if they are not already subverted). Going after immigrants and their smugglers is political theatre. One needs to go after the master and not the dog. The politicians who permit the smuggling need to be the targets.

    Any successful resistance needs to have a closed, selected membership to prevent infiltration and subversion.

    1. Anon, I have followed Martin Sellner for some time now. He strikes me as a stable and intelligent person with good politics - if you wanted to have anyone to lead a campaign like this, he would be it. Nor are the identitarians asking for a fortune - just 50,000 euros to fund a larger boat and better surveillance of the smuggling ships. They have already raised 40,000 euros.

      Obviously I did not persuade you with my post about the value of this kind of campaign. Personally I think it is a win-win scenario. If they harass the smuggling boats and make it harder to bring in illegals then that is a win. But even if they don't get that far, it is still a win in the sense that European men will be taking action to defend their homelands. It is a major step forward in the "psychological template" of resistance. Someone has to lead the way in this and it is the identitarians who are doing it.

      Yes, it is true that the biggest breakthrough would be the electoral ones. But we should not discount activism in politics. The left has used activism successfully for decades to generate support for their policies and to generate a momentum allowing them to recruit people to their causes and to swing public opinion (the Battle for Berkeley was not some kind of decisive win that solved all our problems - but it was nonetheless a kind of breakthrough in which the streets were no longer ceded to the far left - it had significant value). Also, it may well be the case that we never dominate electorally, in which case we need people to act for themselves - to no longer passively rely on governments but to take steps to build their own institutions. An activist mindset is better suited for this.

    2. Also, it may well be the case that we never dominate electorally

      I think it's highly likely that we're not going to dominate electorally. So I think you're right - pressure group activism could be highly effective. We should not give up on electoral politics but a combination of both could work.

      Infiltration of dissident groups by police, security and intelligence agencies is a huge problem and likely to be a much bigger one in future. We need to recognise that the police, security and intelligence agencies are our enemies. Agents provocateurs are likely to be used against us.

      Leftist groups had to deal with that danger in the past and they still won.