Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
August 17, 2017
Germany backs China’s and Russia’s “double freeze” plan:
http://theduran.com/korea-crisis-germ…
Tag: Europe
Is The USA’s Worst Ideological Enemy Now Europe?
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
July 24, 2017
This is a very unusual, and though-provoking, op-ed piece that was shared by Ms. K.F., and I want to discuss a few of its salient points. First, the article:
The Worst Ideological Enemy of the US is Now Europe
The premise of the article is that basically the institutions of the European Union itself, as those of many of its member governments, are now thoroughly dominated by the political (and, I would aver, more importantly, the cultural left), and that as such, Europe is emerging as a primary ideological opponent of the USSA:
Not anymore. In a sense, Europe looks like a continent where American Democrats have been in power for 30 years, not only in the European states, but also at the level of the European Union.
In the US, the political spectrum still spans a vast range of views between Democrats and Republicans, globalists and nationalists, pro-lifers and pro-choicers, pro-government control and pro-individuals’ control, and pro-whatever. Even today with a president and a Supreme Court clearly on the political “Right” these divisions, and the all-important separation of powers, allow for and encourage vigorous debate. By contrast, in Europe, at the “official” level, such a spectrum of views no longer exists.
In Western Europe, politically speaking, in the press and in universities, either you are on the “Left,” or you are a pariah. If you are a pariah, you are most likely to be prosecuted for “Islamophobia”, “racism”, discrimination or some other “trumped up” charge.
Now, this premise intrigues me, and I have to confess at the outset of my daily high octane speculation, I’m at rather a loss, simply for the reason that many of the regular readers of this website are not only Americans, but Canadians, Mexicans, Australians, Chinese(!), Estonians, Poles, Germans, Italians (or, at least, Americans living in Italy), Greeks, Croatians, Spaniards, Belgians, Dutch, French, British, Norwegians, Austrians, and Swedes. So we are pretty well scattered across the board at this website.
My distinct impression from interacting with all these people is (1) Europeans are anything but monolithic in their commitments to the political-cultural left, and (2) Americans on the other hand, while very diverse in the political-cultural commitments, are no better off than Europeans, for the institutions of the American government and culture are no less dominated by the left than the article alleges Europe’s are. Indeed, from years of interacting with all these people, one thing seems unusually clear to me about Europeans, namely, they are not only conscious of a uniquely “European” culture and how that culture forms the bedrock of what we call “Western” culture, but they are not ignorant, by any stretch of the imagination, of the uniqueness of their own national culture and its contributions to that overall “Western” or “European” culture. How could they be? If one pauses to reflect on the enormous influences of Italy, Spain, Germany, France, and Britain on this culture, one would be hard pressed to ignore it.
As I have mentioned before on this website, if anything, the USSA’s actions since 9/11 in the unipolar pursuit of a pax Americana have provoked a worldwide backlash against America, as long and staunch allies are reconsidering the stability of that alliance system. This will only continue, so long as American policy is focused on the same old paradigm (which, given my recent blog on the recent Pentagon assessment, it appears to be).
Every now and then, in these blogs, I “throw things open” because I really want to know what people think about an article, and this is one such case. Am I wrong, or is this article painting a picture of Europe and Europeans that simply is not true? And by the same token, is it painting an accurate picture of America, or one that is simply untrue? I suspect the latter, but I am not sure. By the same token, speaking as an American, I can say that the final paragraph in my citation above, reads a bit like make believe: “In Western Europe, politically speaking, in the press and in universities, either you are on the ‘Left’ or you are a pariah,”as if the same phenomenon is not in abundance in this country. Speaking only for myself, this is the way I’ve increasingly felt in America ever since my days teaching in college.
But more importantly, what is to be done about it? The author of this article, Dr. Drieu Godefridi, takes note of a frustration that many Europeans feel with the institutions of the E.U.: they are all centralizing, one-size-fits-all, and trample on the wishes of local and national populations and their institutions:
While Italy is “drowning” in refugees, Austria has deployed armored vehicles close to its border with Italy, to stop more migrants from coming north.
The vast majority of these European courts — whether the ECHR or the CJEU — in their attempt to be moral and just, have dismissed the sovereign laws of Italy as irrelevant, and trampled the rights of the Italian state and ordinary Italians to approve who enters their country.
I thought as I read this that there’s little difference between Europe and the USSA, as the following “creative substitutions” in the quotation – I hope – will make clear:
“While California is drowning in refugees, Arizona has deployed armored vehicles to close its border with California, to stop more migrants from coming north.
