Brexit, Ignorance and the Future

Give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt. (Juvenal)

            As an Anglo with pride in my heritage and love for my people, I favoured the Leave campaign. But there were so many pros, cons, and anomalies to be considered, a firm stance was difficult for me, beyond simply doing the opposite of what the establishment wanted. Still, I celebrated the result of the Brexit referendum, not realising at that time that democratic mandates are allowed no power if they clash with the interests of international finance, the true master of democracy.

            The strangest part of the referendum was the first weeks afterwards, which saw unrelenting waves of angry newscasters, bankers, and TV-puppets, attacking the result and denouncing the referendum. It was a remarkable feeling to go from being an outspoken critic of democracy to accepting a democratic mandate, against those who once used democracy as a mask of power, now throwing a tantrum like a child that did not get their desired Christmas present.

            The Remain campaign, so thoroughly internationalist and Left in spirit, in this fashion revealed their true colours, pushing ever more intense scaremongering propaganda. No longer disguised by the usual buzzwords of ‘healthy democracy’, ‘human rights’, or ‘right side of history’, their self-depiction as arbiters of morality cracked, to reveal hypocrisy and ignorance. This brings me to the topic I wish to discuss, using Brexit as a mouthpiece: Ignorance and how to deal with it.

            I do not believe the result was sufficient to mark out a sudden paradigm shift in the British political climate, nor the death of the EU (one can only hope). Rather, it is another sign that democracy, whilst based on solid principles, has too many flaws to be considered reliable.

            Both campaigns had support from those that were well educated on the topic, critically evaluating all relevant aspects of the two sides, with respect to an individual perspective, as well as a national perspective. Yet those were a stark minority, with a staggering amount of people lacking enough knowledge of the referendum’s subject for their vote to signify very much.

            It is a mystery to me how a vote from someone who has experience and consideration of the topic could ever be treated as equal to a vote from one of the many who don’t know the difference between the EU and the EEA, the contents of Article 50 of the TEU, or even having no idea what the EU is. (Yes, there are people like that, and no, I don’t know how it is possible. The second most popular search on google UK at the time of the referendum was “what is the EU”).

            Unfortunately, this faulty cog of ignorance is not self-correcting. Democracy will continue to flounder so long as people put their own interests before those of their race, their nation, their civilization. The further into mindless hedonism one falls, the more blind they are to the affairs of the world, but also to their increasing ignorance. Those occupied with the meagre existence of wage-slaving to pay unjustified taxes and buy items they don’t need cannot be expected to notice the ever-tighter collar being fitted on them, nor who is fitting it.

            Perhaps the 30% who abstained in the Brexit referendum did so because of an awareness that their lack of knowledge and experience diminished the value of their opinion. But I rather think they were just unwilling to face cold, bad weather, to leave the warm prison of TV indoctrination, filthy air, and the chemical cocktail we call ‘food’. Even so, current events and the rise of populism suggest a paradigm shift towards nationalism/civilizationism is approaching.

            If so, then death of the EU (and other globalist experiments) will come to pass –it is just a matter of how slow and turbulent that period will be. The relation of individual citizens and out of touch bureaucrats will become more and more stressed, leading to ever increasingly hostile conflicts of interest. As such, it’s no longer a matter of if the EU will crumble, but when. If I were a gambling man, I’d bet around 2050, when the demographic intifada peaks (more non-whites than Whites in the military) that the pressure reaches breaking point.

            With every milestone we secure, the people become more awakened from the mental disorder of liberalism, supporting more sensible policies instead, that actually consider the people and their interests – not those of international finance. But it’s not just a matter of waking people up and getting politicians to do what is right, rather than what is profitable. If that was the case, then the child raped in Austria, the Cologne sex attacks, the murder-rape of Maria Ladenburger and so on would have drastically changed the established narrative and policies.

            What did the ruling class actually do when these atrocities occurred? Those lords and ladies who are supposed to protect the people simply covered it all up, made excuses, and kept the people apathetic through ignorance-based damage control. Not to mention the restrictions on freedom of speech! Having enough people know the truth is quickly becoming a punishable offence that would spark a battle of attrition between police and protesters we might not win.

            I once had a riveting conversation with a surprisingly sympathetic official from the European Monetary Union about such matters. He stated that the decline and major failures of the EU is not the fault of its people, but rather its lack of strong leadership. A chariot pulled by 28 horses will go nowhere if there are none to lead the way, with each horse going whichever way they please. Some 500,000,000 Europeans act as if we have nothing to be proud of, no communities to defend, no one to support us, no power in the world or over others.

            Lacking proper guidance and pride, our young sit around playing video games rather than honing a craft, our pensioners do all they can to avoid the consequences of third world migration, and we entrust important affairs to (career) politicians without feeling the shame and outrage that should have already sparked several uprisings. But most shocking of all, Europe – home of the White man, oyster of the Faustian spirit and modern science – submits to the narratives of other continents and leaders, even third world shitholes and failed nations (if the Marrakesh pact is implemented).

            What then, can be done to correct this inverted and moronic state of affairs? Naturally, this is a very broad topic. In this article I have used Brexit as my mouthpiece, but political ignorance is prevalent in many cases across distinct times and places. The reason I sought to raise this question in the first place is that it envelops key points we must consider for the future. Despite their flaws, the Yellow Jackets have shattered the illusion that change is impossible, that we must simply endure the dictates of the establishment, with no way to secure our own goals. They also show that we are not as alone as the system wants us to think – there are far more brothers and sisters out there – potential comrades – who are just as tired of the bloated, anti-White system, and willing to do something about it! Such things are important to bear in mind and should be reflected in our political ambitions.

            What then, is the right position to take for our movement – what is the ideal system, the best possible approach we can implement? I am not sure. Most of what I know and have learnt came from others in the movement who took me under their wing and shattered my world-view, as is the case for a lot of us. We all have different backgrounds and parameters to consider, and thus I think we should deliberate the approach that is our definitive response to the modern world amongst ourselves. The intention behind this article is accordingly to inspire consideration of the premises and problems in the (meta-) political structuring of our current state, and the state we wish to achieve.

            Even so, I personally follow Codreanu’s prescription of the hero monarch. This elite is nothing like the treacherous, illegitimate parasites we call ‘elites’ today, nor could this position ever fester with the corruptions that stagnation and progressivism bring. The first corruption, of stagnation, comes from hereditary-based power systems, such as the stereotypical British monarchy, where one rules because they were born into the family. This leads to unjustified elitism, where children of powerful figures are placed on a pedestal simply for being born into an aristocratic family, yet are likely slovenly and nothing special themselves. When power becomes so illegitimate, it is reduced to a tool for the petty self-interest of such ‘elites’, rather than something that should be balanced, for the good of the people and nation.

            The second corruption, of progressivism, comes from election-based power systems, such as democracy, i.e. the mob-rule of the masses. Whilst this can be praised initially, as we see today it rapidly devolves into progress for the sake of progress. Rather than meaningful and desirable change, the most pressing agendas are simply passing fancies – the possibility for a man to mutilate his penis and pretend to be a woman, the de-stigmatising of ever more degenerate acts of debauchery, the endless pursuit of hedonism, much like the rat that kills itself for a bit more dopamine. But there is no specific philosophy behind this, no grand goal or raison d’être – only an endless search to find meaning where there is none.

            Social selection, the hero’s approach, stands against all this – it is between unjustified elitism and hollow mob agendas. Here rulers are rulers because they are the most suited and able to respect and uphold the customs and norms of their territory. They are the most capable on political, military, and leadership grounds to do right by the national genius; the expression of this genius is culture – international in its brilliance but national in origin. This is rather Evolian, with the political domain:

defined through hierarchical,heroic, ideal, anti-hedonistic and, to a degree, even anti-eudemonistic values that set it apart from the order of naturalistic and vegetative life. Authentic political ends are … connected to ideas and interest different from those of peaceful living, pure economics and physical well-being, pointing to higher dimension of life and a separate order of dignity (Julius Evola).

            To overcome the mess of modernity, we need nothing less than a hero. That hero would need such overwhelming power that (s)he could only come about through God, or not at all. A (wo)man against time with the potential and will to defeat the literal evil that holds such great control and influence in politics today. The closest we can get to this without an actual divine intervention is Codreanu’s monarchy ordered along the lines of social selection. Something that gives the people an ideal to strive towards whilst also elevating those most fit to rule to power.  Something that addresses and can deal with the corruption that has turned politics into the swamp we know it as today.

            This is what I think; but what do YOU think? If you are following this blog you no doubt already comprehend the issue of mindless hedonism. What do you think we should do about it?

The absolute ruler may be a Nero, but he is sometimes a Titus or Aurelius; the people is often Nero, but never Aurelius. (Antoine Rivarol)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.