Long Live The Euro: 3) Exiting By The Top

“SORTIR PAR LE HAUT”:

The Euro is one of the elements necessary to unify France and Germany. Fully constructing the supporting apparatus the Euro needs, entails, by itself, an entire hierarchy of unification projects subordinated to it.

So the problems the Euro creates are supposed to appear, and being solved, thereafter. How? By “coming out on top”. Division and bitterness, is coming on the bottom. Coming out on top means higher ideas, unification, harmony.

To reconstruct a European state is as if one were constructing a cathedral: one has to do the following. One decides to build it, and then make it so. Cathedral construction was modified, as needed. Arches were progressively added, and, when problems were found, they were fixed. When it was discovered that the gigantic Amiens cathedral was bulging out, and was going to collapse, and enormous iron belt was added to its waist. It survived the world wars.

Paris had an enormous Roman cathedral for nearly a millennium. However, in the Twelfth Century, Parisians decided that, instead of refurbishing it once again, and expanding it, it would be better to build an entire new cathedral in what was known then as the “Frankish style”. The church leaders explicitly stated this as a technological project to awe the masses, and instruct the plutocrats as to the new possibilities technology offered. So the old cathedral was demolished, and the present one built. (There are no picture of the previous building, it stood fifty meters west of the present one.)

What present day, patritotic Europeans do not want to see again:

By 1200 CE, The Renovated Roman Empire of the Franks Had Become A Big Disunited Mess. Wars Blossomed All Over

By 1200 CE, The Renovated Roman Empire of the Franks Had Become A Big Disunited Mess. Wars Blossomed All Over

One thing can be picked up from the map: it is the French themselves, the Western Franks, those based around Paris, who created the mess, by insisting on going their own way, and that everybody had the right to go their own way.

Charlemagne himself had launched the way towards that mess: he let Venice stay sort-of independent (although the Frankish empire needed Venice’s fleet), and then Charlemagne outright created the Papal States (by giving territories to the Pope upon which he could exert material power).

It is finally Francois I who understood that France and Germany had to be unified again. But, although he had been elected king of France (by the kingdom’s council), he failed in the 1519 CE election as Roman-German emperor.

Instead, Spain, Germany and Italy (plus the Americas) got united. The result was nearly 200 years of war between France and Spain, which created the independent, tolerant, somewhat republican Netherlands, while finishing with still another world war, the War of the Spanish Succession, which France barely won (losing territory in the process, and fostering British and Dutch power).

By then the Netherlands, Britain and France, the former two created by the latter, and long the same polity, were at each other’s throats. To win, Britain heavily financed Prussia, while France enjoyed a succession of ill advised dictators (Louis XIV, Louis XV, Napoleon).

Clearly one should go back to basic principles:

Europe Was A Creation Of The Franks, Not Just As A State, But As A Concept:

The power, and vision, of the Franks created Europe. It was originally mostly motivated by survival, and the will to set right was Late Romans had set wrong.

We actually know enough about the rise of Frankish power to discern the philosophies at work. Aetius, a Roman commander-in-chief who had been brought up (from an exchange/hostage program) among the Huns all too long, naturally used the Huns all too much. After Aetius was assassinated in one of these conspiracies Late Rome was rife with, his closest collaborators took over. They switched back to the 150 year old alliance with the Federated Franks, the fiercest enemy of the Huns (who thereafter disappear from history).

Europe is a modern concept created by the Franks anew in the Eighth Century; the original Europe, in the Eighth Century BCE, 16 centuries earlier, designated continental Greece. But that name, itself, the name of a Princess, was an older myth which acknowledged the debt Greece had to Phoenicia (nowadays Lebanon, and, more generally, the Middle East).

If one wants to build something great, one has to start somewhere. A European currency exists, and France and Germany constitute an “optimal currency area”, all by themselves. They have very similar republics. Both have a very high minimum wage, German police can pursue thugs inside France at will (and reciprocally). Both consult continually, Germany has agreed to help France’s wars in a supportive role.

In truth, Germany has become France, after around two centuries of error under Prussian misguidance.

So what are the problems with the common currency? Well, all these problems it was supposed to bring. A first one, of course, is the problem of making a Banking Union. The situation there is quite complex, yet unification is under way: the 200 largest banks are supposed to be inspected (smaller banks are crucial to the German economy, but they tend to be bankrupt, so they have been spared the present inspection regime).

What is there not to like? Well, don’t ask American plutocrats and their obsequious servants; they will stat to recite again Friedman’s hare-brained, shallow and disingenuous arguments.

Finally all what the American plutocrats and their butlers have to stay is that, never, ever, could France and Germany get unified again, so they could not possibly share a common currency (aside from the dollar, which American plutocrats control, through their rogue financial system). What they should stay, if the truth was their goal, is that they dread an ever greater unification of France and Germany.

First, because they won’t control it as readily. Secondly, because of the tradition of revolution, for which France, in particular, is known.

Civilization means revolutions, plutocracy, its obsequious servants and greedy opportunists, hate both. Thus they hate European Unification.

Why is the USA different? Simple: countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia are gigantic, and full of recent immigrants. Recent immigrants in a giant country can always go somewhere else, where construction, expansion, conquest, fracking, tar sands, coal and iron ore, lithium, what-not, is going on. No such possibilities in Europe, or then tightly regulated.

Recent immigrants are also anxious not to be seen whining, complaining, talking back, agitating, rebelling, lest they be not trusted anymore. In countries such as France, or Greece, if you do NOT whine, complain, talk back, argue, rebel, it is the exact way around: it is a servile, anxious to please, fit and conform attitude, which is not trusted.

One could see this with Obama: for years, it was said by his opponents that he was not a genuine American. Actually, he was not even an American, they asserted. The American Constitution invites this: it distinguishes American-born Americans, and immigrants (the French and now German Constitutions do not). An immigrant American cannot be elected president.

Discrimination is more American than mother or apple pie. Anxious to conform, American Jews, such as Milton Friedman, who could not even bother to express concern on behalf of their brethren while they were in danger of being exterminated, now have the infuriating impudence to teach us about strife being hindered by division. Verily, some people learned nothing, and are the lowest of the low.

So should the French and the Germans have a common currency? Well, in a sense, they used to have one, what was called “Euro-dollars”. The dollar, was, de facto, Europe’s common currency.

France and Germany do not discriminate against their citizens on ground of their origins. This is one of many ways in which France and Germany are similar. Why so similar? Well, they spend a lot of thinking finding out which French, or German qualities, laws, regulations, habits, appreciations, they should adopt.

France and Germany are now closer in spirit with each other than they are with the USA. So they should have rejected the dollar as a common currency, and get their own, according to the very argument the Euro haters have been using. And that’s exactly what they did.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

18 Responses to “Long Live The Euro: 3) Exiting By The Top”

  1. gmax Says:

    You are turning the logics of the Euro haters on their head. Well done!

  2. Gmax Says:

    So Marine Le Pen wants to go back to the dollar? Nice! CIA SHOULD PAY HER

  3. Chris Snuggs Says:

    “The Euro is one of the elements necessary to unify France and Germany.”

    Has anyone ASKED the German and French peoples if they WANT to be “unified”?

    Either you believe in democracy, or you don’t. The EU elite clearly do NOT, and are thus fascists at heart.

    There is actually nothing more to say about this. Once this clear and irrefutable truth is known, all the rest about the euro and indeed the Brussels set up itself is just garbage: it is all based on lies.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      All informed citizens in Frankreich and Allemagne know that a unification program is under way. Voting for the traditional Franco-German parties is voting for European unification. None of the French parties which did, or have a prospect, to access to power, has put unification with Germany in doubt. In 65 years.

      Le Pen is called fascist, because she claims to want to reverse the Euro aspect of the unification, and put back some border controls. De facto, the later are coming up as fast as possible, so, by the time she is elected, the issue will be moot.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I am myself for direct democracy, representative democracy I call representative oligarchy. However, that’s a different subject from European construction.

  4. Eric Gross Says:

    Fascinating map

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Patrice Ayme: Indeed. Especially when one knows the history, the dynamics at work, and the vassalities involved. If one colors only the suzerains, the map simplifies drastically. Most of the European kingdoms fall either under French/Paris or Holly Roman empire imperium. Sort-of exceptions are Venice and the Papal States…. and even then…

      Notice, though, that: as the centuries went by, what were arbitrary, formal differences on European maps brought real differences and enmities. In one word: nationalism.

  5. EugenR Says:

    Small explanation to the map. The big red spot in the middle of the map, Holly Roman Empire, was not holly, not Roman , and not empire. It was rather a field of battle between the Mafioso style barons with private armies and private holdings of land they occupied illegally and with brutality. It took more than 1000 years to Barbarians, to overcome their own military heritage and also then they ended only after a Grand finale, two world wars. European Union was the only solution to prevent from the Europreans to start again a new round of totalitarian violence. France became a Democratic Republic only after 1871 by mistake, because the Leaders of France couldn’t agree on who will be the next king. Until then it was a dictatorship or kingdom as the rest of Europe. At 1848 France had chance to elect a democratic system, but it has chosen a new dictator, just because his name was Napoleon.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      All right Eugen, the “not holy, not Roman, nor an empire” joke, is from Voltaire…
      Let me take exception from it. In some political matters, such as Real Politik, Voltaire was an idiot, and he gave very bad, actually horrendous advice to his boyfriend, Louis XV.

      The history of the term and concept is fascinating. It really started as the Renovated ROMAN EMPIRE. Led by ROMAN EMPEROR Charlemagne. Although by a freakish case of strange parenting, Charlemagne could not read and write ell until adulthood, he was NOT AN IDIOT (compare with Voltaire, an idiot). Charles spoke several languages perfectly though, and he had the best philosophers as advisers and PM.

      Saying it took “barbarians” 1,000 years is not correct: for example, the reigning queen of the Franks in 600 CE gave extremely well thought out and reasoned orders in perfect Latin (six letters have survived). At the time, everybody was a Frank, and Jews could worship as they pleased. Jews, Pagans, Unbelievers, Catholics, Arians, etc. had equal rights.

      Saying France ended as a Republic by accident in 1871 is anti-French propaganda. Nap III, elected French president way back, had organized a coup against himself to make himself emperor, but that’s a complicated story.

      Napoleon III, a Swiss citizen, was an authentic republican agitator, an authentic Italian partisan, and he grabbed power Lenin style. His aim was different from that of his uncle. What he wanted was to FREE ITALY, and he used the French army as a device to do so (see the battles of Magenta and the butchery at Solferino). That worked.

      Napoleon III was later manipulated by Bismarck into the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. But that, too, is complex: Bismarck was a bit similar to Nap III, and was an authentic revolutionary. He did good things, but also played apprentice sorcerer with his efforts against THE REPUBLIC (France). The fascist plutocratic empire Bismarck helped create, escaped his creator’s control in 1890 CE.

      Knowing a little history, and making up the details from the mood of unchained bias is fun, but wisdom frowns on it.

      Sorry to be rough, but I just wrote a major essay, and I have some obligations to attend to, I don’t know how to put it pretty and nice (I should take lessons from Paul Handover!).

      • EugenR Says:

        You are right, my response is not a historical essay, rather a small pinch, for wake up. No political entity in Europe have done good for the general public until the creation of EU, rather there were some that were less disastrous.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      France was a democratic representative equalitarian republic, in the modern, contemporary sense, as early as 1792 CE. Generalized war and attack by all and any European plutocrats made the going tough, but one can’t accuse the Republic, a victim of aggression (all the more as a prominent Corsican noble, who became famous by repelling the British invasion of Provence, grabbed power for himself, just when things were falling in line; his colleagues had tried to kill him, by sending Napoleon to Egypt, but it did not work out, by sheer happenstance…)

  6. Gloucon X Says:

    I’ve been desperately hoping that Europe with its inspiring culture and its humanistic traditions would become a bulwark against our horrific American plutocracy. Back in 2003 after Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder rejected the war criminal Bush, we were in full thrall to the most thuggish anti-French and anti-German propaganda. Naturally, I was seized with a desire to show love for all things French and German. I fantasized about hanging giant posters of Chirac and Schroeder, and wearing T-shirts with the French and German flags, among other ideas. By coincidence I came across a song by Elvis singing in German, exposing American children in a wonderful way to a European language. Of course, this was back in 1960 when the US still had the humanistic New Deal tradition. The same humanistic attitude that made us want to sing La Marseillaise along with those in the film American film Casablanca.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      You hit on something deep here GlouconX. Inasmuch as American culture has its qualities, it also has major defects which European cultures can compensate for. Somebody such as Chris Snuggs is all confused about this (he feels, and many of the conservative bend do, that just following the USA is the sophisticated way!)

      I have to run right now. I will come back on this. Today’s advanced essay, just published, sucked my energy, and now I have to go. 🙂

  7. Andrej Dekleva Says:

    The Grey Lady speaketh! Can’t believe to see this headline on NYTimes just now – For the Wealthiest, a Private Tax System That Saves Them Billions.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/business/economy/for-the-wealthiest-private-tax-system-saves-them-billions.html

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: