http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/07/06/how-britain-aristocracy-are-playing-brexit-thing.html
Eric ZUESSE
06.07.2016
OPINION
The European Union, and opposition to Brexit (or to any other exit from
it), reflect the opposite of progressive values, but instead are an
important part of the strategy owners of international corporations have
for taking over governments in order to increase their own profits (and
power). (Click here for an accurate brief history of the US CIA's involvement in setting up the EU. And this 2004 video documentary supplements that, with a focus specifically upon the popular movement in Britain to exit from the EU.)
The <>, or the aristocracy, favors the type of globalization
(the EU, mega-'trade' deals such as the TTIP, etc.) that has been
occurring after World War II. Aristocrats control the international
corporations and want them (want themselves) to rule the world - not
democracy to rule the world, not the publics, in each country, to rule
their countries.
In any country, the aristocracy is the people who own controlling
interests in international corporations, and they therefore possess real
power in international affairs - such as they will have in the ultimate decision as to whether or not UK will exit EU.
To clarify: The aristocracy isn't necessarily descended from aristocrats,
nor officially proclaimed (knighted, etc.) as 'aristocrats', but is
instead the real holders of power, the people who make the decisions as
to which politicians to fund, and as to which 'news' media the given
aristocrat's corporations will fund by means of his or her corporation's
advertising its products and services in that person's favored media
(irrespective of whether the person happens also to invest in or own
those media, not only own companies that advertise in them). Aristocrats
shape the public opinion that, in a 'democracy', determines who rules,
and who does not. Though some aristocrats have descended from
aristocrats, others are first-generation aristocrats, but all of them
hold the real power - both over the politicians, and over the media -
unless the given country is an authentic democracy, which few countries
actually are.
Britain's aristocracy are unyielding that UK remain in EU; the reason they won't yield is that EU represents Europe's aristocracies , including Britain's, and it holds the power to override Britain's
unwritten constitution in favor of Britain's aristocracy: EU is good to
aristocrats - far better for them than any nation's Constitution is.
They want it.
Consequently, the UK's aristocracy is determined that Britain will remain inside the European Union.
Here is how they are carrying out this policy:
I have previously explained the reasons <>,
including the reasons why a second such referendum will almost certainly
fail to meet the standard set for Brexit (British exit from the
European Union) to move forward. In other words, Brexit will probably be
reversed. The focus of the present article will instead be on the
simultaneous operation by the Western - that's to say, by the
US-aristocracy-led - aristocracy (the aristocracies in America's
vassal-nations), to tighten their control over UK politics so that such
rebellions won't happen again; to do this by weakening, or getting rid
of, UK politicians who resist the aristocracy, and by replacing those
politicians with ones who have proven themselves loyal to the Western
aristocracy. That's the aspect of the aristocracy's anti-Brexit
operation, which will be discussed here - the replacement of Britain's
pro-democracy leaders, by pro-aristocracy leaders: the aristocracy's
using the current political turmoil in Britain so as to cement even more
the power that international corporations have over the British
government.
THE CAMPAIGN TO GET RID OF JEREMY CORBYN
The
populist anti-Tony-Blair leader of today's British Labour Party, Jeremy
Corbyn, calls himself a <>, like America's populist
anti-Clinton US Senator Bernie Sanders does; and Corbyn was expected to
favor Brexit because on 17 September 2015 he strongly opposed US
President Barack Obama's proposed mega-'trade' treaty with Europe, the
TTIP (which Sanders likewise opposes). However, instead, on 14 April
2016, Corbyn unexpectedly came out against Brexit, by <> , as Britain's liberal Guardian newspaper reported , going on to note: <> .
Corbyn, in other words, reluctantly supported the EU - which wants to sign
Obama's TTIP (which he hates) - because Corbyn didn't want to go against
the majority of Labour Parliamentarians, many of whom are holdovers
from the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown era, the era of <> Blair (and Brown). Today's Labour Parliamentarians are still
beholden to the US aristocracy, as much as Labour's nominal opponents
the Tories are, and have been, beholden to them ever since World War II.
In other words: the Western aristocracy knows that Corbyn is against them.
So, they want him out, and now they are using the Blair/Brown
Labourites in order to get rid of him by alleging that Corbyn has been a
weak leader, one who wasn't <> in
order to keep the UK in the EU. What the US aristocracy (and their
vassal UK aristocrats) want more than anything else is to ram through a
passage-into-law of Obama's massive TTIP 'trade' treaty, which ( like the original of the EU itself did ) describes itself as being about 'trade' but is instead a transfer of national sovereignty (regarding
the environment, workers' rights, and product safety) to international
corporations. By eliminating Corbyn, the aristocrats would win a Britain
both of whose major political Parties are, in effect, owned by them.
Promptly when on June 24th the
Brexit 'victory' was announced, the anti-Brexit Tory Prime Minister
David Cameron quit (effective in October) because he had failed to
achieve the demand of his masters, to keep Britain inside the EU. But
now the supposedly more progressive Party, Labour, is likewise trying to
force Corbyn out because he has been failing the very same masters,
regarding Brexit. All of this despite the British public's having
actually voted, by 52% to 48%, to exit the EU. A country like this calls
itself a 'democracy'? But Corbyn is a persistent democrat: he refuses
to quit. He thinks that there might be enough of a democracy left in the
UK so that the real leadership of the country might reflect, at least
to some extent, the country's public.
Here is how much of a dictatorship the EU actually is: John Hilary reported in Britain's Independent on 12 October 2015:
<> .
So who does Cecilia Malmstr"om take her mandate from? Officially, EU
commissioners are supposed to follow the elected governments of Europe.
Yet the European Commission is carrying on the TTIP negotiations behind closed doors without
the proper involvement European governments, let alone MPs or
members of the public. British civil servants have admitted to us that
they have been kept in the dark throughout the TTIP talks, and that this
makes their job impossible.
In reality, as a new report from War on Want has just revealed, Malmstr"om receives her orders directly from the corporate lobbyists that swarm around Brussels>>.
Those <> are agents of the aristocracy; the EU represents them -
not the European public. There is no way that any nation's staying
inside the EU can be authentically democratic. To be in the EU is to be
in a dictatorship .
Jeremy Corbyn was trying to square the circle in order to avoid his
going to war against his own Party's senior leadership. But now this
senior leadership is going to war against him and trying to remove him
from the leadership - even though his tepid support of the EU turned out
to reflect rather closely the British public's tepid opposition to the
EU. Obviously, the senior leadership in the Labour Party are merely
Tories in verbal disguise. Corbyn has a rebellion on his hands - a
rebellion from Britain's 'Labour' aristocrats.
In this context, one can understand also such things as the Guardian's headline on June 21st,
<>. It's what America's international corporations
want. It's all part of the same package - and so too is NATO.
On June 24th, the Financial Times headlined <> and reported that, <>. In other words, the US
aristocracy was pledging assistance to UK aristocrats, to help them
weather the storm of their temporary defeat.
By June 26th, America's National Public Radio bannered ,
<>,
and reported that 12 members of Corbyn's own <> (people
who would become the Prime Minister's Cabinet if Corbyn were to oust the
Conservative government) had resigned in protest at Corbyn's
leadership. <>.
Neither the American government's nor the British government's radio network
portrayed in any positive light a politician being <> - only
support of the EU dictatorship was favorably reported (but without
mention that the EU is a dictatorship - that fact is never reported by
Western propaganda).
Among the mouthpieces of Britain's liberal aristocracy, all of populism -
both left and right - got damned, so that senior leaders of the Labour
Party could only have been smiling. Here is George Monbiot's commentary
in the Guardian, on June 28th, under the headline , <>:<>.
On Thursday June 30th, Julie Hyland headlined at countercurrents.org , <>, and reported:<>.
The first person proposed as Labour's replacement for Corbyn was reported
there to be a Labour Member of Parliament who had just quit from
Corbyn's <>, Angela Eagle. She had voted consistently for
the hardline, George W Bush, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, David Cameron,
Hillary Clinton, invade-everywhere, coup-everywhere, position, even to
invade Iraq in 2003, and to block a proposal for the government to
investigate the decision that had been made to invade Iraq. She <>.
She has been an angel for the aristocracy. Her record also provided to the
public the symbolism they needed that she cared about oppressed peoples,
such as gays. The idea here would be to replace a Bernie Sanders type
by a Hillary Clinton type. But Corbyn wasn't quitting. And other
possible candidates to replace him were also scrambling to win the
support of Labour MPs.
CONCLUSION
On the Conservative Party side of things, the aristocracy's control was
more ironclad. Boris Johnson, the (till-then) rising pro-Brexit star in
that Party, who had widely been expected to lead his Party into the next
elections, suddenly and unexplainably quit on June 30th his
Party's leadership-contest after he found that the Party's other
leaders mysteriously abandoned him and were coalescing around
anti-Brexit candidates, including especially one member of his own team.
Such is British 'democracy' - namely: less and less, as the aristocracy's grip is becoming more and more.
And, of course, it's a global thing, not merely British. For example, on July 2nd, the top of the home page at Huffington Post bannered <>, as if the <> were likely to be permanent instead of overruled, and as if that <> were a threat to the public, instead of to the aristocrats themselves.
↧