Wednesday, 31 August 2016

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:  

Sunday, 31 July 2016

Nation Revisited # 118. August 2016

The Fatal Embrace

Pages 22 - 25 from Jews and the State by Benjamin Ginsberg, published by The University of Chicago Press. Available from Amazon.

(The row in the Labour Party about alleged anti-Semitism has revived interest in the Jews. Professor Benjamin Ginsberg suggests that they grew rich and powerful with the rise of the British Empire. He is a distinguished American political scientist with an objective view of history).

In Britain Jews did not figure in the creation of the liberal state. However, Jewish politicians, publishers and financiers helped to strengthen the liberal regime and expand its popular base between the Crimean War and the First World War. During the mid and late nineteenth centuries, British Jews achieved considerable wealth, status, and political influence. The Rothschilds were one of the most important banking families in Britain. Other important Jewish financiers included the Sassoons, the Cassels, the de Hirsch family, and the Semons. By the First World War, though Jews constituted only 1% of the total population of Britain, 23% of Britain's non-landed gentry were of Jewish origin.

In the middle decades of the nineteenth century, Jews also came to be a major factor in British journalism. The Reuters News Agency, founded by Paul Julius Reuter (whos name was originally Israel Beer Josaphat) in 1848, was the chief purveyor of information on world events to the entire British press and, at times, the government as well. The Sassoons owned and edited the Sunday Times, Harry Marks founded the Financial Times, and Sir Alfred Mons controlled the English Review. Jews were especially important in the popular press. The Daily Telegraph, controlled by the Levy Lawson family, was London's first penny newspaper and, in the 1870s, had a circulation of just under 200,000. The Telegraph appealed mainly to a middle and working class audience and specialized in sensational coverage of both domestic and foreign events. Harry Oppenheim had a major interest in another mass circulation daily, the London Daily News. Sir Alfred Mond published the Westminster Gazette, a paper that provided its popular audience with dramatic coverage of the exploits of British military forces in the far-flung reaches of the empire. 

During the same period of time, a number of Jews served as members of Parliament and rose to positions of considerable influence in the British government. Obviously, the most notable example is Benjamin Disraeli, a converted Jew who served twice as prime minister between 1868 and 1880, and along with William Gladstone was the dominant figure in British politics in the late nineteenth century. Other prominent Jewish politicians in the pre-World War 1 era included GJ Goschen, who served as chancellor of the exchequer from 1887 to 1892; Farrer Herschell, who was lord chancellor in 1886 and again in 1892-1895; Sir George Jessell, solicitor general in 1910, attorney general from 1910 to 1913, and lord chief justice in 1913; and Edward Samuel Montague, who served as under secretary of state for India.

These Jewish political and business elites helped to consolidate the liberal regime in Britain by reconciling conservative forces to democratic politics and by expanding the resources and popular base of the British state. The key figure in this process was Benjamin Disraeli.

In addition, Disraeli helped to fashion an imperialist program that, in the latter decades of the nineteenth century, bound together the aristocracy and the military and administrative establishment with segments of the financial community, the press, and the middle class in a coalition that would support his efforts to strengthen the British state. The Disraeli government's policy of imperial expansion in India, the Middle East, and Africa yielded important political and economic benefits for the participants of this coalition.

Jewish financiers and newspaper publishers were important participants in this coalition. In the late nineteenth century, more than one fourth of all British capital was invested overseas. Long-established financial interests invested primarily in North America and Australia where property owners could rely upon the protection of local laws and authorities. New banking houses, a number of them Jewish, were more heavily invested in the Middle East, India, Asia, and Africa where local laws and authorities offered little security for foreign property. Here, British investors had to depend upon the protection of their own government and its military forces. This dependence gave Jewish financiers a stake in the creation of a strong national government able and willing to project its power throughout the world.

Jewish financial and business interests were important participants in the imperialist enterprise. For example, the Indian railroad network that the Sassoons helped to finance was closely integrated into the imperial administration, and Julius Reuter's wire service functioned as the command and control mechanism of the colonial government. Upon occasion, the British government also turned to Jewish banking houses to finance imperial expansion. Disraeli's purchase of the Suez Canal in 1878, for example, was made possible by Harry Oppenheimer's extensive contacts in Egypt and a four million pound loan from Lionel Rothschild. The role played by Jewish capital in the creation of Britain's nineteenth century empire was not lost on its critics. In his classic work, which became the basis of Lenin's theory of imperialism, JA Hobson argued that "men of a single and peculiar race, who have behind them centuries of financial experience," formed "the central ganglion of international capitalism."

This theme was also prominent in the work of Goldwyn Smith, a noted scholar and opponent of Disraeli's imperialist policies. Smith frequently charged that the Disraeli government's foreign policies were motivated more by Jewish than British interests.

For its part, the Jewish-owned popular press worked to rally public support for the government's imperialist endeavours. The press depicted the conquest and subjugation of foreign territories as a great adventure. Generals like Kitchener and Gordon were portrayed as heroic figures. Journalists captured the popular imagination with accounts of the exploits of British forces in faraway lands.

The Reuters news service was particularly important in popularizing imperialism. Reuters specialized in the collection and dissemination of news from the furthest outposts of the empire. Its dispatches, upon which all British newspapers came to rely, emphasized the positive, "civilizing" aspects of British colonial administration and military campaigns. The steady diet of campaigns, battles, and raids in Reuter's dispatches, along with news of the more mundane details of colonial rule, maintained popular interest in the empire and made it an accepted part of British life. The British popular press, like its American counterpart during the Spanish-American War, discovered that exciting tales of empire building gave an enormous boost to circulation and revenues.

Fantasy and Reality

People suffering from schizophrenia can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality. The rest of us should be able to but politicians confuse things deliberately and ordinary people often drift into fantasy without realising it.

This is clearly illustrated when we come to race and immigration. Parts of the UK that have been settled by millions of Africans and Asians. Some of them have been here for generations and the idea that we could round them up and send them to their ancestral homelands is pure fantasy, but that is the policy of several political parties that contest elections, run websites, and publish magazines and leaflets. This is despite the fact that we haven’t got enough police or troops to round them up, we haven’t got enough ships or planes to transport them, and their countries of origin would probably refuse to accept them.

Undaunted by the impossibility of their task the supporters of mass deportation claim that the majority of British people agree with them. But this too is a fantasy. There are a great many British people with mixed-race grandchildren who would fight to keep them. Some mixed race couples have been together for years and their children have been born in this country. What would the racists do with the white partners in mixed marriages and what would they do with the children? Presumably they would force them aboard their non-existent ships and planes.

Now that we have voted to quit the EU we can stop European immigration and we have always been able to stop non-European immigration. We could also deport undesirables, convicted criminals, illegal immigrants, dole-scroungers, overstayed tourists, and bogus students. We could help failed settlers to go home and we could offer to pay the fares of volunteers. We could also promote the use of English and stop translating government documents into foreign languages. All of this is possible and many of us think that it’s desirable, so let’s concentrate on what can be done.

The non-Europeans already here will be absorbed into the general population. Some will try to keep themselves separate but if the Jewish experience is anything to go by they too will eventually become British. Many of them have contributed to civilisation but some have not. We can only hope that the least gifted will leapfrog evolution through education. Their grandfathers might have been primitive by our standards but most of them are capable of improvement. Their future will be determined by their ability to assimilate. The gangs of feral blacks plaguing our big cities must be dealt with but the majority of non-Europeans will be assimilated.

Believers in the Master Race theory predict the downfall of civilisation if we absorb non-European immigrants. We can only point to countries like Brazil where the whites are only half of the population. Brazil has got problems with poverty and maladministration but she is a first class nation in the fields of science and technology.

We do not need non-European immigration but we must accept the demographic reality of modern Britain – those who prefer fantasy can carry on dreaming.

Going Too Far

The minor political parties always go too far and their leaders are often more extreme than their followers. This ensures that they stay on the periphery and are not taken seriously by the general public.

It’s perfectly reasonable for banks to charge interest on loans. They have staff and premises to pay for and they are entitled to make a profit. But instead of calling for reasonable interest rates the extremists want to hang the bankers and abolish the banking system. They accuse the banks of creating money out of nothing but they never explain why Lehman Brothers didn’t simply create some more money when they ran out of it.

Immigration is another subject where they get carried away. Mass migration drives down wages and aggravates shortages of housing, health care and education. But instead of campaigning for sensible immigration controls they want to round up all the immigrants already here and deport them to their countries of origin.

The extremists go beyond a natural love of race and nation to despise most of humanity. They subdivide Europeans into different races and perpetuate an image of the Jews as moneylenders and criminals that is supported by literature.

Most of us are not anti-Semitic but we are familiar with the Merchant of Venice demanding his pound of flesh, and Fagin leading his gang of pickpockets.

The racial supremacists have not been successful at the polls. Under the British first-past-the-post system the winning party usually gets 30-40 percent of the poll. At the 2015 general election the results were as follows:
Conservative 36.9%
Labour 30.4%
Ukip 12.6%
Lib Dem 7.9%
SNP 4.7%
Green 3.8%

The votes of the BNP and the National Front were too low to figure as a percentage. These results are an accurate guide to the levels of support enjoyed by the political parties in the UK; except for the SNP which only operates in Scotland where they won a landslide victory. The minor parties are wasting their time but they continue to stand in every election.

Ukip got a respectable 12.6% because they are careful not to go too far. People will support immigration controls but not deportation. And they will back financial reform but would not like to see Mark Carney hanging from a lamp post outside the Bank of England.

Everyone has a right to their opinions, If people want to form pointless political parties that is their prerogative. There is a natural constituency for a populist party – like Ukip – of between 10 and 20 percent. In countries with proportional representation that would give them dozens of seats in parliament and the chance to be included in a coalition government. But under our antique system of representation only the big parties can succeed.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has been campaigning since 1904. They are genuine socialists who never supported the Soviet regime and seek to change society by democratic means. At the 2015 general election their ten candidates only got 889 votes between them. The BNP and the NF are in the same position as the SPGB; dedicated people going nowhere.

If you just want to shout abuse at foreigners and wrap yourself in the Union Jack you can join any one of half a dozen parties of the far-Right. But if you are interested in creating a better Britain you are advised to join one of the mainstream political parties. Their policies hardly matter because they change over the years. The Tories were always the party of big business that resisted every social advance but now they claim to be a ‘one nation’ party that defends the National Health Service. The Labour Party used to fight for socialism but they have been taken over by a gang of affluent intellectuals. The Liberal Democrats have been decimated and are trying to regroup. But all of them have learned that they have to be flexible in order to survive.

Press release from Tru-Aim originally published in Nation July 1974

Below is the text of a letter sent to the Home Secretary about the amnesty for illegal immigrants, the first such Tru-Aim (Trade Union anti-Immigration Movement) communication to the new Labour government – with the old Labour policies.

Dear Sir, The members of this movement wish to register the strongest possible protest at the latest piece of anti-British legislation to emanate from Westminster - the amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Neither this (minority) government, nor any other, has any mandate to carry out arbitrary policies of this nature which will, far from closing any legal loopholes currently extant, undoubtedly increase abuse of, and contempt for the entire British legal system.

Acts of this nature will also do nothing to improve race relations , they will merely further alienate the native British people , as all similar post-war enactments have done, and this government is sadly out of touch with the basic working class ideals of the electorate (which it claims to represent) if it thinks otherwise.

This organization was founded to protect the rights of native British workers, and pledges itself to work for the early repeal of all impediments to those rights, including this latest ill-conceived ‘amnesty’.

Yours faithfully, N Spencer AUEW (Hon.Sec.)
No reply is expected but department D7 at Scotland Yard has no doubt been alerted and subjected our letterhead to ultra-violet tests for finger prints, gunpowder, cannabis, bubonic plague etc.

Other Happenings – Whitehall, London SW1

On Tuesday April 23rd , St George’s Day, the only day in the British year that most Englishmen seem never to have heard of, and the only day of national celebration that the alien BBC and press dared to treat as a joke was seen by some patriots as a suitable time to demonstrate against this disgusting travesty of a government, recently elected by immigrant votes. The anti-Immigration Standing Committee (AISC), to which Tru-Aim is affiliated, therefore organized a march, open air meeting and various other events, mainly to protest against  the ‘amnesty’ mentioned above. As well as Tru-Aim, members of the Racial Preservation Society, Immigration Control Association, British Campaign Against Immigration, Monday Club, and probably other bodies not known to us, participated, as well as individual members of the National Front. The Chairman and acting Secretary of Tru-Aim carried our banner, which was well received by the other marchers. It is hoped that this will become an annual event. The majority of marcher, as requested, wore red roses, others carried Union Jacks (not strictly appropriate for this occasion), and a picture and small report appeared in the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph.

Is there a Jewish Plot?

In a Youtube video of Nick Griffin being interviewed by Davey Russell of Motivate Radio, he makes it clear that he believes in a Jewish conspiracy to destroy the nation state and the white race. The former leader of the BNP is an educated man who was elected to the European Parliament but his entire worldview is based on conjecture.

Since the collapse of the BNP several little parties have emerged to perpetuate the myth of a Jewish Conspiracy to take over the world. There are individuals within these parties that know better but their overall philosophy is anti-Semitic.

Those of us who were threatened and assaulted by Jewish thugs in the good old days are not exactly pro-Jewish but we don't necessarily subscribe to conspiracy theory. 

It's true that most of the leaders of the Russian Revolution were Jewish but Stalin turned on them with homicidal determination. First he purged them from the Party, then he had Leon Trotsky murdered, and he was about to launch a ‘final solution’ when he suffered a stroke. Mussolini is reputed to have told Hitler that he was wasting his time waging war on Jewish Communists because Stalin had shot most of them.

The Jews have always been prominent in finance since the Christians and the Muslims used them as moneylenders to overcome their prohibition of usury. The Rothschilds and the Warburgs founded financial empires but so did Gentiles like John D Rockefeller and JP Morgan. Everyone has heard of the Hungarian Jewish financier George Soros but few know that Carlos Slim, a Mexican telecoms provider of Lebanese descent, is the richest man in the world.

The Jews have survived by keeping themselves apart from the host community. But in so doing they have made themselves a target and suffered repeated bouts of persecution. As usual Oswald Mosley aptly summed up the situation.

“I will always attack any interest, Jew or Gentile, or any man, Englishman or Eskimo, who in my view attempts to drag Britain into unnecessary wars which will lose British lives in quarrels which are not our own. But throughout these events I have held to our principle of never attacking all Jews and thus becoming an anti-Semite. I criticize Jews only for quite specific and definite activities against our country’s interest.”

European Outlook

Our sister blog is posted on: 

Thursday, 30 June 2016

Nation Revisited # 117, July 2016

The Mystique of the Blood - Della Aleksander

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frank Walsh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

European Outlook

Our sister blog is posted on: