The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Joyce Archive
Brexit: the Banality of Treason
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“We have no real democracy at the present time, because again and again the people have voted for decisive action, yet again and again their will has been thwarted by obstruction in the talking shop at Westminster. Democracy only begins when the will of the people is carried out.”
Sir Oswald Mosley, 1931

One of my all-time favourite fictional stories about the nature of political belief is Flannery O’Connor’s The Barber, published in 1948. This remarkable short story, written when O’Connor was just 20 years old, follows a number of interactions in the life of George Rayber, a college professor who decides to visit a new barber just prior to a governor’s election. Rayber is a typical liberal, blindly convinced of his progressive beliefs and his own intellectual powers. In contrast to Rayber, the Barber and his other customers are supporters of the racial status quo. As Rayber sits for a shave, and discussion moves to the election, the interaction between college professor and barber becomes a masterful allegory for competing political philosophies and behaviors. Rayber finds himself arguing with an audience that is grounded in reality, immune to abstraction, and who seem to understand the economic interests he has in the election better than he does. It is the Barber who repeatedly reminds the conceited, and self-deceiving, college professor to really “think” and to use his “horse sense” rather than blindly follow progressive fantasies and intellectual fashions. Rayber, incensed by the reactionary views of the Barber, is nevertheless unable to offer an articulate, factual rebuttal, sitting mute and angry. Frustrated and embarrassed by someone he sees as an ignorant bigot, he then neurotically spends the night writing a “systematic analysis” for why voting for his candidate is a good idea, and plans to confront the Barber with it before the election. The story reaches a climax when Rayber finally gives his impromptu lecture in the barbershop, is greeted with laughter and derision, and subsequently lashes out by punching the Barber — confirming, with his violent loss of self-control, his own ideological, intellectual and personal defeat.

Although it’s been noted by biographers that she enjoyed “racist jokes,” O’Connor was politically ambiguous and her precise intentions in this story went with her to the grave when she died of lupus aged 39. In this case, however, I subscribe to the school of formalist criticism in that I see The Barber as possessing a life and existence beyond its author and her intentions. Regardless of what O’Connor intended, or how other critics have interpreted it, the story remains one of the most profound and succinct fictional portrayals of modern left-liberalism. We know, for instance, from several scientific studies that although leftists believe themselves to be agents of rationality they are in fact more likely than Rightists to be swayed by emotion.[1]R. Pliskin, D. Bar-Tal, G. Sheppes, “Are Leftists More Emotion-Driven Than Rightists? The Interactive Influence of Ideology and Emotions on Support for Policies,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40:12 (2014), 1681-1697. They are also prone to weaker levels of emotional regulation and to “extreme acts of solidarity … with groups to which they do not belong originally.” The ongoing tragicomic presence of Antifa, recently filmed screaming “Nazi” at a milquetoast female conservative approaching her eighties, and the growing culture of censorship, are surely proof that the spirit of George Rayber is alive and well. The Left continues to evade debate, forfeiting argument in order to punch the “ignorant” in the smug belief that the Left, and the Left alone, are both intellectually and morally correct.

This smugness, and the inability to accept defeat even when it’s right in front of them, has typified the actions of the left-liberal elite in relation to both Donald Trump and Brexit. When the Mueller Report, a kind of modern day Democrat version of Rayber’s “systematic analysis,” provoked all the laughter and derision it deserved, the Democrat’s simply dusted themselves off and “punched” the GOP with a new set of outlandish claims concerning Trump and Ukraine. Similarly, when Britain voted to leave the European Union, the left-liberal elite “punched” the British public by blocking Brexit legislation, dodging a proposed general election, and then accusing Boris Johnson of inciting violence against them. Irony is often lost on the Left, but they have a talent for inadvertently producing it.

I must make myself clear. I am ambiguous about the actual meaning of Brexit. I firmly believe that the day after Brexit there will be violence in the streets, chaos in hospitals, resources and infrastructure will be stretched to breaking point, and government will be totally ineffective. Britain will be a disaster. But this will also be the case the day before Brexit, just as it has been the case in Britain ever since the multicultural project was embarked upon. Britain’s most pressing crisis has little or nothing to do with a series of transnational treaties binding it to other European member states. Britain has already imbibed the most potent of toxins, globalism and multiculturalism, and these toxins will remain in the system with or without supervision or government from Brussels. My point is that Brexit will not cure Britain of any of its ills. It will not stop or slow immigration, it will not halt cultural decline or the march of Cultural Marxism, it will not stop Britain being ruled by elites far removed from the life and environment of the everyday Briton. More than a departure from European bureaucracy, Britain needs a new departure from itself.

That being said, of course I support the national principle and the idea that the British should be self-governing. I am, all things considered, a Brexiteer, and someone who believes that Britain should have the “cleanest break” possible from the EU system. But we must place all such rhetoric in context, and it is this context that reveals the circus in Westminster to be a particularly banal form of treason.

Brexit’s Immigration Paradox

The ethno-nationalist looks at the Brexit debate and what does he see? He sees a choice between the migrant-welcoming EU globalist behemoth and … what? For a start, he sees “the most ethnically diverse” British government in history, led by a Prime Minister whose first act in office was to rule out setting any limits on the numbers of immigrants flooding Britain. This places Brexit voters in something of a quandary because the primary motivation for the Brexit vote was concern about immigration (see the excellent research of University of Kent’s Matthew Goodwin). What they are now faced with is a Brexit that won’t do anything to change immigration other than reduce the numbers of Poles and increase the numbers of Indians, Pakistanis and others from the Third World. As The Economist put it in February, “Europeans in Britain are packing up. The rest of the world is moving in.”

Goodwin pointed out in his analysis of Brexit votes that although leaving the EU would reduce the influx of East European migrants to Britain, “of the twenty places with the largest proportions of non-UK EU nationals, eighteen voted to remain in the EU.” In other words, the vast majority of British towns with the largest migrant worker populations from Poland and other East European countries were not moved into an anti-EU immigration stance. Nevertheless, since Brexit voters responded to surveys by insisting that they voted for Brexit due to immigration concerns, how do we connect these two facts? How do we reconcile an anti-EU Brexit vote motivated by “immigration,” with the fact EU workers are tolerated or welcome in many parts of Britain, including those where they live in the highest concentration?

Goodwin’s theory is that some towns were overwhelmed by the pace, rather than nature, of EU migration and, in some cases like Boston in Lincolnshire (first nationally for Brexit vote percentage) this seems to be the case. Similarly, Jonathan Portes, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, has argued that Brexit was simply a vote “against free movement of workers within the EU.”[2]Portes, J. (2016) ‘Immigration after Brexit’, National Institute Economic Review, 238(1), pp. R13–R21. But I’ve consulted the demographics for boroughs in England that ranked highest for Brexit votes and the theory that Brexit was a reaction against fast-paced migration from Eastern Europe really only partly explains what’s going on. Against Goodwin’s theory, I posit that Brexit wasn’t merely a reaction to the increased pace in arrivals of Poles and Bulgarians but rather, for most people, a more general protest vote aimed at, to use Nigel Farage’s own terminology and propaganda phrase, “taking back control.” Or, to put it more bluntly, Brexit was a general reaction against multiculturalism and multiracialism, and not against EU immigration as such.

An excellent example of a White area desperate to take back control from multiracialism is the borough of Thurrock in the East of England. Thurrock ranked fourth nationally for Brexit votes, but Poles and other EU nationals are nowhere near it’s highest non-British group. Rather, that title goes to Black Africans who increased more than 1,000 percent between 2001 and 2011 (jumping from 971 to 9,742 — around 4 times as many as East Europeans). By sheer coincidence, drug sales, gang activity, and violent crime also increased in the area in line with the Black demographic. The situation is very similar in Fenland, East of England, which ranked sixth nationally for Brexit votes. When residents were questioned about their attitudes to immigration, most respondents made it clear that EU workers were tolerable and in some cases welcome, but that the “majority wanted the numbers of asylum-seekers and refugees to be reduced,” and some “veered towards overt racism, including negative comments about Muslims.” A Brexit vote wouldn’t limit African and Muslim migration to Britain, but one assumes that voters in these areas saw it as a move in the right direction — a move towards “taking back control.”

A similar theory to my own is apparent in the research of Simon Hix, Eric Kaufmann, and Thomas Leeper (London School of Economics) who have issued a working paper titled “UK voters, including Leavers, care more about reducing non-EU than EU migration.” Their surveys found conclusively that “British voters prefer EU to non-EU migrants. … This pattern of preferring immigrants from inside the EU to those from outside holds across all social groups in our data.” This adds to Kaufmann’s findings that “the increase in non-European (BAME) respondents in a White British person’s local area in the 2000s was a somewhat stronger predictor of their support for UKIP than the increase in local European population.”[3]Kaufmann, E. “Levels or changes?: Ethnic context, immigration and the UK Independence Party vote” Electoral Studies 48 (2017), 57-69. This is Brexit’s immigration paradox — the vote brought about by a desire to tackle non-White immigration is, even if finally successful in removing Britain from the EU, utterly powerless to achieve that goal.

Nothing conservative about the Conservatives

Several days ago, conservative elements in the UK press celebrated a speech by Britain’s India-derived Home Secretary Priti Patel, who has now pledged that she will, post-Brexit, introduce an Australian-style points system (or work permit system) for migrants. Such celebrations are woefully misguided because such a system will almost certainly do nothing to reduce immigration, and, if anything, will probably skew immigration even more towards non-EU migrants — a situation the British public clearly doesn’t want. In fact, thus far the government has promised only to “end free movement in its current form.” [emphasis added] In other words, after Brexit, Britons can expect a slightly new form of free movement and ongoing mass migration. The Migration Observatory at Oxford University issued a paper last year showing that non-EU labour migration to the UK has been increasing since 2012, and that the largest group by far in this category are Indian men. Using existing patterns of work visa issuance, the paper makes the perfectly logical prediction that the primary beneficiaries of this Indian Home Secretary’s much-vaunted post-Brexit “points system” will be … her fellow Indians. Szymon will make way for Sanjay, Radek for Ramesh.

In fact, Patel, who is a darling of civic nationalists because she talks nonsense about being tough on crime without actually doing anything (UKIP YouTube personality has hailed her “Priti the Barbarian”), is busy using her new role to build as many bridges to India as she can. Days ago she introduced a new two-year post-study work visa that is almost perfectly tailored to Indian graduates in Britain, providing a gateway to permanent settlement. Sir Dominic Asquith, British High Commissioner to India, has said the development is “fantastic news for Indian students, who will now be able to spend more time in the UK after completing their degree. … I’m delighted that numbers of Indian students coming to study in the UK are constantly increasing, having doubled over the last three years. Last year alone we saw a massive 42% increase … 96% of all Indians who apply for a UK visa are successful — meaning the vast majority of those who wish to come to the UK are able to do so.”

Adding to Patel’s dubious effort to “take back control,” Boris Johnson has pledged to support “an amnesty for half a million migrants who do not have proof of their right to stay in the UK,” something he has expressed enthusiasm for even while mayor of London between 2008 and 2016. Speaking to a leadership campaign event in the east of England before being elected Prime Minister by the Conservative Party, Johnson said, “I don’t think it’s commonsensical to think we can deport such a large number of people. We do need to think of how to regularize their status.” One assumes that Johnson, deep down, feels that it isn’t “commonsensical” to “take back control” of immigration, but he is happy to play the role of Brexit messiah if it keeps him in power.

The Banality of Treason

Pantomime is a classic British tradition, consisting of a type of musical comedy stage production designed for family entertainment. One of the typical features of a pantomime is that the audience is expected to raucously boo and cheer the production’s villains and heroes. Make no mistake, Brexit is at the present time little more than a pantomime in which the British public is encouraged to cheer for Boris Johnson and his “Best o’ British” cabinet of globalist Indians and half-Jews against the wicked Remainer factions in Parliament. And thus far the British public is dutifully playing along, with accusations of treason and declarations of “will of the people” becoming more and more commonplace, even though the original and ultimate goal of the Brexit vote, an end to mass migration, is becoming ever more distant.

I don’t deny that treason of a sort is evident. In November 2016 I noted that Jews were very prominent in leading the fight against Brexit, and John Bercow, the Jewish Speaker of the House of Commons, has been credited with stopping Brexit thus far and is said to be capable of ousting Johnson. Jeremy Corbyn’s tactics thus far have revolved around avoiding a turn to the electorate, and keeping any further decision-making out of the hands of the British public. All such actions are indeed in flagrant opposition to the will of the people as expressed in the 2016 Brexit vote. But, as a general election becomes more likely, the ruse that we will see a noble fight by Boris against a treasonous faction in Parliament is the stuff of pure fantasy. There are traitors in Parliament, but they occupy every seat, and not just those on one side of the House of Commons. Boris Johnson, in proposing an amnesty for half a million illegal immigrants, acts against the will of the people. Priti Patel, in easing the path for thousands more of her co-ethnics, acts against the will of the people. Treason from government is not a novelty, and is not tied to Brexit. It is endemic and banal in equal measure.

Part of the reason for the inertia and paralysis of the British response to the Brexit pantomime is that the Brexit vote was the result of a coalition of anti-globalists, Eurosceptics and nationalists. The referendum campaign was driven by anti-globalist and nationalist propaganda and instincts. The best example is the classic “Vote Leave” poster titled “Breaking Point” which depicted not factories filled with Polish agrifood workers, but streams of Syrians. And yet, almost as soon as the vote was announced, the focus switched to Eurosceptic concerns about trade, tariffs, and legal powers. Anti-globalist and nationalist elements became almost silent in the ongoing Brexit pantomime, revealing that the majority involved were in truth little more than the willing puppets of Eurosceptic business interests who wanted to use the emotive pull of immigration concerns without any intention of actually acting on them. This, and not the banal charade played out by Corbyn and his ilk, is the greater betrayal of the British people.

Brexit Britain: Still at Breaking Point

The curtain will fall on the pantomime at Westminster only when the British people come to the realisation that proxy votes do not work — whether for UKIP, Brexit, or other parties, causes or interests where there is no clear programme for action on immigration and multiculturalism. The result of Brexit will inevitably be a UK in some form of union with the EU, in some form of scheme for some form of free movement, and with some form of provision for ongoing mass migration. Britain will have moved from one form of globalism to another, and the British electorate will be numbed for decades by apathy, exhaustion, and disillusionment.

I opened this commentary on Brexit with some lines from Sir Oswald Mosley not merely because the quote seemed appropriate, but because Mosley himself had ideas on a European Union that are worth considering. Mosley greatly desired an end to European “brother wars” and envisioned a voluntary union of European member states that made common cause for one another, supported one another, and exchanged the traditions and cultural values that made Europe a global titan. He sought an end to the “destruction of Western civilization by the simple process of first dividing the advanced nations of Europe and then setting them at each other’s throats in quarrels which have neither material nor spiritual relevance to reality.” Mosley’s European Union, conceived for the exclusive benefit of the European peoples, would have been something worth fighting for, rather than against. How different things might have been if we had the Union of Mosley instead of that of Coudenhove-Kalergi — a European Union conceived as the vehicle for the suppression and replacement of the European peoples. This, sadly, is our reality, and such as things stand, the pantomime must play on — the endless parade of the banality of treason.

Notes

[1] R. Pliskin, D. Bar-Tal, G. Sheppes, “Are Leftists More Emotion-Driven Than Rightists? The Interactive Influence of Ideology and Emotions on Support for Policies,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40:12 (2014), 1681-1697.

[2] Portes, J. (2016) ‘Immigration after Brexit’, National Institute Economic Review, 238(1), pp. R13–R21.

[3] Kaufmann, E. “Levels or changes?: Ethnic context, immigration and the UK Independence Party vote” Electoral Studies 48 (2017), 57-69.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Brexit, Britain, Immigration 
Hide 77 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. It was a pleasure to read this excellent article on this most excellent website. Britain has become a reality TV nation with its Royal family leading the way down to being a low class, third rate nation. Boris as PM is just another episode of the real reality show of Big Brother so popular in the UK. One has to admire the Scots for having the good sense in wanting a divorce.

    • Agree: Miro23
  2. Dan Hayes says:

    Until reading this essay I was rooting for a strong Brexit. My previous concerns have now been relieved with the realization that the prospects of either Leave or Remain are almost equally bleak.

  3. Interesting. Why does UK have so many Indian migrants? India was part of the British Rag. Empire.
    India is a mess under Modi, who wants to live there. My Indian collegues say its polluted mess and over crowded. Compare to China hardly any migrants from China, see same number of commonwealth NZ (mostly British decendants).

  4. “(UKIP YouTube personality has hailed her “Priti the Barbarian”), is busy using her new role to build as many bridges to India as she can. Days ago she introduced a new two-year post-study work visa that is almost perfectly tailored to Indian graduates in Britain, providing a gateway to permanent settlement. Sir Dominic Asquith, British High Commissioner to India, has said the development is “fantastic news for Indian students, who will now be able to spend more time in the UK . . .”

    The only group more skilled at manipulating the system to depopulate their country than Indians are Mexicans in my view.

    —————————————–

    “One has to admire the Scots for having the good sense in wanting a divorce.”

    Save the Scots are intent on remaining in the EU.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/29/scotland-remain-eu-brexit-european-union-scots-england-wales

  5. Webster says:

    Nonsense. Scotland wanted a divorce from England since long before England wanted to divorce the eu.
    They have wanted their own country since the very days they lost it in the battle of culloden in 1746 they have wanted it back. They lost that battle because they were outmanned, starving and had no supplies.
    Scotland would be a far richer and better country if they didn’t have to put up with the English who never did them a single bit of good.
    Since the early 70s when the north sea oil started to come online Scotland has been far richer than England.
    But even without those resources the vast majority of Scots would be happy to be free of England. It is only a matter of time before all the Scottish people in Scotland can once again call themselves a free and proud nation.
    They never wanted to be a part of England.
    It would be even nicer if they could kick out the masses of imigrants when they leave and once again call themselves a proud and free SCOTTISH nation.
    I don’t care what you think about it. The majority of Europe including England has been overun with foreign refugees and are only now beginning to realize what a huge mistake that was and is.
    If masses of people were moved into Japan there would be rioting in the streets and civil war. Because they know that once you have them stuck in it will be harder than hell to get rid of them and if you can’t get rid of them your own culture will soon disintegrate.
    Even Americans on this site realize that.

    • Replies: @Pamela
    , @The Alarmist
    , @Miro23
  6. refl says:

    Being a deranged conspirational crank, I have come to believe that Brexit is not about leaving the EU at all, but about spreading chaos and making anything positive about a eurocentric, workable Union impossible.
    After all, everybody knows about that Seven Countries in Five Years-plan – so does anyone think that they would stop there? Of course, the chaos that was started with the dismemberment of the functioning Muslim nations beyond the Mediterranean had to spread into Europe. And of course, a Britain dedicated to a functioning European Union could have stopped that Merkel freak from pulling down the common borders of the continent.
    To begin with, Cameron’s plan to take back control never made sense. There were so many opt-outs that they could have cherrypicked anything. There was no plan other then to spoil any common action, while at the same time providing the disaster in the middle East that is now coming home to all of us. This is the farcical replay of the 1930s – including the betrayal of Poland.

  7. E_M says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    Another ignorant American.

    That is not the reason why Scots want to leave the Union. Remember it was a Scot, Tony Blair, who flooded the country (England) with immigrants and this is what Brexit is all about.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  8. If you think back to June 2016, you may remember that in 2015 Angela Merkel had welcomed millions of Third World (mostly African & North African) asylum-seeking young men into the EU, with the EU tearing up its own rules to facilitate this. We were told the whole EU, not just Germany, would have to take them. Then New Year 2015-2016 saw the mass rapes in Cologne. So the Brexit vote was influenced by a reasonable fear of the EU facilitating the worst kind of hostile non-EU immigration into the UK.

    • Agree: Hail, RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @refl
  9. @NoseytheDuke

    One has to admire the Scots for having the good sense in wanting a divorce.

    But aren’t the SNP just EU-loving globalists as well? I don’t find Nicola Sturgeon to be at all ‘based’.

  10. The point of Brexit is that it will return control.

    The current views on immigration of Mrs Patel and Mr Johnson are inconvenient but ultimately irrelevant.

    With power returned to the U.K., we have a chance of re-embedding nationalism into the national conversation. Patel and Johnson will be gone in a few years. Their successors, however, will be bending with the prevailing political wind.

    • Agree: LondonBob
    • Replies: @Alfred
  11. will of d says:

    THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY reconquer the economic life of the nation forming european cooperatives

    They would strenghten our links by common interest making a powerfull and cordinate agent
    We would gain independence from the financial crumbling system
    The money would be distributed more equaly letting cooperstivist have stable and large families
    The money would be inverted locally, not deslocalization
    Comunist failt because it was everything for the people without the people
    Capitalism has failed the same way centrslizing all the money and power
    The only way to deal with this system und is make every person responsable of their action while work by a common groupal interest
    You will have even more incentives since all the workers share the benefits of their business
    Take the basque country as example 12 % of the people work in a cooperative and 26% the pib of basques is due to the productivity of cooperatives
    And was born the same way , facing a demografical replacement by spaniards , and as a united minority they helped each other briging life to the biggest coperatives of the world
    Why cant we do it? Why cant we help eath other breaking this corrupt system ?

    we need a new system where we can thrive in the upcoming multiracial world ,stop focusing in how we reconquer our countries and start thinking how we save our tribe,its a liberational thought.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  12. Brexit was only allowed to succeed because it would tie UK ZOG to Israel and US ZOG. It was never about limiting non EU immigration but without white Britons buying into this delusion, Brexit would have failed. That said, some EU migrants (e.g. Romanians, Bulgarians) have as high levels of fraud and criminality as blacks and Pakis, and Poles working for peanuts suppress wages of native Brits. Brexit may sever the control of EU bureaucrats over the UK, but will make trade with the EU (UKs largest trading partner) more complicated and cumbersome and undermine the hard won peace in Ireland.

    The PMs who have taken on the poisoned chalice of Brexit – Theresa ‘Poundland Thatcher’ May, Boris ‘Worzel Gummidge’ Johnson – will be removed (paid off) once the dust has settled and Agent Rothschild Rees Mogg will rule Britannia on behalf of his Jewish overlords.

  13. @E_M

    Y’all should hear my drawl. Lol!

    Tony Bliar a Scot? There are good and bad amongst all people and TB is one of the worst of them all, of all races. I simply loathe what has become of England and the English, that’s all. Don’t lose any sleep over it.

  14. @Digital Samizdat

    Hobson’s choice isn’t it? I think the Scots just really want their independence, but I’m not a Scot so that’s just my opinion.

  15. You reap what you sew. Britain was evil to a lot of colonies. So, they deserve some destruction. It looks like they will get it, one way or another.

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
    , @Ace
  16. Pamela says:
    @Webster

    Everything you say about Scotland applies to Cymru also. Only in the South, long invaded by AngloSaxons was there any support for being in the EU. Also, there are those who believe that Cymru can regain the independence she has been fighting for for over 1000 yrs, only if she is part of EU. They are wrong. All of Gwynedd and Powys voted as a solid block to leave. North Wales wants to be free of the Saxons and the Europeans.

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
    , @Webster
  17. Parfois1 says:

    It still amazes me how the British voters swallowed the pill that voting Brexit would reduce migration, namely the “coloured” migration from India, Pakistan, Africa, etc. True, EU membership allows free movement of EU citizens and that includes the many Brits who work and live in other EU countries, therefore a reciprocal arrangement from which every EU citizen benefits. The long-running popular TV show “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet” introduced the Brits viewers to what was happening in the two-way exchange.

    There was a sudden influx of Eastern Europeans when the EU expanded Eastwards in 2004. But guess which country worked the hardest for the enlargement? Yes, it was the UK government, allegedly to make the EU harder to manage in typical “Perfidious Albion” fashion of divide and rule as well as to break the Franco-German block. Many “maldisants” even suggested that the UK admission was a US Trojan horse to wreck the EEC project.

    Regardless of the foregoing, all the voters are assumed to know some basic facts, such as that non-EU migration was totally under the control of the UK government, therefore blaming the EU was a blatant on-your-face lie and, as such, should have backfired on those peddling that lie. Yet I saw very little on the part of the Remainers’ output to alert the voters to the deception. Maybe that’s how “democracy” works: mass deception.

    • Replies: @Alden
  18. refl says:
    @Simon in London

    There you have a Smoking gun. You can see how the whole thing was organized.

  19. Parfois1 says:
    @will of d

    Good effort. You raise an interesting point, although irrelevant to the topic in hand. Yes, the co-operative movement in Euzkadi is very strong and a lesson to the many who wish to get out of the Capitalist shackles.

    By the way, in 1985 the cooperative sector of the Soviet economy comprised about 26,000 collective farms with 12.7 million workers, housing cooperatives that accounted for about eight percent of all housing construction, and assorted garden, dacha-construction, consumer, and handicraft cooperatives. These were independently managed by the workers albeit subject to the five-year plans decreed by the central government, like most of the economic output.

    In Yugoslavia the co-operative sector was even bigger and more successful, and that’s why that country had to be smashed.

  20. Paul34 says:

    I dont think the SNP want independence. If they were so desperate for it why didnt they vote for BREXIT in parliament in exchange for an ind ref 2?

    They know they would prob win it too, whipping up all the negative propaganda to a pro EU scot pop

    So why dont they do it?

    • Replies: @TKK
  21. Emmet says:

    Absolutely correct. The vote for Brexit had almost nothing to do with immigrants from Europe, but everything to do with immigrants from outside Europe. It will be, under Boris Johnson and the other traitors in Westminster, business as usual after Brexit; the continued destruction of Britain and replacement of her native population with African and Asian immigrants. The only thing that can stop this now is a complete economic collapse with – thankfully – may just be on the way!

  22. “The banality of treason” : that could be as accurately applied to the current efforts of the Democrats[Marxists] in DC to overturn the results of the last presidential election.

  23. Spinach is to Popeye as The Soggy Biscuit is to globalist cucks.

    UCT Buffoonson appoints the most important 3 cabinet positions to TW Poz: Chancellor & Home Secretary to SSers Javed + Patel & Foreign Secretary to Rat Raab!!!

    Funny how when White People & Men do something, it’s all: not enuf divershittey did, not enuf purplehairs DAT! But the groteaque over-representation of Old Etonian UCTs in gvt / pm is all: Don’t worry, nothing to see her by msm whornalists;

  24. Interesting analysis about the rate of change.

    There is another dimension that is not quite the same as immigration, industrial consolidation in response to a large market. When the UK joined the EU, workers on the decaying coalfields had to learn new skills to compete with Italians. That was often achievable as British washing machine factories were surrounded by better infrastructure and workers committed to shift working compared to the Italians. Then it was the Spaniards and Portuguese with plastics. Along came Poles ând Romanians. In sight there are the Ukrainians. This is all added to the background of Chinese manufactured exports.

    So, the biggest regional votes for UKIP/Brexit Party are in NE England and South Wales where immigrants of any stamp are almost invisible outside the health service. These have traditionally been solidly Labour regions. Tories are still unacceptable but the BXP is not. These areas are net recipients on a large scale of EU aid. Amazing!

  25. @Pamela

    Over the centuries, Scotland ,Wales, stayed in for the money-grants, subsidized industry, government handouts, etc.

    Why don’t you try being honest about it?

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  26. Perdita est Britannia, in morte aeterna.

  27. @Dennis Gannon

    Karma is forever. Like an equation it always rebalances itself.

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  28. @Poupon Marx

    Karma is not like an equation. It can go on forever, no balance is implied. On a personal level, there is always a disbalance which makes it keep going. It is in a moment of a deepest piece of mind when a temporary balance can be reached. And it doesn’t apply to nations!

  29. Whenever I read racist articles and comments howling about the alleged dangers of immigration and multiculturalism (like probably 70% of unz posts) I am moved to derisive laughter of my own and to ask this question: “should have thought of that before invading, colonising, and looting our countries, shouldn’t you, European vermin?”

    I only wish the racist fantasies of unz sewer dwellers were real and Europeans were really about to go extinct. No people on earth more deserve it.

    • LOL: Alfred
    • Replies: @TKK
  30. mikemikev says:

    Do you think that third world people are responsible for the legislative changes and media zeitgeist that allow them to reside in the West on free handouts (funny you speak as though they were exercising force rather than being treated like lost animals), or do you think Jewish influences are more responsible? If Jewish influences were responsible, I guess it would be in their interests to weave some fiction that the third world people were “taking revenge” based on fabricated history, both to misdirect from the real force behind it, and to further incite them into taking delight (see e.g. the mentality behind your comment) in destroying the West through weaponised human parasitism.

  31. @The Dark Night

    You are wrong, and very wrong. You do not understand because you are locked into a doctrine as Western thinker, i.e, an Aristotelian. What is important is the harm done to others. By acquiescence, or any passive or active support, a group of individuals bear responsibility.

    No religion or Buddhism denies this.

  32. @NoseytheDuke

    The Scots – or at least the supposedly nationalist S.N.P. – want to remain in the E.U. A separate nation-state called Scotland is one thing; a new province of the E.U. called Scotland is another.

  33. Alfred says:
    @Earthenware

    Fat chance!

    Only Direct Democracy will do that.

    Labour party strongholds have always been against immigration from the 3rd world. But their MP’s had other plans. The MP’s of all three parties were always working for the media which is Zionist-controlled.

  34. I suspect that all democracies are fraudulent, but that is certainly the case in Britain and the shenanigans over ‘Brexit’ have just brought the fact into sharp focus: the mask has slipped and the falsity is there for all to see.

    So for Britain leaving the E.U. is necessary but by no means sufficient. Leaving the E.U. whilst leaving the clowns, traitors and gravy-trainers in Westminster intact won’t cure anything. However, the majority of people seem intent on continuing to vote for the same old crooks that they have been voting for since Noah got off the ark. Britain is finished and a large part of Europe isn’t far behind. How about the U.S.A.?

  35. Cyrano says:

    I think that GB (Global Bull**iters) are barking at the wrong forest (EU). The tree that they should be barking at is US. That’s from whom they really need an Exit from. Not going to happen. They have “special” relationship. How does that work? Do representatives from each country meet once monthly, gaze in each other eyes and whisper: “You are special”, “No, you are special”.

    Anyway, I can’t think of 2 countries which are more complicit in creating the multiculturalism fiasco than those 2. That’s why Brexit will not accomplish anything and UK deserves all the ill effects that they are suffering.

    The purpose of multiculturalism is the same as the purpose of democracy – to create the illusion of fairness. Multiculturalism only makes domestic deplorables equal to 3rd world deplorables. The ruling elites need to stop playing stupid – “Duh, we thought you wanted to be equal”. No normal person wants to be equal with someone who is worse than them.

  36. TKK says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    Why do millions risk drowning, suffocation and certain dreadful death to live with such vermin?

    Please- as a public service announcement- draw some cartoons on your website showing them how to trek back to their dusty dystopian shacks and leave us to go quietly into that good night.

    Start the revolution!

    Pro tip: Acknowledgement that there is NOT an unlimited resource pie to absorb millions of financial invaders is not “racist.” It’s being an economic realist. When you no longer have a homogenous language and culture, with orderly defined borders, you no longer have a nation state that can survive. The very essence of what people wish to live in, indeed risk their life for, is destroyed.

  37. TKK says:
    @Paul34

    They have all gone down the rabbit hole- Scotland is as bad the UK proper:

    University of Edinburgh equality event bans white people from speaking

    https://theworldnews.net/gb-news/university-of-edinburgh-equality-event-bans-white-people-from-speaking

  38. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Though but from one branded by Mr. Unz as an “ignorant buffoon,” may I nevertheless congratulate Mr. Unz for publishing this excellent analysis of the mind of the prog: emotional, irrational, intolerant and fundamentally authoritarian.

    The validity of the analysis was nicely exemplified in last night’s Canadian Party Leaders pre-election debate in which the most progressive of the four progs on stage, Mr. Jagmeet Singh of the New Democratic Party bluntly informed the Right Honorable Maxime Bernier, a former Canadian Minister of External Affairs and currently leader of the moderately conservative People’s Party of Canada, that he did not “deserve a platform”, and that he incites hatred by proposing — in accordance with the wishes of 49% of Canadians — a reduced rate of immigration to a country that receives three times as many immigrants per capita as the United States and more in proportion to the existing population than any other country in the World.

  39. Very good article that completely misses the point.

    Whether in or out of the EU makes no difference since both means the people will remain economic slaves to the oligarch that runs every country in the world apart from Syria, Iran and N Korea: Rothschild.

    No one gives a shit about the immigrants but they are sick of low wages, high housing and transport costs as well as expensive food and clothing.

    A two bedroom Victorian terraced house in Greenwich just across the river from Docklands costs £690,000. Minimum wage is about £9 an hour. How can an ordinary wage earner buy a house today? They can’t.

    In Chelsea there are flats available for £125,000,000. Yes, one hundred and twenty five million pounds for one flat. London property is now all about money laundering.

    While crime might be high in the black community, the most excessive crime is in government policy that allows the Rothschild oligarchy to use London to launder its illicit profits from the world drug trade Rothschild runs.

    In or out of the EU makes no difference. It is in or outside the Rothschild debt slavery that really matters…the elephant in the room you either dare not mention or are too ignorant to know about.

    Sorry Fred…but it really is time you started posting articles that stick to the truth.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  40. @Poupon Marx

    Centuries, sir?
    Centuries?

    • Replies: @Alden
  41. Alden says:

    Scottish separation from the U.K. is a project of extreme socialist communist pro non White immigration politicians and activists. Their often stated position is more and more African paki Arab immigration

    Nothing to do with traditional Scots separatism based on Stuart restoration and Walter Scott novels

    • Replies: @Miro23
  42. I concede. Make that “decades”, with a cocktail onion. There was a lot of wealth transfer, commonly called bribes that created dependence and expectancy. Sort of like the American Indian Tribes. It never works. Subsidized industries, etc. Look at the basket case of Puerto Rico.

  43. Alden says:
    @Parfois1

    You’re right. Britain welcomed the unemployed criminals and losers from its colonies starting 1948. Within 5 years those Windermere Jamaicans created a significant new crime neighborhood in London.

    In the summer of 1956 a Liverpool church had its annual summer party. Several bands were hired. One was 15,16 year old boys from Quarry Road Grammar School. Late that afternoon, those 4 White English boys were attacked by a swarm of newly arrived black thugs from Liverpool’s black ghetto.

    The White boys were sheltered in a nearby house. The police arrived and gave the boys and their instruments a ride to a safe downtown bus stop. So their instruments were not stolen and the boys not beaten.

    The boys later changed the name of the band from the Quarrymen to the Beatles.

    Just 8 years after the first Jamaicans landed at Tilbury Harbor

    Ridiculous to blame it on EU policies 70 years later.

    • Agree: Ace
  44. mikemikev says:
    @Teresa May

    No one gives a shit about the immigrants

    This is just factually way off the mark. The article is about why the British voted Brexit. Immigration is why. Since both conditions are inside “Rothschild debt slavery” that’s just irrelevant to the point at hand.

  45. Alden says:
    @byrresheim

    Didn’t those subsidies start 1945 -50 after the overwhelming Labor victory?

  46. Miro23 says:
    @Alden

    Scottish separation from the U.K. is a project of extreme socialist communist pro non White immigration politicians and activists. Their often stated position is more and more African paki Arab immigration

    Nothing to do with traditional Scots separatism based on Stuart restoration and Walter Scott novels

    A independent Scotland would have about the same population as Denmark or Norway, so it would be a viable size, and it would have a high level of human capital (with for example a collection of world class universities). It would also be a national failure if the Scottish economy tanked after Independence (especially relative to England), so they may take a more realistic and pragmatic (non-SJW) approach to nationality, globalism, manufacturing, education, immigration etc.

    I’ve come round to the view that England is a hopeless case whatever happens. Scotland could break out of the UK death spiral.

    • Replies: @Alden
  47. Altai says:

    Goodwin pointed out in his analysis of Brexit votes that although leaving the EU would reduce the influx of East European migrants to Britain, “of the twenty places with the largest proportions of non-UK EU nationals, eighteen voted to remain in the EU.” In other words, the vast majority of British towns with the largest migrant worker populations from Poland and other East European countries were not moved into an anti-EU immigration stance.

    Might this possibly have to do with pre-existing liberal bias of urban environs that attract immigrants and house the urban liberal middle and upper middle classes and the fact that, say, Irish citizens could vote in the Brexit referendum. (Not that their numbers would have been very large outside the top 5 or so cities) The paper also notes that it is the rate of change that is and would be salient in driving voting as one would expect and thus the visceral impact of EU migration did not strictly align with numbers alone.

    A similar situation likely occurs for immigrant groups except perhaps Pakistanis who have more directly engaged in effective conflict with the natives in certain Northern towns with a long history of their settlement. The same phenomena occurs in the US. It is what fueled the idea of the ‘contact hypothesis’.

    At the end of the day, EU migration couldn’t be challenged while in the EU. Any other means they bolt on can be, as it will be a law that can be changed. It was the ease and lack of any political fight to gain access to all that cheap labour that terraformed the labour markets in the UK to become as ‘addicted’ to immigrant labour as they have become and have led them to go further and further in search of cheaper workers like they have with Brazil.

    The presence of all those foreigners did contribute to a decline in ability to speak frankly about immigration and lead to a sense of loss of control, impacted wages, impacted housing availability and led to communal demoralisation. They helped break up the ecosystem of those communities and reduced the space where they were alone, cohesive with themselves. They helped turn those places in Dubai. English nationalism is English nationalism, not white nationalism.

  48. Webster says:
    @Pamela

    First you have the universal right as a people to decide your own fate.
    If you decide that Cymru wishes to be free and independent then you should have that right.
    Time may come when it is recognized that the the people who live there and choose that they DON’T want to be part of a global potpourri, which we all see doesn’t really work except for the rich which exploit it for fancy cars for their children and miserable servants to serve their every need should have the right to decide their own future and opt out.
    Coupla things:
    Going from the example of Venezuela where sanctions kill about 40 thousand Venezuelans yearly it would be a good idea to make sure you have the national resources to provide food, housing and Healthcare from within your own country.
    It should be the first priority of every free country. America also sanctions drugs and medicines from Venezuela so that people with for example diabetes or hiv or hepatitis do not have access to the drugs they need to survive as part of their plot to take over a country which didn’t choose their way of poverty for the masses in favour of profits for the few. All corruption and the point here is that a nation or nations comprised of a single view have a much better chance of fighting this than made up nations comprised of globalist groups looking to profit from division.
    It becomes increasingly apparent that globalism as it is currently promulgated benefits only certain groups which do it for profit and nothing else.
    I don’t care that the reigning party in Venezuela is made up of support from blacks and Indians. They have as much right to their future as anyone else.
    Here is where I differ from what is falsely known as leftists. White people should also have that same right.
    Countries like Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Germany, France and on and on should also have that same right.
    This goes right down the chain to native rights in Canada America and the right of all people native to whatever land they were born in. It doesn’t extend to people of any country having the right to marry whomever they happen to wish to marry however. Hitler was wrong about that. He was right about each country defending itself from the ever reaching powers of a tiny group of globalist trying to take over the world for the sole purpose of profit.
    So go ahead, we in Scotland will be happy to trade with you. The Empire wars were all about making money for individual profiteers and never had anything to do with what the people they conquered actually thought. If it went that way we would have a much better and much more peaceful world.
    Religion. Has been going on for centuries. People have the right to believe whatever they want to BELIEVE. as long as it doesn’t intrude on anything any other people choose to believe.
    There should be line drawn in the sand there. You can believe in pink mountain yeti if you like, as long as it doesn’t interfere with any body’s right to believe in whatever they choose. One of the very few steps forward made by mankind so far.

  49. @Digital Samizdat

    The Scots politicians like to contrast their cosmopolitanism with the racism of the English, but that’s because of the millions of immigrants to the UK, not that many go to Scotland. If a million Poles moved there they’d soon complain that England was dumping them on the poor Scots.

    What diversity exists in Scotland (outside of the Polish waitresses and cleaners in big hotels in the Highlands) is concentrated in the Central Belt, where it claimed probably the UK’s worst racist murder, of a 15 year old boy abducted, tortured (some say castrated), stabbed and burned alive by a Muslim street gang. Oddly it wasn’t on the BBC every day for six years, there was no public inquiry, nor does the victim’s mother sit in the House of Lords.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kriss_Donald

    The political “nationalism” of Scotland, like that of Ireland, is more directed at the auld enemy England than at making life better for the Scots or Irish. Witness how cool the Sinn Fein leadership are with multicultural, non-Catholic Ireland, which has undergone changes which took 60 years in England inside a couple of decades.

    PS – Brexit is not a panacea for our ills, far from it, but it’s a precondition if we are to address any of them.

    • Replies: @Webster
    , @Digital Samizdat
  50. Alden says:
    @Miro23

    Scotland does have excellent universities.

    But you’re unfamiliar with the SNP Scots separatist party. They want unlimited black Arab Pakistanis third world immigration and total soviet style socialism; everyone living in housing projects higher taxes government doling out every benefit. SNP is very radical and most important very anti White.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  51. Webster says:

    Imagine that your country was invaded via immigration and the immigrants sole reason for existence was to destroy the people who live there because they don’t believe in the same imaginary god you do.
    That is how it is in England these days.

  52. @The Dark Night

    Within Hinduism I can’t comment on karma because I am not versed in those teachings.
    Within Buddhist teachings, the highest teachings -other than Tantrayana- being Madhyamaka-Prasangika – the ultimate nature of reality: emptiness- karma is a specific instance of the law of cause and effect. If you try to dig deeper within Buddha’s teachings (84,000 sutras) to find an explanation of the law of cause and effect you won’t find one. Buddha explained in one sutra to a seeker that asking for an explanation to satisfy one’s intellectual curiosity is akin to asking how a fire extinguisher works while your house burns down. Buddha never intended to satisfy our intellectual curiosity. He explained a great deal, however, but again, with a view to inspiring us to practice a spiritual path not to sit at the side of the road and demand answers before we proceeded.

    Karma is experienced both individually and collectively. Buddha provided extensive examples of this in his teachings. Many concrete examples occurred during his life. His own clan, the Shakyas, were to be massacred. One disciples, seeing this with his clairvoyance, requested that Buddha allow him to protect these people. Buddha allowed Manjushri the freedom to do so and he hid them away. Despite Manjushri’s protection, they all died for no apparent reason (other than the hidden hand of their collective karmic lifespans having ended).
    Here is a place to read more: https://emodernbuddhism.com/download-free-modern-buddhism-ebooks.html

  53. The curtain will fall on the pantomime at Westminster only when the British people come to the realisation that proxy votes do not work — whether for UKIP, Brexit, or other parties, causes or interests where there is no clear programme for action on immigration and multiculturalism. The result of Brexit will inevitably be a UK in some form of union with the EU, in some form of scheme for some form of free movement, and with some form of provision for ongoing mass migration. Britain will have moved from one form of globalism to another, and the British electorate will be numbed for decades by apathy, exhaustion, and disillusionment.

    in this quote is the real point of this article: it is a woeful contradictory betrayal of the British equal to the betrayal of the people by total English political elite going on.

    if the people come to the realization that proxy votes do not work the logical conclusion is for the people to get moving and to the job themselves..not to sink into despair for decades to come. that is the most sad, self-defeating and ignorant conclusion and comment an author of a piece like this could sally forth with

    why in gods name would Joyce write such an article then.,.just to speak that defeatist clap trap?

    if the situation is to be resolved in favor of the people, in line with whatever they want the people must intervene directly in the politics and force the politicians to act consistent with this will…or remove them altogether and change the British system spontaneously the way they want it without the benefit of any god dam party at all..just the popular movement action in the popular collective
    interest

    as Joyce point out and is clearly accurate on: the people have no friends and supporters in the British parliament. all the parties and their representatives in the parliament work for minority rich interest…ALL!! how is that situation to be resolved then..what is an equal and opposite resolution for such problem?

    the politicians and those they represent have it down to a science how to frustrate the interest and needs of the people.

    the only response to that problem that can fix it in the interest of the people is for them to rise up and remove them all, and all who have captured their politicians and their system and corrupted it all to hell. the only chance the people has is to toss them all and make a new system.. by the people, for the people

  54. @Webster

    Scotland would be a far richer and better country if they didn’t have to put up with the English who never did them a single bit of good.

    Your knowledge of Scottish history is fundamentally flawed; the criminal elite of Scotland in the late 17th century and first years of the 18th century bankrupted themselves in the Darien adventure in the Panama Isthmus, and prompted the Scottish Parliament to strike a deal with the English Parliament for Union in exchange for a bailout. IOW, the Scottish Parliament did to the Scottish people then what the Brexiteers, rightfully, accuse the Westminster Parliament of doing to the British people now. Now that the bailout of Scotland is ancient history, the pissy Scots feel like they were raped when, for more than three centuries, they have actually been disproportionately represented at the pinnacle of British power, and have largely been better off than they would have been if Scotland was left to moulder on its own in its own little windswept bleak corner of the British Isles.

    To @pamela’s comment about Cymru, it too was sold out by its crminal elite, who wanted to be a part of a bigger, richer pie.

    The English were never angels, but the Scots and Welsh were complicit in their own bondage.

    • Replies: @Webster
  55. Miro23 says:
    @Alden

    Scotland does have excellent universities.

    But you’re unfamiliar with the SNP Scots separatist party. They want unlimited black Arab Pakistanis third world immigration and total soviet style socialism; everyone living in housing projects higher taxes government doling out every benefit. SNP is very radical and most important very anti White.

    You know more about this than I do, but Scotland has the potential to do much better.

    If they become responsible for their own fate, they could make some good choices. For example, the Chinese followed Deng Xiaoping and broke out of a long cycle of economic and social failure.

    “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.” Deng Xiaoping 1962

  56. SamW says:

    I think one big mistake was having a referendum solely on “Remain” vs “Leave”, as opposed to having more questions about “Hard Brexit” vs “Soft Brexit” vs “no-deal”. They could have done a ranked preference referendum, in which voters have to number several options in order of their preference: remain in EU, leave without a deal, leave with a deal, maybe even options for different kinds of deals (from “leave EU but stay in EEA + customs union” at one extreme to something like “Canada plus” at the other). Or, if not a ranked preference referendum, a series of referendums – the first to choose whether to stay or leave, the second to decide what kind of terms should be the basis of the negotiation strategy, the third to approve any deal reached; if either negotiations or the third referendum fails, maybe even a fourth to decide what to do next (“leave without a deal” vs. “extension for further negotiations” vs. “give up on leaving”). If referendums are good, wouldn’t more referendums be even more good? If more referendums are a bad idea, why wasn’t the first one a bad idea as well?

    I’m a British-Australian dual citizen, and whenever there is a constitutional amendment here in Australia, it needs to be passed not just by the majority of national vote, but also by majority of states. That is to stop the small states being always overruled by the bigger ones. Likewise, in the US, two-thirds of state legislatures must approve any constitutional amendment, so a narrow national majority is not enough for constitutional change. The UK doesn’t have a written constitution, but arguably Brexit is an issue of constitutional level importance – so why wasn’t the same kind of rule applied to it? If Leave required not just a national majority of votes, but also a majority in a majority of constitutent countries (3 out of 4), it would have failed, since it only got a majority in 2 out of 4.

    I don’t understand those who say that Scotland is better off in the UK than the EU. The UK is a lot more lop-sided than the EU is – England is 80% of the UK’s population (and MPs), whereas the largest member state Germany is only about 16% of the EU population. In an independent Scotland, the Scottish government would have far greater powers against the EU than it currently has against Westminster. Scotland in the UK is always going to be outvoted by England, and constitutionally has no guaranteed veto on anything; an independent Scotland in the EU will have a guaranteed veto on many major EU decisions.

    • Replies: @anon
  57. O NO!!! Flannery told nigger jokes? Burn her books now

  58. chris m says:

    There does seem to be a somewhat wide range of opinions as to why people voted Brexit,
    and a lot of truth to all of them.

    but from my own perspective there has only ever been one reason
    and that has to do with actual UK sovereignty.

    over the past 40+years of UK EU membership
    the UK Parliament has been steadily delegating its role from own sovereign body ( itself)
    to another, not so sovereign one (called the EU)
    (the UK and other Parliaments have been doing the same sort of thing with respect to other bodies
    such as the UN etc etc)

    the question is not whether the UK should leave, but what exactly is the future role
    of the UK Parliament, and by extension, the point of the UK?

    if in the longer run, it wishes to abolish itself, or just relegate itself to some
    form of whatever, then so be it.

    if it wishes to remain Sovereign, or something just more than another layer of Government
    then it needs to act accordingly.

    this implies leaving the EU, but not necessarily so.

    (what is currently going on in the UK parliament seems to be an effort by the Remainers to regain control of the reins of power (ie derail Brexit) only to hand it back to the EU.
    it’s a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face)

  59. Coudenhove-Kalergi plan for Pan-Europe “… gained a lot of support from international bankers …he received a generous daonation of 60,000 gold marks from international banker Max Warburg …The Rothschilds were also big supporters of Kalergi …it was precisely his vision of the (mixed race) future citizen of Europe that delighted the international elite bankers , freemasons and influential business men …he also set the foundations for a new world order …in which the diverse nations of the World will disappear … to be replaced by one human herd to be controlled by the International elites.” Per As writing in Demokracija.eu .
    The European Union is the creation of elite freemasons and the ” EU Parliament is the first monument representing a superstate and reveals , through its intense symbolism , its hatred of religion ,plans for a New World Order and their subtle endorsement of tyranny.” From the Vigilant Citizen, “Sinister sites – The EU Parliament “

  60. Ace says:
    @Dennis Gannon

    Ah, yes. The Beastly British. The locals made a proper mess of it after they left India. A million something slaughtered during Partition and open sewers still. Every day Indians should get down on their knees to thank God for what the British brought with them.

    It’s the same with all the European colonies and even those without the blessings of European colonization. The third world is invariably a ghastly pit and even more so in times past.

    But let’s beat our breasts about how Europeans interfered with the March of Civilization.

  61. anon[642] • Disclaimer says:
    @SamW

    I’m a British-Australian dual citizen, and whenever there is a constitutional amendment here in Australia, it needs to be passed not just by the majority of national vote, but also by majority of states. That is to stop the small states being always overruled by the bigger ones. …

    If Leave required not just a national majority of votes, but also a majority in a majority of constitutent countries (3 out of 4), it would have failed, since it only got a majority in 2 out of 4.

    The combined population of New South Wales and Victoria is 14.5 million, out of an Australian population of 25 million.
    That’s 58%.
    The total population of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland is less than 10 million, while England’s population is at least 53 million.
    That’s 82%.
    How can it be right for the 18% to have veto rights over the 82%?

  62. thenewamerican.com : ” The real agenda behind the CIA spawning the EU…The real goal was always what Globalists called an Atlantic Union and eventually a global government …Today the rubber-stamp pseudo-Parliament is a reality … despite the wishes of Europeans as expressed in numerous referendums …the superstate keeps usurping more and more power…”

  63. Webster says:
    @The Alarmist

    Horseshit. First, instead of making up history about Scotland dicking around in Panama please provide some links.
    Second, after Scotland was conquered by England Scottish brides were actually raped by the English commander in that area. It was the law, thus often polluting our very genes.
    As to mouldering in it’s own little
    Windswept corner I guess you aren’t aware that Scottish people provided much of the modern science and mathematics and technology which the world still depends. Telephones, railways, vaccines, mathematic and physics advances all came from Scotland. The theory of evolution didn’t come from Darwin – it came from an observant Scottish farmer long before that.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10859281/Did-Charles-Darwin-borrow-the-theory-of-natural-selection.html
    My point is that Scotland could and should be independent if only to prove that louts in the media cannot defeat us with reckless and completely false rumours of Scottish inferiority. We would live longer, be happier and be far richer culturally and monetarily than we are now.
    You sir are a globalist. And like other cultures such as the inquisition or McCarthy ism, or mass I migration to countries who do not want to be overrun,
    the culture of globalism for the advantage of the rich over the suffering of the poor will not last.
    Hie ye to a nunnery old chap. Get down on your knees and pray to your imaginary god that Scotland will forgive you.
    And while you are down there … just kidding. But there are probably hundreds of countries and peoples in the world today who wish their ancestors had never drunk the strong liquors of colonialism in the last few centuries.
    Did you know that in the north west territories there are places where you can’t get out of your vehicle without being overwhelmed by flies getting into your ears, nose, and mouth. You can stand there and wave your arms and curse and swear at the fuckers, but it is better to buy a head net to keep them off. Or find a way to get rid of them.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  64. Webster says:

    It is one thing to bring your culture to another in a peaceful and prosperous way to the benefit of both. But quite another to go there for profit while sharing death, destruction and disease for only your own benefit. Kinda brings us back to Darwin doesn’t it?

  65. Anonymous[417] • Disclaimer says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    Typical clueless American comment, hates the English yet has a naively positive and optimistic view of the “Celts”. The Scottish and Irish are the biggest Communists of the lot and are much more anti-American than English Brexiteers are.

    If Americans think a “United Ireland”, independent Scotland and weakened, marginalised England would be in America’s interests they are absolutely delusional. England is literally the only major country in Europe that is pro-American, an independent Scotland and “United Ireland” run by Sinn Fein would be no ally of America.

    • Replies: @Webster
  66. Mark T says:

    Surely the point is that a large number of violent African males are appearing in Europe as ‘asylum seekers’ and once in the EU are gravitating towards the UK for a combination of benefits, a gig economy, the English language and a network effect i.e that there are already tens if not hundreds of thousands of their countrymen already here. This is no different to the anti immigrant feelings in the US in the late 1920s. Merkel basically said I am letting 3m into Germany, but the rest of you will have to take the ones we don’t want, which is why nobody trusted she wasn’t about to unilaterally allow another 5m Syrians or all 80m Turks into the EU. The UK authorities deliberately let in hundreds of thousands of Eastern European’s while denying the fact, so nobody trusts them on this which is why ‘taking back control’ resonated.

  67. Anonymous[417] • Disclaimer says:

    The biggest delusion Brexiteers have is that they think Americans like them. You only have to read the comments about Brexit from Americans on Unz, among many other sites, to realise that is simply not the case.

    The reality is no one wants to be English in America. Those with mixed English ancestry will almost always claim another part of their ancestry as the main identity, and those with pure English ancestry just refer to themselves as “American” with no hyphenation. There is an ingrained tradition in America of downplaying and denying English ancestry. The English are literally blamed for all of America’s problems, the term “White Anglo Saxon Protestant” aka “WASP” is used as a byword for all that is wrong with America. “WASP” is an insult, no one wants to be perceived as a “WASP”.

  68. Webster says:
    @Anonymous

    “The Scottish and Irish are the biggest communists of the lot” ? News to me and every Scottish or Irish person I have ever met. But carry on as you were old chap, nobody can be bothered to argue with you.
    In fact you should go out in the streets of Glasgow and start preaching the communist manifesto. It is unkind to suggest it but it would be amusing.

  69. Webster says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Perhaps Scotland should encourage brexit, then use it as an excuse to break ties with England and then themselves continue trading with England in a normal friendly manner and leave the EU themselves and continue trading with Europe in a normal freindly manner. EU is toast any way you look at it due to the huge stress placed on European countries by massive immigration policies which the citizens of many countries hated but had no say in – sort of like a massive coup which never quite worked and will leave huge wounds on Europe for decades or centuries or millenia. For Scotland it is best to get out of England and then get out of the EU and then if possible cut immigration to zero. Best of both worlds.

    • Agree: Miro23
    • Replies: @Webster
  70. Webster says:
    @Webster

    Addendum to the above comment. Multiculturalism, the dream of ivory tower intellectuals, has never actually worked in the real world.

  71. Anonymous[360] • Disclaimer says:

    I believe that Brexit is the planned dismantlement of the British economy. “Negotiations” will probably go on for at least several years with no resolution, all the while the Pound continues to fall in value and countless companies leave.

    I suspect that this has all been planned and stage managed to bring the British into line with the EU. The British have always been problematic for Brussels, as they won’t accept the Euro or Schengen membership. Brexit may eventually be permitted to happen, although not until such a point that the British economy is so weak that it would almost certainly be a failure. The aim of any eventual Brexit will be for Britain to beg to be allowed back into the EU, at which point it will be all on THEIR terms, Britain will have to agree to everything they say. British resistance to fully integrate with the EU has been a big barrier to a European superstate for many years, I think Brexit is their plan to deal with this once and for all.

  72. Miro23 says:
    @Webster

    It would be even nicer if they could kick out the masses of immigrants when they leave and once again call themselves a proud and free SCOTTISH nation.
    I don’t care what you think about it. The majority of Europe including England has been overrun with foreign refugees and are only now beginning to realize what a huge mistake that was and is.

    The easiest way to fix the problem, is to change immigrant’s status to “long term foreign resident” ( if they pay taxes and contribute to social security -healthcare). That way, immigrants have no political rights, Scotland belongs to the Scottish, and most immigrants would be OK with that. It’s a recognition of the fact that they are not Scottish (which they already know) but wouldn’t affect their economic situation.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  73. Anonymous[155] • Disclaimer says:
    @Miro23

    Scotland for now is part of the UK and subject to British immigration policy. Making statements like “Scotland belongs to the Scottish” is no different to saying “Catalonia belongs to the Catalans” or “Xinjiang belongs to the Uyghurs”.

    Such a statement is a purely separatist statement with no basis in the actual reality.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  74. Miro23 says:
    @Anonymous

    Recent polls in Scotland show that 50% of Scots want independence and the proportion has been growing. If the British parliament allows another vote, then the Scots may in fact get their independence – it’s not a fantasy – and the basis in reality would be a country with about the population of Denmark or Norway.

    Then then they would make their own decisions about immigration and citizenship (provided they didn’t sign up to the E.U.).

    • Replies: @Europe natonalist
  75. @Miro23

    Catalonia voted for independence a couple of years ago but everyone knows they have no chance of actually getting it.

  76. @YetAnotherAnon

    You are 100% correct about Scottish and Irish nationalism. Although I’m Irish by descent myself and was fully on board with the freedom struggle decades ago, I see now what a fraud Irish nationalism really is. I just can’t get into a ‘nationalism’ that is completely anti-White. Anti-colonial? Sure. Anti-imperialist? No problem. But anti-White? Take a hike!

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Joyce Comments via RSS