Proxy Battle In France Ends With Blowout Of The "French Trump"

French voters celebrate Emmanuel Macron's win yesterday - and many in Europe and the U.S. breath a sigh of relief.

All of Europe and many in the U.S. held their breath yesterday to see if the far right populist surge that began with Brexit, then Trump's election in the U.S. could be stopped. Squaring off was a former centrist investment banker Emmanuel Macron, against the "French Trump" - as many French voters called Marine Le Pen.  And what might have ended in a Le Pen victory and ultimately a "Frexit", instead saw an electoral blowout with Macron winning 66 percent to 34 percent. 

Not so much touted or noted was the extent to which the French runoff election had turned into a cage match battle between Trump and Barack Obama - but via proxies (Macron and Le Pen) representing Obama-style centrism and right wing Trumpism, respectively. Indeed, seeing the risk to the European Union, Obama had come right out for common sense and a video of Obama endorsing Emmanuel Macron for President was pinned to the top of Macron’s FB page. The video was vintage POTUS 44,  all intelligence and maturity.

Unlike the bombastic, toddler-esque Trump with his three-year old's vocabulary (in tweets and in person)  and perverted, Cheshire cat smirk, Obama fixed the camera with his trademark sober, sympathetic gaze stating in his coherent style:

“I’ve always been grateful for the friendship of the French people, and for the work we did together when I was President of the United States,.  I'm not planning to get involved in many elections now that I don’t have to run for office again. But the French election is very important to the future of France and the values that we care so much about.”

Obama's endorsement emphasized that the French runoff result "mattered to the entire world" which it did. This is because a Le Pen victory would have reinforced the nationalist, anti-immigrant position of the U.S. Trumpites even as Trump would have slobbered all over her win in overblown tweets.  As it was, the boy in a man's job had to eat humble pie and at least make it look like he approved of Macron's lopsided win. He doesn't and you can bet your sweet bippy on that. He probably ripped most of his orange hair out last night.

Trump himself had earlier "cavorted" with Le Pen - even inviting her to Trump Tower, see e.g.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38600560


 He fully embraced her agenda,  noting the similarities in position such as her anti-Islamic, anti-immigration and closed borders stance as well as de facto keeping France for the French.  Recall also that Le Pen, leader of the National Front, was one of the first to congratulate Trump on his fake news- driven, Wikileaks -Hillary email hacked victory in November. Also,  Le Pen's nativist, nationalistic message carried echoes of Trump's anti-immigrant campaign rhetoric. Trump, in turn,  had praised Le Pen’s tough stance on immigration and borders, which many of her critics had decried as racist.

Obama's appearance three days in advance of the runoff in support of Macron should not have surprised anyone who knew anything of the two leaders.  As Emily Schultheis noted in The Atlantic last month, Obama and Macron’s campaigns shared plenty of similarities. Like Obama, Macron relied on a large and seemingly unprecedented grassroots campaign composed of thousands of volunteers across the country. Both Obama's and Macron's campaigns were centered on moving their countries in a progressive direction—Macron’s slogan being En Marche, or “Onward!,”  (named after the party he formed 3 years ago), while Obama relied on the slogans “Change We Can Believe In” and, for his reelection campaign, “Forward.”

So, in the end - even though Le Pen made a late, half-hearted effort to distance herself from Trump-  it wasn't enough. Trump or no Trump,  her extremist positions  didn't sit well with French voters who were not bamboozled by fake news or hacks (one even coming hours before election day but which Macron's campaign had laid traps for) . Given two ballots in  hand-  one with Le Pen's name on it, one with Emmanuel Macron's -  French voter's by nearly 2 to 1 dumped the former into dust bins and cast the latter.  Today's post-mortem news (CBS Early Show) was that millions of Le Pen ballots were left in trash cans in the voter precincts. Today, with those tossed ballots hopefully disclosing her in history's dust bin, the world is breathing easier.

But some pundits are asserting it was merely a Le Pen defeat not one for far Right populism. Indeed, despite Macron's blowout, Le Pen scored a historic high for the French far Right. Even after a  campaign that ended with a calamitous performance in the final TV debate, she was projected to have taken almost 11m votes, double that of her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, when he reached the presidential run-off in 2002.  Recall, old man Jean-Marie was the one who said the Holocaust was a "small detail of history".

