All that has been said so far about British Nationalism and Greater Britain must be conditional upon the survival of the British as a people: of the distinct qualities inherited from past generations who raised Britain to supremacy. Factors of leadership and political and economic organisation which influence our position today — these can be changed. But if ever the basic character of the British people were to alter and their inherent qualities be lost. then no amount of improvement in their institutions would avail against the certainty of a dark future.

    This is the fact that looms behind the much discussed race issue. Behind all the conflicts and hatreds that fester on the surface of present race relations lies the fundamental wish, need and right of our people to maintain their historical identity and the traditional living habits and customs to which they are attached. These are quite clearly endangered by current attempts at racial integration being made by the authorities in Britain, with the aid both of indoctrination and police coercion.

    If other nations can ignore the race issue — except just to comment on it sanctimoniously from the lofty heights of isolation — certainly we in Britain cannot. It affects us at home in the form of a growing immigrant population; it affects us overseas, where our kinsfolk live as minorities in mainly coloured lands. All over the world racial unrest smoulders behind the frontage of international disputes. The race problem bids with certainty to be one of the two or three dominating issues of the remainder of this century.

    With the coming to the forefront of this stormy question we have witnessed the rise of a new self-appointed priesthood, tramping the continents and haranguing the peoples with idealistic solutions based neither on the facts of history or science nor on any real regard for human nature, only on an emotional jargon bolstered up by a self-debasing pseudo-morality.

    Today this priesthood, which numbers among its adherents many of our so-called 'intelligentsia', has a new bogey word with which it seeks to evoke popular guilt and hysteria. The word is 'Powellism', and it is flung as if it were the curse of Satan at every person or organisation which dares to question the wisdom of importing a large racial problem into our country and of seeking to overcome this problem by enforced integration.

    What is called 'Powellism' in fact reflects the deepest and most instinctive revulsion of the vast mass of the British people against what it knows to be the imposition of something utterly alien upon our land and our society. It is a revulsion felt, if not often loudly expressed, by all but a small minority of poisoned minds and atrophied souls who happen to prevail strongly in the opinion-forming media and in the corridors of political power—in short, the priesthood.

    'Powellism' is in any event an inaccurate term. Mr, Enoch Powell has only articulated and given new voice to a sentiment which persisted for many years and on an issue on which others warned for many years before he spoke his first words about it in 1968. He should be complimented and supported for what he has said and he should be encouraged to say more, but it is ludicrous to attribute to him a race awareness and race feeling that proceeded his speeches on the subject
by probably two decades.

    On race the morality of the priesthood has a simple answer to everything. All men are equal; race means nothing except for the colour of the skin; the races must mix and become one, and all who object to that are either deficient in education or mentally ill; the lower position of the coloured man is due entirely to his brutal treatment by the whites not on any account to his own deficiencies; black is always right and white is always wrong; when whites riot against blacks they are bigoted fascist thugs persecuting the helpless, but when blacks riot against whites they are brave and noble idealists campaigning for their rights and in no way to blame for the bloodshed involved. Under the auspices of this new priesthood the white world becomes spellbound by self-guilt, unable even to discuss the racial problem in a reasoned and practical way, and prepared to sanction what must end in the sacrifice of its own existence for the sake of repentence.

    Is all this frenzy helping the coloured man?

    In fact the more intensive the effort to integrate coloured and white societies the more aggravated does racial tension become. In our own country this can be seen as clearly as anywhere. A few years ago racial ill feeling was almost unknown amongst us. The few coloureds that were here were reacted to with friendly interest and sympathy. Now everything has changed. The mass influx of Africans and West Indians, Indians and Pakistanis, and the fanatical campaign to push them into
white homes, hotels, boarding houses, clubs, .factories "and offices has resulted in a massive and seething hatred, with people who a few years ago had no racial feelings whatsoever now harbouring bitter antagonism towards all coloureds as a result of their personal experiences. Inevitably, the coloured man is the first to suffer.

    Exactly the same position has been created m the United States under the sponsorship of 'Civil Rights'.

    On the other hand, what has happened when the coloured peoples have been given power in lands formerly ruled, by colonists? In almost every case the fruits of power have gone to just a privileged few, i.e. the coloured dictators and their small circles of flatterers, while the ordinary masses suffer a poverty and a tyranny many times worse than any known under their old masters. Bankruptcy is rife, starvation and rioting the rule and imprisonment without trial the customary reward for anyone who objects.

    No-one who seriously and sincerely wants to help the coloured man towards a better deal can believe that this is the way. Only those who in their odious hypocrisy wish to use the coloureds as a weapon for their own political ends can do so.

    We believe the way of Nationalism is a better way. We are British Nationalists first and foremost and are determined to preserve our British civilisation in the many areas of the world where
it has taken root. We don't want to change this civilisation and live under another one. We don't want to change our national character and assume a new and different national character; we want to stay as we are giving to the world those particular things which our inborn qualities as a people have fitted us to give. We may be terribly 'unprogressive' in this attitude, but this is how we feel and we know that the British people in the majority are behind us.

    We know that racial integration along the lines now being pursued by marxists, liberals and one-worlders is bound to lead to the loss of our identity as a people and of that particular genius that has been Britain's gift to history.

    It is no refutation of this to trot out the old tale about the British being a mixed stock. Our only mixture is of stocks of North Western Europe closely akin to each other and blended together like the
branches of a family tree. This is something entirely different from interbreeding with races of completely alien background and character, such as those indigenous to Africa and Asia.

    We therefore oppose racial integration and stand for racial separateness, that is the separate development of the different races and nations along lines corresponding to their differing qualities.

    This means the safeguarding of our own identity as Britons, but it means more than that; it means a genuine attempt at harmony between the races along realistic lines by the encouragement of the coloured peoples towards a similar sense of identity and towards a development suited to their own particular characteristics.

    This has for years been the policy adopted in Southern Africa. It is a policy which has worked for the betterment of both white and black, as can be seen by a comparison of the living standards of the latter with those of their fellow Africans to the North. Such a policy should command our wholehearted support.

    Its implementation where Britain is concerned means two things: firstly that we call a halt to all further immigration of coloured races into our own homeland — yes, including those who get in under the guise of being so-called 'dependents' — and that we work towards the gradual and humane resettlement of our existing coloured population in the lands of their origin. In this latter connection we must be careful to steer clear of misleading concepts such as 'voluntary repatriation'. If left to themselves, our immigrants are not going to all go home; the great majority of them will stay here, where they can enjoy vastly higher standards than they were used to before they came. To
talk of voluntary repatriation amounts to no more than cowardly compromise with fashionable 'liberal' trends of opinion and talk which when seriously examined in this context amount to pure imbecility. To make a scheme of repatriation really work in the long term interests of white and coloured races we must have the courage to make it obligatory and furthermore to have the courage to say so honestly and openly and not try to mislead the public of this country.

    Secondly, we must put an end to the insanity of sabotaging the colonial achievements of our own kinfolk elsewhere in the Commonwealth and we must support them in their efforts to maintain order and progress for all races within a system based on an understanding of the diverse attributes and needs of each.

    Britons have not sailed the oceans and built new British civilisations out of jungle and wilderness merely for our generation to pull  them down. They have not stayed loyal to us in two world wars merely for us to turn now and stab them in the back.

    This rule is applicable to all areas of the earth where British wealth has been created by British brains and leadership. It is applicable today particularly to Rhodesia. where a brave handful of our people fight to preserve a part of the British heritage against the organised venom of the world's liberals and leftists. Britons here at home should realise that the white settlers fighting to retain their position are fighting for our cause and for our future, the future of British civilisation the world over.

    The Rhodesian issue is, make no mistake, a racial issue. On its solution depends the question of whether the magnificent achievements of that small country remain in the hands of those who created them and thereby serve to enrich the British future or whether they pass into irresponsible hands and waste away into uselessness and decay. We have seen the danger signal in what has happened elsewhere in Africa. Let us take heed of it.

    And over the Rhodesian issue let us in particular guard against those deceivers in the ranks of 'Conservatism' who pose as friends of our kinfolk in Rhodesia and talk of the need to build bridges to them while at the same time kow-towing to the leftist principle of 'eventual majority rule'. When the doctrines of these swindlers are put under the microscope they become exposed as no better than those of the liberals, communists and open enemies of the whites in Africa. They merely propose to put off till tomorrow what the latter intend to do today. White Rhodesians and South Africans should be under no illusions; they should recognise that their only true friends in this country are those who are prepared to speak out openly in defence of their right to stay in power for all time and not just for the few more years of grace that our modern Tories would condescend to give them.

    Once we recognise the underlying facts of race which have affected the whole development of Africa and Asia, and which so much affect the future existence of Britain itself, we can, as the Rhodesians and South Africans are doing, extend our consideration to the coloured peoples and help them to find a role in which they can advance in a way most conducive to their own security and happiness. The way to do this is to provide them with work suited to their own capacities and with progressively better rates of pay, decent houses in their own townships where they may mingle harmoniously with their own kind, social services that care for their health and general well being and opportunity to express themselves through their own tribal traditions and customs. All these things are now being put into practice in Southern Africa in a way that does far more service to the cause of the Negro than all the egalitarian rantings of the Huddlestons, the Brockways and the Peter Hains.

    The essential difference between this practical policy and the woolly dreams of the liberals and multi-racialists is that it is based on the simple principle of white leadership. We, like the leaders of South Africa and Rhodesia, accept without guilt or shame the truth upon which this principle is based and which the overwhelming weight of history supports: that while every race may have its
particular skills and qualities the capacity to govern and lead and  sustain civilisation as we understand it lies essentially with the European. To give the coloured man a better life is a worthy aim — providing one is sincere about it and not just trying to pose as an obedient disciple of 'approved opinion'. But to give him power and responsibility which he is ill fitted to use wisely is something entirely different, and in fact ends by defeating his quest for a better life.

    It is right that we should continue to help the coloured man—not as an act of patronage or charity, which does no service to his self-respect. but in return for his helping us. But we do not intend to blow up in flames the fruits of two to three hundred years of our ancestors' endeavour merely in order to appease the amateur fads of one misguided decade.

    We have spoken of helping other races. But let us not be hypocrites: while we want to do this. our first duty and concern is our own race: the protection of its interests, the advancement of its power. By a manly determination to do this we can best come to an understanding with the African and Asian who care for their interests. Such people, in their simplicity, hate cant and despise self-flagellation. By grovelling to them on our hands and knees, as successive British governments
of recent times have made a habit of doing, we only invite contempt — which does nothing at all to help harmony.

    Mutual respect, based on this rule, is the only way to settle this most explosive of questions.

BACK TO CONTENTS                                       CHAPTER 5: DUTIES OF GOVERNMENT