Britons voted on the 23rd June 2016 to leave the European Union. The result of that Referendum should have been the start of serious negotiations with the EU about our departure process but Prime Minister Theresa May has, either by incompetence or design, royally screwed up this process.
Many of us who voted Leave expected and would have accepted some form of temporary compromise arrangement during the exit process, so as to smooth the process of leaving for British businesses and to create good will in the remaining 27 EU nations to make negotiating a future trade deal easier. However this is not what has happened. Mrs May’s much vaunted Withdrawal Agreement gave too much away to the EU both financially and in terms of the ability to control our own laws, our own economy and our own borders. Mrs May has failed to sell her awful deal to Parliament and the parliamentary process side of Brexit has been hijacked by EU enthusiast members who have failed to respect the result of the Referendum and in the process have destroyed what remained of the public’s trust in politics and the political process.
Now we find out that although we were supposed to leave the EU on the 29th March of this year this exit date has been put back, amusingly appropriately in my view, to Halloween the 31st October. Even then it is unsure whether we will be out then or not. Prospects of leaving without a deal on World Trade Organisation terms have been all but completely scuppered by cynical Remain supporting politicians such as Labour’s Yvette Cooper. Theresa May has even done what what would previously been almost unthinkable, which is the Tories negotiating and cooperating with one of the most openly Marxist and dangerous Labour Party leaders that this country has ever seen.
Mrs May has claimed that she is ‘frustrated’ that her rubbish Withdrawal Agreement has not passed through Parliament, but that is nothing like the frustration that the rest of us feel when we see those who were tasked with implementing the result of the Referendum failing to do so. Whilst I accept and appreciate that Britain does not have a system where parliamentarians are delegates but instead are representatives that have the right to exercise their own judgement, the result of the Referendum should have been sacrosanct. A decision delegated to the electorate by parliament itself should have been respected and implemented, but it was not.
The damage that Theresa May has done to this country is immense. The constant uncertainty about the country’s future has probably damaged business confidence and has most definitely damaged the political system. In addition to that her actions and that of her supporters has probably gone a long way to destroy the Conservative Party itself. We are now in the position where we will be forced to vote in European Parliament elections for an EU that we voted to leave. I would certainly not recommend people boycott these elections as that will only benefit Remainers. What we need to do is give the entire political class a very bloody electoral nose not just in the EU Parliamentary elections but also in the local council elections on the 2nd May. We on the Leave side and those who are unhappy with the way that we are governed need to get out and vote and not exhibit apathy. We should also not vote for any of the parties, Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat that have got us into this mess in the first place. Vote for one of the smaller pro-Brexit parties or an independent, basically anything but the three main parties. If we do not turn out and vote in huge numbers and vote for some form of change then we will end up with more of the same politics which has created so many disasters both local and national. Mobs of angry people in the streets protesting against the way that Brexit has been handled may feel good for those involved in them but they will change little that is important. To instigate change one must have power and that power comes from the ballot box. Vote for change or be forever governed by those who treat the rest of us with contempt.
I suspect May and the traitor class are so committed to the EU project that they are prepared to sacrifice any hope of freedom and democracy,and she is prepared to destroy her own party as the evolvement of the Lisbon Treaty would leave our parliament with literally no powers at all anyway!
Our Parliamentarians are representatives rather than delegates but when solemnly promising, e.g. in a leaflet delivered to every household in the UK:
and when the Prime Minister stands outside 10 Downing Street and states:
then Parliament has transformed itself into delegates on this specific issue.
But… ‘This is what democracy looks like’; and Plato argues in Republic, Book VIII, that democracy is only the precursor to tyranny.
As preface: imagine someone growing up in the USSR in the ’60s & ’70s. All his life he’s been told that the most equitable and efficient form of government is communism, the best form of which is Marxist-Leninism. Not just by teachers instructing him in this ‘truth’ but subtly, everywhere—a passing sentence in a history book, a throwaway line from a TV detective, jokes by comedians about the stupidity and cupidity of the former tsars and nobles. Eventually he notices that the reality of communism falls short of the theory; but with no other frame of reference, his answer to communism’s ills is… More communism!: We must embrace communism more strictly, put better people in charge who will implement it more in line with what its Founding Fathers intended…
…But maybe it’s the entire system at fault: maybe communism is intrinsically flawed (right theory, wrong species); or maybe the abuses of power and accumulation of unearned wealth by Party elites is communism working exactly as designed.
Are we any less brainwashed than that hypothetical Soviet citizen? Instructed that democracy, especially Western social-democracy, is the best form of government—of such superlative nature that we must needs export it with drone-mounted Hellfires to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
To illustrate the subtle propaganda in which we are enveloped, note the Blackadder link in my reference to comedians’ jokes. I have touched on this theme before, that the common perception of WW1 is inaccurate. In addition to references passim, here are a couple of good videos on this topic (lectures by highly-regarded historians):
‘False Memory: what we “know” about WW1,’ by Professor Stephen Badsey (48m).
‘The Battle of the Somme reassessed,’ by Professor Gary Sheffield (49m).
Once one starts studying what actually happened in WW1, one realises that Ben Elton (co-writer of Blackadder), although portraying himself as an anti-Establishment lefty, was unwittingly so assiduously serving the Establishment’s agenda that he should have been on the Commons payroll. Blaming the generals for a war the Commons members were responsible for? The generals didn’t start the war, they just fought the war the politicians landed them in. And barely 20 years later our Commons politicians embroiled us in yet another war—and 1929 to 1940 was one missed opportunity after another to first avoid conflict altogether, then limit it to a skirmish, and finally a short local war.
We need to remove the rose-tinted spectacles when viewing our Parliament.
For centuries, the Commons claimed to pursue ‘democracy’ and ‘equality’ but these pretensions only disguised their true purpose: taking power from the ‘nobs’ for themselves. Cromwell murdered a King then installed himself as one in all but name, instituting a tyranny worse than Charles was ever accused of (while also sowing the seeds of a bitterness in Ireland, the bitter fruits of which we yet reap). The Commons retained as much power as they could after the Restoration forced on them by General Monck and his soldiers, then accrued further power after the 1688 Palace Coup. The last real check to Commons power was removed with the hobbling of the Lords with the Parliament Act 1911.
Note how that Act was played out. The Lords confronted the Commons over the Liberals’ ‘People’s Budget’; the Liberals went to the country over the budget in January 1910—and their vote collapsed. They lost 135 MPs (net loss 123) while the Tories gained 116, and the Liberals’ solid 1906 majority and margin of 241 was reduced to a plurality with a margin of a mere 2; and the Tories obtained 206,725 more votes than the Liberals (2,919,236 to 2,712,511)—the so-called ‘People’s Budget’ did not have the People’s backing; but the Liberals clung onto power by entering a coalition with John Redmond’s Irish Parliamentary Party. To ensure they were never so challenged again, in December they went to the country over reducing the power of the House of Lords and lost a further 2 seats; the Tories lost one as well, leaving the Liberals only 1 ahead; again, the Tories gained the greater number of votes nationally, obtaining 2,270,753 (648,483 less than January) to the Liberals’ 2,157,256 (555,255 down from January). Despite their vote caving, the Liberals nonetheless passed the Parliament Act 1911—again, without any popular mandate to do so; indeed, in defiance of the voters.
IOW: in the name of ‘democracy’ and the ‘People’ the Liberal Party said Bollocks to both. And now the Commons are saying Bollocks to us again.
The Commons’ transformation into a virtually unicameral assembly would be fine were they able to wield sovereign power competently; but the history of the 20th Century shows them as actually singularly inept in their wielding of sovereignty; and the 21st Century shows them as not only singularly inept but singularly corrupt as well.
But like our Soviet citizen who can imagine no other resolution to communism’s ills other than more communism, so many in the West can imagine no other resolution to democracy’s ills other than more democracy.
E.g., it is oft-suggested we replace the House of Lords with an elected chamber (petition, campaign, UKIP manifesto, etc. ad nauseam)—because the first elected chamber works so well we simply must replicate it in a second… But here’s a heretical thought: what if the Lords’ ills actually stem from its emasculation by the Commons? Its reduction from coequal branch of our once tripartite constitution to an echo-chamber, filled no longer with hereditary nobles but political appointees? Maybe, just maybe, less democracy is (at least sometimes) the answer; and that the issues with our House of Lords’ would be better resolved by restoring their former structure, and taking back some power from the diversity-hires infesting our Commons. By rebuilding one of Chesterton’s fences.
It’s going to take more than changing the captain and navigator to fix this sinking ship. Like that Soviet citizen, we need to start questioning the very nature of our governmental system, along with the Western shibboleths of ‘democracy’ and ‘equality’.
(I’m not delivering lectures here; well thought out pushback is appreciated—can’t resolve my arguments’ flaws if none point them out.)
Simply put: it’s ‘democracy’ that got us into our current mess. No sovereign monarch would have assented to the European Communities Act 1972 and its Section 2. A monarch might have signed up to the EEC free trade zone; negotiators might have failed to notice Flaminio Costa v. E.N.E.L. (1964) establishing EEC law as having primacy over domestic; and having passed an ECA sans s.2, if the EEC later questioned us not implementing some directives and on notifying them we had no intention of changing British law to accommodate them, they said: ‘But you have to: EEC law has primacy over your own,’ our sovereign would have replied something like:
‘If you want those directives enforced, then enforce them. We’ll wait. So will the worms. And so will the fishes.’
But here I express heresy, do I not?
Orthodoxy instructs that the concept of sovereign monarchs cannot be countenanced because kings are bad, and we know they’re bad because we’ve been told they’re bad; and aristocrats are bad, because they’re bad; and the kulaks are bad and der Juden are bad. (Scratch those last two—wrong régimes; but the kings and aristos are defo’ bad.)
Here is a picture of a typical aristo.
Oops, wrong propaganda, try this one. Nope, wrong one again. Here you go, a picture of a typical aristo.
Here is a picture of an actual aristo. Simon Fraser, 15th Lord Lovat; pictured on his return from Dieppe:
‘Lord Lovat: he was a giant among giants on D-Day’ (Daily Telegraph)
‘Brigadier The Lord Lovat’ (The Pegasus Archive)
We are taught to laugh at, to despise, heroes—people who lived lives and accomplished things that put most of us in the shade; people who risked—and often gave—their lives for the country they loved.
To be precise, no-one laughs at Lord Lovat—his existence is simply ignored; ask the average Brit to picture a British officer, he’ll likely think of Hugh Laurie’s gormless Lieutenant George rather than the 15th Lord Lovat. Just as the National Socialists produced their caricatures of Jews and ignored the Jewish soldiers who fought in the German army, 12,000 of whom died for Germany and 18,000 awarded the Iron Cross—„dem Vaterland ewig treu“.
But the Revolution marches ever forward; once one enemy is vanquished, another must be found. So the Bolsheviks, having crushed the дворянство (nobility—the Бывшие люди or ‘former people’ as the Большевики called them), required new ‘enemies of the people’ (враги народа), and targeted the aforementioned кулакы as well as вредители (‘wreckers’). Our own Left, having removed or co-opted the aristocracy, similarly needs new enemies: the Straight White Male, demonised in media and increasingly in law. From heroes to zeroes.
Is Britain not a communist country?
…Riffing off the pseudonymous ‘Mencius Moldbug’ where he wrote: ‘America is a communist country.’
From a 2013 essay ‘Technology, Communism and the Brown Scare’, a long but thought-provoking read (which also relates to your earlier post about Hadiza Bawa-Garba). What he wrote applies as much to Britain along with the rest of the West; however, his writings tend not to lend themselves to soundbites, so I must leave it to his essay in toto to explain his reasoning behind that red pill.
But in Britain’s case, apart from the propaganda against class enemies, our government mandates the minimum wage an employer pays his least skilled employee, whom he can hire and fire, and which customers he must serve. Police enter homes to order their owners to lock their doors and shut their windows even when inside (at least Coventry police did not lock the residents in and walk away with their keys—too soon for that). We can be arrested (and publicly vilified and sacked) for expressing the wrong opinion. We are ever more judged, not on our actions nor even our thoughts, but our perceived thoughts—strangers presume to read others minds and condemn for what they think they find. The State demands our children be subjected to propaganda—and woe betide any who object.
Are we not a communist country?
You’ve made some very interesting points here. I agree that our children are being taught to despise the heroes who served and saved this country and this does have a lot of similarities with how children were taught to despise anything anti Soviet during the Communist reign of Russia