Benjamin Villaroel, American Renaissance, August 9, 2019

The great question of the 20th century was whether freedom could survive the onslaught of totalitarianism. The great question of this century is whether the white world can survive the rising tide of color. Europeans in every corner of the world are facing this reality, and slowly rising to meet the challenge.

Though often overlooked, the whites of Latin America’s Southern Cone — Uruguay, Argentina, and Chile — are no exception. They too are now developing the politics of “white blowback” in the face of mass immigration, and forming civic and political groups to ensure a future for themselves and their posterity.

This is an interview with Alabanese and Garrido, leaders of the Chilean group National Identitarian Force (Fuerza Nacional-Identitaria in Spanish, “FNI” for short). I conducted the interview in Spanish in June 2019, and translated it myself, and have added explanations in brackets and English-language hyperlinks for clarification. All emphasis was added by the FNI.

Benjamin Villaroel: So, what is the National Identitarian Force? When and why was it founded, and what does it seek to achieve? What special relevance does it have given the change in character of immigration to Chile since 2013 [see below]?

National Identitarian Force: FNI is a socio-cultural, non-partisan, identitarian, and pan-creole movement. It was founded on October 12, 2012, in Santiago by creoles from different organizations and from across the country. For those unfamiliar with the term, in our list of principles, we define creoles as those descended from one or more European nations, and born and raised in the New World.

We chose to found FNI on October 12 because that date marked the beginning of European settlement in the New World, a date commonly known [in Latin America] as the “Day of the Race.”

FNI’s main goal is to help ensure the survival of local creole, and global European identity. Other ideas and propositions are supported or discarded according to whether they bolster or distract from this goal. Our principles are drawn from a skepticism of the idea of “Chileanism” as an identity worth defending, since it was created in the 19th century as a trans-racial civic nationalism that encompasses at least three different racial groups: whites, Indians, and mestizos. The same arguments made in favor of artificially bringing together three racial groups can be made in favor of bringing together four or five. As such, Chileanism cannot be used to resist the current multicultural assault via mass immigration. Chileanism inherently carries the seeds of multiracialism.

Historically, Chile has had a steady flow of immigration from various parts of Latin America. Until 2013, that flow was largely Peruvians who mostly settled in the North [of Chile] and in the city of Santiago. Starting in 2013, that changed, and dispossessors began coming from Colombia, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti, among other places. This started a “mulatto-ization” of Chile on a scale never seen before. These population groups reached a country that already had a non-white majority (mixed and Amerindian), so this African-descended immigration didn’t actually start the process of replacing the local white population.

The black and mulatto population that came to Chile immediately began mixing with the lower-middle and lower classes, which are not the socio-economic rungs where many creoles are found. Given Chile’s long history of strong class division, mixes between creoles and black and mulatto immigrants are the exception. The main problems with these groups are their predisposition to crime, government dependency, and the negative impact they have on neighborhood cohesiveness.

BV: Who are the intellectual figures and what are the political movements that most inspire and influence FNI? To me, it seems that FNI is very much modeled after Europe’s identitarian organizations.

FNI: Though we could probably be grouped in with the New Right, there’s no doubt that our movement has meaningful differences from American and European groups, given our cultural, social, and geographic context. Regardless, a few figures we consider important are: Guillaume Faye, Alain de Benoist, Greg Johnson, Jared Taylor, Ernst Jünger, Juan Pablo Vitali, Friedrich Nietzsche, H.L. Mencken, Kerry Bolton, and Welf Herfurth.

We try to adapt those figures to our own reality, as outright imitation of European groups that were born in Europe’s reality doesn’t make much sense. Our identiarianism is pan-ethnic and pan-creole, and has no problem with political or religious pluralism. Within the FNI, you’ll find alt-left, anarchist, fascist, and National Socialist perspectives; along with supporters and detractors of the free market, abortion, Christianity, etc. However, there is one thing that’s not up for debate. We are committed to ethnogenesis: the creation and protection of the creole identity (that is to say, white men and women of the New World, who culturally are principally Hispanic [in the sense of New-World Spanish] with a few other European influences), in all of the forms it has taken, and will take, throughout the course of history.

BV: What are FNI’s main activities?

FNI: Our public activities mostly consist of outreach actions: dissemination of flyers, posters, banners, and stickers.

