"If a unified peaceful, liberal, pluralistic, free-market Europe begins to doubt itself, begins to question the progress that’s been made over the last several decades, then we can’t expect the progress that’s just now taking hold in many places around the world will continue. Instead we will be empowering those who argue that democracy can’t work." – Barack Obama
HANOVER, Germany — Obama continued his tour of Europe and gave another speech on Monday, April 25, shilling for the European Union (EU) and the Continent’s longstanding liberal-democratic consensus, and telegraphing that nationalism is bad because reasons. This comes on the heels of a speech he gave in Britain, urging the country to remain part of the EU because he said so. As far as speeches go, his latest was no more compelling or insightful than anything else he pouts about, but what is telling is how he conceptualizes the relationship between Europe and the United States.
What is clear from even one excerpt of his speech is that Europe means two things to the current United States: 1.) it is a junior partner in the ((((neoconservative)))) geopolitical campaign to force “democratic” government on the world, and 2.) it must signal adherence to those principles rather than chart an independent and populist course of action.
On the issue of muh united Europe, for Obama this really has nothing to do with the goals or aspirations of European peoples themselves. Nationalism is an obstruction to US goals in Europe and so it must be opposed. Maintaining the EU creates a very large and wealthy administrative unit for the Leviathan on the Potomac to do business with and make demands of. This arrangement serves the needs of the Jewish and Jewish-allied establishment. They abhor any kind of White nationalism anywhere in the world, and want to bring as many of our homelands under control as possible and enrich them with Diversity™, an ideology best represented by people like ((((George Soros)))).
It would be much harder to subvert a decentralized Europe of ethnostates than a federal Europe of liberal-democratic administrative divisions, which are subordinate to the writ of Eurocrats and their anti-White speech laws and other restrictions. Risk of contamination would be spread out across multiple fully-independent governments and electorates. Having the federal EU as a vassal also no doubt creates efficiencies for NATO, the military arm of the Leviathan which defends Salafist Islam and fights Arab nationalism in the Middle East and North Africa. The recent merger of the German and Dutch armed forces shows how committed the administrators of each occupied country are to centralizing undemocratic control over Europe (ironic, isn’t it?). Failing to contain dilemmas like Brexit, Austria electing a far-right president, Poland voting all of its liberals out of government, or Germans being upset about the völkerwanderung of over a million Afro-Islamic colonists into their country is radioactive to the goal of controlling the wealth and manpower of Europe to advance ((((neoconservatism)))). Democracy be damned, but also spread.
Not that democracy is good—it’s garbage. And in the sense it is almost always used, democracy means universal-franchise republican government, not direct rule by the people (which would also be bad). But ostensibly, Obama’s second point—pro-democracy—is to say that Europe must remain peaceful, liberal, democratic, and in the common market in order to show the world how democracy is a superior system. The watchword of “progress” that he uses is critical; the only goal is furthering the ordained agenda rather than doing what is best for Europeans or what a growing number of them want. For Obama, Europe's function is to signal democracy on behalf of the United States, which utterly destroyed its own moral capital in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Europe really has no such baggage—at least not to the scale the United States does when it comes to trying (and failing) to enforce democratic government in other countries—and therefore is the best model of “democracy” in the entire world.
There is also a lot of prestige invested in the American project of European democracy and federalism: the American war goal of enforcing democracy in Europe goes back literally a century. For Europe to diverge from what the United States wants would thus be a major blow. In the minds of our rulers, the rising far right threatens to uncouple European democracy from “progress.” So when Europeans start to democratically elect people the Leviathan on the Potomac doesn’t like or move away from the conception of “democracy” foisted on them, suddenly that is a threat to the reputation of democracy. It is a threat to the occupation government(s) to be sure, but ironically, a democratic threat.
Perhaps democracy is a danger to itself, in which case maybe you should not have it, which is really what Obama’s veiled threat seems to be here. Or maybe democracy never really was a value, only the free movement of goods and labor as conflated with the idea of democratic government.
But personally, Obama’s power to change policy is weak in Europe. It is the sitting governments of Europe—whom Obama’s message is really meant to reach—that have the most power to disrupt right-wing populism and nationalism. They already do this; consider how French socialists and conservatives have allied against the Front National, or how Sweden’s political parties maintain a cordon sanitaire against the Sweden Democrats. More powerful still are the anti-White organs of the lügenpresse, something the Alt-Right/Trve Right/New North American Right is all too familiar with in the United States. In Europe the disinformation is even worse, amplified by the lack of free speech guarantees.
Throughout his speeches in Europe, Obama tries to cast himself as a messenger rather than the satrap of a greater authority, but for nationalists it is quite clear what is going on and what is at stake.
“The United States and the entire world needs a strong and prosperous and democratic and united Europe, And perhaps you need an outsider, somebody who’s not a European, to remind you of the magnitude of what you have achieved."
Indeed, what is most injurious about all of this is a mulignan concern-trolling White Europe over the rise of nationalism, reminding them that ultimately it is not they who are in charge. And the achievement? Entirely material. Shekels go up and Europe goes down. Obama is the chief executive of the United States who stewards it on behalf of the occupation shareholders and one of his responsibilities is to maintain America’s alliances. The United States and the EU are tools for enforcing someone else’s ends on the White race. What the relationship between Europe and the United States should be is an entirely different concept from what it is now. But one thing is certain: all of our enemies are mutual.