Myths and Europeans

exodus2by Glenn Fairman6/27/16
In calling down from Heaven the first postulate of prudent government, England’s own G.K Chesterton once exhorted us that “It is hard to make government representative when it is also remote.” And in light of last week’s events, that Prince of Paradox might also have offered that a people enamored with its kings finally saw fit to dispense with its oligarchs. Yes, contrary to every hysterical prediction provided by globalist poseurs with bad haircuts, the Patriot’s Dream prevailed – leaving waffling Belgians apoplectic. In the end, the pound dropped but the sky did not cave. Indeed, the great unwashed, proving that one can still lie back and think of England, pumped 9 grams behind the ear of a beast grown fat on a diet of British prerogatives.

In retrospect, so loud were the plaintive cries of elitists that it brought to mind the Kaiser’s march through Liège during the Great War. The hoary prospect of Cosmopolitan Europe’s impending doom – delivered by a pastiche of eel and egg eating peasants – provoked cranky mother oaths from the spoilt children of Euro-Disney. The epithets of: nationalist, racist, nativist, xenophobe, and troglodyte were hurled as so much excrement from a monkey’s cage at voters who wanted only to take back the reins from the new patrician class: those sheiks hell bent on converting Rule Britannia to Cairo on the Thames.

Although accused of harboring the small and narrow parochial vision, Brexit emerged as the headiest of patriotic movements with an eye aimed towards pulling the fork from the light socket before Pemberley burned down. Now, if “narrow” means national sovereignty, then it was deemed preferable to that broad but unmarked path to cultural negation.  And as if on cue, Chesterton assures us: “Modern broad-mindedness benefits the rich; and benefits nobody else.”

In the field of mathematics and science, the aggregation of facts into larger and more elegant wholes – even unto laws, is how the disciplines proceed. Yet, it will never be so with men and their politics. An untidy mankind will always elude the contingency of the material world because they are differentiating and valuing beings who are servants to their hearts and what they hold freely as first things. The blessings of friendship and the association with like-minded beings are the first fruits of family and village. The art of the political, in its greatest sense, is a coming together of equals for the purpose of the Good Life: where nodes of power are centered close to home, and a people’s laws and customs annunciate that shared organic hope.

The dream of a United Europe has forever been a historical pipedream, but its acceptance gained a large measure of traction in the days since Napoleon. And to its eternal credit, Great Britain put a sword to that tyranny. Today, in the hands of a post-Christian elite devoid of a spiritually-unifying moral center, the EU is a bloodless oligarchic abstraction postulated on the low bedrock of a Marxian interpretation of Man. Bereft of a higher vision, economic action is held primary to essence, history and inheritance. Because they have aimed their sights so low, what are now the hollow core remains of Christendom become a mere way station of Nietzschean “Last Men” awaiting the grim tutelage of Islam Ascendant. For those Deconstructionist Conditioners in Brussels who would make smooth the path of a future Nimrod: A Syrian is a Brit, a German is a Greek, and a Frenchman is a Swede. Indeed, their project would discount the thousands of discreet political decisions a community makes over a man’s lifespan, writing off the uniqueness that territory and blood offer in: religion, creed, wealth, geography, institutions, rights, and duties that have percolated up from the soil of communal value.

In practice, this procrustean template of “one size fits all” works as well in this Frankensteinian mishmash of nation states as it does in the shoe store. Leaving aside the corruption, unaccountability of elites and their sea of onerous regulations, the EU’s byzantine economic structure holds captive the more diligent and wealthy regions as de facto guarantors of peoples harboring the “Mediterranean Attitude.” The arrangement is nothing less than servitude writ grand. In using an example which even a romantic utopian might understand: Consider that Cousin Aristotle from Greece has come to call for another loan from the deep pockets of dour Uncle Otto on the Rhine.  It is the EU which will negotiate the extortion……er, make the necessary exchange to the satisfaction of no one except Ari and his seaside Uzo connection. In this relationship, where the prodigality of Peter is credited to Paul, no sacrifice is ever deemed too big as far as the “Euro-family” is concerned.

We are living in a time that requires grand gestures and not myths. The West is in dire need of great-hearted men pledged to Heaven and yet armed with a patrimony of shared memory and traditions. Once again the conservatism of England’s Chesterton serves as a guiding light, just as it urges us to look over our shoulders:

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.

Those oligarchs “walking around” to and fro on the earth are dedicated to their malignant universal vision of herding and mixing peoples, and so they have dispensed with the lessons of history and reason – reckoning sheer audacity as circumspection. Those who would promulgate the Myth of the European are cut from the same cloth as their contemptuous brethren who rule across the pond. Having pronounced Man as a purely malleable and consuming being, they have taken fire into their breasts and marvel that they are burned.

An ominous meme scorching its path across the internet stands as testimony that fables are only as strong as the imaginations that conjure them. It would seem to warrant America’s careful consideration:

We are not one race.

We are not one global nation.

We are not one global religion.

We are not one liberal moral code.

We are not one gender.

We are not under one government.

We are not globalists.

We are not one.

We are individuals.

We are sovereign nations.

We are exiting your system.

Hear us loud and clear.

You have been warned.

#Brexit


Glenn Fairman returns from the wilderness and writes from Highland, Ca.
About Author  Author Archive  Email • (837 views)

Share
Glenn Fairman

About Glenn Fairman

retired
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Myths and Europeans

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Some very nice writing here (“waffling Belgians” indeed). As to keeping the King (or in this case Queen) and rejecting the oligarchs, in medieval times the monarch often would align with the common people (the mercantile classes and artisans) against the gentry. As for that final manifesto, I think most of us here would agree with it.

  2. Steve Lancaster says:

    We must keep in mind what did not happen:
    1. The UK is still a socialist lite country
    2. The national healthcare system is one of the worst bureaucracies in the west
    3. The UK is still an active member of NATO, although that may change
    4. Scotland will not have another plebiscite on leaving the UK–yet
    5. No nations of the Commonwealth have stepped up in support of Brexit.

    Obama will do everything he can, along with the elites of Europe to make the Brits and Americans pay for embarrassing him. The 1000 point drop in the Dow over the last two days is evidence of that.

    If I were in the UK I would have voted to exit. If we ever get a vote on the UN I would vote to leave that also or at least get it off our shore. I bet Trump could find a use for the property.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      You share some of my pessimism.

      Brexit was only an advisory vote. The resignation of David Cameron will apparently take months. Renegotiating treaties and stuff with the EU will take years. And I think there’s every reason to believe that the best scenario is that this renegotiation waters down any kind of exit.

      Plus, according to this article by Tiberiu Dianu (what?), 75% of voters aged 18-24 were pro-stay…67% of voters 65 and older were pro-leave. That paints a scenario for dragging your feet. The new voters heavily favor the EU. The old voters are dying out. You can just wait them out.

      Brexit will be very easily ignored and watered down. Mark my word. Like I said, you heard it here first.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Brexit was only an advisory vote. The resignation of David Cameron will apparently take months. Renegotiating treaties and stuff with the EU will take years. And I think there’s every reason to believe that the best scenario is that this renegotiation waters down any kind of exit.

        I believe the U.K. will negotiate a deal whereby they will return to the terms under which they originally joined, i.e. to an economic common market. This will mean that there will be an open exchange of goods, but Britain will have full control over its laws and institutions as well as immigration.

        I will also make a prediction that another EU country will vote to leave the Union within a couple of years. This will be expedited if the fools like Juncker truly are trying to force a super-state on the rest of the group. As crazy as many Europeans may be, I do not believe most of them want to get rid of their parliaments, court systems and other institutions in favor of a monstrosity controlled by Germany and France.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      That might be appropriate. The land for the UN complex was donated by the Rockefellers.

  3. GHG says:

    The elites and their useful idiots have not thrown in their cards by a long shot, so who knows where this goes and how long it takes to get there. But it’s a step in the right direction.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I just watched a movie on Netflix called “The Giver.” It’s based on a book that was all the rage recently.

    Meryl Streep plays Big Sister and Jeff Bridges plays a lower-key Lebowski. This is a pretty stupid movie with a mish-mash of a main theme. I kept wondering what yutes who had been subjected to Big-Sister-like Progressive programming would think of this movie. I think all that they would get out of it is that, yes indeed, emotionalism is the way to go (already a pillar of Progressive thinking).

