Friday, 23 January 2009

Israel is not Europe

by Robert Edwards
Published in EA No 8, January/February 2006

In a previous issue of European Action, the front page heading for an article was “Turkey is not Europe”, the text of which attempted to define a European identity based on our history and culture. Turkey belongs to a region known as Central Asia. Geographically it is not Europe. That was a good starting point, the rest followed.
Israel, on the other hand, is a state founded on a complete rejection of Europe ... Zionism being a political ideology of the Nineteenth Century that rejected the assimilation of Jews within European society, some of whose disciples attacked all European Gentiles as being afflicted with a congenital disease known as “anti-Semitism”. Christian Europe was picked out especially for this vile canard. They claimed this condition is incurable with most Zionists still maintaining this view today. The theory is that anti-Semitism is endemic in Europeans and the only guarantee of Jewish survival is to create a state to which all the world’s Jews can go and seek protection.
For this reason, I would like to question a creeping trend that is attempting to incorporate Israel and Zionism into mainstream European social and political life. How does a Middle East state, out of all the other Middle East states, suddenly become a paid-up member of the European Club? In days of old they were usually black-balled.
The longest standing anomaly has been the Eurovision Song Contest with Israelis warbling alongside genuine Europeans singers. No one questions this absurdity because such a critical observation would instantly prove the “anti-Semitism” of the observer. So no one says a word in contradiction, except us.
There is a real danger that the very idea of being a European is being traded for a cosmopolitan internationalism. By that I mean people from outside our borders are treating us as a convenient market to plunder and attach themselves at their will. By so doing they are undermining our true sense of identity as well as our heritage.
Another case is the convicted fraudster, David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan chief and now labelling himself a “European American”. Duke served time in the United States for embezzling funds from his political supporters. He is also an addicted casino gambler. Duke is currently touring former Soviet bloc countries preaching to the locals at considerable expense. Who pays his expenses? His embezzled supporters, the CIA or the State Department?
It is the use of the term “European American” that presents the biggest problem. Before then, he was a white American and this was widely used by Americans of European descent. However, Duke’s new term for a white American implies that he has a God-given right to speak on behalf of all Europeans in another part of the world to his own. He does not ... and he should be shown the way back to the United States where he truly belongs. You are either American or you are a European because these are two different worlds with whole sets of different values; there can never be a hybridisation of the two. We are coming back to this trend towards a global mono-culture that is currently being pressed by the American financial imperialists and Duke is either knowingly or unwittingly fostering this with his “European American” campaign. It is undermining the future sovereignty of a Europe that seeks a position in the world in its own right ... without the assistance of Americans, I must stress.
The parallel with Israel is obvious. Both states were founded on a rejection of European influences and broke away as such. The Americans reverted to a form of materialistic barbarism while Israel established a racist state based on the idea that all non-Jews wanted to kill them all. Thus, anti-Semitism as “the European disease” became the alibi for some of the worst atrocities committed since the Second World War. It was the Palestinians who were to suffer.
The leader of the British National Party has taken up the cause of Israel after years of trying to expose the wicked Jewish influence in the British media and poking fun at the “Holohoax”, as he then dubbed it. The term “wicked” is now reserved for another religious group, like swapping the latest designer fashion for another. The intention is the same but without the dreaded “anti-Semitic” label.
The BNP’s line is that Israeli Jews are just like us Europeans and hate Arabs and other Muslims with the same intensity as the leaders of that party. Well, that is a bit of an over-simplification but nevertheless fair. It is this idea that Zionist Jews are Europeans like the rest of us that goes against the grain of all logical thinking unless, of course, an inevitable hidden agenda pushes this view in the interests of Israel alone. How convenient would it be to have the full economic and military backing of a rising united European power, as well as that of the United States, propped up by a powerful Jewish lobby. Then the Zionists could fulfil the prophesy of a Greater Israeli Empire “extending from the Nile to the Euphrates”. That is why the Israelis want to involve themselves in European events and not through any brotherly love for the “congenital anti-Semites” of old.
Another recent anomaly has been Israel’s participation in the European Cup football fixtures, playing against genuine European teams. What on earth does the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) think it is doing? Have they ever looked at a map of the world? You would think Tel Aviv was somewhere between Paris and Warsaw and not in what is historically Arabia.
The Israeli flag which features at these games is both a religious and racist symbol that could offend many people with sympathies for the plight of the Palestinians and, as such, should be banned at football matches. It is the symbol of the murderous oppression of innocent people in Gaza at this very moment in time.
Israel has the closest ties with the United States where the new leader of the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, has declared her unconditional support for the Jewish state. She stated recently, “America and Israel share an unbreakable bond: in peace and war; and in prosperity and in hardship”. That tells you everything about the differences between Democrats and Republicans. None whatsoever, as far as Israel is concerned.
So where does this latest Zionist affinity with Europe stand in relation to the bonding with Uncle Sam? Israel was once considered as the back door for the Americans into the Middle East after the British were forced to leave Palestine under pressure from President Truman. At the time, the Foreign Office correctly perceived the State of Israel to be the beginning of the end of British predominance in the Middle East.
It was not until the fiasco of Suez in 1956 that the total humiliation of the British in the Middle East was completed and the British Empire declared officially dead.
We also remember and commemorate in this year of 2007, the torture and murder of British servicemen by the terrorist Stern Gang sixty years ago. A justifiable protest at any football match between Israeli and authentic European teams would be to display large banners reminding television viewers of the terrorist connection and, principally, the Stern Gang. See how the “European connection” holds together then.
As I said, the leader of the British National Party thinks that Israeli Jews are just like us, meaning, of course, that we share so much in common. He is oblivious to the true nature of the Zionist mindset that regards all non-Jews as potential genocidal maniacs out to get them. In that sense, the Zionists are on another planet while we prefer this one.
The BNP’s National Press Officer, former Tory Dr Phil Edwards, responded to a colleague of mine, “As far as I’m concerned Jews are white people of European ancestry and have made a significant contribution to civilisation and Western progress. No doubt there are a few who have ambitions for power and wealth but to typecast them all this way is a mistake. Instead of this obsession with the ‘Jewish question’ we must be able to debate their agenda without being typecast as anti-Semites”. Former Vlaams Blok leader, Filip De Winter, was quoted as saying similar in a Sunday newspaper but his party was condemned and banned as ‘racist’ some time later. It re-emerged as Vlaams Belang.
Quite so, Dr Edwards but it is leading figures in your BNP labelling any critics of Israel as “hysterical anti-Semites” that are the real culprits and, no doubt, this article will be viewed as the product of such. But we are talking of Israel and Zionism ... and not Jews in general. Anti-Semitism was always understood to mean condemning Jews simply because they are Jews, which is an irrational and stupid thing to do. No, Dr Edwards, we judge people entirely on their actions and past record and, in this case, the state of Israel and the ideology that founded it.
It is for the simple reason that the early Zionists rejected Europe and assimilation that present-day Zionists could never be considered as loyal and true Europeans as we understand the phrase. The state of Israel is exclusive and racist in the sense that it is a Jewish state for the Jewish people, despite a token Arab representation. The Arabs are second-class citizens in Israel with no property rights. The Israelis are unique in several ways but principally they seem to be allowed to practice apartheid in the region with the West simply looking on.
For all these reasons, when I had explained how Turkey is not part of Europe, there is the issue of Turkey’s human rights record still being debated by European governments. The record of human rights violations in Israel and the Palestinian territories is probably worse than that of Turkey and if not, no less so.
For this reason, Israel is not fit to be part of a European Union if that is what some Israeli politicians are considering. Being geographically outside historical and cultural Europe is but one consideration.
So let us begin by throwing Israel out of the Eurovision Song Contest whose last winner was a weird transsexual. Let us bring European football back to an exclusively European involvement ... otherwise why call it the European Cup? At present it is actually the “Israeli/European” Cup.
Israelis must be excluded from top secret sessions of inter-governmental defence and foreign policy in Europe and they must certainly be excluded from any civil contracts involving security in London’s public places ... London Underground, for example.
Israel’s intelligence services must be banned from operations in all countries of Europe, especially in regard to Mossad’s openly declared policy of targeted assassinations anywhere in the world. This is intolerable and a threat to the lives of all our citizens.
The idea of dual nationality must be included in the debate. With Israel outside Europe, how can any Zionist living in a European country profess complete loyalty to his land of abode when, at the same time, the state of Israel must come uppermost in his mind? One’s loyalty is always compromised under such an arrangement and more so when you are also an Israeli citizen. After all, all that it requires is that you are a Jew anywhere in the world.
Our Europe a Nation must practice complete religious tolerance as declared in our points of policy. But Zionism is a secular political ideology trading on a religious myth ... the bogus Law of Return. It is this ideology that has wormed its way into the White House and Downing Street, through the mainstream political parties in Westminster in the form of the “Friends of Israel”, whereby to “get on” you need to be affiliated whatever the colour of your politics.
A unified European Defence Force must never be tainted by any association with the Israeli Defence Force, a criminal organisation that seems to have no control over its trigger-happy soldiers. Perhaps some admirers of Israel need to see filming of Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinian children in the head, whose only crime has been to exist and who are committing the appalling terrorist act of walking to school or playing in the street.
I would say to them, no, they are nothing like us Europeans. But to tell them that is like banging your head against a brick wall, as is the custom in another part of the world outside Europe.

Thursday, 22 January 2009

Published in EA No 19, November/December 2008

by Robert Edwards

‘The West’ was the collective term for a part of the world that featured in the global ideological polarisation between capitalism and communism during the period 1945 up to 1990 — known as the Cold War.
It was ‘the West’ that claimed to be an entity representing freedom and democracy with the communism of ‘the East’ being its ever-present threat and competitor for world hegemony. This global polarisation had one big effect upon the nations of Europe — it divided us very neatly along very clear and sharp ideological lines. Perhaps too sharply defined.
From the very beginning, we had an American military presence on one half of European soil with the Soviet Union claiming the other half. From this, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was established standing firmly against the Warsaw Pact countries under the Russians. It has now been revealed that the Russian military threat to the western part of Europe was exaggerated, primarily, by the Americans simply because the Americans needed an alibi for their presence outside their own national boundaries. This, despite the big con of Lend-Lease when Churchill gave away permanent military bases in Britain in exchange for a load of rusty war vessels. The money we owed the Americans for that world war has only recently been paid back to them in full, so not so much about how grateful we should feel, please. It is always ‘business as usual’ for the Americans
Why do we still have NATO when the Warsaw Pact ‘threat’ no longer exists? The fact is, ‘the West’ is no longer, nor probably ever was, a truly collective partnership of like-minded freedom-loving nations on a mission from God. ‘The West’ is, in fact, the United States as a unilateral super power with its satellite states divided and conquered long ago. In short, it is a lie.
When the Americans pronounce on anything or threaten anyone, they insist they speak on behalf of the rest of us — ‘the West’. They insist we go along with everything they do because we are all ‘of the West’. I have a more honest approach to all of this. We are not of ‘the West’ but of Europe, a completely different land, culture and set of values to that materialistic, sabre-rattling, gung-ho land of the gun-owner and the vulgar hamburger-munching ‘red neck’ or Texan oil executive.
‘The West’ or the ’Occident’ exists only in contrast to Oriental civilisation. It is its only valid context. Europe and America have never been truly represented as a single entity — only in the imaginations of Washington war planners and their poodles and other lap dogs in Whitehall. We can now include the present incumbent of the Palais de l’Élysée and the offices of the Bundeskanzlerin in this shameless bunch of tail-wagging, well-trained dogs that yap to the American tune. The President of Poland, Lech Kaczyński, is a traitor to Europe for recently permitting American missiles on European soil.
For this we have NATO maintained as an American imperial military machine, having lost its original purpose after the collapse of the Soviet Union but now attempting to re-invent itself as an expanding mercenary force to further the ends of global capitalism. Its very existence is an obstacle to a truly independent European defence force and, as such, an obstacle to European unity.
America’s opposition to European unity with its own military defence force has been expressed many times. America hates Europe as a potential challenger to its status as a unilateral super power and it does all it can to keep alive the myth of ‘old’ and ‘new’ Europe. This polarising division was the invention of the meddling Donald Rumsfeld, the man responsible for exaggerating the ‘Red peril’ nature of the Soviet Union from the Ronald Reagan era onwards. Today, the ‘Evil Empire’ seems a more appropriate title for the United States as we observe how it encroaches just about everywhere in the world for its own ends, dragging ‘the West’ along with it..
The Republican hopeful for the White House, Senator John McCain, said way back in 2001 that plans for a European Defence Force were leading to “unneeded acrimony” within NATO. What did he mean? In his words, “The issues that confront us go to the very core of our existence as an alliance. Fundamental questions regarding the future of NATO stand before us. I am afraid that our geographical divide is increasingly a functional one. Our perspectives are diverging”.
He was referring to a rift between the United States and Europe over plans for a European Defence Force with the new Bush administration issuing dire warnings of NATO being weakened. From the American point of view, the interests of its global aspirations were above those of its ’allies’ in Europe. In other words, do not get ideas above your station but fall back in line.
This was at a time when the United States was pushing forward its plans for a National Missile Defence system, nicknamed ‘Son of Star Wars’. Russia, Germany and France all opposed it. It was Tony Blair’s government that pussy-footed and attempted a delicate diplomatic balancing act.
In 2001, Donald Rumsfeld spoke at a security conference in Munich and threatened, “Actions that could reduce NATO’s [America’s] effectiveness by confusing duplication or perturbing the transatlantic link would not be positive”. This was in response to proposals for a 60,000 strong European Rapid Reaction Force to be in operation by 2003.
Rumsfeld then went on to discuss how the United States wanted “to help European nations and other allies to deploy missile defences”. In other words, how the United States wanted to dominate other countries with American missile bases established on their soil. We are seeing this in Georgia and in some eastern European countries within the European Union.
At that same meeting in Munich, the Canadian Defence Minister, Art Eggleton, parroted the American position by claiming that there was a danger of NATO splitting if an independent European Defence Force went ahead.
The division of Europe can only be in the interests of those who wish to exploit Europe, pitting one nation-state against another, as the enemies of Europe have done for so long. It is clear that the United States uses this policy of divide and rule for its own purposes and that what is needed in Europe are strong governments that say in unison, “We will have a unity of purpose independent of the United States and that means a separate foreign policy ... and a European army for our own defence”.
The division of Germany after 1945 was the epitome of Europe’s tragedy. Our continent was exhausted after the internecine conflict that Oswald Mosley called “The Brothers’ War”. Britain was soon to lose its empire as a consequence and the Americans were set to step in. For this purpose, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4th, 1949, in order to establish NATO.
NATO’s first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated that the organisation's aim was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". Keeping the Germans down meant keeping Europe down because Germany has long been at the centre of European history, in art, in music and in literature. The war was over but the German people were to pay a heavy price for it … more so than after the First World War. This, of course, was at a time when Europe was weakened and divided and soon to be carved up for the real victors, America and Stalin’s Russia. Germany became the symbol of European division until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Mosley always said that European union was impossible without German re-unification and he made many friends in that country as a result of his sympathy for their plight. Mosley had become a true European after that war and understood the genius of our great continent and all its people.
Europe a Nation, as Mosley’s great post-war idea, called for a Europe independent of both America and Russia … throughout the Cold War era. It is even more relevant now that the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. But the United States clings to the North Atlantic Treaty for a very obvious reason. If the United States loses that special relationship with Britain or the rest of Europe in the form of NATO then its influence and clout around the world will be severely diminished to the point that it could no longer carry out its many incursions into the territory of others.
It will have lost both credibility and legitimacy.
I have no doubt that with the disbandment of NATO as an alliance the United States would be forced back to within it own borders where, no doubt, it would continue to meddle in Central America … which they have always regarded as their ‘own backyard’. No part of Europe would again be picked on for use as a missile base and the transatlantic connection will have been broken for good.
There must be another call for freedom and that freedom must be the liberation of Europe from American domination and interference. It must be Europe’s right to break away from what is essentially an undesirable arrangement that is detrimental to European unity.
Other parts of the world would welcome this and we see aspects of this backlash to American imperialism in new alliances. All that is needed is strong government with courageous leaders. As I write, A Russian naval task force from the Northern Fleet will go on a tour of duty in the Atlantic Ocean and participate in joint naval drills with the Venezuelan navy in November.
“In line with the 2008 training programme, and in order to expand military cooperation with foreign navies, Russia will send in November a naval task force from the Northern Fleet, comprising nuclear-powered missile cruiser Pyotr Velikiy and support ships, to the Atlantic Ocean”, Captain 1st Rank Igor Dygalo has said.
Consider this with the corresponding news that the government of Ecuador has given the United States notice of closure of its military base in that country. The Americans have agreed to leave next year. You see, it can be done.
President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and President Rafael Correa of Ecuador agreed in July to jointly finance a $6 billion oil refinery to be constructed near the city of Manta in Ecuador. Hutchison Port Holdings, based in Hong Kong, will be constructing one of the largest deep-water ports on the west coast of South America, costing $523 million. The project will include piers, cranes, tuna-boat terminals, roads, and the capacity to handle 1.6 million shipping containers a year at South America’s closest point to the Far East.
“The United States stopped being the benchmark of what is good for Latin America”, said Gustavo Larrea, Ecuador's security minister. “Because Latin America did everything that the United States asked it to do and was not able to get out of poverty, the North American myth lost political weight”.
The same can be said of every country in which the United States has been intrusive and has interfered in their internal affairs ever since 1945. Not one of these countries has advanced in terms of the quality of life of its masses. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan today with the wholesale destruction and slaughter on a level that defies understanding. The treatment of civilian populations by both the American and British military warrants charges of crimes against humanity. Let us not mince words. Let us have no more cant regarding “our lads doing a great job”. These pawns are doing nothing of the sort ... and they are certainly not ‘heroes’ in terms of what I was taught as a schoolboy. Our heroes did not terrorise women and children ... nor murder them.
NATO, as such, is fast becoming not only an anachronism but also an embarrassing liability with no relevance to the genuine defence needs of a Europe that is slowly discovering its identity as a separate force in the world.
The entire fault for this seemingly inextricable alliance with the United States rests with the electorates of the separate nation-states of Europe, voting for weak governments servile to the United States, foolishly believing that the United States is motivated by an altruism ... a caring regard for the entire world but most especially towards its allies in ‘the West’.
Globalism, the new international doctrine that hands all our destinies over to the world banking system, is but a platform upon which the American and his murderous military hardware can posture, bully and hector. But, as some countries have discovered, there is strength in union, and when nations come together in common interest they discover another powerful weapon and that is economic independence. Yes, independence from the United States and, eventually, independence from the international banking system that is currently dragging us all down into recession and further suffering. Both independence and strength comes from the union of similar countries.
Oswald Mosley directed us towards a vision of a Europe united in brotherhood for the purposes of building a new social and economic system. We can never achieve that when we are shackled to the North Atlantic alliance, with the United States always calling the shots. It would be better if every American serviceman and all their government agents were to leave our shores tomorrow, as the Ecuadoran government gave them notice to quit from their only base in that brave country. Now, these are my real heroes.
They are very unlikely to do so as long as we have the Gordon Browns, the Nicolas Sarkozys, the Angela Merkels and so on. They are globalists to a man and a woman. They can not see beyond the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, blinded by and drunk on a power that is limited in its scope insofar that it is incapable of rescuing the European peoples from the recurring crises that gnaw and eat away at the soul of Europe.
America, dear reader, is the real enemy of Europe. They have said so in their disapproval of the creation of a European Defence Force. When this was announced, America’s leaders made threats and gave warnings. Why? Because America wants to control Europe as a master with his servants.
Peace will only ever come to the world once the United States is denied its position of what it deems to be the role of ‘policeman of the world’, even though ‘Globocop’ is responsible for more crimes against humanity than anything since 1945. We should no longer be accomplices to them.
Published in EA No 17, September/October 2008

by Robert Edwards

BBC Radio 4 hosts the ‘Archive Hour’, a series of hour-long programmes that deal with issues of a politically contentious nature and, essentially, within living memory.
As part of the series, ‘A Rage In Dalston’ was broadcast on Saturday, April 19 at 8pm, which was an attempt at justifying one of the worst conspiracies to commit serious violence against a body of people simply and solely because they held different views. The 43 Group was formed in 1946 for one purpose and that was to attack supporters of Oswald Mosley and to ‘wipe them out’. It was thuggery pure and simple.
Andrew Roberts, an Establishment historian and author, wrote in the Daily Mail of April 15, “The 43 Group regularly broke the law in their struggle and their veterans are proud to have done so. Their philosophy was simple: attack all fascists. Armed with clubs, razors, bricks, knuckledusters, broken bottles, knives and everything except guns and bombs, the 43 Group tracked down fascist meetings to quash them”. But Roberts was not condemning this hate-fuelled campaign of extreme violence ... he was condoning it.
Towards the end of his Daily Mail article he wrote, “A Rage in Dalston is a fine tribute to the small but committed group of Britons who took direct - if undeniably illegal - action against the bacillus of anti-Semitism”.
The 43 Group was overwhelmingly Jewish in membership and used the Holocaust as an alibi in order to justify its violent activities, initially aimed at former Blackshirt Jeffrey Hamm’s British League of Ex-Servicemen and Women, then holding regular outdoor meetings in Ridley Road, Dalston. Along with the Mosley Book Clubs, the League took a distinctly pro-Mosley position in its campaign to assert itself as a legitimate and patriotic group of ex-servicemen emerging in the post-war era.
Before the programme was broadcast, the Daily Mail published this letter from Calvin G. Poole of Cumbria, in response to Roberts, on April 18, “As a historian, Andrew Roberts is a bit naïve in praising criminal attacks with ‘razors, bricks, knuckledusters, broken bottles and knives’ against supporters of Sir Oswald Mosley. Mosley and his followers were no more responsible for Nazi wartime concentration camps than their socialist opponents in Britain were for Stalinist death camps in Russia. His entirely legal post-war Union Movement advocated the unity of Europe against communism and it is ridiculous to accuse its speakers of hatred for verbally retaliating against organised gangs trying to slash their faces”.
The programme itself was sickening in its glorification of a blood lust on the part of a group of psychopaths who were, in point of fact, early Zionists rather than the ‘Britons’ of Andrew Roberts’ mythologising. The intensity of this terrorist activity was almost mirrored in the cold-blooded campaigns against the Palestinian people at that time, which to this day use the same moral blackmail of ‘anti-Semitism’ against those who dare criticise this kind of criminal behaviour.
All the ‘witnesses’ in this radio programme were Jewish thugs and it was emphasised in the course of the commentary that no one ‘from the other side’ (Friends of Oswald Mosley) would agree to take part. In hindsight this was perfectly reasonable given the bias of the entire broadcast. A leading member of the Friends of Oswald Mosley confided that there would never be any further co-operation with the BBC given its persistent record of defaming Oswald Mosley, including a mock trial of him in the pages of the BBC’s History magazine in which he was ‘voted’ the most evil Briton of the Twentieth Century by a man-hating feminist academic.
It would be a demonstration of the most blinded naivety to suppose that mainstream academia in this country and around the Western world would treat Mosley with anything other than complete demonisation. Such is the depth of prejudice whenever Mosley is discussed within the liberal/leftist political Establishment ... the most illiberal of such generic institutions.
Perhaps the most stomach-wrenching anecdote on the BBC Radio 4 programme came from a 43 Group thug who boasted how he spotted a middle-aged Raven Thomson on the platform of a moving bus in London. With Raven’s back turned to him the cowardly thug related how he gripped the safety bars of the bus and used both his feet to kick the former Blackshirt off the moving bus and then looked back to gloat over Raven rolling severely injured in the gutter with Raven’s daughter screaming over him soon after. That he could have killed Raven did not disturb this vile piece of near-humanity.
Undoubtedly for his celebrity value, Vidal Sassoon was roped in to give his glamorised account of his participation as a youthful 43 Group gangster. The aging crimper was as remorseless as the would-be murderer of Raven Thomson. In Sassoon’s own words, “It was a miracle that no one was killed”, which tells us a lot about the severity of the 43 Group attacks. Sassoon later fought in Israel’s ‘War of Independence’ when entire villages of innocent Palestinians were massacred without mercy.
Who can miss the irony of these sanctimonious ‘victims of anti-Semitism’ acting out the bully-boy tactics they so love to attribute to Mosley’s men, quite unjustifiably it must be said? Yet the totally illegal attacks upon individuals who supported Mosley have been raised up by the BBC as a morally superior crusade aimed at justifying mutilation and attempted murder simply because the perpetrators were Jewish and the victims being deemed ‘fascists’ or ‘anti-Semites’. There is an obviously twisted and bent logic or morality there.
The real reason that the British League of Ex-Servicemen and Women, then later from 1948, the embryonic Union Movement, were the victims of this violent conspiracy was not the claim by one 43 Group thug that fascists were on street corners shouting, “Not enough Jews were burned in Belsen” (highly improbable) but that they had a new message for post-war Britain.
Mosley had delivered a detailed outline of his post-war policies in his book, THE ALTERNATIVE, published in 1946. The Mosley Book Clubs were distributing the Mosley Newsletters (the young man in the foreground of the League meeting [pictured above] holds these up for sale) and old hands like Raven Thomson were publishing booklets on syndicalism and other serious issues under the Raven Publications imprint.
There was no anti-Semitism or other expressions of hatred in any of this literature because, as always, Mosley had a serious and constructive message for the British people and his followers and supporters rallied round him for those policies because they knew he was right. The quarrel with the Jews was a pre-war issue, Mosley had said, because some Jewish interests wanted war with Germany and British Union opposed war. This no longer applied after 1945.
The 43 Group, on the other hand, wanted to revive the old animosities and adopted the razor and the cosh as its main expressions of political argument. It had nothing constructive in terms of ideas beyond murder and grievous bodily harm.
Although over a thousand British Union members were rounded up in 1940 to be interned without charge or trial under Defence Regulation 18B, many others enlisted in the armed forces of the Crown at that time, with many dying for their country. Traitors like William Joyce had left the Mosley movement a few years before the outbreak of war and the number of those stupid enough to be duped by the POW camp lectures of John Amery, induced to join the tiny British Free Corps, was so miniscule as to make them more of a joke than a real threat to anyone except themselves.
All the evidence points to Mosley’s supporters being quintessentially British and patriotic and that the vital interests of Britain determined their position in favour of a negotiated peace in 1940. It also determined their willingness to go to war for their country after the failure of their peace campaign. The moral correctness of this can no longer be disputed. Yet the lies and the smears continue long after so many patriotic members of the Mosley movements have passed on, long after all the years of selfless struggle and sacrifice, simply because they loved their country and followed a vision of hope that only a man like Mosley could articulate and project. The mainstream media with the full weight of academia in Britain can never be relied on for the objective truth. That is why we should never collaborate with them. The BBC’s ‘A Rage in Dalston’ only served to reinforce and confirm that position.

Europe a Nation blog by Robert Edwards

Posting on here for Europe a Nation