Anatole Kaletsky and the BNP

The solution is now clear - the globalist neo-liberal free market model is dead.

The future is either British Nationalism and a National Economy that regulates and directs the development of a new British economic and industrial model or slow decay into irrelevance as other nations, such as China, dominate the world with their NATIONALIST ECONOMIC SYSTEMS.

Kaletsky knows that the choice is simple - between Globalism and Nationalism.

Between a Nationalist politics that puts the interests of the British Nation, British people and British economy first or a globalist model that rewards and enriches a tiny minority of corporate directors whilst impoverishing the rest of the nation and people.

The question is simple - WHO DOES THE BRITISH ECONOMY SERVE ?

If it the British people, British nation and British companies then that is Nationalism, if it serves the interests of globalism and corporate profits then that is TREASON.


All the suggestions as put forward by Kaletsky already exist - they are in the BNP manifesto.

He should read it, as he may then be as ahead of the curve as we are.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article7014090.ece

The most important statements are often those that are left unsaid. Among the millions of words spoken at last week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, the comment that nobody quite dared to utter was clear. After the crisis of 2007-09, the global capitalist system is in a period of transition, comparable to the great transitions of the 1930s and 1970s.

The question that nobody wants to raise is whether the new model of capitalism that emerges to dominate the world will be a radically reformed version of the Western democratic system or some variant of the authoritarian state-led capitalism favoured in China, Russia and many other emerging economies.

As a leading US diplomat told me: “Since the crisis, developing countries have lost interest in the old Washington consensus that promoted democracy and liberal economics. Wherever I go in the world, governments and business leaders talk about the new Beijing consensus — the Chinese route to prosperity and power. The West must come up with a new model of capitalism that’s consistent with our political values. Either we reinvent ourselves or we will lose.”

There are several ways of dealing with, or dodging, this challenge. The easiest way, most in evidence last week at Davos, is plain denial. Instead of thinking about the future, it is easier to focus on the past, to quibble about regulations and argue about who is to blame.
BACKGROUND

* Trust me, experts don't know either

* China defends currency against Western sniping

* China threatens Obama over Dalai Lama meeting

Another more insidious form of denial is to pretend that the Chinese and Western models of capitalism are not really very different. Everyone, after all, is in business to make money, so on the issues that really matter, there is no great rift. This is the standard view among all businessmen with big investments in China, especially those like Bill Gates, of Microsoft, who enjoy seeing their rivals politically squeezed by Beijing.

It is also the official line of Chinese and Western governments. Our two models can prosper in peaceful co-existence and mutual respect.

This is an illusion, as was evident from the background chatter in Davos. Whether we look at business practices, economic policies, political and human rights or geopolitical interests, it is clear that China and the West are on a collision course. Serious collisions may not occur for decades, but the two models of politico-economic development are incompatible in the long term.

In business practice, China unambiguously favours domestic industries over Western exporters and investors. China’s determination to run huge export surpluses and maintain an undervalued exchange rate gives America and Europe cheap consumer products; but it also means lost jobs and the accumulation of ever-more foreign debts. On human rights, far from confirming the naive slogan of the Thatcher-Reagan period that free markets create free people, China is becoming more adamant in its rejection of Western-style democracy. Perhaps most seriously, China’s growing confidence in its authoritarian politics and government-led economic development is creating inevitable frictions with the West, from Korea, Iran and Tibet to Sudan, Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

We in the West have a choice. Either we concede the argument that China, in the 5,000 years of recorded human history, has been a much more successful and durable culture than America or Western Europe and is now reclaiming its natural position of global leadership. Or we stop denying the rivalry between the Chinese and Western models and start thinking seriously about how Western capitalism can be reformed to have a better chance of winning.

We must stop pretending that minor reforms to banking will restore the performance of the Western system, and focus on the deeper lessons from the financial crisis and the years before. Outside the echo chambers of Washington and Westminster, it is obvious that what went wrong in 2007-09 was not just a lapse in bank regulation. It was a failure of the entire market fundamentalist model of capitalism created in the Thatcher-Reagan period, which assumed that the market is always right.

That this version of capitalism ultimately failed in 2007-09 does not mean that the reforms were wrong. Their reforms were essentially and entirely appropriate for the period. The free-market system created from 1979 onwards represented a necessary evolution after the failure of the previous government-led, union-dominated Keynesian model. In the same way, this Keynesian version of capitalism, created in the 1930s, was a necessary evolution from the classical laissez faire capitalism destroyed by the Great Depression.

The challenge for Western thinking now is to create a fourth version of capitalism that builds on the best elements of the classical, Keynesian and Thatcher-Reagan models, but adapts to the needs of the 21st century and specifically to the rivalry with China’s dynamic and self-confident authoritarian system. Whether this is possible is very much an open question, which I try to examine in a book on the new model of capitalism, which I call Capitalism 4.0, to be published in the spring.

Some of the changes required are obvious, and are happening already. For example, governments and central banks are accepting much more explicit responsibility for managing economic growth and employment, as well as inflation.

Others are more controversial. For example, do Western political systems need to be reformed to make them more conducive to compromise and rapid, consensual decision- making instead of the political paralysis that now threatens the US? Do we need an economy in which government plays a bigger role in finance, energy, environment and strategic infrastructure investment, but actually reduces public spending and taxes by backing away from some of its traditional, and ruinously expensive, responsibilities for health, pensions and education?

These are the sort of questions that the movers and shakers ought to have been discussing last week in Davos. Maybe they will face up to them next year.

The Blighted Harvest.

The crisis in farming is also a crisis of British national security. The basis of Globalism and Consumerism is short termism. Consumer demand dictates both supply and production, and therefore what is not selling is not produced. In terms of T-shirts, socks, underarm deodorant and TV's this makes sense, but when applied to food production, national defence and energy production this is pure madness. We will always require electricity, an army to defend the country and food to feed the people. The defining feature of modern Britain is how economic fundamentalism has subverted our national sovereignty. The logic of the free market should never have been applied to the fundamental internal social structures in our country that are the basis of our national sovereignty, for in so doing we have allowed the corporate takeover of the nation state and surrendered our independence to the global market.

The UK trade deficit in foods is now ten billion pounds per annum. Self sufficiency in indigenous foods is less than 80 % and for all foods nears 60 %. Since the early 1990's the UK has lost 20 % of the agricultural production it requires to feed its own people. This is a scandal of the highest proportions. A nation that cannot feed its own people invites disaster.

There are in all national democracies what are defined as Red Zones - these are those structures and industries in our society that relate directly to our national security. The most important of these are energy production, national defence and agricultural production. I call these essential industries the ' Tanks, Tractors and Power Generators '. A nation that cannot feed its own people, that cannot keep the lights on and the railways running and that cannot train, equip and send out to fight and defend itself with its own independent army, navy and air force is not an independent nation. It is a puppet state of the corporations that control those essential industries.

Take for instance Dairy Framing as part of our national food production structures. The crisis in dairy farming over the last few decades has led to the collapse of British dairy farming as an industry. Cows and calves were worth almost nothing a few years ago and milk was costing more to produce than sell. Hundreds of dairy farms went into bankruptcy as supermarket profits soared as they sold cheap imported milk at the same time as demanding British farmers reduce their costs. Profits for the supermarkets were not passed onto the farmer and therefore the dairy industry could not compete. Family farms that had been in the same hands for generation were closed down and herds of cows that had been built up over generations were destroyed. In 1997 there were 34,242 registered dairy farmers and in 2002 the numbers had fallen to 25, 548. Since 1995 over 50 % of the dairy industry has collapsed. Each of these farms that closed represented a further erosion of our national independence, as the more the numbers of farms fell the more we as a nation depended upon foreign imports.

The dismantling of the Milk Marketing Board in 1994 meant the negotiating power of the farmers and milk processing plants were undermined at the same time as Globalisation opened up the UK milk industry to foreign completion and the big supermarkets began to act as a cartel and force down milk prices at the point of production. The small family farms were driven into collapse and free market economics, combined with a reduction in EU subsidies for UK produced milk, meant that only the big agri-business type farms were able to compete with foreign importers. This was at a time when the productivity and efficiency of dairy farmers was at an all time high. In the late 1980's the average yield were 5000 litres per cow, now it nearly 10,000 litres per cow. Thirty years ago it was 3500 litres per cow. Today three dairy farmers leave the business every day. There are now only 19,000 dairy farms left in the UK. Thousands more are expected to leave the industry in the next few years.

Then a few months ago in the middle of 2007 demand for milk in the global market began to increase due to changing dietary habits of consumers in countries such as China and India and this meant that imports into the UK of foreign produced milk began to rise in price. Yet the British dairy farms that could have profited from this rise in prices have gone, and Britain is now faced with importing milk at rising cost rather than producing its own milk for its home market. At the same time the rise in fuel, fertiliser and feed have added to the pressures on the existing dairy farms. Prices related to feed have risen by over 8 % and are expected to rise even more in the coming year due to increased global demand for fuel, fertiliser and feed. This is at the same time as Dairy Crest, who supply Sainsburys, has cut milk prices paid to farmers by 8 %.

This cut in the price paid to farmers from processors such as Dairy Crest is due to the big supermarkets refusing to pay more for milk in order to cover rising production costs of farmers, and therefore this means the supermarkets are now likely to drive the last of the UK dairy industry into bankruptcy and increase our national dependence on expensive foreign imported milk. Whilst the price of milk in shops has risen since by 20 % since 2002 to 53p a litre, up from 44p a litre, the price paid to farmers for their milk has fallen. In 1996 producers got 24.5p for their milk and today they get on average 18p per litre. Somehow the Dairy Framer is in the invidious position of seeing demand rise as production costs rise and sales cost remain static as supermarkets subsidise milk sales in their stores at a loss to themselves. This is the economics of the nut house, and will lead only to the complete destruction of the last of the remaining British dairy farms unless the government intervenes to stop the supermarkets and restricts foreign imports. The government will not do this though as the owners and directors of Tescos and Sainsburys are all supporters of the government. In a run up to an election a bankrupt political party does not alienate those who grease its wheels and therefore the government will abandon dairy industry.

The fact that British milk production is not able to compete with cheap foreign imports of milk is not an argument for the evisceration and extirpation of the British dairy industry. Rather it an argument for the creation of a national market for milk that excludes foreign imports that undercut British producers.

In relation to national defence economic short termism is not just madness, it is criminal. The fact that Britain now sold off much of its own national defence production capacity is an act of political treason. The first thing any Nationalist government must do when it takes power is undertake a strict programme of National Protectionism.
The following areas of concern must be addressed ;

The EU - Immediate withdrawal from it and the CAP

Globalisation - to be replaced by a form of National Economic Protectionism that puts the British farmer and the British consumers first.

Agri-Business - Only British agri-business are to be allowed to own British land and all of them are to be run only according to strict environmental laws ensuring that the small family farm is able to compete with the big producers. Foreign owned Agri-Business corporations to be bought by the government and the land leased to graduates of agricultural colleges. The era where agri-business caused B.S.E will end and the small farmer, the environment and the interests of the animals will come before corporate profits.

The government - a bonfire of legislation is required in order to protect the nation, citizens and the environment and restore our national powers and liberties

The Unions - to be banned from funding and supporting the Labour Party and political parties and banned from political campaigning in elections - only allowed to represent the interests of workers, not politicians and political parties - no union official to be paid more than the average wage of the members of that union

The media - to be banned from political campaigning and supporting or attacking individual political parties - also to be legally liable for telling lies in their publications or for publishing political propaganda - to be allowed to print and broadcast only the NEWS and not LIES. British produce and products only to advertised in papers.

The supermarkets - to be banned from selling products below cost price - to be forced to sell local farmers produce in their stores - to be banned from building any more out of town developments - to be forced to close out of town developments in areas where local shops are closing - to be forced to supply products at cost price to local shops so they can compete with the big supermarkets for price

Immigrant labour - to be banned. New schemes to be set up that encourage university / college students to work on the line during breaks - unemployed to be used at harvest times instead of immigrants labour and to be paid top up wages - prisoners to work on the land and undertake environmental reclamation and clean up projects - UK BASED NATIONAL SERVICE to be imposed for all 18 year olds before they go to university or after leave school - choice of working on the land, in hospitals or join one of the armed services to work in the UK and support civil society such as during the recent floods and assisting the armed services by undertaking work that full time soldiers have to do in this country. They will only work in the UK and not be sent abroad and will assist with UK based logistics for the armed services. Immigrant labour on farms undercut UK wages, therefore they will be prohibited from working in the country.

Public authorities not using local British produce - all schools, councils, hospitals etc to be forced to buy British produce from local farms

New colleges to train farmers - new universities to be built to train the future generations of British farmers required in order to build national self sufficiency

Land reform - the land owned by the Crown, Churches, foreign agri-businesses, investment groups, supermarkets and other large landowners that was once common land before the Enclosures Acts is to be taken back by the government and leased to graduates of new agricultural universities and also used to create local community farms.

Community Farms. We will create Community Farms where the workers share in the profits of the farms. We will reverse the Enclosures Acts and create new community farms where local people live and work on the farm and all share in profits. We intend to return our people to the land. We stand for the De-Industrialisation of agricultural production and the Re-Localisation of farming.

We should consider creating a National Farming Plan whose aim is national self sufficiency in agricultural production, within a decade. National food production is an aspect of National Security. Security for farmers is security for Britain. A crisis in the global food network could cause chaos in the UK. With the imminent arrival of Peak Oil and Peak Food then it is imperative that we begin work on creating a national self sufficiency plan as soon as possible.
The crisis of Globalism also relates to the import of foods infected with toxins and poisons, illegal Chinese GM crops, slaves in Brazil / child labour in India / African workers being forced to work on food plantations, Brazilian beef filled with growth hormones and Chinese products poisoned.
We also have Bio-Security problems due to Globalisation such as Foot and Mouth, Swine Fever and Bird Flu etc that are entering the country in foreign imports. Also bush meat and even human flesh are being sold in stores in London and this will be stamped out.

We also require Environmental Courts and an Environmental Police Force to be created in order to ensure that the NATIONAL FARMING PLAN operates and functions as we intend it too.

It is Tanks, Tractors and Power Generators that are the basis of national sovereignty. An independent national defence force , national food self sufficiency and national self sufficiency in energy production are the fundamental basis of an independent nation state. We demand total national self sufficiency and condemn individual self enrichment that damages the national interest and the national community.

Corporate Fascism and Oil

After the 2nd World War the corporations that had set up and run the massive war industries, and who made vast profits from the war via those industries and the armaments they had produced, switched to producing consumer goods using the same mass production methods. Following the mass production techniques of Henry Ford it was easy to switch the machines, and the human workforce slaves of the machines, from producing tanks to cars. At the same time discoveries of vast reserves of easily accessible oil across the planet coincided with the discovery of new forms of plastics that could be used to produce cheap new commodities.

The Plastic Age that has dominated the late Twentieth Century was a product of this cheap oil. Our present Consumer Society is built entirely upon that cheap oil supply and as a result of this easily accessible oil is predicated the Throwaway Principle of Consumerism, that the plastic products created by the industries catering to social demand could be made so cheaply with plastic that they could be used once and then thrown away.

Alexander Parkes in 1862 Great Exhibition in London demonstrated the first plastics. The early 20th Century laid the scientific foundations of the Plastic Age that began in the late 1940's in America. The principles of mass production as demonstrated by Henry Ford in relation to automobiles could now be combined with a cheap new resource, plastic, that could always sustain perpetual consumer demand. As the post-war society switched from austerity and rationing under a wartime Command Economy model to a Corporate Fascist quasi-free market model, the Consumer Society was then created. As new forms of plastic were discovered, then new commodities could be made from those plastics that would then drive consumer demand for ever more new goods. As the oil was able to be extracted easily and cheaply, and the energy unlocked from cheap oil able to manufacture goods cheaply, the new Consumer Society began to boom. At the same time the present Corporate Fascist economic and political structures of our Consumer Society began to take form. The oil companies and the corporations they owned and controlled sat atop a pyramid of power in every nation of the world. Without the oil to power society, that came from the corporations who located, extracted, refined and sold the oil, then modern society could not exist.


It is not often appreciated by people that the primary measure of the complexity of a human society is based on its ability to unlock energy sources in the environment. The change from the roaming hunter gatherer hominid bands of the Neolithic to early agricultural societies was itself an example of an energy transition. The energy transition was in the form of calories.

Agriculture produced more calories in relationship to the Energy In / Energy Out ratio of the hunting gathering lifestyle than that contained in meat. Major human societal changes at this time from a nomadic lifestyle to a settled community lifestyle occurred as a result of this energy use transition. Also religious changes and social changes happened with the transition from an Earth mother worship and matriarchal social system of the early nomadic societies to a paternalistic warrior caste elite in a socially stratified society based on settled communities where a hierarchical social command structure was required in order to defend the agricultural land and the established community itself.

Then came the technological transition from wood to coal and the unlocking of this energy once again changed the form of society. The transition from wood to coal use was first recorded in The Abbey of Peterborough in 852 and in 1239 a charter was granted to the Freemen of Newcastle to dig coal from the castle fields. In 1379 the first tax was imposed upon coal and in 1421 the first environmental tax was imposed upon all those who bought coal without a franchise in Newcastle. This was an example of the nexus between business, the Crown and taxes forming that was to lead to the taxation issues at the heart of the later English Civil War.

The invention of the steam driven water pump unlocked the deep coal seams and allowed coal to be replaced with the coke that was to be the basis of the iron foundries that powered the Industrial revolution. This change from coal to coke was followed by the rise in the capitalist and merchant class in society who funded and founded the great Iron works and big businesses that ushered in the Industrial Revolution and the birth of the British Empire.


The next great change in human societies was the discovery of and use of oil. The change to oil engines for ships in the Royal Navy that was authorised by Winston Churchill during his time at the Admiralty, and the transition from coal, was the first act in the modern era in that it unlocked the power of the Royal Navy to go global and police effectively dominions of the Empire. It was this transition to oil powered ships, and later aircraft that allowed Globalism to be born.

Under the old British Empire run with coal fired ships it was mainly expensive and highly taxed goods that were shipped into the country such as silk, rum and tobacco as the cost of shipping and the time it took to bring the goods back to Britain meant only expensive goods were worth shipping into the country. In this Mercantilist model Britain still needed its home grown industries to produce goods for the home market that could not be made and exported cheaply abroad and then shipped into the UK. In the Globalism model the cheap oil allows us to fly in Kenyan peas in the holds of 747's that still bring the grower, importer and seller a profit. At the same time all those manufactured goods that could only be made in Britain in the past can now also be made and shipped into the country from countries like China more cheaply than if they were made here. All of this was made possible by cheap oil. When the cheap oil goes then we will have to start manufacturing the goods again we need back in the UK and importing in luxuries that cannot be made here as we did in the past. Its back to the future again.


Contrary to the assertions of historians like Kershaw the central dynamic both for Hitlers invasion of Russia and Japans attack on British lands in the far east was the necessity of capturing oil. Hitler required the oil of the Caucas's for his future industrial and economic development plans for a European Union and the armies of the Third Reich would have driven through Russia and then into Iraq to seize the oil in the Middle East. Japan required British oil reserves in the Far East to power their industrial and military development. Oil and its capture and use is the defining dynamic in human and political affairs in the 20 th Century. Whether we wean ourselves it off oil slowly, or suffer a catastrophic collapse when it runs out, will be the defining dynamic of the early 21th Century. As part of that dynamic we will also face the threat of energy security issues relating to the last of the oil being held by unstable Islamic fundamentalist regimes in the Middle East, increasingly desperate attempts by nations like China and America to seize the last of the oil from nations such as Iran or to secure remaining resources and oil in Africa and also security issues around Russia domination of the gas that we see as a essential in the future for us to keep the lights on in our homes and the businesses going.
As there is an exact correlation between the rise in human numbers around the late 18th Century and the discovery and use of oil. Oil has allowed human numbers to rise to massively as it has allowed us to create agricultural and industrial systems able to feed those vast numbers of people. Without cheap oil then we would be unable to produce cheap food to feed the numbers of humans on the planet and this is why Peak Food is as much of an issue as Peak Oil. The next major change in human society was the discovery and use of nuclear energy. This resulted in the creation of the Military-Industrial Blocs in society and the creation of strong national security structures in societies with nuclear energy to prevent other nations using nuclear energy research for weapons production.


In this model of modern society we have the Corporate Fascist system, and the Corporate Oil Power Pyramid, that control the political, industrial, corporate and media systems and also the National Security Structures within the State to control the Nuclear Power structures. Some say that Human Society reached the energy peak in the middle sixties, and hence its peak of social complexity. At this point the amount of energy available to every individual on the planet from all combined energy sources reached its peak. If this is true then this evidence that human societies have reached their peak as regards social complexity.


Unless humanity is capable of unlocking new energy sources from the environment, either via Cold Fusion or through a transition to a total renewable energy economy and national based renewable energy power system, then humanity will suffer a catastrophic environmental, social, economic, agricultural and demographic crash within the next fifty years that may return human population levels to the level of the Middle Ages. Seeing as most scientists now agree the environmental and agricultural carrying capacity of the British nation is a population of about thirty million, then when the cheap energy goes for good then modern societies will collapse and so will human population numbers.

The only welcome casualty of the coming energy collapse will the Throwaway Model of the Consumer Society itself and the Globalist model. The challenge will be to phase the change into an Ecological Nationalism social model based on renewable energy systems (with a back up system of nuclear power) without the country descending into a new Feudalist society where the rich dominate the ownership of land and resources, or the descent into a new form of Communism powered by the middle class as they see their wealth stripped away in an endless economic recession. Society can either begin to evolve now, or be thrown into chaos later. The logic of mass immigration as regards economics is predicated on perpetual economic expansion being capable of keeping people in work. This is a facile analysis as the earth is closed system with a finite amount of energy and resources available. Once those resources in the environment are gone then they cannot be replaced. Therefore the idea that perpetual economic and social development is possible is being in breach of the laws of physics. Both Capitalism and Marxism suffer from the same insane delusion that both economic, human, industrial and social development are not limited by our se of the environment or limited by finite resources of energy and resources. What we steal from the environment today, we take from the hands of future generations. The cheap commodities of today are stolen from tomorrows world.

The most pernicious example of this theft from future generation was the creation of the Throwaway Model of the Consumer society. Consumer goods in this model were designed to be discarded. Made with cheap plastics made from cheap oils they were designed not to be kept but to be thrown away. The factories could then be constantly busy producing the transient throwaway consumer goods that needed to be constantly replaced as they were created to be used once then thrown away.

The factories went from mass producing bullets and bombs to mass producing plastic Christmas trees and shampoo bottles.

The use of propaganda techniques refined during the war to indoctrinate the masses with political ideas or to generate hate was then utilised in order to create consumer demands within society. The Psychological Warfare Units that had directed propaganda to change and manipulate social opinion during the war, were moved from their government barracks to the boardrooms of the corporations. They were the first of the advertising agencies that today create and sustain consumer demands in society. Without advertising agencies to generate social demand then commodities would not be bought by consumers. The consumer must be persuaded that they need to buy and own the particular commodity. The advertising agency creates propaganda that is then pumped out by the media owned by the corporations to the masses in order to create social demand for new commodities that profit the corporations. The corporations that control the media (either by direct ownership or via the media dependence on the money the corporations pay to advertise their products in the media) then use the media to tell people what to think and who to vote for. The political parties that are funded and supported by the media then get voted into power and then pass laws that give more power to the corporations and media. The media then have more power to promote the products produced by the corporations that control the Consumer Society. It is a sordid and reactionary system. Political change is impossible unless it is sanctified and permitted by the corporations that control and own the media. If the needs of the nation conflict with either the interests of the politicians or the corporations that control the media then change is made impossible. If the politicians put the nation first then the media do not support them, the corporations do not fund them and they get voted out of office. It is the media and the corporations that control the country, not the lickspittle dogs of the political parties that are dependent on their money and media promotion.

Humanity is entering a period of fundamental change. We either live with Nature or we will be destroyed by Nature. The pernicious belief that Man has dominion over the earth, and its capitalist and marxist manifestations, have to be replaced by a new Environmental Contract that is a fundamental part of the Social Contract. Man must live within the limits of nature and not within the confines of his own ideological delusions.

The Consumer Society has severed the link between indigenous national cultures that cared for and revered their national environments and replaced those national cultures with a consumerist model that sees the environment as merely something to be exploited for profit. The globalist model of open borders and its linked ideal the free movement of capital and labour has to be stopped. Fair Trade is merely Free Trade painted with a pseudo-moral gloss. Fair Trade is merely globalisation opening up new markets, environmental resource bases and previously closed nations to new development and exploitation. there is nothing moral about Fair Trade or Globalism, it is merely a product of the same advertising agencies that once sold us wars and hate.

The only solution is resistance. We must each, as nations and cultures, resist the encroachment of the corporations and consumer culture. The free man on his own land becomes merely a slave in a factory owned by foreign corporations when the logic of Globalism infects his nation. Environmentalism through the UN is just another mechanism for the removal and nullification of national defence systems.

Resistance must be local and national, not global and through the UN and other supra-national institutions. The struggle for the survival of our global environment, our nations and indigenous cultures is the defining struggle of the 21 st century.

The resistance must begin now.