In addition, the anti-immigration, anti-EU National Front's supporters have asserted that the party now has a central place as an opposition force in France. They might, but that may depend on future elections. As it was the French runoff election turnout was the lowest in more than 40 years. Almost one-third of voters chose neither Macron nor Le Pen, with 12 million abstaining and 4.2 million spoiling ballot papers. In many ways it mirrored our own 2016 election when many voters decried "two horrible choices",

But maybe what we have to start asking ourselves is why we so often end up with these "horrible" choices. Is it our electoral process? Or is it the very choices we make at each stage of extended campaigns, including primaries? Would making voting easier help, such as using mail ballots like we do here in Colorado? At the very least that should enable higher voter turnout, though that is the one thing the U.S. far Right doesn't want, so convinced are they that "voter fraud" is the primary evil - never mind it is actually voter suppression.

For now the world of the sane breathes easier, but the vast fake news realm of the insane, angry and unsettled remains and no one can write it off for the long term.  This was but one battle in a long bruising war that isn't settled yet, not by a long shot.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/72663/nos-felicitations-macron

Excerpt:

"The fact that racist nationalist Le Pen could summon more than a third of the French vote is cause for worry about the future. Xenophobia toward Muslims has played a part. More responsible are widening inequality and mounting job insecurity – coupled with a growing sense that the political-economy is rigged in favor or the privileged and out of touch with average working people.

The French haven’t suffered the same degree of economic stresses as have Americans in recent decades – France’s social safety net is still relatively intact – which may explain why they didn’t elect Le Pen while we elected Trump. But France, like most modern political economic systems, is heading in America’s direction under the guise of business “flexibility” and austerity economics."

Trump's Exploiting Fear To Boost Neo-Nazi Le Pen Doesn't Work

Never let a good foreign crisis go to waste without some kind of an authoritarian tweet! That's the motto of  Donald Trump, who has yearned for his little Neo-Nazi Marine LePen to also get into power in France. Of course, with that "Frexit"  added to the Brexit, it would make the collapse of the EU almost a certainty.   Fortunately, that didn't materialize as Centrist Independent Emmanuel Macron just topped Le Pen yesterday by two percentage points. ('France Chooses Hope Over Fear mongering', The Financial Times, today). This marks the 3rd time right wing nationalists have been beaten back, following elections in Austria and the Netherlands. But....Macron still has to put Le Pen away on May 7th in the runoff.

In the lead up to the French elections yesterday Trump- as is his wont- was quite active. For example, on Friday morning Trump tweeted about the possible impact of the Paris shooting the previous day resulting in one police officer dead and 2 wounded.  Trump wrote:

"Another terrorist attack in Paris. The people in France will not take much more of this. Will have a big effect on presidential election!"


No surprise Trump - the Hitler wannabe - would tweet this offal, attempting to interfere in the French election like he enlisted the help of the Russkies to do so in ours.  After all, recall another incident in Paris - the November 2015 mass shooting at the Bataclan theater -  helped solidify his lead in the polls going into the GOP primaries. But this is how authoritarians work: they prey on each and every act of terror to ramp up fear to support their shticks.  At that time Trump tweeted:

"Everyone is now saying how right I was with illegal immigration and the wall. After Paris, they're all on the bandwagon."

Of course, as the results from yesterday revealed,  this is ineffable codswallop. First, not "everyone" was saying any such thing.   At least half the French electorate Is not on his "bandwagon" just as ours wasn't when he invoked each and every terror and quasi-terror incident (like the mass shooting in Orlando) to try to ramp up fear and consternation.  Second there is NO evidence "illegal immigration",  as per the Dept. of Homeland Security's own stats, shows any link to an uptick in terrorism.   The DHA report showed no terror attacks transpired from any of the six nations Trump put on his de facto Muslim ban.

 Third, the "wall" will not do anything to halt terror even if some element could use illegal (Mexican) immigration as a vehicle. What the wall will do is cost American taxpayers upward of $40 b if ever passed into law, and also - because of its putative design along river borders (like the Rio Grande) leave hundreds of Americans on the Mexican side.   (Look for Trump's wall funding to trigger a shutdown later this week)

Again, this is what authoritarian narcissists do to  consolidate power, as Hitler did after the Reichstag fire. (In that case, turning the power of the authoritative Nazi state against the Jews.)

