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”.

Bank Bailout In Italy & A Problem Looming Between The…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
July 10, 2017

Mr J.K. sent this article about the bailout of Banco Monte dei Paschi di Sienna in Italy and some other banks, to the tune of a mere twenty-five and a half billion dollars, mere pocket change. But there’s something else looming in this article and it provokes some high octane speculation of the day. Here’s the article:

Italy swoops in to save another bank leaving taxpayers on the hook for over $25 billion

In my opinion, the central story here is not the bailout of troubled Venetian banks (some stories never change, do they?) but Italy’s, and Europe’s, and one of the world’s oldest, banks in continual operation since the Renaissance, the Banco Monte dei Paschi di Sienna, and one statement in particular caught my interest, and I suspect behind its careful “un-detailed” words lies a huge story which one might summarize with the word “cover-up”:

Finance Minister Pier Carlo Padoan announced late Tuesday that the government had received approval from the European Commission to pump 5.4 billion euros into Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena (BMPS) in exchange for the lender undertaking a major restructuring overhaul. (Emphasis added)

And, one paragraph away, there’s this:

Toxic assets are at the heart of the bank’s demise and its plan includes the intention to sell down 28.6 billion euros of gross non-performing loans (NPLs), of which 26.1 billion euros will be securitized (converted into marketable securities).

Toxic assets, non-performing loans, in a major western bank!?!?

So it isn’t so!

Then, later, we read this:

Indeed, there could also be an opportunity for brave investors, suggests Surry, if Italy follows the path trodden by Spain which has seen its banking sector shrink from around 70 lenders to closer to a dozen since the financial crisis.

“Potentially BMPS is a consolidation play because ultimately the bank will be clean and definitely there is consolidation to take place in Italy from the 400-plus institutions down to probably 150,” he offered.

So we have:

1) The bailout of Banco dei Paschi di Sienna;

2) Which received approval for a bailout in exchange for “restructuring” from the European Commission, which is now, apparently, in charge of what banks the Italian government gets to bail out, and the conditions under which it can do so;

3) Which restructuring presages a consolidation of lenders throughout the Italian banking system, resulting in fewer “lenders/banks”.

I don’t know about you, but gee, this pattern looks a little familiar.

There’s a great big huge elephant in the room, however, that the article is not talking about. In fact, one might say there’s not only an elephant, but a rhinoceros in the room. The elephant? Deutsche Bank and its relation to the Banco dei Paschi di Sienna, as covered in previous blogs on this site. And the rhinoceros? Italian prosecutions of the elephant.  Noteworthy here is the entire absence of any mention of either one throughout the entire article, and that raises my suspicion meter into the red zone, and with it, some unusual and very high octane speculations.

What disturbs me here is that any action by the European Commission in this matter should be viewed as a conflict of interest, since the EU is largely a Franco-German union, with everyone else along for the ride as Frau Merkel gets to play Charlemagne (or perhaps, Karlamagne, or Karlin or Kaiserin, or something), a role she clearly appears to be enjoying. But why would the European Commission have reason to step in? I suspect, strongly, that the real bank being protected here, and being bailed out, is Deutsche Bank and its own high exposure to “toxic assets”, some of them via its entanglement with the Banco dei Paschi, and that the “restructing” of the Banco dei Paschi di Sienna might, in reality, be an attempt to disguise things and prevent them from emerging into public light as Italy is openly debating leaving the European Union (Charlemagne, Inc., or perhaps better put, Charlemagne A.G.). If so, then a disturbing pattern is emerging here: using national banking crises, the European Commission is establishing the conditions to “restructure” national banking systems according to its own whims, and to make them subject to the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. In the process, more will be swept under the rug.

And that means the can is simply being kicked down the road, for they have no genuine solutions.

Let’s hope the Italians look at this whole thing much more closely.

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”.

Despite links to cancer, the EU proposes a 10-year license renewal for key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup

Source: NaturalNews.com
Amy Goodrich
June 7, 2017

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” which is the second-highest classification for substances that can cause cancer. Glyphosate is the main ingredient of Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup.

Instead of protecting public health and removing it from their products, Monsanto hired an army of fraudulent scientists and industry lobbyists to push their agenda. Backed up by the government and mainstream media, fake stories flooded the internet to cast doubts on the cancer-causing properties associated with glyphosate, allowing Monsanto to continue selling their toxic products.

Last July, the European Union (EU) granted an 18-month extension of glyphosate’s approval after a proposal for a full license renewal met opposition from member states and campaign groups. Despite the strong opposition from environmental groups, a new study by the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) has reopened the negotiations with EU nations over renewing the license for glyphosate, Reuters reported.

After Europe forced a delay in the decision to renew the license of glyphosate for commercial use, the European Commission is now proposing to extend its use by 10 years. According to the EU body, which regulates chemicals and biocides, glyphosate should not be classified as a cancer-causing substance.

After taking the latest state of scientific research into account, a spokeswoman for the Commission said that they will start to “work with the Member States to find a solution that enjoys the largest possible support.”

Doubts over glyphosate’s safety remain

In 2015, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose carcinogenic or mutagenic properties and has no toxic effect on fertility, reproduction, or embryonic development.

As reported by Reuters, the ECHA study has been welcomed by the EFSA and lobby groups for farmers who use glyphosate-containing products on their fields. No date has been set for the start of the discussions between member states, so there is still hope Europe will maintain its strict safety standards and ban this health damaging chemical from its lawns and fields.

Bart Staes, a Green Party group member of the European Parliament, said that it makes no sense at all to ignore the wide range of risks associated to glyphosate. Despite the clear link between glyphosate and cancer, the decision to seek a 10-year rather than a long-term approval was criticized by glyphosate opponents such as the European Crop Protection group. They called the decision “short-sighted,” claiming it pandered to activists.

Will Europe fall for the bad science practices of the agricultural industry and fake media reports? Or will it make the right decision, putting people before profit? Only time will tell. Since glyphosate was registered in over 130 countries as one of the world’s most heavily used weed killers in 2010, Monsanto will not give up its biggest money-generating product without putting up a big fight. According to analysts, Monsanto is looking at a loss of up to $100 million if Europe bans the use of glyphosate.

Stay informed about the real science behind glyphosate and learn the undeniable truth about the risks associated with this widely used herbicide at Glyphosate.news.

Sources:

SLToday.com

FarmersJournal.ie

Exposed: The Nazi Roots Of The European Union

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
June 7, 2017

This is an intelligence briefing. Here I present the bare bones of what has been happening before our eyes…if we would see it.

Once upon a time, there was an industrial combine in Nazi Germany called IG Farben. It was the largest chemical/pharmaceutical octopus in the world. It owned companies, and it had favorable business agreements with companies from England to Central America to Japan.

The author of The Devil’s Chemists, Josiah DuBois, traveled to Guatemala, on a fact-finding mission, in the early days of World War 2, and returned with the comment that, as far as he could tell, Guatemala was “a wholly owned subsidiary of Farben.”

The pharmaceutical empire was and is one of the major forces behind the European Union (EU). It is no accident that these drug corporations wield such power. They aren’t only involved in controlling the medical cartel; they are political planners.

This is how and why Big Pharma fits so closely with what is loosely referred to as the New World Order. The aim of enrolling every human in a cradle-to-grave system of disease diagnosis and toxic drug treatment has a larger purpose: to debilitate, to weaken populations.

This is a political goal. It facilitates control.

IG Farben’s main component companies, at the outbreak of World War 2, were Bayer, BASF, and Hoechst. They were chemical and drug companies. Farben put Hitler over the top in Germany as head of State, and the war was designed to lead to a united Europe that would be dominated by the Farben nexus.

The loss of the war didn’t derail that plan. It was shifted into an economic blueprint, which became, eventually, the European Union.

The European Commission’s first president was Walter Hallstein, the Nazi lawyer who, during the war, had been in charge of post-war legal planning for the new Europe.

As the Rath Foundation reports: In 1939, on the brink of the war, Hallstein had stated, “The creation of the New Law [of the Nazis] is ONLY the task of the law-makers!”

In 1957, with his reputation sanitized, Hallstein spoke the words in this manner: “The European Commission has full and unlimited power for all decisions related to the architecture of this European community.”

Post-war, IG Farben was broken up into separate companies, but those companies (Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF) came roaring back, attaining new profit highs.

I refer you to the explosive book, The Nazi Roots of the Brussels EU, by Paul Anthony Taylor, Aleksandra Niedzwiecki, Dr. Matthias Rath, and August Kowalczyk. You can read it at relay-of-life.com. It is a dagger in the heart of the EU.

At the Rath Foundation, you can also read Joseph Borkin’s classic, “The Crime and Punishment of IG Farben.”

In 1992, I was deeply engaged in researching the specific devastating effects of medical drugs. Eventually, I concluded that, at the highest levels of power, these drugs weren’t destructive by accident. They were intended to cause harm. This was covert chemical warfare against the population of the planet. The Rockefeller-Standard Oil-Farben connection was a primary piece of the puzzle.

It was, of course, Rockefeller (and Carnegie) power that had forced the birth of pharmaceutical medicine in America, with the publication of the 1910 Flexner Report. The Report was used to excoriate and marginalize Chiropractic, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, and other forms of traditional natural practice, in favor of what would become the modern juggernaut of drug-based treatment.

In an article about the FDA, “Medical Murder in the Matrix,” I point out the fact that this federal agency has permitted at least 100,000 deaths of Americans, per year, from the direct effects of drugs it, the FDA, has certified as safe. (See, for example, JAMA, July 26, 2000, ‘Is US Health Really the Best in the World,’ Dr. Barbara Starfield.)

The FDA knows these death figures. “Unintended” and “accidental” can no longer be applied to this ongoing holocaust.

The pharmaceutical industry itself also knows those death figures.

To understand the dimensions and history of the ongoing chemical warfare against the population, in the form of medical drugs (and of course pesticides), one must factor in the original octopus, IG Farben.

World War 2 never ended. It simply shifted its strategies.

In any fascist system, the bulk of the people working inside the system, including scientists, refuse to believe the evidence of what is happening before their own eyes. They insist they are doing good. They believe they are on the right side. They see greater top-down control as necessary and correct. They adduce “reasonable” explanations for inflicted harm and death.

World War 2 is still underway. The battleground has been changed, and the means are far cleverer.

Sun Tzu wrote: “Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting…The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities…It is best to win without fighting.”

This is what has been happening: invisible warfare.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Who’s Destroying England?

London attacks and the war against Brexit

NOTE: Watch Paul Watson’s shocking video, The Truth about ‘Refugees’

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
June 4, 2017

“Here’s a great idea, boys. Gather around. We’re going to build, on top of every national government on the European continent, another government, bigger, more bloated, more corrupt, more powerful. Who’ll notice? Who’ll care?”

“Terrific. Love it. But ultimately we’ll need to destroy all those separate countries and rule the whole continent as one entity. We can do that, yes. We’ll open all borders and let in a massive flow of immigrants and erase national identities. Terror attacks will multiply. We’ll put a lid on talking about immigrants as the cause of the terror. Call it hate speech. We’ll train the population of Europe to accept terrorism as part of the glorious future. It makes no logical sense, but so what? No top-down ideology ever made sense. We’ll preach unlimited tolerance and love. We’ll be a de facto Church of sorts. We’ll hypnotize the whole continent…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

As I was writing this article, multiple terror attacks were launched in London. To say the human destruction “once again raised the question of immigration” would be a vast understatement.

In the run-up to the Brexit vote in 2016, immigration came to the fore as the key issue. But of course, the European Union has a policy of opening borders of all member countries.

The EU wants one continent, no separate countries—and the way to achieve that is by creating a massive flood of migrants. Destroy traditions and cultures that define countries. In the process, accept terrorism as “inevitable.” Don’t talk or write about the actual effects of immigration. That would be “hate speech.” Keep eyes and mouth shut, and march straight ahead into a future of one European continent ruled from above by the EU.

Ever since the UK vote to leave the unelected, terminally corrupt, and rotting edifice known as the European Union, stall tactics and threats have been launched at Brits.

First it was, “It’s going to take a long time to untangle the UK from the EU, it’s very complicated.” Actually, that tactic was predated by Prince Obama traveling to England to warn the population they’d stand at the back of the line in forming separate trade deals with the US, if they left the EU. It’s called interfering in the political affairs of another nation. Now it’s the EU and Queen Merkel beating the UK to the punch by plotting trade deals with India and China, in order to leave the British out in the cold.

But the basic question is, Is Britain a nation? Does it exist? It’s a question citizens are supposed to answer. Not Merkel, Obama, or the EU.

This issue, in case it’s unclear, is all about Globalism. According to that totalitarian political philosophy, of which the EU is a standard bearer, there are no nations. There are only mega-corporations and banks.

As the recently departed guru of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote in 1969, “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

This is not only a political and economic statement, it’s a prescriptive piece of psychological advice: Stop thinking of yourself as a citizen of a country; you’re a global citizen; you exist and function at the pleasure of a new collaborative international order.

And the new order will triumph. Bow your heads and accept it.

Unless people get up on their hind legs and say no, which is what happened in the 2016 Brexit vote.

Defection. Decentralization. Independence.

Hideous words to the ears of Globalists.

Their basic strategy, since the end of World War 2, has been to spin a highly complex network of political and economic relationships, from one end of the world to the other—a labyrinth—from which escape is seen as virtually impossible.

Trade deals like NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT are only part of this system. The EU itself keeps churning out thousands of rules, regulations, and laws.

Build the maze; put national governments and populations in the maze.

Then more or less claim the planet would collapse without the maze.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker just issued a “maze statement” to President Trump after Trump rejected the Globalist Paris Climate (non-) Treaty: “Europe’s duty is to say: it’s not like that. The Americans can’t just leave the climate protection agreement. Mr. Trump believes that [he can] because he doesn’t know the details…We tried to explain that to Mr. Trump in Taormina in clear German sentences. It seems that our attempt failed, but the law is the law, and it must be obeyed. Not everything which is law and not everything in international agreements is fake news, and we have to comply with it.”

Supremely arrogant, Juncker was winging it and writing his own script, because, in fact, the US didn’t sign on to a treaty in Paris. Obama tried to unilaterally bind the US to the climate pact, when a two-third’s vote by the US Senate is actually required for such international agreements. And no Senate vote was taken.

But this is the EU’s preemptive attitude toward defection, decentralization, and independence.

In the case of Brexit, climate change wasn’t the issue. Immigration was. The EU tried its best to chastise England for daring to insist unlimited numbers of migrants might be too many. “You’re in the maze, stay in the maze.”

And there is another vector of attack being launched at England: reminders the nation is evil for its colonial practices, which can never, ever be erased. But the covert leaders in that propaganda effort, the EU and its Globalist bosses, feel entitled in their own attempt to colonize the whole planet. “Your colonizing was bad, ours is good.”

With an annual budget in the vicinity of $100 billion, the EU is intractably corrupt and incompetent. It’s estimated that $5 billion a year is stolen from that budget. As for the other $95 billion, what is it for? Nations can govern themselves. The EU could disappear tomorrow and no one would catch a cold. The entire bloated structure, employing between 30 and 50 thousand people (depending on how far the count is extended) is a vast boondoggle.

It’s astonishing that anyone in the UK would feel a sense of loyalty to the EU.

There is nothing strange about Brexit at all. It’s a natural reaction: One day, a house pet goes outside and wanders off into the woods and never comes back. Who is really surprised?

The “system” called the EU insists that terrorism is somehow a price the British people must pay for entering “a better future for all.” Don’t ask what that future looks like. Don’t think about it. The UK doesn’t have the right to set its own immigration policy.

The chaos and destruction that result from open borders are simply an “adjustment period,” after which things will settle down. A new and better England and Europe will emerge. Diversity will triumph. How? Don’t worry about that, be happy.

You see, diversity is a high-minded principle, and by definition it implies a more humane society. Therefore, there is no counter-evidence. Facts are unimportant.

The latest London attacks are a message to the British people: You may have exited from the EU, but the EU policy on immigration still stands.

No it doesn’t. Britain is free to set its own policy.

To do so, politically correct speech will have to be jettisoned. Facts will have to be widely expressed. Lies will have to be widely exposed.

The EU will need to be named as a driving force in immigration, and the results of migration will need to be laid at its door.

The EU sees immigrant terrorism as its ticket to greater control over Europe.

The London attacks are a challenge thrown in Britain’s face. Bow down and accept; or rebel.

Leaving the EU means LEAVING the EU.

How many times must British citizens witness these attacks and watch police come in after the fact? How long before leaving means LEAVING?

How long before the British people realize that the flood of migrants is not simply “a refugee crisis” created by the US and its allies, whose imperialist policies of Empire and wars in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, initiate “blowback?”

How long before they see numbers of these “refugees” are just military-age young men who arrive with destruction on their minds?

How long before they see England is riddled with EU agents who are “forwarding a humane immigration policy,” come hell or high water?

One continent, under no liberty and no justice, with suffering and slavery for all.

How long before they leave THAT?

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

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”.