German translation here
European integration has been championed since the end of WW II by anti-white elites.
Beginning in 1948 with the establishment of the Benelux Customs Union (1948), increasingly powerful pan-European entities expanded their new institutional reach virtually without let-up: the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) (1951), the European Economic Community (EEC or “Common Market,” 1957), the European Community (EC, 1967), and, finally, the European Union (EU, 1991).
It is important to understand that the European Union is a supranational rather than intergovernmental organization. The latter depend upon voluntary compliance by their members. They possess no direct power of coercion to enforce their laws and regulations. Supranational organizations, on the other hand, can require members to cede control over policy and compel compliance with their mandates.
In Eastern Europe, Soviet armies and political agents established a tightly-knit colonial regime, thanks in part to Jewish and western elites’ intense ideological identification with and deep affection for their Communist bedfellows during and immediately after the war.
In the view of historian William H. McNeill, the war itself had been a major catalyst for pan-Europeanism:
Nazi racial and nationalist doctrines notwithstanding, the European continent witnessed a remarkable transnational economic and administrative integration during the latter phases of World War II. Having conquered most of Europe by 1942, the Nazis began to draw upon the manpower and material resources of the entire area under their command to supply the German armies. . . .
Memories of Europe’s war-time economic pattern could not be wiped away. When economic boom conditions returned to western Europe after 1948, men who had worked as slave laborers in German factories during the war were ready enough to return to Germany again as factory workers. Thousands of others followed. More generally, the postwar success of the Common Market was surely facilitated by recollections of the massive transnational migrations that had taken place during the war, when soldiers and prisoners of war as well as civilian slave laborers had criss-crossed Europe’s national boundaries by the hundreds of thousands. The breakdown of Europe’s national barriers thus appears as the ironic and altogether unexpected but probably most lasting monument to Hitler’s career. (The Shape of European History, 1974, 173-74)
In this connection, for example, it is not generally known that SS generals Otto Steinhäusl, Reinhard Heydrich, Arthur Nebe, and Ernst Kaltenbrunner all served as presidents of INTERPOL.
The most significant (of several) omissions from McNeill’s statement is that a German Europe, as distasteful as it would have been from the standpoint of freedom and representative government, would at least have been white, whereas the Europe that emerged is systematically cleansing whites from the continent and the planet, and lacks freedom besides.
Postwar European integration was in part a healthy reaction against the fratricidal nationalism that decimated the continent during World Wars I and II. And certain participants viewed the process as necessary to offset postwar American dominance. They believed that for the nations of Europe to exert a major role in world affairs, they would have to unite and command resources comparable to those of the US.
The formation of the European Union in 1991, though decades in preparation, was accelerated by the sudden collapse of Communism. Since then, ex-Communist Eastern Europe has been methodically incorporated into a single pan-European entity in the continuing attempt to realize the long sought-after “United States of Europe.”
One cannot help but recall in this regard former congressional investigator Norman Dodd’s 1982 (Cold War era) statement to interviewer G. Edward Griffin, subsequently quoted frequently by the John Birch Society (I have a taped copy of the interview, but it is also available online), that he had been told in the 1950s by Ford Foundation president H. Rowan Gaither that the leaders of major private foundations had all had either wartime OSS or postwar “European Economic Administration” (presumably European Recovery Program—ERP or Marshall Plan) experience after the war. Gaither allegedly told Dodd that the major foundations operated under executive branch directives to use their grant making power “so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”
Dodd’s statement sounded plausible at the time, and in light of subsequent events seems even more prophetic. If correct, it implies a time horizon generally uncharacteristic of whites acting on their own, as well as a form of elite dominance that many people will not believe in despite the 20th-century prevalence of centralized large-scale dictatorships, media operations, security agencies, and so on.
The European Union is but one component in a much larger process of global integration.
In the decades following the Second World War, European elites systematically dismantled their colonial empires, and encouraged immigration of Third World populations into the European heartland.
In historical terms this occurred suddenly, and was a trans-European rather than national phenomenon. Britain, France, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Germany—literally everyone—cut their colonies loose within two or three decades. Despite surrendering white racial dominance, they retained the economic burden of empire in the guise of foreign aid.
Postwar elites also worked in deliberate, coordinated fashion, in parallel with Eastern European Communists, to destroy the First World nations of southern Africa and, ultimately, their white populations.
A trilateral regionalist structure emerged whose components are being integrated politically and economically in the same manner as Europe: North America and Latin America in the Western Hemisphere, and the numerous countries of Pacific Asia in the Far East (Australia and New Zealand are now classified as Asian).
All three regions will be mere way stations on the planned path to a unitary international order presently embodied institutionally in the United Nations.
Thus, the EU is not a destination in itself.
The Role of Capitalism
Although the process of globalization is politically-driven by internationalist planners, many multinational corporations already organize their foreign operations according to the following scheme: “the Americas”; “Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA)”; and “Asia Pacific and Japan.”
Nevertheless, businesses and corporations are primarily instruments of academic, administrative, and planning elites rather than the other way around. This is unquestionably true of the vast majority of businesses, large and small, which are heavily regulated.
Few enterprises have any choice when it comes to globalization and deindustrialization. They are driven by the imperatives of the marketplace to remain price competitive or go under.
State and globalist entities and elites determine the economic framework within which businesses operate by establishing policies of globalization, autarky, or something in between. From the “egalitarian” and anti-white perspective of planners and administrators, globalization makes perfect sense.
This is not to say that big businessmen are good guys. The larger enterprises grow, the more they approximate collectivism. Business as such possesses no patriotism or racial loyalty. It will do whatever the state and the legal system instruct it to do.
But businesses do not determine policy. Because economic productivity is (or ought to be) important to ruling elites, enterprises must be granted leeway to compete and innovate effectively. So, to the extent that they are involved in generating economic change, corporations have independent significance.
A handful of multinational firms and executives interact with policymakers in more intimate fashion, including back-and-forth exchanges of personnel and active participation in internationalist organizations. In that sense they exert influence and even participate in setting the agenda.
It is striking, for example, that John D. Rockefeller Jr. donated the six blocks (18 acres) of midtown Manhattan real estate near the East River upon which the United Nations headquarters was built (today legally classified as international territory) after an initial offer to locate it on the Rockefeller family estate, Kykuit, was rejected (Rockefeller, who did not own the land, first had to purchase it from wealthy Jewish real estate developer William Zeckendorf), that Nelson, Winthrop, and John D. “Jay” Rockefeller IV were all powerful politicians, and that banker David Rockefeller founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973.
Finally, financiers are a stratum unto themselves, more intricately bound to globalist elites than other businessmen, a dual function of economics and ethnicity.
Ironically, the anti-capitalist mentality, combined with a genuine need to regulate the activities of multinational corporations and financial institutions, will ultimately be a major justification used by the Left for the establishment of a world state.
However, it was the desire for such a state by administrative elites, combined with an iron determination to destroy white populations and Western civilization, which brought globalization into being in the first place. For example, the construction of the European Union began with economic unification imposed from above creating a regulated trans-European substructure upon which supranational political, administrative, and judicial superstructures were subsequently erected.
Veil of Secrecy
Regionalization and globalization have been, and remain, anti-democratic, top-down, and effectively secret.
Rarely have votes been taken, but on the few occasions they have been and lost, the matter was rescheduled for a subsequent referendum to override the initial negative outcome, just as US school boards reappear on the ballot every year until the latest property tax increase is finally “approved.”
National populations certainly never understood (or were told) what was happening, and the same is true of most elites as well.
To drive home this point, ask yourself how much you know about the history of the EU or the UN, the key players involved, current organizational structures and processes, and degree of power possessed.
Virtually everyone’s answer will be Nothing or Next to nothing, no matter how well-educated, informed, or politically-savvy they are. Most politicians at the national, state, and local level, and most members of other elites in the US and Europe, would draw a similar blank.
The United Nations and the European Union are effectively black boxes. Nobody really knows much about their formation, history, current structures and activities, or evolutionary trajectory.
True, observers may be either favorably disposed or hostile to them, and their normative evaluations sound in terms of their own value systems, but that is different than being truly informed.
This is the consequence of misdirection, as in magic shows where the attention of the audience is focused on one thing in order to distract it from another. Though not “secret” in the intelligence agency sense, required information is not easily obtainable or part of the common discourse.
Racist and Totalitarian
Two of the most salient features of the integrative process are its racism and totalitarianism.
Inflexible racial, immigration, and anti-civil libertarian laws and policies in all three regions leave no doubt that whites are targeted victims and Jews and other non-whites privileged castes. Ultimately, they insure the physical destruction of the white race.
The EU remains committed to political integration and the mobility of labor (and hence residence and population mixture) across Europe, and so strives to widen cross-cultural communication, actively encouraging subjects to learn multiple European languages, reflecting the EU’s motto of “United in diversity.”
But because the ultimate objective of elites is an Arisch– and Christ- rein Europe (Europe purified of Aryans and Christians), linguistic homogenization in one form or another is inevitable. Indeed, innumerable European languages within individual states will serve no purpose once their native speakers have been eliminated.
Intra-white racial and ethnic homogenization would result from such a borderless labor and economic market even absent existing interracial population policies. Genetically, the effects would replicate the unplanned blending of European immigrants and their descendants in America, except that miscegenation with tens of millions of non-whites will now be added to the mix.
Liberty and human rights are abridged because it would be impossible to commit genocide or establish the new world order planners covet if freedom, representative democracy, or republicanism held sway.
The project is extremely long-term in nature, with a seemingly “inexorable” quality to it. Indeed, the process has spanned several generations of planners and technocrats already, yet still rolls relentlessly on, year after year, decade after decade, despite opposition.
This suggests a time horizon atypical of whites and more akin to the exceptionally extended time frames characteristic of Jewish immigration policy, Communism, Zionism, neoconservative foreign policy, and the implementation of hate laws negating centuries of Western liberties.
The scale of the project is massive, and requires the political and economic disempowerment of entire national populations and displacement of existing elites with interests deeply rooted in the old order.
The intergenerational approach helps accomplish this.
Another technique is to buy people off—to align personal greed with monetary and status rewards.
A vast army of whites in all countries is employed full-time in well-paying but culturally destructive jobs: law enforcement, military and veterans affairs, schools and academia, child and family services, counselors, case workers, government psychologists, immigration attorneys and administrators, welfare workers, civil rights professionals, diversity officers.
Churches and other local organizations are paid big bucks to integrate non-white immigrants into white communities. Immigrants are furnished with new houses, cars, and even businesses of their own.
I’ve dealt with a recent African immigrant to a white community who operated a private transportation service for the elderly and infirm, taking them to and from nursing homes, clinics, and hospitals, entirely funded by Medicare and Medicaid—a complex, heavily regulated activity. Another ran the local Neighborhood Service Center. Mexicans with enviable salaries staff a local immigration services-activist center that has a budget of several hundred thousand dollars per year.
In the ideological realm, intolerance of the most extreme kind enforces political correctness with a mailed fist and a jackboot to the teeth of everyone from top Hollywood stars, athletes, elected officials, and journalists down to random outbursts on a train or objections to blacks urinating outside one’s residence.
The racism and totalitarianism at the heart of globalization fuels the entire process, and is not open to discussion or alteration.
Only when the seamless perfection of such strategies stops working will exploitable opportunities begin to open up, for that will be the sign that the Jewish-totalitarian death grip over the white race has begun to slip at last.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 368 Martin Lichtmesz on Ethnopluralism
Fondations du XXIème siècle: Le Siècle de 1914 de Dominique Venner
Ethnopluralism: A Defense of Nationhood
Au-delà de l’Alt Right : vers un Nouveau Nationalisme
The Marcus Garvey Story
Toward a New Era of Nation-States, Part IX: Reversing the Decline of European Nation-States
Liberalism & the Mystification of the Twentieth Century
The Star-Spangled Banner:
A Protest Song for Nationalists?