Nation Revisited # 121 November 2016

The Problem of Power

Theresa May said at the Tory Party conference in Birmingham that she would use the power of government to “restore fairness” in Britain and spread prosperity more widely. This is an unusual thing for a Tory to say; they usually pretend to be libertarians who are suspicous of the State. In fact, every modern government has used taxation to redistribute wealth and regulations to control business.

Benito Mussolini believed that the State was supreme, and that individualism was selfish and destructive. He harnessed the Socialism of his youth to the patriotism of the First World War to produce Fascism. He built a State sustained by popular enthusiasm but his bold experiment was destroyed by World War Two. He tried again with the Italian Social Republic but he had left it too late.

The American Libertarians are so anti-State that they are practically anarchists. Some of them are formed into armed bands that regard the federal government as “the enemy.” They think that state provided medical care is “creeping communism” and begrudge paying taxes. Margaret Thatcher shared some of their beliefs when she said: “there is no such thing as society.”

P-J Proudhon went even further in his dislike of government, he wrote in General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century:

"To be Governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be Governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured, That is government; that is justice; that is morality."

Oswald Mosley in his 1955 pamphlet “Government of Tomorrow: the Problem of Power,” tried to strike a balance between authoritarianism and libertarianism:

"There is a fundamental distinction between the abuse of power to infringe individual liberty and the use of power to implement the people's will; yet abuse and use are often confused. The old liberal clichés concerning the corruption of power can be extended from a just indictment of tyranny to a thesis so unreasonable that it causes the paralysis of the state; all power, even for the most beneficial ends can become suspect."

He was right to insist on an independent judiciary and a fixed parliament but his proposed system of occupational representation now seems dated. Since the decline of mining and manufacturing people are no longer defined by their jobs. They were proud of being shipbuilders or steel workers but no one is proud of being a burger flipper or a call centre operator.

The Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union was based on trade union representation but the whole system was controlled by the Communist Party. The Party was the State, just as it was in National Socialist Germany. Both systems relied heavily on surveillance and sacrificed individual liberty for security.   

The enemies of good government are corruption and dictatorship. China is afflicted with both vices but their booming economy has brought prosperity to the masses. There are rumbles of discontent in Hong Kong and Xinxiang but most Chinese are much better off than their parents. Their police and local councillors may be on the take but they are too busy making money to worry about it.

Every revolutionary from Vladimir Lenin to Margaret Thatcher has tried to overcome the problem of power but without success. At least Oswald Mosley outlined a representative system with built-in safeguards. Before the Second World War he advocated a Government with the power to tackle unemployment and inequality. After the war he still believed in strong government but stressed the importance of the rule of law:

“The ideas of those who think as we do have certainly developed greatly since the war. They have, also, changed where past errors can be recognised. A man who lives a lifetime without changing any opinion has learned nothing, and a man who lives a lifetime without learning anything is simply a fool. We leave it to the gentlemen responsible for the present condition of the world the comfortable belief that they have made no past mistakes from which to learn.”

Why Polish Communities have always been undervalued - even more so post-Brexit - Prince John Zylinski

This article is from The New European - theneweuropean.co.uk

Nigel Farage used mob tactics to hijack the vote on the UK referendum to leave or remain in the European Union.

Of all the politicians I've seen in my lifetime, he is the one that's changed the country the most, apart from Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill.

Farage has turned Ukip into Frankenstein's monster - he's done the traditional thing when you want a revolution to happen, he reached out to the mob.

After joining Ukip in 2006 he changed the way the party worked and started focusing on migrants - claiming they're changing the face of the country, that they are only here to get benefits, to steal English jobs and cause traffic jams.

I wrote to him recently, asking his view on the Poles that are here. He wrote back to me and attached a signed photograph of himself, which is now proudly decorating my toilet.

His great achievement is that he used the mob to win the referendum vote and Hitler did the same thing with the Nazis. I'm not saying Farage is Hitler, but what Farage did was find a gap in the political spectrum which was filled by nobody, especially by Labour. They were perceived as having failed their own constituents, their own traditional Labour voters who they were not standing up for. Labour lost touch with the working class so Nigel Farage and Ukip went straight into that gap and the results were sensational.

When the Brexit vote was announced, newcomers to the UK were horrified, scared and upset. A lot of migrants felt severely unappreciated, as without certain groups, like the Poles, the country would be 20% worse off.

Polish people have contributed massively to the economic state of the UK. Without them so many places would close - hospitals, banks, Starbucks, they would all go if these people weren't here.

One firm of accountants that I know has 2,000 customers and a large proportion of them are Polish. On the morning of the result they had 1,000 calls before lunch, from people who were so distressed, confused, horrified. It was a huge slap to the face. It was like they were told to F-off, we don't want you here, you're not welcome, leave.

Well this is all going to change now as I'm standing up for the Poles, which no one has ever done before. My father led a cavalry charge against the Nazis and this is my cavalry charge. To say what first-generation Poles would never had dared say - that we're grateful to be here but you should be grateful to have us too. Poles are hard-working and pax taxes, and in return all we get is a proverbial kick in the balls.

Another issue I'm not happy about is that there have been too many incidents of racist abuse since Brexit. One shocking event involved an eight-year-old schoolgirl, who was told to "F-off back to Poland" by a classmate. Eight-year -olds are doing this to each other - where do they get it from, their parents?

Another horrific incident happened in a school, in an area where there was a very large Ukip vote. They all voted Leave and a 10 year-old Polish boy was beaten up by 20 English youngsters who ganged up on him.

In my opinion there appears to be double standards at work here. For example if you're gay, you can go to the police and report a hate crime with no material evidence, and the police will take it seriously. On the other hand if you're Polish and white I don't think the police are giving us enough protection.

I'd also like to set the record straight regarding Polish immigrants coming into the country with criminal records. The fact is that most of them don't commit any further crimes because they have no need to. They're thankful they can go straight into a stable job with a proper wage and not be paid a pittance.

The truth is that Poles that have criminal records in their own country become perfect model citizens over here. What's not to like? Statistics prove that crime rates regarding migrants have been going down successively for the last five years.

What people tend to forget is that migrants in the UK contribute £2 billion in taxes a year. Yes, they use hospitals and schools but they bring in more than they take out.

The Polish community has had enough of being mistreated and this is partly why I'm setting up this organisation, 'Polish Heroes' - which is spearheading the attempt to really deal with these issues post-Brexit.

Polish Heroes is a charity - that will convey how fantastic Polish people are and have been to the UK. They were heroes during the war, they helped Britain in the Battle of Britain and through their work since the war.

It's been 70 years of outstanding hard graft, they work 60-70 hours a week and their work rate is second to none compared to English people and it has always been like that, ever since the 1950s, when the first wave of Poles came in after the war.

I've been brought up on stories where Poles would be working in factories and told "you must not work that hard, otherwise we'll be out of a job," I believe that they do not get the credit they deserve for the significant contribution they make to this great country.

In my opinion Poles should not be knocked or criticised because they're terrific people, hence the name of the charity, Polish Heroes. We're setting up advice centres, where they'll be able to get legal advice.

We need to go out to English society much more with our message. Another very important example which I'm encouraging poles to do, involving hundreds of people, is at our Polish shops. I want a Polish member of staff to go outside the shop with a tray, offering Polish food free of charge.

One thing that also needs to change is Polish people's view on politics. Poles don't vote, they don't get involved, even in polling. Election attendance is very low but particularly over here where people feel in a sense it's foreign country. However, many have been here ten years, they've been paying their taxes, they've got strong feelings about things and I think they're realising that. They've got to vote no matter what because otherwise people like Nigel Farage and Ukip will eat them alive!

Other foreign communities have a voice, they've got councillors and so on. We've worked hard and kept our heads down, but that's totally not enough. Despite working extremely long hours every week, if you haven't got people in the media and in politics, this will be twisted against you -we're "stealing English jobs."

This is why we need a public presence and we need a public voice because otherwise other people's stereotype narratives take over.

The truth of it is, we helped save the country in the Battle of Britain, we've been helping it since the war and we will continue to do so.

Prince John Zylinski is a London-born Polish aristocrat who stood as an independent candidate in the 2016 London Mayoral Election. In 2015 he challenged Nigel Farage to a duel of swords.

Myngath - David Myatt

The lifelong spiritual quest of David Myatt has finally ended. The former leader of the National Socialist Movement in the UK was born in Tanzania in 1950 and died in Egypt in 2016. He was brought up as a Catholic but converted to Islam for many years before adopting a philosophy he called “The Numinous Way”. His book A Practical Guide to the Aryan Revolution inspired terrorists throughout the world including the nail bomber David Copeland. David Myatt never did anything by halves. As a Catholic he spent time in a monastery and studied Greek and Latin. While exploring Oriental mysticism he learned Sanskrit and became proficient in martial arts, and when he became a Muslim he mastered Arabic and adopted their culture. His autobiography Myngath paints a convincing picture of a man who suffered his share of tragedies and was genuinely sorry for his mistakes.

“Although – on joining the NF and BM – I was very naive about politics, something of a tabula rasa, I soon developed the same prejudices and the same hatreds as the people I came to associate with; prejudices and hatreds aided by pamphlets and books read, loaned and given, and by discussion with party members, especially those belonging to BM. Thus I came to regard ‘immigrants’ as somewhat uncivilized, certainly inferior to White people, and considered their removal from ‘our land’, our country, as a necessity. Before this, I had no opinions about such matters, and my understanding of National-Socialism was greatly aided and developed by personal discussions with, and by written correspondence I had with Colin Jordan.

During this formative period, I subscribed to items such as The Thunderbolt newspaper published by Edward R Fields and so regularly received anti-Jewish and anti-Black reports; reports that seemed to confirm the necessity of racial separation and the need for a final solution to ‘the Jewish problem’. For I had, in common with nearly all BM members, and many NF members, come to believe that the Jews in England, as in many other Western lands, had too much power and too much influence, were somehow by nature badly disposed towards White people, and thus were our mortal enemies.

In practice these beliefs and prejudices, this racism, meant three obvious things, and one interesting and curious thing, at least it is curious and interesting to me, now on reflection. The three things are:

1) That I developed a very idealized, a very romanticised, view of the native love for those I regarded as my own people, my own race – especially in respect of English people; regarding them as probably the most civilized people on Earth who had built the best, the most noble, Empire the world had ever seen, and who had ‘civilized’ or brought civilization to large parts of the world.

2) That I developed a prejudice and antagonism towards other races in general and in particular against ‘Blacks’ and Jews, and thus, as a group, and politically, hated them and did not wish to associate with them.

3) That I regarded violence in pursuit of my beliefs as natural and necessary, and came to regard political enemies – such as ‘Reds’ – as legitimate targets for political violence.

The one interesting and curious thing is:

That despite my racism, my Nazi beliefs and ideals, my political activism, I was not personally offensive to or prejudiced or violent toward or hated individuals of other races that I met, including Jews.”

Dedicated Nationalists and National Socialists may dismiss David Myatt as a traitor and many religious people will doubt his sincerity but few of us go through life without changing our minds and we are all influenced by people and events.

The author makes use of poetry and snatches of Greek that mean nothing to me. But Myngath is beautifully written and well worth reading. It is available from Amazon.

Ideas and Suggestions

Feedback is always welcome. Last month one reader thought that my articles on nationalist history were fascinating and another wrote that they are "unreadable and uninteresting." Some time ago a reader suggested that I must be homosexual because I never comment adversely on them. And another came to the same conclusion about Freemasonry. Whenever I mention Adolf Hitler I get irate messages in the Fuhrer's defence and when I mention God I am contacted by Odinists pointing me towards Valhalla. 

For the record I have no interest in buggery, thuggery, secret societies, Wagnerian mysticism, funny money, conspiracies, head measuring, fluoridation, Morris dancing, levitation, historical re-enactment, or martial arts.

But I am interested in politics, and I am convinced after a lifetime of observation that almost everything is driven by economics. The invention of the shipping container is more responsible for globalism than the Bilderbergers. And mass migration is all about cheap labour; it has nothing to do with a sinister Jewish plot to destroy the white race.

A few years ago I was privileged to hear a speech given by Bob Wilkinson, a former Blackshirt who was then in his nineties. He said that nothing had changed since the thirties when the capitalists started exporting jobs and importing cheap goods and labour at the expense of the British worker. And he went on to say that we were right then as we are now to fight for justice. It was a remarkable speech by an old comrade who knew what he was talking about. 

Unfortunately most political commentators do not know what they are talking about and that includes the racists. There's no doubt that the peoples of the northern hemisphere have contributed the most to human progress but the idea that a Master Race founded every great civilisation is a bit far-fetched. 

Similarly, Christianity certainly came from the Middle East but it has been part of our culture for almost two thousand years. We owe the great art, music, poetry and architecture of Europe to our Christian heritage. A typical example is the beautiful language of The Apostle's Creed imposed by Charlemagne in the Middle Ages. 

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into Hell, the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen

We will not overcome the demographic and ecological challenges of the twenty-first century by adopting the morals and manners of the Vikings. They are remembered as rapists and arsonists who terrified Europe but their Norman cousins are remembered for their castles and cathedrals, and their Saxon cousins for their learning and wisdom; the essential
difference was Christianity.

Nevertheless, I value my readers, of all persuasions, and welcome their ideas and suggestions.  

European Outlook

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

  

Nation Revisited # 120 October 2016

Loved Ones - Diana Mosley

This book review by Father Brocard Sewell was published in Lodestar in 1985. Father Brocard Sewell (1912-2000) was a Carmelite friar, a literary figure, and a supporter of Union Movement. Diana Mosley (1910-2003) was the wife of Oswald Mosley, a gifted writer and a dedicated European. Loved Ones is available from Amazon.

Both supporters and opponents of Sir Oswald Mosley who read this book - and I hope they will all read it - will probably turn first to Lady Mosley's fifty-page memoir of her husband, although it appears as the last of the seven biographical studies which make up this volume. It goes without saying that this is an especially valuable coda, so to say, to Mosley's My Life and Robert Skidelsky's Oswald Mosley. It is also a valuable corrective, if such were needed to a recent denigratory biography of Mosley; but happily this damp squib seems to have done little damage, and to be already forgotten. In her important study Lady Mosley is not concerned with her subjects political views and activities, save indirectly, but in a ten-page appendix she corrects a number of still current errors and distortions in this context, and places on record some facts which it would not be easy to find elsewhere.

Everyone who has read Lady Mosley's A Life of Contrasts and Sir Harold Acton's Nancy Mitford: A Memoir will be glad to encounter again some of the people who appear in these two earlier books, and are here written of more fully. I much enjoyed the full-length study of the remarkable Mrs Hammersley who might have stepped from the pages of the delightful but now forgotten, catholic novels of Mrs Wilfred Ward and John Ayscough (Monsignor Bickerstaff-Drew). And surely everybody of a European outlook must appreciate the study of Prince and Princess Clary. (It is sad that A European Past - the English edition of Prince Alfons Clary-Aldringen's valuable book Geshichten eines alten Oesterreichers - though recently published is out of print.

The highly sympathetic and appreciative essay on Lytton Strachey and Carrington is in part a defence of Strachey’s literary achievements – now perhaps rather underestimated by the cognoscenti. It would be hard to imagine anyone writing unsympathetically of that fine painter and good woman Carrington, whose life ended so sadly, but there is a rare quality of loving perceptiveness in what is said about her in these pages.

Professor Derek Jackson FRS, Lady Mosley's brother-in-law. (d 1982), is little known to the general public. A distinguished physicist, daring steeplechase rider, and gallant aviator in the wartime RAF, he received substantial obituary notices in The Times and is the subject of a lengthy entry in Biographical Memoirs of fellows of the Royal Society. One presumes that he will be recorded in the Dictionary of National Biography, but one can one be sure? The editorial policy of that national pantheon is erratic to say the least. For that reason alone Diana Mosley's skilful pen-portrait of this outstanding man is greatly to be welcomed.

Lord Berners, aesthete, writer and composer, would surely be pleased with the elegant tribute that he here receives; and I think that Evelyn Waugh would enjoy his too.

I could wish that Lady Mosley had included in her portrait gallery her friend the Polish-French Dominican, Pere Alex-Ceslas Rzewuski (1883-1982), whose autobiography, A Travers L'invisible cristal, must surely one day appear in English translation; but perhaps he is being held in reserve for a possible companion to the present volume?

It only remains to say that the design of this book and its presentation are admirable, and that its fascinating contents are enhanced by the very large number of illustrations, clearly reproduced from photographs. A book to treasure.

Trial of the Viking Finger - John Bean

John Bean is an author best known for his earlier works. Ten Miles from Anywhere chronicled village life in Wickhambrook, Suffolk, from 1973 to 1994. Many Shades of Black was an insightful account of the British far-right movements. And Blood in the Square was a political novel inspired by actual events. All of them were partly biographical and contained more than a hint of social commentary. His latest book Trail of the Viking Finger is no exception.  It traces the history of the Byrne family from the brothers Bjorne and Ragnar Dagson retreating from the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066, to the Byrne family living in Swanley, Kent in 1931. He calls upon his knowledge of history and anthropology to describe generations of struggle and survival.  This is dramatic account of ordinary people who suffered the passions and changing fortunes of nine hundred years; a sympathetic study of the Byrne family that is well worth reading.

For an autographed copy of Trail of the Viking Finger send £10.00 to John Bean, East Cottage, Wickhambrook, Newmarket CB8 8YA. johnatjbapr@aol.com

The National Health Service

The cost of the NHS is rising by 4% every year. The government will have to find an additional £10 billion to keep it going but they are reluctant to increase taxation. Much of the service is already privatised; GPs, opticians, dentists, 
care home providers, pharmacists, medical suppliers, building and maintenance contractors are all private companies. Mobs of angry demonstrators shouting abuse at the Health Minister cannot dismantle a system that has evolved over the years.

The government has to strike a balance between public spending and taxation. If they get it wrong they are thrown out of office and a new government takes over. The National Health Service is a victim of its own success. Every new operation, and every new drug costs more money. The NHS is probably the best thing that this country ever did. Nobody has to worry about the cost of medical treatment or the competence of the doctors and nurses. We have one of the best health care services in the world and we are justifiably proud of it.

But things have changed since the NHS was set up in the 1940s. Many firms now offer medical care as part of their salary package. This is anathema to the doctrinaire Left but some people are prepared to pay for private medical care and education. If we banned private schools and hospitals we would lose the services that they provide as well as the taxes they pay.

The noisy demonstrators waving placards outside our great teaching hospitals are driven by dogma. They believe that the NHS should be run by the trade unions. When Lambeth Council fell under the control of the Militant Tendency in the seventies, cleaners and maintenance staff were put in charge. It all ended in chaos when the money ran out and the government was forced to intervene. But this exercise in 'democracy' shows what can happen when empty-headed political agitators get their own way.

Choices

The democratic system all over the world has degenerated into a voluntary dictatorship where the political parties are almost identical and real power is in the hands of big business. In Europe and North America immigration is a major concern. All sorts of arguments in favour of immigration are used by unscrupulous politicians but the subject is seldom viewed objectively.

The fact is that the United States is a massive economy with a voracious appetite for labour. On her southern border lies Mexico, an emerging country with a teeming population of 120 millions. Labour and capital will always seek employment, so it’s inevitable that poor Mexicans will head north to work in the fields and factories of America.

The European Union is in the same position. Britain, France and Germany employ vast numbers of Africans and Asians who are prepared to risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean in flimsy boats to get to the Promised Land.

On both sides of the Atlantic populist politicians are shouting slogans, waving flags and making promises. In America presidential hopeful Donald Trump talks about building a wall on the Mexican border. In France Marine le Pen threatens deportation for any immigrant who resists assimilation. And in the UK Boris Johnson is the champion of the discontented. These flamboyant characters may be unprincipled charlatans but they say the right things.

Donald Trump is up against Hilary Clinton who is accused of corruption. Marine Le Pen is faced either with Francois Holland, the most unpopular president in French history, or Nicolas Sarkozy who runs him a close second. And if Boris Johnson ever manages to unseat Theresa May he would face Jeremy Corbin, an eternal student who leads the Labour Party.

Whoever the punters vote for they will still get more Third World immigrants because the big businesses that run the world are addicted to cheap labour. What a wonderful system the Greeks came up with when they invented democracy - and what a pity they didn’t keep it to themselves.

The State

None of the great leaders of nations set out to give their people a hard time and go down in history as tyrants. Most of them started out with good intentions but were overtaken by events. Vladimir Lenin 1870-1924 was such a man. He was the son of a Russian Orthodox father and a Lutheran mother. There no evidence that he was Jewish or that he ever identified with Judaism. Lenin was the man of action who tried to build the egalitarian socialist state imagined by Karl Marx, who was an anti-Semitic German of Jewish descent. It is one of the great ironies of history that Lenin presided over one of the bloodiest regimes in history. Nobody reads him anymore, which is a pity because he knew a thing or two about history. In 1919 he gave a lecture to Sverdlov University on The State. The following passage gives his views on parliamentary democracy:

“I have already advised you to turn for help to Engels’ book, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. This book says that every state in which private ownership of the land and means of production exists, in which capital dominates, however democratic it may be, is a capitalist state, a machine used by the capitalists to keep the working class and the poor peasants in subjection; while universal suffrage, a Constituent Assembly, parliament are merely a form, a sort of promissory note, which does not alter the essence of the matter.”

Lenin believed that the Bolshevik Revolution would liberate the working class but millions perished as a result of it.

“The proletariat casts aside the machine which was called the state and before which people bowed in superstitious awe, believing the old tales that it means popular rule – the proletariat casts aside this machine and declares that it is a bourgeois lie. We have deprived the capitalists of this machine and have taken it over. With this machine, or bludgeon, we shall destroy all exploitation. And when the possibility of exploitation no longer exists anywhere in the world, when there are no longer owners of land and owners of factories, and when there is no longer a situation in which some gorge while others starves – only when the possibility of this no longer exists shall we consign this machine to scrap heap. Then there will be no state and no exploitation. Such is the view of our Communist Party. I hope that we shall return to this subject in subsequent lectures, and return to it again and again.”

The Soviet Union survived the Civil War, the Second World War, and the Cold War but it collapsed in 1991. Conditions for most Soviet citizens have improved greatly since the days of the Romanovs, but the same could be said for Europeans and Americans. It is science and technology that advances mankind not politics.

American Foreign Policy

George Orwell's designation of Britain as 'Airstrip One' has come true. The USAF bombs the Middle East from British bases and 10,000 American troops are stationed in the UK. In 1944 we were bankrupt and forced to sign the Bretton Woods Agreement to get a lifesaving loan from the US. We tied the pound to the dollar and put our armed forces under American command. After the war NATO was founded to protect Europe from a potential Soviet invasion but that threat no longer exists. Britain and Europe need to rethink their foreign policies. We are linked to America by ties of kinship but we do not share their frontier mentality. They fought the British Empire for their independence; they added to their territory by fighting Mexico and Spain; they almost exterminated the native Americans; and they intervened twice in Europe to help defeat the Germans. After the war they took on the Soviets in the Cold War and now they are involved in the Middle East. 

The defence industry is a major player in America. The US armed forces and their suppliers employ millions of people and their taxes are vital to the American economy. That's why they are constantly 'defending freedom' all over the world. The patriotic American taxpayers grumble about spending money on health or education but the don't mind if it's for defence.

We don't know what Brexit means but whatever happens we will have to co-ordinate our defence and security policies with our near neighbours and reach a sensible agreement with the Russians. Britain and Russia are both part of Europe and must be included in any plan for the future. It's time to thank the Americans for their help in the past and wave farewell to their departing armed forces. Nato should be replaced with a peace treaty between Europe and Russia. And if America needs an enemy they should make war on poverty.

Responsibility

Brewers are respectable makers of beer who provide a valuable service to their customers and keep alive traditional crafts. They employ thousands of workers and pay their rates and taxes. But some people accuse the brewers of being responsible for the nation's drinking problem. This is totally unfair. There is nothing wrong with drinking in moderation and they are not to blame for the weak-mindedness of some of their customers.

The same logic applies to banking. The majority of people use banks to manage their money, pay their bills, invest their savings, and provide their mortgages. People who have been made bankrupt due to their own mismanagement often blame the banks for their troubles but most of us are perfectly happy with the service they provide. It's not the bank's fault that people overspend, any more than it's the bookmaker's fault that people gamble, or the pharmacists that they abuse drugs.

We should all be responsible for our own actions and not blame others for our mistakes. The Greeks did not go broke because of an evil plot by the EU but because they borrowed too much money on an unaffordable pension scheme. The fault is with their incompetent politicians. Much has been made of a financial report prepared by Goldman Sachs, but that was before the Greeks borrowed 360 billion euros. Blaming the EU for the Greek deficit is just like blaming the brewers for drunkenness.

My mother used to have jam jars containing dedicated sums of money for the rent, the coalman, and the milkman. That was her banking system in the days before computers. She managed to feed and clothe us and keep a roof over our heads by working hard. Nowadays she would probably expect the state to keep her. 

Now that we have 'got our country back' we must take responsibility for our own actions. We will not be able to blame the EU for low productivity, rising inequality, inadequate housing, and uncontrolled Third World immigration. It will be interesting to see if Theresa May's government can balance the books, service the National Debt, fund the National Health Service, equip two massive aircraft carriers, and replace the Trident missile system. The UK annual budget is £772 billion but we will save £8.5 billion on our subs to the EU.

Nationalist Unity or Racial Genocide - Eddy Morrison

I am a founder member of the National Front, one of the few still active (my old comrade Andrew Brons was also a founder member and is now the chairman of the British Democratic Party).

I know of others, some ex-Union Movement such as Keith Thompson (League of St George) and Colin Todd (organiser of the Candour organisation) to name but only two. I would say there are probably hundreds of White Nationalists from my generation of the 60s and early 70s who in some way are fighting the good fight.

A month or so back I attended the funeral of Keith 'Beefy' Taylor, tragically dying in his early fifties, and was both astounded and encouraged to see over sixty White Nationalists also paying their respects.

They came from many groups but they were unified for those few precious hours to say their farewells to a good and steady White patriot, Beefy - also a long term member of the National Front.

One old comrade asked me after the service: "did we all waste out time Eddy?" My reply was this NO we did not waste our time for we can say to our children and our grandchildren that at least WE FOUGHT!

But reflecting back is it not a greater tragedy that it takes the death of a Comrade to give us total Nationalist Unity even for a short few hours?

I am reminded of the old Norse saying: "Cattle die and kinsmen die and one day you and I shall die. All that will remain is the fame of a dead man's deeds."

So the fight goes on as it must. We have no real choice. It's either victory or racial death. For us; for our children and for generations yet unborn.

Looking at the fractured British Nationalist scene I see a number of groups who, if united soon can form the nucleus of what must become a mass movement.

As a White Nationalist I recognise the NF; the BDP; England First; British Movement; National Action and the various 'infidel' style groups spread throughout the country, and the Alternative Right forums which are doing great work, and some elements of what's left of the BNP. I should also add the League of St George and the Candour organisation.

Two organisations I would NOT add are the pro-Zionist Britain First Party and the ludicrous New British Union which has stated it is not a Racial Nationalist party and indeed I am led to believe that its prime member has condoned mixed race marriages. The group known as Liberty UK is openly pro-Zionist.

Now you will be saying "hang on but....." about some of the groups I have listed. That is the wrong way of thinking about the desperate need for British Nationalist unity.

All old personality clashes, some dating back decades MUST come to an end for the greater good of the Cause itself.

I have to make a case for what a United Front should be - and I have to conclude that it MUST be the National Front.

50 years ago this coming February, the NF was formed  by disparate groups who patched up their differences and created the National Front.

I would argue then that there is no need for another name to be thrown into the barrel because the NF with its wide range of policies has something to offer all the varying shades of opinion across the British Nationalist spectrum.

This is why we have seen so many others rise only to fall after a few years whilst the resilient NF soldiers on.

2017 is a watershed year for our movement. It marks in February our 50th anniversary. This will take the form of the biggest indoor rally we can mount and this is an open invite for all these groups mentioned to be welcomed by the Front.

On strategy and tactics there is always room for manoeuvre and I believe that the NF's policy of elections coupled with constant street activity is a winning formula.

The Trump phenomenon in the USA; Brexit and the rise of the Alt Right across Europe and America is growing so strong that we can really call iot the first real challenge to the globalist tyrants such as the Jewish George Soros and the evil of Hilary Clinton.

The victories of the Alt Right must be seen as a breakthrough against the liberal Marxist hegemony and behind the Alt Right there is us - the Racial Nationalists.

Let them open the door for such as we so that it gives us entry to go up against the world enemy of old but this time with a real chance of victory.

Time is running out fast for our white race so the choice is YOURS - Victory through Unity or white racial genocide.

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

  

  

 

Nation Revisited # 119 September 2016

In Praise of Britain’s Imperial Mission – Robert Dewar

(This article originally appeared in Identity the magazine of the British National Party in January 2008. It paints a rosy picture of Empire that few colonial subjects would recognise. But it cannot be denied that the British Empire was a force for human progress that changed the world).

Until the early 1980s Britain was a country of net emigration. Between 5,000 – 7,000 people a year from the 16th to the end of the 18th centuries, or about a quarter of the natural increase, left the country for destinations abroad. Direct data becomes available from the 19th century onwards, and we know that 90,000 people a year were leaving Britain. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, and even South Africa, owe their early demographic growth to British immigrants. Emigration from the British Isles peaked in the last years of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth. North America gained more than 100 million British and 7 million Irish emigrants between 1815 to 1930.

After the Second World War, various kinds of government and Commonwealth schemes saw huge numbers of Britons emigrating for Australia, Canada and New Zealand, with as many as 104,000 people leaving for these ex-colonies as late as 1974. A much lower but still relatively high number of British emigrants settled in South Africa.

Following the two world wars, soldier-settler schemes encouraged several thousand British ex-servicemen to settle in Kenya and then Rhodesia. Scattered across the rest of the Empire were large numbers of semi-permanent traders, engineers, agricultural experts and administrators, as well as large numbers of missionaries.

Had the territories that were one day to become the Dominions not been open to colonisation by Britain’s rapidly growing population, it is highly likely that the pressure of population would have brought about the same sort of violent revolutions in Britain which scarred Europe in the 1830s and 1840s. Had the Empire not existed, it is extremely unlikely that a great number of present day states would now exist, with India a collection of more than 400 independent principalities of varying size and power before the British gained control of the sub-continent – being the foremost example. Great swathes of Africa owe the fact of sovereign so-called “nations” to British imperial administrative measures, unifying disparate and often warring tribes under the Pax Britannica into colonies which later became independent states. That most of these states are in various degrees failed is due not to the fact of past British imperial rule, but to its contemporary absence.

Let it be stated quite clearly at this point: not a single ex-colony gained independence as a result of so-called freedom fighters. In all cases, Britain sought to construct viable nations with political systems based pn the Westminster parliamentary model; Britain, unlike Portugal and Spain, did not buckle to de facto terrorist movements in Africa, any more than she was defeated by the Communist terrorist movement in the Malay States, or by the criminal Mau Mau in Kenya (which saw only a few dozen European deaths but about 20,000 black on black murders). In the present day, kleptocratic and often tyrannical regimes across Africa seek to perpetuate for their own reasons the myth of having wrested freedom from the colonial power at the end of a gun. In many such states (with Zimbabwe being the prime example), Britain is still vilified for mythological colonial crimes, and held to be responsible for the ills inflicted in fact by their own vicious rulers.

Nor were Britain’s imperial subjects systematically oppressed. The British Empire was, by any objective measure, perhaps the most benign in history, motivated by the most noble sentiments and ideals. Fortunate were members of the Empire to be ruled by Britain and not by Germany or Japan before the First World War, or by Spain or Portugal, whose ramshackle imperial remnants were notorious (in the case of their African colonies until well into the mid-seventies) for chaotic administration and systematised cruelties. Britain’s colonial subjects gained immeasurably by British rule, not only materially, but with reference to the grafting of systems of law and government motivated by the highest ideals, whose echoes are still heard dimly today.

The British in India and Africa put down witchcraft and slavery; they sank wells and set in hand programmes of advanced irrigation, reducing the incidence of famine; they improved methods of agriculture and provided basic health care and education to the peasantry. Britain supressed the endemic inter-tribal warfare which was Africa's curse, and which supplied most of the prisoners for the slave trade. The Royal Navy patrolled Africa's western and eastern shores, almost entirely suppressed the trade in black African slaves. British colonial rule saw an end to tyranny across Africa, an end to arbitary injustice and cruelties; across the Empire all men were equal before the law. Britain created nations where there had been none; India and Pakistan were brought into being sixty years ago to express the will of the peoples of the sub-continent; a scattering of island nations arose in the Caribbean, and in Africa colonies whose borders reflected largely colonial administrative imperatives were constituted as sovereign states, all with governments which were designed to mirror Britain's own parliamentary system with its inbuilt checks and balances. 

Empire’s highest ideal of all, the urge to bring about self realisation and freedom for peoples previously denied freedom by despotic rulers, meant that the finest global geopolitical creation in history carried within it the seeds of its own demise. Britain’s empire was not lost; it was (certainly, long before the time was yet ripe), freely given away. 

Curiously – except for perhaps ten years at the turn of the century – Britain’s empire was never wholly popular back home except in the middle and upper classes. The imperial mission rarely captured the imagination of the working class, and when it did this was due to military triumph. Imperial expansion was generally the work of a social and intellectual elite.

But in 1898, Lord Curzon could claim with some justification that imperial expansion “is becoming every day less and less the creed of a party and more the faith of a nation.” However, except for a few years from the mid 1890s, kit is debatable whether imperial pride truly dominated the thinking of more than a minority  of Britons outside of the middle and upper middle classes (though within these classes the imperial mission was firmly established),  except viscerally, as an embodiment of Britain’s leadership in the world. The fact of empire was popularly held to be the logical outcome of the inherent superiority of the British people over any other peoples, anywhere.In certain circles it has long been held that the growth of empire was a response to economic factors. J.A.Hobson, whose publication, Imperialism (1902) was very influential in this regard, argued that by the latter part of the nineteenth century a disproportionate share of the national wealth had piled up in the hands of relatively few people, with an extreme inequality in its distribution: the relative poverty of the greater part of the working class population meant that they were unable to consume enough of the industrial output to make its continued expansion profitable. The argument went that huge amounts of surplus capital sought profitable outlets which could not be found at home, so its owners tended to invest in facilities in Africa and Asia, and then call on the government to protect these investments by conquering and administrating the territories concerned. However, no European government of the latter nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, not even that of the Nation of Shopkeepers, was so entirely the tool of a class of financiers and merchants. When compelled to chose, the British government of the time invariably expressed the dominance of political and diplomatic necessities over more economic factors.

What is more, the greater part of Britain’s huge investments abroad during the latter part of the nineteenth century went not to the newly acquired African colonies, or to India, or even to her spheres of influence in east Asia, but to the temperate regions of the world, to the United States, to South America, and to what would become the Dominions. Some of Britain’s colonial acquisitions were economically quite worthless (such as British New Guinea), though sometimes strategically valuable. Of all Britain’s African possessions, only the Boer republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, with their gold fields, could compete with the United States or with the old settled colonies as either sources of food and raw materials, or as markets for capital or manufactured goods. Yes, there was a slowing of British economic growth relative to the United States and Germany in the latter part of the nineteenth century, which certainly did something to stimulate a search for new economic opportunities overseas, but this phenomenon and the imperial urge were not cause and effect. If it is still believed that empire was the answer to surplus capital and manufactured products seeking a home abroad, then how can the growth of the Italian and Russian empires of the period be explained? No, there must have been some other factors behind the imperial dynamic, for neither Russia or Italy was highly industrialised, and both countries were importers of capital, yet both these countries were driven by expansion abroad.

The simplistic political explanation for the sudden growth of empire in the late 19th century is that territories overseas were seized to keep them out of the hands of rival powers. That this state of affairs came about was due to the rise of nationalism in Germany, France and Italy: - despite their sometimes bitter rivalry, the balance of power within Europe’s borders by the 1870s was static, so national pride saw expression at the highest levels with the acquisition of territories outside Europe, of colonial possessions in Africa and Asia: - Britain, more secure within her national psyche than the other great European powers, nonetheless could not sit back and see the world carved up between them, especially as Britain had already by far the greatest investments in Africa and Asia, investments and strategic routes which might be threatened unless she too were to seize and conquer territories.

Amongst those visionaries of empire who sometimes single handed gathered lands and peoples into the empire, there was generally another higher current of feeling. This was the deeply held belief that the advance of British rule meant material progress, self realisation and in the long term, the possibilities of freedom, for the peoples brought under British rule. This belief in the white man’s duty to civilise the world for the good of its peoples was a progressive force and one with noble qualities.

I have already mentioned some of the very real advantages accruing to conquered peoples under British rule, the most important of which was the imposition and maintenance of the Pax Britannica, beneath which all other virtues could flourish. To the exponents of empire, Britain, indubitably the finest of all the European nations, had a moral duty to bring disorderly, stagnant and brutal societies under her benign rule. Many of the greatest empire builders were also active in reform and improvement at home. Lord Milner, for example (alongside Cecil Rhodes the driving force behind the Anglo-Boer War, and the creator of the Union of South Africa), when a young man had helped to found Toynbee Hall, the Oxford University settlement in London’s deprived East End.

This sense of imperial mission was a response to a feeling of national moral superiority, not far separate from the widely held belief in the truth of the Christian faith and in the falsity of all others. The best colonial administrators saw clearly that the position in Africa and most parts of Asia – then as now – was quite simple: the peoples of these areas desperately needed just and orderly rule, this could only be provided by Europeans, and it was their duty to provide it. This argument still holds good today: Britain’s ex-colonial possessions are almost all misgoverned, often torn apart by warfare, their economies a shambles, their people measurably and objectively far worse off under “freedom” than ever they were under British rule.

Today more than at any previous time, an African empire would pay for itself, for today we are fully cognisant of the vast underground riches the ramshackle black countries are sitting upon. Even at the height of empire, in 1898, it was extremely cheap to defend. At the time there were 99,000 regular soldiers stationed in Britain, 75,000 in India and 41,000 elsewhere in the Empire. The Navy required another 100,000 men, and the Indian native army was 148,000 strong. Dotted around the world were thirty-three small strategically located barracks and naval coaling stations. Yet the total defence budget for 1898 was just over £40 million, a mere 2.5% of net national product: - in relative terms this is not much higher than the burden of Britain’s defence budget today, with absolutely no moral returns whatsoever, and it is far less than was spent on the military during the lengthy cold war years. If ever Britain had a duty to take charge of the less fortunate peoples of Africa especially, and bring them to political stability, material advancement and moral improvement, then in principle, if perhaps not in practicality, this duty beckons still.

Britain’s imperial security rested upon her naval dominance. Yet even when Britain modernised her entire fleet following the launch of the revolutionary Dreadnaught battleship (between 1906 and 1913, Britain built 27 such battleships) this cost only £49 million, being less than the annual interest on the national debt. Furthermore, the burden of defending the Empire did not rise significantly at the height of the imperial period.

It is clear from letters, memoirs and recollections of the time that the possession of a well-run empire, motivated by the noblest principles and philosophies directed at the welfare of the peoples therein, brings huge fulfilment and the sense of immeasurable well-being to those who take up the duties of running such an empire. As British society reels under the cumulative assaults of more than 50 years of insane left wing liberal government, and the Union, together of our culture and traditions, become less and less certain of themselves, facing ever greater threat from trendy left-wing nation-haters on the one hand, and regional nationalists on the other, the sense of mission offered the British people if we were to re-engage with our imperial destiny, would enliven us once again, giving new energy and direction to a nation renaissance, and reunifying Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen, and Northern Irishmen under Union as only a shared sense of national identity can bring.

The beginning of the loss of Britain’s belief in herself, and in the decay in her society and culture, coincided with the break-up of the Empire. Was it because the British race had become degenerate that the Empire trickled so speedily through our fingers, or is it that our present day social, cultural and political degeneracy stems from the loss of Empire?  I contend that a re-evaluation of Great Britain’s imperial history, in which we come to recognise the huge debt owed by dozens of states across the World, but especially on the Indian sub-continent and in Africa, would help to restore that lost sense of British national pride which is the true legacy of successive post-war governments in Britain.

The Housing Crisis

The average house price in the UK is £235,000; the average yearly salary is £33,000 and the average annual mortgage is £15,600. That means that most young couples cannot afford to but their own home. The alternative is to rent but the average rent for a two bedroom flat in central London is £44,000. Social housing provided by housing associations and local authorities is much cheaper but in short supply. People are being forced to move out of town but essential workers such as medical staff and police officers need to be in London.

The political parties have all promised to address the problem but apart from Harold Macmillan they have done next to nothing about it. In 1953 Harold Macmillan built 300,000 houses as Minister of Housing in Winston Churchill's post-war Government. An achievement that has never been equalled. This was despite a shortage of construction workers and materials.

Margaret Thatcher started selling council houses to their tenants because she believed that people should own their homes but those on low incomes also need a roof over their heads. Since her time few council houses have been built. Governments have tinkered with the problem but they have not treated housing as a priority. At present interest rates are at rock bottom and there is plenty of land available. There has never been a better time for a massive house building program - all that's lacking is the will to do it.

Successive governments have failed to plan for the future. They opened the floodgates to immigration without making sure that we had enough houses, schools and hospital beds. The telecoms industry was successfully privatised but power generation and the railways were a disaster. They are now talking about trading with the world but first we need to revitalise industry. Let's start with the construction industry. 

European Outlook

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