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.

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

jeudi, 05 septembre 2013

La fin des Anglo-Saxons ?

USA-GB : La fin des Anglo-Saxons ?

La Syrie a rompu une alliance historique


Jean Bonnevey
Ex: http://metamag.fr
Les USA, après s’être crées en révolte contre la Grande-Bretagne ont pris la succession de l’empire britannique dans une volonté de dominer le monde par le contrôle des mers. Une vision commune du monde partagée avec un fond ethnique et religieux a créé depuis la première guerre mondiale au moins ce qu’on appelle les Anglo-saxons. Ce sont ces derniers qui imposent une vision très atlantiste à l’Europe continentale et qui, en fait, orientent les choix de la « communauté internationale ».

                  Syrie : la fin du monde anglo-saxon ?

L’idée que la Grande-Bretagne  conserve un rôle mondial grâce aux Usa est une évidence. En fait, c’est Churchill qui a mis fin à l’empire et au rôle mondial de Londres malgré sa victoire sur l’Allemagne.  Depuis la Grande-Bretagne est à la remorque des Usa et plus près d’ailleurs de Washington que de Bruxelles.

Il y eut cependant une révolte de la fierté impériale : ce fut l’opération de Suez en 1956 avec les Français. Cela s’est soldé par la fin de la puissance des empires coloniaux et la confirmation de la domination des  américains et des soviétiques. Depuis la Grande-Bretagne est le plus fidèle allié et le plus inféodé du nouvel « empire ». On ironisait sur le bulldog britannique devenu caniche américain.

Est-ce aujourd’hui un nouveau tournant historique avec la fin de l’axe anglo-saxon ? Assurément  par rapport à l’Afghanistan, l’Irak et même la Libye, il y a rupture. Le caniche a rompu la laisse. Une rupture imposée au gouvernement par les élus et l’opinion publique. C'est le camouflet politique le plus cinglant de l’époque actuelle ! La dernière fois que la Chambre des Communes a dit "non" à une intervention militaire proposée par un Premier ministre, cela remonte à 1782. A l'époque, le Parlement britannique avait refusé d'envoyer des troupes supplémentaires en Amérique pour la guerre d'indépendance, contre la volonté du chef du gouvernement, Lord North. Il a été contraint de démissionner un mois plus tard. Dans les deux cas, un Premier ministre conservateur va-t’en-guerre a été répudié par ses propres fidèles.


L’opinion publique britannique ne soutient plus ce genre d'interventions depuis l'échec libyen : nos attaques aériennes n'ont pas servi à grand-chose. La torture, l'instabilité politique et les actes terroristes sont toujours le lot quotidien du pays. La Grande-Bretagne n'est pas une nation neutre ou pacifique. Mais ces ingérences dans les pays musulmans produisent des effets néfastes et contradictoires estime un politologue.

La Pologne, habituellement l’allié le plus loyal des Etats-Unis en Europe, a rejeté toute participation à un assaut militaire en Syrie. L’Allemagne se languit de l’époque où elle n’avait aucune décision à prendre sur l’utilisation ou non de ses soldats. Angela Merkel et son adversaire social-démocrate Peer Steinbrück seront ravis que la démocratie parlementaire britannique ait décidé de s’opposer à une attaque militaire en Syrie, ce qui retire la question du débat électoral allemand.

Aujourd’hui, la France est la seule à sembler vouloir récupérer et mettre le badge d’adjoint du shérif que la Chambre des communes a arraché de la poitrine de David Cameron. En mars 2003, c’était le président Jacques Chirac qui déclarait que la France allait former un axe Paris-Moscou-Pékin pour opposer un veto à la résolution des Nations unies qui aurait forcé le dictateur irakien à se soumettre aux volontés de l’Onu ou risquer une action militaire.

« Our oldest ally, France »... « Notre plus vieille alliée, la France », a souligné John Kerry, le secrétaire d’Etat américain. La formule n’est certes pas nouvelle : elle fait partie des classiques amabilités franco-américaines. Mais depuis quand ne l’avait-on pas prononcée à Washington avec insistance et conviction ? Sa sortie de la routine diplomatique marque un sacré retournement de situation. Cela  fait grincer les dents des Anglais. Quant aux Français n'en déplaise à François Hollande ils n’en demandaient certes pas tant.

L’étrange chemin de Damas de François Hollande n’est certes pas une promenade de santé politique, diplomatique et militaire. La France a toujours eu des problèmes avec le levant et la Syrie face notamment aux Anglo-Saxons… quand il y avait des Anglo-Saxons. Ironie de l’histoire certes, mais dont on aurait sans douter tort de se réjouir.

mardi, 03 septembre 2013

'Brits NEE tegen ingrijpen Syrië luidt doodsklok voor NAVO'

'Brits NEE tegen ingrijpen Syrië luidt doodsklok voor NAVO'

Obama's halfslachtige en tegenstrijdige beleid brengt massale vernietigingsoorlog tegen Israël dichterbij


'De wereld zal zich in de ogen wrijven van verbazing dat één persoon, president Obama van de VS, het gepresteerd heeft in slechts enkele jaren tijd de Amerikaanse invloed in het Midden Oosten en Europa te verpletteren.' (DEBKAfile)

Het onverwachte NEE van het Britse parlement tegen de deelname aan de geplande Westerse aanval op Syrië is volgens Israëlische inlichtingenexperts grotendeels te wijten aan het tegenstrijdige beleid van president Obama, waardoor de bondgenoten van Amerika en het publiek nauwelijks nog vertrouwen hebben in de VS. Dit leidt er niet alleen toe dat Amerika's invloed in het Midden Oosten snel tanende is, maar ook dat 'de doodsklok voor de NAVO' wordt geluid (1). Tevens zullen de vijanden van Israël zich gesterkt voelen, waardoor een massale vernietigingsoorlog tegen de Joodse staat steeds waarschijnlijker wordt.

Nadat de Syrische president Assad valselijk de schuld kreeg van de chemische aanval in Damascus en Obama van een 'afschuwelijke misdaad' sprak, zette de president deze week plotseling in op een zeer beperkte aanval op Syrische doelen. Hierdoor zouden zowel Assad als zijn bondgenoten in Rusland en Iran als morele overwinnaars uit de strijd naar voren komen. De Iraanse opperleider Ayatollah Khamenei kan dan zeggen gelijk te hebben gekregen met zijn jarenlange uitspraken dat de VS niets anders dan een papieren tijger is.

Coalitie tegen Syrië uiteen gescheurd

De Britse afwijzing van een aanval op Syrië scheurt Obama's multinationale coalitie uit elkaar en betekent een dolksteek in het hart van de NAVO, de historische Westerse alliantie die na de Tweede Wereldoorlog tientallen jaren lang de vrede in Europa wist te bewaren, maar zich sinds de Balkanoorlog in de jaren '90 steeds vaker ontpopt heeft als een agressief werktuig in de handen van de Amerikaanse globalisten.

In 2009 kondigde Obama aan dat de VS voortaan voornamelijk naar het Oosten zou kijken, en minder naar het Westen. Dit leidde tot de militaire exit uit Irak en Afghanistan, landen waar dankzij de Amerikaanse invasie een bloedige sektarische oorlog was losgebarsten, wat honderdduizenden slachtoffers heeft geëist en beide naties in puin heeft achtergelaten.

Forse terugslag door afzetten Morsi

Tegelijkertijd verlegde Obama zijn aandacht naar Noord Afrika, waar hij actief het omverwerpen van de Libische leider Muammar Gadaffi en de Egyptische president Hosni Mubarak steunde. De islamistische Moslim Broederschap werd door het Witte Huis uitverkoren tot nieuwe belangrijkste bondgenoot, maar toen de eerste Broederschap-president Mohamed Morsi al na één jaar werd verdreven, kreeg Obama's Midden-Oostenbeleid een geweldige klap te verwerken.

Wapens en geld voor Al-Qaeda

In Libië kwamen na de door de NAVO mogelijk gemaakte moord op Gadaffi aan Al-Qaeda verbonden islamitische extremisten aan de macht. Obama's beleid in Syrië ging nog verder: daar begon hij actief Al-Nusra (Al Qaeda) met financiën en wapens te steunen, ondanks het talloze malen bewezen feit dat het vooral de Syrische rebellen zijn die de meest afschuwelijke misdaden plegen tegen de burgers in het land, inclusief het door de VN bevestigde gebruik van chemische wapens.

Israël gedwongen grond en veiligheid op te geven

Bizar genoeg hamert Obama er voor de Tv-camera's op dat de VS en het Westen zich zo min mogelijk met de zaken in het Midden Oosten moeten bemoeien. Zijn acties getuigen echter van het absolute tegendeel. Van bondgenoot Israël eist hij zelfs absolute gehoorzaamheid. Tevens is Obama bezig om de Joodse staat een 'vredes'verdrag met de Palestijnen op te leggen, waarin Israël gedwongen zal worden om een groot deel van zijn grondgebied en zijn veiligheid op te geven.

'Doodsklok voor de NAVO'

Door dit tegenstrijdige beleid en de halfslachtige houding ten opzichte van Syrië blijkt nu zelfs Amerika's traditioneel grootste en trouwste bondgenoot, Groot Brittannië, hardop te twijfelen aan Obama's plannen en doelstellingen. 'Dit heeft geresulteerd in het luiden van de doodsklok voor de NAVO', constateren Israëlische inlichtingenexperts. De komende beperkte militaire aanval op Syrië kan, gekoppeld aan de ondoorzichtige doelstellingen, zelfs de genadeklap betekenen voor de Amerikaanse invloed in het Midden Oosten.

'Invloed VS in Europa en Midden Oosten verpletterd'

'De wereld zal zich in de ogen wrijven van verbazing dat één persoon, president Obama van de VS, het gepresteerd heeft in slechts enkele jaren tijd de Amerikaanse invloed in deze gevoelige regio en in Europa te verpletteren,' is de conclusie van de strategische analisten van DEBKAfile.

Terwijl het Witte Huis zegt bereid te zijn om desnoods alleen tegen Syrië op te treden, zou de Britse premier Cameron wel eens het politieke slachtoffer kunnen worden van Obama's wispelturige beleid. Nu 30 leden van zijn eigen Conservatieve partij en 9 van zijn coalitiegenoot de Liberalen met de oppositie hebben meegestemd, lijkt zijn positie te wankelen.

'Netanyahu wacht af en doet niets'

De situatie voor Israël wordt er door deze ontwikkelingen bepaald niet beter op. Premier Benyamin Netanyahu karakteriseert zijn politieke koers doorgaans als 'verantwoordelijk en gebalanceerd'. In de praktijk betekent dit echter hoofdzakelijk afwachten, uitstellen en niets doen. Ondertussen heeft de islamitische terreurbeweging Hezbollah in Libanon een arsenaal van vele tienduizenden raketten opgebouwd, en herhalen hun bazen in Teheran, die op topsnelheid doorwerken aan kernwapens, wekelijks dat Israël moet worden vernietigd.

Massale oorlog tegen Israël dichterbij

Het verdwijnen van Moslim-Broederschap president Morsi en het verlies van de Britse steun voor de aanval op Syrië is een enorme opsteker voor Iran en Hezbollah, die de invloed van de VS in heel het Midden Oosten, inclusief in Israël, snel zien afnemen. Bovendien wordt de bewering van de regering in Jeruzalem dat ze niet betrokken is bij de Syrische burgeroorlog door niemand geloofd. Dit zou er op niet al te lange termijn toe kunnen leiden dat Israëls vele vijanden zich aaneensluiten en hun dreigementen de Joodse staat voor eens en altijd te vernietigen zullen proberen waar te maken.

 

Xander

(1) DEBKA

jeudi, 22 août 2013

U.S., Britain and New Big Game in Near East

hezbollah.jpg

U.S., Britain and New Big Game in Near East

Interview with Jeffrey Steinberg

Ex: http://www.geopolitca.ru

1. Please give us a brief review of the contemporary situation in Egypt with respect to the recent government change and the recent riots, in Syria with respect to the ongoing civil war and insurgency, and in Turkey with respect to the recent socio-political crisis encountered by the Erdogan government.

The three situations must be treated as distinct but clearly all part of the same mosaic of change in the region.  Regarding Egypt, more and more evidence is coming out publicly, indicating that the Morsi government was more interested in consolidating absolute Muslim Brotherhood control over the state apparatus than in governing on behalf of the entire Egyptian people.  When somewhere between 10 and 22 million Egyptians turned out on the street on June 30 in a peaceful protest, demanding Morsi’s resignation, the Egyptian generals acted on that popular mandate.  This is an old story in Egypt.  The Army comes out of the Nasser tradition and sees itself as the guardians of the nation.  They had evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood was planning a purge of the top generals, arrests of opposition leaders and a move to consolidate the “Ikhwanization” of the country.  The interaction between the top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Army was intense prior to, during and after the ouster of Morsi.  This is an ongoing process.  Unless the Muslim Brotherhood decides to launch an all-out military campaign to take back power, they will be incorporated into the political process, including the upcoming elections.  Morsi and Khayrat al-Shatar, the power behind the scenes within the Muslim Brotherhood, made the mistake of presuming that the Obama Administration would assure that they remained in power by pressuring the Army to stay in the barracks, regardless of what happened on June 30.  Ultimately, the Muslim Brotherhood failed to live up to the mandate that they were given by the Egyptian people.  General Martin Dempsey, the wise Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff recently observed that modern history has seen very few successful revolutions.  He noted that in almost every instance, except for the American Revolution, the first generation got it wrong, the next generation in power overcompensated and also got it wrong, and the third generation managed to get it mostly right.  We are at the very early stages of the Egyptian revolution.  Economic well-being for the vast majority of Egyptians is the ultimate test.  Egypt has water, which is the most precious commodity in the region, and has the capacity to grow vast amounts of food.  Development projects have been on the drawing board for a long time.  This will be the measure of success of the future governments.

The Syria crisis is a tragedy in almost every respect.  No one involved in the Syria events of the past two-and-a-half years is immune from some responsibility for the bloodshed and the near-total destruction of a nation.  A country that was once a model of communal integration (Sunni, Shiite, Alawite, Kurd, Druze, Christian) and was a birthplace of Christianity has been thoroughly Balkanized into warring factions.  Outside powers played the Syrian situation to their own interests and advantages.  President Obama, declared that President Bashar al-Assad had to go almost two years ago, before receiving any intelligence or military assessments of the situation there.  Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey all jumped into the situation early on, promoting an armed Syrian opposition that was expected to oust President Assad in short order.  Now, Syria is the epicenter of a regional sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shiites/Alawites that has spread to Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan.  The British have been promoting just such a sectarian “Hundred Years War” within the Muslim world as part of a classic Malthusian population reduction campaign.  Saudi hatred for the Syrian Alawites has been exploited by London, assuring that arms and cash have been flowing into the hands of a global Sunni jihadist apparatus.  Now, the Obama Administration is weighing in with covert support for a more “moderate” anti-Assad Free Syrian Army, centered in Jordan.  Weapons that were confiscated after the execution of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya in late 2011 have been smuggled into the hands of Syrian rebels, including the Al Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front since April 2012.  The program has been coordinated out of the Obama White House and managed by the CIA.  President Obama has his own “Iran-Contra” scandal brewing and is attempting to cover up for crimes that have been ongoing for over a year and which could lead to his impeachment.  At one point, the danger of the Syrian crisis triggering a global war prompted US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to attempt to convene a Geneva II peace conference, as a way to avoid the situation slipping totally out of anyone’s control.  That Geneva II option remains the last best hope that further destruction of the entire region, and a possible trigger for general war can be prevented. 

There are some significant parallels between the Erdogan government in Turkey and the recently deposed Morsi Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt.  Since coming into power, Prime Minister Erdogan had pursued a policy of economic and political cooperation with all of Turkey’s neighbors.  That policy served Turkey well for several years, building trade with Russia and Iran, settling Kurdish conflicts involving both Turkey and Syria, and building a strong economic bridge with the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq, without damaging Ankara-Baghdad relations.  When the Syrian protests erupted in early 2011, President Obama urged Prime Minister Erdogan (one of the few foreign heads of state to have any kind of personal relationship with the US President) to “take the lead” in pressing for Assad’s rapid removal from power.  Erdogan presumed that Washington would make good on its demand for Assad’s removal from power.  Given the US role in the overthrow and execution of Qaddafi in Libya, and given the Obama Administration’s strong promotion of humanitarian interventionism and “R2P” (“Responsibility to Protect”), post-Westphalian dogmas permitting a full range of intervention into the internal affairs of formerly sovereign states, Erdogan was not totally foolish in his expectation that Washington would run a replay of Libya in the Eastern Mediterranean and Assad’s days were numbered.  That prospect never materialized, and as the result, the Turkish people are becoming disillusioned with the Erdogan AKP approach.  The Turkish Army, having been a target of Erdogan purges, is becoming restless.  The Turkey situation has become an important piece of the regional disintegration.  Economic and political agreements with Iran, Russia, Syria and even Iraq are now in doubt.  Turkey is facing a period of potential turmoil.  The European economic crisis, far from being solved, will add further fuel to the fire in Turkey.

2. What is nature of the Arab Spring, and how do you see the Arab Spring developing in the future?

There are two dimensions to the Arab Spring that are generally ignored.  First, a combination of economic depravations and political persecution created a “perfect storm” for popular dissatisfaction to spill over into mass action.  In Tunisia, as well as Egypt, a well-educated segment of youth revolted over the fact that they had no prospect for a future in their own country.  The initial impulse was that of a classic “mass strike” when a large percentage of the population concluded that they had nothing left to lose, and they seized upon a symbolic event and launched a public demand for change.  Second, once events on the ground reached a critical mass, external political forces intervened for self-serving reasons.  London wants a permanent war of “each against all” to reduce the population levels in the developing world.  Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two rival Wahhabi monarchies, began pouring money into contending factions of the Islamist opposition and the militaries.  The Obama Administration concluded that the Muslim Brotherhood were the safest representatives of “political Islam” and began backing them in both Egypt and Syria.  The fact that the United States has turned Qatar into a forward-based hub of Washington power projection in the region has, up until the recent change of power in Qatar, meant a combined Doha-Washington backing for the Muslim Brotherhood as the “pragmatic” Islamists.  There is a serious reassessment now underway in Washington.  The outside factors made it impossible for the internal dynamics of Egypt and Syria to come to an understanding about a way forward.  At no time was there adequate outside economic assistance to provide breathing room for a raw political process to evolve.  The standard IMF recipes for economic starvation and “shock therapy” privatization and de-subsidization made matters worse. 

3. What is the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and in Egypt?

Historically, the Muslim Brotherhood was a creation of the Sykes-Picot colonial process and of British intelligence.  The organization evolved, spread, spawned a far more virulent network of more radical jihadists including Al Qaeda.  A long exile in Saudi Arabia, following the Nasser crackdown against the Brotherhood beginning in the 1950s, spawned a new neo-Salafist phenomenon.  When Hafez Assad launched his own harsh crackdown against the Syrian Muslim Brothers in the early 1980s, that led to a second wave migration and exile in Saudi Arabia.  Under the influence of Dr. Bernard Lewis, a British intelligence “Arabist” who is also a leading Zionist, successive American administrations adopted the “Islamic Card” as a tool to bring down the Soviet Union.  The Afghan War of the 1980s saw British and American intelligence deepen the alliance with the Muslim Brothers.  This spawned Al Qaeda and a large number of groups that were foreign fighters brought to Afghanistan as “muhahideen” trained and armed to fight the “Godless” Soviet Red Army.  The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an arm of Al Qaeda created by Afghanzi fighters who returned to Libya after that Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, is exemplary of the spreading neo-Salafist problem that emerged out of the “Bernard Lewis Plan” to play Islam against Communism.  When Communism collapsed in the early 1990s, the West in general and the United States in particular became the “New Satan” to be targeted.  The Obama Administration’s belief that the Muslim Brotherhood was potential allies led to a string of policy blunders and mishaps that are still playing out.  In recent weeks, Washington’s love affair with the Muslim Brotherhood has fractured.  The ouster of the Emir and prime minister of Qatar has weakened the financial support for the Muslim Brotherhood.  It is too early to say what the next phase of the process will look like, but the naïve presumptions about the Muslim Brotherhood are being severely challenged right now.

4. Is there a difference between the policy supported by General Dempsey and Defence Secretary Hagel on the one hand and the State Department and White House forces on the other? If yes, please explain these differences.

There are significant differences.  General Dempsey is a leading figure in a war-avoidance faction inside the governing institutions of the United States.  He has taken a courageous stand, opposing direct US military engagement in Syria.  He wants to bring home the American troops who have been engaged for over a decade in Afghanistan, and he wants to assure that there is never again a long war that drains the armed forces and the nation’s resources of the US.  He has the backing of Defense Secretary Hagel in this quest.  General Dempsey believes that it is a priority to deepen cooperation with Russia and China, the other two leading world military powers.  He judges all military options from a global overview.  The contrasting views inside the Obama Administration are centered at the White House with people like Dr. Susan Rice and the former Special Assistant to the President Samantha Power, now the President’s nominee to replace Rice at the UN.  They are extreme proponents of humanitarian interventionism.  In that respect the “liberal” humanitarian interventionists are soul mates of the neoconservatives of the Bush-Cheney era.  It is ironic but also not surprising that the leading war-avoidance forces in the United States are active duty and retired flag officers of the armed forces, who have lived through the hell of the post-911 long wars and want no more of it.  They are painfully aware that a conflict that pits the United States against Russia and/or China could lead to thermonuclear war and extinction of mankind.  They understand war as Dr. Rice and Samantha Power (and President Obama) do not.

5. What is the role of Israel and of the U.S. Israeli lobby in the contemporary upheaval in the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean in general? 

The Revisionist Zionist Movement, founded by Jabotinsky and now ruling Israel under Netanyahu, is a British colonial creation—part of the divide and conquer strategy that the British and French imposed on the Middle East from the end of World War I.  Israel and the Israeli Lobby, as such, are expendable pawns in the larger British game.  To the extent that Israel has any pretence of being a sovereign state, they have been pursuing a series of tragic self-destructive policies ever since the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 after his historic Oslo Agreement with Yasser Arafat and the PLO.  Without a drastic change in policy, Israel is likely doomed.  The Israeli Lobby is a powerful force in Washington politics but is not all-powerful.  Right now, their focus is on Iran.  Their primary objective is to keep up pressure on President Obama to where he will eventually take military action for regime change in Iran.  That could be a trigger for all-out war, which is exactly what General Dempsey and the rest of the JCS want to avoid at all costs.  Israel was, ironically, sidelined as a minor player in the unfolding events in Egypt and Syria.  There is no good outcome of the Syrian mess from Israel’s standpoint.  They had a truce with the Assad governments in Syria and came close on several occasions to formalizing it in a Camp David-style treaty with Damascus.  Israel may appreciate the benefits of the Syrian Army being gutted, but they do not welcome a Jihadist state on their northern border.  The British will sell out Israel in a heart-beat to pursue their new game of permanent brutal sectarian war within Islam.

6. Which is the strategy of Netanyahu and the Zionist political forces in general in the fields of geopolitics and geoeconomics?

The Netanyahu Zionists want to maintain the status quo of gradual absorbtion of the entirety of the West Bank into a Jewish state.  They will exploit so-called peace negotiations with the Palestinians to stall, as new settlement expansion accelerates by the day.  As pawns of larger forces, including the British, they do not really have a strategic vision.  They have integrated their high-tech aerospace and electronics sector into the United States economy to such an extent that they are defacto the 51st state.  Most Israeli high-tech companies have their stock traded on the NASDAQ exchange in New York. A majority of Israeli Jews are so fed up with the madness dominating Israeli politics that they would prefer to live in the United States.

Interviewed by  Dr Nicolas Laos (member of the faculty of International Relations at the University of Indianapolis, Athens Campus (Greece) and a columnist of the Greek political daily newspaper "Ellada").

 

mercredi, 26 juin 2013

Britanniques et Américains espionnent leurs alliés!

 

breitwandaufmacher-btfj.jpg

Dietmar Holzfeind:

Britanniques et Américains espionnent leurs alliés!

On savait que les Etats-Unis espionnaient leurs alliés! On apprend aujourd’hui que les Britanniques ont adopté les mêmes pratiques! Et à grande échelle!

Chaque jour, de nouvelles informations sont révélées: elles prouvent que, depuis des années, et sans la moindre vergogne, les Etats-Unis et la Grande-Bretagne ont espionné les données professionnelles et privées de tous les ressortissants étrangers, via internet. Cette pratique se poursuit. Ainsi, les Britanniques, à la suite du sommet du G20 de 2009 qu’ils avaient eux-mêmes organisé, ont espionné leurs hôtes, les ont mis sur “table d’écoute”. Les ordinateurs et les communications téléphoniques des hommes d’Etat, des diplomates et de leurs collaborateurs ont été mis sous surveillance; leurs échanges de courriers électroniques ont été enregistrés.

Le service secret britannique GCHQ (“Government Communications Headquarters”) avait, à cette fin, mis en place des “cafés internet” qu’il contrôlait et qu’il louait indirectement aux hôtes du G20, comme s’il s’agissait d’un service spécial. En réalité, c’était une manière plus commode d’accéder directement à leurs données. Le service secret était ainsi en mesure de lire les courriels, expédiés aux participants du sommet, avant même qu’ils ne les lisent eux-mêmes, ou au moins en même temps.

Près de quarante-cinq agents du service secret étaient occupés 24 h sur 24 à recueillir les informations et à les exploiter. Ces agents se seraient également introduits dans les Blackberries et smartphones, “afin d’avoir une vision permamente sur les communications téléphoniques”. Tout a été enregistré avec précision: le service savait où, quand et comment chacun des participants espionnés avait téléphoné, reçu un appel, et ce qui avait été dit. L’exploitation de ces données volées permettait aux ministres britanniques, qui participaient au G20, d’obtenir un avantage stratégique sur leurs “partenaires”.

C’est le quotidien “The Guardian” qui a révélé l’affaire, en se basant sur les documents d’Edward Snowden, l’homme qui a tiré la sonnette d’alarme, il y a quelques jours, en révélant la surveillance à grande échelle à laquelle se livrait le service secret américain NSA. Ces révélations mettront le gouvernement britannique dans l’embarras car il n’a pas seulement fait espionner les communications entre hommes d’Etat et diplomates des pays posés comme “ennemis”, mais aussi celles entre les représentants de ses “alliés” les plus proches! Le ministre turc des finances, Mehmet Simsek, aurait fait l’objet d’une surveillance particulière, de même que quinze autres personnes appartenant à la délégation turque.

La NSA américaine aurait donné au GCHQ britannique des informations relatives à une tentative d’écoute des conversations téléphoniques du Président russe de l’époque, Dimitri Medvedev. La NSA a tenté de déchiffrer les communications satellitaires que le Président russe lançait en direction de Moscou.

On peut aisément s’imaginer que ces révélations ont encore davantage tendu les relations, déjà passablement conflictuelles, entre les Etats-Unis et la Russie. Des hommes politiques en vue de Russie ont d’ores et déjà envisagé d’offrir l’asile politique à Snowden, l’homme par qui le scandale a été révélé. Puisque les services secrets américains violent les lois internationales en surveillant les communications téléphoniques et les échanges de courriels, Snowden est donc un “activiste en faveur des droits civiques”, auquel la Russie est prête à accorder l’asile politique, “même si les Américains piquent pour cela une crise d’hystérie”, a précisé le président de la Commission “Affaires étrangères” de la Douma, Pouchkov, dans un entretien accordé à l’agence Interfax.

Les Chinois aussi ont sévèrement critiqué les Etats-Unis. Selon l’agence de presse officielle Xinhua, les révélations sur ces activités d’espionnage ont démontré, une fois de plus, l’arrogance américaine. “C’est bien là l’image de marque des Etats-Unis —qui ne cessent de parler de démocratie, de liberté et de droits de l’homme—  qui vole en éclats”, dit-on aujourd’hui en Chine.

Comme on pouvait s’y attendre, l’UE et sa Commission, elles, restent timides, réticentes, ne soufflent mot. Lors d’une conférence de presse avec Eric Holder, le Procureur général des Etats-Unis, Viviane Reding, Commissaire européenne à la justice originaire du Luxembourg, a déclaré qu’elle s’engageait à protéger les données des citoyens européens.

Cette déclaration peut paraître bizarre car cette Commissaire, justement, avait naguère édulcoré, sous pression américaine, ses propres propositions en vue d’un règlement visant à protéger les données émanant des ressortissants de l’UE. Cette capitulation, sur les points essentiels du règlement en gestation, s’était faite sans la moindre réciprocité du “Big Brother” de Washington.

Dietmar HOLZFEIND.

(article paru dans “zur Zeit”, Vienne, n°25/2013).

dimanche, 16 juin 2013

Roland Dumas : les Anglais préparaient la guerre en Syrie deux ans avant les manifestations en 2011

 

Roland Dumas : les Anglais préparaient la guerre en Syrie deux ans avant les manifestations en 2011

mercredi, 22 mai 2013

Pas d’orchidées pour Mrs Thatcher !

Pas d’orchidées pour Mrs Thatcher !

Le fossoyeur de l'Angleterre

Auran Derien
Ex: http://metamag.fr/

La spécialité de la finance anglo-saxonne est le mensonge et l’inversion des valeurs.  Au décès de Mrs Thatcher, les perroquets médiatiques autorisés ont voulu nous faire croire qu’elle était la miss Blandish de la politique. Des penseurs plus pénétrants et scrupuleux révèlent qu’elle fut plutôt la Mama Grisson. Revenons à la réalité de son action car nous comprenons mieux ainsi l’horreur de l’Occident contemporain.

La fondatrice du totalitarisme occidental 

 
L’école autrichienne, la pensée de Hayek, n’ont rien à voir avec ce que promeut la globalisation. Les agités du bocal qui donnaient les conseils ou les ordres à Mrs Thatcher n’ont jamais lu ces auteurs. D’ailleurs, ils ne lisent rien. A quoi bon? N’exhalent-ils pas la vérité révélée? Ils se sont contentés d’écouter et d’appliquer les prédications de Milton Friedman, lequel a ratiociné à partir du modèle d’équilibre général. Ça n’a rien de libéral...
 
  
 
La société du spectacle a mis en scène Mrs Thatcher, pour que le public vote en sa faveur. Derrière elle, s’activait en réalité tout un groupe de banquiers et autres fanatiques, à la recherche de politiciens aptes à prendre des mesures qui leur assureraient enfin le statut de gérant du monde pour mille ans. Parmi les créatures qui contrôlaient la pseudo dame de fer, citons le banquier Victor Rothschild (1910-1990) dont le Dr.Tarpley rappelle qu’il servit de spécialiste de la sécurité pour Royal Dutch Shell et qu’il avait formé un think tank dont le gouvernement britannique s’inspirait. Entre lui, Keith Joseph, le cerveau politique, et Alfred Sherman, ils géraient MrsThatcher. Sherman, communiste à l’origine, était allé en Espagne durant la guerre civile. Puis il avait conseillé le premier ministre israélien Ben-Gurion avant de fonder, en 1974, avec Joseph et Thatcher le Center for Policy Studies qui fut le centre de production des idées que prétendit ensuite mettre en œuvre Mme Thatcher, une fois premier ministre. 
 
On voit que l’emballage hayékien ne correspond en rien aux obsessions profondes des employeurs  de Mrs Thatcher. Elle fut mise en orbite pour détruire la société britannique et n’arrêta pas de tourner  en chantant une demi-douzaine de slogans très primitifs basés sur un darwinisme social des plus sordides. Il semble que ce soit  keith Joseph qui ait le plus contribué à une des mesures fondamentales : réduire les salaires des enseignants ;  car pour les trafiquants, la connaissance est inutile voire dangereuse. La population ne doit pas étudier, du moins rien de fondamental. Les enseignants ne doivent pas pouvoir constituer une profession où chacun vit dignement de son salaire. Sinon, la révolution en faveur du soviet de la finance ne serait pas possible. Il faut abattre la culture pour que le bétail de la ferme des animaux suive la caste des chargés de mission du bien en soi…
 
L’accession au pouvoir de cette fausse Miss Blandish ne fut possible qu’avec l’utilisation des méthodes de marketing, importées des USA par l’agence de publicité Saatchi & Saatchi. Elles innovaient dans un contexte de crise sociale déclenchée en 1973 (hausse du pétrole) alors que les prédicateurs économiques de Chicago parcouraient le monde avec l’appui de Kissinger afin de duper le plus de gouvernants possibles. 
 
Thatcher applique les insanités friedmaniennes
 
Pour les riches, l’inflation de l’époque paraissait indésirable car elle favorisait les classes moyennes dont elle amortissait les dettes automatiquement. Aussi, fut-il décidé de prendre au sérieux les élucubrations de Friedman, en bloquant l’offre de monnaie pour démarrer une récession qui créa un chômage massif. La restriction monétaire fit monter la livre et l’industrie commença à disparaître. Seuls les banquiers de la City profitèrent de la livre surévaluée pour s’offrir des actifs à travers le monde…
 

Milton Friedman et Ronald Reagen
 
La réforme fiscale fut aussi brutale. La TVA monta et, face aux critiques de cette politique de néantisation du peuple anglais, il lui fallut chercher une guerre capable de redorer son blason ; de faire naître temporairement autour d’elle un nationalisme factice, trompeur et niais.  Cela lui réussit. La guerre des Malouines, en 1982, fut son tremplin pour une nouvelle période  économique. Appliquant les mesures de Friedman, elle devint naturellement la grande amie du général chilien Pinochet, lui même fanatique partisan des mesures des impenseurs de l’Ecole de Chicago. Elle devait aussi promouvoir Gorbachev, qui fut transformé en coqueluche de l’Occident au fur et à mesure qu’il trahissait le peuple russe. On relira sur ce point l’excellent ouvrage de Alexandre Zinoviev : Perestroika et contre-Perestroika. O.Orban. 1991. “Gorbatchev est devenu le héros de l’occident, qui l’a couvert d’honneurs et de louanges pour ses mérites, non envers l’URSS, mais envers les occidentaux”.
 
L’obsession de “privatiser” en faveur des financiers, seule ligne de conduite permanente de la dame, correspondait-elle à des accords qui liaient la Grande-Bretagne? Fallait-il solder des dettes qui remontaient à la seconde guerre mondiale? Etait-ce une contrepartie aux aides du FMI signées en 1976?  Elle a finalement exercé le rôle de Mama Grisson, organisant le hold-up du siècle sur une contrée désormais victime de la tyrannie obscurantiste d’une bande de financiers parvenus. 
 
La véritable noblesse est morte
 
Mrs Thatcher a détruit un monde à base de solidarités professionnelles pour livrer le tout aux démons de la City. La justification à partir des penseurs autrichiens, notamment Hayek, est totalement erronée. Il n’y a pas et il n’y aura jamais d’ordre cattalactique quand la mafia financière règne. Le discours monétariste et l’obsession des privatisations sont destinés à justifier le vol en faveur de ceux qui se sont préparés pour la grande orgie de pillage. On ne saurait oublier qu’elle a couvert, en 1986, la destruction des règles financières qui assuraient encore un peu d’harmonie dans ces métiers de gangster. 
 
En échange, elle a terminé dans la nouvelle noblesse, celle d’une époque Orwellienne où les voyous s’achètent les titres puisque la dernière véritable noblesse européenne est morte en 1914-1918.

jeudi, 18 avril 2013

Margaret Thatcher, le devoir de haine

thatcher-la-dame-de-fer.jpg

Margaret Thatcher, le devoir de haine

par Claude BOURRINET

Pour le bonheur du monde, du moins son équilibre et sa beauté, il eût cent fois mieux valu que Margaret passât en 1979 dans l’autre monde, en enfer, comme dirait Mélenchon, qu’on ne croyait pas si croyant. Cette année 2013, si triste pourtant, puisqu’elle a vu Chavez disparaître, – une grande perte – est au fond généreuse, puisqu’elle vient de délivrer le royaume de Sa Gracieuse Majesté d’un être pestilentiel. On ne saurait trop s’en réjouir.

Las ! la « Dame » dite « de fer », du métal dont on fait les barreaux de prison, a eu le temps de sévir, et d’emprisonner, d’empoisonner la Grande-Bretagne, l’Europe, et une grande partie de l’univers.

Plusieurs ne sont pas sortis indemnes de cette contamination. La droite « dure », libérale, mondialiste, évidemment. De même l’extrême droite sécuritaire, anticommuniste, néoconservatrice, sioniste et atlantiste, qui se satisferait, en guise de programme, de greffer une paire de couilles à un cerveau reptilien. Mais aussi, de façon plus inquiétante, ceux des patriotes dont on aurait attendu plus de jugeote, et qui considèrent que la mégère décoincée présentait, avec sa morgue cassante et sa sauvagerie désinhibée, tout ce qu’il y avait de plus distingué en guise de patriotisme, « bien qu’ultralibérale ».

L’un des problèmes récurrents de tout ce qui se situe à droite de la droite est que, quoique arborant volontiers les signes éminents de la virilité la plus martiale, on mouille comme n’importe quelle femelle délurée, pourvu qu’en face on agite le gros bâton. Il suffit de démontrer qu’on fait fi de tous ces ridicules scrupules qui ne font qu’affaiblir les maîtres de ce monde pour recueillir tous les suffrages des candidats à la surhumanité.

En l’occurrence, avec Maggie, il ne s’agissait nullement de surhomme, mais de sur-épicier, comme son origine sociale l’y invitait, et une nature calculatrice, mesquine, matérialiste et singulièrement bilieuse.

Le thatchérisme s’est donc emparé des esprits politiques. Tout dirigeant, ou postulant à la direction des peuples, fait dorénavant du Margaret comme monsieur Jourdain faisait de la prose. Même la gauche. Blair l’a reconnu, et à sa suite les « socialistes » français. Avec sans doute un peu de cette tartuferie faux-cul, qui ne seyait pas, il faut le reconnaître, à la Dame de fer. Du thatchérisme flambeur au thatchérisme flamby, si l’on veut. Mais comme la défunte boutiquière l’affirmait, en lorgnant son tiroir-caisse, « il n’y a qu’une seule politique possible : le libéralisme ».

On connaît la chanson.

Pourtant, saisir son destin, n’est-ce cracher à la gueule de la méduse ?

Quelle est l’erreur des patriotes (car les autres, on tire la chasse d’eau sur eux) ?

Thatcher aurait mis au pas les syndicats, qui prenaient en otage les entreprises et ruinaient le pays. Les appareils syndicaux avaient dans beaucoup de secteurs le monopole de l’embauche, et exigeaient l’aide de l’État pour sauver des usines en faillite. Soit.

Replaçons l’enjeu à sa véritable place, qui est l’irrésistible et dévastatrice ascension du néocapitalisme. Les syndicats, les grèves… quelle aubaine pour faire sauter la marmite !

Mais quelle a été la politique d’une nation qui est la patrie d’origine du libéralisme, lequel est fondé sur la doctrine de la « main invisible et infaillible du marché », et sur celle de la nécessaire division du travail à l’échelle mondiale ? C’est de sacrifier tous les secteurs qui peuvent être pris en charge par d’autres régions de la planète. Ce fut d’abord l’agriculture, pour accroître les bagnes industriels, où s’entassèrent des miséreux, l’ancienne paysannerie libre. À l’époque actuelle, c’est l’industrie qu’on délocalise pour que la finance fructifie et que le banquier règne. L’un des principaux paradis fiscaux en Europe et dans le monde, c’est la City. Un nid de frelons. Thatcher a fait d’une partie de sa patrie une nation de rentiers, d’actionnaires et de propriétaires avaricieux, captivés par la bourse, et se souciant comme d’une guigne de l’avenir de la société. Une corruption massive.

La société ? Mais ça n’existe pas ! assurait sentencieusement Thatcher. Il n’est que des individus qui travaillent, accumulent, jouissent de leurs gains. Le retour aux sources libérales dans sa pureté suprême. L’antithèse absolue d’un autre Anglais, George Orwell, qui pensait qu’une existence ne pouvait se passer d’obligations sociales, de solidarité, de considération des autres, de générosité et d’un minimum de sacrifice pour que le Bien commun prévale sur l’égoïsme dévastateur.

Car c’est bien un champ de ruine qu’a laissé l’Attila des marchés après onze ans d’agressif délire libéral. Des millions de chômeurs, la misère, une dérégulation tous azimuts, un service public cassé, un enseignement dévalué, un gouffre entre le Nord et le Sud. Un chef d’État, un homme politique responsable doit-il considérer son propre peuple comme ennemi ? En fanatique qu’elle était, comme le sont d’ailleurs tout autant les oligarques européens qui mènent la politique économique actuelle en doctrinaires, Thatcher a préféré démolir que construire.

Comme elle a détruit la vie de partisans, héroïques, de républicains irlandais chers à notre cœur, dont la faute inexpiable était de lutter pour leur patrie : Bobby Sands (I.R.A.), 27 ans, meurt le 5 mai 1981 après 66 jours de grève de la faim, Francis Hughues (I.R.A.), 25 ans, meurt le 12 mai 1981 après 59 jours de grève de la faim, Raymond McCreesh (I.R.A.), 24 ans, meurt le 21 mai 1981 après 61 jours de grève de la faim, Patsy O’Hara (I.N.L.A.), 23 ans, meurt le 21 mai 1981 après 61 jours de grève de la faim, Joe McDonnell (I.R.A.), 30 ans, meurt le 8 juillet 1981 après 61 jours de grève de la faim, Martin Hurson (I.R.A.), 29 ans, meurt le 12 juillet 1981 après 46 jours de grève de la faim, Kevin Lynch (I.N.L.A.), 25 ans, meurt le 1er août 1981 après 71 jours de grève de la faim, Kieran Doherty (I.R.A.), 25 ans, meurt le 2 août 1981 après 73 jours grève de la faim, Thomas McElvee (I.R.A.), 23 ans, meurt le 8 août 1981 après 62 jours grève de la faim, Michael Devine (I.N.L.A.), 27 ans, meurt le 20 août 1981 après 60 jours de grève de la faim…

Paix à leur âme et leur souvenir sera à jamais gravé dans notre mémoire.

Quel oxymore plaisant, du reste, que l’expression « patriotisme libéral » ? Car, tout en étant disciple des néocons Hayek, Popper, Friedman, elle aurait défendu les intérêts de son pays. Quelle blague ! Son euroscepticisme ? En fait, du chantage, tout simplement, pour, finalement, à force de coups de boutoir, d’entrisme opportun, de vociférations vulgaires, de contournements perfides, et, il faut le dire, pas mal de complicités dans la place, parvenir à transformer l’Europe-Puissance en grand marché ouvert à quatre vents, ce que la Grande- Bretagne a toujours ambitionné qu’elle fût. Les Malouines ? Une stratégie cynique et criminelle pour récupérer quelque popularité après l’échec de sa politique économique. Le nationalisme british ? L’Angleterre est devenue, ou a achevé de l’être, une sous-colonie américaine, et les Anglais un chenil. Notre avenir, en quelque sorte.

En vérité, comme chacun sait, le libéralisme, même affublé (on se demande pourquoi) du préfixe « ultra », qui suggérerait qu’il existât deux espèces de libéralismes, n’est pas, ne peut être un patriotisme. Le seul attachement qu’un libéral puisse éprouver pour le territoire qui l’a vu éventuellement naître, et pour la nation dont il serait formellement un membre, est du même acabit que celui qui lie un cadre dynamique à son entreprise, ou au groupe international dont elle est une filiale. Pour le reste, l’argent n’a ni odeur, ni saveur, et ne connaît pas les frontières ni les identités.

Thatcher apparaît donc comme un marqueur idéologique. Haïr ce genre d’individu monstrueux, programmé pour abolir les peuples et faire triompher Mammon, promouvoir le culte du Veau d’Or et bousiller tout ce qui échappe au fric, est non seulement salubre – un signe de santé – mais terriblement nécessaire pour envisager un jour la victoire. Respecter cette putréfaction, voire l’admirer, c’est se considérer d’ores et déjà comme battus.

Claude Bourrinet

• D’abord mis en ligne sur Vox N.-R., le 10 avril 2013.


Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=3058

 

dimanche, 14 avril 2013

Les services secrets britanniques dominent le commerce de la drogue

trafdrog.jpg

Les services secrets britanniques dominent le commerce de la drogue

Ex: http://linformationnationaliste.hautetfort.com/

Article de Laurent Glauzy en exclusitivé pour Contre-info

Le commerce de la drogue est dominé et géré à l’échelle mondiale par les agences d’espionnage. Dans cette activité illicite et criminelle, l’Intelligence britannique règne en souveraine. Le M15 et le MI-6 contrôlent avec la City de Londres plusieurs agences d’espionnage à l’instar de la CIA et du MOSSAD.

Entre 1995 et 1999, James Casbolt travaille pour le MI-6 dans des opérations occultes de trafics de cocaïne avec l’Armée républicaine irlandaise (IRA) et le MOSSAD. Les propos de cet ancien agent sont d’autant plus fondés que son père Peter Casbolt servait le MI-6 et travaillait avec la CIA et la Mafia italienne dans les réseaux internationaux de cocaïne.

Dans son livre Agent Buried Alive (agent enterré vif), paru en 2008, James Casbolt, ancien commandant des services d’espionnage britanniques explique que la distinction de tous ces groupes est à tel point nuancée que l’on trouve in fine un groupe unique travaillant aux mêmes objectifs. James Casbold certifie : « Nous étions des marionnettes dont les cordes étaient tirées par des marionnettistes à l’échelle planétaire. Leur siège se situait à la City »[1] [2]. Il souligne que la CIA a importé la majeure partie de la drogue en Amérique dans les années 1950, et qu’elle œuvre aux ordres de l’espionnage britannique. Pour sa part, le MI-6 aurait introduit 90 % de la drogue en Grande-Bretagne. L’agence de renseignement américaine a été créée à cet effet en 1947. James Casbold explique qu’elle dépend de la City et des familles aristocratiques composant l’élite mondiale, à savoir les Rothschild et les Windsor.

Toujours selon James Casbold, ces opérations sont réalisées par le biais de structures terroristes. Car le MI-6 importe l’héroïne du Moyen-Orient, la cocaïne de l’Amérique du Sud et le cannabis du Maroc. Dans les années 1950, l’Intelligence britannique produit le LSD au sein du Tavistock Institute de Londres[3]. Dans les années 1960, le MI-6 et la CIA utilisent ce psychotrope hallucinogène pour transformer une jeunesse rebelle en des sujets défoncés et pacifistes, incapables de mener une vraie révolution.

Le Dr Timothy Leary, le gourou du LSD des années 1960, est un tireur de ficelles entre les mains de la CIA. Les fonds monétaires et la drogue pour la recherche de Leary proviennent de la CIA. Leary témoigne que Cord Meyer, un des responsables de la CIA, subventionnait la contre-culture du LSD dans les années 1960, afin d’opérer un changement culturel radical. James Cosbald rapporte qu’en 1998 le MI-5 a envoyé à son père trois mille doses de LSD sur du papier buvard frappé de la représentation du drapeau européen. En guise de discrétion, le LSD est d’ailleurs appelé « Europa ». L’agent qui en a effectué le transport, travaillait pour une entreprise du gouvernement.

Le trafic mondial de la drogue constitue une manne d’au moins 500 milliards de livres par an, en plus du pétrole et de l’armement. Ces trois activités seraient-elles sous la coupe des mafias, des Etats ou des agences de renseignement ? Le 5 août 2008, le patron de la mafia américaine John Gotti est arrêté et emprisonné suite à des accusations d’implication dans un énorme trafic de cocaïne et pour les meurtres de trois hommes. Lors de son procès, il expose : « Non, nous ne pouvons pas rivaliser avec le gouvernement ».

Pour James Casbold, il s’agit d’une demi-vérité parce que la mafia et la CIA, au niveau le plus élevé, constituent un seul groupe profitant du commerce de la drogue. Il soutient que les capitaux de la drogue du MI-6 sont notamment recyclés par la Banque d’Angleterre, la Barclays Bank et d’autres entreprises en lien avec des familles princières hors de tout soupçon. Cette réalité est également dénoncée par l’écrivain néerlandais Robin de Ruiter, dans Les 13 lignées sataniques, publié en 2012.

L’argent de la drogue passe de compte en compte jusqu’a ce que son origine se perde dans un entrelacs de transactions. « L’argent de la drogue sort plus propre, mais non totalement blanc. Les familles qui gèrent ce buisines, comme les Oppenheimer, utilisent cet argent pour acquérir des diamants. Quand ils sont vendus, l’argent de la drogue devient propre », souligne James Casbold. Il poursuit en argumentant qu’en 1978, le MI-6 et la CIA étaient présents en Amérique du Sud pour étudier les effets du « basuco », « restes ». Cette drogue redoutable, une des plus mortelles, détruit une personne en moins de deux ans. James Casbold constate que le potentiel d’accoutumance est de très loin supérieur à celui de la cocaïne ordinaire. Le MI-6 et la CIA en submergent la Grande-Bretagne et l’Amérique. Deux ans après, en 1980, la Grande-Bretagne et l’Amérique commencent à voir les premiers signes de la diffusion du « basuco » dans la rue.

Le 23 août 1987, dans une communauté rurale implantée au sud de Little Rock, dans l’Arkansas, deux garçons mineurs, Kevin Ives et Don Henry, sont assassinés : ils sont témoins d’une transaction de cocaïne opérée par la CIA dans un petit aéroport de Mena, dans cet Etat du sud américain. Bill Clinton est alors gouverneur de l’Arkansas. James Casbold développe cet évènement : « A cette époque, Bill Clinton est impliqué [dans cette affaire] avec la CIA. Une valeur de 100 millions de dollars de cocaïne transitait alors par l’aéroport de Mena. La drogue était ensuite écoulée en Grande-Bretagne. (…) Mon père rencontrait des bateaux provenant du Maroc dans la Costa del Sol et transportait les charges de chanvre par camion ».

Son père est devenu héroïnomane dans les dernières années de sa vie : « Il est mort drogué et pauvre, en prison, dans des circonstances très étranges ». Il avance que « les agences d’espionnage utilisent la drogue comme une arme contre les masses pour faire accepter leur programme sur le long terme : un unique gouvernement mondial, une unique force de police mondiale, œuvre pour laquelle a été désignée l’OTAN, et une population fichée par micro-puce ».

James Casbold argue que les organismes et les personnalités de ce secteur doivent être démasqués :

1) Tibor Rosenbaum, agent du MOSSAD, est le directeur de la banque du Crédit international ayant son siège à Genève. Cette banque est le précurseur de la célèbre Banque de crédit et du Commerce international (BCCI). Elle constitue une des principales branches pour le blanchiment de la l’argent de la drogue. La revue Life a présenté la banque de Rosenbaum comme une entreprise de recyclage de l’argent et du crime organisé. Le mafieux américain Meyer Lanksky et Tibor Rosenbaum ont fondé Permindex, l’unité de choc du MI-6 ayant servi dans l’assassinat de John Kennedy.

2) Robert Vesco, subventionné par la branche suisse des Rothschild, est impliqué dans la connexion américaine collaborant avec le cartel de la drogue de Medellin, en Colombie.

3) Sir Francis de Guingand, général de l’armée britannique, ancien chef du MI-5 et du MI-6, et qui a vécu en Afrique du Sud, collaborait au commerce de la drogue.

4) Henry Keswick est le président de Jardine Matheson Holdings Ltd. Fondée en 1832 et ayant son siège à Hong-Kong, cette entreprise participe au commerce de l’opium dans les années 1840. Selon James Casbold, Jardine Matheson Holdings Ltd est à la tête des plus grandes opérations de trafic de drogue se produisant dans le monde. Son frère John Keswick est président de la Banque d’Angleterre.

5) Sir Martin Wakefield Jacomb, vice président en 1985 de la Barclays Bank, directeur en 1986 du journal The Telegraph (il fut épargné par les mass media. Les agents qui perpétuent ces crimes possèdent la majeure partie des mass media. En Amérique, l’ancien directeur de la CIA, William Casey, fut le président du conseil d’administration de la chaîne ABC).

6) George Bush Senior, ancien chef de la CIA et 41e Président des Etats-Unis de 1989 à 1993, fut le principal baron de la drogue. Ses interventions conduites en Amérique du Sud contre les Cartels servirent à éliminer toute concurrence. Le journaliste d’investigation Gary Webb, auteur du livre Dark alliance, fut retrouvé mort avec deux impacts de balles derrière la tête. La police conclut à un suicide. Le journaliste avait découvert que les capitaux tirés de la drogue provenaient d’« opérations occultes » servant à financer des projets classifiés « top secret ». Selon Casbold, ces projets incluent la construction de bases souterraines militaires à Dulce dans le Nouveau Mexique, Pine Gap, Snowy Mountains en Australie, Nyala Range en Afrique, à l’ouest de Kindu en Afrique à côté de la frontière égypto-libyenne, au Mont Blanc en Suisse, à Narvik en Scandinavie, sur l’île de Gottland en Suède et en de nombreux autres lieux autour du monde. Des projets servant très certainement à une mise en fonction du Nouvel ordre mondial.

[1] Egalement ancien du MI-6, le Dr John Coleman, dans sa revue World in Review, explique cette symbiose des services de renseignements internationaux et que l’ancien KGB et la CIA travaillait en collaboration. Il développe la théorie selon laquelle l’organisation des Frères musulmans serait noyauté par la franc-maçonnerie britannique dans le but de contenir le Moyen-Orient dans une situation de sous-développement afin que ses ressources énergétiques continuent à être pillées par la Grande-Bretagne.

[2] The Guardian du 14/5/09 affirme que les pirates de Somalies appartenant à des réseaux islamistes, attaquent les bateaux étrangers dans le golfe d’Eden et disposent d’un armement et de moyens de communication ultrasophistiqués. Ils disposaient aussi d’informateurs bien placés au sein de la City de Londres (cf. L. Glauzy, Atlas de géopolitique révisée. Chroniques 2003-2010, Editions des Cimes, 2011, p. 301).

[3] Cf. : Laurent Glauzy, Illuminati : de l’industrie Rock à Walt Disney, les arcanes du satanisme, Maison du Salat, 2012

mercredi, 21 novembre 2012

Londres refuse de prêter ses bases aux Etats-Unis

Ferdinando CALDA:

Londres refuse de prêter ses bases aux Etats-Unis pour toutes opérations contre l’Iran

 

Le gouvernement britannique se souvient de ses déboires irakiens: il sait désormais que toute attaque préventive viole le droit international

 

xin_58030224084311104011.jpgLondres vient de rejeter le requête de Washington: les Etats-Unis ne pourront pas utiliser les bases militaires britanniques pour d’éventuelles actions contre l’Iran. Les Britanniques avancent pour argument que toute attaque préventive contre Téhéran constituerait une violation du droit international, vu que la République Islamique ne représente pas, ajoutent-ils, une “menace claire et immédiate”. C’est du moins ce qu’écrit le “Guardian”, qui cite des sources gouvernementales britanniques. Selon le célèbre quotidien, Washington aurait demandé à pouvoir utiliser les bases militaires britanniques de Chypre, celles de l’Ile de l’Ascension (au milieu de l’Atlantique) et de Diego Garcia dans l’Océan Indien. A la suite de cette requête américaine, Londres aurait commandé une sorte d’audit légal au Procureur général du Royaume, puis à Downing Street, au Foreign Office et au ministère de la Défense. “La Grande-Bretagne violerait le droit international si elle venait en aide à une opération qui équivaudrait à une attaque préventive contre l’Iran”, a déclaré un haut fonctionnaire britannique au “Guardian”; et il ajoute: “le gouvernement a utilisé cet argument pour rejeter les demandes américaines”.

 

D’autres sources ont souligné que la requête des Etats-Unis n’était pas formelle mais qu’elle constituait toutefois un signal, annonçant un conflit imminent. Il s’agirait plutôt de sonder les positions du gouvernement britannique. La réponse de Londres a certainement fait l’effet d’un coup de tonnerre dans un ciel serein. L’une des sources du “Guardian” aurait par ailleurs déclaré: “Je crois que les Etats-Unis ont été assez surpris que les ministres (britanniques) se soient montrés si réticents à donner anticipativement les garanties nécessaires pour ce type d’assistance”. Et cette source explique: “On aurait pu s’attendre à ce que l’opposition vienne des libéraux-démocrates seulement mais elle a trouvé des voix chez les conservateurs également”.

 

Comme le note encore le “Guardian” dans un autre article, l’opposition du gouvernement britannique à accorder son appui inconditionnel au renforcement de la présence militaire américaine dans la région du Golfe Persique montre clairement que les leçons tirées de la guerre d’Irak de 2003 sont encore très présentes dans les esprits à Londres. A cause de l’appui qu’il avait apporté à l’invasion américaine de l’Irak, l’ancien premier ministre Tony Blair avait dû rendre des comptes devant les juges pour avoir répété les bobards quant aux “armes de destruction massive” de Saddam Hussein. Cette fois, souligne le “Guardian”, la Grande-Bretagne a pris des positions claires: elle n’accordera aucun blanc-seing et prendra ses décisions en toute autonomie quand il s’agira de distinguer ce qui est légal de ce qui ne l’est pas.

 

Cela ne signifie pas pour autant qu’il existe des différences substantielles entre les vues adoptées à Londres et à Washington sur le dossier iranien. Ni sur la nécessité ou l’opportunité d’une intervention militaire. Tant les commandants militaires américains que leurs homologues britanniques, ainsi que les Israéliens et les Iraniens, sont tous convaincus qu’une action militaire, quelle qu’elle soit, aura des conséquences dangereuses dans toute la zone (et même au-delà) et risquerait bien de se révéler contre-productive: Téhéran ne renoncera pas pour autant à son programme nucléaire. Personne cependant n’ose courir le risque de se retrouver impréparé au cas où la situation dégénèrerait. Pour ce qui concerne les Britanniques, il n’y a qu’une dizaine des bâtiments de la marine royale qui croisent actuellement dans le Golfe Persique, y compris un sous-marin nucléaire.

 

La principale inconnue, pour le moment, reste les actions menées par Israël, où, depuis quelques mois, le gouvernement de Benjamin Netanyahu jette constamment de l’huile sur le feu et vicie le climat déjà fort tendu par sa rhétorique tissée de menaces. Depuis les présidentielles américaines, les analystes prévoient une nouvelle série d’initiatives diplomatiques mais aussi que tout nouvel échec (que l’on escompte pourtant pas...) donnerait prétexte aux Israéliens de frapper l’Iran. Et là, si l’Iran riposte en focalisant ses tirs de manière proportionnée sur Israël seul, Washington et ses alliés pourrait difficilement justifier une intervention militaire contre l’Iran devant le droit international. Tant Obama que Romney, les deux candidats à la présidence, ont, pendant la campagne électorale, assuré leur soutien total à Israël en cas d’attaque iranienne. Mais Londres, qui se souvient de ses déboires irakiens, pourrait éprouver des réticences à violer une fois de plus les règles du droit international.

 

Ferdinando CALDA.

( f.calda@rinascita.eu ; articla paru dans “Rinascita”, 27 octobre 2012; http://rinascita.eu/ ).

dimanche, 14 octobre 2012

Derek Turner Interviewed by Craig Bodeker

Derek Turner Interviewed by Craig Bodeker

 

jeudi, 26 avril 2012

Jonathan Bowden, RIP

Jonathan Bowden, RIP


Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com/

This morning, I was devastated to learn of the death of Jonathan Bowden, the orator, artist, novelist, and writer.  Life on this earth is fleeting, and I am grateful for the fact that over the past three months, I collaborated with Jonathan on a series of podcasts that covered many of his intellectual passions, from  Nietzsche to the New Right to Spengler to Marx.

Around three weeks ago, we were planning an additional one on Ernst Jünger, when I suddenly lost touch with Jonathan.  Knowing he had suffered a breakdown in the past, I felt a definite angst as I would ring his number and receive no answer... In the end, my worst fears were realized.  According to a person close to him, who relayed the news to me, Jonathan succumbed to a cardiac arrest while at his home in Berkshire.

I first encountered Jonathan in 2009 at a conference at which he was the keynote speaker. We met over lunch on the day before he was to talk, and my impression at the time was of a man who was soft-spoken,  professorial, reserved, and a maybe a bit queer. He wore a necklace with a Life Rune etched into a wooden medallion, which gave hints of what was to come...

When Jonathan’s turn at the podium came the next evening, he strode confidently to the stage and announced, in a resonate and booming Heldentenor, that he would not be needing a microphone. Immediately, everyone in the room was on the edge of his seat. What followed was not a talk on a particular topic or issue, but instead a expression of a worldview—or perhaps a channelling of the life-force or the evoking of a demonic spirit.  As Louis Andrews noted afterwards, Jonathan Bowden’s doesn’t give talks or speeches; he gives orations. Perhaps a better descriptor would be performances.

In our age of CGI, virtual reality, and YouTube, it’s easy to forget the power of presence—of experiencing a great performer in person. Experiencing Bowden in 2009 has, for everyone who was there, been much like experiencing Maria Callas singing a Verdi heroine or an address by Mussolini from a Roman balcony. 

And while the first oration I heard was on nothing less than everything—the spiritual, geopolitical, and social condition of Western man in the 21st century—Jonathan could also speak on philosophic and historical topics with a scholar’s discernment and breadth of knowledge, as evidenced by our podcasts.  Indeed, I know of no other person who could combine Bowden’s gifts as a performer with a familiarity with the Western canon one would expect only in a monk.

When I eventually read Jonathan’s novels, I found them to be on the level of Finnegan’s Wake in terms of esoteric, cryptic complexity. On the other hand, in his public engagements, Jonathan could boil down to an essence the thought of difficult thinkers, such as Heidegger and Evola, and present their ideas in ways that were useful to nationalists.  

Though the two of us would have personal conversations, I never felt that I actually knew Jonathan, owing, no doubt, to his distant nature and the fact that I was always intimidated by the fire-breather I had encountered some two years earlier. Nevertheless, Jonathan deeply affected my thinking and I treasure our friendship, as short-lived and limited as it was.

I hope it is not an insult to Jonathan Bowden’s memory to say that he always lived on the edge of madness. This was the source of his power, and it seems to have predestinated that he would have all-too short a life.

Jonathan cannot be replaced, and his words will continue to inspire us. But as we weep, Valhalla rejoices.

 
Richard Spencer

Richard Spencer

A former assistant editor at The American Conservative and executive editor at Taki's Magazine (takimag.com), Richard B. Spencer is the founder and co-editor of AlternativeRight.com

Remembering Jonathan Bowden

bowden.jpg

Remembering Jonathan Bowden

By Greg Johnson

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

The word on the web is that Jonathan Bowden, the formidable British right-wing orator, modernist painter, and surrealist novelist, is dead of a heart attack at age 49.

I hope instead that Jonathan is just the victim of a terrible online prank. (Lies have been spread about him before.) Or maybe he is playing a prank of his own. If anybody I know could fake his own death, it is Jonathan. I hope he is reading his obituaries right now . . . and roaring with laughter.

I first met Jonathan in Atlanta in October of 2009 while I was the Editor of The Occidental Quarterly. I was organizing a private gathering for TOQ writers and supporters, and I wanted Michael Walker to give the keynote address.

Unfortunately, the final decision fell to somebody who had been completely upstaged by Walker at the 2008 American Renaissance Conference. So, perhaps on the assumption that one Englishman should be as good as another, I was informed that the speaker would be Jonathan Bowden, someone I had never even heard of, much less heard speak. But I was assured that he had an excellent reputation as an orator.

I looked at Bowden’s website and had a good chuckle, imagining how his Nietzscheanism, paganism, and aggressive aesthetic modernism would play in the Bible Belt.

I liked Jonathan’s paintings enough to end up buying two of them and commissioning two more. But I thought his works of fiction were unreadable. The essays he had online, moreover, seemed half-baked. (He was later to write much better ones for Counter-Currents, but it was never his forte.) At the time, I had not seen his YouTube videos, and I foolishly inferred from his writings that he could not be much of a speaker — which, I suspected, was the real reason he had been invited.

The afternoon before the meeting, I received a panicked call from Jonathan. He was at the Atlanta Airport. The individual who was supposed to pick him up was more than 40 minutes late. Jonathan’s mobile phone did not work in the US, and the tardy party was not answering his, so he had no idea what to do. I gave Jonathan my address and told him to jump in a cab.

About 40 minutes later, Jonathan arrived in good cheer. He was wearing a rumpled black suit and tie. Around his neck was a wooden pendant inscribed with an Odal rune. He asked me how I thought it would go over in Atlanta. I suggested that if anyone asks, he simply declare it to be the sign of the fish.

He wore thick spectacles, but when he wanted to read something, he would study it under a magnifying glass he drew from his pocket.

[2]

Jonathan Bowden, "Adolf and Leni"

When he spoke, he gestured dramatically with a long, thin cardboard box labeled “Samurai Sword – Made in Taiwan.” I joked that it must have been a hit at airport security. Then he opened it up, and, with a flourish, unrolled two watercolors that I had purchased from him, “Adolf and Leni” and “Savitri Diva.”

“This is going to be interesting,” I thought.

What impressed me most about Jonathan was not his diverting eccentricity, but his intelligence, vast reading, and devastating wit.

On his own, he could be quiet and pensive. His face would take on an impassive mask-like quality, enlivened only by a penetrating, sometimes unsettling gaze. But when Jonathan had the right kind of audience, he would come alive. He had an endless supply of interesting stories, often told with hilarious impressions. He was one of the funniest, most brilliant, and most intellectually stimulating people I have ever known.

When the night of Jonathan’s speech came, I asked him what he was going to talk about. He said that he had no idea. My stomach tightened. “This is going to be really interesting,” I thought.

Mike Polignano has already told the story of how when Jonathan took the stage, he swept aside the shrieky, malfunctioning microphone and filled a ballroom with his unamplified voice, speaking extemporaneously and fluently for two hours. Jonathan’s speech that night was quite simply the greatest speech I had ever heard. He upstaged all of creation that day.

Naturally, he was not invited back. (He was invited to speak at American Renaissance and the National Policy Institute, although he cancelled both times.)

When Mike Polignano and I started Counter-Currents in June of 2010, Jonathan was very supportive. He wrote 27 original articles and reviews [3] for Counter-Currents. (He also wrote eight more pieces for Counter-Currents under a pseudonym.) He told me that he wrote most of these pieces from memory. He would go to a local public library where he could use a computer for an hour at a time, and he would write an essay as if it were a timed university examination. We discussed publishing a collection of essays on fascistic themes in popular literature to be entitled Pulp Fascism.

There were periods when Jonathan wrote for us weekly, but then he would turn his attention to literary projects. Many of these were available as free E-books on his website, which is no longer online. If anybody has copies of these E-books, we will be glad to make them available from Counter-Currents.

The last thing Jonathan wrote for us, just three days before his reported death on March 29, was a blurb for Kerry Bolton’s Artists of the Right.

The last time I saw Jonathan was in February of this year. We flew him out to San Francisco to speak at a gathering of Counter-Currents writers and friends. Jonathan was in high spirits during his visit to the Bay Area. He was bursting with ideas, plans, and funny stories. His speech, “Western Civilization Bites Back,” is available here [4] in recorded and transcribed form. I also recorded a two hour interview with him about art and culture, which I will make available if it can be recovered from a damaged flash drive.

[5]

Jonathan Bowden, "Medusa Now Ventrix"

He brought me a third painting, “Medusa Now Ventrix,” and accepted a commission to do a fourth (to be entitled “Meat in the Walls”). (He charged me mere tokens — “friend prices.”)

Jonathan Bowden was an enormous asset to our cause, and we at Counter-Currents did everything we could to encourage and aid him in making the most of his talents. The same donor who made possible the trip also allowed us to buy Jonathan a new laptop to make it easier for him to write, and Mike Polignano tutored him on how to use it. We also gave him a podcasting kit, hoping that he would start doing weekly shows.

But his time ran out.

Forty-nine years is not enough time. But we can take some solace in the fact that Jonathan spent his time well: he lived, created, and spoke in the light of the truth as he saw it. That is a fuller, richer life than 99 years of lies, compromise, cowardice, and conventionality.

When I heard that Jonathan had died, I remarked to a friend, “If it is true, we all have to work harder.” But another friend pointed out that this presupposed that we could take Jonathan’s place, and we can’t. He is an irreplaceable talent. All we can do is rejoice in the time he spent with us, and make the most of the time we have remaining. Forty-nine isn’t that far off for a lot of us. We have a world to win. Let’s make every moment count.

 


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/04/remembering-jonathan-bowden/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/bowden7.jpg

[2] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/adolf_and_leni.jpg

[3] 27 original articles and reviews: http://www.counter-currents.com/author/jbowden//

[4] here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/03/jonathan-bowdens-western-civilization-bites-back/

[5] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/bowden4.jpg

mardi, 06 mars 2012

Jonathan Bowden’s “Western Civilization Bites Back”

New Podcast!
Jonathan Bowden’s “Western Civilization Bites Back”

 Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

To download the mp3, right-click here [2] and choose “save link as.”

To subscribe to our podcasts, click here [3].

Editor’s Note:

This is an unedited transcript of an extemporaneous talk.

Well I don’t really speak to a topic, but you need something to fasten your mind on when you’re engaged in a speech. Speeches are about energy, and are about power, and about how you utilize power and how you channel it. I’m what’s called a mediumistic speaker, so I hear the voice instant by instant before I speak, and when you stand up you hear what you’re going to say a fraction of a second before it comes out of your mouth. What I’d like to talk about is Western civilization and how we can save it.

Now the crisis of the West is ongoing and everybody knows what it is. In the circumstances of the United States — I’ve only ever been here twice — the prognosis for decay is well-advanced. The people who created the United States are on the defensive: they’re on the defensive psychologically, and emotionally, and linguistically, and culturally. People are comfortable, at least those that are, and a lot hit by recession but everyone is worried about what the future will hold. Demographically, the people in this room could well be a minority in 40 years, maybe less than 40 years, maybe more than 40 years, maybe it doesn’t matter if it’s 40 years or 44 or 64 or 35.

What matters is that you’ve become a minority now. You’ve become a minority mentally, because these things happen to people mentally and psycho-spiritually before they have a physical impact. I think people are preparing to be a minority now, long before it happens. I was well aware that President Bill Clinton was once asked about his commitment to political correctness, and he said whites NEED political correctness. He said White Europeans, White Americans need it because they’re going to be a minority relatively soon, and you need to play all of those vanguard games whereby you play off each group against every other group, you make sure that your protest is in early whenever you’re insulted, or you feel there’s the prospect that you might be insulted

And an insult in this trajectory, in this terrain can mean anything. It can mean the denial of future prospect that you might have expected to own and honor. It can be the denial of something which is your right as you perceive it. Your right to dominate the cultural space here in the United States. That the United States is a post-European society. That all of its architecture — Judeo-Christian and otherwise — seems to have the impress of old Europe upon it. I speak as a European obviously, who doesn’t know the United States that well. But everything that’s glorious about the United States is largely created by the people in this room, and those to whom they relate.

Now, the problem that we’re finding is that people are giving away the inheritance that they brought up. It’s as if you have a family business, and you’ve inherited it from a grandfather, and you inherit it from a father, and you have this patriarchal chain of hard work and understanding and excellence and fulfillment, and it comes down to you through the generational sort of structures of the past — and you decided to give it away. You decided to squander it.

It’s very reminiscent of the aristocratic families in Europe: in the era before the Great War, there were big blowouts in aristocracy where people would gamble away their entire fortune, because they were bored. Because they were bored with the Third Republic’s lifestyle, in French terms, in Francophone terms, of endless summers in the sun where people were pining for the destruction which Europeans would wreak on themselves in the Great War, the War that was to end all wars: a war of such manifold destructiveness that people didn’t think there would be another one, and yet within a generation there was another one that was even more destructive.

And that war is the crucial event of the last century, because everything that exists now is a rebounded correction, as it’s perceived, of that struggle and what occurred in it. Even in the United States, it’s almost as if we as a group won that war and lost that war simultaneously, irrespective of what side our forebears fought on. In the United States you fought against Nazi Germany, you fought against Fascist Italy, you fought against Imperial Japan in the Pacific theater, and yet in a strange way you’re the losers of that war. You’ve turned into the apostates of that war, retrospectively, and you’ve partly done it to yourselves, as all continental European people and post-European people have all over the world. That war has been wrenched out of history, and is used as an ideological totem in relation to everything that occurs.

Whether or not the next 18 months or the next six months we’re going to see an attack on Iran, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, is in its own way an extension of post-1945 events. In all sorts of ways, the attack in Iraq which occurred a couple of years ago had as much to do in many people’s minds with the symmetries and the re-symmetries, of the 1939 through ’45 conflicts and everything that resulted from it, then it had anything to do with the dictator in the Iraqi desert. He was a Sunni nationalist, and he held the Kurds down in the North and the Shia down in the South, and America invaded — you remember all this? – America invaded in order to remake the world safe for democracy!

There’s no democracy in Iraq now. All that’s happened is the Sunnis have lost power and the Shias have come up, and the great new hatred, which is Iran, dominates post-war Iraq. America launched a war that cost $2 trillion in order to bring to power Iranian sponsorship and Iranian surrogates inside Iraq. So you have the odd situation now that Iran manifests power through conquered Iraq, conquered under American guns and aegis, with a bit of support from Britain in the South, where the Shia and oil are, and that power that Shia arc of power runs through Iraq: to Lebanon and the Israeli border.

And you’ll find that all of these disputes are intimately connected with the society that was created in 1948 in Israel, and which didn’t exist before. And the need to keep that society safe, the need to watch out for it, the need to prize open this prospect of villainy against it, the need to go to war –conceptually and actually — anyone against anyone who might threaten it in the future, nevermind in the present.

This war, if it ever were to occur with Iran, has been looming for many years. Many years. Ahmadinejad’s speech has almost nothing to do with the Iranian desire to destroy Israel, per se, although you could argue that an extraordinarily foolish speech in many respects. But all he said in Farsi was that the society that was created falsely, and to the detriment of the Palestinians, should cease to exist within world history. Which is a pretty nebulous and “student-fist-in-the-air” sort of speech, but it’s been seized upon to deny the Iranians the prospect of nuclear weapons and to enable the West, through the United States, in yet more warfare: more warfare for peace.

I remember Harry Elmer Barnes once edited a compilation in book form, called Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace. And since 1945, we’ve had war after war: confined to the zero-sum game of the Cold War and now extending beyond it — whereby all of these wars were are fought allegedly for us, allegedly for our betterment, allegedly for our safety, allegedly for our security, and always on the basis of our patriotism.

The bulk of patriotic people from the Right would regard what I’m saying as unpatriotic, because in a Sarah Palin sort of a way, they believe that once should stick up for the West — and our allies — against perceived enemies. Many of these enemies may not be friends of ours, but they are not enemies in the real sense. The enemies that we face here in the West, here in California, are internal. They’re internal to our own societies, they’re even internal to our own minds.

The greatest enemy that we have — to slightly adapt Roosevelt’s slogan about fear, that there’s nothing to be afraid of except fear itself — the greatest enemy we have is raised in our own mind. The grammar of self-intolerance is what we have imposed and allowed others to impose upon us. Political correctness is a white European grammar, which we’ve been taught, and we’ve stumbled through the early phases of, and yet we’ve learned this grammar and the methodology that lies behind it very well.

And we’ve learned it to such a degree that we can’t have an incorrect thought now, without a spasm of guilt that associates with it and goes along with it. Every time we think of a self-affirmative statement, it’s undercut immediately by the idea that there’s something wrong, or something queasy, or something quasi-genocidal, or something not quite right, or something morally ill about us if we have that thought. And this extends out beyond racial and ethnic questions to all other questions. To questions of gender, to questions of group identity and belonging, to questions of cultural affirmation, to questions of history.

Think about what it will be like when White Americans are 10% of the population of the United States — or 12% — 15% — or even 25%. Political correctness will not save you from the marginalization of your history and traditions, which will occur because it’s not much fun being a minority. Which is why all minorities seek through their vanguards to take majorities down. And they seem to take them down physically, conceptually, actually, legally, philosophically, and in other ways. And they form alliances with like-minded groups that wish to do to majorities what minorities feel that they ought to, because it’s a question of survival. Everyone’s interested in surviving, and even getting along with each other in a relatively quiescent and “PC” way is just another way of surviving. Maybe in the current circumstances it’s the only way in which multiple group-based societies can survive.

The Bill Clinton metaphysic is that everyone should mind their own business, and everyone should get along with each other. But it denies the crucial harbinger of identity, which is the heart of all existence and becoming – in Nietzschean terms, or in neopagan terms. All real identity is underpinned by what existed before you. The societies that are being created are tabula rasa societies, where you’ve got essentially a blank piece of paper, and what an American is is written upon this piece of paper, the way you ask a child to do a diagram or an image and they do a face with a smile. And that’s your new American: your new American is straight off the boat, he’s a face with a smile to two dots for the eyes.

Where is the history of what it means to be an American? Where is the historical trajectory which relates to what you are now and to what you have achieved? And if that tabula rasa is such that everything that you have ever achieved in the past is smoothed-down and removed, what will it mean to be an American? What will it mean to be an American – a de-hyphenated American, deconstructed to the degree that [hypenation] doesn’t even occur – because that is all that will exist in the future. “Americans” will be those that wish to be American.

Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network once did a poll in accordance with their own resources, and a third of the people who live in the Third World would like to come and live in the United States. That’s a third of the global population outside Europe, outside Japan, outside developed East Asia, outside the new Bourgeois India — 200 million out of the billion on the subcontinent who have raised themselves up to a middle-class standard of life and wish to stay on the subcontinent — but a third of those that are outside of those Bourgeois remits want to come here. And when they say “the United States,” they mean “the West.” They mean “Western Europe,” “Northern Europe,” “Southern Europe,” and the new Eastern Europe.

The new Eastern Europe is rather really interesting and will have a lot to say about the future of European man in the next century or so. Eastern Europe was preserved by communism from the decadence of the liberalism which has semi-destroyed Western Europe (and points to the west of that.) Communism was a strange non-exultation. Communism was a strange doctrine, because it preserved under permafrost many of the characteristic social chapters of what it means to be a European. Communism was pretty hellish to live under, particularly materially, and it was almost always the most deformed, the most warped, and the most degraded parts of the society that had been put in charge of you.

I remember someone I know was imprisoned in East Germany in a Stasi prison for putting a slogan on Lenin’s finger. Do you remember those statues with Lenin’s finger, where Lenin addresses the masses, like this? There were hundreds of them in all of the Eastern European societies. And they used to appear in mass posters in East Germany. And one of his friends – very stupidly given the society that East Germany was — put a bubble, a sort of Marvel Comics bubble, on the end of the finger. And the bubble said “Hitler was Right!” And he stepped back to observe — this was his Japanese cousin, and they were on a holiday in East Germany — which is an unusual type of a holiday even then — and he stepped back to examine his handiwork, and said to his relative, “what do you think about that, Bob?” And Bob turned around and there were eight Stasi, eight Stasi — one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight — in their requisite leather jackets and trench coats, because they all had the same uniform. And he got 18 months in a Stasi prison breaking rocks and living on black bread and onions. And that Stasi prison was notorious in East Germany, in East Berlin. And that Stasi condemned him for “acts contrary to proletarian justice and the will of the Socialist Republic.” He was condemned for being out of kilter with the masses in history.

East Germany is now a state that no longer exists. It’s been agglomerated into Western and greater Germany. The Wall has come down, the Stasi have demobilized and are no longer evident, yet in a strange way a spirit of Marxism is abroad in the West. A spirit of Marxism is abroad in the United States, unbelievably so! The number of American Marxist-Leninists you could have gotten in a few taxis to a certain extent, and yet this element of cultural Marxism is abroad in the United States, as it is in Western Europe, as it is in Northern and to a certain extent Southern Europe, as it is much less evidently so in post-Communist Eastern Europe, where there’s been an enormous reaction against it.

It’s taken a little bit of time to examine why Marxism, of all things, has ended up culturally influential in the United States. It’s got little to do with economic theory; it’s got much more to do with self-hatred and negation. Guilt. The extending of your own mental remit into groups that don’t care for you, or that purposefully wish you ill. And it’s got a lot more to do with the architectonics of the Frankfurt school, and its ability to morph and to merge into the general Liberal currency of the last 50 years.

Since the Second World War, White Europeans have felt guilty about being themselves and have been made to feel guilty and are being encouraged to feel more guilty than they have at any other time in their history. There is no period in our history where we have faced such evident self-hatred and such evident insults upon ourselves which are harmful to the prospects of our children’s lives, and their children, and generations as yet unborn. Is this a phase that we’ve gone through, or is it something slightly more sinister and ulterior than that? These are questions which we need to analyze.

Why, here in the United States, is there such guilt about the majority identity when the United States could point to, in its own cognizance, an exemplary war record against Germany and Japan, being on the victor’s side, being on the victor’s table? And yet the guilt for alleged and prior atrocity is such that all White Americans feel ashamed about any push forward in relation to the prospect of their own identity. It’s quite shocking how, since 1960 — I was born in 1962 — the West has lost its fiber and has collapsed internally and morally in terms of its spirituality and in terms of its sense of itself.

Fifty years a blip historically; it’s a click of the fingers. And yet for fifty years we’ve see nothing but funk, nothing but a failure of nerve, nothing but a self-expiration, nothing but the degree to which the historical destiny of the European peoples has been traduced — and has been traduced by elements of themselves and their own leadership, who have accepted at face value the fact that much of what was wrong with the modern world is morally our responsibility and not that of any other group. And that if we ever dare to assert ourselves again in any meaningful way, that we are in turn co-responsible with some of the worst events of human history.

Now, let’s unpackage this a bit. Communism in the 20th century killed tens of millions. Tens of millions. When Mao met Edward Heath, who was the British prime minister, in 1972 in the Forbidden City, he said “I’m regarded as the world’s mass murderer in human history.” Of course he said this in Mandarin and this sort of thing, he had to be exhaustively translated by Foreign Office Sinologists and so on, and Edward Heath was rather shocked by this, and said “and what’s your view of this, Chairman?” – a politician’s answer, he just reflected it back upon Mao – and Mao said, after the laborious translation had intervened, “I’m rather proud of it, actually”; being the worst mass murderer in human history.

Don’t forget the Great Leap Forward, the enormous famine that devastated much of rural China and which was in fact a great leap backwards; claimed by mainstream historians to have claimed 46 million lives —  46 million lives – it’s so large that it’s that the human mind balks at it basically. Once you get beyond the body count of couple thousand, the brain falls silent and listens to these numbers and internal calculus almost in a fantastical way. But even if a scintilla of that is true, and the truth is most of the Communists atrocities and most of the worst sort of data that can be leveled against those regimes turns out to be quite true.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the KGB figures for those that suffered under Stalin were halfway in the range between what the apologetic individuals in the West said about the regime — the sort of revisionists, if you like, of the Soviet sort — and the exterminationists in Western countries, who tended to be conservative and who tended to be religious. The actual body count was halfway in between. Whether communism killed 100 million in the 20th century is up for grabs. Whether it killed 20 million or between 20 and 100 million is up for grabs.

And yet everywhere one looks the soft Left, the Left untainted by communist atrocity, is everywhere apparent and appears to be everywhere triumphant.

The trick that the soft Left has learned is that if you disavow the hard edge of Leftist slaughter and Siberian camps and Stasi prison cells and you instead excel in the polymorphous rebellions of Herbert Marcuse and the student left of the 1960s, you can actually influence the whole soft spectrum from the moderate Right, through the Center, through the center-Left, through the general-Left/Generic-Left, through the soft Left, up to the softest accretions of the hard Left and to the moderate-hard Left. An enormous spectrum – two-thirds of the political spectrum — can be influenced by Marxist ideas shorn of their hard-edge Stalinist and Maoist filters.

No one wants to know about John-Paul Sartre now, even in France. Partly because he embraced Maoism at the end of his career. He embraced Maoism, with Simone de Beauvoir, and Gorz, and these other people right at the end of his career. He edited a Maoist paper. This was at a time when Pol Pot was wreaking extraordinary havoc in Indochina.

And yet the ideas that these people stood for: the idea that the family is a gun in the hands of the bourgeois class, the idea that humor itself is a gun in the hands of the bourgeois class, the idea that there’s something uniquely oppressive about being male, that there’s something uniquely oppressive about being a Caucasian, that there’s something uniquely oppressive about the Western historical destiny — all these ideas have been shorn of their human rights abuses in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and far Eastern Asia, and have been reflected back into the West and onto the West. To the degree that you can’t set up a student group in an American university now –unless you’re under relatively deep cover — to oppose this sort of thing because the ideas themselves are so hegemonic.

Why has this occurred? Why can’t Counter-Currents exist on American campuses? Why isn’t there a Counter-Currents group or something of a similar order at Berkeley, for example? Why is the idea that there could be such a group at Berkeley absurd, and almost risible, and produces a mild smile? Why is there? Because the physical danger that such a group would be in is largely exaggerated. It’s the moral, mental, and spiritual danger that afflicts our people and that afflicts the young and would-be radical amongst our people, that is the thing to look to.

Why has this occurred? It’s occurred because the radical Left with a culturally Marxian agenda, scorned by the Stalinist hard-line that they were quick to repudiate, marched through the institutions in the United States and elsewhere from the cultural and social revolution of the 1960s and has marched through those institutions for 50-odd years to such a degree that the whole of the media – mainstream — the whole of mainstream politicking outside of the Rightist and Libertarian allowed areas of dissent in the Republican Party and their European equivalents are controlled by nexus of ideas and interconnected thought processes which determine moral valency and morality.

Everyone in this room is regarded as immoral by the ruling dispensation in the United States, and that’s very important, because it prevents people from identifying with ideas which are, quite transparently, in their own interest. If people think an idea is immoral they will shun you, particularly in an era of media exposure. The idea that identifying with yourself and with your own past is somehow immoral is one of the chief factors whereby the identity of post-European people in the United States has been turned: turned back upon themselves, turned back in a vise-like constriction where it can be used to destroy people and disarm them. Because if you’ve disarmed yourself before the struggle begins, you’re easy meat and easy prey for what’s coming. And the future in America is darker than the past. Unless there is a desire amongst people of European ancestry to step outside of the vortex, the zone of chaos which they have allowed to be created for themselves over the last 50 years.

If people think that the circumstances of American life are ill-disposed to your future identity now, what’s it going to be like in 50 years? What’s it going to be like in 150 years? 150 years White Americans could be maybe 20% of the population. This is the future that faces you. And your culture will be disprivileged. Forget political correctness. Political correctness works when minorities aggregate together in a vanguard way. It doesn’t work when majorities fall and stagger into minority status and then look around for allies now that they are themselves a minority in the hope that somehow they will achieve fairness and equity because these things are not about fairness and equity. They are about who can set the standard and the tone for the cultural domination of a civic space. And if it’s not the White identity in the United States — if it’s not post-Europeanism in the USA — it will be other forms of identity. Some of them fractured, broken-down, mixed, and otherwise marginal.

To European eyes the Obama Presidency is the signification of America’s decline. You have a situation where it used to be only B-listed Hollywood films that would show a powerful Black executive President ruling in the Oval Office. Almost a psychic preparation for the real thing. And now the real thing has occurred. With the Obama Presidency, you see the future the United States writ large. And from an external point of view, it will be difficult to unseat Obama because the Republicans are doing all his work for him, it seems at the present time, and I speak as someone who obviously isn’t an American.

The Obama presidency epitomizes the willed decline of majority instinct in the society because if you don’t feel it’s at all offensive that somebody that does not relate to the majority — axioms, forms of entitlement, forms of belief, and historical precedent here in the United States — is actually President of your Union, is President of your society, is your Commander-in-Chief; if the Israeli planes need to be refueled over the Persian Gulf when they attack Iran at some time in the next year to two years to six months, Obama will give the order for that to occur. And he will do so in the name of everyone in this room; everyone beyond this room. And he will do so because he still speaks as the most powerful man in the world.

So the most powerful Western country is now led by a non-Westerner. Something which would’ve been unthinkable in the 1960s, I would imagine; unthinkable in the 1970s, but is now evidently thinkable and thinkable to such a degree that I think a lot of the anger about it which is manifested in Libertarian currents like the Tea Party movement, seems to have evaporated. I speak as an outsider obviously, but it seemed to me that halfway through the Obama presidency there was a mild cultural insurgency against his regime which found a way to channel itself so that it didn’t mention racial questions. And that’s what the Tea Party movement and Libertarianism was about.

And that’s what Libertarianism is. Libertarianism is the allowed Right wing for people who wish to make Ron Paul-esque points but can’t go the whole distance, and in many ways can’t go the whole distance under the present dispensation because many people feel constrained about who they know, and who they’re married to, and who did what their job is, in relation to how explicit they can be in terms of how they reject the current American and European power structures.

Our people are used to being in charge. That’s why they find it so psychologically and emotionally forbidding when they’re no longer in charge. That’s why they feel so bereft in contemporary Western societies, because to fall from a majority and a purpose and position of power, to a more desiccated and a more jaundiced view of oneself and one’s own capabilities, is quite a wrench.

Everything that I’ve said about the United States could’ve been said about my own country if one goes back 50 or 60 years. There was a time early in the 20th century when you could argue Britain was most powerful society in the world. Britain is now a shadow of a shadow of its former state. It is in a precarious and culturally quite a terrible situation. It has decided in its near-death throes to yoke its star to the contemporary United States. Everything about modern Britain is Americana taken to a different level and repositioned in Western Europe. Almost all of our models, speaking as a Briton, are American now. Almost all of our wars are American-led. We always tag along as a sort of surrogate or executive vessel.

All of our politically-correct trajectory has in some ways come retrospectively from the radical Left fringes of the 1960s, and has been filtered by both an indigenous, and a transatlantic, Left. And we’ve allowed all this to occur to ourselves because we have been inured to the prospect of suffering.

And we’ve been inured to it through plenty. There are many who believe that while Western people suffer no economic distress and while the fridge is full, and while there are several sort of four-wheel-drive vehicles in the yard outside, people will never resort to an anti-regime attitude and their default position will always be one of resignation in relation to what is coming. Particularly when they consider that they can negotiate their way out of what is occurring. The problem is that what may well occur in the future will be nonnegotiable, particularly when it hits.

There are those who believe that the white South African Boers or Afrikaners reposition themselves within their own society so as to have a sort of whites-only republic or an area of the country which is theirs. I think that’s an important yardstick that you put out there as a metaphorization. But my private view is more pessimistic than that. I feel that unless you can actually so soak a proportion or a quadrant of the union with yourself that to spit away from it at some unforeseeable time means that you’ve got a totally post-European enclave. I feel such things, such games are not really worth the candle because when you give up the control of a state for duration — particularly the control of the most powerful republic the world has ever seen — you’re partly doomed when you’ve done that. My view is you never restyle from the desire to be the governing echelon of one of the world’s most powerful societies.

It is true that the United States is in a radical — and from a European perspective, terminal — decline. Partly because the European empires of the past: British, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, German and elsewhere, can see the writing on the wall. All of the precedents: of indebtedness, of being beholden to China in relation to the manipulation of the debt and its economic management, by having an ally such as Israel that wags the tail of the dog to such a degree that it’s almost in charge of the Middle Eastern policy of the United States of America – you could say Cuban-Americans are in charge of America’s Cuban policy, yet the policy towards that tiny and redundant Stalinist island is not as important, by any stretch of the imagination, as the policy towards Israel in the Middle East is in relation to the crucible of world expectation.

The CIA don’t get many things right, but they predict a war in the Middle East involving nuclear weapons in the next 25 years, because the depth of the hatred on both sides is so great. No one can stop other countries getting nuclear weapons; this is the irony of the present Iranian situation. Thirty-four other countries are developing, thirty-four other countries are developing nuclear weapons as we speak, including Brazil, and South Africa, and Argentina, and Saudi Arabia, and so on. And there’s many societies, such as South Korea and Japan and modern Germany, that could develop these weapons overnight if they chose to do so.

The point of an increasingly destructive and an increasingly bifurcated and divided world is to reconstitute yourself in such a way as you are least threatened by its exigencies. If you are least threatened by them you have the biggest possibility of reviving your own culture. I regard the cultural health of the civilization to be the elixir of its development and its authorization, its preferment in its sense of itself. Without that cultural overhang and extension, you cannot be worthy of the inheritance of European identity. If you allow your culture to be transparently disfigured by forces which are external and internal to it, and which you could have controlled in previous incarnations, you will witness your own death knell. And you will witness it in your own lifetime.

But this is not necessarily to harp totally upon the negative, this speech of mine. Because I regard initiatives like Counter-Currents as very important. Counter-Currents is, to my estimation, a sort of right-wing university. A sort of free access right-wing University on the Internet, a radical Right-wing University. The whole point now is that higher education has locked off the Right end of the spectrum. You can learn about conservative ideas, you can learn about Liberal ideas, you can learn about Socialist ideas, you can learn about Marxist ideas in the University context; you can learn about all forms of pan-religiosity and so forth.

Bbut you can’t learn about radical Right-wing ideas in the University context unless it’s adversarial, unless you’re deconstructive, unless you’re against these ideas in a prior way. “I’m writing a thesis at the moment,” somebody would say, “about the far-Right in the United States.” But the premise for such a remark if they were talking to a fellow university lecturer, would be “I’m writing it from an adversarial point of view.” Because nobody can ever say that they were writing it from a friendly, or an effective, or non-adversarial point of view; because it’s a viewpoint to which you must must be opposed, because all right-minded people are allegedly opposed to it.

The truth is most right-minded people are only opposed to it because they believe that they ought to be. They believe that their own niceness and their sense of themselves and their sense of what their neighbors think of them is tied up with the reflexivity of reverse negation, as I call it. “We will not align ourselves with these haters,” “We will not align ourselves with these people who are depicted by the media in such a bad way,” “We will not align ourselves with people who could be held to be in some ways morally responsible for events in the past that we wish to have nothing to do with.” This is the majority sentiment.

Only when you can break through that permafrost — only when you can get into the majority sentiment and begin to turn it around — will there be a change here in the United States or elsewhere. One of the things that can force a change is the impact of more and more transmigration and migrations of peoples. All peoples indeed, which the future holds open for us. The degree to which the world is now shrinking, and although there are now more Caucasians than ever before, our proportion of overall mankind is going progressively downwards as we have one to two children per family and we do not replicate ourselves to the degree that other peoples are doing elsewhere around the world.

But it’s not necessarily something about which we should be completely negative. The prospect of negativity is so great with our people and with our predilections to look upon the worst side of things particularly when our back is against the wall, that we forget the advantages that we have at the present time. Technology and the creation by our group of many of the instruments of this technology is so fulsome and so extensive that we can communicate with almost everyone on Earth — and we can communicate amongst ourselves — instantaneously at the flick of a button or a switch.

Nobody who wishes to learn about Western civilization and is volitionally moving towards learning about it, cannot do so at the present time. It used to be that only a fraction of our societies could ever hold their minds anything about our past, certainly in an academic or vocational way. Now we have the prospect that vast millions of our people can access the Western tradition of the flick of a switch, and this is all to the good.

The problem is that they retain in their minds a mindset which filters out much of the excellence of the Western tradition. Because only when you realize that what we painted, what we built and what we wrote and what we self-dramatized and what we composed musically, had to do with concepts of our own strength, of our own becoming, of our own purpose of glory — only when you realize that that was the underpinning for much of what was valued, only then will you really accord value and respect to the precedence of the past. If you rip out, for the fear of being hostile to anyone else, all prospect of group identity that is based upon strength, you will end up with a very weak and very effeminate and a very fey doctrine of your own culture, and that is what is occurring at the present time.

Alex Kurtagic is a friend of mine who’s known to certain people in this room, and he wrote a very interesting article a couple of years ago about the decline of the modern face. The decline of the modern face. It was an article in physiognomy which is quite a technique of analysis in the 19th century. Have you noticed that most people when they’re photographed today wish to look as nice as possible, as reflexive as possible, as open-hearted as possible? They’re pleading to be liked. Whereas he dug up all of these photographs of missionaries from the late 19th century and Shakers from New England — remember that cult called the Shakers? — they used to have these ecstatic dances, they all died out because they were frightened of sexual intercourse — which of course will occur, because if you’re frightened of the one you will certainly meet the other. But the face of these Shakers was furious, even just to pose nicely for the camera they would look like this. They would look with a demonic intensity and ferocity and sense of themselves and sense of courageous purpose and that sort of thing.

Today you’re regarded as mentally ill if you look like that for your own portrait, aren’t you? And yet what they were doing is they were putting on a face. They were putting on the way in which they wish to be perceived by the world. It was like sitting for portrait, sitting for an oil portrait. You didn’t show your weakest or your most reflexive or your most kind-hearted side; that, if it existed, was for private use. This was a public face. And in the decline of the West’s public face you can see writ-large the decline in the spirit of ourselves which has occurred over the past last century, and which has accelerated over the last century.

People say today that men are less masculine than they used to be. That man have been emasculated by feminism. That maleness itself is so under threat that most men don’t even wish to mention the concept, certainly not in polite society. There’s nothing more fascistic than a recrudescent male, is the general idea. If you cannot even — and these are ideas that are outside of the racial box, outside of the culturally-specific area, still important ideas in relation to political correctness — but they are a softer area in which it’s possible to be more radical one would have imagined; and yet even here one sees funk and one sees decline and one sees an acceptance of that which will lead to the destruction of forms of identity which existed in the past and that need to exist in the present and the future, if there is to be a future.

To have a future people need to be aware of their past, and they need to be aware of the glory of that past. I believe there are celebrations at the present time in the United States — if celebrations is the word – about the Civil War. The Civil War is American experience of extraordinary intensity and drama, whereby the most elitist experiment ever decided upon on the North American continent was extirpated and destroyed by armed force.

Henry Miller is an unusual character in all sorts of ways, and ended up in Big Sur. Henry Miller wrote a book quite against type and against what you’d imagine his own predilections to be, called The Air-Conditioned Nightmare. He wrote it in 1942 after he had a car journey all around United States of America. In this book he makes several dissentient remarks, one of which he says the South — the old South — is to him the most beautiful part of the United States. People here around the Californian coast might not wish to hear that, but he reckoned that the old South was the only aristocratic society — based as it was upon slavery, of course — that was created here in the North Americas. And that it was an elitist society of an old European sort, the nature of which had to be extirpated if you were to have modern America.

What do you do about the Confederacy, and what do you do about the Civil War? You basically probably prefigure the Black and the female experience, you marginalize the White South, and you marginalize those who fought on behalf of racial consciousness at that time. You marginalize all those people in the North — weren’t they called Copperheads — the people in the North who sympathized with the South — a venomous snake, you see. Why is that when radical forms of White identity are dealt with in the historical tradition, they are always dealt with from a perspective of demonization?

When Haitian militants massacred the White population of Haiti, they would be considered by contemporary historiography to be more radical variations of Blackness, more radical variations of militaristic Republicanism in Haiti at that time. But they would not necessarily be condemned for what they did. There would be an attempt to evaluate and to explain and to provide extenuating circumstances within the discourse.

Why isn’t that done for the White South? Why isn’t there an attempted social experiment on the American soil perceived as one of the trajectories in White politics at that particular time? Why is the double standard of double moral jeopardy applied by the historians of our own group to more radical formulations of Caucasian identity here in the United States, or as then it was the dis-United United States? Why have people allowed a situation to emerge whereby our own historical reckoning and our own traditions of self are turned against us in such a radical way that it’s almost impossible — except by the recession to the absolute right — to defend oneself?

Let’s face it, many people do not want to come on to the Right end of the spectrum, and right at the end of that spectrum as well, in order to defend themselves. They would like to be in the middle. Most people are comfortable in the middle. They’re comfortable when they’re with their fellows, when they’re part of a crowd and feel that they’re mainstream. This is an extraordinary problem that we face: the degree to which people do not wish to stand alone. And it’s understandable that they don’t wish to stand alone, particularly at this time. We must provide them with the courage to do this, and Counter-Currents is one of the means by which people can educate themselves to defend themselves and their own honor and future prospects.

Counter-Currents is what I personally believe the best, most educative Right-wing site that I’ve come across, and it’s used by an enormous plethora of people who want information about their own past and their own future. There’s a great wealth of material on it, and it provides this tertiary education of the mind in a radical Right sensibility. I believe that this is crucial if we’re to have a future.

There are various other websites like Alternative Right and others, the Voice of Reason network, exist to furnish, in my opinion, in a more direct and concrete — and everyday and populist sense — the work that Counter-Currents does. Obviously one wants to see much more of this, and there’s no doubt that the Right has gravitated to the Internet in order to get around the censorship that exists almost everywhere else. Because these views are censored almost everywhere else.

Political correctness is a methodology and a grammar. It is designed to restrict the prospect of a thought before the thought is even enunciated. Chairman Mao had the idea of “magic words.” Magic words. “Racism” is a magic word. Use it, and people fall apart. People begin to disengage even from their own desire to defend themselves. All of the other “–isms”: sexism, disableism, classism, ageism, homophobia, islamaphobia, all the others are pale reflections, in other and slightly less crucial areas, of the original one: “racism.”

“Racism” is a term developed by Leon Trotsky in an article in the Left oppositionist journal in the Soviet Union in 1926 or 1927. It is now universalized from its dissentient communist origins — don’t forget Trotsky was on the way out of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as Stalin engineered his disposal and the disposal the Left opposition that he led — and that word has been extracted now to such a degree that it is a universal. It’s universal, it’s become a moral lexicon of engagement and disengagement. If you wish to condemn somebody in contemporary discourse, you say that they are a racist. And there’s a degree to which nobody can refute you’re saying in the present dispensation.

Only when people gain the courage and the conviction to read what is on Counter-Currents, to internalize it, and to defend their own possibilities — of development, biologically and culturally — will we see a change here in America and elsewhere. Only when people are prepared not to fall down and beg for mercy in relation to the past — or the Shoah, which is a sort of a Moloch, sort of a ceremonial device which is used in order to shame nearly all Caucasian, Aryan, and Indo-European people; it’s become a religious totem, a pseudo-religious totem, which is wheeled out and shunted around and made use of so that people fall down and beg for mercy even before they’ve opened their own mouths. They’re begging for mercy even for the prospect of opening their own mouths.

And although I’m saying nothing the people in this room don’t already know, it’s important to realize that these psychological constructs for the majority of our people are deeply crippling and deeply negative in their effects. You have a situation now where people have so loaded upon themselves the untrammeled forces of guilt and the absence of self-preservation that almost any healthy instinctual or virile capacity is beyond them, except as a reaction to a prior threat.

Only when we recover the sense of dynamism that we seem to have partly lost will we have a future: here in the United States, here in California, or in the Western World as a whole. Many other groups in this world wonder about what is happened to us; wonder what has happened to our energy. Don’t be surprised if you learn that many of the elites in foreign countries, in India and China and so on, view with bemused amazement the trajectory of the present West, the degree to which the West is so self-hating: about its own music, about its own art, about its own architecture, about its own military history — other groups in the world are amazed at this, but will seek to take advantage of it because why wouldn’t they? In the circumstances of group competition which this globe entertains, all groups are partly in competition for scarce resources against all other groups. It doesn’t have to be as merciless as all that.

But it is real, and it is extant, and it is ongoing.

Mass immigration into Britain began with the Nationality Act in 1948, which was passed by the [Clement] Attlee government. And Attlee, who was the-then Labor Prime Minister, in a landslide victory that Labor won immediately after the Second World War; said that, “if the races of the world are mixed together there will be no more war.” “If the races of the world are mixed together there will be no more war,” and he took that idea from the anti-colonial movement of the 1920s and the 1930s.

What you get instead, is you get the internalization of divisions and a bellyaching of a globalist sort inside societies instead of between them. So all that happens is the group dynamics which were Nation-State oriented and National in the past three to five centuries become internal, because human competition and the dynamics of group difference are such that they will always exist, no matter what you do. They will exist inside multiracial marriages. They will exist inside multiracial schools, they will exist inside multiracial cities, they will exist within multiethnic housing developments, and they will certainly exist within multiracial societies.

What then happens, is that each group creates a vanguard that negotiates with the other groups about how big a slice of the pie that they get. And the future politics of societies like United States is the negotiation that occurs electorally — and between elections — between the groups. Obama’s elections is a snapshot. The ball goes on, there’s a flash and he’s there for an instant because for that moment the trajectory of forces between working-class whites who vote Center-Left, between women who are more inclined to vote Center-Left than Center-Right, between Black Americans who will vote overwhelmingly for Obama — even though he is of mixed-race — because they consider him to be one of themselves; towards Latinos, who will vote for an alternative candidate from the Democratic Center-Left because they feel that they will get more of a space under the sun under such a dispensation than they would from a White Republican; together with the apathy of those who don’t vote or those who vote for other candidates; together with the trajectory at that moment of that particular electoral cycle where the Republicans were deeply depressed, where there was a deep alienation from the Jr. Bush second presidency, where there was deep malaise in the society because of the forced nature of the Iraq war, which had created convulsion and dissent within the society; and where you had an enormous economic depression which led to an economic vote for Obama, which may be partially repeated next time but was certainly evident then. That’s a snapshot. All elections are, are snapshots out of the forces that are in coalition at a particular time. And yet notice how broken down and how ethnically fractious that coalition is to be.

The prospect of White Republicans being elected — except to lower levels — probably decreases with each year of demographic change in the United States. Even the number of years Obama has been in probably changes the thing in a game-changing way to his advantage. For each year that goes on — my understanding is that America is now a third nonwhite? — essentially it’s a two-thirds/one-third society — but many Western Europeans still conceive of the United States as a White European society. There was even bemused surprise in parts of Western Europe that a non-White President had been elected. But anyone who knows the United States relatively knowledgeably, and who knows of the Kennedys’ desire to extend immigration out to the whole world, and to end the previous Europeans-only, Whites-only immigration policy which had subsisted from the 1920s, I believe. Everyone knows that realizes that the new political dispensation in the United States is contrary to — and hostile to — the indigenous majority that lives here.

Why won’t Caucasian and European people wake up to Eurocentric verities?  The truth is they feel there’s always an excuse to put off the prospect of that waking up, and they are always moments — particularly of media intrusiveness — that people fear in their own lives. One of the major halting elements in the re-energization of our own people is the mass media. And it’s the control of the mass media by forces which are uniquely inimical to our future development. The mass media plays upon every segment of the masses that exist in contemporary Western society — churns them up, holds them against each other, reroutes them, messes up the agenda of everyone that has his own subtext to begin with, which it is forcing and corralling the points of energy in this society towards.  Everyone can see this who watches the mass media with half a mind. Then there’s just the effect of “prole-feed” as George Orwell called it in 1984, whereby the masses are just fed a cultural industry of excess and exploitative infotainment and entertainment for their own edification, and which is an important part of the overall project.

Only when you can break through the carapace of the mass media, with all its multiple Gorgon-like heads and its Hydra-like amphitheater — only when you can break through that, using the Internet, have you a chance to embolden the necessary vanguard of our own population. All change and all radical and all revolutionary change is led by minorities. And it always occurs top-down, even though the minority may be the throwing-forwards of a focus or a group tendency that is more generic and more general.

What the Right has to do here in the United States is to build vanguards. Build as many and as purposeful ones as possible. Build them in such a way as they can’t be broken down externally and defeated internally. One of the uses of the Internet is it gets around the extraordinary backbiting and rivalry, even as it expresses it, that exists between different Right-wing individuals and groups. Because people who have a naturally decisive and quasi-authoritarian mindset always believe that they are right. This is why the Right is extraordinarily difficult to arrange and manage and bring forward. Everyone who’s ever been prominent in a Right-wing group knows it involves herding cats. And the reason for that is because of the bloody-mindedness of the maverick people who are part of these tendencies of opinion. Because you have to be bloody-minded in order to attack against that which is comfortable, and that which is “in the zone,” and that which is the managed expectation of mediocrity in decline that is going on at the present time.

The first speaker this morning, Greg Johnson, talked about decadence. And the debate as to whether it’s just a decline — whereas just as I drop this pad it falls to the floor — is it just a decline, or is it a willed decline? Is there a force which is moving this pad down to the floor, metaphorically, and keeping it there and putting a boot on it once it’s there so that’s it’s got no prospect of rising up again or a hand would creep forward and wrench it up from under the boot and raise it back up to the table. That’s a debate that one can have, but one of the things that is most important to realize is that we have our own destiny before us.

There are more of us than ever before, we are better educated than the mass than ever before, and unbelievable though that may sound. When the Boer war happened in 1899, the British did an audit of the slums in Britain, and found that a quarter of the working-class men who came forward to fight in that war were so riddled with disease, and had been so badly educated, that they were militarily of no use. And Winston Churchill said at the time that “an empire that can’t flush its own toilet isn’t much use.” One of very few radical social statements of any sort, glosses or otherwise, that Churchill ever made.

So we have enormous advantages that exist now. But we must not allow comfort and ease to sleepwalk us towards oblivion. Comfort and ease are the enemy of a decisive cultural breakthrough and a decisive implementation of the politics of the future. We have to forget the last 50 to 60 years, but remember the lessons that we should draw from it. And the lessons that we should draw from it is to believe totally in ourselves.

There’s an organization in Ireland called Sinn Fein, which in Gaelic means “ourselves alone.” And ourselves, we are the locomotive of our own destiny. We ourselves will determine what the role that European people have in the United States will be well into the next century. We must not allow other groups to determine it for us. Only when we are fit for power will we find the means to re-exercise it in our own societies. What is happening here and elsewhere in the West is the biggest test that Western people have faced for a very long period. In the past threats are always perceived as external. Another nation, another dictator, another aggressor, another imperial rivalry. In this filament of Empire, in the scrabble for Africa at the end of the 19th century, and so on.

All the enemies that we now face are internal. And the biggest enemies that we face are in our own minds. The feeling that we shouldn’t say this, shouldn’t write this, shouldn’t speak this, shouldn’t think this. These are the biggest enemies that we have. We’re too riddled with post-Christian guilt. We’re too riddled with philo-Semitism. We’re too riddled with a sense of failure, funk, and futility in relation to the European, the Classical, and the High Middle Ages passed. We’re too defensive. We’re not aggressive and assertive enough as a group.

Many White people feel bereft because the leadership that we look to, the upper Bourgeois tier — the most educated part of our own society — seem to have left the majority. The elite has gone global and sees itself as part of a global elite, and the traditional brokers of power from the university lecturer to your senior businessman, to your senior lawyer and so on, always seem to be on the side of giving the line away. And that’s because in the present day it suffices and works for you to be on the side that gives away what the past has bequeathed to you.

What will it take for the bulk of people who leave Western universities to have the middle or common denominator view of the people in this room? It will take an earthquake. But it’s not that difficult to achieve, once you get people thinking in a dissentient way. This involves very much raising the game.

In some ways we have no freedom of speech in Europe. There’s no First Amendment “right” in Europe. Everyone who speaks in Europe and wishes to avoid a prison cell has to adopt in some ways a stylized and rather abstract form of language. Anti-revisionist laws exist in most of the Western European societies. Britain is slightly unusual in not having them. But that is also rather like the old Hollywood censorship which improved a lot of filmmaking because people had become more indirect and more artistic in the way in which they treated things. It can cause people to raise their game. And I’m very much in favor of Right-wing views being put in the highest — rather than the lowest or the median-way. I’m very much in favor of appealing to new elites, and getting them to come forward rather than making populist appeals when we’re not in the right electoral cycle for that.

I was involved with a nationalist party in Britain for quite a long time. With a project that has seemed to failed and have come to nothing, even though people were elected to the European Parliament. But at the end of the day people are only changed when their cultural sensibilities shifts. And when there is a release of energy, and a release of power, and a release of self-assertion. That is the change that you seek. Electoral change and advantage results from that, rather than the other way around. Getting a few people elected will not suffice, in my view, at the present time. What will suffice is a counter-current, and a counter-cultural revolution, which reverses the processes of the 1960s.

The Marxians have marched through the institutions of the last 50 years because the doors were swinging open for them. They hardly had to kick them down because they were swinging open for them.

All the doors are shut to us. We must find ways to work our way around these doors and reconnect with the new minds of our upcoming generations.

One of the reasons that this will happen is that people in the Western world at the moment are chronically bored. There’s a boredom that has settled upon our people. You can sense it. There’s a spiritual torpor out there. And the most exciting ideas, the most threatening ideas, the most psychopathological ideas, the ideas which are beyond all other ideas, are the ideas which are in this room. They are the most dangerous ideas and therefore they have a subtle attraction to radical and dissident minds.

Don’t forget that everything which has occurred in the last 50 years was once so dissident that the people in the 1920s — those who advocate the ultra-Liberalism of today — had to meet in secret because they were frightened of revealing what their views were to the generality, and to their own families, and to work colleagues. See how the entire notion of what it was to be “progressive” or “reactionary” or “unprogressive” or “traditionalist” or otherwise has changed around in a hundred years.

We are now the people stalking. We are now the people who are afraid of media revelation. We are the people who are taught to be frightened and ashamed of our own views. The whole thing has been reversed in a hundred years.

But there is a natural tendency to kick; there is a natural tendency to kick against the system which is in place. And politically correct Liberalism is an enormous target to be attacked. And it is fun to attack it. And it is life-affirming to attack it. And to traduce it and to kick its bottom and to run round and to be chased by it and to be opposed by all these po-faced zealots and that sort of thing.

It’s entertaining, and that’s one of the things that people have to realize that will attract many people to our side. The bloody mindedness of it; the useful cantankerousness of it. Everyone likes a rebel up to a point, as long as they’re not personally and they’re not adversely affected by the consequences of such radicalism. And what we need to do is position ourselves in the way that the International Times and 60s radicals did the other way around.

If we become the lightning rod for cultural revolution in the West, you will see, in the future, student movements that are loyal to the Right rather than Left, even if these terms break down and in increasingly group-based societies no longer have any meaning, as is occurring. But we still use them because it’s an affordable shorthand.

But never forget the thrill of transgression. Right-wing ideas are transgressive.  And are therefore interesting, and sexy. Herbert Marcuse once wrote about the eroticism of the Right. Susan Sontag did as well. And the Right is more erotic than the Left, is more exciting than the Left. The Left is boring, the Left is extraordinarily grungy and erotically unexciting, you know, despite its prevalence and its penchant for decadence, there’s a degree to which it is not as radically outside the box.

And my view is that people will be attracted in the future not by reason. They will read up with their reason once they have decided to emotionally commit. The important thing is to get people emotionally. And it’s to appeal to the forces and wellsprings in their mind which are eternal, and which underpin rationality. The power of irrational belief as spiritual codification, of mystical belief, of belief in identity, of the need for communitarianism, and the need to belong, is immensely powerful. Far more powerful than the anything the Left can offer.

If you can tap these forces of — in some respects — codified irrationalism,  if you can bring them to the surface, if you can bottle them, and if you can then add on reason and add in the discourse on Counter-Currents, you will tap the energies of future generations of majority Americans. And you will do so because it appears to be extraordinarily interesting. More interesting than anything else. More threatening than anything else. More shocking than anything else. And that is something that the Right should actually in my view heighten, in a civilized and persuasive way.

One should never lose sight of the reason that people are opposed to the our ideas is because they are thrilled to be frightened by them. They are thrilled to be appalled by them. It is the political equivalent of Satanism to many people. I’m saying nothing that is at all original. And in doing so we actually make ourselves tremendously attractive at certain levels of consciousness — not to some Southern Baptist chapter, admittedly. But you make yourself tremendously psychologically appealing. You may not have a halo over your head but you are transfigured in a sort of dark and sepulchral light, which makes you deeply spiritually ambivalent to people who exist now. And that contains the prospect of growth and the prospect of renewal.

I personally believe people agree with ideas long before they moved towards them. They have an instinctual saying of “YES!” They say “YES!” to the idea before they completely have worked out all of the formula for themselves. The Counter-Currents of this world exist to provide the formula for people after they’ve said “YES!”; after they’ve put forward their first step upon the route to identity, and the politics of identity, and the religion of identity.

If I can mention something about that, all the religious divisions that exist amongst people of European ancestry don’t really matter. All that you do is you format a doctrine of psychological inequality. If people believe in equality they can come to it in terms of whatever spiritual system they want. As long as they believe in orders of European inequality, all of the traditions of all of our people can be contained in that.

Thank you very much!

 


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/03/jonathan-bowdens-western-civilization-bites-back/

vendredi, 10 février 2012

The Coming Battle of Britain

The Coming Battle of Britain

The secret coalition that will ensure Scottish independence

by Colin Liddell

Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com/

This article was originally published on the website of Civil Liberty, an organization in the UK dedicated to fighting the tyranny of political correctness.

David Cameron's stint as prime minister has been dominated by four main political narratives:

1. Britain's opposition to the ongoing Franco-German centralization of Europe
2. The maintenance of financial credibility
3. The "Big Society"
4. The question of Scottish independence

The government's inability to stem the rising tide of immigration and the ongoing economic and social chaos this is spreading throughout the land has, in the absence of a potent British nationalist party, largely fallen off the political stage.

But back to the four main political narratives, it is easy to see a synergy between these. The "Big Society," essentially the concept of volunteerism writ large as an alternative to the state doing everything, is an aspect of the government's attempt to curtail public spending in order to maintain financial credibility. This in turn is linked to Britain's supposed opposition to Euro centralization, which is how the main EU countries are dealing with similar problems created by their public sector bloating.

Of course, it could be pointed out that the "Big Society" is nothing more than aspirational hot air and a political device to offload onerous responsibilities, while also stealing easy credit for successful private, charitable, and communal initiatives.

Likewise, Cameron's opposition to the Evil Merkozy that lies at the dark heart of Europe is, on deeper analysis, rather hollow; certainly as long as voters are denied a referendum on Europe, and Pan-European institutions, such as the European Court of Human Rights continues to interfere in British affairs. Also, although the Euro may be temporarily weakened it is clearly not dead. There is a very real sense that once it recovers, the pound and Britain’s partial economic independence will be the next item on its ongoing project of financial gleichschaltung.

What is significant about these political narratives is not the actual level of achievement, which is minimal or non-existent, but the extent to which Cameron has dominated them and turned them to his political advantage, even in the case of the "Big Society." Although this has an increasingly hollow ring with the British public, it still allows the PM to posture as a compassionate anti-statist.

Cameron is apparently on top of all these political narratives except the last one, the issue of Scottish independence. This is the joker in the pack, both because of its complexity and unpredictability and because of its potential to far outweigh all the other political narratives put together.

Scottish independence is the game changer

While the Euro-stropping, "Big Society" posturing, and budget balancing bickering will all fizzle out in the usual political and technocratic compromise zone and slide slowly into the swamp of political amnesia, Scottish independence could be a real game changer.

There are several aspects of this issue that do not get much publicity but probably should. First of all, there is no doubt that both the EU and David Cameron would benefit enormously from it.

Although the EU has been badly winded by recent financial events, the vested interests involved mean that it will probably weather this storm and emerge even stronger and more set on its long term goals of European economic and political integration. It should be noted that this tendency seems to progress regardless of whether European voters are electing centre left or centre right politicians, and there is every possibility that even if 'far right' or even 'far left' candidates were elected in significant numbers a similar modus operandi could be maintained as the EU seems to have power political and economic benefits that appeal to any ruling class.

Scottish independence would strengthen the EU hand vis-à-vis Westminster, reducing England to a smaller and weaker entity, and one that would also be demoralized from the loss of a vital component of its identity and power. In cultural semantic terms, the name "Britain" is the name of a conquering entity that has straddled the globe and proved invincible. The vestiges of this greatness are still what power the vision of a Britain independent from the EU. The name "England," by contrast, is historically that of a smaller, weaker entity, rather easily conquered by Dane and Norman, and only saved from the Spaniard by the vagaries of the weather. At least that's the mythic image or perception, and such factors will work like a Fifth Column to reduce the resistance to the warm, all-enveloping embrace of Europe.

Given that the EU would benefit from Scottish independence, we must expect some tangible support for it at some stage.

What form this will take is hard to predict, but possibly it will take the form of economic guarantees when the unionist campaign raises questions of Scottish economic viability in the absence of the Barnett Formula.

The second main point, that David Cameron would benefit greatly from Scottish independence, is perhaps more counter-intuitive but just as rational. This is based on the widespread loathing for the Conservative Party that has existed in Scotland since the tenure of Margaret Thatcher. In addition to her de-industrializing economic policy that hit Scotland (and my family) particularly hard, her personification of bossy, middle-class, Margot Leadbetter, WI-style Englishness did not go down particularly well in a society that has always been dominated by a tough male, working-class ethos.

People see Scotland as a Labour country and this is easily 'proved' by the results of almost every Westminster election over the last several decades, but the recent rise of the SNP, which is politically more centrist, reveals the true story. The main reason that Scots have voted overwhelmingly Labour in the past has simply been because it was the most effective way to hurt another party that was indelibly linked in the Scottish mind with domineering Englishness.

The political side effects of Scottish independence

Scottish independence would have powerful effects on each side of the border. With Scotland freed from Westminster, there would be much less reason for Scottish voters to vote Labour. This would effectively result in the collapse of Labour in Scotland. Of course, the SNP, having fulfilled its historical purpose, might also face a serious drop in support as a range of new parties rose up to take advantage of the new political ecosystem.

In England, the removal of approximately 50 Labour MPs to the one Tory that Scotland still sends to Westminster would have a cataclysmic effect on Labour's prospects of ever winning outright power again.

A large part of the support that a major political party receives is not because of agreement with its policies, but because it has the capability of winning. Voters are rather like London-based Manchester United fans. As long as Man Utd are the big club, these fans, with no real connection to the city of Manchester, will continue to associate themselves with the success of the club, but once the club starts losing championships these fans quickly move on. The same phenomenon can be observed in politics. Americans tend to vote overwhelming Republican or Democrat because these two parties are the only ones that can grant access to representation through the extremely undemocratic American system.

The Labour Party is essentially the expression of the class politics of the early 20th century, but has managed to trade on the electability created by those limited conditions to draw out its political life long past its sell-by date. The very name of the party, which has an unpleasant, antiquated ring for voters in a post-industrial society, reveals this very clearly. The sudden removal of its contingent of Scottish MPs from the political equation would very likely deliver it a death blow.

With the Labour party removed or truncated to midget proportions, British politics would start to resemble the present governing coalition, while in the remaining White working class areas we could expect to see a post-Griffinite BNP or a new English nationalist party hoovering up votes on an identitarian basis of both race and class.

Given that the Tory Party would benefit from Scottish independence, we must expect some tangible support for it at some stage.

This is despite Mr. Cameron's professions of unionism. What form this will take is hard to predict, but possibly it will take the form of Mr. Cameron earnestly entering into patronizing Lord-Snooty-style debates with that wee ghillie Alex Salmond. With Cameron and the Eurocrats secretly or not so secretly on Salmond's side, the unionists are probably marching to the political equivalent of the Second Battle of Bannockburn!

Roll on 2014!!

dimanche, 29 janvier 2012

La voie écossaise vers l’indépendance

alex_salmond_1244016c.jpg

Amelie WINTHER:

La voie écossaise vers l’indépendance

Un référendum devrait avoir lieu en 2014

L’hymne national de l’Ecosse est, comme pour toutes les autres composantes du Royaume-Uni, le “God Save the Queen”. Mais lorsque les équipes écossaises de football ou de rugby se préparent à un match, c’est le chant “Flower of Scotland” que le public entonne. Déjà la première strophe évoque la lutte des Ecossais pour l’indépendance sous la conduite de leurs héros nationaux William Wallace (“Braveheart”) et Robert the Bruce: “Quand reverrons-nous des pareils à vous qui avez combattu et êtes morts pour votre petite portion de colline et de vallée, et qui avez défié l’orgueilleuse armée d’Edouard et l’avez renvoyée chez elle, pour qu’elle y réfléchisse à deux fois...”.

Le Roi Edouard I était l’adversaire des combattants écossais de la liberté au 13ème siècle. Il avait au préalable soumis le Pays de Galles, jusqu’alors indépendant. Le temps des héros courageux est certes passé, dit l’hymne, “mais nous pouvons quand même nous soulever et redevenir cette nation qui a défié l’orgueilleuse armée d’Edouard”. Outre le chant “Flower of Scotland”, il y en a d’autres, tout aussi célèbres comme “Scotland the Brave” (“Pays de mes peines, Pays de la rivière enchanteresse, Pays de mon coeur pour toujours, toi, ô brave Ecosse”) et “Scots Wha Hae”; les Ecossais d’aujourd’hui considèrent ces magnifiques chants comme les hymnes non officiels de leur pays. “Scots Wha Hae” est dû à la plume du poète national Robert Burns, dont le plus célèbre poème est “Auld Lang Syne”. Dans ce poème, Burns interprète l’allocution que Robert the Bruce fit devant son armée juste avant la bataille de Bannockburn.

Les césures de l’histoire dans les Iles Britanniques

Il existe donc en Ecosse trois hymnes non officiels, dont les paroles évoquent le refus de la tutelle anglaise et expriment sans le moindre détour une volonté de demeurer libre: c’est très significatif pour les césures que l’histoire a installées entre l’Ecosse et l’Angleterre. Avant l’union des deux royaumes en 1707, il y a eu des siècles de conquêtes et de résistances. Depuis l’union de 1707, les deux pays sont liés au sein du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d’Irlande (puis “Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d’Irlande du Nord”). Pourtant, au cours de ces dernières années, la question se pose de plus en plus souvent: combien de temps cette union durera-t-elle encore?

 

politique internationale,grande-bretagne,royaume-uni,ecosse,snp,alex salmond,europe,affaires européennes,dévolution


Ce qui est est en train de se passer aujourd’hui en Ecosse peut être considéré comme les signes avant-coureurs des derniers soubresauts d’un Empire qui a cru sortir grand vainqueur des guerres mondiales du 20ème siècle mais qui appartenait en fait au camp des vaincus (qui s’ignorent ou veulent s’ignorer). L’insistance actuelle des Ecossais pour obtenir l’indépendance vis-à-vis de Londres peut se lire comme le dernier acte d’une pièce de théâtre qui jouerait le déclin d’un ancien empire mondial, qui, malgré ses victoires militaires et l’engagement de forces humaines et matérielles considérables, a finalement tout perdu.

Un premier ministre écossais accusé de “populisme”

D’après Alex Salmond, premier ministre d’Ecosse, et donc le plus puissant des hommes politiques du pays, et son parti, le SNP (“Scottish National Party”), les Ecossais devraient se prononcer en 2014, lors d’un référendum, pour ou contre un avenir détaché de la tutelle londonienne. Le 24 juin 2014, les Ecossais célèbreront pour la 700ème fois leur victoire sur les Anglais lors de la fameuse bataille de Bannockburn. La date est donc symbolique.

Le SNP domine au Parlement d’Edimbourg depuis 2007 et, depuis 2011, il y domine seul, sans alliance ni cartel. Lors des dernières élections, il a obtenu la majorité absolue.

Quand un homme politique réclame l’auto-détermination nationale, on lui colle tout de suite sur le dos l’étiquette péjorative de “populiste”. Ainsi, pour donner quelques exemples, le “Rheinische Post” allemand, en janvier 2012, a écrit, dans son édition en ligne: “Le populiste Alex Salmond, 57 ans, ne disposait jadis d’aucune force réelle, en tant que chef d’un gouvernement minoritaire, pour pouvoir réaliser cette promesse”. Par ailleurs, le “Spiegel” de Hambourg, a commenté la situation actuelle en Ecosse comme suit: “Le Führer du SNP, Salmond, est considéré par tous les partis établis comme un pénible populiste et ils aspirent tous à ce que sa rhétorique en faveur de l’indépendance de l’Ecosse soit enfin démasquée. ‘Plus le référendum arrivera tôt, mieux cela vaudra’, écrit le député travailliste écossais Douglas Alexander dans le ‘Telegraph’”.

Quant à l’Université de Münster, elle formule la remarque suivante, dans un travail sur le “populisme” aux Pays-Bas et en Allemagne: “Le concept de ‘populisme’ est un concept mouvant. Les politiciens aiment l’employer et l’emploient souvent dans les querelles où ils confrontent leurs opinions. Le ‘populisme’ est une étiquette utilisée de manière inflationnaire; elle s’utilise d’autant plus souvent qu’elle ne reflète aucune clarté quant à son contenu”.

Etymologiquement parlant, “populisme” désigne en fait une politique qui s’efforce de créer une proximité particulière avec le peuple. Le dictionnaire allemand “Duden” donne pourtant la définition suivante: ce concept désigne, pour lui, une politique d’opportunisme, visant à “gagner les faveurs des masses”. Savoir si Alex Salmond a réellement les masses derrière lui, on ne le saura qu’après le référendum. Douglas Alexander, que nous venons de citer, n’est pas le seul à croire que Salmond postposera ce référendum le plus longtemps possible parce qu’il ne peut pas encore gagner une majorité d’Ecossais à son projet indépendantiste. “Le SNP joue sur le temps, parce qu’il n’a pas de réponses à toute une série de questions fondamentales”, estime David McLethie. Ce dernier siège pour le compte du parti conservateur écossais au Parlement. Ses “Tories” militent pour l’union avec l’Angleterre. Une Ecosse indépendante? En tout cas, sans eux...

Londres tente de freiner le processus

Le premier ministre britannique David Cameron a fait un pari: il ne faut pas laisser de temps au SNP pour diffuser parmi les électeurs ses vues et propositions. Plus le référendum arrivera vite, plus on aura de chances de maintenir les Ecossais dans le Royaume-Uni: tel est le calcul de Cameron. Voilà pourquoi il a proposé, à la mi-janvier 2012, que le référendum se tienne le plus rapidement possible.

Au sein du cabinet, on venait, une fois de plus, de discuter d’une loi accordant une large autonomie financière à l’Ecosse. Au cours de ces discussions, on a exigé, très nettement, que les conditions du référendum ne soient pas élaborées à Edimbourg mais à Londres. Endéans les dix-huit prochains mois, a-t-on suggéré, le référendum devra avoir lieu. Il ne devrait y avoir qu’une seule question à poser aux Ecossais, rapporte le “Neue Zürcher Zeitung”, en nous parlant de la “lutte tactique pour l’avenir de l’Ecosse”, et à cette question, il ne faudra répondre que par “oui” ou par “non”. En simplifiant le référendum de cette façon, on veut éviter que Salmond ne propose une alternative, une sorte de variante intermédiaire, qui offrirait un maximum d’autonomie à l’Ecosse, afin de parer à une défaite cuisante lors du référendum.

Le vice-président du parti de Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, a expliqué, à ce propos, que les conservateurs anglais veulent influencer des décisions qui ne concernent que le seul peuple écossais. Mais en procédant de la sorte, le gouvernement de Londres n’obtient que le contraire  de ce qu’il souhaite en réalité. Le soutien populaire à l’indépendance ne ferait alors que croître. “Dans leur coeur, les Ecossais ne veulent pas d’une séparation totale”, pense Cameron, envers et contre tout. L’Union de 1707 a finalement été “l’un des partenariats les plus efficaces à l’échelle mondiale”. Salmond perçoit les choses différemment. “Plus il parle, mieux cela vaut pour la cause de l’indépendance”. C’est, de fait, ce que prouvent les sondages.

La BBC commente à son tour: entre les gouvernements britannique et écossais, une “guerre des mots” fait rage.

AlexSalmond-Edit-1024x1006.pngAngus Robertson est chef de la fraction SNP. Sur le site internet de son parti, il commente les assertions intrusives de Cameron: “Il est clair que la balourdise de David Cameron, à vouloir sauver la vieille union, s’est avérée contre-productive dès que les Ecossais ont entendu parler des possibilités que leur offrirait l’indépendance. Toutes les démarches qu’ont entreprises les partis anti-indépendantistes depuis l’immixtion désordonnée de Cameron n’ont suscité qu’un désir général d’indépendance et l’ampleur de ce désir montre que nous pouvons être confiants d’obtenir un ‘oui’ lors du référendum prévu pour l’automne de l’année 2014”. Le soutien à l’indépendantisme se perçoit également dans l’augmentation du nombre des membres du SNP: “Personne ne se soucie autant du développement de l’Ecosse que ceux qui y vivent. C’est pourquoi ce ceux eux, et non d’autres, qui doivent recevoir le pouvoir de décision”.

Aux questions du journal allemand “Die Welt”, Robertson avait exprimé sa conviction: “Nous avons maintenant les meilleures chances de faire passer l’indépendance. Les autres partis sont dépourvus de direction et d’orientation”. Robertson dirige la campagne en faveur du référendum sur l’indépendance. En 2007 et en 2011, où il détenait aussi cette fonction de chef  de la campagne électorale, il avait conduit son parti au succès lors des législatives.

Le pétrole écossais

Avec le slogan “It”s Scotland’s oil” (“C’est le pétrole écossais”), le SNP avait déjà séduit les électeurs dans les années 70. Pour la prochaine échéance importante, c’est-à-dire le référendum sur l’indépendance, les riches gisements de pétrole de la Mer du Nord, face aux côtes de l’Ecosse, joueront un rôle non négligeable. En octobre dernier, quatre entreprises énergétiques, parmi lesquelles des géants du marché tels BP et Shell, annonçaient qu’elles voulaient investir dix milliards de dollars pour prospecter les nouveaux gisements à l’Ouest des Iles Shetland. L’Ecosse veut profiter de cette manne plus qu’auparavant. Le ministère britannique des finances a glané près de 360 milliards d’euro au cours de ces quarante dernières années grâce au pétrole de la Mer du Nord. “Londres a suffisamment gagné grâce au pétrole écossais. Au cours des quarante prochaines années, ce seront les citoyens d’Ecosse qui en profiteront”; ces paroles sont extraites du discours de Salmond lors de la diète du SNP.

90% du pétrole qu’exploite la Grande-Bretagne se situe, géographiquement parlant, sur le territoire écossais. Raison pour laquelle, selon les partisans de Salmond, il est injuste que les dividendes de ce pétrole, fournis par les taxes payées par l’industrie et par les impôts directs, aillent dans l’escarcelle du ministère londonien. Les nationalistes écossais veulent réaliser d’autres projets avec cette manne pétrolière. Salmond veut l’investir dans un fonds d’Etat et suivre ainsi l’exemple de la Norvège, également devenue riche grâce à son pétrole. Ce système à la norvégienne permettrait d’obtenir sur le long terme une rente stable.

Londres accepte de rencontrer Alex Salmond

Comme on l’a appris courant janvier, le premier ministre britannique David Cameron veut rencontrer Alex Salmond pour discuter des projets relatifs au référendum. Les préparatifs pour cette rencontre se réaliseraient “dans les prochains jours”. Michael Moore, secrétaire d’Etat britannique pour les affaires écossaises, a également annoncé qu’il voulait rencontrer Salmond. Celui-ci, une fois de plus, a fait savoir par un intermédiaire: “Voilà une évolution des choses qui est la bienvenue; cela constitue un véritable progrès”.

Le vice-président du SNP, Sturgeon, commente cet événement survenu au 10 Downing Street: “Il faut rappeler que c’est d’abord Alex Salmond qui a proposé une rencontre avec le premier ministre et le vice-premier ministre, mais que cette proposition, dans un premier temps, a été rejetée. C’est un fait: ils ont réfléchi et ils ont changé d’avis”. D’après Salmond, Cameron aurait déjà refusé six propositions de rencontre. Le porte-paroles de Salmond a aussi rappelé que les Britanniques proposeront en date du 25 janvier 2014 une ébauche détaillée sur le référendum. “Après cela, on l’espère, les rencontres pourront avoir lieu”.

Un résultat positif lors du référendum n’aurait aucun caractère “obligatoire”, serait simplement consultatif et constituerait la première étape dans des négociatios très dures avec Londres. Mais si la volonté du peuple écossais se manifeste pour dire qu’elle ne veut plus de l’union, la voie vers l’indépendance sera tracée.

Amelie WINTHER;

(article paru dans “DNZ”, Munich, n°4/2012 – 20 janvier 2012).

mardi, 24 janvier 2012

How the British Constructed a New Woman’s Movement

How the British Constructed a New Woman’s Movement

A Book Review of Feminine Fascism

 

Julie V. Gottlieb
Feminine Fascism: Women in Britain’s Fascist Movement, 1923-1945
New York: I.B. Tauris, 2003.

“Feminine fascism” is a phrase that Julie V. Gottlieb uses to describe the forward-thinking, yet traditionally influenced, ideology embraced by Britain’s fascists. Their objective was not a return to the past, to a time when women were solely mothers and homemakers. Instead, the fascists in England combined traditional roles with the advances made in women’s suffrage and the workplace, and added a fascist bent of discipline and integrity.

Feminine Fascism: Women in Britain’s Fascist Movement is a chronological account of fascism in Britain, starting in 1923 with the country’s first fascist group, the British Fascisti, founded by Rotha Lintorn-Orman, a woman. The BF remained the predominant fascist organization until Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists (BU) was established in 1932. Feminine Fascism discusses the role of women in these two groups, details the unique form of feminism embraced by members, and ends with an account of the internment and trials of women fascists during World War II. The last quarter of the book provides brief biographies of the many women in fascist Britain.

Gottlieb, a senior lecturer in history at the University of Sheffield, has trouble wrapping her head around what attracted so many women to fascism, especially those who had campaigned for women’s suffrage. How could women embrace such seemingly different ideologies: women’s rights, on the one hand, and anti-democracy on the other? The answer is that fascism offered women the best of both worlds.

Britain’s fascists encouraged women to be traditional in many areas. Motherhood was valued and respected, as was homemaking. In fact, the Corporate State would include a Home Corporation, in which homemakers would have representation just like any other trade. An article in The Blackshirt explained, “only when women represent women will womankind attain its rightful influence.”

A primary goal of the fascist platform was allowing women to once again be homemakers, but they used forward-thinking methods to advance their ideology. Many British women were essentially forced into the workplace due to wage variances between the sexes. Employers preferred less costly female employees, which pushed many men out of jobs. All too many families experienced the trials of having a working mother, with the father at home tending the house and children, unable to secure a decent wage. The fascists knew that in the modern world, a platform that appeared to regress women’s rights would hold no sway. Thus, they supported equal wages for women, since equal pay would mean that more men could return to the workforce. As explained by Fascist Week:

Under Fascism women will not be compelled to resign, but encouraged to do so by the fact that, under Corporate State and the scientific methods of raising real wages, men will be able to afford to marry women—and women will not be compelled to earn their own living as they are at present. (125)

However, the fascists never insisted that career-minded women remain at home, recognizing that there were not only occupations suited to women, but also situations in which women would desire a career and need equal pay. Rosalind Raby, for example, claimed that fascism would allow the unmarried mother “to earn an honest living for herself and her child.”

March_2

But the biggest innovation in British fascism was its emphasis on character. Men were encouraged to have values of courage, strength, honour, and integrity. The aristocracy of money and class would be replaced in the Corporate State with a meritocracy. Likewise, British fascism presented an alternate form of femininity: one that included strength, courage, and fearlessness. During marches, women were not permitted to wear lipstick or wave at friends as if in a beauty pageant. These feminine fascists were described as healthy, attractive, charming, intelligent, and of strong character. They were motherly, but as wary of sentimentality as Julius Evola. A male writer described the women Blackshirts:

Nothing silly or soft about these women. They are nothing if not practical . . . and the happy carefree way in which they made themselves at home, was so refreshing after one has had their fill of the simpering little brats that democracy and Jewish films have produced. (95)

The combination of traditional and modern was seen in the BU women’s uniform of: a black blouse, grey skirt, and black beret. It was against regulations for women to wear trousers while on active duty.

Integrating Fascism into Everyday Life

 

British fascists grew in numbers, in part because they didn’t relegate their philosophy to just the political sphere, but participated in almost every aspect of members’ lives. Weddings included fascist regalia, and at some funerals a fascist flag was draped over the coffin. The Fascist Week printed the names of wedding guests just like the society pages of The Times.

wedding

Members of the BF organized Fascist Children’s Clubs, in which children were taught history, songs, patriotism, and given awards for homework. Other women had brooches designed with the BU lightning symbol, and made dolls dressed in the blackshirt for children. There also was a BU Women’s Choir. According to Gottlieb:

By celebrating each phase of life within a fascist framework, the BF in fact appropriated the functions once carried out by the Church and this substantiated their claim . . . that fascism was akin to a religion. (28)

In addition to the accolades given to real women, there were fascist heroines as well. The most notable was Queen Elizabeth, for her command of the nation and exemplary oratory skills. Another heroine was Lady Hester Stanhope, who worked as a housekeeper before traveling through the Middle East. E. D. Hart wrote:

Those women who, whether from choice or, as in the case of Lady Hester, from necessity, explore other walks of life, will find both assistance and encouragement. When, like her, they display the Fascist virtues of courage, self-reliance, and tenacity of purpose, we ascribe to them the honour which is their due. (97)

Blackshirts also banded together to disparage several less attractive types of women. One was the feminist with mannish, short hair, called the “bleating Bloomsbury.” Another was the “Mayfair Parasite,” who usurped the nation’s wealth and vitality by sleeping late and devoting her life to superficial pleasures. Being fit and healthy was considered a moral duty, for as one writer put it: “Far too many women consider it their privilege to be ill . . . just ill enough to pamper themselves and evade their share of the family work.” Communists often were referred to as “submen” and “subwomen.” Titled women did not escape criticism either. Those who earned money by advertising products were publicly chastised by BU members for degrading both themselves and their class.

Women’s Duties in Fascist Organizations

Women were involved in almost every area of Britain’s fascist groups, and made up about 25 percent of the membership. The Women’s Section of the BU was established in March 1933, under the leadership of Lady Maud Mosley. She said, “When my son married Lady Cynthia [Mosley’s first wife], she took her place by his side. Now she is dead and there must be someone to help him in this work and I am going to do my best to fill the gap” (52).

Mosley’s second wife, Diana, and her sister Unity Valkyrie Mitford became two of the best-known female fascists, but Feminine Fascism only lightly touches on their stories. Their aristocratic parents were extremely Right-wing and anti-Semitic, but when the 2nd Baron Redesdale supported England during the war, he and his Nazi-sympathizing wife permanently separated.

Diana_MitfordDiana was married to Bryan Guinness when she met Mosley, and soon became his mistress. Mosley’s wife died suddenly of peritonitis in 1933 (though he was plagued the rest of his life that infidelities and political stress might have been the cause). Mosley and Diana were married at the home of Joseph Goebbels in 1936, with Hitler as guest of honor.

Unity debuted the same year her older sister became Mosley’s mistress. The next year, Diana and Unity went to the 1933 Nuremberg Rally as part of the BU delegation, and saw Hitler for the first time. Unity returned to Germany the following year, eating at the same restaurant as the Führer for 10 months, until he finally asked her over. Unity wrote to her father of their meeting: “I am so happy that I wouldn’t mind a bit, dying. I'd suppose I am the luckiest girl in the world. For me he is the greatest man of all time.” Hitler, in turn, described Unity as “a perfect specimen of Aryan womanhood.” Their affections might have escalated, if not for a suicide attempt by Hitler’s mistress, Eva Braun. Though in love with Hitler, Unity devoted herself to making speeches, writing letters, distributing propaganda, and being one of Hitler’s intimate confidantes. On September 3, 1939, the day Britain declared war on Germany, Unity took a pearl-handled pistol (a gift from Hitler for protection) and shot herself in the head, unable to bear the thought of the two countries she loved at war. She survived and was eventually able to walk again, but never recovered her full mental capabilities.

While Unity was helping the cause on the continent, women Blackshirts in England spoke at meetings, organized children’s groups, sold newspapers, and participated in marches and canvassing. Study groups about fascism were established for women speakers, and women participated in public debates. But women did not forsake their traditional duties either: One woman reported that it was the fair sex who kept the BU headquarters clean and brewed tea for the men. Members who did not give five nights a week to the movement were denied the privilege of wearing the coveted blackshirt.

A relatively large number of women participated in local elections. In 1936, the BU ran 10 women candidates (10 percent of their parliamentary candidates), from a variety of backgrounds. (Six were unmarried, five were professionals, three were in their 20s, and two were from gentry families.) The various women received between 15 and 23 percent of the votes in their respective districts.

speaking

Women’s most valuable talents were said to be in public speaking, and numerous BU women were praised for their excellent oration and ability to move crowds. Other women were lauded for their ability to use personal stories in their speeches, which proved more powerful than simple recitations of facts. During a 1936–37 campaign, women decided to censor their speeches for tactical advantage. No speaker was allowed to use the word “Jew.” Instead, plain-clothed members were scattered throughout the audience to use the word instead, as the message was thought to be more rousing if coming from the public.

Women had roles to play in security and self-defense as well. Female members of several organizations were trained in ju-jitsu, for as Fascist Week reported, “no male member of the BU is permitted to use force upon any woman, and women Reds often form a highly noisy and razor-carrying section at fascist meetings. Thus we counter women with women” (66).

The Fallout During the War

As early as 1938, a division of MI5 was formed to place agents in subversive organizations. Three women agents provocateurs successfully infiltrated the popular fascist group, Captain Ramsay’s Right Club. After Britain entered WWII, the country started to resemble a totalitarian dystopia for fascist sympathizers. In October 1939, Anne Brock Griggs was charged with “insulting words and disturbing the peace” for saying in a speech: “If Germans don’t like Hitler they can get rid of him themselves. We do not need to send our sons to fight them. If ever a country wants a revolution now it is Great Britain” (236). She quit her BU post, but was still interned during the war.

Defense Regulation 18B(1A) went into effect in September 1939, and it allowed the Home Secretary to detain anyone suspected of being a threat to national security. That category included anyone who was a leader or member in a group that might be under foreign influence. Under 18B, 1,826 people were interned, including 747 BU members (96 of them women).

Sir Oswald Mosley was arrested in May 1940, the day after the Defense Regulations were passed. The BU was outlawed in June, and his second wife, Diana, was interned shortly after. She was denounced by both her sister Nancy (later a famous novelist and biographer) and her former father-in-law, and had to leave without her 11-week-old, still-nursing baby boy. Although the English public called for Unity Mitford to be interned as a traitor, she was allowed to return to the family home with her mother, since she was weak from her suicide attempt.

Interned women were given no special treatment in prison. When Miss L. M. Reeve was arrested, a group of armed guards came to take her from her home. One officer asked if he could have her dog, since she was “probably about to be shot.” One woman’s infant died while staying with her in prison, and another woman’s infant was pulled from her arms and placed in an institution. Part of the evidence against another woman was a photograph of her on vacation in Germany in 1939, seated at a table with bottles of German wine.

Fascists on the outside, though their organizations were banned, were still able to help their comrades via a registered charity founded specifically to help those interned under 18B. The charity helped pay for legal and medical services, provided assistance to detainees’ families, provided post-release counseling, and helped people find employment. Trials could only be held for those who could be charged with a tangible offense, so many men and women fascists were imprisoned for years.

The Impact of Feminine Fascism

 

The much-anticipated Corporate State never became a reality, and its philosophies and ideas were forced to the margins of history. Yet the lessons that can be learned from the events detailed in Feminine Fascism remain relevant to the leaders of future generations.

Eighty years ago, the fascists recognized that it would be impossible to shed the gains made in women’s rights. Rather than fighting against women’s “emancipation,” with which they ideologically disagreed, the fascists used it to their advantage. The result was a philosophy for women that honored the traditional, yet considered the needs of modern women. Fascists didn’t need to force women into the home or sell them on an ideology that contradicted the propaganda of the modern world; they realized that the moment women didn’t have to work the majority of mothers would return gladly to full-time homemaking. And given the precarious nature of homemaking as a profession, they planned ways for women to have representation and security in the Corporate State. The result was a platform that united women of various political persuasions, ages, and classes. Because it details the fascists’ unique outlook and strategy, Feminine Fascism makes a relevant handbook for those looking to learn from the successes and failures of history.

lundi, 16 janvier 2012

L’Ecosse veut l'indépendance, Londres est contre

L’Ecosse veut l'indépendance, Londres est contre

Ex: http://mbm.hautetfort.com/

 

 

© Flickr.com/James.Stringer/cc-by-nc
     

 

Le parti nationaliste écossais estime que seul le parlement national peut décider quand et comment organiser le référendum sur l'indépendance. Londres affirme que cela est contraire à la législation du Royaume-Uni.Alex Salmond propose de donner le droit de vote à partir de 16 ans. Londres estime que seules les personnes ayant atteint 18 ans peuvent voter.

Avant le Nouvel an, le premier-ministre de l’Ecosse Alex Salmond, menaçait seulement d’une possibilité d'organiser un référendum d'ici à cinq ans. Mais le processus a rapidement pris de l'ampleur. Et déjà, la date des élections a été annoncée: il s’agit de l’automne 2014. En fixant la date du référendum, Alex Salmond a annoncé qu'il est prêt à mener des pourparlers avec le premier-ministre britannique sur cette question. David Cameron a accepté cette proposition, mais a rappelé que la décision d’organiser un référendum dans n’importe quel pays constitutif du Royaume-Uni, selon la loi, ne peut être prise qu’à Westminster. Cameron s’est dit favorable à un référendum en 2013, mais Salmond insiste sur 2014, la date qu’il a fixée. En réponse, le premier-ministre britannique a déclaré qu'il n'allait pas à dicter les conditions aux écossais.

«Je crois de tout mon cœur en une Grande-Bretagne unie», a précisé Cameron. «Je crois que nous sommes plus forts lorsque nous sommes ensemble et non pas divisés en plusieurs parties. Nous devons, évidemment, respecter le choix des Ecossais, qui ont voté pour les nationalistes lors des dernières élections, mais il faut savoir clairement à quel point serait légitime le déroulement d’un referendum sur l’indépendance du point de vue de la loi. Organisons des débats, mais gardons l'intégrité de notre pays».

Pétrole comme enjeu de l’indépendance

Si l'Ecosse organise un referendum et décide de se séparer du Royaume-Uni, cela conduirait à des problèmes économiques sérieux pour la Grande-Bretagne. Se posera alors la question de la répartition de la dette britannique, de la place du nouvel Etat au sein l'UE, et même l'avenir des sous-marins britanniques nucléaires basés sur la côte ouest de l'Ecosse posera problème. Ce «divorce» conduira à de graves perturbations sur les marchés financiers et dans le secteur bancaire. Mais le plus important, c’est la question du pétrole qui fera surface. De très nombreuses plates-formes pétrolières britanniques sont implantées dans la mer au large de la côte Est de l'Ecosse. Et sur cette question, les nationalistes écossais n’ont aucun doute. Ils veulent garder toutes les réserves du pétrole de la mer du Nord pour eux. Lors d'une audition au parlement britannique, le leader de l'opposition travailliste Ed Milliband a déclaré que la décision de l'indépendance de l’Ecosse portera un coup sérieux à l'économie britannique.

«La décision que nous prenons aujourd'hui, sera fatidique. Et si nous prenons une mauvaise décision, nos enfants et nos petits-enfants seront obligés de vivre avec», affirme-t-il.

Un référendum qui n’est pas pris au sérieux

Mais les hommes politiques de Westminster, ont vraisemblablement tendance à penser que la vraie séparation n’aura pas lieu. Comme l'a expliqué Cameron, les nationalistes écossais aiment le verbiage au sujet de l'indépendance, mais ils esquivent une conversation de fond à ce sujet. Les partis politiques écossais sont d'accord avec ces affirmations, en qualifiant les nationalistes de populistes. L'opposition a même demandé au gouvernement de ne pas attendre, et d’organiser un référendum tout de suite. Même si beaucoup d’Ecossais voudraient voir leur région indépendante de Londres, le timing choisi pour lancer cette discussion n’est pas très bon. Le taux de chômage dans cette région est très élevé, et les Ecossais sont obligés de chercher du travail dans le Sud du pays. Si le référendum avait eu lieu aujourd’hui, la majorité voterait contre l'indépendance, et ce serait une véritable défaite pour les nationalistes qui sont au pouvoir en Ecosse. Selon la presse britannique, si les hommes politiques anglais et écossais ne vont pas pouvoir s'entendre, c’est Cour suprême du Royaume-Uni, qui devra décider si ce référendum doit avoir lieu.

mercredi, 23 novembre 2011

1930, strategie Usa contro l’Inghilterra

article-2039453-0DFF7FE400000578-681_636x357.jpg

1930, strategie Usa contro l’Inghilterra

“Piano Rosso” era un nome in codice per una guerra apocalittica con la Gran Bretagna e tutte le sue colonie, con bombardamenti aerei ed armi chimiche

di David Gerrie*

Ex: http://rinascita.eu/

I dettagli riguardanti un sorprendente piano militare americano per spazzare via gran parte dell’esercito britannico vengono oggi rivelati per la prima volta.
Nel 1930, ben 9 anni prima dello scoppio della Seconda Guerra Mondiale, l’America allestì dei piani miranti specificatamente ad eliminare tutte le truppe di terra britanniche in Canada e nel Nord Atlantico, distruggendo così la forza commerciale inglese e mettere in ginocchio il paese.
Movimenti di truppe senza precedenti furono messe in campo per i preparativi di un invasione del Canada, il che prevedeva massicce incursioni aeree su obiettivi industriali primari e l’uso di armi chimiche, quest’ultimo avallato al più alto livello nientemeno che dal leggendario generale Douglas MacArthur.
I piani, rivelati in un documentario di Channel 5, erano soltanto alcuni di un numero di possibili piani militari preparati contro un numero di potenziali nemici, incluse le isole caraibiche e la Cina. Ce ne era uno addirittura previsto per combattere un sollevamento interno nel territorio statunitense.
Alla fine non ci fu alcuna approvazione da parte del presidente Franklin Delano Roosevelt per ciò che era conosciuto come Piano di Guerra Rosso. Anzi, i due paesi divennero gli alleati più uniti durante il secondo conflitto, un alleanza occasionalmente difficile che continua ancora oggi.
Tuttavia è interessante che ci fossero persone all’interno dell’apparato politico e militare americano che pensavano che una tale guerra fosse fattibile.
Mentre all’esterno dell’America sia Churchill che Hitler pensavano che fosse una possibilità durante gli anni 30, un periodo di profonda incertezza politica ed economica.
I documenti con classificazione di alta segretezza rivelano che si dovevano fare grossi sforzi nei Caraibi e nella Costa Occidentale per bloccare qualsiasi controffensiva britannica dall’Europa, India o Australia.
Nel 1931, il governo americano autorizzò perfino l’eroe del volo transatlantico conquistatore di record e noto simpatizzante nazista Charles A. Lindbergh ad essere inviato sotto copertura come spia sulla sponda occidentale della Baia di Hudson per valutare la possibilità di usare aerei idrovolanti e individuare punti di bassa resistenza come potenziali teste di ponte. Quattro anni dopo, il Congresso Americano autorizzò la spesa di 57 milioni di dollari per la costruzione di tre piste di volo segrete nella parte americana del confine canadese, ricoprendo le piste di strisce erbose per nascondere il loro intento.
Tutti i governi ipotizzano piani prevedendo la “peggiore delle ipotesi” che vengono tenuti nascosti al pubblico.
Questi documenti sono stati scoperti nel profondo dell’American National Archives di Washington, D.C., una documentazione top-secret considerata un tempo la più delicata del mondo.
Era nel 1930 che l’America preparò un piano di guerra con “L’Impero Rosso”, quello più pericoloso. Ma l’avversario americano in questa guerra non era la Russia o il Giappone e nemmeno la Germania Nazista che stava per germogliare.
Piano Rosso era un nome in codice per una guerra apocalittica con la Gran Bretagna e tutte le sue colonie. Dopo l’Armistizio del 1918 e per tutti gli anni 20, lo storico sentimento anti-britannico americano, ereditato dal XIX secolo, stava pericolosamente aumentando a causa del 9 milioni di sterline che l’Inghilterra doveva agli Stati Uniti per il loro intervento nella Grande Guerra.
Il sentimento britannico verso l’America era reciproco.
Agli inizi degli anni ‘30 l’America vide con inquietudine l’aumentare dei simpatizzanti nei confronti del Nazismo che marciavano, inneggiando a Hitler, a New York da Park Avenue al Madison Square Garden.
Oltre l’Atlantico la Gran Bretagna aveva il più grande impero al mondo, per non parlare della più potente forza navale.
Con questa panoramica, alcuni americani vedevano il loro paese emergere come una potenza mondiale di spicco e sapevano fin troppo bene come l’Inghilterra aveva spento in passato tali velleità: con la guerra e schiacciandole. In questo scenario l’America si vedeva perdente.
Nel 1935 l’America allestì le sue più grandi manovre mai effettuate prima, movimentando truppe e installando depositi di munizioni a Fort Drum, a mezzora di strada dal confine orientale canadese.
Da qui sarebbe stato lanciato il primo attacco su cittadini britannici, con la città di Halifax in Nuova Scozia come primo obiettivo.
“Questo avrebbe significato sei milioni di soldati che combattevano sul confine marittimo orientale americano”, dice Peter Carlson, editore della rivista American History.
 
Piano di guerra rosso, verde, viola…

Durante gli anni 20 e 30 gli Stati Uniti usarono vari codici di colore per identificare i piani bellici con i potenziali avversari.
Molti di questi giochi di guerra furono sottoposti alla Divisione informativa dell’esercito da ufficiali di stanza all’epoca.
Molte di queste erano esercitazioni ipotetiche e fornirono soltanto ampi profili strategici. Comunque il progetto era considerato dall’esercito un buon addestramento per il personale.
“Sarebbe stato come a Verdun” alludendo al feroce conflitto fra le truppe tedesche e quelle francesi nel 1916 che lasciò sul campo 306.000 morti.
Mentre la gente considerava una guerra con gli Stati Uniti inconcepibile, perfino Winston Churchill pensava che non lo fosse.
“L’America si sentiva come se l’Inghilterra l’avesse spinta sotto l’autobus per poter rimanere la protagonista principale” dice il prof. Mike Vlahos della scuola navale di guerra statunitense.
“Gli Stati Uniti furono costretti a prendere in considerazione ogni misura per tenere a bada la Gran Bretagna”.
Perfino Hitler riteneva che una tale guerra fosse inevitabile ma sorprendentemente voleva che a vincere fosse l’Inghilterra, credendo che questo sarebbe stato il miglior risultato per la Germania poiché la Gran Bretagna avrebbe potuto allearsi con lui per attaccare gli Stati Uniti.
Usando modelli disponibili per questa guerra, i moderni esperti navali e dell’esercito oggi ritengono che la conseguenza più probabile di un simile conflitto sarebbe stata una massiccia battaglia navale nel Nord Atlantico, con poche reali vittime ma con l’esito che la Gran Bretagna avrebbe ceduto il Canada agli Stati Uniti in modo da conservare le proprie vitali rotte commerciali.
Comunque, il 15 giugno 1939, lo stesso anno dell’invasione tedesca della Polonia, una comunicazione di servizio interna americana ritiene che questi piani di invasione siano “totalmente inapplicabili”, ma che tuttavia “devono essere tenuti in considerazione” per il futuro. Questo viene ora visto come l’inizio e la ragione principale che stanno dietro alle “speciali relazioni” fra i due paesi.
 
Isolazionismo, prosperità e declino: l’America dopo la Prima Guerra Mondiale

Come succede a varie nazioni strettamente alleate, la Gran Bretagna e l’America hanno a lungo condiviso un “rapporto speciale”.
Iniziando da Churchill e Roosevelt, si passò poi alla Thatcher e Reagan, Clinton e Blair, la Regina e Obama.
Ora sappiamo che Roosevelt alla fine bocciò il piano di invasione dell’Inghilterra come “totalmente inapplicabile”. Ma quanto era speciale quel rapporto nel decennio precedente alla Seconda Guerra Mondiale?
All’inizio degli anni 20 l’economia americana attraversava il suo boom. I “Ruggenti Anni Venti” furono un periodo di una sempre maggior spesa al consumo e produzione di massa; ma dopo la Prima Guerra Mondiale, l’opinione pubblica americana diventava sempre più isolazionista. Ciò venne evidenziato col suo rifiuto di far parte della Lega delle Nazioni, la cui missione principale era quella di mantenere la pace mondiale.
La politica estera americana continuava a tagliarsi fuori dal resto del mondo durante quel periodo imponendo dazi sulle importazioni per proteggere i produttori nazionali.
Milioni di persone, per lo più dall’Europa, in precedenza furono le benvenute in America alla ricerca di una vita migliore. Ma nel 1921 furono introdotte le quote e nel 1929 soltanto 150.000 immigrati all’anno potevano entrare negli Usa.
Dopo un decennio di prosperità ed ottimismo, l’America cadde nella disperazione quando la Borsa affondò nell’ottobre del 1929, dando inizio così alla Grande Depressione.
Le conseguenti durezze economiche e la disoccupazione di massa segnarono il destino nella rielezione del presidente Herbert Hoover e così Franklin Delano Roosevelt conquistò la vittoria elettorale nel Marzo del 1933.
Di fronte a lui c’era un’economia sull’orlo del collasso: erano state chiuse banche in 32 stati e circa 17 milioni di persone erano state licenziate, quasi un terzo della forza lavorativa.
Mentre le tensioni in Europa salivano per la presa del potere dei Nazionalsocialisti, il Congresso introdusse una serie di Atti di Neutralità per impedire all’America di venire coinvolta in conflitti esterni.
Nonostante Roosevelt non fosse d’accordo con questa politica, l’accettò perché aveva ancora bisogno dell’appoggio del Congresso per i suoi programmi del New Deal, progettati per trascinare il paese fuori dalla Depressione.
Nel 1937 la situazione in Europa peggiorava ed iniziò in Asia la seconda guerra fra Cina e Giappone.
Un leggero cambiamento nell’opinione pubblica permise limitati aiuti americani agli Alleati.
L’attacco giapponese a Pearl Harbor nel dicembre del 1941 cambio però tutto.
 
 
Traduzione dal Daily Mail a cura di: Gian Franco Spotti
 


20 Ottobre 2011 12:00:00 - http://rinascita.eu/index.php?action=news&id=11022

lundi, 17 octobre 2011

The Sunic Journal: Jonathan Bowden

The Sunic Journal: Jonathan Bowden

lundi, 29 août 2011

Août 1941: violation de la neutralité iranienne

ChevroletIndiaPatternAC.jpg

Anton SCHMITT:

Août 1941: violation de la neutralité iranienne

 

Tous ceux qui réfléchissent aujourd’hui aux positions politiques que prend l’Iran et s’en étonnent, devraient étudier l’histoire récente de ce grand pays du Moyen Orient qui, depuis près de deux siècles, n’a jamais cessé d’être le jouet de ses voisins et des grandes puissances mondiales. La haute considération dont bénéficie l’Allemagne en Iran —en dépit de la politique désastreuse actuellement suivie par la Chancelière Merkel— ne dérive pas d’un “antisémitisme foncier” que les médiats attribuent plutôt à tort à la population iranienne mais provient surtout du fait que l’Allemagne n’a jamais tenté de se soumettre l’Iran.

 

Les puissances qui se sont attaquées à la souveraineté iranienne sont la Grande-Bretagne, la Russie et les Etats-Unis, qui, tous, ont été des adversaires de l’Allemagne au cours des deux guerres mondiales.

 

Le 25 août 1941, à 4 h 30 du matin, les Soviétiques et les Britanniques amorcent les hostilités avec l’Iran. Quelques minutes auparavant, les ambassadeurs Simonov et Bullard avaient transmis une note qui annonçait la décision de  leurs gouvernements respectifs. Cette note évoquait l’amitié que Soviétiques et Britanniques éprouvaient à l’endroit du peuple iranien, qu’ils entendaient désormais libérer de l’influence des “agents allemands”.

 

Quelques jours auparavant, le gouvernement iranien, qui percevait la menace, avait, dans son désarroi, demandé l’aide des Etats-Unis. Franklin Delano Roosevelt répond à l’appel des Iraniens le 22 août 1941 en adoptant un ton incroyablement cynique: il prétend que les bruits circulant à propos d’une invasion de l’Iran, qui aurait été dûment planifiée par les Soviétiques et les Britanniques, sont dépouvus de véracité et qu’il n’a rien appris de semblables projets. En fait, Roosevelt s’exprimait exactement de la même manière que Walter Ulbricht, lorsqu’on lui posait des questions sur l’imminence de la construction du Mur de Berlin en 1961.

 

Comme Churchill avait contribué à décimer l’armée de terre britannique au cours des campagnes menées dans le Nord de la France, en Grèce et en Libye, les Britanniques ne pouvaient plus aligner que des troupes coloniales de seconde voire de tierce catégorie, recrutées surtout en Inde. Les Soviétiques n’éprouvaient pas les mêmes difficultés. La manière dont l’attaque contre l’Iran fut perpétrée démontre que les agresseurs ne faisaient pas grand cas du droit de la guerre. Tandis que la Wehrmacht allemande avait demandé, avant d’entamer les hostilités, aux Danois et aux Norvégiens de capituler, les Britanniques, eux, n’ont pas accordé la moindre chance aux Iraniens à Khorramshar; ils ont ouvert le feu sans faire le détail, détruisant les casernes où les soldats du Shah dormaient encore.

 

Suite à l’invasion, l’Iran fut partagé en plusieurs “zones”. Les Américains, accourus à l’aide, ont remplacé les Anglais et fourni, pour leur zone, des troupes d’occupation. Les Américains se sont mis aussitôt à construire des routes et des voies de chemin de fer. C’est ainsi que s’est constitué toute une logisitique permettant de fournir matériels et approvisionnements américains aux Soviétiques. Au cours des années 1942/1943, 23% des aides américaines à l’URSS de Staline passaient par l’Iran. L’issue de la bataille de Stalingrad en a indubitablement dépendu. Après la guerre, les occupants ont lourdement facturé à l’Iran la construction de ces infrastructures, qu’ils avaient entreprise pour le bénéfice de leur propre guerre.

 

Le Shah, père du dernier Empereur Pahlevi, avait été jugé trop récalcitrant: les occupants ont dès lors exigé son abdication, peu de temps après l’invasion. Son fils monte sur le trône. Les “agents allemands”, qui avaient servi de prétexte à l’agression, existaient réellement. Quelques rares représentants de la fameuse Division “Brandenburg” ont bien tenté d’organiser la résistance iranienne, mais leurs actions n’eurent guère d’effets sur le plan militaire. En 1944, le père du dernier Shah meurt dans son exil sud-africain. Après la fin des hostilités, les occupants ne s’empressent pas de partir. Les Soviétiques tentent, avec l’appui d’un parti communiste rigoureusement bien organisé, de prendre le pouvoir réel en Iran, selon le même scénario mis au point en Tchécoslovaquie et appliqué avec le succès que l’on sait dans ce pays d’Europe centrale. Les Britanniques, eux, se contentaient, d’exploiter les puits de pétrole iraniens.

 

Dans le passé, bon nombre de grandes puissances, lorsque surgissaient des conflits, n’éprouvèrent que peu de respect pour la souveraineté des Etats neutres. Lors de la première guerre mondiale, les grandes puissances n’ont pas hésité à bafouer les droits des puissances de moindre envergure. Cela ne concerne pas seulement la Belgique et le Luxembourg, dont la neutralité fut violée par l’Allemagne en 1914, mais aussi la Grèce que la France et la Grande-Bretagne contraignirent à accepter leurs conditions en 1916.

 

Anton SCHMITT.

(article publié dans “zur Zeit”, Vienne, n°34/2011; http://www.zurzeit.at/ ).