0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
1,112 $

Brexit – a Natural Course in the World’s History

Support SouthFront

Brexit - a Natural Course in the World’s History

Written by Boyan Chukov; Originally appeared at A-specto, translated by Valentina Tzoneva exclusively for SouthFront

On the 24th of June 2016, the star of the French TV channel France 24, Vanessa Burgraff, host of one of the most watched shows, Le Debat, in the fall of the evening gathered in her studio a group of famous Britons to comment on the results of the Brexit, and naturally, they were masters in the language of Voltaire. Among them was the young and intelligent British businessman, Alex Storey, who is a director for development at Wealth X, a firm consulting certain companies and banks. Alex Storey himself is a supporter of Brexit. At the time of the referendum, he had been in the North of England and he confirms that the people with a leftist orientation have massively supported the stay of the country in the EU. According to Alex Storey, the Euro-bureaucrats have destroyed the political consensus in the Union. They promise many things but “in reality they give nothing to the people.” The Britons “got tired of waiting for the promised paradise.” Alex Storey is categorically convinced that the continental Europeans do not understand the citizens of the United Kingdom. They do not feel the special and privileged relations between the Britons and the British Commonwealth.

For example, the British citizens of Pakistani-descent have massively voted in favour of the Brexit. They prefer the stability of the British Commonwealth as this gives them the opportunity to communicate with their relatives in Pakistan without problems. Alex Storey explained that “there are more subjects of Her Majesty Elizabeth II outside the EU than inside it.” According to him, the analysts of Brexit have forgotten that there are huge “Anglo-Saxon markets”, which are dynamic and very promising. Alex Storey paid attention to the fact that “Great Britain is not only an island but a huge, dynamic, young world full of optimism and the fact that Great Britain includes India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, half of Africa, Australia and other. This is an English world which speaks English.”

Vanessa Burgraff at that moment almost rhetorically asked Alex Storey “whether the people of Eastern Europe are not as close as those he had just mentioned.” According to Alex Storey, “the EU is nothing more than an administrative structure.” He believes that “the referendum did not reject Europe, but the EU, which today is only a corrupted administrative structure, which is not functioning.” Alex Storey is firm that “if we love Europe, we have to leave the European Union. The British are not emotionally connected to the Euro-Union. We must stop saying that the EU is something nice. The European people are suffering. The European Union is not working.”

In the commentary of Alex Storey, in a concentrated shape, is given “the essence” of what the related-to globalisation and Euro-bureaucracy “sweet-singing, media nightingales” are trying to hide from the public opinion. We are talking about pouring over the Europeans, with so-called misinformation. It is a “concentration” of disinformation, which if we took as correct and start to reason “logically” and thereafter act … we will damage ourselves badly.

Brexit is nothing else than a huge package delivered in front of our collective main entrance. In it lays the most complicated version of the Lego game, with a huge geo-political projection. Unfortunately, there has been no manual included in it to explain how to fit the blocks together. Brexit is nothing more than a “show”, which is a prelude to huge changes and the world is dashing toward them – confusion, chaos, violence, war and bloodshed. Great Britain as an ancestor of the British Empire, once again demonstrated a strategic instinct for self-protection. Figuratively speaking, Great Britain is like an air “balloon” at present, which is losing height and threw out the ballast called the European Union.

Charles de Gaulle described a very demonstrative scene from 4 June 1944 in his book ‘Memories of the War. The General travelled by train to the city of Portsmouth together with the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. They were to observe the debarkment of the coalition on the continent. The Vice-Premier and Minister of Labour, Ernest Bevin, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Anthony Eden, were travelling with them. In the compartment, they were discussing the bad relations between de Gaulle and Roosevelt. ”All of a sudden, Winston Churchill exploded: Hey, you! How do you want us British to take a position different to the one of the USA?!” And then with pathos meant to impress the British audience more than me he said: ”We shall liberate Europe but it is because the Americans are with us. You must know! Every time we have to choose between Europe and the USA, we shall choose the USA. Every time I have to choose between you and Roosevelt, I shall choose Roosevelt.” After that, Anthony Eden turned his head away, he did not look convinced. As far as it concerned Ernest Bevin, the Minister of Labour, he turned to me so that everyone could hear him and said: ”The Prime Minister told you that he will, in any case, take the side of the President of the USA. You should know that he is talking for himself and there is no way he is speaking on behalf of the British Cabinet.”

This dialogue from almost half a century ago, describes precisely the situation in which the United Kingdom and the USA look like conspirators who will jointly invest in Europe. In Europe, which later on, will lose its spirit and soul. In Europe, which could oppose the Anglo-Saxons, but only united. General de Gaulle had his own plans for Europe built on his conditions and ideas. He was fighting until the time he was betrayed and thrown out of the Elysee Palace “by his own people”, who are now saying that “Brexit is a great victory for Putin.” What would de Gaulle have said today? Which side would he have taken -the side of Europe or the USA? The spirit of the General is slowly beginning to resurrect on the old continent. Charles de Gaulle would have applauded Brexit because the ”umbilical cord” between  Europe and the USA is getting broken; because this is the first step to the “model” of the European nations which are staring to rediscover their sovereignty. As far as the American leaders are concerned, starting with Roosevelt after Yalta and the contract with King Saud in February 1945, they have always put pressure on the Britons in order to make them stay in the cell of continental Europe, even at the cost of scruple-less interference in the sovereign affairs of the United Kingdom.

But this time Washington made a big mistake. The intervention of Barak Obama during his last visit to London was like a Goldman Sachs’ missionary and a marketing agent for TTIP. This was a big mistake. The visit of the American President played a certain role for the end result of the referendum for Brexit. The British started to become disgusted by the option Europe-EU in the form it was enforced onto them. This you can feel clearly from the words of Alex Storey in Vanessa Bourgraff’s show on France 24. The position of the USA is understandable. They are the main character in the System. To this moment, the EU also plays a supportive role in the same play. By remaining in the EU, the British attract “friendship” between the Europeans and the USA, which has spying, corruptive, politically-unifying and other projections. At the presidential election, the Republican, Donald Trump, did not hide his enthusiastic support for Brexit. He is against the System. Behind the team of the wife of Bill Clinton, however, stands the huge American military-industrial complex. Donald Trump visited Scotland exactly at the time of the referendum in Great Britain. The reason for it was the opening of a golf course. He did not miss the opportunity to congratulate the United Kingdom for winning back British sovereignty. Trump announced that “he would like to bring back the sovereignty of USA, which has been privatised by globalisation.” The supporters of Trump interpret the Brexit result as people’s uprising. The Euro-sceptics believe that it is a question of uprising (of the anti-System) against the EU.

The comments of Paul Joseph Watson from 24/06 in Infowars support the opinion that the big winner of Brexit in the USA is Donald Trump. He wrote: ”The surprise of the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom is a sensational victory for the populist politics and makes the presidency of Donald Trump more probable.” The same media outlet commented that: ”if there is one conclusion to be made from the Brexit results, it is that the nationalistic feelings might be invisible for the political elites, but the right person with the right cause can easily bring them to the forefront plan.” The analyst of the Republicans in the USA, Franc Luntz, thinks that Brexit is a huge populist uprising: “The populism comes up in any place where people believe that their government does not hear them and does not care. But the event is even more sensational because for the Britons there has never been a reason for a populist uprising such as this one. If the Britons can vote for exiting the EU, so can the Americans vote for Trump.” In its nature, Brexit is an uprising of the anti-System, which is prepared in different forms in a number of countries like the Netherlands, France, Italy, Austria, Spain and others. The representative in the USA is Donald Trump. What are the advantages of the anti-System in a global perspective? Its best supporter is the superpower of the System expressed in its aggressive impulsiveness, deriving from an obvious stupidity at birth. This can be seen most clearly from the wave of flat and primitive propaganda-comments against the vote of the British people. In this case, the citation of the genius French philosopher, Rene Geneon, is suitable as it can be applied to the “theology” of the Brussels bureaucracy: “They say that even the Devil, when he wants to, can become quite a good theologian; the truth is, that after all, he cannot miss dropping a piece of nonsense, which can serve as his signature …” Go to the sites of the media and to the “right” Bulgarian sites and you will be convinced in the genius of Rene Geneon.

There is no way to reject the exceptional intuition of Newt Gingrich, a politician of the Republican Party of the USA. In 1995, he was the Chairman of the Chamber of Representatives. In his comments about the situation in the USA he said: ”We are on the road where something will happen.” Newt Gingrich is impressed by Brexit. Today, he makes his comments from an independent point of view. He insists that today the corruption mines the System and is supportive of a populist uprising. He supports Donald Trump. Many of his comments on Twitter signal that Brexit is as important for the USA, as it is for Britain and probably more important to Washington than to Brussels.

On 24/06 Ryan McMaken from the Mises Institute wrote a comment about the referendum in the United Kingdom. In it, he deepened the radical problem of Brexit in the USA. The Mises Institute is directly linked to the ultra-liberal concepts of Ludwig von Mises, the American economist, philosopher, writer and liberal who has strongly influenced the development of the modern liberal and libertarian movement. The call of this source absolutely frees the suspicions for populism from the side of the media-zombies defending the system. Ryan McMaken first explored the case of “Scotland” and “North Ireland” through the prism of Brexit. It is clear that after the British referendum to remain in or leave the EU, immediately, the question of Scottish independence will come to the agenda and surprisingly for all, after the first analysis, Ryan McMaken turns to the case of “Texas”. According to his evaluation, the “Scottish model” could be immediately transferred to the state of Texas; even without entering an operational phase. Here, the expert of the Mises Institute talks about the fundamental question related to the unity of the USA; a question which is a nightmare for the USA from the day of its foundation. Ryan McMaken writes: “If Scotland was a state in the USA, it would have been an average big state. Its GDP would be a bit smaller than the GDP of the big American states such as Missouri and Connecticut. The population of Scotland is approximately equal to Minnesota and Colorado. In regards to GDP, the population of California equals Canada. Texas is equal in economy and population with Australia. Pennsylvania in the same parameters, is approximately equal to Switzerland.”

In a number of Brexit analyses, many arguments have been used, which are more applied propaganda reflexes taking the shapes of myths. Specifically they mainly prevent the deep analysis aiming to fix and measure the real effects of Brexit. One of these myths is the unbeatable endurance of Anglo-Saxonism. The implanted, manipulative agreement between the Anglo-Saxon countries, mainly between the USA and Great Britain. This construction is “founded” mainly in theoretical plans and if it is proven in one or other separate cases, it has never been with a stable structure. The confrontations between the USA and the United Kingdom are many in a historical plan; from the real possibility for a war between Washington and London in the period of 1926-1928, to the liquidation of the British Empire by the Americans in 1945. Remember the dissidence of British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, involved by the French against the USA in the Suez Channel Affair in 1956; or the support of Regan for Argentina in the war for the Malvine Islands against Great Britain in 1982.

The second myth is for stability and immunity of the so-called special relationship. In the spring of 1999, it turned out that the resident of the French intelligence in Kosovo was more informed than his British colleague regarding the actions and intentions of the USA in the region. In the name of the special relationship, the English are deprived by the Americans of any information. On the 9th of June, at a direct crash with the Russians who took over the Airport of Prishtina, the British Commanding Army General, Michael Jackson, refused categorically to obey his commander, the American General Clark, Chief of the NATO troops in Kosovo. The English General was supported in his decision by his Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair.

The third myth is that the Anglo-Saxon establishment always makes unopposed decisions; meaning those of the USA and Great Britain. In the case, there is a swap of geo-politics with psychology. In the USA and Great Britain, there are unions between conservatives and the bearers of socialist ideology; leftist and rightists who use the language of “populism”; rhetoric, which is very well received in the USA and Great Britain, unlike in some European countries, the latter are “soaked” as a result of waves of politico-correct neo-liberal ideology. We are talking about the nationalists and the isolationists in the USA and the United Kingdom, the paleo-conservatives, the libertarians in the USA and others. A clear example for this is the nationalist interventionalist, Donald Rumpsfeld, the former Minister of Defense of the USA, who supports Donald Trump. For him, the priority is America-first, which is awakening a furious hatred among the globalists, ever since the times of Roosevelt. The neocons of today around Hillary Clinton in Washington are also experiencing a huge discomfort with America-first. Hillary Clinton has publicly announced that although the special relationship; “the United Kingdom and the USA are two different countries.”

There is a certain link between the USA and Great Britain on the global establishment level, but the same link, of the same level, of the same nature also exists between the ruling elites in France, Germany and the rest of the European countries. The Bulgarian ruling elite is exactly the “avatar” of the questionable trans-national global elite of the System. Most popular representatives are Plevneliev, Nenchev, Mitov, Vigenin, Naidenov, Anev, Pasi, Mladenov, and many others. In this case, the difference in the rhetoric between left, right and centre, is only pre-electoral mimicry. The actions of the leftists, rightists and the centrists in the power are unified in serving the System. This explains the establishment of a logical connection between the Anglo-Saxons “populists”, who are part of the anti-System and the French supporters of Marine Le Pen, the Dutch of Gert Wilders, the Italians of G5S of Beppe Grillo and others. It’s obvious that the Anglo-Saxonism is divided in two: between globalisation and anti-globalisation; between the System and the anti-System. That’s why it is important to realize that Brexit is a British “adventure”, but its major effect will be felt among the Anglo-Saxon “cousins”; and even faster, among the British and it will stimulate the Euro-sceptics. That’s why on the 24th of June, Donald Trump turned out in Scotland for the opening of a golf club. When he announced his trip in advance, the media serving the System laughed at him. He was compared to a “clown” who is interfering everywhere and makes stupid mistakes. Donald Trump took the risk and won. His presence in Scotland, the undertaking of strong positions defending the sovereignty, defense of the nation, were directly transferred as a focus of his pre-election campaign. The French Senator, Valerie Boyer, evaluated the results of Brexit: “A failure of Obama’s influence over England, because he went there to plead clearly and concretely for things for which he wasn’t listened to.” If Donald Trump were elected to be the president, the EU will have an opponent in the White House, and all the Euro-sceptics will gain a heavyweight ally in the USA. The logic suggests that when isolationists all over the world are united, by definition, they are not isolated.

To understand the effect of the referendum in Britain, it is not necessary to carefully read the current news. It is sufficient to look at the picture of the activities of the major markets. The grand show called Brexit, was great enough, and for many of the observers, it turned out to be at a high cost. If someone is losing, then naturally, someone is winning. All the billions and billions of Euro, Pounds and Dollars lost in the market percentage by many people, found their new owners. Everyone in the eve of Brexit insisted that such a thing cannot happen. Even the betting gave failure of the referendum a proportion 4:1. To understand the Brexit, one must start with the “Scottish” referendum and the goals that the power in London had. It is necessary to know the strategic aims for the British Crown in our times. A very important moment. According to the British legislature, it is not mandatory to act on the results of the referendum. They have extremely suggestive character. David Cameron promised to fulfill the results of Brexit; a promise by a politician? After World War II, after the formal collapse of the empire, “over which the sun never sets”, its greatness was forgotten. Everyone stared at the new global hegemon, especially after the collapse of the USSR.

Without interfering and demanding attention, Great Britain quietly worked towards its future. In an intelligent way, it robbed the Europeans and transferred its capital to China, south-east Asia, Australia and New Zealand. At that time, the USA was intoxicated of its role of the main “biceps” in the western world. Washington reached the point where it stopped considering the existence of the British Crown. After 2012, the situation changed. The Crown decided to gradually place everything at its place. The first revenge of the British was in the beginning of the 21st Century. Part of the Rockefeller fund was sold to a secondary representative of Rothschild. This is a key event. It was a sign that the ex-partners in global ruling of the world have started to bypass each other in their strategic plans. The founding fathers of the classical geo-politics have written that the Big game is not between America and Britain, it is not between Rockerfeller and Rothschild. It is between Russia, as a symbol of the state and continental civilization, and Britain, as a symbol of the state and marine civilization. We can be even more precise. Russia and Britain are secondary. Before Russia, it was the Golden Horde and before Britain, it was the Venetian Republic. Only the nature of the Game has not changed; the land against the sea. The Game is eternal as is life. The frictions today between the USA and Britain are only a reflection of the deep processes. The marine civilization, which took the ruling of the world after 1989, brought the people to a dead end street. A global “recharging” became necessary. It is necessary for the marine civilization to destroy all of its peripheral creatures, to accumulate the gained capital and resources, and to change its camouflage clothes. Parallel to this process, it has to step away from the leadership of the civilization to the land, implanting itself successfully and without being noticed in it. For all this, Britain has the required resources available; a serious influence over China, more influence over India, and we are adding up the basic sea territories of Australia and New Zealand. For this goal to start, it is necessary to release from unnecessary obligations such as full membership in the EU.

The referendum for independence of Scotland was the first step of the Crown in this direction. If the separation of the Scottish was realized, the world would have surprisingly understood the following: all the real actives of the Crown are in Scotland, in the Royal Bank of Scotland, and all the debts were to remain for England. The dynasty of the Windsors gradually would have turned into the inheritant of the dynasty of the Scottish stewards; family relationships as much as you want. Nothing happened. The Scottish referendum did not succeed. It didn’t publicly succeed. According to the strategic plan, it shouldn’t have happened. Otherwise, there would have been a tsunami on the markets, which would have been many times higher than the one after Brexit. The key question is: what did the British ask and receive from Washington for preventing this catastrophic-for-the-USA and the world economy scenario? Obviously they received a lot. The external activity of the USA plummeted visibly. The dissatisfaction of the neocons in Washington is clear proof for this conclusion. The events in Syria regarding pressure and speed from the USA are not to be compared with those in Libya. The successful experiment for sabotage through the Scottish referendum was appreciated and Brexit emerged. Officially, England is defending itself from the crazy Euro-politics of Angela Merkel and the Euro-bureaucrats. If Britain remains in the EU, then London will have to share the financial load, resulting from the flood of refugees to put aside money for the East European country members of the European Union. And they have nothing left to pump up towards Western Europe. By leaving the EU, the British could quietly pack their suitcases and reach the new “promised land”. While the economy of the EU continues to make loud noise and exist with the help of an “oxygen mask”. The crisis is still at the same position. In the EU, the smell of freshly-printed money stinks more. It’s obvious that this cannot go on for a long time. It will collapse. Continental Europe to a high degree depends on the USA. The act of the Chancellor signed by Germany does not provide enough space for maneuver for Berlin. Great Britain, even as a member state of the EU, managed to reserve a high degree of freedom for itself. It preserved the British Pound. Behind this façade, there was indirect competition between London and Washington for influence in the EU. In this regard, Brexit was sabotage, as was the Scottish referendum. But first of all is sabotage for Europe. Who should Europe obey: the USA or Britain? On a second, deeper level, we are talking about sabotage of the USA itself regarding their European politics. Now it remains to be seen whether the British demands will be satisfied and in such case, the results of Brexit will not be realized, or vice versa. If the latter happens, then Hillary Clinton will probably be elected as president of the USA. The meaningful chaos in Europe will increase, everyone will fight everyone, and whatever remains will be pointed to Russia. At first glance, this is a strange hypothesis. It requires an understanding of the Big game in geo-politics. If the Players wanted to eliminate each other, the civilizations would have stopped existing a long time ago. The Players have different goals – to win without destruction; to rule and develop the civilization. That’s why temporary situational unions between the land and the sea, are not only possible but mandatory.

The American plan for Europe predicts chaos and civil war. Consolidation of a fascist foundation and a new Drang Nach Osten follows. It doesn’t matter whether this Drang will go under the banners decorated with a swastika like those in Ukraine, or under the green banners of the caliphate. It doesn’t matter at all.

The British plan is different. The first stage is the same: chaos and civil war. And then the cleaning of the “terrain” from the UN follows, in practice – from Russia and China. A certain political protectorate of certain parts of Europe follows, with Russian, Chinese and undercover British sector. China does not by chance buy European airports today. Unlike Russia, for the Chinese, logistics without air-bridges is impossible. There are two options for Europe: to start uprising against the USA or to totally give in. In the second case, the Transatlantic Agreement will be accelerated. For the Britons, it will bear no meaning.

It is necessary for the world to prepare for storms over the financial markets. The mass leaking of capital to the future financial “parkings” will sharply increase. They will be two: the Russian and the British. Naturally, part of the money will run towards the USA only to find their death later on after the collapse of the American dollar. A man can sincerely entertain himself watching the flow of “broad consumption” analysis of Brexit in the “right” media as well as the sincere revelations about ”the exit of Britain from EU is a historic mistake”. The glorification of David Cameron until last week and calling him a “destroyer” today, is exactly the “signature” of the devil, Rene Geron speaks about. In my work, I have had the opportunity to communicate with British diplomats, intelligence, politicians, high administrators. They deserve to be recognized – they are exceptional professionals. In private conversations with me, they have always stressed their respect and loyalty to the British Crown. The people from MI6 have always been a good example in this regard. It is not by chance that the book of Nigel West published in 2006 for the leaders of the British intelligence was titled: ‘At Her Majesty’s Secret Service’. The Albion has always had available time with a few strategic geo-political laboratories on a global level – a conceptual inheritance from the Venetians. Few are those who can compare themselves to the British in the range of long-term planning and the organising of perfect political spectacles in the world. A few are those who can compare themselves with the British regarding precision and virtue in performing certain geo-political plans.

Support SouthFront


Notify of
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Long but, much to ponder upon. Thank you for presenting this opinion.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x