The first successful pushback against the machinations of the New World Order elites last week was followed by much hand-wringing, second-guessing, and suggestions that the citizens of Great Britain didn’t know what they were doing and should take a mulligan (golf term: a do-over). The Wall Street Journal published a timeline of the exit process, which could take as long as two years.
Calling it a potential “multi-year tussle,” that process has the global elites in a pickle: If they stretch it out and make it as painful as possible for as long as possible, other countries inside the EU will see just what type of barbed-wire fence they have allowed to be built around them and push to get out before the barbed wire becomes concrete topped with watchtowers.
On the other hand, if the exit process is made too simple, too easy, with few if any major negative repercussions, those repressed nations may see that as a virtual invitation to do likewise — getting out while the getting is good.
The rise of nationalism was documented nicely by Charles Scaliger, writing in The New American just days after the Brits pulled the plug on the EU. Wrote Scaliger: “There is a very real prospect that the decades-old European experiment in consensual empire-building may meet a swift and disorderly end.” He explained why the island’s inhabitants wanted out:
British citizens soon tired of the endless onslaught of new regulations promulgated by Brussels bureaucrats, of the surge in new immigrants, of the constant efforts by European authorities to whittle away at British sovereignty, and at the cost [some $40 billion a year squeezed from increasingly unhappy British taxpayers] of trying to keep the EU afloat.
He noted the gleeful cries from nationalists in Holland, France, Italy, Denmark, and Sweden. He pointed out that those nationalists were watching the exit process closely, hoping to perform similar departure surgery through the use of referenda across Europe.
Also watching with increasing concern are the insiders themselves. Just days after Brexit, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) published the results of a months-long study of the rise of nationalism and its conclusions. Founded by British globalist Mark Leonard in 2007, the ECFR claims to want to “promote informed debate across Europe on the development of coherent and effective European values-based foreign policy.” That Leonard also authored Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century in 2005 tells all one needs to know about the predicted and projected declining importance of national sovereignty to Leonard and his elitist associates as they build step-by-step the New World Order with them in charge.
Titled “Brexit and Europe’s new insurgent parties,” the conclusions counter the purposes of Leonard and those associates. The anguish and consternation is almost audible from the pages of the report:
As the political earthquake caused by … [the] British leave vote reverberates across the EU, the full force of European anti-establishment parties is hitting home….
Across Europe, traditional policy elites [the word actually used by the report’s authors] are being challenged by newer, smaller and leaner parties from both left and right.… They are capturing the political agenda and forcing mainstream parties to adopt their positions.
Most of the people and the parties interviewed by the ECFR want out, according to the report:
The UK’s vote on the EU … could be just the first in a landslide of popular referendums across Europe. ECFR’s research found that outsider parties [nationalist movements that are outside the control of the globalist elites] across the EU have plans to push for votes on 34 issues that would have direct [negative] consequences for the EU in the coming years.
What this means, horror of horrors, is that the elites are losing — if they have not already lost — control of the forced amalgamation of sovereign countries into their United States of Europe as a stepping stone to the New World Order run by them. Wrote the authors:
These insurgent forces are using the media, popular pressure, and political office to force national referendums on issues that were previously the preserve of governments and civil servants.
Insurgent parties are winning seats in local, regional, national and European parliaments, and challenging establishment views on how policymaking should be done. [Emphasis added.]
In an admission of both a failure to tie the EU together with strands of regulations coupled with usurpations of national sovereignty, and a warning to the insiders that, up to now, have been weaving and enforcing those strands, the authors come close to admitting that, for the time being, their efforts are failing, and likely to continue to fail. The authors have recognized that once the first olive is out of the bottle, the others come out more easily:
Foreign policy in particular is no longer an elite [that word again] game, conducted behind closed doors by small coteries of politicians and diplomats.
The rise of nationalism is also being aided by the Internet and the decreasing cost of (and consequently increasingly more widely available) information about those machinations “conducted behind closed doors”:
Digital developments make it easier for the public to hold politicians to account over high-level deals such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
After interviewing parties and people making up 45 different nationalist groups, the authors expressed a sense of overwhelm: “The only member state in which we decided there was no relevant [separatist] party was Luxembourg.” In other words, every other one of the 27 “members” of the EU is growing a movement to perform their own “exit.”
In Portugal it’s called “Deportugal.” In the Netherlands it’s the Nexit. In Italy it’s the Italexit, in Greece it’s the Grexit, in France it’s called the Frexit, and so on. Wrote the authors: “Many of the parties we interviewed saw the building momentum of referendum in 2016 as an opportunity [to leave].”
A closer look at the nationalist revival in the Netherlands reveals an underground movement extant for years. It’s just now bubbling to the surface, to the consternation of the elites. Geert Wilders founded the appropriately named Party for Freedom in 2004. He has been campaigning almost without ceasing since then to stop what he calls the “Islamisation” of the Netherlands. He has compared the Quran to Mein Kampf and has campaigned to have the Quran banned in his country. He has moved to end all immigration from Muslim countries and supports banning the construction of new mosques.
For most of that time, Wilders was considered a noisy but irrelevant voice way outside the mainstream.
And then came the rush of immigrants fleeing wars that were threatening to take their lives and the concurrent rise in violence in their new countries, and Wilders now has proposed a referendum vote in next spring’s elections. His party, on the fringes until recently, is currently leading in the polls.
Buried deep in the ECFR’s report is the one issue that frightens them the most — the issue that would terminate their decades-long effort to knit together a supra-national state:
There is a general consensus among the insurgent parties that … the EU … should be gradually dissolved.
A graduate of an Ivy League school and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at [email protected].
Related article:
Will Brexit Trigger a “Domino Effect” Among Other EU Member States?
