Now That The French Elections Are Over, Who Gets To Play Karl Der…


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 19, 2017

I almost have to laugh at the comic relief the European Union provides us.

It was the utopian fantasy of the post-war era, of the Adenauers and Mendez-Frances and Averill Harrimans and other nomenklaturachniks of the globaloney crowd: bigger and bigger federalism good, national economies, bad. Oh, and let’s not forget, that the whole idea also found major support in the circles around Kaiser Wilhelm II, were articulated in a very inchoate form as a war aim by his Chancellor, Bettmann-Hollweg, in September 1914, and became the subject of detailed planning in the early 1940s by Reichbank president and finance minister Walter Funk, in a Nazi-I.G. Farben fantasia that looks all too much like the current bureaucratic monstrosity and tyranny in Brussels.  The fantasy was born, of course, because Europe had just been through two World Wars, the basic point of which was “the rest of the world has to gang up on Germany, fight it (and themselves) to exhaustion, to prevent it from becoming a world power, which it very much wants to be, and which we very much don’t want it to be.” Even that 1942 Walter Funk Reichsbank-I.G. Farben study on how to make a European Union under the dominance of Germany was a kind of back-handed admission that even the Nazis (or at least, that rare breed of them that were somewhat sane) recognized that the “we’re-having-a-war-and-everyone’s-invited-please-RSVP” approach wasn’t working out quite according to the Meisterplan.  Throw in some Halford MacKinderisms about world islands, heartlands, and the absolute necessity for “the West” (France, Britain, and the USA) to prevent a Russo-German(and Chinese!) alliance – which would dominate the “world island” (Eurasia) and thence the world – stir and simmer over medium heat, and you have all the makings of a NATO stew.

It’s that simmering NATO stew that brings me to today’s thought-provoking op-ed piece at Zero Hedge, which Mr. H.B. discovered and shared:

“Zumutungen!” Buyer’s Remorse In France, Impossible Situation For Germany

The problem, if one reads the quotations of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard cited in the article carefully, is the German economy:

Emmanuel Macron’s lightning conquest of France has put Germany in an awkward spot. French voters have picked an apostle of Europe and an arch-defender of the Franco-German axis. While this is welcomed with jubilation by some in Berlin, it raises thorny questions that others would prefer left unanswered.

He plans Nordic labor reforms, easier collective bargaining rules, and the sort of tax shake-up that German leaders have long demanded. The quid pro quo is that Berlin must agree to eurozone fiscal union, and cut its corrosive current account surplus – now 8.6 percent of GDP and in breach of EU rules.

“If France is not reformed, we will not be able to regain the confidence of the Germans,” Mr. Macron told Ouest-France. “After that, Germany must ask whether its own situation is tenable. It is accumulating surpluses which are neither good for its own economy nor for the eurozone.”

He wants a eurozone finance minister and budget, with joint debt, and a banking union with shared deposit insurance, all legitimized by a new parliament for the currency bloc. It implies a unitary eurozone superstate.

This calls Berlin’s bluff. The German elites often argue that they cannot accept such radical proposals as long as other eurozone states scoff at budget rules and fail to put their house in order.

The Handelsblatt accused Mr. Macron of “Teuton-bashing” over the trade surplus. The German Council of Economic Experts holds defiantly to the national view that trade surpluses are proof of virtue. It sees EMU debt-pooling as a slippery slope towards a “Transferunion”.

And this, of course, is the simmering NATO stew dilemma: NATO, according to the vowel-impaired Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski in his Grand Chessboard, was as much about containing German power as it was about containing Soviet power. For the German governments from Adenauer to Schmidt, it was as much about allowing Germany to rearm, without having to assume the mantle of pan-European defense, and growing their economy. NATO, on this view, was a cynical “gentleman’s” agreement: everyone knew what the other side was up to, and everyone agreed not to talk about it (think Molotov-Ribbentrop pact here) and pretend like everyone was friends now(think Molotov-Ribbentrop pact again). The same, I suspect, is really what the early Common Market, and now the EU, is all about: for the rest of Europe, as revealed by M. Macron’s remarks, the EU is about contriving a mechanism to contain German economic and manufacturing power and ultimately German sovereignty (You have too much surplus!), while for the Germans, it has always been about the German economic domination of Europe (think Bettmann-Hollweg and Walter Funk) until everyone else (mainly France) gets their spendthrift houses in order; the hidden caveat being that Germany is perfectly happy not to have everyone else get their manufacturing and fiscal houses in order, because Germany can retain its sovereignty and dominate the situation.

