Nation Revisited, # 112 February 2016

Why Two Blogs?

Nation Revisited has been brought out of retirement to compliment European Outlook. Both blogs have been redesigned for use with smartphones and tablets but the message stays the same; we stand for social justice and European solidarity. 

The Referendum

Dave Cameron has negotiated some cosmetic changes to the European Union in a doomed attempt to placate his Euro-sceptic faction. He is wasting his time because they are opposed to European unity on principle and nothing short of withdrawal would satisfy them. But whatever happens in the referendum we can thank God that we are not where we were 100 years ago when Europeans were slaughtering each other in the trenches of the First World War; or 25 years later when we did it all again in the Second World War.

Today all the states of Europe, apart from Russia and her close allies, are in the EU except Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, which are tied to the EU by treaty, and Serbia and Ukraine that are awaiting membership. Even if Britain leaves the EU we will still be Europeans. The anti-EU campaigners want us to break away from Europe but they cannot change our history, geography, race and culture. 

Nigel Farage wants Britain to quit the EU and restore our links with the Commonwealth. His nostalgia for the "good old days" is reflected in his personality. He wears trilby hats and old-fashioned overcoats with velvet collars. And he is usually photographed with a cigarette in one hand and a pint of beer in the other. He is living in the past and wants us to join him.  

Millions of words have been written on the subject of European unity but few have captured the essence of the subject like Julius Evola. 

Spiritual and Structural Presuppositions of the European Union - Julius Evola

Circumstances have rendered the need for European unity imperative on our continent. Until now, this need has been fuelled principally by negative factors: the nations of Europe seek a defensive unity, not so much on the basis of anything positive and pre-existing, as because of the lack of any other choice in the face of the threatening pressure of non-European blocs and interests. This circumstance makes it difficult to see the inner form of any possible real European unity very clearly. Thought seems not to go much beyond the project of a coalition or federation, which at such, will always have an extrinsic, aggregative, rather than organic, character. A unity which would really be organic could only be conceived on the basis of the formative force from inside and from above which is peculiar to a positive idea, a common culture, and a tradition. If we look at the European problem in these terms, it is clear that the situation is painful, and that problematic factors prevent us from indulging in an easy optimism.

Many have drawn attention to these aspects of the European problem. In this respect, a significant work is that of U. Varange, entitled Imperium (Westropa Press, London, 1948, 2 vol.). A further examination of the difficulties which we have mentioned can be based upon this book.

Varange does not propose to defend the project of European unity in purely political terms; rather he bases himself on the general philosophy of history and civilisation which he derives from Oswald Spengler. The Spenglerian conception is well known; according to it there is no singular and universal development of 'culture' , but history both builds up and crushes down, in distinct and yet parallel cycles, various 'cultures', each of which constitutes an organism and has its own phases of youth, development, senescence, and decline, as do all organisms. More precisely, Spengler distinguishes in every cycle a period of 'culture' (Kultur) from a period of 'civilisation' (Zivilisation). The first is found at the origins, at the sign of quality, and knows form, differentiation, national articulation and living tradition; the second is the autumnal and crepuscular phase, in which destructions of materialism and rationalism take place and the society approaches mechanicalness and formless grandeur, culminating in the reign of pure quantity. According to Spengler, such phenomena occur fatally in the cycle of any 'culture'. They are biologically conditioned. 

Up to this point, Varange follows Spengler, considering the European world, in accordance with Spengler's conception, as one of these organisms of 'culture', endowed with its own life, developing an idea which is its own, and following a destiny which is specific to it. Moreover, he follows him in stating that the phase of its cycle through which Europe and the West is currently passing is that of 'civilisation'. However, in opposition to Spengler, who had accordingly launched the new formula of 'the decline of the West', he tries to turn the negative into the positive, to make the best of things, and to speak about new forces which would follow an imperative of rebirth, invoking values irreducible to materialism and
rationalism. This cyclical development, beyond the ruins of the world of yesterday and the civilisation of the nineteenth century, would push Europe towards a new era: an era of "absolute politics", of supernationality and Authority, and therefore also of the Imperium. To follow this biological imperative in the age of civilisation, or to perish, would be Europe's only alternatives. 

Accordingly, not only the scientistic and materialistic conception of the universe, but also liberalism and democracy, communism and the UN, pluralistic states and nationalist particularism - all these would be relegated to the past. The historical imperative would be to realise Europe as a nation-culture-race-state unit, based upon a
resuscitatory principle of authority and upon new, precise,
biological discriminations between friend and enemy, ownworld and alien, "barbarian" world.

It is necessary to give a good idea of what Varange calls "culture pathology", because this will be useful to our aims. The accomplishment of the inner and natural law of culture-as-organism can be obstructed by processes of distortion (culture-distortion) when alien elements within it direct its energies towards actions and goals which have no connection to its real and vital needs and instead play into the hands of external forces. This finds direct application in the field of wars, since the true alternative is not, according to Varange, between war and peace, but between wars useful and necessary to a culture, and wars which alter and break it up. The second is the case, not when we go to the battlefield against a real enemy, which threatens biologically the material and spiritual organism of our culture, in which case only a 'total war' is conceivable, but when a war of this type bursts within a culture, as has actually happened to the West in the two last cataclysms. In these cataclysms, leaders of European nations themselves have favoured the ruin of Europe and the fatal subjection of their homelands to foreign peoples and "barbarians", of the East and of the West, rather than intending to co-operate in the construction of a new Europe which would go beyond the world of the nineteenth century and reorganise itself under new symbols of authority and of sociality. The fatal, and now quite visible, effect of this has not been the victory of some European nations over others, but that of anti-Europe, of Asia and America, over Europe as a whole.

This accusation is aimed specifically at England, but is extended by Varange to America, since he maintains that the whole system of American political interventionism developed as a result of a "culture distortion", directing itself towards purposes devoid of organic relation to any vital national necessity.

Given this state of affairs, and the increasing tempo of
disintegration, the challenge for the West is that of recognising the biological imperative corresponding to the present phase of its cycle: that of going beyond division into states and of bringing about the unity of the European nation-state, and combining all its forces against anti-Europe.

This task, in its first stage, will be internal and spiritual. Europe must get rid of its traitors, parasites, and "distorters". It is necessary that European culture cleanse itself of the residues of the materialistic, economistic, rationalistic and egalitarian conceptions of the nineteenth century. In its second stage, the renewed unity of Europe as civilisation or culture will have to find expression in a related political unity, to be pursued even at the cost of civil wars and of struggles against the powers which want to maintain Europe under their own control. Federations, customs unions, and other economic measures cannot constitute solutions; it is from an inner imperative that unity should arise: an imperative which is to be realised even if it appears to be economically disadvantageous, since economic criteria can no longer be considered as determinative in the new era. In the third stage, it will become possible and necessary to attack the problem of the necessary space for the excess population of the European nation, for which Varange sees the best solution as an outlet towards the East, where currently, under the mask of communism, the power of races biologically, immemorially, hostile to Western culture gathers and organises itself.

This takes us far enough into the ideas of Varange for our current purposes. Let us now evaluate them.

The fundamental symbolism Varange evokes is that of the Imperium, and of a new principle of authority. Nevertheless we do not think that he sees quite clearly what this symbolism involves, if it is to be adopted as it should be; he does not discern the discrepancy between this symbolism and the inherent character of the late phase or 'Zivilisation' of a culture, in our case of the European one.

In our opinion, Varange is certainly correct when he announces the inadequacy of every federalist or merely economic solution of the European problem. As we have already said, a true unity can only be of the organic type, and for this the plan is quite well-known: it is that already realised, for example, in the European medieval oecumene. It embraces both unity and multiplicity and is embodied in a hierarchical participatory system. What this requires us to overcome and to leave behind is nationalism, in the sense of schismatic absolutisation of the particular; we must overpass, or retreat from, this to the natural concept of nationality. Within any national space, a process of integration should then occur - politically - which would co-ordinate its forces into a hierarchical structure and establish an order based on a central principle of authority and sovereignty. The same thing should then repeat itself in the supra-national space, in the European space in general, in which we will have the nations as partial organic unities gravitating into a "unum quod non est pars" (to use the Dantesque expression), that is to say into the field of a principle of authority hierarchically superior to each of them. This principle, to be such, should necessarily transcend the political field in the narrow sense, should be based upon itself alone, and should legitimise itself by means of an idea, a tradition, and a spiritual power. Then only would arise the Imperium: the free, organic, and manly European unity, really free from all levelling, liberalistic, democratic, chauvinistic, or collectivistic ideologies, presenting itself, by virtue of this achievement, in a precise separation from both 'East' and 'West', that is to say from the two blocs which, like the arms of a single pair of pincers, are closing themselves around us.

