Review of British Politics and Jewish Interventions John Tyndall: Eleventh Hour: Call for British Rebirth
Interesting mainly for its thoroughgoing alternative position, December 25, 2010
** LONG REVIEW WARNING!**
John Tyndall 1934-2005 The Eleventh Hour 1988, revised 1998 (it's unclear which parts are new).
About 550 pages; indexed fairly thoroughly, though concepts are hard to relocate—Tyndall several times describes his attitude to ordinary voters, but I couldn't relocate these passages.
This was largely written in 1986 during (I think) a six month gaol sentence for 'incitement to racial hatred'; or for telling the truth—Ronald Rickcord says this in the introduction. He, with John Morse, Tony Lecomber, and Nick Griffin are all thanked for assisting with this book. Possibly they supplied Tyndall with books, in his cell; Tyndall gives shortish extracts from Correlli Barnett, Barry Domvile, David Irving, Basil Liddell-Hart, Oswald Mosley, Carroll Quigley and lesser-known writers—Ludovici, John Terraine, Peter Peel.
This is a combination of autobiography, British and world history, and the record of small parties and their activities.
The autobiographical side is not enormously detailed: how Tyndall funded himself, for example, is not clear, though this is partly to protect other people, in an atmosphere where free speech is deliberately opposed by the authorities. His daughter, like Eysenck's kids, seems to have had to change her name. When young he did national service in Germany and was unimpressed by the officers; but he read up on German and Russian history. He visited Moscow and noted the couriers were mostly Jewish.
Tyndall is Britain-centred and I think over-emphasises the Empire, which in my view was not as immense as Britons liked to think. (Almost all the western hemisphere was American; much of northern Asia was Russian; the French had a huge empire; and so on). Perhaps he overstates decline, as a result. He's very serious about race, and deplored the American Revolution, and hoped for restitution of the Dominions—Canada, ANZ, and south Africa. He thinks whites will have to return to Africa. Tyndall has quite a long view of history: he deplores the Boer War; he deplores the abandonment of the Anglo-Japanese agreements before the First World War.
Naturally he takes wars with Germany very seriously: these sections are most contrary to present mass opinion. Like many advanced thinkers, Tyndall deplored the First World War. He also deplores the Second, which he regards as partly related to Germany's economic policy. Tyndall favoured allowing Germany to defeat Stalin. And Tyndall lists the various bits of lying and deceit (lies about Germany, invasion of Poland as an excuse, alliance with USSR as a crime, Churchill not shown as the pathetic pawn he was in Roosevelt's hands etc.)
Another unconventional position is his discussion on paper money, notably of course the Rothschilds and others. Obviously this is a taboo topic—I doubt the Financial Times or Wall Street Journal has ever had pieces on the insane secret profits of printers of money and their modern electronic equivalents.
His history of ideas sections are of course contrary to mass opinion. They deal with wide ranges of topics: democracy (Athens, 18th century, assumption of interparty strife); liberalism (putting personal gains before a nation); tariffs; balance of power (and why this was disastrous for Britain after about 1900); race and territory (he has a more or less Darwinian outlook, rather than the statistical sociobiological view); verbal tricks, such as defining the end-points of 'extremism'.
Tyndall outlines the various mini-parties, beginning (perhaps) with the League of Empire Loyalists, a pressure group within the Tories, which must have started after 1948-ish. A K Chesterton was a member. Tyndall makes it clear that all these groups were non-violent; his claim is that all the attributions of violence are phoney. He makes many comments on new parties: leaders remain while the faint-hearts leave; there are several types of disruptors; the general public aren't to blame for their inertia. Or not entirely. Tyndall doesn't go into much detail, possibly because leafletting and canvassing aren't very exciting. Some of his information is on the anti-free speech movement: for example a bookshop was started in 1989 in Welling, Kent, but closed in a few years by a combination of thugs and the Labour, Tory, and Lib Dem parties. There were agents provocateurs: Combat 18, for example, a fake group set up probably by the 'intelligence' 'services'. John Kingsley Read was another variety of fraud.
The last-but-one chapter is 'The British National Party' which summarises his view of it up to 1998. Since then, that party has expanded considerably; the main internal split is on the issue of immigrants who have been in Britain for a few decades.
This book is as far as I know unique in its overview and grasp of the period; I recommend it for anyone wanting to understand the issues. You'll learn far more than is possible from the routine agenda-skewed opposition publications. It's not bullet-pointed or summarised, and has to be treated as a long read. I don't think it's a pioneeringly first-rate work, in the sense of rearranging facts about the world into a convincing new vision. But in the face of modern censorship, it's an important book.
============================
Some general points: --
* Tyndall was keen on physical fitness—rather like the Duke of Edinburgh, except that he practised it himself. Tyndall dislikes poor posture and general laziness and unfocussed slacking. This of course is fair enough, and most opponents of 'decadence' pay lip service to this sort of thing. Tyndall extends this puritanism to dislike of homosexuality and pop music, which however, don't seem to me very politically important.
* Tyndall isn't very good on economic causation and money power. As an example, he wonders how Zionism is able to influence so many people. He doesn't investigate bribery and purchase as in for example Bilderberg. One politician, or for that matter police chiefs or judges or editors or TV producers, bribed, or appointed because of their views, can have vast effects. This of course has to be secret, provided there's any remaining power of public opinion.
* Tyndall I think isn't good on the macro-economics of states either. He thinks India was a drain on Britain (in contrast with the 'imperialist' idea). In effect, India may have been a sort of quango for otherwise unemployable military or engineering types. I don't know if this is true, but Tyndall doesn't produce evidence. Similarly with south Africa: he registers the huge campaign against apartheid, but doesn't seem to notice that the mineral wealth ended up (I believe) controlled by jews while the general population go to hell. Another example is the fall of the Soviet Union, which Tyndall, like most people, thinks was a genuine revolution. In fact, surely the case must be that the assets must have been legally tied up with some care, mostly by Jewish 'oligarchs'.
Tyndall's anti-unbacked-money comments aren't quantified. No doubt the issue (pun intended) is important, but just how important remains unclear.
* His book was written during a long period of 'Conservative' power, and so is a useful counterweight to the present, when we've had 'new Labour' for about ten years. However, Tyndall is useful in reminding the reader how the Tories' cowardice in tackling anti-free speech thugs helped the country get into a mess. Tyndall discusses general elections from 1974 through to 1997 (though 1992 is missing for some reason). For example, 1979 was a high point for the National Front, in the sense that 301 constituencies were fought, nearly half the total.
* Tyndall is quite good on laws—for example, the way the Public Order Act of 1936 was misused (pages 182-186). Obviously, in an era of general deceit, there's no option but to read the texts of laws with great care, since obviously the subtext will be hidden where possible.
* His book predates 9/11, which may be counted a start-date to anti-Muslim struggles. Islam is barely mentioned, except when discussing Arabs and the Middle East. Tyndall's book predates the secret agreement of 2000/1 when 'Labour' decided to flood as many immigrants in as possible without any democratic mandate. And it predates the spin doctor era of Blair.
* Tyndall discusses whether America is an empire (and whether it was ever seriously separate from Russia). However he does not integrate the views of such people as Chomsky and Pilger: are corrupt third world countries that way because of the people, or because the CIA and corporations have made them that way, through wars, assassinations, and so on? There are severe limits to Chomsky and Pilger—notably their ignorance of Zionist influence, and their lack of technical knowledge of everything from populations and their food to raw materials and technological needs. But Tyndall (and anyone serious) should take their opinions into account.