Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
In order to understand Brexit in its full historical context, we must know about the origins and motivations for the formation of the European Union and the forces that have shaped the EU bureaucracy into an arm of the IMF/World Bank-led Wall Street hegemon. Today Professor Michel Chossudovsky joins us to expose the EU as the imperial project that it always was, and the growing movement against EU domination as an anti-imperial movement of world historical importance.
TRANSCRIPT:
James Corbett: Welcome friends. This is James Corbett of Corbettreport.com coming to you in a conversation that is being recorded on the 12th July 2016, and as we sit here in the second week of July 2016 the European Union is embarking on a new era in the wake of the BREXIT Referendum that was held last month in the United Kingdom, and the question mark covering over the European Union is causing a lot of people to scratch their heads, even about what the European Union is. Even people living under the European Union don’t necessarily know what it is, and very few of them know about the deep history going back not just to the Cold War era, but even preceding it that set the groundwork for this organisation and what it has become, so joining us today to help us sort through this and understand better what is really happening in Europe, we are joined once again by the Director for the Centre For Research and Globalisation at globalresearch.ca, Michel Chossudovsky. Michel, thank you very much for your time today.
Michel Chossudovsky: Delighted to be on the programme.
JC: Perhaps you can begin by telling us about the real origins of the European Union, not just the origins that everyone knows about – The Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty, and things of that nature – but maybe the pre-history of the European Union that situates that in the proper context for us to understand what the objective of this union is.
MC: We first have to recall that in the immediate wake of WW2 we had what we call the Marshall Plan. It was a reconstruction programme, largely initiated by the United States, and it was also a means for the United States to establish a corporate hub within Western Europe. While the Marshall Plan was ongoing, we also had the onset of the Cold War, which consisted essentially in isolating the Soviet Union. The ‘Iron Curtain’ was not strictly a political curtain, it was also an economic curtain, and its main objective was to prevent any kind of trade and investment relations taking place between Western Europe and the Soviet Bloc countries, and ultimately when the European Community was created under the Rome Treaty in 1957, this was essentially a Cold War structure. It was also a US initiative, indirectly, as part of a broader hegemonic project. I think this is coming to light through recent events, though wasn’t clear at the time. What happened is that the European space in the 1950s was essentially divided into three areas. One, you had the first six members of the European Community – The Europe of the Six – and then it started to expand, then you had the European Free Trade Agreement, which re-grouped a number of what we might call neutral countries, and these neutral countries weren’t associated with NATO: they were Scandinavia, Switzerland, Austria, and that formed a separate trade agreement, and I should mention that the European Community as it evolved essentially started to coincide with NATO (the North Atlantic Treat Organisation), which was the main instrument of Cold War geopolitics which was consistently threatening Russia. Now it’s interesting to note that in recent developments this week, the notion of the EU and NATO more or less merging so to speak, a melding together, is a talking point of analysis and opinion. So that is the background. The Cold War created a situation that isolated Russia
and the Soviet Union, and what happened subsequently is that the Soviet Union started to establish trade with other countries, including the Non-aligned Movement, the countries of the 3rd world which had become independent, and also in a sense encroaching on traditional colonial trading relations, because these were former colonies of the West, and then eventually what happened in the wake of the Cold War is that all these structures started to tumble. I should mention that the Soviet Bloc countries had their own trading system which was called COMICON; it was the Council of Mutual Economic Cooperation, which they developed with the countries of Eastern Europe as well as other countries like Vietnam, Cuba, and so on, and then there was also a period of trade with China. Now, there’s another important element in all this and that is going back to the early 1920s when there was a conference in Genoa, the Genoa Conference, in which nations of Western Europe and the Soviet Union met. The Soviet Union at the time announced its principal of “peaceful co-existence between competing economic systems, and the notion of Socialism in one country.” They expressed the desire to have trade with the West. Now that was never an option for Western Europe largely as a result of US influence, and I should mention that in the 20s Russia had traded with Germany during the Weimar Republic, but it didn’t have trade with the western powers, which were, of course, supporting the insurrection in Southern Russia. So, that is the background.
