Globalists in Full Panic Mode After Vance Calls Out Their ‘Democracy’ Scam

The hot topic today is the Euro meltdown over Veep Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference. Let’s warm up to the topic by providing Larry Johnson’s rundown of some salient points in Vance’s speech. Please note: A major speech of this sort was certainly cleared with Trump—these were not at all equivalent to off the cuff remarks to a WSJ journalist. Further, Vance’s speech mirrors, in important respects, earlier statements by other US officials—notably, those of SecState Rubio regarding multipolarity. Finally, while Vance’s speech came across as a critique of the Euro globalists—which it was—his points largely apply to the US as well. In that respect they are Trumpian and go back to Trump’s agenda as originally presented—see especially #1-3 and compare that to the American situation in Trumpian terms.

So, LJ:

1. Internal Threats: Vance argued that the primary threat to Europe comes “from within,” not from external actors like Russia or China.
2. Free Speech: He accused European governments of censoring free speech and retreating from fundamental democratic values.
3. Immigration: Vance described immigration as the most “urgent” challenge facing European nations2.
4. European Defense: He briefly mentioned that Europe must significantly enhance its own defense capabilities1.
5. Ukraine Conflict: Vance touched on the Ukraine war, expressing hope for a “reasonable settlement” following President Trump’s announcement about initiating peace talks with Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

OK, #4 isn’t going to happen any time soon, and in a rational world doesn’t really need to happen at all—not in the way it’s usually understood, as a response to a threatened invasion from Russia. I discount any fantasy of a purely Euro NATO and a supposed “remilitarization” of Europe. As for #5, the “reasonable settlement” is likely to come about in piecemeal fashion over a period of years, as various Euro nations make their own separate peaces with Russia. Smart nations like Hungary and Slovakia are well into that process. Romania appears to be beginning the process.

Other countries will have a harder and longer time waking up to reality. For example, Poland—which had hoped to become the Anglo-Zionists favored step child, a sort of East Euro Israel without The Lobby—is headed for an extremely rude awakening:

Philip Pilkington @philippilk

Poland bet everything – everything – on its relationship with the US. The US sends FDI [foreign direct investment] which basically finances the country’s relatively large military sector. The Polish government will now start to demolish this relationship and Poland’s entire economic model goes with it.

Play stupid games … Having antagonized must neighboring countries, the transition will be painful for the Poles. Ho hum, an entirely new model after betting on Cold War 2.0 forever. But the Poles are far from alone. What were Finland and Sweden thinking when they joined NATO?

Here’s a press snippet that captures the Euro reaction to Vance’s message—which, again, can’t have come as a total surprise after Trump 1.0’s open talk of a reset of NATO, or even a total pullout. Note the direct comparison to Putin 2007:

 
Better come up with a better response than that. This is happening. It’s not some weird globalist nightmare. It’s reality deconstructing fantasy. Here’s a smart response to the Euro pearl clutching over Vance’s remarks about migration as a threat, addressing the globalist enabling of mass migration over the heads of their subject populations. Those subjects, as in America, are increasingly turning to “populism” as an alternative to “democracy”:

Connor Tomlinson @Con_Tomlinson

This hand-wringing about “Our democracy” doesn’t mean politicians feel accountable to the majority opinion of the people.

It’s why they simultaneously condemn populism.

What they mean by democracy is the system which reveals the indistinguishable equality of everyone from everywhere — because we are all equal.

This ideology of equality means unelected “experts” can decide what is best for us, on our behalf.

Anyone objecting to that utopia of equality unfurling is a “racist”, “divisive”, and “far right” — and so must be censored, banned, even killed to ensure “Democracy” continues.

The Democrats Who Want Trump Dead

Harris knows she is putting Trump’s life in danger, and yet she does it anyway

10:38 AM · Feb 14, 2025

Bernard at MoA offers an overall thoughtful analysis, although I think he misses the important point about the roots of Vance’s speech in the Trumpian past:

Vance Criticizes Europe In Fierce Speech

Bernard goes on about American hypocrisy, but he needs to understand current events as reflecting Trump’s victory—for now—in what could be viewed as an American political civil war. What he sees as hypocrisy is simply Americans embracing MAGA under Trump’s conceptual leadership. The hypocrisy Bernard sees—the true fact that the US Deep State, through vehicles like USAID, heavily pushed the woke agenda that is behind the Euro malaise, and which Vance criticizes as Europe’s own fault from an American perspective—was the expression of policies that were ginned up by an anti-democratic Anglo-Zionist ruling elite in America, but which was embraced by the related ruling elite in Europe. Thus, much of the anguished outcries come from the ruling class, not subjects who are being crushed economically and culturally by the folly of the ruling class.

Now, importantly, Bernard harks back to Putin’s 2007 speech in Munich and notes that the US is embracing key concepts that Putin put forward there. Bernard also connects this to not only Vance’s speech but also to the statements by Rubio and Hegseth. This is really important, and the Eurocrats are quite correct to make the connection.

The 2007 speech by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin at the Munich Security Conference was one for the ages.

Concepts mentioned therein are only now getting acknowledged:

It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilisations.

This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”.
…
The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.
…
It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.
…
There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.

Eighteen years later the new U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged the fact of a multipolar world. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demolished any hope for Ukraine to enter NATO. Donald Trump, by calling President Putin, accepted the concept of a shared if not yet indivisible security. In 2007 Putin also spoke out against the abuse of so called NGOs to manipulate foreign countries’ internal policies. Trump has now stopped USAID and NED from financing these.

Eighteen years on the core concepts of Putin’s speech have thus been accepted.

In essence, Putin was calling for the dismantling of the Rules Based Order and a return to the rule of international law. Warwick Powell frames this week’s developments as America’s acceptance of defeat, although the terms are still being worked out. Powell correctly points out that, in fact, Trump has long recognized—even before the open war on Russia—the need for America to restructure its role in the world. Here are excerpts from the much longer article. Notably, Powell deals at some length with a matter we have returned to regularly—Putin’s draft treaties that were presented to the collective West in December, 2021:

Muddling our way to indivisible security?

The European Odyssey in the aftermath of defeat in Ukraine

The Call’ – concession of defeat

Trump’s call to Putin appears to have taken many by surprise, especially those in Europe and Ukraine. Trump’s sidelining of the European leadership, NATO and Ukraine has been a shocking experience for them. Trump detailed the discussion by way of a social media post. Putin’s record of the conversation is by more conventional means: a read out on the Kremlin website. By way of summary:

• Trump’s post featured general comments on a mutual desire for the bloodshed to end. Trump also indicated the members of the US negotiating team. (This did not include the Ukraine Peace Envoy, General Keith Kellogg.) The post also noted that the pair discussed a broad range of issues other than Ukraine.
• The Kremlin readout recalled as follows, among other things: “Vladimir Putin pointed out it was necessary to eliminate the root causes of the conflict and agreed with Donald Trump in that a sustainable settlement could only be reached via peaceful negotiations.” (My emphasis)

This call was in effect a concession of defeat. Trump has wanted to wash his hands of the debacle as quickly as possible, for fear of become a co-owner of the strategic defeat, as I have argued elsewhere. That it was the US that made the call for peace speaks volumes as to the state of play on the battlefield now and expected to be into the future.

…Given their preponderance on the battle field, Russia won’t be bullied into a rushed decision. They can fight on for a long time to come, if need be. Meanwhile, Trump will be wondering how he can fast track the US’ extrication from the quagmire, blame others for the debacle, and hopefully grab some rare earths on the way out.

Finally, Alex Krainer raises the possibility—and especially in light of Marco Rubio’s embrace of multi-polarity, which was surely sanctioned by Trump personally—that Trump is hoping to leverage a deal with Putin into a Grand Bargain on a global scale. Krainer presents his thoughts in the context, also, of Trump’s desire to make some or all of Canada into part of America. Here I present the nub of Krainer’s idea, minus most of the graphics and the beginning and conclusion. Note the land based Great Circle Route—that could well be what the Canada Gambit is really about. Note also that the Russian side has welcomed in the past what they claimed was Trump’s openness to “spheres of influence”—another term for multipolarity?

3/14: So what’s going on? Putin suggested that the discussions should address bigger issues than just Ukraine war – perhaps a whole new global order incl. trade, finance and security architecture based on multipolar integrations. Let’s play ball!

4/14: Recall, Marco Rubio signalled the Administrations readiness to abandon the unipolar order, work on a multipolar global order.

5/14: It could be a better version of the British Empire’s conception of 3-block global order as adopted by the US after WWII (it’s the reason why Kissinger’s, Brzezinski’s Trilateral Commission is called Trilateral…)

 
6/14: The British version was being sold to Hitler already in 1937 which is why the UK supported him for as long as they did. I covered this in the video below. They didn’t teach you this in school. :

7/14: The new global order will be multipolar but anchored around 3 great powers with China as the regional hegemon in East Asia, Russia in Central and Eastern Europe and the United States in the Americas.

In other words, spheres of influence by another name?

 
8/14: In that context, the new global order could entail some redrawing of borders and maps, not only in Europe and the Middle East but also on the North American continent including Canada and Greenland.

Have you heard any criticism of Trump’s Canada – Greenland talk from the Russians or Chinese? Me neither.

Read more