On the same day, May 28, the CFR’s Council of Councils issued a Global Memo on the elections entitled “The Battle for Europe’s Soul.” Not surprisingly, both of the CFR evaluations of the MEP races heaped scorn on the nationalist and populist parties that had scored huge gains in the elections, repeatedly referring to the growing opposition to the European Union’s dictatorial rule as being inspired by “far right” ideology. By contrast, the globalist/socialist coalition of parties that have dominated the EU since its birth are referred to as “centrist,” “center-left,” and “center-right” — you know, the supposedly sensible, rational people who believe in political-social-economic “integration” and “an ever closer union.” Even the radical Greens, who would push Europe back into the Stone Age with their enviro-fanaticism, are now considered "mainstream" by the CFR analysts.
The MEP elections took place across Europe over four days (May 23-26), between two important gatherings of globalist insiders: the 8th annual meeting of the Council of Councils (COC), a project of the CFR bringing together globalist elites representing 29 of the CFR’s sister organizations in 24 countries; and the 68th Bilderberg Meeting.
The BBC’s Trevelyan kicked off the CFR conference call. “So for those of you who have not grown up with Europe, as I did, I’ll just give you a little primer on the European Parliament,” she said. “So it’s made up of 751 members. They’re called members of the European Parliament. The parliament has been directly elected since 1979. And the way the parliament works is there are MEPs’ sitting groups. They sit next to the people that they share ideas with; so center-left, center-right, green, liberals, that kind of thing.”
“And the power that the parliament has really is to change laws,” Trevelyan continued. “The European Commission is the initiator of laws, and then parliament can debate and change them. So these European parliamentary elections were very closely watched. They had the highest turnout in years, over 50 percent.” The BBC anchor then asked Kupchan and Goldgeier to comment on the prospects of any pro-European agenda in the European Parliament, following the stunning advances made by the anti-EU “far right” throughout much of Europe.
Goldgeier and Kupchan, while acknowledging the advances of the anti-EU forces, have sounded a note of triumphalism nonetheless, drawing satisfaction from the observation that many of the nationalist leaders on the continent who initially expressed intentions to mimic Britain’s Brexit referendum have now retreated from actually leaving the EU. They credit the “horror” and “chaos” that Brexit has supposedly caused with dissuading others from following the same course.
“You know, if you remember when Brexit — when the referendum was voted on in 2016, after the British voted in favor of Brexit there was a lot of fear that you would have Nexit and Frexit and Italiexit and, you know, all the other countries would be also looking to leave,” Goldgeier said. “And you had leaders like Salvini or like Le Pen talking about how it — you know, they wanted their countries to leave the European Union. But everybody has watched Brexit with such horror and, you know, really brought home — I mean, you know, everything about the Brexit discussion leading up to the referendum in 2016 was — you know, there was a lot of slogans thrown around and a lot of discussion about how easy it would be and how great it would be. And then reality hit, and now people realize this is not a good thing. For whatever country you’re in, it’s not a good thing to crash out of the European Union.”
“And so I think, you know, that Brexit has really helped galvanize sentiment in favor of Europe,” Goldgeier continued. “And you know, even the Salvinis and the Le Pens, you know, are talking about the need for reform. They’re not talking anymore about crashing out of the European Union. And so I do think that provides a real opportunity for new visions for what the center means.”
Of course, we wouldn’t expect the CFR double-domes to admit that the so-called horror and chaos that Britain has been experiencing for the past three years has resulted not from Brexit, but from the sabotage of Brexit by the globalists of the CFR and their COC sister organizations, who have been determined from the start to insure that the Brexit never actually happens.
CFR Globalists Openly Revealed Their Delay-Delay Sabotage Plan
The New American has repeatedly reported on statements by leading globalists concerning their strategy to prevent the carrying out of the will of the British voters, as expressed by the Brexit referendum.
In an August 18, 2016 article entitled, “Is New Brit PM Theresa May Sabotaging Brexit With Endless Delays?” we quoted a number of prominent one-worlders who advanced the idea that Brexit could be turned into “Bremain” by thwarting the exit process with non-stop delaying actions.
A bevy of big league one-worlders have taken to the airwaves and op-ed pages to opine that “Brexit” doesn’t really mean Brexit, “No” doesn’t mean no, “Out” doesn’t mean out, and “Leave” doesn’t mean leave. As to be expected, many of these anti-Brexiteers hail from the usual operational centers of the internationalist establishment: Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA, also known as Chatham House), Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Atlantic Council, Brookings Institution, Aspen Institute, etc.
Among the globalist mouthpieces suggesting that the Brexit may not (or will not, should not) actually be finalized and carried through are U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, billionaire investor/currency manipulator George Soros, former British Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, CFR President Richard Haass, former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, the leader of Britain’s Liberal Democrat Party Tim Farron, Financial Times senior commentators Martin Wolf and Philip Stephens — to name but a few.
We noted further:
The Economist (globalist, Fabian Socialist, ECFR, RIIA), which was a leading anti-Brexit voice prior to the referendum, provided one of the early influential voices in favor of protracted delays. In a June 30 article entitled “The Economist Explains How to avoid Brexit: Ways to get from Brexit to Bremain,” the magazine asked: “As it becomes clear that the separation will be costly, a second question about Brexit will come to the fore: might there still be a way to avoid it?”
As The Economist sees it, “A combination of time, events and Parliament could — just possibly — turn Brexit into Bremain.” “Already the British government is stalling for time,” the article noted, and “The longer the decision is delayed, the more chance there is for alternatives to Brexit to gain ground.” “Even if a Brexit deal is negotiated,” The Economist postulates, “it would in theory be possible for Britain’s Parliament to reject it and for the other EU members, pleased to see the British change of heart, to agree not to enforce it."
Returning to the CFR’s May 28 conference call on the MEP elections, Charles Kupchan outlined how he thought “centrist” EU politicians could take advantage of the rising anti-EU sentiments by adopting populist rhetoric while actually supporting the globalist “center.”
“I think a good place for a centrist to be,” he said, “is in the camp of what I would call progressive populism because, you know, we are witnessing lots of angry voters on both sides of the Atlantic, and it turns out that the ones who are winning are those who take on the establishment. Barack Obama was a populist in the sense that he overturned the Democratic Party that was owned by Hillary Clinton. Macron did the same thing. He ran against the French establishment and to some extent brought down the traditional political system, but he’s a centrist. And so I think one way to kind of see the task ahead is to find centrist candidates who are also able to tap into the anger and the populism because, if not, those voters will continue moving to the far right and the far left.”
“Centrist” President Emmanuel Macron, a Rothschild banker, was swept into the Elysee Palace with globalist support, while posing as an anti-establishment populist. Some French voters have caught on, thus his party’s losses in the recent MEP elections. However, we can expect more faux rightist/populist politicians to take the CFR-advised Macron path to power.
Blaming anti-Semitism of the Left and Muslims on the Right
Kupchan responded to a call-in question about the elections and “the rise of anti-Semitism” by, in typical fashion, asserting that the “far right” rather than the true sources: militant Islam and the radical Left (including the neo-Nazis, who are national socialists and, thus, on the left).
“You know, clearly, the — we knew that the — that the far right was doing well, and now we know that they’ve increased their electoral share,” Kupchan said. “But I think that we come into the elections with, well, a strong awareness that anti-Semitism is on the rise. It is — it is part and parcel of the populism and the nativism and the nationalism that is surging in our — in our democracies. So I think these are very worrying developments and that one of the — one of the tasks, I think, of centrist politicians is to try to—to try to beat back these appeals. And I have to say that, as here in the United States, I’m distressed by the degree to which this kind of political pandering is finding a great deal of traction.”
Graphic: theasis/iStock/Getty Images Plus