Source: The Bitter Truth of Leadership
As a very early millennial, I am a part of a generation that wishes nothing to do with me for the most part. To those of my own age, my beliefs are a temporary insanity that will pass with solemn regret for my ‘xenophobic’ actions. At best, my views irritate them and unintentionally make them cry. At worst, my views trigger aggressive responses designed to demean before silencing me. This is not a singular occurrence. Every day, more violence is aimed toward those who express ‘patriotic’ views (i.e. views relating to their own nation and fellow man).
Almost 4 million EU citizens guaranteed right to stay after Brexit even if there’s no deal.
The idealistic notion that anyone should be allowed or even supported in their attempt to live anywhere is a noble goal, which we should all strive for. However, no matter how hard a single country tries to provide for almost half the entire population of another, they never will. It is simply impossible. After Brexit, [i.e. after benefits were capped for EEA-citizens], I lost my job, because there was no electricity, heating and hot water in my building unsafe for habitation. I was barely able to afford the rent while paying for university. So, before you begin to judge, I supported Brexit during the day while scavenging for food at night. As many others, I have lived on the streets of England with the natives. When I listened to the stories of veterans abandoned by the very country they fought for, my heart went out to them, but there was nothing I could do to help. In Europe, joining the military used to come with certain privileges. For example, PTSD treatment, shelter as well as daily meals. Now, our veterans are lucky not to be assaulted, tortured and then killed on the streets. They traded in one warzone for another. In the daily struggle for survival, they are forced into a transient lifestyle without hope of settling anywhere permanently. Why should we, as Europeans, expect to be treated any differently than how we treat those willing to sacrifice their lives on behalf of the country we wish to reside in?
Forced Cultural Assimilation Is The Issue,
We, as foreigners, support Brexit to stem the flow of economic migrants surging into Britain to take advantage of the welfare system. Most of us study or work very hard to live in England, and we do not like to see others taking the piss. Brexit [as a political decision] was not based on fear but survival. France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain have embraced millions of young, male migrants. Statistically, less than One In 40 Male Migrants has gained employment since emigrating to any EU country. Less than One In 100 Female refugees from Sharia-controlled countries are in some form of employment. Due to the low number of female refugees, this number includes Muslim women who emigrated before as well as during the crisis.
To the point, the average Brit does not verbally attack, slander or outright demean Europeans for their heritage, unless those Europeans are overly assertive of their ‘right to remain’ without making any contribution. From personal experience, I have witnessed many Europeans deliberately antagonise the English, only to pull the ‘race-card’ once the police arrives. Some cleverly use it to avoid prosecution by being eligible for better trained civil defence attorneys from their respective EU country.
Historically, the reasons for British hostility toward outsiders are not unfounded, but it is also typical behaviour for island people. Shortly after WW1, the civilian populace would almost point and cry out, if they encountered a non-local in the middle of their detached, rural town. Just as depict in Agatha Christies ‘Poirot’, they were not too shy about criticising our accent, behaviour or attitudes when they did not quite fit in. [Isn’t that just village life, though?!] At the time, they lost millions before they had even pulled all their troops from every corner of the lost empire, simply to march them over the line all at once. The joke is to this day that the military generals would have actually continued with this strategy until only a handful of nobles remained. Until they dug under the trenches, they had lost almost their entire male population [except those who were too young, disabled or on their deathbed]. Throughout this tragedy, if you had the ability to walk and fire a pistol, you were sent over the line. As traumatic as war can be, those days were worse. Over 2/3 of British soldiers never returned. [As many as 74,187 Indian soldiers died during the war and a comparable number were wounded.] The returning soldiers often suffered severe shell-shock, which meant they were often not stable enough to marry or procreate. Before the leftover population had properly recovered from the effects of WW1, the next world war was already in progress. Although this was by design, that’s a story for another time. During WW2, an extremist fraction of Labour sided with the Nazis, [just as they are now siding with the Hamas Brotherhood incl. the implementation of Sharia]. After the fall of the Nazis, the Jews began to fund Labour to secure its allegiance. It was an imperative to prevent the repetition of events from a political standpoint that would not go against their vows. Many traditional Rabbis were heavily influenced by the belief that WW2 occurred as a result of buying German land, so those who fled to England returned to the old practice of ‘renting’ instead of buying land, reinforced by their religion. It is tragic irony that they began to buy British real estate after a few generations before history began to repeat itself.
Britain has been involved in every ongoing war for the last 1000 years. British grandparents still tell tales told to them by their grandparents of WW1 & WW2, just as ours do. It is their way to honour their sacrifices by keeping them alive, just as it is ours. There was never a time in the last 1000 years, when Britain was actually at peace. Its politics were always influenced and funded for the worse or the better.
