Steve Bennon has adopted the strategy of George Soros for the sake of a good cause.
Steve Bennon, former chief adviser to the head of the White House of Donald Trump, announced plans to create a fund in Europe, for whose functional basis the Open Society fund scheme of the famous global manipulator George Soros is taken, whose activities Bannon is frankly fascinated. The British newspaper The Guardian published a long article in which he shares details.
The headquarters of the Movement will be located in Brussels, the official permanent staff will be about ten employees whose task will be to organize the interaction of the "healthy forces of Europe" and coordinate their activities against the European and world establishment on the basis of right-wing ideas. The basis for believing the idea of a successful Brennon is given by the British Brexit, whose preparation and information support cost Soros only 7 million British pounds.
In this statement, the key points are exactly three. Firstly, the American "democratic crusader" in plain text indicates that the main bet in his "project" is provided not just for populism, but definitely for his right version. Throughout the past year, Brennon has been active in working with leading right-wing parties and movements in Europe, from Le Pen in France and the leadership of the UKIP to Victor Orban in Hungary. Almost a new International.
Secondly, the rate of populism, even the right, ultimately leads to the growth of populism, which easily intersects with any other forms. So, in the end, it turns out that Brennon says about the fight allegedly against the world establishment, but in fact, under the main blow is the entire current political structure of the European Union. The overwhelming majority of the right converge in the desire to withdraw their states from the EU.
Thirdly, Brennon absolutely openly does what for such US officials are immediately imprisoned. However, the example of hysteria around Russian interference in American democratic processes convincingly proves that they are imprisoned for much less misconduct. However, this does not in the least prevent the "new crusader" from publicly admiring the "successes" of Soros' activities in promoting "globalism and democracy" in the world. Is that what Brennon calls "the same, but with the opposite sign." The idea that Europe can have its own, separate from any American or Soros, views and goals is simply missing. In the view of these civilizers, they have no right to subjectivity at all.
Bad in all this is the following. The fact that the "comrade did not come" immediately after the publication of the article "from the controlling and supervising bodies", which in every European country is numerous, speaks of the actual internal weakness of the central government. It's one thing to catch "Russian agents", and quite another to resist the efforts of big private money. It is naive to think that people like this "rescuer of Europe" act only on their own initiative, only on their own resources and only alone.
The announcement of the Movement project shows that the war for the division of Europe has already affected the broad corporate layers. Including, in Europe itself, which makes the prospects of its unification in any formats, from the present to the German "two-speed" much more vague.
Including the likelihood of war on the Continent is greatly increasing. This is the main paradox today. Nobody really wants it there. No one is really ready for it. And it's not about the size of the available armies, it's not enough to build them up. The problem is unpreparedness to go to the front and frank unwillingness to bear any military burdens on the part of the European society itself. Except, perhaps its Muslim part. But at the same time the conflict, including economic, political and civilizational, continues to escalate, accumulating the energy of destruction, the ability to withstand which the political system of the EU is losing.
Previously, in history, this trend always ended in a great war. Its forms could differ, from the usual war of groups of states among themselves, before the civil war or religious. But all the same it was a war, the cause of which in fact served as a critical inconsistency of the system of organization of society (state, politics, cultural and philosophical values) to the economic and political state of the society itself.
By the way, we can not exclude the religious and cultural scenario. Suffice it to recall the history of the transition to Christianity in ancient Rome. Over the course of a century and a half, the Empire harshly persecutes Christians professing principles, from its own extremely remote, when suddenly, throughout the lifetime of just one generation, Christianity becomes its official religion, and the entire past is massively swept aside. Who said that this is possible only once and only with one version of faith?
All this, fortunately, is only an assumption based on facts known at the moment and not taking into account the actions of other actors, for example, such as Russia and China. However, the conclusion that the forthcoming quarter of the century will be marked by the struggle for the division of Europe is already becoming obvious.
The only question is the form and the final result. By the way, he does not exclude the redrawing of state borders. Just do not say that this is definitely impossible. Until 1991, the disintegration of the USSR was also considered something completely impossible. Like the division of Yugoslavia in 1999. Like the Crimea in 2014.