Throughout our lifetime the internationalist illusion has gripped the minds of the politicians of Britain. Cutting across all party differences has been their faith in the international organisation of the world and their belief in the common aims of mankind. All British policy, political, economic and military, has been subordinated to this belief. Vital British assets and interests have been sacrificed to the international cause. British sovereignty and freedom have been placed in jeopardy. Dependence has been preferred to independence. Idle dreams of an international Utopia have been made a substitute for national self reliance and national strength.

    The utopia has not come. Mankind is, as ever, divided by conflicts of nationality, race, ideology and economic interest. Meanwhile Britain has been dangerously weakened in her capacity to survive in a competitive world. We have paid a bitter price for our escape into fairyland.

    It is against this background that the new and growing Nationalist movement in this country has been born.

    We hear Nationalist slogans and sentiments uttered all over the world, but not so often here in Britain. What is British Nationalism?

    It should be defined first of all as the creed of faith in ourselves: faith in our qualities and traditions; faith in our capacity to build our own future in our own way and by our own hands; faith in our great
destiny as a nation.

    We Nationalists believe wholeheartedly in the assertion of the independence and sovereignty of Britain in world affairs and in the affirmation of her place as a great power in her own right. We com-
pletely oppose the subordination of British policy to that of the United States or UNO, and we reject as dangerous the growing campaign to place the resources of the nations under a centralised international control.

    We believe that the future of the British people rests, not on treaties, summit conferences and international goodwill, but on our own strength and resourcefulness as a nation, our own determination, our own effort and our own self-confidence.

    Today we are continually being told that the world has grown smaller and that nations must be 'interdependent' with one another. In the case of some nations this is undoubtedly true. What is also true is that only those nations who have the means and the courage to remain self-dependent can qualify for the description of great and free. We believe it is right for Britain to be great and remain free.  '

    This does not mean that we stand for the cutting off of Britain from the rest of the world and the rejection of all forms of collaboration between the nations. But we hold that Britain Should contribute to these things as a strong and free national entity, not, as at present, as a second class colony of the Dollar Empire. Cooperation we support; interdependence we oppose.

    The very word 'interdependence' is in any event misleading in the context of today. It provides merely a softening phrase under which the weaker powers of the world are swallowed into the orbit of the stronger ones. Everyone knows what is meant today when the politicians speak of our 'interdependence' with America: it means their cowardly desertion of Britain's position in the world and their lame surrender to dollar hegemony. Under the guise of this term our national economy, our foreign policy and our means of self-defence have to all practical purposes been taken out of British hands. 'Interdependence' thoroughly suits the powers anxious to tighten their control over the
nations. It is a much milder term than conquest.

    Interdependence is variously justified as a virtue and as a necessity. To few except an incurable minority of one-world leftists is it a virtue. Is it, from our point of view, a necessity?

    Certainly the post-war era has seen a decline in British power at the same time as it has seen the rise of vast new powers. But has this been inevitable or has it been willed by our political leaders? The so-called 'inevitability' of Britain's shrinking power status would seem a strange doctrine indeed to anyone looking at a map of the British Empire and Commonwealth that survived the last two wars entirely intact. For reasons justifiable only in their own distorted imaginations, the leaders of this Empire and Commonwealth have spent the last two or three decades allowing it to disintegrate. No great armed foe has invaded it and taken it away by force. It has just been allowed to fall apart.
Meanwhile the moulders of political opinion have hammered into an almost sacred article of faith the idea that this disintegration has been a just and necessary process. Millions have believed them without ever really thinking why.

    The other great empires of the world have not in the meantime been afflicted with this masochistic urge to become weaker and smaller, but have single-mindedly expanded in size and strength. That the present balance of power weighs so heavily in their favour and against Britain is not the verdict of almighty providence but only of differing attitudes of national leadership and will; of the will to live as distinct from the will to die. We are where we are today because our leaders have been dominated by the will to die.

    Nations' in this state of mind will always cling to straws of salvation such as 'interdependence' and 'collective security', so beloved by the liberal theorists because they provide a substitute for national fibre and an excuse for national weakness. What is easier and more comfortable when our British problems become too much for our politicians to cope with than for those politicians to seek cause and solution in the climate of international relationships rather than the substance of Britain itself
and in their own capacity, or lack of it, to mould that substance to our advantage! Behind the sweet phrases that announce the internationalist dream lies the tragic sense of national impotence. The phrases are the thoughts of the tired and the doubting who have lost faith in Britain; who have lost faith in themselves as Britons.

    We Nationalists have neither lost faith in Britain nor the British race. We believe that there is no fundamental weakness in our nation that cannot be cured through the emergence of new leadership. It is our intention eventually to provide that leadership and to provide the policies by which Britain can climb back to her former position and regain her confidence and self-respect. This is the meaning of the Nationalist movement.

    In another most important respect a more national approach to our affairs is needed. For too long we have been ruled by people who imagine that they derive their mandate from the world at large and
that in consequence they have an obligation to the world at large that must on occasions override their obligations to their own country and its citizens. This outlook results in a quite absurd allocation of British energies and resources to the solving of other nations' problems, in many cases problems that happen to be utterly insoluble except on the initiative and through the action of those nations concerned themselves. For the private philanthropist to take upon himself the burdens of mankind in general rather than those near to him and within his capacity to bear is to many people an odd choice of priorities, but at least he has the right to make such a choice — it is his money. But when politicians appoint themselves as philanthropists to the universe in preference to devoting every available resource to national needs — and in doing so make use of other people's (i. e. the taxpayers') money then it becomes more than just odd; it becomes criminal.

    To the Nationalist it is inconceivable that the resources of one's country and the energies of one's countrymen should be directed to any purpose but the welfare of those at home and the prosperity and development of the nation to which all belong — for at least as long as there are any shortcomings in those departments. And shortcomings there assuredly are, and for a long time will be, in the welfare of British people and the prosperity and development of Britain.

    We see in these related examples the two twin insanities of the internationalist mind. Firstly, the assumption that we can rely upon the preparedness of the rest of the world to help us: secondly, the assumption that it is our duty to help the rest of the world. While these sentiments might be perfectly laudible and workable within a single society and between related people, they just do not operate within the world as a whole. In any event, even between individuals the principle of good neighbourliness, fine though it is, is not allowed by the self-respecting person to become the prerequisite for existence. Self-respecting and sensible nations, likewise, liaise and cooperate where mutual advantage indicates, but only pauper nations lean on others for life and only monumentally stupid nations subsidise others for life.

    Nationalism has one final and vital role: it must restore unity to the British people. Today we are torn apart by all manner of factional interests representing class, occupation religion and political ideology. Three major parties argue with one another over details of day to day government which are superfluous as long as they exist within the overall framework of a weak and lethargic national body. Sections of industry, goaded from the rear by political exploiters, fight over the spoils of the nation's production.  Social groupings, representing manual workers and brain workers, are encouraged to identify themselves with conflicting political causes and to believe that the interests of one must always be pursued to the detriment of the interests of the other and that the state of the country is the fault of the other.

    Only a community of people with a truly national sense will be immune to the insidious disease of class warfare. For brief periods in two world wars the British community captured this ability to think in national terms, and worked together in a way in which it has never done since. This national sense must be restored. But it cannot be restored by politicians preoccupied with the hoary conflicts of years past in which one section of society was perpetually divided from another, nor by men who offer to our people no more than a dull and humble position in the world and whose every utterance echoes the tune of national defeatism and twilight. The triumph of Nationalism in Britain will only come from the leadership of men who are identified heart and soul with the cause of Britain, who recognise no other cause or loyalty than to the people of Britain and who have faith in the capacity of the British nation to accomplish any task and meet any challenge with which life may confront it.

BACK TO CONTENTS                                       CHAPTER 2: BRITAIN AS A WORLD POWER