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.)

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’

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

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’

Long Live The Euro: 2) Friedman Ignorant Anti-Euro Rant

Is Europe an “optimum currency area”? Milton Friedman believed it was not, and he gave apparently cogent, and now much repeated reasons, why it was not. However one should remember that appearances are deceiving, the most venomous snakes look like pretty leaves. Some people do not know how to add, but they claim they can multiply.

American economist have been lying, they are paid to lie, because their lies in economy give justification to otherwise unjustifiable policies. The policies of the USA have been, overall comfortable: having eliminated the Natives, American and Canadians, like the Australians, enjoy entire continents for themselves, far removed from the rest of the world, and its often crowed, overwhelmed realities.

Whereas France is in a different situation. French major policies have not been comfortable, since 360 CE (when the elite Parisian legions revolted, refused to leave France, and proclaimed the Caesar Julian, Augustus; the central government in Constantinople was not happy, and those in-between, distinctly uncomfortable).

France did not just declare war to the Nazis in the 1930s, when the USA was busy doing profitable business with them. France has been fighting Islamists since 721 CE (before that the Franks’ James Bonds were spying on said Islamists in the Middle East).

The war with the Islamists requires much power and determination. Here is a picture from April 2015, taken at night, with a high resolution radar. The famous Second Foreign Parachute Regiment (2 REP) is dropping at night on the Salvador Pass, in the middle of the Sahara, at the Libya-Niger border. It then engaged Islamists in combat:

Reality Check: Economics Serves War. Combat In More Than Half A Dozen Countries Costs France Beaucoup Euros

[The dots are French soldiers, and equipment, not trees. The area is the most barren desert on Earth.]

Here is Milton Friedman, that supposedly great economist, as we will see a great liar, a little man, a European war lover, in the conclusion of his famous essay supposedly demolishing the Euro. That essay is oft-repeated with glee since, by pseudo-”liberal” luminaries such as Paul Krugman, and, in general, all faithful, one should even say, obsequious, servants of Uncle Sam:

“The European Commission based in Brussels, indeed, spends a small fraction of the total spent by governments in the member countries. They, not the European Union’s bureaucracies, are the important political entities. Moreover, regulation of industrial and employment practices is more extensive than in the United States, and differs far more from country to country than from American state to American state. As a result, wages and prices in Europe are more rigid, and labor less mobile. In those circumstances, flexible exchange rates provide an extremely useful adjustment mechanism.

If one country is affected by negative shocks that call for, say, lower wages relative to other countries, that can be achieved by a change in one price, the exchange rate, rather than by requiring changes in thousands on thousands of separate wage rates, or the emigration of labor. The hardships imposed on France by its “franc fort” policy illustrate the cost of a politically inspired determination not to use the exchange rate to adjust to the impact of German unification. Britain’s economic growth after it abandoned the European Exchange Rate Mechanism a few years ago to refloat the pound illustrates the effectiveness of the exchange rate as an adjustment mechanism.”

This sounds all very smart, but, it’s mostly poorly informed BS. When one knows enough, and when one is in a mood favorable to European Unification, Milton Friedman just sound like a highly paid prostitute. What he sells is lies.

Examples of Friedman ignorance, or deliberate lying:

1. The member countries are more important, true, but only to some extent.Even France and Germany are tied up by the various European institutions, because the latter are part of the member countries national laws (that’s called the Single European Act). So France, for example, cannot contradict the European Court of Justice, without contradicting the FRENCH Constitution.
2. Member countries are of three types: great powers (France, Germany, Britain), middle powers (Spain, Italy, Poland; Italy is a middle power because its north is more Franco-German than Sicilian, so it’s de facto divided; Spain has the same problem: Catalonia historically is more French, or Roman, than Spanish). And then small powers. Small powers can stand in the way, but not for long (Greece being the best example).
3. That “regulation of industrial and employment practices… differs far more from country to country than from American state to American state” is simply, a lie. A lie disguised as a truth. European regulations are extremely similar to each other, and very far from the American ones. The exception is Great Britain, which asked for an exemption, and got it.
4. Labor is less mobile in Europe, because Europe is made of different nations talking different versions of English.
5. “If one country is affected with negative shocks”: the entire idea of Europe, Friedman, is to have no more “negative shocks”.
6. When Friedman talks of France, he brays like an ass. The strong Franc policy is an atavism of France. France invented the strong currency thing, like 12 centuries ago. Those who did not believe in it, were boiled in wine. Alive. France applied it in the 1920s and 1930s, when the USA, the UK, Germany, and other critters tried to devaluate themselves to health (some got mad in the process). The strong Franc is a case of Germany coming to think like France, not conversely. (True France devalued in the 1960s, but then Germany wrote off more than half of its debt, with the benediction of its allies, in the 1950s.)
7. The United Kingdom has been highly successful with its currency policies in the 1990s, and after 2008. However that is, first of all, because enough money was provided to run the economy. Although having a national currency allowed it to do so, currency independence is neither necessary, nor sufficient.
8. Wages, prices, regulations, national laws are under convergence in Europe. Recently Germany finally imitated France and introduced a high minimum wage. German workers are now for the first time as expensive as French workers.
9. Friedman ignores ways in which European countries are more similar to each other, than to American states: no death penalty, universal health care, strong privacy laws, labor protection are examples.
10. The important political entities in the Eurozone are France and Germany. United, they form a superpower, especially when adding their automatic influence zone (Austria, The Benelux, Northern Spain, including Catalonia, Northern Italy, and yes, Switzerland). Since May 8, 1945, France and Germany did not have ONE serious differences, and have pursued a steady program of “ever closer union” (to use the language of the European de facto constitution). The heads of France and Germany sit together at the European Parliament, during important events. I believe, and French and German leaders believed

All right, so Friedman does not know what he is talking about.

Friedman also asserts what is well-known, that the Euro is a political project (what he does not say is that it is a French political project, because he is not anxious to spoil his hidden bias with obvious francophobia). Notice that, if some project is mostly driven by politics, that does not mean that it cannot turn out to be economical. Says Friedman:

“The drive for the Euro has been motivated by politics not economics. The aim has been to link Germany and France so closely as to make a future European war impossible, and to set the stage for a federal United States of Europe.”

Of course a USE, a United States of Europe, would be a formidable rival to the USA, and probably less friendly to the people who paid Friedman for his flood of BS venom. Then Friedman, in his conclusion, slips into psycho-politics, a domain which mixes psychology and politics, for which, considering the long list of erroneous ideas I exposed above, he has no expertise whatsoever. Friedman is like somebody who does not know how to add, and now he wants to multiply:

”I believe that adoption of the Euro would have the opposite effect. It would exacerbate political tensions by converting divergent shocks that could have been readily accommodated by exchange rate changes into divisive political issues. Political unity can pave the way for monetary unity. Monetary unity imposed under unfavorable conditions will prove a barrier to the achievement of political unity.”

The truth? Milton Friedman, the economist does not the history of economics. Let me give him a F. F for “Failed”. The Thaler/Tollar, functioned as a currency in Europe for centuries without any political unification.

The truth? France and Germany are unifying ever more. The last divergence was about Libya: France decided to overthrow the dictator there, and Germany did not help. However in Syria, Germany, and Britain are now helping France. Germany is presently sending troops for occupation and control in Mali, because and while France is getting its shock troops for attacks in Syria and Libya.

The truth? When Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s president, decided to switch to the Euro for international transaction, thus exiting Washington’s orbit, Washington decided to make Iraq an example for those who switch to the Euro. The Washington strategists wanted a murderous mess for those who switch to the Euro, and now they have it, and one must them chuckling at night, far from prying eyes. (People like Paul Krugman absolutely refuse to understand any of the preceding, as it would murder their careers to do so. At the very least.)

The truth? In the 1940s, the Nazis and the French resistance, the Free French and the French Republic agreed that “divisive political issues” and “exacerbated tensions” came from “converting divergent shocks”. To eliminate divergent shocks, eliminate differences. In this respect, the Euro is helping France and Germany achieve an ever closer union. (Notwithstanding the sea of lies American economists swim in.)

And it’s all that matter. American Jews such as Friedman, Krugman, and all these other “mans”, should remember that, when “Francia”, the Renovated Roman empire, Franco-Germania, extended from Barcelona to Berlin and beyond, there was no discrimination against the Jews.

Why? Because the very nature of a sustainable, vast empire, is tolerance. So let a common European currency be, it will be more comfortable to divergences, hence ideas.

Patrice Ayme’

Long Live The Euro: 1) Basic History of Romans & Franks

Marine Le Pen proposes to go back to the Franc. This is rather ironical for a nationalist, as the Euro, a French invention, extends French power. However, as it is, in the present international context, the Euro is not functioning optimally, and indeed, seriously hindering the French Republic. Nevertheless, I will demolish the stale anti-Euro arguments imagined by servants of the USA’s plutocratic order, the ones Le Pen is following like a bleating sheep. There is a glaring problem with the Euro, indeed, but not the one talked about by those who dislike the Euro. And that problem has an obvious remedy (long found by the USA), a change in the mandate of the European Central Bank.

In a nutshell, the Euro was conceived as a top down mechanism to force one more unification device inside Europe. The idea is to create problems which only further European unification can solve. The Euro is functioning correctly that way, albeit too slowly. And no wonder: at this point, European finance is led by an ex-partner at Goldman Sachs, a Wall Street bank, under the mandate of making the Euro a store of value (even if kills the European economy). That has to be changed. Along… American lines.

Common Currency Area: Roman Empire Europe, 815 CE. In 1066 CE, the Franks Launched Their Re-Conquest of Great Britain

Those who don’t understand the map above, should not talk about the Euro. As we will see, though, they do talk about the Euro, while not minding whether, or not,France and Germany were actually part of the same polity, for half a millennium.

(For the election of Holy Roman emperor in 1519, the two candidates were the Duke of Burgundy, ruler of the Netherlands and Loraine, and the King of France, Francois I; both were native French speakers, born not far from Paris. The former became emperor as Charles V.)

Those who don’t know European history, including hordes of American pseudo-intellectuals, can only talk foolishly about the Euro. That’s the whole idea: they are supposed to make us all stupid. Once we are stupid enough, we will be eager to serve them, or so they have observed.

That despicable horde of greedy disinformers and impudent liars includes one of the leading (diminutive) bulls, Milton Friedman, bullying his way into a thicket of absurdities which he himself erected.

Friedman learned nothing, absolutely nothing, from the Second World War. That, too, is no accident. It’s a disease frequently found in American Jews. It’s not just the usual francophobia. There is a much more sinister mechanism at work. American Jews are supposed to know nothing much about the Second World War, except there was a big bad “The Holocaust”, and, somehow, the French were involved.

Why so ignorant? Preservation of their own Jewish sanity. If American Jews knew more of the history of the Second World War, they would have to explain why they did nothing, while their brethren and relatives were mass assassinated in Europe.

In particular, American Jews would have to explain why they did nothing, while racist American plutocrats were totally, massively supporting and enabling Hitler and Mussolini. Where was Friedman then? Well, he was employed by Roosevelt’s National Resources Committee (on which he more or less spit later, naturally).

Fortunately the Nazis and their enemies, the French, did learn from WWII what had to be learned. And what they learned, is that they had to unify.

Whereas, it is telling that people who allegedly claim to care about holocausts in Europe, want to divide Europe some more, when it is precisely those divisions which caused the holocausts. The basic flaw of Eastern Europe, where most American Jews are from, is that a divided, divisive, grotesque patchwork of little authorities at each other’s throats, some of this nation, some from another, some from one religion, some from one other, some from a language, or sect, some from another language, or sect.

The first fact of European history is that those who invented the modern usage of the word Europe, the Franks, conquered, unified, and… (to a great extent) created Germany. Including the German language! (The Franks, being themselves Germans, were in excellent position to bark out orders to other Germans.)

To understand the Euro, one has to go all the way to the first Roman State, and why it failed spectacularly:

The Roman empire’s border inside Germany, anchored on the Rhine and Danube, was too long, too fractal, hard to defend. The one and only solution was to conquer all of Europe (and make a short border across the European peninsula). The only Roman who decided to do this, Julius Caesar, was assassinated on the eve of his departure at the head of the most formidable army Rome ever had. After that unfortunate event, the assassination of the leader of the Populares, Roman plutocracy took over enough to impose its agenda. Roman plutocracy was more interested to exploit the Roman people, rather than to call on the Republican spirit to make Rome safer, and more sustainable.

Actually, the history of the next five centuries of Rome showed that Roman plutocracy preferred to be invaded by barbarians, rather than to call back the Roman Republic (analogies with what is going on today, are invited). In the end, it was the Franks who brought back enough Roman republican elements to progress beyond Greco-Roman civilization, and, later, thoroughly destroy the invading Islamists (once again, comparisons with today jump to mind).

As it sank in ever thicker plutocracy, the first Roman State never conquered Germania. The result was half-baked military solutions, beating the German hordes back, each time they raided the much richer Roman empire. It brought constant, expensive wars which Rome could not afford. It also brought catastrophe, when the Huns, charging through the steppe, all the way from Mongolia, pressured the Goths, and the latter decided to take refuge inside the Roman empire. It was a refugee crisis second to none, yet the refugees came in, fully armed and battle trained, and the Christian dazed Roman emperors confronting the problem, may have longed so much towards the apocalypse, promised by the Bible, that they may have spurred it along. (Once again, comparison with today, are invited.)

However, the Franks turned Augustus’ strategy on its head. As soon as it succeeded the first Roman State, the Second Foundation of the Roman State, the empire of the Franks, threw overboard Augustus’ stupid advice, to leave Germania alone. The Franks relentlessly pursued the conquest of all of Germany, and more. It took three centuries. Charlemagne, Carlus Magnus, finished the job.

The preceding map of Europe is not understood by despicable people such as Milton Friedman and his ilk, who are paid not to meditate upon it (supposing they ever came across it). Friedman is paid to entertain the idea that Germany is bad for France.

Low intellectual lives such as Friedman typically don’t know that, under the Franks, freedom of cult was extended to all those who did not have a Cult of Death (thus the safe Sufi practice of Islam was tolerated). They don’t know that the Franks three times, earlier than Charlemagne, broke three massive Islamist, Cult of Death invasions, and that the Damascus Arab Caliphate fell consequently, having lost its armies (750 CE). They know nothing, these haters of Europe, and still they talk, exuding their venom, because they are paid to do so: it helps the American empire and its overlord, global plutocracy, to tell the world and themselves that the Europeans are self-destructive idiots. At this point the Friedman-Krugman venom is feeding Marine Le Pen (who has opportunistically jumped on it; as a Member of the European Parliament, she probably knows better; in any case she could only hope to implement her program if she had an absolute majority at the French National Assembly).

The Roman Currency failed, because Rome did not conquer Eastern Europe:

The Romans ran out of precious metals in the Third Century: using the technology they had, the mines were exhausted. By 300 CE, Rome, under emperors Aurelian and then Diocletian, had switched to a complicated mix of Fiat Currency and command economy. As the state, weakened by plutocracy, was not strong enough, the Roman Fiat Currency suffered inflation (although the Roman gold currency would not, and was used for another millennium).

China had the same problem, lack of precious metals and invented the ultimate Fiat Currency, paper money, in the Seventh Century to circumvent it (Bolivian silver traded by Spain would solve the Chinese problem nearly a millennium later).

The Franks solved the argentum/argent problem the old fashion way: they did what the Romans did not find the force to do. The Franks conquered Eastern Europe, where the silver mines were. Suddenly, there was enough money to operate the economy again, and, by 1000 CE, the Franks were the richest per person and per unit of energy (my AWE), in the world (contrarily to what the “China-on-top” school of thought has it).

[To be continued… Next: Milton Friedman ill-informed, asinine and biased observations about the Euro, and whether the Eurozone is not an “optimum currency area”]

Patrice Ayme’