France in flames

The dams are broken. The migrants show their true colors. Their rage is excessive and unbridled. The French police are on edge. This will not end well. Naked King Emmanuel Macron blames social media and video games for the riots. Such impudence will not be forgotten. Maybe in the next step he will block social media like once Erdoğan and Trudeau? In Moscow, Warsaw, Prague and Budapest, on the other hand, the streets are quiet. It is not reported that under Erdoğan’s terrible dictatorship hordes of discontented migrants want to set Istanbul on fire. And Brussels is just now enforcing its migration pact with coercion. Who are these technocrats who are plunging once proud nations and admired countries into the abyss? What is their real goal? Certainly not the rule of law.

“You will know them by their fruits” – this quote fits both EU politicians and migrants. But I like to use it in reference to parents and their children, that is, I know what parents are like by watching their children.

The Muslim percentage in many secondary schools in France is not infrequently 60%. Prayers are forbidden in school, yet they are organized by the students. These students also massively bully girls who do not wear appropriate clothing. Their parents don’t seem to mind. Are they able to educate their children to be law-abiding citizens?

The Muslim Brotherhood and the Turkish Ministry of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) have long since infiltrated Western Europe. The decision makers play into their hands by not allowing the special services to stop this process, by censoring critical statements about migrants, by turning a blind eye to what is happening in schools, by not encouraging police in the fight against silent/loud jihad, by making migration pacts, by pressuring Eastern European counterparts in this regard, by giving NGOs on the Mediterranean a free hand when it comes to migrant smuggling, by … Decision makers in France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Austria, in the Netherlands, in … .

EU policy as always in the wrong direction

The largest agricultural company in Europe – Agricost Holding – is located in Romania. The 56,132 hectares of farmland belong to Al Dahra, a company from the United Arab Emirates. In this way, the largest EU subsidies for agriculture flow into Arab coffers. This shows how EU regulations are blind and anti-social. Although Romania is one of the largest agricultural states in Europe and has one of the most fertile soils, the tasty, sun-ripened tomatoes from Wallachia or the spicy organic cheeses from Transylvania hardly make it to the export market in the West. The reason is not the weak marketing of the Romanian food producers, but the strength of the farmer lobbyists from Italy and Spain in the EU; they will not allow the prices of their specialties to go down because of the much cheaper competition from Eastern Europe. A natural behavior, but on the flags of the EU stands equality, free trade and the right to free competition. Meanwhile, Brussels is in effect promoting big business from the West and feeding the coffers of the Arabs.

The macrocosm of the EU is transferred to the microcosm in Eastern European countries. “Romania counts about four million farms, no other EU country has such a fragmented agriculture. The smallest part – about 12,000 companies – are former mammoth farms that still cultivate state-owned land of up to 500 hectares and have their customers at home and abroad, mainly for non-processed primary products such as grain, oilseeds and live cattle. Although these companies are economically well positioned, they receive most of the EU direct payments because they have the biggest lobby in domestic politics. But the vast rest of the farms struggle to survive in Romania.”

The EU is interested in this fragmentation of agriculture in Eastern Europe; it simply wants to destroy the small farms there. In the Western Balkans, for example, there are good conditions for the oh-so-fashionable organic farming in the small family farms. But Kosovar, Serbian, Macedonian small producers would represent a strong competition for the established, Western producers, insofar as their governments would adapt to EU standards and accept funds from Brussels.

The number of family farms continues to decline dramatically, not only in Romania, where most young people are leaving for the West and no longer want to farm, but also in Western Europe. Not only because of convenience and because of the easier life in the foreign, western big cities. In the EU, agribusiness has become a high-risk business where loans are almost impossible to service and where profitability depends precisely on the above-mentioned subsidies, or in other words: officials decide from my business.

The paradox has other facets as well: While the EU promotes the preservation of the old vegetable and fruit varieties, huge corporations from the other parts of the world get huge sums for the cultivation of the modern varieties, which taste of nothing and can be an interesting subject of study for a chemist in the laboratory. But buy organic instead! These mammoth farms also buy feed and fertilizers from the remotest regions of the world to “optimize” their production. Wouldn’t it be logical for the EU to base its subsidies not on the size of farms, but on their carbon footprint? You have to stick to your own logic, don’t you?

EU bureaucrats are like drifting drivers, all the time pressing on the gas pedal and applying the brake at the same time. While the countless EU projects for the preservation of the rare vegetable, grain and fruit varieties are running and there is always talk about the promotion of healthy organic food, an agreement is signed with Brazil (Mercosur) by virtue of which meat from GMO-fed cattle should be brought to Europe. In this two-speed Europe, even the Greens in Germany change their minds when something pleases the lobbyists and are probably not as strongly against the agreement as they used to be.

Ask yourself now: Why does it sound: “I am a farmer”, not proud?

Municipality of El Ejido in Almeria, Spain. Huge greenhouses and farms that only function thanks to EU subsidies and cheap Moroccan labor. Is this what the sustainable future of Europe is supposed to look like? Source: Wikipedia, El Ejido.

EU like the church in the Middle Ages – before the split or before the Renaissance

The Middle Ages came to an end when people realized that the language of the rulers, the church, no longer fit the reality. The language that was the expression of religion (ideology) had to be renewed (Renaissance). Only then was the renewal expressed in art and architecture. Now the EU is in the similar point of its history. The level of alienation from reality of the EU and its bureaucracy has reached its peak. The language of the EU, its hypocrisy, ideological narrative became especially evident at the outbreak of the war in Ukraine: empty promises of arms deliveries, the yes and no for the sanctions, quasi-care for Ukrainians as a cover for the action of hostile takeover of Western Ukraine (its annexation into the EU zone of influence under US protectorate), the import of millions of Ukrainians to save the tragic, and demographic situation in the West of the continent. This Europe of many speeds, this rhetorical hoax about equality and equity, and this only valid, untouchable newspeak, uninterrupted by the war, in which LGBTQ+ and people of color are paid homage.

Democracy means that those in power represent “demos” (Greek: people). EU elites represent minorities, whom they call victims of the white repressive male system. The EU officials are puppets of the oligarchs and lobbyists, bought by the sheiks from Qatar, bought by Gazprom, bought by Big Pharma in the pandemic. 600 000 euros in the apartment of the Italian MP Pier Antonio Panzeri. A suitcase full of banknotes at the Greek EU vice-president. It’s easy to buy indulgences from von der Leyen, just like in the Middle Ages, isn’t it?

The “demos” of the EU elites does not exist, it is the fictitious people, shaped by newspeak, of denationalized citizens, of the people with only left-liberal views, of the people who turn a blind eye to the numerous scandals and affairs in Brussels because they live lavishly in the conflict-free, multicultural West. Suitcases full of money in every bedroom. Let us pray for Renaissance!

Why the war is still going on

The war in Ukraine has been going on for almost a year now. There is no doubt that it is a war between Russia and the West, between Russia and NATO, between Russia and the United States. There is also no doubt that Kiev, left to its own devices, would have long since been beaten and conquered and subjugated by Moscow. The constant supply of arms, financial loans and political support coming from the West means that Ukraine continues to fight, albeit not only with its own army, but also resorting to thousands of mercenaries from a variety of nationalities. Polish and British soldiers and officers are said to be operating in Ukrainian uniforms. The West has deployed all its authority, all its diplomatic and economic muscle, to sustain Ukraine’s resistance against Russia. Is it because anyone in Washington, London, Paris and Berlin or Kiev believes that Ukraine can win this war? Is it because anyone in Washington, London, Paris and Berlin or Kiev believes that Ukrainian troops will drive out Russian troops, that Ukraine will regain not only the four provinces that have been annexed to Russia, but also the Crimea? Is it because Moscow, having been repulsed and vanquished, will start paying compensation to Ukraine and the Russian leaders will stand before the international tribunal in The Hague like the former leaders of Yugoslavia and Serbia?

Of course not! So why are they fighting this war? Why are Washington and London, Paris and Berlin encouraging Kiev to resist further? Why are Western governments subjecting millions of Ukrainians to death, starvation, cold and emigration? The answer is self-explanatory. Because if the war goes on as long as possible, then:

① Russia, a rival that the West dislikes (to put it mildly), will be weakened and bled to the maximum;
② Ukraine will incur as much debt and as many obligations to the West as possible, only to repay them for decades, i.e. to relinquish control over its own natural resources, production facilities and population (for how else can Kiev repay these gigantic obligations?); Continue reading →

Moneta Fiscale: sfida all’euro o salvezza dell’economia europea ?

By Marco Cattaneo,
from Basta con l’Eurocrisi

Si parla sempre più frequentemente, in Italia, di Moneta Fiscale come strumento di soluzione della crisi economica. Crisi assolutamente non risolta: nonostante l’ottimismo ostentato dal governo italiano e dalla UE, l’economia dell’Eurozona è ben lontana da una condizione complessiva accettabile, e questo è particolarmente vero per l’Italia.

Il PIL reale italiano crescerà nel 2017 dell’1,5% rispetto all’anno precedente, ma rimarrà comunque inferiore del 6% circa rispetto al 2007 – dieci anni dopo ! E sempre rispetto al 2007 la disoccupazione è doppia e le persone in povertà assoluta sono più che triplicate, da 1,5 milioni a quasi 5, e non accennano a diminuire. Il sistema economico italiano viaggia molto al di sotto delle sue potenzialità: il gap si è creato per effetto della crisi finanziaria mondiale del 2008-9, e poi delle politiche di austerità “prescritte” dalla UE nel 2011-2. L’Italia può risolvere questo problema introducendo un’adeguata quantità di potere d’acquisto nel suo sistema economico. Non può però farlo emettendo euro, né (a causa dei meccanismi di funzionamento dell’Eurosistema) con incrementi di deficit pubblico.

Tutte queste difficoltà si ricollegano al fatto che l’Italia utilizza una moneta (l’euro) che non emette. Una moneta non sovrana, quindi. La Moneta Fiscale consente di superare questo problema senza “rompere” l’euro. La Moneta Fiscale è un concetto riconducibile al “cartalismo”, teorizzato dall’economista tedesco Georg Friedrich Knapp all’inizio del Novecento, e recentemente esteso e sviluppato dagli economisti legati alla Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Continue reading →