wow. The financial cartel's lust for dominion knows no bounds. Maybe Nigel Farage can wake enough up to not ratify this monstrosity.

Let's hope the Irish wake up.

I had a chat, a couple of days ago, with a cousin in Irish politics and he could not grasp a no vote on the treaty referendum on May 31.

It will be interesting to watch this play out. Treaty is in effect after 90% of the assigned capital contribution ratifies it. Might the larger contributions try to ram this down the throat of the rest? The top 6 or 7 probably constitute the 90%. I would think ceding sovereignty to an ESM group would violate some countries governmental strictures. Might the crisis be helped along (think our Fed pulling liquidity)to help corner those that won't comply.

hehehe!

That's enough to make ANY dictator past/present/future drool!

My only question: How big are the ESM's guns and how many tanks does the ESM have?

How long before everybody involved in the ESM doesn't dare leave the building, and being stuck in the building isn't going to save their arses anyway.

The ESM is them writing their own suicide note (and they are too dumb to recognise it).

PS. In a lawless State (and the EU is a lawless State), 'extra-judicial action' becomes the norm.

With 'extra-judicial action', dumbasses like these never win (and they are too dumb to realise that as well).

They will not like what they unleash, but at least they won't have to live with their consequences, for long.

Karl (below): "This sort of thing is just plain nuts."

Yep.

And the people introducing it, are even more nuts.

This sort of thing is just plain nuts.

Holy ****!

I'm at work at can't watch the vids (quick Ticker breaks is all I usually give myself).


What exactly IS the ESM treaty? And seriously, Euro-schmucks - if there EVER was a FO (go) time, it's when that piece of **** gets ratified. If you don't immediately go to the streets (taking your friends and family in the various militaries and police forces), you DESERVE the slavery you'll get.

I have to admit, I thought I'd seen ballsy from the banker-****s before, but this.... This sounds unbelievable.

This was the plan all along, listen to Romano Prodi, former EU Commission President:

"I am sure the euro will oblige us to introduce a new set of economic policy instruments. It is politically impossible to propose that now. But some day there will be a crisis and new instruments will be created."

Romano Prodi, EU Commission President. Financial Times, 4 December 2001

"We have started a new chapter in the structure of Europe. The Euro was not just a bankers' decision or a technical decision. It was a decision that completely changed the nature of the nation states."

"[My] real goal [is to draw on] the consequences of the single currency and create a political Europe."

Romano Prodi, EU Commission President. Interview in the Financial Times, April 1999.

The Euro can only lead to closer and closer integration of countries' economic policies ... This demands that member states give up more sovereignty".

Romano Prodi, EU Commission President. Interview in Daily Telegraph, 7 April 1999.

It is nuts. However, that doesn't mean they won't win the upcoming "Civil War of Europe". Centralisation has advantages over a species whose majority shares the traits of herd animals.

Dig and you'll probably find treaties and contracts like this already exist to own the Americas and the people within.

Since the EU is a relatively new entity and has an on-going crisis it appears TPTB have decided now is the best time to hammer shackles onto the proles.

If it passes, by some insanity, their first official vote will likely be to fund a private army.

Isn't much of this, though in modified form, what Obama, Holder, and the crew are already attempting to do in the USA, while ignoring congress and constitution?

Alright then, so what exactly did the Allied victory WW-II accomplish in the long run other than moving the capital of European fascism from Berlin to Brussels, hmm?

Jstanley -

Not just WWII - it's pretty much inherent in the definition of war between nation-states.

Historically, the net effect of virtually ALL of western Europe's major wars was to move centers of state power from one capital to another. Whether that power was religious, economic, or political/military or whether it involved popes, kings, chancellors, or parliaments was pretty much immaterial.

The difference is that today the "war" is not between nation-states, but between banksters/corporatists/politicians and those not privileged enough to be in those classes.

Watch out for treaties here in the USA. It is the "only" real way to get around our constitution. This will result in a financial civil war. Everyone that owes anything to "the banks" will simply stop making payments and "starve the beast."

Going to be really interesting. My bet is the dumbasses don't know what they are ratifying and it will go into effect. Kinda like Obamacare, "you'll have to pass it to see what is in it."

Revolution is part of the natural state of humans.

It can be "painful" just like living within your means or taking a BK but it's the natural way to cleanse the system although a bit indiscriminate.

Bring it on to quote a past prez.

Paging Ms. (pronounced MizzZZ) Stalin. Ms. Adolfa Mao Pinochet-Stalin. Please ascend to the podium. Your audience awaits.

This calls for a list, with names, photographs and addresses of ESM people. Their lives can become very bad, while being legally immune. After a while, no one will be able to survive being an ESM executive. That's what people will be driven to when they can't un-elect a person. Impeachment is a mercy offered by the American electorate, as an alternative the the European or Asian de-powering systems.

The Irish Republican Army had this situation, and made a remedy.
The New England colonies of Gr. Britain had this problem.

And so it goes to war, or war by some other name.

What good is legal immunity if your head is in a basket?

Peterm99 wrote..

Historically, the net effect of virtually ALL of western Europe's major wars was to move centers of state power from one capital to another. Whether that power was religious, economic, or political/military or whether it involved popes, kings, chancellors, or parliaments was pretty much immaterial.

The difference is that today the "war" is not between nation-states, but between banksters/corporatists/politicians and those not privileged enough to be in those classes.

John Michael Greer has an interesting current blog post. Making the case that we aren't seeing the amassing of power by "the elites," but rather its devolving into "stasis." Personally, I think power may be diffusing permanently in generational terms. But in either case, the current frauds and preparations for the use of police state tactics would actually represent the current PTBs grasping at straws. (FYI, believe or not, what follows is a short excerpt from the windy Mr. Greer)...

Quote:

The Descent into Stasis
The Archdruid Report
Wednesday, May 09, 2012

...Now of course this interpretation flies in the face of the standard narrative that surrounds power in America today. Both sides of the political spectrum these days like to insist that too much power is in the hands of the other side, at least when the other side is in the White House or has a majority in Congress. The further from the mainstream you go, the more strident the voices you’ll hear insisting that some small group or other has seized absolute power over the US political system and is running things for their own advantage. The identity of the small group in question varies wildly—it’s hard to think of anyone who hasn’t been accused, at some point in the last half century or so, of being the secret elite that runs everything—but the theory that some small group or other has all the power that everybody else seems to lack is accepted nearly everywhere. Whether it’s Occupy Wall Street talking about the nefarious 1%, or the Tea Party talking about the equally nefarious liberal elite, the conviction that power has been concentrated in the wrong hands is ubiquitous in today’s America.

It’s an appealing notion, especially if you want to find somebody to blame for the current state of affairs in this country, and of course hunting for scapegoats is a popular sport whenever times are hard. Still, I’d like to suggest that an alternative understanding explains much more about the current state of the American political system. The alternative I have in mind is that the political system is lurching forward like a driverless car along a trajectory set by the outdated policies of an earlier time, and that just now, nobody is in charge at all. Unpopular though this way of thinking about power in America is, I suggest that it makes more sense of our predicament than the more popular notion of elite control.

It’s important to understand what my proposal means and, more importantly, what it doesn’t mean. A great many of those who insist that power in America is in the hands of a small elite offer, as evidence for the claim, the fact that a relatively small number of people get an obscenely large share of national income and wealth, and they’re quite correct. The last three decades or so have seen America turn into something close to a Third World kleptocracy, the sort of failed state in which a handful of politically well-connected people plunder the economy for their own benefit. When bank executives vote themselves and their cronies million-dollar bonuses out of government funds while their banks are losing billions of dollars a year, just to name an obvious example, it’s impossible to discuss the situation honestly without using words like “looting.”

Still, the ability to plunder one corner of a complex system is not the same thing as the ability to control the whole system, and the freedom with which so many people pillage the institutions they’re supposed to be managing could as well be understood as a sign that there’s no center of power willing or able to defend the core interests of the US empire against death by financial hemorrhage. The only power the executives of, say, Goldman Sachs need is the power to block any effort to stop them from stripping their bank to the bare walls for their personal enrichment, or to cut them off from the access to tax dollars that’s made that process so lucrative. That much power they certainly have—but it’s a kind and a degree of power shared by many other influential groups in America just now.

Consider the defense industries that are busy profiting off the F-35 fighter, an impressively corrupt corporate welfare program currently chewing gargantuan holes in the defense budgets of the US and several other nations. Years behind schedule and trillions of dollars over budget, the F-35 is by all independent accounts a dog of a plane, clumsier and more vulnerable than the decades-old fighters it is supposed to replace. The consortium of interests that profit from its manufacture have the power to keep the process chugging along, even as the delays stretch to decades and the cost overruns head toward lunar orbit, and again, that’s all the power they need. It’s all the more telling that they’re able to do so when the F-35 project is directly opposed to crucial US interests: having the US and its allies equipped with a substandard fighter, at a time when China and Russia are both busily testing much better planes, risks humiliating defeat in future wars—and yet the program moves steadily forward.

Examples of the same sort of thing can be multiplied endlessly, and they aren’t limited to corporations. Cities and counties all over the United States, for example, are being driven into bankruptcy by the cost of public-sector salaries and benefits that politically influential unions have extracted from vulnerable or compliant local politicians. Equally, other countries—China and Israel come to mind—have learned to make use of the diffusion of American power for their own interests. It doesn’t matter how blatantly the Chinese manipulate their currency or thumb their noses at intellectual property rights, for instance; so long as they keep their lobby in Washington well funded and well staffed, they’re secure from any meaningful response on the part of the US government. I’ve come to suspect that the only reason the US government is down on Iran is that religious scruples keep the Iranian government from buying immunity the way the Chinese do; they’ve got the petroleum and therefore the money, and could doubtless have their own influential lobby capable of blocking hostile legislation in Congress, if only they didn’t let their ideals get in the way.

The power exerted by each of these groups is by and large a veto power. They may not be able to get new policies through the jungle of competing interests in Washington, a task that is increasingly hard for anyone to manage at all, but they can prevent policies that are not in their interest from being enacted, and they can defend any policy already in place that benefits them or furthers their ability to loot the system. They have that veto power, in turn, because no one in contemporary America has the power to get anything done without assembling a temporary coalition of competing power centers, each of which has its own agenda and each of which constantly has its hand out for the biggest possible share of the take.

Not every potential power center in American politics functions as a veto group, mind you. A great many groups have become captive constituencies of one of the existing power centers, and thus lost whatever independent influence they might have had. Compare the way that the Democratic Party has seized control of the environmental movement to the way that the Republicans have played the same trick on gun owners. In both cases, the party can ignore the interests of its captive constituency until elections come around, and then bombard the constituency with propaganda insisting that the other party will do horrible things to the environment or the Second Amendment if they win the election. The other party duly plays its part in this good cop-bad cop routine by making threatening noises about gun rights or environmental issues at intervals. It’s an efficient scam, and it keeps environmentalists voting for Democrats and gun owners voting for Republicans even though neither party gives more than lip service to the issues that matter to either group.

To the members of the captive constituencies, in turn, all this simply feeds the belief that there must be somebody in the system who has the power they lack; after all, they keep on voting for the right people, and yet none of their policies ever get enacted! Since very few gun owners ever sit down and share a couple of beers with environmentalists, there’s rarely an opportunity for them to compare notes and notice that neither side is getting what it wants, and the same gimmick is being used on both. The one place on the political continuum where this sort of comparison does take place is out on the fringes, where the extreme left increasingly bends around to touch the extreme right, and the paranoiac beliefs endemic to the farther shores of American politics turn the whole thing into yet another proof that the Freemasons or the Jews or David Ickes’ imaginary space lizards run everything after all.

Just as the ability to plunder one part of a system does not equal control over the whole system, though, the ability to manipulate a handful of politically naive pressure groups does not equal the ability to manipulate the whole system. It’s precisely because no one group has an effective monopoly on power that political parties and other power centers have to resort to complicated and expensive gimmickry to hammer together the temporary coalitions that enable them to cling to whatever power they have and, on increasingly rare occasions, force through some policy or other that favors their interests.

As the system settles ever more deeply into gridlock, in turn, policies put in place in previous decades become increasingly resistant to change. Even those that turned out to have severe flaws will inevitably get support from those who profit from them, and from employees of government bureaucracies whose jobs would go away in the event of a policy change. Machiavelli pointed out a long time ago that reforms always face an uphill struggle, since those who benefit from the status quo can be counted on to fight fiercely to hold on to what they’ve got, while those who might benefit from reform have less incentive to fight for gains they know perfectly well they may never see; factor in the mutual support among power centers who have a mutual interest in keeping the status quo fixed in place, and you have a recipe for exactly the sort of stasis the United States sees every seventy or eighty years, as the cycle discussed in last week’s post approaches its end.

How the endgame plays out is a matter of more than academic interest. In 1860 and 1932, a political system frozen in gridlock and incapable of anything like a constructive response to crisis finally hit a crisis that could not be evaded any longer, and the system shattered...

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2....

I hear cannon fire in the distance...

Obama admin must be*****ed to see the EU a step ahead in the world domination game plan. At this point a civil war in Europe would be a welcome relief to the enslave the citizenry agenda.

Great find Karl... this is INSANE.... And I bet that Hollande will go for it. Hollande is a globalist. He will betray his people. And the next election is 4 years away... (aside from the legislative election this summer but it won't be passed before then)

So what happens when the people of Europe have no ``legal`` recourse?? (elections) Violence, of course.

Elections offer recourse? On what planet?