Skip to content or view screen version

Cameron´s Failure – No One´s Success – Yet

Kornelius F. Dräcker | 11.07.2016 15:48 | Analysis | Social Struggles | World

At times it is necessary to reveal the whole picture in order to make clear how much evil was prevented for the price of the trouble everyone found themselves confronted with. Had not days before the election, by losing temper when faced with anti-integration protesters, the German foreign minister with the statement that he could see Brussels from his office spoiled his party´s European election campaign, instead of a tired oligarch from Luxembourg there would now be a fiery fascist in its place. But Martin Schulz failed to take the powerful commissioner post and bring the manipulative zeal exercised in the Strasbourg parliament leadership to Brussels. Cameron´s grasp to deceive the British public with a contrarian straw-man from his old youth gang now has also failed. And deservedly so, making unequivocally clear that this is not a partisan crusade against liberals only or conservatives only, but an all-out campaign against the kind of democratic totalitarians who count everyone who ever had a landlord of the same name to their voter base regardless of people´s political will.

Cameron´s plot was simple: Schedule a referendum over consent with the mainland´s economic policy precisely at the time when the American presidential election race is to come close to the point of candidate selection, have the counter-position to your own occupied by a caricature of that context, and mark the issue as decided. The first ingredient in the hoax was a naming convention: With the issue at stake being a vote of confidence over the person of Cameron being linked to a policy choice whose centre of gravity was with someone else, that other person was taken hostage by the former under the pretext of an imaginary risk, and the scenario, the so-called “British Exit” was framed to become unreal and thereby set to become real. It only needed the continuity of the attack with bloody means, and that followed foot once the first glimpse of daylight what in fact was going on on the mainland had come upon the British political spectrum.

The failure of Cameron is a failure of the Brussels pact, and the success of the anti-American movement there (which is anti-European because the EU is an American puppet state, such as anti-American movements elsewhere in Europe are anti-British) is a success for it on the mainland as well. This second big blow against the pact follows a strategy of peace which is aware of the fact that without the dismantling of Nato that of EU would only relapse to counterproductive rivalry. But it also had a tremendous impact on prospects for United Nations rebuilding. There is no logic in the regional grouping structure, neither geographical, political, economic nor any other consistent criterion, but it is a snapshot patchwork of interests from the time of the latest restart of international diplomacy. Experts agree the system ought to be reformed in such a way that every regional group was to be represented with a so-called permanent security council seat.

The Cameron referendum ruled out the merger of British and French security council interests under the umbrella of the European union as a possible ice-breaking scenario. The United Nations responded with a further split in the rotation of one of its rotating seats. It will be rotated among European states encapsulated within the usual cycle. Once a regional grouping system, presumably with between five and ten regional groups, is established, the Security Council can make its decision to permanently swap the status of all permanent and non-permanent seats, and thereby abolish the nuke-veto correlation without losing the peace. Then regional groupings can internally rotate if necessary. In the case of Europe this means diplomacy circumventing the Brussels apparatuses, and that is utterly necessary for the unavoidable transatlantic disengagement.

The Cameron failure ended a long stalemate and opened the door at least a first bit for the key remedy to ease the transformation to peace. Until the permanence swap takes place for all at once, already denuclearised regional groupings can chose an external nuclear representative, whom they give their empty claim for a veto in order to load and use it in their interest. E. g. Africa already disarmed, and thereby has an influence on the order in which further disarmament is to be enacted. An eventual progress in the regional grouping reform could then help Europe to organise itself outside of the problematics of the Brussels pact and the Atlantic pact.

This is the next stage of separating confidence vote personality and referendum issue. It must be done carefully in order not to hurt anyone of the various constellations of having diametrically opposed stances on the separate factors. So, what does it mean to call someone a fascist? Fascism arose from colonialism, when the rivalry among different colonialists created a need for a buffer. The diplomats who brokered the colonies among the empires got a colony in between as a reward. Then fascism grew to colonialize the colonialists in their own homelands, and even beyond its military defeat forced all its inter-colonialist rivals into colonialism. Now as colonialism has melted down to the form of an unilateral empire, fascism is growing again speculating upon the takeover of its role.

There are loads of think tanks projecting Europe inheriting a large network of military bases around the planet, preying on the scenario of an asymmetric collapse of the Atlantic pact. The fascist is the one who goes to drum everyone to potluck dinner without having an ingredient to offer which anyone would want to have in the pot, except maybe what it has stolen from them. Politically, the fascist is the one trying to arrange others in a coalition, which the colonialist cannot exploit each on their own, in which it is not itself a stakeholder. That is significantly different from the American imperialism and its unilateralist tendency, though the difference is superficial because both ideological wrappings of aggression are incompatible with peaceful coexistence.

Hence – eurofascism. Whereas the structural configuration is such that propaganda oscillates between direct fascism and conventional nationalism reaching for at least the biggest part of the bundle. This is one reason why it is crucial to see why nationalism resp. the nation state is not a suitable means to defeat it in the long term. Only a world system that respects the superiority of the natural person over the legal entity by all means is. Yet the advent of communism requires the end of the monopoly of violence, and thereby of permanent violence itself, before any of it can be pieced together. Unfortunately, the capitalist state has no prospective shutdown procedure, there is nothing that could be said or done short of its defeat to make its perpetrators acknowledge this historical necessity to each other which is the necessary prerequisite for the public to show them the way.

In fact it is doing everything to avoid this admission. When the state neither shuts down, nor makes demands it could argue for, such as anyone else, it is in a spasm – nothing works, nothing changes, everything is at stake. Currency that has no value can be abstained from, except in the described condition. The state must under no circumstances control what comes after it – among natural beings, no one can enforce their own last will for practical reasons, among legal entities none may be allowed to as a matter of separation of checks and balances. It is the issue of a mature public debate to weigh this at the appropriate point, and a hostage-taking thereof for the state to try to reach beyond its natural half-life.

The superiority of the natural being over the legal entity as a matter of principle translates into the imperative to clear the issues of the state that may concern natural persons before any of the latter the former might decide to be concerned about. The capitalist state resembles a braindead patient on a so-called life support system lacking an off switch and a plug to be pulled. The described death spasm occurs both with imperialism and with fascism. The outcome is a stance against Eurofascism and its exponent Cameron. But it is not a vote for British imperialism. When another lone wolf who had seen a guiding spirit overstretched the 1980 German parliamentary election, crashing the campaign of a conservative of similar calibre, it was effectively the same. But it was not a vote for something, nor an attack with a specific demand besides the self-evident, and the remaining incumbent betrayed the country such as Strauss had intended, before being voted out for it and replaced by someone else.

But now there is opportunity in real time to wake up and understand the real character and intentions of the military-industrial complex and its surface designs. Is it morally right, politically correct and personally integer to join a group whose architecture is not compatible with the values that motivate oneself to do so? A tiny minority has heard the gunshot and spoken out for a sleepwalking majority, and in the name of my ministry I say well done. From here onward? Very obviously no reasonable being in Europe wants the Brussels pact, with the only exception of people who oppose a government that opposes it and play the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That alone should ring a bell. Whether they intended it or not, the critics of Juncker and his corruption entanglements had become useful idiots of Schulz. The opponents of Farrage had become tools of Cameron.

It appears appropriate to conclude with an advice to all who have taken voting seriously, voted, lost the vote, and are now wondering what has happened, making it that they erred. When the martial arts record holder of Hongkong came to Europe to see the old Anarchist who had survived gassing, the latter´s wife asked their daughter to sing a song for the two. She sang “We support each other” with a voice that showed that she could sing beautiful but had been trained as part of a chorus which sang utterly wrong, and so was her solo performance leaning on the training with the group, although she probably was one of these pulling forward the group. Maybe the visitor´s comment can console you: I was so busy checking that there were no monkeys around that I could not even applaud.

Sunday, Jul 3rd 2016

Kornelius F. Dräcker