What’s next for Brexit?

I don’t know how many of us in the U.S. are keeping up with the latest news on Brexit; it is a complicated situation and not so easy for many Americans to follow (including myself). But I’ll offer a few links here to give some idea of recent developments.

Hearing discussion of a possible second referendum, according to some sources, it’s hard to know what to believe. I don’t like the idea of a second referendum; it’s obviously a stall tactic, playing for time on the part of May et al, and the ‘remain’ faction apparently hope that if they keep delaying the implementation of the break from the EU, they will get more ‘remain’ votes.

Boris Johnson, in recent remarks, denounces the efforts to get a second vote, and advocates for a ‘clean break’ from the EU.

‘ “If that is true, and if people in Downing Street have really been discussing a second referendum – whether seriously or just in the hope of scaring MPs to vote for this lamentable deal – then all I can say is that they must be out of their minds,” Mr Johnson wrote in The Telegraph.’

In this article, James Delingpole says the Brexit betrayal is worse than it seems.

It appears that just as in the U.S., at least amongst the ‘aware’ or realist segment of the populace, pessimism tends to prevail. I suspect that in the UK as here, a great many people are in denial about the seriousness of the situation, or are simply tuned out, not paying attention — too distracted by the usual diversions.

I won’t presume to try to say what political choices (if any) would help the people of Britain to salvage their country; some are apparently advocating UKIP as the party of choice, though I’ve always had the impression that UKIP are, at best, civic nationalist, which is not what is ultimately needed.

There is also the For Britain party, which is described by the usual suspects as ‘far right’, but isn’t any rightist populist party inevitably called ‘far right’?

‘For Britain’ was founded by some former UKIP members, and its principles as stated are principles with which most on the right could probably agree. My only reservation is that it seems, too, to be civic nationalist. The usual justification for populists/nationalists to support such parties is that a real nationalist party could not gain enough support; baby steps are need, and ‘civic’ is the best that can be hoped for. But when and how is this ever to change, if today is never the time for it?

And time, it seems, is slipping away.

Advertisements

Brexit: defeatism?

The U.S. Ambassador to the UK, expressing doubt about the prospects of Brexit, speaks of British ‘defeatism’ on their prospects of escaping from the EU:

This is not the first time Trump’s man in London has encouraged Brits to be courageous in dealing with Brexit. Speaking in June, Ambassador Johnson said the UK should abandon its “defeatist attitude” and take inspiration from President Trump, remarking: “The thing I want to get out more than anything else is an attitude that I feel I don’t see enough in this country and that is a confidence for where you are heading – light at the end of the tunnel with Brexit.”

He said: “The British have always been experts and great business people, great business minds, so to see this defeatist attitude towards Brexit is a bit startling to me.’

Ambassador Johnson’s harsher remarks were directed more at the EU:

“Accusing the European Union of merely paying lip service to the notion of free trade before stacking the deck in favour of their own companies “with taxes and barriers that make it almost impossible for foreign companies to compete,” Ambassador Johnson said, “The United States has let this go on for too long.”

If we are to take Ambassador Johnson at his word, it sounds as though the U.S. will take a more active role in siding with the Brexit proponents, rather than attempting to be neutral. I also notice that Johnson’s words about the UK and the U.S. cooperating towards a favorable trade deal refers to the old ”special relationship’ between our two countries. In recent years that relationship has been treated as ‘in the past’, dismissed as a relic of a different time. It’s true that the major demographic changes in both our countries have made for more estrangement than mutual warmth; sad to say, many in the UK have an active dislike or resentment of Americans, and that’s understandable. Many British people base their knowledge of us on what they see in our corrupt media, just as Americans, at least those who have never visited the UK, see our cousins in the UK through that same distorting lens.

We might almost think that there’s been a longstanding effort to cause hostility between our nations.

In order for this prospective trade deal to work, there has to be a renewal of trust between our nations, despite the hostile media on both sides of the Atlantic.

But the more important message in the Ambassador’s speech is the exhortation to be confident, avoiding ‘defeatism’, and to recall our former achievements. He seems to say that our countries and peoples could assert their former pre-eminence, given determination, cooperation, and the right attitude.

If Britain takes back control of its trade policy, you will be at the head of the line. America and Britain are two of the most advanced economies in the world. Together we could agree the most sophisticated and ambitious free trade deal ever done — a heavyweight deal that gets the whole world to sit up and take notice. Together, we can show the rest of the world how it’s done.

However it’s obvious that the powers-that-be within Britain and in the EU, with their globalist aims, will not give up easily, so it won’t be a walk in the park. Still, what’s the alternative?

#brexit, #eu, #europe, #trade

Monarchical system is ‘racist’

Peter Tatchell of the Guardian, the year 2009:

The current monarchical system of determining our head of state is premised on the assumption that the most ignorant, stupid, immoral white Windsor first-born is more entitled to be our head of state than the best-informed, wisest and most moral black or Asian Briton. This is a truly repulsive racist assumption.

I remember a few articles like this appearing back in 2009, full of faux-outrage about the fact that Britain had never had a non-white head of state. What? And why, we might ask, has Japan never had a Hungarian emperor, or vice versa? The whole issue seemed (and seems) so absurd and trumped-up. Obviously the outcome of the 2008 presidential election in the U.S. prompted the multicultists to come up with this inane idea that a head of state could  or should be of a different racial stock than the majority, the historic population of the country he governs.

Now, after nine more years of increasingly bizarre cultural Marxist social engineering, it’s evident that this was always to be part of the agenda; even the institution of the monarchy is not to be spared the demands of ‘racial equality’, affirmative action (everybody must get a turn at being head of state, regardless of origin or qualifications). Eventually it will be ‘no native-born people need apply’, or more likely ‘no Whites need apply.’

And I suppose the left’s relentless efforts to overturn every tradition, the ‘long march through the institutions’ has almost achieved what they planned.

Not long before Prince Harry announced his wedding plans, he had been featured in many photo spreads in the UK media (Sky News in particular, it seemed) showing him seated with groups of black people, or with black TV hosts, apparently having the time of his life. I wondered whether he was ‘assigned’ to represent some kind of “outreach” to the ”black community”. So the engagement announcement, when it came, was not surprising, in some ways — but still, it represents a jarring break with tradition. Is this too part of the globalist, multicult agenda? I think there is at least one other European prince in an interracial union.

Even if these marriages were real ‘love matches’, it could be said that the royals, too, are subject to the same conditioning as the rest of Western society. Americans, or more accurately a certain percentage of Americans loathe the very idea of royalty or aristocracy; that egalitarian streak runs very deep in America. Sometimes it borders on Jacobinism with some Americans, but in all fairness many in the U.S. have been brought up to see monarchy as an evil in itself, an ‘unfair’ system of government. It also seems that there is an element of dislike of the Royals in the UK as well, and a desire for a republic or a so-called ‘democracy.’ The propaganda on both sides of the Atlantic has warped the thinking of many people, and considering how pervasive the conditioning is, it’s understandable.

America’s system, though, has done little more to protect citizenry from being displaced and replaced than has the monarchical system, at least in the current social climate. In recent years, the phrase ”hideously [W]hite” has been applied to such British institutions as the BBC and the theatre. Being White is a definite liability today, but if the monarchy is made somewhat less ”hideously White”, will the anti-monarchy left begin to embrace it? Probably not, unless ‘diversity’ is enforced in selecting — or electing, as the Guardian would prefer, who is eligible.

 

 

Brexit and ‘the phlegmatic English’

At the Albion Awakening blog, there’s an interesting piece about the phlegmatic English people, as Terry Boardman describes them, and the Brexit situation.

Will Brexit become a reality, after more than two years have passed? It was 2016 when the British people voted to leave the EU, and still no exit from the European Union. It increasingly looks as if the will of the British people is being flouted. It appears that there has been an effort to simply stall on Brexit.

In so many internet discussions, it’s common to find Americans criticizing what they see as the passivity of the British or English people in not reacting more strongly to the situation, in which the UK government seems to be denying the will of the majority of citizens. But is the reaction of the people (or lack thereof)  “passivity?” Or is it patience?

Read the article at Albion Awakening for Terry Boardman’s explanation. I tend to agree with it.

 

Events in England

I trust everyone has heard about the arrest and imprisonment of activist Tommy Robinson for ‘breach of the peace’. I’ve said before that I don’t agree with ‘civic nationalism’ because it is false — multicultural ‘nationalism’ is a contradiction in terms.

I was never a fan of Robinson because his ‘English Defence League’ made quite a show of being ‘diverse and inclusive’ in membership, and displaying Israeli flags and Zionist symbols. However, all that aside, the question of his right to free speech,  his right to legal representation, and a proper trial are real concerns. The UK appears to have become a de facto police state where citizens, especially native-born White citizens, have few, if any, rights.

So even though Tommy Robinson is not a real nationalist, or may be a ‘plant’, the fact that he is being dealt with so harshly is something that should concern us, those of us who care about the UK, or England (remember that place called England?).

When the story broke about Robinson, a lot of the comments online seemed to question why on earth the UK authorities appear to repress native-born citizens and to flagrantly side with aliens, even those accused (and convicted) of heinous crimes against young girls (and boys), native-born English/British children. This is unconscionable. What kind of government does this?

The answer may be in something called the Lancaster Plan, which I posted about a few times on this blog and my other one — and no one commented. I don’t know if that was because people disbelieved the idea of such a plan existing, but if true, it would certainly explain what is going on with the UK and its feckless, spineless ‘leadership.’ So I will offer this link wherein the writer again recounts the outlines of the Lancaster plan, and please note a comment near the bottom of the page, posted a few days ago, in which the writer offers a little more information and a link. Food for thought.

 

Hello

I hope there are still a few persistent souls who have checked in on this blog. To those who may still be interested in reading this blog, my apologies for the long absence.

I hope I will be posting regularly soon, though maybe not frequently.  Thanks for reading.

‘Germany should be German’=controversial?

Singer Morrissey is apparently creating ‘controversy’ (again) by simply saying:

“I want Germany to be German. I want France to be French. If you try to make everything multicultural, you will not have any culture in the end.

All European countries have fought for their identity for many, many years. And now they just throw it away. I think that’s sad.”

The Express newspaper labels Morrissey as ‘controversial Smiths frontman’ Morrissey. But since when is it controversial to say that a country should be populated by the people indigenous to that land for many, many generations? Up until very recently that was a given. It was something we all took for granted: Germany should be German, France should be French — and England should be English.

And speaking of the English, I see that Wikipedia labels Morrissey an ‘English singer’, yet it also states that he was born of two Irish parents. I will concede that he could be called ‘British’ because that term includes the various (indigenous) peoples of the UK, and apparently Morrissey was born in the UK, not Ireland, yet he is of Irish ancestry not English. I believe this is the dishonest media’s way of further undermining the idea of a distinctive English ethnicity. Up until now, it seems the term English was reserved for people of that descent rather than just anyone who happens to have been born in England proper — or now, in the UK. Am I splitting hairs? No. Ethnonationalism is about acknowledging the various ethnic groups as peoples with their own rightful territories, rather than identifying them only by their place of birth or their documents — ‘citizenship’ papers or passports. ‘Paper citizens’ are not the same as indigenous people who have a long history in a given piece of land.

Whether Morrissey is English or ‘British’ or Irish, at least he seems to be a realist as regards the idea of nations as peoples. And he is absolutely right in his statement about multiculturalism. Multiculturalism just results in an amorphous conglomeration of dissimilar peoples united only by geographic location and ultimately by no culture except for the ugly, crass ‘pop culture’ which currently infests all Western countries: celebrity worship, the desire for more ‘stuff’, gadgets, toys, smartphones, porn.

I can’t say I’ve followed Morrissey’s career or his various ‘controversial’ statements on current events. I doubt he is an ethnonationalist strictly speaking but he that isn’t against us is for us — or may be for us, at least.

As for Merkel and Germany, I’ve been appalled at her reckless and stupid actions in welcoming in hordes of hostile ‘refugees’ but is she the one calling the shots? It seems that most commentators blame her when in fact she is not that powerful in herself; she is doing somebody’s bidding. Her bosses are the ones who decided that Europe was to be obliterated via invasion and miscegeny, and this idea is not a recent thing; it dates back at least to Count Coudenhove-Kalergi and others of like minds, including those who founded the European Union (under the guise of an innocuous ‘common market’) decades ago.