// // //
Despite its manifold flaws and a pervasive sense across much of Europe’s citizen’s that the EU institution is overbearing, unduly bureaucratic, and largely unaccountable; the formation of the European Union and the conceptualization of moving from the nation state towards a larger, continental community was arguably the greatest victory for idealistic progressivism the world has ever seen.
Stuff like this really pisses me off. What is so progressive about letting the CIA run Europe? Aside from the fact that this guy, a supposed journalist, doesn’t seem to have a clue as to punctuation (more common every day), he doesn’t appear to have read any history. People like him probably believe Mr Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union.
Objection, your honor. Supposition.
Damned right it’s supposition. Anyone who believes that the imposition of a supra-national body of useful (to the US neocon plans of world domination) idiots is a step towards any kind of sane future has been reading way too much of the MSM. Or is looking for a job there.
I’m not sure why CounterPunch puts up articles like this. Maybe it’s only to stimulate debate. In that case, they’ve certainly got my attention. But I’m not signing up to Facebook in order to join the discussion, even if anything I might type is already going into some database. At least the author could include his email. Besides, I find that a lot of comment sections turn into personal catfights which, much of the time have little or nothing to do with the original post.
Then, there is this Deardon article over at CommonDreams whose non-committedness (at least as far as I could understand) is pretty frustrating, as well. Here is my response to that:
Dear Mr Deardon,
Your article posted to CommonDreams had me grimacing, grinding my teeth, and forced me to go for a walk (always a good thing) so I wouldn’t tear my hair out.
I firmly believe that a Brexit would be the better choice, though maybe for different reasons from your ‘opponents’. Your argument seems to be the classic ‘lesser of two evils’ argument which severely limits the debate because it’s relatively binary: It’s either this or that. And that isn’t the case at all. You’ve fallen into the trap that the MSM has set for you. A Brexit doesn’t mean that all Brits would instantaneously become Farage clones or become persona non grata in whatever EU country they may find themselves. Or that you would have to sign the disgusting US trade deals or otherwise further cozy up to the US (for whatever perverted reason) just because you would no longer have any EU ‘protection’ (a racket if there ever was one) or the ability to trade. Bullshit. If the UK still produces anything of value (other than tax havens), people will want to buy it. And if their economies aren’t destroyed by the unelected US puppets in Brussels, they’ll probably be happy to pay for it.
We don’t need faceless, corrupt, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels telling 500 million people what they are going to eat, with whom they are going to trade, or with whom they are going to argue (or bomb), but that is exactly what faces the members of the EU today. Just because Europe was the scene of some pretty brutal stuff in the past doesn’t mean that it didn’t learn from that experience.
The US was a major (if not the major) force behind the creation of the EU. Do you believe they did that out of the kindness of their hearts? Out of some paternalistic concern? If you do, you should read Circus Politicus (Deloire and Dubois, Albin Michel, 2012). And it was just that horror of future wars, the willingness to explore other means of organizing societies, that the US wanted to prevent.
Wake up! You would prefer this gentle slide into Wollin’s ‘Inverted Totalitarianism’ with a catastrophic ending? Or a little discomfort right now with the possibility of a future worth living?
Fuck this. I’ve got gardening and plastering to do.
Joseph Richardson nails it. Amen, brother.