NBU TEN POINTS FOR ACTION 

1. The establishment by legal and constitutional methods during a General Election of a British Fascist Government of National Unity. The use of national referenda to reflect the declared will of the British people.

2. The building of a Corporate State in Britain composed of corporations of workers, employers and consumers all running British industry harmoniously in the national interest, instead of sectional vested interests. Higher wages, lower prices, increased pensions and equal pay for women. ‘Make Money the Servant and Not the Master of the People’.

3. Put Britain First in a United European Family of Nations. We stand for European spiritual unity so that Europe stands as one, in face of common enemies. The holding of a referendum to let the British people to decide whether they wish Britain to remain a member of the European Union.

4. An end to mass immigration to protect British worker’s jobs, housing, education, health services and social welfare. The promotion of realism, love and concern for British and European Civilisation not race hatred.

5. To encourage consumers to Buy British goods and foodstuffs, to save jobs and to support Britain’s economy.

6. The restoration of law and order and tougher sentences for serious criminal offences.

7. The conservation of our green and pleasant countryside with heavy fines for pollution and litter, and a ban on overbuilding on green belt land. Support for organic farming, small traditional family farms and higher standards of animal welfare.

8. The strengthening of Britain’s national defences and armed forces, with a British nuclear deterrent independent of NATO.

9. A Foreign Policy of putting British national interests first, an end to interference in the internal affairs of countries overseas and the promotion of World Peace.

10. Civil and Religious Liberty for all.

UNDERSTANDING FASCISM

In the Twentieth Century no set of ideas has been more vilified and misunderstood as that of fascism. Pre-war fascism has been depicted, through the machinations of the social democratic media and countless works of political comment, as a political system based on reactionary oppression … the antithesis of all that is good and necessary for human advancement. In the present day it appears that its origins have been ignored and it is now employed as an abusive epithet for the purpose of defaming political opponents, most of whom do not deserve it.

A degree of blame rests with the perpetual polarisation of politics into battalions of “Left” and “Right”, whereby all shades of political thought are considered only in these simple terms. The purpose of this article is to explore the reasons why fascism does not conveniently fit into the spectrum of “orthodox” politics and to demolish the current misconceptions. Firstly, it is a foolish misnomer to regard authentic fascism as reactionary or “Rightist”. In fact, the principal protagonists of the fascist creed in the 1930s, Benito Mussolini in Italy and Sir Oswald Mosley in Britain, were originally from the socialist Left.

In Spain, Jose Primo de Rivera, the Falangist leader, upon his incarceration by the Republicans before the Civil War, beckoned his supporters in the Falange Espanol not to join with the traditional conservatives and the Army. Long after Primo de Rivera’s death the Falange movement was diluted by Franco and any vestiges of the old revolutionary spirit were eradicated in order to appease the Roman Catholic church and the military. In the post-war era, Juan Peron assumed power in Argentina almost entirely with the support of the workers who are generally considered as the hard core of the Left. Consequently, his brand of fascism was very similar to the pure national socialism of Gregor Strasser in that it was based on the proletariat.

By and large, true fascism had little in common with traditional conservatism and all that is encompassed by the “Right” insofar as its exponents were men committed to a new world of social and economic reform on a large scale. To be properly understood, fascism has to be viewed in the context of that period after the First Great War. Fascism was the product of the horror of 1914/1918. The eruption of 1914 was the consequence of a deep rooted malaise. The apparent tranquility of the civilised world was a very thin veneer over hidden, seething forces. The faith in the Nineteenth Century idea of “progress” had lulled European man into a false sense of security.

The First Great War came as a great shock and its effects were spiritually shattering as the great age of “unending progress” was dramatically terminated. That war replaced optimism with pessimism and, in consequence, unleashed all that seethed beneath an old order on its last legs. After that nothing was certain again and the spirit of Europe was thrown into confusion. The old world had failed and the new world of social democracy offered no real certitudes. Those most betrayed by these events were the soldiers from the fighting front who had witnessed the madness of unnecessary butchery and had then returned to another world of prevaricating politicians who lacked the vision and courage to build the “land fit for heroes”.

Out of the trenches fascism was born. The soldier knew the importance of unity and action and brought this with him into the realm of revolutionary politics. Fascism was undoubtedly revolutionary. At the same time it differed from the “Left” and, in particular, Marxism in many vital respects. It was anti-materialistic and did not involve a cataclysmic break from man’s historic past. The philosophical positions of fascism and Marxism were the most distinctly different. As is well known, Marxism is intolerably and rigidly dogmatic. Very austere communists are inextricably bound by the gospel of Karl Marx, the glosses of Lenin and the maxims of “economic determinism”, leaving nothing for free thought or empirical examination.

On the other hand, fascism was liberated from dogmatism and its philosophy was one of pragmatism, that is to say, it simply asked if a particular notion could be used and made to work in the interests of the nation. Fascists, like soldiers, do not permit their minds to crystallise around any formulas but simply use them as working hypotheses which, in the event that they become detrimental, are easily discarded. This dynamic pragmatism was fascism’s hallmark and genius. With this philosophy fascism protested a revolt against all forms of phrase worship and useless sentimentality which are all inhibitive. The theoretical abstractions of social democracy, “liberty”, “equality” and “inalienable rights”, were attacked by fascism simply because they were abstractions.

They are words without any concrete importance meaning nought. They are used as objects of worship and, therefore, prevent objectivity and creative thought. Within the fascist context the concept of “rights” had meaning only when connected with service and duty, and so fascism emerged as a revolt against the cult of unrealities to become the force for pragmatic realism consistent with the new age of science. The Corporate State was an attempt to unite the many factions within society for the purpose of realising the ideal of the all-embracing Organic Nation. It brought an end to sectionalism by emphasising the role of individuals and organisations within the new state machinery.

The Corporate State was the catalyst for all the elements within the nation, the ultimate reconciliation of warring factions, for the worthy task of construction and the achievement of ever higher ideals. Far from being an oppression, this central theme of the fascist faith envisaged that only when the nation was free from the internecine struggle of its various elements, class against class and capitalist against worker, could there be true freedom for all. A nation that was not free could not give freedom to the people. Fascism was neither “Left” nor “Right” but was a synthesis of ideas above those which existed. “

It combines the dynamic urge to change and progress with the authority, the discipline and the order without which nothing great can be achieved“, Mosley affirmed in “The Greater Britain”. In that phrase can be detected two sentiments which, when separate ideas, are of little consequence. The idea of progress, as Mosley explained, is regarded as belonging to the Left whereas the tradition of order is regarded as belonging to the Right. Progress can not exist without order or stability… and stability can not exist without progress and the need to adapt to a changing world. Separated they bring chaos in a world where action is needed.

The fascist synthesis, with characteristic realism, was the only alternative. The charge that fascism was coercive is one of those tragic misconceptions which only serves to illustrate the hatred and bitterness of those who despise the heroic and the visionary. The prattle about “dictatorship” emanates from people who prefer the cataleptic inertia of social democracy in contrast to the dynamic will to action of the fascist temperament. The term “dictatorship” is not always synonymous with coercion. By his use of the word “dictatorship” Mosley interpreted this as “leadership” and in the 1930s he explained,

“Fascism is not dictatorship in the old sense of that word, which implies government against the will of the people. Fascism is dictatorship in the modern sense of the word, which implies government armed by the people with power to solve problems which the people are determined to overcome‘.

In order to function and work Fascism depended on the will of the people; without that will there would be no Organic Nation. In this context fascism deviated from Left socialism in that the essence of fascist action was based on leadership and initiative and, in practice, was seen to be the leadership of the people with their popular consent. It had nothing to do with the stifling controls of socialism in this respect, rather fascism tended to lead and only intervene when any section threatened the interests of the organic whole. The tragedy of fascism was that it was not given a chance to blossom.

A second disastrous war with all the hysteria and propaganda blurred a lot of the truth. Fascism should be remembered for its dynamism, its heroism and its vision during a time when something new was desperately needed to save man from self destruction. Fascism faced the facts of the pre-war world; and now we face the facts of a world which has changed so rapidly. What new force for the future can inspire hope in the same way that Fascism did so many years ago?

FASCISM IS NOT NAZISM

Fascism originated in Italy, under the leadership of  Benito Mussolini. Its name — not its ideology — is in part derived from  certain revolutionary workers groups in Italy at the end of the 19th century,  fasci revoluzionari (= revolutionary groups). When Mussolini started his  movement in 1919, he called his first Fascist groups Fasci di Combattimento (=  combat groups).

Both Fascism and  Nazism are founded on new nationalist ideas, but this does not justify confusing  them or treating them as identical. Mussolini’s  Fascism had a political ideology, Hitler’s Nazism, was not based on much else  other than blind racial hatred and purification, efficient militarism, and  ruthless application of totalitarian power in the interest of the Master  Race.The Italian fascists regarded  both parliamentary democracy and socialist class struggle as elements that were  bound to cause divisiveness in a nation. Hence they introduced the idea of  corporatism, a kind of modernised version of the medieval guild system.

Here  representatives of all trades and industries, employers as well as employees,  could settle matters based on mutual understanding. Unfortunatly Corporatism  today has been bastardised and is in control of the so called democratic  capitalist cartels, where workers rights have be negated in the name of profit  for their corporate paymasters.In general, fascism was an  appreciably lighter version of the anti-democratic system than Nazism. Fascist  Italy never became completely totalitarian, nor did it commit mass murder the  like the Nazis’. The monarchy was intact and the bureaucracy, the military and  the church remained as complementary power centres.

Originally there was no  racism or anti Semitism in Italian fascism. Due to Hitler’s controlling  influence this changed toward the end of Mussolini’s  governance. Is there any point in  differentiating between these two? There is, whatever Stalin and the communists  may have said in the past, it is hardly fair to the victims of Nazism by  euphemistically renaming their Nazi murderers, making them look like Fascists’.  The modern day political elite have taken and continued this smear by adopting  the Nazi adage of “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,  people will eventually come to believe it“.