Thursday, 30 June 2016

Nation Revisited # 117, July 2016

The Mystique of the Blood - Della Aleksander

This article first appeared in the League Review in September 1975. Derrick Alexander, a London school teacher became Della Aleksander when she underwent surgery in Casablanca in 1970. She championed transgender rights and 'Thoecratic Socialism.'


We have spoken previously of the power of the idea and the triumph of the Will. Grand sentiments. Noble concepts. But man is not a disembodied spirit, these intangibles require, on this plane, a vehicle to come to expression. That vehicle is the blood. In the outward march of mankind and the avoidance of retrogression, chaos and global disaster, Race, as Disraeli observed in his novel "Coningsby", is all. For Anglican though he was, he sprang from a unique people who claim to have been taught and to have rigorously practiced that fundamental truth under none other than the tutelage of the Lord God Himself!

It is not our task here to grapple with the mystery of the very origins of life upon this particular satellite of a rather medium-sized star – our Sun – in a tiny corner of a galaxy comprising about 100,000,000,000 stars, in a “Universe” in which thousands of millions of galaxies have already been sighted. Against such a background, in which the virtual certainty of intelligent life countless ages beyond us in power and intelligence stands to be admitted, atheism becomes as academic a question for philosophers as does the possibility of a power greater than I to the fly on the wall! This revolutionary realization has still not sunk into the heads of myopic humanists and materialistic Marxists and their clerical friends to whom Man, as he now is, is still the measure of all things.


It is quite conceivable, therefore, that life was introduced from other worlds by higher intelligences, and that evolution has played a subsidiary, but not total, role. The lack of certain vital fossil evidence rather inclines us personally to this view. But of one thing we can be certain. The creature recognisable as the precursor of our species did exist in the primeval forests of the quaternary period. According to the traditions of the Aryan peoples the first man-like creature was a black dwarf race and his home was the African continent. Fifty years ago, when the Java fossils had just been discovered, this was discounted as superstitious myth; man’s original home was then held to be South East Asia. This is so no more. Recent discoveries have attested beyond dispute that Africa was the nursery of the first human type. It is not unreasonable to assume that the pygmy and bushman are the direct evolutionary descendants of such primal creatures, advanced cousins of the ape. “Untermenschen.”
Until recent years evolutionists quarrelled with Biblicists only on the matter of mankind's age and the manner of his arriving. The latter insisted that Adam began it all just six thousand years ago. The former insisted, equally on faith and assumption that Man had been clawing his way progressively up the evolutionary ladder for half a million years and finally made it as a civilised being about the same time as the Biblical record put his creation - six thousand years ago. Now evidence accumulates, almost by the month, (generating a fascinating new literature, fathered by the researches of Bergier and Pauwels in their arresting book "The Dawn of Magic"), that great and mighty civilisations arose and fell, certainly within the last two hundred thousand years. The evidence for the lost continents of Mu and Atlantis, and their alleged contacts with space visitants would be here another, though highly absorbing digression - but we must hurry on.

According to Hitler's friend Professor Horbinger, a brilliant and inspired physicist, the story of the Universe is that of the eternal struggle between ice and fire. With this the painstaking, but neglected scholarship of the orthodox Jew, Velikovsky, also agrees in his epochal book, "Worlds in Collison". So we are not dealing here with just another "Nazi myth", as no doubt our detractors would like to suggest. And the recent work on Catastrophe Theory, as being present and in-built throughout nature, by the French biologist Rene Thom, and expressing the universal process with a mathematical certainty, in an almost Pythagorean sense, provides us with yet further witnesses.

Horbinger maintained that in an age before this, this earth has other moons and that vegetation and men grew to giant size, but cataclysm caused degeneration and dwarfism. Yet the human experiment had to continue. Was there intervention from outer space to give the race a new start, as many now maintain. What of the discovery, in 1972 of the oldest complete skull fossil of early man yet found by Leakey, in Kenya? This ancestor walked on the earth two and a half million years ago according to the latest radiation techniques, yet had a larger brain than any race of today and actually preceded the later ape-men! Is their occult tradition valid after all, that the simian types we have called our "ancestors" were actually the product of bestiality, in an age where the seeds of men and lower breeds could mix? Perhaps here we have the origins of the legendary tales of satyrs and centaurs and the instinct of all races that the blood must be preserved from pollution for, as the Pentateuch tells us, "the life is in the blood."
In short, there is no longer scientific grounds for supposing, as the nineteenth century optimists did, that evolution rolls on like the incoming sea, always progressing, always triumphant. No! Both natural catastrophe and human folly can pervert it, reverse it, and conceivably, bring the entire human and planetary experiment to an end. From this naively sanguine naturalism that the "right" course is self-perpetuating, which coloured nineteenth century science and materialism, have sprung the tragic errors of today of the indoctrinated peoples. That of Marxism: that the class struggle must inexorably bring in the everlasting utopia. That od democratic liberalism: that muddling through must find the goal in the end; that of humanism; that the individual doing his own thing is the measure of the rights of the state, which should be discarded like an old boot as soon as possible, and treated like one in the interim. The entire mystique of modern liberalist-humanism is contrary to Nature and she, like God, will not be mocked. Its comforting, but lying siren's song is luring civilisation to disaster. Fascism and National Socialism, in their hasty and rough and ready manner, whatever their faults, alone perceived this basic fallacy in our legacy from the nineteenth century, strove frantically to put the European once more back on course. Their detractors can now speak with smug conceit about "blind guides", but those millions who then sensed their need see now no better for being told to throw away their sticks and find the way themselves.

Whereas the egalitarian notion that was spawned by the French Revolution and since then has taken protean forms; humanist, social democratic and various types of communist creed, all of which see economic welfare in the present as the measure of all political purpose and the only justification for it, the racial consciousness of the European has already once burst forth, imprisoned and enraged by such lies, like a mighty volcanic eruption of the cosmic feeling in man. As long as we hold and remain true to that Cosmic sense, that stirring of the blood that transmutes into spirit enabling all things to be possible, a holy sacrament indeed, we shall walk this life's path in the certainty that we walk with Providence and that we remain true to the vision. Let enemies revile us, false friends proscribe us. We sense no loss. 'Our honour is loyalty'. All else is ordure.


Modern cosmopolitan mankind has lost his contact with the soil, "the dust of the ground" that gave him birth. He talks incessantly of freedom, but only sees it in economic terms: the state run more efficiently. In this grave error, our foes and detractors both to the left and the right of us, are one. This is the politics of the industrial ghetto into which modern man has been corralled and enslaved. We would not waste our time and energy campaigning to tinker with that world. It is a crime against all that Man is; against Nature herself. It will strangulate to death, cataclysmically choked by its own pollution of earth and blood; sentenced to perdition for its crime against the providential ecological balance of nature; demented by its maniacal pursuit of plutocratic greed that sees all men, of whatever race or colour, mere fodder for its vast conglomerates that ransack Mother Earth of her limited treasures and expend and vitiate her fairest and finest product: Mankind. The Race itself. If there be men, of whatever political hue they may ascribe to themselves, who cannot see these root issues, and blush with trepidation whenever they hear them mentioned, then it is an honour and a mercy to be proscribed by them. They belong to their world, that is dying. They're welcome. We belong to the new.

We seek not a greater clutter of industrial output just to take part the more successfully, until the final collapse, in the crazy game of international finance. Let the dead bury their dead. We seek the Volksgemeinschaft - the organic community of the people! We would restore the mystic nexus: the bond between blood and soil. Trendy clerics are fond of quoting St Paul to the Athenians, that "God made man of one blood to dwell on the face of all the earth". Which says no more than that it is physically possible for all the present races to procreate. But they never cite to us the next sentence: "having determined the fixed limits of their habitation."


So the mass movement of peoples, from regions where these particular races are indigenous, and have there formed their own particular roots over millennia, through the nexus of blood and soil, to a fate of subsequent rootless and disgruntled cosmopolitanism, is not only unnatural, but contrary to Christianity. This is scarcely surprising, for the survival of the Jews since the Babylonian captivity is essentially dependent upon this general principle. Though, until recently, because of the diaspora, there was no Jewish blood-soil nexus. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the Palestinian problem, there is no question that the Israeli tiling the ground of a kibbutz is now a far more attractive figure than his wheeler-dealer cousin in London or New York. 
When the Jews returned from Babylon there was a ruthless breaking up of mixed marriages by the prophets Ezra and Nehemiah, involving the rejection of even wives along with their young, half-breed children. A solution that, for such children, went further than the Nuremburg laws. For if it were simply a matter of alien religion, certainly the little kiddies of mixed blood could have been retained by the Jewish parent. But they too had to go, so that "the people wept very sore." Modern orthodox Jewry would no doubt, vindicate their harsh decision; but what have our trendy clerics to say upon the matter? Nothing.

The famed Swiss psychologist, CG Jung, who can scarcely be called a Nazi, nor, for that matter, was he a Jew, rightly pointed out that when there is a large alien minority in a culture then, quite regardless of the excellence or otherwise as individuals, of that minority, both they and the host culture undergo subtle change. Just as the mob has its own psychology, that is not the sum total of its members. This is essentially why the Britain of today  has a different character to that of 1945; why calls for National concerted effort go largely unheeded; why the approach to life by citizens has become so atomised, so rootless, anarchic and approaching the American pattern. There occurs a subtle vitiation of the natural qualities of both host and guest communities says Jung. The frenetic racy manner of speech of an American radio commentator, is, he shrewdly observes, more reminiscent of an African market than the tones of a European. And by imbibing the influence of the white culture and so being affected by it, whilst unconsciously vitiating all blood-soil nexus, the coloured community becomes itself rootless, disaffected, and understandably accepting the white man's economic aspirations, feels itself unjustly discriminated against. This is a crime against Nature, a crime against all involved, and one against the revealed religion of Western Man. It is a crime that the benighted apostles of the Left, even though it was born in the first instance of capitalist greed for the proceeds of grinding exploitation, both applaud and delight in. They see this hotch-potch as reducing all men to eventually thinking in solely economic terms about the nature of Man and the purpose of life. This disruption and confusion will, they consider, both make their victory possible, and then their communist new world will maintain this abominable crime against evolution and the Cosmic Will for perpetuity. Only cataclysm can now thwart their perverse efforts. In the poetic, retributive justice of Nature, a cataclysm that their benighted principles will have done very much to bring about. And then will sanity return to the world. That hour is near.

 
Frank Walsh

Veteran campaigner Frank Walsh was born in 1925. He joined the Merchant Navy at the age of 14 and volunteered for the army in 1943. He was known as the King of Speakers Corner, where he spoke fearlessly for many years. The following extract is from his unique online blog; a fascinating mixture of artwork, prose and poetry.
ab4ps.com



The Pseudo-Jew Prime Minister B. Disraeli said on race: "No-one may treat the principle of race, the race question, with indifference, for it is the key to world history. History is often confusing for the sole reason that it is written by people who know neither the racial issue nor the moments connected therewith. Neither language nor religion make a race. Only one thing makes a race and that is Blood. The peoples retain their strength, their morality and their capacity for great things only so long as they keep their blood free from any mixing. If they absorb alien blood their virtues will greatly dwindle, as will their strength. They become bastards, degenerates, and their downfall is inevitable. True strength lies in the nobility of the soul, and the soul is abased when the blood is tainted. All is race, there is no other truth." And the Chosen racists condemn Adolf.


Frank Walsh with friends including Florentine Roost van Tonningen (1914-2007) seated third from left. She was the widow of Meinood Roost van Tonningen (1894-1945) the Dutch National Socialist who died awaiting trial in Scheveningen Prison.


More Crisis due to Overpopulation - Catherine Parker Brown
This article first appeared on the Nationalist Alliance website in Nov 2006. The price of gas has come down but we are still struggling with immigration.



Just about everyone in the country is worried about the current gas crisis. The wholesale price of the fuel has risen to an all time high.

The reason for this is quite obvious: the demand is by far exceeding the supply. Britain is such a small island whose resources simply cannot cope with the disproportionate number of people living here.

It doesn't stop with gas: we have the exact same problem with water, disposal of sewerage, disposal of household refuse, a financial economy which is near to exhausted, a 'mob rule' situation in our cities, immense volumes of traffic causing chaos and pollution, more rapidly spreading diseases - some of which we had once managed to eradicate and MAJOR health care problems.

Take a look at our hospitals. The vast majority of staff in our health services are coloured immigrants. We are told that "They are vital, we have such a huge shortage of doctors and nurses". Nonsense, utter nonsense. The problem IS NOT that we don't have enough doctors, it is that we have TOO MANY PEOPLE.

Besides at, these coloured doctors that are brought in all have massive families, thus increasing the population and further adding to the problem. Humane repatriation would cut the population down to a sustainable figure, meaning that the number of white doctors that we have would be ample. And we could afford to pay them a more apposite wage!

We are told that we need these immigrants for the amount they pay in taxes, yet they cost our economy far more than they supposedly put back in. The Race Relations industry costs our country billions upon billions of pounds every year in diversity quangos, legal aid and legal expenses, social security benefits, fabricated fancy job titles, equal rights schemes, so-called reports into diversity, anti-racism projects and so on.

Consider also the vast amount of land that is constantly being taken to build extra housing for these alien invaders. The country is systematically being transformed into an urban jungle. We need our farmland to grow crops and graze cattle enabling our food resources. We need our forests and woodland to ensure clean air. We need our marshlands and meadows in which birds can thrive - birds have always filled an important place in our ecosystem. They eat up to half their weight each day in rodents, insects, weed seeds, and other pests; they pollinate flowers and distribute beneficial plant seeds.

We may be well aware of this, but getting our message across to the general public is another matter!

So, in a bizarre sort of way, the high cost of gas combined with related power cuts may actually do us a favour!

Maybe a calamity of this nature, which so directly involves, inconveniences and costs 'Joe Public' - hitting them in their pockets and preventing them from watching their mundane soap operas and reality TV shows - may well persuade them to start taking note of the serious consequences of overpopulation, and making a stand to something about it. We can but hope.

European Outlook

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























Tuesday, 31 May 2016

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 50th 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










  












Saturday, 30 April 2016

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 Destinywww.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 20th 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 21st 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 18th 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