March of the Bureaucrats

What is behind the government crisis in the UK and the reform of the European Union

French President Emmanuel Macron has been actively promoting the idea of ​​reforming the European Union for several months now. His proposed changes include the creation of a single eurozone finance minister and the transfer of the $500 billion stabilization fund (now administered by member states) to a purpose-built supranational institution, the European Monetary Fund.

In addition, Macron's reforms involve pan-European legislation on the integration of migrants, the creation of pan-European armed forces, the election of half of the MEPs on pan-European lists, and not on national lists, and, of course, additional taxes on nefarious technological giants that pollute the environment and exploit workers, and themselves do not want to pay Brussels as much as it needs.

This reform, which received the enthusiastic approval of the head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, is presented by President Macron as democratic. “The appeal of liberal ideals is growing these days,” he said in Strasbourg in April, “in this world and in these difficult days, European democracy is our best chance.”

It is easy to see that Macron's reforms are in fact the opposite of democracy. Macron wants to impose even more refugees on Europe in a situation where national voters vote against it; he wants to create a supranational financial body that will act without coordination with the interests of nations. The election of deputies on pan-European lists is a classic bureaucratic maneuver that turns elections into voting for people in the news (including Macron himself) - it makes the procedure meaningless and turns it into something like a Russian vote for United Russia.

The meaning of Macron's reforms is quite clear. The left-wing president, who came to the pinnacle of power thanks to political technologies (the French voter clearly preferred a right-wing politician, but at the same time Marine le Pen smelled too bad, and François Fillon was trampled by the press), knows perfectly well that he will never stay for a second term, and is preparing himself pension.

The political crisis in the UK should be viewed against the backdrop of such initiatives. In early July, all members of the British Cabinet were summoned to the Prime Minister's country residence.

There, with their phones confiscated, they were given an ultimatum: either immediate agreement to Theresa May's "soft Brexit" plan, or the end of their careers.

Blackmail did not come out: Brexit Secretary David Davis and his subordinate Steve Baker resigned almost immediately, Foreign Minister Boris Johnson a little later.

The meaning of “soft Brexit” is very simple: it is, in simple terms, the sabotage of Brexit. Grossly oversimplifying, we can say that as a result of the plan approved by Prime Minister Theresa May, Britain has kept most of its obligations to the European Union. She still could not control her borders and had to follow the laws adopted by Brussels - but she lost the right to vote in their adoption.

I will refrain from assessing Brexit itself. In the short term economic outlook, it is undoubtedly bad for the UK. However, I am not sure that the long-term strategic benefits will not outweigh the short-term economic benefits. Because from the EU that Macron sees — with fake elections and a gigantic bureaucracy — from such an EU, it seems to me, it is necessary not only to leave, but to flee. But I'm not talking about Brexit now.

I'm talking about the phenomenon.

The Western world is ruled by leftist elites. These leftist elites are carriers of quasi-socialist ideas. They are the ideological heirs of those who were on the barricades in Paris in 1968 and thought about how to destroy the world of the bourgeois cleansing.

For a long time, these leftist elites have been betting on universal suffrage. But universal suffrage leads either to socialism or to dictatorship. To confirm this thesis, I could refer to Aristotle or John Stuart Mill, but it is enough for me to refer to the history of Europe after the First World War or to the history of the USSR after the collapse.

I don't like universal suffrage, for the same reason the Founding Fathers of the United States didn't like it. They perfectly understood that the mass voter always turns to the left than the owner.

There are more poor people in any country than there are rich people. This was understood even by Friedrich Engels, who wrote that a revolution is not at all necessary for the victory of the ideas of communism - universal suffrage is enough.

However, now the left-wing elites have moved to the left even of the average voter. They turned out to be few lumpen on social security. They wanted to take on welfare the whole world. The leftist elites began to consistently defend any idea that leads to the destruction of the classical bourgeois state.

In front of their constituents, they began to construct systems where a) officials who are not elected by anyone rule, and b) where the outcome of the elections will be decided by imams ordering their flock of refugees to vote for the leftists, as happened in the Brussels suburb of Molenbeek.

This gave rise to the protest of that same mass voter. Trump has begun. Brexit has begun. In Italy, the Five Stars won a majority in the elections, after which Italy closed all its ports to refugees. What is populism? This is ochlocracy minus socialism.

And then began a large-scale sabotage of democratic mechanisms by the left establishment. It suddenly turned out that the fact that President Trump won the election means nothing to the American establishment, and that 17.4 million Britons voted to leave the European Union means nothing to the British one. Giant agitprop campaigns began against right-wing politicians and big businessmen.

Travis Kalanick was forced to leave Uber after posting as a weird girl who explained all her career failures at the company because Uber was not fighting harassment enough. John Schnatter had just resigned as CEO of Papa John's Pizza, as he inadvertently remarked at a political correctness training forced on him that the founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken was calling African Americans the now-forbidden N-word. And before leaving, Schnatter, who founded his company from scratch, was still forced to repent. This was strongly reminiscent of the penances that were in use in China during the Cultural Revolution.

Russian business can become a victim of the Kremlin or the cop at any moment. American business can now become a victim of political correctness at any moment. But the cultural revolution is not the best condition for business.

And I would not be surprised if, as a result of all this, China in twenty years will become not only the first industrial, but also the first scientific power in the world.