The Imaginary British Crown Controlling The U.s., Imaginary Communism In The Eu, The ‘nazification’ (or Americanization) Of The Eu, And Much More.

Alex Krainer: Economic Collapse & the End of Europe

Alex Krainer is a market analyst, author & former hedge fund manager Follow me: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/ X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/glenndiesen Support the channel: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenndiesen Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f

First of all, I apologize for the confusing titles. I don’t know how to write well, and the character limit in titles is also a problem for me. Additionally, I’m sorry, but this one will be another long post – I hope people will stick with me until the end.

First, let me talk about the main video I posted, with which I agree 90%. In it, Alex Krainer mentions Halford Mackinder and the concept of the “World Island,” as well as the importance of Eastern Europe, which led to the creation of the Intermarium concept by Piłsudski. He also references The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski and many other topics I have been writing about on The Duran for some time. Furthermore, he describes our current economic and monetary system as a Ponzi scheme, which is something I have also been writing for a while.

12:00

“And so, the part of the equation that we see, because it’s visible, is we see these large global corporations like BP and Shell and Exxon and KBR and Halliburton and you know hundreds of these foreign corporations go abroad and they develop foreign resources. But the part that we don’t see is that actually most of the wealth that’s thereby extracted from these effectively colonies actually goes to the banking centers in the West—Paris, London, Wall Street, etc. And so, this is where the whole system of incentives for our system of governance originates. It has been this way in the West, it has defined the Western civilization, and it goes back, depending on how you wish to define it, 500 or 600 years, or you could even draw back all the way to Greek Antiquity. The same principle turned Greece into an empire, and then Greek bankers migrated to Rome, and that system turned Rome into an empire. And then it reemerged again in Venice in the Middle Ages, and then it gave rise to the Lombard banking system, and then the Venetian bankers migrated to Amsterdam and gave rise to the Dutch Empire, and then from there they migrated to London, where it gave rise to the British Empire, which you know, unlike what they teach us in school today, is still very much alive and it still is kicking. And I think that today that this is becoming increasingly apparent because even, you know, in today’s historical episode around Ukraine, we see that the United States has withdrawn and London has stepped right into the role of backing up Ukraine.”

This is a great historical explanation with which I agree. The only difference between my view and Alex Krainer’s view is that, in my opinion, it’s not still the British Empire. The idea that MI6, the British government, and the British Crown somehow control the U.S. is my main point of contention – I find it absurd.

I have mentioned Carl Oglesby’s Yankee and Cowboy War theory many times before, which shows that while there was a movement in the U.S. favoring Transatlanticism, but it was not controlled by the British or the British Crown. Instead, it was led by Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and the rest of the American capitalist oligarchy, which established the Yankee faction.

I also need to give props to Glenn Diesen for pushing back a little.

16:41

“It’s interesting; these people don’t realize how central this Mackinder Heartland theory has actually been. If you go through the strategic documents from the United States throughout the Cold War, it keeps popping up all the time, these references to the Eurasian Heartland, making sure no powerful hegemonic or group of states begin to cooperate that can challenge, well, first the British, but then of course the United States. Even after the Cold War, when the Wolfowitz Doctrine came up, in this document in the beginning of 1992, when they called for this hegemonic, well, unipolar world, like how can this be sustained, and even then, they refer to the Heartland theory: that is, we have to make sure nothing appears in the Heartland. This has to become a NATO area.”

24:40

Glenn Diesen: You read in Marco Rubio’s comments that the world post-World War II order is being used against the United States, because this was meant to build the basis, the foundation of its dominance.

Alex Krainer: Well, you know, the dominance came at a very, very steep price. So, the United States, well, you know, as, for everybody who’s old enough to remember the film Mad Max 3, there was this Master Blaster combo, right? It was a big, dumb, muscular giant who had a little decrepit dwarf riding on his back and directing him where to smash up things. And so, this to me is the perfect metaphor for the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. The United States has been doing all the heavy lifting and the fighting and the financing of the empire, maintaining the military bases around the world at a huge cost to the American people, to the taxpayer. It has largely depleted American prosperity, it has weakened it militarily, has weakened it socially, uh, it has even weakened it politically and diplomatically around the world. So, you know, there is a certain, let’s call it, uh, corporate and banking elite who has benefited hugely from this, but it hasn’t been the country as a whole. The country has a massive debt overhang that it’s going to have a very hard time resolving as a result of all this. And the cost of maintaining the empire keeps going up and up and up. Uh, but it’s only a very narrow segment of the society that’s benefiting from that, and most of the beneficiaries are actually not in the United States, they’re in Europe and in the United Kingdom. Uh, so we have, you know, the obvious example is the cost of maintaining the empire, the 800 or 900 military bases everywhere around the world, who are there not to ensure freedom and democracy in those countries, but to make sure that the contracts for the extraction of natural wealth from those countries is awarded to Western corporations or to other clients of the Western banking institutions or the IMF or the World Bank or other private banking institutions. And then, uh, you have also the fact we see that very clearly now with the example of Ukraine, where it’s very obvious that the main beneficiaries of the Ukrainian war are European powers and the British power and Great Britain.

Here we have this ridiculous theory again that the British government, the British Crown, and MI6 somehow control the U.S. In what world do people live where this makes any logical sense? I think  this belief stems from American exceptionalism – the idea that America is the greatest country in the world and a force for good. According to this logic, America cannot possibly be responsible for all the evil in the world, so instead, people blame those “pesky, evil” Brits and the British Crown, claiming they control the U.S. and are the true source of all wrongdoing. As if the U.S. couldn’t be responsible for these things itself.

The absurdity of this claim is further highlighted by the statement: “The main beneficiaries of the Ukrainian war are European powers.” Like, WTF? I’ll quote George Friedman at The Chicago Council on Global Affairs again, as I have many times before:

“So, the primordial interest of the United States, over which for a century we have fought wars—the First, Second, and Cold War—has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united, they are the only force that could threaten us, and to make sure that that doesn’t happen.

Therefore, it’s not an accident that General Hodges, who’s been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the Intermarium, the Black Sea to the Baltic, that Pilsudski dreamed of. This is the solution for the United States.

The issue to which we don’t have the answer is: what will Germany do? The real wild card in Europe is that as the United States builds this cordon sanitaire—not in Ukraine, but to the West—and the Russians try to figure out how to leverage Ukrainians out, we don’t know the German position.

Germany is in a very peculiar position. Its former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is on the board of Gazprom. They have a very complex relationship. As I mentioned before, the Germans themselves don’t know what to do. They must export; the Russians can’t take up the export. On the other hand, if they lose the free trade zone, they need to build something different.

For the United States, the primordial fear is Russian natural resources, Russian manpower, German technology, and German capital. That combination has, for centuries, scared the hell out of the United States.

How Does This Play Out?

Well, the U.S. has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea. And he goes on to say in his next line that Russia’s cards on the table are that they need a Ukraine that is not pro-Western, that it’s at least neutral.”

What George Friedman discusses here is connected to Mackinder’s World Island concept, the importance of Eastern Europe, and the Intermarium concept created by Piłsudski. Unlike what Alex Krainer claims, this is true. Krainer argues that “the main beneficiaries of the Ukrainian war are European powers,” which is completely absurd. I have said many times that, after the Ukrainian population, the biggest victim of this war is Germany.

This war was designed by the U.S. because, as George Friedman stated: “For the United States, the primordial fear is Russian natural resources, Russian manpower, German technology, and German capital.” So it’s not that “the main beneficiaries of the Ukrainian war are European powers” – on the contrary, the biggest victims of the war are European powers. This is by design. The U.S. was afraid that, thanks to cooperation between Germany and Russia, the EU was becoming too strong and too independent, which threatened U.S. dominance. That is why the U.S. orchestrated this war.

This directly contradicts Alex Krainer’s claim that “the main beneficiaries of the Ukrainian war are European powers,” proving that his statement is completely wrong.

34:13

“Because, you know, I grew up in Croatia, uh, I lived in Switzerland, uh, part of my life. You know, for as long as I remember, anytime you went to the gas station, you could buy gasoline, you could buy diesel. In shops, you could buy chocolate and coffee and all kinds of things that we didn’t have. But nevertheless, we had them, right? Then, I mean, we didn’t—we didn’t produce that, we didn’t grow it, but we had them nonetheless. So, how do we get them? We got them by trade. So, anything you want to have—lithium, oil, gas, iron, Rare Earth—you can acquire anything you want by trade. You export what you have, you acquire what you need. That’s a simple thing, and most countries function that way. Even RFK Jr., I think, has fallen into this trap because he was explaining why the United States had to continue to support Israel because we need to uh maintain our hegemony over that region because of oil and gas resources that we need. Well, you can always buy them. The only segment of our society that needs to control that, again, is the banking segment, because it does them no good to just acquire that resource. The only way they profit from that resource is if they make the loans with which those resources are developed and traded anyway. So, it always, you know, uh, Germany doesn’t need to be anywhere for lithium, they can just buy it. Croatia doesn’t need to be anywhere to have coffee and chocolate and gasoline. We just buy it. So, that’s—I just wanted to make sure that that argument doesn’t justify anybody’s hegemony anywhere else. It’s not that, it’s the banking cartels that need those resources as their collateral because then they then they obtain this massive conveyor belt of wealth that’s flowing from everywhere else in the world to their banking centers, even though they don’t develop it, they don’t fight wars, they don’t keep, um, uh, military bases there, they don’t trade, they don’t refine, they don’t ship, they don’t know anything. Nevertheless, the bulk of that wealth accrues to them.”

Well said and I couldn’t agree more.

