The EU Brute Squad

In an alarming motion passed by the European Union’s Parliament, lawmakers voted 369-255 in favor of the creation in what can be called a European Union military force.

This vote, as the Independent assures its readers, is not legally binding but shows support for such mutual defense infrastructure. Not only does this signal a political divorce between Brussels — the city where the EU’s parliamentary seats are located and the cognomen for EU leadership — and the United States, this sends an alarming message to Russia and its President, Vladimir Putin, who has endured allegations of an imperialistic appetite towards Europe by American and European politicians.

“There are more and more risks to Europe related to terrorism, Russia, the Middle East, and North and Central Africa,” said Urmas Paet, the former foreign minister of Estonia.

Geoffrey Van Orden, Member of the European Parliament, was neither pleased nor convinced by the arguments offered by the likes of Urmas Paet. “You can’t have the European Union trying to hijack what is essentially a NATO requirement. You have to separate the requirements for member states, in other words European allies, to spend two per cent of their GDP on defense, which has precious little to do with the EU’s ambitions,” Mr Van Orden told The Independent. He later claimed that such actions committed by the European Union make it seem as if they’re aiming to be “some sort of actor on the World stage”.

Various sources such as RT and the Daily Express — both sources which require the reading between lines to an extent not yet settled —state that this new EU measure will slap the United Kingdom with a  €420m ($446m) bill.

Foiled Plans

While this Express article is quick to point out in the opening statement that Brexit is to blame for the creation of a coordinated EU force, this is simply not the case.

The ideas of a “European Army” originate from political discussions and debates after the Second World War. Winston Churchill, in an address given to the University of Zurich on September 19th, 1946, called for “a kind of United States of Europe” to ensure safety, freedom, and happiness of millions living in Western Europe. On August 11th, 1950, in Strasbourg, France, Churchill speaks to the Council of Europe about the need for Western Europe to organize a force to contain Communism on the European continent. He ended his speech with the following proposal:

 

I trust that this Motion will, by an open and formal vote, receive the overwhelming, if not indeed the unanimous, support of this Assembly. This would be the greatest contribution that it is in our power to make to the safety and peace of the world. We can thus go forward together sure at least that we have done our duty. I beg to move that:

“The Assembly, in order to express its devotion to the maintenance of peace and its resolve to sustain the action of the Security Council of the United Nations in defence of peaceful peoples against aggression, calls for the immediate creation of a unified European Army subject to proper European democratic control and acting in full co-operation with the United States and Canada.”

 

Of course, this didn’t happen. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established a year before, and although the political infrastructure of NATO was (and is) much more “loose” than the European Army proposed by Churchill, NATO shadowed this proposition.

Similarly, the European Defense Community was a promising idea which the Conservative government of Winston Churchill supported. (While Churchill’s government supported the idea of an EDC, they refused to take part in it, a notion that echoes well into the 21st century.) The primary purpose of the EDC was not only to establish a standing European Army, but to anchor (West) Germany into Western Europe. When the French Parliament failed to ratify the EDC, a similar organization called the European Political Community was proposed but this, too, failed in 1954 after the realization that the French would never relinquish some degree of national sovereignty as per the EDC’s ratification. On May 9th of 1955, Germany was admitted into NATO, eliminating the need for arching supranational treaties and organizations to both keep a “Western” West Germany and a standing continental army capable of defending the anti-Soviet European states.

The modern European Union as we know it was founded on November 1st, 1993, in Maastricht, Netherlands. While Brussel’s ability to impose its will on EU member states has always been an undertone in European politics, the Migration Crisis triggered by the destabilization of Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and various other states has only further highlighted both the EU’s dominating nature and glaring errors.

A year into the Migration Crisis was when the cracks began to appear.

Poland highlighted the charge it has been leading when the nation refused to “accept a single refugee”, with Jaroslaw Kaczynski citing security concerns from the migrant population. Not too long ago, in October, the Swedish Minister of Justice and Migration threatened to take Hungary to the European Court of Justice because, Like Poland, Hungary refuses to meet the migrant quota set by the European Union.

Most of us know of Brexit, the British Referendum to leave the European Union, but much of the American political audience is quick to forget about the United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP, the right-wing Eurosceptic party launched to popularity under the charming, quick-witted Nigel Farage. Many people forget about the similarly-nationalist Geert Wilders, or Marine Le Pen, or Viktor Orban. Pauline Hanson is making headway in Australia with One Nation, a faction of the Liberal Party. Those are only a few which immediately come to mind.

These populist trends are what pushes the EU politicians for a standing army. NATO, with all of its potential shortcomings such as the future President Trump desiring that the nations of the treaty contribute more involvement, is a powerhouse alliance that survives the fall of the Warsaw Pact and still keeps Eastern aggression checked. Not only would a E.U. Army create organizational and, perhaps more importantly, steep financial redundancies, but where does NATO end and the E.U. force’s bureaucracy begin? Obligations to both cannot be met simultaneously, and although this recent motion in the E.U. Parliament wasn’t legally binding, let’s face the truth — it’s only a matter of time until it is.

We can count on a legally-binding E.U.-wide force. Prominent politicians rely on threatening states refusing the EU’s migrant quotas with legal action. With an EU army, this control over member states becomes tighter; there’s no need to punish member states if the EU mans the borders of every signatory of the Schengen Treaty area. Brussels is attempting to keep the rebelling EU member states — notably, the V4 nations of Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, and Poland — under control in the same way the failed EDC was meant to keep West Germany in the hands of Western European hegemony.

This is a new European chapter, though. The threat of Communism no longer exists and the Russian Federation is quite willing to cooperate with President-elect Trump’s administration. The new fear is not Communism, but populist Nationalism as even the “Socialist”, Left-wing Sweden, the paragon of “Socialism done correctly”, turns Right as their anti-migrant, Eurosceptic party leads the polls. [Link is in Swedish — here is Google’s Swedish-to-English translation]

With the United States electing Donald J. Trump as the next President of the United States, a message was sent to the international community that populism not only exists here, but thrives. The increased Euroscepticism and populist nationalism currently sweeping the European states may find refuge and support in the USA, and, for the first time in American history, we may see our European foreign policy pivot from Western Europe to Central and Eastern Europe, depending on how late France and Italy are to the anti-E.U. party.

Of course, the United Kingdom is invited to this grand celebration of Globalism’s retirement, and it seems as if the R.S.V.P. has already been received.

 

— J.S. Marino

There’s Nothing Worse Than Champagne Socialists

soros

 

The financial Soldier of Fortune named George Soros is precisely that: a mercenary lacking the honor and loyalty that the King he believes himself to be should have. He has crashed the markets of entire nations with a single trade and, in his own toxic words, has no remorse for the social implications of his actions. Claiming some arcane knowledge of markets that others don’t possess, he has been doing this nearly his entire life, beginning with managing the stolen assets of Jews for the Hungarian Fascists — the same breed of people our grandfathers valiantly fought on European soil.

He and his cadre of adoring supporters, though — such as House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairman Keith Kellison — are meeting in Washington’s Mandarin Oriental hotel for three days, an aristocratic affair where the Common Man they so pretend to fight for couldn’t hope to attend.

“What ever could they be doing?” the political neophyte asks.

I’ll give you this one for free: according to the documents achieved by POLITICO’s sources, they are licking their wounds from the “cataclysm of Election Day”, and reforming their strategy to oppose the future Trump Administration in any way they possibly could.

Perhaps Mr. Soros is not a mercenary, but a soldier fighting against the Western world, even in his advanced age. This truth revives an old line of wisdom from General Douglas MacArthur’s farewell address after his abrupt dismissal: “Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.”

A cursory glance at the agenda procured by POLITICO shows the frantic, defeated state of the inner Democratic Party’s movers and shakers. The very first sentence for the “Partner Organized Caucus Meetings (continued)” on page four reads: “How did the media fail us?” One of two things can be derived from this Ivory Tower inquiry: Either the strategy of the Democratic Party relied entirely on polls which were untrustworthy or downright engineered to sway public opinion or demoralize Trump voters, or the media didn’t do their appointed job in winning the election for the Hillary Clinton. Whichever the reason (most definitely a combination of the two), the inherent disconnect between the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, her supporters, and the rest of the country cannot be stressed enough.  

A few more snippets from the agenda:

  • “Engaging Millennials and Generation Z is a progressive priority and critical to our democracy’s long-term health.” (Page five, first event, first sentence) This goes to show how critical it is for the Right, in order to propel the American movement of the Western Spring into the next few decades, to engage these two generations. The opposition is doing it, and they have an upper edge.

 

millenialsvoted

 

  • “2017 will be a year for unprecedented opportunity in pursuing political, cultural, and policy changes designed to bring women to true equality. Following the plenary earlier on gender, this workshop will be a roll-up-your-sleeves discussion on a plan for progress in the next year. Featured will be a proposed collaboration to call out sexism and racism when they stand in the way of our important policy goals.” (Page seven, first paragraph) This is readily translatable as “more of the same” from the Left: whenever meaningful discussion about race, gender, sex, immigration, or any of the other topics which the Left seems to dominate arises, they will — as they always do — shame, ridicule, and berate their opponents into silent once they voice an opinion that deviates from a standard the Left has forcibly established on all sociopolitical discourse.

 

  • “The biggest changes in domestic policy usually come in a new president’s first year, and now, not only is the Affordable Care Act endangered, but the safety net itself faces its gravest threat in half a century. This caucus will examine the policy landscape from health and poverty to immigration and taxes — and how to fight back.” (Page 5, second event) This last point carries the same message as a few other event descriptions. Even before President-elect Trump has taken office, an ideological, not practical, resistance has been firmly established within the circles of Democratic Left. Let’s forget about the fact that Donald J. Trump isn’t touching the same-sex marriage-ensuring Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Let’s forget that Donald J. Trump was the first developer to hire a woman as lead foreman for the construction of a skyscraper. Let’s forget that Donald J. Trump has repeatedly stated he wants healthcare reform like the rest of us — and, no matter what he does, people will NOT die in the streets under his tenure. Let’s forget that he is keeping key clauses from the Affordable Care Act. Let’s forget that Donald J. Trump is the first person to successfully have a woman run his election campaign.

 

By the way — where is her praise from academia, the media, the Democratic Party and other Leftist organizations? Will the Democracy Alliance hold a special dinner to recognize Kellyanne Conway’s landmark achievement?

They won’t. Her name will be consigned to the footnotes of a sinister history where every single woman who didn’t support Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2016 presidential election was a traitor and a “disgrace to the sex”.

They won’t, because the Democracy Alliance cares only for power. They stand for a twisted worldview which includes the suppression of Western Traditionalism and the United States is seen as the largest barrier to this. If it sincerely cared for the population it championed for, George Soros, a man who has put countless individuals in developing countries out of work due to his irresponsible financial decisions, would not be a headlining name. Soros believes in open borders, free migration, and various other “Progressive” tenets not because he is a member of the Democratic Party, but because he has an agenda of his own, a Globalist one where predators like him thrive.

In the mean time, he’ll have to make do with funding countless protests across the United States where innocents have been attacked and property has been destroyed. And, yet, the Democratic Party wonders why the working-class, the demographic which abides the law, works honest hours, pays their taxes and respects their communities by didn’t vote for their candidate.

More on those protests to come. A piece on the Dark Dealings of George Soros and his various organizations is on the way, but let this 13-minute documentary, recently uncovered by reddit user TRMP_TRAIN, be a teaser for what’s to come. In such a short amount of time, you will learn much about the depravity of this individual and the power he possesses.

 

 

— J.S. Marino

The Bannon-Wagon

bannon

 

Following their embarrassing defeat on November 9th, the Democrats and their loyal devotees have engaged in a scorched-earth policy of dramatic opposition. The most recent victim caught in their hysterical retreat? Stephen K Bannon.

Loyalty: the theme of the election season which bewildered specialists and spectators alike. Has the chapter aptly-titled “Loyalty” concluded with both candidates’ campaigns? Absolutely not.

Stephen Bannon, for all the accusations of bigotry he’s accrued, signed over his life to the United States of America in an episode of selfless service for this country’s Navy. Not many of his detractors can claim that honor, nor can they claim an Honor’s MBA from Harvard, a position at Goldman Sachs, a stake of ownership in Seinfeld, a successful film-making stint, and an executive chairmanship of the Breitbart News Network, all of which populate the long list of Bannon’s accolades.

Given his diverse career path, Bannon knows how to navigate through waters unfamiliar to most. This is precisely the reason why Donald Trump, pinning much of his success on his talent-sourcing acumen, recruited Bannon to be his campaign’s chief executive on Wednesday, August 17th of this year. Immediately after the miraculous victory of the Trump campaign, wild speculation about President-elect Trump’s cabinet choices began to make the rounds as information slowly leaked to the disgraced media. As of November 13th, two definite picks have been made: Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff, and Stephen Bannon as Senior Advisor.

The opponents of this choice were livid. With controversies already swirling around a Trump presidency as protests contesting the election results continue for a fifth day in cities across the nation, the slightest idea of Bannon serving a role in Trump’s circle fueled outrage on social media. Evan McMullin, a relatively-unknown political player who ran in the presidential election, tweeted the following on November 13th:

 

mcmullin

 

Where do these accusations come from? Well, there’s one instance from February of 1996, when Bannon was charged with Battery, Assault, and attempting to prevent a victim from reporting a crime. He appeared in court, but his wife — the plaintiff — did not. While she claims she was threatened to not appear in court, this remains unproven. This same ex-Wife claims that Bannon didn’t want their children to attend school with Jews. This, too, remains unproven in any court or record.

Most of the controversy is with Bannon’s news outlet, Breitbart News. Presumably under the tutelage of Bannon, an article was published on May 15th, 2016, titled “Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew”, written by David Horowitz, himself Jewish. This prompted a response from many as being anti-Semitic, including the Anti-Defamation League and the National Jewish Democratic Council. Another reads “Lesbian Bridezillas Bully Bridal Shop Owner Over Religious Beliefs”, written on August 12, 2014. These titles are sensational, but sensationalism is the sad, disrespectful fact of modern American journalism; Bannon signed off on these headlines knowing full well that, for one’s message to be heard, it sometimes has to be screamed loud in a sea of competing voices.

Perhaps Breitbart learned this from his Leftist media opponents. Maybe simple intuition led him to this strategy. Whatever the reason was, Bannon was successful. And when Donald Trump decided to run for president, Breitbart News became the go-to source of pro-Trump material, much to the chagrin of former colleagues like Ben Shapiro. In a possibly cutthroat exhibition of loyalty, the Breitbart News Network alternatively championed as the Trump News Network.

What is Bannon’s so-called toxic message, though? While Ben Shapiro claims in his personal(ly motivated?) expose that Bannon openly embraces White Nationalism, Joel Pollak, a colleague of Bannon’s from Breitbart News, mentions that the latter “defends Israel and has deep empathy for the Jewish people”. To quote Pollak:

“From my perspective, in terms of what I believe, I’m an Orthodox Jew, I am an immigrant, I’m married to a black woman, and I live in a liberal city. And Steve saved this country by helping Donald Trump win and restoring balance in the Supreme Court and giving Americans an opportunity to take their government back.”

Scott Vorse, a long-time friend of Bannon’s, said in an interview with NBC news:

“I know this guy. He’s not perfect. But is he a racist, a sexist, an anti-Semitic? The answer is no. That’s not the guy I know.”

The moderate followers of Bannon’s work will say something similar. The bulk of his film-work fame comes from Fire From the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Women, The Undefeated (a documentary on Sarah Palin), and Occupy Unmasked. None of these films can adequately be blamed for propagating a message of White Nationalism; the first two mentioned cover extensively the role of women in the Conservative movement and Occupy Unmasked covers the now-defunct Occupy Wall Street movement.

Whatever his message, Stephen Bannon will be broadcasting it from the pulpits of the highest office in this country, remaining loyal to his fan base, his ideology, and, most importantly, his employer.

 

— J.S. Marino

The Silence of Julian Assange

[Originally written on October 23rd, 2016. Re-posting after data loss due to server migration.]

 

Julian Assange is the only self-imposed hostage in the world fearing his “rescue” by law enforcement.

In the strictest sense, he is an internet celebrity. His products — glimpses of shadowy truths — are released on the internet, and he communicates with an international audience via Skype, Twitter, and other popular platforms. None of this is by choice. Exiled to the confines of the generous Ecuadorian embassy in Britain, he is evading arrest by any of the countries which want to see him answer for the act of exposing their questionable secret undertakings. The Bush-Blair Memo leak, the Cablegate Incident, embarrassing leak of emails regarding Hillary Clinton’s inner-party dealings, and countless other acts of defiant journalism have concerned governments around the world searching for solutions to the problem named WikiLeaks.

All of this changed when, on Tuesday, October 18th, the Ecuadorian Embassy cut Assange’s internet access.

Social media was animated with rumors of an attempt to “take out” Assange, a notion fueled by the myriad of accusations of Hillary Clinton “silencing” anybody who stands in her way on the path to presidency, often using politics but sometimes bullets. Assange’s removal coincides with his involvement in the leaks pertaining to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, theorists argue. While the Ecuadorian government explained that it simply wished to remain neutral and not “interfere in electoral processes”, WikiLeaks claimed multiple unnamed US sources confirmed that John Kerry pressured the Ecuadorian government to silence Julian Assange, preventing him from releasing Clinton-related documents during the FARC peace negotiations. These are still ongoing despite the dead-heat referendum in Columbia in which the majority voted against a peace deal between the government and FARC, a Marxist-Leninist guerilla force, on October 2nd of this year. The State Department denies these allegations, deeming them baseless. “While our concerns about WikiLeaks are longstanding, any suggestion that Secretary Kerry or the State Department were involved in shutting down WikiLeaks is false. Reports that Secretary Kerry had conversations with Ecuadorian officials about this are simply untrue,” spokesman John Kirby said in an official statement.

Theories ranging from plausible to wild about the safety of Julian have been making the rounds on social media, but one suggests that US intelligence agencies such as the CIA and NSA are agents of Hillary Clinton, that Julian Assange has been dead for days, and that the US government is running the WikiLeaks twitter. The aim of Clinton-friendly government forces infiltrating WikiLeaks? To disseminate fake and factually-incorrect “leaked emails”, allowing Hillary Clinton to “prove” that every single leak, from the hacked DNC communications to the Podesta emails, are undeniably false, created by a third party to influence the US election. Given the mainstream media’s commitment to push the narrative that Russia is committing acts of espionage to influence our general election, the blame would indubitably fall on them.

WikiLeaks announced via twitter that they are releasing a statement about Julian Assange tomorrow, and that he is “safe and still in full command”.

 

assange

 

It may seem as if he, and WikiLeaks in general, is helping Trump by hurting Clinton, but this simply isn’t the case. WikiLeaks has exposed government corruption around the globe regardless of the individual’s, or group’s, affiliation. Even if one may be rooting for Hillary Clinton, it is important that the content of the recent leaks be taken seriously. We cannot ignore the message because we have ideological or political qualms with the messenger.

Julian Assange has kept true to his journalistic roots, refusing to endorse any candidate running for president this year. He did, though, praise the concept of the Third Party, declaring them necessary “to discipline and hold to account and check the abuses of government during the next four years.” This was communicated at the Green Party’s presidential nominating convention, and holding back an endorsement for Jill Stein — the correctly-projected winner of the nomination — explained that personally choosing between Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton is like asking if he’d “prefer cholera or gonorrhea”.

 

— J.S. Marino