Therefore, the premise of an eventual development of this type is not the dissolution of the nations into a single nation, in a sort of socially homogenous single European substance, but the hierarchical integration of every nation. True organic unity, as opposed to mere mixture, is realised not through the bases, but through the summits. Once the nationalistic hubris, which is always accompanied by demagogic, collectivistic, and schismatic forces, is broken, and the individual nations are configured hierarchically, there will exist a virtual unification which will extend itself beyond the nations, while nevertheless leaving them their natural individuality and form.

In this way everything would proceed ideally. The trouble, however, is that the natural context for such an accomplishment is that of a world which is in the phase of 'Kultur', not of 'Zivilisation' - to use the Spenglerian terminology. Writers such as Varange mix things belonging to distinct planes, falling into a mistake to which Mussolini also once exposed himself. Mussolini, probably not knowing
Spengler's major works, read his 'Jahre der Entscheidung' and was struck by the prognosis of a new Caesarism or Bonapartism: this is why he wanted the book to be translated into Italian. However, he did not understand the position in which, according to Spengler, formations of this type fall in the cyclic development of cultures : it is when the world of tradition collapses, when 'Kultur' no longer exists, but only 'Zivilisation', when the qualitative values have fallen and the formless element of the 'mass' takes the upper hand. It is only then, in the autumnal or crepuscular phase of a cycle, that the nations disappear and great supranational aggregates are born, under the mark of a pseudo-caesarism, of a centralised personal power, in itself formless, lacking a superior chrism. All this is only a twisted and inverted image of the Imperium in the traditional and genuine sense; it is not empire, but "imperialism", and, in the Spenglerian view, it represents a last flash, which is followed by the end - the end of a culture, which may be followed by a new and different one without any link of continuity with the precedent.

Now, when Varange speaks of the new period of "absolute politics" and of the blocs which, once the nations of the same culture are absorbed into a single organism, should have as their sole desideratum that of the absolute, existential distinction of enemy and friend (a view taken from Carl Schmitt, who had defined in these terms the essence
of the purely political modern units) and of the pure biological imperative, we still remain on the plane of 'Zivilisation' and of collectivistic, 'totalitarian' processes, to be judged more as subnational than as really supranational, whose closest and most consistent realisation today can be found in the realm of Stalinism. Now, it is clear that if the unity of Europe can realise itself only in these terms, i.e., by means of its own brute strength, then the West can perhaps resist the world and reassert itself materially or biologically, as against the extra-European imperialistic powers, but, at the same time, it will have renounced its own interiority, and this will be the end of Europe, of the European tradition ; it will become a facsimile of its opponents, a mere product of the plane of the struggle of a brute will to existence and power, under the sway of the general factors of disintegration peculiar to the technicist-mechanicist 'Zivilisation' which will subsequently overtake all. This is more or less the prognosis made also by Burnham in his consideration of the eventual results of what he calls "the managerial revolution" at work.

What other possibilities are there? It is not easy to say. As far as the nations are concerned, each can maintain its actual individuality and the dignity of an organic 'partial whole', while at the same time subordinating itself to a superior order, only under the conditions already indicated: that is, if a really superior authority, one which is not simply political, and which cannot be monopolised by any individual nation in terms of 'hegemonism', is directly recognised by it. The alternative which is defined in material terms of usefulness and external necessity is merely extrinsic and quite trivial. The current 'authorities' speak willingly of European tradition, of European culture, of Europe as an autonomous organism, and so forth, but unfortunately, when we consider things as they really are, in the light of absolute values, we see that there is little more to this than slogans and sententiousness. Where, then, can we find an avenue of approach to the higher possibility? 

On a higher plane, the soul for a European supranational bloc would have to be religious: religious not in an abstract sense but with reference to a precise and positive spiritual authority. Now, even leaving aside the more recent and general processes of secularisation and of laicisation which have occurred in Europe, nothing like this exists today on our continent. Catholicism is merely the belief of some European nations - and besides we have seen how, in an incomparably more favourable period than the present one, namely the post-Napoleonic one, the Holy Alliance, with which the idea of a traditional and manly solidarity of the European nations dawned, was such only nominally, it lacked a true religious chrism, a universal, transcendent, idea. If in the same way the 'new Europe' were to offer only a generic Christianity, it would be too little, it would be something too shapeless and uniform, not exclusively European, which could not be monopolised by European culture. What is more, some doubts cannot but arise regarding the reconcilability of pure Christianity with a "metaphysics of the empire", as is shown by the medieval conflict between the two powers [of emperor and pope - ed.], if this conflict is understood in its true terms.

Let us leave this plane and pass to the cultural plane. Can we speak today of a differentiated European culture? Or, better, of a spirit which remains unique throughout its various and syntonic expressions in the cultures of the individual European nations? Again, it would be foolhardy to answer in the affirmative, for the reason C. Steding has shown in a well-known book entitled "The Reich and the Disease of European Culture". This reason lies in what this author calls the neutralisation of the present culture, a culture no longer appropriate to a common political idea, confined to the private realm, transitory, cosmopolitan, disorientated, anti-architectonic, subjective, neutral, and formless overall because of its scientistic and positivistic aspects. To ascribe all this to a "culture pathology", to an outward and fleeting action of "distortion" by alien elements, as Varange would hold to be the cause of this state of affairs, not only for Europe, but even for America, is rather simplistic. In general, where can a cultural base differentiated enough to be able to oppose itself seriously to the "alien", the "barbarian", be found today, in this phase of 'Zivilisation', and where could it be found in the case of previous imperial spaces? We would have to go a long way back, in our work of cleansing and of re-integration, to arrive at such a base, because, although we are certainly right to judge aspects of both the North-American and the Russian-Bolshevik civilisations as barbarian and anti-European, we cannot lose sight of the fact that these aspects themselves represent, in both the former and the latter, the extreme development of tendencies and evils which first manifested themselves in Europe. It is precisely in this that the reason of the weak immunity of the latter against them lies.

Finally, in the situation we are reduced to today, even as far
as 'tradition' is concerned, there is a misunderstanding. It has already been a long time since the West knew what "tradition" was in the highest sense; the anti-traditional spirit and the Western spirit have been one and the same thing since as early as the period of the Renaissance. 'Tradition', in the complete sense, is a feature of the periods which Vico would call "heroic ages" - where a sole formative force, with metaphysical roots, manifested itself in customs as well as in religion, in law, in myth, in artistic creations, in short in every particular domain of existence. Where can the survival of tradition in this sense be found today? And, specifically, as European tradition, great, unanimous, and not peasant or folkloric, tradition? It is only in the sense of the levelling 'totalitarianism' that tendencies towards political-cultural absolute unity have appeared. In concrete terms, the "European tradition" as culture has nowadays as content only the private and more or less diverging interpretations of intellectuals and scholars in fashion: of this, yesterday, the "Volta Congresses", and, today, various initiatives of the same type have given sufficient and distinctly unedifying proofs.

From these considerations and others of the same kind, we reach a single, fundamental conclusion: a supranational unity with positive and organic features is not conceivable in a period of 'Zivilisation.' In such a period, what is conceivable, at the limit, is the melting of nations into a more or less formless power bloc, in which the political principle is the ultimate determinant and subordinates to itself all moral and spiritual factors, either as the 'telluric' world of the "world revolution" (Keyserling), or as the world of "absolute politics" in the service of a biological imperative (Varange), or again as totalitarian complexes in the hands of managers (Burnham), all of which have already become matters of
common experience. Unity in function of 'tradition' is something very different from this. 

Should we then reach a negative conclusion regarding the situation and content ourselves with a more modest, federalist, 'social' or socialistic idea? Not necessarily, because, once the antithesis is noted, all we really need to do is to orientate ourselves accordingly. If it is absurd to pursue our higher ideal in the context of a 'Zivilisation', because it would become twisted and almost inverted, we can still recognise, in the overcoming of what has precisely the character of 'Zivilisation', the premise for every really reconstructive initiative. 'Zivilisation' is more or less
equivalent to "modern world", and, without deluding ourselves, it is necessary to acknowledge that, with its materialism, its economism, its rationalism, and the other involutive and dissolutive factors, the West - let us say Europe - is eminently responsible for the "modern world". In the first place, a revival needs to take place which would have an effect upon the spiritual plane, awakening new
forms of sensibility and of interest, and so also a new inner style, a new fundamental homogeneous orientation of the spirit. To this effect, it is necessary to realise that it is not just a matter of, as Varange would have it, going beyond the vision of life of the nineteenth century in its various aspects, because this vision is itself the effect of more remote causes. Then, as regards the biological interpretation of culture by Spengler, precise reservations must be made; above all we must refrain from believing, with the author that we have considered, in an almost inevitable revival which would be heralded by various symptoms. In fact, we must avoid leaning beyond measure on the ideas of the revolutionary and reforming movements of yesterday, since the fact is that different tendencies, sometimes even contradictory tendencies, were present in them, which could only have attained any positive form if circumstances had allowed these movements to develop totalistically, whereas in actuality they were crushed by their military defeat."

Overall, politically speaking, the crisis of the principle of
authority seems to us to constitute the most serious difficulty. Let us repeat that we speak of authority in the true sense, which is such as to determine not only obedience, but also natural adherence and direct recognition. Only such authority can lead the elements within a nation to overcome individualism and 'socialism', and, in the pan-European area, to reduce the nationalistic hubris, the "sacred prides", and the stiffening of the principle of individual state sovereignty, in a manner better than mere necessity or circumstantial
interest can do. If there is something specifically peculiar to the Aryo-Western tradition it is the spontaneous joining together of free men proud of serving a leader who is really such. The only way to a real European unity is via something which repeats on a large scale such a situation, of a 'heroic' nature, not that of a mere 'parliament' or a facsimile of a joint stock society.

This brings into view the mistake of those who admit a sort of
political agnosticism to the European idea, thus reducing it to a of formless common denominator: a centre of crystallisation is needed, and the form of the whole cannot but reflect itself in that of the parts. On a background which is not that of 'civilisation', but that of tradition, this form can only be the organic-hierarchical one. The more integration along those lines occurs in each of the partial - that is, national - areas, the more we will approach supranational unity.

The fact that numerous external pressures are now clearly
perceptible, so that for Europe to unite is a matter of life or
death, must lead to the acknowledgment of the inner problem which must be resolved to give to an eventual European coalition a solid base, which as explained above has a double aspect : on one hand, it is the problem of the gradual and real overcoming of what is characteristic of a period of 'Zivilisation' ; on the other hand, it is the problem of a sort of 'metaphysics' by which an idea of pure authority, at once national, supranational, and European, can be justified. 

This double problem brings us back to a double imperative. We must see what men are still standing among so many ruins who are able to understand and accept this imperative.

This article was taken from North American New Right edited by Greg Johnson, www,counter-currents.com

European Outlook

Our sister blog European Outlook is posted on: http://europeanoutlook.blogspot.co.uk

Nation Revisited # 111 January 2016

What's it all About

This monthly blog was issued from # 1 September 2005 to # 110 December 2013. It was then rebranded as European Outlook. The name has changed but the content remains the same. I try to present items of interest to Europeans of every nation and persuasion.

I do not support any political party because I don't agree with any of them. I generally agree with the Labour Party on social issues but I detest their inverted racism. I agree with the Tories about fiscal responsibility but I hate their false patriotism. I agree with the Liberal Democrats about Europe but despair of their defeatist attitude. 

And I simply can't relate to the growing list of nationalist parties that preach pre-war policies that were already redundant when we signed the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944.

European unity is both inevitable and desirable. The fears of nationalists about losing our identity in a federal union are without substance. We have been in the European Union since we joined the old Common Market back in 1973 but we are still as British as ever. It's not political union that's a threat to our identity but uncontrolled non-European immigration.

When the Empire collapsed the few thousand blacks and Asians that had served in the British armed forces could be accommodated, and so could the Anglo-Indians who were our responsibility. But the endless flood of Third World immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees and perpetual students is unsustainable.

Ukip and the mass media focus on European workers but they are racially and culturally compatible. It is politically incorrect to mention race or culture but they are facts of life that cannot be ignored.

Since the last war Britain and France adopted different policies on Afro-Asian immigration. In Britain we encouraged them to keep their own cultures and "celebrated" diversity. We employed armies of interpreters to translate benefit claims into scores of alien languages. And we drafted laws making it illegal to criticise "multiculturalism". The French took the view that people coming to France should speak their language and adopt the French way of life. But both approaches failed and both countries have been torn apart by criminal violence.

Britain has made a good recovery from the financial crisis of 2008 with the help of "quantitative easing". We still have a growing national debt of £1.5 trillion but we are trying to balance the annual budget and unemployment is falling. There is still an unacceptable gap between rich and poor and north and south, and the shortage of affordable housing is at crisis level. Things are getting better but there is a nagging doubt in people's minds that it might all go wrong.

The French and German economies are not growing as fast as the UK but their economies are based on agricultural and industrial production whereas ours depends on financial services. People can understand fields of wheat and barley or production lines churning out BMWs but banking and insurance are more difficult to imagine.

The "democratic" system in the UK depends on an elected government and a viable opposition. At present this is not the case. The Tories have a small majority but the Labour Party has made itself unelectable by appointing a socialist leader. He may be sincere and genuine but the British public will not take to him. We therefore have an elected dictatorship, propped up by printed money and the City of London.

Against this background I publish European Outlook to encourage people to think the unthinkable. Could it be that parliamentary democracy is not the perfect system? Is it possible that our highly educated members of parliament have no idea what is going on? Is Dave Cameron's grandstand performance on Europe nothing but an attempt to placate his dissident right wingers? These are some of the questions that need answering. Go to: http://europeanoutlook.blogspot.co.uk


Hermann Goering’s Letter to Winston Churchill

Herr Churchill! You will now have the satisfaction of outliving me and my comrades in misfortune. I do not hesitate to congratulate you over this personal triumph and the delicacy with which you have brought it about.

You and Great Britain have really had to go to great expense for this success. Were I to consider you simple enough to attribute to it more significance than that of a spectacle which you and your friends owe to the peoples whom you manoeuvred into the war against the Greater German Reich and to your Jewish and Bolshevik confederates, then my declaration to you in the penultimate hour of my life would also, in the eyes of posterity, have been wasted on an unworthy man. My pride as a German and as one of the most responsible German leaders in an historic world struggle does not permit me to waste a single word over the degrading vulgarity of the procedure employed by the victors in so far at least as it applies to my own person. But, as it is the manifest and declared purpose of this administration of justice to cast the German people themselves into the abysmal depths of being outlawed and, by the removal of the responsible men of the National-Socialist State, to rob them once and for all of all possibilities of future defence, I have, under the judgment which you and your allies have determined in advance, to add a few remarks on the historic subject. I direct these remarks to you because although one of those who knew most about the true background of this war and the possibilities of avoiding it or of ending it in such a stage as would still be tolerable for the future of Europe, nevertheless you refused to your own Tribunal your evidence and your oath. I shall, therefore, not fail to call you in a good time before the Tribunal of History and I direct my declaration to you because I knew that this Tribunal will, in due course, name you as the man who, with ambition, intelligence and energy cast down the European nations under the wheels of foreign powers.

Before History I establish you as the man who, indeed, had the capacity to cause the downfall of Adolf Hitler and his political work, but who nevertheless will not be successful in place of the fallen man in again raising the protecting shield against the Asiatic invasion of Europe. Your ambition it was to maintain your position over Germany by means of Versailles, your fate it will be that you succeeded in this. You personify the hardened obstinacy of your old Master-people but you personify also the obstinacy of their old age, directed against the last great attempts of the revived Germanic Power to decide the fate of Europe in the steppes of Asia and to safeguard it for the future. Long after my responsibility will have found its objective judge in the further development of events, you will have to assume responsibility for the fact that the late bloody war was not the last one which had to be fought out for the vital interests of the Continent on her own territory. You will have to answer for the fact that the bloodbath of yesterday will be followed by a still greater one and that Europe will have to make its stand for life or death not at the Volga but at the Pyrenees. It is my warm wish that you will at least live to see the day on which the world, and especially the Western nations, will have to learn by bitter experience that it was you and your friend Roosevelt who, for the sake of a cheap triumph over National-Socialist Germany, sold their future to Bolshevism. This day will come more quickly than you like and, in spite of your advanced age, you will thus probably still be active enough to see it dawn blood-red over the British islands also. I am convinced that it will bring you all those terrible surprises which, this time, through the fortune of war or because of the German Command’s abhorrence of a complete degeneration of the struggle between our kindred peoples, you have escaped. My knowledge of the nature and extent of the new weapons and projects which, largely due to your military aid, have fallen as booty to the Red Army empowers me to make this prophecy.

You will, as is your custom, no doubt waste no time in writing good memoirs and you will write them all the better because now none can hinder you in reporting or concealing just what you wish. Nevertheless, you will be powerless against those corrections which the development of events, precipitated by you, will unflinchingly undertake. It will then be your affair to give the peoples the answer to the questions which you have not given to your sham Tribunal and which you have refused to give, not so much to us who wish to have to thank your fairness for nothing, but to historical truth.

You think that you have arranged things cleverly by throwing this historical truth on the dissecting table for the legal sophistries of a handful of ambitious juridical subordinates, and allowing it to be turned into a dialectal treatise of paragraph-quibbling, although you as a Briton and a statesman know all too well that, by such means, the vital problems of the peoples could not in the past be solved or judged, and that they will not be so solved in the future. I have a too-well-founded opinion of your strength and of the cunning of your intelligence for me to think you capable of believing the vulgar catchwords with which you sustain the war against us and seek to glorify your victory over us in a circus-like spectacle. As one of the highest military, political and economic leaders of the Greater German Reich I herewith declare once more, with all emphasis, that this war was unavoidable only because the policy of Great Britain under your personal influence and that of your adherents was stubbornly directed in all spheres to blocking the way to the vital interests and the natural development of the German people, and that you, filled with senile ambition to maintain the British hegemony, preferred the second world war to an understanding — sincerely and again and again striven and hoped for on our side — on a basis tolerable for the two most prominent nations of Europe and paying regard to their natural functions and interests. I declare here once more most emphatically that the sole guilt of the German people for the world war, forced on by you, is that it sought finally to make an end of the eternal distress which you ingeniously maintained and cunningly stirred up. It would be carrying coals to Newcastle were I to speak my mind to you about the causes, necessities and motives which, in the course of the war, led to the political and military difficulties which your legal zealots, so certain of their aim, have managed to draw upon so one-sidedly at the cost of the National-Socialist Government of the German people.

The devastated area of European civilization and its historical treasures now lying in ruins still bear witness today in the first place of the desperate bitterness with which a great and proud people yesterday fought with incomparable self-sacrifice for its very existence.

Tomorrow, however, they will bear witness of the unscrupulousness with which alone the superior numbers led on to the field by you could bring about the subjection and deprivation of the rights of this People.

But the day after tomorrow the ruins will bear witness of that betrayal which has surrendered Europe to Red Asia.

The Germany which you have beaten will, through its very collapse, revenge itself on you. For neither have you carried out a better policy than we have, nor have you given evidence of greater efficiency and bravery. You have to thank for your victory, not better qualities or an imaginary superiority of your own strength and skill, but, solely and after six years, the preponderance of your coalition. Do not take it for that which you allege it to be. You and your country will soon harvest the fruits of your political skill. What you, an experienced cynic, would not admit as valid in our case (namely: that our struggle in the East was the highest defense action not only for Germany but also at the same time for Europe and is the actual justification for all acts and measures of the German conduct of the war which you, from your side, so plainly and concisely condemn in detail) your present-day ally and friend Stalin will soon prove to you and to the British Empire. You will then experience what it means to fight against this opponent and you will learn that you necessity also knows no law and that you cannot oppose him successfully either with lawyers’ treatises or with the weight of Great Britain and its European dwarfs.

You have advanced the assertion for the German people that for you it was principally a question of the restoration of its democratic form of life. You have, however, not uttered a single word that you are concerned for the restoration of reasonable conditions of life, of which it has now been deprived for a quarter of a century.

Your name stands beneath all the principal documents of this era of British lack of understanding and jealousy of Germany.

Your name will also stand beneath the result: that this era of the liquidation of Germany from history challenges the existence of Europe.

My faith in the vital strength of my people is unshakable. This People will be strong and will live longer than you. But it pains me that it is handed over to you without means of defending itself and that it now also is one of those unhappy victims who, thanks to your success, now face not an age of prosperous work for the accomplishment of those common tasks set by good sense for the peoples of the West, but the greatest common catastrophe of their common history. I spare myself the dispute over excesses with which, rightly or wrongly, you reproach us and which corresponds neither to my points of view nor to that of the German people, and also over those excesses which have been committed on your side and on that of your allies against millions of Germans. For I know that under cover of this pretext, you have made the whole German people the object of collective excesses of an extent never previously found in the whole of world history, and that also without this pretext you would not have acted differently in your treatment of Germany because, since 1914, you have steadfastly and stubbornly envisaged and striven for no other goal than the destruction of the German Reich. This, your historic object in view, denies to you your claim to the office of judge over the avoidable and unavoidable consequences which your cold-blooded and steady pursuit of your aims provoked, or which were welcome to you as subsequent evidence for the justification of your endeavour. I regret today, as mine and the National-Socialist Government’s gravest mistake, solely the fateful error to which I and our policy succumbed in our judgment of your power of discernment as a statesman. I regret that I attributed to you the discernment of the world political necessity of a satisfied and prosperous Germany for the existence of the British Empire also. I regret that our strength and our means were not sufficient to wring from you, even in the very last minute, the better knowledge that the liquidation of Germany will be the beginning of the liquidation of the British world-power. We took our places and acted each according to his law. I according to the new law, for which this Europe is already too old; you according to the old law, for which this Europe is no longer important enough to the world.

I shall manage to go my way to the end in the sure consciousness that as German National-Socialist I was, in spite of everything, also a better European than you. I leave the verdict over this calmly to posterity, where in accordance with my sincere wish you may belong and live as long as possible. Perhaps Fate will then offer you a chance which you have offered me: of leaving behind in the ruin a Verity.

Hermann Goering

Nation Revisited # 110, December 2013

It’s all in the Protocols

Some people believe in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. They think that a powerful group of Jews held a meeting over a hundred years ago to take over the world and that everything that has happened since is a result of that meeting. The Protocols appeared in Russia in the 1890s and arrived in the UK in 1903. They have long been exposed as a Tsarist forgery but car maker Henry Ford printed half a million copies because: “they fit in with what is going on”.

Conspiracy theory is like a religion to its followers. It explains everything and it’s an easy alternative to studying history, economics and politics. Instead of troubling your head about the causes of the First World War you simply blame it on the Great Jewish Conspiracy; “they” started it because it was part of “their” world plan.

When challenged over the suffering of the European Jews during the Second World War the conspiracy theorists will tell you that it was all part of the Plot; the Jews conspired with the Nazis to slaughter their own people in order to justify the creation of the state of Israel!

At this point we cross the fine line between credulity and insanity. From here on conspiracy theory knows no bounds. When I told a prominent far rightist that I had received an e-mail alleging that the Fukushima earthquake was caused by the CIA beaming shock waves across the Pacific, he said that I should not reject the theory without checking it out.

I was recently asked if I thought that Mossad, the CIA, MI5 or the French DGSE had bumped off Princess Diana. When I said that she had been killed in a car crash my inquisitor looked at me with pity. According to conspiracy theorists few prominent people die of natural causes and all post mortems and courts of inquiry are rigged.

Robert Maxwell and Bernie Madoff did irreparable harm to their victims but the greatest threat to humanity is Zionism; the preposterous idea that the Jews are God’s chosen people. This racist nonsense is supported by influential Jews around the world but the most vociferous Zionists are the so-called “born-again” Christians. Some Jews, like Gerald Kaufman (pictured), Israel Shamir and Norman Finkelstein, denounce Israeli aggression and support Palestine. But the Zionist lobby in Europe and America is committed to Israel and dismisses any criticism as “anti-Semitism”. Their latest target is former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

Race and Culture

Race and culture are the major divisions of mankind. Chinese writing is instantly recognizable and so are the almond eyes of the Chinese people.

Arabic is spoken from the Atlantic coast of North Africa to the Persian Gulf and beyond; many nations united by a common culture.

The Polynesians are exactly the same people in New Zealand, Tonga, Tahiti and Hawaii. This great seafaring race populated the entire Pacific in antiquity The Maoris in New Zealand have adopted a British colonial culture that’s all about drinking beer and playing Rugby. In Tahiti they speak French and spend a lot of time sitting outside pavement cafes smoking Gauloises cigarettes. In Hawaii they are all-American boys eating burgers and drinking Coca Cola, and in Tonga they actually speak their own language and practice their native culture. One people subjected to many influences.

Cultures are produced by races but few races have developed in isolation. Even the Japanese had contact with the Chinese who were in touch with the rest of the world. Gunpowder was discovered in China in the 9^th century and brought to Europe by the invading Mongols who won a temporary victory over the Hungarians and the Teutonic Knights at the Battle of Mohi in 1241. Once possessed of gunpowder Europeans embarked on 800 years of mutual destruction that culminated in the NATO attack on Serbia in 1999; not far from Mohi battlefield.

The Vikings are remembered for their ferocity but they were primarily traders who dealt in precious stones from Sri Lanka, Ivory from sub-Saharan Africa and silk from China. They used gold coins from Arabia and Byzantium and were represented at the court of Genghis Khan. The Viking runic script was probably based on the Phoenician alphabet.  Our mental image of Vikings as axe-wielding psychopaths is in need of revision. They did their share of rape and pillage but they were a highly inventive people driven by curiosity and stimulated by every culture that they came in contact with.

European civilization is sprung from related Caucasian tribes influenced by Christianity and driven by technology; a marriage of interdependent genetic and cultural forces. We have always had Jews, Gypsies, Turks, Moors, Lapps and other peripheral minorities but now totally unrelated refugees are pouring into Europe and nobody knows where it will all end.

Race deserves to be taken seriously but some people don’t know when to stop. Instead of defending European civilization they get sidetracked into endless subdivision. While anti-communist volunteers from all over Europe fought on the Russian Front the racial obsessives in the Nazi Party were measuring heads and trying to differentiate between Nordics and East Balts.

The population of the world passed the 7 billion mark in 2012. Our industries are polluting the atmosphere and the oceans, and we are running out of natural resources. The nation state has passed its sell-by date and liberal democracy cannot cope.

Europe has got more than enough outsiders to deal with. It’s time to call a halt to asylum and immigration and we mustn’t be defeated by the magnitude of the problem. We can send rockets into outer space and probe the secrets of the universe. We are conquering disease and transforming agriculture. We have the technology to allocate territory and resources to all the peoples of the world but we will achieve nothing by clinging to outdated theories.

Infiltration

It’s foolish to expect a party with a few hundred members to come to power. Small parties cannot compete with established parties funded by big business. If you want to influence events join one of the established parties. You will not bring down the capitalist system or wipe out two centuries of liberalism but you might help to frame a sensible immigration policy.

The pre-war BUF had 50,000 members, a charismatic leader, and favourable conditions but it was shut down by a wartime government with total disregard for democracy. In the seventies the National Front was able to stand hundreds of candidates and put thousands of marchers on the streets but it was sunk by Margaret Thatcher’s assurance that she understood people’s fears of “being swamped” by immigration. A few years ago the BNP had two euro MPs, a member of the Greater London Authority, over a hundred local councilors and active branches all over the country. Today they are sadly depleted but they are still talking about “when we come to power” and putting up candidates; often against rival nationalist parties. UKIP are the latest populist party to catch on but history suggests that they will go the same way.

The world appears to be moving toward some sort of democracy. The amazing power of the Internet has spawned insurrections throughout the Middle East and the UK parliament has thrown out Dave Cameron’s plan to invade Syria. Instead of politicians pushing their policies they are starting to listen to us. Barack Obama was saved from defeat in Congress by the Russian intervention on Syria. He has reached an accord with the Russians but he is still at war with the Republicans. The world has been saved from another war by the power of public opinion and the politicians’ fear of rejection. This could be the beginning of the end for our tired and corrupt regimes

The old gang parties have abandoned their principles in pursuit of power. The Labour Party was supposed to represent the British working class but they have driven down wages and conditions by flooding the country with unskilled immigrants. Now they are promising immigration controls in response to the rise of Ukip. And the Tories are just as bad; they represent the bosses but they will give concessions to the workers if their survival depends on it. All parties are influenced by their activists and a determined individual can change the direction of a branch, a faction, or even the whole party. The established parties used to believe in an “open door” policy but they are now calling for immigration controls. There has never been a better time for a well placed infiltrator.  

Keeping the Lights on

The rising cost of gas and electricity has prompted Labour Party leader Ed Miliband to promise a price freeze and persuaded Prime Minister Dave Cameron to abandon his green taxes. They seemed a good idea during the boom but we simply can’t afford them.

We cannot control the price of imported gas and oil but we have millions of tonnes of domestic coal. The EU limits coal-fired power generation but clean coal technology is encouraged and new plants are being built throughout Europe equipped with Flue Gas Desulphurization technology. At present the UK generates 33% of power from coal, Germany 42%, Poland 87%, Czech Rep 51%, and Greece 54%.

Margaret Thatcher shut down most of our coal mining industry to break the National Union of Mineworkers under Arthur Scargill. At the time coal was competing with cheap and plentiful gas, but things have changed and coal is now viable again. Nuclear power is far too expensive and nobody knows what to do with the radioactive waste. Wind turbines are unreliable and solar power is impractical. We must use the fossil fuels that we are blessed with.

Coalmining was a dirty and dangerous industry but open cast mining does not require men to risk their lives underground. Making gas and oil from coal was considered to be too expensive but with oil at more than $100 a barrel it is now cost-effective and China, Finland and the US are building coal gasification plants to exploit their ample coal reserves. Hydraulic gas fracking is another technology that is transforming the energy market. Where politicians failed science has come to the rescue. Aneurin Bevan said: “This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organizing genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time.”

Ryan Shaffer

Ryan Shaffer of the Department of History at the State University of New York is the author of “Long Island Nazis”: Local Synthesis of Transnational Politics - the story of Fritz Kuhn and the German-American Bund. http://www.stonybrook.edu/lihj/IssueFiles/V21_2/Articles/Shaffer/shaffer.html

He is studying modern history and will be interviewing longstanding British nationalists during 2014. He can be contacted at: ryan.shaffer@stonybrook.edu

Read your History (Originally published in Comrade November 2012)

British newspapers have reverted to the Nazi practice of dividing Europe into Nordic and Mediterranean states when covering the sovereign debt crisis. According to them the hard working northern states are subsidizing the lazy southern states. This takes no account of the fact that Iceland, Ireland, the UK and the Baltic States have all suffered severe economic problems. We have not had a bailout during the current troubles but we have resorted to quantitative easing – creating money that is not backed by bond sales. We are currently up to £375 billion. If this trick works it will give us a chance to recover but if it doesn’t work it will drive us deeper into debt.

