Nation Revisited # 183 January 2022

What's The Point?

Anyone looking at the election results of the British nationalist parties in the UK might ask "what's the point." In the 2019 UK general election the Conservatives got 43.6% of the poll, the Labour Party got 32.2%, the Liberal Democrats, got 11.5 %, the Scottish National Party, standing only in Scotland, got 3.9%, the Greens got 2.9%, and the British Nationalists came nowhere. 

For the benefit of overseas readers I should point out that British nationalist parties embrace the four nations of the United Kingdon, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, unlike the Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalist parties that are only concerned with their own countries.  

The first British nationalist party, the British Fascisti, was founded in 1923 by Miss Rotha Lintorn-Orman, almost a hundred years ago, but in all that time we have never had an MP elected to the Westminster parliament.

There are many reasons for this; lingering wartime propaganda, a first-past-the-post system that favours the big parties, unfair media coverage, big business backing of the old gang parties, and so on. But the real reason why we don't succeed in the UK is because the electorate are frightened of strong government in peacetime. They like flag waving and jingoism but they are are horrified by the prospect of identity cards or mass medication. There's an unfortunate streak of anarchy in the British people.

Oswald Mosley's post-war formation, Union Movement, made a bold start in 1948 with the promise of "Europe a Nation", but in 1963 their policy was effectively hijacked by the Tory Party when prime minister Harold Macmillan applied to join the European Economic Community. The Tory Party remained committed to Europe until Boris Johnson saw an opportunity to grab power in 2016.

The National Front staged spectactular marches throughout the country in the 1970s with a policy of stop immigration, start repatriation, and get Britain out of the Common Market. They fielded hundreds of parliamentary candidates, only to see the party collapse in the general election of 1979 when Margaret Thatcher said that she understood people's fears of being "swamped" by immigration.

The British National Party repeated the performance of the National Front twenty years later. This time they were eclipsed by Ukip, a one issue party supported by the popular press that campaigned to get Britain out of the European Union.  At its peak the BNP had scores of local councillors, a member of the London Assembly and two members of the EU Parliament, but it began to collapse in 2009 following leader Nick Griffin's disastrous appearance on the BBC TV program 'Question Time', and within two years it was all over.

Today, there are many little populist-nationalist parties, most of which are little more than a 'leader' and a website. None of them have the slightest chance of getting an MP elected, but people have got a right to their opinions and we need a proper political party to steer youngsters away from dangerous and illegal groups such as National Action.

A proper political party should be registered with the Electoral Commission, it should publish its accounts on time, and comply with the law. If laws are unjust they should be campaigned against, but they shouldn't be broken. And members should study history and economics instead of wasting their time on fantasy projects such as resurrecting the Empire or deporting ten percent of our population.

We are entering an economic recession as a result of the pandemic and the dislocation brought about by Brexit. This should benefit the Labour Party but the electorate turned against them because of the vicious media campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, and they are turning against the Tory Party because of Boris Johnson's clownish behaviour and dishonesty. This impasse could be the opportunity that we have long been waiting for.

Recovery

The Coronavirus pandemic has killed five million people worldwide and wrecked national economies. You may believe, as I do, that it's a natural virus, or you may think that it''s a plot by George Soros, Bill Gates, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and their alleged Satanic paedophile ring. But whatever the reason, in the words of the song we will have to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves down, and start all over again.

The Coronavirus pandemic had the same impact as a war. It took 20 years for the UK to recover from WW2, and it will probably take just as long to get over the current disaster. We were greatly helped by the American Marshall Plan after the last war but the US is unlikely to come to our aid this time.

They say that it's safer to be on a big ship in a storm but we disembarked from the European Union just as the first clap of thunder was heard. 

The mind-boggling sums of money borrowed by the government to combat the virus and protect the economy will have to be paid back. In Hindu mythology Rishi is a wise man, but our Chancellor Rishi Sunak is unwise to predict that taxes will soon come down. The recovery will spark inflation as wages rise to meet escalating food and fuel prices. This will come as a shock to a generation of mortgage payers that have never known inflation. And it will add to the cost of government borrowing. Far from coming down we can expect taxes to increase.

Not so long ago, in the days of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, they used to talk about shrinking the State and having less government, but we are now heading in the opposite direction. The wartime situation brought about by the pandemic has forced an increase in government. In order to borrow billions of pounds our government has grown in scope and power and the Conservative dream of individual responsibility has faded. We are entering uncharted waters.

Sam Dickson

Thanks Bill,

I am honoured to be quoted by you.

I especially liked the article on AK Chesterton. 

When I was at college (some 50+ years ago), I subscribed to the newsletter 'Candour'.

The article I remember best in it was entitled "This Man is Dangerous."

It was a review of a silly book purportedly exposing the Jews and the Illuminati by an author who may still be alive so I won't mention him because I don't wanr to get dragged into a fight with a nut. (Old English proverb: "Argue with a fool? Who is the greater fool?")

Chesterton quoted one nutty passage after another. He also noted the ludicrous factual, historical mistakes. The author had Marlborough in command of the British army at Waterloo for one such goofiness.

Chesterton concluded with a point that I have never forgotten.

Why is it that antisemites choose to embrace such goofy , baseless claims as the author of this book when it has to be admitted that there is a trove of indisputably true information to support their position?

I see this at work all the time. People uoting impossible "facts." Repeating long refuted claims. All the while ignoring the conclusive evidence that proves us right.

I still hope some day to get back to the UK before I die. (I'm 75.) If so, I hope we can have a personal meet-up.

I am going to Egypt with my much older brother who is well into his 80s. We are to go on a Nile cruise the first 10 days of December.  

Jared Taylor and his wife are going with the same tour group. 

The group itinerary calls for us to fly to London and change planes there to get the plane to Cairo.

Jared has been informed by the British "Mother of the Free" government that he is banned from the UK. They will not permit him so much as to change planes in the international terminal at the airport. He and his wife will have to fly through Frankfurt.

After some thought I wrote to the British Embassy by email a week  ago to ask if I am also on the banned list.

I'm still waiting to hear. My fear is that they may have found that I'm not on the list  and are looking into whether I aught to be.

Jared thinks that I made a mistake by asking but I could not afford the risk of being turned back in London and having my brother to have to go on unaccompanied. 

I hope that I am still allowed to visit the UK.

I will soon know.

Sam

Oversensitivity

The persecution of the Uyghars in China is universally condemned, and so is the mistreatment of the Rohingyas in Myanmar, but any mention of the miserable fate of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territoties prompts accusations of  antisemitism. This oversensitivity is partly to do with the  Hollocaust. The concentration camps were liberated 77 years ago but Christians still feel a collective guilt that makes them sympathetic to the Jews. This is particularly true of the Protestant nations but they don't get the same consideration in Latin America. This may cause a change in American foreign policy as immigrants from south of the Rio Grande continue to seek a better life. They have no feelings of guilt about the Hollocaust and would not be so ready to contribute billions of taxpayers' dollars to the Zionist state.

The Black Lives Matter movement is another case of oversensitivity. Anyone refusing to 'take the knee' is accused of racism, but people are fed up with being pushed around by extremists who attack the police and tear down our statues. There should be no place for racism in sport and there should  be no place for political posturing.

The Yorkshire County Cricket Club has been accused of racism because one of its members used the P word, When India was partitioned in 1948 they needed a name for the new Muslim state. They took the initial letters of the neighbouring states; Persia, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and India to spell Paki, and added 'stan' which means country. There is nothing racist about it, but the P word is banned along with the N word and the highly offensive Y word. 

On the other hand, the once taboo C word can now be used, as well as the ubiquitous F word. Homosexuals used to be known by the Q word but they have now reclaimed it and wear it as a badge of honour. And the same thing is happening to the N word which some black people use to describe themselves. Perhaps the P word will undergoe the same rehabilitation?

For the record: I dislike racial hatred and petty nationalism, but we should not excuse war crimes and hooliganism because people have suffered in the past. We were all slaves at some point in history. 

Parliamentary Reform

                              

Parliament has been rocked by new corruption disclosures. Another MP has been caught taking bribes and a donation to the Tory Party of £3 million has been quoted as the price of a peerage. Nothing has changed since Hilaire Belloc and Cecil  Chesterton wrote 'The Party System' in 1911.

"The Sale of Legislative Power

The ordinary method of replenishing the Party Funds is by the sale of peerages, baronetcies, knighthoods, and other honours in return for subscriptions. This traffic is notorious. Everyone acquainted in the smallest degree with the inside of politics knows that there is a market for peerages in Downing Street, as he knows that there is a market for cabbages in Covent Garden; he could put his finger upon the very names of the men who have bought their “honours.” Yet the ordinary man is either ignorant of the truth or only darkly suspects it. And most of those who know about it are afraid to bring the facts to light by quoting names and instances, because the administration of our law of libel weighs the scales of justice heavily in favour of the rich, and because a particular case could only be proved if one were able to do – what one would not perhaps be allowed to do – to subpoena the party managers and demand that the party accounts should be brought into court."

The more or less open sale of peerages came to a head in 1925 when Maundy Gregory, who was David Lloyd George's broker, was charged under the Prevention of Abuses Act, but the practice continues to the present day.

We need sweeping parliamentary reform to weed out the bribe takers, and we need to trim down the whole operation. We don't need 650 members of the House of Commons when the US House of Representatives manages with 435. And we don't  need over 800 members of the House of Lords when the US Senate has just 100 members, in a country with almost five times our population.

Our first-past-the-post electoral system is blatantly unfair, The Liberal Democrats have only got 12 MPs but under a truly representative system they would have 39.

Our upper chamber, the House of Lords, what Jack Lelieve of the original BNP used to refer to as: "that once august establishment", is a total anarchronism. Lords are appointed by the ruling party for services rendered, instead of being elected by the people. Their number should be limited to 100 and they should all sit as independents.

The House of Commons should also be trimmed down to a managable size. MPs should make greater use of modern technology and electronic voting should replace the old-fashioned system that involves MPs shuffling into lobbies to be counted.

Parliamentary language is another relic of the past. All MPs are 'honourables', members of the Privy Council are 'right honourables', lawyers are 'learned members', and members of the armed forces are 'gallant members'. Tradition is all very well but we must move with the times.

Nation Revisited

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."