AUTHOR: TYLER DURDEN
Written Alastair Crooke,
For any time now, I have been writing that Europe (and the US) are in a period of alternating revolution and civilian war.
History warns us that specified conflicts tend to extend, and highest episodes are revolutionary (when the dominant paradigm breaks first); but in reality they are only alternate modes of the same—the "change" between revolutionary peaks and the slow "draw" of intense cultural warfare.
I believe we live in specified an age.
I besides suggested that a slow emerging counter-revolution emerges – challengingly reluctant to renounce conventional moral values, nor ready to submit to oppression, non-liberal global order, pretending to be Liberal.
However, I did not anticipate that in Europe there would be "the first shoe to fall" – that France would be the first to break the non-liberal pattern. (I thought it would break down in the United States first.)
The result of the elections to the European Parliament can be seen as a "first swallow" signaling a crucial change in weather. In the UK and France there are to be early elections, and Germany (and besides most of Europe) are in a state of political chaos.
But do not be deceived! The cold reality is that Western "power structures" are owners of wealth, key institutions in society and the lever of law enforcement. To put it plainly, they keep "the tops of the command." How will the West cope with moral, political, and possibly financial decline? Most likely by doubling the rate, without compromise.
And this predictable "double" does not necessarily limit itself to fighting in the "Coliseum" arena. This will surely hit high-risk geopolitics.
There is no uncertainty that American "structures" will be profoundly afraid about the announcement of the European elections. What does European rebellion against the establishment mean for the ruling structures in Washington, especially at a time erstwhile the full planet sees Joe Biden clearly wobbly?
How will they reverse "us" from this first crack in their global structural building?
We are already dealing with a US-led military escalation – allegedly linked to Ukraine – but whose goal is, of course, to provoke Russia to retaliate. It seems that, through the gradual escalation of NATO's violations of Russia's strategical "red lines", the American hawks are striving to gain an escalation of the advantage over Moscow, leaving Moscow a dilemma as to how far to go. Western elite They don't truly believe in Moscow's warnings.
It may be that this provocative trick can offer either a fake image of the U.S.'s "winner" ("looking at Putin"), or, alternatively, supply an excuse to postpone the U.S. presidential election (as global tensions rise) – thus giving the permanent state time to set the "duck in line" to manage Biden's early succession.
However, this calculation depends on how fast Ukraine implodes militarily or politically.
Earlier than expected, Ukraine's implosion can become an excuse to return the US to Taiwanese "front" – a anticipation that is already being prepared.
Why is Europe rebelling?
The rebellion broke out due to the fact that many people in the West now see besides clearly that the western ruling structure is not a liberal task per se, but alternatively openly non-liberal mechanical "control system" (management technology) – which fraudulently poses for liberalism.
It is clear that many in Europe are alienated from the establishment. There may be many reasons – Ukraine, immigration or falling standard of life – but all Europeans are oriented in the communicative that past has bent to a long bow of liberalism (in the period after the Cold War).
However, this proved deceptive. Reality is control, surveillance, censorship, technocracy, lockdown and climate crisis. In short, non-liberalism, or even quasi-totalizticism. (Von der Leyen has late gone 1 step further, arguingthat "If you're reasoning about manipulating information like a virus, alternatively of treating the infection erstwhile it's settled in... It is much better to vaccinate for the body to be vaccinated").
So erstwhile did conventional liberalism (in the loosest definition) become nonliberal?
"Return" occurred in the 1970s.
In 1970, Zbig Brzeziński (later National safety Advisor to president Carter) published a book entitled: Between 2 Ages: America's function in the Technetronic Era. Brzeziński argued:
"Era technotronics involves the gradual emergence of a more controlled society. specified a society... dominated by the elite, unfettered by conventional values... [and practicing] continuous surveillance of all citizen[...].[with] manipulation of behaviour and intellectual functioning of all people[...]. [will become a fresh norm]".
In another place, he argued that "the national state as the primary unit of organized human life has ceased to be a major creative force: global banks and global corporations operate and plan on terms that are far ahead of the political concepts of the national state." (i.e. business cosmopolitanism as the future).
David Rockefeller and the power brokers surrounding him – along with his Bilderberg group – utilized Brzeziński's insights to represent the 3rd leg to guarantee that the 21st century would indeed be a "American century". The another 2 legs are control over oil resources and the hegemony of the dollar.
Then a key study came out, Growth limits (1971, Club of Rome (again Rockefeller's work), who provided Brzeziński with a profoundly flawed "scientific" basis: it predicted the end of civilization due to population growth, combined with exhausting resources (including, and possibly especially, exhausting energy resources).
This ominous forecast was to mean that only economical experts, method experts, global corporate leaders and banks have foresight and technological knowing to manage society – subject to complexity The Borders of Growth.
Limits to Growth It was a mistake. It was flawed, but it didn't matter: president Clinton's advisor at the UN conference in Rio, Tim Wirth, admitted his mistake, but cheerfully added: "We gotta deal with the issue of global warming. Even if the explanation is wrong, we will proceed "rightly" in economical policy."
The proposal was incorrect – but politics was right! economical policy has been turned upside down based on an erroneous analysis.
The "Godfather" of the further turn towards totalitarianism (except for David Rockefeller) was his protégé (and later "indispensable advisor" by Klaus Schwab), Maurice Strong. William Engdahl wrotethat "circles straight linked to David Rockefeller and Strong in the 1970s spawned a dazzling array of elite organizations and think tanks".
These included the Neomaltuzian Club in Rome; a survey by MIT: "Boundaries of Growth"and the Tripartite Commission".
However, the Tripartite Commission was the secret heart of the matrix. "When Carter took office in January 1976, his cabinet was almost exclusively composed of the ranks of the Rockefeller Tripartite Commission – to specified an astonishing degree that any Washington informants called it the 'Presidentship of Rockefeller'" – writes Engdahl.
Craig Karpel besides wrote in 1977:
"US presidency and key national government departments were taken over by a private organization to subjugate the US's interior interests to the global interests of banks and corporations. It would be unfair to say that the Tripartite Commission dominates Carter's administration. Tripartite Commission isCarter Administration".
"Every key position in the U.S. government's abroad and economical policy, since Carter's time, has been occupied by a tripartite" – writes Engdahl. And so it goes on – a matrix of overlapping members, which is not visible to the public, and about which it can be said very loosely that it was a "permanent state".
Did he be in Europe? Yeah, troops all over Europe.
This is the origin of the European "rebellion" that took place last weekend: many Europeans reject the concept of a controlled universe. Many of them surely do not want to quit their conventional lifestyle or national affiliation.
The Rockefellerian-Faust arrangement of the 1970s had 1 narrow section of the American ruling staff detaching from the American nation to occupy a separate reality in which they dismantled the organic economy for the benefit of oligarchy, with a "compensation" derived only from their adoption of an identity policy and a "fair" rotation of any diversity into corporate executive cabinets.
Looking in this way, Rockefeller's deal can be seen as a parallel to a South African "system" that ended apartheid: the Anglo-elity held on to economical resources and power, while the ANC, on the another side of the equation, received the Pothimkinian facade of taking over political power.
For Europeans, this Faustian "system" degrades people to the rank of identity units occupying spaces between markets and not markets as aids to an organic economy focused on man, as Karl Polanyi wrote about 80 years ago in A large transformation.
It was due to 1 reason: the belief that society can and should be organised through self-regulatory markets. For him, it meant nothing little than an ontological break with a large part of human history. He claimed that before the 19th century human economics had always been "set" in society: it was subject to local politics, customs, religion and social relations.
The inverse (the technocratic, non-liberal paradigm of Rockefeller's identity) only leads to a weakening of social ties; the atomization of the community; the deficiency of metaphysical content, and thus the deficiency of existential intent and meaning.
Non-liberalism is unsatisfying. He says, "You don't matter. You don't belong. Many Europeans seem to realize this now.
This someway leads us back to the question of how the western layers will respond to the emerging rebellion against the global order, which is accelerating worldwide – and which has now appeared in Europe, though with different shades and certain ideological baggage.
For now, it is not likely that the ruling layers compromise. Those who dominate have a tendency to existential fear: either inactive dominate or lose everything. All they see is simply a zero-sum game. The position of each organization shall be frozen. People meet more and more frequently only as "adversaries". Co-citizens become a dangerous threat to be faced.
So let us consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The leaders in the governing layers of the United States are made up of many zealous Zionist supporters of Israel. As global order begins to crack, this section of structural power in the US will most likely besides be uncompromising, fearing the consequence of a zero sum.
There is an Israeli communicative about war and "the communicative of the remainder of the world" – and they don't truly meet. How do we do that? The transformational effect of different perceptions of "others" – Israelis and Palestinians – is presently not considered.
This conflict can get much worse – and longer.
Can "ruled layers" – desperate for a certain consequence – effort to bargain (and effort to hide) the horrors of this Western Asian conflict as part of a wider geostrategic war? 1 in which larger crowds are displaced (overshadowing regional horror)?
Translated by Google Translator
source:https://www.zerohedge.com/
