2016 abu. 25
(ii) AEB, inperioa, Brzezinski
“The main architect of Washington’s plan to rule the world has abandoned the scheme and called for the forging of ties with Russia and China. (…)
Here’s an excerpt from the article in the AI:
“As its era of global dominance ends, the United States needs to take the lead in realigning the global power architecture. (…)
Repeat: The US is “no longer the globally imperial power.” (…)
Brzezinski presents a rational but self-serving plan to climb-down, minimize future conflicts, avoid a nuclear conflagration and preserve the global order. (aka–The “dollar system”) (…).“
(iii) Frantzia eta euroaren kantzerra
French support for the EU project is crumbling on the Left and Right2
“François Heisbourg, chairman of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Paris and a pillar of the French establishment, published a prophetic book three years ago entitled ‘The End of the European Dream‘.
He argued that the “euro cancer” must be cut out to save what can be saved of the European project, warning that current course of perpetual crises will end in a “nervous breakdown”.
“The dream has given way to nightmare. We are not going to avoid it by denying the reality, and God knows denial has been the operating mode of those in charge of EU institutions for a long time.”
Mr Heisbourg was ignored. Events are playing out exactly as he feared.”
(iv) Alemania eta banku handiak
Europe’s Bank Crisis Arrives In Germany: €29 Billion Bremen Landesbank On The Verge Of Failure3
(v) Grezia hasiera zen
“Can the European Union change from within, as former minister of finance Yanis Varoufakis believes?
It is precisely this idea — that the eurozone is simply broken, and so can be fixed by adding some regulatory frameworks — that set Syriza on the path to defeat in the negotiations with the troika.
The eurozone is not broken — it is structured to produce the results we are seeing. Any macroeconomic imbalance under EMU institutional arrangements leads to adjustment at the expense of labor income, employment protection, and social services, by means of labor market reform and deconstruction of the welfare state.
The eurozone is not just a currency area, it is a capital accumulation regime in which certain tendencies prevail — including the tendencies to remove social protections, to decrease wages, and to abolish the social and political rights that are the core of citizenship. These effects are embedded in the architecture and the operation mode of the eurozone. It was built that way. So you can’t fix it.”
(vi) Finantza eta Ekonomia
“The key question is whether finance will be industrialized — the hope of nineteenth-century bank reformers — or whether industry will be financialized, as is occurring today. (…)
… The credit system has been warped into an increasingly perverse interface with rent-extracting activities. Bank credit is directed into the property sector, with preference to rent-extraction privileges, not the goods- and-service sector. (…)
The 2008 financial crash pushed the bubble economy to a new stage, characterized by foreclosures and bailouts. Faced with a choice between saving the “real” economy by writing down its debt burden or reimbursing the banks (and ultimately their bondholders and counterparties) for losses and defaults on loans gone bad, the policy response of the US and European governments and their central banks was to save the banks and bondholders (who incidentally are the largest class of political campaign contributors). This policy choice preserved the remarkable gains that the “One Percent” had made, while keeping the debts in place for the “99 Percent.” This accelerated the polarization that already was gaining momentum between creditors and debtors. The political consequence was to subsidize the emerging financial oligarchy.”
(vii) Eurolandia, CIA eta Brexit
The European Union always was a CIA project, as Brexiteers discover5
(a) Europar Batasuna beti izan da proiektu amerikar bat6
(b) Eurolandiaz, bi ikuspegi desberdin7
(c) Dena hasi zen Washingtonen8
(d) Truman-en jarrera bistakoa zen: Jean Monnet eta Charles de Gaulle9
(e) CIA-ren parte hartzea Europa Batasunaren eratzean10
(f) Gerla ‘hotzaren’ ondorioak: isilpeko azpijokoak11
(g) Brexiters eta etorkizuna12
Azken lantxo hau jadanik ikusi dugu blog honetan MRW izeneko baten zenbait kritikarekin: Europar Batasuna: zer ote da? CIA-k bultzatu ote zuen?
Oraingo honetan Ambrose Evans-Pritchard autoreari kasu egin diogu.
Dena den, bi kasuetan (Evans-Pritchard-en bertsioan, alegia, CIA bera Eurolandiaren proiektuaren hasieran bertan egondakoa esaten dueneko bertsioan, zein Alain Parguez-ek aipatu zuenekoan) argi dago europar moneta bakarra lortzeko aparteko ahaleginak egin zirela.
Demokraziaren aurka aspalditik planifikatutako proiektu bat da; proiektu totalitario bat.;euroa munstro bat da; Estatua desagertu behar zen, abolitu behar zuten; … Aukera bakarra: Eurexit”, in Europar Batasuna: zer ote da? CIA-k bultzatu ote zuen?
(Gogoratu, beste alde batetik, Barack Obama AEB-ko presidentea Brexit-en aurka egon dela.)
Laburbilduz eta aurrera begira,
Zer ote dago DTM-tik kanpo, Eurolandiako aparteko desastre ikaragarriari aurre egiteko?
(a) Europar Batasuna proiektu zehatz bat da, the results we are seeing lortzeko, besterik ez
(b) Greziako desastrea proiektu orokor horren ondorioen hasiera izan da, besterik ez
Beraz, galdera zuzena:
Banku erraldoiak segituko ditugu salbatzen ala DTM-koei kasu egingo diegu eta Eurexit martxan jarri?
6 Ingelesez: “Brexiteers should have been prepared for the shattering intervention of the US. The European Union always was an American project.
It was Washington that drove European integration in the late 1940s, and funded it covertly under the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations.”
7 Ingelesez: “While irritated at times, the US has relied on the EU ever since as the anchor to American regional interests alongside NATO.
There has never been a divide-and-rule strategy.
The eurosceptic camp has been strangely blind to this, somehow supposing that powerful forces across the Atlantic are egging on British secession, and will hail them as liberators.
The anti-Brussels movement in France – and to a lesser extent in Italy and Germany, and among the Nordic Left – works from the opposite premise, that the EU is essentially an instrument of Anglo-Saxon power and ‘capitalisme sauvage’. “
8 Ingelesez: “The Schuman Declaration that set the tone of Franco-German reconciliation – and would lead by stages to the European Community – was cooked up by the US Secretary of State Dean Acheson at a meeting in Foggy Bottom. “It all began in Washington,” said Robert Schuman’s chief of staff.
It was the Truman administration that browbeat the French to reach a modus vivendi with Germany in the early post-War years, even threatening to cut off US Marshall aid at a furious meeting with recalcitrant French leaders they resisted in September 1950.”
9 Ingelesez: “Truman’s motive was obvious. The Yalta settlement with the Soviet Union was breaking down. He wanted a united front to deter the Kremlin from further aggrandizement after Stalin gobbled up Czechoslovakia, doubly so after Communist North Korea crossed the 38th Parallel and invaded the South.
For British eurosceptics, Jean Monnet looms large in the federalist pantheon, the emminence grise of supranational villainy. Few are aware that he spent much of his life in America, and served as war-time eyes and ears of Franklin Roosevelt.
General Charles de Gaulle thought him an American agent, as indeed he was in a loose sense. Eric Roussel’s biography of Monnet reveals how he worked hand in glove with successive administrations.
It is odd that this magisterial 1000-page study has never been translated into English since it is the best work ever written about the origins of the EU.
Nor are many aware of declassified documents from the State Department archives showing that US intelligence funded the European movement secretly for decades, and worked aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into the project.”
10 Ingelesez: “As this newspaper first reported when the treasure became available, one memorandum dated July 26, 1950, reveals a campaign to promote a full-fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the Central Inteligence Agency.
The key CIA front was the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE), chaired by Donovan. Another document shows that it provided 53.5 per cent of the European movement’s funds in 1958. The board included Walter Bedell Smith and Allen Dulles, CIA directors in the Fifties, and a caste of ex-OSS officials who moved in and out of the CIA.”
11 Ingelesez: “Papers show that it treated some of the EU’s ‘founding fathers’ as hired hands, and actively prevented them finding alternative funding that would have broken reliance on Washington.
There is nothing particularly wicked about this. The US acted astutely in the context of the Cold War. The political reconstruction of Europe was a roaring success.
There were horrible misjudgments along the way, of course. A memo dated June 11, 1965, instructs the vice-president of the European Community to pursue monetary union by stealth, suppressing debate until the “adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable“. This was too clever by half, as we can see today from debt-deflation traps and mass unemployment across southern Europe.”
12 Ingelesez: “It is true that America had second thoughts about the EU once the ideological fanatics gained ascendancy in the late 1980s, recasting the union as a rival superpower with ambitions to challenge and surpass the US.
The dangers from Russia and China are of course interlinked. It is likely – pessimists say certain – that Vladimir Putin would seize on a serious blow-up on Pacific rim to try his luck in Europe. In the eyes of Washington, Ottawa, Canberra, and those capitals around the world that broadly view Pax Americana as a plus, this is not the time for Britain to lob a stick of dynamite into Europe’s rickety edifice.
The awful truth for the Leave campaign is that the governing establishment of the entire Western world views Brexit as strategic vandalism. Whether fair or not, Brexiteers must answer this reproach. A few such as Lord Owen grasp the scale of the problem. Most seemed blithely unaware until Mr Obama blew into town last week.
The Brexiteers should squelch any suggestion that EU withdrawal means resiling from global responsibility, or tearing up the European Convention (that British-drafted, non-EU, Magna Carta of freedom), or turning our backs on the COP21 climate accords, or any other of the febrile flirtations of the movement.
It is perhaps too much to expect a coherent plan from a disparate group, thrown together artificially by events. Yet many of us who are sympathetic to the Brexit camp, who also want to take back our sovereign self-government and escape the bogus and usurped supremacy of the European Court of Justice, have yet to hear how Brexiteers think this extraction can occur without colossal collateral damage and in a manner consistent with the honour of this country.(…)”