Q. Thank you! First of all, what do you think of Donald Trump and his policies? Is he really better than Hillary Clinton? Is he really against the establishment?
A. We've never supported Donald Trump. Even on those issues where he's doing well, such as immigration, the justifications for his actions are wrong and help to establish the foundations for their destruction. He likes to employ the rhetoric of American Conservatives when arguing for immigration restrictions, illustrating it as an issue of law and order and protecting the borders. Implying that there's no issue with immigration as long as it’s done in accordance with American law. This ignores the cultural and spiritual decay which results from immigration, regardless whether it’s done legally or illegally. On other issues such as economics and taxes he's proven himself a traditional libertarian conservative, willing to ignore the poor and middle classes to redistribute wealth upwards. He's done more than any president in recent memory to reinforce Capitalism and big business. The most negative thing though that's resulted from his presidency has been that a lot of well-meaning Nationalists have been led astray to abandon their principles and support this man, believing that salvation can come from the two-party system and subsequently Liberal Democracy itself. For all of Hillary's faults she would have never been capable of doing that. Her presidency would have most likely reinforced our movement, making it stronger.
Q. In fact Trump was supported by the so called "alt-right". What's the ABP stance on this phenomenon? What do you think for the future of them? Will they disappear or will they become more and more stronger?
A. The Alt-Right is basically traditional American White Nationalism given a modern more articulate face. Our problem with them is the centrality they put on the race issue. Racial diversity has only been an issue in American politics since the 1960's. If race is central then the source of national decay is a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas the ideas behind liberal democracy originated in the 17th century with the enlightenment philosophers. You can't have it both ways by emphasizing one you negate the other as an option. We've always maintained that the demon we're fighting has been in existence for hundreds of years. The Alt-Right is fighting a completely separate battle than we are. Whether they grow or not is dependent on us. Up to this point they've done a very good job at appealing to disaffected youths fed up with the current system looking for alternatives. This is the very same demographic which would otherwise join with us. Long term our message has more staying power as its based more on sound reasoning and unity, in contrast to the simplistic conspiratorial preaching of men like Richard Spencer and Matt Heimbach. But we have to be more effective at making sure our message reaches a wider audience or people will continue to flock to the Alt-Right.
Q. The power of the Alt-right come from a smart use of the internet and the attention brought on them by the media. What will your party do to make itself notorious? In Europe we see that the ruling class are losing their appeal on the people for their distance, and the so called "populist" parties are growing because of their presence on the field, listening to the problems of the people and fighting for them. Is it possible for a party to do the same in the USA?
A. The Alt-Right has been very effective at using the internet and the media to get their message across. I don't follow the dynamics of European politics close enough to tell if European populist parties use the same methods, but I think long term these tactics are bound to fail. Using green frogs, insulting your political enemies by referring to them as Cucks may win support from certain segments of the population that have an inadequate sense of manhood, but long term ideas move history and the Alt-Right's inability to clearly articulate any coherent ideas will be their downfall. The success of any potential insurgent political movement in this country will have to build around exposing the contradictions inherent in our own political system instead of trying to rationalize them. What I mean by that, is we're facing all kinds of issues related to social decay; the highest incarceration rate in the world, an epidemic of children growing up in broken homes, the highest rate of mental illness in the world. These are all issues that our present political structure is incapable of dealing with. It's only through advocating new models that we can begin to effectively address these issues. The route that the ABP is taking of trying to have each and every single member be an articulate tool which can spread our message honestly and effectively is the best method to take.
Q. What are the goals of the ABP in the short period?
A. To gain as many adherents as possible, by breaking down the ideological and perception barriers preventing us from even getting a seat at the table. Currently, Fascism has such a toxic connotation that it's impossible in many cases to even have a calm conversation with someone regarding the topic. However, articulating coherent alternatives to the present system, while tying it back to Fascism we can at least get a dialogue going which isn't based upon confrontation but on constructive give and take. Having a knowledgeable membership base capable of doing this in all geographic regions will eventually make it possible for us to achieve our next step, which is the contesting of elections throughout the country.
Q. Talking about the history of your Nation, what is your opinion on it?
A. I think it's mixed. On the one hand you have a politics built upon enlightenment values. On the other you have a culture and people which because of geographic isolation and low population density were able to develop autonomously from that politics. The strong sense of family, and religion that have always been vital to American life should be something cherished by all Americans. However, as our population increases and the availability of land becomes scarce, the political history, which is so often deified needs to be reassessed. An 18th century agricultural economy, where your nearest neighbor may be miles down the road from you can function with a minimalist State, but in a modern technological economy where people live right next to each other, the actions of you neighbors have a significant impact on how you and your family live out their daily lives. Whereas before mental illness, and poverty may have been a personal or local issue they are now, because of their effect on society a National, and State issue. The old American concept of government existing solely to protect life, liberty, and property, while faulty at its core has now a huge impact on American culture and thought. The inability of Americans throughout our history to recognize this and start addressing this issue long ago has resulted in much of the social decay we see today. The first step towards any meaningful reform has to begin with a critical reevaluation of the history of American political leaders and thought.
Q. The last question, what is the party opinion on EU, Syrian War, Israel and North Korea?
A. Overall when it comes to foreign policy our saying is "A Fascist Island in a sea of democracies cannot survive." Our goal is to support regimes which from an ideological perspective align with our views. A strong, free America is a country, which rejects liberal democracy and is surrounded by like minded nations. We therefore reject American policy in regards to Syria. The Baathist regime has its roots in Fascist thought and its continued existence in Syria is an absolute necessity if we wish to see Fascism grow in that part of the world. The same could be said regarding the EU, which time and again has illustrated its hostility to any kind of of Fascism or Nationalism, while a short distance east lies Russia. A country that has taken great strides in rejecting liberal democracy and should be the center of any kind of European political and economic integration. In regards to Israel, we don't share the anti-Semitism which is behind much of Nationalist opposition to its existence. We're primarily neutral when it comes to whether it garners our support or not. The one exception being when it attacks Assad's forces in Syria, then it deserves to be criticized. North Korea would be the one exception to our above policy. Kim Jong Un is obviously mentally ill and no American President should tolerate actual threats against the mainland of the United States or the violation of other countries airspace. We would support any action to take take out the leadership of North Korea.