European Outlook # 72 March 2022

Language and Thinking: Vic Sarson

Over the years I have assisted in winding up the affairs of deceased persons of the older age groups, of which I am now one. In reading through items of correspondence what always struck me was that despite being ordinary artisans they possessed a wide and deep vocabulary. They may not have used it in their daily social intercourse but could call upon it when needed and use words and phrases with greater precision than is common today, even from people who have been to university. BBC English was once the standard that everone tried to live up to. Now it has become debased and will in a generation or so become a gibberish.

But think about it politically. Language is a thinking tool: people think in terms of the language that they and their contemporaries use and what they recieve from radio and TV. For example, when John Major was still PM someone at Conservative Central Office put out the comment: "John Major is a decent man," and before you knew it those words were rolling off the lips of every other mug in the street.

If peoples' thinking is determined by the language they know - instead of the other way round - and if that language is corrupted and debased, confusing their understanding of anything and everything, then it is easy to control what they think, especially when political correctness' is applied.

Hence we have politicians like Tony Blair, Dave Cameron, Boris Johnson, to name a few. Shallow, vacuous, self-serving opportunists that couldn't hold down an ordinary job in the private sector. All they have to commend them is youthful looks and being photogenic. In this era a Winston Churchill, a Clement  Attlee (pictured) or a Harold Macmillan would stand no chance.

John Bean's Correspondence

Marion Bean has sent me John Bean's political effects. There is nothing from his time in Union Movement but there is correspondence from1956 with AK Chesterton, and a fascinating exchange of letters with his old sparring partner John Tyndall. 

JB wrote to JT on 21 July 1994.

"As I am sure you know, you and I had and still have differencies of opinion on many issues, not least that I believe that Jews were put to death in 42-45 in large numbers and I condemn it. As an individual not alligned to any movement, I feel that by maintaining my moderate stance - as in the BBC2 Timewatch programme - there is still a possibility that I may be able to appear on a future programme  where a producer like Jonathan Stamp wants to discuss the race issue, viz BBC2's new programme "Heretics" where last Tuesday Professor Hans Eyesenck came under fire for maintaining the fact that there were genetic differencies between the races. In consequence, I have written a stiff letter to the editor of "Ariel", pointing out that Rosen's comments on me as a "criminal" are libellous. I have also explained the situation re; the sixties BNP and your BNP and stated that I do not share all your views. The "all" is there particularly in relation to Jews and the holocaust. They probably won't publish it , but if they do I want you to appreciate  it is a statement of fact and not a personal vendetta against John Tyndall.

They probably won't publish it, so that is the end of the matter. I am sure that you will treat this correspondence as private."

JT replied to JB on 1 August 1994:

"You are under a misapprehension about the present BNP concerning the 'holocaust' or indeed on Jews. The party has no policy on any matters relating to foreign countries and belonging to the past. You will not find any public declaration  by the BNP on the 'holocaust' or indeed on Jews. We certainly do sell books through the BNP Book Service dealing with these subjects, as we sell many books written by independent authors and published by groups independent from the BNP, but that is another matter. When asked in interviews about the BNP position on the 'holocaust' I reply that there is no position - except that we believe that there should be free public discussion on the subject, just as on any other subject of historical interest. 

I can quite readily appreciate that it is sometimes desirable, in order to grab an opportunity for a public platform, not to get involved publicly in the 'holocaust' argument. I therefore do not criticise your non-involvement in the issue in the public context. However, I am utterly astounded to hear that you actually believe privately in the 'holocaust' myth. There has in recent years been a rich bibliography of writings which conclusively repudiate the idea that there was any planned and governmentally determined  scheme to exterminate the Jews in Europe at any time during 1933-45 - although few would deny that there were localised atrocities committed on the orders of minor commanders and officials under duress of the brutalising influence of war. This of course happened on both sides.

You will surely have heard of the Institute for Historical Review, based in Los Angeles, which over the past decade or so has turned out a massive wealth of documentary evidence refuting the 'holocaust' theory. I visited and spoke to the heads of this organisation in LA during a speaking tour of the States which I undertook in 1991, and found them to be exremely intelligent and well-informed people. I enclose a recent copy of their most important publication, The Journal of Historical Review, which is one of several ones I recieve regularly from around the world as part of a trade-in for free Spearhead subscriptions. I thoroughly reccomend this as good reading."

The animosity between the two men dated from the split in the original BNP in 1962. John Bean led the moderate faction but John Tyndall sided with Colin Jordan. They also disagreed about Europe, JB believed in European confederation but JT wanted to recover the British Empire. However, their real difference was in temperament, JT was a fantasist who denied the Holocaust and dreamed of deporting all the black and brown people from Britain, but JB was a realist who agreed with Otto von Bismarck that "politics is the art of the possible."

The Ongoing Debate

It's six years since the referendum on Britain's membership of the EU but as Brexit unravels, and more and more people regret their decision, the debate continues. The Treaty Of Rome was signed in 1957 and we eventually joined the old Common Market in 1973 under prime minister Ted Heath, but the idea of a united Europe is much older. Oswald Mosley made the following prophetic speech on 25th June 1936, as recorded by Alexander Raven Thomson in his 1947 booklet 'Mosley: What They Said: What He Is.'

"What, then, is the alternative to the present League of Nations? The only alternative is the union of Europe, as opposed to the division of Europe under the old Balance of Power, which now wears the tattered label 'League of Nations'. The Union of Europe was the determination of the War generation at the end of the War, and the hope that the League of Nations would achieve that ideal alone led to its support.

Meanwhile, with cant of League and Peace, the Financial Democrats divide Europe in their vendetta, which jeopordises the peace of the world, while they neglect the first duty of any Government in the present situation, which is to arm Britain with the utmost speed against any contingency or threat. In the confusion the collapse of British Foreign Policy but one alternative emerges, and that is the Union of Europe, which alone can rest on a bloc of the Great Powers united in common interest and inspired by a new world ideal.

The balance of power has returned, with Britain on the wrong side of the balance. We declare instead for the Union of Europe."

Oswald Mosley published 'The Alternative' in 1947 setting out his policy of 'Europe a Nation' which he first suggested in 1936. He was up against the hostility of a war-weary population indoctrinated with antifascist propaganda and Old Gang politicians that feared his crusade against plutocracy. But his ideas on Europe and social reform survived, and they are still relevant. We have a corrupt Tory government committed to global capitalism and a Labour opposition that's almost as bad, but nothing lasts forever. According to a YouGuv poll of January 2022, 38% of respondents support Brexit but 50% think that it was a mistake.

British Government Hypocrisy

Chagos Islanders in Mauritius. Photo The Independent

The British Government accuses Russia and China of violating human rights but it befriends Saudi Arabia, where an absolute monarch rules by decree and makes war on neighbouring Yemen. This hypocrisy results from lucrative arms sales to the desert kingdom which is a major producer of oil and gas.

But it's not always commercial advantage that motivates British foreign policy. Britain issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917 which led to the creation of the state of Israel. Arthur Balfour, Britain's foreign secretary, hoped that it would give the Jews a country of their own, but he gave no thought to the Palestinians whose land it was. Today, the Palestinians are treated with contempt by the Israelis with the support of most parties at Westminster. Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party, was accused of antisemitism and hounded out of his party for supporting the Palestinians.

Diego Garcia is an island in the remote Chagos group in the Indian Ocean that was administered by Mauritius until 1966 when it was leased to the United States for fifty years, in return for a discount of $14 million on missile purchases. The Americans wanted it to build a military base, but first the islanders had to  be deported to Mauritius. The British government estimated the population at 900 but Mauritius put it at 3,000.

At first the British government tried 'hostile environment' tactics to encourage the islanders to leave. People returning from medical treatment abroad were denied entry, families were split up and their pets were killed, and when these measures failed brute force was used.

The deportation of the islanders went ahead with the promise that they could return at some time in the future. The lease expired in 2016 but it has been extended until 2036, and despite a United Nations ruling that the islands be returned to Mauritius the British government has refused to comply.

The mistreatment of 3,000 poor Indian Ocean islanders can't be compared in terms of numbers to the fate of millions of Uyghurs, Ukrainians, or Palestinians, but the principle is the same. We should save our condemnation of other nations until we put our own house in order.

Europe and Russia

The confrontation between Russia and NATO over Ukraine is encouraged by the 'Military-Industrial Complex' in order to sell arms, not just to Ukraine but to all the neighbouring states. If these states can't afford to buy weapons and computer systems, the Americans will be pleased to lend them the money - at a suitable rate of interest.

Instead of Boris Johnson threatening Vladimir Putin he should  worry about things at home. He keeps boasting that we have the fastest growing economy in the G7 group but rising prices and cripplingly high energy costs suggest that all is not well. The Tories blame all our troubles on the Covid pandemic but that won't last forever and sooner or later the calamity of Brexit will be revealed.

It's true that the Russians pursue their enemies all over the world, but so do many other countries including our allies Israel and the United States. American special forces killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, and Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Iraq. Mossad killed Canadian scientist Gerald Bull in Brussels, and the British SAS assassinated three IRA terrorist in Gibraltar. These killings were illegal but necessary. They should not allow us to be pushed into war.

The sensible thing to do would be for Britain and the rest of Europe to sign a non-aggression pact with Russia in return for fixed price contracts for gas and oil.

Russia is a major investor in Britain and sanctions will do more harm to us than to them. The Russian Federation stretches from the Baltic to the Pacific and contains unlimited reserves of gas, oil, coal, timber, and all the necessities of a modern economy. Such a formidable nation can't be bullied by the West.

Britain exports goods and services worth £7.6 billion to Russia. The loss of trade would hardly hurt them but it would damage our economy and threaten donations to the Tory Party. The Bank of Russia boasts record reserves of gold and foreign currencies amounting to $630.5 billion. 

There is no compelling reason why Britain should be hostile to a fellow European country like Russia. The days when we ordered the Light Brigade to charge the Russian guns are long gone. The fact is that our continent is shared with the Russian Federation and we must learn to live with them.

European Outlook

All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. We seek reform by legal means according to 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."