43:45

“The establishments in Europe will double down on the same strategy that they’ve been pursuing for many years now. You know, going back to being, um, you know, independent, neutral nations, minding their own business—that’s unlikely to happen. And I think that the danger is that this process of militarization and nazification of Europe is going to ramp up, and I think that we can already see this, because even though—so I’ll step back a second—this is my conviction: is that this is, um, a form of a social engineering process, a technology which has been implemented in Germany during the 1930s, which has been implemented in Ukraine between, uh, 2014 and now. And the process begins with immiserating the nations, destroying their economies. This is what we saw in Germany from the 1920s onwards, and this is what we saw in Ukraine already, practically since its independence. As I mentioned, NATO has been present in Ukraine since 1991. George Soros set up his foundations there, uh, around the same time. And then, uh, various Ukrainian governments have been advised by Western advisers, uh, including the IMF and the World Bank and so forth, uh, in how to develop their economy. As a result, uh, Ukraine’s economy between 1991 and 2014 has been the world’s worst-performing economy, dead last, right? Uh, it was the only one of only five countries in the world whose GDP declined over those 24 years. So, from 1991 until 2014, um—interestingly, on the list of five nations with negative GDP growth were also Moldova and Georgia. So, Ukraine’s economy shrank by 35% over those 24 years, Georgia 15%, and I think Moldova, if I correctly remember correctly, about 9%. All three of those countries were designated as nations to use as beachheads, uh, against Russia. So, I think that step one in militarization and nazification, uh, of any nation, is to destroy the economy. And so, what you get from there is you get a very high youth unemployment rate. You have a lot of men who have no jobs, no prospects, no future, no way to, uh, realize their aspirations in life—you know, get married, have a home, raise families. And so, what you do then is you go in with these, um, let’s say, far-right ideologies. Uh, you start blaming the situation on the designated enemy. So, in Germany, it was the Communists, the Soviets. In Ukraine, it was the Jewish Muscovite Mafia. You know, that was the designated enemy. The enemy was Moscow. And then you start funding these, um, you know, C14, Azov Battalion, Aidar Battalion, Right Sector, and so forth, and you start, uh, giving them money, and you start swelling their ranks. And so, now you have—you particularly recruit, uh, people into these organizations from football hooligan clubs. So, you’ll find in a lot of places in Europe, strangely, football fan clubs are strangely well-funded. And so, that begins the formation of these Azov battalions and these kinds of units, then, whose purpose is not to go and fight the enemy. Their purpose is to terrorize the local population and then, at some point, to, you know, forcibly conscript people off the streets to go and fight the enemy. The episode in Germany during the 1930s was, uh, with the Brown Shirt movement, which I think in 1930 or 1931 numbered around, uh, 200 people. The German population didn’t take them seriously. They found them a little bit ridiculous. But by the time Hitler came to power in 1933, their ranks were 2 million. Well, now it’s not so funny anymore, you know? And so, if you look around Europe, we see that right now we’re in the process of destroying our economies. Uh, there’s de-industrialization, with the exception of the defense sector. Uh, the standards of living are declining, youth unemployment is rising, and you will also find that in practically every country—um, Sweden, Finland, Hungary, uh, Germany, France, Spain, Croatia, um, practically every country you look at, Poland, you have these neo-Nazi organizations that are holding torch marches and parades. Um, strangely, they all have nice uniforms, they have nice, uh, banners and placards, and, uh, their numbers are increasing. And so, and at the same time, we see that the, uh, European leadership is not only talking about, uh, conscription and, uh, funding, uh, a rearmament industry, we see that hundreds of billions of dollars are already flowing into, uh, you know, quote-unquote, defense industries. So, it seems to me that the whole process of, uh, militarization of the continent and, um, nazification is already unfolding. Maybe it’s in its early stages, so it’s not quite obvious yet. But I think that if we, if we are not alert, if we’re not vigilant, I think that a couple of years down the road—it took about seven, eight years in Germany, it took about seven, eight years in Ukraine—I think that in another couple of years in Europe, we might have, uh, similar type thugs that are now, that we now see in social media, uh, abducting men, uh, from the streets of Ukraine. We might have similar types of people doing the same on the streets of European cities, and then it might be our children who are going to be disappearing to the fronts and then reappearing under their nation’s flag as, you know, fallen heroes.”

Again, very well said, and I almost completely agree. However, the difference – and the lack of logic—is that the U.S. is already a fascist empire. The process of the “nazification” of Europe is actually the process of the Americanization of Europe, which I have spoken about before.

While I agree with the issue Alex Krainer raises, he praises the U.S. and presents it as something good. But the fact is, the U.S. is already a nazified nation, and this so-called nazification is simply the Americanization of the EU. I don’t understand how he doesn’t see this. He complains about the increasing military spending in the EU, but who was pushing the EU to increase military spending? Trump and the U.S. Yet somehow, Trump is considered good. Who supported C14, Azov Battalion, Aidar Battalion, Right Sector? USAID and NED—so, the U.S.

So while I agree with many of the points he makes, he fails to see that the very people he praises are responsible for what he’s talking about. 

Now, I want to highlight two different interviews that demonstrate where Alex Krainer is wrong. The first will show that it’s not the British or Europe responsible for all of this, but rather the U.S. This will be from an interview on the Dialogue Works channel with Col. Larry Wilkerson & Amb. Chas Freeman, showing how this ideological nazification process is driven by the U.S. The second video, also from the same channel, features Richard D. Wolff & Michael Hudson, who describe the economic aspect of this nazification, which originates in the U.S. and is being imported into the EU.

– YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

1:49

“I have not watched a president address our Congress for some time um actually it started with my own President George W Bush uh where I was actually there one time and I said to myself and I said to Cole and Powell afterwards this is the greatest farce ever conceived on the face of the Earth and we are responsible for it.”

21:31

“Leaders in Russia have, from that time forward, at least in my reading of their history, wanted to be a member of Europe, and they’ve been rebuffed just about every time they have put feelers out or tried to do it. The latest rebuff was probably, again in my historical memory anyway, the worst, the very worst, because we started the process. Russia was going to be an observer status member of the political and military organization in NATO, with the expectation that they would be a full member later on if the vote could be cast. And it all went to hell with Bill Clinton. It went to hell because Bill Clinton wanted to expand NATO in order to get money into the defense contractors so they could contribute to the Democratic Party and the Congress in his own campaign, and because he was scared to death of Colin Powell being his opponent in 1994 or 1995. He needed to build up his bona fides in the National Security Arena, so he ran around becoming a war president and becoming a man who presided over the industrial complex. He even invited a committee, a committee of contractors, to recommend whether or not they should expand NATO. Well, guess what they recommended? “I want to sell F-16s to Poland. Hell yes, I want to sell them.” Um, we just screwed the pooch, but we need to come back to the idea that Russia is a part of Europe, and we need to come back to the idea that the European security architecture, once we get past this mess in Ukraine, needs to include Russia. And if we have to do that over the heads of Europe, so be it. And if they go for the way that was just demonstrated by those words that were spoken about going to military instruments and so forth, goodbye social programs, goodbye everything that Denmark becomes the number one country in the world for happy citizens, goodbye everything that Europe has done in the way of healthcare, education, and so forth, because they’ll be spending it like we do on armaments. I was at GW two days ago giving a lecture to a bunch of mid-level bureaucrats from all over the federal government, and the philosopher that was with me there—we were a tag team—the philosopher was talking about how to these guys out there, these guys and gals who were in the military, in the CIA, “Do you realize that you’re sacrificing the American people’s healthcare? Do you realize you’re sacrificing their happiness? Do you realize you’re sacrificing much of what this country could be because of what you’re doing?” He’s right. One trillion dollars now is the NDAA. Interest payments on the debt are a trillion dollars. In 10 years, there’ll be two trillion dollars, and we’ll have a $50 trillion aggregate debt. A lot of this has nothing to do with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Sure, that’s part of it and needs to be reformed, but a huge component of it is the trillion dollars we’re spending on defense.”

Instead of the U.S. taking inspiration from Europe’s social welfare programs and so-called evil socialism—which has made Denmark the number one country in the world for happy citizens—America has instead begun the process of nazification, or rather, the Americanization of Europe, which I will continue discussing.

People like Alex Krainer and Tom Luongo believe that the evil British and the British Crown are somehow controlling the U.S., portraying America as a beacon of good in the world. However, they fail to see that the U.S. is already a nazified nation, actively working to Americanize – essentially nazifying Europe. Meanwhile, they continue to talk about so-called imaginary Communism, which will be discussed in the next video regarding the economic aspects of what is happening.

28:50

“I think we have a lot to do with what the Ambassador just described, which will be in the history books later, because we started in the George W. Bush administration a very formidable effort, using the CIA’s new techniques, among other things. Those new techniques being using largely NGOs, either wittingly (that is to say, infiltrated by agents) or unwittingly (that is to say, funded and fueled by the agency’s plans and by our strategy). Part of that was to get in Europe elected, in as many countries as we possibly could, little Jens Stoltenberg, and Jens led the way as our man to be Secretary General of NATO. But we caused a lot of countries—and I say a lot because it was a lot—to suddenly have elections that elected people that didn’t represent the majority of their people, but represented this angle that we put on them. Prominent in that angle was to be a member of NATO. So, we persuaded countries that had been independent, had been neutral for so long, suddenly to change their minds, like Finland, and come in. It wasn’t Putin’s going to attack the entire region; it was the very successful program we ran to get people elected who were the kinds of people we wanted—call them neoconservative, call them whatever you want, European version—but we did. We put lots of effort and time and money into that, and now we’re seeing, to a certain extent, or we have seen over the past decade or so, the results of that. I don’t think Merz represents Germany; he represents BlackRock, from which he came. He does not represent Germany, and he was going to have a hell of a time ruling. I suspect he’s going to fracture—his coalition will fracture very early—because there are German people who don’t agree with what Merz wants to do, and there are lots of French who don’t agree with what Macron wants to do. Colin Georgescu in Romania was a perfect example, and we were in there, we were in there working to try and get him eliminated from the process. We’re in Georgia again. We had gotten the party we wanted into power; they got out by legitimate election, barely lost, but they lost. Now we’re agitating to get that party out and our old party back in. Why? Because in this case, Biden thought Georgia and Moldova and Romania and others would be better equipped to take on Russia and to support the war in Ukraine. So, this is all a configuration that we created in Europe. We created it by the way we dealt with Europe, starting with the post-9/11 period and my president, George W. Bush, and I’m sad to say, no one deviated in the process since.”

This perfectly represents my point of view and the difference between my perspective and that of Alex Krainer and Tom Luongo. Krainer and Luongo talk about an imaginary British Crown controlling America, as well as some supposed imaginary Communist in the EU and a “nazification” of Europe driven by these imaginary Communists.

In reality, however, it is not the British, nor some fictional Communists in Europe, but the U.S. itself leading a capitalist cabal that seeks to nazify Europe. In fact, this so-called nazification could more accurately be called Americanization, since the U.S. is already nazified and is now trying to export this system to Europe. So it is not some imaginary Communists in Europe driving this process – it is a capitalist-fascist cabal, led by Americans, who are at the forefront of this agenda.

32:04

“There have been many revelations with the implosion of USAID, which was a fine organization devoted to development assistance, but which basically, in recent years, has been repurposed. You see and hear so many ironic consequences of the disempowerment of USAID. For example, the press in Ukraine has collapsed; it turns out they’re all on our payroll. I just read today that we’re suffering from a lack of knowledge about what’s going on in Iran because all the Iranian exile groups we’ve been funding suddenly are not funded. You know, we built this whole house of cards on basically bribery and corruption, and it’s over. I think we’re going to have to reconstitute USAID somehow because that’s our soft power. That’s how we offset the image we have of warmongering and intervention, by helping, or at least pretending that we care about other people. It’s also a first line of defense on things like pandemics and so on. Of course, we’re out of the World Health Organization, once again, and there seem to be quite a number of things brewing. We’re really going to regret that. But the revelations that count are not things about transgenic mice, but about Ukrainian newspapers and broadcasters, and Iranian opposition, and, as Larry said, opposition in Georgia and the overthrow of electoral results in Romania, and so forth. I don’t know how we’re going to do this if we don’t have—you know, this was very clever—the CIA offloaded all this stuff to the National Endowment for Democracy and other organizations. I don’t know how we’re going to do it; we don’t have those institutions, and it would be very good if we didn’t do it.”

This is a good description of how USAID and NED function as the soft power of the U.S. The only point I would argue with is the statement “but which basically, in recent years, has been repurposed.”

I respect both men and think they are knowledgeable and intelligent, but they still miss a lot of key information. For example, they discuss the U.S. failure in Iraq, but in my view, it was not a failure – it was by design, which they don’t seem to understand. I have previously explained in my posts how ISIS and the destabilization of Iraq were not unintended consequences but rather a deliberate strategy. The goal was to allow ISIS to extract oil from Iraqi fields, which could then be purchased illegally at a discount by Western companies, increasing their profits. Without ISIS and the destabilization of Iraq, Western companies would have secured the best possible contracts for Iraqi oil – but still at market prices. And as I’ve said before, what’s the point of buying oil at market prices when you can buy it illegally at a fraction of the cost and make real profits?

Anyway, repeating my argument about Iraq would take too long, and this post is already going to be long. Instead, let me share a quote from one of my previous posts that demonstrates how USAID was not recently repurposed – it has served this role from the beginning and for a very long time.

“The main refinery from which the key narcotics organization is getting its heroin and opium is ostensibly a Pepsi Cola bottling plant. However, it is actually a heroin laboratory. Nonetheless, that heroin laboratory is being used by the key narcotics organization, the Hmong tribes, and the CIA to fly heroin into South Vietnam, where it’s going into the veins of our GIs. That plant is being subsidized by the U.S. Agency for International Development, which often serves as a conduit for U.S. intelligence. Niptuk is going to provide you with a very interesting piece of information about a well-known American politician who played a crucial role in getting that plant set up. He will share that later in the show.

This information is from “The Great Heroin Coup” by Henry Krueger. In August 1971, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs announced the location in Southeast Asia of 29 drug refineries, 15 of which were allegedly producing heroin. Among the largest was one in Vientiane, Laos, which was camouflaged as a Pepsi Cola plant. Richard Nixon, representing Pepsi’s interests in 1965, promoted its construction. Though the plant never capped a bottle, it continued to receive subsidies from U.S. aid for international development.

Richard Nixon, who at that time, among other things, was involved in the Kennedy assassination, worked for the Pepsi Cola Company. He was the one who promoted the establishment of that plant in Vientiane, which became the leading heroin refinery in all of Southeast Asia. The plant never capped a bottle of Pepsi; instead, the heroin, as Dave said, went straight into the arms of American GIs, supported by American taxpayers through USAID. Furthermore, the main person trafficking in that heroin, which was going into the arms of the GIs, was Nien Kalki, a key official of the government that those GIs were there to support in the first place. This is obviously a distasteful situation.”

Now, the last video—let’s look at the economic angle of all of this.

– YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

40:34

“Well, there’s one very serious problem that I guess I should escalate. The problem—you were right that the whole fight by NATO after World War II was against socialism and the threat of socialism—but the fight is much more serious now. It’s a fight against government itself. You have Trump and the right-wing libertarian policies in Europe, the Alternative für Deutschland, and the Italian corporate state opposing the whole idea of government. In the last few days, you’ve had Trump’s proposal by his Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, on Sunday, saying that we’ve got to get rid of government itself. That’s what Musk is essentially doing—to disband all of the government. That’s because libertarianism and free markets are a concept of centralized economy, centralized planning. But the centralized planning by libertarians and the Hayekian free marketers is centralized planning in the hands of Wall Street and the financial sector. You take planning out of the hands of government—and hence elected officials—and put it in the hands of the people you’ve seen around Trump in his speeches and ever since being elected president. It’s the billionaires who are in charge of planning.

When Musk goes to Germany and says, “We want you to vote for Alternative für Deutschland,” he’s not saying, “Vote for Sarah Wagenknecht on the left for peace instead of war in Ukraine.” He’s saying, “Vote for the party that wants to get rid of all social welfare spending.” Indeed, you had the so-called Social Democratic parties of Germany as the big losers in the election a few weeks ago. So what you’re fighting now is not only against socialism but against social democracy, Keynesianism, and the whole idea of a mixed economy with government having certain social functions and providing services to the population—healthcare, education—so that employers do not have to pay labor high enough wages to cover these things out of their wages. You’re having an attack on government itself.

That’s what leads the United States to throw its political support behind the right-wing parties that were described. The Commerce Secretary in America says, “We want to have a new measure of the GDP without government. The real economy is without government because the government doesn’t produce services the people want.” These services can be done by privatization. Margaret Thatcher was right—we’ve got to make Europe and America just what happened in England under Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. You have the Social Democratic parties joining in this privatization, anti-government view, which indeed is why the Social Democrats lost in Germany and why the Labour Party looks like Starmer will be thrown out of office. But with essentially only the right-wing, anti-social democrats—really the corporate economy—and Meloni said, “We shouldn’t call it fascism; we should call it the corporate state because it’s a state run for big business.” Because that’s what makes the profits, and that’s what the economy is all about—not social welfare.

If that’s the case, then Europe is going to essentially fight to the last member of the working class. I don’t know how you make the parallel with fighting to the last Ukrainian, but the situation of the Trump administration backing this anti-government feeling to dismantle government—so even if there is a revived left-wing movement, such as you and I would like to see, Richard—there won’t be the institutional apparatus surviving to become a vehicle to provide the welfare. That’s what’s really making Europe go way down and lose. That’s the European death wish, very well subsidized by the United States, and it’s the death wish of the Republican libertarian agenda under Trump.”

This is the economic angle of this “nazification”, or as I call it, the Americanization of the EU I’ve written many times about the AfD being a tool to destroy European welfare and the remnants of socialism in Europe, which, as stated in the previous video, “Denmark becomes the number one country in the world for happy citizens.” Trump is trying to complete the dismantling of the state in the U.S. and bring it to the EU.

I’ve written before about Thatcherism making a return to Europe, and Michael Hudson also touches on this point here. I have been warning for a long time that Europe will be Americanized, and we will see how the lives of average people in the U.S. compare to those in Europe. Instead of the U.S. taking lessons from Europe and Denmark to improve the lives of its people, the U.S. is ensuring that the EU will become more like the U.S., thus lowering the standard of living of the average European to the level of the U.S.

This is being done in the name of a global capitalist cabal, which is led by the U.S. and doesn’t like the EU because the socialism and social welfare in Europe cut into the corporate profits of this capitalist cabal. Soon, they will turn the EU into the U.S. and make it as profitable for this capitalist cabal as the U.S. has been. A similar thing was done to Japan in the ’80s, which led to Japan’s three lost decades. This is what they want for the EU.

46:07

“If you go and may add something to what Michael said, the question is why does Europe need Russia to be their enemy? Are they really afraid of themselves? If there is no enemy out there, they’re going to fight with each other. That’s the reason. How do you see this?

Well, let me try to get at it a little bit indirectly, and maybe a little bit disagree with Michael. I agree with him that this libertarian ideology, which it’s very hard for me to take seriously the notion that the government is the bad guy without ever asking the question why exactly would the government be the bad guy, since it’s a government owned and operated by the very people who are giving you the argument that it is a bad guy. If it’s a bad guy, it’s because of what they make it do. Who the hell else? I mean, it’s very strange to get angry at the servant rather than at the master who’s telling the servant what to do. It’s the same mistake as, you know, blaming the messenger because you don’t like the message. Very strange. But put it aside.

I think you have a desperation to make Russia evil because it’s the closest you can get to making government evil. You remember you always have this problem for the libertarian: he demonizes what he is – he’s the government – but he has to act in this bizarre way. “I’m going to,” like Mr. Lotnik, “he has to be in the government which he declares is the total evil, and so he’s going to go out by self-destructing his government.” Very odd kind of thing. But we’ve seen it. Thatcher, Cameron, the whole period of many years of the dominance of the Conservative Party in England, which ended up self-destroying because it doesn’t work in modern capitalism. The most successful capitalism of the last 25 years is the Chinese, who have a very powerful government. They’ve worked this out. They have a private sector, big and important. They have a government sector. They have a Communist Party and the government, and they’ve made it work. You may not like them, you may—that’s a different matter—but they’ve gotten the economic growth that dwarfs Europe and the United States by comparison. Not even close. Chinese growth year after year is two to three times what it is in the West, and there’s no end of that insight this year as well. Okay, so what is the leadership going to do? They’re going to hype their old ideology. “It’s the government. We get rid of the government, everything will get better.” They’ve tried that. They’ve tried that in England, they’ve tried it elsewhere. There’s no sign that that works, and there’s nothing comparable to what the Chinese have accomplished, who are at the other end of the private-state spectrum. We don’t have the Soviet Union, which went further; we have the hybrid of the Chinese, but they’re the dominant player. So, this is a game: “We’re going to get rid of the government.” Okay, let’s suppose they do that. There is no reason for anyone to believe that this is going to somehow vault them over what’s going on in China and Russia, where the government plays a much larger role. Nothing has happened in the West over the last half-century that has dissuaded the Chinese or the Russians from a big, powerful role from the government. You know, why are they stuck in an ideology? Well, more or less so than we are. They would have adjusted. In fact, the Chinese did. Part of the reason the Chinese have a big private sector is they wanted certain benefits to come from that, which they have achieved while holding on to their hybrid.

So, for me, what again—I want to beat the dead horse very quick—you have politicians whose situation is impossible. They hitch their entire careers to the United States as the umbrella that they were the partners, and they went to their people and said, “We are partnered with the great power. We are therefore safe. We may be a little Estonia or a little Slovenia, but we’re partnered with the United States, which, look, it brought the Soviet Union to its knees. It’s gone.” Whoa, wow. And now their protector is telling them, “I’m not going to protect you anymore.” They’re stuck. They made a pact with a devil who has now betrayed them. They have nowhere to go politically, so they have to either hype the old libertarian song again or revive the anti-Soviet, and now anti-Russia, hysteria. Okay, that’ll work for a while. Their populations have been accustomed, but it’s a shrinking game. It doesn’t solve their problem. Europe each year falls further and further behind. No major technical breakthrough of the last 10 or 15 years comes from Europe. They don’t have their own telecommunications. They don’t have their own new military technology. Putin sends a new missile, they don’t know what to do. They can’t possibly handle this. They can’t possibly replace the United States in the Ukraine. That’s a bad joke.

Now, I may be wrong in the following. Maybe this will work. I’d like to know Michael’s opinion. Maybe this deal in which the Democratic Party here makes a common effort with those folks in Europe, trying to manage to undo Mr. Trump’s trajectory, maybe that’ll work. Maybe Mr. Trump will shift gears. I don’t know.

I think I can explain the dynamic that’s at work. You said, “Why is the government bad? Why is Russia bad?” And that’s because it’s doing—the government is doing what privatizers would like to take over and turn into monopoly profits. The government is indeed controlled by the billionaires who, thanks to Citizens United and the fact that elections are a function of campaign donors, but the government still is charged and structured to provide many social services. And the social services that government provides are in government hands because they’re natural monopolies. And the social democrats, beginning in the late 19th century, kept them in government hands so that the economy wouldn’t have communications and transportation and other choke points that were basic needs turned into personal monopolies. Well, the government’s the enemy, and social democracy is the enemy, because it’s not Russia as such, but that the neocons and neoliberals need a convenient enemy around which to mount the libertarian takeover. You always need an enemy to do what you’re trying to do. And the libertarian billionaires want to do to Europe and the United States just what the neoliberals did to Russia in the 1990s. They want to turn over all of the mass of government property—national parks, government real estate, government agencies—all of these, they want to turn over to the financial managers to turn into monopolies that can be financialized and create wealth in the form of stock market gains and bond market gains. That’s what the game is. It’s not so much geopolitical antagonism towards Russia. That’s the sort of superficial wrapping. It’s about a political, anti-government, fascist ideology. That’s what I think we’re dealing with.”

This is what is really happening, and this is exactly the “nazification”, or as I call it, the Americanization of the EU and Thatcherism coming to the EU I have been warning about for a long time.

In the end, I would like to share one more excerpt, which I know will not be taken positively because it involves Jeffrey Sachs. I have written about him before, and I was attacked, for example, by Aaron Good in the comments of his video with Jeffrey Sachs for speaking truthfully about him. I have discussed Jeffrey Sachs in a post before as well.

The CIA is a Terrorist Organization (Capitalism, Socialism, and So-Called Shock Therapy in Russia)

This post discusses the collapse of Russia and what the West has done to it. I live in Poland, and the same thing was done to Poland. I saw it with my own eyes when I was a kid. I witnessed this so-called help from the West to Poland, which Jeffrey Sachs brags about. In reality, it was a process of destruction and plunder of Poland.

I’ve written before that I support Jeffrey Sachs for telling some truths, but if he wants my full support, he needs to admit, with honesty, that he helped this capitalist cabal destroy and plunder other states. He must stop pretending he was actually helping them. When I hear him say he helped Poland, it makes me sick because I know what he truly did.

Now, I will give you an example of what the so-called help from Jeffrey Sachs, the IMF, and the West actually looked like, using one specific example.

“An American giant reportedly attempted to corrupt Andrzej Lepper, seeking to take over post-Soviet pig slaughterhouses in Poland. The operation was partially successful, according to Robert F. Kennedy.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is expected to be responsible for health policy in Donald Trump's administration, spoke in an interview about a massive bribe that the Americans allegedly offered to Andrzej Lepper. It concerns Smithfield Foods, which aimed to take over a large portion of slaughterhouses in Poland and later came under Chinese ownership.

"Smithfield wanted to come in and take over pig farming in Poland. They offered a bribe to a state official, Andrzej Lepper. He refused it. He told me that the second most important guy at Smithfield offered him a million dollars. It was about pushing through a law, which eventually passed anyway, even though Lepper rejected it," said Kennedy.

Later, Lepper died by suicide in suspicious circumstances.”

This is how help from the West, the IMF, and people like Jeffrey Sachs to former Soviet bloc nations looked, and this is what they wanted to do to Russia. Anyway, this is what Michael Hudson had to say about it.

33:56

“Because of Stalin's fault. When, at Yalta, the British Prime Minister passed a piece of paper across the table to Stalin, saying, "Here is how we're going to divide up the country," Stalin accepted what Churchill said. Stalin agreed to assign Greece to the British sphere of influence because Britain wanted to control the Mediterranean and the route to the Near East. Stalin let the Communist Party of Greece, which was one of the strongest communist parties in the world, be destroyed. That was the horror of Stalin's betrayal of the international revolution. It's what led Tito to create a really genuine worker state in Yugoslavia, and led to the break of Yugoslavia away from the Soviet Union. That was the only hope. There's no thought today of a Titoist type of workers' control and workers' structure, and that's why, in this fight against socialism that you've described, the number one enemy, for which they assigned Jeffrey Sachs to destroy, was Yugoslavia. They had to break it up because it was Yugoslavia that provided the most efficient and workable model of workers' control and labor control, and integration. That's why the IMF and Sachs were sent in to smash it up. I know that he's made amends by making very good speeches now, but that's the history, unfolding pretty much just as you described.”

I know it's a very long post, but I hope at least a few of you stay with me until the end. I understand that long posts can scare people away, and I wish that I could make it shorter, but discussing complex concepts and subjects like history, geopolitics, and economics can't be done in just a few words. For those who were able to read all of this and stay with me until the end, I am truly grateful.

I want people to understand the truth about the world and what is happening because, unless people understand the truth and reality of what is going on, we will never make this world a better place for future generations. And if God exists, He would want us to create a better world for all of us. That’s why it was said, “The truth will set you free,” or as Socrates said, “Knowledge will make you free”—which is essentially the same, as we find the truth through understanding, and we achieve that understanding through knowledge.

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

Please pay enough attention, or we will all be screwed. God bless you all.

"And I stand to fight, as before, against the primary evil of the state (world): the rule of unruly parties and factions over Poland (world), the forgetting of intangible values, and the remembering of nothing but money and personal gain."

― Józef Piłsudski

"Any form of tribal or national hatred is foreign to us. The freedom fighters of all countries and nations are our brothers. We know how to pay tribute to any great thought, regardless of the language in which it was born; we know how to honor any poet and thinker, no matter what nation gave birth to them."

― Józef Piłsudski

"Our blood has soaked into one land, a land equally dear to both sides, loved equally by both. (…) May God, in His mercy, forgive our sins and turn away His punishing hand, and we shall stand to our work, which strengthens and renews our land."

― Józef Piłsudski