European Outlook # 32 August 2016

The Chilcot Inquiry

Sir John Chilcot's long awaited inquiry into the 2003 invasion of Iraq did not find Tony Blair guilty of war crimes but his reputation is nevertheless in tatters. The war cost the lives of 3,777 American and Coalition troops, including 179 Britons. The Lancet report estimated Iraqi deaths at 654,965.

Tony Blair is reported to be worth $60 million. As a retired prime minister with a wife and family he should be a happy and contented man. But torment is written on his face. He tries to justify his rush to war and only apologises for trusting the evidence presented to him. He insists that he believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He may even be telling the truth but he is nevertheless guilty of waging an aggressive war - a crime that men were hanged for at Nuremberg. Some people think that he is a gifted actor who actually feels no remorse. But he has the haunted expression of a condemned man. He will probably escape justice on earth but as a Christian he must expect to face a higher court. 

The Rise of Populism

The vote by the British people to leave the European Union was motivated by many things. It was a protest against austerity, a rejection of rule from London, a chance to kick the Establishment, and a fear of uncontrolled immigration. A potent mixture of populism and nationalism.

Ukip avoided prosecution by only campaigning against European immigration; a cowardly tactic pioneered by the Daily Mail. Their propaganda stirred up hatred against hard-working people but it will not stop immigration. If Poles and Lithuanians are not available we will simply import more Africans and Asians. 

Their backup position was sovereignty. They said that we would be independent outside of the EU. But our armed forces are still under Nato command, we import half of our food and fuel, and many of our industries are foreign owned. We are about to find out if we can go-it-alone. 

Britain is a union of four distinct nations held together by economic necessity and mutual advantage. A United Kingdom that succeeded because its member states were loyal to a central authority. Unfortunately separatism has now emerged. The Scottish Nationalist Party runs Scotland, Plaid Cymru sits of the Welsh Senate, and the government of Northern Ireland is shared between the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Fein. Ukip have won support throughout the country and European federalism has suffered a setback but it's early days yet and nobody knows what the future holds.

Apart from the obvious risks there will be many unexpected consequences of the referendum. For some time meetings of the London Forum have been stewarded by young Polish activists who may now be denied the right to live and work in this country. The far-right pretend to believe in European solidarity but their insular nationalist policies are spiteful and divisive. They should be ashamed of themselves. 


The Fluoride Debate

Most countries have stopped adding fluoride to their water supplies in order to prevent tooth decay. In the UK its use is decided by local authorities and only 10% of the population receives artificially fluoridated water. Fluoride occurs naturally in some areas and fluoride toothpaste is available for those wanting to protect their teeth.

Fluoride is seldom mentioned nowadays but it used to be a constant theme of right wing propaganda. The John Birch Society was convinced that it was being added to water supplies in order to drug the population and make them amenable to communist control. An American chemist called Charles Perkins wrote in 1954: “The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children’s teeth. If this were the real reason there are plenty of ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty.” This paranoid fantasy crossed the Atlantic and it was taken up by our own patriotic movements.

Experts for and against fluoridation were marshalled but the principle argument of the water purists was one of mass medication without consent. They considered the addition of fluoride to be a violation of human rights and warned that governments could add all sorts of toxic chemicals to the water supply if we let them. This ‘libertarian’ argument has been adopted by the Green Party.

It's not only anarchists who see the State as an enemy of the people. Various right wing groups accuse the government of polluting our minds with Marxist propaganda and our bodies with unwanted medication. Some of them refuse to watch television and only drink bottled water for fear of contamination. In America armed groups are preparing to defend themselves against the State and in Britain old men and women who took lots of drugs in their youth are sympathetic.

When I started writing this article I thought that the anti-fluoride lobby was over-reacting but while researching the subject I watched Dr Paul Connett’s excellent YouTube video “The Truth about Fluoride.” This presentation convinced me that fluoride is a dangerous chemical that should not be added to drinking water. But I doubt that it’s part of a diabolical conspiracy.


Five Questions Answered – Michael Walsh

Michael Walsh is the editor of Renegade Tribune - renegadetribune.com

I asked him to answer the five questions that I first asked in Nation Revisited in 2011. He referred me to his many books and articles for the answers. I have therefore used the following quotations.

Who are you?

Michael Walsh was born Michael McLaughlin in Liverpool at the end of WW2. He served in the Merchant Navy until the age of 24 and joined Colin Jordan’s British Movement in 1968. He led the movement from 1975 until 1983 when it was shut down by legal action. He served several prison sentences during this time for political offences. He is a writer, poet, broadcaster and political activist. (A synopsis of the introduction to The Rise and Fall of the Sunwheel).

What do you believe in?

“Humanity is now making its biggest change in 2,000 years. The past was built on piracy, enslavement and territorial gain through conflict. The future will be built on pragmatic peaceful co-existence. If it were otherwise then there simply is no future for mankind. The midwife to the New World is National Socialism. “(Superpowers Come and Go).

If you could direct government policy what would you do?

“When co-operating Europeans use their information channels to remind our folk that they are the majority and successfully turn the tables on race-renegades then their fury will be unleashed. Our German kin in 1933 gave us the beacon, which they passed to us by example. Follow the light of the beacon. Arriba Europa!”  (Better to Live One Day as a Lion).

What are you proud of and what do you regret?

“As a career option the former British Seaman is philosophical about life as a race-loving political activist. If you want a white knuckle ride and you’re big enough to face down the combined forces of conservatism and their race-hating Communist defenders, go for it.” (Rebels Don’t Sleep).

How would you like to be remembered?

“Compiling Heroes of the Reich has been for me a revelation. The history of European conflict is marked by a willingness to honour one’s fallen foe. Today there is an absence of nobility in the hearts and minds of victors. This then is the opportunity to salute the fallen foe. In doing so I hope to be something of a vanguard in the pursuit of justice and honour.” (Heroes of the Reich).

The views of guest writers to European Outlook and Nation Revisited are entirely their own, and so are those of websites listed as links. We support free speech as enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Race Soul

The idea that races have a folk memory, or soul, is widely believed in nationalist circles. It seems to have originated with Jean Baptiste Lamark 1744-1829 with his book Heritability of Acquired Characteristics. He preceded Darwin with his theory that generations pass on information. This was taken up by Carl Jung 1875-1961 who suggested that fears and phobias are inherited in his book The Collective Unconscious. Alfred Rosenberg 1893-1946 enshrined the concept in Nazi doctrine with The Myth of the Twentieth Century. And the Scottish professor Raymond Bamford floated the idea in the pages of Combat in the sixties. Few of its readers would have understood Bamford’s esoteric discourse but the editor, John Bean, wrote: “I felt there was some sense in what he wrote, even if you had to dig deep to see what it was.”

There are two possible explanations for the Race Soul. It could be evolutionary, like the thick white coats of Polar bears that protects them from the cold and makes them invisible to their prey. Or it could a metaphysical thing – like the soul itself which cannot be located by physicians.

Scientists may doubt the existence of the soul but every culture and religion has recognised a life force; a spark or spirit that separates the living from the dead. In the Christian tradition Thomas Aquinas wrote that all creatures have a soul but only humans have an immortal soul.

The Russians are said to have a racial memory of invasion that has moulded their national identity. And it’s even possible that the European referendum was influenced by ancestry. London supported the EU but the east of England voted against it. Was this a repeat of Londinium's loyalty to the Empire and Boadicea's rebellion against it?

We acquired a tolerance for cow’s milk after thousands of years of dairy farming but most of our development was influenced by geography, climate and technology, and our traditions were passed down in folk tales and fairy stories. The settlers who repopulated the British Isles as the glaciers retreated at the end of the Ice Age were not driven by instinct or inspired by heroic literature. They were following herds of reindeer on which they depended for food. As always the simplest answer is probably the right one. If you hear the sound of galloping hooves think horses rather than unicorns.

Personal Statement

The European referendum brought out the worst in both camps. Those of us who wanted to remain in the EU relied on economic arguments and our opponents responded with crude slogans about immigration and sovereignty. We dismissed them as 'Little Englanders' and they called us 'traitors'. A gratuitous insult from reckless gamblers who have devalued the pound.

I have campaigned for genuine independence and against non-European immigration for more than fifty years. I resent being called a traitor by people who support parties committed to 'diversity, I will not be lectured to by petty nationalists who read the Daily Mail, and I am not impressed by so-called patriots who are endangering the integrity of the United Kingdom.

Those of us who love Britain and Europe are not traitors. We are 48% and you have not heard the last of us.


Europe for the Europeans

(I wrote this article for Action No 200 following the European referendum of June 1975. Immigration from Europe was insignificant in those days but the non-white population was growing. In 1945 they numbered in the low thousands; by 1970 they numbered 1.4 million, and in 1972 we took in 80,000 Asians expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin. The measures proposed 41 years ago would now be even harder to achieve but we still need to stop the Third World invasion).

The economic problems of divided Europe will be solved by political union. A self-contained economy will be outside the commodity speculation that has caused steep rises in world prices under the present system. Sweated imports from the East will be excluded and the massive bargaining power of 300 million European customers will ensure fair prices for such imports as might still be required.

But such a Europe will still be doomed to collapse and failure unless the growing problem of non-European immigration is tackled.

There are now millions of African, Asian and Caribbean migrants in Britain, France, Germany, Holland and other European countries. These people have been cruelly exploited as cheap labour without regard to their long-term welfare or that of native Europeans. Already the inevitable tensions of this multiracial situation have been expressed in violence and death.

Only the warped theoreticians of the race relations industry would deny that the assimilation of these immigrants is impossible. Britons and other Europeans who have been the victims of large-scale immigrant settlement know that this policy is socially destructive and bound to end in disaster.

We are told by apologetic politicians of the old parties that it is now too late to reverse the flood, that ‘there are too many here now’. This of course is nonsense. There are plenty of historical precedents for mass repatriation of whole populations, and in the past 30 years.

Thirteen million refugees from East Europe were taken in by West Germany after the last world war. More than half a million Asians have been exchanged by India, Pakistan and Bangladesh after their mutual conflict. Over a million ‘pieds noirs’ were repatriated to France after that country abandoned Algeria. Nearly one million Portuguese have been brought home from Africa, and as I write are arriving in Lisbon at the rate of two thousand a day.

Indeed an entirely new state has been created in this way: the State of Israel. Over three million Jews have been repatriated to that homeland, and this has been hailed as an historic achievement. Russia, which bans its Jews going to Israel, is universally condemned for ‘barbaric’ behaviour.  If it is not only possible but considered a very good thing that millions of Jews should go to Israel, why does not the same standard apply to repatriation to their homelands of Europe’s immigrants?

Clearly that is both possible and essential now that they are unwanted in a Europe facing unemployment and depression. Europe on a full productive economy will have both the technology and financial capacity to launch a great programme of humane repatriation, coupled with aid to the developing nations who would benefit from the return of their skilled workers.

If this is not done they will remain as an unwanted alien minority and we shall experience the same inter-racial strife that now threatens the United States.

Alexander Morana

Hello Bill, I would like to thank you for the insightful article in this month's blog.
The photos of mine are of a 16th century replica Spanish ship and a Viking ship, built in 2010.
Could the Brit-exit be the beginning of a process towards the 4th option - Eurasian block - from the Atlantic to the Urals and including Vladivostok and the China Sea?