And in the background, there lingers that suspicion that there has been a quiet and covert economic war going on between the USA and Germany: heavy fines on German companies, and American troop transfers to Clemenceau’s old cordon sanitaire in Poland and Romania, which we’re told are in response to Russia, but which I suspect are equally targeted at Germany.

It’s about who gets to play Karl der Grosse… er… Charlemagne.

After all the fine verbiage, treaties, globaloney sentiment, and after all the centuries, it is still ultimately about Realpolitik.

There will be now an immense tug-of-war between Paris and Berlin, with Washington and Moscow as the interested parties. Where it goes is anyone’s guess, but there are essentially three broad options: (1) A European super-state, which will still be dominated by Germany both economically and militarily; (2) a “rump” EU, resulting in Germany abandoning the European project should France (and the hidden player, America) press too hard; this will result in massive German rearmament and a vigorous eastward foreign policy with Russia and China (which we’ve seen signs of already); (3) A “rump” EU resulting in France’s abandonment of the European project, leaving the rest to be dominated by Germany.  Of course, there will be several shades and “micropositions” between all of these as well. Add to this the growing discontent in Eastern Europe over the immigration crisis, and one has all the potential makings for a potential massive geopolitical realignment in Europe.

This is one to watch. And one can expect Washington – true to its heritage – to back the weaker continental power (France) against the stronger (Germany) in classic British style. But it must do so delicately, lest it provoke Germany to solve its problems in “the traditional way”, to paraphrase Chancellor Kohl’s comments prior to the crack-up of Czechoslovakia. (Is it just me, or does anyone else have a sinking feeling of deja vu here?)

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Macron wins…The Question Is, How?

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 17, 2017

Well, you’ve probably been wondering why I haven’t talked about the French elections. Truth be told, it was in part because of out-of-town commitments, and in part because during the election itself, I “smelled a rat”, but we’ll get back to that.

By now you’ve probably heard that M. Macron, the young up-and-coming-Rothschild-backed whatever-he-is, has become the President of France. Sitting on the sidelines across the pond over here in the USSA, I felt a keen sense of deja vu… it was like the Darth Hillary-Donald Trump affair all over again: one couldn’t muster much enthusiasm for either, but one sensed (or rather, smelled) the distinct odor of corruption hovering over the whole thing. It was Le Pen vs. Macron, that is to say, a French nationalist with ties to a very right-wing, and in my opinion, historically fascist, party, versus stale musty same-old same-old euro-globaloney that people like the Rottenchilds and Rockefailures like to force down everyone’s throats. It was rather like watching an election between Robespierre or Danton, and Marshal Petain, being refereed by General Maurice Gamelin. Ms. Le Pen may have put the finest point on it when, during a debate with Mr. Macron, she said that regardless of the outcome of the election, the next president of France would be a woman, either her, or Frau Merkel. By this “Penine” logic, it would appear Frau Merkel won. Watching the whole circus, I couldn’t help but think “Where’s Talleyrand when you need him?”

Indeed, M. Talleyrand’s ghost, at least, may have been hovering over the election. At one point, a friend of mine reported to me (apparently we were both following the returns) that Mr. Macron’s lead was 66.06%, a percentage he found to be fishier than a mackerel on a moonlight beach: it both shined, and stunk. The problem, of course, is that Mr. Macron’s election, though expected, solves nothing. If anything, it means more of the same, and continued German domination of the European Union, and of France. The can, as they say, has been kicked down the road; German surpluses continue, immigration continues, the French state of emergency continues, and nothing is solved. This, I would aver, is a dangerous state of affairs, and Mr. Macron, like Mr. Trump, in a certain sense is an outsider, though certainly one with the approval of Mr. Eurobaloney and Mr. Globaloney. Better a fake outsider, like Mr. Macron, than a real one, like Ms. Le Pen.

But not all is well, and this is where it gets interesting. One was almost waiting for “the other shoe to drop”, since elections in the west these days look more and more like elections in Bolivia.

The shoe, according to articles that many regular readers here shared with me, just dropped (copy and paste into your browser: http://yournewswire.com/marine-le-pen-election-rigged/  ).  There was also this version of the story, also shared by many others (copy and paste: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/05/france-election-2017-fraud-rigged-european-union-masters-deceit-must-annulled-knowledgeable-professor-alexia-thomas-demands/ ).

I have to admit, the stories cause some difficulty for the formation of today’s “high octane speculation.” On the one hand, I do not doubt that there was election fraud in France in favor of Mr. Macron. What I have to question, is why? Most of the data that I saw had him clearly leading Ms. LePen, so why bother to add fraud to the procedure?  It would seem to be a self-defeating project. There are several possibilities here, but the two that stand out to me are a rather obvious one, and one that is not so obvious. The obvious one is that Mr. Macron’s support was actually softer than the public numbers showed, and that he had to be helped along a bit. I’ve suspected the same thing with respect to Darth Hillary in this country, and in particular in her “solid support areas” like Nuttyfornia. Perhaps Mr. Macron was facing similar prospects in the Ile de France and other supposedly “solid support” areas, and hence, according to the first article, torn ballots for LePen were mailed out, while double ballots for Macron were mailed out. The result is predictable: some are saying that he is not the legitimate President of France. And it’s that assessment that brings me to my second option in today’s high octane speculation grab-bag: the pattern of the last American election has been repeated in its broad outlines in France, with one notable exception: (1) allegations of fraud have been accompanied by (2) media spin (in the US case) or media blackout (in France’s case) following by (3) a questioning of the legitimacy of the results in both cases. What remains different, what remains the exception in France’s case, when one compares the two, is that in Mr. Macron’s case, the “deep-state approved” candidate won. So the question is, why the pattern?

I can only speculate here, but my guess highlights the second option: it may be that we’re seeing this pattern because the real goal is to bring constitutional representative republics into doubt and question regardless of whether the “approved” candidate wins or not; already there are calls in the USSA for a constitutional convention, a process I personally think would be a disaster, allowing Mr. Globaloney to walk off with stolen money and saddle the rest of us with bad debt.

France, of course, has been through several constitutions since the French Revolution, and would be much more easily open to such a process. In other words, it is not because it is Ms. Le Pen making these allegations that I am concerned, it is because of the nature of the allegations themselves, and that we may be looking at a contrived pattern, a new ploy in the playbook, by Mr. Globaloney, that I am concerned.

All that’s missing is for the French to blame it on the Russians.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

China To Europe: Let’s Include The Moon In The Silk Road


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 2, 2017

There may be a new twist to China’s Silk Road economic and infrastructure strategy, one that has truly enormous geopolitical and commercial implications. First, let’s recall where exactly we are in terms of China’s Silk Road project. A few weeks ago, the first freight train from China arrived in… London. Now, Mr. J. has shared an article that indicates the return trip, loaded with British goods, has been made:

First direct London-China train completes 12,000 km run

The date of this achievement, April 29, was just a few days ago. Similarly, one can also imagine similar trips from London all the way to Vladivostok (with the appropriate stop to convert cars to the wider Russian gauge). In any case, that this means is that the Eurasian land mass is already connected. The real project is to build it out, and make those connections even more redundant.

So with that in mind, consider these two articles, which many of you noticed this week:

Will we soon build a VILLAGE on the moon? China is in talks with Europe about launching a lunar settlement

There are statements in three paragraphs that caught my attention in the first article:

As with all things in this new age of space exploration, collaboration appears to be the key to making things happen.  This certainly seems to be the case when it comes to the China National Space Administration (CNSA) and the ESA’s respective plans for lunar exploration. As spokespeople from both agencies announced this week, the CNSA and the ESA hope to work together to create a “Moon Village” by the 2020s.

Yulong and Hvistendahl indicated that this base would aid in the development of lunar mining, space tourism, and facilitate missions deeper into space – particularly to Mars. It would also build upon recent accomplishments by both agencies, which have successfully deployed robotic orbiters and landers to the Moon in the past few decades. These include the CNSA’s Chang’e missions, as well as the ESA’s SMART-1 mission.

As part of the Chang’e program, the Chinese landers explored the lunar surface in part to investigate the prospect of mining Helium-3, which could be used to power fusion reactors here on Earth….

And lest we forget, China and Europe are exploring the use of 3D Printing in their extraterrestrial human colony schemes:

In addition, its is likely that the construction of this base will rely on additive manufacture (aka. 3-d printing) techniques specially developed for the lunar environment. In 2013, the ESA announced that they had teamed up with renowned architects Foster+Partners to test the feasibility of using lunar soil to print walls that would protect lunar domes from harmful radiation and micrometeorites.

If one looks closely at these proposals, they are nothing less than the extension of the New Silk Road project concepts to space itself. And in this respect, it’s interesting the Chinese and Europeans are discussing concepts, plans, and possibilities directly with each other.

This, I submit, is another geopolitical earthquake, and it presages yet another eventuality: if Europe opts to go with China in these developments, inevitably, this will mean an economic, geopolitical, and military break with NATO and the USA. Why? Well, other than the obvious reasons, there are the not-so-obvious reasons. I and others have repeatedly said, and warned, that where there is space commercialization, there will inevitably space militarization and weaponization; one has to protect all those very expensively developed space assets from potential competitors and interdiction. China has already demonstrated a sophisticated anti-satellite capability; Russia probably has an equal if not more sophisticated capability, but they’re being typically secretive about it. Europe most likely has developed similar technologies. In any case, the point is, that rest assured the Chinese and Europeans are talking about Moon tourism, mining, permanent human colonies there, the use of 3d printing to construct such habitats.

But one can also be absolutely certain that, behind closed doors, and at very high levels, the Chinese and Europeans also have been discussing those other issues…

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Meanwhile…In France…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 28, 2017

By now you’ve probably heard: politics in France has turned a very bizarre corner, for the mainline parties, and their candidates, hardly made an impression. Instead, Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen are headed to a runoff election on May 7th. One poll that I saw had M. Macron winning with 23.9% of the votes, with Mm. Le Pen trailing closely with 21.4% of the votes. Fillon, Melenchon, Hamon came in at 19.9, 19.6, and 6.3% respectively. Here’s the way it looks to the U.K.’s The Guardian:

French election: Macron and Le Pen go to second round – live coverage

Notably, neither Macron nor Le Pen together get a clear majority, but, interestingly enough, neither do the “mainline” candidates, who fell by the wayside. What this means in effect is that whether or not Macron or Le Pen win, they will have to govern either with each other, or by reaching out to those parties led in the last round of elections by Fillon, Melenchon & Co. And that will make governance difficult.  As all of this has been going on, I’ve been receiving a steady trickle of emails from members of this website who live in France, who inform me that many of the same tricks we saw applied in the previous US election have also been rolled out in France: pro-Le Pen comments are censored on social media, pro-EU/globaloney articles are pushed, &c. In spite of this, Le Pen has advanced to round two: the mainline candidates did not.

The question is, why?

In doing a little research for this blog, I came across the following article from Global Research News (copy and paste in your browser:

The Main Issue in the French Presidential Election: National Sovereignty and the Future of France

This article is well worth pondering at length, but I want to draw attention to certain statements critical of the traditional right-left divide, and why French politics looks so peculiar now. Consider, first, the critique of the right:

The upshot is that Fillon’s coherent pro-capitalist policy is not exactly what the dominant globalizing elite prefers. The “center left” is their clear political choice since Tony Blair and Bill Clinton revised the agendas of their respective parties. The center left emphasis on human rights (especially in faraway countries targeted for regime change) and ethnic diversity at home fits the long-term globalist aims of erasing national borders, to allow unrestricted free movement of capital. Traditional patriotic conservatism, represented by Fillon, does not altogether correspond to the international adventurism of globalization.

And now the left:

As the traditional left goal of economic equality was abandoned, it was superseded by emphatic allegiance to “human rights”, which is now taught in school as a veritable religion. The vague notion of human rights was somehow associated with the “free movement” of everything and everybody. Indeed the official EU dogma is protection of “free movement”: free movement of goods, people, labor and (last but certainly not least) capital. These “four freedoms” in practice transform the nation from a political society into a financial market, an investment opportunity, run by a bureaucracy of supposed experts. In this way, the European Union has become the vanguard experiment in transforming the world into a single capitalist market.

The French left bought heavily into this ideal, partly because it deceptively echoed the old leftist ideal of “internationalism” (whereas capital has always been incomparably more “international” than workers), and partly due to the simplistic idea that “nationalism” is the sole cause of wars. More fundamental and complex causes of war are ignored.

For a long time, the left has complained about job loss, declining living standards, delocalization or closure of profitable industries, without recognizing that these unpopular results are caused by EU requirements. EU directives and regulations increasingly undermine the French model of redistribution through public services, and are now threatening to wipe them out altogether – either because “the government is bankrupt” or because of EU competition rules prohibit countries from taking measures to preserve their key industries or their agriculture.

Add to this the following:

Meanwhile, it has become more and more obvious that EU monetarist policy based on the common currency, the euro, creates neither growth nor jobs as promised but destroys both. Unable to control its own currency, obliged to borrow from private banks, and to pay them interest, France is more and more in debt, its industry is disappearing and its farmers are committing suicide, on the average of one every other day. The left has ended up in an impossible position: unswervingly loyal to the EU while calling for policies that are impossible under EU rules governing competition, free movement, deregulation, budgetary restraints, and countless other regulations produced by an opaque bureaucracy and ratified by a virtually powerless European Parliament, all under the influence of an army of lobbyists.

Benoit Hamon remains firmly stuck on the horns of the left’s fatal dilemma: determination to be “socialist”, or rather, social democratic, and passionate loyalty to “Europe”. While insisting on social policies that cannot possibly be carried out with the euro as currency and according to EU rules, Hamon still proclaims loyalty to “Europe”. He parrots the EU’s made-in-Washington foreign policy, demanding that “Assad must go” and ranting against Putin and Russia.

And finally, this comment about Melenchon and Le Pen:

A most remarkable feature of this campaign is great similarity between the two candidates said to represent “the far left”, Mélenchon, and “the far right”, Marine Le Pen. Both speak of leaving the euro. Both vow to negotiate with the EU to get better treaty terms for France. Both advocate social policies to benefit workers and low income people. Both want to normalize relations with Russia. Both want to leave NATO, or at least its military command. Both defend national sovereignty, and can thus be described as “sovereignists”.

The only big difference between them is on immigration, an issue that arouses so much emotion that it is hard to discuss sensibly. Those who oppose immigration are accused of “fascism”, those who favor immigration are accused of wanting to destroy the nation’s identity by flooding it with inassimilable foreigners.

So where’s my daily dose of speculation? A few months ago I predicted that even if Marine Le Pen does not win this bid for the French Presidency, the issues driving her and her party simply will not go away, especially if Mr. Globaloney continues to pursue the same policies with the same playbook, and to ignore the real issue.

That issue, I suspect, is much deeper than even Global Research understands, for the phenomenon is not political, it is cultural and civilizational, and it is, perhaps, not surprising at all that it should be France, and Britain (with the Brexit vote) where we see, if not the strongest opposition to Mr. Globaloney, then at least the most articulate and vocal, for those two nations are, to put it succinctly, the two oldest nation-states in the western world. They represent, so to speak, the core countries of modern western culture: Britain spread Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and associated cultural institutions throughout the world via the British Empire. In doing so, it also put an end to many practices we would now consider barbaric. And yes, I realize in stating that I have taken a very unpopular view. (If you want to hear the politically correct view, attend an American university.) France, similarly, spread French law and jurisprudence and institutions throughout Europe during the Napoleonic era, which gave rise to the national aspirations of Italy and Germany and helped pave the way for their national unifications in the 19th century.

Why is this distinction between politics and culture important? It’s very simple: if what is driving the Trump train, or the Brexit vote, or, now, the upheavals in French politics, is cultural and not political, then the phenomenon is not going to go away very quickly, nor very quietly, no matter what the politicians do or do not do.

The first politician in the West that truly understands this, and can articulate the cultural vision and aspect of the problem, wins.  Why? Because Mr. Globaloney has no real innate sense of culture. He has to buy it, but does not understand it, nor view himself as belonging to any cultural tradition (except a modern one no older than a century or century and a half). He endows modernist ugliness and promotes it at every turn (think David Rockefailure here, folks, and his “taste” in modern “art”); and people are turning from ugliness.

As for France, this will, indeed, be an election to watch, and I confess some personal emotional involvement; my paternal grandmother was French; I have my great-grandfather’s (her father’s) French prayer book; French composers – Saint-Saens, Rameau, Couperin, and so on – and musicians have enriched my personal life; when I studied organ, I played an edition of J.S. Bach’s organ music edited and prepared by the grand master of French organists (Charles-Marie Widor), and so on. So I watch what goes on there with great personal feeling, because I do not want France to become something one can only read about in history books, another victim of Mr. Globaloney’s hatred of and war on all things of beauty belonging to western culture and tradition.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Is Euroland on Verge of Disintegration?

Is Euroland on Verge of Disintegration?
Source: WilliamEngdahl.comf
F. William Engdahl
April 21, 2017

The decision last year by a majority of British voters to exit the European Union was more than a simple vote of the people. The Brexit campaign was promoted and financed by the most influential banks of the City of London and by the British Royal House. Far from the end of Britain, Brexit is far more likely to be the beginning of the end of the disastrous Euro single currency experiment .

Since the global financial crisis of 2008 little significant has been done by Brussels or the governments of the 19 member Eurozone countries to bring the largest banks of the Eurozone into a healthy stability. On the contrary, even venerable mega-banks like Germany’s Deutsche Bank are teetering on the brink.

In Italy the world’s oldest bank, Monte Paschi di Siena, is on state life-support. That is but the tip of an iceberg of Italian bank bad debts. Today in total Italy’s banks hold Italy’s banks hold €360 billion of bad loans or 20% of Italy’s GDP, which is double the total five years ago.

It gets worse. Italy is the fourth largest economy in the EU. Its economy is in dismal shape so bank bad loans grow. State debt is almost as high as that of Greece, at 135% of GDP. Now, since the 2013 Cyprus bank crisis, the EU has passed a stringent new bank “bail-in” law, largely under German pressure. It stipulates that in event of a new banking crisis, a taxpayer bailout is prohibited until bank bond-holders and, if necessary as in Cyprus, its bank depositors, first “bail-in” or take the loss. In Italy, most holders of bank bonds are ordinary Italian citizens, with some €200 billion worth, who were told bank bonds were a secure investment. No more.

German Austerity Medicine Killing Patient

A major problem is that the Eurozone economies have been forced to impose the wrong medicine to deal with the 2008 financial and economic crisis. The Eurozone crisis has been wrongly seen as states spending too wildly and labor costs rising too high. So, under again German pressure, the Eurozone countries in crisis such as Greece, have been forced to impose draconian austerity, slash pensions, cut wages. The result has been even worse economic recession and rising unemployment, rising bank bad loans. By 2015 Greece’s GDP had declined by more than 26%, Spain’s GDP by almost 6%, Portugal by 7%, and Italy’s GDP by almost 10% compared with 2008.

Austerity is never a solution to a state economic crisis. The example of the German economic crisis that erupted in 1931 in depression, unemployment and a banking crisis as a consequence of the severe austerity policies of Chancellor Heinrich Brüning ought to be clear enough to German authorities whose historical memory seems to have amnesia today.

Across the Eurozone more than 19 million workers are jobless. Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain have a total of an unprecedented 11 million unemployed workers. In France and Italy unemployment is over 13% of the labor force. In Spain it is 20%, and in Greece a staggering 25%. This is all the state of economic affairs more than 8 years after the 2008 crisis. In short there has been no economic recovery in Euroland. Since 2009 the European Central Bank (ECB), the bank of the Euro, has made unprecedented moves to try to stabilize the banking crisis. They have only postponed not improved the situation.

Today as a result of ECB buying of mortgage bonds, corporate bonds, state bonds, and asset-backed securities, the ECB balance sheet is more than €1.5 trillion. The ECB, whose President is Italian Mario Draghi, has held interest rates in an unprecedented negative interest rates around -0.4% since June, 2014. The ECB has made clear that negative central bank interest rates will remain “for some time.” This is leading some to try to convince voters to go to a cashless society as India did last year with catastrophic consequences and as Sweden, not a Euro country, has largely done. If banks begin to charge their customers a fee for using customers’ deposits, an incredible thought for most, people would simply “take the money and run,” into gold or other safe assets, or cash.

The ECB negative interest rates are a sign of desperation to put it mildly. With interest rates on bonds across the Eurozone so low, many insurance companies are facing severe liquidity problems meeting their future obligations unless Eurozone interest rates return to more normal levels. Yet were the ECB to end its negative interest rate policy and its quantitative easing so-called, the debt crisis of many banks would explode from Greece to Italy to France to even Germany.

A Coming Currency War?

So, to put it gently, the Eurozone is a ticking debt time bomb ready to blow at the slightest new shock or crisis. We may well see that shock in the next two years, once Britain has completed its exit from the EU. Already the new Administration of Donald Trump in Washington has signaled a potential launch of currency war against the Euro. On January 31, US Trade Czar Peter Navarro accused Germany of using a “grossly undervalued euro to exploit” the US and Germany’s EU partners. Navarro went on to call Germany, the core of the Eurozone economies, a de facto “currency manipulator.” Navarro has stated, “While the euro freely floats in international currency markets, this system deflates the German currency from where it would be if the German Deutschmark were still in existence.”

Britain with the vast financial resources of the City of London, once free from the shackles of the EU membership, could well join with Washington in a full-scale covert currency war to bring down the Euro, something that would have devastating consequences for the Eurozone economies. Britain’s Pound is the third largest global payments currency after the dollar and the Euro. If Britain, free from the restraints of the EU can bring down the Euro, the Pound could become a major gainer–currency war with Britain on the side of Washington against the fragile Eurozone with their Italian, Greek, Spanish and other problems. Already British Prime Minister Theresa May is in discussions with the Trump Administration about forging a bilateral US-UK trade agreement and some in influential UK circles are talking of inviting the USA to become an associate member of the British Commonwealth. For the US dollar and Wall Street banks, wounding the rival to the dollar as central bank reserve currency is a very tempting thought. Now with Britain and the City of London soon to be free of EU restraints, the temptation might become reality.

All of this is because of the dysfunctional nature of the entire Eurozone project, a supranational currency with no democratic elected authorities to control abuses. The half-way dissolution of national sovereignty that the Maastricht Treaty introduced with the European Monetary System back in the 1990s, has left the EU with the worst combination in event of future crisis.

Read More At: WilliamEngdahl.com
__________________________________________________________________________

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

News & Views From The Nefarium – Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Speaks On The Fallout From #Brexit, Nuclear Weapons & Germany, France & More

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
March 9, 2017

Fallout (and I mean that literally) from the BREXIT: a common nuclear deterrent for the European Union?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/06…

Brexit, Britain, & A Renewed Commonwealth: Yes, But What’s The…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 5, 2017

I received two articles this week having to do with Great Britain and the Commonwealth that caught my attention. The first from Ms. K.M., and the second from Mr. S.D. Before we get to those, however, I want to remind people of a bit of high octane speculation that I began to advance shortly before the BREXIT referendum in the United Kingdom. During the campaign prior to that referendum, I observed a number of things that convinced me that there was a certain segment of the British oligarchy that was profoundly unhappy with two things: (1) the growing bureaucratic tyranny of the Brussels-Berlin E.U., and its corollary, discontent in certain segments of the British population – that part of the population with a shred of sanity left – over the growing Islamicization of their country; and, (2) the growing dissatisfaction with the “unipolar world” of Mr. Globaloney. There were, I argued, several signals that indicated “something was afoot” behind the scenes in the British deep state or oligarchy, and chief among these things were three indicators – at least to me and a few others – that the polls prior to BREXIT, which showed the “remain” forces leading – might have been deliberately concocted. By my hack-from-South Dakota lights, there were three signals that spoke very loudly:

(1) The state visit of Mr. Xi Jinping to that nation;

(2) Great Britain’s entry as a board member to the Chinese Asia Infrastructure Development Bank, a move not joined by only two nations, the USA and Japan; and,

(3) The dinner at the Palace with Queen Elizabeth II and then Prime Minister David Cameron’s Vice Premier, during which, according to the British tabloids, the Queen expressed the Royal Displeasure at the way things were proceeding with the European Union.  Of course, interpreting stories coming from the Crown is always hazardous, since British monarchs have, in the last two centuries, exercised their very real and considerable power very quietly. The Crown speaks its own special variety of the “dialect of power” that Vatican watches know as “romanita“.  In this case, the Queen expressed that Royal Displeasure in the form of asking the Vice Premier (so the story went) to name three benefits Britain accrued from membership in the E.U.  It could therefore be argued that Her Majesty was simply asking questions, not expressing “the Royal Displeasure.” But in the context of the other two events named above,  it seemed likely to me at the time. In terms of the logic of the situation, one can perhaps understand why, for from the royal point of view, the income of the civil list might conceivably be a target for the Brussels bureaucrats, M. Jean-Claude Juncker, faithful minion and lackey to Mad Madam Merkel.

The BREXIT happened, and I argued that the next step for Great Britain – a logical and natural one – would be to revive the soft-power culture card of the British Commonwealth. That, indeed, appears to be happening, for as readers of this website are aware, Britain has extended the idea of making the United States an associate member, and the Trump Administration appears to be listening.

From the geopolitical point of view, the move makes sense, for India, a principal member of the BRICSA bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), would be a crack in the emerging Eurasian dike, and with British membership in China’s Asia Infrastructure Bank, Britain has carefully positioned itself as a go-between between the West and that bloc, and that during a time when Brazil’s participation has been severely diminished due to the overthrow of Dilma Rouseff as that nation’s president.

Now there’s this confirmation in the article shared by Ms. K.M.:

A Future of the English-Speaking People

Notably the article appeared in the US magazine Foreign Affairs, the darling of the Council on Foreign Relations, long known to be the “official organ” of the Rockefailure interests, as the Economist is to that of the Rottenchilds. This article, notably, stresses the very same soft power card:

Legal systems of Common Law, a relentless defense of democratic principles, English as first language, common business practices, and traditional support for free trade are the glue that holds together countries that are geographically so distant. Cultural ties lower transaction costs between countries and foster trust. No wonder that, in making foreign direct investments, the United States shows a strong preference for Anglo-Saxon countries, with about 23 percent of total American foreign direct investment going to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

In finance, technology, science, and trade, the Anglosphere already plays a dominant role, albeit in an informal way. But there are also formal means of cooperation, including the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing group; the Air and Space Interoperability Council, which aims to make members’ defense systems interoperable; and the Rhodes Scholarship, which brings students from around the world to study at Oxford University. More recently, New Zealand has offered to send London its top trade negotiators to augment the British civil service as it prepares to renegotiate hundreds of trade agreements with the rest of the world. And a recent poll found overwhelming support within Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom for granting nationals reciprocal rights to live and work freely among the four countries.

And notably, the CFR article also views the Commonwealth-Anglo-Sphere “revival” in terms very different from the top-down centralizing and federalizing experiment of the E.U. as a model for a multi-polar world, and it does so without nary a peep of protest, indicating that at least certain factions within Mr. Globaloney’s house realize that a different tack is needed from the vowel-impaired unipolar American empire visions of Mr. Zbgnw Brzznsk:

To be sure, the Anglosphere would never be a European Union among English-speaking nations. After all, it would be the by-product of a time when states seek to regain full sovereignty, cooperating when interests coincide but competing when they diverge. The institutions of the Anglosphere would be open and not exclusive, allowing each nation to pursue its regional goals independently. So, for instance, Australia would be free to work on trade relationships with its Asian partners after Trump has dismissed the Trans Pacific Partnership. London, meanwhile, would be free to entertain post-exit relations with Europe.

The article goes on to say that the UK and US will retain NATO as their preferred alliance structure. The unspoken factor here is not Russia; it’s Germany, for NATO serves – to borrow the observations of Mr. Brzznsk – as much as a check on potential German re-militarization as it does on ostensible Russian ambitions. My prediction? Germany will be forced to remilitarize rather heavily, regardless of what NATO does or does not do, and there will thus be pressure on NATO’s structure to be “revised.”

But any revival of the Commonwealth, in the form I and now the CFR article has suggested, will require a “project” sufficiently large to bring together the Commonwealth. And for that, we’ll have to wait until tomorrow.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.