Why Plutocracy Hates The European Union




The middle class of the USA has seen its income go down markedly in the last decade, while its costs, in health and education, and unemployment, have gone up considerably. It is a curious thing that, as the USA struggles with the increasing economic despondency of most of its population, many American opinion makers obsess about Europe and the Eurozone currency, the Euro. Less than a decade ago, the Euro used to be worth .79 dollar. But then the Euro doubled in value relative to the Dollar.

A massively overvalued Euro is not so bad for Europe; European exporters have so increased the quality of their products that they sell them nevertheless. Moreover, the Eurozone has no oil whatsoever, most of the oil trade is made in Dollar (particularly since Saddam Hussein hanged by the neck shortly after switching to the Euro!) Thus, after the Euro doubled relative to the Dollar, the cost of oil for the Eurozone was halved.

This ought to have delighted "liberal", supposedly left wing, nationalist American economists such as Stiglitz and Krugman. They claim that the devaluation of a currency is good, because it makes the country which has devalued more competitive (although standard European theory on devaluations, for 30 years, has been that they are always bad).

So, as the Dollar went down, by 50% relative to the Euro, American nationalists really believing that devaluation is heaven should have been singing the praises of the Euro. But not at all. Instead we hear concerted howling, all over Anglo-Saxon’s most respected media, on the sorrow of not seeing Spain devalue relative to France. It sounds like coyotes in the deep woods: fascinating, but not thinking.

American economists claims computations show that when Europe was cut up in small nations, it was optimal. Devaluation is the only way to attenuate, according to them, the Iberian peninsula supposed misery.

Honorable critters may undervalue a few facts they rarely mention: keeping notes for 27 countries in one’s pockets is confusing and time consuming to truck drivers, tourists, and prevented transnational prices comparison, let alone purchases (French who want to buy a cheap French car, shop in Spain, or Italy, because, Spaniards or Italians being less rich than the French, car are cheaper there, and they can do this at a distance, every price being in the same currency; since Spain and Italy are contiguous to France, getting the car is very easy).

However judiciously byzantine American economists computations may be, they are irrelevant to the bottom line. And the bottom line, in Europe, is not economics. Not everything in society is about money, or even economics. The main set of reasons for a European currency is not about economic optimization. It has to do with war, or more exactly avoiding its return.

It’s no coincidence that the Secession War in the USA was followed by the establishment of a single currency (which did not exist, prior to said bellicose activity). The American Civil war is the deadliest civil war that a Western country has known. It’s no coincidence that the greatest war gave rise to the greatest currency known.

The astute will notice that World War Two ought to be seen as a civil war too, as it killed around 50 million civilians in Europe. Thus, to this even greater civil war, ought to correspond an even greater currency.

American economists who trash the Euro claim that the Euro is bad because it prevents devaluations: they always mix the idea of independent currency with salvational devaluation. It is a bit as if one were deploring the law, because it prevents to kill one’s neighbor when it is handy. Why not to do the right thing economically, to start with, instead?

Verily, the present crises in the USA and EU have nothing to do with currencies, but everything to do with nationalizing the losses of some private companies which have captured the minds of the elites. Hence those particular private companies are viewed as the highest national interest. Which, of course, they are not.

Saving the top financial companies in the USA such as Goldman Sachs and Citigroup cost nearly 5 trillion dollar, in the USA alone (more than a third of GDP, wasted in two years mostly through Quantitative Easing). Why? Because plutocracy has captured the psychology of the leaders. Obama went around aloud, calling some of the world’s greatest, not to say dirtiest, plutocrats "my friend", while they were stealing billions. He obviously thought that was a small price to pay to ingratiate himself to those powers that be.

Let me add two technical points here: one has to distinguish between banks, and bank holding companies. One also has to distinguish between insuring depositors (certainly innocent, so who should be saved) and those plutocrats, or plutocratic organizations, which pull the strings of the bank holding companies (and who are presumably culprit, or at least responsible). A systematic confusion has been entertained by the plutocratic media between saving depositors and their ATMs with saving the plutocrats, and their derivatives.

Verily, the plutocrats do not have to be saved: they played dead and dying, but it was all a trick, or more exactly a CONSPIRACY. If they were dying of anything, it was of indigestion, or the anxiety they had about realizing their next plan, the boldest so far. The plutocrats deliberately engaged in the whole financial disaster operation, knowing full well that the greatest risk to society was actually the greatest profit imaginable to themselves: leveraging themselves more than ever, using the full power of governments as the ultimate lever. What they basically did was steal all the money, hide it, for their private enjoyment, and then observe there was none left for the normal functioning of society, and order the people to bring those necessary funds, or else civilized society would be shut down…

Obviously depositors of the non plutocratic type ought to have been saved, and the ATMs and managements of the banks themselves kept open (this should have been done by nationalizations of these restricted entities, instead of the much larger gifts made by national government to the private bank holding corporations and their plutocratic puppet masters.)

There would be no Irish crisis if some large private banks had gone bankrupt. What caused the crisis was that large BRITISH and Eurozone private banks had given to Irish developers funds for crazy leveraging, and, as the bubble imploded, they did not want to go bankrupt. So they used their political influence to make the governments (hence taxpayers) provide them with what they had lost (and a bit more for bonuses).

Then the national governments got bankrupt instead. This is the case of Ireland, or the USA.

Britain offered to pay for Ireland, with the Eurozone, and with the USA (the latter through the IMF). All this because our so called democratic leaders cannot stand the private pain of the plutocrats. Plutocrats in pain is the end of the world as they know it. Our democratic leaders would do anything to prevent that: without plutocrats to give them a future, how could they have a present.

So the world financial crisis is all about plutocracy not currency.

So why so much talk about China and its currency, and why the obsession of so many opinion makers of the USA with the doom and gloom of the Euro? One month they feel the Euro is too weak, the next, they see it as too strong. In all and any case, it is the dollar which stays weak.

Plutocracy talks about currency, as the end all, be all, because it deflects the conversation from itself.

Plutocracy is out to destroy the European Union, that is, Europe, because, once again, it sees the danger that the force of democracy, which is strong there, rebels and fights back. As it ought to.

As I have tried to explain in many essays, plutocracy hates democracy. In essence the wars which wrecked Europe in the period 1853-1945 were an attempt, by plutocracy and its insanely murderous servants, to destroy democracy and replace it by plutocracy (hence the elaborate relations between fascism and its corporate sponsors).

The European Union was precisely designed, initially to prevent the return of war and fascism. But who had caused, animated, organized and supported the later? Plutocracy. The European Union fathers did not want to confront plutocracy directly, so they used other names, as they built an institution to fight it.

Lo and behold, a plan presented by France and Germany requires the plutocrats ("lenders") to be responsible when the ventures they engage in fail. But only starting in 2013. Why give the plutocrats three more years?

What we contemplate now is the vengeful return of the ultimate cause of the wars in Europe, namely plutocracy (this theory was well known in July 1914). Hence the continual verbal attacks, in the USA, against Europe, its Union, and its currency. The plutocrats could well instigate still another war as a better distraction, and source of funding, if verbosity is not enough, and the government of the USA is not as compliant as it used to be.

It may be time for Europe to address the real problem, plutocracy, instead of ignoring its attacks, while throwing it all the fresh meat it howls for, as if it was going to appease it.

It will not. Appeasement only encourages plutocracy, as once upon a time, its servant, Hitler, used to be encouraged by every kind gesture coming his way, to become ever more insane.


Patrice Ayme


Tags: ,

4 Responses to “Why Plutocracy Hates The European Union”

  1. multumnonmulta Says:

    “Why Plutocracy Hates The European Union?” For many reasons, which all boil down to: We don’t want our populace to get ideas!

    Also, have a look at Tom Geoghgan, http://multumnonmulta.blogspot.com/2010/11/with-tom-geoghegan-about-german-model.html


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear multumnonmulta:
      I was recently visiting Colorado, and the lack of ideas there was so thick, that you could not see any piece of the universe whatsoever (although it’s a beautiful, mostly prisitine place, the great draw is the pretty ugly Denver conurbation, with its silly sport facilities, when the gigantic rockies are 10 miles west). Whole generations have been imprinted on wide screen TV “sports”.

      I was also “banned” from a philosophyforum site on the ground of “content theft” (because my ideas there were similar to my ideas here, so I apparently stole from myself!), and “fantastic logic”. One would presume that the latter ought to be a compliment, but not in the twisted world of American academics (some of the moderators, under fake ids, claimed to be university professors and published authors, and they gave me little lessons about how academia worked… although I know it rather better than they do!). It had to do with me exposing (behind the scenes) the entanglement between US plutocracy and Hitler. But UIS plutocracy feeds US highest level academia, so i was extirpated… And this by the way, and other similar incidents, increase my respect for the New York Times (which has evolved really well, ever since the dark days of 2003… even Thomas Friedman has made a great reconversion… I used to write to them detailed comparisons between their ways in 2003 and the ways of many in Germany, 70 years ealier…. but no more….)


  2. multumnonmulta Says:

    Mon cher Patrice, let us only stay with the obvious for now. The environment of the US academic social sciences is a world unto itself. There is logic to it, but mostly subservient to the plutocrats. Yes, I know of many a dissenting voice, but that’s because I look for it, otherwise it’s drowned by the Chor-US, as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_chorus .


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Philosophically it is most interesting to observe the financial perversity of the existing money creation system. For centuries the rise of the rights of man has been undermined by the rise of the modern money creation system, which is private, hence intrinsically plutocratic.

      The Athenian republic had a similar problem: the financial system used to build the Navy was all too favorable to Athen’s richest (who ended owning and commanding the triremes). That richest class (the Athenian equivalent of a plutocracy) was a natural ally to fascist, plutocratic Macedonia (as exhibited by the love of fascism of Plato, and Aristotle’s Macedonian origin, a strange situation for a Greek).

      So, indeed, in the end, the Athen’s richest stabbed their own Navy in the back, and more than once, because the Navy, the set of all its crews, was the core of the democracy… What we have now is strange, but we have seen strange before.

      In any the Nobel Prizes economics would amuse me much, with heir red herring antics, if only I had a collossal sense of humor, as towering as a plutocrat’s fortune.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: