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

Nation Revisited, # 112 February 2016

Why Two Blogs?

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

The Referendum

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

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

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

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

Spiritual and Structural Presuppositions of the European Union - Julius Evola

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

European Outlook

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

Nation Revisited # 111 January 2016

What's it all About

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Hermann Goering’s Letter to Winston Churchill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hermann Goering

Nation Revisited # 110, December 2013

It’s all in the Protocols

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

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

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

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

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

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

Race and Culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infiltration

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

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

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

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

Keeping the Lights on

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

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

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

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

Ryan Shaffer

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

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

Read your History (Originally published in Comrade November 2012)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Baillie,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, Bill White.

Dear Bill White,

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

Just a couple of points if I may:

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

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

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

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

Best wishes. Bill Baillie

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