Europe: The Struggle for Unity
Winston Churchill made his famous "United States of Europe" speech in Zurich in 1946. And in 1954 he signed an Association Agreement with the European Coal and Steel Community - the forerunner of the European Economic Community. He didn't include the UK in his vision of united Europe because he thought the British Empire would last forever, but it was all gone in the next twenty years.
He was followed as prime minister by Harold Macmillan who tried to take the UK into the EEC in 1961 and 1967, but both bids were blocked by French President Charles de Gaulle, who feared that Britain was too close to America.
Charles De Gaulle retired in 1969 and was replaced by Georges Pompidou who began talks with British prime minister Ted Heath which led to the UK's entry to the EEC in 1973. This decision was confirmed by prime minister Harold Wilson's referendum of 1975.
In 2016 another referendum was called by prime minister David Cameron which saw the UK quit the European Union. But the economic forces that attracted us to Europe in the first place are still the same and the fight goes on for European Solidarity.
The Tories are strongly opposed to the EU, the Labour Party and the Lib Dems want to "make Brexit work", but the Greens and the Scottish Nationalists would rejoin Europe as soon as possible.
The next UK general election is scheduled for January 2025. Opinion polls are moving steadily in favour of rejoining the EU, and a lot could happen in the next two years. As the recession bites more people will regret their vote to leave and those politicians who engineered Brexit will claim they were obeying "the will of the people". Boris Johnson will use this excuse to absolve himself of all responsibility.
The people voted to control immigration but it's now completely out of control. They voted to restore sovereignty but we are still ruled by international finance. And they voted for cheaper food and fuel but both commodities have increased in price. Surely, even the most gullible Daily Mail readers will see the light. The battle is far from over.
Distributism - Ted G - https://lowimpact.org
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 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 and Hilaire Belloc (pictured) began to promote distributism as a political ideology in opposition to both capitalism and socialism, using the experiences of the co-operative movement in northern England. Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker 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 could 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 kinds of things that Low Impact has been promoting for the last 13 years.
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 lend 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 run by a corporation or the state. I disagree. Groups of miners can form co-operatives to run individual mines and start a community renewables group instead generating energy 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 attempts at truly distributing wealth and power may result in a violent backlash, from the state or from the corporate empire - or more likely from 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.
We all Make Mistakes
 |
'Candour' magazine recently reprinted an article by Andrew Brons (pictured) entitled 'The Roots of British Nationalism' which first appeared in 'Nationalism Today' in 1985. In this article he mentions AK Chesterton and Oswald Mosley:
"GK Chesterton's cousin AK Chesterton, co-founder of the National Front in 1967, was a supporter of Sir Oswald Mosley until 1937 when he broke with him on account of Mosley's too close association with Italian Fascism and German National Socialism. Mosley was certainly a racialist despite his post-war protestations to the contrary and he was forthright in his condemnation of the fraudulent financial system and the power and influence of International Jewry (though not, he claimed, individual Jews). However he did not venture any solution to the problem of Capitalism at home by any identification with Distributism. His adoption of Italian bus conductors' uniforms served only to give his movement a 'foreign' aspect that was, after the war, to be given further credence by his 'Europe a Nation' policy."
Just a few points:
If AK Chesterton objected to Mosley's support for National Socialism why did he support William Joyce who founded the National Socialist League, defected to Germany to broadcast Nazi propaganda and was hanged for treason in 1946?
Mosley denied being a racist before the war. In 'Mosley Right or Wrong' he answered the question "Did you agree with Nazi racial policies?"
"No, I did not agree and I have expressed myself clearly on the point in public on a number of occasions. Our policy in this respect was very different. The reason was that our problem and our aim was to conduct a great Empire consisting of many different races and to hold it together and develop it. The Nazi Party's declared policy was to unite all the German peoples in Europe, and their aim was to bring them together in an area adequate to their economic survival. Our policy on racial matters was therefore naturally different from their policy."
Mosley later regretted the Action Press uniform but he defended the simple black shirt which identified BUF members when fighting the Reds. Andrew Brons should remember his collaboration with John Tyndall who dressed up as a Stormtrooper in his Spearhead days. But then we all make mistakes.
'Europe a Nation' is not a 'foreign' concept, Englishmen such as Winston Churchill and George Orwell supported European unity just after the war, not to mention the 48% of the electorate who voted against Brexit in 2016.
Free Speech
The future of the White race is threatened by its low birth rate, and the future of mankind is threatened by global warming. This is indeed a picture of gloom and doom, but things might not be so bad.
In the 19th century the great cities of the world were expanding rapidly and so was the number of horses needed to transport goods and people. Things got so bad that the Times of London predicted in 1874 that in fifty years London would be buried under nine feet of horse manure.
But this prediction took no account of the unforeseen development of railways and motor cars. Human ingenuity saved us from being buried in horse manure, and it might save us again. What form this salvation might take is unknown; we can only hope for the best.
The UK was almost starved into submission by German attacks on merchant shipping during World War Two. Allied ships bringing vital supplies across the Atlantic were being sunk by Kriegsmarine submarines and surface raiders. This desperate situation was relieved when the mathematicians and cryptographers at Bletchley Park cracked the Enigma code which enabled the Royal Navy and the RAF to locate and destroy enemy vessels. In order to decipher enemy codes Alan Turing (pictured) devised electro-mechanical calculating machines, called 'bombes', that led to the development of the computer; a device that changed the world.
I remember visiting a computer suite as a young man in the 1960s. The computers were the size of domestic fridges with flashing lights, huge tape spools, and printers churning out endless sheets of paper. Today we all have smart phones in our pockets that can do the same job. God works in mysterious ways, and we never know what's just around the corner.
Is World Peace Possible? - Oswald Spengler
The question whether world peace will ever be possible can only be answered by someone familiar with world history. To be familiar with world history means, however, to know human beings as they have been and always will be. There is a vast difference between viewing history as it will be and viewing it as one might like it to be. Peace is a desire, war is a fact; and history has never paid heed to human desires and ideals.
Life is a struggle involving plants, animals, and humans. It is a struggle between individuals, social classes, peoples, and nations, and it can take the form of economic, social, political, and military competition. It is a struggle for the power to make one’s will prevail, to exploit one’s advantage, or to advance one’s opinion of what is just or expedient. When other means fail, recourse will be taken time and again to the ultimate means: violence. An individual who uses violence can be branded a criminal, a class can be called revolutionary or traitorous, a people bloodthirsty. But that does not alter the facts. Modern world-communism calls its wars "uprisings," imperialist nations describe theirs as "pacification of foreign peoples." And if the world existed as a unified state, wars would likewise be referred to as "uprisings." The distinctions here are purely verbal.
Talk of world peace is heard today only among the White peoples, and not among the much more numerous colored races. This is a perilous state of affairs. When individual thinkers and idealists talk of peace, as they have done since time immemorial, the effect is always negligible. But when whole peoples become pacifistic it is a symptom of senility. Strong and unspent races are not pacifistic. To adopt such a position is to abandon the future, for the pacifist ideal is a static, terminal condition that is contrary to the basic facts of existence.
As long as man continues to evolve there will be wars. Should the White peoples ever become so tired of war that their governments can no longer incite them to wage it, the earth will inevitably fall a victim to the colored men, just as the Roman Empire succumbed to the Teutons. Pacifism means yielding power to the inveterate non-pacifists. Among the latter there will always be White men – adventurers, conquerors, leader-types – whose following increases with every success. If a revolt against the Whites were to occur today in Asia, countless Whites would join the rebels simply because they are tired of peaceful living.
Pacifism will remain an ideal, war a fact. If the White races are resolved never to wage war again, the colored will act differently and be rulers of the world.
Majority Rights - https://majorityrights.com
Nation Revisited - https://nationrevisited.blogspot.com
Europe Renaissance - https://europerenaissance.com
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:
No comments:
Post a Comment