“The vast majority of these American Courts – whether the Ninth Circuit or the Supremes – in their attempt to be moral and just, have dismissed the sovereign laws of Texas and Arizona as irrelevant, trampled on the rights of American states and ordinary Americans to approve who enters their country.”
Far from seeing the differences between Europe and the USSA, at least as Dr. Godefridi paints them, I’m seeing much more the similarities. So, I want to know, what do you think, not only of the article and analysis, but much more importantly, what is to be done? Is it merely a matter of being able to “discuss” things or, to use that hated term, “dialogue” with “the other side”, or is something else going on that really, ultimately, precludes it?
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”.
The Churchill-Lord Halifax Moment Of History: May Government In…
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 11, 2017
Last week’s general election in the U.K. didn’t quite go the way Prime Minister Theresa May and her Tory party had hoped, with Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party picking up seats, leaving the Tories with a thin majority in Parliament, and having to retain power by climbing into bed with the Northern Irish DUP party, which, I am informed, is a “hard right” party because it’s against gay marriage. But hey, bringing in boatloads of barbarians who like to execute gay people from the region of the world dominated by the Religion of Peace Love and Tolerance is ok. It’s things like this that are the source of my confusions. The results intrigue me, because during last Friday’s members’ vidchat, some of our U.K. members were trying to make sense of the results for me, and of course, I ended up being more confused than before. My first suggestion to my British friends: write your constitution down somewhere. That way, you can keep track of how much of it you’re ignoring. It works for us. As it is, it takes a barrister from the Inner Temple to figure it out, and even they have difficulty.
So back to the British elections and my confusion. One individual of my website informed me during the vidchat that many of the pro-Brexit voters turned to Labour in this general election, and away from the Tories. This makes a little sense to me (and only a little), because the whole Brexit thing was what brought down Mr. Cameron and installed Ms. May. But my impression was that the pro-Brexit voters pretty much spanned both large political parties in Great Britain, so I am even more confused as to why the Tories would have assumed that the Brexit-UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) voters would automatically in the Tory party pocket.
My attempts to get any sense from my U.K. members what the main issues (for them, or as they saw them) were, was pretty much a failure. So in lieu of having any solid idea on what just happened, and why, I went hunting through my email folder and found this article from the Globe and Mail shared by Mr. T.M., and I suppose it does just about as good a job as any in explaining things from the point of view of the British electorate:
May will work with ‘friends’ in Northern Irish DUP to achieve Brexit
There’s a few weird things in this article, that make me wonder even more what’s going on. One thing it points out is that Britons were mainly concerned with domestic issues, and the less-than-stellar performance of the May government in dealing with them. For example:
However, the election campaign quickly turned against Ms. May. The public didn’t focus on Brexit as much as she’d hoped and instead concentrated on domestic issues such as health care, education and taxation. Ms. May, 60, fumbled the announcement of a key social policy measure for older people, upsetting seniors and forcing her to make a hasty backtrack. She also ran into trouble over her plans to cut immigration, causing confusion with an unclear timetable. And she turned off some voters by refusing to debate Mr. Corbyn and by appearing robotic in a couple of televised town-hall-style sessions.
Terrorist attacks in Manchester and London also exposed her legacy of cutting 20,000 police officers during her six years as interior minister. Mr. Corbyn pounced on the police cuts and many rank and file officers complained about the lack of resources just as the country faced its biggest terrorist threat since the Irish Republican Army in the 1970s.
This of course reassured me, in that I was wondering if the terrorist attacks figured in the voting results at all. Some people I talked to said yes; others no. But there’s a quasi-constitutional issue looming, not the least of which is because Ms. May now has a much weaker government – indeed one might argue, an unstable one – with which to negotiate with the European (dis)Union of its Brexit policy. Mr. Corbyn, the Labour leader captures this problem succinctly:
But there were already growing calls for her to resign.
“She wanted a mandate. Well, the mandate she’s got is lost Conservative seats, lost votes, lost support and lost confidence. I would have thought that is enough for her to go,” Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn said.
Labour Finance Critic John McDonnell said the party was ready to try to form a minority government. “If we can form a minority government, I think we can have a stable government,” he said Friday. “We would be able to produce a Queen’s speech and budget based upon our manifesto, which I think could command majority support in Parliament, not through deals or coalitions but policy by policy.”
