Thursday, November 21, 2019
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
The political class is made up of those that seek to gain power over others due to either an attitude of superiority, an inflated ego, a desire to advance a personal agenda, or a misplaced concern for the wretched majority that they believe through power can be molded to their way of thinking. These political types are of many stripes, but among them rest an evil core, that group that will go to any lengths to not only gain power and control over others, but to keep it at any cost. Politicians of this ilk are the most self-serving of all.
But these groups of politicians who make up the governing class, those with false illusions of grandeur, soon awaken to the fact that they are not the actual rulers, but instead are serving a higher power. This higher power of elites actually controls the political class, but does so in many cases with anonymity, and with the use of illegal payoffs, blackmail, bribery, extortion, or threat of harm. The politician soon comes to the realization that government is but a racket that is based on collusion with a criminal element that holds a monopoly on power. It is similar to the hierarchal structure of a mafia underworld where the heads of the family, the bosses, remain in the shadows, while their lieutenants, the politicians, carry out orders handed down from above.
I will preface my next statements with an apology to the mafia. While it is a criminal organization, it is certainly much more exposed and honest than any elite controlling entity or political class of individuals who work together to achieve dishonest ends. The mafia does not pretend to be a moral and caring ruler over others, and does not claim the high ground in any intellectual exercise of power. It simply has a business agenda to profit and gain control within its own element. Actually, it is able to use the political class in its illegal efforts, due to the fact that most politicians are more corrupt and self-serving than mafia members.
According to the FBI’s “Mafia Organization Chart,” it is a top-down hierarchy led by a boss and underboss, and advised by a powerful Consigliere. In the U.S. political structure, these bosses might be the banking magnates and corporate heads, advised by powerful committees like the Trilateral Commission and the Skull and Bones Order, all working along side the U.S. Intelligence “Community.” The next layer consisting of captains and lieutenants who command the mafia’s soldiers, are mirrored in politics by the president, the rest of the executive branch, Congress, government bureaucratic agencies, and the state governing systems. This group makes the laws necessary to control the people, and manages all the agents of force in the military and police. With this control, aggressive foreign policy and war can be affected by the military against any that stand in the way of the elitist’s global agenda, while all domestic policy is controlled from within by police and other state agents of force. The bottom of the pyramid is of course the general populace, some of whom work hand in hand with the system, while the rest of society funds and supports this criminal gang called government due to measures affected by the state that include theft, welfare, fear, manipulation, individual and intellectual destruction through contemptible education, and psychological brainwashing. The results of this nefarious system are evident today in what is now an almost fully controlled society.
The United States government then, is simply a criminal racket, subordinate to the real power structure, and is not representative of the common people as has been falsely sold to the gullible public. Government is little more than a puppet regime under the direction of a more dominant ruling authority, one that has an agenda of total power and control.
When speaking in a general manner such as this, it is important to point out that not every single politician can be described as I generally paint the group. There have always been a few members of government and other suspicious organizations that were or are truly sincere in their efforts to make a better world, and to examine and expose the failings of the system in which they chose to participate. But these few have not had the capability to repair or improve what has turned out to be a perverted and contaminated ruling system, and in some cases, they have been marginalized or eliminated due to their efforts.
In effect, the corruption of the ruling class is of such magnitude, that only a mass of working together can stop the onslaught of this elite power growth. I am not speaking here of a meaningless voting public, of any civic consensus, or any collective political action group. I am suggesting that a rebirth of thought at the level of society as a whole has to occur in a manner not seen in modern history.
Strength must replace weakness in order to achieve freedom, as liberty cannot survive in this current environment. Solutions are evident, but cannot be implemented by political force, as that technique would necessarily destroy the solution itself. What is required is a conscious awakening in the individual soul, and a desire by large numbers of the oppressed majority to break the chains of the unmistakable tyranny that is now ever-present in our lives.
Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is a retired investment professional living and writing in Lewistown, Montana. Visit his website.
Where liberty is, there is my country.
Debt is any enemy of government’s perfect ally. The more a government borrows the more it’s weakened. The consequences of debt, required repayment of principal, and compounding interest are inexorable, forestalled by central bank and government machinations but never prevented. The longer they forestall the more severe the consequences. Central banks and governments have fostered the world’s greatest debt bubble and promoted negative interest rates to facilitate it. An unprecedented tsunami of debt has creditors paying borrowers to lend them money. This weird and anomalous combination, impossible in a world without central banking, portends global disaster.
The enemies of government have only to wait. When the reckoning arrives, governments will find they no longer have the means to wage war or control their populations (see “The Illusion of Control,” and , Robert Gore, SLL ). Their demands on their nations’ productive taxpayers and their depreciation of currencies have stripped their countries of their wealth and ability to produce. Be it by creditors, revolutionaries, or invaders, or some combination of the three, these governments will be toppled and replaced by something new. It’s a story as old as human history.
A graph of global economic growth versus the much steeper graph (in both percentage and absolute terms) of global debt growth above it conveys an obvious message: something has to give. When that something gives it will lead to the greatest deflationary depression in history. The trillions in fiat debt that governments and central banks will conjure in response will be no match for the quadrillions (one quadrillion equals one thousand trillions) in debt, unfunded liabilities, contingent liabilities, securitized collateralized-debt, derivatives, and other promises—all counted as a liability or quasi-liability on one set of books and an asset or quasi-asset on another—that will unravel and implode.
Governments are meeting the ongoing economic and financial crisis—whose “official” start will probably be placed at the 2008-2009 implosion, but whose roots stretch back to at least 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window—the same way they always have: stealing incomes and wealth, keeping for themselves or giving to favored recipients, issuing debt, “encouraging” or outright forcing their central banks to buy that debt, and debasing their currencies. This bag of larcenous and fraudulent tricks produces nothing, leads to no voluntary, mutually beneficial trade, and retards savings and investment, the foundations of economic growth and progress. It is how Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt turned what should have been a garden variety recession and financial reset into the Great Depression.
It is why a Greater Depression is at least ten years on and the worst is yet to come. Anyone who doubts that we’re in this Greater Depression should reflect on one fact: across the developed world national governments’ debts are growing faster in both percentage and absolute terms than government-calculated gross domestic products. In other words, the “growth” we now have is more than completely offset by the greater growth of those national governments’ debt. The disparity yawns even wider when growing individual, corporate, and political subdivisions’ debts—which mostly fund consumption and so generate no offsetting return—are added to national governments’ debt.
One positive thing about the Greater Depression going forward is that it will hit an inflection point and its pace will dramatically quicken. That inflection point will be crashing equity and debt markets, heralding the depression’s severe economic contraction. Default, bankruptcy, and deflation will be the order of the day and much of what the world now considers wealth—debt and equity claims, title to land and tangible assets pledged as collateral for multiple loans—will simply evaporate.
Broken promises, vanishing wealth, and contracting economies will inevitably lead to social disorder and chaos, which severely resource-constrained governments will be unable to control or contain. Current political arrangements and geographic boundaries will not survive the stress, with larger entities shattering into smaller ones. The parasitic monstrosities that are today’s governments will be unsupportable. Future generations will look back in wonder that they were able to expropriate so much of the world’s production and wealth while being responsible for so much of its misery.
Necessity is the mother of invention and inventive thinking. Collapse will lead not just to a wrenching political, economic, and financial reordering, but an epochal reset in human thought. Most of what most people now believe will be seen as tragically wrong. Today’s impervious-to-facts-or-reason worship of governments, rulers, and their minions will certainly stand revealed as the folly it’s always been.
Sand is sand until somebody figures out how to make glass, semiconductors, and solar panels. For centuries petroleum was considered a nuisance. It didn’t become valuable until somebody discovered its constituent elements could be used for, among other things, light, heat, and powering internal combustion engines. Gold was just another rock until humanity discovered its many virtues, which make it ideal for, among other things, jewelry, microcircuitry, and money (see “,” Robert Gore, SLL).
A resource, natural or otherwise, is a resource because it has at least one use. Resources are not the ultimate source of wealth, the minds that discover uses for them are. Very few wealth-creating ideas are tabula rasa, without antecedent. They build on prior discoveries and ideas. Innovation, when allowed to proceed, is a compounding, exponential process, creating new possibilities that lead to more innovation. It epitomizes organic adaptation, the bottom-up, decentralized progress that humanity makes when it’s not smothered by its diametric opposite—top-down, centralized command-and-control.
Reality-based intelligence, competence, and innovation will be prized as the world is forced to organically adapt to economic collapse, entropic decentralization, and much smaller political subdivisions. Those who would build new societies will need builders. Engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, farmers, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, carpenters, computer programmers, machine-tool operators, doctors, technicians, etc.—people who know how to do useful things—will find their skills, ingenuity, and industriousness in demand. Politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, lawyers, crony-socialist executives, administrators, college professors, think tank propagandists, criminals, celebrities, safe-space students, perpetually aggrieved whiners, a menagerie of misanthropic misfits, the indolent, the entitled, etc.—people with little or no useful skills—will be so much disposable baggage. Ironically, within this latter group there are numerous proponents of population reduction. Without an exercisable claim on the talents and production of the former group, they may well find themselves at the head of their own line.
The first question those who would found new societies may ask is: What must we do to attract the builders? The proper question will be: what must we not do to attract the builders? For once builders will be in the driver’s seat, and it’s not difficult to imagine their answers. They’d like to hold on to what they earn, so forget theft under the euphemism of taxation. Why should they fund senseless wars or the lifestyles of people they neither know or care about, and probably despise? Bye-bye warfare and welfare states. Forget the frauds of fiat debt, legal tender laws, and central banking; individuals and markets will decide the accepted medium or mediums of exchange.
Builders don’t cotton to people who know less than they do about their occupations telling them what to do, so you can toss hundreds of thousands of laws, regulations, and codes out the window. As a matter of fact, they don’t particularly like other people telling them what to do, period. Isn’t there an ancient parchment somewhere that says: ? What must be done to attract the builders? Leave them alone to pursue their happiness!
As the world splinters into a thousand or more enclaves, they will be experiments into what works and what doesn’t, confronting two basic issues: supporting their populations and defending themselves. The most successful at the former will undoubtedly be the most successful at the latter because both stem from a common source—productive human minds that are free to innovate, produce, and voluntarily cooperate and exchange, and thus have a stake in defending what they build from armed invasion, parasitic immigration, and internal corruption and subversion. The multiplicity of enclaves will give builders the option to leave failing ones and find or start ones more to their liking.
When humanity proceeds from one epoch to the next, there are usually precursors within the prior epoch of what’s to come in the next one. Hong Kong after World War II offers a glimpse of what’s possible in the coming age of decentralization. It is smaller than Rhode Island, has a population roughly equal to Washington State’s, and no natural resources other than the natural shelter and deep waters of Victoria Harbor, which enabled the construction of one of the world’s leading ports. Yet, in a span of fifty years it went from scattered farming and fishing villages emerging from Japanese occupation to a commercial and financial powerhouse with one of the world’s highest concentrations of both skyscrapers and ultra high-net-worth individuals.
It capitalized on capitalism, which unleashed the skills, ingenuity and industriousness of Chinese immigrants fleeing Communist China, attracted to its low taxation and minimal government interference in the economy. Hong Kong is, of course, a nightmare to all those bleating about wealth inequality. The lower bound on wealth is zero, the upper bound in a Moore’s-law world where science, knowledge, and technology are exploding exponentially virtually infinite. Such will be the gap in the new era’s most successful enclaves, with their dramatically reduced or nonexistent taxes and minimalist or nonexistent governments. The bleaters will be apoplectic, well-advised to find an enclave of their own kind to shelter themselves from the horror—someplace where everyone is poor, but equally so.
Hong Kong is also a nightmare to all those statist collectivists who insist that freedom is impractical and can’t work in the present day and age. What they really mean is that individual rights, self-interest, market competition, voluntary interaction, and free exchange among builders can’t work, but force and fraud can, as long as they’re on the business end of the guns and the checks are made out to them. A bankrupt world plunging toward ruinous chaos is the end result of barrel-of-a-gun political power. It is only the power to stymie, stop, cripple, enslave, corrupt, plunder, destroy, and murder. If people cannot handle freedom for themselves, they sure as hell can’t handle power over other people. If the last century has demonstrated nothing else, it has demonstrated that. Just consider the bloodbath perpetrated by the author of the barrel-of-a-gun quote.
Imagine a group of several million people from around the world signing a petition to the United Nations or whatever global governance organization the globalists foist on us. They ask for a small area, say no bigger than Rhode Island, or maybe Rhode Island itself, in which they are allowed to set up their own country and live in freedom, with a minimalist government or no government at all. They volunteer to pay the expenses for anyone who doesn’t want to live in Freedomland to move to the location of their choice.
If you’re shaking your head at the impossibility of such a proposal, are you doing so because people could never live together in freedom or because the world’s powerful would never allow it? The former answer involves such a dim view of human nature it’s a wonder those who believe it even get out of bed in the morning. The latter answer is based on a clear understanding of the world’s powerful.
Mel Gibson shouted it in Braveheart: Freedom! It’s an ideal that’s animated the best of humanity for centuries, the discussion of which is the first thing repressive regimes censor. If discussion is impermissible, then a real-life test of that which they hate and fear is out of the question; its success would be an irrefutable reproach to their professed politics and their psychopathic psyches. Freedom and tyranny can’t live under the same roof. The chaos and violence engulfing Hong Kong was foreordained in 1997. Gibson was drawn and quartered.
However, the dinosaur—predatory government—faces its extinction. Those who worship and those who hate state power both sense that titanic forces are at work, that earthshaking changes are coming. Real power, the power to create, invent, build, and produce—the power of the mind—awaits its full liberation. The war for freedom will be bloody and chaotic, but it’s a war that must be fought…and won.
On the other side of that valley, havens will emerge in which humanity is finally free to reach its vast, glorious potential. That’s worth fighting for.
The US withdrawal from Syria, even if it was immediately corrected, indicates with certainty that Washington no longer intends to be the world’s policeman, the “necessary Empire”. It destabilized without delay all the rules of international relations. We have entered a period of transition during which each major power is pursuing a new agenda. Here are the main ones.
The collapse of the Soviet Union could have caused the collapse of the United States, since the two empires were leaning on each other. This was not the case. President George Bush Sr. ensured with Operation Desert Storm that Washington became the undisputed leader of all nations, then demobilized 1 million soldiers and proclaimed the quest for prosperity.
Transnational corporations then signed a pact with Deng Xiaoping to have their products manufactured by Chinese workers, who were paid twenty times less than their American counterparts. This led to a considerable development of international freight transport, followed by the gradual disappearance of jobs and the middle classes in the United States. Industrial capitalism was replaced by financial capitalism.
At the end of the 1990s, Igor Panarin, a professor at the Russian Diplomatic Academy, analyzed the economic and psychological collapse of American society. He hypothesized that the country would break up along the lines of what had happened to the Soviet Union with the emergence of new states. To repel the collapse, Bill Clinton freed his country from international law with NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia. As this effort proved insufficient, US personalities imagined adapting their country to financial capitalism and organizing, by force, international trade so that the coming period would be a “new American century”. With George Bush Jr., the United States abandoned its position as a leading nation and tried to transform itself into an absolute unipolar power. They launched the “endless war” or “war on terrorism” to destroy one by one all state structures in the “broader Middle East”. Barack Obama continued this quest by associating a host of allies with it.
This policy paid off, but only a very few benefited, the “super-rich”. The Americans responded by electing Donald Trump as president of the federal state. He broke with his predecessors and, like Mikhail Gorbachev in the USSR, tried to save the United States by relieving it of its most costly commitments. He boosted the economy by encouraging national industries against those that had relocated their jobs. He subsidized the extraction of shale oil and managed to take control of the world hydrocarbon market despite the cartel formed by OPEC and Russia. Aware that his army is first and foremost a huge bureaucracy, wasting a huge budget on insignificant results, he stopped supporting Daesh and the PKK, negotiating with Russia a way to end the “endless war” with as little loss as possible.
In the coming period, the United States will be driven primarily by the need to save on all its actions abroad, until it abandons them if necessary. The end of imperialism is not a choice, but an existential question, a survival reflex.
After Zhao Ziyang’s attempted coup d’état and the Tiananmen uprising, Deng Xioping began his “journey south”. He announced that China would continue its economic liberalization by entering into contracts with US multinationals.
Jiang Zemin continued on this path. The coast became a “workshop of the world”, causing gigantic economic development. Gradually he cleaned the Communist Party of its caciques and ensured that well-paid jobs extended inland. Hu Jintao, concerned about a “harmonious society”, repeals the taxes paid by peasants in the interior regions still not affected by economic development. But he failed to control the regional authorities and fell into corruption.
Xi Jinping proposed to open up new markets by building a huge project of international trade routes, the “Silk Roads”. However, this project came too late because, unlike in antiquity, China no longer offers original products, but what transnational corporations sell at a lower price. This project was welcomed as a blessing by poor countries, but feared by the rich who are preparing to sabotage it. Xi Jinping is taking up positions in all the islets his country had abandoned in the China Sea, during the collapse of the Qing Empire and the occupation by the eight foreign armies. Aware of the destructive power of the West, he formed an alliance with Russia and refrained from any international political initiative.
In the coming period, China should affirm its positions in international fora, bearing in mind what the colonial empires imposed on it in the 19th century. But it should refrain from military intervention and remain a strictly economic power.
When the USSR collapsed, the Russians believed they would save themselves by adhering to the Western model. In fact, Boris Yeltsin’s team, trained by the CIA, organized the looting of collective property by a few individuals. In two years, about a hundred of them, 97% of them from the Jewish minority, took everything available and became billionaires. These new oligarchs fought each other mercilessly with machine guns and attacks in the middle of Moscow, while President Yeltsin bombed parliament. Without a real government, Russia was nothing more than a wreck. Warlords and jihadists armed by the CIA organized the secession of Chechnya. The standard of living and life expectancy collapsed.
In 1999, FSB Director Vladimir Putin rescued President Yeltsin from an investigation for corruption. In exchange, he was appointed President of the Council of Ministers; a position he used to force the President to resign and get himself elected. He put in place a vast policy of state restoration: he put an end to the civil war in Chechnya and methodically killed all the oligarchs who refused to comply with the state. The return of order was also the end of the Russian Western fantasy. Living standards and life expectancy improved.
Having restored the rule of law, Vladimir Putin did not stand for re-election after two consecutive terms. He supported a pale law professor, worshipped by the United States, Dmitry Medvedev, to succeed him. But not intending to leave power in weak hands, he was appointed Prime Minister until his re-election as President in 2012. Wrongly believing that Russia would collapse again, Georgia attacked South Ossetia, but instantly found Prime Minister Putin in its path. He then saw the pitiful state of the Red Army, but managed to overcome it thanks to the effect of surprise. Re-elected President, he focused on defence reform. He retired hundreds of thousands of officers, often disillusioned and sometimes drunk, and placed the Tuvan general (Turkish-speaking Siberian) Sergei Choïgou in the Ministry of Defence.
Adopting a traditional Russian management style, Vladimir Putin separated the civilian budget from part of the military budget. The first is voted by the Duma, the second is secret. He restored military research, while the United States imagined that it would no longer have to invest in this area. He tested a number of new weapons before deploying the new Red Army to help Syria. He experimented with his new weapons in combat situations and decided which ones would be produced and which ones would be abandoned. He organized a quarterly rotation of his troops so that all of them, one after the other, would become stronger. The Russian Federation, which in 1991 was nothing more than nothing, became the world’s leading military power in eighteen years.
At the same time, he used the Nazi coup d’état in Ukraine to reclaim Crimea, a Russian territory administratively linked to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev. He then faced a campaign of European Union agricultural sanctions that he used to create self-sufficient domestic production.
He forged an alliance with China and forced it to modify its Silk Roads project by integrating the communication needs of Russian territory to form an “Extended Eurasia Partnership”.
In the coming years, Russia will try to reorganise international relations on two bases: to separate political and religious powers; to restore international law on the basis of the principles formulated by Tsar Nicholas II.
When the USSR fell, the United Kingdom subscribed with reservations to the Maastricht Treaty. Conservative Prime Minister John Major intended to take advantage of the supranational state under construction while keeping his currency out of the way. So he rejoiced when George Soros attacked the Pound and forced it out of the EMS (“monetary snake”). His successor, Labourist Tony Blair, restored full independence to the Bank of England and considered leaving the EU to join NAFTA. He transformed the defence of his country’s interests by substituting references to human rights for respect for international law. He promoted the US policies of Bill Clinton, then George Bush Jr., encouraging and justifying the enlargement of the European Union, the “humanitarian war” against Kosovo, and the overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. In 2006, he developed the “Arab Spring” plan and submitted it to the United States.
Gordon Brown hesitated to pursue this policy and tried to regain some room to manoeuvre, but his energy was caught up in the 2008 financial crisis, which he managed to get through. David Cameron implemented, with Barack Obama, the Blair-Bush plan for the “Arab Spring”, including the war against Libya, but eventually only partially succeeded in placing the Muslim Brotherhood in power in the broader Middle East. In the end, he resigned after the Brexit voters voted, when the project to join NAFTA was no longer on the agenda.
Theresa May proposed to apply Brexit with regard to the exit of the supranational state from the Maastricht Treaty, but not with regard to the exit from the common market prior to Maastricht. She failed and was replaced by Winston Churchill’s biographer, Boris Johnson. He decided to leave the European Union completely and to reactivate the kingdom’s traditional foreign policy: the fight against any competing state on the European continent.
If Boris Johnson remains in power, the United Kingdom should in the coming years try to pit the European Union and the Russian Federation against each other.
François Mitterrand did not understand the dislocation of the USSR, going so far as to support the generals’ putsch against his Russian counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev. In any case, he saw an opportunity to build a European supranational state, big enough to compete with the USA and China in the continuity of the Napoleonic attempt. Together with Chancellor Helmut Kohl, he promoted German unification and the Maastricht Treaty. Worried about this United States of Europe project, President Bush Sr, convinced of the “Wolfowitz doctrine” of preventing the emergence of a new challenger to the US leadership, forced him to accept NATO’s protection of the EU and its extension to former members of the Warsaw Pact. François Mitterrand used cohabitation and the Gaullist Minister of the Interior, Charles Pasqua, to fight the Muslim Brotherhood that the CIA had made him accept in France and that MI6 used to oust France from Algeria.
Jacques Chirac developed French deterrence by completing air nuclear tests in the Pacific before moving on to simulations and signing the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). At the same time, he adapted the armies to NATO’s needs by ending compulsory military service and integrating the Alliance’s Military Committee (planning). He supported NATO’s initiative against Yugoslavia (Kosovo war), but – after reading and studying 1]- took the lead in global opposition to aggression against Iraq. This episode allowed him to bond with Chancellor Helmut Kohl and to advance the European supranational state, which he always conceived as a tool of independence around the Franco-German couple. Disrupted by the assassination of his business partner, Rafik Hariri, he turned against Syria, which the United States referred to as the mastermind behind the murder. [
Advocating a radically different policy, Nicolas Sarkozy placed the French army under US command via NATO’s Integrated Command. He tried to enlarge the French area of influence by organizing the Union for the Mediterranean, but this project did not work. He proved his worth by overthrowing Laurent Bagbo in Côte d’Ivoire and, although he was overtaken by Arab springs in Tunisia and Egypt, he led NATO’s operation against Libya and Syria. However, for the sake of realism, he noted the Syrian resistance and withdrew from the theatre of operation. He continued the construction of the United States of Europe by having the Lisbon Treaty adopted by Parliament, even though the voters had rejected the same text under the name of the “European Constitution”. In reality, the modification of institutions, which are supposed to become more effective with 27 Member States, is profoundly transforming the supra-national State, which can now impose its will on Member States.
Coming to power without being prepared for it, François Hollande followed in Nicolas Sarkozy’s footsteps in a somewhat rigid way, forcing him to adopt the latter¹s ideology. He signed all the treaties that his predecessor had negotiated – including the European Budget Pact allowing Greece to be sanctioned – adding to them each time, as if to apologise for his reversal, a declaration setting out his own point of view, but without binding force. Thus he authorized the establishment of NATO military bases on French soil, putting a definitive end to the Gaullist doctrine of national independence. Or he continued the policy of aggression against Syria, making a verbal overbid before doing nothing on the White House’s orders. He assigned the French Army a mission in the Sahel, as a ground-based substitute for AfriCom. Finally, he justified the CO2 emissions trading exchange by the Paris Climate Agreement.
Elected thanks to the American investment fund KKR, Emmanuel Macron is first and foremost an advocate of globalization according to Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr. and Barack Obama. However, he quickly adopted the vision of François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac according to which only a European supranational state would allow France to continue to play a significant international role, but in its Sarkozy-Holland version: the Union allows constraint. These two lines sometimes lead to contradictions, particularly with regard to Russia. However, they are united in a condemnation of the nationalism of the Member States of the European Union, a short Brexit, or a desire to restore trade with Iran.
In the coming years, France should measure its decisions in terms of their impact on the building of the European Union. It will seek as a priority to ally itself with any power working in this direction.
Chancellor Helmut Kohl saw the break-up of the Soviet Empire as an opportunity to bring the two Germanies together. He obtained the green light from France in exchange for German support for the European Union’s single currency project, the euro. He also obtained the agreement of the United States, which saw it as a way to divert the East German army into NATO despite the promise made to Russia not to allow the German Democratic Republic to join.
Once German reunification was achieved, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder raised the question of his country’s international role, still under attack from its defeat in the Second World War. Although Germany is no longer militarily occupied by the four major powers, it nevertheless hosts huge US garrisons and the headquarters of EuCom and soon AfriCom. Gerhard Schöder used the “humanitarian” war against Kosovo to legally deploy German troops out of the country for the first time since 1945. But he refused to recognize this territory conquered by NATO as a state. Similarly, he is very strongly committed alongside President Chirac against the United States-British war in Iraq, stressing that there is no evidence that President Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of September 11th. He tried to influence European integration in a peaceful way. He therefore strengthened energy ties with Russia and proposed a federal Europe (including Russia in the long term) based on the German model, but he met with opposition from France, which is very attached to the project of a supra-national state.
Chancellor Angela Merkel returned to the politics of her mentor Helmut Kohl, who handed her over in one night from her responsibilities at the Communist Youth of Democratic Germany to the Federal Government of Germany. Closely monitored by the CIA, which is not sure how to define her, she strengthened Germany’s ties with Israel and Brazil. In 2013, on Hillary Clinton’s proposal, she asked Volker Pethes to study the possibility of developing the German army to play a central role in CentCom if the United States moved its troops to the Far East. She then commissioned studies on how German officers could supervise the armies of Central and Eastern Europe and asked Volker Perthes to write a plan for Syria’s surrender. Very attached to Atlanticist and European structures, she distanced herself from Russia and supported the Nazi coup d’état in Ukraine. In order to be effective, she required that the European Union impose its will on small Member States (Lisbon Treaty). She was very tough during the Greek financial crisis and patiently placed her pawns in the European bureaucracy until Ursula von der Leyen was elected President of the European Commission. When the United States withdrew from northern Syria, she immediately responded by proposing to NATO to send the German army to replace it in accordance with the 2013 plan.
In the coming years, Germany should focus on the possibilities of military intervention in the framework of NATO, particularly in the Middle East, and be wary of the project of a centralised European super-national state.
It is very strange to hear today about “multilateralism” and “isolationism” or “universalism” and “nationalism”. These questions do not arise because everyone has known since the Hague Conference (1899) that technological progress has made all nations in solidarity. This logorrhoea does not hide our inability to admit the new power relations and to envisage a world order that is as unjust as possible.
Only the three Great Powers can hope to have the means to implement their policies. They can only achieve their ends without war by following the Russian line based on international law. However, the danger of internal political instability in the United States raises more than ever the risk of a generalized confrontation.
When they left the Union, the British were forced to join the United States (which Donald Trump rejected) or to disappear politically. While Germany and France, which are losing ground, have no choice but to build the European Union. However, for the time being, they assess the time available very differently and consider it in two incompatible ways, which could lead them to disrupt the European Union themselves.
 , Thierry Meyssan, Carnot 2002.
French intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.
The articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is cited, their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND).