Nation Revisited # 116, June 2016

Enemies of a Free Society

(This article first appeared in the Common Cause Report of June 1982. Many things have changed in the past 34 years but the National Union of Teachers and the BBC are still the same).

The disturbance which took place during the eve-of-conference disco dance of the National Union of Teachers at Scarborough drew little publicity and will certainly not go down in the annals of this 250,000 strong union. Yet it is of more than passing significance. The incident occurred when the dance was drawing to its close. Instead of the dreamy strains of the last waltz, the dancers were treated to a rousing patriotic march, whereupon a group of young teachers stormed up to the disc jockey and demanded that he cut off the offending tune. He refused. The march continued amid uproar. For a great many people it will be unnecessary to mention that the controversial piece of music was none other than Sir Edward Elgar’s Pomp and Circumstance March in D – Land of Hope and Glory. This piece of music, dating from the early years of the century, seems to have an exceptional capacity for inducing choler in holders of progressive views. Only recently a clergyman was writing to The Guardian to propose that it should be removed from the programme of the last night of the Albert Hall Proms. In the case of the teachers, however, the significant point is not the fact that a few be-jeaned left-wingers seemed about to start a fight but rather in the comments made by the union’s official spokesman. “It was totally tactless to spoil everything by playing Land of Hope and Glory”, he said. Then he added: “Teachers couldn’t have been more put out if he’d rounded off with God Save the Queen.” It must surely be accounted some sort of milestone when the official spokesman for 250,000 school teachers considers it would be offensive to play the national anthem. Quite plainly, though John Booth was described as public affairs spokesman for the National Union of Teachers, he was not expressing the views of the membership or any substantial part of it. (Mr John Booth has stated that he was not personally involved in the incident and would not find the playing of God Save the Queen offensive).

There are a large number of organisations representing teachers – from associations for headmasters, headmistresses and schoolmasters, to teachers in commerce, domestic science and polytechnics – but the National Union of Teachers is by far the biggest and most influential. It has long been subject to penetration by Communists, Trotskyists and others of the far left. The purpose is straightforward. Having established themselves in official positions, no matter how minor, they then reach out to take their places in pressure groups – the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Anti-Apartheid Movement and the like – where presenting themselves as representing the teaching profession rather than as members of the Socialist Workers’ Party, the Militant Tendency and the like, they propound arguments and pursue ends which have nothing to do with teaching. But there is another aspect, often overlooked. Teachers enjoy a great deal of independence in carrying out their classroom tasks and the opportunities for free indoctrination are not insignificant. Newspapers have from time to time reported cases of children being encouraged to introduce bias into essays on such subjects as the police, race relations and unemployment. If such professional misconduct leads to protests by parents, the existence of an active left wing in positions of power in the union serves to protect the offending teacher. The attitudes of left-wing-dominated education authorities – like the Inner London Education Authority – serve to compound the problem. A booklet sponsored by the ILEA for use in schools with black pupils contains these lines, in which “babylon” is the code word for police.

Babylon’s patrolling the street

Always spitting at a nigger’s feet...
The day will come when we’ll be strong
To fight the babylon back
Rise up you niggers . . . . .

Much of what has been said about schools can be fairly applied to centres of education, the polytechnics especially. Most students are doubtless little affected by the experience; some may even react against it; but nobody can complete his education without being influenced in some way. What does seem to happen in many instances is that young people enter adult life with half-understood notions that Marxism is somehow an answer to “capitalist exploitation”. Since the process of infiltrating the teaching profession has been going on for many years, it is hardly surprising that the effects have come to be felt in places far removed from the classroom, in the Press, radio and television, in the civil service, local government, the health service. It helps to explain why television drama is dominated by plays, written by Marxists, which attack the liberal democratic state. Challenged about this, BBC’s Head of Plays, answered: “Where are plays of equal power, passion and conviction which express another point of view?” It is a question that cannot be answered by an outsider without access to the BBC’s files: but it may be noted that “power, passion and conviction” is open to a variety of interpretations, as the response to the public performance of simulated homosexual rape on the stage of the National Theatre in “Romans in Britain” demonstrated. Richard Clutterbuck, who teaches international politics at Exeter University, says in his book The Media and Political Violence: “Some authors and producers avowedly use their access to the media in order to make way for political change and depart from dramatic truth, i.e. present false propaganda, with this intent. The BBC should be less naive than it sometimes is in making available prime television time for dishonest propaganda in the guise of drama documentaries.”

The crucial point here is the naivety of the BBC. How can it come about that a national institution, established by royal charter, and enjoined to avoid bias and partisanship, allows itself to be used for subversive ends? The BBC itself cannot be naive; it is those employed by it, who accept responsibility on its behalf, who are entrusted with decision making powers – it is they who are naive. They, like others in other branches of the media, have absorbed the woolly, progressive sub-Marxist notions of their generation. They wish to be thought tolerant and liberal minded. They are afraid of being accused of censorship and suppression. They fail to perceive that those who level such accusations are not, like themselves, well-meaning, but rather are concerned, as Richard Clutterbuck says, with changing society. Such people would never gain popular support if they appeared in their true colours. They must cloak their purposes and exploit the freedom of the liberal society in order to seek to destroy it. The problem, then, is one of innocence in the face of conspiracy. It is not a new problem. It is a problem that must be solved anew by each generation. It has its roots in the cataclysmic events which took place at the beginning of the century.

It is now almost impossible, to share the feelings and illusions of those who lived through the year of Revolution, 1917, which began with the fall of the Czar, moved on to the formation of a moderate democratically based provisional government and reached a climax with the Bolshevik takeover toward the close of the year. Trotsky, in his History of the Russian Revolution, argues that it was a time when popular will became the decisive factor in events: “At those crucial moments when the old order becomes no longer endurable to the masses, they break over the barriers excluding them from the political arena, sweep aside their traditional representatives, and create by their own interference the initial groundwork for a new regime. . . The history of a revolution is for us first of all a history of the forcible entrance of the masses into the realm of ruleship over their own destiny.”

If Trotsky really believed this romanticised picture of the masses then it is not at all surprising that he was outmanoeuvred by the cunning, practical Stalin in the power struggle that followed the death of Lenin.

Lenin himself was more realistic. He held the masses in contempt. The skill of the revolutionary, he wrote in 1920, “lies in correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully seize power. . .”

The vanguard of the proletariat is of course the Communist party, elite, self –appointed to act on behalf of the masses. In preparation for that moment when power can be seized, the party should resort to “stratagems, artifices, illegal methods, evasions and subterfuges. . . “

There has recently been an attempt in the American movie Reds to recapture something of the mood and spirit of 1917. The film makes use of the reminiscences of contemporaries still surviving and these are joined to a biographical account of John Reed, the young American journalist who wrote the story of the Bolshevik coup in Ten Days That Shook The World. The film trivialises events and offers few insights. Reed’s book, for all its shortcomings, helps us to get closer to events. The son of a United States Marshal who – in Hollywood movie fashion – rode out to arrest the bad guys, Reed viewed the events of 1917 as a simple struggle between the good guys and the bad guys. But he wrote before the corruption of partisan self-censorship had set in and he not only tells us what the Bolsheviks said and did but also what the others said and did. There were many who perceived in Lenin and the Bolsheviks a threat to Russia’s fledgling liberties. But while they were dimly aware that something was going on, they failed fatally, to dispel the cloud of rhetoric behind which the Bolsheviks advanced their plans to seize power. It was a time when the worst that could be imagined was a return to life under the ramshackle tyranny of a Czar. When it was too late a delegate stood up in the Petrograd Soviet and cried: “At this moment . . . the question of power is being settled by a military plot organised by one of the revolutionary parties. . . “And then reaching for the flatulent call to action proclaimed throughout the ages by every innocent about to be crushed, he cried out: “The first question must be a peaceful settlement of the crisis.”

The tactics of deceit and calumny advocated by Lenin and for long the preserve of the orthodox Communist party in Britain and now commonplace in all the groups of the far left. Moderate and responsible leaders in the trade union movement and political parties must be vilified and the rank-and-file confidence in them undermined. Any attempt to fight back must be received with strident complaints about censorship and oppression. Any organisation must be joined solely in order to use it or destroy it. And of course in no circumstances must ones’ country be defended. The moment when the country is under threat is the time to go over to revolutionary defeatism. No wonder the militant teachers took offence at the playing of the Pomp and Circumstance March, for the first line echoes the sentiment of John Bright the radical MP who said that Britain gave the idea of Parliamentary democracy to the world: Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the free,


What the Papers Say – A Review of the Patriotic Press

European Socialist Action

Editor Robert Edwards - www.europeanaction.com – Issue 57, Autumn 2015

Bring the genuine refugees into Europe and look after them until such a time that Syria is saved and the secular state of al-Assad is restored by its allies, Russia and Iran.

ISIS/Daesh is being pummelled by Russian and Syrian air forces. The United States does not like this. Why? American attempts at targeting ISIS/Daesh have done nothing. Empty warehouses were attacked by US aircraft after the terrorist occupants were warned. Large caches of valuable arms intended for Kurdish freedom fighters overshot their targets and ended up in the hands of ISIS/Daesh. US drones murder civilians, often complete wedding parties. Recently a hospital in Afghanistan was almost destroyed by US planes even while the occupants were calling for the Americans to stop.

It is not al-Assad who is the ‘butcher’. It is the Americans and their allies. And someone claimed my anti-Americanism is “out of date”. Far from it chum.

Comrade

The Friends of Mosley – www.oswaldmosley.com – Issue 69, November 2015

If there is one element of our society that needs reinforcing it is the Probation and Allied Support Services.

In 2011 we saw 3914 persons charged or cautioned following the riots in and around our capital city and major centres. With grandiose talk of a rehabilitation revolution the vital anger management and associated remedies have not taken hold. No less than 1593 people directly connected with the previous turmoil have reoffended. Murder, rape, GBH, burglary are all back on the radar.

This at least underlines the stark fact that some of them were career criminals and not just low life opportunists.

Candour

The British Views-Letter – www.candour.org.uk – Issue 862 December 2015

November 11 2015, Remembrance Day, was also the 50^th Anniversary of the defiant blast that was the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) by the white people of Rhodesia.

Forgotten by the cretinous masses of today Rhodesia was the White Man’s Alamo in Africa. A call to duty that some answered with incredible courage, but too few. The white people of Rhodesia were just too old fashioned to be of interest to the ‘cool’ generation of the ‘happening’ 60s.

In the United States of America a similar scenario was unfolding with even more aggressive Zionist pressure. The Confederate States who a century before came under fratricidal assault as a result of the efforts of our eternal enemies, were once again assaulted by carpetbaggers and scallywags. Brave, so brave, Rhodesia resisted, as did the Southern states and their supporters.

Neither could withstand the pressure of the Traditional Enemy with the power of their purse and their useful political stooges to command. In the case of Rhodesia this included socialist Prime Minister Harold Wilson and Conservative Prime Minister and fellow betrayer Margaret Thatcher. (Candour, issue 862, December 2015)

League Sentinel

The League of St George – www.leaguestgeorge.com – Issue 105, Winter 2015

The Swiss-based Anne Frank Fund, which controls the copyright of the ‘holocaust memoir’ The Diary of Anne Frank has admitted the book was largely written by her father, Otto Frank, after her death in February 1945.

The admission comes as the copyright period of 70 years comes to an end this year 2015, seventy years after Anne frank died from typhus. By admitting that Otto Frank co-authored the bestselling book, the fund hopes to extend their control of the copyright (and the lucrative royalties it generates) until 2050, seventy years after Otto Frank’s death in 1980.

The Flame

Editor Bernard Franklyn – www.theflameuk.com – Issue 33, 2016)

Labour, Liberal and Conservative politicians, govern by deceit, they give unconvincing reasons why they should do something, but ensure that the public doesn’t hear the many sound reasons why they shouldn’t. Nationalists have been trying to prove this to the public for nearly a hundred years. The establishment, thought-police won’t tolerate free-thinkers. Those who go along with the government-organised mass murder through illegal wars are applauded. Throughout history every nation has fought to defend its borders. This is essential, as well as being common sense. But for the past sixty years, any Europeans that have wanted to defend their country against alien invasions have been labelled dangerous extremists. In our once sensible and patriotic country, such treacherous government nonsense would have been met with a forceful opposition. (Muslims are not our enemy, although many are taking advantage of conditions that have been created by Zionist politicians.)

Europeans must take back control of Europe. Every White patriot who is determined, honest and articulate should start broadcasting this message, with the intent of building up a political group that can depose a politician from one of the main parties. We cannot allow ourselves to be ruled by our enemies any longer. Spread the truth and it will set us free! We now believe that we can win.

Heritage and Destiny

Editor Mark Cotterill – www.heritageanddestiny.com – Issue 70, February 2016

This is hardly the first time we have seen the phenomenon of a phoney White saviour. The average person does not want to take risks or get their hands dirty. They want to believe that the racial struggle can be won by someone else, while they sit back and watch it on television.

1968 & 1972: George Corley Wallace was the great White hope.

1980: Ronald Wilson Reagan was going to save White America.
1992: H Ross Perot: “Secretly he is one of is, don’t you know”.
1996 & 2000: Patrick J Buchanan: “The Jews know that he is on to them, and think that he is the next Hitler!”

But Wallace turned out to be just another toothless political huckster; Reagan gave amnesty to 10 million illegal aliens and enshrined the Holocaust as the national religion; Perot turned out to be full of hot air; Buchanan named a mentally-challenged Negro woman as his vice presidential running mate and then publically purged all the White Nationalists from his campaign.

Then along came wacky Ron Paul: some White people hoped that he and his goofball libertarian theories would be the ultimate salvation of the White race. And so now it’s Donald Trump. No doubt in the 2020 election there will be another political gas-bag who will be touted as the great White hope.

Reality check: There is no quick and painless remedy to the existential crisis that confronts us as a Race. Certainly, supporting any of the political contenders who are an integral part and parcel of the Old Order is not the way forward.

In the end, White people will have to collectively embrace National Socialism – and nothing else – or they will become extinct as the dodo bird and the dinosaur. White revolution is the only solution, not voting for a Jewish-endorsed Candidate A or a Jewish-endorsed Candidate B.

National Socialism – Povl H Riis Knudsen

National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement (1984) and National Socialism: The Biological World View (1987), are now published as a joint volume.

Professor Povl H Riis-Knudsen was born in Denmark in 1950. He helped to revive National Socialism in Denmark and throughout the world but was expelled from the Danish National Socialist Movement for marrying a Palestinian woman, who he describes as a white Arabian. His approach to National Socialism is uncompromising. He dismisses Francis Parker Yockey’s views on race, the inclusive message of the Christian religion, and existing National Socialist groups.

National Socialism – The Biological World View argues that National Socialism had its basis in the laws of nature and is in effect the culmination of the search for truth as the founding principle of life. National Socialism – A Left Wing Movement argues that the revolutionary nature of National Socialism sets it apart from the reactionary ways of the right.

On right and left: The right wing is mostly a pitiful conglomerate of people with very unclear ideas. They realize that something is wrong. But they refuse to leave the Old Order. Instead they cling to it with all their might and wish to revert to the situation as it was 75 or 100 years ago, thinking that this will solve all their problems.

On Christianity: The father of most of our problems is to be found in that very Christian idea, whose equalitarian philosophy and alien and unnatural teachings have robbed our people of its soul, but which they continue to praise as the very shield against the decline they see all around them. For National Socialism there is only one true deity: the inscrutable creative power that is manifested everywhere in nature.

On Race: For National Socialism difference is part of the natural order and we want to maintain this order with all its differences between races, peoples and individuals. We have absolutely no wish to make a Negro tribe practise our religion, eat our food, or use our laws. We want other people to find their own way into the future. Of course, we should be glad to cooperate with them if that is mutually beneficial, but we shall not disturb them.

On Practical politics: To try to imitate Hitler’s style today would be political suicide. As a matter of fact it has been the end of every group which has tried it so far.

Our worst enemies are not the Jews or the Communists, but the very people who while calling themselves National Socialists deface the fundamental concepts of the National Socialist philosophy through their behaviour, thus confirming the distorted impression of our idea conveyed to the public by our enemy. Indeed, we can feel no loyalty toward such people and no friendship. On the contrary, we have to rid ourselves of any connection with them whatsoever, and go out of our way to show people that they do not belong to us.

Professor Povl H Riis-Knudsen runs the Danish publishing firm Nordland Forrlag. His works are available from - www.amazon.com and can be read on the Aryan Unity website – www.aryanunity.com

European Outlook

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

  

Nation Revisited # 115, May 2016

Should We Stay Or Should We Go?

I wrote this article for the March/April 2016 issue of Heritage and Destiny – www.heritageanddestiny.com

www.uktostay.eu

Dave Cameron has put himself in an impossible position by trying to placate his Euro-sceptics while convincing the public that he has renegotiated our terms of membership. The businessmen behind the Tory Party want to stay in the EU but the “bastard” faction are determined to break away. Kevan Stafford of the British Democratic Party has written an article entitled “Ten Reasons to Leave the EU” in which he trots out Ukip’s arguments; my replies are in italics.

1) Budget one trillion euros every year.

The EU budget is just 1.05% of EU GDP, whereas member states’ budgets average 44% of GDP.

2) Accounts rejected by auditors for more than a decade.

According to the Court of Auditors 95% of payments at EU level are correct. To view the EU accounts go to: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/biblio/documents/2013/2013_en.cfm#annual_accounts

3) Corruption in excess of six billion euros every year.

Out of the 5% error rate only 0.2% represents fraud. When EU funds are judged to be spent inappropriately, they are clawed back to the EU budget. The EU has never run a deficit.

4) Open borders and uncontrolled immigration to the UK.

Britain does not belong to the Schengen Agreement and the majority of our immigrants come from outside the EU.

5) Parliament has relinquished 80% of our sovereignty to Brussels.

According to the House of Commons Library 6.8% of primary legislation and 14% of secondary legislation emanates from Brussels.

6) The British way of life is undermined by Brussels

The Belgians are Christian Europeans the same as us. The main threat to our culture is from non-EU immigration.

7) MEPs have no power. The EU is governed by unelected officials.

The European Commission consists of 28 members appointed by the elected national governments.

8) European courts continually undermine British court judgements.

The European Court of Justice consists of 28 judges appointed by the elected national governments. The European Court of Human Rights is separate from the EU. It was founded in 1959 to represent the 47 member states of the European Council.

9) Euro currency policy a disaster. Greek and Irish bailouts are an example.

Germany, France and the Netherlands have got no problem with the euro. Greece and Ireland got into financial difficulties by borrowing too much money.

10) British trade will thrive with the rest of the world and Europe outside of the EU.

British trade will thrive when the American and Chinese economies take off. At present there is a downturn in world trade.

Most of these arguments are emotional because nobody knows what would happen if we left the EU. The “quitters” predict a golden future with Britain trading with the world but the “stayers” fear that we would lose access to the single market. In reality, we would probably go on trading with our neighbours just as we have since our ancestors traded with the Gauls two thousand years ago. All over the world countries trade with their neighbours and we are no different. That’s why Belgium and Ireland are much more important to us than China.

The economic argument is convincing but the real reason for staying in the EU is political. The original Coal and Steel Community was designed to make a European war impossible. Such a conflict is unthinkable today but in the immediate post-war period it was a dreadful possibility. National animosities caused two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century. By 1945 Europe was devastated from the Atlantic to the Urals and almost every family had lost someone. Houses, churches, schools, hospitals, factories, roads, railways and harbours were destroyed and millions of refugees tramped desperately across the continent. Germany took in thirteen million refugees and a million German prisoners of war perished in internment camps. Britain was bankrupt and facing starvation after six years of war and forced to accept an American loan that took sixty years to repay. This was the nightmare that inspired European unity and that is why it is so important.

We have had seventy years of peace in Europe - apart from the break-up of Yugoslavia in the nineties and the current dispute in Ukraine. Admittedly NATO played its part but it was essentially the stark contrast between Europe’s economic success and the stagnation of the Soviet Union that brought about the collapse of Communism. The Berlin Wall could not contain the East Germans and the Poles, the Hungarians, the Czechs, the Romanians and finally the Russians rebelled against a cruel and inefficient system.

In Albania the brutal communist dictatorship of Enver Hoxha was ended by the humble coat hanger. Their television service only showed government propaganda but the Albanians discovered that they could pick up Italian television by making an antenna from a wire coat hanger. They were told that their country was a workers’ paradise and that people in the West were starving but when they saw pictures of Italians wearing Armani suits and driving Ferraris they realised that they were being lied to.

European prosperity undermined communism but it attracted Third World immigrants. They began flooding into Britain and France just after the war and then targeted the rest of the Continent. Today there is hardly a country in Europe that is not affected. And this is not confined to the European Union; Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and Russia all have large immigrant populations.

Ukip have conflated immigration with Europe but we were importing workers from the Caribbean and India long before we joined the old Common Market in 1973. We have taken in a million East Europeans in recent years but they share our race and culture and represent no threat to our homogeneity. It’s the seven million Africans and Asians from the Commonwealth that we should be worried about.

The other Ukip argument is that we are losing our sovereignty and identity in Europe but after 42 years of membership we are still as British as ever. If we had lost our sovereignty we would not be having a referendum. It’s not federalism that threatens our survival as a distinct nation but the endless flood of non-European immigrants.

The British people will probably vote to stay in the EU but whatever happens we should reject the insular nationalism of The Daily Mail. We are sprung from the race that has given the world most of its artistic and scientific achievements.  We must encourage a spirit of European solidarity to counter the suicidal policies followed by successive governments. At present the European Union is run by the same self-hating liberals that dominate Westminster but politicians and policies can be changed. Instead of sending a gang of undisciplined drunks and wreckers to the EU Parliament we should reform it from within by electing responsible MEPs. The tide is turning throughout Europe and the inverted racists will soon be swept from power. The future is in our hands.

EU In or Out – John Bean

Reprinted from the BDP website – britishdemocraticparty.org

I view Europe as an excellent location to live in and for my descendants to likewise grow old in. This place has been made so by its different sects of a common tribe. Its fascinating variety of languages from Icelandic to Basque have evolved over several millennia.  As is the nature of mankind throughout this globe the different sects have at times been inspired to settle differences with close neighbours by internecine war. The cause this has arisen from opposing political systems, starting with Athens and Sparta and hopefully ending in the 20^th century with democracy versus fascism and the corporate  state, aided by the clash between British and German imperialism

Prior to the rise of modern weaponry, particularly aerial attacks, the bloodiest conflicts were those stemming from religious differences. One of the earliest was the invasion of Spain by Moors of Arabian origin who were inspired by the new religion of Islam to destroy Christian Europe. Fortunately for the still evolving European culture, and not just its Christian religion, we were saved by Charles Martel at the battle of Tours. Nine hundred years later another attempt to impose the non-European religion was made by the Turkish Ottomans. This time the threat was removed by joint forces of the Habsburgs of Austria and Hungary and a Polish army led by King John Sobieski of Poland, who destroyed much of the Ottoman army outside the walls of Vienna. It was significant that by this time Christianity had become established into two opposing sects of Protestant and Catholic (as Islam appears to be doing in the 21^st century). So strong was the split that the Protestants refused to help the Catholics in defending the Ottoman Muslims assault on Europe.

This was partly a result of the Thirty Years War primarily between Protestantism and Catholicism which  had ended just 30 years prior to the Ottoman Turks attack. It reduced the population of the German states by forty percent and took a hundred years to recover from the devastation. On a considerably smaller scale the antagonism between Catholic and Protestant led to death and destruction in France (leading to Huguenot emigration to Britain) in England, Scotland, Wales and in Ireland in particular. The conflict between Britain and Ireland was, of course, also promoted by the desire for Irish independence from Britain with whom it had no common land borders.

In the latter half of the 18^th century it was Britain who began the Industrial Revolution, which then spread throughout Europe and into North America. The downside of this achievement were the bad working and living  conditions it gave to many working people who had flocked into the rapidly expanding cities from the wage slavery of working on the land, and farmers whose small areas meant they also could no longer survive.

Driven mainly by the desire for more raw materials, Britain, France and Germany, a late starter, expanded their empires in Africa and Asia. The colonised people looked in wonder and admiration that began to turn to envy at these white people from Europe. The industrial society that founded the great social changes in Europe also gave rise to uncontrolled capitalism. This, allied with the imperialism of the three great nations above led to the disastrous slaughter of some of Europe's finest during the First World War. Then within twenty years came a replay of this slaughter, made even worse than the first for Eastern Europe. Without the advent of Hitler and his distorted attempt to combine nationalism with socialism, this war to end all wars – at least in Europe - would never have come about.

For at least two years after 1945 more than 31 million refugees were on the move trying to find their original or new homes in Europe. Today, this is sometimes held up as an example of why we should not object to around five million Afro-Asian immigrants arriving in Britain and the rest of Europe in the last decade. However, 12 million of these refugees were Germans who had been thrown out of the new geographical state of Poland, Silesia, Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia and parts of Russia, in all cases where their ancestors had lived for several hundred years. This was why the European Convention on Human Rights was drafted in 1950 by the then new Council of Europe. Note that it is nothing to do with the EU.

Thereby the majority of the people on the continent, looking for a future of permanent peace, gave support to the formation of the first organisations looking for unity amongst Europeans. In our islands we British had less enthusiasm but nevertheless voted to join the European Community in January 1973. I was one of them; as someone who had been preaching for a European Confederation of independent states for nearly twenty years. Note that this is not part of British democratic Party policy but is a personal view of the writer.

Insular Britons, and English in particular, whose healthy patriotism has always meant that we should try to resurrect the close association of the old white dominions of Empire and Commonwealth, have long been in a minority. Some think this belief may be found in UKIP, but it is only amongst a minority.

A narrow majority – as I write – have realised that the common bond (common blood if you like) that now exists between all nations in Europe could mean we should stay in, just in case it gets worse outside. Among such people a growing number, and not just Confederates, think we can work within the European Community and change some of its 'nasty' ways.  But can they?

Take on board this comment of Christine Lagarde, the M.D of the International Monetary Fund, Daily Telegraph 1.3.16.  “It is not easy for any multilateral institution to adapt to major changes in the assumption that underlay its creation.” She shows that she is aware of the fact that bodies such as the EU have to act undemocratically at times when she went on to say:

“Misguided attempts to suppress national sovereignty in the management of an integrated world economy will threaten democracy and the legitimacy of the world order.”

For those  who would make an attempt to  make the EU change some of its undemocratic ways,  it should be noted that it has not achieved any active policy to moderate, let alone  halt, the  tide of third world economic immigrants  that have outnumbered the genuine Syrian refugees. After eight months the EU has still not formulated, let alone put into action, any solution to this major crisis affecting the whole of Europe. This has shown us that the EU is unreformable.  It is an outcome of the Lisbon Treaty whereby EU member states, which includes Britain, are bound to welcome so-called asylum seekers. Our courts find their power diminished in trying to deport those immigrants who have committed serious criminal actions.

The spokesmen and women leading the Brexit campaign believe that we can leave the EU without being excluded from the Single Market.  Most seem unaware that the only legal way we can leave the EU is by invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Much is said about Britain developing its bilateral trade agreements with booming overseas markets, such as China, Brazil and India.  Negotiations for the EU to allow this would go on for years.

This leads on to the Euro monetary system, which it was thought would act as the final binding action for a United States of Europe. The one-size-fits-all straightjacket of the single currency has forced youth unemployment in Italy up to a record 40.4 per cent, In Spain to 56.5 per cent and in Greece up to 57.3 per cent.

In an article for the British Democrats website a year ago on a European Confederation  (as opposed to the present Federal EU) I suggested that with the abolition of the Euro zone it would allow each nation's currency to find its own exchange rate against each other, as opposed to being in reality what is best for Germany's exchange  rate. It would not come about overnight but with reduced exchange rates Greece, Spain and Italy, for example would find a rising demand for their goods and services.

I am aware that it is often said that statistics can be made to prove anything, but here are some relating to the cost of UK's membership of the EU.

In 2014 the UK exported £230bn of goods and services to other EU states, which was 44.8 % of total UK exports. Goods and services imports were £289bn, 52.8% of our total imports.

UK's net contribution to the EU budget in 2015 was estimated at £8.5bn. Both sets of figures given in a House of Commons Briefing Paper, 19 January 2016.

A 2015 study by Open Europe found that the cost to the UK of the 100 most burdensome EU regulations was £33.3bn a year.

In regard to European immigration, a report in 2014 by Professor Christian Dustmann showed that they made an overall contribution to the UK's economy of £4.4bn. Non-European immigration in the same period, largely from India, Pakistan and Africa, cost the UK taxpayers nearly £120 bn.

A report from Oxford University's Migration Observatory as far back as 2010 said that 141,000 people who came to the UK under EU regulations were born outside the continent. The largest number of these were Nigerians. More recent unsubstantiated reports quote even higher numbers.

As someone who loves Britain as well as Europe, if you haven't guessed it by now I will be voting for the UK to leave the EU. The evidence shows that it just cannot be reformed from the inside.


Censorship

Until the coming of the Internet the liberals had a stranglehold on publishing. Now we can order almost anything online and self publishing is available but in the bad old days publishers and booksellers decided what we could read.

David Irving’s impressive catalogue of historical works is available direct from the author or from Amazon. The following snippet is from his Action Report of July 1997. www.fpp.co.uk 

“I drive out to Brentwood; pick up a pallet of books from Australia, then on to Chelmsford and Colchester to visit bookstores. At Waterstones Colchester there transpires this scene:

I ask for the History Book Buyer, a young woman reading a paper at the back of the store and show her NUREMBERG THE LAST BATTLE. She says: “I don’t think he is any good. I don’t think very much of his writing.” “Have you read many of his books?” “No, I have not.” “Then on what basis do you formed that opinion?” “From what I have read.” I ask if that includes the favourable reviews by Hugh Trevor Roper and the American professor Gordon C Craig, adding that Craig says that historians cannot ignore Mr Irving’s researches on the Nazi era.

The Buyer pushes the book aside saying that she is not interested in them and that she makes the decisions which books her Waterstones branch will sell.

I ask her if she has in stock a book by Lippstadt. She pulls up the record on her computer: “Yes, Denying the Holocaust, we have several copies in stock.” I ask her if she’s aware that the book is the subject of libel litigation. “I’ve read it,” she says, “and I think that it is good and that’s the reason I stock it.”

I politely ask her name. It is Yolande. As my assistant and I walk out into the street the Buyer shouts: “And don’t bother coming here again either.” Then she runs screeching after us to the amazement of the customers. “Do you mind telling me who you are?”

I point to the author’s name on the book, and say with a smile, “You’ve been talking to him in person.” The buyer shouts, “Oh you bastard. You bastard!”

On to stores in Oxford and Cheltenham, then back to London.

European Outlook

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

 

     

Nation Revisited # 114, April 2016

The Nation Revisited Symbol

The cross and star symbol was designed by John Bean for his National Labour Party, a movement founded on Empire Day, May 24th 1958, to promote social justice and national unity. The cross represents the nation and the radiant star represents socialism. It is therefore an ideal symbol for Nation Revisited.

A lot of things have changed over 58 years but the policies of the NLP are still relevant.

1) The old British Empire has been thrown away to be replaced by a meaningless charade called the “Commonwealth” which as an effective world power is non-existent. In its place we advocate a new Union of the white dominions with whom we have common ties of blood.

2) The new union of British nations, allied with our racial kinsmen of Western Europe, must become the world’s third stabilising force; independent of both the American money power and the tyranny of Communism.

3) The answer to industrial unrest and Communist agitation is Workers’ Partnership. Workers’ elected representatives will participate equally with management and shareholders in the running of their industries and in the sharing of profit dividends.

4) In place of the outdated House of Lords we advocate a consultative assembly of all professions and occupations, available to give specialised advice to the House of Commons. This assembly will be elected on an occupational basis.

5) Coloured immigration must be stopped. Not only does it aggravate the housing problem, and constitute a serious threat to workers’ living standards in view of increasing unemployment but, most important, it will turn our nation into a race of mongrels.

6) Every incentive must be given to agriculture to make every acre of ground productive. Farms and farm workers’ houses are entitled to the same amenities as enjoyed by townsfolk, e.g., electricity and main drainage, even if this has to be subsidised by the townsfolk.

7) A sound financial system should be based on the nation’s ability to produce goods. Not on the power of the banks to create paper debts at will.

      

John Tyndall is pictured speaking for the NLP in London in 1958; note the party symbol on the platform.

The Race Debate – Anthony Milne

Reprinted from Spearhead April 2002 – www.spearhead.co.uk

Immigration in to Britain may now never be stopped, or even controlled, because the politicians, the only people who can pass laws on the subject, have lost too much power and influence. In The New Elites, George Walden maintains that Britain is now in a Soviet-type grip of professional egalitarians whose power base lies in commerce, culture and the media. They can now control virtually all of public life. They are extremely mediocre in their abilities, and indeed brag about their ordinariness, but behind the anti-elitist rhetoric lies the old urge to dominate which is as powerful as that of their autocratic forebears.

Above all, they remain left-liberal and internationalist. Although Walden is careful not to mention it, it is clear that inverted snobbery and their “tolerance of foreigners which is regarded as a sign of superiority”, as he puts it, means that pro-immigrant sentiment will continue to be peddled by the elites.

As Walden points out, elites have always dominated mass societies, and there is a large academic literature on the subject. But in the past there was always a struggle between competing elites with opposing ideas. Britain’s new elites, instead, are virtually totalitarian. No politicians of any party would now dare to propose openly to withdraw from the Geneva Refugee Convention, which has outlived its usefulness and is actually harming this country, because the new elites would shout them down.

Further, the executive branch, in particular the immigration authorities, can do nothing to halt immigration unless there is a change of law initiated by the politicians. Similarly, the lawyers in the immigration appellate system, which is now a growing and monolithic money-spinner for many of them, have to tolerate perjury in court by illegal immigrants – whom they know to be lying – and having refused them asylum, still allow them to stay in Britain because they know that the authorities are simply incapable of removing them in the numbers required.

The greatest present danger is the decline in journalistic standards, which the new elites have brought about. In earlier times, news reporters were taught not to comment in their copy, to be balanced and fair-minded. Not anymore. The present mix of spin, personally biased opinion, public relations chat and celebrity gossip – often all crammed into one article – is now demanded of journalists by their paymasters. In the process they have resorted to lies and half-lies because they know that they can get away with them if they express liberal-left opinions. They continually use pejorative adjectives when it comes to describing the Right – again because it is expected of them. Indeed they fear for their jobs if they fail in this regard. They are no longer journalists but Soviet-type propagandists. This is why the Right is always termed ‘extreme’, but never the Left.

Journalists will often describe parties such as the BNP, or Austria’s Freedom Party, as ‘anti-immigrant’ but will not at the same time say that the other parties are ‘pro-immigrant’. They will increasingly point to the unpleasant consequences of race riots in Britain, but will not point to their cause: unbridled immigration. They will sometimes approve of attempts to remove illegal immigrants, but are only too ready to publish pictures of weeping immigrant children and their mothers being forced onto ships and planes against their will, because their editors demand a more sentimental and ‘caring’ approach to news stories.

By using non-neutral language, they print glaring paradoxes. An article in the national press that describes an immigrant borough as ‘vibrant’, or one which ‘celebrates diversity’, will be printed alongside stories about tribal butchery in Africa or communal murders in India.

Journalists used also to be warned against non-sequiturs – stating facts but drawing incorrect conclusions from them. A classic non-sequitur says that ‘anti-immigration’ parties promote ‘hate’ because, as most immigrants are coloured, white national parties must therefore “hate’ coloured people” everywhere in the world. What is a legitimate criticism of policy becomes instead a personal attack on individual black people in Britain. They pretend not to see the difference between one stance and another.

They write emotively and unthinkingly, and seem fearful and confused. Any talk of controlling immigration will stir up trouble in immigrant communities, they maintain. They assume that ethnic minorities themselves want immigration to continue ad infinitum, so they avoid publishing criticism of immigration policies for fear of giving offence – offence, that is, to the ethnic minorities, not the British host population.

This is partly because they appear not to know what being British is. They have gratuitously redefined Britain as some kind of off-shore Hong Kong, without reference to what the general public, academic, and even the politicians themselves believe to be the true reality. Virtually none of the intellectuals who are supposed to be monitoring British society will use the term ‘multi-culturalism’ voluntarily, because it is not true within its own terms, or is known to be used as a euphemism for muti-racialism in certain urban areas.

‘Multi-culturalism’ means that the inhabitants of one country have knowledge of, and respect for, the other cultures they see around them. Nothing remotely like this happens in Britain, and the sociologists know it. If local people cannot even recognise the foreign languages spoken in their street or on the bus, let alone understand them, then Britain cannot be a ‘multi-cultural society’.

Even if the above were true – in the sense of Britain being a patchwork quilt of different languages and races – this admission would have a dramatic impact upon academic disciplines. Professors would have to explain why this had happened, and why they were unable to predict it would happen. Sociologists who, up to 25 years ago, were writing about mods and rockers and working-class voting patterns, are now supposed to be discussing anthropology instead: the study of human tribes, languages and races – but all mysteriously to be found co-existing peacefully in Britain! Most of their earlier theories would thus have to be chucked out.

The truth is that the growing cultural and linguistic chaos in this country, which the media elite gloss over, adversely impacts upon the immigrants themselves. We don’t like it, of course; on the other hand, it is they who are ‘multi-cultural’, not we. The Jamaicans, looking like Africans, are now having to live in London streets side by side with real Africans, and the Whites can’t tell the difference.

Similarly, the post-war Anglo-Indians are now having to rub shoulders not just with the white British, but with other Indians belonging to castes they would not normally wish to live next door to if they were back in India. There is even less ‘multi-culturalism’ going on between Blacks and browns. Their one common denominator was the Commonwealth, but now all the talk is about ‘Europe’, and immigrants are no more European than they are British.

What is often forgotten is the vast architectural heritage into which the immigrants have come. Each street, borough and town in Britain was built by the British. Each, with just a tiny few exceptions, is named after local history, a history of the British. This is bound to affect the self-esteem of the minorities: everyone wants to have a homeland that they can call their own, and have pride in their own culture and achievements. You can’t expect diasporas to have a pride in someone else’s culture or history. America was deliberately created as a receptacle for diasporas, and the new in-comers could then create a new pride in ‘America’ (which was named not after a racial group but after an immigrant called Amerigo).

Our increasing multi-racialism will itself become a kind of self-imposed tyranny, and in the end our institutions will be utterly unreformable. One of the great ironies of our time is that of Eastern Europe, since the collapse of communism, is now freer than the West. Today it is in the West that criticism of racial or historical dogma can end the career of a scholar or politician, and even send him to prison. By contrast, in Eastern Europe and Russia, now the last enclaves of free white people, one can find plenty of books about race or historical revisionism.

The warning is clear: Liberalism could well collapse like communism did and as suddenly. To avoid this, the new elites themselves will have to make a smart move to the Right.

Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom

Mao Zedong’s order from 1956 is often misquoted as “let a thousand flowers bloom” but the old mass murderer was actually content with a hundred. He invited members of the Communist Party to make suggestions on how to rebuild China after decades of war and revolution. This liberal experiment only lasted as long as it took to “entice the snakes out of their caves”, and it ended in a bloodbath as thousands of people were sent for re-education or execution.

Mao’s phrase came to mean let many opinions be heard, and it should be applied to the bewildering collection of right wing, patriotic, nationalist, and neo-fascist groups that have sprung up since the demise of the British National Party and the rise of the UK Independence Party.

The Old Gang parties are used to dealing with troublemakers and know how to smooth over the cracks but the little parties often let minor disagreements flare into major disputes. Nigel Farage is just about holding Ukip together but the same cannot be said for the constantly splitting parties to their right. There are now half a dozen groups ranging from the high Tories of Traditional Britain, through the remnants of the National Front and the BNP to the fully-uniformed fascists of the New British Union. These parties would object to being listed together but their policies are remarkably similar. Some of them stood in recent elections but their results were disappointing. Attempts to infiltrate the Tory Party were frustrated when Iain Duncan Smith proscribed the Monday Club in 2001, until, "they can prove their anti-racist credentials". Western Spring is an innovative group that combines politics with recreation and investment but, at the moment, they are overshadowed by Ukip..

 
We desperately need a properly organised political party to oppose mass migration and defend British interests in Europe. Ukip have successfully conflated immigration with Europe but they are really discontented Tories with little sense of racial identity and no understanding of finance capitalism. They will not save us and nor will the little nationalist groups that lack both ideology and leadership. Mao’s dictum is right but we need viable political parties with charismatic leaders and unlimited resources to make our flowers bloom.

European Outlook

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

  

 

Nation Revisited # 113, March 2016

John Bean’s Nationalist Notebook

John Bean has been writing political articles for a very long time. He began in 1955 with issue number one of National Unity, a duplicated publication aimed at former members of Andrew Fountaine’s short-lived National Front movement. At that time immigrants from the West Indies were being recruited by London Transport and the National Health Service and JB was alarmed:

“The capital ...was incessantly filled with subjects and strangers from every part of the world, who all introduced and enjoyed the favourite superstitions of their native country. Thus Gibbons in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire described Rome in the third century AD as it entered its period of decline. This description could be as aptly applied to the capital of that second great Empire; the British Empire.”

He started his writing career with an article on immigration and he has pursued the subject ever since. In 1958 he launched Combat as the official organ of the ‘National Labour Party’. The front page headline, ‘The Martyrs of Notting Hill’, reported the conviction of nine young men involved in the Notting Hill race riots. They were each sentenced to five years imprisonment and fined £500, which was a lot of money in the fifties. Bean criticized the judge in the case.

“We do not doubt that Mr Justice Salmon is a very competent judge for dealing with cases of alleged share fiddling by financiers, but as a Jew, it is our opinion that he should not have presided over this case. The case centred on the antipathy of representatives of one race towards another, and the whole history of the Jewish race is interlaced with numerous instances of their embroilments with other races, such as the events in Germany during the Nazi regime. Justice Salmon would not be human if this case had not influenced him, unwittingly of course, in favour of coloured people, also a minority group in this country.”

My favourite piece by John Bean is his front page article from Combat of July 1965:

“Scrap the Coloured Commonwealth: The so-called Commonwealth is no longer just a farce but a positive menace, in that it detracts us from the path we should be pursuing of working for White Dominion and European solidarity. Instead we are now entrameled with the changing whims and fancies of every Afro-Asian despot and no longer able to act in our own interests in the world political scene.

The recent Commonwealth Conference has been a total fiasco and has revealed to all but the most multiracial minded the complete emptiness of the whole concept of this third force. With the old British dominion lands now in a small minority, there is little in ‘common’ and as far as the Afro-Asian majority are concerned its ‘wealth’ is the £180 million a year of the British taxpayers’ money that is handed out to them as loans or gifts.

Wilson’s Useless Peace Mission: Look at the farce of Wilson’s “peace mission” to try and solve the Viet-Nam crisis. The world has been given the spectacle of seeing Britain’s “leader” rebuked by Afro-Asian Prime Ministers for being too anti-Communist on Viet-Nam; with others even criticising Britain’s right to lead the mission. Now Peking, Hanoi and Moscow have treated this “great plan” with scorn and refuse to see the mission, whoever leads it.

Abuse on Rhodesia: Then Britain was abused – together with Australia for supporting us – by the same African crypto-Communist Dictators such as Nkrumah and President Nyerere of Tanzania for refusing to send British troops into Rhodesia to attack our own kinsmen. And for refusing to flood the country with unrestricted immigration came forth further abuse.

No wonder the average Briton today is so completely apathetic about the role Britain should be taking in the world. The utter futility of this multi-racial rag-bag is obvious: yet official Labour, Tory and liberal policy is to keep us tied to it. No alternative is offered by any of them.

The British National Party says scrap it now! Return these Afro-Asian “Commonwealth citizens” to their own fully independent lands with fares paid and resettlement grants where necessary.

The True Third Force: Let us build up a Union of Britain, Australia, New Zealand, a British and French-Canadian Federation, Rhodesia and South Africa. Then let this Union be the cornerstone of a European Confederation. Here we will have a true Third Force, with the major part of our raw materials, markets for our manufactured goods and a productive capacity and population equal to that of the United States and the Soviet Union together.

We can present a resolute barrier to any further encroachment of Communism – a barrier that will be vital against Red Chinese expansion of the future – and at last work in friendship and true co-operation with the American people and not exist as lackeys of the US money power as we are today.” 

Combat served the National Labour Party, the 1960s British National Party and eventually the National Front. But the leadership of the NF rejected JB’s support for European Confederation and Workers’ Partnership. He commented in Combat:

“It will be seen that with the possible exception of the point on the Commonwealth and, in my view, the unfortunate dropping of the BNP proposal of a European Confederation, NF policy is basically the same as that of the BNP”.

JB dropped out of the NF and devoted the next twenty years to earning a living. He made two television appearances in the nineties; ‘Timewatch’ in April 1995 and ‘Windrush’ in September 1997. His first book ‘Ten Miles from Anywhere’ was published in 1995, followed by ‘Many Shades of Black’ in 1999. He also wrote occasionally for Spearhead; in 2000 he was complaining about the publishing industry:  

“Undoubtedly, other nationalists will have tried their hands at novels, autobiographies or simple commentaries on politics. Some such works will have been rubbish, but others most certainly would have been much more interesting and better written than many of the 80,000 books that were published last year alone. A great many of these 80,000 books were real rubbish - but of course they were politically correct rubbish. One typical of the genre would contain the theme of the traumatic experiences of a one-legged, tone-deaf half-West Indian Negro whose Jewish mother had played lead violin in the Auschwitz camp orchestra. My first experience of publishers and their literary agents was in 1995, when I wrote Ten Miles from Anywhere: a Suffolk Chronicle. This book had two major themes. There was a background of Suffolk village life from the beginning of the 20th century, as related through the words of villagers; then there was a look at changes that had taken place over the past 25 years, chartered as they occurred.”

‘Many Shades of Black’ became a standard work of reference for students of minority politics. In it JB described his progress from Union Movement to the National Front but stoped just short of his 2003 appointment as editor of Identity, the glossy magazine of Nick Griffin’s ill-fated BNP. Before he joined the BNP he started an independent blog called ‘John Beanstalk’ which ran from 2002 to 2007. This is from 2002:

“Either through historical ignorance or as part of the liberal-left’s socio-political agenda, teachers, TV and radio programme producers and newspaper columnists are telling our youth that prior to the great Afro-Asian invasion of the second half of the twentieth century, the people of the British Isles were already an admixture of many different races. Celts, most Roman legionnaires, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans, Huguenot refugees, were all varied tribes of the common North European race and all came from within a few hundred miles of each other. Their arrival on these shores bears no comparison with the post 1948 mass immigration phenomenon.”

John Bean stayed with the BNP when most of its leading members had either resigned or been expelled. Finally he wrote to Nick Griffin suggesting a way out. His letter was posted on Eddie Butler’s blog:

“August 28^th 2010. Dear Nick, Whilst I am conscious of the fact that my age and personal circumstances has mainly limited my activities in promoting the BNP to editing Identity magazine for over seven years, fifty years experience of British Nationalism has brought me to the following conclusion on the BNP’s future.

The British National Party must be forever grateful for the work you put in over the past decade which lifted the Party out of the doldrums of the latter end of the Tyndall era and has made its name a household word.

However, it must be recognised that a major mistake was made by allowing the Midas Agency so much control of the Party. No matter how much one plays with words, the fact that the BNP now has debts in excess of £500,000, which of course is not all your making. Unlike the Labour Party’s ‘debt’ which is really loans made by the Unions and others, the BNP’s hard debts are for goods and services. The Party is haemorrhaging membership and is receiving abysmal voting percentages of 2-3% at recent council by-elections. It must also face the fact that as an unregistered company a court could decide we are insolvent and recommend that the BNP be wound up.

It is highly likely that an opposition Nationalist party will shortly be formed which would draw off more disgruntled BNP members, with the result that neither such a new party nor the present BNP would gain a parliamentary seat within the next ten years – and time is not on our side. One step that would halt, or at least limit, this splitting of energies would be for you to recognise the veracity of the adage “the buck stops here” and resign as Chairman of the Party in the near future, as opposed to your intention of doing so three years hence. This would not only reduce the loss of more members, but enable you to regain the respect that we all had for you.

Furthermore, it would allow you to concentrate on the North West constituency as the BNP’s MEP and expect the full support of the membership in seeing that you were re-elected.

Needless to say, I wish you well for September 7^th both personally and for the Party. I am sure the Court would not be so stupid as to send you to prison.

Yours sincerely, John Bean”

But it was too late. The Party disintegrated and in 2013 a faction led by Andrew Brons formed the British Democratic Party. JB soon had his own column on the BDP website. He called it ‘Nationalist Notebook’; a by-line that he had used in Identity. A recent post concerns the flood of refugees to Germany:

“It is only three weeks ago since Germans and Austrians were greeting the spearhead of the never ending column of alleged ‘Syrian’ refugees with applause, sweets, fruits and pastries. It was, of course, part of the indoctrinated German ‘angst’ to show the world that they are nice people now, good world citizen liberals who wish to disassociate themselves from the horrors that were carried out by some of their grandfathers.

Now, those welcoming faces are missing at Vienna, Munich and other German railway stations, as the German and Austrian ordinary people see the reality of the stupid - if not treacherous - call made by Frau Merkel that Germany would welcome 800,000 refugees, now more likely to be one million. Acting through the EU they expect the rest of Europe to rally to this call for European suicide".

I congratulate my old friend on his staying power. He must have written millions of words and seen several parties and publications come and go but he is still fighting for race and nation. It's fashionable to denigrate the patriotism and sincerity of political writers but John Bean has risen above such criticism. Long may his pen flourish.


This Land is Our Land

Tim Murray - Immigration Watch Canada www.immigrationwatchcanada.org 

It has often been argued by the talking heads of the Multicultural and Immigration lobby that Canadians of European descent have no well-founded historical or moral case to assert that their culture should enjoy a predominate place or special status in our nation.

Many go even farther than that. Many argue that Europeans and their Canadian descendants invaded and brutally colonized this country, forcibly appropriating aboriginal land. We are what some radical native activists scathingly call "settlers", occupiers who have no legitimate right to be here - even though many of us are third or fourth generation Canadians. We are told that Europeans did not "discover" or create or build Canada. The land was here before Europeans ever conceived of it.

These arguments are fraught with a logical inconsistency and a confusion of terms.

Firstly, it is illogical to argue, on the one hand, that European colonizers and their descendants have no right to live here because they are occupying “stolen” land, and then to argue on the other hand that that newcomers fresh from the airport should share that “stolen” land as full-fledged Canadian citizens with equal rights and opportunities. If Euro-Canadians have no legitimate right to remain here, why then should the latest batch of foreign migrants be exempt from the same judgement? Why should they be given a pass? If Euro-Canadians can be told, in effect, to “go back where you came from”, why shouldn’t “New Canadians” be told to do the same thing?

There is another contradiction in this line of reasoning. Multiculturalists accord Aboriginals a special status. They are “First Nations”. After all, they were here first – even though a great many tribes came to occupy land by the “ethnic cleansing” and displacement of other tribes. But if Aboriginal Canadians have “seniority” rights over Canadians of European origin, why then should not the latter have “seniority” rights over “New Canadians", the great majority of whom hail from “non-traditional”, that is “non-European” countries? Either there should be a hierarchy of citizenship – or cultures – or there should not. But the Multicultural lobby is having it both ways, and Euro-Canadians are not “having it” at all. They are not acknowledged to be a founding culture, nor are they accorded the right to compete for job placements based on merit – recently arrived “visible minorities” are able to leap-frog into coveted positions in the name of employment “equity”. In other words, Euro-Canadians have neither seniority rights nor equal opportunity. They are the “ham” in the ham sandwich of “diversity”.

The Multicultural “Party line” needs to be de-constructed.

Yes, the "land" was here before Europeans arrived. In fact, it was here before aboriginals first crossed the Bering Strait. But the "land" is not the nation. The "land" is not "Canada". And one can't credibly deny that the British and French were the primary founders of the nation called "Canada". It should also be noted that the newcomers from "non-traditional" sources who arrived in the wake of the pivotal shift to Official Multiculturalism more than four decades ago most probably did so because they found this "nation" of Canada superior to the countries they left. That is to say, it appears that those accursed "White settlers" and their descendants didn't do such a bad job of building this nation after all.

Yet it is the Multicultural project to transform this nation, the nation that immigrants have found so attractive, into something resembling the nations that those immigrants have fled. And it looks as though they are halfway there. In 1981 there were 6 ethnic enclaves in Canada. By 2010 there were 260. Obviously Canada is in the midst of a vast experiment in social engineering. The question we need to ask, as lab rats, is, "Is it really a good thing?" "Diversity", we are constantly told is a strength. In a masterpiece of Orwellian double-speak, the Multicultural lobby assures us that there is "unity in diversity". A look at the rest of the world, however, would not confirm this belief. 

You don't believe me? Then ask the people of what used to be Yugoslavia. Ask the people of Syria or Iraq. Ask Ukrainians. Ask Russians. Ask Ruandans, Ask Sri Lankans. Ask just about every people in the world. You don't even have to look far. Take a look at America's experiment with "integration" right now. Look how it descended into tribalism. Look beyond soap operas and movies and the make-belief world that the American media presents. Look at America at the ground level. Look at cities, towns, neighbourhoods and college campuses. You will see clusters of African-Americans over here, clusters of Hispanics over there, and clusters of "whites" sitting or standing alone in the corner. This is not a function of mandated "apartheid", but voluntary segregation. For many parts of America Martin Luther King's dream has not come to pass. In fact, America is growing further apart, and "Coming Apart", as Charles Murray's book of that title suggests. In the words of Coloradan writer Mike Folkerth, "The United States is the most fractured society on earth - the most fractured culture."

The make-belief world that the media presents and the unrelenting torment of state propaganda will not conceal these facts. The spin machine will not ultimately succeed in perpetuating the "Diversity Illusion", as British author Ed West calls it, no more than the Communist state of Yugoslavia succeeded in convincing its citizens and the world at large that its ethnic blocs were living in blissful harmony. 

Multiculturalists, of course, insist that Canada is unique. That Canada can make multiculturalism work: that so far it is a roaring success, and is a model for the world to follow. That those who say otherwise are a delusional fringe without credibility, people who need to be excluded from public forums, ostracised or even punished for spreading "hateful" messages. Rather than acknowledge the inherent division which exists between incompatible ethnic groups, they accuse those who point out this division as devisive!

The Communist establishment in the Soviet bloc said similar things about dissidents: that they were insane; that they should be detained in prison or confined to mental asylums. They were tiny anti-social elements who disputed what was obvious: that the socialist state was a Workers' Paradise where all ethnic groups got along.

But suddenly in the late 80s and early 90s the truth came out. The command economy had been a failure, socialism wasn't working and ethnic nationalism was alive and well.

The silenced majority never did buy into the state myth. Seventy years of trying to change human nature proved futile. "In-group" favouritism, a manifestation of which is "ethnic nepotism", is built right into our brains. As Australian sociologist, and author of "Genetic Interest", Frank Salter might say, we are "hard-wired" to bond with people very much like ourselves, to identify with them, and to join with them in pursuing our collective interests. 

One would think that Canadian politicians would have taken notice. No Canadian government ever had a mandate to change the ethnic profile of the nation. What Prime Minister MacKenzie King said in 1947 is still true today: "...the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population." Unfortunately, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the Prime Ministers who followed him paid no heed to public opinion in this area, or affected any interest in what the majority of Canadians wished. Once Trudeau instituted Official Multiculturalism in 1971, it soon became a bipartisan policy, a state religion that could not be questioned. And for good measure, it was even entrenched in the Constitution and in the madness of federal public sector institutions, including, most crucially the CBC. 

Objective observers of recent Canadian history could be forgiven if they concluded that Multicultural lobbyists are intent on denying that Canada's European heritage has any significance, or that Euro-Canadians have any claim to represent the foundational core of the country. The aim is to marginalize them. That's why many of these Multicultural propagandists are conditioned to think of Europeans as interlopers, a bunch of land-robbers - nothing more, nothing less.

It's time that Canadians knew the truth. Europeans founded this nation. And their descendants have no intention of surrendering it.

European Outlook

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