Discussion Forum for Readers and Supporters of European Action

Edited by author 20-05-2009 10:19
I am also in the South East constituency and I have voted on the candidate's background and the major issues they campaign on.
In the last European Elections I voted for Dr Caroline Lucas who is now the leader of the Green Party.
She is articulate, educated and sincere. Environmental issues are ignored at our peril and I believe that all of humanity is threatened. We should not simply be concerned with matters within our own borders.
She is also pro-European Union and thus going in the right direction.
Dr Lucas gets my vote again this time round.
Your reasons for voting Libertas are equally sound although I am not in favour of protest votes. You should vote for a candidate whose group will have some influence and impact. The Greens are also Europe-wide.
It goes without saying that I would never consider any party that calls for Britain's withdrawal from Europe.

Edited by author 20-05-2009 09:39
Looking at the choices in my EU constituancy (South East UK) I think Libertas might get my vote.
Pro-Europe, reformist, democratic, and Europe wide.
Thoughts?

A Welsh heritage site pays its respects to Jeffrey Hamm, the Secretary of Mosley's Union Movement.
The comments on that web page are especially interesting.
http://www.welshicons.org.uk/html/jeffrey_hamm.php
Why does Keith Thompson love telling fibs?

Edited by author 24-03-2009 00:31
I have my suspicions regarding how you may have been placed on the BNP's mailing list but I may be wrong. Perhaps someone is forwarding these Gri££inite messages. I receive them by this path which consist of a never-ending stream of 'begging letters' from Nick Gri££in.
I take your point about Churchill, the man who once said, "I will not preside over the liquidation of the British Empire", but did exactly that while accepting honorary American citizenship. That is how patriotic this corrupt man was. As you say, they are welcome to him.
Of course, there is no virtue in being anti-Muslim or anti-Arab. The BNP may try to make political capital out of such a nasty and bigoted platform but the electorate will finally discover that they have nothing else to offer. Totally moribund.
Churchill was all for European unity after the war but so long as Britain was not involved. He was largely responsible for the disastrous policy of the 'special relationship' with the United States ... placing us in a semi-permanent position of servility to Uncle Sam.
I could go on.

Barak Obama's message to Iran is high on window dressing but low on substance. In effect he's saying We will welcome you back into the world community (whatever that is) if you give up helping the Palestinians to defend themselves from Israeli state terrorism. No change there then.

Somehow I have ended up on the BNP mailing list and from the latest message I see that Nick Griffin has not only roped in Vera Lynn (against her will) and the White Cliffs of Dover but are now using imagery of Winston Churchill to promote their 'Battle for Britain'campaign. The BNP has even dragged up some disparaging words 'the W.C.' made about Islamic people. I understand he was equally scathing about Indian people.

The BNP is welcome to Churchill, the man who presided over the decline of Britain from first rate power to banckrupt nation, was responsible along with Hitler for starting a war in which 60,000,000 died and agreed to Soviet Russia taking over more than half of our European homeland. Although he professed to believe in European unity he never lifted a finger to help bring it about.

The fact that he expressed hateful views against Arab and Indian people only serves to underline the malevolant nature of this loser.

The world must be growing tired of this hypocrisy from American Secretaries of State. US foreign policy under Obama is no different to that under George W. Bush.
Why? It is the power of the Jewish Lobby, of course.
Hilary Clinton backs Israel up to the hilt no matter what the Zionists do to the defenceless Palestinians. It is truly heart-breaking.

Hilary Clinton says she can't talk to Hamas until they renounce violence. In the recent Gaza conflict the Hammas resistance managed to kill about six Israeli agressers, whereas the Israelis killed almost 1500 innocent civilians and put another 5000 into wheelchairs for the rest of their lives. Shouldn't it be the Israelis renouncing violence seeing how they're the ones committing 99% of it?

Do you not find it strange thet Mrs Clinton put a wreath down for Holocaust
victims while visiting Isreal. I wonder if she will do the same for the Palistinians, if she ever visits them.

EA Issue number 21 out on Friday

Edited by author 22-02-2009 13:55
Is this the police simply acting on a complaint and getting it wrong AGAIN? No matter the source, the arrests were proven to be totally unjustified but the consequences for the aid campaign could have been much worse.
Muslims in Britain are being stereotyped quite wrongly, in my opinion. The police are simply pawns in this game but they are easily used to harrass and persecute innocent people. What's new, I hear you say?
There is no such thing as Islamic terrorism. The real terrorism is Zionist and neo-con in America. They are also war criminals.

You will probably have heard of the disgraceful events when the police detained a number of people, their trucks and their relief supplies that were part of the 'Viva Palestina' peace convoy. No reason was given for the detentions and even though the people were released (though I understand the police are still holding the supplies so desperately needed in Gaza)the number of public donations dropped by 80% at the suggestion of some 'wrong doing'.

One does not have to be a genius to know what happened here, pressure was put on police by certain friends of Israel in order to derail part of the relief convoy. No doubt suggestions were made concerning the nature of what was contained on the trucks. I hope that when the police come to review the case and realise that certain people have tried to manipulate them they will charge the culprits with wasting police time and making malicious false accusations.

Edited by author 16-02-2009 14:47
The following new website has been brought to my attention. It is owned by Norris England, a regular contributor to European Action.

http://www.norrisengland.com

We trust that he will continue to expand his web pages with further contributions.

Still activated.

We know atrocities were committed by both sides in WW2. But some things that were accepted then are no longer acceptable now in the 21st century. The bombing, shelling or rocketing of crowded civilian areas is one of them.
Watching the latest Israeli butchery of Palestinian civilians in Gaza makes one feel angry. But it also makes us feel impotent - helpless spectators from the sidelines.
However there are things that we can do. Much has been made of trials at the Hague of leaders from the Balkans and Africa for crimes against humanity. Surely the Israeli political and military leaders who are behind the present carnage in Gaza have done more than enough to have the charge of war crimes brought against them.
Let everyone write to their local MP asking him or her to call for the process of collecting judicial evidence against Israeli leaders to begin and that this is followed by their extradition for trial. If Israel does not cooperate then the UN would be entitled to use any means possible (including Eichmann style abductions) to bring the criminals to justice. Personally I would prefer it if these Israeli war criminals were tried in Nuremburg rather than the Hague. Just to make the point.
Such a process would send a message to everyone in the world - the State of Israel is a country of war criminals led by war criminals.

They would, Ben. I have quite a few with PROTEST AGAINST ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR BOMBS and another, NO WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
I urge European patriots to join the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Robert
Some A5 flyers/stickers like your front page ad in the current paper would do the trick!

Edited by author 06-01-2009 09:58
An inspiring posting, european. The 'Boycott Israeli Goods' campaign should be a priority in our lives. We need to spread the word.

Hands Off Gaza-Free Palestine!
My friends and I were pleased to attend the march, rally and picket against the Israeli Embassy in London last Saturday. For details of forthcoming protests across Britain see www.palestinecampaign.org
Urgent donations needed for the Gaza relief appeal www.map-uk.org
Buy Palestinian products, Boycott Israeli goods www.zaytoun.org
Al-Awda, The Palestinian Right to Return Coalition www.al-awda.org.uk
Council for Arab-British Understanding www.caabu.org
Boycott Tesco, Marks & Spencer, Waitrose and Sainsbury for importing Israeli goods produced in the Occupied Territories.
Obama was shown on the news last night saying to an AIPAC meeting "We support Israel against Hamas". How right is EA no 20 to say No To Obama.

Edited by author 03-01-2009 09:31
The point is, as you said it, you should stand by it without such reservations.
I would add further, why do you enter debate and then delete your own words obviously to deny others the chance to respond properly?
You may debate your geopolitics quite freely but do not mess up the pages with your impulsive deletions.

Well of course I said it, that's quite obvious.

Well, you said it.

Edited by author 03-01-2009 09:16
Here they are:
From Balbo - "A very clear and full response from European Action there.
European-American horrifies me. The more astute Turks would
indeed say that they are of Central Asian origin, but so-called
"Eurasianism" is enjoying something of a vogue in Nationalist
circles there, as well as amongst certain sections of the left.
No they say, they are not Europeans, but then neither are they
Asians in they way say a Burmese is. This strain of thought says
they have much in common with Russia because they too are
"Eurasian". A powerful alliance were they able to overcome some
pretty important disagreements i.e. Armenia. What does all this
matter to Europe, well this Eurasia would be our eastern
neighbour, like it or not, with a fair amount of natural
resouces we are rather fond of."

I must disagree on this claim that the term is enjoying a vogue. It may be so with people like Troy Southgate and his New Right ... but there it ends. It is too wishy-washy and vague rather than vogue. We do not want grey areas - we want clear definitions.
There is also a big distinction between Central Asian as opposed to the Far East (Asian).

I wonder why you deleted your own words. Would you like to tell us?

Edited by author 03-01-2009 08:13
Ah, yes, 'Eurasian' is one of those hybrid terms invented by the exponents of the new geopolitics. The fact is, you are either a European or you are not. It has a parallel with the term 'European-American', now bandied about by the Klansman, David Duke. It is supposedly a substitute for 'white American' but with an inclination towards the new geopolitics. The fact is, you are either American or you are European. You can not be both. We reject this hybridisation along with any other attempt at cultural imperialism.
There is much of Russia that is European that is why I believe it is a natural ally ... as opposed to the United States, which is not. There are essential cultural differences that eliminate the United States from the equation. We also oppose all attempts at Americanisation in all respects.
But this term 'Eurasia' leaves me horrified. You are either of Europe or you are of Asia. It must be as clear as that or you enter the murky waters of those who see geography as the only criterion on which to base identity.
As National Europeans we regard the heart and soul of Europe as the focus for all our beliefs in social justice and the new politics ... and in terms of culture, history and all the great achievements in art and science. That does not mean we do not recognise all the great achievements of other people outside Europe. Of course we recognise them.
Turks, themselves, will tell you they are of Central Asia. All this wanting to join the European Union is expressed entirely as a matter of economic expediency because the EU, as presently run, is only a large market within global capitalism ... and not the Europe we envisage.
Thiriart seems to have been inviting Turkey simply because it would mean a geographical advantage but I think you have taken him out of context. Such opinions are not set in stone and we are always free to revise them according to the best interests of Europe and its people. This is what he is saying and it will be left to others to decide.

There's the rub Ben. Russia,Turkey,Europe-a conundrum. You're right Turks are not Europeans,Europe stands distinct in history and culture. But they are Eurasians-as are Russians. Nietzche, Thiriart, Dugin all had something to say here. Vladivostok to Reykjavik? Mmmmmm, if Turkey is not Europe, then Tatarstan certainly isn't.

Mind you historically Europeans have invaded, oh well, everywhere; so it is a bit rich to use historical Turkish aggression as a reason for them not being part of Europe.

There are better reasons; principally Turks are not European.

By the way folks I was wrong about Russia regarding the Georgian affair, my apologies.

Edited by author 03-01-2009 07:13
And you are right BTW, these theoretical questions seem trifling compared to what's happening over there.
I am of course referring to the Palestine.

The Huns (Central Asian ancestry)tried to invade European soil too, and had some limited success, hence the country we call Hungary.
So what was Thiriart going on about then?

Interesting quote. However, Turkey is a Central Asiatic country not European. Historically the Turks have tried to invade European soil. Many Turkish patriots oppose the proposal for Turkey to join the European Union.
Protest against Israeli terror bombing of Gaza!

"In 1964, the political-historical problem arises in the following
way: the Turks control the access to the Eastern
Mediterranean, Europe must control this sea, therefore the
Turks are Europeans. It will go to the moralists, to the writers,
to the historians, in a word to the intellectuals to add to my
realistic considerations the ornaments
usually asked "(Jean THIRIART – 1964).

Do not click on the message below. It may contain a virus.

The Tories have admitted they would undermine the National Minimum Wage if they win the next General Election. The minimum wage should be raised to £7-£8 per hour with similar levels throughout Europe. We can have high wages because we will have our own market and raw material supply in Europe a Nation. Higher wages can be paid when we have mass production for this large market and are free from undercutting by cheap labour on world markets.

The government say that the recession will lead to an increase in crime and racial tension in Britain. Union Movement would have combated these evils by reintroducing Lex Talionis 'Let the punishment fit the crime' with the reintroduction of capital punishment as a deterrent to murder, and more police on the beat. Racial conflict would have been ended by implementing Mosley's policy of stopping non-European immigration and encouraging immigrants to return to their ancestral homelands with fares paid to good homes and jobs.

Concerning the recession and the world financial crisis. Serves the Capitalists right! Only Mosley knew the answers to boom and bust.
Regarding the Russian-Georgian conflict. When the European Nation State is achieved and the combined European Defence Force is created, there will be no more wars between kindred Europeans. Europe will be a lot better off when we tell the United States and Israel to stop meddling in our affairs. Georgia must free itself from its Zionist government. There have been mass demonstrations in Poland to protest against the governments' deal with America to place US missiles on European soil, which are targeting Iran but have rightly angered neighbouring Russia. Israeli officials admitted they considered attacking Iran during the summer.
The current issue of European Action was right to condemn the racist murder of the Arab student in Hastings, just as it is right to condemn the racist murders and attacks against whites by black and asian immigrants and vice versa.

We know from bitter experience not to expect too much from new governments continuing to support old systems, either here or in America. But perhaps we can still hope that that whoever emerges as the next U.S. President will create a few new initiatives designed to counter the wide-spread view of America as using bully-boy tactics to ensure it gets it own way.

For example,instead of threatening and bullying Iran over its alleged nuclear programme, why not look at the wider issue of nuclear weapons in the volatile Middle East. The new U.S. Government, supported by Europe, should use its muscle and financial influence to make the whole Middle East west of Pakistan a nuclear-free zone.

Every country in that region should be encouraged to either give up any existing nuclear capability or call an immediate halt to plans to achieve such a weapon.

I have a feeling the Iranian President would look sympathetically on such a proposal. The question is, would the new U.S. President be tough enough to persuade Israel to dismantle its nuclear weapons - and end years of hypocracy in American foreign policy?

I'll get told of for posting that brief response, so I'll add that Flash Gordon's analysis is completely correct, never was there a greater need for unity. The state is now intervening, there to pick up the pieces when it all goes terribly wrong, which it inevitably does. The state is also used to buttress the system when all is going well but ostensibly ideologically rejected as nothing more the a hindrance to Capitalism.
But before the Marxist left get out the red flags let's not forget just how sclerotic the economies of Communist eastern Europe became in the latter years. Only European Socialism has the answer.

Spot on Flash Gordon.

Edited by author 19-09-2008 22:15
It seems there's never been a better time to ditch capitalism and switch to some better system that offers stability and economic justice.

We always knew that bankers were greedy barstewards who took fat bonuses in addition to their astronomical salaries. But most people thought that they were at least experts at their job, even professionals, who would prevent a worldwide financial catastrophe. If only because they didn't want to kill the goose that laid their golden eggs.

But people reckoned without the blind greed for even fatter bonuses as bankers bought bundles of dodgey mortgages without bothering to check how sound they were. And what was the FSA watchdog doing to prevent this failure of basic banking 'good practice'? And what was Gordon Brown doing, you will remember that he was the guy who for ten years kept telling us how 'prudent' he was? But he didn't see it coming either or else he turned his blind eye to it.

Regardless of the outcome, this is undoubtedly the worst economic disaster in living memory and soon ordinary people will start paying for it with their jobs, their homes and their savings.

Capitalism is now totally discredited in the eyes of the masses and perhaps for the first time in a generation will become receptive to alternatives - such as Mosley's proposals for a stakeholder syndical economy contained within a protected autarkic European system.

This places a heavy responsibility on those few people who know the answer. Every adversity brings with it the seed of a greater benefit.

So Russia is "still Asian" (according to Ben Waterhouse) because it goes to the assistance of fellow Russians whom they believe are being mistreated by the Georgians? A strange definition of 'Asian' in anybody's book.

You also say the core of the problem is "Russians...terror bombing hospitals and encouraging ethnic killing". We have learnt from bitter experience that in war-like situations atrocities are committed by some people on BOTH sides. Trying to make out that only the Russians (or the Germans) commit atrocities, and are therefore the guilty party, isn't believable anymore.

Although no allied servicemen were hung at Nuremburg we know that the first Allied troops to land on the beach heads of Normandy on D-Day had been ordered not to take any prisoners for the first week. They obliged -and as usual history was written by the victors.

As Mosley used to point out: the ONLY way to avoid atrocities is to avoid war.

I think the idea of Britain and Europe leaving NATO and joining a relaunched Warsaw Pact is an excellent idea. In a stroke it would show the Americans we are no longer prepared to be their tame poodle - and demonstrate to Russia that the rest of Europe is genuinely supportive of her interests.

As Condoleeza Rice said "It's not 1968 any more".

Georgia reentered a part of their own country occupied by foreign forces of the Putin FSB/KGB oligarchy who had spent months shelling parts of Georgia.

The reaction of the "nekulturniy" Russians came as no suprise, terror bombing hospitals, and encouraging ethnic killing of civilians by Russian armed out of control militias.

Georgia is European, Russia has proved that she is not yet European but still Asian in sensibility and actions

Edited by author 14-08-2008 22:21
Basically, it is all to do with oil and gas pipelines ... especially oil from the Caspian Sea area.
The Israelis have an interest in this. They want to bypass Russia and use Georgia as transit. Then on to Turkey and Israeli sea ports.
Georgia began this conflict with a military attack upon South Ossetia. They thought Russia would stand by and do nothing. They were wrong.
Russia is justifiably peeved with American encroachment in eastern Europe. Putin is simply protecting Russian interests in that part of the world.
I agree with FG on Russia being European. We should embrace Russia and reject any 'special relationship' with the United States.
In fact, we should call for the complete withdrawal of American military from European soil ... which would mean scrapping NATO.
How about a new Warsaw Pact of ALL of Europe with our Russian brothers? That and good relations with the Arab and Islamic world. America (and Israel) would be like spoilt brats put in their place.
Who the hell does this Condoleeza Rice think she is, flying around the world wagging her little finger? She is the one who needs isolation.

The Georgians enter a small country on its northern borders that wants to remain independent of Georgia and give its citizens a hard time (most of whom are Russians). Russia responds by coming to the small country's assistance and chasing the Georgians away. Pretty obvious who's in the right and who's in the wrong one would have thought.

But the United States and its media stooges in Europe present Russia as the aggressor and Georgia as the innocent little country. "It isn't 1968, you know" Condalesa Rice undiplomatically tells the Russians.

The U.S. must keep its big nose and oil greedy hands off this part of the world. It's absolutely nothing to do with the U.S. and everything to do with Europe.

Russia must take its rightful place in a new Union of Europe and made aware of the advantages of membership. We should start treating Putin and the Russian Government with friendship, courtesy and respect - not with hostility, suspicion and the cold shoulder.

Then Europe will be in a position to spell out to the Americans that their interference will not be tolerated here and we wish to put an end to the so-called 'special relationship' once and for all.

You do not convince me, Dale. You are one of those people who go on about 'usury' with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean kind of suggestion. Mention Cromwell to a certain type of reactionary and he let 'them' in.
You are not this and you are not that. Then what the hell are you?
You are wasting both your time and my time here, Dale. Stick to the British Fascist Forum where the 'silly little boys' have you worked out.

And yes I know we're off topic but I'm afraid I couldn't let an accusation like that go unanswered.

I deliberatley didn't say that because I consider it irrelevant, usurers have entered England at different times in history from different groups, the Lombards for example, the Huguenots. I am not an anti-Semite. Funny, I've just had that silly little boy from the Fascist Forum or whatever it is accuse me of that because i questioned his shrill, hysterical attitude to Muslims.

Quote: " I know Cromwell allowed the re-introduction of usury on a wide scale, thus abandoning this country to the forces of international finance and sounding the death knell for the guild system. I assign the practice of this to no one religious or ethnic group please note".

Why don't you just say he let the Jews back in? That is what you really mean behind all your euphemistic turns of phrase. Ah, but I forgot, you are not an anti-Semite, either.
We are now so off topic that we are in danger of losing ourselves here.

Cromwell represented the triumph of the Bourgeoisie to the detriment of the workers in their guilds and the monarch who protected them.

Thank you for the grammatical correction ,I shall be more vigilant in future. Well no, I do not consider myself a an old-fashioned reactionary. I know Cromwell allowed the re-introduction of usury on a wide scale, thus abandoning this country to the forces of international finance and sounding the death knell for the guild system. I assign the practice of this to no one religious or ethnic group please note.
I have no particular loyalty to the Protestant church, just Catholicism adapted for a more rampant form of capitalism.

What was he a traitor to, Dale? It was Charles I who was betraying his obligations to Parliament and the nation to keep the Protestant constitution. That, and the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. That had to go for a start.
Cromwell was a Parliamentarian first. He was a great Englishman who was responsible for the creation of universities in many cities because he wanted to raise the common man to a higher level. Charles I thought differently.
For grammatical correctness, you meant to say "should have been hanged". 'Hung' is as in 'my coat is hung on the hook'.
I am beginning to think you are an old-fashioned reactionary.

I see, thank you.
I must say I disagree, Cromwell was a traitor who should have been hung.

I am stating my own personal opinions. You know, thinking for myself and not what someone else says I must think.
Union Movement did not have a policy on the Monarchy apart from OM's response to 'Are you loyal to the Crown?' in question 155 in 'Mosley, Right or Wrong'. He said the position of the Monarchy would not change.
This was published in September 1961 and, like a few things in this excellent book, it is not something set in stone. We are pragmatists, above all.

Was that official UM policy?

If something has become out-dated, relatively pointless and ineffectual, then it is no longer a matter of finding something to replace it. It is just a matter of getting rid of an irrelevance.
Then you are simply throwing away excess baggage so that the journey can proceeed smoother and more efficiently.
Constitutionally, it is Parliament that rules Britain. Parliament triumphed over the King in an English Civil War who was replaced by Cromwell, the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth.
Remove the monarchy and something more representative of the people will emerge. In the 21st Century we do not need all of this absurd pomp and circumstance. Keep it for the Last Night of the Proms where it can do no harm.

With what would you replace the monarchy?

European Action favours the sovereignty of the European people. The aftermath of the First World War saw 'the kings depart'. Republicanism became the vogue.
Monarchy in Britain is purely constitutional with Parliament making the laws of the land. As such, the monarch has no political role to play whatsoever. Reduced to a nominal head of state, the Queen has become a walking piece of history for the entertainment of foreigners. Nothing more.
The treatment of the Duke of Windsor was appalling ... made more so today by the shenanigans of the current Prince of Wales and his serial adultery.
OM was distantly related to the monarchy through aristocratic connections and so would feel an empathy ... but I think the treatment of the Duke of Windsor may have dented that inclination. They were great friends after the war.
The Duke said "something must be done" as the Prince of Wales but he was forced to abdicate over his love for a divorcee when he was king. So where does the ludicrous Prince Charles stand today? They are a laughing stock.
Personally, I am opposed to the institution of the Crown. I would do away with them tomorrow.
Remember one of the points of policy of Union Movement - opportunity for all, privilege for none.
The Monarchy stands for the worst expression of privilege.

Interesting question.

Does European Action favour the retention of the British Monarchy and the related royal houses of mainland Europe? OM was in favour of the monarchy and was a friend and neighbour of Edward Duke of Windsor, who was forced to abdicate after saying "something must be done" for the unemployed and the miners. He also opposed the Second European Civil War of 1939-1945.

I recall that a newspaper once refered to OM as the 'English Hitler'. OM took them to court and won a libel case against them.

Great news. I have just heard it on the news. His father never lost a libel or a slander case.

Breaking News: Max Mosley wins £60,000 in his privacy action against the vile News of the World 'newspaper'. He continues the tradition of his father who won many a libel action against the press and his opponents.

"We have no territorial demands to make in Europe".

Bye Bye Robert, perhaps you could grow a beard in the interim, oh no that might give territorial ambitions!

I think you have exhausted the thread of this conversation and should give it a rest. Unless, of course, you have something interesting to contribute. I shall be away for a few days and not participating. I shall be consolidating political matters.

No, it happens to be appropriate in relation to this particular topic. I really haven't the time to think of synomyms.

Edited by author 23-07-2008 18:06
'Consolidate' seems to be one of your favourite words.

You prove my point so well. Stalin may have had ambitions to the Atlantic, but after his passing East Germany consolidated and yes became a Communitarian state.

Edited by author 23-07-2008 17:58
From your previous posts I detect that you see a relationship between facial hirsuiteness and territorial ambition, is this so? I mean Hadrian, not Cowardzic.

Was there a programme about Hadrian at the weekend?

The healing of European history goes on. This time it is the evil Radovan Karadzic who must be brought to justice. He should be forced to shave off the beard. He looks too much like Santa Claus. This bastard is responsible for the deaths of too many children while their mothers were raped.

Edited by author 22-07-2008 23:04
Yes, I watched the TV programme on Saturday and so many reviews of it. You forgot to mention he was the first Roman emperor to grow a beard.
The Berlin Wall was the 'anti-fascist wall' although Stalin would have loved to continue to the Atlantic at the end of the Second World War.
The DDR was to develop into something rather admirable towards the end. At least it maintained a sense of national community while the western part of Germany became Americanised in terms of rampant consumerism.

Searchlight, well they would.
Hadrian was a consolidator, other aspects of his administration pointed in this direction also. He was the first Emperor to seriously establish the Roman city outside of Italy, with the aim of spreading Roman civic values across the empire. The Berlin wall was more about keeping people in than keeping barbarians out, a folly in testament to administrative insecurity.

Edited by author 22-07-2008 21:19
Mine is 'from Lisbon to Vladivostok'. Searchlight accused me of Lebensraum.
The communists put up the Berlin Wall but they still had designs on the West.

I thoroughly enjoyed that Robert. My statements are really of course probing questions because I actually find you very interesting and seek to clarify where you are. Forgive me.

You are right about how Turks feel in my experience, I just wanted to know how it squares with Thiriart's ideas (which were Dublin to Valdivostok, not Rekjavik- that's yours). And it does beg questions about Hungary.

Hadrian should be codemned for his massacre.
The wall built for tax purposes, please! The wall was not just in northern England, there were other parts of the wall surrounding the empire in the Rhine-Danube limits, extensive in fact. But taking of tax was part of running a self-sufficient empire yes.

Edited by author 22-07-2008 20:54
If you read my previous post, I declared, "Racial or religious supremacy must not feature". So how the hell do I have a 'problem' with non-European descended people living in Europe. I count many Arabs as close friends, for example.
When I say Turkey is part of Central Asia you will find that many Turks will agree with me. They are part of this earth's region historically and culturally. I never mentioned race nor religion. In fact, Islam is now rooted in Europe and many Muslims are European converts. I always attack the BNP for it appalling anti-Muslim campaign. It is that sort of bigotry that led to the massacres at Srebrenica.
The term 'miscegenation' is part of the racists' lexicon and is not in mine. Races, after all, are in a state of becoming and there are always the border areas where this will always occur. Pure races do not exist.
Mosley's ideas were overwhelmingly economic and that is my position and the position of European Action.
Oh, yes, Emperor Hadrian is in the news just now, mainly because of the massacre of 600,000 Jews. Hadrian's Wall, we are told, was for taxation purposes and not as the limit of his imperialism.

Of course what you're saying is good stuff, but I do feel you are defining
the word empire rather too narrowly. Emperor Hadrian for example saw his mission to consolidate the Roman Empire, not to expand it, to the extent of
 building walls!. You cannot ignore the need for a founding myth.

Racism is I agree terrible, there must be no place for it in Europe. But with respect Robert, unlike you I have little problem with some
non-European descended people living in Europe, even a certain degree of miscegenation as long as the economics of European Socialism are in place to keep this as a function of cultural inter-play and not as the overwhelming result of the dominance of international finance and its need to uproot people for gain.

As you know, 'Reich' means empire. I was alluding to the idea of empire as conquest of others. That is unacceptable. The Third Reich, for example, was German hegemony over the other states of Europe.
Let us break away from the old traditional forms, as OM wanted to do, and create Europe in a new form.
That form is the Europe a Nation of Oswald Mosley. Empires do not define their borders because empires tend to grow ever outwards. Our Europe will be defined according to certain criteria. Racial or religious supremacy must not feature. Just look at that bastard they have recently arrested in Belgrade. That kind of 'greatness' must be consigned to the dustbin of history.
The main purpose of Europe a Nation is to break the power of international finance and thus to end international competition. We want the entire world based on self-sufficient federations ... NOT empires.

I certainly didn't suggest "Reich", that definately would have dreadful connotations. Nor does the term Imperialism necessarily mean "the white man lording it over the black man". I make reference because recently Manuel Barroso referred to the situation as a European Empire, he called it " the first non-imperial empire", rather contradictory but intelligent observers understood what he meant. Beyond a nation, but not some vague "world government", a clear authority in place but a degree autonomy within that.And importantly if not uniquely based not conquest but on a discernable cultural heritage.
As for any reference to the Roman Empire in Europe's future, the popular discontent that is presently manifest in various countries with the EU has a number of foundations, but underneath then all is the failure to construct European thinking outside of an essentially materialistic, tawdry, "what do I get out of it" mindset. Something more noble is required.

Yes, let's not flog dead horses.
OM was imperialist during the inter-war years when the economic policy of British Union was the 'Empire Insulation Policy'. He was imperialist because we had the British Empire ... not nationalist.
After the war, he became anti-colonialist as the British Empire was dismantled. He did not want the white man to lord it over the black man ... but to let them develop separately.
The term 'imperialist' is now a bad word (like 'fascism') and so it is not appropriate. We now talk of American imperialism as a global malignant influence, imperialism implying walking over other peoples.
If anything, it will be European Common Government or European Independence.
We are not doing a re-enactment of Roman Imperialism or any other Empire or 'Reich'.
OM wanted Europe to be a benevolent influence.

Never mind about Social Credit,amalgamation or not. I did make clear why I thought it might have had a good outcome, but let's not flog a dead horse.

Far more interestingly you say National Europeans don't use the word Nationalism, wouldn't a better term be Imperialism-re: my short video?
After all, can it not be said that OM was always an Imperialist, first British Imperialist, later a European Imperialist?

I agree. Europe a Nation is the wave of the future.

He was labelled a National Bolshevik but this should not be taken as particularly derogatory. He advocated the National Communitarian State for Europe.
In his last years, Mosley wanted an accommodation with the Soviet Union (he died before the collapse of the Soviet Union) and one of his last broadsheets read, 'Jaw-Jaw, not War-War', paraphrasing Churchill. This, in relation to the so-called Soviet threat.
One of our subscribers is a Trotskyist who began a long exchange of correspondence with me. At first, he was taken with OM's ideas on Europe and syndicalism but was later to revert to his form of Marxism. Basically, it is that there is a fraternity based on the 'international proletariat' and that there would be a rational international economy with no national borders. Of course, there is no such thing as an international proletariat.
I have kept most of this typed correspondence and will eventually use it as the basis of an article on Marxist internationalism. While he initially liked the idea of Europe a Nation, he was to offer me the concept of Europe a Nation within 'The World a Nation', which is a contradiction within itself.
National Europeans do not use the term 'nationalism', by the way. You will find it nowhere in Union Movement literature. We go beyond the old idea of nation-states and so there must be no confusion.

Didn't Jean Thiriat advocate something called 'National Bolshevism' later in life?(Today quite big in Russia where the Russian National Bolshevik Party has 15,000 members). I wonder what Mosley would have thought about it? The Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) , not to be confused with the Morning Star affiliated Communist Party of Britain founded by Reg Birch in 1968 on a platfform of 'Workers Nationalism' has been attacked by other Reds for proposing immigration controls.

Now, now ... do not be so sensitive, Dale. You are not kicked out. I merely pointed out the ease of hindsight and how it is pointless.
You write much that is insightful. Social Credit was never big and it is amazing how it ever got a hearing in Britain before the war. Why should British fascism ever need to adopt the ideas of Douglas and Hargrave or, worse, amalgamate? Hargrave ran something called the Kin of the Kibbo Kift. He was bogged down in political mysticism.
'European', all of the booklets, of which European Socialism is one, are in line for facsimile publishing. We are doing this professionally, which means digital cleaning up/enhancement and the use of quality material. They will be printed as opposed to photocopied, which is how Steven Books produce their tat. The British Union pictorial record is currently underway and then we continue with the Union Movement literature.
'European', you have summed up our European faith.

Will European Action be republishing 'European Socialism' the important 1951 Union Movement booklet by Mosley? Mosley said "Our Faith is Europe a Nation. Our Creed is European Socialism. This is the coming brotherhood of the European."

Yes, and I had thought that I had demonstrated enough conviction to the cause of Europe a Nation to have been allowed a little leeway, plainly not though. And if you think I pose around trying to display wisdom then you are mistaken, but I do have enough intelligence to make the occasional observation of at least a little worth.

 I have no interest in what happened before the war anyway and yes Fascism is obsolete. Mosley was a great synthesiser of disparate ideas into a new, exciting formulation. Monetary reform was of interest to Raven even post-war but not quite the rather cranky ideas of SC. No, European Socialism had a broader scope altogether.



I suppoose I'm kicked out again then.

The blue shirt was the uniform of General O'Duffy's Irish fascists. Social Credit was green and fascism was black because Mussolini began it that way. But it is easy to talk about all these things in hindsight and display wisdom. Picking holes in this and that.
What occurred in the Thirties is now of no consequence as fascism becomes obsolete.
Douglas' Social Credit had some degree of success in a Canadian province but it remained obscure and isolated. Some in British Union took an interest in Social Credit but Mosley had other ideas then.
You can go on talking about the pre-war movement until the cows come home but it is the post-war movement that interests us here ... Europe a Nation is the theme of this forum.

You mentioned before that you had no interest in British Union, me too. However merely as an observation I've often considered it a pity that OM didn't pull off an amalgamation with the Social Credit Greenshirts. Apparently talks were held at one stage. This would have avoided the BUF moving into the Joyce/Beckett phase, those few short years from which OM had to spend so much energy pulling clear from in terms of credibility, it also would have focused the movement more on the institutions and rather less on genes.
The Union Movement was entirely right to eschew uniforms of any kind, an intelligent approach. However a superficial observation might also be that had the BUF adopted the Greenshirt in preference to the blackshirt after any amalgamation they might have been rather less associated with foreign sponsorship and therefore as fifth columnists, perhaps associations with Robin Hood etc. Perhaps even the blueshirt (workers).

Thanks for clearing up those points. I think there was interview with OM on tv or radio in which he said in reply from an opponent in the audience, that he never sent a telegram to Streicher.

I admire Thiriart as much as I admire OM. Thiriart laid the foundations of the national communitarian state for a united Europe. A massive intellect.
I also liked his early proposals for meeting an accommodation with the Soviet Union. Today, I support a form of union with Russia. I wrote 'From Lisbon to Vladivostok' in homage to Thiriart.
Our Europeanism must be defined by a strident and honest anti-Americanism. They are culture destroyers.

I am confusing Degrelle with Thiriart, shame on me, Thiriart is massively more important.

Edited by author 21-07-2008 19:30
Yes, an optician by profession as opposed to being a soldier. I have never read anywhere that he had been in any military service.
If he had done anything like Leon Degrelle he would also have been in a Spanish exile or ostracised in his own country.
Collaborators and those who volunteered for military service with the German occupiers were treated very badly after the war ... denied pension rights, etc.

"Thiriart was an optician by profession."

 
That is obviously something I overlooked.

You are perfectly correct when you say OM did not share his wife's enthusiasm for Hitler. The whole thing about the war and the atrocities made life difficult for him after the war in terms of picking up the political pieces.
Joyce was Jew mad, of course ... to the degree that Leese was. OM was a technocrat basically and just wanted to solve Britain's problems and unemployment in particular. The Jews opposed British Union because they thought they would behave like the Nazis. People like Joyce did not exactly help matters in that direction. Then, of course, Joyce went off to Germany which he loved more than Britain.
I am not sure that Thiriart was in the Waffen SS. His fellow Belgian, Leon Degrelle, was certainly. Thiriart was an optician by profession.

In the short TV drama series about OM in the circa 1997, he is depicted not at all sharing his wife's interests in Mr A.Hitler, showing a certain distain for this grand agent of German big business. I also understand he came to find Joyce a thorough pain in the rear, long before he left BUF. No, the flowering of O.M.'s ideas happened after WWII. The only ex-S officer I've heard of him with was Thiriart, who had been in the Waffen SS and did not participate directly in the abomination that was the mass murder of unarmed civilians.

Edited by author 21-07-2008 16:18
There were many mistakes made during the fascist period of OM's political career. One big mistake was definitely the wearing of the Action Press uniform which no one can deny resembled the uniform of the Allgemeine SS. The adoption of the full title of the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists was another. This reflected the two influences and factions within Mosley's pre-war movement ... the Italian influence and the German influence, which made the purely British side of it rather difficult to blossom. In the end the name 'British Union' sufficed.
As for Julius Streicher, it was Diana Mosley who cultivated friendships with Nazi leaders (along with her sister Unity) and these included Goebbels, Hanfstaengl, Ley and, of course, Streicher. OM was rather distant from them all owing to his hectic political activity at home, mainly speaking engagements. He met Hitler briefly at his wedding reception in Berlin where Hitler was a guest. On another occasion they discussed British and German interests in the world.
Not all SS men were camp guards or involved in other aspects of the concentration camp system. Many were in the Waffen SS and fought honourably for their country. They were, of course, ideological and recognised that a new world needed to be created and they wanted a part in it. Otto Skorzeny, for example, was a real hero ... as was Hans-Ulrich Rudel, the Stuka pilot ... both of them friends of OM.
I am sure that Adolf Eichmann and others involved in the deportations did not feature among OM's SS friends after the war.
I am not an apologist for the pre-war fascist movement, being a member of the post-war Union Movement. We were not fascists but National Europeans. There is a real ideological difference, which ignorant people do not understand.
As for meeting Hitler, many people went across to the Berghof for that purpose including Lloyd George and Neville Chamberlain. Then there was Daladier and Ibn Saud, King of Saudi Arabia. Let us not forget the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Husseini. If you had the opportunity to visit Hitler, what would you have done?
There was a telegram FROM Streicher just after Olypmia in 1934 when the Nuremberg Gauleiter made reference to uniting to fight Jewry. Diana showed it to OM who shrugged it off.

On the subject of Nazism how would you answer the smears of our opponents that the full title of Mosley's pre-war party was the British Union of Fascists AND National Socialists from 1936 onwards and that OM met Hitler twice? I read somewhere that Mosley was alleged to have sent a telegram to Julius Streicher saying that Europeans should unite against International Jewish Finance. Also that he worked with German ex-SS men post-war.

Edited by author 21-07-2008 11:43
You are correct regarding Thompson's ousting from the League. The two men who run it are John Harrison and Brian White. The former lives in Essex and the latter in Hertfordshire.
Harrison was to complain that Thompson gave his home and job details to the anti-fascists and that subsequently he had a brick through his window on more than one occasion. Harrison was very upset.
According to Thompson, Don Turner acts as Steven Books' despatch manager who has his feet in both camps ... sometimes playing one off against the other.
Geoffrey Smith is an octogenarian paraplegic who maintains the PO Box number in Canterbury where he lives. He is the dog's body who maintains their photocopying machine and produces their tatty 'reprints'. It is said that Geoff receives no remuneration for his efforts.
That is the League of St George of today. It resembles the cast of the Last of the Summer Wine more than this fanciful Grand Council of international nazis preparing the way for the Fourth Reich.
Their real 'leader', John Harrison, recently attacked me in an internal bulletin sent out to two of his colleagues, Don and Geoff. He denied it came from him at first but he could not explain away the fact that his e-mail address was at the foot of each page, having come off his PC's printer. In my opinion, Harrison is almost illiterate and a self-confessed Sun reader.
In it he berates British patriots for going on holiday to the Mediterranean when they should be going to Northern countries like good Nordic 'aryans'. Is that what he means by supporting Europe a Nation?
So much for the Master Race. I have kept it on file.

Thanks for the details on Thompson. I've heard that he was removed from his position in the League of St George/Steven Books in the 1990's? Two individuals are now in charge of the League neither of whom is Thompson, I can't remember their names off hand. The Secretary of Steven Books is Geoffrey Smith. I look forward to your publication exposing them. Arnold Leese lied about OM so why do they sell his books aswell as Mosley's?

Edited by author 21-07-2008 06:31
Absolutely. I joined Union Movement for its European idealism. British Union was never of much interest to me.
Besides, it was before my time.

And all this is why I believe that the post-war Union Movement was a greater expression of O.M.'s true core ideas than was British Union.

Edited by author 20-07-2008 23:15
An interesting piece of cinematography created by a poster to this forum:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yvOO3spW538

Exactly. This is my main objection, that OM's ideas and policies must be protected from this attempted association with neo-nazi imagery and far-right extremism.
Ideas of racial supremacy, for example, were anathema to OM. He made this clear so many times.
Yet the League advertises books by David Duke, an American white supremacist. They also promote the works of Arnold Leese who once called OM a 'kosher fascist'.
All of this strikes me as inconsistent with any claim to be admirers of OM. Of course, they are not ... only interested in making money out of cheap photocopies of BUF booklets passed off as 'reprints'.
European Action at least remains true to the Mosley vision, undiluted and unadulterated.

I don't, that's good enough for me. The whole deal tended to give me that impression too. My personal opinion is that by using references to O.M. they could sully the legacy were it not for the fact that O.M.'s ideas stand so far above such facile politics.

But it is not the FOM site. It is the site of Karl Winn who claims to run it on behalf of FOM. It appears this is no longer the case with the recent sponsoring of Steven Books run by a man who is persona non grata with FOM. This was done without any consultation with FOM. The answer is for FOM to run its own site.
I would describe the League of St George as 'neo-nazi' for several reasons. Its use of mock German Gothic as typography on both its site and on the front cover of its newsletter is reminiscent of the Nazi style. The dedications to Adolf Hitler in past issues and the cards sent to members and supporters on Hitler's birthday. I think I still have one in a drawer somewhere. It depicts salutes to the fallen party martyrs at the Feldherrnhalle in Munich.
It can also be seen in some of the books it has sold for Steven Books within its pages. A past President of the League was fond of dressing in Nazi uniform for amateur film. I have him on DVD.
What more do you want?

What a pity you can't rest control of the FOM site, it is rather good.
I have my own ideas but how would you describe League of St George as Nazi?

Edited by author 20-07-2008 17:23
The website selling 'Blackshirts in Devon' was that of a Devon Bookshop and is STEVENS BOOKS (Mint Press) as opposed to STEVEN BOOKS which is the Thompson site. I anticipated some confusion.
The League of St George follows a neo-nazi agenda and is watering down the Europe a Nation policy. For example, in the current issue of League Sentinel (No 74) they write of the Conference of Venice in 1962 as simply 'forming an electoral alliance' and go out of their way of not mentiong complete European union with a common government. Nationalists hate the idea of full integration.
In the July issue of IDENTITY, John Bean states, "Now that UKIP has been reduced to squabbling over the last few votes with the Looney candidates and assorted head cases, we must take over UKIP's role in this respect, but with a notable exception. We are not anti-European". Bean may not be 'anti-European' but he is certainly as anti-European Union as UKIP in that he and the rest of the BNP oppose European political and economic union. It is similar to saying you oppose immigration but you do not hate immigrants.
So let us not deceive ourselves and others. British nationalism is by its very nature opposed to a European identity and to Europe becoming as one. If they were to embrace Europe a Nation then they would cease to be British nationalists and become National Europeans. As it stands, both positions are diametrically opposed.
The League of St George can have as many links as it likes. The magazine you mentioned is now titled 'Nation und Europa'. Published in Coburg, it was originally 'Nation Europa' under the ownership of Arthur Ehrhardt, long gone now. He was a friend of Oswald Mosley. It has reverted to strident German nationalism. I am not sure why they have a link to 'Nation und Europa' because none of them can speak German.
I am working on a complete facsimile of the 1937 publication, BRITISH UNION - A PICTORIAL RECORD. It requires complete resetting as the original is too wide for A4 pages. As such the copyright will be mine. It will have an ISBN number, of course.
Further illustrated books are in the pipeline now that we have acquired superior printing equipment. And I do not mean a photocopying machine.
I have e-mails from Thompson admitting he had dealings with Gable. Also he confessed to some members of the Friends of Oswald Mosley that he helped Gable and FOM kicked him out, taking him off their mailing list. I have a witness statement given to me by an observer of events in Kensington Library when Thompson was seen to shake hands with Gable TWICE on that evening. In one statement, he wrote, "What went on between me and Gable is between Gable and me".
I shall be publishing the Steven Books spoof in booklet form with some additional material. Because the site has come down does not mean the end of it all.
When his house was 'burgled' by Gable, he left his back door open.

Will you be publishing your own edition of your excellent book "Sir Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists" which was produced by the League of St George? The website for 'Steven Books' featured in European Action No 14 selling "Blackshirts in Devon" (Mint Press) was changed a few months later to become Keith Thompson's/Don Turner's Steven Books. The League of St George says it is a lobby group seeking to infleunce nationalist organisations to adopt the Europe a Nation policy. They have a link to the German pro-Mosley monthly magazine Nation Europa on their website. I wrote to Thompson some time ago after viewing your 'Steven Books Exposed' website. He replied claiming never to have made any deals with Searchlight and complained that Gerry Gable had burgled his house, which he reported to the Police.

Edited by author 20-07-2008 07:59
CLARIFYING THE SITUATION RE STEVEN BOOKS
RECENT E-MAILS:

----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Edwards
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: Steven Books


Dear Dale,
I have been told that Steven Books (owner Keith Thompson) is being advertised on the oswaldmosley.com site. I must make it clear that European Action has no connection with either organisation and that the site oswaldmosley.com is owned by Karl Winn who is a long time friend of Keith Thompson. Karl Winn is mentally unstable and has sent highly abusive e-mails to me in the past. I have no contact with him, whatsoever.
It is unfortunate that the oswaldmosley.com site has both acted on behalf of the Friends of Oswald Mosley (an excellent research and archivist group) while Karl Winn also entertains the likes of Keith Thompson and maintains Internet links with far-right anti-Europe organisations. The site was set up originally on behalf of the Friends of Oswald Mosley, which was fine. It has now become corrupted through Thompson's clandestine activities.
European Action now has an embryonic book service producing accurate facsimiles. See 'The European Bookshop' page on http://www.europeanaction.com
As this grows, we shall then open a commercial site to complement the European Action site.
I trust that answers your question.
Lastly, why don't you put your question up on the forum where it can be made public? It is alright with me.
Thanks for your interest and concern.
 
Regards,
 
Robert

----- Original Message -----
To: rhe@robertedwards38.fsnet.co.uk
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:00 PM
Subject: Steven Books


Dear Robert,
I hope you don't think me rude if I enquire about your link to Steven Books and its owner Keith Thompson. The reason I ask is that I see it advertised on your site, I thought you'd fallen out with him and the League of St Georges ages ago.

Dale

A more appropriate word would be 'misused' within the context of religions being a tool of political forces in history.
The ethical values are diluted and cheapened by the cynical politician who understands, only too well, how religious faith can inspire men.
This abuse of religion should be seen for what it is. That is, the corruption of genuine faith for base purposes.
It is not religion that needs to be banned from schools ... but the elimination of its misuse. This aspect should be taught.
If you ban religion what do you replace it with? It is obvious: atheistic Marxism. Religious faith survived over 70 years of Soviet communism, which official line was state-sponsored atheism.
You can never successfully ban religions ... that is the first lesson.

Would it be correct to say that religion which is used and has been, for thousands of years, and used by people no better than Hitler.Yet no attempt to ban it from schools.

Robert Edwards is right to state that Atheist Communism has been responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths (in Russia and China).
"If one counts up all the sacrifices of the Revolution and the Red Terror, the people's courts, the civil war, deportations, concentration camps, deaths through hunger and disease..the cost of the Soviet regime to Russia has been about a hundred million lives. I assure you comrades, it's not an exaggeration, the Government are fully aware of it."
Polish Jewish Communist Antoni Ekart, 1954
If we had listened to Mosley there would have been no European civil war and half of Europe would not have been enslaved to Communism.

It is indeed right to state that Communism has been responsible for mass murder. The World Anti-Communist League for Freedom have an interesting website. They have branches in many countries including Europe. Predictably Reds have repeatedly claimed it is a "fascist" organisation. I am sure the league would endorse the sentiments expressed in Mosley's Union Movement booklet ' The Menace of Communism'.
See www.wlfd.org

It may well have been reported in a copy of UNION at that time. Raven Thomson was editor until his death in 1956.
He was a great exponent of standing up for workers' rights and, of course, the author of several booklets/pamphlets on syndicalism.
I can still hear that familiar Pathe News commentator's voice.

No it isn't that one. I've since checked, it's on the Pathe site, a small amount of footage is also available free from Pathe. It is in fact some Union Movement speakers outside of Longbridge in 1956 during a big strike, the Pathe commentator incorrectly yet in a charmingly old-fashioned way calls them "Fascist orators". The big sign on the van says "Mosley stands for workers' ownership"- if only they'd listened.......

Is this it? The date is 1949. So it is a Union Movement meeting in Ridley Road.

Thanks for the help but I would put rather later than that, and I would have noted Jeffrey Hamm's presence. There are only two Union Movement members on the public address vehicle but they seem undeterred by the mob,determined no doubts to point the way of Syndicalism as set out by O.M.
I'll try to get it and send it to you.

What you seem to be describing is a meeting of the British League of Ex-Servicemen and Women in Ridley Road, Dalston, East London, in 1947.
The British League was led by Jeffrey Hamm as its Policy Director and preceded Union Movement, later founded in 1948.
I believe there is a coal yard in the background.

I saw a photo relatively recently of Union Movement members on a public address van outside a factory with striking workers at the gate, some time late fifties early sixties. I wondered what was the message carried by these intrepid European Socialists to the strikers. They seemed to be getting a hard time BTW. Any recollections?

Edited by author 14-07-2008 01:13
Well, yes, you are right. Just a wee bit off topic. This is a question more suitable in a private e-mail.
With the Sixtieth Anniversary of Union Movement in European Action (January/February issue), most readers were presented with a European Action badge in order to commemorate the event.
We still keep a stock of the badges but these are for bona fide supporters only.
They are no longer for general distribution sale.

Off topic a bit. Do you still do the European Action badges?

Edited by author 12-07-2008 19:48
This is the wrong topic for this. Go to our 'Crisis within the BNP - discuss it here' by clicking above.
Finkelstein's 'comment central' blog in today's Times Online refers to the ad in The Guardian for a research assistant to a BNP London Assembly Member. Totally uninteresting.

Have you seen Daniel Finkelstein's "comment central" blog in the Times online today concerning the BNP ... interesting!

Go into a garden and take a close look at a flower. Look at it closely for at least two minutes. How beautiful to the eye it is, its design and symmetry, even its fragrance, each part having a defined purpose. What made the atoms that the flower is made of arrange themselves in this way? What is the life force behind it? Coincidence? Chance? Accident? I don't think so.

We agree to differ on matters relating to the existance of a devine force. But we will still go forward as one.

I agree. TOGETHER INTO THE FUTURE!
Whether we are of any religion or none at all. The welfare of our European people must always come first. The rest is a matter of individual conscience.
Let us celebrate the great diversity of our people in Europe a Nation.

Although we will disagree on a view of religion, we will still stand together for the benefit of the people for a fair and equal life and have our say in the way forward for generations to come. Let us unite together and make "Europe A Nation" and rid us of this cancerous growth around our necks that abuses democracy on an unmanageable scale that will one day lead to us drifting into an poverty strickened world.

I am not so sure that an obsession with money can be described as a religious experience. Mammon is the Biblical name for an idol of the worldly rich but it is more of an evil influence than anything spiritual. Quite the opposite to anything as elevating as Godliness.
You are right when you claim that religion is used as a shield by evil people and this is how religion gets a bad press.
You are perfectly free to be an atheist and equally free to express the reasons why you are an atheist. I have no problem with that. In fact, I have no problem with anyone expressing a view that is the opposite to mine. It is only small-minded bigots that can not tolerate a different point of view.
As for your last sentence, it is true that the West is completely under the influence of money and that the people in the West are basically materialistic. This is the reason we are all in this economic mess at the moment and for a long time to come. Everyone wants to own so much when life is far better when we have less and only those things we genuinely need.
So materialism becomes the substitute for higher things ... they being of the essence of man, his spiritual nature.

The blog we are having over this subject is what life and opinion is all about, I'm happy to say that their is no malice or aggression in our blog with one another. This is how the people of this land should be treated when having a differant view on any subject. The trouble with religion is it is constantly used as a shield by evil people across the globe to hide behind, sadly for the few genuine believer's( and I do mean a few) it is causing much unrest in the few being loving and caring people who do not worship money behind closed doors. Robert can you honestly say with a hand on heart that the greatiest and most respected religion in today's society across the world is Money!

Atheistic communism is responsible for many hundreds of millions of deaths throughout the Twentieth Century. But surely it is the misuse and abuse of religion that led many leaders of churches to torture and burn those regarded as heretics.
It is the same with those who use Islam for political purposes and commit atrocities in its name.
I have not mentioned Darwin and I have not dismissed the great man. It is interesting, though, that Darwin recanted many of his evolutionary ideas later in life.
There are often two strands of thinking in the great religions of the world. There are those who are fundamentalists and take the holy word quite literally. Then there are those who treat it as allegorical, not literal but serving to teach a morality. You take your choice.
Proof of 'superhuman gods' does not come into it. It is faith that moves the religious no matter how much you dislike it. I repeat, religiosity is the human feeling that there is something greater than all of us. You either feel that or you do not. Where is the dispute over that?

Thank you Robert, I must confess I believe in Darwin's theory and ever more will do so, to which I must confess that his theory has not caused any wars or evile treatment to any ones opinions that do not fall in line
with faith doctrine's. Under various faiths millions have been murdered for non belief of individual invented Gods. I find it quite remarkable for people to throw darwin's views in the bin, while unable to present any proof of super human Gods who have over many years produced evile spokesmen
that are still respected.

European Action believes in complete religious toleration. As such, we should respect those religious people who contribute to society in many ways including an ethical influence. This is the greatest contribution of genuinely religious people.
Religiosity is the human feeling that there is something greater than all of us. This human feeling is shared by both Christians and Muslims.
In response to another comment by 'a european person', we do not condone ideas of racial supremacy. Races are different, that is true, but each race holds within it its own inner worth. It is right for them.
We need religion more than ever in this liberal secular society that is responsible for the near-total degeneracy of the West. We need a strong morality that only a really dynamic religion can inspire.
Secular atheism has been a curse.

Religion is a super natural belief which may have been invented by crackpots, why did God or Gods make us differant? Some are white some are black, the Black African as a smaller brain than the white european. If that is correct then faith is another con tric created by some form of God that demands that the cracpot was Darwin. I'm an athiest and want equal laws and treatment for all, religion should have nothing to do with Law,
or education, it should be kept at home behind closed doors, as it can be offensive. I'm against fixed marriage which should not be allowed,like women treated as second class citizens, what sort of gods are we dealing with?

Edited by author 05-07-2008 21:30
Sharia law would work on a two tier system along with English secular law. English secular law as enacted by Parliament would be paramount regarding the more serious offences.
There is no reason why Sharia law should not be applied within Muslim communities just as the deliberations of the Beth Din are accepted by religious Jews.
Atheists have no religion, therefore they can not have religious laws. They have only English secular law.
I agree with FG. A religion must be defined by the number of its adherents. Otherwise you have crackpots inventing religions every five minutes.
Let us maintain a sense of proportion, please.

As for the 30.000 or more look it up on the internet, So would it be correct in saying our law (other than British) should be carried out because we are not interested with yours. Please look beyond any faith and say this is our Law take it or leave it, don't go to Isreal and try and change there faith or Law, Christian or Muslim.

As Atheists have no religion they obviously don't need religious courts. A religion should have a reasonable number of adherants in order to qualify for having its own religious courts, something that clearly does not apply to all but half a dozen of the 30,000 different religions you mention. Incidentally, who says there are 30,000. Who counted them?

That being the case, there are at least 30.000 differant religions will they all qualify for the same respect as the two faith laws you have mentioned? Should athiest have the right to differant laws?

Sharia law applies only to Muslims. It can not be 'imposed' upon non-Muslims. This is something that needs to be made clear.
The Jewish community has the Beth Din which is an exclusively Jewish ecclesiastical court that rules on many aspects of Jewish life. The Beth Din has no jurisdiction over Christian life.
I see no reason why British Muslims should not have recourse to Sharia law when it comes to domestic issues. It is said that Sharia law is less time-consuming that the racket monopolised by lawyers in this country.
Laws concerning the punishment for murder and rape remain the prerogative of British secular law as enacted by Parliament, of course. This is accepted by Muslims.
Any public debate needs to be tempered and conducted without the hysteria that the likes of the BNP would whip up. You will find the truth is not the horror and cruelty that some would like to misrepresent the Islamic way.

Robert, should sharia law be used in in Britain without any public debate
from the run of the mill workers and their adult family's

Two former subscribers are automatically banned from posting here for trouble-making and offensive remarks. The previous post may be one of those.

Edited by author 11-06-2008 19:08
Of course, when the Russians took over Poland and established a puppet communist government they also imposed major border changes.

Eastern Poland became incorporated in the Soviet Union whilst a large chunk of eastern Germany and the Prussian enclaves were transferred to Poland. In other words, Poland was 'shifted' westwards.

As a result, many of the Polish people are really of German ethnic origin so your Polish plumber could be German despite having names that read like the bottom line on an optician's eye-chart.

Although of interest, none of this is of great importance since the future lies in our new European citizenship and the many advantages that will be ours - so long as this common citizenship is along National European lines and not as part of the global capitalist community.

An MP has criticised the 'liberal elite' BBC for causing attacks on Polish people living in Britain. Conservative David Kawczynski opposes the BBC's negative coverage of 'soft touch' immigration of 'Polish White Christians' while ignoring the more 'controversial politically correct immigration from outside Europe'. Recent figures show just 8% of immigrants are from Eastern Europe, the vast majority are non-European from the Asian sub-continent and black Africa. The 'Daily Mail' recently revealed that 500,000 immigrants came to Britain last year.

Good for him ... he is, after all, 'one of us'.

Despite the sting operation Max Mosley has won the confidence vote in his FIA leadership.

An interesting development in the Max Mosley saga:

From The Sunday Times
May 18, 2008
MI5 linked to Max Mosley sex scandal
David Leppard
An MI5 officer has been forced to resign after admitting that his wife was a prostitute who took part in a notorious “Nazi-style orgy” with Max Mosley, the Formula One racing chief.
The intelligence officer, who cannot be named for security reasons, left the service last month after it emerged that his wife was one of the five call girls who took part in the sadomasochistic sex session with Mosley.
Exposure of the lurid orgy led to calls for Mosley, the son of Sir Oswald Mosley, the wartime British fascist leader, to step down from his post as president of the FIA, the governing body of world motor sport.
In an extraordinary turn of events yesterday, MI5 was forced to deny through Whitehall channels that the orgy had been a “sting” that it had set up to discredit Mosley. “Any suggestion that the service was involved in setting up Mosley is total nonsense,” a senior Whitehall official said.
The official did disclose, however, that one of MI5’s officers had left the agency after his wife’s involvement as a call girl in the orgy became known. “I cannot talk about individual cases, but we do expect high standards of behaviour from all staff at all times, both professionally and privately,” the official said.
“In any case where a member of staff is believed to have fallen below those standards, action will be taken.”
The officer is understood to be in his forties and to have served in the military before joining MI5, where he was involved in surveillance operations.
The disclosure is a severe embarrassment to Jonathan Evans, director-general of MI5, who is understood to have informed Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, and assured them the agency was not involved in any sting.
Questions will now be asked about why the service’s vetting procedures failed to expose the secret, which could have made the officer vulnerable to blackmail.
Mosley, who is 68 and has been married since 1960, is one of the most powerful men in world sport. His father was a hate figure who led the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s and 1940s. His mother was the society beauty Diana Mitford, a great admirer of Adolf Hitler.
When the story broke, Mosley said he had been told by a source close to the security services that he had been targeted in a covert investigation of his private life “by a group specialising in such things for reasons and clients as yet unknown”.
The F1 boss’s five-hour sex session with the five call girls took place in an underground “torture chamber” in Chelsea, west London. The Oxford-educated former barrister is alleged to have re-enacted a concentration camp scene in which he played the role of both guard and inmate.
The session is alleged to have involved prostitutes dressed as German officers and camp inmates. It was secretly caught on video by one of the call girls, who used the name Mistress Abi. Sources said it was Abi’s husband who worked for MI5 and that she sold the story to the News of the World newspaper for an undisclosed sum. According to the paper, Mistress Abi wore a Luftwaffe uniform during the session and oversaw beatings of Mosley.
In the video Mosley can be seen standing naked as Abi ties him up with chains before ordering him to lie face down on the bed. Later she screams: “Face down! Did I say move? We don’t want you comfortable.”
Mosley was condemned by Jewish groups and leading figures in the motor racing world. He was snubbed by the crown prince of Bahrain, who told him not to attend the Bahrain Grand Prix last month.
Sir Jackie Stewart, the former world motor racing champion, said that Mosley’s position was “untenable”. The Monaco royal family, the Grimaldis, have made it clear that he is not welcome at next Sunday’s showpiece grand prix in the principality.
Mosley has been unapologetic and has claimed that he needs to stay on to fight the Nazi allegations in a libel action. He denied the orgy had any Nazi theme and said it was “harmless” and “completely legal”. Disclosure of the MI5 officer’s role appears to be his latest tactic in a desperate attempt to save his job. “This is an astonishing piece of information, which I will pass on to my legal advisers,” he said last night.
The News of the World denies there was any collusion between itself and the secret services.
MI5 employs 3,500 people in the fight against Al-Qaeda and hostile powers and prides itself on its discretion. It has been horrified to discover that an officer has become involved, even indirectly, in a high-profile sex scandal.
The service will have been forced to conduct a thorough review of the officer’s work and personal life to establish whether he has put any state secrets at risk.
Security sources say that in any case where an MI5 officer or a close family member is involved in prostitution there is a risk that their integrity — and hence national security — could be compromised.
One official said: “Clearly there would be a conflict there for any member of the service. Prostitutes by the very nature of their business will be connected to people who are probably in the criminal fraternity.”
An internal MI5 investigation is trying to establish whether the officer knew his wife was involved in prostitution and whether he was involved in her business affairs.
The matter is also being examined by the Quest security company, run by Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, the former Metropolitan police commissioner who investigated the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Quest was already working for the FIA when it was asked to investigate the Mosley affair.
Mosley is facing a confidence vote in a secret ballot of the 220 members of the FIA assembly in Paris on June 3. He has written to the presidents of member clubs painting a doomsday scenario if he is forced out of office. He says he needs to stay at the helm of the Formula One governing body until October next year in the interests of the sport.
The suggestion of MI5 involvement in the Mosley scandal will bring back echoes of the role that the spy service had in monitoring his father. Documents released by the Public Records Office in 2002 showed how the intelligence agency had planted unnamed informants inside the British Union of Fascists. They reported on him until his arrest and detention in 1940.

Thank you for your lucid answer to my question. I must agree with you that the free market model is not doing very well these days! In my kneck of the woods war, famine etc are just another opportunity to buy on the cheap. Sadly the rest of the world has been infected with the same US style of thinking! When we start to make something as opposed to making our living through taking in others laundry then syndicalism with have a very real role to play in the economy.

So the answer to Eddie Chapman's question is, the role of the London Stock Exchange under syndicalism would be that of a shopping mall, multi-screen cinema complex - or better still it could house the new European Credit Bank. It never ceases to amaze me that the economic system outlined in the previous posting is not more widely appreciated and supported such is its obvious superiority to global capitalism and the now discredited state socialism.

Only one political journal in Britain advocates syndicalism along these lines, European Action. It is one of the most powerful weapons in our policy portfolio.

Edited by author 17-05-2008 15:46
'Eddie Chapman', for all his sins, is an Americanised capitalist and very much a participant in the casino capitalism of the global variety. His speciality is in the area of asset stripping. Material profit for the least effort is very much his forte. He dabbles in 'British fascism' as a kind of hobby.
His question on syndicalism or workers' ownership is best answered by Robert Skidelsky from his biography on Mosley.
On page 495 he wrote, "This was to be one pillar of his 'European Socialism' [the wage-price policy]. The other was a 'synthesis of private enterprise and syndicalism' - an outgrowth of his earlier guild socialism and corporatist ideas. In his essay 'European Socialism' (1951) Mosley laid down three stages for the development of industrial ownership. A new industry 'is best launched and brought to the point of established success by a single creative individual' who should be 'relieved of the main burdens of taxation' and given every freedom and encouragement to use his drive and energy. At the second 'intermediate' stage, when the industry has become 'too large for personal management but not yet ripe for syndicalisation', it should be owned jointly by workers and shareholders (co-partnership). Finally, when industries become so big 'that they have passed beyond any kind of private management and are now controlled by officials of monopoly capitalism or by the officials of the state' they would revert 'to the workers who would take the place of the shareholders'.
The industry would become 'their industry and they can do what they will'. In this way Mosley hoped to reconcile private initiative with satisfaction of the quest for status which 'to an almost fantastic degree ... rises above the question of mere reward'. In political terms, he was not unaware of the advatages of an attack which can 'roll up the left flank of labour by its syndicalism [and] the right flank of conservatism by its support for the creative individual ...'. As always he liked to think of himself in the 'hard centre' ready to take over the 'soft centre' of a disintegrating liberalism". End of quote.
The creative individual as the initiator of a private enterprise would enter into the undertaking with a strong sense of service, knowing full well that he would be the creator of something that would eventually become syndicalised. His greatest reward would therefore be a recognition of his great service to European Socialism and he would be honoured as such.
The Americanised capitalist, on the other hand, only sees 'what is in it for me alone?'.
The London Stock Exchange would be replaced with a European Credit Bank for the purposes of providing European capital to new private enterprises. With Europe a Nation, the internationalism of the finance system would end and our economy and our money would belong exclusively to the European people.
The nature of international capitalism consists entirely of causing conflict between countries, exploitation through low wage economies succeeding and the inequalities of wealth and poverty within nations. The parasite that exploits this for his own emolument through amassing wealth without productive labour is an enemy of the people.

Hello everyone. I have just caught up on all the posts here. Roberts extensive description of Workers Ownership covers some very interesting points. I wondered if I might pose a question? What would the role be of the London Stock Exchange under such a system? Historically the LSE was a source of capital for small business where the shareholder bought a 'share' of the companies success or failure. This is not to be confused with the current casino that operates on a global scale and has more in common with the National Lottery. In essence if we move towards Worker Ownership and an 'Owner' were to retire what would the exit strategy be? By this I mean he owns part of the concern through his labours. How does he recieve value for that which has built? If I missed something from the earlier posts then I apologize but it does seem to have merit as a question. Hope all is well with the Forum.

Now can we have that in English, please?

Edited by author 04-04-2008 09:33
European, you seem to think that the wage/price mechanism and workers' ownership are separate systems when you say that they 'can function side by side'.

In post 287 I wrote, "The wage/price mechanism is a method of Government leadership in the area for maintaining a parity between wages and prices which can only be achieved within a self-sufficient economy free of international competition.
Syndicalism, on the other hand, is the method of running industry in a fair and equitable way. Workers' control within the wage/price mechanism."

They would not 'function side by side' but more accurately as one being integral to the other. One is Government leadership and the other is the means whereby industry is run in practical terms.
It is misleading to talk of them as separate ideas in those practical terms because they are both parts of the whole.

Re Max Mosley, I read a refreshing article by Matthew Syed in the Times on Thursday, part of which he claims ownership of a pair of leopardskin handcuffs.
Syed wrote, "The head of a leading Jewish organisation said that Mosley should resign because his alleged re-enactment of concentration camp rituals was insulting to Jews. Call me pedantic, but how can someone be taken as insulting when his actions took place behind closed doors and were not intended to be seen by those who are now taking offence? Had Mosley merely fantasised about his Nazi fetish without acting it out, would that have been a resigning matter?
One sometimes wonders how much longer it is going to take before we pay something more than lip service to the tenets of liberalism To paraphrase Locke, what the hell have a person's fetishes got to do with anyone except those who are asked to indulge them? Not even D.H. Lawrence, that great chronicler of English sexual hypocrisy, could have imagined that, 80 years after the underground publication of Lady Chatterley's Lover, we are still haranguing people for their private sexual preferences.
Our revulsion at Mosley's behaviour is breathtakingly irrelevant. I am repulsed by homosexuality - in the strict sense that I feel nauseous at the thought of personally engaging in gay sex - but that is not sufficient reason to condemn gay men. Disgust carries not a shred of moral or legal force when it is directed at those engaged in mutually consenting behaviour, whether it involves sex, spanking or leopardskin handcuffs".

There is no doubt that Max Mosley's privacy was invaded to a very considerable degree and I wish him well in his litigation against the gutter press.

The story involving Max Mosley is unfortunate. There was no evidence of 'Nazi uniforms' on the News of the World's video. No doubt this was added to make the story more sensational and to attack the memory of his great father. Max Mosley says he is considering suing the paper for a 'wholly unwarranted intrusion into my private life'. (The far right Daily Express itself owned by a pornographer reproduced the story). The Tory News of the World is itself immoral so shouldn't judge others. Max Mosley is not a politician. It should be remembered that Max defended his father when physically assaulted by Reds and Yellow Star/62 Group thugs at an East London Union Movement rally in 1962.
Granted White African states are no more but the White Dominions of European descended majority populations still exist. The wage-price mechanism and workers ownership of industry or syndicalism can function side by side.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/3003_nazi_orgy.shtml

It is a hard enough uphill struggle as it is without the breaking news on the above News of the World link. Yet another opportunity to defame Oswald Mosley's memory albeit by way of exposing the extra-curricula activities of one of his sons.
I wonder what Nicholas Mosley would have to say after revealing the private life of his father in two books ... 'Rules of the Game' and 'Beyond the Pale'.

To answer your last question, Hermes, European Action, like Union Movement, calls for Europe a Nation. That means a completely unified Europe with a central government. That is more than a 'mere' federation.
Europe must become a unitary force in the world.

From the Editorial of European Action number 15 (March/April 2008):

PERILS OF ‘INDEPENDENCE’ IN KOSOVO
The Americans are sticking their noses into Eastern Europe again and they are the main exponents of the break-up of Serbia. This is intended to provoke Russia, of course. As Kosovo is historically a part of Serbia it would have been constitutionally correct to have consulted Serbia first, instead of this so-called spontaneous uprising by the people with their new flags and banners supplied by the CIA.
President Bush now dictates the destinies of the European peoples so that they can be sucked into the globalist morass with the World Bank pulling all the strings.
Kosovo will be no more independent than when it was tied to Belgrade. That is the fate of petty nationalism.

Edited by author 17-03-2008 23:00
Change of subject if you don't mind, but Robert you mentioned what sounds like a pro-Russia policy a post or two ago. In that regard whats your declared view of Kossovo's declaration of independence? (Rejected of course by Russia) I rather think the UK's legitimising of the further break up of Serbia was a mistake, not least for the precedent it sets. Of course America was one of the first nations to recognise Kossovo. What is their agenda?
Presumably we don't want the Balkans becoming a set of ever smaller statelets which are less and less economically viable. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Union reject petty nationalisms of any variety
within Europe? Could you clarify that the Union Movement does not just want a 'mere' federation of Nations?

Thank you Robert, that clarifies the situation. Syndical ownership of industry and the Wage-Price mechanism are complementary not alternatives. There was another party (beside the Anarcho-syndicalists) who embraced a degree of syndicalism and that was the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB). The problem was you had to embrace all their internationalist clap-trap at the same time.

Edited by author 15-03-2008 16:54
From an article by OM in the National European of 1964:

"The wage-price mechanism could secure that throughout Europe the same rate is paid for the same job, thus eliminating unfair competition; also that wages, salaries and fair profit are progressively raised as science increases the means to produce, thus preventing slumps and unemployment by a proper balance between production and consumption. It will be found that no reform short of these measures will prevent recurrent economic crises and that such a policy is impossible without the economic leadership of European government within the system of Europe a Nation".

Syndicalism is the policy promoted by European Action as the only fair way to run industries. FG is right. The only alternative to workers' control is the bungling of a state bureaucracy or the old capitalist parasitism involving absentee shareholders who have no working connection to the industry.
The wage/price mechanism is a method of Government leadership in the area for maintaining a parity between wages and prices which can only be achieved within a self-sufficient economy free of international competition.
Syndicalism, on the other hand, is the method of running industry in a fair and equitable way. Workers' control within the wage/price mechanism.
So you see, European, the wage/price mechanism does not replace Syndicalism. They complement each other.
European Action is bringing out an exact facsimile of the 1953 pamphlet, A Workers' Policy Through Syndicalism, to be available to all readers of the paper. It remains a good read to this day and just as relevant.
Many more Union Movement pamphlets in facsimile format will be published by us in the coming months.

European, there is no longer a white Africa and no more a white Commonwealth. Africa has thrown out the white man and what is left has no future under black rule. We should now be looking towards Russia as an extension of Europe a Nation. Years ago in 1979, I wrote an article 'From Lisbon to Vladivostok' with that idea in mind. This, then, in the days of the old Soviet Union.
Jean Thiriart always wanted to make a deal with Soviet Russia along those lines. Now that we can truly see the real nature of American administrations, it seems the only sensible expression of 'Real Politik'. Another advantage would be being on the same land mass.

Edited by author 15-03-2008 15:58
I always looked at the Wage-Price mechanism as a fast fix measure to establish some of the benefits of syndicalism right away until syndicalism proper was being established.

This is the only area which I felt some disagreement with OM's later views, he said that so long as working people were getting good wages they wouldn't care who owned industry. Yes, but someone has to own industry and the only other alternatives to the employees is the state or absentee capitalist shareholders. We know the first doesn't work because it destroys initiative, enterprise and incentive and capitalism by definition means someone other than the workers taking the profits.

Also, of equal importance, the actual 'sense' of owning the company you work for is of tremendous psychological importance in engendering initiative, loyalty and common purpose among the work force.

Mosley advanced beyond syndicalism (as he had beyond the pre-war Corporate State) to the simpler concept of the wage-price mechanism. European Government should intervene to raise wages and lower prices throughout Europe. Of course when a business has grown too large for control by the founder or his descendants and has become a monopoly combine owned by absentee shareholders, these should be bought out and control handed over to a syndicate of the workers.
Mosley was also right to propose that Africa should be divided between white and black living as friendly but seperate cultures, nations and governments. Independent white states should be established in Southern Africa. Whites and blacks are suffering under Mugabe's brutal Marxist regime in Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). Increasing numbers of whites are fleeing to Europe. The article on Ian Smith in the latest issue of European Action was timely. The British Isles, mainland Europe and 'Europe overseas': the White Commonwealth and White Africa, with close co-operation and barter agreements with the Syndicalist countries of Latin South America, with their large populations of European origin can become the greatest civilization mankind has ever known.

The John Lewis Partnership has its own website. It is worth a visit.

In the 1970s Britain's dead-duck motorcycle manufacturing companies were combined into the Meridian Motorcycle Company which was owned by its work force along syndicalist lines. It really was a case of allowing worker ownership a chance so long as capitalism can't make a profit out of it. The experiment failed because Britain's motorcycle industry had fallen so far behind Japanese imports.

The only other syndical experiment in the UK is of course the John Lewis/Peter Jones/Waitrose partnership where the company is theoretically owned by the staff who all share the profits. I remember years ago talking to someone who worked at Peter Jones who said the arrangement was not a happy one for the staff who still 'enjoyed' low pay and management with the them-and-us mentality.

However last week I was in the Halifax bank when in trooped a number of check-out girls from Waitrose opposite. They were paying in their share of the annual profits and from what I overheard the average was about £2000.

Does anyone else know anything about the John Lewis Partnership and whether the partnership aspect works successfully?

I would just add to FG's synopsis that syndicalism as industrial democracy is the highest expression of social justice above and beyond both capitalism and communism.

As OM wrote in the piece from 'Mosley - Right or Wrong?' quoted below, there is no reason why existing European banks and building societies shouldn't be responsible for providing syndicates with the capital and finance that they need. They would of course have to operate within new laws created by the National European Government to prevent investment capital leaving or entering Europe without Government sanction.

I don't think OM distanced himself from Raven's syndical ideas, rather he developed them from the pre-War Corporations, to a more purist form of syndicalism in the immediate post-War period and finally to the 'Wage-price mechanism'. The latter sought to apply the benefits of syndicalism in a much simpler and quickerway, whilst orthodox syndicalism would still be applied to the then nationalised industries as a large-scale trial.

I've always favoured formal syndicalism ("Industrial Democracy") myself as it is something that ordinary people can easily understand and see the benefits of.

Edited by author 02-03-2008 10:38
For the benefit of the forum:

The problem of banking was seen by Mosley to be in the international trading system whereby finance could move money out of the system and damage governments. Banking as such could be creative if contained within an insulated economic system such as Europe a Nation. Currency exchange would also not apply.
As such, finance was free to operate under those terms.

No rudeness in my message. I clarified the purpose of this topic and gave you a choice. You took the correct course. Bye, bye.

Offered the choice and given your rudeness I'll choose the latter option.

Raven Thomson's 'Our Financial Masters' was pre-war British Union policy.
This forum is concerned with the post-war policies of Union Movement.
Now stick to the topic or go elsewhere.

Alright I think I see where your going with this, or rather where O.M. was going.You say you are only the drummer, does that mean you were once in the U.M. drum corps?

I know O.M. distanced himself somewhat from Raven's writings in latter years, but Raven's "Our Financial Masters" is essential reading concerning finance and money creation.

Edited by author 01-03-2008 22:21
All of these matters are for the people to decide. I am only the drummer.
Personally, I am opposed to usury so we could call on the services of the Bank of Dubai.

Seriously though, this from 'Mosley, Right or Wrong':

"Creative finance will have a bigger part to play than ever and can reap great rewards if it plays that great part in the national interest. All the traditional abilities of British finance and those of other European centres will be required to develop new enterprises in Europe and its overseas territories. This can provide them with bigger opportunities and in the end - when basic needs are satisfied - with bigger reward than the present speculative scramble within a dying system. Provided they so operate within the European system, banking and finance will be free. There will be no need to control these forces, once we have removed their power to take money from the country, which we shall do by creating a self-contained system insulated from world markets. After that, the energies of finance can only assist the country. It will get its reward from creative work and not from wrecking trade or government."

The incentive of profit would be retained for the creation of new enterprises ... which, when large enough, would be syndicalised.

Can I ask on what basis this National Investment Bank would make it's decisions concerning where to invest? Would they themselves be driven by the profit motive? If so would usury be involved? Or would they perhaps be centralised statist investment institutions with all the possibilty for sub-optimal decision making that would involve.
These are not rhetorical questions BTW.

I suppose the best existing example would be the John Lewis Partnership where the members of the partnership (the workers) are the owners. Profits are shared fairly and equally. A pension scheme is operated in order to look after 'partners' in retirement. In fact, the firm serves all the social needs of the workers/partners.
Investment for the long term is in practice with competitive returns expected on that investment. A National Investment Bank would suit that purpose.
There would be strict rules on who shares the profits. Only partners in the firm could benefit from these. No more dividends for absentee shareholders who have no working connection to the firm.
Ownership of the firm carries responsibilities ... that is to say, liabilities for the privilege of being workers/partners.
The devil is, indeed, in the detail and strict guidances for the structure, obligations and ethical code need to be formulated to avoid the abuses experienced in private and state ownership in the past. No more fat cats or directors awarding themselves inflated benefits, as you comment.
Do not confuse worker ownership with state ownership, either.

Robert, could you give some explanation as to how investment capital would be raised in worker controlled industries? Is the intention to have some kind of National Investment bank or Guild banks or to sell debentures or bonds for the public to invest in the business or at least lend to the business, presumably though without any 'say' in the governance of the business? (which in corporate companies today is a sham anyway, with directors not being prevented from awarding themselves fantastic and exorbitant benefits) Would the workers in a business be a form of 'partnership' and would they have limited liability?
Sorry to pose these questions, but such corporate investment and corporate government issues must be resolved to put into practice genuinely worker owned as opposed to state controlled businesses. The devil is, as they say, in the detail.

Edited by author 01-03-2008 16:33
That is, indeed, Andy Burn (ex-Royal Flying Corps, as well).
He was well known for sporting a straw boater in the summertime. He would egg on UM speakers with shouts of, "Rub it in, rub it in". His spirit was tireless.

Arno - The issue of globalisation and the dangers of free trade were so central to Mosley's thought that he discussed them in every book he wrote. Such as his great post-War book 'The Alternative' and 'Mosley - Right or Wrong'from the 1960s.

Changing the subject, in the picture at the top of this page, isn't that Andy Burns standing behind the Ford Anglia in a light coloured sports jacket with his arms folded? Andy was a senior civil servant who was responsible for establishing the framework of the welfare state.

Robert,

>Syndicalism as a theory has been used by all sorts of political colours and persuasions.

I can agree with that.

What of my other question???

>Could you please direct me to any of the writings by Mosley and friends were the issue of globalisation and free trade are discussed?

I would be especially interested in his ideas of trading blocs and also in his ideas on credit creation and credit channeling (for productive purposes).

Best wishes!
Arno

Edited by author 01-03-2008 14:21
Welcome, Arno. You and I have discussed this before.
Syndicalism as a theory has been used by all sorts of political colours and persuasions. In the United State, syndicalism means something quite different, as does corporatism. They use it as capitalist terms.
There have been anarcho-syndicalists as well as national syndicalists, most notably in the Spanish Civil War.
In Union Movement, and now European Action, it simply means workers' control in their own industries. By workers we include management and those who operate the administrative side of things. In our system it is in partnership with creative free enterprise.
The Marxists also use the term socialism ... but then so did Hitler. It can mean different things to different people but you can only understand it within specific contexts. For Mosley, it was European Socialism and clearly defined.
The creation of Europe a Nation along with the system of European Socialism combining syndicalism and free enterprise will surely be revolutionary ... without the excesses of earlier revolutions.

Robert,
 
A "linguistic" question:
 
I am intrigued by the mention of Syndicalism in the economic and political organisation model of European Action.
- I think I mentioned to you before that in my political background there was a considerable period of Syndicalism. I early noticed how Syndicalism had influenced Lenin's populism when manoeuvring for power go into power ("The State and Revolution" : "All Power to the Soviets" and his twisted cadre party ideas, as opposed to Marxist mass parties) as well as many Fascists (starting perhaps with Mussolini and followed by Mosley and Quisling), with twisted cadre party ideas and ideas of a functional democracy ("business based parliaments") rather than the ideologically based democracies ("Party based parliaments")
 
So far so good. I am however, somewhat puzzled over European Action's use of "Syndicalism" as a term for policy of a class-cooperation, i.e. corporatism. According to classic Syndicalism, this would describe a "post-revolutionary" ("post general-strike") situation and not at all describe Syndicalism policy under Capitalism. Quite the opposite since Syndicalism is famous for its uncompromising class struggle, and for its criticism of all kinds of bureaucracies (private and public).
 
Of course everyone is entitled to twist a language at one's pleasure, but I do find this rather inventive.
;-)
 
Best wishes!
Arno
 
PS
Could you please direct me to any of the writings by Mosley and friends were the issue of globalisation and free trade are discussed?

Edited by author 01-03-2008 13:04
It would need to be extremely generous to compensate for the educational and employment opportunities these people would forego were they to take up the offer of repatriation. Where would you suggest that money comes from?

I now believe that any repatriation scheme for the 21st century should be entirely voluntary. No one should be compelled to leave Britain and Europe. Generous financial grants could be offered to immigrants to encourage, but not force them to resettle in their homelands of their ancestral origin. Lucrative aid packages could be offered to co-operating Third World countries. This would be genuinely fair and humane.

I was not aware of that detail in Marley's career. I am indebted to you.

You seem to be unaware that the movement of which he was a leading figure advocated "return to Africa". Why or how his forbears ended up in Jamaica is not something I'm overly concerned about.

Bob Marley came from the West Indies. He did not come from Africa. Although you would claim Africa is his ancestral home from whence an Arab trader took his people.

You see Robert, I feel encouraging cultural awareness among the majority of the black population of Britain at least would not result in a back-to-Africa exodus. Those ideas did the rounds in the seventies, Bob Marley and all that. They came and went, not much more than a fad for them really. Nice little semi in Harlesdon with a job on London Transport - shanty-town outside of Lagos? No-brainer really is it not?

 
Succinct means briefly and CLEARLY. You didn't ramble on for ever. In order to explain a serious issue, you used comparatively few words but I would say it was explained most clearly. I fail to see the problem with the use of the word succinct. The other word I used was thorough,which means done completely, I feel you did that too. Therefore you nit-picking has been wrong.

Yes I am entitled to my opinion thank very much. If my writing appeared as dismissive retorts then I regret them but you really were not at that stage explaining what your policy would be in regard of repatriation. You have since done that.

Edited by author 01-03-2008 09:10
You are entitled to your opinion, Imperium, but I can find no 'elaboration' you claim in the six lines of post 256. In fact, you do not explain why you think my proposals are not feasible. Just a series of rhetorical questions and dismissive retorts.
Mosley's proposals around 1962 were presented at a time when Britain's immigration issue could be tackled with few problems.
Today, the demographic changes are such that immigration is no longer the sole issue. Assimilation and integration are now the over-riding issues, that and cultural identity.
I have suggested a different approach to that of the early 1960s because you can not repatriate people who were born here. Many have little knowledge of their parents' or grandparents' land of origin and know nothing but Britain.
So what do you do? You create a situation where they have a choice, as explained at greater length in my last posting (257).
By the way, 'succinct' is something very brief. 'Elaboration' is the opposite. You seem to have a problem applying them where appropriate.

Thank you for a thorough and succinct answer.
I don't treat other peoples as inferior BTW, I do believe that European civilsation is the greatest the world has ever known, though there has been important other ones. Can I also say that I feel your humane repatriation scheme might have been a good idea in 1962, but unlikely to succeed nowadays. The reason for this I elaborated in my last post.

Mosley said, "Send them back to good jobs and conditions". Why would we want to send them back? Because they do not fit in culturally? The reason large communities of people from a different culture are here is because the economic conditions at home were very bad and Britain opened the doors to them so that they might enjoy a better material life.
Now imagine if the Indian sub-continent and other parts of the 'Third World' had enjoyed booming economies all those years ago and those countries' populations had a good standard living. Would they have come here? Of course not.
So the answer is obvious. Lift these countries out of poverty and persuade them to join in with others in systems like Europe a Nation, freeing themselves from exploitation by the international trading system. Who would not want to go back home under those conditions? I include second and third generations who you say have conflicts of loyalty or are 'confused'.
The way to do it is by inducement, giving them the choice. It is gentle persuasion with a consideration for all those involved.
You have to stop treating people of other races and cultures as if they are inferior beings. They are not. They are different, if you like, but they deserve the same respect.
It is all very well these extreme right-wing groups like the Leeds-based British Peoples Party saying we are going to get rid every non-white person by force if necessary. You know that could never happen simply because the BPP has no chance of being in a position to carry out such threats.
The direction we go is to promote cultural awareness throughout Europe and then across the globe. The individual states that make up Europe a Nation would be encouraged to dig still deeper into their roots ... and that is how cultural identity is promoted. Such an atmosphere would awaken the cultural roots of all those who originally came here as guests and settled here. Then the proposal is that they resettle in their homelands ... because they want to and not because a small group of 'ultras' want to drag them all out at dawn and drive them to the ports in coachloads to be forced onto boats at the point of a bayonet. If you try anything like that it could easily backfire on you.
Feasibility is concerned with the practicable and humane means a regard for the feelings of others.

 No Robert, I do want to know. I do accept that whatever you propose would be done with the utmost sensitivity. The essential thing is, I don't know what it is you would do with the utmost sensitivity. Send them back to countries of origin, no you said you wouldn't do that. Allow them remain, well not quite I detect. Encourage some to go back and then encourage the others to integrate- well no, not really. What is it then? Europe a nation would mean no non-Europeans in Europe I gather, as the system functions. All well and good. But what of those already in Europe?
"Something that will work given all the facts of feasability", well that could be said of any successful project, but in what direction?

You mean you do not want to know what a 'realistic and humane policy' means.
It means something that will work given all the facts of feasibility. Humane means treating all people with respect and consideration, irrespective of their origins.

No Robert I'm really not twisting anything, I have no interest in that. I'm merely interested in exploring the issues, perhaps selfishly so, I apologise. I just haven't understood what phrases like " A realistic and humane policy mean"
Very well then,I won't be bothering you again on this forum.

Edited by author 29-02-2008 20:25
Imperium, you have sought to misrepresent me. I never suggested a Europe full of non-Europeans but I have conceded that some demographic changes are now permanent. This has been established in Dermont Clark's definitive article on the subject of immigration.
Get it right. In my response to Hermes I stated, "Your last paragraph is NEAREST to our position". On the other hand, a rigid racism with all the implications of forcing the removal of large communities and even ethnic cleansing is not part of our agenda. We need a realistic and humane policy that considers the feelings of all peoples.
The purpose of Europe a Nation is to bring an end to that impossible situation whereby all countries involved in international competition try to outdo others in the export of goods. Those that use cheap labour always come out on top and those that maintain a decent standard of living eventually lose out. Cheap non-European labour has always been encouraged by this capitalist system because low wages keep down costs.
In a large-scale insulated economy there would be no need for such tactics and Europe would be truly for the Europeans. Non-European immigration would end because the need for the importation of cheap labour would become redundant. We would no longer be competing on world markets but rather building up our home market.
Non-Europeans would then remain in their own countries or within their own economic union run on similar lines to Europe a Nation.
Again I state, the cultural imperative is higher than the biological. That was Mosley's position and it remains that of European Action. No one is compromising our essential European identity.
You have obviously not read the front page article in the current issue of European Action but simply twisted the responses on this forum.

Edited by author 29-02-2008 19:20
"Twenty or thirty years later, those who have migrant ancestry but are born here of parents also born here are generally thoroughly and doubly integrated ( by nature and by nuture) A dynamic modern Pan-Europa Party should welcome any person of any colour, of any ancestral stock, where by nature and nuture Europe is their only spiritual 'home'. Could anyone sensibly ask for more?" - Hermes. Strongly endorsed By Robert Edwards

So that's it then, E.A.'s position in terms of non-white members appling to join. But I do tend to agree with you, few would. Not I believe because they have anywhere else as a spiritual home, but because so many of them are spiritually completely lost and confused in terms of homeland, it's tragic really. What it doesn't mean is we have to compromise our "Europeanness" to accomodate their confusion.

"A European movement chock full of non-europeans would be about as authentic as an Indian Restaurant staffed by White Ulstermen."

"Biriani so it is"

No, I made perfectly clear in my last post I believe that were their to be a Europe run on the lines of European Socialism, although there would be some, there never would be a Europe full of non-Europeans. If workers are owners, why would they then want to go and get cheaper workers from elsewhere, it doesn't make sense. Yet it still gives the occasional non-European scope to come in and set up a smalll business to meet consumer needs. Guilds (Syndicate) membership being of such high importance, integration for established non-Europeans would have far greater imperative.

Edited by author 29-02-2008 06:47
You take a very realistic approach to the racial aspect of what it means to be a European, Hermes. To be commended.
I shall return to the views of Oswald Mosley. He has been described as a neo-Lamarckian and believed that culture was far more important than race. This is one of the major differences between us and the far-right reactionary nationalists. They are racists, pure and simple - their petty nationalisms based on extreme xenophobia.
There is no great concern on the question of being dubbed 'racist' and our position on the race issue has not been determined by any such pressure from the politically correct lobby.
Nearly all large-scale migratory movements in the last fifty years have been determined by economic factors ... that is why our main plank has been the propagation of an economic solution in the form of Europe a Nation and all the other large areas of the world where there exists a cultural bond between peoples.
Coercion is not necessary at all. It is a law of nature that everything is in a state of 'becoming'. Anything other will wither and die. And so it is with race. Mosley's main concern was that a very large number of people from very different cultures coming to Britain would create serious social problems, which events over the last fifty years have borne out. Illegal immigration is, of course, illegal and to be opposed on a legalistic basis. Who can argue with that?
Your last paragraph is nearest to our position and the only policy that could work.

Edited by author 29-02-2008 00:24
Are we reluctant to grasp the racial bull by the horn?. I can see the overwhelming concern that E.A is not portrayed as a racist group..what are people afraid to say? Should there be anything to hide?

Biological theories of race have been discredited, though there are always going to be 'average' differences between persons of different genetic blood stock, and us white men are not often top of the form on a particular trait, particularly in the arena or the sportsfield! Some say, even in the bedroom, which is a below the belt remark and defamatory!

However the European character of a pan-european movement does require its members to be European by birth and by culture, and this is an inevitable dimension to any 'national' movement, as would any African, Chinese, etc etc equivalent movement. If this 'dimension' was racist, then the very concept of nation would have to be racist, in fact the concept of race and racism would be racist! No, there has to be cultural 'authenticity'..and this does extent, like it or not, into politics. A European movement chock full of non-europeans would be about as authentic as an Indian Restaurant staffed by White Ulstermen.

Robert is right that a Europe movment would rarely be of interest to migrants i.e. those not born in Europe. In my experience even the children of recent migrants are rarely integrated because their parents hanker for the 'homeland' and they are still taught its language and culture imbibed at mother's knee; it doesn't take Norman Tebbit's Cricket test to prove that those who are born of parents who hail from another continent are torn between two worlds, and I'm afraid this is inevitable. They may be born here (nature) but they are not brought up usually in European culture (nuture). They are often thoroughly unhappy and when they are not actually protesting they are moaning. But is this anything to do with their bloodstock or 'race'? Of course not; this is purely about cultural alienation or acceptance, 'integration' and where people feel their 'spiritual' home is. Is it Europe or is it somewhere else? One does not have to categorise by colour or heritage, people very readily will adopt a stance..they make their own choice of spiritual home early on in their lives.

Twenty or thirty years later, those who have migrant ancestry but are born here of parents also born here are generally thoroughly and doubly integrated ( by nature and by nuture) A dynamic modern Pan-Europa Party should welcome any person of any colour, of any ancestral stock, where by nature and nuture Europe is their only spiritual 'home'. Could anyone sensibly ask for more? . Isn't that right Robert?

Edited by author 28-02-2008 22:05
The front page article of the latest 'European Action' (number 15) is a first-class analysis of the important differences between the stuck-in-the-rut 'racial demon nationalism' of the BNP and the principled stand of the National Europeans in keeping with Oswald Mosley's thinking. This article is an important policy statement and should be read by everybody who cares about where the real threat to European culture comes from. Other excellent articles include Dermont Clark's piece on the way globalisation thrives on the maintenance of world poverty. Agree with it or not, you've got to read it.

Thanks for that, European.

Well done for the latest issue of European Action which hits the nail firmly on the head with regard to the vast differences between the National European creed and the far-right reactionaries. The BUF's pre-war policy of an insulated, self-sufficient British Empire was perfectly viable in the 1930's. When we lost the Empire through brother's war Mosley's post-war Union Movement proposed that we enter a self-contained Union of Europe to restore our greatness. The BNP's anti-European policies would bankrupt Britain and leave us at the mercy of the financiers. Even in the Thirties Mosley stated: 'When we have power there will be no war for we shall make peace with Germany and Italy in a new union of the great nations of Europe'. He was a pioneer way ahead of his time.
European Action is right to say we should attack the government for its open door policy on immigration not the non-white immigrants themselves who are as much victims as we are of the exploitative capitalist system.

Sir Oswald Mosley greets a member of the Associate Movement of UM

Edited by author 28-02-2008 07:29
<<Imperium 239
Would you accept a black person in European Action?>>

I gave you my answer with no intention of being evasive. Your question presents an absurd hypothesis because why would a black person wish to associate with people who are essentially Euro-centric with all that this implies? The hypothesis is so unlikely that the answer you really want would be unreal. We have never had a black person wish to associate with us but if and when he or she does then we will see. I shall certainly not be offensive. Union Movement had an Associate Movement of Union Movement in which non-Europeans were involved.
If you want me to make a racist statement then you are going to be greatly disappointed. Racist views of the Stormfront variety are banned on this forum.
I must ask you to avoid multiple postings. If you wish to add anything then use the edit facility and add to your original posting. You should then await a reply if you need one.

Come Robert, don't be evasive. We're all friends here.

Edited by author 27-02-2008 21:45
<<Imperium 239 27-02-2008 19:46 GMT)
Would you accept a black person in European Action?>>

It is an offence under the Race Relations Act to discriminate on grounds of race, etc.

I am a supporter of Mosley's vision of Syndicalistic worker-ownership of larger enterprises, but the problem with such a system observed by economists who have studied the possibilites of such a system is the lack of larger scale capital investment when a business opportunity presents itself. Can I suggest the pension funds become totally owned by the Guilds and would therefore be at the disposal of our syndical businesses for investment. A fundamentalist free-marketeer may criticise, but I say that such investments certainly couldn't perform any worse for the savers than pension funds have in recent years, that would be impossible.

I am not so sure. The United States is continually upping the ante. The establishment of US missile bases in Poland is sheer provocation. I do not see the Russians attempting another Bay of Pigs situation.
Europe needs to make a positive decision over this. That is, to build closer and more friendly relations with Russia and to detatch itself completely from US foreign policy.
Unfortunately, we are governed by those who embrace US-led globalism.

Vlad Putin seems very much "old school" so he may oblige the wishes of America in a return to the cold war,I fear a stand off over this. The Balkans are still a tinder-box just as in 1914.

Edited by author 27-02-2008 09:40
I believe the American-backed Kosovan declaration of 'independence' is calculated solely to antagonise Russia. The Americans would like a return to the Cold War in order to boost the arms industry. I have always claimed the Americans have been the true terrorist state and the major threat to World peace.

Sorry to change the subject but the American backing of Kosovo confuses me, the obvious double standards of supporting a "break away state" is odd when in the good 'ol USA the southern states tried it war was declared. If the poor Serbians try to lodge a complaint will the USA and it's puppets launch a missile attack, again, who are the terrorists now?

The syndicalism of Union Movement was very clear. Only workers in a particular industry could have a share of the profits. It would be under their control.
It would bring an end to absentee shareholders who just hang around for their dividend without putting any work into that industry. They are parasites.
Why do you call yourself 'Blackshirt'? This is a forum for the post-war movement. We are not fascists.

How syndicalist was Mosleys vision? Would there still be the possibility of investment from and shares owned by those who don't work in a particular trade?

Hermes, your point is very relevant. In the pre-War Mosley policy devised by Raven Thompson, the industrial corporations of the corporate state were going to be owned and run jointly by workers, management and consumers.

Immediately after the war, Mosley came to the conclusion that these corporations could become too bureaucratic and streamlined the ownership of industry and commerce along simpler syndicalist lines. I think we should indeed consider the advantages of a close link between each business and its consumers, with possibly consumer representation on boards and a proportion of profit returned directly to consumers in some way.

Hi, is there any role for the voice of the consumer in a worker run European Rail Enterprise? While I support syndicalism and industrial democracy generally, perhaps there should be some role for regular users of a rail service (such as myself, holding a season ticket) to have some representation on the board?

Ben, Europe-wide transport planning would be the responsibility of a European Transport Secretariat, unlike the present system the Secretaries would have spent their working lives in the transportation industry and they would be elected by people who work in transportation. Not 'professional politicians' as you rightly point out.

Awarding management positions would be the responsibility of the firm's directorate with the workforce having the right of veto. Another term for syndicalism, or workers control, is industrial democracy or commercial democracy.

Edited by author 20-02-2008 10:55
Who does the awarding FG? I am interested in the strategic level, who decides between rail and road planning Europe wide for example?

I agree on the ticket inspector voting point, that would lead to anarchy.

I see many national/supranational problems are created by professional politicians these days, who are rank amateurs in anything outside the greasy pole. At least in the past in the UK many Labour MPs used to be ex industrial workers and many Tory/Liberal MPs used to be former businessmen or military/public servicemen; so had some idea on how the real world worked.

Under syndicalism, executive positions in a company would be awarded to candidates with the necessary specialist skills and they should be given sufficient power to do the job they have been paid to do. You can't have ticket inspectors, for example, voting every 5 minutes on aspects of running a railway (ie marketing)that they are not experienced in. But the work force would retain the right at regular intervals to vote out directors and managers in whom they have lost confidence or reaffirm confidence in them.

Edited by author 19-02-2008 11:34
I am interested how the nitty gritty of this would work; lets say we have a Europe Rail, not in private hands, who makes the strategic decisions on track, fares and stock, who "runs" the organisation on a day to day basis?

I would assume there would be representation of the railways in the Expert Transport Section of a European Government, are these individuals elected by the employees of the railway or promoted upward through merit to European Rail Minister?

There was a noble public service ethos in the Old British Rail before Tory demoralisation got hold of it, my father in law worked on the railways all his life from the age of 13 (with a break 1942-46 for the Eighth Army) and ended up as chief cashier at Manchester Victoria before he retired and remains extremely proud of his career.

No, Eddie. You use one or the other. There is no 'and' or 'or' involved at all.

Sorry Robert that should have been an 'or' not an 'and' and as usual you are absolutely correct! Sorry I was busy reading all the BNP posts on the other forum and ones thoughts and grammer took a wander in the opposite direction!!!

Eddie, workers' control IS syndicalism. They are synonymous. Forget the shopkeepers for the time being.
We shall follow the Northern (British) Rock developments very closely ... in relation to the world credit situation.

I miss those cheese sandwiches! I do agree with you that workers control and Syndicalism do seem to offer the solutions to our problems. As for Northern Rock be prepared for endless litigation as the various hedge funds who have bank rolled labour seek to recoup their looses from the British tax payer.

'British Rail' had a certain ring to it ... it was ours. We had stationmasters and staff on duty (even if they seemed to do very little) and the BR cheese sandwich was legendary.
Under privatisation it is profits that dictate the way it is run ... routine maintenance being a major part of cost-cutting.
The fat cats rule while the public is fleeced at every opportunity.
The answer? Mosley's policy of a partnership of workers' control and private enterprise, the goal being the establishment of Syndicalism in industrial relations.

Well lets hope they renationalise the railways and all other monopolies.

It is 'privatisation' that is the real dirty word. Selling off the people's property to absentee shareholders in the merry-go-round of roulette capitalism.
In this case, nationalisation is the least of several evils. A short term solution ... the long term solution being the end of the international bankers' racket.

Northern Rock Goes Pop!
It seems that OM's prediction of economic chaos is starting to happen. The Government announced at 4 PM today that they are nationalising Northern Rock. How many more banks will falter due to the machinations of International Finance?

Thank you, Eddie.

It is so nice to see such reasoned debate carried out with sensible moderation. It is a breath of fresh air compared to the squalid atmosphere of Stormfront. More power to you Robert as this is a really first rate forum.

The reason these reactionaries favour global free trade is because they have no real answers to the threat of unfair competition.
The only alternative is Europe a Nation.

Isn't it ironic that most anti-Europeans and eurosceptics who claim to have Britain's national interests at heart like UKIP and the Tory Right, are all in favour of global free trade which has ruined the great industries of Britain and Europe. How can we possibly compete with unfair competition from the low-wage nations such as India and China? Europe must be self-contained, self-sufficient and protected from cut-price Asian imports, which will provide full employment for European Workers.

Do not worry your self about this 'new party'. The distinctions could not be more clear. It is a party for big business.
Thank you for the Henry Williamson Society form sent through the post. Its non-political nature can not be over-stressed here. FOM is non-political but there were a few who exploited it. It carries on good work ... as does the HWS.
We are political. Make no mistake about that.

The Henry Williamson Society have a new website: www.henrywilliamson.co.uk
It is non-political. HW was a member of British Union and Union Movement.

On the other hand this internationalist, globalist party should not be allowed to get away with using the title of Mosley's 'New Party'. They are opposed to O.M's policies. www.newparty.co.uk

All strength and power to the Islamic Party of Britain. I can not see any points to argue against there.

Also quite naturally the Islamic Party of Britain opposes the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, is against war with Iran and supports Palestinian Arab Nationalism and freedom.

I think your attitude towards Islam is perfectly correct and respect for Muslims is an important part of both foreign policy and how we treat guests and fellow citizens in Britain.
Thanks for reminding us of the Union Movement policy on taxation. We shall be including this subject in a futute issue of European Action.

I was brought up as a Christian but I respect Muslims for their strong sense of family values, which we should all aspire to. In fact the Qu'ran
mentions Jesus with respect. I have an interesting tape produced by the Islamic Party of Britain on the subject of the Money Power and Usury. They publish a thought provoking newsletter 'Common Sense' and have held joint meetings with Christian monetary reformers. The leader of the IPB, David Musa Pidcock is English.
I regard the old Union Movement policy on taxation as a good one: 'To lift the burden of taxation from income to spending. A man should be taxed on what he spends not on what he earns.' There should be a tax on luxury goods, second cars, second homes, etc. I think this would be a good European Action/National Party of Europe policy too and it is relevant to today. It should be remembered that income tax was a major plank of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.

Edited by author 31-01-2008 10:42
Baldwin, this forum became pointless and useless after an infection from the virus of American supremacism and the fantasies they injected into what was originally an intelligent discussion.
I see you are continuing the Yankee tradition by posting pointless rubbish.

Go to the Europe a Nation blog to read articles published in European Action.
http://europeanaction.blogspot.com/

Another forum has been constructed for the purpose of discussing the political ideas of Oswald Mosley. It is now in operation.
Only those I trust and know have been included.
This forum will go on a for a bit longer if only just for the American to write his semi-literate twaddle.
The reason for so many deletions here is very obvious and has nothing to do with heavy censorship. It is more like trying to exise a cancer ... the cancer being American white supremacism.

This is prob. the most pointless forum I have ever come across. Forums are mean't to be areas to discuss things in. Well actually, microsoft's technical support forums are prob. more pointless than this.

Is this mean't to be somekind of ego trip here for someone, or more sinister motives, like IP collection ?

Keeping this short, as no doubt will be deleted too.

Sorry this is kind of amusing here. Oh dear my temporary Guerrilla email expired, a bit like the posts here :-)

Most of the world hates America for very obvious reasons that do not need to be spelled out here.
Now we have the white supremacists inventing a new globalism that intrudes in the lives of many countries that could really do without them.
I have no doubt that this is a tiny cult representing only themselves as self-styled saviours of the white world. If you look at their site then you will see what a sick joke they are.
No one should really take them seriously because I do not. One person was posting on this forum under various guises. I have his e-mail address registered here which only I can see. It has been the same person throughout.
We oppose racist supremacism and religious hatred in all its forms. We struggle to build a better world and to bring an end to suffering anywhere. This joke called the Order of White Knights has no role to play in this. We did not even ask to be supported by these hate-mongers ... as if we can not stand alone.
Europe a Nation as the policy of Oswald Mosley is for Europe alone. It can not be diluted or Americanised.
People can continue to post here or they can go to the other newer Mosley forum where it is restricted to those I know and trust.
Europe Arise!

Edited by author 30-01-2008 19:50
White Revolutionary Press +OWK+
Communication Bulletin Order Of White Knights Date: 27 January 2008
 
Europe A Nation :: European Action

An Apology To American Supporters & Members
Comrades World Wide,

Little did we know that when we, as a organisation, decided to give our full support to European Action that we would be directing our American support and membership base to a hostile anti Americanism - which extends itself to a hostile Euro Americanism.
We as an organization are Pan European and we cross the Atlantic in support. We understand fully the dedication of our Euro American support base, who have shown tremendous dedication, and we recall the 14 Words by David Lane of The Order RIP. We have managed to bridge the gap of historical conflict. We are not prepared to jeapordise our Euro American support base for any organisation.
In today's reality, geonationalism is not the answer to our problems. Our Race Is Our Nation and Our Skin Is Our Uniform. We move forward regardless. From the Atlantic to the Urals and Europe Overseas (European stock).
Yours fraternally,
Order of White Knights.
OWK 15:23:11


--------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
Privileged/Confidential information is contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message you may not use the information contained, nor copy, deliver or disclose this message to anyone. You should destroy this message, and notify the Order of White Knights. Information in this message is not given or endorsed unless otherwise indicated by an authorized representative independent of this message. It is advised that you delete this e-mail after you've read it and distributed it. The authors of this electronic publication have a Right to Free Speech, a fundamental building block of a free society, affirmed by the U.S. Bill of Rights in 1791 and by the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
------------------------------------------------------------- -------------

They obviously never read European Action. Well spotted, Ben.

I am heart-broken. Pass the tissues.

We have been proscribed...

http://www.orderofwhiteknights.org/bulletins/270108.html

Edited by author 30-01-2008 17:17
This forum is for adults only.
Posting the cartoons or other images that are not the creation of the author are an infringement of copyright. Therefore, the only cartoons permitted here are those created by me.
A syndicated cartoon posted by Henderson has been removed. I am not a dictator. I am the administrator.

Muppets ... now they were another asinine American creation.

You are just hypocrites. That's all. You have called me a maggot and a mental retard. You have even called me barbaric.

I would like to remind Mr arrogant intelfool and American bigot that who controls the purse in your little country floating mid way between Europe and the United States. We can make your nation bankrupt in seconds.

For a mental retard Uncle Sam sure knows how to pull your strings. Muppets !

May Allah Be Merciful On You And May Your Organization Be Infested With Maggots !

Everyone can see by the way you are manipulating this forum with your deletions that you are not allowing free debate. As soon as you disagree you delete. When you lose the argument you delete it. It really does not matter one jot because whatever you set up long term will be open to infiltration and we've already discussed this prospect with reagrds to a future National Party of Europe.

The third and final part of the Daily Telegraph article:

Science: Islam's forgotten geniuses
Page 3 of 3

• The word "alchemy" derives from the Arabic "alkimya", which means "chemistry". The world's first true chemist was a Yemeni Arab by the name of Jabir ibn Hayyan, born in 721.

• Al-Razi (Rhazes) was the greatest clinician of the Middle Ages. Born near Teheran in 865, he ran a psychiatric ward in Baghdad at a time when, in the Christian world, the mentally ill would have been regarded as being possessed by the devil.

• The word "algebra" comes from the Arabic "al-jebr", and was made famous by the great ninth-century mathematician al-Khwarizmi. But contrary to popular myth, algebra was not an Islamic invention - its rules actually go back to the Greek mathematician Diophantus.

For the connoisseur ... the cartoon referred to by Ben

The Americans, led by a mental retard, would not understand civilisation. What did I say in European Action number 13 regarding the Americans? ... "from barbarism to decadence without an intervening period of culture".
The Iranians shine through all this with an excellence unrivalled.

Edited by author 30-01-2008 09:48
Why are we so vulgar and degenerate? Robert Edwards cartoon of the family watching TV says it all, we are all consumers now.

I have not had a television in the house for nine years now, I fail to see why I should pay a Poll Tax for a sewer in the corner of the room.

I remember watching the box last year at my wife's father's house (an octogenarian 8th Army veteren devout Roman Catholic) and my wife and I were both embarressed by the foul four letter words spewing forth on a "comedy" on BBC2; my father in law didn't bat an eyelid. He had been "conditioned" to accept this as normal. As my wife said when she was young he would have lept up and turned the TV off at the slightest suggestion of anything dodgy.

So the masses are conditioned by the media to embrace this over sexualised sub-culture, and why? It makes the people buy and overindulge on Vodka, fast food, slut clothes and degenerate films and music, and not question their masters.

Money, Money, Money. And the originator and epicentre of this civilisation killer? The Good ol' US of A.

As to Iran, the Persians are one of history's most sophisticated civilisations, and contrary to the Yankee Sirens, has not invaded another country for over 250 years. (Though Britain and America have constantly meddled in their internal politics most recently in the 1950's)

I know a very eminent female Iranian doctor, who is a Consultant world expert in allergies, sits on the board of the local health authority and is a Governor at my School.

Edited by author 30-01-2008 09:25
I remember the wearing of headscarves in the 1950s when I was a very small lad. There was much more modesty then. The scarves were worn by most women in Britain. They did not wear skirts up to their arse then.
Ben's wife is to be commended on her elegance.
Whatever happened to traditional European culture? Why are we so degenerate and vulgar?
The Muslims opposite me are from India and the women wear a sort of elaborate sahri but they are modest and polite. The local English girls are often drunk, on heroin and shouting abuse in the streets. You can not but notice the difference between cultures.

Edited by author 30-01-2008 09:52
Also in fairness Robert, the Islamic invasion of Spain replaced Visigothic Kingdoms, who were quite civilised; though as they tended to fight amongst each other were not able to oppose the more organised Muslim armies.

The Visigoths founded the only European cities in the early middle ages, were very influential on the early Christian Church (The Councils of Toledo) and were some of the first to codify a set of sophisticated laws the Forum Iudicum.

However, as you say, the edge was with the Umayyads. I would conclude that it was a clash of civilisations; with the Muslims, at that time, ahead. Such is history.

As an aside a lot of the "headline" issues regarding European dislike of Muslims, is actually a dislike of non European cultural mores that have very little to do with Islam as such. Compare North Pakistani cultural customs with say Bosnian ones.

The Muslims who visit the mosque opposite me are mostly Bangladeshi who wear western dress, (and speak cockney) their women folk who go to the mosque on Saturdays dress very like my wife; who, as an Orthodox Christian, does not leave the house or go to work without a headscarf or wearing a long dress. That is our traditional European culture. (and incidently that of most of Europe until after 1918)

You are avoiding the issues all the time, Henderson. I ask you to explain my 'misconception' and you fail to do so.
There are large numbers of economic migrants trying to get into Europe and European Action opposes this. Our policy is to end the racket of people trafficking and to end the asylum system. It is a throwback to a Convention signed at the end of the Second World War to deal with displaced persons out of that conflict. It has no relevance today except to exploit many of these people as cheap labour and some very unsavoury practices.
That is right. Culture is a factor we place before biology. That was the position of Oswald Mosley. It is a question of placing the spiritual above the materialistic. The culture I am talking about is explained in Mosley's Doctrine of Higher Forms which you will find in his book, Europe, Faith and Plan.
Being anti-American, as I am, is not bigotry. It is an awareness of the evils that capitalistic America represents. We Europeans find it repulsive because our values are not your values ... and our future is not your future.

Please explain my misconception:- The relevance today is to counteract the misconceptions that Islam has had no influence upon European civilisation.

We're clearly not going to agree on some points. For example, I agree its good to retain good neighborly relations with Arabic countries (we have agreement) but I do not agree to this flood of Islamic people into Southern Europe then into Central and Northern Europe. You seem to ignore this. But, then you contradict yourself by saying culture before biology. So what culture are you putting before biology?

Then you say you are not bigoted and yet I have never met a more bigoted anti American than you.

Edited by author 30-01-2008 01:33
I have written for a magazine that published a long article on the subject. Most civilisations have used slavery. The Romans, for example. It is not the monopoly of one.
Please explain my misconception.

That is your misconception Mr Edwards. Do you believe that people don't pick up history books? Bet you wouldn't want to mention the white slave trade that existed in the Barbary Coast?

Persians are not confused with Arabs. But they are both Muslim.
The relevance today is to counteract the misconceptions that Islam has had no influence upon European civilisation. In fact, the influence is far greater than anything that bigots like you will acknowledge.
During the greatest periods of the Arab Empire in the 9th Century they ruled a great part of Spain (Andalusia) for hundreds of years, bringing, roads, street lighting and running hot water ... while Europe languished in the Dark Ages.
When the Muslims entered Spain they found the indigenous people dressed in animal skins and living in mud hovels.
All history is relevant, Henderson.
By the way, stick to reasoned discussion without the funny cartoons. They will be deleted.

There are some minor details that are wrong, for example, Persians are not Arabs, with that report but by in large it's correct. What relevance does it have today? Zero !

I continue the Daily Telegraph article brought to our attention by Ben Waterhouse. Let us see if the anti-Islamic Henderson can debate the points made. Let us have facts and not prejudice:

Science: Islam's forgotten geniuses
2 of 3

Here was a polymath with a free-ranging and formidable intellect: not only did he make significant breakthroughs as a philosopher, mathematician and astronomer, but he also left his mark as a theologian, encyclopaedist, linguist, historian, geographer, pharmacist and physician.
Famously, having developed the mathematics of trigonometry, he was able to measure the circumference of the Earth to within a few miles. The only other figure in history whose legacy rivals the scope of al-Biruni's scholarship would be Leonardo da Vinci. So what went wrong?
What brought to an end this golden age of Abassid and Arabic science? The standard answer is that the ending came suddenly, in 1258, when the Mongols ransacked Baghdad. During the occupation, a large number of the books in the House of Wisdom were destroyed.
But Baghdad was by this time far from the only centre of scholarship in the Arabic speaking world - and wonderful advances continued to be made in Cairo and Cordoba right up to the European Renaissance in the 15th century.
There is also an argument that the decline was due to a change in attitude of the Islamic world towards science. This was primarily a consequence of the work of the 11th-century scholar and theologian al-Ghazali, who famously criticised Muslim scientists for their over-reliance on the philosophy of the ancient Greeks.
Yet this, too, cannot be the whole story. Al-Ghazali was primarily attacking a theological viewpoint that relied on ideas he deemed anti-Islamic. Hard science should not have been so affected by this more metaphysical dispute.
The real decline had much more to do with a weakening of the power of the caliphate as a whole, of which the Mongol invasion was merely one symptom.
By the end of the 11th century, Baghdad had lost control over much of its empire, and weaker caliphs were simply less inclined to encourage and finance scientific scholarship. But, just as the golden age of Arabic science began with the translation of the great Greek texts of Aristotle, Euclid and Ptolemy, so was the work of the Arabic scholars transferred to Europe. For example, al-Jahith's Book of Animals was a major influence on Arab scholars of the 11th to 14th centuries, and the Latin translations of their work in turn became known to Charles Darwin's predecessors, Linnaeus, Buffon and Lamarck.
By the 16th century, while scientific and technological progress continued to be made at a gentler pace in the Muslim world under Persian and Ottoman rule, the European Renaissance was well under way.
The mystery is why the debt the West owed to Muslim scholars was then overlooked: acknowledged at all, the Abbasids are normally credited with nothing more than acting as the guardians of Greek science.
In a world of increasing religious tension, the untold story of Arabic science is a timely reminder of the debt the West owes to the Muslim world – and, perhaps more importantly, of the proud heritage today's Muslims should acknowledge.
Jim Al-Khalili is professor of physics and public engagement in science at the University of Surrey. Tomorrow night, he delivers the Royal Society Michael Faraday Prize lecture, which will be webcast live at 5.30pm at royalsociety.org/live, and will then address the invite-only Telegraph/Novartis Scientists Meet The Media reception at the Royal Society in London.
ISLAM'S FORGOTTEN GENIUSES

• Ibn al-Natis, a Syrian from the late 13th century, is credited with giving the first correct description of blood circulation in the body, 400 years before the work of Thomas Harvey.

• The Polish astronomer Copernicus (1473-1543) has Arabic astronomers to thank for his calculations: indeed, there are diagrams in his books that appear to have been lifted exactly from the work of the Arab astronomer Ibn Shatir 100 years earlier.

• The modern scientific method, based on observation and measurement, is often said to have been established in the 17th century by Francis Bacon and René Descartes. But the Iraqi-born physicist Ibn al-Haythem (Alhazen), had the same idea in the 10th century.

What else has no place here, Henderson?

It won't work Mr Edwards. No matter how you try to appeal to the top of the pyramid they will still shout you down. They'll get the reds to shout you down, the authorities to shout you down, and if that don't work they will go direct to shout you down. So, why bend over backwards to please them? Islam has no place here ! Zionism has no place here ! Go back on to the streets and get a nice taste for multiracialism. The young understand these things better. You are out of touch.

Ha! Ha! Ha! I will keep this one Donnellan, a.k.a. Henderson, a.k.a. OWK, a.k.a. Information. Even a maggot serves a purpose in life.

The Islamic NPE Movement

Sultan Robert aka forum dictator...

We know whose funding your activities. It's the Islamist. Where is Bin Liner hiding? You'll make more money by betraying him? Check the CIA website.

Here is part of Ben Waterhouse's referenced article. More later. Then ask yourself what has the barbaric United States ever produced for mankind, except wanton destruction for its own selfish interests.

Science: Islam's forgotten geniuses
1 of 3

The untold story of Arabic brilliance should be a timely reminder of a proud heritage, says Jim Al-Khalili
Next year, we will be celebrating the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and the 150th of the publication of his On The Origin of Species, which revolutionised our understanding of biology.

For 700 years, the international language of science was Arabic
But what if Darwin was beaten to the punch? Approximately 1,000 years before the British naturalist published his theory of evolution, a scientist working in Baghdad was thinking along similar lines.
In the Book of Animals, abu Uthman al-Jahith (781-869), an intellectual of East African descent, was the first to speculate on the influence of the environment on species. He wrote: "Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring."
There is no doubt that it qualifies as a theory of natural selection - even though the Book of Animals appears to have been based to a large extent on folklore rather than on zoological fact.
Despite the strong feelings Darwin provokes among many Muslims - many Islamic scholars see the Koran as creationist, and so at odds with evolution - it seems astounding that al-Jahith's quote has been largely ignored.
In fact, although popular accounts of the history of science typically show no major advances taking place between the Romans and the Renaissance, al-Jahith's work was part of an astonishing flowering of invention and innovation that took place in the Muslim world, and in Iraq in particular, in the Middle Ages.
This world view, based on a mixture of theology and rational thinking, produced wonderful advances in philosophy, astronomy, medicine and mathematics, in particular the emergence of algebra and trigonometry.
Although the Muslim world is often now seen as ill-equipped for scientific discovery, we can look back to Baghdad and see the origins of the modern scientific method, the world's first physicist and the world's first chemist; advances in surgery and anatomy, the birth of geology and anthropology; not to mention remarkable feats of engineering.
For 700 years, the international language of science was Arabic; and Baghdad, the capital of the mighty Abbasid Empire, was the centre of the intellectual world. The story starts around 813, when the caliph of Baghdad, al-Ma'mun, is said to have had a vivid and life-changing dream. In it, he met the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who instructed him to "seek knowledge and enlightenment".
This was the starting point for a lifelong obsession with science and philosophy. Al-Ma'mun created the famous House of Wisdom, a library, translation house and scientific academy unmatched since the glory days of Alexandria.
The caliph would then recruit some of the greatest names in Arabic science, such as the mathematician al-Khwarizmi and the philosopher al-Kindi. Although many of these thinkers were not Arabs themselves, they conducted their science and wrote their books in Arabic.
In the West, though, they were better known by their Latin names, such as Alkindus, Alhazen, Averroes and Avicenna. The most famous of all was Avicenna (or ibn Sina, to give him his correct name).
Born in Persia in 980, he was a child prodigy who grew up to become one of the world's greatest philosophers and physicians. His great work, the Canon of Medicine, was to remain the standard medical text both in the Islamic and Christian worlds until well into the 17th century.
He is credited with the discovery and explanation of contagious diseases and the first correct description of the anatomy of the human eye. As a philosopher, Avicenna is referred to as the Aristotle of Islam; as a physician, he is its Galen.
Indeed, it would not be inappropriate to refer to Aristotle and Galen as the Avicennas of the Greeks. My favourite of all the Abbasid scientists, however, is another Persian scholar by the name of al-Biruni.

Edited by author 29-01-2008 16:27
'Robert Henderson' is, in fact, Chris Donnellan writing under OKW. Henderson (a.k.a Donnellan) is being gratuitously offensive and all his postings will eventually be deleted.
Donnellan, who lives in California, is a racist of the worst possible kind. What he is now complaining about is not 'political correctness gone mad', as most right wing loonies word it, but sensible monitoring of the more intelligent kind. He was on my group mailing list, hence his unwelcome appearance here.
I think that eventually this topic may need to be suspended/terminated. I have prepared another Mosley topic in anticipation of this. Only a select group of people will be invited to join. There will be no American trouble makers.
Wa'salaam!
Death to the Great Satan!
I would add, Ben, that Donnellan promotes Nordic paganism under the guise of 'religion'. He hates the British for Northern Ireland but his Irish Roman Catholic origins are merely cultural. Do not expect him to go running to a priest any time.

Edited by author 29-01-2008 19:07
164 is gratuitously offensive Mr Henderson, (the riposte is removed I apologise for stooping so low in return)

Allah the Most Merciful Be With You And May All Your Church Bells be Silenced and Converted to Mosque.

How I converted to Islam.

It started about 20 years ago. I was invited to the Regents Park Mosque. What really impressed me was how polite the Muslim youth are. They really showed me respect. I decided at that time to start reading the Korean. It was from that point that it dawn on me that Islam was the one and only true religion. It was the culmination from Moses, to Christ the Prophet, and finally, Mohammad. I must say that U am happy to be amongst friends here. Thank you for welcoming me and my true faith. Allah be with you all.

Edited by author 29-01-2008 14:04
Interesting article in today's Telegraph about Islamic Science in the early medieval period http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Edited by author 29-01-2008 11:10
Thanks for that. We shall certainly promote positive policies on animal welfare. It is a mark of civilisation. Good posting.
This, of course, extends to a ban on ALL blood 'sports'.

Robert Edwards is right and the "OWK" are wrong, there are no 'European Americans' only White Americans of European ancestry. You are right to ban them for their racist Islamophobia.
As an animal lover and dog owner I have enjoyed reading Robert Edwards' articles on the Mosley movement and animal welfare in European Action. Vivisection is cruel and fundamentally flawed because humans and animals are different, the resulting drugs from animal testing cause a lot of damage, deaths and injury to human health. Test on paedophiles not animals! Jewish ritual slaughter should also be banned as in Switzerland.(Many Muslims now accept the need for humane pre-stunning, Jews do not). I urge support for the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Website: www.buav.org Norah Elam was the Sussex Women's County Organiser of the BUF and a founder member of the BUAV.

This is an Order of White Knights free zone. No racists, no bigots.

Europe starts at Bantry Bay and ends at the Bering Straight, so no foodbasket problem there.

Within the political system of the current EU a truly cross European National Party of Europe will transform the capital based half hearted structures and institutions of Europe into a Unified European Socialism.

Re: Henderson 145: That's because these blocs (China and America) are not self-contained economies, they are both global in outlook and compete against each other. Europe a Nation will be autarkic and would have no need or wish to trade with (or exploit) other nations of the world.

So by minding our own business we don't come into conflict with other power blocs and the Chinese people may one day get the opportunity to consume their own production. It's shameful the way the Chinese Communist government has sold its people into capitalist slavery.

Let us now get back to the real debate, a debate that should only be of interest to Europeans. What is the difference between the bureaucratic globalist European Union and the United Europe that Oswald Mosley advocated?

My view is this: the European Union sees itself as part of the world economy. Oswald Mosley advocated that we withdraw from the world economy and build a self-sufficient area over which central government has complete political control. Then we are masters of our own economic fate and cannot be derailed by somebody on the other side of the world manipulating the price or supply of some essential commodity.

The other big difference: Oswald Mosley's 'Europe a Nation' means a common European policy on defence, foreign affairs and economic policy - but then leaving each European region free to order its life according to local custom and sub-culture. Oh, and there's the little matter of sending European capitalism the same way as communism and replacing it with a syndicalist-based system where profits are divided among everybody who works for each commercial company. Thereby maximising incentive, initiative and enterprise. How do other members of the group define our Europe and theirs?

Judging by all these deletions probably very little. Good night.

I am not going to tire of a bit of occasional moderation. I quite enjoy it.
Now I am off to a promise of a bit of rumpy-pumpy. So good night.
How much will I need to delete tomorrow?

Nothing like a bit of controversy to get a forum off the ground. You are going to get tired of this heavy moderation. But, to go back to my original point. China, can be termed an economic bloc and it is exploiting resources in Africa. The USA, another, economic bloc, is suffering recession and very belligerent. I see no evidence that blocs of nations can produce world peace when resources are scarce.

If you write in highly personal terms or you go off topic then your posting will be deleted. I am not compromising on that one.
You are the exception, of course.

Fair enough Robert. However, these deletions are not really the answer. Its best to let the forum flow a little bit so that more people take interest. You'll make people scared to post. The idea is to drum up interest in European Action (EA) view points. People like to see discussion.

The European Action (EA) industrial policy does it involve any competition between syndicates? I agree it looks different to the planned Soviet model.

What makes European Action believe that blocs of unified nations would generate world peace?

Edited by author 28-01-2008 21:20
Henderson, you are highly personal and off topic again. Either discuss politely or go away. You are wasting my time.

From the Wikipedia:
"A political hybrid, Robert Henderson posts regularly to the British political Usenet groups and also to uk.sport.cricket, where his reputation is of someone who is unable to admit when he is wrong, as well as contributing to the Conservative Democratic Alliance mailing list on Yahoo! Groups. In recent years he has written most frequently for the political magazine Right Now! and the English nationalist/cultural magazine Steadfast. "Right Now" could be described as of the Old Right, while "Steadfast" has wider political appeal (and is becoming increasingly "green"). He has not written for Wisden since the 1995 controversy".

First of all, the old dichotomy of Left and Right is now history. Only the mainstream parties in elections pretend there is such a distinction.
People who were former communists make good patriots. You see this in Eastern Europe. Nazis and Red Front often exchanged shirts in the 1930s.
I do not care who is or was a communist because the Red scare was a hoax anyway, kept going by the CIA. In hindsight, Europe should have been closer to the Soviet Union than the United States. That was the position of Jean Thiriart who I admire tremendously.
The old ideological war has been replaced by Globalism and of those who do not wish to play that game. The American military machine is the armed wing of Globalism and needs to be opposed. For that reason I support the freedom fighters of Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is a lot of difference between European Action and the communists. Primarily, the industrial policy of Europe a Nation is a system based on a partnership of workers' control and private enterprise. Under a communist system, the state rules and runs everything.
Keep to the topic.

I have to agree with you there. He certainly made it clear during the cold war that he could send his Russian made MIGS in US air space to cause enough damage not to make it worthwhile an invasion. He has staying power. I agree that the cold war is over. So, in your vision post this communist cold war what do you think has replaced it? I know the answer to this already, we hated Americans lol. You know there is not much difference between European Action and the Communists is there?

I am not Cuban so he does not need my support. You have to admire his staying power ... all those American presidents who threatened to have him removed. Where are they now? Terrible things happened during the revolution but Batista was not without fault. That reactionary puppet of the United States.
No, I admire Castro for his endurance.

Who exactly are his people? Are they the Spanish/European families or the Indians? President Chavez supports Fidel Castro's Cuba. Do you support Fidel Castro?

Edited by author 28-01-2008 20:13
I admire President Chavez because he protects his people. He puts them before American interests ... that is to say, international combines and cartels.
The King of Spain has no jurisdiction in Venezuela so he perhaps he should shut up. He was quiet enough when Franco ruled Spain.
It depends what you mean by a 'communist'. We are no longer engaged in the Cold War. Many of my beliefs are socialistic ... as were Mosley's.

Venezuelan President Chavez is no longer liked in Venezuela. Ever since the King told him to shut up! rofl. Have you ever heard his speeches. They go on and on and on. How can you support a communist?

Edited by author 28-01-2008 20:09
You sing from the same hymn sheet, Henderson, or you go. I can do without one more trouble-maker.
The discussion is between readers and supporters of European Action (see above).
We do not do 'America First'.

Edited by author 28-01-2008 19:35
President Chavez was told by the King of Spain to shut up. Literally he said, "Shut up Chavez". I can't honestly see him pull it off. As a hated American I agree with putting America First. Well done to whoever said that below. *Information* I suspect you are the Anti Defamation League (ADL) or some Zionist inspired detective. No doubt you will soon list European Action as a hate site. Trying to gether intelligence like this is really scrapping the barrel. Robert, is this really a forum for discussion or is it a forum where everyone sings from the same hymn sheet?

Edited by author 28-01-2008 19:11
Our politics are a serious attempt to cure the ills of the world with Europe a Nation standing as a role model for the rest of mankind.
Nice to see Venezuelan President Chavez call for a military and economic union of South American countries in order to challenge America. I hope he pulls it off.
This could set a precedent that would trigger other protective unions of kindred nations and send the ugly American packing back to the US of A.
Imagine a union of all Arab countries .. even beyond the United Arab Republic of President Nasser. Israel would need to behave itself regarding the Palestinians. There is always hope.

http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=4572
South American nations will have to choose whether they want continental unity or individual trade agreements with the United States — but not both, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said.

Thank you. It's good to see that you are not racist or religious hatred. We were able to get hold of one Dutch member and one Scottish member. No information came through them. Everyone we question either says the same as you or says nothing. Its like chasing ghosts. When you catch one you might as well be talking to a stiff. We are going to eventually catch them. Just a matter of time. Bye.

In my view (and experience) if you have been investigating for longer than is reasonably necessary then the chances are that there is very little to discover.
Fancy website, lots of hijacked YouTube, etc. A single web designer with a lot of imagination could have created this. The joke is on everyone in the end.
Then you have the copycats ...

How reliable is your sources on them? I have investigated them for a while. Do you know if they are linked to Stormfront or Solargeneral? Do you know of any connections with WCOTC? Do you know of any Russian connection with Format18? What are links with RedWatch? Any information would be grateful. Thank you.

Edited by author 28-01-2008 16:19
Thank you, Information.
In the past I have received a few e-mails signed the Order of White Knights but I found the title so absurd that I gave them no credence. I still do not give them credence.
I have no time for imitation freemasonry of any kind. Openness and transparency are the only ways to conduct political affairs.
They can claim to have over 600 registered supporters but I have never come across anyone who openly claims an association with them. In reality, the OWK is probably one of those two men and a dog outfits putting out an inflated view of themselves. Fantasy merchants, the like of which you find on Stormfront UK, with the allusions to Aryan warriors and mediaeval knights. Nasty little people who waste their lives spitting hate and contempt. Such activity is pointless in a serious political context. Another honey trap, maybe ... just like Stormfront.
Who are they? Does it matter? Such products of the imagination trade on reputation and legend created only through mystery and whisper. Ignore them and they lose all that. It is a facade that relies on some people being taken in by the imagery.
They will not take over this forum because the last person posting under the OWK label over-stepped the mark and was deleted after one warning. It will be the same for any imitators.
European Action is exclusively European (not American) and opposed to racism and religious hatred. There is no place for their Pan White or Pan anything ideas here.
Post script: I have looked at their website and it is totally degenerate with the violence verging on the pornographic.

Edited by author 28-01-2008 13:36
Robert, It must be the first time you encountered the OWK. Nick Griffin is aware that they exist. They communicate to outsiders mainly through the Internet and even peer to peer Freenet (http://www.Freenet.org). They have a habit of taking over forums and putting across a message. They occasionally get banned from forums. Have received bans in the UK from National Front forum and Combat18 forum and now it looks like this one. Even Combat18 sees them as too extreme. They avoid BNP forums. A Google search reveals they formed from National Front and Combat18 due to the riots by Muslims (mainly Pakistani origin) in 2001 in Northern England. They operate like spooks and are very difficult to penetrate. The website (http://www.orderofwhiteknights.org) shows they have over 600 registered supporters. A fraction of the actual support they can command. They claim to organize like Americans through leaderless resistance. They don't consider themselves to be British based. Instead they are Pan White or Pan European. You did well to ban them on here otherwise they would control this forum. However, they do have uses. They are used as a good "propaganda" tool. They are very effective at getting a political message across. The Observer Newspaper wrote about them as follows: The observer, July 2001. "There is also concern about the formation of a new racist group, in direct response to the recent riots, called the Order of White Knights. It is believed to be made up of a handful of hardened Combat 18 extremists. Members can join only if they have a long record of activity on the Far Right and have carried out racist attacks, making police infiltration difficult." Now there is a media blackout on them. Since, you are going to use the web to campaign you are bound to encounter them again. Who are they really? Who knows but they are and cause worry. Hope this has brought you up to date.

I think that we could be friends with an 'America First' Nationalist, anti-Zionist government that kept out of European and Middle Eastern affairs, and ceased to bankroll the oppresive bandit State of Israel.
'European Socialism' and 'A Worker's Policy Through Syndicalism' were pioneering Union Movement booklets. I recommend the article 'Workers of Europe Unite!' by Robert Edwards in European Action Number 1. Mosley's 'Wage-Price Mechanism' policy was both brilliant and simple, that wages were to be raised to similar higher levels throughout Europe and prices lowered increasing the purchasing power of the European peoples, and eliminating undercutting within Europe. Europe would be self-contained and protected from cut-price imports and unfair foreign competition,and insulated from the chaos of world markets and laissez faire,global free trade.

According to Searchlight (December 2006), Robert Henderson of 'Right Now!' attended the magazine's second annual conference in London on October 21, 2006.
It states you are a columnist for 'Right Now!' ... a far-right reactionary magazine.

Tried to follow as best as I could. Lot a missing posts. I know OWK. They have a lot of support here in the USA. I thought they were British. Must be wrong. Even I don't like the JSA. Big government is the problem here in the States. Don't mean to say that we sholdn't work together. We have our constitution which protects our rights. Could be useful for you guys one day. Have a nice day. God Bless.

If you have read the forum then you should know.

Hello,

Just read this forum. I am American and white. Please tell me why you dislike me? I am confused.

YANKEE GO HOME!

I could think of quite a few symbols that would suit you well.

None - none needed.. :-)

Why? Do you sport tattoos?

See image - Yeah I grew my hair back, but merely a symbol, which could be cut again at a moments notice. But I can think of another symbol, stronger and more symbolic than the length of hair - my skin :-)

Very droll!

See image

Edited by author 27-01-2008 17:41
David Stevens,
Glad you have managed to grow your hair back.

Sorry guys but I agree to a degree with Oscar. The movement is always going to hit the brickwall of the media, and to say it is independent is a farce. The majority of europeans take the beliefs and world view directly from the media, so that is critical in any part of any political equation. Take the UK media, newspapers owned by a North American corporation of none TRADITIONAL European values, whos values are actually mistaken by many nationalists, of different types, as there own, when in fact they are alien. The pursuit of money, material growth ONLY creates global order, trickle down economics (as one one person creates wealth by whatever means it socially benefits the rest of society), and other aspects which totally disregard entropic reality. We are in an entropic world order, not a materialist order, which in a way works to our advantage when those who don't think our way, but adversely prompt their world view to the masses, have built their system on sand, and flawed axions. I think unless things are taken back to intellectual roots, the axions as I call them, historically pre 1930s, but updated for the 21st century we risk the same failures of the past. We need to attack the system which is destroying our beliefs for what it really is, and with a forth coming GLOBAL energy crisis (believe me, the peak oil/energy is a reality, no myth) what better time to expose these fake gods, of order through material progress (Locke world view). Once old godheads die, new gods take their place.

David Stevens, former London skinhead.

Oswald Mosley greets a Nigerian former World War Two fighter pilot in the 1960s

Thank you, FG. You have explained a very important point to our policy on immigration and people from other cultures within our midst.
I, too, have known Islamic people and enjoyed the most cordial of relationships. Their manners and their general disposition are without fault and much of it has to do with religious and cultural upbringing.
Having said that, we should not tolerate any incitement to hatred for base political purposes.
Freedom of speech is not license to misrepresent and offend. Freedom of speech carries responsibilities towards ones neighbours ... from wherever they come.

Edited by author 27-01-2008 16:59
Well the posting has accelerated in the last couple of days!

Reading through the posts below maybe I can make a few points.

I emailed Robert once about the reality of Islam to me where I live in England (you can't get more direct than that); I have the only mosque on this island about 25 yards from my house. I would rather have the polite, quiet to and fro from the Muslims at night during ramadan, than the nightly offence of drunken foul mouthed vandalistic "Chav" behaviour of our own "British" young men (often accompanied by their females (un)dressed as whores.) as they vomit and shriek their way home from a "Good night out".

Now where does this come from? The muslim's gentlemanly behaviour is from the culture and tradition of their faith; our own youth's behaviour is from American media multinationals of culturaly degenerate gangsta rap, and mindlessly violent film, TV and video games, pushed to make a fast buck.

I know what I choose to prefer... And I say this as an Old Calendar Greek Orthodox Christian.

I have Christian Palestinian and Egyptian friends and the US led attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan (on behalf of Israel of course) have, irony of ironies, led to the expulsion of these ancient Christians from their ancestral homes, most of Iraq's Christians are being looked after by Syria now (That other Baathist axis of evil - What *have* the Yanks got against secular socialist, nationalist states?)

America is the other, it is not European. I have good American friends, mainly from within my faith, and they decry the Pax Americana that their state pushes on the world stage. I have also met crass, arrogant Americans especially when working with their National Guard when I was a Territorial back in the cold war.

By the way, I am me. In the end you have to be true to yourself, what can the "powers that be" do to your soul? - nothing.

Through my work I come into contact with people of all races in Britain. The majority of them treat others with respect. I've noticed in particular that young Islamic people treat me with consideration because of my age. This is what they have been taught. The very few who are genuine trouble makers should of course be dealt with severely.

What OWK does not understand is that National Europeans can work with people of other races to bring about the return of most to their ancestral homelands - this would demonstratably be in their best interests as well as ours. When peace returns to the Middle East and India emerges as a prosperous economy, the obstacles to returning to ancestoral homelands will be removed. Until then I believe Europe should adopt a policy of Zero Immigration which would apply especially to asylum seekers.

These latter need to stay in their countries and fight for change against oppressive regimes like Lech Welenska did in Poland and Harval did in Czechoslovakia etc. Would those two countries have liberated themselves from foreign occupation if those two individuals had run away from their problems and become Yellow Cab drivers in New York? Of course, some who stay and fight will die but history is made by heroes who are willing to risk all so that their fellow countrymen can live in freedom. Those not so brave should still stay and help in covert ways.

Edited by author 27-01-2008 14:33
OWK, your last posting was far too long. Your attacks upon the Islamic religion are unacceptable and I must ask you to refrain from what could amount to incitement to religious hatred. I concur with Flash Gordon that we treat guests with respect and accord them all the dignity they deserve. We believe in freedom of religious expression and that includes Muslims. I am not quite sure about this medical metaphor of 'feeling the pulse'. Individuals each have a pulse ... not an entire people. We are not populists.
As the moderator I must remind you that this is a topic for other than your own ideas and was set up originally for supporters of European Action. I am reluctant to do so but I may have to revert to having correspondents register before posting here. As it is, the present set-up allows easy access without such formality.
You have been warned.

Edited by author 27-01-2008 04:22
Oscar Wilson Kennady is dishonest. He can not even bring himself around to stating he is an American but persists in this sham of being 'European overseas'. Even his name is bogus. All true Europeans are of this continent and not of some ghost of a global Europeanism cast around the world. He performs the role of the intruder no less than anything else that is foreign. For Americans are foreigners despite the current Pax Americana that claims possession of anything they fancy. There are no 'Euro-Americans' because such a hybrid runs against the concept of the National European. I am a European as well as being British but I do not claim to be American European because one day I might fancy crossing the pond. I have no connections with the United States (any relatives are now lost forever) and so why should we allow a Yank to lay claim to a link here? None exists, OWK, because it is a fantasy in your mind ... an aberration of the Pax Americana.
We wish to be independent of America in all its forms. That was the policy of Oswald Mosley. In years gone by, it was the creation of a Third Force, independent of both America and Russia. That was in the days of the Soviet Union. Now, Russia is historically part of the European family while America remains an uprooted barbarism still. In fact, it is the only true rogue state.
OWK, we do not share your contempt or fear of Islam. Mosley regarded the Islamic people as Europe's natural allies. He stated this on many occasions. They were as much against communism as we were ... and now, today, we all have American imperialism to deal with.
OWK, you are pushing an idea of Europe counter to our Europe a Nation. It is a Europe tied to the United States in a subservient role because there could never be a relationship based on equality. In fact, I would say you are subverting our ideas ... or attempting to do so.
OWK, you can not speak for the European peoples because you are an American. This is the sort of thing David Duke, former Ku Klux Klansman and convicted fraudster, has been doing, hopping around the globe and recently sticking his nose into Eastern Europe with his 'European American' pretence. He is a Yank and possibly a CIA operative. He belongs back in the United States with his firey cross and his white robes.
You make passing references to Zionism and Israel but they are strangely muted ... while you launch into a scare-mongering 'clash of civilisations' type of Islamophobia. But the Europeans are not saying Europe for the Europeans. They are withdrawing into the ghetto mentality of their own national enclaves, as divided as ever. This is not good.
We in European Action have our own political philosophy, our own tradition and roots. They are not yours, OWK, and they never will be.
When you write of "the mass Islamic immigration into Europe is diluting European culture" then stop to think that you Americans have been doing that for more than half a century.
Your anti-Islamic position is rejected because we recognise it for what it truly is. Make no mistake, the source of all the problems around the globe stem from Israel and its milch cow, the United States. It is the Palestinian problem that is at the core of it all and until the Palestinians are given their dignity in the form of their homeland returned to them, then the struggle for liberation continues.
I must say in conclusion that I thought Flash Gordon's post (100) was excellently worded and reasoned. My comrade's understanding of the Arab situation is suitably sympathetic and in tune with European Action policy.
Read the last line of our Statement of Policy, OWK. It is up on the website.

We wish the American people well but they can never be part of United Europe or Europe Overseas.

Investigation indicates that the new 'Patriot Party'of Pan-Europeanism incudes the French Front National, the Austrian Freedom Party, a Romanian party and someone else. Their common ground is resistance to Arab immigration into Europe! As Oswald Mosley sid, we should always be courteous to guests in our country. Demonising Islam and the Arab people is most obviously playing into the hands of the United States and Israel. Why do people who should know better fall for the old trick every time?

Right now, Israel and America are attempting to starve the Palestinians of Gaza into servility by blockading supplies of food, water and medicines. Punishing the whole community for what the Freedom Fighters are doing. What absolute bastards! I say again that if a major world war erupts it will be directly traceable to the West's neglect, to put it mildly, of the people of the Palestine. Let Europe a Nation transfer its special relationship to our Islamic and Arabic neighbours and cut our ties with the Americans with whom we have nothing in common but language.

The Islamic people will come into their own when a leader arises who reminds them of the One Nation concept of the Holy Quaran: whoever attacks one small part attacks the whole. Perhaps it will take a great leader to do this. If they were united, the Arab nations would be an irresitable force in the Middle East. Instead, Housbalah fights Hammas who fights Christian Falangists in the Lebanon. And Al Fatah sells out to the Israelis for the trappings of power. All that is for the Arabs to sort out in their own time. The old nationalist parties of Europe (and the new Pan-European 'Patriotic Party')show their limitations when they sell out for a bit of cheap vote-gaining Islamophobia.

OWK, different people have different reasons for anonymity and, of course, that is their business. Perhaps they are shy or they are on the run. I prefer to use my own name.
People use these weird IDs all over the Internet but I really do not see the point. Forums are full of them. Why?
I can not form conclusions on you because I do not know who you are. You have said nothing about yourself. I know most others posting here. So there is no problem there re the Web.
You say tomayto and I say tomarto ... but let's not call the whole thing off.
You have provided valuable insights and the opportunity for lively discussion. I appreciate that.
You should have told me you are a Merkan. We could have dispensed with the silly guessing game and got down to the nitty-gritty earlier.