Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

News & Supplemental  

So It Begins: Does Proposed US, EU Single Market Augur American Economic Subjugation?

Mar­tin Bor­mann (right) with Himmler

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash drive that can be obtained here. (The flash drive includes the anti-fascist books avail­able on this site.)

COMMENT: As the media fix­ate on the “dis­clo­sures” of career spook Baby Face Snow­den (pre­dictably fail­ing to note how the entire affair tracks back to the far right/Cato Institute/Koch Broth­ers milieu), a huge and poten­tially dev­as­tat­ing (for the U.S.) devel­op­ment is being eclipsed.

Obama and British Prime Min­is­ter David Cameron are lin­ing up behind an enor­mous EU/US trade deal, which would bring the U.S. and the EU into a sin­gle market–the largest in the world.

As a gen­eral con­sid­er­a­tion, we don’t approve of these kinds of agree­ments. NAFTA and its litter-mates gen­er­ally ben­e­fit cor­po­rate inter­ests at the expense of the cit­i­zens whose pros­per­ity they are sup­posed to elevate.

We are very, very leery of this whopper. 

No doubt we will be del­uged by rhetoric assur­ing us that the agree­ment will bring jobs, jobs, jobs and lots of good vibes all around.

Indeed it may do just that–for Ger­many, in all likelihood.

In this regard, we bring up some­thing we have noted in many posts and broad­casts–the blue­print for Ger­man world wide dom­i­na­tion crafted by Friedrich List in the 19th cen­tury and real­ized by the Third Reich in its above-ground and under­ground manifestations.

The Third Reich’s eco­nomic tem­plate was set forth by Dorothy Thomp­son in a 1940 arti­cle, reviewed (from a T.H. H. Tetens text) below.

Suf­fice it to say that eco­nomic forces and pres­sure are seen as the means for sub­ju­gat­ing the United States, and that this will be accom­plished by offer­ing com­pet­i­tive advan­tages to com­mer­cial inter­ests with which Cor­po­rate Ger­many has already networked.

In more pro­grams and posts than we could link or note here, we have doc­u­mented that the EMU and EU are the real­iza­tion of the Lis­t­ian blue­print. The bru­tal real­i­ties being imposed on the trou­bled nations of that con­ti­nent are dec­i­mat­ing those soci­eties and dri­ving the cit­i­zens in the direc­tion of fascism.

We are con­fi­dent that many cheer­ful state­ments will be issued reas­sur­ing the wary that this will all be fine and well–it’s just a sin­gle mar­ket, after all.

This is pre­cisely how Britain was maneu­vered into accept­ing mar­ket con­ti­nu­ity with Ger­many and the EU. This hasn’t worked well for Britain, which did man­age to avoid get­ting roped into the Euro.

Once Britain was “reeled in,” it devel­oped that the rules were being made on the con­ti­nent and were estab­lished to the detri­ment of the U.K.

The full chron­i­cle of how this was done is beyond the scope of this post and requires lengthy aca­d­e­mic consideration.

We strongly rec­om­mend the fol­low­ing web­site for seri­ous perusal and dis­sem­i­na­tion. This is how it was done to the U.K.

Will it be done to the U.S. in a sim­i­lar fashion?

In this con­text, we should never lose sight of the deci­sive power wielded by the immensely secre­tive, pow­er­ful Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work, which has major cap­i­tal par­tic­i­pa­tion in major Amer­i­can cor­po­ra­tions, in addi­tion to dom­i­nat­ing Cor­po­rate Ger­many. (Note, in this con­text, that any Amer­i­can cor­po­ra­tion that would decline to coop­er­ate with this “sin­gle mar­ket” could have its stock value col­lapsed by a sell-off.)

Orga­nized labor, in par­tic­u­lar, should be alerted to the strong prob­a­bil­ity that this sin­gle mar­ket will not work to the advan­tage of the United States.

“EU and US ‘In Biggest Trade Deal’”; BBC; 6/17/2013.

EXCERPT: UK Prime Min­is­ter David Cameron has announced plans for what could be “the biggest bilat­eral trade deal in his­tory” between the EU and the US.

He announced the start of for­mal nego­ti­a­tions on a trade deal worth hun­dreds of bil­lions of pounds, aimed at boost­ing exports and dri­ving growth.

Mr Cameron said a suc­cess­ful agree­ment would have a greater impact than all other world trade deals put together.

