Friday, 30 November 2018

European Outlook # 54, December 2018

Doing our Duty

At a recent meeting of Union Movement old comrades we lamented the lack of a political party to propagate our views. Labour has deserted the working class, the Tories have gone from bad to worse, the Lib-Dems are leaderless, and the far-right parties are delusional. A comrade from South Wales summed up the situation:

"I am a working man who wants a fair deal for the British people, but I detest these extremists with their mad theories and their total ignorance of economics, we should make it perfectly clear that we have nothing to do with them."

e is right. The great economic issues will only be settled by international agreement, they cannot be resolved by shouting abuse at people, but reasonable men and women can be persuaded by argument and we must do our best to convert them.

We live in a changing world.
We have seen the demise of the Soviet Union and the collapse of White rule in South Africa. Now, we are witnessing a trade war between China and the US. Britain is leaving the EU but the rest of the Continent is coming together. Mass migration is a global problem, and Keynesian economics is making a comeback. The world is sorting itself out along geopolitical lines, but whatever happens we must do our duty. Oswald Spengler was a confirmed pessimist but he summed up our situation in 'Man and Technics':

"We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door at Pompeii, who during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honourable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man."  

Julius Evola - Revolt Against the Modern World

It is necessary to distinguish between nationality and nationalism. The Middle Ages knew nationalities but not nationalisms. Nationality is a natural factor that encompasses a certain group of common elementary characteristics that are retained both in the hierarchical differentiation and in the hierarchical participation, which they do not oppose. Therefore, during the Middle Ages, castes, social bodies and orders were articulated within various nationalities, and while the types of the warrior, noble, merchant, and artisan conformed to the characteristics of this or that nation, these articulations represented at the same time wider, international units. Hence, the possibility for the members of the same caste who came from different nations to understand each other better than the members of different castes within the same nation.

Modern nationalism represents in regard to this, a movement in the opposite direction. Modern nationalism is not based on a natural unity, but on an artificial and centralizing one. The need for this type of unity was increasingly felt at the same time as the natural and healthy sense of nationality was lost as individuals approached the state of pure quantity, of being merely the masses, after every authentic tradition and qualitative articulation was destroyed. Nationalism acts upon these masses through myths and suggestions that are likely to galvanize them, awaken elementary instincts in them, flatter them with the perspectives and fancies of supremacy, exclusivism, and power. Regardless of its myths, the substance of modern nationalism is not an ethos but a demos, and its prototype always remains the plebian one produced by the French Revolution.

This is why nationalism has a double face. It accentuates and elevates to the state of absolute value a particularistic principle; therefore, the possibilities of mutual understanding and cooperation between nations are reduced to a bare minimum, without even considering the forms of levelling guaranteed by modern civilization. What seems to continue here is the same tendency through which the arising of national states correspond to the disintegration of the European ecumene. It is well known that in Europe during the nineteenth century, nationalism was synonymous with revolution and acted in the precise sense of a dislocation of the surviving supernational organisms and a weakening of the political of 'legitimate' sovereignty in the traditional sense of the word. Yet, when considering the relationships between the whole and the single individual as personality, what emerges in nationalism is an opposite aspect, namely, the cumulative and collectivizing element. In the context of modern nationalism what emerges id the previously mentioned inversion; the nation, the homeland, becomes the primary element in terms of being a self-subsisting entity that requires from the individual belonging to it an unconditional dedication as if it were a moral and not merely a natural and "political" entity. Even culture stops being the support for the formation and elevation of the person and becomes essentially relevant only by virtue of its national character. Thus in the most radical forms of nationalism, the liberal ideal and the idea of "neutral culture" undergo a crisis and are regarded with suspicion, though from the opposite perspective to the one in which liberalism and the neutral, secular, and apolitical culture appeared as a degeneration or as a crumbling in comparison to previous organic civilizations.

Even when nationalism speaks of "tradition" it has nothing to do with what used to go by that name in ancient civilizations; it is rather a myth or fictitious continuity based on a minimum common denominator that consists in the mere belonging to a given group. Through the concept of "tradition," nationalism aims at consolidating a collective dimension by placing behind the individual the mythical, deified, and collectivized unity of all those who preceded him. In this sense, Chesterton was right to call this type of tradition "the democracy of the dead." Here the dimension of transcendence, or what is superior in history, is totally lacking.

Climate Change 

As the Secretary-General has said, climate change continues to move faster than our efforts to address it. Amid record-breaking temperatures in parts of the world, and with the past two decades the warmest on record, the Secretary-General delivered a major address at UN headquarters on 10th September. Speaking to an audience of young people, business leaders, journalists and diplomats on the eve of the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco and the annual gathering of world leaders for the opening of the new General Assembly session in New York, he outlined the danger, highlighted solutions, and emphasized the need for great ambition and strong leadership in addressing what he has called "the defining threat of our time." (UN report)

But President Donald Trump doubts that Climate Change is man-made, so he will carry on burning coal and oil and polluting the atmosphere. This is good news for coal miners and oil workers but bad news for the rest of us.

It took years of health education to persuade us that tobacco is dangerous, now we are having the same trouble with Global Warming. Donald Trump is promoting fossil fuels regardless of the consequences. The long-term effects of air pollution include melting polar ice caps and rising sea levels, but the immediate danger is to our lungs. If Donald Trump had grown up in London instead of New York he would remember the Great Smog of 1952 that killed thousands of people. The government of the day tried to cover it up but public health concerns forced the introduction of the Clean Air Act in 1956. 

Donald Trump's denial of climate change is political, not scientific. He promised the coal miners that he would save their jobs. America has got massive coal and shale oil deposits, and the Paris Climate Change Accords are exactly the type of international cooperation that is anathema to the Republicans. The USA will not honour treaties made in Paris by foreigners.

The world's atmosphere is being contaminated in the name of narrow self-interest and short-term advantage. The Americans lead the world in technology but they are using nineteenth-century methods to generate power. President Trump wants to 'make America great again' but first he must earn the respect of the world by abandoning his protectionist policies.

Articles of Faith

When Henry V111 broke away from the Church of Rome he needed a set of rules to govern the Church of England. The Thirty-Nine Articles were issued in 1571 but they have been updated over the years to include such things as abortion and homosexuality. Like every other human institution, the Church of England is divided into factions, ranging from traditionalists that are hardly any different from Roman Catholics to Evangelicals who are more like Baptists. In other words, it's a 'Broad Church', and as such it's a model for most political parties.

Matters of dogma are set in stone but the Church of England prides itself on its diversity. An Anglican vicar would have to do something spectacular to get unfrocked. Being caught pants down with the Bishop's wife, or a choirboy, would probably be pardoned, after all, we are all sinners, but questioning the Resurrection is not allowed; not even in the most progressive of parishes. 

There was a time when the Tory Party stood for King and Country. It existed to 'conserve' the existing system and protect the rights of landowners. Some Tories were decent men who looked after their tenants and labourers, but others were little more than slave masters. This political philosophy lasted until recent times but it has been so severely disrupted that nobody knows what the modern Tory Party stands for.

The Labour Party has also changed but it remains the party of the working class. There's a marked difference between the militant young supporters of Jeremy Corbyn and the mature parliamentary party, but, at the moment, they are keeping their act together. 

The Lib Dems are handicapped by our blatantly unfair electoral system, and by the system of patronage. Big business supports the Tory Party, and the Trade Unions support the Labour Party, but the Lib Dems have to rely on their own members.

The far-right parties have captured the anti-immigration vote throughout Europe but our first-past-the-post electoral system works against them.    

The time has come for us to review our 'Articles of Faith'. The Germans have a booming economy, an efficient health service and a world-class educational system. They don't have a fleet of nuclear submarines or two of the world's most expensive aircraft carriers, but they don't seem to mind.

There's nothing wrong with taking a pride in one's country but we should beware of petty nationalism. We must forget about untried economic systems and practice sound commerce moderated by good government, and we must forget about pretending to be a world power.

The IMF and the WTO

The Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944 established the International Monetary Fund in Washington DC. It tied the major currencies of the world to the US Dollar which was based on gold. And it gave loans to the shattered nations, including the UK which received $4.4 billion. This system backed the economies of the West until 1972 when America ran out of money fighting the Vietnam War and the Middle East oil crisis made the whole system untenable. Christine Lagarde (pictured) is the chairwoman of the IMF.

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was founded in 1947 and became the World Trade Organisation in 1994. When we leave the EU we will probably operate under the rules of the WTO, and accept the authority of its Disputes Resolution Panel, based in Geneva.

We joined the old Common Market under Ted Heath in 1973. In 1976 we were forced to devalue the pound and seek an emergency loan of $3.9 billion from the IMF. In 1992 we crashed out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. But our standard of living improved steadily until the global financial crisis of 2008. This crippled our banking system and forced the government to introduce austerity measures that are still in force. At the same time, our old manufacturing industries declined and disgruntled workers turned against the government. The result was the referendum of 2016 when 52% of the people voted to leave the European Union, and 48% voted to remain. 

The far-right saw the Bretton Woods Agreement as a conspiracy against the British Empire. It's true that we didn't have to accept the American loan and its conditions. We could have turned to the Soviet Union but there was no way that we could have survived on our own, We were bankrupt after six years of war.

We could have
turned to the Commonwealth instead of joining the Common Market, but we tried that at the Ottowa Conference in 1932 when we attempted to set up a system of Imperial Preference. It never really got going because the Canadians and the Australians wanted to develop their own industries and seek their own markets. By 1972 the Canadian economy was linked to the United States and the Australians were striking massive trade deals with the Japanese. The Commonwealth solution was too late in 1932, too late in 1972, and definitely too late in 2018.

The pound is more than a national currency it's also a symbol of British sovereignty. But the International Monetary Fund (IMF) doesn't measure the wealth of nations in terms of national currencies but in Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), a unit of account based on a basket of currencies; the US Dollar, the Euro, the Chinese Renminbi, the Japanese Yen, and the British Pound. We may celebrate 'getting our country back' but the real decisions will continue to be made in Washington DC and Geneva. By leaving the EU and joining the WTO, we are simply exchanging one bureaucracy for another. 


It's sad to hear accusations of treason levelled against innocent people. William Joyce was technically a traitor because he broadcasted for the enemy in time of war. He helped the British Army in Ireland as a boy, and he campaigned for patriotic causes as a young man, but he made the fatal mistake of going to Germany in 1939. Here is his statement.

I take this opportunity of making a preliminary statement concerning the motives which led me to come to Germany and to broadcast to Britain over the German radio service. I was actuated not by the desire for personal gain, material or otherwise, but solely by political conviction. I was brought up as an extreme Conservative with strong imperialist ideas, but very early in my career, namely in 1923, became attracted to fascism and subsequently to National Socialism. Between the years 1923 and 1939 I pursued vigorous political activities in England, at times as a Conservative but mainly as a Fascist or National Socialist. In the period immediately before this war began I was profoundly discontented with the policies pursued by British governments, first because I felt they would lead to the eventual disruption of the British Empire, and secondly because I thought the existing economic system entirely inadequate for the needs of the times. I was greatly impressed by the constructive work which Hitler had done for Germany and was of the opinion that throughout Europe as also in Britain there must come a reform on the lines of National Socialist doctrine, although I did not suppose that every aspect of National Socialism as advocated in Germany would be accepted by the British people.

One of my dominant beliefs was that a war between Britain and Germany would be a tragedy and the effects of which Britain and the British Empire would not survive, and I considered that a grossly disproportionate influence was exerted on British policy by the Jews, who had their reasons for hating National Socialist Germany. When in August 1939, the final crisis emerged I felt that the question of Danzig offered no just cause for a world war. As by reason of my opinions I was not conscientiously disposed to fight for Britain against Germany. I decided to leave the country since I did not wish to play the part of a conscientious objector, and since I supposed that in Germany I should have the opportunity to express and propagate views the expression of which would be forbidden in Britain in time of war. Realizing, however, that at this critical juncture I had declined to serve Britain, I drew the logical conclusion that I should have no moral right to return to that country of my own free will and that it would be best to apply for German citizenship and make my permanent home in Germany. Nevertheless, it remained my undeviating purpose to attempt as best I could to bring about a reconciliation or at least an understanding between the two countries. After Russia and the United States had entered the war such an agreement appeared to be no less desirable than before for, although it seemed probable that with these powerful allies Britain would succeed in defeating Germany, I considered that the price which would ultimately have to be paid for this help would be far higher than the price involved in a settlement with Germany.

This belief was strengthened from month to month as the power of Russia grew, and during the later stages of the war I became certain that Britain, even though capable of gaining a military triumph over the Germans, would in that event be confronted with a situation far more dangerous and complicated than that which existed in August 1939; and thus until the very last moment I clung to my hope of an Anglo-German understanding, although I could see that the prospects thereof were small. I know that I have been denounced as a traitor and I resent the accusation as I conceived myself to be guilty of no underhand or deceitful act against Britain, although I am also able to understand the resentment that my broadcasts have in many quarters. Whatever opinion may be formed at the present time with regard to my conduct, I submit that the final judgement cannot be properly passed until it is seen whether Britain can win the peace. Finally, I should like to stress the fact that in coming to Germany and in working for the German radio system my wife was powerfully influenced by me. She protests to the contrary but I am sure that if I had not taken this step, she would not have taken it either. This statement has been read over to me, and it is true. William Joyce May 31, 1945.

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 - 




Wednesday, 31 October 2018

European Outlook # 53 November 2018

Dave Cameron's Legacy

Both of the main parties are divided over Brexit. The Tories are threatened by the Jacob Rees-Mogg faction and the Labour Party are still dithering. Theresa May's latest plan is still being considered by the EU, and an estimated 700,000 people marched through London calling for another referendum. 

The public is as confused as ever. Londoners are mostly pro-European but the depressed areas of the country are smarting with resentment and brainwashed by the popular press. Two years after the referendum we still don't know where we are going.. 

This political disaster was started by Dave Cameron who tried to unite the Tory Party by picking a fight with the EU. This led to the referendum. followed by two years of argument. Now, we face the prospect of leaving the EU and risking what's left of our manufacturing industry. Our car plants are not likely to survive if their supplies are disrupted by border checks and tariffs.

The referendum was supposed to be about Europe but it turned into a protest against immigration. A nationalist friend recently explained how immigration works. According to him, every foreigner comes here to live on social security and contribute nothing to the country. On arrival, each and every one of them is presented with a council house, a new car, and a large sum of money. Immigration is a plot by the 'unelected' bosses of the European Union to destroy Britain. They hate us because we beat the Spanish Armada, Napoleon Bonaparte, Kaiser Bill, and Adolf Hitler.

I never realised it was so simple. I thought that migration was a worldwide movement of labour in search of employment, an economic problem that could be solved by international agreement. But it turns out that all we need to do is quit the EU and the immigrants will somehow disappear. We will get our country back, and: "there will be bluebirds over the white cliffs of Dover, and Jimmy will go to sleep in his own little room again."

Moules-Frites et Stella

Some people claim we are being ruled by Belgium. The EU parliament is based in Brussels but it represents 28 sovereign states. When we leave the EU we will still belong to NATO, the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and many other treaties and conventions. We might regain our 'sovereignty' but we will never be completely independent.

When I think of Belgium I remember happy days spent drinking Stella Artois and eating Moules-Frites. Belgium is a brave little country that suffered badly in two world wars, a friendly country that has contributed in full to European civilisation, but some people think of Belgium as an 'evil empire'. Perhaps tyranny, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder?

Nigel Farage doesn't think that Belgium is a proper country because they have two languages. One wonders what he thinks of Wales with English and Welsh, or Ireland with English and Irish, or Switzerland with German, French and Italian, or Spain with Spanish, Catalan and Basque, or Canada with English and French? Those of us blessed with a vision of Europe see beyond languages, but Farage and his narrow-minded followers see only divisions.

Remember the Liberty - NSWPP Cicero IL 6060 USA

On June 6th 1967, the USS Liberty, an unarmed, clearly-marked communications vessel stationed in the Mediterranean Sea, was savagely attacked without warning in an unprovoked assault by Israeli jet fighters and torpedo boats. Thirty-four US servicemen died in the attack, and another 171 were wounded. 

'Life' magazine, June 23rd, 1967 stated: "The Israelis had attacked because She had monitored orders proving that Israel had started the war." 'Newsweek' on June 19th, 1967 stated the same thing.

The Liberty's mission was to monitor any fighting between Israel and its Arab neighbours which were then at war. Specifically, the Liberty's task was to report any evidence picked up by its sophisticated electronic gear as to whether or not Israel was planning to use its nuclear arsenal against the Arabs and also to warn Israel of possible Arab resistance. The Israelis were not going to have the United States interfering with their use of atomic weapons no matter what the consequences might be - and so it was ordered that the Liberty be put out of commission.

A group of White House Zionists had gathered to celebrate the initial victory of the Zionist blitzkrieg as its Wehrmacht crushed the unprepared Arab defences. These Zionists were stunned by reports from the USS Liberty, that its monitors had recorded all the Israeli attack orders. This proof of Israeli aggression had to be destroyed and the White House Zionists ordered that the USS Liberty be sunk immediately while the CIA prepared false reports "proving" that it was sunk by Egyptian planes. The US paratroops would land in Cairo, kill Nasser and set up a provisional government for the Israelis. This plan was ruined because the Israelis could not sink the USS Liberty. Despite many hours gruelling attack the heroic Americans fought on surrounded by their dead and saved their ship, but, instead of being rewarded for their heroism, the survivors were placed under oath of secrecy, transferred to other ships and the USS Liberty was renamed the USS Hyman Rickover and the very name of the ship disappeared from history. 

Many American officers demanded that Israel be punished for this vicious attack on an American ship which was in their waters to aid them. A military coup in Washington seemed Imminent as the government tried to cover up the affair and two admirals were placed under arrest. Arthur Goldberg, a Zionist, and American ambassador to the United Nations sent a frantic memo to President Lyndon Johnson; " An investigation of the Liberty affair will mean civil war as the military men and the working people will rise against us."

The Zionist cover-up in Washington succeeded and King Hussein of Jordan said: "We were not defeated by Moshe Dyan on the borders. We were defeated by Goldberg in New York."

Why did not the national press publish the full account of the USS Liberty affair? Because the national press in Britain is under the control of the political Zionists who wish to keep us in the dark concerning their intentions while they destroy us.

Despite the murder of thirty-four American fighting men, the system which governs the USA has continued to give roughly two billion dollars a year in military aid to the very ones who butchered their men in an unprovoked act of blatant, premeditated aggression.

Justice, if there is now any, demands that the Israeli murderers be brought to justice and those members of the US government who have sided with and abetted this outrage by their silence and complicity be punished.

Now read on - from the armed forces Journal International 1980.....

Startling new evidence about the 1967 Israeli attack on the American naval vessel, the USS Liberty, has been brought to light in a just-released Random House book, 'Assault on the Liberty', by James M Ennes Jr.

Ennes was on the bridge of the Liberty during much of the assault. He was commissioned an ensign in 1962, and from 1965 until he retired from the Navy he was assigned to cryptographic duties.

The Liberty which was attacked in international waters off the Sinai Peninsular was initially attacked by Israeli high-performance jets. Those attacks were followed by torpedo boats armed to kill. The attack lasted for two hours, killing 34 Americans and wounding 171 others. When the Liberty failed to sink quickly, Israeli forces machine-gunned her life rafts in troop-carrying helicopters.

Once the US Sixth Fleet rescue aircraft were on their way, the Israelis quickly apologized, claiming that their forces had mistaken the ship for an Egyptian freighter. The US Government quietly accepted the excuse. But Ennes produces strong evidence to support the following new allegations.

* Pre-attack reconnaissance was more intense than the government has admitted: at least 13 orbits of the ship were made by reconnaissance aircraft before the attack, some only 200 feet overhead. (The government claims that only three significant reconnaissance flights were made and that only one aircraft came within five miles of the ship).

* The identification of the ship was known to the Israeli War Room several hours before the attack, and its position plotted on a chart. (An Israeli aircraft was heard before the attack informing its headquarters by radio that the ship flew an American flag. Bowing to the Israeli request to keep circumstances of the attack secret, however, the American government states publicly that the Liberty was not identified until after the attack).

* Three days before the attack, USS Liberty requested the Sixth Fleet to send an armed destroyer to provide protection against attack. (The Sixth Fleet's commander assured the Liberty that she was operating in a safe area, promising immediate support in the "unlikely" event it might be needed and denying the ship's request for special protection).

* Although the Sixth Fleet promised air support within 10 minutes of any request, the US Navy failed to protect the ship during the attack. (The Liberty pleaded over the radio for assistance for more than two hours, but the Sixth Fleet - because of White House intervention - and the Sixth Fleet's unpreparedness, failed to come to her aid).

* Israel's explanation for the attack contradicts known facts and evidence but was accepted without hesitation by the American government. (Israel claims that the Liberty was mistaken for the small Egyptian freighter El Arish, even though Israel and the US were both aware that El Arish was far from the area, Israel also claims that the attack occurred because Israeli motor torpedo boats falsely identified Liberty as an enemy vessel after erroneously tracking the ship by radar at 30 knots - although she was only moving at five knots - and subsequently called in the air strike. The strike, which in fact was called before the torpedo boats were within radar range of the Liberty, was organised by forces ashore).

* A cover-up of the circumstances of the attack was ordered by President Johnson. (The President was concerned with negotiating a peace treaty in the Middle East and could ill afford a confrontation with Israel; he thus accepted Israel's flimsy explanation, failed to investigate the attack properly, and ordered a cover-up of the circumstances that were already known).

* Liberty sailors were forbidden any unsupervised contact with the press, even after the "news lid" was lifted. (Crewmen were not allowed to talk with reporters until after a Court of Inquiry report was published. Even then, however, sailors were permitted to repeat only the official version of the attack and only in the same words the Court had used. The few interviews that were authorized were carefully supervised and rehearsed).

* Testimony to the Court of Inquiry revealed that the attack was probably deliberate, but all such evidence was withheld from the public. (Liberty officers and crewmen told the Court of Inquiry of extensive low-level pre-attack reconnaissance, of the ship's American flag clearly displayed and of a prolonged and carefully orchestrated attack. All such details were ignored or classified Top Secret in order to support the government's contention that the attack was a mistake).

* The American public was given a distorted version of the attack. (The public was told that the air attack lasted five or six minutes: the ship's officers recall and testified that it lasted 20 or 25 minutes. The US claims that the attack ended with the torpedo explosion, while in fact, torpedo boats fired on the ship's life rafts 40 minutes after that explosion - and fired on the crew in the interim. The fact that Israeli forces repeatedly used napalm against the crew was never made known. Moreover, although the government claims that the ship was never in danger of sinking, officers recall that "scuttle ship," "demolish ship" and "prepare to abandon ship" orders were given).

Race Relations

Prosecutions for inciting racial hatred are now so common that they hardly make the news. One of the most famous was the 1992 prosecution of Nick Griffin and Paul Ballard for producing the magazine 'The Rune'. I was recently given two copies of this notorious publication, issues number 10 and 11, but not number 12 which was apparently so offensive that it caused Alex Carlile QC to complain to the police. The two copies that I have seen are undoubtedly anti-Semitic but I am surprised that a hardened criminal lawyer was so sensitive.

In my far-off drinking days, I frequented a South London pub that didn't welcome black customers. The exception was Henry, a popular West Indian philosopher. He blamed the disadvantaged position of the Blacks on Abraham Lincoln. He used to say: "Lincoln abolished slavery and we have been out of work ever since."

If a White man said that he would be prosecuted, and if a Jew had edited 'The Rune' he would probably have escaped prosecution. Blacks are allowed to use the 'N' word. and Jews can flirt with anti-Semitism. Self-hatred is entrenched in this country, indeed it's the guiding principle of the 'Commonwealth'.

e have an entire industry devoted to race relations. Lawyers and social workers specialise in such cases and win massive compensation claims for their clients. This helps to heal wounded feelings but fines and imprisonment do little to turn racial conservatives into model citizens.    

Good race relations depend on mutual respect and education. The government can't force people to like one another, but most of us are fair-minded and even the far-right parties accept coloured members. Race, nationality, culture and identity are interwoven and complex subjects. Attempts to redress racial discrimination with 'affirmative action' are wrong. Jobs should go to those best qualified and promotion should be by merit. Organisations such as 'Black Lives Matter' are inherently racists and should be banned under the Race Relations Act. All lives matter.

Keeping up the Holocaust

London is soon to have a memorial costing millions of pounds as a permanent reminder of the Holocaust; the killing of millions of Jews in World War Two. The Jews are worried that we might forget about it and allow anti-Semitism to make a comeback.

They are right to be worried. The few remaining survivors from the concentration camps are on their last legs, and modern students know little or nothing about history. Also, when my generation learned about the Holocaust we were naturally horrified but today we see pictures of dead and dying people on our televisions all the time. We have been brutalized by current events and the terrible crimes of the past are no longer so horrifying.

Our newspapers are not state-controlled, as they are in Saudi Arabia, but they all support British intervention in Afghanistan and the Middle East. It is unpatriotic to question foreign policy when 'our boys' are involved, and when we shoot up wedding parties or bomb hospitals it's dismissed as 'collateral damage'. We see images of dead and wounded women and children who were in the way, and starving refugees who were trying to get out of the way. And when we accept these atrocities as necessary for our defence and security, we are condoning what the Germans, and others, did in the past. It's what governments do.

Jews who were killed over seventy years ago can't compete with Arabs who are being killed at this very moment. Pictures coming out of Syria and Yemen are fresh in our minds but the terrible deeds of the past are fading from memory. Instead of wasting millions of pounds on a memorial we should give the money to the Red Cross to help the millions of people who are being killed all over the world. 

Nation Revisited
Our sister blog is posted on



Sunday, 30 September 2018

European Outlook # 52 October 2018

Brexit is Coming.

The UK is due to leave the EU on April Fool's Day 2019. A relentless forty year campaign has succeeded and we are about to turn our backs on Europe. Some of them say that they are not anti-European but they are deceiving themselves. Forget about sovereignty. There can be no such thing as sovereignty unless our country is as self-sufficient as the USA or the Russian Federation. And you can also forget about immigration. If we stop European workers from coming here it will only mean that we import more Asians and Africans to make up the numbers. The real reason why they want to leave Europe is that they are petty nationalists suffering from autism and unable to relate to humanity.

There is still a chance that Brexit will be abandoned but we must work on the assumption that it will go ahead. If we leave the EU we will still be Europeans by race, culture, and geography. And we can always rejoin in the future. The chippy Northerners, and the discontented South Coast pensioners will not live forever. Brexit is an act of self-harm by a nation stupefied by rightwing propaganda. It's a cry for help from the Rustbelt, an act of defiance by the dispossessed, and a cynical gesture by the Establishment. 

Not content with wrecking the British economy the Brexiteers are spreading the false news that some EU states are ready to follow our example. They told us that the AFD would win and take Germany out of the EU. But they didn't win and their website clearly states that they will remain in the EU. Most recently they said that the Sweden Democrats would win and take their country out of the EU. Once again this was nonsense. But what about Italy? Lega is part of the government coalition and when Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini was interviewed by Stephen Sakur on the BBC Hardtalk program, he clearly stated that Italy would remain in the EU and the eurozone. Watch it for yourselves -  

Interfering Russians

America has threatened to impose economic sanctions on any state that interferes in their elections. It is alleged that the Russians are opening false Facebook accounts and using cookies to target potential voters. This nonsense has gone viral on both sides of the Atlantic, but nobody has asked why would they do such a thing when there is not a scrap of difference between the parties. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are hostile to Russia,

The anti-Russian campaign cites the repossession of Crimea, the shooting down of a civilian aircraft in Ukraine, and the Salisbury poisonings, to justify their hostility. The British Intelligence Service blames Russia but who would believe the people who fabricated Tony Blair's 'dodgy dossier'. They said that Saddam Hussein had 'weapons of mass destruction' when he was almost defenceless. The real reason for their hatred is that America wants to export oil and gas to Europe in competition to the Russians. Russia is already the largest supplier of energy to Europe and they are building three more pipelines. The proximity of Russian energy to German industry is a marriage made in Heaven. 

American foreign policy is driven by self-interest, which is fair enough, but there is no reason for us to join in. It's in our interest to maintain good relations with our fellow Europeans - including the Russians.

America is against Russia out of commercial rivalry over gas and oil, and because Russia is supporting Syria - a deadly enemy of Israel. But the American energy market and the defence of Israel are nothing to do with us.

When the Soviet Union was a Communist super-power she naturally encouraged her supporters all over the world, but the modern Russian Federation is a parliamentary democracy with a market economy. There is absolutely no evidence that Vladimir Putin is trying to export his political ideology or the Russian Orthodox branch of Christianity.

The election story is just another anti-Russian myth invented by American copywriters and faithfully followed by our slavish politicians and journalists. Russia is Europe's natural ally.

A European Army

One thing guaranteed to induce hysteria in the Tory ranks is any mention of a European Army. They have forgotten that the British Army was supported by Dutch and Prussian troops at the Battle of Waterloo, by the French in the Crimean War, by the French, Belgians, Italians, and Japanese, in the First World War, and by Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Denmark, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Rhodesia, South Africa, Soviet Union, United States, and all parts of the British Empire, in the Second World War.

Not to be outdone the Germans had allies from; Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Latvia, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Spain, Soviet Union, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK.

Since the Second World War the British Army has been engaged in Korea, as part of the United Nations, in Bosnia and Afghanistan as part of NATO, and in Iraq, as part of the American Coalition. 

e have always had allies so there is nothing new about the idea of a European Army. It didn't diminish the British Army by being under the command of General Dwight D Isenhower at Normandy. And the Tory traditionalists don't worry about being part of NATO. Committing our forces to a European Defence Force would make sense militarily and financially. All of the European nations have modest armed forces that would match the super-powers if they stood together.

Letter From America

(I emailed my old comrade Robert Lyons to wish him well as hurricane Florence approached the East Coast, and I commented on Donald Trump). 

Dear Bill, thanks for the good wishes, it appears it will be a rain event for us as the storm heads inland and then turns upward back toward the coast and Maryland on Monday. It's very rare for a storm to impact Maryland directly because of the way the state is situated, hurricanes usually hit the coast below or above the state. The worst destruction I can remember from a hurricane was from Agnes back in the 70s, that was a glancing blow with lots and lots of rain and lots and lots of flooding. Florence may bring some flooding on Monday, we shall see.

I agree with you completely about Trump, all he would have to do is no Tweets and keep his mouth shut and he can't do it, he's on a path to self-destruction for sure. As for a Zionist president, it's only a matter of degree of Jewishness because the Jewish lobby controls who runs for president and who wins as president. It's a matter of degree over which candidate can out Jew the other as Commander Rockwell used to say. Trump is the most totally controlled pro-Jewish president we've ever had and it's the corrupt Jews around him that are hammering the nails into his coffin, I think it all hilarious.

Patriotism - Fr Edward Cahill 1932
Originally published by the St George Educational Trust

Just as one's natural attachment to one's own family traditions and to one's own immediate relatives are the foundation which Nature has supplied for sympathy and benevolence towards one's fellow citizens, so, too, the citizen of each nation, in order to attain to true cosmopolitan virtues and well-ordered zeal for the good of the race, must have as the foundation of these virtues that love and devotion to his own country which the law of nature and right-ordered charity demand. True charity and true piety must begin at home.

In the same way, the higher and most perfect culture of a people, if it be real perfection and not a degradation or deterioration, must develop along the lines of the national characteristics and traditions. A declassed man or woman, who, owing to worldly training or a false ambition for social advancement, has come to disregard or despise his or her own immediate family, forfeits the respect of right-thinking men; and from such a one nothing great or generous may be hoped. The same applies substantially to the more or less degraded citizen who has lost or never possessed the love and appreciation of the nation to which he belongs, and to which he is bound by the closest natural ties. It is in this sense that Chateaubriand, the Catholic apologist and historian writes: "We doubt whether it is possible for a man to possess any real virtue, any real talent or ability, without love of country."

The native language and literature of a country are usually bound up very intimately with the whole national spirit, and with almost every aspect of the national life. This is specially true of a literary language like Greek or Irish, which contains the native history, the national laws and institutions, and enshrines the traditional ideas and aspirations of the people. In such a case, at least, the preservation of the native language may be regarded as essential for the continued existence of the historic nation itself. The truth of Davis's oft-quoted words cannot be seriously questioned:
"A nation should guard its language more than its territories, 'tis a surer barrier and more important frontier than fortress or river."

It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that the virtue of Patriotism can appear only in its war paint, or is confined to the duty of defending or regaining the freedom of one's country or saving the nation from extinction. A person manifestly owes many other services to his country, which, though more ordinary and commonplace, are, at least, in normal circumstances, more practical, and sometimes little less heroic. The spiritual, intellectual and material interests of the nation need the services of each of its members. The object of the civil union with which Patriotism is so closely connected is to assist the members each and all towards the highest development of their faculties, moral, intellectual and physical. Hence, the patriot will do his part to procure for the country the benefit of good laws, to check the spread of vice, above all, to secure that the most worthy are chosen for the public offices; in a word, all the duties already referred to under the heading of Legal and Distributive Justice are also included in those of Patriotism.

In connection with the services of Patriotism, we shall conclude with one remark. The true patriot serves his country as the dutiful and affectionate son shows kindness to his parents, from motives not of interest but of love. Hence, he will not seek or expect payment or reward, save the consciousness of having done his duty; for the proposition may be accepted as substantially true that the man who demands gratitude from his country as his due, rarely gets it, and still more rarely deserves it.

John Bean on Europe

Over lunch with John Bean at Newmarket, we discussed Brexit for the umpteenth time and he insisted that he is a European. All things are relative and compared to his fellow nationalists he is indeed a European. When I first met him he was into the Nordic master race but in 1966 he wrote an article in 'Combat' entitled 'Let's Keep Nordicism in Perspective'. Since then he has been campaigning for a European Confederation of Nation States. He is still opposed to the EU but he has long been a lone voice in the nationalist camp in calling for European solidarity.

His European policy was dumped by the Empire Loyalist leadership when the National Front was founded in 1967. He voted to stay in the Common Market in Harold Wilson's referendum in 1975, a fact which he confessed in an article in 'Spearhead' in 2001, entitled 'A Europe of Nations'. In this article, he explained his concept of Confederation:

"It should have a common immigration policy, which effectively would limit immigration of non-European peoples to students wishing to return to their homelands with their acquired skills, and genuine asylum seekers. There should be free movement of citizens of each state within the Confederation.

All national legislation should be the sole responsibility of each of the sovereign states within the Confederation. However, there should be a common foreign policy for the Confederation's relations with the world at large.

For the defence of the nations of the Confederation, all armed forces would be under the control of their own national governments but allied to each other: as in the manner of the allied armies during the Second World War and, earlier, in the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo. Each nations armed forces would work together in aiming for standard specifications to increase the ability for inter-change of weaponry.

The sovereign states of Canada, Australia and New Zealand would be encouraged to become members of the Confederation."

Spearhead's editor, John Tyndall, published Bean's article but he denounced it at length.

In 2003 JB used his website 'Beans Talk' to quote Peter Simple from the Daily Telegraph:

"The civilisation of Europe - the greatest civilisation the world has ever known - still seemed secure. Its ancient cities, so varied in their beauty and splendour, still held glorious treasures of art. Its noble landscapes were still unsullied. Its various peoples keep their own historical traditions. But the death wish fell on Old Europe, and it collapsed in fratricidal war. The Americans arrived to hasten its ruin with their pernicious doctrines of self-determination, equality and perfectability. Mortally wounded, Old Europe staggered on, but could not recover. Now there's talk of a New Europe... of technicians, accountants and businessmen.  It may or may not prosper. What do we care, when Old Europe jas gone forever?" 

JB added, "Perhaps I am an eternal optimist. While there is still a chance, don't give up without a fight."

He is still writing and the BDP website carries an interview he did with Rod Liddle in 2012. He described his editorship of the BNP magazine 'Identity'. 

"I had a few differences of opinion with Nick Griffin in the presentation of the magazine's socio-political content - to which he contributed a regular article. Most of this was concerned with in-depth explanations of the fundamentals of nationalist policies. Where appropriate I pushed this in the direction of European Nationalism via a European Confederation..."

It's not the purpose of this article to argue for European Union. I believe that JB's 'Confederation' would turn into full political and economic union, just as it did in Canada and Switzerland. But his vision of Europe is infinitely better than the negative nationalism that was carved in stone by John Tyndall. 

Brexit and Immigration

Brexit will not stop
immigration. Theresa May promised the Chinese, the Indians, and the Africans, that we will take more of their immigrants in return for trade deals when we leave the EU. I have repeatedly warned that this would happen. The established parties depend on cheap labour and they make no distinction between Norwegians and Nigerians. I have also pointed out that people inevitably follow goods across borders.

European immigrants are easily assimilated, but not so assimilable non-Europeans were pouring into the UK long before we joined the EU, and they will continue to do so long after we have left. Great waves of immigration swept the country from 1948 when the British Immigration Act was passed by a Labour government. First the West Indians, the Windrush generation, then the Uganda Asians, and the Vietnamese boat people. None of them had anything to do with the EU.

Now, the Euro-sceptic 'Heritage & Destiny' magazine is questioning our future:

"Some H&D readers were always sceptical about Brexit, fearing that immigration policy would actually get worse after we left the European Union. UKIP spokesmen regularly argued that they would prefer immigrants from India (and by implication English-speaking countries in Africa) to those from Eastern Europe. 

Ukip, of course, is now semi-extinct, so that party's views on race and immigration are irrelevant, but there is a real possibility that post-Brexit Britain will have a Labour government. Today we found out what that might mean. Diane Abbot - who has been such a disaster as Shadow Home Secretary that she was hidden away for most of the 2017 election campaign - today announced Labour's immigration policy, and many H&D readers might now be thinking we would be better off in the EU than making this open door disaster." 

We never had a problem with Poles mugging old ladies, looting shops, torching neighbourhoods, or planting bombs on our trains and buses. The Eastern Europeans were generally hard-working people who respected British society. But Ukip ran a shameful campaign against them which tipped the balance in the referendum. Remember, they said that we were about to get 80 million Turks. Now, the Poles and Lithuanians have stopped coming only to be replaced by Africans and Asians. 

There was never any reason why Britain could not stop non-European immigration. The Brexiteers were conned by Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin and now we must suffer the consequences.


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: