By Francis Lee for the Saker Blog
For the benefit of Frau Merkel & Nordstream-2
No sovereignty = No democracy: If a State is subordinate to another State or group of states it is no longer sovereign. That is to say if it ceases to exercise control over its vital policies, economic, political, social and cultural. Moreover it follows that if it is not sovereign it cannot be democratic since the key policies it might wish to enact and carry out are decided elsewhere.
The increasingly unbalanced assessment regarding the UK’s eventual exit from membership of the EU (if indeed it ever really happens) seems predicated on a series of fixed, cliché-ridden political positions which haven’t changed since the whole issue became live. The great national ‘debate’ seems to be an emotionally charged affair with little attention to facts and more focused upon personalities and taken-for-granted assumptions of the ‘everybody knows’ type. This presumably is post-modern politics I suppose. But at the heart of the debate is the issue of sovereignty.
Let us firstly consider the international economic issues involved according to the conventional wisdom of the hyper-globalists. It is argued that both nation states and the whole concept of national sovereignty is now defunct. Their reasoning is based upon the following premises. 1. Most products have developed a very complex geography – with parts made in different countries and then assembled somewhere else, in which case labels of origin begin to lose their meaning. 2. Markets when left unfettered will arrive at optimal price, allocative, and productive efficiency. 3.This means that capital, commodities and labour should be free to move around the globe without let or hindrance to achieve these goals. 4. Any barriers to this process – capital controls, trade unions, exchange rate controls, welfare expenditures, minimum wage legislation, wages and even public goods – will give rise to price and allocative distortions. Q.E.D. Apart from point 1., the rest of these claims are in fact highly contestable and could easily be shredded by reference to historical experience and empirical testing, but hey, if the theoretical paradigm is sound who cares about historical experience and empirical testing.
Such globalization has come to be seen and defined by its proponents as the ‘natural order’ of things, almost a force of nature. This, it is further argued, will be an inexorable process of increasing geographical spread and functional integration between economic and political activities. This current orthodoxy goes by various names, Washington Consensus, Market Liberalisation, Neo-liberalism, Globalism and so on and so forth. In fact, there is nothing ‘natural’ about this stage of historical development since the whole phenomenon has been politically driven. From the outset there has been a coalition of globalist oligarchs, technocrats and heads of state et.al working through global institutions the IMF, World Bank, BIS, WTO, NATO, the EU, CIA – the list is extensive. They control the economic, political and military superstructures which form the ruling global system and constitute the vanguard of the whole process.
Turning to the EU as the regional prototype for the globalization, anti-state project, it was Patrick Buchanan, an American conservative who once correctly stated in ‘The American Conservative’ that the US Congress ‘‘is an Israeli occupied zone’’ by which he meant of course that Israel and the Israeli Lobby, both external and internal, has had a huge input into the framing and operation of US foreign policy. In a similar vein the EU is also occupied territory under the occupation and control of US imperialism. (This process of blatant meddling in European affairs by the US-CIA started with Operation Gladio in the late 1940s at about the same time as Operation Mockingbird and Operation Paperclip.) However, the perceived enemy was not merely Soviet communism, but also sotto voce, European social and political theory and practice, namely, Gaullism and social-democracy. These latter political groupings have long since been politically cleansed with the EU being reconfigured as neo-liberal, and, since the alignment of the EU security structures with NATO, as neo-conservative vassal states overseen and represented by odious little Petainist/Quisling occupation regimes. This is only too apparent when the fawning behaviours of Johnson, Macron and Merkel vis-à-vis the US are observed. Whenever the US master says jump, the Europeans will reply ‘how high’ And this is even more pronounced by the newly arrived Eastern European states. A group which Dick Cheney once described as the ‘new Europe.’ By which he meant the political force which was operationalised to fundamentally change the political direction of the EU in the late 20th century. Euro-widening was meant to prevent euro-deepening, and it worked a treat.
Perhaps the most salient (and bogus) claim deployed by the pro-Globalization camp is the use of the time-honoured TINA ‘there-is-no-alternative’ Varoufakis approach. This is invariably deployed to shut-down any genuine discussion. Of course it was Mrs Thatcher who pioneered this method of political discourse, with, it should be added, considerable success. Reading the editorials in the ‘leftist’ publications, I couldn’t help being reminded of those little Thatcherite homilies trotted out by the Tory press during the Thatcher ascendency.
But now, not to be outdone, the centre-left has taken upon itself the mantle of ‘progress’ and ‘modernity’ providing the ideological rationale for the globalist tendency. This has involved a 180 degree turn and is apparently using the same language and political orientation as the Globalists. Try this one on: ‘’Nations are increasingly irrelevant when it comes to effective action on the environment and social and immigration policies …’’ This was taken from a centre-left publication. Yep, distilled, undiluted globalization – TINA. That could have been George Soros speaking. As if sovereign nations could not pool their resources, enter into bi-lateral agreements, engage in trade and diplomacy, enter into negotiations with others precisely to confront common issues such as the aforementioned environmental, immigration and social issues.
But in this ‘stateless’ or seemingly becoming ‘stateless’ world I do feel obliged to point out that the United States as a nation is sovereign and has every intention of remaining so. Contrary to the globalist patter, however, this super-state shapes and formulates both economic and foreign policy for itself and its vassal states in Europe and East Asia, but of course these vassal states are not fully sovereign and are subject to the rule of the one that is – the USA. The reality we have in the EU consists not of a unified assemblage of sovereign states but a de facto occupied zone of a political, economic and military empire, under both US aegis and control.
As the late Egyptian Marxist, Samir Amin, put it:
‘’Conceived of at the end of WW2 the ‘European Project’ was born as the European part of the Atlanticist project of the United States, much in the spirit of the first Cold War initiated by Washington and given voice by Churchill’s speech in Fulton Missouri in 1946 in which he intoned. “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent.” This has been a project which the European bourgeoisies – at that time weak and afraid of their own working classes – adhered to practically without conditions. This is still largely true, as seen in the choices put into effect by the ruling classes and political forces of the right and majority left, at least in certain European countries, above all in Great Britain, where it has been done clearly and ostentatiously. In other countries there is perhaps a small piece of hesitation, whilst in Eastern Europe the process is managed by political classes formed in the culture of servility … There is no longer, at present, a European project … A North Atlantic project under American command has replaced it
Thus the European ‘project’ is not moving – or not moving fast enough, or not moving at all – in the direction that is needed to bring Washington to its senses. Indeed it remains a basically ‘non-European’ project, scarcely more than a European part of the American project. The European’s Constitution is for a Europe which is settling – has settled ? – its dual and Atlanticist option. Hence the potential contained in the clash of political cultures, which could theoretically lead to an end of Atlanticism which remains mortgaged to social-liberalism of the majority sections of the left (electorally speaking, the European socialist parties). But social-liberalism is a contradiction in terms, since liberalism is by its nature non-social or even anti-social … a stable and generally multipolar world will be socialist or it will not exist at all. (2)
Inter-governmental policy is perfectly possible, however, without the surrender of national sovereignty to an imperial hegemon. However, If the European Vichy regimes choose to accept the imposition of US policy imperatives that is their choice – a political choice, not an iron law of political development.
The fact is that nation states unquestionably remain the most significant force in shaping the world economy – this in spite of the hyper-globalist rhetoric coming from the Bilderbergers and neo-liberal/Washington consensus proponents. The nation state has always played a fundamental role in the economic development of all countries and indeed in the process of globalization itself. In fact, the more powerful states have used globalization as a means of increasing their power vis-à-vis the weaker states. The US and the G7 design and establish, international trade agreements, organizations, and legislations that support and govern trans-border investments, production networks, and market penetration, constitutive of contemporary economic globalization. Advanced capitalist states, in particular, use these political instruments to shape international decision making and policy in their own interests.(3)
A contemporary example of this is the US – qua sovereign hegemon – forcing policies, such as membership of NATO, down the throats of their (apparently willing) ‘allies’ (read vassals) and ‘partners’ in order to carry out the US’s geopolitical policies by mobilizing their Quisling regimes in both Europe (particularly Eastern Europe) for possible conflict with Russia, China and Iran (which are de facto sovereign states). It can be seen that the sovereignty of Europe is limited by the Transatlantic hegemon to the extent that Europe lacks both military, political and key areas of economic decision making to individual European G7 states. The fact that these semi-sovereign euro states are forced – as is everyone else – to use the US$ as the global currency means they do not really control their own economies. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Sweden has a trading surplus with the US; this means that it is exporting more than it is importing in terms of US goods. This means that the Swedish currency – the Krona – will appreciate against the US$. But the Swedish government may not want its currency to appreciate by being palmed off with US Treasuries which will never be redeemed. In order therefore to stop its own currency appreciating against the dollar it will have to buy US dollars or dollar denominated assets, (usually Treasury Bills) to keep its own currency at a lower exchange rate to the dollar. This results in an appreciating dollar which means the US can buy more stuff on world markets without producing any additional goods and services! Great deal if you can get it! Moreover by accepting the US$ and Treasuries as a means of payment for goods produced in Europe these semi-peripheral states are on the wrong end of what the French politician Valery Giscard D’Estaing once termed an ‘exorbitant privilege’. Such is the position of sovereign states, semi-sovereign states, and non-sovereign states.
In geopolitical terms it should be understood that the abasement of Europe to American interests is frankly abject. Europe has become a forward base for the Pentagon, military industrial complex, and neo-con infested State Department to play their war games against Russia and latterly against China. If there is a war with Russia, please note it is intended to be carried out on European soil not American.
In terms of present and future membership not only was the admission of the Eastern European periphery a massive error for individual European states, but future membership bodes even worse for the EU ‘project’. Turkey is not only authoritarian, a US proxy and a member of NATO, which is bad enough, but it also funds and arms our most inveterate enemies, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Jabhat Al Nusra, and various other jihadist alphabet soup grouplets. This same state was at that time mooted for membership of the EU by both the UK and Germany. Moreover, future candidates for EU/NATO status include Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. None of these states could be considered to be even remotely sovereign and/or democratic and generally are totally and openly corrupt. It is all part of the long march toward Russia’s western frontier by NATO/EU, a process begun by Clinton (Mr) in the 1990s. But apparently this is of no consequence to the contemporary ‘left’ which doesn’t seem unduly worried by these developments.
As for the EU/NATO, do we really want to belong to an organization who has these people as members/applicants? It’s a bit like Groucho Marx’s famous witticism – ‘’I wouldn’t want to belong to a club which would have me as a member.’’ More important in this respect does the EU/NATO even allow us a choice in the matter?
One final point. Okay it is argued that if we – the UK – leave the EU the roof falls in, of course that is a complete non sequitur, but let’s run with it for a moment. Membership is therefore imperative! Really?
Well in 1946 due to costs of the WW2 the UK was flat broke. Lord Keynes was despatched to Washington and negotiated a loan from the Americans. Of course there were strings, or in IMF/World Bankspeak, ‘conditionalities.’ 1. Britain had to end the system of imperial preference of intra-empire trading, mainly because the Americans wanted to get into this lucrative market. 2. The British empire had to be wound up, and the Americans would then carry the baton for the Anglo-Zionist empire, with all the costs but mostly advantages that accrued from this position. The UK’s long retreat from East of Suez began with Indian independence in 1947 and continued well into the 1960s.
The roof did not fall in, however, Britain, in spite of continuing imperial delusions of grandeur, adjusted to its new position in the world. There was, after all, an alternative to imperial nostalgia, maybe it never quite worked out as planned, but it happened, nonetheless.
Thus the TINA hypothesis is basically invalid. There are – pace the globalist dogma – always alternatives, you may not like them, but to deny their existence is neither a serious nor honest position to take.
(1) Samir Amin – The Liberal Virus – p.86 p.89.
(2) Samir Amin – Beyond US Hegemony – p.148.
(3) Peter Dicken – Global Shift – The State Really Does Matter, Chapter 6
But in this ‘stateless’ or seemingly becoming ‘stateless’ world I do feel obliged to point out that the United States as a nation is sovereign and has every intention of remaining so.
Yes and no. On paper, the entity known rather quaintly as the “United States of America” is technically a sovereign, although the proverbial globalist “invisible hand” now actually runs things. More like a “puppet sovereign,” maybe. And it’s damn sure not a “people’s democracy” or any such foolish notion, the great mass of people long since having been put on permanent auto-disregard and are now apparently being targeted for elimination altogether.
But other points well-taken. Great piece.
A truly sovereign nation issues its own currency without incurring debt to private banks.
In this regard the US is not sovereign, since the US dollar is under the control of the international private banking cabal, who create it as compound interest bearing debt. No debts = no money
The only country that issues its own domestic currency debt free is China.
That reminds me – some have alleged that China still owns US dollars and that the yuan is still tied to it. What is your knowledge of that? Thanks in advance.
The state owned central Bank of China controls the exchange rate between US dollars and the Euro currency with the Chinese yuan. Chinese companies sell their exports to the West in US dollars (or Euros), and since the international balance of trade is approximately $50 billion per month in China’s favor, the Chinese accumulate excess US dollars, now likely $2.3 trillion, that they can use to purchase say crude oil for their domestic refineries or buy interest bearing US Treasury Bills, that ultimately have to be converted back to US dollars, that can only be spent directly or indirectly back into the US economy.
China is now the world’s largest creditor nation in terms of foreign exchange holdings, and the US is the largest debtor nation with $26 trillion of debt.
The great advantage that China has by creating its own domestic currency debt free is that the government can employ its workforce to build all its infrastructure, whether highways, high speed rail, power stations, hydro electric dams, schools, universities, research and development, and its military, that is only limited by its access to energy sources and the expertise and of its highly educated workforce. This has enabled the Chinese economy to grow an an average of over 6% per year for the past thirty years or so, that has transformed a largely agrarian country into an industrial powerhouse within a relatively short space of time.
Chinese (and for that matter Japan) are the two greatest holders of US Treasuries – i.e., dollar denominated assets. It seems very much like a marriage of convenience but at the present time China is stocking up on gold and gradually weaning itself of off US Treasuries. But this must be done very carefully. If China dumps its Treasuries that would be an enormous loss to China, it would also be very serious for the US dollar since there would be a flood of $s on the worlds currency markets which would trigger a massive de fact devaluation of the $ and this would be the end of the ‘exorbitant privilege’ which has been the linchpin of the global monetary system since 1971. The thing about fiat currencies and systems based upon fiat systems is as Voltaire once declared:
“Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value—zero”
Yes, within the entity which, oddly (and shamelessly) calls itself The Five Eyes + Israel, the five eyes are formerly sovereign states, US/UK/AUS/NZ/CAN, which have now been subsumed by the only state that keeps its national and ethno/racial/religious identity.
But closer examination reveals deep flaws in even such an argument. It is possible that none of those six states ever actually attained nationhood or sovereignty, though they all vehemently claim to have done so and believe it.
Certainly a cogent and comprehensive article on a difficult topic.
The Queen of England fires the Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975.
Not quite Kapricorn, Gough was sacked by his appointed Governor General, John Kerr, who after his actions reported the matter to her Majesty, the British Parliamentary Secretary.
Andrew, the Prime Minister is given a list of appointees ‘approved’ by the Crown. The GG being the Crown’s representitive. From the crown’s list, the PM chooses, but it’s the Queen’s rep he or she is choosing, not thier own. So when the GG fires the PM, that comes from Betty, she’s the boss, with the GG being the ‘bagman’. Many will hang baubbles on it and dress it like a pig, but a whore still runs the show, as it’s always for show.
I read elsewhere, although I cannot recall exactly where right now, that Kerr was in regular contact with Buckingham Palace concerning this issue and the Queen was in prior agreement with him that Whitlam had to go. He was too socialist in his policies for the establishment to stomach apparently.
I have a friend from university, who emigrated to Australia with whom I am in regular email contact, and he seriously thought (Ph.D. and all) from his ivory tower, that Whitlam had to go because he was “bankrupting” the country.
Any discussion of such topics is bedevilled by false terminology.
We talk about nations and their interests, forgetting that those are abstractions. ‘The entity known rather quaintly as the “United States of America”’ is an abstraction, although most people think of it as real and solid.
What really exist are a territory, a lot of people who are deemed citizens, and a government that has almost unlimited power over both citizens and territory.
Again, we imagine that the “government” is a representative body elected by the citizens, which acts in their interests.
Everything about that is wrong. The government is not representative – except of the wealthy people and corporations who own it – and acts in their interests, not those of the people at large. It does so for the same reasons that induce a mugging victim to give up his wallet – the threat of consequences.
To say that “the United States is sovereign” is yet another abstraction, and has very little meaning. Insofar as it means anything, it is that the US government can exert power regardless of the wishes of other governments. That has virtually nothing to do with “sovereignty”, and almost everything to do with thermonuclear weapons, soldiers, tanks, missiles, warships, and the CIA. Oh, and money, which the US government permits itself to create without limit.
Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and many other nations have (or had) legal sovereignty. Much good it did them. Just yesterday US forces attacked the Syrian army on Syrian territory, killing at least one soldier and wounding others – for the crime of obstructing the free movement of US forces within Syria.
Sovereignty? Don’t make me laugh. It hurts so much.
Tom, you write “the US government permits itself to create money without limit”
Slight correction :-) “the US government permits itself to borrow money from the private sector without limit.
Nowhere in the US Constitution of 1789 is the word “democracy” used, not even once. It was devised to thwart the “tyranny” of the landless farm boys, and to preserve the interests of the landed gentry.
I find myself in total agreement with you. Sovereignty is a delicate thing and probably utterly impossible without a sovereign. The very word Reality is derived from Old French ‘real’ meaning Royal.
It implied that only the King was real and everything else pendant on his being.
It is interesting that the substitute in our time for that concept always gets accompanied by the word virtual.
Which means ‘not real at all’ for “The quality of Royalty is not strained.”
When I looked up my borrowing from Shakespeare’s play I noted that the word and concept of ‘mercy’ was immediately followed by the concept of a sovereign king. Food for thought. The Shylockian rats that rule us almost universally today are as far from any concept of mercy as they are from any claim to sovereignty or royalty. Virtual anything is probably nothing at all.
“The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest. It becomes
The thronèd monarch better than his crown.
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings,
But mercy is above this sceptered sway.
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings.
It is an attribute to God himself.
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew, Though justice be thy plea, consider this-
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation. We do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea,
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence ‘gainst the merchant there.”
― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice
The etymology of Real is “res”, latin word for thing. It’s thingness that makes reality not monarchy.
Timely Shakespeare quote
I prefer to go to Sanskrit or Greek for quintessential meanings. The Romans were such copy-cats!
I have not yet done so.
Does even Latin-based reality not consist of ‘things’… which are real? And are they not given that attribute of ‘reality’ by support of hierarchy (logos and order)? And did Voltaire not say, though he is thought to have contended all his life against monarchs: “I would rather be ruled by one lion than by a hundred rats?”
(Even arch-shithead Steve Cyberborg knows that much when choosing a name for his hegemony of virtual [sic] reality: “The Internet of Things.”
Please do not take that awry. I actually welcome your post. It causes me to thing harder.
Was this article written before Brexit? Or is Britain not out of the EU yet?
I have always had a suspicion that the reason that EU politicians are so spineless before American imperialism is that the CIA, via its well known wiretaps, has enough dirt on them to send them all off to prison. Merkel’s repeated 180° course reversals, especially, are hardly explicable in any other terms.
Then, in the situation today, membership of the EU automatically comes with NATO membership as well. The only EU members that aren’t are those that joined before the murder of the USSR, like Austria. It’s another simple scam; NATO membership “obliges” its members to spend enough on their military to “upgrade” it to NATO standards and “integrate” it with NATO command and control systems. This requires purchases, and the bulk or all of those purchases will come from guess who.
Apropos of Brexit. The UK is neither in or out. There is a transitional phase for the UK’s eventual exit which is at the present time taking place between the UK government and the EU.
Austria, Sweden and Finland joined the EU in 1995, which was three years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Ireland is also an EU member that isn’t part of NATO, but unlike the other three, Ireland joined the EEC in 1973 along with the UK.
Sweden and increasingly Finland are de facto NATO. Sweden is more NATO than most official NATO.
Much food for thought here — thank you, FL.
”Turkey is not only authoritarian, a US proxy and a member of NATO, which is bad enough, but it also funds and arms our most inveterate enemies, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Jabhat Al Nusra, and various other jihadist alphabet soup grouplets.”
Erdogan, like Putin, understands the ’moral fibre’ of the West to a T. The difference between Erdogan and Putin is that Erdogan happily plays along by
a) supporting the West’s alphabet soups as the mayhem in Syria and Libya shows.
b) bringing about a massive influx into Europe of destitute people, a key to get rid of the labour aristocracy once and for all. Clearly, this is what the EU corporatocracy and its God-awful EU politicians are fully committed to. And, yes, the so-called ’nationalists’ in the West are very much included as controlled opposition.
”It is all part of the long march toward Russia’s western frontier by NATO/EU, a process begun by Clinton (Mr) in the 1990s. But apparently this is of no consequence to the contemporary ‘left’ which doesn’t seem unduly worried by these developments.”
At bottom, what the Western ’left’ worries about for real (LGBTQ is mostly a frill) is imperialist privilege. The Western Left correctly feels the threat as Russia and China make inroads into Africa and Latin America. The West’s ’post-industrial’ rubbish has no other means to sustain itself than by looting the Third World, Russia, and China. To a Western leftist, NATO is part of the solution, not the problem.
As for the US Hegemon, it is crumbling. Its Deep State and its nominal rulers are increasingly insane and have grown too tired to even bother with anything but their masturbatory ”ideology”.
I think the ‘roof’ is falling in the USA. Internally. Compared to other countries the graph-curve for US income distribution is disgusting. It is so far apart from the equal distribution line it can barely fit on the same page. Look at the sad situation below and try and consider what can save the US.
What destroys an empire is that the powerfull begin to care more about local politics than in the state of their empire. This has been the case in the destruction of most ’empires’. Happily I am hopeful that the whole neo-liberal experiment will come crashing down and as the writer above postulates some countries will recover their pride and borders.
In the video I use a UMI which is the ‘Universal Maxium Income’ or UBI x10.
Diana Johnstone wrote this past January about Britain’s role as a Trojan horse used by the USA to meddle into the affairs of an independent Europe, and how it led to the expansion of the EEC to include four of the PIIGS nations (Italy was a founding member).
Some argue that the USA has been infiltrated by Britain.
Satire: Get rid of Flynn. The danger was to the warmongers who were not warriors but cowards making their careers from guns, money and death. Featured here are Halper, Steele, Dearlove, Andrew (the UK4) then Comey, McCabe, Muller, Brennan, Clapper, Biden, Obama, Downer (Australian) and there promises to be more – all as Romans
And speaking of neocons, a lot of readers of sites like Breitbart seem to denounce the EU as undemocratic and see Britain as a victim thereof, while at the same time viewing NATO as a force of good. I don’t know whether said readers can be considered “neocon”, but if the pro-Brexit camp were honest about their opposition to globalism, then they’d also campaign against NATO too. And possibly own up to Britain’s colonial behavior then and now.
This writer made a statement which I consider most important of all and has gone unnoticed:
> If there is a war with Russia, please note it is intended to be carried out on European soil not American.
This plan to conquer or destroy Russia has been on the books for a long time. The ongoing conduct of those ruling America and it’s vassal states tells me nothing has changed in this regard. The stupid Europeans, and especially Poland, Germany and Turkey seem to have missed Vladimir Putin’s words that if Russia is attacked, within 2 seconds they will know from where the attack originated and those countries will in turn be attacked and destroyed. Hosting U.S. nuclear missiles makes these countries a target for destruction. I do believe these controllers hope to keep the destruction confined to Europe. That should make Europeans feel cozy, warm and welcomed by their master. I doubt it will be confined to Europe. Russia and China know who the bigger monster is. The rulers of this darkness are willing to lose millions of their own, as long as they ‘win’. That should be a comforting thought to us who live in North America who are currently in the U.S. cheering for either Biden or Trump. If either one was the good guy, this march to war and dominance would have ended long ago. And to those in Canada who don’t seem to have a clue what state our country is now in with no operational government at all and a Deputy Prime Minister who is, along with her boss, a globalist with NAZI tendencies.
Actually, that’s been obvious since the days of the alleged Warsaw Pact plan to send armoured divisions racing through the Fulda Gap. The only reason American imperialism was so eager to replace Britain as the world’s colonial overlord is the idea that the wars it would fight would be on someone else’s lands. That idea took a hard knock only during the Cuban missile crisis, but only as far as the regime was concerned. The ordinary people were led to believe that it was a victory.
What we need is more MAD Mutually Assured Destruction!!!
I mean really if only nuclear weapons had been in vogue circa June 28, 1914 WW1 would probably never have happened yes? Can you imagine all those bastards sitting around at Versailles thinking about mushroom clouds instead of reparations?
As for Sovereignty lol with the arrival of the nuclear option and now the Chinese Social Credit System we have our glorious future in the making where we all are morally culpable and legislated into obedience by way of the RFID chipset? It’s the new Banker way is it not? Noahide laws etc?
The only escape from total destruction of civilization will be a world government, or we will perish in a war of the atom.
In the field of atomic energy, there must be set up a world power.
—Robert J. Oppenheimer
World government has become inevitable.
—Arthur Compton Cantelon
One world Government is in the making. Whether we like it or not, we are moving toward a one-world government.
—Dr. Ralph Barton Perry of Harvard
Either we will find a way to establish world government, or we will perish in a war of the atom.
—Raymond Swing to Albert Einstein
The secret of the bomb should be committed to a world government, and the USA should immediately announce its readiness to give it to a world government.
Sovereignty must go, that means also the interests which sovereignty protects must be recognized as outmoded in character and dangerous in operation.
—Professor Laski of Oxford
We shall have a world government whether or not we like it. The only question is, whether world government will be achieved by conquest or consent.
—James Warburg, February 17, 1950 before the U.S. Senate
It is necessary to discover a head capable of directing it, endowed with an intelligence surpassing the most elevated human level.
Let that man be a military man or a layman, it matters not.
—Paul Henry Spaak, first president of the Council of Europe, planner of the European Common Market, president of the United Nations General Assembly, and one-time Secretary-General of NATO
Strong, one-man civilian control of America’s giant military establishment is vital to the nation’s wellbeing. The concentration of authority is inevitable.
—Roswell Gilpatrick, Deputy Secretary of Defence
World Government is a euphemism for Death.