Staring into the abyss ... The euro crisis might wake Europe up. But more likely, argues Edward Carr, it will lead to compromise and decline. When Britain abandoned the gold standard in 1931, it was not only forsaking a system for managing the currency but also acknowledging that it could no longer bear the mantle of empire. – Economist
Dominant Social Theme: There are many options that the EU has. The best one is to retreat from the abyss.
Free-Market Analysis: This article from the Economist newspaper, one of the leading Anglosphere power elite mouthpieces, is not as it seems and in this article we shall show why. One of the dominant social themes of the elite is centralization, and this article endorses further EU centralization without actually saying so. It seems to give readers an unbiased look at the EU's prospects but does not.
The whole idea of the EU is to centralize a huge swath of a geographical region that contains numerous cultures and tribes that have traditionally shown antipathy to each other. The elites who created this horror-show have been quite aware that a currency-driven union would collapse. Therefore, the plan was evidently and obviously to use the collapse to further tighten and centralize the union.
But in our view, something has "queered the works" – the Internet and, subsequently, what we have called the Internet Reformation. This has allowed many more people than the elites anticipated to understand the strategy behind the planned obsolescence of the Union.
The move toward global governance has been set back by this understanding – and the subsequent anger – and a campaign has been launched to move the EU toward a greater union. The Economist, positioned as a sophisticated thought magazine is helping to lead the charge. Here's some more from the article:
Some Europeans would like to put up carefully designed fences around the EU's still vast and wealthy market. Others, including a growing number of populist politicians, want to turn their nations inward and shut out not just the world but also the elites' project of European integration. And a few— from among those same elites, mostly—argue that the only means of paying for Europe's distinctive way of life is not to evade globalisation but to embrace it wholeheartedly.
This is not some abstract philosophical choice. It is a fierce struggle for Europe's future, being waged in Athens as George Papandreou loses power to a temporary government of national unity, in derelict factories in France and Belgium and in the wasted lives of millions of unemployed young Spaniards. This struggle will set the limits on Europe's welfare state. It will determine how the unbalanced partnership between Germany and France, and an increasingly detached Britain, will shape the EU. It will define the high politics of Brussels and the low politics of European populism.
A euro-zone central banker confesses that he has lately been thinking about historical catastrophes such as the first world war and wondering how the world blundered into them. "From the middle of a crisis", he says ominously, "you can see how easy it is to make mistakes." Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) was supposed to banish the competitive devaluations that threatened the single market in the early 1990s. It promised to bind a unified Germany into the EU and pave the way for some sort of political union in Europe.
We can see from the ambivalence of this text that this article is taking an even-handed tone when it is not. The article gives us the impression that options are being evaluated by its writers, but they are not. They are presented pejoratively.
The end of the article provides us with all we need to know. It concludes by stating that the single market is "under threat" as it has been before. The article also quotes Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the French former head of the IMF as saying, "If Europe fails, it will suffer from low growth, economic domination and cultural domination." Perhaps Strauss-Kahn is trying to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the elites by promoting this sort of fear-based meme.
Finally, the article concludes: "Can Europe turn back from the abyss? Only if the core countries will support the rest as they submit themselves to radical political, social and economic reform. Nobody should be under any illusions about how difficult that will be."
Conclusion: Here the Economist's final position is revealed by the final paragraph: The "abyss" is disunion. And the core countries must "support the rest" as they attempt "reform." Of course, reform is IMF austerity and the real result of such reform would be to refine and reinvigorate the EU as the powers-that-be prepare for additional global governance. Just another promotional piece in the apparently endless campaign to create a new world order.