It was never racist, bigoted or politically incorrect to share an opposing view on historic events, ask yourself, why it is now? Over the last decade, we have begun to favour what the media reports instead of what our elders tell us. We have become disinterested in hearing about their sacrifices while they often mock our struggle with daily life as though it was some sort of ‘phantom pain’. The rift between the generation has grown exponentially due to the integration of a new lifestyle into every aspect of our societies. The younger generations have discarded physical interaction to be a part of a global, but largely digital community. However, when local communities stop communicating with each other, we cannot attain a state, in which we may have both: a local, but also global community, in which we are for the highest good of the locals just as much as strangers.
Before it became politically incorrect to speak openly, the mainstream funding of the country was devoted to suppressing the gap generation, [the largest generation in British history]. Ironically, it has become rather noticeable that the opinions of younger generations receive much greater support, when they fall in line with the political agenda of the current leadership. Although that is what is expected of any generation, the millennial generation is subjected to extreme levels of peer pressure, often even to violent degrees. Europeans in support of Brexit experience similar from Europeans who have adopted the Anti-Brexit stance.
The Reason Why We Wanna Remain So Badly:
Our Countries Are Warzones
There are many excuses why we, as Europeans, would prefer to stay in the United Kingdom, which has nothing to do with welfare payments. Once the DWP has made Europeans ineligible for JSA or Universal Credit, most with the intention to rinse the system have left the country. Many countries, such as Germany, actually pay much more than England on a monthly basis. Hence, there are often other reasons. At times, a criminal record or even arrest warrant can make life back home very difficult for Europeans, just as it does for British hiding abroad. More frequently, we have gained full or temporary employment and established a social circle. In other words, we have integrated. We have a job, friends and/or romantic relationships that may not survive the transition [i.e. we have no intent to marry as a route to dual-citizenship yet, which would ironically fortify post-Brexit ties between residents more than any trade agreement]. As selfish as our decision to be against Brexit might be, more people make important decisions out of [temporary] self-interest instead of what would benefit them long-term…and just for laughs, I deeply apologise on behalf of Europeans, unwilling to support the country that they reside in after the people made their decision.
British Liberals are deporting Europeans rather than Economic Migrants
In addition, the interest in free healthcare, particularly as it is no longer free, has ceased for Europeans but not economic migrants. Another utopian ideal [this time, free medical treatment for decent citizens that would suffer or perish otherwise] has crumbled under the weight of excessive use. Although Europeans have begun to only attend hospital or their GPs in emergency situations, their caseload is growing along with the waiting times. This is not merely a discrepancy, it indicates an in increase in serious conditions, likely not of European origin. [Remember, the Black Plague was germ warfare on steroids due to rodent infestation, but originated from the Middle East.] This is not unexpected due to the ‘minor’ disease outbreaks across Europe.
On rare occasions, our reason is that we have made England and its people our home. In plain English, we fucking love, you crazy racists, because deep down we are just as racist. You are our kind of crazy. We are the same…
For Europeans, living in England is like Marmite, you either love it or you don’t, and if you [as a whatever], do not, you should go to another country where you can be happier. Truly ask yourself, what is the real reason you are here? Maybe there is something you are trying to avoid, perhaps trouble back home?
It is vital that the British understand, Europeans [without exceedingly close ties to their homelands] have no real information on what is happening to them. Under censorship, our information mainly comes from the media…and as gullible as we are, [compared to the average Corbynite], some of us believe their propaganda. The continued protests to overthrow Brexit, while the same MPs demand a second referendum, are a political manoeuvre to delay the deadline. If it can be delayed long enough, the foreign population has imported the numbers required to win a second referendum. If no second referendum takes place, they will have bought additional time, in which to aid ‘not-so-illegal’ border crossings.
When Brexit was enshrined in law by the Queen, our separation from the EU became inevitable. However, something can exist in law only, but still be at risk of exploitation by deals made after the fact. It can be a mere smokescreen, only existent on paper. In reality, it can be the kind of red tape that binds a nation to a totalitarian overload still resentful over the peasant uprising [i.e. the vote] As stated here, we have no rights other than those we embody on a daily basis. If we do not use them, we are sure to lose them. Our ancestors, British or European, fought, bled and died for our rights to do as we please, to be anything we strive for…But, we have repaid them poorly so far by either going against establishing a free and self-governing Britain or not enough. As entire countries have already been crushed under EU rule, such as Greece, more will follow if they do not leave. For Europeans and British alike, Brexit is our chance to do better by forming a more equally beneficial alliance across the anglo-sphere. For decades, Britain remained silent as the influx of migrants became unsustainable. All the while, a quiet rage was building. It is the same rage, which is building across Europe. We may act as though Europeans are discriminated against by the British, when we know we, as a whole, are being discriminated against, or we may do something about it. For example, we can open up a dialogue with each other only to discover we actually share the same hopes, wants and dreams, which cannot be said about those who wish to enforce Sharia law.
Economic migrants do not play by the same rules. They will readily deceive women in order to marry them. In Switzerland and Liechtenstein, it is a long-standing tradition to marry the ugly duckling and divorce them after the legal required timespan has elapsed and they cannot be deported.
In truth, we know instinctively what is happening across Europe. On a base level, we can sense a storm is brewing in territories that have been very hard to defend in the past. Even liberals deporting liberals are too scared of the concept to admit that they are turning it into a reality. It is a death-sentence for them, their fellow men and possibly their country. Yet, they seem to be unable to confront this dark truth on an emotional level. For them, there is no reality, in which that is a possibility. Although there are some, like Corbyn, who are pathologically incapable of admitting to failure, hence imagining it would shake the foundation of their perceived reality. Conversely, the majority [who support the EU, migration etc.] choose to avoid facing the trauma that would alter their perceived reality until they have no choice. This mindset is often deadly as is historically documented. It, in turn, weakens Britains internal defences. While Europeans are deported or choose to leave for countries with higher crime and terrorism rates, more economic migrants are imported. Just as the European people need any ally they can get, the British do as well. It would be strategically and morally beneficial to seize the opportunity before it is too late.
Why do all the feminists and anti-feminists either fall silent on the migrant crisis or embrace economic migrants without consideration of the tangible consequences. Is it hateful to close your door to an extortionist, sex offender and/or religious fanatic? No, it is common sense.
It has been a well known fact for many years that we live in a rape culture. However, the migrant crisis has changed the situation to our disadvantage. It has highlighted how exposed women are to sexual misconduct on a daily basis.
What happens when an invading force with an obvious gender bias and known history of genocide expands their territories? History repeats itself. After the war-crimes committed on every single minority known to mankind, white genocide was only a matter of time. That notwithstanding, this article not about our karma. Every culture is at risk. Our very heritage is threatened with extinction from three sides.
Jihad: Despite the endearing efforts of the West to keep the peace by opening their doors and their hearts to the migrant population, no country can sustain the vast numbers that are currently residing and/or successfully head for Europe. Only a small number of families manage to escape for a better life… The large majority of the migrants are single, young men between the ages of 18-25. An army that propagates faster than any other since contraception according to Sharia Law is punishable by death, one might say.
Elite: War of any kind means good business and hefty profits for ‘someone’, particularly if they sell to both sides and purchase the real estate after a bloodbath. However, at least when the cogs of war are manipulated in such a fashion, one may almost have a fighting chance. What we are currently facing is an army, while knife and gun bans are enforced on a trial or permanent basis. The deck is visibly stacked against our favour at each and every turn.
Nature: The Sixth Mass Extinction is creating severe resource shortage. However, our damaging resource production and its unequal distribution is only one factor contributing to civilisation collapse. Temperature fluctuations, natural disasters and so forth.
Throughout recorded history, entire countries have faced shortages of women, which often led them to seek opportunities elsewhere. At times, women were permitted to choose, such as with the Spartans. On other occasions, women were simply raped and forced to breed in captivity. This commonly occurred, when there were underlying reasons behind the before-mentioned lack of women: (1) rare gender-focused disease that ravaged the region (2) preference of boys over girls, hence female offsprings often met a premature death (3) violence & genocide
For example, before Siciliy was invaded, they were a fair-haired and fair-skinned people. After countless women were raped and impregnated, following the invasion, fair-skin, dark hair and blue eyes became a prominent genetic trait from that region. Just like the Spanish exterminated the Tainos, raping the black and Indian women, creating Latinos.
The history of violence against women is a long one, yet there is only one course of events that keeps repeating itself over and over again. Each time, countries under Islamic Law face a massive shortage of women, as a result of executing their own before they have children, they are forced to expand their territories. It should be noted a significant portion of women are killed before they even reach the end of puberty.
“In politics, if something doesn’t go the way you want, shoot someone. It works every time. Just like it did with the London Riots…Just like it’s working now. As long as there’s a patsy, no one cares who’s actually behind it all.”
Our dreams for the future should not be of greatness or wealth, but freedom: the ability to think, speak and act freely, as women…This is a free world, risen from the ashes of oppression, but we are a prisoner of our bodies and our gender-roles. We should not have to justify our actions to anyone but ourselves. Ultimately, it is us who has to live with the moral consequences. If we wish to devote our lives to a higher cause, such as the search for meaning, we should not do so because a deity demands it. We should only do so, when it is what our heart, mind and spirit asks of us. Anything else is not selfless devotion to a higher being. It is lip-service, self-deception or conformity to something we have never striven to understand. Faith should not be taken lightly, it is very personal business to all of us. Particularly, for those willing to sacrifice their lives in the fight for religious domination or freedom.
Hope For The Best, Expect The Worst
The prophet Mohammed rode into battle alongside his female lieutenant, whereas the present-day interpretation of Islam has made women prisoners in their own homes. It has made them tools of self-gratification for men from the moment they can crawl. It is not only despicable, it is highly dangerous, as to the mental health of their victims. They are creating ticking time-bombs in charge of raising future generations, which can only result in hich rates of violent crime and suicide.
Generation after generation has been subjected to psychological torment and has been beaten into sexual submission, as a blatant abuse of the religious authority of the state. In such a country, where there is no protection for women, their offsprings can never be of optimal psychological health, regardless of the gender. They are raised with extreme forms of Stockholm syndrome, after being beaten, sexually abused and coerced into religious worship. Every inch of their identity is stripped from them…Every basic requirement from the food they eat, the clothes they wear to what they say is controlled by the men in their lives. Now, is that a life, in which any of us can ever be at peace with the world or ourselves?
Sharia Defies Human Rights
Women have it hard enough in the West without the inference of religious laws being thrust upon those that are enslaved and oppressed by them. No country should be governed by laws that advocate gender biases, it only festers corruption and inequality. For those few women that survive, cold indifference becomes a state of being. Some ex-Muslims that I have spoken to live in fear of Islam. As apostates, Sharia laws means condemning them to death. It seems that men, women and children are becoming slightly more afraid with each day that Islamic Laws will create an Islamic State, where no justice can prevail.
There is a difference between being ‘islamophobic’ and being weary of the surge of migrants that are taking a hold of the West, so Educate Yourself. Do not believe what you read in the Newspaper, unless you can be 100% certain that is is not propaganda. Know your cultural history, read more books, trust your gut and see for yourself what is happening in your community.
Organised Religion has no room in state politics or in the administration of the law. Particularly, when it defies human rights and common sense. Since the abolishment of capital punishment, what use is there for religion in the court-room? Prayer cannot change the verdict of a judge. It cannot protect the guilty or shield the innocent, as much as sending a thought into the universe can alter the course of cause and effect. It is unethical to demand religious devotion and/or worship of a non-believer. We were all born with free will. We have the right to be free from religion. That does not mean we have to thrust our beliefs down everybody’s throats, but we can act in defence of our right to free expression.
In a world, where religious freedom is political and political expression is religious. It becomes obvious that they reversed the rules on us in an attempt to infiltrate. It’s psychological warfare 101 to turn the target nation in on itself to weaken its defences. Without the ability to defend itself, it is ready for the taking. (Particularly, if you’ve already taken the outer zones)
France: While the protests are still ongoing for at least the next month, the no-go zones appear to be expanding. Although the Erdogan, the Turkish PM, criticises the French for their way of handling the demonstrators, if the tables were turned, we would witness a press-blackout followed by a significant reduction in the population. Erdogan is demonstrating another tactic of political infiltration, using our own weapons religion, politics and law against us.
The only thing that can possibly win against this is war. The time when complete non-resistance or non-cooperation across Europe would have been effective has passed. Now, our options are limited by the number of people we can dedicate to the problem of violent crime in our streets. The more people support the political freedom of their country, the less violence will need to be applied to regain their policies and territories. The less people take action, the more brutal the measures have to be. When outnumbered against hordes of battle-trained war refugees with more reinforcements hiding in close proximity, the situation can become life-threatening in seconds.
Germany: With about 1.5M refugees, only about 446’000 have been granted asylum. Although the remainder have not left the country, Germany has not taken any action. With daily sexual assaults by 3-15+ economic migrants converging on a single woman, law enforcement is reluctant to pursue the matter for religious/political reasons. An asylum seeker does not commonly exhibit hostile tendencies or commit violent crimes in the country that has given him or her refuge. If their application is denied by the state, they may resort to petty theft to support themselves, but they do not rape and pillage whatever catches their attention at the time.
A good tactician plays with his target, as a cat would with a mouse. They feign weakness, in the form of poverty and immobility, until they suddenly pounce upon their target. Yet, economic migrants are not as skilled at covert warfare, which plays in our favour by altering us to the threat the moment it began. However, the instant Merkel announced her open-door policy, welcoming millions into the country, she opened the country to political invasion. Without the forced deportation of millions of economic migrants that have remained long after their legal right to stay expired, Germany will continue to suffer. As Merkel refuses to assist her people out a sense of false pride in her decision, she is a representative of the people…And in every country, people have the right to simply refuse public support. It is even our human right to refuse elected officials, if we feel our political freedoms are threatened or compromised. Merkel opened the front gates and invited in a Trojan horse that she is now refusing to acknowledge or even comment on. Her unwillingness to respond to negative feedback make her highly dangerous and perhaps unstable. Ironically, her decision has made Germany more powerful in the European Union, but it has sacrificed its people to achieve this and most likely the future of the EU.
Although only 250’000 people would be required to gather in Berlin to overwhelm authorities, there is consistent evidence that the retaliation against political resistance in the fight for political freedom would be more than just instantaneous.
Austria: An EU exit would be perhaps one of the most peaceful solutions. Having grown up in the area, we never needed border control, remember what that was like? When you could walk through the Alps without worrying about migrants, lurching in the bushes. Now, even locking the door or excellent security system cannot stop the high increase in burglaries, rapes and random violence. Only 50’000 protesters are required to overwhelm die Wiener Behörden in a unified movement for the rights of men and women alike to regain political control over their country.
Switzerland: In a recent attack in May 2016 at a Swiss border, caught on CCTV, a group of approx. 2″ migrants blocked the road. The car stopped, the driver and passenger exited vehicle and before they knew it another 15 migrants descended into them out of the woods nearby. When in doubt, always stay in your car, lock the doors and drive and dial the police, if necessary. In the footage, a car sped by and took some of the migrant off their feet (without visibly injuring any of them). However, the content quickly turns into a snuff film as they knock out the driver and group around the female passenger after giving her a bloody nose and take her trousers off…
Here’s what happened & what is yet to come:
As a female psychologist in a profession that’s pretty much a boys-club, I may be scarcely heard or acknowledged, but I’m afraid to say that I turn out to be right more often than I’m comfortable with. Some women enjoy the thrill of the “I told you so.”, I just find it adds animosity to an already tense, if not hostile situation. (Being right for women is like telling someone to move their shit on the stairs, before they stumble over it. Nobody cares when you say it but you can be guaranteed that there’s going to be a crash, bang and wallop in the near future)
Hinduism: 400 million Hindus were slain during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors were enslaved and impregnated or castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s, the Hindu population had been reduced to approx. 200 million. (The conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. “Hindu slaughter.”)
Mass Rapes: In April 2016, a group of male refugees, heading for Europe accidentally wound up across the border of Russia. They 40-50 of them charged into a night-club and began to seize the female staff and guests for their own twisted pleasure. Although it did not take long until Russian law enforcement intervened and administered their own brand of justice.
Public Beheadings: As tensions increase, they will undoubtedly attempt to make an example of public and/or religious figures. Lyle Zimmermann fell victim to this fear-tactic, when he was attacked a tube-station and almost publicly beheaded. This is just another example of how the verse of the sword is misused to target any religious organisation that they cannot infiltrate. This commonly accomplished by spreading fear and ridding them of their most beloved members.
HIV & Other STD’s: The surge of migrants and continued number of sexual assaults is likely to propagate many incurable sexually-transmitted conditions. Most commonly reported conditions reported in survivors are HIV and Hepatitis. Considering this inconceivable fate, survivors would be at a higher risk of suicide. Victim support in these cases is essential, but often neglected, but there is much that we can all do to provide a safe place for them to begin the healing process. (Although there’s nothing that can’t be treated with a bi-annual dose of 9-Liquid Ounces of cannabis in a country, where it is legal, these strands are most likely more invasive, but still originate from the same man-made strain. To flush and restart the system would necessitate an additional 1-2 liquid ounces per month. It is recommended to abstain from alcohol, tobacco and processed food in-between treatment, but pure blunts or hemp & cannabis joints have shown to aid recovery. It should be noted that every liquid ounce is comparably three times more than a solid ounce of freshly grown medicinal cannabis, so don’t underestimate the amount required for this endeavour. In this case, better too much than too little and sooner rather than later.)
Religious & Political Warfare: Over the previous centuries, Islam has destroyed a great deal of spiritual, academic culture. Entire Buddhist and Hindu temples that have existed since before the birth of Christ were eradicated or burnt to a cinder. From a Western perspective, there is no amount of resistance from a single individual that can combat the birth-rate of the migrant population. One against 50 only works, when you have an uzi with unlimited ammunition, a suicide-vest or (if you’re a woman) a cyanide pill. (Especially now since every good muslim should have at least 4 kids) Only political resistance from small groups or large crowds, which invariably devolve into violence, would make an impact.
Political Infiltration: All migrants require is humanitarian tolerance in a host country, and the political freedom of women is directly threatened. Women are snatched off the streets, impregnated and detained in no-go zones against their will. We often speak of racial bias but we only criticise and improve our own conduct. While their blatant disregard of the Western cultures as well as laws grows disguised as religion, we are too busy arguing over the finer points of morality. Our judicial systems are morally superior through the sheer fact that we do not prohibit women from leaving their homes unaccompanied. We do not allow child marriages and yet migrants are abducting more children from playgrounds. If they disappear, we cannot judge their ‘way of life’, which is inherently detrimental to women. The mere existence of Sharia Law in this world is a hate-crime against women. Dare I say, the mere existence of Islam, for their punishment of apostasy with death, is a crime against humanity and every freedom we hold dear.
Mosques Everywhere: A success for Islam would be to establish a mosque at every single street-corner in every single country. Countries, which embrace Islam, must allow Sharia law. By doing so, they weaken their stance on human rights, opening themselves even further to the possibility of being subjected to religious laws that did not originate from the country.
Mass Executions of Non-Believers: In Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, the United States and Europe, one does not need to look very far to see mass executions swept neatly under the carpet. A large amount of the no-go zones were acquired and expanded through harassment and violent crime. In London, Berlin, Sweden and Denmark, they are extending their grasp in the community by extorting shop-keepers. If they refuse to pay, they will vandalise the store and often grievously injure staff. These are all basic warfare tactics that mark the first stage of a religious and political invasion.
Brexit: Although this culture of violence has spread to the United Kingdom, it appears as if most of the illegal migrants that smuggled their way into England are too occupied by the EU referendum. Their vote and yours will determine, whether British culture will become history. Brexit would be only means to stop the inflow, while it is still manageable, but that does not end the economic warfare tactics of the EU. However, the more countries would leave the EU and cooperate to re-build than without a Brexit. It’ll take time to rebuild every fraction that the EU surgically sliced out of Britain, ranging from steel, the docks, import and export to the military. However, if the protests in France give the migrant population the advantage they seek, the entirety of Europe would feel the hostile presence that has taken ahold of their communities. As Hitler once said, all you need to do to control Europe is conquer France, yet England has always been the key piece. Without Britain, you have nothing, which explains the consistent surge of illegal migrants and repeated attempts to break through Calais. It is military strategy, rather than a benefit or healthcare scam. That and they are still trying to get back at us from last time, when they swore holy war against the British Empire (although most historians are asked by the EU to omit that part).
Point-Based Immigration: If the system survives the propaganda pumped out by mainstream media, and make it through to a trial run, it would certainly not collapse the global economy. Far from it, it would offer the British Isle the opportunity to re-build their infrastructure. To produce and manufacture, instead of import everything from EU. Especially since the product quality has been severely diminished, as the products are not able to face the harsh environmental conditions. For example, german-made propellers for wind-farms are not capable of withstanding a certain speed of winds, hence they continually break down due lower wind threshold. In simple terms, they overheat quickly and break due to deliberately poor craftsmanship. (This costs the taxpayer thousands every single time that maintenance is required. For a fraudulent scam, they’ve amassed vast sums from only that one product. One shudders to crunch the numbers of all EU-products with high incident report rates) However, much it has been requested by the public to switch back to British models, this issue could no longer be ignored after an EU exit. Other countries would benefit from the economic growth of Britain, as they have many times before. The world is only as strong as its weakest, most exploited countries. Although not as exploited as some countries, the EU is still attempting strategically crush Britain beyond the point of return.
Civil War: Brutality is the only means to justice in a society, in which there is no judicial system outside of religious law. A system, in which the people do not serve to protect each other…In which freedom of expression and sacredness of life are a faint memory of the past. With the press-blackouts, police orders to keep the migrant crisis quiet, repeated assaults and foiled terrorist attempts, it is only a matter of time, until the people do what they are good at…Fight for the most basic rights of all living beings. To protect themselves and the rights of women in future generations.
These times remind me of the reign of Cesar. As a form of entertainment for the masses, hordes of Caucasian slaves were led into the arena to face hordes of Middle-Eastern slaves. Only this time, for the entertainment of the elite, hordes of Middle-Eastern migrants surge to every corner of the globe. While we are on the brink of mass extinction, depopulation measures are still in full swing, as evident by the increase in fatalities as a result of disease, violent crime and protests across the world.
The idea of the Anglosphere is an important element of British Euroscepticism. Ben Wellings and Helen Baxendale show that calls for unity of purpose between English-speaking peoples offer Eurosceptics an alternative political community to the European Union, and one that aligns history, culture and politics more closely than does Britain’s membership of the EU. Although the Anglosphere does not yet constitute a viable political alternative to Britain’s EU membership, articulating it helps Eurosceptics imagine a UK outside the European Union.
The rise in Euroscepticism within the Conservative Party after 2010 was preceded by a decade of discussion about the existence of the so-called ‘Anglosphere’ as a viable alternative to the UK’s membership of the European Union. Amidst all the searching for Swiss or Norwegian models for Britain’s relationship with the EU, some Eurosceptics advanced the Anglosphere in response to criticisms about the lack of an alternative vision to European integration.
Euroscepticism and the Anglosphere
Speaking in the debate on the Maastricht treaty in 1992, the Conservative Minister for Europe, Tristan Garel-Jones posed the question that always caused some awkward silences amongst British Eurosceptics: ‘Can the anti-federalists, the Euro-sceptics and little Englanders offer a positive alternative?’
Reflecting on this in The Spectator, Tim Congdon floated a response: the English-speaking peoples or what was increasingly being referred to as the ‘Anglosphere’. From the late 1990s, exponents of the ‘Anglosphere’ idea argued that the English-speaking nations are distinguished by a set of institutions and characteristics that the other advanced nations of Europe ultimately lack: a common law tradition, respect for private property, continuous representative government, and a culture that nurtures civil society and entrepreneurial enterprise.
Emerging in the late 1990s, the Anglosphere idea is, in essence, a proposal for an international organisation that accommodates and celebrates the history, culture and institutions that many hard Eurosceptics believe make Britain different from the continent. It is, in short, a mutual political association that variously includes the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, the English-speaking Caribbean islands and Singapore, all dedicated to free trade and greater military and security cooperation that could constitute, in Robert Conquest’s words, ‘a centre of hope in the world … around which peace, cooperation, and democracy can develop’.
The Anglosphere idea has proven attractive to prominent British Eurosceptics. Margaret Thatcher, David Willetts, John Redwood, Daniel Hannan, David Davis, Norman Lamont, Liam Fox, Bill Cash, Michael Howard, and William Rees-Mogg all wrote or spoke in support of increased cooperation across the Anglosphere, with their ideas often published or promoted in Conrad Black’s and Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets.
Britain, Europe and the English-speaking Peoples
Although sentimental ties to the Commonwealth and the wider English-speaking world never went away, the Commonwealth could not provide a viable alternative to Europe in the mid-1970s. But this context changed. As such, Eurosceptics in Britain have questioned Britain’s accession to the Common Market.
Writing from Melbourne in 2013, Boris Johnson spoke of the ‘historic and strategic decision that this country took in 1973’ in which ‘we betrayed our relationships with Commonwealth countries such as Australia and New Zealand’. This betrayal was the product of specific historical circumstances – domestic, European and global – that no longer pertained. Johnson argued that:
When Britain joined the Common Market, it was at a time when the establishment was defeatist, declinist and obsessed with the idea that we were being left out of the most powerful economic club in the world. In those days – when olive oil and garlic had barely appeared on the dining tables of Britain – it was assumed that in order to be “internationalist” it was enough to be European. Well, it is now perfectly obvious that that is no longer enough – and that we need to seek a wider destiny for our country.
The attraction of such arguments was that they appeared to make historic and cultural sense. The Anglosphere suggested that progress could be reconciled with the restitution of a historical wrong and a future for Britain outside the EU imagined amongst a community of English-speaking peoples sanctioned by the past relationships and shared culture. Thus a political choice that seemed expansive in 1973 was perceived as parochial forty years later.
A renewed emphasis on long-standing and stable (if somewhat taken-for-granted) political relations with Commonwealth countries chimed with calls for a political re-orientation away from Europe after 2010. For example, speaking in Sydney only days before David Cameron’s Bloomberg speech on the EU in London, William Hague argued for closer political cooperation between Britain and Australia, exemplified by the on-going ‘five eyes’ intelligence cooperation, the regular ministerial-level meetings inaugurated in 2006 under the name of AUKMIN and the diplomatic and consular cooperation in emerging countries that were already well established.
European Integration and the Anglo-British Past
The strong sense of British difference from the continent that animated many Eurosceptics and Anglosphere enthusiasts was firmly rooted in a particular understanding of Britain’s past, making the Anglosphere the other side of the Eurosceptic coin. John Redwood neatly encapsulated the centrality of this history to hard Eurosceptic thought:
Britain is at peace with its past in a way that many continental countries could never be… We do not have to live down the shame that many French people feel regarding the events of 1940-44. We do not have to live…with the collective guilt that Germany feels about the Holocaust… We do not wake up every morning like Italians to wonder who might be in government today and which government ministers might be charged with corruption tomorrow.
Such a rendering of the past is redolent of the dominant British historiography of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which uncritically celebrated Britain’s constitutional and imperial achievements and the collective exceptionalism of the English-speaking peoples to be found in David Cameron’s ‘favourite book,’ Our Island Story, by Henrietta Marshall.
In this understanding of the past, the unique British inheritance that makes further integration into Europe undesirable to hard Eurosceptics is the very same inheritance that unites the Anglophone world, rendering deeper cooperation and closer association not only eminently possible but highly desirable. In this way, with the ‘Special Relationship’ at its core, the Anglosphere’s proponents contend it would constitute a more authentic and robust standard-bearer for Western values than a weak and crisis-ridden EU could ever hope to be.
Even advocates of the Anglosphere Association are happy for it to remain just an idea: a gratifyingly provocative retort to the likes of Tristan Garel Jones. An institutionalised Anglosphere Association is unlikely to be realised anytime soon. But the practicalities and prospects of the Anglosphere as a functional entity are not really the main point of interest here. Anglosphere enthusiasm is significant first and foremost for what it says about a certain strand of hard British Euroscepticism and its conception of Britain’s identity and place in the world.
Now that the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, has published the proposed reforms to the relationship between the UK and the EU, and the Prime Minister, David Cameron, has endorsed them as the basis for the UK’s continued membership of the union, the starting gun has effectively been fired in the referendum campaign. A central challenge for Eurosceptic supporters of Brexit is how to articulate a prosperous, optimistic future for the UK outside the EU. Conversely, supporters of staying-in need to show why Britain is stronger inside the union, and why leaving it would be risky. Much of this hangs on bread-and-butter questions about jobs and living standards, and the extent to which the Prime Minister’s reform package addresses public concerns about immigration and democratic control over EU institutions. But bigger questions about Britain’s identity and place in the world loom large too.
In the last couple of decades, eurosceptics have developed the idea that Britain’s future lies with a group of “Anglosphere” countries, not with a union of European states. At the core of this Anglosphere are the “five eyes” countries (so-called because of intelligence cooperation) of the UK, USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Each, it is argued, share a common history, language and political culture: liberal, protestant, free market, democratic and English-speaking. Sometimes the net is cast wider, to encompass Commonwealth countries and former British colonies, such as India, Singapore and Hong Kong. But the emotional and political heart of the project resides in the five eyes nations.
As this lineage suggests, the roots of the Anglosphere concept lie in 19th century imperialist discourses, and more specifically in the idea of an Imperial Federation, which gained ground in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century as the British Empire came under pressure from rising nationalist and anti-colonialist forces. Federation, with an Imperial Parliament governing foreign, defence and trade policy, seemed an ideal solution for keeping dominions and colonies happily inside the empire. The First World War put paid to this ambition but the idea lived on in the concept of the Commonwealth.
As Professor Michael Kenny and I set out in an essay for the New Statesman, the Anglosphere returned as a central concept in eurosceptic thinking in the 1980s, when Europhilia started to wane in the Conservative Party and Thatcherism was its ascendancy. On the right of the Conservative Party, we argued:
“…American ideas were a major influence, especially following the emergence of a powerful set of foundations, think tanks and intellectuals in the UK that propounded arguments and ideas that were associated with the fledgling “New Right”. In this climate, the Anglosphere came back to life as an alternative ambition, advanced by a powerful alliance of global media moguls (Conrad Black, in particular), outspoken politicians, well-known commentators and intellectual outriders, who all shared an insurgent ideological agenda and a strong sense of disgruntlement with the direction and character of mainstream conservatism.
In his major work Reflections on a Ravaged Century, the historian Robert Conquest argued that the political arrangements of the west were all increasingly deficient, the EU included. The answer was “a more fruitful unity” between the Anglosphere nations. And, in a speech to the English-Speaking Union in New York in 1999, Margaret Thatcher endorsed Conquest’s vision, noting how such an alliance would “redefine the political landscape”. What appealed most was the prospect of the UK finding an alliance founded upon deep, shared values, the antithesis of the position it faced in Europe.”
The idea of the Anglosphere as an alternative to the European Union gained ground amongst conservatives in their New Labour wildnerness years, when transatlantic dialogue and trips down under kept their hopes of ideological revival alive. It was given further oxygen by the neo-conservative coalition of the willing stitched together for the invasion of Iraq, which seemed to demonstrate the Anglosphere’s potency as an geo-political organizing ideal, in contrast to mainstream hostility to the war in Europe. By the time of the 2010 election, the Anglosphere had become common currency in conservative circles, name checked by leading centre-right thinkers like David Willetts, as well as eurosceptic luminaries, such as Dan Hannan MEP, who devoted a book and numerous blogs to the subject.
As Foreign Secretary, William Hague, sought to strengthen ties between the Anglosphere countries, despite the indifference shown by the Obama presidency to the idea. After leaving the cabinet, the leading eurosceptic Owen Patterson gave a lengthy speech in the US on the subject of an Anglospheric global alliance for free trade and security; he could expect a sympathetic hearing in Republican circles, if not the White House. And in its 2015 election Manifesto, UKIP praised the Anglosphere as a “global community” of which the UK was a key part.
These geo-political claims are met with derision in centrist political circles. For international relations realists, the idea of an Anglosphere barely merits a straight face, let alone serious consideration. And it is unquestionable that the US and Canada, let alone India, would view a geo-political alliance of English-speaking as an alternative to existing global structures as fanciful; indeed, they question why the UK should be entertaining leaving the EU at all.
But the Anglosphere’s potency is ideological, not geo-political. It functions as an imaginary horizon for a eurosceptic worldview of Britain after Brexit, uniting the UK with a global trading future as well as a sceptered isle past. It registers nostalgia, but also energy: Britain would be liberated to march on the world stage again, freed from sclerotic, conformist Europe and reanimated by the animal spirits that once gave it an empire. Thus it defends the eurosceptic flank where it is most vulnerable – rebutting the charge that it wants to take Britain back to the 1950s by delving even deeper into our island story and casting it forward into the 21st century.
This should give pro-Europeans pause for thought. The “Remain” campaign is currently premised largely on the risks of Brexit (or “Project Fear” as it is known to its detractors). It needs an optimistic account of Britain’s future in the world – one which passes through the European Union, not past it. Yet globalization currently has a bad press, and in the face of insecurity and inequality, a New Labour formula of “globalization plus good schools” doesn’t cut much ice with working class voters. Developing its own version of Britain’s identity and role in the world, beyond the fact of EU membership alone, is therefore a pressing task.