Brexit: defeatism?

The U.S. Ambassador to the UK, expressing doubt about the prospects of Brexit, speaks of British ‘defeatism’ on their prospects of escaping from the EU:

This is not the first time Trump’s man in London has encouraged Brits to be courageous in dealing with Brexit. Speaking in June, Ambassador Johnson said the UK should abandon its “defeatist attitude” and take inspiration from President Trump, remarking: “The thing I want to get out more than anything else is an attitude that I feel I don’t see enough in this country and that is a confidence for where you are heading – light at the end of the tunnel with Brexit.”

He said: “The British have always been experts and great business people, great business minds, so to see this defeatist attitude towards Brexit is a bit startling to me.’

Ambassador Johnson’s harsher remarks were directed more at the EU:

“Accusing the European Union of merely paying lip service to the notion of free trade before stacking the deck in favour of their own companies “with taxes and barriers that make it almost impossible for foreign companies to compete,” Ambassador Johnson said, “The United States has let this go on for too long.”

If we are to take Ambassador Johnson at his word, it sounds as though the U.S. will take a more active role in siding with the Brexit proponents, rather than attempting to be neutral. I also notice that Johnson’s words about the UK and the U.S. cooperating towards a favorable trade deal refers to the old ”special relationship’ between our two countries. In recent years that relationship has been treated as ‘in the past’, dismissed as a relic of a different time. It’s true that the major demographic changes in both our countries have made for more estrangement than mutual warmth; sad to say, many in the UK have an active dislike or resentment of Americans, and that’s understandable. Many British people base their knowledge of us on what they see in our corrupt media, just as Americans, at least those who have never visited the UK, see our cousins in the UK through that same distorting lens.

We might almost think that there’s been a longstanding effort to cause hostility between our nations.

In order for this prospective trade deal to work, there has to be a renewal of trust between our nations, despite the hostile media on both sides of the Atlantic.

But the more important message in the Ambassador’s speech is the exhortation to be confident, avoiding ‘defeatism’, and to recall our former achievements. He seems to say that our countries and peoples could assert their former pre-eminence, given determination, cooperation, and the right attitude.

If Britain takes back control of its trade policy, you will be at the head of the line. America and Britain are two of the most advanced economies in the world. Together we could agree the most sophisticated and ambitious free trade deal ever done — a heavyweight deal that gets the whole world to sit up and take notice. Together, we can show the rest of the world how it’s done.

However it’s obvious that the powers-that-be within Britain and in the EU, with their globalist aims, will not give up easily, so it won’t be a walk in the park. Still, what’s the alternative?

Monarchical system is ‘racist’

Peter Tatchell of the Guardian, the year 2009:

The current monarchical system of determining our head of state is premised on the assumption that the most ignorant, stupid, immoral white Windsor first-born is more entitled to be our head of state than the best-informed, wisest and most moral black or Asian Briton. This is a truly repulsive racist assumption.

I remember a few articles like this appearing back in 2009, full of faux-outrage about the fact that Britain had never had a non-white head of state. What? And why, we might ask, has Japan never had a Hungarian emperor, or vice versa? The whole issue seemed (and seems) so absurd and trumped-up. Obviously the outcome of the 2008 presidential election in the U.S. prompted the multicultists to come up with this inane idea that a head of state could  or should be of a different racial stock than the majority, the historic population of the country he governs.

Now, after nine more years of increasingly bizarre cultural Marxist social engineering, it’s evident that this was always to be part of the agenda; even the institution of the monarchy is not to be spared the demands of ‘racial equality’, affirmative action (everybody must get a turn at being head of state, regardless of origin or qualifications). Eventually it will be ‘no native-born people need apply’, or more likely ‘no Whites need apply.’

And I suppose the left’s relentless efforts to overturn every tradition, the ‘long march through the institutions’ has almost achieved what they planned.

Not long before Prince Harry announced his wedding plans, he had been featured in many photo spreads in the UK media (Sky News in particular, it seemed) showing him seated with groups of black people, or with black TV hosts, apparently having the time of his life. I wondered whether he was ‘assigned’ to represent some kind of “outreach” to the ”black community”. So the engagement announcement, when it came, was not surprising, in some ways — but still, it represents a jarring break with tradition. Is this too part of the globalist, multicult agenda? I think there is at least one other European prince in an interracial union.

Even if these marriages were real ‘love matches’, it could be said that the royals, too, are subject to the same conditioning as the rest of Western society. Americans, or more accurately a certain percentage of Americans loathe the very idea of royalty or aristocracy; that egalitarian streak runs very deep in America. Sometimes it borders on Jacobinism with some Americans, but in all fairness many in the U.S. have been brought up to see monarchy as an evil in itself, an ‘unfair’ system of government. It also seems that there is an element of dislike of the Royals in the UK as well, and a desire for a republic or a so-called ‘democracy.’ The propaganda on both sides of the Atlantic has warped the thinking of many people, and considering how pervasive the conditioning is, it’s understandable.

America’s system, though, has done little more to protect citizenry from being displaced and replaced than has the monarchical system, at least in the current social climate. In recent years, the phrase ”hideously [W]hite” has been applied to such British institutions as the BBC and the theatre. Being White is a definite liability today, but if the monarchy is made somewhat less ”hideously White”, will the anti-monarchy left begin to embrace it? Probably not, unless ‘diversity’ is enforced in selecting — or electing, as the Guardian would prefer, who is eligible.



Brexit and ‘the phlegmatic English’

At the Albion Awakening blog, there’s an interesting piece about the phlegmatic English people, as Terry Boardman describes them, and the Brexit situation.

Will Brexit become a reality, after more than two years have passed? It was 2016 when the British people voted to leave the EU, and still no exit from the European Union. It increasingly looks as if the will of the British people is being flouted. It appears that there has been an effort to simply stall on Brexit.

In so many internet discussions, it’s common to find Americans criticizing what they see as the passivity of the British or English people in not reacting more strongly to the situation, in which the UK government seems to be denying the will of the majority of citizens. But is the reaction of the people (or lack thereof)  “passivity?” Or is it patience?

Read the article at Albion Awakening for Terry Boardman’s explanation. I tend to agree with it.