WHY EUROPE, Why The Euro.

Plutocratic Lie #2: The Euro Is A Problem.

(Well, OK, Not Really A Lie In The Sense That Europe Is A Problem For American Plutocrats And Their Servile Academics).


Abstract: The word and concept of "Europe" was employed in opposition to the giant plutocratic dictatorships to the south (Egypt) and to the east (Babylon, Assyria, Achaemenids, etc.) Thus it is more than 3,000 years old (4,700 years old if one includes the oldest Minoan civilization, as one should).

 Europe: since ever calling for democracy, secularism and progress, in the grandest scheme of ideas. (A lot of “Europe” originated in a triangle embracing Crete, Troy, Phoenicia, Egypt, so straddled the Romans’ “Asia”, and the full myth of Europe incorporates that fact: In the Cretan story, Europe was a Phoenician princess abducted by Zeus; so indeed, Europe is a global, transcultural idea.)

The European Union’s construction is the most important historical event since the flawed Greco-Roman empire lost its "feet of clay" (844 CE, see below). Roman feet were indeed made of philosophical clay, and that is why Rome fell, but not Europe. The European Union embodies ever more, in a persuasive way, the advanced philosophical and political principles established since the fall of the Greek and Roman People’s republics. Which fell because of their erroneous philosophical architectures. The collapse of Rome allowed the rebirth of Europe, solidly planted in human reality (technology had allowed the Greco-Romans to forget that reality, as Heidegger would have liked to say clearly).

It sounds grandiloquent, and it is: Europe is a grand locution to overwhelm history with reason.

The USA is nearly the opposite story. From the start, it has been more about overwhelming history the easy way. And it has gone worse recently. The USA has been betrayed by its plutocracy, which is trying a repeat, on an even larger scale, of what it did with Hitler in the period 1920-1945. This time China, the "Middle Kingdom", has replaced the "Third Kingdom".

The maneuver worked well last time, with Hitler. This time it will not work so well, if all the potential victims pay attention, in a timely manner, instead of just belated blood, sweat, tears. Besides, the People’s Republic of China is not necessarily as amenable to manipulation as the Nazis were. China has embraced the fundamental elements of the Western European philosophical tradition, by embracing Marx and the French Communist Party (at its birth, on location!) Thus China has entangled 26 centuries of local philosophy with some of the most modern philosophy (and China’s Colbertism is in full evidence).

Meanwhile, the USA has regressed with Reaganism, a classical return to the jungle and its voodoo. Reaganism has weakened the USA, just when the bill came due for the alliance of big oil with Salafism. Europe is now clearly threatening American supremacy (China, when reasonable, follows the EU rather than the USA). So the attacks against the Euro emanating from the USA have reached the level of classic war propaganda. As the French president pointed out on New Year’s Eve: "The end of the Euro would be the end of Europe." Please weight the meaning: even Hitler did not end Europe.

The propaganda coming from some unwittingly demonic Nobel Prizes so used to rub elbows with the plutocrats, is akin to an attempted elimination of Europe. There is a fine line not to be crossed where calling for the destruction of other people is beyond uncivilized. Insults and distortions become a preliminary to war. Before the Jews got destroyed, they were insulted, and misrepresented. Some of the context the likes of Krugman is trying to make us take for granted is outright lying (mostly, the EU, and the Euro, have been an immense GDP success, even with the recent slump; but reading Krugman, the opposite feeling is conveyed!)

The USA should not assume that European citizens will go on their knees to adore their plutocratic masters. This time, Europe will fight, as a common whole.

It is not because they know no history that ignorant miscreants are excused by history. The Nazis thought they knew history, but what they knew were only a few shards. Pleading ignorance later was no excuse. When the claims are great, so should the justifications be.

Another approach is found below to teach 3,000 years of European history, as demanded by the subject at hand, and in reverse.

Never forget that the word "Europe", in its modern meaning, was used, 13 centuries ago, to describe those who destroyed the Damascus Caliphate, in a series of battles in France (720 to 750 CE, in the first phase of a war which is still going on). And its earlier meaning was just the same, in nearly identical circumstances: democracy fighting tyranny.

At this level of the civilizational debate, it’s all about war. American plutocracy wants to destroy the European Union, because the Union has cracked down on bank bonuses, and the little crowd of vampires within 50 miles of Wall Street cannot stand that outrage against their way of sucking the rest of the universe dry. It’s no accident that Paul Krugman, all inflamed about Europe, is from around that den of thieves.

Krugman knows little about Europe (he just discovered Robert Schuman, see below). So, as Wittgenstein would point out, why does he talk? Well, because the environment that Krugman swims in is all about hating Europe (I use the word after much debate and consideration; no other fits as well, it seems to me, however sad that is).

When the senior Senator of New York made Obama tour the plutocrats of Wall Street, supposedly to raise funds, Obama changed, from a man to a servant. Plutocracy does that. And has always done that. And that is why the Spartans breached diplomatic protocol by throwing the plutocratic envoys down a well: because they wanted to cross a mental and philosophical Rubicon. It was going to be war to hell. That, too, is a European tradition. And it lived strong at Bir Hakeim, in 1942.

Charles Martel ("The Hammer") repeatedly hammered, indeed, the Salafist armies (732-737 CE). That was truly making philosophy into a hammer (Nietzsche borrowed the expression). Well, we live in even grander times, and our weapons, conceptual or not, are even more formidable. Fusion philosophy, here we come…



"The Economist" itself, the Anglo-American pro-business, pro-Wall Street magazine, pointed out that the Americans ought to stop confusing the European Union and NATO, as it observed that Obama himself, in an editorial to the New York Times, blurred both notions. Obama may be simply ignorant, but as usual, I prefer the more sinister explanation. Indeed, whereas ignorance is bad enough, conspiracy is worse. The wisest prepares for the worst. (Many philosophers have harped exaggeratedly on this theme, claiming the philosophy was only about death.).

Plutocracy is the eternal return of the capture of most by the few, using massively the exponential, which multiplies power (because one lends to power, and power lends, against interest).

As plutocracy is the rule of the few who have all the money-power, it is intrinsically an exploiter of the fascist instinct. That incites the many to follow their leaders in all ways, as long as there is war around. That is why plutocratic leaders always call war to help them out. (This explains in part why the USA is at war in Afghanistan since August 1979.) Fascist government is well adapted to combat, but a disaster for long term intelligence. Thus plutocracy and its associated fascism are intrinsic enemies of the essence of homo, which is intelligence. And always ends up losing to real men, those who know more than golf.

In other words, plutocracy, intrinsically philosophically regressing back to the jungle at war, is the absolute enemy of the European Union, which has to embody philosophical progressivism, because it was, and it is, its essence and its salvation. Philosophy has to progress, because so does technology, the later imprinting and adapting an ever changing ecology. (It’s a bit more complicated than Heidegger comprehended.)

The European colony in America was founded on the principle of Biblical exploitation. Hence the entanglement of the Bible, its holocausts, and the principle of American "exceptionalism" as foremost American objects of superstition (exceptionalism of the Elected People, as found in the Bible, helped by handy holocausts).

Exceptionalism is the fundamental enemy of democratic universalism. Whereas the European Union is trying to overwhelm history with reason, the American union has, historically speaking, solved ethnic rights with annihilation, hypocritically hidden below a pompous discourse to the contrary (a method that the Nazis consciously duplicated in Europe while forgetting that the French and the British were not Indians).

This is a major civilizational difference.

"The Economist" is observing a split between the ways the USA and the EU are solving the unfolding crisis. Below are some more of the reasons why.

Meanwhile Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize intellectual, revered in Europe, keeps on in the forefront of the struggle against the European Union. (Thus revering Krugman is somewhat self defeating for Europeans; however, I used myself to revere Barack Obama… even the best can slip on greasy hope!) Mr. Krugman, apparently suddenly aware of the historical dimension of Europe, is now trying to say something about this dimension he previously ignored. His feeble attempt, reproduced extensively below, is smashed as the defense of Europe calls for.



Paul Krugman, the most astounding intellectual the readers of "Social Europe" have ever heard of, is still firing on all cylinders against Europe. But now it has been pointed out to him that there was an historical dimension to making the European economy into what it is.

The notion that the house-management (eco-nomy) is subjugated to what we want the house to be about, has finally trickled down to Mr. Krugman. Mr. Krugman was apparently not aware of it. So he is trying to be more subtle. Here is in its entirety a recent blog post of his (January 2, 2011). It is mostly a quote from Schuman, one of contemporary Europe’s founding fathers. Not that Schuman was advocating a really new train of thought. Similar pro-European discourses were also held in the 1920s, and at a higher level.

The strong push towards European unification of the 1920s got an answer from Wall Street: Adolf Hitler. So I claim (and there is proof). But let’s read the mild mannered Krugman first, as he discovers the European dream, and is anxious to replace it by what he knows and lives best by, the American nightmare:

January 2, 2011, 8:18 am: Krugman’s Long Schuman Quote:

Coal, Steel, and the Euro

The road to the euro began with coal and steel. Here’s Robert Schuman, the French foreign minister, in 1950, proposing the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community:

"Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries.

With this aim in view, the French Government proposes that action be taken immediately on one limited but decisive point.

It proposes that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organization open to the participation of the other countries of Europe. The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims.

The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible. The setting up of this powerful productive unit, open to all countries willing to take part and bound ultimately to provide all the member countries with the basic elements of industrial production on the same terms, will lay a true foundation for their economic unification."

And Krugman to gloat: "It’s all there. Economic integration is supposed to serve a dual purpose: development, but also the creation of “de facto solidarity”, leading over time to a “European federation” — which is necessary because of the continent’s history of war."

And Krugman to hammer his Americano-American plutocratic point: "Unfortunately, the euro — unlike the coal and steel pact, the Common Market, the Eurosausage, and all that — was a questionable idea in terms of the underlying economics. And so the long European project is in trouble …"



Which planet has Krugman been on? In terms of human development, in terms of political development, since they have integrated the European Union and its monetary project (the EMU, predecessor of the Euro), Greece, Portugal and Spain have gone from impoverished American engineered dictatorships, to full wealthy democracies. Thanks to the EU, not thanks to the USA.

GDP growth, in Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, has been enormous since those countries entered the European Monetary Union (and it is directly related). And GDP is a small part of the story. (GDP is what plutocrats love, because where they make their profits, all what matters to them.)

Even the CIA site recognizes that Ireland went from a largely agricultural backwater, to a modern technological society, several times richer. And Cameron, the young, wealthy, conservative British PM, was the first and strongest to come to the rescue of Ireland, by proposing a 100 billion dollar lifeline of credit. (Britain is not in the Eurozone, but one of three most industrially important EU countries; Britain was in the EMU before a plutocratic conspiracy knocked it out; then the plutocrats tried the same dirty trick with France, but they broke their fangs, another reason they got to hate the French republic, to add to the 70,000,000 other reasons.)

Notice Krugman’s propaganda method: "Unfortunately, the euro… was a questionable idea in terms of the underlying economics." Krugman presents as a fact something which is an anti-fact.

It is pretty clear that it would make no economic sense if New York and New Jersey, separated only by the Hudson river, used different currencies. So why should France and Germany, separated only by the Rhine, use different currencies? Krugman does not explain. Well, he does not, because he cannot. Nobody could.



The equation above is the fly in Krugman’s reasoning. France and Germany are unifying, the others can’t beat them, so they have to join them. All the more since Britain, France’s alter ego, after suffering a kind of Stockholm syndrome with the USA, will never be very far from France, and, in particular, no further than Germany is. (Whatever all transatlantic ignoramuses are bellowing in their wilderness.)

Krugman grew up in Long Island, east of Manhattan, and now lives in New Jersey, south of Manhattan. Will that make economic sense that those places would use three different currencies? Krugman says yes…on the other side of the Atlantic.

On his side of the Atlantic, as he explains by comparing Ireland and… Nevada, it makes no sense, because, basically, he says in his simplicity, the USA is an empire, and Europe is not.

It is a vicious logical loop: we, the USA, are an empire, so we can, Europe is not an empire, so it can’t (and we will make sure of it stays that way). Never mind that Ireland is closer to France than Georgia to New Jersey (president Jackson and his Supreme Court annihilated the "Five Civilized Tribes" from Georgia, but nobody eliminated the Irish, this is the only major difference I see; which civilized bit did I miss?)

Using a common currency is all the more important since France and Germany not just sell to each other, but build a lot of important things together, such as nuclear power plants, planes, helicopters and rockets. EADS is the world largest defense contractor, and it’s mostly a Franco-German company.

Krugman knows he would reveal his anti-European agenda too brutally if he declared pompously that France and Germany ought to be monetarily separated. So he prefers to attack Spain, which, with only 45 million inhabitants and 1.5 trillion dollars GDP (USA GDP is 14 trillion), seems like a weak link.

And should also mention Britain and Italy, lands that the Franks freed long ago from their oppressors and impress with their more advanced philosophy (Lombards, Byzantines and Muslims in the case of Italy; let alone Austria that France beat so that the duke of Savoy could be made king of a unified Italy…).

Britain and France are pretty much doing their military in common. Together their military capability is considerable. Just an example; there is a military missile company called MBDA, a European company, a giant in this field. They make the Meteor air to air ramjet interceptor, capable of sustained Mach 4 flight (over 100 kilometers; the engine is German, the guidance French). The Americans tried desperately to prevent the launch of MBDA in the 1990s, with Clinton writing a lot of personal letters to various Brits. Another missile of MBDA is the mostly Franco-Italian Aster 30 (used by the British, French and Italian navies). The Aster family of missiles can move at enormous lateral acceleration, with fins and mid-body rockets (so as not to break up), as you can see:


The Aster 30 can also move at nearly a mile per second. Over 100 kilometers. That gives it anti-ballistic missile capability. Anti ballistic missile capability, the US Navy does not have, and its aircraft carriers are sitting ducks, since the Chinese have developed a ballistic anti-carrier killer, and are gloating on TV shows about it, and also in cartoons visible on the web… Europe is no sitting duck, and the good old USA better understand that fast. Otherwise I have to show them a nuclear submarine that the French are helping Brazil to build.

So what was Krugman talking about already? Optimal currency area? What about optimal defensive area?



Why is Krugman obsessive about the Euro? Is it because, by talking obsessively about something unrelated he then does not have to worry about the banks? And how unfair the present system of creating riches and power for banks, by impoverishing everybody else is?

So Krugman talks about the Euro, or the Yuan, because that makes his life more comfortable. Also it serves his masters, located in the Greater New York area, making life even more comfortable. Obsessing about the Chinese currency allows American leaders to not explain to us that China’s economic expansion is financed by its giant banks, the world’s largest. Chinese bankers cannot speculate with the People’s money, except to build real things. Otherwise, a bullet is waiting for them.

The engineers and scientist who lead China make sure of that. In the West, instead, the bankers have been able to get away with threatening the economy with a bullet in the head, lest the People serves them on their knees. On one side the People’s republic of china, on the other, the Union of Servants of America. In the middle, the European Union, operating an in between system, which has confiscated most of the banksters’ bonuses.

But let’s go back to Krugman’s relentless campaign. it seems as if he was paid to destroy Europe. I am not paid to defend Europe, but I will, in the best traditions of the knights with shining armor.



But let me congratulate belatedly the esteemed Paul, for going back to the sources, and trying to acquire some historical gravitas. Now he dates back the creation of Europe to Schuman. Well, there is more than 2,000 years of history weighting on the subject. The Franks had learned, early on, from the mistakes of Augustus.

Mistakes are a funny thing: the Merovingians and Carolingians learned from Augustus’ folly, but the lesson was forgotten later, and this for 1,000 years. But let’s retrace history in reverse.

Let’s go further back, just before Schuman. In 1945, everybody was very angry against Germany, which lost a third of its territory, and suffered 17 million refugees, 2 million of which died. But that was in the east. France, instead, exerted restraint. She did not try to integrate the left bank of the Rhine (although it was the core of the Salian Franks’ territory, known as "Austrasia").

By 1945 the French leadership (from politicians, to generals and academics) had progressed so much intellectually that it had realized unification with Germany was the only solution. Unification had existed earlier. The last case of willing unification was in 1812, when Napoleon’s Grand Army integrated hundreds of thousands of German soldiers (total size of the Grand Army was nearly 700,000).

The folly of the separation of France and Germany was demonstrated when the French hater in chief, Adolf Hitler, took control of France in 1940. Adolf wanted to destroy France completely, and was happy with holding six million French prisoners inside Germany, after annexing vast swathes of France, submitting the rest to terror, deporting here and there to their death, hundreds of thousands of French civilians.

Why so much rage? The Nazis had suffered enormous losses of some of their more idealistic soldiers and officers in the Battle of France (maybe above 100,000 dead, although they tried their best to keep the number secret). Also Hitler was not ready to fight a world war. His preparations would have been complete by 1945. Because of France, the way he looked at it, he found himself in the world war, six years too early. Instead of spending these six years preparing for war, he would spend them, losing the war. He could well see that he had no chance to defeat France’s not so tender half, Britain, and he had to attack his old ally Stalin, to make sure he won’t fight on two fronts (!). At least, that’s what he explained to his generals (who were not amused).

Armaments and Industry Minister Albert Speer bluntly told Hitler that he would never win the war without some French industrial help, so he had to allow the revival of French industry. That enraged Hitler to high heavens… But Adolf himself had to agree that Speer was right. After the defeat of the Afrika Korps at Bir Hakeim in 1942 by a French army, in a modern version of Thermopylae, that was a particularly bitter pill to swallow. After the Axis disaster at Bir Hakiem, Hitler had explained to its cabinet that, once again, there was a proof that the French were the best soldiers, and so France was very dangerous, and thus had to be annihilated. (See Note.)

