Saturday, 31 May 2014

European Outlook # 6 June 2014

Europe and Immigration

Ukip have done spectacularly well in the local and Euro elections. They now have 163 councillors and 24 MEPs but the last YouGuv poll showed that 37% of those polled wanted to leave the EU against 42% who wanted to stay. It therefore appears that immigration is the issue rather than Europe. Ukip's policy of restricting immigration from Europe has been described as "fewer Poles and more Pakistanis".

All parties now claim to believe in managed immigration and call for tighter border controls. But many of the problems of immigration have been mitigated by voluntary segregation. The creation of de facto black and white areas has helped to avoid conflict. The current prejudice is against the Poles; hard-working people that have contributed massively to our economy. This campaign is led by a gutless media that never said a word about non-white immigration for fear of the Race Relations Act. They welcome Afro-Asian immigration but warn that our fellow Europeans are a threat to British jobs and a strain on public services.

We know from history that nations are not destroyed by federation with kindred states; England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales have kept their identities through hundreds of years of political union. But uncontrolled immigration from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean is another matter. The white races have reached a level of social development resulting in negative population growth. Demographic predictions are notoriously inaccurate but if non-Europeans continue to pour into Europe, Australia and the USA they will change more than just the complexion of those countries. 

Immigration is all about numbers and the willingness and ability of people to be assimilated. Minorities can be assimilated but large numbers of people tend to cling to their own culture instead of integrating. This antagonizes the host community who object to being colonized. But this reaction is not racism if it is motivated by natural conservatism. As Oswald Mosley said: "...the British tradition is calmly and firmly to preserve our own race without falling into hysteria on the subject under the influence of any extreme or unproven theories". (Mosley: Right or Wrong 1961)

                                                             Oswald Mosley                                                           

Racism is proscribed by every country in the world except Israel which is founded on Jewish supremacism. The Zionist state is kept going by billions of dollars extorted from the American taxpayer together with military and diplomatic support.  No American president since JF Kennedy has dared to question Washington’s pro-Zionist foreign policy. Before he was elected Barack Obama was accused of being too liberal on the Middle East but he has turned out to be totally obedient to Zionism.

In Africa the Berbers and Arabs have been fighting the blacks for centuries but despite a long history of race mixing they still hate each other. Such enmities will eventually be resolved by education and economic development but we are storing up trouble for the future by ignoring human nature.

Mass migration is a global problem requiring a global solution. The foreign aid budgets of the Western nations must be used to fund resettlement schemes in the Third World. This, together with trade deals and credit guarantees can help to resolve the problems of poverty and unemployment that drive immigration. But it can only happen through the political and economic power of united Europe; we cannot do it on our own. Ukip argue that we can only control immigration by quitting the EU but given the reluctance of Britons to work in catering, agriculture or construction we would have to import more blacks and Asians if we kept out Europeans. And it should be remembered that Irish workers have a right of entry under the Anglo--Irish Treaty of 1922. Ten percent of the UK population was born in Ireland.

War and Peace

A visit to the Royal Air Force museum at Colindale left me wondering about war. I hate war for all the usual reasons; because it destroys life, dehumanises people and squanders resources. I have not changed my mind about those things, but I was struck by the remarkable technological progress that was made in the two world wars. At the start of the First World War aircraft were fragile contraptions of timber and fabric held together by struts and cables. But by the end of that war they had developed into bombers and fighters equipped with machine guns and capable of waging war. And the same thing happened in the Second World War. The “Biggles” biplanes at the start of the war still had a limited range and capacity but by the end of the war the formidable Mustang fighter could fly from the UK to Berlin and back. And the giant British and American bombers, the Lancasters and B17s, could drop massive bomb loads on enemy targets. We also saw the arrival of the jets and rockets that have made modern warfare even deadlier than before.



There is no doubt that war speeds up scientific development. Not just in mechanical engineering but in almost every sphere; electronics, computer technology and medicine all benefited from the catalyst of war.
It is argued that nuclear weapons have kept the peace since they were first used against the Japanese in 1945. It is true that there has not been a world war but there have been lots of little wars including; Korea, Vietnam, all the conflicts in Africa and Asia, and four wars involving Israel. These wars have killed and maimed millions of people as effectively as the slaughter on the Western Front in the First World War or the Eastern Front in the Second World War.

The League of Nations was established after the First World War to stop it happening again. But the major powers lacked the will and the political skill to prevent a restart in 1939. During the Second World War we tried again to set up an international forum capable of keeping the peace. But the United Nations Organisation has been almost as unsuccessful as the old League of Nations. It seems that mankind is fated to engage in murder on an industrial scale at regular intervals. But, at least, we can console ourselves with the thought that computers, antibiotics and jet airliners might still be in the future if our parents and grandparents had not gone to war.

The RAF Museum at Colindale is open seven days a week and admission is free. It is located at Grahame Park Way, London NW9 5QW.

John Gaster

John Gaster was dismissed by Jeffrey Hamm as public relations officer of the British League of Ex-Servicemen and Women in 1946. The League was absorbed into Oswald Mosley’s Union Movement in 1948. In the fifties he founded the North West Task Force under the slogan “Wir Kommen Wieder” – “We come again”. And a few years later he founded a swastika bedecked movement called the British Pan-German League.

Roger Clare remembers him as an accomplished pianist, linguist and historian who had worked for the Foreign Office. John Bean recalls him addressing a meeting of the National Labour Party in an upstairs room of Bill Webster’s pub the Black Horse in Kentish Town. Roy Chester was the Paddington branch leader of the original BNP, he remembered John Gaster translating directly from the Russian newspaper Pravda. And Vic Sarson remembers a tall, well-spoken man wearing a railwayman’s uniform. I knew him from the Bladebone pub in Bethnal Green in the seventies.

He must have been nearly eighty when he died following an assault in 1998. It is not known why he left the Foreign Office and ended his working life on the railways. Or why such a gifted man devoted himself to radical politics instead of pursuing an academic career.



Krumm-Heller in England: John Gaster

Following the failure of Napoleon III to establish a right wing Catholic regime in Mexico under the Emperor Maximillian, there followed a long period of revolutionary unrest. During the relatively lengthy rule of Porfirio Dias, who was a Germanophile: German influence in Mexico became a recurring factor in Mexican politics. Immediately prior to 1914, the prevailing regime was under Huerta; and in 1913, Huerta had a meeting in Spain with von Rintelen, who was later to become famous as the dark invader organizing sabotage of allied shipping in US ports. This was in preparation for a hypothetical wartime alliance between Mexico and Imperial Germany.

Von Bernstorff was German ambassador in Washington in the years leading up to 1914 and was celebrated as the leading representation of the Reich in America from 1914 to 1917. The propaganda department for pro-German/anti-Allied propaganda was controlled financially through von Dernberg. The chief propaganda organ was entrusted by Germany to the half-Jew, George Sylvester Viereck, who employed Aleister Crowley, Hans-Heinz Ewers, and Frank Harries: all connected with sex-magic and occultism, on the staff of “Fatherland”, which Viereck directed until the entry of America into the war. The occultist Ewers left for Mexico in order to attend in political discussions with the representatives of Venusuesto Carranza, who had succeeded Huerta as the leading Statesman of Mexico. Hence the possibility exists that Ewers will have been acquainted with Krumm-Heller. Particulars of Ewers’ journey to Mexico are contained in the biographical study of Ewers which you recommended to us.

Carranza was anti-clerical and interested in scientific rationalism. He enacted laws forbidding the Catholic clergy to hold religious instruction in elementary schools, but there is no written source known to me that he has been interested in esoterical matters, although it is likely that he will have been a freemason. We do not even have proof of this. Carranza was surrounded by a praetorian guard of German officers, of which at least five hundred were involved in training his army. The state armaments industry of Mexico was in the hands of the German industrialist Kloss. Of foreign ambassadors of Mexico City, Carranza favoured more highly the German ambassador, Heinrich von Eckehart. In 1915, answering a request by von Eckehart, Carranza suppressed the daily El Universal, which was conducting loud mouthed allied propaganda. Von Echehart gained from Carranza permission for the Reich to establish a submarine base on the Mexican coast. Plans for an air programme were in preparation but may not have been realized.

It seems entirely likely that Sir Basil Thomson is right in saying that Krumm-Heller was appointed Mexican military attaché in Berlin. It seems likely that initial contact between Carranza and Krumm-Heller would have been related to the medical knowledge and expertise of Krumm-Heller. Carranza devoted much energy to improvements in the hospital and medical services in his country which had long been decimated by endemic conflict and US interventions (particularly against Heurta). One major factor in Mexican politics at the turn of the century was the rivalry between York masonry and the Scottish Rite (Charleston) for the control of masonry in Mexico. The conflict was connected with the special role to be played by Knights Templarism in Mexico.

The development of German policy in Mexico ended in disaster with the Zimmermann telegramme preceding American intervention against Germany. German Under Secretary of State, Zimmermann, cabled the famous appeal for Mexican war against the United States promising Arizona and New Mexico to count on German support if she wished to conquer Guatemala, a traditional enemy. In general, German policy had been chiefly interested in maintaining a maximum degree of tension between the United States and Mexico, so that public opinion in the USA could be kept away from intervention in the European war. The fiasco of the Zimmermann telegramme was due to the ingenuity of the code breaking system of British Naval Intelligence boss, Admiral Hall, who had broken the code of the German cables.

Despite this setback, German Mexican friendship continued to flourish. In 1919 and 1920, when really heavy military supplies were conveyed to Mexico via Holland, and a great deal of secret history would be illuminated by a further disclosure of these happenings of which little has yet been published. It is certain that such notorious personalities as Paul Rohrbach leading geo-politician and propagandist in Berlin for Germany during the First World War, as well as von Sebottendorff, were known to have visited Mexico in the post-war years. Possibly related to this, is the presence in Mexico City of Joseph Rettinger, mystery man of Polish politics during the war; an Austrian citizen, who is said to have been playing a major role in the establishment of post Car­ranza communist rule in Mexico. Carranza had then died in exile in Columbia. Ac­cording to Gregor Schwarz-Bostunich (Nazi author of "Rudolph Steiner - ein Schwindler wie keiner") Steiner had connections with Central American diplomatic circles, and further meagre details on this can be provided. Paul von Rohrbach, a major figure in German intelligence, who continued to play a role on the scene after 1933, was almost certainly a friend of Rudolph Steiners. Certainly Jaeck's son [?] received special favours from Rudolph Steiner. In general, one must as­sume that these quasi-illuminated figures were connected with the work of German military intelligence in the First World War, which during the Weimar Republic was continued by the German section of the Druid Order, maintaining liaison with all anti-British and anti-French revolutionary movements from Iran to Mexico, working in 45 countries according to Nesta Webster; but as this forment of dis­contented masons was in its turn supported by international communism, the ques­tion as to where their real loyalties resided would have to be answered diffe­rently in each individual case. Rohrbach lived on after 1945, and wrote a fu­riously anti-Hitler book in retrospect. He is said to have been a major figure in German Templarism.

Basil Thomson was known to have been on good terms with Nesta Webster, the anti-esoterical historian, and had access to all the chiefs of allied intelligence during the First World War. Of course, the book Queer People, from which the data on Krumm-Heller is quoted, is intended for the general public. It is possi­ble that he is relating the truth when saying that Krumm-Heller claimed to be ready to betray his mission, but as it seems this was only a bluff and he did not betray anything, it is altogether likely that he was sincerely devoted to the German Mexican alliance, and was only afraid of the consequences of appear­ing to have failed Carranza by being apprehended. It is difficult to understand why the British had received a signal from the boat on which Krumm-Heller arri­ved at the Orkneys.  

Cost Effective Politicians:  Robert Saunders OBE
(This article first appeared in Lodestar in 1985. Robert Saunders was a Dorset farmer and a leading member of British Union. He was detained under Defence Regulation 18B during the war and later became an active supporter of Union Movement and Action Society. He was a spokesman for the National Farmers’ Union in the seventies and was awarded the OBE for services to farming. The conflict he describes between Keynesian and Monetarist economics still rages).


                                          Robert Saunders with Oswald Mosley

It is said that if all economists were laid end to end they would not reach a conclusion and it may be added that if all politicians were lying beside them it would only add to the confusion. Yet basically economics are simple. The economists’ defects are, not just that they cannot see the wood for the trees, but that they are so preoccupied with the cell structure of a single leaf that they cannot even appreciate the beauty of the tree.

Inflation, or the fear of it, is the bugbear of the Western world. Yet the economists’ voices on how to deal with it constitute a virtual Tower of Babel. They see money, which should be merely a convenient means of exchange, as a commodity. As such it provides an opportunity for those who deal in it to make a fortune for themselves while rendering the minimum of service.

Easily confused by conflicting advice, willingly pressurised by vested interests, governments adopt fluctuating policies. None seems to understand the essentially simple nature of inflation, its causes or the way to control it – or if they do, they have their reasons for wishing to ensure that the electorate do not. Yet simple it is. If the only things in the world were two apples and two pennies, each apple would be worth 1p. If the number of pennies were to be doubled, while the number of apples remained constant, inflation would occur and each apple would become worth 2p. Conversely, if a good harvest resulted in the number of apples increasing to four, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer insisted that the money supply was rigidly controlled to two pennies, deflation would occur and each apple would become worth 1/2p. But if the number of apples and the number of pennies were increased simultaneously neither inflation nor deflation would occur: the apples would remain priced 1p.

Over recent years in Britain we have experienced Labour governments which have increased the money supply without increasing the goods and services on which to spend it. A combination of a weak government and strong Trade Unions resulted in paying more wages and salaries for the same or even less production – more pennies and fewer apples – no wonder we had inflation! Then, by way of a change, we have a Tory government, and the monetarists are in control. They reduce wages in real terms, cut the money supply – reducing the number of pennies – and thus cut inflation, but in doing so they also cut production. They have reduced the number of pennies, but have so discouraged the horticulturists that they now only produce one-and-a-half apples! Those who would have produced the other half apple are out of work and have to be supported by those in work; the apple producers’ equipment is under used and the scale of his business is reduced, with knock-on effects. Thus we have men and machines idle, something that no primitive society would tolerate.

Yet even a government dominated by monetarist theories can inject more money into the system when it wants to fight the Falklands war or the miners’ strike, with little effect on inflation. But to do the same to build houses, construct motorways, create harbours or provide modern capital equipment for our industries would apparently create runaway inflation! Yet both the Falklands War and the miners’ strike, whatever their merits, were essentially negative: they did not produce more apples, as improvements to the country’s infrastructure would do.
Apologists for the present Government policy argue that for the Government to borrow more would put interest rates up to an even more ruinous level, to the detriment of industry, and would put more spending power into the hands of the Government instead of those of the individual. So far as inflation is concerned, it matters not who spends the pennies. What matters is the balance between the number of pennies and the number of apples. But the nature of government borrowing needs to be clearly understood. There are two forms, entirely different in character. First, there is genuine borrowing, that is government having use of money that otherwise other would spend. That, like taxation, has no impact on the number of pennies, but only on who spends them. But the second is a very different form of borrowing, which is of new money, created by the banks to meet the government’s additional needs. It is this which injects more pennies into the system and where care needs to be exercised to ensure that the number of apples is increased in line with the number of pennies if inflation is to be avoided.

Clearly when there are resources – including manpower under used there is need to inject more money into the system. Not to do so would be rather like British Rail if they had half empty trains and a queue of would-be passengers, but refused to carry them on the grounds that they had too few tickets! The position would be even worse if BR were to pay the printers not only for producing the tickets but also interest on their face value. Yet this is what governments do, paying the banks interest on new money which the banks themselves create.  There is no reason why BR should not print its own tickets, nor the Government its own new money. During the 1914 War it did so, using Treasury Notes. Since then vested interests have come to bear...

The Reagan government does not do anything so unorthodox as to create its own money. Yet even it demonstrates that there is an alternative, as it sees the need to inject more money into the system, which it does by borrowing from outside. It is this borrowing on the world market that has enabled the USA to put millions of their unemployed to work over recent years. To ask why it needs to borrow in this way instead of creating the extra money for itself, would be to lift a stone under which all sorts of nasty creatures might come to light. But at least the USA is injecting more pennies – or cents – into its system and is helped to do so by our Tory Government, which abolished exchange controls and thus enabled Reagan to attract the pennies that could have been better used within our own economy.

Scientists put satellites into space and men on the Moon; surgeons transplant hearts from one human to another; in most walks of life the achievements of modern man are remarkable, yet the economists and the politicians cannot solve the simple and related problems of inflation and unemployment. The present Prime Minister insists that industry and commerce shall be ruthless in sacking the inefficient and that businesses that cannot stand up to the rigours of a harsh economic climate shall go broke. All that is not cost-effective must be weeded out. If the same criterion were applied to the politicians and the economists who advise them, it would be they who would be standing in the dole queue. If they were to be replaced by a government which applied some degree of common sense to economic matters, it would not be long before they would become somewhat lonely there.