Look to the Future
The National Front and its offshoots call themselves ‘nationalists’, the same as the Scottish Nationalist Party, Plaid Cymru, and Sinn Fein. They should really call themselves federalists because they love four countries; England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. But that would confuse them with European federalists who embrace the whole of Europe. The links between British and Scottish nationalism are examined by Gavin Bowd in Fascist Scotland, which is available from Amazon. The Celtic nationalist parties are all left of centre today but before the war they flirted with fascism. It’s frightening to think that if Alex Salmond had been born forty years earlier he might have been strutting around in jackboots.
The National Front peaked in 1977 at the Greater London Council election. Their 91 candidates got 119,060 votes (5.3%) but they did badly in the 1979 general election when their 303 candidates got 191,719 votes (0.6%). They were sunk by Margaret Thatcher’s statement that she understood people’s fears of being swamped by immigration. There followed a decade of defections and expulsions. Tom Holmes became chairman in 1989 and managed to keep the party going until his retirement in 2010. The leadership is currently disputed between Ian Edward, who is recognised by the Electoral Commission, and Kevin Bryan, who has most of the members.
The rise and fall of the British National Party was a repeat performance of the National Front and many of the same people were involved. The BNP peaked in 2009 with 14,000 members, two Euro MPs, a member of the Greater London Assembly, and scores of local councillors. But following a disastrous performance in the 2010 general election they lost nearly all of their councillors and most of their members. BNP leader Nick Griffin is seeking re-election as Euro MP for the North West but his chances are slim. Andrew Brons was elected for the BNP as Euro MP for Yorkshire and the Humber but he is now president of the breakaway British Democratic Party and will not be standing again.
The nationalist policy of uniting Britain with the White Dominions would have been hard enough forty-seven years ago when the NF was founded, but now it’s impossible. Rhodesia’s white population has sunk from 296,000 in 1978 to less than 40,000 today. South Africa is now a black-run country riddled with crime and corruption, and at least a million white South Africans have fled the country. Canada is firmly committed to the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Province of Quebec is threatening to break away. Australia and New Zealand are economically dependent on Asia and they have opened their borders to Asian immigrants. The old dream of a White Commonwealth is no longer viable and sooner or later the nationalists will have to revise their policies.
It is unrealistic to think that the UK can go-it-alone. We are tied to Europe by commerce as well as proximity. Whether we stay in the European Union or negotiate a Norwegian-style arrangement is a matter for debate. But a country that imports half of its food, gas and oil must be on good terms with her neighbours. Ukip are expected to do well in the Euro elections but they are unlikely to make a breakthrough in the 2015 general election. They will probably divert enough votes from the Tories to let in the Labour Party. Then we will need a patriotic party more than ever; a party committed to preserving the best of Britain without living in the past.
Ukip leader Nigel Farage won the recent TV debate on Europe with Liberal-Democrat leader Nick Clegg, but only 39% of Britons want to quit the European Union (YouGuv poll March 2014). Most nationalists are hostile to Europe but some of them are calling for a looser form of union. Richard Edmonds of the NF represents a Swiss-based federalist group that supports European Confederation. These hesitant unionists are worried about losing their identity in Europe but their fears are unfounded. After half a century of EU membership France is still French, Germany is still German, and Italy is still Italian. We will not lose our nationality because of a political arrangement but if we do not stop non-European immigration we will be overwhelmed by the teeming millions of the Third World. The EU guarantees free movement of labour within Europe but external immigration is a matter for individual states. We had millions of black and Asian immigrants long before we joined the old Common Market in 1973. The Notting Hill race riots were in 1958 and Enoch Powell made his “Rivers of Blood” speech in 1968.
The EU parliament may be full of liberal internationalists but so is the Westminster parliament. And if the EU is a bankers’ racket then so is the City of London. If we quit the EU tomorrow we would still be governed by the same Old Gang. We would still have the same Zionist newspapers and broadcasters; we would still belong to NATO, the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank, and the United Nations. The nationalists have wasted forty-seven years on obsolete policies. Instead of reviving the Empire, or trying to build a confederation of nation states, they should accept the reality of the European Union; an economic and political union of unlimited potential. They should stop looking backwards and look to the future.
Some Thoughts on Democracy
The parliamentary system is supposed to reflect the will of the people. We have a choice of parties to vote for and the party with the most MPs forms the government. But the turnout at UK elections is shamefully low and the winning party might only have a third of the votes cast. A government can therefore be elected by a minority - perhaps one third of the half of the electorate that voted. And when that government is in office it cannot be held to its election promises. It can break all of its promises and there is nothing that we can do about it until the next election.
Most Britons are governed by a local council; a local parliament, for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland etc; the Westminster Parliament; and the European Parliament. Four sets of politicians and their support staff. Some of them are capable people but many of them are wasters and degenerates. Drink and drugs afflict all walks of life but politicians are particularly at risk. A combination of too much money and too little work makes them vulnerable to temptation, and their capacity for sexual shenanigans is legendary. We are paying for hundreds of drink and drug ravaged fornicators that are desperately in need of therapy. Six months confinement in a remote unheated monastery on a diet of bread and water and a strict regime of physical exercise and spiritual guidance would do them the world of good.
Peter Ling wrote the following article for Combat in 1959. John Bean describes him in Many Shades of Black as an intellectual and an accomplished street fighter who had served a prison sentence for armed robbery. He would have fitted Mussolini’s dictum: “libro et moschetto – fascista perfetto” – a rifle and a book – the perfect fascist.
Authoritarianism v Democracy
The true essence of the authoritarian is the possession of the power and the will to act in defence of the greater good, regardless of what factional interest may have to be over-ridden in the process. The essential characteristic of democracy, on the other hand, is a never ending internal struggle to strike a balance between rival interests and factions which serve as a continual tax upon the strength and unity of the national whole.
We are told by those of liberal convictions that the later represents the highest form of political and social organization yet evolved by man. As biologists, however, we are forced to make the comparison that when the same state of internal strife is found to exist in an organic whole, in a living body, then all are agreed that the organism is sick or diseased.
Is it surprising therefore, that we should look with favour on the concept of authoritarian rule? For to chose authority, which means responsibility, rather than democracy – whose whole practical and philosophical essence is the flight from responsibility – is not to assert the discovery of the long-sought panacea for man’s social ills. No realist believes in the messianic hope of the utopian political “system” which man is fondly held to be capable of realizing. The eternal obstacle to this will always be man himself, irrespective of class, race or nation, because the congenital root instincts of man are essentially primordial and anti-social.
In practice democracy has always realized this basic anti-social quality endemic in man. It not only recognizes it, but battens upon it, lives by it and is geared to it! The only exception made is to the extremely violent and destructive manifestations – usually physical – of an anti-social instinct. Here, democracy imposes a check or a barrier which is maintained by the Police and the Judiciary.
The authoritarian realist is equally aware, perhaps more so, of man’s basic anti-social tendencies. But the authoritarian probes into them, evaluates them, endeavours to harness and canalize them. In short, seeks to rule and control them. Hence instead of the democratic “rat-race”, with its characteristic spirit of “blow you Jack, I’m alright”, and its social consciousness exemplified as “… and the Devil take the hindmost”; in its place the authoritarian rigidly inculcates a contrary scale of social values designed to combat the anti-social cult of the individual-as-such (this being totally distinct from the individual-as-hero, as leader, as conqueror, as pioneer, etc.)
So with the authoritarian form of socialism: for once the social tendencies in men are praised and rewarded at the expense of, and in contradiction to, the anti social. Consciousness of, and pride in, the strength and achievement that springs from social unification is taught and rapidly assimilated. Each person has impressed upon him the responsibility which he bears to the whole, and really feels it in the sense of John Donne’s immortal words: “Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee!” But with this fundamental difference; Donne was a utopian who spoke of mankind as a whole, but the realist has bent his ear to the primordial heart of man and knows that within it there exists no universal call to all other men as such. What does lie in the heart is the tribal bond, the union of blood, the mute call of kith to kin. Of the Tribe, the folk, the race can be made a great unified whole, within which there is agreement, order, purpose and achievement. Within the whole there is no scope for the expression of anti-social instincts for it becomes the function of the judiciary to protect the whole from all and any interest which is inimical or destructive to it.
And what of those irrepressible deep-rooted anti-social instincts? No futile attempt is made to eradicate or destroy them. Instead their expression is deliberately directed outwards beyond the bounds of the whole, and by this process of canalization the more violent of the anti-social tendencies are harnessed in the service of the whole. In democracy they can only be parasitic upon it, like a congenital disease. By this means the authoritarian socialist forges and engenders morale, a driving power and energy incentive beside which the democratic equivalent cannot stand comparison.
But the most telling and final indictment of democracy is that in time of great human stress and endeavour it rejects and abandons its philosophical basis. In time of war when the ruling interests are really threatened, democratic values go overboard and the erstwhile democracy gears itself immediately to an authoritarian form of government. Even in time of peace democracy does not attempt to organize its armed forces “democratically” or to sail its great ships across the oceans of the world without the strong hand of authority and responsibility at the helm.
What an indictment of democracy that it can only weld its subjects into a single great united whole for the purpose of destruction! That its fundamental wealth and assets, which only too often represent the ill-rewarded toil of generation of its loyal citizens can be squandered overnight in order to procure fantastic financial sums for expenditure upon war and death, but when it comes to building something great for its own people – as a whole that is – in time of peace, the will and the credit dry up, and “Freedom” reigns once more; freedom for the poor to get out of the slums if they can and freedom for the financier to squat in his banking house and receive the lickspittle homage of parliamentarians of all parties.
Yes, that anguished reproach from the past: “Oh Liberty, what crimes have been committed in thy name!” is still to be heard crying across the chasm of the ages – at least to those whose ears are not attuned to that other popular voice, which is so singularly in harmony with the murmur of every individual fear and the universal rumbling of the gut.
The spring issue of League Sentinel advises its readers to vote Ukip in the European election and suggests that Oswald Mosley would not support the present EU. The anonymous article asks the following questions;
Did Mosley campaign for a Europe where over 400 million people would have the right to settle in Britain? The right to child benefit, free housing, free education, free health services and legal aid? I don’t think so. Did Mosley support the idea that a European Court could decide whether Britain could deport foreign criminals such as rapists and murderers from its shores? No!
Oswald Mosley has been dead for over thirty years but he always wanted the same wages and conditions throughout Europe as a prerequisite to free movement of labour. He was a strong advocate of judicial independence and would certainly have opposed political control of the courts. He was himself a victim of political persecution under Defence Regulation 18B. That injustice is exactly what happens when governments interfere in the judicial system. The European Court of Human Rights is an independent body that is not part of the EU.
The same issue of League Sentinel carries a tribute to Adolf Hitler on the anniversary of his birth. What would the Fuhrer have thought about their support for avowed Zionists like Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders, and Toni Brunner?
And what makes them think that nationalists from 28 different countries will co-operate when they can’t even unite in one country? Nigel Farage has already insulted Marine le Pen of the Front National, and most of the nationalist parties throughout Europe are obsessed with territorial claims dating back to the last war. They are splitters and separatists who would reduce Europe to a patchwork of squabbling mini states.
The BNP thinks that Nigel Farage is a false nationalist working for the “Liberal Elite”, and Ukip founder Dr Alan Sked describes him as “alcoholic, dim and racist.” That may be a bit harsh but his arguments are threadbare and his cultivated image is theatrical. Only a dodgy car dealer or a Ukipper would wear a trilby hat and an overcoat with a velvet collar. I doubt that Nigel Farage is an agent provocateur but he is a populist politician and a bandwagon jumper.
Ukippers avoid unpleasantness by talking in general terms about immigration without mentioning race. They think that goat-herding is just as important as nuclear physics and that a Stone Age tribesman with a bone through his nose is as valuable as a Polish plumber or a Lithuanian lumberjack. They therefore accept immigrants who lack the basic skills and education to earn a living, providing that they do not come from Europe.
Ukip say that we cannot control our borders so long as we stay in the EU. But the majority of our immigrants come from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean - 117,000 compared with 86,000 from the EU in 2012. They claim that we would regain our independence by leaving the EU but our armed forces would still be commanded by NATO, our commerce would still be controlled by the World Trade Organization, our economy would still be audited by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, our legal system would still be governed by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and we would still be ruled by an undemocratic monarchy and an unelected House of Lords.
They claim to be British patriots but their policies would leave us isolated in a world dominated by trading blocs. Britain is a small island nation with an immigrant-swollen population and limited natural resources. We need to import half of our food and fuel, and we would only damage ourselves by quitting the EU. We need to tighten our benefits system but the idea that we are about to be invaded by 29 million Romanian and Bulgarian welfare cheats is greatly exaggerated. Voting for Ukip is as pointless as voting for the established parties. Until we have a party worth voting for we should boycott their meaningless election.
Leese and Chesterton
The basics of British nationalism were established by Arnold Leese and AK Chesterton. Leese started out in the British Fascists led by Miss Rotha Lintorn-Orman, but he soon decided that they were “Tories with knobs on” and founded the Imperial Fascist League. He became obsessed with the Jews and dismissed Oswald Mosley's British Union as “kosher fascists”. In his pamphlet Race and Politics he assigned political tendencies to the races identified by the Nazi theorist Ernst Gunther. He postulated that Nordic people would reject communism because of their morality and Mediterranean people would reject it because of their individuality, but the central and eastern Europeans would accept it because they are 'Alpines' more suited to slavery. Nationalists no longer quote this pseudo-scientific nonsense but it still influences their thinking. The idea that foreigners are inherently inferior is part of the Ukip message.
Arnold Leese caused generations of nationalists to waste their time measuring heads instead of studying economics. His answer to the Great Depression was to throw the Jews out of the British Empire. But it’s not clear how this would have increased productivity or helped us to compete with German and American industry. In fact he had no policies; the IFL depended on an emotional appeal that has been handed down through the far-right movements all the way to Ukip.
AK Chesterton joined the British Union of Fascists in 1933 and became Director of Propaganda. He wrote Portrait of a Leader in 1937, a flattering biography of Oswald Mosley, but soon after he quit the BUF to support William Joyce’s National Socialist League. He joined the British Army during the war and founded the League of Empire loyalists in 1954. Through the pages of his magazine Candour he exposed the dealings of the Money Power, especially those of his nemesis Bernard Baruch. AK was convinced that Baruch headed a conspiracy to destroy the white race in general and the British Empire in particular. He concluded that Britain’s acceptance of a massive American loan after the war was all part of the Plot. But the fact is that we were bankrupt and the alternative to the Bretton Woods agreement would have been starvation.
Arnold Leese and AK Chesterton were patriots who wanted to preserve Britain’s prestige and power. Both were brave and uncompromising campaigners. But they were men of their time who could not see beyond Empire. Arnold Leese, who did not understand economics, blamed all our problems on the Jews who, he believed, were genetically programmed to spread chaos and disaster. AK Chesterton understood economics well enough but he believed in the same conspiracy theory and therefore arrived at the same conclusion.
After the war visionaries like Oswald Mosley and Jean-Francois Thiriart developed the ideology of Europeanism but British nationalists, under the influence of Arnold Leese and AK Chesterton, clung to their pre-war policies. Finally, seventy years later, we are reaching a conclusion. After the next general election the debate will be over and we will either quit the European Union to become the fifty-first state of America, or take our place in Europe.
Be careful what you wish for
Although President Harry Truman recognised the state of Israel in 1948 American foreign policy in the Middle East was fairly even handed. President Dwight D Eisenhower reacted immediately when Britain and France colluded with Israel to invade Egypt in 1956. He threatened all three aggressors with economic sanctions if they didn’t withdraw. And seven years later President JF Kennedy was furious when he discovered that Britain had given Israel the Atomic Bomb. In May 1963 he wrote to Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion warning him not to proceed with the development of nuclear weapons. But following the Kennedy assassination President Lyndon B Johnson increased American aid to Israel and openly supported them in the 1967 war. Ever since America has backed Israel with military and economic aid as well as diplomatic protection.
The change in American foreign policy was achieved by powerful Jewish interests supported by right-wing Christians who base their support for Israel on their interpretation of the Bible. Religion plays no part in UK mainland politics but the born-again fraternity are big in America. Their influence is so strong that Israel was not mentioned when President Barack Obama denounced Russia for annexing Crimea. Israel has been occupying Palestinian territory in defiance of the United Nations since 1967, but the USA has continued to arm and financed the Zionist state. Before he was elected Barack Obama expressed sympathy for the Palestinians but once in power he became a staunch friend of Israel. This blatant hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed throughout the world. America has sacrificed her reputation as a defender of liberty by supporting a state founded on the ridiculous idea that the Jews are God’s chosen people. A state sustained by American foreign aid, bristling with nuclear weapons, and contemptuous of world opinion.
But nothing lasts forever. The European-descended majority in the USA is being overtaken by immigrants from Mexico and points south. These newcomers do not have the European guilt-complex about the Holocaust. They have not been force fed Zionist propaganda and they do not feel obliged to support Israel because European Jews were badly treated a lifetime ago. They will insist that their tax dollars are spent on welfare instead of warfare. And they will not be as patient and tolerant as the Euro-Americans. This is ironic because American Jews have always been in the forefront of the civil rights movement and taken a liberal attitude to immigration. They have celebrated diversity and encouraged a mass migration that may eventually bring about their downfall. It just goes to prove the old Jewish saying: “be careful what you wish for.”