Brexit: The Morning After – The New York Times

“Keep calm and grieve for Europe.” ~ Paul Krugman

Source: Brexit: The Morning After – The New York Times

Contra Krugman, I don’t see any good reason to “grieve for Europe”: as a historical and geophysical entity, Europe hasn’t changed, and from the perspective of cultural survival, it may have taken a turn for the better, especially if “exit” fervor spreads. What has taken a hit is the European Union project, attempting to, as Krugman points out, mandate political unity among historically and culturally diverse countries without giving much if any though to how — or whether — that would work out.

But that aside, this is a surprisingly (because “liberal” these days often equals “globalist,” and Brexit is an axe-stroke at the root of globalism as presently conceived: oligarchical, non-representative, bureaucratic, and top-down) cogent analysis of the UK’s “Brexit” from the European Union. Now it is true that, as Krugman (inter alia) points out, this vote has pointed to fault-lines within the UK itself, which could be problematic for the future of that Union. But that does not at all mean that Brexit itself was a bad idea! Krugman writes:

“It seems clear that the European project — the whole effort to promote peace and growing political union through economic integration — is in deep, deep trouble. Brexit is probably just the beginning, as populist/separatist/xenophobic movements gain influence across the continent. Add to this the underlying weakness of the European economy, which is a prime candidate for ‘secular stagnation’ — persistent low-grade depression driven by things like demographic decline that deters investment. Lots of people are now very pessimistic about Europe’s future, and I share their worries.

“But those worries wouldn’t have gone away even if Remain had won. The big mistakes were the adoption of the euro without careful thought about how a single currency would work without a unified government; the disastrous framing of the euro crisis as a morality play brought on by irresponsible southerners; the establishment of free labor mobility among culturally diverse countries with very different income levels, without careful thought about how that would work. Brexit is mainly a symptom of those problems, and the loss of official credibility that came with them.”

The EU has, simply put, gotten too big for its britches. It has expanded far beyond its original vision and mandate, to become oppressive: economically, politically, and socially. A majority — granted only 52 to 48%, but more than 17 million people — have said, “No. Enough. We will not follow where you want to go. We insist on our own sovereignty; we will not give it up into the hands of un-elected, un-accountable bureaucrats in Brussels.” And I, for one, applaud them for it!

One final point, before I close: I said Krugman’s analysis was cogent, and by and large that is true. But he does fall into certain traps common to folks on his side of the political aisle, and one of them is equating concern for the preservation of one’s culture and heritage with “xenophobia.” “Phobia,” like “racism” and “hate,” is a code-word and a political tactic used by the left to shut down dissent. Accuse someone of one of these, and you’ve (at least in your own mind) assumed the moral high ground, consigned your opponent to the “dust-bin of history,” and won the argument.

That, however, is a load of malarky.

While there may indeed be genuine racists, haters, and xenophobes (the word means “fear of the different”) among those who wish to protect, preserve, and pass down to their posterity the ethnic and cultural heritage they have received from their forebears, accusing every such person of one (or more) of these is both inaccurate and deeply offensive. You do not have to hate others to love your own.

As a popular meme puts it, “I lock the door not because I hate those outside, but because I love those inside.” If you feel under threat — and irrespective of whether that threat is actual or exaggerated — locking the door is neither racism, nor hatred, nor xenophobia, but common sense.

And of course it is ironic, to say no more, that Europeans (and those of European heritage, wherever they may live) — a group which is drastically on the decline, from 30% of the world’s population in 1900 to an estimated 8-10% by 2050, according to some projections — are the only group for whom pride in their heritage is considered, by the political and intellectual elite, to be blameworthy. By daring to point this out, I may also be opening myself to accusations of hatred, racism, or xenophobia! So be it. See “malarky,” above…

At any rate, it seems likely that although Britain was the first to leave the EU, it will not be the last — unless, of course, the existing power structure is able to quash the aspirations of the people, in which case they will only be postponing the inevitable and ensuring that the eventual explosion is that much larger and more damaging for having been contained. France, Holland, Italy, Austria, Finland, Hungary, Portugal, and Slovakia are all calling for referenda; it will be interesting indeed to see how things work out!

The Anglophilic Anglican on Brexit

Tom and the  Union Jack

Yes, that’s me behind that Union Jack overlay!

With respect to “Brexit,” it’s not my place to suggest a particular course of action to my British friends; I’m just an American of British ancestry and Anglophilic inclination watching this struggle from afar. (With, it must be said, acute interest, given that background!)

But for what little my opinion may be worth, it seems to me that the choice is very clear-cut: do you want to remain British, or do you want to become some new and nebulous thing called “European,” in the EU sense? (Obviously Britain is and will remain part of Europe in a geophysical and historical-cultural sense, I don’t think anyone’s arguing that point.)

If you want to become “European,” then vote “Remain.” If you want to stay British, vote “LEAVE.” There is certainly no shadow of a doubt in my mind what I’d do, if I were a Briton… there! I gave it away.

*whistles a few bars of “Rule Britannia,” and returns to my vantage-point on the sidelines*

Why leave the European Union?

“The moment of destiny has finally arrived.”

Source: Vote Leave today in EU Referendum – Brexit can make Britain greater | Express Comment | Comment | Daily Express

“The EU is not just undemocratic. It is an unaccountable, self-serving oligarchy that ruthlessly ignores or crushes the popular will in its drive to achieve political unification. None of the five EU Presidents is elected, nor are any of the 28 commissioners. The EU executive is so powerful that it can remove the democratically elected governments of Greece and Italy, yet its Parliament is so feeble that it cannot initiate any legislation.”

This infographic does a good job of breaking it down:

Democracy and Freedom Under Law 1Democracy and Freedom Under Law 2Democracy and Freedom Under Law 3Democracy and Freedom Under Law 4

Britain’s Independence Day? The Anglophilic Anglican on Britain’s EU referendum today

British Independence Day

My sentiments on the subject, as a non-Briton of largely British ancestry?

The referendum on whether to “Remain” or whether to ‪#‎Leave‬ the European Union isn’t, or shouldn’t be, about partisanship, or how one feels on a specific issue, no matter how important that issue may be. It’s not about liking or disliking this or that political party, or political figure. It’s not about whether you think Labour, or the Conservatives, or UKIP, or even the Greens would do a better job of governing the UK.

It’s about whether the British people will remain independent and free to hash out such matters between and among themselves, or whether they will be subject to external authority and decisions made by people who may well not have their best interests at heart. It’s about British sovereignty versus serfdom to powerful European interests. That’s why I hope and pray the vote is “Leave”!

This meme says it well, I think:

Referendum not about outcomes

Work begins to try to save Christianity’s holiest shrine: Jesus’ tomb – The Washington Post

They are trying to save the holiest site in Christendom: “We don’t know what we will find.”

Source: Work begins to try to save Christianity’s holiest shrine: Jesus’ tomb – The Washington Post

“The work will finally begin, and it is past time,” said the Rev. Peter Vasko, president of the Franciscan Foundation for the Holy Land.

“The place is falling apart,” he said.

Vasko recalled the first time he prayed over the covered tomb as a young priest and trembled with the realization, “I am not worthy.”

“This is the real thing,” Vasko said. “It is not a holy place. It is the holy place.”

Happy Birthday, Prince William!

12794550_1044822902225402_4593116783589307319_n

Wishing His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Aide-de-camp to Her Majesty The Queen a very happy 34th birthday. And many joy-filled and blessed returns of the day! Long live His Royal Highness, Prince William!

Commentary: Dovetailing agendas – reflections on sexuality, immigration, families, and economics

The recent massacre, by a (perhaps repressed-homosexual) Islamic terrorist of 49 people in an Orlando nightclub catering to the LGBT population of the area has served as, in the words of one commentator, a “Rorschach test” for some of the issues dividing Americans today, including homosexuality, immigration (although American-born, he was the son of Afghan immigrants), and Jihadism (Islamic extremism, militant Islam, etc.).

As is always the case with tragic events, this has brought out some of the best, and some of the worst, in the people of this country. It has also sparked, or helped to coalesce, a number of thoughts for me, personally.

Let me start by saying that I have quite a number of LGBT friends, many of whom I love dearly, regardless of what they might do in the bedroom. And furthermore, as Christians, we are called a) to remember that we all are sinners, and b) to love one another as we love ourselves, and as Christ loved us. So I have zero tolerance when it comes to bashing people, verbally or (especially) otherwise, for their sexual proclivities.

That said, from a political perspective, it occurs to me that supporting and promoting homosexuality is useful to those who want to “transform society”: not only for its own sake, by making what used to be seen as deviant behavior appear normal, but also because it serves as a form of social birth control, helping to bring down the population, and providing still more openings for the importation of third-world “migrants” to achieve the liberal ideal of a fully “blended” society. (We have also been taught for years that reducing population is an ecological necessity, but that’s a subject for another post.) In fact, the non-procreative nature of homosexual behavior is probably one of the reasons why it has been frowned upon by most societies throughout the world, and throughout history.

And of course the “sexual revolution” as a whole — which decoupled (no pun intended) sex from procreation, and turned it into a solely elective, recreational activity — had, and continues to to have, the same effect. A sentiment I hear expressed time and again on the net, and sometimes in person, is that “sex is just sex”: something to do with your spare time, a recreational activity, not a sacred duty and trust, intended for the strengthening of the bond between two intimate partners – namely, the husband and wife in a marriage relationship – and the procreation of children within that marriage.

While it’s not generally thought of as a “liberal” contribution, the loss of a living wage has also had a deleterious effect on families and child-bearing. It used to be that a single wage-earner could reasonably be expected to support his (usually) or her family, but that is no longer the case. With both parents working, there is less incentive to have children, and less opportunity for any children one does have to be formed in and by traditional family and societal values. As I say, this isn’t a strictly “liberal” policy, but it’s surely an effect of “neoliberal” economics!

Meanwhile, the “ideal” of the “career woman” has been praised to the heavens, while “stay at home moms” get sneered at. To cap that, we are informed that “well-behaved women rarely make history.” Well, that may (or may not) be true, but they certainly do make for stable, loving, and committed relationships, families, and homes, which in turn are the foundation of a stable society — and that is perhaps rather more important, in the overall scheme of things!

Anybody besides me starting to see a pattern, here…?

And of course, on a different but still related subject, the fewer guns that are in the hands of ordinary, law-abiding citizens who still believe in the Constitution and American values, customs, and traditions, the less meaningful will be any resistance to these policies. If governmental and non-governmental forces seem aggressive in their social-transformation policies now, imagine what they would be like if they were not at least somewhat restrained by the knowledge that there are up to 77 million armed American citizens!

I am becoming increasingly aware of, and appalled by, the way so many of these allegedly “liberal” ideas and policies dovetail together. Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer for what to do about it. But I will say that recognizing and facing up to the problem is an important first step!