Globalists v. globalists
Posted by seumasach on July 2, 2016
2nd July, 2016
Pundits of every hue, seduced by the image of true -born Englishmen wielding pitchforks in the face of the dark forces of Mammomisn, are interpreting the Brexit vote as a victory over “the globalists”. As if the likes of Rupert Murdoch are not globalists.
Rather than elite versus people the contest is very much within elites and both sides are globalists.
The neocon drive for global hegemony which reached it’s high point with the launch of the Iraq War was met by a counter-hegemonic global agenda from China and Russia, and from the Global South. Military setbacks for the West and Chinese soft power had begun to seduce parts of the Western elite since the economic collapse of 2008. This is particularly true of the UK where from 2010, faced with a Chinese withdrawal from the UK bond markets, talks began on a deal with China culminating the in the signing of a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between China and the UK, the decision of the UK government to issue Yuan-denominated government bonds and also the to join the AIIB. This deal was largely posited on the basis of UK membership of the EU so that it offered China a back door into the EU.
The fact that this deal was never widely discussed or debated reflected a lack of unanimity inside Britain’s elite. Whilst it offered many attractions to some and a way out of Britain’s terminal crisis as a world power, it threatened vested financial and military-industrial interests. Those interests would continue to opt for the winner-takes-all approach rather than a compromise with the emerging world. It was epitomized by the likes of Murdoch and his neocon cohorts some of whom had regrouped in Britain round the Henry Jackson Society, a transatlantic reincarnation of the PNAC( Project for a New American Century) now seeking a comeback in the USA via Hilary Clinton
And so it has come to pass that in our own little island a great struggle between two world systems, an anglocentric global oligarchy, the New World Order and a balanced system of international nation states, the Multipolar World Order, crystallized around the question of membership of the EU.
Much of the confusion in this debate stems from the fact that neocon faction presents itself as the defender of the nation state against the EU juggernaut. This is because the Euro has turned into a barrier to City of London interests: they tried to knock it out, but failed. It now represents a threat to the very existence of the City, which is being cornered now as Euroland integration and banking union pushes ahead. The answer is to fragment Europe and this is presented as a return to national sovereignty. Believe me, these people know no nation and the Empire of Chaos would be build on the ashes of nationhood.
Anyway, this explains why sovereignty is one of the core issues of the Brexit debate. The other one, of course, is immigration. It is sad that with such great issues being at stake this, although itself an important question especially for those who find their livelihoods threatened by it, has been the narrow focus of the campaign. But the reason is simple. In order to bring down Europe the Brexiteers plan to fan the flames of xenophobia.
If both sides in the dispute within the elite are globalists why should we take sides in it. Well, because a different vision of the world and the future is at stake and because one section of the elite has decided to go straight and taken the first step to break from war and empire in order to enter into a world based on cooperation rather than endless conflict. If this is really what is at stake, why have the overwhelming majority of the Western intelligentsia not seen it in these terms? Either because they are, perhaps unbeknownst to us, party to the conflict and wish to conceal its nature or because the ideological constructs which dominate their thinking do not allow of the scenario outlined above. In a sea of obfuscation, of dead ideologies, simple realities can no longer be seen.
But the reality is being laid bare, exposed by the unprecedented rapidity of unfolding events and in a sleepy nation which has seen little dramatic happening since the 17th century we are being drawn back into the stream of history.