by Robert Edwards
We must move towards a revolution, a revolution of the mind and of the spirit. Each age bears
witness to its own reality. For Britain, our age of true pre-eminence was reflected in 250 years of imperialism. It is gone,
thrown away by our democratic leaders. All but the most deluded of reactionaries will accept that fact. We need to rethink
our role in the world today and not retreat into the confines of nostalgia because there is nothing so difficult as to attempt
to re-create the reality of a bygone age.
Imperialism should not be confused with nationalism, because imperialists
do not limit themselves to defined borders but pursue a policy of expansionism . . . wider still and wider. On the other hand,
nationalism defines the nation-state in terms of the immutable and the immovable. Historically, nationalism has been linked
to liberalism. It was a movement of liberation from absolutist dynasties and oligarchies, as in 1848. But can it still play
that role in the world today?
Petty (petit) nationalism, the foolish belief that smaller, less powerful nations can
claim sovereignty and independence in a world of larger superpowers, can be an obstacle to the creation of other larger and
therefore more self-sufficient units of nationhood. Petty nationalism, therefore, represents an archaic patriotism, more effete
Ruritania than the bulldog breed of Empire, and illusionary in regard to the attempt at providing a familiar world of sentiment
and nostalgia; the way some people use the seclusion of cosy little English gardens to shut out the terrors of the human jungle
This, then, was the call for a revolution in mind and spirit . . . the need to think and act as Europeans.
That greatest of all modern thinkers, Oswald Mosley, envisaged a united Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, thinking in
terms of the permanence of the Soviet Union and its satellite states of the Warsaw Pact. To him it was a buffer to a potential
threat from the Soviets and displaced the need for a military dependence on the United States, because dependence on the United
States always entailed following American policy like lapdogs.
Europe a Nation was to have been a third force in the
world, standing between the contestants of East and West. The world has changed much since Mosley's death in 1980, so that
the Urals no longer symbolise an ideological barrier and Vladivostok could now become the final frontier. In 1979, in League
Review, I wrote,
"To be true European nationalists we must regard those Europeans under communist rule as
part of our brotherhood, waiting for eventual liberation from Marxist tyranny. We must make them feel that in the event of
a massive rebellion they can rely on their fellow Europeans to give them every assistance . . . once we begin to build the
real Europe a Nation through a revolutionary faith it will fill our Eastern European comrades with such hope that it will
move them to turn from Moscow and put the first nails in the coffin of Soviet Imperialism".
Along with the
disintegration of the Soviet state came the inevitable re-unification of Germany, for too long a casualty of the Cold War.
Mosley often said that you could not have a unification of Europe without the re-unification of Germany because Germany is
central to European history and its culture. It is Mitteleuropa. Berlin was exploited by America and Russia as footholds in
our continent. That must never occur again after Berlin has resumed its place as Germany's Hauptstadt.
In those days
there was an ideological dichotomy that split East and West into goodies and baddies . . . a moral over-simplification that
would have found credit with any B-movie director. We were conditioned to think in terms of Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire"
to the East, after the Red Menace of the 1950s, when paranoia was endemic. The Red bogeyman no longer exists but seems to
be replaced, most conveniently, with the Islamic world, when previously no one gave a side-glance at Islam.
American foreign policy has been based on its own self interest. At one time, to be anti-American labelled you a "Red"
. . . a stool pigeon of Moscow. During that time, America played the role of leader of the God-fearing free world against
the atheistic Red menace from Moscow. When the Soviet Union collapsed did that mean the dawn of a new era of peace now the
Cold War ended? Washington showed its true colours by pursuing its open policy of globalisation . . . in other words, world
domination through economic and military coercion.
In my article in 1979, not enough emphasis was placed on this aspect
of American Imperialism because 'free world' propaganda placed far more emphasis on the 'menace' of goose stepping parades
in Red Square and the enslavement of Eastern Europeans, a situation previously arranged at Yalta between an American president,
a British prime minister and a Soviet dictator. Anti-communism, as a patriotic cause, then placed a discrete veil over another
kind of evil, the evil of CIA sponsored disruption around the world for the sole purpose of expanding American influence and
controlling and exploiting the mineral resources of other countries. Since 1945, America has waged war, both overt and covert,
against Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Guatemala, the Belgian Congo, Peru, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, El Salvador, Iraq, Sudan,
Afghanistan and now Iraq again.
As things turned out, Britain, despite her position in an expanding European Union, embraced
ever closer the 'special relationship' with America, allowing the Americans to maintain military bases on British soil and
to supply British troops occasionally as mercenaries in America's conflicts. This is not the behaviour worthy of a proud British
nation that, long ago, could boast of a true sovereignty. Those who fear further European integration should not delude themselves
into believing that this 'special relationship' places us shoulder to shoulder with America as equals....and somehow saves
us from the slavery of being part of a European superstate. What the hell do they think this craven bootlicking is if it is
not the old master/servant relationship between little England and Uncle Sam's military might? Blair has become Washington's
ambassador, and someone who just happens to hold the portfolio of Britain's prime minister, if he can bring himself to remember
Geopolitics has returned as the science for organising the world because what was once conceived as the New
World Order is fast becoming the New World 'disorder'. The International Coalition against Terror just so happens to possess
the largest stock-pile of weapons of mass destruction on Earth, consisting of biological, chemical and nuclear war heads.
Yet the worst hypocrisy comes out of the mouths of Bush and Blair when the first declares, "We're a peaceful nation",
which the latter then instantly repeats parrot fashion without even batting an eyelid.
The Union of Europe is such a
necessity in what is a far more dangerous world than ever the Cold War could be. Then, two superpowers kept themselves in
check by dint of an arms race. To have only one superpower on the rampage is another matter and begs the question, which of
these nations is the true 'rogue state'? Which nation spends more on defence than the rest of the entire world put together?
Which nation not only threatens its neighbours but also would declare war on the Moon if anyone lived there with enough reserves
of oil? Yes, America!
From Lisbon to Vladivostok is an area large enough to create a Greater Europe, not through war
but by what Mosley termed "an extension of patriotism" . . . the union of all Europeans in a brotherhood that could
rival America and say, "Cool it, buddy!" Those who viewed NATO as an intrusion into Russia's sphere of influence
initially opposed NATO expansion into Central Europe. In place of NATO, there should be an exclusively European expansion
that ultimately seeks an accord with Russia. This is logical, being on the same land mass and sharing the diverse culture
of a 3,000 year old civilisation.
The new European superstate, this bogyman of Eurosceptics, would have the military
might to prove strong enough to endure America if that country had any other designs on smaller countries, as it had on Iraq
and others on its future "shopping list". No nation can stop America at present. How can we exert influence today?
What nonsense is talked of sovereignty when our economies are at the mercy of the money markets and international finance
and when our prime minister behaves like the butler in the Oval Office. Keep the pound? Yes, you can keep it, for without
the control of our own economy it really does not matter whether the Queen's face features or that of President Bush. Only
control of our own economy within Europe will do. Then the people are free.