Interview with David Hamilton of the Nationalist ConservativesIn my rambles through cyberspace, I have encountered other people attempting to address my three favorite political questions: the national question, the class war question and (underlying the other two) the end-of-ecocide question.
For many years, I’ve realized that the three are linked. You cannot stop ecocide in a society based on personal desire. You cannot have a society not based on personal desire without getting away from personal economic competition of an extreme degree. That in turn requires a society with a center, a shared culture and values system, and that ties intrinsically to concepts of ethnicity and identity.
One of the groups I encountered has been the Nationalist Conservative group, whose goal is to merge traditionalism and conservative politics in a modern context.
In my pursuit of the national question, I am forever looking for people who will spill the truth as it occurs plainly to me: that diversity in all forms does not work, and that nationalism is the only type of society that will conserve anything, whether culture, dignity, the environment, or even sanity.
As a result, I asked a few questions of the National Conservatives leader David Hamilton to see if we could find some common ground. I think the results are interesting, and give us a clear vision of what nationalism is like in Britain and where it is headed.
Image: Enoch Powell, a founding force in British nationalism.
What is nationalism, and why is nationalism important?
It’s the largest natural unit of people before artificial creations like the EU. If you expand beyond it it becomes an Empire. Trying to form close links with similar people abroad is temporary because nations of racially similar people form their own national or ethnic identities.
However, at this stage when the kinship nations are imploding we need alliances across Europe and with the Anglosphere because we need each other for different reasons. I think the US needs Europe to re-link to the culture and forge deeper roots after being truncated at the Revolution while we probably will not be able to free ourselves from multi-racialism without American might. India or China would not let us off our knees without strength. To this end it would be wise for our royal family to marry Australians, Canadians or Anglo-Saxon Americans to strengthen links amongst our kindred.
Definitions like an “ideological or Proposition nation” have no meaning. It is the typical Progressives way of removing the meaning from terms and just leaving air. Pat Buchanan defines it in his robust Conservative way as a Blood and Soil nation.
What are the indigenous or native groups in the UK, and how do you foresee them working together under the type of civilization you would desire?
As things stand Britain is breaking apart. The Scottish are now pushing for independence and the Welsh have been encouraged to develop or revive their language. I would not stop a people having their own language and culture but not to use it in opposition to their neighbouring country; Ireland still harbours hostility to England. The problem is that it is largely English taxpayers money that finances these and the English are beginning to react against it. When the Celtic nations realise that we are all facing the biggest invasion since the fall of Rome and being dispossessed, there is hope that we can transcend the historical grudges they have against us to unite for common defence. One in eight of the population of Eire are asylum seekers so it is politic to stop fighting Ulster. We have to overcome internal, inherited grudges for the survival of or respective children.
If you were given power over the UK tomorrow, how would you change society and what changes would the average person notice immediately?
I would halt immigration and stop state benefits for all but those of British ancestry and deport illegals. Some say other countries would not take them back. They would if we were confident and if they could be shown the benefits educated and presumably trained repatriates could bring to them.
I would re-introduce capital punishment for certain types of murder and child molestation (paedophilia is a euphemism to stop it sounding so bad). There are cases where people whose lives have been destroyed by the murder of a close-one, usually one who should be protected by the authorities, are then treated with sickening cruelty by judges who give light sentences to the malefactor. This is particularly disgusting where evil judges let rapists and child molesters off with light sentences. This deprives innocent people of catharsis and signals to asylum seekers that our corrupt judges will be sympathetic if they rape or murder our people.
Does it seem to you that nationalism is gaining strength?
There is a Liberal defence of Liberal values against Muslim ways, especially Sharia Law, across Europe, personified by Geert Wilders with a nationalism involved. I welcome this but am not a Liberal and base my views on inherited tradition and natural prejudice for one’s own people. As things stand the elites and public authorities are prejudiced in favour of ethnics and give them preferential treatment over us.
The great paradox is that the multi-racial ideology was a righteous reaction to the barbarism of Hitler but has itsaelf become persecutory and not only of we Whites. In Europe, especially france and Sweden, Jewish people are being persecuted by Muslims yet the Jewish leaders try to form alliances ith Muslims who hate them against us who are more or less supportive. I urge ordinary European Jewish people to rebel against their leaders for their own safety and join us in the defence of Europe.
There are Conservative values like Piety that we must promote: respect for our ancetors and what they created. The symbol of this is Aeneas carrying his father Anchises from the burning city of Troy in Virgil’s Aeneid.
Another conservative virtue was Noblesse Oblige. That is the obligations of the noble to their lesser brethren. People balk at this because they have fallen for the equality myth. In practice governments come up with schemes like Race Relations Acts then impose them on the population and the implementation percolates down a hierarchy of public officials to the population.