In the case of the recent Paris attack, recall Trump labeled it such in advance of what French authorities acknowledged. During a joint press conference with Italian Prime Minster Paolo Gentiloni,  Trump quickly called it a "terrorist attack" before French authorities had done so. Such premature negative framing is common to most authoritarians who need a general terror meme to support their campaigns or future plans.   Trump went on to blab:

"It's a very very terrible thing that is going on in the world today. And what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and vigilant and I've been saying that for a long time."

Once more, look at the buzzwords here: "strong and vigilant" - same words Hitler used after the Reichstag fire.  Also  Trump's words "it just never ends", expressing more the fondest hope of any proper  strong man because if it ever did "end" there'd be no use for his authoritarian prescriptions.

And more to the point, because authoritarians know sane people are skeptical of their governance or what passes for such, they seek to gather other confirmed authoritarians into their fold. Hence, Trump praising the Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan as he's now egging on Le Pen.  He'd like nothing better than to be sitting in the middle of such a triumvirate by the end of the summer. And yes, I call a spade a spade, so Marine is a neo-Nazi, given the apple never falls far from the tree, and her notorious dad (Jean-Marie) once said the holocaust was just a "detail of history". (It is true that he was expelled from the National Front party by his daughter, but this wasn't done out of some noble motive or respect for the Jews. She did it to pave the way for a credible campaign run using the PR that she'd 'disavowed' Poppy's hate". Don't buy it for a second!)

That Le Pen is as shamelessly exploitative of attacks as Trump, to firm up her authoritarian bona fides, was evident in the wake of the Paris shootings. That is, referencing "incredible lapses in the justice system" such that the current French government and its predecessor "had done everything to make France lose the war on terrorism".  Immediately following her angst-provoking blurtations, Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve blasted her for exploiting the attack.

Although Trump has never formally met Le Pen, a little known but sordid fact is that she is close to some of the same advisors who helped craft Trump's pseudo-populist message during the U.S. campaign.  (And recall Le Pen was spotted in Trump Tower during the transition in January. The skinny is that they discussed mutual authoritarian governance in a post Brexit, post-Obama world)

Obviously, for Trump and Le Pen, the "populist" blather ....errr...message, is just that, all hollow bloviation with no substance. They tossed out words to console the feelings and infirmities of the poor, native working class blokes but don't really give two craps about them. If Trump really did, why would he have supported a health plan that tossed 24 million off their health care? 

Interviewed in a NY Times piece last week, many pro=Trump voters asserted ongoing commitment even if Trump fulfills none of his campaign promises. Why is this? Because he was the "first" to speak to their cultural "persecution" and being "left at the back of the bus for societal priorities".   Really, you can't make this shit up. So even after their health care is gone, and their homes foreclosed because the jobs promised never materialize, they will stick with their hero looneytune.

The French just have to ensure that in the runoff election THEY don't get stuck with Trump's psychotic female counterpart!

A Hillary Prescription For Losing In November: Pick Tim Kaine As Veep

Hillary and Hillary II: Let's hope they have good laughs now since they likely won't in November.

As Michael Moore's turn to comment came up on Bill Maher's Convention edition of Real Time last night, he provided what he himself called "the buzzkill". That is, predicting Donald Trump will win the general election - much to the boos and consternation of the lefties in the audience and on the panel (Joy Reid and Dan Savage).

Moore zeroed in on the "Brexit" in the US of A, comprising three  industrial states: Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania with their 64 electoral votes. Those 64  electoral votes were the difference between Mitt Romney becoming the 45th President in 2012 and just another loser to Obama. But this time around, as Moore explained, they could easily be grabbed by Trump - especially given all three feature Republican governors who can gin the voting rules in their favor, including via use of electronic voting machines which were a major factor in Bush winning Ohio in 2004.

Of course, the Real Time LA crowd, stoked on the triumphalism of most of the liberal press, couldn't handle it. They were in denial and averse to such awful forecasting.

Moore might be right or wrong. I personally don't believe it's a given Hillary Clinton  will lose, but that is only provided she plays her cards right and doesn't shoot herself in the foot. Right now, however, the buzz is that she will do that - by following her advisors lead and picking a Neoliberal Veep, namely Tim Kaine.

As David Swanson pointed out on smirkingchimp.com:

"Kaine was an anti-environmentalist pro-coal governor of Virginia, a supporter of the "right to work" (for less) law restricting union organizing in Virginia, and he is a supporter of corporate trade agreements including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and including fast-tracking the TPP. An extremely loyal Democrat, he nonetheless criticized Democrats in 2011 for proposing higher taxes on millionaires.

Kaine is the anti-Bernie Sanders on policy and on process. He takes his direction from those in power, not from the public. In a poll of over 250 Sanders delegates to the Democratic National Convention (by the Bernie Delegate Network), only 2.7% of them said they thought Kaine would be an acceptable vice presidential nominee."

Kaine's support of the TPP will be one of the biggest knocks against him. Trump will hammer him and Clinton relentlessly - based on his acceptance speech tonight -  citing the horrific job losses in industrial states in the wake of trade deals starting with  NAFTA (pushed by Bill Clinton) and ending with TPP (embraced in the past by Hillary). 

Meanwhile, with another Neolib on the ticket Bernie or Bust people will not be energized enough to change their minds and certainly not to subscribe to the lesser of two evils again. They will also take a Kaine pick as not only a slap in the face, but also showing Clinton doesn't really support Bernie  Sanders

 positions or the integration of some of them into the Dem platform.

As Janice expressed immense fear tonight after Trump's speech, I observed that Hillary still has the power to avert electoral disaster. That means picking a firm liberal as Veep (Elizabeth Warren would be best) and not mucking up the debates.

We don't know yet how she will fare in the debates but her Veep pick can either be the first  powerful round fired to take down Trump in November or the first nail in her electoral coffin.  The choice is ultimately hers, and being too cautious will not get it done.

Postscript  7/23:

As predicted Clinton made just about the worst pick imaginable, cynically betting Kaine will help her "sew up" the middle when she really needed to consolidate her left flank. Now I predict that at least 20 percent of Bernie Sanders' voters will not be energized enough to show up. I believe this will translate to Clinton losses in what Michael Moore called the "Brexit" states, and lead to a narrow Trump win.  The reason is that now, without those energized left voters, it will make the election a squeaker and close enough to steal via any number of ruses we're beheld before. (Including electronic voting machine manipulations.)

It is sad, and at one point in the middle of all the misplaced cheerleading on MSNBC's 'All In'  last night, Progressive magazine editor Ruth Conniff was explaining the magnitude of Clinton's disaster. She noted it being a "slap in the face" to Sanders' voters.  She added:

"It's just a sign that Hillary does not feel like she has to do anything for the progressive wing of the party,"

 Soon after she was  terminated by a call in from Neoliberal VA governor Terry McCauliffe.

Hillary had her chance to make a huge statement and help to bring it home for the Dems and become the first female President. Alas, unless she can unleash Jack Kennedy-esque lightning in the debates, she will end up like Hubert Horatio Humphrey did in 1968.  The truth hurts, but don't expect the cheerleading media and most Dems to buy it.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/68239/does-hillary-get-it

And:

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/22/clinton-inflames-progressive-base-choice-tim-kaine-vice-president

Quote: By choosing a corporatist like Kaine, Hillary has 'pulled a Lieberman. God forbid if it puts Trump in the White House.

Jeff Cohen of RootAction.org

No, Religion Won't Save Working Class Whites

It appears these days as if every manner of political elitist and his pet poodle have sage advice for working class whites. We saw it 4 years ago with the book 'Coming Apart: The State Of White America  1960-2010'  by Charles Murray. Therein he expressed the conviction that an over reliance on government "entitlements" coupled with an inability to get married or stay married caused this demographic to be on a downward spiral into indolence, moral laxity and even moral turpitude.

Not long after there appeared an odious, self-serving 'Lexington' essay in The Economist  channeling Murray's view incorporating the moral opprobrium directed at the same working class. He wrote in part:

"Most in need of instruction is a new lower class, perhaps a fifth of the white population whose plight forms the next part of his book. This class is in the throes of disintegration. Too many of its men will not work, too many of its women raise children out of wedlock, religious worship is in decline... In lower class neighborhoods the togetherness of communities has vanished...."

Okay, let's back up there. This needs an objective examination as opposed to semi-adorational slobbering in the form of a quasi book review. Let's begin with the last, that "lower class neighborhoods have lost togetherness". This very malady in fact, was addressed as long ago as 1995 by Charles Reich in his book, Opposing the System. As Reich noted therein, p. 103:

"When society itself comes to be modeled on economic and organizational principles, all of the forces that bind people together are torn apart in the struggle for survival. Community is destroyed because we are no longer 'in this together' because everyone is a threat to everyone else."

Note especially the highlighted part. We are no longer in this "together". Again, the crime or sin or whatever you wish to call it that Lex and Murray appear to want to hang on the lower classes is in actuality a direct effect of the Pareto-optimality based economic system which destroys equality and cooperation. It enables banks to foreclose homes at will (robo-closings) and thereby fractures neighbors one from the other. It rewards those who are prepared to game the system, but not those are aren't.

In such a capitalist-driven, consumerist, Pareto-organizational economic model, wherein the resource “pie” for the non-wealthy grows ever smaller, the young are threats to us oldsters, as we are threats to them, as neighbor is to neighbor. It can't be otherwise. For example, as threats to our Social Security are ramped up on account of the odious austerity-debt hawks - led by billionaire pricks such as Peter G. Peterson, we oldsters tend to pull back in self-interest and vote ardently against any increase in property taxes to support schools. While we would dearly love to support local schools via higher taxes, we are wary so long as threats exist to cut our benefits and standards of living to the point we need to turn our furnaces off to save money, or split our meds.

And at the forlorn bottom each manjack believes the "other" - his neighbor, to be his enemy as opposed to the savage debased system that spawned such inequities. How irreligious or anti-religious can one get?  In truth, the working class whites could begin by telling these wine and brie eaters that if they want them to marry then fucking provide a LIVING wage, not a mere minimum wage, to enable that to happen. Also, cease sending the highest paying jobs overseas to low wage bastions, including coding jobs, software development. They'd tell them to also provide - parting with some of their ill gotten millions or billions - some free child care services such as exist in Denmark and Norway.

Now, in his NY Times (Sunday Review, June 26, p. 8) essay ('When Paranoia Replaces Piety') , J.D. Vance would have us believe it is insufficient piety and religion. He writes:

 "Despite benefits (less racial prejudice, more community, fewer divorces) church attendance has fallen off substantially among members of the white working class.in recent years just when they need it the most".

He then goes on to cite stats to support the position that this class, by losing its church-forged piety, has fallen into the pit of paranoia including political, e.g. "evolution is a lie secular science tells to counter the biblical story of revelation, the Federal Reserve achieves satanic ends by manipulating the world's money supply " etc.

Because of this these whites have become "wolves" as opposed to "shepherds" raising their kids. Hence, no surprise the kids come from broken families, use heroin or opoids, and suffer from neglectful or abusive parents".

But is this really true, or might it be the case that even with church attendance these whites would still have come out on the wrong side? Hardly! Because at root, in nations where the working classes are most ground under there is actually the flight to religiosity in order to escape economic hardship and horrors visited every day. Don't take my word, just look at this graphic from  Free Inquiry, Vol. 29, No. 1 Jan. 2009:


It shows successful societies in relation to degree of religious beliefs.. Basically, for  18 out of 19 of the most prosperous democracies,  the share of population reporting absolute belief in a god or gods ranges from between as little as a few percent to at most one-half. In some of these nations, mainly in western Europe, two-thirds proclaim to be either atheists or agnostics. Compare this to the outlier U.S. (U) where 83 percent express solid belief- and this is for the patriarchal, personal version of a hyper-engaged deity.

One of the most circulated canards concerning religious belief is that most of humankind is invested in it. We are asked to believe the vast majority – for some reason- find it essential to link up with a religion to make their life meaningful. Of course, this is tommyrot and poppycock, and now there is ample statistical evidence to back it up – starting with a measure known as the ‘Gini coefficient’ which registers the degree of economic and income inequality in any given nation, referenced as a decimal. Or, more often (in non-technical venues) as a plain number between 0 and 100.

In terms of practical applications, a Gini index of zero would denote perfect equality. In terms of western industrial nations, most developed European nations and Canada tend to have Gini indices between 24 and 36, the United States' and Mexico's Gini indices are both above 40, indicating that the United States and Mexico have greater inequality. In the whole panoply of criteria, and the full spectrum of research, the Gini coefficient (the prime indicator of income inequality) is the key factor. To be specific, across the first world (of developed nations) lower economic and income equality correlates with lower religiosity. This pattern is “statistically progressive” according to a recent article in Free Inquiry (Jan. 2009) and “no exceptions are known”.

The warp and woof of advanced, collated sociological research into religiosity and secularism and sociological health as a function of either- is well documented in the aforementioned issue (Vol. 29, No. 1) ‘The Future of Religion’, p. 24. As noted therein, the thrust of this research is that religion is falling like tenpins in all first world democracies, with the exception of the U.S., and that the least dysfunctional societies are the least theistic.

The primary finding that runs likes a thread through all this research is that religious belief and activity is a superficial coping mechanism that is easily cast aside when the majority in a given society enjoy true (not faux) democratic government, and enjoy a secure, comfortable and middle class lifestyle.Those who claim the universality of religion or that it is integral to human nature commit the basic selection effects error, in that they conveniently overlook the data which show broad secularization of western Europe, Anglo-Australia, Canada and other developed nations.
The core of research (largely statistical) directed at this issue shows the primary reason the U.S. is a statistical outlier in religious belief is income inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient).
This index has seen inequality increase ever since Bush Jr. was handed his presidency, compliments of the five Supremes, in 2000.

Meanwhile, with its historically lower taxes, fewer public safety nets, more poor than rich (by more than a 25:1 ratio), the U.S. displays a greater disparity than any other nation. Moreover, it displays a much greater social pathology. Understanding the basis of this pathology doesn’t take a genius, including the inputs from globalization and worker redundancy derived from it.

Thus we read in the latest issue of TIME (July 11-18, pp. 16-17) that even after the rise of open markets, shuttering of factories, easy access to cheap labor plus "mainstream politicians who took their support for granted but served the interests of the wealthy" that "the white working class never went away". No it "stewed in its own resentments feeling variously patronized, ignored and belittled by the elites".

Hence, they have struck back by knocking down the final pillars of faith to which they had clung, mainstream government and religion in the form of the churches.  Hence, it is not surprising at all the working class to which J.D. Vance refers in his essay no longer wants any part of his hollow creed or any other. What, after all, has it delivered? More joblessness, more despair and more hungry mouths of his children while the elites travel to St Kitts for special chocolate spa treatments and 18 holes of golf.

Mr. Vance poignantly yearns the working class whites would have received from their own faiths those marvelous qualities his delivered: "introspection, moral guidance and social support".

But, of course, because they couldn't even deliver warm bread and soup for their kids' at night, they obviously wouldn't believe the mere abstractions could be delivered. And so the only natural recourse was to drop the faith and "point a finger at the faceless elites in Washington".

Sadly, just as Brexit was incepted by the political elites'  total abandonment of working class whites, so might the election of Trump be incepted here. Let's hope not,  but really, are the "paranoid" working class whites enticed to embrace any hope for their future by the Wall Street- friendly, Neoliberal warhawk Hillary?

Probably no more than they're likely to return to the pews and preacher lectures about the need to return to moral probity.

The Brexit Vote -What It Means, Including To Your 401k

One of the triggers for the 'Leave' vote in the UK had been images such as this showing migrants near Calais, France ready to bolt across the 'Chunnel" to England.


Back in July, 1978, on my first trip to the UK and London (where we stayed with a friend of Janice's) the character of "old England" was ubiquitous. The beauty of the London transport system was that one could take  the "underground" wherever he or she chose, from Piccadilly Circus, to Earl's Court (where we watched a medieval jousting match) to the Royal Albert Hall where we were privileged to see (and hear!)  a fantastic performance of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture.  Along the way foreign tongues were seldom heard, either in the tube stations or the venues themselves.

There were no mullahs standing in any area we went (and we covered a lot of London) ordering women to shield their faces with burkas or whatever. The only terror incidents were carried out by the IRA, including one bombing which killed several London police and some of their horses.

Now, flash almost forty years later and all that's changed, the whole UK landscape. Migrants have been pouring in from many nations - particularly Middle Eastern and African - for decades, and the character of the place has altered. One will now often hear as many foreign tongues as native Brit (whether Cockney, Yorkie, or whatever other dialect).

This altered character of the nation, coupled with loss of what is perceived as a British identity since the Maastricht Treaty - otherwise known as the 'Treaty to Integrate Europe' - ultimately drove the "Leave" majority yesterday (winning by 52% to 48% in the "Brexit" vote).  Despite London and Scotland voting to remain, most of the rest of the UK and especially rural or working class areas saw things differently.

Many on the Right, including the odious Nigel Farage (who use scare tactics such as thousands streaming through Slovenia) to depict a direct migrant threat to the UK, are now cheering about "Independence Day".   But as Richard Haas pointed out on MSNBC this morning, it is more akin to dissolution day, given Ireland and Scotland (which voted remain) will now themselves likely call referenda to leave England to itself - dissolving the UK.

Despite the Farage exaggerations, it is true that migrants have been making their way into the UK in greater numbers, often gathering near Calais in France before attempting to bolt across the Channel tunnel otherwise known as the "chunnel".  The spectacle of this happening, added to the existing tensions with mainly Islamic immigrants (recall one of them running amok and chopping off a head barely two years ago)  has enraged many to the point they'd had enough.

Economics was the other rallying point though not as passionately framed as arguments from the anti-migrant segment. Those on this side were basically tired of Brussels calling the shots regarding trade despite the fact the Brits were allowed to keep their own currency (the pound) as opposed to using the euro.  The econ leavers insisted they would carry on just fine, thanks, and no need to worry about repercussions.

But that may be akin to whistling in the dark as the wolf comes to the door.  The fact is the UK had been sending 44 percent of all its exports to the single EU market. That can simply no longer happen any longer since the UK will not have that privileged advantage. They will now have to "go to the end of the line". German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble put it bluntly barely three days ago in The Financial Times: "In is in and out is out". Meaning if the UK votes 'out', they are out of the EU market - no special benefits or advantages conferred. The extreme case? The EU, if it really wanted to be punitive, could force the UK to make separate deals with each of the 27 remaining EU nations.

This means exports will likely shrink and drastically, with whatever factories left shuttered and their workers laid off.  This is what happens when your biggest customer is now effectively taken away, or at least its impact drastically reduced. It will be even worse if Ireland and Scotland themselves vote to leave England al alone, and remain with the EU. Then England will truly be "little England" with an emphasis on little.

This is what caused the  global markets to react badly early this morning, with the German DAX (.GDAX) dropping 731 points and the Nikkei Index more than 1286.  The DOW is expected to take a dump too, and I'd be amazed if is less than 700 points drop. Further, the turmoil could go on for months as the UK attempts to sort out its new position, and get a new government (David Cameron is now out as PM having called the Brexit vote)

In the end, the vote for Brexit means chaos in the short and possibly long term. It means European issues will be roiled and possibly other EU members now also emboldened to try to leave. We already saw last year the fomenting for "Grexit" or Greek exit, but the Greeks eventually came to their senses and realized they might be better in than out, even with a lot of debt. ('Out' and they likely wouldn't even be able to muster a loan)

For your 401k, as financial guest Melanie Hobson noted yesterday on CBS Early show, it will mean a lot of volatility. I myself expect to see massive dives in the stock market in the coming weeks until the issues are resolved to the markets' liking. Remember, that includes all the markets, not just the U.S. ones.  Keep in mind also that Britain's economy is the 5th largest in the world - meaning a "sneeze" in the UK (as with Brexit fallout) could trigger pneumonia in some places. Pneumonia there (in the UK) could trigger....well, you don't want to know!

Anthony Mason, covering the Wall Street markets opening this morning stated a "pretty bleak opening is expected", which may be an understatement.  The main barometer to watch, I think, is the extent of the flight to safety. Already we're hearing about foreigners buying up treasurys which will have implications for the bond markets, and it also could for money markets.

At the very least, given the low global GDP of barely 3%, the Brexit vote likely brings interest rates down further, and slows growth significantly. (Some even warn the UK could go into recession, but we will have to see what happens in any Scottish or Irish separate referenda to leave the UK.)

On the positive side, central banks are still propping up the markets around the world with their next to zero interest rates thereby  providing a "balm" as the turmoil continues over the next  few years. If nothing else, Janet Yellen  will plausibly assert:  "Well, because of the economic uncertainties inherent in the Brexit vote, no more interest rate increases for at least 3 years". This will make Wall Street's day and so provide a counter force to the Brexit negative influences.

So those with 401ks, while they will sustain some stomach-churning days, shouldn't go into hysterics. Yet.....

See also the related articles here: 

http://www.theguardian.com/us

See also:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bbd593ee-39d4-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7.html#axzz4CWIGLKRv