Hurrah for Britain…sort of

by Brad Nelson6/24/16

The British people have voted to exit the European Union. Apparently this is a binding vote and not one of these fraudulent “voter preference” things which can be easily ignored by politicians.

The Prime Minister (of the phony “Conservative Party” which is not in the least conservative) has offered to resign because he backed the wrong horse. Well…good riddance.

Exiting the decrepit European Union is a good thing. Yours truly understood over 30 years ago the poison pill that the “common market” was. Oh, if only they would have stopped at smoothing over restrictions to trade. But they didn’t, and that was never the goal.

What Britain has done is to simply separate themselves (a bit) from international socialism. They still have national socialism (lower case). It’s like separating conjoined twins that shared a bad heart. The separation is good, but it doesn’t do anything to fix the bad heart.

Next they need to take a vote regarding separating themselves from Islam and multiculturalism. They have intentionally flooded themselves with Muslims who have no intention of assimilating into British culture and who will simply finish what the European Union started…wiping out Britain’s identity as a nation. Exiting the European Union could be considered analogous to lopping off a couple limbs that have gone gangrene, but with the rest of the body still flooded with infection.

This British exit will likely mean the end of the corrupt and bloated European Union. It’s hard to imagine Germany sticking around to take up even more slack of the slacker nations. Good riddance. It was a bad idea from the get-go. The European Union was always the brainchild of the intellectual class whose excuse for the Union was creating a common market and securing peace but whose true goal was to wipe out the various national identities. Arguably, the forced emigration of these nitwits should precede the forced emigration of their unassimilated Muslim populations.

But at least now the United Kingdom has control over the curvature of their bananas. Hurrah.

Brad is editor and chief disorganizer of StubbornThings.
About Author  Author Archive  Email

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (685 views)

Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Hurrah for Britain…sort of

  1. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The EEC was not such a bad idea. But the EU as it developed after the Maastricht Treaty was an abomination. The intent was not only to put money in the pockets of the elites (particularly the French and German), but also to destroy any vestige of national culture.

    Un-elected bureaucrats and their corporate accomplices, accountable to no one but themselves , have taken over the strings of power in the EU.

    I believe I recall reading that something like 70% of Britian’s regulations were imposed by the EU, not the British Parliament.

  2. Bell Phillips says:

    As pessimistic as I am these days, there are a few glimmers of hope here and there. This is a big one – it implies that there is a limit to how far western culture will deliberately stick it head up it’s bottom.

    Forbes has a headline that 80% of Americans favor Brexit. Seems unlikely, but a good sign to the extent that it’s true. Given the average American’s (or, for that matter, my) limited (non-existent) knowledge of European politics, I have to take this as an indication of our own desire to get out from under the federal bureaucracy.

    Unrelated to Brexit, it’s also encouraging that gun control gets less and less traction all the time, and more and more people are disbelieving the Globull Warming propaganda.

    Today, I’m going to think about these things and be a little bit happier.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      It is good news, Bell. But yours truly (you can decide if I’m a pessimist or realist) is not going to be quick to announce Britain cured of its real ill: Leftism. But I do appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        It’s sort of like electing a decent Republican this year instead of the Fire Witch. You hold off the day of reckoning for a while. This can be very good for those of whose personal days of reckoning may precede the national one.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          My older brother commented today that he thinks we’re done. He thought I would disagree with him. But that’s exactly what I think. I don’t know the issues on the minds of UK voters. I imagine that their reasons for disliking the EU are likely different from mine…unless, of course, there is a kinda-sorta silent majority that no longer wants to be a dumping ground for Muslim “refugees.”

          But has there been a renewal of patriotism and an appreciation for everything English (or Scottish or Welsh) in England? Oh, I would be very surprised if that is the case. I would suspect that the main contributors here know more about English history than your average voter. God only knows why they dumped the EU. I suspect is that saw it as a drain on their welfare system. And nothing motivates voters these days like the “conservatism” of holding onto entitlements.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Kung Fu Zu says, “A journey of one thousand li begins with one step.”

        Actually, it was probably Laozi who said it and it reads, “A journey of one thousand li starts beneath one’s feet”, but you get my drift.

  3. GHG says:

    Cutting through the gobbledygook, this is a blow against globalism which is a good thing.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Exactly what is globalism, Mr. Lesser? I’ve never really read a good definition.

      • GHG says:

        I would say the opposite of nationalism.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Is it “globalism” to sell one’s products around the globe? I guess I’ve just too often heard the world “globalism” used as a pejorative without much explanation for which parts of international functions or actions are good and which are bad. Surely international airlines are “global” in function. And they’re not bad.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        John Ringo and Tom Kratman refer to it as transnationalism in some of their Posleen series books. That gives you a good idea. Massive immigration is part of this; free trade without regard for the effect on the home country is another; multiculturalism is an essential element of it; and a reliance on treaties or other mechanisms for subordinating national governments to international bureaucracies is (as Rosalys notes) a key goal.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Ross Douthat has an article in the New York Times on globalists as a transnational tribe who think of themselves as cosmopolitans, and thinks the big problem is that they fail to see their own tribalism. (A severe superiority complex.) The link is:

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Ross Douthat has an article in the New York Times on globalists as a transnational tribe who think of themselves as cosmopolitans

          Oh, god, great point. Another cult of “better than thou.” Where would the world be without an upper crust thinking it is an upper crust fit to rule over the rubes?

          The people who consider themselves “cosmopolitan” in today’s West, by contrast, are part of a meritocratic order that transforms difference into similarity, by plucking the best and brightest from everywhere and homogenizing them into the peculiar species that we call “global citizens.”

          That’s a good thought by Douthat. I would add that the greater organizing principle is atheism. If man declares he is but a result of chance and the author of everything to follow, he must then create a god-like meritocratic order to ground his ambitions in and to act as King (by another name). (Give Kevin Williamson’s General Washington’s Standard as general background.) (Read Michael Novak’s Lose the Story, Lose the Culture for additional background.)

          It was a touchy thing for the American Revolutionaries to unground the basis for society in the divine right of kings. Thomas Paine took this to arguably its logical conclusion with his love for the godless secular utopian state proposed by the French revolutionaries. Paine was useful for de-legitimizing the need for a king (George, in this case) but like many on the left, he apparently had no “off” switch. Any principle, even good ones, taken to an extreme will result in horrendous stuff.

          The Global Order (one world government, whatever) is the natural aspiration of atheists. Despite all their pleas for “diversity” (implicit in the character of individual nations), it is their craving for a secular placeholder for God that moves them…as well as (for some) being that god. They have no choice but to seek homogenous “unity” in government and culture to sate their desire for a sort of existential “oneness.”

          And search out some photos on the web of the monstrously expensive and expansive government palaces that house the mechanisms of the EU. These are temples of secularism (read: atheism). Probably the dirty little secret of the Republican Establishment is that most of them are functional atheists — or what Douthat describes as “They have their own distinctive worldview (basically liberal Christianity without Christ)…”

          Man — through science, free trade, industry, and inalienable-rights-based governments — has produced a cornucopia of abundance (a redundancy, but it works to make the point). This is the source of both atheism and the naive belief that mere “reason” is all that man needs. On the face of it, purely “secular” material market mechanisms produce the cornucopia while religions has been successfully marketed as a universal retrograde force. The reality — also forgotten by Libertarians — is that without some idea that man’s will is not supreme and the grounding of all things, there are no rights (only privileges granted by government). And without rights you can have none of the mechanisms that produce wealth. Socialism (and libertarianism) simply rides on top and sucks it dry.

          And once it has been established that religious belief marks you as a rube — a central belief of the “Cosmopolitans” — then being a secular god (aka “bureaucrat”) gains appeal if only because there is nowhere else to go for power. The fly-over rubes can still be handed out bits of bible-thumping nostrums to keep them in line (and fooled). (For more background, Maggie Gallagher points out some of the rube-ishness of Christians in their willingness to believe the baloney of Trump.)

          I think Douthat rightly punctures the “cosmopolitans” in that he seems to think they are insincere or superficial. I agree. One thing also to note is that “love of foreign culture” is now fueled by the hatred instilled by the Left of one’s own. There no upside in learning about and glorifying Western history. To do so marks one as “insensitive,” probably even “racist” amongst the Cosmopolitans. All that one has remaining as an outlet is to “celebrate diversity” which means “anything but Western.” So, yeah, that’s going to lead to a bunch of ninnies glorifying tacos and other things far past anything reasonable or genuine.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            That last point is really the basis for multiculturalism. In saying all cultures are equal, the Left is really just rejecting its own (which is held below other cultures) Thus, Muslims and other primitives are given a pass on their misbehavior — but never a white European who misbehaves as his culture calls for him to do.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Yes, I think we’ve always agreed the “multiculturalism” is an inherently dishonest term. It means the veneration of all cultures except traditional Western culture.

              And this whole multiculturalism shtick has become the secular equivalent of Jesus. And I’m not mocking Jesus. But it is the Christian understanding that only Jesus can forgive sin. But if you are secular (read: atheist) and don’t believe in an afterlife, the worst sins are quite different from those in The Ten Commandments. The worst sins are social sins (of the politically incorrect kind, of course).

              The embracing of multiculturalism (is this anything but a white phenomenon?) is a path for absolution for those unfortunate enough to be born with white skin and thus who also have white guilt. That taco you are eating in Cabo is full of the same kind of “transubstantiation” magic that fills a Catholic wafer. And I’m not making fun of Catholics. I’m merely pointing out the role that multiculturalism plays in the quasi-religion of the Left.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            The people who consider themselves “cosmopolitan” in today’s West, by contrast, are part of a meritocratic order that transforms difference into similarity, by plucking the best and brightest from everywhere and homogenizing them into the peculiar species that we call “global citizens.”

            I think this is absolutely true.

            I would add that the greater organizing principle is atheism. If man declares he is but a result of chance and the author of everything to follow, he must then create a god-like meritocratic order to ground his ambitions in and to act as King (by another name).

            While there are no doubt plenty of atheists among the global types, particularly the Leftists, I think the organizing principle of these people is not so much atheism as the idea that they are better than the hoi polloi.

            Have you ever noticed how so many of these people may their money by moving operations from first world to third world countries? What about those who wish to have unrestricted immigration in order to cut costs?

            I think modern globalization is a combination of Leftist goals which have been with us for about two hundred years and old fashioned elitism to which we appear to be reverting.

            The NRO intern was correct in mentioning the fact that technology contributes to this phenomenon, but he didn’t give any explanation how. Rapid communications and control are two areas in which technology has had huge influence.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              This is neither here nor there but it doesn’t fit anywhere else, Mr. Kung. I was listening to some twenty-something yutes discuss politics at a 4th of July picnic. One of them is currently going to Hillsdale College but I don’t remember if he was the one lecturing.

              Anyway, what my ear caught was “There’s nothing in the Constitution about the right to vote.” Okie doke. There’s also nothing in the Constitution about the right to eat or drink water. But what occurred to me is the libertarianesque way this guy was arguing things. Everything was reduced to a formula. Not a statement of principles, mind you, but a formula. I wasn’t going to interrupt the little clutch he had going but I wanted to say “And your point is?”

              I wondered if this was the “men without faces” the C.S. Lewis spoke of.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                But what occurred to me is the libertarianesque way this guy was arguing things. Everything was reduced to a formula. Not a statement of principles, mind you, but a formula.

                Of course it is easier to memorize a few formulas and repeat them ad nauseam. This has the advantage of saving one from thinking.

                Getting to the root of things and developing a general framework on which to build takes time and effort.

              • Steve Lancaster says:

                True enough, there is no expressed right to vote, however the founders thought was not necessary as voting is part of natural rights.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Agreeing with Steve as well, there’s an assumption in the America way of life that unless something is specifically prohibited by government, it is allowed.

                Perhaps this is the part that chilled me listening to these somewhat ignorant yutes. It is Europe, as I understand it, that has the expectation that unless something is expressly permitted by government, the assumption is that it is prohibited.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                “There’s nothing in the Constitution about the right to vote.”

                This observation makes one wonder. Did the young Solon make any observations about the question of who and who didn’t have the franchise, was to be decided by each State?

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                It is Europe, as I understand it, that has the expectation that unless something is expressly permitted by government, the assumption is that it is prohibited.

                Not only Europe.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Deciding who gets to vote has always been a state function, and even today there can be minor differences. Before the national 18-year-old vote amendment, there were 4 states that allowed voting by people under 21 (Georgia and Kentucky 18, Hawaii 19, and Alaska 20). Most of these differences were eliminated in the 1960s.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    David French has a short article on the subject wherein he makes a few good points. Nothing earth-shattering, but worth a read (and certainly an article that nowhere near lives up to the headline): Brexit and the End of International Progressive Inevitabilitly

    I worry about the precise meaning of “globalism” because the positive connotations are in the realm of a non-specific kool-aid. We ought not to make the same mistake in reverse and use “globalism” indiscriminately. When our thinking is swept away with sound bytes we are lost to do anything about the problem because we can’t define the problem. At best, a word becomes a vessel for our general grievance (sort of like the Trump phenomenon).

    But I will tell you one thing that I think “globalism” is in the positive sense (in the “Progressive” sense) means, and it indeed has to do with one-world government and anti-nationalism. [French: “Nations caused wars, so nationalism (and even patriotism) had to be set aside.”]. More universally, it’s about the ellimination of limits.

    I was reminded of this as I sat at a stoplight the other day and glanced at a poster that someone had tacked to the telephone pole. It was an announcement of a rally to “Free the Nipple.”

    You could say that the most important thing that separates the right from the left is the naive pining for an emotional utopia, freed from all constraints and restrictions (such things being deemed to stem ultimately from racism, sexism, homophobia, nationalism, and the ill effects of capitalism). Yes, many want a material utopia. But I believe the playing-field for the utopianists has moved to an emotional one. The goal of government, and indeed political correctness, is to to be therapeutic…to save us from the buffeting of reality-based ideas that run contrary to the no-limits emotional utopia of ever-soothing ideas and words.

    Whether the nipple (presumably female) should be freed or not is beside the point. It’s the fact that there is a barrier that exists that needs to be crashed that is the point of the left. That this is a sexual limit is all the better. Barriers produce emotional stultification. The point of a Progressive/Leftist is to alway be as openly unrestricted as possible in all areas. Much of this derives from Freud. Much from the juvenile-ification of our society where people refuse to grow up and become adults. Adults know that they can’t have everything and must make choices. This notion is blasphemy to the “free the nipple” crowd.

    Being a conservative, if the nipple must be freed, I would be much more discriminating. Yes to Swedish bikini models. No to nearly everyone else.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      John Boardman, a far-left science fiction fanzine editor (he also used to be heavily involved in moderating postal Diplomacy), for a long time ran a series of attacks on patriotism as a concept in Dagon, his fanzine. (When he didn’t run the series after the election of Barry Zero, liberal fanzine editor Guy Lillian thought this was an indication that patriotism was now acceptable again. I pointed out that if so, he was talking about partisanship rather than patriotism.)

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      The problem with nudity is not the nudity, but that it encourages people to go nude who no one ever wants to see nude.

      In the South we have definitions of clothing optional
      Naked=no clothing

      Neeked=no clothing and looking for trouble

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I’m okay with Swedish-bikini-team quality nudity in specially roped off areas (maybe a nude beach).

        But my overall point was to try to put people in touch with the mindset that is forever engaging in the “activism” of seeing barriers that need smashing. This is the orientation of a juvenile mind.

        Civilization, generally speaking, was achieved because of what was built. The Left is engaged in destruction even if they call it “liberation.” Well, yeah, it’s true that one can be liberated from nearly anything. And if one is stuck merely in the feel-good buzz of word meaning, one might even be liberated from that confining parachute one has jumped out of he plane with.

        That describes the Left. They would “liberate” us all by smashing the various pillars and fences that makes civilization possible. They give absolutely no weight to the value of keeping things. For them (and their like-minded useful idiots), it’s all a matter of “So what if women show their nipples? Who will that hurt?”

        The juvenile mind thinks in this way. The strategic, adult mind understands the harm that comes from this naive, unhindered need to always break limits, and with candy-ass rationalizations such as “What difference will it make?”

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s an article by Peter Hitchens on Brexit:: Boston, Lincolngrad: I saw the seething resentment. Now it is time to finish the revolution. Getting to the first substance of that article, he writes:

    For instance, they refused to be aware of the quiet seething resentment about mass migration that I found in Boston four summers ago. The established parties ignored this, and the liberal thought police tried to claim it was bigotry. . .

    It is not just mass migration that worries them. They are also distressed about the decline in their standard of living, the pressure to get into debt, the way good state schools are reserved for the rich and cunning, the shrivelling of opportunities for the young, the unchecked spread of crime and disorder, the ridiculous cost of housing, and the general overcrowding of everything from roads to hospitals.

    I’m dubious. Do these same people who supposedly bemoan these things know that the answer isn’t more socialism or simply socialism run more locally? Do they understand why things are declining in the first place? Without good Thatcherian leadership, I don’t expect anything constructive to come out of the vote. There is opportunity, but it will take good leadership.

    And he does give reason for my pessimism of the UK actually ever leaving the EU:

    Thursday’s vote shows that the House of Commons is hopelessly unrepresentative. The concerns and hopes of those who voted to leave the EU – 51.9 per cent of the highest poll since 1992 – are reliably supported by fewer than a quarter of MPs, if that. Ludicrously, neither of the big parties agrees with a proven majority of the electorate – and neither shows any sign of changing its policies as a result.

    If we do nothing about this scandal, for it is a scandal, then how can we be sure we will get out of the EU at all? The elite is rallying and whimpering that the minority must be treated ‘with respect’– more than they would have done had they won.

    Parliament is pro-EU. The Civil Service is pro-EU, the judiciary is pro-EU, the BBC is pro-EU and is now returning to its old bad habits after an admittedly creditable attempt at balance. Its 6am radio news bulletin on Friday said, falsely and dangerously, that the pound had ‘collapsed’ following the result and there will be a lot more of this foolish panic-mongering in days to come.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      One correction I would make to Hitchens: The fact that the British Parliament doesn’t support leaving the EU doesn’t prove it’s undemocratic. That wasn’t the issue on which most of the voters chose last time, so their MPs wouldn’t necessarily reflect their views.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Good call. I believe there’s as little understanding about the term “democratic” as their is “globalism.”

        And, really, if 3/4 or more of MPs support the EU then why are people voting for them? We can either have the rule of our betters or we can make better choices.

        No one wants to blame “the people.” But the people are largely to blame. I remember the totally disingenuous part of the eulogy of Diana given by her brother. He said that her death was largely due to the tabloids. And I’m sitting at home watching that (or watching a re-broadcast of it…I was by no means glued to this topic) and I’m thinking, “What a putz. It’s the fault of the British people who buy those damn rags and who empower motorcycle-wielding ‘journalists’ on their feeding frenzy of paparazzism, if blame indeed needs to be assigned outside of getting into a car with a drunk chauffeur and then instructing him to speed recklessly down the road.”

        Truth is usually the first thing to go in these situations. And it’s completely Parliamentarian for the MPs to support the EU. If the people don’t like them, vote in the right kind.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Deciding who gets to vote has always been a state function, and even today there can be minor differences. Before the national 18-year-old vote amendment, there were 4 states that allowed voting by people under 21 (Georgia and Kentucky 18, Hawaii 19, and Alaska 20). Most of these differences were eliminated in the 1960s.

    Thanks for that background info, Timothy. As much as I am a defender of Lincoln, I haven’t forgotten that the Federal Constitution tried to be awfully careful in that it said both what the Federal government could generally (“generally” being, of course, fairly open to interpretation) do and some specifics (the Bill of Rights, for example) in regards to what it couldn’t do. The assumption was always (of course, encoded in the 10th amendment) that powers not specifically granted to the Federal government were reserved by the people or the states. People in states voted. Duh.

    So I mentioned this conversation I overheard on the 4th of July only in regards to the deep-seated feeling I have that this next generation of yutes isn’t anywhere near producing a Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, or George Washington. They’re too busy comparing dick sizes by going over and over like an OCD-male over minutia. The forest is missed for the trees.

    Again, I should have said (but yours truly is more politely than you might suppose) to these gathered yutes, “So what if the Constitution doesn’t specifically grant or deal with voting rights?” For many yutes, particularly libertarians, the Constitution is a magic code that only The Really Smart can decipher. I almost smelled the next generation of RINO Republican being shaped, able to speak in formulas in order to bamboozle the masses but with little understanding of the overall.

    And from my experience, I don’t think that the ability to refute the Left exists out there today. But that’s another topic…perhaps to be saved for July 6.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *