As we reported a few weeks ago, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel met last month in Aachen to sign a compact that I’ve been calling the Zweikaiserbund*.
The essay below by Robert Kearney about the treaty signed in Aachen was originally published at Compact News in a slightly different form.
The Franco-German Union, last step towards an EU Empire
By Robert Kearney
On January 22, 2019, the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, together with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, signed a treaty of bilateral cooperation which pledged to unify both France and Germany in a way not dreamed of since the ninth-century reign of Charlemagne. A new Franco-German Empire of sorts (this was clearly the intent as evidenced by where the treaty signing took place, the town hall of Aachen, France, the city that had been the historic capital of the old Carolingian Empire), this new treaty was received warmly by various European and global elites. However, it raised concern among the more Eurosceptic nations such as those of Central Europe, Italy and even some in Britain (not to mention nationalist and anti-EU parties and citizens within France and Germany themselves). The great fear amongst many in Europe is that this agreement will lead to a unified Franco-German superstate that will further shift the balance of power in the EU away from sovereign nation states and toward a centralized bureaucracy ruled from Brussels with the economic and even military backing of Paris and Berlin.
This Franco-German treaty represents the culmination of years of attempts by the leadership of the European Union to move the bloc from a loose federation of nation states united by economic concerns into an actual centralized, supranational entity akin to a federal republic such as the United States or Germany wherein member states would lose much of the sovereignty they have still managed to maintain, giving it over to a system controlled by a handful of unelected elites who, when allied with corporations, multinational banks, and media systems, will have an almost unlimited control over the lives and freedoms of their member states. Whether this was or wasn’t the original endgame of the EU’s founders is something that can be open for debate. What is clear, however, is that this is precisely the trajectory that the modern European Union is, by its own admission, headed towards.
At first a union of European states was seen by many as not only a way to strengthen the continent’s economy through trade and free movement of goods, and people flowing across now almost nonexistent borders, but also as a “remedy” to the nationalistic impulses of its various member states. On the first premise the entire system was sold, many times very reluctantly, to the nations who joined its bloc, but the second concept was always very present and constituted a large reason why the entire project came about in the first place.
The biggest backers of a unified Europe were always the economic elites who desired the transformation of societies into atomized collections of individuals bereft of any strong national or ethnic ties, who would see themselves as only lone members of a great mass of humanity whose entire existence would be based on the endless consumption of cheaply manufactured consumer goods with little interest or concern for the fate of their wider communities and their descendants who would inhabit them.
This dream had already come to pass throughout the United States of America, the paradise of capitalist consumer culture where the individual and his immediate rights and needs trumped any concern for a lasting and established society based on a common culture, traditions and set of values. In stark contrast stood Europe, a continent of many cultures and subcultures, each having been in existence for centuries, all intertwined by a very collective spirit which emphasized the communal over the individual, tradition over the novel, and national life and values over every passing, mass-produced fad. True, this description of Europe may sound considerably idealized when compared to the lives of many, especially the more prosperous parts of that continent today, but it is still a strong part of the strength and ideal that have made up European man and his worldview for far longer than the present age that has been foisted upon us.
The European Union itself is best represented by a striving, especially of its leaders, to transform the old one and its ideals into a recreation of the United States and its ideals and values instead. Beyond any sinister motives, European elites probably see a society based on such ideals as more pragmatic for their financial ends. The fewer roots one has, the more individualistic one becomes and the more willing one is to hold one’s own personal well-being up as the only value to live and die for. Stable nations with young and healthy populations are seen as ill-fitted for such a vision (or remedy). This has doubtlessly fueled the two greatest destructive acts that the EU has foisted on many of its members in recent years: the imposition of harsh austerity measures against largely poor countries with the stagnant population growth of smaller nations, and the encouragement of mass migration as a “solution to the declining birth rates” in those austerity-affected lands.