So why hasn’t she gone? Whatever one makes of British politics (and it’s always hazardous to guess), I just get the feeling that there is a lot more behind this one paragraph than the standard, traditional, “visit-of-the-winning-party-leadership-to-see-the-Queen”:
“I have just been to see Her Majesty the Queen, and I will now form a government – a government that can provide certainty and lead Britain forward at this critical time for our country,” Ms. May said after her Conservatives failed to cling to a majority.
I don’t know about you, but I just cannot help feel a slight tingle of deja vu here, and feel that we’re looking at another Royal Palace-Churchill-Lord Halifax moment of history. There across the channel is the German colossus, astride Western Europe, making demands and extending olive branches and hoping Halifax wins the Royal lottery and forms a government (after all, he’s the Palace favorite, and the Palace is, after all, occupied by a bunch of Germans, though over the last 150 years, almost all traces of the German accent have disappeared. The de-Nazification program (me) apparently has not been 100% successful, because some of them want to become viruses to wipe out whole swaths of the human population.). And then of course there’s the radical Liberal-today-Tory-tomorrow Churchill. Churchill, as we know, won the Royal favo(u)r and the then-existing version of “hard Brexit” won out, though there were times that the Churchill government’s grasp on power, behind the scenes, was not as secure as it was maintaining in public, as Britain was unceremoniously ejected from Greece, and a fellow by the name of Rommel began to cause more than a few headaches in Africa. Churchill was banking on America, not a German-led Europe, and again, the deja vu is too weird not to notice, for after the Brexit vote, the U.K. was thinking about “What to do with the Commonwealth,” and the answer was straight out of Cecil Rhodes and Chatham House: “Let’s invite America to become an associate member.”
Of course Ms. May now has her work cut out for her, and frankly, it will be interesting to see if her government survives, and how long it survives. Her “war cabinet” is already grumbling, just as Mr. Churchill’s began to grumble after the first – or is this the second? (or the third if you count 1814-1815) This is all getting so confusing – Fall of France (see Emmanuel Macron). And Corbyn? Should a Corbyn minority government ever form, I suspect its days, too, will be very numbered, and for many of the same reasons.
The parallels are not, of course, exact. May is no Churchill, nor is Mr. Corbyn, and neither are a very good imitation of Lord Halifax. Both are too bland and dull to be Churchill, and are too sharp and radical to be a Halifax. But the situation is, overall, bizarrely similar: a united German-led Europe, threats of invasion from barbarians with little grounding in western culture and institutions, governments of appeasement, and so on.
In any case, the results are a muddle.
Leaving the British to do what they do best in a tight place: muddle through.
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”.
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”.
German Soldier Busted Posing as Refugee to Stage False Flag Terror – #NewWorldNextWeek
Source: TheCorbettReport | MediaMonarchy.com
May 4, 2017
Welcome to New World Next Week — the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. In this week’s episode:
Story #1: Russia’s Mir Payment Cards To Give Visa, MasterCard a Run For Their Money http://bit.ly/2p8aMFa
China and Russia Creating Alternate Banking System
http://bit.ly/2pKf4Gr
China’s SWIFT Alternative and the (Engineered) Death of the Dollar
http://bit.ly/1IZsYnH
NWNW Flashback: Russia, China In Talks to Make SWIFT Alternative
http://bit.ly/2p8dL07
Story #2: German Soldier Posed As Syrian Refugee In False Flag Terror Plot
http://bit.ly/2qux2NS
Background story: Germany investigating how a soldier falsely registered as a refugee to try and commit a #FalseFlag terror attack
http://bit.ly/2qv6ImS
Gladio B and the Battle for Eurasia
http://bit.ly/1X8XOAU
Story #3: Austria Wants To Tax Tweeting, Searching, Liking On The Internet
http://bit.ly/2pI4ttL
Indian Government Says Citizens Don’t Have Absolute Right Over Their Bodies http://bit.ly/2pboXde
‘13.5 crore Aadhaar accounts compromised’
http://bit.ly/2q1qG96
Hundreds Suffer as City Shuts Down Church for Helping the Homeless
http://bit.ly/2pI43n6
#GoodNewsNextWeek: Being In Nature Naturally Makes You Feel Better
http://bit.ly/2qHrHiW
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:
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”.
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…
All Eyes On France? Behind The Scenes…
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
February 22, 2017
For some time I’ve been urging that the current political-cultural climate should be viewed “whole”, and that we’re witnessing an historical arc of unprecedented uniqueness. We are, I’ve been urging, in one of those periodic paradigm shifts that seems to happen about once every five hundred years, the last one being the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, the Thirty Years’ War, and the Peace of Westphalia, which basically cemented our modern laissez faire attitude to religion and the secular state. But this current change, I’ve been urging, is unlike any other in prior human history, and hence has no real precedents. It’s being driven by unprecedented technological change and development which in turn is rendering more and more human labor productivity moot, and that in turn impacts the financial system and model under which we currently operate moot. German finance minister Wolfgang Schaueble has stated that the debt growth model is over. There is no way forward, he argues, that is not a reform. Reading between the lines a bit, what Herr Schaueble is actually saying is that there is no way out of the current mess that does not involve increase in equity finance, in production, and hence, in human productivity.
As a component of all this, I’ve also been arguing that the current political cycle in the west, which has seen historic elections in the United Kingdom with the BREXIT referendum and more recently the overwhelming parliamentary vote to move forward with leaving the E.U., with the recent American presidential election cycle, and with the upcoming national elections in France, the Netherlands, and Germany, must also be viewed whole. In my opinion, we’ve been witnessing “deep state factional revolts” against the prevailing globaloney neo-con neo-lib agendas that have formulated domestic and foreign policy in these nations. Recall, for example, the strange story from last year of Queen Elizabeth inviting the British vice-premier to the palace for dinner and tea, during which she expressed, in the form of questions, reservations about the whole E.U. experiment. Then BREXIT happened, and Cameron and said vice premier were gone.
With the growing opposition to the immigration and refugee policies of Brussels and Berlin, I’ve also been urging that the upcoming votes in France, the Netherlands, and Germany will be of similar cultural and historical importance, and for the moment, France, and the candidacy for the presidency of Marine Le Pen, is front and center, and for several reasons. Not the least of these reasons involves the ability of private groups not only to lobby for domestic policy changes but to pursue a variety of censorship practices and other “active measures” to affect cultural change. So, as you ponder the upcoming French elections, consider these stories. The first was shared by Mr. V.T.:
http://www.infowars.com/soros-funds-google-to-stop-populist-le-pen/embed/#?secret=C1pxEnIKPw
Well, we’ve seen similar attempts to censor news by altering search engine algorithms before. Same tactic, same agenda, only this time, it’s Ms. Le Pen in the cross hairs. Recently Wikileaks divulged the CIA’s attempts to gain information on French candidates during their 2012 election, presumably for the purpose of influencing the outcome:
Wikileaks Exposes CIA Involvement In French 2012 Presidential Election
Clearly, nationalist Le Pen would not be at the top of the list of “desirable outcomes,” neither in 2012, and especially now with the EU in tatters from Mad Madame Merkel’s immigration policies. Bluntly put, without France, there is no E.U. And Ms. Le Pen has been advancing the idea of a FREXIT.
The real focus of my concern today is really these hidden influences – particularly from so-called non-government organizations like the various foundations of Darth Soros – on domestic and foreign policy, an influence Ms. Le Pen is almost certain to mention and exploit, for the tide is turning, as this article shared by Mr. V.T. also points out:
Lawmakers probe US funding for Soros groups, left-wing causes in Europe
Consider the opening paragraphs in this regard:
Report alleges George Soros is meddling in foreign affairs
George Soros’ alleged meddling in European politics has caught the attention of Congress.
Concerns about Soros’ involvement most recently were raised by the Hungarian prime minister, who last week lashed out at the Soros “empire” and accused it of deploying “tons of money and international heavy artillery.”
But days earlier, Republican lawmakers in Washington started asking questions about whether U.S. tax dollars also were being used to fund Soros projects in the small, conservative-led country of Macedonia.
Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., led a group of House lawmakers in writing to Ambassador Jess Baily — an Obama appointee — demanding answers. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, also expressed concerns about USAID money going to Soros’ Open Society Foundations as part of a broader concern that the U.S. Embassy has been taking sides in party politics.
A few days ago I blogged about the necessity for another “Reece” committee to investigate such foundation activity. It appears, in effect, that this is a possibility waiting in the wings. But the implications are indeed dire for Mr. Globaloney, for once such an investigation is underway, similar activities of private citizens meeting to make policy might come under scrutiny… for example, the Bilderberg group.
