Monday, 31 July 2017

Nation Revisited # 130, August 2017

All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by 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 ideas with other people."

The Human Condition

Fifty years after the Sexual Offences Act we look at the Human Condition. In 1975 Colin Jordan was convicted of stealing three pairs of red knickers from Tescos. He may have been fitted up by the police - who knows?  A similar story was told by PG Wodehouse in his novel 'The Code of the Woosters' in which Sir Roderick Spode, the leader of the Black Shorts, was revealed to be a secret designer of women's lingerie.

Miss Rotha Lintorn-Orman

Personal foibles are found in all sections of society. Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP in its heyday, was accused of misappropriating the party funds. He was also accused, by Martin Webster, a former organiser of the National Front, of having an affair with him. But in an article entitled "Putting the Record Straight", in "Identity" Dec 2003, Griffin unreservedly condemned homosexuality:

"The vast majority of the party, and of our natural supporters are entirely happy with our position on homosexuality. This. in brief, is that it is not a 'valid lifestyle choice' akin to deciding what colour shirt to wear, but a form of behavioural deviancy with a shocking impact on the health and happiness of many of those who suffer from it.

Additionally, there is clear evidence that homosexuals, even in the modern climate where they are favoured, rather than an oppressed, group, still tend to identify with their own kind, and with other 'minorities', rather than with the nation as a whole. This leads nationalists to an ideological as well as a moral and practical rejection of homosexuality, since any group which sets its own kind up as more important than the nation of which it is a part is divisive and damaging to that nation". 

In practice homosexuality was ignored. The original British Fascists were founded in 1923 by a decorated First World War ambulance driver, Miss Rotha Lintorn-Orman. She was a fearless patriot but, reputedly, a lesbian, an alcoholic, 
and a drug addict.

Oswald Mosley's loyal post-war organiser Alf Flockhart was sent to prison for homosexual offences, and the playwright Joe Orton, who was murdered by his gay lover, was a frequent visitor to the North London branch of Union Movement.

But not everyone was so tolerant. Chris Vernon, writing in John Tyndall's "Spearhead" in August 1999 had this to say:

" The very vocal queer lobby is led and encouraged by so-called 'personalities', including a lot of actors - names and faces familiar to many households, whose addiction to buggery confers upon it some sort of 'respectability' in the minds of more simple folk. Of course, no headway will be made by the pointless crime of 'queer-bashing'. Instead, we need to bring the discussion out into the open - into the pubs and clubs and over the garden fence. We need to quiz our would-be MPs on their views on this subject and reject soft, meaningless answers. Above all, we have to convince society of the pressing need to push these people offstage and assert the morality that made our nation great. If I may revert to my own vernacular of the 1930s, it is time to tell these nancy boys that we have had enough of them! "

Drink was part of the pre-war fascist culture. AK Chesterton was a reformed alcoholic and William Joyce was as drunk as a Lord when he made his final emotional broadcast from Hamburg.

Some Union Movement members had a reputation for drinking but when we meet nowadays for reunions most of our elderly comrades drink halves of bitter or orange juice.
With a couple of notable exceptions, wise heads and weak bladders prevail.

Oswald Mosley seldom touched alcohol but he was an aristocrat and behaved like one. Pre-war country house parties were organised around adultery. Priapic guests in dressing gowns and slippers crept from room to room at night guided by dutiful servants. It was clearly understood among the ruling class that marriages were made strictly for commercial and dynastic reasons.

John Tyndall's only known weakness was for Mars bars but few of us are so blessed.

European Socialism

Oswald Mosley's essay on European Socialism was printed in May 1956 in the German monthly "Nation Europa."  He explains the concept under six headings; Europe a Nation, Government with the power to act, linking production with consumption, rewarding effort, and taxation. He goes on to discuss the Wage Price Mechanism and concludes with an appraisal of Fascism:

"We live in an age of unprecedented opportunity because science has broken so many bonds, and has so greatly enlarged the horizons of men. It seems to me therefore, true to say that we present a new creed to meet new facts. And the emphasis of differences in this discussion between what we advocate and the pre-war policies of Fascism appear merely to prove this point.

