Friday, 30 September 2016

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.

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.


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.


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:




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: