There are too many bad laws being passed say ex-Whitehall mandarins in a new report.
As if we didn't know that!
Every press headline brings in a new law.
Right: NuLab's laws on public demonstrations, the anti-Terror laws which give the police powers to stop people wearing political t-shirts, to expel people from government meetings and preventing demonstrations outside parliament are particularly bad laws, pushed through on the back of the questionable "9/11," "7/7." etc. as NuLab rushed to follow Bush's Neo-Con regime. Despite his blusterings Cameron's ModCons would have done the same.
We are living under a nanny state which reacts to media pressure with knee-jerk reaction laws as a means to placate the mass media and thus win headlines in a short term attempt to garner popular support (via the mass media!)
Which in turns leads me to the report* this week in which it was revealed that tolerance of homosexuality has risen in the last 20 odd (very odd!) years from circa 30% to circa 60%.
Lots of pundits and columnists asked the question "why?"
There is no doubt that the mass media played its part in this. For years the BBC in particular has operated as a kind of pink mafia, and one only has to hear of continued story-lines in Eastenders which promote homosexuality as (sick buckets at the ready) a "valid lifestyle choice" to understand that there has been a media campaign to liberalise attitudes.
Coming back to the "bad laws" scenario, another key aspect of the alleged change in 'social attitudes' was the New Labour repeal of Section 28 and all the pro-homosexual laws they passed, including the legalisation of what they hope will in effect become known as homosexual "marriage."
Whilst the government often finds it has no time for badly needed legislation, or more often to give sufficient time for proper and serious debate on matters as diverse as war, id cards, police powers, immigration, drugs, the banking system and similar issues.
Despite all this, the New Labour government miraculously found the time to pass law after law in favour of homosexuality.
With senior NuLab commissars recently admitting that they let hundreds of thousands of non-European immigrants flood in on purpose to socially engineer our society and undermine the national identity of the English in particular, playing fast and loose with the fabric of our communities to force through their own twisted racial dogmas, can we be in any doubt whatsoever that their insistence on pushing through homosexual laws, for the benefit of the circa 0.5% of the population that are practicing homosexuals, was yet another questionable and Bolshevik-style attempt to force through their Socialist Credo and use the weight of the law to back up an insidious mass media portrayal of homosexuality as "normal?"
In time history will judge New Labour as an evil regime. They forced an unwanted war on the people using a dodgy dossier and lies to parliament; they forced millions of immigrants on the country during their tenure, to forcibly change the face of the UK; and in order to socially engineer society and push their bastardised vision of "the family" they have passed unwanted and bad laws to act as the stick against the media's carrot, so that even Christian b&b owners are forced to let out double rooms to sodomites.
There are a lot of bad laws and a lot of bad decisions made by the politicians. But not all of them have been knee-jerk: many have been carefully thought through to promote the Zionist and Liberal ideals of New Labour.
The sad thing is that David Cameron has already made it clear that he supported and supports the war in Iraq. Furthermore all the Tories state the "great benefits" mass immigration has allegedly brought (more au pairs, more fancy restaurants, more cleaners - for MPs!). Cameron has also insisted that his plans for tax-incentives for families will include "civil partners" so in the modern Conservatives' regime a sodomite couple will be on a level par with a family bringing children into this world to pay the taxes that will pay for our future pensions.
In other words when NuLab are replaced by the ModCons, nothing will change. Economic policy may move a few degrees to the "right" (whilst staying in cahoots to the banksters and usury profiteers), but on Zionist wars, immigration and multi-culti, and on homosexuality you could slip a cigarette paper between the two.
We, as a society, are being pushed into cul-de-sac. We are the victims of New World Order (Bilderberger et al) experiments on immigration, liberalising social attitudes, continual war, abortion on demand and, as we saw with the character assassination of Dr Andrew Wakefield this week, growing vaccination campaigns as an excuse for mass medication.
The recent campaign against cervical cancer being a perfect case in point. There is evidence that in America the vaccination killed more children in the short term than the lives it would have saved in the long term!
The powers that be see us as cattle.
They herd us along via their mass media. Four legs good two legs bad has been replaced by similar chants. Immigration good, hatred bad. Homosexuality good, intolerance bad. Israel good, Libya/Syria/Iraq/Iran/and whoever next bad.
To mix metaphors, the emperor has no clothes.
The government is passing laws so that anyone who says the emperor is naked is in court on clothes-hatred charges. The media is showing programmes on how chic is the emperor's range, how it is de rigueur for anyone at the 'cutting edge' and how it is the veritable dernier cri of the fashion world (with occasional Panoramas and Dispatches on the twisted hatred of extremist Clothe-Deniers).
We now live in a state with far more police powers, far more big brother laws promoting immorality and amorality, far more social engineering ripping out the guts of the people, and the more lawlessness caused by the virtual breakdown of family life - the more powers they give the police (a police that cannot cope with the laws it already has, eg. muggings, burglaries, car crime, anti-social crimes are routinely not investigated).
Our politicians cannot break the circle. They cannot see that their 60s-style amoral codes have led to the lawlessness we see around us. They cannot see that mass immigration has fractured communities and led to a loss of identity which used to gel communities and make people look out for the 'common good' however imperfect. They cannot see that their attacks on the family and their financial promotion of single parents has led to an uncontrollable generation (especially in Afro-Caribbean families in cities like London). They cannot see that their "human rights" mania has led to an uncontrollable generation of schoolchildren who know all their "rights" (eg. that they cannot be physically punished) but know nothing of any social and communal responsibility.
Welcome to 2010, New World Order style.
It seems a mess, it seems an insurmountable challenge, and so it is whilst we have a controlled media and a corrupt political class using lawyer-speak to justify the complete betrayal of many generations following the self-sacrifice of our grandfathers in World War 2.
That said, the answers are quite simple and common sense. It just takes people with the gumption, the ideal of self-sacrifice, and men of goodwill who will fight for a just cause and not to fill their pockets (for such men are easily bought off by banksters, Zionist interests and similar).
Otherwise we face more lawlessness, more suffering, more collapse of an entire society.
Blair, Brown and all the others always say (in the shadow of their Neo-Con alliance) that their primary concern is the safety of the British people.
If that were truly the case they would act, and act now, to stop our slide into amorality, they would stop the wholesale murder of the Britons killed in the womb, they would reinvigorate the family to bring more children under the rule of a mum and a dad.
Of course these are all simplistic sound bytes, and would not solve every problem nor banish every crime; but we have to start somewhere. Nationalists have never said they can create a utopia (unlike Socialists), but we can create a society wherein morality is a norm; wherein the Common Good is at the centre of society; wherein Distributism give genuine opportunity for all and a sincere Social Justice (unlike NuLab who push a form of Bolshevism whilst making the gap between rich and poor bigger than ever before!).
Man's nature makes utopia impossible. That doesn't mean we must accept the naked emperor that is Britain today.
Ex-Whitehall Mandarins Condemn Bad Laws
*I'm sure I caught a reference on Radio 4's Today programme to the pro-homosexual report being (co-)written by the homosexual activist (and ex-That's Life presenter) Simon Hew Dalrymple Fanshawe (to give him his full name!) leading me to ask can its findings be trusted? Any further info gratefully received.
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Friday, 29 January 2010
How fascinating that in today's Iraq Enquiry the war criminal Tony Blair said that when it came to the proliferation of illegal WMDs by nations with a record of murder, attacking neighbours etc. (he meant Iraq) we should 'not take chances.'
Right: Like a Communist commissar, Mr Blair spouts his version of events, convinced that his twisted logic and political spin constitute the truth, despite what most people can see for themselves via dodgy dossiers, withdrawn weapons inspectors and a failed attempt at a UN resolution justifying invasion.
Funnily enough he then went on to warn about Iran, though of course Iran has not committed mass murder against its citizens, nor has it invaded neighbours, nor does it have illegal WMDs.
There is another Mid East country which does fill all those criteria however.
It has attacked its own citizens, it has committed mass murder, it has invaded its neighbours and it does have illegal WMDs in the shape of hidden nukes which it will not allow UN weapons inspectors to... erm... inspect (unlike Saddam funnily enough).
That terror state, that illegal WMD state, that mass murdering state is of course Israel.
So when, Mr Blair, can we expect the UK and USA to take action against Israel?
Weapons inspectors? Trade sanctions? Blockades? Perhaps an invasion?
After all Mr Blair, we shouldn't take any chances: that's your own criteria!
Funnily enough, the war criminal Blair did mention Israel at least once (please understand I watched the proceedings in between working). It was at a meeting held with Bush before thew war and Blair mentioned that they were on the phone to the Israelis a couple of times.
So they are planning an illegal war against one state, on the pretext of non-existent WMDs, whilst conferring with (and propping up!) another state with an atrocious record and which does hold illegal WMDs.
Luckily Mr Blair has since moved on to various lucrative speaking engagements which have made him a millionaire many times over.
Oh... and working to bring peace to the Middle East! if you didn't laugh you'd cry!
Here from London, we may have heard a first in the House of Lords during a well-attended seminar last night. Recorded by an authorised cameraman, someone (no surprise to Dr Zuroff on who that might have been!) was permitted by the Chairman to offer the last word from the floor (at 6.16 mins into part 10) : on why Israel has no right or need to exist and that neither does the privileged veto in the UN Security Council if there is ever to be an effective definition of causal "terrorist" as opposed to consequential "freedom fighter":
Israel's Right to Exist
EHRC – A TYRANNY WE CAN DO WITHOUT
For once the National Front can identify with the trials and tribulations of Nick Griffin in the attack being launched upon him by the Race tyrant Trevor Phillips and his fat, cash rich quango the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The NF is quite aware that such a vile attack on its membership requirements (and even its political policies with the result of this week’s court case against the BNP now known) that the EHRC and the Stalinist Phillips could easily direct their attentions to the Front. We agree totally with the BNP leadership that this is a politically motivated attack, and whatever its faults, the BNP leadership do not deserve it – they have every right to restrict their membership to ethnic British.
What is wrong however is the way the whole thing has been handled. Griffin has treated the whole very serious matter as a side show and in fact, the BNP Leadership have badly mishandled the whole matter. When the very basis of a Nationalist party’s membership criteria is threatened then the NF view is that EVERYTHING must take second place to the battle to preserve our right to decide who does or does not become a member. Membership of the NF is open to men and women of European descent and no others – and come what may the leadership of the NF is going to fight tooth and nail to make sure it stays that way.
The National Front is only about one tenth the size of the BNP and so its resources are more limited, but for 42+ years, the Front have had a policy of being an all White party and the NF WILL put everything to one side if the EHRC directs its attentions to it.
The BNP caved in – Griffin gave undertakings he wasn’t even asked for and has dug a hole which it is now impossible for the BNP to climb out of. Very shortly after its EGM, the BNP will officially be a multi-racial party.
Griffin has rallied his members in only one way – the usual stream of begging emails and letters for donations whose destination the NF fear is dubious to say the least.
What should the BNP have done? They should have fought tooth and nail! They should have had a continuous picket of the EHRC headquarters. They should have door stepped Phillips at all his public appearances. They should have fought in court from the very first minute of the preliminary hearings like a tigress looking after its cubs. Griffin claimed that the court case would bankrupt the BNP. Well firstly we could mention the fury currently going on over the BNP accounts – but putting that aside – what price being financially bankrupt if the outcome is losing the very reason for the party to exist in the first place?
Even worse, we now have a legal precedence with Griffin’s faster than light surrender to Tyrant Phillips which can impact on any current and future Nationalist groups in Britain.
The NF does not have vast financial resources and its manpower is growing but still relatively low compared to the BNP – yet the NF HAS the determination and willpower to FIGHT this shocking and evil attack on the right of a Nationalist party to decide its membership criteria. There are many ways to fight it too – and many arguments which should have been mustered in defence of an all British membership policy which have not even been looked at.
The NF is a party for the White Britons of our Nation. It will stay that way and come what may any attack on our freeborn right as Britons to decide who we wish and do not wish to associate with will be fought to the bitter end – for otherwise the NF itself would cease to exist. There is no other way but total resistance!
From NF News #39, 30th Januray 2010 (Weekly e-mail newsletter of the NF).
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
See last night's Newsnight (Tues 26th Jan) to see the arch Neo Con and (Former?) leftist David Aaronovitch state that the opinion of government lawyers that the invasion of Iraq was illegal was all but irrelevant.
Where has Aaronovitch the liberal gone? You know - the man who tells us how great multi-culti mass invasion is for us all!
Ever since the advent of the Neo Cons (almost, but not quite all, ex-leftist Jewish Zionists) at the time of the illegal Invasion of Iraq, these people have been busting a gut to justify the war crimes of their ilk - just as they always justify the war crimes of Israel.
It seems that everything that is racist is anathema to these people... except when it is in service of Israel and the Zionist States of America, of course!
The fact that the war against Iraq was quite clearly illegal and opposed by most people (not just in the UK!) as well as quite a few governments in Europe and beyond (remember French fries becoming "freedom fries?"), should matter!
Let's face it, if Germany's top lawyers said that their invasion of Poland was legal, would that make Mr. Aaronovitch accept that the Nuremberg trials will null and void? A victor's justice imposed in part by the Soviet Union which also invaded Poland in 1939 and 1944!
No, Mr Aaronovitch and all the Neo Cons and their fellow travellers think laws only apply if they do not impede their fight to make the world free of more governments which may be hostile to their interests.
Just as on Holocaust Memorial Day we are not supposed to remember the 100 Million victims of Communism in the 20th Century.
As Elizabeth Dilling made clear in her page-turner The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today:
There seems to be a pattern in the world of our would-be masters: ignore war crimes that benefit them, ignore genocide(s) that involve their ideological forebears.
The next time when some Christian dupe tells you: “Socialism is not Jewish!,” for one thing, pull out the pamphlet “Jew and Non-Jew,” put out by the Reform Jewish “Union of American Hebrew Congregations” and their “Central Conference of American Rabbis” and read:Socialism was originated by Jews; and today Jews play a leading role in its spread and interpretation.” (page 30).
From Katyn Forest to the Gulags, from Lebanon to the Gaza Strip. No Hollywood films, no British/American intervention, no lessons in schools, no memorials, no ceremonies.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except that it is missing."
Friday, 22 January 2010
The BNP has opened a new section for coloureds (and whites) who want non-Whites to be 'patriotic Brits' and INTEGRATE!!!
Right: The BNP is reportedly against Islam - yet welcomes with open arms any "Westernised" Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Animists and yes even Muslims!!! Can we please get back to promoting White Nationalism and not some kind of bastardised Israeli anti-Jihadist pressure group politics? Is a veiled Muslim less acceptable than a Muslim in a Man United top?
Nationalists were always AGAINST integration.
When the NF in the 1980s [of which Griffin was a member/leader] worked with coloureds who were in favour of seperation and repatriation some said they were "selling out."
Not so - racial nationalists should be seen to work together to foster good relations and separate the races. Nothing could be more natural.
Now the BNP is asking for blacks who want to be "good Brits" to join up!
It is now high time for those racial nationalists who have been giving the multi-racial BNP the benefit of the doubt -- including those who scorned the NF's separatist stance in the 80s -- to say enough is enough.
No court in the land can force ANY party to give up racial separatism in favour of multi-racial integrationism.
No more excuses.
BNP Site promotes integrationist membership
I don't know about screeching hordes protesting against Nick Griffin's appearance on the BBC's Question Time... where were the hordes protesting against the daytime sofa programme and bubblegum-TV presenter, Richard Madeley?
Was ever a man so under qualified to be on an allegedly serious news discussion programme?
Last night he claimed that everyone thought Saddam had WMDs when the war criminal Blair produced his "sexed-up" dossier.
Not so Mr. Madeley.
A large number of people knew this was spin based on lies.
Evidence had come out even from American intelligence circles that Saddam's weapons programme was a busted flush and that he posed no threat, furthermore that a war would create a recruiting sergeant for "extremists," "jihadists" or whatever you want to call them.
The BBC should hand its head in shame.
Mr Griffin underperformed and squirmed his way through Question Time. But at least he is a politician (albeit the usual private educated lawyer class) with some serious views.
What do the BBC think the likes of Madeley have to offer? It reminds one of Britney Spear's TV statement that we should all support the president, back in the Bush-era.
Of course we need normal folks on these programmes, offering a non-political (or anti-political) message, but please why not intelligent, campaigning, thorns-in-the-side people?
Left, right or indifferent. I would rather listen to 101 David Starkeys, George Galloways, Will Selfs, or even Shami Chakrabarti the civil libertarian (or dare I say even Melanie Phillips - just to see the audience rip her apart when she fawns over Israel!) than any number of daytime TV hosts or pop musicians.
So the next time you see a rent-a-mob screaming for blood just close your eyes for a moment and imagine anti-Madeley slogans on those placards!
Altogether now all you crusties:
"Daytime TV is a Nazi Front - Smash Daytime TV!"
Monday, 18 January 2010
Published by the National Front:
KRISS DONALD MEMORIAL RALLY GLASGOW 15th March 2010
On the 15th of March 2004 a young lad named Kriss Donald was abducted, mutilated and murdered by a gang of Asian drug criminals, in Pollockshields Glasgow as the leader of the gang wanted to torture and kill a White victim.
This appalling case was subjected to the campaign of Institutionalised silence (for White victims only) by the UK media and even upon the conviction and imprisonment of the murderers, has still received little media attention.
The contrast is striking between the case of Steven Lawrence, who was murdered in Welling, South London, by person or persons unknown. (It is rumoured that Stephen's involvement in the drugs trade contributed to his death)
The government and media have declared - without evidence, witnesses or convictions, that Stephen Lawrence was murdered by "racists" - they have turned his murder into a "guiltfest" for their white middle class friends.
Kriss Donald’s mum has not been made an OBE - but Stephen Lawrence's dad has!
There will be a memorial rally for Kriss on Sunday 15th of March 2009 - five years since his brutal murder. The National Front will be providing a leading speaker. All Nationalists from whatever party are most welcome NF News has been told by the organisers.
Steven Lawrence was stabbed once by unknown persons.
Kriss Donald was kidnapped in a stolen car, castrated, had his eyeballs cut out, and was stabbed 14 times, he was then doused in petrol and left on a footpath to burn. This was done by a gang of Asian drug dealers, eventually convicted.
We must never forget this young man and the ordeal he suffered as a consequence of immigration.
We must also never forget the way that the media and government tried to keep this brutal racist murder a secret. BE THERE ON THE 15th!
Here is the tail end of email forwarded to FC concerning Horst Mahler:
He does, however, feel that many of his friends and supporters have abandoned him, going about their daily business without consideration for the enormous sacrifice that he has made, namely when considering his age, spending possibly the remainder of his life locked up.
Therefore, I would ask you to write him a card or a letter letting him know that he is not forgotten, and that the struggle for free speech continues!
Please be aware that owing to the severity of his "crime" his mail is censored. Only letters sent in envelopes that do not exceed A5 will be given to him. Also, only letters that are free of "thought crime" will be forwarded to the prisoner!
You can, of course, write matters of a personal nature- Horst Mahler is a generous and loving person and would be glad to hear from you, especially on his birthday!
Those wishing to support him financially may send him 5-10 Euros in a separate envelope marked: "Verwendungszweck: Sondergeld 1".
His address is:
Thank you very much,
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Friday, 1 January 2010
It's All About Usury
by John Médaille
With all the turmoil in the financial industry, you would think that there would be a national conversation of money and lending. You would think that this would be a good time to re-examine the way we create money and the way we lend it. You would think, especially, that it would be a good time to review the subject of usury, especially since the credit card market is about to collapse in the same way the mortgage market did. But no, that conversation has not taken place.
Indeed, the last great economist to address the subject was J. M. Keynes, back in the 1930's. Keynes, who was no friend of the Church, surprised himself by finding that the Church's restrictions on usury made perfect economic sense, a sense ignored by classical economists:
"Provisions against usury are amongst the most ancient economic practices of which we have record. The destruction of the inducement to invest by an excessive liquidity preference was the outstanding evil, the prime impediment to the growth of wealth, in the ancient and medieval worlds. I was brought up to believe that the attitude of the Medieval Church to the rate of interest was inherently absurd, and that the subtle discussions aimed at distinguishing the return on money-loans from the return to active investment were merely jesuitical attempts to find a practical escape from a foolish theory. But I now read these discussions as an honest intellectual effort to keep separate what the classical theory has inextricably confused together, namely, the rate of interest and the marginal efficiency of capital." [ The General Theory , 351-2]
What Keynes is saying in this somewhat technical language is that when returns to pure loans are higher than returns to actual investments, you will have a problem; if you can make more money lending to consumers at 25% than to auto makers at 10%, then the money for making things will dry up, and loans will shift to consumption and speculation. We have often noted this problem in the pages of The Distributist Review , (see The Utopia of Usurers , Usury! , Usury: Wealth Without Work , and many other articles) but we can't honestly claim that we have made a big impression on the public. However, Thomas Geoghagen in the pages of Harper's Magazine , has written an indictment of the current system entitled “Infinite Debt: How unlimited interest rates destroyed the economy.”
There is an interesting parallel between the lifting of the usury laws and the abolishing of the abortion laws: both were accomplished not by democratic process, but by legislative fiat; in Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp. , a 1978 Supreme Court opinion, the court found that an 1864 law prohibited the states from enforcing usury laws in their own state if it was legal in another state. For all practical purposes, this ended usury laws.
The lifting of the usury laws had dire unintended consequences, one of which was the decline of manufacturing:
"It may be hard to grasp how the dismantling of usury laws might lead to the loss of our industrial base. But it's true: it led to the loss of our best middle-class jobs. Here's a little primer on how it happened. First, thanks to the uncapping of interest rates, we shifted capital into the financial sector, with its relatively high returns. Second, as we shifted capital out of globally competitive manufacturing, we ran bigger trade deficits. Third, as we ran bigger trade deficits, we required bigger inflows of foreign capital. We had “cheap money” flooding in from China, Saudi Arabia, and even the Fourth World. May God forgive us—we even had capital coming in from Honduras. Fourth, the banks got even more money, and they didn't even consider putting it back into manufacturing. They stuffed it into derivatives and other forms of gambling, because that's the kind of thing that got the “normal” big return; i.e., not 5 percent but 35 percent or even more."
But in addition to the economic effect, it had a profound effect on the moral character of the nation:
"The change in credit-card caps also had a bad effect on the moral character of the nation. Because interest rates were so high, the banks no longer wanted borrowers with good moral character. Look at the way lending has changed just since the time I was in law school in the early 1970s. Even then, the mantra of my teachers in contracts and commercial paper was: “The loan must be repaid!” I have a friend, a professor, who still quotes that refrain. But it's out of date. At interest rates of 25 percent, or 50 percent, or 500 percent, lenders don't really want the loan to be repaid—they want us to be irresponsible, or at least to have a certain amount of bad character."
One question, however, is why we were willing to oblige the bankers by displaying such a poor moral character. No doubt the convenience of the credit card was a factor, but there is more to it than that. One reason is that we had to. The shift in the economy from manufacturing to finance meant that workers were no longer able to bargain for wages through unions and other means. Since 1972, the median hourly wage has stagnated. We experienced a very odd phenomenon: productivity exploded, but wages remained the same. Obviously, there was not enough purchasing power to clear the markets. Workers responded in two ways. One was to work more hours and put more family members to work, with a devastation effect on family life. The other was to borrow more. Further, the best and brightest of our students no longer went into engineering or manufacturing, but into finance. We started to lose even the knowledge of how to make things. As Thomas Geoghagen points out, not only did financial companies account for 40% of corporate profits in 2003, (up from 18% in 1988) but this may understate the problem. Many “manufacturing” firms, like GM and GE, actually made their profits from their finance divisions. GM became a company that manufactured cars in order to make loans on them.
Our current bailout plans are mainly directed at the banks, the hedge funds, the insurance companies, and other financial institutions. But this will not work. Without restoring manufacturing, farming, mining, and other basic industries, we cannot rescue the economy. But we have the order exactly reversed. The bankers get an instant bailout, no questions asked, while manufacturers, like the Big Three, have to crawl over broken glass to get what amounts to “chump change” in the context of the overall “rescue” numbers. Moreover, “contracts” with the derivative traders of AIG are regarded as sacred and unbreakable, while union contracts are broken at will.
It is the habit of the modernists to despise the past, and so it is no surprise that a restriction which existed in most cultures from the time of the Babylonians to the time of Jimmy Carter would be overturned. Yet, even modern-ism posits some empiricism, actually looking at the effects of an action. It is now long enough to look at the effects of the Supreme Courts 1978 decision. And without revisiting this decision, we cannot fix the economy.
Reprinted from The Distributist Review.
The above is interesting not least because it seeks to defend industry, something many Distributists are accused of ignoring or degrading. Of course Belloc did cover industry in his Essay on the Restoration of Property, espousing the ideal of workers' co-ops for large industries which cannot be based on the 'small is beautiful' model. from memory he gave the example of the railways.
On usury there is one correction needed to the above. Interest of 2% on an unproductive loan is still usury. e.g. a credit card charging 2% which a person uses to buy a coat - is still usury because the person has to pay back the debt plus 2% but is unlikely to earn any extra money from a coat he has bought to wear.
On the other hand a loan of £1 million made to an industry with a business plan to make £20 million in the first year, can charge 50% on the loan over a year because the loan is productive. That's not to say 50% is usual or acceptable to many - but an agreement fixed on a productive loan is not in and of itself usurious.
Of course this makes the above article even more relevant because the banks' profits (and their/our crisis) has arisen because they have placed priorities on unproductive loans - pure usury! - to people who can ill afford it, because they made more money out of that than (shudder!) investing in their own country, their own infrastructure, their own compatriots' skills etc.
Needless to add, this brings to the fore the simple fact that financiers have no national loyalty.
How else could any group of people who had brought a country to its knees and mired it in debt for generations say that if their bonuses were blocked for one year it would drive "the best" (ahem) bankers overseas?
The New Unhappy Lords have grown fat from usury's profits. We need to learn the lessons to avoid many a lean year.
P.S. The booklet Usury by Belloc is available from FC, alongside many books on economics, Distributism and much else of interest to intelligent patriots.
Whistleblowers show that the loyalty of some citizens is to a foreign state that carries out war crimes, holds illegal nukes, has murdered British citizens, some of whose leaders are wanted on war crimes charges in the UK, and threatens Britain militarily:
Link to article
Redress - Sunday 26th December 2009
Britain's Jews in crisis over national loyalty, identity and Israel
Whistleblowers say top Zionist institutions in unprecedented crisis
by Redress Information & Analysis
Britain's leading Jewish institutions are facing their worst crisis in living memory as their loyalty to the United Kingdom and support for basic universal principles of human rights and common decency come under growing scrutiny.
In recent weeks Redress Information & Analysis has been approached by a number of existing and former employees and volunteers of prominent Jewish bodies, all pointing to an acute internal crisis within their institutions.
This comes from an Israeli newspaper.
It seems that US tax-dollars are being funnelled to a rabbi who favours genocide, terrorism and Jewish racism. No front-page media stories here...
Haaretz newspaper report:
The White House condemns the torching of a mosque, yet respectable Americans contribute to a yeshiva whose rabbi said it's okay to kill gentile babies. It is no surprise that the American administration tacitly, if unenthusiastically, accepted the excuse that the map of national priority zones the cabinet approved on Sunday does not violate the decision to freeze construction in the settlements.
How can President Barack Obama object to furthering education in a settlement like Yitzhar, located in the heart of the West Bank? After all, his own tax revenues contribute to the flourishing of the Od Yosef Chai Shechem yeshiva, the settlement's crowning glory.
This is the same yeshiva whose rabbi said it is permissible to kill gentile babies because of "the future danger that will arise if they are allowed to grow into evil people like their parents." In his latest book, the head of the yeshiva, Yitzhak Shapira, who bears the honorable title of rabbi, even permits killing anyone "who, through his remarks and so forth, weakens our kingdom" (Obama, beware!).