An Idea of a Europe That Is Very Different From the One We Have Today March 9, 2017 Op-ed By Ollie Richardson With the sun beginning to set on the Anglo-Saxon empire, it comes as no surprise that political parties who oppose the paradoxical nature of the Liberal ideology are starting to become exponentially more popular. As this trend spreads eastwards, nations who allowed themselves to become US banana republics find themselves in a race against time to suddenly discover some sovereignty before the multipolar train departs the station. On 06.03.17, the leader of Lega Nord (non-liberal party) in Italy Matteo Salvini met up with Sergey Lavrov in Moscow, the result of which was the signing of a cooperation agreement. Whilst the details of the agreement are also intriguing, the comments made by Salvini himself really offer an insight into the direction Europe is heading in. “The European Union does not defend any more employment, borders, banks, agriculture, and there is uncontrolled unemployment and immigration.” [The European Union is not as united as before] because it responds to the interests of a few only, not those of the majority. We have have seen it with Brexit, and with the Italian referendum as well. There are elections in the Netherlands, in France, Germany; we hope [that there will be some] soon also in Austria and Italy. The citizens want to control again the currency, borders, banks and employment. In Italy, unemployment has returned to 12 percent, youth unemploment to 40 percent. New babies are not being born: the worst data was [the one of] last year, [when only] 474,000 babies [were born]. People want to believe again in the future, to work, to hope. Therefore [they want to be] far away from Renzi and from the European Union. The sanctions against Russia are a folly, one of the main follies enforced by the European Union. [These sanctions] cost Italy at least 6 billion euro, [divided] in all sectors including fashion, textile, furniture, agroalimentary. Thus [the sanctions] have demonstrated that this European Union defends the interest of others, and not that of Italians or those of Europeans. It is a farce: the Russia Gate, Russian hackers influencing Trump’s elections and the Italian referendum. They’re hoaxes, they’re mainstream: newspapers, radios and televisions that are paid by others in order to defame those who think differently. However, I don’t think that [these hoaxes] will influence [the current situation].” The following day, on 07.03.2017, Salvini visited a refugee center in Milan and then afterwards rallied outside the Montello barracks. Speaking about his meeting with Lavrov the day prior, Salvini made an eye-catching comment: “We shared an idea of a Europe which is very different from the one we have today”. From Salvini’s comments alone it is increasingly apparent that the post 9/11 reformatting of Europe is starting to fade away. The pendent dangled before the eyes of the European tax payer in the form of generic concepts like “terrorism” (makes citizens afraid and keeps them in the grasp of the liberal order), “tolerance” (allows the displacement of civilians in the Middle East to happen without global outrage), and “a world without borders” (allows the said displaced persons, sometimes Jihadists, but usually economic migrants, to cross the borders without any outrage) plunged the continent into a state of total submission to their “elite” masters. Thus, Europe could be mobilised against the long time pseudo-boogeyman Russia. In a wider context, Salvini is referring to the fact that Europe has been a hostage for the last 100 years to the ideas of the founding fathers of the Liberal ideology: In World War I, Europe was used as a battleground to ensure that the Kaiser’s Germany did not surpass the Anglo Saxon empire both economically and militarily. Once countries like France were tightly shackled by London & Co, the mission to fight the Ottomans, loot raw materials, and to annex Palestine began. In World War II, Europe was once again used as a battleground, this time as a training ground for Hitler’s “military machine”, which was unleashed against the USSR once enough momentum had been achieved. Colonisation of MENA worked as a supplementary programme in order to keep the European treasuries in the positive. After the cold war years, where the US found itself at an impasse with the USSR, the events post September 11th, 2001, marked the “make or break” phase of the great Liberal plan. Following the submission of an outpost of the Russian nation (Yugoslavia), hyper aggression was used against former colonial nations that still exhibited some sovereignty and resistance to the Anglo Saxon slavery (whilst the MIC made some cash too), using “spreading democracy” (another vague term, the effectiveness of which preys on the total subordination of the tax payer) as the pretext. The Afghanistan and Iraq incursions were a disaster. It was at this time the Pentagon realised just how ineffective and useless the weathered US “military machine” had become. However, contrary to popular belief, for the US Libya was not a disaster. The main aim here was to create an open arena where weapons could be smuggled from Africa to the Levant. Of course, pillaging the gold and oil reserves is an added “bonus”, but Africa as a continent is a gift that keeps on giving in this domain. The current stage – Syria – proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back. Italy, which has suffered directly from forced migration from Libya, is certainly not an isolated case in this sea of change. After being culturally, economically, and militarily hijacked by the “stars and stripes”, the inevitable is now starting to happen – widespread European detachment from the yankee chain. Civilisations come and go, but they are never totally erased. The remaining atoms simply form a new structure – the old structure (European Union) being an American tool that made it possible for the US to control many different nations simultaneously, and to place nuclear weapons closer to Russia. Today, whether it is a new German reality after decades of consequences of post WW1 hyperinflation, a new French reality after being occupied by the US after the Normandy landings, or a new Italian reality after being selected as an incubator for Operation Gladio, the sum of the parts of European reconfiguration creates a new collective conscious. But in order for the multipolar collective conscience to take shape, there is just one obstacle – Ukraine. An old, failed globalist project of Washington’s era of “exceptionalism”, which was supposed to provide a permanent base of NATO deployment. Although Obama succeeded to drive a wedge between the Russian nation, it was not a decisive one. Russians are killing Russians in Donbass, but time is running out for the regime in Kiev. After Putin’s Minsk checkmate, slowly but surely the very sponsors of the coup d’etat in Kiev, 2014, are starting to wash their hands of the failed project. Britain (see the BBC’s Yatsenyuk interview) is glancing at the exit, France (see the Pierre Malinowski interview after he visited Yasinovataya in Donetsk) is also looking at the exit, Germany is sat on two chairs, which is an improvement on the previous position of being sat on Uncle Sam’s lap, and Italy has recently opened a DPR representative centre – another declaration of “get me out of here”. Thus, with a thirst for economic prosperity developing over the Atlantic, Trump and his team are unquestionably working on a plan to substitute Poroshenko for someone more preferable. This will most likely happen the legal way, possibly by impeachment or a vote of no confidence. The aim of a change of Ukrainian leadership will be to at least put the domestic economy on life-support. Currently it is bleeding from an open wound, created by the lance of the IMF. This stream of blood is no longer viable since the Syria project is no longer bringing the US any returns, although the recent deployment of 400 US marines will ensure that at least a chunk of the North East (Raqqa) will remain the US’. In this context, Trump can and will use Ukraine as a convenient bargaining chip, possibly to guarantee the seizure of the aforementioned chunk of Syria. What happens after Poroshenko’s removal is anybody’s guess. The appointment of Tymoshenko could make the wound turn sceptic, but the main thing is that the ties to the Obama-era administration are severed. Then, and only then, can anything even resembling an economic recovery begin. However, any recovery could be short-lived, as currently a “new cold war” has started. The US and Russia’s weapons-plus-proxies have reached a stalemate, and currently the US’ only foothold in the Middle East is in Tel Aviv and Riyadh. By the time Ukraine starts to see a workable debt-GDP ratio, the next George Bush could take the reins after Trump. At this moment another major war could happen – Israel/Lebanon being a prime example. It is hoped that at this time Europe is able to think independently and oppose any crazy ideas that Washington may have. Copyright © 2017. All Rights Reserved. Stephen McCourt Great article, but I’m not sure I share your hope for the future. Does Trump not have his owners to please? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZVxMO9PAoE&list=LLa3hCsdJzQ1fQXfqMXqPpvQ&index=2 Ollie Richardson Hi Stephen, I understand what you are alluding to. I think the “owners” you speak of are certainly putting pressure on him and his team to annex more land in the Levant, but Russia has made it concretely clear, both verbally and militarily, that it will not tolerate such a prospect any longer. S-400 in Latakia ensures that the IDF stay within their means, although I don’t exclude some leniency regarding the southern borders of Syria. Trump will have to find a balance between appeasing Tel Aviv and also not upsetting Russia’s ally Iran. Good luck, although JFK didn’t succeed in this.