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