Now we’ve reached a point of evolution. First of all, after the Cold War, we saw a large number of new countries entering, and these countries were former members of the Soviet Bloc so to speak – Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and so on – and then there were other countries, which were more on the periphery of the European economy, such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, the Republic of Ireland, which joined the EU and the evolution that took place from the late 50s/early 60s to the 90s was the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Now, why is the Maastricht Treaty so important? Essentially, the Maastricht Treaty embeds a neoliberal economic policy perspective within its Articles of Agreement, but specifically it refers to monetary policy, and it creates conditions whereby the individual member states are not allowed to use monetary instruments to mobilise internal resources and deal with internal debt operations. In other words, you can’t finance your internal development without borrowing money from outside, and now eventually what happened was that the Maastricht Treaty then evolved toward the Eurozone. Of course not all members of the European Union are members of the Euro Zone, but the Euro Zone essentially means you have a European Central Bank which then controls monetary policy in each of the member states and ultimately creates debt, and that’s the plight let’s say of Greece, it’s the plight of several countries whereby the centralised power of the European Central Bank ultimately creates conditions of economic collapse and mass indebtedness precisely because it disallows countries to use their Central Banks to mobilise resources, and also putting forth this notion of Central Bank, namely that the Central Bank operates separately from the Government, so that is a little bit the background. Today, I would say that the European Central Bank is controlled by Wall Street, and that the same thing is true for the Bank of England: both of them are led by former employees/officials of Goldman Sachs.
JC: So does this mean in this reading that the European Union is still an economic dagger aimed at the heart of Russia, essentially, that this is a form of economic warfare that drives the wedge between Europe and Russia?
MC: I would say yes, I think it does drive a wedge because the European bureaucracy, which really takes its origin with the Lisbon Treaty of 2007 – of course it existed previously – but it provides it with a legal framework, and it prevents individual countries from really having bilateral trade agreements let’s say with other countries without going through the Brussels bureaucracy, and the dynamics today, particularly with the geopolitics, the threats directed against the Russian Federation, NATO’s expansion, what it is essentially is to restore the iron curtain, to restore the economic iron curtain, and at the same time, it is there also to preclude the ability of the Russian Federation to enter into agreements with other countries which are outside the European space such as Brazil, many countries in Africa, and so forth, which they had during the Cold War era in the 1950s. So essentially it is a policy to isolate Russia from an economic standpoint, and it more or less merges with NATO because NATO is the military arm of the Western Alliance, of the Atlantic Alliance, but it encompasses most of the member states of the European Union, and as a consequence now the confrontation between the West and the Russian Federation is also in the realm of trade, then there’s the issue of sanctions when in fact what is now happening is that the European Union is impoverishing the member states, and I should say there’s another element when I said the neo-liberal agenda is embedded in the European Union, well in effect it really embeds, so to speak, the IMF/World Bank perspective. The ‘Washington Consensus” is embedded in the European Union’s bureaucracy and the European Commission, so that when they act in relation to individual countries, they are in effect replicating the actions of the International Monetary Fund in relation, let’s say, to 3rd World countries, except these are not 3rd World countries, and so ultimately what is happening is that the Washington Consensus of the Bretton Woods Institutions, the US Treasury, the Think Tanks – I would add of course also Wall Street – is behind all that, and ultimately what we see unfolding is the US colonisation of the European Union where ultimately this entity is indirectly part of a hegemonic project, and of course the end game is the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership). It’s the Trade and Investment Atlantic Partnership which is really contiguous to the Atlantic Alliance and military affairs and it would then merge the EU, including the former members of COMICON, into a giant trading agreement encompassing the United States – of course Canada would also be included, but there’s a separate agreement which is called SETA – and the European Union, and essentially that is an imperial project. Now, we have to see how this is going to evolve because the European countries have their own people, their own agendas and their own movements, and there’s increasing awareness of the nature of this project. So, we’ve gone from WWI Genoa Conference to the TTIP. That is the trajectory.
JC: It’s an interesting trajectory and it raises the question the BREXIT vote and the various movements in various European countries that are agitating for leaving the European Union at this moment represents in this view a type of anti-imperialist movement, an attempt to strike a blow against the imperial project, and yet it is portrayed as mindless right wing, neo-Nazi nationalists who just hate immigrants. That’s the way it’s being portrayed. Is there a discrepancy between the consciousness of the people who are involved in this anti European movement and the actual end goal of the anti-European movement?
MC: Well, there are various political cleavages that are operating simultaneously with different agendas, different ideological perspectives, so it’s very difficult to give a straightforward answer to that question. I would say on the one hand there are people within individual countries that realise that the European Union has destroyed their society and their national project. I think Greece is the most notorious example, but you might add Spain as well and Portugal possibly. People are starting to realise that the European Union is in fact a form of IMF in disguise and it’s derogating their social programs and their identity as nation states. Now, there’s another perspective, and I think it’s also a very valid perspective, and that’s that people in Western and Eastern Europe realise their historical links and they still believe in a European project, but that European project is not going to be controlled by the Washington Consensus or the Brussels bureaucrats. It’s a union of values and people, all of which in effect have common origins. I mean Britain is really created by Scandinavian tribes that invaded the Angles and then the Saxons and then the Normans, and so on, and France is really a construct as a result of the Germanic invasions – the Franks were Germanic. So the European people have this identity, and I think it’s important that both the nationalism, which is required to maintain economic and social sovereignty by the member states, which would be an exit, let’s say, from the prevailing European Union, that of course is an important undertaking, and the two things are not incompatible, but at the same time is the notion that we should ultimately democratise the European Union, get rid of the bureaucrats, get rid of the Washington Consensus, and build a Western Europe which has links with other countries, with the Russian Federation, with China. and so on and so forth, and then it raises the issue of what kind of society do we really want. Do we want global capitalism, do we want to restore some of the democracies, social democracies, which existed historically, and so on and so forth, but I think that’s the way I would see it evolving at this moment, and of course the main thing is for the European people, whatever their perspective, to oppose the TTIP, because the TTIP is ultimately an instrument of conquest which will essentially transform the European member states into territories of the US imperial project.
JC: It’s a very astute analysis and one that I think cuts a lot deeper and closer to the bone than a lot of the analyses that we see certainly in the mainstream media, even in a lot of the progressive press and other places that are simply reacting in a knee jerk fashion to what’s going on here, rather than looking at that more holistic picture, so I thank you for bringing that perspective to the table. Michel Chossudovsky of Globalresearh.ca, thank you for your time.
MC: Thank you very much and delighted to be on the program again.
So basically, Russia is trying to recreate a New Order, a complimentary or binary Order , except this time. instead of eastern European states, these have been replaced by countries such as Brazil, India, China and South Africa, otherwise known as B.R.I.C.S. (BTW, I think this is a good thing)
Meanwhile, the EU is gobbling up the old Soviet Block states in Eastern Europe.
(BTW, I also think this is a good thing)
I’d like to know more about how BREXIT affects the TTP & TTIP. Will you be doing any interviews regarding this in the near future James?
I view the EU the same way as I view the US, a collection of individual states that have join together to form a economic, political, and military union.
Globalism is basically that, a collection of individual nations that have come together to form a trading bloc. Like it or not, it’s the only way to compete with China and/or the US.
It may not be perfect, but at least they are elected, whereas the Brexit is looking to revive its commonwealth under an unelected Queen.
phreedomphile touched upon the current world order we are living in, which is US hegemony, born out of the Franklin D. Roosevelt gold confiscation of 1933, followed by Bretton Woods of 1944, and the Nixon shock of 1971.
The US, incrementally has robbed the world, now Trump wants to continue this raping of US hegemony, while the rest of the world wants to break free of its clutches and create a multi polar world, led by SDR’s (including China) and maybe even the B.R.I.C.S
BTW, there is more to be said about economic and political unions, it has stopped wars. There hasn’t been any wars in continental Europe since the EU was created.
Hi peace.froggs
You “It may not be perfect, …”
Yeah – it may not be perfect. For example
> its finances have not passed an audit for at least 15 years
> its lunatic economic policies with the euro and its one-size-fits-all interest rates have brought it to the brink of bankruptcy – see Greece, Spain, Portugal for details
> the decision-makers – the European commission are totally unelected and unaccountable to the public, and it is based on the soviet politburo
> they are now trying to form a European army – did anyone ever vote for that?
In a separate post, you claimed that we have avoided war since WW2. You might like to examine what happened in the former Yugoslavia after a group of incompatible cultures had been forced to inhabit the same state. There’s also the inconvenient fact that we appear to be heading towards an engineered race war. I say engineered because the recent attacks in Paris, Brussels, Nice, and others are clearly staged events designed to cause enmity.
Besides that, if you favour the EU, you are in the same camp as the international bankers, the major corporations, George Soros, and the globalists. How could what benefits the elite possibly benefit ordinary people?
So yes, the EU is so “less that perfect” that is truly does not deserve to exist.
So Brexit was about breaking up the EU? Here I thought it was really about Freedom, haha! Freedom, so long as the big banks remain in London…right?
What happened in former Yugoslavia was a direct result of the Soviet Union collapsing. Again, unions are never perfect, but they help avoid major conflicts and wars.
Should banks be regulated? Of course, that goes without saying, whether they are American, British or EU banks. For example, the Federal Reserve has never been audited, and ever since Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold, the US has been able to print money out of thin air.
Money aside for now, like it or not, technology has pushed us towards globalisation ever since the wheel was created, and infrastructure is leading the way, whether it be building physical roads or digital roads.
Can you imaging a world where every country or state had there own time clock? Seconds, minutes and hours would be completely different in every state. Every time you crossed a border, even though they’d might be in the same time zone, the times would be different? You’d have to readjust your watch every-time you’d cross over from one state to another.
Can you imaging a world where every country or state used different units of measure for construction or commerce? Trade would be none existent.
Can you imaging a world where every country or state used different widths in railroads tracks for example? You’d have to switch trains every-time you’d reach the border, just to get from point A to point B.
The American civil war is a perfect example of this globalisation. If every state in the union was to break away like the South tried to do, or if states would have remained completely independent from Washington, they never could have built national railroads from NY to Fransisco.
In the 20th century, it was the interstate highway. In the 21st century its the Internet.
The best way to achieve unison, the best way to avoid conflict and to prosper together is to build trading Blocs, like the USA and the EU.
As far as a European army is concerned, it’s in Europe’s interest to have a national army, in order for them to be able to defend their common interests, and also to break free from the clutches of Washington, otherwise known as NATO.
Excellent work again, thank you. Prof Chossudovsky gives an excellent, detailed timeline.
A very astute analysis, says Mr Corbett, but it ignores completely the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan, named after Count of Coudenhove-Kalergi, often referred to as the father of the EU. He was a pioneer of European integration, he served as the founding president of the Pan-European Union for 49 years, and the first winner of the Charlemagne prize for European integration, subsequent winners of which were Blair and Merkel.
The Coudenhove Kallergi plan envisages the destruction of the people of Europe by turning us into a mongrel race, mixed with Africans and Asians. Yes – he said that.
Before you dismiss this as paranoia, consider the myth of the Rape of Europa, in which Zeus disguises himself as a young bull in order to abduct and rape the beautiful maiden, Europa. Ask yourself why there are statues depicting the Rape of Europa in and around EU buildings, and why it is shown on Euro coins.
Bear the Rape of Europa in mind when you read that Sweden is now the rape capital of Europe, thanks to its suicidal (literally) immigration policy, and that Germany is about to cross the demographic Rubicon, as shown by Black Pigeon Speaks – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF9V8POmuxg
There is another agenda here, Mr Corbett, and that agenda is genocide.
Europe has a population of about 750 million people. Do you realize how many “Muslims” “Africans” and/or “Asians” would have to illegally immigrate there in a very short time, in order for them to destroy the people of Europe?
To put things in perspective, in the US, a country with a population of about 320 million, of which an estimated 20 million of those are Mexican illegals.
So, according to the numbers, everybody in America will be speaking Spanish in 2 or 3 generations? I don’t think so.
This sort of fear-mongering is nothing more than xenophobia.
Europe has 750 million, Germany has 80m or so. However, the migrants are mostly young men. So when you subtract the women, the elderly, and other immigrants, if the invasion continues, German men of the same age will be in a minority by 2020. Another factor is that Muslims reproduce at a much faster rate.
Did you watch the video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF9V8POmuxg
It presents pretty good evidence that what Coudenhove Kallergi recommended is actually happening.
Is it xenophobic to fear that your civilisation is in danger?
Nice straw man by the way – changing the topic to the US, which I didn’t mention.
Straw man? No, it was a simple comparison, in order to point out the fallacies.
Obviously if we look at the numbers, the US is in far worst position than the EU when it comes to race mixing or out right take over of immigrants.
Germany has a population of 80 million, and how many Syrian refugees?
“…and then people won’t flee them. Imagine that.”
Europe welcomed these refugees with open arms, not realizing it was a Trojan horse created by Israel’s far right.
Google “The Security Council Gets Ready to order Israel to Break Ties with al-Qaeda” by Thierry Meyssan of Voltairenet.org
Israel participated in driving out the Blue Helmets from the Golan buffer zone, and for two years entrusted this territory to al-Qaeda, to which it guarantees logistics. Then, Benjamin Netanyahu announced his intention to violate Resolution 338 and to annex Golan under occupation. This was the last straw. The US and the Russian Federation have decided to call Tel-Aviv to heel. –July 2016
Yeah that’s right, 9/11 was an isreali inside job, and yes, after Obama was elected in 2008, these same Israeli’s created ISIS, they even admitted to treating ISIS fighters.
Google “Israel treating al-Qaida fighters wounded in Syria civil war” jpost.com
Ever wonder why ISIS terrorizes Muslim countries and now Europe, yet never terrorizes Israel? Duh!
Indirectly promoting & defending NATO, spreading disinformation, creating distraction with contradictory, idiotic arguments… Yep, shill.
“Indirectly promoting & defending NATO”
— did you actually read any of my comments?
— NATO served its purpose after WW2, but now its time for Europe to create its own defense force, free of Washington influence.
“spreading disinformation”
— When did I intentionally spread false or inaccurate information?
— All of my comments are here, so instead of calling me names like “shill”, at least do your fellow man a service and point them out. It should be easy enough, just copy paste anything I said, and then discredit me with “truth”.
I got a lot out of this interview.
Thanks!
A very informative and clear-sighted overview of the “evolution” from Rome to TTIP.
“What we see unfolding is the US-colonization of the European Union.”
Thank you!
Hi nosoapradio
Thank you for posting that Yahoo link, although I have no idea why you think it is “unabashedly racist”, nor why you think it has a racist message. If the post were about the Japanese people trying to preserve their civilisation, would you call it racist? I think you would agree that all civilisations have a right to survive.
The European race is under a planned attack, as I showed in my post above, with an invasion of people from North Africa and the Middle-East, and anyone who dares to suggest that our civilisation should be preserved is called a racist. Elite powers are using mass immigration to destroy one particular race, both in Europe and in North America, and the people being genocided are called racists and xenophobes.
If the Japanese people disappeared, do you think their civilisation would survive? Because I don’t. And neither would our civilisation, if Europeans disappeared. And yes – I mean white.
Anyone who thinks that diversity is in any way a measure of strength, should watch this by Black Pigeon Speaks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTROCGb5qj8
So, going back to James’s interview, everything Mr Chossudovsky said is true, but there is another, parallel agenda, and the evidence is there to prove it.
Hi nosoapradio
nosoapradio “The reason I qualified the link I posted as “unabashedly racist” is because it explains with authority and no shame or reserve that human races biologically exist and that “pure” races are inherently morally and physically superior to “mongrel” or “mixed” races. It also attributes certain personality traits like “loving freedom” to certain phenotypes (surprisingly to blond-haired blue-eyed Westerners, the pure and original race most resembling its more or less divine creator(s)).”
I searched through the 2,500 word essay and I could find no reference to “superior”, “physically”, “better”, so all you have is that the writer describes the classic westerner as loving freedom. Wow – how despicable of us; what an evil racist bunch we are to love freedom – we totally deserve to be genocided.
Neither could I find any reference to the word “mongrel”, in spite of the fact that you put it in quotes, although mixed race and miscegenation appear in the context of a Greek myth, in which the white race relocated to Crete to preserve their race. So – there’s a myth about people wanting to preserve their race. Again – how despicable.
Can’t you see nosoapradio, that to call this racist really doesn’t leave you much in reserve for when you encounter true racists does it?
You really are setting the bar so low that anyone who is proud of his race would be considered racist in your book. In fact, what you call racist is what Stefan Molyneux calls in-group preference, and all races have it, although it would appear that whites have less of it than all other groups. “In any conflict, if one group lacks in group preference, and the other has it, the latter wins.” Stefan Molyneux.
Hi nosoapradio
Ah – so you’ve got your own definition of racist – nice example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy
So if the word racist as no negative connotations – there’s nothing wrong with being a racist – unabashed or otherwise.
Anyway – you seem to think there’s something wrong with being proud of one’s culture and wanting to preserve it. Although that something cannot be called racism, because there’s nothing wrong with being a racist, according to you.
I think all races and cultures have a right to celebrate their existence and their history without apology. White, Asian, etc.
And the ongoing invasion in Europe is a threat to western traditions and culture.
You ask “What does the word “racist” mean for you?”
The dictionary definition is “someone who believes that other races are not as good as their own and therefore treats them unfairly:” I would say both are necessary, otherwise pride in one’s own culture can be called racist, which is clearly absurd.
And no – I do not accept that the passage implies superiority, and neither does it state it in any of the passages you’ve quoted. And even if it did, this does not prove racism.
“you’d have to have a helluva good argument to convince me that genociding indigenous peoples pre-existing on “Western” lands is morally superior behavior that requires “cultural preservation”.
So, because some of my distant ancestors did some bad things, I have no right to preserve my culture. OK – got it.
“Yes, the ongoing invasion in Europe threatens to modify western traditions”
Yeah – clearly an understatement, as churches remove crosses to avoid offending Muslims, and girls no longer feel safe on streets or on public transport.
Anyway, as we’re going round in circles, that is my last word on the matter.
Hi WannabePhilosopher
So race is a social construct, is it? Do you have any evidence for that assertion?
I have evidence that it’s not. Apart from what to most people is self-evident, it can be proven genetically “A New DNA Test Can ID a Suspect’s Race, But Police Won’t Touch It” http://www.wired.com/2007/12/ps-dna/
You said “The faster we can rid ourselves of the idea being “white” or “black” or “yellow”, terms which all have no scientific basis because race is a social construct, the better off we will be.”
You might be interested in this, video, in which you play the role of the white guys:
How Whites Took Over America https://youtu.be/faNge-o0V-k
Enjoy 🙂
And if you still think that we’ll all be better off when we live in a homogenous society, in which no one has any sense of history or pride in their culture, I suggest you go and help George Soros and the globalists.
I think there is so much to say about it. Of course there is the old line of the house of Habsburg-Lothringen that advocates that policy, particularly Dr. Norbert Baron van Handel of the St. Georgs Order.
He critizes the “Willkommens-Politik” and the open-boarders.
For those who understand German with austrian accent;-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eomSpDCyQn0
The question is, what would, in reality, imply a slogan like “We are going to stop the mixing of cultures”?
I think, you would agree, that there is no broader – thoughtfull- debate taking place about this question, because of the “taboo zones” and landmines.
But still it is necessary to treat this problem considering the negative framing in the mass-media. (Brexiteer=xenophobic nationalistic voter)
Hi Moxa4
You’re right – there is very little debate taking place, and even our host on this site won’t talk about it. I have literally had friends put their hands over their ears because they just don’t want to hear anything about it.
As for your question. “We are going to stop the mixing of cultures”?
And end to immigration from MENA would be a good start. No one is suggesting race laws, or any of the Israeli style apartheid.
Encouraging people to be proud of their civilisation and culture would make a pleasant change from the deliberate debasement of it, which is happening now, as proven by Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin in their series unspun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSoSwEg-9F8&list=PLJ0S88eyUTlYVNtRi11jV4oO5L00qkW6G
And when I talk about western civilisation and culture, this is one example (that I happen to be listening to right now)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM8CFR01KwQ
This is what humanity is going to lose if Europeans don’t wake up
“There is another agenda here, Mr Corbett, and that agenda is genocide.”
Genocide??? Your statement is at best an exaggeration.
“..there is very little debate taking place, and even our host on this site won’t talk about it.”
I see no need of debate because this is not a Real Problem and particularity because it is very divisive. This is the last thing we need nowadays. Soros and the ilk are delighted when they see we lose our time and invest emotionally on issues like this.
You could see on many occasions that James wisely stay away from divisive debates.
I’m against engineered migrations like the last one to Europe. But there was a lot of migrants in Europe before. They came not just because of wars but because of economic exploitation by developed countries make life not viable.
Here is an example how Swiss partly prosper on African misery.
http://bit.ly/25ylubE
This is a Real Problem.
Thanks for Mozart but I prefer Jazz and groove. Happens that Blacks are best here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DM1nYwfmsc
Superb interview. Intelligent questions with in depth answers by James and Prof. Chossudovsky. The two should put together more of these conversations as they provide enlightening information with important back grounding. The take away is whether the people of the E.U wish to support Globalist neo-liberal capitalism or some form of social democracy. Well done gents and hopefully with more dialogue to come.