Speer won the argument. Later Hitler sent his most fanatical Nazi general to destroy Paris, but, instead, the general, known as the "Butcher of Sevastopol", negotiated an armistice with the French resistance, and surrendered to the famous French Second Armored division. World War Two proved to thoughtful French and Germans that fighting each other was not just hopeless, but self defeating. Nor was staying apart a valid proposition either. As a further look back deep in history shows:



The Franks had spent four centuries extending their Franco-Roman empire. After the Treaty Of Verdun (843 CE). Paris stayed capital in some sense, but the Imperium Francorum , the empire of the Franks, was divided in three.

Divisions often happened, and the Franks had always reunited in the past four centuries. The reason was that the Imperium Francorum was more a philosophical union than a dynastic one. In theory, there were no dynasties among Germans (although that was certainly not true in practice). Meanwhile, Western Franks (capital Paris) were supposed to propose the candidate who would reign over the Eastern part (Germania-Italia). And they did this for a century or so.

However, the western part had its own worries (tremendous invasions by Danes, and Vikings, which they empire was initially defenseless from, all the more since some sort of Mongols, the Avars, were attacking in the east).

The west was busy electing its own kings, while looking down on the uncouth easterners. So, although the French king was emperor ("in His own kingdom"), candidates for the top job in Germania-Italia were not proposed anymore. And two-thirds of the Frankish kingdom got in the habit of electing their own emperor for the "Holy Roman Empire" (which was neither of these qualifiers, as Voltaire pointed out). And the haughty French stayed out, except when they invading, or being invaded a bit.

Progressive estrangement followed. Only 11 centuries later did it become perfectly clear that estrangement was unsustainable. as I just said, even Hitler had to admit to that apartheid with France was self defeating.



Since I am going in reverse, I may as well go all the way. Everybody has misunderstood and mislabeled the Dark Ages. The darkness was really about Christian theocratic terror, the metaphysical context of Late Roman fascism.

It mainly failed in the West, because the "FEDERATED" German tribes which constituted, by 450 CE, most of the Roman army in the "Pars Occidentalis" agreed neither with the fascism, nor the unequal society (at least not with them on the bottom), nor with the sexism. On top of that, the Franks, who had helped Constantine conquer the empire, had a vision of the Church in the old Roman republican way, namely infeodated to the state.

That was the crucial twist on (Saint) Augustine’s declaration that:"Omnium Christianorum una respublica est ( Civitate Dei, XXV. 1). The Franks saw themselves as re-establishing the "Respublica Christiana". Respublica first, Christiana an adjective.

"He who ordains the fate of kingdoms and the march of the centuries, the all-powerful Disposer of events, having destroyed one extraordinary image, that of the Romans, which had, it was true, feet of iron, or even feet of clay, then raised up, among the Franks, the golden head of a second image, equally remarkable, in the person of the illustrious Charlemagne." (Notker the Stammerer, monk of Saint Gall, 844 CE).



So France and Germany, after aborted attempts under the fascist Napoleon (and, to some extent the demoniac Hitler), and in the 1920s, have decided to re-unite. It is as simple as that. Having a common currency is a necessary part of the re-unification. It makes zero sense that France and Germany would use different currencies. True, France is less austere, but, even more than Britain, she has a strong birth rate (the highest of the white race, with tiny Ireland).

Then economics of power play in. France and Germany together is a super power. It’s bigger than Japan in all ways, and its population is growing. stuck between france and Germany are some historical debris.

The Netherlands (where the Salian Franks came from), was known to the Roman as "Germania Inferior", and Belgium was the most ferocious of the Germano-Celtic nations.

In other words, the Benelux (population 30 millions) is an integral part of the Franco-German ensemble (population 150 millions). Separating Austria and Northern Italy is impossible too (the historical ties are that strong). So we observe one nation, in the middle of Europe with 220 million people. It is only natural that it would use just one currency.

Obviously the outliers (Spain, etc.) cannot stay out. Be it only because the economic ties are so great. It’s as simple as that. Spain is 0 kilometer away from France. whereas California is 4,000 kilometers away from Washington DC. In the fullness of history, zero distance, such as between Spain and France, demands unification.

In the past, even as recently as three centuries ago, a country like France was full of internal borders, every few leagues. People regretted the Roman empire, and the empire of the Franks, and their free circulation of goods and people (no borders!) Well the Greco-Roman empire is back. Just better. Now it incorporates Estonia and Finland.



