Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Mad Rant: The More Things Change, The More the EU Stinks

Recently, yours truly went on a tear about how, when it comes to Russia, a great many people seemed to have missed the memo about the Soviet Union collapsing under the weight of its own stupidity. The Cold War is supposed to be over; right? Yet, the U.S. is giving war guarantees to the Baltic states, Poland, maybe even Georgia for seemingly no other reason than to antagonize Russia. After all, if Putin got a wild hair and decided to invade any of these countries, does anyone really believe the U.S. would be able or willing to go to war with a nuclear-armed country over it? That would be against the rules after all; the U.S. only goes to war with countries that do NOT have nuclear weapons. On the other hand, while I would salute the Putin regime in Russia for efforts taken to defend Christianity, in Russia, and to combat the plummeting Russian birthrate, when it comes to foreign policy, it seems that there are so few good ideas that the boys in Moscow have to raid the files of the old Soviet Union. This also means making nice with some countries that have pretty abysmal records when it comes to Christianity; something which flies in the face of the portrayal of Russia as the last bastion of Christendom, particularly made during the Syrian fiasco.

After all, Russia is still besties with Castro’s Cuba, the terrorist regime in Iran and the Viet Cong government in Hanoi. About the only thing different from the foreign policy of the Soviet days is that Russia seems to be trying to make nice with Communist China which even the Soviets had better sense than to do. That was mostly because both wanted to be in the driver’s seat of such an alliance and, as far as the bandits in Peking are concerned, that has not changed. If this is real, watch out for Moscow taking orders from Peking (a good indication being if the arms sales to Vietnam suddenly stop) and if not, we will know it was all just a charade undertaken in the hopes of making the idiots in Washington soil themselves. It seems odd from both sides of the world. The Cold War supposedly ended and yet even those governments which most professed their willingness to make amends with Russia (Bush inviting Putin to the ranch and calling him a good guy then Obama sending Hillary Clinton over with that ridiculous “reset” button) have each gone out of their way to needlessly antagonize Russia. How this helps America in any way no one has ever explained to me. On the other hand, Russia seems stuck in the foreign policy ruts of the Soviet Union. So much has changed (for the better) in Russia since the USSR collapsed and yet, on the world stage, it’s like they have no new ideas at all and can only instinctively repeat every policy of the Soviets.

Now, I told you that story in order to tell you another one. After that tirade, this person asked me why yours truly, living in the west, should be so opinionated on matters concerning Russia, East Asia and Southeast Asia instead of the “western world” such as Europe? Of course, as anyone who has been around me can attest, I can blather on at length on almost any political subject but I was told, and it may be true, that I seemed more “animated” when talking about the situation in monarchies like Japan or Thailand than the continent with the most monarchies: Europe. True, I have ties of family and friendship with Japan and Indochina but the same could be said for Europe. Then, of course, there is Russia which I have no personal ties with at all but which I have a great cultural and spiritual fondness for, viewing Imperial Russia as sort of the “last outpost” of traditional, Christian monarchy before the flood of revolution came crashing in. I was, needless to say, a little astonished by this line of questioning because I am deeply concerned about Europe and the remaining European monarchies in particular. However, the response I came up with was the European Union. I think it embodies all of the problems I have with modern Europe and why it sometimes can be hard to really care about the continent.

Say what you will about Russia, for example, but it is a country and a nation and proudly so. They have an illegitimate government and I sometimes stand aghast at their stupidity but one thing no one could ever say about Russia is that they let others boss them around (again, this might be changing as it concerns China but we will have to wait and see). Russia will do what it thinks is best, whether it really is or is not, and does not really care what the rest of the world thinks about it. Since the European Union has really started to spread its tentacles and take on the trappings of being the “United States of Europe”, quite unlike Russia, they seem to be drowning in a sea of blandness. Individual countries become less prominent, less important and, as such, so do their national leaders, ten of which are monarchs. Whether you like him or not, there is certainly no equivalent of Mr. Putin in Europe. There are few to no bits of news that rise to the level of national drama because the EU keeps a tight lid on all that stuff, everyone is supposed to be on the same team. The most harsh thing to say would be to ask an admittedly hurtful question. Why should anyone else care about your country when you do not care about it yourself? That sounds harsh, I know, but just consider the facts. The United Kingdom is probably the most EU-skeptic country in Europe and yet, as far as I know, the most prominent anti-EU party, UKIP, has not been able to gain a single seat in Westminster. That is troubling. At least, if you think countries and nations are not interchangeable and everyone is just like every other.

