As I’m sure everyone knows, on June 23rd there will be a referendum in the UK concerning membership in the EU. Personally I support an end to Britain’s membership and the EU as a whole.
The Pro-EU side has been absolutely hysterical during the lead up to the June 23rd referendum. They’ve stated that Britain would fail economically but according to the Conservative energy minister unemployment will fall and wages rise if Britain leaves. She noted that big business is pro-EU because it desires cheap labour and couldn’t care less about native workers. She also noted that it is the young who will suffer most from EU membership. Good. For too long politicians have been focusing on short term goals for themselves as opposed to what is best for posterity and their kinfolk.
For young people the choice is clear. They can remain in the EU, tied to the Eurozone, unable to control migration, at the mercy of one of the greatest centralising forces we have seen in European history and continue to suffer from a democratic deficit that has already created civil unrest in mainland Europe.
Nor is the European Union good for workers’ rights.
Though the majority of anti-EU supporters seem to be on the right there are leftists included in their ranks as well. The Left Leave organization which is an anti-EU group made entirely of leftists. There are also Several minor leftist parties like the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition are anti-EU, and then there is Grassroots Out which has members from across the political spectrum including far left George Galloway. That is democracy and for those of you who are democratic than you should reject the EU as it is not. Denmark had to vote twice in order to pass the Maastricht Treaty while the same went for Ireland with regards to the Lisbon Treaty because the voters didn’t vote the “correct way” the first time around. How is that for democracy? Vote the “correct” way or else!
Being part of the European Union means that a nation’s laws are subservient to those of the greater union and this includes everything from fishing to how much power the head of state can hold. Those countries that try to change their own laws are condemned by the EU if they do not fit within its framework.
EU membership is, according to the pro-EU camp, supposed to make Britain and other member states safer but then goes ahead and undermines anti-terror laws in the name of “human rights” – even though this very same EU shows how little it cares for human rights when it accepts child marriage – and of course immigration. Apparently the EU thinks the best way out of migrant troubles is to bring MORE in; and their families. Denmark is promoting native births but this initiative is being done completely independent of the EU. Indeed, the EU seems more preoccupied with reducing native populations and importing as many third worlders as possible.
Then of course there is the specter of Turkish membership which is constantly hanging over the EU. This would be absolutely disastrous demographically for Europe. Turks have a far better replacement rate and membership would allow them to quickly fill up the continent. If Turkey ever joined – which in Britain at least many Europhiles support – then there could be over 100,000 coming into Britain annually. Lord knows how many would be going to areas like Germany and the Netherlands which have larger and more well established Turkish populations.
Moreover, the Turkish government wouldn’t become more effective at dealing with migrants. Sure they would make a show of stopping some but they wouldn’t in the end care to deal with the problem effectively. They know that these people are looking for the most gibsmedat and Germany and other EU members are the ones willing to do this; not Turkey. They are far to smart to do something so stupid.
The pro-EU side has made some absolutely ridiculous arguments concerning national defense too, stating that if Britain leaves then there could be a WW3! How absurd! Internationalists are well known for being the true users of fear tactics in order to cow people into accepting their treasonous positions.
Interestingly enough, the man who inspired the creation of the European Union, Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, did not intend for Britain to be part of a Pan-European federation (but more on him later).
When it comes to both Britain and the rest of the countries that make up the EU the greatest reason for leaving is the survival of the native ethnies of Europe. The European commission (which is the executive body of the EU) has stated it will punish financially those countries who refuse to take in migrants and EU membership means losing the ability for a country to have proper controls over immigration and do things like deport invaders. The EU seems to want to screw over Europe. EU vice president Frans Timmermans has said that Europe will become diverse and open to all others or there will be war. That sounds quite threatening doesn’t it?
The EU may be a continuation of the old European Economic Community (EEC) but its ideological underpinnings come from the Eurasian writer, politician and aristocrat Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi who I briefly mentioned earlier. His Pan-European Manifesto calls for mainland Europe and their colonies to form one union partly for economic reasons, partly to ensure peace in Europe (something many pro-EU activists bring up today is that the EU keeps the peace when in fact the US military is what keeps the peace in Europe) and partly so it can protect itself from any future Russian aggression. If it was purely because of those reasons than a European federation of sorts might not be a terrible thing. However, for Kalergi it was more than that. Kalegri was hardly the first to advocate such a union but he was the most active supporter and promoter of Pan-Europeanism and is often hailed as a father of the European Union,
He was the recipient of the first Charlemagne prize in 1950 and today the European Prize Coudenhove-Kalergi is awarded every two years to “leading personalities for their extraordinary commitment in the European unification process”. In addition to the Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize, the Europe Square in Austria, a gold Euro coin, an Austrian peace monument and stamp, the European anthem, and a Viennese Park, testify to Kalergi’s legacy as a major figurehead in the integration process of Europe. The Pan European Union continues to influence European unity to this day.
Kalergi’s plan was not limited to Europe however. He saw the world as being split into five mega-regions: Europe, the British Empire, America, the USSR and East Asia. Africa and the middle east were viewed as being part of Europe because they were controlled by a handful of European states. Kalergi hoped not only for a balance of power between these 5 entities but for them to all eventually come together as one federation, with Europe morphing into Eurafrica.
Kalergi wanted to dissolve centuries old nationalities and mix the races of the world claiming that,
The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and castes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.
Kalegri anticipated that Jews would be the leading group in this brave new world of his, primarily socialist ones because they were anti-capitalism and he believed they would create utopia on earth. He doesn’t seemed to have made any calls for them to be reduced to mere individuals.
The Pan-Europeanism of the European Union is meant as a stepping stone to a something larger and ultimately un-European.
Of course when one remembers that Kalegri was himself mixed race it becomes understandable why he was a huge proponent of miscegenation and brown-washing. In my experience mixed race individuals either choose one side or the other or they concoct for themselves a new internationalist identity. I can only imagine the feelings of loneliness and confusion these people feel – no wonder they are such supporters of promoting miscegenation; it means they won’t be so alone.
The EU has, however, deviated from Kalegri’s script in some ways. The mass movement of peoples was meant to be from Europe to Africa and not the other way around.
The idea of a European federation does not need to be anti-European, however. Sir Oswald Mosely and Richard Spencer are just two examples of prominent figures who have made calls for such an entity. Perhaps it could work though I am not entirely sure any sort of European federation could, even if it weren’t as broken as the current EU. We in the Americas and Australia are a mix of European groups and so for us we can have a Pan-European nationalism. I like to say those in the White Dominions are the real British because we are an actual mix of English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish while most Brits are descendants of people from their particular regions.
We can see from a recent Oxford University study there has been very little movement of peoples even within the small islands of Britain and Ireland since the 7th century AD. No doubt this is true of other European countries as well. Obviously all Europeans are White but with so little intermingling and thousands of years of tradition, it seems unlikely that they could come together in any way similar to what has happened in North America or Australia.
With a few exceptions there is no tradition of long term, sustained European unity. Most were not particularly long lasting with the Roman Empire being the most obvious exception. Moreover, these are all cases of one group coming to dominate the rest which hardly seems conducive of positive relations between Europeans.
Many Eurasianists and members of the French Nouvelle Droite speak of a European federation that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific; the so called Dublin to Vladivostok plan. However, from what I can gather this is essentially a form of Russian expansionism and unlikely to be any more successful than other attempts at dominance by one nation.
Perhaps a series of smaller regional federations would be the best way for Europe to move forward? Either way those who think war is a forgone conclusion without the European Union or that there could be no trade agreements without it are seriously lacking in imagination.
Britain leaving the EU does not mean an end of cultural marxism or White self-hatred but it does allow individual countries to scale back on migration and gives more chance of healthy discussions on immigration, culture, heritage, et al. It would also be a huge blow to internationalism and give other members a chance to leave as well, because its not just Brits who want out.
Perhaps in the future a federal structure could be created though personally I don’t see it as a necessity. However, if a federal Europe that isn’t anti-European does come into existence it won’t be a reformed version of the EU. It is far too rotten to ever be reformed and is better off dead.
However Turkish membership may not be happening any time soon. Germany recently voted to recognize the Armenian genocide which has seriously upset the Turks. They in turn have begun pissing off the Greeks (and no doubt other Orthodox members of the EU) by allowing Qu’ranic lessons in the Hagia Sophia which has been secularized since Ataturk’s day. Regardless, the prospect of Turkey joining is still alive and it would spell disaster to any European country that is a member of the EU.