The Daily Bell once again gives us something to think about, and I think this on is particularly critical given my comments last week on the growing implications of Germany's demands for an audit of its gold reserves:
In my comments last week on the geopolitical implications of Germany's gold audit quest, I noted that one nation that it was now critical to watch was Great Britain. My reasons then for thinking this, and The Daily Bell article reaffirms this, although in a kind of round about way, are these:
1) Britain stands as a crucial country in the globalist schemes because of its status as a bridge between Europe and the European Union, on the one hand, and the rest of the West - the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand - and, crucially, India.
2) Britain's legal and cultural, development, however, stand somewhat apart from the rest of Europe, since the traditions of Roman law are less present in that country, while its common law institutions - as pointed out by the article - are unique to it, and, because of the profound extent and influence of the British Empire on the development of North America, if a centralized political scheme of union in Europe cannot be made to work in a fashion inclusive of Britain, its chances of success on a global scale, one inclusive of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and, to a certain extent, India, is even less likely to succeed.
What I find mystifying, however, at one level, is this statement from The Daily Bell: "This authoritarian enterprise will be greatly weakened by Britain's lack of participation. What makes it even more noteworthy is that the banking elites that evidently and obviously run Britain have seemingly lost control of the process. We don't think for a minute that Britain separating from the EU is a desirable outcome."
One wonders exactly why such a separation is not a desirable outcome, when, as the original article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard makes clear, very little in the arrangement works to the political, cultural, or social benefit of Britain or Britons. And the mystification continues, for at the end of the article The Daily Bell makes it clear that they'd like to see the entire "cancer" of the EU as a political entity ended: "Even this would not be optimal. Leaving portions of the EU to linger is akin to not completely excising a cancer. There is always the possibility the poison will return. And yet ... to read forecasts of the demise of such a body is encouraging indeed ..."
Reading between the lines of these two apparently contradictory paragraphs reveals what is really at stake: the banking elites that run Great Britain, and a great deal of the rest of Europe, have lost their grip on the whole process, and hence, Britain's decision is not desirable to them.
So note what we have: (1) A German challenge to the economic structure undergirding the New World Order plans of the financial elite, a challenge that, in effect, means that one significant component of the financial structure is now openly signaling its distrust of the system; and (2) a British challenge to the political, cultural, and social assumptions of the political structure undergirding the New World Order plans of that same elite, in the form of the European Union.
But as the Bell also points out, such crises oftentimes afford these elites the very means they use to further their goals...ordo ab chao. Nonetheless, these two developments remain a serious blow to the long term prospects for the Eureopean Union... if similar noises begin to be heard from nearly-always-contrarian France, then, Monsieur van Rompuy, the jig is up...
See you on the flip side...