"Our creed is one of heroism, and the coming epoch calls for the return
of the heroic virtues. Not for us the cosy tranquility of the political soft
option; for us only the long march through the cold night - which must
precede the glorious dawn. These conditions demand a special quality of
steel in those who rally to our banner, and if the forthrightness of the
message put forward in this book frightens and puts off the delicate of
fibre and spirit, that is good; for their place is not with us and we would
not wish to encumber ourselves with their presence.
Today, from out of the chaos and the ruins wrought by the old politics,
new men are rising. These new men of the new age are now working night and
day across the land to forge the sinews of the movement to which their lives
and mine are dedicated. Above them as they work are the spirits of legions
of mighty ancestors whose bones lie at the bottoms of the oceans and beneath
the soil of five continents where the men and women of our blood have borne
the British flag and stamped the mark of British genius. Today we feel the
voices of these past generations calling down to us in sacred union, urging
us to be worthy of their example and their sacrifice. To them we owe it to
fight on, and to dare all, so that a great land and a great race may live
again in splendour." - John Tyndall - "The Eleventh Hour"
THE CREED OF A NATIONALIST
(Reprinted from Spearhead)
IN THIS COLUMN last month I pointed
to the inadequacy of Liberal Democracy, as it has developed in
Britain, to preserve society from the tendencies towards
disintegration. I analysed the manifestations of sickness in the
Liberal West that had given rise to the counter-revolutionary
movement generally known as Fascism. I stated that because the West
had rejected Fascism as an answer to the problems that Liberalism
had created it did not mean that an alternative answer had been
found. I pictured Liberalism and Fascism as respectively thesis and
antithesis in the quest to find that ideal balance between Order
and Freedom, and proposed that we now had to find the synthesis.
It must never be forgotten, however,
that both the Liberal-Democratic and Fascist styles of government
and society are mere forms; procedures and structures adopted as
means of achieving certain human goals. They are not ends in
themselves, and as long as we persist in seeing them as ends, rather
than just as means, we will experience continual confusion in our
search for the synthesis mentioned.
Even the aims of Order and Freedom,
referred to earlier, are themselves only means. What value in Order
if it is the order of a senescent society, quietly and peacefully
dozing its way towards eclipse, towards an exit from history?
Conservatives who call for a restoration of 'Law and Order' usually
give the impression that so long as that state of things is achieved
nothing else matters. In fact the orderly progress towards national
death is less preferable than a state of violent revolution and
upheaval if the consequence of such revolution and upheaval might be
the restoration of national life forces. No, the virtue of Order
depends entirely on the purposes to which society is ordered.
So also with Freedom. What value in
Freedom if it is the freedom of the criminal to prosper in crime,
the freedom of the mobster to promote mob rule, the freedom of the
subversive to subvert, the freedom of every anti-social and
anti-national element to run amok, the freedom that ends in
political, economic, social and moral chaos? As I said in last
month's article, there is only one freedom worth defending and that
is the freedom to do what is right.
THE LIBERAL VIEW
Indeed this is not how the liberal
sees it. To him Freedom is the ultimate end of everything — his
particular conception of Freedom, that is. It is a freedom which has
very little to do with the right of the ordinary individual to live
his private life as he wishes —
for that freedom has in fact been steadily eroded as the
liberalisation of modern society has advanced. The freedom which
liberals principally have in mind is the freedom of the sediment of
society from legal restraint and the freedom of sectional
power-groups to tear society apart.
The obsession of the liberal with
'Freedom' in this context can be seen from the liberal reading of
history. The last two World Wars, for instance were fought, not
first and foremost for the defence of land and people, of Empire, of
national interests; they were fought for 'Freedom' - a piece of
meaningless verbiage that seems to suffer no diminution from the
ironic laugh that it must now provoke East of the Elbe. History as a
whole is seen as a continual progression upward towards greater
'Freedom' meaning of course a progression towards ever more liberal
institutions. The good guys of history are those who aided this
progression, the bad guys those who hindered it. Thus liberals
today ask of an age, not what great music, literature or
architecture it produced, not what achievements of national
expansion, of heroism, of discovery. of invention it generated, not
whether for the nation it was an age of victory or defeat, glory or
humiliation, but whether in such an age liberal ideals of
Parliamentarianism, Democracy and 'Liberty' were in the ascendant.
To oppose this thoroughly shallow and
silly view of history and the idea of priorities that it betokens
does not mean dismissing Freedom as being of no value or importance;
it means simply establishing a perspective in which Freedom is seen
as one of the possible means towards a better society depending on
who has it and the uses to which it is put.
We can only properly evaluate Freedom,
and we can only properly evaluate Order, if we first settle the
question of what are society's basic goals? What is society's
purpose in the first place? What is the object of all politics and
To liberals no better summary of this
purpose and object can be found than that contained in the following
passage from the writings of Jeremy Bentham, often regarded as the
Father of English liberalism:—
"The aim of government should be the
greatest happiness of all the members of the state. But what is good
for one may be opposed to the happiness of many others.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to enlarge indefinitely the sphere
of happiness of every individual without coming into conflict with
the happiness of others. Therefore the only aim should be the
greatest possible happiness of the greatest number; in a word, the
common good is the right aim of
government, and the proper task of a lawmaker is to discover
regulations designed to bring about the greatest good to the
greatest number of human beings . . . The determination of every
point in every law, from first to last, without exception, must be
directed towards the greatest good of the greatest number and must
rest upon that principle."
As if anticipating that his
interpretation of 'happiness' might be questioned, Bentham described
it as being a state of "Subsistence, Abundance, Security and
In this evaluation of Bentham's we can
find an echo of the words of John Locke, writing nearly a century
earlier, who said:—
"Men being, as has been said, by
nature all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of
this estate and subjected to the political power of another without
his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men to join
and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe and
peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of
their properties, and a greater security against any that are
not of it."
In the latter passage Locke gives a
strong clue to what is the essential point: men join together "for
their comfortable, safe and peaceable living" - in other words, were
this comfortable, safe and peaceable living to be obtainable without
such a coming together it would not occur. Implicit in this way of
thinking is the supposition that there is in Man absolutely no firm
community spirit or loyalty stemming from his innermost being; any
community that he joins is merely a protection society for the
furtherance of his own private interests and desires; men come
together to obtain by cooperation that which they could not obtain
living in isolation from one another. Citizenship is in effect
relegated to the status of a mere insurance policy in which in
return for certain contributions one gets certain benefits.
That some men in this world regard
their place in society as being no more than that is undoubtedly
true. However, such men are the exception to history and not the
cause of it. There is scarcely a single major historical development
of which this impulse can be said to be the motive. All of history's
most decisive men, and the movements of multitudes that they have
inspired and directed, have assuredly been driven on by far deeper
forces within the human spirit. This is a fact so patently obvious
that even the most doctrinaire liberal would not deny
it. Yet the logic that it predicates
in our understanding of society is something that liberals just will
As for Bentham's ideal of the
greatest happiness of the greatest number, this reduces human
society to no higher level of consciousness than a herd of cows in a
field, who are surely happy while being allowed to graze in peace.
Should the quest for political wisdom not recognise in great races
and nations some more lofty ambitions than those of cows?
ANARCHY THE LIBERAL IDEAL
These gems of liberal thought
betray the real truth: that the ideal human state is one of anarchy,
in other words with everybody enjoying total freedom to do what he
likes. Liberals do not say that this is not desirable, only that it
is not possible — given the proximity to one another in which humans
have to live. One man's freedom is therefore limited by the need for
it not to come into "conflict with the happiness of others" - and
not, it seems, by any higher considerations than that.
So far as Bentham's criteria of
happiness are concerned, we get an even better picture of
liberalism's real values. "Subsistence", "Abundance", "Security “all
essentially materialistic concepts. About "Equality", it may be
assumed that Bentham meant equality before the law, for liberalism
had not in his time advanced so far along the communist road as to
claim that all men can possibly be equal in merit, possessions or
We need not waste time arguing the
usefulness of these aims to evaluate them in the scale of human
priorities. Of course everyone prefers Happiness to Unhappiness,
Subsistence to Starvation, Abundance to Shortage, Security to
Insecurity, and certainly most of us believe that men should be
equal before the law.
But in my submission any society in
which these aims are paramount is a society advanced very little
above the animal level and indeed in some respects even inferior to
animals, as I shall later explain. To return to our original
question, what is the object of all politics and human organisation?
To us in the National Front
the answer has always been clear. The strongest drive which we as
humans possess is the drive towards the perpetuation and the destiny
of our kind, towards the furtherance of its interests and the
expansion of its power.
And when we say this we mean it
historically and not just contemporarily.
By "our kind" we mean of course our
people that people bound to us ethnically and by tradition, custom,
history, language and sentiment: our nation.
Thinking and feeling in this way,
we cannot cut ourselves off either from our past
or our future. Our past has made us
what we are and given us what we have. Had our ancestors married
negroes, we would today be part negro, with all that that implies.
Had our ancestors not conquered and colonised great areas of the
world, our generation today would lack living space and natural
resources. Had our ancestors not achieved mighty works, we today
would not only not be able to enjoy the practical benefits of those
works but would not be able to draw upon their creation as a source
of honour and pride.
And to us honour and pride are very
real values because they are very real human emotions — emotions
without which mankind descends very quickly to a contemptible
This sense of honour and pride
drives us to pass on to the generations of the future the heritage
which we have had handed down to us from generations of the past -if
possible increased but at least not diminished.
As nationalists we see ourselves as
part of a process of destiny and our individual lives valuable or
worthless according to what part we play in that destiny; in this
destiny lies the extension of our egos which lifts us to a level of
thought and action higher than that which merely serves our own
selves. This does not mean that we deprecate individualism but that
we value the individual personality as an agent in the destiny of
nation and race. This is in complete contrast to liberalism, which
regards the individual as an end in himself and community as merely
From our position we are bound to
take a different view of Freedom and its limitations. The liberal
will limit the freedom of one individual at the point where it may
intrude upon the freedom and happiness of another individual. To us
that limit is dictated by the national interest, present and future.
THE ANIMAL WORLD
Even the animal world,
notwithstanding its comparatively primitive level, is in this
respect more virtuous than humans of the liberal persuasion, since
it does have a very rudimentary urge to survive and continue itself
— if we exclude such unusual forms of animal life as lemmings.
Certainly in nearly all types of animal there is a built-in instinct
of self-preservation which extends to the preservation of the
species, of the race. Humans addicted to liberalism are nearly alone
among life forms on this planet in being quite unconcerned with the
destiny of their kind, only with the destiny of their beliefs.
There is one particular field which
best exemplifies the difference between our own national and race
ethic, with its destiny orientation, and the wholly selfish ethic of
liberalism: this is the field of procreation.
Today the liberal world is
frantically trying to organise
'birth-control'. Why birth control? Very simply because in the
spiritual wasteland that is the modern West families must be kept
down to a size that will not endanger our enjoyment of such economic
priorities as motor cars, colour TV sets and washing machines. It is
no use telling liberals that birth-control leads to racial death;
for such things as race destiny have no interest for him. His
concern is only for the contemporary world, its pleasures, its
amusements, its material wants. Sex is one of these and nothing
more. The future of the race can therefore be forgotten as we get on
with the job of enjoying the present to the fullest degree.
How differently do we see things!
To us a divine purpose is at work in ordering the human functioning
so that one of life's most beautiful experiences is at the same time
a means to the creation of new life; the pleasure of the former
achieves its most complete totality with the coming of the latter.
With joy we greet the birth that is the sign of the continuance of
family and race; to the liberal that birth is an inconvenience to
the business of enhancing the 'affluent society'.
It is in these basic human values
and goals that we see the real gulf between liberalism and our own
nationalist philosophy, not necessarily so much in the political
procedures that are adopted in the pursuit of those values and
goals. We really stand for an entirely different type of country and
an entirely different type of world to those of the liberals, and it
is this, more than any questions of method, that divides us from
Once this is recognised, it is much
easier for us to reconcile and synthesise the sometimes conflicting
concepts of Order and Freedom, Authority and Democracy.
In a really mature approach to
politics neither Authority nor Democracy are sacred principles in
themselves. There are situations in the affairs of men in which
salvation can only come from the inspiration of the outstanding
leader and through the gift of his command, or alternatively through
the command of a wise and strong-willed elite. There are other
situations in which the best decisions can be made by means of
popular consensus. The art of true leadership, and of government, is
that of correctly appraising these situations and acting accordingly
-knowing, in other words, when to adopt autocratic and when to adopt
This is not the liberal approach.
To the liberal, Autocracy is at all times self-evidently wrong —
even if it achieves results that bring great benefits to nation and
people; Democracy is at all times self-evidently right -even though
its results may be disastrous to nation and people. In
appraising the history, tradition, custom and psychology of the
British peoples, we in the National Front believe that the only
method of government that will work with any permanence in this
country and kindred Anglo-Celtic countries around the world is that
which will exist by popular representation and consent and which
will give to people the right to debate freely the great issues of
the day -- in essence Democracy.
But this is solely because we think
that a form of Democracy is what suits the national temperament, not
because we think Democracy is morally right. It may not have been
right for Germans and Italians before and during the last war; it
may not be right for Chileans and Iranians today. Different peoples
at different times have different political needs. Our argument
against Dictatorship is not an ideological argument; it is merely a
difference of opinion as to the best way to get things done.
As to Freedom, in the type of society
to which we aim I do not envisage the average individual having any
less freedom than he has now — indeed he may have more. It will be
the moral basis of Freedom that will change.
We do not see it as the object of
society to make the individual as free as possible — within the sole
limits postulated by Bentham and his liberal disciples; we believe
it right to strive for a fine balance in the extension of freedom
whereby the individual is enhanced as a member of his people,
whereby he becomes the best possible servant of his people.
This should be enough freedom to
encourage his personal enterprise and initiative and to give scope
for the exercise of his individual gifts but not so much freedom
that he becomes cut off from his duties towards his people.
THE REAL CONFLICT
It is symptomatic of the stupidity of
the contemporary liberal West that it regards
the crucial world conflict of today
and tomorrow as being between its type of society, in which the
individual is theoretically supposed to be 'free', and the Communist
type, in which the individual is tightly regimented and controlled.
In reality these societies, while differing in their methods, serve
the same basic goal; they are humanist-orientated, and their aim is
a cosmopolitan world society in which one man is considered as good
as another and in which Nationality and Race are of no account; they
seek a placid and bovine Mankind, preoccupied first and foremost
with the pursuits of food, drink, pleasure and safety. In the
shaping of this world Marxists differ from Benthamite liberals only
in so much as the former place more emphasis on the role of
The real conflict of today and
tomorrow is entirely different: the real conflict is between this
uniform, cosmopolitan world society, with its lotus-eating ideals,
and the resurgent spirit of Nationality and Race, with its
promethian ideals of Genius, Beauty, Nobility, Destiny and Heroism.
As the standard-bearers of this spirit
in Britain and among British Folk, we fight with equal passion
against the worlds of both East and West, of Communism and
Usury-Capitalism, of the harsh Marxist slave-state and of soft
We fight - and we shall win, because
the future, as always, belongs to those who are prepared to brave
the storms, to set their eyes on the lofty peaks, to struggle and
sacrifice for goals greater than themselves, to march with the
thunder and the drums of history.