Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

mercredi, 10 décembre 2014

El “no” a Inglaterra de Charles de Gaulle

Por Michael Neudecker

Ex: http://www.elespiadigital.com

En 2013 se cumplieron 50 años del primer “no” del general y presidente francés Charles De Gaulle a la entrada del Reino Unido a la Comunidad Económica Europea, el embrión de lo que hoy es la Unión Europea. Los británicos tuvieron que esperar justo una década, hasta 1973, para poder ingresar aunque nunca han sido unos europeístas demasiado convencidos. De hecho, el actual primer ministro, David Cameron, respalda la posibilidad de convocar un referéndum para consultar si el Reino Unido debe seguir siendo miembro de la UE. ¿La puerta para abandonar Europa?

El 14 de enero de 1963 Charles de Gaulle dijo no y el Reino Unido se quedó fuera de la Comunidad Económica Europea. Fundada poco antes, en 1957, la CEE ya era un éxito espectacular y representaba el núcleo de la recuperación económica europea. Unificaba la capacidad y el prestigio político de Francia y el llamado ‘milagro alemán’ y ya prometió convertirse en un actor internacional a tener en cuenta.

Sin embargo, en 1963 el mundo estaba claramente dividido entre las zonas de influencia de las dos superpotencias, los EEUU y la URSS. No había espacio para los antiguos imperios coloniales ni para las viejas potencias europeas, que salieron o bien derrotadas o bien arruinadas de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Sin embargo, De Gaulle no lo veía así. Su política de la ‘Europa de las Patrias’ defendía la resurrección política del viejo continente y su independencia de la tutela de las dos superpotencias.

Francia era débil. Había sido derrotada por los alemanes en 1940 y solamente su prestigio y la insistencia de De Gaulle hicieron posible que se le mantuviera el status de potencia vencedora al finalizar la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Sin embargo, la derrota y pérdida de Indochina en 1954 y de Argelia en 1962, y la humillación en el Canal de Suez en 1956 –infringida por los EEUU- dejaron a Francia sin su imperio colonial y solamente con Europa.

Allí Francia tenía dos posibilidades: se resignaba a ser un socio protegido de los EEUU frente a la URSS, o trataba de conseguir la supremacía. De Gaulle optó por la segunda opción, siguiendo la tradición de Carlomagno, Luis XIV o Napoleón. Pero no lo podía hacer solo. No tenía fuerzas suficientes para ello y necesitaba un socio. Este sería la Alemania Federal de Konrad Adenauer.

Alemania, derrotada y en busca de amigos

Alemania era un país derrotado, dividido y sin soberanía. Pero con un potencial económico muy alto. Su industria seguía siendo la más poderosa de Europa y estaba claro que, una vez recuperada de la guerra y reconstruidas las ruinas, volvería a jugar un papel fundamental. La pregunta era ¿qué papel sería ese? Francia lo tenía claro: sería su socio. Ella pondría el prestigio y la política, y los alemanes pondrían la economía. Alemania, ansiosa por ser readmitida en la sociedad internacional y de integrarse en Occidente y protegerse así de la URSS aceptó encantada.

El acercamiento entre ambos países fue fulgurante, primero en 1951 con la fundación de la Comunidad Económica del Carbón y del Acero (CECA) –poniendo fin así al conflicto histórico por el control de los yacimientos de carbón entre ambas partes- y en 1952 con la firma del Tratado de la Comunidad Europea de Defensa, según el cual ambos unirían sus ejércitos en uno solo. Esta iniciativa resultó ser demasiado ambiciosa y los franceses –celosos de su independencia- no lo ratificaron. Pero sí se avanzó en el camino de la integración económica. Fue el nacimiento de la Comunidad Económica Europea en 1957.

El Reino Unido, por su parte, también había salido muy debilitado de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Pero a diferencia de Francia, había sido una de las potencias fundamentales en la derrota de Hitler en 1945. Seguía siendo una potencia, pero sólo de prestigio. Arruinada por la guerra, tuvo que renunciar a su imperio en 1947 reconociendo la independencia de India y Pakistán, y pidiendo ayuda a los EEUU en la guerra civil griega entre monárquicos y comunistas. Londres entregó sus trastos a Washington y se conformó en ser el socio pequeño de los EEUU, eso sí, con una relación especial.

El perro faldero de los EEUU

Esa relación especial era lo que les hacía sospechosos a los ingleses a ojos de De Gaulle. Él aspiraba a liderar una Europa independiente de las superpotencias, y el Reino Unido parecía ser el perro faldero de los EEUU. De hecho, al principio los británicos no se tomaron en serio a la CEE y se opusieron a cualquier tipo de participación en ella. No querían renunciar a su Commonwealth ni querían participar en una organización que blindaba su comercio exterior con una rígida política proteccionista. La patria de Adam Smith seguía siendo el adalid del libre comercio y para contrarrestar a la CEE fundó en 1960 la Asociación Europea de Libre Comercio (EFTA en inglés) a la que también pertenecieron los países nórdicos de Europa, Austria, Suiza, Irlanda y Portugal. Pero fue un fracaso y pronto sus miembros aspiraban a entrar en la CEE.

Pero De Gaulle dijo ‘no’, no una sino dos veces, la segunda en 1967. No quería a los ingleses en ‘su’ Europa. No se podía fiar de ellos ni tampoco tenía sentido incluir a un tercer socio en su pareja con Alemania. Eso solamente podría o debilitar su plan de independencia al acercar más a los EEUU, o bien devaluar el papel de Francia al frente de Europa al sumar a Londres junto a Alemania. A De Gaulle no le interesaba la unión de Europa, le interesaba la hegemonía de Francia en Europa, y para ello no podía permitir la entrada del Reino Unido. Hubo que esperar a la dimisión de De Gaulle en 1969 para que se iniciaran los trámites de adhesión y, finalmente, en 1973, el Reino Unido se incorporó a la CEE.

Hoy, 40 años después de su entrada y 50 después de ser rechazados por primera vez, los británicos amenazan con abandonar la Unión Europea en la peor crisis de su historia. En estas cuatro décadas nunca jugaron un papel constructivo ni fueron el motor de la integración europea, más bien todo lo contrario. Por lo tanto no son pocos en ambas orillas del Canal de la Mancha los que opinan que a lo mejor no sería tan mala idea que Londres corte sus amarras y navegue por el Atlántico en brazos de su aliado los EEUU. ¿Había tenido razón De Gaulle?

jeudi, 06 novembre 2014

The Fourth British Defeat in Afghanistan

Afghan-withdrawal-_3085659k.jpg

The Fourth British Defeat in Afghanistan

“Lord of our far-flung battle-line,

Beneath whose awful Hand we hold

Dominion over palm and pine—

Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,

Lest we forget—lest we forget!

Far-called, our navies melt away;

On dune and headland sinks the fire:

Lo, all our pomp of yesterday

Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!

Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,

Lest we forget—lest we forget!”

Rudyard Kipling “Recessional”

The last British soldiers were airlifted out of Afghanistan last week, marking the sorry end of Britain’s fourth failed invasion of Afghanistan. With them went the last detachment of US Marines in Helmand.

Well has Afghanistan earned its title, “Graveyard of Empires.”

To be more precise, this honor belongs to Afghanistan’s Pashtun (or Pathan) mountain tribes, who bend their knees for no man and take pride in war.

In my book, “War at the Top of the World,” I called Pashtun “the bravest men on earth.” Later, I would add the fierce Chechen to that illustrious fraternity.

The old imperialists are gone, but the occupation of Afghanistan continues. The new regime in Kabul just installed by Washington to replace uncooperative former ally Hamid Karzai, rushed to sign an “agreement” allowing the United States to keep some 10,000 soldiers in Afghanistan for years. This garrison will be exempt from all Afghan laws.

However, there’s much more to this arrangement. The US combat troops, tactfully labeled “trainers” or “counter-terrorist forces,” are too few in number to dominate all Afghanistan. Their task is to defend Kabul’s sock puppet government from its own people and to defend the all-important US Bagram airbase.

Washington clearly plans to continue ruling Afghanistan and Iraq the same way that the British Empire did. Small numbers of British troops garrisoned the capital; white officers led the native mercenary army. But Britain’s real power was exercised by RAF units based in Iraq and Northwest Frontier Province.

Any native “disturbance” would be bombed and strafed by the RAF. In the 1920’s, Winston Churchill authorized RAF to use poison gas bombs against restive Pashtun and Kurdish tribesmen. Ironically, seven decades later I discovered British scientists who had been sent by HM government to Iraq to build germ weapons for Saddam Hussein to use against Iran.

Similarly, the “Pax Americana” will be enforced by US airpower based at Bagram. US warplanes flying from Bagram, Qatar, and aircraft carriers on 24 hour call have been the only force keeping the Pashtun movement Taliban at bay. Without intense employment of US air power, western occupation forces, like the Imperial British armies before them, would have been driven from Afghanistan.

 

jbwrmoG.jpg

 

Without US air power, garrison troops and large numbers of “civilian contractors” and old-fashioned mercenaries the Kabul puppet regime would soon be swept away. Afghanistan’s government army is likely to collapse as quickly as Iraq’s did before ISIS. Most of southern Afghanistan would declare for Taliban which, however harsh, is the nation’s only authentic political movement apart from the Tajik and Uzbek Communists in the north.

The US garrison in Kabul will continue to make Afghanistan safe for opium, which is the base for heroin. Americans have simply turned a blind eye to their ownership if the world’s top producer of heroin.

As Washington orates about the so-called War on Drugs, Afghan opium production rose in 2013 from $2 billion to $3 billion. The UN says over 500,000 acres of land in Afghanistan are now devoted to the opium poppy – right under the eyes of the US garrison.

While US-installed rulers in Kabul pay lip service to opium eradication, the rural warlords who support them, and receive stipends from CIA, continue to grow rich on the opium trade. Trying to blame Taliban for the scourge of opium is dishonest: when Taliban was in power it eradicated almost all of the nation’s opium production, reported he UN Drug Agency, except in the region controlled by the Communist Northern Alliance – which today shares power in Kabul.

When the full history of the Afghan war is finally written, CIA’s involvement in that nation’s drug trade will become a notorious episode. French intelligence became deeply involved in the Laotian opium trade to pay its Lao mercenaries. The US was up to its ears with its Contra allies in the Central American cocaine trade.

Now, US intelligence has besmirched its name once again aiding and abetting Afghan drug lords so as to supposedly wage war on “terrorists.” In dirt-poor Afghanistan, there are only two sources of income: money from Washington, and from narcotics. The collusion of senior members of government, military and police is necessary to export tons of opium to either Pakistan, Central Asia or Russia – where morphine addiction is now a major epidemic.

Adding to this shameful record, the US Congressional auditor for Special Reconstruction of Afghanistan just reported that much of the $104 billion appropriated for Afghan “reconstruction” has to no surprise been wasted or stolen. Some of it has been used to irrigate opium poppy fields. Spare parts are unavailable for Russian helicopters bought by the US for use in battling Taliban and supposed opium fighting. Why? Because the US-imposed trade sanctions on Russia bars the US from buying the spare part. Catch-22.

By now, the longest war in US history has cost some $1 trillion, maybe more. No one can properly account for the billions and billions of US dollars flown into Afghanistan and Iraq and dished out to the natives – or the numbers of Afghans killed.

For Washington’s allies, like Canada and Britain, the war has been a total waste of lives and treasure. For Canada, 158 dead for nothing; for Britain 453. Forget all the phony claims about “mission” and “nation building.” This has been yet another dirty little colonial war that is better forgotten – and never repeated. So this war will simmer on, at least until Washington finds some face-saving way out of the mess in the Hindu Kush.

If the US was wise, it would simply quit Afghanistan. But power, like opium, is highly addictive. So America’s longest war will drag on and on.

mardi, 28 octobre 2014

Schotse SNP heeft fascistische wortels

Karl Drabbe

'De vijand van mijn vijand is mijn vriend'

Schotse SNP heeft fascistische wortels

SC-Fasc.jpgEen recente historische roman over Londen en nazi-Duitsland loodst willens nillens naar een recente historische studie over fascisme in Schotland. Ook de SNP heeft fascistische wortels en hoopte via een overwinning van nazi-Duitsland Schotse onafhankelijkheid te bekomen.

Met Mist over Londen schreef C.J. Sansom recent een historische thriller die een wereldwijd succes werd. Eerder schreef hij over een vroegmoderne advocaat in het door Cromwell verscheurde Engeland en een historische roman die zich afspeelde tegen de achtergrond van de Spaanse Burgeroorlog. Mist over Londen is een what-if-roman; geromaniseerde counterfactional history: wat als de Britten in 1940 een pact zouden hebben gesloten met Hitler-Duitsland? Een moeizaam lezend boek, dat door zijn historische setting toch enkele wetenswaardigheden opwierp. Zoals het feit als zou de Schotse Nationalistische Partij SNP – de drijvende kracht achter het referendum straks op 18 steptember – niet onwillig geweest zijn voor de verleidingen en verlokkingen van het nationaal-socialisme. Pardon, dat in zijn geschiedenis erg linkse, zelfs trotskistisch geïnspireerde SNP dat flirtte met nazi-Duitsland? Les extrêmes se touchent? Of is het à la Mark Grammens: ‘de vijand van mijn vijand is mijn vriend’?

Het enige niet-vaderlandstrouwe element dat je op Wikipedia leest over de SNP is dat de toen jonge partij (opgericht in 1934) tijdens Wereldoorlog II campagne voerde tegen de conscriptie, de verplichte legerdienst om het Empire te verdedigen en Herr Hitler te bestrijden. 

Maar wie wat verder zoekt, leert dat de SNP wel wat vaker ‘fout’ was, zoals dat heet. Nu goed, ook de pacifistische verkozenen van Labour en de appeasement-politici van de Tories – die Hitler zijn gang lieten met Sudetenland en de Oostenrijkse Anschluss – zou je kunnen verdenken van enige sympathieën met het nationaalsocialisme. Anderzijds hebben (kopstukken van) die partijen later uitdrukkelijk afstand genomen van en hun verontschuldigingen aangeboden voor hun politiek voor het feitelijke uitbreken van de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Het ging meer om het toegeven van inschattingsfouten.

Van vreemde smetten vrij

Echter, van de SNP nooit enig woord, nooit enige verontschuldiging. Was dat dan niet nodig? De tweede voorzitter van de partij, Andrew Dewar Gibb (1934-’36), kan nochtans op z’n minst fascistoïde genoemd worden. Niet echt een antisemiet, bij gebrek aan joden in Schotland. Hij viseerde vooral de katholieke Ieren die tijdens het interbellum voor een nieuwe influx van proleten zorgde, gevlucht voor het terrorisme in Ierland, op zoek naar werk in de machtige industriestaat Groot-Brittannië. Andrew Dewar Gibb vond zelfs dat die Ierse inwijkelingen hun stemrecht moest worden afgenomen, en niet enkel omdat ze massaal voor het socialistische Labour stemden, maar omwille van hun vreemde afkomst. Zijn antisemitisme botvierde hij op de Communistische Partij, die volgens hem van oorsprong véél te joods was.

Tot op vandaag heeft de SNP nooit afstand genomen van Gibb. Zoals de partij in haar tachtigjarig bestaan er ook nooit veel aandacht aan heeft besteed. – Overigens, ook in het (prachtige) nationale museum van Schotland herinner ik me niets gezien te hebben over fascisme of nationaalsocialisme. Nochtans heeft de Schotse emancipatiestrijd er een hele zaal gekregen.

De vijand van mijn vijand …

Professor Gavin Bowd doceert Frans aan de befaamde Schotse St Andrews Universiteit. Zijn recente boek Fascist Scotland (Birlinn, 2013) geeft niet alleen een mooie inkijk in de niche van het politieke fascisme in Schotland. Het geeft ook een plaats aan het fascisme binnen de SNP ‘which make uncomfortable reading for its members,’ volgens een recensent.

In de jaren 1930 was de SNP nog niet de socialistische partij die ze later – vooral in de jaren 1960-’70 – geworden is. Bowd beschrijft hoe vele van de eerste generatie partijkopstukken landeigenaars waren met een meer dan bijzondere belangstelling voor Mussolini en Hitler. In diezelfde jaren sloot de ‘Scottish Union of Fascists’ zelfs en bloc aan bij de SNP.

In Fascist Scotland wijst Gavin Bowd erop dat er wel meerdere ‘Scot Nats’ waren die uitkeken naar een overwinning van nazi-Duitsland als een soort ‘opportuniteit’ om Schotse onafhankelijkheid te realiseren. De vergelijking met het activisme in de Eerste en de collaboratie in de Tweede Wereldoorlog in Vlaanderen ligt voor de hand. 

In januari 1939 al schreef SNP-voorzitter Douglas Young (1942-1945): ‘If Hitler could neatly remove our imperial breeks somehow and thus dissipate the mirage of Imperial partnership with England etc he would do a great service to Scottish Nationalism.’ In augustus 1940 schreef Young: ‘The Germans will look around for aborigines to run Scotland and it is to be wished that the eventual administration consist of people who have in the past shown themselves to care for the interests of Scotland.’

Professor Bowd: ‘Young thus showed the ambivalent, to say the least, attitude of Scottish Nationalists towards Fascism. Hatred of the English led to the downplaying of the Fascist threat to freedom and peace, while more radical Nationalists could be attracted to the authoritarian and xenophobic solutions offered by the Führer and the Duce.’

In mei 1941 werd ene Arthur Donaldson opgepakt door de Britse autoriteiten. Donaldson werd beticht van pro-nazi-sympathieën. De man was lid van de SNP. Guilty by association? Ongetwijfeld. Elke partij heeft gekken rondlopen. Maar doorgaans, als zoiets bekend wordt, distantieert een partij zich, verontschuldigt ze zich. En ze excommuniceert het lid. Zo niet de SNP.

In het verslag van de MI5-agent die Donaldson ondervroeg is te lezen: ‘We must, he declared, be able to show the German Government that we are organised and that we have a clear cut policy for the betterment of Scotland; that we have tried our best to persuade the English Government that we want Scottish Independence and that we are not in with them in this war. If we can do that you can be sure that Germany will give us every possible assistance in our early struggle. The time is not yet ripe for us to start a virile campaign against England, but when fire and confusion is at its height in England, we can start in earnest. He then went on to tell them that he had an idea in his mind for fixing up a wireless transmitting set in a thickly populated district in Glasgow or Edinburgh, in order to give broadcasts to the public.’

In mei 1941 was er nog een mogelijke Duitse overwinning – Endsieg – in zicht. Niet helemaal onbegrijpelijk dat er dus ook in het VK pro-nazi’s rondliepen, zeker niet als de partijleider het ‘goede voorbeeld’ gaf.

Ware het niet dat diezelfde man negentien jaar later, in 1960 werd verkozen tot … voorzitter van de SNP. Die taak vervulde hij tot 1969, toen hij werd opgevolgd door William Wolfe.

Tot op vandaag is er tijdens het jaarlijkse SNP-congres een 'Arthur Donaldson lecture'. De partij heeft dus nog steeds geen afstand genomen van haar ‘Duitsvriendelijke’  voorzitter.

‘Van vreemde smetten vrij’ (2)

Enkele jaren later, in 1982, toen paus Johannes Paulus II Schotland aandeed tijdens een van zijn vele wereldreizen, vond oud-partijvoorzitter Billy Wolfe het nodig de Schotten in te lichten dat het katholicisme – in Schotland beleden door afstammelingen van Ierse immigranten uit het interbellum – een ‘vreemde’ religie was en katholieken nooit ‘true Scots’ kunnen worden. Een vreemde exclusieve visie op identiteit, geef toe. Toch voor een partij die zich vandaag heel internationalistisch, sociaaldemocratisch en inclusief opstelt. Amper dertig jaar geleden was dat nog anders.

Vergezocht?

De SNP werd in 1934 opgericht als een samensmelting van twee oudere Schots-nationalistische partijen: de Scottish Party en de National Party of Scotland.

De gevierde Schotse dichter Hugh MacDiarmid (née Christopher Murray Grieve) was een van de stichters van de NPS. In 1923, amper een jaar nadat Mussolini na zijn Mars op Rome de macht greep in Italië, schreef de dichter  twee artikels waarin hij opriep tot een Schots fascisme dat onderdeel moest vormen van ‘een Schotse national revival en radicale sociale gerechtigheid doorheen heel Schotland’.

Naar fascistisch voorbeeld van andere nationalistische bewegingen in Europa, richtte MacDiarmid een ‘ondergrondse’ militantenorde op, de Clann Albainn. MacDiarmid evolueerde van een radicaal fascisme naar een nationaal-bolsjevisme. Hij omarmde het Sovjet-communisme en werd daardoor uit de SNP gezet. Jaren later gooiden de Schotse Communisten hem uit hun partij … omwille van zijn nationalistische standpunten.

Ook MacDiarmid zag ‘opportuniteiten’ in de mogelijke nazi-invasie op de Britse eilanden. 

Oordeel

Hoe vaak valt niet te lezen dat het Vlaams-nationalisme een ‘rechtse’ uitzondering is op het ‘linkse’ nationalisme elders in Europa? Een cliché van jewelste, want de grootste nationalistische partijen in Catalonië en Baskenland zijn centrumrechts, conservatief of liberaal. Van de succesvolle nationalistische partijen is de Schotse SNP de grote uitzondering. Maar dat was niet altijd zo.

Ook de SNP heeft, zoals de Bretonnen, de Welsch, de Vlamingen, Kroaten, Slowaken en zovele andere volkeren in Europa gerekend op een momentum. In een Duits Rijk zouden ze over ‘hun autonomie’ kunnen beschikken. Dat een en ander anders uitdraaide is niet alleen het lot van de geschiedenis. Het is ook moreel wijfelbaar. Bij monde van Frans-Jos Verdoodt heeft de Vlaamse Beweging haar historisch pardon hierover al uitgesproken in 2000. De SNP heeft nog niet de spons over haar verleden geveegd … 

lundi, 20 octobre 2014

Sennacherib’s Return

 Lancaster_I_NG128_Dropping_Blockbuster_-_Duisburg_-_Oct_14_1944-300x264.jpg

Sennacherib’s Return

Advance to Barbarism, FJP Veale

The exclusion of non-combatants from the scope of hostilities is the fundamental distinction between civilized and barbarous warfare.

FJP Veale

Sennacherib, the great king,

And their small cities, which were beyond numbering I destroyed, I devastated, and I turned into ruins. The houses of the steppe, (namely) the tents, in which they lived, I set on fire and turned them into flames.

Over the whole of his wide land I swept like a hurricane. The cities Marubishti and Akkuddu, his royal residence-cities, together with small towns of their area, I besieged, I captured, I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire.

In the course of my campaign, Beth-Dagon, Joppa, Banaibarka, Asuru, cities of Sidka, who had not speedily bowed in submission at my feet, I besieged, I conquered, I carried off their spoil.

As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area, which were without number, by levelling with battering-rams and by bringing up seige-engines, and by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breeches, I besieged and took them.

I captured their cities and carried off their spoil, I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire.

Furthermore, 33 cities within the bounds of his province I captured. People, asses, cattle and sheep, I carried away from them as spoil. I destroyed, I devastated, and I burned with fire.

The cities which were in those provinces I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire. Into tells and ruins I turned them.

…strong cities, together with the small cities in their areas, which were countless, I besieged, I conquered, I despoiled, I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire, with the smoke of their conflagration I covered the wide heavens like a hurricane.

Veale continues his examination of the Advance to Barbarism, focusing first on the World War II bombing of areas outside of the battlefield and culminating in the carpet bombing of German cities.  This bombing marked the complete repudiation of one of the cornerstones of the concept of civilized warfare: warfare should be the concern only of the armed combatants engaged; non-combatants should be left outside of the scope of military operations.  It marked the return, or advance as Veale puts it, to a form of warfare for which Sennacherib the Assyrian was well known.

May 11, 1940

churchill.jpgVeale introduces J. M. Spaight and his book “Bombing Vindicated.” Spaight describes the awesomeness of this day, the “splendid decision” to bomb German targets well outside of the area of military operations.  The next day, newspapers announced that “eighteen Whitley bombers attacked railway installations in Western Germany.”

Looked at from today’s eyes, there is nothing shocking in this statement; however, compared to what came before in European wars, this was news:

Western Germany in May 1940 was, of course, as much outside the area of military operations as Patagonia.

At the time the battle for France was in high gear, yet the pilots flew over these battlefields to reach their objective:

To the crews of these bombers it must have seemed strange to fly over a battlefield where a life and death struggle was taking place and then over a country crowded with columns of enemy troops pouring forward to the attack…Their flight marked the end of an epoch which had lasted for two and one-half centuries.

…against a background of prosaic twentieth railway installations we can imagine the grim forms of Asshurnazirpal and Sennacherib stroking their square-cut, curled and scented beards with dignified approval….

This was only the beginning, with the culmination to come in Dresden some five years later, but this is to get too far ahead in the narrative.

The entire reason for the development of Britain’s bomber command “was to bomb Germany should she be our enemy,” according to Spaight.  Philosophically, this concept was offered as early as 1923, by Air Marshal Sir Hugh Trenchard: “The Army policy is to defeat the enemy army; our policy is to defeat the enemy nation.”  Not very European.

Spaight points out that this was also obvious to Hitler, which is one reason Hitler was anxious to reach an agreement with Britain to confine “the action of aircraft to the battle zones.”  Spaight agrees that Hitler undertook civilian bombing only three months after the RAF began bombing the German civilian population.

Germany did not design its bombers for such use, instead designed to support ground troops:

“For Germany,” Mr. Spaight continues, “the bomber was artillery for stationary troops dug fast into the Maginot Line; for Britain, it was an offensive weapon designed to attack the economic resources of the enemy deep within his country.”

In order to establish the groundwork for this shift, in May, 1940 Churchill and his advisors extended the definition of military objectives to include…

…factories, oil plants, public buildings and any structure which contributed or was of use, if only indirectly, to the war effort of the enemy.

Railway installations, industrial zones, etc.  The British Cabinet argued that these are used to support the military, therefore are fair targets.  Of course, by this reasoning – and by including the word “indirectly” – virtually every resident of a warring nation could be a legitimate target.

However, even via this logic, bombing accuracy must be taken into account.  There is no such thing as “collateral damage” when bombing an actual war zone – there is no collateral to damage.  Even with modern accuracy, collateral damage is a given (and intended) – and with the technology of World War Two, collateral damage was more likely than damage of the purposeful sort.

May 14, 1940

…a date on which Hitler’s triumphal progress which, thanks to the outcome of events on that day he was able to continue for the following two years, came so near to being brought to an abrupt and final halt.

On May 10, the Germans invaded the West, in an offensive that stretched from the North Sea to Switzerland.  On May 12, German General von Kleist occupied Sedan in the Ardennes, and the next day established a beachhead on the other side of the Meuse River – four miles deep and four miles wide.

Meanwhile, British bombers were flying overhead, on their way to targets far from the battlefield.

While this great conflict was raging along the Meuse, another conflict of a different kind was raging between the French and British High Commands.

The breakthrough by the Germans had been so swift that no heavy artillery was moved into place – artillery that might have cut-off the bridgehead established by the Germans. The French, believing that the purpose of heavy bombers was for long-rage artillery (just as the Germans designed)…

…clamoured for an immediate concentration of bombers for a mass attack on the crossings of the Meuse.  They found however the chiefs of the R.A.F were reluctant to cancel the plans which they had made for large scale air attacks on German industrial centres in accordance with Air Marshal Trenchard’s conception of the role of the heavy bomber in warfare.

Whatever the merits of bombing German industrial centers, the French did not believe that the time to begin doing so was during the opening of a great land battle.

 

lancbomber11.jpg

 

On the night of the 13th, German troops frantically repaired the Gaulier Bridge over the Meuse; on the 14th, the heavy tanks of the 1st Panzer Division under General Guderian crossed the river and raced along a route toward the English Channel.

“Upon the destruction of the Gaulier Bridge depends victory or defeat,” declared General d’Astiere de la Vigerie imploring that every available bomber should be assigned this vital task.

About 170 British and French bombers were sent; German anti-aircraft proved quite accurate – about 85 were shot down.  Yet only one bomber needed to be successful; might the likelihood have improved with more thrown into the attack?

We now know that 96 heavy bombers were at this vital moment available to join the attack.  While this supreme effort was being made to cut the communications of the German tank spearhead advancing toward the English Channel, these 96 heavy bombers were waiting passively on nearby airfields in preparation for a mass attack on the factories and oil plants in the Ruhr which had been planned to take place on the evening of the following day.

This attack, far from the front line, took place as planned.  Ninety-six bombers took off, of which 78 were directed at oil plants.  Of these, only 24 crews claim to have found them.

One extra load of bombs on the crossing over the Meuse by Sedan – let alone ninety-six loads – might have made all the difference between victory and defeat as General Billote pointed out at the time.  Had the supplies of Guderian’s Panzers been cut off, he would soon have been brought to a halt from lack of petrol and then forced to surrender when his ammunition was exhausted.

Veale speculates that this might have brought the battle in the West to a rapid end: the German generals, hesitant to invade France in the first place, might have compelled Hitler’s retirement; the National Socialist party would have collapsed; Britain and France could have been in a position to dictate the terms of peace.

I cannot say if any of this would have happened – beyond the understanding that the German generals did not support this invasion.  One thing I suspect is true: if the British were successful in blowing the bridge, the war in the west would have been much different.

From the “Splendid Decision” to Terror Bombing

On December 16, 1940, 134 planes took off for a nighttime raid on the town of Mannheim, with the object of the attack – according to Air Chief Marshal Pierse – “to concentrate the maximum amount of damage in the centre of the town.”  So much for any semblance of military objectives.

From The Bansusan-Butt Report dated August 18, 1941:

The British Cabinet were horrified to learn that aerial photographs taken of the targets described as having been completely demolished disclosed that most of them showed no signs of damage; of all the aircraft credited with having bombed their targets, only one-third had, in fact, bombed within five miles of them.

Within five miles – a rather generous standard.  Only one-third – a rather criminal rate. Even this loose definition of “military objectives” was not enough:

…early in 1942 – the exact date, it now appears, was March 30th, 1942 – Professor Lindemann submitted a Minute to the War Cabinet in which he urged that bombing  henceforth should be directed against German working-class houses in preference to military objectives.

He estimated that 50% of the houses in German towns of 50,000 and more would be destroyed.

The first application of this plan was executed on March 28, 1942 (this presents some conflict in the dates), with the attack of Lilibeck by 234 aircraft.

The focus of the attack was the Altstadt composed of medieval houses with narrow, tortuous streets; some 30,000 people lived in an area of two square kilometres.

The climax, of course, was Dresden.

The climax of the offensive was reached on the night of February 13th, 1945 when a mass raid by several thousand heavy bombers was directed against Dresden.

The Associated Press at the time had no difficulty in calling it, according to Veale, a deliberate terror bombing…as a ruthless expedient to hasten Hitler’s doom.

From The Times, immediately after the bombings:

“Dresden, which had been pounded on Tuesday night by 800 of the 1,400 heavies sent out by the R.A.F. and was the main object of 1,350 Fortresses and Liberators on the following day, yesterday received its third heavy attack in thirty-six hours.  It was the principal target for more than 1,100 United States 8th Army Air Force bombers.”

The focus of the attack was the Altstadt – the beautiful center of the city so well-known to western travelers – palaces, art galleries, museums and churches.  No military objectives nearby.

With fires raging from the first wave, a second wave descended on the city.  No air raid shelters; the public buildings swollen with refugees stood between the falling bombs and the ground.  The city was covered with black smoke – making it difficult, I imagine, for the pilots to see even what they were bombing.  It mattered little, as the point wasn’t military.

The city burned for days.

The city was swollen by hundreds of thousands of women and children, escaping the horrors of Stalin’s armies from the east – escaping the murder, rape and arson.  Western reconnaissance planes certainly saw the dense crowds moving westward.

So enormous were the number of bodies that nothing could be done but to pile them on timber collected from the ruins and there to burn them.  In the Altmarkt one funeral pyre after another disposed of five hundred bodies or parts of bodies at a time.  The gruesome work went on for weeks.

Estimates of the dead range from 100,000 to 250,000.

The war, by now, had already been won.  The only military question left was where the line between east and west would be drawn.  Apparently it was desirous to aid Russia in the placement of the line.

I hope someday, through my work in my Timeline to War, to have a comprehensive picture of events leading up to the Second World War – I imagine this will be a never-ending task.  One of the puzzles to piece together as relates to German and British bombing of the other will be…who started it?  Not that it matters to me greatly, as two immoral wrongs cannot make a moral right.

Veale addresses this question:

In passing it may be observed that the question which air offensive was a reprisal for which has now long ceased to be a subject for dispute.

From the book “The Royal Air Force, 1939 – 1945,” Veale finds:

…the destruction of oil plants and factories was only a secondary purpose of the British air attacks on Germany which began in May 1940.  The primary purpose of these raids was to goad the Germans into undertaking reprisal raids of a similar character on Britain.  Such raids would arouse intense indignation in Britain against Germany and so create a war psychosis without which it is impossible to carry on a modern war.

Conclusion

Probably future historians will agree with the learned authors of the official history of the British strategic air offensive that the Second World War was not won by British terror bombing.  On the other hand, terror bombing, officially adopted in March 1942, was the only logical outcome of Churchill’s “Splendid Decision” of May 1940.

Future historians might also conclude that the “Splendid Decision” prolonged the war in the West by five years.

The lesson that could have been drawn from the Battle of Britain was that long range terror bombing offers a low likelihood of military advantage.  In this regard, General JFC Fuller wrote:

“This lesson was lost on the British Air Force which continued to hold that ‘strategic bombing’ was the be all and end all of air power.  This fallacy not only prolonged the war, but went far to render the ‘peace’ which followed it unprofitable to Britain and disastrous to the world in general.”

This lesson remains lost on those who choose air power over a distance of thousands of miles as the weapon of choice.

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

 

 

Copyright © 2014 Bionic Mosquito

jeudi, 09 octobre 2014

La insurrección escocesa de 1820

La insurrección escocesa de 1820, de Peter Berresford Ellis y Seumas Mac A’Ghobhainn

capture-20140908-1012551ª edición, Tarragona, 2014.

21×15 cms., 460 págs.
Cubierta a todo color, con solapas y plastificada brillo.
PVP: 25 euros  
 
Índice
 
Prólogo a la edición española  / 11
Prefacio a la edición de 2.001 /  21
Prefacio a la edición de 1.989 /  25
Prólogo de Hugh Mac Diarmid /  41
La insurrección /  47
La Unión /  67
El republicanismo escocés /  85
Los Escoceses Unidos /  111
El auge del radicalismo / 129
Mi espía Richmond / 145
Los disturbios de Paissley / 163
Planes para el levantamiento / 185
Libertad o muerte / 201
La batalla de Bonnymuir /  225
El levantamiento de Strathaven / 241
Los sucesos de Greenock / 255
La tranquilidad perfecta / 271
Audiencia e Instrucción  / 295
Los juicios / 313
Esta farsa de proceso / 331
¡Asesinato! ¡Asesinato! ¡Asesinato! / 350
¿Tiranía o Revolución? / 367
Apéndice I: Cartas de Baird y Hardie
desde la celda de la muerte / 391
Apéndice 2: Supuesta declaración de
James Wilkinson en la celda de la muerte / 435
Canciones de la sublevación de 1.820 / 439
Bibliografía seleccionada / 451
 
Orientaciones  
 
Este libro sobre LA INSURRECCIÓN ESCOCESA DE 1.820  tiene gran valor en su exposición del uso de espías y agentes provocadores y de la desenfrenada carencia de escrúpulos de las clases dirigentes y su prontitud para manipular la ley, insistiendo en la ley inglesa y enviando a la policía y a otros agentes sin hacer caso de los derechos legales escoceses y con la aprobación hipócrita de la magistratura, la clase terrateniente, la Iglesia y los demás pi­lares del status quo.
 
[del prefacio de Hugh MacDiarmid]  
Pedidos:
 
edicionesfides@yahoo.es

mardi, 23 septembre 2014

Site de Stonehenge

stonehenge_2540465b.jpg

Site de Stonehenge

De fabuleux nouveaux secrets se dévoilent

Jean-Paul Fritz*
Ex: http://metamag.fr

Grâce à l'emploi de nouvelles technologies, un projet archéologique britannique a permis de découvrir de nombreux monuments nouveaux sur ce qui est l'un des plus importants sites mégalithiques du monde.

La légende veut que Merlin ait amené les pierres de Stonehenge d'Irlande, en une nuit. Aujourd'hui, même si on a relégué l'enchanteur dans les livres de contes, on ne sait toujours pas exactement comment les constructeurs du monument mégalithique ont pu amener plus de 80 "pierres bleues" de 3 ou 4 tonnes chacune depuis le pays de Galles, un trajet de plus de 300 kilomètres en terrain accidenté, et ce voici plus de 41 siècles. Ou comment, une centaine d'années plus tard, ils ont transporté sur une trentaine de kilomètres d'autres blocs, en grès massif, de 50 tonnes  Et ce n'est que l'un des nombreux mystères de ce site sacré, étonnant monument : lieu de culte, de sépultures, observatoire solaire...

Mais Stonehenge n'était pas juste un cercle de pierre planté au beau milieu de la campagne, et l'on commence à peine à s'en apercevoir. L'an dernier déjà, une équipe d'archéologues a découvert des ossements prouvant que cette zone était un terrain de chasse et un lieu de vie pour les hommes préhistoriques depuis au moins 9.000 ans.

Au début de ce mois, on apprenait que grâce au hasard d'un tuyau d'arrosage trop court en période de sécheresse, les empreintes dans l'herbe de pierres aujourd'hui déplacées ont été révélées, et ont montré que le monument formait bien, à l'origine, un cercle complet.

Une maison-tumulus massive

Mais la découverte la plus importante provient d'une cartographie numérique détaillée de Stonehenge et de ses environs, dans le cadre du Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project (projet des paysages cachés de Stonehenge), mené conjointement par l'université de Birmingham et l'Institut Ludwig Goltzmann pour la prospection et l'archéologie virtuelle. Cette cartographie unique, réalisée notamment à partir de radars à pénétration de sol et de magnétomètres, a permis de mettre au jour des monuments jusqu'ici inconnus, et de mieux comprendre les restes de certains autres découverts précédemment.
 
Ce travail a révélé rien moins que 17 nouveaux monuments de l'époque à laquelle Stonehenge a été achevé. Des douzaines de sépultures ont également été placées sur la carte, ainsi que de très grandes fosses, parfois de 4 mètres de profondeur, dont certaines correspondraient à des alignements astronomiques.

Parmi les sites étudiés, un grand tumulus, antérieur à Stonehenge, estimé à 6.000 ans au moins. Ce bâtiment massif de 33 mètres de long était construit en bois, recouvert ensuite d'un monticule de terre. Il servait probablement à l'inhumation rituelle des morts.

Un fossé rituel de 3 kilomètres... avec des voies d'accès

Durrington Walls, une enceinte néolithique située à 3km au nord-est, était déjà connue, mais il s'avère aujourd'hui qu'elle constituait une sorte de "super-henge" de 1,5km de circonférence, qui, à ses débuts, était flanquée d'une ligne d'une soixantaine de poteaux massifs, sans doute de 3 mètres de haut.
 
Le grand fossé connu sous le nom de Cursus, et qui constituait une barrière symbolique avant l'accès à Stonehenge, a lui aussi révélé de nouveaux secrets. Datant de 3.500 ans avant notre ère, il s'étale sur 3 kilomètres, et fait environ 100 mètres de large, avec une fosse sur son côté est. Ce que l'on ne savait pas, c'est ce qui était à l'intérieur. Cette nouvelle recherche a permis de trouver une seconde fosse à l'autre bout du Cursus, dans le prolongement de la fameuse "Heel Stone" qui marque l'entrée de Stonehenge et qui était alignée avec le coucher du soleil lors du solstice d'été. Les archéologues ont également découvert des brèches dans le Cursus, permettant l'accès à Stonehenge. De quoi imaginer cette grande allée, d'est en ouest, comme une sorte de voie de procession rituelle suivant la course du soleil, avec des lignes allant du sud au nord qui guidaient les visiteurs dans leur accès au cercle de pierres, comme le décrit le professeur Vincent Gaffney, archéologue à l'université de Birmingham et leader du projet, au site du Smithsonian Institute.

De l'âge du Bronze à la première guerre mondiale

Les chercheurs ont aussi détecté des implantations de l'âge du bronze, de l'âge de fer, on encore romaines. Ils ont même retrouvé des tranchées creusées autour de Stonehenge par l'armée britannique pour servir de lieu d'entraînement aux troupes, durant la première guerre mondiale.

L'ensemble est aujourd'hui en train de redessiner totalement le paysage de Stonehenge et son histoire, qui s'étendrait sur une période de 11.000 ans. "Le Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project est unique à plusieurs titres", affirme le professeur Gaffney. «Non seulement il a révolutionné la manière dont les archéologues utilisent les nouvelles technologies pour interpréter le passé, mais il a aussi transformé notre compréhension de Stonehenge et de ses environs».
 
Publié sur Le blog de Jean-Paul Fritz sur le site du "Nouvel Obs" : Chroniques de l'Espace-Temps

dimanche, 21 septembre 2014

Ecosse: le vote des étrangers et des vieux a fait échouer le référendum

Regiment-420113.jpg

Ecosse: le vote des étrangers et des vieux a fait échouer le référendum

Source Breiz Atao cliquez ici

La défaite, honorable, des indépendantistes écossais trouve son explication dans le vote des quelques 880 000 non-Ecossais qui représentent 17% de la population du pays. En acceptant de les laisser voter, les indépendantistes socialistes ont eux-mêmes créé les conditions de leur échec.

Un demi-million de Britanniques en Ecosse

C’est sans doute possible parce que le Parti National Ecossais (SNP), socialiste, n’a jamais remis en cause la consultation du demi-million d’Anglais vivant en Ecosse, un pays qui en compte 5,3 millions, que Londres a accepté la tenue du référendum. En disposant d’une solide minorité de blocage, le gouvernement britannique a pu aborder le référendum avec un atout décisif en main.

La presse britannique a abondamment détaillé les intentions de vote de ces résidents installés en Ecosse. Et le verdict est sans appel : 63% d’entre eux entendaient voter contre l’indépendance.

Or, il a manqué environ 300 000 voix aux indépendantistes pour l’emporter.

Les Polonais votent… pour garder leurs papiers

En plus des Britanniques, Londres savait pouvoir disposer du soutien des autres non-Ecossais afin de circonvenir le vote séparatiste. Un sondage réalisé au mois d’août auprès des immigrés polonais résidant dans le pays indiquait que ceux-ci allaient voter en fonction du devenir de leurs visas si l’Ecosse devenait indépendante. L’incertitude prévalait sur le statut européen de l’Ecosse suite aux déclarations anti-indépendantiste de Manuel Barroso.

En conséquence, la libre-circulation assurée aux ressortissants des états-membres de l’UE était en théorie remise en cause. Hors cette libre-circulation était le seul critère qui importait aux yeux des immigrés polonais et d’Europe de l’Est. Pour eux, le devenir du peuple écossais importait peu et ils n’ont pas hésité un instant à faire valoir leurs intérêts comme ceux de Londres sur ceux du peuple qui les accueille.

Les Pakistanais ont aussi eu leur mot à dire

Les pakistanais ont également eu leur mot à dire. Représentant plus de 150 000 personnes, cette immigration sait ce qu’elle doit au gouvernement anglais et perçoit l’indépendance écossaise comme une menace directe. Les deux tiers d’entre eux voulaient voter contre le “Oui” à l’indépendance.

Les Ecossais de la diaspora privés de vote

Tandis que Pakistanais, Anglais ou Polonais étaient appelés à voter par Alex Salmond et son parti, les Ecossais de la diaspora se voyaient priver du droit de voter. Une diaspora forte de millions de personnes à travers le monde. Le logiciel du “droit du sol” cher aux indépendantistes de gauche a logiquement joué à fond et produit les fruits qu’il est voué à produire.

Lorsque l’on retranche les votes des étrangers – Anglais, Européens de l’Est et extra-Européens – les Ecossais de souche ont bel et bien voté pour leur indépendance.

Les vieux coresponsables

Les vieux sont, avec les étrangers, les moteurs de la victoire du “Non”. 65% des plus de 50 ans en Ecosse s’opposaient à l’indépendance. Soucieux de leurs rentes, ils perçoivent l’indépendance comme une remise en cause de leurs intérêts. Sans surprise, ce sont ces mêmes générations qui soutiennent l’immigration afin de “payer les retraites”, la pyramide des âges résultant de leur faible taux de natalité ayant engendré une crise démographique.

Des enseignements à tirer

Il y a plusieurs enseignements à tirer de cette consultation. Tout d’abord, la défaite des indépendantistes, largement causée par leur orientation idéologique socialiste, n’est pas écrasante. L’Ecosse n’a retrouvé son parlement autonome qu’il y a 15 ans et les indépendantistes ne sont arrivés au pouvoir qu’il y a 7 ans. Parvenir – contre les médiats britanniques et la totalité des partis anglais et des responsables européens – à rassembler près de 46% des suffrages constitue une véritable performance en un temps historique aussi court.

Ensuite, il apparaît comme évident que l’indépendantisme de gauche, en soutenant une interprétation non-ethnique du nationalisme, a créé les conditions de son propre échec politique. En refusant, par conviction ou par peur, d’empêcher les étrangers de voter sur une question qui ne les concerne pas par définition, les indépendantistes du SNP ont donné à Londres les moyens de son succès.

S’ajoute à cela un clivage générationnel patent. L’égoïsme des Baby Boomers est le fil conducteur de leur comportement politique : pro-immigrationnistes, court-termistes, uniquement soucieux de leur bien-être et de leur patrimoine, ils ont pris en otage le destin de la jeunesse écossaise. Sans surprise, leur parasitisme a convergé avec celui des Anglais et des immigrés extra-européens.

Cependant l’échec écossais est relatif. Il est plus un début de processus qu’une fin et l’éviction progressive des générations conservatrices permet d’entrevoir des évolutions décisives pour ce pays. En quelque sorte, c’est la fin d’une certaine forme d’indépendantisme socialiste et le début d’un autre. Les petites nations d’Europe n’auront d’autre choix que de se doter de formations politiques résolument nationalistes en lieu et place de cet “indépendantisme de gauche” dépassé.

vendredi, 19 septembre 2014

No Braveheart

braveheart9502.jpg

No Braveheart

von Robin Classen

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de

Schottland hat gewählt und bleibt im Vereinigten Königreich. Robin Classen kommentiert das Votum für uns.

Am heutigen Morgen ging eine der wohl längsten gesellschaftlichen Debatten im Vereinigten Königreich zu Ende. Nach mehr als zwei Jahren Wahlkampf, umfangreichster Berichterstattung im In– und Ausland und allgegenwärtigen Diskussionen hat Schottland sich in einer Volksabstimmung bei nahezu vollständiger Beteiligung für einen Verbleib im Vereinigten Königreich entschieden. Obgleich es in den letzten Umfragen nochmal sehr knapp wurde und zwischenzeitlich sogar die Abspaltungsbefürworter vorne lagen, schaffte es das „No“-Lager doch auf recht deutliche 56 Prozent der abgegebenen Stimmen.

Die Angstmacher haben gewonnen

Dabei hatte die „Yes“-Kampagne um die linksnationale Scottish National Party, die sich im Europaparlament bei den Grünen verortet, wirklich alles nur Erdenkliche in die Waagschale geworfen: Neben wirtschaftlichen und politischen Gründen spielte auch Idealismus eine maßgebende Rolle. Schottland war schon immer ein stures, eigenes Land, das sich nicht gerne von außen hineinreden lässt, weswegen eine Fremdbestimmung aus dem neoliberalen und imperialistischen London so gar nicht zu dem wilden Inselvolk des Nordens passt.

Mit einer Mischung aus Geschichtsbezug und modernem Sozialpatriotismus versuchte Alex Salmond die mehrheitlich sozialdemokratisch denkenden Schotten für eine Unabhängigkeit zu begeistern und scheiterte letztlich an den harten Fakten – unter anderem dem Geld. Obwohl die „Yes“-Anhänger immer wieder auf die extrem attraktive Chance verwiesen, als unabhängiger Staat selbst über die erheblichen Ölreserven im schottischen Meer zu verfügen und das neue Norwegen zu werden, gewann letztlich die auf Angst getrimmte Kampagne der „No“-Anhänger.

Die „No“-Anhänger gewinnen trotz eines schlechten Wahlkampfes

Die Unabhängigkeitsskeptiker waren zwar von vornherein schlecht organisiert und litten daran, dass David Cameron als britischer Tory-​Premier in Schottland ungemein unbeliebt ist und daher kaum erfolgreich für einen Verbleib Schottlands im Vereinigten Königreich werben konnte. Seine Taktik, mit Alistair Darling einen Labour-​Vertreter nach Schottland zum Wahlkampf zu entsenden, war ebenfalls nur eine dürftige Notlösung. Gewonnen wurde also nicht wegen, sondern eher trotz der honorigen Personen, die mitsamt der versammelten Hochfinanz, den Medien und den Unionisten gegen ein freies Schottland eintraten.

Was der „No“-Kampagne schließlich zum Sieg verhalf, war ein bewusstes Vermeiden romantischer Unabhängigkeitsideale in den Diskussionen und ein Pokern auf eine einzige Karte: den Materialismus. Welche Währung sollte ein unabhängiges Schottland denn haben? Das Pfund könne man schließlich nicht behalten, so das zentrale Argument. Auch seien 600.000 Arbeitsplätze im Ausland in Gefahr: Gerade so, als ginge es in der Abstimmung darum, dass Schottland das zweite Nordkorea werden sollte. Selbst Wladimir Putin musste als Argument dafür herhalten, dass das – bis auf England – von keinem anderen Staat umgebene und völlig unbedrohte Schottland zwingend auf die britische Armee angewiesen sei.

Auch die in Schottland eher populäre EU-​Mitgliedschaft stehe zur Disposition. Dieser Flut von Angstpropaganda gelang es am Ende, den Freiheitsgeist und den Wunsch nach Selbstbestimmung unter dem schweren Tuch des Materialismus zu ersticken. Braveheart war gestern, Schottland hat sich angstvoll im Goldenen Käfig verkrochen und den materiell gesicherten Status Quo der nationalen Selbstbestimmung vorgezogen.

Die Folgen betreffen ganz Europa

Die Folgen dieses historischen Referendums werden ganz Europa betreffen. Schottland wird von Cameron sicherlich Almosen in Form von kleineren Zugeständnissen in Hinblick auf die Selbstverwaltung bekommen. Andere Sezessionsbewegungen wie die Katalanen in Spanien, von denen einige nach Schottland gereist waren, um die „Yes“-Kampagne zu unterstützen, dürften am Ende vielleicht sogar teilweise profitieren: Die Abstimmung ist ein Beweis dafür, dass von Medien, Politik und Großkonzernen geschürte Angst das Stimmungsbild letztlich dominieren können, sodass eine Erlaubnis durch die spanische Regierung für das Referendum im November wahrscheinlicher wird.

Gewonnen ist damit jedoch noch lange nichts, wie der Ausgang des schottischen Votums belegt. Interessant sind die Auswirkungen insbesondere für ein möglicherweise kommendes Referendum über einen EU-​Austritt von Großbritannien. Schottland wird sich vermutlich mehrheitlich für einen Verbleib in der Union entscheiden, sodass der „Brexit“ nun ein Stück unwahrscheinlicher geworden ist. Dies wird aber von Teilen der nonkonformen Bewegungen in Europa durchaus begrüßt, da vor allem London die fanatischen Kompetenzerweiterungspläne von Brüssel in der Vergangenheit gestoppt hat.

Geld als bestimmender politischer Faktor

Letztlich ist das schottische „No“ aber eine Niederlage für ganz Europa und für die Werte der Demokratiebewegung. Geld als politischer Faktor ist im postmodernen Europa zum einzig entscheidenden Kriterium geworden, der Kapitalismus als Geisteshaltung hat gesiegt. Lernen müssen die freiheitlichen Bewegungen nun, finanzielle und wirtschaftliche Folgen ihrer Politik genaustens zu erörtern und diesen Themen mehr Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken.

Es erscheint daher auch wenig verwunderlich, dass sich unter den vielen nonkonformen Bewegungen in Deutschland mit der AfD gerade eine solche durchgesetzt hat, die nicht im Ansatz idealistisch oder staatspolitisch argumentiert, sondern ihre Ablehnung der Euro-​Politik allein aus den wirtschaftlichen und finanziellen Folgen für Deutschland speist. Nun gilt es für alle echten Alternativen, den vorherrschenden Materialismus argumentativ zu befriedigen, aber gleichsam nicht zu vergessen, warum man wirklich angetreten ist: Um ihn abzuschaffen.

jeudi, 18 septembre 2014

Yes, nationalisme met een links-economische opstelling kan Schotland bevrijden

ecosse-a-glasgow.jpg

Yes, nationalisme met een links-economische opstelling kan Schotland bevrijden, en niet alleen Schotland

Geschreven door 

Ex: http://www.solidarisme.be

Wat het nationalisme nodig heeft : een linkse economische opstelling , rechts op de waarden

Wat is het verschil tussen een nationalisme dat een groot deel van de bevolking kan overtuigen om voor onafhankelijkheid te gaan -zoals in Schotland vandaag- en een nationalisme dat haar doelstellingen angstvallig ontkend, zelfs verraad ,zoals in Vlaanderen.Dat verschil ligt in de wil om met de bevolking een sociaal contract af te sluiten. Decennia  van  socialistisch   conformisme aan het liberaal kapitalisme hebben in het Verenigd Koninkrijk geleid tot een ongeziene privatisering van overheidsbedrijven en sociale nutsvoorzieningen. Ook in Schotland werden de ‘nationale’ eigendommen geprivatiseerd, net zoals men dat in de rest van het koninkrijk  gedaan heeft.

Zo heeft het liberalisme en de vrije markt ,de samenhang binnen de Europese samenlevingen zo goed als vernietigd, daar is een bijproduct van dat liberalisme, met name immigratie voor een groot stuk mee schuldig aan. Voor de Europese Unie was en is dat echter een goede zaak, zo werden en worden de nationale gemeenschappen losgetrokken uit hun natuurlijk verband, en is de overgang naar een transnationale gemeenschap –de Europese Unie –die zich op een zuiver marktdenken baseert makkelijker te bereiken.Het is in de tegenstelling met deze logica- vrije marktliberalisme versus sociale welvaartstaat die de Schotse elite ( en volk) doet overhellen naar een ‘nationalistische’ koers voor hun land. Of dat zal lukken ,dat zien we deze week, en dan moeten we nog kijken hoe de E.U tegen dit gegeven zal aankijken.

Want dit zal een delicate zaak worden, de Europese Unie wil maar wat graag afgesplitste staten in haar rangen opnemen, maar vanuit geopolitiek standpunt  kan het voor de Unie gevaarlijk worden om de rest van het Verenigd Koninkrijk tegen zich in het harnas te jagen. Het Verenigt Koninkrijk is een van de drie Europese regionale machten, naast Duistland en Frankrijk  in Europa en gebruikt de Unie als een vrij handels-territorium, maar wat gebeurt er wanneer die Unie de ‘nationale’ belangen zo fundamenteel aantast dat er effectief grondgebied verloren gaat bij één van deze regionale machten, zoals dat bij de mogelijke Schotse onafhankelijkheid het geval zal zijn. Who knows , noboby. Wat zou Duitsland doen mocht het Ruhrgebied zich- onafhankelijk van Duitsland -bij de Unie willen aansluiten, denkt iemand echt dat men dat in Duitsland zou tolereren? Dat is trouwens al eens gebeurt in de geschiedenis, met het verdrag van Versailles.Dat gaf achteraf vuurwerk zoals we weten. De overdracht van nationaal grondgebied naar de Unie vinden de regionale grootmachten  dan ook alleen maar fijn als de kleine landen zich ontbinden, niet als het bij hen gebeurt. Europa zou van een vredesproject wel eens tot een regionaal conflictproject kunnen transformeren door Engeland klem te zetten met het opnemen van Schotland als E.U staat.

Voor anti Europese Unie militanten zoals wij dat zijn kunnen de gebeurtenissen in Schotland leerrijk worden, het kan de Unie  –op termijn- verzwakken ,dit omdat men de Engelse economie , Scotland is een energiebron voor het Koninkrijk en politiek ,zeker de geopolitiek, dwars zal zitten met een eventuele erkenning van Schotland als E.U staat.. Dat zal de UKIP en andere anti-E.U partijen in dat land alleen maar versterken .En elke verzwakking van de superstaat moeten we toejuichen.

Het streven naar nationale onafhankelijkheid ,is met het bestaan van de E.U een zeer moeilijke zaak geworden voor regionalisten, want ze moeten zich ook afscheuren van de Europese Unie of zich aan de Unie onderwerpen.Maar wat is daar de meerwaarde van, het juk van de ene Unie ( in het geval van Schotland) het Verenigd Koninkrijk ,afwerpen om zich daarna te onderwerpen aan een nog grotere en meer transnationaal onderdrukkingsmechanisme ,wat de ultra liberale Europese Unie.Het zal menige Schot dan ook- op termijn- ontgoochelen ,mocht het land voor onafhankelijkheid kiezen en zich daarna geconfronteerd zien met een liberaler agenda  van de E.U.die voor een groot stuk geënt is op wat in de U.K vandaag reeds gangbaar is , en waaraan de Schotten juist willen ontsnappen.De Schotten willen hun vrijheid om een sociaal systeem in te voeren met collectieve voorzieningen. De E.U wil juist die collectieve voorzieningen afschaffen en vernietigen.Onafhankelijkheid kan dan alleen maar als men zich ook van de E.U afwent, maar dan zullen de Schotten tegen twee vijanden aankijken, de E.U en het Verenigd Koninkrijk.Europa dwingt nationalisten in een catch 22 positie.

Maar één les kan men nu al trekken, het anti-Europees nationalisme kan maar succes hebben wanneer het een links economische  richting kiest, een sociale en antiliberale koers vaart.Zo kan ,en moet men zich afzetten tegen het Europese regionalisme van de elite dat door partijen zoals de N-VA wordt aangehangen.Zal  een partij zoals het Vlaams Belang radicaal voor deze optie durven kiezen, het is nochtans haar enige uitweg. Elke andere optie zal de partij totaal van de kaart vegen, en het zal haar kritiek op de euroregionalisten van de N-VA onmogelijk maken omdat ze op sociaaleconomisch vlak in dezelfde vijvers zullen vissen. Dan wordt /is deze partij irelevant.

Het  alternatief om de strijd voor onafhankelijkheid te voeren is een nieuw soort partij oprichten ( eventueel na het ontbinden van het VB).Een sociale en nationale partij, links van de economie, rechts op de waarden.

 

 

mercredi, 10 septembre 2014

Mißbrauch in England: Roger Scruton über Rotherham

rotherham-child-abuse.jpg

Mißbrauch in England: Roger Scruton über Rotherham

Posted By Martin Lichtmesz

Ex: http://www.sezession.de

[1]Nun ist die Katze endlich offiziell aus dem Sack, und sie ist so häßlich, daß hoffentlich niemand, der sie zu Gesicht bekommt, ihren Anblick jemals vergessen wird. Die Rede ist von der Tatsache, daß der tausendfache, systematische Mißbrauch von ausschließlich weißen englischen Minderjährigen durch eine Gang von Pakistanis jahrelang aus „politisch korrekten“ Gründen vertuscht wurde.

Ein nun veröffentlichter Report enthüllt: [2]Rund 1400 Kinder und Jugendliche, überwiegend Mädchen, wurden jahrelang verschleppt, vergewaltigt, mißhandelt, verkauft. Etwa 100 Babies gingen aus den Vergewaltigungen hervor, die nach der Geburt auf Nimmerwiedersehen gewaltsam „entfernt“ wurden.

Der Spiegel [3]berichtet:

Zum Teil seien elfjährige Mädchen von mehreren Tätern vergewaltigt, entführt, in andere Städte Englands geschleust, geschlagen und eingeschüchtert worden. Die Taten sollen größtenteils von einer Bande von Männern mit pakistanischen Wurzeln verübt worden sein. Sie vergingen sich dem Bericht zufolge meist an Mädchen – und vereinzelt auch an Jungen – aus sozial schwachen Verhältnissen. Kinder und Jugendliche seien mit Schnaps und billigen Geschenken gefügig gemacht worden, betrunkene Erwachsene seien dann über sie hergefallen.

Viele der Kinder seien auch nach den Übergriffen von den Tätern weiter verfolgt und eingeschüchtert worden. Ein Mädchen sei mit Benzin übergossen und bedroht worden, angezündet zu werden, wenn sie etwas verrate. Einige der Opfer sollen später versucht haben, sich das Leben zu nehmen. Komplette Familien hätten unter den Folgen der Taten gelitten; einige seien daran kaputtgegangen, andere in die Obdachlosigkeit gerutscht. Die Opfer selbst hätten später teils Probleme gehabt, ihre eigenen Kinder zu versorgen.

Wer in der Vergangenheit diesen (teilweise bereits seit 2010 verhandelten) und ähnliche Fälle [4] verfolgt hat, war schon lange über das haarsträubende Phänomen der Deckung muslimischer Sexualverbrechen aus politischen Gründen im Bilde. Ich bin erleichtert, daß die Wahrheit nun auch in sämtlichen Mainstreammedien verbereitet wird.  Hier die Fassung des Spiegels:

Dem britischen „Guardian“ zufolge verwendeten die Beamten viel Zeit darauf, die Aussagen der Kinder und Jugendlichen zu widerlegen, statt ihnen nachzugehen. So mussten die Täter offenbar kaum Verfahren gegen sie fürchten; in den vergangenen zweieinhalb Jahren kam es zu nicht einmal 20 Anklagen, obwohl allein 2013 17 Fälle von Verschleppungen dokumentiert wurden.

Wie ist das Verhalten der Beamten zu erklären? Einige Missbrauchsopfer hatten ihre Peiniger als „Asiaten“ beschrieben. Aus der Furcht heraus, als Rassisten zu gelten, seien die Ordnungskräfte diesen Hinweisen auf die ethnische Herkunft der Täter jedoch nicht oder nur zögerlich nachgegangen, heißt es in dem Bericht.

Bedarf es noch eines krasseren Beleges, wie absurd und kriminell verlogen der in den westlichen Ländern grassierende Wahn der politischen Korrektheit inzwischen ist? Der „Rassist“ ist in der ethischen Skala der Joker, der alles andere sticht, den allseits verachteten Kinderschänder inklusive. Die Furcht davor, als „Rassist“ zu gelten, überbietet offenbar jedes andere Bedenken, bis zu dem Grade, daß die Vergewaltigung von Kindern (die etwa in den Romanen von Dostojewskij als Gipfel des Bösen genannt wird), von Kindern der eigenen ethnokulturellen Gruppe, als das kleinere Übel erscheint.

Wie der amerikanische Netz-Satiriker RamzPaul [5] treffend sagt: es handelt sich hier um eine Art Menschenopfer für den Moloch der „Diversity“.

Auch der bedeutende konservative Philosoph Roger Scruton [6] hat den Fall zornig kommentiert. [7] Die englische Polizei steht seit etwa zwei Jahrzehnten unter dem ständigen Druck des Vorwurfs des „institutionalisierten Rassismus“ [8], der von der Linken routinemäßíg erhoben wird, sobald Farbige in Straftaten verwickelt sind, ob als Täter oder Opfer. Da dies nicht gerade eine Seltenheit ist, ist die Arbeit der Polizei durch diesen politischen Druck erheblich erschwert worden.

Dahinter steht natürlich das Bestreben der Anhänger des Multikulturalismus, dessen Lebenslügen zu bemänteln und sein Versagen zu leugnen – und wie alle Lügen, ob aus guten oder schlechten Absichten, bringen auch diese nur noch mehr Lügen und noch mehr Böses hervor. Rotherham ist bislang der schockierende Tiefpunkt dieser Entwicklung.

Scruton schreibt:

Das Ergebnis all dessen (des politischen Drucks) ist, daß die Polizei zurückweicht, um dem Vorwurf des Rassismus zu entgehen, während die Sozialarbeiter jedesmal zögern, einzugreifen, wenn die Gefahr droht, daß sie eine ethnische Minderheit diskriminieren könnten. Die Lage wird durch den Aufstieg des militanten Islams noch verschlimmert, der das alte Verbrechen des Rassismus um das neue der „Islamophobie“ erweitert hat.

Kein Sozialarbeiter wagt es heute, sich diesem Vorwurf auszusetzen. In Rotherham muß ein solcher Sozialarbeiter verrückt sein, und ein Polizist nicht weniger, wenn er es wagen würde, einem Fall von mutmaßlichem sexuellem Mißbrauch nachzugehen, in dem die Täter orientalische Muslime sind und die Opfer ethnische Engländer. Dann lieber die Sache unter den Teppich kehren, und stattdessen Wege finden, die Opfer, ihre Eltern und ihre Kultur des institutionalisierten Rassismus zu bezichtigen, oder sich dringenderen Problemen zuzuwenden, wie den Unterkunftsbedürfnissen frisch eingetroffener Einwanderer oder den Verkehrsverstößen der rassistischen Mittelschicht.

Scrutons Resümee:

Unglücklicherweise bringt die politische Korrektheit die Leute nicht nur dazu, ihre Überzeugungen zu verschweigen, sondern auch noch gegen sie zu handeln. Stattdessen klagen sie andere an, die sie offen äußern, und unterwerfen sich im allgemeinen der Politik, die den Briten von aktivistischen Minderheiten aufgezwungen wurde.

Diese Aktivisten zielen darauf ab, die alten Formen der sozialen Ordnung zu demontieren. Sie glauben nicht nur, daß unsere Gesellschaft zu rassistisch ist, sondern auch, daß sie viel zu bequem ist, viel zu ungleich, viel zu sehr an alten, kleinkarierten Vorstellungen hängt, die von den untersten Schichten der Gesellschaft – der Arbeiterklasse, den Einwanderer, den Obdachlosen, den Illegalen – als unterdrückerisch und entwürdigend empfunden werden. Ihr enthusiastischer Einsatz für die Dogmen der politischen Korrektheit ist ihre Art, Rache an einer sozialen Ordnung zu nehmen, von der sie sich entfremdet fühlen.

Einfache Menschen werden davon derart eingeschüchtert, daß sie diese Dogmen wie religiöse Mantras nachbeten, in der Hoffnung, daß sie dadurch von Anfeindungen verschont bleiben. Auf diese Weise haben die Briten die gewaltigen Transformationen, die ihnen in den letzten dreißig Jahren – zum Großteil von Aktivisten in der Labour-Partei – aufgenötigt wurden, ohne Widerstand hingenommen.

Sie haben eine Einwanderungspolitik hingenommen, die unsere Schulen mit frustrierten Muslimen aufgefüllt hat, von denen nun viele in Syrien und im Irak gegen uns kämpfen. Sie haben die Ausbreitung islamischer Schulen hingenommen, in denen Kinder zum Dschihad gegen die herrschende soziale Ordnung erzogen werden. Sie haben die Herabsetzung ihres Landes, seiner Institutionen und seiner althergebrachten Religion hingenommen, die allein deswegen geschah, weil diese Dinge ihre eigenen und daher von verbotenen Loyalitäten befleckt sind.

Und wenn am Ende die Wahrheit herauskommt, wird niemand entlassen, niemand verhaftet. Der gewählte Polizei- und Gemeinschaftsbeauftrage für Rotherham weigert sich von seinem Posten zurückzutreten [9], obwohl er die Labour-Partei verlassen muß. Nach ein paar Wochen ist alles wieder unter den Teppich gekehrt, und das Werk derZerstörung kann weitergehen.

Schließlich sei noch angemerkt, daß die Herkunft der Täter wie der Opfer gewiß kein Zufall war und natürlich eine entscheidende Rolle gespielt hat. Daß nur weiße Mädchen ausgesucht wurden, hat wohl denselben Grund, wie wenn hiesige jugendliche Türken- oder Araberbanden bei Vergewaltigungen – ob einzeln, ob als Horde – in der Regel einen großen Bogen um Frauen und Mädchen aus der eigenen ethnischen Gruppe machen: sie würden nicht nur das soziale Gefüge verletzen, das sie trägt, sie müßten sich auch vor den Brüdern der Opfer und sonstigen männlichen Familienmitgliedern hüten, die ihnen mindestens die Eier abschneiden würden. Die Täter von Rotherham werden zudem ohne Zweifel gewußt haben, welche Macht die Rassismus-Keule hat; in der Tat scheinen sie sie gezielt eingesetzt zu haben, um die Mädchen einzuschüchtern und gefügig zu machen.

Der Spiegel berichtet:

Die Mitglieder der pakistanischen Gemeinde in Rotherham zeigten sich angesichts der wenig plausibel erscheinenden Begründung entsetzt: Herkunft, Religion oder politische Ausrichtung sollten niemals einen Mantel des Schweigens über solch groteske Taten legen, teilte ein Sprecher mit.

„Wenig plausibel erscheinende Begründung“! Der Spiegel hat wohl noch nicht mitbekommen, mit welch orwell-artigen Mitteln der „Antirassismus“-Wahn in Großbritannien [10] inzwischen durchgesetzt wird. Davon abgesehen ist es unwahrscheinlich, daß angesichts des Umfangs des Täternetzes niemand in der pakistanischen „Community“ von Rotherham etwas von den Vorgängen mitbekommen hat, geschweige denn unschuldig an der Vertuschung ist. Wahrscheinlicher ist, daß auch hier wieder einmal Blut dicker als Wasser war, wie es in orientalischen Gesellschaften ohnehin die Norm ist. Das Ausmaß der Mitwisserschaft war wahrscheinlich ziemlich groß.

In der Tat dürfte die den weißen Briten abhanden gekommene ethnische Gruppensolidarität keine geringe Rolle dabei gespielt haben, daß die Täter solange unbehelligt blieben, während ihre Opfer umso hilfloser und sozial isolierter da standen. Der Telegraph berichtet: [11]

Simon Danczuk, Parlamentarier der Labour-Partei (…)sagte, daß eine Kultur der Einschüchterung und der Klüngelei innerhalb der orientalischen (asian) Gemeinschaft seit Jahren die Politik in nordenglischen Städten korrumpiere.  Orientalische Stadträte stünden unter ständigem Konformitätsdruck seitens ihrer Gemeinschaften, während andere Politiker mit der Drohung, als „Rassisten“ abgestempelt zu werden, zum Schweigen gebracht werden, weshalb sie sich weigerten, die Beweise für den Mißbrauch zur Kenntnis zu nehmen.  (…)

Der Skandal von Rotherham und eine Serie von Fällen in anderen Städten wie Rochdale zeigen, wie Indizien, die auf den gezielten Mißbrauch weißer Mädchen durch pakistanische Männer hinwiesen, aus Angst vor Rassismusvorwürfen wiederholt unterdrückt wurden. (…)

Mr. Danczuk sagte, daß die Elemente der pakistanischen politischen Kultur selbst zum Teil für die Vertuschung verantwortlich waren. „Die Art, wie Politik innerhalb der orientalischen Gemeinschaft verhandelt wird, ist ein kulturelles Problem, das gelöst werden muß“, sagte er. Er selbst sei persönlich von orientalischen Stadträten und Mitgliedern der Gemeinschaft genötigt worden, zu schweigen. Zudem sei er von prominenten Vertretern seiner Partei gewarnt worden. (…)

„Politik wird in Pakistan anders verhandelt, und diesen kulturellen Unterschied haben wir zum Teil in diese Städte im Norden importiert. Ich denke, daß wir es uns nicht länger leisten können, davor die Augen zu verschließen.“ (…)

Die orientalische Gemeinschaft sei von einer Mentalität des „Schaut nach den eigenen Leuten“ geprägt, die von anderen Politikern hingenommen wird.

 Nicht nur dies, auch die Praxis der Vergewaltigung und der Frauenverachtung selbst scheint Teil dieser „pakistanischen Kultur“ [12]zu sein (siehe dazu auch diesen Kommentar mit vielen weiterführenden Links [13]).

Nun klopfen sich viele Linksliberale in England auf die Brust [14] und vergießen Krokodilstränen über ihre gutmenschliche Blindheit. Was wird sich nun ändern? Wird man Konsequenzen aus all dem ziehen? Werden die „Rechten“, die seit Jahren auf Sexualverbrechen durch muslimische Täter hinweisen, ab nun nicht mehr verfemt und angehört werden? Wird man endlich erkennen, daß man das Gewicht „kultureller Unterschiede“ und die Macht der Gruppensolidarität unterschätzt hat, und darum eine „multikulturelle Gesellschaft“ zum Scheitern verurteilt ist? Daß am Ende die Schwächsten als Kollateralschäden den Preis für eine verlogene, realitätsferne Ideologie und Utopie zahlen müssen? Daß die säuselnden Priester der „Vielfalt“ die Wölfe in ihre Länder gelassen haben? Daß sie mit Sprengstoff hantieren und mit Giften, deren Folgen sie nicht ausbaden müssen?

Wohl kaum. Es wird weiterhin Blut für „Buntheit“ und „Vielfalt“ fließen. Es wird weiterhin gelogen, unter den Tisch gekehrt, erpreßt und eingeschüchtert werden. Feigheit und Opportunismus werden erneut siegen, wie Roger Scruton vermutet. Die weißen Völker Europas sind heute so naiv, blind und wehrlos wie die „Eloi“ des H.G.Wells [15], einfache Beute und Futter für die Morlocks.

Apropos Ferguson [16] schrieb Michael Klonovsky [17]:

Mit seiner Rassismus- und Diskriminierungs-Selbstbezichtigung hat sich der Westen in Gott weiß wie nobler Absicht eine Schlinge um den Hals gelegt. Dass es auch um ihren eigenen Hals geht, werden diejenigen, die sie täglich enger ziehen, womöglich erst merken, wenn es zu spät ist.

(Literatur: Martin Lichtmesz – Die Verteidigung des Eigenen, 3. Auflage, soeben erschienen, hier einsehen [18])

Article printed from Sezession im Netz: http://www.sezession.de

URL to article: http://www.sezession.de/46164/missbrauch-in-england-roger-scruton-ueber-rotherham.html

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.sezession.de/46164/missbrauch-in-england-roger-scruton-ueber-rotherham.html/dieversityinaction

[2] Ein nun veröffentlichter Report enthüllt: : http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham

[3] Spiegel : http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/rotherham-missbrauchsskandal-erschuettert-englische-stadt-a-988887.html

[4] ähnliche Fälle: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10146369/Oxford-sex-grooming-gang-jailed-for-life.html

[5] RamzPaul: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFXP33Q3JsA&list=UUIibK0GTXCaQCAamJAepm1g

[6] Roger Scruton: http://www.sezession.de/44910/fuehle-lokal-denke-national.html

[7] zornig kommentiert.: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruton/2014/08/30/why-did-british-police-ignore-pakistani-gangs-raping-rotherham-children-political-correctness/

[8] „institutionalisierten Rassismus“: http://www.sezession.de/29704/stephen-lawrence-und-der-institutionelle-rassismus.html

[9] weigert sich von seinem Posten zurückzutreten: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/29/rotherham-pcc-ability-safeguard-children-questioned

[10] orwell-artigen Mitteln der „Antirassismus“-Wahn in Großbritannien: http://www.sezession.de/schlagwort/grossbritannien

[11] Der Telegraph berichtet:: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11066646/Rotherham-politics-imported-from-Pakistan-fuelled-sex-abuse-cover-up-MP.html

[12] „pakistanischen Kultur“ : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-war-bangladesh-can-never-forget-8501636.html

[13] diesen Kommentar mit vielen weiterführenden Links: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/08/crock-of-shock-liberal-responses-to-vibrant-depravity/

[14] viele Linksliberale in England auf die Brust: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11059643/Denis-MacShane-I-was-too-much-of-a-liberal-leftie-and-should-have-done-more-to-investigate-child-abuse.html

[15] „Eloi“ des H.G.Wells: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Zeitmaschine

[16] Ferguson: http://www.sezession.de/46127/die-fergusoniade-der-ernstfall-und-die-medien.html

[17] Michael Klonovsky: http://www.michael-klonovsky.de/acta-diurna

[18] hier einsehen: http://antaios.de/gesamtverzeichnis-antaios/reihe-kaplaken/1110/die-verteidigung-des-eigenen.-fuenf-traktate

[19] : http://www.unesco.de/1121.html

[20] : http://derstandard.at/2000005030826/Skandal-von-Rotherham-weitet-sich-aus

[21] : http://www.fdp.de/Integration/402b146/index.html

[22] : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qTY6-xKHpM&list=RD4qTY6-xKHpM#t=2

[23] : http://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/politik/article131739980/Die-perverse-Kehrseite-des-Multikulti-Kults.html

[24] : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326352/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Peter-Mandelson-admits-Labour-brought-migrants-losing-working-class-votes.html

[25] : http://sterlingely.argentumstudio.com/files/2011/04/Time-Singularity-Curve.jpg

[26] : http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/blog/2013/04/what-was-thatcher-s-legacy-immigration

[27] : http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthy-%C3%84ra

[28] : http://

[29] : http://www.blauenarzisse.de/index.php/anstoss/item/4865-barbaren-feiglinge-und-frauen

[30] : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartime_sexual_violence

dimanche, 24 août 2014

Communism, Nihilism, Neoism, & Decadence

Stewart Home: Communism, Nihilism, Neoism, & Decadence

By Jonathan Bowden

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

Editor’s Note:

[1]The following text is a transcript by V.S. of one of Jonathan Bowden’s most entertaining lectures, which was delivered to the 25th New Right meeting in London on February 13, 2010. Although Stewart Home is the principal subject, Bowden romps through a wide field of politically correct theories, ultra-Left sects, and decadent forms of modern art.

In editing this transcription, I introduced punctuation and paragraph breaks. I also deleted a couple of false starts and added the first names of some figures.You can listen to the lecture at YouTube here [2]. Several bits were unintelligible and are marked as such. If you can understand these words, please post a comment below.

BowdenDemon.jpgI’d like to talk about Stewart Home: communism, nihilism, neoism, and decadence. I’ve given three talks on the extreme Left. One is called “Marxism and the Frankfurt School and the New Left [3].” Another was called “The Totalitarian Politics of Nineteen Eighty-Four [4].” And another one was about the concept of brain-washing and the use by the North Koreans and the Chinese of behaviorist techniques, particularly on prisoners in the Korean War—a totally forgotten struggle now—and a novel by an Italian-American called Francis Pollini [5] that was based on those events.

Stewart Home is an incredibly obscure figure who is on the margins of the cultural avant-garde, so I’m going to come to him towards the latter stages of the talk when I’ve dealt with some of the building blocks to begin with.

Most conservatives, with a small “c,” look around Western European countries like Britain today and wonder why they’re living in a mildly, but evidently Left-wing society. They wonder why they’re supposed to have won, but have actually lost. As they look around them, everything’s changed from what it was 40 to 50 years ago—every normative social value and experience—and they wonder why that has occurred.

There are many reasons for why it’s occurred, but one is the complete containment and taking over of the cultural space by what we’ll call cultural Marxism or Marxian ideas or soft Left ideas or post-communist ideas and their march through the institutions after the 1960s. But it didn’t just happen then. It had been prepared much earlier in the 20th century.

Marxism is a doctrine—before Lenin added the conspiratorial element of a vanguard party that seizes power with its paramilitary wing in a declining state—that originates from the middle of the 19th century and has a refutation of idealistic and utopian socialisms, some religious, some secular that preceded it. Marx believed that he had a science of history, that the thing was prior and determined, that history could be read like a runic pattern or the pattern of a Persian carpet, and he was the master of the dialectic that would determine humanity’s future. We now know that the nightmarish regimes that were created across the planet in the 20th century on the basis of some or all of his ideas failed, and most of them have been destroyed. But their legacy is still here.

Clare Short’s got a bit of the witness at the moment in the liberal press because of her appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry. She said something very interesting when the Soviet Union collapsed. She said, “Communism is over, but Marxism is not.” That’s a very prescient remark, because what’s happened in the Western world is that the idea that everything is economically predetermined in Marxian theory, that everything has a social dynamic which is structured and physical at the basis of economic life and it is materialistic, has been changed.

It was changed at the beginning of the 20th century by an Italian communist theorist in prison called Antonio Gramsci. He had the idea that the superstructure and the base—that which was beneath and economic and material, that which was above and philosophical and cultural—can be disjoined. They can be separated and teased apart. That’s actually a heresy in classical Marxism. But it enabled an enormous vista of struggle to be opened up right across academic, artistic, intellectual, and media-related life right across the West.

Part of the Left disengaged from the politics of vanguardism and engaged in what is now largely called cultural struggle. One of the great weaknesses of all forms of conservatism—whether Gaullism in France or Republicanism in the United States or Christian Democracy in Germany and Italy and elsewhere—is their refusal to fight cultural struggle, their refusal to believe that their enemies were in deadly earnest.

In the 1960s, persons who were regarded as “reactionary,” particularly in the academy, used to laugh at a lot of what was occurring. It was almost a joke. I’m sure most people are aware of that satire called Porterhouse Blue by Tom Sharpe which is based upon Peterhouse College, Cambridge of all these reactionary and ultra dons, people like Maurice Cowling, people like Roger Scruton who were associated with that college. They are metaphysical or deep blue conservatives, illiberal conservatives, people who were right on the edge of the conservative range of opinion before the far Right begins, as far as you can go within the mainstream, basically.

Those individuals—and I knew Cowling once (he’s dead now)—didn’t give in. But in a way they didn’t understand that in order to fight back against the tidal wave of Leftist ideas throughout the ‘’20s, ’30s, ’40s, ’50s, and thereafter you had to go further out ideologically, even if you weren’t prepared to make organizational commitments, even if it turned to fellow-traveling. You had to use Far Right ideas, even if you didn’t call them that, to fight against the Left in its militancy. Basically, conservative academics from Michael Oakeshott onwards refused to do so, absolutely refused to do so, and in doing so they basically put the noose around their own neck in relation to the forces that were coming.

Because their enemies were in deadly earnest. They wanted to transform the mindset of Western societies, and the way that they configured to do that wasn’t through vanguard parties, although they supported them, wasn’t through doctrines of social revolution, although they may have residually supported that. It was by changing the grammar that people used to think with at the advanced level.

Bowden-West-Cover-medium-e1397245147546.jpgStrangely for militant egalitarians, they used an extreme form of cultural elitism. You take the universities; you take the dons and the academics in the universities; you take the people who mark the PhDs that provide the methodology of attainment through which you get a don at the university. You then replicate that through all male and female students at the first, second, and third levels of tertiary education, never mind the people coming up from the secondary level.

As egalitarian education has been spread, we’re going to have a society where 30-50% go to university; there’s the University of Slough, which used to be the Poly in the Thames valley. You can do degrees in hair-dressing. You can do degrees in golf studies. You can do degrees in anything! You know, you send this away to a P. O. box number in Edinburgh, and in a couple of weeks it’s packaged, and you get a PhD in nuclear physics, then straight back in the post! This is the way it’s going!

There are a few upper-class people now who refuse to go to university. Princess Diana refused to go, partly because she wasn’t too bright, but also because it doesn’t have any social cache anymore, because if everyone goes it’s got no kudos. This is the idea! If everything is degraded, do you want to eat the bread that’s been in every other mouth?  This is the thing about egalitarian ideas.

The plan of Leftist subversion, which is a wave of academics in all sorts of areas, not necessarily networked, not necessarily doing it in relation to each other, but doing it in relation to the logic of their studies. They do it in discourse after discourse.

They do it in economic theory, which before John Maynard Keynes was classical liberal methodology, Alfred Marshall being the last of that particular school, revived by F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman in the middle of the 20th century as a dissident current that would then come back. Keynes comes first, and Marxist economists like Professor Joan Robinson at Cambridge come later.

Then you go to anthropology. The first great textbook of anthropology is Arthur de Gobineau’s book, The Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. This begins anthropology as a subject. This is a “racist” text. Anthropology is the science, or semi-science, that always has to deny its first text, because its first text is now so offensive in relation to all of the discourses that have come after. From the early part of the 20th century, you get the growing up of various discourses which are called social or socialized anthropology: the idea that race has nothing to do with anthropology, when race is the periodic table of anthropology and is the taxonomy of the human within that particular academic discipline. You reach a situation where by the 1970s if a don at, say, the University of Sussex, an ultra-Left institution on the south coast, said that there were cardinal racial differences in intelligence between people, there would have been an absolute riot on that campus, an absolute riot which would have had to have been controlled by the police and the authorities.

One thing the Left realized throughout the 20th century is that people who are very mental and people who are very abstracted in terms of their intellect can be physically intimidated very easily. The mind and the body are so split in Western life that all you have to do is have a small mob wave their fists at a couple of dons, and they’re prostrated, and they can’t do anything, and they’re in fear of their lives, and they will write in a different way afterwards. Trotsky said in a pamphlet called The Necessity of Red Terror, which was published in 1917, that you shoot a thousand to intimidate a million. But all you need to do at many universities is lob a brick through on Fresher’s day, and people are frightened to discuss and to write about and to theorize about whole sets of ideas.

Everyone knows that there is a spectrum since the French Revolution of far Left, moderate Left, center, moderate Right, radical Right views. Since about 1968, the radical Right chunk—which is to the Right of Oakeshott, Scruton, and Cowling—has been broken off and cannot be talked about other than as critique. You can talk about how you detest these ideas. You can talk about how evil and wrong they are. You can talk about how mistaken they are. But they can’t be adumbrated in and of themselves.

This is complicated because there are certain academies, such as the French one, where that’s not always true, and this is because in France there was a very powerful intellectual fascist tradition—essentially, that’s what it was—which goes right through to today and even to the New Right. There’s a degree to which in the Sorbonne in the ’70s you could see a poster saying, “Drieu La Rochelle: lecture this afternoon.” He committed suicide of course after the war because he was a collaborationist intellectual with Otto Abetz and other people in the German cultural ministry in Paris in occupied France at that time.

So, it’s not uniform. These things are process led and dynamic. It doesn’t just happen in economics and anthropology. It happens in psychology. It happens in sexology. It happens in English literature. It happens in the creation of new discourses such as cultural studies, which is the dissemination of ideas about mass culture. And it happens in critical theory.

Critical theory is a viewpoint that’s grown up across the arts and across the humanities and even into areas of law like criminology, which can also be considered to be one of these “ologies,” one of these subjects, and other areas of history of art, aesthetics, in philosophy courses, philosophy itself and so on.

The Anglo-American world, of course, had an empirical view of philosophy largely since Hobbes, but certainly since Russell in the 20th century, and a hostility to European philosophy which meant that there was less Marxist influence here. But the trouble with Bertrand Russell’s type of philosophizing is that it doesn’t believe that any of the big questions can be answered, and therefore philosophy itself becomes slightly pointless, and a cul-de-sac where you discuss the language you use to arrive at a concept to which there are multiple interpretations and of which you are forever unsure. In and of itself, that’s the preparation—this radical, tepid uncertainty—which leads from conservatism to liberalism and from liberalism to something that’s a bit more certain and lies to the Left of it.

Everything in Western societies has moved to the Left throughout the 20th century. I am not a Christian, but you could argue that after Vatican II many Catholics became Protestants; many Protestants became liberals; many secularist liberals who are ex-Protestant moved further to the Left and adopted views that they would have regarded as semi-extreme in the past as long as they were not connected to physical force, militant working class politics, vanguardism, and the absolute politics of communism.

You have many Left-wing liberals now who have views which are to the Left of hardcore communists in the ’20s and ’30s, and they don’t realize that and they’re horrified by the atrocities of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and all the others. But what they don’t realize is that they have imbibed a doctrine of totalitarian niceness and squeaky clean correctness about these concepts, which existed in the way that their minds were attuned to before they became conversant with it.

This march through the institutions has also been a march through the media, because when you have an intellectual clerisy it tends to control the conceptual ideas in the society and the way that society talks to itself in modernity is through the media, and also propaganda and ideas about how you talk to the media. Most polytechnics, or post-polytechnics now—because polytechnics were once vocational institutions, of course dominated by people who tended to support the Labour Party—have now been upgraded to new universities or universities have been downgraded to new universities which are polytechnics, because if all have a degree what does it mean?

PulpFacism-Bowden.jpgIn America, you can go to a university and, outside the Ivy League, you don’t necessarily have to have the qualifications to get in. So, you have a remedial course. There’s a considerable number of people from certain types of racial minorities in those remedial courses—taught to do English, taught to do math, and then they do sports science or sports psychology. They won’t be doing physics. They won’t be doing mathematics. They won’t be doing metaphysics. They won’t be doing Shakespeare.

There are certain colleges now that have votes about whether Shakespeare should be on the English course. But that’s a mistake, you see, because democracy is always a mistake! When hardline Marxists allow the students to vote, the students, even though they’re liberal, often come up with more conservative results than what the professors want! That’s the logic of vanguardism: you don’t allow them to decide. You say Shakespeare is a reactionary Elizabethan bigot with undue essentialist notions that you shouldn’t permit!

The notion of essentialism has come in in the last 30 to 40 years in relation to great fads in intellectual life. It has to be understood that for the last 100 years or so all mainstream, hardcore, Western intellectual developments have been atheistic. They’ve taken atheism as read, not as something to be debated. The first great ideology after the war was existentialism, which contained many elements including a dissentient far Right strand as well.

Existentialism was replaced by a new creed, fad, wave of history, whatever you want to call it, called structuralism, which relates to ideas at the beginning of the 20th century called formalism. Then people got bored with structuralism. Structuralism was around at the time of the student revolts in the late 1960s. Not totally a Left-wing idea, but in a way bent towards the Left by certain ideas. If the revolutionary Left on campus couldn’t take an idea as read they would turn it around. Hegel was not a Left-wing thinker, but Left-wing Hegelianism emerged. Marx was part of a group of Left Hegelians with Engels. They used to meet in a beer cellar prior to the German revolution in 1848 to discuss Left theory. Similarly, Left structuralism begins to emerge, particularly with Claude Lévi-Strauss in anthropology and with Ferdinand de Saussure in linguistics.[1] These ideas relate to certain currents in modernist art in particular in the late 19th and early 20th century. If we approach this subject area we get a bit closer to Home, who nominally is the hook that I’m hanging this particular talk on.

You can’t do English at a contemporary British university—certainly outside Oxbridge, where there’s just a received canon—and not come across critical theory. Critical theory is based upon a notion called deconstruction, and most people who are intellectually minded have heard the word deconstruction somewhere floating around, floating in the back pages of The Observer color supplement, that sort of thing. They’ve heard the word.

Deconstruction is another word for post-structuralism, which is the ideology or the new fad that replaced structuralism in the ’60s and ’70s. It’s most closely associated with a thinker called Jacques Derrida, who wrote a number of books basically saying that history doesn’t exist, that biology doesn’t exist, that the writer of a text does not exist. There is only the text. There is only the grammar of the text. A painting can be a text. A poster can be a text. A film can be a text. Only the text. Nothing but the text.

It’s the view that essentialism leads to the gates of Auschwitz, which is repeated again and again as a mantra within these particular courses. They believe that any prior identity—say the statement “men and women are different,” the John and Joan book, you know, a child says, “Men and women are different”—wrong on every account! Prior essentialist agenda, revolutionary, sub-genocidal reactionary ideologies in relation to the specification of male and female. Don’t you know men and women are interchangeable? Don’t you know that they are the same? If somebody says, “But don’t they have different brains?” “Lies put about by eugenicists linked to reactionary and essentialist ideas!” Again re-routed to the ovens. “Listen to your theory!”

Of course, in these areas, to think differently from the nature of this theory is impossible, because you will not finish the course. You will not even get a 2.1, which is the sort of median level for your average student, in that course if you don’t go along with this.

Some of this thinking relates to Western ideas that go very far back, because in medieval scholasticism there’s a doctrine of hermeneutics whereby you analyze the text of the text of the text. You look inside it to see the hint of the divine which is there. And some of these ideas actually do come out of that particular trajectory. So, in some ways it’s a very ancient thing that’s been repositioned and been reused for hostile purposes. Only the core theorists in this area, Deleuze, Guattari, Derrida, and others, would actually know that is the case.

When the Enlightenment and modern scientific rationalism began and they argued that the schoolmen were concerned about the number of angels that danced on the top of a pin and philosophy was about natural process and law of nature as the Greeks believed 2,000 years before, 1,500 years before their postulations of course, there was a degree to which they’d thought they had got rid of that type of thinking. But interestingly, that type of thinking, which in some ways is very “reactionary,” has come back through these New Left ideas.

The one thinker who is partly outside all of this and has a special status as a monster within the 20th century is Martin Heidegger. Now, Martin Heidegger was an extreme essentialist and was a religious thinker who was highly influenced by these ideas of extreme hermeneutics and the peeling away of the onion of the text. Heidegger has one book that is 400 pages saying, “What is thinking?” or “What is the nature of thinking?” Heidegger wrote 80 books, all 80! Most of which have never been released.[2]

Although Heidegger is one of the most radical thinkers of the 20th century, Heidegger’s political affiliation, if only for a year between 1933 and 1934, has meant that in a sense he has become an unperson. After the war, when he was allowed to write and continued to write he used to write in the Black Forest. He had a wooden cabin in the Black Forest, and he used to commune in this particular woodland fastness, this shed almost, with nature and by himself in pure theory.

A lot of these ideas are based upon pure theory. They are based upon the idea that the bourgeois—the enemy in Marxian terms—goes to life with common sense. The Marxist goes to life with his theory! Only if you see the veil of theory before reality, the pink prism through which reality is refracted, only then can you be in history; only then are you truly alive, because you’re interpreting the dialectic of future knowledge.

Now, the irony is that these communistic systems that statally imposed these ideas on people have all collapsed. People who lived in Poland during Gomułka and other regime leaders had to do Marxist-Leninism four times a week, just like the Catholic schools that these schools replaced, where we did religion four times a week. They did Marxist-Leninist theory four times a week.

There was a Far Left party in Britain called the Revolutionary Communist Party, which was a split from the Socialist Workers’ Party, a so-called Rightist deviation within Marxist-Leninism. In 1986, they set exams for their cadres. You had to do exams on Grundrisse and Groundwork and Kapital volume I, volume II, volume III to pass exams on this sort of material just like in Poland.

bowden7.jpgPeople imposed this on themselves internally within the West, and yet historically these ideas have lost. These ideas have come crashing down as statal and political and architectural structures. Yet in the minds of elite Western academics, the softer non-vanguard version of these ideas are alive and well and kicking and are in control.

It’s largely true that most artistic departments—used as a term for the humanities and the social sciences—across the board are in the hands of the West’s most ferocious ideological opponents inside the West, mentally. Not necessarily in terms of how people live their lives and so on, but in terms of what they accept.

The worst ideas in the world are some of the ideas in this room from the perspective of these sorts of people! And they know what they are against, although most of them are in a sense more coherently in favor of what they’re for. Most Left-wingers and liberals, like Tony Blair, begin with the first thing Blair ever did, which was to go on an anti-National Front march. The first moment was negative. He knew what he was against almost before what he knew what he was for. But many of these people actually know what they’re for as well, and what they’re for is a world without any prior signification.

Deconstruction is the idea that you have a text before you, and this text has a system of rhetoric which is related to the personality of an individual author, but the author doesn’t exist. It’s just a text. It’s just a signification. What you do is split the power of the rhetoric, the oratory, the nature of the language used, the control of the phrases used, the essentialist markers that delimit the promiscuity of linguistic and moral choice, and you deconstruct them. You open up the field of signification so that language can flow freely in its joy and in its meaningless splendor. This is called jouissance, the joy of deconstructing the text so that it reveals its anti-essentialist possibilities when the crypto-fascistic moments of identity in it have been removed, and this is what they do.

They will take an author like Céline, who is a French National Socialist essentially, if words have any meaning, and they will say, “This anti-Semitic statement shows the insecurity of a lower middle class background. He obviously wets his bed. He was beaten by his father.” They will deconstruct every particular notification. Actually, this is a philo-Semitic text, which loves foreigners, which loves homosexuals, and is egalitarian! The whole point of deconstruction is that you reverse the meaning of the text.

But these ideas have their dangers, because there are certain things that liberals believe are sacred, and there are certain things that they believe shouldn’t be deconstructed and are beyond deconstruction. One of the primary deconstructive figures, who wasn’t necessarily a Leftist, was a man called Paul de Man, who was head of English and Philosophy, head of the Yale school of deconstruction at this Ivy League college. Ivy League college, Yale, has a school of deconstruction![3] Yes, it does! Acting against the West in order to affirm the negation of its identity. This is the sort of thing it said.

Now, Paul de Man was head of philosophy there, but Paul de Man had a secret past far worse than beating his wife or something like that. Paul de Man was a collaborator in occupied Belgium and was a minor member of the Rexist movement with Léon Degrelle. It was all very serious. And he also wrote some articles for a magazine like Scorpion shall we say, but it was in occupied Belgium at the time, so it was a bit more serious.

When it was discovered that he had this past, the whole of the movement of deconstruction gathered at the University of Alabama in the Deep South of the United States to discuss this unfortunate recrudescence of essentialism in the life and time of their chief American guru. Derrida came up with a remarkable wheeze. He said that because there were articles on the one side of the page of these collaborationist journals that were more extreme than what de Man had written, de Man was actually protesting against the extremism of the rival and mirror-reflected text with his own understated fascism, therefore revealing that he was in internal critical protest at the nature of this foul language and this sort of thing. Foul language in another way.

Interestingly, deconstructionism and post-structuralism have never survived this particular revelation, and it’s not fallen off a cliff, but it’s much less fashionable now than it was. It’s also begun to be attacked by certain hard Leftists who are more materialistic, more pro-science and so on and don’t agree with this type of what they consider to be empty and rather vacuous theorizing. So, there’s been a certain revisionism.

Not all of these ideas have it their own way. There often outliers who are dissentient. They’re often critics within the system as well as without who are progressive. You can only criticize progress if you are yourself a progressive. This is part of the deal. So, there are progressive critiques of this sort of thing. Lévi-Strauss loathed elements of modern culture, loathed modernist art and so on. There’s a degree to which certain impermissible reactions or “fleets to the essence,” as it is sometimes called, are permitted by very radical theorists.

There’s also certain of the revisionists like Serge Thion, for example, who played with post-structuralist ideas, which makes them very dangerous. As soon as I heard about post-structuralism in the 1980s, I knew that certain revisionist types would make use of some of these methodological tricks, because it’s inevitable. You can apply deconstruction to deconstruction. You can get Céline’s text, you can get the deconstructive answer to the text, and then you can deconstruct the deconstructive answer to the text and you end with Céline again!

So, you think, “What’s the point of doing all that?” And the point of doing all that was to question the affirmations of Western society. That’s what the point of all that is. The people who flood into the humanist disciplines in sociology, in fine art and elsewhere, if you say, “Well, you know, Caravaggio is a homosexual,” people will say, “Oh, dangerous assumptions there. A bit too essentialist. Are you reading the author or the artist who wrote the text too much into his own work?” And so on. It creates a fog of uncertainty. It creates an irony of the absence of affirmation, the absence of pride, certainly the absence of the justification of hierarchy, which it’s all about.

Ken Livingstone is a populist libertarian Left-wing politician. When he was asked about political correctness and banning Black children in south London from saying nursery rhymes like “Ba-Ba-Black Sheep” and so on, he said, “That’s Evening Standard garbage.” He said, “Political correctness is an attempt to change people’s minds and language. It is concentrated on two egalitarian premises: absolute moral equality in questions of race and gender.” He’s a real Leftist.

That’s what it’s really about! It’s not about any of these epiphenomena. It’s about making elitist and inegalitarian assumptions morally and linguistically impermissible. And if they’re impermissible for a university professor, they’ll be impermissible for a struggling fourth level post-degree student, and they’ll be impermissible for a middle-class bloke who sort of half-believes what’s in the Daily Mail, and they’ll be impermissible for right the way down the society. And they will, in a garbled way, come out of every news channel you can speak of.

Many liberals now say, “We’re fighting for Western values in Iraq. But what are Western values? Do we have a right to fight for them? In any case, should we affirm ourselves? We’re attacking the essentialism of their own. We should deconstruct at home first before we go abroad imposing our signifiers upon these worthy foreigners.” And so on. You see, it begins small. It begins with a debate about language, but it becomes much more powerful. In the intellectual ideologies that operate outside the sciences now, these ideas are de rigueur. To be actually against them is to morally shock, far more than transgressive post-modern art in relation to the Turner Prize and that sort of thing.

Things like the Turner Prize bring me to Stewart Home. Now, the Turner Prize is attacked by Home, but from the Left. You can only criticize Left from Left. He’s to the Left of the Turner Prize. The sort of art that is exhibited in the Turner Prize, which is a sort of stitch-up by various dealers particularly in the 1990s in relation to a particular school of post-modern artists that came out of Goldsmith’s College of Art in the late ’80s, early ’90s. Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin and Gavin Turk were the most prominent of the three. They were picked up with a lot of big money and people wanted to make their own money as a result of it. However, it’s based on an ideology called anti-objectivist art which comes from the 1960s and was largely part of the hippie movement.

John Lennon was involved extensively in anti-objectivist art. Do you remember getting into a bag for peace? This is where a naked John Lennon, covered with hair, would get into a bag. A bag! Yoko Ono, who was a member of a group called Fluxus, would draw the zip on the bag, and Lennon would stay there for a day, because the idea was that if we were all naked and in bags and covered with hair, we wouldn’t fight, and there would be no more war! There would be a realm of peace on this earth for us all to enjoy!

Another Fluxus fad that Yoko was very keen on was the revelation of the buttocks. They would sit there naked before NBC and CBS and ABC and the BBC and all the big channels of that era revealing their naked buttocks. Because of course you won’t fight if you’ve revealed yourself in that way, and the point was to avoid struggle by not fighting.

These ideas had little currency and didn’t last too long, but anti-objectivist art begins there, and from it Stewart Home begins his particular intellectual career at this time.

Home’s is an anarchist, essentially, or a libertarian communist or an anarcho-communist. He’s written many books, but his one real claim to fame is a book called The Assault on Culture—the assault on culture!—From Lettrism to Class War. And he deals with an assembly of extreme Left avant-garde groups that come out of the major modernist tendencies as they end.

Modernism is a very complicated area that goes back to the middle of the 19th century. It’s a reaction, in part, against photography. It’s a desire to go inside the mind and fantasize. It was despised for much of the late 19th century, early part of the 20th century, then became the major aesthetic discourse of liberal humanism. There’s a complication there, because both fascism and communism flirted with modernism. Most of them then turned against it, although the Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian far Right regimes made use of moderate modernist tendencies.

Modernism has always had a devilish side from the perspective of Left humanism, because a lot of the early modernists were fascists, were anti-humanists, and were radical Rightists like Ezra Pound, like Wyndham Lewis, like Marinetti, like Gaudier-Brzeska, like Céline and so on. That’s because there was an anti-democratic element to it, because of course modernism was a bohemian attack upon the sensibility of the majority. It loathes what ordinary people think about art, so it will destroy what they want and impose what intellectuals want. It’s a sort of vanguard hostility to the boring majority. Bomb the suburbs! That’s the sort of view of modernism.

But that can tend to the Right as well as the Left in strange moments, because national cultures were still alive to the degree that there could be national modernisms. Expressionism was a largely Germanic form; futurism was an Italian form; surrealism was a French form. Surrealism was the only major modernist movement that linked formally with communism, through the radically state socialist ideas of its founder, André Breton. Basically, surrealism died with him, but as it died all sorts of shards came out of it, one of which was called situationism.

Situationism was a minor ideological current that’s achieved quite a bit of currency, particularly on the far Left, because a lot of the students in 1968 mouthed situationist slogans. The media was convulsed to find that, on one hand, there were these hippies throwing bricks at members of the CRS—the very tough central riot police in Paris and the other big cities—but they would paint these slogans on walls saying, “Seize the imagination” or “Release the factories” or “I want to play with myself” or something like that. Strong-hearted philosophical stuff like this. They would spray things on the walls. And most of these were situationist slogans taken from a book called Society of the Spectacle written by Guy Debord in the late 1960s. Debord later committed suicide in dubious circumstances. There was another intellectual associated with this tendency called Raoul Vaneigem who wrote The Book of Pleasures and The Revolution of Everyday Life.

Now, these books had a lot of impact in revolutionary artistic scenes. It’s very interesting to notice this combination of far Left art, anti-social practice, misanthropy, and extreme amounts of money, and their ability to attract each other in disassociated ways. Anti-objectivist art began as hostility to the art market. It began by producing artworks that no one would want to buy! That’s the whole point. You were rebelling against the market! They used to have marches on Sotheby’s saying, “Death to Sotheby’s! Death to Sotheby’s!” Now they’re all sold in Sotheby’s for enormous amounts of money!

The most classic example of this was an Italian conceptual artist in the 1970s called Piero Manzoni, and Manzoni used to sell blocks of his own ordure. He used to sell blocks of his own ordure in gold-tinted, beautifully framed sort of 18th-century gold-leafed tins. An Italian-American heiresses used to buy this for $7,000 a tin to say at their kinky and trendy parties that, “I bought one.”

Because artists always loathed the dealers. They always loathe the middlemen, a third of whom have always been of a certain ethnicity. Always. A third of art dealers are Jews, and a third of art dealers are homosexuals, and not always an overlapping category. But artists loathed the middlemen, and there’s a desire to revenge yourself on the middlemen by producing work that can’t be sold, that’s impossibilist, if you like.

But the market can sell anything. You can sell debt as an asset from which you can make more money. So, why not sell cars that are bolted together? There’s a famous case of one artist who was neo-conceptual and was an action artist who tried to sell his dead body after he’d committed suicide. There’s also a man called Rudolf Schwarzkogler, who’s Austrian, and he wound himself in mummification, and either did commit suicide or feigned to commit suicide. I hope not to ruin anyone’s appetite by some of this, but it’s all true. It’s all true, I assure you of this! There were several other ones who left bits of their bodies, including arms and legs, in various galleries and so on, and this was photographed in the 1970s. This was action art, wasn’t it? I mean, let’s face it! There’s something that’s going on here! Home’s book The Assault on Culture has Schwarzkogler’s pre-corpse mummified body on its front, so you know what you’re getting.

Now, the movements with which Home deals are situationism, which is a Left-wing critique, in other words a critique from the Left, within the Left; there’s lettrism, which is another idea which relates to certain formalist and linguistic ideas; and there’s the movement for the imagist Bauhaus, which is a splinter from Breton’s surrealism. They’re also slightly dangerous movements, because Home has an equivocal element, not in what he wants but in what will happen.

One of the dangers about the Cult of the New and the Cult of the Future is that there can be different futures that Left-wing people don’t like. There was a group in the 1970s called mail art, and this woman would do these traditional biographical pictures, very traditional academic art, the sort of thing [unintellible—sounds like Auckland] would have done at the turn of the 20th century and just in and around the Great War, and she would send them to people. She would send them to the Prime Minister. She would send them to the Pope. She would send them to the Chief Rabbi. And they were all pictures of Adolf Hitler. They opened them and were appalled. It was quite a scandal, and she said, “But I’m not a Nazi. I’m just being transgressive. I’m doing what is non-bourgeois. Hitler may have done evil things, but I’m not evil. I’m just painting a picture. It’s just a representation.”

So, you see, if you adopt the Cult of the New . . . And Home had this idea called neoism where he wants to create culture anew, which is largely based on Marinetti’s ideas that you can bomb everything and begin again, because we are the masters of the ruins. It’s the rhetoric of people who’ve never been to a real war, you see, and those who were just about to, because a lot of this stuff came out in 1912 and was just the quivering in the antennae of the Armageddon that was about to erupt. Although, to be frank, many of the Marinettists, the futurists, actually did fight in the war, because they believed in war. They glorified war. “We glorify men! We glorify war!” This is why they linked with Mussolini later, or some of them did.

Now, Home’s work is based upon the idea that you can go beyond the Left and push even that which is Left-wing further Left. He’s in this odd position, because the Left never thinks it has won. Even when it’s triumphant, even when many dons agreed with some of their assumptions, they think, “It’s not gone far enough. The revolution has been betrayed! You need to go further! More radicalism, more self-criticism, more anti-essentialism! It’s not enough! Turds in a box: not enough! Deconstructing classic opera: not enough!”

Turandot and other operas now, even in the West End, often have a urinal on the stage. Urinal? What’s that about? That’s Duchamp’s idea of the ready-made, you see. This plate is art! Who are you to say it’s not? I look at this work. I mediate it. I objectivize it as my view of life. The stained dregs of life in this coffee cup. Life ending in doom. Didn’t Beckett say they were born over a grave, there’s a cry, and then it’s all over? You see, art! I want 2,000 for this now, and you’ll give it to me! And that’s how that sort of thing starts.

I heard a bloke once at the English National Opera, and a critic said, slightly bemused, “Why do you put a toilet on the stage?” And he said, “We’re acting against the piece. We put the thing on, but we try to destroy it as we put it on. It’s deconstruction.”

And you know why these ideas have got a hold? Because they’re bored. Because they’re bored with Western culture. Since the Second World War, state funding of the arts has replaced bourgeois capitalist money. It’s replaced aristocratic patronage. And you can only do Shakespeare so many times. There’s a great tiredness to these state institutions, and this tiredness often breeds a kind of nihilism. “Why, let’s tear it all down, this fuddy-duddy stuff that we endlessly have to replicate with the tax-payers’ money!” These ideas course through even revived and classical theater.

Racing Shakespeare is the favorite one. At the beginning of the 20th century, Othello was always played by a white man blacked up: Olivier very famously in the ’50s and thereafter. Middle of the century, always played by a black actor, because you had to bring to the foreground the nature of race and the nature of oppression and the nature of Shakespeare’s unfortunate alienating and objectifying tendencies: odious. Now, usually, Othello is played by a white actor, because not to black up is to draw attention to the hideous racism of the piece so that guilt should be infused in the audience for the crime of Western civilization. Nine million dead. Farrakhan said in the United States, “Never mind the six, what about the nine!? The nine million who died in the Atlantic slave trade! What about us?”

There was a famous Richard Eyre version of The Merchant of Venice in the 1990s where the female lead apologizes for the Shoah on stage. She’s kneeling before the audience. Don’t remember that in the text, actually! Don’t remember that in the original play! This is ironic considering that some of these ideas have come out of this idea of extreme textual specificity. “But you can always change the text when you want! It’s only a text!” And this sort of thing.

There’s is a sort of comedic element to these ideas, but I assure you that it would be instructive for everyone here to go to the Institute of Contemporary Arts. The ICA’s in Pall Mall, near the Queen. Right in the center of all the establishment buildings, and it’s all very nice in there with mellow lighting and all this. You go in, and there’s a bookshop in there, and that is very interesting, because that bookshop is like a cathedral bookshop to this type of culture. Home’s books are all prominently displayed in that particular bookshop. All of these deconstructive, anti-identity, post-racial, non-class, non-gender specific, gender-neutral-language particularisms are all there. Volume after volume after volume.

Actually, Home did a book once that had sandpaper on the cover so it would cut up all the books next to it, you see? Revenge! Revenge on the books! And you’d also damage yourself when you touch it, you see? So, he’s attacking the reader! William S. Burroughs was once asked, “What do you want to do with the reader?” And he said, “Kill him. I want somebody to open the page and be so appalled that they virtually drop into it, you know?”

There was a famous moment with Nineteen Eighty-Four, the BBC one with Peter Cushing in the 1950s. There was a Mrs. Treddis of North Wales[4] who allegedly did drop dead during the rat scene, Room 101. She was watching this on a state subsidized channel on the BBC, and when O’Brien gets the rats out in the Chinese torture scene—“Do it to Julia!”—she just caved over, poor old Mrs. Treddis. The MP was straight on the thing. He was in the Commons saying, “It’s disgraceful that the state broadcaster is killing its own constituents with art!” You couldn’t make it up, could you really? There is a degree to which the desire to attack the audience is very much part of this art.

There’s actually a form of art called auto-destructive art by Gustav Metzger where the art actually blows up, or a tube of acid will turn over one of those sort of mechano-wheels—you know, one of those sort of amateur things—and the tin turns up and pours acid down the front. So, the art attacks you, you attack the art, the art attacks itself. And then you buy what’s left, even though it’s been completely destroyed.

These ideas actually entered into popular culture because a lot of rock bands and so on were made up of students who go to art colleges. The Who used to destroy their instruments on stage. Pete Townshend, when he wasn’t looking at dubious sites on the internet, was wrecking his guitar. And these guitars are expensive things. Keep it plugged in. And he’d smash it on the ground, and sparks would be going up. I think it’s totally counter to health and safety, personally. And he’d smash it, and it would blow up! It would blow across the room, and all the crowd would be chanting. This was based on auto-destructive art. But, of course, they were working class lads, and there were dangerous moments of essentialism in The Who because they always had the Union Flag behind them when they’d perform. Ah, the danger of those estates. More deconstruction, that’s what’s required.

Home criticized the situationists because it was always a Hegelian theory and therefore allowed certain religious notions in from the outside. There was a communist called Jean Barrot who wrote a critique of situationism. He was later a supporter of Pol Pot, but he’s not heard of too much these days. Certainly would have been heard of if he had been Cambodian.

Now, Home got into trouble a couple of years ago, and Larry O’Hara, who’s a sort of libertarian anti-Right wing critic who’s prepared to be at least reasonably factual up to a point, wrote an article called “Stewart Home: The Fascists’ Flunkey.” Because if you advocate for new areas of culture, total newness, you will attract people who don’t necessarily believe in equitable variables. And he attracted certain people, certainly Richard Lawson, who’s well known from the National Party and Scorpion and Perspectives and had his website called Fluxeuropa and was a Left European nationalist, I think it’s fair to say. He also struck up a bit of a relationship with Bill Hopkins, an old friend of mine, and there’s a film, six minutes of Stewart Home interviewing Bill Hopkins. It’s on YouTube [6].

Now, he’s been heavily vilified for this, because by an ideological detour into the concept of the new, he forgot progressive verities. He’s recovered. But it’s bad news to reach out to radicals before you know who they are. You can get into deep trouble doing that, and he has. Because people say, “Didn’t he have some friends who were . . .” That’s what’s remembered in this [unintelligible—sounds like “tap it in”] and Google your name sort of an age.

Home believes that everyone can create a culture just as there were certain classical music concerts in the 1970s where the orchestra would make it up as they went along. Xenakis was another one. You wouldn’t have a piece. You would deconstruct the music. Indeed, they would tear the music up before the performance and stamp on it! Stamp on it in a rage at the bourgeois class! Then they would sort of make some music. Home believes that everybody can do that. He calls it the universal proletarianization of culture: the universal proletarianization of culture. And he idolizes these slightly Rightist elements. He idolizes these skinhead novels in the 1970s. Does anyone remember these novels by Richard Allen called Skinhead and Suedehead and [unintelligible—sounds like truth my bitch]. and all these sorts of novels that used to be read under the table in schools, seized in reformatory schools because, you know, no reading in this [unintelligible]. They were written by this old drunk on the south coast called Richard Allen, and Home loves all this.

He’s written several books. Red London is one. He’s also written books that are just swear words, the C-word is the title, oh yes. And the S-word and the F-word. These are all in Smith’s. They’re all in Waterstones. He’s done it because he thinks, “Why not? And also I’ll push distribution to such a degree that are they going to go on Radio 4 and say ‘Well, we have books with all sorts of swear words in them, but we won’t allow them on the cover. The Royal Chamberlian lives in memory. We will not allow it on the cover.’” And Home is saying, “Why not? Why not? Are you some bourgeois slob, mate? I’m pushing this in front of you.”

He’s also a very extreme homosexual. You would have to have this. So, his works are these sort of cartographic fantasy of proletarianized homosexual blokes rampaging around London. This is on sale at any Waterstones, books called C— and S—  and F—. I’ve looked at the covers, and I’ve read the theories. But the theory’s important in a way, because at the end of The Assault on Culture he endorses Class War.

Now, Class War is a group that emerged in the early 1980s and is led by an anarchist called Ian Bone. And they do believe in Bakunin’s idea of total war on the state. When Bakunin was asked “What is anarchy?” he said, “Total revolution against God.” And that is what anarchism believes: total revolt against all ideas of transcendence, total revolt against all ideas of hierarchy. “Pull it down! Destroy it!”

There’s a famous story about Bakunin in E. H. Carr’s—a Soviet-philic writer—biography. Bakunin’s riding along, because he’s an aristocrat of course. He wanted to destroy everything, even the aristocrats first. And he sees some brigands robbing a house, and they’re smashing it to pieces with axes and so on. He says, “Stop!” in Russian, gets out, and joins the brigands, and he starts destroying and running out with the paintings and butting them and leaping up and down on them and hurling bricks through the windows and all this. When somebody said, “Mikhail Mikhalovich, why are you doing this?” He said, “Because it’s there.” Because it’s there.

And Home’s view is that destruction is a creative passion. First you destroy, then you create on the destruction. Even if you create and destroy, because you level the field for new forms: neoism! The cartography of inversion! And if you don’t like it, you can get a bit of this! It’s this sort of stuff. The interesting thing is that these ideas are not revered. They’re eccentric ideas even within the milieu of the cultural Left. But they’re there.

Scorpion’s not sold in the ICA bookshop. Alain de Benoist is not sold in the ICA bookshop. Books about Heidegger are sold in the ICA bookshop. Heidegger, Monster of Nazism: A Philosophy of Inhumanity Exposed! Heidegger and the Jewish Question. Unanswered questions, who was his mistress? We demand the facts! Heidegger! 400 pages of his Party membership between 1933 and 1934. Husserl: Did he Ban him from the Library? The Truth! Heidegger: Deconstructed. Pluto Press in three editions. That’s in the ICA library! But the authors of that which constitutes European identity are for the most part conspicuously absent from the ICA library.

Class War has, of course, died many years ago, and Bone is largely retired from active politics. He appeared on Jonathan Ross once, who I call Jonathan Dross, and he appeared wearing a wig screaming and ranting. Bone’s just treated as a freak show, you know. Just something to laugh at, really.

However, from our point of view, not altogether laughable because a group called Antifa emerged from Class War. Antifa would very much like to beat us all to death, I mean, they really would. But they’re very small and of little significance. The interesting thing is that he was drawn to Class War because they’re situational, because it’s not going to succeed, is it? But you create a happening space, you create action art in society. Do you remember the march on the rich? “Bash the rich!” Remember the marches in Henley? “Bash the rich! Bash the rich!” You know, this sort of thing. Bored policemen, drongos and hippies and white Rastafarians, people with purple mohicans and this sort of thing walking along surrounded by the special patrol group, screaming execration at the bourgeois class and that sort of thing. It was all good fun. Then they’d go back on the train up to [unintelligible] or [unintelligible] or wherever it was. Bone was there. The hard men were there.

There was a famous moment of anarchism in Chicago where all these very old bourgeois people are eating in an extremely rich restaurant, and the anarchists unfurl a banner in front of them saying, “Behold your future executioners!” And they love this sort of sport as play as action as theory. Anarchism, unlike communism—because of course anarchism is to the Left of communism—has a theory called direct action: direct action on the anger of the class, which of course is terrorism really. They don’t call it that, but that’s essentially what it is. These sorts of stunts, even that Class War stunt, “make the middle class afraid,” tossing and turning in their beds and only wondering if those mohican yobs are coming for them.

Those demos are very interesting. I once went on one of those demos and watched, and the hardcore anarchs, the hardcore activists, stand at the back and they throw forward the hippies and the drongos and the others. And they’re the ones who are beaten by the special patrol group or whatever the riot squad is called now. They’re on the ground, and they’re covered in blood, and the policemen step on them and kick them. This was the ’80s. I mean, I saw it with my own eyes. It wasn’t a travesty of British behavior. I saw it. But the hardcore activists with leather jackets are at the back, and when one goes down there’s another there, you know, because the masses are just fuel—fuel for anarchy.

The point of these doctrines is that you open a space in the society where you can create new forms, because when you open a space anything can happen. If you assassinate a politician, anything can happen. That’s why they used to assassinate them all the time in the 19th century.

These sorts of ideas of rage and deconstruction and alienation—particularly impinging on all forms of identity—have probably reached their high water mark. But the very fact that they can be canvassed, the very fact that they are in the ICA, they’re in the NO, they’re in the theoretical book branch of the National Theatre—all state-subsidized. There’s tens and tens of millions of pounds that are spent on these institutions every year through the art boards and so on. The fact that these ideas are in the Western academy is a testament to the fact that communistic doctrines of radical destruction and deconstruction have taken over the mindset in the society. People who speak against them are, well, they’re nowhere to be seen basically, because they’re terrified. They’re partly waiting for the next fad, really, in the hope that some of this stuff will wash away.

But the interesting thing is that they always know what they’re against. Home is certainly aware of the New Right. He used to edit a magazine called Smile—smile!—which was a nihilist, communist magazine. That’s what it said on the front. You can go to Smith’s, you know, “Would you like to buy a nihilist, communist magazine? Smile.” It would have an article about Lenin and an article about the Bombo Gang, and then you would have diseased genitals, because it would shock the bourgeois audience and scratch the hatred of the masses. And in that transgression you open up a moral space for more radicalism of the mind and of the spirit. It is psychologically subversive, and they know what they’re doing! They know what they’re doing. The shocked person goes, “Disgusting trash!” and throws it away. They’ve actually had an effect, the effect of rejection before the next strike.

My view has always been that that sort of militancy has to be stood up to. And you have to fight back. And you have to fight back as hard and as ruthlessly as they do. That’s why they are aware of us and fear us.

Stewart Home also has an interesting view of race, which is an original formulation. I’ve never heard it even from the Trotskyists, and he’s not a Trotskyist. He believes that race doesn’t exist, but the masses believe it does. Now, that’s an interesting formulation, because if you think about it you either have it as a foregrounded form of iterization, it’s being, Dasein, being in being as Heidegger would call it. It’s that which is there. It’s biological. It’s there. It’s foundational. It’s prior. It’s elemental. It’s essential.

Or you don’t believe that. Maoists and extreme communists believe that all humans are a white sheet of paper. Any sexuality, any ethnic specification, any culturalization, any level of intellect could be pre-programmed into you. As Mao’s people would say, you can torture a man into progressive ideas to the degree that they’re coming out of his ears.

Do you remember what O’Brien says to Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four? “First, we make you love Big Brother, then we kill you. Don’t you remember, Winston,” he says, “you’re just a cell in the body of the Party? Do you die if you cut your fingernail?” Do you remember that, and the great actors like Sir Richard Burton who played that part?

Now, Home’s idea is interesting in a way, because they believe in false consciousness. He’s basically saying race is the false consciousness of the masses, but if nothing is prior, then reality is in the consciousness of the masses. Therefore, if the masses think that race exists, it does exist, even in far Left terms, because only that which is thought moment by moment in the struggle exists! So, in a strange sort of way, he’s ended up with a Right-wing deviation within Marxist cultural logic. He’s actually got back to a position he says he refutes.

But it’s an interesting one, because if you notice, the dip in biological thinking in the middle of the 20th century as a reaction to the Second World War, is the high point for these type of new Left ideas. Now that biology has been re-emerging in the last 30 years. And it’s very interesting, for example, that the Anti-Defamation League in the United States opposed the creation of the Human Genome Project. And many gay libertarian groups opposed the Human Genome Project. They are radically opposed to the idea of the biological investigation of the building blocks of life, because it will lead to the possibility of acceptance by the masses of a prior essentialism.

There was an interesting incident last year when the Genome Project’s scientific review board wrote to the German Academy of Sciences and said that “In our opinion, life is 80% natural law and prior biological purpose.” Not 60%, not 70%, but 80%. Man is socialized by 20%, and I view the socialization as environment, and environment is ecology, and ecology is a species of biology. So, in a way, it’s all biological.

And the German Academy wrote back, “We cannot accept this thinking. We cannot accept this thinking, because we understand that your postulate is from good intentions, but it draws us perilously close to rejecting the methodology of the basic law upon which contemporary German governance, state, society, and academic learning is based.” So, the German government says that a particular scientific outcome is wrong, and as a citizen of the contemporary united German republic, founded under occupation by Adenauer in 1948, you have to repute it. We don’t care what science says! We repudiate science! This is a revolutionary development really, whereby the Left, the organ of progress, is rejecting science.

There’s a concept on the New Left of scientism. Scientism. Science is ugly, male, reactionary, authoritarian, phallocratic. All this sort of stuff. There’s a strong streak of feminism in all of these discourses. The Left has sort of given up on that. Many Leftists are now debating about how they deal with biology. Peter Singer, who wrote the book Animal Liberation, which founded that whole movement: “Liberate the animals, you filthy speciesists,” “Put down that ham sandwich,” that sort of thing. Singer, of course from a certain ethnicity, from Australia where he was in the Australian senate. He was a civil libertarian and radical green. He’s a utilitarian. He’s a very interesting thinker. Because he’s introducing a new hard liberalism.

Singer says maybe biological ordinance is true; maybe disability is inherited; maybe gender is inherited; maybe sexuality is due to brain function; maybe the Right is correct. But what you must do is pass every law and every methodology that lies behind the law, jurisprudence, to make sure that there is either equality of opportunity or equality of outcome or those who proselytize for inequality of outcome are not allowed to affect it by the nature of their discourse. So, what he’s saying is even if biology is unequal, you make the society so impervious to that logic, even though you’ve got a hierarchy, that it’s not aware of that.

That’s the most important and intelligent form of far Leftism. They can only sustain anti-science. They built their entire creed on science. They can’t repudiate it. That’s just a stunt for a couple of decades. They’re going to have to accept the Human Genome Project. They’re going to have to accept the biological and prior ordination of man.

Every time I go into an NHS clinic there’s a leaflet for transplants, and in the middle of that leaflet you’re asked about your race. It says, “Are you White Caucasian? Are you Asian? Are you Negroid or Diaspora African?” All these little boxes. And that’s because human internal tissues will not transplant or graft as well in relation to one race as another. Prior racial difference within the taxonomies of the human even at the physical level.

If a scientist at Oxford or Cambridge or the London School of Economics had said that openly in the 1960s or 1970s, there would have been rioting! There would be rioting in the canteen. There’d be rioting in the lecture hall. The special control group would have been on the campus. You would have been hounded out of that place of learning. It’s now in an NHS leaflet. Quietly, no fuss. It’s just intruded there as a fact. “Who can reject it? We’re helping people! We’re helping people!”

And talking about helping people, there are ultra-liberal groups in the United States who are campaigning against certain forms of medicine that affect individual ethnicities. There are certain diseases that Blacks and Africans suffer from, particularly sickle cell anemia, which is almost congruent to them, and certain drugs that have genetic potential and originate from some of the theory and experimentation of the Human Genome Project react primarily on their group. There are ultra-liberal groups who are campaigning to not allow the Food and Drug Agency to license these.

Why? Why? Because it undermines the idea that man is a white sheet of paper that you can do with what you want and there is no prior identity. They would rather blacks suffer than that these drugs were produced, because they admit the prior biological differentiation of the human. And when you begin there, when you begin with such a monstrous prior essentialism, the doors to you-know-what are swinging open. So, you must close down the thing before you even begin to agree with what you disagree with.

Thank you very much!

Notes

[1] Bowden misspoke here: Ferdinand de Saussure was the founder of Structuralism, not one of its later developers as he seems to imply here.—Ed.

[2] Heidegger’s Collected Edition (Gesamtausgabe) runs to nearly 100 volumes, most of which were published posthumously.—Ed.

[3] The Yale School of Deconstruction signifies an intellectual movement, not an academic department or college. De Man joined the faculty in French and Comparative Literature at Yale. At the time of his death in 1983, he was Sterling Professor of the Humanities and chairman of the Department of Comparative Literature at Yale.—Ed.

[4] Apparently, the woman was actually named Beryl Merfin of Herne Bay, Kent.—Ed.

 


Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/08/stewart-home/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/b-stewart-home-jpg.jpg

[2] here: http://youtu.be/S8tjGJ4eUdA

[3] Marxism and the Frankfurt School and the New Left: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/05/marxism-and-the-frankfurt-school/

[4] The Totalitarian Politics of Nineteen Eighty-Four: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/08/george-orwells-nineteen-eighty-four-2/

[5] Francis Pollini: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/francis-pollinis-night/

[6] YouTube: http://youtu.be/eNFVLU0pIWM

lundi, 28 juillet 2014

Les Corniques obtiennent le statut de minorité nationale

An-actor-playing-St-Piran-014.jpg

Bernhard Tomaschitz:

Les Corniques obtiennent le statut de minorité nationale

 

cornwall.gifLa Grande-Bretagne vient de reconnaître une nouvelle minorité nationale. Comme vient de l'annoncer le secrétaire d'Etat aux finances Danny Alexander (un Libéral-Démocrate), les habitants du Comté des Cornouailles, dans la pointe sud-occidentale de l'Angleterre, bénéficieront désormais des mêmes droits et de la même protection que les Ecossais, les Gallois et les Irlandais. Cela signifie surtout que le gouvernement et les corps officiels de l'Etat britannique doivent tenir désormais compte des intérêts spécifiques de la région quand ils prennent une décision. On ne voit pas encore très bien quels avantages concrets cette reconnaissance apportera au demi million d'habitants des Cornouailles. Le gouvernement de Londres a pris l'initiative de reconnaître la spécificité cornique suite aux accords-cadres de l'UE pour la protection des minorités.

 

Depuis des années, les Corniques, ressortissants d'un peuple celtique, avaient lutté pour obtenir la reconnaissance de leur statut de minorité nationale. Joie et fierté sont à l'ordre du jour. Lee Trewhela, journaliste cornique, déclare: "C'est une grande fierté nationale qu'il faut ressentir aujourd'hui et se rappeler que l'histoire des Cornouailles est différente de celle du reste de l'Angleterre". Il rappelle également que les Corniques "ont leur propre langue". Celle-ci, que l'on estimait éteinte mais que l'UNESCO avait placé sur la liste des "langues en situation critique", n'est plus parlée couramment que par environ 300 personnes d'après les données fournies par les autorités locales. De mille à deux mille personnes ont "quelque connaissance" de cette langue qui ressemble évidemment plus au Gallois ou au Breton qu'à l'Anglais!

 

Après le Pays de Galles et l'Ecosse (les Ecossais sont depuis toujours très fiers de leur identité!), les Cornouailles, à leur tour, se remémorent leurs racines et leurs traditions celtiques. Trewhela évoque une "renaissance cornique" qui, espère-t-il, "apportera des avantages sociaux, culturels et économiques".

 

Bernhard Tomaschitz.

(article paru dans zur Zeit, Vienne, n°18/2014, http://www.zurzeit.at ).

 

vendredi, 30 mai 2014

Paniek Engelse en Franse regeringen na overwinning anti-EU partijen

Paniek Engelse en Franse regeringen na overwinning anti-EU partijen

Britten zijn massa-immigratie helemaal zat

Le Figaro: Regering Hollande ‘bedrukt en radeloos’

Nederland uitzondering in EU met winst eurofielen


Sombere gezichten bij premier David Cameron (R) en Nick Klegg, wiens Liberaal-democratische partij (de Britse D66) compleet werd weggevaagd.

In Groot Brittannië en Frankrijk lijkt er paniek uitgebroken in de zittende regeringen na de enorme overwinningen van de anti-EU partijen. De Britse UKIP van Nigel Farage en het Franse Front National van Marine Le Pen werden in hun thuislanden de grootste partij, terwijl de zittende regeringspartijen een verpletterende nederlaag leden. De boodschap van de kiezers is overduidelijk: wij willen niet meer, maar minder Brussel – véél minder, en wij willen onafhankelijk en democratisch blijven.

Geschokt na overwinning Farage

Voor het eerst sinds 1910 werd in het Verenigd Koninkrijk een andere partij dan de Conservatieven of socialisten (Labour) de winnaar van de nationale verkiezingen. De UKIP, die zo snel mogelijk uit de EU wil treden, kreeg de meeste afgevaardigden, terwijl de liberaal-democratische regeringspartij (de Britse D66) bijna al zijn zetels in het Europarlement kwijtraakte.

Premier David Cameron was zichtbaar geschokt. Hij probeerde Farage te beledigen, maar zijn woorden kwamen eerder als een compliment over. Hij noemde Farage ‘geen eenvoudige gozer uit de pub’, zoals hij zichzelf graag afschildert, maar een ‘geslepen politicus die voor alles een politieke tactiek gebruikt’.

Dat is nu juist de kracht van Nigel Farage. Hij weet hoe het politieke systeem werkt, profiteert er zelf ook van, en is juist vanwege die kennis zo gevaarlijk voor de gevestigde globalistische orde. Bovendien beloofde Farage de Britten dat ‘dit nog niet alles is’, en hij ook bij de parlementsverkiezingen in 2015 op een overtuigende overwinning aast.

‘Het volksleger heeft gesproken’

‘Het volksleger van de UKIP heeft vanavond gesproken en heeft het meest verbazingwekkende resultaat dat we in de afgelopen 100 jaar hebben gezien geleverd,’ aldus de EU-criticus. Verwacht wordt dat de roep om een referendum over de EU na zijn klinkende overwinning alleen maar krachtiger zal worden. Cameron had reeds ingestemd met een referendum, maar pas in 2017, in de hoop dat de ergste anti-Brusselse storm dan voorbij zal zijn.

Britten zijn massa-immigratie helemaal zat

Volgens het UKIP, dat zich baseert op onafhankelijke onderzoeken, zal de welvaart in Groot Brittannië door het verlaten van de EU weer toenemen. Ook zal het land democratisch(er) worden. Belangrijkste reden waarom de Britten massaal op hem stemden was de enorme onvrede over de massa-immigratie. Zo kwamen er dankzij de Brusselse wetten vorig jaar 27% meer migranten uit arme EU-landen zoals Roemenië en Bulgarije. Hierdoor is de sociale zekerheid onder grote druk komen te staan, en voelen de Britten zich bedreigd in hun nationale identiteit.

Om kiezers terug te winnen hebben de Conservatieven nu maatregelen aangekondigd om de toestroom van arme EU-burgers tegen te houden. Volgens de Sunday Telegraph zullen werklozen voortaan na 6 maanden het land uit worden gezet. Daarnaast moeten immigranten aantonen dat ze voldoende eigen vermogen hebben. (1)

Regering Hollande ‘radeloos’ na overwinning Le Pen

In Frankrijk heeft president Francois Hollande een heuse crisisbijeenkomst met zijn belangrijkste ministers georganiseerd vanwege de verpletterende nederlaag die zijn socialistische partij leed. Nieuwe verkiezingen, zoals Front National leider Marine Le Pen als absolute winnaar eist, wil Hollande dan ook ten koste van alles voorkomen.

Premier Manuel Valls beloofde de Fransen onmiddellijk forse belastingverlagingen. Wie dat moet gaan betalen is echter volstrekt onduidelijk. De Franse staatsfinanciën zijn een ongekende puinhoop, reden waarom Parijs regelmatig eist dat de Europese Centrale Bank de geldkranen nog verder opendraait.

Volgens de oudste Franse krant Le Figaro is de stemming in de regering Hollande ‘bedrukt en radeloos’, en hangen er spreekwoordelijke ‘zwarte sluiers’ voor het Champs Élysée. De afstraffing door de kiezers kwam bij de socialisten zó hard aan, dat ze niet eens proberen deze goed te praten. Le Figaro: ‘Dit is een oorvijg voor Europa, een verdere terugslag voor ons en een motie van wantrouwen tegen Hollande. De keizer is zijn kleren kwijt (lett. de koning is naakt).’

Hele EU zelfde beeld, uitgezonderd Nederland

In bijna heel Europa boekten de anti-EU partijen winst. Het extreemlinkse Griekse Syriza kreeg 26%-28% van de stemmen en werden de grootste partij. In Spanje verloren de conservatieven en socialisten zoveel, dat ze voor het eerst in de geschiedenis samen minder dan 50% van de stemmen kregen. Twee linkse partijen kregen kwamen op respectievelijk 10% en 8% uit.

In Italië behaalde Beppe Grillo’s M5S 25,5% en werd daarmee de tweede partij van het land, achter de sociaaldemocraten (34,5%) (3). Ook in België (NV-A), Oostenrijk (FPÖ), en Duitsland (AfD, 7%) wonnen de eurosceptici in meer of mindere mate. In Finland verdubbelden de ‘Ware Finnen’ hun Europese zetels weliswaar van 1 naar 2, maar vergeleken met de 20% bij de parlementsverkiezingen in 2011 was dat een flinke tegenvaller.

Nederland was feitelijk het enige land waar de meest eurofiele partij, D66, stemmen won, en de enige anti-EU partij PVV juist een zetel kwijtraakte. Om een bekende uitspraak van Louis van Gaal te parafraseren: ‘Zijn jullie nou zo slim, of zijn wij nou zo dom?’ Zijn wij Nederlanders het slimste jongetje van de EU-klas, zoals Den Haag zich doorgaans graag presenteert, of presenteert ons volk zich toch weer als die klassieke ‘dumme Holländer’, die altijd alles beter menen te weten, maar feitelijk van klok noch klepel weten?

Xander

(1) Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten
(2) Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten
(3) Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten
(4) Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten

mercredi, 30 avril 2014

Inglaterra apoya a Azerbaiyán contra Armenia

Inglaterra apoya a Azerbaiyán contra Armenia

 

alt

 

Ex: http://www.elespiadigital.com

El embajador británico solicitó a Armenia que "devuelva" a Azerbaiyán los territorios circundantes a Nagorno-Karabaj "tomados" durante la guerra.

El Reino Unido apoya firmemente los principios del arreglo pacífico del conflicto de Nagorno-Karabaj a través de la mediación del Grupo de Minsk de la OSCE . Así lo manifestó el embajador británico en Azerbaiyán Irfan Siddig en una entrevista con 1news.az.

"Los territorio de Azerbaiyán de Nagorno-Karabaj y la tierra circundante son reconocidos internacionalmente. Pero está claro que la situación de Nagorno-Karabaj la disputan Armenia y la población armenia de Nagorno-Karabaj. Así, en la práctica, esto significa que un acuerdo sobre el futuro estatus de Nagorno-Karabaj debe lograrse sobre la base de los principios de Helsinki -no uso de la fuerza, el respeto a la integridad territorial y la igualdad de los pueblos y su derecho a la libre determinación. Este es el elemento más difícil del conflicto, que debe ser acordado entre todas las partes", dijo el Embajador.

"Sin embargo, el estatuto de los territorios que rodean Nagorno-Karabaj, que las fuerzas armenias continúan manteniendo bajo ocupación como consecuencia del conflicto militar, no puede ser negado. Es Territorio de Azerbaiyán, y en cualquier solución pacífica las fuerzas armenias deben retirarse de estas tierras, ya que la continua ocupación de estos territorios es uno de los obstáculos para la paz, y el Reino Unido apoyó la pronta devolución de esas tierras a Azerbaiyán en el marco de un acuerdo de paz global", concluyó Siddig.

dimanche, 23 mars 2014

Para Londres “los votos de Crimea no valen”, pero “los de Malvinas y Kosovo si"

Ex: http://www.elespiadigital.com

El Reino Unido respeta el derecho de los pueblos a la autodeterminación cuando eso conviene a sus intereses, según afirmó la analista política Nana Yakovenko.

Ante la negativa de Occidente a reconocer la legitimidad del referéndum en Crimea, la experta, citada por el portal Inosmi, recordó que la postura del Reino Unido sobre otros ejemplos de plebiscito, como el referéndum en las islas Malvinas, fue absolutamente contraria a la que mantiene ahora.

El embajador británico en la ONU, Mark Grant, afirmó en el  Consejo de Seguridad el 7 de agosto pasado: "En marzo pasado los residentes de las Malvinas aprovecharon su derecho a la autodeterminación mediante un referéndum y apoyaron en su mayoría su permanencia como territorio de ultramar del Reino Unido. No se puede ignorar la opinión de los isleños. El asunto de la soberanía de las Malvinas no se puede decidir en contra de sus deseos".

Otro ejemplo de la inconsistencia de Londres es la declaración unilateral de independencia de Kosovo en el año 2008.  

"La secesión de una parte de Estado de por sí no contradice a las leyes  internacionales", reza el memorándum del Gobierno británico presentado al Tribunal Internacional de Justicia al respecto de este caso.  

"En general, las leyes internacionales no prohíben la secesión ni prestan garantías de integridad a los Estados ante movimientos internos que puedan llevar a la separación o independencia apoyados por sus pertinentes pueblos", según el documento.

Resulta que en el caso de las Malvinas y Kosovo, Londres  prioriza la democracia y el derecho de los pueblos a la autodeterminación, "ideas a las que Rusia propone que se atenga la comunidad internacional en lo que se refiere a Crimea", resaltó Yakovenko.

La analista recordó que en el pasado, la inclinación prorrusa también prevalecía en la mayor parte de la opinión pública de los residentes de Crimea.

mercredi, 05 mars 2014

Document Britse versie NSA: Overheid infiltreert inderdaad blogs en websites

Document Britse versie NSA: Overheid infiltreert inderdaad blogs en websites

Letterlijke instructies hoe mensen moeten geworden gemanipuleerd om hun 'leiders' te 'vertrouwen' en te 'gehoorzamen', zodat ze 'volgzame' burgers blijven

 


Complex schema uit het document, waarin instructies worden gegeven hoe mensen online moeten worden gemanipuleerd, zodat ze een politiek correcte mening krijgen.

Door velen wordt het nog altijd afgedaan als een complottheorie, maar uit een voorheen vertrouwelijk document van de GCHQ, de Britse versie van de NSA, blijkt dat de overheid wel degelijk met zijn eigen 'trollen' websites, blogs en sociale netwerken infiltreert om de commentaren en discussies te manipuleren, verwarring te zaaien, en commentatoren en sites met een niet gewenste mening zwart en belachelijk te maken. In eigen land merken we dat bijvoorbeeld aangaande artikelen en sites die tegen de EU en de euro zijn, en de CO2/Global-Warming agenda ontmaskeren.

Overheidstrollen bestaan

Dankzij Edward Snowden en Glenn Greenwald hebben we nu zwart op wit, compleet met kleurige grafieken, dat de overheid de publieke opinie probeert te manipuleren en controleren door online discussies te infiltreren, en waar mogelijk sites en schrijvers die er een niet gewenste, politiek incorrecte mening op nahouden met nepcommentaren in diskrediet te brengen, en zo mogelijk kapot te maken. 'Hiermee bedreigen ze de integriteit van het hele internet,' aldus Greenwald.

De inmiddels niet langer geheime eenheid die dit uitvoert heet JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). De namen in de EU en Nederland zullen anders zijn, maar vrijwel exact dezelfde taken uitvoeren. Zodra een artikel of een discussie op een website, blog of Facebook pagina de 'verkeerde kant' op gaat en het overheidsbeleid ten aanzien van bijvoorbeeld de EU, de redding van de euro, de klimaatagenda, de immigratie en dergelijke bekritiseert, proberen de overheidstrollen de lezers te doen twijfelen aan de gepresenteerde informatie, en daarmee aan de website of blog(schrijver) zelf.

'False flag operaties'

Uit het document blijkt dat ze daar extreme tactieken voor gebruiken die letterlijk 'false flag' operaties worden genoemd. Dat houdt onder andere in dat er artikelen en informatie op het internet worden gezet die aan anderen worden toegeschreven. Ook worden er valse berichten verspreid en 'slachtofferblogs' opgezet van mensen die beweren het slachtoffer te zijn van de schrijver of website die de overheid kapot wil maken. Daarnaast wordt er op diverse forums allerlei negatieve informatie over het doelwit geplaatst.

Soms wordt er rechtstreeks in sites en blogs 'ingebroken', worden foto's veranderd, en worden er valse emails en berichtjes aan collega's, buren, vrienden en familie van het doelwit gestuurd. In andere gevallen wordt er via blogs vertrouwelijke informatie aan de pers of bedrijven gelekt en wordt er belastende informatie op forums gezet, zodat bepaalde ongewenste 'zakenrelaties' worden gestopt of geruïneerd.

Cyber offensief

Deze verdeel-en-vernietig strategie gebruiken de overheidstrollen ook tegen andere landen en hun regeringsleiders, militaire instellingen en inlichtingendiensten. Tevens worden mensen die worden verdacht van gewone misdaden -maar niet zijn veroordeeld- op de korrel genomen. Er wordt gesproken van een waar 'Cyber Offensief', ook tegen mensen die helemaal niets te maken hebben met terrorisme of bedreigingen van de nationale veiligheid.

Grootste angsten bevestigd

Complotfanaten zien in het document hun grootste angsten bevestigd. 'Deze toezichtorganisaties hebben zichzelf de macht gegeven om doelbewust reputaties te vernietigen en de (politieke) online activiteiten van mensen te verstoren, zelfs als ze van geen enkel misdrijf worden beschuldigd,' vervolgt Greenwald.

Hij wijst daarbij op Obama's informatie'tsaar' Cass Sunstein, die al in 2008 voorstelde dat de Amerikaanse regering een team van cyberagenten zou inzetten om online groepen, blogs, websites, sociale netwerken en zelfs chatrooms te infiltreren, zodat de in zijn ogen valse 'complotten' over de regering en het overheidsbeleid zouden worden bestreden. Ironisch genoeg werd Sunstein onlangs door Obama benoemd tot een commissie die toezicht moet gaan houden op de activiteiten van... de NSA.

Mensen gemanipuleerd om hun leiders te 'gehoorzamen'

Nog verontrustender is wat onder het kopje 'Verborgen Online Acties' wordt geschreven. Behalve een groot aantal tactieken om informatie te beïnvloeden en verstoren, worden letterlijke instructies gegeven hoe mensen moeten worden gemanipuleerd om hun 'leiders' te 'vertrouwen' en te 'gehoorzamen', zodat ze 'gewillig' met de politiek correcte mening mee gaan. Er wordt uitvoerig beschreven hoe mensen online met elkaar omgaan, en hoe de overheidstrollen hen kunnen bespelen, zodat hun opvattingen en gedrag worden veranderd.

Complottheorie blijkt realiteit

'Beweringen dat de overheid deze tactieken gebruikt worden vaak afgedaan als complottheorieën, maar deze documenten laten er geen twijfel over bestaan dat de overheid precies dit doet... Wat rechtvaardigt de inzet van overheidsorganisaties om de reputaties van mensen die van geen enkel misdrijf worden beschuldigd te vernietigen, om onlinegroepen te infiltreren, en om technieken te ontwikkelen waarmee online discussies worden gemanipuleerd?'

Wie vertrouwt zo'n regering nog?

De GCHQ documenten bewijzen volgens Greenwald dat 'een grote Westerse regering gebruik maakt van de meest controversiële technieken om online misleiding te verspreiden, en de reputaties van doelwitten te beschadigen. Een van de tactieken die ze gebruiken is het verspreiden van leugens over deze doelwitten, inclusief wat door de GCHQ zelf 'false flag operaties' worden genoemd... Wie zou een regering die deze macht gebruikt, en dan nog wel in het geheim, met vrijwel geen enkele toezicht en buiten ieder legaal raamwerk, nog vertrouwen?'

U bent niet paranoïde

Dus als u de volgende keer op een forum, NUjij, een website of een blog als deze weer eens iemand tegenkomt die een beetje teveel klinkt als een door de overheid betaalde trol -of dat nu over informatie over de EU, de CO2/Global-Warminghoax, of juist een onderwerp als dit artikel gaat-, dan weet u nu zeker dat u niet paranoïde bent. (1)

Xander

(1) Zero Hedge

dimanche, 16 février 2014

Groot Brittannië opent grenzen voor Moslim Broederschap

Groot Brittannië opent grenzen voor Moslim Broederschap

Ex: http://xandernieuws.punt.nl

Egypte beschuldigt Britse regering van steunen islamitisch terrorisme en extremisme


Premier Cameron, die ooit zei dat de Britten zich aan de islam moeten aanpassen, en niet andersom, zet met het toelaten van de Moslim Broederschap terreurorganisatie nog meer druk op zijn eigen volk.

Groot Brittannië, Europees dhimmi-kampioen bij uitstek, heeft een nog diepere knieval voor de islam gemaakt door zijn grenzen te openen voor de Moslim Broederschap, die nota bene in Egypte officieel als terreurorganisatie te boek staat. Aan de overkant van Het Kanaal is te zien wat de gevolgen zijn van een almaar groter wordende moslimbevolking, die stap voor stap steeds meer druk op de democratie beginnen te zetten.

Het verval van Europa is wellicht nergens zo duidelijk zichtbaar als in Groot Brittannië. De regering in Londen heeft nu besloten dat het lidmaatschap van de Moslim Broederschap geen bewijs is van islamitisch extremisme. Het kabinet van de conservatieve premier David Cameron weigert de Broederschap als terreurorganisatie te kenmerken. Activisten van de Broederschap mogen dan ook vrijelijk in het land opereren, zolang ze de nationale wetten respecteren.

Egypte beschuldigt Londen van steun aan terrorisme

Dit geeft een aantal Broederschapleiders en andere leden, die Egypte ontvluchtten nadat hun president Mohamed Morsi werd afgezet, de mogelijkheid om publiekelijk politieke actie te ondernemen tegen de door de militairen gesteunde nieuwe Egyptische regering. Egyptische politici en mediakopstukken hebben de Britse regering al openlijk beschuldigd van het steunen van het islamitische terrorisme en extremisme, mede omdat de Moslim Broederschap de moederorganisatie van de Palestijnse terreurbeweging Hamas is. (1)

Egypte heeft een sterk argument: de Britten hebben immers meegeholpen met het afzetten van de Libische leider Muammar Gadaffi in 2011, waarna er een door het Westen gesteunde, aan Al-Qaeda gelieerd regime aan de macht kon komen.

Na Amerikaanse verraadt ook Britse regering eigen volk

De Britten zijn nu de eersten in Europa die officieel de deuren openen voor moslimterroristen. Daarmee heeft de regering Cameron zijn eigen volk verraden, en verdient daarom het predicaat 'crimineel'. Als de groeiende invloed van de islam geen halt toe wordt geroepen, staat dit waarschijnlijk ook andere EU-landen te wachten.

Eerder zette de Amerikaanse president Obama al een groot aantal Moslim Broederschapleden op hoge posities in zijn regering, en gaf hij hen een speciale VIP-status, zodat ze ongehinderd de VS in kunnen reizen. Onlangs leverden we niet alleen daar opnieuw bewijs voor, maar ook voor het feit dat Obama's broer Malik via o.a. de Barack H. Obama Foundation* openlijk Hamas, de voor oorlogsmisdaden gezochte Soedanese moslimpresident Al-Bashir en andere islamitische terreurgroepen steunt.

* Inmiddels is er in de VS een tweede stichting met exact dezelfde naam opgericht, hoogstwaarschijnlijk om de eerste stichting uit de wind te houden.

Xander

(1) Ahram Online (via Shoebat)

Zie ook o.a.:

29-01: Obama's broer sluit zich aan bij Hamas en zegt 'Jeruzalem is van ons'
20-01: Bevestigd: Regering Obama gaf leden Moslim Broederschap VIP-status
10-01: Generaal en oud-vicestafchef: Moslim Broederschap in regering Obama

2013:
02-12: Deal met Iran: Vervult Obama islamitische profetie over wegbereider Mahdi?
03-09: Egyptische krant: Obama is volwaardig lid van Moslim Broederschap
08-06: FBI noemt de Koran het geopenbaarde woord van god
|12-01: Egyptische magazine bevestigt infiltratie Moslim Broederschap Witte Huis

dimanche, 26 janvier 2014

Kriegserklärung des britischen Königs George VI. älter als angenommen

Kriegserklärung des britischen Königs George VI. älter als angenommen

 
Bild: 
König George VI. bei seiner Rede zum Kriegseintritt Großbritanniens.

Bereiche 

Historisches

Die bekannte Rede des englischen Königs George VI., in der er seinem Volk am 3. September 1939 die Kriegserklärung an das Deutsche Reich bekanntgab (The King’s Speech“), wurde bereits mehrere Tage vor Ausbruch des Zweiten Weltkriegs geschrieben. Dies stellte sich erst kürzlich heraus, als der Entwurf der Rede für den König bei dem Londoner Auktionshaus Sotheby’s angeboten wurde.

Dieses Aktenstück stammt ursprünglich aus dem Besitz des Verfassers des Entwurfs, Harold Vale Rhodes, eines hohen Beamten. Rhodes spielte eine wichtige Rolle bei der Gründung des britischen „Informationsministeriums“ zu Beginn des Zweiten Weltkriegs, das für die Propaganda zuständig war.  Es wurde am 25. August 1939 geschrieben, zwei Tage nach der Veröffentlichung des Molotow-Ribbentrop-Pakts. Laut Nachforschungen der Londoner Tageszeitung Daily Mail sollen sogar noch ältere Entwürfe für die Kriegsrede des Königs existieren.

„Geschah nicht aus dem Blauen heraus“

Zwar versuchte der Historiker des Londoner „Imperial War Museum“, Nigel Steel, die Bedeutung des Fundes herunterzuspielen: „Als das passierte, geschah dies nicht aus dem Blauen heraus“. Dennoch dürfte die Tatsache, dass eine ausführliche Kriegsrede des Königs bereits über eine Woche vor den deutsch-polnischen Grenzzwischenfällen geschrieben wurde, für einiges Erstaunen sorgen. Galten doch diese Grenzzwischenfälle und der folgende Einmarsch der Deutschen in Polen als offizieller Grund für den Ausbruch des Zweiten Weltkriegs.

Für Überraschung wird dies insbesondere deshalb sorgen, weil Historiker gerade für die Zeit unmittelbar vor dem Kriegsausbruch bislang von sehr ernst zu nehmenden Friedensgesprächen und Initiativen ausgegangen waren. Das Schriftstück wurde am 10. Dezember in London verkauft.

dimanche, 19 janvier 2014

Einde vrij internet: EU en VS gaan grote concerns alle macht geven

Einde vrij internet: EU en VS gaan grote concerns alle macht geven

Britten kunnen kritische websites nu al blokkeren


Het einde van het vrije internet is nabij. In de VS, en binnenkort ook in de EU, kunnen de grote en machtige concerns binnenkort meer bandbreedte reserveren. Dat betekent dat ondernemingen die produkten willen verkopen en organisaties die mensen een bepaalde mening willen opdringen, voorrang krijgen boven onafhankelijke -lees: kritische- blogs en websites, die het niet van hun inkomsten moeten hebben. Kortom: het internet wordt de komende jaren omgevormd tot één groot propagandakanaal voor de globalisten in Brussel en Washington.

Providers krijgen binnenkort de mogelijkheid grote (internet)ondernemingen te bevoordelen. Feitelijk wordt het internet gewoon verkocht aan de hoogste bieder. Hoe meer geld, hoe meer bandbreedte, hoe vaker en sneller je boodschap bij de mensen aankomt. Kleine, onafhankelijke websites zullen worden gemarginaliseerd en weggedrukt.

Geld = toegang

Telecombedrijven vinden deze ontwikkeling fantastisch, want naast de inkomsten van de gebruikers en uit reclame, mag men nu ook geld gaan vragen voor 'voorrang' op het internet. Natuurlijk zullen overheden en regeringen vooraan staan bij het kopen van snellere websites. Dat dit niet als verhulde subsidie wordt gezien komt omdat alle grote landen eraan mee zullen doen.

In Groot Brittannië gaat men zelfs nog een stap verder bij het uitbannen van alle niet gewenste berichten en meningen, door providers de mogelijkheid te geven om kritische websites als 'esoterie' te bestempelen, en vervolgens te blokkeren.

Hou de burger dom en ongeïnformeerd

De voorrang die de Amerikaanse dataconcerns krijgen zorgt ervoor, dat de persoonlijke gegevens van de doorgaans nog steeds zeer naïeve internetter en sociale netwerker vrij beschikbaar komen en kunnen worden misbruikt door zowel bedrijven als overheden.

Het internet wordt daarmee omgevormd tot wat de TV al jaren is, namelijk een middel om de gewone man dom en ongeïnformeerd te maken en te houden. Onafhankelijke, kritische stemmen, die niet alles wat de elite de wereld in spuugt voor zoete koek aannemen, zullen langzaam maar zeker verdwijnen, mede omdat overheden steeds meer actie ondernemen om hen zwart en belachelijk te maken.

Censuur i.p.v. netneutraliteit

Censuur in optima forma, dus. De EU Commissie staat er volledig achter. Brussel heeft dan ook talrijke 'denktanks' gevormd die niets anders doen dan positieve europropaganda verspreiden. Daarnaast hebben lobbyisten van grote concerns zoals Monsanto steeds meer macht en invloed op het EU-beleid gekregen.

De petitie 'Save The Internet' wil dat de netneutraliteit gegarandeerd blijft, dus dat al het internetverkeer gelijk wordt behandeld, en niet bepaalde boodschappen voorrang krijgen boven anderen. De EU-Commissie beloofde aanvankelijk dat dit oorspronkelijke principe van het internet overeind zou blijven, maar een voorstel hiertoe werd afgewezen. Het internet wordt nu een soort kabel-TV, waarvan de inhoud wordt gecontroleerd door een handjevol aanbieders.

Eerste slag in VS tegen vrij internet een feit

Gespecialiseerde diensten -of ze nu voor bedrijven of overheden werken- brengen zo het neutrale en vrije internet in gevaar, en houden innovatie tegen. Afgelopen week werd in de VS het vrije internet de eerste slag toegediend, toen een hogere rechtbank regels die gelijke behandeling op het internet moeten waarborgen, afwees. De argumentatie was dat de overheid breedbandaanbieders als informatie-, en niet als telecomproviders ziet.

De grote provider Verizon was eind 2010 tegen de nieuwe opzet in beroep gegaan, omdat deze tegen het recht op vrije meningsuiting in zou gaan, en de grote concerns de controle geeft over welke gegevens en boodschappen op wat voor wijze op het internet verschijnen.

Geen uitleg over blokkade

Critici vrezen dat providers in de VS en de EU hun bandbreedte gaan verkopen aan de hoogste bieder. Vanzelfsprekend zullen ze hier geen inzage over hoeven geven, omdat het om 'vertrouwelijke zakelijke contracten' zal gaan. Kritische websites die plotseling niet of nauwelijks meer bereikbaar zijn, zullen dan ook geen enkele uitleg daarover krijgen, behalve mogelijk een nietszeggende verklaring over 'data overbelasting'.

'Onwetendheid is Kracht'

Conclusie: als er niets gebeurt om het te stoppen, zal het internet verworden tot een propagandakanaal van de machtige globalistische elite. Dan zal het definitief gedaan zijn met de waarheid, en zal, geheel volgens George Orwells '1984', de consument feitelijk worden volgepompt met

'Oorlog is Vrede'
'Vrijheid is Slavernij'
'Onwetendheid is Kracht'

 

Xander

(1) Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten

Zie ook o.a.:

2013:
28-11: Geheim EU-akkoord: Lidstaten moeten trouw zweren aan Nieuwe Wereld Orde (/ EU gaat kritische stemmen op internet aanpakken)
16-07: Netneutraliteit EU-commissaris Kroes maakt einde aan onafhankelijk internet
11-06: DHS-insider: Obama start totalitaire internetcensuur en wereldoorlog

2012:
04-12: Einde vrijheid meningsuiting dreigt door VN-controle over internet
01-12: Wikileaks oprichter: Plotselinge totalitaire wereldcontrole via internet zeer dichtbij
10-10: EU-denktank: Drastische maatregelen om bevolking EU te controleren
02-10: Project Clean IT: EU plant totale controle over het internet

mardi, 14 janvier 2014

Le Royaume-Uni, “État-voyou”

British-Flag.jpg

Le Royaume-Uni, “État-voyou”

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org

Une opération secrète, l’Opération Tiberius, a été lancée en 2003 pour évaluer le degré de corruption et de pénétration par le crime organisé de différents organes de sécurité intérieure et de justice du Royaume-Uni. Un rapport a été établi après la conduite à bien de cette Opération Tiberius. The Independent, qui a obtenu un exemplaire du rapport, a publié plusieurs articles sur ce document (les 9 janvier 2014, 10 janvier 2014 et encore 10 janvier 2014). L’Opération Tiberius montre une pénétration systématique par la corruption, les pressions, le chantage, etc., du crime organisé dans les principaux organes de police, de la justice, du système carcéral, des impôts, des douanes, etc., bref tout ce qui forme l’appareil interne de la sécurité et de la justice courantes dans ce pays. (On signalera également un article de Russia Today, du 11 janvier 2014, reprenant nombre d’informations de The Independent en les synthétisant.)

Les informations publiées signalent notamment, en présentant les résultats de l’Opération Tiberius à partir des informations de The Independent, que cette opération a été réalisée par des voies tout à fait inhabituelles, échappant au contrôle des organismes impliqués. Tiberius semble avoir été prioritairement confiée à des services tels que le MI5 (contre-espionnage) et le MI6 (renseignement extérieur), et selon des voies et moyens secrets telles que des écoutes clandestines, des interceptions de courrier, etc. (Il est donc probable que le GCHG a été aussi impliqué dans l’enquête, pouvant alors, pour une très rares occasions, mettre en évidence l’utilité des actions de surveillance et d’espionnage clandestines ; mais c’est ironiquement, ou de façon révélatrice, pour démontrer le degré de corruption structurelle du Système dont lui-même, le GCHQ, est partie prenante d’une autre façon mais dans le même esprit... L'exception qui confirme la règle.)

«Tiberius, which was compiled from a number of covert intelligence sources including police informants, telephone intercepts, information from MI5 and MI6, as well as thousands of historical files, came to the appalling conclusion: “Quite how much more damage could be done is difficult to imagine.”»

Il semble qu'on ne trouve pas d'indication de date pour la clôture de l’Opération Tiberius mais il est manifeste qu’une telle action demande plusieurs années aussi bien pour l’ampleur du travail que pour les conditions de l’action (le secret nécessaire pour l’enquête). Dans tous cas, tout indique, bien entendu, que la situation actuelle est aussi catastrophique que celle que décrit Tiberius, et même qu’elle a empiré.

«In 2003 Operation Tiberius found that men suspected of being Britain’s most notorious criminals had compromised multiple agencies, including HM Revenue & Customs, the Crown Prosecution Service, the City of London Police and the Prison Service, as well as pillars of the criminal justice system including juries and the legal profession.

»The strategic intelligence scoping exercise – “ratified by the most senior management” at the Met – uncovered jurors being bought off or threatened to return not-guilty verdicts; corrupt individuals working for HMRC, both in the UK and overseas; and “get out of jail free cards” being bought for £50,000. The report states that the infiltration made it almost impossible for police and prosecutors to successfully pursue the organised gangs that police suspected controlled much of the criminal underworld. The author of Tiberius, which was compiled from intelligence sources including covert police informants, live telephone intercepts, briefings from the security services and thousands of historical files, came to the desperate conclusion: “Quite how much more damage could be done is difficult to imagine.”

»The fresh revelations come a day after The Independent revealed that Tiberius had concluded the Metropolitan Police suffered “endemic police corruption” at the time, and that some of Britain’s most dangerous organised crime syndicates were able to infiltrate New Scotland Yard “at will”.

»In its conclusions, the report stated: “The true assessment of the damage caused by these corrupt networks is impossible to make at this stage, until further proactive scoping has been undertaken.” “However a statement by an experienced SIO [senior investigating officer] currently attached to SO 1(3) gives some indication of the depth of the problem in east and north-east London: ‘I feel that at the current time I cannot carry out an ethical murder investigation without the fear of it being compromised.’” “The ramifications of this statement are serious and disturbing and provide a snapshot of the current threat to the criminal justice system. Additionally the fact that none of these syndicates have been seriously disrupted over the last five years provides an insight into the effectiveness of their network.»

L’Opération Tiberius ouvre un nouveau chapitre de l’évolution autodestructrice du Système, qui est l'introduction dans les structures fondamentales mêmes des pays les plus avancés du bloc BAO des mêmes évolutions de désordre et de de déstructuration-dissolution qu’on trouve dans nombre de régions sensibles, dans les systèmes de coopération transnationaux, dans les structures financières transnationales, dans l’évolution des mœurs sociétaux, etc. L’évolution de la structure de sécurité intérieure du Royaume-Uni selon-Tiberius ressemble aussi bien à l’évolution des marchés financiers dont on connaît la structure criminelle prédominantes, qu’à certaines situations déstabilisées comme celles du Moyen-Orient, où le crime organisé prend une part de plus en plus importante dans les activités terroristes. Mais dans ce cas extrême du Royaume-Uni, il s’agit de la corruption spectaculaire et dramatique des structures pérennes, l’effacement accéléré des activités dépendantes de la dimension régalienne des plus vieilles nations de notre civilisation (devenue contre-civilisation, et ceci expliquant cela), la disparition des notions de souveraineté, de légitimité et d’autorité dans ces États. Il est difficile d’envisager les conséquences de cette sorte d’évolution de complète perversion des principes sur lesquels se sont fondées ces nations, mais on aura de la difficulté à ne pas être très pessimiste.

Par ailleurs, si l’événement est considérable, il ne peut surprendre en aucune façon. Il est évident qu’on ne peut attendre rien d’autre, au niveau de ces services essentiels de l’État, lorsqu’on considère l’exemple que donnent les directions politiques, qui conduisent des politiques au nom de narrative mensongères, qui mènent des activités de sécurité nationale dans la plus complète illégalité, qui se trouvent souvent pris dans des scandales de corruption et trouvent en général pour la “retraite” politique de leurs membres les plus éminents une place dans des circuits de conférences, des positions diverses dans divers circuits humanitaires et autres, qui leur assurent des émoluments considérables dont la réelle signification ne peut être trouvée que dans la définition d’une forme spécifique de corruption. La corruption des services de sécurité intérieure britannique répond évidemment à la corruption du gouvernement britannique (Blair et la suite), à la corruption de groupes industriels comme l’est BAE avec ses liens avec l’Arabie, à la corruption de la City au travers des diverses crises qu’elles déclenchent elle-même et qui sont d’un très grand rapport financier pour elle.

Il n’empêche, l’originalité de la situation exposée par Tiberius est bien entendu qu’elle touche le fondement même de la structure étatique, celui qui doit fournir la sûreté de la vie quotidienne de la population au travers des activités de justice, de police et le reste. Disons qu’on touche là à l’ultimité du processus de déstructuration-dissolution des structures nécessaires à la vie en société, et qu’on se trouve alors dans la situation d’une impasse générale puisqu’il n’y a rien de structuré au-delà. Bien entendu, nul ne peut préciser de quelle façon les conditions de la vie sociale et de la vie nationale en seront affectées mais là aussi le pessimisme est de rigueur. Cette ultimité se résume par le fait de la compromission ultime des pays du bloc BAO les plus avancés dans la promotion du Système et des théories et consignes qui l’accompagnent, donc les pays du bloc BAO qui ont le plus souvent dénoncé les modèles rétifs ou les modèles de mauvaise réputation des “États-voyous” (“rogue state”) en prônant leur élimination, éventuellement à coup d’expéditions lointaines comme celle de la Libye. Le Royaume-Uni est en effet un de ces pays-phares, symboliquement le plus signifiant du Système avec les USA, et c’est lui qui se trouve menacé de devenir, si ce n’est déjà fait, un de ces rogue states que la bonne réputation du Système autant que son équilibre ne peuvent en aucune manière accepter. On peut même observer qu’une telle évolution implique une fragilisation extrême du pays affecté, qui constitue un élément de grande vulnérabilité pour le Système.

Qui plus est, ce même “État-voyou” de type postmoderne est en train d’accoucher d’une “structure” sécuritaire qui va se déstructurer elle-même en se morcelant d’une façon extrêmement antagoniste, avec des conséquences déstabilisantes profondes très probables. On peut s’interroger désormais à propos de ce que vont être les rapports de la police britannique, du Yard, avec le MI5 et le MI6, les premiers sachant qu’ils sont sous surveillance des seconds, les seconds estimant désormais que la police du pays est plus ou moins manipulées par le crime organisé. Ce pas en avant de plus vers le désordre incontrôlé est intéressant parce qu’on ne voit plus très bien quel autre “pas en avant” il reste à faire ; et l’on peut alors espérer qu’au-delà, c’est l’abîme.

mardi, 07 janvier 2014

William Joyce

William Joyce

By Kerry Bolton

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

William_Joyce_politician-426x625.jpgWilliam Joyce, more infamously known to history as “Lord Haw Haw,” the epitome of a British Traitor, was hanged on the basis of a passport technicality on January 3, 1946. Like the name “Quisling” (see Ralph Hewin’s excellent biography Quisling: Prophet Without Honour) much nonsense persists about Joyce. 

The following is redacted from my introduction to William Joyce’s Twilight Over England [2] (London: Black House Publishing, 2013). The second part of the introduction, not included here, examines the primary points of Joyce’s book, the continuing relevance of which is its cogent criticism of Free Trade liberalism and international finance.

***

Twenty-five years ago I was told a little anecdote by a work colleague, a middle aged Englishman. He said that as a small lad in England he and his friends were one Christmas eve singing carols to earn some pocket money. One household they came to was particularly memorable for him during those Depression years. A gentleman answered the door, invited the children inside and gave them each not only a cake but also a shilling. What struck my work colleague all those years later, still, was not only the generosity of the amount each child had been given, but more particularly, that someone from the ‘middle class’, invited a group of working class children in to the household where they received their cakes and coins. Such lack of social snobbery was a rarity that my work colleague had never forgotten. My English friend concluded by stating that the kind benefactor was named William Joyce.

My English friend was no Nazi; not even vaguely ‘right-wing’. His anecdote on this humanity of William Joyce, enduringly hated as a traitor, whose very name, as ‘Lord Haw-Haw’, as he was dubbed by the Allied propaganda machine, is Britain’s equivalent to Norway’s Quisling, and America’s Benedict Arnold. Joyce, as a British ‘Nazi’, is automatically regarded as a rogue, a lunatic, an apologist for mass murder and aggression, a fool, or any combination thereof. Yet the anecdote from my English friend’s childhood betrays a human side to the likes of William Joyce that just maybe indicates the he was none of those things, but a man of entirely different character. For in Twilight Over England, written while Joyce’s beloved Britain – yes, beloved Britain – was at war with Germany, and while Joyce had made the fateful decision that siding with those who were fighting Britain was the greatest manifestation of that love of Britain, we have the testament of a man deeply anguished at the level to which his people had been reduced by a rapacious system. That this system of international finance and Free Trade is more fully enthroned today and over more of the world than in Joyce’s time shows the relevance of this volume for the present and foreseeable future. In Twilight Over England we might discern – if we open our minds, and for a little while at least, leave behind the prejudgements and the victor’s hateful propaganda – the historical circumstances, centuries in the making, that brought this Briton to a martyr’s death.

Indeed, J A Cole, as objective a biographer that one could expect, described Joyce as ‘intelligent, well-educated, dedicated, hardworking, fluent and sharp-tongued’.[1] Although critical of Joyce, Cole also described him as ‘so unlike the stereotype which fear and prejudice had created’.[2] As a paid broadcaster for the Germans during the war, Joyce retained a character devoid of egotism and vanity, living frugally, refusing pay raises and perks other than cigarettes, and only being persuaded with some difficulty to buy himself a smartly-cut suit.[3] How far away the reality of Joyce was from the character depicted, apparently without a shred of good conscience, by Rebecca West, who gloated at Joyce’s trial, referring to him as opening ‘a vista into a mean life’, always speaking ‘as though he was better fed and better clothed than we were, and so, we now know, he was’,[4] going so far as to describe Joyce as ‘a tiny little creature’,[5] presumably confident that such was the hysteria that nothing she wrote against him would be challenged. It is as though West, and a gaggle of lesser slanderers, took all that Joyce truly was and turned it on its head. However, anyone with an eye to fame or money can still write whatever junk they can contrive on certain events related to the Second World War, and seldom are they called to account for their humbug. Indeed, to expose the lies can render one a jail sentence in many states and the destruction of one’s reputation and career.[6]

Joyce was a rare combination in history: an activist, a revolutionary, and a tough fighter, scarred with a Communist-welded razorblade. He was not some sallow intellectual whose only battle was fought within the brain and with verbosity at a safe distance from one’s targets. He had been the Director of Propaganda for a mass movement, Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, which like Fascist movements across the world in the aftermath of the First World War, attracted individuals of many types and classes in solidarity. In Britain these included the American expatriate poet Ezra Pound, a founder of modern English literature;[7] Wyndham Lewis, novelist, painter, philosopher and co-founder with Pound of the Vorticist arts movement; the British nature writer and Hawthorne Prize Winner Henry Williamson, who never repudiated his belief in the heroic virtues of Mosley or Hitler, even after the war and who, like many who joined Mosley, was a First World War veteran haunted by the prospect of another war, but also reminded of the Europe that might still be when on Christmas Eve 1914 Germans and Britons greeted each other in no-man’s land to play football, returning to slaughter one another the following day; the military strategist, General J F C Fuller, father of modern tank warfare; and many others of the highest intellectual and cultural calibre.

William was born in New York on 24 April 1906, his father, Michael Francis Joyce, a Catholic, having migrated from Ireland in 1892, and marrying Gertrude Brooke, daughter of a Lancashire physician. In 1906 the family returned to Ireland, Michael having done well as a builder, and now becoming a publican and a property owner. William was educated at Catholic schools, and at an early age threw himself with gusto into whatever he did: When assisting at a service in the chapel he swung the censer with such force that the glowing incense flew down the aisle. He received his broken nose not through a fist fight with a Communist during the 1920s or 30s, but with a boy at school who had called him an ‘Orangeman’, because of the Joyce family’s avidly pro-British sentiments at the time of Ireland’s tribulations. His nose was not properly attended to, and hence William always had a distinctively nasal tone to his voice. During the Republican rebellion Michael’s properties endured arson. Young William saw the body of his neighbour, a policeman, on the road, with a bullet through his head. On another occasion he witnessed a Sinn Feiner cornered and shot by police.[8]

In 1920 the British Government reinforced the Royal Irish Constabulary with the Black & Tan paramilitaries. At fourteen, William served as a spy for the authorities, keeping his eyes and ears open for snippets of information that might be of use, and ran a squad of sub-agents. With the truce of 1921, and the departure of the British, the Joyce family moved to England. At 15, eager to continue serving King and Empire, he enlisted in the army at Worcester, giving his age as 18, but his real age was soon discovered and he was discharged. At 16 he joined the Officer Training Corps at the University of London, and after graduating from Battersea Polytechnic, enrolled at Birbeck College, part of the University.

Of Joyce’s intellectual gifts, his lifelong friend and comrade, John MacNab related to Cole:

‘He kept no files, diaries or notes of any kind, but he could recall the date, place and circumstances of remote events and meetings with people. He never forgot a face or a name, and could give a full account, unhesitatingly, of almost anything that had ever happened to him. At intervals of years he would repeat the same account without the least variation. He could quote – always exactly – any poem he had ever read with attention, and even notable pieces of prose. As a Latin scholar his technical qualifications were inferior to my own, yet he was the one who could quote Virgil or Horace etc., freely and always to the point, not I’.[9]

MacNab stated that Joyce was a multi-linguist, gifted in mathematics and his ability to teach it. ‘He read widely in history, philosophy, theology, psychology, theoretical physics and chemistry, economics law, medicine, anatomy and physiology. When he broke his collarbone in 1936 while skating, he was able to set it himself due to his knowledge of physiology. He was a talented pianist’.[10]

British Fascisti

While pursuing a BA in Latin, French, English and History, in 1923 he joined the British Fascisti, founded that year by Miss R L Linton-Orman, a member of a distinguished military family who had served with the Women’s Reserve Ambulance during the Frost World War and had twice been awarded the Croix de Charité for gallantry for heroic rescues in Salonica.[11]

The first such body to be established in Britain, inspired by the assumption to power by Mussolini in 1922, and the destruction of Communism in Italy, there was not much ideological substance to the British Fascisti (later ‘British Fascists’), other than loyalty to ‘King and Empire’, a determination to form a paramilitary force to stop Communism in the event of revolution or strikes, and to maintain order at Conservative Party meetings when Communists and Labourites threatened violence. The membership was drawn mainly from the middle and upper classes, and included a good number of retired officers. The first president of the British Fascists was Lord Garvagh, who was succeeded by Brigadier-General Blakeney, later associated with both Arnold Leese’s Imperial Fascist League, a small but persistent anti-Semitic group; and Mosley’s British Union.[12] The present of such personalities indicates the impression that Fascist Italy was making on important sections of Britain, and that it could never be dismissed as the collective delusions of a ‘lunatic fringe’.

Despite the lack of ideological substance, many stalwart Fascists got their start with the British Fascisti, including those who were to play a prominent role in the British Union of Fascists (BUF). It was as leader of the ‘I Squad’ of the British Fascisti that on 22 October 1924 Joyce stationed his men at Lambeth Baths Hall in South-East London, to protect the election meeting of Jack Lazarus, Conservative party Parliamentary candidate for Lambeth North, from Communist attack. These were times in which electoral meetings not approved by the Left were subjected to attack from Communist and Labour party thugs armed with razors, often put into potatoes for throwing, and spiked sticks. Hence, the British Fascisti emerged at a time of a very real threat of violence by the Left against the Conservative and Unionist parties, regardless of the other shortcomings of the organisation as a serious political alternative.

The Communist assault on Lazarus’ election meeting was ‘vicious’.[13] A ‘Jewish Communist’, as Joyce described him, jumped on his back and tried to slash his throat with a razor, but only succeeded in cutting Joyce from mouth to ear, his neck protected by a thick woollen scarf. He did not realise he had been slashed until the crowd drew back aghast, and he attempted to stem the blood with a handkerchief given to him, then walked to the police station where he collapsed.

While active with the British Fascisti, Joyce was also president of the Conservative Society at Birbeck College, where he developed his oratory, seeing Conservatism as the upholder of ‘Anglo-Saxon tradition and supremacy’.[14] Meanwhile, 1926 proceeded with a General Strike that did not result in the threat of a Soviet Britain, and the British Fascisti went into decline. That year Joyce married Hazel Barr, while continuing to do well with his studies, and the following year obtained First Class Honours in English, but did not complete his MA. His attempts for several years to introduce the Conservative Party to ‘true Nationalism’ failed. Biding his time, as the several small Fascist groups that arose failed to impress him, Joyce taught at the Victoria Tutorial College, and then at King’s College.

The Red thuggery that the British Fascists had attempted to combat continued. A target was to be not a party from the Right but from the Left: the New Party, founded in 1931 by the Labour Party’s most promising young politician, Sir Oswald Mosley, after Labour Caucus refused to adopt Mosley’s bold plan for unemployment.[15] The New Party was regarded as traitorous by the Labour Party, and was subjected to violent attacks by Communists and Labourites. It was such violence that contributed to Mosley’s turning to Fascism and forming his Blackshirt squads to protect the meetings that he could not efficiently protect during the New Party electoral campaigns, although even then he had started forming a squad of stewards trained in boxing by Jewish boxing champion Ted ‘Kid’ Lewis. Mosley records that extreme Left reaction had been subdued until the promising results of the New Party vote came out in a by-election.[16] Mosley, referring to the General Election soon after, related: ‘All over the country we met a storm of organised violence. They were simply out to smother us, we were to be mobbed down by denying us our only resource: the spoken word; we were to be mobbed out of existence’.[17]

In 1932 Mosley visited Fascist Italy, and like many others was impressed by what he saw at a time when Britain continued to stagnate. Joyce read the news reports of Mosley’s visit with interest but, having long had an increasing animosity against Jewish influence in Britain, was more interested in the progress that the Hitler movement was making in Germany.[18] When Mosley re-established the New Party as the British Union of Fascists most of the adherents of other Fascist groups, particularly the British Fascists, joined him. Joyce joined the BUF in 1933,[19] and, fatefully, obtained a British passport by falsely claiming that he had been born a British subject, with the expectation that he might accompany Mosley on a visit to Hitler.

Joyce was soon noted in the BUF for his oratory skills, and he resigned his teaching post at Victoria Tutorial College and his studies at London University to become the BUF’s West London Area Administration Officer. He then became Propaganda Director, addressing hundreds of meetings. It was on hearing Joyce, then 28, speaking that ex-Labour MP John Beckett,[20] joined the BUF, and committed himself to National Socialism, having previously been impressed by what he had seen in Fascist Italy, declaring Joyce to be one of the greatest orators who had recruited thousands to Fascism.[21] Indeed, Joyce filled in for Mosley if the latter could not attend a function. Jeffrey Hamm, a young Mosleyite before the war, who became particularly active in Mosley’s post-war Union Movement, reminisced on Joyce’s oratory that ‘his wit and repartee were proverbial’. ‘On one occasion a buxom lady in the crowd was shouting abuse at him, culminating in an angry roar: “You bastard!” Quick as a flash Joyce gave her a cheerful wave, as he cried: “Hullo, Mother!”’[22]

Joyce divorced Hazel amicably in 1934. He had sired two daughters who were close to their father, despite his hectic life as a Fascist leader.

His BUF classes on Fascist ideology, held jointly with his closest colleague, John Angus Macnab, with whom he also established a private tutoring business, were used to propagate his own views on Fascism, and here he introduced the term National Socialism to the movement, which was renamed the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists in 1936.[23] Although Joyce believed that National Socialism was intrinsically based on the nation from which it arose, was more inclined to quote Thomas Carlyle than Hitler, and eschewed both the swastika and the fasces when creating his own movement, he saw Hitler as a closer example to consider than Mussolini, not least because Hitler dealt with the Jewish question head-on. It was Joyce who coined the BUF axiom: ‘If you love your country you are National. If you love your people, you are Socialist. Be a National Socialist’. The reader will find this phrase cogently explained in Twilight Over England.

Joyce met Christian Bauer, who represented Goebbels’ newspaper Der Angriff, in Britain, and at Bauer’s request, after his return to Germany, Joyce maintained contact with him,[24] although it transpired that Bauer was more important when in Britain than he was in Germany.

In 1937 Joyce married Margaret White, a Manchester BUF organiser, who had accepted his proposal at a party, even although the two hardly knew one another. It had been literally ‘love at first sight’ between the two, and a scholarly member of her branch remarked on the engagement that it ‘may be uncomfortable being married to a genius. And William is a genius, you know!’[25] On the first day of the year, the Public Order Act was introduced banning the wearing of uniforms at public political functions; i.e. the black shirt, prohibiting the effective stewarding of open-air meetings, and other measures designed to impinge on the BUF campaign. As previously stated, Mosley had adopted a black shirt uniform to establish a disciplined and recognisable formation to keep order at his meetings having experienced Red thuggery at New Party meetings, as had the Conservative Party many years. The banning of the uniform saw a considerable rise in disorder at BUF functions. Despite the great deal of nonsense that had been alleged about ‘Fascist violence,’ the Blackshirts always answered the razorblade and the cosh with fists when necessary. One of these great myths is that Lord Rothermere, proprietor of the Daily Mail, who had supported the BUF during the first few years, withdrew his support in 1934 because of such Fascist violence. In fact, as related by Randolf Churchill some thirty years later, it was due to ‘the pressure of Jewish advertisers’.[26]

By 1937, both Joyce and Beckett, editor of Action and The Blackshirt, had become increasingly critical of BUF administration. Matters were decided when Mosley was obliged through financial stringency to reduce the paid-staff by four-fifths. Among them were both Joyce and Beckett. Macnab, the editor of Fascist Quarterly, resigned in protest at Joyce’s dismissal. Macnab & Joyce, Private Tutors, was a now established to earn a modest income to offer tuition for university entrance and professional preliminary examinations, and to teach English to foreign pupils of sound character.

National Socialist League

Joyce’s concerns were directed towards forming a new political organisation that would more precisely reflect his view on British National Socialism. Joyce, Beckett, McNabb and a few others founded the National Socialist League. Despite Joyce’s admiration for Hitler, his organisation was based on British roots. That a front-group for the League was named the Carlyle Club after Thomas Carlyle, whom Joyce often cited as a precursor of British National Socialism, is indicative of the British character of his variation of National Socialism. After all the concept of the National and the Social synthesis is universal, and movements of such a type had been arising spontaneously and independently of one another since the immediate aftermath of the First World War. One might refer to the Legion of the Archangel Michael in Romania, the Hungarist movement in Hungary, National-Syndicalist Falangism in Spain, and many others throughout the world. The Israeli scholar Dr Zeev Sternhell provides a convincing argument for the emergence of proto-Fascism from a union of Left-wing syndicalist and Right-wing Monarchist theorists in France as early as the late 19th century.[27] Mosley’s ‘Fascism’ had been based on his Birmingham manifesto to cure unemployment through a massive public works programme that had been rejected as too radical by the Labour Government, not by reading Mein Kampf or Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism.

As for Joyce’s National Socialist League, it was surprisingly ‘democratic’ in structure, with leaders elected at branch level, and no fuehrer-complex being evident in either Beckett of Joyce. Nor was there a paramilitary complexion to the group.[28] The symbol was a ship’s steering wheel, the design of which is also suggestive of a Union Jack, below which was the motto: ‘Steer Straight’. A newspaper was published, The Helmsman. Funding came from Alec Scrimgeour, an elderly stockbroker, whom Joyce had known since the BUF, and who treated Joyce as a son. Cole mentions that one supporters ‘claimed to be the King of Poland’. This cannot be anyone other than the New Zealand poet Geoffrey Potocki de Montalk who, unlike his many contemporaries who were embracing to Communism, being a Monarchist, embraced the Right, then Fascism and National Socialism, and never recanted. Indeed, even in December 1945, Potocki printed an ‘Xmas card’, the ‘X’ in the shape of a swastika, with a poem that paid tribute to ‘our William Joyce’. As to his eccentric claim to the throne of Poland, it was as legitimate as any other, being descended from a Polish noble lineage. [29]

The primary ideological text of the League was National Socialism Now, published in September 1937. National Socialism Now is a cogent 57 pages defining the fundamentals of National Socialist ethos, method of statecraft, and type financial and economic systems. Joyce’s opening lines are that,

‘We deal with National Socialism for Britain; for we are British. Our League is entirely British; and to win the victory for National Socialism here, we must work hard enough to be excused the inspiring task of describing National Socialism elsewhere’.[30]

While National Socialism was forever linked with the name of Hitler, no matter where it arises it ‘must arise from the soil and people or not at all’.

‘It springs from no temporary grievance, but from the revolutionary yearning of the people to cast off the chains of gross, sordid, democratic materialism without having to put on the shackles of Marxian Materialism, which would be identical with the chains cast off’.[31]

Joyce returned to a theme that he had introduced to the BUF, that the synthesis of Nationalism and Socialism is a logical development; that ‘the people’ are identical with ‘the nation’, and anything else, whether called ‘nationalism’ or ‘socialism’, is a waste of time. It was Socialism that provided the foundation for class unity rather than class antagonism, which had been engendered by the dislocations caused by industrialism and usury. Such class division is aggravated rather than transcended by Marxism and other forms of materialistic socialism. Both Capitalism and Marxism are international. Indeed Marx pointed this out in The Communist Manifesto, and described anyone resisting this internationalising tendency of Capitalism as ‘reactionary’, because the historical process towards Communism is aided by Capitalist internationalisation, and what Marx called the ‘uniformity in the mode of production’ across the world.[32] Today we call this ‘globalisation’ and the process has been accelerating. What has emerged is not Communism, but a Capitalist ‘new world order’. Communism is not even anti-Capitalist, but an extension of it, and hence, as Joyce explains in Twilight, it is Nationalism, intrinsically based on Socialism, that not only opposes Capitalism, but transcends it. Equally, any Socialism that embraces internationalism is not only hopeless in combating Capitalism, but assists in its victory. We are now able with both hindsight and observing present-day events, to confirm that this indeed the case. Communism, and Social Democracy literally failed to ‘delver the goods’, and now Free Trade Capitalism runs rampant over the entire world, imposed by US weaponry where, where debt to international finance and the opiate of the shopping mall and MTV are insufficient. The Socialism of Joyce’s day, represented mainly by the Labour Party, did not oppose the system of international finance any more than the Conservative Party, that had long since forsaken its patriotic and rural origins, and both permitted a system of Liberal Free Trade that invested capital to build up cotton manufacturing in India for example, while allowing the mill workers of Lancashire to rot.[33] The same situation is visited upon us in recent years, with Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ in Britain, and in New Zealand, the Labour Party during the 1980s, being in the forefront of inaugurating ‘Free Trade’ in the name of ‘socialism’. Joyce saw it going on in his own day. We relive it today. The same old abandonment to Capitalism by Social Democracy, which had also obliged Mosley to resign from the Labour Party in disgust.

The weakness of Westminster parliamentary democracy allowed international finance to carry on unhindered. Joyce’s British National Socialism advocated the ‘leadership principle’, with authority to act, but in Britain’s case the symbol of unity within one personality had existed for centauries in the form of the Crown, and Joyce did not envisage a National Socialist Britain that need be under the dictatorship of a British ‘fuehrer’. Indeed, he advocated the corporatist or organic state that he had alluded to in his BUF pamphlet, Dictatorship. In NS Now Joyce pointed to the guilds of Medieval Britain, and outlined a corporate state based on the revival of the guilds as taking over many functions of the state. Both employers and employees would be represented in the same corporative organs, which was the method of successful industrial organisation that would be enacted in Germany in the Reich Economic Chamber. Parliament would hence be a corporative body with representatives elected from such guilds.

Joyce next turned his attention to the financial system. National Socialist banking reform is based the premise that money and credit should serve the people, and not master them. Hence, credit and currency should be issued by the state according to the production of the people, allowing the people to consume that production. Private financial interests should not issue credit and currency as a profit -making commodity. Currency and credit are only intended as a means of exchanging goods and services. That is the method that National Socialist Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan used and by which they flourished in the midst of the world Depression.[34] Again, there is nothing intrinsically ‘fascist’ or ‘nazi’ in such a banking system. The First New Zealand Labour Government had initiated the same type of policy, issuing 1% Reserve Bank state credit in 1935 for the construction of New Zealand’s iconic state housing project, which itself solved 75% of the unemployment rate.[35] Banking reformers around the world were demanding that the state assume its prerogative to issue the nation’s own credit and currency, without recourse to becoming indebted in perpetuity to international finance.[36] As Joyce was to emphasis in Twilight, it was this struggle between productive work and parasitism that led to the world war, the fact being that it was the Axis states that posed a deathly challenge to this parasitism the world over. New Zealand, despite the Labour Government measures in 1935, true to Social Democratic form, did not go beyond those limited measures, despite their success, and despite the promises the party had made in its 1934 election manifesto. Again, Social Democracy posed no real challenge to the system of world trade and banking that was – and remains – in the hands of a few parasites.

The League was ‘openly and unashamedly Imperialist.’ One of the primary aims of ‘Fascism’ was to create autarchic or self-sufficient economics states, or geo-political blocs. Of course, with Britain being the greatest imperial power, British Fascism or National Socialism sought to re-create the Empire as an autarchic bloc, where investments would be made only within the Empire, and not placed outside the Empire, only to undermine the manufacturing the agricultural sectors of the Empire peoples. Joyce pointed out that the system of international trade and finance was the enemy of both the British and the Colonial peoples; that both were equally exploited, and granting independence to India was not going to change that situation a jot. National Socialism would end usury and exploitation in India with the same methods as in Britain.[37] What Fascism was trying to address was the iniquitous system that is today called ‘globalisation’, whereby investments can be moved out of states and indeed entire industries shut-down and relocated to cheap labour pools, and currency speculators can make vast fortunes overnight by destroying entire economies. That is the system that won the Second World War against the Axis and that is the system that has driven the world to the present debt crisis, as it inevitably would. That is the system for which the Allied troops fought and died, just as the same plutocratic wire-pullers of ‘democracy’ declare war on states that are problematic to the ‘new world order’.

Finally, Joyce addressed the matter of foreign policy. Even then the war drums were being beaten against Germany, Italy and Japan. Joyce saw the keystone of world peace and order being an alliance between Britain and Germany with the assistance of Italy, which would form a bulwark against both international finance and Communism. From the 1920s, when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, an alliance with Britain and Italy was envisaged as the cornerstone of Germany’s future foreign policy, Hitler definitively stating: ‘In the predictable future there can only be two allies for Germany in Europe: England and Italy’.[38] Was this mere cant, albeit dictated a decade before Hitler came to Office, while sitting in a jail following the abortive Munich putsch? Hitler in both public and private pronouncements always affirmed his admiration for the British Empire and the kinship that should have existed between the Third Reich and the Empire. Like Joyce, he believed that the two would be a great stabilising force in the world, and legitimate scholarship has only confirmed these views.

Captain A H M Ramsay, Conservative Member of Parliament for Midlothian and Peeblesshire from 1931 until his detention through 1940-1944, under Defence Regulation 18B along with Mosley and 1000 others, wrote after the war a volume much in the mode of Joyce’s Twilight and NS Now not only in regard to the war but also the takeover of Britain by international finance. Joyce had been a member of Ramsay’s Right Club that campaigned against war with Germany.[39] Like Joyce, Ramsay pointed to the Judaic character of the Puritan revolutionary zealots, whose armies ‘marched around Scotland, aided by their Geneva sympathisers, dispensing Judaic justice’.[40] Ramsay proceeds to consider the formation of the Bank of England with the encumbering of Britain with a National Debt; a matter that is dealt with in relative detail by Joyce in Twilight. Ramsay points out that the officialdom of ‘world Jewry’ had ‘declared war’ on Germany as soon as Hitler assumed Office. An ‘international economic boycott’ was declared by the World Jewish Economic Federation, headed by Samuel Untermeyer from the USA, who wrote in The New York Times of a ‘holy war’ against Germany, in which both Jew and Gentile must embark, while the Jews were the ‘aristocrats of the world’.[41] The Jewish leadership through its influence on politics, business and media the world over, hoped to economically strangle Germany. They could not ruin Germany through such means however, because the Hitler regime’s banking and trade reform not only withdrew Germany from the international finance system, but through barter proceeded to capture the markets of central Europe and South America. As Joyce was to emphasise in Twilight, this was the real cause of the world war; a conflict between two systems, one productive and creative, the other parasitic and exploitive.

It should be pointed out that Ramsay enjoyed the friendship and confidence of British Prime Minster Neville Chamberlain in the moths immediately preceding the World War. Ramsay alludes to Chamberlain’s guarantee to assist Poland in the event of invasion on the basis of a supposed Germany ultimatum that transpired to be fraudulent,[42] and that Germany had sought for months a negotiated solution for the return of Danzig and the ‘Polish Corridor’ to Germany, while Poland resorted to what today would be called ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the Germans within Poland; a matter which will be considered further.

Ramsay points out that Hitler had ‘again and again made it clear that he never intended to attack or harm the British Empire’. [43] Indeed, what is called the ‘Phoney War’ ensued, where no real fighting was taking place. The situation changed immediately Churchill became Prime Minister. Then the previous policy of only bombing military targets was reversed, and British Bomber Command was ordered to bomb civilian targets, a strategy that would eventually lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of German civilians by the end of the war, the fire-bombing of Dresden,[44] Hamburg, Berlin and other German cities going down in infamy as obliterating in deadly infernos more victims than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Actions speak louder than words, as it is said, and Hitler on numerous occasions offered his hand of friendship, while still in a position of strength, indeed winning the war. One of the most notable occasions is that involving the British invasion of Dunkirk, around which much nonsense about British heroism continues to be spoken. Ramsay cites the pre-eminent official British military historian Captain Liddell Hart. This nonsense continues despite Hart’s book on World War II, The Other Side of the Hill, having been published in 1948, with chapter 10 entitled ‘How Hitler beat France and saved Britain’. Ramsay comments that the chapter would ‘astound all propaganda-blinded people… for the author therein proves that not only did Hitler save this country; but that this was not the result of some unforeseen factor, or indecision or folly, but was of set purpose, based on his long enunciated and faithfully maintained principle’. Hart details how Hitler halted the Panzer Corps on 22 May 1940, allowing the British troops to escape back to Britain. Hitler had cabled Von Kleist that the armoured divisions were not to advance or fire. Von Kleist ignored the order, and then came an ‘emphatic order’, according to Von Kleist, that he was to ‘withdraw behind the canal. My tanks were kept halted there for three days’.[45] Hart records a conversation between Hitler and Marshall Von Runstedt two days later (24 May):

‘He [Hitler] then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world… He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church – saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops, if she should be involved with any difficulties anywhere. He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain, on a basis that she would regard compatible with her honour to accept’. [46]

Captain Hart comments on the above: ‘If the British army had been captured at Dunkirk, the British people might have felt that their honour had suffered a stain, which they must wipe out. By letting it escape, Hitler hoped to conciliate them’.[47] Hart alluded to the pro-British sentiments in Mein Kampf and the manner by which Hitler did not deviate from his desire for an alliance with Britain. As we now know, so far from the British people being cognisant of the equanimity of Hitler towards them, the propaganda machine merely used this to further inflame them toward war, and Dunkirk had ever since been portrayed as a great feat of British moral courage.

Even during the early 1920s, when Hitler was in jail dictating Mein Kampf he realised that any future goodwill between Germany and Britain relied on the question as to ‘whether the exiting influence of the Jews is not stronger than any understanding or good intentions and will this frustrate and nullify all plans’.[48] Mosley, Ramsay, Admiral Sir Barry Domvile and hundreds of others jailed under 18B, who sought peace with Germany, were aware of this also. However, there were still prominent people within Britain who were free, to whom Hitler might appeal for peace, and it is presumably with these in mind that Hitler kept open the prospect of a negotiated peace with honour.

However, eminent people who hoped for a negotiated peace with Germany were no match for the war party and its backers. Winston Churchill, whose drunken, opulent lifestyle had got him into debt, led the war party. He had personal reasons for assuring the destruction of Hitler, even if that also meant the destruction of the British Empire; which, of course, it did. By 1938 Churchill was bankrupt, and Chartwell House was about to be put on the market. A few days before however Sir Henry Strakosch, the South African Jewish mining magnate and financial adviser, came to the rescue and agreed to pay off Churchill’s debts.[49] Churchill had whored himself to international finance for the sake of £18,000, and in so doing doomed the lives of millions and the survival of the British Empire. Strakosch was financial adviser to General Smuts of South Africa, and in 1920 drafted the blueprint for the Reserve Bank of South Africa.[50] He has also served as adviser on setting up the Reserve Bank of India. Like the US Federal Reserve Bank and other central banks throughout the world, the reader should not be confused into thinking that these acted as state banks issuing state credit, even when they were, like the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, nationalised. These central banks were based on plans provided by individuals such as Strakosch, the Bank of England’s Sir Otto Niemeyer, and Warburg in the USA. The thraldom of most states to international finance, from which Germany, Italy and Japan had broken free, is the most significant cause of World War II, as explained by Joyce in Twilight.

Since the 1920s Churchill’s financial adviser for his stock market dealings had been Bernard Baruch, the international financier who had run the US War Industries Board during the First World War I, and had become the virtual dictator of the USA during the war years.[51] Nothing would or could divert Churchill from leading Britain into war with Germany.

To Germany

During the Munich crisis in 1938 Joyce foresaw the coming war, and the quandary that placed him as an avidly pro-British devotee of National Socialism and Anglo-German accord. He told Macnab that in the event of war, he could not fight against Germany in the service of international finance but neither could he be a conscientious objector and evade national service. He had already envisaged sending Margaret to Ireland with Macnab, while he would go to Germany, perhaps to fight the Russians[52].

Mosley’s answer was to immediately issue a call to his supporters to fully support the war effort once the war that he had vigorously campaigned against, had eventuated, while he and 800 of his followers were detained under Emergency Defence Regulation 18B. Mosley’s order stated that ‘Our members should do what the law requires of them; and, if they are members of the armed Forces or services of the Crown, they should obey their orders and, in every particular, obey the rules of the Service’. However, it was also a call to ‘stand-fast’ against the ‘corrupt Jewish money-power’ and ‘to take every opportunity within your power to awaken the people and to demand peace’.[53]

Among the first to die in the war were two Blackshirts, Kenneth Day and George Brocking, while on an RAF daylight bomber raid on Brűnsbuttel.[54]

While Joyce campaigned with his National Socialist League, and Mosley held meetings attracting the largest audiences ever seen in Britain to the very eve of war, Joyce also sought to widen his campaign. He was involved in an anti-war campaign with Lord Lymington, Conservative MP, and an early advocate of agricultural self-sufficiency and organic farming,[55] also a particular concern of both Joyce and the BUF.[56] Lord Lymington and Joyce created the British Council Against European Commitments. Lymington’s group joined with a similar organisation founded by Hastings William Sackville Russell, Lord Tavistock (later Duke of Bedford) and emerged as the British People’s Party (BPP), the policy of which not only included peace, but in particular advocacy of banking reform.[57] Joyce had confided in Beckett that he would probably go to Germany in the event of war, and Beckett left the League to become General secretary of the BPP. It is often commented that there was a fallen out between Joyce and Beckett, but, as will be seen, they remained steadfast friends.

As forebodings of war approached in 1939, one of the first to depart from Britain to Germany was Mrs Francis Dorothy Eckersley, a member of the BUF, whose son was at school there. Mrs Eckersley was to play a role in the Joyce’s settling in Berlin. Before Macnab visited Berlin, Joyce had asked him to take a message to Christian Bauer, asking whether Goebbels would arrange for the immediate naturalisation of Joyce and his wife, should they settle in Germany.[58] Defence Regulation 18B was about to be passed when Joyce received news from Macnab that naturalisation would be granted. He then received news from an MI5 agent to whom he given information on Communist activities, that it was likely he would be arrest under 18B within a matter of days.[59] The Joyce’s left for Germany on 26 August 1939, William convinced that imprisonment in Britain during the war would mean unbearable suffering for Margaret.

To the Joyce’s dismay, Christian Bauer did not have the influence in Berlin that had been assumed, and he had been ‘called up’. However, Mrs Eckersley did have connections with the Foreign Office, and Joyce was able to secure a part-time job as a translator of German scripts.[60] Within days, war had been declared by Britain against Germany, a declaration that was not met by the Germans with any more jubilation than it was met by the Joyces and many other Britons. In England, meanwhile Mosley was holding the largest rallies in British Union history, and just two months previously the biggest indoor hall in England had been filled with 20,000 people to hear Mosley.[61] Mosley was arrested under 18B on 23 May 1940, and his wife Diana on 29 June.[62] Captain Ramsay MP, and Admiral Sir Barry Domvile CB, founder of the Link, which had also campaigned for Anglo-German cooperation, were among the 1000 others.[63]

Mrs Eckersley’s friends had been at work to secure Joyce a position, and Dr Erich Hetzler, an official in the Foreign Office, who had studied economics in England, interviewed him. It is notable that during the interview Joyce explained he was a National Socialist and British, but that a National Socialist in Britain was not the same as in Germany.[64] Hetzler recommended Joyce to the English-speaking department of the Reich radio service. Norman Baillie-Stewart, a former Subaltern in the Seaforth Highlanders, headed the English news service, under the direction of Walter Kamm. Joyce’s first broadcast, reading a news bulletin, took place on 11 September 1939. He did well, but drew the immediately jealousy of Baillie-Stewart.[65]

The disparaging nick-name of ‘haw-haw’, which was to become synonymous with Joyce, first appeared in the Daily Express on 14 September 1939 where the columnist, the pseudonymous Jonah Barrington, commented on a broadcast from Germany: ‘A gent I’d like to meet is moaning periodically from Zeesen. He speaks English of the haw-haw, damit-get-out-of-my-way variety, and his strong suit is gentlemanly indignation’.[66] The name was picked up by British propaganda, and stuck, like the name of Quisling was to become synonymous with ‘traitor’.

Ironically, Barrington was describing Baillie-Stewart. Barrington and the media ran with the typically banal propaganda image, and ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ was introduced to the public as a figure of ridicule. Lord Haw-Haw soon became conflated with Joyce and stuck, since Joyce would become the leading British broadcaster, despite his own voice, affected by the broken nose he had since childhood, not being suggestive of the ‘Bertie Wooster’ type figure that Barrington was trying to portray.[67] Other half-witted attempts at satire by Barrington, with names such as The Whopper, Uncle Boo-Hoo and Mopey, fell by the way, while Lord Haw-Haw remained. It was Lord Donegal, writing for the Sunday Dispatch, who suggested that Lord Haw-Haw might be Joyce. However, the voice that he asked Macnab, then a volunteer ambulance driver, to hear, was Baillie-Stewart, and Macnab could reply honestly that it did not sound anything like Joyce.[68]

Joyce could now apply for naturalisation, and correctly recorded his birthplace as New York.[69] Margaret was employed writing women’s features for the radio network, and became known as Lady Haw-Haw. The broadcasts were widely listened to in Britain. The matter of the identities of Baillie-Stewart and William Joyce were soon resolved by the British, but ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ stuck with Joyce rather than with Baillie-Stewart,[70] another reflection of the puerility of British war propaganda. Comedians began to lampoon Lord Haw-Haw. The deaths of millions of Britons and Germans were such a whopping good laugh for those who could avoid service by larking about on the Home Front, while Mosleyites were among the first to enlist and die.

Interestingly, Cole discusses the insistence of ‘upper class’ origins for William Joyce by the British propaganda machine, and hence the maintenance of the ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ myth as an aristocratic ‘traitor’, perhaps also reminding audiences of Sir Oswald Mosley’s aristocratic birth, and the similar backgrounds of others who had sought conciliation with Germany and who had seen Fascism and National Socialism as a means of transcending class divisions. Cole writes: ‘The theme of the aristocratic traitor aroused such an immense public response that the jeering appeared to be directed as much at the traditional British upper classes as at an unknown traitor in Germany’.[71] The irony was that Joyce was the very antithesis of the character portrayed by British propaganda, as indicated by the opening anecdote of this introduction, and he lived simply and without thought of his material well-being.

A survey by the BBC concluded that Joyce was getting six million regular listeners daily, and 18,000,000 occasional listeners. The reasons for this included not only the mirth that had been directed at Lord Haw-Haw, but also that the broadcasts focused on ‘undeniable evils in this country… their news sense, their presentation’, making them ‘a familiar feature of the social landscape’.[72]

In early 1940 the Buro Concordia was formed under the direction of Dr Hetzler, which would focus on explaining National Socialism to English listeners. Joyce would lead the team and write the programmes. He refused insistent offers of a salary increase. The first programme was aired in February 1940, under the name of the New British Broadcasting Station, transmitting for half an hour from East Prussia, albeit under sparse conditions and resources.[73]

It was at this time, in February 1940, that Joyce was asked by the Foreign Office to write a book, Twilight Over England. While Joyce addressed a British audience, which would have few chances to read the book, the Foreign Office, had intended an English language testament for audiences in the USA and India. Twilight also went into German and Swedish editions, at least. The book as will be seen, is largely an indictment of the English system of Free Trade, the influence of Jews and the iniquity of international finance.

On hindsight, reading the volume today, one might be struck by its current relevance, as the world is plunged into what American strategists approvingly call ‘constant conflict’, in extending in the hallowed name of ‘Democracy’ the system of debt and exploitation which the Axis fought seventy years ago. As Joyce tried to explain, Westminster democracy and party government is a system that has not brought any meaningful benefits to the people who have lived under the ‘Mother of all Parliaments’ for centuries, let alone to tribesmen from the deserts of Afghanistan to the jungles of New Guinea, who are having this odd system born from the merchant class of England, imposed on them by force of arms. We still live under the same system that Joyce exposed, because international finance won the war.

By mid 1940 the British had ceased considering Lord Haw-Haw as a joke and were worried by what they thought was his inside knowledge of events in Britain. Other secret Anglophone broadcasting stations were planned under Buro Concordia.[74]. Meanwhile, Joyce’s commitment to Britain was indicated by his having defaced his British passport so that after it had expired it could not be used by German Intelligence, which was eager to obtain such passports.[75] So much for disloyalty.

In July 1940 Hitler made a peace offer to Britain, and Joyce was optimistic. On ‘Workers’ Challenge’, a broadcasting service pitched specifically to British workers, Joyce stated that British workers and German workers did not wish to fight each other. The British Communists had been saying that the war was between capitalist powers and was not a workers’ fight, until the party-line was reversed when Germany and the USSR came into conflict. ‘Workers’ Challenge’ called for a workers’ revolt against Churchill and a peace that would have nothing to do with the nazification of Britain. Of coursed, Churchill was committed to unconditional surrender, and the chance to save the Empire and Europe was rejected for the sake of Churchill’s ego, or perhaps mainly due to his £18,000 debt to Strakosch and his friendship with ‘Barney’ Baruch (?). As Joyce commented on his programme on 23 July, the rejection of peace would bring tragedy to England, and if Britons remained silent then it must be assumed that they consented to their own annihilation.[76] Joyce was prescient. Is there still doubt? While it might be a cliché to say that British won the war but lost the peace, that is beyond rational doubt. As for the impact of ‘Workers’ Challenge’, a BBC survey found that it had a ‘heavy following’, that ‘the following grows’, and that a lot of Joyce’s remarks ‘were true’.[77]

On 28 August the first air raid casualties in Berlin occurred. Both Joyce and the CBS foreign correspondent William Shirer, epitome of the anti-Nazi propagandist, were at the broadcasting house. Shirer, who had avoided meeting the ‘traitor’ for a year, noted in his diary that Lord Haw-Haw ‘in the air-raids has shown guts’.[78] Joyce went out to see the damage and was ‘profoundly moved’ by the devastation. Already there were comments on the civilian targets of the British, in contrast to the military objectives of the Luftwaffe, but could anyone in Germany have envisaged the criminal fire-bombing of defenceless German cities that was to become the speciality of Bomber Command?

Shirer, the inveterate anti-Nazi whose book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich became a classic history,[79] nonetheless observed Joyce as ‘an amusing and even intelligent fellow’, ‘heavily built and of about five feet nine inches, with Irish eyes that twinkle’.[80] He noted that Joyce had a deep hatred of capitalism. ‘Strange as it may seem, he thinks the Nazi movement is a proletarian one which will free the world from the bonds of “plutocratic capitalists”. He sees himself primarily as a liberator of the working class’.[81]

Shirer’s quip about the ‘strangeness’ of Joyce’s view of National Socialism as a movement fighting capitalism is perhaps best explained by Shirer’s own ignorance as to the character of both National Socialism and the war.[82] The reader will see the anti-plutocratic character of National Socialism explained in Twilight, a copy of which Joyce gave to Shirer.

Twilight was published in September 1940, by Santoro, an elderly Italian who owned a Berlin publishing house, Internationaler Verlag, the English edition running to 100,000 copies.[83] They were distributed at POW camps, where there were efforts to recruit for a Legion of Saint George (also known as the British Free Corps) as a unit of the Waffen SS to fight on the Eastern Front (not against fellow Britons).[84]

After a year of delays, the Joyce’s were German citizens. In 1941 Joyce registered for military service and was put in a reserved category. Joyce was now permitted to reveal his identity and stated:

‘I, William Joyce, left England because I would not fight for Jewry against Adolf Hitler and National Socialism. I left England because I thought that victory which would preserve existing conditions would be more damaging to Britain than defeat’.[85]

On 11 May 1941 Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess reached Scotland on his ill-fated peace mission. It was undertaken at a time when war between the USSR and Germany was approaching, and the German authorities were obliged to repudiate the Hess mission as the lone efforts of someone who had become mentally unhinged. Perhaps Hess was unbalanced if he thought he could overcome the war party led by Churchill, but there was still thought to be a prominent peace party within influential circles who aimed for a negotiated peace. Hess had flown to Scotland in the hope of talking with the Duke of Hamilton, who was thought to be among the peace party. It is known that Hess had long been discussing possibilities of a peace mission to Britain, with Hitler’s knowledge, and that Hess’ friend Albrecht Haushofer had been in contact with the Duke of Hamilton.[86] New evidence has come to light that Hess probably did fly to Britain with Hitler’s approval. British historian Peter Padfield states that Hess brought with him to Britain detailed peace proposals from Hitler. The proposals asked for Britain’s neutrality in a coming conflict with the USSR, in return for which Germany would withdraw from Western Europe and would have no claims on Britain or the Empire.[87] Of course, such proposals were perfectly in keeping with the foreign policy aims that Hitler had desired since the 1920s, as we have seen previously. The proposals from Hitler specified German aims in Russia and even stated the precise time of the German offensive. Padfield remarks: ‘This was not a renegade plot. Hitler had sent Hess and he brought over a fully developed peace treaty for Germany to evacuate all the occupied countries in the West’.[88] Padfield also remarks on a significant ‘negotiated peace’ faction in Britain, and the ruin that peace would have meant for Churchill’s career. There is also allusion to this peace faction including the Royal Family.

Joyce expected he would soon die, whether fighting the Russians, during an air-raid or hanged. Awarded the War Merit Cross 1st Class, a civilian medal, which meant little to him, he was called up to the home guard, the Volkssturm, and he started training with weapons.[89] During the course of an air-raid, confined in a shelter, he proceeded to teach a French journalist English songs, which drew the attention of an air-warden. When Joyce refused the order to quieten a scuffle ensued, Joyce received a cut lip, and the warden a black eye. The air-raid warden stated that Joyce would be reported. Bellowing with laughter at the absurdity of the situation, Joyce was duly notified that he was charged with ‘sub-treason’, and that the warden had been the personal chauffer of Freisler, president of the People’s Court. His employers warned him that the charge was more serious than he assumed. However, the court and all traces of the documentation as well as Freisler’s chauffeur were buried in rubble from an air-raid and so was the charge of ‘sub-treason’.[90]

At the suggestion that the Joyces obtain false papers with the view to escaping as the war drew to a conclusion, Joyce was furious and adamant that ‘soldiers cannot run away, so why should I?’[91] For Joyce, from boyhood to the end of his life, honour an integrity were paramount, courage an instinct.

With Berlin in ruins, the staff of Buro Concordia prepared to relocate. With the impending Russian occupation of the city, the staff of the English Language Services proceeded to Apen, a small town between Bremen and the Dutch border, although Joyce would have preferred the barricades with his Volkssturm colleagues.

Finale

On 30 April 1945 the staff were called together and told of Hitler’s death. Lord and Lady Haw-Haw made their final broadcasts that day. Joyce reiterated what he had always said:

‘Britain’s victories are barren. They leave her poor and they leave her people hungry. They leave her bereft of the markets and the wealth that she possessed six years ago. But above all, they leave her with an immensely greater problem than she had then. We are nearing the end of one phase of Europe’s history, but the next will be no happier. It will be grimmer, harder and perhaps bloodier. And now I ask you earnestly, can Britain survive? I am profoundly convinced that without German help she cannot’.

Is there any reader who is so ignorant or so naïve, other than the ideologically or ethnically biased, who can deny that Joyce has been proved correct? Britain lost her Empire, lost her markets, the Commonwealth and colonial peoples were detached from her and left to wallow in Third World poverty, or become colonies of a US led world order, and debt became more than ever the preferred method of economics.

Orders came from Goebbels, the first from the Reichsminister that had acknowledged them, that the Joyces were not to fall into Allied hands. However, attempts to get them to neutral Sweden via Denmark or to Eire, were abortive. They ended up in Flensburg, back in the crumbling and occupied Reich. Joyce, as was his habit, adopted a rascally attitude even now, and played what he called ‘Russian roulette’ by greeting British soldiers, to see if they would recognise his voice. On a stroll back from the woods he encountered two officers collecting firewood, and approached them offering some sticks. One of the officers, Lieutenant Perry,[92] a returning Jewish refugee serving as an interpreter, a type that was now swarming over Germany in the wake of the Allied occupation, recognised Joyce’s voice. They pursued Joyce in a vehicle, and Perry asked, ‘You wouldn’t happen to be William Joyce would you?’ Joyce reached for the less than convincing fake identity papers that had been given to him by the Germans and was shot by Perry, the bullet entering through Joyce’s right thigh and passing through the left.[93]

The_Capture_of_William_Joyce,_Germany,_1945_BU6910.jpg

The military authorities promptly called on Margaret Joyce at the lodging of an elderly widow, who was also detained, but quickly released, albeit not before her household food rations had been looted by the liberators.

Joyce’s first court appearance on treason charges was held at the Old Bailey on 17 September 1945. He entered a ‘not guilty’ plea. The main problem for the prosecution was in regard to whether Joyce was a British national under the protection of the Crown when he made his broadcasts in Germany. Joyce had never been a British citizen, and he had obtained a British passport for his move to Germany by making a false declaration. Two of the three charges could not be upheld. The case reached the House of Lords. However, Joyce was in no doubt that his hanging was required, and his defence team had even received death threats should he be acquitted. Joyce was hanged on the basis that because he had a British passport he was under the protection of the Crown when he started his broadcasts, and therefore committed high treason. The charge was dubious at best. He had never used his British status for protection at any time, and there is no reason to believe he would have in any circumstances. He moved to Germany with the intention of become a German citizen as promptly as possible, although German officialdom had been tardy in the process. Joyce was hanged on a passport technicality. Judgement was passed on 18 December 1945 to dismiss the appeal. Lord Porter dissented, stating that it was by no means clear that Joyce could have been considered to have owed allegiance to the Crown at the time of the broadcasts.[94]

Joyce on being told the decision wrote to Margaret that it was a relief the matter was over and that he found it undignified to have to plead for his life before his enemies, and to ‘observer their pretence at “fair play”’. Amidst the petty vengefulness of a befuddled and war-worn people, The Manchester Guardian nonetheless questioned the appropriateness of death sentences for Joyce and John Amery (whose trial had lasted eight minutes) for views that ‘were once shared by many who walk untouched among us’. Joyce appreciated the acknowledgment of his sincerity by the Guardian. His friends remained steadfast, and John Macnab was particularly active on Joyce behalf. Macnab, an avid Catholic, remarked on his last visits to Joyce that ‘being with him gave a sense of inward peace, like being in a quiet church’.[95] Some of his former teachers at Birbeck College, remembering the likeable and hardworking student, asked the prison Governor to relay their well-wishes to Joyce. He handed his brother Quentin his final message:

‘In death, as in this life, I defy the Jews who caused this last war: and I defy the power of Darkness which they represent. I warn the British people against the aggressive Imperialism of the Soviet Union.

‘May Britain be great once again; and, in the hour of the greatest danger to the West, may the standard of the Hakenkreuz be raised from the dust, crowned with the historic words “Ihr habt doch gesiegt”. I am proud to die for my ideals; and I am sorry for the sons of Britain who have died without knowing why’.

Joyce’s old friend, the one-timer Labour Party stalwart John Beckett, wrote to him in his final days: ‘Our children will grow up to think of you as an honest and courageous martyr in the fight against alien control of our country … That is how we shall remember you, and what we will tell our people’.[96] It has only recently been known that Beckett’s departure from the National Socialist League was for reasons other than a falling-out with Joyce. Beckett referred to this when writing to Joyce:

‘No one knows better than myself the sincerity of the beliefs which led to the course of action you chose. You remember we discussed the position in 1938, and the disagreement and respect I showed for your opinion then, remains’.[97]

Joyce replied in a letter that was intercepted and never given to Beckett:

‘Of course I remember, quite vividly, how we discussed the situation in 1938. I do not, in the most infinitesimal degree, regret what I have done. For me, there was nothing else to do. I am proud to die for what I have done’.[98]

Beckett in his farewell wrote to Joyce: ‘Goodbye, William, it’s been good to know you and there are few things in my life I am prouder of than our association. Yours always, John’.[99]

Joyce took holy communion, wrote to his wife and to Macnab, and at 9:00 am precisely he was taken from his cell by the hangman, Albert Pierrepoint and hanged.[100]

On the morning of 3 January 1946, the day of his execution, a crowd of 300 gathered outside Wandsworth prison; most to gloat but some to pay their final respects. Some of the crowd, on the notice of Joyce’s execution being posted up, set themselves apart from the crowd and gave the Fascist salute in Joyce’s honour.

Notes

[1] J A Cole, Lord Haw-Haw: The Full Story of William Joyce (London: Faber and Faber, 1987), 307

[2] Cole, 16.

[3] Cole, 212.

[4] Rebecca West, The Meaning of Treason (London: The Reprint Society, 1952), 3.

[5] Ibid., 4.

[6] One might recall the fates of Dr Robert Faurrison in France, Fred Leuchter in the USA, David Irving in England, Dr Joel Hayward in New Zealand, Ernst Zundel in Canada, et al.

[7] K R Bolton, Artists of the Right (San Francisco, Counter-Currents Publications, 2012), 97-119. Pound, stranded in Italy with his wife when the USA entered the war, broadcast for Italy on a programme called ‘Europe Calling’, analogous to Joyce’s broadcasts named ‘Germany Calling’. Handed over to US troops after the war by Italian partisans, Pound was confined in an animal cage under the scathing Pisan sun. The embarrassment of trying and hanging for treason one of the world’s greatest literary figures was avoided by declaring Pound unfit to stand trial, and he was confined to a mental asylum for thirteen years, after which, still undiagnosed or treated for any supposed ‘mental illness’, he was permitted to leave the USA and return to Italy.

[8] Cole, op. cit., 22-23.

[9] Ibid., 56.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Richard Thurlow, Fascism in Britain (London: Basil Blackwell, 1987), 51.

[12] Ibid., 53.

[13] Cole., op. cit., 30.

[14] Ibid.,  31.

[15] Oswald Mosley (1968) My Life (London: Black House Publishing, 2012), 294.

[16] Ibid, 295.

[17] Ibid., 297.

[18] Cole, op. cit., 39.

[19] Thurlow, op. cit., 98.

[20] In 1925 Beckett become the youngest Labour MP of his time, at the age of 30. Becoming increasingly radical, he was expelled from the Labour party and lost his seat in 1931, joining the BUF two years later.

[21] Cole, op. cit, 45.

[22] Jeffrey Hamm, Action Replay (London: Howard Baker, 1983), 151.

[23] Cole, op.cit., 57.

[24] Cole, op. cit., 59.

[25] Ibid., 65.

[26] Randolf Churchill in letter to The Spectator, 27 December 1963, cited by Mosley, My Life, op. cit., 363.

[27] Zeev Sternhell, Neither Left Nor Right: Fascist Ideology in France (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986); The Birth of Fascist Ideology (Princeton, 1994).

[28] Cole, op. cit., 73.

[29] K R Bolton, ‘Geoffrey Potocki de Montalk: New Zealand Poet, “Polish King”, and “Good European”’, Counter-Currents Publishing, http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/08/count-potocki-de-montalk-part-iii/

[30] William Joyce, National Socialism Now, 1939, Chapter 1.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), 71-72.

[33] Joyce, NS Now, op. cit., Chapter 2.

[34] K R Bolton, The Banking Swindle (London: Black House Publishing, 2013), 103-120.

[35] Ibid., 96-100.

[36] Ibid, passim.

[37] W Joyce, NS Now, op. cit., Chapter 4.

[38] Adolf Hitler (1926), Mein Kampf (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1969), 570.

[39] Ramsay was one of the many veterans who had served in the First World War ‘with gallantry’ (Griffiths, 353) who were imprisoned under Regulation 18B. Members of the Right Club included Admiral Wilmot Nicholson (another First World War hero), Mrs Frances Eckersley, who was to assist the Joyce’s on their arrival to Germany; and the Duke of Wellington. Richard Griffiths, Fellow Travellers of the Right (London: Oxford University Press, 1983) 353-355.

[40] A H M Ramsay, The Nameless War (1952), 17.

[41] Ramsay, ibid., 54.

[42] Ramsay, ibid., 59-60.

[43] Ramsay, ibid., 62.

[44] David Irving (1966), The Destruction of Dresden (London: Futura Publications, 1980).

[45] Ramsay, op. cit., 67.

[46] Cited by Ramsay, ibid., 68.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Hitler, Mein Kampf, op. cit., 575.

[49] David Irving, Churchill’s War Vol. 1 (Western Australia: Veritas Publishing, 1987), 104.

[50] Stephen Mitford Goodson, Inside the Reserve Bank of South Africa (2013), 67-69.

[51] David Irving, op. cit., ., 14.

[52] Cole, op. cit., 77.

[53] Stephen Dorril, Black Shirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British Fascism (London: Penguin Books, 2007), 466.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Griffiths, op. cit., 319.

[56] The BUF had its own notable agricultural expert, Jorian Jencks, author of BUF rural policies.

[57] Griffiths, op. cit., 352.

[58] Cole, op. cit., 82-83.

[59] Cole, ibid., 86.

[60] Cole, 103.

[61] Robert Skidelsky, Oswald Mosley, 440.

[62] Ibid., 449.

[63] Ibid., 455.

[64] Cole, op. cit., 108.

[65] Ibid., 113.

[66] Ibid., 115.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Ibid., 118.

[69] Ibid., 121.

[70] Ibid., 124.

[71] Ibid., 126.

[72] Ibid., 127.

[73] Ibid., 137.

[74] Cole, 159.

[75] Ibid. 161.

[76] Cole, 164.

[77] Cole, ibid., 182.

[78] Cited by Cole, ibid., 170.

[79] William L Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Secker and Warburg, 1977).

[80] Recall the description of Joyce’s appearance by Shirer with that of Rebecca West.

[81] Cited by Cole, op. cit., 174-175.

[82] Shirer was listed as a Communist sympathiser in a 1950 US publication, Red Channels: The Report of Communist Influence in Radio and Television, based on FBI documents. Shirer had been a member of the Committee for the Prevention of World War III, founded in the USA in 1944, which lobbied for the elimination of Germany. Among its members were James P Warburg, ‘ideologue’ of the society and a scion of the influential Warburg banking dynasty. Did Shirer ever regard the alliance between plutocrats and Leftists against the Axis to be ‘strange’? For several years after the war the Committee’s aims were implemented under the so-called Morgenthau Plan, named after US Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr., a supporter of the society. The Morgenthau Plan attempted to exterminate the German people through starvation, until being reversed by the Marshall Plan several years after the war, when it was realised that the Germans might be needed to fight the Russians, again.  See: James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation 1944-1950 (London: Little, Brown & Co., 1997).

[83] Adrian Weale, Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen (London: Weidenfield and Nicolson, 1994), 36.

[84] Ibid., passim.

[85] Cole, op. cit., 190.

[86] Wolf Rudiger Hess, My Father Rudolf Hess (London: W H Allen, 1986), 66-67.

[87] Jasper Copping, ‘Nazis “offered to leave Western Europe for free hand to attack USSR”’, The Telegraph, 26 September 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10336126/Nazis-offered-to-leave-western-Europe-in-exchange-for-free-hand-to-attack-USSR.html

[88] Peter Padfield, Hess, Hitler and Churchill (Icon books Ltd., 2013), cited by Copping, ibid.

[89] Cole, 219.

[90] Cole, 221.

[91] Ibid., 222

[92] The large numbers of Jewish lawyers and interpreters who entered Germany with the Occupation forces were given false names. See Cole, op. cit., 247.

[93] Ibid., 246.

[94] Ibid., 287.

[95] Cole, 300.

[96] Cited by Beckett’s son, the author and journalist Francis Beckett, ‘My Father and Lord Haw-Haw’, The Guardian, 10 February 2005, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/feb/10/secondworldwar.world

[97] Ibid.

[98] Ibid.

[99] Ibid.

[100] Adrien Weal, op.cit., 195.

 


Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/01/william-joyce/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/hawhaw.jpg

[2] Twilight Over England: http://www.blackhousepublishing.co.uk/product/product&path=65&product_id=106

dimanche, 05 janvier 2014

US and UK are implementing a pro-Saudi and Gulf agenda: Balkans to Afghanistan

150103.jpg

US and UK are implementing a pro-Saudi and Gulf agenda: Balkans to Afghanistan

Murad Makhmudov and Lee Jay Walker

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Irrespective if people support the Syrian government or are against the political leaders of this nation, it is abundantly clear that past interventions lead to chaos and failed states. Either political elites in Gulf nations, America, France, Turkey and the United Kingdom enjoy mass instability and cleansing religious minorities; or the agenda is to create weak failed states in order to protect the feudal monarchies of the Gulf and Israel. If not, then nothing makes sense and this also applies to Western nations being anti-Christian in the Middle East and in other parts of the world.

It is known that the most powerful religious leader in Saudi Arabia desires that all Christian churches are to be destroyed throughout the region. Of course, with Qatar and Saudi Arabia supporting Sunni Salafi fanatics and terrorists against the government of Syria; then this could be part of the anti-Christian crusade installed by feudal monarchs and religious elites in Saudi Arabia.

Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Asheikh from Saudi Arabia stated that it was “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” This distinguished Islamist cleric who is a close friend of the ruling elites in Saudi Arabia, voiced this opinion to the visiting delegation from Kuwait. It appears that he wants Kuwait to follow the anti-Christian and anti-non-Muslim religious line of Saudi Arabia which refuses to allow one single Buddhist temple, Christian church, Hindu temple and so forth. Therefore, when one militant fanatic desires to burn the Koran (something that Islamists do all the time during their terrorist attacks and destroying Shia mosques)in America the American administration and mass media speaks out; however, having strong relations with Islamist states which hate all other religions is obviously not a concern.

It is clear that Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser was a threat to the elites throughout the Gulf and in major Western nations. Likewise, Saddam Hussein was an ally of the Sunni Gulf dominated monarchies and powerful Western nations during the Iran-Iraq war. Yet the Kuwait question destroyed this unity. Of course, when Saddam Hussein was busy killing the Shia in Iraq and fighting against Iran then this was welcomed. Likewise, when Kurds were gassed in Iraq then this also could be brushed under the carpet. However, to enter a feudal undemocratic state called Kuwait was something else. Therefore, a well orchestrated media campaign was paid to increase many lies about the nation of Kuwait and with regards to many alleged massacres which later turned out to be clear fabrications. Despite this, the United States and United Kingdom will protect anti-Christian Gulf monarchies to the hilt because of energy factors, geopolitics and other important areas.

Over forty years ago the usual nations intervened in Afghanistan by supporting the most “year zero Islamists” on the face of the planet. Not only did America, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, and other nations, support Islamist sectarians and terrorists – but they even gave military training, assistance and helped to co-ordinate future terrorist groups. Osama bin Laden was once a friendly ally of major Gulf nations, America, Pakistan and the United Kingdom. Of course, September 11 brought this home to America but for the people of Afghanistan, North-Western Pakistan and India ruled Kashmir; then Islamist militancy is continuing to destroy all forms of moderation and helping to cleanse religious minorities. Women also have bore a terrible price and while Islamists may ban alcohol it is clear that selling and taking heroin isn’t deemed un-Islamic. Therefore, you now have a major drug problem in Afghanistan and Pakistan but despite all the chaos it is now the turn to destroy multi-religious and secular Syria.

Even while Afghanistan continues to burn in a spiral of Islamist hatred, enormous indoctrination, forcing women into the shadows and being unable to crush Taliban forces; the next venture had begun against Iraq. The Kuwait debacle highlighted the reality that while approximately 3 to 4 million black Africans were killed in Sudan based on the policies of Arabization and Islamization; then this could be tolerated, but invading a wealthy Gulf state was a different matter. Simply put, just like in East Timor whereby approximately one third of the population was killed by central forces in Indonesia – it is apparent that Christians (Sudan and East Timor) and Animists (Sudan) just don’t count because the US and UK kept on supplying weapons to Indonesia. America also welcomed the introduction of Islamic Sharia law in Sudan under the leadership of President Jaafar Nimeiri in 1983 just like Washington helped this legal framework to take power in Afghanistan, Iraq and most recently Libya.

Clearly, the anti-Muslim rhetoric aimed at America doesn’t hold much weight apart from opposing moderate forces in the Muslim world based on the objectives of Saudi Arabia and other major Gulf nations.  Therefore, the only forces to suffer at the hands of America’s foreign policy in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cyprus (invasion by Turkey), Kosovo, Libya, Iraq and now in Syria – are Christians, secular forces and mainstream Islam which became attacked by Sunni Islamic jihadists, Salafi militants and a plethora of terrorist groups. These Islamist groups think nothing about killing Shia Muslims, minority Muslim groups like the Alawites, Sunni Muslim clerics who support religious diversity and non-Muslims. In this sense, the political elites in Washington and London have installed compliant Muslim dominated governments in Bosnia and Kosovo – while doing nothing when Orthodox Christians were cleansed by Turkey after this nation invaded Northern Cyprus. Meanwhile, secular forces within the state institutions of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have all been vanquished by the implementation of Islamic Sharia law once ruling elites were overthrown in the three above nations. Given this reality, it appears that because they always side with conservative and reactionary Islamist forces. The upshot being that approximately 50% of Christians fled Iraq and vast numbers of Christians have fled Kosovo; this happened on the watch of America and the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, in Egypt the Coptic Christians are now facing a growing Islamist menace but once more America and the United Kingdom keep on supplying more funds to the Muslim Brotherhood led government.

In Kosovo the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was implicated in killing people for organs and other massacres. Similarly, in Syria you have video evidence of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and various Islamist groups teaching children to behead Syrian soldiers, cutting open Syrian soldiers and eating organs, killing Sunni Muslim clerics which support the government and a host of other brutal deeds including beheading many Alawites and Shia Muslims. Yet, it appears that all the above – and kidnapping Christian bishops – means zilch to America, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Kingdom. After all, the more massacres are committed by the FSA and various Islamist terrorist groups then the more they obtain funds in order to destroy Syria. It must be stated that Syria, just like Egypt under Nasser, is a proud and free nation which refuses to bow down to international domination. Therefore, the secular government of Syria is deemed to be a threat to Western powers, Gulf powers and treacherous Turkey because these collective forces saw an opportunity to destroy the last major secular and independent nation in the Arabic speaking world.

Libya in the post-Gaddafi period is nothing more than a failed state whereby various militias control parts of the country. Recent terrorist attacks in Algeria, Mali and Niger all have a connection linking the failed state of Libya. At the same time the CIA, MI6 and other security intelligence networks have been involved in sending military arms to terrorists in Syria via Bosnia, Libya, Croatia, Kosovo and other routes. Note, that the US and UK all supported anti-Serb forces in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo; meanwhile, the ruling elites in Libya now rely on London and Washington for economic support.

In another Modern Tokyo Times article about Libya it was stated that “The ‘bomb democracy’ Western and Gulf policy in Libya brought about the massacres of black Africans, killing of Gaddafi loyalists and created a “new society” based on disorder which is currently ongoing. Indeed, the chaos which is engulfing Libya is now destabilizing Northern Mali and creating problems for Tunisia. This destabilization is based on vast quantities of military hardware being available and more dangerously the Salafi ideology is spreading because of money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.”

“Turning back to Libya and Northern Mali then currently Salafist organizations are intent on destroying all Islamic thought patterns outside of their “blinkered monoculture,” which thrives on hatred and fear. Indeed, in Syria video evidence survives which makes it clear that the Western and Islamist “marriage of convenience” is now spreading this dangerous ideology within this country. Therefore, mainstream Islam and religious minorities have much to fear in Syria. However, like usual political leaders in London, Paris and Washington will support any form of barbarity providing it meets their geopolitical ambitions.”

The nation of Syria welcomed the fleeing Palestinians and took in over one million refugees from Iraq irrespective if the refugees were Christian, Sunni Muslim, Shia Muslim or whatever. Syria is a multi-religious nation and secular based. Also, it is abundantly clear that no evidence can be provided which shows massacres by the government of Syria before outside nations sponsored sectarianism, terrorism and sedition against this nation. Therefore, the armed forces of Syria are doing their upmost to protect the people of Syria and preserve the independence of this nation. After all, which side is kidnapping Christian bishops, kidnapping UN personnel, killing Sunni Muslim clerics, beheading Alawites, butchering the Shia, murdering journalists and so forth? Despite this, major Western and Gulf powers alongside Turkey are intent on destroying the fabric of Syrian society and these nations care little about creating another failed state – after all, look at the track record of Afghanistan, Kosovo, Libya and Iraq.

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

samedi, 28 décembre 2013

Les nouvelles révélations sur l’affaire Snowden sont très gênantes pour le Royaume-Uni

wikileaks-is-cashing-in-on-the-edward-snowden-craze-with-merchandise.jpg

Les nouvelles révélations sur l’affaire Snowden sont très gênantes pour le Royaume-Uni

Les dernières révélations publiées, vendredi 20 décembre, par le New York Times, le Guardian et le Spiegel sur le scandale d’espionnage révélé par Edward Snowden sont notamment très embarrassantes pour le Royaume-Uni. 

Si le quotidien américain titre son article sur la NSA, l’agence américaine de surveillance des communications, c’est en effet le GCHQ britannique qui en est le coeur en raison de son « travail en lien étroit avec la NSA », qui aurait permis de surveiller un grand nombre de cibles : « Entreprises privées, agences des Nations unies, organisations non gouvernementales, hommes politiques de premier plan », détaille Le Monde, dont Thalès, Total, Médecins du monde, « un ambassadeur français », le commissaire européen à la Concurrence Joaquin Almunia ou l’ex-Premier ministre israélien Ehud Olmert.

La liste complète des cibles se trouve d’ailleurs dans un document du GCHQ, mais il n’est pas systématiquement précisé quelle agence a demandé leur surveillance. Le quotidien américain explique par ailleurs que « les espions ont une marge de manoeuvre plus grande en ce qui concerne l’espionnage économique en Grande-Bretagne ».

Le Spiegel, qui s’intéresse lui particulièrement à l’espionnage de cibles allemandes via des câbles sous-marins reliant la côte des Cornouailles aux côtes allemandes, estime que « les Britanniques vont maintenant faire face à un débat inconfortable sur leurs activités, qui semblent directement dirigées contre leurs partenaires au sein de l’Union européenne et les leaders de ces pays ».


Le magazine allemand livre une anecdote instructive : fin octobre, lors d’un dîner organisé à l’occasion d’un sommet européen peu après des révélations sur l’espionnage du mobile d’Angela Merkel, François Hollande a demandé l’établissement d’un code de conduite pour les agences de renseignement, tandis que « David Cameron est resté étrangement silencieux durant la discussion ». Conclusion : « S’il est confirmé que les Britanniques ont ciblé les téléphones de dirigeants allemands et d’Almunia, Cameron va avoir des problèmes ».

Concerné au premier chef, le Guardian estime lui dans un éditorial que « la Grande-Bretagne doit imiter la réponse américaine » en lançant, comme l’a fait Barack Obama aux Etats-Unis, une enquête sur l’activité de leurs services de renseignement. « De telles actions endommagent directement le standing de la Grande-Bretagne dans le monde entier. [...] Le gouvernement doit nommer un panel d’experts indépendants sur le modèle américain », conclut le quotidien. A noter que les écoutes en question ont été réalisées sur la période 2008-2011, soit sous le gouvernement Labour de Gordon Brown puis sous la coalition conservateurs/libéraux-démocrates de Cameron.

mardi, 12 novembre 2013

Warum die UKIP täuscht

Nigel-Farage_2403832b.jpg

Warum die UKIP täuscht

von Johannes Konstantin Poensgen

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de

Ein Rechter hierzulande muss, mangels ernstzunehmender Parteien, ins europäische Ausland blicken. Doch der Schein trügt: Eine Alternative wie die UKIP wird die Probleme nicht beseitigen.

Einen Großteil der deutschen konservativen Aufmerksamkeit hat in den letzten Jahren die britische „United Kingdoms Independence Party” (UKIP) auf sich gezogen. Dieser ist sowohl dank ihres charismatischen Führers Nigel Farage, als auch aufgrund der tiefen wirtschaftlichen Krise des Landes ein kometenhafter Aufstieg gelungen. Deshalb ist es wichtig, die Natur dieser Partei zu untersuchen ‒ und vor allem, was sie geleistet hat und was sie noch leisten kann.

Keine Ein-​Themen-​Partei

Die UKIP hat seit ihrer Gründung 1993 drei wichtige Etappenziele erreicht: 2004 gelang der Einzug ins Europäische Parlament. Die Partei gewann 16,8 Prozent der britischen Wählerstimmen und damit zwölf Sitze. Ironischerweise bot das Parlament in Straßburg der UKIP und insbesondere dem begnadeten Redner Farage eine gute Plattform. Es war ein Gütesiegel der Seriosität. Zweitens ist sie eine der wenigen Protestparteien, der es gelang, die Fixierung auf ein Thema zu überwinden und zu allen Politikbereichen ausgearbeitete Programme zu erstellen.

Hierbei verbindet UKIP ihre zentralen Forderungen nach einem Austritt aus der EU und einem Ende der Masseneinwanderung mit liberalen Positionen in Fragen der Wirtschaft wie der Gesellschaft. Drittens veränderte UKIP tatsächlich die politische Debatte in England. Mit dieser Leistung steht sie unter den Protestparteien Europas allein da. Selbst dem in Wahlen ebenfalls erfolgreichen Front National und und der FPÖ gelang es nie, dem Gegner die eigenen Themen und die eigene Debatte aufzuzwingen.

In Britannien müssen nun aber auch die alteingesessen Parteien zur Einwanderungs– wie zur Europafrage Farbe bekennen. Es zeichnet sich sogar ein, unter Umständen aber nur rhetorisches, Einschwenken auf UKIP-​Forderungen ab. Ein Beispiel dafür sind die jüngsten Forderungen von Premier David Cameron (Conservative Party) gegenüber der EU.

Das liberale Verhängnis der UKIP

Die UKIP stilisiert sich damit als Verteidigerin der britischen Demokratie. Liberales Gedankengut ist derart essenziell für die gesamte Programmatik dieser Partei, dass dieser Anspruch ernstzunehmen ist. Denn die Partei ist nur aus der liberal-​parlamentarischen Tradition Britanniens zu verstehen. Darin liegt das Geheimnis ihres Erfolgs und zugleich ihr Verhängnis.

Die UKIP braucht unter Briten niemanden von einer neuen Weltsicht zu überzeugen. Sie baut auf das auf, was auf der Insel eine lange Tradition hat. Nigel Farage will nichts umstürzen, sondern ein politisches System wieder in sein Recht setzen. Hinter dieser politischen Tradition steht die Geschichte und der Stolz des ganzen britischen Volkes. Unter Brüsseler Vormundschaft, ebenso wie unter dem Kartell seiner etablierten Parteien, droht es zu einer Karikatur herabzusinken.

An der ethnischen Krise ändert die UKIP nichts

Doch dadurch wird die UKIP trotz aller Erfolge zum Anachronismus. Es ist bezeichnend, dass die UKIP glaubt, der Einwanderungsproblematik sei allein mit einer Reduzierung der Migration beizukommen, als wenn zumindest die Großstädte Englands nicht bereits ethnisch zersplittert seien, als wenn es keine Unruhen in Tottenham gegeben hätte, als wenn nicht die großen Unterschiede in der Geburtenrate der einzelnen Gruppen diesen Prozess weiter treiben müssten, egal was an der Grenze geschieht.

Dem Erbe der Premiers Gladstones und Churchills, selbst dem Maggie Thatchers, wird zunehmend die Substanz entzogen. Eine liberale Partei wie die UKIP kann weder mit dieser noch gegen diese Entwicklung regieren. Wie will sie etwa die den Muslimen bereits eingeräumten Schariagerichte auflösen, ohne Widerstand in der muslimischen Bevölkerung auszulösen?

Farage: Der letzte britische Premier?

Es steht außer Zweifel: Die UKIP wird bei den Unterhauswahlen 2015 ins Parlament einziehen. Es ist sogar möglich, dass sie bald den Premierminister stellt. Das Mehrheitswahlrecht, welches sie bisher hinderte, muss sie fördern, sobald sie eine bestimmte Wählermasse erreicht. Es wäre ein demokratischer Traum. Die Bürger hätten tatsächlich eine ungeliebte Machtelite friedlich abgewählt, mit ihren Stimmen der Politik keine andere Fassade, sondern eine andere Richtung gegeben. Aus dieser Welt stammt die UKIP, darüber hinaus wird sie nicht aber nicht wachsen.

Nigel Farage könnte der letzte britische Premierminister werden. Dieser Ausdruck bleibt bewusst mehrdeutig: Er könnte der letzte Premierminister sein und bzw. oder der letzte Brite als Premierminister. Zumindest wird er wohl der letzte Premierminister, bei dessen Wahl britische Stimmen den Ausschlag gaben. Es wäre nicht das schlechteste Ende des britischen Parlamentarismus.

mardi, 10 septembre 2013

Grande-Bretagne : L’immigration de masse a rendu l’économie moins performante

black_britain.jpg

Grande-Bretagne : L’immigration de masse a rendu l’économie moins performante

 



Dans l’ensemble, les chefs d’entreprise ont tendance à soutenir une politique d’immigration – dite “de la porte ouverte” – ce qui contribue à répondre aux pénuries de main d’œuvre dans les secteurs clés.

Mais, plus particulièrement, cela exerce aussi une pression à la baisse sur les salaires. L’effet est similaire au fait d’avoir des niveaux durablement élevés de chômage, car elle crée une réserve inépuisable de main-d’œuvre bon marché.

Il semble que l’on assiste à la stagnation la plus importante de la productivité britannique. Les économistes ont largement décrit ce phénomène en le qualifiant d’« énigme »; mot qu’ils tendent à utiliser pour décrire une tendance qui tranche avec les normes passées. Pour la plupart d’entre nous, il ne s’agit cependant pas du tout d’un mystère. Pour faire simple, nous avons d’une part la mise en place de politiques publiques qui n’incitent pas à consommer et, de l’autre, une absence totale de réformes bénéficiant au secteur productif. Malheureusement, cela n’a fait qu’empirer depuis le début de la crise financière.

La stimulation de la demande par l’intermédiaire de politiques fiscales et monétaires est la solution de facilité quand les économistes trouvent leurs limites. Elle est peut-être vitale pour prévenir l’évolution de la situation de contraction économique actuelle en une véritable dépression.

Cependant, si le début de redressement s’accélère au Royaume-Uni, il est nécessaire de réaffirmer qu’il ne conduira ni à une croissance soutenable sur le long terme, ni à l’augmentation du niveau de vie. Cela requiert des choix bien plus difficiles.

Une étude, conduite par l’OCDE en début d’année concernant l’économie britannique, attribue le faible taux de productivité depuis le début de la crise à de nombreux facteurs qui sont sans aucun doute une partie de l’explication.

A un certain niveau, c’est principalement lié au système des banques toxiques – possédant de nombreux actifs dépréciés ou qui devraient l’être – qui, comme l’a défendu Ben Broadbent – membre du Comité de Politique Monétaire de la Banque d’Angleterre – entrave la redistribution du capital entre les différents secteurs.

Les récessions éliminent normalement les entreprises et les industries les plus faibles, permettant ainsi aux plus fortes et aux plus productives de prospérer plus aisément. Mais le refus de reconnaître les actifs pourris, de peur des conséquences sur la solvabilité des banques, est venu court-circuiter ce processus quasi naturel. Une politique monétaire accommodante vient aussi soutenir les banques toxiques, là encore court-circuitant la discipline darwinienne du marché.

Comme nous le savons maintenant, la croissance d’avant la crise n’était pas produite par le travail réel mais était produite par la frénésie de la finance et du marché immobilier, tous deux emportés par l’explosion du système bancaire.

La thésaurisation de la main-d’œuvre qualifiée, les baisses de production de pétrole en Mer du Nord et l’incapacité à bien quantifier statistiquement la croissance dans le secteur de l’économie numérique britannique, ont peut-être aussi joué leur rôle.

Pourtant, aucune de ces raisons n’explique de manière convaincante les piètres performances de la productivité à long terme de la Grande-Bretagne.

Afin de trouver d’autres causes, je tiens à souligner deux autres aspects du problème :

- L’impact négatif de l’immigration de masse sur la productivité,

- Et l’incapacité à répondre à de simples carences de l’offre dans la planification, l’éducation, l’infrastructure, l’efficacité du secteur public, le système fiscal et les perpétuelles faibles performances à l’export.

Dans l’ensemble, les chefs d’entreprise ont tendance à soutenir une politique d’immigration – dite “de la porte ouverte” – ce qui contribue à répondre aux pénuries de main d’œuvre dans les secteurs clés de l’industrie.

Mais, plus particulièrement, cela exerce aussi une pression à la baisse sur les salaires. L’effet est similaire au fait d’avoir des niveaux durablement élevés de chômage, car elle crée une réserve inépuisable de main-d’œuvre bon marché.

Cela peut être, ou ne pas être, bon pour les profits des entreprises mais ce n’est certainement pas bon pour la productivité ou pour le niveau de vie des personnes à faible ou moyen revenu.

En rendant la main-d’œuvre bon marché, il supprime une incitation puissante au gain de productivité. Faible salaire, faible engagement.

Pour bien comprendre, regardez ce qui s’est passé depuis que la crise a débuté il y a 6 ans. Durant cette période, plus d’1 million d’emplois ont été créés dans le secteur privé, un exploit remarquable compte tenu de l’ effondrement de la production. Cela a contribué à maintenir le taux de chômage bien inférieur à ce qu’il serait autrement. L’exploit mérite clairement d’être salué mais il a été réalisé au détriment des revenus réels.

Une grande partie de la création d’emplois est composé de métiers à faible rémunération ou à temps partiel. Les revenus réels ont connu leur pire resserrement depuis les années 1920. Pourtant, ce n’est pas juste un phénomène récent. La pression sur les revenus réels, en particulier à l’extrémité inférieure de l’échelle des revenus, date d’avant la crise.

La concurrence étrangère, que ce soit via l’immigration ou l’importation de biens et services, a été un grand obstacle à la croissance des salaires. Ceci a, à son tour, limité les incitations aux gains d’efficacité. Le travail ‘pas cher’ est devenu un substitut à l’investissement dans l’usine, dans les machines, la formation et la recherche et développement.

Lorsque le dernier gouvernement s’est vanté d’un énième trimestre consécutif de croissance, il a omis de préciser que c’était dû en grande partie à l’évolution de la population. Le revenu par tête a progressivement stagné.

La Grande-Bretagne est une économie ouverte qui doit certainement se positionner sur le marché de la main d’œuvre internationale de valeur. Pourtant, les niveaux élevés d’immigration non-qualifiée ont été au mieux un jeu à somme nulle, et peut-être cela aura-t-il une influence négative en décourageant les futurs investissements nécessaires.

Aucun partisan libéral n’envisagerait d’empêcher les employeurs d’embaucher des travailleurs étrangers, mais il y a d’autres formes d’intervention de l’État qui pourraient être plus appropriées. Cependant l’Union Européenne déclarerait illégale toutes formes d’intervention de ce genre, comme par exemple imposer des taxes sur l’utilisation de la main-d’œuvre étrangère peu coûteuse.

En rendant le travail à faible qualification plus cher, le système fiscal fournirait une incitation puissante aux gains de productivité dans la construction, le commerce de détail, les services sociaux et d’autres industries britanniques. Ces taxes pourraient alors être réaffectées dans des dispositifs incitatifs en faveur de la formation et d’autres formes d’investissement.

En tout cas, si le niveau de vie doit à nouveau croître, les employeurs doivent réapprendre les vertus du “faire plus avec moins de travailleurs”. Les gains de productivité ne peuvent correctement se produire que si les entreprises les plus performantes et innovantes sont mises en situation de mettre les plus faibles hors-jeu. Au contraire, s’appuyer sur la croissance de la population et la baisse des coûts unitaires du travail qu’elle entraîne pour rester compétitif est une impasse.

A maintes reprises le Royaume-Uni a esquivé une délicate réforme de l’offre, pour ne s’appuyer que sur une relance de la demande. Ces mesures étaient manifestement importantes dans les premières phases de la crise puisqu’elles ont contribué à éviter que la dépression ne s’installe profondément. Cependant leur poursuite 5 ans après la crise occasionne très probablement plus de mal que de bien.

Selon la fameuse phrase de Juncker, “les politiciens occidentaux savent ce qui doit être entrepris mais ils ne savent pas comment se faire réélire après l’avoir fait.”

De la même façon, tous savent qu’une croissance tirée par la productivité est la seule forme de croissance digne de ce nom, mais ils ne peuvent pas prendre les décisions à long terme nécessaires à sa mise en œuvre.

The Telegraph