Changes

Apparently, at least one high-profile user on this site believes that responding to aggressive European integration efforts with military force is a neo-con position. Apparently, that user believes that it is possible to go too far in opposing globalism, and if you go too far, you are a neo-con.  

Apparently, at least one high-profile user on this site believes that responding to aggressive European integration efforts with military force is a neo-con position. Apparently, that user believes that it is possible to go too far in opposing globalism, and if you go too far, you are a neo-con.  

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind that way of thinking, please? Because I'm lost. --[[User:James Kardys|James Kardys]] ([[User talk:James Kardys|talk]]) 23:59, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind that way of thinking, please? Because I'm lost. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 23:59, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

:Put the crack pipe down. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]} 00:02, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

:Put the crack pipe down. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]} 00:02, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

::Okay, then. Tell me. If and when the EU forces all of its members to have their armies integrated into one fighting force that '''will''' be used to make sure those members lose their sovereignty for good and are '''never''' able to break free from the psychotic tyranny that is the Brussels-Berlin axis, how should America respond?

::Okay, then. Tell me. If and when the EU forces all of its members to have their armies integrated into one fighting force that '''will''' be used to make sure those members lose their sovereignty for good and are '''never''' able to break free from the psychotic tyranny that is the Brussels-Berlin axis, how should America respond?

::Should it resort to economic or diplomatic action in hope that this globalist European superstate could be successfully contained like the USSR?

::Should it resort to economic or diplomatic action in hope that this globalist European superstate could be successfully contained like the USSR?

::What ought America do in the event of something that would be the worst nightmare of many anti-globalists, especially those in Europe? --[[User:James Kardys|James Kardys]] ([[User talk:James Kardys|talk]]) 00:40, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

::What ought America do in the event of something that would be the worst nightmare of many anti-globalists, especially those in Europe? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 00:40, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

:::Military alliances are created by, and to protect economic alliances. That's what NATO is. The EU has attained its highest level of economic integration its ever had. NATO itself will never be the EU's armed force (despite the fact globalists through Hillary Clinton tried to represent NATO as the armed force fighting wing of the United Nations). The proposal is essentially to formalize a system already in place - NATO members already use standardized equipment and training. Politically it translates into making each European member a national guard or home guard force with contingents ready to be called for service outside that state's borders.  

:::Military alliances are created by, and to protect economic alliances. That's what NATO is. The EU has attained its highest level of economic integration its ever had. NATO itself will never be the EU's armed force (despite the fact globalists through Hillary Clinton tried to represent NATO as the armed force fighting wing of the United Nations). The proposal is essentially to formalize a system already in place - NATO members already use standardized equipment and training. Politically it translates into making each European member a national guard or home guard force with contingents ready to be called for service outside that state's borders.  

::::The second intention would've resulted in Germany/Federal Europe's neighbors and/or the other great powers declaring war on it in the old days. Germany of all countries should know this, given that it forcibly annexed either in part or in whole five different countries prior to Britain and France declaring war in 1939. I'm pretty sure the desire to pseudo-annex 24 different countries (the number of countries other than Germany itself participating in the PESCO agreement) though the use of fiat invoked by unelected bureaucrats is more than enough to conclude that Germany's foreign policy is spiraling completely out of control.

::::The second intention would've resulted in Germany/Federal Europe's neighbors and/or the other great powers declaring war on it in the old days. Germany of all countries should know this, given that it forcibly annexed either in part or in whole five different countries prior to Britain and France declaring war in 1939. I'm pretty sure the desire to pseudo-annex 24 different countries (the number of countries other than Germany itself participating in the PESCO agreement) though the use of fiat invoked by unelected bureaucrats is more than enough to conclude that Germany's foreign policy is spiraling completely out of control.

::::And the third intention? John Mearsheimer has pointed out [http://nationalinterest.org/feature/we-asked-john-mearsheimer-what-should-be-the-purpose-13642 here] that the fundamental national interest of the United States is to prevent the emergence of a hegemon in either Europe or Asia that is capable of projecting power in the Western Hemisphere and surrounding the United States with hostile forces in its own backyard. This is the interest that was used to justify our war against Germany in World War I, our wars against Germany and Japan in World War II, and our Cold War against the Soviet Union. It is also similar to the interest that Russia is currently using to justify its Second Cold War with us. Furthermore, it is the interest that Mearsheimer believes we should be invoking to contain China (but not Russia, whom he sees as too weak to be such a hegemon). Why should we not invoke this interest against a Federal Europe? Not only would a Federal Europe be much stronger than Russia were it not for the latter's nukes, and not only would it be ideologically opposed to the American ideal, but it would also be hostile to us from the get-go, as mutual resentments would linger over the United States suddenly losing many of its allies due to the illegitimate decrees of unelected, left-wing bureaucrats that want the whole world to submit to their dark ideals.

