Brexit: Why tyranny, coercion and power struggles won’t end – because of “freedom”

I was surprised to hear that people actually and truly think that 52% of the British complicit … I mean, British voting public (which actually ends up being maybe around 25% of everyone who lives in the UK) choosing to tell the govt that they want to leave the EU (for whatever reason, stupid, racist, or well thought out, no one knows the heart of every individual) was “Britain” choosing to take back its freedom. Some take it as if “Britain” is choosing to stand on its own.

I would just ask someone with some critical judgment to just think through the reality of this with just a bit more depth to grasp a different point of view. And this should be done in the knowledge was given to us by the vote counters which may or may not reflect reality. You only have to look at the way voting numbers can be manipulated in various elections around the world to know that we are not dealing with absolute and objective truth that cannot be questioned. I have to take their numbers on trust, a trust that I cannot justify or verify.

Grasp this! Half the voting herd that turned up to vote, the actual minority (around 25%) of the whole population, have in a way made a decision for everyone else. How did I get approximately 25% when the vote was said to be 52% against 48%? Think about it! The total population of the UK is about 65 million. The amount who registered to vote is 47 million. 34 million are said to have actually voted (that just over half). 52% of 34 million are said to have voted to leave the EU. That’s 17.68 million. That’s 27%, approximately 25%. Just over a quarter of the UK get their unintelligent voice heard, unintelligent because a yes or a no displays no intelligence or reasoning, you don’t see why the decision was taken, only that it was taken.

Look at that! 27% becomes “Britain!” This is “Britain” taking back its freedom, right? Effectively a quarter of the population drags their almost equal opposition, as well as those who didn’t vote and who couldn’t vote, in the unintelligent direction that was given to them. That is freedom?

And let’s not forget it’s called the united kingdom for a reason. It’s made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Yet the “majorities” (take that with a pinch of salt as voters may not make the true majority) of Scotland and Northern Ireland wanted to stay in the EU. But they too are dragged out of the European Union.

You have to chuckle. Some years ago, there was a referendum for Scotland to see whether they wanted to remain part of the UK. And with a similar voting result, slightly more than half of the turnout voted to remain. One of the promises used to convince people to remain part of the UK was so that they could remain part of the EU as well. Well … that didn’t go so well now, did it? I’m laughing as I type this. So much for freedom and democracy.

But you see, despite its inherent failure and disappointment, despite its tendency to separate people, despite it being more about the power of advertisement and marketing than trying to get meaningful information from a morally educated populace, the worship of democracy continues untainted. Despite it always being about collectivism, the desire to acquire the might of government to fulfill one’s end, to oppress the minority and the non-voters and those who can’t vote, despite all that, democracy is still touted as a wonderful system, and the reliance on it unfazed. That’s why tyranny, coercion and power struggles will not end: because too many people believe that as long as they wield the cogs of dominance over their fellow, then it’s all ok. As long as it is believed that the people hold the weapons of force and aggression, then fairness can ensue. But as can be seen in the last century up until now, all that really happens is that the death toll and the amount of victims increase while the citizenry gorge themselves on fairy tales.

Ok, so let me consider this “freedom” some more.

So here I am, the individual. What practically has changed for me? Well, before the EU vote, I had politicians, their agents and the complicit population over me dictating to me how I must live, to cross their line means the threat of one harm or another. Now after the vote, am I really any freer? Does the distance of the dictator truly make any qualitative difference to the threat?

I appreciated what was said by a dear friend, that a layer of bureaucracy had been removed. I think she said something true. But effectively what has happened is that a few seats, maybe a few more distant seats, may in the future be removed from direct influence on the making of threats on people (yes, I mean law making). Of course it doesn’t remove indirect influence, but hey … errrr …. freedom, right? Right?

So for me, in my day to day life, there’s nothing real difference. Another friend of mine joked around with me the day after the vote and said, “Things a bit different over there today?” I think we both know how truly uneventful such an occasion was.

You see, there’s nothing inherently good or righteous about “Britain,” whatever that means, leaving the EU. There’s nothing good or righteous about “Britain” supposedly standing on its own. Neither the people nor the politicians become more righteous.

What can be learnt from every electoral voting session is this: people want to control each other. The freedom to vote is the freedom to attempt to impose one’s own views on their neighbour and boss someone else through the force of government. It’s not working together. It’s not cooperation. It’s a tug of war, those who participate try to pull the others their way and pray there’s enough force to do so. It’s not freedom but rather a call to imposition and coercion.

Let me tell you about freedom. Let me tell you about freedom. There are a bunch of people worldwide, not just in the UK, but all over, that will say “Britain has chosen to leave the EU.” And before and after today, people will say the people of Britain said this, or the people of Britain feel sorrow for some perceived tragedy or whatever. Someone makes a statement that glibly covers every inhabitant of this land. How can an individual have so called freedom of speech if the voice of the collective can and does drown out that voice? What can a man say when all that is advertised is the imagined voice of a legal fiction as is the nation?

So a so-called independent Britain does nothing for freedom, except the freedom of the politicians to impose their will on the people by means of the people.

Ok, let me switch it a bit.

I am not a worshipper of freedom. It’s not my end goal. I am however an ardent advocate for the seven laws and faithfulness to them. I know that UK law and its courts spit on the seven laws. So does this referendum result do anything to bring us closer to a time when people will accept the seven laws volitionally? Of course not. This referendum had nothing to do with morality. So where it counts, this referendum was practically useless.

What was telling is l that the Prime Minister resigned. And it’s not simply that he resigned. Rather, he chose to recount some of his highlights, the good things he has done during his time in the office. One of those things was the legalisation of homosexual marriages.

When enough people want to protect as legal that which the seven laws prohibits, I can be sure that society is not moving in the right direction.



  1. Hrvatski Noahid

    I disagree with some of the things you wrote. A nation is not a legal fiction. Those who make up a nation share a common language, culture and history. These things are real. The state may be a legal fiction. But a nation is not. The EU will never be the USA. The United States is one nation with one language and one identity. Europe is a continent with many people who have nothing in common. Furthermore, I will argue the distance of the dictator does matter. The British have the right to choose their own government. This was not so with the unelected eurocrats. I know that some laws of the British government violate the 7 Commandments. But I think it is the lesser of two evils.

    • Hi there. It’s fine to disagree. With regards to “the nation” being a legal fiction, I’ll ask you some questions. In accordance to the sentence and paragraph I said it, when a person says “Britain feels sorrow,” have I said something true? And when a person says such a thing are they referring to a real entity? Remember I’m not asking if it relates to a real thing in your mind. I’m asking if that person is referring to a real entity. I’ll give an example. You and I know God is real. But if someone said “God is a fish,” can you say that that person in their mind is referring to the same thing you have in mind? If you answer “yes” to either question, kindly explain. Thanx.

      “The United States has one identity.” Really? What are you talking about? So you’re not talking about the individuals in the country, or groups, or the classes or the states, you say that some entity called “the United States” is one identity. I’ve never heard of this singular entity. You also said it’s one nation. So everyone is that huge landmass have the same history and culture? Due to the diversity amongst such a huge amount of individuals and groups, I find that statement to be an overstretch of the imagination. Or an imposition on the individuals in that landmass.

      You said Europe is a continent with many people who have nothing in common. It’s odd you should say that. Why? Because North America is seen as a continent, and there are people in there that have nothing in common. So what was your point again?

      My specific question was this: does the distance of the dictator truly make any qualitative difference to the threat? You said that you can argue that it does matter. So please show that there is truly a qualitative difference to the threat (by threat, I’m referring to the laws they make as the paragraph stated).

      “the british have the right to choose their own government. Not so with the unelected eurocrats.” A few things. What are you referring to as the british? And this “right,” where did that come from? What is a “right”? is that a real thing? Also, you should know that there are many government workers or part of government that are not elected. So I don’t know how unelected eurocrats make any real difference to anything.

      The lesser of two evils? I don’t know how you measured objective evil and the difference of evils of both conditions to state that one is the evil lesser than the other. Maybe to you “unelected” means “more evil” although I’ve seen no divine commandment or teaching that obligates us to that. The fact that either way the voter would be supporting evil shows that neither is a good thing.

  2. Hrvatski Noahid

    I wish to return the question to you. Is the nation of Israel a real thing? Are the 70 Biblical nations real things? If not, what is the Torah talking about?

    I know the United States. I know there are many people who think of themselves as American regardless of religion, race and so on. They accept the concepts of an American identity, American culture and American history.

    On the other hand, you will find few people who think of themselves as European. I live in Europe. But I never describe myself as European.

    State governments have less power than federal governments. This means the threat is lower. I suggest that you think about the difference between British laws which have the force of law in Britain only and the EU laws which have the force of law throughout Europe.

    God made many nations. Therefore, I argue that the Torah ideal seems to be that every nation has a right to live under its own government.

    I meant that in my subjective view the British government is less powerful and less dangerous than the EU.

    • Just to be clear, you’re not returning my question. My question mentioned nothing about the Bible, so you’re adding something else. Here’s what I’ll do. I’ll do the courtesy of answering your questions as you gave them. I hope you’ll actually answer my questions in time.

      The Torah nation of Israel was real. Today’s “state of Israel” is not that. The biblical 70 nations were real. They were based off families. But those families have now intermingled to such an extent that it is doubtful if they can be identified with accuracy.

      I know about the United States as well, but I also know that there are hundreds of millions of people there and it would be foolhardy for me to speak for all of them, even for a great majority of them. Also I would have to know what is meant by thinking of oneself as American. What makes an American an American? Do you have a objective definition or a subjective one? Because I’ve met a good number of Americans who define it one way or another and end up excluding segments of the population. I still don’t what you mean by American culture or American identity.

      Are you arguing based on numbers? So you’re saying the number of people you’ve experienced who identify as American is greater than the number of people you’ve experienced that identify as European. That only tells me about your experience. I’ve seen both, self identifying Americans and Europeans. So what difference does that make?

      Your comparison between state and federal laws has nothing to do with my point. The fact that California is further away from Washington DC than New York doesn’t change the threat that comes from federal law. Reread my question about distance and law (remember, I equated law to threat) to make sure you understand it. Because your giving two different categories of law – state and federal – shows you misunderstood. In my example of Cali. and NY in relation to one form of law/threat (federal) illustrates my point well about distance.

      God made many nations. Really? I know humans dispersed and formed “nations” in the bible, but I don’t know where God formed them. Please, educate me. I’m sincere in my request.

      You may argue that the Torah ideal seems that every people group has a right to live under its own government. But you face problems. One, the fact you have to argue it shows that it’s not clear. Two, you’ve given no evidence that there is something in Torah called a “right.” You haven’t even proven that a right actually exists in the first place or defined it. Since there is no clear definition of government (malkhut) in Torah, I doubt it can be an ideal. It may be your ideal but I don’t see it in Torah. As government seems to me to refer to a territorial monopoly on aggression and coercion, I doubt that that is an ideal for anyone. I can see that justice is an ideal of Torah, but not government.

      You changed your statement about the lesser of two evils. Are you saying now that it’s about your belief that the British government is the same evil but has less power than the EU?

  3. Hrvatski Noahid

    I fear I lack the time to answer every single question or point. I think it is enough to give a general answer which keeps the discussion going. And I think I am successful in doing so.

    I will say this. I saw a Torah source which said that a nation is a land where a language is spoken. I do not remember the exact source. But I know I heard it somewhere. The aforesaid definition shows that the USA is one nation *at least* based on English being the common language. The same definition shows that the EU is not one nation *at least* based on there being no common language. The same definition shows that God made many nations *at least* based on there being many languages in the world.

    No. I think the British government is less evil because it has less power than the EU. I back the decentralization of power.

    • That would make mexico, canada and USA one nation. It’s a landmass, a land, where english is spoken. I think you’d better find that source because, as I expected, Torah definitions are different to the definitions people use nowadays. If you can’t find it, that’s ok. Why? Because I was not referring to Torah definitions when I spoke of a nation being a legal fiction. So we are discussing a different to the one I made in my article.

      Plus if that definition is true, then you’ve mostly proved my point. It would be true that to say “Britain felt x” or “Britain said x” is a factual error. Nations can’t talk or feel, not even metaphorically.

      And that definition does not mean that God created nations, but rather only languages. A language on its own, according to you, is not a nation.

      So now you’re saying that it is power makes something evil? The UK politicians supposedly have less power so they are less evil. So centralisation of power is evil. Which commandment does that break? Is that an objective evil or a subjective one? And if, in the future, ultimate power is given to Israel, as Daniel 7 suggests, by your definition of evil, the world will be at its most evil, right?

  4. Hrvatski Noahid

    The common language of Mexico is Spanish, not English. But it would make the English speaking lands one nation.

    The centralization of power in the hands of godless governments gives rise to mass murder. The Soviet Union had a centralization of power. Nazi Germany had a centralization of power.

    I have no idea what Daniel suggests. But I know God alone has ultimate power. And He is the only good centralization of power.

    • You never said “common language.” Also, if canada and USA is one nation according to the biblical definition irrelevant to my article, then I believe you yourself have repudiated some of your earlier points.

      Also you’ve changed definitions again. You first simply said the centralization of power was evil. You also haven’t given any objective basis for your claims.

      You’ve fallen for an old fallacy. If I’m talking about humans, then I cannot be talking about the ultimate power that only God has. And I said “Daniel 7” so that gave you a source that you can read.

      You make a lot of claims but with little to really back it up.

  5. Hrvatski Noahid

    I think your last point was a punch below the belt. You say that I haven’t given any objective basis for my claims and that I make a lot of claims but with little to really back it up. As if we are discussing one of the 7 Commandments where I can give Torah sources to back up what I am saying. I hope you understand that your arguments in this discussion are completely subjective. So please do not act as if your views on Brexit are in any way, shape or form more objective than mine.

    • I think you’re right. There’s a better way for me communicate than seem attacking towards you. May we continue with your forgiveness?

  6. Hrvatski Noahid

    I have nothing more to say in this discussion. But I look forward to your next article.

  7. Hrvatski Noahid

    You are my friend. Of course I forgive you.

    • That’s what should be most important to me: a friendship rather than winning a point or belittling a good man. Thank you. Don’t be afraid to let me know if I overstep the mark again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: