From the latest British National Party Organizers' Bulletin
Proscribed Groups and Webpages
I wish to remind everyone that there are certain groups and webpages which have been proscribed by the British National Party. These have been published in the British Nationalist as stipulated in our constitution. Anyone attending meetings organised by or through these groups or websites may be charged with a disciplinary offence.
No one should be under any doubt that I, as National Organiser, will take disciplinary action against any member who flouts proscription notices. Nor should anyone doubt that I will not hesitate to call members into meetings to explain actions which I believe raise a prima facie case for disciplinary charges. Anyone advocating 'starving' the Party centre of funds, standing independent rather than British National Party candidates or engaging in personal attacks on Party staff, officers or contractors will face charges.
We must all ensure that we are doing our best to promote our party positively. This party is moving forward, and anyone engaging in actions which are disloyal or factional will be made to answer for it by me.
Adam Walker
National Organiser
I'm sure none of us will be doing anything like that, Mr Walker.
I won't even remind colleagues about how you dishonoured the glorious memory of our fallen British servicemen of the Forgotten Army, by visiting a shrine dedicated to sadistic Japanese war criminals. Nor will I mention how you attempted to justify your traitorousness by telling the media that "...they were only doing their duty..."
You are going to be severely disciplined, Mr Walker. You have my word on that.
Monday 28 February 2011
The BNP has no confidence in Griffin
Meeting Report - BNP Reform 2011
By admin, on February 26th, 2011
A meeting of BNP Reform 2011 was held on Thursday the 24th February.
Yorkshire Meeting
A detailed report of the Yorkshire meeting held on Tuesday 22 February, where a unanimous vote (one abstention) of NO CONFIDENCE was passed on Nick Griffin’s leadership, was presented to the meeting.
Regional Contacts
It was reported that BNP Reform 2011 Regional Contacts had been or were in the process of being appointed. The primary aim of the regional contacts would be to galvanise support in the regions, particularly in the run up to the “Leadership Challenge”.
Regional Meetings
It was agreed that regional meetings similar to the successful Yorkshire meeting would be organised in other regions and a national meeting would also be held closer to the Leadership Challenge campaign date.
BNP Reform 2011 Web Site
The meeting was informed a web site in support on BNP Reform 2011 was now established; discussions of the role and content of the web site took place and agreements reached.
Legal Matters
Several areas, where the Party had not met its legal and constitutional obligations to members were discussed and it was agreed to proceed with legal action in some cases. Further details will be published in a separate article on this site.
Financial
The financial cost of the BNP Reform 2011 campaign was raised. The meeting was informed the campaign account was presently in the black, thanks to a number of unsolicited donations from a few supporters. A new treasurer was appointed and agreement reached to widen the appeal for financial support as costs would inevitably rise when the Leadership Challenge was launched. A donate appeal button was to be placed on the web site and email appeals to be sent out to supporters.
A collection was taken at the conclusion of the meeting. The executive committee wish to extend their thanks for the generosity of all present.
By admin, on February 26th, 2011
A meeting of BNP Reform 2011 was held on Thursday the 24th February.
Yorkshire Meeting
A detailed report of the Yorkshire meeting held on Tuesday 22 February, where a unanimous vote (one abstention) of NO CONFIDENCE was passed on Nick Griffin’s leadership, was presented to the meeting.
Regional Contacts
It was reported that BNP Reform 2011 Regional Contacts had been or were in the process of being appointed. The primary aim of the regional contacts would be to galvanise support in the regions, particularly in the run up to the “Leadership Challenge”.
Regional Meetings
It was agreed that regional meetings similar to the successful Yorkshire meeting would be organised in other regions and a national meeting would also be held closer to the Leadership Challenge campaign date.
BNP Reform 2011 Web Site
The meeting was informed a web site in support on BNP Reform 2011 was now established; discussions of the role and content of the web site took place and agreements reached.
Legal Matters
Several areas, where the Party had not met its legal and constitutional obligations to members were discussed and it was agreed to proceed with legal action in some cases. Further details will be published in a separate article on this site.
Financial
The financial cost of the BNP Reform 2011 campaign was raised. The meeting was informed the campaign account was presently in the black, thanks to a number of unsolicited donations from a few supporters. A new treasurer was appointed and agreement reached to widen the appeal for financial support as costs would inevitably rise when the Leadership Challenge was launched. A donate appeal button was to be placed on the web site and email appeals to be sent out to supporters.
A collection was taken at the conclusion of the meeting. The executive committee wish to extend their thanks for the generosity of all present.
Fiddlers three
Open letter to Geoff Dickens, Brian Mahoney, and James Mole of the Financial Scrutiny Committee (FSC)
By Polemics, on February 28th, 2011
For the sake of the Party, its members and donors, we call upon you to:
(1) Expedite the production of the 2010 Accounts
We request that the as yet unaudited and unadjusted 2010 Income & Expenditure and Balance Sheet be made available to the next Advisory Council meeting. We were informed by the former Treasurer, David Hannam, back in September last year that Head Office accounts were being kept up-to-date on a daily basis, and we could reasonably infer therefore that records were being processed by an Accounting Software package such as “Sage”. Assuming such basic competence had been employed a full set of financial statements would be available at the click of a mouse.
We urge you to familiarise yourselves with Sections 41 – 47 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/41.
And draw your attention to the requirements of S.43 requiring the Party’s Accounts be audited within six months of the year end. The Party was clearly in breach of this provision in regard to the 2009 Accounts: you yourselves stated in October that you could not inspect these records because they were with the auditor. We should also like to remind you that the audited 2010 Accounts must be delivered to the Electoral Commission (EC) no later than 7 July 2011, if fines are to be avoided.
Furthermore, we should like to draw your attention to the EC’s enhanced powers and in particular what constitutes a criminal offence under the relevant legislation.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/106743/Enforcement-Policy.pdf
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/106737/Table-of-offences-and-sanctions.pdf;
and
(2) Request Quarterly Financial Reporting
In view of the enhanced powers of the EC with effect from December, as the regulatory body tasked with ensuring compliance with the PPERA 2000 and Political Parties & Elections Act 2009 (PPE) we urge you to press the Chairman and Treasurer to start making quarterly financial statements available to the FSC and Advisory Council. Assuming accounting records are being kept in a timely and appropriate manner, e.g. on Sage or some similar software package, then this should present no administrative difficulties whatsoever. You have a crucial part to play in encouraging sound management practices which should help prevent last year’s disastrous lack of management control which left businesses sympathetic to the Party out of pocket.
Given the disgraceful state of the 2009 Accounts - a seriously qualified audit report, the lack of transparency and substantial fines for very late delivery – your contribution is of vital importance. Failure to comply with the legislation together with the Party’s record of missed deadlines could result in the EC issuing enforcement notices, proceedings for contempt of court or conceivably the de-registration of the Party. De-registration would bar the Party from contesting elections.
In closing, it is imperative that you stand your ground and demonstrate that the FSC is not a cynical, empty gesture devoid of power, a mere sop to the membership to deflect justifiable criticism from a Chairman who has neglected his constitutional, legal and fiduciary responsibilities.
BNP Reform 2011
By Polemics, on February 28th, 2011
For the sake of the Party, its members and donors, we call upon you to:
(1) Expedite the production of the 2010 Accounts
We request that the as yet unaudited and unadjusted 2010 Income & Expenditure and Balance Sheet be made available to the next Advisory Council meeting. We were informed by the former Treasurer, David Hannam, back in September last year that Head Office accounts were being kept up-to-date on a daily basis, and we could reasonably infer therefore that records were being processed by an Accounting Software package such as “Sage”. Assuming such basic competence had been employed a full set of financial statements would be available at the click of a mouse.
We urge you to familiarise yourselves with Sections 41 – 47 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/41.
And draw your attention to the requirements of S.43 requiring the Party’s Accounts be audited within six months of the year end. The Party was clearly in breach of this provision in regard to the 2009 Accounts: you yourselves stated in October that you could not inspect these records because they were with the auditor. We should also like to remind you that the audited 2010 Accounts must be delivered to the Electoral Commission (EC) no later than 7 July 2011, if fines are to be avoided.
Furthermore, we should like to draw your attention to the EC’s enhanced powers and in particular what constitutes a criminal offence under the relevant legislation.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/106743/Enforcement-Policy.pdf
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/106737/Table-of-offences-and-sanctions.pdf;
and
(2) Request Quarterly Financial Reporting
In view of the enhanced powers of the EC with effect from December, as the regulatory body tasked with ensuring compliance with the PPERA 2000 and Political Parties & Elections Act 2009 (PPE) we urge you to press the Chairman and Treasurer to start making quarterly financial statements available to the FSC and Advisory Council. Assuming accounting records are being kept in a timely and appropriate manner, e.g. on Sage or some similar software package, then this should present no administrative difficulties whatsoever. You have a crucial part to play in encouraging sound management practices which should help prevent last year’s disastrous lack of management control which left businesses sympathetic to the Party out of pocket.
Given the disgraceful state of the 2009 Accounts - a seriously qualified audit report, the lack of transparency and substantial fines for very late delivery – your contribution is of vital importance. Failure to comply with the legislation together with the Party’s record of missed deadlines could result in the EC issuing enforcement notices, proceedings for contempt of court or conceivably the de-registration of the Party. De-registration would bar the Party from contesting elections.
In closing, it is imperative that you stand your ground and demonstrate that the FSC is not a cynical, empty gesture devoid of power, a mere sop to the membership to deflect justifiable criticism from a Chairman who has neglected his constitutional, legal and fiduciary responsibilities.
BNP Reform 2011
Next year in Jerusalem
The following is an interesting article, written from a standpoint highly critical of the policies, past and present, of the state of Israel. Its author is probably a Jewish intellectual. It is re-published here as a service to those who wish to increase their knowledge and understanding of the history of the Jewish-Palestinian conflict. There are always (at least) two sides to any question. This article presents one side of the question in an interesting way. Its publication here does not signify my agreement with the theses it advances, nor should it be taken to imply such agreement.
It would appear to be the case that most Jews are ethno-nationalists. Who should blame them for that? Ethno-nationalism is the most natural, right and proper political affiliation for anyone to profess. I am an ethno-nationalist myself. An English, British ethno-nationalist.
Ethno-nationalism means putting one's own people first. It is what the Jews do, and have always done. Indeed, it is what all peoples everywhere, and at all times, have always done, with the exception of those who have lost the will to national survival. The latter soon disappear as nations and become transformed into an amorphous aggregate of deracinated individuals. I submit that those who put their own people first, as the Jews so signally do, are hypocrites if they condemn others, of a different nationality, for putting their own people first: it's as if they were saying to members of the British National Party "Don't do as I do, do as I say".
Mr Ignatiev implies that Jewish migrants to Israel from Europe and America were and are probably genetically appreciably less Middle Eastern than the Arab inhabitants of Israel. It has to be said that the genetic research of which I am aware does not support his suggestion but contradicts it.
The article, from the journal Race Traitor, now follows.
Editors' note: This paper is based on a talk I delivered on March 31, 2004. It is intended as a popular summary of the historical and theoretical basis of the current conflict. I make no pretense of scholarship. I draw heavily upon the work of others, lifting or paraphrasing whole paragraphs, and I quote journals and newspapers that I have not personally checked. In some cases I have cited my source; in others I have not. The works I use most are Moshe Menuhin, The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time, Uri Davis, Israel: Apartheid State, Nathan Weinstock, Zionism: False Messiah, and Adam Sabra, “Abolish the Jewish Caste in Palestine,” from Race Traitor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zionism, Antisemitism, and the People of Palestine
By Noel Ignatiev
Zionism as a political movement developed in the late 19th century. Its founder, Theodore Herzl, was influenced by two phenomena: the extent of French anti-Semitism revealed by the Dreyfus Trial, and nationalist ideals then popular in Europe. Herzl held that Jews cannot be assimilated by the nations in which they live, and that the only solution to the “Jewish question” was the formation of a “Jewish state” in which all the Jews would come together. The early Zionists contemplated as the site of the future state Argentina or Uganda, among other locales. Herzl favored Palestine, because, although an agnostic, he wanted to make use of the custom, widespread among Jewish mystics, of going on pilgrimages to the “holy land” and establishing religious communities there.
In 1868, there were 13,000 Jews in Palestine, out of an estimated population of 400,000. The majority were religious pilgrims supported by charity from overseas. They encountered no opposition from the Muslims, and their presence led to no clashes with the Arab population, whether Muslim or Christian.
In 1882, Baron Rothschild, combining philanthropy and investment, began to bring Jewish settlers from Eastern Europe to build a plantation system along the model the French used in Algeria. They spoke Yiddish, Arabic, Persian, and Georgian. Significantly, Hebrew was not among the languages spoken. The outcome of Rothschild’s experiment was predictable: Jews managed the land, while Arabs worked it. This was not the result the Zionists had in mind; a Jewish society could not be based on Arab labor. Consequently, they began to encourage the immigration of Jewish farmers and workers.
In 1917 British Foreign Minister Lord Balfour, seeking support for Britain’s efforts in World War I, issued his famous declaration expressing sympathy with efforts to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Zionists immediately seized upon this statement, which they interpreted to mean support for a Jewish state. At the time of Balfour’s declaration, Jews comprised less than 10% of the population and owned 2.5% of the land of Palestine.
The problem of building a Jewish society among an overwhelming Arab majority came to be known as the “conquest of land and labor.” Land, once acquired, had to remain in Jewish hands. The other half of this project, known as Labor Zionism, called for the exclusive use of Jewish labor on the land acquired by the Jews in Palestine. The Labor Zionists maintained this dual exclusionism (or apartheid, as we would now call it) in order to build up purely Jewish institutions.
To achieve the conquest of the land, the Zionists set up an arrangement whereby land was acquired not by individuals, but by a corporation, known as the Jewish National Fund (JNF). The JNF acquired land and leased it only to Jews, who were not allowed to sublet it. Thus land was acquired in the name of “the Jewish people,” held for their use, and not subject to market conditions. The idea was for the JNF to gradually acquire as much land as possible as the basis for the expected Jewish state.
Naturally, in order for the land to serve this function, Arab labor had to be excluded. Leases from the JNF specifically prohibited the use of non-Jewish labor on JNF plots. One way to achieve this goal was to lease land only to those Jews who intended to work it themselves. In some cases, when land was bought from Arab absentee landlords, the peasants who resided on and worked the land were expelled. Jewish landholders who refused to exclude Arab labor could lose their leases or be faced with a boycott.
The conquest of labor pertained not only to agriculture but also to industry. The Labor Zionists formed an institution to organize Jewish labor and exclude Arabs: the Histadrut. The Histadrut was (and largely is) an all-Jewish combination trade union and cooperative society providing its members with a number of services. From the beginning it was a means of segregating Arab and Jewish labor and bringing into existence a strictly Jewish economic sector. Even when Arab and Jewish laborers performed precisely the same job, Jewish workers were paid significantly higher salaries. These policies were the death knell for any attempt to organize labor on a non-racial basis. The “laborism” of Labor Zionism killed and continues to kill efforts at building a unified labor movement.
Despite these policies and even with the encouragement of the British government, in the thirty years following the Balfour Declaration, the Zionists were able to increase the Jewish-owned portion of the land of Palestine to only 7%. Moreover, the majority of the world’s Jews showed no interest in settling there. In the years between 1920 and 1932, only 118,000 Jews moved to Palestine, less than 1% of world Jewry. Even after the rise of Hitler, Jews in Europe did not choose Israel: out of 2.5 million Jewish victims of Nazism who fled abroad between 1935 and 1943, scarcely 8.5% went to Palestine. 182,000 went to the U.S., 67,000 to Britain, and almost 2 million to the Soviet Union. After the war, the U.S. began to encourage Jewish settlement in Palestine. Aneurin Bevin, postwar British Foreign Minister, publicly blurted out that American policy mainly arose from the fact that “they did not want too many of them in New York.” The Pakistani delegate to the UN was to make the same point sarcastically:
Australia, an overpopulated small country with congested areas, says no, no, no; Canada, equally congested and overpopulated, says no; the United States, a great humanitarian country, a small area, with small resources, says no. This is their contribution to the humanitarian principle. But they state, let them go into Palestine, where there are vast areas, a large economy and no trouble; they can easily be taken in there (Weinstock, 226).
The U.S. limitation on the number of Jews allowed into the country coincided with Zionist policy, as enunciated by David Ben-Gurion, first prime minister of Israel: “If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel.” (Yoav Gelber, “Zionist Policy and the Fate of European Jewry (1932-1945) Yad Vashem Studies, vol. XII, 199.)
This policy of attaching more importance to the establishment of Israel than to the survival of the Jews led the Zionists to collaborate with Nazism and even be decorated by Hitler’s government. The best known case was that of Rudolf Kastner, who negotiated the emigration to Palestine of some of Hungary’s most prominent Jews in return for his help in arranging the orderly deportation of the remainder of Hungary’s Jews to the camps. For his efforts, Kastner was praised as an “idealist” by no less an authority than Adolf Eichmann. (The best study of Zionist-Nazi relations is Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators.)
The Zionists knew they had to rid themselves of the Arab majority in order to have a specifically Jewish state. Although 75,000 Jews moved to Israel between 1945 and 1948, Jews still constituted a minority in Palestine. The 1948 war afforded the Zionists an excellent opportunity to rectify this; as a result of the war, more than three-quarters of a million Arabs fled their homes. The case of Deir Yasin, in which Israeli paramilitary forces, under the command of future prime minister Menachem Begin, massacred over 250 civilians, sending a message to Palestinians that they should depart, is the most well known example of how this flight was brought about. In his book, The Revolt, Begin boasted that without Deir Yasin there would have been no Israel, and adds, “The Arabs began fleeing in panic, shouting ‘Deir Yasin’” (quoted in Menuhin, 120). Recent writings by Israeli revisionist historians have refuted the longtime insistence of Israeli officials that the departures were voluntary. Some of the refugees went to neighboring Arab countries; others became refugees in their own country. Those 750,000 expelled from their homes and their descendants, who together total 2.2 million people, make up the so-called refugee problem. Although the United Nation has repeatedly demanded they be allowed to return, the Israeli government has refused to agree. The war ended with the Zionists in control of 80% of Palestine. In the next year, nearly 400 Arab villages were completely destroyed. This was no accident but the result of deliberate policy, as shown is the following statement by one of the most authoritative officials of the Zionist state:
Among ourselves it must be clear that there is no place in our country for both peoples together… The only solution is Eretz Israel, or at least the western half of Eretz Israel, without Arabs, and there is no other way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, transfer all of them, not one village or tribe should remain…
Joseph Weitz, Deputy Chairman of the Board of directors of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) from 1951 to 1973, former Chairman of the Israel Land Authority (Davis, 5).
Moshe Dayan, former Prime Minister, stated in a famous speech before students at the Israeli Institute of Technology in Haifa in 1969:
Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahial arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population (Ha’aretz, April 4, 1969, quoted in Davis, 108).
It is a mistake to draw a moral line between Israel and the Occupied Territories; it is all occupied territory. The 1967 war, as a result of which Israel conquered and occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank of the Jordan River, and the Sinai Peninsula, was a continuation of the process that began in 1948. It will be drearily familiar to any who know the history of the displacement of the Indians from the lands they occupied in North America. Today it would be called “ethnic cleansing.”
The first census of the state of Israel, conducted in 1949, counted a total of 650,000 Jews and 150,000 Arabs. The legal foundation for the racial state was laid down in two laws passed in 1950. The first, the Law of Return, permitted any Jew, anywhere in the world, the right to “return” to Israel. This right did not apply to non-Jews, including the Palestinian Arabs who had recently become refugees. In addition, the Absentee Property Law confiscated the property of Arab “absentees,” and turned it over to the Custodian of Absentee Property. Arab refugees within their own country were termed “present absentees” (what a phrase!), and not allowed to return to their property. A number of refugees who attempted to do so were termed “infiltrators,” and some were shot in the attempt. Confiscated property accounted for the vast majority of new settlements. These confiscated lands, in accordance with the procedures that were established in the Mandate period by the JNF, have become Israel Lands, with their own administration. This administration, controlling 92.6% of all of the lands in Israel, only leases these lands to Jews.
Unlike many countries, including the United States, the Israeli state does not belong, even in principle, to those who reside within its borders, but is defined as the state of the Jewish people, wherever they may be. That peculiar definition is one reason why the state has to this day failed to produce a written constitution, define its borders, or even declare the existence of an Israeli nationality. Moreover, in this “outpost of democracy,” no party that opposes the existence of the Jewish state is permitted to take part in elections. It is as if the United States were to declare itself a Christian state, define “Christian” not by religious belief but by descent, and then pass a “gag law” prohibiting public discussion of the issue.
If one part of the Zionist project is the expulsion of the indigenous population, the other part is expanding the so-called Jewish population. But here arises the problem, which has tormented Israeli legal officials for fifty years, what is a Jew? (For a century-and-a-half U.S. courts faced similar problems determining who is white.) The Zionists set forth two criteria for determining who is a Jew. The first is race, which is a myth generally and is particularly a myth in the case of the Jews. The “Jewish” population of Israel includes people from fifty countries, of different physical types, speaking different languages and practicing different religions (or no religion at all), defined as a single people based on the fiction that they, and only they, are descended from the Biblical Abraham. It is so patently false that only Zionists and Nazis even pretend to take it seriously. In fact, given Jewish intermingling with others for two thousand years, it is likely that the Palestinians — themselves the result of the mixture of the various peoples of Canaan plus later waves of Greeks and Arabs —are more directly descended from the ancient inhabitants of the Holy Land than the Europeans displacing them. The claim that the Jews have a special right to Palestine has no more validity than would an Irish claim of a divine right to establish a Celtic state all across Germany, France, and Spain on the basis that Celtic tribes once lived there. Nevertheless, on the basis of ascribed descent, the Zionist officials assign those they have selected a privileged place within the state. If that is not racism, then the term has no meaning.
The Zionist commitment to racial purity has led to expressions of bigotry at the highest levels of Israeli society that would inspire outrage in respectable circles in the U.S. An Israeli company has required thousands of Chinese workers to sign a contract promising not to have sex with Israelis. A company spokesman said there was nothing illegal about the requirement. Israeli law forbids the marriage of a Jew with a non-Jew. (Associated Press, December 23, 2003)
Prejudice breeds arrogance: this past January the Israeli ambassador to Sweden destroyed an art installation in a Stockholm museum which he found offensive. The work commemorated a young Palestinian woman who killed herself and nineteen others in an attack in Haifa. (It does not become Americans, who learn as schoolchildren to recite the last words of Nathan Hale, “My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country,” to denounce Palestinian patriots as “suicide bombers.”) The museum director pointed out that if the Ambassador did not like the exhibit he was free to leave. (Agence France Press, 17 January 2004)
The Zionists are so desperate to increase the loyal population of the state that they are willing to admit hundreds of thousands of people, mainly from the former Soviet Union, who do not meet the official definition of a Jew because they have only a male grandparent or are merely married to a Jew. Since there is no such thing as Israeli nationality in Israel (there being only Jewish nationality and “undetermined”), these people, who do not qualify as Jews, are therefore registered as “under consideration.”
Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. Recently the Israeli press reported on a group of Indians from Peru who had converted to Judaism and moved to Israel, where they were relocated on what was once Palestinian land. Nachson Ben-Haim (formerly Pedro Mendosa) said he had no problem with that. “You cannot conquer what has in any case belonged to you since the time of the patriarch, Abraham.” Ben-Haim said he was looking forward to joining the Israeli army to defend the country. Ben-Haim and his coreligionists had moved to Israel with the agreement of the Jewish community in Peru, which did not want them because of the Indians’ low socioeconomic status.” (Ha’aretz, 18 July 2002.)
The Peruvian case points to the second criterion for being recognized as Jewish: conversion by an approved religious official, which means Orthodox rabbis only. In Israel today, Conservative and Reform rabbis are prohibited from leading their congregations, there is no civil marriage for Jews, and—in a measure reminiscent of medieval Spain—all residents support the established church, in this case the Orthodox rabbinate. The stranglehold of organized religion in a state where the majority of the Jewish population is secular and even atheistic is the price paid to maintain the Biblical justification for Zionist occupation. “God does not exist,” runs the popular quip, “and he gave us this land.”
Israel is a racial state, where rights are assigned on the basis of ascribed descent or the approval of the superior race. In this respect it resembles the American South prior to the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, Ireland under the Protestant Ascendancy, and, yes, Hitlerite Germany. But in its basic structures it most closely resembles the old South Africa. It is therefore not surprising that Israel should have developed a close alliance with South Africa when that country was still under apartheid. After the first talks held in 1970 between Shimon Peres and South Africa's defense minister, Botha, cultural, commercial, and military cooperation between the two racial regimes developed. These relations were publicly celebrated during the visit of South African Prime Minister Vorster to Israel in 1976—the same Vorster who held during the Second World War the rank of general in the pro-Nazi Organisation Ossewabrandwag.
Of course Israel’s greatest support comes from the United States, $3 to $5 billion a year, more than what the U.S. gives to any other country and exceeding the total of U.S. grants to the whole of Africa south of the Sahara. Every shell fired into a Palestinian village, every tank used to bulldoze a home, every helicopter gunship is paid for by U.S. dollars.
Is one permitted to say above the level of a whisper that U.S. policy toward Israel has something to do with Jewish influence in the U.S.? Perhaps Nobel Peace Prize winner Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa can get away with it: “The Israel government,” he observed, “is placed on a pedestal [in the U.S.] People are scared in this country to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful—very powerful” (Guardian 29 April 2002).
Not only does Zionism shape U.S. policy, it stifles discussion of alternatives. To cite a personal example: Two years ago a PBS reporter interviewed me on the eve of the UN-sponsored conference on racism about to be held in S. Africa. I made some remarks about Israel, and afterwards I asked her if she would use what I said. “Of course not,” she replied. “I agree with you, and so do all the journalists I know, but we can’t run any criticism of Israel without following it by at least ten refutations.” Harvard Professor Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer of the Middle East Forum have begun a website, Campus Watch,” to denounce academics deemed to have shown “hatred of Israel.” Students are to inform on professors.
The greatest ideological weapon in the Zionist arsenal is the charge of antisemitism. Students and faculty members at Harvard begin a campaign to make the university sell off its stock in companies that sell weapons to Israel (modeled on past campaigns seeking divestment from South Africa), and the president of Harvard denounces the organizers of the campaign as “antisemitic in effect, if not in intent.” A faculty committee at the Massachusetts College of Art invites eminent poet Amiri Baraka to deliver a lecture, and members of the Critical Studies faculty circulate a petition calling upon the college president to denounce Baraka as an antisemite, citing as its main evidence a poem he wrote about the historic oppression of black people in which he refers to reported actions by the Israeli government prior to the World Trade center attack. As the Israeli commentator Ran HaCohen points out:
…When Palestinians attack soldiers of Israel’s occupation army in their own village, it’s antisemitism. When the UN general assembly votes 133 to 4 to condemn Israel’s decision to murder the elected Palestinian leader, it means that every country on the planet except the U.S., Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands is antisemitic….
This is ironic, he says, given present reality:
…With one revealing exception (Israel, where non-orthodox religious Jews are discriminated against), Jews enjoy full religious freedom wherever they are. They have full citizenship wherever they live, with full political, civic and human rights like every other citizen…..
Nowadays, an Orthodox Jew can run for the most powerful office on earth, the president of the United States…. A Jew can be mayor of Amsterdam in “anti-semitic” Holland, a minister in “anti-semitic” Britain, a leading intellectual in “anti-semitic” France, a president of “anti-semitic” Switzerland, editor-in-chief of a major daily in “anti-semitic” Denmark, or an industrial tycoon in “anti-semitic” Russia…. [A]nti-semitic Germany gives Israel three military submarines, anti-semitic France has proliferated to Israel the nuclear technology for its weapons of mass destruction, and anti-semitic Europe welcomes Israel as the single non-European country to everything from football and basketball leagues to the Eurovision Song contest, and has granted Israeli universities a special status for scientific fund-raising.
“The use of alleged anti-semitism is morally despicable,” says HaCohen.
…. People abusing this taboo in order to support Israel’s racist and genocidal policy towards the Palestinians do nothing less than desecrate the memory of those Jewish victims, whose death… is meaningful only inasmuch as it serves as an eternal warning to the human kind against all kinds of discrimination, racism, and genocide (“Abusing ‘Antisemitism’”, Sept. 29, 2003; some of Ran HaCohen’s writings can be found at www.antiwar.com).
If I accomplish nothing else in this talk, I hope to create space for some who are repelled by Israeli actions but are held back from condemning Zionism by a desire not to be antisemitic.
Does what I have just said mean that I dismiss the possibility of a revival of antisemitism? No, it does not. History shows that antisemitism ebbs and flows, and that it may return. Time prevents me from exploring that history in any depth; let me instead recommend two books: The Jewish Question by Abram Leon and The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt (in particular the first part, “Antisemitism”). For now I will say only that antisemitism (or more accurately anti-Jewish sentiment) is rooted neither in human nature or Christian theology; it is the product of social relations, including the historic concentration of Jews as representatives of commerce in non-commercial societies. The peculiar occupational distribution of European Jews led members of the dispossessed classes among the non-Jewish population to direct their animosity toward the Jews as the visible agents of oppression. “Antisemitism,” as the 19th-century German Socialist August Bebel put it, “is the socialism of fools.” It is not beyond historical explanation (as is implied by a term like “The Holocaust,” which takes antisemitism out of history and relocates it the realm of natural phenomena).
But of course the Jews by themselves could not determine U.S. Middle East policy, any more than the Florida Cubans by themselves could determine U.S. Caribbean policy. By no means does all the organized support for Israel inside of U.S. politics comes from Jews. Aside from imperialist interests—and it is not clear whether Israel is an asset or a liability in this regard—Israel has gained support from a surprising quarter. From the Guardian, Feb. 28, 2002:
At first sight, the scene is very familiar: one that happens in Washington DC and other major American cities all the time. On the platform, an Israeli student is telling thousands of supporters how the horrors of the year have only reinforced his people’s determination. “Despite the terror attacks, they’ll never drive us away out of our God-given land,” he says.
This is greeted with whoops and hollers and the waving of Israeli flags and the blowing of the shofar, the Jewish ceremonial ram’s horn. Then comes the mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert, who is received even more rapturously. “God is with us. You are with us.” And there are more whoops and hollers and flag-waves and shofar-blows.
But something very strange is going on here. There are thousands of people cheering for Israel in the huge Washington Convention Centre. But not one of them appears to be Jewish, at least not in the conventional sense. For this is the annual gathering of a very non-Jewish Organization indeed: the Christian Coalition of America.
…[T]here is little doubt that, last spring, when President Bush dithered and dallied over his Middle East policy before finally coming down on Israel's side, he was influenced not by the overrated Jewish vote, but by the opinion of Christian “religious conservatives”—the self-description of between 15 and 18% of the electorate. When the president demanded that Israel withdraw its tanks from the West Bank in April, the White House allegedly received 100,000 angry emails from Christian conservatives.
What's changed? Not the Book of Genesis…
What has really changed is the emergence of the doctrine known as “dispensationalism”, popularized in the novels of the Rev. Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins….
Central to the theory… is the Rapture, the second coming of Christ, which will presage the end of the world. A happy ending depends on the conversion of the Jews. And that, to cut a long story very short, can only happen if the Jews are in possession of all the lands given to them by God. In other words, these Christians are supporting the Jews in order to abolish them.
Oh yes, agreed Madon Pollard, a charming lady from Dallas who was selling hand-painted Jerusalem crystal in the exhibition hall at the conference. “God is the sovereign. He'll do what he pleases. But based on the scripture, those are the guidelines.” She calls herself a fervent supporter of Israel…
This conference began with a videotaped benediction straight from the Oval office. Some of the most influential Republicans in Congress addressed the gathering including—not once, but twice—Tom DeLay [majority leader of the House of Representatives, arguably the most powerful man on Capitol Hill].
“Are you tired of all this, are you?” he yelled to the audience.
“Nooooooo!” they roared back. “Not when you're standing up for Jews and Jesus, that's for sure,” he replied.
… Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, [was] reportedly greeted “like a rock star” by Christian evangelicals in Jerusalem last month.
… DeLay was followed by Pat Robertson, the coalition's founder, sometime presidential candidate and the very personification of the successful American TV evangelist. Robertson… cites the stories of Joshua and David to prove Israel's ownership of Jerusalem “long before anyone had heard of Mohammed”.
These are the people my grandfather warned me about—the people who want to ban Darwin from the schools, who want to send to camps people who have sex with members of their own sex—and antisemeets (as he used to say), Jew-haters to the backbone of their souls.
Osama Bin-Laden was telling no more than the truth when he said that the Muslim world is facing an alliance of Zionists and Crusaders.
Before I get around to proposing solutions, I want to address the present state of the Israeli peace movement. As everyone knows, there are forces inside of Israel who oppose the government now in office. Some of these people, particularly the soldiers who refuse service in what they call the occupied territories or who refuse to carry out atrocities such as bombing civilians, and those who encourage them, are people of exemplary courage. Yet all of them, with one notable exception (to which I shall return), are handicapped and in the long run rendered ineffective by their acceptance of the fundamental premise of Zionism, the legitimacy of the Jewish state. “Land for peace” implies the permanent partition of Palestine. It was under the leadership of the Labour Party, with which much of the opposition is affiliated, that the initial dispossession and exclusion of the Palestinian people from their homeland took place and the expansion into the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights was carried out.
History has shown, in Ireland, India, and every place else it has been tried, that partition of a territory along lines of descent, whether called “racial” or “religious”, is a guarantee of permanent war. It is understandable that some Palestinians, having been subjected to torture for over two generations, have reluctantly agreed to accept as a substitute for justice a Palestinian State built on less than a fourth of their original land. But they are making a mistake. Such a State, if it is ever established, will be a Bantustan, a reservation where the only attributes of a free nation will be a flag and a national anthem. I am no more a Palestinian Zionist than I am a Jewish Zionist.
What solution, therefore, do I propose? A simple and moderate one: within historic Palestine, the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, live ten million people. I propose that there be established there a single state, in which every person who declares his intention to live there and adopt citizenship be recognized as a citizen and have one vote. I propose further that the special advantages given to Jews be terminated, that the Palestinians who were forced into exile after 1948, and their descendants, be granted the right to live there, and that the state undertake practical measures to make it possible for them to do so by building housing and extending to them to right to rent or buy, if necessary providing funds to help them. I propose further that both Hebrew and Arabic be declared official state languages to be taught in the schools, that all residents be granted the right to publish newspapers and maintain cultural institutions in any language they choose, that the special position of Orthodox Judaism be ended and that the state declare freedom of worship and make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It is a simple and, I repeat, a moderate program. It does not entail driving anybody into the sea, and it recognizes the elementary right of people to live where they choose.
Some might object that such a thing is impossible, that after all the blood that has been shed and the bitterness that has accumulated, it will not be possible for Jews and Arabs to live peacefully together. To that argument I have three responses: the first is the experience of South Africa, a place whose history of bitterness is no less than Palestine’s; there the establishment of majority rule did not cause the gods to weep or the earth to open and swallow the people. My second response comes from Sherlock Holmes: after you have eliminated all the impossible solutions, Watson, the one remaining, no matter how improbable, must be the right one. My third response is to cite recent indications that the idea of the single democratic secular state—once the official goal of the PLO and then abandoned under U.S. pressure—is once again emerging as a pole of discussion. Its reemergence is in part a response to Israel’s gobbling up so much territory that nothing is left for a Palestinian state. The new reality is acknowledged by no less than columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who quotes a prominent Israeli Arab:
If Palestinians lose their dream to have an independent state, then the only thing that might guarantee for them a dignified life will be asking to live in one state with the Israelis. When this struggle starts, it will find allies among the one million Palestinian Arabs inside Israel… We will say, ‘Don’t evacuate even a single West Bank settlement. Just give us the vote and let us be part of one community.’
Friedman reports a poll showing that 25 to 30 percent of Palestinians now support the idea of one state—“a stunning figure, considering it’s never been proposed by any Palestinian or Israeli party.” He calls it “the law of unintended consequences.” (New York Times, Sept. 14, 2003)
The one exception to my earlier generalization about the Israeli opposition is a fraction of Orthodox Jews in Israel, who reject the State of Israel on religious grounds; according to them, the exile from the holy land was divinely ordained, and therefore the Jews are to live among the nations in every corner of the earth and not attempt to establish a State before the coming of the Messiah. Allow me to read from a statement by one of them, Rabbi Mordechi Weberman:
It is precisely because we are Jews that we march with the Palestinians and raise their flag! It is precisely because we are Jews that we demand that the Palestinian peoples be returned to their homes and properties! Yes, in our Torah we are commanded to be fair.
We are called upon to pursue justice. And, what could be more unjust then the century-old attempt of the Zionist movement to invade another people's land, to drive them out and steal their property?…
We have no doubt that would Jewish refugees have come to Palestine not with the intention of dominating, not with the intention of making a Jewish state, not with the intention of dispossessing, not with the intention of depriving the Palestinians of their basic rights, that they would have been welcomed by the Palestinians, with the same hospitality that Islamic peoples have shown Jews throughout history. And we would have lived together as Jews and Muslims lived before in Palestine in peace and harmony.
To our Islamic and Palestinian friends around the world, please hear our message. There are Jews around the world who support your cause. And when we support your cause we do not mean some partition scheme proposed in 1947 by a UN that had no right to offer it.
When we say support your cause we do not mean the cut off and cut up pieces of the West Bank offered by Barak at Camp David together with justice for less than 10% of the refugees.
We do not mean anything other than returning the entire land, including Jerusalem, to Palestinian sovereignty!
At that point justice demands that the Palestinian people should decide if and how many Jews should remain in the Land….
We have attended hundreds of pro-Palestinian rallies over the years and everywhere we go the leaders and audience greet us with the warmth of Middle Eastern hospitality. What a lie it is to say that Palestinians in particular or Muslims in general hate Jews. You hate injustice. Not Jews.
Fear not my friends. Evil cannot long triumph. The Zionist nightmare is at its end. It is exhausted. Its latest brutalities are the death rattle of the terminally ill.
We will yet both live to see the day when Jew and Palestinian will embrace in peace under the Palestinian flag in Jerusalem. And ultimately when mankind's Redeemer will come the sufferings of the present will long be forgotten in the blessings of the future.
(http:www.marchfor justice.com/becauseweare jews.php)
I am not a believer, but I find Rabbi Weberman’s words moving.
One last point: I spoke earlier about the possibility of a resurgence of antisemitism in the United States. In 1991 George H.W. Bush, the father of the man who sits in the White House and the only member of his family ever to have been elected president, demanded that the Israelis stop building new settlements in Palestinian territory. Unlike previous presidents, Bush sounded serious, threatening to block billions in loan guarantees if Israel disobeyed. As might have been predicted, the dominant voices among American Jews were outraged, and Bush responded by complaining at a press conference that “Jews work insidiously behind the scenes.” On another occasion he reminded critics that the U.S. gives “Israel the equivalent of $1,000 for every Israeli citizen,” a remark that detractors took as antisemitic. Later on Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker made his famous “fuck the Jews” remark in private conversation, noting that Jews “didn’t vote for us anyway.” And it was true: when he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992, Bush got smallest percentage of the Jewish vote of any Republican since 1964.
The present occupant of the White House seems for the time being to have recouped much of his party’s loss of favor among Jews, in part due to his appointment of so many to positions of power and influence in his administration. But I will go out on a limb and make a prediction (something I rarely do because I hate to be wrong): one-sided support for Israel, while it may win votes among American Jews and some fundamentalist Christians, is not necessarily wise from the standpoint of U.S. oil interests, and may even cost votes among that increasing number of Americans who can pick up the newspaper almost any day and see another story about Israeli tanks surrounding the residence of the Palestinian president, or massacring children, or assassinating a crippled half-blind cleric. I predict that if Dubya manages to extend his control of the White House in 2004, he will present the bill to whoever is in power in Israel, and that bill will include withdrawal from some of the territories occupied after 1967. If the Israelis respond negatively to this demand, which there is every reason to believe they will, and are supported by American Jews, which there is every reason to believe they will be, the younger Bush, already born-again, will be reborn yet one more time and will start making remarks about special minorities with divided loyalties and so forth. In other words, he will stoke up antisemitism, carefully of course, as befits the leader of the free world. And he will find a tremendous response, more than anyone anticipates, from many ordinary people who are tired of picking up the tab for the number one outlaw state in the Middle East, the state that has defied scores of United Nations resolutions, been condemned by the UN more than any other member or non-member, the only state in the Middle East that possesses actual weapons of mass destruction.
Cynthia McKinney, Afro-American Congresswoman from Atlanta, was the most outspoken critic in Congress of U.S. Middle East policy, including unconditional support for Israel. As a result, Jewish groups around the country targeted her and, by channeling money to her opponent, succeeded in defeating her bid for reelection in 2002. Were they within their legal rights to do so? Of course they were; there is no law barring people in one district from contributing to a campaign in another. But do they think their intervention went unnoticed by black voters in Atlanta and around the country?
If American Jews insist on identifying themselves with Israel, equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, should they be surprised if others make the same mistake?
It would appear to be the case that most Jews are ethno-nationalists. Who should blame them for that? Ethno-nationalism is the most natural, right and proper political affiliation for anyone to profess. I am an ethno-nationalist myself. An English, British ethno-nationalist.
Ethno-nationalism means putting one's own people first. It is what the Jews do, and have always done. Indeed, it is what all peoples everywhere, and at all times, have always done, with the exception of those who have lost the will to national survival. The latter soon disappear as nations and become transformed into an amorphous aggregate of deracinated individuals. I submit that those who put their own people first, as the Jews so signally do, are hypocrites if they condemn others, of a different nationality, for putting their own people first: it's as if they were saying to members of the British National Party "Don't do as I do, do as I say".
Mr Ignatiev implies that Jewish migrants to Israel from Europe and America were and are probably genetically appreciably less Middle Eastern than the Arab inhabitants of Israel. It has to be said that the genetic research of which I am aware does not support his suggestion but contradicts it.
The article, from the journal Race Traitor, now follows.
Editors' note: This paper is based on a talk I delivered on March 31, 2004. It is intended as a popular summary of the historical and theoretical basis of the current conflict. I make no pretense of scholarship. I draw heavily upon the work of others, lifting or paraphrasing whole paragraphs, and I quote journals and newspapers that I have not personally checked. In some cases I have cited my source; in others I have not. The works I use most are Moshe Menuhin, The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time, Uri Davis, Israel: Apartheid State, Nathan Weinstock, Zionism: False Messiah, and Adam Sabra, “Abolish the Jewish Caste in Palestine,” from Race Traitor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zionism, Antisemitism, and the People of Palestine
By Noel Ignatiev
Zionism as a political movement developed in the late 19th century. Its founder, Theodore Herzl, was influenced by two phenomena: the extent of French anti-Semitism revealed by the Dreyfus Trial, and nationalist ideals then popular in Europe. Herzl held that Jews cannot be assimilated by the nations in which they live, and that the only solution to the “Jewish question” was the formation of a “Jewish state” in which all the Jews would come together. The early Zionists contemplated as the site of the future state Argentina or Uganda, among other locales. Herzl favored Palestine, because, although an agnostic, he wanted to make use of the custom, widespread among Jewish mystics, of going on pilgrimages to the “holy land” and establishing religious communities there.
In 1868, there were 13,000 Jews in Palestine, out of an estimated population of 400,000. The majority were religious pilgrims supported by charity from overseas. They encountered no opposition from the Muslims, and their presence led to no clashes with the Arab population, whether Muslim or Christian.
In 1882, Baron Rothschild, combining philanthropy and investment, began to bring Jewish settlers from Eastern Europe to build a plantation system along the model the French used in Algeria. They spoke Yiddish, Arabic, Persian, and Georgian. Significantly, Hebrew was not among the languages spoken. The outcome of Rothschild’s experiment was predictable: Jews managed the land, while Arabs worked it. This was not the result the Zionists had in mind; a Jewish society could not be based on Arab labor. Consequently, they began to encourage the immigration of Jewish farmers and workers.
In 1917 British Foreign Minister Lord Balfour, seeking support for Britain’s efforts in World War I, issued his famous declaration expressing sympathy with efforts to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Zionists immediately seized upon this statement, which they interpreted to mean support for a Jewish state. At the time of Balfour’s declaration, Jews comprised less than 10% of the population and owned 2.5% of the land of Palestine.
The problem of building a Jewish society among an overwhelming Arab majority came to be known as the “conquest of land and labor.” Land, once acquired, had to remain in Jewish hands. The other half of this project, known as Labor Zionism, called for the exclusive use of Jewish labor on the land acquired by the Jews in Palestine. The Labor Zionists maintained this dual exclusionism (or apartheid, as we would now call it) in order to build up purely Jewish institutions.
To achieve the conquest of the land, the Zionists set up an arrangement whereby land was acquired not by individuals, but by a corporation, known as the Jewish National Fund (JNF). The JNF acquired land and leased it only to Jews, who were not allowed to sublet it. Thus land was acquired in the name of “the Jewish people,” held for their use, and not subject to market conditions. The idea was for the JNF to gradually acquire as much land as possible as the basis for the expected Jewish state.
Naturally, in order for the land to serve this function, Arab labor had to be excluded. Leases from the JNF specifically prohibited the use of non-Jewish labor on JNF plots. One way to achieve this goal was to lease land only to those Jews who intended to work it themselves. In some cases, when land was bought from Arab absentee landlords, the peasants who resided on and worked the land were expelled. Jewish landholders who refused to exclude Arab labor could lose their leases or be faced with a boycott.
The conquest of labor pertained not only to agriculture but also to industry. The Labor Zionists formed an institution to organize Jewish labor and exclude Arabs: the Histadrut. The Histadrut was (and largely is) an all-Jewish combination trade union and cooperative society providing its members with a number of services. From the beginning it was a means of segregating Arab and Jewish labor and bringing into existence a strictly Jewish economic sector. Even when Arab and Jewish laborers performed precisely the same job, Jewish workers were paid significantly higher salaries. These policies were the death knell for any attempt to organize labor on a non-racial basis. The “laborism” of Labor Zionism killed and continues to kill efforts at building a unified labor movement.
Despite these policies and even with the encouragement of the British government, in the thirty years following the Balfour Declaration, the Zionists were able to increase the Jewish-owned portion of the land of Palestine to only 7%. Moreover, the majority of the world’s Jews showed no interest in settling there. In the years between 1920 and 1932, only 118,000 Jews moved to Palestine, less than 1% of world Jewry. Even after the rise of Hitler, Jews in Europe did not choose Israel: out of 2.5 million Jewish victims of Nazism who fled abroad between 1935 and 1943, scarcely 8.5% went to Palestine. 182,000 went to the U.S., 67,000 to Britain, and almost 2 million to the Soviet Union. After the war, the U.S. began to encourage Jewish settlement in Palestine. Aneurin Bevin, postwar British Foreign Minister, publicly blurted out that American policy mainly arose from the fact that “they did not want too many of them in New York.” The Pakistani delegate to the UN was to make the same point sarcastically:
Australia, an overpopulated small country with congested areas, says no, no, no; Canada, equally congested and overpopulated, says no; the United States, a great humanitarian country, a small area, with small resources, says no. This is their contribution to the humanitarian principle. But they state, let them go into Palestine, where there are vast areas, a large economy and no trouble; they can easily be taken in there (Weinstock, 226).
The U.S. limitation on the number of Jews allowed into the country coincided with Zionist policy, as enunciated by David Ben-Gurion, first prime minister of Israel: “If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel.” (Yoav Gelber, “Zionist Policy and the Fate of European Jewry (1932-1945) Yad Vashem Studies, vol. XII, 199.)
This policy of attaching more importance to the establishment of Israel than to the survival of the Jews led the Zionists to collaborate with Nazism and even be decorated by Hitler’s government. The best known case was that of Rudolf Kastner, who negotiated the emigration to Palestine of some of Hungary’s most prominent Jews in return for his help in arranging the orderly deportation of the remainder of Hungary’s Jews to the camps. For his efforts, Kastner was praised as an “idealist” by no less an authority than Adolf Eichmann. (The best study of Zionist-Nazi relations is Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators.)
The Zionists knew they had to rid themselves of the Arab majority in order to have a specifically Jewish state. Although 75,000 Jews moved to Israel between 1945 and 1948, Jews still constituted a minority in Palestine. The 1948 war afforded the Zionists an excellent opportunity to rectify this; as a result of the war, more than three-quarters of a million Arabs fled their homes. The case of Deir Yasin, in which Israeli paramilitary forces, under the command of future prime minister Menachem Begin, massacred over 250 civilians, sending a message to Palestinians that they should depart, is the most well known example of how this flight was brought about. In his book, The Revolt, Begin boasted that without Deir Yasin there would have been no Israel, and adds, “The Arabs began fleeing in panic, shouting ‘Deir Yasin’” (quoted in Menuhin, 120). Recent writings by Israeli revisionist historians have refuted the longtime insistence of Israeli officials that the departures were voluntary. Some of the refugees went to neighboring Arab countries; others became refugees in their own country. Those 750,000 expelled from their homes and their descendants, who together total 2.2 million people, make up the so-called refugee problem. Although the United Nation has repeatedly demanded they be allowed to return, the Israeli government has refused to agree. The war ended with the Zionists in control of 80% of Palestine. In the next year, nearly 400 Arab villages were completely destroyed. This was no accident but the result of deliberate policy, as shown is the following statement by one of the most authoritative officials of the Zionist state:
Among ourselves it must be clear that there is no place in our country for both peoples together… The only solution is Eretz Israel, or at least the western half of Eretz Israel, without Arabs, and there is no other way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, transfer all of them, not one village or tribe should remain…
Joseph Weitz, Deputy Chairman of the Board of directors of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) from 1951 to 1973, former Chairman of the Israel Land Authority (Davis, 5).
Moshe Dayan, former Prime Minister, stated in a famous speech before students at the Israeli Institute of Technology in Haifa in 1969:
Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahial arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population (Ha’aretz, April 4, 1969, quoted in Davis, 108).
It is a mistake to draw a moral line between Israel and the Occupied Territories; it is all occupied territory. The 1967 war, as a result of which Israel conquered and occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank of the Jordan River, and the Sinai Peninsula, was a continuation of the process that began in 1948. It will be drearily familiar to any who know the history of the displacement of the Indians from the lands they occupied in North America. Today it would be called “ethnic cleansing.”
The first census of the state of Israel, conducted in 1949, counted a total of 650,000 Jews and 150,000 Arabs. The legal foundation for the racial state was laid down in two laws passed in 1950. The first, the Law of Return, permitted any Jew, anywhere in the world, the right to “return” to Israel. This right did not apply to non-Jews, including the Palestinian Arabs who had recently become refugees. In addition, the Absentee Property Law confiscated the property of Arab “absentees,” and turned it over to the Custodian of Absentee Property. Arab refugees within their own country were termed “present absentees” (what a phrase!), and not allowed to return to their property. A number of refugees who attempted to do so were termed “infiltrators,” and some were shot in the attempt. Confiscated property accounted for the vast majority of new settlements. These confiscated lands, in accordance with the procedures that were established in the Mandate period by the JNF, have become Israel Lands, with their own administration. This administration, controlling 92.6% of all of the lands in Israel, only leases these lands to Jews.
Unlike many countries, including the United States, the Israeli state does not belong, even in principle, to those who reside within its borders, but is defined as the state of the Jewish people, wherever they may be. That peculiar definition is one reason why the state has to this day failed to produce a written constitution, define its borders, or even declare the existence of an Israeli nationality. Moreover, in this “outpost of democracy,” no party that opposes the existence of the Jewish state is permitted to take part in elections. It is as if the United States were to declare itself a Christian state, define “Christian” not by religious belief but by descent, and then pass a “gag law” prohibiting public discussion of the issue.
If one part of the Zionist project is the expulsion of the indigenous population, the other part is expanding the so-called Jewish population. But here arises the problem, which has tormented Israeli legal officials for fifty years, what is a Jew? (For a century-and-a-half U.S. courts faced similar problems determining who is white.) The Zionists set forth two criteria for determining who is a Jew. The first is race, which is a myth generally and is particularly a myth in the case of the Jews. The “Jewish” population of Israel includes people from fifty countries, of different physical types, speaking different languages and practicing different religions (or no religion at all), defined as a single people based on the fiction that they, and only they, are descended from the Biblical Abraham. It is so patently false that only Zionists and Nazis even pretend to take it seriously. In fact, given Jewish intermingling with others for two thousand years, it is likely that the Palestinians — themselves the result of the mixture of the various peoples of Canaan plus later waves of Greeks and Arabs —are more directly descended from the ancient inhabitants of the Holy Land than the Europeans displacing them. The claim that the Jews have a special right to Palestine has no more validity than would an Irish claim of a divine right to establish a Celtic state all across Germany, France, and Spain on the basis that Celtic tribes once lived there. Nevertheless, on the basis of ascribed descent, the Zionist officials assign those they have selected a privileged place within the state. If that is not racism, then the term has no meaning.
The Zionist commitment to racial purity has led to expressions of bigotry at the highest levels of Israeli society that would inspire outrage in respectable circles in the U.S. An Israeli company has required thousands of Chinese workers to sign a contract promising not to have sex with Israelis. A company spokesman said there was nothing illegal about the requirement. Israeli law forbids the marriage of a Jew with a non-Jew. (Associated Press, December 23, 2003)
Prejudice breeds arrogance: this past January the Israeli ambassador to Sweden destroyed an art installation in a Stockholm museum which he found offensive. The work commemorated a young Palestinian woman who killed herself and nineteen others in an attack in Haifa. (It does not become Americans, who learn as schoolchildren to recite the last words of Nathan Hale, “My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country,” to denounce Palestinian patriots as “suicide bombers.”) The museum director pointed out that if the Ambassador did not like the exhibit he was free to leave. (Agence France Press, 17 January 2004)
The Zionists are so desperate to increase the loyal population of the state that they are willing to admit hundreds of thousands of people, mainly from the former Soviet Union, who do not meet the official definition of a Jew because they have only a male grandparent or are merely married to a Jew. Since there is no such thing as Israeli nationality in Israel (there being only Jewish nationality and “undetermined”), these people, who do not qualify as Jews, are therefore registered as “under consideration.”
Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. Recently the Israeli press reported on a group of Indians from Peru who had converted to Judaism and moved to Israel, where they were relocated on what was once Palestinian land. Nachson Ben-Haim (formerly Pedro Mendosa) said he had no problem with that. “You cannot conquer what has in any case belonged to you since the time of the patriarch, Abraham.” Ben-Haim said he was looking forward to joining the Israeli army to defend the country. Ben-Haim and his coreligionists had moved to Israel with the agreement of the Jewish community in Peru, which did not want them because of the Indians’ low socioeconomic status.” (Ha’aretz, 18 July 2002.)
The Peruvian case points to the second criterion for being recognized as Jewish: conversion by an approved religious official, which means Orthodox rabbis only. In Israel today, Conservative and Reform rabbis are prohibited from leading their congregations, there is no civil marriage for Jews, and—in a measure reminiscent of medieval Spain—all residents support the established church, in this case the Orthodox rabbinate. The stranglehold of organized religion in a state where the majority of the Jewish population is secular and even atheistic is the price paid to maintain the Biblical justification for Zionist occupation. “God does not exist,” runs the popular quip, “and he gave us this land.”
Israel is a racial state, where rights are assigned on the basis of ascribed descent or the approval of the superior race. In this respect it resembles the American South prior to the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, Ireland under the Protestant Ascendancy, and, yes, Hitlerite Germany. But in its basic structures it most closely resembles the old South Africa. It is therefore not surprising that Israel should have developed a close alliance with South Africa when that country was still under apartheid. After the first talks held in 1970 between Shimon Peres and South Africa's defense minister, Botha, cultural, commercial, and military cooperation between the two racial regimes developed. These relations were publicly celebrated during the visit of South African Prime Minister Vorster to Israel in 1976—the same Vorster who held during the Second World War the rank of general in the pro-Nazi Organisation Ossewabrandwag.
Of course Israel’s greatest support comes from the United States, $3 to $5 billion a year, more than what the U.S. gives to any other country and exceeding the total of U.S. grants to the whole of Africa south of the Sahara. Every shell fired into a Palestinian village, every tank used to bulldoze a home, every helicopter gunship is paid for by U.S. dollars.
Is one permitted to say above the level of a whisper that U.S. policy toward Israel has something to do with Jewish influence in the U.S.? Perhaps Nobel Peace Prize winner Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa can get away with it: “The Israel government,” he observed, “is placed on a pedestal [in the U.S.] People are scared in this country to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful—very powerful” (Guardian 29 April 2002).
Not only does Zionism shape U.S. policy, it stifles discussion of alternatives. To cite a personal example: Two years ago a PBS reporter interviewed me on the eve of the UN-sponsored conference on racism about to be held in S. Africa. I made some remarks about Israel, and afterwards I asked her if she would use what I said. “Of course not,” she replied. “I agree with you, and so do all the journalists I know, but we can’t run any criticism of Israel without following it by at least ten refutations.” Harvard Professor Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer of the Middle East Forum have begun a website, Campus Watch,” to denounce academics deemed to have shown “hatred of Israel.” Students are to inform on professors.
The greatest ideological weapon in the Zionist arsenal is the charge of antisemitism. Students and faculty members at Harvard begin a campaign to make the university sell off its stock in companies that sell weapons to Israel (modeled on past campaigns seeking divestment from South Africa), and the president of Harvard denounces the organizers of the campaign as “antisemitic in effect, if not in intent.” A faculty committee at the Massachusetts College of Art invites eminent poet Amiri Baraka to deliver a lecture, and members of the Critical Studies faculty circulate a petition calling upon the college president to denounce Baraka as an antisemite, citing as its main evidence a poem he wrote about the historic oppression of black people in which he refers to reported actions by the Israeli government prior to the World Trade center attack. As the Israeli commentator Ran HaCohen points out:
…When Palestinians attack soldiers of Israel’s occupation army in their own village, it’s antisemitism. When the UN general assembly votes 133 to 4 to condemn Israel’s decision to murder the elected Palestinian leader, it means that every country on the planet except the U.S., Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands is antisemitic….
This is ironic, he says, given present reality:
…With one revealing exception (Israel, where non-orthodox religious Jews are discriminated against), Jews enjoy full religious freedom wherever they are. They have full citizenship wherever they live, with full political, civic and human rights like every other citizen…..
Nowadays, an Orthodox Jew can run for the most powerful office on earth, the president of the United States…. A Jew can be mayor of Amsterdam in “anti-semitic” Holland, a minister in “anti-semitic” Britain, a leading intellectual in “anti-semitic” France, a president of “anti-semitic” Switzerland, editor-in-chief of a major daily in “anti-semitic” Denmark, or an industrial tycoon in “anti-semitic” Russia…. [A]nti-semitic Germany gives Israel three military submarines, anti-semitic France has proliferated to Israel the nuclear technology for its weapons of mass destruction, and anti-semitic Europe welcomes Israel as the single non-European country to everything from football and basketball leagues to the Eurovision Song contest, and has granted Israeli universities a special status for scientific fund-raising.
“The use of alleged anti-semitism is morally despicable,” says HaCohen.
…. People abusing this taboo in order to support Israel’s racist and genocidal policy towards the Palestinians do nothing less than desecrate the memory of those Jewish victims, whose death… is meaningful only inasmuch as it serves as an eternal warning to the human kind against all kinds of discrimination, racism, and genocide (“Abusing ‘Antisemitism’”, Sept. 29, 2003; some of Ran HaCohen’s writings can be found at www.antiwar.com).
If I accomplish nothing else in this talk, I hope to create space for some who are repelled by Israeli actions but are held back from condemning Zionism by a desire not to be antisemitic.
Does what I have just said mean that I dismiss the possibility of a revival of antisemitism? No, it does not. History shows that antisemitism ebbs and flows, and that it may return. Time prevents me from exploring that history in any depth; let me instead recommend two books: The Jewish Question by Abram Leon and The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt (in particular the first part, “Antisemitism”). For now I will say only that antisemitism (or more accurately anti-Jewish sentiment) is rooted neither in human nature or Christian theology; it is the product of social relations, including the historic concentration of Jews as representatives of commerce in non-commercial societies. The peculiar occupational distribution of European Jews led members of the dispossessed classes among the non-Jewish population to direct their animosity toward the Jews as the visible agents of oppression. “Antisemitism,” as the 19th-century German Socialist August Bebel put it, “is the socialism of fools.” It is not beyond historical explanation (as is implied by a term like “The Holocaust,” which takes antisemitism out of history and relocates it the realm of natural phenomena).
But of course the Jews by themselves could not determine U.S. Middle East policy, any more than the Florida Cubans by themselves could determine U.S. Caribbean policy. By no means does all the organized support for Israel inside of U.S. politics comes from Jews. Aside from imperialist interests—and it is not clear whether Israel is an asset or a liability in this regard—Israel has gained support from a surprising quarter. From the Guardian, Feb. 28, 2002:
At first sight, the scene is very familiar: one that happens in Washington DC and other major American cities all the time. On the platform, an Israeli student is telling thousands of supporters how the horrors of the year have only reinforced his people’s determination. “Despite the terror attacks, they’ll never drive us away out of our God-given land,” he says.
This is greeted with whoops and hollers and the waving of Israeli flags and the blowing of the shofar, the Jewish ceremonial ram’s horn. Then comes the mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert, who is received even more rapturously. “God is with us. You are with us.” And there are more whoops and hollers and flag-waves and shofar-blows.
But something very strange is going on here. There are thousands of people cheering for Israel in the huge Washington Convention Centre. But not one of them appears to be Jewish, at least not in the conventional sense. For this is the annual gathering of a very non-Jewish Organization indeed: the Christian Coalition of America.
…[T]here is little doubt that, last spring, when President Bush dithered and dallied over his Middle East policy before finally coming down on Israel's side, he was influenced not by the overrated Jewish vote, but by the opinion of Christian “religious conservatives”—the self-description of between 15 and 18% of the electorate. When the president demanded that Israel withdraw its tanks from the West Bank in April, the White House allegedly received 100,000 angry emails from Christian conservatives.
What's changed? Not the Book of Genesis…
What has really changed is the emergence of the doctrine known as “dispensationalism”, popularized in the novels of the Rev. Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins….
Central to the theory… is the Rapture, the second coming of Christ, which will presage the end of the world. A happy ending depends on the conversion of the Jews. And that, to cut a long story very short, can only happen if the Jews are in possession of all the lands given to them by God. In other words, these Christians are supporting the Jews in order to abolish them.
Oh yes, agreed Madon Pollard, a charming lady from Dallas who was selling hand-painted Jerusalem crystal in the exhibition hall at the conference. “God is the sovereign. He'll do what he pleases. But based on the scripture, those are the guidelines.” She calls herself a fervent supporter of Israel…
This conference began with a videotaped benediction straight from the Oval office. Some of the most influential Republicans in Congress addressed the gathering including—not once, but twice—Tom DeLay [majority leader of the House of Representatives, arguably the most powerful man on Capitol Hill].
“Are you tired of all this, are you?” he yelled to the audience.
“Nooooooo!” they roared back. “Not when you're standing up for Jews and Jesus, that's for sure,” he replied.
… Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, [was] reportedly greeted “like a rock star” by Christian evangelicals in Jerusalem last month.
… DeLay was followed by Pat Robertson, the coalition's founder, sometime presidential candidate and the very personification of the successful American TV evangelist. Robertson… cites the stories of Joshua and David to prove Israel's ownership of Jerusalem “long before anyone had heard of Mohammed”.
These are the people my grandfather warned me about—the people who want to ban Darwin from the schools, who want to send to camps people who have sex with members of their own sex—and antisemeets (as he used to say), Jew-haters to the backbone of their souls.
Osama Bin-Laden was telling no more than the truth when he said that the Muslim world is facing an alliance of Zionists and Crusaders.
Before I get around to proposing solutions, I want to address the present state of the Israeli peace movement. As everyone knows, there are forces inside of Israel who oppose the government now in office. Some of these people, particularly the soldiers who refuse service in what they call the occupied territories or who refuse to carry out atrocities such as bombing civilians, and those who encourage them, are people of exemplary courage. Yet all of them, with one notable exception (to which I shall return), are handicapped and in the long run rendered ineffective by their acceptance of the fundamental premise of Zionism, the legitimacy of the Jewish state. “Land for peace” implies the permanent partition of Palestine. It was under the leadership of the Labour Party, with which much of the opposition is affiliated, that the initial dispossession and exclusion of the Palestinian people from their homeland took place and the expansion into the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights was carried out.
History has shown, in Ireland, India, and every place else it has been tried, that partition of a territory along lines of descent, whether called “racial” or “religious”, is a guarantee of permanent war. It is understandable that some Palestinians, having been subjected to torture for over two generations, have reluctantly agreed to accept as a substitute for justice a Palestinian State built on less than a fourth of their original land. But they are making a mistake. Such a State, if it is ever established, will be a Bantustan, a reservation where the only attributes of a free nation will be a flag and a national anthem. I am no more a Palestinian Zionist than I am a Jewish Zionist.
What solution, therefore, do I propose? A simple and moderate one: within historic Palestine, the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, live ten million people. I propose that there be established there a single state, in which every person who declares his intention to live there and adopt citizenship be recognized as a citizen and have one vote. I propose further that the special advantages given to Jews be terminated, that the Palestinians who were forced into exile after 1948, and their descendants, be granted the right to live there, and that the state undertake practical measures to make it possible for them to do so by building housing and extending to them to right to rent or buy, if necessary providing funds to help them. I propose further that both Hebrew and Arabic be declared official state languages to be taught in the schools, that all residents be granted the right to publish newspapers and maintain cultural institutions in any language they choose, that the special position of Orthodox Judaism be ended and that the state declare freedom of worship and make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It is a simple and, I repeat, a moderate program. It does not entail driving anybody into the sea, and it recognizes the elementary right of people to live where they choose.
Some might object that such a thing is impossible, that after all the blood that has been shed and the bitterness that has accumulated, it will not be possible for Jews and Arabs to live peacefully together. To that argument I have three responses: the first is the experience of South Africa, a place whose history of bitterness is no less than Palestine’s; there the establishment of majority rule did not cause the gods to weep or the earth to open and swallow the people. My second response comes from Sherlock Holmes: after you have eliminated all the impossible solutions, Watson, the one remaining, no matter how improbable, must be the right one. My third response is to cite recent indications that the idea of the single democratic secular state—once the official goal of the PLO and then abandoned under U.S. pressure—is once again emerging as a pole of discussion. Its reemergence is in part a response to Israel’s gobbling up so much territory that nothing is left for a Palestinian state. The new reality is acknowledged by no less than columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who quotes a prominent Israeli Arab:
If Palestinians lose their dream to have an independent state, then the only thing that might guarantee for them a dignified life will be asking to live in one state with the Israelis. When this struggle starts, it will find allies among the one million Palestinian Arabs inside Israel… We will say, ‘Don’t evacuate even a single West Bank settlement. Just give us the vote and let us be part of one community.’
Friedman reports a poll showing that 25 to 30 percent of Palestinians now support the idea of one state—“a stunning figure, considering it’s never been proposed by any Palestinian or Israeli party.” He calls it “the law of unintended consequences.” (New York Times, Sept. 14, 2003)
The one exception to my earlier generalization about the Israeli opposition is a fraction of Orthodox Jews in Israel, who reject the State of Israel on religious grounds; according to them, the exile from the holy land was divinely ordained, and therefore the Jews are to live among the nations in every corner of the earth and not attempt to establish a State before the coming of the Messiah. Allow me to read from a statement by one of them, Rabbi Mordechi Weberman:
It is precisely because we are Jews that we march with the Palestinians and raise their flag! It is precisely because we are Jews that we demand that the Palestinian peoples be returned to their homes and properties! Yes, in our Torah we are commanded to be fair.
We are called upon to pursue justice. And, what could be more unjust then the century-old attempt of the Zionist movement to invade another people's land, to drive them out and steal their property?…
We have no doubt that would Jewish refugees have come to Palestine not with the intention of dominating, not with the intention of making a Jewish state, not with the intention of dispossessing, not with the intention of depriving the Palestinians of their basic rights, that they would have been welcomed by the Palestinians, with the same hospitality that Islamic peoples have shown Jews throughout history. And we would have lived together as Jews and Muslims lived before in Palestine in peace and harmony.
To our Islamic and Palestinian friends around the world, please hear our message. There are Jews around the world who support your cause. And when we support your cause we do not mean some partition scheme proposed in 1947 by a UN that had no right to offer it.
When we say support your cause we do not mean the cut off and cut up pieces of the West Bank offered by Barak at Camp David together with justice for less than 10% of the refugees.
We do not mean anything other than returning the entire land, including Jerusalem, to Palestinian sovereignty!
At that point justice demands that the Palestinian people should decide if and how many Jews should remain in the Land….
We have attended hundreds of pro-Palestinian rallies over the years and everywhere we go the leaders and audience greet us with the warmth of Middle Eastern hospitality. What a lie it is to say that Palestinians in particular or Muslims in general hate Jews. You hate injustice. Not Jews.
Fear not my friends. Evil cannot long triumph. The Zionist nightmare is at its end. It is exhausted. Its latest brutalities are the death rattle of the terminally ill.
We will yet both live to see the day when Jew and Palestinian will embrace in peace under the Palestinian flag in Jerusalem. And ultimately when mankind's Redeemer will come the sufferings of the present will long be forgotten in the blessings of the future.
(http:www.marchfor justice.com/becauseweare jews.php)
I am not a believer, but I find Rabbi Weberman’s words moving.
One last point: I spoke earlier about the possibility of a resurgence of antisemitism in the United States. In 1991 George H.W. Bush, the father of the man who sits in the White House and the only member of his family ever to have been elected president, demanded that the Israelis stop building new settlements in Palestinian territory. Unlike previous presidents, Bush sounded serious, threatening to block billions in loan guarantees if Israel disobeyed. As might have been predicted, the dominant voices among American Jews were outraged, and Bush responded by complaining at a press conference that “Jews work insidiously behind the scenes.” On another occasion he reminded critics that the U.S. gives “Israel the equivalent of $1,000 for every Israeli citizen,” a remark that detractors took as antisemitic. Later on Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker made his famous “fuck the Jews” remark in private conversation, noting that Jews “didn’t vote for us anyway.” And it was true: when he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992, Bush got smallest percentage of the Jewish vote of any Republican since 1964.
The present occupant of the White House seems for the time being to have recouped much of his party’s loss of favor among Jews, in part due to his appointment of so many to positions of power and influence in his administration. But I will go out on a limb and make a prediction (something I rarely do because I hate to be wrong): one-sided support for Israel, while it may win votes among American Jews and some fundamentalist Christians, is not necessarily wise from the standpoint of U.S. oil interests, and may even cost votes among that increasing number of Americans who can pick up the newspaper almost any day and see another story about Israeli tanks surrounding the residence of the Palestinian president, or massacring children, or assassinating a crippled half-blind cleric. I predict that if Dubya manages to extend his control of the White House in 2004, he will present the bill to whoever is in power in Israel, and that bill will include withdrawal from some of the territories occupied after 1967. If the Israelis respond negatively to this demand, which there is every reason to believe they will, and are supported by American Jews, which there is every reason to believe they will be, the younger Bush, already born-again, will be reborn yet one more time and will start making remarks about special minorities with divided loyalties and so forth. In other words, he will stoke up antisemitism, carefully of course, as befits the leader of the free world. And he will find a tremendous response, more than anyone anticipates, from many ordinary people who are tired of picking up the tab for the number one outlaw state in the Middle East, the state that has defied scores of United Nations resolutions, been condemned by the UN more than any other member or non-member, the only state in the Middle East that possesses actual weapons of mass destruction.
Cynthia McKinney, Afro-American Congresswoman from Atlanta, was the most outspoken critic in Congress of U.S. Middle East policy, including unconditional support for Israel. As a result, Jewish groups around the country targeted her and, by channeling money to her opponent, succeeded in defeating her bid for reelection in 2002. Were they within their legal rights to do so? Of course they were; there is no law barring people in one district from contributing to a campaign in another. But do they think their intervention went unnoticed by black voters in Atlanta and around the country?
If American Jews insist on identifying themselves with Israel, equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, should they be surprised if others make the same mistake?
Sunday 27 February 2011
English nationalism on the rise
The following article, recently published in the Guardian, doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know: that there is a massive and growing disquietude amongst the ethnically indigenous population of England, the English, at the state-sponsored and orchestrated assault on their living standards, their quality of life, their traditional values, and way of life, their self-esteem, and even their very identity itself.
We see this played out in many arenas: from the excessive and disproportionate numbers of ethnic aliens appearing on our television screens with plum jobs as presenters, to the anti-English discrimination practised by both public- and private-sector employers in their recruitment, training, and promotion practices.
We see it in the way politicians go out of their way to acknowledge the existence of, and to curry favour with, every ethnic group under the sun, with the sole exception of the English, whom they studiously avoid mentioning, at all costs.
Support for a patriotic, Anglocentric, British, but particularly English, ethno-nationalist political party which was anti-immigration and anti-EU, and had a respectable democratic leadership, unencumbered by Holocaust-denying baggage, is dammed up at present, but there are signs that the dam may give way in the not too distant future.
As for Searchlight's "...if they gave up violence..." slander: it's reminiscent of the tendentious question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" If one replies "Yes", it implies that one used to beat one's wife. Whereas if one replies "No", it implies that one is continuing to beat one's wife. The thing to do is to treat the smear with the contempt it deserves - by ignoring it. In reality it is the Establishment sanctioned red strong-arm squads of the UAF, and the black flag rent-a-mob of Muslims4UK, who instigate violence, rather than the British National Party.
There may be scope for a re-alignment of the ethno-nationalist parties, as the BNP continues its meltdown under the Moloch Griffin. Though personal jealousies and rivalries, as well as genuine ideological and policy differences, make a formal unity difficult, there should be no reason electoral co-operation, at least, should not increase, once Griffin departs the leadership of the BNP.
As for a union of UKIP, the BNP, the English Democrats, and the English Defence League: this is a hopeless pipe-dream which may be safely ruled out as utterly impracticable, and even as undesirable. For what reason, other than the illusory hope of acquiring power for its own sake, would such odd bedfellows come together? Until the other parties' leaders overcome their paralysing fear of the "racist" accusation, and start to turn that accusation back against those who cynically exploit it, there can be no question of belonging to the same organization.
Furthermore, the English Democrats' unwillingness to promote voluntary repatriation, and UKIP's willingness to permit an annual influx of fifty thousand ethnically alien immigrants (see each party's web site for confirmation) demonstrate that neither party is serious about defending the English from the cultural genocide currently being inflicted upon them by the Establishment.
There may, however, be electoral pacts in the future: if all concerned parties agree. Until the incubus Griffin has been exorcised, no such agreements are likely.
He will not remain leader of the BNP for very much longer, however. This much, at least, seems certain.
The Guardian article now follows.
Searchlight poll finds huge support for far right 'if they gave up violence'
Level of far-right support could outstrip that in France or Holland, says poll for Searchlight
Huge numbers of Britons would support an anti-immigration English nationalist party if it was not associated with violence and fascist imagery, according to the largest survey into identity and extremism conducted in the UK.
A Populus poll found that 48% of the population would consider supporting a new anti-immigration party committed to challenging Islamist extremism, and would support policies to make it statutory for all public buildings to fly the flag of St George or the union flag.
Anti-racism campaigners said the findings suggested Britain's mainstream parties were losing touch with public opinion on issues of identity and race.
The poll suggests that the level of backing for a far-right party could equal or even outstrip that in countries such as France, the Netherlands and Austria. France's National Front party hopes to secure 20% in the first round of the presidential vote next year. The Dutch anti-Islam party led by Geert Wilders attracted 15.5% of the vote in last year's parliamentary elections.
Anti-fascist groups said the poll's findings challenged the belief that Britons were more tolerant than other Europeans. "This is not because British people are more moderate, but simply because their views have not found a political articulation," said a report by the Searchlight Educational Trust, the anti-fascist charity that commissioned the poll.
According to the survey, 39% of Asian Britons, 34% of white Britons and 21% of black Britons wanted all immigration into the UK to be stopped permanently, or at least until the economy improved. And 43% of Asian Britons, 63% of white Britons and 17% of black Britons agreed with the statement that "immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country". Just over half of respondents – 52% – agreed with the proposition that "Muslims create problems in the UK".
Jon Cruddas, the Labour MP who fought a successful campaign against the British National party in his Dagenham and Rainham constituency in east London, said that the findings pointed to a "very real threat of a new potent political constituency built around an assertive English nationalism". The report identified a resurgence of English identity, with 39% preferring to call themselves English rather than British. Just 5% labelled themselves European.
Earlier this month David Cameron delivered a controversial speech on the failings of "state multiculturalism". The speech was seized on by the anti-Islamic English Defence League, which said that the prime minister was "coming round" to its way of thinking. BNP leader Nick Griffin also welcomed the speech as a sign that his party's ideas were entering "the political mainstream".
The poll also identified a majority keen to be allowed to openly criticise religion, with 60% believing they "should be allowed to say whatever they believe about religion". By contrast, fewer than half – 42% – said "people should be allowed to say whatever they believe about race".
We see this played out in many arenas: from the excessive and disproportionate numbers of ethnic aliens appearing on our television screens with plum jobs as presenters, to the anti-English discrimination practised by both public- and private-sector employers in their recruitment, training, and promotion practices.
We see it in the way politicians go out of their way to acknowledge the existence of, and to curry favour with, every ethnic group under the sun, with the sole exception of the English, whom they studiously avoid mentioning, at all costs.
Support for a patriotic, Anglocentric, British, but particularly English, ethno-nationalist political party which was anti-immigration and anti-EU, and had a respectable democratic leadership, unencumbered by Holocaust-denying baggage, is dammed up at present, but there are signs that the dam may give way in the not too distant future.
As for Searchlight's "...if they gave up violence..." slander: it's reminiscent of the tendentious question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" If one replies "Yes", it implies that one used to beat one's wife. Whereas if one replies "No", it implies that one is continuing to beat one's wife. The thing to do is to treat the smear with the contempt it deserves - by ignoring it. In reality it is the Establishment sanctioned red strong-arm squads of the UAF, and the black flag rent-a-mob of Muslims4UK, who instigate violence, rather than the British National Party.
There may be scope for a re-alignment of the ethno-nationalist parties, as the BNP continues its meltdown under the Moloch Griffin. Though personal jealousies and rivalries, as well as genuine ideological and policy differences, make a formal unity difficult, there should be no reason electoral co-operation, at least, should not increase, once Griffin departs the leadership of the BNP.
As for a union of UKIP, the BNP, the English Democrats, and the English Defence League: this is a hopeless pipe-dream which may be safely ruled out as utterly impracticable, and even as undesirable. For what reason, other than the illusory hope of acquiring power for its own sake, would such odd bedfellows come together? Until the other parties' leaders overcome their paralysing fear of the "racist" accusation, and start to turn that accusation back against those who cynically exploit it, there can be no question of belonging to the same organization.
Furthermore, the English Democrats' unwillingness to promote voluntary repatriation, and UKIP's willingness to permit an annual influx of fifty thousand ethnically alien immigrants (see each party's web site for confirmation) demonstrate that neither party is serious about defending the English from the cultural genocide currently being inflicted upon them by the Establishment.
There may, however, be electoral pacts in the future: if all concerned parties agree. Until the incubus Griffin has been exorcised, no such agreements are likely.
He will not remain leader of the BNP for very much longer, however. This much, at least, seems certain.
The Guardian article now follows.
Searchlight poll finds huge support for far right 'if they gave up violence'
Level of far-right support could outstrip that in France or Holland, says poll for Searchlight
Huge numbers of Britons would support an anti-immigration English nationalist party if it was not associated with violence and fascist imagery, according to the largest survey into identity and extremism conducted in the UK.
A Populus poll found that 48% of the population would consider supporting a new anti-immigration party committed to challenging Islamist extremism, and would support policies to make it statutory for all public buildings to fly the flag of St George or the union flag.
Anti-racism campaigners said the findings suggested Britain's mainstream parties were losing touch with public opinion on issues of identity and race.
The poll suggests that the level of backing for a far-right party could equal or even outstrip that in countries such as France, the Netherlands and Austria. France's National Front party hopes to secure 20% in the first round of the presidential vote next year. The Dutch anti-Islam party led by Geert Wilders attracted 15.5% of the vote in last year's parliamentary elections.
Anti-fascist groups said the poll's findings challenged the belief that Britons were more tolerant than other Europeans. "This is not because British people are more moderate, but simply because their views have not found a political articulation," said a report by the Searchlight Educational Trust, the anti-fascist charity that commissioned the poll.
According to the survey, 39% of Asian Britons, 34% of white Britons and 21% of black Britons wanted all immigration into the UK to be stopped permanently, or at least until the economy improved. And 43% of Asian Britons, 63% of white Britons and 17% of black Britons agreed with the statement that "immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country". Just over half of respondents – 52% – agreed with the proposition that "Muslims create problems in the UK".
Jon Cruddas, the Labour MP who fought a successful campaign against the British National party in his Dagenham and Rainham constituency in east London, said that the findings pointed to a "very real threat of a new potent political constituency built around an assertive English nationalism". The report identified a resurgence of English identity, with 39% preferring to call themselves English rather than British. Just 5% labelled themselves European.
Earlier this month David Cameron delivered a controversial speech on the failings of "state multiculturalism". The speech was seized on by the anti-Islamic English Defence League, which said that the prime minister was "coming round" to its way of thinking. BNP leader Nick Griffin also welcomed the speech as a sign that his party's ideas were entering "the political mainstream".
The poll also identified a majority keen to be allowed to openly criticise religion, with 60% believing they "should be allowed to say whatever they believe about religion". By contrast, fewer than half – 42% – said "people should be allowed to say whatever they believe about race".
Saturday 26 February 2011
Be a self-sacrificing political soldier?
This historical document is re-published here as a service to those nationalists who wish to improve their understanding of the history of our movement. My publishing it does not in any way indicate agreement with the ideas it advances, nor should it be taken as implying such agreement.
It was written by a man who subsequently accompanied Nick Griffin, and Pat Harrington, on an abortive trip to solicit funding from a bloodthirsty dictator, who was, at that time, providing the IRA with arms and explosives with which to murder innocent British and Irish men, women, and children, and who shortly thereafter ordered the destruction of a Pan Am passenger plane, causing hundreds of fatalities at Lockerbie, in Scotland.
That bloodthirsty dictator's name was Colonel Gaddafi. Griffin denies having met him. It appears that once Gaddafi realized the neo-fascist leanings of Griffin, and the other political soldiers, he decided against opening his cheque book after all. The Italian Fascist regime's occupation of Libya had been a particularly bloody episode in that country's history, with an estimated one-quarter of all its adult males having been killed.
Still, Griffin and the other sanctimonious political soldiers did not leave the tyrant's court, or encampment, entirely empty-handed. They were vouchsafed several hundred copies of Chairman Gaddafi's "Little Green Book" of the Libyan People's Revolution. Not exactly the most popular bedtime reading, but that hasn't prevented Pat Harrington from knocking out a few copies via his eBay account.
Well, in the Griffin BNP good business is where you find it, and Griffin and his cronies regard a free gift as a bargain.
Were the bloodstained copies marked down for a quick sale, Pat?
Holland's "seminal work" now follows.
The Political Soldier: A Statement (Second Edition)
By Derek Holland
A NEW PREFACE
It is now over a decade since The Political Soldier: A Statement was first published, and close comrades believe that this new edition merits a new Preface as well as a new cover. So be it.
The more or less instant success of The Political Soldier in nationalist circles in England has, much to the immense surprise of the author, continued down to the present day and a new generation of Third Positionists. This success has not been confined to England, but has found its way to those countries where the forces of Revolutionary Nationalism have foreseen the need for this traditional conception of Life and Struggle; and 1994 will witness this spread to both France and Lithuania, the latter being particularly gratifying in the light of developments in Eastern Europe, and the success of the Polish edition published in Warsaw in 1993.
The text of this reprint has not been altered in any way at all. It was, of course, tempting to update here and there, but on reflection it became obvious that such an updating could only affect details: inflation might be up or down; unemployment growing or receding; government parties coming or going. But none of these details change in any meaningful way the essential message of The Political Soldier: that what is needed above all else is a fundamental shift in attitude towards struggle, towards life, towards destiny; that there cannot be, and will not be, any serious change in the overall direction taken by the countries of Europe until the New Man, like a giant on the horizon, capable of moulding and inspiring a New Social Order, arises and builds it not according to the clauses or sub- clauses of some abstract political manifesto, but according to the objectively true principles of a creed believed and acted upon, and drawing their life from the Eternal Law of God. Without this core belief that our Cause is absolute, immutable, timeless, we run the very real danger of betrayal: betrayal by Party hacks; betrayal by those taken up with "media image"; betrayal by those mesmerized by the deceit and falsity of liberal democracy.
The New Man, therefore, is not merely an obstacle to betrayal,but, in fact, the only alternative to a guaranteed betrayal. The New Man is the herald of the New Social Order, but his appearance at this most crucial of times in our History, is by no means a foregone conclusion. Too many think, wrongly, that they can adhere publicly to our values, yet lead a private life of degeneracy; by this is meant not our tendency to sin, but rather the refusal to admit the existence of Sin in our lives and to attempt to conquer it through painful, lifelong struggle. Without this consciousness of sin, and with the contradiction that exists too often between our public beliefs and our private actions, we enter upon the path of hypocrisy that necessarily leads to the motorway of Treachery and Betrayal. The New Man is, therefore, necessarily a moral man, for only then does he possess that profound inner peace and confidence that allows him to fight the world, its powers and its dominations, unafraid of Death.
Some have said that The Political Soldier appears to be demanding the creation of Warrior Saints. And so it is. What is the problem with that? No one doubts for a moment that tremendous effort and dedication are required to fulfill this demand, but it is a wholly desirable objective, for a Saint seeks Ends that are Good and True, and uses Means that are Pure and Admirable. What kind of political militant is it that does not seek the Good and the True, the Pure and the Admirable? Some remark that "Politics is too dirty" for this to be possible. Granted that political life has become vile to a horrible degree in the modem world, it remains true, nonetheless, that if we do not aim for the Good and the True, the Pure and the Admirable, we will almost inevitably end up sinking into the cesspit of political filth that is suffocating our European inheritance. Who can listen to, or follow in faith, politicals who lie, cheat or swindle; politicals who cheat on their wives, girlfriends and comrades; politicals whose Ends vary according to their ambition, opportunism and greed? [Who but the BNP?] The New Man must, therefore, shine out like a blazing beacon in the infinite dark; by what he says; by what he does; by how he acts.[Emphasis mine, AE].
Nowhere is the need for clarity of Thought and Action greater than in how we express our beliefs. The very first edition of The Political Soldier was published under the auspices of the National Front, a group that the writer quit years ago, and which has to all intents and purposes disappeared from the political landscape of the country. Deo gratias. It disappeared because it confused the Idea and the Vehicle. The Idea is spiritual, something divine, whilst the Vehicle is man-made, growing or diminishing in its ability to express and implement the Idea. The Idea remains pure, even when the Vehicle has become corrupt, has rotted away. Truth remains forever Truth, even in a world of liars. The Vehicle merely exists to serve the Idea; once it has ceased to do that, it must be discarded for the sake of the Idea.
Finally, let us address ourselves to the fact that the world has changed dramatically in the last ten years. The old Soviet Union is apparently dead; Euthanasia, the desire to kill old people by law, is edging towards victory in a number of European national Parliaments; AIDS is striking down perverts the world over, the revenge of a Moral Order too long sneered at or ignored; the New Age* movement is trying to fill a worldwide spiritual vacuum with a hocus pocus philosophy of life which is no more than Witchcraft and Satanism dressed up as a new and attractive Way of Life. Yes, the world has changed, and will continue to change for the worse. It is growing daily more unacceptable, daily more unbearable.
It is this very process of disintegration and decadence which has made the New Man, the Political Soldier, not less, but more urgent, more necessary than ever before. Truth and Right Values are not now merely disappearing from view, but are becoming incomprehensible to growing numbers of our people: the inevitable consequence of a world soaked in the poison of Liberalism of all kinds. If the Political Soldier does not stand up and proclaim the Truth, does not point out the Right Values, who will? What future for our families, for our nations, our culture?
Confronted on every side by injustice and exploitation the average man mumbles: "What can you do?" The answer is frighteningly simple: FIGHT, FIGHT and FIGHT AGAIN! Have done with the spinelessness and cowardice that characterize our age. Unfurl the banners of Truth, Heroism and Sacrifice. Become the Warriors and Saints that once made this land worthy of love and respect. Live your life that others might live, and live greatly. Launch the Holy War that cleanses our soul, purifies our mind and casts out forever the traitors and cowards in our midst! Fight with courage, a granite determination and a happy heart until Final Victory!
DEREK HOLLAND.
London, 1994.
* There is one reference in this liitle work to the "New Age". To avoid any misunderstanding, let me say clearly that when this booklet was first published, I had never heard of the New Age movement, now so hyped up by the mass media. In this booklet the term is used simply to express a Christian Ideal, a society that we are called upon to build because of the rights of Truth and our sense of Duty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This pamphlet is dedicated to my long suffering parents, Patrick and Mary, and to my very good friend, Roberto Fiore. "Fiat pax in virtute tua: et abundantia in turibus tuis."
THE POLITICAL SOLDIER: A STATEMENT.
CONTENTS
Part One: The Contemporary Situation.
Part Two: The Need for the Political Soldier.
Part Three: The Path to the Political Soldier.
INTRODUCTION.
This booklet has been written with the expressed intention of acting as a spur to action. Heroic action, vital action. It is not a manual which is to be quoted from as though it were Holy Writ, but a personal statement of the principles that underpin our creed and our philosophy of life.
It makes no claim to originality, but is the result of wide reading. A debt of gratitude is expressed to all the Masters from whom I have learned, but especially to G.K. Chesterton whose wit and perception are a constant source of pleasure and inspiration.
I make no apology for the impassioned style in different areas of this short work. It is my country that is being butchered: I cannot look on this desecration without being moved to pity for her, and anger for her executioners. For too long our people have been inhibited by the cold calculations of the ruler and test-tube - now is the time for the return of the Poet and the Musician with the gifts that will guarantee us final victory.
Finally, and especially for those who know me personally, I hasten to add that I do not present myself as a model for the Political Soldier, conscious as I am that my weaknesses far exceed my virtues. I am merely struggling on the path to the Political Soldier and I invite all true patriots to do likewise.
DEREK HOLLAND.
Huntingdon, 1984.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART ONE: THE CONTEMPORARY SITUATION.
"The modern tyrant is evil because of his elusiveness. He is more nameless than his slave. He is not more of a bully than the tyrants of the past; but he is more of a coward"
All Things Considered.
G.K. Chesterton.
Wherever we look today amongst the nations of Britain and of Europe, we see mounting evidence of disintegration and of decay. The evidence is there for all to see; it is incontrovertible fact.
On the political level, we find that the worst type of individual, the self-seeking and mean of spirit, has risen to the leadership of Establishment parties and structures, and in so doing, has guaranteed that government throughout Europe, from Lisbon to Leningrad and from Belfast to Belgrade, has made corruption and treason a way of life. Politicians and party bosses, caring nothing for the people they claim to represent, are lining their own pockets by selling out their countrymen to poverty, to degradation and to hostile, foreign interests. In our land, the Thatchers and Kinnocks, Owens and Steels, are junketting around the world at our expense, receiving the adulation of a deceitful media, whilst Britain slowly but surely bleeds to death.
On the economic front, our people are being constantly reassured that the world recession is drawing to a close, yet for those with memories that go back further than last week's episode of Coronation Street, it is a fact that the Tories have been peddling this cheap lie since they first took office in 1979. Unemployment is still continuing to rise sharply from one year to the next and no amount of cynical manipulation of the figures by the Civil Service bureaucracy can hide the fact that the lives of nearly four million people, our people, are being destroyed by dole queue humiliation.
It is a fact that most orthodox economists regard 10% unemployment as the threshold above which discontent and strife develop by stages into civil disturbance and revolutionary upheaval; as I write nearly 14% of our people are without a job.
The country that Napoleon described early last century as "a nation of shopkeepers" no longer exists, having given way to supermarkets and hypermarkets, national and multi-national corporations. The figures for the financial year ending April 1984 revealed that over 12,500 firms went bankrupt, the highest figure ever in British history. And the picture for the coming years is no brighter.
The gathering financial crisis, highlighted incessantly by the media, has seen decrepit old men from the I.M.F. and the World Bank rushing to and fro across the globe to inaugurate yet more talks - and whilst they wilier on without end our currency is becoming worthless. The media demands that we too should be concerned for the fate of the world banking system; that we should worry about a system that has destroyed the lives of millions of Europeans; that has condemned all peoples and cultures to grinding poverty; that has ransacked and plundered the resources and treasures of a beautiful creation. We are meant to lament the demise of a system that possesses the Midas touch of Death.
The social impact on our people of this political and economic decline has been catastrophic. Fewer new houses means that several million of our countrymen are living in houses not fit for animals, let alone humans; unemployment has severely distorted family life leading to more divorces, more abortions, more child-battering, more suicides. In an effort to escape this nightmare, Britons have turned in huge numbers to drink, drugs and gambling as "a solution". Young people deprived of a job, a home and a little self-respect have sought an answer in innumerable 'anti- Establishment' groups and cults, much to the pleasure of our political masters. Whilst White Skinheads are beating the hell out of White Mods or White Hells Angels, the Westminister tyrants are going about their business unimpeded - destroying our country.
But it is spiritually that our people have suffered the most. No longer believing fervently in the supernatural or the divine, they have been left prey to the manipulation of con-men, quacks and latter-day Wizards of Oz. Man to be truly healthy must be balanced materially and spiritually. It is not enough for a man merely to feed himself or have a roof over his head. He must have a reason to live; he must know why family life is vital; why the bloodline must be perpetuated; why the Common Good of the British peoples must be protected; why we must ensure that our Nation and Culture survives and prospers.
This material and spiritual balance, which our forefathers possessed integrally, no longer exists. When we look at the great cathedrals that are to be found throughout Europe, and built many hundreds of years ago, we are overawed by their immensity, their complexity, their beauty, but their principal importance goes beyond mere masonry and into the realms of spirituality. Our forefathers possessed Strength, Vision and Faith and those qualities were lovingly inscribed into stone that would withstand the elements for a thousand years, and would speak to their heirs in authoritative, profound tones. Our age knows nothing of this plane of life and, symbolically, demonstrates its utter incomprehension by building in breeze blocks, a material that does not last and is not meant to last. It epitomizes the spirit of this age, an age which lives for the moment and where the word "instant" reigns supreme. As a result, our people have become soulless, unhappy, frustrated and even dehumanized in some respects. No-one wants to help others unless there is something in it for him; no-one wants to get involved; no-one wants to take responsibility. But everyone wants an easy life; everyone seeks their own selfish ends; everyone wants to take the easy way out, and if the easy way means that our family, community or national life will suffer that is held to be acceptable. It is when the Individual makes himself a virtual god, when everything must fit in with him and to hell with others, that you know that a nation is sick and dying.
These facts and many more - pollution, the arms race, diminishing natural resources - add up to one frightful conclusion: the culture of Europe is going to die within our lifetime. I do not mean that for 50, 100, or 200 years that we won't play a very prominent role in world politics and that then we will probably witness a revival. I mean quite simply that as the mighty civilizations of ancient Greece and Egypt have passed away into the sands of time, never to return, so will ours. The death of Europe will signal the end of the White peoples forever: it will be goodbye to you, your family, and your friends. Britain will become a vague, unimportant memory.
Let us not fool ourselves. The fight to reverse this situation is going to be extremely arduous and not a little thankless; arduous because the enemies of civilization are not going to release their stranglehold on us until we force them to do so; thankless because no-one wants to be told that a tidal wave of catastrophe is looming that threatens life itself. Our people stick their heads in the sand and kid themselves that everything will be alright in the end. Unfortunately for such people, we live in a real world where happy endings are not automatically written into the script. There are no fairy godmothers who are going to rush to our aid, wave their magic wands and make everything perfect again. If the British peoples are to survive, they will have to fight back. If they are not willing to do so they had better start praying for a quick and merciful death, for nothing else will avail them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART TWO: THE NEED FOR THE POLITICAL SOLDIER.
When a Nation rises up ardent to fight for its freedom and honour, it is always a minority that really fires the multitude."
The Decline of the West.
Oswald Spengler.
At the forefront of the battle against the forces of Evil swamping the entire globe in an ocean of Filth, Corruption and Treason are the various Nationalist movements of Europe. In Britain the only organized force is the National Front, but even it made quite fundamental errors in the Seventies about what was necessaiy to redeem our country. Discussion was always about whether we should have a march here or there; whether we should fight this election or that; whether we could do something to improve our 'image'. These discussions were about as useful as arguing who could have what deckchair on the Titanic! Certainly, our name became better known, though other methods would have achieved this too; it remains that all our time, money and energy did not stop the arrival of one single immigrant; it did not stop the closure of one single factory; it did not stop the rape, physical and spiritual, of our Motherland.
Our failure was simple, but crucial. It was and is not policies or doctrines or activities that we need - important though these things are in the overall political scheme of things - but a New Type of Man who will live the Nationalist way of life every day, who will act as a beacon and an inspiration to those fellow Britons around him who despair of our situation. The other discredited parties have been offering policies and doctrines to our people for generations, but to what effect? To the average Briton, why should the NF have been any different from the others? If we are to succeed we must strike to the heart of the matter: our people need as an example someone who practices what he preaches. That example we call the Political Soldier.
Just what is the Political Soldier?
If we look at the highest periods of European history, we can easily identify the type of men who embody or express the spirit that our nation so desperately needs.
In ancient Greece there were the Spartans, an austere, highly disciplined people who have gone down in history mainly because of their heroic stand at the baffle of Thermopylae. It was here that 300 Spartans, led by their Warrior-King, Leonidas, took on 100,000 Persian troops under the Emperor Darius; far from cringing in fear at such enormous odds the Spartans proudly sang their battle anthem, The Song of Castor, and then died to a man in a crucible of fire and blood. Although the Spartans lost, it is they that History remembers.
In ancient Rome, it was the Roman centurion whose military skills and commitment to Eternal Rome, to the Pax Romana, led him to build one of the finest, well ordered empires in world history and, as a consequence, left us so much to cherish in our heritage.
In medieval Europe there was the Christian Crusader whose devotion to the ideals of Ascetism and Chivalry so embodied Europe, East and West, that even today 'knightly conduct' is regarded as a high form of praise. These knights, a supra-national community drawn from one culture, were described by Pope Urban II as those "ready to hasten wherever war erupts, bringing to it the fury of their arms in order to defend Honour and Justice."
In our century perhaps the most outstanding example of Political Soldiery was the Rumanian Iron Guard, the Legionary Movement, founded and moulded by the genius of Corneliu Codreanu. The spirit that this movement generated was so strong, so pervasive, that in its brief 15 years of existence it infected an entire people. Even today the Communist authorities denounce the Legionaries, so frightened are they by its spiritual and inspirational power - a power that grows as the drudgery of Marxist Eastern Europe kills everything it touches.
But Europe does not have a monopoly on Political Soldiers and all peoples and cultures have the potential to produce this type of man, each fitted to his peculiar circumstances. Take for example the Islamic Revolutionary Guards in the Iran of the Mullahs. It is not necessary to agree with any or all of their aims to appreciate and respect their courage. Their belief in their Cause is so strong that they will run through mineflelds unarmed to attack enemy positions; their ideals are so all consuming that they will drive truck bombs into enemy camps knowing full well that death is inevitable. Whether they are right or wrong is not at issue, but it is clear that this power, this contempt for death, is the stuff of which victories are made. This power drove the Yankee war machine out of the Lebanon - whilst U.S. troops were fighting for job security, a wage packet and a pension, their opponents in the Revolutionaiy Guards were fighting for an Ideal, an independent Iranian Iran. We must learn that the power of Idealism is beyond calculation.
When we look at the few examples that I have cited, one thing will be immediately obvious to most readers - to wit, that all of them are warriors, military men. However, it would be utterly wrong to believe that this aspect, the military, is the most important aspect, or even one of the most important aspects. The common denominator that allows all of these men to be put in the same category, despite their manifest differences, is the fact that they were inspired by 'a spiritual and religious ideal that totally dominated their lives. Nothing came between them and the Ideal. They were willing to sacrifice anything and everything for the victory of their Ideal. If, for some reason, their Cause had been denied to them their lives would have ceased to have meaning, to have any importance whatever. They were fine warriors because a flame burned within, a fire that could only be extinguished when they drew their final, mortal breath. It was a flame that their enemies frequently did not possess or understand, but which they feared and respected. It is that flame, that burning spirit, which we must rekindle if our Culture is to have any future worthy of the name. If this proves to be beyond our abilities then all our material achievements, our science and technology, our intellectual grandeur will stand revealed as perfectly useless, for the most important thing in life is the Will to live. If this Will is absent in our people, no scientist and no gadgetry will save us.
It is the task of the Political Soldier to promote the Will to live by revealing the true nature of life - as opposed to the materialist nightmare of this century which is mistakeningly taken to be "life" - and by living this life. In order to do this the Political Soldier must undergo a Spiritual Revolution, an inner revolution which guides, directs and pervades his life. When this has been achieved substantively the Political Soldier will judge all his actions according to whether or not they advance the Cause. He will be the man who does not say: "What is in it for me?" but the man who says: "What can I do to help?". For this type of Man certain words will hold the key to the very meaning of Life itself: Honour, Justice, Self-Respect, Honesty, Faith, Humility, Compassion, Love.
He will not allow his honour or that of the nation to be attacked or undermined by the unworthy; he will not stand idly by when his people are being exploited, but will become a focal point in the fight for justice. He will not lose his self-respect and worth through becoming dependent on externals like drugs or drink, for he knows that if he possesses the Inner Strength that sustains life then he will be invincible. He will be honest in all his dealings, great and small, because the Nationalist Militant leads through example. He will have total, unquestioned belief in the righteousness of his Cause; he will be the man who will strive to the limits of his abilities to advance the welfare of his People and Nation, but he will do this without any thought of praise or publicity. He will remain humble knowing that his actions are a matter of duty inspired by a higher way of life. He will be stirred to action by the physical rape of our beautiful country and the destruction of our rich culture; his compassion will be such that he will cloak the weak and needy of our nation with his towering strength. His love will be pure and refreshing, reviving and inspiring everyone and everything that it touches.
The Political Soldier is the man sustained by an Eternal Ideal who will act positively in any and all situations in the defence of what is Right, Good and True. Never in the history of Europe has the need for battalions of Political Soldiers been so urgent, so vital.
The ranks of our enemies are immense: the banks, the Communists, the Freemasons, the Zionists, the Capitalists. They have money and power; they dominate the media; they control whole armies through their control of governments; they inject corrosive ideas into the bloodstream of the nation which enfeeble us, make us apathetic, make us a pushover.
And what do we have to combat this? A few thousand patriots in every country in Western Europe. We have no money, no power, no influence, no media to speak of. We are the Spartans, the Few. They are the Persians, the Many. Confronted by this horrible reality, our countrymen, after sizing up the odds, are leaving the battlefield in droves arguing the "inevitability" of things. "We cannot win", they say. "Things have gone too far ", they say. "Perhaps Communism won't be so bad", they say. How right was Emrys ap Iwan, the nineteenth century Welsh nationalist, to remark: "The Inevitable is not the high tower of the Wise, hut merely the sanctuary of the Timid".
The Political Soldier will look at this grim reality in a totally different light because he is an Idealist and a Realist. The Ideal is the goal of our struggle, Realism is that quality which dictates how best we can achieve that goal. The Political Soldier, weighing up the weaponry on both sides, will acknowledge that we are outgunned in every respect, but one. This exception is our Faith, our Ideal, which we hold dearer than Life itself, and which cannot be intimidated, nor bribed, nor tortured out of existence. This faith is but a dim memory, a glowing ember in most of our people - it is the task of the Political Soldier to fan and fuel this ember until its flicker grows stronger and more intense, until it becomes a raging inferno engulfing our People and our Land in the quest for National Freedom, Social Justice and a truly Free Europe. The Political Soldier by his attitudes and actions will serve as a model, an example, to those of our countrymen whose courage has temporarily failed them. Wherever he goes the Political Soldier will encourage enthusiasm, comradeship and dedication by his mere presence. He will be a Light pushing back the frontiers of Darkness. People will seek his advice; they will heed his counsel; they will collect themselves and return to the fight stronger than the hardest steel.
Every day that passes witnesses the seepage of blood from the mutilated body of the nations of Europe. It is a sight that only the cynical or the disinterested can view without being moved to a profound compassion and a Holy Anger. The beautiful woman that had once bewitched the world with her intellect, her grandeur and her vivaciousness now lies in the gutter, kicked senseless by the barbaric hordes of the Super Powers. Only the army of Political Soldiers seeks to defend her from a torrent of violent blows. That army is tiny, its task immense, yet it fights on. It will not allow our heritage, culture, traditions and noble values to be ground into the dust, lost forever, because of the cowardice of the majority. This army fights to win, but if defeat is to be the verdict of Destiny, then it will be a battle to the last man, sword in hand - a tribute worthy of our finest ancestors.
And if the gutless, the preachers of the "Art of the Possible", should assail you with accusations of 'fanaticism't, remember the words of John Jenkins, a son of whom Wales can justly be proud:
"I will say three things about fanaticism; firstly, that if it is true that a fanatic has the strength of ten men, it is necessary because the other nine men cannot be bothered. Secondly, it is not always true that a fanatic does not count the cost of action; I became a fanatic because I was not prepared to accept the result of inaction. Lastly, if Wales is to survive and her culture and heritage flourish, it will be done only by ferocious and unswerving devotion to Wales above all else. 'All else" includes family, prospects, careers, health, freedom and life itself I believe, in fact I know, that Wales can inspire this sort of fanaticism, and that this fanaticism is the essential catalyst required to move the majority of the people."
What Jenkins says of Wales is no less true of the other British nations and their cousins in Europe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART THREE: THE PATH TO THE POLITICAL SOLDIER.
Thou must diligently make it thy aim, that in every place and in every action, or outward employment, thou be inwardly free and master of thyself and that all things be under thee and not thou under them."
The Imitations of Christ.
Thomas a Kempis.
In Lausanne, Switzerland in 1965, Marcel de Corte made the following observation: "I often hear it said that means, taken as such, are neither good nor bad I confess that this assertion leaves me at a loss, for I ask myself where can we find means that are purely means, without being by the same token inert, unusable, non-existent, resembling perhaps some strange Heath Robinson gadget. A means can never be considered as such, except purely in the mind A means is always considered in relation to an end"
It is a frequent assertion of the modern age that "the end justifies the means ", and it is an assertion to which too many nationalists unthinkingly subscribe. As Marcel de Corte's statement makes clear, Means and Ends are a unity, organically linked and mutually dependent in practical politics. For the patriot the ends that we strive for are completely at variance with those of the Establishment, so naturally the means will be different too. Methods used by Reds or Big Business drones to install their regimes of terror cannot be legitimately used by nationalists without doing immense harm both to the militant and to his Cause, a point upon which Codreanu built his Movement.
Take for example the tactic of terrorism; - something that must be distinguished from mere political violence or assassination - this is utterly alien to nationalist tradition for its objective, theoretical and practical, is to instill fear into the population at large through the indiscriminate murder of ordinary folk by bullet and bomb. We reject this method for the good reason that we seek the support of the people in order to improve their lot, and this is hardly likely to be achieved through exterminating them! It is also an interesting fact that the 'nationalist' groups who use this approach - the IRA, the Stern and Irgun gangs, ETA, the reactionary military dictatorships of Latin America - are precisely the groups whose 'nationalist' credentials we find highly questionable. If we proclaim that we love our People and Culture, what possible role in Nationalist politics can there be for methods that breed fear and hatred? If we proclaim that Absolute Truth is closest to our heart, how can we in our actions lie and cheat without distorting the very Truth we set out to defend and advance? Let no man say things will be different after the National Revolution, for the man who cannot uphold his principles when he is powerless and has nothing to lose is hardly likely to maintain them when he does obtain power and has everything to lose. Practice, so they say, makes perfect, and it is something we must bear in mind every day of our nationalist lives. The paths that our opponents took led them to the Slave States of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. - we take a dfferent path for we seek the National Revolutionary State.
This is not to say that we cannot be discreet in our actions or have recourse to agility of mind; indeed the opposite is the case. Our principles dictate that we draw upon every sinew of our being, - physical, mental, spiritual - stretching ourselves to the limit in advancing the Cause,whilst simultaneously maintaining our purity of Spirit.It is far too easy to abandon our principles and values arguing pressure of circumstance. It takes strength of character, fortitude and resilience to resist the corrosive ideas of our enemies who bid us take the easy way. We have only to compromise once and we are on the slippery slope that leads to betrayal. Our way is not easy. It is arduous, it is ascetic, it is a landscape of blood, sweat and tears. The day that it ceases to be these things is the day that Revolutionary Nationalism sells out.
Now, an understanding of the relationship between Means and Ends is not a mere academic exercise, but an essential qualification that determines not only the recruitment of Political Soldiers, but also how they are to be moulded into National Revolutionary Warriors. It is the condition for realizing why certain methods will never be acceptable to us. Let us look at recruitment. In the past the warrior elite were a fact of everyday life, and every bit as natural as sunny days and green pastures, but today they are at best a romantic memory. The stark conclusion, therefore, that we must face is that it is people like you - the readers of this pamphlet - who are going to have to lead the way, to become the Political Soldiers that will make victory possible. Some of you will chuckle at the idea. Some of you will draw back in fear at the idea. Some of you will confess that you don't have what it takes. Unfortunately God, Destiny, call it what you will, has decreed that you and I must undertake this daunting task. Our forefathers had to confront similiar situations and we must draw strength from their spirit which urges us on. It is upon the bedrock of their spirit that we must erect the banner of the Celtic Cross and defy all stupid enough to provoke the wrath of this nation.
And if you refuse to be those warriors, to whom can the nation turn? Those with their heads in a pint or a glue bag? Those seeking 'reality' in science fiction videos or heroin? Those who talk loud and long, who threaten a Twilight of the Gods, and yet begrudge a few pounds in the funds or a couple of hours at a meeting? The moron in the street who thinks that a short back and sides, cheap beer and Princess Di's new hat is the meaning of nationalism? The plastic patriot, the bourgeois drone, ever so devoted to "England's green and pleasant pastures ", but not so devoted that he wouldn't sacrifice his "patriotism" if it threatened the "respectability" accorded him by his neighbours and friends? None of us wants this combat, but duty calls. Those who refuse are quite simply cowards. The Political Soldier can respect his Enemy, but he can only despise the Traitor and Deserter. And when the birthright of your children has been stolen from them and parcelled out to enemies, will you be able to look them in the eye and say that you did all that you could?
Assuming you have the guts and determination necessary, how do you become a National Revolutionary? No two Political Soldiers can be completely alike, though naturally they will have much in common. The differences that exist will be due to our being individuals possessing both strengths and weaknesses. These differences need not present us with problems, indeed they can be turned to our advantage, for an effective army is made up of differing types of men. All Chiefs and no Indians is just as useless as all Indians and no Chiefs. Some of you will emerge as leaders, others as warriors, but all will be vital to our National Mission.
The path of development, the programme of training, that culminates in the birth of the Political Soldier is a Cross laid upon our backs. It is through canying this burden, through struggle, that we come slowly - and I mean slowly - to acquire the qualities we need. There are those who strive for physical excellence as their highest goal in life - they will confirm that this excellence is something that is not given away free with eveiy gallon of petrol, but is something that requires hard work and much pain. In the same way, becoming a Political Soldier is a matter for activists, not armchair dictators or self-professed Men of Destiny.
Having said that, the path of development is simple and logical in its structure. You set out to achieve only small things at first, objectives which when achieved will provide you with the confidence and skill to attempt more ambitious targets. The most important thing at this stage is to be honest with yourself because if you cannot do so, you will never be honest with your colleagues. Sit by yourself, and after a period of serious reflection, draw up a list of your good and bad points, remembering to avoid the extremes of excessive criticism or smug complacency. This done, choose one good point that can be developed and improved, and one weakness that you would be better off without. On paper this sounds remarkably easy, but in reality it is a battle of titanic proportions. There will be times when you think you are going well, then suddenly you will fall flat on your face by returning to old habits.But don't give up or be discouraged by failure because it is the getting up off your knees and tiying again that develops your self discipline and the will to succeed against all odds. It is a process that will do for you spiritually what Charles Atlas claims his weights will do for you physically! You can only understand happiness when you understand sadness, you can only appreciate success when you have experienced the bitter taste of failure.If you cannot overcome yourself in little things, you will prove quite useless in a crisis. When things get really rough in the coming years, when repression is violent, systematic, total, you will want to know that you can count on your comrades in the struggle, and they will want to know that they can count on you. The peace of mind that this trust in others will produce cannot be overestimated.
Let me give a few practical ideas of where to begin, but do remember that they are only general examples to get you to think along the right lines.
Do you watch TV night after night? If so, cut down the time that you do this because you are needlessly exposing yourself to the propaganda of our enemies, whether you watch a documentary or a soap opera. Use your time more constructively and in a way that aids the National Struggle. Read a political book or magazine. Go for a walk in the countryside or in a park and enjoy the gifts of nature. Do that extra bit of leafletting or newspaper selling. Organize a discussion group at your place for a couple of friends, or get involved in local community groups like Tenants Associations, Friends of the Earth and so on and fight for local justice.
Do you drink 4 5 6 or more pints when you are out for the night? Cut it down to 2 or 3 pints; not only will you have more money to put at the disposal of the Cause, but your health will improve greatly. Besides, the Crusaders were not known for their beer guts!
Do you smoke a lot? If so, cut it down or better still cut it out. You are only keeping Big Business in business by damaging your health. There will be times when you will need to move fast, and those who insist on taking on the appearance of a wheezing dinosaur will then have to pay the price!
Do you put going to football or a party ahead of attending an NF function? If so, learn to get your priorities right. Of course, everyone needs a break from the struggle, but remember that if the NF fails because of the half-heartedness of its members, it will signal not only the deathknell of the nation, but also of the very distractions that you thought so important.
If you are not in the habit of reading, get into the habit and always push yourself to higher levels. Knowledge is Power and the more you know the more of a threat you become to the System. Come to party seminars where you will be instructed in the production of local leaflets that will help you promote nationalist ideas in your local community; where you will be taught to silk screen print posters and tee shirts; where our lecturers will explain our revolutionary ideals in simple terms, and which will improve your ability to convert people through persuasion.
These things, and many more, the party can teach you, but there is a wide field for personal initiative: learn new languages, especially if you have Irish, Scots, Welsh or Comish roots; learn to drive, to type, to speak in public. Go to evening classes to learn electronics, mechanics, shorthand or journalism, or take up a physical pastime like weightlifting or a martial art. There are a million and one things that you, can do to improve yourself, things which will give you satisfaction and help the Cause achieve Victory. Whatever you do take up, resolve that you will persevere to the end. Sitting around doing nothing is just what the creeps in Parliament hope you will do, for you are thereby making their work so much easier.
For those willing to make the necessary sacrifices to become Political Soldiers, you will need to develop certain virtues:
* PATIENCE: because the transition to the Political Soldier takes time and real effort and will not come in a week or a few months. It is a work that will consume a lifetime if Perfection is the goal.
* CALMNESS: because as State repression mounts, it will be the cool, calm and collected who will survive, not the panicky amateurs.
*SELF DISCIPLINE: because those who are Masters of themselves are masters of their situation. Possess the strength that cannot be seen, but is felt by both comrades and opponents.
*SENSE OF HUMOUR: because whilst life is not a bed of roses, it is not one long drudge either. It is a little of both. Develop the ability to laugh at yourself and your situation, and you will be transfonned into a spectral fighter who will haunt our foes.
The power of laughter was illustrated recently in Italy at the trial of 30 nationalist militants, militants whose average age was 20 years old. On trial for offences which if proven• would lead in many cases to life imprisonment, these militants, innocent before God and Man, upheld the finest Nationalist traditions. The Italian media and judiciary fully expected these youths to be sitting there in the dock, stony faced, serious, worried. How disappointed they were to be as these comrades, ignoring the proceedings, played cards and laughed and joked with one another. They didn't give a damn, and why should they? Four years awaiting trial, offers of early release to those who would turn Supergrass - yet they didn't yield one iota of their Faith. The judge demanded to be taken seriously and was greeted with howls of laughter. This is real strength - it proclaims that Death itself has no power over it. It is a strength that will make us unconquerable for what can our enemies do beyond this? The ancient Celts inscribed this strength into a proverb:" Fight for your country and accept death as necessary: because death is a victory and a liberation for the soul."
We fight for the England of William Byrd and Thomas Talus; for the wild beauty of Cornwall and the serenity of the Lake District. We fight for Wales - the Land of Comrades - not only for her soulfull literature and music, but for the heroic spirit of Owain Glyndwr. We fight for Scotland, her Highlands and Islands, her ballards and bards. We fight for Ireland, the land of paradoxes: tragedy and comedy, humour and short temper; for the purity that G.K. Chesterton stated thus: "The very lies of Dublin and Belfast are truer than the truisms of Westminster."
Little remains to be said as the ultimate choice confronts you: Are you to become a Revolutionary Warrior fighting for National Freedom, or the coward who will stoop to kiss the filthy boots of a festering System?
LET THE COWARD HANG HIS HEAD IN SHAME.
LET THE WARRIOR KNOW THAT HIS REWARD IS TO COME!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE LEGIONARY OATH
Following the death of the Rumanian Legionaries, Ion Motza and Vasile Marin, on the Majadahonda front during the Spanish Civil War, Corneliu Codreanu, the Captain of the Legionary Movement, had all officers swear the following oath. It can and should act as a model for the Political Soldiers who now face the unequal struggle against the New World Order.
WE SWEAR:
1. To live in poverty, destroying in ourselves any desire for material enrichment.
2. To live a hard, severe life, putting aside luxury and surfeit.
3. To avoid any attempt to exploit any man.
4. To make permanent sacrifices for our country.
5. To defend the Legionary Movement with all our strength, against everything which could lead it into the path of compromise; or against anything which might even lower its moral standards.
LONG LIVE DEATH!
It was written by a man who subsequently accompanied Nick Griffin, and Pat Harrington, on an abortive trip to solicit funding from a bloodthirsty dictator, who was, at that time, providing the IRA with arms and explosives with which to murder innocent British and Irish men, women, and children, and who shortly thereafter ordered the destruction of a Pan Am passenger plane, causing hundreds of fatalities at Lockerbie, in Scotland.
That bloodthirsty dictator's name was Colonel Gaddafi. Griffin denies having met him. It appears that once Gaddafi realized the neo-fascist leanings of Griffin, and the other political soldiers, he decided against opening his cheque book after all. The Italian Fascist regime's occupation of Libya had been a particularly bloody episode in that country's history, with an estimated one-quarter of all its adult males having been killed.
Still, Griffin and the other sanctimonious political soldiers did not leave the tyrant's court, or encampment, entirely empty-handed. They were vouchsafed several hundred copies of Chairman Gaddafi's "Little Green Book" of the Libyan People's Revolution. Not exactly the most popular bedtime reading, but that hasn't prevented Pat Harrington from knocking out a few copies via his eBay account.
Well, in the Griffin BNP good business is where you find it, and Griffin and his cronies regard a free gift as a bargain.
Were the bloodstained copies marked down for a quick sale, Pat?
Holland's "seminal work" now follows.
The Political Soldier: A Statement (Second Edition)
By Derek Holland
A NEW PREFACE
It is now over a decade since The Political Soldier: A Statement was first published, and close comrades believe that this new edition merits a new Preface as well as a new cover. So be it.
The more or less instant success of The Political Soldier in nationalist circles in England has, much to the immense surprise of the author, continued down to the present day and a new generation of Third Positionists. This success has not been confined to England, but has found its way to those countries where the forces of Revolutionary Nationalism have foreseen the need for this traditional conception of Life and Struggle; and 1994 will witness this spread to both France and Lithuania, the latter being particularly gratifying in the light of developments in Eastern Europe, and the success of the Polish edition published in Warsaw in 1993.
The text of this reprint has not been altered in any way at all. It was, of course, tempting to update here and there, but on reflection it became obvious that such an updating could only affect details: inflation might be up or down; unemployment growing or receding; government parties coming or going. But none of these details change in any meaningful way the essential message of The Political Soldier: that what is needed above all else is a fundamental shift in attitude towards struggle, towards life, towards destiny; that there cannot be, and will not be, any serious change in the overall direction taken by the countries of Europe until the New Man, like a giant on the horizon, capable of moulding and inspiring a New Social Order, arises and builds it not according to the clauses or sub- clauses of some abstract political manifesto, but according to the objectively true principles of a creed believed and acted upon, and drawing their life from the Eternal Law of God. Without this core belief that our Cause is absolute, immutable, timeless, we run the very real danger of betrayal: betrayal by Party hacks; betrayal by those taken up with "media image"; betrayal by those mesmerized by the deceit and falsity of liberal democracy.
The New Man, therefore, is not merely an obstacle to betrayal,but, in fact, the only alternative to a guaranteed betrayal. The New Man is the herald of the New Social Order, but his appearance at this most crucial of times in our History, is by no means a foregone conclusion. Too many think, wrongly, that they can adhere publicly to our values, yet lead a private life of degeneracy; by this is meant not our tendency to sin, but rather the refusal to admit the existence of Sin in our lives and to attempt to conquer it through painful, lifelong struggle. Without this consciousness of sin, and with the contradiction that exists too often between our public beliefs and our private actions, we enter upon the path of hypocrisy that necessarily leads to the motorway of Treachery and Betrayal. The New Man is, therefore, necessarily a moral man, for only then does he possess that profound inner peace and confidence that allows him to fight the world, its powers and its dominations, unafraid of Death.
Some have said that The Political Soldier appears to be demanding the creation of Warrior Saints. And so it is. What is the problem with that? No one doubts for a moment that tremendous effort and dedication are required to fulfill this demand, but it is a wholly desirable objective, for a Saint seeks Ends that are Good and True, and uses Means that are Pure and Admirable. What kind of political militant is it that does not seek the Good and the True, the Pure and the Admirable? Some remark that "Politics is too dirty" for this to be possible. Granted that political life has become vile to a horrible degree in the modem world, it remains true, nonetheless, that if we do not aim for the Good and the True, the Pure and the Admirable, we will almost inevitably end up sinking into the cesspit of political filth that is suffocating our European inheritance. Who can listen to, or follow in faith, politicals who lie, cheat or swindle; politicals who cheat on their wives, girlfriends and comrades; politicals whose Ends vary according to their ambition, opportunism and greed? [Who but the BNP?] The New Man must, therefore, shine out like a blazing beacon in the infinite dark; by what he says; by what he does; by how he acts.[Emphasis mine, AE].
Nowhere is the need for clarity of Thought and Action greater than in how we express our beliefs. The very first edition of The Political Soldier was published under the auspices of the National Front, a group that the writer quit years ago, and which has to all intents and purposes disappeared from the political landscape of the country. Deo gratias. It disappeared because it confused the Idea and the Vehicle. The Idea is spiritual, something divine, whilst the Vehicle is man-made, growing or diminishing in its ability to express and implement the Idea. The Idea remains pure, even when the Vehicle has become corrupt, has rotted away. Truth remains forever Truth, even in a world of liars. The Vehicle merely exists to serve the Idea; once it has ceased to do that, it must be discarded for the sake of the Idea.
Finally, let us address ourselves to the fact that the world has changed dramatically in the last ten years. The old Soviet Union is apparently dead; Euthanasia, the desire to kill old people by law, is edging towards victory in a number of European national Parliaments; AIDS is striking down perverts the world over, the revenge of a Moral Order too long sneered at or ignored; the New Age* movement is trying to fill a worldwide spiritual vacuum with a hocus pocus philosophy of life which is no more than Witchcraft and Satanism dressed up as a new and attractive Way of Life. Yes, the world has changed, and will continue to change for the worse. It is growing daily more unacceptable, daily more unbearable.
It is this very process of disintegration and decadence which has made the New Man, the Political Soldier, not less, but more urgent, more necessary than ever before. Truth and Right Values are not now merely disappearing from view, but are becoming incomprehensible to growing numbers of our people: the inevitable consequence of a world soaked in the poison of Liberalism of all kinds. If the Political Soldier does not stand up and proclaim the Truth, does not point out the Right Values, who will? What future for our families, for our nations, our culture?
Confronted on every side by injustice and exploitation the average man mumbles: "What can you do?" The answer is frighteningly simple: FIGHT, FIGHT and FIGHT AGAIN! Have done with the spinelessness and cowardice that characterize our age. Unfurl the banners of Truth, Heroism and Sacrifice. Become the Warriors and Saints that once made this land worthy of love and respect. Live your life that others might live, and live greatly. Launch the Holy War that cleanses our soul, purifies our mind and casts out forever the traitors and cowards in our midst! Fight with courage, a granite determination and a happy heart until Final Victory!
DEREK HOLLAND.
London, 1994.
* There is one reference in this liitle work to the "New Age". To avoid any misunderstanding, let me say clearly that when this booklet was first published, I had never heard of the New Age movement, now so hyped up by the mass media. In this booklet the term is used simply to express a Christian Ideal, a society that we are called upon to build because of the rights of Truth and our sense of Duty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This pamphlet is dedicated to my long suffering parents, Patrick and Mary, and to my very good friend, Roberto Fiore. "Fiat pax in virtute tua: et abundantia in turibus tuis."
THE POLITICAL SOLDIER: A STATEMENT.
CONTENTS
Part One: The Contemporary Situation.
Part Two: The Need for the Political Soldier.
Part Three: The Path to the Political Soldier.
INTRODUCTION.
This booklet has been written with the expressed intention of acting as a spur to action. Heroic action, vital action. It is not a manual which is to be quoted from as though it were Holy Writ, but a personal statement of the principles that underpin our creed and our philosophy of life.
It makes no claim to originality, but is the result of wide reading. A debt of gratitude is expressed to all the Masters from whom I have learned, but especially to G.K. Chesterton whose wit and perception are a constant source of pleasure and inspiration.
I make no apology for the impassioned style in different areas of this short work. It is my country that is being butchered: I cannot look on this desecration without being moved to pity for her, and anger for her executioners. For too long our people have been inhibited by the cold calculations of the ruler and test-tube - now is the time for the return of the Poet and the Musician with the gifts that will guarantee us final victory.
Finally, and especially for those who know me personally, I hasten to add that I do not present myself as a model for the Political Soldier, conscious as I am that my weaknesses far exceed my virtues. I am merely struggling on the path to the Political Soldier and I invite all true patriots to do likewise.
DEREK HOLLAND.
Huntingdon, 1984.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART ONE: THE CONTEMPORARY SITUATION.
"The modern tyrant is evil because of his elusiveness. He is more nameless than his slave. He is not more of a bully than the tyrants of the past; but he is more of a coward"
All Things Considered.
G.K. Chesterton.
Wherever we look today amongst the nations of Britain and of Europe, we see mounting evidence of disintegration and of decay. The evidence is there for all to see; it is incontrovertible fact.
On the political level, we find that the worst type of individual, the self-seeking and mean of spirit, has risen to the leadership of Establishment parties and structures, and in so doing, has guaranteed that government throughout Europe, from Lisbon to Leningrad and from Belfast to Belgrade, has made corruption and treason a way of life. Politicians and party bosses, caring nothing for the people they claim to represent, are lining their own pockets by selling out their countrymen to poverty, to degradation and to hostile, foreign interests. In our land, the Thatchers and Kinnocks, Owens and Steels, are junketting around the world at our expense, receiving the adulation of a deceitful media, whilst Britain slowly but surely bleeds to death.
On the economic front, our people are being constantly reassured that the world recession is drawing to a close, yet for those with memories that go back further than last week's episode of Coronation Street, it is a fact that the Tories have been peddling this cheap lie since they first took office in 1979. Unemployment is still continuing to rise sharply from one year to the next and no amount of cynical manipulation of the figures by the Civil Service bureaucracy can hide the fact that the lives of nearly four million people, our people, are being destroyed by dole queue humiliation.
It is a fact that most orthodox economists regard 10% unemployment as the threshold above which discontent and strife develop by stages into civil disturbance and revolutionary upheaval; as I write nearly 14% of our people are without a job.
The country that Napoleon described early last century as "a nation of shopkeepers" no longer exists, having given way to supermarkets and hypermarkets, national and multi-national corporations. The figures for the financial year ending April 1984 revealed that over 12,500 firms went bankrupt, the highest figure ever in British history. And the picture for the coming years is no brighter.
The gathering financial crisis, highlighted incessantly by the media, has seen decrepit old men from the I.M.F. and the World Bank rushing to and fro across the globe to inaugurate yet more talks - and whilst they wilier on without end our currency is becoming worthless. The media demands that we too should be concerned for the fate of the world banking system; that we should worry about a system that has destroyed the lives of millions of Europeans; that has condemned all peoples and cultures to grinding poverty; that has ransacked and plundered the resources and treasures of a beautiful creation. We are meant to lament the demise of a system that possesses the Midas touch of Death.
The social impact on our people of this political and economic decline has been catastrophic. Fewer new houses means that several million of our countrymen are living in houses not fit for animals, let alone humans; unemployment has severely distorted family life leading to more divorces, more abortions, more child-battering, more suicides. In an effort to escape this nightmare, Britons have turned in huge numbers to drink, drugs and gambling as "a solution". Young people deprived of a job, a home and a little self-respect have sought an answer in innumerable 'anti- Establishment' groups and cults, much to the pleasure of our political masters. Whilst White Skinheads are beating the hell out of White Mods or White Hells Angels, the Westminister tyrants are going about their business unimpeded - destroying our country.
But it is spiritually that our people have suffered the most. No longer believing fervently in the supernatural or the divine, they have been left prey to the manipulation of con-men, quacks and latter-day Wizards of Oz. Man to be truly healthy must be balanced materially and spiritually. It is not enough for a man merely to feed himself or have a roof over his head. He must have a reason to live; he must know why family life is vital; why the bloodline must be perpetuated; why the Common Good of the British peoples must be protected; why we must ensure that our Nation and Culture survives and prospers.
This material and spiritual balance, which our forefathers possessed integrally, no longer exists. When we look at the great cathedrals that are to be found throughout Europe, and built many hundreds of years ago, we are overawed by their immensity, their complexity, their beauty, but their principal importance goes beyond mere masonry and into the realms of spirituality. Our forefathers possessed Strength, Vision and Faith and those qualities were lovingly inscribed into stone that would withstand the elements for a thousand years, and would speak to their heirs in authoritative, profound tones. Our age knows nothing of this plane of life and, symbolically, demonstrates its utter incomprehension by building in breeze blocks, a material that does not last and is not meant to last. It epitomizes the spirit of this age, an age which lives for the moment and where the word "instant" reigns supreme. As a result, our people have become soulless, unhappy, frustrated and even dehumanized in some respects. No-one wants to help others unless there is something in it for him; no-one wants to get involved; no-one wants to take responsibility. But everyone wants an easy life; everyone seeks their own selfish ends; everyone wants to take the easy way out, and if the easy way means that our family, community or national life will suffer that is held to be acceptable. It is when the Individual makes himself a virtual god, when everything must fit in with him and to hell with others, that you know that a nation is sick and dying.
These facts and many more - pollution, the arms race, diminishing natural resources - add up to one frightful conclusion: the culture of Europe is going to die within our lifetime. I do not mean that for 50, 100, or 200 years that we won't play a very prominent role in world politics and that then we will probably witness a revival. I mean quite simply that as the mighty civilizations of ancient Greece and Egypt have passed away into the sands of time, never to return, so will ours. The death of Europe will signal the end of the White peoples forever: it will be goodbye to you, your family, and your friends. Britain will become a vague, unimportant memory.
Let us not fool ourselves. The fight to reverse this situation is going to be extremely arduous and not a little thankless; arduous because the enemies of civilization are not going to release their stranglehold on us until we force them to do so; thankless because no-one wants to be told that a tidal wave of catastrophe is looming that threatens life itself. Our people stick their heads in the sand and kid themselves that everything will be alright in the end. Unfortunately for such people, we live in a real world where happy endings are not automatically written into the script. There are no fairy godmothers who are going to rush to our aid, wave their magic wands and make everything perfect again. If the British peoples are to survive, they will have to fight back. If they are not willing to do so they had better start praying for a quick and merciful death, for nothing else will avail them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART TWO: THE NEED FOR THE POLITICAL SOLDIER.
When a Nation rises up ardent to fight for its freedom and honour, it is always a minority that really fires the multitude."
The Decline of the West.
Oswald Spengler.
At the forefront of the battle against the forces of Evil swamping the entire globe in an ocean of Filth, Corruption and Treason are the various Nationalist movements of Europe. In Britain the only organized force is the National Front, but even it made quite fundamental errors in the Seventies about what was necessaiy to redeem our country. Discussion was always about whether we should have a march here or there; whether we should fight this election or that; whether we could do something to improve our 'image'. These discussions were about as useful as arguing who could have what deckchair on the Titanic! Certainly, our name became better known, though other methods would have achieved this too; it remains that all our time, money and energy did not stop the arrival of one single immigrant; it did not stop the closure of one single factory; it did not stop the rape, physical and spiritual, of our Motherland.
Our failure was simple, but crucial. It was and is not policies or doctrines or activities that we need - important though these things are in the overall political scheme of things - but a New Type of Man who will live the Nationalist way of life every day, who will act as a beacon and an inspiration to those fellow Britons around him who despair of our situation. The other discredited parties have been offering policies and doctrines to our people for generations, but to what effect? To the average Briton, why should the NF have been any different from the others? If we are to succeed we must strike to the heart of the matter: our people need as an example someone who practices what he preaches. That example we call the Political Soldier.
Just what is the Political Soldier?
If we look at the highest periods of European history, we can easily identify the type of men who embody or express the spirit that our nation so desperately needs.
In ancient Greece there were the Spartans, an austere, highly disciplined people who have gone down in history mainly because of their heroic stand at the baffle of Thermopylae. It was here that 300 Spartans, led by their Warrior-King, Leonidas, took on 100,000 Persian troops under the Emperor Darius; far from cringing in fear at such enormous odds the Spartans proudly sang their battle anthem, The Song of Castor, and then died to a man in a crucible of fire and blood. Although the Spartans lost, it is they that History remembers.
In ancient Rome, it was the Roman centurion whose military skills and commitment to Eternal Rome, to the Pax Romana, led him to build one of the finest, well ordered empires in world history and, as a consequence, left us so much to cherish in our heritage.
In medieval Europe there was the Christian Crusader whose devotion to the ideals of Ascetism and Chivalry so embodied Europe, East and West, that even today 'knightly conduct' is regarded as a high form of praise. These knights, a supra-national community drawn from one culture, were described by Pope Urban II as those "ready to hasten wherever war erupts, bringing to it the fury of their arms in order to defend Honour and Justice."
In our century perhaps the most outstanding example of Political Soldiery was the Rumanian Iron Guard, the Legionary Movement, founded and moulded by the genius of Corneliu Codreanu. The spirit that this movement generated was so strong, so pervasive, that in its brief 15 years of existence it infected an entire people. Even today the Communist authorities denounce the Legionaries, so frightened are they by its spiritual and inspirational power - a power that grows as the drudgery of Marxist Eastern Europe kills everything it touches.
But Europe does not have a monopoly on Political Soldiers and all peoples and cultures have the potential to produce this type of man, each fitted to his peculiar circumstances. Take for example the Islamic Revolutionary Guards in the Iran of the Mullahs. It is not necessary to agree with any or all of their aims to appreciate and respect their courage. Their belief in their Cause is so strong that they will run through mineflelds unarmed to attack enemy positions; their ideals are so all consuming that they will drive truck bombs into enemy camps knowing full well that death is inevitable. Whether they are right or wrong is not at issue, but it is clear that this power, this contempt for death, is the stuff of which victories are made. This power drove the Yankee war machine out of the Lebanon - whilst U.S. troops were fighting for job security, a wage packet and a pension, their opponents in the Revolutionaiy Guards were fighting for an Ideal, an independent Iranian Iran. We must learn that the power of Idealism is beyond calculation.
When we look at the few examples that I have cited, one thing will be immediately obvious to most readers - to wit, that all of them are warriors, military men. However, it would be utterly wrong to believe that this aspect, the military, is the most important aspect, or even one of the most important aspects. The common denominator that allows all of these men to be put in the same category, despite their manifest differences, is the fact that they were inspired by 'a spiritual and religious ideal that totally dominated their lives. Nothing came between them and the Ideal. They were willing to sacrifice anything and everything for the victory of their Ideal. If, for some reason, their Cause had been denied to them their lives would have ceased to have meaning, to have any importance whatever. They were fine warriors because a flame burned within, a fire that could only be extinguished when they drew their final, mortal breath. It was a flame that their enemies frequently did not possess or understand, but which they feared and respected. It is that flame, that burning spirit, which we must rekindle if our Culture is to have any future worthy of the name. If this proves to be beyond our abilities then all our material achievements, our science and technology, our intellectual grandeur will stand revealed as perfectly useless, for the most important thing in life is the Will to live. If this Will is absent in our people, no scientist and no gadgetry will save us.
It is the task of the Political Soldier to promote the Will to live by revealing the true nature of life - as opposed to the materialist nightmare of this century which is mistakeningly taken to be "life" - and by living this life. In order to do this the Political Soldier must undergo a Spiritual Revolution, an inner revolution which guides, directs and pervades his life. When this has been achieved substantively the Political Soldier will judge all his actions according to whether or not they advance the Cause. He will be the man who does not say: "What is in it for me?" but the man who says: "What can I do to help?". For this type of Man certain words will hold the key to the very meaning of Life itself: Honour, Justice, Self-Respect, Honesty, Faith, Humility, Compassion, Love.
He will not allow his honour or that of the nation to be attacked or undermined by the unworthy; he will not stand idly by when his people are being exploited, but will become a focal point in the fight for justice. He will not lose his self-respect and worth through becoming dependent on externals like drugs or drink, for he knows that if he possesses the Inner Strength that sustains life then he will be invincible. He will be honest in all his dealings, great and small, because the Nationalist Militant leads through example. He will have total, unquestioned belief in the righteousness of his Cause; he will be the man who will strive to the limits of his abilities to advance the welfare of his People and Nation, but he will do this without any thought of praise or publicity. He will remain humble knowing that his actions are a matter of duty inspired by a higher way of life. He will be stirred to action by the physical rape of our beautiful country and the destruction of our rich culture; his compassion will be such that he will cloak the weak and needy of our nation with his towering strength. His love will be pure and refreshing, reviving and inspiring everyone and everything that it touches.
The Political Soldier is the man sustained by an Eternal Ideal who will act positively in any and all situations in the defence of what is Right, Good and True. Never in the history of Europe has the need for battalions of Political Soldiers been so urgent, so vital.
The ranks of our enemies are immense: the banks, the Communists, the Freemasons, the Zionists, the Capitalists. They have money and power; they dominate the media; they control whole armies through their control of governments; they inject corrosive ideas into the bloodstream of the nation which enfeeble us, make us apathetic, make us a pushover.
And what do we have to combat this? A few thousand patriots in every country in Western Europe. We have no money, no power, no influence, no media to speak of. We are the Spartans, the Few. They are the Persians, the Many. Confronted by this horrible reality, our countrymen, after sizing up the odds, are leaving the battlefield in droves arguing the "inevitability" of things. "We cannot win", they say. "Things have gone too far ", they say. "Perhaps Communism won't be so bad", they say. How right was Emrys ap Iwan, the nineteenth century Welsh nationalist, to remark: "The Inevitable is not the high tower of the Wise, hut merely the sanctuary of the Timid".
The Political Soldier will look at this grim reality in a totally different light because he is an Idealist and a Realist. The Ideal is the goal of our struggle, Realism is that quality which dictates how best we can achieve that goal. The Political Soldier, weighing up the weaponry on both sides, will acknowledge that we are outgunned in every respect, but one. This exception is our Faith, our Ideal, which we hold dearer than Life itself, and which cannot be intimidated, nor bribed, nor tortured out of existence. This faith is but a dim memory, a glowing ember in most of our people - it is the task of the Political Soldier to fan and fuel this ember until its flicker grows stronger and more intense, until it becomes a raging inferno engulfing our People and our Land in the quest for National Freedom, Social Justice and a truly Free Europe. The Political Soldier by his attitudes and actions will serve as a model, an example, to those of our countrymen whose courage has temporarily failed them. Wherever he goes the Political Soldier will encourage enthusiasm, comradeship and dedication by his mere presence. He will be a Light pushing back the frontiers of Darkness. People will seek his advice; they will heed his counsel; they will collect themselves and return to the fight stronger than the hardest steel.
Every day that passes witnesses the seepage of blood from the mutilated body of the nations of Europe. It is a sight that only the cynical or the disinterested can view without being moved to a profound compassion and a Holy Anger. The beautiful woman that had once bewitched the world with her intellect, her grandeur and her vivaciousness now lies in the gutter, kicked senseless by the barbaric hordes of the Super Powers. Only the army of Political Soldiers seeks to defend her from a torrent of violent blows. That army is tiny, its task immense, yet it fights on. It will not allow our heritage, culture, traditions and noble values to be ground into the dust, lost forever, because of the cowardice of the majority. This army fights to win, but if defeat is to be the verdict of Destiny, then it will be a battle to the last man, sword in hand - a tribute worthy of our finest ancestors.
And if the gutless, the preachers of the "Art of the Possible", should assail you with accusations of 'fanaticism't, remember the words of John Jenkins, a son of whom Wales can justly be proud:
"I will say three things about fanaticism; firstly, that if it is true that a fanatic has the strength of ten men, it is necessary because the other nine men cannot be bothered. Secondly, it is not always true that a fanatic does not count the cost of action; I became a fanatic because I was not prepared to accept the result of inaction. Lastly, if Wales is to survive and her culture and heritage flourish, it will be done only by ferocious and unswerving devotion to Wales above all else. 'All else" includes family, prospects, careers, health, freedom and life itself I believe, in fact I know, that Wales can inspire this sort of fanaticism, and that this fanaticism is the essential catalyst required to move the majority of the people."
What Jenkins says of Wales is no less true of the other British nations and their cousins in Europe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART THREE: THE PATH TO THE POLITICAL SOLDIER.
Thou must diligently make it thy aim, that in every place and in every action, or outward employment, thou be inwardly free and master of thyself and that all things be under thee and not thou under them."
The Imitations of Christ.
Thomas a Kempis.
In Lausanne, Switzerland in 1965, Marcel de Corte made the following observation: "I often hear it said that means, taken as such, are neither good nor bad I confess that this assertion leaves me at a loss, for I ask myself where can we find means that are purely means, without being by the same token inert, unusable, non-existent, resembling perhaps some strange Heath Robinson gadget. A means can never be considered as such, except purely in the mind A means is always considered in relation to an end"
It is a frequent assertion of the modern age that "the end justifies the means ", and it is an assertion to which too many nationalists unthinkingly subscribe. As Marcel de Corte's statement makes clear, Means and Ends are a unity, organically linked and mutually dependent in practical politics. For the patriot the ends that we strive for are completely at variance with those of the Establishment, so naturally the means will be different too. Methods used by Reds or Big Business drones to install their regimes of terror cannot be legitimately used by nationalists without doing immense harm both to the militant and to his Cause, a point upon which Codreanu built his Movement.
Take for example the tactic of terrorism; - something that must be distinguished from mere political violence or assassination - this is utterly alien to nationalist tradition for its objective, theoretical and practical, is to instill fear into the population at large through the indiscriminate murder of ordinary folk by bullet and bomb. We reject this method for the good reason that we seek the support of the people in order to improve their lot, and this is hardly likely to be achieved through exterminating them! It is also an interesting fact that the 'nationalist' groups who use this approach - the IRA, the Stern and Irgun gangs, ETA, the reactionary military dictatorships of Latin America - are precisely the groups whose 'nationalist' credentials we find highly questionable. If we proclaim that we love our People and Culture, what possible role in Nationalist politics can there be for methods that breed fear and hatred? If we proclaim that Absolute Truth is closest to our heart, how can we in our actions lie and cheat without distorting the very Truth we set out to defend and advance? Let no man say things will be different after the National Revolution, for the man who cannot uphold his principles when he is powerless and has nothing to lose is hardly likely to maintain them when he does obtain power and has everything to lose. Practice, so they say, makes perfect, and it is something we must bear in mind every day of our nationalist lives. The paths that our opponents took led them to the Slave States of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. - we take a dfferent path for we seek the National Revolutionary State.
This is not to say that we cannot be discreet in our actions or have recourse to agility of mind; indeed the opposite is the case. Our principles dictate that we draw upon every sinew of our being, - physical, mental, spiritual - stretching ourselves to the limit in advancing the Cause,whilst simultaneously maintaining our purity of Spirit.It is far too easy to abandon our principles and values arguing pressure of circumstance. It takes strength of character, fortitude and resilience to resist the corrosive ideas of our enemies who bid us take the easy way. We have only to compromise once and we are on the slippery slope that leads to betrayal. Our way is not easy. It is arduous, it is ascetic, it is a landscape of blood, sweat and tears. The day that it ceases to be these things is the day that Revolutionary Nationalism sells out.
Now, an understanding of the relationship between Means and Ends is not a mere academic exercise, but an essential qualification that determines not only the recruitment of Political Soldiers, but also how they are to be moulded into National Revolutionary Warriors. It is the condition for realizing why certain methods will never be acceptable to us. Let us look at recruitment. In the past the warrior elite were a fact of everyday life, and every bit as natural as sunny days and green pastures, but today they are at best a romantic memory. The stark conclusion, therefore, that we must face is that it is people like you - the readers of this pamphlet - who are going to have to lead the way, to become the Political Soldiers that will make victory possible. Some of you will chuckle at the idea. Some of you will draw back in fear at the idea. Some of you will confess that you don't have what it takes. Unfortunately God, Destiny, call it what you will, has decreed that you and I must undertake this daunting task. Our forefathers had to confront similiar situations and we must draw strength from their spirit which urges us on. It is upon the bedrock of their spirit that we must erect the banner of the Celtic Cross and defy all stupid enough to provoke the wrath of this nation.
And if you refuse to be those warriors, to whom can the nation turn? Those with their heads in a pint or a glue bag? Those seeking 'reality' in science fiction videos or heroin? Those who talk loud and long, who threaten a Twilight of the Gods, and yet begrudge a few pounds in the funds or a couple of hours at a meeting? The moron in the street who thinks that a short back and sides, cheap beer and Princess Di's new hat is the meaning of nationalism? The plastic patriot, the bourgeois drone, ever so devoted to "England's green and pleasant pastures ", but not so devoted that he wouldn't sacrifice his "patriotism" if it threatened the "respectability" accorded him by his neighbours and friends? None of us wants this combat, but duty calls. Those who refuse are quite simply cowards. The Political Soldier can respect his Enemy, but he can only despise the Traitor and Deserter. And when the birthright of your children has been stolen from them and parcelled out to enemies, will you be able to look them in the eye and say that you did all that you could?
Assuming you have the guts and determination necessary, how do you become a National Revolutionary? No two Political Soldiers can be completely alike, though naturally they will have much in common. The differences that exist will be due to our being individuals possessing both strengths and weaknesses. These differences need not present us with problems, indeed they can be turned to our advantage, for an effective army is made up of differing types of men. All Chiefs and no Indians is just as useless as all Indians and no Chiefs. Some of you will emerge as leaders, others as warriors, but all will be vital to our National Mission.
The path of development, the programme of training, that culminates in the birth of the Political Soldier is a Cross laid upon our backs. It is through canying this burden, through struggle, that we come slowly - and I mean slowly - to acquire the qualities we need. There are those who strive for physical excellence as their highest goal in life - they will confirm that this excellence is something that is not given away free with eveiy gallon of petrol, but is something that requires hard work and much pain. In the same way, becoming a Political Soldier is a matter for activists, not armchair dictators or self-professed Men of Destiny.
Having said that, the path of development is simple and logical in its structure. You set out to achieve only small things at first, objectives which when achieved will provide you with the confidence and skill to attempt more ambitious targets. The most important thing at this stage is to be honest with yourself because if you cannot do so, you will never be honest with your colleagues. Sit by yourself, and after a period of serious reflection, draw up a list of your good and bad points, remembering to avoid the extremes of excessive criticism or smug complacency. This done, choose one good point that can be developed and improved, and one weakness that you would be better off without. On paper this sounds remarkably easy, but in reality it is a battle of titanic proportions. There will be times when you think you are going well, then suddenly you will fall flat on your face by returning to old habits.But don't give up or be discouraged by failure because it is the getting up off your knees and tiying again that develops your self discipline and the will to succeed against all odds. It is a process that will do for you spiritually what Charles Atlas claims his weights will do for you physically! You can only understand happiness when you understand sadness, you can only appreciate success when you have experienced the bitter taste of failure.If you cannot overcome yourself in little things, you will prove quite useless in a crisis. When things get really rough in the coming years, when repression is violent, systematic, total, you will want to know that you can count on your comrades in the struggle, and they will want to know that they can count on you. The peace of mind that this trust in others will produce cannot be overestimated.
Let me give a few practical ideas of where to begin, but do remember that they are only general examples to get you to think along the right lines.
Do you watch TV night after night? If so, cut down the time that you do this because you are needlessly exposing yourself to the propaganda of our enemies, whether you watch a documentary or a soap opera. Use your time more constructively and in a way that aids the National Struggle. Read a political book or magazine. Go for a walk in the countryside or in a park and enjoy the gifts of nature. Do that extra bit of leafletting or newspaper selling. Organize a discussion group at your place for a couple of friends, or get involved in local community groups like Tenants Associations, Friends of the Earth and so on and fight for local justice.
Do you drink 4 5 6 or more pints when you are out for the night? Cut it down to 2 or 3 pints; not only will you have more money to put at the disposal of the Cause, but your health will improve greatly. Besides, the Crusaders were not known for their beer guts!
Do you smoke a lot? If so, cut it down or better still cut it out. You are only keeping Big Business in business by damaging your health. There will be times when you will need to move fast, and those who insist on taking on the appearance of a wheezing dinosaur will then have to pay the price!
Do you put going to football or a party ahead of attending an NF function? If so, learn to get your priorities right. Of course, everyone needs a break from the struggle, but remember that if the NF fails because of the half-heartedness of its members, it will signal not only the deathknell of the nation, but also of the very distractions that you thought so important.
If you are not in the habit of reading, get into the habit and always push yourself to higher levels. Knowledge is Power and the more you know the more of a threat you become to the System. Come to party seminars where you will be instructed in the production of local leaflets that will help you promote nationalist ideas in your local community; where you will be taught to silk screen print posters and tee shirts; where our lecturers will explain our revolutionary ideals in simple terms, and which will improve your ability to convert people through persuasion.
These things, and many more, the party can teach you, but there is a wide field for personal initiative: learn new languages, especially if you have Irish, Scots, Welsh or Comish roots; learn to drive, to type, to speak in public. Go to evening classes to learn electronics, mechanics, shorthand or journalism, or take up a physical pastime like weightlifting or a martial art. There are a million and one things that you, can do to improve yourself, things which will give you satisfaction and help the Cause achieve Victory. Whatever you do take up, resolve that you will persevere to the end. Sitting around doing nothing is just what the creeps in Parliament hope you will do, for you are thereby making their work so much easier.
For those willing to make the necessary sacrifices to become Political Soldiers, you will need to develop certain virtues:
* PATIENCE: because the transition to the Political Soldier takes time and real effort and will not come in a week or a few months. It is a work that will consume a lifetime if Perfection is the goal.
* CALMNESS: because as State repression mounts, it will be the cool, calm and collected who will survive, not the panicky amateurs.
*SELF DISCIPLINE: because those who are Masters of themselves are masters of their situation. Possess the strength that cannot be seen, but is felt by both comrades and opponents.
*SENSE OF HUMOUR: because whilst life is not a bed of roses, it is not one long drudge either. It is a little of both. Develop the ability to laugh at yourself and your situation, and you will be transfonned into a spectral fighter who will haunt our foes.
The power of laughter was illustrated recently in Italy at the trial of 30 nationalist militants, militants whose average age was 20 years old. On trial for offences which if proven• would lead in many cases to life imprisonment, these militants, innocent before God and Man, upheld the finest Nationalist traditions. The Italian media and judiciary fully expected these youths to be sitting there in the dock, stony faced, serious, worried. How disappointed they were to be as these comrades, ignoring the proceedings, played cards and laughed and joked with one another. They didn't give a damn, and why should they? Four years awaiting trial, offers of early release to those who would turn Supergrass - yet they didn't yield one iota of their Faith. The judge demanded to be taken seriously and was greeted with howls of laughter. This is real strength - it proclaims that Death itself has no power over it. It is a strength that will make us unconquerable for what can our enemies do beyond this? The ancient Celts inscribed this strength into a proverb:" Fight for your country and accept death as necessary: because death is a victory and a liberation for the soul."
We fight for the England of William Byrd and Thomas Talus; for the wild beauty of Cornwall and the serenity of the Lake District. We fight for Wales - the Land of Comrades - not only for her soulfull literature and music, but for the heroic spirit of Owain Glyndwr. We fight for Scotland, her Highlands and Islands, her ballards and bards. We fight for Ireland, the land of paradoxes: tragedy and comedy, humour and short temper; for the purity that G.K. Chesterton stated thus: "The very lies of Dublin and Belfast are truer than the truisms of Westminster."
Little remains to be said as the ultimate choice confronts you: Are you to become a Revolutionary Warrior fighting for National Freedom, or the coward who will stoop to kiss the filthy boots of a festering System?
LET THE COWARD HANG HIS HEAD IN SHAME.
LET THE WARRIOR KNOW THAT HIS REWARD IS TO COME!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE LEGIONARY OATH
Following the death of the Rumanian Legionaries, Ion Motza and Vasile Marin, on the Majadahonda front during the Spanish Civil War, Corneliu Codreanu, the Captain of the Legionary Movement, had all officers swear the following oath. It can and should act as a model for the Political Soldiers who now face the unequal struggle against the New World Order.
WE SWEAR:
1. To live in poverty, destroying in ourselves any desire for material enrichment.
2. To live a hard, severe life, putting aside luxury and surfeit.
3. To avoid any attempt to exploit any man.
4. To make permanent sacrifices for our country.
5. To defend the Legionary Movement with all our strength, against everything which could lead it into the path of compromise; or against anything which might even lower its moral standards.
LONG LIVE DEATH!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
