By Frederick Dixon:
Some of you will remember the late Michael Wharton who wrote in the Daily Telegraph for many years under the pseudonym of ‘Peter Simple’. One of our greatest twentieth century political satirists he was entirely a man of the racial nationalist Right, an astonishing exception to the processed group-think which usually passes for journalism in these times.
He had what he called “the columnar reverse effect” – it was certain that whenever he advocated a particular course in his column, the opposite would surely happen, so I very well remember him on one occasion telling his readers that under no circumstances should they vote for the BNP!
Although his writings have inevitably dated because they were topical when written, they nevertheless remain a treasure house for nationalists. The following two extracts, published in the Telegraph on the 14th April 2000, give a flavour of his work:
CARD
The race card! Desperate to disclaim it, frantically accusing each other of playing it or intending to play it, politicians of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are scurrying to and fro in panic, wondering how to cope with the growing public anger about ‘asylum seekers’ in Kent and elsewhere.
What are they so frightened of? Are they frightened that the scare about foreign ‘asylum seekers’, whether genuine or bogus, may get people thinking of the strange transformation that has come over England since that remote time, 50 years ago, when there was no race card for anyone to play because almost everybody belonged to the same race?
Are they frightened that the dreaded card may even yet jump out of the pack they have so carefully shuffled and, without anyone trying to play it, may play itself?
AT MARXMOUNT
Meanwhile, back in the real world, there is trouble at Marxmount, Mrs. Dutt-Pauker’s fine white mansion on the edge of Hampstead Heath. The great Hampstead thinker has been forthright in maintaining that everybody, whatever their race or origin, should have the right to enter or leave this country whenever they wish. In many an eloquent letter to the press she has extolled the wealth of cultural riches that Albanians, Kurds, Somalis, gipsies and other unfortunate people are bringing to this country, just as successive waves of immigrants did in the past.
So when her daughter Deirdre collected a band of Romanian gipsies in Dover and brought them to Marxmount, she had a good chance of putting her principles into practice. Looking up from her desk in her capacious study, where she was busy on another letter to the press about the refugees, she was astonished to see through the tall windows several head-scarved women, carrying what looked like babies, strolling about the cedared lawns and tramping over the parterres so lovingly tended by McKenzie, her head gardener! And there, smiling rather foolishly as she tried to address them in some vaguely remembered Latin words, was Deirdre herself!
‘What is the meaning of this, Deirdre?’ said the chatelaine of Marxmount in a terrible, cold voice, as she came storming out into the garden.
‘But Mummy, I thought you’d be pleased. These are refugees wanting asylum. This is Magda, Mummy, this is Elena, this is…’
‘Deirdre, how many times must I ask you not to meddle in things you can’t possibly understand? Go and ring the police, and have these people removed immediately!
‘It’s a matter of principle. Can’t you see that that if we take these people in now, we may get white, colonialist, racist exploiters from Zimbabwe coming and asking for asylum as well? How could I ever face my old friend Bob Mugabe again?’
‘Yes Mummy’.
By Frederick Dixon © 2014
# # # #
Max Musson
- Edit
I have on occasions been amused by things that Michael Wharton wrote as Peter Simple, but I was never an avid follower of his column in the way that many nationalists of my generation were.
.
Frederick Dixon evidently appreciated Wharton’s wit and this brief article celebrates in a small way, the fact that at least somebody in an establishment newspaper was able for so many years to poke fun at the race relations industry and the rising tide of political correctness.
.
Some commenters are bound to point out that Wharton was half-Jewish and question whether we should, if even for a moment, countenance the possibility of regarding him as a ‘hero’, suggesting that he is perhaps the journalistic equivalent of Sacha Baron Cohen, an establishment insider given licence to satirise the multi-cultural establishment precisely because of his impeccable Jewish credentials?
.
Many nationalists like Frederick will counter with arguments that Wharton was half-English and that he adopted his mother’s maiden name under which to write, thereby demonstrating together with the quality of his work that he was spiritually ‘one of us’.
.
I expect a healthy debate will follow.
frederickdixon
- Edit
Max – I do indeed argue that Wharton was “one of us”. He amply demonstrated this in all of his writings; in his early enthusiasm for distributism, in his late correspondence with John Bean and Nick Griffin, in his expressions of sympathy for Hitler’s views on art, in his obituary of Enoch Powell. As tomorrow (Easter day) is the 48th anniversary of Powell’s great speech I hope you will allow me to quote excerpts from that obituary, published in the Telegraph on the 13.2.98:-
“He has gone, the last of the great English patriots, the last English tragic hero. …As an English patriot, he opposed all threats to English identity: as well as immigration, he opposed England’s absorption into the bogus entity called “Europe”, he opposed the dwindling of England into an American satellite, and had he kept his health and strength he would have opposed the creeping totalitarianism of the Blairite state.
No ‘racist’ he saw how the immigrants, however innocent themselves, would be used as an instrument by those who wished to change England forever. ‘Immigration is the fulcrum’ he told me at a meeting 30 years ago…’by which England is to be overturned’
And from outside the hall, as he spoke, came the sound of a regimented mob of hate-crazed idealist stormtroopers for One World and the Brotherhood of Man baying in rhythmic slogans for his patriot blood.
Well, they have won. If there ever was a conspiracy, it has exceeded the hopes of any imaginable conspirators… ”
I think we can see from these various quotes that ideologically Wharton was entirely one of us. It’s also worth bearing in mind that when he changed his name from Michael Nathan to Michael Wharton it was not merely in order to write but as a conscious act of identification with his Englishness – he was, I suppose, one of those people who, being not quite English, makes himself more English than the English.
But if he was one of us ideologically, was he one of us ethnically? If his father had been not Jewish but, say, Swiss or Latvian, there would surely be no argument. If his father had been not Jewish but, say, Sikh or Jamaican, there would equally be no argument in the opposite direction for one cannot be a white racial nationalist (and therefore one of us) if one is not white. So is a Jew white? My opinion is obvious, but others may differ….
BritishActivism
- Edit
Of course, Sacha Baron Cohen only serves to satirise the multicultural establishment by reinforcing it.
.
The amount of people I meet who think Borat, Ali G, the “Four Lions” film about Islamic terrorism – or even American cartoons like Family Guy, American Dad, South Park, etc – are somehow “edgy” and “right wing” because of their crude pokes at issues never ceases to amaze me.
.
Don’t they realise that with their scripts, such as a comedy sketch with Peter from Family Guy saying to Tiger Woods that he should not be on the golf course, not because of his infidelity or whatever, but because of a “he is black, and this is a white club” gag, it only parodies the so called ‘racists’ of yesteryear and reinforces how “wrong” it is to say or think such things.
.
Sacha Baron Cohen is an expert in this trickery of getting people to believe it is anti-pc and somehow illiberal, whilst actually working at the opposite. It is very clever. A form of controlled opposition, perhaps. Maybe that is why he allowed to continue and given licence, plus of course the obvious networking credentials he was born with.
frederickdixon
- Edit
You’re quite right, the whole idea is to get people to laugh at, not with, those who hold unfashionable views. After all, who wants to be like those who are laughed at? It’s a dangerous game though, the BBC tried it many years ago with the wildly popular and un-PC Alf Garnett only to find to its horror that people loved Alf and agreed with him! That’s why the Alf Garnett programmes are never repeated.
As for Michael Wharton, he was in a different league altogether and there is no doubt that he deeply hated the Left and meant every word he said.
Eastre
- Edit
This is the time of year we remember Eastre the English goddess of fertility, wit and humour.
It is, you will note, that in celebrating this annual ritual we still bake the spicy ‘bun in the oven’.
But over years Christians utilized and adapted our pagan traditions by adding a cross in remembrance of the murder of Jesus at the hand of the Jews.
Personally I prefer a cherry on top of my spicy buns.
frederickdixon
- Edit
I believe that our Heathen forefathers had a whole month – approximately April – called “Eostre” which they would have pronounced as we pronounce it “Easter”. No doubt it began with a great festival marking the spring equinox, and celebrated with cakes and eggs (no chocolate sadly). Lady Day, 25th March, the day of the Annunciation, almost certainly stands in the place of that festival, and appropriately so as it is a celebration of new life.Happy Easter !
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
When considering those few, but not insignificant number, of Jews or part Jews who have some sympathy with White Racial-Patriotism (Peter Hitchens is another) we should honour the courage it takes for them to stand out against the tide.
If it’s difficult for us Aryan British to admit in polite circles to our historical sympathy for German National Socialism, how much more moral courage must it take for someone with family connections to the Jewish community? Unless one takes a Manichaean view of right and wrong and regards the Jews as representing the spawn of Satan (itself a Jewish mindset) we must allow for a more realistic and less romantic appraisal.
Like many others in the past I fell into correspondence with Michael Wharton and am quite convinced that he was a genuine British patriot. Nick Griffin was also welcomed by Michael Wharton at his home as a friendly visitor.
If anyone is interested further I’d recommend Wharton’s two autobiographical works, ‘The Missing Will’ and the ‘Dubious Codicil’.
Eastre
- Edit
I doubt very much that any Englishman working for a Jewish owned rag would have kept his job for more than five minutes had he submitted articles about the ethnic cleansing and planned genocide of his fellow Englishmen in forthright terms or words!
This man seems to have had an advantage/disadvantage (depending on your point of view) of being a Jew or half Jew, at least, from what I read here.
Had they, the perpetrators of this dastardly plan been open, the English would have risen up years ago. Just as has happened many times throughout history and throughout Europe.
This sort of writer was and is employed to muddy the water. Whether or not he was in on the act or a willing partner we will never know.
frederickdixon
- Edit
I don’t think its fair to describe Michael Wharton as “muddying the waters”. He was an outspoken critic of non-white immigration for very many years.
Rongo Rongo
- Edit
Nick Griffin may have met Michael Wharton, but would he have been able to join the party prior to Nick Griffin’s leadership? Could he have joined WS? Would it make a difference if he were only ¼ Jewish.
Would it depend on how much European ancestry had leaked into his Jewish half? Which then raises interesting questions about the Lebanese or White-looking middle easterners/Roma.
John Amery was ¼ Jewish, should he have been barred from a racialist state? On the other hand Vladimir Zhirinovsky of the Lib Dems of Russia (now LDPR) is half-Jewish, and he seems a bit of a cartoon.
Max Musson
- Edit
These are indeed interesting, but difficult questions that you raise RR, and questions for which there can be no simple answer that fits every situation. I will attempt to answer them in a forthcoming article to be published slightly later this year.
Nimble
- Edit
I think the main thing to always keep in mind and also voice, is that no matter how much a Jew (percentages are as irrelevant as they are with half or quarter blacks) leans in favour of white racial realism, just as we would with any other non-white people, their support cannot be allowed to lapse into letting them ‘pass’ or giving them ‘honorary status’ as whites, not that anyone is suggesting that happen, I’m simply saying it’s something to guard against.
.
As for the Lebanese or ‘white looking’ Middle Easterners and Roma Gypsies, those aren’t things up for debate, they are non-white, it’s that simple, there are no questions to be asked on the matter in my view.
.
Just to reiterate, those are my views, I’m not trying to force them on others, I am saying in my view they aren’t things I consider debatable
Max Musson
- Edit
Don’t worry Nimble, I think we are all with you on this.
frederickdixon
- Edit
I have to take you up on the assertion that “percentages are irrelevant”. They are indeed relevant because in defining who is and who is not “one of us” it is necessary to draw lines and to do that you sometimes have to refer to percentages; for example, in defining Jews and Mischlings for the purpose of its Nuremberg laws the NS government in pre-war Germany prescribed that a person who was one-eighth Jewish by descent was non- Jewish for all purposes.
Nimble
- Edit
I’m not a German living in National Socialist Germany, the Nuremberg laws do not hold final say over the views of all White racial realists, least of all a person living in 2014 Britain, and, frankly, the ‘Mischlings’ and NS Germany’s acceptance of many of them is one of its biggest shows of hypocrisy, although I’m sure some will argue it’s not hypocrisy it’s “realistic tolerance”.
In a hypothetical situation in which Britain was governed, not necessarily by a NS government, but a racial realist government devoted to the preservation of the white race and the British people, would you be willing to accept people of one-eighth Negroid ancestry as “white for all purposes”?
I never would, and I’d hope others wouldn’t too, it would defeat the very notion of white racial preservation.
Max Musson
- Edit
A future Western Spring government would be racial nationalist in character and would implement a nationwide eugenic programme aimed at improving the genetic quality and the homogeneity of our people. Under such a system, individuals who are otherwise good and committed racial nationalists, but whose genetic composition is tainted by a ‘dab of the tar brush’, will have the opportunity to participate as folk comrades providing they participate fully in that eugenic programme.
.
The eugenic programme will be implemented as part of a programme of pastoral care that will be the main plank of our national welfare system and to some degree or another, everyone will participate in it as a requirement of citizenship. Under the eugenic programme people with undesirable components within their genetic composition, whether or not those undesirable components are the result of past racial admixture or chance mutation or are the cause of a genetic illness, will receive sympathetic guidance in their family planning to ensure that over time those undesirable characteristics are bred out of their blood lines.
.
Once individual bloodlines are free of undesirable genetic components the individuals concerned will be free to participate fully in the reproductive life of the nation without restriction.
.
By the same token, those individuals with highly desirable characteristics will under the eugenic programme be encouraged sympathetically to reproduce in such a way that the genes responsible are greatly multiplied within the national gene pool. In this way, we would aim to ensure that each successive generation is more intelligent, more physically attractive, more healthy, more virile, more energetic, hard working, daring, inspirational and courageous than the generations that precede it, and of course more ethnocentric and willing to sacrifice for the common good.
.
A Western Spring government will not represent a return to the ‘good-old, bad-old days’, it will represent a step forward into a whole new world of opportunity and possibility.
frederickdixon
- Edit
I think that we have had this debate before, but to repeat my usual position; if a person looks white, thinks white and has no recent non-white ancestry he IS white. I would refine that a little by adopting the NS “one eighth” rule where the one eighth is Caucasoid – e.g. Jewish or Indian (provided, again, that the individual “looks white, thinks white”).
Where the admixture is non-Caucasoid, and especially where it is Negroid, the allowable proportion would have to be smaller (I believe the late William Pierce would have admitted a person who was one-sixteenth non-white), BUT I return again to the example of those excellent and staunch white racial realists, the Boers of South Africa who, by most estimates, are about one fourteenth Asian and African by ancestry. Are we to exclude them? My view is that their past services to whiteness has ideologically purified them, in the same way that Hitler was happy to award Aryan status to Mischlings who had given good service to Germany.
Nimble
- Edit
‘I think that we have had this debate before, but to repeat my usual position; if a person looks white, thinks white and has no recent non-white ancestry he IS white. I would refine that a little by adopting the NS “one eighth” rule where the one eighth is Caucasoid – e.g. Jewish or Indian (provided, again, that the individual “looks white, thinks white”).’
.
I can’t fathom that view at all, I just can’t. Purely on the basis of ‘thinking white’, assuming that means being pro-white, then we can write off most of the white population of earth as non-white. I have always been opposed to the ‘look white, think white, act white’ line, to me it’s never been a position that made sense and only one that serves to allow for people with non-white ancestry to be thought of as white, and in turn continue to pollute the white gene pool.
.
‘Where the admixture is non-Caucasoid, and especially where it is Negroid, the allowable proportion would have to be smaller (I believe the late William Pierce would have admitted a person who was one-sixteenth non-white),’
.
His view, he was entitled to it, but I’d have to again disagree with it.
.
‘BUT I return again to the example of those excellent and staunch white racial realists, the Boers of South Africa who, by most estimates, are about one fourteenth Asian and African by ancestry. Are we to exclude them?’
.
If that’s the case then absolutely we should exclude them, emphasis on ‘if that’s the case’. Just because Boers are viewed as one of the last hold outs of unapologetic white racial realist communities, doesn’t mean, if I were a father, I would be okay with one marrying my daughter if it was known to him and myself that an ancestor of his was a Khoisan or a Malay.
.
‘My view is that their past services to whiteness has ideologically purified them, in the same way that Hitler was happy to award Aryan status to Mischlings who had given good service to Germany.’
.
We’re either a race or we aren’t, talk of ‘ideologically purified’ people makes a mockery of the very notion of a white race, either we are a pure racial group in need of preserving or we aren’t, your view almost lessens the danger of race mixing by suggesting as long as that person can ensure their descendants mix in with whites enough then they can return to being or become white. Someone could say it doesn’t matter if a German girl has a child with someone from the Ivory Coast, as long as that child and his descendants only breed with white people then his descendants can become white again, it’s an extremely dangerous way of thinking.
.
I’ll have to repeat my usual position, white people are those of wholly white ancestry and no other known non-white ancestry, nothing more matters, it doesn’t matter if they are 1/2 or 1/16th non-white, they are non-white if they know about it and others do. The purity of our race is the most vital thing to preserve, without it there is no point in the White Nationalist movement.
Max Musson
- Edit
We did have this debate before Nimble, and I refer you to the reply that I posted above.
.
In this age when the human genome has been plotted and we are able to analyse precisely the genetic composition of each individual, we can afford to be rather more generous than you seem to realise.
.
It is not a matter of people being ‘ideologically purified’, we have the technology to help people to return their blood lines to an unsullied state quite humanely and without draconian interventions.
.
Please read what I have written.
Nimble
- Edit
My comment is in reply to Frederickdixon, hence why all my quotes are from him. I know what your position is regarding a eugenics programme, I am simply replying and stating my counter beliefs to those of Frederick, such as classing a 1/8th Indian or Jew as white, or a 1/16th black.
.
If it were possible in the future, assuming firstly there would ever be a white racial realist government in Britain, and assuming the population would accept it, then perhaps it would work, but as of now, in 2014 when the prospect of this happening still seems like a dream, I am saying that I reject the notion that someone who is 1/16th negroid or 1/8th Indian should be considered white, I am not compelling Frederickdixon to agree with me, but If someone makes those statements then I feel obligated to give a counter position to them due to danger I feel they can lead to.
.
Regardless, Frederick thinks they should be seen as white, I think they absolutely should not, I suppose it’s a case of agreeing to disagree.
Max Musson
- Edit
Fair enough!
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
As Max rightly points out, there can be no simple answers that fit every situation. It may be regrettable if some people have more than a trace of Jewish blood in their veins but that doesn’t automatically make them the mortal enemies of the whole Aryan folk. In fact for every pro-Aryan ‘Mischling’ there must be a thousand others of our own good stock who are nevertheless prepared to sell out their heritage.
Hitler recognized this when he allowed those of part Jewish extraction to serve in the Wehrmacht, even awarding some the ‘Iron Cross’. John Tyndall steadfastly refused to ban Jews from membership at the foundation meeting of the British National Party. This is not because either man was unaware of the perilous nature of Jewish machinations but because both had the magnanimity to understand that once in control there was no need for the Aryan to behave in a petty or spiteful way.
Estre’s description of the ‘Daily Telegraph’ as a “Jewish owned rag” also falls somewhat short of the whole truth. Certainly that label might characterize the contemporary ‘Times’ but if ‘Western Spring’ is to be taken seriously we have to be both accurate and fair, even to our enemies. The truth of the matter is that whatever reservations we may have (and I have plenty) we should remember that the ‘Telegraph’ gave prime place to an article by John Tyndall in the late 70’s and it also allowed for a sympathetic obituary of both Andrew Fountain and William Pierce. I’ve retained cuttings of both.
None of this is to say we should be anything but vigilant and courageous as we root out and destroy the enemies of our race and nation; but by the same token we should avoid
collateral damage.
frederickdixon
- Edit
Couldn’t agree more Michael.
Eastre
- Edit
Maybe ‘rag’ was too a brief description. ‘Fish wrap’ maybe more apt, however you make your argument very eloquently.
.
Further Michael, ‘Eastre’ sometimes suffers from keyboard stutter and long words take longer to write.