Videos from 2023 H&D Meeting now online
Despite many loud threats from the ultra-left and their financial backers, the 2023 H&D meeting went ahead unimpeded, at a hotel in the Lancashire countryside, just outside Preston.
We are have now uploaded videos from this event, courtesy of our media team who put in many hours of hard work on the day and during the following week.
Laura Towler, from Patriotic Alternative, paid tribute to the political legacy of Sir Oswald Mosley, one of the four men honoured at this year’s meeting, 75 years after the foundation of Mosley’s postwar Union Movement. Some of us at H&D knew veteran Mosleyites, and we are certain that they (and especially Lady Mosley) would have been very happy to know that Laura, her husband Sam, and the PA team are advancing the patriotic cause in 2023!
PA’s founder and leader Mark Collett gave the penultimate speech (which for technical reasons is only available in audio).
Mark spoke about his years in the BNP during the first decade of the millennium. As older viewers will remember, he was one of the most effective and hardworking BNP officers of that era, but his work and that of many other sincere patriots came to nothing, due to the corruption and incompetence of BNP leader Nick Griffin. In this frank and cogent analysis, Mark describes what was good about the BNP, and what went so badly wrong.
Professor John Kersey, Vice-President of the Traditional Britain Group, addressed the broken state of British politics and society, and emphasised that “musical freedom comes the moment you say it isn’t about the money or the fame, or about what anyone, powerful or not, thinks of it. It’s about the need to engage with our culture and community, to create, to communicate and to inspire. The reward isn’t money or fame. The reward is doing it and making your audience feel that you have connected with them in a way that nothing else can.”
‘Anti-fascist’ hysteria during the two weeks since the meeting has focused on our European correspondent, Isabel Peralta, who spoke of her conviction that political faith, loyalty, honour and fanaticism can move mountains.
Isabel called on racial nationalists to show the spirit of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans defending Europe at Thermopylae, and of the national socialist martyrs who fell in Munich in 1923, almost a decade before the triumph of their cause.
The true European spirit is alive in our hearts and will triumph: those H&D readers and European nationalists lucky enough to know Isabel Peralta will never doubt it.
The closing speech was given by H&D’s assistant editor Peter Rushton, who also writes the Real History blog. Peter explains who the real “terrorists” are, and exposes their connections to the same establishment and ‘antifa’ organisations that sought to impede this year’s meeting; the same sinister forces that pulled the strings behind UK border security to harass fellow speaker Isabel Peralta.
Paying tribute to the four men honoured at this year’s event – Derek Beackon, Andrew Brons, Sir Oswald Mosley, and Ian Stuart – Peter emphasised that our enemies’ fear is a sign that the flame of European nationalism burns brightly in 2023. As Sir Oswald Mosley told his followers: “Together in Britain we have lit a flame that the ages shall not extinguish. Guard that sacred flame, my brother Blackshirts, until it illumines Britain and lights again the path of mankind.”
Dr Jim Lewthwaite, retired archaeology lecturer, Orangeman, and chairman of the British Democrats, based his speech around an analysis of Professor Nigel Biggar’s new book Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning – which was reviewed in Issue 115 of H&D.
Jim talked about the positive side of the British Empire, as well as slavery and how the British were the first of the major powers of the time to ban it. The British Democrats are now beginning to attract significant numbers of experienced activists as well as those new to electoral politics. Despite disappointing council election results earlier this year, they are presently the main electoral force on the British nationalist scene. And unlike the tragic rump of the BNP (which lives off legacies and does no serious political work), the Brit Dems do not pay any staff. All their funds are spent on building the movement and spreading information about the present crisis of our nation.
Stephen Frost, National Secretary of British Movement, acknowledged that our movement of resistance to multicultural decay is a ‘broad church’ of patriots, not all of whom by any means are national socialists (as represented by BM and Colin Jordan’s earlier organisations). Yet as he emphasised, BM has always been prepared to lend its support to sincere comrades from other groups and parties – at demonstrations, election campaigns and at meetings such as this one.
Steve added that the task of all nationalists is to spread propaganda for our cause by any and every means and format: whether old-school with hard copy leaflets and newspapers or by more modern means using the internet including social media. The propaganda war is bringing increasing numbers to realisation of the essential truth of our values. Stephen Frost and BM have utilised these propaganda methods, via such means as the ‘Under the Sunwheel’ podcast. Colin Jordan’s political legacy continues to inspire new generations of activists.
Stephen Frost’s co-host at ‘Under the Sunwheel’, Benny Bullman, lead singer of the Rock Against Communism band Whitelaw, spoke in tribute to Ian Stuart, founder of Blood & Honour and lead singer of Skrewdriver, who tragically died 30 years ago this month.
Benny pointed out that Ian Stuart’s dedication to race and nation led him to turn his back on a lucrative career in ‘mainstream’ music (an industry controlled by the usual suspects). Ian achieved far more than the wealth and fame that was accrued by some of his contemporaries after they sold out. The legacy of Ian Stuart and Skrewdriver continues to inspire new generations of patriots throughout the White world.
Due to a slight technical problem with sound at the end of the video (now resolved) our US correspondent Ken Schmidt’s speech to the conference has only just been posted online.
Ken has been an activist and writer in the American nationalist movement since the 1980s. He writes a regular column in H&D entitled “From the other side of the Pond”. He is a member of the League of the South, although he is now living back in the north – in New Jersey.
He spoke firstly about Donald Trump and the US presidential election and then about how the USA as a country is breaking up due to multi-racialism/multi-culturalism. And then about the various movements who support secession and the break-up of the USA as the only long-term solution if White people are to have any future in North America.
Dr Rolf Kosiek (1934-2023)
One of the leading intellectuals in European nationalism – the German scientist, historian and political activist Dr Rolf Kosiek – has died aged 88.
His initial studies at the universities of Göttingen and Heidelberg were in physics, chemistry and history, and he obtained his doctorate in nuclear physics at Heidelberg in 1963. He was a research assistant at Heidelberg University, and taught at the Nürtingen University of Applied Sciences until his dismissal for political reasons in 1980.
Dr Kosiek was an active NPD member from the mid-1960s and represented his party in the Landtag (regional parliament) of Baden-Württemberg from 1968-72, as well as serving as a local councillor from 1968-73. During the 1970s he was a member of the NPD’s federal executive.
After his politically-motivated dismissal from his academic post, Dr Kosiek worked for the rest of his life with the German nationalist publishers Grabert-Verlag. He wrote regular articles (under the pen name Rudolf Künast) for the revisionist journal Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart, and also wrote for another very high quality journal, Nation und Europa.
Dr Kosiek was perhaps best known among German nationalist intellectuals as editor (with fellow NPD activist and historian Dr Olaf Rose) of the five-volume German historical encyclopedia, Der Große Wendig. Richtigstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte (‘Corrections to Contemporary History’).
Another of his most important works was a study of the subversive Frankfurt School, published in 2001 (Die Frankfurter Schule und ihre zersetzenden Auswirkungen).
H&D is grateful to comrades at Devenir Europeo for informing us of Dr Kosiek’s death. European nationalists at the intellectual vanguard of our struggle will mourn his loss but continue to be inspired by his example and legacy.
Politicised policing in the UK
Home Secretary Suella Braverman – who was being applauded by some racial nationalists only a week ago after a speech about immigration – has wasted no time in seeking to politicise the response of UK police officers to the developing war in Palestine.
Braverman is the daughter of Indian immigrants who moved to Britain during the 1960s. She is married to a Jewish businessman, Rael Braverman.
And she has obvious ambitions to succeed her fellow Indian Rishi Sunak as the UK’s Prime Minister.
Today Braverman abandoned any pretence that her party is interested in a just and lasting Middle East peace settlement.
Writing to Chief Constables across England and Wales, Braverman reminded them that support for Hamas is a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act, which means that even wearing certain symbols can lead to a jail sentence in the UK. (See Saturday’s H&D article written within hours of Hamas breaching Israeli security.)
But she went further. In a blatant attempt to silence political debate, Braverman now seeks to criminalise one of the slogans most widely heard on pro-Palestinian demonstrations. She told Chief Constables:
“It is not just explicit pro-Hamas symbols and chants that are cause for concern. I would encourage police to consider whether chants such as ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ should be understood as an expression of a violent desire to see Israel erased from the world, and whether its use in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence.”
Braverman even suggests that displaying a Palestinian flag at a demonstration should in some circumstances be regarded as a criminal offence.
Perhaps most significantly, the Home Secretary used this letter to suggest to Chief Constables that (for the first time in the UK) possession of a swastika symbol should be treated as a criminal offence, in the context of a pro-Palestinian demonstration.
In most cases, H&D readers would probably deprecate the use of swastikas at such events, as they are almost always used by leftwing anti-Zionists in the context of suggesting an equivalence between National Socialism and Zionism. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary’s suggestion – that simple possession of a swastika symbol should be a criminal offence – is a dangerous development and one which should be resisted by all legal means.
Our readers will not be surprised to see that Braverman highlighted the “close collaboration” between English and Welsh police forces and the ultra-Zionist lobby group Community Security Trust (CST).
CST grew out of the violent anti-fascist 62 Group which specialised in physical attacks on British nationalists during the 1960s. CST’s founder Gerald Ronson was in charge of finances for the 62 Group, working alongside its “field commander” Cyril Paskin and its intelligence chief Gerry Gable, who is now the editor and publisher of Searchlight. Gable and two other 62 Group operatives were convicted for an illegal entry into the home of historian David Irving, where they aimed to steal documents.
Paskin, Ronson, and Gable planned many acts of political thuggery. One of the last 62 Group operations was in November 1971, when the 62 Group attacked a conference in a Brighton Hotel organised by the Northern League, an academic racial nationalist group. Paskin and others received suspended prison sentences for affray.
Some years earlier, Gerald Ronson was convicted of a politically motivated assault on a member of Sir Oswald Mosley’s Union Movement.
During the mid-1960s, the 62 Group evolved into a more politically focused group called JACOB, which in turn evolved into CST. The development of JACOB was advised by Monica Medicks, an Israeli intelligence officer who had previously been a member of the anti-British terrorist group Irgun.
Unlike Suella Braverman and the Conservative Party, Heritage and Destiny supports the interests of Britons and Europeans rather than Israelis.
European nationalists have different views on the Middle East. But our movements – and future nationalist governments in Europe – will act in the interests of Europeans and will never prostrate ourselves as the uncritical tools of international Zionist lobbies. Especially not lobbies with a long record of anti-European, anti-nationalist violence.
Both Braverman and her political opponent Jeremy Corbyn are playing games with the issues of “racism” and “anti-semitism”. Corbyn persistently lies about the historical events of Cable Street in 1936 (where Jews and Communists fought London police in an effort to obstruct a march by Mosley’s supporters), and as we recently reported, he took the extraordinary step of writing to Braverman to pressure the Home Secretary into banning our European correspondent Isabel Peralta from entering the UK.
And now we see Braverman herself seeking to criminalise anti-Zionism and extend the UK’s criminal law into other areas of previously legitimate political debate.
H&D will of course try to stay within the law at all times. But Braverman is playing a dangerous game: her present trajectory is likely to force a confrontation in which not only British nationalists, but people of various political persuasions critical of Israel are dragged into court. If this happens, she can expect to be fought at every level, from the streets of Britain to the European Courts.
Ian Stuart Donaldson: 1957-1993. 30 years since the death of a legend
Ian Stuart Donaldson was the lead singer of the most famous White nationalist band of all time – Skrewdriver – a gifted musician, and dedicated movement activist.
In the NF he was known as Ian Stuart, a large Lancashire lad from Blackpool. He had that ‘something’ charisma about him that made him stand out from the crowd. It is very hard to believe that it is now thirty years since he died in that fateful car-crash in Derbyshire on 24th September, 1993.
Ian was born on 11th August, 1957 in the seaside town of Blackpool. His father was an engineer who ran his own toolmaker’s business and his mother was an old-fashioned northern house-wife. He went to Baines Grammar school in Poulton-le-Fylde – which is less than twenty miles from H&D’s Preston office – and was pretty wild as a teenager by all accounts!
On leaving school with a couple of O-Levels Ian did various jobs including apprenticeships, but his heart was really set on a career in music. The first band he joined was Tumbling Dice in 1976, but that soon broke up and Ian formed another and started sending out tapes to record companies. Their luck was in and Chiswick Records asked them to come to London and record a session in their studio. The band not even having a name chose Skrewdriver from a list supplied by Chiswick!
Ian and his band packed their bags, moved to London and around this time adopted the full Skinhead image. They played concerts supporting Motorhead and The Police among many others and began to build a name and a following. At that time Graham McPherson (Suggs), later the lead singer with Madness, was one of their roadies.
After the release of the band’s first album All Skrewed Up there was a showdown with both their management and record company who wanted Skrewdriver to denounce their nationalist, mainly skinhead following and change their image following pressure from the left-wing music press in general and New Musical Express in particular.
They refused to do this, so Chiswick cancelled their contract. Now, for the first time Ian began really to think politically and joined the National Front. Soon after the idea for Rock Against Communism began to take shape and the White Power EP was released. An ‘underground hit’ from the beginning, this poor sound quality first effort was to lead to a White youth revolution in the late 1970s that continues to this day.
Ian Stuart’s music is of a ‘love it or hate it’ variety and like all artistic performances is a matter of subjective individual taste. Ian understood this and combined his political beliefs with a great depth of musical knowledge and variety. So not only did he record as lead singer of Skrewdriver, and in doing so almost single-handedly create a new brand of music which we now know as White Power Rock, he recorded as The Klansmen, which was a combination of Bluegrass Country and Rockabilly; as White Diamond, for heavy metal fans; and with Stigger (Steve Calladine) singing a combination of traditional ballads such as the Green Fields of France and his own compositions such as Suddenly. This is of course, just the merest sketch of Ian Stuart’s life and activities.
Politically Ian was first active in the NF’s Blackpool branch in the late 1970s, before moving to London, where he joined Central London branch. He soon became the branch organiser, winning the NF’s branch recruitment cup two years in a row. In 1987 he resigned from the NF for political and financial reasons and formed a new nationalist organisation called Blood and Honour (commonly known as B&H or “28”).
After almost ten years of living in the last White-run hotel in King’s Cross, London, and after serving a prison sentence for defending himself, Ian gave up on our capital city and moved to Derbyshire at the end of the 1980s. From there he organised concerts, ran B&H and published his magazine of the same name.
The day after that fatal car-crash, in which his good friend Stephen Flint (Boo) was killed, Ian too died of his wounds in hospital. He was only 36 years old and yet left a lifetime of great recordings behind him. Ian Stuart is a movement legend, he will go down in nationalist folklore. Even though he is no longer with us, his music will live on forever.
THE LADDER TO POWER – THE ONLY NATIONALIST STRATEGY THAT HAS EVER WORKED IN BRITAIN
Introduction – the View from Today:
The “Ladder Strategy”, a practical blueprint for how the Nationalist Movement could advance to its ultimate objective of national government, evolved on the ground in the 1960s and ’70s in branches of the John Bean iteration of the British National Party and the mid-1970s National Party breakaway from the National Front.
It was first articulated in a coherent form, as expounded here, by leading 1970s and ‘80s Nationalist activist Steve Brady, who had himself been involved in its implementation by the Blackburn and Lewisham and Southwark Branches of the National Party in the mid-’70s. An implementation rewarded by the unprecedented election of two Nationalist councillors in Blackburn in May 1976 and a 26% vote in a council election in Deptford, South London, for the NP later that year. In the latter case, the National Front, despite being much bigger and better known, but wedded to a strategy aimed at winning national media publicity rather than the NP alternative sinking local roots and sustained campaigning in the community, was easily beaten by the NP, gaining only 18%. Had the NF stood aside in the wider interests of the Movement, the combined vote would have seen the NP candidate elected.
Steve shared his experiences, and the strategy they embodied, at NF political training weekends at Liss House, in rural Hampshire, in the early 1980s. Young activists trained at these camps went on to apply the strategy in the latest iteration of the BNP in the 1990s and 2000s, with resounding success, culminating in the election of over fifty councillors across the country, including four at County Council level, and two Members of the European Parliament.
Meanwhile, Steve Brady, by now a member of the National Directorate of the Flag section of the National Front after Nick Griffin split the party in early 1986, documented the strategy in these two articles published in the Flag NF ideological magazine Vanguard in late 1987.
In the first article, Steve explains why the previous Nationalist strategy of trying to win support and grow itself by attracting national media publicity through marches and demonstrations was fatally flawed, because the national media “central nexus” is irreconcilably hostile to our Movement and, understandably from its point of view, refused to allow itself to be used in this way. So the coverage thus obtained in TV and newspapers, what would now be termed the Mainstream Media, MSM, was relentlessly hostile and negative. As Steve once put it, we were “giving our worst enemy a vital message to give to our best friends”. Therefore this strategy had failed and, he argued and events were to prove, would continue to fail.
Instead he argued that we should communicate with our target audience, the White British public, directly and in person, via the so called local nexus, via knocking on their doors and campaigning on local issues in their communities, aided by carefully produced national and local printed media, a Party newspaper and local leaflets and newsletters. In the second of his articles, Steve explained that this would build the first, foundation, rung on the Ladder to Power. Which in turn would enable the building of the second, and so on.
That ladder was based on the simple idea that if, as the Movement does, you face a high barrier, a political wall, keeping you from your target, national power, you do not persist with futile attempts to jump it in one leap, hoping, inevitably in vain, for a boost over from a hostile MSM. Instead you build a ladder, where constructing each rung of itself endows you with the resources in terms of membership and public support to aspire realistically to build the next rung, and so on all the way to Government.
This was scoffed at by our enemies at the time, given that the Movement then struggled to achieve even the lowest rung anywhere, despite earlier success, rendered ineffectual by the factionalism, disunity and selfish egotism that have been the persisting bane of our Movement. However, when seriously implemented, locally in Tower Hamlets in the early 1990s and then nationally from 2000 on, the strategy demonstrably worked. By 2010, with dozens of Nationalist councillors and two MEPs, our enemies were not laughing at all. Under better and broader leadership, the BNP would by then have been poised realistically to hope to attain its first national MPs by the 2015 General Election. Instead Nick Griffin destroyed his second Nationalist party.
But the strategy here reproduced is still valid and would still work. Even on a local scale with a tiny organisation, H&D Editor Mark Cotterill was able to use it to win election to Blackburn council, so even small, local groups can, and should, start to climb the ladder now. This actually probably shows that even the credit Steve gave to using the Central Nexus to get the organisation’s name across to the public is misplaced – the public at large had never heard of Mark’s party from the central nexus, but using the local nexus effectively won him the seat anyway. Future movements may well be able to ignore the central nexus, the MSM, pretty much, as long as they use the local nexus and follow the Ladder Strategy based on it. Unlike any alternatives put forward and in some cases tried again and again for the best part of a century, it actually works.
Therefore we reproduce it here, unedited. It does show its age and its origin, but we believe that in no way undermines its essential validity and usefulness.
However, obviously given the articles are nearly 40 years old, and written by a senior member of his particular Nationalist group, the details are occasionally dated and slanted to boost the author’s faction at the time and reflect its own particular ideological position on some issues, a position not necessarily required for the strategy described to work. The resources of the Flag NF in late 1987 are, notably, not understated! Although it is true, for example, that the group’s Birmingham Branch did begin to implement the Ladder Strategy, their organisation collapsed before they got very far with it.
It collapsed because, as the author himself later admitted, whilst it was true, and probably still is, that most of the British public are sympathetic to a broad British Nationalist programme of social conservatism, economic radicalism, and maintaining the essential ethnic identity of our homeland, by 1987 few of that public would have taken the National Front seriously as a potential vehicle for such a programme.
Its earlier futile national media/central nexus-oriented strategy, leading to a self-defeating reliance on marches which our opponents were able to make ever more violent, repelling much of the public, had already discredited it beyond repair.
In hindsight, the NF should have switched from a central nexus strategy to and exclusively local nexus oriented one after its last march not portrayed as “NF MARCH SPARKS RIOT”, Red Lion Square in June 1974. Our opponents discovered then, and know now, that violent opposition to our, originally peaceful, demos is used by the MSM to blame us for the violence and put people off. This may not be true, however, for local community protests, e.g. against “asylum seeker” hostels, where our opponents will be dealt with by the local community.
However the NF had persisted with a central nexus strategy based on marches long after its political sell-by date and had become linked in the public mind with the skinheads and football hooligans who were needed to make the marches physically viable, and whose presence the MSM central nexus was delighted to publicise. After they had seen off the Griffin faction, most of the Flag leadership realised the NF had poisoned its own PR water by 1992, and walked away. It is possible that, if they had persisted long enough in a community/local nexus communication strategy, they might have detoxified their brand directly with the public, eventually. We will never know.
More notably, this was all written many years before the rise of the Internet and social media. However, I am sure the author of said articles would argue that this new technology is less of a radical alternative way of taking our message to the public than it seems, being essentially more a part of the old central nexus than the local one or some new nexus connecting us and the public..
It is true that unlike when using the MSM itself, Nationalists can control the content of their own messages on these media. This is certainly most useful, especially, it could be argued, for communicating ideological and political education to other Nationalists rather than the general public. Nonetheless as far as taking our message to the public goes it lacks the direct personal contact with Nationalists which is the key strength of the local nexus approach in overcoming MSM smear propaganda.
Also, and most importantly, a communications strategy based on the Internet and social media is fatally vulnerable to the fact that this medium, like the old TV/newspaper MSM central nexus, is totally and absolutely controlled by our irreconcilable enemies, Zuckerberg and his ilk, who can, often have and always if we look like getting anywhere using those media will, simply pull the plug and shut us down. They still control the medium and can silence the message.
This is not true of, and only of, the local nexus on which, and only on which the Ladder Strategy is based. That Strategy can proceed perfectly well in the face of unrelented MSM bile and the total exclusion of Nationalists from the Internet and social media, which may well happen. “New Technology”, while certainly worth using while we still can, is not a quick fix or an easy way around the enemy control of our media.
There is no substitute for the hard graft of talking to our people direct themselves, campaigning on issues which of themselves may be of little direct relevance to our Nationalist ideology but which matter to the communities involved, and building, step by step, the ladder which will, as trying it has shown, bring us ultimately to power, and thus save our Race and Nation. There is no other, easier way or simple short-cut to do that. Here is the way to win that we know works.
Click here to read The Road to Power, Part 1 (first published in Vanguard, October 1987).
THE ROAD TO POWER 2 – THE LADDER STRATEGY
In the first article in this series, I outlined the broad strategic direction in which the National Front is pointing – towards the “local information nexus”, towards direct contact with the people, and away from the “central nexus”, the mass media, as a means of putting across our message. Now I want to get down to brass tacks, and outline the first steps each Branch must take on the long road to victory.
The first step is to select a “target ward”, the ward in which the NF will build its first mass support base in each area. These wards should be selected for, obviously, good NF potential, where our policies on e.g. immigration, unemployment or whatever will be seen as directly relevant to the local people, but where the situation, especially the racial one, is not so hopeless in the foreseeable future that local Whites have despaired, fled, or stayed because they like the way things are now.
They should also be surrounded by other wards in the same Parliamentary constituency which are mostly, if not as good as the selected target ward, at least of reasonable potential. For ultimately the constituency will itself be targeted. Finally, obviously, the target ward should be reasonably accessible to local Branch activists.
The next step is to survey the target ward in depth. This is done in two sweeps. Sweep one consists of activists, over a period of weeks, knocking on every door in the ward selling NF literature. To make this easier, The Flag in particular has been carefully designed to appeal to ordinary people who may never have seen an NF publication before.
On a copy of the electoral roll for the ward, each house’s response is noted. Sympathisers will form the basis of a permanent monthly paper round, and will be invited to buy extra Flags etc. to pass on to their friends; eventually some will be politically educated and recruited. “Don’t knows” will be leafletted and intermittently visited again. Hostiles will also be noted and ignored/avoided in future..
Sweep two, at more or less the same time but with different personnel (especially older or more reticent activists) will also go through the ward, not identifying themselves as NF but conducting an “opinion poll”, aimed at identifying the main local issues in the ward, for later local propaganda targeting. Birmingham Branch, who have successfully done this, will be pleased to explain the details to other Branches.
POTENTIAL RECRUITS
In the succeeding months, some activists simply service the existing doorstep paper buyers every month (here again, the older or more reticent come into their own.) These potential recruits should gradually be introduced to more in-depth Party literature, so that by the time they are ready to join the Party, if they ever are, they will understand at least basic ideology. Again, in the NF Statement of Policy and 100 Questions and Answers, the Party national centre has provided the Branches with the resource they need.
Meanwhile, the Branch begins production of a regular ward leaflet, homing in on local issues identified by the “poll”. This is distributed to every door not known to be inhabited by hostiles (or Immigrants!). Those whose appearance or manner is less effective on the doorstep can do this.
Later another paper sale attempt will be made to those “don’t knows”. The effectiveness of these leaflets can be gauged both by follow-ups coming from them and by getting feedback from the regular paper-buyers.
Feedback from these people on national literature, especially The Flag, should also be asked for “What did you think of last month’s paper? What did you especially agree with/not like?”) This feedback on every paper/magazine and leaflet issue from every Branch is needed by national centre so we can “fine-tune” our output to make it even more effective for Branches to use.
After a while, potential recruits among the regular paper round can be invited to aspecial Branch meeting. This should to an extent be “stage-managed”, with a carefully designed decoration (flags, banners etc.), literature table (no fringe irrelevance!), audience and the best speakers briefed on local issues.
The aim is to push them into making the final step and signing up, or if they have already to reinforce their enthusiasm and commitment. Boring and divisive meetings should be confined to committed activists. Also special meetings aimed at youth should be held.
“WARD COMMITTEE”
After some months of this, perhaps a year, the Branch should have attained Rung Two on the local ‘ladder to power’. By this stage, there should be enough locally-recruited activists (only a few are required) to form a “Ward Committee”. This is responsible initially for servicing and slowly extending the door-to-door paper round, and putting out local leaflets. Later, it will produce these itself, after training from the Branch.
The Branch itself will thus be freed to commence Rung One in an adjacent ward. In the initial target ward, someone, ideally a local, should be adopted as a local candidate – NOT a few weeks before polling day, but well in advance. This candidate’s main role will be to get him or herself well known, liked and respected in the local ward community. Practical help with local peoples’ problems, e.g. with the Council, should be made available.
Here the aim isn’t to boost the NF directly but to actually help people, thus earning gratitude and respect. So in, for example, letters on behalf of people the NF name (hated and feared by many, especially Communist, “Labour” Councils) should not in general be used.
The measure of actual attainment will be provided by a local candidate’s poll in the target ward – and it is to obtain such a concrete measure, not at this stage to win, that such a seat should be contested. Bv the time Rung Two has been reached, the NF vote should have risen from under 1 to 5 per cent. As has been achieved in their target ward by the “pilot project” Branch, Birmingham, in about 12 months.
INTERNAL POWER
The aim now is for the Branch to bring ward after ward in the target constituency up to Rung Two, so that ward after ward begins to run under its own internal power, freeing Branch activists (who of course may come from another constituency entirely) to move on to the next one.
Rung Three has been reached when most wards in the target seat have their own ward committees and can poll 5-10% in local elections. At this stage the ward committees can set up between them a Constituency Committee, and indeed may as well now apply for admission to the NF Confederacy as a Branch in their own right, since the ultimate NF aim is one Branch per parliamentary seat.
During the Rung Two to Three transition, the best ward candidate should be being built up, years in advance of an election if possible, as a locally known Parliamentary candidate. With an average NF local poll of over 5% and indeed with many of these voters personally known to ward activists as regular paper buyers, a Parliamentary election, General or By, can now be contested with a reasonable prospect of reaching 5% and saving our deposit, boosting credibility locally and nationally. (In fact, it’s pointless to fight seats otherwise, usually five saved deposits are worth 50 1% polls).
The aim now is Rung Four, in which, with credibility enhanced by a saved deposit and good local candidates in place in most wards, the local vote reaches the 25 – 35% mark. At this stage, the NF is a serious local political force. The local media will take us seriously. On previous experience in Blackburn and S.E. London, where this strategy was applied in the mid-70s and worked, some local media, aware that NF voters buy papers, will moderate or even cease their hostility.
Others will not do so, but will resort to careful probing to find our weaknesses.
As pointed out in my last article, given intimate local contact between the Party and the people, the obviously untrue “Nazi” smear will fail. But we must be sure our candidates, in particular, are persons of good, or at least locally acceptable, character without skeletons in cupboards. A local NF HQ advice centre should now be attainable, as well as a local Flag-style paper (perhaps initially simply a 2-page local insert in the Flag).
NF COUNCILLORS
Rung Five sees NF Councillors elected on around 40% of the vote. These must behave themselves, as the eyes of the nation, and a hostile mass media, will be on them. Actual local power may be attainable here too. Again, the first NF Council must be very careful, a showpiece to the country at large. The media will now nationally take the NF seriously, though only as a local phenomenon – areas we do well in will be “Britain’s Alabamas”.
The Race Issue will begin to be moved, by the NF’s rise and Immigrant-Red counter-(and probably over-) reaction toward the centre of the political stage, to our advantage. There will be another Anti-Nazi League, but a party dug in locally and not dependent on the national media to communicate with the public should withstand the challenge this time. Votes in target Parliamentary seats are 25-35%.
At Rung Six, the first NF MPs are elected. The Party is now at the stage reached by the Front National in France, with maybe one million voters. Beyond this point, the NF itself so transforms the nature of British politics that further prediction now is pointless, due to insufficient data. But by the time we reach Rung Six, Rungs Seven, Eight and so on will have been mapped out. And so on to power.
This, as can hopefully be seen, is a concrete plan. Locally, Rung Five has been reached and can be again. What has changed since the 1970s isn’t the British public, which after the race riots is as racialist as ever. It’s the NF, and the way it is perceived by the public. These things are up to us to change.
The mass support of the Seventies is still there. We need to turn towards it, and tap into it in a coherent, planned way, which will avoid the “swamp-and-split” cycle of the 1970s. The NF, like a comet, has spent a long time in the cold and the dark after its first blazing passage near the real world. We have used that time to equip ourselves ideologically, to remove Hitlerites and bourgeois student poseurs, and to evolve a clear plan for power.
Now we have reached the far point of our orbit and we are headed back inward toward the sunlight and the people. Once more we shall blaze forth in the political firmament – but this time we will stay there. If we put the work in.
All this strategy needs for success is a lot of hard, sometimes boring, effort, week after week, month after month, year after year. There may well be no sudden breakthroughs, there may well be some setbacks. But if we stick through it in the coming years, in the end, by our own efforts, we will win:- “Victory or defeat lie in our hands alone” – Let us make sure that our hands forge Victory.
Paris march remembers Sebastien Deyzieu
On Saturday French patriots from a cross-party coalition held a march in central Paris to remember their comrade Sebastien Deyzieu, who died during a demonstration in 1994.
Deyzieu was part of a demonstration that sought to highlight disastrous consequences of the Allied invasion of Europe and the post-1945 political settlement – Soviet Russian domination of Eastern Europe and American global capitalist domination of Western Europe.
Parisian authorities banned this May 1994 event, organised by the nationalist student group Groupe Union Défense (GUD), and Deyzieu was killed during an ensuing confrontation with police.
Every year since then, GUD has been part of a cross-party ‘9th May Committee’ that organises a memorial event.
This year the French left and Zionist groups have reacted with predictably hysterical demands that the march should have been banned.
President Macron and his government are among the most fearful and unpopular of Europe’s rulers. Yesterday all counter-demonstrations were banned as Macron attended events to commemorate the “victory” over National Socialist Germany on May 8th 1945. Macron also travelled to Lyon yesterday to pay tribute to the “Resistance hero” Jean Moulin, who was arrested by the Gestapo in 1943 and died during interrogation.
Rival biographies in recent decades have suggested either that Moulin was himself a Kremlin agent, or that he was betrayed by communist rivals within the “Resistance”.
Perhaps that historical debate over Moulin will never be resolved. But what we do know is that the “victory” of 1945 inaugurated decades of tyranny, from which Europe is only now beginning to emerge. Sebastien Deyzieu is a hero of the True Europe whose spirit has survived that postwar tyranny.
H&D joins patriots across Europe in saluting his memory.
Falangist leader exhumed from Madrid war memorial
On the 120th anniversary of his birth, the remains of Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera are today being removed from his tomb at the Valley of the Fallen (Valle de los Caídos), a vast memorial to the dead of Spain’s Civil War. H&D‘s Isabel Peralta reported today from the scene of José Antonio’s reburial in Madrid (see video below).
José Antonio founded the Falange Española in 1933 in an effort to transcend petty factionalism and offer Spaniards a non-Marxist critique of capitalism:
“The National-Syndicalist State will not stand cruelly aloof from economic conflicts between men, nor will it look on impassively as the strongest class subjugates the weakest. Our regime will make class struggle totally impossible, since all those cooperating in production will constitute an organic whole therein. We deplore and shall prevent at all costs the abuses of partial vested interests, as well as anarchy in the workforce.”
In November 1936, aged 33, José Antonio was murdered by leftist assassins in the prison yard at Alicante. After the nationalist victory in 1939 his Falangist followers carried José Antonio’s remains 300km to the Escorial near Madrid, and in 1959 he was reburied nearby at the newly consecrated Valley of the Fallen, a huge cathedral carved out of a mountain, where Spain’s caudillo Francisco Franco was also buried in 1975.
For decades the Valley of the Fallen was a place of pilgrimage for Falangist veterans and Spanish nationalists from various factions, who were often joined on November 20th each year (the anniversary of both José Antonio’s murder and Franco’s death) by comrades from across Europe. H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton was part of BNP delegations to the Valley on several occasions during the 1990s.
The left-wing government in Madrid have for several years made clear their determination to desecrate José Antonio’s grave as an act of political spite. Last autumn they introduced new laws designed to criminalise aspects of Spanish history. One was designated a “democratic memory law” and the other was a new law against “anti-semitism”, which effectively means a law exempting Jews and Zionism from criticism.
José Antonio’s family surrendered to official pressure, and took the decision to go ahead with his exhumation and reburial of his remains at Madrid’s San Isidro cemetery.
H&D correspondent Isabel Peralta first wrote about the impending exhumation of José Antonio in Issue 110 of our magazine, and also made several videos discussing related issues (see versions below with English subtitles).
Isabel has recently been banned from Twitter but has a new website at www.isabelperalta.net with an English version at www.isabelperalta.net/english
Reports on the Spanish government’s attack on their own history will appear at these sites and here at H&D. Isabel also writes in the forthcoming edition of our magazine, which will be published at the start of May.
St George’s Day – Celebrate the Spirit of St George!
The editor and assistant 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.
In past years our movement used to celebrate St George’s Day with large marches and rallies all over England, including the NF’s famous events in Bradford (Yorkshire) in 1976, Wood Green (North London) in 1977, and Leicester (East Midlands) in 1979. Sadly those days are long gone now.
As Sir Oswald Mosley said on St George’s Day 1937:
“In the lives of great nations comes the moment of decision, comes the moment of destiny – and this nation again and again in the great hours of fate has swept aside the little men of talk and delay, and has decided to follow men and movements who say we go forward to action! Let 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 Barcelona. 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 FC Barcelona have the St George cross in the club’s badge.
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 – Croatians 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 a number of H&D supporters will be taking part in the big St George’s Day parades in Nottingham in the East Midlands and Solihull in the West Midlands. Closer to H&D Towers, the Blackburn Times pub in Blackburn town centre is again organising an all-day party to celebrate St George’s Day, to the horror of the local Labour Council, who fall over backwards to promote alien events.
Of course the Woke, politically correct, do-gooder, snowflake brigade, etc, would rather St George’s Day be forgotten, and confined to the dustbin of history, along with Empire Day, Trafalgar Day 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 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):
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhood’s cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
Fascism, Women and Democracy – by Mosleyite veteran Norah Elam
Many British publications and institutions – including the National Archives, British Library, and universities throughout the UK – are celebrating Women’s History Month.
But few are likely to mention the fact that Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists was supported by many of the women who had previously been active ‘suffragette’ campaigners.
Among them was Norah Elam (1878-1961) who was imprisoned in 1914 for her militant campaigning in favour of votes for women, and was interned at the same London prison – Holloway – in 1940 because of her active role in Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists.
Though she lived with fellow Mosleyite Dudley Elam (who was similarly interned without trial under the notorious Regulation 18b) and she took his name, Norah was never actually married to him, as she could not obtain a divorce from the husband she had married in 1909, so legally remained Norah Dacre Fox.
Alongside her prominent role in the women’s section of the BUF, Norah Elam was also a militant campaigner for animal rights and against vivisection.
As part of H&D‘s contribution to Women’s History Month – and as a tribute to those women who continue to play important roles in the intellectual and practical leadership of racial nationalism – H&D is republishing online this essay by Norah Elam, first published in The Fascist Quarterly in 1935.
Fascism, Women and Democracy
“Experience shows that in all countries today democracy can develop its nature freely, the most scandalous corruption is displayed without anyone considering it of use to conceal its rascalities… Democracy is the land of plenty dreamt of by unscrupulous financiers.” – Georges Sorel, Reflexions sur la Violence.
To a genuine cynic who lived through the struggle for votes for women from 1906 to 1914, no spectacle is more diverting than the post-war enthusiast whose one obsession seems to be the alleged danger to enfranchised women in a Fascist Britain.
This unsuspected solicitude finds its most insistent champions in unlikely places, and those who were so bitter against the pre-war struggle have today executed a complete volte face. Our new-found patrons are second to none in their determination that women shall be denied nothing in principle, even if in practice they are to be denied most things essential to their existence.
To the woman who took part in that historic fight, and, regarding the vote merely as a symbol, believed that with its help a new and a better world might be possible, this kind of patronage is as distasteful as was that of a generation ago. She thinks, and with some justification, that it is humbug that those who in all those weary years never raised a hand to help her, but on the contrary were wont to describe her as an unsexed virago or a disappointed spinster, should in the hour of success endeavour to exploit her sex in the interests of a reactionary and decadent system. Such effrontery is possible only because those who resort to it entirely misunderstood and still misunderstand the meaning of that struggle, and construed the demand for political liberty as a desire for personal licence.
The time has come when the principles which underlay that remarkable and determined manifestation for ordered change, not only in the position of women but in the accepted attitude to them, should be restated.
What was it then, which underlay the passionate stirring that moved the hearts of thousands of women, and guided their heads, in those stormy years? It was not, as so many imagined, the ignoble desire of individual sex-interest, nor a struggle on behalf of women for their own sex alone. On the contrary, from the leaders to the most humble of the rank and file it was the fundamental belief, that in a world peopled by men and women and under a political system controlling the destinies of both sexes, the country which shut out from its councils the influence, viewpoint and talents of more than half its people, would be to that extent handicapped in working out the best system of government. If men were the victims of chaotic economic conditions, women suffered with them. If the social conditions under which men dragged out an almost hopeless existence were intolerable, they were equally so for their womenfolk.
Looking round on the great cities of their land, from north to south and from east to west, they saw housing conditions which man and woman agreed were a disgrace to modern civilization; watching the labour market, they gazed with apprehension on the spectre of insecurity which haunts the wage-earner and which is inherent in the old system. In the political field, they noted that, both in Home and Foreign policy, affairs were being conducted in such a manner as to strike terror into the heart of any person who cared deeply for Britain or realized the decadence that had already begun its erosion upon all parties of the State. They rose to demand that women should be called in on equal terms with men, to lend a hand before it was too late.
This uprising was in short a challenge to the old antagonisms and a call for co-operation in the corporate body of the State.
In this conception of practical citizenship, the women’s struggle resembles closely the new philosophy of Fascism. Indeed, Fascism is the logical, if much grander, conception of the momentous issues raised by the militant women of a generation ago. Nor do the points of resemblance end here. The Women’s movement, like the Fascist movement, was conducted under strict discipline, and cut across all Party allegiance; its supporters were drawn from every class and Party. It appealed to women to forget self-interest; to relinquish petty personal advantages and the privilege of the sheltered few for the benefit of the many; and to stand together against the wrongs and injustices which were inherent in a system so disastrous to the well-being of the race. Like the Fascist movement, too, it chose its Leader, and once having chosen gave to that Leader absolute authority to direct its policy and destiny, displaying a loyalty and a devotion never surpassed in the history of this country. Moreover, like the Fascist movement again, it faced the brutality of the streets; the jeers of its opponents; the misapprehensions of the well-disposed; and the rancour of the politicians. It endured the hatred of the existing Government, and finally the loneliness of the prison cell and the horror of forcible feeding. Its speakers standing in the open spaces and at the street corners were denied the right of free speech; it champions selling their literature spat upon and reviled; its deputations were manhandled. Suffragettes became the sport of any rowdy who cared to take the law into his own hands. To make the analogy the more exact, no calumny was too vile and no slander too base to set about the moral character of its leaders, or the aims and objects of the women who owed them allegiance.
Thus it came about that women welded together in such association had no illusions about political and party shibboleths, and when the sacred words “Democracy” and “Individual Liberty” were a commonplace on the lips of their detractors, they remembered that these things were done under a Liberal Administration, and by the champions of a Party which had made the democratic system the summit of its political wisdom. That under it, they were classed with criminals, lunatics and children. They argued and with some cogency, that if this were democracy then women had little to hope for from it.
Their experience as outlaws from the democratic system was as nothing compared with that which faced them, when they found themselves honoured citizens under its doubtful protection. They had earned, it is true, the right to individual liberty for a very brief space once every five years, but when they had put that fatal cross upon the ballot paper and closed the door of the polling booth behind them, from that moment they found themselves completely helpless before the democratic machine.
Though we shall be told that this was what we had fought for, a moment’s reflexion will show that this was regarded as but the symbol. Women never made the fatal error of imagining that because men voted they were necessarily free. It is the mark of the unintelligent woman today to suppose that a woman is free because she also votes, or that democracy can ever offer anything but the careful and organized exploitation of men and women who suffer it to exist.
Given the vote on a limited basis at the close of the War, women were also granted the right of entering Parliament, and the election in the late autumn of 1918 gave them their first opportunity. The Party system was already beginning to show the first signs of decay, and by the inexorable law of retributive justice, the Party which had given birth to democracy in Britain was in full retreat before its ungrateful offspring. Nevertheless, women in the first flush of their triumph turned to the then existing parties either as voters or prospective candidates.
My own distrust of Party politics made me chary of turning in this direction, and I preferred to stand as an Independent, going down with all the other women candidates on this occasion, save one. The exception was the Sinn Fein Countess Markievicz, who though a notorious and avowed enemy of Britain, found it a perfectly simple matter under the democratic system to secure election to the Parliament of the country which she had openly boasted that she would destroy, disintegrate and discredit. She was, if I remember rightly, returned unopposed. The next example was hardly more encouraging, for the first woman to be elected for an English constituency was an American-born citizen who had no credentials to represent British women in their own Parliament, save that she had married a British subject who found himself forced to the Upper House on the death of his father. Detractors of the Women’s Movement pointed with a hardly disguised satisfaction to this denouement, and were at pains to hold up this lady as a sorry specimen of feminine irresponsibility. They need not have been so personal, for she was no better and no worse than any other woman elected to the British House of Commons, as a result of years of effort and struggle of the militant women. It is a sorry fact, though none the less true, that the subsequent election of Party women to Westminster has not made one tittle of difference either to men or to women, and though many able women have joined the ranks of our elected representatives their influence has been wholly negligible on the destinies of Britain or her Empire. They, like their men colleagues, are simply cogs in the Party wheels of the democratic system, marching into the lobbies at the crack of the Party Whip, helpless before the Juggernaut of the official machinery which rolls on, crushing all initiative and independence before it, and reducing every person who owes it allegiance to a mere cipher for the carrying through of its policies and its measures. And if this be true of Parliament – and who can deny it? – it is even more true of the woman voter. She, too, is caught up in this inexorable system, a veritable slave to her Party organization.
To those who challenge this, the question must be put: What power has the woman member or the woman voter, under the present system, to alter any one policy of any government yet elected? Does the most enthusiastic admirer of the present system allege that women, no matter to what party they belong, are satisfied with the existing position of this country? Are they willing to see economic conditions whereby the employment figures have reached the incredible total of between two and three millions remain unchanged? Do they rest content with the spectacle of those derelict areas which strike despair into the heart of every living person? Are they indifferent to the decay of the agricultural districts and the plight of the farming industry and unconcerned with the appalling housing conditions which all parties alike deplore?
Turning to the vast field of Imperial and Foreign politics, is it to be contended that the bulk of British women desire to see the disintegration of the Empire, or the orientation of the present foreign policy of the alleged National Government, whereby pacts and commitments are being made in their names and in secret with the avowed enemies of this country, while at the same time we are being left defenceless, not only for the purposes of our own immediate defence, but if the need should arise to honour those commitments? Do we indeed know to what we are being committed; what this policy of collective security involves, or what is the sinister power which dictates it? “Democracy is the land of plenty dreamt of by unscrupulous financiers,” says Georges Sorel. Have enfranchised women any power to check a Home or a Foreign policy dictated for the purpose of making that dream a living reality? Let it be remembered that when the time comes to foot the bill, we shall be driven as sleep to the slaughter, helpless before the results of these policies. What is the value of so-called freedom if it cannot give us the power to alter these momentous issues?
If it be true that the average woman voter wants none of these things, why, if she be free under the democratic system, does she permit them? If she possesses this freedom, is she not doubly and trebly guilty in suffering them for one hour longer? This is the test of her claim to a responsible part in the government of her country. If she has gained the necessary power and liberty under the existing system, the charge that she is incapable of playing a citizen’s part in the affairs of her country, and is in fact unfitted for responsibility, is proved up to the hilt.
None of these things is true. The truth will be found in the fact that there is no freedom either for men or for women under the present antiquated system. What fetters both men and women is that the Party system is in decay, and this is the more noticeable since the granting of adult suffrage under an unbridled democracy. Throughout the world the same decadence has set in, by the inevitable march of time and circumstance, the change from a world of poverty to a world of boundless plenty makes ordered planning not only requisite but vital to existence. Under these changes the methods of the old world are obsolete and must give place to the new. If women are to be worthy of their place in the councils of the nation, they must face as realists the new world conditions which are gathering round them. Sooner or later they must choose. The decision is momentous, for upon it will depend the status of women for a considerable period of time. It is therefore no light matter that they should weigh well in the balance the history of the world.
There are two courses open to women. The first is that she should struggle on with the decaying system of the old world, content to be the handmaid of the professional politicians of the various parties to which she attaches herself. Of this it may be said that she has given it a long and faithful trial, and that if under it she could have accomplished any practical change in the direction of social, political or economic freedom, she has lamentably failed. She must now consider whether the fault lies within herself or within the system to which she still clings. In this connexion she will note that the separate parties are themselves gradually disappearing. The Liberal Party has passed into the twilight of the past; the Conservative Party is in rapid disintegration, and we know upon the assurance of its own Leader, that there is no hope of its regaining its independence. The same fate awaits the Socialist Party, since it too must travel along the same road which has sucked the other two parties under the quicksand of Social Democracy.
She must therefore look for some better system; one more in accord with modern conditions. What is to take the place of the tottering edifice of the past?
Every student of politics realizes that the issue now lies between Fascism and Communism. So far as British women are concerned, Communism makes little appeal. To go no further, it is the philosophy of destruction, and is the negation of the natural instincts of womanhood. It is the antithesis of every principle and practice which women value and require.
Fascism seems to be the only solution. It has within it every principle peculiarly suitable and adaptable to the genius of the British character. It offers real freedom and liberty to all men and women of goodwill towards this country. Lest there should be any misunderstanding, we shall define these so often loosely-used terms, in words with which no democrat will quarrel, for they are taken from that apostle of unadulterated democracy, John Stuart Mill.
“The sole end,” he wrote, “for which mankind are warranted individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others.”
This is precisely the Fascist conception of individual liberty, and it is obviously a conception that so far as women are concerned gives them every opportunity that they can legitimately require in their future status as women citizens. In no other system are these principles embodied. Moreover, in the machinery of the Corporate State, Fascism assures women an equal status with their menfolk, for it holds within it the only means whereby they will be enabled to direct and control the conditions under which they shall live; thus Fascism alone will complete the work begun on their behalf by the militant women from 1906 to 1914. In addition, it will rescue them from the vitiated atmosphere of corruption inherent in the Party system, and for the first time it will give an opportunity, through the machinery of their own special Corporations, tackling with some hope of success those great questions which so closely concern their own and their children’s lives.
In the economic field it will assure security with equal pay for equal work, that eternal bone of contention which has rent the sexes asunder with such dire results to industry.
In the social sphere, it removes all class barriers, while in the political, it gives justice and equality for the first time in the history of the Women’s struggle.
And most important of all, Fascism comes to lay for ever the haunting spectre of war, by removing the fundamental causes, which exist and have their being in Internationalism, an instrument forged for the purpose of enabling “unscrupulous financiers” to take advantage of that “land of plenty” called “democracy” of which they dream.
To enable all this to be accomplished, Fascism will require that women equally with men should offer a disciplined cooperation in the welding together of an ordered State, and Fascism will rightly lay upon all the citizens of the State the responsibility and the duty of working in harmony, not in the interests of any section or class but for the benefit of all its people. It will call upon women as upon men, to subordinate all selfish individual privileges, that the less fortunate may under its protection be safe from exploitation.
This is Fascism. All else is mirage. Is it to be said that British women cannot rise to this great occasion in the history of their country? Those who would bid them reject this opportunity are the enemies not alone of women, but of all progress and of civilization. Those women who endured the ordeal of the great struggle of pre-war days have at least learned the right to challenge the people who once again would enslave them in the subjugation of the past, and fetter them within a system which denies them all opportunity to play an honourable part in the necessary reorganization of their country. British women have never failed or faltered when Britain has had need of them. They too, with the men of their generation, will raise aloft the banner of British Fascism, and bearing it high above the turmoil and sordid quarrels of the Party system, will hasten that day which shall see their nation reborn. In that triumphant hour, they will have truly earned the proud right to pay homage to a regenerated and Great Britain, and to rest at last within the Peace, Security and Prosperity of her Sovereign People.
