We are entering an era in which corporations shape the world in their
own image. We still see national or regional resistance but we must
understand who is resisting. The European Union “opposes” U.S.
corporations because it answers to its own.
First, we must be honest about origins. The EU is thoroughly corporatist, that is to say it exists primarily to benefit corporations. They fix boundaries for policy and have dominant political and economic influence (just compare the “rights” of individuals with the rights of corporations under EU rules).
The “Commission” is a faceless bureaucracy, appointed, not elected. The “Parliament” is purely advisory and has no power. Policy is made behind the scenes. It is a lobbyist’s dream. Unlike the U.S. Congress, it does not even pretend to represent the people.
When Britain’s minister for technology Tony Benn went to Brussels eager to get his hands dirty shaping European industrial policy, he was met with blank stares. The decisions had already been made and the ministers were just there for show.
Corporatist first (and primarily German – note who’s kept their manufacturing base) the EU then set up a mechanism to deliver customers to the hungry corporations at its core.
The Euro was set up as a wholly artificial monetary system (the right to create money without control over taxes and spending – no European treasury, because Germany would not cede that control: it just wanted to flood Europe with credit) offering unsustainably-low interest rates to countries like Greece and Ireland, leading to credit booms. Result: Greece and Ireland had the highest rates of Mercedes Benz ownership in the world.
Magically, we were told, the wealth would somehow “equalize” around Europe. Reality: Germany had an export boom, financed by German, French and Austrian banks – who made loans to customers who lacked the wealth or fiscal discipline to sustain such borrowing. When those customers defaulted, the banks got bailed out by European taxpayers. Wealth was sucked from periphery to core.
To simplify the money thing: to borrow and be sure of paying it back, you must be wealthy or have tight control over your spending. Germany has both. Greece has neither. When the Euro system lowered interest rates to levels that were sustainable for Germany, they were always going to distort the economy of Greece. The Euro Gnomes knew that from the start. No deception was required on the part of the Greeks or Italians or Irish or Spanish or Portuguese.
From a German Perspective: This was always the plan. Consider if WW2 had not happened. Britain had already appeased German companies who wanted access to cheap Czech labour and resources. Chamberlain would have offered Poland next.
European mega companies (German-Franco-Belgian, there was always a French industrial-political lobby that sought to unite with Germany. See France: The Dark Years, 1940-1944, by Julian Jackson) would have got access to cheap Eastern European labour, along with natural resources and markets.
Fast forward some decades and western European countries are complaining that they are competing with cheap Czech and Polish migrant labour – that must ring a bell to the most plugged British ears. The goal has been achieved, hasn’t it?
War is the continuation of politics by other means “and nothing to get hung about”. However, it’s risky and expensive. Better to rise above borders than drive tanks through them. European corporations now roam freely across the continent, getting access to cheap labour and resources. Note that the EU treaties give far greater freedoms to corporations than to individuals.
From the U.S. perspective: The Wilsonian Plan was a Europe strong enough to be a trading partner but not a rival. So Germany has freedom of action within wide bounds so long as it does not threaten the US.
Why does the European Union stop at Russia? Because with Russia it would become a much more important world power. Friedman (was it Thomas or George?) says what US has always feared is a German Russian rapprochement – like at Rapallo (1922) and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (1939). When Germany and Russia get together the world trembles.
In 1948 the U.S. established The American Committee for a United Europe, chaired by William Donovan, founder of the OSS. “Funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.
“All along, the CIA-run front group was funding the so-called European Movement.” Founder Józef Retinger, the lawyer Robert Schuman who was one of the first to lay out the narrative of the destruction of Jews, and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak, “were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors” .
A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth, suppressing debate until the “adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable”. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html
The end goal of unifying Europe under a single regime, then, was to eventually build a transatlantic union merging the United States with the European superstate. In fact, that is the very same agenda envisioned in Obama’s extraordinarily unpopular “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,” or TTIP, with the EU. https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/23120-the-real-agenda-behind-the-cia-spawning-the-eu
From a European Perspective: Where does this go?
The mismanagement and corruption of the European Union was enough to justify Brexit – but that does not rule out a U.S. motive.
Possible drivers: Driver One: TTIP was failing. Perhaps split off Britain to join a new NAFTA.
Driver Two: The Climate Change Project had run into the buffers politically. The 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference was a failure. Credibility had collapsed. U.S. evangelist Michael Mann of the hockey stick had been thoroughly discredited in court. U.K. evangelist Phil Jones had been exposed for falsified data and bullying peers.
Even though lots of money was being made — from emissions taxes, carbon credit trade, and subsidies for recycling so-called green projects, from lithium batteries to solar panels — the Climate Change Project had collapsed as a political force for social engineering.
Driver Three: The Zion Hub: Rebuilding the NWO around the U.S., Britain and Israel – the founders and funders of the Zionist project, who are in turn heavily controlled by the Zionists. Germany and the Reich played a big role in creating Israel but a) that conflicts with the Holocaust narrative so German leadership is a no-no b) Germany has its own destiny and is always cast in the role of antagonist.
This brings us full circle to the question: who is driving The Great Reset? My money is on a combination of all three drivers, leaning towards the third, but with pushback from a fourth.
We are seeing a German-French-UN-Chinese bloc pushing for a worldwide order — competing with the Anglo-Zionist-WEF hub who believe they can build a cybernetics and systems approach to government based around Israeli technology. Thus a new nexus of power is being constructed; but it is facing resistance from the eastern globalists.
For all the talk of a Fourth Reich, there is a split. The Nazi & Zionist interests that worked together in Germany (Transfer Agreement, Stern Gang) is now firmly embedded in the U.S.-British-Israeli bloc.
German politicians, controlled since WW2 through the CIA-Gehlen/BND, who opposed closer ties to Russia, are on the back foot. German business has always believed the realization of its potential lies in the east: huge markets containing the raw material and labour upon which Germans can work their undoubted technological and bureaucratic skills. Now corporations are in the driving seat, pushing their rival versions of a NWO.
First, we must be honest about origins. The EU is thoroughly corporatist, that is to say it exists primarily to benefit corporations. They fix boundaries for policy and have dominant political and economic influence (just compare the “rights” of individuals with the rights of corporations under EU rules).
The “Commission” is a faceless bureaucracy, appointed, not elected. The “Parliament” is purely advisory and has no power. Policy is made behind the scenes. It is a lobbyist’s dream. Unlike the U.S. Congress, it does not even pretend to represent the people.
When Britain’s minister for technology Tony Benn went to Brussels eager to get his hands dirty shaping European industrial policy, he was met with blank stares. The decisions had already been made and the ministers were just there for show.
Corporatist first (and primarily German – note who’s kept their manufacturing base) the EU then set up a mechanism to deliver customers to the hungry corporations at its core.
The Euro was set up as a wholly artificial monetary system (the right to create money without control over taxes and spending – no European treasury, because Germany would not cede that control: it just wanted to flood Europe with credit) offering unsustainably-low interest rates to countries like Greece and Ireland, leading to credit booms. Result: Greece and Ireland had the highest rates of Mercedes Benz ownership in the world.
Magically, we were told, the wealth would somehow “equalize” around Europe. Reality: Germany had an export boom, financed by German, French and Austrian banks – who made loans to customers who lacked the wealth or fiscal discipline to sustain such borrowing. When those customers defaulted, the banks got bailed out by European taxpayers. Wealth was sucked from periphery to core.
To simplify the money thing: to borrow and be sure of paying it back, you must be wealthy or have tight control over your spending. Germany has both. Greece has neither. When the Euro system lowered interest rates to levels that were sustainable for Germany, they were always going to distort the economy of Greece. The Euro Gnomes knew that from the start. No deception was required on the part of the Greeks or Italians or Irish or Spanish or Portuguese.
From a German Perspective: This was always the plan. Consider if WW2 had not happened. Britain had already appeased German companies who wanted access to cheap Czech labour and resources. Chamberlain would have offered Poland next.
European mega companies (German-Franco-Belgian, there was always a French industrial-political lobby that sought to unite with Germany. See France: The Dark Years, 1940-1944, by Julian Jackson) would have got access to cheap Eastern European labour, along with natural resources and markets.
Fast forward some decades and western European countries are complaining that they are competing with cheap Czech and Polish migrant labour – that must ring a bell to the most plugged British ears. The goal has been achieved, hasn’t it?
War is the continuation of politics by other means “and nothing to get hung about”. However, it’s risky and expensive. Better to rise above borders than drive tanks through them. European corporations now roam freely across the continent, getting access to cheap labour and resources. Note that the EU treaties give far greater freedoms to corporations than to individuals.
From the U.S. perspective: The Wilsonian Plan was a Europe strong enough to be a trading partner but not a rival. So Germany has freedom of action within wide bounds so long as it does not threaten the US.
Why does the European Union stop at Russia? Because with Russia it would become a much more important world power. Friedman (was it Thomas or George?) says what US has always feared is a German Russian rapprochement – like at Rapallo (1922) and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (1939). When Germany and Russia get together the world trembles.
In 1948 the U.S. established The American Committee for a United Europe, chaired by William Donovan, founder of the OSS. “Funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.
“All along, the CIA-run front group was funding the so-called European Movement.” Founder Józef Retinger, the lawyer Robert Schuman who was one of the first to lay out the narrative of the destruction of Jews, and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak, “were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors” .
A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth, suppressing debate until the “adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable”. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html
The end goal of unifying Europe under a single regime, then, was to eventually build a transatlantic union merging the United States with the European superstate. In fact, that is the very same agenda envisioned in Obama’s extraordinarily unpopular “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,” or TTIP, with the EU. https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/23120-the-real-agenda-behind-the-cia-spawning-the-eu
From a European Perspective: Where does this go?
The mismanagement and corruption of the European Union was enough to justify Brexit – but that does not rule out a U.S. motive.
Possible drivers: Driver One: TTIP was failing. Perhaps split off Britain to join a new NAFTA.
Driver Two: The Climate Change Project had run into the buffers politically. The 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference was a failure. Credibility had collapsed. U.S. evangelist Michael Mann of the hockey stick had been thoroughly discredited in court. U.K. evangelist Phil Jones had been exposed for falsified data and bullying peers.
Even though lots of money was being made — from emissions taxes, carbon credit trade, and subsidies for recycling so-called green projects, from lithium batteries to solar panels — the Climate Change Project had collapsed as a political force for social engineering.
Driver Three: The Zion Hub: Rebuilding the NWO around the U.S., Britain and Israel – the founders and funders of the Zionist project, who are in turn heavily controlled by the Zionists. Germany and the Reich played a big role in creating Israel but a) that conflicts with the Holocaust narrative so German leadership is a no-no b) Germany has its own destiny and is always cast in the role of antagonist.
This brings us full circle to the question: who is driving The Great Reset? My money is on a combination of all three drivers, leaning towards the third, but with pushback from a fourth.
We are seeing a German-French-UN-Chinese bloc pushing for a worldwide order — competing with the Anglo-Zionist-WEF hub who believe they can build a cybernetics and systems approach to government based around Israeli technology. Thus a new nexus of power is being constructed; but it is facing resistance from the eastern globalists.
For all the talk of a Fourth Reich, there is a split. The Nazi & Zionist interests that worked together in Germany (Transfer Agreement, Stern Gang) is now firmly embedded in the U.S.-British-Israeli bloc.
German politicians, controlled since WW2 through the CIA-Gehlen/BND, who opposed closer ties to Russia, are on the back foot. German business has always believed the realization of its potential lies in the east: huge markets containing the raw material and labour upon which Germans can work their undoubted technological and bureaucratic skills. Now corporations are in the driving seat, pushing their rival versions of a NWO.
Comments
"... what US has always feared is a German Russian rapprochement – like at Rapallo (1922) and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (1939)."
It's my understanding that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was purely a non-aggression pact, signed by Russia only because it's attempts to forge an alliance with Britain and France were rebuffed. Russia figured it was only a matter of time before Germany attacked her and so resorted to this last-ditch option.