Ukip have got two Tory defectors elected to Parliament by exploiting the resentment of people who feel betrayed by the established parties. Nigel Farage presents himself as “an ordinary bloke” and his members as “the people’s army;” a populist approach that has been temporarily successful in the past.
Fronte dell’Uomo Qualunque – the Front of the Common Man - won thirty seats in the Italian Chamber of Deputies in the 1946 election. The party was led by the writer and director Guglielmo Giannini (1891-1960). It was a monarchist-nationalist party that refused to be intimidated by the Communists in the hysterical “anti-fascist” atmosphere of post war Italy. Guglielmo Giannini was contemptuous of all the Italian parties and used the slogan “abbasso tutti” – “down with everybody!” The party dominated the south of Italy but it slumped in the 1948 election and was subsequently overtaken by the Movimento Sociale Italiano.
Pierre Poujade (1920-2003) founded his Union de Defense Commercants et Artisans in 1953. By 1956 it had 400,000 members and won 52 seats in the French general election. One of his deputies was the young Jean Marie le Pen who went on to found the Front National. The UDCA campaigned against taxation and pledged to keep the French Empire. Pierre Poujade took an “anti-political” stance and dismissed the Chamber of Deputies as “the biggest brothel in Paris”. His party went from strength to strength but it collapsed when Charles de Gaulle founded the Fifth Republic in 1958.
Ukip is doing very well at the polls but it’s essentially a protest movement. Margaret Thatcher dealt a fatal blow to the National Front in 1979 when she said that she understood people’s fears of “being swamped” by immigration. A Labour or Tory government could easily do the same thing to Ukip by announcing immigration controls or a new deal with the EU. We have been here before.
Hurrah for the Blackshirts by Harold Harmsworth (Viscount Rothermere)
From the Daily Mail of January 1934.
(Harold Harmsworth’s support for the BUF was short-lived. When J Lyons & Co - Salmon & Gluckstein - threatened to withdraw their advertising he abruptly changed sides).
Because fascism comes from Italy, short-sighted people in this country think they show a sturdy national spirit by deriding it.
If their ancestors had been equally stupid, Britain would have had no banking system, no Roman law, nor even any football, since all of these are of Italian invention.
The socialists especially, who jeer at the principles and uniform of the Blackshirts as being of foreign origin, forget that the founder and High Priest of their own creed was the German Jew Karl Marx.
Though the name and form of Fascism originated in Italy, that movement is not now peculiar to any nation. It stands in ever country for the Party of Youth. It represents the effort of the younger generation to put new life into out-of-date political systems.
That alone is enough to make it a factor of immense value in our national affairs.
Youth is a force that for generations has been allowed to run to waste in Britain. This country has been governed since far back in Victorian times by men in the middle sixties. When prosperity was general and the international horizon calm, that mattered little, but to cope with the grim problems of the present day the energy and vigour of younger men are needed. Being myself in the middle sixties, I know how stealthily and steadily that seventh decade saps one’s powers and stiffens one’s prejudices.
Under the inert and irresolute control of these elderly statesmen, the British Government is equally without real popularity at home and prestige abroad. In the vital matter of air-defence this country has been allowed to sink from the foremost to the lowest position among the Great Powers. While the leaders of other States are reorganising their national resources to break the crushing grip of the world-crisis our own are content to drift and dawdle. They are persistent only in preparing British abdication in India and Ceylon by the same methods as lost Southern Ireland to the Empire.
The Blackshirt movement is the organised effort of the younger generation to break this stranglehold which senile politicians have so long maintained on our public affairs. In its organisation, aims and methods it is purely British, and has no more to do with Italian Fascism than the Italian Navy has to do with the British Navy.
Such an effort was long overdue. The nation’s realisation of the need for it is shown by the astonishing progress the Blackshirts are making, especially in the big industrial areas. Reports that reach me from the provinces go far to substantiate their claim to have the largest active membership in the country. A crusading spirit has come back to British politics. Yet many people who would be vastly impressed by a similar movement in France or the United States have so far failed to realise the profound importance of the new national activity which is stirring all around them.
What are these Blackshirts who hold 500 meetings a week throughout the country and whose uniform has become so familiar a feature of our political life?
They fall mainly into two distinct age-groups. One consists of those who were just old enough to take part in the war, and who have been discouraged and disgusted by the incompetence of their elders in dealing with the depression that has followed on it. The other is made up of men too young to remember the war but ready to put all their ardour and energy at the service of a cause which offers them a vigorous constructive policy in place of the drift and indecision of the old political parties.
Blackshirts proclaim a fact which politicians dating from pre-war days will never face – that the new age requires new methods and new men.
They base their contention on the simple truth that parliamentary government is conducted on the same lines as it was in the eighteenth century, though the conditions with which it deals have altered beyond recognition. They want to bring our national administration up to date.
This purpose does not rest on theory alone. It can be justified by the gigantic revival of national strength and spirit which a similar process of modernisation has brought about in Italy and Germany.
These are beyond all doubt the best governed nations in Europe to-day. From repeated visits to both under their present regime, I can vouch for it that in no other land does the overwhelming majority of the people feel such confidence and pride in its rulers.
If our own system of government were reorganised in the same way, and full scope accorded to the energy and enterprise of British youth, this country would soon regain its old position of world pre-eminence. With our present out-worn machinery of State and feeble personnel of Government the continuance of its decline is certain.
We must keep up with the spirit of the age. That spirit is one of national discipline and organisation.
The Blackshirts are the only political force in Britain that is working for these ends. Even if they were on the wrong lines, it would be to the benefit of the country that its younger citizens should be taking an active interest in national affairs. But which of our older politicians, looking back on his own record, dare assert that they are on the wrong lines?
Government by one or other of the long-established political parties had proved such a failure that that over two years ago it was abandoned.
To it there succeeded an artificial alliance of the leaders of all parties. The record of this merger of political talent consists almost solely of a series of abortive international conferences in this country and abroad.
If “discussion” and “exchange of views” were an effective substitute in human affairs for action, the National Government would be the best that Britain has ever had. But the experience of the past two years has proven that these futile and time-wasting devices are no more than a screen for inertia and indecision.
The huge majority obtained by the present Government at the general election of 1931 was the last vote of confidence that the nation will ever give to Old Gang politicians. Two years from now another general election will be almost due. The whole future of Britain will depend upon its issue.
A prolongation of the present regime may be regarded in the country’s present mood as out of the question. There will be a pronounced swing either to Right or Left.
If the inflated, impulsive, and largely ignorant electorate which Old Gang statesmen have brought into existence were to return the Rump of extreme Socialism to power, all hope of this country’s recovery would collapse amid the confusion of Communist experiments.
At this next vital election Britain’s survival as a Great Power will depend on the existence of a well-organised Party of the Right, ready to take over responsibility for national affairs with the same directness of purpose and energy of method as Mussolini and Hitler have displayed.
Such a movement, making “Action” its motto instead of “Drift”, will draw a surprising measure of support from former Socialists, who have discovered that the leaders of that party also value words above deeds.
That is why I say, Hurrah for the Blackshirts! They are a sign that something is stirring among the youth of Britain. They are the symbol of that new realism in public life which alone can rouse it from its torpor.
Hundreds of thousands of young British men and women would like to see their own country develop that spirit of patriotic pride and service which has transformed Germany and Italy. They cannot do better than seek out the nearest branch of the Blackshirts and make themselves acquainted with their aims and plans.
They will soon lose any lingering idea that this campaign is trying to introduce foreign methods and principles into our country.
They will find the loyalties and aims of the Blackshirts as British as their membership, and as a striking contrast with the hesitations and compromises of all other parties, they will discover that Blackshirts do not cover faint hearts!
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents has compared the Neapolitan philosopher Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) with Karl Marx (1818-1883). Marx plotted revolution from the reading room of the British Museum but it was the men of action Leon Trotsky (Bronstein) and Lev Kamenev (Rozenfeld) who led the Red mob before they were executed on the orders of Joseph Stalin.
Giambattista Vico was a historian who did not burden posterity with pessimistic predictions that are only taken seriously by academics and aspiring dictators. Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the West" was inspired by the defeat of Germany in WW1, and Nietzsche’s despair was linked to a mental breakdown at the age of 44 from which he never recovered. Those of us who believe in Salvation reject doom and gloom, and we remember Karl Marx for his hypocrisy - a man of Jewish descent who hated Jews, and a professed socialist who treated his servants like slaves.
Politicians would do better to read physics than philosophy or economics. Newton’s apple will always fall to the ground but in the words of Rab C Nesbitt:“apart from sex and death the rest is pure bloody guesswork.”
We now know from tree ring analysis that climate change enabled Europeans to colonise Britain at the end of the Ice Age; it drove the Mongols west in search of food, forced the Germanic tribes to found new kingdoms in Britain, France, Italy and Russia, and caused the Arabs to build an empire from the Atlantic to the islands of the Pacific.
Historians and philosophers cite various reasons for the great migrations but the fear of freezing or starving to death is the most likely.
The challenges to our survival must be confronted. We are living on the fractured crust of an unstable planet revolving around an uncontrolled nuclear reactor called the Sun. Nothing is entirely predictable but we are depleting the world’s resources and those least capable of maintaining civilization are reproducing the fastest. We have the technology to feed, house and medicate everybody but we are more interested in fighting wars and waving flags. We have political leaders who are mentally stuck in the last century and a system of representation designed to perpetuate the status quo. Instead of seeking the meaning of life we should be reading, writing, speaking and organising; actions speak louder than words.
The Great Conspiracy
In the September 2014 issue of Candour Jez Turner asks the question “Is there a Conspiracy and if there is does it matter? He answers in the affirmative by endorsing AK Chesterton’s book Facing the Abyss. Apparently, the Jews are taking over the world and some of us are corrupted by sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. He may be right about the sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll but he is surely over estimating Jewish power.
The Jewish financier Bernie Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme that stole billions of dollars but Carlo Ponzi, who gave his name to the scam, was a good Catholic.
Bernard Baruch may have hated the British Empire but it was General Tomoyuki Yamashita who ended it when he accepted Lieutenant General Arthur Percival’s surrender at Singapore in 1942.
Zionist terrorists committed unspeakable atrocities in Palestine fighting for a national home for the Jews. Most of them were atheists but they propagated the myth that the Jews are God’s Chosen People and they convinced Gentiles like Dave Cameron and Barack Obama.
The Jewish banking firm of Kuhn Loeb & Co financed the Bolsheviks but their cousins the Rothschilds backed the Romanovs. Banks lend money to customers according to their credit rating not their politics.
Jews who were discriminated against by the Tsarist regime supported Lenin in the Russian Revolution but many of them perished in the Gulags and forced labour camps of the Stalinist era.
We should avoid theories that explain everything just as we avoid medicines that cure all ailments. AK Chesterton’s writing is important but the world has changed since the seventies. The Soviet Union has ceased to exist, China has embraced capitalism, and the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 proves that bankers are not all-powerful. If they could really make money out of nothing they would still be in business.
AK Chesterton’s earlier book The New Unhappy Lords charts the fall of the British Empire. We are all proud of the Empire but at its height, in 1913, living conditions for the working class were terrible. Twenty-five percent of the population lived in poverty; fifteen percent at subsistence level and ten percent below subsistence level. Four million working men earned less than thirty shillings a week, which was the minimum needed to keep a wife and three kids. The four million women wage earners were far worse off: probably nine tenths earned less than a pound a week. The average working man lived fifty years and the average working woman fifty-four years. This inequality was swept away by the First World War and the subsequent social revolution.
AK Chesterton wrote in the foreword to The New Unhappy Lords:
“The strength and weakness of this book is that it is not annotated. Its weakness is that the author, having checked his facts to the best of his ability, does not cite his authorities, partly because some of the information has come to him under confidential cover from highly placed sources in different parts of the world who would face ruin if their identities were divulged, and partly because, the facts having been checked as far as that was possible, the sources have not been filed and listed. Its strength, on the other hand, is that the reader is presented with a continuous narrative which enables him to follow the workings of the conspiracy without having his attention distracted by the abundance of footnotes which otherwise would have been necessary.”
But we do not need footnotes to understand the decline of the British Empire. It began when we fought the South African War on borrowed money; it was compromised when we accepted American military assistance in 1917; it was undermined by the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and terminated at Bretton Woods in 1944 when we tied the pound to the dollar and placed our armed forces under American command.
Before AK Chesterton resigned as chairman of the National Front in 1970 he issued the following warning:
“The man who thinks this is a war that can be won by mouthing slogans against dirty Jews and filthy n***ers is a maniac who’s place should not be in the National Front but in a mental hospital...A nation once noble and great cannot be rescued from the mire by jackasses who play straight into the enemies hands by giving the public that image of us that the enemy most dearly wants to be given.”
His advice was ignored but his books are remembered. He named the men who financed the South African War 1899-1902, the First World War 1914-1918, and the Second World War 1939-1945; three major conflicts in forty-three years that left us totally bankrupt. The Bretton Woods Agreement marked the end of Empire but Britain had to accept America’s terms to secure a desperately needed loan. The alternative would have been starvation.
Facing the Abyss and The New Unhappy Lords are available from the Candour Publishing Co: www.candour.org.uk
Comment: European immigration is Not a Threat – John Bean
After reading the first few paragraphs of the November issue of European Outlook I wondered if the writer was really a renegade journalist from the Guardian. Initially, it gave the impression of a vitriolic attack upon anyone believing that there were differences; even if only minor subtle ones, between the inhabitants that make up the nations of Europe. (I fully support your condemnation of the head-measurers and believers of so-called ‘Aryan’ supremacy).
Turning to Francis Parker Yockey for support you quote from his work Imperium: “The attempts to interpret History in terms of Race must be abandoned.” This belief did, of course, come naturally as a disciple of Oswald Spengler. Probably more important is the time, 1948, when Yockey was writing this. As a believer in much of National Socialist principles he obviously wanted to reject the murderous aspects of the recently defeated German regime that amongst other racial crimes had regarded the Slavs of Europe as an ‘inferior race’ and acted accordingly whilst occupying large areas of Russia. This rejection of race could also be influenced by his fundamental belief that there should be co-operation between the far Left (including the Soviet Union) and the ‘far’, or ‘radical’ Right.
Nevertheless, I was assured that European Outlook was not really acting as an outpost of the Guardian where it moved on to discuss where the UK’s extra workers will come from. “They can either come from Europe or from the rest of the world. It’s a choice between Norwegians or Nigerians, Poles or Pakistanis, Swedes or Somalis. If it’s against the law to prefer Europeans then many of us are guilty. We do not hate anybody but we think that our near neighbours are more easily assimilated than peoples from vastly different cultures.”
I fully agree.
As the recent report headed by Professor Christian Dustmann from University College London shows, those fellow Europeans who came to work in Britain from 1995 to 2011 made an overall contribution to the UK’s economy of £4.4 billion. The liberal-left, headed by the BBC, has put great emphasis on this figure to try and pretend that immigration per se has been good for Britain. They have glossed over the fact that non-European immigration in the same period, largely from India. Pakistan and Africa cost the UK’s public purse £120 billion.
Nearly all UK media has ignored a revelation regarding some of the alleged European migrants to the UK by Philip Johnson, writing in the Daily Telegraph 21.10.14. He reported that several years back Oxford University’s Migration Observatory found that 141,000 people who came to the UK under EU rules were born outside the continent. This included many Nigerians. Also between a third and half of the entire Dutch Somali community has moved to the UK. With at least five years passing since the Oxford University finding, it is highly likely that the inflow of phoney Europeans to the UK has doubled since then. Nigel Farage please note.
I view Europe as a wonderful place made so by its different sects of a common tribe. Several millennia have evolved its beautiful and bewildering variety of languages, stretching from Icelandic to Basque. Movement of its peoples presents no threat to Britain or to other major nations. Any threat comes from unrestricted immigration into Europe as a whole from Afro-Asia.
Finally, a personal note that might put me beyond the ‘racist’ pale. I can trace my ancestors back well beyond ‘six generations’; to 1560, in Yorkshire, in fact. I sent a sample of my DNA to Oxford Ancestors Ltd, whose Chairman is the geneticist and historian Professor Bryan Sykes. The result of their scan was that I am alleged to carry a Y-chromosome recognised as being of probably Anglo-Saxon or Danish Viking origin. My wife, believed to be of Irish origin, sent off her DNA sample. The result said that her distant ancestry came from a grouping which started in what is now modern Croatia, then moving into Northern Italy. Much to our amazement the report said she shared the same Y-chromosome pattern as Otzi the Alpine Iceman!
Follow me on Twitter @Baillie1Bill
Follow me on Twitter @Baillie1Bill