… by Jim W. Dean, … with New Eastern Outlook, Moscow
– First published June 2, 2014 –
We had been predicting at VT that the EU Parliament Elections were going to wipe some smug smiles off the faces of the Euro elitists. We were right. That had been their standard reaction when asked about the simmering discontent over not just the economic situation, but a growing list of fundamental concerns of their societies undergoing their own polar icecap melt down.
The driving issue concerned the crisis in Western leadership that finally people seemed to be finally waking up, like they were coming out of a dream state. And by leadership I do not only mean the individual cases where you could pick your favorite clown or special interest sock-puppet. The anger goes past them and into the parties themselves.
There had been a shift in thinking that changing an old face for a new one on a party with a long record of duplicity and hypocrisy was just a waste of time. I agree completely. People began giving up on the elite controlled parties, willing to take a chance on anything over proven failures.
Political parties are being recognized for what they are, nothing more than special interest groups in themselves, infiltrated and co-opted into pretending to be something they are not, with all the celebrity talent their huge campaign funds can buy. As the famous Burger King granny ad immortalized, people began to ask “Where’s the beef?”
Let’s take a whirlwind tour of how some of the candidates reacted, and of course the corporate media presstitutes always step up to show their usefulness in molding public opinion. They represented a comedy tour of sorts, as they all dueled for the prize of creating the winning buzz word to describe the EU rebels as flakes and rabble.
The New York Times led with their expected elitist snobbery by labeling the pitchfork rebels as “fringe groups”. Certainly there are some, but what was NYT’s point? Do not the Democrats and Republicans have some “fringe groups” within their ranks, who are never smeared with that term unless they are in the opposition party, where the term “extremist” is the favorite moniker.
It’s a wonderful word. When someone asks you what it really means you don’t have to risk an unsatisfactory answer. You can just say, “You know…an EXTREMIST”. That usually does the trick. In the sales business, this is called the “assumed close”.
“Radical Anti-establishment parties”
As a news wire service example, I chose AP, another media entity that crossed over to the opinion molders, for their 30 pieces of silver. Their spin headline was, … “EU leaders struggled for a response Tuesday to a dismal European vote that saw dramatic gains by radical anti-establishment parties, with Britain, Germany and France urging EU reform.”
They went a tad overboard with the “radical anti-establishment parties” terminology, followed by a desire for positive action, as “reform”. Dear AP wire, download a new dictionary. Voters interested in reform are not radicals. They are anti-corruption – a universal concern. They are populists. Only a sold out media platform would try to paint them as radicals. But don’t feel left out. These “radicals”, as you call them, feel the same way about you and the politicians for selling them out. Shame on you.
The Washington Post, another establishment icon, took a safer and more realistic line with… “But the strong showing by anti-EU parties reflected widespread anger toward mainstream politicians and the appeal of populists at either end of the spectrum, particularly the far right.”
Notice how WP used the populist term that AP was afraid to use. WP acknowledged that both the left (ask Hollande) and right (ask Cameron) lost voters. AP used “radicals” to mask the broad resentment that this election upheaval showed. The disaffected voters no longer believe in party reform because they know it is corrupt to the bone.
Fringe groups or not, these incoming members gave the public a door number 3, 4, 5 and 6 to choose from, where what you see is what you get. Many view this as a breath of fresh air in the musky old club rooms of Europe. I could smell the elitist fear all the way from Atlanta.
I found French President Francios Hollande was the most creative, without being pitifully dismissive. And he had good reason to be, as his Socialist Party suffered a crushing defeat (pulling only 14%) to the long suffering punching bag, the National Front. He used a tactic we call the “duck and dodge”, where “It’s not my problem…it’s OUR problem”. He wanted all of Europe to share in his defeat.
“Yes, there is a problem,…But it’s not only a problem for France and to which France must find an answer… It’s also a problem for Europe.” That was a skillfully designed response, stating the obvious as a confidence builder by telling tales on his fellow European elitists that they are in just as bad shape.
That was the dodge part, which Angela Merkel showed was not really true. Germany got through this shift without major damage, as her two coalition parties did very well. But Germany has the strongest economy in Europe and has not raped and robbed its own like many of the others, so German voters were not as hostile. The Germans are real big on order, personal responsibility, and pulling together for shared benefit. They have their political issues, but complete lack of faith in government is not one of them.
The Brits were quickest out of the block with calls for change, so quick that it showed they had good poll takers and were well prepared for post-election day. There was no duck and dodge tactics like with Hollande. Cameron was smartly (but probably being insincere) owning up to the anti-EU surge, which was easy for him to do as that is squarely on the front burner in British politics.
But he took it further with his “[the vote] is a clear message that we cannot just shrug off… and carry on as before…The EU has got too big, too bossy, too interfering and needs to concentrate on growth and jobs.” This was another stating-the-obvious tactic, with a twist of, “I feel your pain.”
He’s a pro at this. British elites learn this stuff in finishing school.
Groundshaker-UKIP and Nigel Farage
Cameron’s foil was Nigel Farage, leader of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) that turned British politics upside down by winning the EU vote, the first time that Labor and Conservatives had been beaten. Conservative survivalists are all becoming instant change advocates now, lying of course, but lying to stay in power, or to get it, is a minor impediment to traditional politicians. And in their defense I must add… the voters often demand it.
I was surprised to see only Nigel Farage challenging the EU-NATO-US folly of turning Ukraine into a new budding Syria. My editorial line on Ukraine has been simply, European gunboat diplomacy for financially struggling countries is an attempt to divert public attention from their economic woes. In Ukraine, the EU found a minor colonial empire close to home for convenient looting to restock the empty shelves at home.
So what we have at the end of the day is not one, but multiple long-festering issues that are boiling up at the same time. The broad diversity of these opposition groups is proof they are not fronting for banksters and gangsters like the Tea Party here in the US. The downside is that they are not fertile ground for coalition building.
The main overlapping issue is they are sick and tired of being governed by an elite power structure (minus Germany) that they feel represents them no more than the man in the moon. As the old saying goes, Rome was not built in a day, and neither was it destroyed. Major change takes time.
The Times They Are a Changing
The populists are running out of time, since the world is shifting under their feet, not only in their own countries, but with the superpowered US feeling that it is doomed if it cannot rule the world. No one has bothered to explain this logic to me. If Russia and China can work together for the obvious benefit of both their peoples, why does an East-West version of this seem such an anathema to the West?
Why does there need to be only one reserve currency? Why not have several and let everyone choose which to use in whatever situation like they do everyday? I think the banksters might be a little nicer to people in that situation… dare I say, more honest, and we could certainly use some of that.
Editing: Erica P. Wissinger