None of this was supposed to happen; indeed, there was never even supposed to be an EU vote at all. When David Cameron promised an “in-out” referendum before the last UK general election, it was a cynical and empty PR stunt.
First, because he expected, at best, to end up leading another minority government, in which his Lib-Dem partners would block any such referendum.
Second, even if the unexpected did happen, there was big existing majority of the UK electorate (which, of course, is increasingly not the same as the actual British people) in favour of continued membership.
With the ‘Yes’ campaign backed not just by the government but also by most of the political elite, and massively funded by big business, there was no reasonable hope of this changing.
Indeed, it was widely expected that pro-EU sentiment would increase as ‘Remain’ unleashed Project Fear, spooking voters with dire warnings of job losses, house value crashes and problems with European holidays if Britain left.
But just a few weeks into the campaign, everything has changed; the outcome is now on a knife-edge, with ‘Remain’ support crumbling by the week. This is not thanks to any particular skill from the ‘No’ camp, but is the result of what appears to be a series of unfortunately timed accidents and inexplicably bitter divisions within the Tory Cabinet.
Except, of course, that accidents like the Panama tax scandal -which has shattered not just Cameron’s personal reputation, but also the credibility of his very personal ‘Remain’ leadership – very rarely just ‘happen’.
Likewise, the explosion of hysterical and deeply damaging public back-stabbing at the highest levels of government is not the result of some chance set of personal rivalries. It may look like a groundless squabble in a junior school playground, but in reality there is very much more to it than that.
So what is going on? And what does it tell us about what may happen over the rest of the campaign?
The first thing to understand is that the UK political establishment is deeply split between individuals whose ultimate loyalty lies with Washington and its dominant neo-con clique, and those who in the end offer their allegiance to Brussels and the Europhiles.
Both groups are, of course, traitors to their own country. Very often, that treason and the interests of their puppet masters lead them to head in the same direction. Thus, for example, although they have rather different end-goals in the Middle East, they had no trouble agreeing on the means, or on using Islamist terrorism as a weapon to destroy Libya and Syria.
In the case of the European Union, however, the positions of the Washington Beltway neo-cons and of the Brussels Europhiles are very different and totally irreconcilable.
It was not always so. For the entire Cold War, the CIA and the other instruments of American foreign policy were the biggest single driving force — and funders — of the European Union Project.
At a simple level, this was because the EU was seen as a counter-balance to the Soviet Union.
At the deeper level, directed by globalist elites, the long-term purpose of ‘Europe’ was to be a ‘regional’ building block of the ‘One World Government’ that was to be established to set in concrete the global domination of Wall Street and its American world police force.
For a few years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Washington and Wall Street were agnostic towards the EU. While their pet oligarchs were looting the ruins of the USSR, with Russia reduced to a giant quarry for global corporations, Brussels’ federal superstate project appeared to be of little concern.
But around 2008, this all changed. The central factor was the revival of the Russian Empire. Putin gave the oligarchs a simple ultimatum: Behave or be destroyed, and then set about rebuilding the economic autonomy, social cohesion, foreign policy reach and military power of Russia.
Perhaps even more alarming to the deeply anti-Christian, lobbies at the dark heart of the ‘American’ elite, Putin also based the revival of Russia explicitly on the Orthodox Church and on uncompromising Christian values.
Finally, the New Russia emerged as the lynchpin in two economic projects, each of which on its own had the potential to smash the world economic dominance that was and is absolutely central to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) blueprint for US global hegemony for the next one hundred years.
The first of this is the joint project with China, but also involving other BRICS nations and even US puppet states in Europe and Southeast Asia, to create a global alternative to the dollar for trade and international finance.
It is still not completely clear that those involved in this project fully understand just how much of a threat their plans pose to the US elite. The Russian Central Bank, for example, still obediently goes cap in hand to the US-dominated global banking industry and pays or borrows in dollars for the right to print its own currency.
This can only mean either that Putin still lacks the power to purge the nest of fifth column vipers that infests the Russian Central banking system, or that neither he nor any of his close advisors understand the real nature of a fiat currency — that it has absolutely no inherent value and that its creation by private banks and lending into circulation at interest is a giant swindle.
In particular, the ‘American’ banking system creates trillions of dollars out of thin air, then sells them to the rest of the world in exchange for the real goods and materials that buy the compliance of the American people while they themselves are robbed blind and dispossessed by the same criminals.
The establishment of the proposed alternative free world currency threatens to eliminate this giant involuntary tribute to the Dollar Empire at a stroke. Without such a permanent subsidy, the very survival of the USA would be in serious doubt.
This first mortal threat goes a long way to explaining Washington’s deeply unreasonable and provocative attitude towards China, as well as the hysterical hostility of America’s Western and Salafist allies towards Putin and Russia.
It does not, however, explain the hostility to the EU of the neo-cons, their allies in the Zionist-dominated Western media and their acolytes in bodies like the British Conservative party.
To understand the source of this, we have to look at another crucial factor which clearly influenced the neo-con/US corporate elites in their 2008 shift in attitude to Brussels from indifference to hostility: The threat of an EU-Russian-Chinese economic partnership.
This was not something that was emerging courtesy of Brussels, whose bureaucrats and second-rate parliamentarians were far too busy worrying about drowning polar bears, the labelling of orange juice and exactly how many ‘genders’ should be recognised and promoted among six-year-olds.
But Germany’s business community, which provides the economic power-house at the heart of the ‘European Dream’, having successfully integrated the bankrupt DDR, was looking further eastwards at the huge market and almost limitless raw materials of Russia.
Even without the increasingly close links between Russia and China, the prospect of a strategic economic partnership between German engineering and technology and Russia’s population and natural resources was a very clear threat to the PNAC scheme for the continued US mastery of the world economy.
It may have taken several years for the scale of these two threats to dawn on the oligarchs running the US, or they may have woken up to the new risks very quickly. We do not know and, unless the American people rise up and replace their masters — before their masters replace them — we probably never will.
But I have set the date for their decision to take action to deal with the ‘European Problem’ at 2008 because it was in that year that there began — apparently out of the blue — a massive and sustained effort to use the mass media (in particular the Murdoch press and broadcast networks) to hype and ramp up anti-EU parties which had for years previously been pretty much neglected.
The two examples I know best are Beppe Grillo’s left-populist Five Star movement in Italy and the right-populist UK Independence Party in Britain. Both were clearly seen by the home-grown ‘left’ as useful blocks to the progress of radical nationalist parties, but the scale of their promotion has gone way beyond what was necessary to do that job.
Five Stars and Ukip have essentially been replicated all over Europe, with Euro-skeptic parties providing a growing challenge to the very same pro-Brussels elites which the CIA had earlier done so much to create.
If the neo-cons started to worry about the growing threat of a German-dominated Europe in 2008, much more recent developments have clearly driven them frantic.
First, they have seen the failure of their attempts to deal with the Russian part of the threat by the coup in the Ukraine, and by promoting Islamist insurrection in the Middle East and on Russia’s southern flank.
Second, they are now watching in horror as an unintended consequence of their amateur geo-political bunglings turns out to be a full-scale strategic partnership between Russia and China.
This has already gone way beyond mere planning and the initial joint projects. The contracts are being exchanged for the ultimate expression (so far) of this anti-globalist alliance: The New Great Silk Road. This will be a series of interlinked high speed railways, linking the great manufacturing centres of coastal China with the whole of central Asia and on to Russia.
Even before it is completed, it will become an irresistible draw to German and other West European capitalists, not least because it will cut the time of delivery for cargo containers from China to Europe from over a month to just three days. At which point the neo-cons’ other geo-political fantasy — the ‘encirclement’ of Russia and China will also collapse overnight.
These are the factors that explain the otherwise inexplicable — the current triple track destabilisation operation directed by influential forces in Washington against America’s supposed closest allies in the European Union:
1) The attempt to exploit historical disagreements and suspicions in the Baltic States and Poland in order to explode the conflict between the neo-Nazi puppet state of Ukraine and Russians in Donbass into full-scale war between Russia and the EU;
2) The deliberate encouragement and facilitation of the importation of millions of unassimilable immigrants, including thousands of Jihadi terrorists, into Germany and other EU states. This is already threatening the EU’s political meltdown and creating the conditions for ethno-religious conflicts that will duplicate over most of western Europe the all-too-successful CIA operation to spark the civil wars and ethnic cleansing that destroyed the former Yugoslavia;
3) The black propaganda assault on the expendable idiot Cameron by several key figures from the neo-con clique, headed by Michael Gove (who describes the invasion of Iraq as a “proper British foreign policy success”). Gove was a key figure in the neo-con clique which first promoted David Cameron’s Tory leadership bid as a way of preventing the party falling into the hands of the right-wing patriot David Davis.
Not all the Tory neo-cons are in agreement with this latest effort, however. Ed Vaizey and George Osborne are campaigning for a ‘Remain’ vote. Whether this reflects a difference of opinion within the neo-con movement in its Washington DC heartland, or simply disagreements and power-jockeying among its adherents in London is at present unclear.
What is, however, crystal clear, is that a ‘No’ vote would plunge the EU Project into several years of chronic uncertainty and instability. This would not merely be over the impact of drawn out wrangling about the terms of the UK/EU ‘divorce’, but also the serious possibility that other disillusioned captive states — most likely in Central and Eastern Europe — would be tempted to follow Britain’s example.
The majority of nationalists in Britain and those with a fondness for Britain are, of course, hoping that this is precisely what happens. Yet this should not blind those of us who favour British withdrawal to the fact that other people want — and are working hard to get — the same thing, though for very different reasons.
Those to whom European civilisation and identity as a whole are at least as important as the sovereignty of the individual nations of Europe should, perhaps, be careful what we wish for.