THIS IMPORTANT ARTICLE recently appeared on the Independent Australia (IA) news & media website.  IA was established in June 2010 & believes in speaking truth to power and ‘holding governments to account.’   

According to IA, its main editorial focus is ‘on federal politics, democratic government, the environment, human rights, Australian identity, Indigenous issues, world affairs, economics, finance, health, law and the justice system.’  

The article was  written by John Pilger, the well-known & very well-respected independent journalist.  You can read his original article here:  https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/john-pilger-silencing-the-lambs–how-propaganda-works,16753  

Please note that there are no official links between the National Liberal Party, Independent Australia & John Pilger.  We’re reproducing this article as we feel it has a lot to say about mainstream media – MSM – and to encourage debate about the issues it raises.  

JOHN PILGER:  Silencing The Lambs – How Propaganda Works  

(Top) The Mark David cartoon which appeared with the original article on the Independent Australia news & media website. (Bottom) John Pilger is an Australian journalist and filmmaker. He is a well-known anti-imperialist, outspoken critic of mainstream media & a supporter of free speech advocate Julian Assange.

For decades, propaganda has steered the course of the mass media’s narrative, dominated by the needs of state and corporate power.  John Pilger (1) explains that nothing has changed in today’s world.  

IN THE 1970s, I met one of Hitler’s leading propagandists, Leni Riefenstahl (2), whose epic films glorified the Nazis.  We happened to be staying at the same lodge in Kenya, where she was on a photography assignment, having escaped the fate of other friends of the Fuhrer.  She told me that the “patriotic messages” of her films were dependent not on “orders from above” but on what she called the “submissive void” of the public.  

Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie? I asked.  “Yes, especially them,” she said.  

I think of this as I look around at the propaganda now consuming Western societies.  

Of course, we are very different from Germany in the 1930s.  we live in information societies.  We are globalists.  We have never been more aware, more in touch, better connected.  

Are we?  Or do we live in a Media Society where brainwashing is insidious and relentless, and perception is filtered according to the needs and lies of state and corporate power?  

The United States dominates the Western world’s media.  All but one of the top ten media companies are based in North America.  The internet and social media – Google, Twitter, Facebook – are mostly American-owned and controlled.  

In my lifetime, the United States has overthrown or attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, mostly democracies.  It has interfered in democratic elections in 30 countries.  It has dropped bombs on the people of 30 countries, most of them poor and defenceless.  It has attempted to murder the leaders of 50 countries.  It has fought to supress liberation movements in 20 countries.

The extent and scale of this carnage is largely unreported and unrecognised; those responsible continue to dominate Anglo-American political life.

In the years before he died in 2008, the playwright Harold Pinter (3) made two extraordinary speeches, which broke a silence (4):

U.S. foreign policy could be best defined as follows: kiss my arse or I’ll kick your head in.  it is as simple and as crude as that.  

What is interesting about it is that it’s so incredibly successful.  It possesses the structures of disinformation, use of rhetoric, distortion of language, which are very persuasive, but are actually a pack of lies.  It is very successful propaganda.  They have money, they have the technology, they have all the means to get away with it, and they do.  

In accepting the Nobel Prize for Literature, Pinter said this (5):

“The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about the.  You have to hand it to America.  It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good.  It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”  

Pinter was a friend of mine and possibly the last great political sage – that is, before dissenting politics were gentrified.  I asked him if the “hypnosis” he referred to was the “submissive void” described by Leni Riefenstahl.  

“It’s the same,” he replied.  “It means the brainwashing is so through we are programmed to swallow a pack of lies.  If we don’t recognize propaganda, we may accept it as normal and believe it. That’s the submissive void.”   

In our systems of corporate democracy, war is an economic necessity, the perfect marriage of public subsidy and private profit: socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.  The day after 9/11 (6), the stock prices of the war industry soared (7).  More bloodshed was coming, which is great for business.   

Today, the most profitable wars have their own brand.  They are called “forever wars” (8): Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and now Ukraine.  All are based on a pack of lies.   

Iraq is the most infamous, with its weapons of mass destruction (9) that didn’t exist.  NATO’s (10) destruction of Libya in 2011 (11) was justified by a massacre in Benghazi that didn’t happen. Afghanistan was a convenient revenge war for 9/11, which had nothing to do with the people of Afghanistan.   

Today, the news Afghanistan is how evil the Taliban (12) is – not that U.S. President Joe Biden’s theft of $7 billion of the country’s bank reserves is causing widespread suffering.  Recently, National Public Radio (13) in Washington devoted two hours to Afghanistan – and 30 seconds to its starving people.   

At its summit (14) in Madrid in June, NATO, which is controlled by the United States, adopted a strategy document that militarises the European continent and escalates the prospect of war with Russia and China.  It proposes multi-domain warfare against nuclear-armed peer competitors.  In other words, nuclear war.   

It says (15):  

‘NATO’s enlargement has been a historic success.’  

I read that in disbelief.   

A measure of this ‘historic success’ is the war in Ukraine, news of which is mostly not news, but a one-sided litany of jingoism, distortion and omission.  I have reported a number of wars and have never known such blanket propaganda.  

In February, Russia invaded Ukraine as a response to almost eight years of killing and criminal destruction in the Russian-speaking region of Donbas (16) on their border.   

In 2014, the United States had sponsored a coup in Kyiv (17) that got rid of Ukraine’s democratically elected, Russian-friendly president and installed a successor whom the Americans made clear was their man.   

In recent years, American “defender” missiles have been installed in eastern Europe, Poland, Slovenia and the Czech Republic, almost certainly aimed at Russia, accompanied by false assurances all the way back to former White House Chief of Staff James Baker’s (18) “promise” to Gorbachev (19) in February 1990 that NATO would never expand beyond Germany.  

Ukraine is the frontline.  NATO has effectively reached the very borderline through which Hitler’s army stormed in 1941, leaving more than 23 million dead in the Soviet Union.  

Last December. Russia proposed a far-reaching security plan for Europe.  This was dismissed, derided or suppressed in the Western media.  Who read its step-by-step proposals?  On 24 February, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (20) threatened to develop nuclear weapons (21) unless America armed and protected Ukraine.  This was the final straw.  

On the same day, Russia invaded – according to the Western media, an unprovoked act of congenital infamy.  The history, the lies, the peace proposals, the solemn agreements on Donbass at Minsk counted for nothing.  

On 25 April, the U.S. Defence Secretary, General Lloyd Austin (22), flew into Kyiv and confirmed that America’s aim was to destroy the Russian Federation — the word he used was “weaken”(23). America had got the war it wanted, waged by an American bankrolled and armed proxy and expendable pawn.

Almost none of this was explained to Western audiences.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is wanton and inexcusable. It is a crime to invade a sovereign country. There are no “buts” — except one.

When did the present war in Ukraine begin and who started it? According to the United Nations, between 2014 and this year, some 14,000 people (24) have  been killed in the Kyiv regime’s civil war on the Donbas. Many of the attacks were carried out by neo-Nazis.

Watch an ITV (25) news report from May 2014, by the veteran reporter James Mates (26), who is shelled, along with civilians in the city of Mariupol, by Ukraine’s Azov (26) (neo-Nazi) battalion.

In the same month, dozens of Russian-speaking people were burned alive or suffocated in a trade union building (27) in Odessa besieged by fascist thugs, the followers of the Nazi collaborator and anti-Semitic fanatic Stepan Bandera (28).  The New York Times called the thugs ‘nationalists’ (29).

‘The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment,’ said Andreiy Biletsky (30), founder of the Azov Battalion, ‘is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival, a crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen’.

Since February, a campaign of self-appointed “news monitors” (mostly funded by the Americans and British with links to governments) has sought to maintain the absurdity that Ukraine’s neo-Nazis don’t exist.

Airbrushing, a term once associated with Stalin’s purges, has become a tool of mainstream journalism.

In less than a decade, a “good” China has been airbrushed and a “bad” China has replaced it: from the world’s workshop to a budding new Satan.

Much of this propaganda originates in the U.S. and is transmitted through proxies and “think tanks” such as the notorious Australian Strategic Policy Institute (31), the voice of the arms industry, and by zealous journalists such as Peter Hartcher (32) of the Sydney Morning Herald (33), who labelled (34) those spreading Chinese influence as ‘rats, flies, mosquitoes and sparrows’ and called for these ‘pests’ to be ‘eradicated’.

News about China in the West is almost entirely about the threat from Beijing. Airbrushed are the 400 American military bases that surround most of China, an armed necklace that reaches from Australia to the Pacific and Southeast Asia, Japan and Korea. The Japanese island of Okinawa and the Korean island of Jeju are loaded guns aimed point blank at the industrial heart of China. A Pentagon official described this as a “noose”.

Palestine has been misreported for as long as I can remember. To the BBC (35), there is the “conflict” of “two narratives”. The longest, most brutal, lawless military occupation in modern times is unmentionable.

The stricken people of Yemen barely exist. They are media unpeople. While the Saudis rain down their American cluster bombs with British advisors working alongside the Saudi targeting officers, more than half a million children face starvation.

This brainwashing by omission has a long history. The slaughter of the First World War was suppressed by reporters who were knighted for their compliance and confessed in their memoirs. In 1917, the editor of the Manchester Guardian (36), CP Scott (37), confided to Prime Minister Lloyd George (38): “If people really knew [the truth], the war would be stopped tomorrow, but they don’t know and can’t know.”

The refusal to see people and events as those in other countries see them is a media virus in the West, as debilitating as COVID-19. It is as if we see the world through a one-way mirror, in which “we” are moral and benign and “they” are not. It is a profoundly imperial view.

The history that is a living presence in China and Russia is rarely explained and rarely understood. Russian President Vladimir Putin is Adolf Hitler. Chinese President Xi Jinping is Fu Manchu (39). Epic achievements, such as the eradication of abject poverty in China, are barely known. How perverse and squalid this is.

When will we allow ourselves to understand? Training journalists factory-style is not the answer. Neither is the wondrous digital tool, which is a means, not an end, like the one-finger typewriter and the linotype machine.

In recent years, some of the best journalists have been eased out of the mainstream. “Defenestrated” is the word used. The spaces once open to mavericks, to journalists who went against the grain, truth-tellers, have closed.

The case of WikiLeaks (40) founder Julian Assange (41) is the most shocking. When Julian and WikiLeaks could win readers and prizes for The Guardian, the New York Times and other self-important “papers of record”, he was celebrated.

When the dark state objected and demanded the destruction of hard drives and the assassination of Julian’s character, he was made a public enemy.  Vice President Biden called him a “high-tech terrorist” (42).  Hillary Clinton asked (43):  “Can’t we just drone this guy?”

The ensuing campaign of abuse and vilification against Julian Assange – the UN Rapporteur on Torture called it “mobbing” (44) – brought the liberal press to its lowest ebb.  We know who they are. I think of them as collaborators: as Vichy journalists.

When will real journalists stand up?  An inspirational samizdat (45) already exists on the internet: Consortium News (46), founded by the great reporter Robert Parry (47), Max Blumenthal’s (48) Grayzone (49), Mint Press News (50), Media Lens (51), Declassified UK (52), Alborada (53), Electronic Intifada (54), WSWS (55), ZNet (56), ICH (57), Counter Punch (58), Independent Australia, the work of Chris Hedges (59), Patrick Lawrence (60), Jonathan Cook (61), Diana Johnstone (62), Caitlin Johnstone (63) and others who will forgive me for not mentioning them here.

And when will writers stand up, as they did against the rise of fascism in the 1930s?  When will filmmakers stand up, as they did against the Cold War in the 1940s?  When will satirists stand up, as they did a generation ago?

Having soaked for 82 years in a deep bath of righteousness that is the official version of the last world war, isn’t it time those who are meant to keep the record straight declared their independence and decoded the propaganda?  The urgency is greater than ever.

(1)  https://independentaustralia.net/profile-on/john-pilger,294  

(2)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl  

(3)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Pinter  

(4)  https://yquotes.com/quotes/harold-pinter/

(5)  https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harold_Pinter

(6)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

(7)  https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0911/how-september-11-affected-the-u.s.-stock-market.aspx

(8)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_war

(9)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

(10)  https://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html

(11)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

(12)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

(13)  https://www.npr.org

(14)  https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_197574.htm

(15)  https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_52838.htm

(16)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donbas

(17)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity

(18)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Baker

(19)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev

(20)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy

(21)  https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/russia-warns-us-to-stop-arming-ukraine-zelenskyy-warns-of-nuclear-threat/

(22)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Austin

(23)  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/25/russia-weakedend-lloyd-austin-ukraine

(24)  https://tass.com/world/1289095

(25)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Mates

(26)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Brigade

(27)  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/ukraine-dead-odessa-building-fire

(28)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera

(29)  https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/world/europe/ukraine-conflict-puts-culture-in-crossfire.html

(30)  https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/08/12/udfm-a12.html

(31)  https://www.aspi.org.au

(32)  https://www.smh.com.au/by/peter-hartcher-hve0w

(33)  https://www.smh.com.au

(34)  https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-chinese-interests-power-struggle-is-about-sovereignty-20160905-gr94hs.html

(35)  https://www.bbc.com

(36)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

(37)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._P._Scott

(38)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lloyd_George

(39)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu_Manchu

(40)  https://wikileaks.org

(41)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

(42)  https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden

(43)  https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562?lang=en

(44)  https://www.reuters.com/article/wikileaks-assange-un-idUSL8N23647C

(45)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat

(46)  https://consortiumnews.com

(47)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry_(journalist)#Publications

(48)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Blumenthal

(49)  https://thegrayzone.com

(50)  https://www.mintpressnews.com

(51)  https://www.medialens.org

(52)  https://declassifieduk.org

(53)  https://alborada.net

(54)  https://electronicintifada.net

(55)  https://www.wsws.org/en?redirect=true

(56)  https://znet.company

(57)  https://www.ich.org/page/news

(58)  https://www.counterpunch.org

(59)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges

(60)  https://www.thenation.com/authors/patrick-lawrence/

(61)  https://www.jonathan-cook.net

(62)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Johnstone

(63)  https://caitlinjohnstone.com

MANY PEOPLE believe that we’re now living in a post-truth era.  According to the online Cambridge Dictionary – https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/post-truth – 

this relates ‘to a situation in which people are more likely to accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs, rather than one based on facts’.  Some would also argue that ‘post-truth’ means that particular facts – and even entire histories – might be fake.  

With the above in mind, Liberal Future feels that it may be an opportune time to restate our position relating to Europe & the European Union (EU).

First of all, many people (some deliberately?) confuse Europe & the EU.  They believe that one equals the other.  Let’s make it clear from the outset that this is completely wrong.  Europe & the EU are not one and the same.

Europe is one of the continents that make up the world.  It’s normally considered to be the area bordered by the Artic Ocean to the North, the Atlantic Ocean to the West, the Mediterranean Sea to the South & the Ural Mountains in the East.

Europe has a population of around 745 million & covers an area of about 3.93 million sq miles (10.18 million km²).  Russia is the largest country – in terms of population & physical size – in Europe.

The EU, on the other hand, is a political & economic union.  It has a population of around 448 million & covers an area of 1,634,469 sq miles (4,233,255 km²).  Crucially, it doesn’t include Russia.  

As we noted in part 1 (see link below) of Days In Europa:  

‘It is important to distinguish between the European Union (EU) and Europe itself.  We feel that the EU is a rich man’s club for powerful corporate big business and banking elites. Here, their underlings – also known as politicians – are happy enough with the trappings of power.  

For us Europe isn’t about money, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or profit margins.  Europe – from the Atlantic in the West to the Urals in the East & the Arctic Ocean in the North to the Mediterranean Sea in the South – represents a shared culture, history & heritage.  In short, for us Europe is about people.’  

To put it in a nutshell, Liberal Future believes that the EU is institutionally corrupt.  It’s all about elites, control, money & power.  We view Europe in terms of freedom, nations & ordinary people.

Now that we’ve made a clear distinction between Europe & the EU, it’s time to consider our place is in Europe.  

We live the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.    And, as we’ve made it clear, we’re more than happy to be considered Europeans.  Why wouldn’t we be?  The UK is geographically part of Europe & the indigenous people of the UK are Europeans.  

Sadly, however, many imperialists, jingoists & reactionaries believe that one cannot be both British and European.   

They seem to harp after the ‘good old days’ of the British Empire.  But those days have long gone – and the Commonwealth is also changing.  There is absolutely no way that the Empire can be revived.   

Also, there’s absolutely no way that the UK can stand alone in the world, as it did when Britannia ruled the waves hundreds of years ago.  Those who genuinely believe that we can ‘go it alone’ are deluded & have completely closed their eyes to the realities of the modern world.  

Liberal Future absolutely despairs of these narrow-minded points of view.  

We believe in Self-Determination for all.  It’s literally our raison d’être.  This means that we have absolutely no wish or desire to tell other peoples & nations how to run their lives.  

Therefore, our position is one of rejecting the EU but supporting European co-operation and solidarity.  In addition, we believe that it’s absolute madness for the people and nations of Europe to be at each other’s throats.  We’re progressive nationalists, so we completely reject petty nationalism & infighting.   

Once again, we’re more than happy to be considered both British and European.   

The first part of this article has been about exploring the differences between Europe & the EU.  The second part – as is usual in this series – will explore the beauty of Europe, particularly through its architecture.   

Palma in Mallorca (which is one of the Balearic Islands) is arguably one of the most beautiful capital cities in Europe.  And one of its most iconic buildings is the Cathedral of Santa Maria of Palma (more commonly known as La Seu, or simply Palma Cathedral).  

It sits within the old (Roman) city and enjoys spectacular views over the Parc de la Mar and the Mediterranean Sea.

The cathedral was begun by King Jaume (James) I of Aragon in 1229.  However, it was only finished in 1601.  It sits on the site of Moorish-era Mosque & is built in a Catalan Gothic style with – intriguingly – Northern European influences.

In addition to this, both Antoni Gaudí and Miquel Barceló  have been involved in subsequent works.

Anyone who has visited the cathedral will know how vast it is.  Indeed, it’s one of Europe’s largest Gothic cathedrals – with a length of nearly 400 feet (121 metres), a width of 131 feet (40) metres & a height of 144 feet (44 metres).

The cathedral remains one of most famous monuments of the Mediterranean.  It is still very much alive and hosts many events during the year.

• ALSO CHECK OUT:  

Liberal Future – Days In Europa (1) – St. Basil’s Cathedral, Moscow, Russia https://nationalliberal.org/liberal-future-–-days-in-europa-1-–-st-basil’s-cathedral-moscow-russia  

Liberal Future – Days In Europa (2) – Parliament Buildings (Stormont), Belfast, Ulster  https://nationalliberal.org/liberal-future-days-in-europa-2-parliament-buildings-stormont-belfast-ulster  

• FOR MORE information about Liberal Future – the youth wing of the National Liberal Party – check out:  https://nationalliberal.org/liberty-wall-3/liberal-future  

• LIBERAL FUTURE would like your views on both this article & our ideas for a future Europe.  Simply post your comments when you see this article posted on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/706779429376233 and/or the National Liberals Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313  

• READERS MAY be interested in the logos which feature at the bottom of this third Days In Europa poster produced by Liberal Future – the youth wing of the National Liberal Party.   

The circular black & orange logo (on the left) symbolises the fusion of progressive nationalism and liberalism.  Here we give equal weight to ‘national questions’ (concerning all of the nations & peoples of the British Isles and in principle, beyond) as we do to ‘liberal’ questions (concerning the individual and freedom).  

The square orange logo (centre) is the official symbol of Liberal Future.  We’ve used it since 2014 when the idea of creating a youth movement for the National Liberal Party was first mooted: https://nationalliberal.org/liberal-future-–-a-manifesto-for-our-youth  

The logo on the right represents Mallorca.  It features the distinctive red & yellow colours of the Senyera, which is based on the coat of arms of the Crown of Aragon.  A castle (adopted from the flag of the Kingdom of Majorca) also appears on the logo. 

REGULAR READERS will know that we’ve already featured several articles by the independent journalist, Caitlin Johnstone.  The National Liberal Party regards her as a ‘point of reference’ in that she has said (or done) things that we find of interest.  We particularly admire her independent spirit, non-conformist outlook & quirky style of writing.   

We found this article – https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/08/10/you-can-never-do-everything-but-you-can-always-do-something/ – particularly interesting.  It addresses the frustration often felt by activists (of all types) and provides valuable advice to them.  To quote the title of her work, Johnstone advises that  

‘You Can Never Do Everything, But You Can Always Do Something’.  

We feel that an example of this approach was demonstrated by the EU Referendum vote of 23rd June 2016.  As we know, the majority of the electorate voted ‘Leave’.   

However, we feel that much of the ground work – which ensured this historic vote – had been laid way back in the 1970s (and maybe even earlier). Here, countless thousands of activists had campaigned against Britain’s membership of the Common Market.  These activists ranged from individuals to political parties & helped build up a ‘head of steam’ which eventually resulted in the historic vote of 2016.  

With the above in mind, we feel that both seasoned & new activists should view themselves as links in a chain.  And one of these fine days, all of the work put in by activists will pay off, and victory will be ours.

Caitlin Johnstone is an independent journalist who provides original ideas & analysis. Check out her website at https://caitlinjohnstone.com

WHENEVER I talk about the fact that our world is ruled by psychopaths who have our species on a trajectory toward annihilation via climate collapse or nuclear war, I get people asking the very understandable question, “What can we do to stop this?”  By which they generally mean something like, how can we collectively free our minds from the propaganda prison of manipulative dominators and use the power of our numbers to create a healthy world?  

And the answer to this question is essentially, do what you can, where you can.  You’re only one person, and the machine is so very powerful and so very deeply dug in, so all you can do is one person’s best in each moment.  Seize every opportunity you can find to spread awareness (1) and throw sand in the gears of the machine (2), and rest assured that you’ve done all you can.  

By spread awareness I mean making any number of people aware of any amount of truth about what’s going on.  Helping them to understand that we’ve been lied to since we were small children (3) about the nature of our government, our society and our world, and that powerful people pour vast amounts of resources into manipulating the way we think, act and vote using the mass media (4).  Make them aware of the misdeeds committed by our governments and institutions, and how power moves and operates nationally and on the world stage.  Use any medium you can, from having conversations, to participating in demonstrations, to handing out flyers, to tweeting, to writing, to making podcasts and videos.  

By throw sand in the gears I mean, make it hard for them.  Make it difficult for the machine to operate.  When you see them cooking up a new narrative to manufacture consent for more sanctions or military interventionism, highlight the plot holes in that narrative for anyone who’ll listen and let everyone know they’re probably lying (5).  When you see them working to imprison another journalist or whistleblower, let everyone know who the real criminals are.  Use truth to interfere in their propaganda operations, wherever they show up.  

So the answer to the “What can we do?” question is fairly simple, but it also often leaves people feeling unsatisfied.  We all want to save the world, and the idea that we’re just a tiny little person who can only do so much is not satisfying for the ego and does not conform to the expectations that have been constructed for us by the heroic narratives churned out by Hollywood.  

But this is not Hollywood (6) and we are not some character played by a beefy pro wrestler.  None of us are going to single-handedly bring down the machine; if it ever comes down it will be because more and more people started opening their eyes to what’s going on and we all brought it down together.  Nobody will get to take credit for it.  It will not be egoically satisfying.  Nobody will get to kick the bad guy into molten lava.  Nobody will get the girl.  

I always get people yelling at me that I urgently need to write about this or that issue in this or that way, claiming that if I’d just take up their pet cause and wave their personal banner it could spark a grand revolution that changes the world.  And it just doesn’t work that way.  Neither I nor anyone else is going to be the revolution’s messiah.  Only the ego wants to believe that it could be the one to turn this ship around.  We’re going to do this together, as equals, or not at all.  

And we really don’t have control over whether or not that will happen, and that’s what makes it so hard to accept.  People in general already don’t enjoy feeling like they don’t have control, and when you’re talking about the fate of the entire world the experience can be that they don’t have control, and when you’re talking about the fate of the entire world the experience can be that much more stressful.  People don’t mind fighting and winning or losing, as long as the ultimate outcome is in their own hands.  

And it just isn’t.  Nobody is in control of this thing.  The sooner we can make peace with this reality, with how totally out of control the world is, the better off we’ll be.  Then we can just fight for the sake of the fight and not torture ourselves with fantasies of saving the world on our own.  At peace with the understanding that we can never do everything, but we can always do something.  

Chris Hedges has a great line, “I do not fight fascists because I will win.  I fight fascists because they’re fascists.”  This to me is the path to real efficacious action in true equanimity, because you’re throwing everything you’ve got into the fight without letting concern about whether or not your efforts will be successful put a wobble on your movements.  

Another way to put this would be in the words of the ancient Bhagavad Gita (7), ‘Set thy heart upon thy work, but never on its reward.  Work not for a reward; but never cease to do thy work.  Do thy work in the peace of Yoga and, free from selfish desires, be not moved in success or in failure.’  

This approach to revolution is not satisfying for the ego, but, since the solution to our existential crisis likely sits on the other side of a mass-scale awakening (8) from egoic consciousness which is the source of all our problems, this is perhaps as it should be.  

(1)  https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/consciousness-and-dysfunction-cannot  

(2)  https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-the-machine-d007ee698e6f  

(3)  https://www.wakingtimes.com/untold-history-modern-u-s-education-founding-fathers/  

(4)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPazn1XNDQI  

(5)  https://www.corbettreport.com/warlies/  

(6) https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/the-revolution-has-no-hollywood-ending-f254501b4b9d(7)  https://signpoststoeden.blogspot.com/2009/07/bhagavad-gita-why-arjuna-should-fight.html

(7)  https://signpoststoeden.blogspot.com/2009/07/bhagavad-gita-why-arjuna-should-fight.html

THIS IS the fourth and final part of an article which appeared in 2014 on the Old Thunder Belloc blogsite.  It is a reprint of Hilaire Belloc’s Neither Capitalism Nor Socialism, first published in the July 1937 issue of The American Mercury.  (‘Old Thunder’ is a reference to the Anglo-French historian, essayist and poet, Hilaire Belloc.)  You can read the original article here: https://oldthunderbelloc.blogspot.com/2014/08/neither-capitalism-nor-socialism.html  

It’s important to note that National Liberals regard Belloc as a ‘point of interest’ in that he said – or did – things that are of interest to us.  As we’ve noted before, that doesn’t mean that we place him on a pedestal, so to speak.  

What interests us about Belloc & his Distributist ideas are that they offer an alternative to both Capitalism & Socialism.  Despite outward appearances, both systems are similar in that they oppose individuals owning private property.  Capitalism restricts ownership to an elite few, whilst socialism wishes to restrict ownership to the state.  

As National Liberals we’re against centralism.  We feel that it can be dogmatic, undemocratic & totalitarian in nature.  However, we have to be both principled & pragmatic.  We accept that there may (and probably will) have to be some central planning associated with the phasing out of Capitalism & Socialism and the introduction of Distributism.  Indeed, as Belloc notes ‘You cannot have a Distributist State without a strong executive to safeguard the small man permanently against the aggression of the great’.  

It goes without saying that there are no links between The American Mercury, the Old Thunder Belloc blogsite & the National Liberal Party.  It should also be noted that whilst Belloc was a Catholic, the NLP welcomes members & supporters from all religions and none.  Please note that we’ve kept the original US spellings as they are.  

This section of the article should be read directly on from Parts 1 and 2 – see the links below.    

‘Old Thunder’: Neither Capitalism Nor Socialism (Part 4)

Hilaire Belloc – together with Arthur Penty, G. K. Chesterton & his younger brother Cecil – developed the economic philosophy of distributism. Opposed to the centralizing tendencies of both Capitalism & Socialism, they believed that productive assets should be as widely owned as possible. Therefore, distributism favours small independent shops, craftsmen and producers, worker co-operatives & mutual societies.

Inevitably the obstacles to its achievement are very great. Many would pronounce them insurmountable. First, as always, come the spiritual factors. Men have grown used to capitalism and have come to think in terms of wage-earner and employer. It is difficult to go back to another mood. Next, our existing laws are nearly all in favor of large accumulations through the action of competition. Increasing rapidity in the transmission of information and orders, work in the same way; so does the increasing efficiency of the machine.  

But all these factors making for the putting of control into a few hands can be counteracted. You may preserve the expensive centralized machinery in transport and manufacture, but you may divide its shareholding individually. You may aid the division of accumulation by differential taxation weighing heavily upon great accumulations of wealth, but we do not use it for the furtherance of better division. Were we to do so, better division could be achieved. It is not enough to super-tax the rich man; you must use the proceeds to build up property of the small man, both by subsidy and by giving a premium upon purchase of capital and law by the small man with a penalty for purchase by the big man. Your differential tax can gradually extinguish the chain store and the department store; and in the very important department of public investment, you can see to it that the small subscriber is favored when State or municipal bonds are issued, and the large one handicapped.  

With sufficient will to create small property, well distributed throughout the community, the thing could certainly be done: the difficulty would be when once it was done to keep it stable. The two forms of slavery, Communism and personal slavery, remain stable of themselves; but, just as political freedom requires for its maintenance a permanent attitude of alert defense, so does economic freedom—and a permanent attitude of alert defense is difficult to maintain. Moreover, if it is left to competing individuals, un-co-ordinated, it is impossible to maintain.  

Therefore, in order to make the Proprietary State stable, you must have laws (or customs with the force of laws) which make it difficult for the small man to alienate himself and yet safeguard him in his share of the means of production. Laws of hereditary succession will do this, so will the natural play of differential taxation, which profits the small purchaser at the expense of the large purchaser whenever there is a transfer of capital or land. But the best instrument of all for maintaining the stability of small property is the Guild.  

If we can re-establish the Guild we shall have done the trick. With men incorporated in chartered guilds having the power of the State behind them, small property, once achieved, will be secure. The Guild regulates its own affairs, it sets limits to competition within its boundaries, it provides for a succession of new free guildsmen by apprenticeship (which is a form of initiation), it sets the price of the goods produced (another check on competition), it regulates the method of production also, it has every advantage and every power for dealing with property after a fashion that shall maintain it in spite of the threat of competition. If we are to build the Distributist State, the Guild must be the keystone of that arch, and until men are trained in the idea of the Guild, until the Guild is set up and begins working before their eyes, the attempt to restore a Distributist State will be in vain.  

And there is the last proviso, the Distributist State to be secure must include large fields of State action, not only political but economic. Whatever is of its nature a monopoly must be under State control, more or less developed. You cannot have a Distributist State without a strong executive to safeguard the small man permanently against the aggression of the great. In most communities of the Middle Ages, this function was performed by an official called a King; the name does not matter, but the office is all-important. A society without a strong, centralized executive is a society inevitably doomed to plutocracy.  

• THIS ARTICLE should be read in conjunction with:

‘Old Thunder’: Neither Capitalism Nor Socialism (Part 1)  https://nationalliberal.org/‘old-thunder’-neither-capitalism-nor-socialism-part-1  

‘Old Thunder’: Neither Capitalism Nor Socialism (Part 2)  https://nationalliberal.org/‘old-thunder’-neither-capitalism-nor-socialism-part-2  

‘Old Thunder’: Neither Capitalism Nor Socialism (Part 3)  https://nationalliberal.org/old-thunder-neither-capitalism-nor-socialism-part-3  

• Also check out:

Democratic Denial (Part 1)  https://nationalliberal.org/democratic-denial-part-1

Demand Direct Democracy!  https://nationalliberal.org/demand-direct-%20democracy

Parliament Opposes True Democracy!  https://nationalliberal.org/parliament-%20opposes-true-democracy

MPs Don’t Believe In Democracy!  https://nationalliberal.org/mps-dont-believe-in-democracy