Nation RevisitedAn occasional email to friends
# 15 September 2006
What Can Be Done?
The parties of the so-called far right have succeeded in winning more than fifty council seats. They have made such an impression that the government has been forced to make tentative moves towards immigration control. Politicians who have long supported open-door immigration are suddenly calling for an end to the influx, as voters who are frightened of being overwhelmed by Afro-Caribbean and Asian immigration are making their protest at the ballot box. This shows that the old gang parties can be influenced by a determined political campaign despite repressive legislation from the state and biased reporting by the politically correct media.
Stopping non-European immigration is a priority but there are millions already here who are reproducing much faster than the native population. The Race Relations Act and the Public Order Act have effectively ended all discussion on repatriation. If a spokesman for a political party called for the blacks and Asians to be sent home, he would be arrested and charged with incitement to racial hatred. In this democratic state dissidents must guard their tongues or face incarceration in our overcrowded prisons.
What can be done to protect us from the tide of third world immigration? If we look at the big picture we will see that reverse colonization is happening throughout Europe. This is a European problem that requires a European solution. Britain on her own does not have the money, the logistics or the political clout to tackle the problem but the massive foreign-aid and trading power of the EU could finance the humane resettlement of third world economic refugees. Our task must be to convince the leaders of Europe to defend the ethnic homogeneity and cultural union of our continent. The British government has bowed to political agitation and so will Brussels.
Ironically the parties that are campaigning to preserve Britain are generally opposed to European integration. By sticking to narrow prewar nationalism they are perpetuating the status quo and turning their backs on the only possible solution to the problem. Some of them have even objected to Poles and other European workers. We urgently need to educate these petty nationalists on the history and culture of Europe. We must remind them that the Poles shielded us from the Mongol armies of the Golden Horde in 1241, and from the Ottomans at the battle of Vienna in 1683. This remarkable nation has preserved its blood and culture through centuries of warfare, just as we are trying to defend British and European culture today.
Sir Roy Welensky
Roland (Roy) Welensky was the thirteenth child of an immigrant Polish father and a South African mother. He was born in the rugged colonial settlement of Salisbury in Southern Rhodesia in1907. In later life he always said that he was half Jewish, half Afrikaner and 100% British. Roy started work at the age of 14 and joined Rhodesia Railways as a fireman in 1924. A job that kept this well-built young man fit enough to hold the title of Rhodesian heavyweight boxing champion from 1926 to 1928.
In 1933 he was transferred to Broken Hill in Northern Rhodesia as an engine driver. He became leader of the local Rhodesian Railwaymen’s Union and was elected to the Northern Rhodesian Legislative Council in 1933. During the war he served as Minister of Manpower. He founded the Rhodesia Labour Party in 1941, to fight for the preservation of white jobs that were being increasingly taken over by Africans. In 1946 he was appointed chairman of the Legislative Council. In 1953 he received a knighthood and was awarded the KCMG in 1959.
In 1953 the British government announced the formation of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Roy Welensky served under Sir Godfrey Huggins as Deputy Prime Minister and Transport Minister until he became Prime Minister of the federation in 1956. The federation was intended to become a multiracial self-governing dominion within the Commonwealth. In those days this unlikely formula was still thought possible by the foreign office. Roy Welensky was not a doctrinaire racist but he was opposed to the “ one man one vote” principle and believed in a voters roll based on educational qualifications in order to maintain “civilized standards.”
In 1963 the federation collapsed under increasing pressure from militant African nationalists supported by liberal opinion in Britain. Northern Rhodesia became Zambia and Nyasaland became Malawi, both under African governments. In 1964 his New Rhodesia Party was heavily defeated in the Rhodesian election. He then retired from politics to write “Welensky’s 4,000 Days: The Life and Death of The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.” He opposed Ian Smith’s declaration of UDI in 1965 and the subsequent republican constitution of 1970. He warned the Smith regime that it could only exist with the help of South Africa and that such help could not be relied on. He also predicted that Britain would never recognize the rebel government until it accepted majority rule. He died in Dorset, England in 1991.
Roy Welensky was wrongly labeled a racist by the supporters of black-rule and dismissed as a defeatist by the embattled whites. In fact he was a realist who could read the mind of a British administration that had decided to cut and run. He was a man in the tradition of Rudyard Kipling, a pioneer, a trailblazer and an empire builder. Men like Roy Welensky had crossed the prairies of North America and the great deserts of Australia. They had carried the Union Jack to the farthest corners of the world and defended it against all comers. It was his misfortune to be born at the end of empire, in an age when Britain had retreated back to her home islands and lost the will to greatness.
A Conflict of Interest
Since the war Britain has changed from being a great empire with a huge navy to being just another nation state. It has been difficult for people to accept the changes and adjust to the new situation. Our politicians carried on acting like an imperial power long after we had lost the will and the means to maintain an empire. The 1956 Suez fiasco is now seen as a turning point in British history. Premier Anthony Eden conspired with France and Israel to attack Egypt, but he did so without American permission and was forced into a humiliating withdrawal under threat of economic sanctions. In the next decade we abandoned the empire with indecent haste. The African colonies were handed over to local politicians who promptly established tribal dictatorships. These British-educated despots turned to the USSR and China for help and blamed their long history of poverty and chaos on the brief period of colonization.
During the “cold war” Britain and Western Europe huddled under the American nuclear umbrella in fear of the Soviets. Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson managed to keep near-bankrupt Britain out of the Vietnam War but our strategy was tied to NATO – an instrument of American foreign policy. With the collapse of the USSR we finally realized that being an American dependency was clearly unacceptable for a member state of the European Union. We had been in the EU since 1973 but it was not until Mikhail Gorbachev introduced his “perestroika” reforms of the late 80s that we began to think and act like Europeans.
But America soon found a new enemy and sustained her burgeoning military-industrial economy by giving Israel $3 billion a year to spend on American weapons. After supporting Israel against the Arabs in every conflict since 1948, it was hardly surprising when Arab terrorists attacked mainland America on the 9th September 2001. This amazing attack shocked the whole world. America and Israel had killed many thousands of Arabs in the Middle East but they never expected retaliation on this scale. Britain and France had both ruled Arab lands and knew that it involved constant colonial wars and casualties. Our histories are full of battles involving characters like General Jacques Massu of les paras or Lt Col “Mad” Mitch of the Argylles. But America was not prepared for such losses and responded by blitzing Afghanistan whose Taliban regime sheltered the billionaire fanatic sheik Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network.
America invoked the NATO treaty forcing Britain and the other member states to participate in the ill-fated Afghan invasion that is still going five years later. Tony Blair went further by committing British forces to the equally disastrous invasion of Iraq. He thought that the public would back him because his own party was too gutless to object and the Tories were baying for blood. Margaret Thatcher’s war in the Falklands had been a popular war in defence of British interests, but a clear majority did not believe the Labour propaganda about Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction.” Blair’s miscalculation will cost him his job and force a debate on the “special relationship.” The recent Typhoon aircraft deal with Saudi Arabia is typical of Britain’s trade in the area. Getting involved in America’s “Israel First” foreign policy is a clear conflict of interest.
Views on The News
The little known technique of random speculation has thrown new light on the centuries old mystery of the Druids. Experts on Druidism think that the religion may have suffered a schism between 7,000 and 2,000 years ago. This split between traditionalist and reformist elements could have resulted in mass killings as the rival factions fought a bloody war for control of the religion. Ancient burial mounds may contain the bones of priestly warriors slaughtered in secret orgies of destruction. And some experts believe that the bloody altars of the ancients are buried deep under Stonehenge. But modern Druids are furious that the remains of their ancestors are being discussed. A spokesman for the Druid’s legal department denied that they have applied for a lottery grant, and said: “ critics of human sacrifice are wimps who need a bloody good hiding.”
Since the latest bomb scare airports have stepped up security. At Gatwick staff are positioned to keep the passengers in line. Harmless women and children are made to shuffle through metal detectors in their socks, ushered along by young Asian men, many bearded and presumably Muslim. The madness of the situation is obvious but my comments were not appreciated by the grim-faced cops who strut around with their machine guns like extras in a Star Wars movie. This theatrical display of political correctness wastes time, costs millions and does little to detect suicide bombers.
The terrorists of 9-11 and 7-7 were all of Middle Eastern or mixed race appearance. The security guards should target people fitting this description before picking on overweight old fascist pensioners.
Autumn approaches and the popular newspapers are digging out the same climate scare stories that they run every year. As soon as the temperature drops by a few degrees they start predicting “the worst winter in living memory,” and carrying articles about the new ice age, complete with artist’s impressions of polar bears stalking Oxford Street. These are kept in the same file as the global warming stories that they regurgitate every summer. According to this theory we will be growing grapes in Scotland and Skegness will be the new Marbella. Our meteorological correspondent predicts a temperate maritime climate with cold spells in January and February, showers in April and a summer heat wave about every ten years.
Mr Yassin Mutegombwa has been charged with terrorism offences relating to a paramilitary training camp at Lyndhurst, Hampshire. Police believe the camp was used to train and indoctrinate young men and to build team spirit. Older readers will remember a similar operation in the early Sixties involving lots of role-playing, makeshift uniforms and attempts at political education. These young revolutionaries were not Muslim extremists but mostly disaffected Tories with a penchant for sturdy footwear. Unlike today’s would-be jihadists these earlier volunteers did not go in for suicide attacks but generally limited their efforts to leaflet bashing and street corner meetings. Nevertheless they were charged and received prison sentences. The happy campers of the Sixties were British and could not be deported, but people with names like Mutegombwa are presumably foreigners who could, and should be sent back to their own countries.
Churchill on Europe
Tory leader Dave Cameron recently described UKIP as “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists.” The eurosceptics like to claim Sir Winston Churchill as one of their own, but this is not supported by the facts. Churchill was born in the reign of Queen Victoria and fought for the British Empire in Sudan and South Africa. He was undoubtedly an imperialist but he was also a keen student of history with an understanding of world affairs and the capacity to adjust his outlook to the changing world situation.
To Neville Chamberlain Czechoslovakia was “a far away country of which we know nothing,” but Churchill knew plenty about the Czech crisis and realized that we would need American help to defeat a resurgent Germany. Before the rise of the totalitarian systems the unity of European civilization had been taken for granted. Churchill, like Mosley, belonged to this intellectual tradition and was never an anti-European. When the French front collapsed in 1940 he immediately proposed the union of France and Britain. And after the war when Britain was heavily dependent on America he still embraced the European ideal; speaking in Zurich in 1946 he called for: “A United States of Europe,” and in Brussels in 1949 he said: “The Europe we seek to unite is all Europe.”
When Jean Monnet founded the European Coal and Steel Community, forerunner of the European Union, in 1951 Churchill was not in favour of joining. According to his cabinet colleague Ted Heath this was because of timing and circumstances rather than principles. Churchill knew that Britain could not remain an imperial power forever, and like Charles de Gaulle he recognized the inevitability of European Union. But postwar Europe was still in ruins and could not compete with the booming economy or the military might of America, or withstand an attack from the Soviet Union. It would be another twenty-two years before Ted Heath led Britain into the EU.
Churchill clearly understood Britain’s delicate position in the world of the superpowers.
At the historic Tehran Conference in 1943 he recorded the gravity of the situation: “There I sat, with the great Russian bear on one side of me, with paws outstretched, and on the other side the great American buffalo, and between the two sat the poor little English donkey who was the only one who knew the way home.”
Many conservative-minded Britons share Churchill’s mixed feelings about Europe and America. The British Empire has gone and although we still have ties of blood and culture with the white dominions it is too late to reconstitute the Commonwealth. We share our language with America and cherish the “special relationship” that was so important during, and after the war, but our membership of the European Union is vital to our economy, and America has gone from being a defender of the weak to being an aggressive and expansionist power. In time American belligerence will be constrained by economic reality and an accommodation will be reached between the emerging power blocs. Churchill himself suggested as much when he wrote in 1958: “The future is unknowable, but the past should give us hope. Nor should we seek to define the exact terms of ultimate union.”