Bill Baillie

Thanks Alex. I am not familiar with Alexander Dugin's Fourth Political Theory but the Europe of the future must include Britain and Russia. Our continent is dominated by America but changing patterns of world trade and demographics will change all that. It's our duty as Europeans to defend our culture and identity. The British people have voted to leave the EU but what does that prove? If we held a referendum amongst the lemmings gathered on a Swedish cliff they would all vote to jump. It's 1,540 years since the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. It will not make much difference if we have to wait a few years longer for its reinstatement.

Nation Revisited

Our sister blog is posted on http://nationrevisited.blogspot.co.uk

European Outlook, # 31, July 2016

Alone

     David Low's cartoon from the Evening Standard 18th July 1940

Dave Cameron's unnecessary referendum has resulted in a narrow victory for the Leave campaign - at least in England and Wales. The British people have voted to quit the European Union following a forty year crusade by the popular press. Unless Parliament overturns the decision we must disengage from the EU and negotiate new trading arrangements. Dave Cameron has promised to go when his party has chosen a new leader and the Labour Party is bitterly divided. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, is trying to defend the pound and calm the markets. The Scottish Nationalist Party is demanding another referendum on independence and Sinn Fein has called for a united Ireland.

A week before polling day the campaign was interrupted by the killing of the pro-EU Labour MP Jo Cox, the mother of two young children. Tommy Mair, a self-styled 'political activists' has been charged with her murder. 

Since the fateful decision nothing much has changed.The UK is still 34km from France, we are still in Nato, our nuclear weapons are still under American control, we still have millions of Third World immigrants, the housing crisis is getting worse, the National Debt stands at £1.5 trillion, productivity is falling, the economy is practically static, the National Health Service is running out of money, and Boris Johnson is as ambitious as ever.

Most of those who voted to leave the EU are decent people who were seduced by the insular nationalism of the Daily Mail. They worried about our sovereignty but we negotiated so many exclusions and opt-outs that we were as ‘independent’ as Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. After 43 years in the European bloc we were still as British as ever.

They were also worried about immigration but quitting the EU will not stop it. The two largest immigrant groups to the UK are Indians and Chinese who are funding our higher education system. 180,000 non-European immigrants arrived in Britain last year, of which 40,000 came to join their families. We will now be able to refuse entry to fellow Europeans who share our race and culture but the teeming masses of Africa and Asia will still make their way to our shores. The mass media predicted a Romanian invasion, that never happened, and highlighted the desperate plight of refugees landing in Greece but they ignored the relentless influx of Commonwealth immigrants.

But the most bizarre reason for going-it-alone was the hope that Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson would lead an act of rebellion against the Establishment. We must now face the consequences of this rebellion. They will be celebrating in the rundown working men's clubs of the North and the geriatric care homes of the South but young people facing unemployment in a shrinking economy will be the ones to suffer.

Paranoia

(A mental condition characterised by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically worked into an organised system. It may be an aspect of chronic personality disorder, or drug abuse, or a serious condition such as schizophrenia in which the person loses touch with reality. Oxford Dictionary)

The idea that someone or something is out to get us is probably a hangover from the days when our ancestors were threatened by wild animals or hostile tribes. It’s therefore natural to be wary of strange dogs and strange people but when this caution becomes an obsession it’s time to seek help.

I was once at a meeting in central London in a room above a pub when somebody noticed a CCTV camera that was part of the security system. He made such a fuss that the organiser had to cover up the camera to allow the meeting to proceed. And while he was doing so several members of the audience covered their faces or attempted to get out of range of the camera. Most of them were retired so they couldn’t have been worried about their jobs. It was just an outbreak of paranoia.

A friend of mine appears to be a sensible middle class person but he worries people when he says things like “that’s what they want you to think." He subscribes to the Jewish Conspiracy Theory which explains everything from the decline of the British Empire to the rise of recreational drug taking. Believers in Conspiracy are so convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot JFK, or that Princess Diana was assassinated, that they imagine that everybody agrees with them. And they regard those of us who look for simple answers as either part of the Plot or at least useful idiots.

Most of their conspiracy theories involve the Jews. They blame Israel for all the troubles in the Middle East but there is clearly a power struggle going on between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

They say that the Jews support immigration because they originally came here as immigrants. But Stephen Steinlight writing about American Jews takes a different view.

“It is likely a growing majority of American Jews oppose illegal immigration because a confident American identity makes them empathise with fellow Americans first, not immigrants. Jews will forever passionately oppose xenophobia, but American identity has surmounted the immigrant past."

The Frankfurt School was a clique of Jewish academics that undermined education half a century ago. According to an OECD report published in 2013 Britain came third from bottom out of 24 nations in literacy and fourth from bottom in numeracy. But most of the nations above us were taught by Frankfurt scholars so why aren’t they as stupid as us? The answer probably has more to do with how much we spend on education and an anti-intellectual culture that promotes sport and leisure over learning. 

People holding these views should accept that some things really are what they appear to be and some people really mean what they say.

Winston Churchill was a dedicated imperialist who followed the traditional British foreign policy of countering the strongest power in Europe. Following the fall of France he allied his country to the Soviet Union and the United States in order to win the war against Hitler’s Germany. But my conspiratorial friend thinks that Churchill was a paid agent of the Jews who deliberately destroyed the British Empire on their orders. The most likely proposition is the first one but, of course, “that’s what they want you to think."

Logical Conclusions

(I posted this on Facebook in April this year).

The Euro-sceptics argue that we should quit the European Union because it's expensive, undemocratic and in favour of immigration. But exactly the same arguments apply to our membership of the United Kingdom. The logical conclusion of their propaganda is that we should quit the UK and abolish Parliament.

The Westminster parliament costs over £500,000 a year and the estimate for refurbishing the building is £5 billion. At the 2015 general election 66.4% of the electorate bothered to vote; 36.9% gave their votes to the Tories, 29% voted Labour, 7.8% voted for the Liberal Democrats and 4.7 for the SNP. Less than half of the participating electorate voted Tory but under our first-past-the-post system we ended up with a government that cannot be described as truly representative.

On the issue of immigration our leaders have expressed the following views:

Dave Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party speaking at Ipswich in May 2015.

“Our migrant communities are fundamentally part of who we are and Britain is a far richer and stronger society because of them, whether it’s great scientists, doctors, medical practitioners, artists, musicians, sports stars or business leader, entrepreneurs, hard-working businessmen and women. So many Great Britons today have family histories that have brought them to these shores. This is our island history: open, diverse and welcoming, and I am immensely proud of it."

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party speaking on BBC radio, April 2015.

“There are very large numbers of British people who chose to live abroad. Two million British people live in other parts of Europe. I think the issue has to be making sure that our services are properly funded and properly provided for in all areas, and if there is a shortage of school places, don’t blame those that have come to this country to work and pay taxes and develop our economy. Instead, blame the government that is not investing in those services that are so necessary."

Tim Farran, leader of the Liberal Democrats on Question Time, May 2015.

“Immigration is much more of a blessing than it is a curse and immigrants make Britain successful."

Nigel Farage, leader of Ukip writing in The Daily Telegraph, April 2016.

“Importantly Ukip wants to ensure that highly skilled people from the Commonwealth – from Canada, New Zealand, and beyond -  get a fair chance to get into Britain, unlike now, where we give preference, via our open border with France to half a billion people from Europe and its former communist countries."

So there you have it. Our membership of the UK is expensive, undemocratic, and nationally destructive; we would be better off out of it. 

Understanding the EU

Billionaire financier Jimmy Goldsmith founded the Referendum Party to get Britain out of the EU. In 1997 the RP boasted 50,000 members and briefly had one MP, Tory defector George Gardiner. In the general election of that year their 547 candidates received 3% of the poll. Goldsmith's successors are still campaigning but few of them have his understanding of the historical and philosophical basis of the EU. Speaking at the RP conference in Brighton in 1996 he cited Hegel as the thinker behind technocratic government and compared the unification of Germany to the development of the EU.

“The people do not know what they want. To know what one wants is the fruit of profound insight and this is the very thing that the people lack.” “We should venerate the State as an earthly divinity”, he added. Hegel considered that elected bodies, such as Parliament, were only useful to perfect the process of subordinating the people. Prussia began to unify the independent nations of Germany in 1834. At that time, they were still independent monarchies. The first step was to create a common market or customs union known as the “Zollverein” englobing nineteen nations. The peoples of the various German nations were told that its purpose was to form a large and free trade area. After some armed struggles the common market was converted, in 1867, into a political confederation. The people were told that this would help to consolidate and develop that common trading area whilst maintaining substantial independence for the participating nations. Four years later, in 1871, the trap was closed. The Confederation was expanded and converted into a single German super-state dominated by Prussia. The Parliament was no more than a democratic looking front whereas real power was concentrated into the hands of the leading civil servants. The principle of irreversibility was made absolute. No nation could withdraw from this new German super-state. I am telling you all this because it relates directly to the way the European Union has been created. Remember what happened. First came the Common Market. We, also, were promised that its purpose was to form a large and free trade area. Then we moved on to a grouping of nations and we, also, were promised that we would retain essential national sovereignty. Of course, a Parliament was established but real power was, also, concentrated in the hands of the leading civil servants. The principle of irreversibility was also introduced prohibiting and nation from leaving the European Union. We are being led blindfolded into a federal super-state…

Jimmy Goldsmith may have outraged his reactionary audience but he inspired those of us who support the European project. The unification of the German states into a single political entity was so successful that it survived two world wars that should have destroyed it. And who can seriously doubt Hegel’s assessment of democracy? Most Euro-sceptics are motivated by emotion rather than reason but if they studied Goldsmith’s Prussian example they might change their minds. If united Europe is as determined and enduring as united Germany, and if the pantomime of parliamentary democracy can be replaced by efficient government, it will succeed, despite our threatened withdrawal.

Mosley: The Public Order Act and Beyond – Frank Conway

(This article first appeared in National Freedom issue no 5, January 1996)

“After their defeat of October 4, 1936, and the subsequent Public Order Act, aimed at Mosley, making the wearing of the Blackshirt illegal, Mosley and his movement lost all support and went into decline”. Such is the standard parrot-like utterance of the controlled media and politically correct ‘historians’.

Quite simply, the perpetration of this view is nothing less than a fraud. Now, at long last, the true facts of the continuing struggle to save Britain are being brought into the public domain.

The banning of political uniforms came at a time when the Blackshirt had served its purpose – and served it well. Under that honoured vestment, youth and age, rich and poor, artisan and intellectual marched, and in their proud and dedicated crusade had achieved a classless brotherhood such as had not come before. They had faced the challenge of the Marxist mobs, armed only with hand and fist, and won the battle of the streets. They brought back free speech to Britain.

There follows a brief account of some of the major post Public Order Act events:

October 3, 1937... British Union’s fifth Anniversary March from Westminster to Bermondsey, with a fifty per cent higher turnout than at any previous march.

July 28, 1938... The culmination of the month-long ‘Britain First’ Campaign at Ridley Road, Dalston, is a truly massive rally. Mosley speaks to a crowd stretching back as far as the eye could see. In the previous month he had spoken to an estimated quarter-of-a-million people in London alone. Also during 1938, there was a huge increase in the numbers of women on British Union marches. A women’s Drum Corps was added to the well established British Union Drum Corps.

July 16, 1939... British Union’s finest hour. 30,000 heard Mosley at Earls Court Exhibition Hall – the largest political indoor meeting ever held in the world. No other party had dared to use this hall, and the success in filling it broke the contemporary press boycott.

May 5, 1940... The last of the mass rallies before Mosley and many comrades were arrested, with many hundreds being imprisoned in horrific concentration camps. The final rally at Victoria Park Square, Bethnal Green, took place with the square packed to suffocation point. The rally followed the 137 street meetings that had taken place in April, and this despite the blackout. It is worth remembering Mosley’s words on that day:

“Peace now before a million lives are lost in this alien quarrel. Peace not on Hitler’s terms but by trusting in the might of Britain, a peace with honour”.

Anybody who doubts the patriotism of Mosley, his followers or this magazine’s editor, would do well to consider the first official serviceman to die in action against Germany. What a bitter irony that he should have been a Mosley Blackshirt.


Who is Jean Thiriart - from Maury's blog - https://mauryk2.com

Jean-Francois Thiriart, a native of Brussels, was the great theorist & strategist of the European Revolution. Though he never met Francis Parker Yockey, he shared many of the same ideas. Like Yockey, he considered the American occupation of Europe to be more dangerous than the threat of the Soviet Union, if only because U.S. domination was less heavy-handed and more difficult to recognize. Both men were obsessed with the idea of a united Europe as a third force capable of challenging the hegemony of the Cold War superpowers.

Before World War II, Thiriart was active in a socialist youth group. Then in 1939, on the eve of the war, he joined a group influenced by a layer of socialist thought in Belgium which saw a German victory as the way to achieve socialism on the European continent. Britain was conceived as an old plutocratic power.

During the war, Thiriart trained with one of Otto Skorzeny’s special commando units. This earned him a three year prison term after the war for collaboration. Upon release from prison, he kept a low political profile. He married, had children, loved cats, and developed a profitable optometry business. He built a chain of optometry stores across Europe. He would use the cover of business to frequently visit Skorzeny in Spain. But, again, he kept a low profile.

We pick up the story from Martin Lee in his anti-fascist work, THE BEAST REAWAKENS.

Thiriart jumped back into politics when Belgium granted independence to the Congo in the early 1960s. This decision generated considerable anger among Belgian settlers, who felt betrayed by their own government.

Going beyond Lee’s one-sided account, Thiriart started a movement to try to force the Belgian government to reclaim its former colony. He also formed a support group for the French OAS which was fighting both De Gaulle and the Algerian rebels. Both movements failed.

Thiriart then realized the problems required for a European-wide solution. He created the organization Jeune Europe (Young Europe) on a continental basis. Branches were formed in 13 countries with the largest ones in Belgium, France, Italy and Spain.

He issued the “Manifesto to the European Nation” which began with the slogan “Neither Washington Nor Moscow.” It called for a united European homeland with its own nuclear arsenal. Thiriart vowed to replace chattering and corrupt parliamentarism with a dynamic governing elite that would sanction free enterprise only if it was civic, disciplined and sanctioned by the nation. Promising to reverse the betrayal of Yalta, he denounced the Common Market of the financiers.

In 1964, Thiriart published EUROPE–AN EMPIRE OF 400 MILLION MEN.

He had some sharp barbs in it. FDR was denounced as a senile and perverted meglomaniac. Windbag democracy was depicted as a front for plutocrats. Thiriart, like Yockey, referred to Europe’s monopoly of creative power and it’s unique mission to bring morality to the rest of the world.

Thiriart wrote: “On the train of history, Europe represents the energy that moves the locomotive and the black races represent the carriages.” He would denounce those who intermarry as “the trash of both nations, black and white.”

Thiriart rejected charges that he was a fascist. He knew, that to break out of political isolation, he had to discard the nostalgic trappings of the pre-WWII era and adapt to the political & social realities of the 1960s. He dismissed National Socialism as obsolete and derided those who pranced around with swastikas on their arms as past-dwellers and ridiculous caricatures.

Thiriart, instead, staked out a position beyond the ordinary political spectrum: “We consider ourselves to be at the forefront of the Center, the avant-garde center. . . The linear division of the political world, passing from extreme right to extreme left is totally outdated.

Like LoadNation Revisited

Our sister blog is posted on: nationrevisited.blogspot.co.uk