Niki Raapana, “Communitarianism is the fake political theory that advocates for a New World Order. Communitarians claim their theory represents a "balance" between selfish individualism and holistic communism. It is the new Machiavellianmiddle ground.”
In the early hours of the 24th June 2016 the town of Sunderland at
the mouth of the River Wear in the North East of England, famed for
shipbuilding and glass manufacture, announced that in the UK’s
Referendum the Leave vote had exceeded the Remain vote by 22% – when the
expected margin had been only 6 or 7%. Sunderland had spoken, the
anti-fascists had spoken. The result was that freedom and democratic
sovereignty were restored to the British people.
The voters of Sunderland had defied the once socialist but now
corporatist Labour Party who regarded them as their personal fiefdom,
they had defied the great local employer NISSAN who had always
threatened them with job losses if they voted to leave the European
Union and they defied the catastrophically incompetent and manipulating
“opinion polls” and the placing of heavy money against a Leave vote by
the schoolboy spivs who gamble on currencies for profit in the (also
catastrophically incompetent) City of London.
In other words in Sunderland – as in many Conservative areas of the
country – the voters had attacked and defeated that unholy alliance
between the authoritarian pseudo intellectual left and the corporatist
right who combined in their mutual hatred of communities, nations,
cultures, sovereign democracies, free trade and the rule of law in their
conspiracy to create a world of supranational corporate fascist power.
Big business and big government, together with the self declared
“progressive left”, despised individuals and their votes, traditional
family structures, entrepreneurs and small businesses serving
communities like Sunderland.
As in the 1930s and 1940s, there are today in ALL the “major”
political parties both corporatist fascists and their opponents – the
democratic sovereigntists and anti fascists. In the 1930s the Tory Party
had many appeasers and sympathisers with Nazi Germany and fascist
Italy. Sir Samuel Hoare was thrown out of Government and went to live in
Spain where he conspired with fascists and local representatives of
Hitler to make peace with Germany by removing Winston Churchill.
The Labour Party repeatedly voted against re-armament against Hitler
in the 1930s and called Churchill a “warmonger” and the socialist Lord
Allen of Hurtwood said that Britain should help Hitler get Germany’s
fair share of colonies!
The former Liberal Prime Minister David Lloyd George was such an
admirer of Hitler that he said he was “the greatest living German and it
is a pity there are not more like him in Britain”.
The left wing BBC kept Churchill off the air for much of the 1930s
and their General Manager Lord Reith was an admirer of Hitler while the
Federation of British industry (now the CBI) was making agreements with
Nazi industry in mid 1939 – after Hitler’s march into the Rheinland,
after the attack on Czechoslovakia, after the Krystallnacht attacks on
Jewish businesses and after the Nuremberg Race laws. (For more evidence
of fascism then and now see my books And into the Fire, Europe’s Full
Circle and Fascist Europe Rising.)
So there is nothing new about these corporatist fascist bodies
supporting the end of democracy and the promotion of supranational
corporate power. They are, as they were then, backed by many of our
“intellectual” classes whose experience of life is confined to a State
or corporate funded desk and lecture hall, divorced from those
impoverished by their academic “solutions”. They periodically produce
lists of hundreds of signatures to demands or condemnations of
Government policy – and they are virtually always wrong.
They were wrong about the Gold Standard in the 1930s.
They were wrong about the Common Market in 1972 (they just lied about its destruction of democratic parliamentary Government)
They were wrong about Margaret Thatcher’s monetarism in the early 1990s (a long period of growth resulted)
They were wrong about the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (causing 3m unemployed)
They were wrong about the Euro (25m unemployed in the EU)
And of course they will be proved wrong about Brexit.
BLOOMBERG WILL FLOURISH
Already within 48 hours of the decision to leave the EU a major
international employer, Bloomberg, continues active recruitment in
London. ”We employ nearly 4,000 staff in the U.K., which is home to many
of our major clients. And our new London headquarters will open next
year. We will be in London for the long haul.”
J P MORGAN WITHDRAWS THREAT
AS the Referendum approached Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan threatened his
UK employees: “After a Brexit we cannot do it all here and we will have
to start planning for that. I don’t know if it means 1,000 jobs, 2,000
jobs – it could be many as 4,000, and they will be jobs all around the
UK.”
But after the vote this arch corporatist had a different tone. He
wrote: “J. P. Morgan has 16,000 employees in the U.K. We are extremely
proud of the work they do and our long history in the country.
Regardless of today’s outcome, we will maintain a large presence in
London, Bournemouth and Scotland, serving local clients as we have for
more than 150 years. In the months ahead, however, we may need to make
changes to our European legal entity structure and the location of some
roles.”
OSBORNE WITHDRAWS THREAT
And George Osborne the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, having
predicted economic disaster and an emergency budget if the British voted
Leave, now says the UK is ready to face the future “from a position of
strength” and indicated there will be no immediate emergency Budget. And
these are the kind of people who have been making critical economic and
political decisions about Britain and the EU for decades! Is it any
wonder chaos reigns?
Such is the disgraceful state of affairs in so called “democratic”
societies when the people have to ignore those who have all the power
and all the money in order to find out the truth. And they have to found
new parties to stop the left right and centre’s cartel of power. That
cartel had adopted the same basic philosophy and thus ensured that a
vote is powerless to change anything.
Sunderland was right. The British people were right. Even many who
voted “Remain” might now find out what the REAL issues are – although
they will have to fight the censorship of the “mainstream media” and
listen instead to the more respectable parts of the internet and youtube
– and their friends, family and local businesses in their own
communities.
The people of Britain are about to become the next victims of the
‘Coloured Revolution’ tactics used by Washington and Brussels against
democratically elected governments from Serbia to Syria, from Ukraine to
Brazil.
Within a few days of the British electorate’s totally unforeseen
(including by this author!) grass-roots decision to defy Establishment bullying
and waves of MSM propaganda to vote for Brexit, the counter move of the
globalists is already becoming clear.
First, a concerted attack on sterling and leading shares to apply
financial pressure and justify the self-fulfilling prophesies of gloom and doom
of the defeated Remain camp.
Second, massive psychological pressure organised by ‘civil society’
organisations, such as Avaaz masquerading as grass-roots social media protests
but in fact funded by Foundations financed by George Soros. The spear-point of
this propaganda campaign is at present the petition for a Second Referendum,
which has already passed the three million mark, even when tens of thousands of
bogus signatures have been identified and removed.
Third, the use of other ‘civil society’ groups, including SumOfUs and 38
Degrees, to conducted rolling polls of ‘progressive’ public opinion so as to
ascertain which themes and attacks on Brexit will be the most effective. This
is a key technique taught in ‘color revolution’ training course modelled on the
proposals of Gene Sharp and now honed by John Carlane, liberal globalist former
British Army officer turned head of the Peace Education and Training
Repository.
Fourth, the mobilisation of crowds of angry and clearly violence-prone
protesters in London and other key cities. Despite the fact that many on the
British far-left campaigned for Brexit, gangs carrying Communist and anarchist
flags are out on the streets. They are supposedly to defend ethnic minorities
(many of whom in fact voted alongside their indigenous working class
counterparts for Brexit) but have already been involved in attacks on known or
suspected Brexiteers.
Fifth, the CIA/liberal elite’s retained propaganda corps of
bought-and-paid-for journalists are lying and twisting flat out to exploit all
the above. The aim is to frighten ‘soft’ Brexit voters into changing their
minds and to build up momentum for a drive to use the autumn’s expected General
Election as a de facto Second Referendum.
The purpose of this hybrid political war on the British majority is to
derail the whole Brexit process and keep Britain in the EU (or at least to turn
leaving into such a shambles that no other country will dare to follow suite).
This explains why Prime Minister Cameron has already broken his promise
during the referendum that, in the event of a Leave vote, he would immediately
trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty in order to set Brexit in motion. It is
now blatantly obvious that the Europhile elite have no intention of allowing
such a minor inconvenience as the democratically expressed will of the British
people to disrupt the process of ‘ever closer Union’ or of the geo-political
‘necessity’ of keeping the EU united for the deepening confrontation with
Russia.
In advance of last Thursday’s vote, the Brussels-rule camp pulled out
all the stops, with multi-levelled frauds and the ruthless exploitation of the
murder of Jo Cox looking certain to secure a manipulated but unquestionable
Remain vote.
Despite the failure of the campaign, a vociferous minority of hardcore
Europhiles, led at present by Tory grandee Lord Heseltine and ‘moderate’ Labour
and LibDem MPs such as David Lammy and Tim Farron, are not going to accept the
verdict of the referendum.
Instead, they are trying desperately to give the liberal elite the nerve
and confidence for their biggest ever display of out-of-touch arrogance –
denying the British people the right to have their Brexit decision implemented.
Will they get away with it? Or will the response of ordinary people as
they realise what is going on be so outraged as to convince the Europhiles
that, being already in a massive hole, it really is time to stop digging? I
don’t know. I simply don’t know. But there is no doubt that this is their game
plan. Don’t expect stability and certainty any time soon.
WHO CARES IF A BUNCH OF GREEDY RICH TOSSERS HAVE LOST MONEY ON THE STOCK MARKET SINCE THE BRITISH PEOPLE VOTED 'OUT'? I DO NOT, I DO NOT CARE. AND WHY SHOULD YOU? WE ARE OUT, NOW. GET ARTICLE 50 OF THE LISBON TREATY INVOKED AND LET'S GET ON WITH IT!
Throughout much of the referendum debate, it has
been assumed that, in order to continue participating in the Single Market, we
would have to accept freedom of movement. Any number of high-ranking Commission
officials have warned us that this is "non-negotiable".
Now, at last, we are beginning to have the debate we should have had before the
referendum, we have the know-all BBC creeping out of the woodwork,
together with others, to remind us of this, as more and more Johnny-come-latelys leap on the EEA bandwagon,
including the revered Chatham House.
However, we should have known that the Commission officials (and the European
politicians who joined them), were not telling the truth about freedom of
movement – or at least the whole truth in respect of the EEA.
Almost too late, we discovered something hidden in plain sight: the fact that
the EU has been quite willing to negotiate with one of the three Efta/EEA
states on freedom of movement. Furthermore, they have come to an amicable
solution, which has allowed it to secure an amendment to the treaty giving it a
permanent opt-out to freedom of movement. The state concerned now operates a
quota system little different in principle to the Australian points system.
That the state is the principality of Liechtenstein need not worry us. It may
be a tiny micro-state with a population of 37,000 spread over an area of 61
square miles – less than half the area of the Isle of Wight – but it is a
fully-fledged Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement. It has assumed exactly
the same rights and responsibilities as any other Efta state.
Furthermore, Iceland has used exactly the same provisions to suspend free
movement of capital following the 2008 financial crisis, demonstrating that
there is a real and effective option within the EEA Agreement which could be
available to the UK, and solve a lot of problems.
I've already told the story in parts, but for the record, I am now bringing it
together under one head in this blogpost. Now the media and politicians can
ignore it properly, instead of pretending they haven't seen it. I've also
written up a version in Flexcit, so that they can ignore it there as
well, leaving the 90,000-plus readers better informed than those who seek to
instruct us.
The story starts – and a fascinating one it is – before Liechtenstein joined
the EEA on 1 May 1995. We can actually take 10 March 1995 as the beginning,
when the EEA Council - part of the formal consultation structure set up under
the agreement – looked at the situation dominating Liechtenstein's entry.
The Council recognised that Liechtenstein had "a very small inhabitable
area of rural character with an unusually high percentage of non-national
residents and employees". And it decided that this microstate could easily be
swamped by immigrants if unrestricted free movement of workers was permitted.
Like the UK, but at the opposite end of the scale, the country was not able to
absorb unlimited numbers.
Moreover, the Council acknowledged "the vital interest of Liechtenstein to
maintain its own national identity". It thus concluded that the situation "might
justify the taking of safeguard measures by Liechtenstein as provided for in Article 112 of the EEA Agreement".
Article 112 is part of the "safeguard measures" – popularly known as
the "emergency brake". Where serious economic, societal or
environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature arise, which are
liable to persist, it allows Efta states (but not EU Member States)
unilaterally to take appropriate measures to resolve them. EU Member States
have to rely on the Commission to take action.
Back in 1995, with a massive immigration problem looming, the EEA Council asked
all members to "endeavour to find a solution which allowed Liechtenstein
to avoid having recourse to safeguard measures". However, no long-term
solution was found so a temporary expedient was arranged by way of transitional
arrangements which allowed the country to impose "quantitative
limitations" on immigration until 1 January 1998. These were incorporated
into Protocol 15, appended to the Agreement.
The next move was towards the end of 1997, just before the end of the
transitional period. There had been no long-term solution found so
Liechtenstein unilaterally invoked the Article 112 safeguard
measures. By this means, it kept the existing immigration restrictions in place
when the transitional period ended.
There were further attempts to resolve the situation in
1998, which were unsuccessful. Then, on 17 December 1999 after a further
review, the EEA Joint Committee decided that the "specific geographical
situation of Liechtenstein" still justified "the maintenance of
certain conditions on the right of taking up residence in that country".
In order to resolve the situation, though, it came up with a proposal for a longer-term solution, allowing
Liechtenstein to introduce a quota system controlling the number of workers
allowed to enter the country. This decision was given formal status by an
amendment to Annex VIII of the EEA Agreement, setting out what
were called "sectoral adaptations", cross-referred to Annex V on the free movement of workers.
As a formal amendment to the EEA Agreement, the decision provided for a new
transitional period until 31 December 2006, and allowed for the new measures to
apply subject to a review "every five years, for the first time before May
2009".
After reviews in 2009 and in 2015, it was concluded
that there was no need to make any change to the current rules. The provisions
on the Sectoral Adaptations could remain unchanged. Under the current
arrangement, Liechtenstein issues 56 residence permits for economically active
and 16 permits to economically non-active persons each year. Half of the
totally available permits are decided by lottery, held twice a year.
The numbers involved are, of course, small beer, but Liechtenstein is a tiny
country. What matters is that a precedent has been set within the framework of
the EEA Agreement for suspending freedom of movement in respect of a single
country, and replacing with a quota system for what amounts to an indefinite
period.
This is where the situation currently stands. Thus, whatever the EU might
declare in terms of freedom of movement being "non-negotiable" for EU
Member States, it is undeniable that it is negotiable within the framework of
the EEA Agreement, as it applies to Efta states.
Therefore, if the UK chooses to follow the Efta/EEA option as an interim
solution to expedite the Article 50 settlement, once the agreement is adopted
it can then follow the procedural steps pioneered by Liechtenstein, imposing
limits on immigration from EEA states.
In terms of the quota system applied, it should be noted that, in the
Australian-style points system, only 23 percent of the migrants admitted come
under the points system. The overall limit set amounts to an arbitrary quota,
set annually – currently at 190,000. This is, by any measure, a quota system.
To that extent, the UK can have some of its cake and eat it. The
"Liechtenstein solution" potentially gives our negotiators far more
flexibility than at first imagined, and should help us reach an amicable
settlement with the EU, while keeping us in the Single Market.
The luvvies who took the stage on Brexit: Over 250 'cultural stars'
including Benedict Cumberbatch and Paloma Faith signed letter saying
leaving EU would make Britain 'less imaginative'
Artists, actors and musicians have signed warning letter in the Guardian
Letter says Britain is stronger, more imaginative and creative in Europe
Among signatories are Paloma Faith, Sam Taylor-Wood and Danny Boyle
Benedict Cumberbatch, Jude Law and Steve Coogan also join campaign
Margaret Thatcher would NOT have voted to stay in Europe
·Thatcher attacked the EU project as 'contrary to
British interests' in letter
·It was revealed by Tory MP Sir Bill Cash, who she
handed note to in 1993
·Told him to make note public if her opinion on
'European project' came up
·Her former secretary said she would back David Cameron's 'In' campaign
·
·Margaret Thatcher would have campaigned for
Britain to quit the EU, a loyal friend revealed last night as he released an
extraordinary letter (pictured) written 23 years ago by the former Prime
Minister
TIP 1: Next time you want to win an election don't accuse British working class people of being wankers, losers and/or stick two fingers up at us.Don't ever call us thick, saddoes and/or a bunch of racists.
TIP 2: Don't believe that the timely death of an MP and the view of their grieving spouse carries much sympathy, if any, with the electorate and influences how they vote - it clearly does not!
