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.
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 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."
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.
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.
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.
Our sister blog is posted on: http://nationrevisited.blogspot.com