Discussion Forum for Readers and Supporters of European Action

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 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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

 
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.

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?

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 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.

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

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.

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?

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?