The Brexit thread

[American Dream]

Making sense of the Brexit tide of reaction and the reality of the racist vote


Or was it that this is the story of a sizeable enough, but still minority of the working class, with reactionary ideas being energized and mobilized by the toxic racist nationalism of the English colonial project. Essentially a whipping up of all those older racist relatives that turn up at family events and that everyone wishes would just shut up? Something like Donald Trump has managed to do, using similar rhetoric about migrants and elites, in the USA, ‘Take our Country Back’ could well be a Trump slogan, ‘Make Britain Great Again’ could well have been the Leave slogan.

From anecdotal stories, geographic voting and most importantly actual polling of 12,000 voters it becomes clear that these communities, who were smashed by neoliberalism from Thatcher to Blair, were successfully tricked into taking aim at the wrong target in order to ‘take our country back’. But it goes deeper than trickery, the poll results make clear that many of the Leave voters hold a toxic blend of reactionary views, glued together by the common cement of English colonialist nationalism.

http://www.wsm.ie/c/making-sense-brexit ... acist-vote

[Rory]

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/27/tony ... ing-class/

Since 2009, company records unearthed by this author for a previous investigation show that Will Straw has been a Director of Left Foot Forward Ltd., which owns and publishes the self-styled “independent” and “non-aligned” political blog of the same name. His co-director at the company is Marcus Alexander Roberts, a former field director for the leadership campaign of Corbyn’s predecessor, Ed Miliband.

As documented in that investigation, under the previous editorship of pundit James Bloodworth, the self-styled “No. 1 left-wing blog” in Britain had virtually made its mission to lampoon Corbyn’s leadership at every opportunity, jettisoning even an ounce of balance.

Straw’s bio on the Left Foot Forward website does not mention his role on the company’s board of directors.

Straw’s co-director at Left Foot Forward Ltd., Marcus Roberts, is simultaneously director of Zentrum Consulting Ltd., which describes itself as a “political consultancy.” Roberts previously spent time in the US working on the Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama presidential campaigns.

Roberts later became campaign manager for Sadiq Khan’s successful mayoral campaign.

Yet precisely during the Labour Party’s contract with Zentrum, from 2011 to 2015, Marcus Roberts was simultaneously Deputy General Secretary of the Fabian Society, where he ran policy research on how to reconstitute Labour – including work by his friend and co-director Will Straw.

Within that period, from 2012 to 2013, Conor McGinn – who is reportedly choreographing the resignations in the Labour shadow cabinet – was a colleague of Roberts, as Vice Chair of the Young Fabians, a subsidiary within the Fabian Society.

In 2011, the Labour Party had also hired Marcus Robert’s consultancy outfit, Zentrum, to run the ‘re-founding Labour’ campaign at the behest of Lord Peter Hain, another Cabinet minister under Blair.

Effectively, then, the Fabian Society had been hijacked into a Blairite ‘re-founding’ Labour process under Roberts’ leadership.

According to Dan Hodges, citing “senior party officials,” Zentrum was “being used to effectively bypass the party.”

“Someone is refounding Labour,” concluded Hodges. “But who?”

Through Zentrum Consultancy Ltd., the increasingly unpopular Blairite network inside the party was attempting to maintain its influence, rather than engaging with the breadth and depth of the party itself.

At the time, Marcus Roberts’ Zentrum was co-managed by Frank Spring, a US-based political campaign consultant. Spring is a Political Partner at the Truman National Security Project, a think-tank made-up of pro-Democrat Party policy wonks. In 2006, the Los Angeles Times described the Truman Project as a movement of “fledgling neocons of the left:

This new crop of liberal hawks calls for expanding the existing war against terrorism, beefing up the military and promoting democracy around the globe. They want, in essence, to return to the beliefs that originally brought the neocons to prominence, the beliefs that motivated old-fashioned Cold War liberals such as Democratic Sen. Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson.

The election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Party leader obviously threw a huge spanner in the works for the entire Blairite effort to ‘refound Labour’ along the pro-war, pro-corporate model of the Democrat Party’s neocon hawks.

[JackRiddler]

Right, it's such an anti-establishment victory, unless you're in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Why didn't they call a referendum on the ongoing attempts to privatize the NHS, by the way? Or on the austerity program generally? How would those have gone? Why didn't they at least have a clean vote (and I know I'm talking possible suicide here) on the "immigrant question," rather than doing it indirectly and in a confused fashion through the EU device, wherein everyone can pretend they voted for their own personal interpretation of what it really means?

And why don't these Blairites leave Corbyn alone and let everyone else party while the Tories tear themselves apart instead, and prepare for the next election?

Never mind, that's obvious, strictly rhetorical question. There is great disorder under heaven and the situation is perfect.

[slimmouse]

. There is great disorder under heaven and the situation is perfect

Absolutely.

We are spirits in a material world.

How did you deal with being human today?

[American Dream]

http://www.weareplanc.org/blog/everyone-first/

Everyone First, The Nation Is No Alternative

In or out of the EU, we will still be in Britain come tomorrow

By Plan C Birmingham

We recently posted the base text of Nationalismus ist keine Alternative, a German campaign against the ‘Alternative for Deutschland’ – the German equivalent of UKIP. At this time, the politics of the centre is crumbling in the US. Over the channel, the far right are on the rise whilst the left scramble to respond to a rising tide of islamaphobic, anti-migrant and anti-Semitic rhetoric. As of yet, there is no generalizable social project of the left to counter this.

The current situation is a crisis of capitalism which is experienced by white Westerners as an attack on their lives. In response, a battle ensues over what makes values ‘British’. We are presented with two alternatives: a return to the social democratic welfare state, or an impossible conservative form of British independence from the world. Both these visions of the future take pride in the British nation and promise prosperity for Britain’s inhabitants. However, this is a false promise which is only bound to add more fuel to the fire and build up tensions.

The idea of ‘Britain First’ is embedded in British politics. Even for a moderate Briton, migrants are being rude to jump the queue, but we should accept the necessity of the queue because, after all, we are British. Quality of life, oppression and freedom to move are all influenced by nationality. The idea that either you or a migrant must have ‘your benefits’ is a rat race endorsed by the Nation. The Nation silos us off from each other while the media makes terror of the spectre of migrants (of whom we really only see a trickle) and the EU shields those who are always at the front of the queue in favour of austerity and colonial interventions which contributed and continue to force people to leave their homes in Africa in the Middle East in the first place. With gritted teeth and pinched noses to ward off the smell of shit, people will vote one way or another in a referendum where both choices are presented to us by elites. We need a response, practical actions of solidarity and resistance that create an alternative to the nation – an alternative where everyone is first.

The clamour around the EU referendum has demonstrated that the problem is not just the growth of fascist groups. The problem of violence inspired by racism is much broader than that. For example, we have seen how even the main parties have been unable to stay internally united on the question of immigration. The fact that the whole campaign has been reduced to a question of economic and legal sovereignty and immigration indicates how far politicians and the media are willing to go to strengthen their power. Because of this, it is necessary but not sufficient to mount an anti-fascist fightback in response to the present conditions. A broad-based initiative and discourse against nationalism is needed because things have definitely taken a turn for the worse.

History demonstrates the impossibility of a state-led solution to these issues. Britain and Europe have built walls around themselves. The West remains a fortress which conveniently closes itself off from global concerns despite benefiting enormously from its dominance in the world market. Society remains the embodiment of racist values originating in colonialism and persisting as imperialism to this day. British politicians opportunistically exploit demoralisation and declining spirits even though their government’s policies have made Britons worse off at home but better off internationally. The inability of the state to legitimise its actions in this way is no doubt a result of the fact that it is difficult for anyone to distinguish between the relative material benefits that racism brings to the white population from the absolute growth of finance worldwide. Even a left wing government would no doubt struggle to defend progressive policies on the grounds that domestic sacrifices result in an international payoff.

More often than not, these projects have degenerated into national socialism rather than genuine global solidarity. Instead, globalisation has occurred on the basis of private property and growing inequality: in one word, capitalism. In the guise of globalisation, supporters of capitalism have downplayed the differences that exist between people, and painted them as equal members of a single global village. For this reason, a vote to leave the EU can be interpreted as an attempt to resist this kind of patronising politics, and therefore also to resist capitalism.

But anti-capitalism can take many forms. In this case, the idea of integration on a national or European basis has collapsed, and resistance against it is moving beyond electoralism towards direct action. As the events of recent days have shown, this direct action is violent and is prepared to use death as a final solution to the problem of capitalism. But we don’t want people to feel as though they should get involved in an anti-nationalist initiative because they are scared. Though we too are afraid, we believe that we need a fight that goes beyond the creation of jobs, the defence of the international prestige of the NHS, or the strength of the British Pound. All these things have been shaped by workers’ struggle in Britain, but in turn they have shaped the lives of these workers in reactionary ways as well.

As our comrades in the rest of Europe know well, “the discourse on the financial and economic crisis, and its effects on people’s lives, has almost completely disappeared from media and politics and has been replaced by a new crisis… with thousands of refugees shaking up Europe’s ‘safety zone’ by overcoming its militarized borders and – for a moment – making their racist regulations inapplicable” [1]. As a phenomenon that highlights the possibility of a borderless world, the crisis of borders is instead experienced as the plight of the Europeans, even though “the same authoritarian and neoliberal management, that was responsible for millions of Greeks being excluded from their health care system, is now erecting barbed wire fences all over Europe” [2]. We need to be militant in resisting fascists where they gather but any campaign needs to go beyond challenging these outlying manifestations and into the very fabric of the prejudice that makes up the British identity.

[1] No Borders! a call from Beyond Europe

[2] Ibid.

[Morty]

Craig Murray:

It’s Still the Iraq War, Stupid.
26 Jun, 2016 in Uncategorized by craig

No rational person could blame Jeremy Corbyn for Brexit. So why are the Blairites moving against Corbyn now, with such precipitate haste?

The answer is the Chilcot Report. It is only a fortnight away, and though its form will be concealed by thick layers of establishment whitewash, the basic contours of Blair’s lies will still be visible beneath. Corbyn had deferred to Blairite pressure not to apologise on behalf of the Labour Party for the Iraq War until Chilcot is published.

For the Labour Right, the moment when Corbyn as Labour leader stands up in parliament and condemns Blair over Iraq, is going to be as traumatic as it was for the hardliners of the Soviet Communist Party when Khruschev denounced the crimes of Stalin. It would also destroy Blair’s carefully planned post-Chilcot PR strategy. It is essential to the Blairites that when Chilcot is debated in parliament in two weeks time, Jeremy Corbyn is not in place as Labour leader to speak in the debate. The Blairite plan is therefore for the parliamentary party to depose him as parliamentary leader and get speaker John Bercow to acknowledge someone else in that fictional position in time for the Chilcot debate, with Corbyn remaining leader in the country but with no parliamentary status.

Yes, they are that nuts.

If the fault line for the Tories is Europe, for Labour it is the Middle East. Those opposing Corbyn are defined by their enthusiasm for bombing campaigns that kill Muslim children. And not only by the UK. Both of the first two to go, Hilary Benn and Heidi Alexander, are hardline supporters of Israel.

This was Benn the week before his celebrated advocacy of bombing Syria:

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn told a Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) lunch yesterday that relations with Israel must be based on cooperation and rejected attempts to isolate the country.

Addressing senior party figures in Westminster, Benn praised Israel for its “progressive spirit, vibrant democracy, strong welfare state, thriving free press and independent judiciary.” He also called Israel “an economic giant, a high-tech centre, second only to the United States. A land of innovation and entrepreneurship, venture capital and graduates, private and public enterprise.”

Consequently, said Benn, “Our future relations must be built on cooperation and engagement, not isolation of Israel. We must take on those who seek to delegitimise the state of Israel or question its right to exist.”

Heidi Alexander actually signed, as a 2015 parliamentary candidate, the “We Believe in Israel” charter, the provisions of which state there must be no boycotts of Israel, and Israel must not be described as an apartheid state.

This fault line is very well defined. The manufactured row about “anti-Semitism” in the Labour Party shows exactly the same split. In my researches, 100% of those who have promoted accusations of anti-Semitism were supporters of the Iraq War and/or had demonstrable links to professional pro-Israel lobby groups. 100% of those accused of anti-Semitism were active opponents of the Iraq War. Never underestimate the Blairite fury at being shown not just to be liars but to be wrong. Iraq is their Achilles heel and they are extremely touchy about it.

No rational person would believe Brexit was Jeremy Corbyn’s fault. No rational person would believe that now is a good moment for the Labour Party to tear itself apart. Extraordinarily, the timing is determined by Chilcot.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... ar-stupid/

[Rory]

http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2728-th ... party-back

The idea that the party's problems can be blamed on one leader, one set of policies, or one campaign, is absurd. Nonetheless, if the back bench belligerents do want to look for a leadership and a set of policies that coincided with a dramatic, precipitous collapse in Labour's social base, they need only look to the era of New Labour whose politics they seem so eager to return to. Corbyn's leadership is precisely an attempt to achieve what Milibands couldn’t, reverse those trends, rebuild the membership, reconstitute the core vote, anchor the party in the unions and social movements, and rescue a dying social democracy from the Blairite legacy.

The odds against success for Corbyn have always been steep, and not only due to the sullen campaign waged against him, first from the back benches and now openly from within his shadow cabinet. Labour is suffering from the same dilemma as other social democratic parties across Europe. The one distinctive social democratic policy mix that has ever enjoyed success, the postwar compromise, depended on unprecedented growth rates and a business class willing to cooperate in corporatist bargaining and state coordination — conditions which are unlikely to return. In this light, Corbyn’s attempt to develop an anti-austerity solution that is intellectually coherent, electorally viable and can actually be implemented once in office, is an incredibly tall order. But the alternative, of accepting the neoliberal settlement and modulating the priorities within that framework, has been tried and led to disaster.

What the coup-mongers, in refusing to let Corbyn even try, are demonstrating is that the idea of a federal party of labour, representing all of its sections in their diversity, may have seen its day. It is increasingly implausible that the Labour Right is willing to exist in a party led from the Left. But if that is the case, the SDP option may be their only honourable way out. The only reason they haven’t taken it, one suspects, is precisely because as both former SDP MP Polly Toynbee and the Blairite journalist Jon Rentoul agree, the conditions for a successful split simply don’t exist. So, they are doing the only thing they can. Without a solution, without a plan, without even a plausible leadership candidate, they are embarking on a campaign of sabotage to bring the party to its knees. And thus, they hope the party will return, duly chastened, to its traditional owners. They want their party back, in other words, and they’ll inflict any cost to get it.

[Iamwhomiam]

The irony! Little do those supporting "Leave" realize that their leaving the EU will do nothing at all to lower the numbers of refugees entering the country legally.

[JackRiddler]

Back on that language matter:

"By far the most widely spoken and fastest spreading world language today is English, which has over 840 million primary and secondary users worldwide. It is also estimated to have as many as 700 million "foreign" learners of the language, including anywhere between 200 and 350 million learners/users in China alone, at varying levels of study and proficiency, though this number is difficult to accurately assess. English is also increasing becoming the dominant language of scientific research and papers worldwide, having even outpaced national languages in Western European countries, including France, where a recent study showed that English has massively displaced French as the language of scientific research in "hard" as well as in applied sciences."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_language

[Project Willow]

Does anyone at all have some positive, long term solution they can offer? It's fairly easy to say what we need to tear down and stop, but what should we be building toward, in terms of governance and sustainable economies.

Why are most of my liberal friends defending the EU? Since when is it entirely reasonable and okay to support such removed super structures even in the abstract?

[JackRiddler]

So there's going to be a confidence vote of the Labour MPs tomorrow.

Jeremy Corbyn to face no-confidence vote as Labour rebellion builds

Despairing mood at PLP meeting as leader names new shadow cabinet members while protesters outside voice support

Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images
Anushka Asthana, Jessica Elgot and Rowena Mason
Monday 27 June 2016 16.29 EDT Last modified on Monday 27 June 2016 17.20 EDT

Jeremy Corbyn will face a vote of no confidence in his leadership on Tuesday after a motion was put forward at a meeting of angry Labour MPs where he faced repeated calls to resign.

At a packed meeting of the parliamentary Labour party, Corbyn faced down critics by unveiling a list of new shadow cabinet members and insisting he planned to lead Labour into the next general election.

After losing 20 members of his shadow cabinet and a series of other frontbenchers in a dramatic coup attempt that began over the weekend, Corbyn was barraged at the meeting in scenes described by one MP as “going wild”.

Corbyn named his new shadow cabinet members including Barry Gardiner at energy, Richard Burgon at justice and Debbie Abrahams at work and pensions, and then refused to make way for a new leader.

But he was confronted by MPs including Chris Bryant, Yvette Cooper and Jess Phillips begging him to reconsider his position before a general election that could take place this year after David Cameron’s decision to resign as prime minister.

One MP described the mood as despairing. Some were upset that thousands of Corbyn supporters gathered by the grassroots movement Momentum were protesting in Parliament Square chanting “Blairites out” throughout the meeting. There were claims that the crowd were waving Socialist Workers party flags rather than Labour ones.

“Momentum are people you and your office control,” he said, to shouts from others of “They’re outside”.

Jess Phillips MP said she had faced antisemitic abuse since stepping down, tweeting a Momentum email that accused her of being bought by “Zionist money”.

Others on the soft left of the party, including Helen Goodman and Clive Efford, also spoke against the leader, while Chris Matheson was cheered for telling Corbyn: “I’ve done something you’ve never done, won a seat off the Tories.”

One MP who tried to defend Corbyn was booed, in a febrile session that ended with Angela Eagle, who had resigned as shadow business secretary, visibly upset.

Labour rebels are hoping to settle around one candidate to take on Corbyn, with Tom Watson or Angela Eagle most likely to be selected.

Corbyn remained defiant even in the face of resignations during the day from previously loyal members of his team on the left of the party, including Angela Eagle, the shadow business secretary, Owen Smith, the shadow work and pensions secretary, and Lisa Nandy, the shadow energy secretary.

Eagle had requested a meeting with Corbyn but had not heard back and so offered her resignation over the phone on Monday morning. Her sister, Maria Eagle, the shadow culture secretary, also went.

Angela Eagle told reporters outside parliament: “I’ve made it clear that I don’t think it’s working, and Jeremy needs to think about his position.”

A Labour spokesman said Corbyn was intent on staying until the general election, and the remaining vacant shadow cabinet positions would be filled. “The people who elect the leader of the Labour party are the members of the Labour party and Jeremy has made that crystal clear. He’s not going to concede to a corridor coup or backroom deal which tries to flush him out,” he said.

“He was elected by an overwhelming majority of the Labour party. He is not going to betray those people and stand down because of pressure.”

The spokesman said the only way to challenge Corbyn would be for another MP to collect nominations and trigger a contest. “All the resignations are a sideshow. If people have confidence they can win a leadership election, they can mount that challenge. If they are avoiding that, maybe they don’t have that confidence.”

Afterwards, Corbyn headed out of parliament to address the crowd of supporters, promising to fight on to represent their movement.

The Labour leader was flanked on stage by his new shadow health secretary, Diane Abbott, and the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, who told the crowd that the team was going nowhere. Speaking of a “handful of MPs”, McDonnell said it was “open to them to seek another election”.

“But let me make it clear: if there is another leadership election, Jeremy Corbyn will be standing again and I will be supporting him. This is not about any individual, this is about democracy of the movement,” he said, to chants of “Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn”.

McDonnell criticised his colleagues’ comments about the demonstrations, arguing that while “some call it mob rule”, he believed “people have the right to peaceful protest”.

Phillips said the move would further anger MPs who had been described as “Blairite scum” by some of those protesting.

John Woodcock, an MP who has been hostile to Corbyn’s leadership, confronted the leader’s spokesman, Kevin Slocombe, outside the PLP meeting, accusing him of giving journalists a distorted account of what had happened.

Earlier Corbyn was attacked on his position in the EU referendum, with Chris Bryant claiming Corbyn had voted for Brexit. A member of the public came forward on Monday to say the Labour leader had told him he was voting to leave the EU, telling the Guardian they had a conversation in a Waterloo tapas restaurant on Friday 10 June.

Corbyn’s team are adamant that he voted to remain, pointing to his tweet saying so. But the leader has been criticised for his campaign efforts. The chair of Labour In for Britain, Alan Johnson, emailed colleagues to thank several people involved in the campaign, notably missing Corbyn off the list.

“At times it felt as if they were working against the rest of the party and had conflicting objectives,” said Johnson, who repeated his claims at the PLP meeting, to cheers.

Emails leaked to the Guardian reveal that staff in both Corbyn and McDonnell’s offices removed sentences from statements and speeches that had been suggested by the remain campaign and workers in Labour’s headquarters.

In one chain of emails referring to the publication of a Treasury report, McDonnell was repeatedly pressed to make his statement more clearly about the EU referendum.

The final wording included a reference to the impact of a Tory Brexit, but removed the words “Labour will continue to campaign for Britain to remain in Europe to protect jobs, growth, trade, investment and working people”, which had been suggested by the party’s central press office.

In a separate piece of correspondence, Corbyn’s team edited the sentence “I am clear just like my shadow cabinet, the trade union movement and our members, that it is in the interests of the people of this country to remain in the European Union”, to take out any personal reference.

They also changed “We have just nine days to go and I will be working night and day to convince Labour supporters to vote remain” to “We have just nine days to convince Labour supporters to vote remain”.

Both teams have strongly denied that they did anything other than try to win the referendum.

Which is definitely the impression Corbyn made the day before, according to Guardian report:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -rebellion

At that point the "split" seemed to be in Corbyn refusing Labour MPs' calls to crack down on immigration -- is that how he "lost" the Brexit vote?

The would-be successors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Eagle

In April 2008 Eagle took part in a debate in Parliament on the UK economy in which the Liberal Democrats tabled a motion suggesting that the country was facing an "extreme bubble in the housing market" and the "risk of recession". Eagle responded stating "Fortunately for all of us...that colourful and lurid fiction has no real bearing on the macro-economic reality."[5]

April 2008!

Also, Blair apparently once "sacked her in error." How many people can make that claim?

McBride, Damian (20 September 2013). "'I'll put troops on the streets': Gordon Brown's spin doctor reveals just how close to anarchy Britain came when the banks crashed". Daily Mail (London). Retrieved 20 September 2013. In 2002, Tony forgot Home Office minister Angela Eagle existed, gave someone else her job and effectively sacked her from the government by mistake — and without informing her.

Watson, I don't know, interesting character, currently the deputy leader, played a role in the pedophile scandal and Murdoch disclosures, his name being mentioned may be a ruse to get him in as someone who could potentially win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Watso ... politician)#News_International_phone_hacking_scandal

On the other hand, fuck him:

In 2003, Tom Watson voted for the Iraq War,[10] and subsequently voted consistently against an investigation into the Iraq war.[11]

[0_0]

The Magic Number 7: Brexit Collapse Falls Exactly On Shemitah Date
June 25, 2016 / Jeff Berwick / 32 Comments

In 2014, Christine Lagarde gave a speech on “the magic number 7.” It, along with work by Jonathan Cahn, led us to the Shemitah seven-year cycle and the Jubilee year, which the globalist elites are well aware of.

What we’ve discovered since is that there is even more to the “magic number 7” than just years… it appears to correlate right down to months, weeks and days.

The last major market crash occurred on September 29, 2008. On that day, the Dow Jones fell 777 points, of all numbers…. its biggest one day point drop ever.

On Friday, in the aftermath of Brexit, the Dow fell over 600 points. What’s interesting about Friday’s date?

It was 7 years, 7 months, 7 weeks and 7 days since September 29, 2008.

[...]

Having had a day to think about all that has transpired, it appears to us that Brexit could actually be part of the Jubilee year plan for maximum chaos.

We were surprised to see Brexit win… after all, any past vote of this type has been stymied either through propaganda, vote rigging or other manipulations.

But, in retrospect, this makes perfect sense.

We’ll be talking about this more deeply in our upcoming newsletter going out to subscribers just after this weekend… but here are a few things to chew on.

First, David Cameron was elected upon his promise to hold a Brexit vote in 2017. He changed that, shocking many, to June 23rd of this year… just a day before the 7th year, 7th month, 7th week and 7th day after the last major financial crisis. Why would he do such a thing? Take such a risk? He could have waited another 1-2 years to take that risk.

Lost in the headlines was that on Friday, Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, committed to printing up 250 billion pounds ($345.93 billion USD) to “support financial markets.”

No one has mentioned that or even seems to know about it. So, within hours, the banks in the UK appear to have received a massive 2008 style bailout… but without anyone noticing.

And, who profited? People like George Soros, who moved into gold as his biggest position and shorted the markets just in the last few weeks.

Given this, I think it is safe to say that this was planned.

Again, I’ll go into this far deeper to our subscribers early next week, but it appears the demolition of the EU is part of the plan to create massive chaos in order to bring in a New Order.

Also, note that David Cameron has resigned but won’t actually step down until October, which is just after the end of the Jubilee Year. Also note that the Brexit vote isn’t actually legally binding and has to be ratified by Parliament, which will not happen until at least October.

Within hours of the Brexit vote, as I said would happen, massive movements to leave the EU have erupted in France, Sweden, Denmark, Holland and Italy. And, just prior to Brexit, Switzerland withdrew its long standing application to join the EU.

Soon we will likely see – aside from Brexit – a… Grexit. Departugal. Italeave. Fruckoff. Czechout. Oustria. Finish. Slovakout. Latervia and Byegium amongst others.

This, if allowed to happen, will entail crisis after crisis… just as we said to expect by October of this year.

BUT FREEDOM …

On the bright side, people are waking up. Brexit showed this. Many are realizing that being ruled by technocrats whose names you don’t even know in far off places is miserable.

The elites are aware of this awakening and they don’t quite know how to stop it. As John Kerry said, “this little thing called the internet is making it hard to govern.” Govern is a synonym for control.

And so, we hope, more and more people will wake up and not only want to “Brexit” but also want to get rid of the UK government as well, and the US federal government, and eventually all governments… and the central banks.

This is what is happening.

The elites know this so they have decided not to fight that rising tide. They’re going to allow it to happen but create so much chaos in the process that almost everyone will be impoverished and will beg for a new, global ruler.

This is what is going on and there is no way to know how it will turn out.

In the meantime, our investments in precious metals and bitcoin will continue to prosper, and our other advice will help to keep you safe.

We are now getting into very interesting times! We’ve profited massively already and it is just beginning.

Subscribe to the TDV newsletter (subscribe here) to get the best insights, analysis and recommendations for how to not only survive but prosper through The End Of The Monetary System As We Know It (TEOTMSAWKI).

We warned to be prepared for massive chaos this year and Brexit appears to be the linch pin that sets off the fireworks. Hold on to your hats as we enter into the final quarter of this Jubilee Year!

https://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/20 ... -date.html

[Searcher08]

Does anyone at all have some positive, long term solution they can offer? It's fairly easy to say what we need to tear down and stop, but what should we be building toward, in terms of governance and sustainable economies.

Why are most of my liberal friends defending the EU? Since when is it entirely reasonable and okay to support such removed super structures even in the abstract?

I do but no one is interested.

The reason the EU is utterly FUBAR is because of the way it is designed as an organisation.

All the tsunami of steamy debate is based around political or economic or power analysis.
BUT
The problem is not one of analysis, it is one of design, according to principles from management cybernetics.

An organisation needs to be able to respond with alacrity to a changing environment. To do that it needs to have extensive clear sensors in the environment and transfer relevant messages through itself.

The man in the crows nest of the Titanic didn't have binoculars, so the signal "There is an iceberg ahead!!" did not get transmitted in time to turn the ship away....

The purpose of a system is what it does and the EU centralises complexity and creates abn equilibrium by 'matching it' with massive bureaucracy, when what it needs to do is *DE*-centralise and Coordinate.

The problems with the EU are generally symptoms of the collapse of organisational viability - among these are

when there is a lack of a 'Mission Control' that collates incoming streams of information in real-time and then feeds timely decisions based on them back into the system.

when there is too much complexity allowed from the environment, the system can overload and coordination functions get swamped - think of the teacher who works on the annual school timetable is so behind with her work...
that the timetabling doesn't happen -
and the school starts grinding to a halt as no one knows where to go for class...

This is no more a problem to be solved by politics than designing a building is.


Designing a Viable Organization Structure
John Brocklesby and Stephen Cummings

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephen_Cummings3/publication/223127761_Designing_a_viable_organization_structure/links/55fa028108aeafc8ac2ee73a.pdf


This link below shows you how to do it.

http://www.esrad.org.uk/resources/vsmg_3/screen.php?page=0cybeyes

The VSM Guide
An introduction to the Viable System Model as a diagnostic & design tool
for co-operatives & federations


Jon Walker

Version 3.0 (2006)

Introduction
Preface
Section 0: Cybernetic Eyes
Section 1: The Quick Guide to the VSM
Section 2: Case Studies
Hebden Water Milling 1985
Triangle Wholefoods 1986
One Mondragon Co-operative 1991
Section 3: Preliminary Diagnosis
Janus interlude
Section 4: Designing Autonomy
Section 5: The Internal Balance
Section 6: Information Systems
Section 7: Balance with the Environment
Section 8: Policy Systems
Section 9: The Whole System
Section 10: Application to Federations
Bibliography
Links
Appendix 1: Levels of Recursion
Appendix 2: Variety



The EU as an organisation is centralising complexity, which can only be maintained by matching with... rule by dictat. There is no working Audit function, meaning that the whole organisation exists in a fog of poor information, with the associated corruption that accompanies it.
There is very poor coordination across individual countries (for example decrees are issued without thought for the differing impacts they may have) resulting in shortages and gluts in products and services and skilled people. The organisation lacks accountability, listens poorly, acts as a dictator not facilitator (cf the behind the scenes story of the EU 'negotiations' with Syriza).

[JackRiddler]

Does anyone at all have some positive, long term solution they can offer? It's fairly easy to say what we need to tear down and stop, but what should we be building toward, in terms of governance and sustainable economies.

Why are most of my liberal friends defending the EU? Since when is it entirely reasonable and okay to support such removed super structures even in the abstract?

Because of the new false binary that by the late 1990s had been successfully set up as the post-1989 replacement for the old false binary.

(Now please ignore who said the following, let's just go with what is being said. Ready?)

I don't want a future in which politics is primarily a battle between cosmopolitan finance capitalism and ethno-nationalist backlash.

That's Chris Hayes of MSNBC (ugh) commenting on Brexit. I posted it to FB from my phone (by mistake, because I wouldn't have if I'd seen the face more clearly) but I like it because it's so succinct. Obviously this is not "a future" but has already been true since the 1990s.

And so here we are. Clinton/Trump, Leave/Remain. "Freedom" vs. "Islamism" is the biggest one. How did we get maneuvered into that as the replacement for the cold war conflict of secular ideologies, even if the latter were also false and arranged in a false binary?

Chirac/Le Pen in 2002 was a signal moment in this process. How can you be for the "Euroskeptic" when the most prominent ones are such obvious racists scapegoating the immigrants?

People with a totally legitimate beef against neoliberalism unable to identify that term but perfectly capable of hating on Slovenians in the UK or Mexicans in the US, or refugees in Greece, etc. etc.

The same binary is very visible on this board. Absolutely no shortage of "ethno-nationalist backlash" here, and it's always coming as a rejection of "cosmopolitan fiance capitalism" (a.k.a. the "NWO" or the "globalists" for the slower folks). Sometimes it's a disguise, sometimes it's just slowpokes in denial of what they're standing for. The wishy-washy mysticism helps.

And while almost no one here is for "finance capitalism" (!) some will effectively find themselves defending some aspect of it as the default against ethno-nationalism (or Rothschild/Lizard theory, or whatever).

Like, do I want to say anything good about Soros? Hell no! But when you have these threads where even mass shootings are sooner or later going to be linked to him as the ultimate mastermind and destroyer of all nations by some magical association process... (I suppose I could also just depart rather than engage, that would make a lot of people happy. And obviously I don't always engage.)

Most of the reasonable people here totally underestimate the extent to which the conspiracy merchandisers and the ungrounded VC-type speculators play an outsize role in disciplining liberal thought. These guys never shut up and always go all the way to provide exactly what the professional/pundit-style "debunker"/"skeptics"/self-proclaimed scientific liberals need as a strawman. These two sides are organs in a kind of social mind control organism, absolutely symbiotic to each other.

You know it got bad when even disbelief in the Warren Commission fable was successfully turned into something considered crazy. That used to be totally mainstream and liberal, of course. That was "skepticism" and the WC defenders were "believers" (or politically influenced, since few seriously believed that shit in the first 20 or 30 years).

But I get it. I really do. Being associated with the subjects that Alex Jones talks about is a potential kiss of death in many contexts. However unfair it is. You can protest and try to break it down and stand up for a reasoned position that rejects the false binaries set up between his ilk and the "skeptics." But he and his ilk will reliably and rapidly and loudly glom on to all the nodes where official stories are weakest and apply a kind of poisonous insulating adhesive.

It's an ideological ecology at work, it has its laws, and it tends to these kinds of results. So this corporate-profit machine formerly justified as a way to avoid the next World War that eventually turned into a scam for funneling everyone's wealth into Germany (mostly) now also appears to be a progressive anti-racist protector of individual rights and health standards, compared to the no-limits conservatism combined with neoliberal deregulation (but with nicer welfare payments to ethnic compatriots if they're making babies) that your national right wings would prefer.

=============

(PS - I should thank 0_0 for providing an intervening post that helps illustrate some of what I was talking about.)

[Harvey]

...ideological ecology...

Good stuff. Still trying to parse the fullness...

You may however rue the day when 'ideological economy' becomes common parlance.

Interestingly, Adam Smith wrote his Wealth of Nations well before Darwin wrote Origin of Species. Smith might as well have been describing an ecology instead of what became known as economy. I still insist that economics is metaphysics but doesn't know it whereas ecology is metaphysics but sort of admits it at the gate. Mysticism has it's place, and that place is 'stuff we don't fully understand yet.'

Edit: not really interested in discussing the 'predictive power' of economics for obvious reasons.