The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan: The Man Behind Europe.

Aristocratic in his origins, Count Richard Von Coudenhove-Kalergi was an Austrian Japanese politician and philosopher. He was the pioneer of European integration, and the founder of the Pan-European Union movement during the mid 1920s (which would later act as the ideological underpin for the modern day European Union).

Kalergi claimed that societies broke up into two distinct cultures across the world, the country and the city. He argued that country life is organic, irrational, religious and superstitious. He referred to “Country Aristocrats” as Junkers. Kalergi described these people as having “Maximum character and minimum intellect.” Junkers are more likely to be religious, superstitious, and have a dislike of socialism.

City culture on the other hand is more mechanical and rational. Those from city culture are more likely to be secular, have an alliance with socialism, and create a society of writers and intellectuals. The people of a city background are progressive, witty, and materialistic. They rush ahead of their times, creating modern ideas in politics.

He argued that because the city and rural folk have conflicting beliefs, ideas, and mindsets, they inevitably share an outright hostility to each other. The city folk in particular will have a strong dislike of what they deemed to be the backward Junker. However, Kalergi believed that whilst the city intellectual and the country Junker disagreed on life, philosophy, and politics they’re not only compatible with each other, but related. Both stem from one unifying heritage, and it is possible their ideas and principles can co-exist in harmony through compromise.

Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Pan-European vision was one in which the world would comprise of five states, and would be known as the United States of Europe. The five states would consist of continental countries taking possession of Africa, a pan-America in which the North and South Americas would become one, the then USSR would expand to Eurasia, and a pan-Asian union where Japan and China control in the Pacific. English would be the spoken language of the world, and exist alongside the native tongue of any given country. In the United States of Europe, individualism would exist in harmony alongside socialism, and capitalism would co-exist with communism.

Whilst the geography of his European vision is straightforward, how is a society supposed to function properly in Coudenhove-Kalergi’s world when the two conflicting systems of capitalism and communism operate in the same space? Karl Marx’s communist approach requires that the collective own the means of production by way of the state, yet the laissez-faire capitalist model strives to champion free market enterprise and commerce. Such a severe contradiction would surely impede the success of any society, as the clash between state and private interests are forever causing stagnation in a country’s ability to flourish. Theoretically, what would exist is an economic power structure in which private companies collude alongside the government to create profit (in other words, corporatism).

Alongside economic issues, there would be a strong conflict of dominating religions from the middle east to the west, where the only viable option would seem to be a complete dissolve of religion in favour of a secular union. An atheist’s dream maybe, but short term opposition would be violent and difficult to resolve without violence.

One of the first questions to ask is who will actually agree to it? Presumably a person or body (be it Kalergi or a small group of intellectuals) see themselves as having the power to dictate to the world that theirs is not only the best culture, but so superior as to force onto other nations. Which country will acquiesce and hand their sovereignty, culture, and the very fabric of their social identity over to a European elite? I would wager none of them. Would the anti-world order powers of Russia just suddenly bow to their demands and pull down the Kremlin? Would China and Japan simply cease fighting over island territories in the East China Sea chain?

In order to take the varied number of cultures and societies and combine them would require universal compliance from all of the people inhabiting these countries. If history has taught us one thing, achieving universal thought requires universal control. Europe would therefore have to force the world’s hand. What could ignite are devastating conflicts conducted on an industrial scale. Entire cultures that refused to bend to the whim of European integration would be labelled nothing more than xenophobic and hateful, and one that must be thwarted by the paragons in Europe. We can already see early rumblings of such attitudes in today’s society, with arguments that Brexit in the UK was paramount to fascism, and the US vote for anti-establishment Trump was a backwards racist, and sexist move. Whenever the people vote against a political power, the response must be to decry them and present them as a deplorable force against the greater good.

Today’s European Union champions Coudenhove-Kalergi and his philosophy. He is almost entirely unknown to the masses, but within the spheres of EU power he is much idolised, with his ideas being hailed as the leading light on how the future world should be shaped. There is even a foundation named after the man, the Coudenhove-Kalergi Foundation, which awards the European Prize to those who have shown considerable support, and make significant contributions to the pursuit of an integrated Europe.

We can already see EU policy being made that lunges with inexhaustible enthusiasm towards an integrated European Union. It could even be argued that in recent times this Union grows with scandalous desperation. A look at the membership of Croatia (P.3), as told by a member of the European Scrutiny Comittee, shows how the Croatian government failed to meet its targets for an independent judiciary, and failed to get corruption out of the police force. Despite the unsuccessful criteria, the EU decided to let Croatia in regardless because they broadly believed in enlargement of the European state. Whilst absolute integration looks ever more unlikely given today’s diplomatic and geo-political situation, the recent changes seen across Western Europe have a startling resemblance to the early stages of Richard Von Coudenhove-Kalergi’s plan, and this makes for a very sobering thought.

Kalergi had a vision for a system of governance too, in which a conservative society made up of “great Europeans” would supersede any democratic rule of the five states, creating legislation that this group deems best for the people of Europe. This society would be appointed to their position due in part to their academic eminence, and loyalty to the European ideal.

In 2017, we can already see some considerable elements of the Count’s vision in practice. The European Commission for instance, is a society of 28 unelected officials that hold the absolute power to create regulation/directives, as seen in the FC0 30/1048, “European Integration: legal Constitutional Implications” (1971). This reflects Coudenhove-Kalergi’s government model of a small elite society ruling over a league of nations.

Kalergi also strove to remove racial diversity, and instead pursue the goal of an ethnically homogeneous and inclusive European nation based on a single set of values. In his book Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism) his belief in eugenics is outlined, “The man of the future will be a mongrel. Today’s races will disappear- the Eurasian Negro race of the future, similar in its outward appearance to the ancient Egyptians will replace the diversity of its peoples with a diversity of individuals.” (P.7) It’s apparent that Coudenhove-Kalergi’s desire to pull the world into one giant European conglomerate does not just end at the point of governance, but at the point of biology and society as a whole. The suggestion of removing all forms of racial and national identity would require a vast number of indigenous cultures to be broken down and discarded by Pan-European dogma.

The biggest indicator of this in practice today is with the issue of mass immigration. In Germany, migration has reached staggering numbers running into the millions, with increases of 46% between 2014 and 2015 (an estimated 672,000 people). When such an overwhelming population comes into Germany (most of which have no understanding of the language) the services to educate and cater to their needs can’t cope. This inevitably means that migrants set up their own communities amongst themselves. These communities bare no relation to the indigenous culture of Germany, and neither shares the values nor principles that exist within the country. As this community grows, studies have shown that the indigenous German population is in decline. Birth rates in Germany have in fact slumped to such a low that it’s not just one of the smallest in Europe, but now competes globally. If this trend is to continue, the idea of the German people being a minority in Germany will not be a question of “if,” but “when”. The demographic shift will invariably lead to a cultural shift, and a breakdown of the German way of life. The consequences of such a breakdown can be seen in other parts of the world where this trend has reached the point of no return, such as the Lebanon in which the cultural change led to civil war and the rise in power of numerous terrorist groups, the most notable being Hezbollah.

Coudenhove-Kalergi’s European dream seems palatable to many people, a league of nations that would unite as one. A world in which there is no race that can be oppressed, with universal rights, and a world in which personality is the diversity, not race. These pursuits of racial integration however, fail to factor in one key aspect of human nature, tribalism. Be it through music, art, style, or nationality, human feats and cultural history have given way to various groups that individuals can subscribe to. It could be ‘mods’ or ‘greasers’ or youthful ‘hip’ clothing over more conservative classic numbers, the need for group identity will always shine through. Alongside this will invoke prejudice, both from the people within these groups (about how they dress or the political views that they have) or from others attacking that group. In short, people will always find something to discriminate against even if race is taken out of the picture.

What recent events have gone to show, is that people will always choose to preserve their own cultural and national identities over a mass unintelligible network, with its activities known only to those who work within it. History has taught that the larger governments govern badly, and with often iniquitous results. Yet time and again we still see the championing of such systems, which hand sovereignty to far off powers that face little responsibility and even less in the way of detention for wrongdoing. This sets a dangerous precedent that culminates not only in the loss of national identity, but a loss in prosperity, culture, and above all freedom.


If Parliament Votes on Brexit.

Outrage among Leave voters today as the high court ruled against Mrs. May’s attempts to trigger article 50 without parliamentary approval. Even though some suspicious conclusions can be made from this decision, I think it’s important to discuss what it would actually mean for parliament to be given their say, as I don’t think, like many on the Remain side are salivating, that this marks the end of Brexit altogether.

The government will likely appeal this decision with the supreme court, but despite the fact that if they lose the case it would have to be brought to the European Court of Justice, and also despite that one of the judges who ruled against Mrs. May, claiming he was “not expressing any view about the merits of leaving the European Union,” happened to a founder of the European Law Institute, Lord Thomas, I don’t think it’s wise to engage in conspiracy theories about the overturn of democracy by unelected judges –  even though we entered every EU treaty under the royal prerogative, without consulting parliament.

The Conservative party have a majority in parliament, and whilst we know the Tories are split from those who want to leave, those who want to remain but don’t want to subvert the referendum, and those who want to remain regardless, I think it’s pretty well understood that if there’s one thing you can bank on with the Tory party it is the replacement of principle with the future of their political careers. In other words, no party would likely commit political suicide when they have their re-election in the bag with an 18-point lead against the opposition party, highest number since 2009. The real worry is that the Conservative politicians will not outright reject Brexit, but rather delay. In doing this, they can avoid being criticised as wholly against it and can prevent it from ever getting underway.

The case was brought by a group calling themselves the People’s Challenge, and jury is still out on whether that means a challenge by the people, or to the people, but this decision will stoke a lot of tensions in the electorate, so much so that it would not be surprising to see a UK Independence Party victory in 2020 if the referendum is subverted, or delayed, or victory for a different right wing party which might appear in the cracks of a currently disintegrating UKIP. For as long as I can remember there has been a warring two sides of mainstream political discourse, between those who feel that nothing ever changes and those who feel that nothing has to. Well it’s no surprise at times like this that change seems like only something you see in old literature, if the status quo has grown so big to be legally unchallengeable.

However, even if the vote is delayed, or blocked, or subverted or whatever other synonym anxious journalists can muster, there are still actions to be taken. Theresa May still has the power to call an early election. With such a high lead in the polls she would certainly win the vote, and including Brexit in her manifesto is all she has to do to shift the course of Brexit negotiations from “should we” to “how should we”, and reject outright any notion of a “soft” Brexit (which, as stated previously on this site is just another word for Remain). There is a great difference between the political elite expressing desire to overturn a referendum, and expressing desire to overturn a general election vote, and it will in many cases act as a de-facto second referendum, but not for the purposes of re-decision, rather as democratic strategy to eliminate the political elite.


“How to Make Brexit a Success” (Event Summary).

On Wednesday the 19th October, hosted by The Spectator magazine, Andrew Neil and James Forsyth headed a talk in London, discussing the political and economic issues of Brexit, as well as the measures that need to be taken in order to ensure its success.

James Forsyth, political editor of The Spectator, opened discussions stating that the media constantly reminds us that the government doesn’t have a plan regarding Brexit, but forgets to mention that the EU doesn’t either. MEP Guy Verhofstadt rejected the idea that the EU has a definitive plan for the Brexit negotiations but did add that he and his colleagues would draft a “very politically biased resolution,” after the triggering of Article 50. Forsyth then commented on how Brexit was just one of several big issues that are concerning EU officials in this politically turbulent climate, with Europe’s ongoing constitutional crisis and the issues surrounding Greece. According to Forsyth, Brexit “is evidently one of the biggest political changes in forty years, and there is still much planning and negotiating to be done.”

Amet Gill, senior advisor to David Cameron, began by telling of the some 20,000 laws that have come back up for grabs since Britain voted to leave the EU. However, a comprehensive study suggests that the legal workload could be double that amount, with up to 40,000 laws coming under scrutiny. The great repeal act will be used to decide which EU directives and regulations to uphold and implement into British law, which to amend, and which to scrap altogether. Gill added that the discretionary power of the executive (Theresa May), would be a key instrument in ensuring a prompt and smooth exit. Without her, parliament would have to debate every single EU law, which inevitably stalls the Brexit process. Andrew Neil then contributed, saying that these issues are likely to be exacerbated by hurdles in the EU, citing issues regarding the Canadian deal. Amet pointed out how this illustrates that the primary goal of the EU is to preserve the great European project, and if they have to punish the UK to preserve this ideal, they will. Therefore the key aim is to enable the British government full control of immigration and legislative power, as a first step to ending EU supremacy.

Gerald Lyons, co-chair of “Economists for Brexit”, focussed on domestic agenda as the UK prepares to leave the EU, and the aim to “increase investment, which will lead to greater productivity to the rest of the country as well as London.” He remarked on the issues of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ Brexit, saying that it shouldn’t be viewed in this way, but seen rather as ‘clean’ or ‘messy’. A clean exit is one of complete severance, not only from the EU’s legislative supremacy, but also from its single market. The much less preferable messy break is one in which the UK still remains a member of the single market. He added “it must be made clear to the world that Britain is an open economy.” Gerald went on to say that whilst people fear that Britain is now seen to be unstable economically, Asia sees the UK in a positive light. He outlines why this is encouraging, as virtually all of the market innovation takes place in countries like India and China due to them being a free market.

Gisela Stuart, Labour MP and chair of the “Change Britain” campaign, started by discussing how there have been issues between the UK and the EU ever since The Maastricht Treaty disputes, in which the UK avoided going over to the Euro. Gisela then remarked on the notion that this referendum is proving strange as, unlike an election, the losers (Remain) are demanding that the winners (Leave) explain themselves, i.e. to show a concrete plan on just what they mean by ‘Brexit’. Unusual responses from the referendum occurred in Scotland too, where both Labor and Conservative Remainers left to join the Scottish National Party. She moved to talk about the deception of ‘soft’ Brexit, and how this notion is simply the Remain movement renamed, as a soft Brexit still leaves the UK a member of the single market. Gisela stated that “Brexit is not a question of racism but fairness,” arguing that the EU defends low skilled jobs whilst simultaneously discriminates against those outside of the EU, and that the “media is in a state of grieving,” with papers like the Guardian and the Independent capitalising on this angst.

Andrew Neil tied the discussion together by addressing the negative press, arguing that “Theresa May is playing her cards close to her chest” with Brexit. This is a gap within the narrative that the Remain movement is filling, with the aid of an inherently pro-Remain treasury. He then remarked on one of the most talked about ‘crises’ the media refers to, the devaluation of the pound. Neil argued that this issue has been blown out of proportion, stating that the sterling has been overvalued for some time and that this decline is simply a return to its more tangible value.

Perhaps the most pertinent issue Neil discussed was Nicola Sturgeon’s mission to keep Scotland a member of the EU by way of independence. He argues that this eventuality is unlikely to occur for a number of reasons. First, Sturgeon’s wish of having an independence referendum presents a huge gamble for her politically, as her entire career hinges on the vote being successful. Should the Scottish vote against independence, she’ll be out of office after only two years in power. The second issue he raised was regarding the Scottish exports to the rest of the UK, which could run the risk of being hindered by European regulation. The third, and arguably the most significant issue is currency. Sturgeon intends to keep the pound sterling, which is somewhat of an issue for the EU because, as Neil pointed out, “she wants to go to the EU and say ‘we want to remain a member, but we want to keep the currency of a country (Britain) which is leaving the EU.’ No chance!” Her options are to either create her own currency or go over to the Euro. However, Neil claims the Scottish people will wholeheartedly reject it upon seeing the fiscal damage it’s done to Ireland.

He concluded the talk by saying that Brexit has the potential to open up many opportunities for Britain not only economically, but also politically. This sentiment was furthered by James Forsyth who said that “Brexit can allow for a more honest and open politics where unknown elites can’t just do as they please. Having an accountable government is very important to amending public discontent.”

It is clear that there is much work to be done, and done well, in order for Britain to successfully exit the EU. The panel revealed that there are many obstacles to overcome, be it European bureaucrats or policy difficulties, in order to make Brexit work. However, if an exit from the European Union means that the UK can join the rest of the developing world, rich with market innovation and economic growth, then tackling the impending obstacles seem worth it. With an end to EU supremacy, the UK is free and unchallenged in its attempt to tackle the social, political, and economic issues that have so far hindered its ability to flourish.

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 (, via Wikimedia Commons)