Monday, 31 July 2017

European Outlook #44 August 2017

All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people."


Technology has
revolutionised communications. Martin Luther nailed his thesis to the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg and changed the world. Benito Mussolini led the March on Rome to sieze power. And, in the sixties, we relied on street corner meetings and literature. Today, such primitive methods have been overtaken by the Internet.

A young Bill Baillie campaigning for John Bean's British National Party in the 1964 general election. We were not an insular nationalist party, we believed in European solidarity and social justice. I went overseas in 1965 and when I came home in 1970 we had been taken over by the National Front and our progressive policies had been dumped. I therefore joined Union Movement and embraced Oswald Mosley's vision of 'Europe a Nation'. 

Social media is the modern way of communicating and video platforms such as Youtube are very effective. Donald Trump used Twitter and Facebook extensively in his presidential campaign and so did Emmanuel Macron in France.

Newspapers and magazines are expensive to produce and distribute but websites are affordable. We can reach more people on the Internet than we did in the old days by putting leaflets through letterboxes or selling newspapers on street corners. Competing with the mass media is obviously an unequal challenge but having discovered the truth it's our duty to encourage people to think for themselves and reject media brainwashing.

Newspapers, r
adio and television dominate public opinion but we can fight back by using the Internet. The State uses anti-terrorist legislation to silence its enemies but we can stay within the law by avoiding insulting or threatening language.

Ten years ago immigration was a taboo subject and only the lunatic-left talked about a "crisis of capitalism." Today, these ideas have gone mainstream and you don't have to be a political party in order to have an opinion. So, carry on blogging and posting on Facebook and Twitter. Let our voices be heard.

A Garden Green by William Harris,
first published in 'Lodestar' Winter 1986

Each year brings thousands of American tourists to Britain, and it is clear that many of them are seeking something the do not posses in their own continent. This, I suggest, is a past: their own past forged by their own ancestors, and not the pre-Colombian past of the Indian, which is the only true ancient thing they have. They must travel all these hundreds of miles in order to find their roots, be they of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon or Norman descent.

As so much nonsense is talked about Britain's 'mixture of races', it is worth quoting the words of Brian Branson in 'The Lost Gods of England'. In his chapter 'Who were the English?' he mentions these ethnic groups, adding "But none of these inter-breedings was what might be called in genetic terms 'a violent out-cross' such as would have been the case if Britain had been successfully invaded by an armada of Chinese, or Red Indians or African Bushmen. Apart from any alteration in physical appearance that would have befallen the new Island Race under such circumstances, one has only to suppose a pagoda in Canterbury, a totem pole in Trafalgar Square, and rock paintings in the Cheddar Gorge to imagine the cultural changes that would have ensued." He concludes that "the mongrelism of the English  turns out to be more apparent than real." That was first published in 1957, before the minarets of the mosque loomed over the trees in Regent's Park. 

Names are among the most ancient and lasting monuments in a culture, particularly those given to natural features in the landscape. In Britain they are usually Celtic, the Celts being the earliest of the above ethnic groups. The prefix 'Pen' for 'head' or 'headland' and the many instances of the name 'Avon', which means simply 'river' are two of the most obvious.

The names of our pubs are often far older than the buildings they adorn, and they tell us much. 'The George', and 'The Green Man', for instance, take us back to the traditional Mummers' Play of St George and the Turkish knight, and to a character in the Morris Dance, 'Jack in the Green'. The mummers would usually herald their appearance by announcing "Here come I". . . and in all these traditions, including that of traditional dance and song which is inseparable  from it, there are a number of folk-heroes who emerge: St George, Robin Hood and Maid Marion, King Arthur, Hereward the Wake, Dick Whittington, Dick Turpin, Nelson and Lord Collingwood. The villains (all of whom are often cut down by St George in the course of the mummers' play) include: Prince Valentine, Captain Rover, Turkey Snipe, Little John, Bonaparte and Sambo. The last prompts me to remark that the blackening of faces (so upsetting to the susceptibilities of the liberal left of today), is probably far older than the 'Black and White Minstrels', or the minstrels who used to perform on seaside piers. There are accounts of wassailers or masqueraders blackening their faces, and the 'Giant of Salisbury' (a huge effigy , which used to be carried in all important processions in the city, which is now in the Salisbury and South Wiltshire museum) was found to have had his face blackened at some stage in the past, before he was 'cleaned up'. 'Morris', of course, is thought to derive from 'Moorish' so, like the Mummers' Play, it may date from the time of the Crusades.

After St George in the play has felled the Turkish knight, a doctor is called for, to 'cure' him. He is often played by a small boy dressed in a top hat and frock coat far too big for him and (in the version from Camborne, Cornwall) he says:
"I can cure the itch, the specs and the gout -
If there's nine devils, I can kick ten out."

He always cures the wounded knight so that the audience can then enjoy another bout of fighting but, in fact, his origins go back to the idea of death and resurrection which is the basis of most of the world's religions.

Sword dances are to be found mainly in the north of England and the midlands, and are either long-sword or short-sword ('Rapper') dances. There are several characters involved, apart from the six dancers, such as 'The Fool' and the 'Betsy'. The last is a strange hermaphrodite type of figure, a comic man in drag (also found in the Mummers' Play as 'Beelzebub' or 'Betsy Bub') who is, no doubt, an ancestor both of the pantomime 'dame' and the modern 'drag queen' At the climax of the dance the dancers (his six sons) decide that the Fool has 'got to go', and they put their six swords together to form a hexagon around his neck (known as the 'lock' or 'knot'). He is ritually decapitated and falls to the ground lifeless, only to spring to life once more and join in the next dance - the same pattern of death and resurrection once again. We also see this in the many versions of the popular 'John Barleycorn', a symbol of spring, when the first beer was brewed, who is cut down, thrashed, cut and drowned, but always survives and comes to life again.

Any idea that folksong is about innocent rustics disporting themselves with naïve decorum could not be further from the truth. Many of the folksong collectors, in the early part of this century, were amazed and incredulous at what they heard from the lips of shepherds, gardeners, and farm-hands. When many were illiterate and had no places of organised entertainment, these songs served the same purpose as reading the 'News of the World' - relating scandals, murder, seductions and all kinds of 'goings on'. It is utterly pointless to judge their values with the yardstick of prevailing ethics of today (a current pastime with some trendy pressure-groups who delight in sticking on labels suach as 'sexist', 'classist' or 'racist'!) There are songs of seduction and cuckoldry, and one which is clearly a warning against venereal disease: in 'Firelock Stile' the beauty sits on the stile (a parish boundary, no doubt where she could ply her trade with impunity):

"when a stump of a nail catched hold of her clothes
She fell down and she did expose
Her old rump-a-tump tooral looral laddy-dy" -

but six weeks later:

"She gave him some fire to keep out the cold" -
And he cursed the young damsel that learned him to play on her rump-a-tump-tump" -

Some of the humorous and macabre, such as 'The Body-snatcher's Trade', in which the would-be body-snatchers are hoaxed by a soldier getting into the coffin and pretending to be the corpse come to life. 'Little Sir Hugh' commemorates the mysterious murder of a nine-year-old boy at Lincoln in 1144 (mentioned by Chaucer and Marlowe) and the song even found its way into Norman French. It has clear connections with one of the most deeply disturbing songs 'The Bitter Withy', which uses pagan material in a nominally Christian context. The snobbish sons of 'Lords and Ladies refuse to play with the young Jesus, who makes "a bridge of beams of the sun". They try to follow him over this bridge and are all drowned; their distraught mothers go complaining to Mary, who lays Jesus across her knee -

"And with a handful of the bitter withy she gave him slashes three."

What are the folksong collectors to make of that? Or of the unfortunate prejudice regarding tailors as unmanly? This is exemplified in 'The Lousy Tailor' in which the butcher comes to seduce the tailor's wife, and catches the tailor hiding under the bed with a gun (which he is too frightened to use):

"Oh, spare my life, the tailor cries,and you shall have my wife."

The native British tradition in song, dance, drama, and its other manifestations is a fascinating mixture of the comic, the tragic, the bawdy, the romantic, the absurd, the frightening or the terrible: it is a green garden full of variety and loveliness, but not one to be trodden by the squeamish, the prejudiced or the faint-hearted.

A Changing World

In the last hundred years there has been so much progress
that it's hard to keep up with it. We are all conservatives at heart but we know that change is inevitable.

A two shilling coin - one tenth of a pound - was introduced in 1849 as the first step towards decimalization, but it took until 1971 before we changed over. The 'Daily Mail' and the National Front started a campaign to keep pounds, shillings and pence, and they did the same for drams, quarts, bushels and pecks - measures that are meaningless today. The 'Daily Mail' still gives out temperatures in Farenheit that nobody under sixty understands. 

The first commercial television service was launched in 1955 with considerable opposition. Tory grandee Lord Hailsham objected to its "overt brashness, egalitarianism and immorality." Cyril Black, the evangelical Tory MP for Wimbledon, led a nationwide campaign against it, and  Clement Attlee, leader of the Labour Party, vowed to restore the BBC monopoly if they were returned to power.

The pace of change will not slow down, in fact, we can expect even more changes with artificial intelligence and self-drive vehicles. Technology is changing society and national governments are using taxation to redistribute wealth. The next step could be a universal basic wage, an old idea originally proposed by Major Douglas and now being supported by Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook.

Some people are trying to put back the clock. The so-
called 'Islamic State' movement has caused death and misery all over the world. Similar movements in the West, though not so bloodthirsty, are just as reactionary. Ukip's former leader Nigel Farage adopted the dress and habits of the fifties. When most people were wearing shorts and tee shirts, he was sporting an overcoat with a velvet collar and a trilby hat. His obsession with the past has so far succeeded in devaluing the pound but his movement has thankfully been consigned to the dustbin of history.

The Myth of Economic Nationalism

Britain is a small country with a huge population and even the most rigid nationalists know that we could not survive on our own. The Tories believe in world trade and are opposed to protectionism but the National Front and their allies are still following John Tyndall's 'Six Principles of British Nationalism' which was published in 1965 and called for a revived Empire.

"If we consider only the six mentioned countries (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Rhodesia) this Commonwealth would represent a world power with the combined area as great as Russia, with a European population of nearly a hundred million, of which about 85-90 per cent would be of British stock. This area would produce a super-abundance of natural wealth of almost every kind, with a vast fund of human skills ready to find substitutes for any materials that were in short supply. Such an area could, and should, become economically self-sufficient and militarily strong enough to deter aggression by any other power unaided. This would provide the basis for an entirely free role in world affairs, unfettered by the dictates of UNO or any other international grouping. We would have the means provided we had the will, to pursue an entirely independent British destiny, friendly to other powers but in no way reliant on them."

Britain tried to set up an Empire Free Trade system at the Imperial Conference in Ottawa in 1932. The Gold Standard was abandoned and tariffs were discussed, but the Dominions didn’t take kindly to Stanley Baldwin’s idea of restricting industry to the UK. The conference was also intimidated by the United States. Following the devaluation of the pound in 1931 Britain set up the Sterling Area, but it was disrupted by World War Two, restricted by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, further reduced by the UK’s entry into the Common Market in 1973, and finally abandoned in the 1980s.

Without a common currency, or at least a system of fixed exchange rates, a revived Commonwealth would be forced to use a reserve currency such as the dollar or the euro. It would not have been possible to establish an independent Sterling Area in the sixties because our economy was too weak, and today, such a proposition would be unthinkable because we don't have sufficient gold and dollar reserves. 

John Tyndall’s dream of a revived Commonwealth was unrealistic in the sixties and completely impossible today. South Africa and Rhodesia have been lost to white rule. Canada is part of the American economy, and Australia and New Zealand rely on Asia. China and Japan buy most of Australia’s coal and iron ore. The Aussies are not likely to abandon their markets in support of a new British Empire. When JT wrote that 85-90 per cent of the Commonwealth population was of British stock he ignored the Afrikaners, French Canadians, Irishmen, and the millions of immigrants from every European country who have settled in the old dominions. Like most 'Nationalists', JT couldn't understand other people's nationalism. He wrote:

"I have never been able to understand this search for an Australian identity; you already have one and have had one for a thousand years, that of the British people who pioneered a land to the best of British standards."

The Australian Nationalist Jim Saleam replied:

"No, we Australians inherited all that old-Europe could offer, all of old-Europe, from the Latins, the Germans, the Slavs and the Celts and deep back to Greece and Rome and the dark lands of Eurasian forest and steppe. But we went on to create a new people and a new nation. We pioneered a land to the best of European standards and we will create a stormy history - a new Britannia in another world."

John Tyndall was motivated by patriotism but flag waving doesn't feed a nation. The 52% that voted to leave the EU are about to face the consequences. Our little islands cannot support an immigrant-swollen population of 65.5 millions. We import half of our food and fuel and we depend on the European market. The Tories want to tie us to America and the pro-Europeans want to stay as we are, but whatever happens we can forget about a revived Commonwealth.

'Imperial Preference' was the policy of the pre-war British Union of Fascists. Oswald Mosley wanted to turn the Empire into a self-sufficient world power. In the thirties that would have been possible but when the Second World War destroyed the British Empire he turned his attention to Europe. Unfortunately, some of his supporters lacked his vision and tried to keep the Empire going.

John Tyndall's spent half his life perfecting his oratorical impression of Oswald Mosley. He mastered the voice, the delivery, and the gestures but he never understood the policies. He may have flirted with National Socialism in his youth but he was essentially an insular nationalist.

The Front National are dropping their anti-EU policies following Marine Le Pen's failure to win the French presidential election. Opinion polls show that French people are worried about immigration but they are overwhelmingly in favour of the EU. The NF must do the same if they want to survive. If we leave the EU we will have to join the World Trade Organisation and rely on America. That's the reality of our situation, we will survive but the Empire has gone and it's not coming back.

Nation Revisited
Our sister blog is posted at: 


Saturday, 1 July 2017

European Outlook # 43, July 2017

All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people."

The Tower Block Fire

Theresa May's barely managing regime has been rocked by terrorist attacks and a disappointing election. Now she faces the consequences of the Grenfell Tower disaster. An inquiry will establish the facts but existing regulations must be enforced. 
She is right to get involved but wrong to pardon sub-letting and illegal immigration; her duty is to uphold the law.      

What is to be Done? - by Eddy Morrison

I'm reluctantly entering my 50th year as an active white nationalist.

In 1978 when I was a National Front organiser I firmly believed that we would have our first members of parliament by 1980. We didn't and the period known as the 'horrible 80s' was upon us. Split after split with eventually a by-election where one schism of the National Front stood a candidate at the same time as another schism of that splintered wreck of a once mighty movement.

The 1990s got a bit more interesting and we achieved the election of a BNP candidate in London. Things were slow in the BNP but it was, under John Tyndall, going in the right direction. As BNP Yorkshire Organiser I was gladdened to see many old comrades returning to the BNP. Then in 1999 the British National equivalent of the Twin Towers occurred - Nick Griffin became the leader of the BNP.

He spent the next ten years building it up. BNP councillors were everywhere and two MEPs were elected. Then came the second calamity! Griffin's appearance on a major national TV show. Griffin acted like a buffoon. He even sidled up to the Black 'celebrity' who was sat next to him. Be bungled his way through a barrage of outrageous Lefty opposition and made no attempt to either push himself into prominence in a public forum watched live by millions nor to say anything cohesive. He acted like the local village idiot. Was it an Act?

Now we find ourselves in the 2010s. A large number of nationalist grouplets vying for members of an ever dwindling pool of recruits. With the break up of the EDL and the BNP one would have expected a huge rush to join an existing nationalist party. It never happened. The British Democratic Party seems to be totally static and the National Front is a shadow of its former self. The less said about 'Britain First' and the lunatic New British Union, the better!

Unity talks abound. Unity with who and why unity at all? It's like putting all the hospital patients with transmittable diseases in a ward of basically healthy people. Unity serves one purpose - it gives a platform for people who like to talk about nationalist unity who can go on home and do little more than look forward to the next unity meeting ad infinitum.

It's never going to happen folks - believe me! We need, as we did in the 1960s, a fresh start. We need a White Nationalist movement that is no holds barred. We need one that rejects the inevitable compromises that come with unity. We need a movement that rejects both internal and external democracy and runs on the meritocratic principle. 

You join, you work hard and you get the benefits. You join, you gripe about provocative tactics and you should for the good of all rush off and join Ukip (if it's still there of course).

A new movement (I can feel the shuddering from here) it must be. And for the first few years of its life it should avoid elections like the plague. It shouldn't even be registered with the ZOG control apparatus called 'The Electoral Commission." Give them your membership numbers; state of finances; sign forms that bind you to a Liberal Stalinist state and for what? To get seven votes in a council election (Nick Walsh - Hull 2016).

A new movement must be uncompromising in its White Nationalist principles and uncompromising in its drive for power. What we need comrades is a movement of disciplined fanatics!

European Outlook Comment

Movements like the National Front are dedicated to stopping immigration and getting Britain out of the EU. The second objective appears to be imminent but the first is not. We have a desperate housing shortage, and a growing division between rich and poor. This is no time to give up the struggle. but it's time to face facts. Minority parties can succeed but the days of petty nationalism and street theatre are over. 

Europe and the Celtic Fringe - Geoffrey Vernon (Jeffrey Hamm) from Lodestar 1986

Two minority yet powerful voices are striving to make themselves heard above the loud demands of the Establishment to maintain the status quo in which little national states pay lip-service to European unity, while resisting any threat to their national sovereignty and what they conceive to be their national interests.

What are these voices of the not-so-silent minority? One calls for complete European union and integration, while the other stridently asserts that the right of 'ethnic minorities' have been seriously eroded by the creation of national states, and would suffer further indignities if power were transferred from the existing national parliaments to a more remote European bureaucracy.

Are these views contradictory, or is it possible to find a synthesis between the existing thesis of national states and the apparent antithesis of Europeanism? Let us attempt to answer that question by examining the case presented by Europe's 'ethnic minorities', Celtic in origin, so that linguistically as well as geographically they may be considered to be Europe's 'Celtic fringe'.

I was pleasantly reminded that reports of the death of the Celtic peoples of Europe are grossly exaggerated when on 13 April of this year I attended 'Scrif-Celt' - "A Conference and Exhibition on Contemporary Writing and Publishing in the Celtic Languages" at the London Welsh Centre in London's Gray's Inn Road, organised by the London branch of the Celtic League.

Six countries were represented at the conference, entitled as follows in their respective Celtic languages, with the more familiar English names in parentheses: Alba (Scotland), Breizh (Brittany), Cymru (Wales), Eire (Ireland), Kernow (Cornwall), and Mannin (Isle of Man).

"How many divisions has the Pope?" asked Stalin, and a similar question might be derisively addressed to the defenders of the Celtic languages so heavily outnumbered in Europe as a whole , and even within their own borders. It is estimated that that something like 3,500,000 people speak one or other of the above six languages. Of the 16,500,000 people living in Celtic countries only 2,500,000 are Celtic speaking: the other million speakers of Celtic are scattered across the world, often victims of the 'Celtic diaspora' arising from the economic neglect of their native lands and regions. Collectively the Celtic speakers present a formidable force, but individually they are often woefully weak, as the following analysis reveals.

According to the 1981 United Kingdom language census only 79,307 people (1.6 per cent of the Scottish population) spoke Gaidhlig, the Scottish Gaelic. It is estimated that 700,000 people within Brittany speak Brezonek (Breton), but there are substantial Breton-speaking communities in Paris, Le Mans, Quebec and the United States, adding at least 100,000 to the above figure. The above census recorded 503,549 Welsh-speaking people within Wales, or 18.9 per cent of the Welsh population, with 21,283 speaking no English. And what of the Welsh 'exiles'? There are an estimated 35,000 Welsh-speakers in London, 7,500 in Patagonia, and substantial numbers in the United States. The census recorded 1,018,312 people (31.6 per cent of the population speaking Gaeilge (Irish Gaelic) in the 26 counties of Eire. The governments of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland have refused to take a census of Gaelic-speakers in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland but these are estimated at 60,000, to whom should be added some 100,000 in England, Wales and Scotland, with substantial numbers scattered throughout the world.

These are thriving languages which have never died, but we complete our analysis with the old languages of Cornwall and the Isle of Man, in a much less healthy state. Kernewek (Cornish) died as a generally spoken language in the late 18th century, although some knowledge of it survived until the late 19th century, when enthusiasts began the current language revival, and by 1981, 875 people were recorded as having some fluency in the language. In the Isle of Man a 1971 census recorded only 284 speakers of Gaelg (Manx) on the island.  

Are the interests of these small 'ethnic minorities' diametrically opposed to those of the great powers, or to those who would advance beyond the perhaps too narrow nationalism to European unity, or to a world state whose people spoke some universal language? And are not their complaints trivial in a world wrestling with the problems of peace or nuclear war and of hunger on a gigantic and terrifying scale? Our editorial suggests that Britain's future depends upon her active support for the creation of a united Europe with a central government for its defence and the leadership of its economy. But it goes on to advocate two further tiers of government: national and regional. The latter (or the last of the three tiers) should give maximum support and encouragement to the preservation of these ancient Celtic languages and cultures - and of others. (Would not the system reduce the tension within Belgium between Walloons and Flemish, or between the Basques and the central government of Spain?) Could it not play its part in solving the Irish problem, reassuring Catholics and Protestants, Gaelic-speakers and English, Republicans and Unionists, that their respective interests would be protected and safeguarded by a strong European government, on which they would both be represented.

The advocates of European unity rightly pay tribute to our 2,000 year-old Roman civilisation, and to the 1,000 years of Greek culture which preceded it. But the Celts were part of both those civilisations and were the first Transalpine people to emerge into recorded history. Earliest Celtic written remains are now dated as belonging to the 5th century BC, and the Celtic languages have continued to contribute to European literature, in the heroic legends of mythology, poetry and drama, philosophy and law. The prophet is not always without honour in his own country, although he does not obtain universal esteem until his writings are translated into more widely read languages. How many theatre-goers who enjoyed Brendan Behan's 'The Hostage' were aware that it had originally been written in Gaelic as 'An Giall' and performed in Dublin as early as 1956? Similarly, his play 'The Quare Fellow' was written as 'Casadh Sugain Eile' (The Twisting Rope). Let Europe unite, bur always remember its Celtic fringe, encouraging its books, and plays to pour from its presses, in the original and in translation.

Eurasian Mission - Alexander Dugin

            Alexander Dugin - photo by Counter Currents

This book gives an overview of Neo-Eurasianism and the Fourth Political Theory. Alexander Dugin is a Russian political scientist who is banned by America for supporting the return of Crimea. They have branded him a dangerous radical but he regards himself as a conservative:

"We conservatives want a strong, solid state, with order and healthy families, positive values, the reinforcing of the importance of religion and the Church in society. We want patriotic radio, patriotic experts, patriotic clubs. We want the media that expresses national interests."

He rejects Communism, Fascism and Liberalism and
proposes a global system with the Americas under the direction of the United States, Europe-Africa under the European Union, the Russian-Central Asian zone, and the Pacific zone under China and Japan. He opposes the New World Order which seeks to impose American values on the whole world:

"Americans have a very specific conception of progress. They believe in the unlimited growth potential of their economic system and are confident about the future, which from their point of view should be "American." Most of them sincerely believe an expansion of the "American way of life" to all humanity to be a real boon and goal, and are perplexed when faced with rejection and an entirely different, negative reaction (especially when the spread of this lifestyle is accompanied by a military invasion and mass extermination of the local population, the violent uprooting of traditional and religious customs, and other delights of direct occupation). What Americans call "progress" - the "democratization," "development" and "civilizing" of the rest of the world is in fact a degradation, colonisation, degeneration, degeneracy, and paradoxically a peculiar form of liberal dictatorship. It is no exaggeration to say that the United States is a stronghold of militant liberalism, a visible embodiment and progenitor of all the evil that plagues humanity today, and a powerful mechanism that steadily leads humanity towards the final catastrophe. This is the empire of absolute evil. The hostages and victims of the disastrous course of this empire are not only all the other nations , but also ordinary Americans, who are no different from the rest of the conquered, fleece, deprived and persecuted peoples of the Earth. They too are the slaughter of nations."

Supporters of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson should avoid this book but the rest of us will appreciate it.

"Eurasian Mission" is published by Arktos and is available from Amazon. 


The huge Action Francaise demonstration in Paris of 1934 brought down the 'Cartel des Gauches' government and so frightened the Communists that they disbanded and joined 
the Socialist Party. The Reds in Britain have adopted the same tactics. Instead of standing under their own colours they have infiltrated the Labour Party and installed Jeremy Corbyn as leader. If we want to influence events we should follow their example.

Harold Soref (1916 - 1993) was a standard bearer at the great BUF Olympia rally of 1934. He served in the Royal Scots during the war and joined the Conservative Party in the fifties. He was a leading member of the Monday Club and an outspoken supporter of Rhodesia. In 1972 he addressed a packed Monday Club rally at Westminster Central Hall. The IRA tried to assassinate him in 1974 but they killed the wrong man. He served as MP for Ormskirk, Lancashire 1970-1974. He might have joined Union Movement and spent his time leaflet bashing or selling 'Action' but he probably had more influence as a Tory MP.

We should emulate Harold Soref and join one of the established parties. They are all looking for candidates and even backbench MPs have some influence. They are always on TV voicing their opinions but few street activists are ever
given the opportunity.

Some people are so frustrated by lack or representation that they deface their ballot papers with inappropriate symbols and slogans. That's understandable but it would be more productive of them to join one of the established parties.
They might not convert the party faithful but they could at least try.

And The Weak Suffer What They Must

Yanis Varoufakis was the Greek finance minister who negotiated with the EU in 2015. Despite everything he still supports the EU but he demands structural reforms. In his book "And The Weak Suffer What They Must" he explains how Europe was nearly brought down by the financial crash of 2008, and he demolishes the "Daily Telegraph" argument for low interest rates:

"Once a crisis proves so large  that everyone is trying, against all hope, to pay off debt in conditions of shrinking income, no one want to borrow even if interest rates come down to zero. At that point central banks run out of means to stimulate the economy in their usual way - by reducing interest rates. Zero is indeed a radical number and any interest rate below it means that depositor who must now pay for the banks to hold their money, will rush to withdraw every penny, causing the banking sectors collapse. 

He proposes measures to alleviate unsustainable debt (the UK's National Debt now stands at £1.7 trillion) and he describes his treatment at the hands of the "Troika."

"My use of the term fiscal waterboarding back in 2010 was, after I became finance minister in 2015, used as evidence that I was a provocateur. In fact it was a perfectly apt and reasonable term by which to describe the troika's practices in Athens and elsewhere. What does waterboarding involve? You take a subject, lay him on his back and engulf his head in water so that he suffocates. Just before he dies, you stop, you allow the subject to take a few agonising breaths, and then you start again. You repeat until he confesses."

Varoufakis traces the origin of the EU to the 1940s:

"Above and beyond the concept of the nation state, the idea of a new community will transform the living space given us all by history into a new spiritual realm. . . The new Europe of solidarity and cooperation among all its peoples, a Europe without unemployment, without monetary crisis...will find an assured foundation and rapidly increasing prosperity once national economic barriers are removed." Arthur Seyss-Inquart.

"The people of Europe understand increasingly that the great issues dividing us, when compared to those which will emerge and will be resolved between continents are nothing but trivial family feuds...I am convinced that in fifty years Europeans will not be thinking in terms of separate countries." Joseph Goebbels.

"And The Weak Shall Suffer What They Must" is published by Random House and is available from Amazon.    

Nation Revisited
Our sister blog is posted on



Wednesday, 31 May 2017

European Outlook # 42, June 2017

All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people."
George Orwell

The publication of John Sutherland's biography "Orwell's Nose" and the news that the BBC are erecting a statue of George Orwell outside Broadcasting House have revived interest in the man and his ideas.

He is best remembered for his classic novel "1984" which described a totalitarian state, but he was not always so pessimistic, in 1947 he outlined his vision of a Socialist Europe in his essay "Towards a United Europe." 

Barbara Amiel, wife of the disgraced owner of the "Daily Telegraph", shared her husbands antipathy to the EU. In 2004 she wrote an article that compared the EU Constitution to Orwell's grim dictatorship. She wrote: "On a practical level, I worry about the doors a United Europe closes: having the historical memory of a European Jew, I prefer a Europe of sovereign nation states with distinct legal and political systems as opposed to the EU's proposed 'legal identity'. In the event of a bad virus attacking one country a diversity of 'legal identities' pretty much assures escape routes." 

Martin Webster agreed with her. He issued his bulletin, "Electronic Loose Cannon" No 24 in May 2008, to denounce my appraisal of George Orwell as a European federalist. This can be read on the Northwest Nationalist website at:

Martin will be pleased with the referendum result but I agree with George Orwell that our best hope for the future is a Socialist Europe. The referendum was a victory for the "Daily Mail" and the right-wing of the Tory Party but the voters of Austria, the Netherlands, France, and North Rhine Westphalia did not follow our example. The EU is growing economically faster than the United States and the pro-Europeans are regrouping. Only time will tell.

George Orwell was a remarkable writer who understood human nature as well as history and economics. Here is an extract from his book "The Road to Wigan Pier:"

"One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words socialism and communism draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, Nature-cure quack and feminist in England.

We have reached the stage where the very word socialism calls up on the one hand, a picture of aeroplanes, tractors and huge glittering factories of glass and concrete; on the other, a picture of vegetarians with wilting beards, of Bolshevik Commissars (half gangster, half gramophone), or earnest ladies in sandals, shock-headed Marxists chewing polysyllables, escaped Quakers, birth-control fanatics, and Labour Party backstairs-crawlers.

If only the sandals and pistachio-coloured shirts could be put in a pile and burnt, and every vegetarian, teetotaller and creeping Jesus sent home to Welling Garden City to do his yoga exercises quietly.

As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."


When I first took an interest in politics in the late fifties half of Europe was under Soviet domination. The Red Army crushed the Hungarians in 1956 and the Czechs in 1968. I never thought that Eastern Europe would be free in my lifetime but the Poles rose up in the eighties, the Romanian dictator Ceausescu was executed in 1989, Germany was reunited in 1990 and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Another issue was the recruitment of West Indians by London Transport and the National Health Service. There were Jews and Chinese in the East End but we knew little of them in South London. We were used to foreigners but the West Indians were the first blacks we had seen. We hardly notice black people now but in the fifties we used to touch them for luck.

My generation was unashamedly imperialist. We supported the colonial wars in Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, and Aden, and
our ill-fated invasion of Egypt. And when Harold Macmillan made his "wind of change" speech in Capetown it was regarded as treasonable. He was only telling the truth but we thought that the sun would never set on the British Empire.

Europe became an issue in the sixties when Harold Macmillan's application to join the Common Market was rejected by President Charles de Gaulle. We eventually joined under Ted Heath in 1973 but a dedicated band of insular nationalists started a forty-year campaign to get us out.

Today, Communism has disappeared in Russia and turned into state capitalism in China, the British Empire has gone except for the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, the West Indians have been followed by millions of Africans and Asians, and we are about to quit the European Union.

Britain has always been a low wage economy and our capitalists have always preferred to invest overseas instead of at home. We are still pretending to be a great military power despite being chased out of Suez by the Americans in 1956. We are still weighed down by class distinction and the dead hand of tradition, and we still think that foreigners will understand us if we shout loud enough.

The British people voted to leave the EU but the French did not. "Free West Media" reported on 12/05/17: "Jean-Marie Le Pen believes his daughter Marine, who lost the French presidential election on Sunday to Emmanuel Macron, should have focused on unemployment and immigration instead of the European Union. The EU is still popular  in France, even among Front National voters despite its problems."

Populist parties such as Ukip and the Front National are right about immigration but they don't understand economics. Only the power of a united Europe can defend our jobs and heritage. We really are better off together.

The Siege of The Alcazar

The Alcazar fortress of Toledo was besieged by Republican forces from July to September 1936. Col Moscardo and his Nationalist forces held out against the Reds until they were relieved by Gen Franco's Army of Africa. During the siege the Reds phoned the Colonel to say that they would shoot his son Luis if he didn't surrender. He told his son: "Commend yourself to God. Shout Viva Espana and die like a hero - a last kiss." Unmoved by his courage, the Reds killed Luis and his brother.

                  Roy Campbell photo Counter Currents

Roy Campbell was one of the finest poets of his generation. He was born in South Africa in 1901 and was killed in a motor accident in Portugal in 1957. During the Spanish Civil War he served as a war correspondent with the Nationalist Press Service. He was a regular contributor to "Action" and "The BUF Quarterly."

The Alcazar by Roy Campbell

The Rock of Faith, the thunder-blasted -
Eternity will see it rise
With those who (Hell itself out-lasted)
Will lift it with them to the skies!
Till whispered through the depths of Hell
The censored miracle be known
And flabbergasted fiends re-tell
How fiercer tortures than their own
By living faith were overthrown;
How mortals, thinned to ghastly pallor,
Gangrened and rotting to the bone,
With winged souls of Christian valour
Beyond Olympus or Valhala
Can heave ten million tons of stone!

Anne Brock Griggs  

Anne Brock Griggs was born in 1906 and died in 1972. She was a gifted speaker and writer who rose to become Women's Organiser for the BUF. When she was interned under Defence Regulation 18B, in 1940, Special Branch noted that she was "an ardent British National Socialist." Oswald Mosley stated: "My movement was largely built up by the fanaticism of women; they hold ideals with a tremendous passion . Without women, I could not have got a quarter of the way."

Food or Usury by Anne Brock-Griggs - from the BUF Quarterly  

Several years ago, a Scottish scientist worked in a country laboratory. He was investigating the relationship between health and the amount spent by the people on their food. He came to certain remarkable conclusions, which went almost unnoticed at the time. Now, after years of unemployment and undernourishment  among the people of Britain, Ministers have awakened to the fact that starvation is a serious matter. Ministers of Agriculture for England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland set up the Market Supply Committee. At the same time the Advisory Committee on Nutrition was appointed "to enquire into the facts, quantitative and qualitative, in relation to the diet of the people, and to report any changes therein which appear desirable in the light of modern advances in the knowledge of nutrition."

In 1935 the Rowett Research Institute, of which Sir John Orr is the head, was asked to coordinate the various evidence available. Hence the brilliant survey, "Food, Health, and Income" (Report on A Survey of Adequacy of Diet in Relation to Income, by John Boyd Orr: Macmillan & Co, 2/6 net). This startling yet constructive document has created a stir throughout the country, even causing a draught in the vacuum of Whitehall.

Here is indeed a challenge to the Nation to improve the health of the rising generation. "The rapid advance in the science of nutrition in recent years," says Sir John Orr, "has shown that the influence of diet upon health and physique is profound. It has been proved that much of the ill health that afflicts human populations can be attributed to deficiencies in diet."

As family funds rise, so expenditure increases on exactly those food products which are vital to health. This is shown by a series of excellent graphs. The amounts bought of meat, butter, cheese, milk, and fruit (especially these last two) all increase with the size of the budget. Consumption of bread, potatoes and flour, the cheaper energizers, are practically stationary at all income levels. Condensed milk and margarine dropped sharply in consumption , with the rise in income.

Thus Sir John Orr vindicates the housewife but indicts a system. One reaches the conclusion that the housewife knows what to buy in the way of food when she has the money. While dietetic ignorance can be blamed for some of the undernourishment and ill health in the country, the first cause is shortage of money.

More staggering still, according to Sir John's investigation, twenty million people - nearly half the population - have a diet which is lacking in some of the health-giving constituents necessary to perfect physique.

Again I cannot do better than to quote Sir John Orr: - "It should be kept in view that the standards with which the above comparisons are made are those compiled for the maintenance of perfect health, which is a standard very different from the average health of the community. The fact that the average diets of the lower income groups are inadequate according to these standards does not mean that these people are starving or even suffering from such a degree of ill-health as is recognised in the term disease. These diets may be sufficient to maintain life and a certain degree of activity, and yet be inadequate for the maintenance of the fullest degree of health which a perfectly adequate diet would make possible."

Youth is our future, yet one fifth of the Nation's children come from homes whose income is in the lowest group. Their diet is lacking in all vital constituents. "Owing to ... new tissue formation in growth the evil effects of poor diet are accentuated in children." These children grow more slowly and are susceptible to disease. Sir John Orrs patient investigations took him among the poorest children in the cities of Scotland. He found rickets, bad teeth and anaemia, characteristic signs of malnutrition, were widespread among the children of the poor. Exhaustive experiments proved that by giving these children additional milk - nature's own remedy - he increased their rate of growth by as much as 20%. Resistance to infectious diseases, including tuberculosis, is greater with a diet including enough milk and fresh vegetables.

Only just over one pint of fresh milk is drunk weekly per head in the lowest income group. Many homes therefore, often those with children, are entirely without fresh milk, the first of the protective foods. How much longer are our future citizens to be undernourished, stunted, racked by disease, growing to warped manhood for lack of a constructive policy of government?

To bring the consumption of the poorest groups up to the level of group six (which has a superabundance of all foodstuffs), means high increased percentages in consumption of various foodstuffs; as much as 80% in the case of milk, and 124% in the case of fruit.

Experiments would seem to indicate that we can, by scientific diet, and abundance of good food, breed a race several inches taller than at present. The data are not yet sufficient to be positive. At all events graphs illustrating the growth of children from different age groups show that at 13 years of age boys from the higher income are 2.4 inches taller than those from the lower. At seventeen the difference is 3.8 inches. At manhood it is as much as four of five inches. Allowing for the limits of heredity, it would seem to be not beyond the power of man to breed a super-race. Finally, says Sir John, "a review of the state of health of the people of Britain suggests that, as income increases disease and death rate decrease, children grow more quickly, adult stature is greater and general health and physique improve."

Undoubtedly we can produce the extra foodstuffs necessary for health from our own soil. By raising the purchasing power of the people the demand for farmers' produce can be increased. The extra foodstuffs necessary for the health of the people would mean the annual consumption of another £200 million worth of agricultural produce.

The same MP tactlessly asked whether the Prime Minister would consider setting up a Committee to ascertain what proportion of our Food Supplies could be home grown. "The matter is an extremely difficult one", said Stanley Baldwin. "in view of the consideration that has to be borne in mind in connection with our great export trade...It is an extraordinary difficult subject and we have it constantly under review."

The Prime Minister reveals by his answers that dividends for the financier are the first concern of Government, the last is the food of the people. The Unemployment Insurance Committee's Report accepts the continuation of unemployment and calculates the disposal of the "surplus" from the fund, while setting aside a sum for the increased unemployment they expect in the next 8 years. Surplus milk, millions of gallons, is sold to business combines, and withheld from the needy mothers and children, to whom before the election Baldwin promised his help. We see a Government held fast in the web of the financier without plans to safeguard our food supply, even in the event of war. We see the total failure of marketing boards to increase production, even penalizing the farmer for his output.

Sir John Orr's survey raises problems beyond those of nourishment alone. If we are to wait on the dictates of finance we shall go under as a nation to the standards of the East. The problem is one to solve by our own standards, those of the White Races.

Dean Inge has reminded us of the comparatively recent and precarious ascendancy in history of the White Races. Now this ascendancy and all that it means to the future of the world is threatened by the evil force of finance, which flourishes as weeds do in the garden they destroy. "Will the final victory," asks the Dean, "fall to the high-standard races or the low-standard races? That is the question which only the future can answer."

It is a question which only Fascism can answer. Our people cannot wait ten or even five years whilst ministers debate, but their united will can eradicate the corrupt and sinister force which undermines our civilization.

The Manchester Atrocity

The bombing of the Manchester Arena was the latest in a series of Wahhibi terrorist attacks throughout the world. Salman Abedi, the British-born suicide bomber had fought in Libya and Syria but he was not picked up by the security forces. They are now deploying armed police and soldiers but it's too late for the victims. We need stricter border controls, intelligence-led policing, and maximum cooperation with our neighbours. But we are not likely to get them under a penny-pinching Tory government.

British Guardian

Nation Revisited
Our sister blog is posted on


Sunday, 30 April 2017

European Outlook # 41, May 2017

All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people."
There are many visions of Europe; Charles de Gaulle's "Europe des Patries", Oswald Mosley's "Europe a Nation", Francis Parker Yockey's "Imperium", and Alexander Dugin's "Eurasia". These are aspirations, or hopes for the future, but the European Union is a physical reality, a customs union of 28 sovereign states; not exactly what we want but a step in the right direction. The following article by LJ Irving first appeared in National Freedom in 1995. 

The Alternative Europe - LJ Irving

As the twentieth century draws to its close the big question is, what next? It has not been Britain's greatest century. It began with Britain ruling the finest empire on earth, command of the seas made us the world's leading power, our middle and upper classes enjoyed the highest standard of living on the globe, Britain was still truly great.

All these things have been swept away at the close of the century. In terms of actual power Britain's fall was one of the fastest in history. Churchill, the architect of downfall, has been idolised again in that nostalgia trip 'VE Day', but all Vera Lynn's songs count for nothing compared with the power that Churchill squandered.

So, what next? Something has been happening since the British Empire fell. A huge mass of Third World peoples is on the move to take possession of the lands of the West, like the barbarian immigration into the Roman Empire when imperial power declined. But it is more than this. Third World governments hold a majority in the United Nations Assembly, and 'world democracy' in that talking-shop is increasingly anti-white. Further, all Eastern Asia is being industrialised at record speed. Asian economic power increases by the month. In short, the white Western world is threatened on three fronts.

Thus, to counter these threats, the idea took shape of self-governing White states, consisting of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and quite separate from a United Europe, inheriting the best traditions of the British Empire. Very regrettably it is a forlorn hope, for three reasons.

Firstly, the Empire cannot be rebuilt in any shape or form. History shows that we get only one chance to do anything like that. Many factors were in its favour when it began in the great Elizabethan age. Many factors are against it in the modern age.

Second, a White Commonwealth would lack the resources to endure. It would certainly have raw material resources but not the other types. A big concentration of modern industries of the technological age is one of the most decisive. But the vital resource is people. There are at least 4 billion in the Third World, and their numbers increase every hour. A White Commonwealth could muster just over a 100 million, and what is worse, they are dispersed across the globe. To survive you must concentrate.

Thirdly a White Commonwealth would soon be exposed to attacks orchestrated by the United Nations. The least it could expect is a propaganda war against 'neo-colonialism' and 'racism'. Its trade on the long sea-haul to Australia and New Zealand would be harried by interference, 'inspections' and 'incidents'. This would stiffen its resolve, but the big opponent is geography. Between Britain and the two Southern Dominions there are in one direction, Asia and Africa, and the Americas in the other direction. Both land masses have innumerable points where trade, and all other communications, between Britain and the two Dominions can be stifled and finally cut.

This need not mean war. All that is required are two or three resolutions passed by the United Nations. The situation would be similar to the UN campaign against South African apartheid. In that case one country defied them for a while and then capitulated, but a White Commonwealth would be four countries thousands of miles apart, and their enemies active in between.

As for the USA does anyone suppose that the Clinton administration constantly kowtowing to Asian countries it wants as friends and allies, would support a White Commonwealth? But unless Americans make superhuman efforts to reverse coloured immigration, we may have to reckon with worse fairly soon, a coloured majority USA. Canada would not survive as a White Dominion in this event.

Europe remains however, and it fulfils many of the requirements for preserving the future of the whites with its roots in the classic civilisations of Greece and Imperial Rome. When fully united it could include over 550 million people who have shown in their past wars that they have the will to endure. Europe is also well equipped with modern industries. With some of the best soils and climate in the world it can easily feed itself.

But Europe's great advantage over a White Commonwealth scattered among its enemies, is that it can form the shape of a bloc, closed against the United Nations, closed against Third World immigration, closed against Asian sweated competition.

Which Europe are we talking about, however? Certainly not the present conglomeration whose goal is Maastricht federalism and soulless uniformity imposed on the many different European peoples. This Europe is the invention of the Americanised Frenchman Monnet, 'the father of the common market'. It is just another of the big bureaucracies foisted on the world by the USA after the war, such as the UN, the World Bank, the IMF and the GATT, now the World Trade Organisation. Monnet was Washington's evil genius in Europe.

We are talking instead about a very different concept. The crux of the matter is power, and power would be taken out of the hands of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels to be invested in a European government elected by Europeans. But this common government, consisting of persons capable of doing their jobs, would deal only with issues covering the whole continent: defence, external affairs and the all-important financial and economic questions.

All other issues would remain with the national governments. Every nation in Europe would keep its own character, language, traditions and so forth. There would be no American 'melting pot' policy for immigrants, no American 'big government'. Above all it would be 'Europe for the Europeans' and nobody else.

This rich, powerful, all-white, united Europe, could support the future security of its kith and kin in the White Dominions in a way Britain alone could not.

Changed Priorities

It takes a long time for people to change their priorities. The British Empire was dismantled sixty years ago but our generals and admirals are still trying to defend the sea route to India. A retired admiral recently doubted that the Royal Navy could adequately patrol the South China Sea. This imperial worldview has led our government to renew the Trident missile system and commission two super aircraft carriers. The Guardian reported on 18 September 2009.

"The combined cost of replacing the Trident nuclear missile system and building and running two huge aircraft carriers will be as much as £130bn, far more than the government has admitted, an in-depth study of the huge defence project reveals today." 

Eight years later the cost has probably escalated but the government is convinced that the Royal Navy should be capable of fighting a world war.

The Germans haven't got any aircraft carriers or independent nuclear missiles but it doesn't seem to worry them. They have become a prosperous country without burdening themselves with expensive military hardware that will never be used.

The logical answer to defence is a united Europe, in which
we would share the cost with our partners, but we are moving in the opposite direction. The government will therefore have to chose between guns and butter. If we want a National Health Service, social housing, an efficient police force, and a humane prison service we will have to dispense with nuclear missiles, aircraft carriers, and F35B aircraft.

Putting up taxes is not the answer. We are already one of the highest taxed countries in the world, but because our government has driven down wages with cheap labour they are collecting less tax. Poorly paid workers do not pay much tax. We cannot afford decent services while maintaining the pretence of world power.

Our armed forces are capable of defending the UK against a conventional attack but in the unlikely event of a nuclear strike we would be wiped out. We might fire a few missiles at the enemy but nothing would save us. Fortunately, we are at peace with the nuclear-capable nations.

Our best strategy is to mind our own business and not get involved in foreign adventures. Our interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria were a criminal waste of life and treasure. We left each invaded state in a worst condition than when we started. The billions of pounds we spent bombing civilians would have been better spent on the National Health Service. And Muslim terrorists who are trying to blow us up might be less determined if we kept out of conflicts that are beyond our comprehension. It's time for us to rethink our priorities.

We've had hundreds of years of trekking through jungles and deserts on behalf of the East India Company and their modern counterparts. British blood has been shed all over the world in defence of the Empire but now we must learn to be a modern European country. If the government needs enemies let them make war on poverty, inequality and ignorance.

Following President Trump's missile attack on the Syrian airbase Boris Johnson congratulated America and demanded even harsher sanctions against Russia, but the leaders of the G7 ignored him. Our blustering Foreign Secretary with his blind obedience to America has become an embarrassment.

The Rothschilds

The parties and websites of the periphery are united in their condemnation of the Rothschilds. They are accused of controlling the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, and of financing wars and revolutions. They are one of the wealthiest family in the world with interests in banking, mining, and global finance. And they have infiltrated the European aristocracy.

Arnold Leese demonised the Rothschilds with his book Gentile Folly, published in 1940, just before he was detained under Defence Regulation 18B. This is the preface:

This little book has been produced with the object of filling a vacancy which the author considers has too long existed. 
Works on the Rothschilds are many, but nearly all these are either purposefully inaccurate or, like Count Corti’s masterpiece, long and rather dry. This book of mine contains no padding and needs to be read slowly.

I am not concerned with anecdotes about the Rothschilds, nor with registering their “wise-cracks,” nor with their “charity.” I take no interest in the Rothschilds as men or robots, but only as Jews; this book, which has been condensed so as to be within the reach of any working-man or woman, deals with the principal aspects of control over the Gentile by sheer weight of money-power, a control used for purposes not Gentile.

Dealing, as it does, with the last 150 years which have been so full of world-shaking events, it has been no easy task to squeeze what I have to say within the compass of a one-shilling publication. To enable those who have either forgotten their history or (let us be honest) never learned it, to follow the narrative more easily, a calendar of some of the principal historical events of the period follows this preface, and I would advise the reader to have within reach, when reading the book, an ordinary school history-book for occasional reference.

On the page following the Calendar, the reader will find a list of the principal works from which quotations, etc., have been taken, together with the letters of the alphabet used as references to them. Thus, for example, the sign (B, Vol. IV. p. 272) refers to that volume and page in the Jewish Encyclopædia.

In attempting my task, I know that I am only able to expose a small fraction of the total evil done by certain members of this Jewish family in the past; but, like a geologist who tells the story of the earth by his observations upon outcrops of rock, I tell the story of Rothschild control over the Gentiles from the evidence which has happened to come to light, so that my readers may judge for themselves what still lies underground.

Trusting that this book may enable others to dispense knowledge of the subject, I now drop this spanner into the wobbling, squeaking, overheated machinery of an outworn democracy, hoping for the best. I ask my readers to get busy, for the time is short. Arnold Leese.

On a personal note; I met a senior member of the Rothschild clan in 1993 when I was working on the construction of the Queen's Stand at Epsom Racecourse. Sir Evelyn de Rothschild visited site one Sunday morning in his capacity as chairman of United Racecourses. He asked me if the job would be finished in time for the Queen to open the stand for Derby Day. I was not in charge of the site but I told him that my works package would be finished and that I expected the job to be completed on time; as indeed it was.

He didn't look evil to me and I felt no malign or threatening presence. If he really is a shape-shifting reptilian, as believed by David Icke, I saw no sign of it. He is a tall and distinguished man who looks and speaks like an upper class Englishman. He is the Queen's personal financial adviser and his wealth is estimated at $20 billion.

Theresa May Calls an Election

The Prime Minister has called a general election for June 8th. She has decided to capitalise on her massive lead over the Labour Party and finally silence any opposition to Brexit.

The Tory Party has been hijacked by Boris Johnson who favours a total break with Europe and blind obedience to America. He immediately supported the American missile strike on a Syrian airbase and offered Britain's help in any future attack.

The Tories have welcomed the spat with Spain over Gibraltar and Michael Howard has promised to show the Spaniards "what kind of people we are." We already know what kind of person he is. In 1961 Ken Clarke invited Oswald Mosley to address the Cambridge Conservatives, Howard was furious and resigned from the Tory Students' Association in protest.

A war with Spain but would be diplomatically ridiculous and technically difficult. The French would object to a British Expeditionary Force marching across La Belle France, and for the same reason the RAF would be of little use. That leaves the Royal Navy to blockade the Spanish ports and defend the Rock, against a background of universal condemnation. We had a few friends when we fought the Argentine Junta but Spain is a democratic country that’s home to half a million Brits.

Theresa May is a vicar's daughter who supported the status quo until she jumped on the Brexit bandwagon. The Tories never asked us if we wanted to go to war, or if we wanted millions of immigrants, but they have suddenly discovered
"the will of the people."

The Tory hardliners won the UK referendum and at the other end of Europe, Turkish strongman, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, narrowly won a referendum to increase his powers. Europe will have two problem neighbours in the future. The UK in the northwest that thinks that it is not European and Turkey in the southeast that thinks that it is. The reality is that states as economically and militarily important as the UK and Turkey must be accommodated.

Discontented Brits voted to leave the EU and their French counterparts voted for Marine Le Pen in the first round of the presidential election, but petty nationalism is not the answer, what we need is unity and leadership.   

John Radcliff

The Conservative Party was founded by Benjamin Disraeli to defended the Establishment but it has attracted honourable men, such as; Captain Archibald Maul Ramsay, who was locked up under Defence Regulation 18B, Harold Soref, who was a standard bearer for the BUF, and many others who worked discretely in the background.

John Radcliff was a friend and supporter of John Beckett.
He emerged after the war as the senior tutor in public speaking to Conservative Central Office. He was a regular speaker at The Cogers, the world's oldest debating society, founded in 1755.

I fondly remember him as a dignified gentleman of great knowledge who was an accomplished writer and teacher. He has been dead for many years but his wit and wisdom lives on. Here is an extract from his book Public Speaking published by Foyles in 1963.


Everybody daydreams, not only people in your audience. We all have desires and as these desires are often not satisfied in real life we seek satisfaction in fantasy. Women daydream of being wooed by rich and handsome men offering minks and marriage. Men daydream of being millionaires and desirable to women.

A good way of bringing daydream ideas into your subject matter is by mentioning a daydream person - some historical or fictional character who has achieved what members of the audience would like to achieve. Naturally audiences vary in the sort of person they idealise. If you are talking to a literary society they will like to hear about a successful author. Business men will like a reference to Rockefeller. But business men will also open their ears if you mention Napoleon, as will politicians, sportsmen, military men and intelligent boys. The number of biographies of Napoleon that have been published is enormous. This is because an enormous number of people would like to be spectacular conquerors. You do not get the lives of the saints read with such avidity. I have noticed that women in certain audiences listen intently when I say something about Cleopatra. But in another sort of audience a young woman thought Cleopatra was the name of a firm that made needles. So if you want a character who has achieved what most women would like to achieve, you had better mention a film star. With men listeners, however, you will not arouse equivalent interest by mentioning male stars. This is because the romantic success of male stars are confined to the screen. In real marriage, male stars end with paying alimony, and this is not what men listeners would like to achieve. A character who does interest men is Henry the Eighth.

Nation Revisited
Our sister blog is posted on: