An Imperial Second Chamber


The Second Chamber, the House of Lords.

The Liberal Government in 1911, by the Parliament Act, so emasculated the House of Lords as to deprive it of all power, and indeed, to remove all logical excuse for its continued existence. The Second chamber, as at present constituted, performs no useful functions, and only contributes to the delay and expense of legislation.

Since 1911, the Conservative Party has derived much electioneering capital from the cry of Reform of the Lords, but though it has been in power for two years "Reform of the Lords" is only a cry.

Hence, the only logical conclusion is that this slogan has proved so effective in the past that the Party managers have decided that it shall remain one of the chief planks in the Conservative platform for the next fifty years or until the Peers and Monarchy have been reformed out of existence by a Labour-Liberal Government.

This being the case, we feel at liberty to advance our own solution to the problem, as we are convinced that it will not embarrass the Conservative cause in the least.

In the past century, it was customary for English statesmen to look forward to the day when the individual components of the Empire should sink their independence into a Central Union. Today this view is dormant in England, but in the Colonies it is fully recognised that the present system or Imperial Conferences is not a panacea for all evils nor is the status of the Dominions settled, despite the resolutions of 1926.

Consequently, Colonists are apt to consider that in the Reform of the Lords, some measure of imperial unity might be obtained which would still leave this freedom of Action.

What is suggested is that instead of the present House of Lords, there should be an Imperial Senate, which though not interfering with the purely local affairs of any part of the Empire, would control all such vital matters as Foreign Policy, Defences. etc.

This Senate might be composed of the following elements:

1. The Judges.
2. The Premiers and leading Ministers.
3. All ex-Premiers and leading Ministers.
4. Leaders of the Opposition.
5. Ministers of Defence.
6. Two elected Representatives of each Dominion.
7. Distinguished men, elected by the Senate.
8. Representatives of the important Classes and Industries.
9. High Officials, etc.. Governor-General, etc.

A House of this sort would consist solely of experts and would be representative of every shade of opinion, as every important Political Group has at some time held office, and its leaders would retain their seats in the category of ex-Ministers. While the elective element would he sufficiently represented by the two elected representatives and Industrial representatives who would he changed every few years.

The greatest objection to a scheme of this sort is that of distance, but it must be remembered that to-day it is easier to get from Canada to England than it was to get from London to Edinburgh in 1650, yet there were then Scottish members of Parliament.

Furthermore, this Senate need only meet at intervals of 18 months or so, as the business to be transacted would be small in volume though of great importance.

Another difficulty presents itself when the question of Presidency of this Assembly is considered, but all local jealousy as to the allocation of this important post could be settled by making the Titular Head of the Empire, its Chairman, and though the thought of His Majesty's engaging in Party Politics would be repugnant in the extreme. Still there is no reason to prevent the head of a Commonwealth of Nations holding a common session of the councillors of his realms.

Fantastic as this scheme may appear, many Colonials are convinced that it is the only way of reconciling our National Autonomy with our heritage in the Empire. 

And to make a similar scheme an actual fact, all that is wanted is the enthusiasm for our Country and that wideness of Thought that was possessed by Milner and Joseph Chamberlain but which is so lamentably lacking in these days of "Peace in Our Time 

If only the Conservative Party, or any other Party, would boldly come out and say : "We stand for a solid united Empire: they might lose three elections, but in twenty years we would have an Imperial Senate at West-minster, and all talk of Secession in the Dominions would be extinct: for ever. 
As it is, what have you to offer us? One election is lost on Protection and it is definitely dropped from the platform. 

An Imperial Conference gives us a form of Autonomy that lowers the Empire's prestige without any compensating benefits, and the Nationalist, formerly loyal to the heart, begins to wonder whether he is to continue to believe in a country that evinces such little desire to maintain its position as the Greatest Empire in the World. 

Viscountess Dorothy Downe - Yorkshire County Commander

Born in 1876, Lady Downe was Lady in Waiting to Queen Mary, wife of King George V, and County Commander of North Riding Yorkshire County Command of British Fascists!

She went to a number of meetings in Yorkshire, at one of which, the Scarborough Evening News 8/12/1927 reported: 'Lady Downe, County Commander of the Women's Units of the British Fascists, presented prizes.' A true patriot, she later joined the BUF. 
The fascist goddaughter of the late king, George V, was not interned in wartime Britain, because arresting too many aristocrats might give the public the "wrong idea" of enemy importance, according to British Security Service files. Just-released MI5 documents show Dowager Viscountess Dorothy Downe, also described as "still a protegee of Queen Mary", had her mail intercepted at her Norfolk seat of Hillington, near Sandring-ham, and was noted as a "most fanatical admirer of Hitler".

But the high-profile British Union of Fascists official escaped the fate of fellow aristocrats such as Sir Oswald and Lady Diana Mosley - despite a covert attempt to get herself locked up.

A 1940 letter to the Times by lawyer, Oswald Hickson, which MI5 believed to have been sent with the approval of the Dowager Viscountess, asked why the British Union parliamentary candidate had not been interned, unlike other supporters?

The file records that Lady Downe, who apparently was at a lunch at the Criterion in London's Piccadilly attended by BU leader Mosley, was said to have "for some time almost entirely supported the National Fascists out of her own pocket". 

However, a missive to Sir Alexander Maxwell, then Permanent Under Secretary of State at the Home Office, in September 1940 states the department's reasons, despite her being "undoubtedly" a BU official.

MI5 believed she was not playing an active part in the organisation of the movement, and was not concerned in spreading pro-Nazi propaganda. She had told Norfolk police of her disgust at Germany's invasion of Norway, Holland and Belgium, and had taken down her photographs of Hitler.

The anonymous writer added it was thought she had joined the BU because of a fear of communism, and there were "indications" she was anxious to become a martyr.

However, it was "also considered that the internment of a person of Lady Downe's social standing might give the public a wrong impression of the importance of the British Union.

"This consideration would of course have carried no weight if Lady Downe had really occupied a vital position in the British Union organisation."

This opinion tallied with a minute from May 1940, which notes "if too many titled people are arrested the public might get the wrong idea as to the importance of the Fifth Column in this country".

And a November 1940 entry in the heavily-weeded MI5 file, released today at the National Archives in Kew, went rather farther in its assessment of Lady Downe: that although she would like to put herself in the position of a martyr "we regard her as a rather stupid old woman and we have been unwilling to gratify her desires in this respect".

An interview with Dersingham police's superintendent was reported in a letter to the officer's chief constable in May 1940, in which he states: "There is no doubt that Her Ladyship is an ardent and unrepentant Fascist, which she avers is quite possible without the slightest disloyalty to this country' rather did she regard Fascism as the most definite sign of Britain for the British."

She told him things were done much more "efficiently" in Germany and Italy, but it was "laughable" fascists were disloyal to the country.

However, a letter the following day to the officer seems to indicate the Lady Downe's political sentiments were changing.

She was "very sore and angry that people should think that I should ever be a traitor to my own country", and should an enemy parachutist come to see help from her, she wrote she intended to notify officers by telephone using a code relating to her.

Conservatism, A Living Creed


Amidst all the varying political theories provided for the consumption of the elector today the difficulty is to find any of the elements known in the vocabulary of dietetics as " vitamins." Most are empty husks—husks of Conservatism, husks of Liberalism, husks of Socialism—dead formulas that hold no life-giving force within them; the result is that no political party succeeds in satisfying the electorate. The working man, above all, needs " something to bite on " : he has been fed too long on phrases.

Now, there is no reason whatever that Conservatism should be an empty husk; the shell that now bears its name once held within it very vital principles - honour, patriotism, loyalty, and justice—it combined the protective strength of feudalism with that respect for humanity as a whole which is the basis of true aristocracy. Kings of old washed the feet of the poor: what modern demagogue would willingly set himself to the task?

If, then, Conservatism has become a dead and empty creed, it is because the men who claim to represent it have renounced its fundamental principles, whilst clinging to the covering of party nomenclature. In this stricture must be included not only those so-called " Unionists " who have abandoned the cause from which they take their name, but also the innumerable ineffectual "duds " who have made of Conservatism a policy of inertia. For the active and vital tenets of the faith they profess they care nothing; question them on some matter of burning interest to the country and they will almost yawn in your face. It is they who have quenched enthusiasms, alienated supporters, and who have brought on Conservatism the reproach of " reaction," which the record of Conservative legislation shows to be no part of its true policy.

What in reality does the word "reaction " mean? Literally, " opposition to progress," not " opposition to destruction," as it has come to signify in the language of Socialism. The live Conservative is progressive precisely because he is opposed to destruction, because he recognises the impossibility of building a lasting structure without foundations. It is those foundations—the great traditions of our country—that he seeks to conserve. True Conservatism therefore stands on something definite—a certain solid ground of conviction.

What of the other political parties? What does Liberalism stand for? Avowedly for the same constitutional principles as Conservatism, combined with a greater rate of progress and a more active desire to redress the grievances of the proletariat. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and an examination of statistics will show that progress has not been more rapid under Liberal than under Conservative regimes, that, on the contrary, the greater number of real reforms affecting the conditions of the working classes have been brought in by Tory Governments. Of these, the right to form Trade Unions, the introduction of Conciliation Boards, of Housing Reforms, Mines Acts, Allotments Acts, are a few notable examples. Thirty-two out of fifty-five Acts passed for the benefit of factory workers between 1802 and 1909 were Conservative or Unionist measures. Indeed, the most important measure of all, the Aliens Act of 1905, designed to protect the British working man's means of livelihood, was actively opposed by leading Liberals in direct defiance of the people's interests and desires. On this point, at any rate, Conservatism may rightly claim to have interpreted the popular will, for there is no question on which the working-man of this country feels more strongly than the appropriation of his job and the roof over his head by undesirable aliens. The crowd of unemployed that recently marched on a West End restaurant and demanded the expulsion of all foreigners employed there were for once acting on their own initiative, and not on that of the alien enemies who control the International Socialists' Club.

The fine record of Conservatism in the matter of reform should be more widely known amongst the workers. For whilst Liberals and Radicals have loudly trumpeted their achievements abroad, Conservatives have never fully appreciated the necessity for advertisement or even for eloquence. To tell the truth, Conservative speakers are too often intolerably dull.

But in a democracy eloquence is of the first importance. Multitudes are won, not by deeds, but phrases. And Liberalism has proved itself expert in its choice of "slogans." It is here rather than in any definite political creed that its success has lain in the past. Indeed, what its policy is would be difficult to define, for in so far as it departs from Conservatism it will be observed to consist largely in a series of concessions to those subversives and whom I questioned recently for over an hour on the difference between Communism and Socialism, " All forms of Socialism tend towards Communism in the long run."

Communism, then, is the final goal, and here at last we come to a definite creed: a creed that is to say, which is not on the way to anything else, but stands on a settled conviction—the necessity for destroying our present social system, with its recognition of the right to private property, and replacing it by the communal ownership and control of the means of production and distribution.

Between this logical climax and Conservatism lie only shifting sands. The intervening political parties carry weight mainly in so far as they veer to one extreme or the other, and Liberal and Labour leaders alike may be observed seeking desperately to save themselves, now by clinging to the skins of Conservatism, now by clasping the bloodstained hands of Lenin's agents. Stock-in-trade of their own they now have none ; the old slogans have lost their power to charm the popular ear. Liberalism as a creed is dead, and Herr Tribitsoh Lincoln and Sir Edgar Speyer have hammered the last nails into its coffin; Social-ism, of the theoretical variety, so far as the " people" are concerned, has never been a living force. Its dreamy formulas may delight the heart of the Oxford " intellectual," but they leave the working-man cold. A Russian tram conductor, questioned by Maxim Gorky on his attitude towards Socialism, observed : "We have nothing to do with all that stuff. Socialism is an invention of gentle-men. We working-men are Communists." Unless he is an out-and-out Communist—that is to say, a mere destructionist, for of the system that is to succeed the process of destruction he has no conception whatever—the British working man maintains as a rule the same indifferent attitude towards In a series of concessions to those subversive and anti-patriotic doctrines which find their full expression in Socialism. Liberalism, is, in fact, a creed of half-measures; it stands upon no solid base of its own, but depends for its triumph over Conservatism on winning the approval of a more extreme party.

For this policy of concession Socialism entertains no gratitude whatever. " We hate the Radicals far more than the Conservatives," a British Socialist once remarked to me, " because they are hypocrites. Radicalism is only inverted capitalism. Radicals do not wish to do away with capital; they only want it to go into their own pockets."

The assertion was as sweeping and unjust as most of those that emanate from the jaundiced mind of the Socialist, but it illustrates the futility of attempting to conciliate the irreconcilable. With the Socialist it must be all or nothing, and by all he means wholesale destruction.Yet even when we reach this extreme programme do we find any definite constructive policy? What, indeed, is the Socialist's creed? In reality, like the Radical's, it is a series of concessions to a still more extreme party—in this case Communism.

Socialists are very anxious to dissociate themselves from Communists. But wherein do they differ? Only in degree and method. The non-revolutionary Socialist does not want to destroy all property at once, but to proceed by gradual stages to the substitution of private by communal ownership. Socialism, then, like Radicalism, is a creed of half-measures.

The truth is that the overwhelming mass of the " people" is Conservative at heart, but it is inarticulate, and allows a noisy and utterly unrepresentative minority to wimp its powers of speech. The report of the Paris police in 1795 is perfectly applicable to our situation to-day : "The people is sound, and judges sanely when it is not misled by agitators." If Conservatism would but realise that in the working-classes of this country lies its strongest support, if it would but rally round it that great quiescent force, and, appealing to the people's innate attachment to national traditions. were to put up candidates, not only of British birth but of British blood, free itself from all control by aliens, and go to the electorate with a more stirring slogan than Liberalism ever devised, " A land for Britons to live in ! " it might sweep the country.

Mr. Lloyd George has declared that Liberals and Conservatives must stand together to resist Social-ism. But on what are they to stand? On the slippery slope of Liberalism? On the Fabian quick-sands, into which Whitehall officialdom, led by Mr. Lloyd George himself, is rapidly sinking and dragging the nation down with it? Only by taking up our stand on a rock of principle, the great tradi-tions of our country in which true Conservatives believe, can there be any security. The elections of the future will be in reality a straight fight between Conservatism and Communism—between the principle of national security and the forces of destruction. Which will win the day? That which displays the greatest energy. In moral warfare the victory is not with the big battalions, but with the greater enthusiasms. If Conservatives will but make of their political doctrines a living creed they will prevail.

The Patriot, 1922

Documentary: Churchill And The Fascist Plot

The British Fascisti get a small mention in this documentary about Archibald Maule Ramsay's Right Club, and the characters overlap somewhat.

Related book: The Red Book - The Membership List of the Right Club

'Out of Step', the autobiography of Arnold Leese

'I had watched with interest the bloodless revolution of Mussolini, who by sheer determination had humbug, and his declaration "My Aim is Reality" appealed to me strongly. I wrote a little pamphlet Fascism for Old England, suggesting that only those should have a vote who were willing to pay for the privilege; every man would pay a sum equal to, say, one day's income, according to his means, before he would receive the suffrage; it seemed to me good realism that what a man had to pay for, he would value and that the electors would become a body of people who would vote for the country instead of for their own selfish interests.

I also joined an organisation called the British Fascists, and I made a special journey to town to implore them to change their name, as I thought the initials were just asking for it! To my surprise, I failed to gain this obvious reform! After a while, I found that there was no Fascism, as I understood it, in the organisation which was merely Conservatism with Knobs On; it was justified by the Red attempts to smash up meetings of the Right, but it should never have been misnamed. Failing to get anything altered, I left the "B.F."

I have often heard people say that you cannot define Fascism; I always said I could: a revolt against democracy and a return to statesmanship. In 1924, there had been a General Election a few days before the local Borough Council elections took place. The Conservatives had announced their intention of "fighting socialism". When the Borough election approached, we found that quite contrary to this declaration, Socialist Councillors were going to be allowed to return without a fight; so my friend, Harry Simpson, and I put ourselves forward as Fascist candidates. Every effort was made by the local Freemasons to dissuade us, and we were told that no fresh blood ever got on to the Borough Council in Stamford at the first attempt; but we put in a lot of hard and sickening work canvassing our wards and the result was we both got in, beating the two principal camouflaged Bolsheviks, pillars of their Party, to the astonishment of the town. I was a Councillor, of course, for three years, but found it dull work. Simpson served his three years and then put up again as Fascist and was re‑elected; I did not try again as I knew I was leaving the town. We were the first constitutionally elected Fascists in England.

When canvassing for this election, it was impressed upon me what utter humbug the democratic vote really is; many people, I knew, voted for me because I had cured their pigs or pets and without the slightest idea what I stood for, beyond that. I had about 80 so‑called Fascists organised in the town, but very few of these meant business. I often ask myself what was the bravest act I ever did? Well, it was to turn out into the streets of a town (in which everyone knew me) in the black shirt uniform. I had never done any public speaking before and almost literally shook with nerves at first when going through the soap‑box stage; but I stuck at it until I had no nerves at all.
When I retired from professional work and left the town, I started with four others to found the Imperial Fascist League in London. I lived at Guildford; and our first headquarters was a poky little room in Chandos House, near St. James' Park Tube Station. After six months or so, I was made Director‑General of the organisation and remained in that position until the first day of the second world war when we closed down.'

Events in the Two Lives of an Anti-Jewish Camel-Doctor.
[c. 1951]




Vladimir Lenin
The International Entente against the Third International has just addressed a Memorandum to the Governments of Europe, the U.S.A., and of japan, on the question of how the Third International
imperils the external security of each State and peace in general by its attack on the institution of family life, marriage and the mutual duties of parents and children, which are the very foundation of the social and moral life of the modern State. The Komintern, this Memorandum states, aims at the destruction of these institutions throughout the world, and in Russia, where the number of children abandoned by their parents, of youthful criminals and of children suffering from venereal diseases is appalling, it is easy to see the terrible results of such measures.


A resume of the principles which the Komintern is endeavouring to instil into the youth of the world are as follows:—

  • The State, in theory, for in practice it has not the power, as is shown in the case of Russia itself, should have the care of all children. By these means all family ties are weakened and eventually broken. Children are taught that parents who are not true Communists must be despised and hated, and even if their parents belong to the party, the children are encouraged not to respect them.
  • The Communist child is taught to hate all other children who are not Communists. 
  • Emancipation of women and the dissolution of marrige by mutual consent without any legal proceedings are planks in their programme. 
  • Abortion has been legitimised, if the birth of a child is likely to be a burden to the mother.


Throughout the world the Komintern carries on it's propaganda against the fundamental principles of moral law and modem society by means of the following organisations. 

I. The Red International of Women, which aims at the emancipation of women from the yoke of family life, motherhood, religion, and even the common moral laws of everyday life. 

2. The Communist International of Youth, or " Komsomol," which aims at creating a new generation of human beings, through instruction of the present generation of children, who will have a complete disregard of moral laws, patriot-ism and respect of family life, all of which has for its object the destruction of the modern structure of society, to be replaced by one based on materialist Communist principles. 


This latter International, which Zinovieff calls "the cradle of the future," has already spread to nearly every country in the world, and has a membership of several hummed thousand members. It has created a further revolutionary organisation called the " Young Pioneers," whose avowed object is to supplant the Boy Scouts, and its principles being to teach children Communism and to encourage them to hate and spy upon other children who do not belong to the Communist Party. This International is particularly active in Germany, Great Britain (Communist Sunday Schools), France, Holland, Scandinavian countries and China. 


 In his book on Soviet Russia which was written after visiting that country, Professor Sarolca says on this question : " Amidst all the disconcerting questions which arise when studying Bolshevist Russia, the most disconcerting is perhaps the following : To what degree will this Communist education extend its roots in the brains of the little peasants, the amazed faces of whom I observed in the House of Lenin? And especially : What will be the future and the contagious action of those millions of children who will have received such an education? This is certainly the gravest problem raised by the Bolshevist catastrophe. From our' bourgeois' point of view, the systematic demoralisation of those millions of children will probably, at the last analyses, prove to be the most terrible result of Bolshevist politics. And on the other hand, from the Bolshevist point of view, the education, the training of those children is the greatest and most lasting achievement of the Soviet government. The Soviet dictators are, perhaps, right to boast of the attained results. After all, they have perhaps succeeded in building up a new type of humanity. But if this should prove to be true, may Providence preserve the coming generation of both Russia and Europe; a generation whose mental development will have been poisoned by the sordid Marxist materialism, and whose character will have been purified by moral anarchy; and whose judgement will have been perverted by the gospel of everlasting and inexorable class war, a gospel of fratricide and suicide."

The Fascist Bulletin, 1925.

A YouTube presentation about the British Fascists

The British Fascisti, Britains 1st Fascist Party

'Rotha Lintorn-Orman was the first woman to found and lead a political party. It was also Britain's 1st  Fascist Party,'

Christianity & Communism, by Dr. G. O. Morgan Smith

JUST now when several of our bishops and quite a number of the lesser clergy are playing with the doctrines of Communism, perhaps a critical survey of this subject will not come amiss.

Communism or Socialism, will not only greatly intensify the evils which we all deplore in the economic and social world to-day, but it has actually been a very powerful factor in creating those evils. However, let us first differentiate between that dream of Communism which exists only in the brains of amiable, but mistaken enthusiasts and in the minds of callow youths at our universities, and that real, practical Communism which extremists would insist upon having should such a doctrine unfortunately get the upper hand in England, a Communism in which leaders openly advocate class hatred, robbery, violence, immorality and atheism as the necessary and logical outcome of their principles.

These doctrines are advocated, not merely by the paid agitators, but by the acknowledged leaders of Communism, by Communistic papers, and by manifestos. In Communistic Sunday-schools children are taught that Christianity is a myth, and class hatred of those in better circumstances than themselves is inculcated, together with a total negation of all those principles upon which our civilisation is built, a denial of our duty to God and to our neighbour.

Communism is neither new nor untried It has been tried over and over again, always with the same disastrous results, whether in State or private commune. In France, the names of St. Simon, Fourier, Eufantin, and Bazard suggest a series of tragic failures. In England, Owen's name recalls the short existence of "Harmony Hall" and "Oribiston," although the movement was supported by a capable man of business, who gave £60,000 to its support. In the United States we have records of the total failure of 47 communes, and this in spite of the fact that they were endowed with 150,000 acres of land and some £2,500,000. Communism in France, whence we gain the greatest experience, has always failed horribly. The French Revolution, which contained the germs of modem Communism, drew its inspirations from the writings of Voltaire and Diderot, and more especially from Jean Jacques Rousseau's "Social Contract". It practically carried out many of the pernicious doctrines which are those advocated by the leaders of Communism. What were the results? The most detestable tyranny and despotism; a reign of terror which was a disgrace to humanity. Again, the French Communistic Government of 1848 failed disastrously. It yielded to the clamour for "the right o work" by instituting national works and workshops, although Lamartine, who held a high position in the Government, warned the people that " to do away with capital in order to increase employment is like drying up a spring in order to increase its flow." And, of course, the national works and work-shops failed completely. The workmen, imbued with their peculiar notions of liberty and equality, declined to do an honest day's work; the number of unemployed increased in a few Months from 8,000 to more than 100,000, and the Government was brought to the verge of bankruptcy. As Lamartine told the National Assembly:-

"The rich idler we all know; but you have created a class one hundred times more dangerous to themselves and to others, a class of pauper idlers."

Lamartine was right, for these 100,000 pauper idlers broke out, into insurrections, and were only quelled after four days' "hard street fighting, in which Paris was wrecked, 3,000 men were killed, and 3,500 arrested and deported to Algeria." Then just as the despotism of Napoleon I. after the Revolution, came the absolute despotism of Napoleon III. The French Commune of 1871 fared little better; it came at a time when the national enemy was at the gates of Paris, and ended in much loss of life and destruction of Property.

Leeky says somewhere that, "No truth of political economy is more certain than that a heavy taxation of capital, which starves industry and employment, will fall most severely on the poor." What of to-day? It is true times are out of joint, but much of our present trouble arises from the taxing landowners out of existence, "the robbing hen-roosts" policy of a decade ago, together with the pandering to Socialistic tendencies which has marked much of the legislation during the last few years.

The Communists, more or less watered down, it is true, have acquired great influence in our various local councils. And Socialistic measures have been passed which have enormously increased rates and taxes, and this has naturally recoiled upon the working-classes, the lower middle classes and the poor of every degree, new and old. Herbert Spencer, about 60 years ago, pointed out that the enormous and progressively increasing rates and taxes, falling as they did chiefly on the employers of labour, must be met from the industries of those employers, and eventually by the workers themselves, by reduction of wages or unemployment. A few examples will show how poverty and distress have been distinctly traceable to this cause. The Socialists or Communists—for they agree in all except name—nearly ruined agriculture by taxation of land, and in spite of the impetus the Great War gave to agriculture, the lot of the average farmer is now a parlous one. The reckless, criminal extravagance some years ago, which raised the rates to such m extent in West Ham, rendered ship-build-ng on the Thames impossible, and drove sway Yarrow's great ship-building firm from Poplar, leaving some 3,000 unemployed in that borough alone. The Thames Iron-works later succumbed to the same cause. The capture of Trade Unions by the Communists has given rise to many strikes, not only in questions of trade disputes, but for the purpose of disturbing social order, general strikes, upon which men, without any real grievance, embark—strikes of a character which must, necessarily paralyse all business and trade throughout the country, increase prices, and inflict, untold distress and poverty on the working-classes and the poor, and which, whether successful or not, must leave a legacy of ruin in their train.

Some have attempted to confuse Communism with the condition of those early Christians who voluntarily sold their possessions and laid the price of them at the feet of the Apostles. This attempt at Christian Communism was an absolute failure although at first it was attempted with the best of motives and voluntarily. But modem Communism embraces forced robbery of property.

(Reprinted from The Bulletin, April, 1925) 

A Pathetic Farce

I HAVE recently attended a mass meeting, of Conservatives, addressed by one of the ablest members of the Conservative Party, and a most painful experience it was.

The speaker began by deploring the bad leadership that had led the miners into the strike last year; he stated that the beginning of the year had seen the prospect of a revival in trade, and that the general strike, followed by the prolonged coal strike, had effectually crushed that revival. He pointed out, with admirable clearness, our dependence on our overseas trade, and the need for efficiency on all sides, and goodwill between employers and employed if we were to recover that trade. He announced as a staggering if not almost incredible fact that—while he was anxious to avoid hurting anyone's feelings—he was convinced that among our opponents there were "extremists" who had other objects in view than the welfare of the workers. Lastly, he pleaded with great earnestness for a spirit of peace and mutual confidence between masters and men; laid emphasis on the need for public economy, and (somewhat inconsistently) praised certain extravagances committed by the Conservatives since going into office.

So much for the speaker. Now for the facts. These are that the loyal members of the nation are engaged in a life and death struggle against, a clever and quite unscrupulous power, that, perhaps may best be named Illuminism. Under its assaults, France went down into depths of unspeakable misery and degradation, and has never since recovered true stability: Russia has yielded in turn, and whether it can make even the partial recovery made by France still remains to he seen: now its attentions are turned to us. Under its control is a mixed mob, including mere "extremists," who wish for destruction, at any price, much like the negro who burned down his cottage to roast a pig for dinner; opportunists who (usually mistakenly) suppose that revolution would bring advantages to them, either as individuals or as a "class", hypocrites who do not believe that a Bolshevist revolution will ever come, but curry favour by petting Bolshevism on the back: time-servers, who do not care one way or the other, but recognise the value of Danton's advice to Royer Collard: "Young man," said the high-souled idealist come and bellow with us, when you have made your fortune you taut follow which ever party suits you best"; well-meaning, deluded people, who really imagine that. Bolshevism is a cure for human ills; and lastly, the rag-tag and bobtail of the nation, people who either do not like work or cannot work efficiently, and hope to gain something wrecking the nation. And all the members of this noble following are dangerous; the deceived are quite as powerful for harm as the deceivers: the "moderate" Labour Man, who wishes to smuggle in Socialism by gentle degrees, and through the ballot, is as much to he feared as the man who seeks for violent revolution.

In face of the facts, such a speech as have summarised above becomes a specimen of tragic futility. It is out of all touch with the facts. If the strike had been a dispute between employers and employed, with faults of narrow-mindedness and obstinacy on both sides, then the plea for peace and goodwill would be appropriate. But it was not. It was a revolutionary move, and though it failed in part it gained a measure of its object in setting hack the prosperity of the nation. The very last thing that our enemies want is trade revival and national prosperity, which would enable employers to pay higher wages without defying economic law, and increased production which would enable every one to get better value for money. We may expect every prospect of improving conditions to be followed by a new strike—it is only in perfect accordance with the methods of revolution. The wave sinks back—but it has partly done its work, and the tide still goes on rising. Our enemies want discontent, not content: hard and difficult times, not prosperous ones; suspicion and ill-feeling instead of trust; "class war" instead of peace. Then why waste time in words? Let us get to the facts. As to the welfare of the workers—the revolutionaries care as moth for that as my house cat cares for the welfare of the mice that she eats! The "workers" are to them merely revolution fodder and to think that we can dissuade them front stirring up strife by pointing out that it will not benefit the "workers" is to deceive ourselves inexcusably. Do the leaders of Conservatism not know these things? Are they afraid to admit them? Or, do they know them, and yet think to avoid the danger by pretending that it does not exist?

Our danger is greater now than at the beginning of the war, and just as people scoffed at it then, so they do now. Whether we can waken them to the truth is another matter. Clearly, no one but ourselves will do it.

W. R.
The British Lion, organ of the British Fascists, 1927.

Mrs. Nesta H. Webster On Fascism

ORGANISED by the Children' Club, a  mass meeting was held at Kensington Town Hall on Friday 11th Dec., the principal speaker was Mrs. Nesta H. Webster, with Miss Lintorn-Orman in the Chair, supported by Capt. Turner Coles, and Lt. Col. H. W. Johnston. The Guard of Honour was supplied by the Acton Branch.

In introducing Mrs. Webster. Miss Lintorn-Orman said: "Her books had brought before the public the evils of Socialism and Bolshevism more than anything else" She reminded those members of the audience who had "Red" tendencies to either keep quiet or clear out. Miss Lintorn-Orman announced that Mrs. Webster had been elected to the Grand Council--the rest of her statement being lost in the loud cheering which followed.

Mrs. Webster, who was received with loud applause. Said: "I am personally acquainted with many organisations who have for their objects the overthrow of the Red menace, but as far as I can ascertain, they seem more desirous of collecting subscriptions and employing well-paid secretaries." On the other hand, she said, "the British Fascists have done more good work in the brief period of their existence than all the other organisations put together." (Loud Cheers.) "Fascism in my opinion," she stated, "was the dynamic energy of British Patriotism which nothing on earth could extinguish."

"All the subversive movements which to-day were working for the overthrow of the British Empire were composed of enthusiasts who put their best (such as it is) into their work", and she strongly advised British Fascists to follow their examples and work equally hard, if not harder, to counteract the treachery and disloyalty which was so apparent.

Secret Societies and Subversive Movements
by Nesta Webster.
"Fascism was the national healthy reaction against the germs of inaction." (Loud Applause)

Referring to Russia and Italy, she said: "that in Russia the peasant class was essentially fatalists-what had to be would be, and everything that happened was to their mind for the best, and they accepted it as such. In Italy quite the opposite was the case. The Italian people had always been inspired by national ideals, and when the country was being dictated to by a disruptive majority, it rallied like one man behind Mussolini, who, besides being the saviour of Italy, was the saviour of Europe" (Prolonged cheers) The mission of Fascism was to put the fear of God into the hearts of the wreckers and destructionists. (Hear, Hear)

Lord Birkenhead had stated that we must look forward to the next General Strike, yet the Government were doing nothing to prevent it. A General strike under a Socialist Government would be appalling. It was the trump card of the T. U. C., and Civil war would be inevitable. We would have to suffer the indignity of seeing, as we did before, food lorries going through the street "Labelled by permission of the T. U. C.": the idea that we have to submit to a monarchy or self imposed dictators, over the heads of the constitutionally elected rulers was nauseating.

British Fascism contained virile patriotic elements, and should so organise as to make themselves feared, and be a force to be reckoned with.

"Who is to be the British Mussolini?" The spirit of British youth will be our Mussolini, and that, thank God, is unconquerable." (Loud Cheers and Applause.)

We extend this. the Organisation's heartiest Welcome to Mrs. Webster on her joining our ranks. BRITISH FASCISM for 1927.

Nesta Webster's books are available in the library.

Fascism, the Complement of Democracy

THE theory of democracy is attractive, and, applied in its entirety to a highly intelligent community immune from the weaknesses and aspirations common to mankind would no doubt justify the high esteem in which it is generally held as the best of any known form of Government.

Unfortunately, it assumes that the majority of those subject to its rules should be capable of forming sound judgment upon matters affecting the well-being of the community determined to subordinate personal and sectional ambitions to the interests of the whole, and to elect as their representatives
only such persons as will legislate in accordance with this admirable policy.

Based on so startling a postulate it is not surprising that democracy should fail to satisfy the expectations of its votaries. and such measure of success as it has achieved in this and other countries must be attributed to the restraint formerly exercised in the application of its theories.

Only in recent years has the steadying. flywheel action of a Second Chamber been withdrawn from the machinery of our Government, and it is not long since a voice in the management of this machinery was withheld from those who had nothing material to lose by its failure and restricted to those who could, and frequently did make it their business to understand matters upon which they were expected to express their views.

It is well for the world's progress and sanity that most of us should be too fully occupied with our work and relaxation to acquire the knowledge and judgment essential to a beneficial participation in the Government of our country, but it is this preoccupation of the industrious which affords opportunities to the scamp and fanatic to assume and exercise powers which should be welded only by the wise and just. Great as is this danger, a greater lies in the doctrine that Government should act in accordance with the supposititious wishes of the people when these appear to be at variance with the principles it has proclaimed when seeking election, and it is to the acceptance of this fallacy that most government defeats are due.

The majority in this and most other countries can the relied upon to take a sound common-sense view of any clearly defined issue of importance, but, save in times of unmistakable national danger. the majority are silent and consequently the demands of the small but conspicuous few are mistaken for those of the contented and industrious many.

This tendency generates in democratic Governments a needless fear of opposition and groundless doubts of support, and results in a policy of conciliatory opportunism culminating in defeat and replacement by an equally facile Government under another name.

The repetition of this dreary farce, known as the swing of the pendulum, is attributed to inconstancy in the electorate to any political creed but, on the contrary, is due to their consistent endeavour to elect those who will rule with common sense honesty and pluck, and when this aim shall have been achieved, the pendulum will cease to swing.

So long as the choice of Governments lay between two parties each recognising the principles upon which our civilisation has been built up and differing only as to the best means of ministering to its development the swing of the pendulum though inimical to steady and consistent progress was not calamitous, but with the disappearance of one of these two Parties and its replacement by a third, concerned only with the transfer of production and property from individual to the State, the choice would appear to be between those who will conscientiously put this experiment to the test and those who will consider it expedient to adopt it.

It is not easy for the electorate to decide which of these evils may be the greater, but recent events have disclosed an increasing tendency to welcome any experiment promising escape from the dangers of a weak Government. This tendency in the electorate is due to the courage of despair, for, although we may like to pretend that "Liberty" and "Rights" are indigenous to our soil, we are fully aware that these are but meaningless expressions unless backed by a Government strong enough to protect them.

With the examples before us of the collapse of weak democracies in other countries, there is something ingenious in the faith that similar catastrophes could not overwhelm us here, and it would be wiser to assume that, since the failure of democracy is due to weakness, its success may he achieved by support.

It was with this view that. the Fascist movement in Italy was started, and although by the time it had made much headway, conditions in that country had become so chaotic that it was deemed necessary to entrust the restoration of order to the hands of one strong man, there can be but little doubt that, had the movement acquired its present strength at an earlier date when conditions in Italy were not dissimilar to our own, the necessity for so drastic an alteration in the constitution of that. Government would not have arisen.

For Fascism, shorn of the misrepresentation in which it has been shrouded, is but the manifestation of patriotism insisting upon fearless Government honestly directed towards the welfare of the nation, and unless this insistence be loud enough to stifle the importunities of those who proclaim that personal and sectional prosperity are the cause, and not the result of national welfare, the way of democracy in this country will lead at the best to Italy—at the worst Russia.


Nesta Maude Ashworth

Left to right: Rotha, her mother Blanche and
Nesta Maude Ashworth.
In September 1909, when they were sixteen years old, Nesta Maude Ashworth and her friend, Rotha Lintorn-Orman, attended a large Boy Scout rally at Crystal Palace,  They registered at Scout Headquarters by using their initials instead of their (female) names.

Nesta wrote in her memoirs that Robert Baden-Powell came over to the group of girls and asked who they were. "We're the Girl Scouts" they said, but he replied that there were no Girl Scouts. They quickly responded with "Oh yes there are, 'cos we're them!".

After Baden-Powell recovered from his surprise at seeing the girls at the rally, he asked his sister Agnes to organize something for the girls.

Thus, the Girl Guides was born.

Girl Guides were officially established in 1910 and celebrated 100 years in 2010.

'From a small handful of girls who gatecrashed the first ever Scout rally, demanding ‘something for the girls’, Girlguiding has grown into a vast and vibrant network of members across the UK.' -

Nesta Maude Ashworth, Silver Fish: An Autobiography

The Great Fire Of Thessaloniki 1917

Rotha Lintorn-Orman served with the “Women's Ambulance Reserve”, and was decorated for her contributions to the war effort, in particular that of her assistance during the Great Thessaloniki Fire of 1917, a fire that destroyed a considerable amount of Thessaloniki, one of the largest city's in Greece.

Watch the Video

Conservatism with Knobs On

The Paris Review
December 2nd, 2016

Edward White’s The Lives of Others is a monthly series about unusual, largely forgotten figures from history.

'For ninety years the story of Rotha Lintorn-Orman and the BF has puzzled, shocked, and amused.'

The Foes of Fascism

By British Fascisti member Richard H. Glover, 1927.

The Home Front 

WE Fascists believe that the national existence of the greatest Empire the world has ever seen is being attacked from within in a manner infinitely more deadly than the attack from without, over which we triumphed nine years ago (WW1). Camouflaged as international aliens, anti-Britishism aims at destroying our national life by destroying our national consciousness. Its malignant hostility may be seen in continual press suggestions that Union Jack should be forbidden at meetings and demonstrations as provocative. In no other land could an insult so blackguardly be offered to the national flag. Not alone in Socialist, but in Conservative and Liberal papers have these suggestions appeared, how the leprosy of anti-Britishism has infected all panics in the State.

Unshakable England 

To realise how anti-Britishism has wrecked the moral strength of our nation, bringing with it that material weakness shown in loss of trade and widespread unemployment —for all material has a spiritual cause—a glance at the years since 1918 will suffice. We know how unshakable England saw the war through. Some deserted us, like the Russians. Some, like Sinn Feiners, tried to stab us in the back. Others, and surely the most contemptible of the lot, always with the unctuous hypocrisy of internationalism on their lips, lent us money to lend to other nations on terms so mean and unconscionable, that should Shylock arise from the dead, he would be ashamed to be seen walking on the same side of the road as them. The war closed leaving that nation whose conduct had been the noblest of all, the strongest power under Heaven, the world's great bulwark of Christianity and civilisation.

The Sewer Bursts 

What followed? There followed a sewer-burst of anti-Britishism. A heavily financed campaign was started for attacking and deriding British national sentiment. When, by continual slander and insult, our national consciousness was destroyed, then our place among the nations of the world was to be taken from us, and on the ruins of that only real League of Nations, the British Empire, the Geneva 'league of Nations" was to be erected. Five years of shame and humiliation unspeakable followed. In those years losses were inflicted not less than had Germany been victorious.


All were aware of the folly and ignorance of calling the teeming races or our Indian Empire a nation. All knew it was as silly as to talk of Europe being a nation. Yet that great monument to the genius of the British race - that Indian Empire raised by the soldier-statesmanship of Britons such as Clive, Hastings, Wellington and Havelock was surrendered to a gang of baboons, calling themselves Indian Nationalists, a cheat as silly as if the Portuguese people should claim to represent the continent of Europe. 

The Valley of Humiliation 

Never was an unconquered race so made to pass through the Valley of Humiliation. What was the matter with us? How came it that people whose heroism flamed with such deathless splendour in 1911 collapsed in cowardice before such human a refuse as Sinn Feiners and Ghandhites and Zaghlulites a few years later? Two men who held the Salient at Ypres for four years against forces always superior in numbers, who won the grudging praise of their foes by "achieving the impossible," to quote the German despatch describing the Gallipoli landing who performed that famous feat of arms on St. George's Day. 1918, blocking; the Zebrugge canal under the guns of a German battery so well that it took two years after the war to reopen it again, leaving not one prisoner to be taken on the block ships, brining away all their wounded and many of their dead. These are the people who now are afraid to sing their national anthem in their own land, because it is always drowned by the Red Flag, or by their own national flag in their own streets, because the London aliens always tear down the Union Jack.

Insulting the Army 

Those who cannot see the connection between the present artificial degradation of our land and its widespread unemployment, between moral and material weakness, must be blind indeed. Supporters of the Geneva "League of Nations", cannot bear to hear this country praised, but no small race, none but the greatest, could so have filled the page of world history. Yet there is no other nation in the world to-day against which and inside of which anti-national abuse is so easily offered. Where is the capital of another nation, in whose streets soldiers could so safely receive public insult, as was received by the Coldstream Guards from Labour Party leaflet distributors when marching over Westminster bridge to embark for China on Saturday!

Loss of National Consciousness 

The reason such degradation is here is because, smothered in the mire of internationalism, this country's sense of national consciousness is gone. Just as a drug-taker, losing his own self-respect, loses the only thing in life that can save him, so British national self-respect lies drowned in a wallow of internationalism. One of the cleverest war cartoons showed the Kaiser, saving to the King of the Belgians —driven headlong from his land "so now, you see, yon have lost everything", and receiving the heroic reply."But not my soul." Hardly could that be said to-day of this country. Since the war we have lost our souls. In no other unconquered land is alien hostility so arrogant, and in our failure to resist is the secret of our loss. Nothing in the life of any people is so degrading in its effect on national character as tame submission to alien insult and brutality. 

Fascism Rises 

In the midnight of patriotism there have been signs of returning national consciousness. England has seen the rise of Fascism. When Fascism's waking dreams come true, it will restore our country's lost trade, it will give back to our countrymen their lost employment, but, best of all, it will raise again our national honour from the filth and insult in which it lays bleeding to-day. The most dreadful thing was not the fierce passions of the Great War, but the spiritual paralysis, that national death in life, forced on us when it closed. That patriotism which internationalists deride, loathe, hate and fear. Fascism is determined to revive, knowing that when our consciousness re-awakens, this country will save its soul.

The Labour Party

By S. Shelwell
The British Lion

THE many social evils from which we are suffering to-day, the discontents,  and the undercurrent of revolutionary feeling; are almost wholly the result of years of ceaseless propaganda against the existing order of Society.

This propaganda has been so cleverly pursued that it has gripped the imagination of thousands upon thousands of men and women in this country, because it plausibly represents itself as the friend of the working man, wholly actuated by an altruistic desire to uplift the "underdog."

These propagandists saw that they could appeal to a large circle of sympathisers if they urged increases in wages and opposed on every occasion any decreases, by reason of the fact that it is a human failing to desire increased material possessions. and to resent any effort to deprive them of any portion of their remuneration in whatever sphere they happen to be occupied.

It was further observed that if they were to be successful in obtaining the support of the well meaning people of all classes, and the soft-hearted and soft-headed, it would be a great step forward if they were to adopt a title which would immediately appeal: a title that would infer that they were the friends of the working man; a title, moreover, that would he descriptive of the class that was numerically superior to all others.

This title was already in existence as representing a body of opinion - Labour. The men who were active in the Labour Party were men who had themselves been working men and who were urged on by the honest desire of bettering the conditions of their class.


It was this title—of Labour Party--which appealed to the subversive instincts of those who formed the I. L. P. in 1893, and in adopting the title they were destined to change the direction of Labour policy from the purely legitimate sphere of industrial activity—and pure Labour representation—to a sphere of action where it became a direct menace to the Constitution of the country, representing itself to be a philosophy in industrial, political and social activities peculiarly indicative of the Labour point of view, and the Labour point of view as opposed to the point of view of all other classes of the community.


To further the plan of obtaining power over the machinery of Government. the "Labour" Party divided the classes of the country, cunningly suggesting that there were only two classes: the proletariat (or Labour) and the bourgeoisie (or Capital).

They reasoned that the interests of "Labour" and the interests of "Capital" were inevitably and unavoidably antagonistic, and therefore that there must lie a tight to a finish between them, stressing the necessity of the organisation of the former, if they hoped to throw out the "tyranny" of the latter.

Thus, a false bias was given to all problems affecting the interests of the working man, and the I. L. P., as the self-appointed champion of Labour, saw to it that every question was examined in the light of the "class war." and wherever an agreement was come to between masters and men. it was not regarded in the light of improving the conditions under which the men worked and the remuneration they were paid for that work, but was simply and solely regarded as a step in the "class war" in the advance against "Capitalism."


The result has been that millions have flocked o the standard of the I. L. P. under the mistaken idea that they were helping the working man. until one day the "Labour" Party became the Government of this country, and at present it is the second largest party in the state, forming His Majesty's Opposition.


All this has been achieved through the cunningly devised expedient of deliberately misleading the people of this country by the adoption of the term "Labour Party" It is time that the mask was torn away for ever and the blinkers fell from the eyes of the well meaning sentimentalists who support "Labour" and they became aware of the real aims of that Party, which is nothing more or less than International Socialism.


It is time that this Party became definitely, unequivocally and universally known for what it is: the Socialist Party whether it chooses to continue the cowardly expedient of masquerading as "Labour" or not.

The Party itself has no courage, it hides a cowardly, discredited and unworkable creed behind the honest mask of "Labour", for it knows full well that if it were to wipe out the term "Labour" as the designation of the Party from all literature and utterances, and insisted upon being known as the Socialist party, the support it at present receives would speedily drop until it was no longer in a position of power in the State.


The illusion that the "Labour" Party represents the British working man has been consistently fostered by successive Governments, who have, either through ignorance or the pursuit of "peace in our time", constantly assisted the "Labour" Party to foist itself upon a deluded proletariat by their attitude of conciliation and their continued negotiations with the middle-class theorists, social demagogues and extreme revolutionaries, of which that party is composed: particularly so in those industrial questions which have not only concerned the working man, but which have vitally concerned the whole community—as for instance the late General and coal Strikes which were fostered by the "Labour" Party in collusion with the "REDS" linked up with and acting under the orders of the of the British working man.

This attitude of appealing for peace and holding out the hand of friendship of the socialist Party, has long since become apparent to be utterly useless in the solution of the many pressing problems which surround us and which the Government must be anxious to solve.

It is therefore a policy of national suicide to regard the Socialist Party as being composed of men of altruistic motives out to raise the standard of living and to adjust the obvious social evils, such as slums. unemployment. etc., in the spirit of sincerity. when in point of fact they only use existing maladjustments in the social sphere as a stepping stone to the establishment of a Social Republic. having no real care for the welfare of the British working man.


IF we had any doubt as to the ultimate objective of the Socialist Party, it is only necessary to peruse the resolutions carried at the I. L. P. Congress at Glasgow in April. 1922, resolutions which have never since been withdrawn or modified in any way at any subsequent Congresses, and moreover. resolutions which bind the whole of the party from the palest "Pink" to the deepest "Red."

The main resolution was one laying down, or rather realigning the policy of the party in the following terms:

This Conference re-affirms the traditional Policy of the I. L. P. in seeking to achieve the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth by means of the gradual extension of the principle of common ownership of the means of life and, to accomplish this, directs its efforts to building up an effective political and industrial organisation of the worker, whether by hand or brain. In carrying out this policy it directly differentiates between the Capitalist collectivism implied in the nationalisation of essential services, controlled by a bureaucratic Central Government, and the social control in the interests of the whole of the community and the workers in particular industries. It therefore condemns all attempts to bring about a rapprochement between Labour and Capitalism, or any methods of compromise aimed at arriving at a more amicable relation between Labour and Capitalism short of the total abolition of the Capitalist system? 

Can this he considered a "Labour" policy? Far from it: it is a policy of revolutionary socialism aiming at the destruction of the Capitalist system, with the inevitable consequent destruction of national industry and social order, in which the worker would he the first to be engulfed. enslaved and dragged down to a depth of misery he has never before experienced.

The negotiations for peace during the General Strike and during the Coal Strike were attempts at arriving at a "more amicable relation between Labour and Capitalism" utterly foreign to this Resolution and only adopted as a means to strengthen the revolutionary position for further future attempts to enslave the nation.

Moreover, those negotiations were engaged in by a "Capitalist" Government which, it is safe to say
knew full well the policy of the L L. P. as laid down at Glasgow, but who shut their eyes to the realities of the situation, and held out the "sop" of a Royal Commission, whose findings were of the most unreal character, and which, with pretty irony, the Miners' Federation refused to accept, and right up to the last moment, the Government continued its attempts to conciliate the Miners' Federation at the expense of the Coal Owners and the nation, apparently being determined that the Federation should get their beloved "national agreement" if it lay in the power of the Government to give it to them. The plan was only defeated by the men themselves going back to work and rendering the bargaining power of the Federation nil.

Thus, we see that a strong Conservative Government returned with a mandate from the people to kill revolutionary activity, was coerced into a conciliatory altitude towards enemies of the nation, from a sense of the disaster of a prolonged strike and from a mistaken idea that by being friendly towards the mis-representatives of Labour they were adopting a policy calculated to result in a speedy settlement, whereas, in reality, it was a policy destined to prolong the struggle and led to the Miners' Federation taking up a more truculent attitude as the days and the weeks went by.

 It must then be obvious to all intelligent beings that, in face, of the I. L. P. Resolution at Glasgow in April. 1920, it is folly to attempt "any rapprochement between Labour and Capitalism" until the power of the Socialist Party over the bemused minds of the people is broken for all time, and the stumbling block to sane progress. with better relations between Capital and Labour is removed.
This can only be done by treating enemies of the country as enemies and not adopt a friendly attitude towards them in the hope of conciliating their enmity into friendship and it is the duly of the Conservative Government in see that steps are taken in this direction, and that the problems of reconstruction, too long delayed, are placed immediately into operation for the benefit of the working man and all other classes of the community.

The Government's failure to apply the strong hand in these important matters has paved the way for the building up of the Fascist Movement, which has come into being as the result of the reality of the Red menace and the unreality of the Government attitude towards it.

We warn the Government, as friends of the national type of Government which they are supposed to represent, that if they continue their attitude of mistaken amiability to the enemies of England, the time will surely come when a Fascist Government will be swept to power by the will of the people, urged on by the increasing disasters brought about by unchecked revolutionary action working to the disadvantage of this country at the dictates of the enemies of civilisation operating from Moscow.

Therefore, let it be broadcast throughout the British Isles that the party which calls itself "The Labour Party," and which has "Labour Clubs" all over the country, is sailing under false colours: is a traitor to the best interests of the British workers, and is pursuing a policy which can only result, if unchecked, in realising the wildest ambitions of Moscow in the downfall of the British Empire.

Should British Fascism Concern Itself with Politics?

By S. Shewell Western Command Propaganda Officer 
British Lion

AMONG many well-meaning people it is considered that Fascism should not be brought into the arena of politics because it is felt that British Fascism should concern itself solely with the broad principles of Patriotism, and secondly, because politics are so “controversial."

Spheres of Activity 

It was Mr. Belford Bax, Socialist leader and writer, who said that, in the realm of politics, Socialism became Republicanism; in the realm of economics Socialism became Communism, and in the realm of religion Socialism became Atheism.

In a similar way it can be said of British Fascism that in the realm of polities it stands for Constitutional Monarchy, in the realm of economics it stands for Capitalism; and in the realm of religion it stands for Christianity.

This being so, it is plain that Socialism and Fascism are diametrically opposed to each other in these three important spheres. Is it contended that British Fascism should withdraw from any of these spheres or not concern itself?

Applied Fascism 

Let me say definitely, here and now, that even though the Fascist movement in Britain is a young movement, it is wrong to assume that there are not those in its ranks willing and capable of dealing in a great measure with the various political problems which face us day in and day out. It is British Fascism's plain duty to teach the ideas of Fascism in its relation to the problems of the State.

First, British Fascists are realists. What then are the realities of the situation we have to face? We are face to face with a strong, well-organised, cunning movement in politics which aims at the organisation of a Socialist Republic. Thousands of our countrymen ace wilting under the continued pressure of Socialist propaganda. It is elementary psychology that the secret of success is repetition. Repetition creates confidence in those who continually make the same statement and results in their believing that statement, whether they first believed it or not. This is also the effect it has upon hearers, unless there is some continued counter statement.


Political untruths are continually being stated orally and in writing by Socialists all over tire country: at a thousand meetings and in a thousand publications.

These untruths are not being met as they ought to be by the Conservative Government. The result is the steady advance of Socialism. Can anybody deny that advance who knows anything about the problem?

Politically, Socialism is stronger to-day than ever it has been. It is gaining more support each day. Why? Because the only party which can hope to defeat Socialism its the end, or should I say the only spirit which can hope to defeat Socialism in the long run, the spirit of British Fascism seems to refrain from entering whole-heatedly into a political programme representing the aims of Fascism as applied to the Government of the State

It may be asserted that that are enough political parties. Yes: we agree. But they are political parties only. It was St. Paul who said "Let your politics be worthy of the Gospel or Jesus Christ." That should be our aim. We stand for Jesus Christ in the national life, don't we? Let our political programme be worthy of the Fascist ideal of a State founded upon the fundamental principles of Christianity.

Good Government 

The pole star of good government should be pure un-adulterated patriotism and no nonsense. It is because successive governments have made concessions to those who do not love their country (and how can any man love his neighbour unless he loves his country?) that there has been a slump in patriotism.

Fascism teaches patriotism. What we need is a national policy. Who can provide that? Has the Conservative Government provided a policy to the best interests of the nation? If it has, why does it tolerate the interference of avowed revolutionaries?

What Fascism Should Do 

I quite agree that the primary reason for the existence of the British Fascist Movement is the necessity for clearing out the reds. But why? Is that enough? In the term -Reds" we include all the various shades of that colour-the Socialist as well as the Communists. Do we oppose the Reds on emotional grounds only-the emotion of patriotism --or are we intellectually convinced that their whole policy---economic and religious--is wrong?

British Fascism then should operate in whatever sphere the Socialists-Communists operate.

The problem of the reform of Trade Unionism is a political question. The Socialists contend that Trade Unionism should be a machine for holding the count, to ransom. What do British Fascists say.? We are in the realm of politics immediately.

Is the Government of the country' better for the weakening of the House of Lords or worse? British Fascism should have an answer to that.

Should the system of Poor Law be used for obtaining votes to the party willing to make the most promises? There we are faced with the political question of the franchise. What does British Fascism say?

Our relations with Moscow is a political question. Our attitude is well known to be one of direct hostility to Moscow. The Socialist attitude is one of co-operation with Moscow. There we are opposed in the realm of polities.

The political question of the peopling of the British Empire and the development of the British Empire is one in which we are vitrify' concerned. What do we say to the Socialist opposition to emigration and to the development and protection of the Empire?

Any thing that demands legislation in Parliament is political. The life of the Empire is bound up with sensible legislation-protection of our countrymen at home and abroad: the fostering of our industries; the reduction of unemployment; trade disputes: strikes and black-outs: the provision of food, imported and home-grown: the dumping of foreign goods.

All these are political questions. Let us study them. Let us approach from the Fascist standpoint. The standpoint that considers country first and selfish interests afterwards, if at all.

It is not enough simply to oppose the Red doctrine, we must impose our own. Let British Fascism see to it.

'The Well of Loneliness' by Radclyffe Hall.

The Well of Loneliness is a 1928 novel by the British author Radclyffe Hall. The leading characters are inspired by Rotha Lintorn-Orman and Mary Sophia Allen.

It follows the life of Stephen Gordon, an Englishwoman from an upper-class family whose mannishness (homosexuality) is apparent from an early age. She finds love with Mary, whom she meets while serving as an ambulance driver in World War I.

The publicity that Radclyffe Hall and her lover Una Troubridge received in the late 1920s led to friendships with an ever-increasing circle of lesbians. These friends included former suffragette activists like Edy Craig, Chris St John, and Vera Holme. In the 1930s Hall and Troubridge became friends of Lady Maud Warrender, a daughter of the Earl of Shaftesbury, who lived at 'Leasam' in Rye with her lover, the singer Marcia van Dresse.'s They were also friendly with the former police women Mary Allen, known to them as 'Robert',

Mary Allen became a Fascist sympathizer. She visited Italy where she met Mussolini; as a public figure, her trip and her resulting support for Mussolini was widely reported in the press. Radclyffe Hall admired Mussolini for the same reasons as Mary Allen, although she did not seek to publicize her views.

Download The Well of Loneliness e-book in the library

Mosley's attempt to merge with British Fascists

During 1932 Mosley approached the other fascist movements in Britain to see if cooperation was possible. He attempted a takeover bid of the major fascist groups, demanding their subordination and acceptance of him as their new leader. This determined the name of Mosley’s fascist movement, the British Union of Fascists, when it was formed in October 1932.

However, Mosley only had limited success in this endeavour. His deputy, Robert Forgan, had satisfactory talks with Neil Francis Hawkins about the amalgamation of the New Party with the British Fascists, but the grand council of the British Fascists voted against a merger by one vote in May 1932 after its founder Rotha Lintorn Orman, who was very suspicious of Mosley and regarded him as a near communist, vigorously opposed the change. The men on the Committee, led by Francis Hawkins and EC. Mandeville Roe, then resigned from the British Fascists and joined Mosley, bringing with them a copy of its membership list.

Francis Hawkins was to rise to effective second-in-command of the BUF after 1936 and the impact of the ex-British Fascist members was to be significant in the organization and administration of the movement. Mosley contemptuously dismissed the remaining British Fascists as ‘three old ladies and a couple of office boys’, and after the split Mosley ignored the existence of the British Fascists.

During the Jewish protest demonstrations against the nazis in Hyde Park on 23 July 1933, a small lorry carrying British Fascists in a counter-demonstration shouted abuse at BUF headquarters. In retaliation for this, and fearful that they might be blamed for any fascist hostility towards the jews, between fifty and sixty BUF members wrecked the BF’s headquarters.

Further negotiations with the remaining BF membership resumed in July 1934. Colonel Henry Wilson negotiated with Mosley in an attempt to merge the two organizations. He had lent £500 to the British Fascists to liquidate pressing debts, and in order to obtain repayment had either to bankrupt them or obtain financial backing from elsewhere. However, between Wilson’s meeting with Mosley and that of the British Fascist grand council, Rotha Lintorn Orman changed her mind and, allegedly under the influence of drink, strenuously opposed the proposal. The merger plan was again abandoned, and Wilson began bankruptcy proceedings to wind up the British Fascists Ltd.

Oswald's Mosley's attempts to merge the British Fascists with his New Party

During 1932 Mosley approached the other fascist movements in Britain to see if cooperation was possible. He attempted a takeover bid of the major fascist groups, demanding their subordination and acceptance of him as their new leader. This determined the name of Mosley’s fascist movement, the British Union of Fascists, when it was formed in October 1932.

Neil Francis Hawkins
However, Mosley only had limited success in this endeavour. His deputy, Robert Forgan, had satisfactory talks with Neil Francis Hawkins about the amalgamation of the New Party with the British Fascists, but the grand council of the British Fascists voted against a merger by one vote in May 1932 after its founder Rotha Lintorn Orman, who was very suspicious of Mosley and regarded him as a near communist, vigorously opposed the change. The men on the Committee, led by Francis Hawkins and EC. Mandeville Roe, then resigned from the British Fascists and joined Mosley, bringing with them a copy of its membership list.

Francis Hawkins was to rise to effective second-in-command of the BUF after 1936 and the impact of the ex-British Fascist members was to be significant in the organization and administration of the movement. Mosley contemptuously dismissed the remaining British Fascists as ‘three old ladies and a couple of office boys’, and after the split Mosley ignored the existence of the British Fascists.

During the Jewish protest demonstrations against the nazis in Hyde Park on 23 July 1933, a small lorry carrying British Fascists in a counter-demonstration shouted abuse at BUF headquarters. In retaliation for this, and fearful that they might be blamed for any fascist hostility towards the jews, between fifty and sixty BUF members wrecked the BF’s headquarters.

Further negotiations with the remaining BF membership resumed in July 1934. Colonel Henry Wilson negotiated with Mosley in an attempt to merge the two organizations. He had lent £500 to the British Fascists to liquidate pressing debts, and in order to obtain repayment had either to bankrupt them or obtain financial backing from elsewhere. However, between Wilson’s meeting with Mosley and that of the British Fascist grand council, Rotha Lintorn Orman changed her mind and, allegedly under the influence of drink, strenuously opposed the proposal. The merger plan was again abandoned, and Wilson began bankruptcy proceedings to wind up the British Fascists Ltd.