Trump’s Victory has Killed the EU Dream

Its over, people. As predicted here about a year ago, the EU is trailing off into the sunset, taking Germany’s dream of a new Reich with it. The EU’s Gotterdamerung (sunset of the gods) has arrived.

It has arrived in the form of immigration and the issue of free movement of people. That issue led to Brexit. That issue led to Trump’s victory. And it will now cause the end of the EU, which has just been heralded by Merkel’s early intimation  that Britain can retain access to the EU single market WITHOUT accepting Brussels dictates on the free movement of people. What pithy opposition remains within the UK government and opposition will be running for cover in wake of Trump’s victory. The nation-state, for now, will remain the political fulcrum of the world.

At the end Merkel saw the writing on the wall for herself. Not wanting to be the next Hilary Clinton, she caved in, and is now willing to open discussions of the issue of the free movement of people within the EU. Along with Orban in Hungary and Poland’s insistence for a return of national rights from their repository in Brussels, the globalists are on the run. In the end, Nigel Farage won the day. Reform of the EU never would have happened without Brexit. Now, with Merkel’s climb down, the EU project will be shredded in a relentless “death by a thousand cuts” from its own members.

Stick a fork in it people. The EU is over. The Euro (what’s left of it) stands on the brink of obliteration.

Advertisements

Well, Let Me Hear Ya Say “Nyet”!

From Dmitri Orlov:

 

The way things are supposed to work on this planet is like this: in the United States, the power structures (public and private) decide what they want the rest of the world to do. They communicate their wishes through official and unofficial channels, expecting automatic cooperation. If cooperation is not immediately forthcoming, they apply political, financial and economic pressure. If that still doesn’t produce the intended effect, they attempt regime change through a color revolution or a military coup, or organize and finance an insurgency leading to terrorist attacks and civil war in the recalcitrant nation. If that still doesn’t work, they bomb the country back to the stone age. This is the way it worked in the 1990s and the 2000s, but as of late a new dynamic has emerged.

In the beginning it was centered on Russia, but the phenomenon has since spread around the world and is about to engulf the United States itself. It works like this: the United States decides what it wants Russia to do and communicates its wishes, expecting automatic cooperation. Russia says “Nyet.” The United States then runs through all of the above steps up to but not including the bombing campaign, from which it is deterred by Russia’s nuclear deterrent. The answer remains “Nyet.” One could perhaps imagine that some smart person within the US power structure would pipe up and say: “Based on the evidence before us, dictating our terms to Russia doesn’t work; let’s try negotiating with Russia in good faith as equals.” And then everybody else would slap their heads and say, “Wow! That’s brilliant! Why didn’t we think of that?” But instead that person would be fired that very same day because, you see, American global hegemony is nonnegotiable. And so what happens instead is that the Americans act baffled, regroup and try again, making for quite an amusing spectacle.

The whole Edward Snowden imbroglio was particularly fun to watch. The US demanded his extradition. The Russians said: “Nyet, our constitution forbids it.” And then, hilariously, some voices in the West demanded in response that Russia change its constitution! The response, requiring no translation, was “Xa-xa-xa-xa-xa!” Less funny is the impasse over Syria: the Americans have been continuously demanding that Russia go along with their plan to overthrow Bashar Assad. The unchanging Russian response has been: “Nyet, the Syrians get to decide on their leadership, not Russia, and not the US.” Each time they hear it, the Americans scratch their heads and… try again. John Kerry was just recently in Moscow, holding a marathon “negotiating session” with Putin and Lavrov. Above is a photo of Kerry talking to Putin and Lavrov in Moscow a week or so ago and their facial expressions are hard to misread. There’s Kerry, with his back to the camera, babbling away as per usual. Lavrov’s face says: “I can’t believe I have to sit here and listen to this nonsense again.” Putin’s face says: “Oh the poor idiot, he can’t bring himself to understand that we’re just going to say ‘nyet’ again.” Kerry flew home with yet another “nyet.”

What’s worse, other countries are now getting into the act. The Americans told the Brits exactly how to vote, and yet the Brits said “nyet” and voted for Brexit. The Americans told the Europeans to accept the horrendous corporate power grab that is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and the French said “nyet, it shall not pass.” The US organized yet another military coup in Turkey to replace Erdo?an with somebody who won’t try to play nice with Russia, and the Turks said “nyet” to that too. And now, horror of horrors, there is Donald Trump saying “nyet” to all sorts of things—NATO, offshoring American jobs, letting in a flood of migrants, globalization, weapons for Ukrainian Nazis, free trade…

The corrosive psychological effect of “nyet” on the American hegemonic psyche cannot be underestimated. If you are supposed to think and act like a hegemon, but only the thinking part still works, then the result is cognitive dissonance. If your job is to bully nations around, and the nations can no longer be bullied, then your job becomes a joke, and you turn into a mental patient. The resulting madness has recently produced quite an interesting symptom: some number of US State Department staffers signed a letter, which was promptly leaked, calling for a bombing campaign against Syria in order to overthrow Bashar Assad. These are diplomats. Diplomacy is the art of avoiding war by talking. Diplomats who call for war are not being exactly… diplomatic. You could say that they are incompetent diplomats, but that wouldn’t go far enough (most of the competent diplomats left the service during the second Bush administration, many of them in disgust over having to lie about the rationale for the Iraq war). The truth is, they are sick, deranged non-diplomatic warmongers. Such is the power of this one simple Russian word that they have quite literally lost their minds.

But it would be unfair to single out the State Department. It is as if the entire American body politic has been infected by a putrid miasma. It permeates all things and makes life miserable. In spite of the mounting problems, most other things in the US are still somewhat manageable, but this one thing—the draining away of the ability to bully the whole world—ruins everything. It’s mid-summer, the nation is at the beach. The beach blanket is moth-eaten and threadbare, the beach umbrella has holes in it, the soft drinks in the cooler are laced with nasty chemicals and the summer reading is boring… and then there is a dead whale decomposing nearby, whose name is “Nyet.” It just ruins the whole ambiance!

The media chattering heads and the establishment politicos are at this point painfully aware of this problem, and their predictable reaction is to blame it on what they perceive as its ultimate source: Russia, conveniently personified by Putin. “If you aren’t voting for Clinton, you are voting for Putin” is one recently minted political trope. Another is that Trump is Putin’s agent. Any public figure that declines to take a pro-establishment stance is automatically labeled “Putin’s useful idiot.” Taken at face value, such claims are preposterous. But there is a deeper explanation for them: what ties them all together is the power of “nyet.” A vote for Sanders is a “nyet” vote: the Democratic establishment produced a candidate and told people to vote for her, and most of the young people said “nyet.” Same thing with Trump: the Republican establishment trotted out its Seven Dwarfs and told people to vote for any one of them, and yet most of the disenfranchised working-class white people said “nyet” and voted for Snow White the outsider.

It is a hopeful sign that people throughout the Washington-dominated world are discovering the power of “nyet.” The establishment may still look spiffy on the outside, but under the shiny new paint there hides a rotten hull, with water coming in though every open seam. A sufficiently resounding “nyet” will probably be enough to cause it to founder, suddenly making room for some very necessary changes. When that happens, please remember to thank Russia… or, if you insist, Putin.

Victimology: The White Feminist and The White Russian

(“Putin’s Russia has thrown down a real political gauntlet to the Western world of feminism and political correctness. More than the conflict over Ukraine or Syria, his ability to woo those disaffected by the pc/feminist world is providing a political leverage no mere battlefield victory could ever impose on the vanquished.”) 

              “When your opponent is suicidal, one need not ever fire a shot.” – anon

Feminism sustains itself on the presentation of the female gender as a victim of male oppression. Without that narrative, it cannot exist. But sustaining that oppressor/oppressed dynamic also forbids feminism from acting with responsible authority, because its (necessary) victimology ultimately rewards powerlessness. Feminism, when dissected, is not a vehicle for empowerment (except for the elite few at the top of its super-structure or in government) but is, instead, an idea which teaches women to embrace their inner victim.

Victimhood provides a moral license for feminism to operate, so it can’t just be let go. These days, if you haven’t suffered enough, or haven’t suffered for the right reasons… then you just ain’t suffered at all. Without the right skin and gender mix, you cannot quality for any suffering whatsoever. That is for the privileged members of the victimhood only.(*please note: some SWM-fellow travellers will be allowed, as long as terms and conditions are strictly adhered to: Apologies and self-deprecation will be demanded at regular intervals.)

Extending the status of oppressed victim to the white female (especially the white university educated female),however, is a difficult task. Whiteness implies guilt, so racial disqualification must be avoided by asserting victimhood on grounds of gender. Axiomatically, the white western university educated (f.) feminist, has identified the political means to hide her whiteness: the historic ‘culpability’ of the white western heterosexual male. In that historic configuration, the white world of terror and shame is one in which non-male/non-whites have no substantial role other than that of the ‘oppressed’, or the heroic resister to – the ‘patriarchy’. On the other side,  if you are white and male, you are part of the ‘oppressor’ class. Of course, one of the benefits of this is that it enables the privileged, white, university educated female to talk down to the white male minimum wage slob. Privilege indeed.

This oppressor/oppressed narrative dismisses and exonerates the white woman as part of the culture of western imperial/colonial oppression. Western culture, after all, is to be deplored, except for its ultimate expression in the trappings narcissistic consumerism: the world of handbags, shoes and expensive clothes – (ironically, often times made by female child labour remunerated at a pittance.)

But feminism does not really have global reach, because history (shock horror) doesn’t contain a continuous dynamic everywhere at once. The oppressor/oppressed dynamic which casts the white male in the lead role does not penetrate the slavic world in anything like the same manner it does in the west.

For feminism, fitting the white Russian slav into the anti-white male oppressed/oppressor dynamic is not an easy task.

The North American/Germanic/Scandinavian idea that men exist merely to oppress women fails in the Russo-Slavic world with the indelible cultural stamp of past warfare: namely, Stalingrad. It is not a dynamic that North American or even Scandinavian women know. It is the cement that holds the concept of male sacrifice in place in the Russian mind. Russian women know this. American women, having never had their lives and their culture on the line in the same way, simply don’t. The white western feminist morality is one of convenience. Indeed, the white western feminists, taking their battle as an a priori liberation from an assumed all-powerful ‘patriarchy’ are having a tough time crossing the Russian ‘frontier’, and that is promoting a backlash. Feminism has gone beyond revealing its civic impotence, as it did in Rotherham, Cologne … and as it continues to do all over Europe and Scandinavia. It has now having broad international effects.

One of the unforeseen consequences of Rotherham and Cologne has been the elevation of the slavic world, not only as the potential saviour of the white hetero-male and the growing anti-feminist movement, but as the social force that will act as a future repository for the remains of western culture, when it succumbs to the self-destructive disaster that political correctness and feminism have created. That wasn’t supposed to happen. Vilification of the white male was supposed to be universal and easy to establish. The political and moral ‘surrender’ of the white male that the white western feminist was supposed to relish in appears to have backfired.

Already feminism is causing a noteworthy cultural and intellectual defection of western men into the orbit of a Russian/Slavic social order. Vilification of Putin is failing while ‘Putin admiration’ in the west is hitting highs. Western political failure is causing a rupture of the Republican party, while seeing a concomitant surge in anti-establishment western parties. Compared to Trump, Geert Wilders, UKIP, Marie Le Pen and Alternative for Deutschland, Russia looks like a bastion of political calm and stability. Western culture asks itself, why do ‘we’ get the preening White House narcissists, while the evil Russians get the chess-master Putin? Why do we have to hate ourselves for being white when the Slavic world doesn’t? This is dangerous territory for the west. It raises the spectre of an internal political defection brought about by feminism.

Putin himself seems aware of this and is already moving to capitalise on it. After all, feminism has provided him with a perfect opening.

In a December 2015 speech, Putin laid out his vision of Russia as a haven for those disaffected with political correctness and tired of feeling guilty for merely being white. In it, he implied that the western world’s penchant for openness and tolerance was but a mask for what is really a slide into immorality.

“Too may nations are revising their moral values and ethical norms. … Society is now required not only to recognise everyone’s right to the freedom of consciousness… but also to accept without question, the equality of good and evil, strange as it seems, concepts that are opposite in meaning. There are more and more people in the world who support our position on defending traditional values,” Putin said.

Putin’s Russia has thrown down a real political gauntlet to the Western world of feminism and political correctness. More than the conflict over Ukraine or Syria, his ability to woo those disaffected by the pc/feminist world is providing a political leverage no mere battlefield victory could ever impose on the vanquished. Feminism’s maintenance of the oppressor/oppressed narrative is beginning to produce societal and security ramifications in the west far beyond those that the world of their righteous indignation have ever envisioned. In addition to creating the political bandwidth for the unrestrained foreign immigration which is destabilizing western Europe, feminism, in its insistence on female ‘victimhood’, is also beginning to destroy western society from within.

Breaking News: Actual Island of Truth Found Floating in North Atlantic!

There was a big hue and cry from people over a previous article here that suggested that Germany was using the EU as a vehicle to promote Germany hegemony, and that Brussels itself is merely a fig-leaf masking the unilateral nature of German control within europe. It seems like it hit a nerve because this blog was promptly attacked and the article deleted from within the content management system. So…

To those who are having a little trouble coping with reality, today we present a strong dose from the little island that told its banking system it wouldn’t sacrifice its own nation for its financial sector: Iceland.

Iceland’s Prime Minister, Sigmindur Gunnlaugsson, has come out and told a truth which everyone else seems to have a little trouble digesting, by saying that Germany is beginning to rule the EU unilaterally.

When it comes to the big stuff, the decisions are made by two, and increasingly one, country,” he said.

This , of course, has some rather serious repercussions for the U.K. electorate voting on a British exit from the EU in about 100 days: an understanding that remaining in the EU is really the final surrender of sovereignty to Berlin… and not devolvement to a ‘voice’  in  the shadow puppet-theatre called, Brussels.

Others are called to meetings to approve of what has been decided… this seems to have become the standard way of doing things in Brussels.” Gunnlaugsson said. It should come as little surprise that Iceland has now completely withdrawn its application for membership in the EU. Gunnlaugsson says that it would be pointless for Iceland to join, as it would have no power at all. Outside the EU, some decision making can still be retained. The conclusion is pretty clear: If you want to retain an influence in your own future, stay out of the EU. 

So, for those who believe that the UK staying in the EU means the British voice will be heard, and influence can be exacted, we present you with the new reality of German hegemony: total control. If you think Britain has a limited influence in Brussels now, just wait until after any so-called referendum. Britain will soon have none, and orders will be issued from Berlin; orders which serve Germany, and, as the situation in Greece shows, have no consideration for other ‘member’ (vassal) states.

One of the foundational points of the article, was that Germany is actually creating the new Reich. This was taken as fantasy. But it shouldn’t be. Such down to earth commentators as Jim Rickards himself have noticed the same thing, and called it the same thing. Historical precedent is scaring the politically correct into silence about speaking re: ‘certain’ things… uncomfortable things… things that demand ‘safe spaces’ to be protected from. Honestly, if you can’t see why political correctness is being pushed and what it was supposed to do by now, well, frankly, you are blind.

The truth is that Berlin is calling all the important shots in the EU. With Berlin controlling Brussels, the Reich is established. But that doesn’t imply ultimate success. In fact, the EU has done very little on the ground to create ‘ever closer union’ with member states in the past year. Schengen’s implosion is proof that there appears to be limits. The attempt by Germany to dictate who will take how many refugees shows how out of step Germany is with the rest of the EU, and how they think they can dictate all terms without political repercussion.

If collapse within the EU does come, the collapse will come from the inside, and not from outside attack. Germany has cornered its own political landscape into a series of impossible choices. The coming dust-up over the expense of a German-inspired refugee crisis is going to set up a battle royale for the distribution of public monies at a time of extreme financial stress. No lowering of interest rates into negative territory for an indeterminate period of time is going to stop this collapse either.The central banks are out of monetary ammo. Increasingly, German political hegemony is running out of ammo too. The continuing rebellion against that hegemony will persist, regardless of any referendum result.

Merkel’s Plan for German Hegemony Has Failed

Why does it always have to be so grand, so Wagnerian?” – Gunter Grass

There has been confusion, consternation and bewilderment over the mass importation of north African refugees into Europe at the demand of a resurgent and unified Germany. There has also been, especially in the past two years, a growing discontent over the manner in which EU policy seems to be constructed in Berlin, genuflected to by France, and then systematically rammed down the throats of all other EU members. These two aspects are intrinsically related.
Germany, once again, is revealing its desire for European-wide hegemony. As its economy is large, and relatively functioning when compared to the rest of the EU (sauf the UK), it believes it can translate economic power into an EU-wide political domination that will result in its finally realised dream of a (now fourth) Reich. As many Germans privately reveal, what two World Wars didn’t achieve, the EU and the Euro will.
There’s just one problem. A century of history has made huge parts of Europe ill at ease over such a plan. How can Germany overcome both foreign and domestic suspicion that its vision of a new Reich is morally palatable to the rest of Europe? Simple. Atone for Auschwitz by presenting Germany as an open, free, non-racist European power who has purged its demons and is ready to assume the mantle of leadership which it feels it both deserves and is ready for. Allow millions of non-white north Africans and Albanians to flood the country in a demonstration of Germany’s new-found spirit of toleration and understanding.
In its quest to appear politically ‘reformed’, the necessary pre-requisite for its european domination, Germany has laid the foundation of its own, and the EU’s destruction. They have failed. Merkel’s policy on refugees is tearing Europe (and Scandinavia) apart. A multi-front eruption into civil war is no longer dismissed as alarmist lunacy, but tangible possibility.
Just six months ago the popular magazine Der Spiegel (German version of Time) was tipping Merkel as a potential Nobel Peace Prize winner. No more. Recently depicted on its cover wearing the saintly robes of (the mean, vicious and self-serving psycho-fascist) Mother Theresa,  Mutter (Mother) Angela now appears, like her Albanian saint-mirror, as a ‘humanitarian’ fraud;  or at the very least, stupid beyond comprehension. Maybe Der Spiegel never read Christopher Hitchens’ scathing indictment of that charming Albanian woman.
Merkel’s open-door refugee policy was concocted to give a false image of moral atonement for Germany’s past, that would clear the way for its domination of Europe. But, ever true to historical precedent, Germany is destroying the Europe it hopes to control. This time, the destruction could be for good.
Gunter Grass, the Nobel Prize winning writer, was fearful of the re-emergent German colossus, and stood firmly against re-unification. So did Margaret Thatcher, and so did French President Mitterand. After the drive to re-unification began, in 1990, Grass commented that he had “a powerful premonition of disaster.” That disaster is now in full flow.
At its most innocent analysis, Germany has made a cardinal error in thinking that Turkey, with its post-Ataturk Islam-lite, was a template for the entire muslim world; including the north African and Pakistani world. After all, mass-Turkish immigration into Germany seemed to be fairly innocuous. That has turned out to be a significant, perhaps fatal, mistake. Firstly, the Turkey of the 1980s is not the Turkey of the 2010s. Like all political entities it is a dynamic, and it is one which is turning sharply towards conservative Islam. Secondly, north Africa is no 1980s Turkey. Mass north African immigration, which brings with it the necessity to feed, clothe and house several million unemployable people for decades – perhaps until death, will bankrupt a German government already in debt up to its eyeballs. Massive tax increases will then be needed, as far as the eye can see, which will implode the German economy, as well as the rest of Europe.
Gunter Grass was right… and so was Margaret Thatcher and so was Francois Mitterand. It was insanity to ever let Germany unify. Their attempts to restore Germany’s post-Holocaust moral authority as a prelude to total EU domination (with, of course, France hanging on to German coattails, hoping for newfound glory) through mass north African immigration, has set Europe on a self-destruct course. The dreams of the ever re-born Reich may lay fallow for decades, even hundreds of years, within the German political psyche, but they never seem to actually die. The German political leadership seems pre-disposed towards re-creation of that Reich as its unshakable dream turned nightmare.
They are at it, yet again.