Thursday, 31 October 2019

European Outlook # 56 November 2019

Another Three Years 

After three and a half years of bitter argument Boris Johnson has agreed a divorce settlement with the European Union. We were supposed to leave on October 31st but this has been extended by three months to allow for a general election on December 12th. Whatever happens we still have to negotiate a post-Brexit trade deal with Michel Barnier that could take another three years.

The Brexiteers will have to wait a little bit longer. They are fond of waving union flags and proclaiming their patriotism but a You Guv poll shows that 60% of them think that leaving the EU is more important than keeping the UK together. They are prepared to dump Northern Ireland and Scotland just to get their own way.


The latest 'false news' doing the rounds concerns the Lisbon Treaty 2020. This supposedly takes away our rebate, enforces the Euro, and makes it impossible to leave the EU. There is no such treaty! The actual Lisbon Treaty was signed in 2007 and came into force in 2009, it has no major amendments and makes no reference to "2020."


The good news is that we are still Europeans by blood, culture, history and geography, and there's nothing that the Brexiteers can do about it.  A nation adjacent to a continent of half a billion souls can't be truly independent.

Mussolini’s Last Interview


In March 1945 Benito Mussolini gave an interview to Magdalena Mollier. He said:

"Why do you come to interview me signora? I am dead. Look at what remains of me…Go for a swim in the lake, sunbath, enjoy your liberty and all the beautiful things that life reserves for you; don’t concern yourself with a ghost…This morning in my room a little swallow got trapped. It flew about, it flew desperately, until it fell exhausted on my bed; a little trembling creature. I caressed it and gradually, it calmed down; and in the end it dared to look at me. I went to the window, I opened my hand. It still stunned, did not understand immediately…then it opened its wings and, with a cry of joy, it flew to liberty…I will never forget that cry of joy. The only doors that will open for me are those of death. And it is also just. I have erred and I shall pay…I have never made a mistake following my instinct, but always when I obeyed reason…I do not blame anyone, I do not reproach anyone apart from myself. I am responsible, just as much for the things that I did well, that the world can never deny me, as for my weaknesses and my decline…My star has set. I work and make an effort, even though knowing that everything is a farce…My star has set, but I did not have the strength or the courage to retire in time…Have you ever seen a prudent, calculating dictator? They all become mad, they lose their equilibrium in the clouds, in quivering ambitions and obsessions. And it is actually that mad passion which brought them to where they are. A bravo borghese would never discomfort himself so much…There is no doubt that we are heading towards, in short, a Socialist époque…I see the salvation of Europe only in a socialist union of European states. A formidable block that will defend our civilization and existence against the red materialism of the Bolsheviks and for us more or less damaging experiments of the American type. Soon the German, French, Spanish, Italian etc. question will be of no interest; only Europe will be of interest. Everyone will realize it. If in time or not, who knows?"

Days later he spoke to the journalist Ivanoe Fossani. He said:

"If England, instead of sending the knights of St George to create discord and unquenchable hatreds, had fused Europe into a block of ideals and interests, our position would be unassailable…Before entering into the Pact of Steel I tried everything to reach an understanding with the other side…England didn’t want it. It wanted our neutrality and our ports at its disposal…But Italy’s geography meant it had to choose war, either with one side or the other…Our geographical position is outside the orbit of neutrality. Either accept war or become an encampment of enemy armies…The only socialism workable socialistically is corperativism, the point of confluence, equilibrium and justice for private interests in respect of the collective interests."

Quotations from Mussolini, A New Life by Nicholas Farrell, Phoenix 2003

Take Your Pick

If you are an old-fashioned British Nationalist you have plenty of parties to chose from. They range from right-wingers such as the Traditional Britain Group, to left-wing National Socialists like British Movement, and centrists like the National Liberal Party which combines Liberalism with Nationalism. Most of these groups would strongly object to being listed with the others, but they are all related to each other by history. The following groups, listed alphabetically, have active websites but there are probably a few more that can't afford to go online.

Britain First is led by Paul Golding. 
British Democratic Party is led by James Lewthwaite.
British Movement was founded by Colin Jordan and is led by Stephen Frost.
British National Party was founded by John Tyndall, rose and fell under Nick Griffin, and is currently led by Adam Walker.
British Unity is led by Nick Griffin.
European Knights Project is led by Jack Sen.
For Britain is led by Ann Marie Waters.
Knights Templar is connected to former BNP fundraiser Jim Dowson.
League of St George is led by "a president."
National Front is led by Tony Martin who is currently challenged by his deputy Jordan Pont.
National Liberal Party is led by a National Council which includes Graham Williamson.
Patria is led by Dr Andrew Emmerson.
Patriotic Alternative is led by Mark Collett.
Traditional Britain Group is led by Lord Sudeley.
Western Spring is led by Max Musson.

There are also several independent far-Right magazines and websites;
'Candour' founded by AK Chesterton in 1953 and edited by Colin Todd, who is currently detained.
'Heritage and Destiny' edited by Mark Cotterill.
'Blood and Honour' founded by Ian Stuart Donaldson in 1987. 
'White Voice' edited by veteran campaigner Eddy Morrison.

All of them believe in conspiracy theories, strict immigration controls, and national independence. Membership figures can't be verified because few of them are registered with the Electoral Commission. Attempts to unite them into a single movement have not succeeded. This is not due to politics but to their leaders who take themselves far too seriously. 

At its peak in the 1970s, the National Front had thousands of members, but they never achieved electoral success. The movement was practically destroyed just before the 1979 general election by Margaret Thatcher's brilliantly-timed statement that she understood people's fears of  being "swamped" by immigration.

A generation later the British National Party boasted two MEPs, over a hundred local councillors, and a seat on the London Assembly, but following Nick Griffin's disappointing performance on Question Time the movement collapsed. Today, the BNP is just another little party.

When the Brexit fiasco is finally settled we will need a sensible patriotic party with achievable political and economic objectives, led by a capable leader with his feet on the ground. No more fantasies about rounding up established immigrants and shipping them back where they came from. No more ridiculous conspiracy theories about the Americans blowing up the World Trade Centre, or Elvis Presley shooting JFK, and no more dreams of reviving the British Empire.

We have a shamefully unequal society, a desperate housing shortage and failing social services. We need an educational system to produce the scientists and technicians necessary to run a modern country. We need to acknowledge our place in the world and stop pretending to be a super power. And above all we need to stop the influx of economic refugees from the Third World.

But if you want to see the same old faces in the back room of a run-down pub and listen to a lot of paranoid nonsense, you can take your pick.

Distributism: An Idea Whose Time Has Come -  from Eddy Morrison's bulletin 'White Voice'.

The idea of distributism arose out of Catholicism in the 19th century. And in fact, the current Pope, Francis, has said:

 "Just as the commandment 'Thou shall not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say: 'thou shall not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills... A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. To all of this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which has taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits."

In the early 20th century it was generally seen as more of a right-wing than a left-wing idea, coming as it did from religion, opposing state ownership (the dominant socialist model) and promoting individuals, family and local community rather than the large-scale collective.



Then GK Chesterton ( pictured right) and Hilaire Belloc (pictured left) began to promote distributism as a political ideology in opposition to both capitalism and socialism, using the experience of the co-operative movement in northern England. Dorothy Day and the Catholic Workers Movement also adopted distributism, helping to build a larger following on the left.

There was a fantastic debate in 1928 between GK Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw, chaired by Hilaire Belloc. Remember that this was when Stalin was just consolidating his power within the Soviet Union. Bernard Shaw's point was that power needed to be concentrated at the top of the state, to counter the global power of capitalism, and bring freedom to working people. Chesterton's opinion was that a man like Stalin would abuse that concentration of power to benefit not the workers, but the people at the top of the communist party, and totally destroy any hope of democracy or freedom for ordinary people. Hindsight has proven Chesterton right, how do we do it?

We distribute power economically - so we set up and support family businesses, small farms, independent shops, craftspeople - butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, self-employment, credit unions, co-ops (yes the early right-wing distributists mentioned them specifically), smallholdings - all the kind of things that lowimpact.org has been promoting.

We use small businesses, and also start them, to provide a viable alternative to corporations and the state. Then the thinly-dispersed power units network to ensure everyone's safety and freedom. No business would be 'too big to fail', and require taxpayers' money to bail them out.
Distributism means that ordinary people control the means of production in a direct way, rather than through the state. If someone owns a few acres, or a machine, or their own skills and tools, then they decide what to do with them - not the state, and not a corporation. Corporate capitalism kills democracy, and state socialism kills entrepreneurship. But we can be greedy, and have both, along with stronger, safer communities, more interesting work, more interesting High Streets, unique localities and a more egalitarian and free society.

It's an imperfect model of course. Some businesses led themselves to being small - market gardens, small shops, window cleaners. But what about car or computer manufacture, airlines or oil? Well, let's start where we can.  Let's pledge never to buy vegetables from a supermarket again. Get a veg box delivered instead, or use your local market or small, independent shops, or even grow your own.  Let's start somewhere. GK Chesterton said that coal was an example of an industry in which power can't be distributed - it has to be run by corporations or the state. I disagree. Groups of miners can form co-operatives to run individual mines. Better still, they could close the mines and start a community renewables group instead, generating electricity from solar panels, wind turbines or micro-hydro. We can cross the difficult bridges when we come to them - but let's start with the things that can be provided by small companies.

However, distributism is an economic rather than a political idea, but we need politicians to be talking about ways to limit the size of businesses. We're far from that, and under the  current political system, any attempt at truly distributing wealth and power may result in a backlash, from the state or from the corporate empire - or more likely a combination of the two. So we have to start talking about how to get round that by introducing political change.

So - small businesses and talking to each other. I give you distributism.

European Outlook Comment: Ideas like Distributism and Social Credit are important but complex businesses such as aerospace and pharmaceuticals spend billions of pounds on research and development and couldn't be run as co-operatives. What we really need is ethical capitalism.

Ireland's Right to Unite - Oswald Mosley, from "Union" 15th May 1948

What interest has an Englishman in Ireland? The answer is that this Englishman proved his interest in Ireland and friendship for her people when as the youngest member of the British Parliament, he became Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee which opposed the operations of the Black and Tans and demanded peace with Ireland. We succeeded at any rate in bringing the Black and Tan inquiry to an end, but we were only partially successful in winning peace for Ireland, because the Government of the day dismembered Ireland. The original Tory demand was for a six county Ulster divided from Ireland, which would have subjected a 65% Catholic majority to the Protestant minority in these counties. The final "partition" of six counties still included predominately Catholic areas.

The rule which followed has been a disgrace to Britain. What a bitter irony for the British war time Prime Minister to advocate the union of Europe at the Hague and renunciate as his basic principle "freedom from fear of the policeman's knock" in a period when the "policeman's knock" is still the only means by which the Tory Party can maintain its rule in Ulster. For the six Counties are the first police state in Europe: they have always had arrest and imprisonment without trial.

Their equivalent of 18B was not confined to war time: it is their regular method of government in Northern Ireland. The rounding up of Catholics and holding them in prison without trial through the best years of their young manhood is a commonplace of this system. Freedom from "fear of the policeman's knock" indeed. We had arrest and imprisonment without trial in England during the war: we have it still in Ulster today.

For long past it has been my practice not to attack anyone who sincerely and strenuously opposes Communism. I do not do so now, but I suggest that Europe cannot be united on a basis of humbug and that every Englishman is put in that position by the Ulster situation, if he advocates freedom from imprisonment without trial in the Europe of the future. For my part I have always stood for the principle of no imprisonment without trial. If a nation so desires, it can always alter the law to suit the facts of a new age and the conditions of a new civilisation. But no nation has the moral right to imprison any subject who has kept the law and can be charged with no breach of the law.

If the Government acts in this way it is guilty of a frame-up and a racket from which no one can be safe. Where is freedom if you say to the individual: "What you did yesterday was perfectly legal and according to law, but we are going to imprison you for having done it", or alternatively: "you have not broken the law but we fear you may commit some offence in future, so we are going to imprison you to prevent it." Under such formulae of mis-Government no one is safe from gaol and all freedom is a mockery. That was the war time system in England and it is the present system in Ulster. Soviet Russia and Ulster share  the distinction of being the only two Police States in Europe to last for some 30 years. The first is run by International Communism and the second by the British Tory Party.


The Ulster disgrace must be brought to an end. Now is the time and opportunity to do it, all Western nations should soon have the chance to enter a wider Union of Europe. Admission to that wider community will bring a guarantee against the persecution of minorities which could not exist within the narrow hatreds of smaller societies. A minority of Protestants, of course, does exist in Northern Ireland. They have used their fear of persecution to secure from British Government the means to persecute an almost equal number of Catholics. Both the fear and the excuse will be removed on entry to the Union of Europe. The large community of the future can guarantee freedom from persecution to such minorities. No further reason or excuse exists for the separate life of the Ulster State. Therefore, Union Movement affirms the right of Ireland to unite and then, as a united people, to enter the wider Union of Europe.

Comments

Please use the facility at the end of this blog to leave your comments and see what others have to say. 

European Outlook

All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. We seek reform by legal means according to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19:

"We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people."

This blog will appear occasionally in support of Nation Revisited which is posted monthly. https://nationrevisited.blogspot.com





  

     






Monday, 30 September 2019

European Outlook # 55 October 2019

The Brexit Fiasco

T
he Supreme Court has ruled that Boris Johnson acted unlawfully by suspending Parliament. He insists that we are coming out of the EU on 31st October with or without a deal.


In
'the good old days' before we joined the Common Market in 1973, unemployment was rising, the miners were on strike, 14 demonstrators were killed in the Bloody Sunday massacre in Derry, 91 people were injured and 122 arrested in mainly black riots throughout London, and an IRA bomb killed 6 people at the Aldershot Barracks.


Thankfully, those days have gone but if we leave the EU we will effectively tear up the Good Friday Agreement that has kept the peace in Northern Ireland for twenty years. And we will provoke the Scots into another referendum on independence.




Dave Cameron bitterly regrets the way things have turned out. He picked a fight with the EU and called a referendum to please the militant right-wing of his party. He thought that people would vote 'remain', but he miscalculated. They used the referendum to protest against eight years of austerity following the financial crisis of 2008. They voted against immigration, and they voted to bring back 'the good old days' when Britannia ruled the waves and a pint of beer cost two shillings in the old money. The Brexiteers won by a narrow majority and we have been arguing about it ever since.


A possible solution would be to
join our neighbours, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein in the European Free Trade Association.  


All of the Brexiteer's arguments are false; we will not strike lucrative trade deals around the world, we will not stop immigration, and we will not "get our country back." We are members of the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation, Nato, and several other international bodies. We belong to them because no nation can survive in  isolation. The EU is our biggest export market and we need to import food and oil. If we leave the EU we will probably rejoin it within a few years. Economics will trump nostalgia. 


Remember the Liberty


On June 8th 1967, the USS Liberty, an unarmed, clearly marked communications vessel stationed in the Mediterranean Sea, was savagely attacked without warning in an unprovoked assault by Israeli jet fighters and torpedo boats. Thirty-four US servicemen died in the attack, and another 171 were wounded.


"Life" magazine, June 23rd, 1967 stated: "The Israelis had attacked because SHE had monitored orders proving that Israel had started the war." "Newsweek" on June 19th, 1967 stated the same thing.


The Liberty's mission was to monitor any fighting between Israel and its Arab neighbours which were then at war. Specifically the Liberty's task was to report any evidence picked up by its sophisticated electronic gear as to whether or not Israel was planning to use its nuclear arsenal  against the Arabs and also to warn Israel of possible Arab reistance, The Israelis were not going to have the United States interferring with their use of atomic weapons no matter what the consequences might be - and so it was ordered that the Liberty be put out of commission.


A group of White House Zionists had gathered to celebrate the initial victory of the Zionist blitzkrieg as its wehrmacht crushed the unprepared Arab defences. These Zionists were stung by reports from the USS Liberty, that its monitors had recorded all the Israeli attack orders. This proof of Israeli aggression had to be destroyed and the White House Zionists ordered that the USS Liberty be sunk immediately while the CIA prepared fake reports "proving" that it was sunk by Egyptian planes. The US paratroops would land in Cairo, kill Nasser and set up a provisional government for the Israelis. This plan was ruined because the Israelis could not sink the USS Liberty. Despite many hours gruelling attack  the heroic Americans fought on surrounded by their dead and saved their shi, but, instead of being rewarded for their heroism, the survivors were placed under oath of secrecy, transferred to other ships and the USS Liberty was renamed the USS Hyman Rickover and the very name of the ship disappeared from history. 





Many American officers demanded that Israel be punished for this vicious attack on an American ship which was in their waters to aid them. A military coup in Washington seemed imminent as the government tried to cover up the affair and two admirals were placed under arrest. Arthur Goldberg, a Zionist, and American ambassador to the United Nations, sent a frantic memo to President Lyndon Johnson; "An investigation of the Liberty affair will mean civil war as the military men and the working people will join and rise against us."


The Zionist cover up in Washington succeeded and King Hussein of Jordan said: "We were not defeated by Moshe Dyan on the borders. We were defeated by Goldberg in New York."


Why did not the national press publish the full account of the USS Liberty affair? Because the national press in Britain is under the control of the political Zionists who wish to keep us in the dark concerning their intentions while they destroy us.


Despite the murder of thirty-four American fighting men, the system which governs the USA has continued to give roughly two billion dollars a year in military aid to the very ones who butchered their men in an unprovoked act of blatant, premeditated aggression.


Justice, if there is now any, demands that the Israeli murderers be brought to justice and that those members of the US Government who have sided and abetted this outrage by their silence and complicity, be punished,


Now read on - from the armed forces JOURNAL international January 1980......


NEW EVIDENCE SHOWS ISRAEL'S ATTACK ON USS LIBERTY FAR MORE VICIOUS THAN THOUGHT


Startling new evidence about the 1967 Israeli attack on the American naval vessel, the USS Liberty, has been brought to light in a just-released Random House book, ASSAULT ON THE LIBERTY, by James M Ennes, Jr.


Ennes was on the bridge of the LIBERTY during much of the assault. He was commissioned an ensign in 1962, and from 1965 until he retired from the Navy, he was assigned to cryptologic duties.


The LIBERTY, which was attacked in international waters off the Sinai peninsular, was initially attacked by Israeli high performance jets. Those attacks were followed by torpedo boats armed to kill. The attack lasted for two hours, killing 34 Americans and wounding 171 others. When the LIBERTY failed to sink quickly, Israeli forces machine-gunned her life rafts and sent in troop-carrying helicopters.


Once the US' Sixth Fleet rescue aircraft were on their way, the Israelis quickly apologized, claiming that her forces had mistaken the ship for an Egyptian freighter. The US government quietly accepted the excuse. But Ennes produces strong evidence to support the following new allegations:


* Pre-attack reconnaissance was more intense than the government has admitted: at least 13 orbits of the ship were made were made by reconnaissance aircraft before the attack, some only 200 feet overhead. (The government claims that only three significant reconnaissance flights were made, and that only one aircraft came within five miles of the ship).


* The identification of the ship was known to the Israeli War Room several hours before the attack, and its position plotted on a chart. (An Israeli aircraft was heard before the attack informing its headquarters by radio that the ship flew an American flag. Bowing to the Israeli request to keep circumstances of the attack secret, the American government states publicly that the LIBERTY was not identified until after the attack).


* Three days before the attack, USS LIBERTY requested the Sixth Fleet to send an armed destroyer to provide protection against attack. (The Sixth Fleet commander assured  the LIBERTY that she was operating in a safe area, promising immediate support in the "unlikekly" event it might be needed - and denying the ship's request for special protection).


* Although the Sixth Fleet promised air protection within 10 minutes of any request, the US Navy failed to protect the ship during the attack. (The LIBERTY pleaded over the radio for assistance for more than two hours, but the Sixth Fleet - because of White House intervention and the Sixth Fleet unpreparedness - failed to come to her aid).


* Israel's explanation for the attack contradicts known facts and evidence, but was accepted without question by the American government. (Israel claims that the LIBERTY was mistaken for the small Egyptian freighter El Ariah, even though Israel and the US were both aware that El Ariah was far from the area. Israel also claims that the attack occurred because Israeli motor torpedo boats falsely identified LIBERTY as an enemy vessel after erroneously tracking the ship by radar at 30 knots - although she was only moving at five knots - and subsequently called in the air strike. The strike, which in fact was called before the torpedo boats were within radar range of the LIBERTY, was organized by forces ashore).


* A cover-up of the circumstances of the attack was provided by President Johnson. (The President was concerned with negotiating a peace treaty in the Middle East and could ill afford a confrontation with Israel; he thus accepted Israel's flimsy explanation, failed to investigate the attack properly, and ordered a cover-up of the circumstances that were already known).


* LIBERTY sailors were forbidden any unsupervised contact with the press, even after the "news lid" was lifted. ( Crewmen were not allowed to talk with reporters until after a Court of Inquiry report was published. Even then, however, sailors were permitted to repeat only the official version of the attack and only in the same words the Court had used. The few interviews that were authorized were carefully supervised and rehearsed).


* Testimony to the Court of Inquiry revealed that the attack was probably deliberate, but all such evidence was withheld from the public. (LIBERTY officers and crewmen told the Court Of Inquiry of extensive low-level pre-attack reconnaissance, of the ship's American flag clearly displayed and of a prolonged and carefully orchestrated attack. All such details were ignored or classified Top Secret in order to support the government's contention that the attack was a mistake).


* The American public was given a distorted version of the attack. (The public was told that the air attack lasted five or six minutes: the ship's officers recall and testified that it lasted 20 or 25 minutes. The US claims that the attack ended with the torpedo explosion, while in fact torpedo boats fired on the ship's life rafts 40 minutes after the explosion - and fired on the crew in the interim. The fact that Israeli forces repeatedly used napalm against the crew was never made known. Moreover, although the government claims that the ship was never in danger of sinking, officers recall that "scuttle ship," demolish ship" and "prepare to abandon ship" orders were given).


Notes: I don't know who wrote this article but it was published by The Board of Anglo-Saxon Celtic Deputies, PO Box 112, London N22. 


Two More Parties


Mark Collett, the former leader of the Young BNP and author of 'The Fall of Western Man', has launched a new party called Patriotic Alternative. The PA mission statement reads: "We unashamedly stand for the rights of the indigenous people of these islands and seek to pursue self determination through peaceful community campaigning. All peoples of the world have a right to exist - including those of European descent."


Veteran nationalist Eddy Morrison plans to register his latest party with the Electoral Commission early next year. It's called the National Party of Great Britain (NPGB) and it has an extensive 23 point policy statement. 


Both men are sincere but with policies the same as the National Front
they can only expect similar results. The political parties have decided their policies on the dominant issue of Brexit. The Tories are Leavers, the Labour Party want another referendum, and the Lib-Dems are Remainers. The smaller parties will find it hard to make an impression.


Brexit will be resolved, one way or another, and immigration is being addressed. The priorities are housing, education, heath, and law and order. We know where Mark Collett and Eddy Morrison stand on immigration but they need to convince us that they care about wider issues.


The Truth About Immigration




The Brexiteers have convinced the public that the EU is the cause of mass migration to the UK. But the truth is that the majority of our immigrants come from outside Europe.
According to Sky:

Net migration from the European Union has fallen to its lowest level in six years, but migration from outside the EU is at its highest level since 2004, new figures show. The Office for National Statistics said net migration of non-EU nationals in the year to June was 248,000 - the highest total in 14 years. Meanwhile, net migration of EU nationals was 74,000 - the lowest since 2012. That meant the UK's population rose by 23,000 due to immigration with 49,000 British nationals emigrating, The total is down from record levels of around a third of a million two years ago but still well above the government's target of below 100,000.

If one rejects conspiracy theories and looks at the facts, there is no contradiction in campaigning to stay in the EU while objecting to non-European immigration. We will probably need a certain level of immigration in years to come because of our low birthrate, but we must be more selective.



European Outlook

All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. We seek reform by legal means according to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19:


"We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people."


This blog will appear occasionally in support of Nation Revisited which is posted monthly. https://nationrevisited.blogspot.com








Friday, 30 November 2018

European Outlook # 54, December 2018

Doing our Duty



At a recent meeting of Union Movement old comrades we lamented the lack of a political party to propagate our views. Labour has deserted the working class, the Tories have gone from bad to worse, the Lib-Dems are leaderless, and the far-right parties are delusional. A comrade from South Wales summed up the situation:

"I am a working man who wants a fair deal for the British people, but I detest these extremists with their mad theories and their total ignorance of economics, we should make it perfectly clear that we have nothing to do with them."

H
e is right. The great economic issues will only be settled by international agreement, they cannot be resolved by shouting abuse at people, but reasonable men and women can be persuaded by argument and we must do our best to convert them.

We live in a changing world.
We have seen the demise of the Soviet Union and the collapse of White rule in South Africa. Now, we are witnessing a trade war between China and the US. Britain is leaving the EU but the rest of the Continent is coming together. Mass migration is a global problem, and Keynesian economics is making a comeback. The world is sorting itself out along geopolitical lines, but whatever happens we must do our duty. Oswald Spengler was a confirmed pessimist but he summed up our situation in 'Man and Technics':

"We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door at Pompeii, who during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honourable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man."  

Julius Evola - Revolt Against the Modern World



It is necessary to distinguish between nationality and nationalism. The Middle Ages knew nationalities but not nationalisms. Nationality is a natural factor that encompasses a certain group of common elementary characteristics that are retained both in the hierarchical differentiation and in the hierarchical participation, which they do not oppose. Therefore, during the Middle Ages, castes, social bodies and orders were articulated within various nationalities, and while the types of the warrior, noble, merchant, and artisan conformed to the characteristics of this or that nation, these articulations represented at the same time wider, international units. Hence, the possibility for the members of the same caste who came from different nations to understand each other better than the members of different castes within the same nation.

Modern nationalism represents in regard to this, a movement in the opposite direction. Modern nationalism is not based on a natural unity, but on an artificial and centralizing one. The need for this type of unity was increasingly felt at the same time as the natural and healthy sense of nationality was lost as individuals approached the state of pure quantity, of being merely the masses, after every authentic tradition and qualitative articulation was destroyed. Nationalism acts upon these masses through myths and suggestions that are likely to galvanize them, awaken elementary instincts in them, flatter them with the perspectives and fancies of supremacy, exclusivism, and power. Regardless of its myths, the substance of modern nationalism is not an ethos but a demos, and its prototype always remains the plebian one produced by the French Revolution.

This is why nationalism has a double face. It accentuates and elevates to the state of absolute value a particularistic principle; therefore, the possibilities of mutual understanding and cooperation between nations are reduced to a bare minimum, without even considering the forms of levelling guaranteed by modern civilization. What seems to continue here is the same tendency through which the arising of national states correspond to the disintegration of the European ecumene. It is well known that in Europe during the nineteenth century, nationalism was synonymous with revolution and acted in the precise sense of a dislocation of the surviving supernational organisms and a weakening of the political of 'legitimate' sovereignty in the traditional sense of the word. Yet, when considering the relationships between the whole and the single individual as personality, what emerges in nationalism is an opposite aspect, namely, the cumulative and collectivizing element. In the context of modern nationalism what emerges id the previously mentioned inversion; the nation, the homeland, becomes the primary element in terms of being a self-subsisting entity that requires from the individual belonging to it an unconditional dedication as if it were a moral and not merely a natural and "political" entity. Even culture stops being the support for the formation and elevation of the person and becomes essentially relevant only by virtue of its national character. Thus in the most radical forms of nationalism, the liberal ideal and the idea of "neutral culture" undergo a crisis and are regarded with suspicion, though from the opposite perspective to the one in which liberalism and the neutral, secular, and apolitical culture appeared as a degeneration or as a crumbling in comparison to previous organic civilizations.

Even when nationalism speaks of "tradition" it has nothing to do with what used to go by that name in ancient civilizations; it is rather a myth or fictitious continuity based on a minimum common denominator that consists in the mere belonging to a given group. Through the concept of "tradition," nationalism aims at consolidating a collective dimension by placing behind the individual the mythical, deified, and collectivized unity of all those who preceded him. In this sense, Chesterton was right to call this type of tradition "the democracy of the dead." Here the dimension of transcendence, or what is superior in history, is totally lacking.

Climate Change 



As the Secretary-General has said, climate change continues to move faster than our efforts to address it. Amid record-breaking temperatures in parts of the world, and with the past two decades the warmest on record, the Secretary-General delivered a major address at UN headquarters on 10th September. Speaking to an audience of young people, business leaders, journalists and diplomats on the eve of the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco and the annual gathering of world leaders for the opening of the new General Assembly session in New York, he outlined the danger, highlighted solutions, and emphasized the need for great ambition and strong leadership in addressing what he has called "the defining threat of our time." (UN report)

But President Donald Trump doubts that Climate Change is man-made, so he will carry on burning coal and oil and polluting the atmosphere. This is good news for coal miners and oil workers but bad news for the rest of us.

It took years of health education to persuade us that tobacco is dangerous, now we are having the same trouble with Global Warming. Donald Trump is promoting fossil fuels regardless of the consequences. The long-term effects of air pollution include melting polar ice caps and rising sea levels, but the immediate danger is to our lungs. If Donald Trump had grown up in London instead of New York he would remember the Great Smog of 1952 that killed thousands of people. The government of the day tried to cover it up but public health concerns forced the introduction of the Clean Air Act in 1956. 

Donald Trump's denial of climate change is political, not scientific. He promised the coal miners that he would save their jobs. America has got massive coal and shale oil deposits, and the Paris Climate Change Accords are exactly the type of international cooperation that is anathema to the Republicans. The USA will not honour treaties made in Paris by foreigners.

The world's atmosphere is being contaminated in the name of narrow self-interest and short-term advantage. The Americans lead the world in technology but they are using nineteenth-century methods to generate power. President Trump wants to 'make America great again' but first he must earn the respect of the world by abandoning his protectionist policies.

Articles of Faith

When Henry V111 broke away from the Church of Rome he needed a set of rules to govern the Church of England. The Thirty-Nine Articles were issued in 1571 but they have been updated over the years to include such things as abortion and homosexuality. Like every other human institution, the Church of England is divided into factions, ranging from traditionalists that are hardly any different from Roman Catholics to Evangelicals who are more like Baptists. In other words, it's a 'Broad Church', and as such it's a model for most political parties.



Matters of dogma are set in stone but the Church of England prides itself on its diversity. An Anglican vicar would have to do something spectacular to get unfrocked. Being caught pants down with the Bishop's wife, or a choirboy, would probably be pardoned, after all, we are all sinners, but questioning the Resurrection is not allowed; not even in the most progressive of parishes. 

There was a time when the Tory Party stood for King and Country. It existed to 'conserve' the existing system and protect the rights of landowners. Some Tories were decent men who looked after their tenants and labourers, but others were little more than slave masters. This political philosophy lasted until recent times but it has been so severely disrupted that nobody knows what the modern Tory Party stands for.

The Labour Party has also changed but it remains the party of the working class. There's a marked difference between the militant young supporters of Jeremy Corbyn and the mature parliamentary party, but, at the moment, they are keeping their act together. 

The Lib Dems are handicapped by our blatantly unfair electoral system, and by the system of patronage. Big business supports the Tory Party, and the Trade Unions support the Labour Party, but the Lib Dems have to rely on their own members.

The far-right parties have captured the anti-immigration vote throughout Europe but our first-past-the-post electoral system works against them.    

The time has come for us to review our 'Articles of Faith'. The Germans have a booming economy, an efficient health service and a world-class educational system. They don't have a fleet of nuclear submarines or two of the world's most expensive aircraft carriers, but they don't seem to mind.

There's nothing wrong with taking a pride in one's country but we should beware of petty nationalism. We must forget about untried economic systems and practice sound commerce moderated by good government, and we must forget about pretending to be a world power.

The IMF and the WTO

The Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944 established the International Monetary Fund in Washington DC. It tied the major currencies of the world to the US Dollar which was based on gold. And it gave loans to the shattered nations, including the UK which received $4.4 billion. This system backed the economies of the West until 1972 when America ran out of money fighting the Vietnam War and the Middle East oil crisis made the whole system untenable. Christine Lagarde (pictured) is the chairwoman of the IMF.



The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was founded in 1947 and became the World Trade Organisation in 1994. When we leave the EU we will probably operate under the rules of the WTO, and accept the authority of its Disputes Resolution Panel, based in Geneva.

We joined the old Common Market under Ted Heath in 1973. In 1976 we were forced to devalue the pound and seek an emergency loan of $3.9 billion from the IMF. In 1992 we crashed out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. But our standard of living improved steadily until the global financial crisis of 2008. This crippled our banking system and forced the government to introduce austerity measures that are still in force. At the same time, our old manufacturing industries declined and disgruntled workers turned against the government. The result was the referendum of 2016 when 52% of the people voted to leave the European Union, and 48% voted to remain. 

The far-right saw the Bretton Woods Agreement as a conspiracy against the British Empire. It's true that we didn't have to accept the American loan and its conditions. We could have turned to the Soviet Union but there was no way that we could have survived on our own, We were bankrupt after six years of war.

We could have
turned to the Commonwealth instead of joining the Common Market, but we tried that at the Ottowa Conference in 1932 when we attempted to set up a system of Imperial Preference. It never really got going because the Canadians and the Australians wanted to develop their own industries and seek their own markets. By 1972 the Canadian economy was linked to the United States and the Australians were striking massive trade deals with the Japanese. The Commonwealth solution was too late in 1932, too late in 1972, and definitely too late in 2018.

The pound is more than a national currency it's also a symbol of British sovereignty. But the International Monetary Fund (IMF) doesn't measure the wealth of nations in terms of national currencies but in Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), a unit of account based on a basket of currencies; the US Dollar, the Euro, the Chinese Renminbi, the Japanese Yen, and the British Pound. We may celebrate 'getting our country back' but the real decisions will continue to be made in Washington DC and Geneva. By leaving the EU and joining the WTO, we are simply exchanging one bureaucracy for another. 

Treason

It's sad to hear accusations of treason levelled against innocent people. William Joyce was technically a traitor because he broadcasted for the enemy in time of war. He helped the British Army in Ireland as a boy, and he campaigned for patriotic causes as a young man, but he made the fatal mistake of going to Germany in 1939. Here is his statement.



I take this opportunity of making a preliminary statement concerning the motives which led me to come to Germany and to broadcast to Britain over the German radio service. I was actuated not by the desire for personal gain, material or otherwise, but solely by political conviction. I was brought up as an extreme Conservative with strong imperialist ideas, but very early in my career, namely in 1923, became attracted to fascism and subsequently to National Socialism. Between the years 1923 and 1939 I pursued vigorous political activities in England, at times as a Conservative but mainly as a Fascist or National Socialist. In the period immediately before this war began I was profoundly discontented with the policies pursued by British governments, first because I felt they would lead to the eventual disruption of the British Empire, and secondly because I thought the existing economic system entirely inadequate for the needs of the times. I was greatly impressed by the constructive work which Hitler had done for Germany and was of the opinion that throughout Europe as also in Britain there must come a reform on the lines of National Socialist doctrine, although I did not suppose that every aspect of National Socialism as advocated in Germany would be accepted by the British people.

One of my dominant beliefs was that a war between Britain and Germany would be a tragedy and the effects of which Britain and the British Empire would not survive, and I considered that a grossly disproportionate influence was exerted on British policy by the Jews, who had their reasons for hating National Socialist Germany. When in August 1939, the final crisis emerged I felt that the question of Danzig offered no just cause for a world war. As by reason of my opinions I was not conscientiously disposed to fight for Britain against Germany. I decided to leave the country since I did not wish to play the part of a conscientious objector, and since I supposed that in Germany I should have the opportunity to express and propagate views the expression of which would be forbidden in Britain in time of war. Realizing, however, that at this critical juncture I had declined to serve Britain, I drew the logical conclusion that I should have no moral right to return to that country of my own free will and that it would be best to apply for German citizenship and make my permanent home in Germany. Nevertheless, it remained my undeviating purpose to attempt as best I could to bring about a reconciliation or at least an understanding between the two countries. After Russia and the United States had entered the war such an agreement appeared to be no less desirable than before for, although it seemed probable that with these powerful allies Britain would succeed in defeating Germany, I considered that the price which would ultimately have to be paid for this help would be far higher than the price involved in a settlement with Germany.

This belief was strengthened from month to month as the power of Russia grew, and during the later stages of the war I became certain that Britain, even though capable of gaining a military triumph over the Germans, would in that event be confronted with a situation far more dangerous and complicated than that which existed in August 1939; and thus until the very last moment I clung to my hope of an Anglo-German understanding, although I could see that the prospects thereof were small. I know that I have been denounced as a traitor and I resent the accusation as I conceived myself to be guilty of no underhand or deceitful act against Britain, although I am also able to understand the resentment that my broadcasts have in many quarters. Whatever opinion may be formed at the present time with regard to my conduct, I submit that the final judgement cannot be properly passed until it is seen whether Britain can win the peace. Finally, I should like to stress the fact that in coming to Germany and in working for the German radio system my wife was powerfully influenced by me. She protests to the contrary but I am sure that if I had not taken this step, she would not have taken it either. This statement has been read over to me, and it is true. William Joyce May 31, 1945.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people."
 

Nation Revisited
Our sister blog is posted on - https://nationrevisited.blogspot.com 





    







  

5w