http://bruxelles.blogs.liberation.fr/coulisses/2011/01/the-european-foreign-office.html
A journalist's house, specialized problem Europe, is loose in an official blog of the daily Liberation . To believe that paper devastating British diplomacy would decide on the diplomacy of the European Union, which is headed by the highly intelligent and competent English Baroness Ashton ... If no one sees in this ubiquitous diplomatic direct influence of the British Empire, bad faith is not far. On the one hand the British Empire dominated the political structures in the City of London (financial domination), on the other, it works like a Trojan horse, by embedding the United Nations and, better yet, federations, which it expects administrative and unrepresentative: the European Union, the United States, some satrapies like Saudi Arabia, Israel and Brazil.
The main goal of imperialism is to take control of States and peoples, so as to be remembered is that imperialism is the exclusive prerogative oligarchic factions. This priority was further increased since the formation of modern nation-states, specifically to counter the destructive phenomenon of religious wars, mainly driven by European imperialism (particularly the abuses of the Habsburgs). The current dominance of U.S. imperialism by an internal principle controlled from the outside is historic since the Civil War won by American patriots (those in the North against the slave South), this struggle has never ceased. She is at work on time Current decisively and hopefully positive (for Republican principles ensuring the development rights).
The foundation of the United States by European migration, if it destroyed the indigenous peoples, was dictated by the dream of founding a new territory (otherwise blank) and the Republican oligarchy: at that time, Europe dying under the thumb of imperialist and oligarchic interests. Go to the New World was to escape this hell and revive the dream of a better life. Note that nowadays the European diplomacy is under the control of diplomacy British Empire or the financial directs, it noted that geopolitical issues were little changed in recent centuries and the British Empire intends to seize the New World as it controls the Elder.
Since the creation of nation states (1647), a fierce struggle taking place between the progressive principle of nation-states and the imperialist and reactionary creationist principle. The creation of nation-states destroyed the enemy line, with the Habsburg dynasty, while developing close imperialist side of the British Empire. Europe has established a Federal Union, on a misguided policy, based on economic, the antithesis of Europe policy intended by its founder (with the Europe of nations as a first draft of Europe's political, not economic). Today, one can show against Europe while being economically favorable to the project of political Europe. Those who want to believe that being against economic Europe is to be against the European political project, are liars.
The spectacle of this undemocratic and anti-political European federation fell under the sway of British imperialist interests (through the Foreign Office) shows that we face the threat of imperialist Europe under the pretext of a European peace project. What happens is not the Americanization of the world, but oligarchisation American (and world). It is destroying the first nation-state that will succeed the British Empire to assert its hegemony in the globalized world, subject to the dictates of free trade such as ultra-liberal.
Those who denounce American imperialism constantly and the negative influence of the United States do not realize that their scheme is simplistic: the diagram does not represent an axis from the U.S. to get to Europe (as we often hear), but a triangle between the British Empire, the United States and only later returning to Europe. The reader of this article Quatremer discover that the hegemony of British diplomacy in European affairs can be caused by that influence higher (currently, a financial nature), but again, following the internal structure of guilty, that the real danger that threatens the vital interests of man does not lie on the other side of the Atlantic (to speak French)-but in Europe itself.
The danger within is illustrated by the writings of post-imperial British Cooper, an aide to Baroness Ashton on the organization chart and a European servant leading intellectual of the British oligarchy. Leaving the shores of lost and misplaced anti-Americanism: the real danger lies in the draft European imperialism, which hide the iron rule of the British Empire. As such, when they condemn (rightly) projects neoconservatives and Atlanticist oligarchic elites fomented by U.S. as the Project for a New American Century, one commits a terrible inversion, since these projects were hatched in the United States that 'following the designs of the British Empire. This is the
About that same historical mistake CFR member reflection high U.S. diplomatic influence which did not cause the RIIA British, but resulting projects elites (including Fabian) of the British Empire. Why most seasoned observers do not realize they account for this dramatic and destructive existence? Why nobody reveals he existence of an entity imperialist, which suddenly seems rather ghostly or fantasy? Inrmine Why do we always, as an identity, a dominant nation-state like the United States, is the union of the nation state with an international ideology like Zionism? We could in response to ask a question: why did not we talked about Françafrique at the time that entity to finance imperialism existed - or so little? Why was it reported the existence towards the end of his continued prevarication?
Answer: because the identity of the factions is no imperialist - in terms of modern identity. The existence implies recognition? In a way - yes, but: the existence precedes recognition. In this case, it should move towards the trap that ideology tends to decrease when she moved out of the economic rut current absence of growth. It is like the poison of the proposed regression as a better progression. The existence no longer mean: leave, but: to return. If it is not nihilism at work in this reversal of all values (to parody a immanentist quite disturbed, therefore emblematic of his time and more of our own) is that it denies the existence which shows disturbing.
Same with imperialism against nation-states: the face of political progress represented by the creation of the nation-state form (which indicates the humbug of the physical concept of entropy when it is used philosophical purposes), imperialism requires a regression for the coup entropy (in the philosophical sense) as it seeks to freeze the user in the state where he is, or even reduce it to a state considered more viable (hence recriminations environmental bodies and criminal influence of the British Empire such as WWF, who claim for virtuous reasons drastic reduction of the population below 2 billion).
Identification is impossible because the unit of measurement of the faction back to the identity of feudalism (promoted by chance by contemporary theorists of the Empire as Blond). Gold feudalism is a construct that is historically earlier and regressive qualitatively compared to the nation state. Call to transcend the nation state by regressive forms is an aberration that is found in logical reasoning descending, which is promoted by way of progress, a progress forms of regressive and lower (unable to overcome the present model terminated Yet as condemned and void).
The misidentification of the most experienced observers is because the model is invisible to blame. The Empire is invisible, the factions are invisible. To make visible the invisible empire, we must unmask in terms of historical process and ontological. Most people are thinking so truncated and scattered, the identification has no chance of succeeding. Even Quatremer seems to sink into the geopolitical fragmentation, since it begins by noting the British diplomatic hegemony on the European diplomacy and it merely by way of an explanation is implausible (how can Europe accept the law of the strongest from the weakest?), an inept and inadequate causal explanation: masochism.
explanation for the less weak, more reductive. Much would explain a phenomenon by a cause, not foreign, but too small to be explanatory. It does not explain a political complex (involving many jurisdictions institutional) with a psychological cause bringing the collective sense to the archaism of desire (masochism and psychological explanation).
The psychological explanation for the cause not only expresses the causal deficiency produces a poor explanation and misidentification due to methodology too frustrating and too factual (inherited from positivism). The wrong explanation or misinterpretation highlights why imperialism can continue in this framework to overcome complacency: the era of identity than does the production of desire. The psychological explanation never explain a political problem (it is too short and limited), but at least it satisfies the desire.
For this poor explanation (ie masochism), if the identification is faulty, at least the desire is there simply. The failure of the Quatremer seasoned observer of the European Union to explain the hegemony of British diplomatic support by the British Empire's best result of financial support from the mentality immanentist productions of desire. This is the only way we can support and deny the obvious: that imperialism exists and through the promotion of feudal values. The identity follows the whims of fashion. Fashion immanentist prevents seeing the elephant in the china shop - the British Empire in the post-imperial Europe.
0 comments:
Post a Comment