The European Union, as I believe the rather colorful leader of UKIP has said, is in fact out to destroy nation-states entirely, which means destroying nations and they are doing it. They and the whole liberal, leftist, globalist elite clique that they run with. And it really isn’t even that difficult and we have a perfect object lesson in the case of Kosovo. The only difference between Kosovo and other places is that the Albanian population was already there. However, think about it: think about all of the immigration laws, refugee laws, asylum seeker laws. People can basically come from anywhere to any country in the European Union because enforcing national borders somehow violates “human dignity” and the “free movement of peoples”. So, there is nothing you can do to stop people from another nation moving into your own and once they are there, you must give them the same privileges as the natives and allow them to live as they lived in whatever their country of origin was because to do otherwise will get you a trip to the European Court of Human Rights. So, nothing to stop foreigners from coming in and since we are all good democrats in Europe these days, once enough have come in they can vote to change the laws to be just like the homeland they left behind and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. And if the thought even crosses your mind that you wish you could do something about it then you are probably an evil person who needs sensitivity training. The EU has set up a system which practically guarantees the total destruction of its member nations.

This is a uniquely European problem. It exists in some other western countries as well but still nowhere near to the degree it does in Europe. This mentality does not exist in Russia or almost anywhere in Asia. That is partly why there seems to be more tension in other parts of the world. There are tensions between, for example, China and Vietnam because the Chinese still want their country to “win” and the Vietnamese think their nation is not the same as China and they do not want their nation to be dominated by another. And these are both officially communist states! Yet, the hundreds of years of struggle between the two has not been forgotten. Even with an internationalist ideology officially in power, their attachment to their own people and their own country remains. Why does Europe seem to be different? Again, my only explanation is the European Union. There are, of course, other roots to this mentality, reasons for this and for that, but the EU really sums it all it up quite nicely. It is a union of nation-states that seems driven to destroy its member nations completely and has set up the perfect economic and political system to make that happen. And it is because I do care about Europe that this makes me a very, very … Mad Monarchist.

8 comments:

  1. MM, I would draw your attention to the situation in Hungary, the EU has been keeping tight lipped about the situation there ever since the nationalist party effectively reformed the nation entire and dropped the title of Republic from the nation's official name. As of late it has supposedly finally paid off its IMF debt and is effectively free from debt shackling and rumours persist it is now looking for a way out of the EU (Of which, there are no legal means). I have not been able to confirm this, getting any news out of Hungary that isn't going through INCREDIBLY biased filters is very hard, I had to discover this via Russia Today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is true, Hungary has been a rare bright spot recently but maybe I'm just too jaded to be very optimistic. East Europe in general tends to have a stronger 'survival instinct' these days but they still seem to want to join the EU, even when, as you say, you cannot leave, which should give people pause. It really astounded me how eager Croatia was to join the EU but, upon reflection, I decided it shouldn't have. If Ireland can fight so long for independence only to join the EU, it shouldn't be surprising that Croatia would do the same. There is also a huge number of people leaving these countries which also does not speak well for a people who should want to defend and improve their own homeland.

      Delete
  2. Poland and the Baltic States, not to mention Ukraine and Georgia, all suffered traumatic experiences under Communism which informs their course with a strong resentment towards Russia, and Poland at least has a strong current that is nationalist and Catholic. All of these countries need to form a stronger bloc to counter Russia and provide some sort of balance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A stronger bloc can never be formed with the EU though. IMHO that is because it is too riddled with socialism. The socialist welfare-state sucks up so much money you really can afford nothing else. That is why the British army could fit in a football stadium these days and the French need American planes just to fly them over to Africa. Again, I think there is just not the will to fight for anything so, why bother with a military? Besides which, at the rate the First World is de-populating, there soon will be no left to do any fighting even if there was the desire.

      Maybe the cold is just making me gloomy...

      Delete
  3. I can add too that Russia's friendliness with Iran and Syria is something that sits ill with the region's monarchies and with Lebanese Christians, who I care about.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The worst thing about the EU is the sheer blandness and boredom of life here (I'm in London). Honestly, if there is a duller and more soulless country than the UK, I'd be amazed. There is absolutely no soul or spirit here; instead we get the worst kind of banal and dull materialism (in both the financial and philosophical senses of the term). The greatest ever description of life in a state where religion is non-existent comes in the early stage of this article by the theologian David Bentely Hart, who describes his 'anti-epiphany' in an English railway station. I stronglyn recommend it: http://davidbhart.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/all-culture-arises-out-of-religion.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. You guys also have to understand, in the world of international politics you don't get everything you want. Yes Putin is a defender of Traditional values, and yes he sticks it to the cultural Marxists of Brussels. Those are situations that he controls 100% or nearly so. In dealing with Iran or Cuba? He has to be pragmatic. If he wants Russian influence in the Middle East he's got to team up with some unsavory regimes. And why not Iran? Iran has not attacked Russia. Whereas the Gulf Kingdoms have. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE. Saudi Arabia finances Wahabbi Arab Mujihadeen in Chechnya, the same with UAE and Qatar. Qatar even gave assylum to high ranking Chechen leaders, who used that asylum to raise money for jihad in the North Caucasus. So who's a great regional adversary to these countries that indirectly attack Russia? Iran of course. The enemy of my enemy is my friend kind of thing.

    As for Cuba? Putin is ex-KGB, if you can ever be such. Of course Cuba's geographical proximity to the United States is enticing to him. The Cold War may be over, but that doesn't mean Russia and America don't remain geo-strategic rivals. And Cuba is prime real-estate for Putin.

    Don't forget, he had to build Russia up from scratch, after the vulture capitalists known as the Oligarchs stripped it bare. He had to start at a disadvantage. He can't just match U.S. Geo-Strategic influence in a mere 14 years. He first had to get his house(Russia) in order. Then foreign policy is given more attention. Who knows, he might just be the mass rescuer of Christians world wide. Or not. I don't know. I know he's standing against the rising of the cultural Marxist tide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, if you want to go there: by giving Iran nuclear technology, which they do not need for energy purposes and which can be used to make weapons which scares the hell out of the rest of Islamic world, he gives an excuse to other powers to create an incident and increases the risk of a war in Iran. What was the excuse for the missile defense system in Poland? Iran. What will be the U.S. excuse for keeping bases in Central Asia, on Russia's doorstep? Iran. It is also a radical Islamic theocracy that oppresses Christians, not a regime someone standing as a defender of Christians should support.

      As for Cuba, how does that relationship benefit Russia in any way? It doesn't and, again, it robs Russia of an opportunity to highlight American double-standards. The Russians would have a much better case against U.S. meddling in the Baltic, Ukraine and Caucasus if Russia was not meddling in a country right off the American coast or making nice with the anti-American socialist regime in Venezuela

      There is no reason for America and Russia to be "geo-strategic rivals" as you say. No territorial disputes exist between the two countries, they have never directly fought against each other and there is no place where their direct, vital interests collide. Yet, as it is now, Russia has no friends in America because Putin's domestic policies turn of liberals and his foreign policy turns off conservatives (and often liberals as well). If he stopped supporting regimes that sponsor terrorism and involving Russia in the affairs of countries nextdoor to America, he would have the high ground in demanding that America stop supporting regimes that sponsor terrorism and involving themselves in countries nextdoor to Russia.

      And if he wants to be the rescuer of Christians worldwide, stop supporting anti-Christian regimes and restore the Russian monarchy. Other than that, I have no problem with his policies inside Russia. He's fought against moral decay, multiculturalism and the declining birthrate. His government is privatizing while the American government is nationalizing -I think he's going in the right direction. The foreign policy just needs to match the domestic policy.

      Delete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...