Europa-Evropa-Europe: Union of Multinationals or Union of Peoples?

French troops in Mali.

(Gaither Stewart in Rome) The upsurge of Islamists in the north of Mali and the French expeditionary military force in support of the Mali government has opened the Pandora box of the future of the European Union (EU), its nature, and its relationship with the USA.

The EU nations are in agreement that “Europe” needs real political clout. Now a growing number agree with France that the EU needs also its own military clout. The continental big five of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland are backing the formation of EU military units in support of the creation of an EU military headquarters. Thus far British (read U.S.) opposition to independent EU military operations to rival the U.S.-led NATO command has overridden EU military ambitions.

France is the driving force for the creation of a defense structure separate from NATO. Its creation requires unanimous consent of EU member nations. Last September, 11 of the EU’s 27 nations voted in favor of scrapping the British veto right over the union’s defense policies. The goal of France and other nations involves the creation of a European army. Other nations fear the elimination of veto rights because it would limit the sovereignty of member states.

French intervention in Mali has provided a pretext for such a structure. The EU is not just talking about whether to send troops to join the French in Mali, but what the duties of the hundreds of troops will be. Italy announced yesterday that it will send 25 specialists to train Mali troops to combat the Islamist insurgents now occupying north Mali, a territory the size of France, including the famous town of Timbuktu. The French want to join the combat as they did in Libya.

The Islamist occupation of the petroleum giant, In Amenas, on the Mali-Algerian border and the taking of hostages many of whom died in the shoot-out with Algerian Special Forces has offered a justification for the dispatch of EU military units to join French forces already in action.

At the same time, no one in the EU forgets the spreading of U.S. military forces across sub-Sahara Africa. The simultaneous EU force and the presence of the U.S. military in Africa signal renewed U.S.-European colonization of Africa. It signals also a potential clash between the U.S. military “occupation” of Africa and the nascent EU military force.

The U.S. Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, announced that the USA would take any actions necessary to protect the population of Africa from North African terrorists, whether of not this means cooperation with “other” military operations underway “down there”. Most likely he means unless the U.S. holds the command “These are matters still to be decided,” Panetta said.

Five decades ago French people commented when an American visitor spoke of “visiting Europe”, as if it were one location: ‘Ah, vous Americains!’ they would say, ‘You think Europe is one country, one day in Brussels, the next in Paris, the next in Rome … all just Europe. But we are French.” Or: “They are Belgians.” Or: “They are Italians.” Or: “They are Germans.”

The old idea of a united Europe was re-launched just after WWII. But until recently the Europe concept has not existed firmly in the minds of contemporary Europeans. Until not long ago Europeans still felt their diverse nationalities, each proud, each nationalist. Just a generation ago, lines of excited travelers at border crossings, stamped passports, controlled visas, strict customs controls, international auto insurance and complex currency exchange were normal moments of European life.

Today things have changed radically. Suddenly, it seems. The European idea is that “Europe” is the homeland. Our heritage. Born in pain, but in any case our destiny.

However, the new-born “Europe” has not taken the direction many of the original Europeanists had in mind. Purely capitalistic-imperialistic concepts of “Europe” have been born. The Union has turned out to be a union of multinationals, not of the peoples. Therefore, not everyone is convinced. New words have been coined: Europeanist on the one hand, and Euroskeptic on the other. New law bills in any one nation are backed up by: ‘Brussels orders this.’ ‘Brussels will not approve of that.’ In these times of austerity, a favorite of European politicians to justify budget cuts and raised taxes is: “Europe demands it!”

National elections in the EU are to a great extent determined by the ‘Europe idea’. No major candidate for the political leadership of EU countries—except the UK—dares a clear anti-Europe program. In every political election, from north to south, Europe is on the lips of all.

In peoples’ minds, “Europe” refers to the powerful, unelected, bureaucratic European Commission in Brussels, i.e. the European Union. Or to that powerless ‘debating society’ known as the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Nonetheless, “Europe”, in one way or another, is in the minds of all.

Italians tend to be proud of their modern passports marked “European Union” and only secondly, “Italian Republic”. It is pleasant to travel from Italy to Spain or France or Belgium or The Netherlands or Germany with only the Euro currency in your pocket. And know what price you are paying for hotels or meals or souvenirs.

Though there are advantages—like financial controls and balanced budgets of each country making up the European Union—for many, “Europe” is perfidious, dictatorial and impoverishing.

The problem posed by one branch of Europskeptics is that “Europe” has no political power. The union today is purely economic and financial. To all effects, today’s “Europe” is a union of unelected bankers and financiers. Not the social or political union of peoples some of its founders had in mind.

The original dream of “Europe” for many was a Europe of the people, socialist and democratic. Not a capitalist Europe of bankers filling the pockets of their caste. For many Europeans the missing element is political clout.

By way of example, the legality of matrimony between two persons of the same sex does not enter the sphere of “Europe”. The union has no power—or does not exercise the persuasive powers it has at its disposal—to defend the rights of its peoples against the interference of churches and sects against “gay marriages”—let’s say a direct concern of 10 per cent of all Europeans.

“Europe” does not have the power or does not exercise its power to defend its minorities, its immigrants from Africa or Asia or its Romani (gypsy) peoples, branches of the 12-14 million Sinti and Roma peoples. The Romani peoples constitute a nation more numerous than Belgians, peoples who have never declared war on anyone. Yet peoples widely treated as beggars and thieves. Peoples for reasons of survival forced to leave their East European origins in Romania or Hungary or Bosnia.

One should recall that it was only a few years before the creation of the European Union that Fascists simply decided to eliminate both homosexuals and gypsies from the demographic map.

Today, “Europe” decides by its discretionary use of its economic powers which countries may survive and which are destined for exploitation and eventual elimination, nations like Greece, the cradle of European and thus also American civilization.

Capitalism has never before enjoyed such power as today via the EU, without the use of marching troops over borders. The EU has become the instrument for the economically rich nations to control and rape weaker societies. In their attempts to unify Europe, neither Napoleon nor Hitler ever achieved such real power over the lives of the peoples of Europe as has the European Union.

Now it has become clear for those with eyes to see that not all the founders of the EU had in mind a union of peoples. A purely economic-financial union was in the minds of some of its founders and is still in the minds of its bureaucracy. Therefore, its close relations with NATO which serves as its military arm. It is child’s play to grasp that the difference between the EU and NATO is chiefly one of name.

Now one can easily understand that military alliance with the USA—in 1945 victorious and all-powerful after the fall of Nazi Germany—was in the minds of the original founders of the “Community” of Europe. U.S. economic aid offered by the Marshall Plan was not generosity and gratuitous. Europe paid a high price. U.S. troops were not in Europe only to defend it against Soviet troops ready to take the whole continent. U.S. presence in Europe was to support U.S. interests. The Cold War ensued to consolidate that American presence.

The European Union guarantees the perpetuation of the unchanging special relation between the USA and the United Kingdom, and, in theory, with continental Europe as a whole. Today the EU and interlocking treaties between it and NATO provide troops for the widest possible coalition in America’s world-wide wars. The small country of Denmark has suffered nearly 50 deaths in Afghanistan, apparently the highest of any other nation of the Grand Coalition on that distant Asian battleground. Therefore, one notes an increase in anti-war sentiments and a growing reluctance in countries like Germany, Italy, Spain and now The Netherlands to support those wars. One is tempted to conclude that if the USA wants to count on Germany and NATO as a combat ally in the coming years it will have to help the political establishments in those and other countries to overcome public resistance—not to mention the growing political-economic influence of Russia.

Therefore, the EU can dabble with the French idea of a European force de frappe. It may send a few troops here or there. But I don’t believe the EU has the political or the economic power or desire to even try to withstand American pressure and create a military force capable of competing with the firmly U.S.-led NATO.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Gaitherstewart.com. The author of several books on espionage and political intrigue, and personal memoirs, as well as many essays on culture, politics, art and other subjects, he’s currently completing Time of Exile, the third volume of the Europe Trilogy, published by Punto Press. The two previous volumes, The Trojan Spy and Lily Pad Roll are available at Amazon and other leading booksellers.

Sanders: Much more thunder than actual fire?

Three top contenders for the Shameless Hypocrite Award goes to Bernie Sanders, Cornell West, and the American Labor Movement. (no particular order)

What all three have in common is that they often quite eloquently rail against the machine yet their actions keep the engines oiled. Bernie the ‘Socialist’ never once pulled a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington against either Bush or Obama. Even back in Jimmy Stewart’s day it would have been customary to see a politician with a full bladder (or perhaps a jar nearby) ranting and raving about some injustice.

 Now the simple mention of a filibuster or asking for time with that in mind can cause Heaven and Earth to stand still. The Republicans know how to play this game all to well. Or maybe it’s just that the Democrats are so easily cowered into relenting?

Where was Bernie as village after village was being droned in Pakistan? Where is Bernie to stop Obama’s appointments to Treasury or the CIA? He might likely vote no, but it’s a safe vote. Makes him look good that he goes against the President. But he is a smart politician and can count. He knows his nay vote is symbolic only, and symbolic of impotence.

Cornell West: When it comes to civil right and the rights of people all over, who is on the liberal talk shows and media circuit but Cornell?  It’s clear he’s astute enough not to take things too personally. He did get over the Obama snub, after all. Or did he? In an interview with Truthdig in 2011 he called Obama, “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it.”  Such powerful words, yet he went ahead and endorsed him so as not to see Romney elected.  Guess he figured that the Democrats would remain impotent with a Romney presidency and give him everything he would want, as Obama has already been doing without any substantial Democratic challenges.

And now we come to the labor movement. Not your father’s labor movement, for sure. Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO rallied his army of union activists to campaign for one of the most anti-union presidents since Reagan. Where was Obama when Wisconsin needed him? Where is he when teachers’ unions are being busted all over the country? That answer is simple: playing basketball with the union-buster in chief, Arne Duncan, Secretary of the Department of Education.  President Obama’s wardrobe has to consist of more than just wing tips and gym shoes. How about those shoes he imagined he had when he said in his first campaign that he’d walk the picket line with us? California nurses did offer to buy him a pair.

The list of shameless hypocrites is never ending. We can round it off with Michael Moore, of course.

So how to stop being such a shameless hypocrite? For one, stick to your principles and don’t play politics. That takes courage. Courage to stand up against the winds of complacency and the courage to be true to yourself every day.

The second way is probably the easiest for those who hold power; those with the microphone and a national presence, those with a movement or organization behind them, or those with big mouths and can do what they want with it. Use endorsements as a weapon to achieve your goal, not as a crutch you’re afraid will be pulled if you go off the scripted path. Have national union leaders, from Randi Winegarten to Richard Trumka, ever said, “This is what you have to do NOW and promise for the future if you want our endorsement. We can wait for an answer.”

How more powerful a message could you deliver if the intended target has to do what you say, not the other way around?  Grassroots Republicans (with millions of corporate dollars behind them) know how to play this game.  That is why they are so effective and why the Democrats try to out-Republican them whenever possible. President Clinton was a master at this.

All three listed above could easily have said, “The clock is ticking, Mr. President. Are you going to even mention the poor in one of your stump speeches? (He didn’t) Are you going to give us economic leadership who works for Main Street and not Wall Street? (Fat chance) Are you going to support a national card check or speak out against State Houses that are removing our bargaining rights? We’re waiting. November 6 is just around the corner.”

If only that was the message then and similar statements today and for future elections/endorsements.

—
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” Che Guevara
“War is when your government tells you who the bad guy is. Revolution is when you decide for yourself.”  Anonymous

ABOUT  THE AUTHOR
Myles Hoenig is an educational advocate and veteran ESOL teacher with Baltimore City and Prince George’s County public schools. His email is hoenigedu@gmail.com.

AlterNet [1] / By Alex Kane [2] Alternet

The world should work to end extreme wealth by 2025 and reduce the massive inequality has has skyrocketed over the past twenty years, the anti-poverty group Oxfam states in a new report [pdf]. [3]

While discourse on inequality has grown more prominent in recent years thanks to Occupy Wall Street and major institutions highlighting the problem of extreme inequality, the focus has largely been on only one-half of the problem: ending extreme poverty. Though Oxfam praises the efforts to eradicate extreme poverty, the group urges people to “demonstrate that we are also tackling inequality- and that means looking at not just the poorest but the richest.”

Oxfam also notes that massive inequality leads to environmental destruction. “Those in the 1% have been estimated to use as much as 10,000 times more carbon than the average US citizen,” the report states. “Increasing scarcity of resources like land and water mean that assets being monopolized by the few cannot continue if we are to have a sustainable future.” And lastly, Oxfam argues that inequality is unethical.

“We cannot afford to have a world where inequality continues to grow in the majority of countries. In a world of increasingly scarce resources, reducing inequality is more important than ever. It needs to be reduced and quickly,” says Oxfam.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
See more stories tagged with:
inequality [4],
oxfam [5]
Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/global-inequality-skyrockets-report-says-top-1-have-increased-wealth-60-over-last
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org
[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/alex-kane
[3] http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/cost-of-inequality-oxfam-mb180113.pdf
[4] http://www.alternet.org/tags/inequality
[5] http://www.alternet.org/tags/oxfam
[6] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

By  The Propaganda Professor
Editor’s Note: We have borrowed from the original site a couple of comments and the replies by the author. The thread is worth examining as it reminds us, for the Nth time, how many COMPLETE imbeciles (most your low-info Fox News zombies or Christian zealots), walk around proudly brandishing pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-understanding, the worst kind of ignorance.  It’s worth pointing out that in a nation where far too many people believe “everyone’s entitled to an opinion”, and the mainstream media do nothing to clarify anything of importance, this kind of entrenched and petulant stupidity is liable to continue to multiply. —P. Greanville

Whenever a politician, or anyone else, starts talking about regulating guns, it’s a safe bet that someone will bring up how Hitler supposedly outlawed guns in Germany, which supposedly enabled him to do all the mischief he did.  As we’ve noted before, Adolf is a staple reference among propagandists. It’s become an automatic response to compare anyone you don’t like to Der Fuhrer, on the grounds that since he was evil incarnate, everything he ever said or did must also be evil. People have even been known to suggest that since he was a vegetarian, vegetarians are evil. It’s not surprising, then, that you often see this quote pop up:

“This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”  –Adolf Hitler, 1935

Trouble is, Hitler never made such a speech in 1935. Nor is there any record that he ever spoke these particular words at all.  This little “speech” was obviously written for him, many years after his death, by someone who wanted you to believe that gun registration is Hitler-evil.

What he did say, seven years later, was this: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” So it’s fair to conclude that he believed “gun control” had its uses. But that’s quite a different thing from claiming that “gun control” was instrumental in the NAZI rise to power.

And the truth is that no gun law was passed in Germany in 1935. There was no need for one, since a gun registration program was already in effect in Germany; it was enacted in 1928, five years before Hitler’s ascendancy.  But that law did not “outlaw” guns, it just restricted their possession to individuals who were considered law-abiding citizens, and who had a reason to own one. And there’s no reason to consider that law particularly significant, either; the NAZIs didn’t seize control of their own country with gunpowder. They used a much more potent weapon: propaganda.

Under their reign, Jews were prohibited from owning guns, just as they were prohibited from doing many things. And it has become an article of faith among the gun culture that had they been armed, the Holocaust would not have happened (that is, among those members of the gun culture who know that the Holocaust really did happen). But the concept of a handful of citizens armed with hunting rifles and Saturday night specials fending off an army is delusional hubris peculiar to gun addicts. On American soil, its most glorious day in the sun has been perhaps Waco. And we all know how well that turned out.

The gun culture is right about one thing, however. Hitler really did enact a new gun law. But it was in 1938, not 1935 – well after the NAZIs already had the country in its iron grip. Furthermore, the new law in many ways LOOSENED gun restrictions. For example, it greatly expanded the numbers who were exempt, it lowered the legal age of possession from 20 to 18, and it completely lifted restriction on all guns except handguns, as well as on ammunition.

Given all of this, it’s pretty hard to make a case that “gun control” played a significant role in NAZI conquest. In fact, one might well say that when gun addicts brandish Hitler as a weapon, they are unwittingly arguing against their own cause.

NOTE:  (1/10/13) Following the link to this post by Randi Rhodes, my readership has gone through the roof, for which I am grateful. But it means this post has been bombarded with comments, and it may take time to sort through them all. Furthermore, I may not respond to all of them. I will, however, do at least one followup to this column.

About The Propaganda Professor
For the time being, I have chosen to remain anonymous for several reasons — not the least of which is that I want this blog to be about my research and analysis rather than about me. But since some readers have expressed curiosity about my identity, I’ll at least give you a rough outline.

I am a Caucasian male in my fifties. I am an American citizen. I am a left-handed vegetarian. I have a grown son of whom I am damn proud. My background is in folklore, literature and forensics. I am not an expert in history, science or math, though I consider myself better versed in those topics than the average lay person. I was once a film critic. I also once worked for the IRS. Both jobs were fun jobs working with fun people. Really.

I do not belong to any political party or persuasion. I have voted only once in my life, and that was more than 20 years ago. Any interest I have in politics stems mostly from its prominence as an arena for propaganda. I tend to support whatever works rather than whatever fits an established paradigm. (By contemporary standards, this marks me as a “liberal”.)

I have absolutely no religious beliefs. Nor am I the least bit interested in acquiring any. But thank you for asking.

I am a multiple award-winning writer. I am also a composer. I’m an avid outdoorsman, but I have absolutely no interest in hunting or fishing. I have traveled extensively, and have spent at least a fair amount of time in almost every state.

And for what it’s worth, I’m a Gemini.

By Stephen Lendman

The thug (Sen.) Joe McCarthy. Far less evil than the underhanded work of the mainstream media. Both mere tools of the establishment.

I scrupulously strive for truth and full disclosure. If only Times writers, contributors and editors maintained similar standards.  You fall woefully short. I explained often in detail. I hoist you on your own petard. It gives me no joy doing it.

I’m old enough to remember June 9, 1954. My sophomore college year just ended. McCarthy witch-hunt communist hearings got headlines. Harvard Law Dean Ervin Griswold called him “judge, jury, prosecutor, castigator, and press agent, all in one.”

He personified evil. In June 1954, he met his match. Army lawyer Joe Welch challenged his spurious accusation about one of his attorneys having communist organization ties. I watched him live that June 4 day. I and other viewers heard his powerful putdown, saying:

“Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or recklessness.” McCarthy shot back.

Welch angrily interrupted, adding “Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?”

Overnight, McCarthy’s popularity plunged. Senate censure followed. It ruined him. In 1957, he died a broken man at age 48. He wasn’t missed.

I recount this because evil has many forms. McCarthy ruined many lives. Innocent people suffered grievously.

Media misinformation on what matters most exceeds it manifold. Billions suffer globally at home and abroad.

A friend once suggested I contribute. I said my only chance is if a same-named publication exists on another planet. My views aren’t welcome. Nor are those of others who write truthfully about what matters most.

I target you because your articles, commentaries and editorials have global reach. What you report, worldwide media and influential figures repeat.  I’m independent. I choose topics and address them freely. No one directs me. I do it because it matters. I care about other people.

Those most disadvantaged, deprived, persecuted, harmed, and abused concern me most. A better world is possible. Everyone deserves equity, justice, rule of law protection, and real democracy. No other reasons drive me.

I call today perhaps the most perilous time in world history. It’s true. It matters. It’s frightening. Times reports should explain. Instead they support dark forces imperiling us.

I agonize over why you back wrong over right. Replicating what I and others like me do could improve millions of lives globally. You could deal warmongers a heavy body blow. Perhaps a fatal one.

You could challenge both parties responsibly. They have much to answer for. They betray their constituents and others that spurn them. You could demand they:

1. put money power back in public hands where it belongs;
2. enact progressive policies;
3. save and improve social America;
4. curb corporate power;
5. obey, not violate international, US statute, and constitutional laws;
6. get money entirely out of politics;
7. aid impoverished millions;
8. run free, fair and open elections;
9. let independent candidates compete freely;
10. stress environment conservation over financial gain;
11. strengthen the disappearing middle class;
12. safeguard vital entitlements;
13. mandate universal healthcare;
14. save public education;
15. support organized labor;
16. protect human and civil rights;
17. shut down predatory banks;
18. prosecute corporate crooks;
19. reinstate progressive taxes;
20. end corporate personhood; and

much more.

You could condemn bipartisan anti-democratic policies. They’re pro-war, pro-business, pro-privilege, pro-super wealth, anti-progressive; anti-dissent, anti-freedom, and anti-government of, by, and for everyone equitably and fairly.

Obama replicates the worst of George Bush. It’s your job to explain. Instead, you support what you should condemn. Honest journalism demands better. You back wrong over right. I explain often. I expose your managed news deception.

It’s never too late to change. Supporting what’s right is its own reward. Try it sometime and see. You may never look back.

Questions for Reflection

Do imperial wars bother you? Does human suffering matter? Is business as usual OK? Are sham elections? Is democracy for the few alone?

Do corporate interests count more than popular ones? Do wealth, power, privilege, and unchallenged dominance alone matter? What about an unconscionable growing wealth gap?

How about corporate and political lawlessness? What about a private banking cartel controlling America’s money? Is looting the federal Treasury OK? What about reckless money printing OK to serve them?

Do growing poverty, homelessness, hunger and despair concern you? What about deepening social decay symptomatic of national decline?

How about growing millions worldwide calling America a pariah state for good reason? Waging political, economic, social, and hot wars put it in a class by itself.

Are you concerned? Is this the America you support? Dare you call it beautiful?

You have global clout. You could use it responsibly. You could expose what’s wrong and help reverse it. You’d be heroic for trying.

It bears repeating. Doing the right thing is its own reward. So is good journalism. Try it sometime and see.

Try publishing “All the News That’s Fit to Print” for real. Perhaps you’ll never look back and go another way.

I and millions of others will be loyal supporters. My articles will eulogize, not condemn you. How about that offer you can’t refuse. Think about it.

A Final Comment

Western print and broadcast media match or exceed the worst of NYT misreporting, commentaries and analysis. They all bear full responsibility.  Readers, viewers and listeners are systematically betrayed. They’re lied to.

Disreputable sources abound. Major broadsheets, other publications, corporate radio, US broadcasters, cable channels, BBC, CBC, National Public Radio, Public Broadcasting, Al Jazeera, and many others share responsibility.

Their daily fare isn’t fit to print or broadcast. They feature everything but truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on what matters most.

Their unconscionable warmongering is worst of all. When America goes to war or plans one, they march obediently in lockstep. They represent a virtual Noah’s Ark of scam artists.

Savvy readers and viewers avoid them. Maybe some day everyone will choose credible alternative sources. Perhaps doing so will make major media a public service. Imagine the difference that would make.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”  http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
hHttp://www.dailycensored.com/open-letter-to-new-york-times-editors/