By far the most significant development of the 20th Century has been the rise to dominance of the new continental-scale monster states, creating entirely new dimensions of political, economic and military power.

    It has been said often enough, and with tiruth, that mere size does not bestow upon a state the quality of greatness. National character, technical skill and efficient organisation are more important. But given these things there is no doubt today that a nation's strength and security are that much greater and its future that much more assured for its being very large, rather than middle-sized or small. Modern facilities of communication have made space an asset rather than a hinderance; modem technology has set a premium on the world's great reservoirs of raw material; modern mass production has underlined the importance of the great internal market.

    By virtue of these conditions the United States and Russia have emerged as the dominant powers of today and the apparent arbiters of the future. In the face of this build up of power the governing doctrine of Britain in the post-war world has been one of resignation to a diminishing status and subservient position in relation to the new giants, and by virtue of this a policy of helpless commitment to the former. This policy has been raised to the level of almost unquestioned dogma,
branding as wild heresy any concept of a British future except under American patronage and protection and in step with American designs.

 Yet a moment's thought will expose the falsehood of this doctrine.

    The balance of power in the world as we see it today is not something that has descended upon us from heaven; it is the product of recent history, of what men have done or failed to do during the last
century or so.

    The same thrust of expansion that created the American and Russian power systems as we now know them also created a whole British world of infinite wealth and opportunity: a world in which our people could live in prosperity, strength and freedom for unlimited centuries to come. In the boundless lands of Empire and Commonwealth lie all the ingredients of modern power, wanting only for a determined national policy aiming at their full coordination and development in the service of the British future. Failure to produce such a policy has been the overriding weakness of British statecraft over the past century. Failure to exploit, or even understand, our paramount national asset
has frustrated the building of Greater Britain and produced the modern abortion of mini-Britain.

    There is yet time, although not much time, to redeem this failure.

    We must not only recognise the Commonwealth as the singular source of our future existence; we must urgently begin to remake the Commonwealth into a genuine instrument of national power.

    The first step in this direction is to create for the Commonwealth a real mechanism of political and economic unity.

    This itself is a task which calls for the highest statesmanship, since it must treat our older Dominions — the hard core of the Commonwealth — not as subordinate colonies but as free and equal partners, with firmly established traditions of sovereignty in the handling of their own affairs. The eventual aim should be a central coordinating body chosen from the main Commonwealth lands. This could be operative on a mobile basis sitting alternately in the various countries represented, or it could function from a newly appointed Commonwealth federal capital, preferably situated outside Britain. Whilst in former times it would have been impossible to reconcile such a system with efficiency and quickness of decision, today everything is feasible on account of the amazing development of intercontinental transport and telecommunication by satellite.

    Our ruling Commonwealth council should be responsible for the formulation of policy in major fields such as foreign relations, economic development, trade, defence, scientific and industrial research and migration. Its powers of execution would obviously be limited by the right of self-governing members to accept or reject its policies. However, in practice there is little doubt that the obvious benefits to each in prosperity and security would lead to acceptance in all reasonable
cases. The British nations today have the option of mutually coordinating their affairs by some common control or of subordinating those affairs to an unwelcome foreign control. This fact should not be hard to make understood by all concerned.

    What countries should be members of this association? The obvious candidates are the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia. New Zealand, South Africa and Rhodesia. In all of these countries except one people of British stock are in control and in most cases form the bulk of the population. With South Africa we have common interests in trade and defence which can be made to transcend the old Boer War rivalries and the not so old bitterness that has arisen from contemporary British anti-white policy. But reconciliation with South Africa and British Rhodesia will only be possible on the basis of our acceptance of those countries' internal policies. We should do more than acknowledge acceptance; we should give complete support.

    Other countries — and we are speaking now of the Coloured Commonwealth — who wish to benefit from an association with us and who can offer us some benefit in return may be considered for membership, but on the terms laid down by the senior members. There can be no question of South Africa or Rhodesia, or for that matter Britain, adjusting racial policies to suit them. Nor can there be any question of the senior Commonwealth members being obliged to subsidise inefficient
economies without having any control over those economies. Coloured states that demand recognition of their freedom must be free in effect as well as in name.

    If we consider only the six mentioned countries, this Commonwealth would represent a world power of combined area as great as Russia, with a European population of nearly a hundred millions, of which about 85 to 90 per-cent would be of British stock. The area would represent a super-abundance of natural wealth of almost every kind, with a vast fund of human skills ready to find substitutes for any materials that were in short supply. Such an area could, and should, become
economically self-supporting and militarily strong enough to deter aggression by any other power unaided. This would provide the basis for an entirely free role in world affairs, unfettered by the dictates of UNO or any other international grouping. We would have the means, provided we had the will, to pursue an entirely independent British destiny, friendly to other powers but in no way reliant upon them.

    By a coordination of the best scientific brains and resources of the whole Commonwealth we could afford to explore new technological fields far beyond those open to us today with the limited means imposed by our division. We could equal, and perhaps surpass, America as the world's most advanced technological power — particularly as we could create opportunities that would lure back to the Commonwealth those many fine technicians that we have currently lost through the brain drain.

    Within the Commonwealth we should pursue a massive programme of migration under which millions would be resettled from crowded Britain into the great spaces of the Dominions, thus establishing better and healthier living conditions, free from congestion and excessive urbanism and lessening the strategic danger of being too concentrated. At the same time we should develop increasingly cheaper means of communication so as to enable much closer contact between the widespread communities.

    Through a coordinated educational programme we should seek to encourage in all our new generations a common patriotism that would overcome the great distances that separate the different parts' of the British race, and thereby facilitate the operation of a common policy for the whole.

    It may be asked, how can there be any certainty that the countries concerned will be prepared to comply with such a scheme? The answer is that it is the job of statecraft, not to predict certainties, but to point to desirable and necessary objectives. No great objective in the building of Britain was undertaken with the certainty that it would be achieved, only with the will to achieve it and the knowledge that it had to be achieved. However, the politicians of our times are planning world systems much more fantastic in their assumptions and much more unnatural in their structure. The very people who question whether our system is possible seem not to question the possibility of these other schemes.

    The creation of a unified British world system is an enormously difficult task today, but it is possible with the right leadership and will. And if it can be created it has a much greater possibility of surviving than the synthetic internationalist world orders being proposed by our opponents.

    By the combination of the attributes of close on 100 millions of the world's most dynamic and creative people, and the immense fund of natural riches that would be at their command, we have in this prospect the makings of a civilisation that could surpass in its splendour anything yet achieved in the history of man — if only our people can be awakened to the greatness of such a task in time.

    But before anything can be done we must put an end to the present indecisive balancing act by which we run around trying to maintain the Commonwealth (in the most unworkable and unprofitable form) while talking about a 'special relationship' with America and flirting with
European union. We cannot have it all three ways. We can become part of the American or European systems and say goodbye to any kind of future as a free nation, or we can build a Commonwealth system based on solid foundations of British kinship which can guarantee a great British future for ages to come. We cannot pursue all at the Same time.

    We Nationalists choose the path of free development within the Commonwealth because it is the only path compatible with the retention of our nationhood, and indeed the only path that will secure a system that will work by virtue of being held together by really enduring bonds.

    This great objective must not be beyond the strength of our generation.

BACK TO CONTENTS                                       CHAPTER 3: ECONOMIC NATIONALISM