Oswald Mosley’s Policies.

Written by Oswald Mosley

Usury is the Primary Issue

Aristotle condemned usury, and so does Buddhism. Dante consigned the usurer to a special place in hell. The usurer in many nations throughout history was regarded as among the lowest specimens of humanity. Usury was alien to Western Christendom at the height Western civilisation but was introduced by the Knights Templar who learnt banking from their sojourn in the East , where it had been known since Babylonian times, and was taken up by Jews and Lombards. Usurious banking was centered in The Netherlands and spread over the world through Dutch mercantilism, and then became centred in the City of London, where the Bank of England was established. From here finance-capital spread further through the Old World and the New, and established another world centre in New York.

Wizards of Finance

These wizards of finance had come across a most remarkable conjuring trick: by loaning out more money than what they had on deposit from savings, and charging interest on that, they could make real money from baseless credit. If the debtor cannot afford to pay back the interest, then he borrows again, and so on, compounding the interest. That today remains the basis of the banking system, to which individuals, families, businesses, farms, nations; much of the world, are in thrall. Few dare say, and few now understand, that the whole system is a malicious con. Few dare ask why a nation cannot create its own credit based on its productive requirements, as a public service, while private banks can create credit as an interest-bearing commodity? We are not supposed to ask why private bankers have this power, while governments do not.

Credit and currency are supposed to be a convenient means of exchanging goods and services, instead of giving someone a bag of potatoes for a box of eggs. What makes money a commodity, much less credit, which is nothing but a data entry? It is merely a token like a train ticket, yet is has assumed power over everything and everyone.

Because of the parasitic character of the banking system, which literally crawls up its own backside in devouring itself, there are cycles of booms and busts, depressions and recessions, and bursts of the ‘debt bubble’. We had the Great Depression starting in 1929, which was overcome by war spending primarily by the USA, then the recent ‘debt crisis’, where Greece tried to extricate herself by selling assets to Goldman Sachs, and the E.U. and USA bailed out the banks that had created the debt crisis by reckless lending. Indeed, what we call ‘privatisation’ is the process of a nation selling its utilities and resources to pay its debts.

Today Goldman Sachs, despite its role in the debt scandal, pretty much runs the world, its latest advance being the appointment of Goldman Sachs eminences as the top financial advisers of the Trump Administration, despite President Trump’s electoral advertising castigating Godman Sachs and other plutocrats and calling for a revolt to ‘drain the swamp’ in Washington. The world will soon know whether Trump can pursue his nationalist agenda when he has such people as advisers. As for Clinton, she never made any pretence about being anything but a plaything of the plutocrats, but her Leftist backers, being what they are, wee and remain fine with that.

Left has no answers

In Greece the ‘Marxist’ Syriza Party was elected to deal with the debt crisis. Their party platform included nationalisation of banks. Nationalisation of banks per se is worse than useless as it gives the impression that the state has assumed authority over the nation’s money and credit supply. Unless specifically issuing state credit, such as the Labour Government did in New Zealand in the 1930s, after it nationalised the Reserve Bank, a state bank will achieve precisely zilch if it is merely a medium by which the state continues borrowing from private finance-capital. This is what most state banks do, including New Zealand’s despite the auspicious start during the Depression.

So the election of a Marxist party in Greece was about as meaningful for solving the debt crisis and servitude to international financed as the banal histrionics of the ‘Occupy Movement’.

Historically Marxism has been worthless in dealing with international finance-capital. Perhaps it was because Karl Marx had a loathing of small traders because they expected to be paid, and that his focus was limited by the discomfort caused by the sores on his backside and groin. What he stated of banking and credit in Das Kapital was that dealing with this central issue would derail the historical dialectic of class struggle. Indeed it would, as the hidden factor of usury remains concealed and safe while employees and employers are kept in conflict arguing over crumbs. Hence, Marxist parties regard banking reform as a diversion and as harmful to class struggle, despite Marx’s brief description of ‘fictitious credit’. [2] The Left offer banalities of the simplistic ‘Occupy’ movement type, such as ‘tax of the rich’, while leaving the prerogative to create and issue credit to the international banking system.

Syriza became what Marxist parties generally are : the last resort of capitalism. Syriza party leader Alexis Tsipras had gone to Washington several years prior to his election to assure the USA that despite his rhetoric he was no threat, and furthermore that his party was the best option for thwarting the rise of the Golden Dawn ‘fascists’. There is a hint as to whom the plutocrats really regard as their enemies. Brookings Institution commentators wrote of Tsipras in Washington, in regard to a similar ‘radical leftist’ in Brazil:

…In that regard, many noted his recent trip to Brazil, where he met with former President Lula da Silva. In the 1990s, Lula famously shed his militant image to become a beaming and gregarious icon for a globally integrated and competitive Brazil. Should Tsipras become prime minister some day, he seemed to say, he would be just such a leader. [1]

The Prerequisite of Europe’s Freedom

Traditionally it was the Conservative Right that opposed finance-capital. Marx in The Communist Manifesto railed against the class collaboration between landed gentry, village priests and artisans as a ‘reactionist’ subversion of the historical dialectic. Parties of the Right made opposition to usury central to their programme. Since 1945 in particular, the Right has been diverted from that mission by preoccupation with symptoms rather than causes. It knows as little of the financial system as the Left. The ‘Left’ and the ‘Right’ have long since become the two wings of international finance. If there is to ever by a liberation of Europe from the inner traitor and outer enemy, it can only be done by those such as Casa Pound in Italy, and others presently mainly in Central and Eastern Europe, who are fully awake to the character of international finance.

K R Bolton

[1] William J. Antholis and Domenico Lombardi, Mr. Tsipras Comes to Washington, Brookings Institution, 25 January 2013,
[2] Karl Marx, Capital (1894)Vol. III Part V, ‘Division of Profit into Interest and Profit of Enterprise. Interest-Bearing Capital’, Chapter 36.


Oswald Mosley speaks at Trafalgar Square.

‘Europe’ is more than an economic region from which bloated bureaucrats and political nonentities draw salaries and perks. Before the conniving Count Kalergi and his banker friends, and before cabals such as the Bilderberg Group, there was ‘Europe’ as a living, dynamic organism, whose culture, faith, and heroes have been smothered in a quagmire of American junk culture, the debt of bankers, and the opportunity for the sweepings of the world to call themselves ‘Europeans’. ‘Europe’ was hijacked and besmirched by outer enemies and inner traitors. Paradoxically, the Europeans with the soundest instincts are among those who reject and oppose the entity that is today called ‘Europe’, as the recent Brexit poll indicated. However, such has been the disgust at the European project as manifested by secular-humanists, Masons, bankers, bureaucrats and U.S. geopolitical strategists, that the noble Idea of Europe-a-Nation, unfolding over the course of centuries, has been replaced by those who should be promoting it most avidly with the petty-statism that was inaugurated by the French Revolution and subsequent liberal forces of disintegration. Europe has been turned into a travesty of herself, and spurned by those who should be her champions because they are not seeing beyond several hundred years of treachery, corruption and culture-sickness.

The Birth of ‘Europe’

Generally a nation, ethnicity, or people is not conscious of itself until faced with an enemy or that which is markedly different to themselves. The Roman knew who he was vis-à-vis the ‘barbarian’, and likewise the Greek before him. There were no ‘Maori in the land-masses that became New Zealand until there were ‘Pakeha’, the foreigner. Likewise disparate ethnicities can coalesce into a larger ethnic grouping when faced by common dangers.  Nation-states are formed that way, but the modern-day nation-state is no more sacrosanct than pervious states based on dynastic marriage’s and alliance, which could just as easily fall apart. Thus when the petty-state nationalist sees his nation as a finality, and abhors being ‘swamped’ by a united Europe, there is no historic basis for the endurance of his ‘nation-state in its present form, or why Europe should not be reborn if it has the will to do so.

The consciousness of being a ‘European’, and of ‘Europe’ developed vis-à-vis heathens, Mongols, Jews and Moors and defined who one was in relation to the alien. The impetus for Europe came by the recognition of the ‘outer enemy’. (read more>>>)

Power Over Finance

To play with the problem of finance, merely by nationalising the Bank of England which for all practical purposes is nationalised already, is only worthy of the make-believe of a Labour Party which has no serious intention of putting any of its theories into practice, and resists in principle the power in Government by which alone finance can be subordinated to the nation. We do not propose, by nationalising the banks, to substitute for financial ability a miscellaneous collection of civil servants and party hacks to play with intricate problems of which they have little understanding. We propose, by the exercise of ruthless power in Government, to make those who understand finance do what the people want done, and to let them know in plain fact what will happen if they do not do the job the nation commands.


Within such a system the supply of credit must be adequate to a system of greater production and greater consumption. The credit system will rest on certain clear and basic principles: that British credit created by the British people shall be used for British purposes alone; that British credit shall be no monopoly in the hands of a few people, and often alien hands at that, but shall be held in high trusteeship for the British people as a whole; that British credit shall be consciously used to promote within Britain the maximum production and consumption by the British of British goods; that the credit system shall maintain a stable price level against which the purchasing power of the people is progressively raised in the development of higher wages.

Tomes could be written on credit policy, and have been written, with infinite diversity in particular if with broad agreement from modern minds in general. The writer in earlier years has contributed to these diverse studies of one of the most fascinating subjects that can engage the modern mind. But experience brings some lessons, and one lesson is that the creative urge of modern man to build a modern credit system, that serves the people and not the financier, may well be lost in the desert sands of diverse detail. The broad principles of action are agreed by most thoughtful and modern minds. The full details must await the vast resources of a Government armed with power, and a full mobilisation of the finest intellects of our time to evolve the final pattern. But the principles here stated shall stand, and a new credit system shall be opened by the key of revolutionary Government entrusted by the people with real power. To play with credit problems, in the absence of real power, is merely to court the classic inflationist disaster of an impotent reformism.


The problem of taxation is lifted naturally by the general economic policy of British Union. Taxation depends upon revenue, and revenue in turn depends upon national wealth production. A lesser burden of taxation can produce a larger revenue, if based on a greater national production of wealth. Therefore a system which is designed to evoke the maximum wealth production of the nation automatically lifts the burden of taxation. We rely for greater wealth production not only on the absorption into productive industry of those now unemployed or working short time, and not only on the maximum production of all present machinery; the elimination of redundant middlemen, and the great network of purely parasitic occupations which have grown up of recent years in the decline of productive industry, will release great new forces for wealth production, in addition to the labour of those unemployed or on short time. Any analysis of the swing over from staple productive to distributive industry, and still more redundant quasi-luxury occupation in service of the profiteering rich, will yield the most startling figures.

In a civilisation in which the rich profiteer can buy too little of the essential, a disequilibrium takes place in the national economy, and hundreds of thousands are drawn from productive to non-productive industry. The elimination of overlapping and redundant distributive services, and the re-absorption of such labour, together with labour employed in ultra-luxury trades, back into productive industry, in response to the people’s new demands for “real” goods, will increase the productive power of the nation in almost incalculable degree. The proportion of the people actually engaged in real productive processes is small to the point of being one of the outstanding anomalies of the system. This phenomenon is created by the low purchasing power of the mass of the people and the extraordinary purchasing power of the ultra-rich. Consideration of the latter category belongs to the next chapter, but here we may note that the release of workers, from redundant distribution and ultra-luxury occupations, will enable the new economy vastly to increase the nation’s wealth production. From this it follows that revenues will greatly increase and taxation, despite the extension of service to the people, can be greatly lightened.

Oswald Mosley – ‘The Economic System : What is Wrong 1938’

Why did you always think an economic crisis is sooner or later inevitable?

The approach of economic crisis has been obvious for years past. I gave my reasons for thinking this in my resignation speech from the government. Each one of them is now slowly being proved true. The process has been interrupted by the war and two armament booms, the first preparing to fight Germany, the second preparing to fight the communist allies we had in the war against Germany. But despite the armament booms and a few new measures, all these factors are now beginning to operate again, and with increased force by reason of the postponements. The war also caused new and greater dangers to our economy.

When exactly it will come to crisis, no-one can say. If you see a ship with a great list to one side, you can say with certainty it will sooner or later capsize, but you cannot say when. That depends when a particular wave or gust of wind hits it in a particular place. The Stock Exchange too at such a moment leads the stampede by behaving like passengers who all make a dart for the side of the ship nearest the water.

My reasons for thinking the present island economy of Britain cannot endure are briefly the following:

We are still living with the same structure of industry and trade as we did when we were the only industrial nation in the world. A far higher proportion of our production than of any other nation goes in export trade, just as it did when the whole world was eager to receive our goods and ready to give particular advantages to us in exchange. Even a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer observed not long ago that this position has been passing away for over fifty years. Now the special demand which follows a war – particularly a long and devastating war – is over, we are faced on world markets with the following factors of intensive competition. We will look first at the adverse situation on world markets which is the direct result of the war.

Previous competitors Germany and Japan, once prostrated by the war, have returned to world markets with far more intensive competition. We have made of Germany another England in industrial matters. Its agricultural base in its eastern lands has been taken away. It has, like us, a top-heavy industrial structure. Germany too must “export or die”, and is working desperately and successfully to live in competition with us. We fought a victorious war to prevent it expanding in the east and setting up the self-contained economy of its desires, which would have taken it away from world markets.

Japan is in a similar position. It, too, is a country with a top-heavy industrial structure, and must “export or die” in cut-wage competition with us. Its desire to expand in Manchuria and set up another self-contained system away from world markets was also frustrated. Our policy has produced a strong communist China and a Japanese competitor. That is why competition from Germany and Japan is more severe than before the war. It has to be, if all try to live in the system we have established. They are in the same boat as ourselves. But, as we shall see, there is not room in it for all of us, until we build together a bigger boat.

Let us now look at the “normal” factors of the existing system which created all the unemployment in the thirties. They are likely soon to return with increased force. Every modern country is fighting for world markets. Every country is trying at the same time to sell more than it buys in order to have a favourable balance of trade. That is obviously a mathematical impossibility, and the result is that one country or another – whichever happens to be the weakest at the moment – is always going under. And the weakest country in the long run of the coming intensive competition is likely to be the country most committed to the business of “export or die”, because of its large dependence on world markets.

None of these countries has yet found any means of enabling their own people to consume what they produce. Some like ourselves cannot, because we are too small to be at all self-contained. We must export and sell on world markets enough to buy the foodstuffs and raw materials we cannot produce at home. So we are always dragged back under the present system to the dog-fight for world markets. And our wages are held down to the level of that competition, which is very severe. If wages are raised beyond a certain point we are costed out of world markets and we all starve. That is pointed out to us all the time by present politicians. It explains why British wages, salaries, pensions, profits and general purchasing power cannot be raised sufficiently to enable our people to consume what they produce, thus providing a steady market which eliminates slumps and unemployment. That cannot occur until we are members of an economic system large enough to be independent of world markets, and viable because it contains all its own foodstuffs and raw materials.Europe alone can provide that system for us, now that the Empire has largely gone and we have been made too weak by war to develop what remains by ourselves.

The United States has not even yet solved the problem of enabling its people to consume what they produce. That is why it had economic crises and huge unemployment before the war, as its “technocrats” and others pointed out. Since the war it has temporarily solved the problem by giving away a very large part of its total production in world charity, by an armament boom, by a very skilful monetary policy on Keynesian lines which partially maintained the demand, and by a fantastic edifice of debt in a hire-purchase system which can crash at any moment, Yet despite all these measures, America has over five million unemployed at the time this book goes to press.

The sweated labour of the East is being more than ever exploited by western capitalism. Before the war cotton mills in India and woollen mills in Japan ruined Lancashire and Yorkshire. These mills did not grow like mushrooms on an autumn morning. They were erected by international finance supplying large loans for the purpose. The object was to make more money sweating the East than they could get from developing the West. These mills were supplied with modern, simplified machines. A very few highly paid technicians could supervise the machines and the oriental labour doing the job for a few shillings a week. That is why Lancashire has had to shift to other industries since the war. But the East is learning other industries as well, and international finance is supplying the capital to develop them. We have drawn attention for years to this fundamental problem. Modern, simplified, rationalised machines can be worked by illiterate, backward labour which has no trade unions, nor any possible means of self-defence. The mass of labour, sweated for a fraction of our wages, needs only a few highly paid supervisors and technicians. How can we compete against them when this method gets going on a great scale? We failed to compete before when it only affected certain industries. These industries were ruined.

All this is not theory but proved practice. It happened on a smaller scale in India, Japan, Hong-Kong and China. It was this process which ultimately threw China into the arms of communism. That is always the end, if you are foolish enough to allow it.

Have a look at all these things and then ask yourselves if our island economy can continue in prosperity for ever without any crisis? If your answer is no, have a close look at our constructive solution. In short, withdraw from the chaos of present international trading into a self-contained economy of Europe and its overseas territories, where government can equate consumption and production and maintain the ever-increasing standard of life which science makes possibles
This requires a new economic system in Europe which will be different both from American capitalism and Russian communism.

Question: Do you think some races are superior to others?

Answer: Superior is a term I never use. Different, is the word I use. What is superiority? It is a loose and generally ridiculous term. All men may be equal in the sight of God. But when it comes to hammering in a nail, mending a broken motor or doing a sum in higher mathematics, a lot of men can do the job much better than I can. On the other hand there may be some things I can do better than they can. Our capacities are different, that is the long and the short of it. Therefore, who can judge what is superiority? – even if such a thing exists in any absolute sense?

So let us face the fact that men are different, and not muddle ourselves with silly talk about superiority. Such attitudes lead in turn to the opposite error of pretending that all men and races are just the same.

I do not know in this matter which type I find the more ridiculous: the albino rabbit claiming to be a Nordic superman because he looks like a Scandinavian whose family has spent some generations in the Tropic of Cancer, or the masochistic denigrator of all western values, who on the one hand tells us that negroes are just the same as we are because they have white palms to their hands, and on the other proclaims that their primitive simplicity is so superior to us that he kisses their feet in an agony of self-abasement. What these neurotics really mean, of course, is that they feel the primitive is preferable to their own particular brand of exhausted decadence, and in this matter, for once, they are right.

Question : Can science make any real contribution to this question of a mixture of races, since scientific evidence derives chiefly from experiments on plants and animals?

Answer: Let us agree that insufficient evidence exists in the human case on which to found a proven theory. That is all the more reason for not undertaking an irrevocable experiment in respect of which no adequate evidence exists. The onus of proving the benefit of a change to miscegenation rests on those who propose it. And, as you say, insufficient evidence exists in the human case; though so far as a mixture has been tried in practice in the coloured populations of Brazil and South Africa, it does not encourage us to think that the extension of the experiment will lead to a solution of human ills at a higher level.

Plenty of evidence exists over centuries in the animal case, and it seems conclusive. Darwin himself linked the human and animal examples. He wrote: “Some writers who have not attended to natural history, have attempted to show that the force of inheritance has been much exaggerated. The breeders of animals would smile at such simplicity; and if they condescended to make any answer, might ask what would be the chance of winning a prize if two inferior animals were paired together.” After all, let us remember that – whether the practice of vivisection be desirable or not – much of the progress in medical science has come from experiments on animals. And we have in agriculture a far larger volume of evidence in the matter of breeding, accumulated from the experience of centuries into a fairly exact science. The results, in brief and very crude summary, are that in-breeding is dangerous over a long period, but can produce remarkable results. A moderate out-cross with a similar stock is the right corrective to in-breeding and is, in time, essential. A wide out-cross, however, is nearly always fatal; in fact, a cross between widely varying strains is in general principle always fatal.

The really decisive point is that if the race-crossing experiment be tried on a great scale, you cannot put it right again. Science seems entirely clear, from experiments which apply equally to human beings and animals, that the fatal step is irrevocable. Is it not the very depth of intellectual frivolity, and an immoral act, to interrupt the long and successful progress of human evolution and diversification, on the strength of a theory which – to understate the argument – has no evidence to support it?

Question : What are the practical effects of your views about race?

Answer: It is right to be proud of your race and to want to preserve it, just as it is right to be proud of your family and to want to preserve it. Race exists just as much as family exists, and in much the same way. It is simply a wider form of relationship. Of course, a lot of nonsense is talked about race as about most of the great truths of nature. It is exaggerated nonsense both ways.

I am a practical man and was brought up originally in the very practical trade of agriculture, in which my family was engaged for many generations. Therefore, I know the difference between the Ayrshire breed which specialises in milk production, and the Aberdeen Angus breed which specialises in beef production. If you tell us there is no such thing as difference in breed and that all these animals are just the same, all farmers will begin to laugh at you. And we should equally laugh at you if you lost a lot of time fiddling about in dusty archives to prove that they were both orginally descended from some buffalo in central Europe centuries ago, which had little beef on it and yielded even less milk because it was so busy escaping from the wild animals which were chasing it around.

What matters is that over a long period of time and for a variety of reasons, animals developed in this world with very different characteristics, animals which, above all, can do different things. And still more is this the position in the case of human beings, who for a very long time have had very different environments and experiences from one another in addition to being different breeds. The great third factor of education is added to heredity and environment in human affairs, and the consequent evolution of a culture increases rather than diminishes difference. It is unnecessary to remind ourselves of the vital fact that men have human intelligence and will, which have enabled them to progress much faster in their different directions – differentiation and diversity as the scientists call it.

Of course human beings are different from one another and have different capacities, and so have different races. If you don’t agree with that get into the ring with a professional boxer if you are a university professor, and get into the laboratory and try to do the professor’s work if you are a boxer. All these nonsensical theories about everyone being the same are quickly exploded by a little practice. Races are different from each other. That is the first basic fact to recognise.

Would things not be more peaceful if we were all one race?

Why should they be? The Europeans are all closely related, yet they have fought each other far too long. The escapists’ answer that things would be more peaceful if we were all the same is no more valid than the statement that things would be more peaceful if we were all dead. It is the answer of the death wish which is the chief characteristic of contemporary decadence. It is always possible to solve the problems of life by escaping from life.

Question : Are you against mixed marriages; if so why?

Answer: Certainly I am against mixed marriages, because I am proud of my own race and want to preserve it. We British are, of course, the product of a mixture of peoples, but always peoples very close to the original stock; never what the scientists call a “wide outbreeding” or a “real crossing”. When I express opposition to mixed marriages I am not referring to marriages within Europe but to marriages with quite different peoples. Not only do I think this process bad for us, but also bad in the wider interests of mankind as a whole. The plan of nature for thousands of years has been to develop different races with character of their own, and on the whole the plan has succeeded very well. All these diverse threads of humanity make up a brightly coloured scheme in this beautiful, interesting and fascinating world of endless future possibilities. Apart from not wanting the disappearance of my own race, I do not want all races eventually amalgamated in one dull, grey mess. And I notice that many people who desire this end are already in their own personalities precisely in that condition of grey mess. They appear to hate all life, vitality and brilliance in human existence, and want to reduce everything to their own sad condition. Let us rather all develop along our own lines and in our own civilisations, certainly respecting and helping one another but not mixing together in a way that would destroy identity and character.

Question : Would you seek to forbid mixed marriages by law?

Answer: No. It would be enough to let our people know the facts. Very few of them want mixed marriages. All the propaganda in favour of such ideas has had very little effect; the healthy instinct of the mass of the people is too strong. Tell our people the truth and revive the old pride in being British. That would be enough.
After all, for generations our people ran the biggest Empire of mixed races known to history. It never occurred to them to go in for mixed marriages except in isolated instances, until war-time propaganda (for obvious reasons) began to suggest that all people were the same and that any idea to the contrary was wicked.

To desire mixed marriages is not normal to the British. Nor is it natural among the Negroes. The leaders of the great negro communities like the Zulus are very averse to mixed marriages. They are proud of their stock and want to preserve it.

There are, of course, exceptions, but in general it is only the trash on each side which wants to mix. It is against nature. Healthy strains do not desire it, only the exhausted who seek some form of biological renewal-in this case by the wrong method, because the out-cross is too extreme.
Our Movement will awake a new social conscience. Also it will end the present compulsory mixing of the people by government policy which permits and even encourages a flood of coloured immigrants into areas already overcrowded by reason of the long neglect of housing. This will meet the problem without any forbidding of mixed marriages by law. The more healthy instincts we can awake in our people and the less we repress by law, the better.

Question : Can racial differences never be overcome intellectually and socially?

Answer: Yes, of course they can at a certain level of intelligence, education and character. The first gulf which is overcome by intelligence is what was called class. It ceases to exist already at a certain level of intelligence. The next is the gulf of generation. That, too, is overcome at a certain level of intelligence or of character. The third and last gulf to overcome-the hardest task-is the gulf between races. Of course, it is surmounted already by men of very great intelligence. For instance, few of the world’s leading scientists in discussing their own subjects, would be preoccupied by the thought that they came from different races. But having an intellectual discussion together is a very different thing from marrying each other. Also very few people have reached the level of such intellectual intercourse, and it will be at least some time before they do. If you now try to mix those who have very different ways and standards of life, you make trouble. You make such a row that you postpone the day when more people of different races will be able to get on well together on the social and intellectual planes.

Question : Would you describe yourselves as a racialist party?

Answer: No, because racialism is usually taken to mean that one race dominates others, and we believe that all races should be free to develop their own civilisations. We believe in the principle: “Live and let live”. We believe in preserving our own race, but not in persecuting other races. We shall preserve our own race by two methods: (a) by preventing immigration to this country which creates overcrowding and other social problems, (b) By publishing the facts which science reveals: that races have different characteristics, and that the mixture of extremes is detrimental to both races involved. If our people are given this knowledge, no laws on the subject will be necessary.

Question : Then you did not at any time agree with Nazi racial policies?

Answer: No, I did not agree and have expressed myself clearly on the point in public on a number of occasions. Our policy in this respect as in others was very different. The reason was that our problem and our aim were both different. Our problem was to conduct a great Empire consisting of many different races, and our aim was to hold it together and develop it. The Nazi Party’s declared policy was to unite all the German peoples in Europe, and their aim was to bring them together in an area adequate to their economic survival. Our policy on racial matters was therefore naturally different from their policy. And now that the war has broken up the Empire and made the conduct of what remains in the old way impossible, we do not change the British tradition in racial policy. We would discourage mixed marriages, but would not repress them by law. We can trust our people under the right guidance not to make them.
Our British contribution should always be balance and sanity in such matters. There was an element of hysteria in the Nazi approach to these things, which ended in disaster. The racial theme was exaggerated and pushed to extremes. (I speak now of peace time, and not of war atrocities which I deal with in another answer). An exaggerated and hysterical view of facts which are true in themselves can lead to an inhuman situation in which things are done which frustrate the very idea it was desired to promote. It is right to be proud of your own race and to try to preserve it, but not to lose all sense of balance and proportion on the subject.

Question : Do you consider your attitude on racial matters to be more in line with British tradition than that of the other parties?

Answer: Yes, because the British tradition is calmly and firmly to preserve our own race in practice, without falling into hysteria on the subject under the influence of any extreme or unproven theories.

It is interesting to note that the most respected leader of the Conservative Party – Mr. Disraeli – came very near on the other side to believing the same principle as the Nazis. He wrote: “All is race; there is no other truth”. If my recollection is correct, you will find it in his book Tancred. He was, of course, a Jew whose family came from Sicily; a foreign import if ever there was one. Some Jews, like the Nazis, have always taken an exaggerated view of this matter. Race is important, but it is not everything. Such Jews are right – as we are right – to discourage mixed marriages and to try to preserve their own kind. But I would not go so far as Disraeli in saying that “all is race”, strongly as I am against a mixture of races. It is indeed curious that the most revered of all Conservative leaders – who gave them practically every idea they possess, and whose now obsolete principles are still printed on the back of their membership card – should have taken this view of the racial question. It is becoming tragically comical now that the Conservatives are so busy importing Negroes and similar far-away strains from all over the place into Britain and compulsorily mixing them with our people. Mixed-up kids, the Tories. They will certainly leave us with a lot of problems to straighten out.

What is your attitude to the Jews?

Answer: I am not an anti-Semite. Anti-Semitism is hatred of all Jews on account of their race. I attack some Jews on account of what they do, but I never attack any Jew on account of his birth. I never attack any man on account of his race or religion. If a Jew does something against the interests of Britain or of Europe, he should be attacked like anyone else. He should not be attacked because he is a Jew, but equally he should not be immune from criticism because he is a Jew. This is a consistent principle from which I have never departed, before or since the war. I cannot, therefore, be called an anti-Semite, who is a man who attacks all Jews on account of race or religion. Our clear-cut principles differ from anti-Semitism for reasons which anyone can understand.
I have challenged opponents who have searched through all my speeches and writings to quote one case in which I have attacked Jews on account of race or religion, and they have failed to do so because no such quotation exists.

Question : How then has the idea got around that you have some special quarrel with the Jews?

Answer: The idea started in the early 1930’s for the following reason. The Jews were then engaged in a quarrel with the anti-Semitic German government. Hitler condemned all Jews because they were Jews, which we never have done. Jews in England feared that we would develop on the same lines. They were mistaken, because as stated in previous questions we were a British Movement faced with British problems, and therefore had totally different policies in many respects from a German government faced with German problems. Also we felt differently and developed differently in many ways. We were entirely a British Movement.
But some Jews in Britain feared that we should develop in this manner, and attacked us in many different ways ranging from financial pressure of every kind, victimisation of our members in industry, etc. to the point of some Jews attacking our members with razors in the streets. During the first two years of our Movement’s existence I never criticised Jews at all. In fact, I was quite unconscious of any such problem. But when these things happened, I hit back and denounced the perpetrators with some vigour. That is how the quarrel occurred.

Question : Did you accuse some Jews of trying to involve us in a war against Germany in the thirties, and again more recently, of trying to involve us in war over Suez?

Answer: Yes. On principle I have always opposed the sacrifice of British lives in any quarrel which is not vital to the life of Britain. It seemed to me that certain Jewish interests were attempting to drag us into war with Germany, not in a British quarrel but in a Jewish one, so I denounced them with even more vigour. I was not alone in this view; for instance the British ambassador to Berlin was reported as saying that the hostility to Germany did not represent the will of the British people, but was the work of Jews and enemies of the Nazis (see Documents on German Foreign Policy, D. vii. 200).
According to the same constant principle I attacked the financial power of some Jews in 1956 at the time of the Suez adventure in the following terms: “Britain has been dragged towards war for the second time in no British quarrel but a Jewish quarrel. For the second time we have been dragged towards war by international Jewish finance …. We are certainly not anti-Semites who are against all Jews just because they are Jews. No man, woman or child can help how they are born, and Jews are as much entitled to a fair deal as anyone else. But I am resolutely opposed to Jewish financial interests which involve Britain in alien quarrels, and I will expose them always when they act in a way contrary to the interests of my country. Union Movement is the only force in Britain which dares to stand up to them. I oppose them not on the grounds of race but on grounds of what they do. And then only when they do something which injures Britain or Europe.”

I will always attack any interest, Jew or Gentile, or any man, Englishman or Eskimo, who in my view attempts to drag Britain into unnecessary wars which will lose British lives in quarrels which are not our own. But throughout these events I have held to our principle of never attacking all Jews and thus becoming an anti-Semite. I criticised Jews only for quite specific and definite activities against our country’s interests.
The deep quarrel concerning the second World War is now over, because the issue is over. I retract nothing, because I believe I was right about the war. But I do not continue feuds or quarrels when the reasons for them have ceased to exist. Both sides have suffered, and both should forego revenge. It is ignoble, and can again bring disaster.

Question : Do you attack International Finance in general, or Jewish Finance in particular?

Answer: I attack international finance in general, not Jewish finance in particular. Before the war I attacked Jewish finance in particular, and, for reasons just given, again since the war at the time of Suez. These issues are now over. I attack the principles of international finance in general, not individuals of the various races and faiths who are engaged in the business. Our policy brings the power of international finance to an end, not by discriminating against Jews but by changing the system. Our policy once for all brings to an end the evil we combat-international finance. We fight bad principles. We do not persecute individuals.

Question : Will the laws affecting finance and other matters apply impartially to Jew and Gentile?

Answer: Yes, certainly. Let us be quite clear on this matter:
(1) We attack no man for what he is born, only for what he does.
(2) We are not anti-Semites, who think Jews are bound to do wrong because they are born Jews.
(3) We establish a system which brings to an end the power of international finance, and also terminates the internal corruption of the financial power.
(4) These laws will apply equally to Jew and Gentile. Those who do not obey the law will stand trial and will be subject to a jail sentence if they do not first leave the country; they will be “inside”-or outside. The wrongdoers of the present system will obviously leave because they will prefer pursuing their practices elsewhere to going to jail. No Jew should complain of this, unless he means to break the law which will apply to all. And no anti-Semite should complain because, to the extent his view will be true, this policy will solve his problem.
(5) We welcome the co-operation of all in Europe – whether Gentile or Jew – who will work genuinely for the construction of the new nation, according to the law and method of the new system.

This is a policy of clear principle and plain sense which will be supported by the British people, who rightly detest persecution. And it solves the problem because it establishes the new European system, which alone can free us from the dominion of the big Wall Street operators in the great international of finance. That is why – having established principles which we believe can save Britain and Europe, which are both just and decisive of the main problem – we treat any Jew like anyone else. These same principles can at last terminate to a controversy which has long vexed mankind, and in a manner which humanity can approve.

Mosley’s Views on anti-Semitism

More drivel is talked about the Jews and anti-Semitism than most subjects; both ways. The anti-Semitic view that all Jews are born wicked, or that all Jews should be the sacred objects of the system, seems to me equal nonsense. I am neither an anti-Semite, nor a sycophant of Semites. The attitude of our movement has been both consistent and intelligible throughout. We have never attacked any man on account of race or religion, and we never shall. But we attack any man, whatever his race or religion, who acts against the interests of Britain or Europe; particularly Britons who ought to know better than to serve alien interests. It is a straightforward attitude, which has been formed by clear principles.

Why then have we been involved in clashes with Jewish interests, and why are so many Jews violently against us? The answers again are clear. Before the war I believed that certain great Jewish interests were trying to involve us in war, not in a British, but in a Jewish quarrel: I still believe it. The reasons for our belief and for the Jewish action are equally intelligible. It is true that a considerable number of Jews were having a bad time in Germany, and it can also be argued that if a similar number of Englishmen had been having an equally bad time in Germany, there would have been a demand among many Englishmen for war against Germany. But it is beyond question from the evidence of the period, that powerful Jewish interests were trying to produce war between Britain and Germany. They made it their business to start a war in the Jewish interest. I, and my friends, made it our business to stop that war, in British interest. That led to a head-on clash, and I still think that we were right in doing our utmost to prevent that war.

The issues between us, and those Jews before the war, were therefore quite simple and clear. They wanted to make a war, and we wanted to stop it. That is the long and the short of the whole matter. There was no question of racial persecution on our part. That was entirely contrary to our principles, which I put on public record at the time. We British were running a great Empire composed of many different races, and any suggestion of racial persecution would have broken it up. For practical, as well as moral reasons, it would have been the gravest error for us to pursue a policy of any kind of racial persecution. The Germans had entirely different national problems, as well as in some respects, a different national character, which was derived from a diversity of historic experience.

Our duty then, was to hold together and develop a multi-racial Empire. Their task, was to bring together and unite, the German peoples of one race. Because we wanted entirely different things, there was no need whatever, for a clash between us. The man you were apt to quarrel with, is the man who wants the same thing you do. The closely related peoples of Britain and Germany were by every design of nature complementary powers; a sea power concerned with a great Empire, and a land power concerned with its own people in a continental land mass.

The crime of those who then ruled Europe on both sides was to permit the division of Europe, which resulted in fratricidal war. The division of Europe was the supreme crime. It is true that the British Government actually declared war in a quarrel which was none of our business. But the errors of the German Government certainly assisted that act, and the consequent catastrophe. The world combination of their enemies against them was facilitated by the precipitate arrogance of the “patience exhausted” line, which provides a striking and instructive contrast to the more adroit and successful policies of characters so different as, Bismarck and Khrushchev. But the fatal line-up against Germany was above all aided by their anti-Semitic policy, which enabled their main enemies, in the international finance world, to build up a front against them. These errors brought to nought, all of the great social achievements of the National Socialist movement.

We, always rejected the nonsensical doctrine that a whole people were born wicked, and doomed to sin and damnation from birth. This is the deep moral and intellectual error of anti-Semitism, which has for a long period impeded the whole movement of European renaissance; despite all its wide diversity of form, in different countries. Neither before, during, nor after the war, did we have anything to do with the doctrine of anti-Semitism. Our policy now remains the same. When after the war, at the time of Suez, some Jewish interests were trying to drag us to war, not in a British, but Jewish quarrel, we again attacked them. We have neither fear nor favour; we attack men not for what they are, but for what they do. When you see in some periods little or nothing about Jews, in our speeches or publications, it does not mean that we have changed our principles, but that at this time we see nothing to quarrel about. We only attack a Jew, a Gentile, an Englishman or an Eskimo, when he is doing something against the interests of Britain.

But, reply those possessed by a fuddled anti-Semitism, many Jews are doing something wrong all of the time. Quite right, we reply, and so are a number of Englishmen and members of other peoples of this island. The point is, that we are going to bring all of these damned rackets to an end, whoever does them. Those who run the rackets will find themselves either in jail, or out of the country, whoever they are. We shall do this by the fearless application of existing law, which could stop this corruption, if the government itself were not corrupt. If this is not enough, we shall ask the people to give us the power to make new laws. We are going to smash this corruption. That will solve the problem.

If the views of the anti-Semites were correct, then all Jews would be caught by these laws; so they have nothing to bellyache about. But, of course, their view is not true, because no people have what the Victorians called “a double dose of original sin”. The only effect of this foolish opinion is to let the big rogues go scot-free.

While anti-Semites are busy pursuing the little Jews, the big villains of all races who run international finance are sitting back and laughing at them in the City, or Wall Street, or in kindred haunts of the usury species. How many of them were ever caught by the Nazis ? On the contrary, the error of some Nazis played right into their hands, and gave them the weapons to defeat the European renaissance in every country. Now comes again, in a newer and higher form, the renaissance of the European man; this time not to lose, but to win.

Mosley’s Policies – An Outline

Oswald Mosley died 40 years ago and much in the world has changed since then. Fresh challenges have arisen and new dangers threaten the people of Europe. But much of what Mosley advocated in his lifetime is still relevant to the problems we face today – and the principles he stood for offer clear guidance towards making the 21st. century a Golden Age of prosperity, social justice and security.

Europe One Nation – Mosley advocated the policy of Europe One Nation stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This self-sufficient area would contain all the raw materials, food, technology and manufacturing capacity it needs to be free of chaotic world markets and exploitation by global finance. Only by adopting a leading role in what will become the most powerful civilisation the world has seen can we hope to free Britain and Europe from subordination to the major power blocs of America, China, India, the EU. This is no time to become a small country. The present European Union is corrupt, bureaucratic and unaccountable. It should be replaced by a United Europe that speaks with one voice on foreign policy, defence and essential economics – and leaves everything else to the autonomous choice of its member states.

Multiculturalism – Mosley believed that multiculturalism is not a viable basis for society – it robs people of all ethnic backgrounds of their heritage causing a culture clash and a lack of social cohesion. Britain and Europe cannot become welfare centres for all the economic migrants of the world and the open door policy must end. The most valuable foreign aid we can give the Third World is the incentivised voluntary return of migrants to build prosperity in their countries of origin using the education and work skills they have acquired whilst here.

No interference in other zones of influence – Global conflict between nations is frequently driven by financial rivalries. This can be avoided by the creation of ‘zones of influence’ where the richer superpowers such as the United States, China, India and a greater Europe (which will include Russia) each taking responsibility for assisting with the development and growth of smaller countries within their geographic spheres. The existing free-for-all created by the present system where workers migrate half way across the world in order to earn a living wage would be replaced by economic and social planning initiated and financed solely by the assisting superpower in each ‘zone of influence’.

State ownership and market capitalism have both failed – Mosley supported a third system of Industrial Democracy in which employees would become stakeholders in the companies they work for and all profits would go to them and them alone. Absentee shareholders would be paid off – speculation in shares is not investment but a form of gambling with share certificates issued years ago. So employees of all companies over a certain size would become co-owners and elect their own representatives to serve on Boards of Directors. This redistribution of the ownership of industry and commerce will promote greater incentives among the work force – their share of the profits will depend directly on their enterprise and initiative.

Both central and local banking must be drastically reformed – Real investment is too important to be left to bankers driven by the size of their monthly bonuses: Government must have stronger controls over the money supply and the regulation of banking procedure. The end of absentee share holding means the banking system will have a more important part to play as the only source of all new investment. Both personal and company finance should be viewed as a service to the community – not an opportunity for gangster bankers to get rich quick.

We need a New Model Parliament to get things done – Mosley said the geographic franchise is 100 years out of date and should be scrapped. Instead of voting for M.P.s on a local franchise he advocated the occupational or vocational franchise. Under this system everyone who worked in healthcare would choose from healthcare candidates, teachers for teaching candidates, transport workers for transport candidates, retail workers for retail candidates etc. In this way we would create a parliament of experts – elected by experts.

Income Tax should be abolished  – In his writings and speeches Oswald Mosley asserted that people should be taxed on what they spend and not on what they earn. So tax on essentials like fuel and clothing would be much lower than on luxury items like fast cars and foreign holidays in exotic locations. This would assist those on modest incomes by shifting the burden of taxation towards those in a better position to afford it. Zero income tax would also encourage saving. Most government income for public services would then be derived from taxation on company profits and luxury goods: spending money on essentials is a necessity – spending it on luxuries is optional.

No more products with built-in obsolescence – Many companies deliberately design and manufacture products with a limited working life before they need replacing. This is done to increase sales and boost their profits. But it also depletes natural resources, creates unnecessary pollution and offers customers poor value for money. In the campaign to combat climate change built-in obsolescence is environmentally unsustainable. We need to return to making products with pride and craftsmanship that are built to last. We should no longer accept consumer goods designed to be quickly replaced – or prematurely superseded by artificially created ‘fads and fashions’ backed by multi-million pound advertising campaigns.

Overpopulation is the real cause of climate change – Governments won’t focus on the real reason driving climate change and pollution: the massive increase in world population that our planet simply cannot sustain. Every human being brings with them a carbon footprint and the world’s population has more than doubled since as recently as 1970. So no matter how many tin cans and plastic bottles we recycle, it’s negated by the arrival of another 250,000 humans every day. People must be encouraged to accept smaller families to reduce world population to a level the planet can support without causing further global warming. For a start we should stop rewarding people for having more children with child benefits and tax reductions. Global capitalism will always oppose population control because more people mean more profits.

Treat the housing shortage like an operation of war – A spiralling population and years of uncontrolled immigration have made decent housing unaffordable for large numbers of our people. Mosley advocated treating the housing shortage as an operation of war – Government should intervene to finance and build more homes to rent at a cost ordinary people can afford. These extra homes will also help to bring down the cost of renting and buying in the private sector by the law of supply and demand. Old factory and office sites that are no longer needed should be used for these new homes as far as possible and no building on the Green Belt should be strictly enforced.


About the author

Oswald Mosley

Leave a Comment