Saturday, 30 June 2018

European Outlook # 51 July 2018

The Holocaust.

Ken Livingstone has been hounded out of the Labour Party by accusations of anti-Semitism, but he is not the first victim of hysteria. David Irving has been vilified, bankrupted and jailed for 'Holocaust Denial'. Disputing the figure of six million dead is illegal in many countries but the Internet abounds with disbelieving websites. Irving concedes that an unknown number of Jews were killed by the Nazis, Richard Harewood in 'Did Six Million Really Die?' puts it at 300,000, and a contested Red Cross report records 271,501 deaths.

The BBC website describes one of the camps.

"Bergen-Belsen was the only concentration camp taken by the British and the soldiers were unprepared for what they found there. In fact, most of the details did not appear in the media until a couple of days after the liberation when the first medical team arrived.

Mass graves were dug to hold up to 5,000 corpses at a time. The former army guards from the SS were deliberately made to use their bare hands to bury the prisoners, many of whom had died of contagious diseases.

The mass evacuation of the camp began on 21st April. Prisoners with any hope of survival were moved to an emergency hospital.

British medical students responded to an appeal from the Ministry of Health to go to Germany and help in the treatment of prisoners.

Photographs and a film taken at the camp and published in the media brought home the full horror of life in Belsen. German civilians living near the camp were taken to see what had gone on inside.

The last hut in the camp was burned to the ground on 21st May 1945. Today the camp is a landscaped park.

Brig General Glyn-Hughes, who was put in charge of cleaning up the camp, said it took a staff of 68 a fortnight to stamp out typhus in the camp. But prisoners too sick to respond to treatment continued to die. Historians at as many as 28,000 of the 38,500 prisoners in the camp when it was liberated, subsequently died.

The camp commandant, Joseph Kramer, was found guilty at Luneberg of war crimes and hanged in December 1945."

Nazi apologists claim that the Holocaust never happened but British soldiers testified that thousands of Jews died in Belsen. The exact body count and the causes of death are debatable but there's no doubt that terrible crimes against humanity were committed. 

The Holocaust happened over seventy years ago and there's nothing that we can do about it now, but Palestinians are currently being killed by the Israeli Defence Force. Of course, we must never forget what happened to the Jews but Instead of focusing on past atrocities we should turn our attention to crimes that can be prevented.

Tommy Robinson

Since the Second World War nine Acts of Parliament have been passed concerning immigration; British Nationality Act 1948, Commonwealth Immigration Act 1968, Immigration Act 1971, Immigration Act 1988, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, UK Border Act 2007, Border, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. According to the Office of National Statistics, the non-white population of the UK stands at 9.1 million. 

At long last, the government is making it harder for people to get into the UK, but whole areas of the country have already been colonised by aliens who show little interest in assimilation. This situation has been made worse by a political culture that ignores the sexual exploitation of young women by gangs of predominately Pakistani men.

When Tommy Robinson was sent to prison for reporting on this, a
campaign to free him was immediately launched. Half a million signatures were quickly collected on Facebook, and an impressive demonstration in London was addressed by the controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders, and Anne-Marie Waters, the 'For Britain' candidate in the Lewisham East by-election who finished in seventh place with 266 votes - 1.2%. 

Many of us think that Tommy Robinson deliberately courted arrest, and we are suspicious of Anne-Marie Waters and Geert Wilders. They rely on a blind hatred of Islam which attracts the worst elements of the far-right. Julian Leppert posted the following message on Facebook on Sunday, June 10: 

During my own time within it (2001-2011) the British National Party worked very hard to finally bury those negative stereotypes from the 80s (skinheads, football hooligans etc), and present a smart, professional image for British nationalism that wouldn't alienate the wider public to our cause. Then Tommy came along with his EDL marches and brought all those horrible images of yobby pissed-up geezers looking for a punch-up right back into the public consciousness, providing validation to the left, and propaganda ammunition for the anti-British media to discredit the patriotic movement with. The EDL may have gone, but Tommy's fans are still out doing our enemies job for them quite splendidly in his name, as seen in London yesterday. In the scheme of things, is the cult of Tommy a help or a hindrance? 

This Land is Our Land - Don Andrews

Nationalist Party Of Canada - 

Yes, the “land” was here before Europeans arrived. In fact, it was here before aboriginals first crossed the Bering Strait. But the “land” is not the nation. The “land” is not “Canada”. And one can’t credibly deny that the British and French were the primary founders of the nation called “Canada”. It should also be noted that the newcomers from “non-traditional” sources who arrived in the wake of the pivotal shift to Official multiculturalism more than four decades ago most probably did so because they found this “nation” of Canada superior to the countries they left. That is to say, it appears that those accursed “White settlers” and their descendants didn’t do such a bad job of building this nation after all.

Yet it is the Multicultural project to transform this nation, the nation that immigrants have found so attractive, into something resembling the nations of those immigrants have fled. And it looks like they are halfway there. In 1981 there were 6 ethnic enclaves in Canada. By 2010 there were 260. Obviously, Canada is in the midst of a vast experiment in social engineering. The question we need to ask, as lab rats, is, “Is this really a good thing?” “Diversity”, we are constantly told is a strength. In a masterpiece of Orwellian double-speak, the Multicultural lobby assures us that there is “unity in diversity”. A look at the rest of the world, however, would not confirm this belief.