::::And the third intention? John Mearsheimer has pointed out [http://nationalinterest.org/feature/we-asked-john-mearsheimer-what-should-be-the-purpose-13642 here] that the fundamental national interest of the United States is to prevent the emergence of a hegemon in either Europe or Asia that is capable of projecting power in the Western Hemisphere and surrounding the United States with hostile forces in its own backyard. This is the interest that was used to justify our war against Germany in World War I, our wars against Germany and Japan in World War II, and our Cold War against the Soviet Union. It is also similar to the interest that Russia is currently using to justify its Second Cold War with us. Furthermore, it is the interest that Mearsheimer believes we should be invoking to contain China (but not Russia, whom he sees as too weak to be such a hegemon). Why should we not invoke this interest against a Federal Europe? Not only would a Federal Europe be much stronger than Russia were it not for the latter's nukes, and not only would it be ideologically opposed to the American ideal, but it would also be hostile to us from the get-go, as mutual resentments would linger over the United States suddenly losing many of its allies due to the illegitimate decrees of unelected, left-wing bureaucrats that want the whole world to submit to their dark ideals.

::::Is that the world you want to live in? I hope not. The EU bureaucrats have already made it clear that they despise Trump and all he stands for, and his election means that we have forfeited our role as the leader of the West. They have already made it clear that they despise Putin and consider him a mortal enemy. And they have said that an EU army is more necessary than ever before to protect them from "threats." We all know what they consider to be threats. And the fact that they are willing to go this far to "counter" these "threats" says all we need to know about what they are and how potentially dangerous they are for both Europe and the rest of the world. I mean, forget Islamic migration. It is the bureaucrats who are the biggest danger coming out of Europe right now. --[[User:James Kardys|James Kardys]] ([[User talk:James Kardys|talk]]) 19:24, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

::::Is that the world you want to live in? I hope not. The EU bureaucrats have already made it clear that they despise Trump and all he stands for, and his election means that we have forfeited our role as the leader of the West. They have already made it clear that they despise Putin and consider him a mortal enemy. And they have said that an EU army is more necessary than ever before to protect them from "threats." We all know what they consider to be threats. And the fact that they are willing to go this far to "counter" these "threats" says all we need to know about what they are and how potentially dangerous they are for both Europe and the rest of the world. I mean, forget Islamic migration. It is the bureaucrats who are the biggest danger coming out of Europe right now. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 19:24, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

:::::If it's going to happen, it's going to happen. It's already happened at a technical and economic level, now its just a matter of gaining approval from elected parliaments for minor tweaks in sharing the cost burdens.

:::::If it's going to happen, it's going to happen. It's already happened at a technical and economic level, now its just a matter of gaining approval from elected parliaments for minor tweaks in sharing the cost burdens.

:::::Sure, now its a political and emotional issue. But citizens of a democratic state don't have the luxury of opting out of paying taxes to shoulder their defense burdens.

:::::Sure, now its a political and emotional issue. But citizens of a democratic state don't have the luxury of opting out of paying taxes to shoulder their defense burdens.

::::::I can't see Starikov's argument being correct.

::::::I can't see Starikov's argument being correct.

::::::Although it would make sense for the "America Uber Alles" wing of the Deep State to force the migrant crisis onto Europe to prevent the rise of a European hegemon, it would '''not''' make sense for the Deep State as a whole to do so, because the Deep State contains elements that want to see a Federal Europe become reality, as continental unions are a step closer to global government. If the Deep State is supposed to be globalist, then logically speaking it appears the the pro-Federal Europe faction won the internal debate on what to do with Europe, and oriented the migrant crisis in a way to make sure a Federal Europe becomes a reality. Logically speaking, the globalist Deep State sparked the migrant crisis, and the Ukraine crisis to create conditions of unrest necessary to create an excuse for EU leaders to call for the creation of an EU army, which is in turn necessary to make a Federal Europe become a reality. The fact that the globalist EU leaders are placing more emphasis on the need for an EU army in wake of Trump's election and the rise of Putin's Russia, and not the migrant crisis, would only reinforce this narrative. The globalists clearly want a Federal EU to happen.

::::::Although it would make sense for the "America Uber Alles" wing of the Deep State to force the migrant crisis onto Europe to prevent the rise of a European hegemon, it would '''not''' make sense for the Deep State as a whole to do so, because the Deep State contains elements that want to see a Federal Europe become reality, as continental unions are a step closer to global government. If the Deep State is supposed to be globalist, then logically speaking it appears the the pro-Federal Europe faction won the internal debate on what to do with Europe, and oriented the migrant crisis in a way to make sure a Federal Europe becomes a reality. Logically speaking, the globalist Deep State sparked the migrant crisis, and the Ukraine crisis to create conditions of unrest necessary to create an excuse for EU leaders to call for the creation of an EU army, which is in turn necessary to make a Federal Europe become a reality. The fact that the globalist EU leaders are placing more emphasis on the need for an EU army in wake of Trump's election and the rise of Putin's Russia, and not the migrant crisis, would only reinforce this narrative. The globalists clearly want a Federal EU to happen.

::::::But let's pretend that Starikov's analysis is 100% correct, and that attempts to create an EU army are in the name of resisting the Deep State. If an EU army is supposed to be an appropriate response to outside efforts by the Deep State to break up the EU, then does that make people like Farage, Le Pen, and others who have publicly come out against this project the bad guys? Does that make them agents of the Deep State? Does that make the EU globalists the good guys? --[[User:James Kardys|James Kardys]] ([[User talk:James Kardys|talk]]) 21:51, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

::::::But let's pretend that Starikov's analysis is 100% correct, and that attempts to create an EU army are in the name of resisting the Deep State. If an EU army is supposed to be an appropriate response to outside efforts by the Deep State to break up the EU, then does that make people like Farage, Le Pen, and others who have publicly come out against this project the bad guys? Does that make them agents of the Deep State? Does that make the EU globalists the good guys? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 21:51, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

:::::::Starikov makes an interesting point: why are European borders open to Syrians and Africans, but closed to refugees from Ukraine? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]} 02:43, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

:::::::Starikov makes an interesting point: why are European borders open to Syrians and Africans, but closed to refugees from Ukraine? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]} 02:43, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

::::::::Considering that the Deep State is left-wing globalist, perhaps a combination of typical left-wing racism and the realization that Middle Eastern and African refugees so vastly outnumber Ukrainian refugees that Middle Eastern and African refugees can cause the desired chaos without the Ukrainian refugees. Pragmatic racism, I would call it. And that's assuming that the EU recently changed its policies to keep Ukrainian refugees from coming in, because I know for a fact Ukrainian refugees '''have''' been let in, particularly in Poland. What source do you have that shows a shift in such a policy? --[[User:James Kardys|James Kardys]] ([[User talk:James Kardys|talk]]) 9:53, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

::::::::Considering that the Deep State is left-wing globalist, perhaps a combination of typical left-wing racism and the realization that Middle Eastern and African refugees so vastly outnumber Ukrainian refugees that Middle Eastern and African refugees can cause the desired chaos without the Ukrainian refugees. Pragmatic racism, I would call it. And that's assuming that the EU recently changed its policies to keep Ukrainian refugees from coming in, because I know for a fact Ukrainian refugees '''have''' been let in, particularly in Poland. What source do you have that shows a shift in such a policy? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 9:53, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

::::::::::Look closer. Poland is allowed to retain its sovereignty and sick the dogs on refugees, as Starikov points out, cause it has a border with Ukraine. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]} 10:43, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

::::::::::Look closer. Poland is allowed to retain its sovereignty and sick the dogs on refugees, as Starikov points out, cause it has a border with Ukraine. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]} 10:43, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

:::::::::::Why would the globalists openly allow Poland (and presumably the other Visegrad states) to keep its sovereignty while not allowing Western Europe to do the same? If that's the case, there are game-changing implications.

:::::::::::Why would the globalists openly allow Poland (and presumably the other Visegrad states) to keep its sovereignty while not allowing Western Europe to do the same? If that's the case, there are game-changing implications.

:::::::::::If the globalists consider the latter answer to be correct, then what is taking place in Eastern Europe is a matter of natural resistance to globalist policies that is effective due to cultural differences with Western Europe.

:::::::::::If the globalists consider the latter answer to be correct, then what is taking place in Eastern Europe is a matter of natural resistance to globalist policies that is effective due to cultural differences with Western Europe.

:::::::::::But let's assume for a moment that the migrant crisis is indeed part of a grand conspiracy to prevent the emergence of a Western European hegemon. Does that make the Visegrad states false opposition? Does that make people like Orban and Duda globalist proxies who are in on the alleged conspiracy to destroy Western Europe? What about Trump and Farage? Are they false opposition as well? --[[User:James Kardys|James Kardys]] ([[User talk:James Kardys|talk]]) 11:00, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

:::::::::::But let's assume for a moment that the migrant crisis is indeed part of a grand conspiracy to prevent the emergence of a Western European hegemon. Does that make the Visegrad states false opposition? Does that make people like Orban and Duda globalist proxies who are in on the alleged conspiracy to destroy Western Europe? What about Trump and Farage? Are they false opposition as well? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 11:00, 23 April 2018 (EDT)