John Bean’s Nationalist
Notebook
John
Bean has been writing political articles for a very long time. He began in 1955
with issue number one of National Unity,
a duplicated publication aimed at former members of Andrew Fountaine’s
short-lived National Front movement. At that time immigrants from the West
Indies were being recruited by London Transport and the National Health Service
and JB was alarmed:
“The capital ...was incessantly filled with subjects and strangers from every part of the world, who all introduced and enjoyed the favourite superstitions of their native country. Thus Gibbons in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire described Rome in the third century AD as it entered its period of decline. This description could be as aptly applied to the capital of that second great Empire; the British Empire.”
He started his writing career with an article on immigration and he has pursued the subject ever since. In 1958 he launched Combat as the official organ of the ‘National Labour Party’. The front page headline, ‘The Martyrs of Notting Hill’, reported the conviction of nine young men involved in the Notting Hill race riots. They were each sentenced to five years imprisonment and fined £500, which was a lot of money in the fifties. Bean criticized the judge in the case.
“We
do not doubt that Mr Justice Salmon is a very competent judge for dealing with
cases of alleged share fiddling by financiers, but as a Jew, it is our opinion
that he should not have presided over this case. The case centred on the
antipathy of representatives of one race towards another, and the whole history
of the Jewish race is interlaced with numerous instances of their embroilments
with other races, such as the events in Germany during the Nazi regime. Justice
Salmon would not be human if this case had not influenced him, unwittingly of
course, in favour of coloured people, also a minority group in this country.”“The capital ...was incessantly filled with subjects and strangers from every part of the world, who all introduced and enjoyed the favourite superstitions of their native country. Thus Gibbons in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire described Rome in the third century AD as it entered its period of decline. This description could be as aptly applied to the capital of that second great Empire; the British Empire.”
He started his writing career with an article on immigration and he has pursued the subject ever since. In 1958 he launched Combat as the official organ of the ‘National Labour Party’. The front page headline, ‘The Martyrs of Notting Hill’, reported the conviction of nine young men involved in the Notting Hill race riots. They were each sentenced to five years imprisonment and fined £500, which was a lot of money in the fifties. Bean criticized the judge in the case.
My favourite piece by John Bean is his front page article from Combat of July 1965:
“Scrap the Coloured Commonwealth: The so-called Commonwealth is no longer just a farce but a positive menace, in that it detracts us from the path we should be pursuing of working for White Dominion and European solidarity. Instead we are now entrameled with the changing whims and fancies of every Afro-Asian despot and no longer able to act in our own interests in the world political scene.
The recent Commonwealth Conference has been a total fiasco and has revealed to all but the most multiracial minded the complete emptiness of the whole concept of this third force. With the old British dominion lands now in a small minority, there is little in ‘common’ and as far as the Afro-Asian majority are concerned its ‘wealth’ is the £180 million a year of the British taxpayers’ money that is handed out to them as loans or gifts.
Wilson’s Useless Peace Mission: Look at the farce of Wilson’s “peace mission” to try and solve the Viet-Nam crisis. The world has been given the spectacle of seeing Britain’s “leader” rebuked by Afro-Asian Prime Ministers for being too anti-Communist on Viet-Nam; with others even criticising Britain’s right to lead the mission. Now Peking, Hanoi and Moscow have treated this “great plan” with scorn and refuse to see the mission, whoever leads it.
Abuse on Rhodesia: Then Britain was abused – together with Australia for supporting us – by the same African crypto-Communist Dictators such as Nkrumah and President Nyerere of Tanzania for refusing to send British troops into Rhodesia to attack our own kinsmen. And for refusing to flood the country with unrestricted immigration came forth further abuse.
No wonder the average Briton today is so completely apathetic about the role Britain should be taking in the world. The utter futility of this multi-racial rag-bag is obvious: yet official Labour, Tory and liberal policy is to keep us tied to it. No alternative is offered by any of them.
The British National Party says scrap it now! Return these Afro-Asian “Commonwealth citizens” to their own fully independent lands with fares paid and resettlement grants where necessary.
The True Third Force: Let us build up a Union of Britain, Australia, New Zealand, a British and French-Canadian Federation, Rhodesia and South Africa. Then let this Union be the cornerstone of a European Confederation. Here we will have a true Third Force, with the major part of our raw materials, markets for our manufactured goods and a productive capacity and population equal to that of the United States and the Soviet Union together.
We can present a resolute barrier to any further encroachment of Communism – a barrier that will be vital against Red Chinese expansion of the future – and at last work in friendship and true co-operation with the American people and not exist as lackeys of the US money power as we are today.”
Combat served the National Labour Party, the 1960s British National Party and eventually the National Front. But the leadership of the NF rejected JB’s support for European Confederation and Workers’ Partnership. He commented in Combat:
“It will be seen that with the possible exception of the point on the Commonwealth and, in my view, the unfortunate dropping of the BNP proposal of a European Confederation, NF policy is basically the same as that of the BNP”.
JB dropped out of the NF and devoted the next twenty years to earning a living. He made two television appearances in the nineties; ‘Timewatch’ in April 1995 and ‘Windrush’ in September 1997. His first book ‘Ten Miles from Anywhere’ was published in 1995, followed by ‘Many Shades of Black’ in 1999. He also wrote occasionally for Spearhead; in 2000 he was complaining about the publishing industry:
“Undoubtedly, other nationalists will have tried their hands at novels, autobiographies or simple commentaries on politics. Some such works will have been rubbish, but others most certainly would have been much more interesting and better written than many of the 80,000 books that were published last year alone. A great many of these 80,000 books were real rubbish - but of course they were politically correct rubbish. One typical of the genre would contain the theme of the traumatic experiences of a one-legged, tone-deaf half-West Indian Negro whose Jewish mother had played lead violin in the Auschwitz camp orchestra. My first experience of publishers and their literary agents was in 1995, when I wrote Ten Miles from Anywhere: a Suffolk Chronicle. This book had two major themes. There was a background of Suffolk village life from the beginning of the 20th century, as related through the words of villagers; then there was a look at changes that had taken place over the past 25 years, chartered as they occurred.”
‘Many Shades of Black’ became a standard work of reference for students of minority politics. In it JB described his progress from Union Movement to the National Front but stoped just short of his 2003 appointment as editor of Identity, the glossy magazine of Nick Griffin’s ill-fated BNP. Before he joined the BNP he started an independent blog called ‘John Beanstalk’ which ran from 2002 to 2007. This is from 2002:
“Either through historical ignorance or as part of the liberal-left’s socio-political agenda, teachers, TV and radio programme producers and newspaper columnists are telling our youth that prior to the great Afro-Asian invasion of the second half of the twentieth century, the people of the British Isles were already an admixture of many different races. Celts, most Roman legionnaires, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans, Huguenot refugees, were all varied tribes of the common North European race and all came from within a few hundred miles of each other. Their arrival on these shores bears no comparison with the post 1948 mass immigration phenomenon.”
John Bean stayed with the BNP when most of its leading members had either resigned or been expelled. Finally he wrote to Nick Griffin suggesting a way out. His letter was posted on Eddie Butler’s blog:
“August 28th 2010. Dear Nick, Whilst I am conscious of the fact that my age and personal circumstances has mainly limited my activities in promoting the BNP to editing Identity magazine for over seven years, fifty years experience of British Nationalism has brought me to the following conclusion on the BNP’s future.
The British National Party must be forever grateful for the work you put in over the past decade which lifted the Party out of the doldrums of the latter end of the Tyndall era and has made its name a household word.
However, it must be recognised that a major mistake was made by allowing the Midas Agency so much control of the Party. No matter how much one plays with words, the fact that the BNP now has debts in excess of £500,000, which of course is not all your making. Unlike the Labour Party’s ‘debt’ which is really loans made by the Unions and others, the BNP’s hard debts are for goods and services. The Party is haemorrhaging membership and is receiving abysmal voting percentages of 2-3% at recent council by-elections. It must also face the fact that as an unregistered company a court could decide we are insolvent and recommend that the BNP be wound up.
It is highly likely that an opposition Nationalist party will shortly be formed which would draw off more disgruntled BNP members, with the result that neither such a new party nor the present BNP would gain a parliamentary seat within the next ten years – and time is not on our side. One step that would halt, or at least limit, this splitting of energies would be for you to recognise the veracity of the adage “the buck stops here” and resign as Chairman of the Party in the near future, as opposed to your intention of doing so three years hence. This would not only reduce the loss of more members, but enable you to regain the respect that we all had for you.
Furthermore, it would allow you to concentrate on the North West constituency as the BNP’s MEP and expect the full support of the membership in seeing that you were re-elected.
Needless to say, I wish you well for September 7th both personally and for the Party. I am sure the Court would not be so stupid as to send you to prison.
Yours sincerely, John Bean”
But it was too late. The Party disintegrated and in 2013 a faction led by Andrew Brons formed the British Democratic Party. JB soon had his own column on the BDP website. He called it ‘Nationalist Notebook’; a by-line that he had used in Identity. A recent post concerns the flood of refugees to Germany:
“It is only three weeks ago since Germans and Austrians were greeting the spearhead of the never ending column of alleged ‘Syrian’ refugees with applause, sweets, fruits and pastries. It was, of course, part of the indoctrinated German ‘angst’ to show the world that they are nice people now, good world citizen liberals who wish to disassociate themselves from the horrors that were carried out by some of their grandfathers.
Now, those welcoming faces are missing at Vienna, Munich and other German railway stations, as the German and Austrian ordinary people see the reality of the stupid - if not treacherous - call made by Frau Merkel that Germany would welcome 800,000 refugees, now more likely to be one million. Acting through the EU they expect the rest of Europe to rally to this call for European suicide".
I congratulate my old friend on his staying power. He must have written millions of words and seen several parties and publications come and go but he is still fighting for race and nation. It's fashionable to denigrate the patriotism and sincerity of political writers but John Bean has risen above such criticism. Long may his pen flourish.
This Land is Our Land
Tim Murray - Immigration Watch Canada www.immigrationwatchcanada.org
It has often been argued by the talking heads of the Multicultural and Immigration lobby that Canadians of European descent have no well-founded historical or moral case to assert that their culture should enjoy a predominate place or special status in our nation.
Many go even farther than that. Many argue that Europeans and their Canadian descendants invaded and brutally colonized this country, forcibly appropriating aboriginal land. We are what some radical native activists scathingly call "settlers", occupiers who have no legitimate right to be here - even though many of us are third or fourth generation Canadians. We are told that Europeans did not "discover" or create or build Canada. The land was here before Europeans ever conceived of it.
It has often been argued by the talking heads of the Multicultural and Immigration lobby that Canadians of European descent have no well-founded historical or moral case to assert that their culture should enjoy a predominate place or special status in our nation.
Many go even farther than that. Many argue that Europeans and their Canadian descendants invaded and brutally colonized this country, forcibly appropriating aboriginal land. We are what some radical native activists scathingly call "settlers", occupiers who have no legitimate right to be here - even though many of us are third or fourth generation Canadians. We are told that Europeans did not "discover" or create or build Canada. The land was here before Europeans ever conceived of it.
These arguments are fraught with a logical inconsistency and a confusion of terms.
Firstly, it is illogical to argue, on the one hand, that European colonizers and their descendants have no right to live here because they are occupying “stolen” land, and then to argue on the other hand that that newcomers fresh from the airport should share that “stolen” land as full-fledged Canadian citizens with equal rights and opportunities. If Euro-Canadians have no legitimate right to remain here, why then should the latest batch of foreign migrants be exempt from the same judgement? Why should they be given a pass? If Euro-Canadians can be told, in effect, to “go back where you came from”, why shouldn’t “New Canadians” be told to do the same thing?
There is another contradiction in this line of reasoning. Multiculturalists accord Aboriginals a special status. They are “First Nations”. After all, they were here first – even though a great many tribes came to occupy land by the “ethnic cleansing” and displacement of other tribes. But if Aboriginal Canadians have “seniority” rights over Canadians of European origin, why then should not the latter have “seniority” rights over “New Canadians", the great majority of whom hail from “non-traditional”, that is “non-European” countries? Either there should be a hierarchy of citizenship – or cultures – or there should not. But the Multicultural lobby is having it both ways, and Euro-Canadians are not “having it” at all. They are not acknowledged to be a founding culture, nor are they accorded the right to compete for job placements based on merit – recently arrived “visible minorities” are able to leap-frog into coveted positions in the name of employment “equity”. In other words, Euro-Canadians have neither seniority rights nor equal opportunity. They are the “ham” in the ham sandwich of “diversity”.
The Multicultural “Party line” needs to be de-constructed.
Yes, the "land" was here before Europeans arrived. In fact, it was here before aboriginals first crossed the Bering Strait. But the "land" is not the nation. The "land" is not "Canada". And one can't credibly deny that the British and French were the primary founders of the nation called "Canada". It should also be noted that the newcomers from "non-traditional" sources who arrived in the wake of the pivotal shift to Official Multiculturalism more than four decades ago most probably did so because they found this "nation" of Canada superior to the countries they left. That is to say, it appears that those accursed "White settlers" and their descendants didn't do such a bad job of building this nation after all.
Yet it is the Multicultural project to transform this nation, the nation that immigrants have found so attractive, into something resembling the nations that those immigrants have fled. And it looks as though they are halfway there. In 1981 there were 6 ethnic enclaves in Canada. By 2010 there were 260. Obviously Canada is in the midst of a vast experiment in social engineering. The question we need to ask, as lab rats, is, "Is it really a good thing?" "Diversity", we are constantly told is a strength. In a masterpiece of Orwellian double-speak, the Multicultural lobby assures us that there is "unity in diversity". A look at the rest of the world, however, would not confirm this belief.
You don't believe me? Then ask the people of what used to be Yugoslavia. Ask the people of Syria or Iraq. Ask Ukrainians. Ask Russians. Ask Ruandans, Ask Sri Lankans. Ask just about every people in the world. You don't even have to look far. Take a look at America's experiment with "integration" right now. Look how it descended into tribalism. Look beyond soap operas and movies and the make-belief world that the American media presents. Look at America at the ground level. Look at cities, towns, neighbourhoods and college campuses. You will see clusters of African-Americans over here, clusters of Hispanics over there, and clusters of "whites" sitting or standing alone in the corner. This is not a function of mandated "apartheid", but voluntary segregation. For many parts of America Martin Luther King's dream has not come to pass. In fact, America is growing further apart, and "Coming Apart", as Charles Murray's book of that title suggests. In the words of Coloradan writer Mike Folkerth, "The United States is the most fractured society on earth - the most fractured culture."
The make-belief world that the media presents and the unrelenting torment of state propaganda will not conceal these facts. The spin machine will not ultimately succeed in perpetuating the "Diversity Illusion", as British author Ed West calls it, no more than the Communist state of Yugoslavia succeeded in convincing its citizens and the world at large that its ethnic blocs were living in blissful harmony.
Multiculturalists, of course, insist that Canada is unique. That Canada can make multiculturalism work: that so far it is a roaring success, and is a model for the world to follow. That those who say otherwise are a delusional fringe without credibility, people who need to be excluded from public forums, ostracised or even punished for spreading "hateful" messages. Rather than acknowledge the inherent division which exists between incompatible ethnic groups, they accuse those who point out this division as devisive!
The Communist establishment in the Soviet bloc said similar things about dissidents: that they were insane; that they should be detained in prison or confined to mental asylums. They were tiny anti-social elements who disputed what was obvious: that the socialist state was a Workers' Paradise where all ethnic groups got along.
But suddenly in the late 80s and early 90s the truth came out. The command economy had been a failure, socialism wasn't working and ethnic nationalism was alive and well.
The silenced majority never did buy into the state myth. Seventy years of trying to change human nature proved futile. "In-group" favouritism, a manifestation of which is "ethnic nepotism", is built right into our brains. As Australian sociologist, and author of "Genetic Interest", Frank Salter might say, we are "hard-wired" to bond with people very much like ourselves, to identify with them, and to join with them in pursuing our collective interests.
One would think that Canadian politicians would have taken notice. No Canadian government ever had a mandate to change the ethnic profile of the nation. What Prime Minister MacKenzie King said in 1947 is still true today: "...the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population." Unfortunately, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the Prime Ministers who followed him paid no heed to public opinion in this area, or affected any interest in what the majority of Canadians wished. Once Trudeau instituted Official Multiculturalism in 1971, it soon became a bipartisan policy, a state religion that could not be questioned. And for good measure, it was even entrenched in the Constitution and in the madness of federal public sector institutions, including, most crucially the CBC.
Objective observers of recent Canadian history could be forgiven if they concluded that Multicultural lobbyists are intent on denying that Canada's European heritage has any significance, or that Euro-Canadians have any claim to represent the foundational core of the country. The aim is to marginalize them. That's why many of these Multicultural propagandists are conditioned to think of Europeans as interlopers, a bunch of land-robbers - nothing more, nothing less.
It's time that Canadians knew the truth. Europeans founded this nation. And their descendants have no intention of surrendering it.
European Outlook
Our sister blog is posted on: http://europeanoutlook.blogspot.co.uk
