An open letter to Lizzie Dearden.
Thank you for contacting the Identitarian Movement (IDM) for a response to certain misguided and demonstrably frivolous claims about us. To be honest, given your public record of shamelessly defaming us, we didn’t hold out much hope of a fair hearing, but even we are surprised at the lack of journalistic integrity in your latest article.
Of the detailed 370-word response that the Identitarian Movement’s leader Ben Jones kindly submitted to you, responding to no less than eight serious (and provably bogus) accusations, you saw fit to quote just 30 words, tucked safely away from the eyes of many readers deep towards the end of the article.
Therefore, allow us to show the public the responses that you didn’t want them to see.
Kindest regards, for an Identitarian future,
Identitarian Foundation coordinator
Ben Jones, Identitarian Movement leader, responds to Lizzie Dearden.
On whether the Movement could inspire violence.
To those who suggest our Movement has inspired any violence, let alone incidents in the likes of New Zealand or America, we have a simple question: If GI’s / IDM’s explicit rejection of violence, chauvinism or illegality is still unsatisfying to the establishment, how should young people go about raising awareness of what the United Nations calls ‘replacement-level migration’?
As far as we’re concerned, it’s not how we do it that attracts hostility; it’s that we do it at all. The demographic changes in this country and all Western Europe, are without precedent. We think the notion that talking about this inevitably entails violence is preposterous.
On whether the Movement has a ‘red pilling manual’.
No such ‘red pilling manual’ exists. We are aware of increasingly authoritarian tendencies in this country, we therefore accept that it’s imperative to our ethics and strategy to operate within the law; I’m delighted the official you spoke to accepts that we’re not a threat.
On rejecting the term the ‘Great Replacement’.
A single member expressed concern over the ‘Great Replacement’ expression. We don’t change our language or ideas in the face of state pressure; that would only entail constant ideological retreats.
On the split with the Continental branches.
Martin Sellner was displeased that we invited Millennial Woes to the conference. The split, however, was caused by ideological differences. We consider ourselves Identitarian in the European New Right sense, i.e., de Benoist, whereas we consider much of the Continental strategy to be generic patriotism / populism.
On the accusation that we have only around 30 members.
Our numbers are usually kept at between 70 – 100 activists, with many more supporters, donors and fellow-travellers in orbit of this core. Meta-politics is built on a small disciplined group.
On the meaning of ‘remigration’.
Remigration does not refer to a carte blanche policy of deportation. It refers to illegal, large scale and very recent flows of people, especially from North Africa and the Middle-East. The view that they should return to rebuild their homelands is shared by a number of prominent parties and figures in Europe – not mention the Dalai Lama.
And finally, once again, on the subject of inspiring violence.
The Christchurch killer cited China as the closest approximation of his ideal society. We’re still waiting for a journalist to contact the embassy. Or, indeed, to ask the Muslim population to take ownership for the actions of IS. It’s easier to point fingers than address the very real cultural, demographic and social issues, after all.