Long Live The Euro: Kaiser, Vichy, USA, Mitterrand

Paul Handover from Learning From Dogs asks: “What do you believe is fuelling the British unhappiness with the EU? The ‘Brexit’?”

First, EVERYBODY is unhappy about the European Union: worst system ever, except for its absence, which would be a return to European Civil War.

But it won’t happen, the European Union will endure, because the French and the Germans have learned their lesson: Democracy, Human Ethology, & the Republic won. As early as 1940, even in ephemeral victory, the Nazis had to shake the hands of the victors of World War One, while penetrated by the ominous feeling that they could not win that one.

Even the Nazis Had To Collaborate With Their French Enemy in 1940. (French Petain, Victor of Verdun, To The Left. Loser of World War Two, To The Right.)

Even the Nazis Had To Collaborate With Their French Enemy in 1940. (French Petain, Victor of Verdun, To The Left. Loser of World War Two, To The Right.)

At this point, the first week in 2016, the Germans are angry against the Danes, who took some action because they were angry against the Swedes, the latter being suddenly irate at the flood of Muslim refugees (of the order of 3% of the population of Sweden… As if the USA had suddenly to accept ten million Muslims, and thus quintuple its population potentially subscribing to what Obama calls the “Cult of Death”).

What happened? The Muslim flood flows along the famous bridge between Denmark and Sweden, and Sweden closed the border. Denmark had no choice but to close its border too, the one with Germany, lest the refugees pile up in Denmark.

Last time there was a serious problem with these borders, the Nazis were around; the Nazis attacked Denmark, on their way to a bloodbath in fierce Norway. Denmark fought six hours (still killing more than 200 Nazis, which is better than what the USA could say at the time!) At the time the Nazis and Sweden were buddies, and the French Republic and Britain were actually preparing to attack… Sweden.

The Schengen Area anticipates provisional closures of borders in case of emergencies. Great Britain does not belong to Schengen, but Norway, Switzerland and Iceland do.

***

Why Are The Brits So Angry Against The European Union?

Because the plutocrats fear the EU. Plutocrats loved a fascist Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Eastern Europe. However the sneaky French have made the European Union into a way to propagate “democracy” and the Republic throughout Europe.

British based plutocrats and American plutocrats only wanted a big market, without a government, so they could do their thing. Instead they got a partial government in the EU, which causes them more trouble than the supine Washington administration.

Plutocrats are not happy with Europe. But, wait, they have in England a supine, gullible population which believes the Queen, when she tells them her family invented Christmas around 1850!

So far, so good: plutocrats and their 20,000 lobbyists at the European Parliament in Brussels have been able to maintain a tight grip on European institutions. However, all over, national movements are growing. The most worrying is the French National Front, headed by European Member of Parliament and lawyer, Marine Le Pen. Le Pen has said things about banks strikingly similar to what I have said for years, and it’s easy to see where she wants to go: easy money (although she claims she wants to exit the Euro, this is clearly a negotiating position; the mitigating alternative is to modify the European Central Bank Charter).

But the plutocrats can only be afraid of the engineer at the heart of the European Union: the revolutionary, ever-closer-Union spirit which animates France. At this point, France is the only country left with fangs in Europe, and plutocrats can only be afraid that the European population is suddenly going to figure out what is going on, all the divisions and exploitation plutocracy has set up, to make all Europeans more miserable than they need to be.

So the plutocrats decided to sabotage the imposition of the “EVER CLOSER UNION” clause in the EU (de facto) Constitution. How? By instilling, through their control of the media, EUROPHOBIA in the British population. That insured that Europe would become the largest market in the world without government, and ideal playground for plutocracy (whereas in China, say, one has to be careful: corruption in excess can be rewarded by a bullet in the skull).

The EVER CLOSER UNION is a dagger plunging ever closer to the heart of plutocracy.

An example: the French State has been pushing for a “Banking Union” (which Germany has resisted as it fears for its small banks will be found bankrupt). As it is the “Banking Union” inspection regime will apply only to the 200 largest banks.

Another example: the French somehow persuaded the Germans to establish a minimum wage as high as the French one. A few other tweaks friendly to labor, and, presto, German workers are now slightly more expensive than French ones.

***

Off With The British Anti-European attitude:

Britain, as it is, is just the second largest carrier of global plutocracy. It has systematically blocked all deepening of the European Union. The Greek crisis (truly mostly a European bank crisis, as in Spain, etc.), and now the terrorist and refugee crises show clearly that Europe need an EVER CLOSER UNION. So does the fact only the French Republic is in all out war in half a dozen countries, trying to block the Islamist crisis. (Other powers are barely supporting France, but should, as UK PM David Cameron himself had to point out to the British Parliament.)

France and Germany have started to understand they need to act unilaterally: it’s the simplest thing. Franco-Germania elaborates a policy, and presents it. Franco-Germania is a superpower: it’s impossible for the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council to oppose that bicephalic creature.

Only Britain could cause problem. Obvious solution: eject Britain from the EU, and reduce it to the status of Switzerland (taking orders, as it has proven incapable of elaborating them).

Unfortunately, it will probably not happen: Cameron has seen the danger, and presented a series of lame requests to the EU. Preoccupied as they are by real problems, the other Europeans are just going to brush him off, after making one or two inconsequential concessions. After all, if the EU was good enough for PM Thatcher, why isn’t good enough to the average Brit?

The Maastricht Treaty (most of today’s EU Constitution) was approved by plebiscite in the French Republic (it squeaked in by 51%). Let the Brits vote for a change.

***

USA Based Plutocratic Machinations:

I observed that:“The USA became the world’s prominent economic power by helping the Kaiser in World War One”

Gloucon X, a commenter on this site is skeptical about my assertion: “I couldn’t find any numbers to support that statement. In fact U.S. trade with the Central Powers fell from $170 million in 1914 to virtually nothing in 1916. On the other hand, U.S. trade with the Allies rose from $825 million in 1914 to $3.2 billion in 1916. The U.S. loaned huge amounts of money to the Allies so they could continue to purchase American goods. By April 1917, the U.S. had loaned more than $2 billion to the Allies.”

Indeed, if one reduces everything to economics, and all economics to numbers, there is nothing to see. But, in truth, economics is little relative to military matters.

Suppose that, at the Battle of Midway, the Japs had sunk the three American fleet carriers left in the Pacific, and had suffered no significant losses. Within a few weeks, the imperial Navy could have pounded Hawai’i, and then invade it. Instead of fighting in Guadalcanal, the Americans would have been reduced to harassing the Japs with their submarines. The war would have lasted years longer: American bombers and carriers would have to have been diverted to the Pacific theater from the war against the Nazis, etc. But then, the Me 262 would have been mass-produced, and the Nazi anti-aircraft rocket (Wasserfall) could have devastated Allied bombing fleets. And so on.

Without the help the American plutocrats provided the Kaiser in 1914-1916 (quite a bit of it psychological), the Second Reich may have had faced collapse much earlier than Fall 1918. The Kaiser’s ammunition crucially rested on American cotton!

Actually, let’s redo World War One for democracy: 1) The racist, anti-French Colonel House would not have proposed an anti-French alliance to the Kaiser on June 1, 1914.

2) Let’s suppose the Kaiser and his generals were nevertheless crazily murderous, and had declared war on Russia on August 1, 1914, followed immediately by an attack on France (impenetrable logic). Britain declared war to Germany on August 4, ostensibly for the German attack on Belgium. The entire Commonwealth followed in days. Supposed the USA had followed.

As happened, the French counter-attack, a month later, on the Marne, nearly destroyed the German army, which never recovered. The main architect of the war, Von Moltke, sank in a paralyzing depression (he had to be replaced secretly right away). If the German generals had been confronted by a declaration of war from the USA, they would have had to sue for peace, right away, instead of four years later.

Instead, the USA let the war goes on and on and on… Until it became clear, even to the German lethally insane imperial fascists, that the democratic, victimized Allies would win (in part because of the defection of Italy to the democratic side, in part because of successful war operations of France in the Balkans, in part because of the mass production of French 75 mm guns in the USA, in part because of the coming of French and British tank mass production, in part because of the imminent collapse of Austria-Hungary, etc.) Then the USA moved in force.

What for? Prevent the reshaping of Europe by the French. As it was, the French only effected a partial reshaping, the Versailles Treaty of 1919, hated to this day in the USA by all plutocrats and their minions.

***

Mitterrand and the Nazis Came to Understand the Preceding Confusedly:

The USA held back intervention in World War Two against the Nazis to even much more devastating effect than in World War One. The French contrived, somehow, to not die in massive numbers this time, but others did (non-consensually).

Ever since, France and Germany have worked towards an ever closer union. When Chancellor Kohl wanted to reunify Germany, Mitterrand offered his support… in exchange for the construction of the Euro. Unfortunately, the plutocrats instituted a charter which favored them twice, causing the present problems.

But that can be changed, and one can “sortir par le haut” (exit by the top, namely with higher level solution, higher both ethically, and in intelligence deployed). Exiting by the top means for France to find solutions with Germany. Tellingly enough, whereas plenty of borders have been closed, or partly closed, even between Germany and Austria, Germany and Denmark, France and Belgium, France and Italy, France and Spain, the border between France and Germany has stayed open.

Even more revealingly, the latest crazed Islamist attack in France (January 6) used a phone with a German chip, while the Jihadist, who had claimed to be Moroccan in a previous arrest, was actually Tunisian.

Morality? One needs empire for defense, and an empire needs a currency. It also need no borders inside (something Britain violated), while having the ability to defend its borders outside, not forgetting taxation to support social and military spending (taxation being something Britain violated, to its own profit, and is still violating, whereas Switzerland has surrendered, at least in principle).

Do you want peace in Europe? Swallow the European potion, breathe European air, extol the European spirit. And if you want to feel better: just contemplate the presidential candidates in the USA: except for the justifiably angry Bernie Sanders, they are a pretty dismal lot

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

24 Responses to “Long Live The Euro: Kaiser, Vichy, USA, Mitterrand”

  1. Chris SNUGGS Says:

    “worst system ever, except for its absence, which would be a return to European Civil War.”

    Sorry – this is nonsense. The next war will be when the Imperial European Army sends troops to quell a revolt in Catalonia, or to annexe Switzerland, last bastion of freedom on the continent.

    The last two wars were because of fascism in Germany, now democratic. Democratic nations do not wage wars against each other, only against dictatorships.

    Your point of view has been peddled for decades; its delusional proponents are so obsessed that they themselves are quasi-fascist, as was Jean Monnet:

    1952 – “Europe’s nations should be led towards a superstate, without their people understanding what is happening.” – Jean Monnet (President ECSC 52-55)

    The French have a particular liking for fascism, viz:

    1976 – “Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals we dare not present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and diguised.” (on the Lisbon treaty) – Valery Giscard D’Estang (French President 74-81)

    The Anglo-Saxons did not sacrifice blood to be absorbed into a European federal state dominated by Germany with a French poodle and ruled from Brussels. They can all go to HELL.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Germany is the poodle, not France. The Euro… and the more recent Banking Union, are French ideas, and ideas France fought for. Considering the present French Prime Minister is from Catalonia, and that Napoleon III was, actually, Swiss, I find what you fear rather unlikely.

      The French Air Force already defends Switzerland to the point it enrages Putin’s minions… (As I related!)

      The problem with Catalonia is that if it gets independent, Spain will fly apart. But Catalonia is arguably more French, Frankish, than “Spanish” whatever “Spanish” means. Also Germany is now under the shock of civilization, and in better position than ever, to emphasize with France.

      The main problem of Germany is that it cannot sustain its present population. Importing zillions of Muslims will only make the situation worse, Frau Merkel! France has one third more young people, every year, than Germany (which had nearly three times the number of youth of France in 1940).

  2. Chris SNUGGS Says:

    “The USA held back intervention in World War Two against the Nazis to even much more devastating effect than in World War One.”

    The US was sick of fascist Europe destroying itself and felt that if that was what they wanted then why should young Americans die to stop them massacring each other with their fascism? (Germany, Italy, Spain and also France with the official French government in Vichy were FASCIST) The US came into the war when their own interests were involved – which is a fairly reasonable policy. Who has the right to send their mothers’ sons to die for SOMEONE ELSE’S STUPID WAR?

    And if the US had NOT finally intervened, who is to say that Hitler would not have prevailed?

    Unfortunately, the French have never got over their shame at siding with Hitler and also in losing the war so pathetically in 1940, and try to extirpate this shame by blaming the USA for everything. It is truly pathetic.

    THE USA SAVED EUROPE, bot DURING and AFTER THE WAR. GET OVER IT.

    Now France is siding with Germany in a bit to seize control of Europe and force federalisation against the will of the peoples of Europe. NOT ONE SINGLE EUROPEAN CITIZENHAS EVER VOTED FOR A FEDERAL EUROPE: When the French people were given a chance to vote on the “European Constitution” they voted “NON”, but their own fascist political elite IGNORED them and voted it in anyway.

    I have NOTHING but utter contempt for the political elite of Europe, currently allowing tens of millions of Muslim sub-humans into Europe, which will destroy it as ISLAM has destroyed so many other countries. Muslims on the whole DO NOT WANT to “integrate”. They want to install a caliphate. There are ALREADY over 700 Sharia Law zones in France and 80 in England, and they aren’t even in power yet.

    http://www.unhinged.info/default.htm

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      (The) “Fascist (Side of) Europe” was supported by USA plutocrats or even the presidency before and during WWI and WWII.
      I know this is an unusual statement. I documented it. My documentation can be criticized, debated. Just repeating the standard lies is no progress.

      USA President Wilson, far from being the peace lover he projected, and was believed to be by the idiots for a century was a conniving racist of the worst type. His memory is foul, and he will be eradicated from Princeton, as deserved. because some day, some students will finally understand what I say. Galapagos turtles won’t.

      Vichy was NOT an official government, it was a coup. That USA president Roosevelt recognized it as the official French state, and sent his right hand man, did not make it so. Whatever that buffoon, Chirac, thought of it.

      One of the reason of the defeat of May 1940 was that a British armored division which was supposed to stand behind the French reserve divisions on the Meuse, did not arrive in a timely manner.
      Also Edward, Prince of Wales, inspected French defenses for a month, and told Hitler where to attack.

      So wild attacks against “the French” for “pathetically losing” have also to be addressed to the Brits.

      A Royal Air Force Spitfire pilot saw the entire German army in the Ardennes below the leaves, in three monster traffic jams. He reported, was told he was so tired he was having hallucinations. There was no follow-up. Had there been one, the Nazi defeat would have been colossal.

      Rommel and Guderian disrespected their own orders, and hid from the OKW, which had told them to stop. Their tankists were all on amphetamines, not sleeping for a week.

      To advance debates, one has to consider new facts, and interpret them. One cannot just talk like the Inquisition and pretend to be smart about religion in the Middle Ages.

      Saying “the French sided with Hitler” in WWII falls nearly under the law, as far as I am concerned. How can an occupied country, with an “Interdicted Zone” side with the enemy?

      As I mentioned, the French voted YES in the Maastricht referendum. What they voted NO about was not passed. Normal Parliamentary channels passed something else. ‘700 Sharia Law zones’ in France???????? I thought only some locales in England thought of making some aspects of Sharia legal… There was never such a plan in France.

      BTW, French ports were destroyed by the US Air Force in WWII. Reason: destroy France after the war. It had NOTHING to do with the few boat-less Nazis holed in a few places. Those ports were freed by the French army, not the army of the USA.

      • John Rogers Says:

        Just want to make a note of Martin Allen’s “Hidden Agenda: How the Duke of Windsor Betrayed the Allies” if anybody’s interested in real history. Also, see Scotty Bower’s “Full Service” for the “recreational” activities of the Duke and Wallis. Bowers was the leading, uh, procurer in Hollywood for decades.
        And just what was the Duke of Windsor/Hitler correspondence that Anthony Blunt (Soviet spy) was sent to Schloss Friedrichshof by George VI to retrieve at the end of the war?
        Real history is much more interesting and more sordid than ranting about Muslim “others”, America’s exceptionalism and the brave English yeomanry.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Indeed. Rudolf Hess also knew a lot, and that’s why not only was he never released from a prison operated from him alone. Superficially, it’s the Soviets who did not want him out. Superficially. In truth, all of Hess’ writings were destroyed (Speer succeeded to save documents implicating the highest Brits, and gave them for release to his son after his death, when it would be safe to so so…)

          The true history of WWI/II stinks to high heavens relative to the official history. The latter has a problem with all too many people acting in non-sensical ways. And, first of all, the Germans. Who got played. (Not only the Jews were played, and lost!)

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          BTW, thanks John, for the references. I know the facts, but the references are harder to remember exactly. Can’t wait until Chris reads all of this… (He will not, not anymore than a doctor of the Islamist faith will be interested by the very interesting sex life of Muhammad’s wife Aisha, and her opinions on women’s lib…)

  3. Gloucon X Says:

    “If the German generals had been confronted by a declaration of war from the USA, they would have had to sue for peace, right away, instead of four years later.”

    Dear Patrice: Your attempt to sort through the madness of the two world wars and find the key to them, while admirable, seems like an impossible task. You say the key to stopping WWl was US intervention in Aug 1914. Maybe, but would the US military have provoked such German fear in 1914? Even after losing WWl many of them still weren’t impressed by the US military, so it’s hard to believe they would have quit the war at the mere idea of the having to fight the Americans in 1914. The Germans were pretty arrogant about their superiority. As late as 1941 that arrogance prevailed when Hitler foolishly declared war on the US on Dec 11 and dismissed the US as decadent and inferior, even though that action appalled his wiser generals.

    As for Wilson’s racism, who and where was the alternative non-racist? America was a thoroughly racist culture in 1914, and it’s elite was and is essentially proto-fascist. So I don’t see that these alternate scenarios of yours had any possibility of occurring.

    I do hope Europe can find some unity and hopefully lead a fight for democracy and against plutocracy. Mass immigration is plutocracy’s way of thwarting democracy and strengthening its grip. Fight it with all your might. Until that fight is agreed upon, I can’t blame the people of the UK for wanting to stay out of Europe. This is not to say that the UK does not also have a despicable plutocracy that is betraying its people in so many ways.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Why To Untangle World War Causalities?
      First because, if not properly untangled, those causes will escape official history.
      The Germans depended on American materials for their explosives in 1914-1916.

      American elite of the DEMOCRATIC party was essentially fascist then, as it is essentially plutocratic now: therein a warning. However, from Lincoln on, in the preceding half a century, the government of the USA had been grimly antiracist. Therein another lesson: progress can be put in full reverse. Basically, thanks to Wilson, the American Civil War was exported to Europe, for another go.

      I scrambled today’s essay, which was supposed to be about Quantum Non Locality (from research published 4 days ago!), having itself displaced an essay on meaning…. So I will answer you more thoroughly in a little essay…

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Gloucon X: the entire last essay I posted, today, is a more detailed answer to you, and to Chris, etc.
      “Brits staying out of Europe” is not borderline ridiculous.
      It’s fully G R O T E S Q U E. Even PM Cameron is realizing it’s grotesque. Britain is in Europe, although it’s the major plutocrat carrier of the world, with the USA.

      Differently from the USA, Britain does not own a continent. If Britain gets out of the EU, it will disintegrate, and be forced to follow the orders from Brussels. E X C E L L E N T, as I have explained in:
      https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/brexit-a-dream-for-true-europeans/

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Wilson was racist well beyond the standards of his times. Not just my opinion, but that of the New York Times. Nobody before, or after him, had “colored” working in cages…

  4. De Brunet D'Ambiallet Says:

    “Unfortunately the French sided with Hitler” says Chris Snuggs. How much more insane can one get? France got more killed

    What lack of respect for the French nation! What lack of respect for the anciens combatants! How can one make Europe with people like that?

    The truth does not always set one free. All Patrice say is true, or extremely plausible, but the astounding blast of hatred against the French of Chris Snuggs, what can truth do against it? Do all the truth you want, the bad faith is colossal and unmovable.

    Snuggs should not better, but he cannot resist. What worries me is that people who don’t know any better with read that sort of crazed, virulent outbursts, and believe them.

  5. picard578 Says:

    I think there is more to “terrorist attacks” than just migration:
    https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/paris-attacks-ttip-isis-and-death-of-democracy/

    In fact, they seem to be used to steal democracy from Europe. European Union, as it is, has already been hijacked by the corporatist plutocrats. There is also a push for the trading union with United States, which would place Europe into inferior trading position relative to the US.

    European Parliament, and most national governments, have refused TTIP. France got hit by the terrorist attack not because Islamists are angry at European values, but because it refused to join TTIP and because it cooperates with Russia in many ways.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Picard: Although I am a conspiracy specialist second to none (or so I hope), I find that’s a far-out interpretation. I know you have proffered it already. Now, when I accuse the USA of having helped, or incited, aided and abetted the fascist and anti-democratic racists in WWI and WWII, I am on safe ground, because the facts are indisputable.

      The only thing that maybe discussed is whether the policies of the USA helping and enabling their plutocrats then (as now!) were conscious and deliberate, or not. That can be proven by some of the incredible statements (Roosevelt saying that someday, a world war may come… several weeks after it had started, and hundreds of thousands were already dead) or vicious behaviors (Roosevelt recognizing Vichy, after refusing to support the French Republic, in spite of having “pledged” to do so… while his plutocrats were 100% behind Hitler…)

      That the present American plutocracy would behave as you said, through the Saudi plutocracy’s influence, is imaginable, and would fit the mood it has blossomed by, for the last century. However, I would love to have more precise indications…

      There is plenty of evidence that Islamist attacks, especially from refugees, or from Belgium, are not USA teleguided, but genuine Islamist madness: to wit the latest 2 attacks in France, in the last four days, by crazed refugees (one from Germany, the other a Kurd youth). The Russia collaboration is a complicated thing. Maybe Putin will go fully under the French wing, literally (he ordered his Navy to fully cooperate and assist the French).

      Anyway, I will be interested if you have some indications, however vague that the USA is determined to cause direct harm. That was certainly the case in the 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s (bombing of French cities for no reason, as the Nazis were finished; American deliberate military support for Ho Chi Minh), 1950s (Suez, USA and USSR allied), 1960s (Algeria).

      The enmity is deep, as American friendly dictatorships in Europe (Spain, Portugal, Greece) were busted by the European union… Also Qaddafi latest version was a product of Bush and Blair… who ended wounded in a gutter, thanks to a deliberate strike by a Rafale…

      • picard578 Says:

        “There is plenty of evidence that Islamist attacks, especially from refugees, or from Belgium, are not USA teleguided, but genuine Islamist madness: to wit the latest 2 attacks in France, in the last four days, by crazed refugees (one from Germany, the other a Kurd youth). ”

        Two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive – genuine madmen are quite easy to teleguide, in fact such a thing is nothing new – but I get what you say. Yes, there is a question of wether Western intelligence services helped organize the attacks or simply used them for their own purposes, but there are clear indications they knew of the attacks in advance and did nothing to stop them. Considering certain details of the attacks (which I have described in the article), US’ quite close ties to ISIS, as well as patterns of behavior, former interpretation gains ground.

        In fact, the entire point of multiculturalism and promoting a mass immigration of people from culture that is incompatible with the Western one is creation of conflicts, of chaos, which will make it easier to destroy democracy and nation-states. All the wars across the Near East / Middle East and Northern Africa look, more and more, to be mutually connected in a planned attack on Europe.

        “Anyway, I will be interested if you have some indications, however vague that the USA is determined to cause direct harm.”

        Motive is clearly there: France is way too independent from USA (TTIP, relations to Russia, Palestine). USA also have close ties to ISIL, and timing and location of the attacks is also highly suspect (Paris climate talks, anti-TTIP protests). And then there are questions about the attacks themselves, which I have explained (running of drills just before the attacks, etc.).

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Picard: Right now the Secret Services in the West are completely overwhelmed. In France alone they have identified more than 1,000 (one thousands) lethally radicalized… children. Plus in excess of another 4,000 Jihadists. To follow all of these, they would need at least 50,000 more personnel (more than ten times what they have).

          A question that is subjacent, underground, hidden, yet fundamental: what is a conspiracy?
          It is exactly what it says: an activity where one breathes together. “Breathing Together” that’s what a conspiracy is. A conspiracy is not necessarily the making of a plan. Places such as Harvard are intrinsic conspiracies.

          The Internet enables this breathing together, without breathing. Corporations enable this breathing together. And they breathe together with the governments. Just today the EU found that Belgium had enabled illegally 35 large corporations to pay less taxes than they owed (this has happened previously with Luxembourg and the Netherlands). The EU ordered those corporations to pay 700 million Euros in taxes.
          Then I was looking at the resume of the ambassador of the USA to Switzerland and Lichtenstein, a 46 year old woman who had a BS from Brown University and co-founded some Jewish community. She had a career at Microsoft, on and off (as she got off from being a mom). Microsoft is big in the Obama administration: Bill and Melinda are supposed to (help) organize the educational system of the USA (no less)!
          Viewed that way, we are swimming in a universe of conspiracies.
          In the early thirties, American oil men starting to invest in Saudi Arabia. In 1934, Abulaziz Ibn Saud founded Saudi Arabia. The conspiracy became official in 1945, when the Saudi dictator spent a week with Roosevelt on the same cruiser.

          Starting clearly on June 1, 1914, the USA engaged in a mood hostile to France (and thus Europe). The hostility was expressed distinctly, starting with Colonel House, and then president Roosevelt, it went on with facts, such as the carpet bombing of French ports by the US Air Force (as if the French were Nazis, thus that statement, much repeated, that the French sided with Hitler). The mood goes on to this day, by repeating Lord Keynes pro-German racism (which brought the Holocaust!), even by American “Jews” (Krugman, etc.), or Friedman’s shallow considerations on the necessity of hatred and incompatibility between France and Germany (he probably spoke neither French nor German… Whereas I speak both)….

          Islamophilia, of course, was one of the greatest conspiracies. It started by calling any consideration of (what the Romans called) the Orient as “Orientalism”, and implying it was a form of racism (as if French, or German studies were intrinsically racist). It went on by defining Islamophobia, a fear, as racism. The idea, as you said, was to erect “multiculturalism” against SUPERIOR IDEAS.

          I am a fanatical multicultural ELITIST (as Bowie would say). But that means I pick up superior ideas wherever they are. Not that any culture alien enough is superior. Quite the opposite.

          Multiculturalism, as effected, was a plot to destroy Europe. What of the USA? The USA controls an entire continent, which is relatively full of resources and energy. As a result, and moreover, the anti-intellectual climate in the USA is much more natural. Nothing to destroy: most people in the USA are de-rooted, thus routed, they have little cultural back-up.

          And so on. OK, I am going to try a little essay on this.

          • picard578 Says:

            “Multiculturalism, as effected, was a plot to destroy Europe. What of the USA? The USA controls an entire continent, which is relatively full of resources and energy. As a result, and moreover, the anti-intellectual climate in the USA is much more natural. Nothing to destroy: most people in the USA are de-rooted, thus routed, they have little cultural back-up.”

            Yes, I have for some time suspected that ISIL and EU (as executed, not as intended) are part of a plot to create a multicultural corporate-controlled European superstate. I have nothing against European union, but only assuming that at the same time it preserves nation-states and cultural and national diversity, and that it remains democratic. EU, as it is, is not what is needed, and has none of the characteristics I have described.

            “And so on. OK, I am going to try a little essay on this.”

            Can’t wait to read it.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Thanks. The essay is written. The EU, as it is, is too weak, greatly because of British opposition to tolerate anything Federal. It should just be kicked out (but that cannot happen…. Except if somehow it organized a referendum for self kicking… geee…)

            • picard578 Says:

              I think the EU should be confederacy… larger political entity means larger bureocracy and establishment, which in turn makes it easier for plutocrats to gain and keep power. EU Comission is a plutocratic institution. What is necessary is to find a balance between integration and national governments… ideally, EU would take over foreign relations while states would be free to self-govern internally as they wish.

              Britain is US Trojan horse within Europe. It always was.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Britain is the plutocracy’s Trojan Horse, ever more, rather than just the USA Trojan Horse. As the AIG affair demonstrated in 2008.
              The system they have now is pretty much OK… Except that one country can basically block it, as long as it finds, or threatens to find, just 3 allies in the European Council (out of 28 nations)… And that’s exactly what Britain has been doing.

              Switzerland is a “Confederacy”, but, frankly, there is no difference with a Federation. The EU, as it is, is also a FDERATION (as I have argued). But weak, as 4 countries can block any decision (while majorities up to around 75% can be necessary for passage… plus the Parliament accord). What Chris Snuggs says against Europe although sometimes true, has no bearing on the situation (which he seems to ignore)…

            • picard578 Says:

              I think EU Comission has too much influence… problem here is that recent events have clearly shown that the Comission is controlled by plutocrats, and is therefore a danger for Europe.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Well the European Commission now under JC Juncker, has been backtracking from its plutophilia under Barroso. It’s not, by far, the most pluto institution in the West. When Americans want to hinder American plutocratic monopolies, they don’t go to Washington anymore (they know, and declare, that it’s hopeless). They go to the EC in Brussels.

              Really, the lawyer who sued Microsoft in the 1990s, in Silicon Valley, now is suing Google and company, in Brussels. He says that there is no hope in the USA, whatsoever, from the general corruption therein (I am slightly rephrasing with the word “corruption”; but clearly that’s what he means)

            • picard578 Says:

              That does give me some hope…

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union

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: