http://www.right-now.org.uk/articles/rn4002.pdf
MD12
'Right Now' Interview of M. Le Pen
'Right Now' Interview of M. Le Pen
A good 2 page interview of M Le Pen by the British conservative magazine 'Right Now'. It is on a PDF file.
http://www.right-now.org.uk/articles/rn4002.pdf
MD12
http://www.right-now.org.uk/articles/rn4002.pdf
MD12
"Les racines de l'apostasie moderne réside dans l'athéisme scientifique, le matérialisme dialectique, rationalisme, illuminisme, la laïcité et la franc-maçonnerie, qui est la mère de tous." - Pape Pie XII -
More on Mr Turner. In the article there is a coverr of the 'Right Now' Magazine issue with the interview of Mr Le Pen, with the classic photograph of him in front of the sea. There is also discussion about Mr Le Pen in the interview.
Patriotism may be old-fashioned, but it is also eternal
A Derek Turner interview to Panayotis Doumas
RIGHT NOW
Right Now was founded in late 1993, by a small group of friends who believed that British society was changing for the worse, and nobody was doing anything to reverse decline.
The Conservatives had been in power since 1979, yet little was being conserved. The family unit was under sustained attack, society was bitterly divided, whole areas of the country were sunk in depression, strategic industries were being broken up, immigration was at a high level, political correctness was tightening its grip, Britain kept losing more and more powers to the EU and the Ulster Unionists were being gradually abandoned. Mrs Thatcher’s governments had signed both the Single European Act and the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Her successor, John Major, was even less reliable. His government signed the Maastricht Treaty, and he was the first Conservative leader to expel people from the party for expressing politically incorrect views on race.
Meanwhile, the Labour Party either hated or was indifferent to Western civilisation, and was committed to egalitarianism, moral relativism, internationalism, large-scale immigration and multiculturalism - tendencies clearly damaging to British interests. There were smaller parties on the Right, but the British electoral system meant that such parties were likely to remain confined to the fringe of politics.
There seemed to be a general lack of ideas amongst patriotic people in general - partly due to the domestic Conservative tradition, which prides itself on its empiricism and distrust of abstractions. Such ideas as were expressed on the Right mostly related to the ‘free market’, the embracing of which, many believed, was the answer to all the world’s problems. There was little understanding of the role of culture in politics; many Conservatives seemed to believe that if only everyone was prosperous they would become Tories overnight.
The Left was making all the ideological headway. There seemed to be a need for an outspoken, yet sensible, magazine that could link together people who disagreed with the Left, and provide them with a medium of new ideas and information. We wanted to combine the courage and interest in ideas of the non-Conservative Right with the commonsense and pragmatism of the Conservative tradition. We have been lucky in attracting the support of many prominent people - and in being attacked by many others, from Tony Blair downwards.
DEREK TURNER
Speaking more personally, I was born in 1964 to a Protestant family in Dublin. I left school without knowing what I wanted to do, although I had always an interest in history, politics and literature. After a succession of pointless, if sometimes interesting, jobs - the merchant navy, building work, the Irish Naval Service (military) - I went to London in 1988. In London, I began to write pieces for conservative journals, starting with the well-known Salisbury Review. I still write for them today. I also began to write for the US magazine Chronicles, and am still one of their European correspondents.
Many other journals followed, both British and foreign, and I have managed to get a couple of pieces into daily newspapers, including the Times and Sunday Telegraph. I also got involved with Conservative local politics, and stood as a candidate in local elections. In 1995, I became editor of Right Now, but had to do it in my spare time until 1999, when a combination of subscription revenues and sponsorship from private individuals finally allowed me to become the magazine’s first (and, so far, only!) full-time member of staff.
I have always disliked Leftwing ideas, because they seem to me to be mean-spirited and boring - not to mention unworkable! In an earlier age, I might have been Leftwing myself. But those days are long gone; now the Left is essentially an anti-Western force - although of course there are well-meaning and honourable Leftists, including some friends of mine. I have always found traditionalism and patriotism romantic, and believe that societies based on respect for the past (although not adulation of the past) and patriotism are happier and more viable. I also believe that traditional conservatives have a better comprehension of the complexities of human nature. The Leftwing view of human nature is extremely naive and simplistic, almost cartoon-like - which is why all their schemes fail.
THE INTERVIEW
The Tories don't really like you. We heard that members of the Conservative Party are not allowed to write articles for Right Now. Is that true?
This is untrue - although it is true that the magazine is slightly controversial within Conservative circles. Right Now has never been a Conservative Party publication, so there was never much Central Office could do about the magazine, even if they had wanted to. But in fact, the magazine was never denounced by the Conservatives. The belief that this had happened emanates from a far-Left British newspaper called the Independent, which was seeking ways of attacking the Conservative Party by linking it to ‘extreme’ views and people. The Independent’s original story (which concentrated on the fact that a lot of Conservative politicians had written for us) was simply cut and pasted into other newspapers, with hardly any checking of facts by journalists, and with hardly any right of reply given by the newspapers concerned. Out of some 30 news organisations I know of that covered the story about Right Now, only the BBC phoned to check the story beforehand.
The impression that we had been ‘proscribed’ was aided by the cowardly actions of Iain Duncan Smith and other senior Tories, who had previously told three Conservative MPs to suspend their memberships of the Monday Club, a long-established pressure group on the Right of the Party, until the Club’s policy of supporting voluntary repatriation was changed (this policy has now been changed - but the Club is still being held at arm’s length by the Party hierarchy for other reasons). Central Office had also closed down Conservatives Against a Federal Europe, a long-established anti-EU lobby group - of which Duncan Smith had been a leading figure!
Some Conservatives dislike Right Now because after losing two elections in a row, they believe that only by sounding like Labour can the Conservatives again win elections. This group has at present much influence over Iain Duncan Smith. They would like the magazine - and the kind of ideas we give voice to - to be completely divorced from the Party. They will never achieve this, but they have succeeded in making some MPs wary of being publicly associated with us.
The magazine is in a very strange position when it comes to the Conservative Party - we are part-respectable, part-disgraceful. Some Conservatives hate the magazine, but many others, including peers and MPs, enjoy it and help us. Some Conservatives have denounced us, while others have applauded us. Some of our strongest supporters and many of our writers and subscribers are active Conservatives. Only a few weeks ago, I spoke at a large meeting of Essex Conservatives. The strong division of opinion about the magazine within the Party mirrors the wider, serious divisions within the Party between the real Tories, and those who want to turn the Tories into a pale imitation of Labour.
The British political establishment is a rather bipartisan one. Do you think there is any room or promise for a patriotic party? Can the Conservatives cover the gap created on its right side, after their "Middle Ground" policy?
It is always difficult for small parties to make headway in the UK. The biggest of our small parties, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party, all seem to have reached a plateau of support, from which they will find it difficult ever to rise. As society becomes more and more fragmented, forming a majority government will become more and more difficult for all parties. And it will be especially difficult for a small party of the Right to achieve success, because they can only achieve success by addressing taboo issues, like immigration.
But of course, events often take the game away from the players, and the issue of asylum, in particular - that no mainstream party wants to talk about honestly - has played into the hands of the BNP, which now has 16 councillors, most of them in the northwest (and now, too, the Freedom Party, which won its first seat in May - and came close elsewhere). It is because many, many people feel disenfranchised from mainstream politics that they will defy all the media misrepresentation (and overlook small parties’ own shortcomings) and consider voting for small parties and independents. If their concerns are not addressed in some meaningful way - and there is little sign that this will happen - then the BNP and Freedom Party are likely to grow. Their chances will be boosted greatly if their newly elected representatives show themselves to be hard-working and honest.
Although these small parties are presently taking seats mostly from the Labour Party, in the long term they will hurt the Conservatives too, unless the Conservatives begin to talk about controversial subjects like immigration. Iain Duncan Smith’s actions in trying to portray himself as a ‘moderate’ run counter to his own private views, which are strongly Rightwing. While one understands that politicians sometimes have to do and say things for political reasons, his stance is not even politically expedient. All he is doing is annoying traditional Conservative activists and voters, while failing to convince many non-Conservative activists and voters to trust him. He seems to want to compete with Tony Blair on his territory, where he is at a massive disadvantage because of his lack of charisma.
On the other hand, if he began to tack to the Right on national identity, whilst tacking to the Left on the economy, social welfare and the environment, the Conservatives could rapidly cut the ground out from under the small parties. It would be a mistake to write off the Tory party as being in terminal decline. Under dynamic leadership, with good policies, it could yet make a comeback.
What is your position about the recent war in Iraq and the participation of the British Army on the side of the Americans?
It was undoubtedly necessary for the US to exact revenge for the despicable attacks of September 11, and it was necessary that other Western countries supported the US in this endeavour. Otherwise, the West would have been held in contempt across the Arab world - which would have paved the way for similar attacks. The attack on Afghanistan was completely justifiable, as the government was sheltering those responsible for the WTC outrage.
But choosing to attack Iraq was bizarre. Despite Saddam’s Hussein’s gross cruelty and his regime’s many faults, Iraq was a secular republic and had been an ally in the past against Muslim fundamentalism. As we have seen, the attacks on Iraq have unfortunately done nothing to blunt the threat from the insane murderers of Al Qa’eda - while Iraq’s so-called ‘weapons of mass destruction’ may not exist at all. Even if they do exist - or did exist - there was no evidence that they would have been used against either Britain or the US.
I had strong reservations about the principle of attacking a sovereign country simply because our government didn’t like their government. If this is to be the basis of foreign policy, we can all look forward to many more wars! Who shall we attack next - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria or North Korea? Whilst a watchful eye needs to be kept on manifestly dangerous countries, British foreign policy should be determined, above all, by what is in Britain’s national interests.
George Bush appears to have been motivated by a combination of frustrated revenge (he couldn’t get bin Laden, so he chose to attack another Arab he didn’t like), an ultra-Protestant religious vision, and a desire to win the next election after his exceedingly narrow victory last time round. Tony Blair’s motivations are rather less clear - but we can certainly include a moral outrage at Saddam Hussein’s admittedly appalling regime, a spasm of emotion that obscured the simple fact that Iraq was not a clear and present danger to Britain.
The best way to conduct this ‘war on terrorism’ is internally, within our own countries. We can never guard against such attacks completely, but we can minimise the danger. First of all, we need to stop or cut drastically further Muslim immigration into our countries, screen visitors from Muslim countries, close down radical Muslim groups, confiscate their assets and deport dangerous Muslims from within our own countries (London is still a stronghold of radical Islam), end multicultural indoctrination in schools and seek to revive our own sense of corporate identity as Christians (or at least post-Christians).
In the Middle East, we should probably support Israel, with whom we have some shared culture and history (and whose bravery we should admire) - but should put pressure on them to improve relations with Palestinians. In this sense, the ‘road map for peace’ is to be welcomed. America needs to have a more sensible foreign policy, and learn to interfere less in countries with complex histories it does not understand. American foreign policy is well-meaning, but naive; the historian Arnold Toynbee said of the Americans that they are “like a big friendly dog in a small room. When they wag their tail, everything falls over”.
Shortly before this interview, you interviewed Jean-Marie Le Pen during his visit to London. Do you believe that J-MLP will ever get his party in power, as, for example, Joerg Haider did?
I am not an expert on French politics, so my reply will not necessarily weigh very much. But M. Le Pen is a brave and remarkable man, and it is certainly possible that he could get to power. The ideological tendencies of the past five decades are against him (and us), but who could have foreseen the remarkable events of the French presidential campaign? Despite a massively unfair propaganda campaign against him and his party - despite a massive imbalance of resources - against all the odds, he knocked out the heavyweight Jospin. He couldn’t knock out Chirac - but perhaps he will have better luck next time! If they do well in next year’s regional elections, it may well be the impetus for yet greater success.
What is on Le Pen’s side - and on the side of all parties of the real Right - is reality. The things he - and others - say are in tune with human nature and people’s instincts and experiences. The things Le Pen and others have warned against for so long are all now coming true, and more and more people are realising it. Either his party will benefit electorally from this new realism, or a larger party will benefit by borrowing FN policies. Le Pen will have won his battle in either case - although one hopes he will benefit personally from all his labours.
In Greece, Le Pen, is for the public opinion something like the "bad wolf", thanks to the endless propaganda of the media against him. Last year, we witnessed hysterical reactions from the press and the further "politically correct" establishment, when he reached the second round at the presidential elections. They acted as if he was being elected in Greece. Is the British establishment reacting in the same way, or they're judging him from a more objective point of view?
The British establishment, I’m afraid to say, reacted in just the same vicious, unfair way. In all the UK coverage about the French elections, I only remember reading one broadly sympathetic piece about him - in the Daily Telegraph. Apart from that, the coverage was wall-to-wall vitriol and venom, with Le Pen denounced as a ‘danger to democracy’ and similar excitable language from everyone, ranging from the Archbishop of Canterbury to Tony Blair and Iain Duncan Smith. Even the nominally conservative press jumped on the bandwagon, with long articles denouncing him in the Telegraph (with the single exception noted above), the Daily Mail and the Spectator. And of course the broadcast media were even worse. Yet, of course, public opinion was often very different - a friend of mine who was canvassing for the Conservatives in Essex at around the same time as the French elections told me that almost everyone in his area brought up the subject of France and said “We need a Le Pen over here!”
Why, do you think, most of the European patriotic parties, except a few exceptions, don't achieve satisfying results? Do you think that patriotism is old fashioned?
As I said in the above reply, patriotic political parties find themselves in direct conflict with virtually all the ideological tendencies of the last five decades. For decades, people in all Western countries have been told that patriotism is atavistic and irrelevant - that men and women are the same - that human beings are equal and interchangeable. These attitudes are continually reinforced by an ever more rigid control over what we are allowed to say or even to think. In this sense, patriotism is in a sense ‘old-fashioned’. But that does not mean it is about to become extinct. Patriotism may be old-fashioned, but it is also eternal - like great works of art, or classical architecture. It is only natural for men and women to sort themselves into distinct groups, and this instinct lies just below the surface even today.
That having been said, I think that patriotic parties are often not as good at presentation as other parties. The best message, if poorly presented, will always be less politically effective than a bad message that has been well-presented. Part of this goes back to the generic conservative distrust of the media, which has meant that conservatives have not generally got involved or employed in this sector - leaving the media to be taken over by the Left and far-Left. But another problem is the tendency to get obsessed by lesser issues - for instance, modern art or pornography or drugs or homosexual rights or abortion - at the expense of more important matters. Not only does this divert attention and waste energy, but it also makes some on the Right sound puritanical and misanthropic. People on the Right need to concentrate on what really matters, and to sound more positive. We ought all to be involved more in community politics, and within the ecological movement.
This presentational problem is augmented by the unfortunate fact that patriotic parties always have fewer resources than mainstream parties - so have less access to technical and marketing expertise.
The relationship between Greece and Great Britain has always been in a very good level. However, in this relationship there is an old thorn, called Cyprus. A few weeks ago Cyprus became a member of the European Union. It is more than obvious that there will be a sea change, concerning the Cyprus Question. What do you think will happen?
I don’t know what the reaction within Cyprus is likely to be, but I think the present British government will try and forget the past, and live down the old problems with Cyprus as much as it can. After all, Britain gets on fairly well with France these days!
Turkey wants to enter the European Union too. No European state seems to agree with that, except the Greek government. Do you?
Anyone who wants an Islamic country to join the European Union must be very shortsighted, or just plain foolish. The attacks on the World Trade Center demonstrated in the clearest possible way that Islamic values (whatever their merits) are simply incompatible with Western values. This attitude of the Greek government is unfortunately all too typical of the myopia of politicians, who are willing to trade their country’s and the West’s future social harmony for short-term political gains - in this case, being able to say “We reunited Cyprus, so vote for us at the next election”. The Americans behaved similarly just before the war on Iraq, when they pressurised the EU to admit Turkey as an EU member, simply so that USAF planes could use Turkish airfields. If Turkey becomes a member of the European Union, all Turks will then be free to travel and settle wherever they like within the EU - thereby further weakening cultural cohesion and social stability.
The main slogan of the HELLENIC FRONT is “Red Card for illegal immigrants!” In almost any of your articles we see a common point of view, about immigration, asylum and their consequences for British society. Do you agree that illegal immigration is not just a social phenomenon but a national issue?
Yes - immigration is the most important issue of our time. Do we want our countries to stay European, and Western, or not? If we do, we need to exert real control over who comes to our countries to live.
Immigration is also a psychological issue. For the citizens of a country to allow large-scale immigration - especially illegal immigration - implies that that country is lacking in self-confidence. Similarly, no psychologically healthy country would wish to cede control over its own currency. Obviously, these actions are carried out by a political class rather than the citizens, but those citizens nonetheless vote for these contemptible politicians over and over again. The EU-wide disillusionment with politicians and low election turn out suggests that many normal people have begun to realise that their politicians do not necessarily have their country’s best interests at heart.
A healthy society must have a high opinion of itself, and permitting large scale immigration implies that you want your fellow-citizens to be replaced by others.
Parties that touch the immigration problem are always blamed as racist. In a recent article of yours in "Right Now", called "Race - the final frontier", that was translated for our newspaper, analyzing the "EU's Action Plan Against Racism" you are speaking of implications for freedom of expression. A few weeks ago we realized that these measures are starting to practice in Greece too. Do you believe that we should expect a period of extreme censorship and lack of freedom? If yes, what should be the reaction?
One can become too despondent about political correctness. There will certainly be attempts to clamp down on all kinds of ideas, but these will not necessarily be successful. There will be national, regional and individual exceptions. Even if laws are passed, they will not necessarily be enforced. And with the internet, we have a powerful medium that is next to impossible to police. Even if the EU succeeds in closing down ‘racist’ websites within EU countries, the sites can always be run from the US or elsewhere instead.
But such threats should nonetheless make us think about the way we present our message. We need to constantly refine our message in the light of contemporary values, politics and terminology.
Europe is facing a steep demographic decline and deracination, due to the decrease of the births and the raise of the immigrants' number. Do you think that European nations are dying?
Clearly, the numbers demonstrate that European nations are shrinking. But that does not necessarily mean that they are dying. One can become too gloomy about this, and add two and two to make 400. Prosperous civilisations always mean smaller families, as life becomes longer and more pleasant for individuals. If there are fewer dangerous diseases, there is not so much need to have many children, as most of them will survive into adulthood. Advances in industrial technology also have an effect on family size; for instance, when one combine harvester can do the work of 30 men, what is the point of farmers having large families?
Frankly, many European countries are too crowded anyway. The English quality of life would be greatly improved if there were several million fewer people in the country. The only thing that makes our present demographic decline worrying is the fact that what would otherwise be empty space is being occupied by incomers - incomers with little or no cultural connection to the indigenous inhabitants. Yet with sensible immigration policies, this problem could theoretically be solved.
What is your opinion about the future of the European Union? Do you think it will fulfill its prosperity and freedom promises or will it evolve into an oppressive superstate with a backwater economy?
One cannot predict what might happen to a large and complex organism like the EU. A lot depends on what happens politically within the EU member states, and whether the European Parliament continues to be dominated by parties of the Left. An EU run or influenced by parties like the FN or the Hellenic Front would be very different from the one we have now!
In the short term, of course, the EU will remain prosperous. Whatever may be the shortcomings of the Euro, and however foolish an idea it is to force radically different economies to adhere to a single economic policy, the combined might of almost all of Europe’s largest countries is behind the single currency. Whatever the political costs, big business will try its best to make the Euro work.
But the EU will certainly not remain as free as the separate countries are today, with the drawing up of the European Constitution, and the various other efforts that the EU is devising to limit free speech. Whatever opt-outs individual countries may secure, and however unevenly the new laws are enforced, the steady creep of transnational moralising, lawmaking and enforcement will mean that dissent will become ever more difficult. But of course there are loopholes in every law, and it will always be possible for imaginative, determined dissenters to make their voices heard. And even if a way could be devised to silence all dissent, the whole politically correct, imperial experiment of the EU is so unworkable that eventually it will probably all collapse in on itself anyway.
What would you like to say to all Greek patriots?
Greek patriots should remember that you are not alone and that, however gloomy the present may seem, reality is on your side. With courage, determination and imagination, you can yet win through, to bring about the Europe of peace, diversity and freedom that is the common desire of all Western patriots.
Patriotism may be old-fashioned, but it is also eternal
A Derek Turner interview to Panayotis Doumas
RIGHT NOW
Right Now was founded in late 1993, by a small group of friends who believed that British society was changing for the worse, and nobody was doing anything to reverse decline.
The Conservatives had been in power since 1979, yet little was being conserved. The family unit was under sustained attack, society was bitterly divided, whole areas of the country were sunk in depression, strategic industries were being broken up, immigration was at a high level, political correctness was tightening its grip, Britain kept losing more and more powers to the EU and the Ulster Unionists were being gradually abandoned. Mrs Thatcher’s governments had signed both the Single European Act and the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Her successor, John Major, was even less reliable. His government signed the Maastricht Treaty, and he was the first Conservative leader to expel people from the party for expressing politically incorrect views on race.
Meanwhile, the Labour Party either hated or was indifferent to Western civilisation, and was committed to egalitarianism, moral relativism, internationalism, large-scale immigration and multiculturalism - tendencies clearly damaging to British interests. There were smaller parties on the Right, but the British electoral system meant that such parties were likely to remain confined to the fringe of politics.
There seemed to be a general lack of ideas amongst patriotic people in general - partly due to the domestic Conservative tradition, which prides itself on its empiricism and distrust of abstractions. Such ideas as were expressed on the Right mostly related to the ‘free market’, the embracing of which, many believed, was the answer to all the world’s problems. There was little understanding of the role of culture in politics; many Conservatives seemed to believe that if only everyone was prosperous they would become Tories overnight.
The Left was making all the ideological headway. There seemed to be a need for an outspoken, yet sensible, magazine that could link together people who disagreed with the Left, and provide them with a medium of new ideas and information. We wanted to combine the courage and interest in ideas of the non-Conservative Right with the commonsense and pragmatism of the Conservative tradition. We have been lucky in attracting the support of many prominent people - and in being attacked by many others, from Tony Blair downwards.
DEREK TURNER
Speaking more personally, I was born in 1964 to a Protestant family in Dublin. I left school without knowing what I wanted to do, although I had always an interest in history, politics and literature. After a succession of pointless, if sometimes interesting, jobs - the merchant navy, building work, the Irish Naval Service (military) - I went to London in 1988. In London, I began to write pieces for conservative journals, starting with the well-known Salisbury Review. I still write for them today. I also began to write for the US magazine Chronicles, and am still one of their European correspondents.
Many other journals followed, both British and foreign, and I have managed to get a couple of pieces into daily newspapers, including the Times and Sunday Telegraph. I also got involved with Conservative local politics, and stood as a candidate in local elections. In 1995, I became editor of Right Now, but had to do it in my spare time until 1999, when a combination of subscription revenues and sponsorship from private individuals finally allowed me to become the magazine’s first (and, so far, only!) full-time member of staff.
I have always disliked Leftwing ideas, because they seem to me to be mean-spirited and boring - not to mention unworkable! In an earlier age, I might have been Leftwing myself. But those days are long gone; now the Left is essentially an anti-Western force - although of course there are well-meaning and honourable Leftists, including some friends of mine. I have always found traditionalism and patriotism romantic, and believe that societies based on respect for the past (although not adulation of the past) and patriotism are happier and more viable. I also believe that traditional conservatives have a better comprehension of the complexities of human nature. The Leftwing view of human nature is extremely naive and simplistic, almost cartoon-like - which is why all their schemes fail.
THE INTERVIEW
The Tories don't really like you. We heard that members of the Conservative Party are not allowed to write articles for Right Now. Is that true?
This is untrue - although it is true that the magazine is slightly controversial within Conservative circles. Right Now has never been a Conservative Party publication, so there was never much Central Office could do about the magazine, even if they had wanted to. But in fact, the magazine was never denounced by the Conservatives. The belief that this had happened emanates from a far-Left British newspaper called the Independent, which was seeking ways of attacking the Conservative Party by linking it to ‘extreme’ views and people. The Independent’s original story (which concentrated on the fact that a lot of Conservative politicians had written for us) was simply cut and pasted into other newspapers, with hardly any checking of facts by journalists, and with hardly any right of reply given by the newspapers concerned. Out of some 30 news organisations I know of that covered the story about Right Now, only the BBC phoned to check the story beforehand.
The impression that we had been ‘proscribed’ was aided by the cowardly actions of Iain Duncan Smith and other senior Tories, who had previously told three Conservative MPs to suspend their memberships of the Monday Club, a long-established pressure group on the Right of the Party, until the Club’s policy of supporting voluntary repatriation was changed (this policy has now been changed - but the Club is still being held at arm’s length by the Party hierarchy for other reasons). Central Office had also closed down Conservatives Against a Federal Europe, a long-established anti-EU lobby group - of which Duncan Smith had been a leading figure!
Some Conservatives dislike Right Now because after losing two elections in a row, they believe that only by sounding like Labour can the Conservatives again win elections. This group has at present much influence over Iain Duncan Smith. They would like the magazine - and the kind of ideas we give voice to - to be completely divorced from the Party. They will never achieve this, but they have succeeded in making some MPs wary of being publicly associated with us.
The magazine is in a very strange position when it comes to the Conservative Party - we are part-respectable, part-disgraceful. Some Conservatives hate the magazine, but many others, including peers and MPs, enjoy it and help us. Some Conservatives have denounced us, while others have applauded us. Some of our strongest supporters and many of our writers and subscribers are active Conservatives. Only a few weeks ago, I spoke at a large meeting of Essex Conservatives. The strong division of opinion about the magazine within the Party mirrors the wider, serious divisions within the Party between the real Tories, and those who want to turn the Tories into a pale imitation of Labour.
The British political establishment is a rather bipartisan one. Do you think there is any room or promise for a patriotic party? Can the Conservatives cover the gap created on its right side, after their "Middle Ground" policy?
It is always difficult for small parties to make headway in the UK. The biggest of our small parties, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party, all seem to have reached a plateau of support, from which they will find it difficult ever to rise. As society becomes more and more fragmented, forming a majority government will become more and more difficult for all parties. And it will be especially difficult for a small party of the Right to achieve success, because they can only achieve success by addressing taboo issues, like immigration.
But of course, events often take the game away from the players, and the issue of asylum, in particular - that no mainstream party wants to talk about honestly - has played into the hands of the BNP, which now has 16 councillors, most of them in the northwest (and now, too, the Freedom Party, which won its first seat in May - and came close elsewhere). It is because many, many people feel disenfranchised from mainstream politics that they will defy all the media misrepresentation (and overlook small parties’ own shortcomings) and consider voting for small parties and independents. If their concerns are not addressed in some meaningful way - and there is little sign that this will happen - then the BNP and Freedom Party are likely to grow. Their chances will be boosted greatly if their newly elected representatives show themselves to be hard-working and honest.
Although these small parties are presently taking seats mostly from the Labour Party, in the long term they will hurt the Conservatives too, unless the Conservatives begin to talk about controversial subjects like immigration. Iain Duncan Smith’s actions in trying to portray himself as a ‘moderate’ run counter to his own private views, which are strongly Rightwing. While one understands that politicians sometimes have to do and say things for political reasons, his stance is not even politically expedient. All he is doing is annoying traditional Conservative activists and voters, while failing to convince many non-Conservative activists and voters to trust him. He seems to want to compete with Tony Blair on his territory, where he is at a massive disadvantage because of his lack of charisma.
On the other hand, if he began to tack to the Right on national identity, whilst tacking to the Left on the economy, social welfare and the environment, the Conservatives could rapidly cut the ground out from under the small parties. It would be a mistake to write off the Tory party as being in terminal decline. Under dynamic leadership, with good policies, it could yet make a comeback.
What is your position about the recent war in Iraq and the participation of the British Army on the side of the Americans?
It was undoubtedly necessary for the US to exact revenge for the despicable attacks of September 11, and it was necessary that other Western countries supported the US in this endeavour. Otherwise, the West would have been held in contempt across the Arab world - which would have paved the way for similar attacks. The attack on Afghanistan was completely justifiable, as the government was sheltering those responsible for the WTC outrage.
But choosing to attack Iraq was bizarre. Despite Saddam’s Hussein’s gross cruelty and his regime’s many faults, Iraq was a secular republic and had been an ally in the past against Muslim fundamentalism. As we have seen, the attacks on Iraq have unfortunately done nothing to blunt the threat from the insane murderers of Al Qa’eda - while Iraq’s so-called ‘weapons of mass destruction’ may not exist at all. Even if they do exist - or did exist - there was no evidence that they would have been used against either Britain or the US.
I had strong reservations about the principle of attacking a sovereign country simply because our government didn’t like their government. If this is to be the basis of foreign policy, we can all look forward to many more wars! Who shall we attack next - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria or North Korea? Whilst a watchful eye needs to be kept on manifestly dangerous countries, British foreign policy should be determined, above all, by what is in Britain’s national interests.
George Bush appears to have been motivated by a combination of frustrated revenge (he couldn’t get bin Laden, so he chose to attack another Arab he didn’t like), an ultra-Protestant religious vision, and a desire to win the next election after his exceedingly narrow victory last time round. Tony Blair’s motivations are rather less clear - but we can certainly include a moral outrage at Saddam Hussein’s admittedly appalling regime, a spasm of emotion that obscured the simple fact that Iraq was not a clear and present danger to Britain.
The best way to conduct this ‘war on terrorism’ is internally, within our own countries. We can never guard against such attacks completely, but we can minimise the danger. First of all, we need to stop or cut drastically further Muslim immigration into our countries, screen visitors from Muslim countries, close down radical Muslim groups, confiscate their assets and deport dangerous Muslims from within our own countries (London is still a stronghold of radical Islam), end multicultural indoctrination in schools and seek to revive our own sense of corporate identity as Christians (or at least post-Christians).
In the Middle East, we should probably support Israel, with whom we have some shared culture and history (and whose bravery we should admire) - but should put pressure on them to improve relations with Palestinians. In this sense, the ‘road map for peace’ is to be welcomed. America needs to have a more sensible foreign policy, and learn to interfere less in countries with complex histories it does not understand. American foreign policy is well-meaning, but naive; the historian Arnold Toynbee said of the Americans that they are “like a big friendly dog in a small room. When they wag their tail, everything falls over”.
Shortly before this interview, you interviewed Jean-Marie Le Pen during his visit to London. Do you believe that J-MLP will ever get his party in power, as, for example, Joerg Haider did?
I am not an expert on French politics, so my reply will not necessarily weigh very much. But M. Le Pen is a brave and remarkable man, and it is certainly possible that he could get to power. The ideological tendencies of the past five decades are against him (and us), but who could have foreseen the remarkable events of the French presidential campaign? Despite a massively unfair propaganda campaign against him and his party - despite a massive imbalance of resources - against all the odds, he knocked out the heavyweight Jospin. He couldn’t knock out Chirac - but perhaps he will have better luck next time! If they do well in next year’s regional elections, it may well be the impetus for yet greater success.
What is on Le Pen’s side - and on the side of all parties of the real Right - is reality. The things he - and others - say are in tune with human nature and people’s instincts and experiences. The things Le Pen and others have warned against for so long are all now coming true, and more and more people are realising it. Either his party will benefit electorally from this new realism, or a larger party will benefit by borrowing FN policies. Le Pen will have won his battle in either case - although one hopes he will benefit personally from all his labours.
In Greece, Le Pen, is for the public opinion something like the "bad wolf", thanks to the endless propaganda of the media against him. Last year, we witnessed hysterical reactions from the press and the further "politically correct" establishment, when he reached the second round at the presidential elections. They acted as if he was being elected in Greece. Is the British establishment reacting in the same way, or they're judging him from a more objective point of view?
The British establishment, I’m afraid to say, reacted in just the same vicious, unfair way. In all the UK coverage about the French elections, I only remember reading one broadly sympathetic piece about him - in the Daily Telegraph. Apart from that, the coverage was wall-to-wall vitriol and venom, with Le Pen denounced as a ‘danger to democracy’ and similar excitable language from everyone, ranging from the Archbishop of Canterbury to Tony Blair and Iain Duncan Smith. Even the nominally conservative press jumped on the bandwagon, with long articles denouncing him in the Telegraph (with the single exception noted above), the Daily Mail and the Spectator. And of course the broadcast media were even worse. Yet, of course, public opinion was often very different - a friend of mine who was canvassing for the Conservatives in Essex at around the same time as the French elections told me that almost everyone in his area brought up the subject of France and said “We need a Le Pen over here!”
Why, do you think, most of the European patriotic parties, except a few exceptions, don't achieve satisfying results? Do you think that patriotism is old fashioned?
As I said in the above reply, patriotic political parties find themselves in direct conflict with virtually all the ideological tendencies of the last five decades. For decades, people in all Western countries have been told that patriotism is atavistic and irrelevant - that men and women are the same - that human beings are equal and interchangeable. These attitudes are continually reinforced by an ever more rigid control over what we are allowed to say or even to think. In this sense, patriotism is in a sense ‘old-fashioned’. But that does not mean it is about to become extinct. Patriotism may be old-fashioned, but it is also eternal - like great works of art, or classical architecture. It is only natural for men and women to sort themselves into distinct groups, and this instinct lies just below the surface even today.
That having been said, I think that patriotic parties are often not as good at presentation as other parties. The best message, if poorly presented, will always be less politically effective than a bad message that has been well-presented. Part of this goes back to the generic conservative distrust of the media, which has meant that conservatives have not generally got involved or employed in this sector - leaving the media to be taken over by the Left and far-Left. But another problem is the tendency to get obsessed by lesser issues - for instance, modern art or pornography or drugs or homosexual rights or abortion - at the expense of more important matters. Not only does this divert attention and waste energy, but it also makes some on the Right sound puritanical and misanthropic. People on the Right need to concentrate on what really matters, and to sound more positive. We ought all to be involved more in community politics, and within the ecological movement.
This presentational problem is augmented by the unfortunate fact that patriotic parties always have fewer resources than mainstream parties - so have less access to technical and marketing expertise.
The relationship between Greece and Great Britain has always been in a very good level. However, in this relationship there is an old thorn, called Cyprus. A few weeks ago Cyprus became a member of the European Union. It is more than obvious that there will be a sea change, concerning the Cyprus Question. What do you think will happen?
I don’t know what the reaction within Cyprus is likely to be, but I think the present British government will try and forget the past, and live down the old problems with Cyprus as much as it can. After all, Britain gets on fairly well with France these days!
Turkey wants to enter the European Union too. No European state seems to agree with that, except the Greek government. Do you?
Anyone who wants an Islamic country to join the European Union must be very shortsighted, or just plain foolish. The attacks on the World Trade Center demonstrated in the clearest possible way that Islamic values (whatever their merits) are simply incompatible with Western values. This attitude of the Greek government is unfortunately all too typical of the myopia of politicians, who are willing to trade their country’s and the West’s future social harmony for short-term political gains - in this case, being able to say “We reunited Cyprus, so vote for us at the next election”. The Americans behaved similarly just before the war on Iraq, when they pressurised the EU to admit Turkey as an EU member, simply so that USAF planes could use Turkish airfields. If Turkey becomes a member of the European Union, all Turks will then be free to travel and settle wherever they like within the EU - thereby further weakening cultural cohesion and social stability.
The main slogan of the HELLENIC FRONT is “Red Card for illegal immigrants!” In almost any of your articles we see a common point of view, about immigration, asylum and their consequences for British society. Do you agree that illegal immigration is not just a social phenomenon but a national issue?
Yes - immigration is the most important issue of our time. Do we want our countries to stay European, and Western, or not? If we do, we need to exert real control over who comes to our countries to live.
Immigration is also a psychological issue. For the citizens of a country to allow large-scale immigration - especially illegal immigration - implies that that country is lacking in self-confidence. Similarly, no psychologically healthy country would wish to cede control over its own currency. Obviously, these actions are carried out by a political class rather than the citizens, but those citizens nonetheless vote for these contemptible politicians over and over again. The EU-wide disillusionment with politicians and low election turn out suggests that many normal people have begun to realise that their politicians do not necessarily have their country’s best interests at heart.
A healthy society must have a high opinion of itself, and permitting large scale immigration implies that you want your fellow-citizens to be replaced by others.
Parties that touch the immigration problem are always blamed as racist. In a recent article of yours in "Right Now", called "Race - the final frontier", that was translated for our newspaper, analyzing the "EU's Action Plan Against Racism" you are speaking of implications for freedom of expression. A few weeks ago we realized that these measures are starting to practice in Greece too. Do you believe that we should expect a period of extreme censorship and lack of freedom? If yes, what should be the reaction?
One can become too despondent about political correctness. There will certainly be attempts to clamp down on all kinds of ideas, but these will not necessarily be successful. There will be national, regional and individual exceptions. Even if laws are passed, they will not necessarily be enforced. And with the internet, we have a powerful medium that is next to impossible to police. Even if the EU succeeds in closing down ‘racist’ websites within EU countries, the sites can always be run from the US or elsewhere instead.
But such threats should nonetheless make us think about the way we present our message. We need to constantly refine our message in the light of contemporary values, politics and terminology.
Europe is facing a steep demographic decline and deracination, due to the decrease of the births and the raise of the immigrants' number. Do you think that European nations are dying?
Clearly, the numbers demonstrate that European nations are shrinking. But that does not necessarily mean that they are dying. One can become too gloomy about this, and add two and two to make 400. Prosperous civilisations always mean smaller families, as life becomes longer and more pleasant for individuals. If there are fewer dangerous diseases, there is not so much need to have many children, as most of them will survive into adulthood. Advances in industrial technology also have an effect on family size; for instance, when one combine harvester can do the work of 30 men, what is the point of farmers having large families?
Frankly, many European countries are too crowded anyway. The English quality of life would be greatly improved if there were several million fewer people in the country. The only thing that makes our present demographic decline worrying is the fact that what would otherwise be empty space is being occupied by incomers - incomers with little or no cultural connection to the indigenous inhabitants. Yet with sensible immigration policies, this problem could theoretically be solved.
What is your opinion about the future of the European Union? Do you think it will fulfill its prosperity and freedom promises or will it evolve into an oppressive superstate with a backwater economy?
One cannot predict what might happen to a large and complex organism like the EU. A lot depends on what happens politically within the EU member states, and whether the European Parliament continues to be dominated by parties of the Left. An EU run or influenced by parties like the FN or the Hellenic Front would be very different from the one we have now!
In the short term, of course, the EU will remain prosperous. Whatever may be the shortcomings of the Euro, and however foolish an idea it is to force radically different economies to adhere to a single economic policy, the combined might of almost all of Europe’s largest countries is behind the single currency. Whatever the political costs, big business will try its best to make the Euro work.
But the EU will certainly not remain as free as the separate countries are today, with the drawing up of the European Constitution, and the various other efforts that the EU is devising to limit free speech. Whatever opt-outs individual countries may secure, and however unevenly the new laws are enforced, the steady creep of transnational moralising, lawmaking and enforcement will mean that dissent will become ever more difficult. But of course there are loopholes in every law, and it will always be possible for imaginative, determined dissenters to make their voices heard. And even if a way could be devised to silence all dissent, the whole politically correct, imperial experiment of the EU is so unworkable that eventually it will probably all collapse in on itself anyway.
What would you like to say to all Greek patriots?
Greek patriots should remember that you are not alone and that, however gloomy the present may seem, reality is on your side. With courage, determination and imagination, you can yet win through, to bring about the Europe of peace, diversity and freedom that is the common desire of all Western patriots.
"Les racines de l'apostasie moderne réside dans l'athéisme scientifique, le matérialisme dialectique, rationalisme, illuminisme, la laïcité et la franc-maçonnerie, qui est la mère de tous." - Pape Pie XII -
It seems that the interview can no longer be accessed by the provided link as the 'Right Now' Magazine website is down. Luckily, I saved a copy of the file and the interview file can be downloaded at
http://www.megafileupload.com/en/file/17898/Le-Pen-Interview-pdf.html
Kevin
http://www.megafileupload.com/en/file/17898/Le-Pen-Interview-pdf.html
Kevin
"Les racines de l'apostasie moderne réside dans l'athéisme scientifique, le matérialisme dialectique, rationalisme, illuminisme, la laïcité et la franc-maçonnerie, qui est la mère de tous." - Pape Pie XII -
Revenir vers « PDF 2006-2013 »
Qui est en ligne ?
Utilisateurs parcourant ce forum : Aucun utilisateur inscrit et 2 invités