The oft-used term “America’s European allies” is one of the greatest oxymorons of our time. “America’s European vassals” would be more appropriate, for American policy is virtually destroying our so-called “allies,” while aiding multinational corporations.
This is not unlike the Soviet bear’s treatment of its Eastern European “allies” (read: minions), only more perfidious. The American bear has stuck its six big claws into the back of Madame Europe and is dragging her into its lair, while pretending to save her. (What she is to be saved from has been a mystery ever since the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet bear.) The first claw ripping into Europe is the European Union; the second is the euro; the third is the “Y2K” (though the United States cannot claim direct credit for that); the fourth and fifth are the two “enlargements”—E.U. and NATO expansion into Eastern Europe; the sixth is immigration. All six claws will eventually sap the competitive lifeblood out of the victim if the current trends continue.
The first claw—European integration, first economic, then political—is clearly being pushed by the Wall Street and Washington New World Order (NWO) globalists for the benefit of multinational companies. Just look at the assault launched by Wall Street bankers. Since 1992, the year the same crowd forced Europe to open its markets to foreign competition, Wall Street banks have consistently dominated Europe’s mergers and acquisitions. In 1996, for example, U.S. banks accounted for two-thirds of all such deals. Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, and Merrill Lynch led the pack, according to a July 1997 New York Times report.
A further example of the top-down NWO coercion is that the Old Continent’s electorates have clearly rejected the idea of pan-Europeanism, even as they voted for a pan-European parliament. Most representatives elected in June 1994, for example, came from the various European nationalist parties. Even in Germany, that bulwark of European integration, where Helmut Kohl’s government has acted as a virtual U.S. government proxy on almost every issue, there has been a voter backlash. Kohl was defeated in the September elections by Social Democrats who were critical of the government’s special relationship with NATO and the United States. This is more evidence that the 1991 Maastricht Treaty was an example of the globalist elite ramming the European Union idea down the Europeans’ throats. The E.U.—like the United Nations bureaucracy—adds a significant tax burden over and above the costs of each national government. The E.U. bureaucracy also saps the Old Continent’s creative and intellectual capital. Instead of using its talents to compete with American or Japanese competitors, Europe’s best and the brightest are being deployed on unproductive administrative issues.
The same argument can be made about the second claw destroying Europe —the conversion of national currencies to the “euro.” There is no doubt that the euro is a benefit to the hordes of European and U.S. consulting, legal, and accounting firms engaged in currency conversion projects, not to mention the banks, think tanks, or other leeches feeding off of productive economic activities. Similarly, the Harvard-inspired “reforms” in Russia in 1992-1994 meant an opportunity for the few (quislings and foreigners) to get rich at the expense of the many (Russians).
Meanwhile, the proponents of the euro argue that a common currency will lower transaction costs. But even if this is so, it will first raise them, and only companies which operate on a pan-European scale may benefit from the lowered costs. As for the rest—especially small businesses, the backbone of most European economies—the euro will mostly mean additional expenses and diminishing national sovereignty.
And then there are the political risks associated with the euro. “The new currency will become the target of allocation conflicts, the magnet for political action and the putty between continental forces,” noted a July 1998 Bertelsmann Forum report. “The ‘euro’ could force a major process of financial compensation throughout Europe, thus triggering conflicts of a new intensity.”
The third claw tearing into the back of Europe is the “Y2K” problem, the so-called “Millennium Bug.” The Y2K, of course, afflicts all of the industrialized world, not only Europe. But both Europe and Japan, the two major competitors of U.S.-based multinationals, are at least 9 to 12 months behind the United States in addressing this issue, according to a recent CIA study. Now, 9 to 12 months may not sound like much in some industries, where changes are measured in years or decades. But this is quite a setback for Europe in the hightech world. Personal computer product cycles have been reduced to about 12 months. The Internet has shrunk the “Web year” from 12 months to about 90 days. In short, the Y2K is likely to set Europe back even further relative to the United States than it is today.
The fourth and the fifth claws of the U.S.-inspired European self-destruction are the two “enlargements” — extending E.U. membership to some Eastern European countries and expanding NATO. As German reunification has clearly shown, even uniting two countries which share ethnic and cultural identities is a Herculean task—and a very expensive one. The enormous costs of reunification have brought the treasury of the largest European economy practically to its knees. Since October 1990, the West Germans have poured more than $100 billion every year into East Germany to make their poorer brethren feel like equals at the family dinner table. Yet eight years later, many East Germans still feel like second-class citizens in their own country, which only goes to show that one cannot buy happiness or a sense of well-being with money.
Now multiply the difficulties and expenses of German integration by a factor of 20 or more in order to appreciate the devastating impact that “enlargement” will have on taxpayers. The agricultural sector in Eastern Europe, for example, is still of crucial importance for employment and income generation in those countries. Yet agricultural production in Eastern Europe is currently about 30 percent of that in the E.U. countries and prices are only around 50-70 percent of E.U. levels, according to the Bertelsmann Forum report. Adding only ten Eastern European countries to the E.U. would increase its cultivated acreage by 44 percent. Economics lOI would suggest that such a sharp increase in agricultural production would lower the cost of food throughout Europe. But don’t count on it. For that’s where Socialism lOI comes in: The “enlargement would actually lead to a “substantially increased burden on the EU budget,” the Bertelsmann Forum concluded. Why? Because E.U. bureaucrats subsidize Western European farmers with guaranteed prices, instead of allowing free market competition to take place.
And then there is NATO “enlargement,” the fifth claw in Madame Europe’s back. Most people think that this is about “European security” since that’s what the establishment media tell us, but it is not. How could it be when there is no enemy in sight for thousands of miles? NATO enlargement is about enlarging the wallets of U.S. death merchants—by the tens of billions of dollars which the new members will have to spend to bring their armed forces up to NATO standards. Another boon for U.S. multinationals; another burden for European taxpayers.
This brings us to the sixth claw stuck in Europe’s back—its liberal immigration policy, mirroring that in the United States. Ostensibly pursued in the name of “multiculturalism,” it is actually a euphemism for helping big business lower its labor rates.
Just as the “browning of America” since the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 has been “a demographic event of seismic proportions,” according to Peter Brimelow, a Fortune magazine editor and author of Alien Nation, helping to destroy the cohesion of mostly Christian Europe has been the agenda of the same materialistic globalist crowd. Enter the millions of Gastarbeiter (“guest workers”) from Turkey, Algeria, Albania, Tunisia, and Middle Eastern countries, and by the time they multiply and/or bring their brethren along, Europe will have lost its cultural identity, just as we are losing it in the United States. We will both become “continents of mutts”; full of the “Full Monties”—desperate, destitute, and displaced indigenous workers, like those depicted in the British film.
Now take all six globalist bear claws together—build-up of the E.U. bureaucracy, the euro, the Y2K, the two enlargements, and immigration —ripping and gripping at Europe simultaneously.] Only the devil himself could have devised such a way to “help” Europe.
The globalists’ “thesis” is a centralized, integrated European Union; but the “antithesis,” resulting from a popular backlash against this devil’s plan, may be Europe Undone, i.e., a disintegration of Europe.
No surprise there. Almost five centuries ago (in 1513), Niccolo Machiavelli wrote in The Prince: “There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage—than the creation of a new order of things.” I guess the New World Order globalists haven’t read anything written prior to Karl Marx.
The death of NATO and/or of the E.U. would not be a bad outcome for American or European taxpayers, if such useless institutions were the only things to die as the globalists’ New World Order crumbles. But the possibility of another Greco-Turkish conflict engulfing all of Europe in a World War I-style confrontation between the great powers sends shivers down one’s spine. The end result may be the loss of millions of lives again, perhaps forever dooming U.S. influence on the Old Continent, just as World War I ended the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
What kind of Europe may emerge from all this? A feudal one: not in terms of the tools of production, but in the sense that nation-states may break up into smaller, more manageable regional statelets, mostly along ethnic lines.
If so, this may be a round-about way to realize an old idea. At the time of fullblown globalism in post-Cold War Europe, the idea sounded so “off the wall” that even its author called it “Eurotopia.” Professor A.H. Heineken of the Amsterdam-based Stichting voor de Historische Wetenshap (Historical Research Institute), dusted off some old ideas and polished them up into a proposal for a “United States of Europe.” According to his plan, Europe’s 350 million inhabitants would live in 75 independent states, each with a population of about five to ten million.
Why the five-to-ten million limit? “Because where the population exceeds 10 million, there is a manifest case for decentralization,” as C. Northcote Parkinson argued in his 1970 report. In other words, it’s a matter of efficiency. “A state of 30 to 50 million is hopelessly inefficient,” Professor Heineken concurred. A state of 150 million inhabitants or more could only be much worse.
Both Heineken and Parkinson drew upon the ideas of Austrian sociologist Leopold Kohr, who wrote in
Leave a Reply