Plot Against France 1912-2013

Krugman just wrote an editorial “The Plot Against France”. The plutocrats and their servants hate the democracy France represents. They would rather dismantle the welfare state, the way it’s done in the USA. Instead, contrarily to what many articles in the New York Times have asserted, instead of “hacking away” at the French welfare state, French taxes on the rich are increased stiffly. Such is Krugman’s latest message, the same one I had for decades.

Equality, Welfare: A Chicken In Every Pot, Said Henri IV

Equality, Welfare: A Chicken In Every Pot, Said Henri IV

I agreed, and went a tiny little bit further: the New York Times immediately censored me, in spite of my very explicit protests. These days the New York Times go carefully through my comments and censor at least 90% of them.

The same family of plutocrats has owned the New York Times since the nineteenth century, they don’t like me at all (they even published insults against me personally). Is my subscription financing predatory vice?

I show below that American plutocrats have played a fundamental role in the Plot Against France from the beginning, a century ago. The New York Times hates me as an anti-plutocrat. I welcome their hatred (to quote FDR).

(Paradoxically I never had one single comment censored by The Economist or the Wall Street Journal. The NYT has censored more than 1,000 of my comments; it now censors me at a level comparable to when it made propaganda for invading Iraq.)

The owners of the Times are fully onto the plot I denounce below, although they are careful to not know the details, to give themselves good conscience.

The centennial of the plot against France is now.

December 1912. Berlin imperial palace. Lord Chancellor Richard Haldane had told German ambassador Prince Karl Max von Lichnowsky that Britain would not remain passive if Austro–Hungary attacked Serbia, nor would Britain tolerate an aggression of Germany against France upon such an occasion.

A furious Kaiser Wilhelm II read Linchowsky’s report early Sunday, December 8. Wilhelm grandly declared that in the ‘Germanic struggle for existence‘ the British, blinded by envy and their feelings of inferiority, had joined the Slavs (Russia) and their Romanic accessories (France). (Notice the similarity with Hitler’s language and obsessions.) The Kaiser summoned the ‘war council‘ for 11 am. Same day.

Here is the report from Admiral Georg Alexander von Müller (the chief of naval operations):

“His Majesty Kaiser Wilhelm II said: …if we attack France, England will come to France’s aid, for England cannot tolerate a disturbance in the European balance of power. His Majesty welcomed this message as providing the desired clarification for all those who have been lulled into a false sense of security by the recently friendly English press.

His Majesty painted the following picture:

‘Austria must deal firmly with the Slavs living outside its borders (the Serbs) if it does not want to lose control over the Slavs under the Austrian monarchy. If Russia were to support the Serbs, which she is apparently already doing…war would be inevitable for us. But there is hope that Bulgaria, Romania, and Albania—and perhaps even Turkey—will take our side. Bulgaria has already offered Turkey an alliance. We really went to great lengths to persuade the Turks.’

Recently, His Majesty also tried to convince the crown prince of Romania, who stopped here on his way to Brussels, to come to an agreement with Bulgaria. If these powers ally themselves with Austria, it will free us up to throw our full weight behind a war against France. According to His Majesty, the fleet will naturally have to prepare for war against England. After Haldane’s statement, the possibility of a war against Russia alone—as discussed by the chief of the Admiralty in his last talk—will not be considered. So, immediate submarine warfare against English troop transports on the Schelde River or near Dunkirk, mine warfare up to the Thames.

To Tirpitz: rapid construction of additional submarines, etc. A conference is recommended for all interested naval offices.

General von Moltke: “I consider a war inevitable—the sooner, the better. But we should do a better job of gaining popular support for a war against Russia, in line with the Kaiser’s remarks.” His Majesty confirmed this and asked the secretary of state to use the press to work toward this end. T. called attention to the fact that the navy would gladly see a major war delayed by one and a half years. Moltke said that even then the navy would not be ready, and the army’s situation would continue to worsen, since due to our limited financial resources our opponents are able to arm themselves more rapidly

The chief of the general staff says: the sooner war comes, the better; however, he hasn’t concluded from this that we should give Russia or France, or even both, an ultimatum that would trigger a war for which they would carry the blame.

I wrote to the chancellor in the afternoon about influencing the press.”

Enter American plutocrats.

“Colonel” House, was the closest adviser of USA president Wilson. He was the son of a gun runner who made a fortune in the Civil War, and an investor in banks (among other things). On June 1, 1914, House met with the Kaiser, grandson of Queen Victoria, and dictator of Germany. House, on behalf of Wilson, proposed to the Kaiser an alliance between the USA, Great Britain and the Kaiserreich (fascist Germany, Wilhelm’s toy).

House recorded in his diary, that he and the Kaiser discussed “the European situation as it affected the Anglo-Saxon race.” The Kaiser thought that Britain, Germany and the U.S.— the best representatives of Christian civilization—were natural allies against the “semi-barbarous Latin and Slavic nations” (including France and Russia), but that all should defend civilization “against the Oriental races.”

The alliance was to exclude what was defined as the racially inferior French. In exchange, the Kaiser would limit the growth of his fleet.

In later years, House would try his best to shed his evil persona (that made him unpopular with fellow plutocrats). By 1917, House enticed Wilson against “autarcy” (Germany, Austria) and for democracy (France, Britain).

However, the fact remains that, in June 1914, House egged on the Kaiser, who could only feel encouraged that the USA would extend what would be, de facto, a vital military alliance of the USA with the Kaiserreich. And it’s exactly what happened. The Kaiserreich’ explosive, food and energy production would have collapsed, but for the USA’s vital trade.

In August 1914, by complete surprise, the Kaiserreich unleashed an invasion of France, after declaring war to Russia. Great Britain, considering the atrocities committed the Kaiserreich had already committed, quickly declared war in turn. The Kaiserreich was defeated at the battle of the Marne, 5 weeks later, and took defensive positions in trenches. A blockade ought to have finished Wilhem’s mass murdering dictatorship quickly.

However the USA made a fortune by bringing to the Reich all it needed to pursue the war, including coal and crucial material for explosives. The more the war went on, the richer the USA got.

Thus the USA became very rich. American plutocrats repeated the same exact performance with a small caporal they had found, Adolf Hitler.

Henri Ford, the most famous American, was Hitler’s main financing source, when Hitler was still totally unknown, before 1923. The association with top American plutocrats did not just provide Hitler with money, power and a network, but also with a great prestige.

The entanglement of USA plutocrats and Nazism led to striking contradictions: American GIs found themselves fighting Germans equipped by… American companies.

On September 3, 1939, the Republic declared war to the racist, murderous mad dictatorship next door. The offensive did not penetrate Germany very far; however, in 1944, with total air supremacy, the Allies, after three months of hard fighting, had not penetrated Germany more than 22 miles.

USA plutocrats, especially the Ethyl Corporation of America, made it possible for the Nazi Air Force, the Luftwaffe, to keep on flying, and made the war much more difficult for France. Ten months later, a desperate Nazi armored thrust got incredibly lucky, and encircled the main French armies and the British force.

Yet, the French Republic did not break, and now Germany has become a sister republic to France.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité, is the national motto of France. Notice the word “equality”. The plutocrats hate equality. Thus, logically enough, they hate France. The mood in the USA is that, if you make a lot of money, it’s not just a right, but a recognition of genius. The truth, of course, is that it’s generally the result of sordid plots (Goldman Sachs for example created Facebook, with the aid of the NSA; The censoring New York Times is entering a third century under the democratic control of the same family, and Ford is still controlled by Fords (I even drive a Ford, showing how far the plot extends).

France is introducing a 75% tax on salaries above a million euros, and has been clamoring for a crackdown against tax havens. Part of the propaganda of the plutocrats in the USA is to call the French ‘frogs’ whose culture reduces to “wine and cheese”. An important aspect is to deny that France is of any importance. It extends all the way to attributing to Newton two laws that French thinkers had discovered (the law of inertia, Buridan, circa 1320; and the law of gravitation, which Newton himself recognized was suggested and demonstrated by Bullialdus, who had become a member of the Royal Society in 1667).

Yet, the facts say otherwise: the French Republic just obtained a treaty that break Switzerland as a tax haven, as far as France is concerned. Not just that, but the Swiss who live in France will not escape heavy French taxes on health or inheritance. Make no mistake; other powers, such as Germany, the USA, Italy, even Britain will argue in future years, along French lines to the Swiss, and, hopefully, to other tax heavens.

The Anglo-Saxons talk about Keynes all the time, another way to steal the attribution of very old ideas that came from, you guessed it, France. Just as in Rome, or even before that, Athens, in France the government is known to be the core of the economy. One can call that governmentalism“.

In France Keynes-like activities are known as “Colbertism”. Although the measures of the economy and finance minister Colbert went much further than anything Keynes advocated. Colbert promoted the importation of skilled workers and the creation of the highest tech companies (some are still around, and worldwide dominant). Colbert himself was following an older doctrine, implemented earlier by Henri IV and Marshall Sully, 420 years ago.

Henri IV put it this way: “…je ferai qu’il n’y aura point de laboureur en mon Royaume qui n’ait moyen d’avoir une poule dans son pot. (“I will make it so that there will be no worker in my kingdom who will not have the means to put a chicken in his pot”.) That striking idea was related to the future Louis XIV, his grandson, the one who hired Colbert later (Colbert also had a military background, although obviously less glorious than the one of Sully).

One could go further back. Equalitarianism was a characteristic of the ancient Germans, thus the Franks. When the French army led by Guillaume (= William = Wilhelm) conquered England in 1066, the slaves, 20% of the population were immediately freed, and the new king set a sort of direct democracy from the local assemblies.

So how did the rise of USA style plutocracy occur? It started with the “West Country Men“, under Elizabeth I. After training their ferocity in Ireland, they are the ones, who, under terrible conditions, and with huge human losses, founded the English colony in America, during the Barbarous Years (a book I own and recommend).

Now a conscious frontal collision between the philosophy of equality, and the barbarous philosophy of exploitation is in order. The preceding century, 1912-2013, was just a warm-up.

France, weighted by 15 centuries of an anti-plutocratic tradition, is a clear and present danger for plutocrats, they act accordingly. Same story in 1912-1914 all the way to 2013.


Patrice Ayme


Note: The Berlin imperial palace, siege of the initial plot against the Republic in 1912, burned out completely under Allied aerial bombing in 1945. Rebuilding was started in 2013.


Tags: , , ,

40 Responses to “Plot Against France 1912-2013”

  1. Old Geezer Pilot Says:

    The rich will always escape taxes until such time as there is a Global Agreement on Taxation, much like GATT from the 60s. As long as there is a Cayman Islands somewhere, the money will move.

    The solution is to stop the international money transfers to such places,

    • gmax Says:

      France asked 4 GLOBAL TAX, US IS blocking it

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Great Britain too. That’s where the Cayman Islands are located, sort of. Apple syphoned hundreds of billions of profits through the British Virgin islands, another British tax haven.
        But, true, the head of the snake is the USA.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      OGP: Transparency is what’s needed, but as I explained in USA Den of Thieves, the USA is the most obscure place in the West. Most obscure, most powerful. France can force Switzerland to kneel and lick the ground, but French politicians remember 1934, and are firmly keen not declare war to the USA, the way they just did to Suisse…

      Once again Oblablah is at the center of it all, a spider with the will of a lobotomized case.

    • Old Geezer Pilot Says:

      Much more than transparency – – we already can SEE where the money is and is going.

      What we need is to STOP it and tax it.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        The money is tricky. The IRS manual of the USA is like 92,000 pages. Normal people use only half of the first page. The rest is all legalized tax evasion. Another way to measure Obama. It was 72,000 pages in 2010.

        But it’s not just money. Money is fungible. so is “art”.

        142.4 million dollar for a remarkably yellow sick ugly painting, a study of the psycho painter Lucian Freud, grandson of Freud. How come?

        Plutocrats use artwork as their own untraceable currency in their parallel universe. Tax evading secret bidding, buying ought to be unlawful.

        So yes, we have to tax. But what we need first is somebody like Brown, Warren or Sanders at the head of the USA.

  2. Paul Handover Says:

    Wow! So much that could said in reply to this fascinating account of the recent history of Europe. But stabbing at a virtual keyboard on a tablet just doesn’t work for me. Will have to wait until I’m in front of a proper keyboard in the morning.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes tablets don’t cut it. Smart phones, even worse. It forces people into meek little thoughts… We will have to wait until they all have perfect speech recognition. That will change everything.

