Fascism Returns to EUrope, enabled by 'temporary crisis managment' measures adopted by the Commission

Industry is now officially at the table, with the EU Commission poised to 'offer financial solidarity': whose money, and on what conditions?

It seems like it never ends (and I’d like to write about many other topics), but here goes: yesterday, 20 July, the EU Commission has proclaimed its most recent edict. In keeping with the by now normalised, if utterly depraved, notion of ‘governance by press release’, we the people have now been informed about our fate come autumn:

As the press release holds, everyone in the EU (and, by extension, in the EEA) shall use less gas until next spring (emphases in the original):

The Commission is therefore proposing today a new legislative tool and a European Gas Demand Reduction Plan, to reduce gas use in Europe by 15% until next spring. All consumers, public administrations, households, owners of public buildings, power suppliers and industry can and should take measures to save gas. The Commission will also accelerate work on supply diversification, including joint purchasing of gas to strengthen the EU's possibility of sourcing alternative gas deliveries.

Leaving aside the utter hilarity of the timeline—which is when the rationing will occur, presumably because of ‘climate change’ (because of delayed snow melt)—here are the key points, as always, quoted from source material with emphases in the original:

The Commission is proposing a new Council Regulation on Coordinated Demand Reduction Measures for Gas, based on Article 122 of the Treaty. The new Regulation would set a target for all Member States to reduce gas demand by 15% between 1 August 2022 and 31 March 2023. The new Regulation would also give the Commission the possibility to declare, after consulting Member States, a ‘Union Alert' on security of supply, imposing a mandatory gas demand reduction on all Member States. The Union Alert can be triggered when there is a substantial risk of a severe gas shortage or an exceptionally high gas demand.

So far, so understandable—that is, as long as one leaves out the road that led us to this place (see here for lots of background, esp. linked content).

This is the subsequent paragraph, albeit with my emphases for a change:

Member States should update their national emergency plans by the end of September to show how they intend to meet the reduction target, and [they] should report to the Commission on progress every two months. Member States requesting solidarity gas supplies will be required to demonstrate the measures they have taken to reduce demand domestically.

So, in this paragraph is the key to understanding the next few months: since I’m not in a charitable mood today, I think the first sentence signifies the inversion of how the EU was supposedly run so far: the EU Council (the assembly of heads of governments of the various member-states) was to be in charge, with the EU Commission overseeing the implementation of what the member-states decided upon.

Yes, I know, in theory, there’s no difference between theory and practice, but in reality there is.—Yet, please re-read that sentence:

Member States…should report to the Commission on progress.

This isn’t the way it is supposed to be.

The second sentence is even more devious, if not outright devilish: if you wish to obtain ‘solidarity assistance’ from your fellow EU member-states, you’d first have to prove that you’ve already done a lot to ‘demonstrate the measures…domestically’.

In other words: Brussels is demanding demand destruction (of energy consumption), which will induce severe economic pain (in US lingo, that would be ‘means-testing’).

Don’t fall for this shitshow: it’s the fast-track to economic ruin, and it will be worse than the fallout from the 2007/08 Great Recession, the Eurocrisis, and Covid combined.

How can I be sure?

Energy is the master resource, or input, into economic activity. Virtually everything we do is derivative of the availability of cheap and reliable sources of ‘energy’. Reduce the flow of energy—here: oil and natural gas from Russia—and your economy contracts.

Contracting production is followed by declining consumption, as laid-off employees will have less discretionary spending power to actually participate in our consumerism-driven fake cornucopia.

Let’s use a different word, then, shall we? This is going to be the functional equivalent of the EU Commission imposing ‘austerity’ in exchange for ‘solidarity’. (As an aside, note how the word ‘solidarity’, has been perverted from, say, its use leading the anti-Communist protests in Poland in the 1980s…)

Also, this procedure is virtually the same that has been applied to what used to be called ‘The Third World’ (and what, in what may perhaps best be described as an effort to assuage our Western, post-modern sensitivities, is called ‘The Global South’) by institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Reading suggestions incl. John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hitman, Mark Blyth’s Austerity, or Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.

Yet, now this is all out in the open, with the EU Commission informing everyone that what was done to Greece in the 2010s—which resulted in a contraction of economic output by about 1/3 of GDP, i.e., this was worse than WW1 in economic terms—will now be imposed by fiat (from the press release, again with emphases in the original, but my Italics):

To help Member States deliver the necessary demand reductions, the Commission has also adopted a European Gas Demand Reduction Plan which sets out measures, principles and criteria for coordinated demand reduction. The Plan focuses on substitution of gas with other fuels, and overall energy savings in all sectors. It aims to safeguard supply to households and essential users like hospitals, but also industries that are decisive for the provision of essential products and services to the economy, and for EU supply chains and competitiveness. The Plan provides guidelines for Member States to take into account when planning curtailment.

And just like that, all laws, regulations, and ‘confessionals’ about staying warm in winter etc. are thrown out. Note that, contrary to existing norms, the above paragraph specifically includes the relative clause beginning with ‘but also industries…’

Using all matters Covid as a blueprint, this means, in all likelihood, that small and medium businesses will be allowed to continue to operate, if they can somehow find the money to keep the lights switched on—all the while Big Businesses will receive preferential treatment. (Think: mom and pop stores will be ‘shut down’ while the likes of Amazon or Walmart will be allowed to render ‘essential products and services’.) Nothing new under the sun.

Do take note of the word ‘when’, not ‘if’, in the final sentence of the above paragraph: this isn’t a hypothetical, rather, a statement—threat—of ‘planned curtailment’.

Who’s doing the planning?—Th EU Commission will ‘help’ member-states on this one, eh?

It does remind me of the something Ronald Reagan once said, and I think everyone’s new creed should include the following (slightly amended) wording:

I’m from the EU Commission, and I’m here to help.

In which case, hold on to your wallet and grab a pitchfork.

Fable-Telling isn’t Politics (to say nothing about ‘solutions’)

Further below, the EU Commission’s press release invokes the parable of the ant and the grasshopper, headlining the remainder of the text with a patently absurd rejection of objective reality (as in thermodynamics, with emphasis in the original):

Energy saved in summer is energy available for winter

I’m sorry, but that’s not true. If you haven’t heard of Entropy, let’s briefly remind ourselves that saving ‘energy’ now merely renders the currently available energy comparatively cheaper to other users.

In other words: if you turn down the AC now, industrial or other users will use the energy produced right now; it doesn’t flow into a mythical storage facility.

Ultimately, this entire scheme will fail both due to Entropy, but also due to something called the ‘Jevons Paradox’:

Note, specifically, the last sentence of that paragraph: it is ‘generally assumed’…yada yada, or, in other words: welcome to Pippi Longstocking’s wishful thinking world (and, perhaps, it’s no coincidence that Greta Thunberg looks quite a bit like Pippi…)

More BS from Brussels:

The Gas Demand Reduction Plan proposed by the Commission is based on consultations with Member States and industry.

And just like this, ‘industry’—meaning Big Energy corporations—are elevated to co-equal status of Member-States. Corporatism, or Fascism, in action.

Yes, there are some references cited throughout the press release, and I recommend everyone to check them out themselves. I shall merely restrict myself to the following two points:

First, note how the EU Commission again—like with the Covid ‘emergency’, which was extended despite there being no such thing—added some bells and whistles to its workday by introducing an Orwellian-named tool:

Member States may offer support in line with the amendment of the State aid Temporary Crisis Framework, adopted by the Commission today.

(The linked content includes more BS, incl. a veritable roundabout, as the similarly linked ‘Winter Preparedness Package’ re-routes you back to the above-linked press release. Lazy bums, that’s what they are.)

From the ‘temporary crisis framework’, which

enables Member States to grant limited amount of aid to companies affected by the current crisis or by the subsequent sanctions and countersanctions up to the increased amount of 62,000€ and 75,000€ in the agriculture, and fisheries and aquaculture sectors respectively, and up to 500,000€ in all other sectors…

specifies that the aid may cover only up to 70% of the beneficiary's gas and electricity consumption during the same period of the previous year.

So, now that we know what the money is going to be spent on, let’s enquire where it will come from (that is, ultimately, out of European citizens’ pockets, but the ‘how’ is important).

Follow the Money

To do so, we need to backtrack a bit and, secondly, return to the initially-discussed press release. Specifically, we shall talk about another piece of linked content (emphasis in the original):

The Commission is proposing a new Council Regulation on Coordinated Demand Reduction Measures for Gas, based on Article 122 of the Treaty.

If you’d click on that link to Art. 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, it will take you to a very special place, in particular Pt. III, entitled ‘Union Policies and Internal Actions’, specifically Title VIII on ‘Economic and Monetary Policy’. It’s a brief article, and it’s definitely worth your time (my emphases):

1. Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the Treaties, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy.

2. Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken.

So, Art. 122 (1) sets the stage, which means that it’s vacuously worded and contains only the most general references to the core of the matter, energy policy.

Art. 122 (2), however, gives away the game. Leaving aside the odd words about ‘natural disasters of exceptional circumstances’ (sure, the current mess is well ‘beyond [any member-states’] control, as control emanates from D.C., via NATO), the money wording (pun intended) is this:

the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned

Where would the money come from?

Eurobonds? A fiscal and taxation union perhaps?

We’ve seen this before, in the context of the Greek tragedy a decade ago.

Now, under the cover of an engineered and, above all artificial, ‘emergency’, the same malevolent actors are at this again.

How would the Commission find the money to fork over to certain, means-tested, favourites?

Easy: Protocol 14 of the Lisbon Treaty, which holds:

Article 1: The Ministers of the Member States whose currency is the euro shall meet informally. Such meetings shall take place, when necessary, to discuss questions related to the specific responsibilities they share with regard to the single currency. The Commission shall take part in the meetings. The European Central Bank shall be invited to take part in such meetings, which shall be prepared by the representatives of the Ministers with responsibility for finance of the Member States whose currency is the euro and of the Commission.

Please refer to this post:

Woe to the Vanquished: Germany 'hasn't been sovereign since 8 May 1945', is a full-blown satrapy of the Washington--a call for high treason proceedings

Back in April 2022, I wrote the following about this issue (from the linked piece):

The hierarchy established by the Lisbon Treaty’s Protocol Nr. 14 appears to be as follows:

EU Commission, ECB + reps of the Finance Ministers ≠ Economy and Finance Ministers Meetings (that working group’s acronym would be ECOFIN) > member state governments > national parliaments

But note that there’s (at least) the following rub: the informal meetings are prepared by staffers and advisors of the Eurozone’s finance ministers, i.e., by political appointees of the cabinet-level ministers, i.e., even further removed from anything even remotely resembling transparency and accountability vs. the sovereign people.

The main change communicated yesterday is this: ‘industry’ will be officially joining the party, with you and me being the main course.

From Frankfurt with Love

This is how Corporatism, or Fascism, returns to the pinnacle of power in Europe.

Fascism never went away, it’s part and parcel of the ‘bourgeois mode of production’ (Karl Marx), commonly known as ‘capitalism’.

Don’t take my word for it: please read the linked content. It’s all there, out in the open, for everyone to see.

The final word today belongs to Max Horkheimer, one of the leading luminaries (water-carriers) of post-1945 German intellectualism and one of the key figures of the (in)famous Frankfurt school (Frankfurt am Main, perhaps somewhat ironically so, is also the seat of the European Central Bank, by the way):

Whoever is not prepared to talk about capitalism should also remain silent about fascism.