Firstly, these EU leaders impose harsh austerity measures and the privatization of public services on those nations it has already entangled in its debt schemes. Large sums of money were loaned to nations which never could possibly pay back the debts. The failure to pay leads to the imposition of harsh measures, which affect not only workers and the elderly who are already dependent on pensions for day-to-day survival, but also the nation’s youth, who are unable to find enough money with which to afford marriage and a stable family, and in many cases are forced to flee to other places for work, leaving a large vacancy in job markets.
Secondly, there comes a desire for large scale mass migration to alleviate this lack of workers caused by the fleeing youth. Large numbers of unskilled immigrants are brought in under the pretext of fulfilling these job roles (although this is only an excuse used to allow them in, and many simply never work but go on the public dole instead). The results of these policies are twofold: to reduce the nation’s youth to impoverishment, and then to replace them with those who have no historic connection to that nation and its culture and values. The end result will one day be countries where the majority of people are not part of the historic population, but from many divergent backgrounds and traditions whose unifying factor will not be the traditional culture and ways of the land they live in, but only a mass-produced consumer-driven form of society alien to that of traditional Europe, but very much familiar to that of the USA.
All seemed to be going smoothly for these globalists and their plans, but then suddenly, an almost miraculous rise of nationalism and populism throughout the nations of the EU, beginning in the mid-2010s, quickly put up a strong resistance to their scheme. The populations of the various nations began to cry out against the machinations of their unelected overlords in Brussels as well as their own elected leaders who willingly collaborated with them.
From the traditional Left came those who decried the crippling austerity measures undemocratically forced upon the working classes, elderly, youth, and other vulnerable members of the affected nations. From the traditional Right came those who spoke up against the forced migration policies that seemed to be transforming their native lands into almost unrecognizable masses of people who held no lasting connection to the country, its people and culture. As time went by, these two groups began to slowly find that they shared more in common with each other than would be supposed by the false dichotomy of “Left/Right” that the establishment had imprisoned their minds to believe was an inescapable part of modern political discourse.
The new populism and grassroots, anti-establishment movements that have formed in recent years are all working towards the same goals, although perhaps at different ends. These would be the restoration of true European civilization and mores, those that place individual, community, nation and most importantly, family life at the forefront of society and not a for-profit driven model based on mass production, consumerism and excessive, live-for-the-moment individualism that the elites have forced upon them as the “only option” for so long.
The best example of this in our modern times is the Yellow Vests movement that has emerged in France since the end of 2018. They manage to not only express the rage of ordinary French people towards the cold, neoliberal policies and replacement migration schemes of the Macron government, but have even managed to assemble a list of policies which cross over to both the concerns of the traditional Right and Left wings of politics, all to find a pragmatic solution to the issues that are so troubling to that country.
This is why the elite globalists who control the EU are so desperate to push through a plan of greater control of Europe by the creation of this new Franco-German superstate. Their hope is to form a union of the two largest countries in the EU bloc for the application of stronger economic and even military domination of that continent. The plan is to make any attempt at resistance to the control of Brussels a direct threat against France and Germany, one that could possibly be met with the pressure of a financial or defensive counter strike. Unless the other nations of Europe come together soon in some type of public vanguard (such as an expansion of the already existing Central European Visegrad group), the power of the Franco-German elites will only continue to grow and seek to suffocate any resistance against itself and the organization that holds its true power.
In closing, Europe is faced with two choices: to bleakly copy that of the nation across the Atlantic to the point of becoming a mere clone of America and its consumerist values and losing its European-descended majority, or to continue to struggle and fight in order to preserve and, one could only hope, revive the traditional principles that have made it a shining example of the greatest and most unique civilization humanity has ever managed to produce. A Europe that has been completely Americanized and completely Globalized would not be Europe at all, but rather a reflection of the rootless, soulless, atomized individuals that have come to dominate and disintegrate the tenets of the old social order that Western man has labored at for so many centuries, and whose roots spring from that very continent now under such threat.
|*||A reference to the Dreikaiserbund, the “Three Emperors’ League”, formed in 1873 as the brainchild of Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck. It was intended to establish a stable balance of power among Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia.
Well, that came as a shock to learn that the Left and the Right are starting to find they have more in common than they thought and are working towards the same goals just from different ends.
I see no evidence at all for that view, nor that the Left have any interest in “the restoration of true European civilization and mores, community, nation and most importantly, family life”. It is the Left that has done its best to undermine all those things (apart from their own class based version of community). In particular, the Left’s war on the (traditional) family has been plain for all to see for the last couple of generations. The ideal modern leftist family consists of two men (or women) and fewer than the replacement number of children (produced with the aid of a surrogate mother or a sperm donor father) who are told they can choose between being girls or boys.
The Left and Right may see a common enemy at the moment but if they manage to bring down the current elites will their deep-seated differences just evaporate? More likely, I suggest, that something will ensue similar to what happened after the left and right wings of the Greek resistance got rid of their German masters in WWII.
I agree with you. There is very little for the working man in the cultural-Marxist milieu of the hard left politicians, bureaucrats and politicians. They may both enjoy street demonstrations, but that’s about it.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the left even notices the working person anymore. The most typical scene was when Hillary Clinton told coal miners to their face she would make their occupation obsolete. But, she consoled them, there would be plenty of government assistance available for them.
Plenty of new jobs in the new EU army to allow the unemployed to beat up and shoot their family and friends.
No doubt the anti-hate crime squads will be expanded.
Again, plenty of good jobs for all.
leCanadien, The militaries of France and Germany are not going to let these Quislings Merkal and Macron throw them under the bus. These two traitors are scared to death of their militaries pulling the rug out from them and they should be worried that this will be a bridge too far. Ever notice when those two ever visit with their military personnel that they are surrounded by close protection officers of their police?
From what I hear, it is the plan that the EU army will be a separate part of each of the national militaries of each participating country. How wide will this separation be?
Unknown. But it appears that the desire is to have an army that is loyal to the EU and under direction of the EU with newly appointed leadership. This will take time and will allow current military leadership time to organise resistance to this.
What concerns me is that I hear rumours that personnel may be sought not only from current militaries but from ‘non-traditional’ segments of the population. That is, men not traditionally considered as ‘secure’ enough to join the military of an EU nation. The rules may soon change fast for EU army recruitment. The end goal is an army loyal to the EU with minimal numbers of men likely to resist.
Enough patriotic men and the resources certainly currently exist to mount meaningful military resistance to Macron and Merkel, but time is short.
The European Union itself is best represented by a striving, especially of its leaders, to transform the old one and its ideals into a recreation of the United States and its ideals and values instead.
This is all so airy fairy and utterly useless
Is Europe really trying to emulate an empire as represented by the United States of America?
It requires a high level of blindness to fail to see that the USA has become a failed state and has been one for many years. No country, or group of countries, assuming they were fortunate enough to be ruled by sane people (which Europe is not), would ever want to emulate such a polity.
Modern forensic science has revealed that Thomas Jefferson, while drafting the American constitution, a document for which I have absolutely zero respect, very carefully used a sharp implement to scratch out the word “subject” and substitute the word “citizen”.
He needn’t have bothered. No constitution in the elective dictatorships and oligarchies of Europe and North America has any characteristic that would plausibly provide for genuine representation of the people. Nor did any of the politicians who cooked up the rules (constitutions) in the countries of the western world ever intend to grant any real political power to their subjects, i.e. the common man and woman.
I was kind of with you up to the point where you cited “modern forensic science” to show that Jefferson scratched “subject” out of the draft of the Constitution. Did modern forensic science explain the long, long arm of Jefferson, as he reached over from his residence in France and changed the draft of the Constitution in Philadelphia?
I don’t really agree with you on the Constitution. I’m reading the anti-Federalist papers, which make a very good case, in my opinion, that the sovereign states would be much better off under an adjustment in the Articles of Confederation, rather than submitting themselves to the overarching power of a federal government. But, as far as it goes, given that the Constitution created a federal government now smothering us after two hundred and thirty years, the Constitution was not all that bad, especially once the Bill of Rights was included.
… the long, long arm of Jefferson,
He was writing out the final draft of the constitution at his desk before it was ratified. How did France get into this?
I don’t know if my reply got sent.
Jefferson was in Paris in 1787, when the Constitutional Convention occurred. No way could he have been involved in drafting it, although he had correspondence concerning the Constitution.
Google “Jefferson Constitution” for a slew of articles describing Jefferson’s sojourn in Paris while the Constitution was being debated.
My mistake. I actually meant the Declaration Of Independence. I shouldn’t have relied on my shaky memory.
A 2010 article in the Washington post had an article on the topic.
That’s what Thomas Jefferson first wrote in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence to describe the people of the 13 colonies.
But in a moment when history took a sharp turn, Jefferson sought quite methodically to expunge the word, to wipe it out of existence and write over it. Many words were crossed out and replaced in the draft, but only one was obliterated.
Over the smudge, Jefferson then wrote the word “citizens.”
Ok. I recognize the distinction. But even so, I take issue with your contention that the United States was never intended to represent the people.
Subsequent to the Declaration of Independence, the states put themselves into a confederation under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation treated the individual states as sovereign states/countries, bound in a voluntary union with certain mutual obligations. It was not conceivable under the Articles of Confederation that the congress would interfere with the internal affairs of any particular state. The purpose of the confederation was to provide for defense, external relations with other states, and disputes between states.
Since the governing authority represented a much smaller region than the 13 states, the government was much closer to the people. Of course, you get a tyranny or an oligarchy, but if one state deteriorated too dramatically, it would simply lose its people. Of course, each state controlled its own borders, so they had no obligation to accept people from another state.
The government under the Articles of Confederation was seen as too weak for certain functions: taxation for defense and maintenance of a navy, paying off debts, and settling possibly violent disputes between states. The huge debate was between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists.
The Federalists supported the proposed Constitution, which created a federal government superseding the authority of the states, with the autonomy of the individual states guaranteed. Critics of the proposal pointed out, with a lot of subsequent justification, that the role of states would become increasingly undermined by the federal government.
The larger the region, the less actual representation of the actual people. So we have now a huge, bloated, all-powerful federal government with the individual states totally unable to protect their citizens from national power or laws.
So, I disagree with your premise that the rebellion and subsequent union of the colonies had no focus on the individual citizen. The present entity may be in the process of betraying the original concept, but it was definitely a concept of self-government and a society of laws and representation.
I am a fan of the Articles of Confederation and I wish we had kept the spirit of that system. But I’m interested in your point of view that “each state controlled its own borders, so they had no obligation to accept people from another state.”
I interpret Article 4 of the Articles of Confederation to be expressing somewhat the opposite. It states that people of one state “…shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state,…”
I’m interpreting “all the privileges and immunities of free citizens” to include not just movement in and out of a state, but also to take residence in it, similar to how the EU works today. I haven’t read through the Anti-Federalist papers in quite a while, so have I overlooked something?
I look at the free movement of citizens as a weakness of the Articles and I’d have preferred something similar to your interpretation above.
Yeah. I think you’re right. I remember reading in the anti-Federalist papers about states controlling their own borders, but I can’t find it, even with several searches. The article you cite states:
I daresay this article would give full authority to the individual states to prevent the importation of refugees into their territory.
I very much appreciate your correction. I do agree with the anti-Federalist writers who thought it better to amend the Articles and maintain the sovereignty of the states, rather than subsume all under a federal government which was predicted (accurately, as it turned out) to eventually gobble up state sovereignty.
It would be fun to be involved in a forum arguing the Federalist versus anti-Federalist cases, especially in light of of over two hundred years of actual experience under the Constitution.
Such discussions might have real relevance, given the proclivity of states such as California, to declare themselves sanctuary states in defiance of US laws. In fact, the internal values of the majority in California has very little relationship to the values of people in blue states. Trying to fashion legislation addressing their common interests is like trying to square the circle. There’s very little overlap.
This is a stupid move by bankrupt France and guilt-ridden Germany. It will crack the EU even faster.
The whole purpose of the EU, and the benefit it offers to the national politicians who sign up for it, is the chance to rule their populations by the back door, without democratic accountability. Instead of facing public and Parliamentary debate about legislation, and responsibility for it afterwards, you get the EU push it through for you, free from public scrutiny.
That only works if national politicians retain their power to rule, which they prize above all else. Losing that power to France and Germany is far worse than having to account for it to ungrateful voters.
Expect this foot-shooting compact to accelerate the pro-populist break up of the EU.
The Germans and their strong work ethic and organisational skills put 110% effort into everything they do, including their guilt complex.
“…stupid move…It will crack the EU even faster. ”
Dear God, I hope so.
There is an old East European saying: The Owl of Minerva may perch in a blighted tree.
“This dream had already come to pass throughout the United States of America, the paradise of capitalist consumer culture where the individual and his immediate rights and needs trumped any concern for a lasting and established society based on a common culture, traditions and set of values. In stark contrast stood Europe, a continent of many cultures and subcultures, each having been in existence for centuries, all intertwined by a very collective spirit which emphasized the communal over the individual, tradition over the novel, and national life and values over every passing, mass-produced fad.”
When times change what sometimes happens is that virtues which have previously worked well for a civilization get ‘stuck’ in form and no longer operate for the good. Is it possible that the spirit which “emphasized the communal over the individual, tradition over the novel” is no longer working for Europeans because their communal response is retain the status quo, to be ‘nice’ to be civilized, to pretend that things are what they were?
A communal instinct doesn’t sound bad if the group to which it owes loyalty is sharply-enough defined. A lot of people have been bemoaning the fact that non-Muslim whites as a population do not develop the same group cohesion as, say, Somali Muslims or even Armenian immigrants.
There have been several articles in Gates of Vienna over the years that refer to the fact that people feel more comfortable in a homogeneous group and that a truly satisfying life requires some sort of group identity. The ideas have been pursued more systematically at Vdare.com.
Of course, identifying as whites is cutting it far too broadly. As the article by Kearney points out, people of European extraction are not descended from “whites” but a distinct culture often associated with a distinct genetic subgroup. European country as a unit of analysis sounds fine.
What is often missed is that once you have a distinct colloid of culture and genetic grouping, a small group of people with systematic differences but sharing the same overall values is not dysfunctional. In other words, having a few Catholic churches and synagogues in a largely Anglo-Episcopalian area might well enhance the overall quality of life and group identity.
I have a problem with the complaint about the austerity measures imposed on individual countries.
The EU only has financial leverage over countries that are overspending their incomes. Like the old saying “he who pays the piper calls the tune”.
When you have riots in the street over government austerity measures, like cutting back on pensions or subsidies, they are trying to square the circle: assert nationalist influence while asking international bankers to subsidize their life style.
One of the first things Orban of Hungary did on gaining power was to put the government of Hungary on a sound fiscal basis. This allowed all his subsequent defiance of EU diktats.
If countries don’t want to have austerity measures imposed on them by international financiers and EU bureaucrats, they shouldn’t borrow money from them.
What the debtor countries need to do is declare default, go back to their own currency, or better yet, allow private currency to be issued. They would, of course, not be extended any credit in the future, for which I cannot think of any downside.
The United States is putting itself in the thrall of the likes of China and Saudi Arabia. The trillions of dollars in US deficits are financed by massive purchases of US treasuries by these countries. China and Saudi Arabia have a systematic policy of buying land, commerce, public opinion and university foundations with their surplus dollars. In other words, the US is selling off its base assets, including technology transfer.
The same laws apply to the US as apply to the Greeks: spend more than you make and you become subservient to your creditor.