Why Brexit Was Anti-Fascist.

Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer: The infamous political slogan which spread throughout Germany as the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) took ground, translated, One People, One Empire, One Leader.

As Britain prepares to trigger article 50, and to negotiate our leave from the European Union, there has been some split among the people, although not in the way you would expect. Initially there was a backlash, self-coined anarchists rioting in favour of a political establishment, a call to strip certain people of voting rights because the referendum didn’t turn out the way they wanted it to, and worse, the pitiful attempt from the British mainstream media to draw parallels between nationalism and Nazism. Well, as it would be just to claim that Nazism is comparable to nationalism, it would also be just to claim that it is in regards to socialism, and so it would it seem strange that many of these outcriers are Jeremy Corbyn supporters. The truth is, however, that Nazism is a conflicting coalition between the two, in fact, without nationalism we may never have beaten the Nazis in the first place.

But in more recent weeks, the media has accepted by and large that a leave vote should mean a leave vote, even if they would have preferred to remain, as anything other (such as a second referendum) would surely only extend the supposed “uncertainty recession” (or the “secession recession”) even further. But today I’m not going to talk about what should happen next, nor, as I would like to, criticise the ‘do-gooders’ and their regurgitated politics, instead I simply wish to make the case that Brexit was nothing other than a fight against fascism: a fight against Global Socialists, or as I like to call them, the Glozi.

First, let’s have a quiz. Who else was in favour of a “United States of Europe”?… Hitler. Who was the first person to launch plans for a European Economic Community (EEC), or a standard European Currency?… Walther Funk, Hitler’s economic advisor. In a speech to the Reichstag in 1936, Hitler said “It is not very intelligent to imagine that in such a cramped house like that of Europe, a community of peoples can maintain different legal systems and different concepts of law for long.” And indeed, in a 1940 speech by Funk, he claimed that “A stronger sense of economic community among European nations must be aroused by collaboration in all spheres of economic policy.” Joseph Goebbels, in 1943, stated that “Whoever dominated Europe will thereby assume the leadership of the world.”

In 1944, part of which came out in the Red House report, a meeting took place among Nazis in Strasbourg discussing “plans of German industrialists to engage in underground activity after Germany’s defeat; flow of capital to neutral countries.” In 1950, British intelligence intercepted the Nazi Madrid Circular which said:

“What Germany needs in the future is not democracy, but a system of statecraft, similar to that of the Soviet dictatorship. Enabling the political and military elite in Germany to organise the industrial capacity of Europe, and the military qualities of the German people, for the revival of the German race and the re-establishment of Europe as power centre of the world. We will surely gain the undisputed leadership in Europe, NOT excluding Britain.”

Now, I don’t believe that the EU is secretly run or funded by ex-Nazis, but there is an undeniable link between Hitler’s plan to dominate Europe, and the creation of what can best be described as a Glozi European Superstate. One with its own anthem, police force, flag, parliament, justice system, and president, which imposes rules as mandated in the various treaties signed and seldom discussed, or presented to, the public of individual member states. You will often hear the argument that the EU commission is unelected, and equally that the British people have no say in the regulations and directives imposed upon them. To name a few; energy saving light bulbs, the CAP, the landfill directive, all of which have significantly impacted day to day life and none of which were voted for by way of general election policy. And the typical argument against this is that we elected the various Prime Ministers who signed these treaties, such as Maastricht, or Lisbon, but none of these were known to the public during those elections, nor were the public of England at least consulted in a referendum (Ireland was, and in their referendum for the Lisbon Treaty, they refused, and were made to vote again until the EU got the vote it wanted), but even when Edward Heath first took Britain into the common market in 1973, it was enacted on a lie, self-admittedly.

According to the Bill of Rights, 1689, “No foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority within this realm.” When signing the Treaty of Rome, Heath claimed that “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty,” although when asked in 1998 if he knew that taking Britain into what was then softly coined “the Common Market” would lead to a federal state, he replied, “Of course I bloody did.” And indeed, if you look at the FCO 30/1048, released in 1971, entitled “European integration: Legal Constitutional Implications,” it stated quite clearly in a number of passages that entry into the Common Market raised concerns about national sovereignty. Here are just a couple of hand-picked examples.

15. When a regulation has been made, would parliament be able to reject its application to the UK?

“This would not be consistent with the treaty obligations which the United Kingdom would have assumed.”

18. “Essential aspects of sovereignty both internal and external would indeed increasingly be transferred to the Community itself.”

Let’s take a look at what Jean Monnet, considered to be one of the founding fathers of the European Union, said about sovereignty. “There will be no peace in Europe if the states are reconstructed on the basis of national sovereignty.” And the current president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker? “Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?” I must also shed a light on the oath that commissioners from member states must take, debunking any notion that our own representatives prove the EU’s responsibility to uphold the best interest of each individual member state, they must take an oath “to be completely independent in carrying out [their] responsibilities, in the general interest of the Union.”

After we were forced into joining the Common Market without proper consultation, Harold Wilson tried to remedy this by holding a post-joining referendum on whether or not we should “stay” apart of something we legally shouldn’t have joined in the first place, and I would argue that it is certainly a different question to ask whether the public should remain a part of something they haven’t seen much difference in joining, or whether or not they should join something completely different. So of course, lucky for the British government, it was a majority remain vote.

Fascism is defined by Mussolini as anti-individual, “We are free to believe that this is the collective century, and therefore the century of the state.” He goes on to claim that “The fascist state [is] a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.”

Under the European Union, we have seen plans for communal agricultural policies, education policies, immigration policies, economic currency, and tax harmonisation (something echoed by Funk, and is more prevalent in the news recently). We have seen extradition policies which make it so that one citizen could be charged by the law in a separate EU country and extradited, where “they are not allowed to examine the merits of an extradition request…” With the EU’s doctrine of supremacy of law, European Union labour laws take precedence over domestic labour law which has led, as in the case of Marshall V. Southampton and South West Area Health Authority (No. 2) Case C-271/91, 1993, to the abolishment of the “limits on compensation for sex discrimination in the UK legislation.”

So that’s one people, and one governance. If an empire is defined as “a group of nations or peoples ruled over by government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom,” then the European Union can certainly fall under that category as well. So what’s left, one leader? We’ve already seen in Italy as Berlusconi, during the Eurozone financial crisis in 2011, suspected he was forced out by EU officials. Timothy Geither, a US treasury secretary wrote, “At one point that fall, a few European officials approached us with a scheme to try to force Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi out of power; they wanted us to refuse to support IMF loans to Italy until he was gone.” In Greece, George Papandreou was threatened with expulsion from the EU for daring to hold a referendum on their bailout plan the same year.

Even with their own staff, the European Commission silences or fires anyone who criticises them or holds them accountable for their actions. Marta Andreasen, chief accountant, was suspended in 2002 after claiming that “opportunities for fraud are open and taken advantage of.” In 2004 she was fired by Neil Kinnock (a British representative), as Chris Heaton-Harris says, “The commission has again persecuted another whistle-blower whose only crime was to stand up and raise concerns on the EU’s accounting procedures,” failing to ask permission before issuing public statements which might paint the commission in a negative light.

When debating the European Union we often fall into a trap, rather than arguing if we have a say in their decisions, we debate over whether those decisions are good or bad. Well it would seem obvious for liberals or neo-socialists to defend the Glozi regime, since it holds a lot of their values, but the problem is that many of those values are party-dependant. What I mean by that is, in Britain we pit, say, Labour values versus Conservative values and vote on who we would like to run the country for a fixed term. The values set out by the European Union are not broad-brush values that every citizen should follow, in many cases, as with the internet censorship of “hate speech,” or some of the directives in the Stability and Growth Pact, or even in the case of education targets, these are rules that would, and should, be decided on by an electorate. Imagine, Labour supporters, if a Conservative government was in charge of running a wider political union that has the ability to impose regulations and directives into your elected Labour government. Or Conservative supporters, you don’t need to imagine it because we have exactly that now, as effectively a Labour government is in charge of running a union and imposes on your chosen, and voted for, government. If we cannot debate their rules, whether you agree with them or not (and many people do not) and we cannot pass a vote of no confidence, nor can we elect out of separate European Union “parties” then it is, by definition, totalitarian.

So that’s what Brexit was, it was a fight for the ability to decide, whatever that decision may be, it was a fight against a parental guardian in case we make what they consider to be the “wrong decision”, it was a rebellion, truly British, and it was our frustrated public, who have lost interest in politics because their vote doesn’t mean anything anymore. It surprises me too, that liberals, who champion identity, the belief that you are how you define yourself to be, would be in favour of something which chooses to define our country. It surprises me, that liberals, who boast about representing the voice of the working class, and ordinary people, would so collectively ignore them when they go off reservation, and even suggest that they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. It surprises me, that those who once chose morality or principle over economic pragmatism, would now choose to ignore principle. And I refer those who would be quick to label leave supporters as “racist” or “bigots” or that the leave vote was a vote for “xenophobes” or “Islamophobes,” to the examples set out in Mein Kampf, which state that the “the leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.” And I suppose it’s true, what Reagan said in 1964, that “those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening.”

I will leave you with a quote from Jean-Claude Junker, current President of the European Commission:

“We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”

(Image by DAVID HOLT from London, England [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s