Some Thoughts Concerning Brexit

Brexit

First Thought: I remark with some astonishment that this is the first time since Ronald Reagan’s 1980 victory that an electoral majority has roundly repudiated the liberal establishment.  Astonishment is not a thought; it’s an emotional reaction.  My generally grim view of democracy predisposes me to assume the worst of voting majorities.  When a majority votes rationally, the obvious must be – to them, at last – hyper-obvious.  Thus my astonishment.  The two hyper-obvious stimuli of Brexit’s passage are (1) loss of sovereignty, the obverse of which is the rise of a remote bureaucratic dictatorship; and (2) Muslim immigration.  (Whenever “immigration” is mentioned in current British political discourse, it means, of course, Muslim immigration.)

Second Thought: Journalistic canvassing since the murder of Jo Cox showed Brexit heading for defeat, but the referendum’s passage by British voters came in at 52% in favor and 48% opposed.  Is a suspicion a thought?  I suspect that newspapers and broadcasting organizations now routinely lie about trending issues in order to influence outcomes – and that they are untrustworthy.  In Austria, the Freheits Partei has decided legally to contest the recent election for the good reason that Austrian federal election officials seem to have colluded with the “Greens” to reverse a plausible actual result – much in the way that Gore’s people in Florida tried to reverse plausible, actual ballot-result in their state in the year-2000 presidential election.  The hermeneutics of suspicion whispers to me that the British establishment was scheming in a parallel way to wrest victory from the other side of the argument on the condition that the actual count was very close.  As Baron Bodissey has suggested at The Gates of Vienna, the actual count in the United Kingdom was unfavorable to that kind of gerrymandering.

Second Thought Continued: What are we to make of the murder of Jo Cox?  I have often characterized liberalism as sacrificial.  The inevitable thought is hard to shoo away.

Third Thought: Is a gut-feeling a thought?  My gut-feeling is that Britain’s decision to “go out” will provoke a cascade or domino-effect.  The Netherlands, Italy, and perhaps even France will want to “go out.”  I try never to let optimism overtake me – but if that cascade happened, it would certainly signal a shift in Western opinion that would eventually, or even swiftly, have American consequences.

Fourth Thought: Again – cautioning my optimism to “sit!” and “stay!” – the thought occurs to me that Trump is already that consequence and that synchronicity is at work in the summer of 2016.  As I might have mentioned in a comment, I have recently been applying myself to a re-reading of De Maistre’s Petersburg Dialogues.  These thoughts and intuitions commune with that study.

Fifth Thought: In Scotland and Northern Ireland, the majority voted to “Remain.”  Perhaps the Scots should hold another independence-referendum and perhaps this time they should muster a majority to vote for it.  Ditto in Northern Ireland.  Iceland is a perfectly decent nation.  It has a population of 330,000.  Small is beautiful.  Belgium delenda est!

Sixth Thought: The UK is, itself, still an obnoxious politically correct totalitarian polity dedicated to humiliating the Anglo-Saxon and British people.  In that sense, nothing has changed.  On the other hand, because the UK establishment is totally identified with the EU establishment, any repudiation of the latter constitutes by implication a repudiation of the former.  The “going out” sentiment might be the beginning of a domestic rearrangement.

 

30 thoughts on “Some Thoughts Concerning Brexit

  1. Pingback: Some Thoughts Concerning Brexit | Alt-Right View

  2. What are we to make of the murder of Jo Cox? I have often characterized liberalism as sacrificial. But the thought is hard to shoo away.

    So you think maybe Cox was murdered by liberals to tarnish Leave?

    “Dear secret meeting of loyal liberals, we’ll grant your surviving loved ones a lifetime supply of Starbucks if you assassinate a liberal politician and pretend to be a Christian Conservative.”

    • The Euro-Leftists are willing to murder an entire people and an entire civilization. (The German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, has said that Muslim immigration is a great thing because the presumed exogamy – Rotherham and Cologne – will enrich the “inbred” German, and by implication European, gene-pool. Here: http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/06/crossbreeding-with-morons/#more-40111[.]) Why would Euro-Leftists cavil at a lesser evil? The Euro-Leftists in Britain certainly milked the Cox murder for everything that it was worth in their “Remain” campaign

      A few years ago, Andrew Breitbart posted on his website that he was about to upload documents extremely embarrassing to the Obama administration. Two days later he went out for a jog, which was his habit of a decade, and he “dropped dead from a heart-attack.” When we read that a vocal critic of Putin has “mysteriously died,” probably of a heart-attack, what do we think? Why should we think differently in other circumstances?

      Earl: Do you think that political-sacrificial murder is foreign to the Revolutionary Age? Do you know the name Kirov?

      • Yes, I think murder is par for the leftist course of progress. I just think they would have used a better assassin for Cox.

  3. I campaigned for Brexit in a borough of south London and noticed that ‘Remain’ posters in the windows of private houses outnumbered ‘Leave’ roughly 15 to 1 but that the split of those who I actually talked to was 50/50 (later confirmed by voting). Strikingly people were embarrassed to admit their views and relieved when I mentioned this and said I understood. They would be denounced they knew as evil or racist and in a vague way they felt they had no defence against the charge. One told me “I’m voting out but can’t help but feel a hypocrite when I’m with my black friends”. These people are against the EU and what it represents but they are also for something, a something whose name they dare not speak. There must be a way to give them back these words but I can’t yet see what it is.

    • Dear Clipper: Your paragraph confirms my intuition. One reason I am reservedly hopeful about the Brexit result is that it might represent a step in restoring candor of speech, where now we have only the scapegoating regime of PC. (T)

  4. When the main sources of news are so in line with governmental influence the result is truly amazing.

    • That’s why we need samizhdat like The Orthosphere or The Gates of Vienna. We used to have The Brussels Journal, alas!

    • Good. Let them “go out.” Let Quebec “go out” of Canada; and Upstate New York “go out” of the “Union.”

    • I’m skeptical that the Scots will truly go for independence. They don’t have the balance sheet to join the euro currency (entirely separate from the EU, the euro being a monetary creation of continental conservatives) and their own national currency would sink like a rock or even hyperinflate upon independence. We’ll see.

  5. I find it quite odd that people who bring up the subject of “conspiracy” are identified as “nuts”. One can find many “conservative” blog sites for instance that loudly decry the obvious (to them) insanity of thinking in terms of conspiracies on the Political stage. History is replete with conspiracies conducted by political forces and firmly documented by historical fact! Is this a casualty of the flight from Truth?

    • A conspiracy is, by etymology, “a gathering of spirits,” that is, of agents, like in mind, who propose to carry out a project. In light of the etymology, a nation might qualify as a conspiracy, just as the plan to dissolve a nation might also qualify as a conspiracy. The word finds its normative employment, however, not as a neutrality, but rather as a pejorative, with a connotation of secrecy, illegality, and criminality, as in “a conspiracy to defraud.” I invoked the late Jo Cox because the circumstances of her murder are suspect, as is its sequel. The prospect of such a murder might have appeared useful to the British Left, which desperately wanted to “Remain” in the EU. When the murder occurred, the same British Left exploited it to embarrass potential voters who wanted to “go out.” So it was useful to them. Did they foment or facilitate it? I know not. Would the Left, in the UK or the USA, be willing to sacrifice one of its own? They do it all the time. It’s called “throwing X under the bus.” As Richard Cocks recently wrote at this site, it took the American Left about thirty seconds to throw gays under the bus after the Orlando Allah-sacrifice. We should never underestimate the immorality of the Revolution nor its sacrificial voracity.

      When the ensconced multicultural bureaucracy of a nation, or of a super-nation like the EU, imposes hundreds of thousands of inassimilable fanatics on the indigenous population, and when everyone knows in advance that some of those inassimilable fanatics will kill dozens or hundreds of indigenes, what is it except a murderous conspiracy? Again, if the Gutmenschen were willing to facilitate the deaths of restaurant-goers and partiers in nightclubs, why would they cavil over a useful sacrifice of one of their own?

    • Quite a few, I ‘d imagine. I was wondering what an equivalent phrase for Upstate New York’s “going out” would be. Upnexit isn’t bad, but Upstate was once called the Copperhead Region, so maybe Chexit would be the best choice.

  6. I don’t place much significance on Brexit in the grand scheme of things. On the one hand a lot of this is superfluous; Britian is still the lackey of a hegemonic liberal power – the United States – an alliance infinitely more destructive than the EU. Washington and NATO pushed Britain to attack Iraq and Libya not Brussels. That is what precipitated this migrant crisis. Its primairly Hollywood and the American media that influences the youth of Britiain in the ways of degeneracy not Brussels. Most American conservatives do not want to admit this. Some of the more introspective secular nationalists at least recognize that it was not primarily the EU that brought about the immigration crisis and that Brexit is not very significant in their larger quest to save Europe.

    More importantly, however, is the history of England pitting itself against the rest of Europe. This Anglo exceptionalism helped liberalism to develop in Britiain. Liberalism as an ideology still has many of the traits of its original home in Britian. The transportation of this ideology to the rest of Europe came in stages starting first with the French Revolution and culminating with the post World War Two era. Ironically, the problem with the EU is that it is too characteristically British in its ideology. Individual rights, free trade, liberal-parliamentarianism and anti-Catholicism define both the modern EU and Britian traditionally. Many continental conservatives have rightly criticized the cynical pragmatism and materialism characteristic of so much of British thought in the last 300 years. Voegelin gets it right here:

    On the contrary, a style of political thought begins to form in which an unrivaled sense for the concrete in human and legal relations is combined with an almost pathological fear of facing issues on the level of principles.

    https://voegelinview.com/henry-viii-and-first-totalitarian-state-pt-1/

    This is useful for interpreting Brexit- leaving the EU is a concrete legal solution that avoids a serious reflection the level of principles, namely Britian’s own original liberalism. Other thinkers ranging from Schmitt to Molnar make similar arguements.
    I don’t agree with much on other things because he’s an Anglican, but John Milbank sees little to like from the Brexit outcome:

    Christians are duty bound for theological and historical reasons to support the ever closer union of Europe (which does not imply a superstate) and to deny the value of absolute sovereignty or the lone nation-state. Tragically, the Reformation, Roundhead, nonconformist, puritan, whig, capitalist, liberal version of Britishness last night triumphed over our deep ancient character which is Catholic or Anglican, Cavalier, Jacobite, High Tory or Socialist. The spirit of both Burke and Cobbett has been denied by the small-minded, bitter, puritanical, greedy and Unitarian element in our modern legacy.

    I took this quote from a post by the Catholic priest Pater Edmund here who’support own post is worth reading-https://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/2016/06/24/secularized-fraternity-or-solidarity-and-the-failure-of-the-european-union/

    A movement against liberalism is not going to come out England, the place that give us liberalism and helped ensure its dominance around globe. If such a movement does arise (probably on the continent) England will lead the charge in fighting against it. Of course many US conservatives and Christians are hopeless Anglophiles whether its Burke, Austen, Chesterton, Tolkein or Lewis so England worship is unlikely to change in the near future.

    • See my Sixth Thought. Nevertheless, Ita, I would argue that we don’t know where the first domino will fall in the inevitable cascading revulsion against liberalism. The very fact that Englishmen in a majority want to reassert their historical separation from Continental politics strikes me as significant. My outlook is that I await being overjoyed by surprise, at which point I will relish in having been surprised by joy.

      • I think we could very well see a “revolution” but more than likely it will be a revolt to protect liberalism. Liberalism has endured for a very long time and I suspect it will continue to do so. Liberalism will not fall as quickly as Soviet communism did it will be a gradual centuries long process-if it happens at all.

        There are some signs of hope, Le Pen recently mentioned something along the lines of “France wasn’t always a republic” perhaps a reference to France’s pre-enlightenment past.

  7. Liberalism, which is a foreign imposition on natural societies, is always a “revolt to protect liberalism.” Englishmen vote to leave the EU. Madame Le Pen remarks that France wasn’t always a republic. These are fractures in a grey monolith. I take encouragement from them.

    • “Madame Le Pen remarks that France wasn’t always a republic.”

      And in the U.S. “conservatives” form the “Tea Party.”

      • Terry, there are shades of dissent. Radical dissenters should welcome and encourage all forms of dissent, from the most tepid right up to the white-hot. Dominique Venner was a more radical dissenter from liberalism than is Roger Scruton, but Scruton’s work remains tremendously valuable. I pray God that Marine Le Pen unseats Hollande in the next presidential cycle in France, because it will represent movement in the right direction. Ditto concerning Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. Le Pen and Wilders are liberals, but they are national liberals, not international ones.

    • “Terry, there are shades of dissent. Radical dissenters should welcome and encourage all forms of dissent.”

      Agreed. I do. Not without correction, but I do nevertheless.

    • I think you are right that Brexit and the Trump movement are reminiscent of the Reaganite/Thatcher revolution of the 1980s-though I think this insight actually supports my view. Did the conservative revolution in the Anglosphere really accomplish anything in even arresting the precipitous decline of Western Civilization? Sure, it ushered in tremendous prosperity and was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union, but it did little to stop the secular rot of liberalism domestically and in many ways made things a lot worse.

      And aren’t people like Geert Wilders “radicals” in the worse sense possible? Wilders insists that Muslims have to accept homosexual culture. Is he just a more consistent liberal? Or perhaps a liberal with a survival instinct?

      • Ita: Wilders insists that people who want to live in the Netherlands, a Western country, must assimilate to Western culture. He explicitly repudiates multiculturalism and the mantra of diversity. Yes, in the existing context, Wilders is radical, and his radicalism, in repudiating liberal shibboleths, leans in our direction. Reducing him to his cultural survival instinct, he is still a radical, and his radicalism still leans in our direction.

      • Well I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this one. This all sounds too much like the fusionism of American conservatism i.e. no matter which side wins we lose. We should hold out that the EU could be reformed as force for good (arguably living up to the vision of its architects like the traditional Catholic Adenauer) over supporting liberal nationalist England.

Comments are closed.