British History Matters

The assault on British history continues, with Lord Baden-Powell (founder of the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides) the latest target. Locals in Poole, Dorset, rallied in defence of the Baden-Powell statue, and the local council announced temporary plans to remove it from the quayside to prevent vandalism.

The scouting movement began on Brownlea Island in Poole Harbour, but its founder is now accused of that most heinous crime – “racism”.

It seems that every aspect of British history is now to be judged in relation either to slavery or the “White supremacism” of the British Empire – in which (by the way) slavery was abolished in 1807, fifty years before Baden-Powell’s birth.

A further prime target (a hundred miles along the Channel coast from Poole) is Sir Francis Drake’s statue on Plymouth Hoe (as well as another Drake statue in his nearby birthplace of Tavistock). Drake was the second man to circumnavigate the Earth – and the first to command such a voyage from start to finish. En route he piratically raided Spanish galleons, and on his return to Plymouth in 1580 handed half his booty to the Crown.

This loot amounted to more than the rest of Queen Elizabeth’s income for the entire year!

Drake is not being belatedly held to account for piracy. Rather his sin is to have been tangentially involved in the slave trade. Together with his cousin and fellow privateer Sir John Hawkins, Drake is believed to have been the first British slave trader – but slaves were simply one of many commodities that Drake and Hawkins stole from the Portuguese when attacking their ships off the African coast.

In fact Drake was just as likely to employ slaves who had escaped the Spanish as he was to trade in them: in the context of Drake’s life and times, the slave trade was a very minor footnote indeed.

Yet in 2020 this is all that matters. Drake’s crowning achievement – the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 – is now held of little account compared to the fact that in his youth he captured some slaves (as part of other cargo) and sold them on. Our entire history – in common with the history of every other White nation – is to be reduced to our relationship with Blacks and other minorities: a relationship in which we White Europeans must now be subservient.

The whole charade is rooted in the cult of Holocaustianity, where history is redefined in terms of victimhood. Women can be cast as eternal victims, so an entire historiography of female oppression spawns a profitable academic industry. Blacks are among the most useful victims for the rewriters and heritage-destroyers, who must however be careful to ignore the tendency for women to be victims of blacks, or blacks to be victims of other blacks.

But the fons et origo of the entire victim cult is the ‘Holocaust’, and Jews are history’s ultimate victims – the ultimate case in which we Whites must confess “we are all guilty”. (The phrase was popularised by the late Michael Wharton – aka Telegraph columnist Peter Simple – as the cry of his satirical ‘great social psychologist’ Dr Heinz Kiosk, but is now literally enforced as the worldwide White catechism.)

This ‘Holocaust’ cult’s pioneers are now, however, in danger of falling into their own trap, as some Blacks develop a new spin-off heresy – Blacks as victims of Jews!

2020’s iconoclasm might yet prove to be the start of White reawakening in defence of our heritage and in defence of historical truth: down with the Victim Cult of Historical Lies!

First they came for the Confederates – and I did not speak out, because I was not a Confederate…

Virginia’s Democratic Party Governor Ralph Northam (himself from a slave owning family) has finally backed down to the BAME brigade and has instructed Richmond Council to take down the great statues of the Confederate Generals on Monument Avenue just outside of down-town Richmond.

I lived in Virginia for over seven years (1995 – 2002) and had the pleasure of visiting Monument Avenue three or four times during my time in America. It was one hell of a place. The giant statues were like nothing I had seen before.

Apart from General Robert E Lee (a direct descendant of King Robert the Bruce of Scotland), Richmond Council plan to take down the statues of President Jefferson Davis (who was of English/Welsh descent), General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson (who was of Ulster-Scots descent), and General James “Jeb” Stuart (also of Ulster-Scots descent). All were British-Americans.

Just this last week, the General Lee Statue was attacked and vandalised by hundreds of communist and anarchist demonstrators, who joined the BAME brigade, protesting the death of black career criminal George Floyd.

Floyd had been arrested by four police officers in Minneapolis, for passing forged $20 bills in local shops. He resisted arrest and was forced to the ground, where he died. Some years before in Houston, Texas, Floyd had been arrested for an armed home invasion (burglary) – he forced his way into a lady’s house and threatened her with a gun before robbing her. Due to a plea-bargain, he got away with just a five-year jail sentence.

I wonder how long it will be before the BAME brigade here in England and in the rest of the UK start demanding that our statues be taken down too, as they are not to their liking, i.e. too WASP-like. In Scotland under their neo-Marxist SNP Government this is already happening. And once Sinn Fein become the majority in Northern Ireland, they will follow suit.

And before you say that’s never going to happen, remember the BAME group are only 15% of the UK population now (and look how much sway they have). Long before they reach 50% you can say goodbye to our history, our heritage, our heroes: statues and all. Boadicea, King Billy, Oliver Cromwell, Lord Nelson, Duke of Wellington, Cecil Rhodes, Winston Churchill, Bomber Harris and many others. They will all be written out of the new PC history books.

End note: On the subject of slavery and the American Civil War, fewer than 10% of families in those Southern states that became part of the Confederacy in 1861-1865 owned slaves. And it should also be remembered that on the Northern side, many of them had owned slaves too in the recent past.

The rose-coloured myth of the Civil War is that the blue-clad Union soldiers and their brave, doomed President, Abraham Lincoln, were fighting to free the slaves. They weren’t, at least not initially. They were fighting to hold their nation – the Union – together. Lincoln was known personally to oppose slavery (which is one reason why the South seceded after his election in 1860), but his chief goal was preserving the Union. In August 1862, he famously wrote to the New York Tribune: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”

Lincoln was also part of a group in the Republican Party that wanted to remove former black slaves from the US altogether. From roughly late 1861 onward, he was involved in some very serious policy discussions about what the post-slavery US would look like, and one of his solutions that he offered, drawing on something that had long been a part of his political advocacy, was to colonise the black slaves abroad. Historically, the most famous example of this is Liberia, which was founded in 1816. Over the course of the next 50 or 60 years, several thousand former slaves migrated to Liberia and colonised it.

Lincoln liked this model, but wanted to expand upon it, and he was willing to look in Central and South America, and across the Caribbean. He pursued this policy for the better part of his presidency, secured funding from Congress in 1862, and carried it out in conjunction with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

H&D Editor Mark Cotterill, who reports from semi-enriched Preston, was chairman of the Virginian-based American Friends of the BNP, from 1999 – 2001.

UPDATE: Saturday June 6th (76th anniversary of the D-Day landings).

It didn’t take long for the usual suspects to fulfil our editor’s prediction! The Churchill statue was vandalised twice this weekend, once as reported by The Sun in the link above, then again the next day (see photo below).

The video below was shot at 5 am on the morning of Sunday June 7th, showing widespread vandalism of statues in Parliament Square. St Nelson Mandela seems to have escaped unscathed, but Abraham Lincoln and an array of British statesmen from Disraeli to Palmerston were all sprayed with slogans such as BLM (Black Lives Matter) and ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards). The latter referring to the same ‘cops’ who had cravenly knelt before the mob in previous days.

H&D readers will have mixed feelings about some of the historical figures commemorated outside Parliament, but none of us should be in any doubt – this vandalism isn’t a commentary on the historical record of Abraham Lincoln or Disraeli. In fact we can safely bet that fewer than 1% of the black protesters had the slightest idea who Lord Beaconsfield might be.

Their impulse was to demonstrate control of the streets and contempt for white civilisation. Our political leaders – and following years of brainwashing, also our police – have allowed them free rein.

St George’s Day – Celebrate the Spirit of St George!

The editor and deputy editor would like to wish all H&D readers a very happy St George’s Day.

While St George’s Day – April 23rd – is mainly forgotten, ignored or even ridiculed by the liberal / left establishment, who by the way have no qualms about promoting everybody else’s national day, culture and heritage, apart from ours – we nationalists remember and celebrate it.

As Sir Oswald Mosley said on St George’s Day 1937:

“In the lives of great nations there comes the moment of decision, there comes the moment of destiny. And this great nation, again and again in the great hours of its fate, has swept aside convention, has swept aside the little men of talk and of delay, and has decided to follow men and movements who say, ‘we go forward to action, let those who dare follow us in this hour’.”

While many English (and British) nationalists feel a fierce national pride for the St George’s cross and the patron saint’s day, England in fact shares St George with a host of other countries and places. Each has its own unusual customs surrounding his feast day, including;

Catalonia, Spain – St George (Sant Jordi) is associated with several places in Spain but one of the most colourful is the Catalan capital. A public holiday is held in the area and has several similarities with Valentine’s Day, with roses and books being exchanged by lovers. Barcelona’s most popular street Las Ramblas becomes awash with flower and book sellers. Catalonia has managed to export the tradition as UNESCO adopted the date as World Book Day. And of course FC Barcelona have the St George cross in the club’s badge.

Russia – The Russian Orthodox Church uses the Julian Calendar so St George’s Day is celebrated on the same day, but it is 6th May, not 23rd April. As well as this date Russians also mark the consecration of the Church of St George on 26th November. This was traditionally the time of year when peasants were permitted to move to a different landowner. While this tradition has died out the Ribbon of St George is still one of the most respected Russian military honours. The black and orange striped ribbon is also used by civilians as a patriotic symbol. It has been seen again recently displayed by separatists in Ukraine as a Russian symbol.

Albania – Albanians celebrate St George’s day by going out and lighting a large bonfire and playing around it as a sign of joy.

Bulgaria – Roasting a whole lamb is traditional on St George’s Day in Bulgaria as he is the patron saint of shepherds. It is seen as a day when evil enchantments can be broken and a blessed day when the saint blesses the crop and morning dew, so many walk in the early morning to wash their face in the fresh dew.

Croatia – Croats also use fire to mark St George’s Day which is considered the first day of Spring. In the Slavic tradition girls are dressed as goddesses in leaves and sing for locals.

Back in England, normally many local pubs in White working class area (and even a few in the middle class suburbs) would organise events to celebrate St George’s Day, but most would be content with just putting out a few England flags (then taking them down the next day – so as not to offend!)

This year, with the Covid 19 reaching its peak, pubs are still closed (although our borders are still open!), so there will be no St George’s Day celebrations – official or unofficial (to the delight of the politically correct / do-gooder / snowflake brigade etc.).

However, St George’s Day and the spirit of St George will still be celebrated at H&D Towers (where England flags fly proudly all the year round) where the editor and assistant webmaster will raise a glass a two to our patron saint, to England and to the English, while there’s still a few of us left!

And finally, to quote from William Shakespeare’s Henry V (1598):

KING HENRY V:

…And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game’s afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!’

Corbyn in trouble again – media discovers Edwardian “anti-semite”

Jeremy Corbyn is again in trouble with Anglo-Jewry, after prominent Jewish journalist and Tory Lord Finkelstein (formerly Daniel Finkelstein) wrote an article for The Times this morning denouncing the Labour leader for having written a Foreword eight years ago to a book originally published in 1902!

This was the classic tome Imperialism by J.A. Hobson, well known to all serious students of British politics but apparently new to many Fleet Street scribblers.

Hobson was among the most prominent critics of the British Empire’s war in South Africa – the Boer War – in which among other outrages the British Empire pioneered the use of concentration camps to intern Boer civilians.

In the build-up to the war prominent Jewish financiers plotted with the gentile and Rothschild ally Cecil Rhodes to stage a “false flag” incident known to history as the Jameson Raid. This conspiracy failed, but it was not long before some of the same characters had successfully provoked a brutal war. There were almost 50,000 civilian casualties, including more than 26,000 Boer civilian women and children killed in British concentration camps.

Before, during and after the conflict, several leading opponents of the war – ranging from Marxists to Labour Party founders to Liberals – explicitly denounced what they saw as the Jewish influence in provoking and sustaining the conflict.

British Marxist (and first-class cricketer) Henry Hyndman attacked Jewish newspaper owners as “poisoners of the wells of public information”; he went on to condemn “this shameful attempt of a sordid capitalism to drag us into a policy of conquest in tropical regions which can benefit no living Englishman in the long run, though it may swell the overgrown fortunes of the meanest creatures on the earth”.

After the failure of the Jameson Raid, Liberal MP and journalist Henry Labouchère wrote of the plotters arrested by Boer leaders: “Many of the prisoners bear English names but are nonetheless mostly of foreign Hebrew origin, the kind of people frequently having a penchant to Anglicise their names”.

Socialist journalist Harry Quelch (later a friend of Lenin) wrote: “The Jew financier is the personfication of that gold international which today dominates the government and the jingo press of all countries.” Quelch later added: “We have denounced this as a Jew-Capitalist war, and seeing the prominent part Jew-capitalists have taken in the Johannesburg agitation, and seeing their intimate relations with Cabinet ministers here at home and the vituperative fury of their organs in the press, we consider the terms fully justified.”

In September 1899 the radical editor of Reynolds’s Newsapaper, W.M. Thompson, wrote: “The Transvaal policy of the present government is undoubtedly controlled by Jews so that England too is passing under the dominion of the foreigners from the East.”

Labour Party founder Keir Hardie concluded in 1900: “Modern imperialism is really run by half a dozen financial houses, many of them Jewish, to whom politics is a counter in the game of buying and selling securities.”

Even David Lloyd George (who as Prime Minister seventeen years later was to preside over the first official British backing for a Zionist homeland in Palestine) denounced the Tory government’s Boer War policies, sarcastically noting that “all our righteousness, all our hatred of wrongs was reserved for a community of Jews six thousand miles away in Johannesburg who ran away when the fighting came for their own cause.”

One of the most explicitly “anti-semitic” interventions by an opponent of the war was a speech by trade unionist and MP John Burns in February 1900. Burns told the House of Commons: “Wherever we examine, there is the financial Jew, operating, directing, inspiring the agonies that have led to this war. …The trail of the financial serpent is over this war from beginning to end.”

Partly inspired by Burns, the Trade Union Congress passed a resolution at its conference in September 1900 opposing the Boer War as having been waged “to secure the gold fields of South Africa for cosmopolitan Jews most of whom had no patriotism and no country”.

So the author at the centre of the latest Corbyn controversy – J.A. Hobson – was by no means out of line with the prevailing anti-Jewish sentiments of Boer War opponents. He had first been sent to South Africa to report on the brewing conflict by the liberal Manchester Guardian in 1899, and a year later his Guardian journalism was collected into a book. Writing to Guardian proprietor and editor C.P. Scott, Hobson described how he had begun to perceive the Jewish role in South African events: “Many of these men have taken English names, and the extent of the Jew power is thus concealed. I am not exaggerating one whit. I think I can prove it.”

Hobson continued in his letter to Scott (whose family trust still owns today’s Guardian newspaper): “They fastened on the Rand …as they are prepared to fasten upon any other spot on the globe in order to exploit it for the attainment of huge profits and quick return. This small confederacy of international financiers …chiefly foreign Jews, are the economic rulers of South Africa.”

Unlike those who have so keenly jumped on the bandwagon to atack Corbyn for publishing a Foreword praising the “anti-semite” Hobson, H&D actually knows a bit about British imperial history, including the Boer War. The question should not be whether Corbyn, Hobson and others are anti-Jewish. The question should be: are they telling the truth?

New archive for British ‘alt-right’ heritage

A newly launched online archive ‘Roots of Radicalism’ contains vital resources on the ideological heritage of our movement.

This website will be regularly updated and extended: it presently contains thirty articles from the British nationalist magazine Vanguard, first published during 1986/1987.

The site’s founders write:

The term ‘alt-right’ has become widely used in recent years. It does not describe a single, monolithic ideology, but rather a spectrum of related ideas and values. However, it can be said that the alt-right generally:

• Recognises the positive values of group identities, nationalities and ethnicities;
• Is prepared to unflinchingly challenge the dominant values of the liberal consensus, including the obsessive egalitarianism of the left;
• Is not materialistic, and does not think that economic growth is the solution to every problem;
• Does not believe itself to be on the same side as global capitalism – this, more than anything else, distinguishes the ‘alternative right’ from the conventional right.

Mainstream media commentators, blinkered by years of liberal orthodoxy, have tended to regard the alt-right as a disturbing, new phenomenon. We hope they are right to be disturbed, but they are wrong if they think that the ‘alt-right’ is new: its roots go back a long way, long before the term ‘alt-right’ had ever been thought of.

This website looks at the British contribution to this dissident political heritage, and – when finished – will include hundreds of articles from a wide variety of sources, from independent thinkers to those supporting nationalistic political parties.

As you will see these articles do not represent a single ‘party line’. The writers used a variety of different terms to describe themselves: not ‘alt-right’ but radical right or new right. Indeed many would have rejected the term ‘right-wing’ altogether, believing that they were trying to create an alternative to the existing, conventional Left-Right dichotomy and not wanting to be confused with the capitalist right. Such people generally used terms like ‘radical nationalist’ or ‘ethnic nationalist’ to describe themselves. Needless to say, the political Left used rather different terms, of varying degrees of ranting hysteria…

We believe, however, that the content of their writings are more significant than the labels attached to them. What these writers have in common is that they cared about Britain and the British people and tried to show that there is an alternative to the conventional ‘-isms’ of capitalism, liberalism, socialism or communism.

We hope you find this website to be a useful resource. It is our intention to add about thirty articles a month to the site, so please bookmark us, and visit us again from time to time. If there are worthy publications, authors and articles you feel we have overlooked please contact us and let us know – we make no claims to omniscience!

The archive is online now at www.rootsofradicalism.com

Lest we forget

For the last three years Remembrance Day activities have had a special resonance, marking the centenary of the First World War and its many tragic episodes.

The last week has seen the centenary of two interconnected and far-reaching events which would never have occurred had this European Civil War never started – the Bolshevik Revolution and the Balfour Declaration which laid the foundations for seventy years of Soviet tyranny and (so far) almost seventy years of Zionist oppression in Palestine.

On Armistice Day – November 11th 1918 – the mother of Wilfred Owen, a 25-year-old second lieutenant in the Manchester Regiment, was informed that her son had been killed in action seven days earlier. Owen – now regarded as the leading poet of the war – was killed at the head of a raiding party crossing the Sambre-Oise Canal in northern France.  This was one of the last British “victories” of the war.

As we reflect on the cost of “victory” in the two disastrous European civil wars of the 20th century we remember Wilfred Owen’s posthumously published lines:

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

As in previous years the National Front will march to the Cenotaph in London on Remembrance Day, Sunday 12th November.  The parade will assemble at 1.15 pm on Bressenden Place, opposite Victoria railway station, and march off to the Cenotaph at 1.45 pm.  Following the wreath laying ceremony there will be an open air rally nearby, with the event set to conclude around 3.30 pm.

All nationalists are welcome to join the NF’s Remembrance Day commemoration, irrespective of party.

Happy St George’s Day!

Heritage and Destiny wishes all readers a Happy St George’s Day!

The men that worked for England
They have their graves at home:
And birds and bees of England
About the cross can roam

But they that fought for England,
Following a falling star,
Alas, alas for England
They have their graves afar.

And they that rule in England,
In stately conclave met,
Alas, alas for England
They have no graves as yet.

Happy St George’s Day

England First chairman Mark Cotterill wishes all members and supporters a happy St. George’s Day.

Mark said, “I hope all nationalist activists will take an hour or two off today from their hectic election campaigns, to raise a glass to our patron Saint – St. George. I wish all racial-nationalist candidates, from whatever political party all the very best for May 3rd. Lets make sure you give them your full support and get the best possible vote in these difficult times.”

‘Cry God for England, Harry and St George!’ Those immortal words are from Shakespeare’s Henry V, but who was St George and how did he become patron saint of England?

St George was a Roman soldier who lived in the 3rd century AD. At the end of the century the Emperor Diocletian persecuted Christians and St George was martyred in 303 AD.

The cult of St George was brought to England from the Middle East by the crusaders. (St George was popular with the crusaders because he was a soldier). He is supposed to have appeared to them at Antioch in 1098.

St Georges Day, 23 April was set by the synod of Oxford in 1222. Meanwhile he was growing in popularity in England. By the 14th century St George was seen as England’s saint, rather than St. Edmund.

(St. Edmund was the King of East Anglia from 855 until 869, when his English army was defeated by the invading Danish forces known as the Great Heathen Army.  Edmund refused to renounce his Christian faith and was beheaded on the orders of the Danish commander.  A decade later the Danes were defeated by Alfred the Great.  St. Edmund’s body was preserved and later transferred to a market town in Suffolk which became Bury St Edmunds, a shrine which became the centre of a popular Christian cult.)

In the Middle Ages some people formed religious guilds. They prayed for dead members’ souls and provided charity. Many were dedicated to St George. On St George’s day in many places effigies of St George were taken out of the local church and paraded around the parish.

Furthermore in the Middle Ages the legend of St George and the dragon grew up. Many places also paraded a model dragon.

However after the Reformation the cult of the saints was swept away in England and St George lost much of his importance. Unlike many national saints St George has been neglected, rather like the English in general. However in recent years St Georges Day has been revived – thanks to English nationalism, which has also been revived since the 1990’s – as a patriotic symbol of England, the English nation and the white English people.

Lest we forget

Serving with the 9th Battalion the Devonshire Regiment, Lieutenant William Noel Hodgson was on the battlefield near the French village of Mametz in June 1916, preparing for what history now records as the Battle of the Somme. The scheduled date for the start of the battle was originally to be August 1916, but had been brought forward to the 29th June, 1916. Owing to bad weather in the week building up to the battle the date of the attack was postponed at 11.00 hours on 28th June and moved by two days to the morning of 1st July 1916.

It is believed that Noel Hodgson (who was the son of the Bishop of St. Edmundbury and Ipswich and before the war had been studying classics at Christ Church, Oxford) wrote the poem Before Action on 29th June.

By all the glories of the day
And the cool evening’s benison
By that last sunset touch that lay
Upon the hills when day was done,
By beauty lavishly outpoured
And blessings carelessly received,
By all the days that I have lived
Make me a soldier, Lord.

By all of all man’s hopes and fears
And all the wonders poets sing,
The laughter of unclouded years,
And every sad and lovely thing;
By the romantic ages stored
With high endeavour that was his,
By all his mad catastrophes
Make me a man, O Lord.

I, that on my familiar hill
Saw with uncomprehending eyes
A hundred of thy sunsets spill
Their fresh and sanguine sacrifice,
Ere the sun swings his noonday sword
Must say good-bye to all of this; –
By all delights that I shall miss,
Help me to die, O Lord.

Within an hour of the attack it is said that Lieutanant Hodgson was killed. He was aged 23. He would never again see a sunset.

That night Lieutenant Hodgson’s body was retrieved and brought back into the British Front Line position, along with over 160 of his comrades. They were buried in the vicinity of a little wood called Mansell Copse which was in the British Front Line trench position at the start of the day.

A ceremony was held at the burial site on 4th July. A wooden cross was put up at the time by the survivors of the 9th and 8th Battalions of the Devonshire Regiment. Carved on the cross were the words: “The Devonshires held this trench, the Devonshires hold it still.” The graves were left in this position when the cemeteries were rebuilt after the war. 163 graves are now contained in the cemetery which is named “Devonshire Cemetery”. All but one of the casualties are men of the Devonshire Regiment. Lieutenant Noel Hodgson is buried in Grave reference A. 3.

Thirty-three years on from Lt. Hodgson’s supreme sacrifice his fellow Englishmen were again called upon to give their lives in a second European civil war.  Fast forward another six or seven decades and their great-grandchildren were despatched to Iraq and Afghanistan in further wickedly destructive conflicts, which like those 20th century wars are leaving our nation in a worse state – morally, financially and strategically – despite a seemingly endless blood sacrifice.

The England First Party salutes the memory of those who will never grow old.  We hope that their legacy will be a commitment to rebuild an England that they would have been proud of, while ensuring that present and future generations do not share their fate.

Crossing the Rubicon: Peter Rushton speaks to the John Tyndall Memorial Meeting 2011

On 8th October 2011 Peter Rushton, assistant editor of Heritage and Destiny, chaired the sixth John Tyndall Memorial Meeting in Preston, Lancashire, and gave the following address.

John Tyndall led the nationalist movement from obscurity to the forefront of British politics, but he knew that anyone involved in our cause must experience the depths of crisis as well as the heights of achievement.

As National Front chairman, as founder of the British National Party and as editor of Spearhead for more than forty years, he knew both triumph and disaster – and for the six years between Nick Griffin’s takeover of the BNP in 1999 and his own death in 2005, John Tyndall consistently argued that those who were increasingly sceptical of Griffin’s leadership should remain within the BNP and fight to recapture it.

The position of British nationalism today requires a reassessment of that position.

We now face the most serious crisis in the history of our movement.  On Monday night the BBC will broadcast allegations of fraud against the BNP chairman Nick Griffin and his cronies. I have no doubt that those allegations will be fully documented, with evidence provided from people who until recently were Mr Griffin’s closest associates.

But none of this changes the underlying political realities. None of this changes the more serious crisis, which is the one facing our people and our nation – in fact facing all European peoples and nations.  None of this changes the potential for a nationalist party capable of presenting a credible face to the voters of England.

For the first time since 1066 our country’s population growth is mainly due to immigration, with a disastrous impact on schools, on the chronic shortage of affordable housing, and on the National Health Service.

The political establishment has never consulted the English people about this radical transformation of our country: a transformation that has been accelerated because just as foreigners have been arriving, increasing numbers of indigenous Britons have been leaving.

Let’s dispose of the nonsense that this is all perfectly normal, that England is some sort of mongrel nation built up through immigration.  The truth is that our population grew steadily up to about 1750, and very rapidly after 1750, without any mass immigration – until after the Second World War.

Our population in 1541 was about 2.7 million, which grew during the relative peace and stability of the Elizabethan age to about 4 million by 1600.

Over the next century and a half our population grew quite slowly to about 5.7 million by 1750.  Interestingly it is assumed by demographic historians that this 1750 figure was probably lower than the total English population in 1300, when there were probably more than six million inhabitants of England.

The total British population was reduced by about 30% by the Black Death in the mid-14th century, so by the 1380s was only about 3 million.

It was the Agrarian Revolution followed by the Industrial Revolution that led to a population boom, so that by the early 1840s the English population was around 15 million: more than double its previous record and more than five times the population a century earlier!

One of the earliest official historians of postwar immigration, J.A. Tannahill, pointed out, in words that should be repeated to every lying apologist for multiracialism:

“Britain is not by tradition a country of immigration.  In fact, between 1815 and 1914, she not only quadrupled her population without resorting to large-scale foreign immigration, but also despatched over 20 million people to destinations beyond Europe, at first largely to the USA and later in ever increasing proportion to the developing countries of the Commonwealth.”

One of the few major influxes of immigrants before modern times were the so-called Huguenots,  Protestant refugess from France and Flanders arriving in two waves at the end of the 16th and 17th centuries.  But in total even these Huguenots numbered perhaps 40,000 or 50,000.  (This was far larger than for example the Jewish immigrant population, which as late as 1750 probably numbered only about 5,000.)

We hear a lot about the economic benefits of immigration, but the Huguenots were one of the very few examples where this is true, bringing with them not only capital assets but skills in weaving, hat making and watch making.  There were about another 40,000 immigrants from France as a result of the Terror in the 1780s and 1790s after the French Revolution.  Strangely enough it was this wave of immigration, causing concern that some revolutionary spies might be smuggled in among the immigrants, that led to the first ever English laws regulating immigration.  Until the 1790s this was never thought necessary, because the numbers of immigrants were so small.  Far from our country being a creation of waves of immigration, immigrants were such an insignificant factor that no one bothered to formulate regulations!

Until the late 1940s the overwhelming majority of immigrants in England were Irish immigrants.  A few thousand black immigrants arrived as a result of the slave trade, but hardly any interbred with the indigenous English population.

If you read the Sherlock Holmes stories you will occasionally find reference to another type of immigrant who could be found in Victorian England – the so-called “Lascars” who usually lived in dockland areas such as Limehouse, having arrived as crew members of British ships trading with the Far East.  A few female Asian immigrants were known as “ayahs”, nannies for East India company officials, or later officers of the British Raj.

Yet as Dr Roger Bullard of Manchester University has estimated:

“Until the beginning of the 20th century the South Asian presence in Britain remained minute.  At any given time it would have included no more than a few hundred Ayahs and Lascars, [and] a rather smaller number of students seeking professional qualifications, whilst the number of princes and other aristocrats – most of whom only made the briefest of visits – could probably have been counted on the fingers of one hand.”

You can imagine why ­– given this historical context of very low immigration – Englishmen were very concerned by the tidal wave of Jewish immigration at the end of the 19th century.  About 150,000 Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe settled in Britain between 1880 and 1914, the majority in a fifteen year period between 1891 and 1906.

Just as the French Revolutionary immigration in the 1790s had led to a brief period of immigration control, it was this Jewish immigration that led to the basis for modern immigration laws, the Aliens Act of 1905.  It wasn’t a matter of “anti-semitism”, more a question of the scale of this Jewish immigration being way beyond anything our country had previously experienced.  We were not a nation of immigrants.

Even in the period between the two world wars, and even accounting for the number of colonial troops who stayed in England after 1918, immigration was a very minor factor in English life.  Only about 6,000 to 7,000 immigrants from the Indian sub-continent settled in Britain during the whole period from 1918 to 1939.

(About another 60,000 Jews arrived as refugees from national socialism during the 1930s, plus another 10,000 during the War.)

As is obvious, the scale of immigration post-war dwarfs anything previously seen in our history – which is not surprising because the British Nationality Act in 1948 explicitly granted the right of entry to 800 million subjects of the British Empire worldwide.  Madness, you might think – or was it wickedness?

Even in those days it was known perfectly well that a sane immigration policy would have to be a racially conscious policy.

In 1949 the Royal Commission on Population determined:

“Immigrants on a large scale into a fully established society like ours could only be welcomed without reserve if the immigrants were of good human stock and were not prevented by their religion or race from intermarrying with the local population and becoming merged with it.”

Four years earlier, immediately after the end of the war in 1945, the Fabian Society, closely linked to the Labour Party, had issued a pamphlet Population and the People, which said that:
“From the population point of view we need to encourage potential parents of healthy stock to settle in the British Isles, and to discourage those whom we already have from leaving.  …Men and women of European stock, between the ages of 20 and 30, are the immigrants best suited to assist population policy.”

The Fabian pamphlet added that immigrants should be chosen carefully to “ensure they were assimilable and could adapt to the British way of life.  …The utmost care should, of course, be taken to admit only those physically and mentally sound, and free from criminal records, who will introduce a sound stock into the country.  The eugenics of immigration cannot be overstressed.”

In 1948 – two days after the arrival of the infamous immigrant ship Empire Windrush, eleven Labour MPs wrote to their leader, Prime Minister Clement Attlee, warning:

“An influx of coloured people domiciled here is likely to impair the harmony, strength and cohesion of our public and social life and to cause discord and unhappiness among all concerned.”

As we have a former Bradford city councillor with us today, I should mention that two of those Labour MPs who spoke out against immigration in those early days were from his city: Frank McLeavy, later Lord McLeavy, MP for Bradford East, 1945-66; and Meredith Titterington, Bradford South, 1945-49, former Lord Mayor of Bradford.

[This website will later have a special section to honour those Labour MPs of yesteryear who spoke for England in opposing mass immigration.]

Since those days, the element within the Labour Party that truly aimed to fight for the white working class has steadily diminished, even as the truth of their warning that immigration would lead to “discord and unhappiness among all concerned” has been demonstrated time and again (most recently with the riots a few weeks ago).  Nationalist parties have become the true representatives of white workers.  While in many ways very different men with different outlooks, Oswald Mosley, Enoch Powell and John Tyndall spoke for Englishmen and English interests that the Labour Party (and of course the Conservatives and Liberals) have abandoned.

So it is with a heavy heart that nationalists must face the fact that we ourselves have been betrayed by the leadership of our largest nationalist party.  In Ancient Rome provincial governors had to disarm themselves before crossing the River Rubicon and re-entering Roman territory.  To march across the Rubicon with your army was to challenge the leadership of the Roman Republic and was treason, punishable by death.

In 49 BC Julius Caesar deliberately defied his leaders by taking his army across that river, and still today we speak of “crossing the Rubicon” as an irreversible step when we boldly choose to confront destiny.

On Monday night we will cross the Rubicon.  Whether we like it or not, events will carry all serious nationalist activists across the Rubicon and force us to face facts too long ignored.

The leadership of the British National Party will be exposed for criminal fraud, which tragically cannot avoid staining every member of that party, regardless of their personal honesty and decency in the vast majority of cases – everyone who represents that party at any level will be tainted.

Many people have had to wrestle with a conflict of loyalty, and most especially with the knowledge that breaking away from the BNP, exposing the division of our movement to public view, trying to build a new movement out of the wreckage of the old, would be a titanic endeavour.

After Monday all such conflicts, all such strategic calculations will be settled.  It will simply no longer be possible to argue that somehow the BNP leadership can be persuaded to see sense, somehow our difficulties can be patched up.

All personal and factional divisions pale into insignficance next to the overriding division of our movement:
on one side a tiny gang of crooks and embezzlers;
on the other the vast majority of decent and committed patriots.

In St Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians he writes:
“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

Let us as nationalists find the courage to put away childish things and confront reality.

We will not succeed in building a new post-Griffin movement by pursuing narrow factional agendas.  It seems to me unquestionable that none of the alternative parties currently operating will be big enough to take on this task alone.

I therefore call on the leading activists in British nationalism to make a complete and irrevocable break from Nick Griffin and his party.  To make the tough choice to cut loose from the BNP before its corrupt leadership drags down even more good nationalists.

Precisely because our national crisis and our racial crisis has moved on to an even more acute stage, the challenge is in some ways even greater than that faced by John Tyndall during the creation of the National Front and the British National Party.  But the potential prize is greater too, as so many of our people are permanently disillusioned with Lib, Lab and Con.

We have absolutely no chance of capturing the loyalty of those disillusioned voters while our own movement is mired in corruption.

Yet if we can find the courage to cut out that cancer, our recovery can be rapid and our future can be bright.

« Previous Page — Next Page »