Majorityrights News > Category: European Nationalism

Story of Argobad contextualizes the case brought against Jez Turner

Europa, “BRITAIN’S VIGILANTE POLICE”, 11 Oct 2017:

by Mike Walsh

Britain’s most popular ethno-nationalists, supporters and members of the public, face a David and Goliath battle to protest a state-funded race-police force. Contrary to all legal precedents the Shomrim Security Group, with eighty guards, now patrols North London boroughs.

Shockingly, these armed and uniformed Jewish storm-troopers, are said to be the only ‘private army on British soil’ The patrolling race-police wear state-provided uniforms and cruise the streets in £15,000 patrol cars.

Ostensibly, the purpose of these menacing uniformed Jews, recruited from the Hasidic Jewish community in London, is to police boroughs and to act against what they describe as ‘hate crimes’. Such would include criticism of Jewish or Israeli influence. Jewish and Asian groups are trained to make arrests and detain suspects until conventional police arrive.

It is well to reflect how news of a similar ethnic-European police force being sponsored would be greeted. Imagine for a moment, 80 British nationalists, concerned at the number of hate crimes perpetrated by non-Europeans on indigenous Britons, being given special status by the London police.

Shomrim, special Jewish police specifically looking after their community.

The self-appointed nationalist volunteers are trained, equipped and provided with liveried police cars by Britain’s largest police force. Patrolling the streets of London this private force, not covered by authority or law, are tasked with identifying the perpetrators of anti-White hate criminals. Merely the suggestion would be considered preposterous. Is Britain the only country that sponsors a race-group private police force?

Jez Turner says: “It’s utter disbelief that the Jews of Stamford Hill have set up their own police force which enforces their own Talmudic law on the streets of a White British city.”

An anti-vigilante protest group, supported by members of the public, took their protest to the streets.Holding banners reading ‘police impersonation is a crime’ and surrounded by a large police escort, the group of 50 concerned residents gathered at Lea Bridge Roundabout. Speeches were made by the National Front’s Tony Martin and the party’s former organiser Martin Webster.

The massive police operation investigating this demonstration has been given the name Operation Saurus (reptile). Police officers openly admitted that it was carried out at the order of the far-left Jewish Community Security Trust (CST).

Mr Turner says, “All politicians are nothing but a bunch of puppets dancing to a Jewish tune, and the ruling regimes in the West for the last 100 years have danced to the same tune. Let’s free England from Jewish control.”

Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is set to prosecute the founder of the London Forum debating society for alleged anti-Semitism after a Jewish group mounted an unprecedented challenge to their original decision not to prosecute.

The CPS case is likely to collapse as it is based on Article 17; European Human Rights Convention that says protection is not extended to ‘those who would destroy that right’. It is unlikely that the organiser of an ad hoc debating society could be guilty of such a wacky bizarre allegation.

Why worry, lawyers will get richer, media will be enriched by anti-White propaganda, the political elite seen as tonguing the right backsides; the taxpayer pays for the repellent anti-White Carnival of Clowns.

When asked his reaction to the CPS decision to retreat under Jewish pressure, Jez Turner smiled and said: “Looks like I may be going away for a while, a free vacation at Her Majesty’s pleasure. But whatever happens, I’ll have a show trial first. And I’ll make sure that I give them a show and go down fighting!”

The mask of liberal democracy is slipping away. As anger rises over mass immigration to the West, so the authorities will be resorting to ever more desperate methods to stifle dissent. The greatest consciousness-raising resource of the last twenty years may be lost to us.

Independent, “Crown Prosecution Service to review decision not to prosecute prolific anti-Semite”, 8 Feb 2017:

Jez Turner’s case re-examined after 13-month campaign against him.

Crown Prosecution Service has agreed to review decision not to prosecute far-right activist known for making vitrolic speeches against the “Jewish world order”.

Jeremy Bedford-Turner’s case will be re-examined following a 13-month campaign.

In a July 2015 speech to an “anti-Shorim” rally on Whitehall, Jeremy Bedford-Turner said “all politicians are nothing but a bunch of puppets dancing to a Jewish tune, and the ruling regimes in the West for the last one hundred years have danced to the same tune.”

Jez Turner addresses small protest outside Whitehall July 2015

“Agobard of Lyon and The Origins of the Hostile Elite”

Andrew Joyce, Ph.D., Occidental Observer, 2 Nov 2017:

As part of the introduction to my forthcoming volume of essays, Talmud and Taboo, I’ve included an overview of key developments in the historical relationship between Jews and Europeans. During the course of this overview I emphasize the historical suppression of European responses to Jewish group behavior, an important and perennial aspect of Jewish-European interactions. This suppression/taboo, as a thing in itself, tends to be less explored and understood when compared to the attention devoted to more obvious manifestations of Jewish influence (e.g. assertive action in influencing immigration control), but consideration of it is crucial to a complete understanding of Jews as a hostile elite. A working theoretical definition of what is meant by “Jews as a hostile elite” is of course also necessary, and is taken here as the implication not only that Jews have historically been opposed/hostile to the interests of the European masses, but also that Jews have had direct access to political power, or significant levels of influence over European elites in possession of it. While writing the introduction to Talmud and Taboo I was primarily concerned with the origins of the Jewish acquisition of this power or influence in Europe, the mode of its expression, and its evolution over the course of centuries. Due to restrictions of space in the introduction to Talmud and Taboo, I want to take the opportunity here to expand on one such example.

To date, our best understanding of modern Jewish political strategies in the context of the “taboo” can be found in Chapter 6 of Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontent: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, titled “Jewish Strategies for Combatting Anti-Semitism.” One section deals with “Political Strategies for Minimizing Anti-Semitism.” MacDonald notes that Jews have been flexible strategizers in the political arena, buttressed by an IQ substantially above the Caucasian mean, and argues that the foundations for Jewish influence are wealth, education, and social status.[1] Today, Jews apply this influence in order to stifle negative discussion of their group, and at times to stifle any discussion of Jews at all. MacDonald points out that this is normally done via extensive communal support for “self-defense committees,” which are a feature of every Diaspora population. These committees invariably lobby governments, utilize and influence legal systems, produce pro-Jewish and pro-multicultural propaganda, and fund pro-Jewish candidates or initiatives. Another of their vital functions has been to monitor and expose “anti-Semites,” and to use legal systems in order to exact individual punishments, thereby making an example of individuals and thereby imposing a deterrent atmosphere on the rest of the population.

It almost goes without saying that in the modern era Jews have been very successful in making anti-Semitism a disreputable and unsavory enterprise. Perhaps more than any other shaming device, accusations of anti-Semitism can be socially and professionally devastating. Academic studies which argue that anti-Semitism has a rational and understandable basis, such as MacDonald’s work, are monitored and excluded from scholarly discourse in an unceasing effort to maintain Jewish control over narratives concerning their group and deflecting antagonism to it. A foundational idea underpinning the creation of this most modern taboo is that anti-Semitism is a personal flaw indicative or psychiatric disorder and a social aberration, epitomized by the writing of the Frankfurt School of Social Research. Despite achieving an almost monolithic position in the public mind of most European populations, it is particularly noteworthy that such conceptualizations of anti-Semitism as an irrational and inexplicable form of psychosocial illness are extremely recent, having been developed only in the last sixty years by a cast of Jewish intellectuals—particularly those at the nexus of psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School.

This reframing of European understandings of anti-Semitism has been due not only to Jewish influence in academia, the media, and the development of social policy, but also to a general ignorance among Europeans of the historical experiences of their ancestors. Europeans cannot come to terms with the issue of Jewish influence purely by confronting its contemporary manifestations – they must engage with the experiences of their forebears, and understand how and why they viewed Jews as a hostile elite.

All of these considerations led to me to one question: when and how did this “hostile elite” begin? Although Jewish influence was noted during the life of the Roman Empire, I excluded this period from my deliberations for a number of reasons. The first was that I wanted a close contextual proximity to present conditions; in other words, as a bare minimum I felt it necessary that I should find an early example of Jewish influence that still mirrored enough features of the modern experience to be broadly valid in comparison. Despite a proliferation of expatriate communities, during the Roman Empire, or at least until the sack of Jerusalem by Titus in AD 70, Jews could be considered as predominantly a national people rather than a Diaspora. It could thus be argued that relations between the Roman Empire and Jewish populations could on some level be understood within the framework of traditional diplomacy and power relations.

It was only after Rome’s demolition of the Second Jewish Commonwealth in the first century that the Exilic period ushered in significantly novel forms of Jewish political activity. These political activities also became uniform, with Amichai Cohen and Stuart Cohen noting of the new Diaspora: “Notwithstanding variations dictated by vast differences of location and situation, all Jewish communities developed and refined a remarkably similar set of broad [political] strategies.”[2] The second reason is related to the first in the sense that this set of Jewish political strategies had to be present in a broad geographical area of Europe. This breadth of geographical dispersion, and the subsequent extension of Jewish interactions with European populations, only occurred after the fall of the Roman Empire. A third and final reason for omitting the period of the Roman Empire was that my precondition of close contextual proximity required that the nation states of today, at least in their prototypical form, should be broadly recognizable. Finally, the Jews of Visigothic Spain, although wealthy, powerful, and incredibly hostile, have been discounted due to their failure to establish a relationship with Visigothic elites. This failure most notably resulted in the Jews providing assistance to a replacement elite — Muslim invaders.[3]

The set of “broad political strategies” referred to above requires further elaboration. Lacking a state, and insistent on remaining apart from their host nations, Diaspora Jewish populations developed an indirect and at times highly abstract style of politics in order to advance their interests. In Jewish sources it became known as shtadtlanut (“intercession” or “petitioning”), and represented a personal and highly involved form of diplomacy or statecraft that, in the words of the Cohens, “prioritized persuasion.”[4] In the modern era we are familiar with such shtadlans as the Anti-Defamation League, and AIPAC. These bodies claim to represent all Jews, and the interests of all Jews, and do so when interacting with, interceding with, or “persuading” host nation governments or other arms of the White elite. However, the shtadlan as a large formal body or committee is a relatively modern development, and was a necessary response to the end of absolute monarchy at the beginning of the nineteenth century (and the corresponding rise of parliamentary democracy and the modern state). Prior to c.1815, Jews often pursued their interests via a small number of very wealthy and “persuasive” individual shtadlans who would form personal relationships with a king, prince, or other powerful members of the European elite. This was most pronounced during the Early Modern period when Hofjuden, or Court Jews, negotiated privileges and protections for Jews with European monarchs. An excellent example is that of Daniel Itzig (1723–1799), the Court Jew of Kings Frederick II the Great and Frederick William II of Prussia, who used his wealth and influence to persuade these monarchs to abolish many restrictions on Prussian Jews and grant them a succession of privileges. Put simply, the concentration of power in individuals meant that Jewish interests could also be negotiated by individuals.

However, although we may still see echoes of the old shtadlans in individuals like George Soros or Sheldon Adelson, the dispersal of political power following the collapse of the absolute monarchies required a greater number of Jewish “persuaders,” thus necessitating the development of the modern Jewish “diplomatic” organization. Of course, the majority of these modern bodies vigorously deny their “diplomatic” or political function, preferring to style themselves as “self-defense” bodies or similar abstractions. Writing on the subject of shtadtlanut Samuel Freedman has argued that Jews have “become wedded to a “crisis model” in community-building, in which either Holocaust commemoration or opposition to anti-Semitism are the raison d’etre for the largest communal organizations, from the Simon Wiesenthal Center to the American Jewish Committee.” This masking of deeper political interests should be seen as combining deception (of Europeans) and self-deception (among some Jews) in the broader Jewish strategy, or at least as a device designed to boost the recruitment of “persuaders.” Jews (at least those not consciously engaged in deception) and Europeans are thus led to believe that such bodies are necessary to defend and protect a vulnerable community in crisis, when in fact their primary function is to advance the interests of an extremely wealthy, culturally invulnerable, and politically powerful community — a hostile elite.

Story of Argobad contextualizes the case brought against Jez Turner

In searching for the origins of the hostile elite I was therefore looking for the earliest possible example of a Diaspora Jewish community in which shtadtlanut was in evidence — the obtaining of privileges and protections from a European elite, contrary to the interests of the masses of a given European population. Although I would very much welcome further suggestions from readers, the earliest convincing case that I have come upon concerns that of the Carolingian dynasty during the lifetime of Archbishop Agobard (c. 779–840).[5] Agobard was a Spanish-born priest and archbishop of Lyon during the Carolingian Renaissance. A fearless controversialist, Agobard gained fame and notoriety during his lifetime — and a place in posterity — by expressing his opposition to Jewish political influence in the Frankish kingdom.  Agobard’s Spanish origins are important. Bernard Bachrach notes that Agobard would have been very much aware of the scale and impact of Jewish influence, writing that “Agobard was born and raised in the Spanish March and Septimania where the Jews were extremely powerful. … He was aware of the power that the Jews of the Narbonnaise had exercised for centuries.”[6]

READ MORE...

Poland is correct to denounce Richard Spencer in his neo-Molotov-Ribbentrop larp.

While the Polish government is not perfectly articulate of its reasons to denounce Richard Spencer for his advocacy of a counter productive world view, they are not far off the mark and not wrong to reject him either.

Typical of American right wingers, Spencer is nursing a neo-Germanophilic world view, overly sympathetic to the German imperialism of the world wars (and antagonistic to Great Britain’s ‘interference’), with a new twist that would larp and valence a re-empowered German / Russian axis -  i.e., a newly got up Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement for an “imperium”, i.e., imperialism that would run rough shod over the interests of many necessary allies - Hungary rejected him for the same reason Poland rejects him for the same reason Britain rejected him for the same reason Japan would reject him (for the same reason all of Asia would reject him for the same reason Zionism embraces him, for the quid pro quo reasoning that comprador wielding right wing enterprises embrace him) etc. - while his larped empire (Lisbon to Vladivastok) would be governed by whom? Apparently he would depend heavily on working with Jewish interests to facilitate (maneuver) his Russo-Germanic grand civic Euro larp, in Duginesque delusion of grandeur - a delusion coddled by ((())).

News Week, “Richard Spencer Is Too Racist for Poland’s Right-Wing Government”, 27 Oct 2017:

Poland’s right-wing government doesn’t want white supremacist Richard Spencer to visit the Eastern European country, calling him a “threat” to democracy.

Spencer was scheduled to speak at a conference organized by Poland’s far right to celebrate Polish Independence Day on November 11, but the country’s Foreign Ministry condemned the alt-right leader, whose condemnation of diversity has found support among neo-Nazis, whose ideological predecessors invaded Poland and killed millions during World War II.

“As a country which was one of the biggest victims of Nazism, we believe that the ideas promoted by Mr. Spencer and his followers could pose a threat to all those who hold dear the values of human rights and democracy,” the Polish Foreign Ministry said in a statement, adding that Spencer’s views are in conflict with Poland’s legal order.

Poland is not beyond criticism in its brand and particular expressions of nationalism, but Richard Spencer is highly dubious in his imperial larp; and the Poles are correct to denounce Spencer and like apologists for the imperialist aspirations of Nazi Germany and the casualties it left in the wake of its aspired imperialism, relevantly in this case, the Poland that came back not as “a gift of Woodrow Wilson”, but through the endurance and perseverance of Polish nationalism through 123 years in exile during the tri-partition; and then again through 50 years in exile during the Nazi and Soviet regimes.

Related story, DT, “Population to surge by four million due to mass immigration that will ‘change the face of England forever.” Credit: SPL/Barcroft Media

The population of the UK is projected to shoot up by 3.6 million or 5 and a half percent over the next ten years, with more than half of the growth due to mass migration. According to new data from The Office of National Statistics, or ONS, the population will pass 70 million by mid 2029 and be 72.9 million in mid 2041. The population boom is equivalent of more than three new cities the size of Birmingham appearing on the UK over a decade.

Separate ONS statistics reported two months ago suggest that over a third of babies born in England and Wales had at least one foreign born parent. In London it was two thirds.

DM, “Britain’s population will hit 70 million before 2030 and more than HALF the increase in the next decade will be from immigration”, 26 Oct 2017:

Britain’s population will surge past 70 million before the end of the next decade, new forecasts reveal today with more than half the increase caused by immigration.

The number of people living in Britain will rise by 3.6 million - 5.5 per cent - in a decade and the country will be home to 70 million by mid 2029.

The new forecast from the Office for National Statistics considers immigration, fertility and life expectancy.

It concluded that over the next ten years, 46 per cent of UK population growth is projected to result from more births than deaths, with 54 per cent attributed to net international migration.

Taking into account babies born to foreign parents in Britain, immigration will indirectly account for 77 per cent of the population growth.

