Majorityrights Central > Category: European Union

Well, I didn’t expect it.  Like most people, I think, I had David Cameron down as electable Mr Bland, a wax-work dummy from Madame Tussauds carefully placed in the leadership of the Conservative Party to follow the internationalist, neoliberal script.  And perhaps he would have done so, turning his back on national interest as every other British Prime Minister has, finally, over the last thirty-five years.  But, it seems, Sarko and his mandarins, possessed as they are of a vision for Europe on a Napoleonic scale and a horrible suspicion that Anglo-Saxon skulduggery is undermining it, made it impossible for him, wearing the colours of Arch-Defender of Financial Services, to sign on fiscal Europe’s bottom line.

Now we have a situation where seventeen eurozone states and nine EU member but non-eurozone states are going to make lovebird sounds to another, while totally ignoring the will of their respective peoples.  One other state is, as they say, “isolated”, though it is a rather smug and relieved isolation at the moment.  If Cameron calls a snap election now, or if the LibDems collapse the coalition (which they can’t, of course), he would scoot home.  Even with all the austerity.

But ... what does it all mean from a nationalist perspective?  Has anything changed for us?  Well, two things for starters.

First, the definition of a Eurosceptic has been expanded.  Cameron’s veto has made the beast mainstream.  Meanwhile, the ante has been vertiginously upped for supporters of joining the Euro.  The old argument about being at “the heart of Europe” to protect our interests is defunct – we are not going to be at the heart of Europe ever again.  Now Europhiles have to argue that agreeing to German oversight of UK taxation and spending policy and practise would be in the national interest.

Cameron’s veto will have an immediate effect on UKIP and on British nationalism, forcing a focus on the perfect nonsense of belonging to a club of 27 which 26 have left, and the half-life Britain will now increasingly inherit as the 26 develop their union.  The argument for independence therefore becomes one of re-definition and regularisation.  It has lost much of its power.

Second, notwithstanding our signature to the existing EU treaties (including Lisbon which effectively abolishes the nation state) the intergovernmental process of de-sovereignisation has come to a screeching halt for Britain.  The sole remaining interests for the British government in the EU are the preservation of (i) the Single Market and (ii) the unregulated status of the City of London.  The project has now become a neoliberal one, not an internationalist one, and that will require a more nuanced critique from nationalists.

In this respect globalisation presents a particular challenge.  It continues to exercise its baleful influence upon us and to be fully supported by the political mainstream.  But it is nebulous, and the power of corporations does not pack the same punch as a political target as the power of Brussels.

A lot has changed today.  We do not yet know how all the pieces will fall finally.  But nationalism didn’t make much impact when the ideological times were good.  They just got tougher, and I am none too confident that we can rise to the challenge.

As conceived by Guardianoid.

The last, volatile twenty-four hours on the trading floors and in the political councils have confirmed for anyone interested in knowing the fact (and many are determined not to know it) that political internationalism is in deep trouble.  The European political class appears to be unable to do any more than kick the can down the road.  We are probably still two months away from knowing for sure whether any kind of definitive package can be put in place to prevent the Greek government defaulting on debt repayment, or whether such a default would necessarily drag in Portugal, and Portugal Spain.

The Euro could not survive such an eventuality, and the European process could not survive the loss of the Euro.  It’s something Eurosceptics knew about from the outset, of course, and have been telling the world ever since.  But notwithstanding its predictive power and support among the voters, Euroscepticism remains a minority interest at the top of the main parties, in governments and government departments and, inevitably, in the European nomenclature.  It is a political conviction fatally divorced from office.

There ought to be an opportunity here for political nationalism.  This is the time to talk about economics.  So what would a nationalist economic policy look like in these times?  I’ve been posting the following list, or parts thereof, on various UK national daily threads, just to introduce a few people to the kind of revolutionary ideas that nationalists ought to be exploring.  I’m not sure that any nationalist party could seriously propose very much of it at this stage.  It’s more than a wish-list, though.  The components hang together, and a successful overthrow of the Money Power is the only basis on which our racial goals can be achieved.

1. Ring-fence retail banking and protect private savings and company assets.  Consign the rest to its fate.

2. End the fractional reserve system.  Encourage savings in the private sector and investment in the business sector.

3. All capital elements of credit extended under the fractional reserve system to be repaid by digitally-created transfers, the outstanding interest to be repaid as a short-term loan.

4. Repay the bond and guilt markets on the same basis, ending the national debt crisis, and freeing the economy from the fixation on GDP and endless growth.

5. Repatriate the legal right of government to issue currency, and invest it in the economy free of interest, using capital projects, the welfare system and general government expenditure to do so, not the banks.

6. End race-replacement immigration, repatriate/relocate the Third World in England and all its seed.

The nett effect would be to give the nation, the land, and the politics back to the true people, and that is the ultimate good.

The market would take care of the rest.

A post I put up earlier today on the BNP Section of British Democracy Forum.

Peter Oborne redeemed his reputation somewhat in his piece in the Telegraph today on yesterday’s fateful step towards fiscal union in the eurozone. (By redeemed, I mean one might perhaps now look past what he thinks about the soon-to-be-fired Baroness Warsi and Islamophobia.)

Because his take on the future for the EU is very clear-sighted indeed and undoubtedly accurate:

The faith of leading European politicians and bankers in monetary union, a system of financial government whose origins can be traced back to the set of temporary political circumstances in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, and which was brought to bear without serious economic analysis, is essentially irrational. Indeed, in many ways, the euro bears comparison to the gold standard. ... European politicians have developed the same superstitious attachment to the single currency. They are determined to persist with it, no matter what suffering it causes, or however brutal its economic and social consequences.

... it is almost impossible to overestimate the importance of the decision which European leaders seemed last night to be reaching. By authorising a huge expansion in the bail-out fund that is propping up the EU’s peripheral members (largely in order to stop the contagion spreading to Italy and Spain), the eurozone has taken the decisive step to becoming a fiscal union. So long as the settlement is accepted by national parliaments, yesterday will come to be seen as the witching hour after which Europe will cease to be, except vestigially, a collection of nation states. It will have one economic government, one currency, one foreign policy. This integration will be so complete that taxpayers in the more prosperous countries will be expected to pay for the welfare systems and pension plans of failing EU states.

This is the final realisation of the dream that animated the founders of the Common Market more than half a century ago – which is one reason why so many prominent Europeans have privately welcomed the eurozone catastrophe, labelling it a “beneficial crisis”. David Cameron and George Osborne have both indicated that they, too, welcome this fundamental change in the nature and purpose of the European project. The markets have rallied strongly, hailing what is being seen as the best chance of a resolution to the gruelling and drawn-out crisis.

It is conceivable that yesterday’s negotiations may indeed save the eurozone – but it is worth pausing to consider the consequences of European fiscal union. First, it will mean the economic destruction of most of the southern European countries. Indeed, this process is already far advanced. Thanks to their membership of the eurozone, peripheral countries such as Greece and Portugal – and to an increasing extent Spain and Italy – are undergoing a process of forcible deindustrialisation. Their economic sovereignty has been obliterated; they face a future as vassal states, their role reduced to the one enjoyed by the European colonies of the 19th and early 20th centuries. They will provide cheap labour, raw materials, agricultural produce and a ready market for the manufactured goods and services provided by the far more productive and efficient northern Europeans. Their political leaders will, like the hapless George Papandreou of Greece, lose all political legitimacy, becoming local representatives of distant powers who are forced to implement economic programmes from elsewhere in return for massive financial subventions.

READ MORE...

It is good to see Fred’s wee linguistic invention spreading its shocking-fascist tentacles even unto the very heart of European political fishiness.

A translation by Fred Scrooby

The following article, which appeared at the end of September at Robert Steuckers’ Euro-synergies, was written by Jean-Gilles Malliarakis, a well-known commentator in radical-right circles in France.

THERE’S NO LACK OF RATIONAL ARGUMENTS FOR DRAWING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ANKARA’S CANDIDACY

Today I close the dossier on the Turkish question, my small book, a little heavier than anticipated.

As I write this, intending to get it finished, seemingly unbeknown to the Europeans important changes are shaking up debate in Turkey itself.  Involved are probably real developments, in part.  The current majority party, AKP, and the alliance of forces which it represents, are making their moves for essentially national reasons.  But the program for reform was developed at the end of June with the candidacy for membership in the European Union explicitly in mind, with a view to making it presentable.  This was repeated by Prime Minister Erdogan and Abdullah Gül, President of Turkey. 

Thus did we see a diplomatic offensive aimed at the Armenians, promising them the future reopening of a border whose shutting has completely closed off their country.  There’s been vague talk of normalizing the status of religious minorities (the latter are so small in number, one wonders how they could possibly be a threat to touchy Turkish Jacobinism) — thus are their representatives taken hostage to use as agents of Turkish diplomacy, in the tradition of totalitarian countries.

The most important advance is said to have been proposed to the Kurds.  After the head of government had received certain Kurdish leaders, from August 25 to September 22 there is said to have been considerable antagonism between the political leaders and the Chief of Staff of the Turkish Army, General Basbug.  In August Gen. Basbug had stated that the Army could not accept, and would therefore oppose, any plan that was in violation of Article 3 of the Constitution which declared that Turkey was a single and indivisible state and its language was Turkish.  The Kemalist and nationalist opposition joined in chorus to decry government betrayal.  There could be no clearer threat of a coup d’état as has been a recurrent event in this country’s political life since the 1946 adoption of democratic pluralism.

READ MORE...

By David Hamilton

The media are part of the ideological caste and, unless they are brave or honourable, keep “sensitive” issues from the public or present them in a way favourable to the elites. The highest sensitivity is reserved for race, then gender and sexual orientation.  The EU promotes this ideology. The news reporting is managed, and EU and UN schemes to discriminate against whites are kept from the public. People cannot revolt against something if they do not know it is happening. So what is really happening?

Throughout Europe there is a developing war on the streets for possession of the continent.  This is mainly aimed at us European people but anti-Semitism is coming back too.

British Muslims are not only burrowing into our institutions and undermining them from within, they are beginning a war in the UK AND they are fighting against our troops in Afghanistan.  EU rulers know this but still encourage immigration to build up their numbers.

How realistic is the New World Order: or is Globalisation beneficial?  In an outstanding article of 30 Jan 2009,  Patrick J.Buchanan talked of the Globalist fantasy and what is really happening:-

READ MORE...

By David Hamilton

1. A WELCOME FOR IMMIGRANTS AND FOR ISLAM

In a question and answer session with a group European journalists, and published in November 2008 by French magazine Café Babel, European Commissioner Jaques Barrot (mail him here) lifted the veil on the secret machinations of the EU rulers and their real views on Islam and mass immigration, and how they are trying to destroy Europe.

Does Europe need immigration?

Yes. The demographic situation of Europe requires a migration which must be concerted.  The mission of Europe is also a will to facilitate exchanges between countries.  Immigration is at the same time an economic and moral requirement.

At the beginning of October, German Chancellor Angela Merkel told new immigrants at their reception ceremony, “Germany thanks you“. Do you conceive such an event on a European scale?

There are many symbolic acts of this kind which can be imagined for showing the immigrants that they have really a place.  We will probably consider this type of demonstration when we write the new directive on the conditions of reception for refugees.

[…]

The European immigration policy, however, does not fit with the logic of gratitude. Critical voices reproach you for building “Fortress Europe”.

We left one very sedentary period where the borders had become an obsession.  Today, the immigration pact which the French presidency has adopted is balanced.  There is a legitimate desire to refuse illegal immigration and, at the same time, a desire for Europe to be more dynamic in taking in immigrants.

You are known to be favourable to “open Europe but with very clear rules of the game”.  How does the current immigration policy accord with this spirit of openness?

First of all, in the legal regulation of migration with the Blue Card for skilled workers will be an entitlement to family reunion.  At the same time by circular migration it will perhaps make it possible for people to profit their compatriots from the knowledge that have acquired in Europe.

Isn’t it, however, about selective immigration if one uses immigrants in the markets in Europe like substitutes?

Therefore we wish to reinforce our knowledge of the needs of Member States for skilled workers and, at the same time, to monitor immigration in Africa to know what is possible or not in each African country - which, obviously, must retain the benefits of its own skilled workers.  This is why we regularise migration of skilled workers in particular, to prevent the plundering of African and Asian brains and human resources.

[…]

Islam is perceived by certain people as incompatible with the European values of democracy, peace and equality of the sexes.  How does the EU see these problems?

This manner of seeing Islam as antagonistic to European values is completely partial and erroneous.  Islam is a monotheist religion which, to me, appears compatible with our secular principles.  What is not, in fact, compatible is fundamentalisms - not only Islamic - which want to segregate and exclude other religions.  From the moment that pluralism is accepted by Islam, in any case in Europe, Islam is welcome.  What is true is that we will always fight against the fact that in the Islamic world Christian communities are not always given the respect they are due.  But that is specific to certain Islamic states, and is not a characteristic of Europe.  Europe is in favour of religious pluralism and, obviously, any Islam which wants to be present in Europe must accept this pluralism.

2. THE OBLIGATION TO INTER-BREED WITH BLACKS AND BROWNS

READ MORE...