After all the initial euphoria and hopes placed upon the original concept of a non-aligned, social-democratic Euro-bloc, the reality has turned out somewhat differently.
By Francis Lee for the Saker Blog
In 2011 I drafted an article in an obscure publication called ‘Chartist’. It was entitled: ‘’Europe: The Unfinished Project’’. It ran as follows.
‘’At the present time the EU project seems to be stuck in no-man’s land, unable to press ahead with full political integration, or retreat back into a northern European protectionist Deutschmark zone and leaving the peripheral member states to the tender mercies of unfettered, globalized capitalism. However there seems to be a sufficient residue of the original EU idealism in the present stage of development to persevere further with the political struggle taking place.’’ (Ibid, page 19)
But alas one lives and learns.
I now believe that this view, justifiable and plausible enough at the time of writing, has now become difficult, if not actually impossible, to sustain. And the reason for this came in the next sentence, viz.
‘’One only has to consider the Anglo-American alternatives (to the Euro model) and globalization more generally to make this choice.’’
This was, however, based on the tacit assumption that the Euro model of capitalism was somehow fundamentally different from the Atlanticist model, a paradigm exemplified by the US/UK/EU axis. It was not. In the fullness of time this turned out to be a fundamental misconception. The UK of course has always been bound hand and foot to the US in terms of both foreign and economic policy with the ending of the system of imperial preference demanded by the US as the quid pro quo for the American loan negotiated by Keynes, shortly before his death in 1946; next came the American intervention in the Suez crisis in 1956 which effectively ended any independent UK foreign policy. This dog-like British devotion to American imperatives – the so-called ‘special-relationship’ – then extended with the neo-liberal turn and the Reagan-Thatcher counter-revolution of the 198Os. True, the UK was always more Atlanticist in its outlook than its European neighbours. However, continental Europe was to become as enamoured of Atlanticism as is the UK – and those more recent EU ex-communist states, probably even more so.
‘’It is not only the UK, which is Atlanticist, the continental European states are no less so … proof of this is given by the central position of NATO in this political construction. That a military alliance with a country outside the union (the US) has been integrated de facto into the European constitution – in terms of a common foreign and security policy – constitutes an unparalleled anomaly. For some European countries (Poland, and the Baltic States) NATO’s protection – that is, that of the United States against their ‘Russian enemy’ is more important than their adhesion to the European Union.’’ (Samir Amin – The Implosion of Capitalism – 2014)
Jens Stoltenberg – Head of NATO – Warmonger in Chief
This Americanization of Europe – this invisible annexation – was achieved by a combination of soft and hard power – a cultural, political, economic and militaristic assimilation of the old world by the new. It should be understood that the US does not do ‘partnerships;’ any geo-political relationships the US enters into with other states is always on the basis of ‘Me Tarzan, You Jane.’
‘’ It follows from this that the European Union nor any of its component states any longer have an independent foreign policy. The facts show that there is one single reality: alignment behind whatever Washington (perhaps in agreement with London) decides on its own.’’ (Amin – Ibid)
European Economic policy is similarly aligned to US interests and US practises. This is hardly surprising since the US has been the dominant economic force (although now in a declining trajectory) for the last 100 years. It has control of the world’s reserve currency which allows it to run persistent deficits on its current account since it can simply pay for its imports by printing its own currency. The US also tends to dominate the multilateral institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and WTO and having the largest bloc of votes in the IMF. American policymakers have used their influence in the IMF to pursue American financial and foreign policy objectives. The IMF offers larger loans to countries heavily indebted to American commercial banks than to other countries. In addition, the IMF offers larger loans to governments closely allied to the United States. (International Politics (2004) 41, 415–429). New York is the second largest financial centre (after London) with the most deeply liquid capital markets, and in absolute terms the US is – in nominal terms at least – the largest economy in the world. (Although in terms of purchasing power parity, the Chinese economy is now larger.)
Canary Wharf on the Thames. The world finance centre. (This is where my father who was a fireman in 1940 was trying to put out fires whilst the Luftwaffe were dropping incendiary bombs all around him. Somehow he survived and so did I!)
Additionally, the ‘soft power’ of the US (and UK) which includes, university economics departments, economic think-tanks, publications – The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The Economist – Business and Financial circles, and the universal language of business and diplomacy – English – have effectively dominated and structured the global ideological discourse. The ‘Washington Consensus’ along with the deadly weapons of financial mass destruction – the lethal weapons of financialization – have come to dictate policy and policy making in the western world.
However, the neo-liberal, neo-conservative project was to run into difficulties as instanced in the twin crises besetting the Euro-Atlanticist bloc: namely, Greece and Ukraine.
Greece.
At the outset it was wholly predictable that the accession of Greece into the eurozone was going to lead to trouble. In order to qualify for admission Greece needed to demonstrate that it conformed to the Maastricht Criteria. The Maastricht rules threaten to slap hefty fines on euro member countries that exceed the budget deficit limit of three percent of gross domestic product. Additionally, total government debt mustn’t exceed 60 percent. It is interesting to note that both France and Germany both exceeded the Maastricht criteria, but there was a mute silence on this.
The Greeks had never managed to stick to the 60 percent debt limit, and they only adhered to the three percent deficit ceiling with the help of blatant balance sheet cosmetics.
Not to worry, in 2010 some creative accounting was supplied by the premier (infamous?) US Investment Bank, Goldman Sachs. GS’s selling point for financial legerdemain is well known; in this instance cross-currency swaps where government debt issued in dollars and yen was swapped for euro debt for a certain period – and then exchanged back into the original currencies at a later date. Hey, presto! The figures added up (for a while at least). Goldman Sachs collected a $15 billion kickback for their labours.
As members of the eurozone the Greeks then had access to cheap credit from eurozone banks, particularly French and German. But any deal between borrower and lender means that both should act responsibly. The creditworthiness of the borrower has to be assessed before the loan is made. But such rigorous investigations of this sort were not conducted; with the deregulation of finance such tiresome procedures had been done away with and banks lent to almost anyone who had a pulse
The rest as we say is history.
But if these lenders knew that borrowers would not be able to repay the loans, this would have amounted to ‘odious debt.’ That occurs when the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, should not be enforceable. Vulture capitalism is another equally unprepossessing term for the policy toward Greece. Vulture funds target distressed firms and/or countries and buy their bonds and stocks at knock-down prices, then when the company fails, they sue the owner not only for the interest but also the principal. The Troika policy toward Greece has been one of Loan and Foreclosure.
If Greece remains in the eurozone it will continue to be bled white, privatised and ultimately dismembered. An example must be made to stop others in the southern periphery from getting ideas. And just as Mrs. Thatcher was the junior partner of Reagan in shaping the EU, Merkel was Obama’s enforcer in the Euro’s restive provinces.
It is interesting to note that one, Victoria Nuland, rabid neo-con – more of which below – Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State, visited Athens on 17 March 2015 and had talks with the Greek PM Tsipras regarding the present turmoil. Suffice it to say it was geopolitics and the retention of Greece in the EU and NATO she was concerned with, rather than debt. She no doubt reminded Tsipras that there might be consequences if Greece did not toe the EU line. As Assistant Secretary for regime change in the State Department the redoubtable Ms Nuland’s brief has been to threaten or bring about regime change in countries of which the US and its vassals disapprove.
Ukraine
Earlier the peripatetic Ms Nuland was also busy in Ukraine – which was not and is not an EU member – promoting regime change, a process which had been going on since 2004, with the so-called Orange Revolution, and later was responsible for the events on the Maidan which resulted in the installation of the oligarch-fascist regime paid for ($5 billion according to Ms N) in 2014, and whose leaders were hand-picked by herself and the US Ambassador in Kiev Geoffrey Pyatt. Since this the IMF largesse has kept on flowing and kept the Ukraine on a drip feed of IMF subventions with no end in sight.
It was interesting to note how the IMF’s treatment of the Kiev regime differs significantly to that meted out to Greece. Firstly a $40 billion aid package was granted to Ukraine over the next 4 years. Secondly Madame Lagarde has stated that “In the event that a negotiated settlement with private creditors is not reached and the country determines that it cannot service its debt, the Fund can lend to Ukraine consistent with its Lending-into-Arrears Policy” (12 June 2015) In other words when the Ukraine defaults, the IMF will – in violation of its constitution – come up with the cash. Moreover, the IMF is also not mandated to lend to states which are at war. Of course this is hardly an even-handed way of operating, but of course the IMF is a highly politicised and partisan institution and a key part of the neo-liberal, neo-conservative global establishment. Ukraine missed a bond coupon payment 17 July 2015, setting off a default on about $19 billion of debt, as a standoff with creditors shows no sign of abating – it was interesting to see what happened in light of Madame Lagarde’s statement. (1) See below
Well in the Spring of 2016 the Poroshenko regime was gifted yet another 600-million-euro loan to Ukraine. But of course it didn’t stop there. Considering this loan the overall amount of EU assistance to Ukraine added up to 2.8 billion euros since the Maidan events of 2014. This ‘assistance’ had been forthcoming in the same year, and this was the largest macro-economic assistance ever sent to a non-EU country. But it didn’t seem to make any difference.
Things are so bad in Ukraine that in spite of all the IMF largesse it now vies with Moldova as being the poorest country in Europe. The United Nations predicts that the country will lose a fifth of its population by 2050.
Moreover, Ukraine has also one of the highest crude death rates in the world. Poor health conditions and the widespread abuse of alcohol and drugs have led to a rise in Ukraine’s death rate. The country also has the highest global mortality rate from infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, meaning that inadequate medical care has contributed to the rise in Ukraine’s mortality rate. The coronavirus pandemic has only exacerbated these health care Issues.
Ukraine’s fertility rate has also declined. According to the World Bank, Ukrainian families were having two children per household during the 1990s. Recent economic hardships, however, have forced families to have only one child per household. The effects of Ukraine’s struggling economy and the Donbass conflict have also discouraged many young couples from having children, and this has contributed to the decline in Ukraine’s fertility rate. I could go on, but it would be indecent to do so. Let’s just say that the EU-NATO meddling in the internal affairs of this beleaguered nation has resulted in an economic-political catastrophe.
Conclusions
The decision to expand the EU, and along with NATO, right up to Russia’s borders, initially under the guidance and policies of the Clinton administration, was a clear indication that the governments of the EU had come under American domination. With this decisive shift the EU project was over. It has been replaced by a North Atlantic military project under American command.
The hegemonistic strategy of the US – made abundantly clear in both the Wolfowitz doctrine and the more recent enunciations and actions of the dominant US war party, a coalition of neo-cons, liberal hawks and liberal interventionists – is clearly visible behind the disappearance of what was once the European project.
However it is quite possible that even against US wishes and geopolitical imperatives the EU might well fracture internally due to inter-state tensions and economic contradictions. One thing is certain: in its present structure the EU cannot endure, nor does it deserve to.
This 20/21st century ‘Great Game’ is being played out with one party getting stronger – the Eurasian bloc – and the other party – the Atlanticist bloc – becoming weaker.
It reminds me of a scene in the film ‘Apocalypse Now’ where Captain Willard (played by Martin Sheen) sums up the deteriorating US geopolitical situation (I can’t remember the exact words) but it went as something like this:. ‘’Charlie (the Vietcong) sits in the Jungle getting stronger, and I sit in the hotel room getting weaker.’’
True, very true.
NOTES
(1) When it comes down to enforcing nations to pay inter-governmental debts, the IMF and Paris Club hold the main leverage. As co-ordinator of central bank ‘stabilization’ loans (the neo-liberal euphemism for imposing austerity and destabilising debtor economies, Greece style) the IMF is able to withhold not only its own credit but also that of governments and global banks participating when debtor countries need refinancing. Those states who do not agree to privatise their infrastructure and sell it to western buyers are threatened with sanctions, backed by US sponsored ‘’regime change’’ and ‘’democracy promotion’’ Maidan-style. (Michael Hudson)
What is the EU ? It is a private empire of Anglo-American bankers, whose task was and still is to curtail the sovereign status of European states. It is also the civilian component of NATO, as both are moving towards the East, and both participated in the 2014 Ukrainian coup d’etat, when Yanukovich was overthrown, contrary to international law.
In 1946 the Council on Foreign Relations decides to create a “United Europe”, ie. the European Union. A step by step approach was applied, as after Hitlers New World Order, Europe was in no mood for another “association”. The bankers therefore use war hero General George Marshall to introduce “The European Recovery Program”, which quickly became known as “The Marshall Plan”. A total of 17 billion dollars of bribery money was offered to Europe as a loan on condition Europe creates an 18 member “Organization for European Economic Cooperation”, which ostensibly was a supervising body whose aim was to ensure that the money was not misappropriated, but which in reality was an administrative body for the future European Union. Only 15 % of the 17 billion dollars was payed back to the US, which generously “forgets” the rest.
In 1957 the Organization creates the Common Market, which leads – officially – to the creation of the European Union in 1993 and the mess in which Europe has found its self today. The “open borders” policy has lead to mass immigration of false refugees and migrants from third world countries, which is already creating social and ethnic friction, and which will certainly cause financial problems. The intent, of course, was to destabilize the governments of sovereign European countries and give Brussels dictatorial power. As I have written before, a day will come when historians will have a tough time explaining how the EU was created. It’s days are certainly numbered.
Marshall Aid was named after Gen George Marshall simply to get bi-partisan backing for a Truman Plan. It was lobbied for by Ford and GM which needs Dollars in Europe to re-tool factories with US equipment since Europe had no way to earn Dollars with its industries destroyed.
European Economic Community was created to keep France on side when Germany was re-armed 1955-56 at US insistence and it was brought into NATO for which Turkey had to be bribed with allowing surplus manpower to enter Germany as Guest Workers.
The EEC applied to 6 West European countries and should have stayed that way instead of becoming the Hapsburg Empire all over again
I hope you are right
EU is the Economic Sub-Committee of NATO
The European Union exists for no other reason than to make the homosexual pederast cabal of the American Empire very very happy….And this means imposing homosexual pederasts on the children of Europe and Scandanavia……Europe will be nuked and blacktopped if they attempt to do this to Slavic Christian Russia…
In other words, the European Union exists to serve the interests of the two filthy cockroaches Bill and Hilary Clinton….
Pues sirve para que determinados lobbys puedan gobernar a los europeos más eficientemente, por ejemplo. Lo que no es poca cosa.
Yandex translation. Mod:
Well, it serves so that certain lobbies can govern Europeans more efficiently, for example. Which is no small thing.
The European project was torpedoed by the CIA and the Deep State during a long process that started with the Orange Revolution of May 1968 and the kicking out of de Gaulle in 1970 as explained by W. Engdahl in “The Gods of Money”. The last three French presidents were puppets empowered by Washington and that’s true for the Italians and Spanish leaders. Merckel was also on leach and Germany since 1945 has been a political dwarf in spite of her apparent economic prosperity. The gnomes of the Forum of Davos took advantage of COVID 19 to try to impose a political tyranny on the world. As we saw that didn’t work in China neither in Russia and it’s now out of fuel in many countries of Europe as well as in the USA. We are at a turning point and next step could be the major financial crisis meaning the collapse of Wall Street, the end of the dollar hegemony and of the banking system as we knew it. The situation is dire in most of the European countries and according to some reliable sources à come back of the Gillets Jaune before the French elections is expected but for good this time with the exit of Macron.
In any case 2022 should be a Grand Cru.
I disagree with both the analysis and the conclusion.
First of all, NATO is an extra-EU, extra-national organization like the EU Parliament – except there is no election. NATO does serve as a bureaucratic sinecure for out-of-power and/or out-of-favor bureaucrats and politicians from the EU, but that does not indicate dominance so much as presence.
Secondly, there are many fundamental misunderstandings about the IMF etc – in which the US and UK are literally entrenched by design – vs. the EU’s economic outreach: the ECB, the euro, trade policy, etc.
In particular: the EU has minimal influence in the World Bank, IMF, WTO etc because those are designed to the US’ favor to start with – other than the traditional figurehead European director of the IMF.
However, the euro was created both to unify monetary policy in the EU but also to remove the dollar from EU trade transactions. Unlike Japan (which is a US lapdog) and its JP Yen (which is literally invisible in world trade terms), the euro’s presence in world trade is comparable to the EU’s actual position in world trade.
The bargain is pretty transparent: the EU can export its cars, wines and cheeses and what not; it can protect its French farmers; it can spend very little on defense – in return, it significantly (but not always) cedes leadership in international affairs to the US. Or in other words: leave us our economic interests and we’ll leave you our international interests (outside of trade).
Where these 2 spheres intersect is where difficulty arises – which Nord Stream illustrates. The US clearly doesn’t want Nord Stream 2 just as it didn’t want Nord Stream 1 – yet NS1 is pumping and NS2 will be pumping soon.
Francis Lee Wrote
The decision to expand the EU along with NATO, right up to Russia’s borders, initially under the guidance and policies of the Clinton administration, was a clear indication that the governments of the EU had come under American domination. With this decisive shift the EU project was over. It has been replaced by a North Atlantic military project under American command.
My comment:
The decision to expand the Holy Roman Empire into Russia was not invented by Bill Clinton, He was only the public figure to show off the Agenda lying dormant since Charlemagne. The reality is that America had been infiltrated and run by European Fascist Agents since before 1913.
Francis Lee Wrote
The hegemonic strategy made abundantly clear in both the Wolfowitz doctrine and the actions of the US coalition of Neo-cons, Neo-liberals – is clearly visible behind the disappearance of what was once the European project.
My comment:
NO, it is an Global imperial strategy relaunched by a German Jewish Wise Wolf (Wolfowitz) a doctrine of having Fascist agents disguised as Neo Conservatives and Neo Liberals, launch what was always the real European project, the resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire, on a global scale.
Francis Lee Wrote
However it is quite possible that even against US wishes and geopolitical imperatives the EU might well fracture internally due to inter-state tensions and economic contradictions. One thing is certain: in its present structure the EU cannot endure, nor does it deserve to.
My Comment:
Yes a resurrected Holy Roman Empire is against the wishes of both the European and the American people, because that is why our common ancestors fled Europe and migrated to America.
Every war in Europe has been fought over forcing European nations into being vassal states of the Fascist Empire.
The EU is the 4th attempt to erect the Holy Roman Empire, and it will fail – just as the 3 previous have.
Each European nation has its own National Identity, and will separate whatever chance they get.
And the fracture of the EU has already begun.
Think your confused there the U.S. was supposed to be the new Roman Empire, in fact our government is set up the same way and the senators are just as useless as they might as well set out their time in a bathhouse.
No. The US is the current beast of the Empire, as NAZI Germany was during WWII.
The final Global Roman Empire is intended to be formed in 3 steps.
The Globalist Elite have even erected an organisation overseeing this formation: called the Trilateral commission.
Former members includes the usual US, UK, EU suspects including to my surprise:
Mikhail Sergejevitj Gorbatjov.
Today most Russians hate their latest USSR President. I wonder why.
The last step will be when china takes over the roll as the Beast for the Roman Empire.
By then the trilateral steps toward A Global Roman Empire will have be fulfilled.
“Every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker. And every minute Charlie squats in the bush, he gets stronger.”
My personal favorite line is, “He (Charlie) had only two ways home; death, or victory.”
Excellent analysis; thanks for posting.
The EU is just a vampire. Totally useless: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4C5SgeVK-Q
I don’t know why you had to bother writing so much text!!!
And I am Australian!!!
This history of last century shows a cunning plan of the EU forces reattempting their assault on Russia (aka Napoleon 1812) in 1939-41 and had this backup plan called the US/UK Forces in case it failed to come in and save them. All orchestrated by the EU elites and moneychangers.
The game plan never changes and this century the same will happen.
Ukraine and Russia’s link to China Iran etc are now being used as the excuse.
But the whole thing will fail again as the EU people arent very bright and always make mistakes.
Their running dog the US is a co-ally in the current assault rather than a neutral power as in 1940.
But the US is nowhere near as strong as it was in 1942-45 nor can it ever be given the current domestic situation, same with EU. So all of this is doomed for failure.
And what can the US and EU expect (re Eurasia getting stronger) when they gutted their own production capacities and shifted a lot of it there ? But Eurasia is somewhat dependent on sales to US & EU so its future is interlinked.
Its time to stop all this wasteful conflict and co-operate and the EU cuts some sensible deals with Putin and others.
The EU is somewhat akin to the 12th Century formation of the Knights Templar that was to stop a perceived and somewhat real Islamic expansion. A EU army.
It lasted for 200 years and was dismantled by the King of France after it go too powerful via its commercial and banking activities.
If history repeats the current EU will suffer the same fate.
The EU has too many tribes with different views of the world and cultural differences for it to survive.
If anything there probably need to be 3 separate EU blocks – North, South and East – instead of 1 and the 3 blocks interact with each other. Because EU countries thinking is regionalized.
But what is the EU for as the author asks ?
Obviously to to deal with something else thats large – aka Russia or US or UK Empire.
“That a military alliance with a country outside the union (the US) has been integrated de facto into the European constitution – in terms of a common foreign and security policy – constitutes an unparalleled anomaly.”
There was a man named Summer Wells who in the Atomic Bomb and World Government, wrote:
“No world government of the character envisaged by Professor Einstein would function unless it possessed the power to exercise complete control over the armaments of each constituent state.”
and now for the quote from Paul Henri Spaak who led the Socialist party of Belgium and was the first president of the council of Europe, one of the planners of the European Common Market and also served as president of the UN General Assembly said:
“Let that man be a military man or a layman it matters not.”
and this quote for a strong one man rule was echoed by another a Roswell Gilpatrick who was the former Secretary of Defense, said:
“Strong, one-man civilian control of Americas giant military establishment is vital to the nations well-being. the concentration of authority is inevitable.”
and lastly we have this from of all people H. G. Wells:
“It is necessary to discover a head capable of directing it, endowed with an intelligence surpassing the most elevated human level.”
And now in my own words all I can say to this quagmire is we humans think we will find the solution to all of our problems in science. Science however, for all of the good it has bestowed upon us is actually quite dangerous. Bikini Atoll surely proves that out with those words from the Bagvad-gita.
If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst into the sky, that would be like the splendour of the might One and I am become Death the shatterer of worlds.
Science or Religion {Christology} which is it ultimately going to be? Like I said in my book on Climate Change the Work of God:
The Bible doesn’t go into providing any kind of scientific knowledge or explanations about the mysteries of life or the makeup of the universe. In fact, not even Christ Jesus, if He had arrived today, which would have resulted in scientists the world over scrambling to have an audience with Him, could be convinced to give them any knowledge regarding the genetics of life, the makeup of blood, the secrets of the universe, the Higgs boson, etc. If asked about these things, Jesus would probably have just looked at the person and said something to the effect of, “What’s That To You? You Must Follow Me” (John 21:22, paraphrase).
Consider what would happen if a high moral being like Almighty God were to knowingly give a lawless, sinful race of people knowledge of how things work in relation to scientific matters. They would have long ago destroyed themselves and all of planet earth. That is principally why we have in the Bible the story of the Tower of Babel:
If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other. (Genesis 11:6–7)
Given their long-life spans and unity of mind and purpose, they could have discovered and unravelled the mysteries of science unlike any other generation. That tower of bricks would have evolved into a platform for the blasting off rockets and space shuttles long before our own day and age. Nothing would have prevented them from penetrating the knowledge of everything from chemistry to physics, astronomy, and biology—even the very heavens, especially if they were motivated by military reasons as we have been.
Do you see or understand the horror of it? This knowledge of good and evil which our first parents bestowed on us connected with scientific knowledge to create a very dangerous mix, a mix that as things continue to progress will quite literally place mankind in the position of playing god (Genesis 3:22). Who can be able to deal with the moral and ethical implications of that? To be sure, no one will be able to, although of course many will try. That is the nature of mankind.
It’s too bad the Pope didn’t provide this knowledge to Galileo!!!
And so the ultimate question which is it going to be now faith in Christ or faith in another Stalin who I assume is about to arrive?
and by the way you may want to read whats here https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/12/05/the-karen-epidemic/ especially paying attention to this paragraph::
Skynet is also a family of military communications satellites operated by Airbus Defence and Space on behalf of the UK’s Ministry of Defence to provide strategic communication services to the three branches of the British Armed Forces and to NATO (this may become relevant in the great chessboard of geopolitics along the fracture lines of East and West on the Poland-Belarus border and in the Ukraine). The latest upgrade, Skynet 6, is now in the works; plans for 6G internet are also already in the works. That this 6G, or Genesis Six, has Biblical significance may well be exceedingly relevant at the rate we’re going. Plan accordingly.
Here is something incredible to chew on 2nd paragraph especially!?!?!?!?! And the unbelievable change the science of nuclear fission gave the world’s aristocracy? Rest of astonishing essay found here… https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/12/12/houston-stewart-chamberlains-england-translated-and-with-an-introduction-by-alexander-jacob/
The Marxist doctrine, being a product of the Jewish mind, which is characterised by ‘resentment,’ is based on envy of those who have wealth and privileges without work, and so it advocates revolt against those who possess these advantages. It is thus essentially a negative variant of the English ethos. It is not surprising, therefore, that the worker in the Marxist doctrine is encouraged to amass his own profits through private business, so that, as Spengler puts it, “Marxism is” indeed “the capitalism of the working class.” The Marxian solution to boundless private property is also a negative one: “expropriation of the expropriators, robbery of the robbers.”[8] This is based on the “English” view of capital, wherein
the billionaire demands absolute freedom to arrange world affairs by his private decisions, with no other ethical standard in mind than success. He beats down his opponents with credit and speculation as his weapons.
The Marxist system is thus the “final chapter of a philosophy with roots in the English Revolution, whose biblical moods have remained dominant in English thought.”[9] In fact, as he goes on to say, “a biblical interpretation of questionable business dealings can ease the conscience and greatly increase ambition and initiative.”[10] While the industrialists engage in commerce with “money” as a commodity, the workers do the same with “work.”
In the Prussian state, on the other hand, work is not a commodity, but a “duty towards the common interest, and there is no gradation—this is Prussian style democratisation—of ethical values among the various kinds of work.” The Prussian sees property not as private booty, but as part of a common weal, “not as a means of expression of personal power but as goods placed in trust, for the administration of which he, as a property owner, is responsible to the state.”
The EU is a foreign instrument of occupation and destruction of Europe an its natural people.