The talks were announced ahead of the G8 sum­mit in North­ern Ireland.

US Pres­i­dent Barack Obama said the first round of nego­ti­a­tions would take place in Wash­ing­ton in July. They aim to con­clude by the end of 2014.

The French have already expressed mis­giv­ings about parts of the trade deal. They are wor­ried that if they can­not pro­tect their film indus­try from Hollywood’s dom­i­nance, their unique artis­tic cul­ture will be undermined.

After intense talks with other EU coun­tries last week, it seems the French have per­suaded the nego­tia­tors to hon­our what they call a cul­tural exclusion.

That leaves the way open for other sec­tors to say they are also excep­tional and should not be included in the trade deal.

The French claim the Amer­i­cans want to exclude finan­cial ser­vices from the free trade nego­ti­a­tions. The Amer­i­cans have not acknowl­edged that pub­licly but it is a reminder that behind closed doors the dis­cus­sions might be very difficult.

Mr Obama said he was con­fi­dent of reach­ing an agreement.

“There are going to be sen­si­tiv­i­ties on both sides... but if we can look beyond the nar­row con­cerns to stay focused on the big pic­ture... I’m hope­ful we can achieve [a deal].” . . . .

. . . . The EU has said the deal will focus on bring­ing down remain­ing tar­iffs and other bar­ri­ers to trade, and stan­dard­ize tech­ni­cal reg­u­la­tions and cer­ti­fi­ca­tions. . . .

. . . . Cur­rently the US and EU impose rel­a­tively low tar­iffs on goods traded between them, but ana­lysts say other bar­ri­ers are often in place to pre­vent Euro­pean com­pa­nies com­pet­ing in the US and vice versa.
One exam­ple is found in the car indus­try, where the EU and the US employ equally strict — but dif­fer­ing — safety stan­dards, mean­ing that Euro­pean car mak­ers must meet both before they can sell cars in the US mar­ket, putting them at a disadvantage.

Agri­cul­ture is also expected to be a sig­nif­i­cant bone of contention.

The Euro­pean farm­ing indus­try is already heav­ily sub­si­dized through the Com­mon Agri­cul­tural Pol­icy, and the Euro­pean agri­cul­ture min­is­ter has already expressed reser­va­tions about the impact a free-trade deal might have. . . .

Ger­many Plots with the Krem­lin; T.H. Tetens; Henry Schu­man [HC]; 1953; p. 92.

. . . . The Ger­mans have a clear plan of what they intend to do in case of vic­tory. I believe that I know the essen­tial details of that plan. I have heard it from a suf­fi­cient num­ber of impor­tant Ger­mans to credit its authen­tic­ity . . . Germany’s plan is to make a cus­toms union of Europe, with com­plete finan­cial and eco­nomic con­trol cen­tered in Berlin. This will cre­ate at once the largest free trade area and the largest planned econ­omy in the world. In West­ern Europe alone . . . there will be an eco­nomic unity of 400 mil­lion per­sons . . . To these will be added the resources of the British, French, Dutch and Bel­gian empires. These will be pooled in the name of Europa Germanica . . .

“The Ger­mans count upon polit­i­cal power fol­low­ing eco­nomic power, and not vice versa. Ter­ri­to­r­ial changes do not con­cern them, because there will be no ‘France’ or ‘Eng­land,’ except as lan­guage groups. Lit­tle imme­di­ate con­cern is felt regard­ing polit­i­cal orga­ni­za­tions . . . . No nation will have the con­trol of its own finan­cial or eco­nomic sys­tem or of its cus­toms. The Naz­i­fi­ca­tion of all coun­tries will be accom­plished by eco­nomic pres­sure. In all coun­tries, con­tacts have been estab­lished long ago with sym­pa­thetic busi­ness­men and indus­tri­al­ists . . . . As far as the United States is con­cerned, the plan­ners of the World Ger­man­ica laugh off the idea of any armed inva­sion. They say that it will be com­pletely unnec­es­sary to take mil­i­tary action against the United States to force it to play ball with this sys­tem. . . . Here, as in every other coun­try, they have estab­lished rela­tions with numer­ous indus­tries and com­mer­cial orga­ni­za­tions, to whom they will offer advan­tages in co-operation with Ger­many. . . . [Ital­ics and bold-face are mine–D.E.]



One comment for “So It Begins: Does Proposed US, EU Single Market Augur American Economic Subjugation?”

  1. The sources are flawed for the fol­low­ing arti­cle. One source is the far-Left “World Social­ist Web­site” and the other is the (cough) Lib­er­tar­ian “Prime Eco­nom­ics” web­site. These are the only two places where the JP Mor­gan pol­icy paper in ques­tion, call­ing for a fas­cist Europe, is cur­rently found on Google.

    Con­nect the dots or don’t to this page.

    Pter­rafractyl posted a par­al­lel story (“Euro-Area Eco­nomic Adjust­ment Only Half Com­plete, Moody’s Says” at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012–08-21/euro-area-economic-adjustment-only-half-complete-moody-s-says.html). One won­ders about the author­ship of the Moody’s advisement.


    JPMor­gan calls for author­i­tar­ian regimes in Europe
    By Ste­fan Stein­berg
    17 June 2013

    In a doc­u­ment released at the end of May, the Amer­i­can bank­ing and invest­ment giant JP Mor­gan Chase calls for the over­turn­ing of the bour­geois demo­c­ra­tic con­sti­tu­tions estab­lished in a series of Euro­pean coun­tries after the Sec­ond World War and the instal­la­tion of author­i­tar­ian regimes.

    The 16-page doc­u­ment was pro­duced by the Europe Eco­nomic Research group of JP Mor­gan and titled “The Euro Area Adjustment—About Half-Way There.” The doc­u­ment begins by not­ing that the cri­sis in the euro zone has two dimensions.

    First, the paper argues, finan­cial mea­sures are nec­es­sary to ensure that major invest­ment houses such as JP Mor­gan can con­tinue to reap huge prof­its from their spec­u­la­tive activ­i­ties in Europe. Sec­ond, the authors main­tain, it is nec­es­sary to impose “polit­i­cal reforms” aimed at sup­press­ing oppo­si­tion to the mas­sively unpop­u­lar aus­ter­ity mea­sures being car­ried out at the behest of the banks.

    The report expresses sat­is­fac­tion with the imple­men­ta­tion of a num­ber of finan­cial mech­a­nisms by the Euro­pean Union to secure bank­ing inter­ests. In this respect, the study main­tains, reform of the euro area is about halfway there. The report does, how­ever, call for more action by the Euro­pean Cen­tral Bank (ECB).

    Since the erup­tion of the global finan­cial cri­sis in 2008, the ECB has made tril­lions of euros avail­able to the banks to enable them to wipe out their bad debts and com­mence a new round of spec­u­la­tion. In the face of mount­ing pres­sure from the finan­cial mar­kets, ECB chief Mario Draghi declared last sum­mer that he would do what­ever was nec­es­sary to shore up the banks.

    This, how­ever, is not suf­fi­cient as far as the ana­lysts at JPMor­gan are con­cerned. They demand a “more dra­matic response” to the cri­sis from the ECB.
    The harsh­est crit­i­cisms in the doc­u­ment, how­ever, are reserved for national gov­ern­ments that have been much too tardy in imple­ment­ing the type of author­i­tar­ian mea­sures nec­es­sary to impose aus­ter­ity. The process of such “polit­i­cal reform,” the study notes, has “hardly even begun.”

    Towards the end of the doc­u­ment, the authors explain what they mean by “polit­i­cal reform.” They write: “In the early days of the cri­sis it was thought that these national legacy prob­lems were largely eco­nomic,” but “it has become appar­ent that there are deep-seated polit­i­cal prob­lems in the periph­ery, which, in our view, need to change if EMU (the Euro­pean Mon­e­tary Union) is to func­tion in the long run.”

    The paper then details prob­lems in the polit­i­cal sys­tems of the periph­eral coun­tries of the Euro­pean Union—Greece, Spain, Por­tu­gal and Italy—that have been at the cen­ter of the Euro­pean debt cri­sis.
    The authors write: “The polit­i­cal sys­tems in the periph­ery were estab­lished in the after­math of dic­ta­tor­ship, and were defined by that expe­ri­ence. Con­sti­tu­tions tend to show a strong social­ist influ­ence, reflect­ing the polit­i­cal strength that left-wing par­ties gained after the defeat of fascism.

    “Polit­i­cal sys­tems around the periph­ery typ­i­cally dis­play sev­eral of the fol­low­ing fea­tures: weak exec­u­tives; weak cen­tral states rel­a­tive to regions; con­sti­tu­tional pro­tec­tion of labour rights; consensus-building sys­tems which fos­ter polit­i­cal clien­tal­ism; and the right to protest if unwel­come changes are made to the polit­i­cal sta­tus quo. The short­com­ings of this polit­i­cal legacy have been revealed by the cri­sis. “ What­ever the his­tor­i­cal inac­cu­ra­cies in their analy­sis, there can not be the slight­est doubt that the authors of the JPMor­gan report are argu­ing for gov­ern­ments to adopt dictatorial-type pow­ers to com­plete the process of social coun­ter­rev­o­lu­tion that is already well under­way across Europe.

    In real­ity, there was noth­ing gen­uinely social­ist about the con­sti­tu­tions estab­lished across Europe in the post­war period. Such con­sti­tu­tions were aimed at secur­ing bour­geois rule under con­di­tions where the cap­i­tal­ist sys­tem and its polit­i­cal agents had been thor­oughly com­pro­mised by the crimes of Fas­cist and dic­ta­to­r­ial regimes.

    The con­sti­tu­tions of Euro­pean states, includ­ing those of Italy, Spain, Greece and Por­tu­gal, were elab­o­rated and imple­mented in col­lab­o­ra­tion with the country’s respec­tive Social­ist and Com­mu­nist par­ties, which played the key role in demo­bil­is­ing the work­ing class and per­mit­ting the bour­geoisie to main­tain its rule.

    At the same time, how­ever, Europe’s dis­cred­ited rul­ing classes were well aware that the Russ­ian Rev­o­lu­tion remained a polit­i­cal bea­con for many work­ers. They felt com­pelled to make a series of con­ces­sions to the work­ing class to pre­vent revolution—in the form of pre­cisely the social and con­sti­tu­tional pro­tec­tions, includ­ing the right to protest, that JPMor­gan would now like to see abolished.

    To some extent, the bank’s crit­i­cism of Euro­pean gov­ern­ments for their lack of author­i­tar­i­an­ism rings hol­low. Across Europe, gov­ern­ments have repeat­edly resorted in recent years to police state mea­sures to sup­press oppo­si­tion to their policies.

    In France, Spain and Greece, emer­gency decrees and the mil­i­tary have been used to break strikes. The con­sti­tu­tion adopted in Greece in 1975, fol­low­ing the fall of the colonels’ dic­ta­tor­ship, has not pre­vented the Greek gov­ern­ment from sack­ing pub­lic work­ers en masse. And in a num­ber of Euro­pean coun­tries, rul­ing par­ties are encour­ag­ing the growth of neo­fas­cist par­ties such as the Golden Dawn move­ment in Greece.

    For JPMor­gan, how­ever, this is not enough. In order to avoid social rev­o­lu­tion in the com­ing period, its ana­lysts warn, it is nec­es­sary for cap­i­tal­ist gov­ern­ments across Europe to move as quickly as pos­si­ble to set up dic­ta­to­r­ial forms of rule.

    At the end of the doc­u­ment, the authors put for­ward a series of sce­nar­ios that they claim could result from the fail­ure of Euro­pean gov­ern­ments to erect author­i­tar­ian sys­tems. These vari­ants include: “1) the col­lapse of sev­eral reform-minded gov­ern­ments in the Euro­pean south, 2) a col­lapse in sup­port for the euro or the EU, 3) an out­right elec­toral vic­tory for rad­i­cal anti-European par­ties some­where in the region, or 4) the effec­tive ungovern­abil­ity of some Mem­ber States once social costs (par­tic­u­larly unem­ploy­ment) pass a par­tic­u­lar level.”

    This is the unadul­ter­ated voice of finance cap­i­tal speak­ing. It should be recalled that JPMor­gan is deeply impli­cated in the spec­u­la­tive oper­a­tions that have dev­as­tated the lives of hun­dreds of mil­lions of work­ers around the world. In March of this year, a US Sen­ate com­mit­tee released a 300-page report doc­u­ment­ing the crim­i­nal prac­tices and fraud car­ried out by JPMor­gan, the largest bank in the US and the world’s biggest dealer in deriv­a­tives. Despite the detailed rev­e­la­tions in the report, no action will be taken against the bank’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, who enjoys the per­sonal con­fi­dence of the US president.

    The same bank now pre­sumes to lec­ture gov­ern­ments. Sev­enty years after the assump­tion of power by Hitler and the Nazis in Ger­many, with cat­a­strophic con­se­quences for Europe and the world, JPMor­gan is lead­ing the call for author­i­tar­ian mea­sures to sup­press the work­ing class and wipe out its social gains.


    Whale of a Nerve! JP Mor­gan tell Europe’s States, your anti-fascist Con­sti­tu­tions are Unfit for Purpose

    By Jeremy Smith, 9th June 2013

    It’s Bilder­berg week­end in Wat­ford, so it’s fair game to run a piece on how right-wing bankers and their polit­i­cal agents are work­ing to rebuild our world in their own image and inter­est…. But like all the best con­spir­acy tales, this one has the merit of truth… they are!

    For some time, I’ve been fol­low­ing the ongo­ing process of pro­mot­ing the “Cred­i­tors’ Con­sti­tu­tion” for Euro­pean coun­tries. The Span­ish gov­ern­ment rushed through a Con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment in 2011 to give “absolute pri­or­ity” to pay­ments to their cred­i­tors, above all other inter­ests (here’s the detail, but viewed from a pro-creditor per­spec­tive); and in early 2012, the Eurogroup of Finance Min­is­ters pushed the Greek gov­ern­ment into promis­ing to do the same. The spate of “debt-brake” (and bal­anced bud­get) con­sti­tu­tional amend­ments in the last 2 years also tend in the same direc­tion, prompted by the EU Sta­bil­ity etc. Treaty.

    And now here we are given a new keynote mes­sage, which comes from the very same out­fit who brought us “The Lon­don Whale, a Study in Bank­ing Pro­bity and Respon­si­bil­ity”. Yes, JP Mor­gan. In sum­mary, their new report tells us:

    ” ... Euro­peans, your national Con­sti­tu­tions, born out of vic­tory over fas­cism, are today unfit for pur­pose. They show a strong social­ist influ­ence, includ­ing pro­tec­tion of labour rights and the right to protest if you’re unhappy. They must be changed.”

    I think I have never seen bankers argue so crudely (in polit­i­cal terms) as J P Mor­gan do in their report, “The Euro Area Adjust­ment – About Half Way There”, Europe Eco­nomic Research, 28th May 2013. And thanks to Leigh Phillips of EU Observer blog for draw­ing atten­tion to it in his post, from which it can be downloaded.

    Here are the rel­e­vant para­graphs from their “Research”:

    ” ... In the early days of the cri­sis, it was thought that these national legacy prob­lems were largely eco­nomic: over-levered sov­er­eigns, banks and house­holds, inter­nal real exchange rate mis­align­ments, and struc­tural rigidi­ties. But, over time it has become clear that there are also national legacy prob­lems of a polit­i­cal nature. The con­sti­tu­tions and polit­i­cal set­tle­ments in the south­ern periph­ery, put in place in the after­math of the fall of fas­cism, have a num­ber of fea­tures which appear to be unsuited to fur­ther inte­gra­tion in the region. When Ger­man politi­cians and pol­i­cy­mak­ers talk of a decade-long process of adjust­ment, they likely have in mind the need for both eco­nomic and polit­i­cal reform.

    ” ... At the start of the cri­sis, it was gen­er­ally assumed that the national legacy prob­lems were eco­nomic in nature. But, as the cri­sis has evolved, it has become appar­ent that there are deep seated polit­i­cal prob­lems in the periph­ery, which, in our view, need to change if EMU is going to func­tion prop­erly in the long run.

    ” ... The polit­i­cal sys­tems in the periph­ery were estab­lished in the after­math of dic­ta­tor­ship, and were defined by that expe­ri­ence. Con­sti­tu­tions tend to show a strong social­ist influ­ence, reflect­ing the polit­i­cal strength that left wing par­ties gained after the defeat of fas­cism. Polit­i­cal sys­tems around the periph­ery typ­i­cally dis­play sev­eral of the fol­low­ing fea­tures: weak exec­u­tives; weak cen­tral states rel­a­tive to regions; con­sti­tu­tional pro­tec­tion of labor rights; con­sen­sus build­ing sys­tems which fos­ter polit­i­cal clien­tal­ism; and the right to protest if unwel­come changes are made to the polit­i­cal sta­tus quo. The short­com­ings of this polit­i­cal legacy have been revealed by the crisis. “

    There you have it, in its reac­tionary cru­dity. It’s a truly dis­grace­ful document.

    Posted by R. Wilson | June 18, 2013, 8:03 pm

Post a comment