It is no coincidence that the influential works of the great political philosophers of classical liberalism, such as Friedrich August von Hayek, Karl Popper, or Ludwig von Mises, emerged between the years 1935 and 1960. During that time, the political landscape of Europe was dominated, on the one hand, by totalitarian and inhumane ideologies like communism under Lenin and later Stalin, and on the other hand, by the dictatorship of National Socialism under Hitler. Additionally, there was the Soviet-influenced socialism in the former German Democratic Republic (East Germany).
Considering the experiences with this alternative and oppressive nature of societies, the Austrian School developed the position that individual freedom is an indispensable necessity for modern societies. Hayek convincingly argued, and his argument remains unrefuted to this day, that socialism inevitably leads to totalitarianism. The Austrian School, as the origin of modern liberalism, has influenced not only philosophers and economists like John Maynard Keynes or Milton Friedman but also contributed to the core principles of many European countries’ constitutions. In particular, principles such as the limitation of power between the branches of government through checks and balances, the guarantee of freedom for every individual citizen, protection against government encroachments, and the right to property were incorporated.
The Maastricht Treaty, which can be considered the founding document of the European Community as we know it today, was also concluded in this spirit. However, the subsequent formal constitution adopted by the community could only be passed as a compromise due to differing political interests of the member states. With the Treaty of Lisbon (2007), certain limitations on powers for European institutions, the principle of subsidiarity, and especially the competence of sovereign states—the decision on which policy areas are transferred to the EU—were weakened.
It should come as no surprise that the centralized authorities of the EU would seek more power and size. It is well known that any organization, be it economic or political, has a drive for growth, similar to the reproductive drive of living beings. In several previous articles, we have therefore warned against the EU’s efforts to transform the European community of states into a centrally controlled socialist form of government. About a year and a half later, the communications, measures, and legislative proposals of the EU demonstrate that our warnings were not exaggerated. On the contrary, the speed of transformation exceeds our greatest fears.
The ongoing transformation follows the same steps known from revolutionary socialist transformations in other countries in the past:
I. The Ideology
For the transformation, a fundamental promise of salvation and a narrative supported by a large part of the population, seen as necessary for change, are needed. A cadre of followers who have internalized the ideology is responsible for spreading the message and for the corresponding (re-)education of the population. The second element of the ideology is to create an atmosphere of fear to suppress divergent opinions.
Europe has chosen the fight against climate change as its central ideology. This is a brilliant move as it simplifies a grand and noble goal to which everything else can be subordinate—even freedom and democracy, if necessary. And it is ideal that this ideology also generates fear among the population, which can be effectively used to portray dissenters as enemies of their own lives and well-being and silence them. Instead of imprisonment and execution of regime critics, personal defamation, exclusion, and even “social death” have taken their place.
II. Surveillance and Control
In parallel, the EU provides the infrastructure for manipulating and censoring public opinion and monitoring citizens through the Digital Services Act (DSA). Regulatory measures include the regulation of political party advertising, cash limits, the establishment of a European asset register, or the establishment of the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA).
It is also helpful to divide the already divided society into as many individual identity groups as possible, creating disputes among them. This ensures that broad societal alliances do not form, which could collectively reach a critical mass and resist the socialist transformation.
III. Elimination of the Middle Class
In the transition to socialism, states break away from former bourgeois structures and create a socialist social structure. All forms of socialist rule have a society without a significant middle class. It is characterized by the classical masses of the working population facing a comparatively small socialist elite.
In addition, private capital, especially real estate and businesses, must be brought under state control. This somewhat challenging step was accomplished by Stalin through straightforward expropriation, while in Nazi Germany, the state controlled the economy through price and wage controls. In Europe today, a new, subtler form is available. The EU, through regulation and laws, drives up the costs of private capital to such an extent that more and more people can no longer afford ownership and are forced to sell. However, the buyer is rarely the state; instead, it is an oligarchic circle of wealthy investors closely connected to politics.
As an example beyond Europe, let’s mention Bill Gates: the founder of Microsoft, a friend of Epstein, and a close collaborator of Klaus Schwab. He has acquired agricultural land from many struggling farms, making him the largest private landowner in the United States with around 120,000 hectares.
Another perplexing example is TCI, a global real estate hedge fund that is a major sponsor of the foundations behind Agora and other climate activist NGOs. It is hard to believe that multi-million-dollar donations were made without any economic interest.
Sometimes this system is also referred to as “billionaire socialism,” a term coined by Oswald Spengler. It refers to the alliance between the socialist power elite and the economic elite that emerged in capitalism. In this small group, political power and economic capital increasingly merge. A current example is Thierry Breton, the current EU Commissioner for the Internal Market, who previously served as the CEO of the French IT service provider Atos Origin. As an EU politician, he ensures that his former employer receives contracts worth 300 million euros as part of the infrastructure development for the DSA and the asset register.
IV. Economic Planning
In this form of socialism, where private capital does not directly belong to the state, the necessary economic planning must be implemented indirectly. The EU openly reveals its intention to achieve centralized control of capital flows through several delegated regulations. The foundation for this is established through regulations related to ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) issues, which align perfectly with the ideology.
Companies are obligated to report comprehensively on their carbon footprint and the implementation of stakeholder-value measures. On the other hand, banks, institutional investors, and asset managers are forced, through regulatory requirements, to make investment decisions based on these indicators. Consequently, capital is directed towards companies that align with the underlying EU socialist ideology, while others are largely cut off from the capital market. In return, the EU promises financial institutions an increasing demand for ESG products accompanying the spread of their ideology. This is why it is difficult to find asset managers today who oppose this system that has given rise to an entire industry but significantly harms investors and the economy in various ways.
Please do not misunderstand us; we do not believe in a conspiracy or that there is a master plan for this transformation. Rather, the climate panic that has been fueled by politics and parts of the scientific community for years, interrupted only briefly by an even larger regime of fear during the pandemic, has led to widespread irrationality, where questioning the narratives and being open to alternative arguments have been lost. Many people have now learned to accept ideologies and prefer to use them for their own interests rather than question them. The more harmless ones stick posters on streets to push a political agenda, while the more dangerous ones, like Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, demand a personal carbon budget and the technical means to fully monitor each individual’s consumption. Moreover, many people’s prosperity already depends on the preservation of the ideology, such as the huge portion of the financial services market that has emerged and grown with the ESG theme. Therefore, the idea of socialist transformation is supported by a significant portion of the population.
This gives little hope that the EU’s chosen path can be politically stopped. Even during the pandemic, undemocratic and unconstitutional measures could not be prevented for a long time. It was only when more and more information about the virus and vaccines became known that alarmists like Karl Lauterbach or Christian Drosten, whose interest was always to prolong the pandemic and thereby maintain their power, rapidly lost credibility and support. The same will happen with the climate ideology: Once a genuine, broad scientific discourse emerges instead of biased studies from institutions like the Potsdam Institute or politically biased IPCC climate reports, people will realize that climate change is not as unidimensional as it is often presented today.
However, until that happens, undoubtedly everything will be done to avoid such a public discussion. Because when it takes place, the climate ideology will collapse, taking the associated socialist transformation down with it.