This tribal division of Europe will appeal to believers of the Aryan master race theory. The word “Aryan” is commonly used by them when they really mean Nordic. The American economist William Ripley divided Europeans into subspecies and placed the Nordics at the top of the league table. This was developed by the German scientist Hans Gunther and enshrined into Nazi law by Heinrich Himmler. Jews were categorized as “non-Aryans.” In fact an Aryan is simply someone who speaks an Aryan, or Indo-European language. In Britain and the US it has come to mean Nordic but throughout Europe it means white. Spanish and Portuguese nationalists describe themselves as Aryan; and so do Iranians who come from Iran – the land of the Aryans.

The American anthropologist Carleton Coon revised Ripley’s work and suggested that Nordics are Mediterranean whites who have turned blonde due to evolutionary pressures related to vitamin D. Recent studies of blonde Melanesians in the South Pacific seem to confirm this theory. DNA has completely changed our understanding of ethnology. Stephen Oppenheim has shown that the UK was populated at the end of the Ice Age from the Basque region. This would account for the extensive Mediterranean strain in the British population.

The right-wing parties developed policies to suit the master race theory. They wanted to unite Britain with the white dominions, or form a limited European Confederation. But Oswald Mosley – who was never a right winger – embraced “Europe a Nation”. He recognized that the great artistic, scientific and social advances of Europe are not confined to one part of the continent. He was uncomplimentary about the Russians during the dark days of the Cold War but he never subscribed to the master race theory which he dismissed as “codswallop,”

It was Nazi hubris that led to their defeat in WW2. Heinrich Himmler was amazed when the Red Army defended themselves with brilliantly designed T34 tanks, MiG-3 fighter aircraft and Kalashnikov rifles. They were supposed to be primitive savages, not highly organized fellow Europeans who would launch Sputnik only twelve years after the Battle of Berlin. If the Nazis had read their history they would have known that the Slavs have long defended the West against the marauders from the East. Like all Europeans they are part of the family.

The post-war migration of non-European economic refugees has reinforced our sense of European identity. We can no longer afford the luxury of petty-nationalism. A Russian, a Pole or a Portuguese is not an alien compared to an African or a South Asian tribesman who has never seen a knife and fork. The people of Europe share a history, a culture and ties of blood stretching back to the dawn of time. We will not be divided by pseudo-science and political dogma.

Russian gas and oil together with German industry will form the backbone of the new Europe; an economic and ethnic bloc stretching from Galway to Vladivostok that will overcome all obstacles and herald the renaissance of European man.

Letter from Bill White – former leader of the American NS Workers’ Party

Roanoke City Jail, Roanoke, VA. USA.  August 27 2013

Mr Baillie,

I recently saw your editorial from Comrade republished in the newsletter Heritage and Destiny. While I agree with your general thesis – that white is white – your history is generally wrong across the board.

I don’t know you and I do not follow the idiosyncrasies of British nationalist politics. I do know the white movement often attracts people who say different things because they enjoy being different and, with that, annoying people with strange statements. I also know there are people with honest differences as well. I assume you are among the latter, not the former. So I write.

The tern “Aryan” applies to the upper caste – priests and warriors – in Indo-European societies. Each Indo-European culture, whether Nordo-Germanic, Celtic, Iranian or Indian, preserved the four cast system of priest-warrior-merchant-worker. These upper castes generally were Nordic in origin. Even Sumeria, an offshoot of a proto-Indo-European culture saw those they ruled over as “the dark haired people”. “Aryan”, or “noble people” – German herren volk – is both a caste and race term.

Mediterranean European culture was not Aryan. There are two major Mediterranean cultures in antiquity. One was the megalith builders; the other was the Phoenician-influenced Minoan culture, including Pelasgians and pre-Indo-European, non-Hamitic Anatolians.

The culture-bearing Indo-Europeans originated in Northern Europe and Scandinavia and founded civilization in two waves, both involving migration to and settlement in Central Asia. First were the Kurgan cultures and the Sumerian-Egyptian-Harappan wave of settlement. The second was the “Aryan” invasion of Celts, Myceneans, Hittites, Iranians and Shang Chinese, among others.

While Mediterraneans populated Britain early on, Celts conquered the British Isles circa 500 BC, followed by Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Norse, Vikings and Normans.

It is incorrect to say that Mediterranean whites are incapable of culture-bearing or are not capable of being Aryan – of realizing the spiritual potential of the upper castes. However, European culture did not arise in the Mediterranean people. Further, actual inhabitants of Mediterranean nations in the modern world are often mixed with non-white elements. Spain, Portugal, southern France, southern Italy, Greece and the southern Balkans in particular have been under Turkish or Arab occupation for centuries in the past two millennia, or have housed multi-cultural civilizations, from Rome to Carthage. However, Turks and Arabs are technically from different branches of whites, like Finns and Huns. So to call these people non-white is incorrect. But they are not European whites – more a type of mestizo.

Now, as to Mosley and German-Slavic relations; Mosley was a fascist – I think from the British Union of Fascists – you’ll concede that, and indistinguishable from a National Socialist during the period 1933-1939. Trying to divide Mosley and Hitler is nonsense and you know better.

Also World War 11 – “Nazi hubris” certainly did not lose the war. The difficulties of fighting the entire world at once lost the war. But what was the truth about German anti-Slavism?

During World War 1 the Russians went to war to defend Serbia based on pan-Slavic nationalist principles. Their explicit goal was to exterminate the German people – even though the Romanovs were ethnic Germans and the name “Rus” is that of a Nordic tribe. On this anti-German basis, Russia declared war on Germany.

During the period 1933-1939, the British in particular, inflamed Slavs in Czechoslovakia and Poland against their German populations. This led to the 1938 interventions in the Sudentenland and the 1939 war with Poland.

Now this Slavic-German warfare was wrong and stirred by internationalist forces to divide traditional societies. It was foolish and wrong. But it was stirred against Germany, and German anti-Slavicism was a reaction.

And I doubt anyone was surprised at the Soviet defense – wave after wave of cheaply valued human lives and cheap, mass produced equipment. The Germans drove the Russians back but were overwhelmed when they had to withdraw forces to defend Italy, and later France.

Attacking Germany, Adolf Hitler, and Aryan racial theory is annoying, not insightful. Yes you know about Mosley – and probably about National Bolshevism, Strasserism, and Third positionism too. So do we all! Mosley was good; the rest is junk that people pursue just to show they’ve heard of it. Maybe you’re passing through a phase – may be you’re mired there. I just hope you get out of the swamp soon.

Sincerely, Bill White.

Dear Bill White,

Thanks for the history lesson – both ancient and modern. Your interpretation is different to mine but entirely in keeping with National Socialism. I will publish your letter in my blog Nation Revisited and let my readers decide. http://nationrevisited.blogspot.co.uk    

Just a couple of points if I may:

Europe is currently being invaded and colonized by Third World immigrants, mostly from Africa and South Asia. We have got more to worry about than Germanic or Slavic culture, or where the Minoans came from. We haven’t got time for head measuring.

The last war was a disaster for Europe but it was probably a necessary step in the road to unity. I know you must have read Mein Kampf so I find it hard to accept you argument that Germany was driven to war by British propaganda. Wasn’t it always Hitler’s ambition to march east?

On a personal note, I have followed your political career with interest and been amazed at the level of persecution you have suffered for your beliefs. I hope you will soon be restored to liberty.

And as a matter of clarification I am 68 years old and have been involved in patriotic politics since I was 14. I don’t think that it’s a phase I’m going through. I am not interested in Strasserism, Hitlerism, or any of the creeds of the thirties. I follow the post-war ideas of Oswald Mosley as outlined in his book The Alternative. I am trying to defend European civilization at home and abroad.

Best wishes. Bill Baillie

Bill White’s former website can still be accessed by visiting Wayback Machine at www.archive.org and going to www.overthrow.com  It started in June 1998 supporting the Utopian Anarchist Party, it moved on to the Libertarian Socialist Party and finally became the American National Socialist Workers Party. It was closed down by the federal government in October 2008.

Nation Revisited # 109

Nation Revisited # 109, November 2013

e-mail:    nationrevisited@gmail.com
website: http://nationrevisited.blogspot.co.uk

 

 

Sterling and the Dollar – Robert Row

UKIP and its rivals want to strengthen Britain’s trade links with the Commonwealth. This was tried back in 1932 at the Ottawa Conference. Robert Row described it in this extract from “Sterling and the Dollar” published in “Lodestar” in 1985:

“But in Britain the hour of crisis produced the man of mediocrity in pursuit of the impossible. Mr Neville Chamberlain, a former Lord Mayor of Birmingham, became Chancellor of the Exchequer. His goal was to restore the old pound sterling, confronting a new situation with old ways. Armed with his umbrella, Mr Chamberlain had recourse to three old policies. A true son of Birmingham, he had visions of recapturing world markets for British manufacturers; a depreciated pound would do that. His other policies were cheap money and protectionism.

To these he added a fourth. The son of the great “Radical Joe”, Mr Chamberlain sought to realize his father’s dream of Empire Free Trade, and called the leaders of the Dominions together for a conference at Ottawa in 1932. But the dream perished at Ottawa. The Dominions were no longer the simple commodity producers of Joe Chamberlain’s time. They were becoming manufacturing countries and saw no reason to shut down their new factories to become markets for Britain’s old factories, which was Mr Chamberlain’s main aim. The very fact that their farming commodity prices were deep in a slump made them cling more fiercely to the new industries. If Mr Chamberlain was protectionist, so were they.

Thus Ottawa was mainly a fiasco. Something came out of it, it is true, a few minor trade agreements in Britain’s favour dressed up as high sounding “Imperial Preference”. But since these were confined to the British colonies, and Mr Chamberlain made no attempt to develop the full potential of colonial markets, Imperial Preference was more of a sop to Tory imperialists than a real solution to Britain’s export needs.

But Ottawa had another effect, and an adverse one. Imperial Preference, meager as it was, aroused the ire of soon-to-be-elected President Roosevelt. He was reared in all the anti-imperialist prejudice of New England political families. In him the abolition of the British Empire assumed the force of a religion. And he was to succeed in this aim.”  

Eighty years later a resurrected Commonwealth is even more unlikely; Canada is locked into the North American Free Trade Agreement, Australia and New Zealand are tied to Asian markets, and South Africa and Zimbabwe are black run states.

Britain will always have ties of blood and history with the white dominions, just as we have with the United States, but it’s inevitable that we will belong to the European Union; the world’s biggest trading bloc. Those who yearn for expansion must overcome their unfounded fears and learn to love Europe.

The Alternative - Oswald Mosley

 

Union Movement’s policies were outlined in Oswald Mosley’s book The Alternative published in 1947. He recognized that the days of Empire were finished and called for the union of Europe. This was a revolutionary idea at the time. Winston Churchill had called for a “United States of Europe” but he never imagined Britain as part of it. First Mosley described the evolution of the European idea.

“The real idea, which must become the creed of the future, is surely to reject the old Internationalism on the one hand and on the other hand, to transcend an exclusive nationalism which divides natural friends and relatives. Man moved from the village to the nation in the natural process of uniting with his nearer kinsmen as his mind and spirit grew. Now the time is come to move from the nation to the continent, or even beyond it, under the same natural impulse and process of next uniting with those nearest to us in blood, tradition, mind and spirit”.

He also dealt with the lies and slanders of the popular press; no mean feat in the fanatically anti-fascist atmosphere of the late forties.

“What then was the truth concerning the National Socialist of Fascist movements before the war? Our fault was exactly the opposite of that suggested against us. How often in politics is that a fact? How rarely are the people permitted to know anything except the reverse of the truth. It was suggested that we might set the interest of other countries before our own; that was an absurd lie. In reality we were all too National – too narrowly concentrated upon securing the interests of our own nations. That was the fault of all real National Socialist or Fascist Movements; whether in Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Italy. So far from being willing to serve each other as “Fifth Columns” in the event of a clash between States, our political ideology and propaganda were far too Nationalistic even to mould the minds of men in a new sense of European kinship and solidarity which might have avoided disaster by universal consent. So far from fighting for other countries in a war, we none of us argued with sufficient force in favour of that new sense of European Union which modern fact must now make an integral part of a new creed.”

And he warned against the menace of petty nationalism.

“The wounds of Europe must be healed before the work of construction can begin. They are wounds of the spirit, and they are kept open by these animosities and memories of atavistic savagery. These old things have no interest to the creative mind, but they impede our work. That is why we ask Europe not to look back, but to stride forward. In these pages I have attempted to describe some possibilities which beckon us onward in the march of the European spirit. They are worth that effort of the living mind and will, which forgets the past and, thus achieves the future. Division is death, but Union is life”.

The Alternative published by Black House Publishing Co is available from Amazon.com at £9.00 for paperback or £2.75 for Kindle.

BNP Economics

The September 2013 annual conference of the BNP passed the following motion.

“This conference proposes that a British National Party government will eradicate Poverty, Unemployment and the National Debt; by creating an Alternative Monetary System, which is controlled by the British People.

A British National Party government will end the deceitful cycle of debt-slavery and will issue new debt-free money (which would never have to be repaid and would NOT increase the National Debt).

Outrageous schemes, such as the ‘Bedroom Tax’ would be eliminated, and we could also reduce taxes very significantly.

To avoid ‘boom and bust’, this new currency will be linked to Britain’s Measure of Economic Welfare and will be guaranteed by the nation’s common wealth.”

A new currency could be established linked to GDP but we would still have to repay our National Debt which currently stands at £1.16 trillion. If we defaulted we would be blacklisted by the rating agencies, the international banks, the IMF and the World Bank. The new currency would therefore be unsustainable. We would not be able to buy food or oil and we would not be able to sell anything abroad because we wouldn’t be able to pay for shipping or insurance. Our supermarkets would run out of food within days and our power stations would have to cut production almost immediately. Our gold and dollar reserves currently stand at $129.2 billion but they would not last long with foreign creditors demanding payment of outstanding accounts. This new economic system would not be under the control of the British people it would be a financial disaster leading to chaos and starvation.

The BNP are right to want a new economic system but we cannot achieve it by declaring national bankruptcy. Argentina defaulted on her international obligations in 2002 and she is still struggling. The value of a currency is decided by the marketplace. The pound trades against the euro and the dollar by international agreement not according to a fatuous declaration from the BNP.

We import nearly half our food and oil and we pay for them in dollars; not in worthless assignats issued by the “Peoples’ Bank”.

The UK is not self-sufficient but united Europe could be; especially in alliance with Russia. A European superstate stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific could have a genuinely independent economic system. But the BNP’s vision of a fiercely independent but half starved Britain cut off from Europe and growing vegetables in roadside allotments will achieve nothing. Brave words about “debt-free systems” will not keep our generators running or put food on our tables

Capitalism and Immigration

The British tax authorities recently struck a deal with the Internet giant Google to settle their outstanding tax bill. Of course Google should pay their taxes but they are a major employer in the UK with plans for expansion. The government obviously thinks they have more to gain by keeping Google on board. They have done similar deals with Amazon, Starbucks and other international corporations.

There is nothing new about global capitalism. When the grave of a Roman princess was found in Spitalfields in London in 1999 she was wearing the remains of a gold-embroidered dress from Iraq and carved jet jewelry from Germany. World trade has been with us since the days of the Roman Empire and mass production was pioneered by the British and Dutch East India Companies of the 17^th century. The British Empire used Indians to build railways in East Africa, Chinese to work in the goldfields of British Columbia and West Indians to drive buses for London Transport. The great international corporations are behaving in exactly the same way by moving labour around the world to suit their requirements. Until we achieve a self-sufficient European economy based on fair wages and conditions we are stuck with a system that relies on cheap labour. All we can do in the meantime is fight for decent wages and try to keep out unskilled immigrants.

The European social model guarantees health care, education and social security. It should also guarantee work and housing. These are achievable objectives if we stop trying to feed and defend half the world and close the doors to Third World immigration. The far right parties have conflated the EU with immigration but if we quit the EU tomorrow we would still be inundated with economic refugees from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. Two thirds of our immigrants come from outside Europe. The EU does not force us to take these people; they come to the UK to avail themselves of work and benefits unavailable in their home countries.

Immigrants can’t be blamed for trying to improve their conditions. The fault lies with the corrupt and lazy politicians of all parties who let them in. They either turned a blind eye to the invasion or actively encouraged it. But it’s never too late to stop immigration and start repatriation. There is no question of rounding up immigrants at gunpoint and herding them onto boats and planes. But a humane programme of resettlement funded in part by the foreign aid budget would benefit everybody. We should start with criminals and illegal immigrants and then look for volunteers. Britain is a country with limited resources. We are full up and we have to shut the door to further immigration. This is not racial hatred; it’s plain old-fashioned commonsense.

The Plot against Harold Wilson

The article on Captain Henry Kerby MP in NR # 108 prompted a reader to comment as follows:

“An old friend stated that Kerby had promised to join the National Front shortly after its formation in 1968 if that party could guarantee his Parliamentary salary for the next five years.”

Our correspondent goes on to describe the moves against Harold Wilson.

“There were two moves against Wilson. The first during 64-70 but which gathered momentum towards the end of the sixties. This was to assassinate him. That was believed to be sufficient.

When Wright (Peter Wright of Spycatcher) referred to the dissident clique in MI5, he did not state – probably because he didn’t know – that there were others outside the service involved. Some of them had previous service in the security services and, more generally, were decorated ex officers from the armed services.

The second move was to hold a coup to remove the government, during the period 74-76. By then we had three day working weeks, trade union militancy, power cuts, inflation at 28% (albeit largely the result of the Barbour boom of 1973) economic collapse (the stock market had fallen 75% from previous highs), nationalization (the building sector was next), communists running the unions – and these were merely some of the difficulties.

In the 60s and 70s, we must recall that there was still a patriotic presence in the old Establishment, who were decorated veterans of one and even two World Wars and cared not one jot what subversive Labour Party and BBC pipsqueaks thought of them. In their ranks were elements from the aristocracy. As we know, those people gradually died out.

In 74-76, rumours were rife and Wilson was aware of them – I suspect via Mountbatten, who was involved with the plotters and was reporting back to the Government. It is surprising the plotters included Mountbatten, not least given his background.

When the plot was in its final stages – and it was that close – the Duke of Edinburgh was approached to ascertain the position of the Queen in the event of a coup. The response was that under ‘no circumstances’ would she consent to it. That was the end of the affair. It was not the end of MI5’s activities, however, and in the early hours of the day of his resignation, Wilson was approached with damning evidence, which the Soviets also possessed and could have used to blackmail him. Wilson resigned at once, that day.”

This anecdotal evidence is partly supported by the memoirs of newspaper editors Hugh Cudlipp and Harold Evans, and in best sellers written by historian Ben Pimlot, journalist Chapman Pincher and former MI5 officer Peter Wright. Harold Wilson’s chief accusers were Soviet defector Anatoly Golitsyn and James Jesus Angleton the Counter Intelligence Chief of the CIA 1954-1975. Angleton also accused Canadian PMs Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, Swedish PM Olaf Palme, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and US President Gerald Ford.

The 2006 BBC documentary “The Plot against Harold Wilson” was based on tapes secretly recorded by journalists Barrie Penrose and Roger Courtiour. Harold Wilson was convinced that there was a plot against him. Penrose said:

“You may ask, at the end of the programme, how much of it can be believed. My view now, as it was then, is that Wilson was right in his fears… in answer to the question ‘how close did we come to a military government’ I can only say – closer than we’d ever be content to think.”

Five Questions Answered by Vic Sarson

So far we have had twelve replies to our Five Questions. Here is Vic Sarson, an occasional contributor to this newsletter. We would like to hear from more of our readers. Please reply to nationrevisited@gmail.com

Who are you?

Vic Sarson; I have retired from business but I am a full time community action volunteer.

What do you believe in?

I believe in representative government and public participation at all levels.

If you could influence government policy what would you do?

I would reinstate many of our traditional laws and customs with the emphasis on the protection of society rather than the rights of the criminals. Capital punishment should be available for premeditated murderers, terrorists, paedophiles, and financial criminals who threaten the national interest. Sentences for all crimes should be reviewed and where appropriate, foreign criminals should be deported on completion of their sentences.

The commercial banks should not be allowed to grant mortgages; that should be done by mutual building societies at realistic rates of interest and income multiples.

 Austerity isn’t working. The government should boost the economy by investing in job creation and industrial and scientific training, and they should protect domestic industry by banning the dumping of cheaply produced goods from overseas.

 The educational system has failed to produce a literate and numerate workforce. We must bring back selective education, teach British history, and scrap meaningless university degrees in sociology and media studies.

I would dismantle the party system. Membership of the political parties is so low that they no longer represent the people. MPs and councilors should be elected as individuals and their loyalty should be to the country – not to the party.

We obviously need to control immigration but we must acknowledge that many immigrants from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean come here to escape poverty. It would be better to improve their conditions at home with equitable trade deals rather than trying to keep them out at the point of a bayonet.

What are you proud of and what do you regret?

I am proud of successfully taking on the Labour Party, which has betrayed its original constituency, and of refusing to compromise on matters of principle. I regret not getting involved in local politics earlier. In order to influence events it’s necessary to participate in government. This is hard work. It involves organizing, canvassing, lobbying, sitting on committees, writing countless letters and e-mails, talking to people and persuading them by reasoned argument. There are no short cuts.

How would you like to be remembered?

I would like to be remembered as an honest campaigner for social justice.

The Meaning of an Enemy

 

Andrew Fountaine (1918-1997) fought for General Franco during the Spanish Civil War and served in the Pacific as a Royal Navy Lieutenant Commander during WW2. His masterly denunciation of the warmonger Winston Churchill is now available from Ostara Publications at £7.45 plus postage. www.ostarapublication.com

Peter Huxley-Blythe

 

Peter Huxley-Blythe was born in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire on November 16 1925 and died August 18 2013 aged 87.

As a child he was a chorister at the Chapel Royal Hampton Court and at St Mary of the Angels school.

He joined the Royal Navy as an officer cadet and served in the Battle of the Atlantic, the North African Campaign and the Far East.

After the war he supported Oswald Mosley’s Union Movement but broke away with Guy Chesham and Baroness Pfugl to join the European Liberation Front led by Francis Parker Yockey; the author of “Imperium”. They fought for a united Europe when most of the continent was in ruins. Peter Huxley-Blythe edited the ELF paper “Frontfighter”. He published the newsletter of the British-German group Natinform, with AFX Baron. Later he founded the Northern League with Roger Pearson and Jan Kruls. He helped John Bean to distribute his newsletter “Outrider” in 1954. And he published his own newspaper “The World Survey” from 1954 to 1959.

Between 1959 and 1961 he wrote a series of articles for “The American Mercury”. The following extract is from “Modern Christian Martyrs”:

“That the Communists are determined to destroy the United States at the earliest possible opportunity is a fact. Before that can be accomplished they must first remove the solid foundation upon which the Constitution was built, namely the belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings. Unfortunately there are patriots who believe that too much stress is placed upon the religious aspect of our fight against the Red virus. These people together with many clerics of all denominations are unwittingly giving material aid to the enemy. Their protests, a manifestation of materialism, show how well antireligious propaganda has been operated inside America.”

In 1964 he wrote “The East Comes West”, the story of the Cossack volunteers for the Third Reich. This was followed by “Under St Andrew’s Cross, on the same subject, and “The Man Who was Uncle”, the story of Nicholas Dulger-Sheikin who was a double agent for Germany and Greece.

In the late sixties he took a PhD in psychosomatic medicine in America and founded the National College of Hypnosis and Psychotherapy. In the seventies he wrote a number of books on psychology and made a successful career as a consultant specializing in the needs of children with learning difficulties. He is survived by his wife Sally, a stepdaughter and two stepsons, and by a son and daughter by an earlier marriage. Peter Huxley-Blyth led a full and interesting life. May he rest in peace.