The left couldn’t be more perturbed about the UK’s exit from the European Union this morning. President of the European Council Donald Tusk blustered, “That’ll have consequences, and I don’t believe other countries will be encouraged to follow that dangerous path.” German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel called Brexit a “bad day for Europe.” French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said he was “sad for the United Kingdom.” Paul Krugman of The New York Times complained:
The common takeaway from the left seems to be that Britain’s reversion to nationalism represents the rise of ethnic xenophobia and foreign policy isolationism. That’s largely because the left sees nationalism itself as an incurable evil. They believe, as Hannah Arendt once wrote, that “tribal nationalism…denies theoretically the very possibility of a common mankind long before it is used to destroy the humanity of man.” But they don’t see that not all nationalism is tribal – nationalism can also be civilizational. That is why Britain once embraced the EU, but now rejects it.

The EU was formed in the aftermath of World War II with the intent never to plunge the continent into war again – but it was also formed in opposition to the Soviet bloc threat in the East. It came into existence as part of the same movement that created NATO. In other words, Europeans decided that they required a common civilization to oppose another brutal civilization springing from the USSR. The culmination of the EU’s power came with the reunification of Germany as the Cold War ended.

Then, as the European Union website acknowledges, the EU was totally redefined: it became a “Europe without frontiers.” The EU implemented freedom of travel, the completion of the Single Market, and the creation of the Euro. In 2012, the EU won the Nobel Peace Prize as it redistributed wealth and opened its borders to Muslim refugees.


But no coalition can remain long once its underlying purpose has faded. British civilization had the same interests as the EU so long as the Soviet Union had to be fought; when the EU decided not to unify against the threat of Russian expansionism or Islamic terrorism – and even considered adding Turkey to the EU, which might have made sense in the anti-Soviet days, but made zero sense after the USSR’s destruction – the EU no longer made sense. Instead, its institutional weaknesses, once glossed over in favor of common interests, became the focal point of its existence: useless regulations, insipid financial policy, anti-democratic bureaucracies, immigration policy aimed at changing the civilizational demographics of a once-great Western force.

And so Britain left.

That should be no more controversial than the dissolution of the Whig Party after the rise of the Republican Party – it’s simply what happens when the founding principles of an organization fade away, and all that’s left of the organization is its structure. Nothing unifies the EU other than an internationalist leftism that ignores civilizational differences of all sorts. Civilizations seek to preserve themselves in the face of threats. British civilization is now seeking to preserve itself in the face of suicidal international leftism.

That doesn’t mean that Brexit doesn’t carry risks. The British population could decide in favor of isolationism economically and in terms of common defense, for example. But Brexit doesn’t have to foreshadow such action. The New York Times’ dire warning that “the collective imagination leads to dark places” seems rather hollow in light of their support for the same mass immigration policies and bureaucratic nonsense that has made Europe a darker place. Free trade and defense of Western civilization remain guiding principles in the UK. That’s perhaps the best reason for the UK to leave the EU – the latter no longer seems to be a moving force for the EU or the international left that runs it.

Baifra is next, I can't wait...

sLentlover7778:
Baifra is next, I can't wait...

The problem with Biafra is the elites from that region who are more comfortable with the corrupt system of leadership currently in action. They knew quite well that the people of the New Biafra will ensure the best is voted to power, they will demand accountability from them and wont accept misrule from them without being questioned. So they frustrate the agitation efforts of the ordinary Biafrans.
Biafrans if they are serious should be more strategic and civilized in their approach for Exit, the enlightened ones among them should use all legal instruments available in the world, not protesting and blocking the roads, giving the Nigerian securities forces reasons to reduce their numbers.

Mbeki:


The problem with Biafra is the elites from that region who are more comfortable with the corrupt system of leadership currently in action. They knew quite well that the people of the New Biafra will ensure the best is voted to power, they will demand accountability from them and wont accept misrule from them without being questioned. So they frustrate the agitation efforts of the ordinary Biafrans.
Biafrans if they are serious should be more strategic and civilized in their approach for Exit, the enlightened ones among them should use all legal instruments available in the world, not protesting and blocking the roads, giving the Nigerian securities forces reasons to reduce their numbers.

Good boy, you have spoken like a true African son. I feel you are a south African, well, Biafra is something for the common man and you know what happened in the UK is just a win for the man, because the so called elite were RELENTLESSLY against it. The same thing is about to happen to Biafra, the world is witnessing an unquenchable revolution and I tell you the next stop after America is Biafra.

Mbeki:


The problem with Biafra is the elites from that region who are more comfortable with the corrupt system of leadership currently in action. They knew quite well that the people of the New Biafra will ensure the best is voted to power, they will demand accountability from them and wont accept misrule from them without being questioned. So they frustrate the agitation efforts of the ordinary Biafrans.
Biafrans if they are serious should be more strategic and civilized in their approach for Exit, the enlightened ones among them should use all legal instruments available in the world, not protesting and blocking the roads, giving the Nigerian securities forces reasons to reduce their numbers.

You wrote beautifully and now decided to fck up big time bellow about Biafra.I bet you do not understand the forces behind the Biafra, the likes of Nnamdi Kanu. If there is one thing, it's the same carbon copy of Boko haram which is from the same globalist, the same anglozionist empire that wants to rule and control everyone's life but the little central power in nigeria has been fighting and winning this external forces since 1960 and very far from what the UK has just voted to get out from.

@sLentlover7778: if you compared Scotland refferandum to Biafra in Nigeria, then this will make more sense instead of comparing it to UK leaving EU which is just like AU not even Ecowas.

i have a strong feeling you are more open and well informed even though I support a refferandum in Nigeria but until every nook and cranny of the nation trully understands who our existential threat is and come together to fight them and win. It's after that each part of the country can trully enjoy any form of system, be it centralism, true federalism, communism/capitalism or even the democrazy.

You see , Boko haram is uniting the country more. If for anything, all those sent to the north to combat the anglozioist proxies were from all over the country particularly from East and Western part of the country. As a civilian, you may not know this but facts remain Boko haram is uniting the country even more. Nnamdi Kanu is also from the anglozoo-west. They had mis-calculated the break away their wish or a covert Berlin confference like. Where the Wahhabi saudi arabia terroris organization will over run the North and hand it over to Saudi Arabia and Nnamdi re-using Rwanda old ideology (a radio propaganda of 1994 that started a bloody war in Rwanda) to achieve the Eastern project and also deliver it to the anglozionist empire itself. All their policies have ended in total failure and now it's almost like back to the sender.. BREXIT.. A big dent to their ambition.


I am 100% sure the Yoruba leaders understand this very well but many of them are still puppets or have western installed puppets in them same with the Hausa. The Igbo as well. They are more vulnerable to this anglozionist empire. I tell you a very good example of Western puppet in this current admin is Saraki. In previous one, Ngozi. Holding or held a very strong position. There are many others too.. Even OBJ was a semi or full puppet, IBB was full time puppet. The only one that was not a puppet was Abacha and you saw how even after 20 years of his death the Corruption propaganda against him still continues. Yaradua too was not but died mysteriously in Saudi Arabia.

There are some questions we need to be asking GEJ.. why GEJ did not touch Yaradua's rosatom deal with Russia ?
Was GEJ threatened ? Could it be they also threatened Yaradua but he refused and met his sudden death in Saudi arabia, our existential threat. A permanent puppet to the same anglozionist empire?

These are intelligent questions we need to ask.