Tony Blair's Brexit

Several days after the earthshaking news of Brexit, the global elites are still open-mounted in horror that an entire nation should so blatantly reject their commands.  Virtually every single power center in England was 100% in favor of remaining in the EU - the financial industry, the BBC, the leaders of all major political parties, the education establishment, the business press - everybody who's anybody.

Even Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton condescended to give the British rubes their marching orders.  The entire financial industry believed so strongly that Remain would win that they didn't even bother to hedge against Leave.  Yet last week, Leave won - not by much, but convincingly, and people who'd bet on Remain lost money.

Whenever an unexpected event of this magnitude takes place, it's human nature to look for someone to blame.  Showing their utter lack of imagination, the global left and elites are of course blaming those revolting peasants and their wicked racism - after all, who but a horrible bigot would have any objection to millions of needy foreigners overwhelming local budgets and bringing crimes not seen in centuries?

The EU may annoy its residents by regulating the curvature of cucumbers, but it's not the bureaucratic pettifoggery that drove the Brexit vote.  It's fury at the EU's insistence that anyone who makes it into Europe, legally or illegally, can freely move into any member nation regardless of what the inhabitants and voters feel about it.

Bogus accusations of bigotry may make the Left feel good, but they're not very helpful - the peasants are always revolting, and occasionally they're also rebelling.  The obvious individual target for elitist ire is now-ex-British Prime Minister David Cameron, who, as they see it, needlessly and foolishly allowed for a vote on something that should be beyond debate, and then proceeded to lose that vote with catastrophic consequences to them and to their vision of a united Europe with them at the helm.

That's neither fair nor accurate.  You don't lose a referendum of this magnitude by a fluke, especially not with record-setting turnout far higher than for the general election that puts in an entire new national government.  If David Cameron hadn't called for a vote, eventually the 52% of Britain that wants Out would have done something the elites wouldn't like.

The real question is, why are 52% of Britain so furious at the EU that they will take the risk of massive financial and geopolitical consequences to be rid of it?  Ordinarily, normal voters are extremely conservative, wanting small-step, incremental change instead of total shakeups.

Electoral revolutions like last week's referendum are rare.  The global mandarins count on this to maintain their power, while they generally make far-reaching changes as slowly and as inconspicuously as possible.

Oddly enough, in their knee-jerk contemptuous reaction, the elites are partially on to something: they are blaming voter anger on racist bigotry.  That's false, of course.  It's neither racist nor bigotry to recognize facts and reality.

But the clear and simple fact is that open borders are ruining the quality of life for the average Briton as they are for the average American.  Polish plumbers, while hardworking and decent people, have depressed wages for working-class Englishmen just as Mexican handymen have done on this side of the pond.  And the minority of immigrants who are evil people, there as well as here, bring horrific crimes that the United Kingdom thought were eliminated under Queen Victoria.

So - given that anger at open borders, and specifically of importing foreign barbarians by the lorry-load, brought about this earthquake, we need to ask whose fault is it that the immigration situation has reached such unacceptable proportions as to cause a revolution?  Surprisingly, there's a simple answer to this, pointing the finger at one man: Tony Blair.

Treason And Plot

Prime Minister Blair was in many ways Britain's answer to Bill Clinton.  Both men were young, vigorous, reformist, handsome, and rejected the far-leftism their party bases preferred, at least on the surface.  Bill Clinton wasn't obsessed with regulating everything into the ground, and Tony Blair discarded the traditional socialist goal of government ownership of all means of production.

Because they were "on the Left" but not fully of the Left, both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Blair were able to accomplish economically useful reforms that led to economic booms in both countries.

At the time, it seemed to many that the Democrats and Labour had learned the lesson of 1989 and rejected complete government control of the economy.  To this day, most ordinary people remember the 1990s as good years of peace and wealth, though Mr. Blair's reputation has been somewhat tarnished in his party by his support of George W. Bush's Iraq invasion.

What ordinary Britons did not realize at the time was, under the camoflage of a successful economy, the Blair administration was working hard to change Great Britain by permanently changing the demographics of the population.

The reason for this was obvious: in England as in America, the traditional white core population largely votes conservative.  No Democrat has won a majority of the white vote in America since Lyndon Johnson, whereas blacks vote for Democrats in near-Soviet proportions and recent Hispanics immigrants and their descendants nearly as much so.

It's simple common sense for a political party to want to attract more of the sorts of people who vote for them and drive away those who vote against them.  That's why long-Democrat jurisdictions see vastly more poor people who favor increased government spending and enormously rich people who can afford to buy off the politicians, and a shrinking number of middle-class voters who can't afford the tax increases.

In a democracy, though, the right way to accomplish this is to persuade citizens that your ideas are the correct ones.  That's why we admire and respect Bernie Sanders even though we profoundly disagree with him.  Instead of spouting the usual lies, he has openly and honestly made fact-based arguments about our national problems, on several of which he has a point, and then honestly proposed solutions to address them.  It's appropriate for us to have a national debate on whether those are the solutions we really want, but there's nothing dishonest about his approach.

Tony Blair did the opposite.  While claiming to understand voter concern about open-borders problems, his cabinet consciously and actively plotted to import the largest possible numbers of people as unlike traditional Britons as they could find.  His former adviser explained the secret plan:

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

No doubt the ministers were absolutely right that public discussion would alienate voters.  Where they went wrong was in assuming that the uneducated rubes wouldn't eventually figure out they'd been screwed.

Was Mr. Blair's treasonous plot to replace his electorate successful?  Indeed it was: just a few weeks prior to the Brexit vote, London elected its first-ever Muslim mayor who immediately proceeded to do what Muslims do and threaten violence against people who don't like them.  He's already begun to change London's libertine culture into a more sharia-compliant one.

The problem is not merely that London has a Muslim mayor.  The problem is that London has a freely and fairly elected Muslim mayor, chosen by the clear will of the people who live in London.

Not the actual people of England, though: there are sections of London where Muslims are nearly a majority all by themselves, and their numbers are growing exponentially both by continued immigration and a far-higher birthrate than the native population.  It's been predicted that, if current trends continue, Britain as a whole would be majority-Muslim by 2050.

The Brexit vote is a last-ditch attempt by the remaining traditional Englishmen to stop the current trends and, if possible, to turn back the clock.  Common Englishmen, like common Americans, recognize that they are losing their country as it becomes filled with people from profoundly different cultures and traditions.

Oil And Water

The fact is, it is people who make a nation, not geography or even politics.  Let's imagine that the entire population of Pakistan and the entire population of Texas were suddenly and magically swapped, the residents abruptly and without warning changing places.

Obviously there'd be chaos for a while as things sorted out.  Assuming there was no massive effort to put everybody back where they belonged, what would Pakistan and Texas be like ten years on?

We have no doubt that "Pakistan" would be a vibrant, modern economy with growing companies, expanding infrastructure and international trade, and a civilized, democratic system of government.  Without doubt, "Texas" would be criss-crossed with violence, honor killings, Muslim barbarities, suicide bombings, coups, and not much of an economy at all.

Why?  Because people bring their own problems with them in their hearts, and not all cultures are equal, never mind being the same.

Suppose Tony Blair had decided that he wanted to swamp British conservatives by persuading the populations of Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont to move to England.  That would definitely have had the same electoral effect.  The residents of those states might actually be happier in a country that's a lot further left than the United States as a whole, and they'd be as glad to vote for a Labour party as they vote for Democrats.

But there wouldn't have been social chaos, much less suicide-bombings and beheadings, because the underlying cultures of New England and Old England are very similar.

Likewise, if Tony Blair had restricted himself to importing Europeans - Frenchmen, Germans, even Poles and Romanians - the shockwaves wouldn't have been so violent.  The culture of Poland is different from the culture of England, but it's within arms-reach and the differences probably would have worked themselves out.  Not nearly as many Britons complain about Polish plumbers today as they did twenty years ago - the Poles have learned to fit in just as Italians and Irish did in the United States a century ago.

But no: Tony Blair intentionally and with malice aforethought dumped ticking Muslim time bombs all over his country.  Is it any wonder that it's blown up in the faces of the elites?