The recent terrorist attack in Brussels is appalling and my gut feels heavy when I think of the pain and grief.
Brussels is part of a pattern of attacks over the past 20 years. What is new, what has changed in the past 20 years to create terrorism in the EU on the scale that is seen today? The terrorists go to extravagant lengths to perpetrate their atrocities so must perceive EU countries as the enemy. Why?
The EU itself is little more than 20 years old. It contains many peoples and cultures and the EU government treats all of these as equivalent. The government of the EU identifies itself with this equality and equivalence. The other large part of the world that has this concept of government is North America. The EU and North America are ardent allies, the USA having created the Common Market after WWII and hence the European Union. The EU and USA act together and have a military alliance (NATO).
The EU is surrounded by instability. From the Ukraine to Algeria there are countries that are on the brink of civil war or having civil wars. It is surrounded by a "ring of fire"*.
Despite this instability the EU has porous external borders, allowing large scale official migration and unofficial "refugee" migration and almost no policing of internal borders.
Terrorism in the EU is the result of the combination of these factors. The EU deliberately destabilises its neighbouring countries by criticising their governments, financing dissidents and offering them shelter. The people of the EU understand this as supporting universal values and entirely justifiable.
The EU is particularly pernicious because its raison d'etre involves continuous propaganda that the EU transcends and is superior to the nation state. Small nations on its borders are faced with bowing to the EU or polarising towards nationalism. If they polarise excessively they immediately fall foul of EU values and become targets for destabilization. Hence the "ring of fire" around the EU. The "ring of fire" is no accident.
Having destabilized its neighbours the people of the EU themselves fall victim to its ethos. There is no difference between peoples, all are equivalent, so there can be no argument for strong border controls. People can pour into the EU from overseas, mostly by air as bona fide immigrants, with few questions being asked about their status. In fact, Peter Sutherland, Honorary President of The European Movement Ireland, Ex-EEC Commissioner, United Nations Special Representative for Migration and surprisingly, ex-Goldman Sachs International CEO, has gone further, suggesting that migration is a tool of European Union saying that:
"The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states." Meaning that the EU should remove national diversity through the use of migration.
This migration creates some internal tensions but the EU can suppress most of them. The huge problem arises when some of the immigrants feel uncomfortable with the "ring of fire" because it appears to be an attack on their own countries, cultures and beliefs. Make no mistake, you, an EU citizen, might believe that the EU only operates for the best of motives but those on the receiving end of these motives are crystal clear that they are under attack from the EU (and NATO and the USA) and they communicate this to their brothers in the EU.
The EU seeks to reassure the affected immigrant populations. It is stressed that EU and NATO involvement is not personal. The EU action is entirely reasonable because the nations that are under attack by the EU are being attacked because they do not share the universal values developed by the "West", not because they are, for instance, Islamic. However, a minority of the immigrants become terrorists despite these reassurances.
The EU has a darker side to its fondness for migration. When the EU imports large populations from the countries that it is attacking it also imports ownership of the internal affairs of the countries. When, for instance, the Paris attacks occurred, the immediate response was that the answer to this terrorism was to bomb Syria. Worse still, it may have occurred to those who run the EU that inviting the death of its own citizens can provide the pretext for foreign intervention and repression at home. This raises a question about the "universal values" of those who govern the EU.
The EU proselytises the idea that all cultures and peoples are equal. When it is confronted by peoples and cultures on its borders who do not hold these beliefs it destabilises them. When it discovers people who do not hold these beliefs within its own population it arrests them or attempts to de-radicalise them. It is immediately apparent that the EU does not consider all people and cultures to be equal, it only considers those people who agree with EU values to be equal.
I believe that, within the UK, the "universal values" are reasonable and are largely implemented by Common Law. So what is wrong with the EU? The answer is very simple, the EU is committed to expansion. It is an empire. It disrespects its neighbours and tramples on the diversity of its own people. It is a machine for homogenising the world. The "ring of fire" will grow until either it consumes and homogenises all before it or it triggers a third world war. Either outcome is horrifying.
Take away all talk of "universal values" and the holiness of the EU project to create a world fit for corporations and we are left with a standard fixture of history: an empire that grows until it is stopped by war or collapses under its own hubris.
The USA, as usual, is brutally pragmatic about EU enlargement and sees the EU as the future cutting edge of "Western" action against its enemies such as Russia and ISIS. The EU, with its constitutional imperative for enlargement, will slowly gnaw into the enemies of America at little cost in American lives. If the EU ends up in a war the USA knows it can "save the day" a year or two later and rule the new peace.
Postscript: Why can't people act with moderation? The EEC was cooperation between independent states and guaranteed friendly relations in Europe. Why did the fools press on to European Union in the 1990s, destroying the achievements of the post war years in their desire for power?
* The EU is implicated in: Ukraine, Georgia, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria. Apart from the Malaysian Airlines disaster in Ukraine, the terrorism has only spilt into the EU from Al Qaeda and ISIS (as yet).
23/3/16
Brussels is part of a pattern of attacks over the past 20 years. What is new, what has changed in the past 20 years to create terrorism in the EU on the scale that is seen today? The terrorists go to extravagant lengths to perpetrate their atrocities so must perceive EU countries as the enemy. Why?
The EU itself is little more than 20 years old. It contains many peoples and cultures and the EU government treats all of these as equivalent. The government of the EU identifies itself with this equality and equivalence. The other large part of the world that has this concept of government is North America. The EU and North America are ardent allies, the USA having created the Common Market after WWII and hence the European Union. The EU and USA act together and have a military alliance (NATO).
The EU is surrounded by instability. From the Ukraine to Algeria there are countries that are on the brink of civil war or having civil wars. It is surrounded by a "ring of fire"*.
Despite this instability the EU has porous external borders, allowing large scale official migration and unofficial "refugee" migration and almost no policing of internal borders.
Terrorism in the EU is the result of the combination of these factors. The EU deliberately destabilises its neighbouring countries by criticising their governments, financing dissidents and offering them shelter. The people of the EU understand this as supporting universal values and entirely justifiable.
The EU is particularly pernicious because its raison d'etre involves continuous propaganda that the EU transcends and is superior to the nation state. Small nations on its borders are faced with bowing to the EU or polarising towards nationalism. If they polarise excessively they immediately fall foul of EU values and become targets for destabilization. Hence the "ring of fire" around the EU. The "ring of fire" is no accident.
Having destabilized its neighbours the people of the EU themselves fall victim to its ethos. There is no difference between peoples, all are equivalent, so there can be no argument for strong border controls. People can pour into the EU from overseas, mostly by air as bona fide immigrants, with few questions being asked about their status. In fact, Peter Sutherland, Honorary President of The European Movement Ireland, Ex-EEC Commissioner, United Nations Special Representative for Migration and surprisingly, ex-Goldman Sachs International CEO, has gone further, suggesting that migration is a tool of European Union saying that:
"The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states." Meaning that the EU should remove national diversity through the use of migration.
This migration creates some internal tensions but the EU can suppress most of them. The huge problem arises when some of the immigrants feel uncomfortable with the "ring of fire" because it appears to be an attack on their own countries, cultures and beliefs. Make no mistake, you, an EU citizen, might believe that the EU only operates for the best of motives but those on the receiving end of these motives are crystal clear that they are under attack from the EU (and NATO and the USA) and they communicate this to their brothers in the EU.
The EU seeks to reassure the affected immigrant populations. It is stressed that EU and NATO involvement is not personal. The EU action is entirely reasonable because the nations that are under attack by the EU are being attacked because they do not share the universal values developed by the "West", not because they are, for instance, Islamic. However, a minority of the immigrants become terrorists despite these reassurances.
The EU has a darker side to its fondness for migration. When the EU imports large populations from the countries that it is attacking it also imports ownership of the internal affairs of the countries. When, for instance, the Paris attacks occurred, the immediate response was that the answer to this terrorism was to bomb Syria. Worse still, it may have occurred to those who run the EU that inviting the death of its own citizens can provide the pretext for foreign intervention and repression at home. This raises a question about the "universal values" of those who govern the EU.
The EU proselytises the idea that all cultures and peoples are equal. When it is confronted by peoples and cultures on its borders who do not hold these beliefs it destabilises them. When it discovers people who do not hold these beliefs within its own population it arrests them or attempts to de-radicalise them. It is immediately apparent that the EU does not consider all people and cultures to be equal, it only considers those people who agree with EU values to be equal.
I believe that, within the UK, the "universal values" are reasonable and are largely implemented by Common Law. So what is wrong with the EU? The answer is very simple, the EU is committed to expansion. It is an empire. It disrespects its neighbours and tramples on the diversity of its own people. It is a machine for homogenising the world. The "ring of fire" will grow until either it consumes and homogenises all before it or it triggers a third world war. Either outcome is horrifying.
Take away all talk of "universal values" and the holiness of the EU project to create a world fit for corporations and we are left with a standard fixture of history: an empire that grows until it is stopped by war or collapses under its own hubris.
The USA, as usual, is brutally pragmatic about EU enlargement and sees the EU as the future cutting edge of "Western" action against its enemies such as Russia and ISIS. The EU, with its constitutional imperative for enlargement, will slowly gnaw into the enemies of America at little cost in American lives. If the EU ends up in a war the USA knows it can "save the day" a year or two later and rule the new peace.
Postscript: Why can't people act with moderation? The EEC was cooperation between independent states and guaranteed friendly relations in Europe. Why did the fools press on to European Union in the 1990s, destroying the achievements of the post war years in their desire for power?
* The EU is implicated in: Ukraine, Georgia, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria. Apart from the Malaysian Airlines disaster in Ukraine, the terrorism has only spilt into the EU from Al Qaeda and ISIS (as yet).
23/3/16
Comments