In the Cause of Anglo-Saxondom
John Tyndall
The British Empire ceased to exist, to all practical purposes, in the 20 years following 1945. So far as it embraced what were called the White Dominions, it had ceased to exist no small time before — in fact at the points much earlier on in this century when effective sovereignty over those Dominions was acknowledged as residing, not in the British Crown or Parliament, but in the locally elected assemblies of the countries concerned. To argue whether this was a good or bad development is today quite superfluous. The fact is that it happened, and is not likely to be reversed.
What has existed since has attained the name of Commonwealth. Personally I have never liked the term. It is somewhat vague anyway; Australia is called a Commonwealth and is a federation of states with ultimate power and sovereignty residing in a single federal government; the wider Commonwealth that has taken the place of the British Empire is not a federation but a collection of totally sovereign states which are regarded as nations in their own right with their own governments not subordinate to any central government. In so far as countries like Zambia, Nigeria, Jamaica and Singapore are as much members of this Commonwealth as are Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and have the same rights to attend Commonwealth conferences as the latter countries, our sense of realism must prompt the question of what the point is of maintaining this association at all. Champions of the Commonwealth in its present form will no doubt reply, as they do, that it has value as a medium of international co-operation, but, if that is the case, what special value does this represent in preference to other international institutions with the same object?
We in the National Front have never subscribed to this silly waffle by which the mythology of Commonwealth is maintained. We see it for what it is — the dying bleatings of a British ruling class who proved unfit to maintain an Empire but whose little world of make-believe requires them to invent a special kind of doggerel whereby they may delude themselves that something still remains in the place where their Empire expired.
What we want Britain to be part of is something totally different, as we have said on many occasions. Our concept is that of an association based on essentially ethnic foundations, which has little more in common with the Commonwealth of today than it has with the United Nations organisation.
We have nevertheless continued to employ the word Commonwealth for purely practical and pragmatic reasons. We are a political party whose business is mass communication. We cannot engage in mass communication if we do not adhere to a vocabulary of terms that are readily understood by large numbers of people, including many who do not examine political language studiously. Apart from Commonwealth and Empire, no terms exist which people in the mass can immediately identify with the concept of Britain's ties with, and obligations to, her overseas kin. As the latter term is inapplicable today, only the former is left.
To this our overseas kin would no doubt reply: "So what? Commonwealth does not interest us today any more than Empire does." Very likely they would be right but this does not invalidate the concept that lies behind our use of the word Commonwealth here in Britain. That concept has always been the cause of the unity, and the destiny, of Anglo-Saxondom.
Here again we are in the realm of terms that are not totally accurate and precise. Anglo-Saxondom is generally taken to include Scots, Welsh and Anglo-and Scots-Irish. As such it would be better replaced by Anglo-Celtic or, better still, by British. The first of these alternatives, however, does not at the moment have the ring of familiarity that we require, while the second would probably not be acceptable to a majority of our kinfolk overseas. We will use Anglo-Saxon therefore for the purpose of this article.
Speaking for myself, it was always the grandeur of the story of Anglo-Saxondom and its world-colonising mission that first prompted in me the set of loyalties, sentiments and values that later led to the decision to devote a lifetime to political work. As long as it was realistic to identify this with the British Empire, that was what I was loyal to. When it was clear that the Empire was no longer a reality, the feeling for Anglo-Saxondom remained and has remained to this day. If we must find new institutions and new terms of association to symbolise and give form to the cause of Anglo-Saxondom, then let us by all means do so when the time beckons. To me this is a detail: it is Anglo-Saxondom.
Since boyhood I have had the conviction, which has grown with the years, that the Anglo-Saxons are one of the two truly great and leading races of the world — the other being the Germans. I speak of “two races" fully mindful that in anthropological terms they are really only two branches of the same race. Over many centuries, however, Anglo-Saxons and Germans have evolved cultures, traditions, institutions, identities, loyalties and attachments – of which language is not without importance – which place them in distinct ethnic families of their own that shouId and must be able to co-exist on terms of friendship but would be the poorer for any attempt to merge them.
Which, if either, of the two peoples is the greater is a question that I would not attempt to solve, as it involves comparisons of achievement in fields so far apart as to make them impossible. I can only say that, taking the field of human endeavour as a whole, the constructive and creative works of these two peoples far surpass any other, and that as one of these peoples we Anglo-Saxons should before everything else be concerned to ensure that our future be as great as our past.
If this is to be our aim — and I know of no worthier one — we should be vitally concerned as to why our prospects look so much less than great today, why in fact our power as a race has so receded in a few decades in relation to that of other races. Why have Anglo-Saxons lost the will to maintain the British Empire? Why has the Anglo-Saxon element in the United States, previously so dominant, surrendered so much power to minority ethnic groups?
I am in no doubt as to the cause of this recession: it is because of all the significant peoples in the world we Anglo-Saxons are today the least racially assertive and the least unified. While our potential as a race is still second to none, in our will to realize this potential we lag miles behind other, lesser races.
Look around the world today and you can see numerous examples of people who retain a strong ethnic consciousness which transcends geographical isolation as well as differences of citizenship. Italians in New York are still very much aware of their Italian-ness, even in families far removed in generations from the original migrants who carried the stock to America. Greeks in London, Toronto or Sydney are of the same disposition. Asians in Britain do not become less Asian for being thousands of miles away from their homelands in India, Pakistan or Bangla Desh. America's Catholic Irish still celebrate St. Patrick's Day and concern themselves greatly with the affairs of Ireland. The Chinese outside China remain Chinese. The Japanese outside Japan remain Japanese. Large numbers of American and British blacks identify with Africa. In Quebec we see an enclave of ethnically French, French-speaking people very aware of their distinctiveness, and of whom many feel closer cultural and spiritual ties with France than with Anglo-Saxon Canada.
But the strongest example by far of ethnocentrism and ethnic unity to be found anywhere is that of the jews, who in their very limited numbers and unparalleled dispersion command immense power among the nations and within the nations by the exercise of a singular race-will. "We Jews are a nation!" said the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, at the end of the last century, and he meant Jews whether they lived in London, Paris, Berlin or New York. A long time before that the power of one Jewish family, the Rothschilds, was built on combined financial operations in several capitals at once, where branches of the family, appearing as integral parts of the nations among which they resided, could be found simultaneously backing two opposing sides in a European war — with immense profits from which this dynasty has subsequently built world power of quite terrifying proportions.
Compared with a probable world jewish population of around 20 million, the Anglo-Saxon race throughout the British Commonwealth and America numbers about 150-160 miIlion. Considered as a single nation, in the same sense as the scattered parts of Jewry are considered (by themselves) to be a nation, the Anglo-Saxons would be indisputably the strongest power on earth, able to exercise the decisive role in shaping the world for the next several hundred years at least, able to obtain from the aggregate of their territories almost every vital economic resource in super-abundance, able through this and through their technology to build the highest standard of life ever known, able anywhere in the world to exert a military weight more than adequate to protect any important interest belonging to them.
But sadIy, through the errors of the last 200 years, the Anglo-Saxons find themselves in a state of division and confusion, and through their vulnerability to "liberal" ideas have perhaps the world's weakest instinct of self-preservation and survival.
The division began with the American War of Independence. The word "independence" now would raise a hollow laugh among the descendants of those who fought and won that war, for what sort of "independence" does the true American have today in real terms? After fighting to throw off the yoke of his own kinfolk over the ocean, he is now subjected to a far worse yoke because a far more alien one. In his own country he is in political terms the slave of a determined coalition of racial minority groups headed by Zionists.
During a recent trip of mine to the United States many Americans confided to me their belief that the War of Independence was a tragic error in the consequences that came out of it. Of course there was never any question of Americans indefinitely remaining a subordinate colony, or group of colonies, of Great Britain, with their affairs governed by the British Crown and Parliament. Nor was there ever any question of their indefinitely tolerating the wrongs that arose from out of that situation at the time.
But would not peoples with a more highly developed race sense have regarded that particular quarrel as an internal one, to be resolved internally, rather than a cause for national separation? The population of the American colonies, which was nearly 80 percent of British descent at the time, could in due course have achieved its self-government and been able to right the grievances which led to the war by other means than that which led to separation from the British family of peoples — and to a state of affairs over a century afterwards in which America and Britain actually became rivals in international affairs.
For a century after the War of Independence, America, though a republic and outside the British Empire, stillI saw herself at least culturally as part of Anglo-Saxondom. After the American Civil War, however, a process began in the United States which was to take that country in an entirely new direction — the direction of the “Melting Pot." At about the same time America received as a gift from France the Statue of Liberty, on which are inscribed the words, “Send me the teeming refuse from your shore" — and that is "exactly what the Old World sent to America. America in its turn gladly received the refuse. From the late 19th century to today every imaginable variety of humanity has poured into the United States, totally altering its original ethnic composition from a wholly North European, and predominately Anglo-Saxon, country into the Babylon of races, cultures and nationalities it has now become.
Americans to whom I spoke in the U.S. confessed to me how difficult it was for them to promote any movement of nationalism comparable to the nationalism of the National Front here in Britain or similar nationalist movements on the European continent, for the very good reason that such a huge part of the populace of their county has no sense of any real American nationality at all but still think of themselves first and foremost as Negroes, Jews, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Italians, Greeks, Chinese and Japanese rather than "Americans." In consequence, those Americans of Anglo-Saxon and other Northern Euro-pean stocks have in large part come to feel a greater sense of kinship with their ancestral nations in North Western Europe than with millions of their fellow citizens of the United States.
Wilmot Robertson, author of The Dispossessed Majority, which describes the process by which the race which built America has gradually been deprived of power over its own country, has subsequently gone so far as to say that America as it has developed has proved a huge mistake and that racially minded Americans should consider the possibility of going back to the beginning and starting again, i.e., forming an entirely new nation around the nucleus of Anglo-Saxon and other Nordic stocks and expelling the alien elements – either by resettling them in other continents or allocating them certain areas of the United States in which they live under a form of semi-Apartheid.
Were the Robertson proposals to be put into practice, it has been estimated that the population of the United States would be reduced from its present 210 million to a Northern European rump of about 140 million, of which a decisive segment wouId be of Anglo-Saxon stock.
America would thus lose about 70 million people of very doubtful racial value and who economically are mostly a liability rather than an asset.
At the same time, by reason of the re-emergence of Anglo-Saxondom as the dominant power within America, the basis would exist for a great renewal of the ties which formerly bound Anglo-Saxon America to Britain and other parts of the Anglo-Saxon world. Were a new association to be formed from these ties, it would represent an aggregate of power, wealth and cultural potential far in excess of what the United States represents today and indeed of any other great empire in history.
During my whole political life I have campaigned against the post-war trends in British policy vis-a-vis America – because I have seen them for what they are: trends which point to the handing over of the British imperial heritage to a polyglot state dominated by Zionist finance and epitomising everything that is culturally degenerate in the latter-day West. When Winston Churchill made his infamous Fulton (Missouri) speech at the end of World War II in which he spoke of British and American affairs becoming increasingly "mixed up" he had precisely this in mind; he was content to see the Britain which had been reduced, largely through his policies, to a cripple among the nations absorbed into the Wall Street financial empire and given a disablement pension in the form of dollar aid. Throughout the last decade of his political life he schemed ceaselessly with Roosevelt's successors towards the achievement of this concept — which had nothing to do with the unity or destiny of Anglo-Saxondom but which was intended to make Anglo-Saxons mere serfs in an international federation controlled by internationalist crooks. The absorption of Britain into these Churchillian schemes has been accomplished — and could only have been accomplished — through the plunder of her resources, her assets, her freedom, her honour and her self-respect. We have been right to oppose these developments all the way, as we have done and shall continue to do.
But this is a totally different concept to that in which a strong, proud and free Britain, in concert with other Anglo-Saxon states of the old Empire and Commonwealth, moves closer into partnership with an America in which Anglo-Saxondom is resurgent and has once again become predominant — a partnership not of servility, not of dependence, but of natural kindred, linking self-reliant peoples in a unity which represents only a reversion to an earlier time in history when these peoples were one single people.
I believe that this is the dream to which race-minded Anglo-Saxons (or Britons) everywhere should dedicate themselves in the years to come. I deliberately employ the word "dream" — for that is what it is at the moment, no more.
But it is a mistake to think of dreams only in terms of unrealisable objectives or topics of fantasy. The dreams of one generation have, many times past, become the basis of the actual achievements of a later generation — provided that those dreams have become harnessed to practical schemes or political action.
At one time Zionism existed only as a dream in the minds of a select minority of Jews and scorned by the massed ranks of Jewry as having little to do with the mundane problems of their contemporary lives. But through the dedication of this minority this dream became an actuality in the final event, indeed the most formidable actuality with which we have to live in the modern world.
Pan-Germanism became a dream when Germany consisted of a group of small and divided states under the heel of the Napoleonic empire. When Fichte made his series of "addresses to the German nation" in which he expounded this dream, he did so under the surveillance of French troops of occupation who patrolled in and about his Berlin lecture hall. The Pan-German vision was about as remote from the practicality of current events and affairs as any vision could possibly be, yet it was one day to triumph because it was one of those mighty ideas whose time was destined to come, and because a determined and organised minority was prepared to work for it through years of setback and struggle.
Our dream must be a Pan-Anglo-Saxon dream, and we must be prepared to work for it in the same conditions of discouragement and adversity as those which saw the earlier development of dreams of destiny on the part of those other ethnic nations.
It is not a dream of a revived British Empire. Nor is it a dream of a dollar empire controlled from Washington or New York. It is the dream of an eventual union linking people of one race—the most powerful race in history and the race with the highest potential for the future.
It is of barely any significance that today such a dream and such a concept impresses itself little upon the consciousness of the ordinary man-in-the-street, whether in Ottawa, Birmingham, Melbourne, Wellington or wherever else Anglo-Saxons live. That man-in-the-street thinks within the framework of the concepts, ideals, boundaries and loyalties suggested to him by those who control the contemporary media of communication. The great movements of history never have gestated at such a level or in accordance with the breezes of some momentary political climate, contrived by those who currently own the climate-making machinery; they have emerged from out of the visions of far-seeing minorities who stand outside and above these ephemeral gusts of wind, the men who stand, as did Zarathustra, on the mountain peaks of human thought and can see the vast perspectives ahead and beyond.
As the minority which is the carrier of our dream and idea strengthens, it must seek to bring into its hands the facilities to communicate with the larger audience that is the basis of its fight for political power. This will come with time, just as the Zionist movement, by acquiring its press and its film and broadcasting industry, translated a minority dream into an object of mass allegiance. While we work for this objective we should never be discouraged by the fact that we are not understood by the contemporary mass; on the contrary, to limit the scope and range of our ideals so as to bring them within the compass of immediate mass comprehension and acceptance would be to dilute them and diminish them to a state of almost worthlessness.
Our dream of the destiny of Anglo-Saxondom is at the moment a too elevated and exclusive one to serve as an effective rallying slogan in the contemporary politics in which we have to engage. A somewhat simpler version of this concept we employ in the phrase, British Nationalism. There is nothing at all wrong or false in that phrase; it merely has a more parochial sound that enables us to apply the concept to the immediate problems of the island kingdom in which we live and the support of whose people is necessarily our first objective. British Nationalism is not in conflict with, but is a stepping stone to, the greater ideal of a unified Anglo-Saxondom.
Similarly, those who serve the ideal of Anglo-Saxondom in other parts of the world would be advised to be parochial in any appeal that they make to the ordinary public and not to talk in terms of concepts that are above the heads of the ordinary public at this stage. Thus Anglo-Saxons in Canada should talk mainly of what concerns Canada, Australians mainly of what concerns Australians.
What is important is that underlying this pragmatic approach to local issues there is a transcendent ideal which is understood and shared by the leading thinkers and activators of our movement in Britain and its kindred movements overseas and which forms the basis of their political philosophy. I have suggested in this article what that ideal should be; it is the ideal that has motivated me over 22 years of political work. I think I can say for my colleagues that it is the ideal that drives the National Front. It is what fuels our engine, though in the week-to-week operation of our steering mechanism it may not seem relevant.
I hear much talk today from some contemporaries that this transcendent ideal should not be Anglo-Saxondom but should be Europe. To me, this is an absurdity. What is Europe today but a mere geographical area? If we are thinking of Europe not in geographical but in racial and cultural terms, then Europe exists wherever Europeans live and the cultures of European peoples survive, in other words in the Americas, in Australasia and in the surviving remnants of European civilisation in Southern Africa — just as much as, if not more than, in the European continent itself.
And how can these protagonists of the European ideal possibly claim that we should share a common destiny with Greeks, Spaniards and Italians rather than with Australians, New Zealanders and American or Canadian WASPs, merely because the former happen to live nearer to us in geographical terms?
Why would we want to merge with Latins to counter the power of fellow Anglo-Saxons?
I see nothing wrong at all with an ideal which recognizes the worth, racial and cultural, of all segments of European civilisation, and which seeks to avoid the conflict and bloodshed that have weakened the European races in the past. I see only commonsense in the recognition that these European cultures are mutually interdependent and should be commonly safeguarded against the intrusion of mutually alien cultures. I see no reason for barriers to intermarriage among individuals of related European ethnic groups on a limited scale. In short, there is nothing wrong with the idea of the European world presenting, as far as possible, a common front against the non-European world.
But within this European world it seems to me abundantly obvious that we are closer to Northern Europeans than to other Europeans and we are closest of all to those among the North European groups who are British or who originated from British stock, in other words, the members of Anglo-Saxondom.
Therefore it is to these latter peoples that our hands of kinship should go out first and foremost. It is with these peoples that we have the greatest chance of building a future association that will endure on the basis of firm ties. And, I submit, it is these peoples — equalled only by the Germans — who possess in their inheritance the highest reserves of genius of all kinds that are needed in the making of a better world (this is not to denigrate other Northern European ethnic groups, like the Dutch, who are equal in quality but not as significant in quantity).
The communities of Anglo-Saxondom have had their conflicts in the past and may have further conflicts to come before their destiny is realised. Anglo-Saxondom of America had to fight a war to establish that it was not under the thumb of Anglo-Saxondom of Britain. Anglo-Saxondom of Britain needs in the future to take political and economic action to establish that it is not under the thumb of America. Anglo-Saxons in the Dominions of the British Empire had to make their declarations at various times that they were not under the United Kingdom thumb. Anglo-Saxons in the American South once felt the need to break free of the grip of the (mainly) Anglo-Saxons in the American North. To a good many Southerners that need still exists today.
But when all this is said and done the fact remains that Anglo-Saxondom still represents a definable ethnic and cultural community, with an identity that is distinguishable at a glance by reference to language, music, literature, art, customs and institutions and — not least — physical type.
We Anglo-Saxons live in a world in which racial groups other than ourselves think and act much more strongly than we do in racial terms. As a result the leadership of the world which could be ours is not ours and the power and influence which we could and should possess we do not possess. We have lost ground to others who are our inferiors in creative achievement and potential but our superiors in race-will.
Behind the blatherings of liberals and utopians about "peace" and "brotherhood" among the nations there are gathering the stormclouds once again of a titanic international conflict. It will not, as in the past, be a conflict of flags or kings or fought in the service of Gods and rights. It will be a conflict over the brute issue of race survival — with the world's resources as its prize. Will those resources of food and industry, of human sustenance, belong to our race or to others? For they cannot belong to everybody — human fecundity in the modern world rules this out.
Our racial enemies know of this conflict and are organising and preparing for it. We will not be organised or prepared for it if we still continue to think in terms of the petty particularism over which we have fought battles among ourselves in past ages. When Anglo-Saxondom faces its ultimate battle with its back to the wall, it will not matter whether one's ancestors supported George Washington or George III, whether one's great great grandfather boarded the ship at Tilbury for Australia or changed his mind and stayed at home. It will matter only that a great and mighty Anglo-Saxondom comes at last into its own and marches towards the future supreme and unconquerable!
First printed in Spearhead magazine
http://www.instaurationonline.com/pdf-files/Instauration-1980-02-February.pdf