We also hold ceremonies on important dates, such as the anniversary of the founding of Santiago (February 12), the Day of the White Race (celebrated in March), and the Day of the Race (October 12). We also take camping trips that include combat training and philosophy classes. Finally, in coordination with the Círculo Pancriollista de Investigaciones [This roughly translates as the Pan-Creolist Investigation Circle, but sounds better in Spanish], we host speakers. Past speakers have included the Argentine Héctor Buela and the Australian Welf Herfurth.

We are not trying to build a political party or show how “popular” the FNI is through followers on social media. We are in a white-minority country, and of that minority only a fraction is racially conscious, and only a small part of that fraction is willing to take action to ensure survival. Since its beginning, the FNI has rejected the idea of measuring success by numbers. Instead, we focus on making sure our message reaches the right people. From there, we strive to build a network of contacts — professional and social — that can help ensure the survival of creoles locally, and whites globally.

BV: It is understood that the Southern Cone is the whitest part of Latin America. What would you say is the white share of the populations of Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay? Roughly, what are the shares of Indians, mestizos, and others in each country?

FNI: The Southern Cone, granting certain obvious qualifiers, is the most Europeanized part of Latin America. Argentina and Uruguay each brought about their own demographic transformations through 19th century expansionist policies that resulted in their Indian populations shrinking considerably. That, coupled with the large waves of European immigrants that came in the 19th and 20th centuries, lead to a Europeanization of their populations. Historically, Uruguay has tended to have progressive democratic governments. Argentina has been seduced by both leftist and rightist populisms, all of which have mismanaged the economy, leading to the numerous and pronounced economic crashes and political crises of the late 20th century. In demographic terms, at least 70 percent of Argentina and Uruguay are white. Some 10 percent are more-or-less pure Indians. The rest of the population is mestizo and harnizo [five-eighths white, three-eighths Amerindian], largely found in the lower classes.

The Chilean experience has been different. There was a “whitening” of a large part of the Indian tribes, due to miscegenation, which created what is today the largest population group. Whites (approximately 20 percent of the population) are mostly found in the upper and upper-middle classes in the center and the south of the country. Something like 10 percent of the population is relatively pure Indian. The purest Indians inhabit the northern-most part of the country.

The explanation for Chile’s success and position as leader of the Southern Cone are largely caused by:

The dominance of Europeans.

The dominance of Hispanic [the term here is being used to mean “Spanish Creole”] culture.

High levels of respect for law and order.

The economic policies implemented by the Chicago School and upheld by the first three post-Pinochet governments (Patricio Aylwin, Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, and Ricardo Lagos, all of the leftist Concertación coalition).

The stability of democratic norms derived from the Chilean elites’ regicidal tradition and general aversion to political absolutism.

BV: Do Uruguay and Argentina have movements like Chile’s FNI? What are they?

FNI: There are Uruguayan and Argentine pages on Facebook and other social media platforms that express sentiments like those of the FNI. Both countries certainly have people who are on board with our ideas. However, neither of the two has organizations actively championing the creole identity understood in bio-psychic-cultural terms as FNI does. While there are of course groups that believe in this identity, none prioritizes it in their principles or activities; they focus on other things.

We currently collaborate with Juan Pablo Vitali of Argentina, and when the time is right, we intend to organize creoles of that country into an Argentine FNI.

BV: For North Americans and Europeans, it is impossible to think about any rightist movement in Chile without bringing to mind General Pinochet and his legacy. What does the FNI think of Chile’s military government (1973-1990)?

FNI: We consider the “military government,” “military regime,” or “dictatorship,” [The name for Pinochet’s reign is a politically loaded debate, somewhat like the “Civil War” in America. The FNI here lists three of its more common names to show that they aren’t especially loyal to one perspective or another.] to be a historic and revolutionary period in Chilean governance. It helped establish the free market economic principles that lead to greater prosperity. Compared to the rest of Latin America, Chile ranks number one in liberty and happiness. But this increased prosperity lead to greater non-white immigration after the military regime ended. Furthermore, ideologically, the military regime supported the idea that “Chileanism” should supplant the various ethnic identities found throughout the country, favoring homogenization and threatening diversity. FNI does not have a formal position on General Pinochet or his regime; perspectives vary from member to member.

BV: Do you view secession as a possible solution to the threat of extinction whites face in the Southern Cone?

FNI: Secession — understood as separation or breaking off one piece of territory from a country in order to create a new state — is not something we reject out of hand. But the situation we find ourselves in is such that no argument could be made in favor of even starting a secessionist project now. There are millions of creoles (Southern Cone whites) whose foremost identification is with their nationality, class, religion, or political beliefs. As such, they see other creoles as enemies in their quest for the dominance of whatever identity they prioritize.

If creoles won’t consciously accept that they exist as a people, and that they should strive to perpetuate their existence, secession is pointless. Without a conscious identity, and without a desire to continue to exist, it will be impossible to count on the political and military will that could make secession possible. On top of that, the creation of a strictly creole territory won’t do any good if the creoles who compose it view members of their own kind as enemies, making ethnic solidarity impossible. What we see now is creoles supporting racial aliens on behalf of national, religious, and partisan political identities. Secession could at some point play a role in the survival of whites in the south, but right now, it isn’t a priority for creole ethnogenesis.

What we do favor is ethnic segregation, understood as voluntary associations between racially conscious creoles in order to form organizations, neighborhoods, and families. Self-segregation doesn’t have political, economic, or military requirements in order to get going, which makes it more practical. All that’s needed is racially aware creoles who have the will to get together with their racial kin, channel their resources, and work as teams in order to, first and foremost, survive as an ethnic group.

In Chile, white genocide is not happening by way of murders, machetes, or terrorist attacks. Instead, it is an ongoing process by way of miscegenation, facilitated by the physical proximity of other racial groups. This kind of genocide is not a consequence of recent immigration, but has been going on throughout Chile’s history, and has been downplayed or even championed by civic nationalist groups.

BV: If there is one Chilean racialist known outside of Chile, it is certainly the late Miguel Serrano. Can you talk a bit about his life, his work, and his relevance today?

FNI: Miguel Serrano was not an ideologue. We can acknowledge his great literary talent, unique style, and the brilliant writing that imbued a certain magic in each of his books, but his idealistic vision of race in Chile is injurious to creole identity. Not only was he not against miscegenation and the homogenization of the peoples within our borders, but he also ended up romanticizing mixing and its mythic derivative: Chilean civic nationalism.

BV: What would you say the average Chilean thinks about race?

FNI: Chileans certainly think about race — just not in an identitarian way. For the average Chilean — someone who hasn’t had any political or racial instruction — Indian ancestry, especially if it’s Mapuche [the largest Indian tribe in the country, and most historically relevant], has a negative connotation. It is common to try to hide or compensate for this ancestry. Meanwhile, people coming from the Left celebrate Indian ancestry purely out of an anti-white and anti-colonial revanchism. The Left’s claims to Indian ancestry coincide only accidentally with the worldview and identity of actual Indians, being largely based on opposition to everything associated with European presence in the New World. In this way, in Chile, leftist pro-Indian and pro-proletariat talking points converge only accidentally.

Yet, people without political or racial instruction consider European ancestry a “superior” trait. Reference to European ancestry, even just to describe someone’s appearance, is automatically considered positive, that is to say, calling something “European” is the same as calling it “superior.”

However, this automatic and organic social valuation of European as superior has a lot to do with the pronounced classism that has been present in Chile since its beginning. Chileans don’t associate the races with particular types or personalities, the way they do with socio-economic classes. For most people, it’s easier to think of stereotypes about cuicos [The Chilean, not Spanish, colloquialism for prissy upper-class people.] and flaites [The Chilean, not Spanish, colloquialism for trashy lower-class people.] than about creoles/Europeans, blacks, and Indians.

Historically, Chileans have been “innocently racist” in their comments and their behavior. So much so that claims about how European traits were inarguably correlated with beauty used to be made publicly and unabashedly. Today, this view has been exchanged for the politically correct one, forcing “diversity” into both common conversation and the media.

BV: What does the future hold for the whites of the Southern Cone?

FNI: Capitalism and the free market can be a double-edged sword for whites who lack ethnic and racial awareness. On the one hand, capitalism helps keep the colonial caste system in place, which lets whites live decent and stable lives. On the other hand, economic well-being invites mass immigration by the indigent and the non-white.

In time, democracy will lose legitimacy, especially in diverse countries (such as Chile). It will be overwhelmed by identity politics, which at some point will begin to put pressure on the white oligarchies that run the system.

So long as socialism doesn’t make headway, republicanism (aligned with the West) can serve as a buffer for the Southern Cone’s socio-political stability. This will passively contribute (since it isn’t racially conscious) to the material well-being of our white populations. Racially aware whites will continue to be a minority, as the process of this group’s ethnogenesis is only just beginning. We will continue to eschew political participation and instead focus on the cultural battle that must be waged in order to awaken the forces of racial identity and awareness.

Appendix: