When it comes to climate (etc.), is Europe more anchor to the U.S. than ally?
Dear Mr. Bastardi,
As I read the title of your article, I was confident that I had found a good piece that would help answer the big question:
Why is Europe clinging to climate hysteria, while the U.S. under Trump’s leadership seems to have managed to free itself from it?
Instead, I read an article about how irresponsible most European countries are when their natural gas storage facilities are insufficiently filled. While this is certainly true, it does not answer the big question.
To answer this, or at least shed light on some aspects of it, I must take a step back.
The U.S. became what it is today through European immigrants, but it became independent and self-confident early on. After World War II, they were then strong enough to impose their two-party system on Western European nations, as well as the shift of global trade to a dollar-based system (Bretton Woods, 1946). The latter meant either taking out loans from a U.S. bank or delivering goods to the U.S. for free (in exchange for dollar bills). The two-party system meant that the two parties were allowed to fight each other without touching on taboo issues — such as national debt, the protection of ethnic homogeneity, the national economy, the preference for the clearing system over Bretton Woods, and the Federal Reserve system.
The press in Western Europe between 1945 and 1990 was truly free, except when it came to these taboo issues. These issues simply did not exist.
The U.S. generously handed Eastern Europe over to the diabolical Soviet power, knowing full well that it was only a matter of time (decades) before it fell into its lap.
Between 1945 and 1990, Western Europe experienced a period of prosperity. The U.S. kept the states on a long leash — so long that no one even noticed it was there.
With the weakening of communism came the first warning signs. More and more immigrants arrived from Muslim countries, primarily from Turkey, and the first voices were raised warning that Western nations could not cope with the problem of national debt. Later, migrants did not come on their own; they were transported to Europe.
The first unexplained assassinations, suicides, or accidents occurred. What they had in common was that the victims were disrupting — or could have disrupted — the emerging New World Order.
The following names should be recalled:
Alfred Herrhausen 1989
Detlev Carsten Rohwedder 1991
Jörg Haider 2008. (These are just examples; the list of suspicious deaths would be long.)
Another warning sign was that the U.S. discreetly prevented Germany from putting the fast breeder reactor into operation in the second half of the 1980s. As you know, the fast breeder reactor also uses 238U (uranium), whereas conventional nuclear power plants use only 235U, which accounts for just 1% of natural uranium. When an ally installs such technology, one is pleased; with a vassal state, that is not the case. The Russians are happily operating this technology today.
After the fall of communism and the shift of Eastern European states into the U.S. sphere of influence, a completely new phenomenon emerged in Europe.
The leeway for press freedom became noticeably tighter. “Political correctness” was the watchword. One had to know on one’s own what one was allowed to say. If one didn’t know, one was off the stage.
The U.S. was no longer an ally, but rather a feudal lord, and the allies were suddenly openly vassals.
Within the U.S., there may have been differences between Democrats and Republicans, but outwardly, toward Europe, they were united.
Climate protection was established by the forces based in the U.S. (the deep state).
The goal was to weaken the economies of countries inhabited by predominantly white nations and to drive up national debt. This deep state is doing everything in its power to break up the homogeneous European nations through the mass influx of Black Africans and Arabs.
The way the deep state built up the climate madness was ingenious.
First, they enabled an influential circle of business leaders in those countries to make a fortune off of it.
Second, they managed to get the major political parties in those countries—or at least their leadership — to go along with it, even though if anyone should know how harmful and nonsensical climate policy is, it would be the party leaderships in those countries. I don’t know whether individual politicians receive donations from the climate lobby; perhaps the fear of being branded a “climate denier” is enough.
Thirdly, the deep state has ensured that the media has supported and amplified the climate madness by 99%.
And into this situation, Trump bursts in early 2025 and says, 2×2 = 4.
It is also new that the U.S. does not appear to Europe as a monolith, but rather that U.S. Democrats continue to push the climate hysteria. And European politicians are observing this new phenomenon very closely.
Is it any wonder that Europe is not joining in the return to normality?
There is no strong party here, like the U.S. Republicans. Here there are only swing parties which, if they were to suddenly say that the climate madness is wrong, would thereby also be saying that “we have been lying to you for decades”. No one will do that.
I would see an opportunity if the deep state were to say of its own accord, “Enough with the destruction of Europe.” An end to the influx of non-Europeans, an end to the climate madness. Even the banks, which keep European nations alive with their flow of credit, would be in a position to bring politics to its senses. Whether they want to do that is another question.
And if the deep state were to instruct the media to speak openly about climate hysteria, it would be over within a year.
As long as that doesn’t happen, everything is going down the drain.
Warm regards from Hungary
Király József
