Japanese competitors, Europe’s best andrnthe brightest are being deployed on unproductivernadministrative issues.rnThe same argument can be madernabout the second claw destroying Europern—the conversion of national currenciesrnto the “euro.” There is no doubt thatrnthe euro is a benefit to the hordes of Europeanrnand U.S. consulting, legal, andrnaccounting firms engaged in currencyrnconversion projects, not to mention thernbanks, think tanks, or other leeches feedingrnoff of productive economic activities.rnSimilarly, the Harvard-inspired “reforms”rnin Russia in 1992-1994 meant anrnopportunity for the few (quislings andrnforeigners) to get rich at the expense ofrnthe many (Russians).rnMeanwhile, the proponents of the eurornargue that a common currency willrnlower transaction costs. But even if this isrnso, it will first raise them, and only companiesrnwhich operate on a pan-Europeanrnscale may benefit from the loweredrncosts. As for the rest—especially smallrnbusinesses, the backbone of most Europeanrneconomies —the euro will mostiyrnmean additional expenses and diminishingrnnational sovereignty.rnAnd then there are the political risksrnassociated with the euro. “The new currencyrnwill become the target of allocationrnconflicts, the magnet for political actionrnand the putt}’ between continentalrnforces,” noted a July 1998 BertelsmannrnForum report. “The ‘euro’ could force arnmajor process of financial compensationrntiiroughout Europe, thus triggering conflictsrnof a new intensit}-.”rnThe third claw tearing into the back ofrnEurope is the “Y2K” problem, the socalledrn”Millennium Bug.” The Y2K, ofrncourse, afflicts all of the industrializedrnworld, not only Europe. But both Europernand Japan, the two major competitorsrnof U.S.-based multinationals, are atrnleast 9 to 12 months behind the UnitedrnStates in addressing this issue, accordingrnto a recent CIA study. Now, 9 to 12rnmonths may not sound like much inrnsome industries, where changes are measuredrnin years or decades. But this isrnquite a setback for Europe in the hightechrnworld. Personal computer productrncycles have been reduced to about 12rnmonths. The hiternet has shrunk thern”Web year” from 12 months to about 90rndays. In short, the Y2K is likely to set Europernback even further relative to thernUnited States than it is today.rnThe fourth and the fifth claws of thernU.S.-inspired European self-destructionrnare the two “enlargements” — extendingrnE.U. membership to some Eastern Europeanrncountries and expanding NATO.rnAs German reunification has clearlyrnshown, even uniting two countriesrnwhich share ethnic and cultural identitiesrnis a Herculean task—and a very expensivernone. The enormous costs of reunificationrnhave brought the treasur)’ ofrnthe largest European economy practicallyrnto its knees. Since October 1990, thernWest Germans have poured more thanrn$100 billion every year into East Germanyrnto make their poorer brethren feelrnlike equals at the family dinner table. Yetrneight years later, many East Germansrnstill feel like second-class citizens in theirrnown country, which only goes to showrnthat one cannot buy happiness or a sensernof well-being with money.rnNow multiply the difficulties and expensesrnof German integration by a factorrnof 20 or more in order to appreciate therndevastating impact that “enlargement”rnwill have on taxpayers. The agriculturalrnsector in Eastern Europe, for example, isrnstill of crucial importance for employmentrnand income generation in thoserncountries. Yet agricifltural production inrnEastern Europe is currently about 30rnpercent of that in the E.U. countries andrnprices are only around 50-70 percent ofrnE.U. levels, according to the BertelsmannrnForum report. Adding only tenrnEastern European countries to the E.U.rnwoifld increase its cultivated acreage byrn44 percent. Economics lOI would suggestrnthat such a sharp increase in agriculturalrnproduction woifld lower the cost ofrnfood throughout Europe. But don’trncount on it. For that’s where SocialismrnlOI comes in: The “enlargemenU wouldrnactually lead to a “substantially increasedrnburden on the EU budget,” the BertelsmannrnEorimi concluded. Why? BecausernE.U. bureaucrats subsidize WesternrnEuropean farmers with guaranteedrnprices, instead of allowing free marketrncompetition to take place.rnAnd then there is NATO “enlargement,”rnthe fifth claw in Madame Europe’srnback. Most people think that thisrnis about “European securit}'” since that’srnwhat the establishment media tell us, butrnit is not. How could it be when there isrnno enemy in sight for thousands ofrnmiles? NATO enlargement is about enlargingrnthe wallets of U.S. death merchantsrn—by the tens of billions of dollarsrnwhich the new members will have tornspend to bring their armed forces up tornNATO standards. Another boon for U.S.rnmultinationals; another burden for Europeanrntaxpayers.rnThis brings us to the sixth claw stuckrnin Europe’s back—its liberal immigrationrnpolicy, mirroring that in the UnitedrnStates. Ostensibly pursued in the namernof “multiculturalism,” it is actually a euphemismrnfor helping big business lowerrnits labor rates.rnJust as the “browning of America”rnsince the Immigration and NaturalizationrnAct of 1965 has been “a demographicrnevent of seismic proportions,”rnaccording to Peter Brimelow, a Fortunernmagazine editor and author of Alien Nation,rnhelping to destroy the cohesion ofrnmostly Ghristian Europe has been thernagenda of the same materialistic globalistrncrowd. Enter the millions of Gastarbeiterrn(“guest workers”) from Turkey, Algeria,rnAlbania, Tunisia, and Middle Easternrncountries, and by the time theyrnmultiply and/or bring their brethrenrnalong, Europe will have lost its culturalrnidentity, just as we are losing it in thernUnited States. We will both becomern”continents of mutts”; full of the “FullrnMonties”—desperate, destitute, and displacedrnindigenous workers, like those depictedrnin the British film.rnNow take all six globalist bear claws togetherrn—build-up of the E.U. bureaucracy,rnthe euro, the Y2K, the two enlargements,rnand immigration —ripping andrngripping at Europe simultaneously] Onlyrnthe devil himself could have devisedrnsuch a way to “help” Europe.rnThe globalists’ “thesis” is a centralized,rnintegrated European Union; butrnthe “antithesis,” resulting from a popularrnbacklash against this devil’s plan, may bernEurope Undone, i.e., a disintegration ofrnEurope.rnNo surprise there. Almost five centuriesrnago (in 1513), Niccolo Machiavellirnwrote in The Prince: “There is nothingrnmore difficult to plan, more doubtful ofrnsuccess, nor more dangerous to managern—than the creation of a new order ofrnthings.” I guess the New World Orderrnglobalists haven’t read anything writtenrnprior to Karl Marx.rnThe death of NATO and/or of thernE.U. would not be a bad outcome forrnAmerican or European taxpayers, if suchrnuseless institutions were the only thingsrnto die as the globalists’ New World Orderrncrumbles. But the possibility of anotherrnGreco-Turkish conflict engulfing all ofrnEurope in a World War I-style confrontationrnbetween the great powersrnsends shivers down one’s spine. The endrnDECEMBER 1998/43rnrnrn