Nation Revisited # 161 March 2020

A United Front For Europe

The Roots of Radicalism website has posted a fascinating article by the veteran nationalist Ted Budden from 'Vanguard' magazine 1990. http://rootsofradicalism.com

Ted Budden is mainly remembered for his satirical writing. He was against the Common Market for all the usual reasons, but he was one of the first to question the National Front's policy of trying to revive the British Empire. He also noted the Third World population explosion and the rise of China as a world power. His political acumen no doubt stemmed from his youthful membership of the BUF.

Today the National Front is a shadow of its former self but its insular policies are now Government policy. The Tory Party has been hijacked by extremists and Britain has formally left the EU. We are now in Limbo and we will finally leave at the end of the year. 

But who knows what the future holds? The Tories have kept their election promise by introducing yet another Immigration Act, but it remains to be seen if this is a genuine measure or just another cosmetic exercise. There have been a dozen Immigration Acts since 1948 but none of them have worked.  

Ted's article concludes:

Charles de Gaulle's vision of a united Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals may well come to pass eventually. It may need to be unified, as in the days of old, in the face of the threat offered by the exploding populations of the non-White world and the burgeoning economic and military power of the East against which the Russian Empire was once a bulwark but soon may no longer be. Europe may offer the impetus to racial nationalism that it so badly needs. A racial nationalist policy for Europe is one that many may well consider sound, rational and, above all, credible.

Are we forever to continue muttering impotently on the fringe or will we strive to achieve a newer, bolder vision?

The Will of the People

Britain has been a democracy since the Great Reform Act of 1832. We elect Members of Parliament to represent us but they belong to political parties and follow the party line which is enforced by threats and intimidation. The Will of the People is therefore the Will of the Party. 

The last general election has left much of the North and the Midlands in the hands of the Tory Party. Traditional Labour voters were persuaded by the mass media to vote Tory when all of their instincts were against it. Such is the power of the press that only Liverpool, where 'The Sun' newspaper is not sold, resisted the propaganda. The Scousers turned against 'The Sun' following its shameful misreporting of the Hillsborough football disaster of 1989.

We now have a Tory government with a massive majority of eighty seats. Working people have elected a government that is likely to dismantle the Welfare State and drag us back to the workhouse. The Tories resisted almost every social improvement from retirement pensions to the National Health Service. If we had never had the trade unions we would still have children working in factories and families living in hovels. But the confused voters of the post-industrial areas have cast their votes for the mill owners and landlords who oppressed them for centuries.

Some unfortunate countries are ruled by force and kept in check by vicious policemen, but the Tories have refined the system to the point where the voters do not need to be threatened - they simply obey.

Boris "fuck business" Johnson is now installed as an elected dictator who is determined to turn the clock back. He wants to return to the days of Empire when the workers knew their place and foreigners feared British bayonets. He is a deluded despot who will destroy this country if he is not stopped. We hope that he will be brought down by unforeseen events because we cannot rely on the Will of the People. 

A letter to the Newport County Times from Milton Ellis

Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are both cracking down on free speech.

Trump has signed an executive order that empowers the US education department to penalise college campuses by withholding federal funds from those who are deemed to be tolerating anti-Semitism by allowing debate critical of Israel.

Meanwhile, Boris Johnson's new government is to pass legislation banning public bodies from imposing their own boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions (BDS) campaigning against foreign countries, including Israel on the grounds that these 'undermine' community cohesion.

While public bodies should not be pursuing their own foreign policy there has been no public approval regarding the foreign policies of successive UK governments - see Iraq war - and no 'coherent approach' or 'community cohesion' regarding this.

Also, this at a time when the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor Futou Bensouda has recently said that she would launch a full investigation into alleged war crimes in the Palestinian territories.

The Conservatives have promised to champion the rule of law, human rights, free trade, anti-corruption and a rules based international system - all of which Israel refuses to comply with.

The Conservatives are tying themselves up in knots and contradicting themselves, due to the fact that the top people in the party, Boris Johnson, Priti Patel, Savid Javid and Michael Gove are member of the Israeli lobby's Conservative Friends of Israel. Donald Trump is under pressure from the Israeli lobby also, and we have seen this in his removal of the American Embassy to Jerusalem and his recognition of the Syrian Golan Heights as part of Israel - he has no right to grant one nation's territory to another. We have also seen the influence of the Zionist lobby in the Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitism row.

Much of this anti-Semitism guff is just a ploy to justify suppression of legitimate concerns about the fate of the Palestinians and the investigation of war crimes.  

Regulation 18B - Britain's Taste of Stalinism
(From 'Action' October 1992)

Britain declared war on Germany on September 3rd, 1939, entering the fight as one of the leading nations of Europe and coming out of it a second-class power, America's dependent for years to come. The days of the British Empire were numbered. But we had to fight for democracy, protested Mr Chamberlain who declared war. His party won the last pre-war general election in 1935 on a peace policy, but changed to a war policy in 1939 without any attempt to consult the people. So much for the Tory idea of democracy. So much for the British voter.

Mr Chamberlain was also the Chancellor in 1932 who had cut the nation's defences to the bone, putting Britain's very life at risk. By 1939 he had swung right round but his rearmament was so inept and muddled that British troops were sent to war short of almost every modern weapon. The result was defeat at Dunkirk. On all counts Chamberlain was unfit to run a tripe shop. 

Mosley's stand was very different. Unlike Chamberlain he had seen the horrors of war at first hand, and he went into politics in 1918 to spare the next generation another bloodbath. When this was threatened late in the 1930s he opposed it root and branch, especially as it was a war in no real British interest. "Mind Britain's Business" said Mosley. "Keep out of foreign quarrels."

But he was also a realist. The dangerous 1930s demanded a Britain that could look after herself. From British Union's first day he called for the full defence of these islands and the Empire, but to stay out of quarrels on the other side of Europe which were no concern of ours.

Thanks to Chamberlain meddling in Germany's quarrel with Poland, however, we found ourselves at war. There was only one thing to do then, and Mosley did it. Two days before the war began he instructed all members called up for the Services to obey their orders in all circumstances. As Andrew Roberts has written, "Many Blackshirts served Britain with distinction in the war."

Meanwhile Mosley said that he would exercise the right of every Englishman to campaign for an honourable negotiated peace. Many of them had done exactly the same for the past 200 years. And his campaign gathered such popular support that the government became alarmed.

The war was not popular. HG Wells wrote in his book "New World Order", began after the outbreak of the war: "The British crowd is a sullen crowd. The world has not seen it in such a bad temper for a century and a half. And let there be no mistake about it, it is far less in a temper with the Germans than with its own rulers." What could the rulers do against the British crowd?

Mosley was selected to act as an example to the crowd when the war was going very badly. On May 22nd 1940 a special measure was rushed through Parliament. Habeus Corpus which had guarded the Englishman against unjust imprisonment since the reign of Charles the Second was suspended. Regulation 18B replaced it, and Mosley was arrested the following day under a measure he had not even heard of. Lady Mosley and 800 members of British Union followed him to prison, where they experienced the evil principle of retrospective law, a violation of British justice.

Retrospective law means that you could do something quite legal one day, but on the next day the very same thing was made quite illegal. Under 18B you could be imprisoned without charge or trial. Trial by jury, the Englishman's right, was abolished. There was no legal appeal against 18B. Anyone could be jailed whom the Home Secretary decided must be jailed. He need not give any reason for locking you up. This destroyed British freedom and justice, but government leaders could, and did, make interminable speeches that they were fighting for freedom and justice.

Churchill himself, whose government brought in 18B in 1940, soon had serious doubts about it, and in 1943 went as far as to inform British Union's old enemy Herbert Morrison, who was then glorying in his power as Home Secretary: "The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and to deny him judgement by his peers for an indefinite period is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian governments." Nothing could be more abhorrent to democracy, he added, but as we have seen, British politicians had had no time for democracy since Chamberlain's government, elected on a peace platform, in 1935, went to war in 1939 without a new mandate from the voters.

18B was a piece of totalitarianism which might have been taken from Stalin's orders for The Gulag. Very appropriately, the war ended with Stalinism triumphant. As Major General Fuller wrote: "The western frontier of Russia has been advanced from the Pripet Marshes to the Thuringerwald, a distance of 750 miles, and as in the days of Charlemagne the Slavs stand on the Elbe. A thousand years of European history have been rolled back." Indeed all Western Europe then faced the danger of going inside one vast 18B prison behind an Iron Curtain stretching along its Atlantic coasts.

Thus Mosley's thinking advanced from fascism to provide a new rallying ground against this danger. He wrote soon after the war: "The anguish of our age will not have been in vain if now is born the Idea that shall carry men beyond what is known as democracy, and beyond fascism. From the flames which end an epoch rise the Idea of the Future" - Europe a Nation. It has yet to come.

Qualified Voting

The Tory landslide general election victory has revived calls for qualified voting. Some voters could not find the UK on a map of the world. And few of them could tell you about our population, economy, or history. They read newspapers like 'The Sun' or 'The Daily Mail', and they watch 'reality' TV programs featuring half naked actors fornicating in the jungle. But these halfwits are fully entitled to cast their votes and decide our future. 

Until the Sixties qualified voting was used in Rhodesia and the Southern States of America to exclude the uneducated.  In the UK only lunatics and members of the House of Lords are denied the vote but the mentally-deficient are encouraged to do so.

A friend of mine was canvassing for the Tory Party during a general election when he called on a man who said that he was voting for the National Front, to "get rid of the Blacks." When he told the man that the NF were not standing in his constituency, he replied, "in that case I will vote Labour." This is the level of ignorance that drives our parliamentary system.

People are entitled to their opinions but the present system has saddled us with Boris Johnson, a mendacious bully surrounded by sycophants, and Priti Patel, who could be the first Home Secretary to deport herself.

A School Leaving Certificate should be awarded to all students capable of reading, writing and arithmetic, which would qualify them to vote in elections. 

Carl Harley RIP

Carl Harley died on 22nd February 2020 at his home in Highgate. He would have been 90 years-old on 26th June. He was a member of the Mosley Book Club and joined Union Movement on its foundation in 1948.

Correspondence between Alexander Raven-Thomson and Oswald Mosley cover his appointment as Youth Leader of the Lewisham Branch. Mosley records that Carl was on the revolutionary wing of the Party.

In 'Many Shades of Black' John Bean tells the story of the Communist Party march through Dalston, East London, in 1951, that was disrupted by a smoke bomb attack. Now that he is safe from prosecution we can reveal that it was Carl who pushed the buggy containing the infernal device.

During his time as Youth Leader of the Lewisham Branch of Union Movement he recruited John Bean, who he followed into various nationalist movements. He will be sadly missed by his comrades all over the world.

My tribute to Carl Harley was published in 'European Outlook' # 34, October 2016.   
https://europeanoutlook.blogspot.com/2016/09/european-outlook-34-october-2016.html 

Dave Charlwood RIP - from John Millican

I have just heard of the recent death of Dave Charlwood an old Union Movement comrade. In the mid-60's he was the UM contact in Brighton, later he became an active member of the National Front , and in later years BNP organiser for Brighton. The owner of a decorating business, one of his claims to fame was being the drummer in a pop group that appeared on Top of the Pops. Condolences to his wife Jan and their two daughters.

Nation Revisited

This blog seeks reform by legal means. All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. We uphold the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19:

"We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share ideas with other people." 

Comments

Please use the facility at the end of this blog to leave your comments and read what others have to say.

European Outlook

Our sister blog is posted on https://europeanoutlook.blogspot.com 

        

   

   

  







      

Nation Revisited # 160 February 2020

Discrimination

Most of us suffer some sort of discrimination as we go through life and sometimes we discriminate against others. This is generally harmless but it can be damaging to both parties. Those discriminated against are resentful and those who discriminate feel guilty. The best solution is honesty. There's nothing wrong with being black, white, or any shade in between. And there's nothing wrong with being old, young, tall, short, gay, straight, or whatever we are. Why is it offensive to call someone 'coloured'? No insult is intended and none should be taken.

Of course, some people go too far. A friend of mine was interviewing a woman for a job as a croupier at a London casino. When he turned her down she protested that she had a degree in mathematics and demanded to know what qualifications were necessary. My friend replied "big tits". She complained to the management and he was fired.

The politically-correct ban on so-called discriminatory language was highlighted by Peter Simple in the 'Daily Telegraph' in a 1972 article entitled 'Threshold of Hell'. In those days the 'Daily Telegraph' was a newspaper of record, before the reclusive Barclay brothers turned it into a broadsheet version of 'The Sun'.

"The lowering of the grievance threshold is a feature of our society", says the 'Observer' on the existing laws against "racial discrimination", the attempt, so far foiled, to bring in a law against "sexual discrimination" and the proposal even more preposterous, if possible - for a law against "age discrimination."

"The lowering of the grievance threshold" - translated into English, what does this painful jargon mean? It means that ours is a society in which envy, spite, discontent and petty-mindedness are growing daily, and are being encouraged to grow daily by every means open to publicists and politicians.

The normal, unselfishness relation of one human being with another human being, whether of different race, sex or age is being systematically distorted and perverted. In the name of an unattainable equality, the individual man, woman and even child is being turned into a member of a category, a militant group moved not by human love but by inhuman malice and hatred.

What would our society be like if this process reaches its ultimate though fortunately unattainable conclusion, in which every single person saw himself as a victim of discrimination by some other person? What will our society be like if this process continues, as at present, unabated and unopposed?"

Brave New World 

I regularly catch a bus to a supermarket which has a café next door. I used to speak to the bus conductor but he has been made redundant and the driver is shielded from the public by a glass cage. I enjoyed having a chat with the checkout girl but she has been replaced by a self-service computer and an intimidating-looking security guard. At least the café is still run by human beings but because I pay for a set breakfast by debit card the transaction is practically silent.

I buy my books from Amazon and I bank online so there's no need to talk to booksellers or bankers.  Busy people probably appreciate the speed and efficiency of the modern age but some of us feel isolated.

Automation is robbing us of human contact. Instead of dealing with flesh and blood people we conduct our business with machines. There are plans to install hi-tech cameras in supermarkets that will scan items as they are taken off the shelves and automatically charge them to your account. You will not have to do it yourself, but if you want to know the price of a can of beans you will have to check your bank statement.

Smart meters are replacing human meter readers for our gas, electricity and water. They will automatically record your consumption and collect payment by direct debit.

Looking further into the future, cars will drive themselves, machinery will maintain itself, and the latest medical equipment will examine you with CT scans and perform surgery with computer controlled lasers guided by artificial intelligence. Doctors and nurses might not be needed but an accountant will be on hand to make sure your medical insurance is up to date.

In the Brave New World time and money will be more important than people. Your life will be a data stream and your soul will be a number. Let's hope that we don't go mad trying to cope with it. 

Throwing Light on Searchlight - John Bean

Jeremy Corbyn is not the first politician to be targeted by the Jews. Oswald Mosley was verbally and physically abused by them and so was John Bean. He wrote in 'Many Shades of Black':

My mistake was to listen to the siren voices of those who blamed our once proud nation's predicament on a 'conspiracy' in the manner of the Scots, the Irish and even the Welsh, who will mistakenly blame the English for their 'conspiracy' to hold them back and suppress their cultures. There was no conspiracy by Jewish international finance to destroy our power and to open the floodgates to Afro-Asian immigration. In the 1930s there were individual Jewish  bankers who could see that Hitler was out to destroy the Jewish people and understandably used their power to oppose him. In the main this was the evidence that otherwise intelligent men, such as AK Chesterton, and Mosley for a time in the thirties, used to build up their plot theory. It's a theory that leaks like a sieve.

But despite his rejection of the 'Jewish Conspiracy' he was still accused of antisemitism. He wrote on his 'Beanstalk' blog in 2003:

In its July issue the ultra-left "Searchlight" magazine, which is closely linked to the Trotskyist Anti-Nazi League, has a 16 page feature marking the 40th anniversary of the foundation of the 62 Group. In 1963 the 62 Group then gave birth to the Searchlight organisation with Gerry Gable, the present magazine publisher, being a founder member of both.

The objectives of the 62 Group were to attack any organisation or individual which it considered to be Nazi, Fascist or Racist - which included the Tory Party's Monday Club, the historian David Irving, as well as Colin Jordan's National Socialist Movement. Their methods encompassed vicious physical assaults, attempted murder, burglary and arson, and are recalled in glowing terms in the "Searchlight" report.

My personal experience of their activity include the famous "Battle of Balls Pond Road" in East London, 2nd Sept 1962 (see p 166 of my autobiography, where 400 muscle men bravely overwhelmed 40 members of the Mark1 BNP, hospitalising many of them. Then there were several open air meetings at Earls Court. The report gives an account of an attack on one of these meetings where I am alleged to have used a knuckle duster! As my solicitor will be informing "Searchlight", any knuckle dusters present were used by the 62 Group and not by me or my supporters. The report does not mention, of course, the occasion in November 1962 when 62 Group thugs tried to break into my home. I told the police that I recognised one of their voices.

The 62 Group members were almost exclusively Jewish. Not ordinary Jewish people but, as the "Searchlight" report states on p 13, militant Jews "who had fought fascism" in London's East End and had "supported the Jewish Communist MP for Stepney, Phil Piratin". Again, on p 14 it claims: "...the 62 Group led that fight on behalf of the Jewish Community." Yet on p 21 it is admitted that "...the leaders of the Jewish community had described the 62 Group as thugs who were damaging the community." This changed somewhat when an editorial in the "Jewish Chronicle" demanded that the 62 Group "be shown gratitude and respect for its work".

Apart from Gerry Gable -  a convicted burglar who now advises the Met Police on race relations (!), who were the other leading lights of the 62 Group? Pride of place is given in the report to its Intelligence Officer Harry (Hershel) Bidney, founder of the 43 Group (formed to attack Mosley supporters), who Gable looked up to as a father figure. No mention, however, of Bidney's numerous convictions for living off immoral earnings of both straight and homosexual prostitutes. No mention of his "Golden Whip Club", a Soho haunt for those who shared his sexual proclivities.

The founder and first editor of "Searchlight" was Maurice Ludmer, who was a member of the Communist Party and a journalist on its paper "Daily Worker" (Now Morning Star). Among the list of 62 Group members that the report 'honours', there is no mention of a certain key activist who was involved in drug dealing. Nor is Manny Carpel mentioned. He received 2 years in jail for an arson attack on a Sussex printer of Historical Review books. He was last heard of doing further time for an antiques scam.

My purpose in devoting so much space to the activities of a gang of Communist Jewish thugs of forty years ago is that it gave birth to the Searchlight Organisation that today spreads misinformation about British patriotic movements, including the BNP, and aids attacks upon them through the Trotskyite Anti-Nazi League. Furthermore, it is partly financed  by the Lottery Fund, whose help has been denied to such bodies as the St Dunstan's Home for blind ex-servicemen.

Self-Determination

We can expect a new wave of Third World immigration following Boris Johnson's landslide general election victory. The Tories want to stop free movement of labour within Europe but they welcome immigrants from outside the EU.

If we discuss immigration we are accused of racism by unscrupulous lawyers like Messrs Dodson & Fogg. Most of us just want sensible immigration controls, with assistance for those immigrants who want to go home, plus deportation for criminals, dole scroungers, and illegal entrants. We must obey the Race Relations Act but it's probably safe to say that we should chose immigrants that are easily assimilated. 

Racial and religious intolerance is sweeping the world. Nearly a million Rohingya have been expelled from Myanmar and driven into neighbouring Bangladesh. The Chinese have confined thousands of Uighurs to 're-education camps'. And millions of people have been displaced by war in the Middle East. It's unlikely that repatriation will happen in the UK. We are no longer an all white country but we can still preserve our national character. The United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights states:

"All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

But the sheer volume of immigration coupled with restrictive legislation threatens to deny us these basic human rights. We can't pursue our economic, social and cultural development for fear of infringing the rights of immigrants. This was not the original intention of the Race Relations Act.

EFTA

The Tories want Britain to be an independent country but we have belonged to the global capitalist system for three hundred years. The East India Company took over India when George the Second was on the throne. We plundered the Empire until General Percival surrendered Singapore to General Yamashita in 1942. That was the end of our imperialism but we struggled on under the Bretton Woods Agreement until the Nixon Shock of 1971 when America cut us loose. We then joined the Common Market which became the European Union. We have been part of a world empire, an American protectorate, and an member of the EU, but this is the first time that we have been on our own 

The Tories are hopeful of a transatlantic trade deal but the USA is practically self-sufficient and uses world trade primarily to enforce her foreign policy. 'Favoured nations', such as Israel, are rewarded with military assistance and lucrative trade deals but 'least favoured nations', such as Iran, are blockaded, starved and eventually bombed into submission.

Donald Trump threatened the UK with a 25% tariff on our cars unless we sided with the US against Iran. And he has now threatened the same punishment if we tax giant American companies like McDonalds, Starbucks, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, and Google at normal corporate rates.

Boris Johnson has been described by Labour leadership contender Emily Thornberry as a "lying, reckless charlatan." He is also a two-faced bandwagon jumper who wrote in 'The Daily Telegraph' of May 2013:

If we left the EU, we would end this sterile debate, and we would have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by Brussels, but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills, a culture of easy gratification and underinvestment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure.

China, the United States and the European Union dominate world trade and we must co-operate with them to gain access to their markets. In the Second Opium War (1856-1860) a Franco-British expeditionary force supported by 36 warships forced the Chinese to open their ports. But those days are gone.

We have left the EU but our future prosperity depends on access to the single market. An arrangement such as EFTA which unites Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, might placate our separatists, just as it has in Norway, a proudly independent nation that to all intents and purposes belongs to the EU.

Political Divisions

I have been criticised for using the term 'far right' to describe parties such as the BNP or the National Front. These labels are inadequate but what are we to call them? The convention is that parties supporting the establishment are right wing, and those opposed to it are left wing. But what should we call a dedicated member of the Labour Party like John Prescott (pictured), the son of a railwayman who became Deputy Prime Minister before being elevated to the House of Lords as Baron Prescott of Kingston Upon Hull? Is he left wing by virtue of his ideology or right wing because of his position?

It's all the more confusing when race and nationalism are added to the mixture. There are liberals and conservatives on both sides. Enoch Powell was a typical Tory but because of his views on immigration he was supported by working men who usually voted Labour. Left wingers are supposed to welcome all races but plenty of them do not. The Tories, on the other hand, are supposed to be racists but their party is multiracial and there are black and brown ministers in Boris Johnson's Cabinet.

Politics has always been a matter of convenience. The Nazis were originally a left wing movement fighting "for freedom and for bread", but they were backed by international capitalists including Standard Oil and the Warburg family. More or less the same consortium that financed the Russian Revolution and the New Deal.

And we mustn't forget our wartime prime minister Winston Churchill, a cash-strapped Tory aristocrat who drank far into the night with the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and the American plutocrat FD Roosevelt. It's all very confusing.

The Monarchy

Harry Windsor and Meghan Markle's decision to emigrate to Canada has caused alarm and despondency amongst monarchists but the rest of us couldn't care less. The Restoration of 1660 was a big mistake. Bowing and scraping to the Royals cannot be justified in the 21st century. Some of us want to abolish the institution and appoint some harmless old academic as president. But there are two sides to the argument.

Charles Maurras 1868-1952 was the leader of Action Francaise the French fascist movement that brought down the 'Cartel des Gauches' government following a bloody riot in the Place de la Concorde in February 1934. He was by nature an agnostic and a republican but he supported the Catholic Church and the Monarchy because he thought they were good for France. Perhaps he had a point?

Nation Revisited

This blog seeks reform by legal means. All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. We uphold the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19:

"We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share ideas with other people." 

Comments

Please use the facility at the end of this blog to leave your comments and read what others have to say.