      • Andrej Dekleva Says:

        Not to be an apple shill, but iOS7 has pretty much perfected speach recognition, but it relies on the cloud (ala Siri) so unless you’re in a Wifi zone its a bit slow…. but it works!!!

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Very good Andrej! When I saw Siri in action last year, I was not impressed… And my Samsung/Google thing irritated me so much last time I tried it, I don’t even want to try again.

          iOS7? Does that mean that would work on a MacAir?

          Perfect speech recognition will change civilization.

          • Andrej Dekleva Says:

            You’re correct, it has vast implications – sounds like a good subject for an essay, perhaps linking history of illuminated texts with Homer and Lingua Franca… just sowing seeds.
            About iOS7 – its only for pads & phones, but the new Maverics OS is for the MacAir and I bet it has the same function, haven’t updated my laptop yet. Also never used Siri and still don’t, it does irritate- but my txting has become much more interesting due to this advance on the phone – and it seems no one noticed. Only tried English – not sure how international it is yet but I look forward to dictating my thoughts to my robot scribes from now on, even writing that word makes me feel so powerful! 🙂

  3. EugenR Says:

    Dear Patrice. First i want to thank you for exposing the protocols of German leadership before WWI.

    Reading your material, “Austria must deal firmly with the Slavs living outside its borders (the Serbs) if it does not want to lose control over the Slavs under the Austrian monarchy”.

    Then “The Kaiser thought that Britain, Germany and the U.S.— the best representatives of Christian civilization—were natural allies against the “semi-barbarous Latin and Slavic nations” (including France and Russia), but that all should defend civilization “against the Oriental races.” The alliance was to exclude what was defined as the “racially inferior French“.

    These sentences show clearly that Hitler was not a historical accident. In contrary. It is well known that racist concepts penetrated deeply the German conservative leading elites and not only the military but also the intellectual parts of the society. Unfortunately after the first world war and defeat this philosophy-ideology only strengthened and become more widespread among the simple people. The result was Hitler.

    To my opinion the crimes committed by Europe during the two world wars delegitimized it’s moral stance in any issue, even if today it preaches for peace and humanism. And as times passes and these crimes are subject of intellectual research, they seem more and more horrendous and unacceptable. If there will be no ideological revival of some kind, European civilization will be buried under the wight of its crimes.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen: Hitler was no accident. All he did he learned from his superiors. Luddendorf, for most of WWI the de facto head of the Kaiser’s army was in the Nazi party before Hitler. In the 1923 fusillade he kept on marching towards the troops, after many had been killed, including right and left of Hitler. Hitler fled to an American plutocrat mansion. The pluto had fled to Austria. Nimeyer (or so), his wife, dissuaded Hitler to commit suicide.

      In 1919, instead of trying and executing all the German war criminals, one decided forgiveness. 25 years later, one decided to cut the crap. Even then, the punishment of war criminals was less than France intended: IBM escaped french justice, for example (with the help of he OSS).

      Leclerc, head of the French SECOND ARMORED DIVISION (HEAVY) got to Strasbourg in three hours after extremely heavy fighting in the Vosges. The American army had prepared Leclerc’s division as a sort of high powered dart.

      Don’t forget the French Republic deliberately declared war to Hitler. Hitler had no plans to attack France, and had no pretended he wanted to attack France. So France, clearly, stood for civilization.

      She paid a heavy price. However French tanks arrived first to the Rhine, November 19, 1944 (OK, they were Sherman tanks manned by De Lattre crazed out First French army)

      The “racially inferior” were found all over Europe, according to the Kaiser and HOUSE. At the time, there were “HUMAN zoos” in the USA.

      French civilization is European civilization, the sort of barbary that was dominant in the USa and Germany for a while is its antithesis.

      And this is completely actual, right now, in the fight against plutocracy.

  4. Dominique Deux Says:

    EugenR – I generally share your analysis but I cannot accept “the crimes committed “by” Europe during the two world wars”. Europe, as such, did commit crimes during its history, but that was earlier – Crusades, Wars of Religion, Colonialism. By WWI and II Europe had grown out of its delinquent past. The horrendous crimes committed during those two wars must be laid on the doorstep not of Europe, but of its steadily losing darker side, whose eradication had started with the Revolution, and which spent most of the nineteenth century fighting back with the Papacy and Whitehall’s full support, and is now a shadow of its former self, albeit dangerous still, and malodorant.

    (in that outlook, Napoleon was like Bomber Harris, Europe’s nasty weapon against a much darker evil – I know Patrice will disagree).

    A “marker” of that dark side has been, of course, plutocracy; another one has been institutionalized, policy-shaping racism. Both have plagued Europe, but they are, in essence, anti-European, or “unEuropean” (as they say of “unAmerican” activities).

    In that respect, as a French Celt and therefore mostly white (Celts are happily mixing creatures), I always felt, in my earlier days, that I belonged to the “guilty” rather than the “receiving” end of racism: I could choose to embrace or reject it, but did not feel targeted by it. I very slowly came to realize that as a Frenchman, I have been in fact targeted by racism – like other Latin or Mitteleuropa populations – but I thought I could shrug it off as the consequences were much lighter than the horrific and ongoing plight of Africans or Asians. Yet that realization was … educational. That racism was most (and first) visible in American media and society, because of the US’ pretty uninhibited approach to societal issues in general and race in particular, but I have no delusions about (say) British or Dutch society – which I know well

    Thus Patrice’s revelations about the superior races plotting for world empire in 1914 may horrify me, but they do not surprise me. They perfectly fit in with many cultural and societal symptoms which were visible at that time.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      As soon as I hear the word Napoleon, I man my guns… OK, the situation was this:
      Britsh plutocracy of the worst type (the Pitts, no I did not make that up!) attacked revolutionary France. Big mistake said Loyd George later.
      Then English attack and invade Provence. Messy ineffectual siege of Toulon relevied by artillery genius Napoleon, wounded in combat.
      Napoleon goes crazy, egged and empowered by a would new clas of plutocrats.

      Nap’s victories could, and did happen with other generals. It was the spirit that won.

      Nap was no Bomber Harris, because Bomber Harris, when he was told to hit fuel, he hit fuel, although he would have much preferred to keep killing Germam babies. nap took orders from no one, not even his mother, or common sense.

      OK, I agree that by the time of the Russian campaign, he was stuck. And also that failed because of typhus epidemic, extreme winter, etc. and indifferent generalship (huge losses on the European army from frontal attacks)

      Otherwise I seem to agree with the rest.

    • ‫עוגן רודן (‪EugenR‬‏)‬‎ Says:

      Napoleon was the greatest waisted opportunity to unite Europe without to much bloodshed. After Austerlitz he could easily unite France with the fractioned  Italy and Germany, Austria, Prussia and Spain, while leaving their anachronistic kings and princes as formal heads of countries they rule. These sometimes half retarded heads of countries would eagerly cooperate with Napoleon to reform the administration in their countries, to try to copy the great success of Napoleon’s reformed France administration. If this would happen, Europe as whole would be more than ready to adapt the steam industrial revolution, that started just few year after Napoleon. Then Europe could release the Balkans from the grip of the Ottomans, and even the British could not oppose it.
      But even the intellectual Napoleon couldn’t do better than its predecessors. He nominated himself to Cesar, then attacked Spain and allowed to his Marshall Murat to murder the Spaniards who gathered out of curiosity in the main squares of Madrid, just to make them bitter enemies of anything French. Still Napoleon did not learn the lesson of limited capacity of abused power usage to achieve the goals of the attacker, and he attacked Russia. The rest is well known.

      Just to add some conclusion, the again fractioned post Napoleonic Europe learned from Napoleon the lesson of potential efficiency of a military dictatorship and discovered the nationalism as a driving force of hate to the others, so useful to the illegitimate rulers of the new urbanized Europe that rose out of the Napoleon wars, and the scenario for the disastrous twentieth century was ready.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Dear Eugen: Agreed. I will reply on another post, because threads come out bad in smart phones. If Napoleon had been like George Washington, it would not have happened. Nap said washington was “the greatest man that ever lived“… when he heard about his renunciation of power… Very telling.

        Nap needed to be president, not “emperor”.

        • EugenR Says:

          Yes the great founding fathers of US, G.Washington, J.Madison, T.Jefferson, B.Franklin, A.Hamilton. All of them gave their rightful share to this amazing achievement the USA. I would write a book about them, but there are so many better than me to do it. I wonder if you ask in France who is more admired, them or Napoleon, what would most of them say. To me as economist A.Hamilton is a real wonder, how out of nowhere he created modern economy with central bank, which Jefferson the republican later abolished. It was of course a mistake. But who can criticize him after those amazing words, The self evident truth……

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            The Democratic-Republican Party, also known as Jeffersonian Republicans, was the political party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791-93. It was opposed to the Federalists.
            It split in the Democrats and Republicans (1854) later.

            Jefferson was an enslaver, a liar, a child abuser and rapist, plus a holocaust category massacrer of Indians who conquered more than Germany and France combined. But, true, he had good words. The Jefferson memorial is the most worthy thing in Washington. I suspect that, when he wrote them, he stole them somewhere (Montesquieu).

            When in Paris, although protected by diplomatic immunity, he was told he could not keep slaves. He had to free them, and pay them a wage. However he lied to the relative girl he sexed and had enslaved. So she followed him back to the USa, where he enslaved her again. For life.

            As a person, even Napoleon was not THAT bad. Another supreme achievement of Jefferson was supreme hypocrisy, and that, in turn, became the superior weapon of the USA. See Obama.

  5. Napoleon and the rest | EugenR Lowy עוגן רודן Says:

    […] […]

  6. Patrice Ayme Says:

    However, when he attacked Russia, he had little choice, from his point of view. His army was mostly German and Polish.

    The forces in presence were launched even before naughty Nap. The obduracy of the plutocrats, the Pitts in england, and the fact the revolutionaries did not understand well enough what the Marquis de Sade, the greatest philosopher around, was talking about.

    Verily, Nap was a nap of intelligence. I find the Nap cult, even found in the USA, deeply disgusting. Or then one should be logical, and put a bust of hitler next to that of Napoleon.

    Just like they CCed the holocaust of the Indians by the Americans, the Nazis CCed Napoleon, very consciously.

    Amusingly, that worked very well. Napoleon had the coldest winter in several millennia, and the Nazis got the most severe winter in decades. In the former case, human breath would froze and stay up in the dense air. In the later, Nazi machines stopped moving entirely, and all they could see was Stalin’s 250,000 very fresh Siberian troops skiing around, thanks to Pearl Harbor.

    • EugenR Says:

      Some addition to the founding fathers. The most amazing thing about them is not their intellectual capacity, after all i am quite sure they existed also in France during the revolution or even in pre-revolutionary Russia, but that they found their way to the top of the leadership. But the founding fathers of French revolution became Talleyrand, Fouche, Robespierre, Barras and Napoleon, the Russian revolution Lenin and Stalin and the Iranian revolution Khomeini.

      Then Washington refused whole life presidency and invented the presidency of four years.And before that he resigned from the head of the army an act even Gorge III admired. I don’t know of any historical precedence for such a move. Do You?

      They were very unusual people of correct principles. By the way, where are hiding these people now? In the academy 🙂

    • EugenR Says:

      Dear Patrice, I have also problems with Jefferson. Yes he is not as clean as a mountain spring. He had more than 100 slaves in his farm. All i can say to his defense, he lived in a different time with different values. I know for such an educated man as him it is a very weak excuse, but i just don’t have any better.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Jefferson was definitively a child rapist. Washington refused to free his 250 slaves, in spite his friend La Fayette’s insistent urging, for years, summer after summer, to outlaw slavery in the USA.

        La Fayette, later head of the French army, refused to fire on demonstrators during the French Revolution. And the army never did (“les Suisses” did, and were massacred accordingly, and, as deserved).

  7. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Dominique Deux said: “I cannot accept “the crimes committed “by” Europe during the two world wars”. Europe, as such, did commit crimes during its history, but that was earlier – Crusades, Wars of Religion, Colonialism. By WWI and II Europe had grown out of its delinquent past. The horrendous crimes committed during those two wars must be laid on the doorstep not of Europe, but of its steadily losing darker side, whose eradication had started with the Revolution, and which spent most of the nineteenth century fighting back with the Papacy and Whitehall’s full support, and is now a shadow of its former self, albeit dangerous still, and malodorant…
    A “marker” of that dark side has been, of course, plutocracy; another one has been institutionalized, policy-shaping racism. Both have plagued Europe, but they are, in essence, anti-European, or “unEuropean” (as they say of “unAmerican” activities).”

    Dominique is entirely correct. The Franks created the concept of “Europe” and were fundamentally anti-plutocratic.
    everything is relative, of course. Anti-plutocratic, very, relative to what had happened just before, the late, madly Christianic and crazy Roman empire, and racism and apartheid, Gothic style.

    That was made plenty clear in say: “Europe; dawn and lesson”.

  8. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Eugen: American Founding Fathers could not grab too much power for themselves. NO choice. Sometimes even the most vicious bastards find no one to die for them.

    • EugenR Says:

      So you say it was balance of power out of necessity? Also in case of Washington? I don’t think so. He was a man of honor, above the rest, even if less intellectual than Jefferson and Madison.

      Yes, Jefferson with his pen created political rivality of new heights. I wonder is it good or bad?

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Eugen: Washington, initially a speculating British colonel, ended as America’s richest man. 250 slaves, many huge properties (Mount Vernon, etc.). However that was small scale plutocracy. Washington did not have the means to order around millions of independent Americans. It’s easy to not have the inclination, when one does not have the means.

        Napoleon found himself at the head of the world’s best military machine, bloodied, experienced, furious and righteous, with unfinished business, and lethal threats all around. Comparing with washington and the USA, it’s comparing scorpions and lions, and the comparison has got to be made most delicately.

        The Americans ought to have reimbursed their debt, though… Germany finished reimbursing WWI reparations very recently.

  9. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Krugman made an editorial entitled “the Plot Against France”. Namely the plutocrats hate democracy. I agreed, went a bit further, in a comment to the New York Times: CENSORED!

    • Amna Shiekh Says:

      “a bit”???

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        A tiny bit. Like revealing the whole enchilada…OK, a bite…

        Traced the whole thing back to 1912, glued it to a blatant White House plot in June 1914… explaining thus the genesis of the famed “American Century”…
        The New York Times, held by the same Plutos since the Nineteenth Century is not amused by my antics anymore, because more and more people are switching allegiances, and believe them…

  10. Stu Freeman, Brooklyn, NY, Official Commenter New York Times Says:

    The Allied invasion of Europe was adequate payback for the debt we owed France since Lafayette.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Except. Mr. Freeman that’s it’s American plutocrats who made fascist Germany all it could be. Twice.
      Just a small example: Hitler was, literally discovered and financed by Henry Ford.

      And except, Mr. Freeman, that American plutocrats made Europe even more indebted thanks to the two World Wars. that they personally fostered.

      Congratulations for being a “verified commenter”: you have learned your lesson well, you say exactly what the plutocrats want to hear, it’s approved very much.

      The truth, Mr. Freeman, is that plutocracy is not adequate. The way it has progressed is by making deals with the enemy.

      A small example: the CIA excited, financed and organized the Shiite fundamentalists, headed by Khomeini, against the legitimate democratically elected PM of Iran, Mr. Mosaddegh. Mr. Freeman ought to know better, but then, maybe he won’t be viewed to be as an official commenter of the plutophile NYT.

  11. Who Wanted Kennedy Dead? | Some of Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Who would have wanted Kennedy dead? The same mood and galaxy of conspirators that has been involved in the Plot Against France. […]

  12. Emotions Prime Reason II | Some of Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] of World War One had been planned officially (yet, highly secretly), from December 10, 1912. See my “Plot Against France 1912-2013”. In it you […]

  13. 1914, Imprinting: Emotions Rule III | Some of Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] explained, in the “Plot Against France” and in “Emotions Prime Reason II” what happened in 1914. The concept “the British” and […]

  14. 1938? | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] are careful to never mention this fact; I should make a list of the 100 most inconvenient and never mentioned facts of […]

  15. Show Strength To Negotiate With Iraq, Putin | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] and prepare the Germans for the world war they had decided to gamble everything on. That was December 11, 1912. (For a 2004 perspective of mine on that, see “To Make War, All You Need Is […]

  16. If there’s any doubt …. | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] However a fact is carefully ignored by history textbooks and history university professors: on June 1, 1914, the adviser of racist US president Wilson, Colonel House, proposed to the Kaiser a world government, with the UK, explicitly adverse to the “racially inferior French”. […]

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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: