European Outlook # 85, April 2023

The Changing Face of Britain

 

Cats and dogs piss on lamp posts and trees to mark out their territory, just as we fly flags. In the event of a dispute between two animals they fight to see who owns the backyard, and we fight for the same reason. In ancient times we feared foreigners that came into our territory to steal cattle and women. They carried unfamiliar pathogens to which we had no immunity, and they brought their own religions, their own languages, and their own strange customs.

We have softened our approach to foreigners since then, but the instinct to drive them into the sea has never completely left us. As we grew more civilised we adopted 'liberalism', and instead of defending our territory we threw down our arms and welcomed the invaders.

If reasonable numbers of immigrants had landed on our shores they would have blended in, but so many arrived that they have changed the face of Britain. The top five jobs in the British Cabinet reflect this change; Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is of Indian origin, Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab's father was Jewish, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is British but married to a Chinese woman, Home Secretary Suella Braveman is of Indian extraction, and Foreign Secretary James Cleverly had an English father and a Sierra Leone mother. 

We could have absorbed limited numbers of coloured immigrants if they had arrived over a period of years, but so many arrived that we were overwhelmed. We can't do much about those already here but we certainly don't need anymore. We have a declining native birth rate and we need immigrants to man our services but there are plenty of fellow Europeans available. 

Despite the changing demographic we are still a majority white country that has contributed in full to every branch of human activity. We are the 9th economy in the world by GDP, with a seat on the UN Security Council and armed forces commensurate with our status. We have lost our empire but we are still a global commercial power with a thriving banking and insurance industry, world-class universities, and impressive scientific and medical facilities. We are beset with problems, many of our own making, but we have the potential to be a truly great country. 

Above all we need to acknowledge that the Empire has gone. We are no longer a world power with a navy that rules the waves. We must accept our position as a European state and stop trying to feed and defend half the world.

Far too many of our politicians are dreaming of sending gunboats to the four corners of the world to put down native uprisings. Those days are long gone. The war in Ukraine will be settled by negotiation. By donating weapons and money, that we can't afford, to the corrupt Zelensky regime we are only prolonging the agony, and our interference in Chinese affairs would be just as unwise.    

Stop RAF Scrampton Being Turned into a Detention Camp

https://change.it/8qmmBK7c8

I am signing this petition because RAF Scrampton (and Lincolnshire) has a fantastic history, as has Britain as a whole and we - the sovereign indigenous Britons - have never given any politician or Monarch permission to allow immigrants to settle in OUR homeland against our wishes; and we never will.

The residents of areas affected by alleged 'legal and illegal' immigrants (all of whom are unwanted, unneeded and unsanctioned invaders) should question why the traitorous MPs are overtly supporting people who have settled in Britain against the expressed wishes of the sovereign indigenous Britons - who own these isles. Many of those indigenous Britons, in Lincolnshire, East Yorkshire and most areas of Britain, have demonstrated en-masse that they are opposed to immigration; so why aren't the politicians listening or speaking out on our behalf? Who is it that they REALLY serve?

Q1. While such civil servants are actively working against the interest of the sovereign indigenous Britons; why should we vote for ANY of them; and why do we allow Parliament to continue?

Q2. Do THEY believe that elected officials are ABOVE the views of the voters; or should elected public servants actually represent the views of their electorate?

Q3. As all the EXCUSES regarding immigration have been destroyed; when will public servants support OUR people and speak out openly and honestly against immigration?

Q4. If their answer to Q3 above is "NEVER"; will the politicians state emphatically that regardless of the views of their electorate; they WILL support immigration? And, will they still get elected if they oppose OUR people? I very much doubt it.

Mike Whitby

  

Sam Dickson

I ordered a t-shirt today that featured the words, "Science doesn't care what you believe."

I looked it up after I saw such a t-shirt in an article someone sent me.

This t-shirt was listed on Ebay as an "atheist" product.

I had assumed it was meant to make fun of liberals whose metaphysics (as explained to me by a philosophy professor) are based on existence, i.e. reality. I did not think of it as an "atheist" t-shirt. This may be because I was fortunate enough to grow up in the Presbyterian Church in which my Sunday School teachers emphasized that if something is scientifically true, it must be theologically true, i.e. no more ideas about burning Galileo at the stake.

Now this article comes along reinforcing my opinion of just how out of touch our antagonists are.

I did not know that the AMA has issued a fatwa that race doesn't exist.

I first heard this fantasy in anthropology class at the University of Georgia in the late 1960s.

Our professor was the son of Spaniards who had fled across the Pyrenees as Franco's nationalists liberated Barcelona. In other words, he came from a family of Communists.

The chapter on race in our textbook was entitled "The Myth of Race."

Our professor erupted into a fit when I asked him if there was a discernible difference when you looked at a picture of a 6 foot blond haired blue eyed Norwegian standing next to a Pygmy.

He gave me the lowest grade I ever got in college to punish me for saying something that reprehensible.

But despite my professor and the AMA science does not care what they believe or, to put it better, science does not care what they feel.

Extract from "Man and Technics" - Oswald Spengler

And then, at the close of the last century, the blind will-to-power began to make its decisive mistakes. Instead of keeping strictly to itself the knowledge that constituted their greatest asset, the "white" peoples complacently offered it to all the world, in every Hochschule, verbally and on paper, and the astonished homage of Indians and Japanese delighted them. The famous "dissemination of industry" set in, motivated by the idea of getting bigger profits by bringing production into the marketing area. And so, in place of the export of finished products exclusively, they began an export of secrets, processes, methods, engineers and organizers. Even the inventors emigrate, for Socialism, which could if it liked harness them in its team, expels them instead. And so presently the "natives" saw into our secrets, understood them, and used them to the full. Within thirty years the Japanese became technicians of the first rank, and in their war against Russia they revealed a technical superiority from which their teachers were able to learn many lessons. Today more or less everywhere - in the Far East, India, South America, South Africa - industrial regions are in being, or coming into being, which, owing to their low scales of wages, will face us with a deadly competition. The unassailable privileges of the white races have been thrown away, squandered, betrayed. The others have caught up with their instructors. Possibly - with the combination of "native" cunning and the over-ripe intelligence of their ancient civilizations - they have surpassed them. Where there is coal, or oil, or water-power, there a new weapon can be forged against the heart of the Faustian Civilization. The exploited world is beginning to take its revenge on its lords. The innumerable hands of the coloured races - at least as clever, and far less exigent - will shatter the economic organization of the whites at its foundations. The accustomed luxury of the white workman, in comparison with the coolie, will be his doom. The labour of the white is itself coming to be unwanted. The huge masses of men centred in the Northern coal areas, the great industrial works, the capital invested in them, whole cities and districts, are faced with the probability of going under in the competition. The centre of gravity of production is steadily shifting away from them, especially since even the respect of the coloured races for the white has been ended by the World War. This is the real and final basis of the unemployment that prevails in the white countries. It is no mere crisis, but the beginning of a catastrophe.

For these "coloured" peoples (including in this context, the Russians) the Faustian technics are in no wise an inward necessity. It is only Faustian man that thinks, feels, and lives in this form. To him it is a spiritual need, not on account of its economic consequences, but on account of its victories - "navigare necesse est, vivere non est necesse." For the coloured races, on the contrary, it is but a weapon in the fight against the Faustian civilization, a weapon like a tree from the woods that one uses as house-timber, but discards as soon as it has served its purpose. This machine-technics will end with the Faustian civilization and one day will lie in fragments, forgotten - our railways and steamships as dead as the Roman roads and the Chinese wall, our giant cities and skyscrapers in ruins like old Memphis and Babylon. The history of this technics is fast drawing to its inevitable close. It will be eaten up from within, like the grand forms of any and every Culture. When, and in what fashion, we know not.

Faced as we are with this destiny, there is only one world- outlook that is worthy of us, that that has already been mentioned as the Choice of Achilles - better a short life full of deeds and glory, than a long life without content. Already the danger is so great, for every individual, every class, every people, that to cherish any illusion whatever is deplorable. Time does not suffer itself to be halted; there is no question of prudent retreat or wise renunciation. Only dreamers believe that there is a way out. Optimism is cowardice.

We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the defined 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 in 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 that can not be taken from a man.

European Outlook: Don't be depressed by Oswald Spengler's pessimism. He came from a long line of German doom-mongers. Nothing is written in the stars - our future is in our own hands.

Prof Roger Pearson RIP

Prof Roger Pearson the distinguished anthropologist and subscriber to this blog has passed away at the great age of 95. His obituary is posted on Heritage and Destiny: heritageanddestiny.com

I contacted him in June 2020 to tell him that our mutual friend John Bean had suffered a stroke. He replied as follows:

Bill, Thank you, though I am sorry for the news. I will contact him.

I fear our world belongs to the past, but though the world will never see its like again, and even a mongerlized humanity may not survive, the fact is our world existed, and we were a band of kindred that fought for it. 

What has existed and has been can never be undone. It represents a peak of human achievement, and of noble behaviour, and will always be so. We can take heart in that. John had a heart that beat like mine, as did others you and I remember. I am grateful to have had the honor of knowing them and striving with them in the same noble cause. We did not disgrace our forebears.

Keep well yourself if you can. Roger

Majority Rights  https://majorityrights.com    

Nation Revisited  https://nationrevisited.blogspot.com

European Outlook

All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. The editor reserves the right to shorten or otherwise amend articles submitted for publication. We seek reform by lawful 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."

  

   

 

European Outlook # 83 February 2023

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

Political prisoner Vincent Reynouard has sent me a home-made New Year Card from his prison cell in Edinburgh. He is being held in Scotland pending extradition to France on charges of 'Holocaust Denial'. This is not an offence in the UK but anyone raising the subject is liable to be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred. 

This blog does not deny the Holocaust. There's no doubt that Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps by the Nazis. The figure of six million deaths may be disputed, but it was undoubtedly a crime against humanity.

It's ironic that Israel is now treating the Palestinians just like the Nazis treated the Jews. Of course, not all Israelis are guilty anymore than all Germans were guilty during the war. It's governments that persecute people, not the ordinary folk. Adolf Hitler was a tyrant and so is Bibi Netanyahu. 

Revising history doesn't cause racial hatred and studying the events of nearly eighty years ago is not likely to revive antisemitism. Vincent Reynouard is entitled to his opinions. Britain and France have always been champions of liberty. It's a shame that both nations are now denying free speech.

Unforeseen Factors

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:

"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."