The voice of Paul Krugman is, unfortunately that, of nationalism. And not any nationalism. American nationalism. To keep California close to Washington, nationalist Americans know the cheapest way is to put some distance between Spain and France. They know that super power in Europe means less power in the USA.

Then a modern equivalent of Texaco could put back in power a modern equivalent of Franco (without too much intervention from the French and other European democrats).

Well, it’s not going to happen: Europeans have been learning their history. Although they would profit even more by studying the role of the USA as a double faced Janus in the rise of Hitler. Something my sites cover lyrically.

Verily, there is no big Euro crisis (except in American minds). France and Germany are going to unite fiscally (subjugating Switzerland fiscally was just warm-up). The Europeans are not building Europe by falling asleep at the wheel, and getting nothing done, except war overseas and plutocrats all over. The US governmental system does not work. It has two president: the one in the White House, who says he is black, and Congress, which is not even a person. And now the Supreme Court has decided corporations were private persons capable of secret political donations.

Most European government have real power, so they can reform and change, and they change even their constitutions continually, because of the European construction.

What the Europeans do, since they are great political athletes, is to pose themselves challenges, and then solve them. The Euro is one of these challenges. And there is one rule, one very important rule: the problem should be solved "par le haut" 9through the top). That means that only higher philosophical solutions are acceptable. Going back down to the jungle, as the Nazis did, was a solution through the bottom, and solutions through the bottom are unacceptable.

The Europeans observed that there was a banking crisis. And that it was caused by bonuses, and the "moral hazard" associated to them. So the Europeans cracked down on bonuses. And now American academics are howling to the winds. Many on them are (secretly) on the payroll of major financial “institutions” (there are no disclosure rules for economists).

Well, we will see. The American banks are getting deeper into their mess, since Bushama gave them the capital to do again what they did before. They will do it again, they are already doing it again. I guess American academics ought to howl about Europe even louder…Their masters need cover.

Europe is as broad a tapestry of history.  I did not even get into Augustus’ mistake, and Caesar’s strategy about Europe


Patrice Ayme


On the Battle Of Bir Hakeim: That was one of the most crucial battles of World War Two. A small French army (the size of a full Roman legion) made of elite soldiers (some legionnaires), was able to stop the German and Italian tank armies long enough for the main British army to escape encirclement (after it had been defeated, and was retreating). If the French general Koenig (!) had not stopped Marshall Rommel’s sickle strike, the consequences would have been tremendous; the British army in the Middle East, and the British fleet in the Mediterranean and Red Sea would have been destroyed. Egypt would have fallen. The Nazis would have occupied Palestine, and kill all the Jews there. Next Rommel would have been in Baghdad, drinking all the oil, which was the Nazis’ main objective.

Thereupon, the Nazis would have not dashed onto Stalingrad, using crazy tactics (such as the "cauldron" trick). Because getting Nazi hands on Soviet oil in the Caucasus would have been much less urgent. Thus the colossal Nazi defeat of Stalingrad would not have happened.


Sarkozy Posed As "Protector" Of Europe: "Isolating France would be madness. The end of the Euro would be the end of Europe…. I will oppose with all my strength against any return to the past discarding 60 years of European construction" («L’isolement de la France serait une folie. La fin de l’euro serait la fin de l’Europe… dans la tempête, (elle) a su faire face, certes pas assez complètement et souvent pas assez rapidement, mais l’Europe a tenu et l’Europe nous a protégés…Je m’opposerai de toutes mes forces à un retour en arrière qui ferait fi de 60 ans de construction européenne»),


There is a parallel in the way Athens and Sparta declared war to the Achaeminids, and France and Britain declared war to Hitler (except of course that France and Britain are two version of Athens, both being open societies, democratic, and non racist republics).

Tags: , ,

12 Responses to “WHY EUROPE, Why The Euro.”

  1. Marc Issade Says:

    Dear Patrice,

    This is very bold of you to remind all of us of the tragedy that WWII was for the Europeans and how the perfidy of the American politicians played one against others to wipe out most of Europe and thrust themselves to superpower status for 50 years. But as you brilliantly mention in all your articles, the dark forces are now unleashing hell right in middle America, where the chickens have come home to roost.

    Now, I am asking you how can you have faith in the actual European leaders? Sarko and Merkel are on American payroll and they have endorsed the neocon agenda. My believe is that the real watershed moment for the EU will come in the end of 2011 and ramping towards the big elections in both France and Germany, both Sarko and Merkel loosing and both countries electing new true European leaders in the same linage of Mitterand and Kohl, the best the EU had so far.

    May be you can share some of your thoughts about the clairvoyance and courage of both German and French people in this historical times and also did you read the last manifesto from one of our greatest warrior and Resistance hero Stéphane Hessel calling for resistance against the forces of the empire.

    May be it’s time to bring up the spirit of the partisan’s song:
    Le Chant des Partisans

    Ami, entends-tu le vol noir des corbeaux sur nos plaines ? Ami, entends-tu ces cris sourds du pays qu’on enchaîne ? Ohé, partisans, ouvriers et paysans, c’est l’alarme. Ce soir l’ennemi connaîtra le prix du sang et des larmes.

    Ici chacun sait ce qu’il veut, ce qu’il fait quand il passe. Ami, si tu tombes un ami sort de l’ombre à ta place. Demain du sang noir sèchera au grand soleil sur les routes. chantez, compagnons, dans la nuit la Liberté nous écoute…

    Je vous salut bien bas,

    Thank you
    Marc Issade


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Marc;
      Thank you for your glowing and interesting comment and questions.
      It is true that Sarko and Merkel have been pretty mediocre. Sarko got the ball rolling down the abyss with his Mediterranean Union. The first order principle of the idea was excellent, but even thinking for a second to exclude Germany, as he had suggested in His spasticity, was sheer insanity. It is amazing none of his counsellors could make him understand that he had gone off the deep end. What was going to be next? Was France going to insist she was master of Morocco, in a repeat of the Panther incident of 1911?

      Angela shot down the will to exclude, this anti-German apartheid proposed by Sarko. And she did so in perfect terms. She was 100% right. On the other hand, after the French and Dutch rejection of the European Constitution, by referenda, one could only expect mediocrity. Sarko was pretty good at rescueing most of what was rejected. Not that it solved most of the foreseeable problems, as the global financial crisis showed.

      At this point it is not clear that the crisis is out of control in Europe. The Euro would have to fall 50% before being really in a crisis, and it will not happen. The powerful social stabilizers are reasonably effective, and it looks as if the astounding unemployment rates (40% among the youth in Spain) can be sustained indefinitely. So the European banking system is sheltered from the anger of the street at this point. All the more since the leftist intellectuals has been barking up the wrong trees. Some would say that both factors are unfortunate…

      In any case, Cameron, Sarko and Merkel are solidly to the left of Obama and its democrats. so, although they are pawns (or part: Cameron) of the managing wealth, they are in no danger of falling. A huge part of it has been that the Euro left has been barking up the wrong trees. Sweden has made great strides in wealth by becoming very creative (by involving the population more, a bit like what Cameron has been talking about). So democratic, progressive solutions can be found…

      I like a lot the bank bonuses mitigation implemented by the European Union (especially in light of the hatred coming out of the US financial system about it). It’s an important step in the right direction.

      The elephant in the European financial crisis, or rather the nuclear arsenal, would consist into “restructuring” the debt. Namely the plutocrats would take a cut, and may be enough of a cut to have to nationalize some banks (by opposition to nationalizing the bank holding companies). Switzerland, in all discretion, is enforcing TWICE the capital requirements Basel III already (which is supposed to come on line in …2018, for everybody else). That’s serious plutocracy, and I mean that in a good way, not the impudent sort based in Wall Street (which does not even bother with capital, because the taxpayers, as manned by the bipartisan president, constitute Wall Street’s ultimate capital reserve, apparently…).

      The argument, made after Lehman’s failure, has been that the whole thing would collapse as a castle of cards. However, it does not have to be so. Actually Bush-Obama provided all the needed capital (although without acquiring title, hence steering capability of the failing banks, so said banks are more into derivatives than ever.)

      Obama likes the car ditch analogy, he uses it a lot, comparing the economy of the USA to a car in a ditch. What Bushama did was to provide the car in the ditch with more gasoline, and they put it all over. Now they think something good will happen, if only the economy would ignite…

      Excellent the “Chant des Partisans”. I heard (of) it, but did not know the words…

      Je vous salue aussi, tout aussi bas…


  2. Kubrik Says:

    Methinks you are a blubbering fool…. The Franks rose up against their Roman masters because they didn’t agree with its sexism? The dark age is because of Christian theocratic terror? I guess the barbarian invasions don’t count for anything, right… Neither do the monasteries that kept all those classical scrolls alive… Your post is the funniest thing I’ve heard in a week. Oh, and your claim that the Americans exterminated native Americans, but the British and the Boers didn’t in South Africa (which I found on a NYT article) was also funny.

    This is why you don’t let a philophisizing nationalist read history books. He will absorb all the vocabulary but none of the wisdom associated with it. My advice to you:

    1. Don’t read classical history – it’s not relevant to the modern world for obvious reasons.

    2. Give up on Europe becoming a superpower. Future is in Asia.

    Good day to you, sir.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Kubrik: Thanks for the advice. I like people who try hard. You say history should not be read, and then you feel like insulting people. My revelation to you: both behaviors are connected.

      You are right that the monasteries preserved and copied books. I do not insist upon that well known fact enough. The reason i don’t insist is that the monasteries were all under “barbarian” political authority, though, and financed by said power . Especially in the Imperium Francorum.

      Fact is the Germans were more democratic and much less sexist than the Romans. The “invasions” did not destroy the books. The Christians did. And them alone. And they killed anybody not believing in their superstition, as the mythical Christ himself insisted. Plus: the Franks did not invade; they were allowed in. They settled peacefully. No everybody behave like the Wisigoths, ot the Vandals. Even the Huns were invited in. Learn. Learn to be polite too.

      Learn geography too: go to South Africa, you will see much fewer white people than colored types descending from the locals. Go to the USA; where are the Indians?

      Last but not least: learn about Europe and Asia too. “Europe” is actually a superpower with 500 million inhabitants, a common citizenship, and the world’s largest gdP, about three times China. “Asia” is not a place with a common citizenship. It’s not a country. To believe in “Asia” is as simplistic as believing in the “Yellow Peril”. And that has no future. I must apologize for not finding you as funny as you find me.

      BTW, do you also call ladies “sir”? OK, some do. Not that I really mind. Or do you assume that only gentlemen have philosophical power, and historical acumen?


  3. aaron greenbird Says:

    just a short note thanking you for this amazing site. i have “stumbled upon you” just a few weeks ago and i deeply appreciate the time and energy you have put into your writings. are you aware of John Lash…..metahistory.org ? anyways, just a small voice saying, well done. pilamaya mitakye oyasin. many blessings to you. greenbird


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Greenbird:
      Many thanks for thanking me so warmly. You are henceforth part of this enterprise, since it is (partly) fueled by appreciation! I was not aware of metahistory.org, and I will check it out. I already like the title, since the concept of “meta” is central to any logical system, and has been overlooked all too long.

      Differently from conventional philosophy, which is all too self referential, I try to get knowledge at the source, and, in a sense, all knowledge is historical.


  4. European Peace Triumph « Some of Patrice Ayme’s Thoughts Says:

    […] The European Union is not just being built to insure peace by creating entanglement and co-dependency. (See “Why Europe Why The Euro“) […]


  5. No Euro Crisis, No Debt Crisis. | Some of Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] American economists just discovered what the Euro is all about. Namely the Euro is the French currency. (Please applaud how much more clever they just got!). Professional economists could have known this long ago, if they did more than read each other. See my: Why Europe, Why The Euro. […]


  6. augustine Says:

    Eloquent bullshit with no substance what so ever.The eu is exclusionary in its very nature.the complete opposite of the usa .The usa is open to the best of man kind to come ,compete and contribute .The eu is open to those who have the right nationalities or are refugees from the right places with the right political causes that is popular at the moment.The very nature of survival of any species depends on its ability to compete and survive.The EU dominated by some altruistic ideas of a competition less society where being born is sufficient reason enough to have the right to live a nice life irrespective of the fact that you have absolutely zilch to contribute to this society from which you expect so much.Which explains the reason behind the euro crisis and why these specific nations are the most affected and not Germany for example.Look around you European companies are being swallowed and spat out they are unable to compete except for the germans.And by the time you come out of your altruistic time wrap you would be left with nothing but a bunch of slackers riding around on bicycles dreaming of peace as dreaming does not take any effort..


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Augustine: Welcome! I do not disagree with all you say, and even what some would view as the most “offensive” things you say. Since the essay was written long ago, and you do not quote me, it’s difficult to engage further.

      It’s true that France, say, in recent years has accepted nearly nobody, differently from the USA. But this selfishness comes with a price.

      Last but not least, Europe is not all about Germany. Rolls Royce, or Thales (among other things, most powerful lasers, sold all over the USA and found on Mars) are examples of first class companies (more Europeans among the top 50 than USA…)


  7. Plutocracy’s Fascist, Europhobic Dream | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Why the Euro? […]


  8. No Euro Crisis, No Debt Crisis. - NewsCream Says:

    […] American economists just discovered what the Euro is all about. Namely the Euro is the French currency. (Please applaud how much more clever they just got!). Professional economists could have known this long ago, if they did more than read each other. See my: Why Europe, Why The Euro. […]


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: