Quote of the Week: Equality and Democracy?

“The childlike confidence in Parliaments and Elections and Ballot Boxes and systems of Political Economy, the simple faith that votes for all will mean equality for all, that unrestricted competition, perfect freedom of exchange and no governmental inference will result in peace and prosperity and social stability, that, I fear, will never be seen again. That has now joined the host of lost causes and forsaken beliefs and impossible loyalties.”

S. Sagar, (Distributist),
Round by Repentence Tower,
1930.

Distributism: A Movement Whose Time Has Come

This says it all.

When usury-bankers have created a huge financial mess.

When politicians care more about their own benefits than the Common Good.

When the police let criminals rule the streets whilst building a Police State.

When media hacks make up stories and spy on people to make a quick buck.

When the family collapses under immorality, amorality, a culture of death and government tactics.

When centralisation of government and banks in Euroland results in debt and slavery.

When plurality and moral chaos replace Christianity and tradition.

It's time for Common Sense.

The Response to the Riots: Time for Plain Speaking, not Platitudes

The likes of David Starkey and Peter Hitchens are, pretty much, hitting the nail on the head when it comes to the recent riots.

What's interesting is that the violence started with the death of a reputed gangsta. He had an illegal gun. His uncle was a drug and gun terrorist from Manchester (source) who was linked in with violent communist groups, involved in the supply of hard drugs in Manchester and the death of gangland opponents (i.e. drug supply rivals).

Right: The gangstas and ASBOs have free-rein, whilst the police crackdown on genuine protest. Meanwhile the law-abiding majority are made to feel like criminals as CCTV watches our every move and our ancient rights are curtailed. Question immigration or homosexuality and you might get that dawn knock on the door from the Stasi who fail to investigate most home robberies.

BBC Radio 4's morning news programme 'Today' showed that the Socialist Workers Party was in Tottenham stirring up the black rioters via a demo with a loud-hailer. So again we have a Communist link which most of the media, the police and the "experts" have ignored.

This coming together of the gangsta culture and the Communists seems to breed a sort of violence in which everything is up for grabs, with gangstas joined by whiggers, in turn joined by anyone who wants a free-for-all: the kind of ne'erdowells of all kinds who feel the world owes them a living (regularly seen on SWP demos moaning about the Tories whilst living a comfortable life).

The liberals that infest the BBC like the offspring of 1968 that they invariably are (like their counterparts in politics) decry anyone who points at anything like the truth. They have covered up the gangsta culture for years, the endemic crime on council estates where people live in fear, the iron grills that cover windows in London, even in posh areas, for fear of the "feral rats" who see anyone else's property as their own, by right.

This has nothing to do with Social Justice. If it were, people would be organised to that end, fighting for Distributism, seeking to be a part of society, holding up our traditional culture, beliefs and ideals as a beacon for all who want to take part and improve.

Of course this is where David Starkey is right. The gangsta culture is totally alien. It is un-European. It seeks to smash all things that stand in their way to rule the streets with fear and carve up cities for their drugs supply and obscene profits. This people grasp huge profits from drugs crime with both hands rather than work. They gun down anyone who dare stands up to them and will organise a riot if one of their drug overlords is taken out by the police.

Unlike those who seek genuine Social Justice, these people hate England, Europe, Christianity and all forms of decency. Their snarled nihilism is therefore so easily egged on by the kind of "anti-fascists" as organised the Manchester gangs or who egged on the Tottenham gangs. White or black, Asian or Jewish, rich or poor (but invariably well-off), these kind of Communist miscreants see the gangstas as the perfect army for their beliefs.

For years the streets of London and Manchester have been ruled by the gun & drugs crimes and the police have been ineffective. As ineffective as they were when the riots began, because they either (as is usual) go softly, softly and let the gangstas rule the roost (the head anti-fascist gangsta in Manchester boasted on TV, to Donal McIntyre, that they had more guns than the police) or they (very rarely) clamp down hard and then the gangstas and reds move in to stir up "da community" and the bricks and petrol bombs fly.

How can law and order exist in these circumstances? Answer: it can't. It hasn't.

The first job of any government is to keep its own people safe, and yet from the very advent of the failed multi-culti experiment the streets of our cities have not been safe. Remember the NF march in Lewisham in 1977? They had a banner showing a coloured man mugging an English old lady accompanied with the statistics that proved this happened in the vast majority of cases. And yet the police ordered the NF to obscure/redact the profile of the mugger, in an early example of political correctness. As the anti-mugging march progressed it came under a vicious attack from the early gangstas - who had been whipped up and organised by the usual Communist groups.

So as you can see, little has changed.

The state has orchestrated a situation where the streets are not safe. The police on the street must loathe this because they have been emasculated, yet the top cops love it because it has enabled them to grab more and more police state powers, invariably used against "soft targets" such as the English people who sought to defend their communities in Enfield and Eltham. Whilst knife and sword wielding Asians in Dalston and Southall were lauded as heroes by the media and left alone by the police, the Whites were decried as extremists and treated to heavy-handed tactics by the police. Funnily enough the same police refuse to use such tactics in places such as Tottenham and Hackney.

As I said, the first job of the government is to keep the people safe.

They use this as an excuse to start meaningless, unwanted and unneeded foreign wars that are expensive, kill many (our soldiers and foreigners) and simply result in making us an international swear-word.

Yet whilst espousing the safety of the "British people" in starting legally questionable wars, they leave those of us actually on those streets (i.e. not in their rich enclaves and protected by gun-carrying police -- remember ex-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith getting police protection to buy a kebab in London in the afternoon?) at the whims of the gangstas. The little old ladies on estates cower in their homes whilst the "feral rats" run the streets, damage cars, attack passers-by and so on ad nauseum.

The little old lady might phone the police and they may turn up 40 minutes later. Even if the "feral rats" are still there they will be pretty powerless to act. In the rare event of arresting one of them, he will be bailed and back out to make the little old ladies' life a misery (the reason why so many people don't report the "low level" Asbo-style crimes on estates and politicians celebrate that "crime is down" - what idiots!).

If the "feral rats" attack someones car and rob someones house, the population need only wait for the police to show up, some hours later, to give the victim a crime reference number for insurance purposes. Rest assured the crime will rarely be investigated as the police rush off to deal with another crime that happened 4 hours ago.

The system is broken. The criminal justice system is a joke. The police are powerless to act or seen as a joke. The politicians have created a multi-culti nightmare in which the gangstas hold sway. Traditional values such as marriage, Christianity, patriotism and so on are sneered at by the types who run the BBC, which trickles down via the Communist groups and finds resonance in the gangstas (who nlisten to the rap produced by the big labels and pumped out on the BBC).

Peter Hitchens today (source) makes some salient points on this and related matters:

Take our Prime Minister, who is once again defrauding far too many people. He uses his expensive voice, his expensive clothes, his well-learned tone of public-school command, to give the impression of being an effective and decisive  person. But it is all false. He has  no real idea of what to do. He  thinks the actual solutions to the problem are ‘fascist’. Deep down,  he still wants to ‘understand’ the hoodies.
Say to him that naughty children should be smacked at home and caned in school, that the police (and responsible adults) should be free to wallop louts and vandals caught in the act, that the police should return to preventive foot patrols, that prisons should be austere places of hard work, plain food and discipline without TV sets or semi-licit drugs, and that wrongdoers should be sent to them when they first take to crime, not when they are already habitual crooks, and he will throw up his well-tailored arms in horror at your barbarity.
Say to him that divorce should be made very difficult and that the state should be energetically in favour of stable, married families with fathers (and cease forthwith to subsidise families without fathers) and he will smirk patronisingly and regard you as a pitiable lunatic.
Say to him that mass immigration should be stopped and reversed, and that those who refuse any of the huge number of jobs which are then available should be denied benefits of any kind, and he will gibber in shock.

Most people, outside the miasma of the liberal-left and the banking-right, understand this as a fact of life. Undermining marriage, Christianity, abhorrence of drugs, and our white, English communities has resulted in a mess which only those with enough money can escape (how fitting that most politicians had fled abroad when the riots kicked off).

The politicians cannot stop this, because to do so will be to admit that their ideals of the last 50 or so years have been totally wrong. They instead snort coke, fiddle expenses, and cherish their gilt-edged pensions (the kind police, teachers and nurses will no longer get!) whilst  they continue to betray us for their own political ends.

Some will call for more "help" for the multi-culti areas, some will call for water cannons, plastic bullets and more CCTV. Both will fail:

• Help for multi-culti areas will mean poor white areas will be ignored again (something they should be used to!), will mean more pc agendas sucking up the money to confirm the chip-on-shoulder views of the gangstas, more organised crime moving in to cream off the grants. Sure some "projects" may be built, only to be burnt down the next time a gun-tottin' gangsta is shot.
• More police state powers will mean the criminality, broken home, multi culti nightmare carries on, but the police will become more loathed by the gangsta generation, so when violence breaks out it will be more extreme (the police know the gangstas have guns). Meanwhile white communities will face the full force of police state powers for the most minor infringement. CCTV meanwhile will prove useless and merely mean more state control of the law-abiding majority.

We need, as a society, to break free from the stranglehold of the pc brigade, the kind of organised haters who scream abuse when someone like David Starkey dares to get anywhere near the truth. Robert Peston, the chum of the Murdoch-circle who spins his output (see recent Private Eye mags) is a clear example. Despite working for the BBC, Peston poured his bile on Starkey, and said he should be "ignored." Many other rent-a-gobs (e.g. Piers "Morgan" Moron) dived in to pour their abuse on Starkey.

That's right Mr. Media. Run off to your 98% white enclave. Mix with your elite chums - those who loot society every day via their offshore accounting, those who mug society every day via foisting their multi-cult opinions as "the norm". Those who twist the news, spinning against anyone who dares to speak the truth or offer a genuine alternative to the mess we see around us. You know nothing of the white old lady trapped on an estate surrounded by gangsta criminals!

Despite the wishes of the media elite, we should be free to openly discuss:

• The failure of immigration and multi-culti/multi-racism.
• The failure of widespread divorce, single mothers and failing families.
• The failure of drugs policy and the harm that both soft and hard drugs do.
• The role of Communist ("anti fascist") groups in promoting violence.
• The need to promote traditional values - of Faith, Family, Nation.
• The need to think seriously about resettling offspring of immigrants.
• The need to make schools places of learning (using carrot and stick).

This society is failing (has failed?). Police watch as people's homes and businesses are burnt. Gangstas think they rule the streets. Vast areas are no longer English in any meaningful way. The family is all but destroyed in some areas. Too many think drugs are fine and dandy. Too many think the world owes them a living.

In reality only Faith, Family, Nation can save England. Unfortunately too many vested interests cannot allow that to happen and so the downward spiral, in one form or another, will continue.

Meanwhile we can all watch in horror as the Euro and Dollar plunge from crisis to crisis and take the majority of hard-working, tax-paying, mortgage-endebted people of England into another abyss.

England, 2011. It's like the old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."








P.S. In today's Mail on Sunday there is a report on a memorial in East London to victims of the Blitz, in the shape of a Dove of Peace which has been attacked and written on by locals from the "ethnically diverse" area "which some think may be racially motivated." Ah! Yet another example of the way immigration has made an area of London as English as a chapati. The Police say they "did receive reports" of the "antisocial behaviour" but - and this may surprise you dear reader - no-one has been arrested despite names and "Asian gang tags" being put on the monument. Instead a fence has gone up (welcome to gulag London) which the gangs tried to cut through with bolt cutters. Such is the proud tradition of tolerance in multi-culti London. Welcome to your future people of Dorset, Shropshire and Cumbria! You can run but you can't hide...

Kevan Bleach, Rest in Peace

Terrible news from a friend today.

Kevan Bleach, FC supporter, 'pupil' of AK Chesterton and all round good egg passed away a few days ago.

After battling and surviving cancer, the disease returned and claimed Kevan at the age of just 59.

He had long worked in education, and had only retired a year previously.

A young protege of AK Chesterton, Kevan kept in touch with patriots across the years and retained an interest in sound finance, the Chesterbelloc, Distributism and similar.

Kevan will be sorely missed by those who knew him, for his studiousness, his gentle sense of humour and his knowledge of nationalism stretching back many years.

Was Roosevelt's Short-Term Answer to the Depression Right?

Let us for one moment forget about the political parties being in hock to the banks/financiers, the national debt and so on.

OK?

Right. Let me then as a question that may shock and upset some.

Are Labour right? Is the Milliband (Jewish offspring of Marxists) proposal to spend ones way out of depression something better by degrees than the Tory prospect of taking money out of the economy (witness VAT at 20%, petrol no-one can afford, libraries closing etc.)?

Let us think of the example of Roosevelt's New Deal during the depression-era of 30's America. All/most the (for want of a better word) "fascists" of America lobbied Roosevelt and supported his New Deal. The idea (if I understand it right) was for the US government to spend money on huge projects, to get money flowing back through the economy, to get large numbers of the unemployed back in work.

Right: Roosevelt's New Deal had the support of the "radical right" in America. Fascism? Socialism? Wise move? Or short-term populism?

Then, again put aside your hang-ups, we are dealing with economics not political persuasions, we have the example of Hitler's Germany which, as the depression ground on in countries like the UK, put German workers' interests first and built the autobahns, pumped money into workers' houses, holidays etc.

Now I know they are not perfect mirrors of each other as I dare say the American and German governments treated banks, financiers and usury very differently (and that has huge ramifications in the short and long term), as would a Labour Party government in today's Britain.

But (and to misquote Graham Norton it's a big but) might we conjecture from this that the Labour Party's idea of spending money on projects to keep people employed, keep money flowing through the economy, make sense?

I'd be interested to hear what others think.

After all, if "free marketeers" charge in and start screeching "socialism," might we not reply that it took the "socialism" of a mass public bail-out to prevent the gods of the free-market going bust?

As Hilaire Belloc wrote some time before in the nationalist classic 'An Essay on the Restoration of Property', the Nationalist/Distributist position is that the "little man" (and his family/business) must be free from unnecessary government interference and the bullying monopoly-capitalism of the Tescos, and so be truly free. But when it comes to larger, national matters, there must be a government (truly representative - that's where Guilds come in) and even government ownership, to ensure important national matters (such as the infrastructure which cannot be run by small businesses) are not prone to "market forces."

Food for thought.

GKC as Superhero? You Better Believe it!

As a lover of all things Chestertonian, I had to laugh when I saw this image:


I think GKC would have loved it! It pokes fun at the great man and doesn't seek to minimise his girth! And the glasses outside the mask. What a hero!

Anything that makes people look twice and maybe dip a toe into the world of GKC (plus Distributism and the Chesterbelloc) can't be bad at all.

For those interested in Gilbert magazine click here

People Want Land

This is an interesting development which is a first tentative step towards realising the Distributist ideal: land and property for all.

It shows that people want the land, want to grow their own food, have their own livestock and live healthy lives.

Link:
Landshare

American Distributist Interviewed

An interview with an American Distributist who has been at the centre of a "communist/socialist" smear, orchestrated by Neo Cons dressed up as Christians, and a "neo-Nazi" smear storm, orchestrated by the SPLC, ADL and others of a Communist and Masonic nature which cost him his job.

So, according to the enemies of truth this unassuming man who has merely (re)published books, he is a rabid anti-Semite, extreme right-wing neo-Nazi, whilst at the same time being an extreme left-wing socialist and/or communist. It seems the enemies of civilisation want it both ways.

'Twas ever thus:

John Sharpe Interview

The Banking Crisis: Usury Was/Is to Blame

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.

===

FC Note:

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.

Distributist Conference on the Global Economic Crisis

Last Week's Quote: G.K. Chesterton on Thieves and Property

One for our politicians:

"Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it."

G.K. Chesterton
The Man Who Was Thursday.

Alternative Allotments

Have a look at this website – it is a marvellous idea. It is simply a way of putting those in touch who want some land, on which to grow fruit and veg, with landowners. There is also the chance for people to pass on their experience to others. In one town there is a 40 years (yes, years not weeks) for an allotment, perhaps this could become a viable alternative.

Link:
Land Share

20 Years On: The Third Position: 1989 Principles Still Ring True.

Let the Left-Wing Communists and the Right Wing Kosher Tories complain all they like!

The founding principles of the Third Position are now 20 years old, and they are as valid today as they were then. Not one iota, not one jot has been changed, nor does it need to!

The Truth is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

No shekel bribes can change it, no race-mixing squeezed in, no central pillars airbrushed out for media acclaim, no opposing forces like Freemason and Zionism quietly given the green light.

Read the Declaration of Principles.

The various points still resonate today with what people are searching for. Nationalism, Distributism, Popular Rule, Anti-Zionism, Pro-Family, Anti-Usury, Pro-Ecology!

Link:
10 Point Declaration

Bishop Richard Williamson Essay in Rural Book

This book, published in Ireland, has a great essay in it by Bishop Richard Williamson, so beloved of late by the talking heads on the Electronic Talmud.

Entitled Ruralism Versus Urbanism it is one of many essays dealing with ruralism from a practical, political, social and other perspectives.

Link:
The Rural Solution

Are Bland Buildings Necessary?

I have come to the conclusion that the modern world is soulless.

Right: Rabbit hutches with little squares of grass. Can't we as a people aspire to provide better housing?

It's weird to start any piece of writing with a conclusion, but there you go. I don't see any point in beating about the bush.

Look at most buildings built since the 60s.

Our homes have become soulless boxes, rabbit hutches with their little patio and square of grass.

Our offices, factories and all too often our very work has become soulless. Neon stripped existences, clock-watching monotony.

Our shops have become branded monotony, soulless Tescos, Sainsburys, Marks & Spencers forcing the small artisan, local producer-seller and quirky local shop into penury.

Our public buildings, council offices, leisure centres and even our churches are bland, square blocks with safety doors and false ceilings.

Blluuuuuuuuuuuuuurggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh.

Where are the structures that scream of our heritage? That give us a glimpse of artisanship? That speak of local crafts and come from the local soil and rock? That -- pc brigade and commies look away -- give us a glimpse of heaven?

We have stately homes and grand churches and Cathedrals, the remnants of a bygone age, but why can't we have homes with character? With nooks and crannies? With odd shaped gardens? Why can't our offices and public buildings be stirring?

I know things were never rosy, and our forefathers lived in slums and worked as slave-labourers for the iron masters and factory-owners who built so many grand country estates; but in this age when working men stand idle, an age when people ache for property, for local produce, for green communities etc. - why can't politicians, local and national - have the vision to bring about communities, towns etc. that are imbued with culture, with vision, with SOUL.

I am not a toff. I have lived virtually my whole life in terraced communities, gone to comprehensive school, worked in the offices, warehouses etc. I so despise. The posh schools, country idylls and oak-lined offices of the political shyster class have not cosseted me, I am fully aware of what it's like to live, work, and exist in pretty much soulless structures.

I am sick of Communist grey granite monstrosities. I am bored of blandly carpeted neon-lit offices. I am depressed by housing estates that look like they were designed by Lego.

Let us bring about homes and communities imbued with the cultures, with the values, with the history, with the heritage of all the nations and regions that make up these islands.

Wishful thinking? Perhaps.

A dream? Of course.

But if we can't dream of what the future might be, then we will be sentenced to more monotony, more homogenisation, more bland conformity.

I'd rather push for what might be than blindly shuffle into a bland blanket of soulless structures surrounding us for generations to come.

The Culture of Greed & the Need for Absolute Change

MORE CORRUPTION - MORE EXCUSES

TO COIN A PHRASE: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

A Sunday newspaper has alleged that "our" Home Secretary - Jaqcui Smith - is fiddling the system, by classing her sister's house in London as her "London Home" (when she could use a free government one, apparently there's a few standing empty) so she can get circa £30K a year.

Right: Just because they work in the Palace of Westminster, doesn't give our politicians to act like Royalty, escaping censure at every turn with a feeble excuse or a half-hearted apology.

This is designed so MPs in Scotland, Cumbria, Northern Ireland, Newcastle and areas too far away to be able to commute can work at Westminster and have somewhere to stay/live when not in their constituencies; not so that MPs (or ministers!) with constituencies nearby can - allegedly - fiddle the system and - allegedly - pocket tens of thousands of pounds.

Some time ago I wrote a review of Justin Barrett's book The National Way Forward (see link below for Reds' ranting against Barrett). In this book the Irish Pro-Lifer and Nationalist argues that "targeting" dole cheats is a bit of a sop to public opinion and "populism" wherein the real problem lies with the international financiers and big businesses that fiddle tax and fiddle bonuses etc.

He was and is right.

No-one is suggesting that dole cheats or long-term 'dole bums' should be ignored, rather we should work to ensure workers get a fair wage for a job done well, because there is a mentality of "the world owes me a living for ding nothing" in some sections of the community.

However, the millions mis-spent on housing benefit etc. (which should be overhauled) pales into insignificance when compared to the billions swindled by the banksters, financiers, big businessmen and MPs.

Two wrongs do not make a right, but when the people at the top are fiddling expenses and filling their pockets, should we be surprised when the people at the bottom do the same?

The system needs a total overhaul (national revolution - not national reform!) because the people at the top do not only do this illegally, as in the alleged case of Miss Smith, they do it by dancing around the rules and employing legal people to find them the loopholes and a way of breaking the rules whilst staying "within" the law.
The trickle-down effect of corruption is there for all to see.

When this government rails against dole cheats and corruption it comes across as dishonest as when they talk of "citizens' safety" when funding the latest American/Zionist initiative, whilst ignoring street crime, drugs gangs, muggers and the people who put us all at risk on a daily basis.

In the case of the bankers it is doubly galling because not only have these people failed - and still claim mega-buck bonuses - but many of the banks are now all-but government owned, and it is the failed polices and short-term profiteering of those banks which have put hundreds of thousands of people in the real shadow of terror: the terror of losing jobs, losing homes, losing marriages and more!

These are no CIA/Mossad "ghost" terrors: these are real terrors being faced today by tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of workers and small businessmen in the UK.

The American profiteers who made billions and caused the whole "sub-prime" debacle and "credit crunch" may be beyond the reach of the justice system here (being Americans!) but those within its reach are getting... millions of pounds in bonuses!

The dole cheats who are caught are fined. The MPs and bankers who fiddle the system - all "legal" of course! - to line their pockets are... well, they are just allowed to carry on and find more loopholes.

It reminds me of a situation some 15 or so years ago. A police station in a largish English town where I was living was raided because a number of the policemen there were taking drugs. A friend who worked in a pub near the police station had told me a couple of times that the police would regularly go to the pub after work and "smoke pot."

Ah the halcyon (not halogen!) days, when smoking in pubs was legal, and smoking cannabis in public wasn't!!!

You see the problem there, dear reader?

How can a police force full of those illegally taking drugs be expected to tackle crime in a town, especially when a good proportion of the crime is drug fuelled?

The sense of hypocrisy was and still is overpowering!

It is exactly the same sense of hypocrisy I sense today when I read of bankers bonuses, and the allegations against Lords and MPs in Parliament who fiddle the system to make wonga!

It may seem like a pipe dream -- but why the hell should it be? -- but until we overhaul the system and learn to put people in positions of power that put the Common Good before self-enrichment, this constant circus of traitors who sell-out to the bankers and leave our people in perpetual debt-and-taxation will continue evermore.

Certainly the current raft of "opposition" (whether "right" or "left," liberal or conservative, "centrist" or "extremist") seems to be the 'same old, same old' busily filling their pockets right now (aka 'Doing the Tel Aviv Breaststroke') , so are we to think they would be any different once they get a hold of the "expense account" of UK plc? Not on your nelly!

The bankers would just have another raft of career politicians waiting to fill their pockets at the peoples' expense.

Perhaps the answer lies in the old 80s NF position of peoples' representatives - a system of government a bit like corporatism (but in the sense that it shied away from Big Brother stateism, retaining the Small is Beautiful property dispersal of Distributism). They called it Popular Rule, a name I personally never liked because it can sometimes sound like an East German spin on stateism or an American Democrat faux populism.

The NF published a little on it, but I think it was too little (coming at a time of fast change, state repression, split and decline in the NF), and it really should be studied by some think tank or similar to work out the intricacies, nuances and break-down of the facts and figures -- hey, if someone wants to stick me on a wage I'll do it! ;-).

Government would be made up of local community representatives, trades representatives (from car-makers to doctors), experts in their fields etc. -- thus breaking Parliament free of the vice-like grip of lawyers and party stooges.

The "second chamber" would have to be designed in such a way to retain its current role as a control against bad laws or wrong-doing by Parliament. Perhaps it could be made up of experts in their fields, with a smattering of appointees from communities, clergymen and similar that have proven themselves to be excellent servants of the people.

Over both chambers there would need to be a ban on sinecures such as those we currently see ad nauseum from banks, energy providers, big businesses, lobbying groups etc. The wage, the sense of public duty etc. should be enough!

All the representatives would be answerable to the bodies that elect them - whether areas of the country, trade bodies etc. and so if they do not act decently and honestly they could be recalled at any time.

A Parliament that reflects the people, drawing from all communities, all classes, all professions? Parliamentarians that have to behave decently?

Now that would be revolutionary!


Link:
Communists in Ireland fume about Justin Barrett
Corporatism

Plaid Cymru was Distributist... and BBC Alba

The growth of devolution in the UK is looked on in horror by some, but with hope by others, and how we treat the smaller nations may well come to define the very meaning of nationalism.

Right: Nationalism is looking to its roots and to real folk nationalism in both Wales and Scotland. The modern leaderships of Plaid Cymru and the SNP can try to liberalise... but the growth of folk nationalism and opposition to coloured immigration to save the Celtic cultures will bring about a new breed of nationalism.

An interesting snippet from Wikipedia on Saunders Lewis, one of the founders of Plaid Cymru:

Lewis wished to demonstrate how Welsh heritage was linked as one of the 'founders of European civilization.^[15] Lewis, a self-described "strong monarchist," wrote "Civilization is more than an abstraction. It must have a local habitation and name. Here its name is Wales."^[16][17] Additionally, Lewis strove for the stability and well-being of Welsh-speaking communities, decried both capitalism and socialism and promoted what he called perchentyaeth; a policy of 'distributing property among the masses.^[18]"

So we can see that Lewis and Plaid Cymru were Distributist and Third Positionist before WW2.

The Kikipedia piece shows how Plaid Cymru was diverted ("Post fascist era"?) to a social democratic model - leading the way to a take-over of lefties, socialists and so on, wherein Plaid now seeks to be the "more red than thou" alternative to New Labour.

Interestingly there doesn't seem to be mention of his poem in which he decries those with their "Hebrew snouts" in ledgers, nor the influence of (the French "fascist") Charles Maurras on Lewis's thinking.

It is fascinating to realise that whilst Chesterton and Co. were promoting Distributism in the English-speaking world, Saunders Lewis was doing likewise in the Welsh-speaking world.

It could certainly be argued that without Saunders Lewis the Welsh language could well have all but died outside of North West and South West Wales (latter day "reservations" for the "natives").

So the resurgence in Welsh identity and the current strength of Welsh, one of the oldest European languages, can be traced back to a man whom many leftists decry as a "fascist."

In Scotland recently many materialists made a fuss over the money spent on the BBC Channel Alba, which transmits programmes in Scots Gaelic, just as they did in Wales many years ago over S4C (Welsh Channel 4).

But we have to ask ourselves: what price an ancient European language?

Shouldn't we pay a relative pittance (Credit Crunch, bank bail-out etc.) to help preserve these great tongues and their cultures for the Scottish/Highlander and Welsh people of tomorrow?


BBC Alba can be seen on Sky TV and Freesat (S4C should be too): great for seeing local sports too (Gaelic Football in Scotland, Welsh Rugby, Scottish Hurling etc.).


Links:
Wikipedia on Saunders Lewis
Saunders Lewish and the Welsh Language Revival
BBC Alba Gets 600,000 Viewers
BBC Alba homepage - see link for learning Gaelic

A Distributist's Manifesto by G.K. Chesterton

A Distributist's Manifesto by GK Chesterton

This forum - which we already link to - seems very interesting, informative and has genuinely educated debate (as opposed to those infested by morons, drunkards, ne'erdowells and Zionist trolls - naming no names!).

Chesterton gives a heavy dose of common sense to many of our social and economic problems - answers that are quintessentially English! - and what is shocking is that all those English/British nationalist groups who pay lip service to Distributism (as the vast majority do!) fail so utterly to have Distributism as the basis of their socio-economic outlook and policy!

It's akin to all those Labour politicians (inc Brown and Blair) who use the language of, and claim to be, Christians - whilst they espouse the "rights" of homosexuals, of abortionists, and support the most unjust wars!

Rant over.

Nationalist Economics have the Answer!

THE SYSTEM IS CRUMBLING

Right: The political, Big Business and Zionist New Unhappy Lords are out for total control and do not want to give up any slice of their pie - let alone total freedom - to us as nations, communities or families.

So according to Murdoch-employee Andrew Neil, prime minister Gordon Brown, leader of the opposition David Cameron, the BBC, every MP, economics "experts," the TV talking heads etc. etc. we have no alternative but to prop up global Capitalism, bail out the banks, and increase the National Debt by billions more!

In essence they say: 'fix the bursting debt bubble by injecting more debt into it.' Have you ever heard of anything so preposterous? They may as well say smother that conflagration with this petrol-soaked blanket.

It doesn't take a genius to spot the flaw there! Keynsian economics to the max: spend, spend, spend, pile it on and sod tomorrow!

When the bigger bubble bursts what will they do? Borrow trillions more? And then what? Zillions? And then onto the sorts of words we used to make-up in school: gaggillions... bazzillions... gigantazillions...

The "world economy" is destined - medium or long term - to go the way of Zimbabwe's economy, especially as Gulag-China won't be around to bail-out Big Business with its cheap labour and concentration camp goods next time around.

The debt bubble can do nothing but grow and grow. It's all the banksters know and all the politicians will allow to happen: for even to glimpse debt-free finance in any real way will blow the whole thing apart.

There are three simple answers to the problem, all of them Christian and rooted in Christian Social Teaching, all of them help the people, but the problem is that all of them would take power away from the banksters, from their hired political party apparatus and most of all from the powerful Masonic elite.

That is why the BBC, the politicians and the (CIA/MI5-employed) economic "experts" and all the other Masons, Trilaterals, Bilderbergers, financiers etc., will not even mention these alternatives: for fear of undermining their total control of economic and political power.

Those answers are:

• Social Credit.
• Distributism.
• The Guilds.

So let's deal with each of these in turn. As you will see each in its own way deals with a specific part of society (1. Money and Banking, 2. Families and Communities, 3. Government and Politics) and I see no reason why the three cannot interlink and create a society that is fair, just, debt-free, truly democratic and which also rewards hard work.

1. Social Credit.

Basically this is the simple matter of a government issuing its own money as a credit. In other words money (printed, in ledgers, on pc screens etc.) is created by the state and not "borrowed" into circulation.

There is no reason for a government to borrow money (Bank of England or IMF) when it can create that same money and have no debt attached to it!

Most people assume that the money with the Queen's head on is issued by the government anyway and in the spending of money etc. it would make no difference to anyone.

The huge difference would be in there being no national debt.

Social Credit could also be used on a local level, with Council Tax Credits and similar. With no debt-money the debts of government, local and national, would be non-existent and so taxes could be slashed hugely and monies raised via taxation (and those raised via creating money) could be spent where needed on the NHS, schools, infrastructure, sea defences...

Of course there have to be controls (just as there are meant to be controls today - and that's a bloody joke!) but within these criteria there would be a sensible, sane answer to debt and the debt bubble (with its "boom and bust").

So that's banking, debt, inflation and taxation "sorted," which in turn will help create the conditions for implementing a huge programme of social justice initiatives...

2. Distributism.

Distributism would in essence allow families to own their own homes and their own businesses. Usury-free loans could replace mortgages. The right to property would be enshrined in law, as would be a limit on the size of home and land ownership, and (as Belloc discussed in Restoration of Property) a J curve of taxation on businesses to prevent them becoming "too big" and the homogenisation, and bully boy tactics that the likes of Tescos or Sainsbury's bring about.

Enshrining the right to property in law prevents people being kept as disinherited slaves, a move to workers co-operatives helps move away from the "them and us" mentality of Capitalism.

Of course there are 101 ways a government of the day can help via thoughtful home building (e.g. more family farms, the break of wasteful large estates and absentee agri-businesses, tax-incentives for co-operatives, promotion of local produce etc. All of which ties us in with No. 3.

3. The Guilds.

Bizarre though it may seem to us in Britain today, but the Guilds is the most tried, tested and successful of these nationalist economic standards. It is impossible for enemies to dismiss it as a "theory" or "utopian."

For hundreds of years in the Middle Ages the Guilds were a centrepiece of trade, community, family and social life.

The purpose of guilds covers so much you should really read one of our books (eg. Penty's) but to summarise, it covers training and trade education; employment and social care; fair and just prices; protection against shoddy goods and work; community cohesion; and (recallable!) representation in local and national politics.

Furthermore, thanks to numerous Church encyclicals on the state of the working classes, and condemning Communism and Free Trade Capitalism, the ideals of the Guilds were taken up across Europe in the early 20th Century by the "fascist" movements who sought a Third Position beyond Capitalism and Communism and who also sought to defend Christian civilisation from the Soviets and the Bankers.

Although the Guilds were known as Corporations in Italy, the name Corporatism doedn't really fit the bill in the Anglo-Saxon world because we tend to think of large corporations and multi-nationals, which is a world away from what the Guilds were all about.

The 1980s (Distributist) NF picked up on the idea of Guilds, but instead of concentrating on English and European political or social history chose the Libyan-model used by Gaddaffy, which was used by erstwhile Neo-Cons to bash them. In hindsight the NF would have got further if it had chosen the works of Penty and other Guildsmen or the medieval examples from across Europe.

Conclusion.

So whether we're thinking of macro or micro economics; whether we are thinking about inflation and national debt, or the family farm and the quality of foodstuffs: from one end to the other, in a society that is empowered from the roots up, which is built on the cornerstone of the family, which is secure because it is free of usury-debt.

Socialism is dead and discredited. Capitalism is dying a slow and painful death.

What is amusing is that we have these Christian social and economic answers that would benefit everyone, and yet our "leaders" (allegedly Christian to a man) would rather sweep them under the carpet for fear of upsetting the International Financiers and Banksters.

It shows who they put first.

Should we support our people or the banksters?

Should we support British commerce and businesses or Chinese Gulag-Capitalism?

Should we live more mortgage-slavery (and repossession) years or usury-free ownership and freedom?

Should we pay billions in taxes to pay an obscene national debt forever or slash taxes dramatically?

Should we give hundreds of thousands the freedom of family farms, self-sufficiency and property security or continue with wage-slave, rabbit hutch homes?

Detractors

The trolls on the left and right, in America and Europe, can point and mock. Many of them are paid by (or bought by!) Communists or Neo Cons and seek to defend the indefensible (yes, both Communism and Usury have been totally and utterly condemned by Christians and/or Nationalists since the outset of both alien creeds: promoted by those who profit the most - the same anti-National and anti-Christian creed).

They can say - wrongly - that none of this is tried and tested, but when all we have known is slavery for hundreds of years, is it wrong to seek a way out of that slavery? If we can take the best from before the advent of Capitalism and the best of ideals opposed to both Capitalism and Socialism in the 20th Century we can create an answer that will give us hope for the 21st Century.

Social Credit. Distributism. The Guilds.

Each of these will give our peoples freedom.

Our opponents and the powers-that-be will denounce them all as "anti-Semitic" but that merely shows who is oppressing our people, if the answers to that oppression are given such epithets.

For the rest of us such labels are meaningless. We have a simple choice: freedom or slavery.

"Only Show in Town" lie from System Stooge

Capitalism isn't dead: but it is discredited and because it is based on unpayable debt, and has been bailed-out by piling on more unpayable debt.

[image deleted]

Right: Andrew 'Brillo' Neil (left) showing his campaigning zeal for harmony between the races - and the generations!

Socialism isn't dead: but it is comatose after the fall of the USSR and the conversion of China to Gulag-Capitalism.

Funnily enough in an interview, the "Dragon's Den" businessmen Duncan Bannatyne said that whilst businessmen create wealth through their enterprises, the Capitalists are those in the large glass buildings who shuffle bits of paper and move money from one to the other in essence creating nothing.

How right he is! Almost.

Only it's worse because they move "money" that often doesn't exist, it's usury-debt, it's entries in ledgers or on pc-screens.

So whilst they only "create" debt and shuffle the debts around and take hard-earned money from businesses in a Wizard of Oz atmosphere (where we're all supposed to be impressed by their glass towers and marble pillars) businesses (that includes family concerns, farms etc.) have to pay them usurious interest as well as all the local and national taxes that go to paying the unpayable debts accrued by local and national government.

That is where many people make the mistake.

They think just because someone runs a business he is a Capitalist.

Businesses existed before the advent of Capitalism and there is nothing Capitalist per se in running a business. It is when the scale of a business becomes detrimental to society, or when a business seeks to freeze out competitors that it takes on the role of a Capitalist concern.

Andrew Neil, the politico and newspaper editor was interviewing Ballatyne and he finished the piece by stating that Capitalism would morph into a new style to work around the current difficulty, because (after the fall of Socialism) there was no other blueprint for a society.
Ahem!

Really?

There is no alternative to issuing money as a debt?

There is no alternative to property in the hands of the few (banks or State)?

There is no alternative to government run by the banks for the banks?

There is no alternative to a system that sees finance as its primary concern and the family as of secondary importance?

And yet people like Andrew Neil - affectionately or otherwise known as Brillo in the pages of Private Eye - claim that Capitalism (with all its injustices, all its evils and all its integral debt-finance) is - to coin a certain phrase - the "only show in town."

As if we should accept something that is corrupt, Masonic, cronyist and degenerate just because it's rigged to be "the only show in town" by those on the take.

Is Mr. Neil really so obtuse as not to be aware that there is an alternative to both Capitalism and Socialism?

Can we rely on a man's judgement who owes his position to the uber-Capitalist, Neo-Con/Zionist Big Businessman and pal (sorry, owner!) of politicians: Rupert Murdoch.

Anyone who's tied in with a system and who's profited from that system who then says - to paraphrase - 'look it's the best we can hope for and there's no alternative' should not be taken at face value, not least because he has a vested interest.

Here endeth lesson.



Link:
Andrew Neil biog