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  

Hilaire Belloc (1870 – 1953) was a noted Anglo-French historian, orator, poet, politician, sailor, satirist, soldier and writer. A critic of both capitalism and socialism, Belloc – along with G. K. Chesterton, Cecil Chesterton & Arthur Penty – became one of the main advocates of Distributism. The National Liberal Party is drawn to his economic ideal of the widest possible spread of ownership of land, property, or workplace.

JOSEPH HILAIRE PIERRE RENÉ BELLOC was born in La Celle-Saint-Cloud, France, on 27th July, 1870 and died on 16th July 1953 in Guildford, Surrey, England.  His mother – Bessie Rayner Parkes Belloc – was an English writer, activist and noted feminist and his father  – Louis Belloc – was a French barrister.  Belloc’s father died when Hilaire was two years old.  His mother moved back to England and brought him and his elder sister, Marie Adelaide Elizabeth, to live in Slindon, West Sussex.    

During his life, Hilaire Belloc was known as an historian, orator, poet, politician, sailor, satirist, soldier and writer.  A critic of both capitalism and socialism, Belloc – along with G. K. Chesterton, Cecil Chesterton & Arthur Penty – became one of the main advocates of Distributism.  Here, Belloc believed in the widest possible spread of ownership of land, property, or workplace.   

National Liberals regard him as a ‘point of interest’ in that he said – or did – things that are of interest us.  This doesn’t mean that we put Belloc, on a pedestal so to speak.  Indeed, we’re fully aware that some of his views may be viewed as ‘controversial’ or regressive.  However, we believe that most, if not all, humans are fairly complex characters.  We’re full of contradictions & we feel that it’s next to impossible to paint individuals completely in terms of good and bad.  For instance, Belloc was very ‘conservative’ when it came to social issues like the role of women in society.  Yet, it could be argued that – economically – he was ‘revolutionary’ when  it came to his views on capitalism & socialism and the need for Distributism.  

With the above in mind, some time ago our attention was drawn to an old article – https://oldthunderbelloc. blogspot.com/search?q=Neither+Capitalism+Nor+Socialism – which appeared on the Old Thunder Belloc blogsite.  It is a reprint of 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.)  This section of the article should be read directly on from Parts 1and 2  – see links below.  

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 ephemeral but acute phase of social history which we call Capitalism and for which Proletarianism would be a better word, subjects free men arbitrarily to the will of other citizens, their political equals, and compels them to this subjection through the mere power of many. There is no bond of duty such as co-exists with Status; there is no obligation of loyalty, not any mutuality of service. The man who has nothing must work for the man who has the goods, and as both are completely free, the man, who has nothing can legally be deprived of his livelihood at any moment at the caprice of the man who has the goods. The material evils accompanying this spiritual evil of degrading subjection with no moral sanction to enforce it, are insecurity of livelihood for nearly all, and a permanent measure of insufficiency for a great part of society.

It should have been clear that such a state of affairs could not endure one it had become widespread. So long as it was confined to a comparatively small proportion of the people, it would hobble along though with great friction; when it becomes the rule, when the mass of men are wage-earners at the mercy of a minority of capitalists, it is certain that the wage-earners if they remain politically free will rebel. We know the for that rebellion has taken with free labor—interference by conspiracy and combination: strikes on the one hand and lock-outs on the other—all the elements of a simmering civil war. To restore peace and achieve a stable society there are only three policies possible. Either we must abolish capitalism by putting the means of production into the hands of State officials, in which case all citizens will lose their freedom and becomes slaves of a Communist State. The half-free proletariat will lose such freedom as they have, and the wholly free possessor of capital will lose his entire freedom.

Or, as a second policy, we can enslave the proletariat; compel them by force to work for the profit of owners. In other words, we can re-establish private slavery. That is a very stable arrangement of society and a permanent one; we all came out of it and it would be natural that we should return to it. Indeed, anyone with a long vision may think to foresee our return to it and perceive already the beginnings of the Servile State.

If we reject these two solutions—the Communist solution and the Servile State—there remains the Proprietary solution, the setting up of a social system in which ownership is the general rule and universal popular freedom is accompanied by widespread economic freedom; a state of society in which the normal citizen owns land or housing or both and has a share of profits from commercial enterprise, from State bonds or in general revenue from investment, as well as revenue earned by his own labor. We know well that such a state of society can be for we belonged to it in the immediate past; the United States within living memory was a Distributist society, and Denmark almost wholly so. The government of Italy today is aiming at Distributism; the independent Irish have made it the main part of their political program.

• 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  

• THIS should be viewed in conjunction with the following:

Where We Stand (1) The National Liberal Party Supports Real Democracy!

http://nationalliberal.org/where-we-stand-1-the-national-liberal-party-supports-real-democracy

Where We Stand (2) The National Liberal Party Supports Constitutional Reform!

http://nationalliberal.org/where-we-stand-2-the-national-liberal-party-supports-constitutional-reform

Where We Stand (3) The National Liberal Party Supports A Sane Foreign Policy!

http://nationalliberal.org/where-we-stand-3-the-national-liberal-party-supports-a-sane-foreign-policy 

AS WE NOTED in our first Days In Europa article – https://nationalliberal.org/liberal-future-–-days-in-europa-1-–-st-basil’s-cathedral-moscow-russia – whilst Liberal Future ‘is opposed to the EU, we’re not anti-European.  Indeed, how could we be anti-European when the UK (indeed, the whole of the British Isles) constitutes part of Europe?  We’re proud to be both Britons & Europeans.’  

We have absolutely no problem with the nations of Europe co-operating.  Indeed we have no problem with the nations of the world co-operating.  However, this must be done on the basis of sovereign – and truly free – nations co-operating with each other.

To us, the EU can only rule via an extremely centralised body.  It’s effectively operates on a ‘power grab’ basis.  In reality, EU political power rests with France & Germany.  We believe that ‘Small is Beautiful.’  Therefore we’re opposed to the whole philosophy of the EU.  It also goes without saying that we disagree with the institution & its system of working.

The EU is all about control, money & power.  We view Europe in terms of freedom, nations & people.

We’re deeply interested in the history & beauty of Europe.  With this in mind, in January we examined the Cathedral of Vasily (Basil) the Blessed, more commonly known as St. Basil’s Cathedral, in Moscow, Russia.  This time we’re going to take a look at Parliament Buildings (Stormont), which are situated in Belfast, Ulster.    

As can be seen from our photograph, the Parliament Buildings were built in a Greek classical style.  The foundation stone was laid in May 1928 & was opened in November 1932.  It has been used, on and off, as the seat of political power (such as it is in Northern Ireland) ever since.  

Much of the interior of Stormont is ornate & absolutely stunning.   Large chandeliers, paintings, a grand staircase & beautifully decorated walls and ceilings complete the picture.  

The grounds are also beautiful.  They’re dominated by both the Prince of Wales Avenue, commonly known as ‘The Mile’ (which leads up to the Parliament Buildings) and a large statue of the famous barrister & Unionist leader, Edward Carson.  

• 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  

• 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 second 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 red, gold & blue logo is known as the Second Ulster National flag (sometimes called the Ulster Independence flag).  Liberal Future uses this – as well as the Cross of St. Patrick – as we believe in uniting both Protestants & Catholics (as well as those of other religions, or indeed, no religion).  We acknowledge that Stormont has been the scene of many bitter disputes between Unionists and Republicans.  However, LF works towards a united & peaceful Ulster.