Europe is turning against immigration but the Nationalist-Conservative explosion is yet to come. It will when people realise that liberalism was replaced by what is called Cultural Marxism in the sixties but kept the name. They changed the traditional Liberal notion of individual rights to group rights then designated ethnics as victims and Whites as oppressers.
From then on Whites had oppressive race laws passed against them and ethnics were given preferential treatment under the guise of “special needs.” If a White speaks out they are subjected to loss of employment, a public show trial by the media and general persecution. Dr.James Watson was an example.
For the sake of our readers, can you define and distinguish the following: UK, English, British, Antipodean?
Antipodean surprised me. It refers to an Australian or New Zealander.
The United Kingdom is Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Most would say Britain, but rarely Great Britain, which refers only to England, Scotland and Wales. However, Britain has sometimes been used as an abbreviation for Great Britain and in certain contexts will therefore mean only England, Scotland and Wales, as in British Railways which did not include Ulster.
British is the category the elites slot ethnics into but they can not become English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish. I regard myself as English and part of the indigenous British family of nations.
Is nationalism separate from racism, or do the two overlap? If so, is nationalism a form of racism, or racism a form of nationalism?
To me nationalism is an expression of the being and interests of a racial group that has developed independently from a close-racial country like Germany in our case into a different ethnicity – culture, manners etc. Conservatism is the temperament that wants to conserve what we have inherited and pass it on to our children. The two complement each other.
I openly admit to being a racialist because I believe in racial differences between people but do not accept the Marxist pejorative term “racist.” When asked if he had caused racism with his speeches Enoch Powell replied:”What’s wrong with racialism? It’s the basis of nationhood.”
I regard prejudice as traditional wisdom received from our ancestors. It saves us learning the hard way and we would have been spared this dispossession by immigrants if our natural prejudices had been used after the last war.
It is silly to pretend that everyone is a new experience and we should open our minds. That is encouraging people to be naïve and gets them into danger in a harsh world. Worldly people who travel learn to judge people on their appearance – looks, body language etc.
If you are walking through city streets and see a group of young Blacks walking towards you unless you are very naïve, you cross the road. That is what we learn from experience.
How does your group hope to influence British politics, and what kind of response are you getting so far?
It is a three-pronged attack: explaining the historical causes of our predicament, exposing the prejudice against the indigenous people of their own elites and trying to suggest ways forward.
Some want to bring certain issues to public attention like the hidden genocide of White South African farmers or the widespread gang rapes of young White girls that were covered up by British police. In Blackpool the police suppressed a report that showed 11 Muslim fast food outlets were being used as “honeytraps” to lure young White girls as young as 11 and 12 into sex and then prostitution. That is an act of war on our people by a rival community.
What I envisage is an “intellectual frontline” taking the establishment head on and creating arguments for our people to justify their natural instincts. We have some excellent writers and these were brought together through the foresight of Paul Morris (aka Green Arrow) on Home of the Green Arrow, and The British Resistance websites who developed a stable of top writers who are better than most establishment writers.
Unfortunately the editor of the BNP website refused to do this, preferring to react to news stories and this held us back. This is also a problem with US blogs. They have no ideas of their own so they discuss the news! I’m pleased that Amerika.org is taking a creative approach. It is ludicrous to let the Establishment make the running, we must take the initiative and lead the debate.
Do you think nationalism must necessarily be paired with conservative politics or values? Are the two cut from the same cloth, or complementary?
To me nationalism qualifies Conservative. I mean a specific type of Conservatism, not monetarism or free market economics, which are forms of liberalism, or reductions in state benefits for the working classes, but a conscious re-linking with our traditions and history – our ancestors.
It could be called traditional Conservatism and the rejecton of universal abstractions for concrete terms is inspired by Edmund Burke’s campaign against the thinking behind The French Revolution which was the beginning of the progressive thinking we have now. The use of concrete terms rather than universal abstractions like English man and woman rather than persons leads to a clearer picture of what we are instead of the vague, umimaginable abstraction, humanity.
There is confusion about what nationalism is and everyone has a different idea. For a time the BNP was seen as our last chance now the leaders are hated and Griffin is thought of as a State op. I am promoting a type born of our traditions and history but ideologues want to start anew with a system of belief written down in a book like Das Kapital, The Thoughts of Chairman Mao or Mein Kampf.
One reason for the failure of “radical nationalism” in Britain is that it has no traditional origins and is an ideology or system of abstract concepts in imitation of Marxism. It appeals only to reason and people have to learn it by rote or be corrected. It is a secular form of religion with heaven on earth in a future utopia. To get there everyone has to be socially ingineered and made to fit into a sterotype. It is a type of thinking derived from The Enlightenment and should be left to Marxists, Liberals and Nazis. Anyone who diverges from doctrine is persecuted or attacked as a red.
