The complete and comprehensive reconstruction of the European Union is economic neutrality.
We want economic neutrality in our role in the global economy. Correct. I agree! Unfortunately, we cannot think that this is too easy to implement. How why? Because one thing cannot be ignored: economic neutrality is a difficult task without a strong political sovereignty, if you like, political neutrality. However, from a political point of view, we are not actually neutral here and now. I wish we were! But history has made it so that we cannot be Switzerland or Norway. As long as we were unwilling minions of the Soviet Union (1945-1991), there was nothing to talk about.
But the fact is that after we got rid of Soviet military supervision on June 19, 1991 (ceterum censeo: why isn't this day a national, state holiday?), we only remained "neutral" for a few years: we joined NATO in 1999, and then In 2004 to the European Union. After that, we are no longer politically neutral.
Regardless, can we be economically neutral? Good question, isn't it?
And here it is not primarily about our belonging to the military alliance, which has many advantages, we know that well. Also, NATO, by its nature, does not deal with economic and trade issues, at most in its indirect effects.
This is mainly about the European Union. Of course, if the union were merely a loose alliance between states, which would not interfere in the affairs of the other in terms of economy and trade, services, environmental protection, etc. area, then it would still not be a big problem, then we could still talk about economic neutrality.
However, in the event that the Brussels, globalist, federalist, supranational governance, horribile dictu or even world governance (World Economic Forum, Great Reset) elite that controls the Union wants to have a full say and does have a say in what to do in the world economy, industry, in taxation, state subsidies, investments, geopolitical and commercial relations, environmental protection measures, agriculture, then there is already trouble. It's not small.
The negative starting point is that one of the most important of the founding fathers, Jean Monnet, also thought and mastered the idea that the European Commission, which in principle is the guardian and enforcer of the laws according to the treaties, should go beyond this and operate as a transnational government, a government above nations , which means that it tells, and even instructs, what steps the member states can take in certain areas of the economy, if not in all areas - although this ultimate goal. Today, the European Parliament is a powerful political partner in this,
in which the majority is the mainstream globalist, federalist, supranational direction, and the committee
its powerful legal partner is the Court of the European Union (EUC), whose members are one-on-one committed to the Brussels federalist elite and the globalist financial-political circles behind them, such as György Soros and his associates, as well as his worldwide network. (Most of the members of the court are also Soros's people - and with this we have already said everything about why we recently received an amazing, unprecedented punishment due to our alleged migration and asylum actions.)
They have been trying to turn the commission into a government for decades, among them Walter Hallstein, president of the commission from the sixties, then Jacques Delors from the eighties to the mid-nineties, later José Manuel Durao Barroso, and then with great vehemence - and with some sciatica - Jean-Claude Juncker From 2014, and most recently from 2019 until today, Ursula von der Leyen.
What is particularly important, however, is that Brussels is perhaps now preparing to take over the control of the member states with the greatest force and to implement the complete federalization of the union. An excellent example of this is Mario Draghi's thesis on competitiveness, in which complete centralization and the final abolition of the right of veto are already stated as goals.
This, on the other hand, if they achieve their goal and we do not prevent it somehow, means that we cannot speak of political neutrality. We are becoming subject members of the EU who cannot do what they want, and not only in economic matters, but this is our main topic now. Of course, we can still try to remain economically neutral and act accordingly in the world economy, but here - precisely because of our political ties - we may encounter big and strong obstacles.
What are these? The first and most important is, of course, the Russian-Ukrainian, that is, the Russian-American or even more so Russian-Western war.
In the war, the Brussels elite - the American democrats and the global elite behind them (WEF, Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, etc.) - are entirely advocating the victory of Ukraine, and in their crazy way, they are not striving for peace, as Donald Trump will do. That is why the sanctions that affect and restrict us, especially in the field of energy supply, come one after the other. Most recently, the United States implemented sanctions against Gazprombank, which, as Péter Szijjártó said, adversely affect us. This also means that the Union is constantly supporting Ukraine financially, and for diplomatic and tactical reasons, we cannot say no to all of Brussels' expectations at times, but the consequence is a financial disadvantage.
The second is the fact that the EU - more precisely the European Commission - considers us a rebellious nation,
on the one hand, in relation to our otherwise most legal action against illegal migration (there was a gigantic punishment from the court), on the other hand, because of our opinion against the majority expressed against gender ideology and LGBTQ movements, as well as on other issues (taxation, state support for investments, etc.) .
And since we are a rebellious nation, they strive by all means to cause us political, legal and, not least, financial and economic disadvantages. They do it wherever and whenever they can.
Therefore, to date, we have received perhaps a third of the EU funds due to us, which is still a serious blow, including in relation to teacher salary increases.
In other words: regardless of our membership in the EU, even if we become economically neutral, our opponents will - because they are! – are also taking steps (and for them we are – as Manfred Weber liked to put it – our enemies), moreover, steps that prevent, or at least strongly prevent us from really enjoying our potential benefits from economic neutrality. An example of these is the introduction of punitive tariffs against Chinese electric cars - for the American example - which unfortunately can have negative consequences for us as well, since the Chinese may think that then it is not worth turning to Europe with full force, they will find buyers elsewhere for their products batteries and their electric cars. (Regardless of this, the European demand for electric cars has greatly decreased.)
And if we are talking about China, then we can say that the union behaves hostile to the great power in the East, not least because the American Democrats do the same.
And unfortunately, we may also have a problem here, which we cannot hide under a bushel: our man, Donald Trump, as a businessman to the core, will continue the economic and trade war with China that he started in his first term, and in my opinion, it will even intensify.
because now the stakes of the match between the two of them are really the acquisition of world leadership, and here the MAGA (Make America Great Again) program is essential for Trump. In turn, this will appear as a kind of obligation for the EU, Trump will expect Europe to take action against Chinese companies, and as far as I know, we are still members of the union ourselves.
The third factor is the crazy climate policy, the crazy green ideology on the part of the mainstream Brussels elite.
The completely debatable and, in my opinion, even unacceptable view, according to which human carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of global warming, has simply driven the EU towards frantic steps, and the continent's engine, Germany, is at the forefront of these steps. Consequence: the intention to phase out fossil energy carriers at insane speed, in a world in which fossil energies still account for 80-85 percent of the world's energy sources, and to replace them with solar and wind renewables, which is an impossible undertaking. So the only problem is that this will not be renewal, but destruction, self-destruction.
And one of the most decisive ramifications of this: the conscious intention and implementation of the destruction of agriculture, since, as these strange people from Brussels claim, and the UN: anti-cowism is one of the main causes of global warming.
This will completely destroy farmers and Europe, not to mention that we have to take in agricultural products from Ukraine, as well as Latin American agricultural products based on the EU-Mercosur agreement, which, like Ukrainian ones, are not subject to any serious regulations, so these products its appearance on the European market - in addition to serious economic disadvantages - may also be dangerous to our health. And we cannot stay out of all this, all of this not only affects us, but simply destroys our industry, agriculture and other sectors, and even though we want to be economically neutral, they still force us into the ugly dance of death.
One of the keys to our economic neutrality would be if we could be politically sovereign and, if necessary, neutral. I may have already said how I understand this. When they say union, I say hot…
And this is still not a Huxist idea on my part - which I talked about before, but dismissed it - but a complete and radical reform of the union, a complete transformation of the community, cutting it back to a much narrower cooperation, and replacing the Brussels elite, starting with Ursula von der Leyen.
I will say it: the Patriots should initiate a convention in 2025 with the intention of completely and comprehensively rebuilding the union. And I seriously recommend it!
So where are you, Elon Musk, kicking the deep state out of the union – too?
