Nigel Farage On The Total Subjugation Of Europe

Tyler Durden's picture

Forget black swans, Nigel Farage is rapidly turning himself into the black sheep of the EU Parliament with his constant stream of truthiness and honest pragmatism. It seems the broadly nodding-donkeys that fill the chamber remain cognitively dissonant to any and everything in the real world - hanging instead on the next soundbite from Van Rompuy or Barroso on how well things are going, or how the crisis is 'almost' over. If only the Germans would bless them all with their money. In one his plainest-speaking rants, Farage provides clarity to his 'peers' on just exactly what the bailouts of Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and soon to be Spain and Italy are actually about - the "total subjugation of the states to a completely undemocratic structure in Brussels." Is it any wonder Samaras and crew - while happy to accept cash and make promises - are pulling away from yet another (this time is the last time) Troika-driven austerity push? "The euro-zone is in a very dark place; economically, socially, and politically."

Some mind-blowing quotes in here as Farage refers to the leaders of Italy and Spain and their remarkable nonsense...

Listen to the entire 3:30 - it is frightening just what is occurring on the ground across the pond from a US nation with eyes only for the election for now...


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Yamaha's picture

Love this guy!

Mark Carney's picture

I was just going to say, anyone else look forward to this dudes rants ??

Nothing To See Here's picture

Yeah, I needed a dose of Nigel today, thanks Tyler

Skateboarder's picture

What a relief to see a human being speak the truth in those dark chambers of secrecy and manipulation. He knows he's in the minority - look at the faces of those other fucking bags of trash they call representatives. Thanks for the video Tyler.

redpill's picture

No hot tubs please, Nigel.

The Alarmist's picture

As Jello Biafra says, "I won't give up ... it's not an option!"


Pure Evil's picture

I was actually thinking that Rompuy, (Emperor Palpatine), would stand up, transform into Darth Sidious, and announce that the Death Star was now fully operational.

Que, stage left, the labored, heavy, mechanical breathing of Darth Vader.

francis_sawyer's picture

Look at all those UP arrows...

I guarantee you that the day that NF says the word "jew"... the votes will go from 188-0... to 50%-50%...


markmotive's picture

Marc Faber: Cut the US government by 50%

Won't ever happen.

He also says we're basically fucked in 5-10 years.

Handyman's picture

And right after Faber informs the western world that they have 5-10 years of life as they know it, the moron changes the topic to Fabers dogs.


Albertarocks's picture

LOL.  Have another beer.  Next one's on me.  :-)

tonyw's picture

what are you actually smoking?

dtwn's picture

I think Peter Schiff is pretty much the US equivalent of Nigel, with the benefit that his perspective comes from building his career in finance rather than politics (although he did run for senate in Connecticut).  Together they should embark on an inter-atlantic tour of speaking engagements and try to talk some sense into people.  Most sheep won't listen though.  Soon conditions on the ground will convince citezens that their polititians are lying.  Then a different style of politics that has Austrian economic theories forming the basis for policy may be accepted.  It took Nigel Farag's UKIP party 20 years to finally gain seats in Parliament.  Hopefully the change will happen much quicker here.  Oh and by politics with Austrian-based politics, I don't mean libertarian.

mick68's picture


Why isn't Mr. Farrage being voted in? he is EXACTLY what every EU country needs right now. In fact, make him head of the entire EU and this world would be fixed in no time.

azzhatter's picture

I think free elections are getting harder to come by in the EU

larz's picture

I hope he gets better treatment than Ron Paul

MillionDollarBogus_'s picture

"The banking collapse was caused, more than anything, by bad government policy and the total failure of bad regulation, rather than by greed."     Nigel Farage

greed [gri?d]  noun
1. excessive consumption of or desire for food; gluttony
2. excessive desire, as for wealth or power

It was greed, Nigel, plain and simple.  The greedy banks sold the toxic debt.  Greedy rating agencies rated it AAA.  America is populated with a fat & greedy population.  They will never be satiated.  Big food portions.  Big cars.  Big houses.   Big debt.  Everything big.   Everything to excess. 

centerline's picture

Greed and regulation are tied together.  Regulation is one of the mechanisms government has to contain greed.  The legal system sets the playing rules.  The problem is when the government gets "owned."  When the legal system gets twisted.  When regulation can be effectively trumped.  When social complexity gets so deep that there is no way out.

Splitting hairs maybe.  But I tend to agree greed is more fundamental.  +1.


The Alarmist's picture

"Why isn't Mr. Farrage being voted in? "

Why aren't Gary Johnson or Roseanne Barr seen standing next to Mitt or Big-O at the MSM-televised debates?  

These "alternative products" are available in the market place if you are interested in looking, but it is so much easier to got with the choice that the Central Planners know  are best for you.

nmewn's picture

Theres what we need, a Roseanne Barr & Al Franken ticket...what could possibly go

Messianic's picture

Ugh, Roseanne Barr in the same category as Gary Johnson? Junked.

Lore's picture

Pretty sure he was kidding.

nmewn's picture

"2. excessive desire, as for wealth or power"

Gosh, that describes the Community Reinvestment Act and the pandering politicians who passed & promoted it to a T. Isn't it about time we got business & government untangled?

I mean, its obvious the condoms keep breaking and we wind up with the "undesired consequences" from just having a good time ;-)

Ghordius's picture

Nope. Small parties like the UKIP can be elected in the European Parliament, thanks to it's proportional electoral system.
The UK has a first-around-the-post system that prevents that.

Zero Govt's picture

you mean 'First Past the Post' electoral voting system

matters not, any and every voting system is flawed, we can only make decisions for ourselves, not others. Democracy is a lie from start to finish, and that's just how it's turned out with nothing beneficial whatsoever in 3,000 years

Ghordius's picture

well, let me put it this way: it's your opinion. and this kind of opinions flourish under the protection (because gov is always a protection racket like the mafia) of states where people have this luxury


of course your opinion is quite diametrically opposed to those who fight for democracy in their own totalitarian regimes

Albertarocks's picture

He already is.  He was allowed to speak.

Harbanger's picture

"Why isn't Mr. Farrage being voted in?"

Right now the Socialists outnumber the libertarians, maybe they'll come around as they see France's new regime implode.

averros's picture

If one goes Austrian and strives for intellectual integrity, he's got no choice but to become an anarcho-capitalist.  It's a natural evolution in the libertarian circles, in fact, as one progresses from learning economic theory (Austrian) to learning logically compatible legal theory and ethics (Rothbardian) as the understanding dawns that the non-aggression principle is a necessary condition for a free market, and that it is impossible to have one without the other.

dermus's picture

That's not true. Rothbard hung around Objectivist circles, was basically shunned by them, and he took up and left, but not without taking the Objectivist non-agression principle, and establishing it as the axiom around which he founded his own movement.

It's important to note the difference between an axiom and a principle, as the Objectivists came up with the principle as the logical conclusion of an entire cascade of logical progressions, based on much lower-level axioms (i.e. the law of identity, or that man's highest value is his life).

By turning it into an axiom, Rothbard set aside all the logic behind it, made it a given that must be essentially believed in, and proceeded to logically develop his theory based on a false premise. As such, he degenerated into so-called "anarcho-capitalism".

I'll quote from Ayn Rand to give the appropriate response to anyone claiming capitalism should end in anarchy:

"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government."


"If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door—or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistorical savages."

"The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice—the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another."


"A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.


Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean."

"One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there."


More here:

MillionDollarBogus_'s picture

Captialism never ends.  It churns along until it derails, chaos unsues, then it starts up again. 

The more efficient it works, the faster the wealth flows to a small group at the top.

When it breaks down there is a 'reset', much like a Monopoly game that ends when one person has all the loot and the other players are broke.  Debt is forgiven, money is reallocated and the game starts over.

The yield on a 1 year Greek bond is a good sign of the impending reset.  The yield froze at 1,143% some months ago.  The 2 year bond yield is also frozen.

Solon in ancient Greece oversaw an orderly reset and it worked.  When the Romans reached that point they did nothing to apply a fix and paid the price with 100 years of chaos. 

Read your history, folks, it keps repeating itself in cycles...

howenlink's picture

See Roy Child's Open Letter to Ayn Rand which attempts to refute her claims on an intellectual basis.



dermus's picture

He takes an unsurprising tact. He starts from the premise that the government provides services, that he might want to choose another government to provide those services to him, and that if the first government stops him, it is aggressing him.

This is the result of taking non-aggression as an axiom and not a principle derived to within the context of a hierarchy of values.

Objectivists hold that government is indeed a monopoly, and understand that all real monopolies are by definition coercive. The things it holds monopoly on are not services, but actually the pre-requisites of civilization. The police, justice, and military. These are not services. They are collective by definition. They constitute the essentials of sovereignty.

There is no dichotomy between coercive monopolies and non-coersive monopolies. Monopolies are coercive. A non-coersive monopoly is simply not a monopoly. That would be a contradiction in terms. Going up our hierarchy of values, man's life is his highest value. In order to live a rational life, in a society, there needs to be a government that monopolizes three functions: police, justice, and military. These are not services. And if government attempts to monopolize anything beyond those three functions, or create other monopolies, it is gone beyond it's rationally permitted function.

"Anarcho-capitalists" are essentially committing, amongst others, the rationalistic fallacy: "Coercive monopolies are bad. The government is a coercive monopoly. The government is bad." In fact, the government, by definition, has to be a monopoly, and a particular government is only bad if it uses it's powers to create economic monopolies.

davidgdg's picture

" Oh and by politics with Austrian-based politics, I don't mean libertarian."

So what do you mean then?

dracos_ghost's picture

Anyone know who the hecklers in the background were...

NeedtoSecede's picture

Anyone care to speculate who/what would give you red arrows MC?

You miserable Trolls (from Brussels maybe?) care to step up and show yourselves here, or are you just going to sling your red arrows and hide from the truth?

HobbyFarmer's picture

Wish we had a few leaders like him here in the U.S. calling other politicians out.  Wonder what sheeple think of him?  How does he garner any support spouting truth once in awhile?

Nothing To See Here's picture

You had one on stage during the GOP debates and he was a candidate for the US presidency. You booed him off the stage when he quoted the golden rule - don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you. Crazy idea eh?

LawsofPhysics's picture

Likewise.  Nigel stinks of fear.  At the end of the day, Dr. Paul can still provide a real service with his labor, all Nigel does is talk for his masters.  execute all the paper-pushers and their puppets already.

HobbyFarmer's picture

Yeah, me three.  In my mind, a vote for Ron Paul is better than not voting (read that article earlier today).  Third party / write-ins, make them count something other than the "choices" they give us.

Ghordius's picture

+1 and Nigel's masters are the City of London bankers

_underscore's picture

If they are, which I doubt, they must be seriously pi$$ed-off with him for attempting to expose & dismantle the cosy banking cartel's carve-up of europe via the Troika system. Aren't most of the place men 'elected' as the new technocratic leaders of the EU failed states ex-bankers, or their lieutentants? If what NF suggests were to happen (i.e. national govts. taking decision-making & responsibility back for their citizens) it would expose the banking 'troika' for what it is & break, eventually,  the endless cycle of debt rehypothecation that we're seeing - much like the situation that prevailed in Iceland Do you think the City of London bankers liked the Iceland solution?


Ghordius's picture

other, different opinions on Nigel Farage from the "Don't thread on me" "Silver Bug" blog

"...Conclusion: Farage serves the City of London and is currently encouraging many millions in Britain to ‘protect the city of London’.  This is a FACT.

At best, I would describe Farage as an eccentric money-obsessed political pygmy, and at worst I would suggest he’s a clever shill move by the dark Lord Rothschild.  For those that do not understand British politics, UKIP, Farage’s party, is on the scene to mop-up disgruntled Conservatives into another hierarchical collective."



"...Conclusion: It’s clear that Nigel Farage and his political party UKIP are in full support of the corporate power known as the City of London.  He readily admits that he wants to defend ‘the City’ and four generations of his family have worked or currently work in Rothschild’s fiefdom.

So, who is Nigel Farage?  Why does he defend the usury epicentre whilst attacking the European Union?  Why is he willing to discuss the potential gains in gold?  Why does he support campaigning against the European Central Bank, and not the ‘City of London’?"


Ghordius's picture

meanwhile the UKIP website proudly presents Nigel as "Fellow of the City of London"