Europe Looks East: The Crisis of Foreign and Domestic Policy in the USA

0 35

July 8th, 2015 –

– By: Joaquin Flores –

– Originally at Fort Russ and the Greanville Post –

– Is the US imploding under the weight of its own contradictions, and handing Europe to Russia on a platter?  Inmate torture, child-abuse as ‘therapy’, gunboat diplomacy, drug abuse, the prison-industrial complex, police brutality, Color Revolutions, Ukrainian Nazis, pink-washed imperialism, and more, seems like post-modern dystopic fiction and a recipe for disaster.  Will Russia and Europe find common cause?

 An overview and introduction to the
internally destabilizing US failures on issues ranging from race, class, and
criminality within the US, to its imperial foreign policy aimed at unipolar  hegemony through destabilization in the
world.  This piece touches on a number of
subjects which are often presented as unrelated, but are brought together here as
being a set of symptoms of the same ailment, resulting in a growing realization for more cooperation between the EU and Eurasian sphere if the US cannot adjust to the new reality of a multi-polar world of equal partners.  –

The
deterioration of the overall political and economic situation in the world is
largely due to the irresponsible actions of the United States, aimed at
preserving its hegemony, the imposition upon other countries of a certain
socio-political model, presented as the only proper one, and an aggressive
defense of its own interests are which are designated by Washington as global
interests.  This is causing an ostensibly undesirable reaction for Washington, as it threatens to push the EU and Eurasian spheres closer together

The
reasons for this lay in the numerous crises phenomena characteristic of
American society. There is a growing problem in the United States, which have
both subjective and objective character.  These are: subjective and superstructural – withdrawal
of investment capital from the country due to a lack of confidence in
speculation, unbalanced domestic policy resulting in social stratification
(class) and interracial conflicts; as well as objective and apolitical –  a sharp decline in production, declining rate
of profit, capital-social development in competitive ’emerging’ markets outside
of the US that have now matured, inertia of subjective problems reaching points
which irreversibly compound upon objective and apolitical spheres.   

Unprecedented
in modern American political life were statements by activists from a number of
states (Hawaii, Alaska, Texas) about the illegitimacy of entry into the United
States and, in the case of Hawaii, initiating the process of secession through
the UN.  Separatist movements were
registered in other states (California), and opposition to federal policy
expressed by representatives of various ethnic groups – the indigenous Native
American population, African Americans, Hispanics. These vocal activists and organizations,
according to the Reuters poll of Sept. 2014 (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/20/us-usa-secession-exclusive-idUSKBN0HE19U20140920
)  represent the opinions of least 1/3rd
of the citizens of the respective states, with between 20% and 25% being the
sentiment regarding secession, nation-wide.

We
will analyze the problems of modern America in more detail.

A
crisis processes has been observed in the economy. In the four-year review of
the State Department’s diplomatic and development published in 2015 indicated
that 46% of US goods were sold to trade partners through various
agreements.  Exports in general stimulated 11.7 million jobs in the US in
2013 [1]

Meanwhile,
the fourth quarter of 2014 was marked by the growth of the current deficit to
98.9 billion. In the third quarter, to 113.5 billion. The deficit of goods and
services rose to 127 billion in the fourth quarter of 2014,  from 123.9 bn. in the third quarter. This
statistic shows the growing problems, both in the purchasing power of the
citizens of the US and in global financial and economic opportunities. If
the US will not be able to resolve the issue of their deficits through the inflow
of investment capital, the dollar will lose its value. But as for the
purchase of debt which was needed to secure a recommendation of “secure”
from the three international rating agencies located in the United States, it
is obviously a case of artificial stimulation, demonstrating the speculative
nature of such activities.

The
growth of external debt for the US, and the “overheating” of the
Federal Reserve System, responsible for the machinations of the global
financial and economic system, with the dollar as the reserve currency, raises
serious doubts about the competence of American politicians and
economists. The collapse of the dollar system can lead to a domino effect
similar to what was the collapse of the “dotcom” bubble in the stock
exchange in 2001, but with more devastating consequences for the world, due to
the binding of various national economies to the US dollar.

The
oil sector in the US is also paralyzed. As of January 2015, 342 rigs had been
closed out of 1140 functioning.  When the price of oil drops below $50 per
barrel, there is a high risk of rendering 40 thousand workers laid-off. If the
immediately related industries are considered, this figure jumps to more than
120 thousand.  The United Steel Workers union, resulting from a lack of
progress in negotiations with the major oil companies to improve working conditions
and win higher wages, staged a strike involving more than 5000 workers.  This fact points to the growing problems of
social stratification and class conflict in the US.

Events
in Ferguson corroborate problems of race relations, social stratification,  and the potential for conflict along both race
and class lines.  Meanwhile, supporters of the scientific field known as ‘critical
race theory’, consider that racism in a veiled form has always remained in
their country, and only for reasons of foreign policy imperatives, i.e.,  the desire for superiority in the
confrontation with the Soviet Union on the issue of the level of democracy in
society, people of color from time to time were given rights and freedoms,
though in limited form.

According
to the analyst and former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson,
Islamophobia in the US is rising. According to the Social Research Center
Social, 50% of Americans believe that Islam as a religion is more conducive to
violence than other faiths. This trend runs counter to President Obama’s
assertions that social conflict on religious grounds in the US is less severe
than in Europe.

At
the beginning of 2015, on the eve of an international summit on combating
violent extremism, the Southern Poverty Law Center conducted a study of the
problem of domestic terrorism in the United States. 51% of terrorist
incidents constituting so-called ‘hate crimes’ were motivated by
“hatred” for racial, religious, or sexual grounds. 90% of them
are carried out by individual citizens, and not by known groups or
organizations.

Immigration
policy in the United States reveals a double standard. While at the
international level Washington stands for freedom of movement (one of the core
beliefs of liberalism), even with migration flows in the EU reflecting and
catalyzing problems in Europe, the demographic pressures the US exerts on
Mexico are significant.  This causes an
influx of migrants to the US, causing the US to take protective measures, including
the construction of physical barriers and other legal controls.  In the
south-western states, citizens have felt compelled in their spare time,
organized over the internet, to engage in monitoring the border with Mexico
through the installation of a network of surveillance cameras, as well as
citizen ‘vigilante’ patrols, sometimes with questionable results on the level
of basic human rights. Registered volunteers have a system wherein they
call the border patrol centers and send operational information obtained from
their surveillance system, about the whereabouts of ”illegal” migrants.  This trend also reveals another problem area
at the intersection of race, identity, and class problems, which also directly
involve issues of regional trade, NAFTA, and geopolitical concerns at the
continental level.

The
health status of citizens of the United States also shows negative trends, the
health care reform program put in place by Obama and the major insurance
companies actually cannot solve these problems.

According
to the US National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (a division of the
National Institutes of Health) 14% of the adult US population suffers from
alcoholism. These problems are experienced by about 27 million Americans.

A
no less serious situation is drug use. In 2013, 36% of students reported
that they had used marijuana, which on the face of it may not be so alarming. 
But earlier, in 2006 this figure was at 30%.  Large levels of drug use has been noted
among youth.  At the same time, most of the drugs cited here relate to
prohibited and not medically prescribed narcotics.  The contribution to this problem by
pharmaceutical companies, both through over-the-counter and prescriptions is
perhaps even more concerning in terms of long-term health.

In
addition, the website of the National Institute on Drug Abuse announced an extremely
negative trend of increasing overdoses from the use of synthetic drugs (Spice,
K2, etc.) in a number of states, as of May 8, 2015. [2]

In
the area of childcare, there have been problems with foster care in the United
States, where children are often victimized by their caretakers. The human
rights organization “Advocates for Children in Therapy” indicates
that the prevalence of bullying and beating of children has been contributed to
by the so-called “Attachment Therapy”, wherein the abuse of children
is actually part of the therapy.  

“Attachment Therapy” is widely used as a means of caring
for foster children, but it is more like torture and is dangerous for the life
and health of the foster children. The US government has done nothing to
prevent the emergence and widespread practice of this theory.  This theory can be said to be giving
validity, legal cover, and some pseudo-scientific justification for the
historically known problem of foster child abuse in group homes within the US.

The
torture of children within the US is mirrored in its practices abroad.  The scandal over the torture of prisoners at
Guantanamo (in occupied Cuban territory), Abu Ghraib (in Iraq) and other secret
CIA prisons also continued, and this discredits and even implicates a much
larger number of people and organizations in the area of psychology,
psychiatry, and mental healthcare, which are involved with or cooperating with,
US intelligence agencies.

An
article in the “New York Times” on April 30th, 2015 states that the
American Psychological Association (APA) has worked with the administration of
George Bush on the question of
justifying and legitimating torture when applied to prisoners and detainees within
the framework of the US’s “War on Terror”. [3] A group of dissident human rights activists,
psychologists and occupational doctors who documented violations of medical
ethics in the consultation process, published a report which implicated
representatives of the APA and the CIA. [4] The public representative of the APA, Rhea
Farbermen, rejected accusations that their group performed on orders of the
government.  But this was contradicted by
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, William Winkenwerder, who
confirmed that the Pentagon sought help of psychologists. Thus the double
standards, hypocrisy, and intentional obfuscation which permeates the US
scientific community are revealed. 

In
addition, the dissident group studied declassified documents, that indicate
that psychologists the CIA employed were two representatives of the APA – James
Mitchell and Bruce Jessen – who helped work on the program of torture by the
CIA in secret prisons around the world. These declassified reports contain
language that they “do special things with the special people in special
places.”

Further
evidence that the United States has arrived at a morally questionable dead-end can
be seen at least in the position of Princeton University professoer Peter
Singer, who on a live radio broadcast on April 19, 2015 on the waves of New
York’s AM 970 show “The Answer”, and Philadelphia’s News Talk 990 AM,
called upon doctors to kill newborn disabled babies. [5]

He
justified this by the need to rationalize the US health care program known as
Obamacare. Singer is a supporter of the so-called “non-voluntary
euthanasia,” movement, i.e., killing people without their consent,
which may include children, the elderly, and people who after an accident have
become disabled.

These
examples above are completely inconsistent with the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which states that everyone has the right to life (Art. 3), and no
one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment (Art. 5).

It
is also obvious that the statements of Singer wildly contradict the US’s own
framework, enshrined in Declaration of Independence, which states that
“all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.” For example, Singer maintains that our conception of what
makes ‘a living person’ is an error, it is not based on the fact that a person
is ‘alive’ in the clinical sense.  Instead, he argues that it is
“characteristics such as rationality, autonomy and self-awareness that
make a difference.”

These
problems are typical of modern America, resulting from the American worldview,
and complicit in this crimes against humanity are its own policy managers and
executors.

Again,
these problems are manifested upon the world at large. The inadequate (or
intentional) strategy of Washington against a number of countries has led to
the destabilization of entire regions.  Intervention in internal affairs,
including through a coup tactic disguised as “color revolutions” plunged
North Africa and the Middle East into bloody chaos. In Europe, a similar
trend is observed. 

After the active participation of the United States
with the assistance of some European politicians to overthrow the government of
Viktor Yanukovych in Kiev, Ukraine was gripped by a severe social and political
crisis, compounded by ultra-nationalism. This leading US policy called the
organizers of murder and other serious crimes in Ukraine “peaceful
protesters” and “freedom fighters”, and by this denied the right
to freedom of expression and equal protection under the law of ordinary
citizens who represent a variety of ethnic, political, and social groups.

Since
the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis the United States has had full control of
the negotiation process in Ukraine, on behalf of the Kiev government.  It
was revealed in February 2015, a telephone conversation between the French Foreign
Minister, Laurent Fabius, with John  Kerry, which showed that the main content of
the talks the leaders of Europe had with Russian President Vladimir Putin to
resolve the Ukrainian conflict were coordinated by the US Secretary of State. 

The
vast American influence on the position of Kiev shows Washington’s total guilt
in the escalation of the situation and in the deaths of thousands of civilians
in the south-east of Ukraine. It is the maintenance of tensions in the
region, in a predictably stalwart opposition to any Russian support for the
people of Donbass, which allows the White House to create a relatively high
degree of negative perception for Europeans about Kremlin policy on the
Ukrainian question, and then continue to block any possible rapprochement.

In
Ukraine, the USA is interested in maintaining or escalating the conflict, which
is beneficial to Washington for several reasons, some which may contradict each
other or relate to various contingencies in the event of the failure of the
others: 

1) privatization of real estate and land by US companies; 

2)
capture different markets in Ukraine and the establishment of long-term
dependence regime through international agreements; 

3) the sale of various
goods Ukrainian military-industrial complex; 

4) manipulation of the EU
under the pretext of diversification of energy resources (replacement of natural
gas exports from Russia, which, in fact, there is no alternative); 

5)
preservation of a buffer zone between Russia and the EU – this idea was
developed in the early twentieth century. Anglo-Saxon ideologues – not
afford to join a union of Russia, China and Germany; 

6) experiments in
social engineering, in particular, the imposition of bourgeois gender policy
(promotion of a ‘elite’ homonormative over ‘commoner’ heteronormative;),
which can be used later in other regions; 

7) A ‘black hole’ sapping of Russian
resources, creating political instability and internal dissention in all social
strata over real or perceived losses in Eurasian space; 

8) Alternatively, the
potential to use the conflict in Ukraine to create an ever broader conflict in
the region, and beyond, including the destruction of Ukrainian institutions and
a scorched earth policy (failed state); 

9) Provocation of Russia to act openly
and defensively within Eurasian space, which will be used by the west to justify
increased military and economic activity against Russia and Eurasian Union
states.

With
strong pressure from the US, the threat of the use of the Ukrainian scenario
against legitimate governments are being faced by a number of countries in the
Balkan region. The latest example – Macedonia, where mass protests and
attacks were organized immediately after the statement of the Prime Minister’s
interest in the participation of the gas pipeline “Turkish Stream”,
which was strongly opposed by Washington. It should be noted that the
capital – Skopje- the US Embassy functions as a base of intelligence gathering
and a logistics hub, to monitor and influence the situation throughout the
Balkans.

One
of the essential problems of the world is the emergence of an Islamic
state. Declassified documents distributed by WikiLeaks to world press and
intelligence agencies also showed that IS was created on the initiative of the
CIA during the beginning of the “Arab Spring.”

The
organization “Judicial Watch”, on the basis of these kinds of revelations,
has determined that the US Defense Department and the State Department actually
participated in the creation of an Islamic state. [6] According to Judicial Watch, Washington coordinated
that Libyan weapons seizures by the rebels in Benghazi were sent to jihadists in
Syria. In addition, it was found that the information on the preparation
of an attack on the US Consulate by Islamists in Benghazi, had been known for
at least 10 days prior to the attack, which was carried out by the organization
“Brigades of prisoner Omar Abdul Rahman,” associated with the Muslim
Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.

The
Middle East, Ukraine and the Balkans – these are the most optimal target
regions for US intervention involving European partners. Thus we see here
the attempts to displace other geopolitical forces, in particular in the
Balkans – Russia and China, which have their own economic projects in the
framework of bilateral relations and towards multipolarity.

In
parallel, the United States works to stimulate migration flows to Europe, the
recent upsurge of which are the result of upheavals in North Africa and the
Middle East and, as well as the military intervention in Iraq and
Afghanistan. These processes destroy the European cultural, civilizational
and religious identity, atomizing populations and ripening them for further
control by commercial, mercantile, and corporate forces. This is despite
the recognition of the leaders of Germany and France that the policy of
multiculturalism has been a failure, an exported policy developed in the US in
the 60’s in response to its own historical race, class, and colonial problems. 

Washington insists on its continuation, which destroys the long-standing
European institutions and subverts decision-making on important
issues. Although there is a positive experience in several countries
(Switzerland, not a member of the EU, decided by referendum the question of
migration and Islamization, that was reflected in the crime statistics), the EU
continues to hold to neoliberal policies, which could eventually lead to a
change in the demographic balance and serious civil conflict.

Islamic
fundamentalism is used as a tool of US policy in Europe. In some cases this is
done almost openly. For example, the leader of the Albanian terrorists who
killed the Macedonian police in Kumanovo  was a close friend of the US ambassador to
that country.

Similarly,
use of religious “Christian” fundamentalists is another factor;  post-Protestant sects , evangelical sects, and
‘new religious cults’ that have headquarters in the United States – the
Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), 7th Day
Adventist Church, and – while not Christian at all, it must be included –  the Church of Scientology. Many American
citizens working on official US projects abroad, as well as well placed
individuals  at prestigious universities,
are members of, or are closely connected to, these various tightly knit sects,
which exercise considerable control over their memberships and are able to
regulate in-group behavior. 

This issue of cults such as Scientology, reaches into Ukraine, with the
coup-installed prime minister Arseni Yatsenyuk likely being a member of the
Church of Scientology – a claim which he denies but which there are
considerable reasons to think are true (see: http://m.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/04/01/the-charge-of-the-scientology-brigade.html). These religious organizations act as both
vetting and control mechanisms.  

Washington
carries out its agenda in Europe by a number of institutions – NATO, the
European Parliament, the European branch of the Council on Foreign Relations,
foundations such as the Carnegie Foundation, the European branch of the RAND
Corporation, the National Endowment for Democracy, and others. The work on the
ground allows the US to respond quickly to local problems, to carry out the
required and measured social changes which the US wants to make in Europe,
which subsequently is a part of the implementation of the overall strategy of
Washington in relation to Europe.

At
the level of bilateral relations and joint activities, American diplomats,
representatives of the White House and the President of the United States
directly influence the EU leaders. An illustrative example is the statement of Prime Minister David
Cameron, who, after meeting with Obama, said that governments should exclude those
who advocate for a way out of the EU.  He
put forward that those who favor putting the question of EU membership to a
referendum would have their relationship within the EU legal structures critically
reviewed as a consequence, even though earlier, and hypocritically, he had just
spoken about the future of his own country’s withdrawal from the association.

NATO, which is known to be
led by the US,  had previously raised the
issue about increasing the contribution of each member to 2% of GDP, as well as
active participation in various operations and maneuvers, the most ambitious of
them stemming from the NATO summit “Transformation for the Future, Serious
Failure in the Moment” (see: http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/events/past-events/nato-s-summit-transformation-for-the-future-serious-failure-in-the-moment
)  – It began in 2014 and officially does not have an
end date. 

These proposed cost
increases by the US were received very critically by many members of NATO, but
the rhetoric about the need to increase funding for the needs of the alliance
is taking place concurrently with a promise from the US for economic aid to a
number of countries that strictly comply with all the requirements of
Washington (Poland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia).

Against the backdrop of
the crisis is the mismatch of the globally oriented, NATO allied, political
elites in the EU versus the wishes of the majority of the population in many
countries where there is a tendency of both left and right pro-social populism combined
with nationalism and anti-imperialism.

According to Stratfor,
the last 10 years the level of citizens’ trust in the EU institutions has
dropped significantly, while the support of the national idea is the high
stability.

As part of the picture
of nationalism, left and right populism, and identity among broad sections of
the masses of EU member states is the matter of their attitude towards
sanctions against Russia; this also reveals certain dynamics.

Thus, the growing
influence of eurosceptic parties is directly related to the choice of the
strategic vectors – between the US and Russia. As a rule, moderate and radical skeptics,
despite the political struggle with each other and competition for influence,
are in favor of the lifting of sanctions imposed against Russia.

According to the
analysis from Stratfor, the future configuration of the EU may be two levels –
the first consisting of the EU institutions with the leading role of Germany,
will try to continue integration policy; the second level will include associate members who are interested in
receiving preferences from the membership in the euro zone, but not to be
subjected to further assimilation. In addition, France may return to the idea of ​​a Mediterranean
Union – a project that has been blocked by Germany since its inception.

Such a multi-vector
policy of the EU member states, if successfully implemented in any of the
ongoing projects, will help any member of the EU improve bilateral relations
with Russia as a natural partner. This resumption of cooperation with Russia, in turn, will benefit
European countries that are now experiencing a serious decline of turnover and
services due to the present US enforced sanctions policy.

Meanwhile the United
States implements a wide range of aggressive interventions against states and/or
political forces which adequately understand the destructive role of Washington
in the current process and try to resist it. 
This even includes states and political forces engaged in the
dissemination of truthful information through alternative media.

Putting pressure on the
EU and other partners, the United States has a pragmatic interest since Washington needs draw into its zone of economic
influence as many states as possible: this is critical for the US to be the
primary beneficiary of the global economy.

Obama economic adviser
Jason Furman, in particular, noted that the United States lobbied hard: ”
As I mentioned in my speech at Brookings earlier
today, values-driven trade agreements, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP), will put the
United States at the center of integrated trade zones making up nearly
two-thirds of the world economy..” (see: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/04/08/4-ways-trade-drives-american-innovation .)

However, the European
public is critical of the initiative of the United States. The researchers note that, according to
international norms and laws, EU officials only have a mandate to negotiate,
but behind closed doors are under US pressure. Moreover, from Washington there were repeated
attempts to undermine the European data protection rules. [7] This is
evidenced by the reports of both European and American consumer organizations
and civil society representatives. Such actions are usually carried out through the lobbying of corporate
law-firms such as Hogan Lovells, which created the front, cynically titled, the
“Coalition for Privacy and Free Trade”. Obviously connected are the direct political
interests of the US, as the company Hogan Lovells has in their employment such heavyweights as former US
Ambassador to the EU Hugo Paemen, and former US Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter,
former deputy head of the Internet Policy in the White House Daniel Weitzner. [8] 

 A group of authors in the article “How
Elites and the Public See US Foreign Policy”, published in a special
edition of “Foreign Affairs”, notes that “there is a gap between
the political preferences of society and the actions of the leaders of the
country. After some time, this
gap could undermine Washington’s ability to project to the international arena
their authority and credibility, and create democratic accountability at home.
” [9]

Meanwhile, along with
the eurosceptics, the old political elite of Europe also criticized the actions
of the US and those who support them.

The visit of the former
French President Giscard d’Estaing at the end of May 2015 in Moscow, where he
delivered a lecture at the Moscow State University and criticized American
foreign policy and the countries that follow the path Washington, shows
reluctance on the part of the European political elite to serve the interests
of the United States .

Some experts
convincingly explain why sanctions against Russia are unprofitable for the EU. According to the American political analyst
living in Germany, William Engdahl, EU sanctions against Russia
“ricocheted back”, which resulted not only in the prohibition of the
supply of food from Europe but in Russia’s transition to self-sufficiency and a
search new suppliers, who they have found in Asian, African and Latin American
countries. They suspended
multimillion-dollar contracts with the German Siemens and the French Total S.A. [10]

At a press conference
April 14, 2015 in Paris, Prime Minister of Bulgaria B. Borisov said that his
country, in the event of implementing “South Stream”, would become a
“gas hub” of energy resource transit to the EU. And now when the
project is actually folded, resulting from his vacillation and ultimate reneging,
 he is waiting for help for compensation
for “lost benefits” from the initiators of the anti-Russian sanctions.
 Attending the event, Francois Hollande
expressed the view  that France would cover
its own costs if it had found itself in the same position as Sofia.  While Hollande spoke in general terms about hypothetical French private investment in Bulgarian energy markets, the same decisions of the Sofia
government to renege on the pipeline project  ultimately undermined Paris’s profitable
energy talks with Russia.  

In the United States, actual advisers and decision makers actually have an objective assessment of the
sanctions. Stephen Sestanovich of
the Council on Foreign Relations stated in a testimony regarding European sanctions
on Russia to the Senate Committee on Armed Services on April 28, 2015 that
“many people say they did not work well … Putin has convinced the public
that Russia should not be pressured” . [11] For himself,
he added that he considers the sanctions effective as a solution to political
issues. The influential
publication Foreign Policy also
indicates that sanctions against Russia are not working, but due to the myth of
their efficiency, many continue to think that they are an important instrument
of US foreign policy. [12]

Concluding
Thoughts


The United States has a number of foreign and domestic policy problems which are both corrosive and inherent. Consequently, there is a growing opinion among those in the US that their state would be better off if it exited the United States.  US debt grows, markets for US goods shrink, and global energy markets are finding solutions which increasingly do not rely on the US approved middle-men, including the petrodollar.  The Federal Reserve has essentially doubled the number of dollars in circulation since 2008, while the US uses all forms of hard and soft power to maintain a dollar value which does not reflect the present saturation. 

The US uses Islamophobia and Russophobia to justify its foreign policy and related spending, pushing forward unpopular immigration solutions both in Europe and the US. Simultaneously, deviant behavior such as drug and alcohol abuse remains high, which reflects both failed policy in any number of related spheres compounded by a culture of alienation which requires escape.  

US policy on Europe, looking abroad, has increasingly alienated its once solid ally.  An analysis of political
parties and electoral preferences, the social situation, including alternative
media in Europe, shows that the vast majority are tired of the totalitarian Washington
regime, which is disguised by the rhetoric of human rights, humanism, and the
search for the mythical threat (recently this scarecrow is Russian). Mass protests against the signing of the
transatlantic partnership agreement attest to its unpopularity; virtually
unanimous is the view that this law has been lobbied for with the exclusive interest
of the United States, and a few large multinational corporations in mind. This
is to the detriment of the rights and freedoms of European people.  Previous agreements between the US and the EU on
communication and information sharing across Europe also raised serious
criticism.

The inability of the US
to create for itself a mission and identity not based on a hegemonic identity
of ‘global leadership’ is reflective not only of inherited modes of thinking from
the relatively recent past, but also reflects an inability to shift gears and
interact with a world which neither requires or desires such leadership and
unipolar hegemony.

  The economic
foundation in the military-industrial complex has created a system where
gunboat diplomacy and various coup techniques are employed to maintain markets
for US goods and services, instead of building genuinely competitive
enterprises which use labor saving technologies and superior techniques to
produce higher quality commodities and a better cost.

Towards that end, the US
has instead plunged several regions of the world from Eastern Europe to the
Middle-East into states of perpetual strife, in order to maintain a competitive
edge and frustrate its perceived geostrategic opponents.

The trans-humanist
project, promoted by the United States, is increasingly perceived in the EU as
a mechanism of the destruction of European nations with a rich culture and
history. Unfortunately, a number
of laws, such as the legalization of gay marriage and gender education have
already been implemented in Europe, but they cause serious resistance in the
vast majority and may be revised in the future. 
On the face of it, they may seem benign, when in fact the ruling class
is not basing these ‘legal reforms’ based on a mass-popular upsurge from below.  Several matters confuse this – one is the
generally uncompassionate and shrill tone of those who oppose gender education
etc., who pander to the politics of ‘moral panic’ instead of looking at the
balance of rights and interests of all parties involved.  

The other is the manner in which elites are
able to stage these gender/identity ‘struggles’ making them appear as
mass-popular upsurges, when by and large they are not – they do not affect the
vast majority of people and do nothing to respond to the very real issues of
employment, education, housing, war, and other concerns.  On the one hand, these serve as cynically
placed wedge issues which divide constituents around issues with high emotive
charge and content. On the other hand they work long-term towards building or
reinforcing a repressive mechanism that simultaneously shames or relativizes
the gender or sexuality of 95-99% of the population; thus privileging
minoritarian gender issues in a manner which mirrors the minoritarian property
rights of the ruling class.  

The rejection of the west’s Gender/sex identity politics are being used by the US not only as a litmus test but increasingly as a casus belli.  Imperial ambitions are being pink-washed as human rights concerns.  

Other projects from the
US are aimed at exporting the unique forms of psychological traumas and
disorders to the rest of the world. From foster care child abuse, to Guantanamo
bay torture chambers, there is a continuum of practice; one may be seen as the
training ground for the other. A society that produces one will almost
inevitably produce the other, even if policy weren’t oriented with the aim in
mind.

The whole doctrine of
exclusivity and messianism, professed by the political elite in the US states is
increasingly rejected by the EU and other regions, which automatically brings to
the agenda the strengthening of national sovereignty and the establishment of
regional alliances (multipolarity). This scenario is the only possible alternative for the world
political system, if the task is to eliminate the consequences of the
irresponsible behavior of the United States, achieve a stabilization of the
international economy, and bring an end to conflict.

References:

[1] http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/241429.pdf

[2] http://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/emerging-trends#spice

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/us/report-says-american-psychological-association-collaborated-on-torture-justification.html?_r=3

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/01/us/document-report.html

[5] http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/princeton-prof-kill-severely-disabled-infants-under-obamacare/

[6] http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-state-department-documents-reveal-obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-terrorists-had-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/

[7] http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-257-ttip-ralf-bendrath.pdf

[8] http://www.hoganlovells.com/hogan-lovells-forms-coalition-forprivacy-and-free-trade-03-18-2013

[9] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2015-06-09/measuring

[10] http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-blows-itself-up-with-its-own-bomb-us-strategy-backfires/5451747

[11] http://www.cfr.org/russian-federation/russia-ukraine-us-policy/p36485

[12] https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/09/its-time-to-kill-the-feel-good-myth-of-sanctions-russia-iran/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AEditors%20Picks&utm_campaign=2015_EditorsPicks_German_Embassy_June_3%20BS%206%2F9

Subscribe to our newsletter
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.

Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.

Comments