Trump’s win may be the beginning of a global populist wave

World-populism

Even (((Jeff Bezos’))) liberal rag the Washington Post has to admit that we are winning. Not just in the USA, but worldwide.

When Donald Trump begins deporting the scum, watch Germans wake up and say, “We should do this too.” Hopefully, Angela Merkel will be retired soon.

France should also fall to our cause. Go Le Pen.

Washington Post

LONDON — Not long before Americans shocked the world by selecting Donald Trump to be their next president, a wealthy Brazilian businessman who played a reality-star boss on television became mayor of South America’s largest city.

On the other side of the globe, in Southeast Asia, a gun-slinging vigilante who vowed to kill all criminals and dump their bodies until the “fish will grow fat” was elected to lead a nation of 100 million.

And in Britain, voters with a centuries-long streak of moderation and pragmatism opted to ignore the overwhelming advice of experts by leaping into the abyss of life outside the European Union.

The populist wave of 2016 that carried Trump to the pinnacle of international power and influence didn’t start in the United States. And it certainly won’t end there.

Instead, the biggest prize yet for a global movement built on a seemingly bottomless reserve of political, economic and cultural grievance is likely to be an accelerant to even more victories for people and causes bent on upending the existing world order.

“Success breeds success,” said Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Right now, everyone is susceptible to it. The drivers seem to be universal.”

And unless something dramatic changes to curb the populist appeal, a scattering of surprise victories this year could soon turn into a worldwide rout — the triumph of those who preach strong action over rule of law, unilateralism instead of cooperation and the interests of the majority above the rights of ethnic and religious minorities.

“Their world is collapsing,” tweeted a jubilant Florian Philippot, senior adviser to French far-right leader Marine le Pen, following Trump’s victory. “Ours is being built.”

With French presidential elections due next spring, Le Pen is well-placed to add Paris to the list of world capitals that have fallen to the populist tide. She is seen as a lock to make it to the final round of voting, and although her chances have long been discounted among political prognosticators in France, that changed after Trump’s victory.

Well before France votes, Austria could become the first country to elect a far-right head of state in Western Europe since 1945 when it picks a president next month. On the same day, Dec. 4, Italians will vote in a constitutional referendum that could bring down the center-left government of Prime Minister Matteo Renzi — while boosting the fortunes of the anti-establishment 5-Star Movement.

Although the exact causes of the populist surge vary from country to country, the broad outlines are similar across national boundaries.

Anxiety over economic gains that accrue to the few and leave the rest stagnant or sinking. Unease with the cultural implications of an increasingly interconnected world. And alienation from a self-serving political class that aligns with the wealthy at the expense of the working class.

The most extreme example, of course, is Germany, where the country’s election of a charismatic populist proved catastrophic for the world.

Because of the country’s Nazi history, its postwar political system has been designed to defend minority rights and prevent a majoritarian takeover.

But terrorist attacks by Islamist radicals and a record wave of Middle Eastern migrants are now testing the national will.

The fast-growing Alternative for Germany party, founded in 2013, has galvanized the anti-Islam ranks. The AfD unveiled a scathing denunciation of the faith this year, warning against “the expansion and presence of a growing number of Muslims” on German soil. Adding fuel to the party’s campaign, German authorities have arrested more than a dozen suspected extremists, many of whom entered Germany by masquerading as migrants.

With national elections next year, the party is now supported by nearly 1 in 6 voters and has staged startling gains this year in local elections.

Jürgen Falter, a political scientist and expert on the far-right, described the party’s leadership as “not real neo-Nazis, but rather close.” Its voter base, however, is larger — an amalgamation of Germans fearing everything from foreigners to globalization.

“They managed to get some more moderate and less moderate people supporting them who feel threatened by modernization, by refugees, by Islam,” he said. “And now we are talking about some Trump voters, as well.”

Even in Germany, the political unthinkable can no longer be so easily discounted.

2 thoughts on “Trump’s win may be the beginning of a global populist wave

  1. “And in Britain, voters with a centuries-long streak of moderation and pragmatism opted to ignore the overwhelming advice of experts by leaping into the abyss of life outside the European Union.”
    The abyss? England did very well without Europe for thousands of years. The British Empire largely avoided Europe and focused on the entire globe instead.
    Small numbers of Englishmen told billions of tinted people what to do and the tinted people mostly obeyed them. The non white folk were a lot better off due to this “whites mans burden” which lifted the living standards of all subject peoples. Even today, the former British countries are mostly less shithole than Portuguese, Spanish, French, German. Compare say Kenya and Tanzania with Mozambique.
    The English took over Australia from the abos (without any fighting except a random spear chucked in anger) in 1788 with no competition from any other country anywhere in the world. It took 6 months to get there, and 12 months minimum for a reply to any order or letter. The first supply ship sent was shipwrecked. So the colonists survived for almost 2 years with no help or food from the mother country. Only the English had the courage to attempt such a far sighted venture with quite high risks of failure.
    A big percentage of the most important inventions of the past 250 years have been made by Scottish people. So why do the British need to allow Europeans to boss them around, especially the (((dictators))) of Brussels?

    • Before 1918 no women were allowed to vote in UK parliamentary elections. So no “centuries-long streak of moderation and pragmatism” for half the voting public. Not to mention all the male/female wogs from shitholes with no history of democracy, who are now allowed to vote in UK elections.

      From “notforprofitpedia”
      “Reform Act 1832 – extended voting rights to adult males who rented propertied land of a certain value, so allowing 1 in 7 males in the UK voting rights.
      Reform Act 1867 – extended the franchise to men in urban areas who met a property qualification, so increasing male suffrage.
      Representation of the People Act 1884 – addressed imbalances between the boroughs and the countryside; this brought the voting population to 5,500,000, although 40% of males were still disenfranchised because of the property qualification.”

      So no “centuries-long streak of moderation and pragmatism” for almost all the male half of the voting public.

      Since 1432 in England only rich male landholders could vote. So there is your pragmatic and moderate group beloved by the Jew WaPo.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s