Goldman Sachs couldn’t do God’s work without City of London, the Western oligarchy’s ‘European Headquarters’

Noam Chomsky once wrote, regarding censorship, that while you will not find the truth on the front pages, it’s very often in plain sight on the business pages. The following gem in yesterday’s Guardian isn’t quite ‘splainin’ things up front, but with geopolitics and Western oligarchs’ ‘balance-of-power’ strategy in mind, it’s not difficult to see what ‘God’s emissary‘ was getting at:

Mr Cohn told the BBC: “I think for the UK it’s imperative to keep the financial services industry in London.”We all want to stay in London – it is our European headquarters.

“I think that having a great financial capital of the world staying in the UK and having the UK be part of Europe is the best thing for all of us.”Prime minister David Cameron has pledged to hold an in-out referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU if the Conservatives regain power in the general election in May.

Cohn’s comments came after the chancellor, George Osborne, told an audience in Davos that he wanted Britain to stay in the EU provided certain treaty changes could be agreed.He risked angering Britain’s European partners by saying that continental countries needed to follow Britain’s economic model in order to foster growth.

What Cohn, as head of a leading Western oligarchial institution, is cheering for is the Anglo-American arrangement that has brought the Western Empire undisputed hyperpower status. London’s primary purpose in the EU is to facilitate ‘balance-of-power’ control of Europe, lest it be lost to Eurasian integration, ie Continental Europe realizing – in the course of conducting normal trade relations – that its natural allies lie to the East, not the West.

That’s why the UK is perennially non-committal about its integration within Europe: ideologically, the British liberal elite detests European ‘socialist notions’ about long-term investment capital in public infrastructure (ya know, things that would actually benefit ordinary people), and so it only ‘keeps its foot in the door’ in order to periodically sabotage European moves in that direction, which might lessen Europe’s dependence on American military ‘protection’.

We get a hint of this ‘ideological divide’ in the article’s last sentence: ‘Britain’s economic model’ is the economic model that has destroyed whole countries and populations over the last several hundred years – the psychopathic, Chicago School, ‘Shock Doctrine’ stuff, which amounts to, “You give this to me for free, I gamble it for both of us on the Great London Casino, where I reap whirlwind profits and some of it trickles back down to you… some day. Maybe. If you don’t agree, I’ll kill you and your family and take it all anyway.”

European countries are also fond of the British model, hence their own blood-stained colonial history, and ongoing flirtation with casino capitalism. Nevertheless, the ‘continental model’ has shown that it can accommodate more civilized economic thinking and normal, fair trade relations – “I build this for you, you pay me with goods and/or cash.”

The British and American elites lose no opportunity to denigrate anything that doesn’t conform 100% to neo-liberal ‘free trade’ because they have learned that it is in the crucible of such industrial furnaces that threats to their hegemony arise.

Given the way in which the psychopathic Western oligarchs see the world – where 7-some billion of its inhabitants are property to be moulded and traded – this means, of course, that the City of London’s overarching mandate as a financial ‘forward base’ goes beyond just controlling the EU: it uses financial weapons of war – speculative attacks on non-compliant countries’ currencies, blockades in the form of economic sanctions, etc. – to maintain and entrench Western hegemony over the entire planet.

[1] No, I’m not talking about another Hitler. It’s no coincidence that that imbecile – besides being an absolute monster – had a strategic vision that involved Nazi-occupied Europe playing a subservient, vassal-state role to the Western Empire. Which is pretty much the status of the EU today. Funny that…

In a discussion witnessed by Hitler’s official interpreter, Paul Schmidt, Hitler told Mussolini he was convinced it would not serve any useful purpose to destroy the British Empire. “It is, after all, a force for order in the world,” insisted Hitler.

Hitler had written in 1924 in Mein Kampf about Germany’s future and the need for Lebensraum:

“If one wanted land and soil in Europe, then by and large this could only have been done at Russia’s expense, and then the new Reich would again have to start marching along the road of the Knights of the Order of former times.

For such a policy, however, there was only one single ally in Europe–England. With England alone, one’s back being covered, could one begin the new Germanic invasion… To gain England’s favor, no sacrifice should have been too great. Then one would have had to renounce colonies and sea power, but to spare British industry our competition.”

In 1940, Hitler’s outlook had changed very little. Rudolf Hess was constantly at his side to remind him as well of his earlier lessons in geopolitics. As Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, half Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and now most of France all had been incorporated into the New European Order of the Third Reich, Italy, and Spain bound to it by alliance, Hitler came back to the idea of re-carving the world between a land empire of Eurasia dominated by Germany, and a global oceanic empire dominated by Britain.

Hitler was preparing for the great battle, and it was to be in the east, not the west. He wanted England’s assurance that she would “cover Germany’s back,” or at least not embroil the Reich once more in a catastrophic two-front war.

Von Rundstedt’s senior staff officer, General Gunther Blumentritt, described a private meeting of Hitler with his military command in the days after Dunkirk, and his surprisingly generous settlement with Vichy France. At the discussion, Hitler had told the officers the war with France would be over in some few weeks.

“After that he wished to conclude a reasonable peace with France, and then the way would be free for an agreement with Britain. He then astonished us,” Blumentritt recalled, “by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world.” Hitler told his generals, “All he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere.”

Von Rundstedt told Blumentritt after that meeting, “Well, if he wants nothing else, then we shall have peace at last.” Von Rundstedt was as naive about the agenda of his adversary, England, as was Hitler. It was a fatal flaw they both shared with the entire leadership of the anti-Hitler opposition within the German General Staff and Foreign Office.

Fritz Hesse, an adviser to Ribbentrop in the Foreign Ministry, recounted a discussion he had held with Foreign Office Under-Secretary Ernst von Weizsaecker. Von Weizsaecker had told Hesse, referring to England, that the circle of Hitler opponents in high places was convinced that, “while no understanding with Hitler would be possible, that they–the conservative, Christian and highly influential circles–they would be able to reach such an understanding.

“What a tragic error!” Hesse noted. “No one in Berlin seemed to grasp that for the Anglo-Saxons it was fully irrelevant who ruled Germany.” Hesse cited Halford Mackinder’s quote about ‘Who rules east Europe rules the Heartland,’ and its implications for British geopolitical policy, as support for his argument.

He continued, “No one in the opposition in Germany understood that Germany could have peace only if she rejected most, in fact all, that Hitler had gained, and that then, a reintroduction of the entire Versailles System had to be expected. And Beck, Goerdeler, and many others in the opposition were in no way prepared to accept that.”

Hitler had won the Battle of France. What he did not grasp however, was that he had also just lost the larger war.

 ~ ‘Halford MacKinder’s Necessary War‘, by F. William Engdahl