— Counter-Currents —

The Battle of Britain

[1]2,762 words

Let me make this very clear, Mr. Sassoli. You have no right to go and speak to the UK Speaker of Parliament, having conversations that are directly interfering in our domestic politics. It exposes your intention to intervene at all levels to stop Brexit. It is immoral. Shame on you! And,, Mr. Barnier I note throughout your speech, sir, you kept referring to the British negotiators as “just British.” We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that will never change. Brexit was not a rejection of Europe or all of our wonderful European friends. It was a rejection of the anti-democratic nature of the EU institutions, and you confirm to us every day that we are right to leave, thank you!

— Belinda de Lucy, Brexit Party MEP for the South East of England

Brexit is symbolic. It is the pressure gauge by which we can measure just how far The System is prepared to go in order to deny the rights of its citizens and obfuscate the genuine concerns so many people have about the way they are being governed. For the first time in a very long time, naked truths are being revealed, and very real questions are being asked – questions such as:

Does the democratic process actually function as it is meant to do?

If you deliberately seek to change the population base of a country in order to disenfranchise those who may oppose you, can you still claim to be a democrat?

Do the elected members of our representative parliaments, particularly in developed Western countries, actually fulfill the mandate and follow the will of the people who elect and pay them? Or do they pursue their own personal and partisan interests at those very people’s expense?

At what point does the funding of political parties and the sponsorship of the people who are supposed to administer our countries tip over into the realms of bribery and corruption? And does the mainstream media – which has a moral and legal obligation to impartially inform the public about current political, social, economic, and cultural affairs – actually conduct itself in a manner that is unbiased and even-handed?

These are fundamental questions that we have ducked for far too long, while behind the scenes, other equally important issues arise. Are nation-states “relics of the past,” as Guy Verhofstadt, the leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, asserts? Does Jean-Claude Juncker, the outgoing President of the European Union, have the right to say, “Borders are the worst invention ever” while millions of undocumented economic migrants are pouring into Europe, despoiling our cities, exploiting our welfare systems, and perpetrating violence in our ancient capitals? Does the same man, an unelected official – supposedly representing over five hundred million people across the European Union – have the right to threaten to attempt to break up the United States of America if President Trump continues to support the British position in the ongoing Brexit negotiations? Or, for that matter, can it truly be said that he is genuinely seeking a mutually beneficial exit strategy for the United Kingdom and the EU, when he smugly predicts that Brexit will lead to the downfall of Britain?

The EU has a track record of overturning referenda that do not conform to its wishes. The Irish have voted twice to reject EU treaties – firstly, in 2001, when they objected to the Treaty of Nice that amended the Maastricht Treaty, and then again, seven years later, the Lisbon Treaty. In both cases, after a convoluted campaign to overcome their rejection, the Irish fell in line. (Now they have implanted a gay part-Indian as Taoiseach in Dublin, who is completely complicit in the deceitful deceptions and diversionary details relating to the Irish backstop that is needed for Brexit to be successful.) In 2005, both the French and the Dutch rejected the EU’s Constitution, which was subsequently amended, but was not subjected to a second vote. Both countries are now in effect client or vassal states under the ideologically thin Emmanuel Macron in the Élysée Palace and Mark Rutte in The Hague.

When Norway voted to not join the EU in 1972, the grandees in Brussels decided to wait twenty-two years, until their long-planned demographic changes in Europe would allow for a different answer. Likewise, in 1992, the Danes refused to join the European single currency. A number of exclusions and exemptions were made to facilitate their partnership with the EU, and they eventually accepted the amendments to the Maastricht Treaty, and their government withheld the possibility of holding a referendum on the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty – which may have yielded a negative result.

Given this history, there was never a likelihood of Britain being given a fair chance to withdraw gracefully. Theresa May’s “surrender bill” was held up as an Aunt Sally [2], and every legal and obscure parliamentary procedural rule was deployed as an obstacle, played with Bobby Fischer-like skill on the political chessboard. Meanwhile, enormous amounts of time and funds were being poured into the Remain Campaign coffers, and the media’s Project Fear propaganda machine was getting into full swing.

The “Remoaners” have even come up with the insulting title of “The People’s Vote” for a second referendum, as if Martians had voted in the first. The leader of the Liberal Democrats has actually said that she would ignore the outcome of the first vote as if it had never taken place. According to many whistleblowers, the BBC and other media corporations have hijacked the narrative with memes like “hard Brexit” and “soft Brexit.” This is all hair-splitting over minutiae in order to delay the fulfillment of Article 50 (leaving the EU), playing for time like a football team kicking the ball into touch. As a result, the Leave campaign is withering away under the relentless threats imagined to be a consequence of a hard Brexit, and the number of gullible youngsters eligible to vote rises – thereby increasing, in their callous calculations, the chances of a second referendum, bolstered by an empowered youth geared toward overturning the original result.

The For Britain Party and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) are falsely derided as far Right, and thus are given no airtime to express any of their positions – either in the mainstream media or, indeed, on social media platforms. The Brexit Party, for its part, is being slowly and predictably outmaneuvered by a shambolic Prime Minister who writes books idolizing Winston Churchill – the man who led our country into what was probably the most disastrous calamity in our history, bankrupting our Exchequer and bring down our Empire, and who now seems fixated on minor details concerning border checks when he should be leading a crusade to inspire other peoples around Europe to reconsider their membership in this globalist tool for world domination.

Do not be fooled for even a minute. Hiding behind the Conservative Party’s slogan of “Open for Business” lies the trap of “open borders,” and former Home Secretary Sajid Javid has not been shy in his machinations to abandon commitments to targets for limiting immigration or delaying the introduction of border checks for non-EU migrants, even in the face of his forked-tongue speeches about stopping the migrant boats landing on the beaches below the white cliffs of Dover or, for that matter, adopting the fallacious Australian points system. The truth is that these insurgents, who are coming over in boats from Calais, are being immediately picked up and carried away in air-conditioned coaches only to disappear into the labyrinthine maze of the British welfare system. Some are even being eulogized in the press, like Mitra Mehrad, who is alleged to have drowned while saving a child. It is in effect a rerun of the Aylan Kurdi story in the Mediterranean and the Rio Grande deaths of Alberto Ramirez and his toddler daughter, Valeria. All of these stories are intended to harvest sympathy for these poor, suffering people and those who claim to want to help them.

It is not a conspiracy theory when Robin Aitken – a journalist at the BBC for twenty-five years who has authored a book, The Noble Liar: How and Why the BBC Distorts the News to Promote a Liberal Agenda – makes it clear that “[t]he BBC, in my view, tells a series a well-meaning untruths which it believes are in our best interest.” Martin Durkin, a former Channel 4 Director and producer, talks openly of media bias, saying, “Everyone at Channel 4 and the BBC knows that no way in the world are they going to run a film on the BBC saying the theory of climate change is nonsense. No way are they going to countenance a pro-Brexit film or anything like that.” And Rod Liddle, the former editor of the BBC’s Today program and associate editor of The Spectator, has added:

Immigration is an issue they will not touch. There is this vague idea that we may reduce it at some point, but eighty percent of our country wants immigration stopped! . . . You can’t talk about Brexit without using the word betrayal . . . Extinction Rebellion should pack up their plastic tents and stop their virtue-signaling.

These are the same press outlets that publish fawning articles, such as one on Hillary and Chelsea Clinton entitled “Like Mother, Like Daughter”; a major apologist piece about the suffering of the wives and families of the Pakistani men sentenced for child grooming in Rotherham in the prestigious Sunday Times Magazine under the headline “Pain and Shame of the Rotherham Wives”; glorifying accounts of Jewish Vita Kempner’s attempts to break into a bakery in post-war Germany in order to lace thousands of loaves of bread with arsenic so as to kill as many Germans as possible; one which made ridiculous claims that Meghan Markle is the victim of double standards because she is a woman of color, all the while burying the recent story about a black Muslim convert who stabbed people in a busy Manchester shopping center. They likewise forever repeat the same weak and hackneyed cover story that is used all over Europe whenever there is an attack on indigenous whites – namely, that the assailant was suffering from mental problems, an excuse that is conveniently never used in relation to instances of blowback, like the recent inexcusable attack on a synagogue in Germany. One could also mention the Finsbury Park mosque incident, where the press emphasized the color and allegedly racist motives of the attacker, even inventing links to Tommy Robinson, even before the police had slipped the handcuffs over his wrists.

As Roger Scruton, the conservative intellectual, has said:

There is no doubt in my mind that Europe is both profoundly threatened and that the approach of the European Union to respond to those threats is informed by a comprehensive failure to understand them. The threats come from both the inside and the outside and the two are connected. From inside we are confronted by the radicalized nature of our Muslim population and the loss of the core structures of European society. The family, marriage, the Christian faith, and the little platoons built from those things. From outside we confront mass migration, a population assuming the benefits of European legal order without assuming the cost.

Make no mistake, the war against true European identity is now in full swing, and the senior representatives of the EU – just like the fifth columnists in America – are collaborating with people like George Soros in that conflict. The writer and commentator Douglas Murray has brilliantly summarized the enemy’s intentions when he uses freshly-invented terms such as “intersectionality” with pinpoint accuracy:

Why, when gay rights have never been better, are they being portrayed as if they have never been worse? Why, when women have never been freer to make decisions about their lives, is everything about the lack of opportunities for women? Why do we hear talk about the patriarchy at the least possible time in human history to hear such talk? Why do we see the weaponization of gay people against straight people? Women against men? Black people against white people? And Trans against absolutely everyone? . . . The Trans issue is the one that gives it away. The radical Left have used this issue, the Transsexuals, as a battering ram. For what? Well, for several reasons – there are people who want to wage war on the patriarchal, white, cis, heteronormative, capitalist, democratic societies that we live in . . . I have read at some length some of the Marxist scholars, and I was staggered at the completely frank way they speak about this . . . writing that the working class have basically let us down. Remember, the working class did not show up for the revolution on time. The working class were a big letdown, if you were a Communist in Britain or America in the twentieth century. So, in the 1980s, when the best they had to show for their horrible little experiment is Yugoslavia, Romania, or Albania, they decide they have to get a new form of revolutionary class, and they are completely frank that they want to find it in minority groups. They want to find it in women . . . they want to find it in sexual minorities, and they want to find it in racial minorities. Now, there are a number of problems with this . . . because the working class is likely to be racist. This is one of the problems the Communists always had, they always had a problem with the working class . . . The working class might be racist, and they might not like some of our client groups . . .and Marxist intersectionalism claims if you unlock one minority group, you unlock the lot, and if we live in a society which is patriarchal and white supremacist, etcetera – if you could undo one you can undo the lot . . . And I expected this to be based on some form of serious scholarship, but I was amazed to find that in the case of Peggy McIntosh, author of one of the foundational texts of intersectionalism, it was merely a few pages of assertions . . . But that’s not the interesting thing. The interesting thing is why these claims have had such an easy run across the culture . . . I’m determined to help us out of this, because the political push for this has to be resisted. It’s deeply immoral to be using people of different skin colors as battering rams against each other for a political project. It’s simply sick. I think it’s sick to be using sexual and racial minorities in this manner for political ends. So that has to be identified and stopped. But there’s also this aspect to it that young people who are looking to understand the world are being offered this as an answer. They are being invited to waste their lives . . .

Such positions are not isolated to leaders like Gail Bradbrook, the co-founder of the Extinction Rebellion movement, a group that is presently causing mayhem across European cities after being whipped into a complete frenzy by the infantile Greta Thunberg’s ranting at the UN. They have stated:

For me this is part of reweaving the human family back together again. It’s part of dealing with systemic racism, white supremacy, and the wounds of patriarchy that want to separate us and make us feel powerless.

Their Australian counterparts likewise declare that they want to “dismantle colonial systems of oppression: decolonize oppressive systems of government . . .” Perhaps they should start with the renegade State of Israel, which imposes an Apartheid-like system on its Palestinian guest-workers. Or perhaps with the Islamic caliphates that many wish to see rise to ascendency all over the world so that many more women can enjoy – as did the Yazidi women in Sinjar – the benefits of being the concubines of ISIS fanatics. Or perhaps even with the European Union, which strives to subjugate the indigenous peoples of the continent it purports to represent.

In the meantime, those among the British who have been inspired by reading books like Scruton’s Where We Are: The State of Britain Now (2017), Ring of Truth: The Wisdom of Wagner’s Ring of the Nibelung (2016), and by listening to Henry Purcell’s King Arthur should redouble our efforts to free ourselves from the clutches of the EU monster. It is high time we had a national revolution to end Weimar Westminster, putting our people first and the future of our children back at the top of the political, economic, cultural, and spiritual agenda. We should be proud once again to sing out our national anthem, loud and strong: “Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves, Britons never, never, never shall be slaves!”