    The conservative element in this movies (such as it is) is that killing babies is wrong. But this really isn’t a pillar of conservatism, per se, any more than the theory of gravity. It’s just baseline common sense. You don’t kill babies. And although our evil president and his evil party are specifically for infanticide in the form of partial birth abortion, I doubt your typical skull-full-of-mush Progressive would connect the dots: Killing babies is wrong therefore killing babies slightly younger (in the womb) is wrong as well.

    I’m sure the book was better. It had to be better. This is really a lame mix of Logan’s Run and Equilibrium. People are killed off when inconvenient and emotion is suppressed. You even get a bit of The Island in this as well. All three movies are worth watching. But The Giver is not…unless you are a pop cultural anthropologist and want to see just how lame and fuzzy thinking is these days.

    At the end of this movie the protagonist (on a sled…did I mention that the mish-mash includes a bit of Citizen Kane as well?) rides his sled past some kind of boundary tower and the memories of humanity all come bursting forth back upon the isolated bland gray utopian community run by Meryl Streep and the “elders.” And this happens in a rainbow-like fashion (what a great metaphor for breaking *out* of Progressivism) as the monotone, monofeeling world of Streep’s utopian enclave is swept by a wave of color until everyone starts feeling things again and remembering humanity’s past.

    The reason I mention this movie is because I think a lot of conservatives are expecting a similar effect to the UK public (not the Parliament, mind you) giving a non-binding preference vote to exit the Big Sister state of, let’s say, Angela Merkle. Under this spreading-rainbow-wave scenario, all laws allowing abortion are immediately repealed, as are assisted suicide laws. The National Health Service is disbanded and 5 out of 10 government bureaucrats are sent packing.

    As the rainbow spreads, Muslims (all Muslims) voluntarily leave the UK (or convert to Christianity) because the bright lights of the goodness of the full spectrum of loving-joy rainbowism repels them, much like Dracula is repelled by garlic. All Britons learn again about Shakespeare, Byron, Wellington, Nelson (the other Nelson), and Magna Carta while coming to understand that Lady Di was a bit of a mental narcissist who probably shouldn’t have gotten into a limo with her rich boyfriend when the driver was drunk.

    The rainbow spreads and they re-invite Michael Savage (currently banned from England) in to speak before Parliament. At his right hand is Gert Wilder and Sarah Palin (why not?). One begins to hear more quotes from Margaret Thatcher than Karl Marx (or his progeny) in the UK. All cameras, other than those at military installations, are removed from the streets of England. The taste for tasteful architecture returns and the monstrosities that modernism have perpetrated are either torn down or remodeled.

    And instead of drug addiction, single-parenthood, dead-beat dads, and crime being glorified amongst the lower classes, honorable behavior is not only honored but required. The rainbow spreads and people are taught the good values of not being a drug addict, a single-mother, and a serial sperm donor. Bad values are no longer artificially given rainbow colors.

    And people may even once again read Winston Churchill and prefer Julie Andrews over Boy George.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The book has its flaws, but overall I liked it, and in fact discussed it here as part of an article on dystopias a year or two back. You can probably find it in my archive. The return of the memories is never shown in the book, which after the escape of the new Receiver of Memories focuses solely on him.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The movie was interesting for about the first 45 minutes as the story unfolded. But all the bricks that were being laid did not go to building a wall. It was nonsense.

        The book is generally hailed as a conservative triumph. And the book may be that. But the message that yutes will draw from this movie is little different from Progressivism:

        + Feeling is everything
        + Don’t trust old people
        + Authority exists simply to spoil your fun

        To the extent that yutes watch this and think, “Hmm…maybe we shouldn’t kill babies” then I suppose that’s a good thing. Both main actors (Streep and Bridges) are horrible in this. In fact, no one gives a good performance except perhaps for Odeya Rush (no relation to Limbaugh) who manages to look puffy-lipped beautiful and is reasonably flummoxed by what is going on.

        The main actor in this, Brenton Thwaites, is just a stiff. I think they auditioned his hair because they didn’t cast him because he could act.

        Ultimately this movie is the trivialization of otherwise interesting and important subjects. The one bonus was Eric Northman who played Jonas’ father. I kept waiting for his vampire powers to break out. Would have improved this dog of a movie enormously.

        I’ll take your word that the book is better.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, you can read the article I wrote and see for yourself (you even had the cover art for The Giver as the icon). I hadn’t read the novel yet when I wrote it, but I soon did and commented on it, as did other respondents. The link is:

          http://www.stubbornthings.org/dystopia-liberalism/

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            One part of the review I had noted in a comment back then rings so very true:

            We became increasingly restive as the fable proceeded to show the Chosen, Jonas, reject all the shackles of his life, once he gains insight into joy, pain, fear and war. We thought it ridiculous as “memories” consisted of sledding, or swimming, or praying to alien deities, shown in fast, stereotyped montages that to us were insulting and abusive of actual human history. One does not have the right to molest sensitive images of real history for the dumb wallpaper of this fatuous film.

            And it was inside-baseball funny when the final montage was the visage of Nelson Mandela. And I love the reviewer’s conclusions:

            Though many Conservatives are giving this a thumbs-up, insisting it promotes solid values and resistance to nodding to whatever is handed out by presiding powers,  to us Giver is glop for a distraction-starved viewer, not adults with BS detectors well installed…

            Back to Brexit: Absent a cascading rainbow wave that suddenly restores everyone’s memory of Thatcherism, the actual separation from the EU will depend upon UK politicians dismantling a top-heavy government bureaucratic power structure. That’s like asking a sex addict to give up his subscription to Penthouse. Good luck with that.

            • Anniel says:

              When I volunteered in our elementary school library “The Giver” had just come out and ALL of the older kids were reading it. So I had to read it, too. The author, Lois Lowry, says she was at a signing for her book “Number The Stars” when a woman came to her table and chewed her out for always writing about the Holocaust, she should just forget it. The woman said she would not read her books again.

              Lowry thought about a world where no history or memories would be allowed and “The Giver” leaped, fully formed into her mind. The inability to perceive color and the “sameness” (read “equality” here) are stunning in their implications. There are three (?) more books in the series.

              I liked the books, and think that the young people they were intended for developed a healthy respect for life. It only used killing of the old and unwanted babies as a meme of what was intrinsically evil.

  5. Glenn Fairman says:

    When America and the West fumbles the Christian ball—that ethos that ensures an intelligently ordered freedom, then I am counting on the rest of the world to run with it. China and Africa are developing under the radar, and even Muslim countries are experiencing an unprecedented tsunami of conversions–although you will never hear this in the MSM. When these regions dry up to a trickle in the fullness of days and the tyrannical system wraps its iron grip on the world’s throats—then the Author of the play will walk on stage and the curtain will close….but only when we have cornered ourselves and have nowhere left to turn. Comfort yourselves with this.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      There are a couple ways to look at this. One is my way, the pessimistic way. Even if the UK manages to extricate
      much of its legislative, executive, and judicial self from the EU, is the cancer of socialism/Leftism/Islamization so far advanced that in the long run this is just a hissy fit?

      The other way to look at it is that someone has seen that the emperor has no clothes, that the idea of ever more centralized “one world” governments are not the answer to our problems. Busting this myth would be grand, as would busting the same myth in our country which has similar views regarding the magic of Washington DC.

      I have my doubts. Even if your modern Briton rejects the EU (for reasons we can’t be sure about yet), what is it that this modern man wishes to form? Around what principles will he organize his society? That is, has he really learned any deep lesson from the EU that he can then apply to his own country?

      I doubt it. I think we’ll look back in 50 years and see that it was too little, too late. But unlike much of the EU, at least the UK can defend itself. That cannot be said of many, if not most, if the EU states. The first order of business of any federation is defense. And yet absent the American nuclear umbrella, these states cannot credibly defend themselves. So, as you said, this whole EU things always had off-base goals — mere economic goals with no higher organizing principle than fuzzy notions of “unity” or utopia which, at best, were forwarded to mask the real goal: the eradication of state identities to be replaced by a bureaucratic and sterile secular ones.

      Let’s say that Great Britain has stopped, or has stated it will stop, frequenting the international heroin den called Brussels. It’s still on hard liquor, pot, and occasional crack cocaine. Surely it’s a step in the right direction to remove the EU’s heroin. But rehabilitation is still a ways off.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        According to polls (perhaps exit polls; I’m not sure), about half of Brexit voters wanted to leave to recover national sovereignty, and about a third were mainly concerned with immigration. I doubt we will see a significant reduction in the welfare state because of this, but those are both excellent reasons to leave and show a sizable body of good sense remaining in England and Wales (though no longer in Scotland). Any gains will be incremental, but at the least they should delay the British Deluge.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Yeah. Scotland. How in the world did they go so libtard? Yikes. A long way from William Wallace.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            The population is heavily dominated by the Glasgow area. One wonders how many rural highlanders vote for the Scottish Nationalists without realizing that they’re to the left of Labour.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            Scotland. How in the world did they go so libtard?

            Never forget that the Scots made a major contribution to the British Colonies as engineers, mechanics and the like. Perhaps the more energetic and ambitious Scots took off for greener pastures.

  6. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The dishonesty of the elites who are anti-Brexit is sometimes breathtaking.

    I have read in several different publications, pundits suggesting that referenda are not really binding and that parliament really has the last say. They also use that old chestnut that the people really haven’t spoken, rather only 52% of 72% and these were many old farts.

    The last point is so stupidly dishonest that I don’t have to say anything other than that by this logic, no election or vote is truly binding. Of course this would lead to anarchy or tyranny, with tyranny being the preferred goal of these elites.

    But the point about referenda not being the proper way to bow out of the EU is especially rich, considering that the U.K. confirmed through a referendum in June of 1975 that it would remain in the European Economic Community. Note, “remain”. Parliament took Britain into the EEC, but it was believed such a move was so important that a referendum was needed to confirm it.

    An interesting historical aside, in 1974-75, it was mainly Labour which wanted to stay in the EEC and it was Tories who were against this. The roles were reversed in this most recent referendum.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Well, as far as I know, it was merely an advisory vote. And it is either law or tradition that one Parliament is not bound by the laws of another.

      And I agree with the dishonest politicians that a 52-48 vote is hardly an overwhelming mandate. However this falls, the UK will still end up making (or maintaining) a bazillion trade agreements with the EU…many of them perhaps binding them as tightly as they are now. This Brexit vote (as I suspect) will mean very little in the short or long run. Expect it to be mostly ignored in all but rhetoric.

      I’d love to be wrong. Let’s keep an eye on this for a couple years and see what happens. I’d be very interested to see what Dalrymple has to say about this.

  7. David Ray says:

    Has anyone else heard “TPP Trans Pacific Partnership”?

    I’m seeking confirmation here, because, from that jaw-dropping WTF material i heard, i’m gonna make calls & write letters (i loaded up already long ago mainly in case of any mob trying to use my house or truck for kindeling.)

    So . . . is this thing that Ryan & Boehner are pushing real?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a “free” trade agreement with a number of Pacific countries. Approval to negotiate was voted several months ago. Approval of the agreement is very uncertain; most Democrats these days oppose free trade, and increasing numbers of Republicans do as well (especially when negotiated by Feckless Leader). It was the earlier TPP vote that led Ted Cruz to call out Mitch McConnell.

  8. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The link is to a story confirming a nutty left-wing “German” politician lying about the ethnicity of men who raped her, because she didn’t want to add to “racism”.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/german-politician-admits-lying-about-ethnicity-of-sex-attackers/

    The Left is so mentally unbalanced that they will let themselves be destroyed before admitting the truth about their shibboleths.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      She said she was forced to perform a sex act on her attackers, and immediately reported the sexual assault to the police.

      If you mean “blowjob” then say “blowjob.” But if that’s what it was, we all know that that isn’t sex. Bill Clinton taught us that.

      If this woman is going to apologize to her attackers for being raped, then she should expect more of the same. The other eggheads from Gesa in Kassel compound the stupidity by saying:

      “They are alone and looking to banish their humiliation of flight with confirmation of their masculinity….

      Does anyone remember the Pilgrims or Quakers banishing their humiliation of flight by raping a lot of Indian women so as to confirm their masculinity?

Leave a Reply

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