Friday, 16 October 2015

European Outlook # 23, November 2015

Guns and Liberty

The latest campus shooting by 26 year-old Chris Harper-Mercer has revived calls for gun control in the USA. The right to bear arms dates back to the American War of Independence when ordinary citizens took up arms against the British Empire. But in the UK we haven’t been occupied since 1066 and guns are only available to the police, the military, and specialized users such as gamekeepers and ratcatchers.

Nigel Farage thinks that our gun control laws are "repressive" but similar laws against drinking and driving and drug abuse are supported by the general public who don’t want to be run over by drunks, assaulted by drug addicts, or shot by trigger-happy psychopaths.

Unfortunately, we have suffered several terrorist attacks and non-political massacres in recent years but things are even worse in America. In 2013 we averaged 0.26 deaths per 100,000 people; in the US it was 10.64.

Standard Bearers:
British Roots of the New Right by Jonathan Bowden and Others.
Available from the Bloomsbury Forum –
PO Box 63718 London SW3 9AT

This book tells you as much about the writers as their subjects. Eddy Butler sets the tone with his prickly introduction and his colleagues share his distaste for liberalism. This is a celebration of British values and achievements written by uncompromising patriots.

The twenty subjects covered include writers, politicians, soldiers, musicians, designers and scientists who contributed so much to our country. All are men; Margaret Thatcher does not get a mention although it would be impossible to cover modern history without her.

Winston Churchill only rates a passing mention in Adrian Davies’ essay on Bonar Law. He reminds us that WC threatened to use the Royal Navy to bombard Belfast to enforce Irish Home Rule, as well as ordering troops in Tonypandy to shoot down striking Welsh miners; inconvenient facts that were overlooked by Nick Griffin during a BNP election campaign featuring Spitfires and pictures of the old warmonger.

This book emphasises the inconsistency of human nature. Edmund Burke who supported the rebellious American colonists in their fight with Britain was bitterly opposed to the French Revolution. Benjamin Disraeli who supported protectionist policies that caused widespread hunger initiated social housing, free education and employment laws. And Tory rebel Enoch Powell was against capital punishment and supported divorce reform and the legalisation of homosexuality. It seems that great men can be just as illogical as the rest of us.

All of those listed in “Standard Bearers” deserve their places. Joseph Chamberlain transformed the city of Birmingham, rose to high office and dreamed of uniting Britain with the White Dominions. Robert Blatchford wrote “Britain for the British” and pioneered National Socialism long before the lad from Linz. And Enoch Powell put his principles before his party and paid the price. But I am drawn to Hilaire Belloc and GK Chesterton. They shared a rejection of liberalism and a love for Christian civilization that is timeless. And their analysis of global capitalism is as true today as it was when they first challenged the greed and corruption of the Money Power.

Sadly, there are few contemporary candidates for such a book in the future. Our leaders today are lesser men who are motivated only by personal ambition. Perhaps destiny is cyclical and liberalism is a passing phase that will eventually be replaced by something much better? I hope so.

Other Losses – by James Bacque

This book review by John Steele is from "Lodestar" 1991. Reproduced by permission of The Friends of Mosley:
Available from

Britain declared war on Germany on September 3rd 1939, and it was a religious war from the first day. British democracy had challenged “the forces of evil”. Britain had “guaranteed” the Polish borders against the evil forces. The Prime Minister could not defend them of course; he was unable to fight in Eastern Europe and he sent not a man, ship or plane to defend Poland. But Mr Chamberlain had said he would stand by Poland. That was the important thing and it should have been enough to deter the evil forces.

It did not, and Poland was defeated. The war which began with bellicose speeches and then settled down to the “phoney war” with Britain only half-prepared to fight even in France. But it was still a religious war. Then suddenly the Germans overran Norway, the Low Countries and France in the spring of 1940. The British withdrew from Dunkirk to fight another day and Mr Chamberlain fell from power. Mr Churchill took up his banner, saying it was our sacred duty to continue the war against the evil forces. But even he had to wait until a third crusader took the field before the war could be won.

This was the American President. Mr Roosevelt won the war by mobilising American industry.  At the same time he gave it wider and grander horizons. When Mr Churchill met Mr Roosevelt in Newfoundland in August 1941, America was still a neutral country but Mr Roosevelt behaved as if he were already at war. Arrayed in the spotless robes of principle he gave it a new and lofty moral tone. Thus from Newfoundland came forth the Atlantic Charter, a resounding document as high-minded as the American declaration of independence. When “fascist slavery” had been cast down every man, woman and child in the world would be free to enjoy peace, prosperity and the pursuit of happiness. It was now emphatically a religious war!

This gave the key-note of all Allied war declarations, breathing the spirit of America the Beautiful, the greatest democracy on earth, and it was not surprising that in 1945 the great majority of German troops preferred to surrender to the splendid Americans than to the murdering, pillaging and raping Red Army. This book shows what happened to some of them.

Ever since the Nuremberg Trial in 1946 we have been deluged and re-deluged with German war crimes and wickedness. There is a vast literature on the Holocaust alone. America has a huge industry continually re-arranging, re-packaging and re-publishing “the horrors of Nazi Germany” as if nothing had been written on the subject before. It goes on and on. Now we have this appalling book showing how these splendid Americans (assisted in some cases by the French Army) set up “death camps” in defeated Germany as monstrous as Buchenwald or Dachau. It puts forward strong evidence that a million German prisoners-of-war were starved or worked to death, and on the order of General Dwight Eisenhower, the laughing and lovable “Ike” so popular in wartime Britain.

The book opens with the dinner given during the Teheran conference in 1943 where Stalin said he wanted to shoot 50,000 German officers after the war. Churchill was violently angry at this and “Franklyn Roosevelt, seeing animosity rise between the two former enemies, fatuously suggested a compromise of 49,000 prisoners to be shot”. His son Elliott, a brigadier-general in the US Army, was not satisfied. He proposed the deaths “not only of those fifty thousands... but many hundreds of thousands more Nazis as well”.

Churchill stormed out here, but Stalin soothed him down. “The dictator was charming. It was all a joke, he explained. We weren’t serious. Come back in”. But it was no joke, for this was exactly what the US Army carried out in 1945 in the American zone of occupation in Germany, says Mr Bacque, and the man responsible was Eisenhower. “Eisenhower hated Germans, he told his wife Mamie in a letter in September 1944. Why? ‘Because the German is a beast’. In front of the British ambassador to Washington, in August, he said that all of the 3,500 officers of the German General Staff should be ‘exterminated’. He would include all the leaders of the Nazi party from mayors on up, plus all members of the Gestapo. This would be a total about 109,000 people....All to be liquidated, Stalin-style by the splendid Americans.

What Eisenhower proposed, and later implemented, was the crime of genocide proclaimed in the Nuremberg Judgement of 1946 as one of the great crimes against humanity.

But he was not the only American with genocidal thoughts in 1944. When the British and American leaders met in Quebec to discuss what to do with Germany after the war, Henry Morgenthau, secretary of the US Treasury had a plan for Germany. It was a plan, says Mr Bacque, for “pastoralisation” through “the destruction of her industry and mining. The most advanced of the industrial nations of the world would be turned into one huge farm. There would be massive starvation if the industrial base were destroyed. According to Cordell Hull, ‘the Morgenthau Plan would wipe out everything in Germany except land and the Germans would have to live on the land. This meant that only 60 per cent of the German population could support themselves on German land and the other 40 per cent would die’. Hull is speaking here of the deaths of about 20 million German civilians.

Had it been carried out the Morgenthau Plan would have ranked with Stalin’s greatest crime, the liquidation of the Ukrainian peasantry in the 1930s. But Morgenthau planned that America, the greatest democracy on earth, should do this. However, it was leaked to the press and a horrified American public killed it.

But how was Eisenhower, an American military officer, if not a gentleman, able to bring about the deaths of a million German prisoners when he was bound by the Geneva Convention? Of these, says Mr Bacque, at least 750,000 died from starvation and disease in American hands, while a large number already semi-starved were handed over to the French Army for “reparations labour” and were maltreated so appallingly that 250,000 soon died. Most were former Wehrmacht soldiers but “scores of thousands were women, children and old men”. Whether the French or the US Army killed them, Eisenhower was responsible for the policy. How was this possible when the United States had signed the Geneva Convention?

It was made possible on March 10th 1945, says Mr Bacque, when “a message signed and initialled by Eisenhower proposed a startling departure from the Geneva Convention, the creation of a new class of prisoners who would not be fed by the army after the surrender of Germany... Prisoners taken after VE Day would be called ‘disarmed enemy forces’, (DEF)”. It is to the credit of the British and Canadians that they had nothing to do with this order.

Thus masses of German prisoners were penned into cages, without food (though the Americans had plenty of food), without shelter (although the Americans had plenty of tents), and often without water. They lived in holes in the ground in atrocious weather throughout that summer of starvation. Local people were prevented from feeding them. Relief societies like the American Quakers had the food they sent to Germany returned. For Eisenhower hated Germans, though the smiling hypocrite said publicly that he was feeding his prisoners. “At least ten times as many Germans died in the French and American camps as were killed in combat on the western front in north-west Europe from June 1941 to April 1945” says Mr Bacque.

Martin Brech, an American soldier and prison guard at one of the “death camps” along the Rhine told the author: “I saw thousands of men crowded together, wet and cold, sleeping in the mud without shelter or blankets, eating grass because we fed them so little, dying... It was made clear that our deliberate policy was not to feed them adequately... they were begging, getting sick and dying before us... gas would have been more merciful than our slow killing fields”. But Eisenhower hated Germans.

How was this kept hidden for so long? Mr Bacque recounts how “the public was fooled, the International Committee of the Red Cross deceived, the press negated, the US Senate neutered, books censored, archives destroyed, and senior officials inveigled into the cover-up”. A cover-up as complete as the long Soviet silence on the slaughter at Katyn Forest. Germans like Willy Brandt also played a part. The young communist who fled Germany in 1933, renounced his country by becoming a Norwegian citizen, even taking a Norwegian name... a renegade in short – returned to Germany in 1945, became a German again, and on becoming Chancellor his Foreign Office subsidized books which denied atrocities in the US camps. 

Why did these things happen? They were the result of making the struggle with Germany a religious war. As General Fuller has written, “When war was declared the aim was proclaimed to be a moral one... Thus instead of the minds of the people being directed towards the re-establishment of the balance of power, their reason was obliterated by a spirit of hatred for the ‘evil thing’, and to them the war became a contest between good and Evil... they came to believe that it was a sacred duty to kill their enemies in the most atrocious ways”.

Encouraging our Birth Rate

Some Europeans welcome the recent flood of refugees but others are demonstrating against them and the Swiss and the Poles have turned to the far-Right. The trouble is that these parties would tear up the European social model and drag us back to stratification and inequality.

The wars and revolutions throughout Africa and Asia will go on producing refugees for years to come. Unless we are prepared to take all of them we must secure Europe's external borders and make a clear distinction between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants.

We are told that we need immigrants to replace our ageing workforce but it would be better to encourage our own birth rate; as they did in Italy, Germany and the Soviet Union in times past. We need an educational system geared to the needs of industry, greater use of automation, and a selective immigration policy based on skills and compatibility. We do not need an endless influx of Third World immigrants.

Why we should vote Yes in the Referendum

When Britain joined the old Common Market in 1973 the National Front was bitterly opposed. They predicted that Britain would be destroyed but 42 years later we have a growing economy and one of the highest standards of living in the world. We are still a magnet for immigrants from the Commonwealth but they are nothing to do with the EU, It is true that we have signed up to free movement of labour within the EU but Europeans are generally hard working

We have not lost our identity. We are still British, the French are still French, and the Germans are still German. Non-white immigration is a threat to our survival but economic union is entirely beneficial. 

The scare stories about the EU are simply not true. The worldwide recession that followed the financial crisis of 2008 hit Europe hard. Britain was big enough and our economy was strong enough to weather the storm but Ireland, Iceland, the Baltic States and Southern Europe were badly affected. They are all recovering except Greece which has hardly and industry and depends on tourism but the Greek crisis will be resolved and the EU will continue to be the most important trading bloc in the world; an emerging superstate of half a billion people.

The French National Front has always been opposed to the EU but they have now joined a group in the European Parliament committed to reforming Europe from within. This practical approach is more sensible than the negative policies of their British counterparts who are still dreaming of reviving the British Empire.

If the referendum goes in favour of Europe those parties clinging to the past will be sidelined. If they are serious about fighting plutocracy and racial replacement they should revise their policies to reflect the modern world. We are not going to revive the Commonwealth; South Africa and Rhodesia are black-run states, Canada is tied to the North American Free Trade Agreement, and Australia and New Zealand have forged trade links with Asia.

We are an island nation of 64 million people that imports nearly half of our food and fuel. We need to trade and it would be madness to cut ourselves off from our best customers.

Nationalists need to grasp reality. Their economic policies are essentially those of the pre-war British Union of Fascists. But the British Empire has gone and the old patterns of world trade have changed forever. We cannot earn a living selling manufactured goods in return for their natural resources. That's why Oswald Mosley abandoned the Imperial concept after the war and promoted the vision of "Europe a Nation".

The Nationalist argument that the EU is a capitalist racket makes no sense. The UK, the USA, China and every other country is part of the global capitalist system. It would make no difference to the international financiers if we were in or out of the EU; they would still dominate the City of London and Wall Street, New York.

In centuries past we British extended our patriotism to include England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales because we realised that we were better off together in the United Kingdom. In the same way, and for the same reason, we must embrace the states of Europe.

When we take part in the referendum we should think of the future and vote Yes for Europe. The EU is by no means perfect but it is a step in the right direction.

Reprinted from the League Sentinel, Autumn 2015. 


The Tories are going ahead with the replacement of our Trident missile system. They claim that the £25 billion update is justified to keep our seat on the UN Security Council. But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn puts the cost at £100 billion and Tory MP Crispin Blunt has calculated it at £167 billion. That’s a lot of money for a weapon that we are never going to use.

Our armed forces are already equipped with cruise missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads by air, sea or ground. The Russians destroyed terrorist targets in Syria with Kalibr missiles fired from ships in the Caspian Sea - a distance of 1500 km. This shows that most targets are within reach. We should not be spending £167 billion on missiles that we don’t need when we are cutting benefits to save £4 billion.