Naughty Europeans Rejecting Globalisation

You could say the wheels are coming off europe’s political bandwagon, except it wasn’t much of a wagon to start with. Germany’s golden goose from Russia got cooked by Anglo-American pipeline-terrorism in 2022. ‘Independent’ Britain has hoisted five different Prime Ministers in six years. French farmers have imported Canada’s disobedience model and ground Paris to a halt within a cordon of jumbo trucks.

Hungary’s delightfully retro Viktor Orban has stuck two fingers up to the Brussels mafia, using his veto to stop the EU transferring endless bankloads of taxpayer money to Washington’s Ukrainian sock-puppet. His purse-strings well and truly severed, Zelensky the Great now has all the gravitas of a washed-up clown, banging his rubber begging bowl against locked doors, behind which doomed political stooges are gibbering at the prospect of their electoral annihilation.

Revealing itself yet again to have all the diplomatic attritubutes of a Mafia goonsquad, the EU’s response to Orban’s timely injection of common-sense should tell the UK’s Remainers all they need to know…

Jan 29 (Reuters) - The European Union will sabotage Hungary's economy if Budapest blocks fresh aid to Ukraine at a summit this week, under a confidential plan drawn up by Brussels, the Financial Times reported on Sunday.

Brussels has outlined a strategy to explicitly target Hungary's economic weaknesses, imperil its currency and drive a collapse in investor confidence in a bid to hurt "jobs and growth" if Budapest refuses to lift its veto on the aid to Kyiv, the newspaper reported, citing a document drawn up by EU officials. [Full Reuters report HERE]

Curious kind of “union” that one, isn’t it? EU will SABOTAGE Hungary’s economy…IMPERIL it’s currency…COLLAPSE investor confidence… All this because Mr Orban doesn’t want to bankrupt his country writing blank cheques to arms dealers? With respect to those eager-beavers queuing to join the Brussels bankster club, is this really the kind of care and companionship your people need? And yes, I’m talking to you Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey, and (who else?) Ukraine.

However you dress it up the European Union was from the start an unsubtle plot to award central banks the kind of control over Europe the Third Reich enjoyed for about 30 bloodsoaked months in the 1940’s. Steely-eyed German bean-counters were always pulling the big levers behind the EU curtain, with all the confidence that unlimited American finance bestows. Throughout this century the two-way traffic between Wall Street and the Deutschebank has been legendary, as recently illustrated by the youthful adventures of one of Britain’s top globalist grifters, Sajid Javid. [Read about Sajid Javid HERE ]

What a comedown, then, it must have been for the polymaths of Bonn and Berlin when the Obama-engineered Biden regime sent the Nordstream limitless-gas tap to Davy Jones’ Locker. [Read our Nordstream Terrorism coverage HERE & HERE]

The trouble is, America’s inevitable financial nosedive will herald a europe-wide disaster, as a 2008-style transnational bailout will not be forthcoming the next time the S hits the F. The economic pendulum has swung to the east -and I don’t mean Kentucky or Bulgaria. We’re talking far east, those exotic places where IQ is always high, prices low, labour is super-cheap and you can send a tanker-load of anything through the Suez canal with a nod and a wink to the Houthis.

On the other hand, if you’re trying to shift your trade from a country unfortunate enough to be holding hands with the likes of Britain, well…

 

…here’s a pic (courtesy of the Indian navy) of a tanker burning in the Gulf of Aden last Friday after being hit by missile fire from, oh yes, the Houthis. The BBC’s coy description of this vessel as having “links to the UK” speaks volumes. Iranian Translation: Attention infidels! This what happens to boats run by pals of the Brits.

The ship apparently burned for about six hours until the flames were finally extinguished by an Indian Navy rescue team led by the INS Visaknapatham -which I’m guessing is a big Indian warship. This is -for the United Kingdom and the Royal Navy- what those in the maritime warfare community call “humiliation”.

I would go into further details but there’s a bit of a flap on in military circles right now and I wouldn’t want to wake up in the punishment-cell of that top-secret submarine pen just around the corner from my Fortress of Solitude in the Firth of Argyll. Suffice to say the plight of the Marlin Luanda was not, in seafaring terms, our finest hour. In short, waves ruled not.

Britain’s granite-brained defense secretary Grant Schnapps -sorry, I mean Shapps, fired off a quick volley of armour-piercing words, describing the attack as “intolerable and illegal” adding “it is our duty to protect freedom of navigation in the Red Sea”.

A spokesman for SOFRACT (the Society Of Far-right Racist Conspiracy Theorists) asked “Hang about, isn’t it your duty to protect the south coast of England?” As yet, the Ministry of Defense has not offered a response.

Before closing our update on the pleasantly growing tide of european dissent, lets pay a quick visit to the Pew Research Centre where -to the evident horror of its first-year-college-level journalists- the nightmare of populism has been detected raising its tousled locks over the european electoral parapet.

You often hear Pew Research papers quoted as an “authoritative source” on various topics. I always found this peculiar, as Pew’s output consists entirely of using several hundred ponderous words to state the screamingly bloody obvious. Anyway, having skipped through Pew’s bombshell roundup of populism blooming in Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Hungary, Poland, Belgium and France, I thought it might be fun to see how they actually define populism -a term I suspect was invented by and for grant-guzzling academic parasites for their own dastardly purposes. How does ‘populism’ differ from say, any other ism?

Pew are kind enough to offer their own three-pronged definition, having first enlightened readers with this nugget of Pewisdom:

“Although experts generally agree that populist political leaders or parties display high levels of anti-elitism, definitions of populism vary.” Did you catch that? “Experts generally agree…” Now call me mister picky, but that’s the same opening gambit of every other made-up article in the Daily Mail, as in “Experts say -time to get your 32nd Covid booster -it’s not only safe for children aged under 32 days but 99% effective and comes in five great flavours!” Or perhaps “Experts agree that a polyamorous household consisting of five charmless beta-males and an ugly obese woman represents an intelligent, wholesome environment in which to raise happy, well-adjusted children…” and so on.

But I digress. What we want to know is, how do Pew define ‘populism’? They are quite remarkably specific as it turns out:

“We use three measures to classify populist parties:

(1) Anti-elite ratings from the 2019 Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES)

(2) Norris’ Global Party Survey

(3) The PopuList

Can you believe it? Oneof the media’s most beloved authoritative sources is a research outfit which can’t define ‘populism’ without consulting three other research outfits. Who’d a thunk it? But as my thirst for truth is unquenchable, I had to take just one step further down the Pewhole. What exactly are, I wondered, “anti-elite ratings” -and where did the 2019 Chapel Hill Expert Study get them?

Let me just say that what follows represents a half hour of my life I shall sadly never retrieve. Here is a montage of the experts whose collective efforts in 2019 bravely compiled those elusive, sought-after anti-elite ratings. 

 

Visiting their website (which you can do HERE) I was bowled over by the uninhibited delight etched on the faces of the fearless men and women of CHAS. Indeed, one would struggle to find such a toothy display of collective self-satisfaction outside of a newly-minted polyamorous household. This is not the Daily Mail, however, and these are not perverts but experts.

Judging by the pictures above, they are not merely chuffed, but downright gleeful. Presumably taken in the immediate aftermath of completing their epic 2019 odyssey across an academic tundra populated by primitive, aggressive experts, these portraits do not cry thank god the ordeal is over. Rather, they coo lets do it again soon!

Which is not surprising, as all eight of these brainiacs had just been paid a living wage to spend an entire year collecting the opinions of  “421 political scientists specializing in political parties and European integration” -and this, by the way, included political parties in 32 countries. But somehow, against the odds the lads and lasses of CHAS, bless them, came up with the goods -some anti-elite ratings.

At that point I abandoned the Pewcrew website and fell into the arms of beer, so I never got round to exploring the truth behind the Norris Global Party Survey or The PopuList. Perhaps another day when I’m stuck for entertainment…

In summary then, the EU (for it was them) and a list of other globalist poodles including the central bank of Sweden, stumped up millions in grant-funding, so that the eight experts above could spend twelve months consulting 421 other experts, as a result of which the Pewxperts could get one-third of the data it required to define the word ‘populist’. This is cast-iron irrefutable proof that academics are an inhuman parasitic blight which must be driven from the face of the earth once and for all.

And it is also, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why the EU is not just condemned to fail, but destined for drowning, like a howling litter of unwanted feral mutants in a continent-sized bin-bag. Let the welcome tide of populism rise. 

[THIS POST ALSO AVAILABLE ON SUBSTACK -CLICK HERE]

Ian Andrew-Patrick

Many thanks to readers for supporting 99EndOf. Please visit our new Substack website at the link above. Our aim is to spread the links and information as far and wide as possible. Please do help whenever you can.

99endof supports no political party or ideology. The individual is what matters here, and the freedoms for which we are now obliged to fight.