Thursday, 31 May 2018

European Outlook # 50 June 2018

International trade is important but Mosley's vision of 'Europe a Nation' went far beyond the single market and the customs union. The following article first appeared in the post-war Mosley Newsletter.  

Union of Europe by Oswald Mosley



We were divided and we are conquered. That is the tragic epitaph of two war generations. Those words alone should adorn the grave of the youth of Europe. That was the fate of my generation in 1914 and that was the doom of a new generation of young soldiers in 1939. The youth of Europe shed the blood of their own family, and the jackals of the world grew fat. Those who fought are in the position of the conquered, whatever their country. Those who did not fight, but merely profited, alone are victorious.

What, then, was the truth concerning the National Socialist or Fascist movements, before the war? Our fault was exactly the opposite of that suggested against us. How often in politics is that the fact? How rarely are the people permitted to know anything except the reverse of the truth? It was suggested that we might set the interests of other countries before our own: that was an absurd lie. In reality, we were all too National - too narrowly concentrated upon securing the interests of our own nations. That was the true fault of all real National Socialists or Fascist Movements whether in Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Italy. So far from being willing to serve each other as 'Fifth Columns' in the event of a clash between states, our political ideology and propaganda were far too Nationalistic even to mould the minds of men in a new sense of European kinship and solidarity which might have avoided disaster by universal consent. So far from fighting for other countries in a war, we none of us argued with sufficient force in favour of that new sense of European Union which modern fact must now make an integral part of a new creed. Our creed was brought to the dust because the Fascist outlook in each land was too National.

How did it happen? How did that creed, which might have brought the Renaissance of Western Man, confine itself within the limits of a too narrow Nationalism? How did the rush of that mighty river of re-birth lose itself in the dry sands of a past that should have been dead?

There are two reasons; the first practical, the second ideological. For all the fiery idealism of our creed, it was ever imbued with the most realistic practical sense. We had, therefore, observed with strong feelings of revulsion the ridiculous structure of that Tower of Babel which the old world erected after the last war. The attempt to solve every problem by bigger and better committees of wider and more diverse nationalities ended in the grotesque failure which our realism foresaw. Their procedure in the face of difficulty was ever to introduce more and more people who were less and less like each other in tradition, though, feeling and instinct. Consequently and inevitably the difficulties became ever more insuperable until the whole attempt broke down in tragic absurdity. That did not appear to be a practical method. So we tried the opposite approach of each nation building in its own area a system suitable to its own tradition, culture and feeling.

The first stage was, therefore, to divide the world into large, self-contained blocks on this realistic basis of natural division. A superstructure of universal friendship and understanding between nations could later have been erected on the solid foundation of these natural and practical areas. In my writing and speeches long before the war, I thus opposed the concept of "Universalism" to that of "Internationalism." It is a practical sense which says, let us begin by cleaning up our own corner when the room is in a mess: afterwards we can discuss the future of the room as a whole. That attitude was anyhow, a very natural reaction from the fantastic performances of the Babel Boys, who confronted chaos with the confused jabber of a multitude of conflicting tongues and diverse instincts within the old 'Internationalism," which began as a woolly ideal and ended as a squalid racket.

But the revulsion from current errors led most protagonists of the new European creed back into what should have been regarded as the obsolete paths of Ultra-Nationalism. On practical grounds it became all too clear that a grotesque medley of skins and cultures could never get anywhere; so the realism of the new men reacted too far to the other extreme of a nationalism which in modern conditions is unnaturally narrow.

Our ideological opposition to the old Internationalism was naturally even stronger than the practical. The principles of that Internationalism appeared to us an absurdity and an outrage - a grotesque violation of every self-evident truth of nature which could only bring degeneration and destruction. The argument that every savage was in every way the brother and equal of a European just plainly was not true; every sense and every instinct, all history and knowledge told us that. Those people were not the same as us; they were obviously and deeply different. So International Brotherhood was just the bunk; it was founded on a blatant negation of the truth. The idea that you could build a world on the premise that all men, or all races, were equal was a dangerous absurdity; yet that was the whole premise of the "democratic" concept which we opposed. In fact, they are obviously not equal in intellect, physique, knowledge, achievement, history or tradition.

Further, the gifts of different races vary as widely as the gifts of different individuals. To affirm that they are just the same is to state so palpable an untruth that you risk the charge of seeking the destruction of the higher in the interest of the lower. This is in fact, the charge against Communism. They seek to break down every European value, founded on truths that have endured the test of ages because their first task in the move to replace the higher by the lower is to tear down the values of the former. Before you put the lower on top you must first prove there is no higher. That argument was also very welcome to the International Money Power which knew that the lower could be corrupted for its own purpose, while the higher type are the natural barriers to corruption and chaos. The easiest way to remove them is to prove that all men and all peoples are the same; spiritual conquest thus precedes the material triumph.

Such was the ideology and such the teachings from which the National Socialists or Fascists creed reacted so naturally and so vehemently. The tragedy was that the revulsion produced too narrow a Nationalism. When you are told that you must kiss Harry the Hottentot on both cheeks as a condition of taking a walk down the street you are apt to confine yourself to the close circle of your own family! Your feeling is all the stronger if you are constantly told it would be a good thing if he came in and ran your house for you and if, on occasion, he is even given the power to do so. The reaction was "human, all too human."

The real idea, which must become the creed of the future, is surely to reject the old Internationalism on the one hand, and on the other hand to transcend an exclusive nationalism which divides natural friends and relatives. Man moved from the village to the nation in the natural process of uniting with his nearest kinsmen as his mind and spirit grew. Now the time is come to move from the nation to the continent, or even beyond it, under the same natural impulse and process of next uniting with those nearest to us in blood, tradition, mind and spirit.

The idea of Kinship is the true Idea; the reaching out of our hands to those who are kindred or of the same kind. The idea of Kinship can bring the Union of Europe where the old Internationalism failed. As a family of the same stock and kind Europe should always have been united in Ideal. Today, the Real, as well as the Ideal, faces Europe with the alternative of Union or disaster. So must come a new union of mind and spirit, not only to avoid destruction but for further purposes of construction. Yet the idea of Kinship carries us far beyond Europe; there are kindred of our same kind in both Americas. Their spiritual life is also ultimately based on nearly three millennia of European history and Culture. In the deep realities and further ideals of this Age, all nature impels them in their final test to feel and think as we do.

We love our countries, but we must extend that love; the ideal and the practical alike now compel it. The extension of Patriotism: that is the necessity and that is the hope. The new Patriotism will extend to embrace all of like kind, but will not destroy the values of its kind by seeking the unnatural mingling of the old Internationalism which is proved to fail. The Universalism of like kind, within a new union of the spiritual and the material, will protect its members and its values but will menace no others. Thus shall we of two war generations no longer be divided. Thus shall our ideals, which were so misused and betrayed, at length be realised in ways our eyes could not then see. The anguish of our Age will not have been in vain if now is born the Idea that shall carry man beyond what is called "Democracy", and even beyond Fascism. From the flames which end an epoch rises the Idea of the Future.

Pride and Prejudice

The 2018 local government elections saw the collapse of Ukip. Their performance was bad enough but the smaller nationalist parties; BNP, National Front, British Democrats and others, didn't win a single council seat between them. The nationalist vote has been hijacked by the Jacob Rees-Mogg faction of the Tory Party.

Oswald Mosley
fought for workers' rights as a minister in the Labour government of Ramsay Macdonald, and as leader of the pre-war British Union and the post-war Union Movement.

The National Front once supported Bill Whitbread's Trade Union Anti-Immigration Movement, and the BNP are allied with 'Solidarity', the independent trade union led by Pat Harrington (pictured).

But the Jacob Rees-Mogg faction of the Tory Party are dedicated reactionaries who crave cheap labour and despise the One Nation Tories who built social housing in the Fifties.



If we leave the EU under the hard-faced Tories, they will scrap what they call 'red tape'; the employment and health and safety regulations that protect us. In pursuit of maximum profits, they would demolish the Welfare State, sell off the National Health Service, and flood the country with cheap labour immigrants.

The Jacob Rees-Mogg faction are enthusiastic flag wavers who delight in singing the national anthem and making a show of patriotism. But what sort of patriot would tolerate dangerous working conditions or sub-standard housing? It's not a class issue: Oswald Mosley and Harold Macmillan were aristocrats but they identified with the working men who fought with them in the trenches of the First World War. Jacob may be sprung from the loins of the nobility but he is supported by middle-class Tories who struggle to pay their mortgages.

National Socialism in its literal sense is a love of a country and its people but Tory Nationalism is an unholy alliance of prejudice, false patriotism, and exploitation. 

Letter from America by Robert Lyons

Our American correspondent Robert Lyons was a youthful member of the National States' Rights Party who attended the 1961 BNP camp in Norfolk.


Trump's target from the beginning has been Iran, the North Korea situation has only been a distraction Trump would like to put out of the way so he and his flunkies can concentrate on neutralizing Iran. Trump's masters have been first Israel, secondly the Sunni states in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia, and thirdly his broad-based Evangelical support base here in the US plus the powerful Jewish lobbies and the neocons plus big-name Jewish financial supporters.

There's a large number of Democrats in both the Senate and House who support his anti-Iran stance. The Jewish/Zionist groups are so powerful here it's doubtful any anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist citizen running for office in this country could ever be elected. The Jewish organisations scan every office seeker before elections looking for any sign of deviation of the pro-Israel, pro-Jewish, stance. I'm sure it's the same in the UK and probably much worse.

Much of the so-called alt right who still support Trump knowing what he is and where he stands continue to amaze me, those people must bury their heads in the sand to keep from acknowledging the truth of the situation. Trump is beyond a doubt the most Zionist and pro-Jewish president the US has ever had in its history.

"Bibi" Netanyahu's visual display the other day was totally laughable but Trump and his followers sucked it up like it was the unquestioned word of God. Never have the nuclear weapons of Israel ever been mentioned, it's like the forbidden subject that is never to be mentioned if anybody had the guts to they would be declared an anti-Semite and run out of town.

We've seen it all before and it will get much worse. One brave person standing up would be like spitting into the wind during a hurricane. What we were able to do in the 60s and 70s seem amazing compared to what can be done now. Freedom of speech now seems like a distant memory of times gone by. The masses are now totally blind to any and everything.

Municipal Censorship

The Museums and Libraries Association states the following on the censorship of the Internet in public libraries:

"Libraries should make this known to users and provide the opportunity for them to challenge particular instances of blocking or request the adjustment of blocking criteria. And they should recognise that such techniques are imprecise and aim to minimise restrictions and avoid inadvertent blocking of legitimate resources."

It's common practice for libraries throughout the country to impose censorship on their public access computers. Local councillors take it upon themselves to decide what we can see and hear, and what email services we can use.

They claim to be protecting us against pornography and the glorification of violence, but Zionist websites are freely available despite Israel's genocidal treatment of the Palestinians, and you can visit the website of the African National Congress which supports the confiscation of white-owned farms. 

These decisions are made by local councillors according to political prejudices that are invariably left wing. The 'servants of the people' are elected but few voters realise what powers they are giving them. If Parliament tried to censor the Internet in the same way as the local councils they would not get away with it. And if a Tory-controlled council tried to deny access to left-wing websites the lefties would riot in the streets.

Our politicians and journalists condemn China for censoring the Internet but they never mention our public libraries. If we must have an element of censorship it should be regulated by Parliament. There are some disgusting things on the Internet that should be restricted but political opinions must be allowed. We do not need a self-appointed 'Committee of Public Safety' to control our thoughts.

Some Thoughts on Race

Millions of people are flying
around the world in search of pastures new. Nature confined the races of antiquity to their own territories with oceans, deserts and mountains, but we invented ships, planes, roads, and trains to overcome these obstacles, and now we are building rockets to take us into space.

People are defined by language, race, nationality, culture, and religion, but the European nations have absorbed many of their former colonial subjects. This has been exploited by politicians. Tony Linsell wrote in 'An English Nationalism':

"Those who are the most fanatical in claiming that race is unimportant, usually attach the greatest importance to it. They often use the very simplest form of racial classification and see only a Black race and a White race. Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that many of those who are neither Caucasoid or Negroid do not fit easily into the Black-White scheme. This leaves the problem of how to label the others.

Although the terms Black and White are used as synonyms for Negro and Caucasian, many consider it racist to refer to Mongoloids as, for example, Yellow. The term Oriental was once used instead of Mongoloid but that is also considered to have racist overtones, so Asian tends to be used instead even though it is not a good substitute because it involves mixing terms: Blacks and Whites are labelled by appearance while Asians are labelled by place.

Another drawback to using a term such as Asian or African is that it is not sufficiently specific. It is not helpful to name someone an African when what you mean is Black or Negroid because most North African Arabs do not consider themselves as Black and have a greater sense of identity with Asian Arabs than African Negroes. Neither is it helpful to use the term Asian when you mean an Arab. Those people who live in England and are commonly called Asians usually dislike being called Black and do not think of themselves as being part of the Black community even though multi-culturalists and some politicians have tried to impose that label on them so as to create a larger and more powerful political grouping."   

Oswald Mosley was one of the finest thinkers of the twentieth century. He opposed Commonwealth immigration on social and economic grounds but he never subscribed to the racism of the far right. Richard Thurlow described Mosley's attitude in his 1987 book 'Fascism in Britain':



"Mosley's view on race developed significantly from his view in the inter-war period that racial hatred was not a desirable policy for the British Empire. In essence, they were close to the racial views of Italian fascism, and the concept of the nation as a race cradle which developed from the English anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith. Its main assumptions were that race formation was a dynamic historical and political process within the confines of the nation-state and the derived characteristics of the nation-race could be acquired by the interaction of heredity, environment, culture and education over historical time. This was essentially Mosley's position." 

Mosley knew that the best friend of the working man is a manpower shortage and his worse enemy is an abundant supply of cheap labour. Immigration is used to hold down wages and conditions but it's not the immigrants who we should blame but the politicians who recruited them.

The problems of production and distribution can be solved by political and economic reform, and the poverty that drives migration can be eradicated. We have the ability and the technology to build a better world where people can earn a living in their own country. It can and must be done.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:






  

Monday, 30 April 2018

European Outlook # 49 May 2018

We celebrate May Day, courtesy of the Friends of Mosley, by reprinting Colin Wilson's brilliant critique of Marxism from the magazine 'Lodestar', first issued in 1985, edited by Geoffrey Vernon (Jeffrey Hamm), and published by Sanctuary Press. Colin Wilson (pictured) was the author of the best-seller 'The Outsider' in 1956. He wrote more than fifty books, many of which are available from Amazon.


Marx Refuted by Colin Wilson

Half a century ago it would probably have been true to say that most western 'intellectuals' were sympathetic to Russia and the 1917 Revolution. They may have had their doubts about Lenin and Stalin and Trotsky, and they may in practice, have preferred to live in the West; but they nevertheless felt that Capitalism is fundamentally rather wicked and that the Russians probably did the right thing in overthrowing it. They had that slightly guilty attitude that most of us feel when we hear a television appeal for starving refugees; that perhaps we ought to sell the colour TV and second car but that in practice we are too weak and lazy, and that it wouldn't make much difference anyway...

Since those early days, the west has had the chance to see communism in practice in many countries in the world, and to observe that it always seems to result in oppression and totalitarianism. From the Stalin purges to the Vietnam boat people and the takeover of Cambodia, the face of Communism seems invariably brutal. So there are nowadays far less people ready to argue - as Shaw did in the 1930s - that you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. Yet there is still a widespread feeling that the principles of socialism are probably good, and that for some odd reason, it is the practice that always seems to go wrong. After all, the history of Christianity is nearly as horrific, but no one lays the blame on its founder.

But is Marxism a sound theory that is betrayed by its practitioners? Would it actually work if human beings were less imperfect? Since the 1930s, doubts have been growing steadily. In 'The Open Society and its Enemies', Karl Popper argued that oppression was inherent in the whole socialist theory from the moment Plato decided that poets were too dangerous to live in his ideal Republic. Camus scandalized French intellectuals by asserting, in 'L'Homme Revolte', that terror is an inevitable consequence of revolutionary socialism, and that all such revolutions are bound to degenerate into tyranny. His most passionate opponent, Satre - that romantic anti-authoritarian - attempted to create a form of Marxism based on individual freedom, but abandoned the attempt after the first volume. And most Marxist commentators are now willing to admit that Marx was wrong about many central issues, and that some of his most important prophecies - like the increasing alienation of the workers, the polarisation of the social classes, and the 'withering away' of the State - were simply unrealistic guesses.

In spite of which, a great many 'men of goodwill. continue to feel that there is something fundamentally wrong with Capitalism. and therefore fundamentally right about Socialism. This is not an issue to which they devote much thought; but it seems to be based on a vague conviction that the continued existence of the poor and under-privileged remain the chief propaganda weapon of the Marxists, a little reflexion shows that Capitalism is no more responsible for them than is Communism. Both Capitalism and Communism are theories about the distribution of wealth. But wealth has to exist before it can be distributed. According to Marx this was no problem. Once the workers took over the means of production, there would be more than enough wealth to go round. Yet, in practice, this has never happened. From Russia to China, Poland to Cuba, from Angola to Mozambique, the hallmark of every Marxist state in the world is low productivity, which is due in turn to bureaucratic centralism with its inevitable inefficiency and corruption. Ex-Communists like Bukovsky and Koliakovsky assert that these are inherent in the nature of Marxism.

All socialist systems are based on this pleasing notion that there is plenty of wealth and that the only problem is to distribute it fairly and prevent the greedy from taking more than their share. This is contradicted by the fact that the creation of wealth - or anything else - is always an individual enterprise. Give a man an aim, an objective, and tell him he can achieve it by effort, and he will work until he drops. Tell a man he is part of a group, and that everything he earns belongs by right to 'society', and you destroy his mainspring of purpose. Marxism fails to grasp - or prefers to ignore - the most basic psychological truth about human beings; that their 'productivity' depends upon an essentially individual creativity - the urge to 'self-actualisation'. It cannot, by its nature, be socialised or mechanised.

How is it possible for intelligent individuals to overlook anything so fundamental? The answer can be found in a passage from the Communist historian of science, JD Bernal: "... we have in the practice of science the prototype for all human common action. The task which the scientists have undertaken - the understanding and control of nature and of man himself - is merely the conscious expression of the task of human society... In science men have learned to subordinate themselves to a common purpose without losing the individuality of their achievements... In science men collaborate not because they are forced to by superior authority or because they blindly follow some chosen leader, but because they realise that only in this willing collaboration can each man find his goal."

In spite of the slip of the tongue about the control of human beings, this may be taken as a good example of woolly-minded liberal thinking about communism; he fixes his mind firmly upon an idealised picture of scientists collaborating on some great enterprise, and tells us that this ought to apply to all human society. He takes care not to fix his sights on the actuality of modern society, with its millions of workers streaming into factory gates or football matches; that would reveal to him that his picture of scientists collaborating on atomic research is inapplicable. Scientists belong to the tiny percentage of people whose work is truly 'individual' and therefore satisfying. In a modern technological society, it is inevitable that the work of the majority should be repetitive and not particularly fulfilling. But this does not mean that the worker is bound to be 'alienated'. If labour relations are good, if his life outside the factory or office fulfills his personal needs, then repetitive labour is no hardship - just as in my own case, the repetitive labour of pounding on a typewriter for several hours a day is no hardship compared to the satisfaction of being allowed to say what I like. Marx was mistaken to believe that the labourer in a capitalist society will become more and more alienated. What has happened is that the labourers have become increasingly middle class, with cars and colour televisions to provide a degree of fulfilment that is not to be found in the factory. This is the truth of the matter, the 'law' of capitalist society, and Marx was quite simply wrong about it. (He was wrong for the same reason as Bernal  - because he preferred to fix his eyes on his own abstractions, instead of observing human beings.) It is the business of any reasonable society to offer its citizens as much 'fulfilment' as possible. But nothing can ever turn them into scientists working together on a great enterprise. The scientist belongs, of necessity, to a very small class whose work produced individual fulfilment.

The passage from Bernal is quoted in a paper by Paul Ostreicher, who, having based his argument on this false analogy, goes on to assert; "Economic injustice is the fundamental problem. Without economic justice, a call for population control...is unrealistic and lacks credibility." So the picture of an ideal society as an assemblage of scientists leads to a proposition about what is wrong with capitalist society; that the average worker cannot play his creative and individualistic role because he is too poor. So the wicked rich must be stopped from grabbing more than their share, and the surplus value be distributed among the workers, permitting them all to become creative individuals. Ostreicher is frank enough to admit that a worker in Eastern Europe is likely to be just as alienated as one in the West, and that communism has not yet found the practical answers. But he goes on hopefully to suggest that the "Chinese experiment", with the "devolution of power on the commune pattern, with local people in touch with nature can lead to a genuinely organic development." This was written in 1975, before the workers of China began to show the same dissatisfaction with communist ideology as the workers of Poland, and before Mao's successors found it necessary to dilute the pure Marxist doctrine with infusions of democracy and individual freedom.

It is easy enough to see how a bored worker might feel deprived of his rightful freedom in an assembly line, but more difficult to understand how 'intellectuals' like Bernal and Ostreicher - who after all, themselves belong to the 'individualistic elite' - can deceive themselves with false analogies about scientists or artists. The answer seems to be that intellectuals are inclined to identify their own vaguely idealistic aims with any theory that promises revolutionary change. The existentialist philosopher, Berdyaev, describes in  his autobiography how he became an early convert to Marxism; "What struck me above all was the prospect of a spiritual revolution; a rising of the spirit, of freedom and meaning, against the deadly weight, the slavery and meaninglessness of the world." And he adds: "When I was a small boy, the sight of a government building or state institution filled me with abhorrence, and I desired its immediate destruction." We can understand how a child would feel this way about large buildings (particularly schools), but it is less easy to understand how an intelligent person can carry this attitude into adulthood. We simply have to recognise that a few human beings never grow up emotionally. Many intellectuals start off from a position of anti-authoritarianism because they personally feel threatened by people in authority who are more stupid than they are. The sensible solution would be to use their intelligence to rise from a position from which stupid people cease to be a threat; but vagueness and incompetence may prevent this from happening: in which case, the 'revolutionary' attitude may persist for life. It was Berdyaev's own experience of the actual revolution - of 1917 - that finally taught him what many intellectuals fail to grasp: that while capitalism may show inadequate regard for the individual, socialism regards him with suspicious hostility. Capitalism tolerates its intellectual rebels and even gives them academic appointments, socialism suppresses them.

Socialism, of course, existed long before Marx, in St Simon, Fourier, Proudhon and the rest. This was liberal socialism, idealistic socialism, based upon a vaguely rebellious attitude to authority and a vague idealism of the kind we have noted in Bernal and Ostreicher. Oddly enough, Marx spent much of his life exploding this kind of socialism, denouncing it as a dream, a wish-fulfillment fantasy based on emotion - in short as unrealistic. Many non-socialists find it hard to understand why Marx devoted so much energy and fury to attacking fellow socialists. The answer is that he believed that bad doctrine drives out good. He claims to have replaced this vague, emotional socialism with a scientific variety based upon ineluctable laws of social development. His opponents objected that Marx's socialism was just as unworkable as the previous kind because it was just as unrealistic, and prophesied that in practice, a Marxian state would turn out to be just as authoritarian, just as repressive, as the old regime. A rigid social theory requires a centralised bureaucracy to impose it and coordinate its activities. And centralised bureaucracy tends to be sluggish and inefficient by nature - because it is centralised and reacts too slowly to economic needs - and corrupt because it requires bribery to oil the wheels.

Marx rejected these accusations as reactionary libels, and there can be no doubt that he was sincere. He genuinely believed that the triumph of the proletariat would bring about an increase in individual freedom and the eventual withering away of the state.

History has shown him to be wrong. It has shown him to be as vague, idealistic and woolly-minded as the colleagues he attacks so bitterly. At the moment (1985), it seems unlikely that the outcome will be the total destruction of communism and its sudden replacement by a system that permits more individual freedom. Communism may be suffering from hardening arteries, but it is clearly not dying. No doubt the communist state would suffer the same fate as those it replaced if it stayed around long enough. What seems to be happening is a gradual, cautious swing back towards capitalism. Some of the most successful countries in the Eastern bloc have mixed economies. China has experienced its own revulsion against Maoism. The Soviet Union itself seems to be slowly recognising that efficiency is more important than Marxist doctrine. 'The Economist' reports that a decree of January 17, 1981 calls for the encouragement of more private plots of land and that although Russia's 'private plots' are only 3% of the total farming land, they produce one-quarter of the country's agricultural output.

So, in a sense, it is superfluous to try and refute Marx: his work has been refuted by the actuality of communism.

Black Lives Matter


Stephen Lawrence was a young black man who was murdered in South London in 1993. There have been many such cases involving victims and killers of all races but this one was famous for being bungled by a racist police force. But according to local gossip their reluctance to prosecute had more to do with corruption than racism. The father of one of the killers was a notorious drug dealer with plenty of money.

The decision to commemorate Stephen's death was taken by a dishonest Tory government rocked by the Windrush deportation scandal and desperate to improve its image. But most people will see through their hypocrisy. It was Theresa May as Home Secretary who helped to create the present climate.

Violent crime has increased as a result of police cuts and a ban on 'Stop and Search'. The police and the courts are crippled by 'political correctness' and the government has resorted to patronising gestures, such as 'Stephen Lawrence Day'. If they were dedicated to law and order they would prosecute all killers regardless of political considerations. All lives matter and we should all be protected by the police from robbers and terrorists.

Brexit

The UK will leave the European Union on Friday 29 March 2018, but there will be a transition period until 31 Dec 2020. By then we should have signed a trade deal with the EU and sorted out the Northern Ireland border.

According to the 'Brexiteers', we shall then blossom as an international trading nation and regain our independence. But the 'Remainers' predict an economic downturn followed by political instability. Nobody knows what will happen because we have never been in this situation before. What we do know is that our location will not change. We will still be a European country situated between Ireland and France. We will still speak a Germanic language heavily influenced by French. We will still share the history, culture, and destiny of Europe. And we will still trade with our near neighbours.

The European argument has obscured many problems that have nothing to do with the EU. The UK population is expected to reach 70 million by 2026 but we still need immigrant labour. Skills shortages are now being addressed by the government but for years we imported doctors, nurses and engineers rather than training them. If you are in any doubt about this a visit to your nearest hospital should confirm that we are dependant on foreign labour. When we leave the EU it will harder for Poles and other Europeans to come here to work. But the Tories have already made plans to import more workers from Africa and Asia.

When we leave the EU we will still be members of NATO and our 'independent nuclear deterrent' will still be under American control. There is no plan to reform our armed forces; they will still be committed to enforcing American foreign policy,

We were told that we would 'get our country back' but that doesn't apply to immigration, which will still be governed by supply and demand, or defence, which will continue to be dictated by America. And we will still to buy our oil with dollars and equip our aircraft carriers with American aircraft.

Some Brexiteers want to retrieve our 'ancient weights and measures'. But we are unlikely to go back to quarts and firkins, or rods, poles and perches. The brutal truth is that 'independence' is a myth in a global economy. If we want to export manufactured goods they must conform to international standards. There is no point in telling foreigners that our cars do fifty miles to the gallon when they have no idea what miles and gallons are. The days of selling obsolete Morris Minors to grateful Australians are over.

It is twelve thousand years since the ice retreated and groups of reindeer herders reached the British Isles. They were followed by Iberians, Celts, Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans. They merged together to form the British people who went on to pioneer the Industrial Revolution and build a mighty empire with a formidable navy. But history can't be rewritten; we are what we are and a temporary distraction like Brexit will not change us. There will be many trials and tribulations in the coming years but in the great scheme of things it will make no difference. We will still be Europeans. 

Frank's Latest Campaign



Veteran patriot Frank Walsh
is challenging Wandsworth Council's decision to grant planning permission for an intrusive block of flats opposite his home. He has displayed a notice on his front door together with a supply of leaflets and started a campaign on Facebook. At the age of 92, most people would be happy to put their feet up but he is still posting his unique blog 'Our Voice' - www.ab4ps.com



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
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."






   





  





  









Thursday, 30 November 2017

European Outlook # 48, December 2017

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."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal Manifesto

Despite years standing for European solidarity I still get messages from petty nationalists who campaigned against our membership of the EU. They accused the East Europeans of simultaneously claiming benefits and stealing jobs, but government statistics show that they contributed more than they received. When I worked in the Construction Industry, I found them to be hardworking, honest and reliable. I am therefore baffled by far-rightists who think that I am on their side. 

So, for the avoidance of doubt, I state my basic beliefs.

1) I distrust Parliamentary Democracy because it's controlled by big business, the trade unions, and various lobby groups such as the Zionists. I cannot recommend an alternative system but I believe in leadership and good government.

2) I believe in free speech and I like Oswald Mosley's idea that newspapers should publish replies from people they have defamed.

3) Race is more than just a social construct but it's not everything. Patriotism is fine but racism is unkind and unnecessary.

4) I believe that the union of Europe is inevitable. Even if the UK leaves the EU we will still be Europeans in every respect and eventually, our continent will unite. Most of the Little Englanders are elderly and it's only a matter of time before the younger generation prevails.

5) I believe in freedom of religion and I despise arrogant atheists who think that everyone agrees with them. Church attendance may be declining but that doesn't mean that people have stopped believing in God.

That's it. The world is driven by economics and the answer to almost everything is education. America got to the Moon because Jack Kennedy persuaded Congress to put enough money into the project. A similar effort could produce a cure for cancer, or wipe out starvation in Africa. We could easily build enough houses for everyone in this country if we really wanted to.

We are stuck in the past and still act as though we've got a great empire patrolled by the world's biggest navy. Half a century after the Suez fiasco we still have military bases in Cyprus and Gibraltar to defend the sea route to India; which we abandoned in 1947.

The UK is a fine country with a proud record of achievement but we probably have the worst newspapers in the world and our political system is corrupt and archaic.

I do not follow any party line or particular philosophy and I would be surprised if anyone agreed with me on everything. My sole purpose is to encourage free thinking.

Parliamentary Standards

We've got used to MPs fiddling their expenses and occasionally getting caught but recent events have reminded us of their sexual frailty. Every workplace has got a groper and explicit language is commonplace, but from time to time we suffer an outbreak of moral indignation and dirty old men are obliged to resign.



Michael Fallon has admitted inappropriate behaviour but a Tory spokesman has denied reports that a Front Bench Minister exposed himself at a Cabinet meeting and said: "What do you think of this Theresa?"

Unfortunately, sex makes fools of us all. Usually, rational men and women risk their careers and reputations for a fumble in the stationary cupboard. Such goings on are ideally suited to  Parliament which employs men and women dispenses alcohol and provides hundreds of carpeted offices.

This dangerous combination of drink and women is known in the Catholic Church as "Punch and Judy." The Church has its fair share of sinners, but Parliament is the only place where our guardians fornicate while passing laws to stop us enjoying ourselves. Fallen priests, of all denominations, confine themselves to hypocritical sermons. 

The Prime Minister has called for a Parliamentary Code of Conduct but it seems likely that rich and powerful men will continue to put their hands up the skirts of journalists. And healthy young women will continue to make themselves available to politicians, bishops, film producers, window cleaners and milkmen.

Before we succumb to fits of moral outrage we should remember that Lloyd George, one of our greatest prime ministers, was a serial adulterer, and so was our national hero Lord Nelson. Let those without sin cast the first stone.

The Art of the Possible




Otto von Bismarck (pictured) said: "politics is the art of the possible." Sometimes we should settle for what we can get.

Immigration is out of control but the National Front policy of rounding them up and shipping them out is not going to happen. We could devise a sensible immigration policy, deport undesirables, and resettle volunteers. We could also change our tactics. Ethnic minorities should be treated fairly but there should be no special privileges for immigrants, no 'positive discrimination' or employment targets. English must be spoken and justice must be administered by British courts. We should appoint a Minister of Resettlement to handle deportation and emigration, and his decisions should be final. That might not satisfy the NF but it's the best we can do.

The banks were responsible for the financial crash of 2008. They ran out of money and the taxpayer had to bail them out. But new legislation will stop them from overtrading and massive fines will teach them a lesson. Many people want to nationalise the banks but that's unlikely to happen. Well established banks operating within the law contribute £35 billion a year to the Exchequer. Usury is wrong but banks are entitled to charge reasonable rates of interest. We will not be arresting Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, anytime soon.

As a result of Dave Cameron's kamikaze referendum, we are about to leave the European Union. But we are an island just off the mainland of Europe and our economy is dependant on our trade with the EU. Just like Norway and Switzerland, we will arrive at a solution that satisfies the petty nationalist without ruining our economy. Once again that may not be what we want but it's what we are going to get.



We are proud of our armed forces but we need to ask ourselves what they are for. They should be for the defence of this country but they are used to back up American foreign policy under NATO. Instead of quitting NATO we should assert our joint European independence. Donald Trump would probably agree to an American withdrawal. We can't go back to the forties with a massive conscript army but we could be part of Eurocorp, the army founded by France and Germany in 1992. This may look unlikely with Brexit on the horizon but we are already tied to France under the Anglo-French Defence Treaty of 2010.   

We can dream about what we want but we must settle for what we can get. Every political system harbours rich and poor citizens. Redistributive taxation has helped to alleviate poverty but it's still with us. We are finding scientific solutions to our problems but human greed and corruption undermine our efforts. We need is a charismatic leader to show us the way - someone like Otto von Bismarck - but until he steps forward we shall just have to do what we can.


Spies and Traitors

Anyone who doubts that minority parties are infiltrated with spies and traitors should read 'Maxwell Knight, MI5's Greatest Spymaster' by Henry Hemming. The first fascist movement in the UK was the British Fascists founded by Miss Rotha Lintorn-Orman in 1923. It was infested with government agents and every patriotic movement since then has been subject to state interference. 

Apart from police spies, there are also agents provocateurs belonging to the opposition or rival movements, and people with mental problems who can't resist plots and conspiracies.
In every gathering of the far-right, there is likely to be a Special Branch informer, someone from Hope Not Hate, an undercover press reporter, a member of a rival movement, and a sprinkling of nutcases. It is said that a meeting of the Communist Party of America in the fifties was abandoned when they realised that everyone present was a government agent.

Most spies are non-violent but some are criminal thugs who specialise in intimidation and physical violence. Apart from picking off individuals after meetings their favourite tactic is to publish names and addresses of members in the hope of causing them problems with their employment.

Government agents usually keep a low profile but some of them like causing mischief and spreading rumours. Derek Johnson was a foul-mouthed drunk who kept a junk shop in Battersea that sold Nazi tapes and films long before the days of the Internet when such things were hard to come by. He was revealed to be working for the 62 Group, a Jewish anti-fascist gang, but he was also a Special Branch informer. And so is Matthew Collins, a prominent member of the NF who came out on television in 1992.


Members of patriotic movements are advised to be careful but not to become paranoid. These spies and traitors are more of a nuisance than a threat.

Ted Davey (pictured) was a popular fellow who befriended members of Union Movement and most of the far-right parties over the years. But when he died we discovered that he was a Special Branch agent. Nevertheless, his dying wish was for his ashes to be interred at Berchtesgaden, the Fuhrer's favourite place.


Keep it Simple

The following letter was sent by National Front organiser Milton Ellis to a South Wales newspaper. He uses data on intelligence to support his case that Africans are intellectually inferior to Europeans. But East Asians score higher than Europeans and the worst performing group in Britain are young White males. Economic and cultural factors account for much of the ignorance in Africa. Just as, the single-minded determination of Asian parents helps to produce the doctors, dentists and opticians that dominate our high streets. Data aside, there are plenty of African graduates and far too many uneducated Whites. I am opposed to non-European immigration because it is unnecessary. We could man every job from within Europe, and avoid the cultural friction associated with multiracial immigration. There are plenty of arguments against non-European immigration without getting involved in genetics and linguistics; subjects that are beyond the comprehension of most people. We should keep it simple.

Dear Sir,

Theresa May has recently had a Race and Equality audit in which it had been found that there is a disparity in racial performance between the white majority and ethnic minorities, in education, homeownership and unemployment etc. If everybody is equal then there should be no disparity. But what if the doctrine of racial equality is not scientific but only a Marxist pseudo-science?

In 2012 an international team of scientists found a gene HMGA2, which determines intelligence and achievement and completely displaces the nurture and cultural argument of the followers of Franz Uri Boas. There are differences in IQs and cognitive abilities, and an 11% overlap between races, but equality would require there to be 50%. The African languages have only a present tense, no past or future tense and a very limited vocabulary and this indicates an inability to plan for the long-term.


A requirement of an IQ of about 160+ is absolutely vital if there are to be sufficient numbers of engineers, inventors, mathematicians, Scientists etc. Most Europeans have an IQ of about 100 and Blacks of about 70. The consequences for all this we can see in Zimbabwe and increasingly in South Africa today. The Africans will always be dependent on outside help for development whether that is from Europeans or the Chinese.


All this is the brutal hard truth. No amount of silly denial can alter this; by denying racial differences the cowardly politicians are flogging a dead horse, in the pursuit of doctrinaire equality, and doing a disservice to the British people in the process.


Yours Sincerely, Milton Ellis (Newtown).

Father Frank Gelli
Rant Number 747 - Music and the Devil



Your teenage offspring announces: 'I am giving up listening to music'. Aghast, do you rush to tell the cops? You might. Because it is a sign of 'radicalisation'. A clue the boy is plotting mischief. Inclining towards terrorism. Joining ISIS. Maybe driving a van into pedestrians - God forbid! The notorious Prevent anti-extremism strategy claims that much. Chilling, eh?


'I am a Muslim. I don't listen to music'. A fellow named al-Wahab revealed during a seminar I attended in Islington. 'Because the Qur'an forbids it. It's like hearing the Devil's whisperings. Intrigued, I asked for the reference. He obliged. Surah Luqman, ayat 6. I looked it up. The voice from Heaven promises 'a humiliating torment' for those who engage in 'idle talk' or tales to mislead from God's ways. That's what it says in Arabic. Music and songs are the commentator's take. (Naturally, it is a Salafi-Wahhabi annotation.) Other translations say nothing about music. Too bad for naïve al-Wahab.

Can some music have a negative, demonic influence on people? Giuseppe Tartini's violin sonata, The Devil's Trill, resulted from a dream in which the composer sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for the score, hence the sonata's alleged diabolical influence. Legend has it that if you listen to it something strange will occur afterwards. I did and zilch followed. Maybe crafty Tartini indulged in a PR stunt? And Tolstoi's novella, The Kreutzer's Sonata tells of a man who murdered his wife after discovering her affair with a violinist. The two lovers had played Beethoven's composition together. Then the husband felt that music was an awesome thing. The Kreutzer's Sonata, he believed, should not be played before women misbehaving, so next day he stabbed his wife to death. A story about jealousy, certainly, but about evil music? Hhhmm...

Philosophers too have taken a dim view of some music. In his blueprint for a righteous society, The Republic, Plato talks about it as part of education, as an accompaniment to songs. Socrates, Plato's mouthpiece, distinguishes several types of music and links them with different feelings and moods. Some are fine for soldiers, to represent courage and discipline, others not. And Socrates declares a preference for the lyre, the instrument of the god Apollo, as opposed to the flute, favourite of satyres, the ithyphallic companions of Dyonisus. (A satyr, Marsyas, challenged the god to a contest. Apollo won and skinned Marsyas alive.) You can imagine what Plato would have made of Eminem and bands like the Rolling Stones, Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden or even Michael Jackson. Pity Apollo wasn't around to flay alive that lot.

As to Aristotle, he held that music served a fourfold end: amusement, moral education, recreation and purification. Art can use any of those ends but mere amusement cannot be an ultimate goal. Too bad for the universal line: 'That was fun'. It wouldn't have pleased the great philosopher a little bit. No wonder Aristotle was a snob.

Even if the Qur'an does not condemn music, what about the hadiths? Sharia, Islamic law, is a blending of Qur'an and hadiths and there is a prophetic saying, of an eschatological flavour, and reported in Salafi-Wahhabi notes to the Qur'an, which declares musical instruments (ma'azif in Arabic, probably meaning drums) unlawful, along with men wearing silk. Debate rages about it. However, even hardline Sunni 'Popes' like Yusuf al-Qaradawi permit instrumental music. Moreover, what about the Turkish Mevlevi Order of Dervishes? They danced the Sema', a mystical and musical ceremony, as well as being the crack units of the Ottoman armies that got to the gates of Vienna. The examples of Moghuls and Persian Safavid also militates against any Islamic ban on instrumental music. And even the puritanical Saudis dance the Sword Dance - a favourite of Prince Charles. 

Even the dumbest fundamentalist could never invoke the Bible against music or dancing. The psalms are religious songs. Many with musical directions, addressed to the choirmaster, including 'with string instruments'. When the Ark of the Covenant was brought to Jerusalem, King David himself danced 'before the Lord', girded with only a loin cloth (11 Samuel: 14). St Matthews's Gospel says that Jesus and the disciples sang a hymn after the Last Supper. And in Church tradition, the psalms feature in settings like Vespers by Monteverdi, Vivaldi and Mozart. Gregorian chant is one of the glories of monastic spirituality. I confess, it bores me a bit but then music was never the priest's ruling passion - God so willed it.

After knocking al-Wahab's scriptural exegesis. I must agree with him on the radicalization issue. Rightly or wrongly, he believes that his faith and music are incompatible. An opinion to which he is perfectly entitled. It may be extreme but why extremist in the sense of violent extremism? Or, for that matter, even non-violent extremism? Why should he be harassed by Prevent? Jehova's Witnesses have peculiar ideas about blood transfusions but the British government doesn't treat them as 'extremists'. Mormons don't believe in sex before marriage or homosexuality, yet they are an all-American, hard-working, supremely law-abiding lot. Does President Trump brand them as extremists?

The Prevent strategy is loopy. It led someone to report two Muslim students because the didn't look at females. Given the present hysteria about men touching women's knees, that is perhaps rather reassuring.

As to his satanic majesty, the Devil. He is man's eternal enemy and gets up to all sorts of tricks to make humanity stumble, as he did in the Garden of Eden, but music per se isn't one of them.



Nation Revisited
Our sister blog is posted on -
http;//nationrevisited.blogspot.co.uk