In Europe, they finally started talking aloud about what became obvious to everyone since the outbreak of the coronavirus. The pandemic showed that it would be unreasonable to give the EU supreme authority over its member countries, said Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Chaputovic. According to the politician, each state fought the disease on its own and made the necessary decisions for this at its own level, and not in Brussels.
Actually, the head of the Polish Foreign Ministry stated the obvious. The clumsy bureaucratic machine of the EU worked with difficulty in conditions of “peacetime”, when everything went smoothly and within the framework of regulations, overloading itself with the solution of countless small things. And in a crisis, when the situation became emergency, this bulky colossus simply stood up. For so many tasks, it turned out to be too complicated, energy-intensive and did not have a simple decision-making mechanism.
At one time, the first head of the Soviet state, Vladimir Lenin, whose 150th anniversary was recently modestly celebrated by the Communists of the whole world, created the same cumbersome government machine. The four-part decision-making model consisted of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, the Politburo, the Council of People's Commissars, and the Workers 'and Peasants' Control and Revision Commission. Any decision was made by simple voting within each of these structures, then it was endorsed by its secretary - and only then it was considered adopted.
This was necessary in order to blur the power, spread it with a thin layer on the cumbersome management structure. Make it atomized, imperceptible for use by one or another political group. And as soon as the same Secretary General of the Central Committee Joseph Stalin tried to concentrate power in his hands, establishing working contacts with members of the Central Committee, switching them to his side, Lenin immediately introduced additional members to the Central Committee, thereby eroding the emerging Stalinist faction.
Such a cumbersome management model existed until the outbreak of war, that is, until it became obvious that with its help not only wars could not be won, but at the very least it was simply impossible to manage the state. It was then, on June 30, 1941, that the decision was made to create the State Defense Committee (GKO), an emergency governing body, where all power was concentrated in the hands of five leaders: Stalin, Molotov, Malenkov, Beria and Voroshilov. For in conditions of war and crisis, the bulky machine of the bureaucratic bureaucratic apparatus costs nothing when a decision must be made quickly and without ceremony.
Something similar happened in the EU. They tried to create a management system in which not a single country (and most of all Germany is afraid of) and no economic and political structure would have significant power to concentrate management in one hand. And, in fact, all this somehow functioned until a crisis occurred - the coronavirus pandemic.
Here it’s worthwhile to once again recall the formula of the European lawyer Karl Schmitt, which works flawlessly to this day and is that the one who makes decisions in emergency circumstances is sovereign.
In the context of the coronavirus pandemic, Brussels not only ceased to make decisions, but in general, it seems, ceased to function. The European Commission quarantined, and decision-making in these extraordinary circumstances descended to the level of nation-states.
The European Union could not create its own State Defense Committee, similar to the Stalin era of World War II.
The fear of Germany’s new dominance in Europe is so great that the European Union chose to self-destruct, at least for the period of the pandemic, the end of which is not yet visible, rather than surrender to the EU state, which has both experience and capabilities, and still (let and residual) will to act in emergency situations.
Power in the EU, spread over numerous bureaucratic structures under the influence of COVID-19, did not concentrate in one hand, but simply glass down to where it was collected with such difficulty for many decades, observing numerous parameters that allow to bypass Germany and its question actual dominance.
Now the European bureaucracy is everything. This is what the Polish Foreign Ministry states: the European Union exists as long as it is needed by its constituent countries. Under the terms of COVID-19, Jacek Chaputović emphasizes, each country was forced to take responsibility for the safety of its citizens.
There is another explanation for EU paralysis. The secret is that from the very beginning it was created not for effective management in the interests of improving the welfare of its citizens, but as a liberal mondialist experiment to create a melting pot of posthuman biomass. On the derivation of asexual, subjectless creatures without any collective identity. As a biological mechanism of consumption and exploitation - as a standard of the future posthuman liberal world. As an example of the Open Society described by Karl Popper and implemented by his follower George Soros.
The EU is the very model of an open world by which this world should have been rebuilt. It may not be closed, but it has closed nation states in its national apartments with its own problems. That is, it cannot be in a crisis, act in extraordinary circumstances. So, it simply cannot be.
In the context of the coronavirus pandemic, the “universal” globalist model did not become: it is not tailored for this and is not intended for this.
In conservative Poland, part of the alternative Visegrád group, taking care of its traditions and identity, they understand this very well. As in Hungary, Romania, and indeed in Eastern Europe as a whole, where Soros with his networks (and, therefore, all of his concepts of the liberal-globalist flood) is outlawed.
Crisis is mobilization, will and mind. And globalism is relaxation. Globalization is not imprisoned for a crisis, it is not suitable for mobilization, which means that for a world that is preparing to face a whole series of crises, it is not at all suitable. Absolutely.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.