[...]

Lord Green of Deddington, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, warned the projections were ‘extraordinarily low’ based on historical migration

Over the decade from mid-2016, the projections suggest that 7.7 million people will be born and 6.1 million will die, while 5.2 million people will immigrate on a long-term basis to the UK with 3.2 million emigrating from the country.

He said: ‘This is serious because it will lead to inadequate planning for housing, schools, hospitals and infrastructure – as, indeed, we have seen in recent years. Yet again the ONS have been much too cautious.

‘It is also of note that, on the principal projection, immigration, including the effect on births, will account for 77 per cent of population growth over the next 25 years.

‘If immigration continues at the ONS high migration assumption, which is roughly present levels, the population will grow by almost ten million, of which 82 per cent will be due to immigration – that is an additional eight million people.

‘This underlines the need for a successful Brexit which could substantially reduce recent levels of net EU migration, perhaps by 100,000 a year.’

Andrew Nash, of the ONS Population Projections Unit, said: ‘Over the period between mid-2016 and mid-2026 the population of the UK is projected to grow from 65.6 million to 69.2 million, reaching 70 million by mid-2029.

[...]

Over the decade from mid-2016 projected growth varies substantially between the four nations of the UK.

England’s population is projected to grow 5.9 per cent over this period. For Northern Ireland the figure is 4.2 per cent while for Scotland and Wales the figures are 3.2 per cent and 3.1 per cent respectively.

As well as the direct impact, international migration has an indirect effect on the population, statisticians said.

For example, women coming to the UK who subsequently have children will increase the numbers of births.

Conversely, women emigrating before they have children will decrease the number of births.

Once the indirect effect is taken into account, international migration accounts for more than three quarters (77 per cent) of the projected UK population growth over the 25 years from 2016, according to the ONS report.

Voice of Europe, “Seven bombings in twelve days in Sweden, what is happening? We ask it Swedish journalist “PeterSweden”, 23 Oct 2017:

PeterSweden, real name Peter Imanuelsen, is a Swedish journalist, a YouTuber and a political commentator reporting on news from Sweden. Follow him on Twitter here and subscribe to his YouTube here

Peter, seven bombings in twelve days, what is going on in Sweden?

That is the question I’ve been asking myself. This is probably the worst I have seen in Sweden so far. Previously we “only” had perhaps 3 bombings a month in Sweden, but now it has really been ramped up. According to Swedish police they think some of these bombings have to do with work they have been doing in “certain” areas. As we all know these “certain” areas are the many no-go zones that now exist in Sweden.

Who do you think are behind these bombings?

Most of these bombings seem to be related to migrant criminal gangs that operate and run the no-go zones in Sweden. But there is evidence to suggest the latest attack against a bar where one person was injured could be terrorist related. The reason for this is that the attacker had religious texts in his backpack and according to a witness he had what appeared to be a suicide belt on him (which police later said was not dangerous).

Any ideas about how the Swedish authorities can stop this epidemic?

In my opinion the obvious solution to stop this epidemic is for the Swedish government to deploy the military into the no go-zones and clear them from these migrant criminal gangs. I very much doubt we will see that happen, at least not now. But the Moderate party, which is one of the opposition parties in Sweden, has actually suggested they want to deploy the military in the suburbs as they call them. At least this is a positive step forward, and a glimmer of hope for Sweden.

How does it feel for you to see your home country in this state?

It makes me incredibly sad. I remember Sweden as it was just 10 years ago. Peaceful. Quiet. Low crime rate. The worst things you had to deal with back then were young kids driving around loudly on mopeds. Today there are bombings on a regular basis. Not to mention the soaring rape statistics and gun crime.

Would you consider going back?

Sweden seems to be turning more and more into a war zone every day, and if you think about it, that’s is probably how these gangs feel about it too. They see this as a war in which they are trying to conquer Sweden. I wouldn’t advise women to go to Sweden, but you have to remember to never loose hope. The globalist elite want you to lose hope. That’s how they win. Never loose hope.

Peter’s YouTube video commentary on Sweden’s bombing epidemic.

Paul Weston, an ex-Muslim and Anne Marie Waters -

I have nothing against this particular chap; he isn’t strictly European but he is grouped along with others who very much are not, and who spell genetic and neighborhood alienation and destruction when mixed in America.

It’s a bit belated a discussion as news items go, but a few issues emerge worthy of consideration for ethnonationalists in regard to the matter of how Puerto Rican relief (of hurricane Maria) is being handled or mishandled as it were and why that is so:

I am always keen to discuss the concept of unionization and how it is an integral concept to model social organization, but I am also always eager to address problems of unionization - terrible obstruction along with the facilitation that they can bring.

As a facilitative model of the social group/system, only a person so retarded as to believe that the pre eminent concern for ethnonationalists should be a “model of the mind”* and with that, perhaps being fixated on Austrian school positivism in reaction to Jewish abuses of sociology, would try to suggest that unionization is a trivial concern. Nevertheless, there are real life problems in the assimilation of optimal form and function, especially if unionization is to be conducive to EGI.

1. There is the matter of the trucker’s unions of Puerto Rico which apparently refused to break a strike and transport crucial relief items around Puerto Rico; at the same time, there were unions in the United States who went above and beyond to answer the call.

Namely, facile political alliance with Puerto Ricans brings along Amerindio/Spanish mixes of Puerto Rico but also Mulattoes such as this man’s woman.

2. The next matter represents an existential choice between right wing economic advantage or the left nationalist protection of European genome (and Amerindian genome, for those of us who care).

If Puerto Rico had its independence and could figure out how to facilitate shipping container transportation of its sovereign accord, it has a potentially lucrative position to advance its GNP markedly for the sake of the Puerto Ricans; by the same token, if The US gave up control of Puerto Rico, it would be losing a great deal of profit that it gains from concomitant control of the Puerto Rican shipping industry. That is a gain economically for the proposition US Nation.

On the other hand, by having Puerto Ricans associated with the United States in any way, you are including to that extent a demography that is 25% black: they are a very strong, mixed people who are very destructive to the White genome where forced together with us; and other than blacks, the only people who tend to destroy their neighborhoods.

I don’t have anything especially against the young chap in the top photo, but the alienating and nightmarish environment that surrounds him is apparently a typical byproduct of the Puerto Rican genome in aggregate. He typically comes along or is wrongly grouped with people who are largely black or mulatto, like this guy’s woman (photo right, couple on beach). Like blacks, they are not only destructive to us genetically, but having a great deal of biopower (adding to their challenge), as anyone who witnesses their athletic prowess can attest.

Puerto Ricans are not only destructive to our genome, but very strong and hard to defend against. Giancarlo Stanton, who is Puerto Rican / Irish, nearly passed Babe Ruth’s single season home run record this year.

With Puerto Rico not having its sovereignty, one of the relief strategies that is on the table is bringing them to the United States: Hence the question - do you want the advantages of economic exploitation, or do you want to protect your genome?

* As a footnote:  If one’s concern is the integrity and interiority of individual mentation, then it is a different concern from EGI.  One is assuredly expressing undue faith to presume the invisible hand will do what the “artifice of unioization” would otherwise for group-systemic homeostasis. The sure guidance of the invisible hand is more applicable to animals than humans. In fact, one should suppose that the very idea of a generic model, even if only applied to a specific group, is a contradiction to the goal of human nature, individual autonomy and authenticity.

Granting that one might not be quite that stupid, and can grasp the inexorable fact of interaction, and wants to trace check points of mentation and homeostasis that extend to the natural and social environment, then we are getting somewhere, but not until.

“A model of the mind” might be a good idea for the individual or, rather, the very act of “modeling” might betray the authentic expression of emergent mentation that one seeks to allow to manifest.

However, this (individual mind) is not the unit of analysis, the unit of model, as it were, that anyone should prioritize for racial defense - obvious to anyone but one who is perhaps insulated from the hurley burley of prohibitions against group discrimination that they might be somewhat buffered from, say, within a provincial English fishbowl.

A similar refrain with regard to faith in the natural invisible hand also applies to the principle of adaptive fitness: it is no guarantor of racial or even individual homeostasis and integrity.

Puerto Rico

True Briton by Oswald Mosley

Oswald Mosley’s Union Movement

Oswald Mosley died in 1980 but his ideas live on. ‘Ten Points For Action’ was published forty years ago but they are still relevant. Compare these visionary policies to the paranoid fantasies of the far-right.

1) Action to Build Houses. We want Action to solve the housing problem. It should be taken out of the hands of local authorities and entrusted to Government leadership with powers to mass produce houses and flats like an ‘operation of war’, turning out homes as munitions were mass-produced in time of war.

2) Stop the Land and Rent Rackets. Give the Government the power to acquire land at pre-boom prices and to finance housing by low-interest loans, paid for by high-interest charges on all non-essential and luxury building. Such action would bring down house prices and rents and at last provide good but cheap housing for all.

3) Stop Immigration - Start Repatriation. We want Action to ease the pressure on housing and other social problems (like the reintroduction of diseases unknown in Britain for hundreds of years) by stopping all further immigration and by repatriating all post-war immigrants to good jobs and conditions in their homelands, to which prosperity had been restored by using the surplus wealth and production of united Europe. But Britain could make a start now before the complete union of Europe is achieved.

4) Choice in Education and Health. We want Action to build good schools, colleges, universities and hospitals, just as we would mass-produce houses and flats. Parents should have a choice of schools for their children. We should not be taxed to provide those health services we will never use (maternity benefits for confirmed bachelors!) but free to pay in proportion to our requirements.

5) Free Speech - Law and Order. We want Action to ensure freedom of speech for everyone, guaranteed by the Government, which has a duty to maintain law and order in the State and to take effective action against mob violence, which today denies freedom of expression to any views of which its agitators disapprove. Let us maintain local police forces with their local knowledge and experience, but let us supplement them with a highly-trained, well-equipped, mobile national police force, to put down organised crime and to maintain public order.

We would ensure freedom of the Press for both newspapers and the public. Any man who felt himself misrepresented in the Press should be guaranteed (by law) equal space to reply in the newspaper concerned. This would free the public from the expense of seeking justice through costly libel action and free the newspapers from the legal blackmail of a threatened libel action by some unscrupulous racketeer.

6) Capital Punishment. The death penalty should be restored to the statute book, to be used sparingly in the case of premeditated murder. The Court of Appeal should have a solemn duty to reprieve if in any doubt. The sentence could be carried out not by hanging, but by a quick and painless injection or by some other humane method.

7) Action in Europe. To put these policies into practice Britain must advance beyond the concept of a so-called united Europe and Common Market to which the Conservative Party has at last been converted and which the Labour Party still opposes. We must advance quickly to “Europe a Nation”, which we have advocated since 1948. We stand for a union of all Europe, our former white Dominions and southern Africa, a great “third force” independent of both America and Russia.

This “third force” must have a central government for its defence, the economy, finance and scientific development, with power to raise wages and control prices as production increases for a guaranteed market, insulated against unfair competition from the rest of the world.

We need a European army, equipped with the most modern weapons to defend our continent against attack from any quarter. This should be financed on a European budget, instead of each small country straining its economy to finance its own defence.

8) National and Regional Governments. There should be independent national and regional governments for each European country and the main regions. This would enable England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and other European countries and regions to have their own parliaments for internal affairs and for the preservation of their national and regional cultures.

9) The Irish Problem. The ultimate solution to the Irish problem is the union of that country within a united Europe. But the bloodshed must first be brought to an end by a free vote on a county basis in each of the Six Counties and a subsequent readjustment of the border. The bulk of the Catholic population in the North would then be ruled (as is their wish) from Dublin, with a lessening of present tensions, the IRA would lose its bases in the North and the British Army would have a much shorter border to patrol against infiltration from the South. In this improved situation agreement could more easily be reached on the eventual union of Ireland, with the rights of the Protestant minority protected and guaranteed by European government.

10) Government of National Union. We stand for a government of national union and effective action, drawn from the whole nation, from the professions and the trade unions, arts and science, the law and the armed forces. Government elected by the whole people alone should govern. It should have power to lead the economy, raising wages and controlling prices as science increased production. Then we will have cooperation instead of conflict in industry.

We want Action to halt the “brain drain” and to arouse a new spirit of national service in our British people, by relating all reward directly to skill, effort, initiative and responsibility. There should be “great reward for great service”, crowned by higher pensions drawn from the wealth of the new economic system, as the reward in old age for those who had loyally served the nation throughout their lives.

Source - Bill Baillie, European Outlook, September 2017

Long Live The Sacred Nations of Europe by Oswald Mosley