Home | About | Donate

A ‘Brexit’ Blow to the Establishment


A ‘Brexit’ Blow to the Establishment

Robert Parry

The United Kingdom’s “Brexit” vote may cause short-term economic pain and present long-term geopolitical risks, but it is a splash of ice water in the face of the West’s Establishment, which has grown more and more insular, elitist and unaccountable over recent decades.


Parry does a good job of exposing the establishment politics and policies; however, he sounds more and more like a closet Trump supporter which is very unfortunate.

I'd rather hear him challenge the operations that falsely allotted Hillary the nomination, or speak up for Jill Stein and Sanders running as opposition (to the status quo) candidates than covertly chump for Trump.

"In a political year when the anti-establishment wave seems to be cresting, the Democrats may regret their choice of a legacy, status-quo candidate."


The only thing the "Democrats may regret" is anything that gets between them and the billions of corporate dollars they are addicted to.


SR, Parry is simply pointing out the truth that Clinton may well be much worse on foreign policy and free trade than Trump. He's clear about Trump's climate denial and the bigotry associated with his movement.

"Yet, there are undeniably ugly features in the populist sentiment sweeping the U.S. and Europe. Some of it is driven by bigotry toward non-whites, especially immigrants. Some is inspired by wild conspiracy theories from a population that has understandably lost all faith in what it hears from Washington, Brussels and other capitals. Trump has espoused the scary know-nothing notion that the scientific evidence of global warming is “a hoax.”

I think Parry's predictions about Clinton are dead on. Her foreign policy will be like Bush Jr. on steroids. I am convinced that a Clinton Presidency would begin with deposing Assad and move on to Iran. I think we'd start seeing news items about Iran violating the nuclear deal and early speculation about what it is they're trying to hide, followed by hysteria, once again, about their non-existent nuclear weapons program. Of course the usual background chorus about Iran supporting terrorism and supporting groups acting against Israel would become screams and editorials in WashPo and NYT demanding that we attack Iran before the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud.

Acting against Syria will bring us into direct conflict with Russia. Iran would amplify that.

So I think the case against Clinton is even stronger than Parry makes.

That doesn't mean I support the bigoted oaf over the warmonger. They're both vile.

If not Sanders, Stein.


"... but it is arguably a toss-up as to whether Clinton or Trump would be the bigger risk to the world’s future" If I were in the US and had a vote I could feel unclean just thinking about such a choice. Were that this sort of debate could exist in a world where the topic was not about who is the more awful.


imo, the State Dept "elite", like those '51' who made the recent pro-war statement, were checkmated severely by Putin in Crimea. I would guess they really, really want a re-match there.


It's not over until it's over. Bernie has not left his followers and he watches as they get more and more demoralized by machine politics (a la what is happening in New York). It may well be that he deserts the party and goes "Green" with Jill Stein. She is certainly set up to receive him and 12 million voters and has expressed her support of that happening. My stomach has not been in this knot for over 50 years.


We are dealing in this election, (that is if Sanders doesn't end up the Democratic nominee,) with the two main parties having terrible candidates, but terrible in different ways.

Trump is horrible on racism, Islamophobia, anti-immigrant hysteria, and sexism. A Trump presidency will lead to appointments to the Supreme Court that will hurt women, minorities, and immigrants. Cliinton will be better on these things. But she'll give us the TPP and more breaks to Wall Street and take us into more wars, maybe even with Russia or China. Trump is better on these things.

We run into the danger in these dialogs over the next four plus months of sounding like we are promoting one of these terrible candidates when we point out how the other is worse on the specific of which the other is worse. This will go both ways. Sometimes some will seem to be promoting Trump when what they are really doing is pointing out how horrid Clinton is that even Trump is better than her on some issues. Also sometimes some will seem to be promoting Clinton when what they are really doing is pointing out how horrid Trump is.

Meanwhile we will actually disagree on which is the lesser evil. Most of us won't vote for the lesser evil, but we'll still have an idea of which one is the lesser evil, which one we'd vote for if we had only two choice and we had to vote for one of them or the other. (Thank Goddess that is not true.) This has already ended up with arguments between us when both sides actually are not intending on voting for either one.

Let's be patient with each other is my plea (and I'm speaking to myself here.) Let's give each other the benefit of the doubt. We're going to have to deal more and more with Clinton trolls and a maybe even a few Trump ones, but lets not confuse regulars dealing with this horrid election with them and ramp up antipathy. It's going to be bad enough without that.


There's a fundamental rule in mathematics. What you do to one side of an equal sign you do to the other side. Despite the lack of a real democracy, there still resulted a Bernie Sanders. Now you're saying that with the benefit of a real democracy there would be 'better options' than Sanders. Yet if there was a real democracy the capacity of Sanders would rise as well.

Look what he did despite being restricted. His voice has given encouragement and potential to other progressive candidates (meaning people who could pass judgement day) and for us all to be involved and participate in the process. This is the literal meaning of democracy. As he has been saying again and again, only the population has a finger on the switch of democracy. The dark side can play their games of exploitation with the population, or to be sublime, they could even morph into decent human beings, but they can never, ever, create democracy for the population. That only results from participation. That simple and powerful reality is what Sanders keeps reminding us about.


I agree with you completely and ditto the upset stomach..Bernie must not quit. He has to stay in the race or it will be a long while until we get another chance to elect someone like him.


The financial elite are a festering sore that will slowly but surely kill us.

Voting to leave the EU is one example of of lancing the festering sore, which presents an opportunity for the sore to heal, but also presents a risk of infection that might kill us faster than the festering sore.

The same analogy can be applied to Clinton the festering sore and Trump, the perceived lance. Trump, however, presents less of an opportunity to heal and a higher risk of infection than brexit.


Was thinking the same thing. The writer is very astute to the populist anger swelling inside the U.S. and Great Britain; while the establishment remains obtuse.


Thanks, Peter. It's good to have compatriots.


Many are needlessly engaging themselves with the 'lesser than' theme. Go back to its origins, with the condemnation of Nader because of his 2000 election run. This is an exercise in monumental hypocrisy . All the critics of Nader did nothing, nothing, post 9-11. The cowards wore their flag pins, obediently 'followed orders' with their spineless silence and genuflected like good little Johnny(s) and Sally(s) to every criminal activity the Bush administration implemented. The Democratic establishment allowed the Bush criminal circus to happen. And those pieces of scum spent a decade and a half castigating Nader.

I think it's absolutely irresponsible to vote for either Clinton or Trump. There's more than a modest chance one of those two will get the presidency. As a population and movement we should not be good little Johnny(s) and Sally(s). We the people want a functioning democracy. The rules of the game are quite simple. Bernie Sanders cannot give the population democracy. Nether can Jill Stein. And certainly not those on the dark side. Only the population itself can have a finger on the democracy switch. And there's only one way to do that. Participation. Simple, powerful and necessary. It's what Sanders and Stein as well as others have been preaching over and over. The population can not rely on any 'establishment' for help. This was made all too obvious in 2003 when millions around the world marched against the upcoming Iraq invasion, while establishments around the world played the role of good Johnny(s) and Sally(s).

No need to be speculators or gamblers. The changing demographics are on our side and the establishment can read the numbers. Give neither one of them any credibility by voting for them.


Excellent and poignant piece of writing. Does anyone else wonder what might be going on in the minds of those who chose for us - this absurd and preventable slow decay of mankind and our planet to the ravages of unchecked capitalism? Are the elites of this world too far removed from the DNA of their own bodies to be able to comprehend the misery they've brought to the world? It's getting to the point where I'm beginning to think of these people as something other than human.

The veil has been lifted on the European Union to expose it as nothing but a well organized cabal of thieving bankers and trained politicians whom feign concern for worker's rights and well being of citizens, while turning us into chattel. I knew one day this little experiment would begin to crumble as it was not built upon a noble foundation - but, only a keenly structured and implemented scheme to replace representative government with oligarchy.

The combination is wealth and power, two highly volatile substances and dangerously addictive when placed into the lap of individuals whose zeal for both supersedes the judgement of one's god given conscience. This is the mindset of those whom author trade pacts, leading to destabilization of the middle class and serve up the natural resources of struggling countries to hubris laden corporations and allow indigenous people, whom dare say 'no to the savage rape' to be sanctioned - think Chaquita.
And true to form: they attempt to hold it all together with fear of the unknown. Fear is used against us as a weapon of deterrence should we determine - 'we've figured out what you bastards have been doing and we've had enough.' Fear is all they've got to hold it all together. The only benefit I see from this awful election is that - from the hideous choices to select from, not one of us can say we have a functioning democracy; especially in light of how the Republicans have become too addled from corruption to fend off Trump's ascension. Or, Democrats blatant 'in your face' rigging of the primary against Senator Sanders. This is at least, honest intelligence we've secured to fight back and rebuild. And because of the courage of Senator Sanders - we know it can be done.


If the Peace Movement can become involved in the elections and make ending the needless and illegal wars and massive military spendinga problems that must be addressed and discussed then Hillary's campaign will have problems and Trump's bluster and aggression will give him problems. By default the Green Party will be well positioned.

So many issues. If this can be made an issues election then we have more important matters to discuss and worry about than Hillary and the Donald. Both establishment parties are on the wrong side of almost all important issues, hence both Clinton and Trump are on the wrong side and it is time to look at the parties that are on the right side of the important issues.

People are concerned and ready to reconsider and to discuss how things should be. It is time to recognize the issues that the elites use to divide us and for now attempt to call a truce on those issues in order to put the focus on war, inequality, bank and debt reform, healthcare, and so on. The list is is quite extensive, and the pressure for these issues to be discussed and addressed has been building for some time.


The idea is--to not let it get even close to the "it's over" --point.

FDR said '"Now Make me do it"---it's now for this Rebellion to shake off the D W Shultz strings and Make Bernie do it. It has been a one person battle, the Rebellion has to show some real force and Gusto that will not back down.

The Rebellion should draft Bernie into the senior role and join him into the Green party as the Presidential Candidate with Dr Jill Stein as V.P.and flood the Green Party with all those who are unwilling to vote for the Party of the lesser evil or the Party of Hate. A few million new Greens might just turn the trick.

Cannot be done, Why not, what's to loose.?
Bernie--Blue or Green or both--NO TO BUST


Does anyone reading this blog realize that Stein will not be on all the US state ballots, It takes money to achieve that, money for which Greens have a very short supply. To give one example, the party is in a legal contest with the State of Arizona (yes, the thoroughly corrupt State of Arizona) on the party's exclusion from its ballots. Such contests cost money. Start supporting them financially!


It's also heartening to find that Robert Parry is starting to be something other than a voice crying in the wilderness.


To challenge a belief, the UK did not vote for an out, but the English did....!
AS a Scot and one that like the majority of us north of the border, I voted to stay with the EU despite all it's faults of which there are many. The OUT campaign was initiated by the minority of wealthy English Elite, the very same elite that control politics and the economy of the UK. Scotland and Northern Ireland both went against this view and we are the real opposition to the establishment and endemic corruption that exists in Westminster and established families of this realm.
Robert Parry needs a reality check, possibly come and live here a few years to see for himself the incompetence from the establishment and the contempt they have for the poor.
Brexit campaign should never have been allowed to happen and the poor of this country will feel the worst of those effects well before the wealthy do., if indeed they ever will.


I agree that paragraph stood out to me as well.

But, I have a point of disagreement, that Trump is anti-establishment. Yes, he makes accurate statements regarding how bad the trade deals have been for the US, but the guy has stuff manufactured in China and India, maximizing his profits in his Trump Store.

•He also engages in establishment tactics of ripping people off…Trump University.

•He has consistently fought any union organizing among workers at his properties.

•He wants to lower corporate tax rates, and deregulate energy production even more. His statements regarding Global Warming being a hoax simply adds fuel to that deregulation fire.

•He wants to make our already corporate dominated health care system, even more so.

•He wants to engage in a buildup of the US Military, which of course simply further entrenches the MIC.

•He wants to expand the surveillance state, feeding the desires of the vast Security Corporate Complex.

How does the above litany of facts, profile Donald Trump as being anti-establishment?

Now lets examine his pedigree of somehow being a much better choice in regard to foreign policy.

He wants to build a Wall. Not only is that xenophobic, but it is an absolutely aggressive policy move against Mexico, thus not a good sign as to how he will navigate the World Stage in regard to asserting US State power.

He wants to ban Muslims from entry. Again, how on Earth can anyone NOT argue that Trump isn't damn dangerous in how he is likely to use the US Military in relation to foreign policy?

He is absolutely hyping the danger of Iran. Sound familiar? If that isn't tried and true neoconservative, neoliberal, and just plain ole right wing hyperbole that is music to the ears of the utmost Establishment Agency, the MIC, then I don't know what is. He says that Iran has taken over Iraq, that he will nix the Nuclear deal, and impose even worse sanctions than before. How can anyone who has a principled stand against Hillary Clinton (and absolutely valid), and then ignore all of these things about Trump?

Last Wednesday, he stated that he would be the best friend that the State of Israel has ever had. I'm certain Palestinians will be just so happy to hear that! The probably aren't all that happy that he has stated he will move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. And of course, adding insult to injury, most Palestinians are Muslim so they would not be welcome in the US according to Trump.

His heightened rhetoric about ISIS. Have you heard him lately on ISIS? He is less bellicose about ISIS than Clinton? How is it that Trump, who has vowed over and over that he will destroy ISIS, isn't calling for some kind of major military escalation in the ME? And if that occurs in Syria, how would that be categorically different than what Clinton is proposing? Again, Clinton's proposals are dangerous indeed. There is no question about that.

He has talked about how the US should just "take their oil". What's that? The rhetoric of a peacenik? Or we are just supposed to ignore it, because well Trump just says stuff.

He has stated on his website, and in rallies that he will expand the deployment of the US Navy and Air Force off of the coast of China, as a means to intimidate them on trade deal. Trump, with his own personal Military to make Deals Bigly. That should scare the hell out of anyone really looking at who Trump is, and what he is saying, his body language, his behavior at rallies, his bullying, his hate mongering and the rest.

But, the shorthand response is that we are to just brush all of these things off.

I never thought I would see the day, that many on the left puts blinders on in the face of Trump. The same people, I presume that have screamed for years that we should never vote for the lesser of two evils.

How ironic, that I believe they are making the worst bargain imaginable, not shouting from the rooftops the evils of BOTH.

If you'd like a litany of Clinton's ills, just listen to Trump's speech last Wednesday night on Clinton, and I agree with all of it. The problem I have with Trump on Clinton, is that he doesn't go far enough.

Has Trump ever stated that anyone in the US Military, or any other official, should be prosecuted for war crimes? Well Clinton sure as hell should be.

Perhaps it is because he doesn't really have a problem with war crimes, after all Donald Fucking Trump wants to MAKE TORTURE LEGAL!!!!!!! Why is this not shouted from the rooftops by the supposedly principled left?????

Here is Donald Fucking Trump in early March, prior to backing off his statement that he would have the US Military kill families of suspected terrorists, as he was being pressed on that statement…

> “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me,” he said. “If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”

How does any person from the left NOT point out the terrifying profile of Donald Trump?