23 September 2016

The European Establishment, Brexit and US Imperialism

France and Germany are trying to make a move in order to cement some autonomy and consolidate power. This is precisely what the US feared would happen as a result of Brexit.

This is why as much as the EU can be a source of grief for the Washington Establishment, they would rather have Europe united and Britain a part of that union. Britain has historically served as a check to the independent aspirations of Paris and Berlin.

American strategists want enough instability in Europe to keep NATO at the forefront. With the Western drive toward Russia, there's a strong desire to keep European Imperialism under wraps, or rather under the auspices of US sponsorship through the NATO command structure. It's something of a dance, a delicate balance. Historical forces keep trying to rear their head and the United States is trying to both harness and control these natural tendencies by dominating the theatre.

The last time the EU was ascendant and NATO in question, the instability of the Balkans and a faux-humanitarian argument were used as a justification to keep Europe within the American orbit. In other words the United States utilised the instability and conflict and widened them. The Balkan Wars became a project to help consolidate Europe and justify the existence of NATO. During the Cold War NATO was (for the sake of argument) defensive but in the post-Cold War era, NATO would be turned into an overt aggressor. Like a shark, if US Imperialism failed to keep swimming (expand) it was destined to die. That's no less true today. This (in part) explains the drive toward Russia and NATO involvement in Afghanistan.

In order to keep Europe within its fold, the US had to embolden its nations and foster militarism. But these forces once unleashed prove difficult to contain. For several years, due to the 'mismanagement' of the Bush administration, Europe was on the verge of slipping away. One of Obama's successes, whether acknowledged or not was to bring Europe back into a closer partnership with American Imperialism. The conflicts in Syria, Libya, Ukraine and the growing tensions with Russia and the refugee crisis have all helped US goals in this regard.

It is unlikely France and Germany will get too far down this path toward autonomy. German military and intelligence sectors are closely wed to Washington. France has more of a record of dissent when it comes to US policy and strategy and yet Germany is the only nation at this point that has enough European standing and economic power to pursue autonomy. The formula is somewhat dubious but the moment is ripe or at least contains possibilities.

The US may push for some sort of NATO action in order to keep the command structure under its firm control. During the Cold War the United States utilised 'stay behind' forces, basically clandestine far Right guerilla groups to foment terror across Europe under the guise of the extreme Left. Operation Gladio as it was known in Italy had its parallels in many of the nations of Europe. These operations attempted to steer European politics to the Right, toward anti-communist policies and into a stronger embrace with Washington.

Today the Middle Eastern wars have afforded CIA dominated Western intelligence agencies an opportunity to develop networks of arms smuggling and recruitment among the immigrant population. Ostensibly these networks are feeding and supporting the wars in Syria, Libya and elsewhere. And yet, this also affords opportunities to utilise elements within these networks to foster chaos and instability in Europe itself. Like Gladio during the Cold War, this new era of intelligence sponsored and permitted attacks drives European politics, incites militarism and empowers NATO and thus the United States. In virtually every case, the terrorists attacking Europe are known to the intelligence agencies. The 'Keystone Cops' argument is a ruse which simply feeds more money and power to these agencies. Are the agencies deliberately creating these cells and issuing orders? Not necessarily. They can create the conditions, monitor them and if convenient, look the other way.

This is dark and disturbing to many people and enters the realm of the unthinkable but there's a lot of evidence to suggest this is the case both yesterday and today, both in Europe and in the United States itself.

If France and Germany pursue this course, we must look for a new wave of terror attacks to bring their policies into line. The US has less control over French intelligence (both the DGSI and DGSE) than they do Germany's BND or BfV.  German intelligence has long been dominated by the United States going back to their utilisation of former Nazi Reinhard Gehlen to establish an 'organisation' in what would become West Germany. The Gehlen Organisation would eventually become the BND.

While the US collaborated with these agencies in the 1990s, particularly in the Balkans, in the wake of 9/11 there has been a concentrated effort on the part of the United States to establish closer ties and to integrate operations. Hints of these relationships have been revealed through leaks and investigative journalism. One thinks of the 'Alliance Base' outside Paris and German based Operation Eikonal, the collaborative project between the BND and the NSA.

The following link contains some interesting tidbits from the Stratfor leaks regarding French intelligence. It's also noteworthy that French terror attacks began in earnest under the Hollande administration... resulting in a Left-leaning government embracing militarism and now setting the stage for a resurgence of the French Right. History repeats itself.

Here's another sampling indicative of Washington's angst regarding French intelligence:

Many of the 'conflict' areas are with regard to industry.  This has been the case for many years.

This article from the 1990s while interesting, is laughable in that tries to pretend the United States doesn't do the same thing. The record of US espionage operations in France is long, established and dark. The Boeing- Airbus battle has been the source of particular vitriol and intrigue. It's bigger than just the corporations. These companies are intimately tied in with their military-industrial sectors.

Here are some additional links of pertinence:

The US has long funded the French Right (both Front National and formerly the OAS) and yet at this point their nativism and nationalism might harm US aspirations in both France and Europe. Sarkozy represent the type of 'balanced' Right-wing candidate the US wants to see, someone committed to Atlanticism and yet also militaristic and on board with US Imperialism.

The Brexit has definitely empowered Germany and has diminished British influence. More than ever the Brexit will lead not to British autonomy, but instead to its subjugation and dependence on the 'alliance' with Washington.

The Washington Post article (linked below) has a point. Fear of Trump plays a part in this, though this has long been an aspiration of the European Establishment. Trump and the present climate surrounding Brexit have created the climate for such a move. At this point, it's just talk, however you can be sure Washington is watching with great concern.

There's also another economic aspect to the story. Germany and France both wish to bolster their defense industries. It's an ugly but well known secret that these sectors play a huge part in Western economies, diplomacy and power for respected national Establishments. Europe has long been suppressed and subjugated to America's war economy. A new era of European autonomy would bring about an arms sales bonanza both within Europe and eventually without its borders.

Everyone is looking for high quality products, the types produced in Europe and something that frees them of being too dependent on the United States.

Many Christians are involved in US think-tank and defense sectors and unfortunately they have and will continue to participate in US attempts to derail European autonomy and in addition they are profiting from the expansion of American militarism. Christian brethren in Europe are being pulled into this climate of instability and growing militarism as their societies are polarised. Many Christians are distracted by the 'struggle for civilisation' and bitterness toward immigrants and European rivals as well romantic nationalist aspirations and irredentism. More than ever, Christians need to divorce themselves from the Establishment apparatus and live as Second-Class Citizens, strangers and pilgrims on the earth.


  1. If Brexit was a gash in Washington's European strategy, why allow a brainless lapdog like Cameron a chance to enact this? Was it a bluff to diffuse growing right-wing tension that, if successful, would calm down the population? That seems kind of reckless. Perhaps things just got out of control Washington handlers couldn't respond, or were ignored. I'm curious more about this part of the story. It was a staggering defeat for pro-EU Tories. Perhaps this represents factional infighting over the future of American foreign policy. I'm sure there are some people who have some vision of a US-led Europe that involved this sort of seeming debacle.

    I'm curious for any additional thoughts.

    1. I'm waiting for the book to be written on Cameron. Right now I'm inclined to think this all backfired and got away from him. He let the genie out of the bottle. If it was indeed a bluff, he totally misread the situation but it doesn't seem like he was alone.

      It would seem the Anglo-American Establishments have underestimated the social forces at work. They're being channeled into both Left and Right movements... although mostly Right at present. That's why I posted the Trotsky piece. I found his analysis of Hitler's ascent to be a fascinating parallel to our present day Right resurgence.

      As far as Washington goes.... in time the Obama State Department might come under scrutiny, even from centre-left historians. At this point I would argue his foreign policy has been misunderstood. I think he's not as clueless or amateur as he's being accused of and yet clearly from the standpoint of certain Establishment elements he hasn't been properly pro-active and aggressive and insuring the integrity of old alliances nor pushing US prerogatives abroad.

      I'm afraid 'weakness' is a term that is applicable whether viewing him from the standpoint of the Establishment, the nationalist or for that matter the Left. His apologists will argue (and with some reason) that he has been neutralised in a way never seen before. There's no doubt that's true but I think it's also true that he failed to utilise the power of his office and has proven a somewhat poor leader. Labour in the UK has tried to pin this on Corbyn for Brexit but the blame clearly belongs on Cameron. It is Cameron that failed to campaign sufficiently and let the narrative be hijacked.

      I say this as one who has no stake or real interest in his (or any of these figures) success or failure. I view it from the standpoint of the social currents and what they mean for the Church both in the US and overseas. I am interested but don't share any of the assumptions.

      What's worse for the Church... more of the same, the devil we know or the wild card factor? That's the question before me as I watch the Great American Reality Show of 2016.

      And of course the way I answer that question is completely different from how someone within the Christian Right would respond.

      I think the statement about in-fighting is accurate and its clear Europe is trying to make a move. Britain has been left out in the cold and the door is open for the first time since the early 1990s.

  2. I think your question partly assumes that the outcome of the Brexit referendum was a foregone conclusion. I don't think anyone seriously anticipated that result.

    What's telling, perhaps, is that shortly after it was over, there were already major news outlets featuring stories of people who "regretted" voting in favor of leaving the EU, as if they were "hung over" or didn't fully understand the issue. It was also telling that crowds of people confronted Parliament demanding a second referendum and that to this day, that is still a serious (and likely) possibility.

    Me? I'm biding my time waiting for the upcoming presidential debates. Should be good for a laugh.

    1. I'm also waiting to see if a 2nd referendum happens. But there's the other problem... if it fails and leads to a snap election, there's the risk of a Corbyn government. His Labour victory has seriously undermined any agenda in this regard. There are some very ticked off people in London right now.