Quote of the Week: Belloc on the Exploiters' Crisis

“This final crisis of our civilization, wherein the quarrel between the dispossessed and the possessed, the exploited and the exploiter, the sufferer from injustice and the beneficiary therefrom threatens to pull down our world, [and] there can be no question as to the seriousness of the issue. It is of maximum seriousness. It is as serious as it can be”

Hilaire Belloc 
The Crisis of Our Civilization, Cassell & Co., London, 1937.

Last Week's Quote: Belloc on Statistics

"Statistics are the triumph of the quantitative method, and the quantitative method is the victory of sterility and death."

Hilaire Belloc

Ron Paul, Fox TV, Twitter, Iran and the New World Order

The other evening I was pottering. That's an ancient right of the Britons to shuffle around in a seemingly aimless way.

I used to do it by choice of a quiet evening, but as I get older I find it is more of an involuntary (in)activity. Mayhaps it is genetically built into our DNA.

Certainly Belloc saluted the way the country lanes of England meandered their way around, as opposed to some brisk Teutonic efficient motorway.

Certainly the Anglo-Celtic peoples of the Black Country and its environs were a model for Tolkien's hobbits, and what could a hobbit best be described as other than a professional potterer.

Had the ancient Celts got into their 40s, 50s etc. (and I know debate rages as much as debate can "rage" about such matters) maybe they pottered too... amongst the skulls of their vanquished enemies or around the tribal cauldron.

I don't have a tribal cauldron, but I was doing the next best thing. Sad to say the fridge was bereft of pork pies (always handy to fend off alien invaders into the homestead), but nestled in the oven was a plate of nutrition left by one of the sprogs from an earlier meal.

Knowing that this would be recycled the next day; to the compost, through an animal or via the council's waste food collection (waste cooked meats, bones etc. - I think the Celtic tribesman would feel at home) I decided, as is so often my want, to be the human recycler busy saving the planet, and I took the plate of foodstuffs to a suitably comfy chair and settled down for a munch.

Please note that I do this without media attention, without Green Party plaudits and without the recognition I so richly deserve for saving the planet just as (in the metaphysical footsteps of my father) I switch off all the lights after the sprogs have been through every room in the house.

Having finished my work for the day and having the rare treat of a sit-down (half-eaten) meal at a relatively late hour, I decided to switch on the goggle box and catch up with some news.

BBC News 24 had a documentary about drug mules in South America. Switch. Sky TV (ptuh, ptuh - that's me spitting on the ground) was running adverts. Switch.

Now usually I flick straight through to Al Jazeera or perhaps the Hitler... sorry! - History Channel. But for some reason I saw the name "Fox TV" in the wee blue box on the screen and I thought "why not?"

Some moons ago I used to get up at 4am for commuting and used to put on Fox TV at that early hour to catch the American evening news and have a good laugh at a world filtered through (six-pointed, star shaped) Zion-Goggles.

Just seeing the name Fox TV on the screen sent a shudder down my spine, with a small tingle of anticipation added for good measure.

What rant would I see against the "enemies of democracy?" What talking head would be preaching against liberalism but in such a way that it would defend the rights of banksters and war-mongers to make their 'fair share' (don't they call that "free market" - when it is really stacked against everyone but the Judeo-WASP-bankster clans)?

I clicked the button and Fox TV lunged into view in all its air-brushed, neon splendour (kind of reminds you of an entrance to a Soho strip joint - all sickly shining glamour out front, but inside you know there's a lot of sludge, sickness and suffering all backed up a rich man - probably of a certain breed - profiteering from offending and undermining public morality).

I forget - forgive me in my dotage oh faithful and forbearing reader - the name of the show, but four talking heads were sat discussing a Republican Party gathering of some sort. Unlike the highly orchestrated presidential ones (or the party conferences over here) this was more of a grass-roots affair. If memory serves me right I think it was a Republican Student or Youth conference/rally.

Amidst my quick shoveling action with carbohydrates flying in every direction... sorry I mean I took another carefully measured Kate Moss-esque fork of lettuce... I discerned a veiled panic amongst the trained monkeys of plastic, polyfilled, highly coiffured Fox TV panelists.

They were perturbed and it was a joy to behold. Then all became clear. My fork hovered betwixt plate and mouth (and that is a rare event!).

Ron Paul.

The name immediately had me paying attention to every syllable and on-screen graphic.

It seems the young Republican meeting had been voting for their favourite to run for the White House. The Fox TV pundits were clearly shocked that Ron Paul - famous for being a traditional American libertarian and anti-banker, anti-Zionist and, in short, against everything the Bush Whitehouse was for when it came to foreign and economic policies - had been their number one choice.

How dare they! Do they not pay attention to the media?

Sarah Palin (who I assumed was the love of the small-c conservatives in the Republican Party) garnered a mere 7% against Ron Paul's 31% haul. The ex-centrefold. Mitt Romney, who recently stole Ted Kennedy's ex-stomping ground (and whom the media are playing up as the great white hope, if you'll pardon the pun, against Obama) came second with 22%.

What was funny and had me giggling into my cold stodge (sorry, I mean crisp healthy option 99% fat-free diet special) was that the anchor of the Fox show went out of his way to ignore the poll.

He kept saying things such as 'out of the mainstream candidates, who do you think poses a serious risk to the Obama Whitehouse.'

It was a real media whitewash, going on right in front of my eyes! The Zionist media was rushing to pour cold water on the fact that an anti-Zionist, anti-bankster candidate had come out on top of all the other party flunkies and media-luvvies (of a sort).

In America of late there has been a phenomenon, borne of the credit crunch, lost jobs, failed banks, billions poured into Wall Street, millions thrown on the dole, the idea of socialised healthcare and so on. That phenomenon is known as tea party politics; in the sense of the Boston Tea Party (not polite late afternoon cakes with the vicar).

Tea party politics is all about bottom-up politics. Local people going to town halls and shouting down system politicians.

As a Third Positionist, it is something I and my ilk have been promoting since the 80s: the idea of local communities taking back control of their areas - indeed of their streets! - from the party political machinery.

Left: Ron Paul was seen as an "outsider" in the 2008 U.S. Presidential elections and OK, he may not be the man to completely sort out Aegean Stables that is Washington DC, but he is certainly independent and against many vested interests.

Why does the person in charge of clearing dog crap from the pavements or taking local council taxes away from the people have to belong to Lib, Lab or Con?

Why are the powerless people, defecated upon from a great height by politicians in the pay of the banks, powerless?

They are only so because the media tells them that an X in a box every 4 or 5 years is the only say they get.

A non-choice in Tweedledum Tweedledee politics, choosing from a range of multi-culti, pro-Israel, pro-homosexual candidates that the media tell us are "safe" to choose from, and their appointed safety-valves, is not democracy!

Sadly there is no tradition of tea party politics in this country. Every now and then we march, if a socialist or right-wing backer can get the money in to bus people to London, such as the millions who marched against the Iraq War or against the ban of fox hunting.

Yet even when millions are mobilised, the politicians ignore them and return to their hallowed (sic) halls of Westminster to strike their deals and shape public policy for their vested interests.

So the powerful (Goldman Sachs, Rothschild et al) know that pouring money into lobbying groups, paying for campaigns, chucking wads at constituency offices, gets them more input than a million voters marching.

Those who saw Peter Oborne's documentary on the Israeli Lobby in Britain (NuLab and ModCon) are left in no doubt of the sheer power of that lobby. Of course it is even more powerful in America, so that (like them or loathe them) when opposite voices like Ron Paul or David Duke are voted in or become internet hits they are all but ignored.

Meanwhile when anti-government voices are raised on Twitter against the sovereign government of Iran, the media in Britain and America are very excited and report it as a victory for "the people " and "democracy" -- even when it has been proven that much of the Twats, er Twits, or Twitterers actually sat at their keyboards in America and Israel; not Iran.

Compare that to the huge internet upheaval and response to to the Ron Paul presidential campaign a couple of years back. Only those clued up would be aware. Certainly the BBC didn't mention Ron Paul in any serious way. It may seem to the suspiciously minded (sorry Elvis!) that the sole criteria for new-media mentions on the news bulletins is whether it supports the New World Order's agenda. But hush! That's foolish conspiracy talk.

Having finished my nutritional intake for the day I returned the plate to the kitchen (I am, if nothing else, house trained) and climbed the wooden bridge to Bedfordshire with thoughts of grass roots politics, media cover-ups and a New World Order agenda in full flow.

Yes, another end to a perfect day in Codreanu Towers.

Links:
The Guardian on Ron Paul's Poll Win
Quote:

Anybody who was even near the room Friday night during Paul's address could hear the audience roaring at a pitch not really matched by any other speaker at CPAC.There were loud chants of "End the Fed!" and people managed to cheer a remarkable downer of a speech. Paul predicted financial ruin because of America's failed fiscal and military policies.

Zionist Oligarch, Rothschilds, NuLab & Tories

This leads me to ask: which of "our" political parties and leaders haven't been bought and sold?

Right: The Rothschilds are Zionist to the core. They buy our politicians. yet the clamour from - ahem - the political parties against this blatant corruption and interference is null and void. Can anyone say "conspiracy?"

Israel's 34^th Anniversary of Independence Coin

Baron Edmond James (Avrahim Binyamin) de Rothschild (1845-1934) is the known as the "Father of the Settlement" (Avi ha-Yishuv). The Independence Day coin 1982/5742 is dedicated to the memory of Edmond de Rothschild and marks the centenary of his first projects in Israel.

Description of the Coin

Front: A portrait of Baron Rothschild with the inscription in Hebrew, "Father of the Jewish Settlement".

Reverse: The State Emblem with the inscription below, "Baron Edmond de Rothschild" and the dates, "1845-1934" in Hebrew and English. Around the rim, "Centenary of His First Settlement Activities in Eretz Israel". The word "Israel" in Hebrew, English and Arabic. The date 1982/5742 and the denomination "10 Sheqalim" or "2 Sheqalim" in Hebrew. The uncirculated silver coin is mintmarked with a 6 pointed star at the bottom. The proof coins are mintmarked with a Hebrew 'mem' at the bottom.

Which of them dares to oppose the Freemasons, the Zionists, the Neo Cons and Israel? Which of them doesn't have dirty money from the exotic land of bakhanda?

None spring to mind. Not a single one!

That's the beauty of democracy. Pick any party you want: as long as it's acceptable to our Masonic overlords.

You may ask why the Rothschilds seek to bankroll Tory and NuLab. Just as they bankrolled Napoleonic France and Imperial Britain in 1815... because money is nothing to them: but being on the side of the winner (or rather, pocketing the winner) means years of power, prestige and freedom to control money in their banking houses.

Wake up nationalist!

UNDERSTAND.

See who the real overlords are! None of the political parties (repeat: NOT A SINGLE ONE!) will have the guts or freedom to tell you these facts.

Remember: all the articles below are from the London Times. Not a "neo-nazi" or "anti-semitic" rumour site. As such, you know the basics are true, and not only that, you know that these are the sanitised and legally-acceptable versions.

Our politicians (sitting MPs and "opposition" of all hues) are bought and paid for. Read Belloc's The Party System and you will understand that parliament corrupts even the handful of decent men who rarely get there.

Public opposition to Zionism and Freemasonry should be the very least we expect of any genuine opposition politician. Anything else is meaningless and mere system politics.


Links:

The Tories, the Oligargh and the Rothschilds


Oh, and New Labour are at it too:


Mandelson and the Zionist Oligarch
Mandelson's Same Oligarch/Rothschild Deal
Mandelson's Rothschild Freebies


And even the London Times covers the moneylenders and the Rothschilds (albeit sanitised):


Moneylenders and the Rothschilds


Again, a highly sanitised (from Zionist Wikipedia) but interesting glimpse of the Rothschilds family history:

The Rothschild History


Why don't they all bugger off and retire to some country estate in Eastern Europe with their ill-gotten gains? ;-)

Last Week's Quote: Hilaire Belloc on Work, Prayer & Ale

""Laborare est orare sed potare clarior,"

which signifies that work is noble, and prayer its equal, but that drinking good ale is a more renowned and glorious act than any other to which man can lend himself."

Hilaire Belloc
The Four Men.

Last Week's Quote: Hilaire Belloc on Song

"...all men sing at their labour, or would so sing did not dead convention forbid them. You will say there are exceptions, as lawyers, usurers, and others; but there are no exceptions to this rule where all the man is working and is working well, and is producing and is not ashamed."

Hilaire Belloc,
On Song (essay).
On Everything (1909).

This is a theme that Belloc and both AK Chesterton and GK Chesterton returned to, the best example of which is GKC's poem The New Unhappy Lords (taken as a book title by AKC) in which he denounces the elites that "know no songs."

It has been an attack on the English especially which has ripped away their traditions and left them 'songless' - as the band Show of Hands make clear in their excellent song Roots (in our video selection).

Last Week's Quote: Belloc

"The reason men commonly adopt the Distributive form of society, and tend to return to it if they can, is that the advantages it presents seem greater in most men's eyes than its disadvantages."

Hilaire Belloc,
Economics For Helen.

Link:
Economics For Helen

Where Betrayal Means Profits!

Politics is a dirty business. Why do you think people think of politicians as they do prostitutes or ambulance-chasing solicitors?

Right: A typical politician, Mr. Hain has jettisoned any convictions he once held in order to get his snout in the trough.

Hilaire Belloc and Cecil Chesterton (GKC's brother) wrote all about many decades ago, about how the system works, how it promotes sycophants, how it curbs anyone who may start off wishing to "change things for the better" or who seeks what is right, as opposed to what party whips dictate.

Of course the media has a huge role - much more so even than in their day: who can hope to be a Prime Minister without first attending a private audience with His Smuttiness Rupert Murdoch.

basically between the party structures, the media, the business backers and the Trade Union bosses the system is pretty much sewn up. Throw in the old school tie brigade (how can you ignore it - how many MPs are ex-public school boys as well as trained lawyers?) and you have it.

Left: Obama promises change, yet he has already sidled up to the same old vested interests and is unlikely to rock the boat once in power.

It's not a big "Jewish conspiracy" - though again how can anyone ignore the role of Freemasonry, and on the upper echelons you have groups like the Bilderbergers and the sheer power of international banking cartels - this is a multi-faceted, often conflicting, hydra.

There is a constant internal battle for the upper hand in the constituent parts which is also played out in the left-right dichotomy which we all, pushed on by the media, take part in.

However, this world of turmoil is, (whilst being haphazard and open to all kinds of upsets) pretty much sealed off from the rest of us.

A political class sits at the top table and unless they try and do something good which upsets the media, the banks etc. they will sit there playing out their role. Those with a rebellious edge will have it whittled away especially if they want to feed at the trough and/or further their career.

Look at Peter Hain. A "radical" leftist in the 70s, anti-apartheid activist not afraid to take 'direct action' against South African interests, even sporting events.

You might not agree with his cause (unless you are a lefty spy peering in on FC in order to get some decent political thought away from moribund Marxism!), but at least you could say he believed in something and was prepared to get up of his duff (for American readers!) to achieve his questionable ends.

We can argue whether someone who does something political, no matter how misguided, is preferable to the mindless morons who feed off a diet of Eastenders, The Sun and Big Brother reality TV.

Yet look at Hain today and you see someone mired in New Labour betrayals, an apologist for the war in Iraq, and now someone embroiled in dodgy donations as he sought to win a place in the Labour leadership.

Where is the idealist? Where is the anti-establishment rebel? Where is the direct action agitator?

He's replaced by a bloated, perma-tanned, weaselly, mealy-mouthed, Capitalist apologist, war-mongering, Blair-crony New Labour creature foisted on an "old Labour" electorate in Neath, South Wales.

Right: Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dummer politics is alive and well in the land of the pregnant chad.

The former may not be to our liking as racial nationalists, but how much more preferable (for his honesty if nothing else) than the canape-munching career politician we see today who has sought to excuse every New Labour betrayal and sell-out.

An apologist for sell-out, betrayal of ideals, money-grubbing and a cover-up supremo is never liked, no matter his political hue.

Still, though he was sufficiently disliked by his fellow MPs to flop badly in his bid to be Labour Deputy Leader, he knows that he won't lose his seat. Neath is one of those places where you could stick a red rosette on a monkey and they'd vote him in (no offence to any residents of Hartlepool!); the same could be said of areas like Kensington & Chelsea where a Peugeot 207 in a blue finish could get in for the Tories.

The cattle vote to keep "the other lot out" more than they do for any one or two policies of their preferred candidate.

Even worse, many people (when they can be turned away from Eastenders) now cast their vote for the best-looking politician, or the one who is spun as honest.

Left: If voting changed anything they'd ban it.

Remember Tony Blair? He started an illegal war, espoused Christian values whilst continually passing laws for "gay rights" and much more - yet with his folksy style (tie less, shirt sleeves rolled up, enjoying a mug of tea in the kitchen...) he insisted he was "a straight kind of guy."

Enough idiots believed the spin to vote him in, again and again.

We, as a mass, are cattle. Do we really deserve any better?

The politicians lie, cheat and steal. They indulge in buggery and adultery. They fill their pockets in office via multiple jobs and expense accounts. They walk into nice advisory roles after their stint in parliament.

Yet at each election we all get suckered into the party political charade.

Look at America.

Look at the meaningless slogans.

Look at the empty promises.

Each one promises things like Change. Or Progress. Maybe they promise to be Different.

Those who promise to Conserve and Protect do neither. Those who promise to be Different are shackled to the same vested interests.

Right: Can the land of the pregnant and hanging chad really teach the world about freedom?

The "competition" is closed to those who can raise enough filthy lucre and get enough TV coverage to "appeal" to the voters.

Yet the morons will still vote to "keep the other lot out" like the pathetic lefties in France who voted for Chirac with their pegs on their noses.

The more moronic still will vote for the one with the nicest smile, or the "honest Harry" with the finest quaffed hair.

We all thought Blair was bad, but remember America voted in Bill Clinton! And the defendant of "stained-dress-gate" (aka zippergate) is still "popular."

(I must point out at this conjecture that I'm keeping my vomit bucket close, just in case...)

America is the leader of the Free World (so we're told) yet we get a war-mongering president (personally I think Arabs should have their own Monroe Doctrine and tell America to keep the hell out) who got in via the hanging-chad and the pregnant-chad via an electorate too idiotic to be able to make a small hole in a sheet of paper!!!

Which explains how Hillary Clinton can pull off the most pathetically stage-managed event of the year (to date) when she peeled an onion in her pocket, blinked back the tears brimming in her eyes and appealed to the electorate.

(Damn, there goes my vomit bucket again!)

Lo and behold the voters of New Hampshire gave her a lifeline, as good old Bill looked on with a glint in his eye. He clapped politely as his wife (still!) smiled on at her sheeple.

Spin, lies, TV appearances, a compliant media (via the moguls) and an incredibly gullible public (to the point of incredulity) are all she needed.

Meet the new boss... same as the old.

Plus ca change...

Link:
Order Belloc & Chesterton's book on Westminster politics

Hillary Clinton, Vomit Bucket & Hilaire Belloc

Regular readers (you brave band of kindred spirits!) will know that it is with worrying regularity that my vomit bucket overflows.

Last night was no change from this accursed affliction.

For yea verily, I settled down to watch the evening news on the Electronic Talmud (TV) only to see Hillary Clinton holding back the tears!

Bleuch!

The red-coloured bucket was full to the brim in one retch.

It was too much!

This woman, hardened, embittered, scheming and with more cajones than her husband ever had, was pulling a stunt!

She can see her golden calf being pulled away from her.

If there were any genuine feeling behind the tearful eyes, could it be that she thought her shoe-in for the Democratic candidacy for the leadership of the Great Satan (sorry, the USA) was slipping away from her?

We've already seen that Obama (no, George Dubya, not Osama - learn from the difference between Iran and Iraq; letters are so important in grown-up life!) is already making pro-Israel noises -- as if anyone could get to the top post without the American (Zionist) media's approval (see how "Huck" has been pushed in as the 'patriotic' candidate ahead of Ron Paul).

It all reminds me of Hilaire Belloc's poem (which we put on the cover of FC magazine #13):


Here richly, with ridiculous display,
The Politician's corpse was laid away.
While all of his acquaintance sneered and slanged
I wept: for I had longed to see him hanged.

Links:
Order FC Mag #13
How Obama Learned to Love Israel
Obama Supports Israel
So Does Hillary!

Parliament: Can it be Mended?

Can It Be Mended?
by Hilaire Belloc and Cecil Chesterton

When the question is asked: "Can a dying institution be revived?" it is in the whole tendency of modern learning to answer that it can not. The House of Commons has ceased to be an instrument of Government. Its ancient functions have been killed under the prolonged and continuous action of hypocrisy. It affords to-day (if we except the three Irish parties, which have a definite political object and pursue that object) no more than an opportunity for highly lucrative careers. That career is founded upon the bamboozlement of the public (whose faculty for being duped these professionals hope to prey upon indefinitely), with the complicity of nobodies content to write M.P. after their name as a sufficient reward for supporting the Party System: to whom, of course, must be added the lawyers and business men for whom Parliament offers definite financial rewards, and that in proportion to their indifference to their representative duties.

All modern scholarship, we repeat, would tend to say of any institution which had fallen into such a condition that it was past praying for; and history is there with a hundred examples to support this modern conclusion.

We have in history case after case of a national institution falling into contempt and some other more vigorous organ supplanting it. The greatest case of all is, of course, the slow substitution of the Empire upon the ruins of the ancient Roman system of government.

It is here precisely that the crux of our problem comes in. Nothing is appearing that can take the place of Parliament. In its decay and futility it still makes our laws, and makes them and unmakes them at a greater rate than ever it did before. True, most of those laws are the work of the permanent officials; but some of them, or some parts of them, are due to the professional politicians.

In other words, the House of Commons, though fallen into a universally recognised decay, is still our only instrument for making laws. Nothing is rising to take its place, and in its decay it continues to work very appreciable evil.

The progress of the disease is now so rapid, its probable future effect so menacing, that, desperate as it must always be to attempt to revive a dying institution, it is the business of every man who cares for his country in the crisis through which it is passing to ask whether some remedy might not be devised.

Electoral changes will do nothing. A mere extension of the franchise, if the party machine were left as it is, would make little or no difference. Where to-day ten thousand apathetic men are seized by the paid agents of the machine and worried to the polls in groups as nearly equal as can be arranged by the managers of the show, to-morrow twenty thousand would be similarly drilled and run. The abolition of plural voting is common sense, but it would go nowhere near the root of the trouble. If it gave to one of the two teams a permanent preponderance over the other, the honour which obtains among gentlemen would compel the two in combination to devise some cry which should make the parties more nearly equal again.

To forbid canvassing would have the effect of course of enormously reducing the number of voters, the vast majority of whom vote under a sort of moral compulsion, and after several days of heavy badgering, concluded by a forced march to the polls. The bulk of men can never really care for the issues, either false or unimportant, which the bosses provide them with: nay, in the last election there was no issue at all, and the people were too weary to invent one for themselves, as they had done in the Chinese Labour Agitation in 1906.

But this decrease in the actual number of voters, though it would show up the nonsense, would have no practical effect: the game would still be played just as it was played before, and the actors would be of the same general competence in human affairs.

Payment of election expenses and payment of members are measures obviously desirable in themselves, but they would do little to break the Party System now, though they might once have done much to prevent its coming into existence in its present form. The official expenses of an election are a very small fraction of what the candidate has to find, so that their payment by the State would still leave the independent at a grave disadvantage as compared with the party hack, who could draw without limit on the Party Funds. The payment of members might make it easier for an honest man to remain independent, but it would in no way restrain the Front Benches from corrupting members by the promise in the future of pecuniary rewards larger and of a far more stable character. To the contractor, the merchant, the newspaper owner who enters politics with an eye to their corruption, the little sum thus guaranteed is insignificant. The great press of lawyers are looking for posts, the least of which will be a matter of 800 a year, the highest of 10,000 and 15,000. The professional men, to whom this or that permanent job as an inspector or departmental chief is the bribe, would not be the less eager to take money because he had already received it.

It has been suggested that the auditing of the secret Party Funds might undermine the Party System. To inaugurate such a practice would certainly deal the Party System a heavy blow, but the success would not be final. Side by side with the officially audited Party Fund another secret fund would at once spring up. A drastic penalty might indeed be attached to any such form of secret bribery.

But the law would tend to be a dead letter in the absence of an alert public opinion behind it; for secret bribery, when it has become a national custom, is not so easy to eliminate. Nothing is less easy to prove, since all parties to the crime are concerned in defending it and in hiding it, and no one person can feel himself aggrieved. It may further be urged that the very high expenses of an election remaining what they are, the depletion of the Party Funds, which would probably follow the publication of their accounts, would advantage the wealthy candidate as against the poor one. The independent candidate would indeed benefit, for his funds would be no less than now, while those of his official opponents might probably be reduced; but the poor man financed by the Party System would probably suffer. Whether or no this would be an advantage in other words, whether the direct rule of the rich is better or worse than the rule of their hired dependants may be an open question. In any case, with the payment of official election expenses by the State, and the stricter limitation of unofficial expenses, this tendency might be checked.

From The Party System

Link:
Buy The Party System by H. Belloc and C. Chesterton

Capitalists McNabbed!

I've just started reading (after taking it from my pile of "waiting to be read books" - there, I won't mention my piles anymore) The Church and the Land by Fr Vincent McNabb.

I wasn't sure what the book was going to be like... I kind of half expected lots of heavy economic or theological diatribes and/or dialogues, heady stuff and disturbing, but like trying to wade through treacle.

Still, I plucked up the courage and opened the book. After all, I knew McNabb had been a key figure in the world of Chesterton and Belloc and had a profound influence on the entire Distribiutist movement of the 20s and 30s (he died in 1943).

Indeed, if you get the book and read the intro's by Dr William Fahey and Hilaire Belloc you'll realise just how important McNabb was (and is!) and furthermore how central to things Belloc believed him to be.

I needn't have worried.

The book is split into essays (rather it is a compilation of essays and articles) and so it is quite easy to pick up and (if so inclined) put down.

At present I am about 10 essays into the book and a few things shine through:

1. McNabb's undoubted intellect. The copious footnotes are perfect because they allow the modern, uneducated sorts (hey - no finger pointing) to understand his many examples and quotes.

2. McNabb's undoubted outrage at Social Injustice. Read his piece "The Voice of the Irish" on social conditions in major Irish and British cities and you will be shocked.

3. McNabb's deep-seated Christian faith. His outrage is for those made in the image of God being treated like cattle, like cogs in a machine to be used, abused and cast aside.

4. McNabb's common sense. He doesn't plead for paradise on earth (like some kind of Masonic/Communist Revolutionary), but merely asks for people to be treated with Charity (in its true sense). In fact he is a true humanitarian whilst not only failing to eschew, but actively attacking all the false values of today's humanitarians. I think it was Fahey who said that McNabb understood the Truth that we are Children of God instead of the Masonic 'Brotherhood of Man' (I never liked their 70s hits anyway). When you read McNabb you understand how Capitalism is intrinsically evil, pushing our folk off the land into single room "apartments" with no running water, never mind a toilet!

Some (notably American Neo-Cons) will queue up to call McNabb a Communist, at once betraying their lack of understanding of Communism, of Christianity, of Distributism and of Capitalism.

Yet ignorance is no defence, especially when defaming and slandering someone (dead or alive) especially when the smallest amount of reading (mayhaps that is beyond their attention span) will dispel any clouds of doubt they may have.

McNabb didn't want families moved from Capitalist slums into Communist grey tower-blocks.

McNabb didn't want the family farm turned into either an agri-business absentee-landlord churning out chemically soaked fodder to give profits to insurance conglomerates or Communist collective "farms" with all produce going to the State.

To make McNabb into a Communist is to go against everything he believed in, just as the Reds might want to turn McNabb into a Capitalist... For when a man attacks Capitalism and Communism, or when a man proposes an alternative which is diametrically opposed to Capitalism and Communism, it is not good enough for proponents of either Materialist creed to point the finger and fabricate twisted strands of "logic" to state that he was in reality one or other of the things he opposed.

In closing, though as I stated I still have a further 130 (or so) pages to go in this absorbing book I would ask anyone fortunate enough to obtain a copy (fingers crossed we can get a few to sell through FC) to read the essay: St Thomas Aquinas on Town Planning.

In this essay McNabb shows himself to be acutely aware of problems before his time, having read the classics and applying their lessons to the modern age.

After advancing arguments for self-sufficiency and that towns-folk would be better suited to being farmers outside the city walls, rather than traders within them, McNabb states that Aristotle, in Politics, asserts that:

"...the fellowship of foreignors greatly corrupts the morals of citizens. The reason is because it must happen that foreignors, having been brought up on other laws and customs, act in ways very different from those of the citizens. Thus their example will draw the citizen to imitate them; and the good estate of the commonwealth will be disturbed."

So far each of McNabb's essays - even the seemingly frivolous such as the one about ladies treating their dogs as babies (and this was 80 years before the current trend for lap-dogs dressed up and molly-coddled by the vacuous, the idle rich or wannabe-"celebrities") - has had the power to make the reader stop and think.

Belloc says that after being in the presence of this devout Dominican and feeling his "holiness" that "all other qualities sink away into nothingness."

Even one of his Hyde Park Corner adversaries (E.A. Siderman) wrote of McNabb:

"...he at once impressed his listeners with his personality, and with his appearance Sunday after Sunday, he became a great favourite."

Certainly, from what I've read so far, McNabb can be counted as one of the great Crusaders for Social Justice for our people.

Would that our age would throw forward such intellects and spokesman. As our people live on dole handouts, or in insecure dead-end McJobs... as more people have their homes repossessed or are forced to pay obscene mortgage payments to the banks (who always announce billions in profits): we need another Vincent McNabb.

As our land is occupied, as the air and soil is polluted, as wage slavery continues and urban "existence" continues, let us hope and pray for more McNabbs to raise the banner of National Freedom, Social Justice, Widespread Property and a Return to the Land.

It's not an easy message. It has none of the glamour of adverts for Coca Cola. It has none of the ease of Yuppies, Dinkies and Yummies driving their 4x4s around Chelsea en route to another dinner party.

But since when has the Truth been pretty, easy or fashionable?

Certainly not in living memory...


Link:
The Vincent McNabb Society

Look out for this poem about McNabb, written after his sermon at the funeral of Cecil Chesterton:

A poet heard you preach and told me this:
While listening to your argument unwind
He seemed to leave the heavy world behind;
And liberated in a bright abyss
All burdens and all load and weight to shed;
Uplifted like a leaf before the wind,
Untrammelled in a region unconfined,
He moved as lightly as the happy dead.
And as you read the message of Our Lord
You stumbled over the familiar word,
As if the news now sudden to you came;
As if you stood upon the holy ground
Within the house filled with mighty sound
And lit with Pentecostal tongues of flame.

P.S. Which other blog would have the social writing of Fr McNabb followed by the politically astute warblings of Stiff Little Fingers? What value for money!

Capitalists + Socialists = Slavery

Why is it those born with a silver spoon in their mouth are always so keen to tell the rest of us how "property is theft" and the government should take our rights, our property and our freedom from us (aka Socialism)?

I was chatting to a work colleague today and he brought up the example of a friend of his family. This lad comes from a wealthy family. He has always had everything bought for him, and had his university fees paid.

He became a druggy hippy, doped-up more often than not. He dropped out of uni and now travels around on various "right on" campaigns, most of it bank-rolled by mummy and daddy, backed up by hand-outs via the tax-payer.

Of course these kinds of examples are well known. Little mummy's boys and girls all gunked up and traveling the world to fight Capitalism, whilst all-too-Capitalist jobs and properties pay for their lifestyle via mater and pater.

Of course this mirrors the fact that since its inception, Socialism has been bank-rolled by the mega-rich and Capitalist corporations (which takes us onto the whole Kosher nature of Capitalism and Socialism) e.g. in the run-up to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

There was an example in a journal recently of the major writer against "globalisation" being published by one of the huge publishing houses - a typical multinational big business!

Many would say, and I would be inclined to agree, that both Socialism and Capitalism aren't about "the people" - neither give two figs for us proles - but about keeping a group of select few (chosen few?) in power.

Capitalism worships the Dollar, Socialism worships the State - but both are against all natural and normal instincts which provide for well-balanced and peaceful communities and nations.

The family becomes an inconvenience, faith becomes "superstition," race becomes "hateful," nationalism becomes "backwards" and so on - not that Capitalism or Socialism is against misusing any of these in a sentimental way when they need to (the ends always justify the means for the Terrible Twins of Capitalism and Socialism).

Years ago Hilaire Belloc wrote that we were headed for the Servile State.

Capitalism and Socialism, according to Belloc, were both headed for systems whereby the workingman would become little more than a cog in a machine.

Little could Belloc have realised that things would get so bad. The rich, the big businesses, the banks own more and more - and the people are mortgaged and in debt as never before.

Meanwhile Socialism has crept in everywhere with more government control, more needless laws encroaching our basic and ancient freedoms, more anti-national, anti-family and anti-race laws passed.

And who runs this Capitalist/Socialist nightmare which is attacking everything we hold dear?

Gordon Brown's government is up to its eyeballs with the "usual suspects," as well as being in the pockets of all the usual vested interests.

A coterie of Zionists and big businessmen are in this "new government" already.

I already touched upon the role of Sir Ronald Cohen (taking over fundraising from Lord Levy!). Now we find out that Gordon Brown has started a business advisory council - to give the government advice on new laws.

This body is crammed full of big businessmen and corporate fat cats, including Sir Alan Sugar as well as head honchos Rose and Leahy from Marks and Spencers and Tescos respectively. All Jewish big businesses thus far... plus there's Damon Buffini who, like Sir Ronald Cohen, is a multi-millionaire because of asset stripping companies (aka chucking workingmen on the dole for profit).

Just what this country needs! More laws passed for the benefit of the mega-rich, mostly kosherised, big businesses!

Meanwhile Brown's deputy is 'Ms.' Harriet Harman (pictured) - like so many other Labour bigwigs, the product of rich parents, private fee-paying schools etc. She also chose to send her children to private schools.

As I've said before, why is it those in charge of state schools, the NHS etc. so often choose not to use them? Because they can buy their way out? It is a system built on hypocrisy!

And our new Foreign Secretary is David Milliband, whose rich Marxist Jewish parents "fled Europe" and owned multi-million property in London...

To add to this "Champagne Kosher Socialism" Miliband's brother Ed is also in the cabinet.

Capitalism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. Nationalists have said that for many decades now.

The thing is, these days, they don't even try and hide their differences in some kind of cold-war-era charade.

Capitalism and Socialism are now bosom buddies, with police state powers going cap in hand with the rule of the bankers.

It would seem this synthesis of our enemies (most acutely observed in the European Union) is hastening the day when they think they will rule all (brushing aside the wishes of whole populations - like France and the Netherlands - as they rush headlong on their way to their nirvana).

Seems like we'll have more Socialist overlords from our moneyed elites for the foreseeable future passing yet more laws which restrict our freedoms...


Link:
The Servile State by Hilaire Belloc

Attacking Capitalism

What is Nationalism?

There is a post on Stormfront at the moment (NPD Show the Way: Anti-Capitalism) in which having an anti-Capitalist stance is defended by an FC activist.

What is shocking is the number of people out there - let's call them 'patriots' - who believe that we should defend Capitalism, or at best have some kind of 'national Capitalism' possibly with safeguards etc.

One gent said that taking an anti-Capitalist line would appear to voters as being Socialist or left-wing.

Obviously there are 101 comments that can be made and Ranting Ron himself could have a field day. But here are a few of the more choice points to be made:

1. Capitalism is wrong. It was bad for our people long before it dictated that mass coloured immigration was acceptable to keep wages down.

2. Opposition to Capitalism needn't mean Socialism. Socialism is a discredited stance and there is a nationalist opposition to Capitalism which doesn't believe in centralised government control of every facet of our lives.

3. "National" Capitalists' home is the Tory Party. Albeit that the Tory Party today is (like virtually everything else) internationalist, there is a wing of the Tories which favours "Keeping jobs in Britain" and having some kind of controls over the extremities of Capitalism (e.g. a Blairite "minimum wage").

4. Ignorance is no defence. If you, as a patriot, are unaware of non-Socialist opposition to Capitalism it does not negate those viewpoints; and if you are aware of them, then it is your duty to inform people ("voters" or not) of a nationalist alternative.

5. Distributism has been espoused by nationalists. From members of the BUF in the thirties, through the NF of the 80s to members of the BNP today. Many are aware of Distributism, e.g. in a recent BNP paper it said the Distributist Hilaire Belloc was one of their 'forebears.'

6. To fail to oppose Capitalism is wrong. Not only morally, economically or ideologically. It is wrong because you will fail to pick up support from radical elements who can be "won over," you will fail to give workers, mortgage-payers an answer to their 'shackles' and you will fail to give any vision of the future that any myriad of Capitalist or Socialist groups can - because anyone can "tinker with the works."

Capitalism was alien to our people when they were herded into factories, mines and sweatshops.

Capitalism was alien to our people when their lands were enclosed.

Capitalism was alien to our people when they were sent overseas as indentured slaves.

Capitalism has bled countless generations of our people to death, has forced them to live in slums, has forced them to be taxed to death, forced them to work in monotonous meaningless jobs, mortgaged them to the hilt...

Capitalism bred the non-answer Socialism through its maltreatment of people. Of course then we get into the whole conspiratorial view of history - with bankers funding Bolshevist revolutionaries etc. etc.

Capitalism was wrong long before the British government was forced to pass the Poor Act.

Capitalism was wrong long before the profiteers of the Napoleonic Wars.

Capitalism was wrong long before the advent of mass coloured immigration.

I recall a radio phone in with an activist with Oldham NF in the mid 1980s on Manchester's Piccadilly Radio. On that programme he attacked Capitalism and outlined the nationalist alternative.

One thing he said caught my imagination back then as a young activist and has remained with me ever since.

He said (to paraphrase) that if we got rid of all the coloured immigrants tomorrow, we'd still have White dole queues.

Nationalism is all about love of people, land and all that is good.

Capitalism is all about love of money, profits and anything that will deliver either.

A Nationalist cannot have two masters.