How Hedonistic Europe Sold Its Soul To America

Europe has all these socialist advances the US is deprived of. But then the US economy is vibrant, and provides Europe with goodies. Could both facts be related? They are! Europe’s comfort is the product of a social bargain: it sold its soul to the US Devil. The same bargain also happened, and happens, within Europe, and had huge historical consequences.

The New York Times made a little video of the sort U Tube and minds of superficial youth is infected by: How Europeans See America

We asked young, ordinary Europeans to take a look at U.S. policies on everything from food to guns. As they discover facts about America, they’re not impressed.

I am as “anti-American” as they come, but this video is silly. My comment below was censored by the New York Times, probably because it explained why and how European countries could afford their socialist policies, both in money spent and character weakened )once again, I believe sort of MENTAL STEERING BY DISINFORMATION SHOULD BE UNLAWFUL:   

“What the video doesn’t point out, is that Americans sell themselves to the US dream, the same dream Europeans dream of, and the price they pay is less socialism. The American dream? Americans live differently, often larger: larger homes, larger and more cars, larger pollution, more energy spending, etc. All this fancy way of life is fueled by debt burdens and then displacement of convenience. 


As Trump points out continually, Europe spends in other ways, but not to protect itself: the USA does that, with mostly, and only, the help of France. France is the only European country with its own military-industrial complex… and yet France can’t afford it, because the rest of Europe doesn’t pay France for protection, and pays the USA only indirectly (by not charging US multinationals with taxes commensurate with their sales in Europe). 


Practically this means gigantic economic means diverted for the defense of the West, not to say civilization, in the USA or France, can be focused instead on social services in a country like Denmark. Denmark was at war only six hours against Nazi Germany in World War Two (after a surprise attack, a few hundreds soldiers died). France and Britain were at war nearly six years after declaring war TO the Nazis. France and Britain paid a heavy economic, and human price for that war, so did the USA.[1] 

The picture is a bit misleading in several ways: France and Russia spend more than it looks, because they have military-industrial complexes attached. So, in particular they spend more than Saudi Arabia, which buys a fortune of equipment to the US and Europe . And good they do as the recent attacks on Arabia showed sophisticated US anti-aircraft weapons are useless against drones… This is the sort of nasty military surprises France got in May 1940…

In other words, it is the US’ expensive inhumanity which protects Europe’s delicate humanism. Same holds within Europe: much money is diverted from West to East by EU.

As I have explained in many essays, small, neutral, hedonistic countries, in particular Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden, were direct enablers of Hitler’s stunning victory of May-June 1940 against the French army seconded by Britain. If only one of the small hedonists had betrayed, Hitler would probably not have won, but the combination of the three was lethal. We have more of this now. France should somehow make it so that other European countries are forced to pay for the French military… just as they already pay for the US military (but not enough as Trump keeps on bellowing). A way to pay is to feed the French military-industrial complex by purchasing French military equipment as is done presently (why do you think so many European countries purchase some US equipment known to be inferior to their French alternative?)

Not that the French are all innocent: maybe fracking would work in France, but we won’t know, because fracking prospection was outlawed there, in spite of large possible natural gas reserves (the French consider obvious that the planet has to be saved, and that it is the US which, in this respect has sold its soul).


Some products enabled in the USA are known to cause all sorts of diseases, and that’s why they are outlawed in Europe. Generally because lobbyists have proven more efficient in Washington, and US politicians much more corrupt. Hence a question: is it more corrupt to be corrupt, or to sell one’s destiny to the corrupt?


So now here we are: thanks to Brexit, France can at last realize Napoleon, Charlemagne and Caesar’s dream, unify continental Europe. Actually all serious French kings, after 1,000 CE, realized that it had been a mistake to let go of the rest of the Renovated Roman empire. As the Bouvines battle, in 1214 CE, and countless other battles, demonstrated; the European Union needs to be unified, and that means military force, otherwise it’s an ongoing butchery (see German fascism to see what military force and abominable destruction was needed to win the 1914-1945 war…). Small remnants of once large empires, such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Austria can’t preach otherwise: this lack of military power is why they got small. 


France and Britain are poised to lead Europe again, as they did for most of the last millennium… And even to rule the world, with the child they have in common. OK, it’s all a bit incestual, as France had given birth to the present version of England earlier (not just in 1066, but in the following centuries when rambunctious French lords in England used Parliament to boost themselves).


But Trump is right: Europe has to spend more on defense… It shouldn’t be to the US to defend Europe’s backyard: Syria, Ukraine, etc. This doesn’t mean I am a Trumper. Trump just surfs there the wave of historical evidence, as presented her for ten years: one needs military force to have an empire… And if one doesn’t have the force of empire, one has nothing. In particular not the force of law. [2]

Patrice Ayme



[1] France and Britain lost (as empires) around a bit more than three million dead in World War Two (2.6 million for the French empire, 500,000 killed for the British Commonwealth: the French had more military dead than the British). Entire cities were devastated, reduced to rubble. France had some point had only three railway engines left (the air forces and Resistance took care of the others). Normous debt were piled up. The USA actively, even militarily, under the guise of “decolonization”, deprived the Europeans of their empires and replaced them by their own, most juicy, while enjoying various rents from Europe…


[2] Some may look at Sweden and say Sweden is neutral, bla bla bla… Well, Sweden gave Hitler all the high grade iron he needed and the 88mm gun… In May 1940, the Franco-British army, led by the French Foreign Legion was poised to cut Sweden in two. Now the Swedes look nice, and they can point at their jet fighter… But it has lots of US technology inside: more of selling one’s soul to the US.

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: