SolarGeneral Proudly Presents...

The Enemy of Europe

...by Francis Parker Yockey

THE LIQUIDATION OF ENGLISH SOVEREIGNTY

English policy was senile already at the beginning of Joseph Chamberlain's career in government. Even his grand idea of English-German-American world-hegemony, though still a forceful, virile, aggressive policy, was basically static: behind it lay the age-old dream of bringing History finally to a close. After Chamberlain's time, English policy became completely toothless, and names like Grey, Lloyd-George, MacDonald, and Baldwin show the depths of the descent into national oblivion, when compared with names from more youthful days: Walpole, Pitt, Castlereagh, Canning, Gladstone. The great Empire Builders were eager for every large conquest; their dim successors indulged in lamentations over the status quo, expending their feeble energies on protecting it from young and virile “aggressors.” These pallbearers of the Empire tried to build a wall against History by describing Politics in terms of Law: The status quo is “legal,” every change therein, however, is “illegal.” Political dynamism is “illegal:” Power-relationships must be continued as they were at the time of the Versailles dictate. After Versailles , England no longer had the national-political energy to increase its power; hence everybody was to be morally prohibited from doing so, and this moral coercion was codified in sacred “treaties,” which were signed on the muzzles of cannon. To maintain England 's political supremacy was “moral” and “legal”— respect for “international morality and the sanctity of treaties” it was called. “Observing international law,” “orderly procedure in international relations,” and similar political absurdities were promulgated. This was not the first time that one engaged in politics in order to put politics in legalistic wrappings. The politician who resorts to law and morality to disguise his power-position is suffering from a bad political conscience, and the politician or the state with a bad conscience is decadent. Ascendent politics is not afraid of being politics. Decadent politics passes itself off as religion, law, morality, science-in short, as anything other than Politics.

Of course, England 's attempt to impose its form on the world by the simple trick of employing legalistic jargon was completely futile. Only the English population was deceived thereby, just as later with the propaganda about the invulnerability of Singapore . But on the power-currents of the world, which reflect the development of superpersonal organisms, the jargon had no effect whatsoever.

From the original standpoint of regarding the status quo as inviolable only insofar as the English power-position was concerned, one went on to that of regarding the status quo everywhere as sacrosanct. Thus English policy, in complete distortion of English interests, was made to support the Serbian, Roumanian, and Bohemian states against the power-currents that were destined to destroy those artificial political structures.

The cost of a distorted policy must be set high. The state with a distorted policy can gain no accretion of power; thus even its military and diplomatic victories are defeats. During the third decade of the 20th century, England gradually handed over its sovereignty to America in order to continue pursuing its distorted policy, a policy devoted to the world-wide preservation of the status quo. Naturally, such an unpleasant fact was not admitted by the representatives of a certain mentality, and-naturally again-those who bore the responsibility for the transfer of power shied away from defining the new relationship precisely; for had they done so, the whole policy would have been spoilt. Nevertheless, when Baldwin announced in 1936 that he would not deploy the English fleet without consulting America beforehand, he informed the entire political world in unmistakable terms that the end of English independence had come, that English sovereignty had passed over to America . Independence means being able to act alone. Sovereignty means being answerable to nobody except oneself. Neither Independence nor Sovereignty was characteristic of the English government that started the Second World War with its declaration of war on Germany in September, 1939.

When a nation loses its sovereignty, any foreign peoples and territories it controls pass, of organic necessity, into the sphere of influence of powers that are sovereign. Thus Denmark , for example, as a result of the Second World War, was absorbed into the American world-system. This occurred quite automatically; it was simply a process of the Organic law of the Political Plenum,¹ which ordains that a power-vacuum in the political world is an impossibility.

A state is not to be regarded as a power unless it can make decisions alone. Units like Switzerland are artificial structures whose raison d'etre is to serve as buffers for the adjacent powers, and thus owe their existence to the mutual jealousy of those powers. They are anomalies that can exist only so long as their territory has no particular strategic value for the surrounding Great Powers. During the 19th century, Switzerland was exactly the opposite of a power-vacuum. It was the point-of-convergence for the powers surrounding it and was likewise penetrated by the power-currents surrounding them. The statecraft of the Swiss “politician” consisted in abstaining from all politics and in dodging all decisions. As soon as Switzerland ceased, in 1945, to be the convergence-point for the bordering powers, that very moment it became an American vassalage, without hopes, wishes, fears, or even official recognition of its status. Throughout the 19th century, the Netherlands was only an English bridgehead on the continent, first against France (until about 1865), then against Prussia-Germany. The Netherlands had no sovereignty, and its military forces stood at England 's disposal, very tactless though it would have been to speak about this in England or its protectorate.

The simple, terrifying truth is that, through the diplomacy of its leaders, beginning with Lloyd George, England lost its independence, parted with its established mode of political conduct, and passed into the same vassal-like relation vis-à-vis America into which, say, Holland or Norway had passed vis-à-vis England in the 19th century. It is utterly pointless to connect the national demise of England with the complete fecklessness of parliamentary government in the Age of Absolute Politics, to attempt to construct a causal relationship out of it. For nations have a certain time-span before them, and their political phase also has an organically predetermined rhythmic course. Material factors have nothing to do with the greater movements of the power-currents within the political world. The merely ephemeral supremacy of France in the 1920's, based solely upon material factors, is the best example of this in recent times.

1: Cf. IMPERIUM, p. 190 ff.

Previous Chapter | Index | Next Chapter

Brought to you exclusively by SolarGeneral.com