The problem confronting those interests now is the fact that such investigations are under way already: Frau Merkel faces parliamentary committees in the Bundestag, and if Ms. Le Pen is elected or even has a strong showing and manages to gain seats in the French national assembly, one can expect similar investigations to occur in France, and with all the power of the French bureaucracy, this could indeed be quite revealing. It would be quite a stretch of the imagination to believe that the French DST was not fully apprised of his activities. In Macedonia and Hungary, protests over his activities are under way, and Hungary is investigating. And Hungary, let us recall, has “historical” connections to Russia and to Russian intelligence, which similarly would have its own thick “Soros dossier.”
If it happens, then let’s hope those committees in various countries will “compare notes.” That’s probably what really has Darth Soros, Mr. Globaloney par excellence, and his ilk, worried. And that’s probably why they will spare no effort to keep Ms. Le Pen out of the Elyse Palace.
See you on the flip side…
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”.
War On Cash: Europe Proposes “Restrictions On Payments In Cash”
Source: ZeroHedge.com
January 27, 2017
Having discontinued its production of EUR500 banknotes, it appears Europe is charging towards the utopian dream of a cashless society. Just days after Davos’ elites discussed why the world needs to “get rid of currency,” the European Commission has introduced a proposal enforcing “restrictions on payments in cash.”
With Rogoff, Stiglitz, Summers et al. all calling for the end of cash – because only terrorists and drug-dealers need cash (nothing at all to do with totalitarian control over a nation’s wealth) – we are not surprised that this proposal from the European Commission (sanctuary of statism) would appear…
The Commission published on 2 February 2016 a Communication to the Council and the Parliament on an Action Plan to further step up the fight against the financing of terrorism (COM (2016) 50). The Action Plan builds on existing EU rules to adapt to new threats and aims at updating EU policies in line with international standards. In the context of the Commission’s action to extent the scope of the Regulation on the controls of cash entering or leaving the Community, reference is made to the appropriateness to explore the relevance of potential upper limits to cash payments.
The Action Plan states that “Payments in cash are widely used in the financing of terrorist activities… In this context, the relevance of potential upper limits to cash payments could also be explored. Several Member States have in place prohibitions for cash payments above a specific threshold.”
Cash has the important feature of offering anonymity to transactions. Such anonymity may be desired for legitimate reason (e.g. protection of privacy). But, such anonymity can also be misused for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes. The possibility to conduct large cash payments facilitates money laundering and terrorist financing activities because of the difficulty to control cash payment transactions.
…
Potential restrictions to cash payments would be a mean to fight criminal activities entailing large payment transactions in cash by organised criminal networks. Restricting large payments in cash, in addition to cash declarations and other AML obligations, would hamper the operation of terrorist networks, and other criminal activities, i.e. have a preventive effect. It would also facilitate further investigations to track financial transactions in the course of terrorist activities. Effective investigations are hindered as cash payments transactions are anonymous. Thus restrictions on cash payments would facilitate investigations. However, as cash transactions are moved to the financial system, it is essential that financial institutions have adequate controls and procedures in place that enable them to know the person with whom they are dealing. Adequate due diligence on new and existing customers is a key part of these controls in, line with the AMLD.
Terrorists use cash to sustain their illegal activities, not only for illegal transactions (e.g. the acquisition of explosives) but also for payments which are in appearance legal (e.g. transactions for accommodation or transport). While a restriction on payments in cash would certainly be ignored for transactions that are in any case already illegal, the restriction could create a significant hindrance to the conduct of transactions that are ancillary to terrorist activities.
…
Organised crime and terrorism financing rely on cash for payments for carrying out their illegal activities and benefitting from them. By restricting the possibilities to use cash, the proposal would contribute to disrupt the financing of terrorism, as the need to use non anonymous means of payment would either deter the activity or contribute to its easier detection and investigation. Any such proposal would also aim at harmonising restrictions across the Union, thus creating a level playing field for businesses and removing distortions of competition in the internal market. It would additionally foster the fight against money laundering, tax fraud and organised crime.
And then right at the end, they mention “fundamental rights”…
While being allowed to pay in cash does not constitute a fundamental right, the objective of the initiative, which is to prevent the anonymity that cash payments allow, might be viewed as an infringement of the right to privacy enshrined in Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, as complemented by article 52 of the Charter, limitations may be made subject to the principle of proportionality if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The objectives of potential restrictions to cash payments could fit such description. It should also be observed that national restrictions to cash payments were never successfully challenged based on an infringement to fundamental rights.
Full Proposal below…
Continue Reading At: ZeroHedge.com
TheBreakAway 