Brexit

Yep, those of us who dispise the EU neo-soviet dictatorship are power-grabbing capitalists, who want to destroy this wonderful, free association of States that all of us voted for.... This guy, who speaks so softly, with that lisp of a "true intellectual", with a lot of books on the background, told us so, so, it must be true. Besides, he told us that those bastards who are pro-Bexit are..... evil scum that they are: CLIMATE CHANGE skeptics"!!!!!! There truly is no limit to their depravity..... Meanwhile, this bastion of freedoms, that is the EU Commission, is trying to protect us from ourselves by doing this: http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...ople-log-onto-youtube-national-electronic-id/

...and this http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...policy-promise-to-promote-counter-narratives/

but then again.... http://heatst.com/uk/five-presidents-eus-jean-claude-juncker-drunk-in-public-slaps-leaders/
One thing the debate is not lacking is straw men. What is undeniable is most of the people in the film are ideologically wedded to free market libertarianism, and have a track record in promoting that belief system. In the same way that much of the funding for "natural" climate change research comes from big business, the people pushing Brexit are not doing so from academic disinterest, but from a known political position. It may be true that the EU, like human climate change research, is built on shaky footings, but those pointing it out are not philosophically neutral, they are people who believe laissez faire economics supporting corporations to do as they please so long as the bottom line adds up, is the way forward. That plays into a neo-Darwinistic framing of human nature which I for one find deeply distasteful.
 
One thing the debate is not lacking is straw men. What is undeniable is most of the people in the film are ideologically wedded to free market libertarianism, and have a track record in promoting that belief system. In the same way that much of the funding for "natural" climate change research comes from big business, the people pushing Brexit are not doing so from academic disinterest, but from a known political position. It may be true that the EU, like human climate change research, is built on shaky footings, but those pointing it out are not philosophically neutral, they are people who believe laissez faire economics supporting corporations to do as they please so long as the bottom line adds up, is the way forward. That plays into a neo-Darwinistic framing of human nature which I for one find deeply distasteful.
I don't agree. Free market anarchism is based on individual liberty, natural rights and the princlpe of no aggression, not corporativism or crony capitalism. Fabian socialism or national socialism or communism are much more Darwinian. No libertarian would ever propose anything like this:
 
Britain is not Switzerland or Norway. It is not an enlightened social democracy with a deep vein of altruism. It locked children in factories for 14 hour shifts, six days a week, in living memory. Each law relating to workers' rights, even the most fundamental ones regarding a minimum living wage, is greeted with profound cynicism and threats of financial disaster (none of which have come to pass).

Its history as a global colonising power demands that the UK mediates and is mediated by other traditions. The people in that film want a Britain without global accountability, one ruled by expediency and the account book. They are not visionaries. They are ideologists. If someone with a different vision wanted to take Britain out of Europe, someone who didn't wreck banks selling bad loans, or sell off national assets at public expense while pretending it was the right of every individual to purchase what they already owned, I might listen. They are bad housekeepers, and have proven to be so.
 
That's a non-sequitur. The faults of the messanger don't cancel out the validity of the message., The fact ramains: the EU is a crypto-totalitarian, unelected Orwellian mega-State that needs to be dismanteled.
BTW, Switzerland by no means is a social democracy. I know this country well and travel there frequently.-

https://www.quora.com/Is-Switzerland-a-socialist-country

...and Norway is ditching social democracy: http://www.newgeography.com/content/003967-norway-breaks-with-social-democracy
 
The faults of the messanger don't cancel out the validity of the message.
No, but they should give us pause for thought regarding the motives of the messenger. A stopped clock tells the correct time twice a day, but we shouldn't rely on it to keep an appointment.

The discussion is essentially about alternatives and I don't find either of them agreeable. A UK judge reprimanded both sides of the campaign last week for dealing in insupportable claims and ridiculous hyperbole. That's what the ordinary referendum voter is up against, knee jerk reactions, dirty politics and appeals to the lowest common denominator. I'm not in the conspiracy camp, merely the cock-up one. I can believe the EC project is flawed through human vanity but have a harder time accepting it is the result of a sinister super state run by shadowy puppet masters. There's no need for hidden Orwellian masters when we have the Bilderberg Group operating in full view.
 
Exactly. And the Bilderberg group is a stauch supporter of, I insist, un-elected, crypto-totali8tarian, Orwellian mega-State which erules us without our consent.
The paranoid invective of your post is typical of the Brexit campaign. "They" are out to get "us". The UK has a healthy supply of megalomaniacs trading on common man credentials without any requirement for European Big Brothers. Politicians are *****, it's merely a question of type.
 
The paranoid invective of your post is typical of the Brexit campaign. "They" are out to get "us". The UK has a healthy supply of megalomaniacs trading on common man credentials without any requirement for European Big Brothers. Politicians are *****, it's merely a question of type.
Firs off, you brough Bilderberg into the conversation. Second, I don't think it's very productive to use despective labels like "paranoid" to qualify the opponent's opinion. Third, one doesn't have to be Einstein to figure out that they ARE out to get us, just by seeing what the EU, with its ecomomic policies, with its euro, has done to the South of Europe. Besides, I posted here enough data supporting the premise that EU is becoming more and more totalitarian. And no, we are not paranoid. You don't have to be paranoid to know that anhy unelected governance is, by definition, un-democratic and totalitarian.
We recognize hard, empirical reality. Like this politologist/writer, ex GULAG prisoner.

....or like this guy:
 
Last edited:
It's paranoid because the appeal is not to good financial husbandry, the relative merits of x economic strategy over y, it's a claim of conspiracy. My point is there's nothing except conspiracy, if by that term you mean self interested groups looking after each other. There is no requirement for alien lizards projecting hologram missiles towards the twin towers, run of the mill wickedness and banal evil is sufficient to account for the whole picture.

If people are ideologically wedded to the idea that governance on any scale larger than the individual is suspect, and necessarily in the pay of an Illuminati, nothing I can say will change their mind. The European Community was formed on the back of two European wars which threatened the safety of the entire world. It went on to become a trading entity that aimed, often failingly, for the kind of financial stability that made genocidal wars less likely. The way to make it better is from the inside.

The biggest danger to peace and prosperity, as it has been for centuries, is nationalism, the idea that someone born in a particular political or ethnic territory is inherently suited to preside over it to the last degree. I can believe in a Britain of such competing sensibilities as William Blake, William Wilberforce, The Kinks and Rupert Sheldrake without the slightest cognitive dissonance. If you want freedom and liberty, sit on a hillside in Kashmir because you won't find it in political institutions whatever their sales pitch.
 
Again, nothing, nothing at all you have written refutes that 1) the EU is an un-democratic, unelected.thus, totalitarian, mega-State 2) its policies have destroyed many countries in Europe, particularly in the South, where I live and see with my own eyes what this repugnant tyranny has done. It's not a consliracy theory, it's en objective reality. We are living the "EU financial stablity". 3) Freedom and liberty ARE good, and every human being should aspire to be free.
No, I don't want to make this Empire better from inside. I want it to fall, like I would want any empire to fall. I don't believe in unelected Governments, empires, totalitarism, and all this crap.
 
Again, nothing, nothing at all you have written refutes that 1) the EU is an un-democratic, unelected.thus, totalitarian, mega-State 2) its policies have destroyed many countries in Europe, particularly in the South, where I live and see with my own eyes what this repugnant tyranny has done. It's not a consliracy theory, it's en objective reality. We are living the "EU financial stablity". 3) Freedom and liberty ARE good, and every human being should aspire to be free.
No, I don't want to make this Empire better from inside. I want it to fall, like I would want any empire to fall. I don't believe in unelected Governments, empires, totalitarism, and all this crap.
I suggest you look at the precedents to the EU and see how those panned out. They consisted of subsistence farming and massive mortality rates, ethnic atrocities, empires built on slavery or quasi-slavery globally and domestically, and nationalist militarism. Can you point to a golden age as the future model that did not rely on screwing people at home and abroad for its economic prosperity?
 
Yea, sure.... great "new days"..... Censorship, thousands of asfixiating regulations, political currency, which destoryed the South of Europe, where, now, the elderly have to eat out of garbage cans, upcoming cashless society, tightening control, unelected, sinister bureaucrats who rule our lives. etc, etc, etc. Naaaa, thank you, I'll pass. I heard the argument "totalitarism prevents wars" all the time. See, totalitarism perpetrates democides worse than any wars. USSSR, China, North Krea, Cambodia, etc, etc.
 
Yea, sure.... great "new days"..... Censorship, thousands of asfixiating regulations, political currency, which destoryed the South of Europe, where, now, the elderly have to eat out of garbage cans, upcoming cashless society, tightening control, unelected, sinister bureaucrats who rule our lives. etc, etc, etc. Naaaa, thank you, I'll pass. I heard the argument "totalitarism prevents wars" all the time. See, totalitarism perpetrates democides worse than any wars. USSSR, China, North Krea, Cambodia, etc, etc.
You said "Free market anarchism is based on individual liberty, natural rights and the princlple of no aggression". Can you point to a working model of that ideology? It sounds like "everybody play nice". I'm all for being nice, I'm just wondering what penalties are exacted on those from within or outside who don't want to be lovely?
 
You said "Free market anarchism is based on individual liberty, natural rights and the princlple of no aggression". Can you point to a working model of that ideology? It sounds like "everybody play nice". I'm all for being nice, I'm just wondering what penalties are exacted on those from within or outside who don't want to be lovely?
Has nothing to do with "being lovely". The dynamics of libertarian society have been explained and presented by Hayek, Menken, Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe many, many times, Why don't you take a look?
The State has never been "lovely", on the other hand. As to "working models", the closest model to free society, which was the US in the XIX Century, gave to the world the greatest technological progress of all times. It was not paradise. Free society doesn't promise rainbows and unicorns, it just promises freedom. It's communism and socialism that promise freedom, and create hell on Earth. Talking about working models: socialism/communism have never worked, and only created misery, genocide, slavery and hunger. And still they insist on repeating this horrendous model. And don't know whether libertarian society would work or not, I only know that, ethically, freedom and non-aggression principles is the model that fits my worldview. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
 
the closest model to free society, which was the US in the XIX Century, gave to the world the greatest technological progress of all times.
The US in the XIX century was founded on the genocide of the indigenous population, enslavement of another and the rule of the gun. It required a small population and acres of free land and minerals. As soon as it became urbanised the US suffered the same problems as the rest of the "civilised" world, with some unique problems of its own.

The problem Europe, the US and other parts of the first world face, is how to maintain ethical financial structures that serve their populations without recourse to the exploitation of another. I don't believe american frontier politics is sustainable in the modern US or Europe. Moreover I believe the Brexit campaign has given a focus for every disgruntled and alienated group to project their anxieties onto a single cause, no matter how inappropriate or misplaced. I'm not an advocate for the European project, but I'm enough of a historian to know what some of the alternatives entail. I'd want something more solid than free market anarchy as a sustainable model for inalienable human rights. What the film offered was neo-Thatcherism. Having lived through the old version I can testify that it wasn't all cell phones and new romantics. It turned Britain from a production based society to a centralised money shunting one at great financial and social cost.
 
The US in the XIX century was founded on the genocide of the indigenous population, enslavement of another and the rule of the gun. It required a small population and acres of free land and minerals. As soon as it became urbanised the US suffered the same problems as the rest of the "civilised" world, with some unique problems of its own.

The problem Europe, the US and other parts of the first world face, is how to maintain ethical financial structures that serve their populations without recourse to the exploitation of another. I don't believe american frontier politics is sustainable in the modern US or Europe. Moreover I believe the Brexit campaign has given a focus for every disgruntled and alienated group to project their anxieties onto a single cause, no matter how inappropriate or misplaced. I'm not an advocate for the European project, but I'm enough of a historian to know what some of the alternatives entail. I'd want something more solid than free market anarchy as a sustainable model for inalienable human rights. What the film offered was neo-Thatcherism. Having lived through the old version I can testify that it wasn't all cell phones and new romantics. It turned Britain from a production based society to a centralised money shunting one at great financial and social cost.

The genocide of the indigenous population, however horrible, does not elliminate the fact that the technological proggress in the XIX US was unparalleled in history, thanks to relative liberty that society enjoyed. And when the uS became more urbanized, it still led the world in terms of proggress. Europe, on the other hand, offered nothing but socialism, communism, fascism on nazism. Slavery in the US? The slavery of Roma in Europe was abolished in the second half of the XIX century.
I absolutely agree with you that all politicians are a********s. Why, then, give them almost unlimited and unchallenged power the scum in the EU Commission have, like that drunken moron Junckers? At least, in the old-fashioned european democracies, however deficient they may be, we vote the politicians in and out of office, the Euro-scum, on the other hand, was NOT elected by anybody? As to genocidal wars, socialists don't need them to exterminate people, watch again that angelical humanitarian Bernard Shaw, asking scientists to invent mass-murdering gas. No, I don't want the sinister octopus in Brussels to rule over my life. I lived slavery in the USSR once. No more, for me.
I'm tired of these robbing, stealing scum: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-im...he-appropriation-of-household-savings/5440347
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/...aturities-of-govt-debt-to-prevent-redemption/

As to the EU supposed peacefulness, they actively participated in the coup-d'état in Ukraine: https://socioecohistory.wordpress.c...tion-useu-directed-coup-detat-exposes-itself/
 
Last edited:
The genocide of the indigenous population, however horrible, does not elliminate the fact that the technological proggress in the XIX US was unparalleled in history, thanks to relative liberty that society enjoyed.
That sounds like the political equivalent of the materialists' One Free Miracle. Allow us to wipe the locals off the map and put remainder into a reservation, steal their land and use abducted and enslaved Africans to work it, and we'll provide a utopia.
And when the uS became more urbanized, it still led the world in terms of proggress.
It had a tiny population for its land mass, an almost inexhaustible source of minerals and an isolationist political policy. Based on the free economic miracle of genocidal colonisation. No political magic bullet there.
Europe, on the other hand, offered nothing but socialism, communism, fascism on nazism. Slavery in the US? The slavery of Roma in Europe was abolished in the second half of the XIX century.
Europe was the model for US policy. Land grab the parts of the world with cheap labour and armed with nothing heavier than a pointed stick, kill the ones who complain and set up a parliament ensuring civilised laws for the victors. Actually the parts of Europe who got in early on the colonisation business lived in a fairly benign state, albeit one governed by draconian penalties for transgressors. Political extremism in the shape of Fascism was driven by countries who felt themselves hemmed in by more expansive powers, and Communism offered to put bread on the table in a country where starvation was the norm.
I absolutely agree with you that all politicians are a********s. Why, then, give them almost unlimited and unchallenged power the scum in the EU Commission have, like that drunken moron Junckers? At least, in the old-fashioned european democracies, however deficient they may be, we vote the politicians in and out of office, the Euro-scum, on the other hand, was NOT elected by anybody? As to genocidal wars, socialists don't need them to exterminate people, watch again that angelical humanitarian Bernard Shaw, asking scientists to invent mass-murdering gas. No, I don't want the sinister octopus in Brussels to rule over my life. I lived slavery in the USSR once. No more, for me.
I don't see any comparison between the paper shufflers of Brussels and the Soviet Union. States can leave Europe any time they like by the simple expedient of saying no thanks, there'll be no EU tanks rolling into Croydon and Leeds after a No vote. Unlike the USSR, countries are queueing up to enter Europe.
None of the points you've made are based on economic pragmatism, they are all appeals to emotion. I find it as hard to take your idea of the american frontier as the best of all possible worlds as I do the Spanish and Portugese in South America or the British in India and China. Alright for some, as we say round here.

PS George Bernard Shaw built a reputation outraging those without his playful sense of irony.
 
Last edited:
That sounds like the political equivalent of the materialists' One Free Miracle. Allow us to wipe the locals off the map and put remainder into a reservation, steal their land and use abducted and enslaved Africans to work it, and we'll provide a utopia.

It had a tiny population for its land mass, an almost inexhaustible source of minerals and an isolationist political policy. Based on the free economic miracle of genocidal colonisation. No political magic bullet there.

Europe was the model for US policy. Land grab the parts of the world with cheap labour and armed with nothing heavier than a pointed stick, kill the ones who complain and set up a parliament ensuring civilised laws for the victors. Actually the parts of Europe who got in early on the colonisation business lived in a fairly benign state, albeit one governed by draconian penalties for transgressors. Political extremism in the shape of Fascism was driven by countries who felt themselves hemmed in by more expansive powers, and Communism offered to put bread on the table in a country where starvation was the norm.

I don't see any comparison between the paper shufflers of Brussels and the Soviet Union. States can leave Europe any time they like by the simple expedient of saying no thanks, there'll be no EU tanks rolling into Croydon and Leeds after a No vote. Unlike the USSR, countries are queueing up to enter Europe.
None of the points you've made are based on economic pragmatism, they are all appeals to emotion. I find it as hard to take your idea of the american frontier as the best of all possible worlds as I do the Spanish and Portugese in South America or the British in India and China. Alright for some, as we say round here.

PS George Bernard Shaw built a reputation outraging those without his playful sense of irony.

1) Genocide and slavery are not at all unique to Western culture. On the contrary, you can read about muslim invasión of India, or Genghis Khan, or Tamerlan, etc, or Arabic slave trade, or, for that matter, other cultures that practiced slavery. All of them, to be precise. Genocide and slavery are as old as the humanity itself, to blame the West for them is plain unfair. All nations and ethnicities practiced slavery and genocide. None of the created a free and prosperous society, except the United States.
2) Communism didn't put any bread anywhere, on the contrary, it perpetrated the worst artificial famines in history.
3) "American frontier"? I daid nothing abouth the frontier, I talked about the technological progress. Ford, Edison, Marconi, and other geniuses had nothing to do with the frontier.
4) No, it's not appeal to any emotion, I lived in the USSR, and I, as well as Vladimir Bukovsky (whose video I posted above), well respected politologist and writer, who also lived there, find a lot of chilling similarities between the USSR and the EU; I posted throughout this thread enough material to demonstrate that.

5) to attribute Shaw's call to genocide to his "sense of irony" is so preposterous, it doesn't need any rebuttal. The video speaks for itself.
PD. It'd amazing to me that, every time I post this repugnant, nauseating, atrocious video of Shaw, my friends on the left always try to justify it. It doesn't seem to shock them at all. If anybody on my side of the political spectrum had done this, I would disavow him forever and ever.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top