It is suggested that the leaders of Fascism and National Socialism, so late as the 1940s had contemplated  some form of European movement  which would transcend nationalism. I will go further and recall from my own experience the very favourable reception they gave to my own advocacy of a united Europe in an article entitled in English "The World Alternative", which was published in Germany by Geo Politik in 1937; so from my own experience I can confirm and pre-date this event. Yet the sad fact  remains, whatever the merits of the dispute or the justice of the cause. Europe was divided and temporarily destroyed shortly afterwards in a fratricidal war which had the narrowest of national origins! Many then had such feelings, but remained the prisoners of their time. It seems to me unnecessary and undesirable in practice to debate at length whether, as I think, and can prove in some detail, we formulate a new creed, or whether fascism with its "doctrine of imminence", "perpetual reappraisal and reorientation" could transform itself sufficiently to become approximately the same thing. It is sufficient to agree: "it is needless to deny that the fascism of 1919 must be inadequate to express the needs of our time"; there we can agree, and further debate would only lose time in splitting hairs. What matters is whether we agree now, and the debate has shown a considerable communion of principle can be developed.

If men in an age of new facts are prepared to find new policies to meet them, they are our natural companions; provided of course, that we hold together that all-important "spiritual kinship". What would have rendered co-operation difficult would have been a tendency in German or Italian friends simply to regard all truth as contained in the original revelations of the Fascist and National Socialist revolutions.  In that event we should have left such Italian and German friends to debate between themselves whether final truth was revealed to man in the year 1922, or in the year 1933, while, in our dull English way, we got on with answering the question of what to do now. But, as the discussion has shown, this view is happily not present to any serious thinkers. I have, however, sometimes come across it during my European travels and labours. It is one of two rival stupidities, as I term them. The first is to say that nothing good came out of fascism or national socialism. To such a crude error the crude answer is: then begin by flooding the Pontine Marshes and ploughing up the Autobahn. The second is to say that the final truth was declared before the war, and that those programmes should never be varied or developed. The second error is nobler because it is born of loyalty which is one of the highest qualities, while the first error is born in spite which is one of the lowest. But they are both errors, and elementary errors. In fact we Europeans are part of an organic process which has already 3,000 years of great history and is moving to ever higher forms. It is at one with nature as are all real things, because nothing can succeed in defiance of nature's laws. Nature works not in steady progression, but in great leaps after long lethargies; and the greatest of all these forward springs is expressed by modern science. That is why for practical purposes all things are new after the cataclysm  which precipitated this great advance. For this reason we must think again; then act most strenuously, and on a greater scale than ever because we have greater possibilities. But we remain in the service of the European spirit in a movement to ever higher forms, which began millennia before us and will continue long after we are gone."

"European Socialism" is available from Steven Books

National Front Immigration Policy

The National Front website features an article by Kevin Layzell (pictured) calling for a ban on immigration and a start to repatriation. The United States and the European nations are deporting illegal immigrants but the leader in this field is Saudi Arabia. Since the fall in the price of oil they have repatriated 2.5 million Indians and are they now dealing with Ethiopians and Filipinos. The Saudis have 9 million immigrants in a population of 31 million. They claim their immigration policies are purely economic but they are not deporting Egyptians, Syrians, or Palestinians - just non-Arabs.

We should adopt the same policy - keep those who share our culture and deport those who do not. Now that Brexit looks likely the NF can concentrate on immigration. We can't put the clock back to 1948, when the infamous British Nationality Act was passed, but we can start by deporting illegal immigrants, convicted criminals, potential terrorists, and volunteers.

Left, Right and Centre

The terms Left and Right date back to the French National Assembly of 1789 when the King's supporters sat on his right and the 'independents' on his left. Today, things are more complicated. The Tories aspire to be the party of the workers, and the Labour Party is trying to appeal to the middle class.

The National Front is supposed to be a right wing party but they believe in the nationalisation of the banks and public services. 

The New Right movement in the UK was pioneered by Troy Southgate, a libertarian who describes himself as a National Anarchist.

