Monday, 31 March 2014

European Outlook # 4 April 2014

The Campaign against Third World Immigration

Oswald Mosley stood for Union Movement in North Kensington in 1959, a year after the Notting Hill race riots. Immigration had been encouraged by the British Nationality Act of 1948 which gave Commonwealth citizens the right of entry to the UK, and by the McCarran-Walters Act of 1952 which restricted immigration to the US. West Indians were being recruited by London Transport and the National Health Service. A policy that was continued by Enoch Powell when he became Minister of Health in 1960; eight years before he made his infamous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech. Mosley proposed a trade deal with Jamaica that would have allowed her workers to go home to good jobs. But faced with a hostile press campaign he got 2,821 votes (8%). The influx continued and nobody knows how many non-whites are in the UK today.



At the same general election John Bean’s National Labour Party stood in nearby St Pancras North on an anti-immigration platform. Their candidate Bill Webster got 1,670 votes (5%). The NLP changed its name to the BNP and achieved the best result for a patriotic party at that time when John Bean got 3,410 votes (9.2%) at Southall in the 1964 general election. The BNP was absorbed into the National Front in 1967.

Mosley’s Union Movement faded out in the seventies. It paid the price of preaching economic reform during the post-war boom. When the financial crisis finally broke thirty years later few people remembered Mosley’s warning, but he was right about international finance and he was right about immigration. They were part of the capitalist racket that exported British jobs to Asia and imported cheap labour to undercut British wages. Union Movement stood for a self-sufficient Europe but the electorate were too interested in their new cars and foreign holidays to worry about the future.

As Union Movement declined the National Front grew. It was opposed to immigration but rejected Mosley’s call for ‘Europe a Nation’ and clung to pre-war policies. Under the leadership of John Tyndall and Martin Webster the NF grew into a movement capable of putting thousands of marchers on the streets and standing 303 candidates in the general election of 1979. But Margaret Thatcher gave a perfectly timed speech saying that she understood people’s fears of being ‘swamped’ by immigration and won a landslide victory. The NF vote collapsed and the movement was ravaged by a series of defections and expulsions from which it has never recovered.


                                            John Tyndall and Martin Webster

Following the NF’s electoral disaster of 1979 a new British National Party emerged under John Tyndall. It got its first councillor elected when Derek Beacon won the Millwall by-election with 1,480 votes (33.9%) in 1993, but it really took off in 1999 when Nick Griffin took control of the party. It soon had two Euro MPs, a member of the Greater London Assembly and scores of local councillors. It seemed only a matter of time before the BNP gained representation in Parliament. But then came Nick Griffin’s disastrous appearance on Question Time and the party’s humiliation at the 2010 general election. The BNP survives as a small party with limited horizons.

In addition to the NF and the BNP there is British Movement, founded by Colin Jordan way back in 1968, and the British Democratic Party that was launched as recently as 2013. Some of their supporters are racists but most of them are ordinary people who object to their towns and cities being taken over by pimps and drug dealers. The police have abandoned these areas to the gangsters for fear of upsetting race-relations. Of course, they deny that there are any ‘no-go areas’ but that is not the general perception.

We need a political party that opposes Third World immigration without getting sidetracked by head measuring and conspiracy theory. The old-fashioned nationalist parties are stuck in the past and Ukip is nothing but a middle class pressure group. It is not opposed to immigration on economic or racial grounds but simply because immigrants are “foreigners”. And it hates Europe for the same reason; because it’s full of foreigners. Ukip is devoid of ideology and hostile to economics but according to the opinion polls it will do well in the Euro elections. “Good old Nigel” has replaced “Good old Enoch” in the stout hearts of the simple-minded.

Third World immigration has slowed down due to the worldwide recession and because high-tech industries need fewer unskilled workers. The latest immigrants are fellow Europeans who pose no threat to our identity. But our newspapers have started a hate campaign against them supported by the shameless opportunists of Ukip. They are gaining votes with their scaremongering and populist policies but when Ukip inevitably falls apart the electorate will go back to voting Labour or Tory according to which tribe they belong to.

Foreign Policy


                                                              Lord Palmerston

In the old days nations used foreign policy to further their political and commercial interests. Britain’s master of diplomacy was Lord Palmerston who kept the balance of power in Europe by always opposing the strongest state. He is remembered for threatening to send gunboats to back up his colonial policy, and for his analysis of the Schleswig-Holstein problem. He said that only three people had ever understood it, one was Prince Albert, who was dead, the second was a German professor, who had gone insane; and the third was himself, who had forgotten it.

Since the Soviet Union collapsed America has taken charge of the world. China has bought so many American bonds that she is bound to support her. India and Brazil support America in exchange for access to her markets. And Europe blindly follows Washington. Only Russia dares to stand up to America.

Dave Cameron jets around the world thinking that he is touring the Empire. And his sidekick William Hague believes that Vladimir Putin is frightened of him. In fact both Cameron and Hague could be replaced by trained monkeys who would be happy to perform tricks for Zionist peanuts.

Our last independent action was the Suez fiasco of 1956. Britain, France and Israel jointly invaded Egypt in defiance of America but were forced to withdraw by the threat of economic sanctions. Prime Minister Anthony Eden resigned and was replaced by Harold Macmillan; a pragmatist with no illusions about Britain’s position in the world.

Margaret Thatcher’s popular war in the South Atlantic was something of an exception; America was neutral in the conflict and it was clear that the Argentine adventure would bankrupt General Leopold Galtieri’s military regime.
Since the Falklands conflict we have behaved ourselves. Tony Blair supported the destruction of Iraq despite massive demonstrations against the war. Iraq had no “weapons of mass destruction” but Tony Blair cheered every missile that hit every home and hospital. As a convert to Catholicism he should remember that he too will be judged.

We were so eager to invade Afghanistan that we dispatched troops without adequate helicopters and bomb-proof vehicles. These deficiencies were overcome but not before we lost hundreds of men to improvised mines.
We were told that our expeditionary force was protecting us from terrorists. But the criminal lunatics who committed the 7/7 bombings in London did not operate from Afghanistan; they prepared their explosives in their mothers’ kitchens.

We do not need two massive aircraft carriers equipped with American F35 fighters, or four Vanguard class submarines armed with American Trident nuclear missiles. We would be better off with more British type 45 destroyers and Astute class submarines, but our government prefers to support the American defence industry.

The UK belongs to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. This was founded in  1948 to administer Marshal Aid to Europe. It oversees the economic policies of the industrial nations. At this year’s G20 summit in Australia the OECD presented its tax avoidance plan. It’s foolish to dream of independence when our defence is controlled by NATO, our trade by the World Trade Organisation, and our economic policy by the OECD.

But nothing lasts forever. As gas fracking makes America self-sufficient in energy she will disengage from Europe and the Middle East to focus on the Pacific. NATO will then become redundant and Europe will be forced to develop a common foreign policy.
.
Black Shirt and Smoking Beagles



                                                                 Bill Risdon

He was born during the ‘last hurrah’ of the British Empire, at the tail end of the reign of Queen Victoria, but he lived into the ‘space age’, so the life of Wilfred Risdon was full of contrasts and conflicts. He was of his time, but he was no passive passenger: he was a man of principle and an activist of the best sort – his mission might have changed during his life, but the constant and consistent theme was to be a force for good.

In succession, but undeniably connected, the phases of his life focused on Jesus, Maxton, Mosley and Tait. The young zealot turned coal miner was sucked into the horror of a world war, but he served his fellow man with medical care rather than doling out death; the idealistic Socialist lost faith in materialistic internationalism and threw in his lot with the apolitical maverick Mosley, working expertly in the fields of propaganda, industrial relations and election practice. Another war saw him locked up, like many others, without charge or trial, for three months. When released, he was able to return to his last area of humanitarian care: working to abolish the obscene practices of permanent research, for medical and scientific purposes, on living animals.

This is the true story of a man who refused to be bound by convention, if that meant accepting the status quo of the lower orders knowing their place, financial slavery, freedom of speech only for those in ‘authority’, and the unquestioning acceptance of unspeakable cruelty to animals. He was a valued and trusted lieutenant for Mosley, and rose to become secretary of the most prestigious animal welfare organisation in Britain: the National Anti-Vivisection Society.

Yet he is not a household name: this book sets out to redress that omission. 710 pages – paperback edition £15 plus P&P from; http://www.wilfredbooks.co.uk/index.html
  
Europe: Fact and Fiction


                                          Norman Lowell with Jeffrey Hamm in the 1960s

The European Union is a collective of twenty eight countries with a population of 507,890 and a GDP of $16.2 trillion. In his 2012 State of the Union address Jose Barroso, president of the European Commission, called for major treaty changes leading to a “federation of nation states”. And Vivian Reding, vice-president of the European commission, recently told Cambridge University to prepare for a “United States of Europe”. These statements accord with the founding philosophy of the EU, which is “ever closer union.”

Switzerland is a federation of self-governing states speaking four different languages. But it is held together by a central government with one flag, one currency, and one army. This model could evolve into a unified state like Germany, or split into mutually hostile states like former Yugoslavia. The key factor is the willingness of Europeans to embrace solidarity.

‘Europe a Nation’ is the post-war aspiration of Oswald Mosley and Jean Thiriart, currently promoted by Robert Edwards and his team in the pages of European Socialist Action. It is what the European Union could become if its member states abandoned insular nationalism and started to think like Europeans.

‘Imperium Europa’ is the dream of a European Empire stretching beyond the mother continent. This is described by Norman Lowell in his book ‘Credo’, and supported by several writers including Constantin von Hoffmeister and Guilluame Faye. Such ideas are visionary but for the present we must deal with Europe divided between the Russian Federation and the European Union, with the dividing line running through Ukraine.

The populist parties are afraid of losing their identities, but after half a century of European Union the Germans are still German, the French are still French and we are still British. Their fears are unfounded and their patriotism is misplaced.


Mind Britain’s Business

The Russian annexation of the Crimean peninsular has divided opinions. One old campaigner told me that he felt sorry for the Crimean Tatars because it was originally their country. But I suspect it was really because they sided with the Nazis in WW2. Australian historian Mark Richardson writes that when the Tatars ruled the Crimean Khanate in the sixteenth century they captured an estimated three million Poles, Ukrainians and Russians for the Ottoman slave trade. This barbaric practice was known as the "Harvest of the Steppe" and was stopped by the conquests of Catherine the Great.


                                                                 Lee Barnes

Lee Barnes was legal adviser to the BNP until he quit in 2010. He is noted for his controversial opinions which include his support for the Right Sector movement that helped to depose the corrupt regime of Viktor Yanukovich in Ukraine. Lee's blog Twenty First Century British Nationalism is posted on: http://leejohnbarnes.blogsport.co.uk/ 

We need to update our thinking as the world changes around us. Vladimir Putin has responded to the will of the Russian majority in Crimea. The Ukrainian people suffered terribly under Joseph Stalin but their torment did not end when the Nazis invaded. They confined the nationalist leader Stepan Bandera to a concentration camp and killed hundreds of his supporters. Far from helping them to break away from the Soviet Union the Nazis were determined to wipe out Ukraine and Poland as nation states in order to colonise the region with German settlers. Our main interest in the Ukraine should be staying out of it. Never has the old British Union slogan “Mind Britain’s Business” been more appropriate.

Nationalism is not a universal philosophy like socialism, conservatism or liberalism. A British liberal will get on well enough with a German or French liberal but a National Front member will not sit down with a Sinn Fein supporter, or a Catalan separatist with a Spanish nationalist. Nationalisms are mutually hostile and cooperation between different nationalist movements usually ends in failure.

The Italian Fascists showed no solidarity with the authoritarian regime of General Ionnis Metaxas when they invaded Greece. Nor did the Nazis when they murdered Engelbert Dolfuss, the leader of the Austrian Fatherland Front. Nationalism is belligerent by its very nature unless moderated by the civilizing influence of European solidarity.


                                                        Engelbert Dolfuss

Ukraine is the meeting point of the European Union and the Russian Federation but there is no need for conflict. It is not the Ukrainian trade deal with the EU that threatens Russia but the proximity of NATO missiles.That situation will only be resolved when the Americans withdraw from Europe and head for home. We are grateful for their help during the Second World War and its aftermath, but the war has been over for nearly 70 years and the old Soviet Union has been gone for more than 20 years. NATO is an instrument of American foreign policy that has outlived its usefulness. Far from guaranteeing our security it now threatens it. It’s time for NATO to be disbanded just as the Warsaw Pact was at the collapse of the Soviet Union. We should sign a non-aggression pact with the Russian Federation and resolve any conflicts of interest by negotiation. We should reject the latest wave of Cold War propaganda that is designed to increase American shale gas exports to Europe.

Comment:  Alexander Morana




(My article 'Better off Together' in European Outlook #2 described the evolution of the European nations)

Italy and Germany came into being from a collection of small city states, duchies and principalities; they became what are now the Federal republic of Germany and the Republic of Italy due to narrow nationalist forces and dogma of the nation state of the 19th century which Europe had been violently subjected to since Bonaparte. The same goes for Poland too. England, Wales and Scotland had a different, albeit, harmonious and successful union.

Having said that, I would say that the three European continental poor sisters wrote their different fates for history in almost the same chapter; the Germans sadder and more violent. Since unification (Risorgimento) Italy produced nothing but a fossilized conservative monarchy, lead by an army of impotent and incompetent governments. Mass unemploymenmt emptied the South, whilst the smaller city states and duchies of Parma, Milan and Florence flourished and gave us the great artists, bankers, thinkers and builders of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. Cavour, Garibaldi, Mazzini, Vitorio Emmanule were but copy cats of Napoleon. Not least, the Republic of Venice became a sea power. The same for the German states; Wagner, Goethe, Cant, Karl Marx, Friedrich von Schiller - the German genius of beauty and freedom - and the list goes on. These were individuals and they saw themselves as such. No nation modeled them into what they had become, but the other way around.

Unfortunately, raw and puritanical nationalism lead to two World Wars, a flirting with National Socialism and Fascism bled the continent of its flower of youth and its soul. Are perhaps those lone forces again pulling in a different direction from where the continent has been taken in the past sixty odd years? Time will tell - or will the people suffer shock and awe again?

My Reply

The great writers and thinkers were certainly as important as the historical and geographical factors that I mentioned. We can only hope that such minds are available to us and that the future is not as violent and destructive as the past.

Right of Reply: Robert Edwards, Editor, European Socialist Action




Good analysis of the parties vying for votes in forthcoming elections. I wholeheartedly agree with your call for a boycott of the elections, not because I am undemocratic, I am not, but for the lack of fundamental difference between all these parties, including UKIP. UKIP campaigns against immigration but discriminates against Eastern Europeans alone.

A few words on your reply to my thoughts published in the last online issue of European Outlook #2. That John Bean was closely associated with Colin Jordan from 1960 to 1962 suggests a serious lack of good judgement. Mr Bean was then to operate out of Arnold Leese House named after a man who placed a swastika at the centre of the Union flag and called Oswald Mosley a kosher fascist. Andrew Brons blames his membership of Colin Jordan's National Socialist Movement on his youth, being 16 at the time. Martin Webster attempted a similar excuse when he later described his involvement in the same movement as "an immature desire to shock" at the age of 19 ... a desire that appears not to have been abandoned since. I joined Mosley's Union Movement at the age of 17 in 1965 but I have never blamed that decision on my youth. In fact, I have never regretted an act that was to change my life and open my eyes to fundamental political and economic truths. Mosley's economic ideas remain the main focus of our paper, European Socialist Action. Our belief in an integrated Europe with one government is pure Oswald Mosley. I am not interested in fascism, as such.

A few comments on the Combat editorial of 1966, clearly an attempt at moving away from John Bean's Combat at the time of his involvement with Colin Jordan and John Tyndall. As I explained, Mr Bean advocated a confederation of Northern European peoples. They held camps with guests from northern European countries and displayed the northern European sunwheel. We call this Nordicism.

If we analyse the Combat editorial of 1966 (the following year the BNP threw in its lot to form the National Front in 1967) we should question why the editor, John Bean, suddenly felt the need to refer to "blue-eyed, fair-haired, long-headed examples of Nordic womanhood", at all. Why the need to refer to two defenders of "inherent differences between Europeans and Negroes" as Spanish and an Australian of Italian or Greek origin ... judged by their "complexion and colouring"? I can only conclude from this that Mr Bean wanted to prove something by way of dissociating himself from his previous activities in the National Labour Party and later his collaboration with Colin Jordan and John Tyndall. Mr Bean asks what his editorial proves. To me, it proves that Mr Bean was doing an about-turn and disingenuously claiming not to draw distinctions between northern Europeans and southern Europeans. At that point, he was on the verge of leaving politics altogether only to emerge much later in Nick Griffin's very anti-Europe BNP.

Mr Bean said in his editorial of 1966, "... the futility of the line of thought held by many good racial nationalists ... that we can afford to differentiate between Europeans of the North and Europeans of the South". The phrases "futility" and "can afford" directly imply expediency and not conviction. "Let's try this for a change". I am not convinced. I am further unconvinced on the single, defining point that John Bean openly advocated a confederation of Northern Europeans exclusively, previously being a member of Mosley's Union Movement for a short time, a movement that advocated Europe a Nation. He had dropped advocacy of complete European union for a "confederacy" of only northern Europeans. What does that tell you? Well, I will tell you. "Confederacy" is not unification at all but a loose arrangement and John Bean remains a narrow nationalist.

I have remained consistent throughout my life since the age of 17. I am now 66. I have always believed in Europe a Nation and the ideas of Oswald Mosley. I judge no man on his physical appearance but rather on his achievements. I regard all Europeans as my brothers and never as "foreigners". This is something the nationalist is incapable of expressing.