A Nationalist Conservative view grows out of our emotions: our sense of belonging and affection for our history and confidence in a future for our civilisation. When were homogenous people trusted each other. Churchill knew this and in 1955 tried to intoduce a Bill to control immigration but had to stand down because of his health. His succesor Anthony Eden shelved it. Churchill also wanted the Conservative Party to campaign for that year’s general election under he slogan:”Keep England White.” There is a role model for us.
Multi-racialism has destroyed trust and is destroying civil society. It takes a police and surveillance state to hold it together. Even schoolchildren are now being fingerprinted for future use and those as young as 3 tested for racist attitudes.
Our views derive from an emotional and instinctive relationship with our people and our territory. It is more profound than rationalising or adopting an artificial blueprint for a Utopian world because it grows from natural, human instinct and emotion.
We must jettison dated Liberal categories like left and right for such as Traditionalist and Globalist, Patriot and Anti-British (or American).
Is nationalism important for reasons of biology, identity, political orientation, values, culture, heritage or all of the above? If all, what does it mean that it applies on so many levels?
Nationalism is the way the values you mention are perpetuated and maintained as opposed to Globalism or The New World Order which is about global money making for an elite group and believes in destroying all that our ancestors created for us in the belief that something else will grow from the ruins. This is why they share our technology with say, China and India. They sell our factories to them and thus give them the means to take over, then they will not want us. It is advanced behind the doctrine of racial equality and if any oppose it they are persecuted as “racists” or “haters”.
Our party has a similar outlook to the direction you have taken, which is to say that diversity itself is destructive, not the ingredients of diversity (specific ethnic groups). What led you to this direction?
Throughout history wars have been fought for territory and by allowing newcomers to stake claims, our corrupt and emasculated ‘elite’ are encouraging them to fight for more. In The Territorial Imperative Robert Ardry explains how much having a country of their own has boosted the confidence of Israelis, but our rulers are handing our ancestral homeland to invaders and protecting their welfare over and above that of our native people.
To give favourable treatment to aliens over our own people, “our kith and kin,” as the great fifth Marquess of Salisbury described them, is morally evil.
Is nationalism a prescriptive worldview, or a method of avoiding negative consequences (e.g. those of intermixing, ethnic crime or IQ differentials, etc)?
The problem is Progrssives have an unrealistic view of immigrants. They deny their human nature like us and pretend they are nice, grateful people coming here to be like us when, in reality, they come here to take advantage and bear us grudges for the Empire and the slave trade.
Ours is the natural worldview and grows from simple but instinctive impulses like the urge to put your own children first. A parent who puts other people’s children first is perverse and this applies on a wider level to the natural prejudice for one’s own nation and “Kith and Kin.”. There is no justification for misappropriating our people’s taxes to pay for foreign schemes like educating Africa or giving to the poor in China or India both of which have stronger economies than ours. This is an example of the moral corruption of Western elites. As Conservative economist P.T. Baur put it: Overseas aid is money taken from the poor in the West and given to the rich in the third world. Another excellent Conservative economist is Ezra Mishan and his The Costs of Economic Growth is essential reading for a Conservative economist.
We have natural bonds with our families, a responsibility for them and a duty to them. We also have a duty to pass on what we have inherited to our children, as they, in turn, will have a duty to their children. We owe a debt to our ancestors who bequeathed to us our nation and culture, and we must honour that.
Our loyalties begin with affection within families and this emanates outward to neighbourhood and nation. Men and women are distinctive sexual beings within their inherited collective identity. We belong to our kin, above strangers, and this affects the type of community we create.
Edmund Burke’s famous definition of society is that it is a continuous community of the living, the dead and those who are yet to be born. Each man and woman is part of a larger body. The individual dies, but descendants live on.
We have positive benefits to offer our people: preferential treatment in their own country, better education, priority in housing and employment for our children and protection from child-rape by older members of a rival community. You only need look at the names of graduates from medical and law schools to see how our young are being dispossessed. We would offer British children more opportunities and a better future without unfair competition from outsiders.
A book that was a great influence on me was Suicide of the West by great American Conservative James Burnham. If I may be bold I should like to suggest that American Conservatives develop a world view to suit contemporary and future needs by developing some of the excellent points made by Pat Buchanan in Death of the West and State of Emergency. He has laid down a superb groundwork. You have Operation Wetback as a precedent.
We have been held back in Britain by the BNP and their leaders who are destroying the party from within and discrediting the movement as a whole. Conservatism has been retarded by Conservative magazine editors like the Salisbury Review and Quarterly Review who are reluctant to face our situation as it is when with their reputations they could do so much good. They must make a more realistic assessment then start fighting for their children’s future. They must take on the elites and PC or they mislead young or unworldly people into thinking things are not too bad when, in fact, our civilisation has nearly been expunged. We are being colonised and wiped out. This no time for polite articles about minor cultural details.
The Traditional Britain Group should get some speakers with more dynamism like Frank Ellis to address them and develop a momentum.
David Hamilton’s Recommended Reading
Horwich Nationalist recommended reading