The Candour group are monarchists but their founder, AK Chesterton, was a leading member of Oswald Mosley's pre-war movement and a fierce critic of finance capitalism - hardly a right wing position.

The Traditional Britain Group are self-confessed 
conservatives but they are opposed to globalisation. Their Vice President, Gregory Lauder-Frost (pictured), was recently in the news for criticising the appointment of Doreen Lawrence to the House of Lords.

The truth is that politics is a circle. If you keep going left you end up on the right. History seems to bear this out. The Russian Bolsheviks were sheltered by the German Empire. The German National Socialists were financed by big business. The Labour Party invented the slogan "Britain for the British", and the Tories imported most of our non-European workers.

I agree with the National Front on immigration, the Lib Dems on Europe, the Labour Party on nationalisation, the Greens on defence, and the Tories on grammar schools. Many of us find points of agreement in different parties and most of us change our politics as we grow older. The great French poet and novelist Victor Hugo (1802 - 1885) was a monarchist in his youth and a republican in old age. He is remembered for his novels "Les Miserables", and "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame" but he was also an ardent European with the gift of prophesy:

"A day will come when you France, you Russia, you Italy, you Germany, you, all the nations of the continent without losing your distinctive qualities and glorious individuality will be merged within a superior entity."

Parliamentary Democracy is a Fraud - Colin Jordan

Parliamentary Democracy is a fraud: a confidence trick. It is not government genuinely representative of the people and expressive of their will. One fact suffices to prove this, although there is other proof galore.

The great majority of the British people never wanted the Coloured Invasion of their homeland, but it has been imposed on them nevertheless, and laws brought in to compel acceptance of alien occupation and control. What this dishonest system do is to present a deceiving fa├žade of public consideration, deference and accountability, while effectively rigging the situation for the permanent dominance of its beneficiaries by shaping the public mind to its purposes by media indoctrination and by denying facilities to those other than its proprietorial parties and approved elements who are representative of a virtual dictatorship by the real ruling forces in the background.

The Old Parties are but variations, bogus alternatives, within the same system. They put on an act of combat, but really they are a consensus committed to the course of Britain's decline and downfall. All of them support the Coloured Invasion and the enforcement of multiculturalism, and alien influence on our affairs from both within and without. The system sets up from time to time, when it seems advantageous, bogus options such as currently the Referendum Party of the billionaire financier, the Jew Sir James Goldsmith, to side-track and dissipate discontent. This fake puts on an act of standing for British sovereignty against foreign regulation from Brussels, but has nothing to say about and against foreign, including Jewish influence in London conceived by him and his followers as compatible with British sovereignty. Tony Blair and his freshly packaged Labour Party is reckoned most likely to win the 1997 General Election. He is hugely Jewish financed. £500,000 has just been given to him by leading Jewish business men including Sir Trevor Chinn, Britain's biggest motor dealer (Lex Service); Alex Bernstein, former Granada TV chairman; Bob Gavron, publishing millionaire who himself recently gave £500,000 to the party; Sir Emmanuel Kaye, chairman of Lansing Bagnall; and Michael Levy, head of N&G Records.

What of those outside the Old Parties, namely those who accept all of this condemnation of the system and its operators, but who think that the thing to do is to seek to change things by getting a new party elected to power?

These well intentioned people fail to realise that they are doomed to failure by the foreseeable reaction of the power-holders. These may allow them to expend time and money in electioneering so long as they get nowhere near seriously challenging their position, but the moment the new party becomes a real challenge - an almost inconceivable achievement considering its handicaps - the present power holders will most certainly by one unscrupulous means or another halt that new party and put it out of business. Either its functioning will be rendered impossible by the application of every imaginable impediment, or that new party will be criminated as "racist" and it or its electoral participation prohibited.

The one and only right response to this system is to say "No" to it by boycotting the ballot box, not to bolster it by taking part in the next General Election, for electoral participation is to play the party game of our enemies, and so to play into their hands. The one and only way to register your rejection of the whole system which is ruining our race and country is to stay away from the polls and not vote at all. Don't Vote.

European Outlook
Our sister blog is posted at: