Saturday, 19 January 2008

CORRUPTED BY PARTY POLITICS

By Robert Edwards

(published in European Action number 11, July/August 2007)


In the previous issue of European Action, Bill Baillie asked what is the point of minority far-right parties entering the arena of both the local and national elections when the mainstream parties seem to have it all sown up in their favour and for themselves alone. The best they can do, he said, was to influence government policy now and then.
The results of the last local elections in May were devastating for the British National Party after putting up a record number of over 800 candidates. Most of them were paper candidates, of course, with at least one in the South East of a very dubious moral background.
The BNP, under Nick Griffin, has struggled for the past several years in order to re-invent itself, bending over backwards to follow similar groups on the continent that have adopted a stridently pro-Israel line. They think that being anti-Muslim and pro-Jewish will open the doors to mainstream politics, when recent election results have proven that this is not the case. Some people, you see, have long memories, especially Jewish people.

"The popularism [sic] in British nationalist circles means the idea that if we change our image the Jews will not say bad things about us … The BNP should not try and appeal to middle-class notions of respectability, which take issue with the fact that a minority of nationalists wear large boots and short haircuts, or that the BNP activities often 'provoke violence'. It is more important to control the streets of a city than its council chamber". Nick Griffin, The Cook Report, 1997

Quite often, this transformation took the form of attacking nationalistic critics of Israel by labelling them anti-Semites with the implication that they are largely influenced by the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The BNP’s leader, Nick Griffin, was the author of a booklet entitled ‘The Mindbenders’, an exposé of alleged disproportionate Jewish influence in the British media. This was published within recent memory with the BNP now attempting to erase aspects of its history by saying Griffin had nothing to do with it.
Unfortunately for him, we have the following quote in stark contradiction to the latest ‘in denial’ struggle of conscience. In issue number 3, on page 11, of The Patriot 1999, he declares, "I have been busy writing The Mindbenders". Indelible, unambiguous and unequivocal!
What makes people like Griffin believe that political somersaults and twisted contortions will benefit them in the long run when inconsistency and downright opportunism does not go unnoticed and will surely follow them for the rest of their lives?
John Tyndall could never shake off his penchant for Nazi uniforms in the early 1960s, paraded for the whole world on the front page of the Daily Mirror. It was a propaganda gift to his enemies on the extreme-left and to his own internal rivals. They used it against him time and again.
After years of servility to JT, Griffin decided to challenge him on the issue of modernising the party and ridding it of the old guard anti-Semites, even though he was one himself, referring to the ‘Holohoax’ in his Rune magazine. Tyndall was given the ‘let’s get rid of the Nazis’ treatment that became more acrimonious as time went by. Griffin, as we all know, won the contest.
The Griffin gang also discovered a substitute for the old anti-Semitism in the form of a wildly exaggerated anti-Islamism, with the foul-mouthed Lee Barnes appointing himself the BNP’s Witch-Finder General. On April 9, 2006, Barnes informed me, “Islam is a direct threat to our safety. Jewish power is a mere political threat. When faced with two tigers trying to destroy you but you have only one bullet in your rifle what do you do?”
The cynical opportunism is plain to see but the logic is flawed. Having shot one tiger, what do you do about the other? Go on your knees and beg?
Just before last May’s elections, it was not surprising that Jewish leaders were to warn British Jews to unite against the BNP. One Jewish website declared, “The Board of Deputies of British Jews is calling on all communities to unite in making sure voters across the country reject the far right British National Party in May's local elections”.
It appeared that all the crawling and toadying to Jewish feelings and aspirations had been for nothing.

“The Messianic nature of Judaism has always been an important factor, at least subconsciously, in the hugely disproportionate role of racial Jews in both Communism and Capitalism”. Nick Griffin, Spearhead, February 1996

European Action has no problem in confronting the crimes of Israel and giving its support to the persecuted Palestinian people. We know that we are condemning people for what they do and not for what they were born. Anti-Semitism is attacking Jews merely because they are born Jews. Messrs Griffin, Barnes and Bean have still not quite grasped that simple definition of a term they are now so fond of throwing at any critic of Israel or even their own BNP policy on the subject.
The octogenarian editor of the BNP’s Identity magazine has a past history of far-right fringe activity, rubbing shoulders with anti-Semites throughout all that time in the 1950s and early 1960s. He was five minutes in Mosley’s Union Movement but then preferred those groups more interested in the ‘international Jewish conspiracy’ rather than serious solutions to Britain’s problems. Now he emerges as an ‘elder statesman’ of the BNP after disappearing completely from political life, after the founding of the National Front in 1967. Up on his pedestal he now dismisses the ’Judeo-obsessives’, as if he were as pure as the driven snow and never said “boo!” to a rabbi.
The attempt at appeasing Jewry has failed. It was never going to work because it was only ever viewed as a tactical ploy by anyone who could see through it. But why is supporting Israel and Jewry so important to a politician who wants to get on? What is the significance of leaked stories such as an alleged midnight call from the Jewish journalist Barbara Amiel, wife of Conrad Black, to Nick Griffin along the lines of, "Isn't it about time that we started to work together for mutual defence against the Muslim threat?". The authenticity of the exchange is highly questionable but the ‘leak’ was not condemned by Griffin because the purpose of relating such an unlikely tale was to send out a message to Jewry at large, preying on fears of Islam. It was Barnes’ dilemma of two tigers and only one bullet.
It is not wrong to condemn Israel for what is done to the Palestinians and it is not wrong to point out that some sections of Jewry put the interests of Israel above those of the countries of which they are citizens.
I recall an article in an old issue of Action of the early 1960s pointing out that there is something just as equally unacceptable as attributing all the world’s ills to a malevolent ‘international Jewish conspiracy’ ... and that is the idea that organised Jewry is blameless, always morally correct and, thus, should be completely immune from criticism. In other words, we should avoid all mention of them for fear of offending. Both views are, of course, irrational and morally unacceptable

Tuesday, 15 January 2008

IMMIGRATION - BIGOTRY OR REASON


by Dermont Clark

(Published in European Action number 5, July/August 2006)

[Dermont Clark is a former Union Movement organiser and speaker from Cambridgeshire. In the early 1970s he was a main speaker at “Action Party” conferences until it reverted to “Union Movement” after a couple of years. He later played a role in the Action Society. He is now an enthusiastic supporter of European Action, the successor to the movement’s Action]

The policy of Union Movement, the post Second World War political party of Oswald Mosley, put the emphasis on humane repatriation of immigrants. This was perfectly possible in the 1950s and the 1960s because by 1958 the Indian population had only reached 125,000 and by the late 50s the total number of blacks in Great Britain was 192,000 (or less than 0.5 per cent of the population).However, as we entered the 1980s the demographic changes were being set permanently, and here and now in the 21st Century we must accept that any idea of coerced repatriation is neither possible nor morally defensible. Our immigrant population has established itself, for the most part regards itself as truly British and plays an important part in just about every part of our national life.Just for a moment consider the policy of some “patriotic” British political parties who would repatriate the entire non-European immigrant population over a ten or fifteen year term. The question is, how? If 25,000 sat down in the middle of London the state does not have the manpower to move them, nor the facilities to house them.Are we to return to the occasional stupid and shameful excesses of the British Raj in India when troops were summoned to move protesters and ended up firing with both small arms and artillery on the hapless natives, killing hundreds of mainly old men, women and children?Or do we wish the rest of the world to judge us from the comfort of their living rooms as they see on their TV screens Balkan type ethnic cleansing and huge camps full of huddled masses awaiting deportation back to countries that they no longer know as “home”? This would be racism and bigotry of the worst kind.In his book, “My Life”, Sir Oswald Mosley says, “I have always stood against the exploitation of the old colonialism, the placing of one people on top of another on grounds of alleged superiority or inferiority, which is the only rational definition of racialism and which I reject”.The Editor and contributors to European Action consider Oswald Mosley to have been a politician and philosopher of great vision and often decades ahead of his contemporaries in his planning for and aspirations of Europe a Nation, but we also feel the need to interpret his ideas in the contemporary context, bearing in mind that many things change over the years.Let us try now and relate to the present day, and the difficulties that we face in regard to the many issues surrounding immigration. The Government of the day has a moral obligation to protect and secure the borders of the United Kingdom and a National Party of Europe has the same obligation over its boundaries.The people have a right to expect their Government to protect them also from people in their midst who would break the laws of the land and/or wish to do them harm, and also the right to expect equal treatment. The Government should wisely and carefully use the revenues that it raises to manage their Public Services.It is now common knowledge that “New Labour” and the Home Office have lost total control of our borders. They have no idea how many people who shouldn’t be in the UK are living here (their estimate is some 400,000 but it could be more) and, as highlighted in a recent TV documentary, because of pressure from Number 10, the immigration officials are being forced to ignore the deportation of dangerous foreign criminals in order to meet targets.So called “political correctness” means that unfair discrimination is being used to advantage some people over others based on their ethnicity. This is morally wrong and completely stupid. The idea that an applicant’s ability to do a job is of less importance than his or her racial background, etc. is bound to deliver lower rather than higher standards. In the same way, because of poorly drafted laws, many of which have been pushed through to meet this Government’s deadlines of a new scheme or incentive every month or so, there has sprung up a whole legal “industry” to try and manipulate the system to the advantage of immigrants and asylum seekers who are not truly entitled to be in this country, all of which is funded through Legal Aid.What then are the solutions (solutions that are required not just by white voters but right across the racial mix of our voting public)?Firstly, procedures must immediately be put in place and given substantial backing to detain in custody and to return to their country of origin all immigrant criminals who have abused the hospitality of our country, and anyone who has been found guilty of any crime that potentially carries a prison sentence should be deported.Given that the cost of keeping a convict in prison is more expensive than putting them up in a four star hotel, it would seem sensible that these criminals serve their time back in their true homeland, rather than in the UK. This would also free up spaces in our increasingly over-full prisons. This is most easily achieved by subsidising the cost of the imprisonment in their country of origin.Virtually every other democracy in the world has a limit to the number of immigrants that it will accept in any given year, often broken down into specific numbers from individual countries. Indeed, one of the reasons for West Indian migration to the UK was the 1952 McCarren-Walter Act that changed the rules originally permitting some 65,000 British Commonwealth citizens to come to America each year, to restrict the number of Caribbeans to only 800.In addition, many countries will give preference within their quota to specified trades and professions (say, builders and doctors) and, in addition, will often apply other requirements such as the need to pass medical examinations, often a requirement (especially for older applicants) to post surety against the cost to the state of any medical treatment and an exclusion from any Social Security benefits for, say, the first three years.All of that seems perfectly sensible and reasonable. I can understand that families living in the UK want to bring over their elderly parents and their siblings. As long as they fall within the allotted quotas and do not cost the taxpayer any money, I have no objections. If we wanted to go to the United States or Australia, the same conditions would apply irrespective of race or colour.Asylum seekers are a particularly difficult area because, while one does not want to return the genuine applicant to a country where they are likely to be abused or tortured, the system is very muddled and unclear.This encourages “shyster” lawyers to challenge decisions to repatriate their clients and to “play the system” by telling those claiming the right to settle here to falsely claim they are from such and such a country “because under Human Rights legislation they can’t send you back”. The enormous cost of all this comes out of the Legal Aid budget funded by you and me, the taxpayers.This needs a root and branch overhaul, with clear and definitive rules, which should include the needs for claimants to prove their identity and country of origin with, if necessary, citizens of certain countries being excluded from entry into the UK. This would make the administration of requests for asylum simpler and more straightforward and eliminate much of the huge cost of court action and counter-action.Finally, what should happen to the half million or so immigrants in this country illegally? Mass deportation seems impractical at best, and as many of these people have settled into our society and contribute to our economy others have suggested an amnesty. I reject the concept of amnesty because these people are here illegally, but as they are located I do believe that the Immigration Service should take into consideration how they have conducted themselves and their circumstances.The first option would be some form of license to stay and work in the UK without granting any rights of citizenship (similar to how Germany after the Second World War recruited necessary immigrant labour from Turkey). After a suitable period of time, and dependent on how they conducted themselves in our society, full citizenship could follow while, of course, all the “bad apples” would immediately be sent packing.Rather than playing the “race card” or, on the other hand, surrendering our control of our borders and sovereignty to the masses who would descend on our land if given half a chance, I believe that a serious and practical solution based on fairness and justice in the best interests of all our citizens irrespective of their race, colour or creed is both a necessity and a duty that a government of which a National Party of Europe was a member would not hesitate to implement.

Friday, 4 January 2008

A SCHOOLBOY WITH MOSLEY


By Gordon Beckwell
Friends of Oswald Mosley

(Published in the January/February 2008 issue of European Action No 14)

Everybody remembers the first time they heard Oswald Mosley speak. Mine was at precisely 3 o’clock on the afternoon of Sunday, May 14, 1961 in Trafalgar Square. It was a glorious Bank Holiday weekend. Some people say of their first occasion that they “came to jeer but stayed to cheer”. Not me. I knew exactly what I was going to hear and I was not disappointed. A few years previously, aged 15, I had come across a book, ‘Mosley - The Facts’, in the old Chelsea Public Library in Manresa Road. That red-jacketed book began a journey for me that continues half a century later and will not end until the day I hear the chiming of the hour.
In it, Mosley set out his ideas for nothing less than the transformation of Great Britain. His policy of ‘Britain First in Europe a Nation’ would make us strong enough to stop Soviet Russia taking over the rest of Europe without us becoming the servile underling of America. Economic life would flourish within its self-contained frontier, our great industries protected from the destructive effect of cheap labour competition from Asia and Africa.
In time, Europe would become the richest, most powerful and beneficent civilisation the world had ever seen.
A Mosley government would also stop mass immigration once and for all. Even then it was threatening the cultural identity of all the great races of the world; leading to the rootless ‘international airport departure lounge’ society we have today. Large parts of the South London I knew had already become Caribbean or Asiatic townships. I wanted to live in a British city.
The book also described Mosley’s version of an economy based on syndicalist principles. Instead of company profits going into state coffers or the pockets of capitalists, they should be distributed among the working people who produced them. It promised to be the biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world.
That first time, as I stood in the Square with the warm sun on my back and some school mates by my side, there was a feeling of anticipation and excitement. And a hint of danger. The crowd stretched back from the base of the Column to the pavement opposite the National Portrait Gallery. On the plinth, beneath Nelson’s distant gaze, stood a man I later knew to be Jeffrey Hamm giving the warm-up speech.
Before long I could hear the sound of drums coming from Whitehall as the Union Movement marchers approached. Then I noticed a number of young men in white shirts and black ties, the unofficial uniform of the Movement, slowly infiltrate the crowd ready to be on hand in the event of trouble. One of them I recognised as Mosley’s red-haired son Max.
Jeffrey Hamm reached the peroration of his speech with perfect timing: “And now I give you a man whose name is on the lips of all Britain, nay, of all Europe – Oswald Mosley”. On to the plinth jumped a grey-haired man in a grey double-breasted suit. He flashed a smile as he quickly appraised his audience and began to speak. His strong, resonant voice filled the Square: I had never heard oratory like this before.
Mosley spoke for over an hour without notes, without hesitation and without interruption. He had a marvellous joined-up way of speaking and a powerful grasp of words. Here was a master in the use of alliteration, intonation and emphasis to make a point and lead to emotive plateaux in the speech that brought thunderous applause. I felt the hairs on the back of my neck stand up more than once.
I have absolutely no recollection of what Mosley said in that speech though no doubt it followed the lines of the book. What I do remember is the feeling. I was no longer a spotty-faced teenager from Chelsea. I was a member of the greatest race the world had ever known and we were going to make history and achieve wonderful things that would be honoured for generations to come. Hey, what’s wrong with that?
By the end of the speech nobody was moving in the Square. Even the day-trippers were rooted to the spot by the man in the double-breasted suit. As the cheering subsided, Mosley descended into the Square surrounded and protected by his followers. As he walked through the throng, a forest of arms rose in the full salute, mine among them. Quickly it was all over, Mosley entered a grey Riley saloon car and was driven swiftly away.
Ten weeks later I remember hurrying back by train from Spain to attend the next Mosley rally in Trafalgar Square held on Sunday, July 30. And I was there again on Sunday, October 8, when the Leader’s new book ‘Mosley – Right or Wrong?’ was launched [see page 4, bottom left - Ed]. You could not help noticing that each time the Square was packed even denser than before. Anyone who had come to feed the pigeons those Sundays was out of luck.

Union Movement’s Finest Hour
But the greatest rally of them all was still to come. On Sunday, May 13, 1962 it felt like half of London was in the Square and along its side streets. Few looked like casual passers by to me. People were getting really worried about immigration and nobody else was willing to make a stand. The Cold War was getting dangerous but few felt that the unilateral disarmament of CND was the answer. The housing problem was still acute. Mosley had common sense answers for all these problems and the common thread was that Europe should unite and unite now. At this time, National Headquarters in Victoria was receiving over a thousand enquiries a week, new branches were springing up and membership was growing.
After another tremendous speech, a column began to form for the march back to NHQ. I fell in with my school chums. Now I know that we used to march three abreast, rather than the usual military four, a little trick to stretch the length of the column. But I could tell something amazing was happening, so many people joined the march that day that when the front was entering Parliament Square the rear had only just left Trafalgar Square. At one point Mosley looked back and commented to the London Area Organiser, Fred Bailey, who was marching by his side, “Quite like old times, Fred”. You just knew that we were on a roll.
As I marched along Whitehall, some scruffy Reds on the pavement spat at us. But it was the proudest moment of my life. On passing through Parliament Square, bells sounded. The East Londoner in front of me shouted, “See, even Big Ben’s chiming for us!”. Everybody laughed.
Then it was up Victoria Street to Union Movement’s NHQ where we were due to disperse. Vauxhall Bridge Road was solid with people right up to Victoria Station, all traffic had long since given up hope of getting through. I stood not four yards away from Mosley. He turned from side to side and repeated, “Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!” Cold words as you read them on the page but the way he said them produced the sensation that a piece of melting ice was running down my spine. I thought, a few more marches like this and the whole of Britain would sit up and take notice.
But other eyes were watching and alarm bells began to ring. An unholy trinity of Establishment, communist and Jewish interests arose and began to act. Reds and the street terrorists of the 62 Group attacked our meetings en masse. The Tory Government banned us from Trafalgar Square and local Labour councils denied us the use their public halls. Mosley and Union Movement fought on but the forces of reaction ranged against us were overwhelming.
Was it all worth it? Of course it was! It sent a message to future generations. Not only about Mosley’s ideas that in modern guise could still bring peace, prosperity and order to human affairs. But the knowledge that if men and women of strong resolve stand bravely, and can endure, then nothing that corrupt enemies can throw at them can ever break them. As the continuing existence of initiatives like ‘European Action’ proves.