European Civil War Inevitable

Though the propaganda said that the religious and ethnic transformation of the United States and Europe was supposed to produce a utopian vision of multiculturalism, this is not happening and something much darker looms on the horizon. In the last month alone, what was once a talking point of immigration restrictionists and Eurosceptics has now made its way into the mainstream halls of European finance and politics. Mainstream commentators are now reporting that because of the impending collapse of the Eurozone and the continuing process of Islamization, the European continent will be plunged into civil strife and possibly civil war sooner rather than later.

Back in early September, a UBS financial advisory report declared that “Under the current structure and with the current membership, the Euro does not work. Either the current structure will have to change, or the current membership will have to change." The UBS report then qualified its statement by stating: “It is also worth observing that almost no modern fiat currency monetary unions have broken up without some form of authoritarian or military government, or civil war.”

This was then amplified shortly afterward by the Polish finance minister, Jan Vincent-Rostowski, who declared to European MEPs that if the Eurozone was to break up, that there would be “…war on the continent within 10 years.…”

The comments of both UBS and Rostowski have long been anticipated by an honest analysis of the Eurozone by right-wing and libertarian economists. Europe's future contains high inflation, high unemployment, a reduction of industrial output, and a reduction in both national and individual wealth consumption. Europe as a whole may resemble Spain in 1935, with hardening factions on both Left and Right and the militarization of both sides in a ruthless competition for power.

The religious, social and ethnic divisions of Europe are extremely deep and one cannot hope for a peaceful resolution to civil strife in times where Left, Right and Islamic factions are currently apocalyptic (and rightfully so) in their outlook. The game has evolved to the point where it is winner take all for the Old Continent.

Even if the Eurozone crisis is resolved, that does nothing to settle the continuing and increasing problem of mass immigration into Europe where as current demographics will lead Europe into an Islamic vs. native civil war within this century.

Many of these predictions could be perhaps written off as “overboard” if it were not for the high qualifications and backgrounds of the messengers. One can look even deeper into the possible dark future of Europe by understanding the reactionary talk of EU president Herman van Rompuy as he has also warned that the EU is fighting for its very survival. Needless to say, the odious van Rompuy thinks the real problem are the European patriots who are fighting for the survival of their peoples. He then described the new European nationalism as a dark cloud of “fear.”

"Fear leads to egoism, egoism leads to nationalism, and nationalism leads to war," he said. "Today's nationalism is often not a positive feeling of pride of one's own identity, but a negative feeling of apprehension of the others. Fear of 'enemies' within our borders and beyond our borders." Perhaps what he is more afraid of is that the bell tolls for his utopian dream of a united Europe under Bolshevism and the authentic European patriots of old are making their way back up into the ranks of power by taking back lost ground politically and socially.

The question then naturally arises for Americans -- would will the United States do as Europe transforms itself? One could be sure that if the United States had the capability, if it is not suffering from its own civil strife by then, that the oligarchs of the American corporatist-socialist world would do everything in their power to prevent European patriots from taking back Europe. Both the corrupt ruling classes of Europe and America have only one fear and one true enemy -- the emerging patriotic Right.

That brings up a different military theory, which may be of some interest.

The idea of mass standing armies has only been around effectively since the age of Napoleon. Before then, a national call up was a short term, haphazard affair with any logistics provided by wealthy royals. So for the most part, mercenaries were the preferred means of fighting smaller wars.

And oddly enough, by being far less expensive than paying for a standing army, mercenary companies will likely be the future, not just for Europe, but they could be very useful for America as well.

In our case, we have a top of the line, highly trained and equipped military, that has become very overextended on minor missions such as peacekeeping and disaster relief. Forces scattered in 100 nations around the world, when they only need to be in perhaps a dozen.

Mercenaries could perform all sorts of low level functions (as well as being deployed to places we prefer not to go, like Africa), and save the US literally billions of dollars that could be used to keep our military in top shape, for real missions, where their skills and equipment are vital.

As far as Europe goes, they just cannot afford standing armies anymore. But being defenseless can be a drag. Yet the rules of having mercenary forces like the French Foreign Legion are well known (must be offshore, must have regular officers in charge, and must have logistics and transport provided by the regular military).

In the US, Xe Corporation (fmr Blackwater), is extremely profitable because the US government has no end of things it could do, and even with good pay and profits, it only costs a fraction of an equivalent military unit.

Good points. But they thought Germany could not produce a large military after WWI. They went through a crushing inflationary period. In the old Medieval days, fighters had to spend many years working their weapons to become proficient. So when the King called for his knights to mobilize, they were ready. With the weaponry most standing soldiers use nowadays, a few weeks of training is all that is needed, once the weapons are made. This is an AK47 world. Point and shoot.

The US already has a mercenary company and we use it extensively. The National Guard. For the coming period of internal Civil War, perhaps what local areas need are militias that can be called up in a day. In fact, our founders recommended a well armed and regulated militia.

That’s an excellent post. I would caution, however, that there is an enormous danger in what you’ve described. There is going to come a day (you can mark my words on this), when a private company such as Xe Corporation will be capable of doing far more than just “perform all sorts of low level functions” on behalf of the U.S. government and other governments around the world. I believe it is only a matter of time before this kind of arrangement leads to a scenario where Xe Corp. or some other variation of it has all of the military capability it needs to conquer or destroy entire nations . . . and yes, that includes the United States of America.

That is one of the reasons the FFL has regular French Army officers as leaders. Xe is somewhat different because it tends to recruit from prior service US military elite forces, the vast majority of whom are extremely loyal to the US, if no longer the US government.

The British Army has long experience with what amounts to “foreign” regiments in their colonial forces. However, these regiments were in practice fiercely loyal to Britain. The Sikh regiment, for example, now in service in the Indian Army, is perhaps the most highly decorated regiment in the world, and fought for the British in both WWI and WWII, earning numerous Victoria crosses for bravery, and the British still recruit Gurkhas from Nepal to serve with the Gurkha regiment (the Brigade of Gurkhas).

The FFL does have the mark of shame of having once tried to overthrow the French government. But that is why one of the cardinal rules of mercenaries today is that they must be garrisoned offshore, with both their logistics and transportation provided by the regular armed forces.

One advantage a “US Foreign Legion”, is that we could recruit from some of the top military talent from around the world, not just US citizens. And there is a huge number of potential mercenary soldiers who would see this as a very prestigious organization to which to belong.

Their deployment would have to be by bilateral treaty, such as the US made with numerous countries to avoid persecution by the ICC of our military forces and leaders. As a mercenary organization they fit in a shadowy legal area, so would to a great extent have to operate under either US auspices or those of our close allies.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.