Those Who Know History Don’t Need To Repeat It

CHANGE OF MOOD: WHY HAS THE USA’S WHITE HOUSE BECOME PRO-EUROPEAN?

Moods are everything. They are the epigenetics of ideas. They don’t just color them all sorts of ways, they originate them. Homo is not just about mental capabilities, but also the hormonal system motivating to develop them

Putin was stopped in the Ukraine, because he was handled by the USA in a completely different mood than the mood the USA applied to previous European tyrants, such as the Kaiser and Hitler.

In the Twentieth Century, formidable European tyrants, such as the Kaiser, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco were approached as business, and even imperial opportunities, by the USA. Those tyrants became the tools the USA needed to break the European hegemony on the planet.

There is an exhibit number one here: the abominable attitude of the USA in September 1939. Instead of flying to the rescue of the French Republic, which had declared war to the mass homicidal dictator Hitler, who had already killed hundreds of thousands of Germans, the USA applied sanctions to France and Britain (which, with the Commonwealth had joined France in declaring war to Hitler, to its honor, overruling the despicable bleating of Gandhi, Hitler’s self-declared”friend“).

Not only that, but the industry of the USA allowed Hitler’s Luftwaffe to keep on flying while it crushed Poland, and kept France at bay.

I said: exhibit number one in 1939. The paradigm of the USA’s bait and switch was the USA’s conspiracy with the Kaiser, from June 1, 1914 (bait and trade), to sometimes in 1917 (switch!)

Forget about the genius of free enterprise. This bait and switch of the USA was about raw empire, comprised of countless conspiracies of major plutocrats, and details nobody even knows about.

Details of enormous consequence, though, such as the decision by Roosevelt, in 1933, to build 24 fleet aircraft carriers. That was not just as an enormous economic stimulus… And puts a lie to the commonly entertained fantasy that the USA was not ready to fight a world war in 1939.

The day fascist Japan attacked treacherously, the USA had seven carriers, and five were in advanced construction. Only one survived the war, the Enterprise (and it was holed by Jap bombs more than once, including off Okinawa).

Embracing European dictators, while getting ready to stab them in the back, worked beyond the wildest dreams of the American nationalists.

The way the strategy worked was always the same: under the guise of “isolationism”, and loving to know nothing about everything, the USA would let its top business men established profitable trade with the worst.

A massive war would ensue, and the USA would fly noisily to the rescue of victory, preventing the victors to enjoy victory without Uncle Sam splurging, and dictating.

A recent example of this has been the Coltan war in Congo. The USA long supported Kagame and company (the “liberators” in the Rwandan holocaust… Or maybe perpetrators and instigators, too).  Electronic businesses wanted the Coltan without paying taxes. Result: Rwandan supported warriors caused a mess in Congo, bringing five million dead, and lots of tax free Coltan. (Susan Rice was involved in this circus.)

Yet, in Europe, the USA has changed strategy.

How come?

Simple: the European Union. The EU’s democratization paradigm changed everything. The European Union forced the de-fascization of Portugal, Greece, and Spain. These dictatorships had been established with the help of the USA, direct or not. The EU’s might deconstructed the American empire.

Direct French (and then British) intervention in Bosnia (under UN mandate) forced back pseudo-nationalist Serbian racial fascism.

Confronted to all this, Bill Clinton joined the Franco-British effort (well after the French had used lethal artillery and air force violence in Bosnia). At this point the USA changed paradigm: instead of doing its usual switch and bait, it just collaborated with the EU, or France and Britain, right from the start.

Why?

Simple. The switch and bait tactic used with the Kaiser, Hitler and Stalin, while still unobserved so far,  has come very close to being revealed to all. One more blatant case, and even well paid pseudo-intellectuals from the pseudo-left, would be forced to admit that they noticed it.

When the European Union enforced the de-fascization of much of southern Europe, the USA could not really oppose that frontally.

Then of course, there were the eight year of plutocrat Bush. Bush decided to better embrace Europe to lead it into military-imperial adventurism.  However France got in the way.

Obama had decided that the Iraq war was a stupid war, and, thus, proved himself an authentic ally of France. (He could not advertise that, as Wall Street induced Francophobia runs rampant in the USA; if anything, he did not want to antagonize his sponsors.)

Obama, Clinton, and, of course, Kerry-the-French, seem to have perfectly understood that the old bait and switch strategy is unbecoming the USA. And that’s right. The USA is now so mighty that it can get a better mileage from a higher morality.

This is why Obama has become the best friend the European Union ever had since president Kennedy.

Why Kennedy? Kennedy was no peasant. He was the scion of a top plutocrat. Yet he was also someone who had travelled in Europe, and, even more important, was an authentic war hero (so was his elder brother, who died piloting a sort of giant early version of a drone in a quasi-suicidal mission).

Obama has an extremely variegated experience as a child, not just in Hawai’i, but also in Indonesia, confronted with people  with very different attitude and religion, and even suffering the occasional brunt of their hostility, just because he was different.

Enough to appreciate the transnational splendor of the European project. And that is why Obama found the wisdom and power to stop Putin in a timely manner (instead of the bait and switch FDR played with Hitler; Obama could have very well done this; instead, sanctions that bit were applied, and even the Swiss got motivated enough to entertain Putin with the vision of the bank accounts he and his friends have in Western Europe).

Those who know history don’t need to repeat it.  

American plutocrats are too mighty to be opposed directly. After all, they made Clinton and Obama. The best those chaps could do was to short their main overseas strategy, planetary bait and switch. It’s much more than it looks.

Now what we need is a real left in the West. And it should, it has to start, with intellectuals (it’s no accident that Elizabeth Warren is an ex-Harvard professor).

As Obama has long said , he can’t do the entire job by himself.

Patrice Aymé

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Those Who Know History Don’t Need To Repeat It”

  1. Dominique Deux Says:

    Thanks for reminding us that, in addition to making internecine war out of the question in Western Europe, the UE freed three countries from their fascist dictators.

    Of course that argument is of limited value with hard-core Europhobes, who generally lament the demise of those murderous creeps.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Right. Not just that, but the EU has enticed the USA to abandon its pseudo-isolationist, manipulative expansionist bait and switch strategy, honed for many generations.

      The fact that the far right claims to be after independence, but has not realized that the EU forced the USA to become a collaborator rather than an exploiter, is of tremendous importance.

      If the right wing supposedly nationalist fanatics knew some history, they would know what happen to Greece: Rome intervened several times, and then stayed and crushed.

      Those who are anti-EU, if they are Krugman, vulgar Americans, are just nationalists with myopia. If they are Europeans, they are traitors, and if they claimed to be nationalists, they are idiotic liars, of the Auschwitzian type.

      Irritated by a Le Pen picture, I am preparing another broadside against Johanne d’ Arc. Along the lines of:

      https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/joan-of-arc-roasted-too-late/

      • Dominique Deux Says:

        I’m often irritated by pictures of that person, but it would not occur to me to vent my wrath on a long dead wench.

        If Ms Le Pen had been alive at the time she’d have cheered the girl’s loathsome torture and execution, if only because she offended her pre-neanderthal ideas of gender!

        Not to mention her (genetic?) propension to side with France’s enemies. (yes I know your views on that issue, I just beg to be allowed to disagree again, as the very idea of being born a substandard, looted and persecuted subject of HM in a parallel world strikes me as distinctly unappealing).

        My own recipe for surviving the all-too-frequent glimpses of Le Pen’s snout on the telly: try and convince myself it was only a subliminal advertisement for Vache qui Rit processed cheese.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I am attacking Joan of Arc, the myth. As a person, that 19 year old teenager was quite remarkable, and she cuts a fine feminist figure. (It’s not certain she was executed, BTW.)

          Just like Le Pen, and most people, some of Jehanne’s ideas were good. But, overall, what people celebrate her for was very wrong.

          The present regime in England was established by the Dutch, to destroy France, Dutch who, themselves, had recently been established by the French, in an 80 year war against Spain, which basically became France in the early 1700s…
          PA
          PA

  2. Chris Snuggs Says:

    The term “europhobic” is brainless unless referring only to the euro, and even then we merely HATE the euro, not fear it. However, it is used by admirers of Goebbels’ propaganda merhods to refer to Europe, which as I said is moronic.

    Firstly, we who LIVE in Europe are not “europhobic”, since we love our continent. Secondly, we are not AFRAID of Europe, and “phobic” means “fearing”. We who are brainlessly called “europhobic” hate, loathe and despise the EU, not Europe.

    We should be called “EU-loathing”, not “europhobic”. “Eurosceptic” is also stupid, as our feelings are certain, clear, definite and totally justified. “scepticism” does not enter into it.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Ah, I had a good laugh. How about “Euroseptic?” as Dominique Deux suggested. Funny to see Marine Le Pen making friends with fellow Euroseptics, in the hope of constituting a group in parliament. Why does UKIP hate her? Are they not the same?

      I do agree that the EU has to be changed enormously. But what you seem to overlook is that, right now, the EU is steered by the elected governments. Barroso, a right winger, Is pretty much a pawn. J-C Juncker is an authentic piece of plutocratic junk. Do you also hate the pound? It’s pretty much the euro, except for the label, so logically you should.

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 )

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: