Defending a fantasy

Trafalgar

Liberals are still whining about the Brexit vote, as though the EU is a benevolent institution that opposes racism. They admit that the EU participated in the destruction of Greece, but Greeks are lazy bums, right? And yes, the EU participated in the destruction of Libya and Syria, but who cares about those rag-heads and sand niggers?

The EU is pro-corporate, pro-banker, pro-austerity, and pro-neoliberalism, but we’re talking about racism, which is worse than any of these. Right? True, neoliberalism causes poverty, which exacerbates racism. And true, the EU’s imperialistic wars create immigrants, but dammit, the EU is worth fighting for because it opposes racism! (Actually it doesn’t, but that’s beside the point.)

must be good

Some liberals say the Brexit was wrong because there should be no such thing as national borders. These clowns share the communist delusion that there should be no such thing as borders, or nations, or private property, so that everyone is equal (except for party bosses and high ranking bureaucrats who are more equal than others).

Neoliberalism is all about ownership and mass privatization. However communists go to the other extreme. It just doesn’t work. (I favor a balance. Some things should be privately owned such as your house, your car, or your body, while other things should never be privately owned, such as banks, police, prisons, utilities, the military, and so on.)

These pro-EU creeps will get their wish when the TTIP is enacted, since national sovereignty will be pushed aside by corporate sovereignty. This will plunge most humans into deeper poverty than ever.

Some liberals agree that the Brexit was the right vote, but they say it was wrong because it was done for the wrong reasons. It was right, but it was wrong. That’s how muddled they are.

Look at the girl below. She protests in favor of the EU, and against nationalism, while she wears a Danish flag on her face to proclaim her nationalism. She calls for democracy, while she defends the European Commission and European Central Bank, which are opposed to democracy, and are staff by unelected bureaucrats.

Danish

How can she be so idiotic and conflicted? Answer: She’s young, white, and comfortable enough to live in a self-righteous dream world, where imperialism and neoliberalism are trivial concerns. A world where she can be a nationalist or an internationalist according to her mood. She doesn’t care about immigrants. If she did, then she would put more energy into opposing imperialistic war (which creates immigrants) than she does in defending the imperialistic EU. She protests because it’s fun. She finds it amusing to talk about doing away with national borders, as long as she doesn’t have to personally experience the consequences.

She does not defend the EU. She defends a fantasy EU.

Most of these protesters don’t even understand what they are defending. They think the EU is democratic because the European Council and European Parliament consist of elected people. However these two bodies have very little power, and they write no laws. All the power rests with the European Commission and the European Central Bank, whose bureaucrats are not elected.

Unlike these creeps, I am genuinely pro-immigrant, because I oppose the wars and the neoliberalism that creates immigrants. For me, all immigrants are refugees from one kind of war or another. But before we throw open all the doors permanently, let’s first correct what reduced them to refugees. If they are desperate, then yes, let them in. But if we go overboard, then we will further enable the continued creation of refugees.

SIGN 2a

Some reader comments I have seen…

[1] I always thought that “union” meant “we’re all in it together,” but the EU’s treatment of Greece as an economic “partner” was despicable.

[2] It’s possible that the EU had democratic potential at its birth, but today it’s just another neoliberal/neocon structure to administer the global capitalist empire.

[3] I heard that the anti-Brexit buffoons in Trafalgar Square were holding hands and signing the Beatles song, “Hey Jude.” Did any of the bankers join them? Talk about useful idiots!

[4] The middle class and poor of Europe are worse off today than they were a generation ago. Despite whatever good intentions there may have been in the beginning, the EU experiment has not been  good for average people. And now, as a facilitator of NATO expansion eastward, the EU is helping to drive the world toward nuclear war.

[5] These protesters would rather be permanent wage slaves to unelected neoliberal corporate elites, and cannon fodder for the neocon’s military arm, NATO, than live free under a real democracy. Brexit is the first meaningful counterattack in four decades against the evils of the neoliberal/neocon conspiracy. Hopefully it’s just the first step in the disintegration of both the EU and NATO, which are barriers to economic equality and world peace.

ECB

Time for your daily helping

bullshit 01

Boy I’ve seen some steaming piles before, but this is a piping hot mountain.

Washington Post columnist Alan Sloan writes about the “dire state of Social Security’s finances.”

I went on a family vacation that included two of my grandchildren. Spending time with them got me thinking how important it is that Social Security be there for their generation. So I looked at the trustees’ annual report and, sure enough, on Page 163, I found the numbers I was looking for. They showed that the Treasury has had to borrow more than $200 billion from investors over the past three years to keep Social Security’s retirement and disability checks from bouncing.

Like I said, a piping hot mountain. I presume that this clown is referring to the so-called “national debt,” which has nothing to do with the “sustainability” of Social Security. These bastards never stop lying. Notice how he claims to have found “evidence” to justify his bias.

bullshit 03

The report doesn’t say this outright. In fact, if you do a superficial read, it looks like the system is doing better than ever, because its trust fund — its supposed reserve to meet future shortfalls — is the biggest it’s ever been.

There is no “trust fund.” In order to pay Social Security benefits to you, the U.S. government simply instructs your bank to change the numbers in your account, thereby creating money out of thin air. SS benefits do not come from taxes or China or bankers or investors.

The key to understanding why Social Security is in financial trouble today — not when its alleged trust fund runs dry in 2030-something, but today — is that the interest the trust fund collects on its holdings doesn’t help the government cover the cost of the benefits it shells out.

That’s because the trust fund’s only assets are Treasury securities. And the Treasury pays interest on those — $93 billion last year, $294 billion over the past three years — by giving the fund Treasury securities, not cash.

He’s saying that the mythical “trust fund” is the money that investors (including the U.S. government itself) have deposited in Federal Reserve savings accounts. Nonsense. He also says that the interest paid on T-securities is not money, but more T-securities!

There’s a lot more excrement in his post, but that’s all that I can stomach for one day.

bullshit 02

A profound mystery

Let’s see if you can figure this out.

We know that the U.S. government is “broke,” since money is physical, and is therefore limited. Right?

I mean, it’s not like the U.S. government can create money out of thin air, simply by changing the numbers in bank accounts.

This is why there is no money for something like universal social security.

Now suppose I won a lottery prize of $200 million. That much money in hundred-dollar bills would weigh 2.2 tons. I presume that the money would be loaded onto a dozen armored cars, and delivered to the bank of my choice. I could then access that money using a debit card.

Here is the profound mystery…

If money is physical, then how does the bank manage to squeeze 2.2 tons of money into one of those little plastic cards?card

An oppressive institution

If a nation has a trade deficit, and cannot create its money out of thin air, then the nation will have ever-increasing debt, poverty, austerity, inequality, unemployment, and privatization.

There are no exceptions to this rule. None. Never.

France has a trade deficit, and cannot create its money out of thin air. Therefore, as seen in the chart below, an average of 2.011 billion more euros flow out of France each month than come into France. This means that France must borrow an average of 2.011 billion more euros each month. France goes 2.011 billion euros deeper into debt each month.

France 01

Why has Greece been destroyed, but not France? Actually France is being destroyed, but the damage has not been as obvious (yet) because the French economy (i.e. GDP) is 12.4 times bigger than the Greek economy. So it’s taking longer for France to be reduced to a wasteland. But France will eventually become Greece.

Like I said, no exceptions.

If 2.011 billion euros leave France each month, then where do those euros go? Thirty percent of them (603 million euros) go to the bankers who lend to France. The rest go to Germany (19.5 percent), Belgium (11.3 percent), Italy (7.6 percent), Netherlands (7.4 percent), Spain (6.6 percent), UK (5.1 percent), and China (4.9 percent). These nations are the top sources of goods and services imported into France. The share of money going to the bankers keeps increasing. France’s debt-to-GDP is 95% and rising. Soon it will hit 100%, at which point France will only exist to pay the bankers.

France has no money to pay the bankers. (France has to borrow another 2.011 billion euros each month.) Therefore France will pay like Greece pays: via waves and waves of privatization. France will sell give its public assets to bankers and rich people.

Now let’s look at Germany. In the charts below there is no red zone, since Germany enjoys a trade surplus that is huge and getting bigger all the time. The charts show that Germany is getting richer by 16.2 billion euros per month (on average), and the amount keeps accelerating. That money is sucked from the rest of Europe (especially France), although Germany also trades with China, the USA, and other nations.

France 02

And since the European Central Bank is located in Frankfurt, the state of Germany effectively rules Continental Europe. This is why Germany has always been the loudest champion of the euro scam. The euro lets Germany be a debt parasite on the rest of Continental Europe.

The media outlets all praise the euro, since the outlets are owned by the rich, who love debt parasites. Indeed most rich people are themselves debt parasites.

Politicians in the rest of Europe know all this, but bankers and rich people bribe them to keep using the euro. Politicians accept bribes to destroy their own nations.

The U.K. does not use the euro, and is therefore not ruled by the European Central Bank (ECB). However the UK is part of the European Union, which includes the ECB.

The point is that the E.U. is an oppressive institution. It helps rich people and some states (like Germany), but it causes average people to become poorer each day.

There are 28 nations in the EU, of which 19 (almost two thirds) use the euro, which is the glue that keeps the entire neoliberal nightmare from unraveling. Of the remaining 9 nations, seven are required to adopt the euro at some point.  Required. (Denmark and the UK are not required.) Thus, the nightmare will continue to expand.

Is there any way that the euro-zone could be improved? Yes, if the ECB gave money directly to member nations, instead of only giving money to bankers who lend to member nations. In that case the euro-zone would need a common finance minister. However this would checkmate much of Germany’s privileges as a debt-parasite. Greece would be freed from German tyranny. This is why Germany’s Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble is staunchly opposed to creating a common finance minister.

Most people are too stupid to see any of this, because it is so simple. Children can understand it, but most adults cannot. Or will not.

referendum 02

Facts vs. labels

Lies told by the corporate media outlets have a two-tiered structure. The surface level contains assertions that are debatable. Beneath it is an underlying level that consists of labels and buzzwords which provoke emotional responses. The underlying level is the important one. It is the engine of the lie.

Suppose I claim that, “Moammar Ghaddafi was a brutal dictator who slaughtered his own people.”

This claim has two levels. The underlying level consists of the label “brutal dictator.” It is designed to provoke an emotional response. The superficial level consists of “kills his own people.” This is a claim about someone’s actions.

What’s important is the underlying label, not the superficial claim. The engine of the lie is what someone supposedly is, not what he allegedly did.

Did the brutal dictator slaughter his own people? If so, how many? These questions can be debated, but they are not important. The important thing is the label of “brutal dictator.”

People believe the label of what someone is (“brutal dictator”) but they may not believe claims about what someone does (“slaughter his own people”).

By adopting the labels that are fed to them, PEOPLE BELIEVE EVERY CRUCIAL LIE THAT THE CORPORATE MEDIA OUTLETS TELL THEM, while they imagine that they do not, since they question the superficial claims.

Yes he is a brutal dictator, but I don’t believe he has slaughtered ten million people.”

It does not matter. All that matters is that you adopted the label, which is the core and the essence of the lie. You may debate the surface claims all you want, but if you believe the underlying label, then you believe the only part of the lie that is important.

So-called “anti-war” people concede that, “Yes he is a brutal dictator, but…”

In this way they become pro-war. After all, we do not make war on someone because of what he does, but because of what he is. Who cares that he did not slaughter people? All we care about is that he is a “brutal dictator,” and must therefore be destroyed.

Society allows people to debate someone’s alleged actions (“Did he really slaughter his own people?”) but not to question society’s labels (“brutal dictator”).

“Of course he’s a brutal dictator. That’s common sense” (since most people believe the bullshit label).

When people make statements, they protect themselves by first agreeing with a label. “I don’t deny that he is a brutal dictator, but…”

In doing this, they immediately concede the entire debate, while they delude themselves that they have “won.” They voluntarily lose the argument, and then they wonder why the other side will not listen to their reasons. Why should the other side listen? The other side won the instant we adopted the other side’s labels.

To repeat, the effectiveness of media lies depends not on what someone allegedly does, but on what he allegedly is. And what he allegedly is depends what he is labeled.

Once you are labeled “evil,” all of your actions, no matter how kind and compassionate, will be “evil.” Your sheer goodness will be “proof” of your “evil.” When the German National Socialists passed laws against all forms of animal cruelty, the Jews condemned this as “evil,” since it was part of the (mythical) “holocaust.” How? Who cares? All that matters is that the Germans were “evil.” If you question this label, then you too are “evil.” To question a label is to be labeled.

Where am I going with this?

I just read some blog posts that purportedly defended the “leave” vote in the “Brexit” referendum, but which actually defended the “remain” side, because they adopted the “remain” side’s labels.

The blog posts agreed that the “Leave” people were “racists and ugly xenophobes,” but the blog posts defended the Leave vote nonetheless. In accepting the false labels of the “remain” side, they inadvertently attacked the Leave vote.

Many Britons voted to Leave because they have been impoverished by EU dictates, or because they don’t like being ruled by unelected bureaucrats in foreign nations, or because they are tired of austerity and neo-liberalism.

None of this matters. The only thing that matters is that they are “racists and ugly xenophobes.”

It does not matter what they do. All that matters is what they are. And what they are depends on what they are labeled (“racists and ugly xenophobes”).

What matters is not facts, but labels.

And so, once again, by adopting bullshit labels, PEOPLE BELIEVE EVERY CRUCIAL LIE THE CORPORATE MEDIA OUTLETS TELL THEM.

At this point the liars try to trap me like this…

THEM: Do you deny that the Leave people are racists and ugly xenophobes?

ME: I’m not interested in your labels. Tell me about the alleged actions of the Leave people that makes them racists and ugly xenophobes.

THEM: They complain about immigrants.

ME: That does not make them racists. If a nation has no borders, then it is not a nation. The UK is an island nation. Do you deny that Britons should be able to decide on their own immigration policy?

THEM: They’re still racists and ugly xenophobes.

ME: You ignored my question and simply repeated your labels. You scream “racism!” because it is a label that absolves you from having to think, and from having to prove anything. Do you claim that British people are more racist than are other people?

THEM: I’m not making comparisons. I am—

ME: Repeating your bullshit labels, so you don’t have to answer yes or no. What do you think is more important, the freedom to vote on the laws of your country, or the freedom of immigrants to move into your country? If you think the second is more important, than why should we have countries and borders in the first place?

THEM: I’m not here for a long-winded philosophical discussion. I’m here to—

ME: Repeat your bullshit labels. I get it.

People adopt a herd mentality based on labels, not facts. They go to war based on labels. In 1990 the US government said Iraq must be destroyed because Iraqis were throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait. When this lie was exposed as a hoax, it did not matter. All that mattered was the label of Iraqis as “evil Muslims.”

The label “Nazi” has become synonymous with evil. What the National Socialists actually did or didn’t do is irrelevant. When you are “evil,” everything you do is “evil.” Everything you don’t do is “evil.” Every aspect of you is “evil.” The way you tie your shoes. The way you butter your toast. The way you scratch your scalp. It is all “evil.” It is all part of the mythical “holocaust.”

Likewise, since the Leave people are “racists and xenophobes,” everything they do, no matter how trivial, is “racist and xenophobic.” Everything they do to prove that they are not racists and xenophobes is more “proof” that they are “racists and xenophobes,” since they are just trying to hide their “evil.”

If we want to “question authority,” then we must start by questioning the labels that authority figures feed us.

Example: Instead of believing that label affixed to Bashar al Assad (he is a “brutal dictator”) ask for proof of what Assad has actually done. Most people will simply repeat the label.  “How do I know he is a dictator? Because he is.”

When you read a news article, pay attention to the labels used. They will almost always be bullshit.  Ignore what people supposedly are, and ask what they allegedly do.

For example, every time an Israeli slaughters a child, the Israeli claims that his victim was a “human shield.” That’s a label. The Israeli will not explain what the child or what other adults did that made the child a “human shield,” because those lies can be challenged.

The human mind thinks in labels. Society runs on labels. People kill each other because of labels. So, when anyone attacks the “Leave” people with labels (“they are racists!”) you can be sure that the attackers are hate-filled morons.

They’re at it again

expressIn the wake of the Brexit vote, the “big three” credit rating agencies (Moody’s, Fitch, and Standard & Poor’s) have downgraded British “gilts” (i.e. Treasury securities) from “AAA” to “AA.”

What does this mean?

Absolutely nothing, since there is no actual change to the credit worthiness of British T-securities.

There is no change because the U.K. government creates its spending money out of thin air, including the money to pay interest on T-securities.

Hence the downgrade is arbitrary and political. It makes no difference to anything in the world. (This would not be the case if the UK government could not create its money out of thin air.)

Investors know this. That’s why they ignore these meaningless credit downgrades. If the downgrades meant something, and if British gilts (T-securities) really were increasing in risk, then their interest yield would go up, since investors want a bigger reward for a bigger risk. But the Bank of England has lowered the interest rates it pays on gilts to historic lows.

Therefore it’s all irrelevant. Nonetheless the corporate media outlets report it as ominous, because they are angry about the Brexit vote. They want people to think a disaster is imminent.

Examples…

Disaster as U.K. credit rating is cut

UK stripped of its prized AAA credit rating

Ratings agencies downgrade UK credit rating after Brexit vote

The UK just got hit with 2 downgrades

S&P strips UK’s AAA credit rating on Brexit vote

Hate 01These are the same ultra-corrupt agencies that rated worthless derivatives “AAA” in order to prop up the bankers’ scam during the U.S. housing bubble.

William J. Harrington was a Senior Vice President in the Moody’s derivative products group, which was responsible for producing many of the fradulent ratings that Moody’s issued during the U.S. housing bubble. Harrington says that Moody’s is utterly corrupt, and he explained why in 78-page “comment” to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Moody’s, Fitch, and S&P are bribed by the banks whose securities they are supposed to objectively rate. This corruption pervades every aspect of Moody’s operations. It makes everyone at the company give bankers the ratings that bankers want, lest the bankers take their business to other corrupt ratings agencies.

The corruption is so pervasive that it renders Moody’s ratings useless at best, and harmful at worst. It’s the same with Fitch and S&P.

Everyone knows this. And yet the corporate media outlets continue to echo the corrupt agencies’ lies. No one from the corrupt ratings agencies ever goes to jail, or is even charged. And no one talks about breaking up the credit rating cartel.

racistThe rating agencies were originally research firms. They were paid by people looking to buy bonds or make loans to a company. If a rating company did poorly in its ratings, it lost business. If it did poorly consistently, it went out of business.

This changed in 1975 when a group of seven ratings agencies bribed the Securities and Exchange Commission to create a cartel. The SEC ruined a perfectly viable business construct by mandating that all debt be rated by a “Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization” (NRSRO) consisting of seven ratings companies that over time were reduced to the “big three.”

The SEC was bribed to create a monopoly that excluded (non-corrupt) competitors. You can’t become a “nationally recognized” rating agency when all debt must by law be rated by the “big three.”

Previously, debt buyers paid ratings companies to know what they were buying. After the SEC created the corrupt cartel in 1975, debt sellers paid the ratings companies to deliver an arbitrary score that enhanced sales.  Naturally the sellers (banks) shopped around to around to see which company was the most corrupt, and would give their securities the highest rating.

So if you want to sell fraudulent garbage, all you have to do is pay the rating companies enough money to declare your garbage gold. When the City of Chicago wanted to sell junk bonds, Moody’s would not give the bonds a sufficiently high rating for investors to be interested. Therefore Chicago went to Kroll Inc., a risk consulting firm in New York City, and paid the company to give the junk bonds a higher score. (The score was informal, since Kroll is not a formal rating company.)

myth realityHow could we eliminate this problem? How could we end the corruption? Easy. We simply revoke the SEC rules and regulations that declare which company is a “Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization.”

In any industry (narcotics, banking, pharmaceuticals, or whatever) evil cartels are created and maintained by government rules that are written by bribed politicians and bureaucrats. Change the rules, and the cartels fall apart.

Moody’s, Fitch, and the S&P should have to sink or swim by the accuracy of their ratings, just like everyone else. Ratings would become truthful if corporations had to live or die by them.

This brings up a broader topic. Neoliberal assholes constantly talk about “free markets,” but genuine free market competition is the last thing they want. They are focused on creating cartels and monopolies in order to eliminate free markets.  

Hate 00The “free trade” treaties (TPP, NAFTA, TTIP, TiSA, etc) are designed to eliminate free trade.  They establish, by law, the power of existing cartels and monopolies, thereby keeping out  competitors. They will also replace national sovereignty with corporate sovereignty.

Among the most educated Britons, the TTIP was their chief reason for voting “leave” in the Brexit referendum. And yet the corporate media outlets claim that the “Leave” people on average had less education than the “remain” assholes.

As with all corporate lies, this is the opposite of the truth.

Voices from the U.K.

NYT2The Brexit is only an “advisory” referendum, which means it is not legally binding, and the U.K. parliament can  ignore it.

The process of leaving does not begin until the prime minister officially invokes Article 50 of the European Union’s governing treaty. So he or she could continue as if the vote had never happened. This is referendums 2what the corporate media outlets are urging Cameron to do. Ignore the will of 17.4 million Britons who voted to leave.

Actually most referendums in Europe are “advisory,” which is why politicians so easily ignore them.

However they can be symbolically important. The “leave” vote is important enough to have infuriated right-wing elitists, along with covert neoliberals (i.e. faux “leftists”).

British columnist Martin Kettle is enraged. He says the UK should outlaw referendums.

The referendum is now the weapon of choice for populist parties of left and right.  The European Council on Foreign Relations pointed out today that populist parties around Europe now propose a total of 32 referendums on issues ranging from EU membership to refugee quotas.

Got that? Democracy is now a “weapon of choice.”

After what we have experienced in the past month, we need political reform more than ever. But the verdict on referendums should be a ruthless one. Never again.

Can you believe this bastard?

One trick the neoliberal elitists might use is to blame everything on the Scots.

The House of Lords said in an April report that any decision to exit the European Union would have to be approved by the Parliaments of Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. Wales supported a Brexit, but 52% of Northern Irish voters and 62% of Scottish voters did not. The governing Scottish National Party has pledged to take any available measures to remain in the EU.

Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister of Scotland, has suggested that her Parliament could withhold consent.

So the U.K,. parliament could simply ignore the referendum, continue to impoverish the masses, and blame everything on Scotland or Northern Ireland. Sweet!

Or the U.K. parliament could order another referendum, and make sure it is rigged this time, so that the peasants vote “correctly.”

Covert Neoliberals

Right-wing neoliberals are join by covert neo-liberals, or faux leftists, which include people like Dean Baker of the “progressive” Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC, who says,

The push for Brexit was driven by nationalistic, xenophobic and racist sentiments. There is no point in putting a pretty face on it.

Wrong. The “leave” victory in the Brexit vote was not about racism. It was about inequality, unemployment, and voter exclusion from politics. If you were comfortable, you voted remain. If you were uncomfortable, you voted leave.

bus 01

The only thing worse than a racist is a liberal who falsely brands others as racists.

Faux leftists are deformed mutants who have totally sold out to the right wing and its neoliberal, imperialist, warmongering goals. An example is Zoe Williams who calls herself a “progressive” and a feminist…

When Marine le Pen and Donald Trump celebrated the “leave” victory, it was like being punched in the face. They are racists, authoritarian, small-minded, and backward-looking. They embody the energy of hatred. The principles that underpin internationalism – cooperation, solidarity, unity, empathy, openness – these are all just elements of love.

Got it? The destruction of Greece was an element of “love.” Neoliberalism and debt slavery are elements of “love.” Ever-worsening inequality is an element of “love.” NATO’s destruction of Libya, and its proxy war against Syria, are elements of “love.”

Let me share some statements by Britons who voted to leave…

cameron 01I want a stable UK where people from all counties across the UK are heard, and not fed scraps from the south. The charge of racism is an insult. It is used to smear the people who live with the consequences of the decision makers in London who constantly roll the shit downhill. There is no sign of a recession in London. The city has alienated itself from the rest of England.

Britons in the northern and eastern sections of the U.K. feel that London and the southwest parts live in a bubble, and don’t care about the rest of the U.K.

I want a sense of job security. I do not want to feel that if I am not willing to work ten hours a day, seven days a week, then I can be easily replaced by a foreigner.

agony4This is not “xenophobia.” It is a product of the neo-liberal race to the bottom.

Society is reflected in the people who access mental health services, which I have worked in for thirty years. The biggest issue today is that people feel disconnected in society. I haven’t seen any EU benefits to mental health at all.

The EU seems to be run by Germany. Angela Merkel decided to allow a million migrants into Germany, breaking EU law, and not consulting the German Bundestag. Germany destroyed Greece and is offering expedited negotiations to let Turkey into the EU. The EU is not accountable. It does not consult. It is not a union.

The more you actually listen to people’s complaints, the more the charge of “racism” weakens.

I used to be pro-EU, feeling that Europeans had a better standard of living than us. However I became disillusioned as the EU expanded to include countries like Romania. I can’t see how being in a union with failed states benefits us.  

FREEDOMIt’s all about bringing every European nation under the heel of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, and unelected bankers in Frankfurt.

In the run-up to the vote, I was shocked by how much the establishment provided only pro-remain viewpoints. They all warned of disaster if we voted to leave. They went so far overboard in this that they became obvious to even the slowest among us.

I was insulted by politicians in the U.K. and across Europe who said we were not “educated” enough to decide our own fate. Chief among them is Jean-Claude Juncker, the unelected head of the European Commission. The wrong people are in charge of an economic and political system that no longer allows decent people to rise through the ranks.

refugees 02Immigration would not be such a problem if the UK built homes and infrastructure, and trained adequate doctors, nurses and essential workers. But politicians are deliberately creating scarcity. Consider housing, where politicians are helping landlords reduce everyone to tenants while demand for homes continues to be stoked by immigration, pushing up rents and making us poorer by the day. We are being returned to serfdom. The government and the Bank of England are pushing us down, and this vote was the only way we had to hit back at them.

Poverty. Austerity. Anxiety. Inequality. If you complain about any of these, you are a “racist.”

For me it was about sovereignty; the ability to make our own decisions and not be ruled by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. I did not like being marched into ever-more-oppressive super-state that no one ever sought my opinion over. Even if the economy falters, we needed to regain control of our country so we can once again make our own decisions and take action to rectify the problems. It was about regaining a say into our own destiny.

“Nazi!”

I want an independent Britain that trades and lives peacefully with its European neighbors, but is not ruled by them. I want a government that listens to the needs of ordinary people and not just those of the middle class elite in London.

“Xenophobe!”

refugees 01As a senior citizen, I resented how the pro-remain people said my vote to leave was selfish and of less value than a young person’s vote. They said I owed something to young people, and that I should think about their future. Well, I did think about their future. I wanted a future in which a free and independent nation was again able to make its own decisions unencumbered by Brussels. Younger people even suggested that we seniors should not be allowed to vote. So much for democracy.

“Fascist!”

I voted “leave” to support the UK fishing industry. The EU sets a quota for the maximum amount of fish that can be taken out of UK territorial waters. UK fishermen are only allowed 30% of the quota. The rest of the fish in UK territorial waters are taken by foreigners. The “remain” people blocked fishermen’s protests in the Thames River. They shouted insults at working class men who are just trying to provide for their families. The entire “remain” campaign consisted of lies, sneakiness, and foul play.

“Nationalist!”

Maybe now the U.K. can start producing quality cars and machinery again. Manufacturing has died since we joined the EU with all its rules and regulations.

“Leave” voters resented the EU’s tyranny, arrogance, and neoliberalism. 

On the day of the vote, I hesitated when I saw people’s reactions on Facebook. Around 98% of my Facebook friends strongly favored “remain.” At our staff briefing the head-teacher talked about it being a bad day. All my colleagues voted remain. So I’ve had to keep my vote private.

I oppose the secret TTIP discussions. Also I feared that the EU would insist that we privatize the National Health Service. Furthermore I didn’t like the lies from the remain camp who claimed that our workers’ rights only existed because the EU gave them to us. Our rights were won by local trade unions. They were not given to us by the EU.

The “remain” camp continually implied that anyone who disagreed with them was a right-wing bigot. They took this way too far. They considered us racists for wanting to make our own decisions for our own country.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was Treasurer George Osborne’s threat to cut £30 billion from public services if we displeased him by voting the wrong way. This was blackmail. I decided to call his bluff.

Senior figures in the Labour Party have demanded that the parliament overturn the referendum result. David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham, said: “We can stop this madness and end the nightmare through a vote in parliament. The referendum was an advisory, non-binding referendum. Let us not destroy our economy on the basis of lies and the hubris of Boris Johnson.”

Wolfgang Schauble, the finance minister of the European Union, says the EU should punish the UK with trade barriers so that everyone sees the consequences of defying Brussels.

By the way, the corporate media outlets claim that an online petition for a second referendum has 3.9 million signatures and counting. This petition is a hoax staged by trolls on 4chan, an English-language image-board website that is the subject of routine pranks and hoaxes. 39,000 signatures supposedly came from Vatican City (population 800). 23,788 came from North Korea, one of the world’s least internet-connected countries.   30,000 signatures supposedly came from Ghana. The trolls have bragged about using bots and other tricks to create millions of false signatures, but the corporate media outlets continue to claim that the fake petition is real.

As three million people sign a petition for a second EU referendum we ask – could it actually happen? UK Telegraph

Petition for Second Brexit Referendum Draws 2 Million Signatures Time

EU referendum petition signed by more than 2.5m  BBC

Petition to hold second EU referendum reaches 2.5m signatures … The Guardian

Brexit petition hits TWO MILLION as Brits call on Parliament to force … The Mirror

Brexit: Second Referendum Petition Gains More than 1 Million … Newsweek

It’s all a hoax.

But remember, the item below is not a hoax. Right? RIGHT?

right