You don’t believe me? Then ask the people of what used to be Yugoslavia. Ask the people of Syria or Iraq. Ask Ukrainians. Ask Russians. Ask Ruandans, Ask Sri Lankans. Ask just about every people in the world. You don’t even have to look far. Take a look at America’s experiment with “integration” right now. Look how it descended into tribalism. Look beyond soap operas and movies and the make-belief world that the American media presents. Look at America at the ground level. Look at cities, towns, neighbourhoods and college campuses. You will see clusters of African-Americans over here, clusters of Hispanics over there, and clusters of “whites” sitting or standing alone in the corner. This is not a function of mandated “apartheid”, but voluntary segregation. For many parts of America Martin Luther King’s dream has not come to pass. In fact, America is growing further apart, and “Coming Apart”, as Charles Murray’s book of that title suggests. In the words of Coloradan writer Mike Folkerth, “The United States is the most fractured society on earth – the most fractured culture.”

The make-belief world that the media presents and the unrelenting torment of state propaganda will not conceal these facts. The spin machine will not ultimately succeed in perpetuating the “Diversity illusion”, as British author Ed West calls it, no more than the Communist state of Yugoslavia succeeded in convincing its citizens and the world at large that its ethnic blocs were living in blissful harmony.
Multiculturalists, of course, insist that Canada is unique. That Canada can make multiculturalism work: that so far it is a roaring success, and is a model for the world to follow. That those who say otherwise are a delusional fringe without credibility, people who need to be excluded from public forums, ostracized or even punished for spreading “hateful” messages. Rather than acknowledge the inherent division that exists between incompatible ethnic groups, they accuse those who point out this division as divisive!

The Communist establishment in the Soviet bloc said similar things about dissidents: that they were insane; that they should be detained in prison or confined to mental asylums. They were tiny anti-social elements who disputed what was obvious: that the socialist state was a Workers’ Paradise where all ethnic groups got along.

But suddenly in the late 80s and early 90s, the truth came out. The command economy had been a failure, socialism wasn’t working and ethnic nationalism was alive and well.


Our politicians have lost touch with reality. Being unable to grasp the great changes that have taken place they have retreated into a world of fantasy.  

The Tories are still singing "Britannia Rules the Waves" but they were only able to send a frigate to counter a perceived Russian threat in the Middle East. They want to have their own space program when we leave the EU, but they are having to increase taxes to pay for the National Health Service. And they talk about spending untold billions designing and building a satellite navigation system that the Americans and the Europeans have already perfected. 

The Labour Party wants to spend more on the NHS, the police, education, social services, and everything else but they don't say where the money will come from. They promise that increased public spending will revive the economy and produce plenty for all. But their record in government tells a different story. Every Labour government without exception has resulted in economic disaster. Their dream of prosperity is never realised.

The Lib-Dems, the Greens, and Ukip are up against an unfair 'first past the post' system that is rigged in favour of the Old Gang. We urgently need proportional representation but when we had a referendum on voting reform the far right parties campaigned against it!

he public imagines that parliamentary democracy is 'government by the people' but it's really government by big business. Our elected MPs take their orders from the unelected bosses of international corporations. The political parties depend upon their donations and they would not bite the hand that feeds them.

We must face the fact that we are no longer a world power. Now that the British Empire has gone we are a medium-sized country that imports half of its food and fuel. We have an immigrant-swollen population of 66.5 million, and a National Debt of £1.7 trillion. We can't afford a high seas fleet or our so-called 'independent' nuclear deterrent. According to CND, upgrading the Trident missile system will cost £100 billion. The logical thing to do is to trade with our neighbours and co-operate with them on defence and security. Instead, the Old Gang are wallowing in nostalgia and dreaming of past glories. 

Hard Copy Publications

Every political movement used to have its own newspaper or magazine. Some of them were professionally printed and others were typewritten and duplicated. But none of them ever made any money. There are still a few hard copy publications left but most of them have gone over to the Internet.

aper, printing and postage are prohibitively expensive and the violent thugs of the anti-fascist movement would threaten anyone daring to sell newspapers or magazines.

he Internet is available to us provided that we choose our words carefully and keep within the law, but nothing is achieved by going to prison.

This is not just a problem for small political parties, 'The Independent' has switched to the Internet and other newspapers are likely to follow. All of them are losing circulation but their online versions are forging ahead. The days of mass circulation newspapers are numbered but the rise of the Internet enables us to reach people without standing on street corners in the rain trying to sell papers to a disinterested public.

In the old days we were lucky to sell twenty or thirty copies but now we get hundreds of visitors to our websites without getting wet or being assaulted by anti-fascists. Those hard copy publishers still in business must be congratulated for their staying power but the future is with the Internet. 'European Outlook' and 'Nation Revisited' will, therefore, cease hard copy publication with this issue. Most families nowadays have got laptops, tablets or smartphones, and those without can use Internet cafes or public libraries. If you're not sure how to log on ask your grandchildren.

The Brexit Dividend

Tory government has promised a Brexit Dividend of £20 billion for the National Health Service. But Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said: "There is literally, arithmetically, no money." In reality, it will come from higher taxes but workers on minimum wages don't pay much income tax, and some of them are so poorly paid that they qualify for state benefits.

Our police, firefighters, teachers and medical staff cannot afford to live in the cities they serve because of unaffordable rents and mortgages. And the long-promised construction of social housing is not happening fast enough.

Immigration is down - at least from Europe -  but the resulting shortage of workers has highlighted skills shortages throughout the economy. Theresa May abandoned her cap on immigration because we can't stop importing Indian doctors or Polish plumbers until we train enough of our own people. 

We will soon have two massive aircraft carriers equipped with unbelievably expensive American aircraft but we lack the support ships, sailors, marines, technicians, and pilots to make them viable.

All of these failings are the result of a short-term mentality linked to a five-year parliamentary cycle. Politicians are almost incapable of thinking ahead because they don't expect to be in power in five years time. Instead of planning for the future they blunder on and hope for the best. 

This irresponsible behaviour is compounded by the practice of shuffling ministers. The Minister of Health suddenly becomes the Minister of Defence, or the Home Secretary takes on the duties of the Minister for Education. It would make more sense if the Minister for Heath was a medical man, the Minister for Defence an ex-serviceman, and so on. What Mosley used to call "Government by experts."

We went decimal way back in 1971 but we are still using pints and miles alongside litres and kilometres. The 'Daily Mail' perpetuates an obsolete temperature scale and avoirdupois weights and measures while industry and the military are fully metric.      

Britain was saved in the Second World War by great men like Robert Watson-Watt, the father of Radar, Barnes Wallis who designed the Wellington bomber and the bouncing bomb, Reginald Mitchell who designed the Spitfire, Sydney Camm who designed the Hurricane, and Alan Turing, the brilliant codebreaker who pioneered computers. Winston Churchill was an accomplished actor and Clement Attlee was a good administrator but it was our scientists and engineers that won the war. We hope that history repeats itself because our politicians are practically useless.

If we rounded up a gang drunks and derelicts sleeping in doorways, and gave each of them a hot meal, a bath and a new suit of clothes, they would surely make better Cabinet ministers than blustering - "fuck business" - Boris Johnson, dithering David Davies, catatonic Chris Grayling, or ghastly Gavin Williamson. We have never had such a pathetic troop of clowns in charge of us.

Jez Turner

Our comrade Jez Turner is serving 12 months in prison for criticising the Jews. He went to a boarding school and served in the British Army, so he is well used to spartan conditions. I can report that he is in good spirits and making use of the prison library and chapel. 

Our thoughts and prayers are with him.

You can write to Jez at the following address:

Jeremy Bedford Turner A5544EE
PO Box 5
HMP Wandsworth
Heathfield Road
London SW18 3HU


All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people."

Nation Revisited
Our sister blog is posted on:





Thursday, 31 May 2018

European Outlook # 50 June 2018

International trade is important but Mosley's vision of 'Europe a Nation' went far beyond the single market and the customs union. The following article first appeared in the post-war Mosley Newsletter.  

Union of Europe by Oswald Mosley

We were divided and we are conquered. That is the tragic epitaph of two war generations. Those words alone should adorn the grave of the youth of Europe. That was the fate of my generation in 1914 and that was the doom of a new generation of young soldiers in 1939. The youth of Europe shed the blood of their own family, and the jackals of the world grew fat. Those who fought are in the position of the conquered, whatever their country. Those who did not fight, but merely profited, alone are victorious.

What, then, was the truth concerning the National Socialist or Fascist movements, before the war? Our fault was exactly the opposite of that suggested against us. How often in politics is that the fact? How rarely are the people permitted to know anything except the reverse of the truth? It was suggested that we might set the interests of other countries before our own: that was an absurd lie. In reality, we were all too National - too narrowly concentrated upon securing the interests of our own nations. That was the true fault of all real National Socialists or Fascist Movements whether in Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Italy. So far from being willing to serve each other as 'Fifth Columns' in the event of a clash between states, our political ideology and propaganda were far too Nationalistic even to mould the minds of men in a new sense of European kinship and solidarity which might have avoided disaster by universal consent. So far from fighting for other countries in a war, we none of us argued with sufficient force in favour of that new sense of European Union which modern fact must now make an integral part of a new creed. Our creed was brought to the dust because the Fascist outlook in each land was too National.

How did it happen? How did that creed, which might have brought the Renaissance of Western Man, confine itself within the limits of a too narrow Nationalism? How did the rush of that mighty river of re-birth lose itself in the dry sands of a past that should have been dead?

There are two reasons; the first practical, the second ideological. For all the fiery idealism of our creed, it was ever imbued with the most realistic practical sense. We had, therefore, observed with strong feelings of revulsion the ridiculous structure of that Tower of Babel which the old world erected after the last war. The attempt to solve every problem by bigger and better committees of wider and more diverse nationalities ended in the grotesque failure which our realism foresaw. Their procedure in the face of difficulty was ever to introduce more and more people who were less and less like each other in tradition, though, feeling and instinct. Consequently and inevitably the difficulties became ever more insuperable until the whole attempt broke down in tragic absurdity. That did not appear to be a practical method. So we tried the opposite approach of each nation building in its own area a system suitable to its own tradition, culture and feeling.

The first stage was, therefore, to divide the world into large, self-contained blocks on this realistic basis of natural division. A superstructure of universal friendship and understanding between nations could later have been erected on the solid foundation of these natural and practical areas. In my writing and speeches long before the war, I thus opposed the concept of "Universalism" to that of "Internationalism." It is a practical sense which says, let us begin by cleaning up our own corner when the room is in a mess: afterwards we can discuss the future of the room as a whole. That attitude was anyhow, a very natural reaction from the fantastic performances of the Babel Boys, who confronted chaos with the confused jabber of a multitude of conflicting tongues and diverse instincts within the old 'Internationalism," which began as a woolly ideal and ended as a squalid racket.

But the revulsion from current errors led most protagonists of the new European creed back into what should have been regarded as the obsolete paths of Ultra-Nationalism. On practical grounds it became all too clear that a grotesque medley of skins and cultures could never get anywhere; so the realism of the new men reacted too far to the other extreme of a nationalism which in modern conditions is unnaturally narrow.

Our ideological opposition to the old Internationalism was naturally even stronger than the practical. The principles of that Internationalism appeared to us an absurdity and an outrage - a grotesque violation of every self-evident truth of nature which could only bring degeneration and destruction. The argument that every savage was in every way the brother and equal of a European just plainly was not true; every sense and every instinct, all history and knowledge told us that. Those people were not the same as us; they were obviously and deeply different. So International Brotherhood was just the bunk; it was founded on a blatant negation of the truth. The idea that you could build a world on the premise that all men, or all races, were equal was a dangerous absurdity; yet that was the whole premise of the "democratic" concept which we opposed. In fact, they are obviously not equal in intellect, physique, knowledge, achievement, history or tradition.

Further, the gifts of different races vary as widely as the gifts of different individuals. To affirm that they are just the same is to state so palpable an untruth that you risk the charge of seeking the destruction of the higher in the interest of the lower. This is in fact, the charge against Communism. They seek to break down every European value, founded on truths that have endured the test of ages because their first task in the move to replace the higher by the lower is to tear down the values of the former. Before you put the lower on top you must first prove there is no higher. That argument was also very welcome to the International Money Power which knew that the lower could be corrupted for its own purpose, while the higher type are the natural barriers to corruption and chaos. The easiest way to remove them is to prove that all men and all peoples are the same; spiritual conquest thus precedes the material triumph.

Such was the ideology and such the teachings from which the National Socialists or Fascists creed reacted so naturally and so vehemently. The tragedy was that the revulsion produced too narrow a Nationalism. When you are told that you must kiss Harry the Hottentot on both cheeks as a condition of taking a walk down the street you are apt to confine yourself to the close circle of your own family! Your feeling is all the stronger if you are constantly told it would be a good thing if he came in and ran your house for you and if, on occasion, he is even given the power to do so. The reaction was "human, all too human."

The real idea, which must become the creed of the future, is surely to reject the old Internationalism on the one hand, and on the other hand to transcend an exclusive nationalism which divides natural friends and relatives. Man moved from the village to the nation in the natural process of uniting with his nearest kinsmen as his mind and spirit grew. Now the time is come to move from the nation to the continent, or even beyond it, under the same natural impulse and process of next uniting with those nearest to us in blood, tradition, mind and spirit.

The idea of Kinship is the true Idea; the reaching out of our hands to those who are kindred or of the same kind. The idea of Kinship can bring the Union of Europe where the old Internationalism failed. As a family of the same stock and kind Europe should always have been united in Ideal. Today, the Real, as well as the Ideal, faces Europe with the alternative of Union or disaster. So must come a new union of mind and spirit, not only to avoid destruction but for further purposes of construction. Yet the idea of Kinship carries us far beyond Europe; there are kindred of our same kind in both Americas. Their spiritual life is also ultimately based on nearly three millennia of European history and Culture. In the deep realities and further ideals of this Age, all nature impels them in their final test to feel and think as we do.

We love our countries, but we must extend that love; the ideal and the practical alike now compel it. The extension of Patriotism: that is the necessity and that is the hope. The new Patriotism will extend to embrace all of like kind, but will not destroy the values of its kind by seeking the unnatural mingling of the old Internationalism which is proved to fail. The Universalism of like kind, within a new union of the spiritual and the material, will protect its members and its values but will menace no others. Thus shall we of two war generations no longer be divided. Thus shall our ideals, which were so misused and betrayed, at length be realised in ways our eyes could not then see. The anguish of our Age will not have been in vain if now is born the Idea that shall carry man beyond what is called "Democracy", and even beyond Fascism. From the flames which end an epoch rises the Idea of the Future.

Pride and Prejudice

The 2018 local government elections saw the collapse of Ukip. Their performance was bad enough but the smaller nationalist parties; BNP, National Front, British Democrats and others, didn't win a single council seat between them. The nationalist vote has been hijacked by the Jacob Rees-Mogg faction of the Tory Party.

Oswald Mosley
fought for workers' rights as a minister in the Labour government of Ramsay Macdonald, and as leader of the pre-war British Union and the post-war Union Movement.

The National Front once supported Bill Whitbread's Trade Union Anti-Immigration Movement, and the BNP are allied with 'Solidarity', the independent trade union led by Pat Harrington (pictured).

But the Jacob Rees-Mogg faction of the Tory Party are dedicated reactionaries who crave cheap labour and despise the One Nation Tories who built social housing in the Fifties.

If we leave the EU under the hard-faced Tories, they will scrap what they call 'red tape'; the employment and health and safety regulations that protect us. In pursuit of maximum profits, they would demolish the Welfare State, sell off the National Health Service, and flood the country with cheap labour immigrants.

The Jacob Rees-Mogg faction are enthusiastic flag wavers who delight in singing the national anthem and making a show of patriotism. But what sort of patriot would tolerate dangerous working conditions or sub-standard housing? It's not a class issue: Oswald Mosley and Harold Macmillan were aristocrats but they identified with the working men who fought with them in the trenches of the First World War. Jacob may be sprung from the loins of the nobility but he is supported by middle-class Tories who struggle to pay their mortgages.

National Socialism in its literal sense is a love of a country and its people but Tory Nationalism is an unholy alliance of prejudice, false patriotism, and exploitation. 

Letter from America by Robert Lyons

Our American correspondent Robert Lyons was a youthful member of the National States' Rights Party who attended the 1961 BNP camp in Norfolk.

Trump's target from the beginning has been Iran, the North Korea situation has only been a distraction Trump would like to put out of the way so he and his flunkies can concentrate on neutralizing Iran. Trump's masters have been first Israel, secondly the Sunni states in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia, and thirdly his broad-based Evangelical support base here in the US plus the powerful Jewish lobbies and the neocons plus big-name Jewish financial supporters.

There's a large number of Democrats in both the Senate and House who support his anti-Iran stance. The Jewish/Zionist groups are so powerful here it's doubtful any anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist citizen running for office in this country could ever be elected. The Jewish organisations scan every office seeker before elections looking for any sign of deviation of the pro-Israel, pro-Jewish, stance. I'm sure it's the same in the UK and probably much worse.

Much of the so-called alt right who still support Trump knowing what he is and where he stands continue to amaze me, those people must bury their heads in the sand to keep from acknowledging the truth of the situation. Trump is beyond a doubt the most Zionist and pro-Jewish president the US has ever had in its history.

"Bibi" Netanyahu's visual display the other day was totally laughable but Trump and his followers sucked it up like it was the unquestioned word of God. Never have the nuclear weapons of Israel ever been mentioned, it's like the forbidden subject that is never to be mentioned if anybody had the guts to they would be declared an anti-Semite and run out of town.

We've seen it all before and it will get much worse. One brave person standing up would be like spitting into the wind during a hurricane. What we were able to do in the 60s and 70s seem amazing compared to what can be done now. Freedom of speech now seems like a distant memory of times gone by. The masses are now totally blind to any and everything.

Municipal Censorship

The Museums and Libraries Association states the following on the censorship of the Internet in public libraries:

"Libraries should make this known to users and provide the opportunity for them to challenge particular instances of blocking or request the adjustment of blocking criteria. And they should recognise that such techniques are imprecise and aim to minimise restrictions and avoid inadvertent blocking of legitimate resources."

It's common practice for libraries throughout the country to impose censorship on their public access computers. Local councillors take it upon themselves to decide what we can see and hear, and what email services we can use.

They claim to be protecting us against pornography and the glorification of violence, but Zionist websites are freely available despite Israel's genocidal treatment of the Palestinians, and you can visit the website of the African National Congress which supports the confiscation of white-owned farms. 

These decisions are made by local councillors according to political prejudices that are invariably left wing. The 'servants of the people' are elected but few voters realise what powers they are giving them. If Parliament tried to censor the Internet in the same way as the local councils they would not get away with it. And if a Tory-controlled council tried to deny access to left-wing websites the lefties would riot in the streets.

Our politicians and journalists condemn China for censoring the Internet but they never mention our public libraries. If we must have an element of censorship it should be regulated by Parliament. There are some disgusting things on the Internet that should be restricted but political opinions must be allowed. We do not need a self-appointed 'Committee of Public Safety' to control our thoughts.

Some Thoughts on Race

Millions of people are flying
around the world in search of pastures new. Nature confined the races of antiquity to their own territories with oceans, deserts and mountains, but we invented ships, planes, roads, and trains to overcome these obstacles, and now we are building rockets to take us into space.

People are defined by language, race, nationality, culture, and religion, but the European nations have absorbed many of their former colonial subjects. This has been exploited by politicians. Tony Linsell wrote in 'An English Nationalism':

"Those who are the most fanatical in claiming that race is unimportant, usually attach the greatest importance to it. They often use the very simplest form of racial classification and see only a Black race and a White race. Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that many of those who are neither Caucasoid or Negroid do not fit easily into the Black-White scheme. This leaves the problem of how to label the others.

Although the terms Black and White are used as synonyms for Negro and Caucasian, many consider it racist to refer to Mongoloids as, for example, Yellow. The term Oriental was once used instead of Mongoloid but that is also considered to have racist overtones, so Asian tends to be used instead even though it is not a good substitute because it involves mixing terms: Blacks and Whites are labelled by appearance while Asians are labelled by place.

Another drawback to using a term such as Asian or African is that it is not sufficiently specific. It is not helpful to name someone an African when what you mean is Black or Negroid because most North African Arabs do not consider themselves as Black and have a greater sense of identity with Asian Arabs than African Negroes. Neither is it helpful to use the term Asian when you mean an Arab. Those people who live in England and are commonly called Asians usually dislike being called Black and do not think of themselves as being part of the Black community even though multi-culturalists and some politicians have tried to impose that label on them so as to create a larger and more powerful political grouping."   

Oswald Mosley was one of the finest thinkers of the twentieth century. He opposed Commonwealth immigration on social and economic grounds but he never subscribed to the racism of the far right. Richard Thurlow described Mosley's attitude in his 1987 book 'Fascism in Britain':

"Mosley's view on race developed significantly from his view in the inter-war period that racial hatred was not a desirable policy for the British Empire. In essence, they were close to the racial views of Italian fascism, and the concept of the nation as a race cradle which developed from the English anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith. Its main assumptions were that race formation was a dynamic historical and political process within the confines of the nation-state and the derived characteristics of the nation-race could be acquired by the interaction of heredity, environment, culture and education over historical time. This was essentially Mosley's position." 

Mosley knew that the best friend of the working man is a manpower shortage and his worse enemy is an abundant supply of cheap labour. Immigration is used to hold down wages and conditions but it's not the immigrants who we should blame but the politicians who recruited them.

The problems of production and distribution can be solved by political and economic reform, and the poverty that drives migration can be eradicated. We have the ability and the technology to build a better world where people can earn a living in their own country. It can and must be done.
All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people."

Nation Revisited
Our sister blog is posted on:


Monday, 30 April 2018

European Outlook # 49 May 2018

We celebrate May Day, courtesy of the Friends of Mosley, by reprinting Colin Wilson's brilliant critique of Marxism from the magazine 'Lodestar', first issued in 1985, edited by Geoffrey Vernon (Jeffrey Hamm), and published by Sanctuary Press. Colin Wilson (pictured) was the author of the best-seller 'The Outsider' in 1956. He wrote more than fifty books, many of which are available from Amazon.

Marx Refuted by Colin Wilson

Half a century ago it would probably have been true to say that most western 'intellectuals' were sympathetic to Russia and the 1917 Revolution. They may have had their doubts about Lenin and Stalin and Trotsky, and they may in practice, have preferred to live in the West; but they nevertheless felt that Capitalism is fundamentally rather wicked and that the Russians probably did the right thing in overthrowing it. They had that slightly guilty attitude that most of us feel when we hear a television appeal for starving refugees; that perhaps we ought to sell the colour TV and second car but that in practice we are too weak and lazy, and that it wouldn't make much difference anyway...

Since those early days, the west has had the chance to see communism in practice in many countries in the world, and to observe that it always seems to result in oppression and totalitarianism. From the Stalin purges to the Vietnam boat people and the takeover of Cambodia, the face of Communism seems invariably brutal. So there are nowadays far less people ready to argue - as Shaw did in the 1930s - that you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. Yet there is still a widespread feeling that the principles of socialism are probably good, and that for some odd reason, it is the practice that always seems to go wrong. After all, the history of Christianity is nearly as horrific, but no one lays the blame on its founder.

But is Marxism a sound theory that is betrayed by its practitioners? Would it actually work if human beings were less imperfect? Since the 1930s, doubts have been growing steadily. In 'The Open Society and its Enemies', Karl Popper argued that oppression was inherent in the whole socialist theory from the moment Plato decided that poets were too dangerous to live in his ideal Republic. Camus scandalized French intellectuals by asserting, in 'L'Homme Revolte', that terror is an inevitable consequence of revolutionary socialism, and that all such revolutions are bound to degenerate into tyranny. His most passionate opponent, Satre - that romantic anti-authoritarian - attempted to create a form of Marxism based on individual freedom, but abandoned the attempt after the first volume. And most Marxist commentators are now willing to admit that Marx was wrong about many central issues, and that some of his most important prophecies - like the increasing alienation of the workers, the polarisation of the social classes, and the 'withering away' of the State - were simply unrealistic guesses.

In spite of which, a great many 'men of goodwill. continue to feel that there is something fundamentally wrong with Capitalism. and therefore fundamentally right about Socialism. This is not an issue to which they devote much thought; but it seems to be based on a vague conviction that the continued existence of the poor and under-privileged remain the chief propaganda weapon of the Marxists, a little reflexion shows that Capitalism is no more responsible for them than is Communism. Both Capitalism and Communism are theories about the distribution of wealth. But wealth has to exist before it can be distributed. According to Marx this was no problem. Once the workers took over the means of production, there would be more than enough wealth to go round. Yet, in practice, this has never happened. From Russia to China, Poland to Cuba, from Angola to Mozambique, the hallmark of every Marxist state in the world is low productivity, which is due in turn to bureaucratic centralism with its inevitable inefficiency and corruption. Ex-Communists like Bukovsky and Koliakovsky assert that these are inherent in the nature of Marxism.

All socialist systems are based on this pleasing notion that there is plenty of wealth and that the only problem is to distribute it fairly and prevent the greedy from taking more than their share. This is contradicted by the fact that the creation of wealth - or anything else - is always an individual enterprise. Give a man an aim, an objective, and tell him he can achieve it by effort, and he will work until he drops. Tell a man he is part of a group, and that everything he earns belongs by right to 'society', and you destroy his mainspring of purpose. Marxism fails to grasp - or prefers to ignore - the most basic psychological truth about human beings; that their 'productivity' depends upon an essentially individual creativity - the urge to 'self-actualisation'. It cannot, by its nature, be socialised or mechanised.

How is it possible for intelligent individuals to overlook anything so fundamental? The answer can be found in a passage from the Communist historian of science, JD Bernal: "... we have in the practice of science the prototype for all human common action. The task which the scientists have undertaken - the understanding and control of nature and of man himself - is merely the conscious expression of the task of human society... In science men have learned to subordinate themselves to a common purpose without losing the individuality of their achievements... In science men collaborate not because they are forced to by superior authority or because they blindly follow some chosen leader, but because they realise that only in this willing collaboration can each man find his goal."

In spite of the slip of the tongue about the control of human beings, this may be taken as a good example of woolly-minded liberal thinking about communism; he fixes his mind firmly upon an idealised picture of scientists collaborating on some great enterprise, and tells us that this ought to apply to all human society. He takes care not to fix his sights on the actuality of modern society, with its millions of workers streaming into factory gates or football matches; that would reveal to him that his picture of scientists collaborating on atomic research is inapplicable. Scientists belong to the tiny percentage of people whose work is truly 'individual' and therefore satisfying. In a modern technological society, it is inevitable that the work of the majority should be repetitive and not particularly fulfilling. But this does not mean that the worker is bound to be 'alienated'. If labour relations are good, if his life outside the factory or office fulfills his personal needs, then repetitive labour is no hardship - just as in my own case, the repetitive labour of pounding on a typewriter for several hours a day is no hardship compared to the satisfaction of being allowed to say what I like. Marx was mistaken to believe that the labourer in a capitalist society will become more and more alienated. What has happened is that the labourers have become increasingly middle class, with cars and colour televisions to provide a degree of fulfilment that is not to be found in the factory. This is the truth of the matter, the 'law' of capitalist society, and Marx was quite simply wrong about it. (He was wrong for the same reason as Bernal  - because he preferred to fix his eyes on his own abstractions, instead of observing human beings.) It is the business of any reasonable society to offer its citizens as much 'fulfilment' as possible. But nothing can ever turn them into scientists working together on a great enterprise. The scientist belongs, of necessity, to a very small class whose work produced individual fulfilment.

The passage from Bernal is quoted in a paper by Paul Ostreicher, who, having based his argument on this false analogy, goes on to assert; "Economic injustice is the fundamental problem. Without economic justice, a call for population unrealistic and lacks credibility." So the picture of an ideal society as an assemblage of scientists leads to a proposition about what is wrong with capitalist society; that the average worker cannot play his creative and individualistic role because he is too poor. So the wicked rich must be stopped from grabbing more than their share, and the surplus value be distributed among the workers, permitting them all to become creative individuals. Ostreicher is frank enough to admit that a worker in Eastern Europe is likely to be just as alienated as one in the West, and that communism has not yet found the practical answers. But he goes on hopefully to suggest that the "Chinese experiment", with the "devolution of power on the commune pattern, with local people in touch with nature can lead to a genuinely organic development." This was written in 1975, before the workers of China began to show the same dissatisfaction with communist ideology as the workers of Poland, and before Mao's successors found it necessary to dilute the pure Marxist doctrine with infusions of democracy and individual freedom.

It is easy enough to see how a bored worker might feel deprived of his rightful freedom in an assembly line, but more difficult to understand how 'intellectuals' like Bernal and Ostreicher - who after all, themselves belong to the 'individualistic elite' - can deceive themselves with false analogies about scientists or artists. The answer seems to be that intellectuals are inclined to identify their own vaguely idealistic aims with any theory that promises revolutionary change. The existentialist philosopher, Berdyaev, describes in  his autobiography how he became an early convert to Marxism; "What struck me above all was the prospect of a spiritual revolution; a rising of the spirit, of freedom and meaning, against the deadly weight, the slavery and meaninglessness of the world." And he adds: "When I was a small boy, the sight of a government building or state institution filled me with abhorrence, and I desired its immediate destruction." We can understand how a child would feel this way about large buildings (particularly schools), but it is less easy to understand how an intelligent person can carry this attitude into adulthood. We simply have to recognise that a few human beings never grow up emotionally. Many intellectuals start off from a position of anti-authoritarianism because they personally feel threatened by people in authority who are more stupid than they are. The sensible solution would be to use their intelligence to rise from a position from which stupid people cease to be a threat; but vagueness and incompetence may prevent this from happening: in which case, the 'revolutionary' attitude may persist for life. It was Berdyaev's own experience of the actual revolution - of 1917 - that finally taught him what many intellectuals fail to grasp: that while capitalism may show inadequate regard for the individual, socialism regards him with suspicious hostility. Capitalism tolerates its intellectual rebels and even gives them academic appointments, socialism suppresses them.

Socialism, of course, existed long before Marx, in St Simon, Fourier, Proudhon and the rest. This was liberal socialism, idealistic socialism, based upon a vaguely rebellious attitude to authority and a vague idealism of the kind we have noted in Bernal and Ostreicher. Oddly enough, Marx spent much of his life exploding this kind of socialism, denouncing it as a dream, a wish-fulfillment fantasy based on emotion - in short as unrealistic. Many non-socialists find it hard to understand why Marx devoted so much energy and fury to attacking fellow socialists. The answer is that he believed that bad doctrine drives out good. He claims to have replaced this vague, emotional socialism with a scientific variety based upon ineluctable laws of social development. His opponents objected that Marx's socialism was just as unworkable as the previous kind because it was just as unrealistic, and prophesied that in practice, a Marxian state would turn out to be just as authoritarian, just as repressive, as the old regime. A rigid social theory requires a centralised bureaucracy to impose it and coordinate its activities. And centralised bureaucracy tends to be sluggish and inefficient by nature - because it is centralised and reacts too slowly to economic needs - and corrupt because it requires bribery to oil the wheels.

Marx rejected these accusations as reactionary libels, and there can be no doubt that he was sincere. He genuinely believed that the triumph of the proletariat would bring about an increase in individual freedom and the eventual withering away of the state.

History has shown him to be wrong. It has shown him to be as vague, idealistic and woolly-minded as the colleagues he attacks so bitterly. At the moment (1985), it seems unlikely that the outcome will be the total destruction of communism and its sudden replacement by a system that permits more individual freedom. Communism may be suffering from hardening arteries, but it is clearly not dying. No doubt the communist state would suffer the same fate as those it replaced if it stayed around long enough. What seems to be happening is a gradual, cautious swing back towards capitalism. Some of the most successful countries in the Eastern bloc have mixed economies. China has experienced its own revulsion against Maoism. The Soviet Union itself seems to be slowly recognising that efficiency is more important than Marxist doctrine. 'The Economist' reports that a decree of January 17, 1981 calls for the encouragement of more private plots of land and that although Russia's 'private plots' are only 3% of the total farming land, they produce one-quarter of the country's agricultural output.

So, in a sense, it is superfluous to try and refute Marx: his work has been refuted by the actuality of communism.

Black Lives Matter

Stephen Lawrence was a young black man who was murdered in South London in 1993. There have been many such cases involving victims and killers of all races but this one was famous for being bungled by a racist police force. But according to local gossip their reluctance to prosecute had more to do with corruption than racism. The father of one of the killers was a notorious drug dealer with plenty of money.

The decision to commemorate Stephen's death was taken by a dishonest Tory government rocked by the Windrush deportation scandal and desperate to improve its image. But most people will see through their hypocrisy. It was Theresa May as Home Secretary who helped to create the present climate.

Violent crime has increased as a result of police cuts and a ban on 'Stop and Search'. The police and the courts are crippled by 'political correctness' and the government has resorted to patronising gestures, such as 'Stephen Lawrence Day'. If they were dedicated to law and order they would prosecute all killers regardless of political considerations. All lives matter and we should all be protected by the police from robbers and terrorists.


The UK will leave the European Union on Friday 29 March 2018, but there will be a transition period until 31 Dec 2020. By then we should have signed a trade deal with the EU and sorted out the Northern Ireland border.

According to the 'Brexiteers', we shall then blossom as an international trading nation and regain our independence. But the 'Remainers' predict an economic downturn followed by political instability. Nobody knows what will happen because we have never been in this situation before. What we do know is that our location will not change. We will still be a European country situated between Ireland and France. We will still speak a Germanic language heavily influenced by French. We will still share the history, culture, and destiny of Europe. And we will still trade with our near neighbours.

The European argument has obscured many problems that have nothing to do with the EU. The UK population is expected to reach 70 million by 2026 but we still need immigrant labour. Skills shortages are now being addressed by the government but for years we imported doctors, nurses and engineers rather than training them. If you are in any doubt about this a visit to your nearest hospital should confirm that we are dependant on foreign labour. When we leave the EU it will harder for Poles and other Europeans to come here to work. But the Tories have already made plans to import more workers from Africa and Asia.

When we leave the EU we will still be members of NATO and our 'independent nuclear deterrent' will still be under American control. There is no plan to reform our armed forces; they will still be committed to enforcing American foreign policy,

We were told that we would 'get our country back' but that doesn't apply to immigration, which will still be governed by supply and demand, or defence, which will continue to be dictated by America. And we will still to buy our oil with dollars and equip our aircraft carriers with American aircraft.

Some Brexiteers want to retrieve our 'ancient weights and measures'. But we are unlikely to go back to quarts and firkins, or rods, poles and perches. The brutal truth is that 'independence' is a myth in a global economy. If we want to export manufactured goods they must conform to international standards. There is no point in telling foreigners that our cars do fifty miles to the gallon when they have no idea what miles and gallons are. The days of selling obsolete Morris Minors to grateful Australians are over.

It is twelve thousand years since the ice retreated and groups of reindeer herders reached the British Isles. They were followed by Iberians, Celts, Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans. They merged together to form the British people who went on to pioneer the Industrial Revolution and build a mighty empire with a formidable navy. But history can't be rewritten; we are what we are and a temporary distraction like Brexit will not change us. There will be many trials and tribulations in the coming years but in the great scheme of things it will make no difference. We will still be Europeans. 

Frank's Latest Campaign

Veteran patriot Frank Walsh
is challenging Wandsworth Council's decision to grant planning permission for an intrusive block of flats opposite his home. He has displayed a notice on his front door together with a supply of leaflets and started a campaign on Facebook. At the age of 92, most people would be happy to put their feet up but he is still posting his unique blog 'Our Voice' -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people."